The Theology of Satan: Revised & Expanded
Parts 1 and 2 Combined & Complete
PART 1
Who or what is Satan?
Is his name actually Satan? Was
he created to be an accuser and deceiver or did he rebel against God and
thereby earning his reputation as a deceiver, liar, false accuser and
establishing a new career? There are
several theories on the subject of the origin of Satan and some Theologians
consider their particular theory as doctrine.
Some of these doctrinal concepts have been preached from the pulpit, Sunday
school, commentaries and books. They
have been taught for such a lengthy period, as established fact and no one
bothers to question them. Are these
theoretical theologies based on undeniable Biblical scripture? Actually all of the opinions (or theories)
are somewhat based on scripture, and all can be made to sound convincing and correct. However, it is my opinion, that the presented
scripture has a certain bias in its interpretation and chronology.
The principle bias involves “picking and choosing” those
scripture references that enhance a preconceived answer or solution. Now, a
person would believe that a professional educated theologian with several
degrees in theology who is supposedly capable of reading and understanding
Greek, Hebrew, or other Near Eastern languages would not perform such a
deed. However, in my opinion, that is
exactly the scenario which has beget a number of awkward theories. Some of these have been “hammered home” in
various Bible studies, denominations, and congregations to the point they are
no longer theories but accepted fact. It
may be that most people do not bother to check the beliefs, but rather accept
them as traditional doctrine because that is the belief of their particular
congregation or Church group. Just
disagree with one of these devout people and they will quickly unload their
preconceived theology on your head. Now,
I admit, that I am not a degreed theology minister but it may be the Holy
Spirit has given me a certain perception of differentiating white from
grey. Not that I always know the correct
answer but that a shadowy answer is not completely correct. The more correct answer may come through
prayer and research. I say the “more”
correct answer because the full correct answer may not be available or we may
not need to know. God gives us, through
the Biblical scriptures, the information we need to know. There are many unanswered questions and all
possible information on every subject is not given to us in the Biblical
narrative.
IS THE NAME
“SATAN” THE ADVERSARY’S ACTUAL NAME?
The first Old Testament use of the word “Satan” is found
in Job, not the supposed appearance of a person with the name Satan but usually
the printed transliterated name of Satan, although not all version apply that
name. Note the Septuagint uses the word “devil”
and Young’s Literal uses “adversary” which is the literal translation of the
Hebrew word “śât ân”.
Now there was a day when the
sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also
among them. (Job 1:6)
And it came to pass on a day,
that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil
came with them. (Job 1:6 Brenton LXX)
From Strong’s
Dictionary: śâṭân saw-tawn'
From H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article
prefixed) Satan, the arch enemy of good: - adversary, Satan, withstand.
Most Bible versions merely transliterate the Hebrew word
“śâṭân” to Satan. Other versions use one of the actual meanings
of the word such as “adversary” or “accuser”.
This original Hebrew word appears to be transliterated to the Greek New
Testament as “satanas” or again, Satan.
At this point it would seem the accuser’s actual name, as both
Testaments employ it, would be Satan, although it may not be his personal name,
but rather his avocation.
A common name in the New Testament is the word “devil”
which is the translation of the Greek word “diabolos”. Both Satan and demons are referred to as
devil, but demons as devils occur more frequently. “Strong’s defines “diabolos” as:
Diabolos: From G1225; a traducer; specifically Satan
(compare [H7854]): - false accuser, devil, slanderer.
The apostle, Peter, calls the devil (Greek – diabolos), with
the surname “adversary”. Other versions use:
enemy; opponent; and slanderer rather than adversary. The Greek word antidikos is translated as adversary and not the expected satanas.
Be sober, be vigilant; because
your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may
devour: (1Peter 5:8)
It should be noted that other New Testament English
instances rendering “devil” is actually a translation of the Greek word, “daimonion” which is usually referring to
a demon.
But when the Pharisees heard this
they said, "He does not cast out demons (daimonion) (devils KJV) except by the power of Beelzebul,
the ruler of demons (daimonion)
(devils KJV)!" (Matthew 12:24 NET)
Paul refers to the “accuser” as “an angel of light” and
he uses the Greek word “satanas” for Satan which of course is a
transliteration. Some versions use
“messenger” rather than angel. Although
the so-called “Satan” is a created entity as are the angels, the word “angel”
usually has a positive connotation rather than the negative “satanas”.
And no marvel; for Satan himself
is transformed into an angel of light.
(2Corinthians 11:14)
He is also called the “god of this world” and the “prince
of the power of the air” by Paul.
