Some Light on Lucifer
Ina Belderis
[Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible
quotes are from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (New
Revised Standard Version).]
Is there any difference between Lucifer
and Satan? Westerners generally would say they are one and the same.
Especially those in fundamentalist Christian circles consider Lucifer an
archangel who fell from grace and was thrown out of heaven because of
"sinful pride." His "sin" was thinking he was equal to God and rebelling
against Him. This rebellious angel is known as Satan, Lucifer, or the
Devil, who tempts us to do evil. Supposedly, one of the most evil things
Lucifer tempts us to do is to think that we are God. So those
who believe in the essential divinity of all life are often accused of
committing Satan's sin, and of being under the influence of Lucifer.
Where do these ideas about Satan and Lucifer come from? Is there a
biblical basis for them?
Lucifer means lightbringer, from
the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."
The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible --
Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How
art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ." The
New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are
fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we
find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of
the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the
Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew
helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a
reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the
bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the
name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.
In Isaiah 14 the prophet is taunting the
king of Babylon: "In the figurative language of the Hebrews, . . . a
star, signifies an illustrious king or prince . . . The monarch
here referred to, having surpassed all other kings in royal splendour,
is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of
the surrounding stars" (A Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature,
John Kitto ed., 3rd ed., J. B. Lippincott and Co, Philadelphia,
1866, 2:857-8). There are those who claim that the real entity addressed
in this passage is Satan, but there is no evidence for this. On the
contrary, Isaiah (14:16) says: "Is this the man who made the earth
tremble, . . . ?" and (14:18) "All the kings of the nations lie in
glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out . . ." These seem
clear references to a man, the king of a nation, not an archangel.
There is yet another reason why it makes
no sense to read the Devil into Isaiah 14: the traditional role of Satan
in the Old Testament. Satan comes from the Hebrew satan, which
means "opponent" or "adversary." According to Strong's
Concordance, this word appears in 1 Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and
in Zechariah. In Psalms "satan" is used both in the plural (accusers)
and in the indefinite sense (an accuser). In Chronicles and
Zechariah its usage is ambiguous, while in Job "satan" as The
Accuser appears only in the first two of its 42 chapters. It is
important, however, to keep in mind that the texts of the Old Testament
did not reach their "final" version until after the Babylonian exile.
Before this exile there is no evidence in Hebrew scriptures of an
Accuser as a force that opposes God, and even after the exile it is
still doubtful. Though the story of Job is very old, its final version
is dated after the exile, after the Hebrews came into contact
with the dualist Zoroastrian religion with its god of good and its god
of evil.
There is even division among Old
Testament scholars as to whether evil should be associated with Satan at
all. Some say that Satan was originally not considered evil but
gradually became identified with his unpleasant functions. According to
this approach, Satan is still God's servant. There is much in the Book
of Job that tends to support this view. Satan appears only in the first
two chapters and then disappears. Some believe the first two chapters
were added much later, for in the last chapter we read: ". . . they
showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had
brought upon him" (42:11).
It appears that the Hebrews did not have
a devil-like power opposed to God. Satan, or the Satan as he is
often called, is an angel in the court of God with the function
of an accuser (see Job 1:6). There are also indications that along with
all that is "good," all that is "evil" comes from God, not Satan. In
Isaiah 45:7 God says: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and
create woe; I the Lord do all these things." Valentine's Jewish
Encyclopedia confirms the idea that there is a radical difference
between how Satan is conceived in the Old Testament and how he is
conceived in the New Testament, and that his new role did not develop
from his original role: there are no references "to rebellious angels in
any pre-Christian book. . . . The figure of Satan in the Hebrew Bible
and in the New Testament respectively emphasizes the difference in
conception. There is no development, but basic difference. . . . It is
only in Christian literature that the Persian idea of two opposing
empires, with Satan as God's enemy, has persisted" (Valentine's
Jewish Encyclopedia, A. M. Hyamson & A. M. Silberman eds.,
Shapiro, Valentine & Co, London, 1938, p. 36).
There is actually very little in the Old
Testament to support the idea of Satan as a rebellious angel and the
power opposing God. He is generally depicted as a heavenly attorney
general (accuser) functioning under God, and this only strengthens the
argument for not reading Satan into the passage about Lucifer
in Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah is one of the older books in the Bible and is
definitely pre-exile.
If there is no sound biblical basis for
associating Lucifer with Satan, where then does the story come from that
he is a rebellious angel and fell because of pride? The Christian Church
made the interpretation that Isaiah 14:12 is connected with Luke 10:18:
"He said to them, I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of
lightning." This unfounded, non-biblical connection of Lucifer with
Satan has led to the popular misunderstanding that Lucifer is another
name for the Devil (cf. "Lucifer," Harper's Bible Dictionary,
Paul Achtemeier, gen. ed., Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985).
