Isaiah 14:12 - Morning Star vs. Lucifer

[tayloresque]

During a recent discussion, the verse in Isaiah 14:12 came up. In the New American Bible, it states “How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn” but the Vulgate and other translations have replaced morning star with Lucifer. In Revelation Jesus is referred to as morning star. My question, is why did the Vulgate have Lucifer and the double inference to morning star that in Revelation is Jesus but does it refer to Lucifer as well?

 

[JeanneH]

During a recent discussion, the verse in Isaiah 14:12 came up. In the New American Bible, it states “How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn” but the Vulgate and other translations have replaced morning star with Lucifer. In Revelation Jesus is referred to as morning star. My question, is why did the Vulgate have Lucifer and the double inference to morning star that in Revelation is Jesus but does it refer to Lucifer as well?

Hi,

Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the King of Babylon, Lucifer according to the Vulgate.

Rev. 2:28 is referring to Jesus.
The foot note in my JB says:
In Eastern literature the Morning Star is both the symbol of dominion and power and also, as apparently here, of resurrection and triumphant glory. Christ reigns because he rose from the dead and his faithful will share his reign as they share the glory of his resurrection, on which his worldwide empire is based.

Both Jesus and Lucifer are powerful and have dominion.

Was this any use to you?
I hope some one can come up with something more helpful.

God Bless
JeanneH

 

[COPLAND_3]

I understand this word from the Greek aspect, which is “Eosphoros.” The name Lucifer is obviously from the Latin. The Greek Fathers of the Church identified Eosphoros as Satan in Isa. 14:12 not Lucifer since Lucifer is Latin. But Lucifer is a correct translation of the Hebrew word Heylel, just as the Greek word Eosphoros is too. So if the translator is recognizing the Hebrew word as a proper name, then Lucifer or Satan would be an idea choice, if it is not taken as a proper name then morning star would be correct.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

The Septuagint reads the titles as “eosphorus”–something like morning-bearer. It follows the Hebrew “Helel” well. Lucifer is the Latin translation of the same word.

In the context of the Isaiah passage, the title certainly refers to the King of Babylon, although later commentators like Jerome would exegete the devil out of it.
However, Isaiah is using familiar myths to prophecy how the king of Babylon will face defeat.

The “Morning Star” is the planet Venus, because it’s really bright and appears, accordingly, early in the morning, thus being the son of “eos” the dawn. So it has greek connotations, which is odd; and it recalls the Canannite myth of the gods Helel and Shahar, who apparently fall from heaven after a rebellion–according to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (pg. 999).

So I wouldn’t try to read too much into the text or try to get some kind of ulterior meaning from it. It certainly has a fascinating history (probably going back thousands of years) and is eerie to read.

Oh, Jesus is the real morning star.

 

[bengal_fan]

Hi,

Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the King of Babylon, Lucifer according to the Vulgate.

the chapter starts out talking about the king of babylon and then moves away from that and begins talking about lucifer. basically, he is comparing the king of babylon to lucifer. they are not one and the same, but the king is being compared to the devil.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

In the song “Gentle Woman” Mary is referred to as the Mornig Star too? Is this in reference to the glory and power she has receives from Christ as Queen as Heaven?

 

[porthos11]

I’m not very agreeable to the application of the name Lucifer to the devil. That creature is more properly called Satan, i.e. the Adversary.

The name Lucifer as applied to the devil comes from a medieval interpretation of this verse, but really, in the earliest Church, there was no such association. As I indicated several times before, there was even a Catholic bishop named Lucifer, and he is regarded as a saint with a local cultus in Sardinia.

Saint Lucifer. Imagine that. It’s actually a fine name that has gained an unfortunate association with someone who doesn’t deserve it.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The name Lucifer as applied to the devil comes from a medieval interpretation of this verse, but really, in the earliest Church, there was no such association.

Actually, like has been already pointed out, Lucifer is the same as the Greek “Eosphoros” which is LXX and was translated about 200 years before Christ. Satan was at one time a good angel, and angels are referred to as stars in Scripture, so the context is there all the way around. Lucifer is not a bad name, but where certain fallen people or angels have certain names, that can effect how we perceive the names. For example, Judas is a good name, but some may not name their son Judas, even though Judas Maccabeus and St. Jude are very honorable, all because of Judas Iscariot.