Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please explain Isaiah 14.12-20. Give me what information you can in regard to “Lucifer. ” Who is he?

Reply: Isaiah 13-23 is a section of the book in which oracles of judgment are pronounced against individual nations. Chapter 13 and most of chapter 14 describe the fall of Babylon.

We consider Isaiah 14:12. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star (“Lucifer” KJV), son of the morning!” “Lucifer” is from a Latin word meaning “light-bearer” and refers to the planet Venus appearing in the evening and the morning, which is the brightest object in the sky except for the sun and moon (Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, p. 1360). The Hebrew expression was apparently first applied to Satan by Tertullian and Origen. The one who popularized “Lucifer” as a name for Satan was probably John Milton in Paradise Lost.

As Babylon was an astrological nation, it would be appropriate that the morning star (“Lucifer”) would be used as a symbol of her power, and would be applied to her king. However, some ignore this context and interpret this passage to mean the fail of Satan and his angels from heaven, connecting it with Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:7-13.

Considering Luke 10: 18, Jesus had sent out seventy of his disciples to preach. They returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name” (v. 17), “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven” (v. 18). Jesus foresaw his victory over Satan. The verse does not say that Satan fell from heaven, but it says that Jesus saw Satan fallen “as lightning from heaven.” Because the demons were subject to the seventy in Christ’s name, Jesus could see the defeat of Satan. It would be “as lightning from heaven” – sudden and fast (see Heb. 2:14). If Satan had been cast out of heaven at some time in the past, this verse does not teach it. Jesus was referring to the future and he was not relating to the past in Luke 10:18.

In Revelation 12:7-9 we are told: “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels going forth to war with the dragon, and the dragon warred and his angels; and they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him” (ASV). The 13th verse reads: “And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman that brought forth the man child.” This language is obviously symbolical and is therefore not to be interpreted literally. Albertus Pieters correctly comments upon these verses (7-9): “Let us settle it firmly in our hearts, and stick to it consistently, that the Apocalypse is a book of spiritual cartoons, the pictures not in any case to be mistaken for the reality, no matter how vividly drawn. As already pointed out, the rest of, this chapter concerning the Radiant Woman, the Red Dragon and their adventures, is clearly seen by all interpreters to be symbolic; although they do not agree on what is symbolized. Is it not, then, to introduce confusion into the interpretation to suppose that the apostle suddenly shifts from symbolism to reality when he tells of the war in heaven?” (The Lamb, the Woman and the Dragon, pp. 172-173) The Revelation passage portrays a spiritual conflict in which Satan is defeated, climaxed by Christ’s victory over him. It is not denied that Satan may have, at sometime in the past been cast down from heaven, thus accounting for his origin; but the passages considered above do not so teach.

The whole context of Isaiah 14:12-20 depicts the overthrow of Babylon. The king of Babylon is pictured symbolically as a predominant bright star (“Lucifer” KJV, v. 12). But he is to be destroyed. The king’s boastful words are revealed in verses 13 and 14. “Thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. . . . I will ascend above the heights of the clouds.” In contrast to the king’s vision of grandeur, he is to be cast down to Sheol, the lowest depths (v. 15). Men will look at the dead body of this once mighty conqueror. Here lies the slain soldier who had made the earth to tremble, who had shaken the kingdoms and who had overthrown their cities. He had taken prisoners, carrying them to lands far from their home – “that let not loose his prisoners to their home” (vv. 16,17). In contrast to kings who die and rest in their tombs, the king of Babylon would be cast aside from his sepulcher. His body lies dishonored and unburied, as a dead body trodden under foot (vv. 18,19). The cause of him not being united with the rest of the dead in burial is seen in the statement of verse 20: “because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people.” The dynasty of this wicked king is brought to an end. Babylon would be completely overthrown never to rise again. “It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation” (Isa. 13:20).

