The Name "Lucifer"
Author: Frank W. Nelte
With COMMENTS by Keith Hunt
In the English version of the Bible the name "Lucifer"
appears only one time--in Isaiah 14:12. This reads:
1. "How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
2. "Lucifer" is not an English word, but a Latin word. The
question is: who gave the world this Latin name?
3. In A.D.382 Pope Damascus commissioned the scholar
Jerome to make an official revision of the Latin versions of the
Bible that were floating around in the Catholic Church. Jerome
went off to a cave in Bethlehem where he proceeded to make his
translation, supposedly based on the Hebrew text, but in practice
based very largely on the Septuagint version (i.e. "LXX") that
Origen had produced about 140 years earlier while in Caesarea.
(The truth about the LXX is another subject that I have
discussed in a separate paper.)
The LXX of which Nelte says was by Origen was NOT the LXX of
about 200 B.C. which was the LXX (Greek translation used very
commonly in the days of Christ and the Apostles - see the study
called "How Paul Used the Old Testament").
Anyway, by A.D. 405 Jerome had completed his work, which we
today know as "The Latin Vulgate" Bible. It is far from an
infallibly accurate translation of the original texts. Rather, it
is an interpretation of thought put into idiomatic, graceful
For a thousand years this Translation was without a
rival--and herein lies the problem!
Without rival is an overstatement by Nelte. Though the
Vulgate was the Latin translation of the Bible, the Hebrew and
Greek translations were in extent as well. Further other parts of
the world used the Aramaic "Pishita" Bible. Further more still
the average common people of the Roman Catholic church were NOT
allowed to have Bibles, it was the "priest" only who was thought
to be the only one to understand the Scriptures. The fact is the
people of God in the Roman Empire had the Bible both in the
Hebrew OT and the Greek NT. The Aramaic Pishita would also be
available to them.
The problem per se was really when the English Bibles were
written and how much of the Vulgate crept over into those Bibles.
4. Jerome had understood that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about
Satan. There the Hebrew word "heylel" is used and Jerome
translated this into Latin as "lucifer"!
This is a mistranslation!!!
5. The word "Lucifer" comes from 2 Latin words: Lux
(=light) + ferous (=to bear or carry). Thus the name
"Lucifer" means: Light-bearer or Light-bringer.
But this is not what the Hebrew word "heylel" means! We'll
see later exactly what this word does mean.
No we can see now what it means:
From the Amplified Bible: "How are you fallen from heaven, O
light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning!....." (Isa.14:12).
Their foot note reads: "The Hebrew for this expression - "light-
bringer" or "shining one" - is translated "Lucifer" in the Latin
Vulgate, and is thus translated in the King James Version. But
because of the association of that name with Satan, it is NOT now
used in this and other translations .... The application of the
name to Satan has existed since the third century A.D. and is
based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 is an explanation of
Isa.14:12, which many believe is not true. "Lucifer" the light-
bringer, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "Phosphoros,"
... 2 Peter 1:19 ... This passage here in Isa.14:13 clearly
applies to the king of Babylon."
But it also applies to Satan and the "covering cherub" of
Ezekiel 28 and the "brightness" he was created with. We'll look
at that passage in Ezekiel later.
The king of Babylon is here in Isaiah a type and anti-type
of Satan. Satan is working through the king of Babylon. It is a
passage of Scripture that slips back and forth from the actual
king of Babylon to Satan the Devil. The New Living Translation
renders the Hebrew as "O shining star, son of the morning."
Green's Hebrew/English Interlinear Bible also renders it "O
shining star, son of the morning."
The Strong's Con. number for "O shining star" is 1966 and
Strong's says: "heylel, hay-lale; from 1984 (in the sense of
brightness); the morning star:- lucifer."
The number 1984 is halal, hawlal; a prim root; to be
clear(orig, sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence to make
a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave;
... to stulify, make boast, celebrate, commend ... glory, give
light, be ... mad, give in marriage ... praise, rage, renowned,
The root word can have various meanings. As "O shining star"
is connected with "son of the morning" both (and others) the New
Living Translation and Green's Hebrew/English Interlinear are
correct in translating the Hebrew as "O shining star, son of the
The Hebrew word "son of" is number 1121 in Strong's and the
words "the morning is number 7837 in Strong's. Green translates
correctly as "son of the morning."
The phrase should be now clearly apparent. It has to do with
shining, giving light, illuminating, and the morning. There is
but ONE thing that can fit that terminology - clearly (pun
intended) it is the star of the sun. Our sun is a star, and
actually a small star at that compared to some other stars or
suns in the universe. But the main point is it is the morning
star of light, that shines light, brings light, carries light,
proclaims light, gives forth brightness to the morning on the
As Nelte shows below, the Greek word "phosphoros" used in 2
Peter 1:19 means: light-bearer or light-bringer.
I submit there is in actual meaning to convey to the human
mind NO DIFFERENCE! BOTH are talking about bearing or giving or
bringing forth light. Jesus is connected with "day" or "morning
star" as well. See 2 Peter 1:19, "light in a dark place, until
the day dawn, and the day star arise in your heart." Revelation
22:16, "...I am ... the bright and morning star."
I submit that IF you were only wanting to translate the
Scriptures into Latin the word "lucifer" could be used in both
Isa.14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19.
Using a capital "L" for both places or a small "l" for both
places would be fine, as OT Hebrew was all the same size letters,
one after the other, and the Greek NT was either written with all
capitals or all small letters, one after the other, no commers,
periods, sentencing, paragraphs etc.
To use a capital "L" in Isa.14:12 and a small "l" in 2 Peter
1:19 would show a bias of some kind. Green and other scholars of
other translations, rendered the Hebrew and Greek in both
Isa.14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 with small letters. As both places are
phrases and descriptive of the subject of each place (Satan in
Isaiah 14 and Jesus in 2 Peter 1, I believe small letter
translations is the correct way to go.
