THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think




          ADAM CLARKE
          JOHN GILL
          KEIL & DELITZSCH



הילל hêylêl, hay-lale',  (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer. From הלל hâlal, haw-lal', A primitive root; to be clear (originally of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence to make a show; to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; also to stultify: - (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool (-ish, -ly), glory, give [light], be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, [sing, be worthy of] praise, rage, renowned, shine.- STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE

(the Latinized form of Gr. Φωσφόρος, “light- bearer”), the name given to the “morning star,” i.e. the planet Venus when it appears above the E. horizon before sunrise, and sometimes also to the “evening star,” i.e. the same planet in the W. sky after sundown, more usually called Hesperus (q.v.). The term “day star” (so rendered in the Revised Version) was used politically by Isaiah for the king of Babylon: “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” (Is. xiv. 12, Authorized Version). The words ascribed to Christ in Luke x. 18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (cf. Rev. ix. 1), were interpreted by the Christian Fathers as referring to the passage in Isaiah, whence, in Christian theology, Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. This idea finds its most magnificent literary expression in Milton’s ‘’Paradise Lost’’. In this sense the name is most commonly associated with the familiar phrase “as proud as Lucifer.” 1911, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

LUCIFER (Φωσφόρος):
Septuagint translation of "Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shaḥar" (= "the brilliant one," "son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2]), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7).The familiarity of the people of Palestine with such a myth is shown by the legend, localized on Mount Hermon, the northern mountain of Palestine and possibly the original mountain of the gods in that country, of the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samḥazai (the heaven-seizer) and Azael (Enoch, vi. 6 et seq.; see Fall of Angels). Another legend represents Samḥazai, because he repented of his sin, as being suspended between heaven and earth (like a star) instead of being hurled down to Sheol (see Midr. Abḳir in Yalḳ. i. 44; Raymund Martin, "Pugio Fidei," p. 564). The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from Vita Adæ et Evæ (12) and Slavonic Enoch (xxix. 4, xxxi. 4), where Satan-Sataniel (Samael?) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high," Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss (comp. Test. Patr., Benjamin, 3; Ephes. ii. 2, vi. 12). Accordingly Tertullian ("Contra Marrionem," v. 11, 17), Origen ("Ezekiel Opera," iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being "cast down from heaven" (Rev. xii. 7, 10; comp. Luke x. 18). - JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA


Luciferianism is a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to Lucifer. The tradition, influenced by Gnosticism, usually reveres Lucifer not as the Devil, but as a liberator or guiding spirit[1] or even the true god as opposed to Jehovah.[2]
Luciferianism is identified by some people as an auxiliary of Satanism, due to the popular identification of Lucifer with Satan. Some Luciferians accept this identification or consider Lucifer the light bearer aspect of Satan.[1] Others reject it, arguing that Lucifer is a more positive ideal than Satan.

The Gesta Treverorum records that in 1231, heretics began to be persecuted throughout Germany. Among them were Luciferians principally in the archdiocese of Trier, but also Mainz and Cologne. Over the following three years, several people were burned as a result. According to a papal letter from Gregory IX, Vox in Rama, dated from July 13, 1233, one of the claims made by the Luciferians was that Lucifer had been cast out of Heaven unjustly. Women were implicated in the cult, and the Church accused those named as heretics of sexual perversities. The chronicler of the Gesta seems, however, to have confused Luciferians with the Cathars in some respects.[3]
On the other hand, Richard Cavendish has argued: "The confessions Conrad of Marburg extracted were apparently made without torture, but under the threat of death if the victim did not confess. If these confessions were accurate, the Luciferans were full-blown Satanists. They worshiped the Devil as creator and ruler of the world, complained that he had been unjustly and treacherously banished from Heaven, and believed that he would overthrow the God of the Christians and return to Heaven, when they would enjoy eternal happiness with him. They reveled in whatever displeased the Christian God and hated whatever pleased him..."[4]  - LUCIFERIANISM,




[Saint] Lucifer first appears in history as an envoy from Liberius of Rome to the Emperor Constantius II, requesting the convening of a church council. At the Council of Milan in 354 or 355 he defended Athanasius of Alexandria against Arian attempts to secure his condemnation by Western bishops. It was reported that Constantius II, a supporter of Arian theology, confined Lucifer for three days in the palace, where Lucifer continued to argue vehemently. Along with Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Milan, he was exiled. He travelled first to Syria, then to Palestine and finally to Thebes in Egypt. While in exile, he wrote fiery pamphlets to the emperor in which he proclaimed himself to be ready to suffer martyrdom for his beliefs.  After the death of Constantius and the accession of Julian the Apostate, Lucifer was able to return from exile in 362. However, he would not be reconciled to former Arians. He opposed the Bishop Meletius, who came to accept the Nicene creed (and for that was driven out by Arians). Although Meletius had the support of many proponents of Nicene theology at Antioch, Lucifer put his support behind the Eustathian party which had unflinchingly stood by the Nicene creed, and prolonged the schism between Meletians and Eustathians by consecrating without licence a Eustathian, Paulinus, as bishop. After this he returned to Cagliari, where, according to Jerome, he died in 370.[1]  He may have been excommunicated, as is hinted in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, as well as Jerome, who refers to his followers as Luciferians. There is extant a work known as Libellus precum, which was written by two Luciferian clergy called Faustinus and Marcellinus. Jerome discusses Lucifer and his supporters in his polemic Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi ("Altercation of a Luciferian and an Orthodox"), as well as describing the bishop's career in De Viris Illustribus 95. - SAINT LUCIFER OF CAGLIARIA,


Jesus is referred to as "the bright and morning star" (ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός) in Revelation 22:16, but not as Phosphorus (Lucifer). 

The Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle in the Roman Rite calls Christ the Morning Star, using the Latin word, LUCIFER:

Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
ille, inquam, LUCIFER, qui nescit occasum,
Christus Filius tuus qui,
regressus ab inferis,
humano generi serenus illuxit,
et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.

May this flame be found still burning
by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son,
who, coming back from death's domain,
has shed his peaceful light on humanity,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever.

In the Litany of Loreto the Blessed Virgin Mary is invoked as "Stella matutina" (Morning Star), and a popular English hymn addressed to her has the stanza:

Mary Immaculate, Star of the Morning,
Chosen before the creation began,
Destined to bring, through the Light of your Dawning,
Conquest of Satan, and rescue to Man.

