Revelation 22:18-19 Perhaps A Better Way To Look At It

[snipe123]

I realize that the argument of a closed cannon is not totally based on this scripture alone, but this scripture is central to that belief. I am not ignoring the other scriptures, (perhaps they can be discussed in other threads), but I would like to confine this thread to a discussion of this scripture in particular…The reasons will hopefully be apparent:

In this post we will examine:

1) How Revelation 22:18-19 is understood and interpreted by most Evangelical Christians.

2) How most Latter-Day Saints understand and interpret this scripture and answer the objections of Evangelical Christians.

3) How both groups are missing an extremely important point that is vital in understanding what this scripture is saying.

As recorded in the King James Version of the Bible, Revelation 22:18-19 reads as follows:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Traditional Christian Interpretation:

There are variations on this general theme (and this is not intended to be a comprehensive account of every variation), and certainly not every one of these points are made by every person quoting this scripture as a basis for belief in a closed cannon of scripture, but the following principles can, and are derived by various Christians on this subject.

So the argument goes something like this:

This scripture signifies that the books of The Bible comprise in total, the written word of God conveyed to man. It indicates that the cannon of scripture is closed and that the Bible represents the only authoritative scripture that man may use to aid in their quest for God. The Bible is infallible, unchangeable, unalterable, perfect, complete, and is regarded by God to be the only text we will ever need for learning how to return to his perfect presence. No other scriptures are necessary or authorized. This is Gods stamp of approval on the Bible as it is currently comprised and even though John was no doubt referring to his book when he wrote this scripture, it was God who determined the order in which this book would appear in the Cannon. It is no accident that God inspired John to write it, and that this warning was placed at the end of The Holy Bible, to include the entire Bible in its warning.

Mormons and any other religious sect therefore, cannot possibly have additional scripture since the Bible forbids it. There is no need to investigate, read, let alone pray about any other books claiming to be scripture, since it is not possible for there to be any other scripture besides The Holy Bible. Additionally, any other books claiming to be the written word of God are forgeries inspired by man or the devil. Any church which makes use of additional scripture therefore, must then have at their very foundation, a malicious deception designed to deceive God’s children and lead them into a belief in a false Gospel, and distract them from studying and contemplating the perfect word of God as recorded in The Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is God breathed, vast and glorious in and of itself, and a lifetime of study cannot possibly uncover all of its secrets, so why would anyone want to study any other books claiming to be Gods word? Why would God give us any more scripture when the Bible clearly instructs us on every aspect of our lives?

Mormons respond to this usually with one or all of the following six points given here briefly:

1) John was only talking about the book of Revelation, since The Bible did not exist then.

2) The book of John was written after Revelation (most scholars believe) so do we toss out the book of John since it “adds to” Revelation.

3) There is a similar verse in Deuteronomy, so do we toss out everything after that book?

4) Or they try to point out what they see as inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible to show that it is not perfect.

5) There are references to “lost books” of scripture in The Bible itself that are not contained in it.

6) (Perhaps the most peaceful and reasonable response, and in my view, the most relevant of the responses that are typically used) This scripture says nothing about God adding to, or taking from his word, only man.

Though fascinating, I do not wish to expound on these arguments and delve into them in detail because to most readers on this forum they are self explanatory, very familiar, or have been discussed exhaustibly before. While there is some merit to the statements above, they are pointless because they make the wrong argument (which I will get to in a moment).

In my experience (and I am loath to admit that I used these arguments at the beginning of my mission 15 years ago) these arguments (with the exception of #6 perhaps, which is the best of the six) lead to often heated debates that have never convinced anyone, or led to one single conversion from the “traditional” Christian view, to the Mormon one. The arguments go in hopeless circles between the “traditional” Christian who believes the Bible is flawless and complete, and the Mormon, who is attacking that belief…Neither get anywhere, and often leads to very contentious circumstances that the Holy Spirit cannot abide.

So I think there is a much better way to look at this…

As recorded in the King James Version of the Bible, Revelation 22:18-19 reads again as follows:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This scripture is entirely true and Mormons should be testifying to its truth and validity just as it stands without any reference at all to any of the common arguments mentioned above. Rather than viewing this scripture as a “problem” that must be argued against, or feeling that we must rush to the defense of The Book of Mormon by bashing the Bible’s validity to bits, Mormons should be welcoming a discussion on this scripture. We should be saying “AMEN! Any man who counterfeits scripture should have these plagues cast upon him, and any man who takes from God’s word should have these punishments!”

