Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

Just heard my pastor say that many scholars believe that Lucifer was a bejeweled worship leader in heaven.  Where does that come from?  Never heard that before.

Views: 5056

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There are 2 major passages from the OT that are not directly about Satan, but many form a teaching about him from them.

 

Isaiah 14:3-27 (we get our name Lucifer from Latin of the phrase 'morning star') - this passages speaks of judgment against the king of Babylon

 

Ezekiel 28:1-19 - it's about the wickedness of the king of Tyre, but many see a kind of prophetic-typical statements about Satan throughout the passage

 

Both of these speak of instruments and so there is a connection that Satan was a musician in heaven before he 'fell'.

 

It's probably not the best way to approach a teaching on Satan, but it might not be outright 'wrong'. I have more thoughts to share but need to head off.

Combination of Job 38:7, the root for serpent in genesis 3 and the morning star passage in Isaiah 14. It's as nonsensical as the whole "Adam was created before Day 6" weirdness that some other people have made up. 

LOL!  I get the correlation between "shining one" or "serpent" and the idea of being covered with jewels or something.  Never heard that bit that goes from "instruments" to "musician" to "Heaven's worship leader" though. To me, that is a LOT more of a stretch than saying that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may be different accounts that overlap differently than we assume when we read them in the current sequential order.  If we compiled the book by the date of the writing, Chapter 2 would/could arguably come first.  How would THAT change our reading of it?

Rey Reynoso said:

Combination of Job 38:7, the root for serpent in genesis 3 and the morning star passage in Isaiah 14. It's as nonsensical as the whole "Adam was created before Day 6" weirdness that some other people have made up. 


ScottL said:

There are 2 major passages from the OT that are not directly about Satan, but many form a teaching about him from them.

Isaiah 14:3-27 (we get our name Lucifer from Latin of the phrase 'morning star') - this passages speaks of judgment against the king of Babylon

Bit and I got into that a bit on the "Best Bible Translations" thread.  That is a big KJVO argument against the modern translations.  How someone can think that a transliteration of the Latin makes for a great translation from Hebrew is beyond me. Sigh....

Lucifer (Satan) most accurately was the musical worship leader in heaven as he was created with tabrets and pipes; the "pipes" is an accurate reference to musical pipes such as an organ; the "tabrets" is a small drum or ancient percussion instrument - both of which are common now in modern musical instrumentation. All of this is confirmed in Ezekiel 28, as Lucifer | Satan was most certainly that high musician in heaven before his sin of pride.

Ezekiel 28:13: 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.

So why believe this is about Lucifer and not, as Scott mentioned, the wickedness of the king of Tyre?

matthew said:

Lucifer (Satan) most accurately was the musical worship leader in heaven as he was created with tabrets and pipes; the "pipes" is an accurate reference to musical pipes such as an organ; the "tabrets" is a small drum or ancient percussion instrument - both of which are common now in modern musical instrumentation. All of this is confirmed in Ezekiel 28, as Lucifer | Satan was most certainly that high musician in heaven before his sin of pride.

Ezekiel 28:13: 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.

Ezekiel 28 describes Lucifer; and as a double reference, also point out the devil influence behind the King of Tyre for his evil and wicked deeds; Satan was that influence since Satan heads and matches evil influences across all governmental heads on earth; so it is today, as it was in the time of King of Tyre, Satan was behind that wickedness in governmental entities. But this scripture in Ezekiel 28 is NOT LIMITED ONLY to the King of Tyre - it is first and foremost absolutely about describing Lucifer before his sin and fall. If we deny Ezekiel 28 describes Lucifer, as Scott must do if he is attributing this scripture only to the King of Tyre, then we have no other scripture in the Bible to give us a detailed account of the sinful pride of Satan | Lucifer and the reason for his sin and fall. The primary interpretation is about Lucifer; the secondary reflection is about the devil influence behind the King of Tyre. That is a correct Biblical interpretation, that is what we must all agree to understand in Ezekiel, otherwise, we loose so much truths about Satan and the purpose for his sinful pride.

Daniel said:

So why believe this is about Lucifer and not, as Scott mentioned, the wickedness of the king of Tyre?

matthew said:

Lucifer (Satan) most accurately was the musical worship leader in heaven as he was created with tabrets and pipes; the "pipes" is an accurate reference to musical pipes such as an organ; the "tabrets" is a small drum or ancient percussion instrument - both of which are common now in modern musical instrumentation. All of this is confirmed in Ezekiel 28, as Lucifer | Satan was most certainly that high musician in heaven before his sin of pride.

