Once again I have gotten into a controversy with regard to the Authorized Version of the bible, aka the King James Bible. I did tackle the identity of Lucifer in Isaiah 14 here, but having reassessed my views, I think what I am about to propose to you is clearer, and more correct;
This time I have been discussing the use of the word “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14, versus other possible translations such as “Morning Star” or “Day star” used in modern versions, with a KJV onlyist. As I have been researching the controversy I have felt physically ill while reading articles on the subject. It seems that no one is actually reading the context of Isaiah 14, but are basing their ideas on traditions, or a partial reading of the text. I see this on both sides of the argument!
The context is set in verses 1-3, and is clearly speaking of an event which will occur during the millennial reign of Christ. This is not something that happened in the distant past, but something that will occur in the near future.
We often interpret words based on the myths and stories we were told as young people, without actually thinking critically on word definitions, or their origins. Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, are guilty of this as much as anyone.
When I read the name “Lucifer” I immediately think of the leader of the angel who rebelled against God, who is often referred to in Scripture as “the devil”, or “Satan”. (Well, I did, but I won’t make that mistake again.) The association between “Lucifer” and Satan is something that occurred somewhere around 400AD, in Roman Pagan tradition, and does not actually come from the Scriptures itself.
The bible does not actually teach that Lucifer is Satan. The idea gradually made its way into the Church after the creation of the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate itself actually used the name “Lucifer” in places that clearly refer to Jesus Christ.
“In 2 Peter 1:19, the KJV renders the Greek word φωσφόρος (phosphoros) as ‘day star.’ Again, the Latin Vulgate has lucifer here:
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris” Found Here
The term Lucifer in Latin, means the same as “phosphoros” in Greek, or “Morning Star” or “Day Star” in English, which is a reference to the planet Venus. This term is used both for the Lord Jesus Christ, and for other persons, especially ancient kings. It means “Light Bearer”.
Many Christians look at the similarities between Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:18 “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” with the lament in Isaiah 14:12, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! …” and conflate the two statements. This is not justified by the text, especially when taken in context.
While, at times, similar statements may be about the same event, there are other times where similar statements may actually refer to different events.
Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:18 is a reference to Satan leaving Heaven, and quickly returning to earth as he sees the preaching of the gospel threatening his dominance. This statement of the Lord is not a reference to the chief angel rebelling against the Lord, which is an event that occurred thousands of years earlier. Nor is it a reference to the war in Heaven where the fallen angels will be expelled, which is an End Times war, and has not happened as yet.
The “fallen from heaven” statement in Isaiah 14 appears to be referring to a man who once had understood and accepted the gospel, but eventually rejects it, and instead places himself in the place of Christ (the Antichrist). He actually uses his knowledge of the gospel to gain support from professing Christendom, before destroying them when he is done using them.
Very clearly the text of Isaiah 14 is referring to a man, and not an angel.
“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; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
This Lucifer does other things that men do, which angels do not do. For instance, he is an earthly king, and he will die, for a time, but angels don’t die;
18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
This man dies and then is raised from the dead, like the Lord Jesus Christ, like an “abominable Branch”, or like an anti-Messiah. This person is the same person spoken of in Revelation 13:3, and 12, and is known as the Beast, or the Antichrist.
This man has land, and people to whom he belongs. Satan is never said to “have a land”.
He has children and nephews. Angels don’t have nephews. There never has been an angel who had nephews. God Himself does not have nephews.
21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. 22 For I will rise up agaist them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
The context of “his chidren” is of his literal children.
The phrase “ the iniquity of their fathers”, does not mean that these are children of other men, but that their fathers consist of a line of men stretching from the distant past to the time of this man. Very likely this man will trace his ancestry through Mohammad all the way back to Abraham’s first son, Ishmael. The “God of his fathers” in Daniel 11:37 is a reference to a long line of men who followed a false god, Allah, and rejected the true God; Jesus Christ.
The passage is consistent throughout that the person in view is an earthly king, a ruler. There is not a hint in the passage that this man is of supernatural origin.
The passage in question says that the person who is its subject is “a man”, and I do believe this. This means that there is a man, a descendant of Adam, who is known as “Lucifer”. In this sense “Lucifer” is a title rather than a name.
Logic dictates that something cannot be “A” and “Not A” at the same time. He can’t be a man (a natural being) and an angel ( a supernatural being) at the same time.
It therefore follows that if “Lucifer” is the correct translation of “Heylel” then Lucifer cannot be the chief fallen angel. This is logic, and the only possible solution if the KJV is correct.
Calling Lucifer the “chief fallen angel” is to carry on the Roman lie. Organizations that characterize themselves as “Luciferian” are following a fictitious god, but they will jump on board when the Antichrist arises!
We need to stop believing Roman fables, and such is the case with the historic Lucifer. The name “Lucifer” in relation to the chief fallen angel, does not appear in Scripture. To equate it as such is to take-on extra-biblical theology. (hint: this is a bad thing!)
Lucifer is another word for “day star” or “morning star” and is synonymous with titles that Jesus takes for Himself. This does NOT mean that the person in Isaiah 14 is Jesus, but rather he is someone who wants people to view himself as “the Son of God”, or as a replacement for Jesus!
So, the KJV is correct; “Lucifer” is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew “Heylel”. It is our own understanding of words which are often the cause of erroneous interpretations. Just because we are familiar with a particular term it does not necessarily follow that we truly do understand the biblical use of that word!
By the way, the only way we can understand the Bible is through the Holy Spirit. We cannot understand it as fleshly people, but we have to rely on the Spirit of God to interpret it for us. You might say that this makes it subject to the interpretations of men, but in amongst the interpretations of men there are the true interpretations of the Holy Spirit. Only those who have the Spirit can really understand.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Corinthians 2:14
Also check out http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/answers.htm