A Luciferian interpretation of the The Fall in the Book of Genesis

Nov 14, 2024

Abstract

This essay offers an esoteric interpretation of “The Fall” in the Book of Genesis, exploring alternative meanings and symbolism using a Luciferian framework. With its core principles revolving around wisdom and sovereignty, Luciferianism enables an interpretation of the so-called fall of man that departs from the more literal interpretation of the original sin as a transgression against a divine creator. Through a Lucifer-centred allegoresis of the third chapter of the Book of Genesis, this essay examines the actions of the serpent, Adam, Eve, and God, and their significance in understanding the complexities of the human condition. It is the aim of this essay to encourage deeper and more meaningful engagement with religious doctrine, as the understanding thereof has implications for how we conceive of moral concepts such as obedience, rebellion, good, and evil.

Introduction

While the theologian might view biblical scripture and myth strictly in relation to the study of religion, the philosopher may view it as an essential component of meaning-making and understanding the reality in which we live. The biblical tale of the fall of man is a myth which hides a plethora of potential meaning. Depicting man’s original sin, “The Fall” is generally considered a cautionary tale about the consequences of disobedience. However, to uncover meanings beyond the generally accepted literal interpretation, an alternative, more subversive mode of exegesis is necessary. One manner in which to interpret the so-called fall of man is through the lens of Luciferianism - a counter-hegemonic esoteric tradition which emphasises the pursuit of knowledge as a liberating force. This essay will recount the third chapter of Genesis as part of Christian mythology, argue against the literal interpretation thereof, introduce the main principles of Luciferian, and finally, reinterpret “The Fall” in the Book of Genesis using these principles.

The myth of The Fall

The Book of Genesis is the first book in the Christian Holy Bible, with the first three chapters detailing what is believed by Christians to be the creation of the world (Genesis 1: 2-31), the creation of the first two people - Adam and Eve (Genesis 2: 15-25), and the first sin - the eating of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3: 1-24). While the creation story titled “The Beginning” could be considered a cosmogonic myth1, and the story of the creation of Adam and Eve an anthropogenic myth2, the story entitled “The Fall” could be considered a transformation myth. Transformation myths describe “the rupture between the paradisiac state and the present time”, which is usually caused by the fault of man (Baumgartner et al, 1974: 196).

In “The Fall”, Adam and Eve were visited by a serpent who convinced Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3: 1-5). This act had been strictly forbidden by God, their creator, who warned them that the fruit from this tree, which stood in the middle of the garden of Eden, would surely kill them (Genesis 3: 2). After succumbing to the influence of the serpent and the allure of prospective wisdom, Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and at once “the eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3: 7). Upon eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were suddenly made aware of the fact that they were nude and felt ashamed (Genesis 3: 7). In his shame, Adam attempted to hide from God, only to be caught and have his sins revealed (Genesis 3: 11). God declared that Adam, Eve, and the serpent would be punished: Adam and all of mankind would be forced to perform labour (Genesis 3: 19), Eve and all of womankind would be punished with painful childbirth and subordination to men (Genesis 3: 16), and the serpent would be cursed to forever crawl on its belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). In addition, Adam and Eve were banished from Eden (Genesis 3: 23).

The need for an alternative exegesis

While a large portion of Christians believe every word of the Bible to be the literal and direct words of God (Firestone, 2014: 4), alternative methods of exegesis of the book of Genesis (and the Bible as a whole) may provide valuable new insights. As the interpreting of this chapter in the Bible has far-reaching implications for our conceptions of “the good life, autonomy and relatedness, assertion and submission, will and surrender, obedience and rebellion, independence and interdependence, subjectivity and intersubjectivity” (Aron, 2005: 681), it is of utmost importance to ensure that a variety of differing interpretations are offered. This very sentiment is expressed in the oldest surviving Greek manuscript, the Derveni papyrus, whose author argued that followers of religious doctrines interpret religious texts too literally when they are meant to be examined allegorically (Janko, 2001: 2).

Theognost Pushkov notes that the general interpretation of “The Fall” amongst theologians views the story as a literal retelling of the story of man’s first sin, which involved giving into temptation, and consequently being made aware of bodily satisfaction and experiential knowledge of good and evil (Pushkov, 2005: 93). To draw more out of this text, and to enable alternative understandings of myth of the fall of man, it is necessary to analyse it as allegory rather than a literal account of history.

Although many believe the author of the book of Genesis to be Moses (Postell, 2022: 437), there is very little convincing evidence regarding its author, and as such, knowledge of authorial intent is impossible. It is for this reason that it is necessary to perform an allegoresis of biblical scripture. Allegoresis, as defined by Peter Berek, involves the interpretation of a text whose authorial intent cannot be proven (Berek, 1978: 118). Allegoresis allows the reader to view the text as “an illustration of a system of ideas existing independently of the author’s probable intentions (Berek, 1978: 118). Allegoresis is especially useful in the case of interpreting the Book of Genesis because it allows us to apply ancient biblical text to a different context, perhaps even to the contemporary political, economic, social, educational, scientific, and ethical climate we find ourselves in. Thus, through allegoresis and alternative exegeses, “The Fall” gains a new relevance - one which differs to that of religious Christians, and one which is not limited by their framework. One of the lenses through which scripture and the myth of the original sin could be interpreted is that of the Luciferian.

