Who is the Bright and Morning Star? Jesus or Lucifer

The Light of the World, James Holman Hunt (1827-1910)
The Light of the World, James Holman Hunt (1827-1910) | Source
Author
Author

Introduction

The titles 'Bright and Morning Star’, 'Day Star’, and 'Light Bearer', belong to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I fail to grasp why many believers attribute this title to Satan. Most likely, the basis of their assumption is the tenuous interpretation of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. Not only does it demean this appellation of Christ, it exalts the Satan to a level far above his station.

It is remarkable that the majority of Christians, based solely on private interpretation, has embraced this doctrine concerning the origin and character of Satan.

The New Testament reveals the Old Testament in a way far superior to the imagination of 'man'. I adopted a basic principle of interpretation many years ago; allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Jesus and the New Testament writers often quoted and alluded to the Old Testament to endorse the authenticity of their statements. Yet they never referenced Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28.

These two chapters were never mention by Jesus or the Apostles! Surely, it is reasonable to expect at least one quote, considering the magnitude of this doctrine in the Church today.

I will seek to explain from the Scriptures why I am convinced these chapters do not describe the character of Satan.

Isaiah 14

When taken out of context, Isaiah 14 gives license to the most imaginative and ludicrous descriptions of Satan; elevating him to a position that is totally inappropriate and unscriptural.

Isaiah prophesied the deliverance of Israel and the fall of the Babylonian Empire.

Summary of Isaiah 14

'Deliverance of Israel from captivity, which shall follow the downfall of the great empire, Isa 14:1, Isa 14:2. Triumphant ode or song of the children of Jacob, for the signal manifestation of Divine vengeance against their oppressors, vv. 3-23. Prophecy against the Assyrians, Isa 14:24, Isa 14:25. Certainty of the prophecy, and immutability of the Divine counsels, Isa 14:26, Isa 14:27. Palestine severely threatened, Isa 14:28-31. God shall establish Zion..., Isa 14:32.'

Adam Clarke

Nebuchadnezzar

Nebuchadnezzar, William Blake (1757-1827)  Dan 4:30  The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? Pride goeth before destruction!
Nebuchadnezzar, William Blake (1757-1827) Dan 4:30  The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? Pride goeth before destruction! | Source

Isaiah 14 the Proverb

  • Isa 14:4 KJV That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isaiah 14 was actually a proverb or poem, which mocked the rise and fall of the Babylonian dynasty, from powerful Nebuchadnezzar to partying Belshazzar.

The Lord can exalt rulers and the Lord can cast them down, Babylon was not an exception, 'he removeth kings, and setteth up kings'...Daniel 2:21; Daniel 4:32.

Lost in Translation

  • Isa 14:12 KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, (heylel) son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Heylel

The meaning of the Hebrew word ‘heylel’ is 'morning star'. In my opinion, it was used to illustrate the magnitude of Nebuchadnezzar’s rise to power; the 'morning star’ was one of his honorific titles.

Phosphorus

'Heylel' was translated ‘phosphoros’ in the Greek Septuagint, subsequently; when Jerome translated his 4th Century Latin Vulgate Bible he used ‘lucifer'.

'Phosphorus’ appears only once in the New Testament when Peter described Jesus as ‘the morning star’...2 Peter 1:19. Surely, he would not have done so if the title belonged to Satan!

Lucifer

It is unfortunate that the translators of the King James Version not only retained the Latin 'lucifer', but also personified it by adding a capital 'L'.

In the KJV, 'Lucifer' appears once. It is folly to build a doctrine on one verse of Scripture.

  • Isa 14:12-14 KJV 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.

Striking Facts or Striking Fiction

A Quote from the Summarized Bible

Striking Facts: Isa_14:12-14. 'This is a reference to Satan, the real, though unseen ruler of successive world powers. This tells the story of the beginning of sin in the universe. The universal catastrophe here predicted has never occurred and has to do with the close of the times of the Gentiles and the setting up of Christ’s Kingdom.'

This quote from the Summarized Bible is a typical example of reading between the lines and reaching a conclusion that is bereft of scriptural support. I wonder if the Summarised Bible would have made this presumption had the King James Version properly translated the Hebrew 'heylel' into English (morning star) instead of Latin (Lucifer).

A Quote from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Isaiah 14:12 'Isaiah 14:12'O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render היללheilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should 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 Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal.'

The well-respected commentator Adam Clarke felt it necessary to set the record straight. He was convinced 'the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar'.

