Lucifer in Isaiah 14 can't be anyone else but Satan...

[Sammy-San]

I have never seen anything like that in the bible so I can't accept any of it. Lucifer's name in Hebrew is Heylel and that's all that matters.

So youre saying Latin is spoken in Heaven? Lux and Fer come from Latin.

 

[ewq1938]

So youre saying Latin is spoken in Heaven? Lux and Fer come from Latin.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what is spoken in Heaven. We are discussing a Hebrew name.

 

[PastorFreud]

You are asking the wrong question. In the event, it is aluded to in the Pauline epistles.

It's in the Syriac Orthodox small catechism.

This is apparently sufficient for you. You have faith in your organization's reading of the text. I do not share that presupposition. So why should I care about hierarchies of angels? How is this information relevant to my life?

 

[DamianWarS]

Lucifer as the proper name of Satan is a misnomer. If there is a proper name it is Satan. "lucifer" is latin and in the latin text is used to describe the king of babylon in Isaiah 14:12 (some have interpreted for Satan) but is also used to describe Jesus in 2 Peter 1:19 (in the latin text). The KJV heavily used the latin text when translating and for some reason decided to keep the latin word "lucifer" (and make it a proper noun); it is still used with believers who value latin but to refer to Christ not Satan.

This name is perpetuated through ignorance not through knowledge and modern translations do not use the word "lucifer" but instead translate it to English using "morning star". Although it has significant cultural meaning there is nothing inherently evil about the word and based on its etymology its better suited for Christ than Satan.

It is a often interpreted as a reference to Satan but this is an interpretation that is not scripturally clear so we shouldn't be so dogmatic about this. The OP's references are not sufficient to prove this and in the end we are talking about figurative references which make it even more difficult.

Jesus uses this text in Matthew 11:20-24 to reprimand the city of Capernaum. This shows the the text can have a more universal application than specifically Satan.

 

[PastorFreud]

I believe that Isaiah 14:12-15 is the story of Satan, from the beginning of the creation. This may be known through threading of Isaiah 14:12-15, John 8:44, and Revelation 2:13-14, with Revelation 2:12 becoming the root according to, "Pergamos," meaning, height or elevation, and "Antipas," meaning, like the father. These two definitions are used to reference, "heights", and "like," in Isaiah 14:14. John 8:44 may be implicated with the word, "father", and "murderer" for "martyr" in Revelation 2:13. The place where Satan dwelleth is, in his "heart", as found in Isaiah 14:13 in which he "abode not in the truth" in John 8:44. I believe that, Antipas, may be, "the deep," in Genesis 1:2.


[Isa 14:12-15 KJV] 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!
13 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:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.


[Rev 2:12-13 KJV] 12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even] where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.


[Jhn 8:44 KJV] 44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So you are suggesting that Isaiah 14 meant nothing to the original audience of the text? You are saying it was a bit meant for a future audience who, when putting it with other texts, would figure out it was about Satan? I don't understand why God would have Isaiah speak nonsense to his contemporary audience and record it that so a group of Gentiles could later come up with an elaborate hierarchy of angels. You make it seem as if scripture can mean whatever we force it to mean without any regard for the original audience. The Hebrew Bible just does not support a character like the modern Satan without distorting it. Even the New Testament Satan is unlike the modern idea of Satan, a being that is equal with God in many ways and seems to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent as described by many Christians.

 

[PastorFreud]

Doesn't Isaiah 14 line up with Jesus saying satan fell from heaven? It gives backstory.

No. It only "lines up" if we superimpose our meaning on the text. The original audience would have thought Isaiah was waxing poetic about the King of Babylon. Jesus could have quoted this passage and given it new meaning, as he sometimes did, but he didn't. Jesus comment in Luke 10:18 serves a purpose of encouraging his disciples -- not an impromptu theology lesson about Satan. So why do we feel justified to use passages to give new meaning to other passages without any regard for the original meaning? I think this is a form of divination -- witchcraft.

 

[ewq1938]

The OP's references are not sufficient to prove this and in the end we are talking about figurative references which make it even more difficult.

This is nothing but opinion with nothing behind it to support the claim. The OP has many citations offering evidence and no one has gone one by one and disputed any of them.

