Satan is not Lucifer

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
41
#1
found this on another site thought it was intresting...


Is Satan “Lucifer"?
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


Q.
Isaiah 14:12 mentions the name of "Lucifer." I’ve heard it said that this is Satan. Are Lucifer and Satan one and the same?

A.

It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.

Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts.

The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 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!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?

No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:

I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).

As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23).

It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).

Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.

The context presented in Isaiah 4:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “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 predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1950 edition), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, James Burton (1990), The Major Prophets—Isaiah (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Jackson, Wayne (1987), “Your Question & My Answer,” Christian Courier, 23:15, August.

Keil, C.F. and Franz Delitzsch, (1982 edition), Commentary on the Old Testament—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

Originally published in Reason and Revelation, October 1998, 18[10]:79.
 
Feb 7, 2006
6,794
229
0
37
#4
the diff. names or from his diff. stages. like EDJ said, as the angel of light he was named Lucifer. Cast from heaven, he is satan - the great deciever.
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
43
www.myspace.com
#7
Formaldehyde Rx said:
Satan is not a name its a description.
Kind of

satan is more like the word "king" then and actual person or being. You could have many satans just like you could have many kings but one land never has two kings and hell is eternal so..
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#9
God is Supreme, God has no Names But Titles, like Jehovah, meaning I am that I am, or Ehyeh which means I will be that I will be. In Revelaton it says the True name of God will be revealed to all men, until that day he remains with High Ranking Titles, not Names. As for Lucifer when he fell, he became an Advasary or an enemy of God and His Children, so in Hebrew Satan means Advasary.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#11
I used to study alittle Hebrew, in Exodus 3:20 I think, he says in Hebrew

Ehyeh-Ahser-Ehyeh, I will be that I will be, the you have Yahweh, Yahoveh, then for Jesus you have Yeshua, Messhiach, Adonai. It's still considered a Title, there is many names to Call God, but now we Christians just say Jesus, Lord, God, but his TRUE NAME will be revealed on the Day Jesus comes for his 2nd Coming. YHVH, YHWH I am that I am, or I will be that I will be. You can go on about names, but HIS TRUE NAME will be revealed on the Day of the 2nd coming, read the whole book of Revelation 19:12 ....and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
 

EDJ

Sicc OG
May 3, 2002
11,608
233
63
www.myspace.com
#12
^YOU TRYIN' TO IMPLY THAT JESUS AND YHWH ARE THE SAME AND THEY AIN'T. YHWH IS NOT A TITLE. YAHWEH AND YAHOVEH OR TWO SUPPOSED PRONUNCIATION OF THE DIVINE NAME, NOT DIFFERENT TITLES. IF YOU STUDIED HEBREW YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#13
In the Being of God, Jesus is IF you are a Christian which I'm not getting the Feeling you are, The son is withing the father as the father is within the holyspirit and the holy spirit within the son. The are the Same, there many Times, when Jesus state that He in fact as ,I AM THAT I AM. John 1:1 In Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. In Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the govenrment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
 
Jun 13, 2002
1,291
8
0
Oakland,Ca
#14
MAN DONT NOBODY KNOW GOD (OR WHATEVER IT IS) NAME. SHIT WHAT EVER IT IS PROLLY DON'T EVEN HAVE A NAME. IT COULD BE LIKE SOME BALL OF ENERGY FOR ALL YOU KNOW. HOW THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE NO WHAT "GOD"S" "NAME" IS UNLESS YOU TALKED TO WHATEVER IT IS YOURSELF.

THESE ARE BELIVES NOT FACTS.
 

EDJ

Sicc OG
May 3, 2002
11,608
233
63
www.myspace.com
#15
STOCKTON209SS,
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THOSE SCRIPTURES ARE TYPICAL. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO DEBUNK CAUSE I ALREADY KNOW. I SPOKE UP ON ALL THESE IN ANOTHA THREAD SOME TIME AgO IF YOU DO A SEARCH.

YOUNg PSYC,
IF YOU KNEW N-E-THANg ABOUT SCRIPTURE, YOU WOULD KNOW (gOD) HIMSELF PROCLAIMED HIS NAME. ALL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF (gOD) IS THRU SCRIPTURE.
 
Jun 13, 2002
1,291
8
0
Oakland,Ca
#17
EDJ said:
YOUNg PSYC,
IF YOU KNEW N-E-THANg ABOUT SCRIPTURE, YOU WOULD KNOW (gOD) HIMSELF PROCLAIMED HIS NAME. ALL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF (gOD) IS THRU SCRIPTURE.
HOW DO YOU KNOW "GOD" HIMESELF PROCLAIMED HIS NAME WHERE YOU THERE???? SHOW ME THIS SCRPTURE YOU SPEAK OF SO I CAN SEE YOUR POINT OF VEIW. AND WHO WROTE THIS SCRIPTURE BECAUSE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIVE ANYTHING RELIGOUS THAT WAS WRITIN BY A HUMAN.