Ezekiel 28:13: 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.



matthew said:

Ezekiel 28 describes Lucifer; and as a double reference, also point out the devil influence behind the King of Tyre for his evil and wicked deeds; Satan was that influence since Satan heads and matches evil influences across all governmental heads on earth; so it is today, as it was in the time of King of Tyre, Satan was behind that wickedness in governmental entities. But this scripture in Ezekiel 28 is NOT LIMITED ONLY to the King of Tyre - it is first and foremost absolutely about describing Lucifer before his sin and fall. If we deny Ezekiel 28 describes Lucifer, as Scott must do if he is attributing this scripture only to the King of Tyre, then we have no other scripture in the Bible to give us a detailed account of the sinful pride of Satan | Lucifer and the reason for his sin and fall. The primary interpretation is about Lucifer; the secondary reflection is about the devil influence behind the King of Tyre. That is a correct Biblical interpretation, that is what we must all agree to understand in Ezekiel, otherwise, we loose so much truths about Satan and the purpose for his sinful pride.

So?


Norrin Radd said:

So?

That was kinda my thought.  Why MUST the Bible give us this detail about Lucifer and make him and his history some focus?  The idea that it must be about Lucifer otherwise he'd be more of a mystery escapes me.

I would agree with Scott here. The Bible gives no indication of a primordial war in heaven led by a rebellious angel named Lucifer that resulted in their expulsion from heaven. This is a very strange yet popular interpretation given the minimal textual evidence.

 

If anything, these passages refer to Adam, the original bearer of God's Light (Lucifer) on the earth and the only originally named "guardian cherub" of Eden. Adam fell from glory for the very same things charged in these passages--namely, seeking to displace God as ruler. It is the mind inherited from Adam--the carnal mind--which to this day opposes the saints in their spiritual walk, and thus, if these passages are referring to Satan, "adversary," it is the adversary of the Mind that is ignorant of God and mindful of the things of the fallen world.

 

Hope this was helpful.

--David
 
ScottL said:

There are 2 major passages from the OT that are not directly about Satan, but many form a teaching about him from them.

 

Isaiah 14:3-27 (we get our name Lucifer from Latin of the phrase 'morning star') - this passages speaks of judgment against the king of Babylon

 

Ezekiel 28:1-19 - it's about the wickedness of the king of Tyre, but many see a kind of prophetic-typical statements about Satan throughout the passage

 

Both of these speak of instruments and so there is a connection that Satan was a musician in heaven before he 'fell'.

 

It's probably not the best way to approach a teaching on Satan, but it might not be outright 'wrong'. I have more thoughts to share but need to head off.

Daniel -

 

I wanted to add a few more thoughts, which I think will show you I arrive somewhere in the middle on this issue.

 

In one sense, I think it somewhat silly to develop a teaching on Satan from Isa 14 and Ezk 28. Those who do connect these 2 passages back to Gen 3 and even into Rev 12:7-9. If you want, you can tie it all together. Read the 4 passages and you can see workable 'connections'.

 

Having said that, it is very clear that the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages are speaking of judgment on the wicked kings of Babylon and Tyre. That is the 'immediate' context. You CANNOT get around that, and many people miss that actual context. Yet, as I mentioned in my first comment, some see these passages as typical-prophetic statements about the wicked one, Satan, the devil, the serpent himself. These 2 passages would typically describe Satan's disposition.

 

It's not unlike us clearly seeing typical-prophetic passages in the OT as describing Christ. A big text might be the suffering servant passages of Isaiah. In the immediate context, it is mainly speaking of Israel's role. Yet, Jesus, the Messiah, came to fulfil that of Israel's role, and so we see them typifying the Messiah. The same could be said of passages speaking of Moses' or David's role. Things in their lives typified that of the great anointed one, Jesus.

 

But I would say every detail of the typical-prophetic passages are not a straight forward speaking of Christ. We need to guard from going a bit overboard, all to sound super-spiritual and full of great revelation. If we work hard enough, we could weave 10 Bible verses together that we never thought could be done. We've all seen that. So, if these OT passages in Isa and Ezk are typical-prophetic of the great enemy of God, Satan, then I am not sure every detail translates - the whole great musician/worship leader thing. It is stretching and working too hard for my taste.

