Was George Washington a Christian or a Freemason?

Many skeptics of Christianity claim George Washington was a freemason and not at all a Christian. Many Christians claim the opposite. So which is it? Our first President is, obviously, not alive today to really set the record straight. It would be very helpful if he were. Since he is not, to form a conclusion on what George Washington believed we have to dive into his writings and documentation from contemporaries, and build a case from there.

 

First, it should be noted the practices of freemasonry in the 18th century were not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. It is completely plausible for George Washington to be both a born-again Christian and a freemason. In fact, records show George Washington was associated with both.

 

But can we draw a conclusion he was more of one than the other?

 

As a freemason, George Washing was a “member” for over 30 years. In that time, he attended only 4 meetings total. Many freemasons want to paint him as their most famous member, which, they literally did paint portraits of him in freemason garb. But he never once sat for one of those, and most were done after his time. In fact, George Washington claimed the one painting done during his time to be “mason propaganda” to paint him as such.[1] Not that you could blame the freemasons, would there be a better face for any organization to associate with than the most famous person in the entire United States of America?

 

So he didn’t go to many meetings and he wasn’t that closely associated with the freemasons, but that doesn’t necessarily make George Washington a Christian.

george Washington praying

Records show, George Washington had a very close association with his home church, Christ Church, in Alexandria, VA. You can go to this church today and sit in the very church “box” which belonged to the Washington family. His adopted daughter, Nelly, (who was, in fact, his step-granddaughter) noted he rarely missed a Sunday, even if roads were bad and it took them over 2-3 hours to get there.

 

While he was traveling with his military and political career, which was indeed much of his career, record after record shows he attended church. Whether he was wintering at Valley Forge, or while he was in the First Continental and Constitutional Congresses in Philadelphia, he would attend services and fervently prayed. Right after he was inaugurated as President of the United States at Federal Hall in New York City, he immediately went to church to commit his presidency in prayer.

 

But as everyone knows, just going to church does not make you a Christian. The character of Christianity must be found in the person as well. Rev Henry Muhlenberg, an active Revolutionary who served with Gen Washington at Valley Forge, recorded that the General “rode around among his army…and admonished each and every one to fear God…and to practice Christian values.”[2]

 

George Washington’s family did not doubt his convictions as a Christian. Nelly wrote much later of George Washington’s beliefs. Claiming him to be a private and quiet man, but undoubtedly a Christian. She said, “It the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men” [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].”

 

In his writings, George Washington very often attributed successes and happenstances to “ Divine Providence.” Many people have taken it to mean he did not believe in the power of Jesus Christ. However, “George Washington’s writings reveal 54 different titles [of the names for God].”[3]

 

And if he did not believe in Jesus Christ, how then would skeptics be able to define the following statement from George Washington’s prayer journal, “O eternal and everlasting God…Increase my faith in the gospels…daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life.”

 

The lack of evidence for George Washington being an ardent freemason and the overwhelming verification (literal volumes of accounts) of his Christian character, one can make a good case George Washington was indeed a Christian, but also a believer of Jesus Christ. He drew his values from Christian sources and his hope from Christianity.

 

George Washington established his life and faith upon Christianity. Truly, a reflection of the nation he was so instrumental in founding. This is just one example of how America’s footing was founded on the root of Christianity.

 

 

[1] Findings concerning George Washington’s association with Freemasonry:
Barton, David (2005). The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Father. Wallbuilders Press; Texas.

[2] Beliles, Mark A. & Stephen k. McDowell (1989). America’s Providential History. The Providence Foundation; Charlottesville, VA.

[3] Ibid.

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
31 replies
  1. John Moore says:

    What does it matter what George Washington thought? Do his personal beliefs have any bearing on U.S. law? Are you trying to suggest that Christianity was somehow written into U.S. law, or was at least the intent of the law, because many of the founders were Christian?

    Please clarify. Don’t just suggest and imply. Let’s get this out on the table so everyone knows for sure what you’re saying.

