Month: January 2026

  • ”Pleased to Meet You, Hope You Guess My Name: What Name? (Isaiah 14)

    It wasn’t a bad move to label Isaiah 14 in terms of Mick Jagger’s ‘Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name’ song. You have to admit, certain passages of that chapter fit the Devil pretty well: 

    “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens. Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne, And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting, In the remotest parts of the north. I will go up above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself resemble the Most High.’ (vs 13-14) 

    Yeah, Satan did say things like that. He saw all that praise and worship going to Jehovah and said, ‘Hey—I’d like me some of that.’ There’s no reason to think that James verse about being ‘drawn out and enticed’ by one’s own desires that soon enough give birth to sin’ applies only to humans. (1:14-15) Satan’s desire was to be worshipped.

    In fact, Isaiah 14 is where the name ‘Lucifer’ comes from, a name used interchangeably with the Devil:

    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! (vs 12-KJV)

    Few Bibles say Lucifer these days. It is a Latin word that means “light-bringer” or “light-bearer. ” A quick search of Biblegateway*com (which compares translations) reveals that only 12 out of the 57 listed do it that way. In classical Roman usage, Lucifer referred to the planet Venus when visible as the morning star. It is closer to the sun than is the earth, hence it will always be seen in that direction. It’s the brightest object in the sky before dawn.

    The original Hebrew is “hêlēl ben šāḥar.” It means “shining one, son of the dawn” or “morning star, son of dawn.” Nobody is speaking of Venus here—that was a later Roman adaptation of the Hebrew term. But, like Venus, the king of Babylon shone brilliantly for a time, only to be overshadowed—scorched, really—by the rising sun. Twenty translations of the 57 say ‘morning star,’ with an equal number some close permutation. Five read ‘day star.’ There is much overlap. Even the five translations that say ‘king of Babylon,’ an application that is correct but not explicitly in the Hebrew Word, also expand it to shining one, morning star, or something of the sort. 

    The verse is a prophetic taunt against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar at its time of fulfillment. Other verses of the chapter make that clear. It is Babylon, the ax that chopped the ax, that will be axed itself.

    Verses 3-4, for example: “In the day when Jehovah gives you rest from your pain and from your turmoil and from the hard slavery imposed on you, you will recite this proverb against the king of Babylon: “How the one forcing others to work has met his end! How the oppression has ended!” It’s almost like a “Just you wait, enry iggins, just you wait!” isn’t it? “You’ll be sorry but your tears will be too late!” Verse 22 also specifically names Babylon.

    ‘Hêlēl ben šāḥar’ becomes ‘Satan’ only by the extension of those who like to do antitypes. It is a group that once included most everyone.  Figures like Tertullian and Origen, in the 2nd–3rd centuries, linked Isaiah 14:12–15’s imagery of a proud figure falling from heaven to New Testament passages such as Jesus’ pronouncement, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)

    Jehovah’s Witnesses were as big as anyone on antitypes, were among the last to give them up, unless Scripture definitively makes the link, but they never fell for this one. The New World Translation renders 14:12 as, “How you have fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, You who vanquished nations!” 

    It is thoroughly up to date in this regard. Modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV) render it as “morning star,” “day star,” or “shining one” to reflect the original Hebrew metaphor, avoiding the name “Lucifer” since it is not a biblical proper name for Satan. Also:

    New American Standard Bible (NASB) “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn!”

    Christian Standard Bible (CSB) “Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens!”

    New Living Translation (NLT) “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!”

    New English Translation (NET) “Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn!”

    – **New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) “How you have fallen from the heavens, O Morning Star, son of the dawn!”

    See? Nobody does Lucifer anymore. But Mick Jagger does his Bible study via the King James Version, probably. His ‘Sympathy for the Devil,’ after making humankind complicit into all the atrocities that he is behind, after each verse followed by the refrain, “Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name,” follows up once with “Just call me Lucifer.”

    He doesn’t actually say Lucifer is the name, only “Just call me Lucifer.” So, maybe he does use a modern Bible after all for his intense studies. He just rolls with tradition, that’s all. And instinct. It’s only natural to want to know someone’s name. If the Devil’s name is not actually given, God’s name is. And most Bibles have taken it out, substituting the bland “the LORD!” In one of those early Charlton Heston blockbusters, the Israelites are downhearted, since they don’t even know their God’s name. Later on, they are pleased as punch. They have discovered it. It is ‘the LORD!’ Sheesh!

    Say what you want about the Jews declining to pronounce God’s name; they never REMOVED it. I don’t know why Mick doesn’t include THAT in his song of the things Satan boasts about.

    ***

    It was Rabbi Meir Kahane who took sharp offense at the Jewish avoidance of pronouncing God’s name being characterized a “superstition.” When questioned about it by Larry King—the name is right there in the Hebrew Scriptures, almost seven thousand times, but Jews substitute ‘Lord’ when they read it—he countered, “Would you call your father by his first name?” Larry said he would not. Alright, then. Case closed. The technical term for this kind of thing is “qere perpetuum,” substitution for a word deemed too sacred to pronounce. There’s no reason to think God wants his name unpronounced, but to call it superstition will not win you friends in the Jewish community.