Now what does this verse say regarding a perfect or divinely protected text? Absolutely nothing is said (realizing of course there may be other scriptures which are interpreted by Evangelical’s that could be used to argue this…another thread perhaps) on the subject. In fact this verse says just the opposite by default. In this verse God reveals a punishment for the crime of either counterfeiting, or taking away from Gods word.

To distill this scripture down to its most basic parts, the following points are clear:

1)THE CRIME: Counterfeiting the Word of God.

2)THE PUNISHMENT: Plagues which the book contains.

1) THE CRIME: Taking something from the text

2) THE PUNISHMENT: God will take his name out of the book of life etc…

The question must be asked here:

Why proclaim a punishment for a crime which is not possible to commit?

If the Bible is flawless and divinely protected, then why does God have a punishment in place for people who either counterfeit the Word, or pilfer from it? What this verse more than implies is that it is entirely possible for man to do so, and the punishment of a just God will be upon him when he does. If the punishment has been defined, then the crime can be committed, so it follows that John obviously expected that men would corrupt it, since he is the one who issues the warning against it.(Whether talking about his writings or the whole Bible is really not important for this discussion).

To illustrate further:

1)THE CRIME: Thou shalt not steal

2)THE PUNISHMENT: Hell (We will say for the usaved for the sake of argument… don’t want to start another subject on this thread…haha)

God gives a commandment against stealing, but he does not turn right around and make it an impossibility…Instead he affixes a punishment for it…and men choose to either accept the command or suffer the punishment…in any event, God does not define punishments for crimes which are impossible to commit.

An absurd example to further make the point:

He does not say: “Thou shalt not turn thyself into a rabbit, or you will have to carry eggs in baskets for the rest of eternity!”(ok…retarded example…haha) He does not bother saying this because nobody has the power to commit the “crime” of turning themselves into a rabbit! No need for a law there!

In summary:

If it was impossible for a man to counterfeit his word and if the text were protected from alteration or deletion, then this scripture would say so, and a punishment for an impossible crime would not need to be defined.

Instead, Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning of divine punishment against men who would do it

[prisonchaplain]

Just as FYI, it is true that most evangelical Christians interpret this passage in the way you describe. However, in this case, the LDS argument that the warning, in context, specifically applies to John's revelation is a valid one.

Christian belief that the canon is closed, ironically, is based on tradition and history. We accept the canonical councils decisions as God-given, and have found no writings since the late first century that warrant inclusion. So, the feeling is that after nearly 2000 years, it seems evident that the canon is closed.

Professor Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), in his discussion with Professor Stephen Robinson (BYU), admits that there is no text of Scripture that absolutely closes the canon. Further, theoretically, more Scripture could be found to add. However, like me, he's fairly confident that we're done with expanding the Scriptures.

[snipe123]

Just as FYI, it is true that most evangelical Christians interpret this passage in the way you describe. However, in this case, the LDS argument that the warning, in context, specifically applies to John's revelation is a valid one.

Christian belief that the canon is closed, ironically, is based on tradition and history. We accept the canonical councils decisions as God-given, and have found no writings since the late first century that warrant inclusion. So, the feeling is that after nearly 2000 years, it seems evident that the canon is closed.

Professor Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), in his discussion with Professor Stephen Robinson (BYU), admits that there is no text of Scripture that absolutely closes the canon. Further, theoretically, more Scripture could be found to add. However, like me, he's fairly confident that we're done with expanding the Scriptures.

Hey PC,

Yes, I realize that serious scholars recognize the meaning of this scripture in the way you describe and that the closed cannon is largely based on tradition and councils etc...having this scripture quoted to me more often than any other (as a missionary and since) as an objection to the LDS belief, tells me that the average reader of the Bible and a whole lot of preachers, are teaching this scripture in a way that the author did not intend...I thought it was important to make a point (beyond the six usual ones) that seemed to suggest John meant just the opposite...that man would alter his words, and GOd would punish him for doing it...

[prisonchaplain]

Isaac, your point is valid, and, yes, your observations are correct. I grew up in the church, and must have learned the "don't add to the Bible" warning several times. It was not until I encountered LDS beliefs in a well-presented way, that I had to look closer, and realize that John could not have meant the biblical canon, as it wasn't done yet.

