# Is Isaiah 14 REALLY about Satan?



## Pergamum (Oct 25, 2008)

Is it? 

And is Satan really Lucifer? And isn't Jesus also called Lucifer as well?


If I wanted to study Satan, wouldn't I go to this Isaiah passage last instead of first?



Were the Reformed unanimously agreed about this verse being about Satan?


----------



## TimV (Oct 25, 2008)

No, it's talking about the King of Babylon. Whether the planet Venus was one of the King's praise names, or just an allusion to his pre eminence among contemporary men, or another reason, I don't know. But the Reformed commentators I just checked agree with the natural reading of the passage, which can't have anything to do with angelic beings for many reasons, not the least of which they don't have any flesh to be eaten my maggots. And why would whole forests be (metaphorically) glad about Satan? It's a reference to the huge works projects the Kings of Babylon engaged in, some of which are mentioned in Scripture, that were stopped with the Persian conquest.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 25, 2008)

When did the Satan view begin to predominate?


----------



## TimV (Oct 25, 2008)

There have been people, including ancient writers, who have held to that view, but I imagine the biggest problem is the bad KJV translation which uses the Latin Vulgate (which just meant Venus, or morning start, or day bringer etc..like the Hebrew) instead of a good translation from the Hebrew. Although I'm sure the translators had their reasons.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Oct 25, 2008)

I wouldn't say that there is no reference to Satan in these verses but that the idea was that just as Satan was cast down so is the King of Babylon. I say this because of Jesus reference's to Satan's fall in Luke 10:18 and Rev. 12:8-10.


----------



## Timothy William (Oct 25, 2008)

Reading through the passage, I'm not sure it can't be referring to both simultaneously.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Oct 25, 2008)

Timothy William said:


> Reading through the passage, I'm not sure it can't be referring to both simultaneously.



I agree!


----------



## YXU (Oct 25, 2008)

Calvin does not view it as Satan, as far as I can remember from his commentary, he took it literally as the proud King of Babylon. Matthew Henry's commentary also treat the similar account in Ezekiel as the literal King but not Satan. 

I heard about dispensationalist argues that the Isasiah 14 figure is the yet to come final Antichrist and the beast of revelation.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 25, 2008)

YXU;



> I heard about dispensationalist argues that the Isasiah 14 figure is the yet to come final Antichrist and the beast of revelation.



yes, and the rise and rebuilding of Babylon, which of course is in Iraq..


----------



## davidsuggs (Oct 25, 2008)

I don't think that by just readin from context you would ever come to the conclusion it was Satan. I always think it is funny when people refer to Lucifer in such a way. I usually respond that Lucifer has been dead for thousands of years. Usually gets some rather interesting looks...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 25, 2008)

For what it's worth, Jonathan Edwards makes the case that the king of Babylon here portrayed represents a type of Satan in Miscellanies 702 here (pp. 303-305) and presses the point further, also with respect to the king of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28, in Misc. 936 here and, particularly, Misc. 980 here.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 26, 2008)

TimV said:


> There have been people, including ancient writers, who have held to that view, but I imagine the biggest problem is the bad KJV translation which uses the Latin Vulgate (which just meant Venus, or morning start, or day bringer etc..like the Hebrew) instead of a good translation from the Hebrew. Although I'm sure the translators had their reasons.



Isaiah 14:12 from John Gill's Commentary:



> Ver. 12. How art thou fallen from heaven,.... This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see Lu 10:18 but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, Re 12:7 and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him:
> 
> O Lucifer, son of the morning! alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, Job 38:7 and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,
> 
> ...



The GV & AV are better translations here than the modern versions which erroneously correlate the King of Babylon with Christ in Revelation 22:16. To me, any translation that makes such a comparison is not a good translation. Neither the GV nor the AV make such a dangerous correlation.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 26, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Is it?
> 
> And is Satan really Lucifer? And isn't Jesus also called Lucifer as well?



Jesus is never called Lucifer in the Bible.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 26, 2008)

> And isn't Jesus also called Lucifer as well?



