Where in the Bible did it say lucifer is a fallen angel?

[CRAZYWOMAN]

Where in the Bible did it say lucifer is a fallen angel?

[DeaconDean]

Actually, you have to read two passages of scripture to get this:

"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!" -Isa. 14:28 (KJV)

And:

"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." -Eze. 28:14 (KJV)

Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, whatever you call him, was originally the highest angel in heaven, after the order of Cherubium. And God, created all of the angels, whatever class they are. (Cherubium (arch-angels), Seraphium (those seen flying in heaven), the Four Beasts (from the book of Revealtion), and ordinary angels.

My Grand-Father, who was a ruling elder in the Presbyterian church, showed this to me, and according to his studies, since Lucifer was a Cherubium, and scripture says he was a covering, anointed, Cherub, he was absolutely the highest of all angels. Furthermore, both the Ark of the Covenant, and the Mercy Seat, have Cherubs depicted on either side. Both items are representitive of the throne in heaven. There were three cherubs that covered or proted the throne. One on each side, and Lucifer in the back, elevated slightly above. You see how the wings of the Cherubs are always spread on the Ark and Mercy Seat. But unlike heaven, the Mercy Seat and the Ark have only two Cherubium on them. Lucifer's was left off because of his fall.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[illusionaltears]

i remember seeing it somewhere but i can't remember where. thats what i've always been told tho.

[arunma]

Brother Dean, maybe you can help me out here. Even back in college, one of the elders at Bethlehem Baptist (who more or less specialized in eschatology) told me that the two Scriptures you cited refer to Satan. Now I trust this man's judgment, as well as that of other people like yourself who tell me the same thing. Yet I've never seen a thorough exegesis of why these passages refer to Satan rather than simply to Gentile kings. Can you explain further?

[CRAZYWOMAN]

Thanks.

[DeaconDean]

Brother Dean, maybe you can help me out here. Even back in college, one of the elders at Bethlehem Baptist (who more or less specialized in eschatology) told me that the two Scriptures you cited refer to Satan. Now I trust this man's judgment, as well as that of other people like yourself who tell me the same thing. Yet I've never seen a thorough exegesis of why these passages refer to Satan rather than simply to Gentile kings. Can you explain further?

My brother, I'll try my darndest.

As you know, scripture can and almost always has infered meanings on different levels. The Olivet Discourse is a very good example. Not only did Jesus talk of the things which should come to fulfillment in the immediate future, but it has ultimate fulfillment in eschatological (end times) sense also.

Now, we know for a fact that Isaiah is writting about Israel's joy on how Babylon fell to the Assyrians. (Isa. 14:1-8) Then, Israel sort of "taunts" them. (Isa. 14: 9-11) Then the passage switches suddenly to Satan's overthrow. (Isa. 14:12-17).

Babylon has throughout the Bible, after the major Prophets, been assoaciated with Satan in one form or another. Another prime example is the passage in Revelation about the Babylon "whore." (Rev. 17)

And ultimately, from where did Babylon get their "power?" While it is certain God could have provided them the capacity and will to perfom this duty, it is ultimately Satan who gave them the "power' to do this. Remember Belchazar? And also, Satan, is refered to as the "king of Babylon" in Isa. 14:4. So we can be 99.9% sure that this passage of scripture not only speaks of the Babylonian Empire, but of Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, also.

In the passage in Ezekiel, the passage here is referencing the king of Tyre. After the Hittites disappered in the book of the Kings and Chronicles, Tyre at this time, in Syria (now in present day Lebanon), was part of the Babylonian Empire. (The present day city of Sidon sits nearby) As a matter of fact, Tyre and Sidon were "Sister Cities" such as "Sodom and Gomorrah."

Map:http://maps.google.com/maps?tab=wl

Anywho, Jesus pronounced "woes" and compared them to "Tyre and Sidon" in the Gospels.

So here again, we see reference to Babylon in the passage in Ezekiel. Now I will admit that the passage is about the King of Tyre, however, one must also read the passage and admit to themselves that there are certain things revealed within these passages that could never be said of any man.