"Morning Star" was also applied as a title to Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros II in 968. Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona, reports that the emperor was greeted on his arrival at Hagia Sophia with the chant: "Behold the morning star approaches, Eos rises; he reflects in his glances the rays of the sun – he the pale death of the Saracens, Nicephorus the ruler."-


HELL (ENGLISH WORD) - USED IN "KING JAMES VERSION" - Deu. 32:22; 2Sa. 22:6; Job 11:8; 26:6; Psa. 9:17; 16:10; 18:5; 55:15; 86:13; 116:3; 139:8; Pro. 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:11,24; 23:14; 27:20; Isa. 5:14; 14:9,15; 28:15,18; 57:9; Eze. 31:16,17; 32:21,27; Dan. 3:23; Amos 9:2; Jon. 2:2; Hab. 2:5; Mat. 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 11:23; 16:18; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 10:15; 12:5; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Jas. 3:6; 2Pe. 2:4; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14;

HELL [ETYMOLOGY] - O.E. hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *haljo "the underworld" (cf. O.Fris. helle, Du. hel, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place" (cf. O.N. hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell). The English word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *halija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology the name of Loki's daughter, who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"). Transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom. In M.E., also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for O.T. Heb. Sheol and N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna. Used figuratively for "state of misery, any bad experience" since at least late 14c. As an expression of disgust, etc., first recorded 1670s. - HELL, Eytmology Online,


Isa 14:4  That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 
Isa 14:5  The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 
Isa 14:6  He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. 
Isa 14:7  The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 
Isa 14:8  Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 
Isa 14:9  Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 
Isa 14:10  All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 
Isa 14:11  Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 
Isa 14:12  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! 
Isa 14:13  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: 
Isa 14:14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 
Isa 14:15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 
Isa 14:16  They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 
Isa 14:17  That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 
Isa 14:18  All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 
Isa 14:19  But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 
Isa 14:20  Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 
Isa 14:21  Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. 
Isa 14:22  For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. 
Isa 14:23  I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts. 
Isa 14:24  The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: 

Eze 28:12  Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 
Eze 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. 
Eze 28:14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 
Eze 28:15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 
Eze 28:16  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 
Eze 28:17  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 
Eze 28:18  Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 
Eze 28:19  All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. 

Written against the "king of Babylon" in Isaiah 14, and against the "king of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28.  Prophetic regression used to compare both kings respectively to Satan, as the "Fallen angel" and the "serpent" in Eden.  Luciferians argue these texts are not about "Lucifer" but the two kings, however, this is standard prophetic material in the Tanakh which uses the principle of dual reference.  Most "prophecies" about the coming of the "messiah" were made exactly in the same stylization.  And they were understood by Rabbinical commentators prior to the 1st Century as having been thus spoken.

Hyper-literalism does not dismiss "Lucifer" from these texts as both texts describe events which were not literally true about either king.  Each king is being "compared to Satan" in the prophet's condemnations. 



Isa 14:12  
How art thou fallen from heaven - A new image is presented here. It is that of the bright morning star; and a comparison of the once magnificent monarch with that beautiful star. He is now exhibited as having fallen from his place in the east to the earth. His glory is dimmed; his brightness quenched. Nothing can be more poetic and beautiful than a comparison of a magnificent monarch with the bright morning star! Nothing more striking in representing his death, than the idea of that star falling to the earth!

Lucifer - Margin, ‘Day-star’ (הילל  hēylēl, from הלל  hâlal, “to shine”). The word in Hebrew occurs as a noun nowhere else. In two other places Eze_21:12; Zec_11:2, it is used as a verb in the imperative mood of Hiphil, and is translated ‘howl’ from the verb ילל  yālal, “to howl” or “cry.” Gesenius and Rosenmuller suppose that it should be so rendered here. So Noyes renders it, ‘Howl, son of the morning!’ But the common translation seems to be preferable. The Septuagint renders it, Ἑωσφόρος  Heōsphoros, and the Vulgate, ‘Lucifer, the morning star.’ The Chaldee, ‘How art thou fallen from high, who wert splendid among the sons of men.’ There can be no doubt that the object in the eve of the prophet was the bright morning star; and his design was to compare this magnificent oriental monarch with that. The comparison of a monarch with the sun, or the other heavenly bodies, is common in the Scriptures.

Son of the morning - This is a Hebraism (see the note at Mat_1:1), and signifies that that bright star is, as it were, the production, or the offspring of morning; or that it belongs to the morning. The word ‘son’ often thus denotes possession, or that one thing belongs to another. The same star in one place represents the Son of God himself; Rev_21:16 : ‘I am - the bright and morning star.’
Which didst weaken the nations - By thy oppressions and exactions, rendering once mighty nations feeble.

Eze 28:11-19  
The dirge of the prince of Tyre, answering to the dirge of the state. The passage is ironical; its main purpose is to depict all the glory, real or assumed, of “the prince of Tyrus,” in order to show how deplorable should be his ruin.

To “seal the sum” is to make up the whole measure of perfection. Compare the Septuagint

Thou hast been in Eden - “Thou” wast etc. The prince of Tyrus is ironically described as the first of creation; but at the same time the parallel is to be maintained in his fall from glory. Like Adam in the enjoyment of paradise, he shall be like Adam in his fall.
Every precious stone - All the stones here named are found in the High priest’s breastplate Exo_28:17-20, but their order is different, and three stones named in Exodus (the third row) are wanting. The prophet may purposely have varied the description because the number twelve (that of the tribes of Israel) had nothing to do with the prince of Tyrus, and he wished to portray, not a high priest, but a king, having in view a figure which was to a Jew, especially to a priest, the very type of magnificence.
Tabrets - (or, drums) and “pipes” were a common expression for festivity and triumph.

Thou art - Better,” Thou” wert. “the anointed cherub that covereth” In the temple the cherubim and all holy things were consecrated and anointed with oil (Exo_30:26 ff). The prince of Tyre was also anointed as a sovereign priest - covering or protecting the minor states, like the cherubim with outstretched wings covering the mercy-Seat.
Thou wast upon the holy mountain - As the cherub was in the temple on the holy mountain, so the prince of Tyre was presiding over the island-city, rising like a mountain from the deep.
Stones of fire - i. e., bright and shining. Decked with bright jewels, the prince walked among jewels in gorgeous splendor.

The “perfection” was false, unsuspected until the “iniquity” which lay beneath was found out.


Isa 14:12  
O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל  heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל  heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל  yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל  halal.

Eze 28:13  
Thou hast been in Eden - This also is a strong irony. Thou art like Adam, when in his innocence and excellence he was in the garden of Eden!
Every precious stone was thy covering - For a description of these stones see the note on Exo_28:17.

Eze 28:14  
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth - The irony is continued; and here he is likened to the Cherub that guarded the gates of Paradise, and kept the way of the tree of life; or to one of the cherubs whose wings, spread out, covered the mercy-seat. Thou mast upon the holy mountain of God - The irony is still continued; and now he is compared to Hoses, and afterwards to one of the chief angels, who has walked up and down among the stones of fire; that is, thy floors have been paved with precious stones, that shone and sparkled like fire.