6. Anyway, as a result of this Latin Vulgate translation,
which was almost the only version of the Bible in use throughout
Europe for the next 1000 years.
It was only in use by the Roman Catholic priests as the
average RC member was taught not to read the Bible, only the
priest could interpret Scripture correctly.
Satan popularly became known as Lucifer. It should be
self-evident that when the first people who translated the Bible
into English came along, one of their paradigms was that the name
"Lucifer" applied to Satan. When they came to translate Isaiah
14:12 into English, they decided that rather than actually
"translate" the word "Heylel," they would simply substitute it
with the already well-known (originally) Latin name "Lucifer."
And they could do this because on the surface this seems to be a
reasonably accurate translation. But it isn't really!
If you are translating into Latin the phrases we are
studying in Isa.14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 then the Latin word
"lucifer" could well be used for both passages as the main
thought of those phrases in both passages is the giving of light
as the morning star of our sun gives light to the morning of the
day. We have seen in Luke 10:18 that Jesus beheld Satan as
LIGHTNING "fall from heaven." Satan HAS LIGHT. He and his helpers
of the spirit world (we call them demons today) can APPEAR AS
LIGHT and righteous (see 2 Cor.11:13-15). They can appear as
light-bringers, to the human eye and mind they can appear as
LIGHT, AS RIGHTEOUS, and so DECEIVE TENS OF MILLIONS, EVEN
BILLIONS of people on earth.
7. I mentioned earlier that the word "Lucifer" appears only
once in the English versions of the Bible. But in the Latin
Vulgate translation of Jerome it appears twice! That's right,
twice! Where else is this word used and who does it refer to?
Jerome certainly knew who it refers to. This knowledge also
casts a dark cloud over his intentional use in Isaiah 14:12!
8. 2 Peter 1:19 reads : "...until the day dawn, and the day
star arise in your hearts." this is another mistranslation!!!
Is it really a mistranslation? The New Living Translation
gives "Pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words
are like a light shining in a dark place - until the day Christ
appears and His brilliant light shines in your heart."
The Amplified Bible translates: "And we have the prophetic
word (made) firmer still. You will do well to pay close attention
as to a lamp shining in a dismal (squalid and dark) place, until
the day breaks through (the gloom) and the Morning Star rises
(comes into being) in your hearts."
Green's Greek/English Interlinear gives: "And we have more
firm the prophetic word, in which well you do taking heed as to a
lamp shining in murky place, until day dawns and the Daystar
rises in the hearts of you."
That is the meaning behind the actual Greek words. That is
the sense of what Peter is saying. The context is the Son of man
(verse before prove that). He is light, He brought light, He
brings light, all the NT proves that. He is THE light, true
light, not coming AS light, pretending to look like light as
Satan does. Jesus IS PURE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS LIGHT!! Peter gives
the analogy of a lamp shining in a murky place, and as "until day
dawns" (it is in the Greek - those three words are there "until
day dawns") - "and the Daystar rises in the hearts of you." The
light-comes, the true perfect light comes into your hearts. As
the day star, our star of the sun rises out of darkness and
shining in a murky place of night, in the morning, to give forth
light. The whole physical analogy is there concerning the light
of Christ coming to us to dispel and move away the darkness of
our mind and heart, just as the day star of our sun comes at
morning or dawn, to shine and move away the murky darkness.
Green and others give forth the analogy of the literal Greek
The two words "day star" are a translation of the one Greek
word "phosphoros." This comes from the two Greek words:
Phos (=light) + phero (=to bear or carry). Thus the Greek
word "phosphoros" means Light-bearer or Light-bringer.
The Greek word in Strong's is number 5459. "foce-for-os;
from 5457 and 5342; light-bearing ... i.e.(spec.) the morning
star (fig.):- day star."
The word number 5457. "foce; from an obsol. phao (to shine
or make manifest, espc. rays; comp. 5316 and 5346); luminousness
(in the widest application, nat. or articiacial, abstr. or
concr., lit. or fig.): -fire, light.
The word number 5342. "fero; a prim. verb (for which other
and apar. not cognate ones are used in certain tenses only,;
namely oyo; and en-enako; to 'bear' or carry (in a very wide
application, lit.or fig., as follows):- be, bear, bring(forth),
carry, come, + let her drive, be driven, endure, go on, lay,
lead, move, reach, rushing, uphold."
NOT QUITE as simple as Nelte would give you. But with the
context, "until the day dawns" we see the sense is the light that
comes in the morning, at dawn, the day star, the sun star of our
earth brings light and the shine goes on, lays out, is driven,
is enduring, is moving, leads to shining in what was a murky or
The true sense of the whole context is quite understood by
translating as Green does "Daystar rises in the hearts of you"
and the New Living Translation "until the day Christ appears and
His brilliant light shines in your heart."
You will notice that in the Greek there is no word "Christ"
used in this phrase, but the context means it, hence there is
nothing wrong with the translation by the New Living Translation.
People need to get the picture of translations at times. If
you have not yet studied the study "How Paul used the Old
Testament" you need to study it. You will be probably shocked at
what you will find in that technical in-depth study of the FACTS
of how Paul used the Old Testament and from WHERE and HOW he
quoted at times.
Anyone who knows both, Greek and Latin, can verify that the
Greek word "Phosphoros" and the Latin word "Lucifer" are
absolutely, one hundred percent identical in meaning. "Lucifer"
is the perfect translation into Latin of the Greek word
And so what? What is the BIG DEAL Nelte is trying to make.
Both Isaiah and 1 Peter used phases that Jerome used the Latin
word "Lucifer" or small letter "lucifer" TWICE in his Vulgate
translation. The Latin people knew exactly the meaning "light-
having" - "light shining" - "light-bearer" - "light-bringing" -
"light-day-dawning." They also would know from the CONTEXT, it
was an analogy of the sun-star of our earth that brings light in
the morning or at dawning of the day. Something that like our
sun, is to bring light out of darkness.
Was Satan originally to be such? YES HE WAS!!