The context of Isaiah 14:12-20 shows clearly that it is the king of Babylon who is addressed as “Lucifer,” and not the devil.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 13, p. 397
July 6, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

What is the key to success in converting the lost? If I knew a secret formula, if I had an unfailing plan, I would be a millionaire. Multitudes of saved people would hover around me, but, alas, I do not have a magic system, a guaranteed program. No one else does, either. (The’ ones who claim they do usually have their system for sale. Does that tell you anything?) No, I am not opposed to literature, films and tapes which are neatly arranged, attractively presented and scripturally sound. But the answer is not to be found, bound and sold. It cannot be packaged. We are used to instant oatmeal, instant coffee, instant jello pudding. Just plop it in the oven and presto, there it is. But there is no microwave gospel conversion kit.

The answer is not to be found in better buildings or more dynamic preachers. A “good depression” is not the solution, either. What, then?

“And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). “Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5:28). “They lifted up their voice to God . . . . And when they had prayed,’. . . they spake the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:24,3 1). “It is not reason (fitting, suitable) that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. . . . But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2,4). “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). “1 kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house. . . . For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:20,27).

Do you see the answer in the passages cited? It means more Work, more preaching, more home Bible studies, more gospel meetings, more debates, both public and private, more efforts to initiate conversation about spiritual matters. The work will not be done by merely attending every service. It will not be done by increasing your contribution. It will not be done by subscribing to this paper, or, any other periodical. There are no short-cuts. Success is not to be found in less controversy. Conversions to Christ are products of pointed preaching and teaching. Bigger, broader smiles may gain access, but they do not save a soul from death. Confrontation with error and evil was at the heart of all successful New Testament preaching. Check and see, if you doubt it. Conviction and conversion is always personal and often painful.

The following is not a slap at churches that have excellent personal work programs. There are some good ones, and there ought to be more. However, there is no substitute for plain old vanilla personal work. Sometimes we may unwittingly make “Personal Work” into an institution itself, into a “Church Program.” That, defeats the basic concept which is truly individual, personal work. Again, see the verses quoted earlier.

The need for greater, intense teaching is apparent. Generally, it is as simple as doing it. Talk to a neighbor, a friend, or a relative. Tell them. Awaken them. Shake them, if necessary. Teach them what the Bible teaches about their sin, their soul and their Savior. That is the essence of “successful evangelism.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 13, p. 395
July 6, 1989

By James D. Yates

There is nothing quite like being assigned to write on a subject that is as subjective as this one! The opportunity for grandparents to have influence in the rearing of grandchildren varies significantly from family to family. It is increasingly evidence that the great influence of grandparents of other societies and in other times had diminished in ours. This is sad indeed, because our children are the losers and suffer much as the result. While this trend seems to be entrenched, we would be wise to make maximum efforts to place as many roadblocks in the path as possible.

Grandparents’ influence is at its greatest during the children’s most receptive years. This provides the greatest opportunity for the exercising of life-lasting principles in the child. It also demands that grandparents be alert, or otherwise the opportunities will be lost forever. This period is short indeed and, typically, abates rapidly as the children begin their school years. Sports and friends seem to have increasingly important places in their lives. Grandparents can extend the influential period, to a degree, by being active in the child’s school and sports activities; and unless you have tried it, you have no idea how much fun it is! But, let me warn you, it is not for the fainthearted; have a cardiologist check you well before attending their sports activities.

Prior to the industrial age, grandparents enjoyed a more important roll in the life of children. Typically, they lived nearby and often on the same farm or in the same small town. Many shared homes with their children and grandchildren. With industrialization of the 1900s, which continues today, patterns and life-styles changed. Distance became increasingly involved as the great separator. Children left the farm and small towns. Separated from the younger family members, the grandparents’ influence decreased – often to zero. What a shame! Family relationships became less and less involved and the benefits of experience were lost along with stability, warmth and influence which had served the family so well, making the children respectful citizens. Those destructive trends continue today. The separated families are now more removed from the stable influences. More and more parents leave their children to the care of strangers, day-care centers, or often by themselves without supervision of any type. Mothers are engaged in secular work on a full-time basis which leaves only a tired shell of an individual with the children (who have been undisciplined all day) in the late hours. Is there any wonder why we have the accelerating family problems? Divorce is now typical, the normal rather than the exception. Children grow up without the benefit of those excellent qualities that grandparents and parents gave them in past times. Single parent homes are increasing which multiples the problems. A short, telephone call has replaced a grandparent’s warm visit; as the condominium or apartment (no children allowed) replaced the farmhouse. The television and VCR have replaced a story well told by the fireplace or on the front porch. Spiritual influence is never extended, as time is consumed in economic matters. Violence of the worst type, nudity, filthy language have replaced the calm, chaste serenity and modest examples of Christ-like lives. Bible study and secular studies have been replaced with ugly movies and rock music. We object to Playboy, but we do nothing as little ears listen to the terrible language of many hard rock and some country songs.

