Skip to comments.Was Jesus mocking Lucifer?
Posted on 01/15/2012 8:48:31 PM PST by j.argese
John 8:12 - Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Lucifer - from the Latin, "Bearer of Light", astronomically, Venus or the Morning Star
I can see Christ mocking Satan in the same manner that we Freepers tend to mock humanists, athiests, or gay activists for their so-called perceived wisdom and insight.
No. IMHO, I’d suggest Matthew Henry’s commentary, available at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208&version=KJV, to get a quick handle on what was generally accepted theology for 1,700 years or thereabouts.
Just click on the Show Resources link to the right of the text to see the commentary for the chapter you’re viewing.
The identification of “Lucifer” with Satan probably began with St. Jerome and his Latin translation of the Bible. I got this by skimming the Wikipedia article on Lucifer, which I recommend. So your suggestion seems to me ahistorical. Also note that Jesus is referred to as the Morning Star in the NT.
I tend to think of Jesus as God’s replacement for Lucifer. Lucifer messed it all up and Jesus had come fix it. Not like Obama making it worse, but actually fixing it.
I think he was referring to Himself being The Light the Jews followed while in the wilderness.
I don’t think he was mocking Satan. Jesus, our Lord, took his mission seriously, even to the death.
It’s a little more complicated than that.
The term “Lucifer” in the Bible was not originally applied to the devil. The sole reference comes from Isaiah 14:12, which states, “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!” The word is actually a title, not a name, and it was being applied to a Babylonian king (if I’m not mistaken)... not actually to the devil. It was an astronomical reference to the Morning Star, which preceded the true light of the Sun as a sign of its coming.
If Satan is at all to be called Lucifer (and he is NOT in the Bible), it is only because he represents a false light which tries to replace the True Light of Christ. The Bible actually applies that same term, translated as “Morning Star”, directly to Christ in several places:
Job 11:17 - And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday: thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.
2 Peter 1:19 - 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
Revelation 22:16 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.
It is my understanding that the Lord does not mock Satan by taking that title, but rather Satan mocks Christ by trying to usurp it for his own.
Jonty30, you have hit it right on the head! bellflower, it’s mocking in the sense of the other claiming to be the “Real McCoy”, but is in actually a fake or fraud.
"Generally Accepted Theology."
LOL, now there's a new one. Of course, since it was so generally accepted, you don't have to say by whom, since, well, it was general, right? And pay no attention to those one or two teeny-tiny slaughters over, uh, the general acceptance of theology, in the past, oh, 1,700 years.
And especially don't think it's just Matthew Henrys personal opinion.
That would never do. Why, if everyone had a personal opinion... they'd have to answer to God for it!
No, no, no. Generally Accepted Theology is much better. Then any mistakes are simply not your fault.
Hey, it's just the way things are DONE, and God will simply have to accept it.
I was actually going to address that after my most recent post. I consider, based upon research, Satan and Lucifer to be two distinct beings. So thanks for the chance for me to segue into that.
I did a follow up after my original post. I wasn’t using those two names interchangeably.
Hopefully, that will all get straightened up!
Ah, Isaiah is talking about the devil, and when he rebelled. There are some similarities of 'roles' played in the flesh king of Babylon and the devil, but the flesh king of Babylon converted, whereas the 'spiritual' king of Babylon has already been condemned to death. The Heavenly Father had His prophets write down where the line in the sand is as far as how far HE will allow the devil to play his games on his way to being destroyed from within, gone forever.
Oh, don’t worry, I just wanted to throw my two cents in as I’ve always found this to be a fascinating subject... albeit one where many misconceptions exist. :)
The only thing I will add, however... is that it’s not the Good King who finds it necessary to mock the vile criminal (which is well beneath that King’s dignity), but rather the criminal who sees fit to mock the King to try to undermine him. Our Lord is not petty as we are, as His love extends even to that most sinful of beings... but the same cannot be said for the one who would lead our souls to ruination. Our base instincts have become like the latter... but we strive to become like the former.
In the allegorical sense you are, of course, absolutely correct, just as the same can be said about the Pharoah and multiple other figures. It’s important to remember, however, that the term used in the original Hebrew roughly translates to “Son of the morning star”, and that it is a title, not a name. It is also important to remember that the title is applied directly to Christ at times.
The other important thing to remember is that the devil is a usurper and always has been. That IS his sin. It is of little surprise that he would attempt to usurp a rightful title of Our Lord through his wiles and snares.
*Strive through cooperation with God’s Grace, I should add. We are saved by Grace. Left to our own devices we can never achieve such a thing. God help us.
Fascinating is the perfect word! I could discuss religion for hours from whichever perspective; theological, historical, cultural, whatever. Maybe that’s why I find atheists and agnostics so boring. They’re drier than stale matzo on the tongue!
It’s a well-known Protestant commentary; I’ve seen it described as being a standard that was widely considered to be a comprehensive and overall well-done work from the time it was published.
I’m not sayin’ it’s the only commentary. Certainly we must remember that the Bible is the divinely inspired and commentaries are not.
Just my own recommendation for a self-study tool.
I am not a pastor and I don’t claim to be one.
I just recommend it because it find it very useful as a starting point for examining verses in depth.
I figured that someone who is asking questions in a forum would find such a commentary useful.