God, using type and anti-type in Ezekiel 28 (the king of
Tyrus and the one behind him, Satan the Devil, we see the one
who was sealed up full of wisdom, perfect in beauty, the one who
was in the garden of Eden at the beginning. Every precious stone
was his covering, it was all prepared in him at his creation. He
was the ANOINTED CHERUB that covered the throne of God in heaven.
He was upon the very holy mountain of God, walking up and down in
the midst of the presence of the Lord, within the stones of fire.
He was PERFECT in all ways from the day he was CREATED, UNTIL,
iniquity was found in him. He was to be destroyed from the midst
of the stones of fire, that COVERING CHERUB. He was CORRUPTED, by
reason of the WISDOM of his BRIGHTNESS" (Ezekiel 28:12-17).
Notice how BRIGHTNESS is CONNECTED with this Cherub!
He was CREATED as was all of God's Spirit beings. They were
created PERFECT in all ways, except they were given FREE AGENCY.
They were not created as ROBOTS! This COVERING CHERUB was a one
of a special creation, a COVERING cherub over God's throne. How
many years of eternity did this continue, we are not told. Maybe
it was thousands, or millions, or BILLIONS of years. At some
point he was given THIS EARTH to rule and reign over. We see this
truth revealed to us in Isaiah 14. He was likened unto the earth
"day star" - light star - bearer of light, perfection and the
glory and wisdom of God. He was a "lucifer" and son of the
morning, the type of the brightness of the earth's sun, cutting
through sin and darkness. Then at some point, which we are not
told, could have been thousands, millions, or billions of years
ruling on this earth, giving forth the light of God. But one day
he CHOSE to sin, to rebel, to say that he would ASCEND to heaven,
that he would exalt his throne ABOVE all the other "star" of God
(stars can represent "angels" - see Revelation 1:20). He was a
type of star of the day, bright, but he wanted to be the
BRIGHTEST of ALL, even brighter than God Himself! He said he
would sit again on the mount of the congregation, in the sides of
the north, that he would ascend above the CLOUDS and would be
like the MOST HIGH! (verses 12-14). He managed to convince ONE
THIRD of the angels of God to rebel with him and to go to heaven
and FIGHT AGAINST GOD! (see Revelation 12:3-4 with verse 9). This
is where Jesus said He saw Satan CAST OUT OF HEAVEN LIKE
LIGHTNING (Luke 10:18).
This covering cherub was a special creation - BRIGHTNESS and
WISDOM and PERFECTION was he, UNTIL INIQUITY was found in him!
As he fell from heaven he was still BRIGHT, like lightning!
He can still be LIGHT! He can still COME as bearing LIGHT,
looking as light, looking as being from God, seeming to be
RIGHTEOUS - see once more 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.
If he was not still able to appear as LIGHTBEARING, but say
only as BLACK, hence obvious to human eyes and mind and heart, as
EVIL and SIN, then he would not be able to DECEIVE and LEAD
ASTRAY the millions, nay, BILLIONS that he does. He MUST STILL BE
But the lucifier he is, is NOT true light, it looks like
light. To God it is only darkness, but the Lord must allow this
darkness to look to us humans as LIGHT! Nothing is hid from God
as to the TRUE IDENTITY AND TRUE COLOR of sin or righteousness,
but God allows the color of truth and error, sin and
righteousness, to look to US, as the same at times. Only when God
calls us to true light and gives us His Holy Spirit, can we see
the true color of darkness light. Then God's children can see the
difference between deceptive light and true holy righteous light.
For God Himself is PURE HOLY TRUE RIGHTEOUS LIGHT! Satan is a
lucifer that brings FALSE DECEPTIVE LIGHT - A LIGHT THAT LOOKS
LIKE LIGHT BUT IN FACT IT IS DARKNESS! Satan can come as a false
"lucifer" but a lucifer nevertheless.
9. Now let's note the dishonesty, first of the English
translators and then of Jerome--
All of the English translators of the Bible know very well
that the word "Phosphoros" in 2 Peter 1:19 can be perfectly
accurately translated by the word "Lucifer." Instead they have
chosen to deliberately obscure this fact. Why?
Have ALL the English translators deliberately chosen to
obscure 2 Peter 1:19? Not at all. I have shown you how the New
Living Translators even put in the word "Christ" in this verse,
which is NOT there in the Greek. The very CONTEXT of verse 19 is
Christ Jesus. There is little or no OBSCURITY. It was never
obscure to me from a young teenager reading my Bible in a Church
of England school system and a local Sunday School church. The
English translators did not stick to the Vulgate here. What would
the word "lucifer" - a Latin word, have been useful for, to
retail this Latin word? It would have meant NOTHING to the
English reader! But "until the day dawn, and the day star arise
in your hearts" is from the context, easily understood to be a
picture in analogy, of the sun star of earth breaking forth the
light into the morning darkness, a representation in analogy of
Christ Jesus, from previous verses just cited by Peter, and hence
the true light of God coming into the minds and hearts of the
children of God.
They knew very well that 2 Peter 1:19 refers without doubt
to Jesus Christ. This verse calls Jesus Christ "Phosphoros" (in
Greek) or "Lucifer" (in Latin). Yet the translators have hidden
this fact behind the words "day star." The facts are that
"Phosphoros" has absolutely nothing to do with either "day" or
"star"! The translators simply borrowed a term that is elsewhere
used for Christ--namely "morning star" in "day star" Revelation
2:28 (Greek = proinos + aster) and in Revelation 22:16 (Greek =
orthrinos + aster).
What has LATIN to do with anything here? Who cares about
Latin when it comes the Greek of the New Testament. Why make an
argument about something that does not apply, unless you have an
axe of some doctrine you want to proclaim as some great
"revelation" that no one has come up with in 2,000 years.
