SAINT LUCIFER

 SAINT LUCIFER

Rev Fr UTAZI Prince Marie Benignus Zereuwa

utaziprince@yahoo.com

April 17 2022

INTRODUCTION

When the name LUCIFER is mentioned, people tend to attribute is to SATAN (DEVIL). But this is actually not so. In this article, I am going to debunk this idea of people, showcasing the real meaning of Lucifer, and then who is the Lucifer.

The entire doctrine of Satan being a former angel cast out of heaven for rebelling comes from a few verses in Isaiah 14. The name Lucifer is a transliteration of son of the morning or morning star. The name, as a proper name of someone, does not occur in the Bible. 

SAINT LUCIFER

Saint Lucifer is a native of Caglari in Sardinia. He is called Lucifer of Cagliari. In Latin, he is called Lucifer Calaritanus. In Italian, he is called Lucifero da Cagliari. Saint Lucifer of Caglari was born at the beginning of 4th century, and died on 20th May 371 AD. His birthplace and the circumstances of his youth are unknown. He was a bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. He was known for his passionate opposition to Arianism. 

Saint Lucifer was a disciple of Saint Eusebius of Rome. He became a scholar in Greek and Hebrew languages. He was then baptized by Pope Eusebius. The first appearance of Saint Lucifer in the history of the Church in full maturity of strength and abilities, was in 354 AD, when he was deputed by Pope Liberius, with the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilary, to request the Emperor Constantius to convene a council, to deal with the accusations directed against St. Athanasius and his previous condemnation. When the Council of Milan was convoked in 355AD, Saint Lucifer defended Athanasius of Alexandria with much passion and in very violent language against Arian attempts to secure his condemnation by Western bishops. It was because of this that Emperor Constantius II, who was a supporter of Arian theology, confined (imprisoned) Saint Lucifer for three days in the Imperial Palace. However, Saint Lucifer continued to argue vehemently on behalf of Athanasius. Along with Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Milan, Lucifer was exiled for his opposition to the imperial ecclesiastical policy. Why, this is because, at this time, the Emperor rules both the Church and the Society. So, Saint Lucifer was banished first to Germanicia in Syria, the see of bishop Eudoxius, thereafter to Eleutheropolis in Palestine and finally to the Thebaid in Egypt. While in exile, he wrote burning, scorching, and hot pamphlets to the Emperor entitled Ad Constantium Augustum pro sancto Athanasio libri II, an eloquent defence of Catholic orthodoxy in which he proclaimed himself to be ready to suffer martyrdom for his beliefs. But the pamphlet was written in such exaggerated language that it overshot the mark and injured the cause it was meant to serve. Lucifer boasted of his work, and Constantius, tyrant that he was, refrained from further revenge.

After the death of Emperor Constantius II, Julian the apostate took over the rulership. Julian the Apostate allowed all the exiles to return to their cities. So, Saint Lucifer and other expatriated bishops (Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Milan), were allowed to return from exile in 361 AD. However, he would not be reconciled to former Arians. There was this Bishop Meletius, who was formerly a proponent of Arianism. He came to accept the Nicene Creed and for that was driven out by Arians. Although Meletius had the support of many proponents of Nicene theology at Antioch, Saint Lucifer put his support behind the Eustathian party which had unflinchingly stood by the Nicene creed, and prolonged the schism between Meletians and Eustathians by consecrating without licence a Eustathian, Paulinus, as bishop. 

Lucifer went to Antioch, and at once meddled in the dissensions which divided the Catholic party. He prolonged and embittered them by consecrating a bishop who appeared to him capable of continuing the opposition to the bishop and party which he judged the weaker under the circumstances. Incapable of tact, he aggravated the dissenters, instead of dealing cautiously with them in order to win them, and displayed special severity towards those Catholics who had wavered in their adherence to the Nicene Creed. About this time a Council of Alexandria presided over by St. Athanasius decreed that Arians renouncing their heresy should be pardoned and that bishops who, by compulsion, had temporized with heretics should not be disturbed. Against this indulgence Lucifer protested, and went so far as to anathematize his former friend, Eusebius of Vercelli, who carried out the decrees of the Council of Alexandria. Seeing that his extreme opinions won partisans neither West nor East, he withdrew to Sardinia, resumed his see, and formed a small sect called the Luciferians. These sectaries pretended that all priests who had participated in Arianism should be deprived of their dignity, and that bishops who recognized the rights of even repentant heretics should be excommunicated. The Luciferians, being earnestly opposed, commissioned two priests, Marcellinus and Faustinus, to present a petition, the wellknown Libellus precum, to the Emperor Theodosius, explaining their grievances and claiming protection. The emperor forbade further pursuit of them, and their schism seems not to have lasted beyond this first generation. Saint Lucifer subsequently returned to Cagliari where, according to Saint Jerome, he died in 371 AD.

