Article: Lucifer by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Lucifer or Morning Star?

In Isaiah 14:12 the King James Holy Bible reads: "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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

A reason this passage is attacked by some modern bible version proponents, and likewise attacked in modern versions by many KJV-only supporters, is because the NASB, RSV, Holman Standard, NIV, St. Joseph New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and many others have translated this section in what may at first appear to be a VERY different way. Instead of, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER. . .", they say, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR. . ." or "DAY STAR". What many on from both sides don't realize is that "Lucifer" and "morning star" mean the same thing: "Lucifer" comes from the Latin where it means "light bearer" and is also the name of what we now call Venus, which appears as a star in the morning.

Some think there are several problems with the translation "O morning star", but first let me point out that translation is not the same as interpretation. Most people object to the translation of "morning star" because they confuse translation and interpretation. There are as many opinions in Bible commentaries as to who or what is being referred to as there are bible versions. Some absolutely deny that it has anything to do with the fall of Satan^{[citation needed]}. Others believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, whom many identify as king Nebuchadnezzar; others believe it refers to Belshazzar^{[citation needed]}, some say it speaks of the Antichrist^{[citation needed]}, and others as the kingdom of Babylon itself^{[citation needed]}. Regardless of which interpretation is correct, the translation of "morning star" is still valid because that's what the Hebrew "Heylel" and the Latin "Lucifer" simply mean.

Many others see Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the Satanic spiritual power behind the king and kingdom of Babylon. There is little agreement among scholars as to who or what is being addressed in this passage or how to translate it. However, it should be noted that translation should not be driven by interpretation, and that translating it differently other than "Lucifer" does not require different interpretations. Translation and interpretation are related, but still different issues.

Some say that one problem with the translation, "MORNING STAR" (#1966- haylale), is that the words "morning" and "star" are not found here in ANY Hebrew text. (Morning is #1242- boker and star is #3556- kokawb). However, this is a very weak argument because there are many places in scripture that do not translate word for word. For example, 2 Peter 1:19 in the KJV says "day star", but the Greek word underlying this is "phosphoros" (Strong's #5459), and not "hemera" (day, Strong's #2250) and "aster" (star, Strong's #792). In fact, the Greek word "phosphoros", with a slightly different spelling that does not change the meaning ("heosphoros"), is the word used in Greek Old Testaments in Isaiah 14:12.

The word for star IS found in verse 13, where it says: "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." The two words, morning and star, are found together in Job 38:7, where God is asking Job in verse 4, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?. . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This might be a reference to the angels who rejoiced at God's creation, or the "morning stars" that sang may well be an anthropomorphism of the first created literal stars "singing". God also describes mountains and hills as singing and trees of the field clapping their hands (See Isaiah 55:12).

Another serious problem some see with rendering this word (#1966 Haylale) as "morning star" is that Jesus Christ himself is called the morning star in Rev. 22:16 where he says: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Some say the NIV and NASB make it possible to identify Satan with Jesus Christ. I believe this is Lucifer's ultimate game plan and that the new versions have taken a giant step forward in advancing Satan's deception, but of course this is just the author's opinion. Others point out that titles and metaphors are often shared between different people in scripture, such as "morning stars" (for possibly angels or an anthropomorphism for literal stars) referring to someone or something other than Jesus. Similarly, "the Son of man" refers not only to Jesus but also Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:1 and throughout the book of Ezekiel), Daniel (Daniel 8:17), as well as mankind in general (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 146:3, Jeremiah 49:18, and many others). Jesus is a "Lion" (Rev 5:5) and the devil is a "lion" (1 Peter 5:8). Some point out that capitalization in these cases make a difference, and perhaps it does, but then so does "morning star" vs. "Morning Star" between Isa 14:12 and Rev 22:16 in the NIV.

In fact, if you take a look at the notes on Isaiah 14:12 in the Amplified bible (put out by the same people who gave us the NASB), you will find the following explanation: "'Light-bringer' or 'Shining one' was originally translated Lucifer, but because of the association of that name with Satan it is not now used. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. 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 and corresponds to the name 'bright Morning Star' in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself." It is possible that the reason the Amplified Bible added this explanation is to cause people who believe this passage is about Satan to arrive at that interpretation from the context of the passage, rather than simply seeing the term "Lucifer" and basing their understanding on only the term.