By way of explanation, though--most Christians have never encountered Jesus-followers who believe in an open canon. So, the first reaction is naturally, "Wait...we're not supposed to add or take away from the Bible, are we?"

Bottom-line: Your analysis is right on. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that many of "us" know that on this, you are right. :-)

[snipe123]

Isaac, your point is valid, and, yes, your observations are correct. I grew up in the church, and must have learned the "don't add to the Bible" warning several times. It was not until I encountered LDS beliefs in a well-presented way, that I had to look closer, and realize that John could not have meant the biblical canon, as it wasn't done yet.

By way of explanation, though--most Christians have never encountered Jesus-followers who believe in an open canon. So, the first reaction is naturally, "Wait...we're not supposed to add or take away from the Bible, are we?"

Bottom-line: Your analysis is right on. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that many of "us" know that on this, you are right. :-)

Oh PC! How refreshing! I think I am still recovering from two years of constantly being beat up over this issue in Texas...seemed like I had to hear this if not every day, then atleast a few times a week...and many times since...glad there are Christians out there who understand this...does not make them believe The Book of Mormon of course, but if they are open to the idea that a closed cannon is not a biblical concept, but a traditional one, then perhaps they could have less fear in examining the merits of Josephs claims...

[a-train]

Many Jews are still clinging to the Torah as a closed canon based on Deuteronomy 4:2-3.

It is a theme throughout the scriptural history of the world that there has always existed the temptation to reject living oracles while proclaiming the validity of past prophets.

I assume many accepted teachings handed from Adam, Seth, or Enoch who rejected Noah. Abraham tells us that contemporaries of his believed in Noah, but rejected current teaching. Israel whole-heartedly accepted Abraham and Isaac whom they never knew, but struggled with Moses. A great many Jews believed in Moses and the Torah, but rejected the prophets, most poignantly of course was Jesus.

Different sects of faith ardently defended Moses and the Prophets, but rejected the Messiah Himself. It is further evident that within the life of the Apostles there were those who accepted Christ, but rejected certain disciples.

Satan's work is just as engaged today as it ever was. He need not convince us to reject the Gospel News of ancient history if he can get us to reject the LORD's will in our life today. It mattered not what faith in Adam's testimony the antediluvians had when Noah entered the ark. I can pay all the lip-service to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the work of God in them, but if I fail to abide the work of God through living oracles today, it is all pointless.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

A-train, it's interesting that Jews believe their canon is closed. I've been led to believe that Jews highly revere the Talmud (a commentary), and also asteem commentaries on the Talmud, commentaries on the commentaries on the Talmud, etc.

Further, when a rabbi is asked counsel about an important manner, he usually will bring the issue up with the other rabbis in the community. In a sense, they are the living oracles.

[Doctor Steuss]

Since only 52.8% of the verses are variant free in the extant manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John (aka: “Revelation”), and there is an average of 5.1 variants per a page, I’d say there are a lot of people that are going to be punished.

[a-train]

Since only 52.8% of the verses are variant free in the extant manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John (aka: “Revelation”), and there is an average of 5.1 variants per a page, I’d say there are a lot of people that are going to be punished.

And the better question for us is which of the variants to accept as the original.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Good bit of humor hear about textual variants and the command not to mess with John's Revelation. Nevertheless, the book is part of the canon for LDS, and nearly all branches of Christianity. We tend to accept those variants our translators have given to us. However, of course, we'd be wise not to ground a particular doctrine upon a variant that's proven controversial.

... That's why I gave up snake handling. :-)

[Doctor Steuss]

Good bit of humor hear about textual variants and the command not to mess with John's Revelation. Nevertheless, the book is part of the canon for LDS, and nearly all branches of Christianity. We tend to accept those variants our translators have given to us. However, of course, we'd be wise not to ground a particular doctrine upon a variant that's proven controversial.

... That's why I gave up snake handling. :-)

IIRC, the vast majority of the variants don't influence doctrinal matters at all, and are mostly scribal errors (the ancient version of a typo). I think there (again, IIRC) are a few attempts at harmonization within some manuscripts that cause some issues, but overall, the text we now have is fairly reliable (although I personally would take the NRSV over the KJV).

