On Lucifer, or Why the Nuance of Language and Historical Context Matters
Some of you may know that Lucifer’s introduction into Christian waters may have sprung forth from a very specific translation of an even more specific verse in the Bible, Isaiah 14:12:
"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!" KJV
This verse is a small part of a chapter that could refer to several different figures, including Sargon II, Nebuchadnezzar II, and assorted kings relevant to the time of the Prophet Isaiah.
There are several variations of this verse across time, but both the 4th century Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome of Stridon, and the Greek Septuagint render this verse in a very particular way, both with similar meanings.
The Vulgate translation includes "Lucifer" as a sort of placeholder word for what would have rendered in Hebrew as the title for the planet Venus, "Morning Star" or "Son Of Morning": הילל בן שחר (Hêlêl ben Šāḥar). The Septuagint also renders this phrase as Ἑωσφόρος, Heosphoros, which can be rendered as "morning star" or "dawn bringer."
Both Lucifer (Luciferus) and Heosphoros (Eosphorus/Phosphoros) are entities within Roman and Greek lore tied to the planet Venus and to the coming of dawn with the rising of the "morning star." Ovid speaks of Lucifer within his Metaphorphoses as the son of Aurora:
Metamorphoses 2. 112 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) : "Aurora (the Dawn) [Eos], watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stellae (Stars) [Astra] took flight, in marshalled order set by Lucifer [Eosphoros] who left his station last."
Though little exists of Lucifer within Roman myth, the title itself and further appearances of Lucifer in astronomical references and personified instances of prose often lends more credence to his continued characterization as a deity. Phosphoros, according to Ovid's Metamorphoses, would even be considered the father of Daedalion, a figure relevant to the history of Apollon and his ties to the hawk.
Lucifer and Phosphoros being so closely tied to the planet Venus opens up an entirely different path that I may discuss in a later post, but the motif of Venus (the Morning Star) "falling" from heaven as it travels across the sky is one that has many, many sources and variations across many different cultures.
But why does this matter?
Lucifer as a name for the Devil or Satan was very likely drawn from this very verse, and subsequently, Lucifer as "The Morning Star" has spawned many popular media appearances, including literary classics such as John Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante Aligheri's famous Divine Comedy. The idea of Lucifer as a fallen angel also stems from this verse; early Christian writers and theologians linked this verse in Isaiah with another in Luke 10, verse 18:
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
Other early writers such as Origen of Alexandria and Tertullian equated this idea of a heavenly being "falling" from heaven or being cast out to the Devil as his own entity, but "Lucifer" as a name or title was never seen in reference to this version of the Devil despite Latin being a common language between many writers at the time.
"Morning Star" is also a phrase used more than once in the Bible, but only once replaced with "Lucifer" in the book of Isaiah. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus refers to himself as the Morning Star:
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
Does this mean that Jesus and Lucifer are connected? Not necessarily. Pointing back to the motif of Venus/the Morning Star rising and falling, and taking into account the deliberate usage of Lucifer in Isaiah and exclusion of it in Revelation, this seems more like a promise of return; the assurance that Morning Star would rise again as it had before, or even the assurance of a sort of salvation before the supposed end of days.
How did Lucifer end up as an infernal divine being or demon, and why is he considered a fallen angel? How did he become associated with pride and beauty?
We've already talked about the theme of falling from heaven as seen in the book of Isaiah and Luke, and we've seen how different writers and translators equated this theme to the Devil or Satan.
Augustine of Hippo believed that Pride was the original sin. In his works, he concluded that Pride had to have existed for Envy to have ever come about; he also believed that the Devil's rebellion against God was the root of all sin and evil, and that the Devil's inherent Pride is his downfall. He concluded that anyone who turned away from God or "fell" away from his presence was in the presence of the Devil.
Though Lucifer as a name was never applied here, the game of historical telephone had already begun. Some writers and theologians, including Martin Luther, directly opposed the idea that the verse was written in reference to the Devil at all, or that "Lucifer" could be anything other than a title for the Babylonian King that Isaiah had been addressing. Others, such as Peter Binsfield, began to add to the idea that Lucifer was a demonic entity associated with Pride.
The idea of a fallen angel, cast out from heaven for rebelling against God, may also stem from the story of the Watchers in the first part of the Book of Enoch. Though the Book of Enoch is rarely accepted as canonical, the thematic impact is widespread; Angels choose to offer forbidden gifts to men and proliferate among them, directly going against the will of God and bringing about the destruction of both their offspring and men as a result. The Watchers, once assigned to be protectors of humanity, are referenced once in the Book of Daniel and never again in the canonical Bible. Some draw parallels between the Watchers and Prometheus, which also lends to another characterization of Lucifer as an analogue of Prometheus himself; Milton's Paradise Lost has been discussed as a sort of source for this parallel, accused by some writers as giving Lucifer more favorable and appealing traits overall.
