Lucifer?

[DavidStrickland]

Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?
Some hints from the passage

It was the equal to the kings of the earth (vs. 9-10)
It is in the Grave(vs. 11)
It is covered with worms (vs.11)
It had Fallen from on High (vs. 12)
It weakened the Nations (vs. 12)
It was Proud (vs. 13)
It thought it's self a god. (vs. 13,14)
It was a man(human) (VS. 16)
He Had body(Carcass) (vs. 19)
He had Children (vs. 21)

OK before you immediately jump to an answer do you have any supporting biblical text to back up who you believe Lucifer to be. If Lucifer has another name or identity it would have to be someone we know from either Biblical or Historical evidence that matches up to the description given in Isaiah 14.

Interested to hear your input.

[David Taylor]

"Lucifer" like the names "scratch" or "boogeyman" are common-lore names for the devil, Satan.

Regardless of their origins or biblical corroboration/lack thereof, they are commonly known and accepted names for Satan in English speaking cultures.

[markedward]

Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?

The word "lucifer", meaning "light-bearer" was a poor Latin translation of the original Hebrew "heylel", meaning "shining one". The original text uses the term as an adjective, not a name. The person being view in Isaiah 14 is not Satan, but a mere man who was the king of Babylon.

[faithfulfriend]

The word "lucifer", meaning "light-bearer" was a poor Latin translation of the original Hebrew "heylel", meaning "shining one". The original text uses the term as an adjective, not a name. The person being view in Isaiah 14 is not Satan, but a mere man who was the king of Babylon.

To back this point up:

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!

There's not getting around it. Lucifer is the King of Babylon. All you have to do now is find out who the King of Babylon was

[tgallison]

The word "lucifer", meaning "light-bearer" was a poor Latin translation of the original Hebrew "heylel", meaning "shining one". The original text uses the term as an adjective, not a name. The person being view in Isaiah 14 is not Satan, but a mere man who was the king of Babylon.

I believe we sometimes miss the broader picture, when we delve to narrowly into individual word meanings.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan", Jesus was speaking to the spiritual power behind Peter.

When Satan offered up the kingdoms of this world to Jesus, Jesus said the same thing, "Get thee behind me, Satan. (Luke 4:8)

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and Ezekiel speaks and says, the king of Tyrus was in Eden, the garden of God, is this not both speaking of a man and Satan. (Ezekiel 28:13)

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and he was told to speak to the king of Egypt, and he describes the king as a cedar tree, that was in Eden, the garden of God, isn't it true that the word is describing both the man king, and the power behind all kingdoms on earth. (Ezekiel chapter 30)

Doesn't the word describe leviathan as Satan, when he says leviathan beholds all high things, he is a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34)

[matthew94]

I agree with the assumed aim of the OP. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are, at the very least primarily, about the kings of Babylon and Tyre. If some of the statements in those passages apply to Satan as well, it has some application to him. But some of the statements can be made to apply to just about anybody.

What we need to realize is that much of our 'doctrine' of satan is derived from these 2 passages. Because of this, I hold a concrete doctrine of satan very loosely. There is an adversary and we know a lot of the kinds of things he does, but we simply don't know much about his origins.

[David Taylor]

Scripture also at times, uses 'the king of Babylon', 'the king of Persia', 'the king of Tyre' as personifications of evil and wickedness; whether the devil directly, or simply wickedness in general.

[tgallison]

I agree with the assumed aim of the OP. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are, at the very least primarily, about the kings of Babylon and Tyre. If some of the statements in those passages apply to Satan as well, it has some application to him. But some of the statements can be made to apply to just about anybody.

What we need to realize is that much of our 'doctrine' of satan is derived from these 2 passages. Because of this, I hold a concrete doctrine of satan very loosely. There is an adversary and we know a lot of the kinds of things he does, but we simply don't know much about his origins.

Jesus has many names. The Rock, the Word, the bread of life, the temple, the right arm, the living water, the light of the world, as well as many others.

Satan also is called by many names.

If a passage says, a person was in Eden, the garden of God, it doesn't leave much to the imagination of who it is referring to. There is much more than two passages that contain information on Satan.

[petepet]

Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?
Some hints from the passage

It was the equal to the kings of the earth (vs. 9-10)
It is in the Grave(vs. 11)
It is covered with worms (vs.11)
It had Fallen from on High (vs. 12)
It weakened the Nations (vs. 12)
It was Proud (vs. 13)
It thought it's self a god. (vs. 13,14)
It was a man(human) (VS. 16)
He Had body(Carcass) (vs. 19)
He had Children (vs. 21)

OK before you immediately jump to an answer do you have any supporting biblical text to back up who you believe Lucifer to be. If Lucifer has another name or identity it would have to be someone we know from either Biblical or Historical evidence that matches up to the description given in Isaiah 14.

Interested to hear your input.

As has been said, it is quite clear that this applies to the king of Babylon who at this stage was obviously laying great claims to semi-deity. There are no grounds for attaching the name Lucifer (shining one) to Satan which arise prior to post New Testament times. In the Sybilline oracles (2nd century BC) Lucifer is simply one of a number of stars along with Leo, Capricorn, Taurus, Orion, Virgo, Pleiad, Pisces, Cancer, Aquarius, all engaged in battle with each other. That is the only other mention of his name that I know of prior to the coming of Christ Jesus.

On the other hand the passage says that it is the king of Babylon who sees himself like this. It must be remembered that the kings of Babylon took a major part in the annual mythical representations which were intended to 'move' their gods into action. During such representations he no doubt 'ascended on high'. Isaiah also shows him as descending into a physical grave and being eaten by physical worms.