A Quote from the Amplified Bible

Isaiah 14:12 'Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan is erroneous, even though it is commonly taught to that effect. Lucifer, THE LIGHT BRINGER, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 (...until the DAY STAR arise in your hearts.) and corresponds to the name `BRIGHT MORNING STAR' in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself. The application of the name Lucifer has only existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 (I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven) is an explanation of Isaiah 14:12, which authorities feel is not true.'

  • Isa 14:16 KJV 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;

In this chapter, the ‘morning star' was an epithet of Nebuchadnezzar the man, not a spirit being.

  • Isa 14:22 KJV For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

There is no evidence in the Scriptures to purport that 'morning star' was a description of Satan, or that Isaiah 14 explained his origin and character.

A Quote from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Isaiah 14:22 'For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts - That is, against the family of, the king of Babylon. And cut off from Babylon the name - That is, all the “males” of the royal family, so that the name of the monarch shall become extinct (compare Rth_4:5; Isa_56:5).......’

On the contrary, Isaiah clearly prophesied God’s judgement on the Babylonian dynasty.

Isaiah 14:12

'The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise.'

John Calvin

Belshazzar's Feast

Belshazzar's Feast, John Martin (1789-1854)
Belshazzar's Feast, John Martin (1789-1854) | Source

Ezekiel 28

There has been far more 'Striking Fiction' than 'Striking Facts' written about Satan, to grant him the title of 'morning star' is completely untenable.

Let us eliminate the myths surrounding this character and attempt to uphold what the Scriptures actually teach.

Summary of Ezekiel 28

'Against the Prince of Tyre - Ezekiel 28:1-19

As the city of Tyre was first of all threatened with destruction (Ezekiel 26), and then her fall was confirmed by a lamentation (Ezekiel 27), so here the prince of Tyre is first of all forewarned of his approaching death (Eze 28:1-10), and then a lamentation is composed thereon (Eze 28:11-19).'

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament

The accolade 'morning star', the titles anointed cherub and archangel, are included in Lucifer's curriculum vitae. There is no evidence in the Scriptures to prove that Satan was either an archangel or a cherub.

  • Eze 28:2 KJV Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God'. The fact of the matter is that Ezekiel prophesied the downfall of the King of Tyre.

A Quote from Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Ezekiel 28:1-10 'The pride of the prince of Tyre is described in Eze_28:2 as consisting in the fact that he regarded himself as a God, and his seat in the island of Tyre as a God's seat...’ ‘...The Tyrian state was the production and seat of its gods. He, the prince of Tyre, presided over this divine creation and divine seat; therefore he, the prince, was himself a god, a manifestation of the deity, having its work and home in the state of Tyre…’

Was Lucifer the Anointed Cherub?

  • Eze 28:14 KJV Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

The purpose of the cherubim is to guard the things of God, while angels are messengers sent from God. According to Christian tradition Satan was both!

Was Lucifer Really One of Three Archangels?

Although Christian tradition has adopted the idea that Satan was one of three archangels, this misconception is from extra-Biblical sources; there is no mention of three in the Scriptures. Michael is the only archangel named...Jude 1:9.

  • Eze 28:17 KJV Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

'because of thy beauty' Many scholars contend Satan was the most beautiful of all the angels. However, Ezekiel 28 described the king of Tyre, not a spirit being.

Was Lucifer Enjoying the Delights of the Garden After His Pre-Adamic Fall?

  • Ezekiel's 28:13 KJV Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Scholars who defend the 'Gap Theory' have much explaining to do. According to popular opinion, a Pre-Adamic race existed between Genesis 1:1-2. Lucifer ruled over his subjects during that period, ultimately, he rebelled and sinned against God. The result was his fall and the destruction of the Pre-Adamic world. Nevertheless, God recreated heaven and the earth from the formless void that remained. The pinnacle of God's creation was Adam. However, fallen Lucifer caused Adam to disobey God when he tempted Eve in the garden and the rest is history.

Those who perpetuate the 'Gap Theory' are confronted by an insurmountable difficulty! If Lucifer fell during a Pre-Adamic world, how could he fit the description of the person described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28?

