I find many of us believe that the name of Satan is Lucifer as the text in Isaiah 14:12 would lead us to believe. The usage of the the word lucifer however has caused many not to understand the true meaning if this verse. This is due in large part to a rather careless mistake made by Erasmus in his translation of parts of the Latin Vulgate.
The Vulgate was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and as such, translated the Hebrew and Greek into Latin. Although the word lucifer appears only one time in the King the Vulgate uses lucifer three times.
The first time it's used in the Vulgate is in Job 11:17 where it translates the Hebrew word boqer as lucifer and is translated in every English Bible that I've seen, including the KJV as morning, in reference to early light.
In a comparing the KJV to newer versions, the word boqer is translated morning a total of 215 times vs's 204 instances in the KJV. The only difference being that the KJV also uses it as day, and early, but always in the same sense as early light. This makes complete sense as the Hebrew word boqer literally means dawn, or daybreak, and is always used to describe a type of light that isn't at it's brightest, such as a midday light.
The next time lucifer is used in the Vulgate is of course in Isaiah 14:12, which the KJV simply fails to translate into English. The Hebrew word here is helel, meaning morning as well.
The last time the Vulgate uses lucifer is in 2Peter 1:19 which is translated as day star in the KJV and morning star in the NASB. Again, relatively the same meaning so they both agree that the Greek word phosphoros means 'light bearing' or 'light bringing'
This is where proper interpretation is very important. If the Vulgate meant to imply that lucifer was the name of Satan I would certainly not feel comfortable with a Bible that claimed Satan would be arising in my heart in this or any other context.
If you cross-reference morning star it appears again in Revelations 2:28; 22:16; & Rev 2:28!
EXPLANATION OF ISAIAH 14:12
1. This is in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. There is some
speculation that references this to Belshazzar however.
Martin Luther kind of likens this to the Pope in Rome. There's kind
of a pretty good case any which way ya look at I guess.
2. O Lucifer was used figuratively to liken his life, stature and abundant pride to that of Satan who thought he was like God.
How you are fallen from heaven...How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
I just thought this was hilarious, they're totally mocking him! They're treating him like Saddam Hussein when they found him in
a spider hole! I can't think of a more sarcastic tone in the rest of Bible.... He just thought he was so great and put himself on
such a high pedestal that from his perspective he was looking
down on all the nations.
When he died he was shown to be just like
everyone else... with all his faults exposed. In addition to this, while it was customary to give a king a somewhat 'Royal Funeral', Nebuchadnezzar was so despised by his people they basically did little more than drop him in a hole.
The Vulgate was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and as such, translated the Hebrew and Greek into Latin. Although the word lucifer appears only one time in the King the Vulgate uses lucifer three times.
The first time it's used in the Vulgate is in Job 11:17 where it translates the Hebrew word boqer as lucifer and is translated in every English Bible that I've seen, including the KJV as morning, in reference to early light.
In a comparing the KJV to newer versions, the word boqer is translated morning a total of 215 times vs's 204 instances in the KJV. The only difference being that the KJV also uses it as day, and early, but always in the same sense as early light. This makes complete sense as the Hebrew word boqer literally means dawn, or daybreak, and is always used to describe a type of light that isn't at it's brightest, such as a midday light.
The next time lucifer is used in the Vulgate is of course in Isaiah 14:12, which the KJV simply fails to translate into English. The Hebrew word here is helel, meaning morning as well.
The last time the Vulgate uses lucifer is in 2Peter 1:19 which is translated as day star in the KJV and morning star in the NASB. Again, relatively the same meaning so they both agree that the Greek word phosphoros means 'light bearing' or 'light bringing'
This is where proper interpretation is very important. If the Vulgate meant to imply that lucifer was the name of Satan I would certainly not feel comfortable with a Bible that claimed Satan would be arising in my heart in this or any other context.
If you cross-reference morning star it appears again in Revelations 2:28; 22:16; & Rev 2:28!
EXPLANATION OF ISAIAH 14:12
1. This is in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. There is some
speculation that references this to Belshazzar however.
Martin Luther kind of likens this to the Pope in Rome. There's kind
of a pretty good case any which way ya look at I guess.
2. O Lucifer was used figuratively to liken his life, stature and abundant pride to that of Satan who thought he was like God.
How you are fallen from heaven...How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
I just thought this was hilarious, they're totally mocking him! They're treating him like Saddam Hussein when they found him in
a spider hole! I can't think of a more sarcastic tone in the rest of Bible.... He just thought he was so great and put himself on
such a high pedestal that from his perspective he was looking
down on all the nations.
When he died he was shown to be just like
everyone else... with all his faults exposed. In addition to this, while it was customary to give a king a somewhat 'Royal Funeral', Nebuchadnezzar was so despised by his people they basically did little more than drop him in a hole.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posts
I'm afraid your meaning here is rather unclear. This posts skirts the issue of casting doubt upon God's Word, and as such I think it is only reasonable that I ask for some clarification. I would have to say that much of my confusion comes from the phrasing of the second-to-last paragraph, which I can see is intended to sum up the whole article, and yet I'm still not sure what you're saying. Please re-phrase. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
Matthew
Oops, you're right... I meant to correct this some time ago and forgot about it.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to Lucifer should be ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.
I'll just correct it above. Thank you.
Thanks for the clarification!
ReplyDelete"2. O Lucifer was used figuratively to liken his life, stature and abundant pride to that of Satan who thought he was like God."
While I agree that it is sensible to assume that this passage is alluding to someone other than Satan, you do not offer any hard evidence to suggest that the passage could not be describing both Nebuchadnezzar and Satan. Would you deny that such an interpretation is plausible? If so, please explain; I would be interested to discuss this topic further with you.
Thank you for your interest.
ReplyDeleteFirst, take a look at Daniel 11:36
& 2Thessalonians 2:4.
I think you'll find that my commentary could almost fit in with these just as easily.
Now, in terms of speaking of 'Satan' or Nebuchadnezzar, it's actually meant to be speaking of both; metaphorically it is comparing Nebuchadnezzar to Satan's immense pride.
I suppose the easiest way to prove that 'lucifer' should not be in any English translation is to just look at the Hebrew manuscripts.
In Hebrew, "O Lucifer" is read as hâlal. This word means 'morning star or morning light.
In Latin, the word for 'morning light is translated as 'lucifer
In English of course the word hâlal means the same thing 'morning light'.
Sorry for beating around the bush, but I think it's more interesting to explain hermeneutically rather than just read the Hebrew.
Oh that's fine! I'm a fan of hermeneutics, I just wasn't sure what you were getting at. So... are you simply saying that the text should read "morning star" rather than "Lucifer" wherever the term appears? And if so, then are you suggesting that "morning star" is a legitimate term for use in reference to Satan (as opposed, naturally, to Lucifer)? Or are you instead suggesting that Satan has no alternative name?
ReplyDeleteNo, actually 'morning star' is used in reference to Jesus in 2 Peter 1:19; Revelation 2:28 and Revelation 22:16.
ReplyDeleteSatan was thrown out of heaven because his pride was so great that he thought of himself as an equal to God. Thus, the reference in Isaiah is used figuratively in relation to the King of Babylon because his pride was also so overblown that he thought of himself as Christs equal.
I'm sorry if my reply seemed evasive, do you understand now?
Type in hermeneutics, exegesis or esegesis into my Google Search box above. I've included a ton of great sites dealing with this, as I'm also a big fan.
Yes, I was aware of the "Morning Star" references to Jesus - in fact I confess it was the first thing I was going to bring up if you had said that "Morning Star" was a possible moniker for Satan.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you are suggesting that the fact that Jesus is referred to as the "Morning Star" is your primary reason for stating that it would be incorrect to refer to Satan as Lucifer, I would like to bring to light (though you have probably already considered this) the fact that the references to Jesus as the morning star are found in the New Testament, whereas the alleged reference to Satan as "Lucifer" occurs in the Old Testament - my point being that as the languages of the New and Old Testaments are different, there is the potential for a vital distinction between the terms (i.e. - the two terms may only appear identical in English, yet be quite distinct from each other in Hebrew; just as in English I can use the same term "love" to describe both my feelings toward: 1) my friends and family and 2) pepperoni pizza, yet in most other languages two different words would be used).
Just trying to place all possibilities out on the table, as the theory you are suggesting seems to claim that there is an almost sarcastic tone to Isaiah 14:12 which seems out of place in my humble opinion.
In Christ,
Matthew
LOL... I was wondering if you were testing me.
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out in the blog;
The Latin word 'lucifer' is used 3 times. The first time it's used in the Vulgate is in Job 11:17 where it translates the Hebrew word boqer as lucifer and is translated in every English Bible that I've seen, including the KJV as morning, in reference to early light.
The next time lucifer is used in the Vulgate is of course in Isaiah 14:12, which the KJV simply fails to translate into English. The Hebrew word here is helel, meaning morning as well.
By x-referencing this with Isaiah 14:4, it may phōsphóros on the context.
The last time the Vulgate uses lucifer is in 2Peter 1:19 which is translated from the Greek word (φωσφόρος)phōsphóros, which means 'light bearing' or 'light bringing'.
You can tell here that the KJV translators didn't have to rely on the Vulgate as a source, as they were able to use their preferred text of Stephanus' Textus Receptus. Thus, was properly translated as day star in the KJV and morning star in the NASB.
This is close enough not to pick at. They both agree that the Greek word was a derivative of phōsphóros eluding to a form of Rising Light
Forgive me for coming across as argumentative (it's an intrinsic personality trait of mine).
ReplyDeleteMy (hopefully) final query:
Is it entirely out of the question that Satan was once a "bearer of light" (perhaps in reference to his former occupational appointment among the heavenly host) prior to his rebellion and subsequent banishment?
P.S. - You follow Rick Warren's blog?
ReplyDeleteHey, sorry it's taken so long to reply. I crashed my computer and I finally have things working ok again... i think?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I used to go to Saddleback Church back in 02'-04', so I still like to stay up to date with things.
In reference to Satan possibly being a 'bearer of light' at one time?
ReplyDeleteI can't really see that Scripture would support this. It's my thinking that Satan existed before man was created... otherwise who else could have deceived Eve, right?
"Hey, sorry it's taken so long to reply. I crashed my computer and I finally have things working ok again... i think?"
ReplyDeleteLol, that's fine. I understand!
"Anyway, I used to go to Saddleback Church back in 02'-04', so I still like to stay up to date with things."
Interesting
"It's my thinking that Satan existed before man was created... otherwise who else could have deceived Eve, right?"
Eve was deceived after man was created, so I don't see your logic. All else, we have no scripture to indicate when Satan was created - other than the assumption that he was probably created along with the angels at some point during the 6 day creation, when everything else was created. Also, as to having scripture to indicate this, the very scripture which you are calling into question would be the best reference to indicate this.
In Christ,
Matthew