Origins of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12

[Marrow Man]

I am wondering when/where the idea that Isaiah 14:12 was talking about Satan. Yes, I understand that the KJV uses the word "Lucifer" for "morning star" and Lucifer is considered to be a popular name for the devil, but this is not what I am talking about. Unless I am missing something, this would be the only place in Scripture where the devil is given that name if that is who the passage is talking about, which begs the question.

Last evening I looked in both Keil and Delitzsch and Calvin to see their discussions of the passage. Both say it is not referring to Satan. K and D mention that some of the early church fathers interpreted the passage this way. If so, who did that and when did that teaching become popular? Calvin describes the interpretation as purely a-contextual fantasy, especially since the passage plainly is speaking of the king of Babylon.

Thoughts?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

John Gill seems to agree with Calvin in this passage:
See John Gill on Isaiah chap 14

 

[BobVigneault]

Thanks for asking this Pastor Tim, I've had the same misgivings about the popular interp of this passage. I look forward to a discussion. On your marks, get set, discuss!

 

[Marrow Man]

Bump...

 

[JennyG]

It's an extremely striking and sombre passage.
Even assuming the writer only to have intended in his own mind to refer to the King of Babylon, can there be any harm in seeing Lucifer, son of the morning as also a type of Satan?
Many people have read it so, and been struck anew by the Lord's mercy notwithstanding these grave and terrible judgments in the Heavenlies.

 

[louis_jp]

It's an extremely striking and sombre passage.
Even assuming the writer only to have intended in his own mind to refer to the King of Babylon, can there be any harm in seeing Lucifer, son of the morning as also a type of Satan?
Many people have read it so, and been struck anew by the Lord's mercy notwithstanding these grave and terrible judgments in the Heavenlies.

Agreed. I thought it was typological of satan in the same way that Immanuel in Chapter 7 was typological of Christ. Especially since Isaiah 14 is talking about Babylon, and elsewhere Babylon symbolizes more than just historical Babylon.

 

[JennyG]

It's an extremely striking and sombre passage.
Even assuming the writer only to have intended in his own mind to refer to the King of Babylon, can there be any harm in seeing Lucifer, son of the morning as also a type of Satan?
Many people have read it so, and been struck anew by the Lord's mercy notwithstanding these grave and terrible judgments in the Heavenlies.

Agreed. I thought it was typological of satan in the same way that Immanuel in Chapter 7 was typological of Christ. Especially since Isaiah 14 is talking about Babylon, and elsewhere Babylon symbolizes more than just historical Babylon.

Yes, I hadn't thought as far as that. Even in Chapter 53 - did Isaiah himself know to whom he was referring? maybe a type is always going to be unconscious in the frist instance

 

[CharlieJ]

Real Context

What is paramount is that the OT context is allowed to speak for itself. I am not against reading a redemptive-historical reading of the text that allows OT realities to signify things greater than themselves; I am against the Augustinian idea that the literal sense is a carnal husk only of value for the deeper spiritual kernel.

The one thing that definitely should not be done to this passage is to make it the "Satan passage." It was written by a real prophet about a real king (or at least type of king) to real contemporaries and must have meaning within that context. Anything that people wish to build upon that foundation must be done in such a way that it does not obscure the foundation. I personally do not see much merit in using this to describe Satan, since the text is so theologically rich without any typology or allegorization.

 

[JennyG]

What is paramount is that the OT context is allowed to speak for itself. I am not against reading a redemptive-historical reading of the text that allows OT realities to signify things greater than themselves; I am against the Augustinian idea that the literal sense is a carnal husk only of value for the deeper spiritual kernel.

The one thing that definitely should not be done to this passage is to make it the "Satan passage." It was written by a real prophet about a real king (or at least type of king) to real contemporaries and must have meaning within that context. Anything that people wish to build upon that foundation must be done in such a way that it does not obscure the foundation. I personally do not see much merit in using this to describe Satan, since the text is so theologically rich without any typology or allegorization.

I'm not sure we need talk in either/or terms. A typological application doesn't wipe out the literal. I see rich typology in (eg) Ruth, but it doesn't stop me taking it first and foremost as history. The same would be true of all the OT types.

 

[CharlieJ]

I think the typology is a bit shaky, though. Even according to Augustine's own rules, the spiritual senses were never supposed to add anything that could not be found elsewhere in Scripture. If we take the Isaiah passage as typological or allegorical, where is the literal counterpart that anchors it. I can think of one passage in the gospels where Jesus says he saw Satan fall like lightning, but he doesn't say anything about how or why Satan fell, so we can't legitimately read that from Isaiah. We don't have anything in the NT that would clearly point to the Isaiah passage. Take as a counter-example how often the NT talks about Jesus as our Passover and as the lamb, so we can authoritatively associate him with the OT sacrificial system.

Even more to the point, certain portions of the Isaiah passage don't make a whole lot of sense in connection to Satan.

20 You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people. "May the offspring of evildoers nevermore be named! 21 Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their fathers, lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the face of the world with cities."

Satan should be worried about not getting a proper burial? Satan's children should be slaughtered so they don't build cities? You have to move to an unwarranted level of allegory to make sense out of that.

 

[louis_jp]

I think the typology is a bit shaky, though. Even according to Augustine's own rules, the spiritual senses were never supposed to add anything that could not be found elsewhere in Scripture. If we take the Isaiah passage as typological or allegorical, where is the literal counterpart that anchors it. I can think of one passage in the gospels where Jesus says he saw Satan fall like lightning, but he doesn't say anything about how or why Satan fell, so we can't legitimately read that from Isaiah. We don't have anything in the NT that would clearly point to the Isaiah passage. Take as a counter-example how often the NT talks about Jesus as our Passover and as the lamb, so we can authoritatively associate him with the OT sacrificial system.

Even more to the point, certain portions of the Isaiah passage don't make a whole lot of sense in connection to Satan.

20 You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people. "May the offspring of evildoers nevermore be named! 21 Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their fathers, lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the face of the world with cities."

Satan should be worried about not getting a proper burial? Satan's children should be slaughtered so they don't build cities? You have to move to an unwarranted level of allegory to make sense out of that.

The typology can be seen, for example, in the book of revelation, where Babylon is intertwined with the beast and the whore, and where satan stands behind these, and "Babylon is fallen", etc.

I also think you're trying to find too many points of contact here. Typology doesn't exactly mean allegorical, and it's certainly not meant to connect on all points. In fact, I don't think anybody really makes much of an issue out of this Isaiah 14 passage, and I almost hate even to defend this point. But the question was asked about where that interpretation came from; so while I don't know the when and where, I think the reasoning is basically typological. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Marrow Man]

I am more concerned with the origins of such an interpretation of the passage. Keil and Delitzsch point to the Early Church Fathers. If someone could point me to whomever say the passage in such a way, I would appreciate it.

 

[Marrow Man]

I am bumping and reopening this old thread, in hopes that someone can answer it.

Once again, I am not interested in the typology of the passage so much as the origins of the "Satan" interpretation.

 

[Phil D.]

I know Wikipedia has its problems and isn't always totally reliable, but it's article on Lucifer is helpful on this issue and well footnoted.

 

[Marrow Man]

Thanks, Phil. That was very helpful and very useful.

In a nutshell, the association arose during the Intertestamental period, but it was adopted by early Christians such as Tertullian and Origen as referring to the devil (that is, the passage in question from Isaiah 14:12ff), although neither of these associated "lucifer' (or "morning star") with the devil.