Lucan, describing the splendor of the apartments of Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, speaks in nearly a similar language: - 

Nec summis crustata domus, sectisque nitebat
Marmoribus, stabatque sibi non segnis achates,
Purpureusque lapis, totusque effusus in aula
Calcabatur onyx;
Pharsal. lib. x.
Rich as some fane by slavish zealots reared,
For the proud banquet stood the hall prepared:
Thick golden plates the latent beams infold,
And the high roof was fretted o’er with gold.
Of solid marble all the walls were made,
And onyx e’en the meaner floor inlaid;
While porphyry and agate round the court
In massy columns rose, a proud support.
Of solid ebony each post was wrought,
From swarthy Meroe profusely brought.
With ivory was the entrance crusted o’er,
And polished tortoise hid each shining door;
While on the cloudy spots enchased was seen
The trusty emerald’s never-fading green.
Within the royal beds and couches shone,
Beamy and bright with many a costly stone,
The glowing purple rich.


Isa 14:12  
Isa_14:12-15. The Jews address the him again as a fallen once-bright star.
The language is so framed as to apply to the Babylonian king primarily, and at the same time to shadow forth through him, the great final enemy, the man of sin, Antichrist, of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John; he alone shall fulfil exhaustively all the lineaments here given.
Lucifer — “day star.” A title truly belonging to Christ (Rev_22:16), “the bright and morning star,” and therefore hereafter to be assumed by Antichrist. Gesenius, however, renders the Hebrew here as in Eze_21:12; Zec_11:2, “howl.”
weaken — “prostrate”; as in Exo_17:13, “discomfit.

Eze 28:13  
in Eden — The king of Tyre is represented in his former high state (contrasted with his subsequent downfall), under images drawn from the primeval man in Eden, the type of humanity in its most Godlike form.
garden of God — the model of ideal loveliness (Eze_31:8, Eze_31:9; Eze_36:35). In the person of the king of Tyre a new trial was made of humanity with the greatest earthly advantages. But as in the case of Adam, the good gifts of God were only turned into ministers to pride and self.
every precious stone — so in Eden (Gen_2:12), “gold, bdellium, and the onyx stone.” So the king of Tyre was arrayed in jewel-bespangled robes after the fashion of Oriental monarchs. The nine precious stones here mentioned answer to nine of the twelve (representing the twelve tribes) in the high priest’s breastplate (Exo_39:10-13; Rev_21:14, Rev_21:19-21). Of the four rows of three in each, the third is omitted in the Hebrew, but is supplied in the Septuagint. In this, too, there is an ulterior reference to Antichrist, who is blasphemously to arrogate the office of our divine High Priest (Zec_6:13).
tabrets — tambourines.
pipes — literally, “holes” in musical pipes or flutes.
created — that is, in the day of thine accession to the throne. Tambourines and all the marks of joy were ready prepared for thee (“in thee,” that is, “with and for thee”). Thou hadst not, like others, to work thy way to the throne through arduous struggles. No sooner created than, like Adam, thou wast surrounded with the gratifications of Eden. Fairbairn, for “pipes,” translates, “females” (having reference to Gen_1:27), that is, musician-women. Maurer explains the Hebrew not as to music, but as to the setting and mounting of the gems previously mentioned.


Isa 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven,.... This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see Luk_10:18 but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, Rev_12:7 and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him: 

O Lucifer, son of the morning! alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, Job_38:7 and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is, 

"how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.'' 

Jarchi, as the Talmud (c), applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: 

how art thou cut down to the ground; like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see Isa_10:18 and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, Rev_18:21, 

which didst weaken the nations! by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, Rev_17:12. Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna (d), and explained in the Talmud (e); and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see Eze_21:19. The Targum is, 

"thou art cast down to the earth, who killedst the people:'' 

a fit description of antichrist, Rev_11:7. 

(c) T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 89. 1. Gloss. in Pesachim, fol. 94. 1. & Chagiga, fol. 13. 1. (d) Misn. Sabbat, c. 23. 2. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (e) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 149. 2.

Eze 28:13  
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God,.... Not only in Eden, but in the garden which was in Eden, and was of the Lord's immediate planting; and therefore called the garden of God, as well as because of its excellency, fragrancy, and delight; not that the king of Tyre was literally there, or ever dwelt in it; but his situation in Tyre was as safe, and as pleasant and delightful, as Adam's was in the garden of Eden, at least in his own imagination. So the Targum, 

"thou delightest thyself with plenty of all good things and delectable ones, as if thou dwellest in the garden of God;'' 

in the mystical sense, this designs the church of God, which is an Eden, a garden, a paradise; see Son_4:12 and where antichrist first appeared, and took his seat, and seated himself as if he was God, 2Th_2:4, 

every precious stone was thy covering; not only the covering of his head, his crown, was decked with jewels and precious stones of all sorts; but his clothes, the covering of his body, were adorned with them. So the Targum, 

"all precious stones were set in order upon thy garments.'' 

Kimchi renders it "thine hedge", or "fence" (o); and takes it to be an hyperbole, as if his house, or garden, or vineyard, were fenced with precious stones. This fitly describes the whore of Rome arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones, Rev_17:4. The pope's triple crown is stuck with them, and a cross of precious stones is upon his slipper, when he holds out his toe to be kissed: 

the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold. Writers differ very much about these stones; and it is difficult to say what answer to the Hebrew words here used. The stone "sardius", or the sardine stone, is of a blood colour, commonly called a cornelian, and is found in Sardis and Sardinia, from whence some say it has its name. The "topaz" is a hard transparent stone, said to be of a beautiful yellow or gold colour by those who confound it with the chrysolite; otherwise the true topaz is of a fine green colour, as Pliny (p) and Isidore (q); the best is what is found in Ethopia, Job_28:19. The "diamond" is a precious stone, the first in rank, value, hardness and lustre; the most perfect colour is the white. The "beryl" is a stone of a pale green colour, thought to be the diamond of the ancients: the word is "tarshish", and thought by some the "chrysolite". The "onyx" resembles a man's nail, from whence it has its name: the word "shoham" here used is supposed to mean the "sardonyx", a compound of the "sardian" and "onyx" stones. The "jasper" is a stone of various colours and spots, variegated like a panther; hence the Targum here renders it "pantherin"; the most valuable is the green spotted with red or purple. The "sapphire" is a stone of an azure colour or sky blue, exceeding hard and transparent. The "emerald" is of an exceeding fine green colour, very bright, and clear, and delightful to the eye; but is rather intended by the next word, as the "carbuncle" by this, which is a stone of the ruby kind, and very rare; see Isa_54:12. "Gold" is mentioned along with them, and last of all, as being less valuable; but chiefly because these stones were set in gold, as the Targum paraphrases it; these are nine of the stones which were in the breastplate of the Jewish high priest (r), whom the king of Tyre might have knowledge of and imitate, as it is certain the pope of Rome does in some things: 

the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created; either born into the world; or made a crowned king; against which time, drums, and pipes, and such like instruments of music, were prepared in Tyre, and at them made use of by way of rejoicing: and as this was literally true of the king of Tyre at his coronation, so of the bishop of Rome at his creation and inauguration, which is attended with bells ringing, drums beating, trumpets sounding; and so in mystical Babylon is heard, though the time is coming when it will not be heard, the voice of harpers, musicians, pipers, and trumpeters, Rev_18:22. 