David had a beautiful grandmother whose name was Ruth. Her example served him well as he became the chosen family’s head. Timothy was the “son” of Paul because Lois, a loving grandmother, taught him God’s word which resulted in great faith (2 Tim. 1:5). Someone has well said, “The reason fewer children are like Timothy is because there is a great shortage of grandmothers like Lois.” How true is Proverbs 17:6 which states, “Grandchildren are the crown of old men.”

Grandparents have a roll to play in the rearing of children, an important role that no one else can fulfill. It is unique. That opportunity is primarily one of example. Children can see a worldly life and be lost; or they can see the Christian life demonstrated by godly grandparents, and their spirits will be filled. The wise man said, “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” God said of Abraham, “I know he will command his children and his household after him.”

God’s plan is for the father to be the head of the house; the mother the keeper of the home; the children to be obedient; the grandparents to be the ever loving, Christ-like source of strength, confidence and example to all and especially to the children. What came naturally in years gone by must in our time be diligently worked at, or we will permit our “crowns” to be arrogant and undisciplined without real value to the losing of their usefulness before God.

Grandparents, who do live near to their grandchildren continue to be important in the saving of their families; and what a marvelous experience it is to those who have the blessed opportunity. I love my two, beautiful daughters – perhaps too much; but the love for our four grandsons is beyond description. How terrible it would be to live to see them become worthless (without God) because of failed opportunities that their grandmother and I could have prevented had we lived before them as examples of righteousness, but did not. Grandparents, you are being watched by young, believing eyes. What is your example? Take advantage of the opportunity you have to show, by your lives, what a “privilege we have in Jesus.” “As a twig is bent, so the tree is inclined.”

And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be in your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up (Deut. 6:6-7).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 12, p. 383
June 15, 1989

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Just say, ‘No,”‘ is the anti-drug message being urged upon our nation’s young people. Christian parents need to adapt this message to themselves as they rear their children in an overly permissive society. Godly parents are constantly bombarded by their friends, relatives, and even brethren, to lighten up and be more permissive with their children. Then there are the professional experts (?) with their books, talk shows, etc., giving advice right and left. It makes us wonder if the immature claim that “everyone is doing it” may not be correct. One may discover that “everyone” includes the children of preachers and elders. All of this often causes conscientious parents to wonder if they have sense enough to decide what is best for their children. Thus, they find themselves constantly second-guessing any restrictions they have placed upon their children’s behavior.

Living in an overly permissive society, without being adversely affected by it, is not easy for Christians. Nor is it easy for their children to be the only kids on the block not allowed to do what their peers freely do with the blessing of their parents.

We Can Raise Godly Children

First, young parents need to realize that the challenge to “bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) can be met today. If it were impossible, then the Lord would not have required it. Nor is it necessary to think that today’s challenge is very much more difficult than that of other generations. Every generation of Christians, beginning with the very first, have had to rear their children “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil. 2:15).

Do you think that the Ephesian fathers had an environment ideally suited for rearing godly children? Do you think that their children were never pressured by their neighbor’s kids?

Ephesus was a pagan city. The temple of the goddess Diana was there (Acts 19:35). Do you think the Ephesian children were totally unaffected by this environment? Do you suppose they were never pressured by peers to attend idolatrous feasts at the temple? Do you reckon that the sexual promiscuity, so common among pagans of that day, never appealed to the children of Christians? Do you think that those early Christians, living in that pagan society, did not wrestle with the problem of how to teach their children to live in the world without being of the world? Do you suppose their children never argued that “everyone is doing it”? Don’t you think that their children might have argued that they could attend those functions at the temple, where idol worship and lewdness were integral parts, and still maintain their purity? Do you think that their neighbors were so different from ours that they did not “think it strange” that anyone would not allow their children to attend places of “lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties and abominable idolatries” (cf. 1 Pet. 4:1)? Are we to suppose no one ever defended such as just innocent fun? Unless human beings have changed drastically since then, those early Christians’ task of child-rearing was likely more difficult than ours. We live in a society, as perverse as it is, whose standards have been influenced somewhat by 2000 years of Christianity. That early pagan society that surrounded those Ephesian brethren had not been so tempered.