The sense of truth about "phosphoros" in the Greek as
"light-bearer" or "light giver" or "illumination sender" is still
retained in "day star" when you put it with the previous words
"until the day dawn." Nelte is making an argument out of a
technicality that is not justified, for a purpose he will
disclose later. The sense of the Greek is still very true as
given in the WHOLE CONTEXT of 1 Peter by the KJV translators, by
Green's Interlinear, and by many more English translations of the
To translate "phosphoros" as "day star" is plain
No dishonest intent was meant, as Nelte would suppose. I
would ascertain that putting the words "light-bringer" here
instead of "day star" would make NO significant better
understanding to the context. So let's do it: "until the day dawn
and the light-bringer arise in your hearts." And as given, "until
the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts."
The fact is you STILL must use the CONTEXT to determine who
is the "light-bringer" or "day star" that is talked about as coming
into your heart.
Nelte is arguing about "semantics" of words or phrases.
Sometimes you can get so involved with looking at a tree you do
not see the forest.
10. Now let's look at Jerome. The phrases quoted under
point #8 above are translated by Jerome into Latin as follows:
"...donec dies elucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus
Notice that Jerome correctly translated the Greek
"phosphoros" into the Latin word "lucifer." Jerome obviously knew
that this verse refers to Jesus Christ--yet he wrote "lucifer"
with a small "l" and did not capitalize the word. He also knew
that he had translated the word "phosphoros" perfectly into
So "phosphoros" means "lucifer" in Latin, what's the big
deal? And putting the word with a small letter "l"? Well many NT
MSS use all small letters and one after the other, no spaces or
sentences or paragraphs, or commers, or any punctuation at all.
Many NT English translations use a small "h" in referring to
Christ - him, he, etc. My old KJV Bible uses a small "h"
throughout the NT for Christ.
With this write-up I am including photo-copies of 2 peter
1:19 and Isaiah 14:12 from the Latin vulgate. (Comment: that is
what I sent to Pasadena with the original write-up I sent through
to them about 4-5 years ago. I can't really put photo-copies on
Jerome knew that in the New Testament "Lucifer" is a title
for Jesus Christ; yet he still chose to also translate the less-
clearly defined Hebrew word "Heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 as
"Lucifer," knowing that this word referred to Satan--and here
Jerome started the word with a capital "L," as can be seen from
the enclosed photo-copies.
Ah, did you catch it! Did you see what Nelte said? He said,
"Lucifer is a TITLE for Jesus Christ."
And that is the basis of his "new doctrine" that he is
promoting as some new found truth of the Bible. The truth of the
matter is that the Greek word "phosphoros" is NOT A ***TITLE***
per se for Jesus Christ. It is a Greek word that is USED AS A
DESCRIPTIVE WORD for to describe an important side of Jesus
Christ - that is He is THE light-bearer, THE light-bringer, THE
"day star" - the physical sun in the morning bringing light to
dispel darkness is a type of Christ Jesus bringing true light to
dispel the deceptive light of darkness that looks like light.
It is a DESCRIPTIVE word not some massive "title", and the
context must tell you what is the truth of that one Greek word,
for as we have seen there can be a light from Satan the Devil
that looks like light, comes as light, beams through as
brightness, but is really darkness masquerading as light.
A better "title" for Christ would be the one He Himself
gave, "I am the bright and morning star" (Rev.22:16). The word
"lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19 is just one word appearing in a phrase
or sentence, describing or pointing us to an analogy of Christ as
light giver, the day star sun of the morning.
Let me give you this example.
My name is Keith HUNT. The word "Hunt" is a single word.
Many last names came about from the trade of working people.
Hence "Cartwright" was because a man was skilled in making carts.
He was called John the Cartwright. The last name "Taylor" was
probably from a man who was skilled in tayloring or making
clothes, hence Brian the Taylor. Maybe my last name was from
people who "hunt" or "hunting" or "hunter." So we had Dan the
It was a descriptive word not a title as such. It described
a very important part of this man's life and work. But the
CONTEXT it was used in had to tell you the inner truth of the
descriptive word. For "hunt" can be used for people who did
"hunt" for killing animals for food or their coats of skin for
garments, or it could have been used for people who spent the
work in the "hunt" for criminals and law-breakers, some called
not long ago "bounty hunters" or it could have been used for
people who were in the "hunt" to kill others, today we would call
such people "serial killers."
Single descriptive words must HAVE A CONTEXT!
The context for "phosphoros" in 2 Peter 1:19 (in Latin
"lucifer") is the context of true holy light of God, with no sin
or error or darkness, through Jesus the Christ. It is a
DESCRIPTIVE word of a very IMPORTANT SIDE of the character of
Jesus Christ. It is NOT a "title" or "name" per se. Jesus tells
us in Revelation 22:16 the fact that He is the root and offspring
of David, and the "bright and morning star" - a
description of character - and a phrase title as such. Other
titles He has are "Alpha" and "Omega" (beginning - end) in verse
13, and more titles and names are in other parts of the NT. He
also has a "new name" or title that He will write upon those who
overcome (Revelation 3:12).
The word "prosphoros" can indeed be a description of a part
of the very character of Christ, but it is way more a description
word than a title as such.
So with Jerome Satan gets a name that refers to Christ with
a capital letter--and Christ gets His own name only with a small
Jerome was indeed IN-correct to put a capital letter "L" in
Isaiah 14 and a small letter "l" in 1 Peter 2:19.
The two places should have had only a small letter "l" in
The original KJV was also IN-correct to put a capital "L" in
Isaiah 14 when it rendered the Hebrew as "Lucifer." The original
KJV did not follow Jerome in 1 Peter 2:19 and so did not stay
with the Vulgate's word "lucifer."
The KJV DOES HAVE errors. We have devoted a full study on
this Website to the errors of the KJV. One very large error is
found in Acts 12 where the KJV translators gave the word "Easter"
instead of "Passover" for the Greek "Paschal" (Passover in
But the fact of Scripture still remains that the "covering
cherub" - now called Satan the Devil, was once a BRIGHT LIGHT
BRINGER OF THE TRUTH OF THE HOLY ONE, that he still can come as
light but it is a deceptive light of darkness. He is still a
"lucifer." And Jesus has always been BRIGHT LIGHT from eternity
past. He is still a bringer of light, a "lucifer" - but it is
always TRUE HOLY PERFECT RIGHTEOUS LIGHT.
