THE LUCIFER MYTH

Many theologians refer to the Book of Isaiah to try and show that sin first entered God's creation, not in the Garden of Eden, but with Lucifer's rebellious fall from glory:

"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! For you have said in your 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 14:12-14 - KJV)

They then continue to teach us that the following passage vividly describes how a celestial mutiny took place, resulting in the fall of one-third of God's angels (stars).

"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth... And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found anymore in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:3,4,7-9 - KJV)

Our Lord Jesus Himself even appears to verify this theory with the following statement:

"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18 - KJV)

Lucifer would then in turn entice mankind (in the Garden of Eden) to join him in this rebellion against God, and as a result, God's creation would be thrown into a state of chaos. But being the all-wise and all-knowing Father that He is, He devised a plan (Revelation 13:8) which would involve sending a Savior to dig mankind out of the mess into which he would fall. And all we now have to do is make the correct choice for Jesus, and we will be saved, while the rest of the world will burn in hell for all eternity. And God is not the least bit responsible, because he has given us all the "free will" ability to decide for ourselves. Is this not what we have all been (and continue to be) taught by pastors, theologians, and evangelists worldwide?

According to the Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible, in the third century AD, Luke 10:18 was connected to Isaiah 14:12 and Lucifer was accepted as the name of Satan before his fall. Smith's Bible Dictionary tells us that the name Lucifer became synonymous with Satan "since the time of Jerome." And the official Catholic Bible also reveals that Lucifer was a name that was applied to Satan by the early church fathers (See The New American Bible footnote to Isaiah 14:12). So by their own admission, the Roman Catholic Church fathers (Jerome, Augustine, etc.) were the ones responsible for identifying the name Lucifer with Satan. Are they correct in doing so? And if not, then why not? Is there any evidence that would suggest to the contrary?

In this article we shall endeavor to show that the fabled fall of Lucifer, just like the concept of an eternal place of torment, is another pagan myth that has crept its way into Christian theology. In our attempt to prove this, it will be necessary to briefly look at some history, as well as to examine what various sources have to say on the subject.

JEROME

Eusebius Hieronymus (331-420 AD), also known as Jerome, was one of the ablest of the fathers of the century in which he lived - "the most learned except Origen," up to his time. He wrote in Latin, and was contemporary with Augustine, but did not accept all the Paganism of the great corrupter of Christianity. At first he was an enthusiastic partisan of Origen, but later, when opposition to the great Alexandrian set in, he became an equally violent component. Schaff says he was a great trimmer and time-server, and at length seemed to acquiesce in the growing influence of Augustinianism. Jerome had originally belonged, like the friend of his youth, Rufinus, and John, Bishop of Jerusalem, to the warmest admirers of the great Alexandrian father (Origen). Jerome frequently exposes his sympathy with the doctrine of restoration, as when he says:

"Israel and all heretics, because they had the works of Sodom and Gomorrah, are overthrown like Sodom and Gomorrah, that they may be set free like a brand snatched from the burning. And this is the meaning of the prophet's words, ‘Sodom shall be restored as of old,' that he who by his vice is as an inhabitant of Sodom, after the works of Sodom have been burnt in him, may be restored to his ancient state." (Commentary on Amos)

During his residence in Rome Jerome highly praised Origen, but soon after, when he found himself accused of heresy for so doing, he declared that he had only read him as he had read other heretics. Attacked as he now was, with protests coming from different sides, he began out of anxiety for his own reputation for orthodoxy, to separate himself with the utmost care from the heresies with which he was charged. The manner in which he retracted these sentiments, and became the detractor and enemy of the man to whom he had admitted his indebtedness, is disgraceful to his memory. Farrar accurately calls the record of his behavior "a miserable story." Jerome's morbid dread of being held to be heretical led him, it is feared, to deny some of his real opinions, and to violently attack those who held them, in order to divert attention from himself. One cannot help but be reminded of these words of our Savior:

"Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:31,32)

Jerome is best known for his contribution in translating much of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into Latin, which was becoming the predominant language in the western part of the Roman Empire. This began to pose a major problem, because fewer and fewer Christians in the West were able to read or understand Greek. So in 382, Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to revise the Latin versions of the Gospels that were in circulation. Jerome was a good choice for this task, because he could speak, write and understand Latin, Greek and Hebrew - something that few others could do. He fulfilled his commission by producing a revision of the Gospels, and later produced Latin versions of several other Old Testament books as well. The result of his efforts to provide a Latin translation of the Bible is popularly known as the Vulgate, a word derived from Latin meaning "common" or "commonly known." But Jerome was not entirely responsible for the Vulgate as it has come down to us, for the Gospels were the only New Testament books on which he worked.

