Why Lucifer IS NOT Satan

[Disciple_of_christ]

Many people believe that Satan used to be Lucifer, one of the highest archangels in heaven. This isn't supported by Scripture as we'll see by the following evidences. Lucifer was actually a reference to the king of Babylon in Isaiah.

This is from a note in the Chronological study Bible called "a failed assault on heaven."

"The prophet Isaiah uses mythological language in a proverb mocking the king of Babylon (Is. 14:4, 22). His references to the day star, the ascent into heaven, the mount of the congregation, and to Sheol would all have been familiar to his readers from the myths of the ancient near east. The name 'Lucifer' is a latin translation of the Hebrew word helel meaning 'shining one.' Lucifer refers to the day star, Venus, and the prophet further identifies him as 'the son of the morning' (14:12). Similar language appears appears with the Ugaritic deities Shahar and Shalim. Shahar was the god of dawn or morning; Shalim, the god of dusk or evening. In another Ugaritic text, Shahar (morning) appears together with Athtar, the star deity who is also identified with Venus.So the ancient myths possibly had made Isaiah's readers familiar with the day star whose father was the god of the morning. Isaiah's taunt of the day star for wanting to ascend into heaven (14:13) may reflect the Ugaritic myth of Athtar, the Venus star deity who is also identified with Venus. Athtar attempts to ascend to the throne of Baal, but is not able and is forced to return to his own, lower position of the pantheon. Athtar was not storming heaven, only sitting on the vacated throne of Baal. He excuses himself from the position upon realizing that he is too small. Nevertheless, a day star ascending to heaven was known in Canaanite myth. In Isaiah's proverb, the day star desires to sit on 'the mount of congregation' located 'on the farthest sides of the north (14:13).' Similarly, Canaanite myths spoke of the mountain home of Baal on Saphon (the Hebrew word translated 'north') and also of a mount of assembly. In Isaiah's proverb, the day star fails to ascend to heaven and is brought down to Sheol, the netherworld also called the pit (14:15.) Similarly, in ancient Near Eastern mythology gods could die and be sent to Mot's netherworld. The reason that Baal's throne was vacant in the Ugaritic myth was that Mot had vanquished Baal and taken him to the realm of the dead."

This is from another note.

"The planet Venus was an important subject for ancient mythology. It is bright when it rises, but when the sun comes up, Venus becomes invisible like any other star. The prophet mocks the king of Babylon, calling him "Lucifer" (Is. 14:12), a translation of the Hebrew word for the day star Venus. The king was trying to rival the sun, and the prophet rebuked him in these terms."

Many people interpret the "heaven" and "sacred mountain" in Isaiah to be referring to the abode of YHWH. Nevertheless, it actually refers to the dwelling place of false idols. This note is taken from the Archaeological study Bible.

"The sacred mountain is mount Zaphon which is northeast of Ugarit in Syria. Much like Mount Olympus for the Greeks, the Canaanites considered this holy mountain to be the dwelling and meeting place of the gods."

It's interesting to note there's no concept of Satan originally being an angel in ancient Jewish theology.

With all of these evidences, it's clear that the tale of Satan originally being an angel is false doctrine.

 

[Idolater]

Many people believe that Satan used to be Lucifer, one of the highest archangels in heaven. This isn't supported . . .

It's interesting to note there's no concept of Satan originally being an angel in ancient Jewish theology.

With all of these evidences, it's clear that the tale of Satan originally being an angel is false doctrine.

Here, an authentic Satanist (I don't suppose you're one of them?) begs to differ, fwiw.

In these words, "Satan" and "Lucifer" are interchangeable, and he is called "Archangelo."

 

[Bradley D]

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!--The word for Lucifer is, literally, the shining one, the planet Venus, the morning star, the son of the dawn, as the symbol of the Babylonian power, which was so closely identified with astrolatry. "Lucifer" etymologically gives the same meaning, and is used by Latin poets (Tibull. i., 10, 62) for Venus, as an equivalent for the phosphoros of the Greeks. The use of the word, however, in mediaeval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the "morning star" has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16).

