OT Texts Regarding Satan's Origin

There are a couple of OT passages that are commonly used to explain Satan's origin.

From Ezekiel 28:
"11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

16 “By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;

Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.

17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.

18 “You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
It devoured you,
And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
In the sight of all who saw you.
19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
You have become a horror,
And shall be no more forever.”’”

From Isaiah 14:

12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

In the Ezekiel passage, the specific language indicates a judgment on the "king of Tyre" and in the Isaiah passage the king of Babylon is specifically in view. Both texts are surrounded by various pronouncements of judgments against different literal kingdoms.

Does anyone know how these scriptures came to be understood to be talking about Satan's origin? I am not sure that simply reading the texts without presuppositions gives that impression. Remember "Lucifer" simply means "morning star" or "shining one."

Everest wrote:

"Like all Hebrew prophecy it contained a double meaning. It was literally against Tyre (the peshat midrash) and also about Satan (the pesher midrash), as we see elements in the prophecy that could not have been about a physical mortal."

But how do we know the double meaning was about Satan? There is a lot of apocalyptic language in the prophetic writings that can't be taken literally-- e.g. they are hyperbole. For example, in Isaiah's pronouncement against Edom in Is. 34, it says:

"Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever."

I don't believe smoke is still ascending in that part of the world.

So I am just trying to determine how we are CERTAIN that the passages in the OP refer to Satan, and are not just hyperbolic images of judgment, or rather hyperbolic images of why judgment was necessary (i.e the pride of the kings in question). Just like there is very disturbing imagery in Ezek. 23 that cannot be taken literally.

These are important insights by Jesus that help to explain your scriptures.

We know Satan fell from heaven.

Luk_10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

These two verses pull together that Satan was the Serpent and is the Devil.

Rev_12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev_20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Pilgrim

Here is a summary of the available biblical data on this topic:

1. Jesus and John inform us that Satan was evil "from the beginning" (John 8:44/1 John 3:8)

2. Proverbs states that God made everything for Himself...even the wicked for the day of doom (16:4)

3. These verses may or may not be addressing the origin of Satan, but if they are, they suggest that God may have created Satan as a divinely-appointed "tester" (the literal meaning of "tempter"), to test His people's loyalty (as He tested Israel with false prophets--Deut.13:1-4).

4. That God has tolerated the presence of Satan until now demonstrates at least one irrefutable fact: God has use for him, or else He would have tossed him into the lake of fire before now. If God has use for a devil, would He not be entitled to create one for His purpose?

5. Though scripture affirms that some angels have fallen (2 Pet.2:4/Jude 6), no scripture anywhere ever states that Satan is or was himself an angel.

6. In the poetic language of Ezekiel (which never mentions Satan), the king of Tyre is said to have been a cherub in the garden of Eden (28:13-14). But later, in the poetic language of the same prophet, the Assyrian is said to have been a tree in the garden of Eden (31:3, 9)! Why should one passage be taken more literally than the other?

7. A few verses earlier than the disputed Ezekiel passage (v.2), the ruler of Tyre is specifically said to be a "man" (not an angel). The statements that the king of Tyre is "full of wisdom," "perfect in beauty" and "perfect in all thy ways" are clear hyperboles, which were used earlier in the book about the city of Tyre itself (27:3, 28:3). This "king of Tyre" was corrupted by "trading" or "merchandise" (v.16), a distinctive of the city of Tyre, but hardly fitting any scenario of the activities of an un-fallen angel in heaven.

8. Likewise, "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) is clearly identified as the "king of Babylon" (Isa.14:4) and as a "man" (v.16). The lofty aspirations of "Lucifer" are exactly those of the builders of the Tower of Babel (the origins of Babylon). Lucifer is nowhere identified with Satan in the Bible.

9. The fact that Satan was seen by Christ falling "like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18) does not tell us anything about Satan's origin. Jesus did not state a time frame for what He saw, and might have been seeing prophetically the downfall of Satan which He later describes in John 12:31, and which John describes in Revelation 12:9---both of which seemingly were fulfilled at the cross (cf. Col.2:15/Heb.2:14).

10. None can doubt the devil's ability to "be transformed into an angel of light" (2 Cor.11:14), but this does not tell us any more about his actual nature than we can learn about the true character of his ministers from the fact that they "are transformed into ministers of righteousness" (v.15

interesting thread.

Satan was known as Lucifer.

No one knows the mystery of "Theodicy", which is the origin of evil, whom Christians know as Satan.

God obviously gave Lucifer freedom of choice, but how he exercised it is a mystery. Adam and Eve needed a "Tempter", and they decided to hearken to Satan's voice.

But, whose voice did Lucifer hearken to? Who tempted him?

Who did he derive his evil nature from? Adam and Eve had a model of evil in which to derive their lawlessness (disobedience) from.

This is the mystery of Theodicy and no one has ever been able to answer it to my knowledge.

It is enough to know that Satan exists and is God's adversary and thus our adversary. The Bible teaches much about who he is and how he operates, just not how he became. We know it was through pride, but again, since Lucifer was not totally self-independent and self-existent, how did he come by this pride? Where did he get the idea? We know where Adam and Eve got their idea to rebel, but what about Lucifer?

