You make me feel like a contemptuous, hypocritical, pretentious person. You have no love or respect ….

To Gene

Do Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 speak of Satan?

In a time when the scriptures are often challenged and taken out of context, it is important to be able to justify our teaching in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The last thing we would want to do would be to allegorize or seek a deeper meaning to a passage, unless it is clearly intended to be understood in this way by its author. We are well aware that some Bible scholars take a different view in interpreting these passages and that this tendency is reflected in some study notes.

When writing L’Homme sur le chemin d’Emmaüs, we wanted to focus on the basics without being distracted by certain challenges in exegesis. Some scriptures are more difficult to interpret than others, and Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 fall into this category.

It’s true that we don’t know much about Satan, and we certainly don’t want to say more than what God has chosen to reveal to us. However, when we put all the pieces of the puzzle together, we find that Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 play an important role. If you search for the name “Satan” in a thematic study Bible, Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 stand out as key passages about the devil. Ignoring or restricting the meaning of their content can have significant consequences. We believe that the Scriptures present us with sufficient evidence to be able to reasonably say that Satan is the subject of these passages. The following paragraphs present some of the reasons for this interpretation.

Hermeneutics (principles of interpretation)
There is no doubt that the two passages in question refer first to two earthly kings, namely the “king of Babylon” for Isaiah and the “prince of Tire” for Ezekiel. However, there is a larger context to consider. Both passages contain incidental statements which would seem inappropriate, if not impossible, if applied to a human being. At this point, one must consider a basic hermeneutical principle sometimes called the principle of double reference.

Simply put, a single passage that applies primarily to one person or an event in time can also relate to another person or to another event. Examples of this can be found in passages quoted by Christ.

Hosea 11.1 “When Israel was young I loved them, and I called my son out of Egypt. The immediate context of this passage refers to Israel. But Matthew 2:15 applies this passage to Christ: “. . . I called my son out of Egypt. The double reference principle shows us that Israel was nationally a son, but the greater “Son” was Christ.
Deuteronomy 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you, and from among you, among your brethren, a prophet like me; he you must listen to. The immediate context refers to Joshua. But Acts 3: 22-23 applies it to Christ. If the scriptures did not make this connection, it would never have occurred to us that this verse could be applied in this way. Through the principle of double reference, we see that Joshua was a prophet to be heard, but that the preeminent prophet to be heard even more imperatively is Christ.
Many other examples could be mentioned, but these should suffice to show that the principle of double reference is well established in the field of biblical hermeneutics and that it should be taken into account when interpreting passages which seem to point beyond the present moment.

Ezekiel 28
If this passage only referred to the Prince of Tire, then it would have to be admitted that this is an allegory or even an exaggeration.

Did Ezekiel really think of the “prince” when he described him as “blameless in his ways”? The doctrine of original sin would be called into question if the “Prince of Tire” were considered to have been “blameless from the time of his creation.” In contrast, King David wrote “Yes, from my birth I have been guilty; when my mother conceived me, I was already marked by sin. (Psalm 51.7) Satan was sinless when he was created, but that could not be said of an earthly ruler, not even of King David.
It is also said of the king of Tire that he was “created” rather than “born.” If the word “born” had been used, it would certainly have excluded Satan, but it is not.
The Prince of Tire could not have been in the Garden of Eden, but Satan was there.
It seems strange that the king is described as being “covered with all kinds of precious stones”. Was he that rich? If this pass

age was only referring to a king, this would be an exaggeration.
The king is called a “protective cherub”. This would be the only instance in the Old Testament where this expression would be used to refer to a human being. This seems unlikely if one studies the use of the word “cherub” in other contexts.
At one point, the “king of Tire” should have been in close relationship with God, for he is said to be on the holy mountain of God. It is obvious that this could not have been the case, we would have here an allegory. The “holy mountain of God” is a direct reference to the throne of God. On the other hand, “cherubim” are associated with closeness to God, as demonstrated in the construction of the Ark of the Covenant. The “cherubim” (cherubim, a plural word in Hebrew) are the “inner circle” of angels who are closest to God and who are the keepers of his holiness. “
There is therefore no doubt that the Prince of Tire is not the only person to whom this passage refers. On the other hand, it becomes very reasonable to believe that this passage speaks of the dominant power which is at the origin of the actions of the prince of Tire.