He has been considered a Father of the Church since the eighth century, and the Council of Trent in Italy (1545-1563) also proclaimed him a Doctor of the Church. In response to the growing influence of 16^th century Protestantism, this famous Council of Trent, which set doctrine for Roman Catholicism for the next 400 years, issued the following decree:

"This same ancient and Vulgate edition, which by the long use of so many centuries has been approved in the church itself, is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons and expositions; and no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."

The use of the vernacular in the Mass was not approved until Vatican Council II (1962-1965), and the traditional reading of the Latin Vulgate eventually gave way in most all Catholic churches worldwide.

PAGAN INFLUENCE

Since the rule of Constantine the Great, Christianity had been in a transition period. In order for the majority of the people to recognize Christianity as the official religion of the state, several concessions would have to be made. Paganism was still widespread, and the people would not so easily give up their long-standing traditions. Can you imagine, for example, the outrage there would be in America today if Congress were to pass a law making it illegal to celebrate Thanksgiving? Likewise, many Pagan holidays of the day had to be "Christianized" in order to appease the masses.

Many of the early church fathers purposed to bridge the gap between Paganism and Christianity, and to tolerate Pagan doctrine, all for the sake of winning proselytes. The Christianizing of Pagan holidays began about the fourth century A.D. when Constantine became (or feigned becoming) a Christian. To consolidate his rule, he incorporated Pagan holidays and festivals into church ritual, which attracted the Pagans. But he also gave the holidays and festivals new Christian names and identities, which appeased the Christians. And the Christian churches have for the most part embraced many of these deceptions to this very day.

For example, during this period of time there were several mystery religions circulating about, the most important of which was Mithraism. The worship of the Iranian deity Mithra (the sun god) was prevalent at various periods from 1400 BC, and became especially prominent in the second and third centuries AD. It was especially appealing to the Roman legions, and became a strong rival of Christianity because of its emphasis on blood atonement, fellowship, a strong moral code, strict discipline, and an emphasis on dualism (a God of Light vs. a God of Darkness). Mithraism, like Christianity, taught that their faithful followers would be rewarded with personal salvation after death, while the wicked would suffer punishment.

During this same period of time, the competition between Mithraism and Christianity heated up, and both faiths made attempts to convert each other's followers. Eventually, early Christians would fold some aspects of Mithraism into Christianity. For instance, Mithra was the sun god (Christ is also called the "Sun of Righteousness" - Malachi 4:2), and the death and rebirth of Mithra represented the solar cycle. The most important celebration for Mithraists was the birth of Mithra, at the winter solstice. Early Christians did not celebrate the birth of Christ, nor is there any historical record of Jesus' birthday. In an attempt to deal with Mithraism, they folded the celebration of Mithra's birth into a Christian celebration of the birth of Christ. Persian Zoroastrians celebrated the birth of Mithra on December 25^th, the same date that Christians now honor Christ!

Another example of how a Pagan holiday was "Christianized" can be seen in our modern celebration of Easter. The name was derived from the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, who was the goddess of love, fertility, motherhood, and war. The traditional hunting of multi-colored eggs was a fertility ritual, symbolized by one of the most fertile of all of God's creatures, the rabbit, or Easter bunny. The transition of this springtime festival into a Christian one went smoothly, since it also happened to coincide with the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Enfield declares that converts from the schools of Pagan philosophy interwove their old errors with the simple truths of Christianity until "heathen and Christian doctrines were still more intimately blended... and both were almost entirely lost in the thick clouds of ignorance and barbarism that covered the earth." The greatest theologians were those who were able to combine the tools of logic and disputation - aided by the philosophical works of Aristotle and Plato - with their insights about God as revealed in the Bible. A good example of this can be seen in Plato's belief in the immortal soul. Even though there is no Biblical support for this doctrine, it has nevertheless become a major tenet of orthodox Christian theology. The apostle Paul warned that such would be the case:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (II Timothy 4:3,4)

The fathers of the Roman church departed from the simplicity of the apostolic church and corrupted the purity of the Christian faith. Gibbon states that:

"It must ingenuously be confessed, that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model, which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves, that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved, in less than a century, the final conquest of the Roman Empire: but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals." - The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (XXVIII)

SO WHO OR WHAT IS LUCIFER?

