Lucifer the light-bearer
By James M. West. Copyright © March 30, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
“I form the light, and create darkness…”
One of the favorite rumors that fundy
Christians like to spread against the Gnostics is that they supposedly worship
Lucifer the light-bearer. Supposedly Gnostics worship this secret fallen angel
of light who also challenged Jehovah in the form of the Serpent in the Garden
of Eden.
Now it is true that Gnostics typically
don’t regard the Serpent in
Certainly I cannot speak for all Gnostics
in regard to the “Lucifer” issue. I can only speak for myself and for what I
know about the Gnostic tradition and the history of religious ideas. I know for
a fact that “Lucifer” originally was the name of a god in ancient Roman
mythology. Lucifer was the son of the dawn goddess named
The biblical origin of Lucifer begins in
Isaiah 14:12, “How you are fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning!”
This quote is from the King James, but the Hebrew text says “How you have
fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn!” Note that the Hebrew text
does not contain the proper name of any god. I have been unable to determine if
the ancient Israelites actually identified the morning star with any angel or
god. Among Semitic cultures in general
the morning star was identified with the god Azizos (Azazel?). It is in
the Greek Old Testament that the morning star was first identified with the
name of a god. Apparently the words “son of the dawn” reminded the Hellenistic
Jewish translators of Eosphoros in Greek tradition. Eosphoros is the
Greek equivalent of Lucifer, and this was the source from which “Lucifer”
entered into both Latin and English translations of the Bible, in both the Old
and New Testaments (see below).
Having set forth some basic historical facts
(and theories) regarding this name, I want to talk about the role of Lucifer in
ancient Gnostic theology and myth. The simple fact here is that the Gnostics
never used the names “Lucifer” or “Eosphoros” (or Phosphoros) in the age in
which they lived. More important is that in the Gnostic scheme of the cosmos,
Lucifer, the planet “Venus”, was identified with the seven celestial archons
that governed the cosmos. The Gnostics regarded these as little more than
fallen angels or demons. This is a common pattern shared by all Gnostic
systems. Various Gnostic treatises provide lists of the seven powers that
govern the cosmos (e.g. Apocryphon of John, 10-11, On the Origin of
the World, 101). These names are meant to imply that the godhead of the Old
Testament is divided into seven powers that correspond (like the pagan gods) to
the seven days of the week. In the varying Gnostic lists it appears that the
sixth power is named after “Adonin” or “Oraios”, or also: Oreus (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, 1.30.11). The Anglican scholar Wigan Harvey identified the name
Oreus as meaning “Light” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 355, fn. 1; cf.
Origin of the World, 101). If this is correct then I believe it’s
probable that the names Oreus/Oraios may be an obscure reference to the
“light-bearer.” In the Apocryphon of John this may correspond to
“Adonin” which is given as the name of the sixth power (ibid., 10-11).
The essential point I’m trying to make is
that “Lucifer” is a name for one of the planets which the Gnostics identified
with the celestial archons. The Gnostics did not identify these archons with
the Godhead. In Gnostic myth these powers guarded the celestial spheres that
the soul had to travel through in order to return to the Pleroma. These archons
were considered to be the servants of the cosmic villain Yaldabaoth. Later, in
the Middle Ages, the Gnostic Cathars identified the Rex Mundi (world
ruler) as Lucifer. It is highly significant that the Cathars regarded Lucifer
as the Enemy, and as the evil god behind the papal theocracy (Edward Peters, Heresy
and Authority in Medieval Europe, pg. 133f. W. Barnstone, M. Meyer, The
Gnostic Bible, pg. 733f.).
Historically the Gnostics had no concept
of the “morning star” in their symbolism. There is no “light-bearer” in ancient
Gnostic tradition. If Gnostics today refer to Lucifer or the “light-bearer”
then this is pure hyperbole. In modern Gnostic circles Lucifer is often
equated with Prometheus. In Greek mythology Prometheus was a light-bearer
who brought the knowledge of fire to humans in order to raise them from their
impoverished condition. Zeus became jealous because the knowledge of
fire-making, and other skills and arts, had been given to Humans. This is the
common motif that is behind the concept of Lucifer today among Gnostics and
atheists. Hence Lucifer-Prometheus is not an evil being. He is an enlightened
rebel who opposes the jealousy and severity of Zeus/Jehovah. In this context
Jesus, in the Gnostic tradition, can be compared to Lucifer-Prometheus. In like
manner Jesus brings the Light/Knowledge of the Pleroma down to human kind. Now
again, in comparing Jesus to Lucifer-Prometheus I’m describing a modern
metaphor that I have heard used by other Gnostics. The ancient Gnostics
never made this comparison in any extant text; nor do the Catholic Fathers ever
accuse the Gnostics of revering Lucifer, or of identifying Jesus with Lucifer –
either as a metaphor, or as literal doctrine.