It should also be observed that addressing Satan through a human being is consistent with another passage of Scripture. In Matthew 16:23, we see that “Jesus turned and said to Peter: Go back, Satan, you are a trap for me, for your thoughts are not the thoughts of God, but those of men. Jesus was talking to Peter, but he was addressing his comments to Satan. Reading this passage carefully, it is difficult to determine which part of the statement was intended for Peter and which part for Satan (the same uncertainty is sometimes experienced in the passages of Isaiah and Ezekiel). Either way, Peter passed on a soap and Satan, the dominant power behind Peter’s foolish words, was put in his place. Likewise, the prince of Tire was warned and Satan, the invisible master who controlled his reign, was exposed.

Isaiah 14
In a way, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are somewhat similar. The first sentence of verse 14:12 is the key to this passage. Isaiah seems to change the subject and speak of someone other than the king of Babylon. Unless you also take this passage from Isaiah allegorically, one is bound to apply the principle of double reference.

It seems difficult to imagine that the king of Babylon could “fall from heaven.” The verse implies that the one who fell was originally in heaven, that heaven was his original home. The fact that the fall from the sky is to be taken literally is reinforced by the sentence “Here you are struck down to the ground”. This could not apply to an earthly prince.
The sin that the “king” demonstrates in his five statements beginning with a self-centered “I …” seems to go beyond the most bizarre and narcissistic aspirations of any human being. On the other hand, they are quite consistent with what can be expected of Satan.
How did the king intend to “ascend to heaven”?
Did the king really think he could usurp the throne of God?
Did he believe he was able to sit on the “mountain of encounter” (the highest position in heaven)? Obviously this seems unlikely human ambition, even for a very evil king.
The term “stars of God” is usually interpreted to refer to angelic creatures (Job 38.7). Did the king really think he could dominate them?
Did the king really imagine that he could be like the Creator God, the Most High?
In addition to these dubious ambitions, this person is called the “morning star” (Lucifer in some versions of the Bible, a term used to describe incredible brilliance and beauty). Mr. Renald Showers gives a good explanation of this word in his book called Angels.

Verse 12 refers to this being as a “shining star, son of the dawn”. The root of the Hebrew word helel, translated here by shining star, represents the light diffused by the celestial bodies.

The designation “son of the dawn” is the Hebrew way of calling this being, also called “the morning star” in other translations. The word translated “dawn” refers to the time before sunrise. The Morning Star is so much brighter than any other star that, when the dawn clarity makes all other stars invisible, the Morning Star remains visible.

The logic behind these designations leads us to understand that the subject of verse 12 is a being shining with light. Just as the morning star is the brightest star, this being is the brightest of God-created beings.

This point is significant for several reasons. As we have in

stated previously, God calls the angels “stars” (Job 38.7). The Bible describes angels, who are not mortal human beings, as beings shining with light (Matt. 28.2-3; Rev. 10.1). The apostle Paul calls Satan “an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).

From what we have seen, it can be concluded that Isaiah 14:12 does not refer to a human ruler of ancient Babylon. Rather, the subject is the brightest and most powerful angel of all the angels who originally lived in heaven. [free translation]

In Revelation 22:16, this same word is used to describe the beauty of Christ. It would be difficult to understand whether it was also applied to an evil king of Babylon. On the other hand, the passage becomes clearer if Isaiah had changed the subject along the way and started to lament over the one who was the true invisible master of the king of Babylon, the great counterfeiter, Satan.

Franz Delitzsch gives a good conclusion by quoting Charles Ryrie’s Theology Basic.