Hence it is quite correct to say, "Satan the lucifer" and
"Jesus the lucifer." It is the context of the word "lucifer" that
determines HOW you use it and WHAT if means as to the wrong or
right of what you mean by using that word with the words Satan or
It is somewhat exactly like the Hebrew word "Elohim" - which
is used both for the true righteous holy perfect God and for
pagan gods and even for human judges. A little time with Strong's
Concordance under the word "elohim" will prove what I've just
Before we move to Nelte's next argument, I will give you
what Thayer has to say in his Greek/English Lexicon of the New
Testament on the word "phosphoros" and on 2 Peter 1:19.
"Phosphoros: light-bringer, giving light, (Arstph., eur., Plat.,
Plut., al.); as subst. (Lat. Lucifer), the planet Venus, the
morning star, day-star, (Pat. Tim. Locr. p. 96 e. ., Plut., al.):
2 Peter 1:19, on the meaning of this pass. see 'lookhnos'"
Under THAT Greek word we read:
"....a lamp, candle [?], that is placed on a stand or candlestick
... the prophecies of the O.T., inasmuch as they afforded at
least some knowledge relative to the glorious return of Jesus
from heaven down even to the time when by the Holy spirit that same
light, like the day and the day-star, shone upon the hearts of
men, the light by which the prophets themselves had been
enlightened and which was necessary to the full perception of the
true meaning of their prophecies, 2 Peter 1:19; to the brightness
of a lamp that cheers the beholders a teacher is compared, whom
even those rejoiced in who were willing to comply with his
demands, Jn. 5:35; Christ, who will hereafter illumine his
followers, the citizens of the heavenly kingdom, with his own
11. Now let's look at the Hebrew word "heylel"--
It is used only once in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12. That
does not give us any further insight. But "Heylel" is derived
from the primitive root word "halal" It is this word that gives
us understanding of what "Heylel" really means. I might add here
that this is also the only way that Jerome and the English
translators could come to an understanding of what "Heylel"
means--by clearly understanding the meaning of the word that
"Heylel" is derived from, since it is only used one single time.
12. "Halal" is used 165 times in the Old Testament and it
is translated as follows in the KJV:
117 times = Praise
14 times = Glory
10 times = Boast
8 times = Mad
3 times = Shine(d)
3 times = Foolish
2 times = Fools
2 times = Commended
2 times = Rage
1 time = Celebrate
1 time = Give
1 time = Marriage
1 time = Renowned
This should make clear that the translators felt they
should attach over a dozen different meanings to this word
"Halal." The meanings are both, good and bad; both, positive and
There is no question that this word has a good, positive
meaning. But neither is there any question that it also has a
bad, negative meaning.
Jerome, without the slightest proof available to him,
decided to give the word "Heylel" a good, positive meaning. All
the major translators into English have simply followed Jerome's
lead, who was working for Pope Damascus, remember?
Anyone who has studied what God tells us about Satan,
should realize immediately that Satan is--"mad, boastful, a fool
and foolish and he does rage." These words with which "Halal" is
translated in numerous places, fit Satan perfectly.
The word also means "shine" as you can see from the above.
It is true that Satan can be all these things as we look on
the "bad" side of him, but we have seen he can be deceptive LIGHT
as well. He can come as something, someone, who looks like light
on the outside to our human eyes, but is really darkness, yet we
can be fooled, made mad, by this deception.
The very next verses in Isaiah show Satan boasting! Read
Isaiah 14:13-14! That is why God calls him "heylel"--because he
boasted!! What could be plainer?
"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit
also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the
north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be
like the most high" (Isaiah 14:13-14).
Satan's "boasting" is so very obvious in these verses!
But that does NOT mean the Hebrew word cannot be meaning
another side of this word in another verse near by, for Satan is
many sided indeed, that is why he can deceive BILLIONS of people
around this entire planet, only the "very little flock" and the
"salt of the earth" people of God will not be deceived by the
Devil's many dark shades and his many light shades of deception.
13. Now here are some of the places where "Halal" is
* "Mad" = 1 Samuel 21:13; Psalms 102:8; Ecclesiastes
2:2; 7:7; Isaiah 44:25; Jeremiah 25:16; 50:38; 51:7;
* "Fools" = Job 12:17; Psalms 75:4;
* "Foolish" = Psalms 5:5; 73:3; 75:4;
* "Rage" = Jer 46:9; Nahum 2:4;
* "Boast" = 1 Kings 20:11; Psalms 10:3; 34:2; 44:8;
49:6; 52:1; 97:7; Proverbs 20:14; 25:14; 27:1.
14. It should be very clear by now that "Heylel" has
nothing to do with the words "Star" or "Day" or "Morning" or
"Bringing" or "Carrying." Notice also that he is "the son (Hebrew
= the product) of the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). Christ is the
Morning Star and it is He who created Satan. And Satan has
deceived all of mankind into giving him the exalted title, which
is what it really is, and which rightfully belongs to Jesus
Christ, of "Light-Bringer." One clear fulfilment of Revelation
Who said it was a "title" of Christ? Well Nelte has said it,
and they say tell something enough times and people will believe
it. Christ can be and is (2 Peter 1:19) a light-bringer/giver
"phosphoros" - a description of Himself, and He has the NAME or
TITLE of "the BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR" (Rev.22:16). But can Satan
also take the "phosphoros" description? We have seen he STILL CAN
COME as transforming himself into "an angel of LIGHT" (2
15. Paul explained this in 2 Corinthians 11:14, where he
tells us: "...for Satan himself is transformed (Greek =
disguised) into an angel of light."