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!

Who else but Satan will literally fall from heaven?

Isaiah 14:13 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:

Who else but Satan could ascend into heaven like he did in Job?


Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Paul wrote that the Antichrist will also seek to do this and whether the AC is Satan or a Satan possessed man it still is a reference to Satan.


Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.


Exactly what Rev 20 depicts happening to Satan!

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Isaiah 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Satan bound for a thousand years and I can easily imagine people saying this about him!

That's far too many coincidences to just be about some old king of Babylon as all of it exactly pertains to Satan and what is going to happen to him and what he tries to accomplish.

 

[PastorFreud]

This is nothing but opinion with nothing behind it to support the claim. The OP has many citations offering evidence and no one has gone one by one and disputed any of them.

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!

Who else but Satan will literally fall from heaven?

Isaiah 14:13 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:

Who else but Satan could ascend into heaven like he did in Job?


Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Paul wrote that the Antichrist will also seek to do this and whether the AC is Satan or a Satan possessed man it still is a reference to Satan.


Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.


Exactly what Rev 20 depicts happening to Satan!

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Isaiah 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Satan bound for a thousand years and I can easily imagine people saying this about him!

That's far too many coincidences to just be about some old king of Babylon as all of it exactly pertains to Satan and what is going to happen to him and what he tries to accomplish.

Not a coincidence. It's prophetic hyperbole. We say these things about our sports teams, "We are going to slaughter you! We are the greatest! We will cut you down so low you will need a parachute to jump off a piece of wet toilet paper!" The King of Babylon was quite puffed up and engaging in hyperbole.

If, on the other hand, you see theology of Satan, then why didn't the original audience get it? Why didn't Isaiah put it to them in words they would understand? The prophetic genre has tell tale signs -- hyperbole, merisms, rhetoric -- and Isaiah is interested in helping his people understand why they were taken into captivity and how they will be delivered. He is interpreting their suffering and giving them hope.

 

[ewq1938]

If, on the other hand, you see theology of Satan, then why didn't the original audience get it?

Same reason anyone ceases to understand something. Plus, how do you know they didn't? It's been long understood that Lucifer is Satan.

Why didn't Isaiah put it to them in words they would understand?

He did.

The prophetic genre has tell tale signs -- hyperbole, merisms, rhetoric -- and Isaiah is interested in helping his people understand why they were taken into captivity and how they will be delivered. He is interpreting their suffering and giving them hope.

Why not a single word on how all of these things are things that Satan accomplishes or experiences? Silence is the loudest sound

 

[PastorFreud]

Same reason anyone ceases to understand something. Plus, how do you know they didn't? It's been long understood that Lucifer is Satan.

He did.

Why not a single word on how all of these things are things that Satan accomplishes or experiences? Silence is the loudest sound

If you think that the Hebrews adopted this view of Satan based on Isaiah 14, where is your proof? It hasn't been long understood that Lucifer is Satan. As another poster shared, it's a fairly recent occurrence revolving around the Latin vulgate translation. Hebrews had a much different view of Ha-Satan, who was God's agent sent to test them and prove them worthy -- not really God's adversary. They also had a different concept of Hell. The word translated "hell" that you quoted is "sheol" which is better translated as "the grave." The whole lake of fire and eternal torment piece was adopted much later by Christians, and they worked their understanding into some of the canonized texts, especially Jude. Forcing meaning on the text can support the whole "spiritual warfare" narrative, but it is forced and not what Isaiah's audience would have understood since they didn't have the view of Satan that is prevalent today. It is not justified to believe that Satan is God's adversarial equal, though it is convenient to blame one's own decisions on Satan. "The devil made me do it!"

 

[ewq1938]

If you think that the Hebrews adopted this view of Satan based on Isaiah 14, where is your proof?

Commentaries from that long ago don't exist but the Christian church has long taught this though it's not universally accepted.

 

[PastorFreud]

Commentaries from that long ago don't exist but the Christian church has long taught this though it's not universally accepted.

