Translations
First off, let's see how some other versions, other than the NIV translate this phrase:
"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn!" The New American Standard Bible.
"How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!" The New Living Translation.
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!" The Revised Standard Version
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!" The New Revised Standard Version
"How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn!" Young's Literal Translation.
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!" American Standard (1901).
"King of Babylon, morning star, you have fallen from heaven," New Century Version
"King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven!" The Good News Bible in Today's English Version
King of Babylon, Not Satan
Look at the last two citations, the New Century Version and the Good News Bible (TEV). Notice that they, both, start this verse addressing the King of Babylon. Could it be, that after all these years, some are claiming that Isa. 14:12 is not about Satan/Lucifer, but about someone else? In a word, yes. And this translation has great support down through the ages.
The Geneva Bible, 1549
In the Geneva Bible, published in 1549, they did use the word, "Lucifer":
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer*, son of the morning!
Please notice the asterisk, in that verse, behind the name of Lucifer. That is there because the translators of the Geneva Bible, 60 years before the King James (therefore not a part of any New Age plot) put an explanatory footnote here. Here is what they said about the word "Lucifer." "You who thought yourself most glorious and as it were placed in the heaven for the morning star that goes before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."
Did you see that? These translators, 60 years before the King James, say that this verse is not about Satan, but Nebuchadnezzar. Admittedly, they do believe that Nebuchadnezzar is being compared to Lucifer, but they recognize that this verse, this Lucifer, is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.
Matthew Henry, 1706
Next stop, Matthew Henry, King of Commentators. If a minister doesn't have a Matthew Henry's Commentary in his pastoral library, then his ministerial library is sadly lacking. In 1706, in writing his commentary, Henry had this to say about Isaiah 14:12.
"The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him; and has such an illustrious prince as this fallen, such a star become a clod of clay? Did ever any man fall from such a height of honour and power into such an abyss of shame and misery?'' This has been commonly alluded to (and it is a mere allusion) to illustrate the fall of the angels, who were as morning stars (Job 38:7),"
Henry, considered one of the greatest of Biblical commentators, says that this refers to the king of Babylon, making no mention of Lucifer being Satan's first name. And, please note, yes, Henry does say that preachers have used this to allude to the fall of angels, but, "IT IS A MERE ALLUSION."
And, further note, please, that Henry does not say that the title morning star is reserved for Christ alone, but is the biblical term for angels, as well. The thinking of the KJO cultists runs along this line:
a. Christ is called the Morning Star in Rev. 22:16.
b. The Morning Star is Christ' title.
c. New translations translate Lucifer, in Isa. 14:12, as Morning Star.
d. New translations are trying to identify Christ with Lucifer.
But, as Matthew Henry pointed out, the term "morning star" is not exclusively Christ's title. Angels, Henry noted, were called "morning stars" in the book of Job. So much for the reasoning capability of KJO cultists.
John Wesley, 1754-1765
John Wesley, founder of Methodism, wrote in his Notes on the Bible, 1754-1765, this about 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."
Wesley, not a New Ager, by any stretch of the imagination, tells us that this word mean a bright star, and is a metaphor for the king of Babylon.
Adam Clarke, 1760-1832,
In his Commentary on the Bible, Adam Clarke wrote this about "Lucifer."
"Verse 12. O Lucifer, [son of the morning] The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render kkyh heilel as signifying Lucifer, 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. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. llqh heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from llq yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends"
Clarke does not beat around the bush. As he puts it, "the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text." To Clarke, the idea that the Holy Spirit would give the name of Light-Bringer to Satan is both "strange" and "preposterous."
Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1860
Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1860, has this reference for Lucifer:
"(light-bearer ), found in (Isaiah 14:12) coupled with the epithet "son of the morning," clearly signifies a "bright star," and probably what we call the morning star. In this passage it is a symbolical representation of the king of Babylon in his splendor and in his fall. 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."
(I placed one section of this quote in caps, to highlight it, the statement that "St." Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate bible, is the source of the belief that Lucifer is Satan's pre-Fall name. I discuss Jerome as the source of the idea that Lucifer was Satan's name, and that it was foreign to the writers of the Bible, below.)
This venerable bible dictionary tells us what others before him have said, that the Hebrew word that the King James translates as "Lucifer" is actually referring to the Morning Star, Venus, which is seen in the sky at dawn. Smith tells us, like all the others above, that this is a reference to the king of Babylon, and further tells us that the idea of the word "Lucifer" referring to Satan comes from the Catholic writer, Jerome.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, 1871
Another of the standards in biblical commentary, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, 1871, wrote this about the passage in Isaiah 14:12-15.
"THE JEWS ADDRESS HIM AGAIN AS A FALLEN ONCE-BRIGHT STAR.
The language is so framed as to apply to the Babylonian king primarily, and at the same time to shadow forth through him, the great final enemy, the man of sin, Antichrist, of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John; he alone shall fulfil exhaustively all the lineaments here given."
and
"Lucifer--"day star." A title truly belonging to Christ (Revelation 22:16), "the bright and morning star," and therefore hereafter to be assumed by Antichrist. "
Did you see that? JFB says that this refers to, primarily, to Nebuchadnezzar, but can be seen to apply to, not Satan, but Anti-Christ. An interesting interpretation, especially when they bolster the interpretation with the statement that the title "Day Star" belongs to Christ, and will be assumed by the anti-Christ. But it is still just an interpretation. What is not in doubt, is that this is another commentator, another commentary, that says that Isa. 14:12 does NOT refer to Satan, but to the king of Babylon.
George Easton (1823-1894)
This is what Easton's Bible Dictionary says about Lucifer:
"brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) to denote his glory. "
Another reference tool saying that this is Nebuchadnezzar, and not Satan.
Orville Nave, early 1900's
Nave's Topical Bible (early 1900's) has this entry for Lucifer:
"Nebuchadnezzar called by this name"
Source for Lucifer as Satan
I did find another translation translation of the Bible that did agree with the King James reading, of using the name Lucifer, in this verse:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?" The Douay-Rheims Bible
Is there a good reason why the Roman Catholic Douay Bible puts the name Lucifer in here, when all of the newer translations carry the idea of the morning star? Yes. In fact, the name Lucifer is directly traceable to a Catholic priest, the translator of the Bible in Latin, Jerome.
As noted in Smith's Bible Dictionary, above, the idea that the Pre-Adamic name of Satan was Lucifer dates from the time of Jerome, the translator of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. The word, in the Hebrew, that is translated "Lucifer" by the King James and the Douay is heylel, and which means "shining one." In his excellent on-line article, Brian Tegart, says this about Jerome as the source of the name, "Lucifer."
The use of "Lucifer" appears to have originated from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years....It would seem that Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."
wink . Because many people thought this passage was referring to Satan, people began to think of the term of "lucifer" as a proper name "Lucifer". However, this is not what "lucifer" meant. "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Even though Jerome himself (and others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan, he did not use the word "lucifer" to mean "Satan" - his view that the passage was referring to Satan was purely an interpretational issue of the entire passage - the term "lucifer" was not used to indicate Satan in any way.
200
200
300
200
100
100
100
100