Following the trend of eevents then, it is possible that Saint Lucifer may have been excommunicated as is hinted in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, as well as Jerome, who refers to his followers as Luciferians. There is extant a work known as Libellus precum ad Imperatores, written by two Luciferian clergy called Faustinus and Marcellinus. Saint Jerome discusses Lucifer and his supporters in his polemic Altercatio Luciferiani et orthodoxi ("Altercation of a Luciferian and an Orthodox"), as well as describing the career of the bishop in De Viris Illustribus (chapter 95).

The status of Lucifer as a Saint is a matter of controversy. According to the Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought by John Henry Blunt, published in 1874, the Church of Cagliari celebrated the feast of a Saint Lucifer on the 20th of May. Two Archbishops of Sardinia wrote for and against the sanctity of Lucifer. The Congregation of the Inquisition imposed silence on both parties, and decreed that the veneration of Lucifer should stand as it was. The Bollandists defend this decree of the Congregation ... contending that the Lucifer in question is not the author of the schism, but another Lucifer who suffered martyrdom in the persecution of the Vandals. A chapel in the Cathedral of Cagliari is dedicated to a Saint Lucifer. 

THE DEVIL IN THE BIBLE

Although the Devil is present in some form in many religions and can be compared to some mythological gods, the devil is arguably best known for his role in Christianity. In modern biblical translations, the Devil is the adversary of God and the people of God. It is commonly thought that the Devil first showed up in the Bible in the book of Genesis as the serpent who convinced Eve who then convinced Adam to eat forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge in the Garden of Eden. As the story goes, after Eve fell for the conniving ways of the Devil, Eve and Adam were banished from the Garden of Eden and doomed to mortality.

Many Christians believe the Devil was once a beautiful angel named Lucifer who defied God and fell from grace. This assumption that he is a fallen angel is often based on the book of Isaiah in the Bible which says, 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.

Some biblical scholars, however, assert that lucifer is not a proper name but a descriptive phrase meaning morning star. Still, the name stuck and the Devil is often referred to as Lucifer. 

LUCIFER

Lucifer, (Latin: Lightbearer) Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by John Milton (160874) in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase as proud as Lucifer.

Tertullian (c.160- c.225), who in his book called ADVERSUS MARCIONEM (book 5, chapters 11 and 27) twice presents as spoken by the devil the words of Isaiah 14:14: I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (Fekkes, Jan 187). Though Tertullian was a speaker of the language in which the word lucifer was created, Lucifer is not among the numerous names and phrases he used to describe the devil (Migne, Patrologia latina, vol. 2). Origen (184/185  253/254) interpreted such Old Testament passages like that of Isaiah 14 as being about manifestations of the devil; but writing in Greek, not Latin, he did not identify the devil with the name Lucifer (Berlin, Adele 651; Sigve K Tonstad 75, Link, Luther 24; Kelly, Joseph Francis 44).  Augustine of Hippo (354430), who lived at the period within the composition of the Vulgate (Latin Bible), never used Lucifer as a common name for the devil (Berlin, Adele, 651).

Sometime after the Early Church Fathers, the metaphor of the morning star that Isaiah 14:12 applied to a king of Babylon gave rise to the general use of the Latin word for morning star, capitalized, as the original name of the devil before his fall from grace, linking Isaiah 14:12 with Luke 10 (Luke 10:18) (I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven) and interpreting the passage in Isaiah as an allegory (symbol) of the fall of Satan from heaven (Jeffrey Burton Russell 95). As a result, Lucifer has become a byword for Satan or the devil in the church and in popular literature (Kohler, Kaufmann 4-5).