The king of Tyre was never "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." -Eze. 28:13 (KJV)
The King of Tyre was never: "the anointed cherub that covereth" (cf. Eze. 28:14)
The king of Tyre never: "upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." (cf. 28:14)
Man is born from a woman, as was the king of Tyre, but this passage also says: "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created," (cf. Eze. 28:14) Lucifer was a creation of God, the king of Tyre was born.All these things, could never be said of any man born of woman.

Now, looking at the two passages together, we get a picture of what was happening when Satan fell.

Now according to the wikipedia, I have the order wrong, but ultimately, Lucifer still was:

In the order of the Cherubium.
He was the "anointed Cherubium."
He was a protector of the throne.
He was the highest in rank of the Cherubium.
He was the only known "angel" who held to offices in heaven.
He was also the heavenly "choir director." (thy pipes and tabrets.)None of these discriptions can be attributed to the King of Tyre. So who else can they be discriptive of?

I hope this has helped brother.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[missprayerwarrior]

I've always heard that satan was originally a "worship leader" so to speak. Is there any truth to that, and if so, where can I find this in scripture??

[DeaconDean]

I've always heard that satan was originally a "worship leader" so to speak. Is there any truth to that, and if so, where can I find this in scripture??

If you'll take the time to re-read my above posts, I think the meaning will be clear. I cannot find any scriptural support for Lucifer being the "worship leader" in heaven.

I have shown that there is enough evidence to support him being the "Choir Director" in heaven. Because he has pipes under his wings, (Symbolic of Pipe Organs) and tabrets. (symbolic of hymnals)

But as for a worship leader, I have not ran across any support for that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

arumna, I almost forgot to include this.

According to the Quran, Satan was a jinn. Jinn simply being the equivalent of "fallen angel."

According to Surach (I think), after the creation, the jinn Iblis (Satan) was ordered to:

"you shall fall prostrate before him.The angels fell prostrate; all of them, except Iblis (Satan). He refused to be with the prostrators.(15:29-31)

Because he refused,

"He said, "O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating before what I created with My hands? Are you too arrogant? Have you rebelled? He said, "Therefore, you must be exiled, you will be banished." (15: 75, 77)

http://submission.org/satan/fallenA.html

We know that man was created a little below the angels, but in the end, we shall be above the angels. It is for this reason (not falling prostrate before the creation man) that Iblis (Satan) was cast out of heaven and made a jinn.

Thought you might get a kick out of that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arunma]

Thanks Dean. Your post was really helpful. It just so happens that I read through the Ezekiel passage the other day in my daily reading. I'll certainly think about this some more!

[Hisbygrace]

Thank you DeaconDean...I have always known that Satan was a fallen angel and that his rank was high in heaven, but you explain it all so beautifully.

[TexasSky]

DeaconDean,

I have a question for you, please. Its almost on the same line as this thread.

When I took seminary classes, and throughout my life, I have been taught that certain verses in Isaiah referred to the coming of Christ.

My daughter is going into missions, and attending a Baptist owned University. Her Old Testament Studies professor is teaching her things like, "That was referring to the king of Babylon, and couldn't have been referring to Christ because they wouldn't have known this and this back then."

I am a little "stunned" by what she is being taught. Can you enlighten me any, so I can enlighten her better?

[DeaconDean]

DeaconDean,

I have a question for you, please. Its almost on the same line as this thread.

When I took seminary classes, and throughout my life, I have been taught that certain verses in Isaiah referred to the coming of Christ.

My daughter is going into missions, and attending a Baptist owned University. Her Old Testament Studies professor is teaching her things like, "That was referring to the king of Babylon, and couldn't have been referring to Christ because they wouldn't have known this and this back then."

I am a little "stunned" by what she is being taught. Can you enlighten me any, so I can enlighten her better?

Let me say this, there is a big difference in the various teachings between most Baptist seminaries. As far as I know, among the six seminaries of the SBC, the teaching is mostly uniform now.

When I was taking seminary classes, when the class on Isaiah was offered, I was the second person to sign up for it. And it really was a great class. I had a wonderful teacher which makes all the difference.