    Actually, I did call my dad by his first name, for many years, and only stopped when a grandparent heard me do it and deemed it disgraceful. Pop never minded. Before my step-grandma, no one ever said not to do it. Mom always called him that, and he always called Mom by her first name, so it’s only natural the kids will do it, too. I did call my mother Mom, though, probably because she specifically said I should. Who can said why the folks called each other by first names and not ‘sweetie,’ ‘honey,’ ‘dear,’ and so forth? It was unusual back then, though not so much today. People work out their own issues in life, and at whatever stage they are when raising kids, that is what the kids pick up on and normalize.

    I remember well calling him ‘Shuck,’ since I couldn’t quite say ‘Chuck’ just then. I recall sulking in the corner, after being disciplined for something, along with my brother, who was also disciplined: “Do you like Shuck?” he said to me, or I do him. “No, I don’t like Shuck at all.” Or maybe it was that time he pulled his brand new Rambler in the garage and within a day I had dropped a plank on it from my overhead fort in the rafters. Wowwhee! was he mad about that! Did I fess up like George Washington who would never tell a lie? No. I lied and lied and lied and lied about not doing the deed but it was no good. However, I would have been calling him Dad by then, being about 12.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Moab the Blowhard: Isaiah 16

    With the congregation schedule calling for Isaiah 14-16 to be considered, I was a little bummed to be assigned the 16th chapter for the oral Bible reading. 14 looks more interesting. That’s the one where the Grave is greeting newcomers, as though Mick Jagger, ‘Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name. Didn’t you used to be a hotshot back in the day?’ I avoided that song for a long time upon becoming a Jehovah’s Witness. How can a Christian show “sympathy for the devil?” But, in time I discovered it’s not sympathy for him at all—it’s just an expose of his methods.

    In the case of Isaiah 14, it is ‘sympathy for Sheol,’ usually translated the Grave—big G because it is not an individual grave but the fate of all humankind. Good or bad, it makes no difference. It is also anthropomorphized. It’s not a place of conscious existence. Isaiah 14 is very much in the spirit of Odysseus popping in on Hades during his long voyage home. ‘Man, it sucks here,’ everyone tells him. But it is only a metaphorical place—the state of the dead.

    Ah, well—no use pining away for what isn’t. For me, it is Isaiah 16. Maybe it’s sort of a penance for me for squabbling with my brother when we were both kids. 16, too, is sort of a sibling rivalry on steroids, except it is cousins, not siblings. There is a long, long history of bad blood between Moab and Israel and in 16 it comes to a head. It was Moab who long ago hired a prophet called Balaam and sent him into Israel just to mess with them. As for me, I long ago got over my contentions with my brothers. Though, there are times when I review family photos, like this one, and feel bitter regret that I did not ram his fat head into this cake. I mean, it was a perfect opportunity and I let it slip right through my fingers. It has tormented me my entire life:

    Isaiah 16 begins—it’s a missive to Moab: “Send a ram to the ruler of the land, From Sela through the wilderness To the mountain of the daughter of Zion.” Yeah, that’s what I wanted my brother to do for me: send me a tribute! I was the “ruler of land.” I was the firstborn! That means he should kowtow to me. Instead, he did everything in his power to annoy me!” 

    “Sorry, Tom” he says now, “it was just that you were so easy to annoy.” I was not! And even if I was, wasn’t I the firstborn? Where did I read that the second-born causes major upheaval in a family, since the parents now have to split their attention?

    There are some real overtures to Moab in the next few verses, that they will do the right thing in the face of Assyrian onslaught and show mercy to the refugees. “Conceal the dispersed and do not betray those fleeing.” (vs 3) But then, Isaiah has to go talking Jesus to them (vs 5) and it all comes to naught because they already gots their own church—that of Chemoth. (Grumble, grumble—what’s a wannabe Bible scholar to do? When I enter Moab’s god, Chemoth, AI changes it to “chemotherapy.”)

    Alas, we come to the real problem with verses 6-7:

    “We have heard about the pride of Moab—he is very proud— His haughtiness and his pride and his fury; But his empty talk will come to nothing. So Moab will wail for Moab.” THAT’S who they will be concerned for: themselves.

    Why do I take such perverse satisfaction in the fact that Stanley Kubrick, the director of 2001: A Space Odyssey, couldn’t stand Carl Sagan? ‘Keep that supercilious fellow away from me,’ he told his collaborator Arthur C. Clarke, who had thought their initial luncheon date had gone well. I think it is a lifetime of Bible training to the effect that modesty is more befitting in a human than pride. There are enough brilliant people around who are humble (Kubrick was one of them, consistently described as friendly, unassuming, and even a “peasant” in Michael Benton’s book on the making of 2001) that to suffer through an arrogant jerk is simply unnecessary—unless you are unfortunate enough to find yourself working for him.

