Isaiah 14 and Satan

[Ploutos]

In a recent thread, some of us discussed the idea that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have an additional layer of meaning beyond the literal historical references to Babylon and Tyre. My Bible reading for the day brought me to Luke 10, where I have a note written in the margins to refer to Is. 14:12 at vs. 18.

I took out my Carson & Beale for this one and they have the following to say:

10:15
The evocation of OT symbols of judgment and destruction continue with this verse, which contains an allusion to Isa. 14:13-15 in the prophetic oracle against Babylon: "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God... I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to SHeol, to the depths of the pit." <<snip>>

10:18
As does 10:15, the description of the fall of Satan draws on Isa. 14. The phrase ek tou ouranou pesonta ("fall from heaven") in particular echoes exepesen ex tou ouranou ("has fallen from heaven" in Isa. 14:12. The application of this verse to the fall of Satan in this context is particularly appropriate. First, Isa. 14:12 seems to have used ancient Near Eastern mythic language in portraying the downfall of Babylon (Marx 2000), and Jesus' use of similar language (assuming that Jesus is the subject of the verb etheōroun, "I/they saw" [see Hills 1992]) to apply to Satan my recall the background behind Isaiah's language. Second, Jewish interpretive traditions also apply Isa. 14:12 to the fall of Satan/Lucifer (2 En. 29:3; L.A.E 12:1). <<snip>>

(L.A.E. is noted as the pseudepigraphical work "Life of Adam and Eve".)

I'm perfectly happy to set the Ezekiel passage aside for the time being, and just to address the Isaiah passage. I don't feel a need to attribute much interpretive weight to an obscure Jewish apocryphal work except insofar that it shows that the idea was not original or exclusive to Tertullian. What I am interested in is the very existence of the reference. It does seem to be a fairly clear allusion to the Isaiah passage, and would seem to lend credence to the idea that Isaiah 14 can be viewed as referring to Satan's fall.

I would offer two additional points in support of the idea: first, that there are further parallels to this language in Revelation 8 and 9 (indeed, Carson and Beale, suggest the possibility that Rev. 8:10 is another allusion to Isa. 14:12-15). Second, we recently finished going through the book of Jeremiah in our family devotions. A key part of my application for Jeremiah 50-51 that Babylon is representative of all spiritual and earthly forces that are opposed to the Lord. I want to note here that my daily routine does not allow extensive prep time for our family devotions; I will occasionally consult Henry, Calvin, or some of my study Bibles, but most of the time I just quickly go over the day's passage and plan out one or two points without much in the way of external aids. Still, while desiring not to put too much weight on my own semi-off-the-cuff reading of Jeremiah, it seems a reasonable and fitting interpretation: if one is to take the message to Israel as being universally addressed to all of God's children, then the converse of that would be to interpret Babylon as generally standing for more than the literal earthly neo-Babylonian entity.

So it seems that this reading of Isaiah is not just some aberrant allegorical take from Tertullian or from the obscure depths of Jewish tradition but rather something that can be traced as part of a Biblical pattern also found in places such as Jeremiah, the gospels, and Revelation.

@iainduguid - I would be particularly interested in your response, if you are willing to weigh in yet again.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

vss 3 and 4 establish the context of who is being addressed: And it will be in the day when the Lord gives you rest from your pain and turmoil and harsh service in which you have been enslaved, that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say…

Clearly it’s the Babylonian king who is being referred to, not a pre-fallen Satan (Lucifer in the KJV).


‘Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.’[vs 11]

This is referring to his body be entombed and worms eating his flesh. Satan was never [and never will be] buried.

“Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter Because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth And fill the face of the world with cities.”[vs 21]

Satan never had sons to slaughter. This is saying to kill his sons so none of them could assume his throne upon death.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

JP, I hold that Isa 14 and Ezek 28 refer to both of the kings (and their own demonic hearts) and to their master, Satan, whom they mirror.

Have you ever considered that global Babylon (all the world systems against God and His people), has a mighty and alluring headquarters nation?