Bill Britton clearly explains the dilemma:

A Quote from Pastor Bill Britton lighthouselibrary.com

Ezekiel 28:13 'As for Satan being 'Lucifer' (King James Version only) of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, consider this... this being who fell was described as holy and beautiful and wise before he fell, and was described as being in the Garden of God, walking among the stones of fire, etc. Read Genesis account of creation, and find that the Garden was prepared for ADAM, not Satan, and that according to the 'gap theory' (a foundation for the Holy Angel Lucifer theory), the Garden was not even created until after 'Lucifer' was supposed to have fallen and become Satan. So Satan could not have walked in the Garden of God in a holy state, as per Ezekiel. Read the footnote on Isaiah 14:12 in the Amplified Bible, as to why 'Lucifer' is only in King James.'

My article 'There Never was a Pre-Adamic Race' explains my view on this subject.

Jesus Is the True Morning Star

Isaiah prophesied ‘The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined’...Isaiah 9:2. This and similar prophecies pointed to the coming of the Messiah...Isaiah 60 1-2.

  • Joh 1:5 KJV And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

  • 2Pe 1:19 KJV We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

John described Jesus as ‘the light shineth in darkness’. Peter also used a similar phrase 'a light that shineth in a dark place' when he described Jesus as 'the day star’. The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies was the advent of Christ.

Feedback

Has this Hub challenged you to search the Scriptures?

See results without voting

Conclusion

Satan may have been a predominant fallen angel who possessed great powers, but why glamourise him by the misappropriation of Scripture.

I find it incomprehensible that Christian tradition has given Satan the grand title of ‘light-bringer’!

The Final Word

  • Rev 2:28 KJV And I will give him the morning star.

The reward of the overcomer is 'the morning star'; thankfully in the final chapter of the Revelation, Jesus settled the identity of 'the bright and morning star'.

  • Rev 22:16 KJV I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

If Jesus said it, then I believe it!

What do you think?

Footnote

Recommended Reading:

I discovered this fascinating article on the city of Tyre while 'searchin' for information on Ezekiel 28: Tyre in Prophecy

The Bright and Morning Star

Alexander Gibb

More by this Author


Comments 31 comments

Carrie Bradshaw profile image

Carrie Bradshaw 5 years ago from Manhattan

Yes, the whole doctrine of Lucifer being an Archangel that became Satan is an absolute doctrine of man, and definitely not biblical. I have a hub on my Judah's Daughter profile called "Is Lucifer the Devil?" that goes into much of what you've covered here, including the various types of angels, only one Archangel and Satan actually being "The Dragon, the Serpent of Old, the Devil and Satan" who was "a murderer FROM THE BEGINNING" (not a glorious, heavenly angel). Furthermore Isa 14 and Ez 28 are not even talking about the same man, let alone Satan. Good hub!!


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 5 years ago from UK Author

Carrie

Thank you for your comment.

I too feel strongly that doctrine such as these need to be challenged.


Reginald Boswell profile image

Reginald Boswell 5 years ago from Alabama

What happened to the 'Shining One' that once dwelled in the First Heaven nigh the throne of God? Where did He go? Where did Satan come from? Does Lucifer exist now? If he does, what is his role? How could man who according to the psalmist was made a little lower than the angels discern the truth about these beings?


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 5 years ago from UK Author

Reginald

Thank you for your comment.

You list many challenging questions. In my Hub I have attempted to answer a few from the Scriptures, which is our only true source of knowledge.


Carrie Bradshaw profile image

Carrie Bradshaw 5 years ago from Manhattan

Hi Reginald, Satan is called "the Dragon, the Serpent of Old, the Devil and Satan" (Rev 12:9) and is also called "a murderer from the beginning". Heylel (named Lucifer - a Latin proper name inserted into the Hebrew text of Isa 14:12) appears to be the angel of the bottomless pit that is the end-time king of Babylon, the Antichrist. The Antichrist and false prophet are cast into the Lake of Fire pre-millennial reign, while Satan is bound in the bottomless pit (Rev 19:20-20:2), so even they are not the same being. Heylel means 'star of the morning', the antichrist of the true 'Morning Star', Jesus Christ. Take it or leave it, but this is what my Bible study results were.


ShadowKing! 4 years ago

Good hub and it can be proven valid through historical evidence as well as linguistic evidence. I applaud you on doing your homework and getting most of the content correct. However, I have one grievance. The ha-sat'yn (the Satan) of the Bible can be shown to have been a cherub and an archangel. I had an article I wrote that proved this on my last computer. But the hard-drive malfunctioned and I lost all data, resulting in me not being able to post it when completed. But I intend to write it again. At that time I will prove to you and Judah's Daughter that Satan was a cherub and archangel. Just give me some time to do so.