According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10^th Edition, "Lucifer" is a Latin word meaning "light-bearing," and is used in one of three ways:

1. Used as a name for the devil

2. The planet Venus when appearing as the morning star

3. A friction match having as active substances antimony sulfide and potassium chlorate

A more detailed description of point #3 can be found in the word "luciferin" (from the Latin word Lucifer), which speaks of any of various organic substances in luminescent organisms (like fireflies) that upon oxidation produce a virtually heatless light. So the next time you see a firefly, you can call it by its Latin name Lucifer.

When I checked my Dictionary of Proper Names and Places in the Bible, I could find no mention of the name Lucifer. According to the authors, the only three angels named in Scripture are Raphael (who is mentioned in the Apocrypha), Gabriel, and Michael (pp. xxix, xxx). So why would they leave Lucifer, undeniably a large part of the Christian tradition, completely out of the picture?

In his 1967 book A Dictionary of Angels, which probably names just about every angelic being known to religion, mythology and the occult, Gustav Davidson tells us that Lucifer is "erroneously equated with the fallen angel (Satan) due to a misreading of Isaiah 14:12." So why should we believe someone who is, by all indications, involved in magic and the occult, and is not a Christian? Well, just because someone may not agree with your theological viewpoint doesn't necessarily mean you should discount every single thing that person has to say. Christians all too often are guilty of doing this. This man has obviously spent a great deal of time researching the subject of angels, and we should not become guilty of trying to discredit the messenger because we disagree with the message (see Luke 7:33,34). We are to "test the spirits" and "prove all things."

There are, however, many other, more legitimate sources that do not recognize Lucifer as Satan. A short list would include Matthew Henry's Commentary, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, The Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and The Collegeville Bible Commentary, to name but a few.

SATAN, OR THE KING OF BABYLON?

When we look up the word Lucifer in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, before ever checking the Hebrew equivalent, we find the following statement:

Title applied to the King of Babylon.

Likewise, Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible gives us the following:

Lucifer, shining one. A translation of helel applied to the king of Babylon by Isaiah, in reference to his glory and pomp. BC720

Once again, we have no mention whatsoever of a once-perfect archangel, Satan, or the Devil. Why? Please take note to whom the passage in Isaiah 14 is primarily directed:

"That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!" (Verse 4 - KJV)

The whole chapter in Isaiah 14 appears to be nothing more than a taunt directed against the king of Babylon (probably Nebuchadnezzar), who is told that his pride and splendor would be brought down to the grave. So how (or why) did Lucifer become Satan? And is it possible that the king of Babylon is being used symbolically to describe Satan?

HOW LUCIFER BECAME SATAN: TWO POSSIBILITIES

As I was researching this issue, I came across something very unusual. Although the name Lucifer is used only once in the entire Bible, I actually found this word twice in The Englishman's Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament, rendered as such by two different Hebrew words. How can this be? Apparently, there seems to be some dispute over the original Hebrew word that is used here. According to the Englishman's Concordance, here are the two different renderings of the same Latin word Lucifer:

Heylel (Strong's H#1966): from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - Lucifer

Yalal (Strong's H#3213): to howl (with a wailing tone) or yell (with a boisterous one): - (make to) howl, be howling

The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names tells us the following:

Lucifer = Light bearer; the shining one; shining. Howling.

Now this is interesting. It appears as though the authors were unsure of which meaning to subscribe to Lucifer, so they used both. So how on earth does the word "howling" compare with one who is a light bearer, or a shining one?

If you compare the two Hebrew words heylel and yalal side by side (using Hebrew script) you will notice that they are very similar in appearance, the difference being only one character, or letter. So is it possible that the text may have been misread during the translation process? And if so, then why does there still appear to be some dispute over the meaning of this word even to this day? Let's examine both possibilities.

Lucifer (Yalal)

"How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations." (Isaiah 14:12 - Concordant Literal Version of the Old Testament)

In this version, the proud king is told to howl [yalal] (weep, wail, lament), for his pomp and splendor, like all other earthly rulers, will be brought down to the depths of Sheol [the grave], where the worms and maggots will feed upon his dead corpse (verse 11).