Pergy, put down your book of Mormon and back away from it slowly. It will only bring you trouble.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 26, 2008)

NIV calls Lucifer "Jesus"

Its not just the Book of Mormon that is making this comparison.


----------



## TimV (Oct 26, 2008)

> If you cannot say this, you need to
> UTTERLY DESTROY
> your perverted "bible". Don't even use it to "help" you.
> Get a King James Bible so you can have the true word of God.
> This is very serious.



The same Greek word is used in the TR and Septuagint for the King of Babylon in the OT and Christ in the NT, the word we get phosphorus from. It means light bringer, day star, etc...

I heard a sermon at a PCA church a few years ago, where the man said that David plagiarised on of the Psalms from an ancient hymn to Ba'al. His proof was that Psalm 68 has God riding the clouds and since Ba'al rode the clouds it was speaking of the same God.

I never understood the logic, but there really are people out there to whom this makes since. If God is portrayed riding in the clouds, and Ba'al is portrayed riding in the clouds, they both must be the same thing. Similarly if Christ is referenced as a light bringer in the context of praise, and Belshazzar is given the same title in the context of mockery, then they must be the same. Right?

But I'm getting nostalgic lately, with Pergy trolling through the internet seeking out crazies, conspiracy nuts, extreme Baptists and anyone he can find who show that traditional Reformed folks are narrow minded, inconsistant dumb people who are really, really easily defeated in arguments.

Or maybe I'm still being too critical, and Pergy doesn't have a copy of some basic reference books, or links to them online. I timed myself and it took me 6 minutes to look up both verses in the TR and Septuagint. I never thought of looking up what an ignorant KJV only extremist had to say. And since Pergy has strong feelings about KJV only types, I wonder why he went there instead of looking up the word in reference books. Interesting.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 26, 2008)

Dude, don't make me bury you with links on issues with the NIV. I love you guys, but I'll do it if you push me too far.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 26, 2008)

[Moderator]*Let's give Pergamum the benefit of the doubt. If you have an answer to his question, post it. If not, then there's no need to participate on this thread, is there?*[/Moderator]


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 26, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> NIV calls Lucifer "Jesus"
> 
> Its not just the Book of Mormon that is making this comparison.



The word Lucifer is never used in the NIV. What they're most likely referring to is the faulty translation of the word in modern versions of the Hebrew as "day star" or "morning star". Compare it to Rev 22:16. There's no Hebrew word in the passage for "star" and so it's just a bad translation. 

BTW, avoid the site you link like the bubonic plague.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 26, 2008)

Chris, thanks for that warning - I hadn't looked at the URL but I have found some really caustic stuff there in the past.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 26, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> Chris, thanks for that warning - I hadn't looked at the URL but I have found some really caustic stuff there in the past.



There's a sister site to it that is just as bad. I think it has savior instead of lord.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 26, 2008)

TimV said:


> > If you cannot say this, you need to
> > UTTERLY DESTROY
> > your perverted "bible". Don't even use it to "help" you.
> > Get a King James Bible so you can have the true word of God.
> ...




Progression of my thoughts after reading this screed:

    and a  to you too!




TimV:

Are we allowed to attribute false motives to other brothers here? You slander me.

I find you lacking in charity. You need a lesson, brother.




I use the KJV and prefer it to other versions (only lately switching to the ESV for a change).... This post was not motivated by any Bible Version-related thoughts at all, but about the assumptions that I am making about Satan (i.e., I am working through my demonology and seeing how much is really true and how much is just assumption...I already scratched off Isaiah 14 as being a definite passage about Satan and have now relegated it to the status of "a dubious allusion" perhaps, thanks to personal study, that is checked by PBers.)



The PB gives me good perspectives on many fads, currents of thought, errors, and good ideas today... what's wrong with throwing some views into the arena to see if they prevail or if they got turned into mince-meat?

