THE NAME LUCIFER.
By Rev. Maurice G. Hansen,
It is much to be deplored that the euphonious and comprehensive name — light-bearer — should ever have been applied to the prince of "the rulers of the darkness of this world" so persistently, that it popularly has come to be considered as belonging exclusively to him. The fact is that in his case the title is thoroughly a misnomer. It only seems to apply when he "transforms himself into an angel of light." In the bestowal upon him, even by the Lord's servants, of a name which is the property alone of One who is the light itself, there is unfortunately no protest against this usurpation of the arch-deceiver. But how did Satan come to be so designated ?
The whole trouble arose from the effort to put into Is. XIV., 12 more than is really there. The words are: "How art thou fallen from heaven, הֵילֵל, son of the morning." Gesenius renders הֵילֵל "brilliant star," and says: "Aptly so, since it is followed by 'son of the morning.'" Now, the morning-star, as everyone knows who has seen it, is very beautiful because of its luminousness. Hence the Vulgate gives for the Hebrew הֵילֵל the Latin "Lucifer." The Staten-bybel reads "Morning-star, son of the dawn," and has this note: "That star is more brilliant than any other in the firmament because it alone causes an object to cast a shadow." The Septuagint gives the reading "early rising dawn-bringer" (ό έωσφόρος ό πρωί άνατέλλων).
This high-sounding title was applied metaphorically to the King of Babylon