(o) So R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 14. 2. (p) Nat. Hist. l. 38. c. 8. (q) Origin. l. 16. c. 7. (r) Vid. Braunium de Vestitu Sacerdot. Heb. l. 2. c. 12-19.


Isa 14:12  
“How art thou fallen from the sky, thou star of light, sun of the dawn, hurled down to the earth, thou that didst throw down nations from above?” הֵילֵל is here the morning star (from hâlal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מֵאֵן, Jer_13:10, סֵעֵף, Psa_119:113, or rather attaching itself as a third class to the forms הֵיכָל, עֵירֹם: compare the Arabic sairaf, exchanger; saikal, sword-cleaner). It derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth.

(Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isa_17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon, which might be called ben- shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.)
Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character. The additional epithet chōlēsh ‛al-gōyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum:

(Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the “conqueror of the king's enemies,” “breaker of opposition,” etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i. 160).)

cholesh signifies “overthrowing” or laying down (Exo_17:13), and with ‛al, “bringing defeat upon;” whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh (= purah, lot) of the Mishnah. A retrospective glance is now cast at the self-deification of the king of Babylon, in which he was the antitype of the devil and the type of antichrist (Dan_11:36; 2Th_2:4), and which had met with its reward.


The lamentation over the fall of the king of Tyre commences with a picture of the super-terrestrial glory of his position, so as to correspond to his self-deification as depicted in the foregoing word of God. In Eze_28:12 he is addressed as חֹתֵם תָּכְנִית. This does not mean, “artistically wrought signet-ring;” for חֹתֵם does not stand for חֹתָם , but is a participle of חָתַם , to seal. There is all the more reason for adhering firmly to this meaning, that the following predicate, מָלֵא חָכְמָה, is altogether inapplicable to a signet-ring, though Hitzig once more scents a corruption of the text in consequence. תָּכְנִית, from תָּכַן, to weigh, or measure off, does not mean perfection (Ewald), beauty (Ges.), façon (Hitzig), or symmetry (Hävernick); but just as in Eze_43:10, the only other passage in which it occurs, it denotes the measured and well-arranged building of the temple, so here it signifies a well-measured and artistically arranged building, namely, the Tyrian state in its artistic combination of well-measured institutions (Kliefoth). This building is sealed by the prince, inasmuch as he imparts to the state firmness, stability, and long duration, when he possesses the qualities requisite for a ruler. These are mentioned afterwards, namely, “full of wisdom, perfect in beauty.” If the prince answers to his position, the wisdom and beauty manifest in the institutions of the state are simply the impress received from the wisdom and beauty of his own mind. The prince of Tyre possessed such a mind, and therefore regarded himself as a God (Eze_28:2). His place of abode, which is described in Eze_28:13 and Eze_28:14, corresponded to his position. Ezekiel here compares the situation of the prince of Tyre with that of the first man in Paradise; and then, in Eze_28:15 and Eze_28:16, draws a comparison between his fall and the fall of Adam. As the first man was placed in the garden of God, in Eden, so also was the prince of Tyre placed in the midst of paradisaical glory. עֵדֶן is shown, by the apposition גַּן אֱלֹהִים, to be used as the proper name of Paradise; and this view is not to be upset by the captious objection of Hitzig, that Eden was not the Garden of God, but that this was situated in Eden (Gen_2:8). The fact that Ezekiel calls Paradise גַּן־עֵדֶן in Eze_36:35, proves nothing more than that the terms Eden and Garden of God do not cover precisely the same ground, inasmuch as the garden of God only occupied one portion of Eden. But notwithstanding this difference, Ezekiel could use the two expressions as synonymous, just as well as Isaiah (Isa_51:3). And even if any one should persist in pressing the difference, it would not follow that בְּעֵדֶן was corrupt in this passage, as Hitzig fancies, but simply that גן  defined the idea of עֵדֶן more precisely - in other words, restricted it to the garden of Paradise.

There is, however, another point to be observed in connection with this expression, namely, that the epithet גן אלהים is used here and in Eze_31:8-9; whereas, in other places, Paradise is called גן יהוה (vid., Isa_51:3; Gen_13:10). Ezekiel has chosen Elohim instead of Jehovah, because Paradise is brought into comparison, not on account of the historical significance which it bears to the human race in relation to the plan of salvation, but simply as the most glorious land in all the earthly creation. the prince of Tyre, placed in the pleasant land, was also adorned with the greatest earthly glory. Costly jewels were his coverings, that is to say, they formed the ornaments of his attire. This feature in the pictorial description is taken from the splendour with which Oriental rulers are accustomed to appear, namely, in robes covered with precious stones, pearls, and gold. מְסֻכָּה, as a noun ἁπ. λεγ.., signifies a covering. In the enumeration of the precious stones, there is no reference to the breastplate of the high priest. For, in the first place, the order of the stones is a different one here; secondly, there are only nine stones named instead of twelve; and lastly, there would be no intelligible sense in such a reference, so far as we can perceive. Both precious stones and gold are included in the glories of Eden (vid., Gen_2:11-12). For the names of the several stones, see the commentary on Exo_28:17-20. The words 'מְלֶאכֶת תֻּפֶּיךָ åגו' s - which even the early translators have entirely misunderstood, and which the commentators down to Hitzig and Ewald have made marvellous attempts to explain - present no peculiar difficulty, apart from the plural נקביךָ, which is only met with here. As the meaning timbrels, tambourins (aduffa), is well established for תֻּפִּים, and in 1Sa_10:5 and Isa_5:12 flutes are mentioned along with the timbrels, it has been supposed by some that נְקָבִים must signify flutes here. But there is nothing to support such a rendering either in the Hebrew or in the other Semitic dialects. On the other hand, the meaning pala gemmarum (Vulgate), or ring-casket, has been quite arbitrarily forced upon the word by Jerome, Rosenmüller, Gesenius, and many others. We agree with Hävernick in regarding נְקָבִים as a plural of נְקֵבָה (foeminae), formed, like a masculine, after the analogy of נָשִׁים, פִּלַּגְשִׁים, etc., and account for the choice of this expression from the allusion to the history of the creation (Gen_1:27). The service (מְלֶאכֶת, performance, as in Gen_39:11, etc.) of the women is the leading of the circular dances by the odalisks who beat the timbrels: “the harem-pomp of Oriental kings.” This was made ready for the king on the day of his creation, i.e., not his birthday, but the day on which he became king, or commenced his reign, when the harem of his predecessor came into his possession with all its accompaniments. Ezekiel calls this the day of his creation, with special reference to the fact that it was God who appointed him king, and with an allusion to the parallel, underlying the whole description, between the position of the prince of Tyre and that of Adam in Paradise.

