Who "Lucifer" REALLY is in the Bible | delilah5's Blog

delilah5's Profile |

Share |

Bookmark |

Get your own free blog

• Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?

The name Lucifer occurs once in the scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the King James Version renders Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” means “shining one.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means “bringer of dawn.” Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew “morning star” or “Daystar.” But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses “Lucifer” (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

Who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.

Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: “To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High.”—Isaiah 14:13, 14.

“The stars of God” are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these “stars” ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became “the mountain of meeting.” By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those “stars.” Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the “shining one.”

The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of “the god of this system of things”—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name scripturally given to Satan.

• Why does 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 refer to David as the seventh son of Jesse, whereas 1 Samuel 16:10, 11 indicates that he was the eighth?

After King Saul of ancient Israel turned away from true worship, Jehovah God sent the prophet Samuel to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king. The divine record of this historical event, written by Samuel himself in the 11th century B.C.E., presents David as the eighth son of Jesse. (1 Samuel 16:10-13) Yet, the account penned by Ezra the priest some 600 years later says: “Jesse, in turn, became father to his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.” (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) What happened to one of David’s brothers, and why does Ezra omit his name?

The scriptures state that Jesse “had eight sons.” (1 Samuel 17:12) One of his sons evidently did not live long enough to get married and have children. Having no descendants, he would have no claim in tribal inheritance nor any bearing on genealogical records of Jesse’s lineage.

Now let us think of Ezra’s day. Consider the setting under which he compiled Chronicles. The exile in Babylon ended about 77 years earlier, and the Jews were resettled in their land. The king of Persia had authorized Ezra to appoint judges and teachers of the Law of God and to beautify the house of Jehovah. There was a need for accurate genealogical lists to confirm the tribal inheritances and to ensure that only authorized people served in the priesthood. So Ezra prepared a full account of the nation’s history, including a clear and dependable record of the lineage of Judah and of David. The name of the son of Jesse who died childless woulAVOID DISTORTING scriptURES TO PROVE A POINT

4 It is imperative that we avoid willfully misapplying a text to prove our point. The clergy of Christendom are often guilty of this very thing. Take, for example, Matthew 10:28. We read there: “And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” Clergymen will point to the first part of Jesus’ words to prove that the soul is immortal and cannot die. Is that what Jesus really said? It may seem like it, if you stop reading in the middle of the verse. But if you read the rest of the verse you see that Jesus plainly debunked the immortal soul doctrine when he said that one should fear him who could destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. By “handling the word of the truth aright” the true sense or meaning comes to the fore.

5 Closely related to the immortal soul doctrine is the belief by some that it is the spirit of a man that lives on and is personally identified with the man. First Peter 4:6 is cited to support this view. There we read: “In fact, for this purpose the good news was declared also to the dead, that they might be judged as to the flesh from the standpoint of men but might live as to the spirit from the standpoint of God.” Believers in the idea that the spirit as an intelligent being survives the death of the body contend that Peter here gave evidence of this when he mentioned the good news as being declared to the dead. Is this so? In order to ‘handle God’s word aright,’ we must let it speak for itself. Was Peter there referring to persons who were physically dead? Since the physically dead are “conscious of nothing at all” (Eccl. 9:5), these dead mentioned by Peter are the same as those Jesus spoke of when he said: “Let the dead bury their dead,” and those referred to by the apostle Paul when he wrote: “It is you God made alive though you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” Anyone living who is dead in the sight of Jehovah can come to life in a spiritual sense by hearing the word of God, repenting and following the Lord Jesus. The hope for the literal dead is the resurrection and the opportunity then to hear the good news and to be judged.—Matt. 8:22; Eph. 2:1.

6 Jehovah’s people, too, need to be cautious in the applying of scriptures so that they correctly present God’s Word in their preaching and teaching activity. As an example, take the statement that is sometimes made that one of the names given to Satan the Devil is Lucifer. Reference may be made by some to Isaiah 14:12-16. According to the Authorized Version (King James), verse twelve says: “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 word “Lucifer” is a translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel′, “shining one.” Heh·lel′, as here used, is not a personal name or a title, but, rather, a term describing the brilliant position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings in the line of Nebuchadnezzar. It would not be correct to say that Satan the Devil is the one here called Lucifer as though it were one of his names. The expression here refers primarily to the king of Babylon, for, according to verse four, this is a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Also, verses fifteen and sixteen of this chapter fourteen say that this “shining one” (Lucifer) is to be brought down to Sheol, which is mankind’s common grave, not an abiding place for Satan the Devil. Furthermore, the fact is that those seeing this “shining one” brought into this condition say: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth, that was making kingdoms rock?” Satan is not a man but an invisible spirit creature. Thus, while the king of Babylon reflected the attitude of his father, the Devil, still the word Lucifer was not a name given to Satan the Devil. By “handling the word of the truth aright” we are prepared to speak the clear sayings of God as we have them on the printed pages of the Bible.