What could be one possible explaination could be that most commentators all agree that this passage addresses the King of Tyre. John Gill and Matthew Henry both agree on this. However, unless I'm mistaken, and I'll have to check just to be sure, Alex J. Motyer in his commentary "The Prophesy of Isaiah" agrees with the commentary I provided. But I'll have to check again just to be sure.

And it is true that they wouldn't have known "this and that back then" except had it not been revealed to the prophets.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -2 Pet. 1:21 (KJV)

If one would read the entire book of Ezekiel, you would see just how much God revealed to him. Pay special attention to chapters 38-39. Also, the entire book of Zachariah is nothing but revelation from God. How else would he know about these things.

Also, in light of the commentaries of Matthew henry and John Gill, it is true that they wouldn't have known about this and that way back then. But in the study of God's word, when does knowledge come to a stand still?

For many centuries, a certain church said this is what this means and there was no disputing it. Now, with science and digging up old bible sites, much more has been revealed to us than it was 3-400 years ago.

And one other thought, I took a class once where the teacher was more concerned about collecting our church bulletins for his disertation than about teaching. There was some questionable stuff being taught by him. And several of us, 5 to be exact, were upset by this. It came to the point that we even considered dropping the class. But the deacon who trained me, told me that one principle you must learn is "To pick the meat from the bones."

Meaning that this sort of thing will happen. And it is our duty to learn which things are right and wrong. I gave up fighting, continued the class, and have not changed my opinion since.

Up until about 50-60 years ago, there was a dispute about the existance of the Hittites. No material, no references outside the Bible had ever been found to confirm the existance of the Hittites. Then while digging though some ruins, a clay tablet was found and lo and behold, there was a reference to the Hittites.

So just because these commentaror might not have known about this or that does not necassrily mean a thing.

Just as an afterthought, Ezekiels "wheel within a wheel" was for years and years unexplainable. Although many explinations were offered, it is possible that up until the 1940's to 1950's nothing even resembled what Ezeliel seen. In the 1970's, I was reading a book entitled "Chariots of the Gods?" In this book, it was offered that Ezekiels vision was that of a UFO. And if you watch a helicopter flying, and the rotation of the blades, you'll notice that the illusion is that the blades are turning counter to the actual revolution. Now I'm not saying that this is what Ezekiel saw, a helicopter, but it does explain it a little clearer.

You have to remember that the commentators of that era were trying to put into words as best as they could based on the current knowledge. A very classic example is the language found in the book of Revelation. Can you immagine the revelation John saw based on 1st century knowledge and then trying to describe that? Tank drivers often sit with their head out of their turrets. How would you in the 1st century describe a man driving a tank? See what I mean? Have you ever heard a squadron of helicopters 20 or more, flying over? It would be very easy to describe that as the sound of many thousands of horses running to battle.

Hope I have helped.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[TexasSky]

Thank you so much.

I knew that the many learned men of God I have heard teach the passages as they teach them could not be as wrong as her professor appears to say they are, but I didn't know how to respond to her questions.

I will show her what you have said, and I thank you for taking the time to answer me.

[DeaconDean]

Thank you so much.

I knew that the many learned men of God I have heard teach the passages as they teach them could not be as wrong as her professor appears to say they are, but I didn't know how to respond to her questions.

I will show her what you have said, and I thank you for taking the time to answer me.

Remember this:

In 1899, the commisioner of the United States Patent Office said:

Everything that can be invented, has been invented.

Look how far we have come since then.

For years and years, the Nicene, and the anti-Nicene fathers were regarded as the rule of thumb. If they said it, by jeffries, that was it. Look what has happened since then.

Our God has progressively revealed himself until around 3-4 BC when He ultimately revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. now as far as scripture is concerned, no further revelation will be given from God, the canon is closed. However, it does not limit God to revealing the meaning of scripture through the Holy Spirit.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." -John 16:13 (KJV)

We cannot be so arrogant as to limit revelation of scripture as to the 1600's, 1700's, 1800's, 1900's or even the new millenia.

I'm just glad that I could help.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Taylor43]

I have no scripture to back this up. I know Lucifer is a fallen angle. Basis being reading allot on the subject and praying. I will repost if i can find a scripture, but til then take my post as a grain of salt