. . . the fall of the king of Babylon is a figure of Satan’s previous fall and a type of the future fall of the antichrist. Delitzsch says quite concisely: “A look back is now cast at the self-divinization of the king of Babylon, in which he is a figure of the devil and a type of antichrist. (Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1875], 1: 312). The passage transcends all that can be said about an earthly king and has been understood from ancient times to also refer to the fall of Satan as described in Luke 10:18. [free translation]

When we wrote The Man on the Road to Emmaus, we did not want to dot this book with “maybe” and “could be”. Indeed, unbelievers find it difficult to deal with gray areas. We therefore wanted to present only a minimum of uncertainties. We were convinced that the passages in question were clear enough that they could be taught with conviction and certainty, on the basis of sound exegesis and historical interpretation. If we could not be sure of the meaning of these passages, then a host of other verses should have been declared as vague. For example, one could not have taught that the “serpent” in the Garden of Eden was Satan since he is not identified as such in the passage. Yet we believe that the serpent was indeed Satan and we teach it with conviction since all of biblical revelation makes this clear. We believe the same principle applies to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

It is interesting how God reveals information about Satan to us throughout the Bible, in the writings of many different prophets and apostles. From all of these different passages, we get a unified, non-contradictory picture of what Satan looks like and what he does.

In Luke 10:18, Luke tells us that “Satan fell like lightning from heaven” and in Ezekiel 28, the prophet explains who cast him down from heaven and why.
1 Timothy 3.6 indicates that Satan was judged because of his pride. Isaiah 14 gives us more details about the nature of Satan’s pride.
In John 8.44 Jesus calls Satan “the father of lies” and we see this master of lies at work in the garden in the form of a serpent. “Did God really say…?” Asked deceptive Satan. Gen. 3.1
In Job 1.6-12, Job is accused by Satan of being a believer in good days. We see that Satan seeks to fault Job and tries to make him turn his back on the Lord. In Apoc. 12.10, Satan is described as “the accuser of the brethren” and in 1 Peter 5: 8 he is said to be an adversary who prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he will devour.
We therefore believe that when one interprets Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 in the light of all the Scriptures, one can confidently say that these passages refer to Satan.

Hi Gene,

YOU: I am not asking you to believe me,  just believe what it “exactly and specifically says”.   

Gene, THE ABOVE CONFIRMS THAT YOU ARE, AS ALWAYS,

STAGNATED IN YOUR 

CARNAL MINDED UNDERSTANDING

READ AND DISCERN THE TRUTH:

2 CORINTHIANS 3:

1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need (as some do) epistles of commendation to you, or from you? 2You are our epistle, written in our hearts, which is known and read by all men: 3Being manifested,

that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us,

and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;

not in tables of stone,

but in the fleshly tables of the heart.

4And such confidence we have,

through Christ, towards God. 

5Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves,

as of ourselves:

but our sufficiency is from God. 

6Who also hath made us fit ministers of

the new testament,

not in the letter,

but in the spirit.

For the letter KILLETH, but the spirit

QUICKENETH.

12 Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence:

13And not as Moses put a veil upon his face,

that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. 

14But their senses were made dull.

For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of

the old testament,

remaineth not taken away

(because in Christ it is made void). 

15But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

YOUR HEART Gene, I’m afraid, with every respect

16But when they shall be converted to the Lord,

the veil shall be taken away.

 17Now the Lord is a Spirit.

And where the Spirit of the Lord is,

there is liberty. (do you believe in your free will?)

 18But we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face,

are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as

by the Spirit of the Lord.

Peace and love in THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

Proclaimer. …….please show me the scripture that says Jesus was “born”  before Abraham. 

Again you like others add your thoughts to what the text is  actually saying. That was my point with Berean. YOUR view as Jesus prexisting his berth is wrong on many levels,

One,  no prexisting recorded activity of him before his birth on this earth.

Two,  and most important is! he could not have truly quilified to take away our sins if he was a prexisting being of any kind. Being “morphed” from another existence, would have nothing with mankind,  much less dying for our sins would have.

Three, you also leave out many, many, many scriptures that show his true origins , scriptures that Jodi and I have brought out many times here.  Even scriptures where Jesus himself said where his linage was  from.