Luciferianism

Luciferianism is a tradition which has no single founder and cannot be attributed to any specific time period (Gregorius, 2024). Rather, it can be described as a heterodox spiritual phenomenon that arose over time in the context of Christian hegemony (Gregorius, 2024). As a rejected tradition and counter-culture (Faxneld, 2012: 1), Luciferianism may be classified as an esoteric current using Wouter Hanegraaff’s model of esotericism as “rejected knowledge” (Hanegraaff: 2013: 13). According to Hanegraaff’s inflated model of rejected knowledge, esotericism can be defined as knowledge which has consistently faced rejection, marginalisation, exclusion, and repression at the hands of the cultural mainstream (Asprem, 2021: 130).

The rejection of Luciferianism can be traced to 1231, in which the term “Luciferian” was used as an accusation of heresy by the church in Germany (Gregorius, 2024). From the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, several heretical groups were accused of Luciferianism (Gregorius, 2024). This rejection only intensified with the connection of Luciferianism with the Theosophical society and unpopular political movements (Gregorius, 2024). Religious scholar Per Faxneld holds that the esoteric tradition of Luciferianism cannot be viewed in isolation from politics, as its rise was inextricably linked with that of other rejected ideas such as socialism, anarchism, and feminism (Faxneld, 2012: 1).

Author Michael Ford notes that Luciferian philosophy arises out of the Satanic principles of liberation and illumination (Ford, 2019: 42). Ford describes Luciferian philosophy as one of the individual who “seeks self-excellence while indulging in the pleasures of this world” (Ford, 2019: 43). An idea central to this belief system is the notion that there exists no deity who is responsible for the actions of the individual, and that it is one's own responsibility to attain wisdom (Ford, 2019: 43). Lucifer, according to Ford, represents “the light of intellect, wisdom, and power unique to the individual”.

A Luciferian interpretation of The Fall

With its strong emphasis on wisdom, autonomy, and self-reliance, and the decentralisation of deities and authoritative figures, a Luciferian reading of the Bible brings forth interpretations that are vastly different than that of most other modes of exegesis. Viewed from a Christian framework, “The Fall” in the book of Genesis can be viewed as describing a cunning, treacherous, and malicious serpent who tricks a “foolish woman” into sinning with the intention of “corrupting man” (Fodor, 1954: 203). Interpreted through a Luciferian lens, however, it is not the serpent, Adam, or Eve who is viewed as the antagonist in this chapter.

As one of the core principles of Luciferianism is the belief that one’s actions and decisions are one’s own responsibility, in the eyes of a Luciferian, the serpent would not be to blame for Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey their creator. Furthermore, the serpent would not be viewed as the symbol of an evil supernatural being. Rather, the serpent symbolises and embodies the virtues of Lucifer: light, intellect, wisdom, liberation, rebellion, and critical thinking (Ford, 2019: 45). As such, rather than viewing the serpent as a manipulative figure who plots the moral downfall of man, the serpent would be viewed by Luciferians as a liberatory figure whose aim was to free Adam and Eve from the oppressive forces of their creator, and encourage them to embody the Luciferian values of sovereignty and intellectual excellence (Ford, 2019: 45).

While dominant narratives surrounding Adam and Eve paint them as foolish sinners who fell for the serpent’s supposed manipulation (Fodor, 1954: 203), a Luciferian would view their actions as following man’s inherent human nature which seeks excellence and wisdom (Ford, 2019: 45). In addition, their act of defiance would not be viewed as a transgression, but rather an act of independence and autonomy.

A Luciferian interpretation of “The Fall” may go so far as to view God as the villain. Attempting to prevent Adam and Eve not only from gaining knowledge but from exercising their free will could be seen as an inherently oppressive act. Viewing knowledge and enlightenment as a force of light (Ford, 2019: 128), a Luciferian might interpret God’s efforts to keep knowledge from mankind as an act of darkness and evil. Luciferians hold that knowledge leads to personal power (Ford, 2019: 25). As such, a Luciferian may speculate that God’s motives for withholding were to subjugate mankind to his will, as knowledge would prevent them from blindly following the commands of their creator.

Overall, a Luciferian would not view “The Fall” in Genesis as the downfall of mankind due to their disobedience, but rather the liberation of man out of a simulated perfection, contentment, and ignorance. After defying God, Adam and Eve, and subsequently all of mankind are no longer destined to be shielded from reality, and are equipped with the necessary knowledge to navigate it. Some may wish to view such an interpretation as containing a normative prescription: one should have the courage, even in the face of impending punishment, to exercise one’s free will and strive for the attainment of knowledge, so as to enable one’s own liberation from oppressive and carefully-constructed ignorance.