Do you grasp this? He has deceived the world into believing
that Isaiah 14:12 tells us that he used to hold Christ's job (as
per 2 Peter 1:19)--that he used to be an angel who was a
Nelte tells you Satan used to hold Christ's job. But the
Scriptures do NOT say that at all. Nelte says it by weaving a web
with verses and words, but the Scriptures do not tell you Satan
once held Christ job. That idea comes from Nelte, he has
cleverly brought you all this way to plant the idea that Satan
once held Jesus' job. The Scriptures just tell you that the Devil
was a light-bringer, someone who had true righteous light shining
from him, a BRIGHT COVERING cherub, who was full of wisdom and
truth and bright holy light UNTIL "iniquity" was found in him.
The Scriptures tell you Satan can STILL COME APPEARING as an
angel of LIGHT, still able to show himself as IF he is holy
righteous light. The Scriptures DO NOT say Satan once held
Christ's job, Nelte say that! The Word of God says no such thing!
A friend in the Work of the Lord has pointed out that I'm stating
Nelte is teaching that Satan once held Christ's job. That Nelte
said it is Satan who has deceived the world into believing he once
held Jesus' job. But that idea cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.
Satan has never taught that he once held Jesus' job. No verse in the
Bible tries to tell us that Satan teaches such an idea. The apostle Paul
never mentions any such teaching coming from Satan. The Bible is simply
silent on this idea. So, coming directly from Nelte or coming as saying
it is Satan who has deceived the world with this teaching, is putting
it into your mind that somewhere in the Bible Satan teaches such a dogma.
No such teaching that the Devil teaches he once held Jesus' job can be
found in the Scriptures, probably because just about no person interested
in reading the Bible or becoming a Christian, would believe for a second
that Satan onced held Christ's job.
They could I submit, believe what is stated by the Scriptures, that
Satan was once a covering cherub, beauty and perfect in his creation,
and created with BRIGHTNESS! One who can still come as "light" - looking
like an angel of righteousness (Ezekiel 28 with 2 Cor.11:14).
16. Once you get rid of the old paradigm that "Lucifer is a
name that used to refer to Satan" and grasp that the Bible
identifies Christ as "Lucifer" (or "Phosphoros" in Greek), the
Light-bringer, then you'll be surprised how many scriptures
literally flood into your mind in support of this--. e.g.
* John 8:12 = "I am the light of the world..."
* John 3:19 = "...that light is come into the
* John 1:4 - 8 = "...in Him was...the light of
* John 12:36 = "...believe in the light..." etc.,
Of course Christ is the TRUE LIGHT BRINGER, the one who is
the PERFECT HOLY RIGHTEOUS LIGHT of God the Father. Christ is
"phosphoros" But as the Scriptures clearly show us Satan can be
looking "phosphoros" also. Both Satan and Christ can be described
as coming to you as "light-bringer" - "light-shining" - "light-
proclaiming" - "the lucifier" and it is up to you to distinguish
WHICH is the true lucifer of the Most High God.
17. We need to understand that God has absolutely no reason
to reveal Satan's previous name to us. Why should we have to know
it? (Apart from Ezekiel 28:12-15) nowhere in the bible is
anything good said about Satan!!
Notice that in Ezekiel 28, where God does speak about
Satan's existence before the creation of man, God reveals that
Satan had bee an anointed cherub--but God does not use any name
that previously applied to Satan.
Why not? If it was a "good" name that we should know about,
it would have fitted perfectly into this description of Satan's
prior glory. But Ezekiel 28 carefully avoids hinting at any
previous name. And so why should Isaiah 14:12 be an exception--by
giving us a lofty title that supposedly belonged to Satan at one
time, and which Peter in fact tells us is Christ's title?
What Nelte is trying to argue and what he wants you to
believe is that the word "phosphoros" is a NOUN, a proper name,
that Christ's name is Jesus Christ Lucifer! But the Scriptures
NEVER CLAIM such a thing. No writer of any book of the Bible EVER
referred to Jesus or the Messiah by the name of Lucifer. Jesus
never called Himself Lucifer. Jesus never said, "Before I came as
flesh and blood I was Lucifer." He nor any other man ever came
close to saying Jesus' name was or is "Lucifer" either before His
human birth or anytime after.
Christ and even Satan the Devil can be said to come as
light-givers - light-bringers - light-coming - light-shining; as
light-star of the morning that appears as light to us humans.
That is HOW Satan can DECEIVE BILLIONS because he can appear,
give forth the description that he is light, that he is
phosphoros, that he is "lucifer" in the Latin language. He, the
Devil, can appear as one who gives forth light from darkness, but
it is a FALSE LIGHT, it is not true light at all, it is actually
darkness with an outer disguise of a cloak or clothing of light.
It is true that NO NAME is given for Satan, no "specific"
name is told us in the Scriptures what Satan was called. We do
have the names of two great angel beings - Gabriel and Michael,
but Satan is only called "the covering cherub" - no specific name
is given of him. There are no doubt very good reasons as to why
the Father has not revealed Satan's name to us prior to his fall
into sin and corruption.
Whatever name Satan may have had previously is totally
blotted out before God--it is as though Satan never ever had that
name. That's what sin does--it totally blots out any memory of
any good that went before. That's what God tells us in Ezekiel
3:20 and 18:24 and 33:13. If the righteous turns away from God,
then--"all his righteousness shall not be remembered." Isn't this
plain enough? After Satan sinned, why should God want us to know
about Satan's supposed "good name" from a previous time???
Understand this: even if "Lucifer" really had at one stage
been Satan's name, God still would not want us to use it in
reference to Satan! It is God who reveals Satan to us by the name
"Satan"! And it is God who reveals Satan as a braggart in Isaiah
It is also just as true though, that God reveals Satan as
"light" - as a deceptive light - as a "lucifer" - as a phosphoros
of illumination, light-shining angel, that comes as light, but
false darkness light; as light that will one day be stripped away
and the true color of blackness will be seen by all people who
have lived and who will live.