(Note: In explanation of the fact alluded to, Hävernick has very appropriately called attention to a passage of Athen. (xii. 8, p. 531), in which the following statement occurs with reference to Strato, the Sidonian king: “Strato, with flute-girls, and female harpers and players on the cithara, made preparations for the festivities, and sent for a large number of hetaerae from the Peloponnesus, and many signing-girls from Ionia, and young hetaerae from the whole of Greece, both singers and dancers.” See also other passages in Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. pp. 142-3.)

The next verse (Eze_28:14) is a more difficult one. אַתְּ is an abbreviation of אַתָּ, אַתָּה, as in Num_11:15; Deu_5:24 (see Ewald, §184a). The hap. leg. מִמְשַׁח has been explained in very different ways, but mostly according to the Vulgate rendering, tu Cherub extentus et protegens, as signifying spreading out or extension, in the sense of “with outspread wings” (Gesenius and many others.). But מָשַׁח does not mean either to spread out or to extend. The general meaning of the word is simply to anoint; and judging from מִשְׁחָח and מָשְׁחָה, portio, Lev_7:35 and Num_18:8, also to measure off, from which the idea of extension cannot possibly be derived. Consequently the meaning “anointing” is the only one that can be established with certainty in the case of the word מִמְשַׁח. So far as the form is concerned, מִמְשַׁח might be in the construct state; but the connection with הַסֹּוכֵךְ, anointing, or anointed one, of the covering one, does not yield any admissible sense.

A comparison with Eze_28:16, where כְּרוּב הַסֹּוכֵךְ occurs again, will show that the מִמְשַׁח, which stands between these two words in the verse before us, must contain a more precise definition of כְּרוּב, and therefore is to be connected with כְּרוּב in the construct state: cherub of anointing, i.e., anointed cherub. This is the rendering adopted by Kliefoth, the only commentator who has given the true explanation of the verse. מִמְשַׁח is the older form, which has only been retained in a few words, such as מִרְמַס in Isa_10:6, together with the tone-lengthened a (vid., Ewald, §160a). The prince of Tyre is called an anointed cherub, as Ephraem Syrus has observed, because he was a king even though he had not been anointed. הַסֹּוכֵךְ is not an abstract noun, either here or in Nah_2:6, but a participle; and this predicate points back to Exo_25:20, “the cherubim covered (סֹוכְכִים) the capporeth with their wings,” and is to be explained accordingly. Consequently the king of Tyre is called a cherub, because, as an anointed king, he covered or overshadowed a sanctuary, like the cherubim upon the ark of the covenant. What this sanctuary was is evident from the remarks already made at Eze_28:2 concerning the divine seat of the king. If the “seat of God,” upon which the king of Tyre sat, is to be understood as signifying the state of Tyre, then the sanctuary which he covered or overshadowed as a cherub will also be the Tyrian state, with its holy places and sacred things. In the next clause, וּנְתַתִּיּךָ is to be taken by itself according to the accents, “and I have made thee (so),” and not to be connected with בְּהַר קֹדֶשׁ. We are precluded from adopting the combination which some propose - viz. “I set thee upon a holy mountain; thou wast a God” - by the incongruity of first of all describing the prince of Tyre as a cherub, and then immediately afterwards as a God, inasmuch as, according to the Biblical view, the cherub, as an angelic being, is simply a creature and not a God; and the fanciful delusion of the prince of Tyre, that he was an El (Eze_28:2), could not furnish the least ground for his being addressed as Elohim by Ezekiel. And still more are we precluded from taking the words in this manner by the declaration contained in Eze_28:16, that Jehovah will cast him out “from the mountain of Elohim,” from which we may see that in the present verse also Elohim belongs to har, and that in Eze_28:16, where the mountain of God is mentioned again, the predicate קֹדֶשׁ is simply omitted for the sake of brevity, just as מִמְשַׁח is afterwards omitted on the repetition of כְּרוּב הַסֹּוכֵךְ. The missing but actual object to נְתַתִּיךָ can easily be supplied from the preceding clause, - namely, this, i.e., an overshadowing cherub, had God made him, by placing him as king in paradisaical glory. The words, “thou wast upon a holy mountain of God,” are not to be interpreted in the sense suggested by Isa_14:13, namely, that Ezekiel was thinking of the mountain of the gods (Alborj) met with in Asiatic mythology, because it was there that the cherub had its home, as Hitzig and others suppose; for the Biblical idea of the cherub is entirely different from the heathen notion of the griffin keeping guard over gold. It is true that God placed the cherub as guardian of Paradise, but Paradise was not a mountain of God, nor even a mountainous land. The idea of a holy mountain of God, as being the seat of the king of Tyre, was founded partly upon the natural situation of Tyre itself, built as it was upon one or two rocky islands of the Mediterranean, and partly upon the heathen notion of the sacredness of this island as the seat of the Deity, to which the Tyrians attributed the grandeur of their state. To this we may probably add a reference to Mount Zion, upon which was the sanctuary, where the cherub covered the seat of the presence of God. For although the comparison of the prince of Tyre to a cherub was primarily suggested by the description of his abode as Paradise, the epithet הַסֹּוכֵךְ shows that the place of the cherub in the sanctuary was also present to the prophet's mind. At the same time, we must not understand by הַר Mount Zion itself. The last clause, “thou didst walk in the midst of (among) fiery stones,” is very difficult to explain. It is admitted by nearly all the more recent commentators, that “stones of fire” cannot be taken as equivalent to “every precious stone” (Eze_28:13), both because the precious stones could hardly be called stones of fire on account of their brilliant splendour, and also being covered with precious stones is not walking in the midst of them. Nor can we explain the words, as Hävernick has done, from the account given by Herodotus (II 44) of the two emerald pillars in the temple of Hercules at Tyre, which shone resplendently by night; for pillars shining by night are not stones of fire, and the king of Tyre did not walk in the temple between these pillars. The explanation given by Hofmann and Kliefoth appears to be the correct one, namely, that the stones of fire are to be regarded as a wall of fire (Zec_2:9), which rendered the cherubic king of Tyre unapproachable upon his holy mountain.