Four, you force the text to say what in fact it is not saying , by not applying the actual Greek meanings to them.

Five, preaching a preexisting Jesus, also deny the whole idea of a “second” Adam. A second human being, not a being from a past existence, morphed into a human body, as you preach.  That would have nothing to do with perfecting the human race at all.  Common sense should tell you that Proclaimer?  

Preaching a prexisting Jesus is not only against the plan of God,  for his whole human creation,  and his work “in” humanity,  of “perfecting” us,  as was demonstrated by what he did “in” Jesus , but it also demeans his ability to save his human creation, “exactly” as he did the “man” Jesus. 

But you are helping to prove Jesus was right , when he said “many” shall come in “my’ name saying,  I am the christ,  and shall decieve “MANY”, and many are truly decieved,  by the false “image” of  Jesus,  fallen Christanity has created,

As I have said before Proclaimer your half way in, but not all the way “yet” brother.  At least you don’t believe in the “trinity”, and that Jesus is,  a God,  and that’s a big plus for you,  IMO.

Peace and love to you and yours. ………gene

Proclaimer. ….tell me this does GOD even have HIS “OWN” WORDS,? , so when they  heard the words , “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” was that Jesus talking to himself?  Was Jesus a vantriliquest,  did he throw his voice to make it appear someone else was speaking? 

When the prophets spoke to us GOD’S words, are we to believe it was  really Jesus speaking through the Prophets?

Or does your version mean God is God’s words and So is Jesus also God’s word? If that be the case then Jesus is also a God,  according to John 1.  ““in the beginning was the word,  the word was with God , and the word “was” God.  Seems you have a dalimma on your hands to try to explain.

Jesus was never God the Fathers words, even though he did tell us what God the Father told him to tell us.  Perhaps this may help you,  ““the words I am telling you are “NOT”, “MY WORDS”, but the words “OF” HIM WHO SENT ME”. , please tell us how that fits into your tangled Web . So the question is do you “really” believe what Jesus himself says about the words he  was telling us or not?  So far I would say ,  you have proven you truly do not believe what Jesus himself said  or you would believe,  that he said those words were not “HIS”  words.  Being someone and quoting someone are two complete different things Proclaimer?  

Peace and love to you and yours. …………gene

Proclaimer. ….talk about silly. , what could be more silly then your last post?

Not one word of my post was silly, you say “if” He did this and “if”  he did that,  now that’s what is silly  if you ask me. Because it shows you truly don’t  really know for sure. What you are assuming is right or not. 

Peace and love to you and yours. ………..gene

Proclaimer. ….Sure it does, if your son “has” to speak for you , is it because you are to dumb to speak for yourself.  Now if your son tells me “your” words that you “gave him”,  to tell me,  that’s  a different story. 

That is exactly what Jesus meant when he said , “the words I am telling you are “NOT” my words, but the words of him who sent me.”, Now  what is “silly” is why you can’t understand and believe what Jesus “clearly” said,  about the words he was telling us, That’s what’s  “silly”. 

DO you even know what the meaning of a word is,  it is,  “expressed intellegence”  whether written or spoken, makes no difference. 

Here what Jesus told his deciples,  pay atention,  because it is exactly what was taking place “in” Jesus.

Mat 10:19-20….. “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. Verse 20….“for it is not you that speak, but the  Spirit of your Father which speaks “in” you”.  

That is the exact same thing that was taking place “in” Jesus.   Now understanding that , tell me who said this , “destory this “temple” and in three days “I” Shall raise it up”?   Was it God the  Father, or Jesus himself who said that? 

Was that Jesus speaking or God the Father speaking through Jesus’  mouth?  It wasn’t Jesus because Jesus was going to be dead,  he couldn’t raise his body up, a body which God considered a temple he “dwelt” in.  Just as Paul said we are, “know you not that your “body” is the temple of the Living God”. The same thing applies to us as  to Jesus Christ our lord., better yet, our elder brother in the family of God. 

Those who have an ear let him hear.

Peace and love to you all and yours. ……….gene