According to some exegetes, he was originally the prince of the earth
and retains the title even though he has fallen, which will be explained later
in the “Gap Theory” section.
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe
not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians
4:4 KJV)
Wherein in time past ye walked
according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in
the children of disobedience: (Ephesians
2:2 KJV)
Other New Testament names for the adversary include but
not limited to:
Father of all lies John 8:44
Power of darkness Colossians 1:13
The tempter Matthew 4:3
The wicked one Matthew 13:19
Is Satan
Baalzebub?
The word Beelzebul (or Baalzebub) has an interesting
Jewish history. The word “baal” means
“lord” and “Zebub” means “flies” or “those who fly” giving the complete word
the meaning of “The Lord of the Flies” or “The Lord of one Who Flies”. In 2Kings 1:2 Baal-zebub is stated as the god
of Ekron. Baal worship was very common
in Israel prior to the various captivity invasions. The principal pillars of Baalism were child
sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism
(reverence of creation over the Creator).
The ritual was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal
to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.” The Wordstudy Dictionary defines
Baalzebul as:
Beelzeboúl; masc. noun, transliterated from the Hebrew. Ba‛al Zebūb (H1176).
Beelzebub, the name properly should be Beelzebul in all NT passages (Mat_10:25;
Mat_12:24, Mat_12:27; Mar_3:22; Luk_11:15, Luk_11:18-19). In the OT, Beelzebub
meant lord of flies or fly-god (2Ki_1:2) and was in common use among the Jews in Christ's day as the title of Satan as
the prince of the demons.
Jesus answers the Pharisee critics with:
So if Satan (satanas) casts out Satan (satanas), he is divided against himself.
How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons (daimonion) by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? For
this reason they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons (daimonion) by the Spirit of God, then
the kingdom of God has already overtaken you. (Matthew 12:26-28 NET)
The above NET version transliterates satanas for Satan and correctly uses daimonion for demons rather than devils.
Can it be said that Baalzebub is another name for Satan,
or in a different approach, can it be said that Satan was posing as Baalzebub
during the times of the Old Testament?
Baalzebub is a product of the Canaanites, borrowed by the Israelites and
later morphed into an alternate name for the deceiver referred to as Satan.
In 2 Kings, after Moab rebelled against Israel, Ahaziah
had fallen and injured himself. To find out if he would recover from the injury
he sent out messengers, telling them:
“Go and inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I
shall recover from this injury.” (2 Kings 1:2)
The Lord, however sent Elijah to intercept the messengers on their way
to Ekron, asking them if they seek Baalzebub’s advice because there is no God of
Israel and instructing them to return home and inform their master that he
shall not recover.
In the Testament of Solomon (1st-3rd centuries CE),
Solomon learns that Beelzeboul is one of the fallen angels who destroys
by means of tyrants, causes demons to be worshiped, arouses desires in priests,
brings about jealousies and murders, and instigates wars. This work is completely non-Biblical but it
portrays an opinion of the personage of Baalzebub. It is my opinion that modern so-called myths
and ritual sacrificial religions have a background in actual facts and
events. The myths have been altered and
edited through the passage of time with the result of occasionally appearing preposterous
but there is some element of hidden truth at the core.
It is doubtful that Satan was/is posing as Baalzebub in
ancient times. The Pharisees were
perhaps not referring to the all-inclusive accuser known as satanas or Satan,
but rather some fallen angelic type who was worshipped in the OT days of
Israel. The issue would be relatively
easy to answer is Jesus had said: “These Pharisees are saying I must be casting
out demons by the power of the fly god and if the fly god is like satanas then
his kingdom is divided and will crumble. I cast out demons by the power of God because
I am initiating the Kingdom of God.”
However, Jesus said exactly what He meant to say, that is -- the evil
authority of Satan cannot diminish his own empire by allowing Me to cast out
demons without destroying it from within.
Is Satan Belial
or Beliar?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial (Beliar)? or
what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Corinthians 6:15 KJV)
The Wordstudy Dictionary defines Belial as:
Belíal; masc. noun
transliterated from the Hebrew. Belı̄yya‛al meaning
wickedness (1Sa_25:25). Belial, a word applied by the sacred writers to such
lewd, profligate, and vile persons as seem to regard neither God nor man
(Deu_13:13; Jdg_19:22; 1Sa_2:12). Used
as an appellation of Satan by the Apostle Paul in 2Co_6:15 to the citizens
of Corinth known for their lewdness and profligacy.