Now some fundies may answer me by saying
that the ancient Gnostics did not mention Lucifer because they kept it secret
and that this was the Gnostic “arcanum arcanorum.” I have two answers to
this: 1) The Gnostic contempt for Jehovah was a poorly kept secret; and I think
that the case can be made that the Gnostics did a poor job of keeping any
of their secrets. 2) My second answer is that the Gnostics would have no reason
to keep anything secret that their “orthodox” Christian counterparts used
openly anyway. And this is where we come to the real irony of the history of
Lucifer. In contrast with the Gnostics, the “orthodox” Christians did have
their own “morning star” and “light bearer.” And these symbols appear in
sources that were not used in Gnostic tradition. If fundies want to use the
name “Lucifer” as the name of Satan, and as a label for people like me, then it
is only fair to point out that this label works both ways.
Incredibly, Lucifer the light-bearer does
appear in “orthodox” Christian tradition, and in the canon. He appears in the
Latin and Greek texts of 2 Peter 1:19. Here is the Latin text of the passage
side by side with Isaiah 14:12 where the word “Lucifer”–the name of Satan–also
occurs.
Isaiah 14:12,
“Quomodo cecidisti de
caelo LUCIFER qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas
gentes.”
2 Peter 1:19b,
“…
quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et LUCIFER
oriatur in cordibus vestris.” (See below for English translation.)
These passages can be accessed online at
this link http://www.drbo.org/lvb/
Now, in making sense of this issue I am
raising questions about how Fundies read and translate the scriptures, and not
the history behind what these scriptures say. Fundies call Gnostics
“Luciferians” and that “Lucifer” is the name of Satan. Fundies will even cite
Isaiah 14:12 which for them proves that “Lucifer” is the name of Satan. And yet
here this same evil name is used in a positive way in the New Testament. The
reason we find the name Lucifer in the Latin text of 2 Peter
The fact that Greeks and Romans
identified Lucifer and Phosphoros as the same god can be seen most dramatically
in this passage from the famous Roman statesman and orator Cicero, from his
treatise On the Nature of the Gods:
“The
lowest of the five wandering stars, and the one nearest the earth, is the
planet of Venus, which is called Φωσϕόρος
(Phosphoros –jw) in Greek, and Lucifer in Latin, …it completes its course in a
year, traversing the zodiac both latitudinally and longitudinally, as is also
done by the planets above it, and on whichever side of the sun it is, it never
departs more than two signs’ distance from it. (21) This constancy, then, among
the stars, this marked agreement of times through the whole of eternity, though
the movements are so various, I cannot understand as existing without mind and
reason and forethought, and since we find that these qualities are possessed by
the heavenly bodies, we cannot but assign to those bodies themselves their
place among the number of divine beings.” (De Natura Deorum, 2:20-21)
This passage can be seen online text at
the following link
“We have also a more sure word of
prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth
in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the day star (Phosphoros)
arise in your hearts. (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost.”
http://www.greekbible.com/index.php
This passage warns against the method of
reading private esoteric interpretations into scripture, as is done through the
allegorical method. I believe this passage is aimed at Gnostics; and the verse
which follows appears to be an attack on the Gnostics “But there were false
prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among
you, who secretly shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord
that bought them…” (2 Peter 2:1; emphasis added.)
2 Peter portrays “Phosphoros” as a symbolic adversary of the heretics
(Gnostics) who secretly brought in heretical teachings. Here “Phosphoros” is
the light bearer who symbolizes the true understanding of prophecy, and the
proper use of the prophetic spirit (i.e. the “Holy Ghost”). It is incredible to
me that this name “Phosphoros”, which is a name for Satan, can be used in a
passage as a symbol of the truth of the Holy Spirit. What can the name of a
pagan celestial deity possibly have in common with the Holy Spirit? The meaning
is that if the Christian reads Bible prophecy in light of the Holy Ghost who
inspired those scriptures, then “Phosphoros” will rise in the hearts of the
readers. I don’t know of any Gnostic writings that blaspheme this bad! I’m a
Gnostic, and this is offensive even to me!
