Review “Deconstructing Lucifer” book by David W. Lowe, part 6

Deconstructing Lucifer.jpg

David W. Lowe’s 2011 AD book “Deconstructing Lucifer” is subtitled, “Reexamining the Ancient Origins of the Fallen Angel of Light.” You can find all of the parts of this review here.

We now move directly into the issue of Lowe referring to the view that Lucifer/Satan is an Angel when, in fact, he is not: he is a Cherub.

David W. Lowe’s 2011 AD book “Deconstructing Lucifer” is subtitled, “Reexamining the Ancient Origins of the Fallen Angel of Light.” You can find all of the parts of this review here.

We now move directly into the issue of Lowe referring to the view that Lucifer/Satan is an Angel when, in fact, he is not: he is a Cherub.
However, Lowe argues against this in denying that Ezekiel 28 is about Lucifer/Satan at all in it is verse 14 which states, “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth” who, by the way, “hast been in Eden the garden of God” where no human king ever was.
Lowe notes, “This KJV rendering is problematic because the pronoun ‘thou’ that begins the sentence is in feminine singular form in Hebrew, but in all other cases in the passage under consideration, the king of Tyre [aka Tyrus] is addressed in masculine singular form.”
Well, since Lowe believes that this text is only about the human king then why is they key personage referred to as other than the king of Tyre is addressed in all other cases in the passage?

As I previously noted about this text, David Lowe “must keep in mind that the text refers to, both, the prince and also the king. There is a biblical concept about a spiritual entity behind the human rulers. For example, Daniel 10:13’s reference to ‘the prince of the kingdom of Persia.’ Thus, the rise, pride, and fall of the one is correlated to the rise, pride, and fall of the other.” In the case of Isaiah 12 it is a case of a human prince and a spiritual king.

In any case, I will leave the minutia of ancient languages to someone else since, for example,
Brown-Driver-Brigg’s Definition states, “you (second person singular masculine)” as opposed to Lowe who claimed that it is “feminine singular.”

Lowe notes that the “translators of the New English Translation (NET) concluded as follows: [I]t is more likely that the form should be repointed as the preposition ‘with’ (see the Septuagint (LXX)). In this case the ruler of Tyre is compared to the first man, not to a cherub.”
However, this would not help Lowe as, again, the text states to whomever, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God” and it is not addressing the long deceased Adam so either the human king of Tyre or the Cherub were in Eden—and the human king was not.
David Lowe also states, “In the LXX translation, the pronoun ‘thou’ is changed to the preposition ‘with,’ resulting in ‘thou wast with the cherub’” but we can know that this is innacurate based on the fact that context determines meaning and the meaning cannot be that the human king was “with” the Cherub since the Cherub was in Eden but the king was not.
Lowe also notes that “A similar grammatical controversy exists with verse 16, resulting in the anointed cherub being the subject of the Lord’s wrath instead of the king of Tyre” and that the NET Bible ends up stating that “the subject of the verb is the guardian cherub.”
One would wonder why the Cherub is mentioned if he is irrelevant.

Lowe writes, “the prophet addresses the dominant subject of the passage, the king of Tyre, through an unnamed entity in the Garden of Eden. This unnamed entity, which becomes clear with a simple reading of the passage, is the first man Adam who was perfect and without sin in the Garden of Eden, but fell.”
Firstly, again, he fails to note that the “prince of Tyre” is addressed in verse 2 and then the king starting at verse 12. Secondly, the text man refers to an “unnamed entity” if by name we are thinking of a personal proper name yet, the entity is identified as a Cherub. Conversely, if it is an “unnamed entity” how does Lowe know that it refers to Adam? Well, because it was either Adam or Eve or the serpent/Satan and Lower rejects the latter option. But why? If it makes sense to Lowe that the text refers to Adam because he was perfect and without sin in the Garden of Eden, but fell and this makes him able to be correlated to the king of Tyre why not stick to the actual text and context and conclude that a simple reading of the passage, is that the Cherub who was perfect and without sin in the Garden of Eden, fell and this is what makes him able to be correlated to the king of Tyre: again, both rose, became prideful, and fell.

Deconstructing Lucifer.jpg

One issue with which I have had to deal ever since reading the book tiled is that Lucifer/Satan is not an Angel but is a Cherub, Lower writes, “Lucifer was supposedly a high-ranking archangel on the level of Michael and Gabriel” but offers no citation or quotation to that effect and if he is merely repeating common knowledge then may common knowledge be rightly damned.
He also writes, “the cherub did not sin in the story of the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve sinned” but then, pray tell, why did God tell the serpent aka Satan aka the Cherub, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”?

David Lowe refers to Ezekiel 28:13’s reference to the Cherub having “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,” etc. He considers it “likely that the Lord was referring to the king of Tyre who was decked with precious stones in his royal splendor.” However, the Earthly wilderness Tabernacle and later permanent Temple were based on the heavenly place of worship. Of the Earthly priests we are told, “thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it…thou shalt set in it settings of stones…the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes” (see Exodus 28). So the Earthly priest reflecting the heavenly priest wore a breastplate upon which are stones and it appears that the Cherub also wore one whilst in heaven and loyal.

David Lowe then argues, “The KJV translation of this passage refers to the cherub having some sort of ‘merchandise’ and ‘traffick’ that led him to sin. What was this cherub doing, peddling gemstones in the Garden of Eden illegally? In what kind of commercial trade would a holy guardian angel of the throne of God have the time or desire to engage? Some might suggest that this instead is referring to the sin of Lucifer in heaven before he fell. Did Lucifer get too wealthy in heaven by engaging in trading activity? Clearly, the king of Tyre was being rebuked because of the pride that arose in his heart due to his abundant merchandise and resulting wealth, not a fallen angel named Lucifer.”
But then the same question can be asked if the king of Tyre was being rebuked, etc. What was this king doing, peddling gemstones in the Garden of Eden illegally? No, so then why correlate the two? There are a few possibilities which require us to dig deep into our Satanology.
The key verse notes, “By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches” and yes, I accept a correlation between the human king of Tyre but accept a correlation to Satan so: what was Satan doing?

One possible meaning, or so it seems to me, is that this has to do with ruling the nations, “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 32:8) for “the sons of Adam” which is commonly understood to refers to “the sons of men,” the LXX has “according to the number of the angels of God.” Note that about Michael the Archangel, we learn that he is “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people” as Daniel is told (12:1).
Then there is the aforementioned issue of Psalm 82 according to which “God…judgeth among the gods” asking them “How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?” and tells them “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” concluding with that God “shalt inherit all nations.” In short, it appears that, just as Daniel was told about the spiritual “prince of Persia,” each nation had at least one Angel over them. Satan seems to have been wheeling and dealing, taking charge of one after another, much like Esau gave over his birthright to Jacob, until he told Jesus something that Jesus did not deny was true when “the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it” (Luke 4:5-6) and, after all, Satan is “the prince of this world” (John 16:11).

Interestingly, directly after making the point above, Lowe notes, “Instead of careful consideration of the context of the passage and the writing style of the author, the passage is taken in insolation” so that “What so often happens with this passage, as well as with the passage in Isaiah chapter 14, is that the casual reader of the Bible tries to prove a theology or point of view regarding the origin of Satan.” Yet, how is it that Lowe complains that it is 1) being taken in isolation and 2) also being placed into the greater context of Satanology?


A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.