Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Revelation

[Hologrammy]

Why is Jesus referred to as "the bright and morning star" in Revelations 22:16?

My understanding is Lucifer is Satan is the Devil and also referred to as "the morning star" so my I came to a total loss of how I can explain Jesus and Satan are different after coming upon this (one discussion of this was in a video by Jordan Maxwell). I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Also any thoughts you have on this being the end times...it's frightening with these threats of a central bank digital currency, one world government, the one world religion center soon being unveiled, people essentially not being able to buy and sell without having a vax ID...

[jimwalton]

Isaiah 14.12 is not referring to Satan, but instead to the king of Babylon. He was proud in his own eyes and was to be brought down. Isaiah uses the figurative language he does to point out the king's (and Babylon's) hauteur. In addition, Isaiah 14.12 doesn't use the expression "bright and morning star." It's a single word, helel, meaning "bright; shining; brilliance." It's a designation of Venus, often seen shining brightly in the evening or morning sky, hence the translation. The most accurate translation of the term is "shining one."

Then the Hebrew text has "ben-shachar," meaning "son of the dawn." That's where the translation "bright and morning star" comes from, but the text actually says "shining one, son of the dawn." It's a completely different thing going on than the "bright and morning star" of Rev. 22.16.

Revelation 22.16 also uses the phrase in a completely different manner. "Bright" refers to the glory of God. A.T. Robertson writes that the Davidic king is called a star in Num. 24.17; Lk. 1.78 and is interpreted as Christ in 2 Pet. 1.19. In Rev. 2.28 the phrase “the morning star” occurs in Christ’s words, which is here interpreted. Christ is the Light that was coming in to the world (Jn. 1.9;8.12). The Dead Sea Scrolls also applied Num. 24.17 to a conquering messiah.

[Smarty]

Oh really? Lucifer is identified by name.

Isaiah 14:12 KJV — How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I'm glad to discuss it with you. "Lucifer" isn't a name in the text. The Hebrew word is helel, as I mentioned, not Satan or Lucifer. Not "the accuser" as we see in Job. The term "luciferus," as a translation of helel, first appears in the Latin Vulgate (Jerome's translation from Hebrew to Latin) in AD 400, because "luciferus" means "shining" just as helel does. Neither the Hebrew nor the Latin designate a name. Why the KJV chose to translate it as a name is a mystery.

[Smarty]

Isaiah 14.12 doesn't use the expression "bright and morning star." It's a single word, helel, meaning "bright; shining; brilliance.

Oh really?

Go here and see the truth

https://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=14&v=1&t=KJV&sstr=1#conc/12

bēn sahar

[jimwalton]

You don't seem to have read my post. I spoke about ben shachar: son of the dawn. Let's talk with each other reasonably and respectfully, not "oh really? Go here and see the truth."

Isaiah 14 is a condemnation and judgment (a taunt, technically) of the king of Babylon. Verses 12-15 describe his downfall. Cosmic imagery is used.

John Walton (NIV Application Commentary of Job) writes, "Throughout most of church history, these verses have been applied to Satan. Despite widespread popular support, there is much opposition to this interpretation. Lacking support in the author’s intention, we would be hard pressed to sustain the suggestion that the passage refers to Satan."

Barry Webb (The Bible Speaks Today commentary): "The cosmic sweep of the poem led some early interpreters, and many since then, to see here a symbolic description of the fall of Satan. But if this reads too much into the text (and I think it does), it is equally misguided to reduce it to a description of the fall of a particular earthly monarch. The king of Babylon here, like Babylon itself in ch. 13, is a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defied God and tramples on others in its lust for power."

John Oswalt (New International Commentary of the Old Testament series, Isaiah): "The scene shifts from the underworld to heaven and illuminates the pretense of human pride. That pride refuses to brook any rival, even God himself, insisting that all his prerogatives will be its own. While some church fathers took this text to refer to the fall of Satan, the great expositors of the Reformation were unanimous in arguing that the context does not support such an interpretation."

The Reformers, before the KJV translation, were unanimous in saying the text is not about Satan. Why the KJV translated it as a name is a mystery. Let's talk about it.