The word translated as Lucifer in the KJB occurs only once in the Hebrew, just as the word Lucifer occurs only once in the King James Version. However, this does little to prove what is the best word to translate it into, only that it is somewhat unique. It is a noun and it comes from a very interesting verb #1984 hawlal, in the sense of brightness. This verb is used many times and has many very different meanings including: "to shine, to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad (insane or crazy)"^{[citation needed]}.

Isn't it interesting that Satan boasts and glories in his wisdom and power, wants to receive praise as god, shines as an angel of light to deceive, and his madness in wanting to be like the most High is ultimately the height of foolishness?

The reasons I believe the King James Bible reading of Lucifer is correct are many. First, if this passage is not referring to the fall of Satan, also known as the dragon, the old serpent, the devil, leviathan, Beelzebub, etc., then we have no account in Scripture as to how he, who was originally created by God as good, became what he is today. However, this reason does not mean that Lucifer does not mean "morning star", or that the passage can still be interpreted as being about Satan even if the term "morning star" is used. Also, if the passage is not about Satan, the lack of another passage describing Satan's original fall does not mean that this passage must be interpreted as such. There are many events prior to creation of which we are not given details about.

In I Timothy 3:6 we are told that a bishop should not be a novice "lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." We are also told that Satan wishes to be worshiped. We see in the temptation in the wilderness that he came to Jesus Christ and said: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Where is this desire to be like the most High God and the pride that resulted in his condemnation recorded in the Scriptures except here in Isaiah 14:12-15? The fall of Satan is not found anywhere else in the whole Bible except here, if this passage is about Satan. Again however, not everything that happened in heaven needs to be spelled out in scripture.

Secondly, I disagree with those that argue that only the king of Babylon is being referred to in Isaiah 14:12 and not the fall of Satan. Many say it refers to king Nebuchadnezzar. A possible problem with this view is that Nebuchadnezzar became a worshiper of the true God and his miraculous conversion is recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar will not "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit", but rather will be with the Lord Jesus Christ and his redeemed for all eternity. Praise God for his mercy. However, it is not without precedence that the Lord said something would happen to someone sinful, but then later the Lord does not bring about his threat to reality if the person repents, so it is possible that that is what happened here, if the passage is about Nebuchadnezzar and if Nebuchadnezzar is indeed redeemed for all eternity. Another problem is that if the passage refers to an earthly king, then how did he get into heaven from whence he fell? Of course, this just may be symbolic language of a human king who considered himself a god, who said in his heart "I will ascend into heaven". Certainly, passage says the person spoken of in this passage will have "worms cover thee" (verse 11), "cast out of thy grave" (verse 19), has slain his own people (verse 20), and destroyed cities of the world (verse 17). All these things refer to a man and not to Satan (for example, there were no cities of the world to destroy when Satan originally fell), so we should not loose sight that the king of Babylon is the primary meaning of the passage, even if one thinks the passage is also about Satan.

Thirdly, I and many others believe that Lucifer or Satan's fall is recorded here, and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon also appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as the kingdom of the beast and both are spiritually empowered by Satan and his devils. This reason only deals with the interpretation however, and not how to translate the passage and what the term "Lucifer" means.

Other sources that support the interpretation that this passage is about Satan include:

David Guzik's commentary notes (Caps are mine): "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Here, the prophet identifies the king of Babylon as Lucifer, son of the morning. Some debate if Lucifer is a name or a title... The prophetic habit of speaking to both a near and a distant fulfillment, the prophet will sometimes speak more to the near or more to the distant. HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF ISAIAH SPEAKING MORE TO THE DISTANT, ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT. It is true that the king of literal Babylon shined brightly among the men of his day, and fell as hard and as completely as if a man were to fall from heaven. BUT THERE WAS A FAR MORE BRIGHTLY SHINING BEING WHO INHABITED HEAVE, AND FELL EVEN MORE DRAMATICALLY - THE KING OF SPRITUAL BABYLON, SATAN." ^{[citation needed]}