    Cornell, where he hails from as a professor who never showed up to teach class, treats him as a god. The “Sagan Planet Walk,” a scale model of the solar system, characterizes that town, spanning three quarters of a mile, with the sun in the Ithaca Commons. Notwithstanding that Kubrick didn’t like him, he invited him and a few other leading scientists to introduce 2001, because he feared the movie might be too far ahead of its time. Sagan was the only one who wanted payment. He was the only one to demand editorial control. The offer was withdrawn. 

    If he had ever ordered his wine from Moab, he would have found that offer was withdrawn to. A one-time agricultural powerhouse, though Moab’s vineyards “reached as far as Jazer,” extended “into the wilderness,” and “spread out and gone as far as the sea,” (implying exports) it would all come to nothing when Assyria was through. (vs 8-9)

    If he strutted around in life, nonetheless, Sagan was humble in death—I’ll give him that. His gravesite is in Ithaca’s Lakeview Cemetery, a serene and park-like place on the hillside. It features a simply headstone, not the 2001-like monolith that one might expect. As though it was, however, pilgrims will leave blue marbles as tributes referencing his “Pale Blue Dot” characterization of the earth from space. It recalls for me a plea on social media from a scientist to his fellows that they be “intellectually humble.” Is humility such a quality that you can sub-divide it, that as long as you are intellectually humble, you don’t have to worry about being actually humble? 

    It sort of recalls what I wrote in ‘A Workman’s Theodicy’ about the social benefits of being as scientist: “It’s a good gig to be a scientist. You don’t see poverty. You don’t see dirt. You get to hang out with smart people at the university. Everyone you meet likes to read. To be sure, you do see plenty of proud and stubborn people, but as a fellow scientist, they admit you into the club. What’s not to like? You get to hang up in your lab Far Side cartoons, such as the one of the scientists fleeing the lab like kids in frock coats upon hearing the ting-a-ling of the ice cream man—nobody enjoys those cartoons more than scientists, I am told.”

    But enough of bashing scientists. I’m just envious because I missed the boat on that one. It’s Moab’s pride that we’re talking about.* Here it is revealed in the Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone). It’s a black basalt monument erected around 840 BCE by King Mesha of Moab. It stands about 3–4 feet tall, inscribed with 34 lines in the Moabite language, a Canaanite dialect very close to Hebrew, written in a Phoenician-related script. The original was destroyed but not before a paper-mâché impression was made of it, which not sits in Louvre Museum in Paris. On it, Mesha boasts how Chemosh totally crushed Israel. “Israel has perished forever!” it reads. A light dusting, the Bible itself reveals at 2 Kings 3.

    These ancient kings were invariably blowhards. Their scribes had no choice but to record victories, if they valued their heads. Typically, the would up the numbers along the way, to keep their bosses happy. Bob Brier, the Egyptologist tells of one pharoah who records stunning victory after victory, each one closer to home, as he was retreating. It is in striking contrast to Bible writers, who recorded not only Israelite victories, but also defeats.

    The Mesha Stele is also the earliest known reference to the Tetragrammaton, outside of the Bible itself. There is, arguably an earlier Egyptian reference, but it is in that language and thus is truncated to three consonants, making in a ‘Trigrammaton’—who gives a hoot about one of those?

    *(the expression ‘That’s what I’m talkin’ about’ is so dumb that it became an instant hit in our family. Even my 90-year-old dad, upon laying down a Scrabble word, would say, ‘That’s what I’m talkin’ about.’ This is the same dad whom I never knew had a Jersey accent until one day when my daughter took to imitating him.)

    ******  The bookstore

  • Social Media and the Ministry: Part 2

    The trouble with the internet is that it becomes like Acts 19:8-9. There, the ones who “refused to believe” began to speak so “injuriously” of “the Way” that Paul had to remove all the new disciples to a private forum. Still, the internet does seem like the elephant in the room, never mentioned at the Hall. Last I read, 30% of people in my country report they spend virtually all their time on the internet, so it is not as though one is directing his/her blows into the air by being there. You never get a not-at-home. Nor do you get “not interested.” They wouldn’t be there if they were not interested.

    I have blogged since 2006. I dont really think of it as witnessing. It is more that of a guy who is a JW making his way through life. Mine is plainly a JW site, but I don’t link to JWorg. Everyone has some quirks, and if you link to them, it suggests that’s where you got yours from. In recent years, as blogs have been overshadowed by large platforms, I’ve expanded my presence there. I don’t think you will ever see the organization recommend social media for witnessing, because of Acts 19:8-9. It is enough for me that they don’t forbid it. You often can go deeper into Scriptures than you typically can door-to-door, where you must of necessity offer mostly baby food.

    A new emphasis on being conversational actually plays into social media strengths. Platforms like X can become for me like cartwork. Establish a presence there, engage with people on their own subjects of interest, and once in a while you get to stick in a good word for God. But you do have to learn how to deal with opposers who come out of nowhere to ram you like those big dumb animals of TV nature shows, ramming with horns. Social media offers a good test to see if you can keep yourself “restrained under evil.” Sometimes you find you cannot, and then it is back to Bible 101 for you!

    portrait of ram
    Photo by Mark A Jenkins on Pexels.com

    ******  The bookstore