Parents Are Responsible

Christian parents need to realize that they are responsible for what they allow their children to do – not friends, nor relatives, nor brethren (elders, preachers or otherwise), nor the experts, but they, themselves. Yes, they may solicit and profit from the counsel and example of others, but, in the final analysis, they must base their house rules on the word of God, remembering that “happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (Rom. 14:22).

It is much more pleasant to say “O.K. ” than “no,” especially knowing that a “no” is going to upset some people. The young person who asked is not over-joyed. Nor will you likely make his friends’ top ten popularity list. Many others who take a lot of interest, but have no responsibility, in your child’s happiness may be ready to wring your neck for being so hard on the poor fellow.

A parent must remember that it is he, not his critics, who is given the responsibility of deciding what he will allow his children to do. It is he who will answer to God for “that thing which he alloweth. ” If his children rebel and do “that thing which he alloweth” not, they will have to answer for not obeying their “parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Eph. 4:6).

I have known parents to justify their permissiveness with the excuse, “I am afraid that if I do not let them do it that they will slip around and do it anyway, and I would not want that.” Yes, it would be sad to learn that a child had slipped around and done it, but he needs to be held accountable for his rebellion by the parent. He will surely be held accountable before God for disobeying his parents. There is no way a parent, having given permission against his convictions, can be free in the matter. Brother or sister, if your child does what you do not approve, let it be in spite of your prohibition rather than because of your permission. That is the only way that you can stand uncondenined before God and maintain the highest possible integrity and credibility before your children.

Should They or Should They Not?

Parents of Junior High and High School age children have to help their children reach many momentous decisions some involving right and wrong, some just a matter of setting priorities.

What about attending the school prom and other similar parties?

What articles of clothing are proper to wear to classes, other school activities, or elsewhere?

What about missing worship service to engage in a school activity, like a sporting event or a trip of some kind?

During spring or summer break, what about swimming at the public pool or beach in contemporary swim wear?

Christian parents, with their children, need to look into these things to see if any biblical principles are involved in these questions. There is at least one principle that directly affects three of the above questions – the prom, articles of clothing, and contemporary swim wear. “Lasciviousness” (KJV) or “lewdness” (NKJV) is condemned in no uncertain terms. These are translations of a word that “denotes excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Thayer, mentions “indecent bodily movements” in connection with the word. One dictionary succinctly defines lascivious as: “To lust. To cause lust. To show lust.” Another defines it, “Tending to excite lustful desires” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language). Those who practice it cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).

One needs not to be too perceptive to see that most, if not all, the dancing done at proms falls in the category of lascivious conduct. The way that young men and young women handle each other’s bodies during the dance, the bodily movements in many of the dances, even when they are not touching each other, all of this is conducive to either lusting, causing lust or showing lust. Most people that I have talked with frankly admit that this is case – except those who are trying to defend the dance while also professing to be guided by biblical principles of morality. People of the world, who have no interest in biblical morality, freely admit that sensuality is an important factor in their attraction for the dance.

The same promotion of sensuality applies to the overly revealing (by its brevity and/or tightness) clothing worn by too thanyloday, It is teen everywhere at the beach, the pool, the mall, the park, the sports arena, school room and,, yes, even inchurch. Christians should have a deep sense of modesty and shaniefastness. This should be reflected in their dress and demeanor, at all times (see 1 Tim. 2:9,10). The things we have been discussing reflect neither modesty nor shamefastness.

Extra-Curricular Activities

Young people have so many places to go and things to do. Many are connected with extra-curricular school and community activities. There are sporting events. There are school trips. Often these are scheduled when the church has its regular scheduled meetings. What should you allow your youngster to do? Miss church services or miss the other activity? How are you going to teach him to “seek first the kingdom” if you let him put pleasant, even profitable, but non-essential school and community activities first?