Commentator Dr. Henry M. Morris states: "Although the prophecy (in Isaiah 14) is directed toward the earthly king of Babylon, here it goes far beyond him (he could never fall from heaven) to the wicked spirit possessing his body and inspiring his actions. Just as Satan possessed and used the serpent's body in Eden, so he does here with Babylon's king..."^{[citation needed]}

Smith's Bible Dictionary of 1901 says regarding the name Lucifer: "Its application, from St. Jerome downward, to Satan in his fall from heaven arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self idolizing power, and especially connected with the empire of the Evil One in the Apocalypse."^{[citation needed]}

Revelation 18:2 says: "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit...", and very significantly we read in Revelation 13: 1-2, "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having SEVEN HEADS and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a LION, and THE DRAGON GAVE HIM HIS POWER, and his seat, and great authority."

I understand this beast which has 7 heads and 10 horns to be a combination of the four world powers depicted in the book of Daniel, of which the king of Babylon was the lion and one of the 7 heads mentioned. In the book of Revelation we see that the dragon gave him his power. Satan himself is the spiritual power behind the kingdom of the beast and he finally gets the worship he has always wanted - "And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast..." Revelation 13:4.

Fourthly, many Bible critics say Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and that the KJB has been responsible for this misconception and confusion. Lucifer is not a mistranslation, it is a name that means "morning star" (see sources below). It should be pointed out that the KJB is not the first or the only Bible version to so understand and translate this passage in Isaiah 14:12. All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word Lucifer in them. This includes Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Although these Bibles used "Lucifer" in this verse, they indicate that "Lucifer" means "morning star". For example, Wycliffe's translation, which is an English Bible that predates the KJV by over 200 years, says in Job 38:32 "Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth?". The 1560 Geneva has a note on Isaiah 14:12 that says ""Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were, placed in the heaven: for the morning star, which goeth before the sun, is called lucifer to whom Nebuchad-nezzar is compared." Matthew's 1549 translation says about this verse "Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeareth only in the morning.". Even the 1611 KJV itself has a note on the term "Lucifer" in this verse that says "Or, O day-starre".

Lucifer is also found in the Latin Vulgate in Isa 14:12, but also in Job 11:17 (where the KJV has "morning") and 2 Peter 1:19 (where the KJV has "day star"). It also has "luciferum" in Job 38:32 (where the KJV has Mazzaroth) and Psalm 109(110):3, where the KJV has "morning". The Douay 1950 Catholic bible (though some later Catholic versions now agree with the NIV, NASB versions) has "Lucifer" in Isa 14:12, but the note on the 1609 edition says "O day star". Daniel Webster's 1833 translation also has "Lucifer", but Webster's own English dictionary of 1828 says the meaning of "Lucifer" is "1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness". Also in Webster's 1828 dictionary, the entry on "Daystar" says "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." Under "Phosphor" in Webster's 1828 dictionary, it says "The morning star or Lucifer; Venus, when it precedes the sun and shines in the morning. In this sense, it is also written Phosphorus."

Darby's 1890 English version reads "Lucifer" in Isa 14:12, while his French reads "astre brillant" (bright star) and his German reads "Glanzstern" (star shine). The Romanian Cornilescu Bible as well as the 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras read Lucifer - "¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh Lucifer, hijo de la mañana!" Lucifer is also the reading of the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, that can be seen herehttp://www.reinavaleragomez.com/RVGhtml/index.html. It says: ¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh Lucifer, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las naciones.", although the 1569 and 1909 Reinva Valera say "Lucero", the same word in 2 Peter 1:19 (where the KJV has "day star"). Luther's 1534 German translation has "Morgenstern" ("Morning star") in Isaiah 14:12, Job 38:7, Job 38:32, 2 Peter 1:19, Rev 2:28 and Rev 22:16. The Italian Diodati Bible (1649) has "stella mattutina" ("star of the morning") in Isaiah 14:12, 2 Peter 1:19 and Rev 2:28. Numerous more examples could be given in numerous other languages. Lucifer is also the reading in the NKJV, the 21st Century KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

There is a brand new Hebrew-English translation put out in 2003 called the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. It can be seen online here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive.asp?AID=63255

In Isaiah 14:12 it reads "morning star" with the note "the morning star: This is Venus, which gives light as the morning star, [heylel] being derived from [halal], to shed light. This is the lamentation over the heavenly prince of Babylon, who will fall from heaven."