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      John. If you are suggesting that the beliefs of the founding fathers are irrelevant, I’d argue that you are tragically in error. It is exactly this, the intentions and hearts of the founding fathers, that helps us interpret the way in which we uphold our constitutional rights which directly affects our day to day freedoms.

      With regard to Krista’s post above, I hear people often discount our country and it’s Judea/Christian foundation because it is thought that the founding fathers were really cultists in cahoots with an underground society in order to gain treasure and power. George Washington is thought of as being one of, if not THE, most prominent figure head of this underground group. As Krista points out succinctly, nothing could have been further from truth.

      The history of freemasonry is a past time of mine. You could call it a hobby border lining on obsession I suppose. There is a lot of misinformation out there. The point to be taken home here is that it is incompatible to view George Washington as a Freemason as we understand Freemasonry today in light of the extant evidence–historical record and personal testimony.

      Reply
  2. John Moore says:

    I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking Krista Wenzel and other Christians to be explicit about their beliefs. That way we won’t have to suggest or guess about things. Why do you suppose I’m suggesting something? If I have something to say, I’ll say it clearly and without innuendo.

    I agree with you that the founders’ intentions are important for us as we interpret the law – but only the founders’ publicly stated intentions, not whatever beliefs or intentions they held in their secret hearts. Thus, we don’t need to go digging into the private papers of the founders or researching what they said to their intimate friends. We only need to be concerned about their public statements.

    About free masonry conspiracies, how many people take that seriously? They’re nuts. “National Treasure” is just a fun fantasy movie.

    On a previous post I asked 3 questions, so I hope there will be some answers in the course of this series.

    Here’s my own opinion: I think America’s success comes from the basic principles of freedom and equality, the acceptance of diversity and willingness to embrace change, along with the rule of law and respect for property. I don’t think these fundamental principles come from the Bible. Also, I don’t think God rewards or punishes the United States for its actions. So in that sense, I don’t think the United States is based on Christian beliefs.

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      John, you are entitled to your opinion of course, but those who know about the men who established this country would disagree with you entirely. Where do you suppose the founding fathers got the “basic principle of freedom and equality”? If we look to what they declared, they believed that these were, “endowed by their Creator.” So they deduced then that the government’s obligation to protect the “basic freedom and equality” of men was FOUNDED upon the fact that this freedom and equality came from the “Laws of Nature” and most of all, “of Nature’s God.”

      If you still don’t think the fundamental principles come from the Bible, we should take your advice and see what “the founders’ publicly stated intentions” were. Krista will no doubt dazzle you with all that the founding fathers said about about theism, in particular, Christianity and how vital it was to them.

      Reply
    • Krista Wenzel says:

      Hey John!

      Thank you for the questions and the interest. To be completely honest, it is my intent to not be explicit about my beliefs. I am simply offering a contrast to what normal ideas are of the Founding Fathers. My beliefs directly impact my life and decisions, no doubt the convictions of the Founding Fathers also impacted theirs. The intent of this blog is not to be a personal opinion forum for me. In my experience, many, if not most people, have a bit of a skewed version of history because of something they have heard. Such as George Washington was a freemason or Benjamin Franklin was an atheist. I am simply offering an alternative to what is being taught about American history. That is my intent.

      You may completely disagree with me, and that is fine. It is my hope to provide information, not opinion. For you, the reader, to walk away with more questions. Go dig out what you think about each of these blogs. There is no way in a short blog I can cover entire lives of these people, I hope to inspire love of history and the true roots. Learning is never ending and the more I learn the more I realize I do not know. I will probably learn more from you than you learn from me!

      As for answering your questions, I genuinely prefer to keep my personal opinion out of the way. It is a distraction of what I want for these blogs. However, since you ask specifically for it… 🙂

      For starters, I am going to show you how bringing in personal opinion hurts American history. You believe America’s success if based on freedom and equality. I happen to roughly disagree with that (I think its a part but not the whole), does that make it any less right or any less wrong that George Washington was a Christian? But if I disagree with you to begin with, than I have lost you as a reader either way. You even assumed i was a Christian (“I’m asking Krista Wenzel and other Christians to be explicit about their beliefs.”) I have never stated my personal beliefs, you assume I am a Christian. But it is because of my conclusion, “George Washington is a Christian” that makes you assume I am a Christian. It hurts the facts.