[AnthonyB]

The other problem with not adding words to the text is that it was written in koine greek and therefore any translation is using words that were never in the original. (English words whether KJV or NIV weren't used by the authors.) Trying to use an exact translation of every word would end up leaving you with unreadable mess that would often be totally misleading to the original meaning. Every translation has to add or remove words to make any sense of the text in a new language. We also have to alter word order to fit the differing grammar rule.

[Traveler]

The other problem with not adding words to the text is that it was written in koine greek and therefore any translation is using words that were never in the original. (English words whether KJV or NIV weren't used by the authors.) Trying to use an exact translation of every word would end up leaving you with unreadable mess that would often be totally misleading to the original meaning. Every translation has to add or remove words to make any sense of the text in a new language. We also have to alter word order to fit the differing grammar rule.

I understand this problem and have asked the question in the past - Where does the authorization come from to translate or provide commentary to the Book of Revelation?

I understand that the wisdom of the world can help but is not such thinking heresy? If G-d would have any understand - is his spirit sufficient or not? The LDS view is that the scriptures of the Bible are the word of G-d only when translated correctly. This is the only view of the Book of Revelation that I can in all honesty support.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

The other problem with not adding words to the text is that it was written in koine greek and therefore any translation is using words that were never in the original. (English words whether KJV or NIV weren't used by the authors.) Trying to use an exact translation of every word would end up leaving you with unreadable mess that would often be totally misleading to the original meaning. Every translation has to add or remove words to make any sense of the text in a new language. We also have to alter word order to fit the differing grammar rule.

IMHO, God is pleased with his church for going to such lengths to translate his Word for the world. John's warning was clearly not to alter the message God had given him--not even a little bit. Shielding the message from non-Greek readers hardly seems to be what John (God) meant.

[Latter Days Guy]

From what I remember from my time at Bible college (Mattersey Hall, the AOG Bible College in the UK) this passage was taught to mean the book of revelation and not the whole cannon of the bible.

[prisonchaplain]

From what I remember from my time at Bible college (Mattersey Hall, the AOG Bible College in the UK) this passage was taught to mean the book of revelation and not the whole cannon of the bible.

Since you learned straight from Jerusalem, this issue is resolved.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

The other problem with not adding words to the text is that it was written in koine greek and therefore any translation is using words that were never in the original. (English words whether KJV or NIV weren't used by the authors.) Trying to use an exact translation of every word would end up leaving you with unreadable mess that would often be totally misleading to the original meaning. Every translation has to add or remove words to make any sense of the text in a new language. We also have to alter word order to fit the differing grammar rule.

IMHO, God is pleased with his church for going to such lengths to translate his Word for the world. John's warning was clearly not to alter the message God had given him--not even a little bit. Shielding the message from non-Greek readers hardly seems to be what John (God) meant.

How is this known? Was G-d pleased with his church for allowing a non-authorized individual to support the Ark of the Covenant from falling?

Matt 7:23 reads in the KJV as follows: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. This is a most interesting scripture and has a variant reading. I have been informed by experts that the interpertation of the above to use the word "knew" can also be understood to mean "authorized" so one way of understanding could be - "And then will I profess unto them, I never authorized you: depart from me, ye that do the work of providing mis-direction".

I am not sure the world is ready for the Book of Revelation - I wonder if Christians are ready for such things. It does not appear to me that the Christians - even of the period when John wrote the Revelation understood it any better than the experts of today.

I do not pretend to understand the Book of Revelation but I am quite sure that I understand it as good or better than those that claim that G-d has made the truth of this scripture known to them. I storngly suspect that in due cource that G-d will make his wisdom of this scripture known at a time that will shame and prove the wisdom of man no more than foolishness.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

How is this known? Was G-d pleased with his church for allowing a non-authorized individual to support the Ark of the Covenant from falling?

No. That was a deadly sin. God's command about the Ark was clear--and everyone knew it.

Matt 7:23 reads in the KJV as follows: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. This is a most interesting scripture and has a variant reading. I have been informed by experts that the interpertation of the above to use the word "knew" can also be understood to mean "authorized" so one way of understanding could be - "And then will I profess unto them, I never authorized you: depart from me, ye that do the work of providing mis-direction".

That's a convenient re-writing. But, such could be a double-edged sword. I'm sure that some of our Catholic friends might also chomp at the bit of that one.