Ryrie's Scofield bible and Dakes annotated bible make reference^{[citation needed]} to the fact that many early church fathers (among these Tertullian, Origen, and Gregory the Great), interpreted the passage in Isaiah 14 as referring to the fall of Satan. Tertullian (197 A.D.) lived almost 200 years before Jerome, and he held this view^{[citation needed]}. The idea that the passage refers to the fall of Satan did NOT originate with Jerome (384 A.D), though he also believed this and appears to be about the time of Jerome that the first to use "Lucifer" as a name, rather than just a description or metaphor, of Satan. Rufinus, a contemporary of Jerome wrote "the rebellious angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who once was the morning star" (Apology of Rufinus, Book I, chapter 34). Jerome used "Lucifer" as a name for Satan in a few places, such as "Lucifer fell, Lucifer who used to rise at dawn" (The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter XXII, To Eustochium, paragraph 4). However, we see that Jerome also understood the meaning of "Lucifer" to refer to the morning star for he recorded a discussion between Atticus (a Christian) and Critobulus (a heretic) where Atticus says "Lucifer may be indignant because he has not the brightness of the moon. The moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil, and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun." (Against the Pelagians, Book I, chapter 19).

In fact, there was even a bishop of the church in the 4th century A.D. in the city of Cagliari (on the island of Sardinia, Italy) named Lucifer. If Lucifer is simply a name for Satan, it is difficult to imagine a Christian bishop having this name.

Bible versions that contain the Scofield notes, including the NIV Scofield edition, say regarding the Lucifer of Isaiah 14:12: "Verses 12-14 evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of If this world-system (See Scofield "Revelation 13:8") is the real unseen ruler of the successive world- powers. Tyre, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. (see Ezekiel 28:12-14) Lucifer, "day-star," can be none other that Satan. This tremendous passage marks the beginning of sin in the universe. When Lucifer said, "I will," sin began.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The Church Fathers interpreted the words of Jesus in Luke 10:18, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," as a reference to this passage in Isaiah, so that "Lucifer" came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall."^{[citation needed]}

The Random House 1999 Webster's dictionary gives the following definitions of Lucifer. The first one listed is "a proud rebellious archangel, identified with Satan, who fell from heaven." The second one is: "the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star." Of these two, I don't think it was the planet Venus that wanted to be like God and exalt its throne above the stars of God, do you? However, the passage in Isaiah is not spoken to the planet Venus, it is spoken to a Babylonian king (verse 4) who oppressed his people (verse 4, 6), ruled nations (verse 6), told will be brought down to the grave and covered with worms (verse 11), shook kingdoms (verse 16), destroyed cities (verse 17), be cast out of his grave and trampled on (verse 19) and slain his own people (verse 20). There were no cities to destroy when Satan originally fell, but there was when the king of Babylon reigned.

On one of the internet Bible clubs I belong to, I was discussing this passage with another Christian who said Lucifer was a bad translation of the Hebrew text. Here is part of our dialogue.

"My aim has not been to argue that the Isaiah text is irrelevant to our understanding of Satan's downfall: we're probably not so far apart as it sometimes seems. Whilst "Lucifer" is a bad translation of heylel in Is 14:12 it is actually a good exposition of the text from a biblical-theological perspective. Since our discussions here usually focus on the questions of translation we often miss the fact that we're largely in agreement doctrinally." (end of statement)

(My response) "Well, I'm glad we tend to see this passage in a similar way doctrinally, but I would disagree with you that Lucifer is a bad translation. We know that one of the primary meanings of the verb from which Hehlel is derived is "to shine". Lucifer literally means "light bearing or light bearer". The other passage that traditionally speaks of Satan is Ezekiel 28:12-19.