      But when you bring forward facts and reason, instead of opinion, then I can be a little more persuasive. For instance, you said God doesn’t reward or punish nations for their actions. Do I think God rewards or punishes nations for their actions? Absolutely! I have just finished reading through the first 7 books of the Bible and time after time God tells the Israelites what the consequences of their sin will be…they will lose their nation. Conversely, if they did well then their entire country would be blessed (Duet 28:16; 28:3). But consequences address nations beyond just Israel, Egypt, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. All through the Old Testament (and New) there are examples of successes of nations being based entirely upon their actions.

      That is why I prefer to answer more with facts and reason than with opinion. Even your opinion about free mason conspiracies is not airtight, because there are a lot of masons and many people who believe in the impact of the masons. I doubt a lot of people believe in a national treasure, but everyone believes there are masons (or knows them personally).

      Keep reading and keep learning!!!! 🙂

      Reply
      • John Moore says:

        I will keep reading and learning, even if we disagree, so don’t worry about that. Thanks for stating your position that God rewards and punishes nations. This is a key point for the discussion of religion and politics, I think.

        Reply
    • S.K. Williams says:

      England did not exist before Christainity reached Britain. English COmmon Law developed throughout the Middle Ages, and is directly tied with Christianity.

      Reply
    • Shyah says:

      Before the Protestant movement, most Kings and queens were Catholic in England, Ireland, Scotland.
      Christianity was there before
      Common law.But most of all it was about freedom because without freedom you couldn’t
      practice your religion or live the way you want.Freedom and difference in Religious ideology/Scripture was the main reasons of the Protestant
      movement against the Catholic monarchs that murdered civilians in England.Which caused them to flee to the New world aka the Americas. I submit to all of you the Hellenistic Greco Roman Empire created The continuation and foundation of Christianity. Ask yourself this isn’t it ironic that a Roman soldier tortured and murdered Jesus king of the Jews and the only official church of Christianity for the past 2000+ years has been the Roman Catholic Church coincidence?
      What sparked the battle between the Freemason order and the Roman Catholic Church was not just the story and actions of the knights Templars who by the way, discovered America long before Christopher Columbus who also happened to be a Freemason. What it came down to was something called (Divine Rites of Kings) which was an idea that basically said screw the pope if the pope can have divine rites from god why can’t I? This led to the King James Bible the Protestant and freedom movement. King James himself was a Scottish knight and a Freemason many of the translators of the KJV were freemasons so in essence the King James Bible is a Freemason translation of scripture based on divine rite for the common man so the common man can be his own king with his own divine rite and his own bible separate from the authoritative Roman Catholic Church which they fled for freedom and there own divine rite.

      Reply
      • Shyah says:

        Also George Washington came from a Royal Family
        Look into the history and meaning of the flag of Washington D.C. a lot of people don’t know it’s a sovereign state within our country

        Reply
  3. Stephen B says:

    “Where do you suppose the founding fathers got the “basic principle of freedom and equality”?

    Why believe they got it from the bible? What functioning democracies are there in the bible? It’s pretty much all monarchies, isn’t it? If they believed in equality, how come black people were legally seen as worth less than white people?

    “Krista will no doubt dazzle you with all that the founding fathers said about about theism, in particular, Christianity and how vital it was to them.”

    The founding fathers voted many times on whether to put God in the Constitution and every time voted No. You say ‘the founding fathers’ – are you saying Christianity was vital to ALL of them, or just many/most of them?

    Reply
  4. Luke says:

    Krista,

    You said:“I am simply offering an alternative to what is being taught about American history.”

    This is a totally honest question, because I simply have no idea… What percentage of high school textbooks mention that George Washington was a mason? Of those, how many mention it in passing vs. putting forth the idea that he was influenced by being a mason?

    I didn’t really now this was something that was being taught and didn’t think it was mentioned as more than a historical curiosity outside of New World Order conspiracy websites, which frankly are difficult to read because they make so little sense.

    I did go over to Wikipedia, which is usually a good place to go to for generally accepted ideas and narratives (or outlines of scholarly debates) and the section on Freemasonry on President Washington’s page seems very much like a summary of the very article you’ve written. It does not mention any competing theory that his masonry was somehow more involved and influential.

    I’d also just add that this Christianity vs Freemasonry presentation seems to miss the point. If you asked me what was taught about American history at the high school and college level, I would have guessed it was that the founding fathers were influenced by Enlightenment thinking and John Locke most specifically. This seems to be the much more important peg in any dichotomy or trichotomy, at least from an academic standpoint (I can’t say too much about what is taught, but if there is an academic question to be answered, this is the more important one, unquestionably).

    For example, Gil commented: “I hear people often discount our country and it’s Judea/Christian foundation because it is thought that the founding fathers were really cultists in cahoots with an underground society in order to gain treasure and power.” I have literally never heard one single person say anything like this, and I’ve spend most every (business) day on university campuses for over two decades.

    My experience is obviously limited and anecdotal, but I’m surprised to hear this is a pervasive thing that is being taught out there. Hence my opening question about the textbooks. (If that’s a poor way to judge, what’s a better way?)

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      Luke, to my knowledge, Krista never mentioned anything about what was being taught about GW at high schools or colleges. I think you imported that. There are many books, documentaries, history channel specials, and pieces of art that want to convince people of the masonic connection.

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        Gil,

        I think your comment is fair in a strict sense, but is in reality unconvincing. When one uses a phrase such as “this is taught” it is not unnatural to think of teachers — teachers, after all, teach and the things that they teach are what is taught. It is quite unnatural to speak of “pieces of art” teaching. Surely you agree! I did jump to high school instead of say kindergarten, simply because this topic is a more advanced topic of history which would be taught at the high school and college level, not elementary school.

        I completely stand by the idea when one says “today in the US kids are taught evolution” this statement will be taken by almost anyone who hears it that this is what is taught in a large number, if not large majority of schools. Do you disagree?”

        If an author doesn’t realize that this is how it will be understood, the reader is not at fault. If the author does realize that this is how it will be understood, but still uses the phrasing while meaning something else, the author is being at best purposefully unclear.

        That’s just how language is used. That’s the current normative usage today.

        If an author intends to say something else, it’s the authors responsibility to be more specific. (For example, “taught by some” or some other elucidating qualifier.)

        There are many books and documentaries telling us that the Shoah never happened. Do you honestly think it’s fair to say: “Holocaust denial is what is being taught about World History”? or would you agree that that is a bit of a stretch?

        Thanks,

        Luke

        Reply
        • Luke says:

          GIl,

          I also wanted to comment about the tone of your reply. All I did was ask an honest question. I genuinely had no idea what the answer is. I gather from your reply that this is not taught much in high school or college, but before that I had no idea. Yet, I didn’t come to this conclusion from your post because you answered the question, but from your tone.

          Why reply to a question, if you do not answer it?

          So what if my question was tangential to the original post? Is it a bad thing for an article to bring up a related question in a reader?

          Maybe Krista wouldn’t know because that’s not what she meant, but she could have simply said so. “That’s an interesting question, but I don’t know because I was referring to…”

          Maybe she would have been interested too. Maybe Krista and I could have found an easy way to find out.

          What’s so wrong with that?

          Again, why bother to reply, if you did not intend to answer my question?

          I’ll be honest with you. It felt more like you wanted to come after me — show the world I was wrong somehow — rather than have an exchange of ideas. Maybe I took it a totally wrong way, but wanted you to know that’s how it came across.

          Thanks,

          Luke

          Reply
        • Stephen B says:

          “today in the US kids are taught evolution” this statement will be taken by almost anyone who hears it that this is what is taught in a large number, if not large majority of schools. Do you disagree?”

          Presumably would also agree with the statement: ‘Today in the US kids are taught creationism’, given that there are many books, documentaries, pieces of art etc that want to convince people of creationism.