In Eze_28:15, the comparison of the prince of Tyre to Adam in Paradise is brought out still more prominently. As Adam was created sinless, so was the prince of Tyre innocent in his conduct in the day of his creation, but only until perverseness was found in him. As Adam forfeited and lost the happiness conferred upon him through his fall, so did the king of Tyre forfeit his glorious position through unrighteousness and sin, and cause God to cast him from his eminence down to the ground. He fell into perverseness in consequence of the abundance of his trade (Eze_28:16). Because his trade lifted him up to wealth and power, his heart was filled with iniquity. מָלוּ for מָלְאוּ, like מְלֹו for מְלֹוא in Eze_41:8, and נָשׂוּ for נָשׂאוּ in Eze_39:26. תֹּוכְךָ is not the subject, but the object to מָלוּ; and the plural מָלוּ, with an indefinite subject, “they filled,” is chosen in the place of the passive construction, because in the Hebrew, as in the Aramaean, active combinations are preferred to passive whenever it is possible to adopt them (vid., Ewald, §294b and 128b). מָלֵא is used by Ezekiel in the transitive sense “to fill” (Eze_8:17 and Eze_30:11). תָּוֶךְ, the midst, is used for the interior in a physical sense, and not in a spiritual one; and the expression is chosen with an evident allusion to the history of the fall. As Adam sinned by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree, so did the king of Tyre sin by filling himself with wickedness in connection with trade (Hävernick and Kliefoth). God would therefore put him away from the mountain of God, and destroy him. חִלֵּל with מִן is a pregnant expression: to desecrate away from, i.e., to divest of his glory and thrust away from. וָאַבֶּדְךָ is a contracted form for וָאֲאַבֶּדְךְ (vid., Ewald, §232h and §72c). - Eze_28:17 and Eze_28:18 contain a comprehensive description of the guilt of the prince of Tyre, and the approaching judgment is still further depicted. עַל  cannot mean, “on account of thy splendour,” for this yields no appropriate thought, inasmuch as it was not the splendour itself which occasioned his overthrow, but the pride which corrupted the wisdom requisite to exalt the might of Tyre, - in other words, tempted the prince to commit iniquity in order to preserve and increase his glory. We therefore follow the lxx, Syr., Ros., and others, in taking על in the sense of una cum, together with. רַאֲוָה is an infinitive form, like אַהֲבָה for רְאֹות, though Ewald (§238e) regards it as so extraordinary that he proposes to alter the text. רָאָה with ב is used for looking upon a person with malicious pleasure. בְּעֶוֶל רָכֻלָּתְךָ shows in what the guilt (עָֹון) consisted (עֶוֶל is the construct state of עָוֶל). The sanctuaries (miqdâshim) which the king of Tyre desecrated by the unrighteousness of his commerce, are not the city or the state of Tyre, but the temples which made Tyre a holy island. These the king desecrated by bringing about their destruction through his own sin. Several of the codices and editions read מִקְדָּשֶׁךָ in the singular, and this is the reading adopted by the Chaldee, Syriac, and Vulgate versions. If this were the true reading, the sanctuary referred to would be the holy mountain of God (Eze_28:14 and Eze_28:16). But the reading itself apparently owes its origin simply to this interpretation of the words. In the clause, “I cause fire to issue from the midst of thee,” מִתֹּוכְךָ is to be understood in the same sense as תֹּוכְךָ in Eze_28:16. The iniquity which the king has taken into himself becomes a fire issuing from him, by which he is consumed and burned to ashes. All who know him among the peoples will be astonished at his terrible fall (Eze_28:19, compare Eze_27:36).

If we proceed, in conclusion, to inquire into the fulfilment of these prophecies concerning Tyre and its king, we find the opinions of modern commentators divided. Some, for example Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Drechsler (on Isa 23), and others, assuming that, after a thirteen years' siege, Nebuchadnezzar conquered the strong Island Tyre, and destroyed it; while others - viz. Gesenius, Winer, Hitzig, etc. - deny the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar, or at any rate call it in question; and many of the earlier commentators suppose the prophecy to refer to Old Tyre, which stood upon the mainland. For the history of this dispute, see Hengstenberg, De rebus Tyriorum comment. (Berol. 1832); Hävernick, On Ezekiel, pp. 420ff.; and Movers, Phoenizier, II 1, pp. 427ff. - The denial of the conquest of Insular Tyre by the king of Babylon rests partly on the silence which ancient historians, who mention the siege itself, have maintained as to its result; and partly on the statement contained in Eze_29:17-20. - All that Josephus (Antt. x. 11. 1) is able to quote from the ancient historians on this point is the following: - In the first place, he states, on the authority of the third book of the Chaldean history of Berosus, that when the father of Nebuchadnezzar, on account of his own age and consequent infirmity, had transferred to his son the conduct of the war against the rebellious satrap in Egypt, Coelesyria, and Phoenicia, Nebuchadnezzar defeated him, and brought the whole country once more under his sway. But as the tidings reached him of the death of his father just at the same time, after arranging affairs in Egypt, and giving orders to some of his friends to lead into Babylon the captives taken from among the Judaeans, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians, together with the heavy armed portion of the army, he himself hastened through the desert to Babylon, with a small number of attendants, to assume that government of the empire. Secondly, he states, on the authority of the Indian and Phoenician histories of Philostratus, that when Ithobal was on the throne, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years. The accounts taken from Berosus are repeated by Josephus in his c. Apion (i. §19), where he also adds (§20), in confirmation of their credibility, that there were writings found in the archives of the Phoenicians which tallied with the statement made by Berosus concerning the king of Chaldea (Nebuchadnezzar), viz., “that he conquered all Syria and Phoenicia;” and that Philostratus also agrees with this, since he mentions the siege of Tyre in his histories (μεμνημένος τῆς Τύρου πολιορκίας). In addition to this, for synchronistic purposes, Josephus (c. Ap. i. 21) also communicates a fragment from the Phoenician history, containing not only the account of the thirteen years' siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar in the reign of Ithobal, but also a list of the kings of Tyre who followed Ithobal, down to the time of Cyrus of Persia.

(Note: The passage reads as follows: “In the reign of Ithobal the king, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years. After him judges were appointed. Ecnibalus, the son of Baslachus, judged for two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdaeus, for ten months; Abbarus, the high priest, for three months; Myttonus and Gerastartus, the sons of Abdelemus, for six years; after whom Balatorus reigned for one year. When he died, they sent for and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, and he reigned four years. At his death they sent for his brother Eiramus, who reigned twenty years. During his reign, Cyrus ruled over the Persians.”)

