Lucifer Was In Charge Of Music And Worship In Heaven?

[No Nicolaitans]

I've heard it preached and taught for years that before he fell and became Satan, Lucifer was in charge of the worship...and particularly in charge of the music in heaven.

 

Can anyone tell me what this is based on from scripture, or is this just something that has been put forth because it makes a good argument against secular music and CCM? All that I can find are these verses...

 

Ezekiel 28:13-14

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.

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.

 

...however, if that's what this teaching is based on, isn't it somewhat of a leap to say that he was in charge of the music (and worship) in heaven? 

 

Thanks for any input!

[Ukulelemike]

Really, the only things we can glean from scripture about Lucifer is his beauty, wisdom, and his obvious position very close to the throne of God. He walked in Eden, and yes, apparently he had some association with music. But to say that he was the leader of the worship and music in heaven is not mentioned. In fact, music and worship are two different things, so if he was head of one, it doesn't mean he was in charge of the other.

 

The combining of music and worship is a error of modernism in the CCM movement. While I don't really want to get into that too far, it is a fact that worship and music, which often closely associated, are really two different things. Worship is literally falling down before the Lord in humble contrition, while music is praise TO God, praise OF God or edification of the saints ABOUT God. But in scripture, worship is never once shown as being music, though they might sing praise, then fall down and worship. So really, the idea of worship music is a misnomer-no such thing in the Bible.

 

I hope I didn't take this the wrong direction.

[JerryNumbers]

What was thy tabrets & thy pipes?

 

Ezekiel 28:13 "...the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created..."

 

That does have to do with musical instruments, doesn't it?

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]

tabret

TAB'RET, n. See Tabor. A tabor. 1 Sam.18.

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]

tabor

TA'BOR, n. Eng. tap. A small drum used as an accompaniment to a pipe or fife.

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]

pipe

PIPE, n. Eng. fife.

1. A wind instrument of music, consisting of a long tube of wood or metal; as a rural pipe. The word, I believe, is not now the proper technical name of any particular instrument, but is applicable to any tubular wind instrument, and it occurs in bagpipe.

[Todd W. White]

Just so no one will accuse me of being a Baptist preacher who doesn't know anything about music, let me preface my comments by stating that I have a Bachelor's in Music Education, have been a minister of music, have been involved with music all of my life, and am still an active musician. Now to my reply:

 

Yes - "pipes" has to do with wind instruments, and "tabrets" refer to percussive instruments. That covers all types of musical instruments, even the electronic ones, because they mimic one or the other.

 

Lucifer was what we'd call the "top" angel in Heaven, to put it simply. He was created for a specific purpose: to present music. In our modern terms, he was the Director Of All Things Musical in Heaven.

 

Who better, then, to counterfeit God's standard for music than he?

 

As for worship and music - they "can" be used together, but most music people don't understand this, nor do most pastors. I learned a long time ago that most preacher's don't know anything about music, and most music men in our churches (or women, for that matter) don't know anything about the Bible.

 

True Worship of God, according to Philippians 3:3, is done through the indwelling Holy Spirit, and, I might mention, it does not say through music. It doesn't even say through the Word of God in this particular passage, but let me be quick to point out: the filling of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to worship God through the indwelling Spirit, and it is not possible to be filled without confession and repentance, and that can only come as we look into the Word of God and see ourselves as God sees us, whereupon we confess, ask for cleansing, yield ourselves to His Spirit and ask to be filled, then believe that we are because HIS WORD SAYS WE ARE. Therefore, true woship can, in no way, be separated from the Word of God.

 

Most music people miss this. They felt something at the point of salvation - all of us do, though it is different for each person - and seek to have that feeling again (a sign of tremendous immaturity), and, not realizing that music, improperly used, can duplicate the feeling of being Spirit-filled without the actual filling itself! Thus, they equate the feeling with the filling, and wrongly believe that they are filled based on how they FEEL, rather than on the WORD OF GOD!

 

This is a terrible mistake, because Satan can counterfeit every aspect of salvation - except salvation itself - INCLUDING HOW WE FEEL WHEN FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD!

 

And - if he can get us to accept the COUNTERFEIT, he will have very successfully inoculated us against THE REAL THING, and, friends, when THAT happens, he gets us to REJECT true, Bible-centered, Spirit-filled worship! Thus, when we go to a church that doesn't have a mirrored ball, a karaoke machine, a strobe light, and a "praise team" (I tell our people that the WHOLE CONGREGATION is supposed to be the "praise team"), he will REJECT Bible Christianity because he has been fooled into accepting the false, rather than the genuine!