First the prince of Tyrus is addressed, then beginning with verse 12 the king of Tyrus is spoken to. The king seems to be the spiritual power behind the earthly prince. This "king" is also called the anointed cherub that covereth who was in the mountain of God. He was also in the garden of Eden. Part of his description is being covered with many precious stones and gold. He walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire, and verse 17 says: "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness". Apparently this covering cherub was resplendent and reflected bright lights and colors - thus "light bearer" or Lucifer.

Many Christians have thought that the reason God made two cherubs facing each other over the mercy seat, was to provide an object lesson about pride. Lucifer was the only one of his kind before his fall. He was lifted up because of his beauty. So as an object lesson, God creates two cherubs facing each other. They can "see" that there is another one just like them and they are not so special or unique.

Lucifer or Light bearer fits perfectly because Satan was a very bright, beautiful, light reflecting creature before his fall, and he now transforms himself into an angel of light to deceive. [Morning star fits perfectly because Satan was originally a good angel or "morning star" (Job 38:7).]

Those that say, like the NKJV footnote, that the Hebrew reads literally "morning star" are simply making this up (that is a kind way of saying they are lying). As you know, the words "morning star" are used in other places in Scripture, but not here in Isaiah 14:12. So I would say that the name Lucifer in Isaiah is exactly what it should be; it is an excellent translation." (end of response). However, it was wrong to say in that response that those that say the meaning is "morning star" are simply making this up, as countless translations, dictionaries and commentaries throughout history prove. For example (and this is just a small sampling):