 

Yet, one final comment in favour of a possible reading of these two OT prophetic texts as speaking somehow of Satan. When the NT was being written, there was a certain interpretive grid that was already widely established, a Jewish interpretive tradition, if you will. There were simple traditions as to 'fleshing things out' a bit more from the OT narrative, yet with some of these traditions not being too explicit within the OT text. A few examples:

  1. We read in 2 Tim 3:8 that the Egyptian magicians that opposed Moses were named Jannes and Jambres. But the OT text in Exodus never explicitly communicates such.
  2. We read in 2 Pet 2:5 that Noah was a 'preacher of righteousness'. And we all have this idea that Noah called the people to repent of their wicked ways before the flood came. But the Genesis text does not really say anything about this. We read that he was righteous, but he basically obeyed God by building the ark, got the necessary animals, got his family in the ark, and it started raining.
  3. Jude 9 tells us a nice little interesting story of the dispute between the archangel, Michael, and the devil, all about the body of Moses. We don't really find that at the end of Deuteronomy.
  4. There are a few passages in the NT that tell us the law was put into effect by angels (Gal 3:19; Acts 7:52-53; Heb 2:2-3). But the OT texts in places like Exodus never communicate such.

 

There are others that could be considered.

 

Now, none of these things do much with regards to making any big accusations for the Scripture text. I only point them out because there were actual and real interpretive traditions within the Jewish context, ones that had passed down over centuries. You can find some of these interpretive traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, both intertestamental writings of the Jews. And so I'm not sure this bodes well for a more sola scriptura approach, since these writers of the NT were working from some established traditions that had passed down rather than finding this information from Scripture alone. I think things were a lot more organic in the working out of their theology, writing the NT Scripture, etc. Of course, it could be argued that these guys were the anointed and ordained apostles and apostolic associates who were given the task of writing Scripture. And so we either give them license to communicate such or we reckon they must have received such by specific revelation from God. But I think that is missing some of how things actually worked out in passing along traditions and formulating theology within a first century, Jewish framework. None of this negates anything of the work of Christ, the work of the Spirit in Scripture-formation, and the establishing of important doctrines in the first century. It just recognises that tradition is a reality and part of the forming of the NT Scripture as well as theology throughout the history of God's people. I think it ok.

 

So with the formulation of teaching about Satan, I might not lean towards running to Isa 14 or Ezk 28 to teach about who Satan is, at least if we are trying to build foundational teaching on the subject. But I wouldn't put it past the reality that these passages could and even possibly do speak into our understanding of who Satan is and his attempts at thwarting God's purposes (which cannot ultimately be done). An interpretive tradition has been formulated and it is not altogether out of bounds, just as the 4 examples above are not out of bounds. From this, I think we can ascertain that a grammatical-historical approach to Scripture might not always be the approach in formulating a robust and faithful theology, and I don't think it was the NT writers' approach at all times. And I also think it makes us realise that Scripture alone is not always how we form our theology, and I think that's ok since the writers of Scripture found themselves in the same boat as us. We must allow for a little more organic ebb and flow here. It does mean that difficulties will be presented if we are willing to see how much more organic things are. But such is true of any approach. But we have a very solid foundation block in forming good and healthy teaching because of the Spirit of God, the Scripture, the church of 2000 years and walking with the living body today.

Very interesting take that it applies to Adam or to Adam as well.  Hadn't considered that before.  

David Armstrong said:

I would agree with Scott here. The Bible gives no indication of a primordial war in heaven led by a rebellious angel named Lucifer that resulted in their expulsion from heaven. This is a very strange yet popular interpretation given the minimal textual evidence.

 

If anything, these passages refer to Adam, the original bearer of God's Light (Lucifer) on the earth and the only originally named "guardian cherub" of Eden. Adam fell from glory for the very same things charged in these passages--namely, seeking to displace God as ruler. It is the mind inherited from Adam--the carnal mind--which to this day opposes the saints in their spiritual walk, and thus, if these passages are referring to Satan, "adversary," it is the adversary of the Mind that is ignorant of God and mindful of the things of the fallen world.

 

Hope this was helpful.

--David
 
ScottL said:

There are 2 major passages from the OT that are not directly about Satan, but many form a teaching about him from them.

 

Isaiah 14:3-27 (we get our name Lucifer from Latin of the phrase 'morning star') - this passages speaks of judgment against the king of Babylon

 

Ezekiel 28:1-19 - it's about the wickedness of the king of Tyre, but many see a kind of prophetic-typical statements about Satan throughout the passage

 

Both of these speak of instruments and so there is a connection that Satan was a musician in heaven before he 'fell'.

 

It's probably not the best way to approach a teaching on Satan, but it might not be outright 'wrong'. I have more thoughts to share but need to head off.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================