top of page

Reinterpreting Matthew 7:13-14: A Personal Reflection of the Middle Path Between Lucifer and Satan

PART 2 OF 2

Satan
Lucifer


In my last blog, I discussed the philosophy of navigating the “Middle Path” in relation to Matthew 7:13. This a topic of great personal significance to me because during the defamation trial in which the Kidney Cult leader, David McKay, accused me of worshipping the devil, he cross examined me at length over this verse. Whilst I had explained myself numerous time in the lead up to the court case, he did not understand what I was saying, and to the best of my knowledge, still does not.


The concept is quite simple: in modern Christian traditions, the Trinity (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) is presented as having a single evil opponent: Satan, also known as the devil or Lucifer. I disagree with this being accurate depiction early Christian beliefs. Moreover, I believe that evil does not come in a single form.


My understandings are significantly influenced by Steiner philosophy, however, I never reply upon a single source for any guidance; I explore many alternative perspectives and it just so happens that I think Steiner was right about this one.


A Brief Introduction to Steiner’s Teachings


Steiner’s teachings of Satan revolve around the idea that evil is composed of three entities. The first is Lucifer (a name derived from the Latinised version of the Hebrew expression “the morning star”; or “Day Star, son of Dawn”). The second is Ahriman (a name borrowed from Zoroastrian traditions for the opponent of the great creator Godhead, Ashura Mazdā). The third is Sorath (a name derived from the Hebrew letters of Samech (60), Wav (6), Raish (200) and Tav (400); the number values of the name equal 666).


God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are a trinity of goodness. Conversely, Lucifer, Ahriman, and Sorath are a trinity of evil. Central to Steiner’s philosophies is a nemphasis that Christ is the way, the truth, and the light to avoiding sinister influence.


Steiner describes Lucifer as a spiritual being promoting enlightenment, individuality, and artistic creativity, associated with excessive pride and egoism. Personally, I envision this description as aligning with contemporary notions of narcissism; psychology recognises there is a healthy level of narcissism which helps to foster individuality and self respect, but when taken to extremes it becomes an abusive trait.


Ahriman represents materialism, intellectualism, and technological advancement, leading to excessive rationality and rigid thinking. My understanding of this form of evil is that it exemplifies total materialism that is notable in greed for money and disrespect for the environment.


Another difference between Ahriman and Lucifer is that one represents excessive spiritualisation, a head-in-the-clouds kind of thinking that is devoid of scientific and rational reasoning, while the other is excessively attached to the earthly realm.


Sorath, less discussed, is seen as a force of pure evil, a combination of Luciferian and Ahriman forces that fosters chaos and destruction. Steiner emphasised the need for balance, warning against the extremes each being represents, advocating for spiritual and moral development to navigate their influences.


Playing Devil’s Advocate, Excuse the Pun


Steiner’s descriptions of evil being definable by the terms Lucifer, Ahriman, and Sorath may not sit well with some. Nonetheless, regardless of what names are used, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Early Christians did not view Lucifer and Satan in the same manner as most contemporary Christians.


There is no absolute consensus on how early Christians viewed demonology. In broad terms, some people believed that demons entered the body through foods that were eaten (meat products and vegetables that grew underground were common culprits), or through interacting with others who were affected, or by engaging in certain activities (like sex). Ideas pertaining to what evil spirits were was largely influenced by pre-exiting religious beliefs.


As Christianity spread, it amalgamated with the language and customs of the people who converted to it. (“God is Wandjina” demonstrates how this happened in some circumstances.) If all the layers are peeled back, Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and traditional Jewish demonology is not the same as contemporary Christianity. In brief, Jewish demonology portrays demons as part of a broader cosmology, without the same dualistic battle between good and evil central to Christian thought (which it could be argued came from Zoroastrian influences).


"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist”

The above quote, or words to that effect, have been uttered for at least a few hundred years. If one were to consider the prospect of multiple evil deities, then convincing the word that only one form of evil exists may be viewed as most treacherous. After all, a half truth is often more danger than a complete lie.


A Closer Examination of Lucifer and Satan in Judeo-Christian History


The Bible is a complex and multifaceted text, rich with stories, teachings, and symbolic figures. The figures of Lucifer and Satan potentially being the most often misunderstood. While many modern Christians conflate the two, I believe the early Christianity held a more nuanced perspective. Descriptions of Lucifer and Satan in the Bible reflect different types of sinister behaviour, and it wasn't until after Jerome's compilation of the Vulgate Bible (in the 4th century) that the lines between these entities began to blur.


While I came to first explore this notion through Steiner, many others who have no affiliation with his philosophies have come to the same conclusion. For example, in a recent YouTube, Dan McClellan, an academic Bible historian, makes similar comments about early Christians viewing Lucifer and Satan differently to most modern followers.


Lucifer And Satan


Lucifer: The Morning Star


The name "Lucifer" appears in the Old Testament, specifically in Isaiah 14:12, which reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" The term "morning star" (translated into Latin as Lucifer) refers to a Babylonian king who, in his pride, sought to ascend to the heavens but was cast down.