From Deliriums
Realm: http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/belial/
Belial (or Beliaal) is Hebrew
for “without value.” He is known as Beliar in Greek. Among certain sections of
the Jews, this demon was considered the chief of all the devils. In The War of
the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness (1QM), one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Belial
is the leader of the Sons of Darkness:
‘But for corruption thou hast
made Belial, an angel of hostility. All his dominions are in darkness, and his
purpose is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits that are
associated with him are but angels of destruction.’
Belial is also mentioned in the
Fragments of a Zadokite Work (which is also known as The Damascus Document
(CD)), which states that at the time of the Antichrist, “Belial shall be let
loose against Israel, as God spake through Isaiah the prophet.” (6:9). The
Fragments also speak of “three nets of Belial” which are said to be
fornication, wealth, and polution of the sanctuary. (6:10-11) In this work,
Belial is sometimes presented as an agent of divine punishment and sometimes as
a rebel. It was Belial who inspired the Egyptian sorcerers, Jochaneh and his
brother, to oppose Moses and Aaron. The Fragments also say that anyone who is
ruled by the spirits of Belial and speaks of rebellion should be condemned as a
necromancer and wizard.
The word “Belial” translates as “worthlessness” or
“lawlessness”, and is frequently used in the Old Testament as a proper name. It
is first used as a proper name in Deuteronomy
13:13 in the KJV: other
versions use “trouble makers” and “evil people”. In the New Testament it is
found only in 2 Corinthians
6:15 KJV perhaps as a proper name and could be an appellative of
Satan, the personification of all that is evil. However, the word may be
translated as “worthless person” and still retain logical meaning to the
reader. It is translated
"wicked" in Deuteronomy
15:9 ; Psalms 41:8;
101:3
; Proverbs 6:12.
The expression "son" or
"man of Belial" means simply a worthless, lawless person, as in Judges 19:22 ; 20:13; 1 Samuel
1:16 ; 2:12.
The meaning of this word as found in the Scriptures is
worthlessness, and hence reckless, lawlessness. The expressions son of Belial
or man of Belial must be understood as meaning simply a worthless, lawless
fellow. The term as used in (2 Corinthians 6:15) is generally understood as an
appellative of Satan, as the personification of all that was bad. It may be that “belial” was a colloquial term
of the first century applied to a worthless, lawless, and evil individual. Paul may have used the word signifying that
Satan is a lawless entity. The KJV
translates 2 Thess. 2:3 as “man of sin” but many other versions use “man of
lawlessness”.
Let no one deceive you in any
way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of
lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. (2 Thessalonians 2:3 NET)
It should be said that “Belial” is a description of Satan
and not one of his names. It could also be said that “Satan” is not a personal
name but a transliteration of a descriptive name.
In the New Testament gospels, the designation of Satan by
the word “devil” is used in the following verses: Matthew 9:32; 11:18; 12:22; 15:22; 17:18;
Mark 5:15,16; 7:26,29,30; Luke 4:33,35; 7:33; 8:12,29; 9:42; 11:14; John 6:70;
8:48,49,52; 10:20,21; 13:2.
PART 2
THE FALL OF
SATAN
How did Satan fall, or did he actually fall? The historical conservative view is that
Satan desired to be above God; amassed a cohort of rebel like-minded angels;
led some type of offensive active; and he and his rebel angels were tossed out
of the heavenly realm. The theology of
the fall of Satan is primarily derived from Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, and
Revelation 12. The scriptures alluding
to this conclusion will be addressed in following sections. There are also a few exegetes who have come
to the conclusion that Satan, as an accuser and a deceiver, was created by God
for that specific purpose. That concept
appears plausible, but other guidelines will be explored that may rule out that
God would create an evil entity. I’m
certain that readers will have various opinions and side notes and, hopefully,
these options and variables will be covered.
The Long Held
Accepted Doctrine
The 12th chapter of Revelation is the primary exegetical
source concerning the fall of Satan theology.
Commentators begin with the 1st phrase of verse four, usually
ignoring the remainder. Here is pictured
the dragon (or Satan or his historical series of empires) in heaven and he
sweeps (draws) a third of the angels and casts them out of heaven onto the
earth. These stars are presumed to be
the rebel angels or fallen angels that are in league with the dragon or Satan
(according to the long held doctrine of conservative commentators).