Many of my posts are motivated by scenarios where people ask ME these questions, and so I end up looking for a broader pool of knowledge to help me answer these people that are asking ME these things. When I bring these questions before the PB it is not, therefore "needling" or any of the other nasty things you just said about me, but it is out of respect for the brethren (and the cistern) on this board. ..And a little self-critique is always healthy as well. I often use the PB as a wall to bounce off ideas. 


Again, TimV, this is directed at you, treat me with respect (don't make me come over there!)


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 26, 2008)

Back to the OP:

Any links on who among the Reformed thought Isaiah 14 was about Satan and who thought it was not about Satan and only about the earthly king? What did the Catholics believe?

I am trying to get a feel of who believed what, when beliefs shifted and why so many folks today are completely sold that this refers mainly to Satan?


----------



## TimV (Oct 26, 2008)

I still wonder why you use irresponsible websites to play the Devil's Advocate, but I'll take you at your word and apologize for questioning your motives.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 26, 2008)

Thanks brother:

I use many websites because often they best articulate screwy positions that I want answers to.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 26, 2008)

Pergy,

I once wrote an exegesis paper (lost now) arguing that in Isaiah 14, Isaiah is employing a Babylonian version of the Greek "Phaethon" myth to mock the king of Babylon. 

In the Greek version which we have extant, Phaethon (which means "shining one" and signified the "morning star") is the son of Helios, who drives sun around the earth behind his chariot. Phaethon asks his father to let him drive one day, but his father refuses, saying that Phaethon cannot handle the horses. Phaethon keeps pleading and eventually his father wears down. He advises him not to go to high, lest the earth chill, or too low, lest he scorch it.

So Phaethon takes off, and sure enough, he finds himself unable to control the horses, and he goes to high and too low and starts messing everything up. Finally, in order to spare the earth, Zeus strikes him with a lightning bolt, knocking him out of the chariot to fall to his death. The memorable line, which has been found inscribed on a huge ancient temple lamp, is something like, "How you have fallen from heaven, O Phaethon, son of the morning." It is a classic Greek myth used to warn boys about the error of hubris.

So, I conjecture that some form of this myth was known in the Babylonian empire, and the phrase transferred into Hebrew something like Hallel (shining one) Ben-Shachar (term for morning star). Isaiah alludes to the myth to mock the king of Babylon for his hubris, which was the original point of the myth.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2008)

Can you post a link here to that paper or PM it to me? Thanks.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Oct 27, 2008)

I have heard it mainly taught as first referenced to the earthly King of Babylon and linked to Satan by allusion, suggesting that Satan was the epitome which stood behind the King. If that makes sense.

However, the specific statements are then used to define Satan.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2008)

*Original cross-references in the AV*

I was reading the section In Isaiah again and looked at the cross-link referenced at the verse. It links to Revelation 8:10. The cross-link in that verse is Rev. 9:1. The 'star' terminology is used in 9:10 to refer to the person opening up the bottomless pit. So the symbology of the Bible supports Lucifer referring to Satan. I also noticed that Lucifer in the AV has a note in the margin, "13 Or, O day star." So they had debated what to put into the main text of the translation, but they chose to keep the Geneva rendering. 2 Peter 1:19 using the term "day star" or "sun" in the Syriac, does not refer to Venus (Is. 14:12 'son of the morning'), and because of its reference to Christ, in order to preserve this distinction, the AV translators chose to keep "Lucifer".


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 28, 2008)

Sorry, Pergy, I went through a computer crash recently and lost some of my papers. I might have it on another computer in MD, but I can't get to it now.


----------



## rgreen (Nov 21, 2008)

Do you think that a great deal too much emphasis is placed on the devil, on whom not a very large proportion of God's Word focusses? In what way, (if at all), do you believe, (scriptually,) that Satan is active today?


----------



## he beholds (Nov 21, 2008)

davidsuggs said:


> I don't think that by just readin from context you would ever come to the conclusion it was Satan. I always think it is funny when people refer to Lucifer in such a way. I usually respond that Lucifer has been dead for thousands of years. Usually gets some rather interesting looks...



So Lucifer is not Satan? Or you are saying that Satan is dead? 
Thanks.


----------