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

ShadowKing!

Thank you for reading and commenting on my Hub.

I am looking forward to reading your Hub as soon as it is published.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

Interesting take on the subject

Some translations say

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” English Standard Version

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give this testimony to you for the churches. I am the root and descendent of David, the bright morning star." The International Standard version

These versions say David is the Morning Star and Jesus is his offspring or son and there are more bibles with this version

The New Living Bible says ""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

Jesus says he is the morning star which contradicts the previous translations

The King James version has the version you quoted

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

But either way what is the morning star? Did David get the morning star pregnant?

Or if as the other versions say that David is the morning star or that Jesus is the morning star, which contradicts the version you quote

what is the morning star and which version is correct?


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

vveasey

Thank you for reading my Hub.

Your comment on Revelation 22:16 is interesting, I have never encountered this understanding of the verse before.

I agree that the title ‘morning star’ was used metaphorically to honour men in the past, which is why I included my view of Nebuchadnezzar in my hub.

The point you made about the difference in the Bible versions is a valid one. The King James Version includes ‘and’ in italics because it is not in the original manuscript, it was inserted to assist readers to make sense of the original Greek. When copying and pasting Scriptures to HubPages it would appear that the italic is lost in the process.

However, even without ‘and’ in the verse, Jesus was declaring that He is ‘the bright and morning star’, He was not ascribing the title to David.

Jesus is metaphorically ‘the bright and morning star’, the true light bearer.

'Offspring' does not mean ‘son’ on every occasion, it also means ‘descendant’.

My next Hub will include a segment on Jesus ‘the root and the offspring of David’; this will be ready soon.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

You say "However, even without ‘and’ in the verse, Jesus was declaring that He is ‘the bright and morning star’, He was not ascribing the title to David."

But these translations are still read around the world, you're just choosing to stick with the one that supports your beliefs.

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” English Standard Version

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give this testimony to you for the churches. I am the root and descendent of David, the bright morning star." The International Standard version


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

vveasey

I agreed with your point about Revelation 22:16, and said that the other versions are correct.

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” English Standard Version

In the above version there is a comma separating [descendant of David,] / [the bright morning star.] Because of the comma, Jesus clearly said He is 'the bright and morning star'.

I cannot find anywhere else in Scripture that states David was 'the morning star', but John and Peter both wrote that Jesus is ‘the morning star’.

I use other versions of the Bible forby the King James Version; my preference is translations rather than paraphrasing versions.

However you posted:

The New Living Bible says ""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

In this instance there is a period between [David and the heir to his throne.] / [I am the bright morning star]!

Because of the period, Jesus clearly said He is 'the bright and morning star'.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

Yeah I posted all of the variations of the verse because they are in other bibles that Christians use and believe in.

The other versions are clearly saying Jesus is the offspring of David and the bright morning star.

It all depends on which one you want to believe and which one you prefer and

you've previously made it very clear which one you strongly believe and strongly prefer...so it's all back to which one you believe is true rather than which one is true.

The morning star is the planet Venus Also Venus the Roman Goddess of Love

I was looking at the morning star recently.

It's a bright star you can see right before sunrise.

It was said to precede and herald (announce) the coming of the Light, (the sun, the sun god).

They way John the Baptist was to precede and heralded or announced the coming of the light, Jesus.

You see the pattern

This was thousands of year before the Bible, Jesus or Christianity existed

The light that literally lights everyone that comes into the world is the sun


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

vveasey

On the interpretation of Revelation 22:16 it looks like we are separated by a common language. It would be interesting to read visitors comments on their interpretation.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

I didn't write the various version of that verse, I'm just reading them the way they are written.

It's interesting because this is supposed to be unalterable word of God


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

vveasey

The original Old Testament manuscripts were written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, I believe these were inspired by God.

The problem arose when translating the manuscripts into English, which is why I use numerous translations for comparison purposes while studying.

If you are 'reading them the way they were written' then Revelation 22:16 would not be a problem. In my opinion, your understanding of the verse is a grammatical issue.


CJ Sledgehammer 4 years ago

As I read Revelation 22:16, it is clear to me that Christ Jesus is claiming to be the root and offspring of King David as well as the "bright Morning Star".

For anyone to think that this passage states that King David is the bright Morning Star is to misconstrue the verse's sentence structure.

Best wishes and be well - C.J. Sledgehammer


CJ Sledgehammer 4 years ago

Searchinsany:

Another articulate and thought-provoking essay...thank you!!!