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast
them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to
be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. (Revelation 12:4 KJV)
Then, there is a skip to verses 7 and 8 where a war in
heaven is portrayed between the dragon and his accomplices verses Michael and
the good non-fallen angels. The dragon
brigade does not prevail (they lose) and are confined to the earthly dimension
and no longer allowed residence in the heaven of God. When does this event happen – before creation
of the heaven and earth according to historical exegetes of course?
And there was war in heaven:
Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his
angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. (Revelation 12:7-8 KJV)
Both of the words “drew” and “cast” seam to connote
violence or the notion of intense action.
It doesn’t appear
that this particular group of angels were willing participants but were forced
out of heaven and thrown down to earth. There is an interesting, similar
statement in Daniel 8 that speaks of the little horn (antichrist) casting down
angels and trampling or stomping them in a violent manner.
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding
great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and
stamped upon them. (Dan 8:9-10)
It is an accepted fact among these conservative historical
exegetes that Satan and his angelic team fell prior to the creation of the
earth. Therefore, it is only logical, in
their thinking, that Revelation chapter 12 must be referring to these
pre-creation events. The new breed of
commentators believe that all of the Revelation is future prophecy and
Revelation 12 is not an historical chapter or event.
A slight twist on the pre-creation fall is the “Gap
Theory”. According to this theory: God
created the world in Genesis 1:1; Satan and his fallen angel group assumed
dominion and corrupted the original creation; God destroyed the Satanic
corrupted creation world; millions or billions of years passed; God recreated
the world in Genesis 1:2 and we then continue with the remainder of Genesis.
I have generally
disagreed with the Gap Theory due to the wordplay and interpretive renderings
of the two Hebrew words “bara” and “tohu”.
I also considered the Gap Theory to be a recent development but was
surprised to learn that George H. Pember, in his book, Earth’s Earliest Ages
presents the almost identical theory in 1876.
Mr. Pember does an excellent job explaining the meaning and usage of the
Hebrew words “bara” and “tohu” to the point it was almost believable. He then interjects his concept of the
denizens of this first earth and their exploits which resulted in the original
earth’s destruction causing it to be “without form, and void”. Although without a hint of evidence, he
chronicles that God created the heavens and the earth similar to the Garden of
Eden. The one we refer to as Satan (or
Lucifer) was placed as the administrator of the earth with many of his fellow
angels as assistants. Satan, through his
ego and self-aggrandizement decided to play “god” through DNA manipulation and
created the dinosaurs and other monstrosities, both plant and animal, that can
be found buried under the earth. The
earth became consumed with sin, iniquity, and non-created creatures to the
point that God destroyed the entire galaxy including the earth. There were no sun, stars, or planets to be
found.
This act of Satan
(not his actual name, but his current avocation) and his band of cohorts
resulted in their fall from the throne room of God but Satan retained his title
of the administrator of the world or as Paul states, “the god of this world”. The theological idea that Revelation 12 is
speaking of the fall of Satan and his minions in the far past is absurd. There is no logical reason Revelation 12
would reveal events of the distant past right in the middle of the 70th
week of Daniel or the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. Again, there is not a shred of proof for Mr.
Pember’s first earth chronicles but it provides a more believable scenario for
the fall of certain angels (created entities) than all commentators and
exegetes I have read.
Dr. Michael Lake,
author of the Shinar Directive and other works, contends that Satan
became (or was designated) the “god of this world” by default, at the time when
he induced (seduced) Eve and then Adam to eat of the tree of the “knowledge of
good and evil”. Dr. Lake states, “they
(Adam and Eve) were infused with this satanic force, were separated from the
life and nature of God, took on this sinful nature, and everything that they
had been given authority over had now succumbed to this foreign force”. Basically, because Satan was the initiator of
sin and evil into the world of humanity and Satan is the amalgamation of sin
and evil, he became the administrator of a world of sinful and evil
individuals.
My Accepted Doctrine
This dragon is a composite beast, which is later
identified as a Satan-type symbolic entity.
It is representative of the empire instigated by Satan throughout the
history of the Hebrew-Israelite people:
Egypt; Assyria; Babylon; Persia; Greece; Rome; and lastly the beast
empire. The purpose of these historical
empires has been to prevent the birth of the woman’s Son who will bruise the
head of the serpent or Satan as prophesied in Genesis. This prophetic composite beast also appears
in Daniel 7 and in its final form in Revelation 13. For a more complete exposition of the
composite beast go to: The
Composite Beast at http://freedomfromdelusion.blogspot.com.
It is doubtful that Satan and one third of the angels
fell from heaven and the throne of God prior to creation. Job states that angels shouted for joy at
creation. However, one could consider
the gap theology as the first creation and debate the timing of the event
described in Job.
