Berean Fact Sheet Number 011

This Fact Sheet is best viewed in Times New Roman font. It is also available in PDF format. For more information, click here.

Isaiah 14:12 – “Lucifer” or “Morning Star”?
Copyright © 1999 by Larry G. Overton

In the month of July, I received an email from a man I will call Charlie. He was concerned about my use of the New International Version (hereafter, NIV) on my web site. His contention was that I should not use the NIV. Instead, according to him, I should quote only from the King James Version (hereafter, KJV). One passage of Scripture that he presented as evidence supporting his contention was Isaiah 14:12.

He had a problem with the phrase “O morning star…” in the NIV translation of this verse, as opposed to the KJV rendering “O Lucifer…” He alleged that the translators of the NIV intentionally changed the name of “Lucifer,” which he assumed to be a reference to Satan in this passage, to “Morning Star.” The problem here, in his view, was that the “bible clearly defines the Morning Star as Jesus Christ.” He then quoted Revelation 22:16, where Jesus is indeed called “the bright and Morning Star.”

Charlie maintained that “this passage is showing use [sic] Satan’s rebellion against God, and how he was cast out of heaven.” He went on to summarize his argument.

“So if I’m to read the NIV I would be lead to believe that it is Jesus Christ (who is the real morning star, and not Satan) rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven.. Now to me that just out right blasphemy.”

Charlie’s problem with the rendering of “morning star” in Isaiah 14:12 is ironically due to an inaccurate translation in the KJV, combined with an allegorical approach to interpreting the passage. Let’s deal with the interpretation factor first.

In order to interpret “Lucifer” or “morning star” as “Satan,” you have to read the phrase allegorically instead of literally. The Latin term “Lucifer” did not originally refer to the devil (more on that in a moment). Furthermore, there is no way to get that meaning from the context of Isaiah 14. It can only be arrived at by reading that interpretation back into the text. Contextually, the “morning star” of verse 14 refers to “the king of Babylon” (see verse 4). It is not a reference to Satan, and it certainly is not a reference to Jesus.

Now, as for the correct rendering of Isaiah 14:12, let’s look at Charlie’s argument, beginning with a quote of the verse in the KJV.

How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, ſonne of the morning? how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didſt weaken the nations?

That quote is taken from The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1611 Edition. You will notice of course the spelling differences, which have changed over the years. (The text of the KJV published today is in most cases the 1769 Blayney revision.) At any rate, there are other differences as well, important differences pertaining to this discussion.

For one thing, the original KJV had marginal notes. There is a marginal note in the KJV on this passage, pertaining to the rendering “O Lucifer.” The marginal note reads, and I quote, “Or, O day-ſtarre.” This, of course, is just another way of saying “morning star.” So, according to the KJV translators themselves, their own alternate and more literal translation of this phrase would be “How art thou fallen from heauen, O day-ſtarre, ſonne of the morning? ”

“Lucifer” is the Latin name the Romans gave to the day star or morning star (Venus, actually), a name that means “light-bringing.” The King James translators got this Latin word from Isaiah 14:12 in the Latin Vulgate –

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes. (Emphasis mine.)

So, the source of the rendering “Lucifer” is actually from the Latin Vulgate, for centuries the official version of the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, the KJV rendering “Lucifer” is not a translation from Hebrew to English, but rather a substitution of a Latin word for an English translation. In that sense, the KJV translation here is inaccurate. It may be said to be inaccurate, too, because by the beginning of the 17 th century, when the KJV was completed, the term “Lucifer” came to be “used as a name of the devil,” a meaning not inherent in this passage in the Hebrew. This is therefore an example in the KJV not of a literal rendering, but of a paraphrase. The translators of the KJV chose in this place to go with an allegorically interpretive rendering.

From the standpoint of the Hebrew text, the KJV’s alternate translation (and the NIV, for that matter) is right. The phrase in Hebrew is hēylēl ben shāchar. The first word in the phrase, hēylēl, is a noun derived from the verb hālal, which means “to shine, the giving off of light by celestial bodies.” A literal rendering, then, would be “O shining star, son of the morning.” Therefore, the KJV alternate translation (“day-ſtarre”) and the NIV rendering (“morning star”) are a great deal more accurate than the rendering in the KJV text (“Lucifer”).

So, Charlie’s problem with the term “morning star” being used as descriptive of both the king of Babylon (not Satan) and Jesus (Revelation 22:16) is not with some modern English version or its translators. His problem is with the text of his King James Version, and with its translators who allegorized, substituted and paraphrased the passage in Isaiah. More to the point, Charlie’s problem is with the Holy Spirit who inspired both verses, for “morning star” is an accurate translation for both the Hebrew and Greek phrases underlying these two passages.