The Englishman's Concordance has this to say about the word yalal:

Isaiah 14:12. O Lucifer, son of the morning! (margin or, day star; perhaps, lit. Howl; see also heylel.

Many of our modern translations, such as the RSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, and NLT, have omitted the word Lucifer from the text and have instead opted for the word day star, or morning star. This has led many "King James only" enthusiasts to vehemently protest the change, since Christ Himself is also referred to as "the bright and morning star" (see Revelation 22:16). And I would have to agree with them, if indeed this passage is really referring to the fall of Satan. Trouble is, though, that it isn't. How on earth can this passage possibly be referring to Satan? Can physical worms and maggots feed upon an angelic spiritual being?

Here is an even better reason to reject the idea that a fallen archangel named Lucifer fell from glory and became the Devil:

"By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." (Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1)

Before doctrine can be established, two or three witnesses are needed. I would not want to speculate and come to the conclusion that Lucifer is the Devil based on a solitary verse of Scripture. "No prophecy of Scripture is its own interpretation [or explanation]" (II Peter 1:20).

So was Jerome wrong by using the Latin word Lucifer to describe the morning star? Not at all! You must remember that Lucifer is another name for the planet Venus, or the morning star. Jerome was being faithful to the text. The only thing in question is whether or not the text from which he was reading was being faithful to him...

A fellow brother in the Lord compiled the following list of the King James renderings of the word that is found in the Hebrew texts and transliterations of its various forms in every occurrence in the entire KJV Bible. Now you can be the judge. In all Hebrew of Aramaic texts of Isaiah 14:12, the only word found is "heh-lehl," eill, which, according to this source, is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill, meaning howl. Here is Kittel's Hebrew Text for the Hebrew Stem ill—"yah-lahl"— HOWL:

Isa. 13:6	eiliu	Howl ye
Isa. 14:31	eili	Howl
Isa. 15:2	iilil	shall howl
Isa. 15:3	iilil	shall howl
Isa. 16:7	iilil	howl
Isa. 16:7	iilil	shall howl
Isa. 23:1	eililu	Howl ye
Isa. 23:6	eililu	howl ye
Isa. 23:14	eililu	Howl ye
Isa. 52:5	eililu	make to howl
Isa. 65:14	eililu	shall howl
Jer. 4:8	ueililu	and howl
Jer. 25:34	eililu	Howl ye
Jer. 47:2	ueill	and shall howl
Jer. 48:20	eilili	howl
Jer. 48:31	ailil	will I howl
Jer. 48:39	eililu	They shall howl (lit: Howl ye)
Jer. 49:3	eilili	Howl
Jer. 51:8	eililu	howl
Ezek.30:2	eililu	Howl ye
Hos. 7:14	iililu	They howled
Joel 1:5	ueililu	and howl
Joel 1:11	eililu	howl
Joel 1:13	eililu	howl
Amos 8:3	ueililu	and shall be howlings
Micah 1:8	uailile	and howl
Zeph. 1:11	aililu	Howl ye
Zech.11:2	eill	Howl
Zech.11:2	eililu	howl
Isa. 14:12	eill	Lucifer (??)

I do not believe one has to be a Hebrew scholar to see at a glance that Lucifer is totally out of place in this list. The meaning of this word is clear; eill is a verb that means HOWL, and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as Lucifer. Professor Smith agrees:

"The other interpretation, which makes heylel an imperative of the verb yalal in the sense of "wail" or "lament" injures the parallelism, and is generally regarded as untenable." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 1688)

We have already witnessed how Paganism has had an enormous influence on the way we celebrate our traditional holidays. Now before we examine the Hebrew word heylel, we need to take a look at how the leaven of Pagan religious thought has also affected Christian theology.

ALSO SPRACHT ZARATHUSTRA

In the ancient land of Shinar (Babylon) there once lived a prophet by the name of Zarathustra, or more commonly known by his Greek name Zoroaster. The importance of Zoroastrianism lies in the enormous influence it has exercised on other religions, particularly upon Christianity, through the medium of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, who seem to have been thoroughly impregnated with Zoroastrian ideas, three of which include:

1. The immortality of the soul

2. The resurrection of the body

3. A Devil who works not as God's servant, but as His adversary.

Zoroastrianism's influence upon the Jewish sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be clearly seen in the Manual of Discipline, where we read that:

God created man to have dominion over the world and made for him two spirits, that he might walk by them until the appointed time of his visitation; they are the spirits of truth and of error... And by the angel of darkness is the straying of all the sons of righteousness... and all the spirits of his lot try to make the sons of light stumble; but the God of Israel and his angel of truth have helped all of the sons of light. For he created spirits of light and of darkness, and upon them he founded every work and upon their ways every service. One of the spirits God loves for all the ages of eternity, and with all its deeds he is pleased for ever; as for the other, he abhors its company, and all its ways he hates for ever. (Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1956, p. 374)

Here we find reproduced in a Jewish setting an exact replica of the Zoroastrian two Spirits, which sprang from God, with one crucial difference. In this account, God creates one of the Spirits evil, and quite illogically hates his own handiwork. This contradicts the words of Genesis 1:31, where:

"God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good."

With Zoroaster, however, it is implied that the Evil Spirit became evil by choice, which mirrors the "Lucifer fell" explanation given to us by Christian theologians. According to R.C. Zaehner, who was for years recognized as one of the world's foremost authorities on Zoroastrianism, "evil derives from the wrong choice of a free being who must in some sense derive from God, but for whose wickedness God cannot be held responsible." Now where have we heard that before?

As late as the seventh century AD Zoroastrianism was still the national religion of the Persian, or Sassanian, Empire. In order to proselytize the region, it is certain that the early Christian fathers incorporated some Zoroastrian theology into the church. In fact, many of these ancient teachings mirror those of today's fundamental Christianity, and can be summed up in five key points:

1. There is one true God who is the Creator of all things, both physical as well as spiritual.

2. God's creation is currently divided - Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, the Spirit of Truth vs. the Spirit of Error.

3. God created all of His creatures (both physical and spiritual) with free will - freedom to choose between the Truth and the Lie. The Destructive Spirit, who is described as the twin brother of the Holy Spirit, also chose of his own free will to do the worst things. [This is obviously a forerunner of both Christianity's "Lucifer fell" theory, as well as Mormonism's dualistic teaching that Lucifer and Jesus are spirit brothers.]

NOTE: Mormons teach that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from ancient Israeli gold plates (dating prior to the time of the Babylonian captivity) given to him by the angel Moroni. According to Mormon tradition, they were etched in Hebrew; the Latin language was unknown to the ancient Israelites. So the next time some Mormon missionaries pop by, ask them to explain how Joseph Smith came up with the Latin (not Hebrew) word Lucifer from these gold plates. When I posed this very question to a couple of their disciples, they could give me no answer, but still insisted that their Book of Mormon is true. Incredible! The mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.

4. A judgment by fire awaits all humanity in the last days.

5. Since the will of man is entirely free, he himself is responsible for his ultimate fate. Good deeds earn the righteous man Wholeness and Immortality, while the evil doer is condemned by his own conscience and a just God to the pains of hell.

Any open-minded, thinking person should be able to see that these five basic points of Zarathustra's teachings are the very fountainhead of modern Christian theology. And the church would find the concept of man's free will and the heavy burden of his moral responsibility to God as an effective (and profitable) means to further its control.

ENTER BABYLON

We have now seen how Persian religious thought had an affect upon both Judaism and Christianity. And it would be naïve to assume that the Babylonian captivity had little or no influence upon Jewish culture and religion as well. I imagine when Nebuchadnezzar and his army conquered the Jewish nation, a vast majority of them were all too eager to forsake the God of their fathers. "Why would a good God allow this to happen to us? Maybe our God is not as strong as the god (or gods) of the Babylonians." Besides, the Jews no longer had a temple in which to worship their God, for Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed it. I'm sure it didn't take much convincing to get the majority of the people to adapt to their new customs and religious devotions. And the worship of other gods can be made a whole lot easier when there is a gun to your head:

"Then a herald cried aloud: ‘To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that... you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up; and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.'" (Daniel 3:4-6)

And in the very next verse we read that "ALL the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshipped the gold image" [save three men]. And I am sure that most of you are familiar with the rest of the story...

After a period of 70 years the Jews were allowed to return to their homeland, thanks to King Cyrus of Persia, who conquered the Babylonians. What many people don't realize is that not all of them returned; in fact, the majority stayed in Babylon. After 70 years most all of the original captives would have died, or would have been too old to make the return trip home. The majority of the younger ones who were born in Babylon stayed and became prosperous members of their society [see A Survey of Israel's History, by Leon Wood]. From this point forward, for a period of some 1500 years (or better), there were more Jews living in Babylon than there were Jews living in Israel. Orthodox Jews are still, to this very day, devoted to the rabbinical work The Babylonian Talmud.