 

This, of course, is part of Satan's overall plan - to prepare mankind for the one-world religion of the antichrist by getting them to place how one FEELS above the authority of the inspired, infallible, inerrant, Holy Word of God!

 

In this era of church history where the culture is changing the church instead of the church changing the culture, the really SAD thing, to me, is that this is being allowed, yea, often pushed, by PASTORS who either don't know or don't care that music is NOT a-moral, and, therefore, MUST be under the control of the Holy Spirit, rather than the flesh! In a desparate attempt to get more people in their buildings, they are making the church like the lost world, claiming that the lost will want what we SAY we have if we get down where they live and are LIKE THEM.

 

NONSENSE! The lost instinctively KNOW that there is something worng with them, and that they need to be CHANGED! Why do you think they tatoo themselves and have metal piercing their bodies or drink, take drugs, etc? - THEY HAVE A GOD-DESIGNED NEED TO BE CHANGED FROM WHAT THEY ARE INTO THE LIKENESS OF CHRIST! But - if we offer them nothing more than a sanitized version of the life the are ALREADY living, they will REJECT IT, by and large, because, after all, who wants to give up all the "fun stuff" if all you do to be a Christian is become a little more civilized? THE LOST NEED TO BE CHANGED, not just cleaned up on the outside when the REAL NEED is to be washed by the blood of the Lamb on the INSIDE!

 

Well, I've made enough enemies for one night.

 

Going home now.

[Anon]

I wouldn't call it "leader of music" but we do know that Lucifer was the top angel...nobody was higher than him other than God...and he decided he didn't like being second-best.

 

And since God created music inside of him, it goes to follow that if he was top angel, he was also top musician.

 

I don't think it matters whether or not he "led music" or "led worship".  He probably didn't lead worship very long, if you believe that angels were created during the six days of creation....many people believe Satan fell fairly soon after he was created.   But I do not know for sure of course.

 

All we need to know is that because Lucifer WAS basically music, nobody knows how to use music better than he does, in the world.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Angels would have to have been created at some point in the six day period.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Heaven, Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is... created in six days.

The angels were in Heaven with God, so it stands to reason that God created them at some point during the six day creation period.

 

[ASongOfDegrees]

Apparently, Lucifer was a musical being. He had musical instruments created in his body.Music must have emanated out of him as he moved and spoke.

[Ukulelemike]

Apparently, Lucifer was a musical being. He had musical instruments created in his body.Music must have emanated out of him as he moved and spoke.

I am all for literal interpretation of the Bible, but not sure this is meant to be quite that literal. I suspect more that it was that he was created with skill in these things. It was the workmanship of the pipes and tabrets, or the ability to work them. Or that's how I read it anyways.

 

However, from this one tiny reference, it would still be difficult to declare that Lucifer was Heaven's song leader, or whatever. Could be but it just seems like such a small reference to make such a sweeping declaration on.

[John81]

I am all for literal interpretation of the Bible, but not sure this is meant to be quite that literal. I suspect more that it was that he was created with skill in these things. It was the workmanship of the pipes and tabrets, or the ability to work them. Or that's how I read it anyways.

 

However, from this one tiny reference, it would still be difficult to declare that Lucifer was Heaven's song leader, or whatever. Could be but it just seems like such a small reference to make such a sweeping declaration on.

Ironic though how some preachers will almost fixate on points such as this (something only found in one verse of Scripture, or something they think is implied 'between the verses', and such). Some will camp there and fight and argue their view with great energy yet on some aspects of Scripture which are very clear they skim over them or refuse to take a stand on them for some reason.

 

Like some preachers will argue that Leviathan "had to" be a Brontosaurus or a hippo. That there "had to" be a gap in creation, or "had to" be an earth and life prior to the creation account. That one "must" handle poisonous snakes. And other assorted matters.

 

While maybe not as bad as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (huh? REALLY? How and why would such even be considered???) arguing these sort of things as if they are rock solid and key to believe; and worse when they are turned into a doctrine, is damaging to believers and non-believers alike.

[Ukulelemike]

Ironic though how some preachers will almost fixate on points such as this (something only found in one verse of Scripture, or something they think is implied 'between the verses', and such). Some will camp there and fight and argue their view with great energy yet on some aspects of Scripture which are very clear they skim over them or refuse to take a stand on them for some reason.