The passage in Ezekiel 28 has in mind that certain Tyrian temples were constructed so as to represent Paradise, including trees which could be laden with jewels (offerings) and an artificial mountain. Thus he too in mythical representation would walk in Paradise, clother is splendour, amid the surrounding jewels (stones of fire) and the surrounding trees. and upon the holy mountain. (Indeed Tyre and Lebanon with its cedars and firs were seen as 'the garden of God' - Ezekiel 31.8). There is nothing there that requires a supernatural figure.

Pharaoh meanwhile continued to see himself as a god.

The truth is that Scripture gives us no indication of how Satan came to be what he was. The first hint we have is in the Garden of Eden. But even there it is the snake that we see not Satan himself. We only know that the evil power behind the snake was Satan because it is revealed in the New Testament. As for the fall of angels, the first hint we have of it is in Genesis 6.1-4, which may in fact be the time whn they 'fell'.

[scourge39]

Excellent responses all around! There's also evidence that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was deferred to by the KJV translators over the Masoretic Hebrew Text when the two sources differed textually from each other. Allegorical interpretation was common in Jerome's day, and he most likely saw Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as depictions of Satan's fall that he simply inserted Lucifer into his Latin translation.

[markedward]

[quote=tgallison;1800614]I believe we sometimes miss the broader picture, when we delve to narrowly into individual word meanings.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan", Jesus was speaking to the spiritual power behind Peter.

Except for this: Jesus explicitly said "Satan." In Isaiah 14, people assume that (a) "lucifer" is a name, and (b) that "lucifer" refers to Satan. Nothing in the text infers that Satan was being spoken of except for the one who reads it into the text.

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and Ezekiel speaks and says, the king of Tyrus was in Eden, the garden of God, is this not both speaking of a man and Satan. (Ezekiel 28:13)

No, it is not speaking of Satan. Reading chapter 28 in context of chapters 26 and 27, it's not difficult to see that the "cherub" and "garden of God" were used as hyperbolic metaphors for how "beautiful" the king of Tyre thought he and his kingdom were.

Doesn't the word describe leviathan as Satan, when he says leviathan beholds all high things, he is a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34)

Except, again, you assume that "leviathan" is referring to Satan, when nothing in the text says so or implies as much. You're reading your interpretation into the text, not out of it.

A summary study of ancient history reveals that nearly all kings, emperors, and pharaohs of those ancient kingdoms mentioned (Tyre, Babylon, Egypt, even on to Rome) considered themselves as "deities."

Hence...

"You have said in your heart 'I will ascend to heaven.'" Isaiah does not describe it as a literal action, but it was the will of the king of Babylon's heart. His internal intent was to deify himself - self-deification was widespread among rulers of the ancient world.

Likewise with Ezekiel 28: "In the pride of your heart you say, 'I am a god.' But you are a man and not a god." Read chapters 26-28. The overall emphasis of the chapters is Tyre's perfect beauty and how it became rich through trade. When you finally reach Ezekiel 28's lament over the king of Tyre, and it speaks of him as a cherub in Eden, this is metaphor to describe just how beautiful and rich his kingdom was. Specifically, in verse 16, we are directly told that the "cherub's" sin was caused by his "widespread trade". Did Satan first sin as a result of "widespread trade". Scripturally, no. The "cherub" is obviously pure metaphor in this chapter for the man-king of Tyre, and it is not a "reference" to Satan.

[DavidStrickland]

Wow thanks great comments. Mathew94's comment probably sums up where I am at this point myself. I had always just assumed Lucifer was Satan's first name. More recently though I began to start looking at all these a fresh and the result was a re classification of many of my "Facts" to be "Opinions". Kind of wondered if anyone else was in the same boat which led to the post.

What led to this evaluation was the Idea of the "fall" of Satan. If Satan could be created Perfect and then chose to fall some time in eternity past could not men then in eternity future chose to do the same thing.

Considering Eternity is just that Eternal anything that could happen eventually would happen and the ultimate result would be everything would eventually end up fallen.

[Emanate]

Following the topic:

Satan does not always refer to "the devil." Satan in Hebrew means Adversary. I forget the greek counterpart, but it is similar in meaning to the Hebrew.

[tgallison]

Following the topic:

Satan does not always refer to "the devil." Satan in Hebrew means Adversary. I forget the greek counterpart, but it is similar in meaning to the Hebrew.

The word Satan always refers to the devil. What you mean is adversary does not always mean Satan.

[matthew94]

If a passage says, a person was in Eden, the garden of God, it doesn't leave much to the imagination of who it is referring to. There is much more than two passages that contain information on Satan.

tgallison,

Yours is a classic case of curiously circular contemporary logic. Instead of taking the literal statement that it's about a human king and using common sense to equate the Eden imagery as metaphor, you take the imagery as literal as historical statement as metaphor!

Suppose you and I went to Pizza Hut. Upon seeing the buffet, I might say "Oh boy, this buffet is heavenly!" I would, of course, mean that Pizza Hut is a real place, but eating pizza is so delightful, for me, that it compares to the delight I'll experience in heaven. You, on the other hand, would be inclined to say that we were actually IN HEAVEN, but that the delight experienced there was akin to a slice of pizza!

As I said before, we KNOW the passage is talking about an earthly King because it says so. It makes all the sense in the world that the Eden imagery is used to describe how lovely his life was at some point prior to the coming judgment of his nation.