          Reply
  5. Luke says:

    Gil,

    I know almost nothing of freemasonry, so you’ll have to be patient with me. I’d like to learn more (as I would about most things), so perhaps this is a nice opportunity to ask, since a remark you made made me curious.

    You said: “The point to be taken home here is that it is incompatible to view George Washington as a Freemason as we understand Freemasonry today.”

    How, in a basic sense, is freemasonry different today than it was in the late 18th century? (That it is different seems to be embedded in your statement.)

    What I know of masons is that their group is often involved with many charitable organizations I like in my city. They also put on nice family friendly plays at the nice old theater attached to their lodge. They seem like good chaps, it seems. I’ve heard it is simply an opportunity for men to hang out together and do some good in the community — something like the male equivalent of the Junior League. (Speaking of Junior League, by the way: I hear conspiracy theories that Nancy Reagan was a member). Is mine an incorrect view? How was masonry different back in President Washington’s time?

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
    • Gil Gatch says:

      Yea this question has a very long answer. Freemasons are as diverse as people from any group–you have the normal ones and the fanatical ones all mixed in. Freemasonry was trying to gain steam in membership around the mid to late 1700’s. It had just become a thing a few years earlier in 1717 in London. The group’s fanatical leaders were trying to use the political leaders as ways to entice people to join in membership. GW was very displeased at this.

      If you really want to look into the history of freemasonry and the founding fathers get the book by David Barton (2005) The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Father. Wallbuilders Press; Texas. It’s a good, succinct read.

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        Gil Gatch said: “If you really want to look into the history of freemasonry and the founding fathers get the book…”

        Thanks! My question was actually about freemasonry in general, in a way unrelated to the founding fathers. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Do you have a general recommendation for such a history?

        Thanks,

        Luke

        Reply
    • Carolyn Cline says:

      Carolyn Cline That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard regarding the Masons! The Junior League is not a secret society. They do not require the use of an altar and thrones to conduct their meetings.. They do not have secret codes, rites, costumes, oaths. They do not cover their windows with black curtains for their “meetings”. They actually providei (n public), community events, fund raising, as well as scholarship. They are visible in their communities. Masons tell us they have community charities they support. I have never seen any evidence publicly showing this . They are a secret society so I guess that is why. Once you have established yourself as a secret society, anything that we hear from you cannot be documented and therefore is suspect. You cannot hide under the blanket of secrecy and expect to enjoy credibility.. I always wince when I hear a mason cite books written by other masons as a source the truth. Why do you believe that i anyone is interested in doing so. All we have to rely on is those members who have left the group and feel compelled to tell us why they left. They all basically tell the same story and most are very disturbing..

      Reply
  6. Tyler Glines says:

    Actually… Washington was a Freemason before he became a Christian. But close to his death, he wrote a letter saying that because of his faith in Jesus Christ, he hadn’t been in a Masonic Lodge in over thirty years.

    Reply
  7. Greg says:

    First of all, George Washington joined Freemasonry prior to the Revolutionary War but he joined a British Masonic Lodge at a young age of 21. This was in 1752. He then started to agree with the ongoing patriotism of our soon to be fledgling country and started siding with the Revolution. He then dropped his membership from the BRITISH lodge that he was a member of. Then of course he was very active in the Revolutionary War then went on to serve two terms as President of the newly formed United States. Shortly before becoming the President he helped reform the Alexandria, Virginia masonic lodge under the newly formed Grand Lodge of Virgina. This was around 1788 (by the way this is the 30 years he was referring to). He was elected the first Worshipful Master of the Alexandria Lodge #22, and remained an active member until his death in 1799 where on his death bed he called for his old friend, Worshipful Grand Master, Elisha Dick who was the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Virginia. The Alexandria Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Virginia officiated at George Washington’s funeral.

    George Washington never turned his back on the great fraternity of Freemasonry. He merely switched his allegiance to the American masonic system rather than the British masonic system due to the impending war.