John Calvin and Martin Luther were protestant movement founders. The understanding of the morning star in Isaiah 14:12 as a metaphor referring to a king of Babylon continued also to exist among Christians. Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393  c. 457) wrote that Isaiah calls the king morning star, not as being the star, but as having had the illusion of being it (Nicolas de Dijon 230). The same understanding is shown in Christian translations of the passage, which in English generally use morning star rather than treating the word as a proper name, Lucifer. So too, in other languages, such as French, German (Johanna Manley 252), Portuguese (Ésaïe 14:12-15 (in French) Biblegateway.com.), and Spanish (Jesaja 14:12 in German). Even the Vulgate text in Latin is printed with lower-case lucifer (morning star), not upper-case Lucifer (proper name) (Latin Vulgate Bible: Isaiah 14).

John Calvin said: The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians (Isaías 14:1217 in Portuguese. Biblegateway.com). Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil ("Isaías 14:12" in Spanish. Biblegateway.com).

Luther wrote on Isaiah 14:12 thus: How you are fallen from heaven, Lucifer! This is not said of the angel who once was thrown out of heaven but of the king of Babylon, and it is figurative language. Isaiah becomes a disciple of Calliope and in like manner laughs at the king. Heylel [the Hebrew word used in the text] denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn. Heaven is where we are with our heads, and that is obviously above the ground, just as that most powerful and extremely magnificent king was once above, but now his lamp is extinguished (Luthers Works 16:140; Preface to the Prophet Isaiah, ch. 14). 

Calvin was quite hostile to the application of this passage to the devil in Isaiah 14:12, writing thus: How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables (Commentary on Isaiah at 14:12).

The Latin word lucifer is also used of Jesus in the Easter Proclamation prayer to God regarding the paschal candle: Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum. Christus Filius tuus, qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum (May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son, who, coming back from death's domain, has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns forever and ever). In the works of Latin grammarians, Lucifer, like Daniel, was discussed as an example of a personal name (Francis Andrew Notes 235).

In Isaiah 14:12, The KJV (King James Version) translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל. In the Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12 reads as follows: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes. The word Lucifer in this text is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isaiah 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏בקר as ‘morning’: et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut Lucifer. In Job 38:32, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏מזרות as Mazzaroth. This is another word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV translators did not know what it meant, so they simply transliterated the Hebrew into English characters. Even though Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators did, he was not exactly sure what to make of it either. But he at least tried, rather than simply leave the word non-translated as the KJV translators did. He translated the word as lucifer—or ‘morning star,’ which is very close to the meaning of the Hebrew ‏מזרות: numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis. The word ‏מזרות means ‘constellations’ or ‘crowns’ (modern translators are not sure, though ‘constellations’ is usually preferred). The fact that Jerome recognized that at least the ‏מזרות probably referred to stars is far better than the KJV translators did by leaving the word completely untranslated. There is of course no conspiracy on the part of Jerome here; he is simply being faithful to the Hebrew Bible and is translating as accurately as he can.

In 2 Peter 1:19, the KJV renders the Greek word φωσφόρος (phosphoros) as ‘day star.’ Again, the Latin Vulgate has lucifer here: et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

In other words, lucifer is not a proper name, but is the Latin word for morning star or day star. The KJV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek or Hebrew. In places where they were not sure what the Greek or Hebrew meant, they simply translated or reproduced verbatim the Latin text. Since that time, Lucifer has made its way into English Bible interpretation as another name for the devil. Thus, the KJV DID NOT TRANSLATE THE WORD AT ALL, BUT RATHER RETAINED THE LATIN RENDERING OF JEROME IN ISAIAH 14:12 AND WORSE, SIMPLY TRANSLITERATED THE HEBREW IN JOB 38:32. Jerome cannot be charged with not knowing Hebrew well. He lived in Bethlehem for 35 years while he worked on the translation.