Food for thought?

Pilgrim

Pilgrim wrote: "Food for thought?" Very much so, and here is some more:

---Since sin presupposes temptation, who tempted a holy angel to sin? (If Satan was an angel)
---If an angel could sin without a devil to tempt him, may we not sin without a devil to tempt us?
---If a holy angel was tempted to sin by surrounding evil, is heaven a holy place?
---If an angel was tempted by his own evil passions, could he have been holy?

Everest wrote:
"Again, if you understand midrash, all the verses you quoted and everything you've questioned here will make perfect sense, as you'll be much more adept and knowledgeable about Jewish metaphor, prophecy, and pattern.

The topic is extensive,"

In "The Pursuit of God," AW Tozer talked about reading scripture as "an intelligent plain man" and commended this approach. He said the intelligent plain man "approaches the Bible without any previous knowledge of what it contains. He is wholly without prejudice; he has nothing to prove and nothing to defend."

Frankly, at this point in my life this is the only way I want to approach scripture. I have heard enough of everyone else's theories. If I have to know "midresh" or whatever to understand the scriptures, then I am hurtin' for certain. Of course, I don't believe a person has to know midresh to understand the scriptures.

The philosophical issue is that a benevolent God would want to prevent or overcome as much evil and suffering as possible. An all-powerful God would be able to overcome evil and suffering. But since there is a lot of evil and suffering in the world, it would appear that either God cannot or will not prevent it or overcome it. If God cannot, that impugns omnipotence. If God will not, that impugns divine love.

This is usually what non-Christians say and they don't think it is a proper answer when Christians just say, "His ways are higher than our ways."

I have been in discussions where Christians are derided because they seem to know so much about God, the meaning of life, sin, grace, salvation, the nature of the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Jesus, and so on. But when it comes to theodicy, they suddenly get ignorant.

Maybe evil is not a problem to be solved but a challenge to be met. We know Jesus Christ has solved the issue of sin and now the the issue of suffering is to be endured, conquered, and otherwise dealt with in ways that deepen trust in the God of grace who has a purpose in all things. Although, I do believe in Divine healing, it seems very few people get healed.

Then, there is the Calvinistic notion that God created and then condemned to eternal damnation a good portion of the human race.

So, this is a very big subject for sure, but underpinning a Christian who is filled with the Spirit of God should be two things:

God is love
All things work together for good, for those that love God.

Pilgrim

Hi Everest--

I didnt mean to come across like I see no value in knowing "midrash" etc because I am sure it IS valuable. I have no idea what it is, but I am sure it was valuable and if I could snap my fingers and know all about it I would do so.

But honestly I don't think I have the time or patience to begin a study of that now. That probably sounds bad but it's the truth.

Perhaps you can succinctly explain for me how using midrash would result in the conclusion that the Isaiah passage and the Ezekiel passage in the OP are talking about Satan. I mean, assuming the passages DO have the dual meaning you describe, how do we know the "hidden" meaning is about Satan, and not something or someone else?

Hi Pilgrim--

I certainly agree with your last post!

Satan as a serpent?

Why was the word in the Hebrew ever translated "serpent"? It has given rise to a very false idea about the facts of Genesis 3: 1-5 - that there was in the Garden of Eden a talking snake.

I have no doubt in my mind that if God chose to make a snake talk, He could. I accept fully the other account in the Bible of a talking animal, when God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass and spoke to the prophet through the donkey. I have no problem with this. Even man can teach animals to talk, and surely God can do so.

But the interesting thing is that this account in
Gen. 3: 1-5 does not really say that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word here is a verb form of "nachash", which means literally "to shine", or in the noun form here, "a shining one." If you read it that way, an entirely different being emerges,

"Now the shining one was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made..." (Gen. 3: 1).

So, how did we get a "serpent" from a "shining one"?

Love-in-Christ

KP

Amen!

Are we forgetting the power of the Holy Spirit in revealing God's Word to his people?

Only a god of the Pharisees would want his word to be a secret or inside joke in which only a few and proud get the punchline.

"I mean, that's fine, man. I'm not saying you need midrash to understand the basic truths about the Bible, but if your question is to understand why certain things in Jewish prophecy are interpreted the ways that they are, you're going to need to understand the way Jews read and interpreted prophecy themselves (midrash)."

"the basic truths about the Bible" is Christ, Him Crucified and Resurrected. I can see Christ making incarnate cameo appearances all through the OT. Though the OT and NT are all the more enriching as they are embedded into the cultural identity and values of a particular nation.

The Jewish nation is a macrocosmic example of what goes on in the spiritual life of every individual who comes to Christ. They are a truly blessed people, the very wife of God as the church is the bride of Christ. And both Jew and Gentile have the appropriate revelation which God allots thru His Word.

Love-in-Christ,

KP

But why choose "snake" over "shining one"?

Wouldn't the second meaning adequately capture satan's deceptive guise as an "angel of light"?

And the "shining" feature of the tempter would more likely attract the desire of woman than the features of a serpent.

This is a big deal to me because Satan is a tempter and it would be helpful to know the form and matter in which the tempter presents itself.

Maybe there was something about the "shining" feature of this tempter which contributed to its potency in deception.

KP

Thank you for the above references.