Yes, the commentaries exist. See your local Jewish Rabbi. The Christian church has not been unified on teaching anything. Certain branches teach this. But the length of time it has been taught by a Christian sect is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, the commentaries exist. See your local Jewish Rabbi. The Christian church has not been unified on teaching anything. Certain branches teach this. But the length of time it has been taught by a Christian sect is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.

It's been suggested this is a new idea but the church has taught it a long time. And no, those commentaries don't exist.

 

[PastorFreud]

It looks like Origen and Jerome are credited with the beginnings of connecting Isaiah 14 to Satan, and that would have been the 3rd century CE. Isaiah would have been penned at least 1,000 years before, no?

 

[PastorFreud]

It's been suggested this is a new idea but the church has taught it a long time. And no, those commentaries don't exist.

It has been taught a long time, but that doesn't make it true. Modern Mormons teach that Lucifer and Jesus are brothers. If this belief persists for many more years does that make it true?

And I find it amazing you don't recognize that Hebrews then and Hebrews now did not and do not interpret Isaiah 14 as referring to the Christian concept of Satan. Even as they don't connect Isaiah 53 to Jesus. But what truly astounds me is that something does not exist simply because you say so. I suppose the Talmud has ceased to exist, as have earlier artifacts of Judaism.

 

[ewq1938]

It looks like Origen and Jerome are credited with the beginnings of connecting Isaiah 14 to Satan, and that would have been the 3rd century CE. Isaiah would have been penned at least 1,000 years before, no?

Sounds close enough.

 

[ewq1938]

It has been taught a long time, but that doesn't make it true. Modern Mormons teach that Lucifer and Jesus are brothers.

You don't understand why I said that. It was said that the belief is modern and it is not. I never used the age of the belief as proof it's true.

 

[ewq1938]

And I find it amazing you don't recognize that Hebrews then and Hebrews now did not and do not interpret Isaiah 14 as referring to the Christian concept of Satan.

I'm saying no one can say no ancient Jews believed Lucifer could be Satan. You are using newer commentaries and claiming that was the belief of those that were alive near the time the passages were written but that's a large gap of time where writings are not in our possession.

I know what Rashi and the Talmud says. I am saying what did people think long before those? We don't know and it doesn't even matter if they properly understood it or not. Often scriptures are meant for future generations to understand.

 

[PastorFreud]

You don't understand why I said that. It was said that the belief is modern and it is not. I never used the age of the belief as proof it's true.

If I said "modern" then I am sorry it confused you. There are modern spins on the spiritual warfare meme, but the Christian concept of Satan as very different from that of the Hebrews emerged around the 3rd century CE. And, of course, this is when the biblical canon was being organized. Texts that supported doctrine were included, texts that did not were excluded. No book of Abraham. No Shepherd of Hermas. Though there is evidence that early churches had copies of copies of multiple texts and not every church had all the same texts until after the canon was established by the Nicene council. And after the protestant reformation some texts were rejected by protestants, while Catholics held onto them. If we adopted Tobit we would have a lot more to help us build a theology of angels, but I digress.

My point is simply that using Isaiah 14 and forcing our meaning on it is a pretty sloppy way to treat scripture and represents more of a desire to conform than to know what is true.

 

[PastorFreud]

I'm saying no one can say no ancient Jews believed Lucifer could be Satan. You are using newer commentaries and claiming that was the belief of those that were alive near the time the passages were written but that's a large gap of time where writings are not in our possession.

I know what Rashi and the Talmud says. I am saying what did people think long before those? We don't know and it doesn't even matter if they properly understood it or not. Often scriptures are meant for future generations to understand.

Yeah, I can say that most Hebrews thought the "morning star" was hyperbole for the King of Babylon. There may have been a person who thought it was Satan and there may have been one who thought it referred to a purple unicorn, but we have no evidence for these. Lots of evidence that the Hebrews thought it was the King of Babylon.

And if the words of Isaiah were not for his audience, then God truly works in mysterious ways. And by that I mean we really can't understand anything in any text since it could just be a mystery. A future generation can see additional fulfillment -- patterns repeat in history and themes reoccur -- but it just as likely that people can distort texts to make them mean what they wish. It happens with lots of texts including the US Constitution, Huckleberry Finn, and the prophecies of Nostradamus. I've seen some pretty fancy eisegesis in my day.