In Isaiah 14:12, the original reference of morning star is not to the devil but to the Babylonian king. The footnote in the NET Bible says, What is the background for the imagery in Isaiah 14:12-15? This whole section (Isaiah 14:4b21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in Isaiah 14:9 ff., he is called the man in Isaiah 14:16, and, according to Isaiah 14:19-20, he possesses a physical body. At the same time, Isaiah 14:12-15 seems to go beyond a description of a mortal king. Further, if Jesus in Luke 10:18 and John in Rev 9:1 had this passage in mind, then it is evident that there is a secondary meaning that relates to the devil himself. A double-fulfillment prophecy is thus probably in view. We can candidly say that the primary reference is to the Babylonian king (which the great majority of biblical scholars would affirm and as the evidence mentioned in the NET Bible footnote lists), then our understanding of the use of morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 makes sense. The morning star literally referred to Venus, but in ancient times it was used metaphorically of earthly kings. The note in the NET Bible at 2 Peter 1:19 is helpful along these lines: The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise in your hearts. Most commentators see an allusion to Numbers 24:17 (a star shall rise out of Jacob) in the words of Peter. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about the coming of Christ. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that the choice of terms of Peter here is not the same as is found in the LXX (Septuagint version of the Bible). He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.

In other words, morning star or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. PETER THUS MAY HAVE CHOSEN THIS WORD TO SHOW THAT THE REAL MORNING STAR WAS JESUS, NOT CAESAR. Isaiah 14:12 thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall. Jesus and John used this text to indicate that Satan would fall. It is only by turning lucifer into a proper name, as has been done by KJV advocates, that misunderstanding of the meaning of these texts could occur. The logic of the KJV position is as follows: Lucifer is a proper name and refers exclusively to one who is inherently evil, the devil. Thus, even if translated as morning star in Isaiah 14.12, this still refers exclusively to the devil. Consequently, for Jesus to be called morning star in 2 Peter 1.19 is to call him the devil. 

The logic breaks down on the first premise viz., that the term in Isaiah 14:12 refers exclusively to one who is evil. Since this is false, the conclusion is also false. To call Jesus morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 makes him no more evil than calling Satan god (2 Cor. 4:4) makes him good. And to argue that since God is not the God of confusion and therefore different words must be used in each verse is to continue to compound the false view of lucifer as a name for the devil.

It is an illegitimate hermeneutic to claim that because the term in one place refers to one person, therefore the same term in another place must be to the same person. There are scores of examples of a term used in the Bible as referring primarily to one thing/person, but having a different thing/person in view if the context demands it. As hinted above, God is used primarily of the one true God of the Bible, but there are occasional references in which human beings (John 10:3435) or Satan (2 Cor. 4:4) are called god even in the KJV. Further, if pressed, the argument actually backfires on KJV Only advocates. For example, the name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. In the New Testament, there are three references to Joshua. On two of these occasions, the KJV translators translated the name as Jesus. But in each instance this rendering is misleading, in the second case badly so.

Acts 7:45 in KJV: Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David Acts 7:45 in the NET: Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. The context is clearly about Joshua and the Hebrews going into the Promised Land and conquering the nations there. Why the KJV has Jesus here is a mystery to me. Perhaps they were trying to be literal here (by transliterating the Greek word Iesous as Jesus), but if so why did they not do this in Luke 3:29, where the genealogy of Jesus is enumerated (and Iesous, an ancestor of Jesus, is rendered Jose)?

Far more troublesome is Hebrews 4:8. KJV: For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. NET: For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day. Again, the context is somewhat clear that Joshua is in view. But to the reader who is not paying careful attention to the context and who does not know that Jesus here is really Joshua, he could easily be misled into thinking that Jesus Christ was not able to give his people rest. As such, this could certainly undercut the deity of Christ especially in light of Hebrews 4:3 which says, As I swore in my anger, They will never enter my rest! (NET). Further, since a proper name is used each time (unlike Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19), it would be much harder for the average reader to distinguish which Jesus is being talked about. The argument that God is not a God of confusion certainly applies much more to the KJV than to modern translations in this instance. Does this mean that the KJV is wrong at this place? Technically, no. But in terms of clarity to the average reader, it can be very confusing. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cross, F. L. ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford UP, 1978.

Diercks, G. F. ed. Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt, Turnhout: Brepols, 1978.

Englebert, Omer. The Lives of the Saints. Christopher and Anne Fremantle, trans. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1994. Nihil obstat, Imprimatur 1951.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm May 11 2021

Leclercq, Henri. Lucifer of Cagliari. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 12 May 2022. 

Utazi Prince Marie Benignus. Who is the Lucifer: Jesus or Satan. June 3 2020. https://utaziprince.blogspot.com/2022/05/saint-lucifer.html May 23 2020