As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar,
or Venus, the absurdity of connecting him with the Devil is revealed in
the three New Testament passages where morning star or daystar is
mentioned:
So we have the prophetic message more
fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a
lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning
star rises in your hearts. -- 2 Peter 1:19
. . . from my Father. To the one who
conquers I will also give the morning star. -- Revelation 2:28
It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to
you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the
descendant of David, the bright morning star. -- Revelation 2 2:16
All three references to the morning star
point to Jesus or things Jesus says or gives. In the Vulgate the word
"morning star" in 2 Peter is even translated as lucifer. In the
other two references it is stella matutina.
It is puzzling that "lightning" should be
used in relation to Satan in Luke 10:18, especially when one considers
two other references to lightning in the New Testament: Matthew 24:27
and Luke 17:24. These two references connect lightning with the Son of
Man or Jesus and his second coming, which is understandable when one
studies ancient religious symbolism: "In Judeo-Christian thought
lightning is a symbol of God's immediate presence . . . or of the last
Judgment" ("Lightning," Dictionary of Symbolism, Hans
Biedermann, Penguin Books, New York, 1992). Even when we put aside the
question of what God's "opponent" should be called, the fact remains
that the story of a rebellious angel who fell because of pride is not in
the Bible at all. Some claim that the fallen Satan is present from the
very beginning, even though his name does not appear in Genesis. Paul
suggested that the serpent was Satan, the implication being that Satan
tempted Adam. Yet most of the early Church Fathers believed that Satan
fell after Adam. It took the Church over 200 years to establish
that Satan's sin was pride, that he fell before the creation of
man, and that he was the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve.
To find the story of the fall of Satan,
we must go to sources other than the Bible. There was a great deal of
literature produced roughly between 200 BC and 150 AD, including the
Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. Some of these are apocalyptic -- they
prophesy cataclysmic events and the end of the world. In this literature
one can see the development of the idea of an evil spirit, but even in
the apocalyptic literature the Devil does not become entirely evil in
his origin and essence. Many of the books from this period reflect the
misery of the Jewish people under the oppression of Syria and Rome.
Their writings deal with visions of the end of the world, the world
being in the power of the Devil, and the Messiah conquering the Devil
and bringing a new era of justice. The Book of Enoch is
seen by many as one of the earliest and most important accounts of the
mishaps of the Heavenly Court (of angels). It also describes the
rebellion of the angel Satanail, and his being hurled from heaven (2
Enoch, ch. 29, long MSS only). Some scholars take this to mean that the
amalgamation of Satan and Lucifer goes back to the first century. A
redating of 2 Enoch, however, puts it later than the third century,
perhaps even in the seventh. For this reason others suggest that Origen
(Exhort. 18) was probably the inventor of the identification of Lucifer
with Satan (Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, Jeffrey
Burton Russell, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1991, p. 130 & fn).
The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita), a Jewish scripture that
scholars date between 200 BC and 200 AD, relates that Satan tells Adam
and Eve that his fall from heaven is the result of his refusal to
worship Adam, the image of God. A similar account is also found in the
Koran (S 2:34). These legends reflect a theme close to the primordial
"pride" that led to the so-called fall of Satan.
Since the Old Testament does not connect
pride or the Fall with Satan, the Devil, or the Adversary, the only
scriptural "support" for this notion is the misinterpretation of the
fall of Lucifer (the king of Babylon), and certain passages in the New
Testament. But the New Testament does not give any clear information on
the fall of Satan through pride either. One place where Lucifer is
connected with pride is in Milton's Paradise Lost. He
"applied the name to the demon of sinful pride" ("Lucifer," A
Dictionary of Angels, Gustav Davidson, The Free Press, New York,
1967).
It appears that the whole story of
Lucifer as Satan, the fallen rebellious angel, is based entirely on
non-canonical sources: the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. There
are also many pre-Christian myths and allegories that include stories
about Lucifer, which is the Latin name for the Greek Eosphoros.
In his Theogony Hesiod speaks of two divine beings, the
brothers Eosphoros (the morning star) and Hesperos (the evening star).
They are the children of Astraios (the starry heaven) and Eos (the
dawn). The morning star, like the Virgin of the Sea, is one of the
titles given to Divine Mother goddesses such as the Roman Venus, the
Phoenician Astarte, the Jewish Ashtoreth, and the later Christian Holy
Virgin. In the oldest Zoroastrian allegories, Mithra is supposed to have
conquered the planet Venus. In the Christian tradition, Michael defeats
Lucifer.
The planet Venus is the light-bringer, the
first radiant beam that does away with the darkness of night. It is a
symbol of the development of the divine light in man, for the first
awakening of self-consciousness, for independent thinking and the real
application of free will. It means the bringing of the light of
compassionate understanding to the human mind. In this broader view
the connection of the morning star with Jesus makes good sense, because
compassion is the essence of Jesus' teaching. This teaching shows the
greatest consensus throughout the New Testament: it is mentioned in
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews,
1 John, James, and 1 Peter. The best known reference is in Matthew
(22:37-40):
"You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like
it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm
|