 

Like some preachers will argue that Leviathan "had to" be a Brontosaurus or a hippo. That there "had to" be a gap in creation, or "had to" be an earth and life prior to the creation account. That one "must" handle poisonous snakes. And other assorted matters.

 

While maybe not as bad as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (huh? REALLY? How and why would such even be considered???) arguing these sort of things as if they are rock solid and key to believe; and worse when they are turned into a doctrine, is damaging to believers and non-believers alike.

Agreed-there is nothing wrong with exploring things which are vague, but all such need to be kept in their proper perspective.

 

When I did my thesis on the headcovering, my final conclusion after 25,000 words, was that its really not a huge doctrine, being really only mentioned once in scripture, and yet so many out there will hang their beliefs on whether a person is truly obedient to God and submissive to their husbands on that one place. People will separate over it. There is more mentioned, or at least well implied, about long hair on men, than there is on women's headcoverings.

[Todd W. White]

With regard to the fact that the Word of God might mention something only once, and, perhaps, that means it's not as important, in God's sight, as something that is mentioned a lot of times, I would say this -

 

Isn't once enough? Isn't the fact that God mentioned it in His Holy Word enough, even if He only mentions it once?

[ASongOfDegrees]

Ironic though how some preachers will almost fixate on points such as this (something only found in one verse of Scripture, or something they think is implied 'between the verses', and such). Some will camp there and fight and argue their view with great energy yet on some aspects of Scripture which are very clear they skim over them or refuse to take a stand on them for some reason.

 

Like some preachers will argue that Leviathan "had to" be a Brontosaurus or a hippo. That there "had to" be a gap in creation, or "had to" be an earth and life prior to the creation account. That one "must" handle poisonous snakes. And other assorted matters.

 

While maybe not as bad as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (huh? REALLY? How and why would such even be considered???) arguing these sort of things as if they are rock solid and key to believe; and worse when they are turned into a doctrine, is damaging to believers and non-believers alike.

Who's arguing?

[ASongOfDegrees]

I am all for literal interpretation of the Bible, but not sure this is meant to be quite that literal. I suspect more that it was that he was created with skill in these things. It was the workmanship of the pipes and tabrets, or the ability to work them. Or that's how I read it anyways.

 

However, from this one tiny reference, it would still be difficult to declare that Lucifer was Heaven's song leader, or whatever. Could be but it just seems like such a small reference to make such a sweeping declaration on.

What else could it mean? I see no reason not to read it literally. Lucifer was a cherub and look at the crazy description of them in Ezekiel. Should that be read literally?

 

And who's making a "sweeping declaration"? 

[TheSword]

With regard to the fact that the Word of God might mention something only once, and, perhaps, that means it's not as important, in God's sight, as something that is mentioned a lot of times, I would say this -

 

Isn't once enough? Isn't the fact that God mentioned it in His Holy Word enough, even if He only mentions it once?

 

That it is only mentioned once certainly does not mean that it is unimportant; but that the details are somewhat ambiguous and secondary to the main point mean that describing the specific nature Lucifer's role was not the intent of the passage. Rather, the intent is to describe how Lucifer was beautiful and finely made and endowed musical talents as the anointed cherub. That it does not at all describe his role outside of "that covereth", which speaks more of guarding and attending than it does worship, means that any assertion on whether he led worship or music is merely speculation and does not warrant any dogmatic stance one way or the other.

 

That being said, I believe it to be an exegetical stretch to assert from this passage the Lucifer was created to present music. All that can be factually gleaned from this passage is that Lucifer was beautiful, endowed with musical ability, and given the highest position among cherubs (which does not necessarily indicate either prominance over or subordinance to other types angels such as seraphs). Anything beyond that must come from another passage or be relegated to the realm of speculation and fanciful ideas.

[Ukulelemike]

What else could it mean? I see no reason not to read it literally. Lucifer was a cherub and look at the crazy description of them in Ezekiel. Should that be read literally?

 

And who's making a "sweeping declaration"? 

Not you-the sweeping declaration part was in general to Lucifer being the leader of the Heavenly choir, etc, taken from a part of one verse.

 

And keep in mind the workmanship of pipes and tabrets was prepared in him, NOT the pipes and tabrets-the ability to work them, or play them, was prepared in him.