"Where were you when I laid
the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding! Who set its
measurements -- if you know -- or who stretched a measuring line across it? On
what were its bases set, or who laid its cornerstone --when the morning stars
sang in chorus, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7 NET)
According to Dr. Michael Heiser, Genesis 3 indicates that
a nachash (shining one), possibly with serpentine characteristics, deceived Eve
and then Adam to disobey the commands of God.
If this entity was Satan then he most likely became a fallen angel at
that point. The snake entity is never
identified as a specific created being. For
more information go to: Angels
& the Divine Council: Part 2 .
The only real Biblical evidence that angels fell from
heaven is found in Genesis 6. These
“sons of God” or angels departed heaven (left their own habitation) and mated
with human women. In the book of 1 Enoch
there are referred to as “Watchers”. They
are currently in chains inside the abyss.
And the angels which kept not
their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in
everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6 KJV)
In Deuteronomy Moses gave a semi-historical account of
events occurring after the flood. He
commented that after the language alterations associated with the tower of
Babel that God divided the bounds of the people and set a “son of God” as their
overseer. The wording of the phrase
“angels of God” has been changed in the Masoretic text to read, “Sons of
Israel”, however, there were no sons of Israel at that time of the tower of
Babel.
When the Most High divided the
nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations
according to the number of the angels of
God. (Deuteronomy 32:8 Brenton LXX)
These “sons” or angelic entities may be the second current
group of supposed fallen angels. They
may not be fallen as the angels of Genesis 6 or they would be imprisoned in
Tartarus by God (see 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6).
These administrative angels may be written about in Psalm 82 where it is
indicated they will die as men. A few
commentators have accused them of demanding human worship and sacrifices during
the Old Testament days, and thus, the initiators of idolatry and idol worship.
A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth
in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye
judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor
and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and
needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they
understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out
of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most
High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O
God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
(Psalms 82:1-8 KJV)
As a summary of the fall of Satan, there are several
possibilities. He fell as the
administrator of the alleged gap creation or as the nachash tempting Eve to eat
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The concept that he fell from heaven prior to the creation of the world,
as some exegetes claim, is not acceptable in my opinion.
Satan in Isaiah
Chapter 14
Isaiah 14:12-14
KJV 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.
The verses supposedly dealing with the origin of Satan in
Isaiah chapter 14, according to the long-held view by conservative expositors,
is generally found in verses 12 through 14.
The first 4 verses of this chapter describe the millennial reign of
Christ (the Kingdom of God) where Jacob, Israel, and strangers (Gentiles; the
nations) will possess the “land of the Lord”.
Verse four states these eternal Sabbath rest individuals are to “take up
a proverb” against the king of Babylon.
Some expositors, such as Peter Goodgame, consider the king of Babylon as
the end-times beast or antichrist in the personage of Nimrod. The beast is the king of the world,
particularly Israel, which is mystery, Babylon, therefore the antichrist would
be the king of the mystery Babylon system.
Satan is undoubtedly fully sponsoring this endeavor but few if any
consider him as the beast: perhaps
possessing the beast but not the actual beast.
Dr. Michael Heiser claims this chapter is about an evil
tyrant king, whose pride is described in terms of an ancient story concerning a
divine being who fell from paradise due to his rebellion against God. The Hebrew word translated as Lucifer in the
KJV is “Helel ben Shachar” which literally means “shining one, son of the
dawn.” The word “Lucifer” was taken from
the Latin vulgate translation of “Helel” and transliterated to English. If one takes the Hebrew text literally, there
is no angel or created entity with the name of Lucifer, which should be
understood as a mistranslation by the Latin Vulgate, the King James, and other
versions using this word as a proper name.
Many conservative exegetes view this passage as part of
the history of Satan with the name of Lucifer.
Albert Pike (1809-1891), in his book, Morals and Dogma makes the
following comment: “Lucifer, the Light-Bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the
Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the
light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish
Souls? Doubt it not!”
A possible view of Satan can be ascertained in verse
13. This entity desired to ascend higher
in heavenly authority; he desired to have authority over the stars of God
(angels); and he wanted to be in charge of the divine council. This list of “I wills” is generally agreed to
be the aspirations of the Satan entity at some point in history but when these
became “thoughts” and when these thoughts resulted in a fall from the heaven of
God is not actually known. For more
information on the Divine Council go to:
Angels
and the Divine Council: Part 1 ; Angels
and the Divine Council: Part 2 ; Angels
and the Divine Council: Part 3
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 14:13 KJV)
Satan in Isaiah
Ezekiel 28
The 28th chapter of Ezekiel is another “go-to”
scripture reference concerning the history of Satan for certain conservative
theologians. The chapter contains two
different but related comments concerning the king of Tyrus. The first part, Verses 1 through 11, is a
statement to the king and the second part, verses 12 through 19 is a lamentation
or dirge about the king.