Many conscientious young Christians, with their tender consciences, given the principles involved to study, would likely make the right decisions if it were not for the adverse influence of older Christians. A friend told me of an instance that happened during a gospel meeting in which he was preaching. A young lady came to him early in the week with a problem. The homecoming football game was to be that Friday night. She was to have a part in the activities. She wanted to know what she should do? Attend the meeting or the game? My friend, rather than telling her what he thought she should do, gave her some Bible passages to consider to help her make up her mind. He says that he wondered all week about what her decision would be. Then Friday night came. My friend, sitting up front before services, carefully scanned the audience looking for the young lady. He did not see her. Sitting next to him was the song leader for the night, who was also the father of the young lady. My friend remarked, “Well, I see that decided to go on to homecoming.” Her father said, “Yes, she had made up her mind to skip it and come to church, but I told her to go ahead. After all, she would only be young once.” My friend told me, “I could have cried.”

Once my wife and a group of ladies were preparing the church bulletin where I preached at the time for mailing. Several of the ladies were talking about how hard it is on young Christians to do right. They discussed several things they miss out on – like the school prom, mixed-swimming, and the like. One sister, who had a teen-age daughter, said, “We try not to let – know that she is missing anything.” That sister may have had the right idea. Maybe parents talk so much in the presence of their children about all those goodies (?) they are missing because they are Christians that they actually whet their appetites to give them a try. Maybe if we spent more time stimulating appreciation for spiritual values and impressing young people with the fact that the pleasure they are missing is but for a season, the battle against the influences of our permissive society upon our children would be more easily won.

Teenagers Need Strong Parents

I have lived and preached long enough to have observed a good many become teen-agers, thenyoung adults, then niarried,adult, then parents,” and even to see their children go through the same cycle. I have known many teenagers to strongly protest when their parents would not allow them to do some things they asked to do. I have talked with many of them in later years, who told me that in spite of their protests at the time, they had really wanted their parents to say, “no.” Why? It gave them an out. It took the pressure off them. They could tell their friends, “My parents won’t let me.” Deep down, they really did not think they should do what they were asking to do.. Yet, they were under heavy pressure from peers to ask – more pressure than they, in their immaturity, could handle at the time. It may very well be that more parents need to be willing to become scape goats for pressures placed upon their children during their immature formative years.

A mother once told me that, although she had some misgivings about things like the prom and certain types of dress (admitting that they could even be sinful), she still did not forbid her daughter’s involvement in such things. After all, she suggested, one has to understand how hard it is on young people not to be able to fit in with the activities of their friends. Then, as a kind of justification for her permissiveness, she said that it did not appear to have done her daughter any lasting harm. After all her daughter was now a fine young wife and good citizen in the community. She still attended church regularly and participated in church activities. “So you see,” she said, “No harm was really done.”

Was no harm really done? If her daughter sinned by the things she was permitted to do, then harm was done. If she has not repented, then lasting harm has been done. All that her daughter might be now will not offset her past sinful participation in forbidden pleasures. Only her repentance (change of heart regarding those things) will clear her of any sins associated with her mother’s permissiveness. Do you suppose this daughter might follow the example of her mother and be as permissive with her children? No lasting harm done? What do you think?

Young parent, your child is a gift from God (Psa. 127:3-5). He has been placed under your stewardship for a few years. What he is to become, to a great degree, depends on you. The values that you instill in him while in your house will go with him for life. Those values are going to be shaped greatly by the things he is able to do with your blessing. If you allow him to do things that are wrong or even questionable, it will be reflected by his sense of values. It behooves you to study the word of God to form your convictions and then stick by those convictions in the things that you allow your child to do. Even if he exercises his freedom of will and goes against what he is allowed to do by you, he will know your convictions and why you hold them. Who knows but that at some later date he will be pulled back to the values that he was taught by remembering that you had strong spiritual values and the courage to stand by them even in the face of his childish protestations?

Remember Eli? He and his house suffered greatly because he did not restrain his children (1 Sam. 3:13).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 12, pp. 373-375
June 15, 1989