18. Satan is the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4) who
has blinded the minds of people. He has churches and ministers
who disguise themselves as "...the ministers of righteousness" (2
Corinthians 11:15), a plain reference to them disguising
themselves as "Christians." Satan's universal ("catholic") church
gave Satan one of Christ's names by means of a mistranslation
from the Hebrew into Latin. Jerome was clearly working for Satan
when he converted the Greek word "Phosphoros," used in 2 Peter
1:19 for Jesus Christ, into a personal name for Satan in the Old
Jerome knew that "Phosphoros" refers to Christ. If he
really was a Hebrew scholar, as is generally claimed, then he
also knew that "Halal" also has negative connotations like "mad,
boast, foolish," etc. because he would have had to translate this
word into Latin 165 times. Did Jerome really not understand the
context of boasting in this passage??
Jerome may have had a wrong motive in giving the Latin
"phosphoros" a capital "L" in Isa.14 and a small "l" in 2 Peter
1. Yet the fact of the Hebrew and Greek show clearly that BOTH
Satan and Christ can be described by the Latin word "lucifer" -
"light-coming." And that this Hebrerw word can mean "shine" - bright,
light and hence light-bringer, and hence the analogy of "morning
star" and the context of Isa.14 and 2 Peter 1.
For over 1000 years this name was used for Satan in the
western world. It was placed above question as a former name for
Satan. So translators and students of the Biblical languages and
of Latin have also accepted this as a fact that should not be
questioned. Satan clearly does not want his "right" to the name
"Lucifer" questioned. Those who use it for Satan show they are
"worshipping" Satan--by attributing one of Christ's names to
No, there is no place in the Bible that says the Latin word
"lucifer" is Christ's name, or one of His names. That is the
WRONG AND INCORRECT teaching that Nelte is expounding to you as
some great truth he has found. Give me one passage in the entire Bible
where Jesus Himself or anyone ever called Christ or the Messiah by
the name of "Lucifer." Give me one passage in the entire Bible where
Satan once held Christ's job. These are the two so-called truths that
Nelte is trying to convince you that he has found. Those two points
cannot be found in the Bible no matter how long a study article Nelte
I could carry on with some more points, but I feel that the
above information should suffice to understand that Satan is
never referred to as "lucifer" in the Word of God. So what about
you--will you continue to refer to Satan as having once been
called "Lucifer"?? You now know the facts!
The word "lucifer" is simply a Latin word that means "light-
bringer" and the facts of the Bible show BOTH Christ and Satan
can be coming to you as appearing as light-coming, as light-
giving, and the facts are it is placed upon you to SEARCH THE
SCRIPTURES (as the Bereans did - Acts 17) to find who is the TRUE
RIGHTEOUS HOLY LIGHT that comes from God the Father. As Isaiah
said, "To the Law and the Testimony, if they speak not according
to this word, there is NO LIGHT in them" (Isa.8:20).
From the THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
499 (halal) I, shine. (Asv and RSV similar.)
499a (he1el) Helel.
Our root represents the giving off of light by celestial
Perhaps the Ugaritic phrase bnt. (daughter of Helel?) as a
name for ktrt (UT 19: no. 769) exhibits a similar meaning. The
root occurs five (maybe six, KD Job 25:5) times.
The verb is used by Job in highly poetic passages to
describe the shining of the sun (29:3; 31:26). In both instances
the parallels make the meaning clear. Also, Isa 13:10 contrasts
this aspect of heavenly bodies and the darkening of the sun and
moon. These heavenly bodies are symbolically/figuratively
darkened as a sign of blessing (Isa 60:19; Joel 2:31 [H 3:41)
and/or judgment whether historical (Isa 13:13; Ezk 32:7) or
eschatalogical (Joel 2:10). All the uses of our verb appear in
contexts with mythological connections. This is not to say that
biblical writers assumed the validity of pagan myth. Indeed, as
Job (41:18 [H 10] seeks to make clear, God alone exists as deity.
The pagan gods are creations of their own minds (Isa 2:8).
Leviathan is a toy in God's hands, i.e., he mocks the pagan
Interestingly, in Job 41:18 [H 10] the line parallel to that
in which our verb appears alludes to shahar (q.v.; cf. J. W.
McKay, "Helel and the Dawn-Goddess," VT 20: 456ff.) which is
probably to be understood as the name of a goddess. McKay (op.
cit.) contends that in the allusion in Isa 14:12-15 there is a
Canaanite version of the Greek Phaethon myth as mediated and
influenced by Phoenician culture during the "heroic age." The
development of the Canaanite version is complex and has
affinities with the Ugaritic myth involving Athar, son of
Athirat, who was unable to occupy the throne of Baal. It was
Phaethon who attempted to scale the heights of heaven and as the
dawn star was ever condemned to be cast down into Hades (sheol,
q.v.). Even if one does not accept McKay's argument, it is
important to note the following philological oddities: (1) har
mo'ed (Isa 14:13) and Ugaritic gr.ll ("The Mount of Lala") where
there assembled the phr. m'd, ("The Assembled Body" ANET, p.
130-UT 16: Text 137:20) and (2) the name sapon (Isa 14:13) which
is well known in Ugaritic as the mountain of the gods. The God of
Israel is not enthroned on Saphon; he reigns from heaven itself
(cf. hekal). Any interpretation of Isa 14 which does not take
into account the mythological allusion does no justice to what is
said there. [It may be helpful to add that this much-discussed
passage with possible parallels to pagan mythology is actually in
form a quotation from a heathen king. It is natural for a heathen
king to boast that he would exalt his throne above the gods or
above the mountain where he believed the gods assembled. [R.L.H.]
The Theological Wordbook goes on to expound the other meanings of
this word "halal" - Keith Hunt.
From the Gamieson/Fausset/Brown BIBLE COMMENTARY - Critical,
Experimental, and Practical.