Lucifer appears as a demonic entity in later occult writings such as the Grimoirium Verum, which also contains a supposed sigil needed to invoke him that is still commonly believed to be his sigil today:
The Grimorium Verum places him as a "superior" of Spirits, or "Devils" as mentioned in a sort of vague synoptic preface of the grimoire. Beelzebub and Astaroth are cited as the other two superiors he works alongside or in conjunction with; the French Livre des Esperitz also lists Lucifer as first in a supposed hierarchy of Hell, detailing each demon's appearance and how many demons work beneath their rule.
Most notably, the Liber Officiorum Spirituum, a common source for works such as the Ars Goetia and Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, also lists Lucifer as one of "three devils" alongside Ba'al and Satan, though it's important to note that only derived texts and partial manuscripts of this source have ever been located. The original is nowhere to be found, and its subsequent offshoots or inspired offspring sometimes omit Lucifer entirely.
The most commonly cited Ars Goetia or Lesser Key of Solomon never mentions him in its individual listings, but references him only in the entries for Paimon and Belial. Paimon is declared to be very loyal to Lucifer, and Belial is said to have been created second in succession after Lucifer.
This is absolutely not an exhaustive list of grimoires or their sources; one of the the most common bonds between them, The Key of Solomon, does not list any demons or spirits and maintains an emphasis on working magic through the power of God and ridding the practitioner of sin or evil after each invocation or "experiment."
Why should any of this matter to me?
Lucifer's presence in modern Christianity is so prevalent that it's nearly impossible to separate the two, but there's a lesson to be found in doing so and examining him as an entity with a critical eye. Religious, witchy, or otherwise on a research rabbit hole, you've likely come across all sorts of assertions. The effect of Christianity on Lucifer's image is undeniable; his role in infernal-leaning practices is so widespread that some may believe there's no separating him from Hell or demonic imagery. The lack of concrete myth only adds to this overall air of mystery and lends even more to the idea of Lucifer as a shadowy, unknowable figure filled with forbidden knowledge, or of an angel scorned by the divine for his pride and confidence. His name, Light-Bringer, is as inspiring as it is divisive at times. Is it literal, or is it a metaphor for the stars or for something even deeper?
For those of us who grew up in heavily Christian households, specifically American Christianity and its many offshoots that are often extremely conservative and known for their fear tactics, Lucifer can be a major source of confusion and anxiety. I grew up Southern Baptist; I have a deeply-ingrained memory of sitting in the pews at church, digging my nails into the blue cushions as the preacher gave us his most theatrical interpretation of the End of Days. Lucifer, he said, was always tempting us. Always looking to bring us down. The Morning Star was a beautiful and handsome devil who was in every nook and corner, ready to drag us straight to hell with whatever sin was trendy in the day. I wondered why we sang hymns that praised "the bright and morning star" when the preacher himself said Lucifer was the Morning Star to be detested. I now associate Lily of the Valley with Lucifer as a sort of ironic testament to this, both the flower and the hymn despite the hymn being completely unrelated, and so much of my imagery devoted to Lucifer bears the marks of my experiences in church. Stained glass, worn leather book covers, the sound of an upright piano playing ever-so-slightly out of tune in a church devoid of worshipers.
All this to say it's okay to overlap. It's okay to intersect. It's okay if our paths never converge and it's okay if your path completely veers from any relevant perspective; Lucifer is as mysterious as you make him, and yet he's indecipherable. He's an almost liminal entity with no one perfect interpretation, caught between historical precedence and anecdotal attributions, and there are so many missing parts to such a vast puzzle that we may never see the full picture. The images we are gifted are often so personal that no one worshiper or practitioner will ever have the same experience.
My most important takeaway here is that we cannot assert we are more correct than any one practitioner; the best we can do is offer what we do know, which in actuality is very little. It's important to combat assertions and misinformation where we see it without demeaning or belittling those who may have come to him from sources very different than ours. Call out cultural appropriation where you see it, offer sources and texts when you can, and most importantly, be kind when others need it. This whole experience is a labyrinth, and no one passage or tunnel leads to the same lobby despite how many times we may pass by each other in the dark. Share your torches, share his light.
Should any of the linked websites prove to be appropriation, problematic, or otherwise be broken links, please feel free to inform me as I chose some linked Bible verses based on whichever websites appeared first as I searched the individual verses and different translations or were already cited within certain articles.
Thanks for reading. If there's interest, I may make an eventual sequel to this post concerning the misconceptions about Lucifer, the Devil, Satan, and other figures often incorrectly conflated across American Christianity and modern magical practice.
dailybridgerton
discoholicmusic
janainaart
gummygunk
yousharknotpass