The siege of Tyre is therefore mentioned three times by Josephus, on the authority of Phoenician histories; but he never says anything of the conquest and destruction of that city by Nebuchadnezzar. From this circumstance the conclusion has been drawn, that this was all he found there. For if, it is said, the siege had terminated with the conquest of the city, this glorious result of the thirteen years' exertions could hardly have been passed over in silence, inasmuch as in Antt. x. 11. 1 the testimony of foreign historians is quoted to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar was “an active man, and more fortunate than the kings that were before him.” But the argument is more plausible than conclusive. If we bear in mind that Berosus simply relates the account of a subjugation and devastation of the whole of Phoenicia, without even mentioning the siege of Tyre, and that it is only in Phoenician writings therefore that the latter is referred to, we cannot by any means conclude, from their silence as to the result or termination of the siege, that it ended gloriously for the Tyrians and with humiliation to Nebuchadnezzar, or that he was obliged to relinquish the attempt without success after the strenuous exertions of thirteen years. On the contrary, considering how all the historians of antiquity show the same anxiety, if not to pass over in silence, such events as were unfavourable to their country, at all events to put them in as favourable to their country, at all events to put them in as favourable a light as possible, the fact that the Tyrian historians observe the deepest silence as to the result of the thirteen years' siege of Tyre would rather force us to the conclusion that it was very humiliating to Tyre. And this could only be the case if Nebuchadnezzar really conquered Tyre at the end of thirteen years. If he had been obliged to relinquish the siege because he found himself unable to conquer so strong a city, the Tyrian historians would most assuredly have related this termination of the thirteen years' strenuous exertions of the great and mighty king of Babylon.

The silence of the Tyrian historians concerning the conquest of Tyre is no proof, therefore, that it did not really take place. But Eze_29:17-20 has also been quoted as containing positive evidence of the failure of the thirteen years' siege; in other words, of the fact that the city was not taken. We read in this passage, that Nebuchadnezzar caused his army to perform hard service against Tyre, and that neither he nor his army received any recompense for it. Jehovah would therefore give him Egypt to spoil and plunder as wages for this work of theirs in the service of Jehovah. Gesenius and Hitzig (on Isa 23) infer from this, that Nebuchadnezzar obtained no recompense for the severe labour of the siege, because he did not succeed in entering the city. But Movers (l.c. p. 448) has already urged in reply to this, that “the passage before us does not imply that the city was not conquered any more than it does the opposite, but simply lays stress upon the fact that it was not plundered. For nothing can be clearer in this connection than that what we are to understand by the wages, which Nebuchadnezzar did not receive, notwithstanding the exertions connected with his many years' siege, is simply the treasures of Tyre;” though Movers is of opinion that the passage contains an intimation that the siege was brought to an end with a certain compromise which satisfied the Tyrians, and infers, from the fact of stress being laid exclusively upon the neglected plundering, that the termination was of such a kind that plundering might easily have taken place, and therefore that Tyre was either actually conquered, but treated mildly from wise considerations, or else submitted to the Chaldeans upon certain terms. But neither of these alternatives can make the least pretension to probability. In Eze_29:20 it is expressly stated that “as wages, for which he (Nebuchadnezzar) has worked, I give him the land of Egypt, because they (Nebuchadnezzar and his army) have done it for me;” in other words, have done the work for me. When, therefore, Jehovah promises to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a reward or wages for the hard work which has been done for Him at Tyre, the words presuppose that Nebuchadnezzar had really accomplished against Tyre the task entrusted to him by God. But God had committed to him not merely the siege, but also the conquest and destruction of Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar must therefore have executed the commission, though without receiving the expected reward for the labour which he had bestowed; and on that account God would compensate him for his trouble with the treasures of Egypt. This precludes not only the supposition that the siege was terminated, or the city surrendered, on the condition that it should not be plundered, but also the idea that for wise reasons Nebuchadnezzar treated the city leniently after he had taken possession. In either case Nebuchadnezzar would not have executed the will of Jehovah upon Tyre in such a manner as to be able to put in any claim for compensation for the hard work performed. The only thing that could warrant such a claim would be the circumstance, that after conquering Tyre he found no treasures to plunder. And this is the explanation which Jerome has given of the passage ad litteram. “Nebuchadnezzar,” he says, “being unable, when besieging Tyre, to bring up his battering-rams, besieging towers, and vineae close to the walls, on account of the city being surrounded by the sea, employed a very large number of men from his army in collecting rocks and piling up mounds of earth, so as to fill up the intervening sea, and make a continuous road to the island at the narrowest part of the strait. And when the Tyrians saw that the task was actually accomplished, and the foundations of the walls were being disturbed by the shocks from the battering-rams, they placed in ships whatever articles of value the nobility possessed in gold, silver, clothing, and household furniture, and transported them to the islands; so that when the city was taken, Nebuchadnezzar found nothing to compensate him for all his labour. And because he had done the will of God in all this, some years after the conquest of Tyre, Egypt was given to him by God.”  (Note: Cyrill. Alex. gives the same explanation in his commentary on Isa 23.)

It is true that we have no historical testimony from any other quarter to support this interpretation. But we could not expect it in any of the writings which have come down to us, inasmuch as the Phoenician accounts extracted by Josephus simply contain the fact of the thirteen years' siege, and nothing at all concerning its progress and result. At the same time, there is the greatest probability that this was the case. If Nebuchadnezzar really besieged the city, which was situated upon an island inf the sea, he could not have contented himself with cutting off the supply of drinking water from the city simply on the land side, as Shalmanezer, the king of Assyria, is said to have done (vid., Josephus, Antt. ix. 14. 2), but must have taken steps to fill up the strait between the city and the mainland with a mound, that he might construct a road for besieging and assaulting the walls, as Alexander of Macedonia afterwards did. And the words of Eze_29:18, according to which every head was bald, and the skin rubbed off every shoulder with the severity of the toil, point indisputably to the undertaking of some such works as these. And if the Chaldeans really carried out their operations upon the city in this way, as the siege-works advanced, the Tyrians would not neglect any precaution to defend themselves as far as possible, in the event of the capture of the city. They would certainly send the possessions and treasures of the city by ship into the colonies, and thereby place them in security; just as, according to Curtius, iv. 3, they sent off their families to Carthage, when the city was besieged by Alexander.
This view of the termination of the Chaldean siege of Tyre receives a confirmation of no little weight from the fragment of Menander already given, relating to the succession of rulers in Tyre after the thirteen years' siege by Nebuchadnezzar. It is there stated that after Ithobal, Baal reigned for ten years, that judges (suffetes) were then appointed, nearly all of whom held office for a few months only; that among the last judges there was also a king Balatorus, who reigned for a year; that after this, however, the Tyrians sent to Babylon, and brought thence Merbal, and on his death Hiram, as kings, whose genuine Tyrian names undoubtedly show that they were descendants of the old native royal family. This circumstance proves not only that Tyre became a Chaldean dependency in consequence of the thirteen years' siege by Nebuchadnezzar, but also that the Chaldeans had led away the royal family to Babylonia, which would hardly have been the case if Tyre had submitted to the Chaldeans by a treaty of peace.