 

[Disciple_of_christ]

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!--The word for Lucifer is, literally, the shining one, the planet Venus, the morning star, the son of the dawn, as the symbol of the Babylonian power, which was so closely identified with astrolatry. "Lucifer" etymologically gives the same meaning, and is used by Latin poets (Tibull. i., 10, 62) for Venus, as an equivalent for the phosphoros of the Greeks. The use of the word, however, in mediaeval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the "morning star" has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16).

Exactly, it was originally a Catholic doctrine that was never based on proper interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[ralfy]

I read somewhere (I think it was one of Pagels' books) that "Satan" is a common noun and not a name, and it means "advocate" or similar.

 

[steko]

I read somewhere (I think it was one of Pagels' books) that "Satan" is a common noun and not a name, and it means "advocate" or similar.

'ha satan' means 'the adversary' in Hebrew.

 

[Bradley D]

I read somewhere (I think it was one of Pagels' books) that "Satan" is a common noun and not a name, and it means "advocate" or similar.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
adversary, Satan, withstand

From satan; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch-enemy of good -- adversary, Satan, withstand.

 

[Hawkins]

Satan is Lucifer. This is a consensus in Christianity at least back in the 4th century. It's not something we today misunderstood.

Augustine:
For example, what is said in Isaiah, “How he is fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning!” and the other statements in that context that speak of the king of Babylon are of course to be understood of the devil.


Jerome:
Why did the devil fall? Because he committed theft? Because he committed murder? Because he committed adultery? These are certainly evils, but the devil did not fall because of any of these; he fell because of his tongue. What was it that he said? “I will scale the heavens; above the stars I will set up my throne; I will be like the Most High!”


Ambrose:
The serpent, however, introduced sin through his disobedience, a sin which we are now able to identify as pride, the author of which is the devil, whom the prophet portrayed as saying, “I will seat my throne above the clouds and I will be like the Most High.”


Cassiodorus:
The devil regarded himself as great when he said, “I will set my throne at the north, and I will be like the Most High.”

 

[Disciple_of_christ]

A consensus does not necessarily dictate a proper interpretation of Scripture especially considering the evidence against such an interpretation.

 

[Bright Raven]

Then who is Lucifer?

 

[Hawkins]

A consensus does not necessarily dictate a proper interpretation of Scripture especially considering the evidence against such an interpretation.

If the consensus is from our early church fathers, then the consensus shouldn't be taken lightly. Such a consensus may be originated from the Jews who started our Christianity. In the end, it may be a Jewish concept conveyed even by the apostles.

It is thus in the very contrary that you need to provide strong evidence that it's not so before we can get to the conclusion that Satan is not Lucifer.

 

[Disciple_of_christ]

If the consensus is from our early church fathers, then the consensus shouldn't be taken lightly. Such a consensus may be originated from the Jews who started our Christianity. In the end, it may be a Jewish concept conveyed even by the apostles.

It is thus in the very contrary that you need to provide strong evidence that it's not so before we can get to the conclusion that Satan is not Lucifer.

The problem is that the people you quoted from have no association with the early church fathers or Apostles. In fact, Jerome was a Catholic.

 

[Disciple_of_christ]

Then who is Lucifer?

The King of Babylon. Lucifer isn't even a proper figure in the Scriptures. The name "Lucifer" only appears in 1 Bible translation. Plus it's only a latin translation of the morning star.

 

[chair]

If the consensus is from our early church fathers, then the consensus shouldn't be taken lightly. Such a consensus may be originated from the Jews who started our Christianity. In the end, it may be a Jewish concept conveyed even by the apostles.

It is thus in the very contrary that you need to provide strong evidence that it's not so before we can get to the conclusion that Satan is not Lucifer.

There's some speculation in the above. I would like to add, however, that there is an ancient Jewish tradition of interpreting Biblical texts in a creative way, even if the interpretation does not match the plain sense of the text. This is called Midrash. So you can creatively interpret the verse to refer to Satan, even though the plain sense of the verses don't really suggest that at all.

Some of the Gospels need to be understood in this way as well. When I read Matthew, it seems very familiar to me.

 

[Idolater]

The problem is that the people you quoted from have no association with the early church fathers or Apostles. In fact, Jerome was a Catholic.

Every single Christian for the first millennium of the Church's life was Catholic.