A Statement to the King of Tyrus
The king has said (in his heart) “I am a God, I sit in
the seat of God.” The Lord replies that
he is merely a man but says in his heart that he is a God. He is wiser than Daniel; no secret can be
kept from him; and he is extremely wealthy.
Because he considers himself a God (or higher than God), the Lord will
send armed nations against him. He will
be slain and descend to the pit (Hebrew word: shachath) which actually means a
pit as a large hole in the ground or possibly a grave, and not the abyss.
Wilt thou yet say before him that
slays thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him
that slays thee. (Ezekiel 28:9 KJV)
A Lament to the King of Tyrus
If this section concerns Satan or another high ranking
angelic being, then the lament or dirge due to his death will not be completed
until the lake of fire. This entity is
said to have been in Eden, the garden of God; his covering was of precious
stones; and the KJV claims he had tabrets and pipes (other versions say
settings and mounts).
Verse 14 KJV states he was the anointed cherub, but the
NET says, “I placed you there with an anointed cherub.” It is difficult to determine the authenticity
of the king as a possible cherub with the various translations of the Hebrew. If the entity is a cherub or with a cherub
then he may actually be Satan although no mention is made of Satan in the
Ezekiel text. The correlation to a
possible Satan is the mention of his presence in the garden of Eden.
According to verse 16 the king was filled with violence
due to the quantity of his merchandise or trade (goods perhaps?). The king sinned, was defiled by God, and
banished from the mountain of God (Eden or Moriah perhaps). Scripture appears to indicate that God will
destroy him with fire (maybe the lake of fire at the end of the Millennium).
The final part of Ezekiel 28 appears to be a prophecy
concerning the wrath of God culminating the 70th week of Daniel and
the appearance of the Millennium. This
third section could place an interesting perspective on the preceding parts of
the chapter. Perhaps it is referring to
the beast (antichrist) who will be destroyed at the end of the age. Perhaps the king of Tyrus is the beast as a
Nephilim figure, as some suspect; the king may be Satan; he could be
Nimrod/Asshur/Ninus; he could be another angelic entity (nachash) not even
associated with Satan.
SUMMARY
It is considered a fact that all Hebrew names have a
meaning or definition. Is the word
“Satan” a name or a definition? The
Hebrew word sawtawn in Job is
translated as Satan in the majority of versions, with a few reading
“adversary”. However, there is a
transliteral connection between the Hebrew sawtawn
and the English word Satan, which may represent a play-on-words. It is still uncertain if Satan is a proper
name but is highly probable merely an English transliteration of sawtawn.
It is certain an angelic creation was the protagonist in
the Garden of Eden. Doctor Heiser has
verified (to my satisfaction) the being was a nachash or shining one with certain reptilian features and
therefore a heavenly being. The seraph
figure in Isaiah 14 could be the same entity as the Genesis 3 entity but it
never uses the word sawtawn as an
identifier. The word Lucifer is actually
Helel ben Shachar, which is borrowed from the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer is a transliteration of the Latin
word for shining or the planet Venus.
Does this mean that Satan’s actual name is Helel? It is uncertain is Helel is a name but
Lucifer is probably not.
The supposed Ezekiel 28 history of Satan is another
uncertain exposition. Language scholars
are in disagreement whether the entity called the king of Tyrus is a cherubim
or if the questionable entity was placed in the company of a cherubim. It may be two different entities: the king of Tyrus and a nachash with the
nachash having an influence on the king.
Again, the use of a Hebrew or Ugaritic word implying Satan is not present in the text.
The New Testament occasionally uses the Greek word
satanas of which Satan is a transliteration.
It is my opinion that the Greek satanas
is merely another transliteration phase of the Hebrew sawtawn. This would mean
that both the Old Testament “Satan” and the New Testament “Satan” are transliterates
of the common sound of the words in question.
Periodically the Greek word diablos
is used to denote Satan as the devil, but the majority of instances the
word diablos is used to identify a
demon, which is probably the manner it should be presented.
The events of Revelation chapter 12 only deal with the 70th
week of Daniel and has nothing to do with the history of Satan or fallen angels
in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment