Is Lucifer a Biblical name for Satan?

[Della]

Della,

I appreciate your comments. What is the source?

Thanks,
Anna

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 Edition (Online):

Isaias Chapter 14, Ver. 12. O Lucifer. O day-star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer, the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God. (Challoner) (Luke x. 18.) (Calmet) — He fell by pride, as Nabuchodonosor did. (Worthington).

Although it does not absolutely refer to Satan, it can be, and has been applied to the angelic being Lucifer, who Jesus called the father of lies and the devil. It was commonly held in Jewish theology as referring to Satan as well as to the king of Babylon. Scripture references usually do have this double meaning–one meant for the historical happenings/persons of the day and one prophetic/symbolic of persons/events in the spiritual realm. So, there is nothing wrong with associating the person of Satan with the name Lucifer when that name is not used in common parlance for Our Blessed Lord.

It also is a great reminder that Lucifer, the archangel, had the highest place in heaven next to Christ himself until his fall. It tells us that no created being is greater than God and that all us creatures need to remain in God or we too might fall no matter how high we may have risen in spiritual matters. It’s meant to teach us a lesson. Christ may rise like the Morning Star but he is infinitely greater than any star or planet or angel since he was their Creator, as he was the Creator of all things, men and animals included. I hope that helps.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave,

Interesting comments.

If you don’t mind my asking (and your are not obligated to answer); what do you teach?

Peace,
Anna

This particular question came up in “Introduction to the Bible.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

This particular question came up in “Introduction to the Bible.”

Thanks Dave. Wish I could have been one of your students.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Those name changes are explained in Scripture. What is your source for the name change of lucifer to Satan (Scripture, ECF’s, etc.)?

And—how did the word lucifer go from a reference to Christ to a name for Satan???

Latin Vulgate:
**2 Peter 1:19 ** “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

Douay-Rheims
**2 Peter 1:19 ** And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.

If lucifer is a name for Satan, why is it used in Roman Rite liturgy’s Exultet Chant in praise of the paschal candle which refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

Peace,
Anna

To be honest,I would not worry so much as to where the name originated from. The fact is that Lucifer or whatever name one uses for the fallen angel,pales in comparison as to WHAT the angel became after the rebellion. The name of angels are not as important as to what they are and their duties. Angels by nature are spiritual beings and the “angel” is merely the office bestowed upon by God.

 

[Nicea325]

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 Edition (Online):

Isaias Chapter 14, Ver. 12. O Lucifer. O day-star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer, the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God. (Challoner) (Luke x. 18.) (Calmet) — He fell by pride, as Nabuchodonosor did. (Worthington).

Although it does not absolutely refer to Satan, it can be, and has been applied to the angelic being Lucifer, who Jesus called the father of lies and the devil. It was commonly held in Jewish theology as referring to Satan as well as to the king of Babylon. Scripture references usually do have this double meaning–one meant for the historical happenings/persons of the day and one prophetic/symbolic of persons/events in the spiritual realm. So, there is nothing wrong with associating the person of Satan with the name Lucifer when that name is not used in common parlance for Our Blessed Lord.

It also is a great reminder that Lucifer, the archangel, had the highest place in heaven next to Christ himself until his fall. It tells us that no created being is greater than God and that all us creatures need to remain in God or we too might fall no matter how high we may have risen in spiritual matters. It’s meant to teach us a lesson. Christ may rise like the Morning Star but he is infinitely greater than any star or planet or angel since he was their Creator, as he was the Creator of all things, men and animals included. I hope that helps.

It also is a great reminder that Lucifer, the archangel, had the highest place in heaven next to Christ himself until his fall

Actually,if I am correct,Lucifer was not an archangel,but either a Seraphim or Cherubim angel. Most sources I have read on “Lucier” claim he belonged to the Chrubim rank due to his powers and features.Again,this what I have read on angels. I believe he was not an archangel by a Seraphim or Cherubim angel.

 

[Neildown]

Maybe a good arbiter in this situation would be -

Would you be comfortable with naming you or your child Lucifer?

I personally think Lucifer is a cool name, but knowing who it is attributed to, I would not chance naming myself or anyone else after it.

 

[Nicea325]

Maybe a good arbiter in this situation would be -

Would you be comfortable with naming you or your child Lucifer?

I personally think Lucifer is a cool name, but knowing who it is attributed to, I would not chance naming myself or anyone else after it.

A friend of mine is German and she told me, it is against the law in Germany to name your child Judas?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 Edition (Online):

Isaias Chapter 14, Ver. 12. O Lucifer. O day-star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer, the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God. (Challoner) (Luke x. 18.) (Calmet) — He fell by pride, as Nabuchodonosor did. (Worthington).

Although it does not absolutely refer to Satan, it can be, and has been applied to the angelic being Lucifer, who Jesus called the father of lies and the devil. It was commonly held in Jewish theology as referring to Satan as well as to the king of Babylon. Scripture references usually do have this double meaning–one meant for the historical happenings/persons of the day and one prophetic/symbolic of persons/events in the spiritual realm. So, there is nothing wrong with associating the person of Satan with the name Lucifer when that name is not used in common parlance for Our Blessed Lord.

It also is a great reminder that Lucifer, the archangel, had the highest place in heaven next to Christ himself until his fall. It tells us that no created being is greater than God and that all us creatures need to remain in God or we too might fall no matter how high we may have risen in spiritual matters. It’s meant to teach us a lesson. Christ may rise like the Morning Star but he is infinitely greater than any star or planet or angel since he was their Creator, as he was the Creator of all things, men and animals included. I hope that helps.

Della,

I was surfing and just read that same commentary; but it does not seem to agree entirely with the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia linked in my OP:

(separation of lines and emphasis is mine throughout)
"Lucifer (Hebr. helel; Septuagint eosphoros, Vulgate Lucifer) originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliancy.

The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job, xi,17),

“the signs of the zodiac” (Job, xxxviiii, 32), and “the aurora” (Ps., cix, 3).

Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Is., xiv, 12) as preeminent among the princes of his time;

to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclus.,1, 6), for his surpassing virtue;

to the glory of heaven (Apoc., ii, 28), by reason of its excellency;

finally, to Jesus Christ himself (II Petr., i, 19; Apoc., xxii, 16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday), the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yal4l, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Is., i, 14; P.L., XXIV, 161), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, “De Angelis”, III, iii, 4). . . ."
A. J. MAAS Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lucifer

I’m trying to find the first use of lucifer as Satan or “prince of devils” as your post noted. I found stories about fallen angels in 1 Enoch, a Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament; but the Enoch books are not part of the Catholic Canon (correct me if I’m wrong.)

I did a word search for lucifer in the Deuterocanonical Books in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition—lucifer is not found. So, the origin is not in the Deuterocanonical Books.

I have several questions at this point.

If lucifer is truly a name for Satan, why is the word lucifer not found in the RVS and NRSV, used in the CCC—or most English Bible translations for that matter?

Why is lucifer applied both to Christ and Satan in the Latin Vulgate (lucifer appears 3 times, luciferum 2) and only found once in the Douay-Rheims (which is a translation of the Vulgate)?

If lucifer is Satan, why is the word used in Roman Rite Liturgy’s Exultet Chant in praise of the paschal candle, which refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

How did a Bishop end up with the name Lucifer. I would assume he wasn’t named after Satan: Lucifer of Cagliari, born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D. Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

I’m not expecting you to answer all of these questions. I’m just throwing them out there-basically thinking out loud. I welcome all comments.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

To be honest,I would not worry so much as to where the name originated from. The fact is that Lucifer or whatever name one uses for the fallen angel,pales in comparison as to WHAT the angel became after the rebellion. The name of angels are not as important as to what they are and their duties. Angels by nature are spiritual beings and the “angel” is merely the office bestowed upon by God.

Nicea,

I really wouldn’t be concerned about the names of angels, if it were not for the fact that **lucifer **is applied both to Christ and to Satan.

It also is a great reminder that Lucifer, the archangel, had the highest place in heaven next to Christ himself until his fall

Actually,if I am correct,Lucifer was not an archangel,but either a Seraphim or Cherubim angel. Most sources I have read on “Lucier” claim he belonged to the Chrubim rank due to his powers and features.Again,this what I have read on angels. I believe he was not an archangel by a Seraphim or Cherubim angel.

Would you provide a source for this. That would really help me.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Maybe a good arbiter in this situation would be -

Would you be comfortable with naming you or your child Lucifer?

I personally think Lucifer is a cool name, but knowing who it is attributed to, I would not chance naming myself or anyone else after it.

Neildown,

Good point.

A Bishop, Lucifer of Cagliari (born in the early part of the 4th century) was given the name. Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

Peace,’
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

So far in the poll, Lucifer as a name for Satan is winning. Yikes!

Thanks to all who took the pole. Hope more people will.

Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,

I really wouldn’t be concerned about the names of angels, if it were not for the fact that **lucifer **is applied both to Christ and to Satan.

Would you provide a source for this. That would really help me.

Thanks,
Anna

Jesus is also called Lucifer? In Scripture? Tradition? Where and by whom? Sources please.

Yes I will provide the sources I have on angels. They are books and I do not have them here at work.

Peace

 

[Della]

Della,

I was surfing and just read that same commentary; but it does not seem to agree entirely with the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia linked in my OP:

(separation of lines and emphasis is mine throughout)
"Lucifer (Hebr. helel; Septuagint eosphoros, Vulgate Lucifer) originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliancy.

The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job, xi,17),

“the signs of the zodiac” (Job, xxxviiii, 32), and “the aurora” (Ps., cix, 3).

Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Is., xiv, 12) as preeminent among the princes of his time;

to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclus.,1, 6), for his surpassing virtue;

to the glory of heaven (Apoc., ii, 28), by reason of its excellency;

finally, to Jesus Christ himself (II Petr., i, 19; Apoc., xxii, 16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday), the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yal4l, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Is., i, 14; P.L., XXIV, 161), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, “De Angelis”, III, iii, 4). . . ."
A. J. MAAS Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lucifer

I’m trying to find the first use of lucifer as Satan or “prince of devils” as your post noted. I found stories about fallen angels in 1 Enoch, a Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament; but the Enoch books are not part of the Catholic Canon (correct me if I’m wrong.)

I did a word search for lucifer in the Deuterocanonical Books in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition—lucifer is not found. So, the origin is not in the Deuterocanonical Books.

I have several questions at this point.

If lucifer is truly a name for Satan, why is the word lucifer not found in the RVS and NRSV, used in the CCC—or most English Bible translations for that matter?

Why is lucifer applied both to Christ and Satan in the Latin Vulgate (lucifer appears 3 times, luciferum 2) and only found once in the Douay-Rheims (which is a translation of the Vulgate)?

If lucifer is Satan, why is the word used in Roman Rite Liturgy’s Exultet Chant in praise of the paschal candle, which refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

How did a Bishop end up with the name Lucifer. I would assume he wasn’t named after Satan: Lucifer of Cagliari, born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D. Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

I’m not expecting you to answer all of these questions. I’m just throwing them out there-basically thinking out loud. I welcome all comments.

Thanks,
Anna

First of all, I see no contradiction between Haydock and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Both say that the primary reference is to the king of Babylon. The CE simply doesn’t mention the reference to the devil that the Haydock does, but that’s simply the choice of the writer of the article. It doesn’t mean it can’t have the connection to Satan.

Secondly, as I stated above, the name Lucifer has become so closely associated with Satan that for all practical purposes it’s useless for any other. And it is not always used as a formal name in the Scripture you cited but merely as a word that describes an attribute of the person. Jesus was never named Lucifer as a formal name. No angel or human ever called him that, as a name. It’s merely a description of an attribute.

Simply because a good name becomes associated with a bad thing doesn’t make anyone named the good name suspect. For instance, the doctor who assisted John Wilkes Booth was named Mudd. After he was convicted of aiding and abetting an assassin, his name became synonymous with having a bad reputation in the phrase: “His name is mud.” We spell it like dirt mixed with water, but it was originally Mudd–a sir name of a real person. All this does not mean that anyone named Mudd is the person who aided Booth nor that he is a bad person because he is named Mudd. To equate them is to miss the point entirely. It’s too bad people only associate the name Lucifer with Satan, but they do. Fighting it is pointless.

As to the bishop named Lucifer, he lived in the 4th century before the name Lucifer had become associated with Satan in popular culture. The man’s parents would most certainly not name him that today. Not because the name, in and of itself is bad, but because, like Dr. Mudd, it has become associated with a bad person/entity. It’s just that simple.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Job 38:7 When the “morning stars” sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
[Plural]

 

[Ladervijd]

Another good question is Lucifer even correctly interpreted by Jerome? St Jerome did do a fantastic job with interpretation. But there does seem to be a bit of controversy over Isaiah and Lucifer.

eg. franknelte.net/Mistranslated_Scriptures/ISA14-12.htm

^It states that the particular word was translated correctly from Greek to Latin, and that a mistranslation happened from Hebrew to Greek though.

No clue about the person/s and their credentials of the sites I linked, as I am in no way involved with the linked sites; just what I found with a quick google search.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Jesus is also called Lucifer? In Scripture? Tradition?

The word lucifer is used as a description of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 in the Latin Vulgate:

Latin Vulgate:
**2 Peter 1:19 **(Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris.”

The word lucifer is also used in the Roman Rite Lliturgy’s Exultet Chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.” Click on this link and you will see what I am talking about: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi,

Well lucifer is a Latin word, so I don’t see how it could be an “anglophone thing”. Could you elaborate?

Peace,
Anna

Sorry for being so late to respond to this. I was always under the impression that the reason why it’s so widespread in Anglophone countries is due to the KJV keeping Lucifer as a proper name rather than translating it literally.