I am not sure the world is ready for the Book of Revelation - I wonder if Christians are ready for such things. It does not appear to me that the Christians - even of the period when John wrote the Revelation understood it any better than the experts of today.

Of course they did...it was written for them, first of all. However, John promises blessings for those who read and who hear the Revelation. I spent three years teaching the book to an adult Sunday School class. We focused on Jesus, since it is a revelation of him--and we held on to what was revealed, rather than trying to force answers to questions the writing does not clearly answer.

I do not pretend to understand the Book of Revelation but I am quite sure that I understand it as good or better than those that claim that G-d has made the truth of this scripture known to them. I storngly suspect that in due cource that G-d will make his wisdom of this scripture known at a time that will shame and prove the wisdom of man no more than foolishness.

I do not understand the tone of this. We are told to give honor to whom honor is due, and that God does indeed appoint some to be teachers. So...why the allegation that those who teach Revelation with the help of much study are somehow spiritually arrogant?

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

I am not sure the world is ready for the Book of Revelation - I wonder if Christians are ready for such things. It does not appear to me that the Christians - even of the period when John wrote the Revelation understood it any better than the experts of today.

Of course they did...it was written for them, first of all. However, John promises blessings for those who read and who hear the Revelation. I spent three years teaching the book to an adult Sunday School class. We focused on Jesus, since it is a revelation of him--and we held on to what was revealed, rather than trying to force answers to questions the writing does not clearly answer.

There are many scriptures about Christ that are not understood or even denied. Scriptures often are written around strong symbols but because certain interpretations of things are preferred over seeking understanding from G-d – even considerations of possibilities beyond the wisdom of man become heresy.

Consider the symbolism of Christ in Chapter 19 or 20 of Revelation. (pardon me for forgetting and not having scriptures available or time to look it up on the internet). Here Christ utilizes the symbols of a sword and fire as he brings salvation to fallen man. Where else in scripture do we see such symbols used in such a manner? How about Genesis as Adam and Eve are driven from Eden – The Garden of G-d? Suggest that this is a symbolic Messiah prophesy that is fulfilled in the Book of Revelation and many varieties of Christians will burn you at the stake of heresy. And without any explanation of why Christ and some other (perhaps lesser being) are charged with the same symbols.

(And I would add that the understanding of this prophetic relationship could bring together Christian, Jew and Islam - But since it would not be on the terms of the "wise" among any of them - it is not likely - until G-d intervenes and brings the wisdom of the wise to naught.)

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, you have a particular understanding of the meaning of the sword and fire from those two chapters. You are clearly disturbed that this particular view is not well-received. Perhaps, to you, the truth of that view is so clear that you conclude the world is not ready for this book within God's revealed written words to us.

Is there not an irony here?

[Traveler]

Traveler, you have a particular understanding of the meaning of the sword and fire from those two chapters. You are clearly disturbed that this particular view is not well-received. Perhaps, to you, the truth of that view is so clear that you conclude the world is not ready for this book within God's revealed written words to us.

Is there not an irony here?

Yes I would say there is some irony. Other than those two places in scripture; is the tandem symbols of sword and flame used anywhere else in scripture? Hmmmm. Is there any symbol given to cherubim in scripture that is not given to Christ or his rival to rule mankind at some point? There is some irony for you – following the judgment we will be ruled by Christ or his rival – Where is that symbolically manifested in scripture? Nowhere – according to the professional published experts. How ironic is that?

But let us start with the sword and fire and talk about meanings - Let us reason together and see - are any of the meanings to such symbols a fit better with some other individual other than with Christ? We can start in Genesis if you like. You tell me what you think is the meaning and the scripture that backs up your reasoning.

I would submit to you my friend that the true interpretation of all scripture points to Christ (especially that which deals with fallen man and his salvation) - even the scriptures that inform us of the "opposition" to Christ.

If we are to follow any rules at all to define the symbols in the Book of Revelation then let the rules apply throughout scripture and not un-apply them when we do not like the outcome. As I have said before – I have yet to read any commentary of the Book of Revelation that is consistent with its claim of symbolic interpretation and I am not a “trained professional” hoping to make a living of it. Maybe that is my problem and the irony of it.