Although I am inclined to agree with all that you have proposed here today, I do have a question for you. Do you believe that the "Prince of Persia" was a spirit being, who detained the angel Gabriel for 3 weeks, or was the Prince of Persia a mere man?

If the Prince of Persia, in the Book of Daniel, is a spirit being, could there also be a powerful spirit being called the King of Tyre and King of Babylon? I am not ready to weigh-in one way or the other at this point, but I just wanted to hear what you had to say.

Best wishes and be well - C.J. Sledgehammer


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

searchinsany

I'm aware of which languages the manuscripts were written in.

I'm also extensively aware of the vast amount of historical research that's been done on the origin of Christianity and if Jesus ever really existed or not.

as for your belief they were inspired by God

You're entitled to your belief and your opinion

In the 4th century Ad Pope Damasus (I think that's the way his name is spelled) commissioned Jerome to redact (edit, rewrite) all of the extant manuscripts to create the first Christian Bible the Roman Catholic, Latin Vulgate.

When English scholars in the 1600 Ad were commissioned by King James to used the original manuscripts to create the King James Bible.

They mainly had to use the manuscripts that were preserved by the Roman Catholic scholars, which as I said were redacted

.

Do you know there are no originals of the manuscripts, only copies of copies?

I believe the oldest copy of the old testament are copies of copies from the 9th century AD

You would think that the Original manuscripts would have been preserved of something that's considered the word of God


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

CJ Sledgehammer

Thank you for your comment.


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 4 years ago from UK Author

CJ Sledgehammer

CJ this is an excellent question.

Dan 10:13 KJV But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Dan 10:13 YLT `And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;

Cyrus the King of Persia was predestined by God to release the Babylonian captives that they might rebuild the temple…Isaiah 44:28.

For a reason not specifically mentioned, the angel was delayed in responding to Daniel’s prayer because the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him. Michael the archangel intervened and the angel was able to complete his mission.

Should we interpret ‘the prince of the kingdom of Persia’ ‘the angel’ because Michael is called one of the chief princes? I am not convinced.

In my opinion, there are Bible Versions that fan the flame of personal interpretation. I have an aversion to ‘paraphrasing’ Bible Versions; many do not do justice to the Scriptures.

Daniel 10:13 is an example:

Dan 10:13 ERV But the prince (angel) of Persia has been fighting against me for 21 days. Then Michael, one of the most important princes (angels), came to help me because I was stuck there with the king of Persia. (Easy-to-Read Version)

Dan 10:13 BBE But the angel of the kingdom of Persia put himself against me for twenty-one days; but Michael, one of the chief angels, came to my help; and when I came he was still there with the angel of the kings of Persia. (1965 Bible in Basic English)

Dan 10:13 CEV But the guardian angel of Persia opposed me for twenty-one days. Then Michael, who is one of the strongest guardian angels, came to rescue me from the kings of Persia. (Contemporary English Version)

Strong’s Dictionary ‘prince’ H8269 śar sar From H8323; a head person (of any rank or class): - captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ([-task-]) master, prince (-ipal), ruler, steward.

There is no mention of 'angel' in Strong’s dictionary.

In the King James Version ‘śar’ is translated 422 times yet never ‘angel’.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying things but from other areas of Scripture we know that Satan ‘the adversary’ was opposed to God’s plan of redemption for mankind, perhaps he sowed doubt in the mind of Cyrus which caused him to hesitate. After all, it would be through the remnant that the advent of the Lord Jesus Christ would come about; thereby the salvation of mankind.

I am determined to be persuaded by clear evidence in Scripture. Perhaps I will miss out but I prefer to stand by the adage, ‘let’s speak when the Scriptures speak and be silent when the Scriptures are silent’. This is the same principle I used with Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 in this Hub.

However if it can be shown from Scripture that cities and nations were controlled by evil ‘guardian’ angels, and such an angel resisted the Lord’s angel, I am willing to listen.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

and since the bible tells us in two places that all fallen angels are reserved in chains until the judgement we KNOW he is not a fallen angel but was created with ALL THINGS in the garden.


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 3 years ago from UK Author

Celafoe

Thank you for reading my Hub and for your interesting comment. I am convinced that God in His sovereignty used the 'Adversary' in His great plan of redemption. I am not completely persuaded whether he was a specifically created spirit being or a fallen angel. I have been working on a follow up Hub, but I don't think it will be widely received.