Lucifer (Heylel)

I have about a dozen different Bible translations, and every one of them (except the Concordant Version) uses the Hebrew word heylel in Isaiah 14:12. In Smith's Bible Dictionary, Vol. II, page 1688, we read the following:

Lucifer The name is found in Isaiah 14:12, coupled with the epithet "son of the morning," and (being derived from heylel "to shine") clearly signifies a "bright star," and probably what we call the morning star [or the planet Venus]. In this passage it is a symbolical representation of the king of Babylon, in his splendor and in his fall; perhaps also it refers to his glory as paling before the unveiled presence of God. Its application (from St. Jerome downwards) to Satan in his fall from heaven arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian Empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self-idolizing power, and especially connected with the empire of the Evil One in the Apocalypse. The fall of its material power before the unseen working of the providence of God is therefore a type of the defeat of all manifestations of the tyranny of Satan. This application of the name "Lucifer" as a proper name of the Devil, is plainly ungrounded; but the magnificence of the imagery of the prophet, far transcending in grandeur the fall of Nebuchadnezzar to which it immediately refers, has naturally given a color to the symbolical interpretation of the passage, and fixed that application in our modern language.

HEYLEL: A CANAANITE LEGEND!

The ancient Canaanites had a large pantheon of gods, chief of which was "El." The Dictionary of Bible and Religion (Abingdon Press, 1986) reveals that El is a common Semitic designation for God, or "a god," sharing the same ambiguity of other languages:

"In the patriarchal stories of Genesis, El of Canaan is freely identified with the God of Israel's ancestors, sometimes (as in Gen. 14:22 Jerusalem Bible) under the explicit Israelite name of YAHWEH. Usually El appears as part of a compound: El-Roi (Gen. 16:13), El-Shaddai (Gen. 17:1), etc. We are left to speculate whether the thought was that one El was venerated under various titles at various shrines, or that the El of one place was really a different deity from that of another - if, indeed, such questions were ever raised at the time. El, along with the longer form Elohim... provided an ecumenical means of referring to Israel's God when there was some need to avoid the name YAHWEH."

According to ancient Canaanite Ugaritic literature, El and his wife Ashtoreth (probably the "queen of heaven" mentioned in Jeremiah 7 & 44) had many children (about 70) who were gods themselves, the most important of which was "Baal." Scripture mentions Baal and Ashtoreth several times, most notably being the example in 1 Kings 18, where the prophet Elijah challenges 450 prophets of Baal, and 400 prophets of Ashtoreth (or Asherah). Two more of El and Ashtoreth's children were twins: Shahar and Shalim, brothers of Baal. In the Canaanite pantheon, Shahar was deemed god of the dawn, and his twin brother Shalim was god of the dusk. Shahar himself also had a son, Helel [you will note the similarity with the Hebrew heylel].

The ancient Canaanites believed that the planet Venus, when it appeared as a star in the morning, literally was Helel, son of Shahar, and the grandson of El. They worshipped Helel the morning star and considered him one of the more important gods.

Now let's take a look at various renderings of 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!"

(RSV) "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!"

(NIV) "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

(NASB) "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!"

Now, please examine carefully the underlined section in the Hebrew:

(KJV with Hebrew in bold) "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of Shahar! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Remember, Helel was the morning star, and his father Shahar was god of the dawn. Looking at this passage in context, and considering the beliefs of the audience, we can now understand what is going on in this passage. Isaiah is speaking to (and prophesying against) the proud Babylonian King, and is comparing him to the prominent Canaanite, or Babylonian god Helel! He did not intend "Satan" to be the subject of this verse, and it is a mistake to think so. The subject of this passage is clearly Helel - the morning star (or the planet Venus) in ancient Canaanite and Babylonian mythology.