Early Christians understood this passage as a metaphor for hubris and the inevitable downfall that follows excessive pride. Lucifer, in this context, represents a type of evil characterised by arrogance and the overreaching desire for power. This prideful arrogance can be seen as an ancient way of describing what we might now call narcissism—an inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement.


Satan: The Adversary


Satan, on the other hand, is a more prominent figure in both the Old and New Testaments. The name "Satan" means "adversary" or "accuser" in Hebrew. In the Book of Job, Satan appears as a member of the divine council, challenging Job's righteousness and suggesting that his faith is merely the result of his prosperity. This depiction of Satan is not one of ultimate evil but rather of an accuser who tests the faith of individuals.


In the New Testament, Satan's role evolves into that of a tempter and deceiver. For instance, in the Gospels, Satan tempts Jesus in the wilderness, trying to lure him away from his divine mission. Here, Satan represents a different type of evil—one that seeks to lead people astray through deception and temptation. This materialistic evil is often associated with love of wealth, power, and worldly pleasures.


The Conflation of Lucifer and Satan


The conflation of Lucifer and Satan began to take shape after Jerome's compilation of the Vulgate Bible in the late 4th century. Jerome translated the Hebrew and Greek texts into Latin, and his choice of words significantly influenced the theological understanding of these figures. Over time, the distinct identities of Lucifer as the prideful fallen star and Satan as the adversary and tempter began to merge in the popular imagination.


This merging was further solidified in medieval Christian thought, where both Lucifer and Satan came to be viewed as embodiments of ultimate evil. This shift in understanding led to the common practice of labelling opponents or adversaries as being aligned with Satan, thus simplifying the multifaceted nature of evil described in the Bible.


The Path Between Two Evils


Given the historical underpinnings of Lucifer and Satan being two different forms of evil, I believe it is plausible that Jesus was referring to the difficulties of navigating between the two extremes when he said:


"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

On one side of the broad path is Satan, representing material evil and the temptations of wealth and power. On the other side is Lucifer, symbolising the personal evil of pride, arrogance, and narcissism. The narrow path Jesus advocates is one of balance and humility, avoiding both the pitfalls of materialism and the dangers of excessive pride.


Accusing a person of being a Luciferian, or a Satanist if you like, because they view evil entities as being separable instead of one seems ridiculous. Nonetheless, that is what McKay did to me.


Sitting in a witness box and sobbing “the path is wide and the gate is narrow” was not something I ever imagined I would do. Yet, that is exactly what happened. It was my fifth day on the stand. I was tired and worn out by Mckay’s cross examination. I had explained the concept of multiple evils in many ways but he failed to understand what I was saying every time. I know my explanation was not obscure because Her Honour expressed a clear understanding of what I was saying.


McKay, in what I can only assume was determination to demonise me in any way possible, continued to asked me what that meant by “the path is wide and the gate is narrow” over and over again. Eventually he asked “Do you follow the middle path?”


“Yes. That is what I try to do.” I muttered through sobs of tears. In that moment, I felt a sense of kinship with every innocence person who ever had to face a witchcraft trial or inquisition panel.


McKay did not take the stand in the defamation trial. He refused to take the oath on the grounds that he could not promise to tell the truth. Therefore, I can only assume from his comments throughout the trial, and his YouTube videos that he firmly believes there is only one form of evil, and anyone who acknowledges a more nuanced approach is wrong.


A Return to Nuance


Christianity has a complex and multifaceted history. It began as an oral tradition, with teachings and stories passed down verbally before being canonised in written form. This lengthy process of transmission and documentation allowed for a variety of interpretations and understandings to develop over time.


Through my exposure to Steiner philosophy I understand concepts pertaining to evil as being derived from Judaism (Lucifer) and Zoroastrianism (Ahriman). However, in most Christian circles they are better recognised as Lucifer and Satan. Regardless of the terms, I think allowing for a more nuanced understanding of evil is advantageous to critical thought and navigating between extremes.


Conclusion


The history of Christianity clearly shows that the conceptualisation of evil, has evolved and diversified across different denominations and eras. Some Christians view Satan and Lucifer as distinct entities, representing different types of evil: Satan as material evil, such as greed and corruption, and Lucifer as embodying pride, arrogance, and selfishness. Others see these figures as different names for the same adversarial force. This variability in interpretation highlights the flexibility within Christian thought regarding the nature and personification of evil.


Lucifer's fall serves as a cautionary tale against pride and ambition, while Satan's role highlights the challenges of temptation and the importance of steadfast faith. By revisiting early interpretations, I gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the biblical narrative and the various ways it addresses the nature of evil. Moreover, alternative perspective challenge the polarised extremes that some cult leaders present, thus fosters a more inclusive and empathetic faith community; a community that is better equipped to address the diverse challenges of the world.


Ultimately, however, the specific names and interpretations of evil are less important than the underlying moral and ethical principles that Christianity strives to uphold. The core teachings of love, compassion, and justice are central to the faith. As long as adherents pursue these values, the particularities of how evil is viewed or named may be secondary. The emphasis should be on striving for moral and ethical behaviour, promoting a life of integrity and kindness, regardless of the nuances in theological perspectives on evil.


3 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page