    As a Christian Freemason myself, I can tell you from experience that Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity. Freemasonry does not discriminate members based on their individual decisions of how to worship. The only religious requirement to become a freemason is that you must express a belief in a Creator Deity, period. We do no force a particular religion down any one’s throat. But we do encourage that whatever religion you choose to follow that you follow whole-heartedly.

    That being said, the majority of the masonic lodges in the USA are made up mostly of men who follow the Christian faith. Some lodges due have members who follow other faiths such as Jewish, Islamic, Brahman, and Buddhist. We have a prayer before opening and closing our lodge meetings because we believe that humanity must have the direction of Deity to be fruitful. The chaplain or person who is actually doing the prayer can pray to his own personal God. But the other members in the room are silently following along in prayer to whichever Deity they hold in their hearts.

    We do not promote or condemn any particular faith or “plan of salvation” because we believe that faith is to be determined and decided on by each individual. Religion is a choice made by individuals even within Christianity. You cannot be “made” a Christian. You must first seek God/Christ, then accept Christ/God for who He is and what He did for us. Then you must express belief in that acceptance and allow Christ/God to reshape your life.

    So yes, Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity in that it neither turns it away nor promotes it within the lodge. It is no more religious than a courtroom or a political chamber.

    Reply
    • Scott says:

      Very good post, Greg. Being a Christian and a Freemason is not mutually exclusive, as suggested by the author of the article. I am a Christian first, Freemason second. The Fraternity provides a means by which those of differing Faith and points of view can get together in Peace and Brotherhood.

      Reply
      • Tim says:

        Eddie
        Freemasonry is a Fraternal Organization not a Religion, but encourages members to seek a personal relationship their Creator & God.
        Lucifer is neither.

        Is Satan “Lucifer”?
        by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
        Q.
        Isaiah 14:12 mentions the name of “Lucifer.” I’ve heard it said that this is Satan. Are Lucifer and Satan one and the same?

        A.
        It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.

        Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts.

        The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “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!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “[i]t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)… (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?

        No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:

        I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).

        As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23).

        It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “…used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “[i]n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).

        Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because…Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.

        The context presented in Isaiah 14:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage…without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

        REFERENCES

        Barnes, Albert (1950 edition), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

        Coffman, James Burton (1990), The Major Prophets—Isaiah (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

        Jackson, Wayne (1987), “Your Question & My Answer,” Christian Courier, 23:15, August.

        Keil, C.F. and Franz Delitzsch, (1982 edition), Commentary on the Old Testament—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

        Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

        Reply
      • John Heaton says:

        Lucifer is God and she is the light, Lucifer is a title for the Holy Spirit, she is the planet Venus, Freemasonry is simply a pagan mystery sect who worship the Supreme goddess Venus, she is the All-Seeing Eye of God.

        Reply
  8. Scott says:

    Being a Christian and a Freemason is not mutually exclusive, as suggested by the author of the article. I am a Christian first, Freemason second. The Fraternity provides a means by which those of differing Faith and points of view can get together in Peace and Brotherhood.

    Reply
  9. S.K. Williams says:

    Washington also said in numerous letters that he was commited to the craft, and praied it, and noted his own membership to Laffayette. I will show evidence if asked.

    The Truth is, George Washington was a committed Freemason.

    Reply
  10. John Spurrell says:

    George Washington attended church regularly he admonished his troops to follow Christian principles he was known to have attended only for meetings of the freemasons and the end of his life walked out with his Bible saying the freemasons were going too far. In the 50’s Masonic lodges started removing Christian Bibles from their alters in order not to offended their Jewish bankers who had offered them special building loans an new automobiles at factory prices, excellent retirement benefits. They in fact became a government with in a government with their own laws. They made it very clear that all others were living in Masonic purgatory an were not entitled to privalages as granted to them by the Constitution of the United States. Today Masons state, that Gen. Washington was always a freemason even though he was known to have attended only 4 meeting of the freemasons. How then can you state he was a life long freemason, unless you too are a freemason an that fits into the now days Masonic idea to pull the wool over the eyes of young non thinking members?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *