Is "Lucifer" Satan in Isa. 14?

[christianasbookshelf]

Brethren,

Christian greetings. I don't post out here much, but I do stop in from time to time to see the latest chatter.

I've been studying Isa. 14:12 where the king of Babylon (perhaps Nebuchadrezzer?) is called "Lucifer" in verse 12. As I'm sure you know, and perhaps believe, it's almost automatic in (especially) independent Baptist circles to assume that that is a reference to Satan. Yea, it's almost heretical to assume otherwise, I think. But if you read after the great and respected commentators from years gone by it's hardly a consensus that they are one and the same. Some even consider it a ridiculous interpretation, and aren't afraid to say so (e.g. Adam Clarke). I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that it wasn't as common in history to link Lucifer and Satan as it seems to be today.

So, I thought I'd throw it out here and see what comes back. I'm gathering this information for my own personal study, which will determine how I teach my upcoming Bible institute classes on the book of Genesis this semester. So your input is valuable and appreciated. God bless you.

Bro. Paul Miller
direct email: oldbooks@christianasbookshelf.com

 

[Aaron]

No, it isn't about Satan directly, but pride goeth before a fall.

 

[Marcia]

It's about the king of Babylon but he is also a type of Satan, so indirectly, it is about Satan as well. There seem to be a lot of passages that have double references in the Bible: direct/indirect; present/future.

 

[christianasbookshelf]

It's about the king of Babylon but he is also a type of Satan, so indirectly, it is about Satan as well. There seem to be a lot of passages that have double references in the Bible: direct/indirect; present/future.

Does the Bible say the king of Babylon is a type of Satan? If not, can we be dogmatic about this and then be just as dogmatic about linking Lucifer and Satan?

 

[Allan]

Does the Bible say the king of Babylon is a type of Satan? If not, can we be dogmatic about this and then be just as dogmatic about linking Lucifer and Satan?

There is more than just that verse which allows us to recognize that they are one and the same (Lucifer and Satan).

However that verse alone can stand of it own if one wishes, because it can not be taken as wooden literal since the King of Babylon can not be said to have done nor been where the passage states.

 

[Johnv]

The word "Lucifer" is a transliteration. It is not the name of Satan. In the verse mentioned, it is a reference to the King of Babylon.

 

[Allan]

The word "Lucifer" is a transliteration. It is not the name of Satan. In the verse mentioned, it is a reference to the King of Babylon.

Umm.. yes and no. It is a reference 'ascribed to the king' but it is not the king himself. The language being used is a simile and is shown as such in the discription of Lucifer which portrays the spiritual likeness of the king.

Satan is not the angel's actual name either. Satan means advisary, just as Devil means slanderer. Jesus calls Peter satan, and other demonic spirits are called devils. The name with respect to the individual entity personifies certain charactoristics and thus essentially becomes the embodiment of that aspect.

We also find many of these same charactoristics spoke of the King here the same as the in Ezk 28 of the King of Tyrus yet that passage is more detailed in it's depiction. We even have Jesus alluding to this 'fall' in Luke 10 when He saw him fall from heaven like ligtning.

 

[Johnv]

Assuming you're correct (and you make a good point here on the topic of simile), it's still important to note that the word "Lucifer" is a transliteration. It's not a proper name here, and eas ot intended to be. It became one after being translated into an early English translation. That's why later translations usually render the verse "star of the morning" or "son of the morning".

 

[Allan]

Assuming you're correct (and you make a good point here on the topic of simile), it's still important to note that the word "Lucifer" is a transliteration. It's not a proper name here, and eas ot intended to be. It became one after being translated into an early English translation. That's why later translations usually render the verse "star of the morning" or "son of the morning".

Yes, I agree.

 

[Marcia]

Does the Bible say the king of Babylon is a type of Satan? If not, can we be dogmatic about this and then be just as dogmatic about linking Lucifer and Satan?

No, it doesn't say that. I wasn't being dogmatic, I don't think. I agree that it is debatable. Some use these verses to say it speaks of Satan:

How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
13"But you said in your heart,
'I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.

However, apparently some kings at that time would say such things ("I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God," etc. since they set themselves up as gods).

So I agree it's not clear. I think one could argue it is referring to Satan, but I also think the opposite view could be argued. I used to be more dogmatic about this but that was only because I heard it was about Satan and I didn't know that kings of the era actually made these claims.

 

[OldRegular]

I believe that the person spoken of here is King Nebuchadnezzer. Consider the passage:

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.
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;
17. That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Note in particular verse 16 the statement: Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;. Now obviously Satan is not a man. The statement seems to be an apt description of King Nebuchadnezzer.

 

[Trotter]

"Lucifer" was another name for the planet Venus as it appeared bright and shining in the morning sky. in context, yes it is talking aout he king of Babylon.

I have heard satan called Lucifer all my life, but the verse does not refer to him at all unless you are into allegory.