Objections to a Luciferian interpretation of scripture

Some may argue that endorsing the reinterpretation of religious texts is sacrilegious or disrespectful and undermines the authority of God (Pauly, 2017). This may especially be the case with a lens of analysis that appeals to a figure who is believed by Christians to exist in constant opposition to their God (Goetz, 2016: 221), and paints God as the true villain.

To respond, it may be pointed out that, even when opting out of a religionist perspective which would assume the validity of the religious text in question, one need not analyse religious texts from a purely reductionist perspective, which would analyse religious texts with the already-established understanding that they are merely historical artefacts and not proof of the truth of the religious claims being made (Hanegraaff, 1995: 99). Rather, it is possible to take a stance that is what Hanegraaff would call methodologically agnostic (Hanegraaff, 1995: 99). Using methodological agnosticism, the reader or historian remains neutral between religious disbelief and belief, and instead allows empirical evidence to guide the study (Hanegraaff, 1995: 99). In this way, the reader performing a reinterpretation or allegoresis is not bound by religious convention, and is thus not obliged to ensure that their interpretations do not constitute blasphemy. At the same time, however, they are not allowing their own beliefs (or lack thereof) to influence their understanding.

Conclusion

The transformation myth in the Book of Genesis, and religious texts in general, hold potential meanings that dogmatic and conventional modes of exegesis have overlooked. Through an allegoresis using traditionally rejected esoteric currents we are able to reconceptualise the story of the fall of man, and the ethical concepts it contains. A Luciferian interpretation of the myth of the original sin challenges the notion that Adam and Eve were led down the path of evil by the serpent, and instead holds that the serpent sought to aid in the liberation of man. Man’s disobedience, in the eyes of a Luciferian, is simply man’s assertion of autonomy and the refusal to be dictated to and kept in metaphorical darkness. While many may be hesitant to reinterpret sacred text, it is necessary to point out the possibility of remaining methodologically agnostic in one’s analysis. Additionally, the significance of new methods of interpretation justifies the risk of producing potentially heterodox ideas. As the interpretation of scripture has profound effects on conceptualisations of moral concepts, it would be beneficial for future scholarship in both theology and esotericism to question and reinterpret religious dogma, rather than accepting religious texts as literal and final. In daring to reject the dominant Christian interpretation of “The Fall”, we as readers display the same courage and innate desire for knowledge, autonomy, and liberation believed by Luciferians to be displayed by Adam and Eve in their defiance of God.

Bibliography

Aron, L. (2005) The tree of knowledge: Good and evil: Conflicting interpretations. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(5), pp.681-707.

Asprem, E. (2021) “Rejected Knowledge Reconsidered: Some Methodological Notes on Esotericism and Marginality” In E. Asprem and J. Strube (eds.) New Approaches to the Study of Esotericism. Brill, pp. 127-146.

Baumgartner, J., Lanczowski, G. and Fries, H., 1974. Myth and Mythology. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 2(4), pp.195-200.

Berek, P. (1978) Interpretation, Allegory, and Allegoresis. College English, 40(2), pp. 117-132.

Faxneld, P. (2012) Blavatsky the Satanist: Luciferianism in Theosophy, and its feminist implications. Temenos-Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion, 48(2).

Firestone, R. S. (2014) Why the Bible cannot and should not be taken literally. Open Journal of Philosophy, pp. 303-318.

Fodor, A. (1954) The fall of man in the book of Genesis. American Imago, 11(2), pp. 203-231.

Ford, M. (2019) Apotheosis: The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide to Luciferianism and the Left-Hand Path. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Succubus Productions Publishing.

Goetz, H. (2016). “God and the world. Religious Concepts of the Early and High Middle Ages. Part I, Volume 3: IV. The Creatures: Angels, Devils, Human”. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Gregorius, F. (2024) Luciferianism timeline. Available at https://wrldrels.org/2024/03/22/luciferianism/ (Accessed 25 April 2024).

Hanegraaff, W. J. (1995) “Empirical method in the study of esotericism” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 7(2), pp.99-129.

Hanegraaff, W. J. (2013) Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Janko, R. (2001) The Derveni Papyrus (" Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes Logoi?"): A

New Translation. Classical philology, 96(1), pp.1-32.

Pauly, R. (2017) Is it wrong to reinterpret Scripture? Available at https://think-well.org/2017/04/04/is-it-wrong-to-reinterpret-scripture/ (Accessed 2 May 2024).

Postell, S.D. (2022) Reading Genesis, Seeing Moses: Narrative Analogies with Moses in the Book of Genesis. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 65(3), pp.437-455.

Pushkov, T.G. (2005) The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: An Attempt to Differentiate Theologems. Богословські роздуми: Східноєвропейський журнал богослов'я, (5), pp.91-105.

The Holy Bible. Genesis. New International Version (1980). Cape Town: Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.