"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 of St. Paul, the Anti-
christ of St. John, and the little horn and blasphemous self-
willed long of Daniel. He alone shall fulfil exhaustively all the
lineaments here given.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer - day-star. A
title truly belonging to Christ: Rev. 22:16, "the bright and
morning star" and therefore to be assumed by the Antichrist, of
whom Babylon is a type; also applied to the angelic "sons of
God," "the morning stars" (Job 38:7). Gesenius, however, renders
the Hebrew, imperative Hiphil of ...as in Ezek.21:12; Zech. 11:2,
'howl.' So Syriac. But ther LXX, Vulgate, Chaldiac, and Arabic,
as the English version (from the Hebrew, halal, to shine), which
is preferable because of the parallelism. The fall of Babylon as
a self-idolizing power, the type of mystical Babylon in the
Apocalypse (Rev.18:4,5), before the providence of God, is
described in language drawn from the fall of Satan himself, the
spirit that energized the heathen world-power, and now energizes
the apostate Church, and shall hereafter energize the last
secular Antichrist. Thus Lucifer has naturally come to be applied
to Satan (Luke 10:18; Rev.12:8,9; Jude 6). (how) art thou cut
down to the ground which dist weaken - prostate, the nations - as
in Exod.17:13, 'discount;' Hebrew, 'chalash.' I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God. In Dan.8:10, 'stars' express
earthly civil and religious potentates. 'The stars,' are often
used to express heavenly principalities (Job 38:7). I will sit
also upon the mount of the congregation - the place of the solemn
meeting between God and His people, in the temple on Mount Zion
at Jerusalem. In Dan.11:37 ('Neither shall he regard the God of
his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god, for he
shall magnify himself above all') and 2 Thes.2:4 ('Who opposeth
and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God'), this is attributed to
antichrist. In the sides of the North - viz., the sides of Mount
Moriah, on which the temple was built; north of Mount Zion (Ps
48:2).... the region of the brilliant aurora borealis: whence the
Northern were regarded as the seat of peculiar manifestations of
the Divine glory (cf. note, Job 23:9; 37:22).... The Chaldaio
paraphrases, 'I will set the throne of my kingdom above the
people of God, and I will sit in the mount of the covenant in the
bounds of the north.' I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds - Hebrew, the cloud, singular. Perhaps there is a
reference to the cloud, the symbol of the divine presence
(ch.4:5; Ex.13:21). So this tallies with 2 Thes. 2:4 'above all
that is called God.' as here, 'above ... the cloud:' and as the
shekinah-cloud was connected with the temple, there follows, 'he
as God sitteth in the temple of God,' answering to, 'I will be
like the Most High.'"
A friend has correctly said that Satan can be "son of the morning"
but NOT "the morning star" per se (Isa.14:12 and Rev.22:16; Num.24:17)
If I have incorrectly given that stance, I here correct that idea.
Satan can be "light" (though it is dark light) and Jesus is certainly
always pure true light, but ONLY Jesus is the "morning star" or
"bright and morning star." Satan can only be a "son" (as a created angel)
of the morning - a created being that was created with BRIGHTNESS and can
come as a deceptive light of the morning.
Many modern versions correct the error of the original KJV in Isa.14:12.
Many KJV Bibles do give you the margin note "lit./or 'day star'"
"How are you fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!"
(The NewLinging Translation)
"King of Babylon, morning star, you have fallen from heaven,
even though you were as bright as the rising sun."
(The Everyday Bible) (this translation was incorrect in leaving out
"son of the morning" - Keith Hunt)
"You have fallen from the heavens, O shining star, son of the morning."
(Green's Hebrew/English Interlinear)
"How are you fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn!"
(New World Translation)
"How are you fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn."
Tanakh - Jewish translation of OT)
"How are you fallen from heaven bright son of the morning."
"How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and day star,
son of the morning."
(The Amplified Bible)
I'm sure many more translations are like the ones quoted above.
We have in type and analogy, the original desire of Satan
the lucifer light-bringer, the bright covering cherub, desiring
to ascend to the throne of God and be the bright holy One of the
universe, to bring light HIS WAY, which was the way of INIQUITY.
Sin and rebellion appearing as light and truth, but in reality
darkness and evil. The king of Babylon, now in the hands of Satan
also wanted to rise above God's people and to sit in the temple
of God at Jerusalem showing himself as the light-bringer to all
nations of the earth. And yet again in type, Satan using the last
false prophet of the book of Revelation, to rule all nations and
to be declared as God, to be looked upon with great honor and as
the light of truth and righteousness.
What a DECEPTIVE individual is Satan the Devil, the light-
bearing evil one, who tries to mimic the true God. He tries to
look like the real thing, to look on the outside as the shining
pure Lord Almighty. He is the great master of close-encounters of
the Godhead. The Eternal shines, so can Satan. The Lord has a
Sabbath day, so does Satan, close but not the actual day. God has
festivals, so does Satan, they sound nice, look righteous, appear
as bright good light, but they are not God's festivals and so are
sin and evil and deceptive. The Eternal has His true ministers
and so Satan has his ministers coming as light, sounding so much
like the real God that tens of millions are following a false
Make no mistake about it Satan the Devil, the covering
cherub, the one who was filled with brightness and who was to
manifest the wisdom and truth and glory and honor and
righteousness of the Most Holy One, was overcome by his own
vanity and boasting of his created perfection, and decided he
wanted to be the one sitting on the throne of the universes. He
persuaded one third of the angel beings to join him in rebellion
(Revelation 12) and so he and they became the dark light, the
false light, the deceptive light. One day that dark light will be
cast into the bottomless pit, chained up for 1,000 years, and only
then will true pure perfect light shine forth, WITH NO LIGHT OF
DARKNESS AROUND for that age to come (Revelation 20).
One day the earth shall be covered with the knowledge of God as
the waters cover the sea beds.
So we pray Lord, "Thy Kingdom come, They will be done on
earth as it is in heaven."
Written and entered on this Website August 2008