• From A.D. 231, in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book I, chapter 13: "But the angels also wonder at the peace which is to be brought about on account of Jesus on the earth, that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus."
• From circa A.D. 380, St. Ambrose wrote near the end of his Hexaemeron, "As the cock peals forth his notes, the robber leaves his plots: Lucifer himself awakes and lights up the sky: the distressful sailor lays aside his gloom, and all the storms and tempests that have risen in fury under the winds of the evening begin to die down: the soul of the saint leaps to prayer and renews the study of the written word: and finally, the very Rock of the Church is cleansed of the stain he had contracted by his denials before the cock crew."
• From A.D. 382 - Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book I, chapter 22: "as the Scripture says in the description of the fall of the morning star, the mysteries on which subject are revealed by our Lord to His disciples: "I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven."
• From A.D. 397, St. Augustine wrote, in On Christian Doctrine, Book II chapter 21: "And this is not to be wondered at, when we consider that even in times more recent and nearer our own, the Romans made an attempt to dedicate the star which we call Lucifer to the name and honour of Caesar."
• From a circa A.D. 400 hymn by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemaïis, Ode 9: "Raising to Lord of earth and sky, The song of victory on high. And Lucifer, the guide of day, With smiling countenance was gay; And golden Hesperus afar Shot beams, the Cythereïan star. And shepherdess of right, the Moon Filled her bright crescent with festoon, And flowering wreath of liquid fire, And led her peers in joyous choir."
• From A.D. 400 - The Apology of Rufinus, Book I, chapter 34 ("Principalities and Powers"): "the Apostle means by these expressions the rebellious angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who once was the morning star, over whom in the end of the age the saints must sit with Christ...the rebellious angels and the prince of this world, and Lucifer who once was the morning star"
• From circa A.D. 410, The Recognitions of Clement, Book IX, chapter 23 ("Manners of the Susidæ"): "And yet the Genesis of all the Susian women has not Venus, with Jupiter and Mars in the middle of the heaven in the houses of Jupiter. In the remoter parts of the East, if a boy be treated unnaturally, when it is discovered, he is killed by his brothers, or his parents, or any of his relations, and is left unburied. And again, among the Gauls, an old law allows boys to be thus treated publicly; and no disgrace is thought to attach to it. And is it possible, that all those who are so basely treated among the Gauls, have had Lucifer with Mercury in the houses of Saturn and the confines of Mars?"
• From St. Augustine's well-known A.D. 419 work City of God, Book VII, chapter 15 ("Concerning Certain Stars Which the Pagans Have Called by the Names of Their Gods"): "But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. For they call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the names of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give to him no small property besides,—namely, all seeds. There also is that brightest of them all which is called by them Venus, and yet they will have this same Venus to be also the moon:—not to mention how Venus and Juno are said by them to contend about that most brilliant star, as though about another golden apple. For some say that Lucifer belongs to Venus, and some to Juno. But, as usual, Venus conquers. For by far the greatest number assign that star to Venus, so much so that there is scarcely found one of them who thinks otherwise. But since they call Jupiter the king of all, who will not laugh to see his star so far surpassed in brilliancy by the star of Venus? For it ought to have been as much more brilliant than the rest, as he himself is more powerful. They answer that it only appears so because it is higher up, and very much farther away from the earth. If, therefore, its greater dignity has deserved a higher place, why is Saturn higher in the heavens than Jupiter? Was the vanity of the fable which made Jupiter king not able to reach the stars? And has Saturn been permitted to obtain at least in the heavens, what he could not obtain in his own kingdom nor in the Capitol?"
• From Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy (A.D. 524), Book IV: "In just divisions of time does the evening star foretell the coming of the late shadows, and, as Lucifer, brings back again the warming light of day."
• From circa A.D. 750, in Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, Book II, chapter 6 ("Concerning the Heaven"): "For there are said to be seven planets: Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus and Saturn. But sometimes Venus is called Lucifer and sometimes Vesper. These are called planets because their movements are the reverse of those of the heaven. For while the heaven and all other stars move from east to west, these alone move from west to east."
• Walter Hilton, a British religious writer and mystic from the late 14th century, wrote the The Scale of Perfection, and in it said the following about John Wycliffe: "That he was a morning-star of the Reformation we have no difficulty in allowing, a fitting Lucifer for such a day."
• Lancelot Andrewes, the Anglican Bishop who oversaw and participated in the translation of the KJV, said in a sermon on December 25, 1622, referring to 2 Peter 1:19, "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (P.E. Hewison (editor), Selected Writings, p. 112. Also Lancelot Andrewes Works, Sermons, Volume One, Sermons of the Nativity, Sermon 1, (Transcribed by Dr. Marianne Dorman, 2001), p. 1)
• From Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (A.D. 1712) in the discussion of Isa 14:11-12: "The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him"
• From The Works of Jonathan Edwards, (circa 1750) Volume II, Miscellaneous Discourses, XI. Miscellaneous Observations, II. Fall of the Angels: "This angel, before his fall, was the chief of all the angels, of greatest natural capacity, strength, and wisdom, and highest in honour and dignity, the brightest of all those stars of heaven, as is signified by what is said of him, under that type of him, the king of Babylon, Isa. xiv. 12. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” This signifies his outshining all the other stars, as the morning star outshines the rest."
• From John Wesley's A.D. 1754 commentary on Isaiah 14:12: "Lucifer - Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon."
• From Adam Clarke's A.D. 1825 Clark's Commentary, Volume 4, on Isaiah 14:12: "The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render kkyh heilel as signifying Lucifer, fwsfwrov, 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."
• In the 1828 Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, which many KJV-only supporters say is the dictionary to use to determine the meaning of words in the KJV, has as its first definition of the word "Lucifer": "1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness". The entry on "Daystar" says "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." Under "Phosphor", it says "The morning star or Lucifer; Venus, when it precedes the sun and shines in the morning. In this sense, it is also written Phosphorus."
• In a sermon delivered on January 10th, 1864, Charles H. Spurgeon said "We can scarcely think that all devils are Satans. There seems to be one chief arch-spirit, one great Diabolus, who is an accuser of the brethren—one mighty Lucifer, who fell down from heaven and has become the prince of the powers of darkness. In all his hosts it is probable that there is not his like. He stands first and chief of those fallen morning stars; the rest of the spirits may stand in different grades of wickedness, a hierarchy of hell."
• From 1876 in Sermons on Gospel Themes by Charles Finney, chapter XI secton 2: "What would you think of one who might shine like Lucifer among the morning stars of intellect and genius, but who should debase himself to the low and miserable vocation of snuffing round after applause, and fishing for compliments to his talents?"
• In 1890, James Strong published the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with accompanying Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, still widely used today. The entry for the Hebrew word "heylel" from Isaiah 14:12 appears as follows: "1966. heylel, hay-lale'; from 1984 (In the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--lucifer."
• In his 1923 book The Antichrist, Arthur W. Pink wrote in chapter 15: " “Lucifer” is a Latin word which signifies the “morning star.” “All the ancient versions and all the Rabbins make the word a noun denoting the bright one, or, more specifically, bright star, or according to the ancients more specifically still, the Morning Star or harbinger of daylight” (Dr. J. A. Alexander). This term “Lucifer” has been commonly regarded as one of the names of Satan, and what is here said of the Morning Star is viewed as describing his apostasy. Against this interpretation we have nothing to say, except to remark that we are satisfied it does not exhaust this remarkable scripture. A detailed exposition must be reserved for a later chapter. Sufficient now to point out that however Isa. 14 may look back to the distant past when, through pride, Satan fell from his original estate, it most evidently looks forward to a coming day and gives another picture of the Antichrist. In this same passage “Lucifer” is termed “the Man that did make the earth to tremble” (v. 16), and in his blasphemous boast “I will be like the Most High” (v. 14), we have no difficulty in identifying him with the Man of Sin of 2 Thess. 2:3, 4. The force of this particular title “Morning Star” is seen by comparing it with Rev. 22:16, where we learn that this is one of the titles of the God-man. The “Morning Star” speaks of Christ coming to usher in the great Day of rest for the earth. In blasphemous travesty of this Satan will send forth the mock messiah to usher in a false millennium."