 

[Nicea325]

The word lucifer is used as a description of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19 in the Latin Vulgate:

Latin Vulgate:
**2 Peter 1:19 **(Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris.”

The word lucifer is also used in the Roman Rite Lliturgy’s Exultet Chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.” Click on this link and you will see what I am talking about: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

Peace,
Anna

Okay but does not mean Jesus is being labeled as or connected to Satan. Lucifer means “light-bearer” (from the words lucem ferre). It was the name given to the dawn appearance of the planet Venus, which heralds daylight. For this meaning, English generally uses the names “Morning Star” or “Day Star”, and rarely “Lucifer”.

You seem to be applying the name Lucifer also known as Satan to Jesus-correct? Lucifer is a name tied to Satan. But Lucifer is not necessarily the attribute or character of the entity at hand. I can call or name Satan anything I wish,but his nature is unchanged. If I name my son Judas does it make him the equal to or actually the same as the Judas in the Bible?

I really do not see the big issue here. The problem I encounter is that many expect the Bible to say everything and write everything explicitly about everything. That is not the point and purpose of the Bible.

 

[Anna_Scott]

First of all, I see no contradiction between Haydock and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Both say that the primary reference is to the king of Babylon. The CE simply doesn’t mention the reference to the devil that the Haydock does, but that’s simply the choice of the writer of the article. It doesn’t mean it can’t have the connection to Satan.

I said the article you posted did not seem to “agree entirely” with the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I agree that both are saying similar things.

However, the CE article states, “the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen.”

For the Fathers to say, “Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil” seems to mean “Lucifer is not a “Biblical” name for Satan.” That is my point.

Secondly, as I stated above, the name Lucifer has become so closely associated with Satan that for all practical purposes it’s useless for any other. And it is not always used as a formal name in the Scripture you cited but merely as a word that describes an attribute of the person. Jesus was never named Lucifer as a formal name. No angel or human ever called him that, as a name. It’s merely a description of an attribute.

I agree entirely. I’m not saying lucifer is a proper name for Christ or a proper name for Satan. Lucifer is a Latin word, that is not used as a proper name in the Latin Vulgate. The words lucifer and luciferum are used as descriptions in the Latin Vulgate.

However, in the KJV, the Douay-Rheims, and a few other English translations, the Latin word lucifer was not translated into English. Lucifer was carried over from the Latin Vulgate, as if it were a proper name.

The word **lucifer **is not found in the RSV or the NRSV (translations used in the CCC) or in most of the English Bible translations. It is obviously not a Biblical name for Satan.

Simply because a good name becomes associated with a bad thing doesn’t make anyone named the good name suspect. . . . .

I agree and never said otherwise.

. . . . .It’s too bad people only associate the name Lucifer with Satan, but they do. Fighting it is pointless.

It would appear so. The word lucifer vanished from most English Bible translations, with very little notice or discussion.

As to the bishop named Lucifer, he lived in the 4th century before the name Lucifer had become associated with Satan in popular culture. The man’s parents would most certainly not name him that today. Not because the name, in and of itself is bad, but because, like Dr. Mudd, it has become associated with a bad person/entity. It’s just that simple.

This actually is what I’m saying. Obviously, at that point in history, lucifer had not become a proper name for Satan. As I said in my very first post:

. . . . .From the research I have done, it appears that the Latin word lucifer actually became associated with Satan outside the Bible in works like Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost. Though, some ECF’s did adopt the association of lucifer with Satan.

So, I do not believe lucifer is a true Biblical name for Satan. . . .

We actually have very few disagreements on the issue.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Okay but does not mean Jesus is being labeled as or connected to Satan. Lucifer means “light-bearer” (from the words lucem ferre). It was the name given to the dawn appearance of the planet Venus, which heralds daylight. For this meaning, English generally uses the names “Morning Star” or “Day Star”, and rarely “Lucifer”.

You seem to be applying the name Lucifer also known as Satan to Jesus-correct? Lucifer is a name tied to Satan. But Lucifer is not necessarily the attribute or character of the entity at hand. I can call or name Satan anything I wish,but his nature is unchanged. If I name my son Judas does make him the equal to or actually the same as the Judas in the Bible?

Nicea325,

I’m not applying the word lucifer to Jesus.

The Latin Vulgate uses lucifer as a description of Christ as does the Roman Rite Lliturgy’s Exultet Chant. I’m not saying the Vulgate and the Exutet Chant are connecting Jesus and Satan.

My whole point is that lucifer is not a Biblical name for Satan. Lucifer and Satan became connected outside Holy Scripture.

Peace,
Anna