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.
The birth of Jesus was one big mock of Satan and his “power” over man.
Jesus was big on making Satan submit to his power and authority over him and making sure we knew about it, too.
From what I read in the Scriptures, it’s not really a power thing. God holds all the cards.
But we are dealing with two diametrically opposed worldviews, God’s and Satan’s.
God has set about showing, without question, that any other worldview that stands apart from God’s will fail in the end. When God is finished, every knee shall bow and acknowledge God. It won’t because the rebels finally acknowledge God’s ultimate supremacy, but because they have used every trick in the book to try and succeed outside of God’s way and they have no tricks left. Acknowledging God at this point won’t be a joyful moment for them.
You see this in the left’s worldview. It’s why they keep telling us the real commmunism hasn’t been tried. It’s why most environmentalists and Green party members all came from the communist movement, when it failed. These are just new tricks of a flawed worldview.
I doubt it. Most of what modern belief of Lucifer consists of is from works like the Inferno and Paradise Lost. The Bible is actually pretty slim on defining fallen angels. Most of the evil found in it is that of man (worldly).
Jesus was there from the beginning of the world and before. God didnt need bench strength. God and Jesus knew the moment creation happened that Jesus was going to have to bridge the gap, and God chose you and I in a trade over his perfect son. And he still thinks he got the best end of the deal... Now THAT is the good news.
Lucifer by that name was doing what he does best—lie. Christ was just doing his job—speaking the truth. :) Thank you Jesus! :-D.
You just made my eyes water and my nose sting a little bit.
You are 100% correct.
Satan wants to deceive, and usurp Jesus’ true title.
Satan is NOT the light bringer, no matter what the free masons may have written over they years.
The thing is that Jesus was/is God, Lucifer was just a created being...
hence Jesus/God could not have been a replacement for a created being
you are absolutely correct.
Jesus seemed more in to “mocking” by pointing out the hypocrisy of their thoughts/actions. He was also very direct; not the subtle, you need time to think it through before you realise you been slapped, type guy.
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)
The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.
The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).
I like Matthew Henry.
I especially am intrigued by his opinion that the enemy in the last days would be ISLAM. (Not the EU, or Russia or China, or a revived Roam Empire, etc etc etc) but Islam.
Interesting for a 300 year old opinion.
Many of the replies I find a bit confusing, those that write don’t find confusion, but as one that is just reading it in some cases makes no sense, perhaps because I am not part of that particular discussion...but your reply is clear, no confusion in the remark and it is the Good News without lots of theology Thank You.....GG
Thank you for your kind words. If people actually new that I think there would be very little argument over religion. As humans we have a hard time believing that we really ARE loved THAT much. People believe that we have to be “good enough” Then God will love us. Exactly the opposite. He saw us at our worst and said ... YES! I want them. Right there that one... Not as our perfect selves but as our crappiest selves, because Christ will stand in front and that is all God will see.... Nope totally undeserving... But totally willing to accept that love because we ARE deserving. :)
The word "Lucifer" in the original language means light bearer. Isa 14:12 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!
Please note that the original language of the Old Testament was not Latin.
Of course not, the Old Testament was written mostly in classical Hebrew including the verse Isaiah 14:12:
Isa 14:12 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!
So the question is why use “Lucifer” in the English translation. The answer is the tradition started by St Jerome when he translated the Bible into Latin. I can’t remember whether he started with the Hebrew or the Septuagint.
The OT feasts prefigure Christ.. When Jesus declared that He was the light of the world it was during the feast of dedication or “Hanukkah “
John 10:22; “And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication and it was winter.”
Jesus said concerning Himself, in John 8:12; “.....I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but he will have the light of life.” Then He said in John 9:5 that “as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” And in John 11:9 He said, “......are there not twelve hours in a day? If any man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world.” And again in John 12:35; “Then Jesus said to them, for a little while the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you.” Each of these references to Jesus as the light of the world in John chapters 8, 9, 11, and 12 surround chapter 10 where the “feast of dedication” (Hanukkah) is being observed. In each of these references when Jesus refers to Himself as the light of the world, He is in the Temple.