Lucifer

-Rev. Melissa Fain-

:Perhaps you've been watching your favorite sexy devil in Lucifer, or maybe you are more old school, like me, and take a page (literally if you look above) from Dante's inferno. Either way, we all have an image that comes to mind when we think of what the devil is supposed to look like. It seems our imaginations go all over the place when we try to picture an adversary to God. I used to have nightmares about Tim Curry's adaptation in Legend. Meanwhile, George Burns' doppelganger in the Oh God franchise made me laugh.

Yet are any of these images biblical?

Many have heard the phrase:

"The biggest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Or, how about this one:

"The devil made me do it."

I hate these phrases because they take away personal accountability. It's too easy to just blame everything on the devil and never take responsibility for the sins of the self. It's dangerous, but what I find even more dangerous is our instance to believe the "Lucifer" story at all.

Now, before I continue, I'm being very specific about the titles. I've talked numerous times about Satan. Legally Speaking, being the most widely read. I've also talked about Azazel and the Scapegoat a couple of times. Most recently being last week. Yet, until today, I've never ever mentioned Lucifer. Why? That answer is multifaceted:

1. Lucifer is only found once in the entirety of the bible. Not only is it found once, it is only found in one translation of all the English translations. The KJV. You know, there is something else that is only mentioned only once in the KJV... unicorns. Unless you are going to see Noah's Ark in Kentucky, it doesn't bode well for this title.
2. The scripture in question is talking about a Babylonian King and the word is not a proper name. It only takes Psalm 136 to realize the Israelite people and the Babylonians were not friends. The Babylonians displaced the Hebrew people in a foreign land. Considering the Israelites believed their God resided in the temple, this meant they were taken from their land and their God. There are three kinds of biblical Prophets: pre-exile, during exile, and post exile. (With most being in the prior two.) Isaiah is different in that he is all three. Isaiah has some very strong words for a specific king of Babylon, who remains nameless: "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) The Hebrew word in question that KJV translates as "Lucifer" is better translated to mean "day star" or "light bringer." This term would be like us talking about a famous actor who falls from grace. A fallen star? Sounds familar? This is how the term is being used to talk about this king.
3. To accept Lucifer it requires Frankensteining scripture together. Hey, it's October. Besides the devil, what screams Halloween more than Frankenstein? Lucifer is both. I know a thing or two about reading between the lines, and gleaning knowledge by connecting texts. In many cases it's a great way to understand a text better, or at least make one think more about what they are reading. In some cases, it's dangerous. To make Lucifer a fallen angel, one has to connect a specific scripture to the Isaiah scripture: Luke 10:18. "He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning," (NRSV). Four problems with connecting this scripture to the Isaiah scripture:
     1. Lightening and a star are two very different things. When Jesus makes connections, it is very intentional. Often times down to the very words in previous scripture. We don't have those kinds of connections here.
       2. This scripture is about a prophecy, not a reminder of what has happened. Let's remember, according to Luke, Jesus spars with Satan in the wilderness. You can't talk about Satan still being the accuser if Satan is still playing the role given to Satan in the divine council. Putting it in context to the verses around Luke 10:18, he's telling what will happen, not what has happened.
       3. If it's not a prophecy, he could be talking about the king of Babylon and calling him Satan. We know he's used the term on a human before, as he had called Peter, Satan.
        4. At the end of the day, Lucifer is still not a proper name. 
4. To accept Lucifer as the fallen Angel it requires Frankensteining some scary extra-biblical texts.  Tell me if this story rings a bell: There's this godly character who wants to unseat the ultimate god. This character forms a plan to do that and he is thrown into an underworld when his plan does not come to fruition. You may think I'm talking about Lucifer, but I'm actually summarizing a Canaanite story about Baal and the Morning Star (also known as Venus.) From the time the exiled Israelites created a golden calf, there was always a push to keep Baal out of our worship of God. Yet here it is. To make the story work we have to, on some level, accept Baal. This is the most condemning point for why we need to let the Lucifer story go. When we do accept it, we are playing with idol worship with the fallen angel story, and we need to let it go.

Look, while I am suggesting Lucifer is not a fallen angel, I'm not suggesting evil doesn't exist. Evil is real, and lives in all of us. We can't help it. Anyone who suggests they are as pure as the driven snow is lying. We all fall short of the glory of God. All means all. We should be wary of the devil within us. We are all fallen stars. I want us to see the darkness within ourselves, so we can better care for the light that also resides within us all. 

---

We will be at The Daily Grind this Sunday at 2pm for our livecast! We would love to see you. If you can't be there in person, show up online on our Facebook page.