The Name Lucifer

Many years ago while looking through some footnotes in an old Bible my wife bought at a garage sale I found an entry on the name most people believe refers to Satan. It is assumed to be the name he was given or used before he and one third of the other angels rebelled against God.

In this short discourse I would like to examine some facts as they are presented in the only portion of the Holy Scriptures that even make mention of or allude to the name of Satan as being … "Lucifer." The only place in the K.J.V. where the word Lucifer is used is in Isaiah 14:12.

If one would read the context of this whole chapter, (Isaiah 14) it speaks explicitly of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon … not Satan. Notice in (verse 4) the directive given leads to only one man … "Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"

The verse in question, Isaiah 14:12 in the K.J.V. reads … "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" … I believe the word Lucifer (heylel in Hebrew ... meaning, the morning star brightness) is alluding to the king of Babylon and is only using the bright morning star as a mocking comparison.

This verse in the 1917 Jewish edition of the English Version of the Hebrew Bible reads … "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Light-bringer, son of the morning!" Whenever Hebrew Scripture speaks of the fallen angel (the spiritual being called "the devil" in the Greek New Testament) he is always called "Satan" in Hebrew … never Lucifer.

Most other versions of the Bible generally agree with the translation of the Hebrew word "heylel" (translated as Lucifer in the K.J.V.) as meaning the morning star Venus … the Light-bringer … which shines in the eastern sky early in the morning as the light of day begins to break.

Compare (verse 12) in the Amplified Bible which agrees with the Hebrew Bible … "How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!"

The king of Babylon in all his royal glory and majesty is really the one spoken of or alluded to by how he outshines (like the morning star) all the rest of the kings of the earth. Only Solomon and his kingdom surpassed Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in power and glory.

But Isaiah is presenting a very different image of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. It is a comparison of the bright morning star Venus with the once magnificent king of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar is now exhibited and shown as having fallen from his throne; his brightness and glory now dimmed like a star in the morning daylight.

The words of (verse 14) are a continuation of the speech of the dead in Hell, (verses 9 & 10) to the king of Babylon, taunting the great king Nebuchadnezzar, in the change which had taken place … as if it's almost incredible, that he should be deposed from his glory and fall from his lofty almost heaven like throne.

This verse is not meant to be understood as being the fall of Satan, although he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one. Satan is never anywhere in Scripture called Lucifer, nor is he here in this scripture.

And yet this name Lucifer has been, and I know not why, applied to Satan, the chief of the fallen angels; who is neither the bringer of morning light nor a magnificent earthly king.

Satan is in fact just the opposite of it's meaning, which is "the bringer of light." Satan is the "prince of darkness" not light. He is commonly called by the name Lucifer by men as often as the names Satan and the Devil, but only by those who are mistaken in this one verse's meaning.

For the Holy Spirit, (speaking through Isaiah) were to call this arch-enemy of God and man, the light-bringer would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning neither Satan nor his fall; which many learned men have with great confidence mistakenly deduced from this text.

It is plainly meant to refer to the king of Babylon almost in jest. In fact (verse 16) asks the question … "is this the man" … clearly speaking of the king.

This Scripture is not to be understood as the fall of Satan; although I will admit, there may be … an allusion to it.



Comments welcome.

A True Native American Patriot

Dr. David Yeagley has been called an American Indian Leonardo da Vinci. He is an author, scholar, classical composer, concert musician, portrait artist, an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Liberal Studies and a political commentator. He founded and runs the popular blog … BadEagle.com.

An enrolled member of the Comanche tribe, Dr. Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. He created BadEagle.com, the sole voice of conservative thought among American Indian intellectuals.

Dr. Yeagley has a Master of Divinity from Yale University. He is also a believer in Jesus. That makes him my brother in Christ. He is an American patriot who accepts our Judeo-Christian heritage and believes strongly in the right of Israel to exist.

Because of his credentials I started following his writings concerning the state of both, America and the church today and where we are headed as a nation … away from the God of the Bible. I asked and have received permission to reprint any material contained in his blog … BadEagle.com.

One quote from Dr. Yeagley that caught my attention early on … "The rise and fall of nations is something God tends to. Nations are on probation." I believe that includes America.

I am considering using part of his postings from time to time; things that I think might be helpful or needful for believers to know and understand concerning the dangers that America faces. The first danger that I will deal with is … the Muslim threat. I will deal with other subjects later.

The Descendents of Ishmael?

The proposed identity of Arabs as the descendents of Ishmael, and thus Abraham (see Genesis 16) is the foundation of Mohammad’s claim to religious authority. He made this claim in the early 7th century AD. The ancient Hebrew text (Genesis) however, indicates no such authority for Ishmael or his descendents. Ishmael is the heir of no promise. There are a couple of statements about him (and by implication, his descendents), but these are far less than spiritual.