Now in fairness to all Christians,
including fundies, I do want to point out that 2 Peter was widely rejected
among early “orthodox” Christians. This fact is reported by the Church
historian Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History, 3.3.1). Any intelligent
reader can see that this text was not written by Peter, and is a poorly
contrived forgery. The fraudulent nature of the text appears most obvious in
chapter 3, where the author addresses a crisis which could have occurred only
after all the Apostles had died – and Jesus had not yet returned before the end
of the age as prophesied. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus repeatedly promises
Peter and the other disciples that he will return before the end of their “generation”
(e.g. Matthew 10:23, 16:8, 24:34); whereas in 2 Peter, “Peter” tells his
readers that a “day with the Lord is as a thousand years” meaning obviously
that the end is not coming at the end of Peter’s generation (2 Peter 3:8, cf.
Mt. op. cit.). Certainly this is not what Jesus promised to Peter in Matthew. Our
author “Peter” also refers to Paul’s letters as “scripture” (2 Peter
In Eusebius’s day many “orthodox”
Christians believed that 2 Peter was a forgery that did not belong in the
Canon. This text is not quoted in any Gnostic tradition at all. (On the
historical record 2 Peter does not appear until the third century with Cyprian
and Origen, and the latter mentions that the epistle was disputed; Eusebius,
ibid., 6:25; Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 133 fn. 4,
273.)
There is yet another book in the New
Testament that makes subtle references to Lucifer, and with stunning
theological implications. I refer to the Revelation of John. This book has a
significant theme regarding the “morning star.” Here “Jesus” says cryptically
to his readers among the seven churches that He will give them the
“morning star” (Rev. 2:28). And then, at the end, in Revelation
Of special note is that the words “bright
morning star” run parallel to the terminology in the Hebrew text of Isaiah
14:12 where the word “Heylel” is used (הֵילֵל).
Heylel literally means bright morning star (Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance, Hebrew/Chaldee Lex. #1966, cf. #1984). Among the Greek
speaking Christians in the Greek cities such as
So, in the Revelation (Apocalypse) of
John “Jesus” is revealing an important secret to this writer: He is essentially
saying to him that “I am Lucifer.” Again, in the time period and culture in
which the Revelation of John was written, it was common knowledge that the
morning star was named Lucifer or Phosphoros. The Revelation of John makes a
connection between Jesus and Lucifer. And the Greek wording for “bright morning
star” runs parallel with the Hebrew, as I have shown above. Compound this with
the fact that in the Latin Vulgate the translator Jerome has no scruple about
using the name “Lucifer”–the name of Satan–in both Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter
1:19. This leads me to raise the question of whether, perhaps, there was some
Luciferian cabal within early Christianity. On top of this is that there was an
“ultra-orthodox” Catholic priest named after Lucifer (i.e. Lucifer of
Why is early Christian “orthodoxy” so at
ease with the name of Lucifer? Can all this simply be a coincidence? It seems
to me that the name and legacy of Lucifer is branded on both the “orthodox”
canon and the “tradition” that follows it. By comparison I search in vain for references
to Lucifer in ancient Gnostic writings or traditions.
This whole predicament is created by the
fact that Fundy Christians believe that there is an evil being named “Lucifer.”
And this is compounded by the fact that Fundies place their faith and hopes on
dubious books like 2 Peter and the Revelation of John. The Church historian
Eusebius points out that the Revelation of John was also rejected by many early
Catholics (Church History, 3.25, 28; 5.25). Scholar Bruce Metzger
documents the fact that the Revelation of John was absent from many early canon
lists in the Catholic Church (B. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament,
pg. 209f.). Anyone with common sense would of course reject and condemn the
Revelation of John. The most obvious reason is that the Revelation of John
contains prophecies which are obviously false. This problem appears right away
in the opening sentence: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto
him, to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass...for
the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:1-3. Emphasis added). Let us note also the words
of “Jesus” in Rev. 22:12 and 20 “Behold, I come quickly” and also “Surely, I
come quickly.” Yeah right!
I thank God that this book of dark
prophecies is false. But that doesn’t make the threat go away. Fundies believe
in this book, and with all their hearts they want the terrible events in this
book to come to pass. They believe that this fulfillment will validate their
beliefs and somehow add something to their empty lives. The Fundies will no
more let go of this book, and the lies that are in it, then they will let go of
the delusion that “Lucifer” is the name of the devil. The reality of course is
that there was no wicked “Lucifer” in early Christianity. This is why Lucifer’s
name appears in Christian tradition: because the gentile church assigned no
significance to it – and neither did the Gnostics. Thus when fundies
rant about “Lucifer” today, they are in fact casting a shadow on the “orthodox”
Christians who came before them.
Now of course I am telling only one side
of the story. It would seem simple enough for an intelligent person to admit
that there is no evil being named Lucifer. Lucifer is just a name from ancient
Roman mythology. Lucifer is not even one of the major gods; he is a minor god.
This being said, there is another crowd of people out there, profoundly
different from the fundies, but who also profess some belief or doctrine
regarding Lucifer. Here is an example from the famous New Age pioneer and founder
of the Theosophical Society, Helena Blavatsky:
“In
this case it is but natural–even from the dead letter standpoint–to view Satan,
the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of
Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light”, bright
radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah…” And
also: “And now it stands proven that Satan, or the Red Fiery Dragon, the “Lord
of Phosphorus” [2 Peter
My personal opinion regarding this
passage is as follows: I believe that the most dangerous lies are the ones that
have some element of truth in them. Blavatsky’s statements above are a
dangerous misrepresentation of something that is true.
On the other hand, I don’t see anything in Blavatsky’s
remarks that are any worse than what is said in 2 Peter 1:19. In 2 Peter
The implications of these passages become
even more interesting when we look at them in light of the “orthodox” Apostolic
Tradition. According to Tradition Peter and John were fellow
Apostles, and Paul names them as the “pillars” of the
As I look over these facts, and how
fundies want to interpret them, I must admit that Christian fundamentalism can
be regarded as a species of Theosophy on par with the Theosophical Society. The
Theosophists believe that Satan is really a good entity whose real name is
Lucifer. In a similar way, fundy Christians refuse to accept the good Father of
Jesus Christ and proclaim instead that the supreme God is Jehovah, who in turn
admits himself to be the creator of evil: “I form the light and create
darkness, I make peace, and create evil…” (Isaiah 45:7) Yet in the Apostles we
read: “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5); and Jesus
himself proclaimed: “O righteous Father, the world hath not known you.” Both
John the Apostle and John the Baptist agree that “No man has seen God at any
time.” (Jn.
When all of this information is put
together what else can we do but conclude that fundy Christians themselves
reject the truth of the Gospel and worship Lucifer? It is not my belief that
Lucifer exists. This is what the fundies and the Theosophists agree on. Fundies
also insist on believing in the false prophecies of Revelation and wishing for
the most ugly things. Fundy Christians willfully believe in lies, and their
Savior is Lucifer. I think there is room for criticism of the Theosophists as
well. I find it incredible that Helena Blavatsky believes that she can do
justice to the truth with names like “Satan” and “Lucifer” and the “Lord of
Phosphorus.” It is ironic to see this thread of spiritual poverty that runs
through the center of Blavatsky’s tremendous erudition.
The lesson to be learned in all this is
that Lucifer is a false-god. Lucifer is a symbol of misguided dreams, false
hopes, and intellectual vanity. –jw
Note on the Naassenes
1] There was one Gnostic sect which was
known for revering the “serpent.” This sect was known as the “Ophites” or the
Naassenes (NAAS is transliterated from the Hebrew word for “serpent” nachash:
הנחש). The Catholic
Father Hippolytus reported at length on the Naassenes in his treatise The
Refutation of All Heresies, 5:1-5. In this lengthy report Hippolytus could
provide no evidence that the Naassenes derived their doctrine of the Serpent
from Genesis. Hippolytus reports on another sect called the Peratea, which
based its doctrine of the serpent on John 3:14 where Jesus said “As Moses
lifted up the Serpent, so the Son of man must be lifted up; that whoever shall
believe in him shall have eternal life” (ibid.,
Among
Gnostic systems in general there is no consensus that the serpent in the garden
is divine or good. This is a popular myth that is based on the scurrilous
accusations of the Catholic Fathers who compare Gnostic systems, and gnosis,
with the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge in
E-mail Jim West:
ogdood@yahoo.com