Lucifer seems to be the personal name of this powerful spiritual entity who wants to be like the most High God and he is also known as Satan and the devil. A host of modern dictionaries and encyclopedias, including Webster's 1999 edition, Word Net. Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Wordsmyth English Dictionary, and Encyclopedia Com., all define Lucifer as Satan and the devil. This is not a new doctrine, nor is it an old one that has passed out of favor.

Another objection I have heard raised against understanding Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the fall of Satan is this. Some have pointed to verse 16 where those who witness this fall say: "Is this THE MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms...that opened not the house of his prisoners?" They then ask How is it possible to call Satan A MAN?

Initially this might seem like a good point, but if you read The Bible more carefully you will also see that God Himself is called a MAN, and the angels, and Satan too. In Exodus 15:3 Moses and the children of Israel sing a song of deliverance saying: "The LORD is A MAN of war; the LORD is his name." The Hebrew word "man" is in the text and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, ESV, NKJV and many others, though the NASB, NIV have paraphrased this as "The Lord is a warrior".

Angels as well are referred to a "men" in the Scriptures. In Genesis 18-19 we see three MEN come to Abraham. Two of them are angels as seen from 19:1 and one of them is God. Yet they are called "men" several times in these two chapters. See Genesis 18:2,16,22; and 19:1,10,12 and 16.

Then in the New Testament, Mark 2:22-27 the Lord Jesus talks about casting out Satan and says: "No man can enter into a strong MAN'S house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong MAN; and then he will spoil his house.'

Of course, the last example is just a comparison between Satan and a strong man. However, depite angelic beings sometimes being called a "man" in scripture, the passage in Isaiah contains other things that do not really make sense when spoken to one who is not a human ruler. Again, the passage spoken to a Babylonian king (verse 4) who oppressed his people (verse 4, 6), ruled nations (verse 6), told will be brought down to the grave and covered with worms (verse 11), shook kingdoms (verse 16), destroyed cities (verse 17), be cast out of his grave and trampled on (verse 19) and slain his own people (verse 20). There were no cities to destroy when Satan originally fell, but there was when the king of Babylon reigned.

Those who say "Lucifer" is a mistranslation or that "morning star" is a mistranslation" and say that we who believe and defend it are not using the facts, may not be aware that there are many differing scholarly opinions and Bible versions, and many of them agree with the King James Bible. Some who criticize the KJB do not believe that any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant words of God. I think have no final authority as to what are the true words of God and are left to their own changeable opinions and preferences.

The King James Bible is the perfect word of the living God. It alone, like the incarnate Word of God of Whom it testifies, is the faithful and true witness.

Will Kinney (Some edits added by Brian Tegart (BrianT), author of http://kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html )