If, however, after what has been said, no well-founded doubt can remain as to the conquest of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, our prophecy was not so completely fulfilled thereby, that Tyre became a bare rock on which fishermen spread their nets, as is threatened in Eze_26:4-5, Eze_26:14. Even if Nebuchadnezzar destroyed its walls, and laid the city itself in ruins to a considerable extent, he did not totally destroy it, so that it was not restored. On the contrary, two hundred and fifty years afterwards, we find Tyre once more a splendid and powerful royal city, so strongly fortified, that Alexander the Great was not able to take it till after a siege of seven months, carried on with extraordinary exertions on the part of both the fleet and army, the latter attacking from the mainland by means of a mound of earth, which had been thrown up with considerable difficulty (Diod. Sic. xvii. 40ff.; Arrian, Alex. ii. 17ff.; Curtius, iv. 2-4). Even after this catastrophe it rose once more into a distinguished commercial city under the rule of the Seleucidae and afterwards of the Romans, who made it the capital of Phoenicia. It is mentioned as such a city in the New Testament (Mat_15:21; Act_21:3, Act_21:7); and Strabo (xvi. 2. 23) describes it as a busy city with two harbours and very lofty houses. But Tyre never recovered its ancient grandeur. In the first centuries of the Christian era, it is frequently mentioned as an archbishop's see. From a.d. 636 to a.d. 1125 it was under the rule of the Saracens, and was so strongly fortified, that it was not till after a siege of several months' duration that they succeeded in taking it. Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Tyre in the year 1060, describes it as a city of distinguished beauty, with a strongly fortified harbour, and surrounded by walls, and with the best glass and earthenware in the East. “Saladin, the conqueror of Palestine, broke his head against Tyre in the year 1189. But after Acre had been taken by storm in the year 1291 by the Sultan El-Ashraf, on the day following this conquest the city passed without resistance into the hands of the same Egyptian king; the inhabitants having forsaken Tyre by night, and fled by sea, that they might not fall into the power of such bloodthirsty soldiers” (Van de Velde). When it came into the hands of the Saracens once more, its fortifications were demolished; and from that time forward Tyre has never risen from its ruins again. Moreover, it had long ceased to be an insular city. The mound which Alexander piled up, grew into a broader and firmer tongue of land in consequence of the sand washed up by the sea, so that the island was joined to the mainland, and turned into a peninsula. The present Sûr is situated upon it, a market town of three or four thousand inhabitants, which does not deserve the name of a city or town. The houses are for the most part nothing but huts; and the streets are narrow, crooked, and dirty lanes. The ruins of the old Phoenician capital cover the surrounding country to the distance of more than half an hour's journey from the present town gate. The harbour is so thoroughly choked up with sand, and filled with the ruins of innumerable pillars and building stones, that only small boats can enter. The sea has swallowed up a considerable part of the greatness of Tyre; and quite as large a portion of its splendid temples and fortifications lie buried in the earth. To a depth of many feet the soil trodden at the present day is one solid mass of building stones, shafts of pillars, and rubbish composed of marble, porphyry, and granite. Fragments of pillars of the costly verde antiquo (green marble) also lie strewn about in large quantities. The crust, which forms the soil that is trodden today, is merely the surface of this general heap of ruins. Thus has Tyre actually become “a bare rock, and a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea;” and “the dwelling-places, which are now erected upon a portion of its former site, are not at variance with the terrible decree, 'thou shalt be built no more'“ (compare Robinson's Palestine, and Van de Velde's Travels). - Thus has the prophecy of Ezekiel been completely fulfilled, though not directly by Nebuchadnezzar; for the prophecy is not a bare prediction of historical details, but is pervaded by the idea of the judgment of God. To the prophet, Nebuchadnezzar is the instrument of the punitive righteousness of God, and Tyre the representative of the ungodly commerce of the world. Hence, as Hävernick has already observed, Nebuchadnezzar's action is more than an isolated deed in the prophet's esteem. “In his conquest of the city he sees the whole of the ruin concentrated, which history places before us as a closely connected chain. The breaking of the power of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar stands out before his view as inseparably connected with its utter destruction. This was required by the internal theocratic signification of the fact in its relation to the destruction of Jerusalem.” Jerusalem will rise again to new glory out of its destruction through the covenant faithfulness of God (Eze_28:25-26). But Tyre, the city of the world's commerce, which is rejoicing over the fall of Jerusalem, will pass away for ever (Eze_26:14; Eze_27:36).



In the modern occultism of Dolores North (alias Madeline Montalban),[30] Lucifer's identification as the Morning Star (Venus) equates him with Lumiel, whom she regarded as the Archangel of Light, and among Satanists he is seen as the "Torch of Baphomet" and Azazel.In the Satanic Bible of 1969, Lucifer is acknowledged as one of the Four Crown Princes of Hell, particularly that of the East. Lord of the Air, Lucifer has been named "Bringer of Light, the Morning Star, Intellectualism, Enlightenment."Author Michael W. Ford has written on Lucifer as a "mask" of the Adversary, a motivator and illuminating force of the mind and subconscious.[31]Luciferianism is a belief system that venerates the essential characteristics that are affixed to Lucifer. The tradition, influenced by Gnosticism, usually reveres Lucifer not as the Devil, but as a liberator or guiding spirit[32] (often associated with the Greek Prometheus[33]) or even the true god as opposed to Jehovah.[34] Michelle Belanger (2007). Vampires in Their Own Words: An Anthology of Vampire Voices. Llewellyn Worldwide. p. 175. ISBN 0738712205. - WIKIPEDIA 4/11/2012


INHABITANTS OF HELL (HELL, from the original Hebrew "Helel" (shining/burning one))


23. As for the fraternities, together with indulgences, letters of indulgence, dispensations for Lent, and masses, and all the rest of such things, let them all be drowned and abolished; there is no good in them at all. If the Pope has the authority to grant dispensation in the matter of eating butter and hearing masses, let him allow priests to do the same; he has no right to take the power from them. I speak also of the fraternities in which indulgences, masses, and good works are distributed. My friend, in baptism you joined a fraternity of which Christ, the angels, and saints, and all Christians are members; be true to this, and satisfy it, and you will have fraternities enough. Let others make what show they wish; they are as counters compared to coins. But if there were a fraternity that subscribed money to feed the poor or to help others in any way, this would be good, and it would have its indulgence and its deserts in heaven. But now they are good for nothing but gluttony and drunkenness. - MARTIN LUTHER, Twenty-Seven Articles Respecting The Reformation Of The Christian Estate, Martin Luther (1483-1546):  Address To The Nobility of the German Nation, 1520

THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think