The Collegeville Bible Commentary, by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota, 1989 (p. 426) agrees:

The taunt-song against the king of Babylon is famous for its comparison with "Lucifer, Son of the Dawn." The comparison is drawn from an ancient Canaanite myth, where Attar, the Daystar, tries to occupy the throne of Baal. The pattern of the story is a very popular one in the Bible. Whoever tries to rise too high will be cast down lowest of all. The same pattern can be found in Ezekiel 27 & 28. By contrast, the pattern is inverted in the case of Jesus, according to Philippians 2. Because He did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at, He received a name above every other name. The model of Lucifer can obviously be applied to many figures in history besides the king of Babylon. (Lucifer in this context is simply the Daystar, a heavenly being, but is not identified as Satan. This model, however, played a part in the popular legend of the fall of Satan from heaven, which was developed by John Milton in Paradise Lost.)

The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 5 (pp. 262-3) provides further confirmation:

The use in these verses of material derived from Canaanite myths is unmistakable, and the point is made that the meaning of what the tyrant has done is set forth in the myth of Helal, the Day Star, or "Lightgiver" (cf. Vulg. "Lucifer"), son of Shahar, or Dawn. It is a manifestation on earth of the ultimate conflict set forth in the myth in timeless terms. We know that there was a god Shahar in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology, the god of the dawn, or of the morning star, and "Helal son of Shahar" is mentioned apparently in one of the texts from the Ugarit. Another clearly mythological element is the mount of assembly [of the gods] in the far north, the point around where the constellations turned, where was located the summit of the heavenly mountain and the throne of the Most High (Ezekiel 28:14). The passage before us preserves the Canaanite form of a nature myth, telling of the attempt of the morning star to scale the heights of heaven, surpassing all other stars, only to be cast down to the earth by the victorious sun. This became in turn the story of the aspiring of a minor deity to reach the highest heaven where the supreme god dwelt in remote and lonely splendor, and finally the symbol of the ambition and downfall of an earthly monarch. He who has climbed so high will be cast down to the depths, or better, "the uttermost depths" of the Pit of Sheol.

So from where (or from whom) did the "Lucifer became Satan" doctrine originate? As we have just shown, it is nothing more than a Canaanite legend, a pagan myth, recycled by the early Catholic Church fathers in Christian terminology, apparently for the sake of winning proselytes. Jerome himself may not have accepted this idea, but may have been persuaded to do so from fear of persecution, just as he was in the case of renouncing Origen, the man that he once held in such high esteem.

CONCLUSION

Jesus plainly spoke of the devil when addressing the Pharisees:

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." (John 8:44)

"He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." (I John 3:8)

This idea that Satan was once in perfect union with God (as the archangel "Lucifer") contradicts a clear statement of our Lord Jesus, for He declared that the devil was a liar and a murderer from his inception, or from the beginning!

"By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." (Job 26:13 - KJV)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7 - KJV)

"Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

The Scriptures plainly teach us that God created everything, including the devil, and everything He made was very good!

"He has made everything beautiful in its time." (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

Those who have faith in God understand that the evil in which He has created is serving a large purpose during this present wicked age, which will eventually turn out for good!

"God knew that men would sin in all ways, but permitted this result to come to pass, knowing that it would ultimately be for their advantage. For since God created man when he did not exist, and made him ruler of so extended a system, and offered so great blessings for his enjoyment, it was impossible that He should have not prevented the entrance of sin if He had not known that it would be ultimately for his advantage. Therefore God divided the creation into two states, the present and the future. In the latter He will bring all to immortality and immutability. In the former He gives us over to death and mutability. For if He had made us at first immortal and immutable, we should not have differed from irrational animals, who do not understand the peculiar characteristics by which they are distinguished. For if we had been ignorant of mutability we could not have understood the good of immutability. Ignorant of death, we could not have known the true worth of immortality. Ignorant of corruption, we could not have properly valued incorruption. Ignorant of the burden of sinful passions, we could not have duly exulted in freedom from such passions. In a word, ignorant of an experiment of evils, we should not have been able properly to understand the opposite forms of good." - Theodorus of Mopsuestia (350-428 AD)

So why is the doctrine of the fabled fall of Lucifer so important to Christianity? Because it lends support to the illusion of man's free will, that's why. If Lucifer was able of his own free will to rebel against Almighty God, then it would stand to reason that we have also been given that ability as well. And it takes the onus from God, and lays it squarely upon the shoulders of mankind. Even though none of us were in the Garden of Eden, we have become just as guilty as if we were there. I even had someone once try to tell me that we WERE there (in spirit). Of course, this contradicts the Biblical teaching that the physical comes first, before the spiritual (see I Corinthians 15).

