I re-read the accounts of Matthew and Luke of the Temptation of Christ recently, and several things struck me. Matthew and Luke’s versions of this event are nearly identical, so I am using Luke here for no particular reason. (Translation is King James, because it’s pretty, and in this case doesn’t disagree too significantly from versions often considered more accurate.)

This is just a quick sketch of my impressions and initial thoughts. 

First: On Satans 

One problem for me in the Bible is that when “Satan” or “the devil” is referenced, we don’t always know which satan is being spoken of. Satan means “obstacle” or “adversary,” and seemingly originally described a class of angels/spirits/demons who played a role of antagonizing, challenging and testing humanity. In other words, it was a noun more than a name, particularly in the Old Testament/Torah. 

Similarly there has been disagreement on the identity of the Serpent of Eden. He is not always identified with “the devil” or even “a devil”/“a satan.”

Being Luciferian, of course I identify the serpent with Lucifer, because the Promethean appeal of legend is what drew me to this path in the first place.

On the other hand, the satan in the Book of Job doesn’t seem particularly Luciferian in character– he has more the flavor of Iblis, to me, with his desire to prove humans insufficient, their devotion lacking. Tellingly, the story of Job also appears in the Qu’ran. 

So one never necessarily knows which satan is being talked about in scripture. 

Sons of the Morning:

Lucifer, though, is a very specifically Christian character– as a satan, anyway. (He obviously has pre-Christian antecedents and equivalents.) That’s one argument for him specifically being the co-star of this New Testament story. 

Co-star. Did you catch the pun? He and Christ are the two Biblical characters most often called “Morningstar” or “Son of the Morning.” In light of this (pun again intended) it’s tempting (whoops, another pun) to assume that Lucifer is the devil of this particular story. It appeals to our sense of drama– the rebel son confronts the dutiful son, the two Morning Stars face off to see which burns more brightly. 

But analyzing the passage seems to give additional support to this assumption. In analyzing this devil’s actions, we are able to see the many of characteristics of Lucifer, and also poignant echoes of the story of his fall. 

The Temptation: 

4 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

² Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

³ And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

If there’s one thing Luciferians know, it’s that he wants us to deal with our own problems, by making use of the God within us. In the case of Christ, whose inner divinity was so powerful, I can easily imagine how frustrating Lucifer would find this display of learned helplessness. You have a problem– you’re hungry. You have a solution– your divine powers. Why not use them? To refrain makes little sense to Lucifer, or to Luciferians. 

⁴ And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

But Christ is intensely committed to his humanity, particularly in this passage. He is focused on the limitations of his human body, which is after all made and destined to suffer on the cross. To alleviate his hunger now makes no sense to his mission.

I’ve encountered the theory–sadly, I can’t remember where at the moment– that perhaps Lucifer was originally intended by God for the Christ role, or at least, for a place in the holy Trinity. Much more common is the theory that Lucifer wanted a place in the Trinity for himself, but was denied, leading to his rebellion (several references to this can be found in The Luminous Stone). I’m not particularly enamored of either of those theories, but I mention them because they are interesting in context.

⁵ And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

⁶ And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

⁷ If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

⁸ And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

I have to admit I don’t have a lot of thoughts on this passage. It jars a little, because I am not used to Lucifer demanding worship– although, let’s face it, if he was going to ask for worship from anyone, it would be the son of God! It’s the perfect punchline, after all! This reads to me almost like a throw-away on Lucifer’s part– worth a try, too good to pass up. 

The most interesting part of this is the idea of Lucifer as the Lord of the World. I’ve never been of the school that he is eternally restrained in hell– there are just too many scriptural references, like this, to him getting out and about. Certain passages of scripture arguably reference Lucifer being cast to Earth, not into hell (Isiah 14:12, Genesis 3:14, Ezekial 28:18). 

(Is Earth hell to an angel? Maybe it is Lucifer’s hell. But this is just speculation.) 

Now, are you sitting down? Because this, to me, is where it gets really good.

⁹ And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

¹⁰ For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

¹¹ And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

I actually laughed when I read this. 

Lucifer is daring Christ to take a fall! And he’s doing it by quoting a psalm. The devil knows his scripture! (And all Luciferians and Satanists certainly should, too! Ahem.)

But my god, the irony, the bitterness! Lucifer telling Christ that angels will bear him up. No angels came to his rescue when he fell. He is certainly reliving some very old pain here. 

Is he really daring Jesus to literally jump– or is he confronting Christ with his own father’s cruelty in casting out his formerly beloved angel? Or both? 

What is the temptation here– to jump, and test his father’s love? Or to consider the fall his brother took, and face his father’s cruelty?

And when Christ replies…

¹² And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God

…is he rebuking Lucifer to stop tempting him, as his Lord and God… or is he talking about the past, reminding Lucifer that he brought that fall on himself, by tempting and provoking God’s anger all those aeons ago?