"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him …" (Genesis 16:12)

If this applies to more than the personal life span of Ishmael, and indeed to his descendents, it is a most terrible implication. A curse it is, upon the Ishmaelites and on everyone who must encounter them. The second generation (the sons) of Ishmael (who himself lived 137 years) are as follows: Nebajoth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Duman, Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. (Genesis 25: 13-16)

As custom in the ancient world of the Middle East, villages, cities, and towns were often named after the person who founded them. Sometimes even geographic areas took the name of the man who established the township in the area. Genesis says that these people lived between Havilah and Shur. This includes the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula, between Egypt and Cana’an, extending possibly across the northern regions of the Arabian Peninsula eastward.

But, who are today’s Arabs? That is the question. Even if they are the descendents of Ishmael (a point never demonstrated in any way by anyone), their claim to Abraham provides them no religious authority, and Mohammad’s version of Hebrew history is as inaccurate as any subsequent interpolation. This is a very weak connection after all.

"Arab" in Hebrew ('ar-ab) comes from a primitive root which means to braid, or to mingle, to mix together. It conveys the idea of a bond, a deal, a contract, or collateral. It's a commitment of some kind. The same word also has the meaning of "covering" or darkening. It is used to convey the time of sunset, gloaming, or dusk, when colors darken, when shadows mix with light. It means to darken, to grow dusky. There being nothing particularly dark about the hot white sands of the desert, we’re inclined to think "arab" refers to the complexion of the people. The braid bit, the mingling, may have something to do with their sociological nature. Perhaps it implies a certain intrusive nature, and the demand for dealings.

The word is in use, as a name for a people, at least as early as the time of Solomon (1st Kings 10:15). This would be 10th century BCE. Kings of Arabia brought fantastic gifts to Solomon, as did other kings. It seems as though they were investing in some kind of international bank. The centralizing of wealth depicted, regarding Solomon’s kingdom, was accomplished without military conquest.

Be that as it may, there is no biblical identification of any of these Arabian kings or kingdoms with Ishmael, or any of Ishmael’s descendents. Since the Bible and the Bible alone is Mohammad’s claim to the Abraham connection, one must demand an explicit connection of Arabs to Ishmael, and there simply is none. Because of the geographic vicinity and proximity, one might be inclined to believe it is so, that Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael, but, this is the pressure of historical presumption and tradition, and moreover, of modern Islamic threat.

However, there is one verse that may indicate the geneological connection. It is from the prophet Ezekiel, 27:21 (6th century BCE). There is the phrase, "Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar…" Kedar (Quidri) was the northernmost area of the Arabian desert lands. Kedar is also named as one of the sons of Ishamel. There were at least two other ancient settlements in Arabia named after Ishmaels sons, Tema and Dedan, toward the southwestern regions. What we cannot know however, is when these regions were named thus. Were they called by these names in 1900 BC, during the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael? Or were they named such later, much later, like a millennium later?

The depth of biblical scholarship required to pursue these matters is inaccessible to us at the moment. The etymology and ethno-historical research demanded are simply beyond the scope of immediate blogging. However, we shall pursue this matter, inch by inch. For now, it seems very strange that not a single name of Ishmael's sons survives on the modern maps of "Saudi" Arabia. If they wanted to claim kin to Ishmael, it had been better to preserve some names. This asserts the question … Did the "Arabians" before Mohammad not wish to claim kin to Abraham? Were they not interested? When did the names Kedar, Tema, and Dedan fall out of use? Why?

Was Mohammad like a modern American "casino" Indian leader, who suddenly claimed to be "Indian" (in this case a descendent of Abraham) in order to cash in on religious authority–and all the political and material wealth and power such a claim would bring to him? Is that what happened?

A scholar of the Arabic language might be useful here. What about the evolution of Arabic? Why are there no ancient names, no 6th century BCE names surviving? Did the language change significantly? Most languages tend to. What are the modern Arabic equivalents (or linguistic heirs) for the ancient names? There is no Kedar on the modern map, or any name remotely similar, anywhere. "Qe-dar" in Hebrew simply means dark, as in skin. It can refer to the shadow of the tent as well. A tent is for shade. It can be said that one puts up a shade or shadow, when one pitches a tent. No such term exists in modern Arabia for that territory. Al-Jawf and Al-Hudud ash shamaliyah are the names of states in the region of what was called Kedar. Unless I am completely mistaken, neither term means "dark" or "shadow." Interestingly, historically (1000 BC – 2nd century BC), Al-Jawf was the name of one of the southernmost states of Arabia, in Yemen, the state of Ma'in. So, even before Solomon, the Arabs had their own names for their regions, and their names did not include the names of Ishmael's sons!

It seems then that there was a long period when the Arabians despised any connection with Abraham. They renamed themselves and all their territories.

These are seemingly impossible pursuits. Suffice it to say, there's been a grand "ar-ab" in Arabia. A grand mixing. Mohammadans have a lot to prove. In fact, the whole Islamic show appears to be rather groundless. It is a fake claim, with fake authority. That is why it's only resort is force. Constant hysteria and force. It is a glass house of a most fragile making. Brutality is the only authority in Islam. Sensitivity? Some call it murder. Mass murder, at that.

by David Yeagley • September 21, 2006

View his website at … http://www.badeagle.com.





Dr. David Yeagley


Comments welcome.