7 However, there is no injustice done to the Word of God when his servants use properly selected texts from various parts of the Bible to prove doctrinal points. While it is true that opposers of God’s Word at times charge that the Witnesses deviously use scattered texts in the Bible to prove their points, we well know from a study of the Bible that Jesus and his apostles used selected texts to prove certain basic truths. For example, Jesus, when being tempted in the wilderness at the end of his forty days of fasting, referred to various passages of God’s Word to rebut the arguments of the Devil. (Matt. 4:3-10; Deut. 8:3; 6:13, 16; 5:9) The apostle Paul also employed this technique with the Jews when teaching in the synagogue. The account in Acts 17:2, 3 says: “So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying: ‘This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am publishing to you.’”—See Psalm 22:7, 8; Isaiah 50:6; 53:3-5; Psalm 16:8-10.d be irrelevant. Hence, BABYLON’S DYNASTY THE “SHINING ONE” (LUCIFER)

At this point it is well to discuss the meaning of the Hebrew word heilēl′, translated “shining one.” It also means “brightness” and, according to some Hebrew-English Lexicons, the entire expression “shining one, son of the dawn” means “morning star,” which was the brightest star in the heavens. The English Authorized Version uses the name Lucifer, as does also the Roman Catholic Douay Version of the Bible. Both were following the Latin Vulgate translation, which uses Lucifer, meaning “Light Bearer.” Lucifer, however, is not the name of the king of Babylon. Lucifer, as a name, was applied to Satan the Devil by early uninspired religious writers of our Common Era. Notice that the Latin Vulgate uses the word lucifer again, in 2 Peter 1:19, and there applies it, not to Satan the Devil, but to the “day star” that was to arise for Christian hearts. So this term heilēl′, or lucifer, applies to Satan the Devil only as the earthly king of Babylon symbolizes that wicked spirit or reflects him. Of course, Satan the Devil was Babylon’s real god and invisible king, as well as being ruler over modern-day Babylon the Great.

The first application of Isaiah 14:12-14, then, is to the human king of Babylon. That is why certain expressions, such as Sheol, are used in it. Satan the Devil was never in Sheol, hell, the grave, and never will be in it, for he is a spirit in the invisible heavens, whereas Sheol, hell, the grave is in the earth. It is where the visible, material, human dead are laid. Even Jesus Christ, after dying, was in Sheol, hell or the grave for parts of three days, as the apostle Peter himself said.—Acts 2:27-32; Ps. 16:10.Ezra omitted his name.Questions From Readers

● Did not Lucifer become Satan the Devil, according to Isaiah 14:12?—A. R., United States.

The term “Lucifer” is found only once in the scriptures and that at Isaiah 14:12. Even this, however, is true of only certain versions, such as the King James, Douay, An American Translation, Knox and Darby. The American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version use the expression “Day Star”; Rotherham, “Shining One”; Moffatt, “shining star.”

The King James Version at Isaiah 14:12, 13 reads: “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! 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.”

The Hebrew word here translated Lucifer is Heylél. In the Septuagint Version it is rendered by the Greek word Heosphóros, which means “bringer of dawn.” In Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Version this word is translated “Lucifer,” which accounts for its appearance in other versions, especially in Catholic versions. To appreciate just how the term “Lucifer” may be applied we must bear in mind the following points.

First, that this prophecy is directed primarily to the king of Babylon, who, by reason of his many conquests, especially that of the nation of Judah in 607 B.C., became world ruler and therefore like the bringer of dawn, the morning star Venus, which is the brightest of all celestial bodies aside from the sun and moon.

Secondly, that this prophecy is really a taunt song, as noted by Rotherham’s translation of verse four: “Thou shalt take up this taunt over the king of Babylon.” It is directed against one who exalted himself very highly and who is being taunted on his downfall.

And thirdly, we are not to consider these stars as literal stars or planets. In the scriptures at times a glorious prince is termed a star, as we read: “A star will certainly step forth out of Jacob, and a scepter will indeed arise out of Israel.” (Num. 24:17, NW) Since the princes or kings of Jerusalem were said to sit upon Jehovah’s throne, it would be proper to speak of them as the “stars of God.”

When, therefore, the king of Babylon took captive Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, he had exalted his throne above the stars of God, and he had in this sense made himself like the Most High. It is only at this time, when Satan, the god of the king of Babylon, truly became the “god of this system of things,” that he was pictured by Babylon’s king and therefore in a taunting way can be referred to as the Shining One or Lucifer.—2 Cor. 4:4, NW.

Thus we see that this title could not refer to the original perfection, beauty and jewellike brightness that he enjoyed as the covering cherub, which is described by the prophet Ezekiel at Ezekiel 28:14-17, AS. It can only be applied in a taunting sense to Satan, and that only from 607 B.C. onward. For more details see The Watchtower, October 15, 1949, pages 307 to 315.