It is not that I think I know the answers – I do not nor do I pretend I know the answers. But I think that the spirit is a better and more consistent source. Thanks for reading and offering your understanding through the spirit.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, you have a particular understanding of the meaning of the sword and fire from those two chapters. You are clearly disturbed that this particular view is not well-received. Perhaps, to you, the truth of that view is so clear that you conclude the world is not ready for this book within God's revealed written words to us. Is there not some irony here?

Yes I would say there is some irony.

Traveler, have I corrected understood? You stand by your insistence that it is the Spirit's direction that we need to interpret Scripture, and yet insist that since most do not agree with your interpretation of a particular section of Revelation, the world is clearly not ready for it???

You may want to explain what your getting at here, because, on the surface, it seems inconsistent.

As for the sword and fire symbolism in Revelation and Genesis, perhaps if you would simply explicate your understanding more comprehensively (but succinctly), it would be easier for us to see what is driving your passion?

[CrimsonKairos]

Here's my take on things, PC.

The Mercy Seat in the Old Testament featured two cherubs facing each other, hands out-stretched. We read something interesting about a cherub in Ezekiel 28:12-18. Two main interpretations exist for this passage. The first interpretation is that God is talking to the King of Tyre and using metaphor and symbolic comparisons to show how blessed the King has been, and what end his wickedness merits. The second interpretation is that God is both speaking to the King of Tyre and by extension, to Satan as well. The imagery and symbolism fit Satan surprisingly well (from an LDS perspective). As you read this passage (particularly if you're LDS), doesn't it seem God is describing Satan in strikingly accurate terms? The "fall" from authority seems to echo that described in Isaiah 14:12 and D&C 76:26-27.

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.

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.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

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.

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.

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.

If we believe the second interpretation, then the key is that God calls Satan a "cherub that covers." What image springs to mind when we think of a cherub covering something? Um, yes, the cherubim on the Mercy Seat of the Ark.

Satan and Christ are direct opponents, combatants for the souls of mankind. Each would draw us to their side. At the judgment bar, either Jesus will mediate our case, or Satan will claim us if we be unrepentant sinners. So the opposition of Jesus and Satan is clear. So the theory goes thusly (and anyone can correct, clarify, expand, etc.):

The two cherubs on the Mercy Seat actually represent Jesus and Satan, respectively. The two golden cherubs on the Mercy Seat were to face each other, wings touching, arms extended towards each other, as if both are reaching for something between them. Might that not be our souls? Also, the High Priest was to sprinkle the blood of the sacrificial goat on the Mercy Seat once a year on the Day of Atonement. It was that act that redeemed Israel from their sins. This sprinkling of sacrificial life blood is powerful imagery, invoking thoughts of Christ's plea on behalf of repentant sinners:

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life. (D&C 45:3-5, emphasis mine)

It's as if we each take our turn standing on the Mercy Seat between the cherubim, Satan reaching for us on the left hand, and Jesus reaching for us on the right hand. God stands to judge us and determine which being (Jesus or Satan) will be permitted to lay hold on us and claim us as theirs.

The only way God judges us worthy of salvation is when Christ's redeeming blood is sprinkled on us and we take his name upon us and become as he is.

Otherwise, Satan claims us and we become devils, angels to a devil forever.

The imagery is actually quite striking (though I'm not certain it is an accurate interpretation of everything). These are things to ponder and consider, though I lack the spiritual assurance of their veracity in full, and hence would not teach them in Sunday School or Elders' Quorum, etc.

Hope that clarifies PC. Traveler, add or amend anything you think I left out or whatnot.

[prisonchaplain]

CK, I'm not sure your explanation is what Traveler had in mind, but it is not afar off from what many evangelicals believe. It is a common understanding that the passage you reference refers to Satan as much as to the King of Tyre. Where we would differ is that evangelicals do not believe Satan will rule over lost souls, or that any will be assigned to him. Rather, the limited "pleasure" Satan will have is the revenge of having turned a soul away from eternal fellowship with the Father.

[a-train]

For that matter, neither do the LDS believe that Satan will rule over the wicked in the eternities. However, the expression that he will 'seal them his', or 'rule over them' is still utilized figuratively only to suggest that they fell victim to his temptations to the extent of eternal ruin. The LDS will also agree that Satan's pleasure in his involvement in the ruin of the souls of men is very temporary if even actually enjoyable at all.

-a-train