No, Lucifer was not some rebel angel who one day decided that he should sit in the place of God. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon once had this mindset, but soon learned a tough lesson in humility, and is now resting in his grave along with his contemporaries, awaiting the second resurrection to life. His reformed attitude bears repeating:

"And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever. For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand, or say to Him, ‘What have you done?'" (Daniel 4:34,35)

Nebuchadnezzar learned that ALL goes according to God's will. Man's will cannot be free, for it is always subject to God's will. ALWAYS!

"I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." (Job 42:2)

"Known to God from eternity are all His works." (Acts 15:18)

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure." (Isaiah 46:10)

Isn't it comforting to know that Love (a.k.a. God) is in control?

"Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? (Matthew 6:25,26)

It is sad that more people do not know of the love and the plan of God for His children. There would be a lot less clinical depression in the world today.

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (Matthew 11:28,30,29)

I pray that you also may find rest in the wonderful promises of Almighty God! Amen.

APPENDAGE: WHAT ABOUT EZEKIEL 28?

"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord God; Thou seal up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created. You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were upon the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the multitude of your merchandise they have filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore I will cast you as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I will cast you to the ground, I will lay you before kings, and they may behold you." (Ezekiel 28:12-17 - KJV)

This entire passage is undeniably rich in symbolism, and is described as a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, or Tyre (v. 12). Many theologians will be swift to point out the fact that the earthly king of Tyre was never with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (v. 13); therefore, it stands to reason that this passage refers (at least symbolically) to more than an earthly despot. The Amplified Bible offers the following explanatory footnote:

"This speech, though not addressed to Satan in and of himself, seems to be ironically spoken against his evil genius fulfilling itself in and through the human ruler who appropriates to himself the honors due only to God, as in the case of the Babylonian king (Isaiah 14:12-15)."

One must admit that this passage has a striking resemblance to the one in Isaiah, the main difference being that a different king is mentioned. So is it reasonable to assume that this passage is speaking of the fall of Satan, like many theologians would have us believe? Or does a closer examination in reality suggest something else? Let's "study to show ourselves approved" by taking a look at some of the symbolism involved and see if we can determine what the Spirit is trying to reveal to us:

Eden the garden of God: Not only was Eden the birthplace of mankind, Eden was also a town on the middle Euphrates River that was taken by the Assyrians (II Kings 19:12; Isaiah 37:12), and was engaged in prosperous trade relations with Tyre (see Ezekiel 27:23). "Eden" is also sometimes used as a symbolic representation of the land of Israel (Isaiah 51:3; Lamentations 2:6; Joel 2:3).

The mountain of God: The Hebrew word for mountain, or mount (Strong's H#2022) is indicative of Mt. Zion, or Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:2; Zephaniah 3:11).

The covering of precious stones most likely refers to the breastplate of precious stones on which the names of the twelve tribes were inscribed as seals (Exodus 28:9-21; 39:10-13). But it is also possible that the precious stones refer to the Torah, which is often evaluated and preferred to them.

Stones of fire may refer to the stones on the altar or to the entire Temple area itself (II Chronicles 3:6).

The anointed cherub that covers: The Hebrew may indicate that the King of Tyre (the anointed cherub) once served in some sort of a protective capacity (a "covering") for the nation of Israel:

Anointed (#4473): in the sense of expansion, outspread (i.e. with outstretched wings)

Cherub (#3712): of uncertain derivative; a cherub or imaginary figure

Covers (#5526): properly to entwine as a screen; by implication to fence in, cover over (figuratively) protect

Friendly relations between Tyre and Israel went as far back as the days of Kings David and Solomon, who purchased cedar from the Phoenician King Hiram for the building of the temple (I Kings 5:2-11). Tyre, which also had a formidable army (see Ezekiel 27:10), stood with Israel as an ally against both the Assyrians and the Babylonians (see Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel's History, pp. 359, 380).

After a thorough examination of this passage in context, we offer the explanation that Tyre, after its long and friendly association with Israel, became rich by its trade and haughty as a result. Tyre spurned this relationship with lowly Israel because its concern was to "heap up riches." It became corrupt in its trade until finally, in the person of one of its royal members, it was cast out of the Temple, and out of the land, which ended the long and friendly relationship between Judah and Tyre.

Tyre is also used as a symbolic representation of the Harlot Church, Babylon the Great, and her impending judgment [Compare Ezekiel 27 & 28 with Revelation 18].

Comments/Questions?

Home