SwordofManticorE profile image

SwordofManticorE 3 years ago from Burlington

Though I agree with you when it comes to the lucifer myth, there was something that I found odd. Isaiah 14:12 "eill" means "howl-You", not morning star.


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 3 years ago from UK Author

SwordofManticorE

Sorry for the delay in replying to your comment, I only discovered it today.

Originally I quoted an extract from Adam Clarke's commentary on Isaiah 14:12. I have now quoted his full comment and it may answer your observation.

'....Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal.'


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 3 years ago from UK Author

K J W Sigman on Pinterest

This is a reply to K J W Sigman's comment made on Pinterest:

'How do you explain the origin of and character of Satan?'

K J W, I was unable post this reply on Pinterest.

Thank you for reading my article, sorry for the delay in replying I have only just found your comment. I was expecting readers to leave a comment on HubPages.

It would take a separate Hub to answer your question, which I hope to complete soon.

The only way I can explain Satan's origin and character is by quoting what was specifically written about him. In my opinion, the imagination of 'man' has been allowed to run wild with fanciful ideas from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, where Satan was never even mentioned by name.

Relatively speaking, there is little reference to Satan in the Old Testament compared to the New.

The Beguiling of Eve...Genesis 3:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3

The Testing of Job...Job 1:12

The Provocation of David...2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:11

The Adversary of Joshua the High Priest...Zechariah 3:1

However, more is revealed in the New Testament. Surprisingly, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 were never quoted.

Satan dramatically exploded on to the scene at the beginning of Christ's ministry, in an attempt to thwart every move to establish the Kingdom of God in the hearts of men.

The following described his character and function of adversary, accuser, liar etc.

The Temptation of Christ...Matthew 4:10

The Sifting of Peter..Luke 22:31-32

The Buffeting of Paul...2 Corinthians12:7-9

The following titles defined his power.

The prince of this world...John 14:30

The god of this world...2 Corinthians 4:4

The prince of the power of air...Ephesians 2:2

The power of darkness...Colossians 1:13

The great dragon, the serpent, the devil, Satan...Revelation 12:8

God in His infinite wisdom chose to use Satan, The Adversary, in His great plan of redemption. There is no doubt that irrespective of his origin, he was endowed with exceptional powers, yet he was restricted in his opposition. Only God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, Satan was a created being and never possessed any of these attributes.

I will leave it to the speculators whether he was specifically created for purpose, or was an archangel with a colourful personality who fell from favour through sin.

Perhaps you might read my other articles and we could communicate through the comments section on HubPages.


FREDRICK KING,W 2 years ago

Morning is a word in HEBREW: meaning intellectual,intellergenance,and ingenuity,but not BRIGHT.BRIGHT IS A WORDmeaning:much LIGHT:LUMINOUS,SHINING,FILLED with LIGHT and BRILLIANT:GLORIOUS,than an era of quick-witted intelligent,intellergenance wise and foolish proud hearted infidial:lucifer.


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 2 years ago from UK Author

Fredrick King, W

Thank you for reading and commenting on my Hub. Could you please elaborate more that I might respond to your comment? Can you tell me the source of your definitions of morning and bright.

In addition, what intellergenance means.

GB


Vincent Eagan profile image

Vincent Eagan 2 years ago from Charlotte, NC

Excellent exhaustive hashing out of this subject. This is a subject I come back to often with folks, and I will be sure to save your article for future use (instead of having to type it all out myself again lol). I concur that Isaiah 14 refers to Nebuchadnezzar and Ezekiel 28 refers to Tyre.

Now write one where you study out the identity of "Michael the Archangel"! I suggest you will find it very interesting when you consider his name (One who is like God), his activity and prophecy concerning him in Daniel, and what "archangel" means .... and the fact that at the resurrection, Jesus will shout "with the voice of the archangel". Happy studying!


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 2 years ago from UK Author

Vincent Eagan

Welcome to HubPages, and thank you for your encouraging comment. I will add Michael the Archangel to my shortlist.


Profit Anthony 13 months ago

You people hear but do not understand. You see and do not learn. Jesus is Lucifer. Jesus is a Graven Image and Paul forced the Jews to convert or die. Paul then had the Romans to wipe the Temple from the face of the earth. Jesus is not coming for anyone!!! You have been lied to by darkness!!! When will you people learn the truth???


searchinsany profile image

searchinsany 13 months ago from UK Author

Profit Anthony

Please provide your source of information that I might understand and learn.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working