 

[EvanF]

Is it not possible that both Isaiah and Ezekiel apply exactly to the fall of historical rulers and that Jesus has merely alluded to and repurposed the language of these prophesies for a new object, specifically the overthrow of demons and the Satanic world order? Would that necessarily mean that Jesus' later meaning is baked into the historical prophesies in such a way that the text of the prophesies themselves may be taken as source material for Satan's biography?

 

[Ploutos]

Is it not possible that both Isaiah and Ezekiel apply exactly to the fall of historical rulers and that Jesus has merely alluded to and repurposed the language of these prophesies for a new object, specifically the overthrow of demons and the Satanic world order? Would that necessarily mean that Jesus' later meaning is baked into the historical prophesies in such a way that the text of the prophesies themselves may be taken as source material for Satan's biography?

That's a really good question. I'll wait to see what others have to say.

 

[RamistThomist]

The immediate referent is Babylon, but the background context assumes knowledge of Satan's "fall." Both Isaiah 14 and Ezek. 28 assume things of the ruler that aren't literally true of that ruler.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The immediate referent is Babylon, but the background context assumes knowledge of Satan's "fall." Both Isaiah 14 and Ezek. 28 assume things of the ruler that aren't literally true of that ruler.

But didn’t rulers refer to themselves as deities during that time?

 

[iainduguid]

From the Teacher's Guide for my Isaiah study in The Quarterly, a "through the Bible in 7 years" Bible Study available from arpchurch.org:

Lesson 5: Isaiah 14: Babylon Will Fall!

Lesson Overview

Why should contemporary believers be interested in oracles that thundered against nations that no longer even exist in any recognizable form? The answer is that their function in the original context addresses believers in every time and place. It is not coincidental that Babylon reappears in the Book of Revelation as a symbol of the forces in this world that persecute and war against the church. Indeed, there is a similar song of “lament” over the fall of “Babylon” in Revelation 18, which celebrates her becoming a ghost town, a haunt for unclean beasts and birds (Rev. 18:2; cf. Isa. 14:23). The downfall of the enemies of God’s people is the necessary pre-requisite for their salvation, and none looms larger in this category than Babylon. She is responsible for the blood of the prophets and of the saints (Rev. 18:24), slaughtered by her in her eagerness to suppress the truth. If God’s justice is to be maintained then Babylon must be judged.

Key Emphases

1. A Taunt over Babylon (14:1-11)

If Judah’s exile to Babylon is the result of the Lord’s rejection of his people, refusing to have compassion on them for their sins (see Jer. 13:14), then for them to be returned from exile the Lord must have a change of heart. He must once again have compassion upon them and act on the basis of his election of Israel for them to receive his blessing. This means, on the one hand, that there is nothing Israel can do to bring about their restoration: that is entirely God’s sovereign work. Yet on the other hand, the thought should give hope to the faithful remnant of Judah, for God is reminding them that he is endlessly faithful to his promise, just as he is full of compassion and mercy, and so they may have solid hope that in due season their fortunes will be turned around and they will be restored to the Lord’s favor and to his land (Isa. 14:1). On that day, the world will be turned upside down, with their former persecutors transformed into their slaves and their oppressors now under their rule. The result of this transformation will be the building of God’s kingdom, as sojourners and aliens join themselves to God’s people (14:1)

These are not prophecies to be fulfilled literally (the Babylonians did not literally become Judean slaves after the exile); rather, it is a poetic way of depicting an utter transformation in people’s fortunes as God turns his face in favor toward his people once more. For us as Christians, we are still awaiting the fulfillment of this promise, as the Book of Revelation makes clear. All too often in this world, Babylon still seems mighty, able to seduce or persecute the church almost at will. But the day is coming when its power will fully and finally be broken, and the saints of the Most High will reign forever (see Dan. 7:27).

A taunt is a powerful way to make a political statement, in this case, in the form of a lament over a fallen hero. The “hero” of the song is anything but that, and the lament is a way of celebrating rather than sorrowing over the hero’s demise. Israel delights to look forward to the day when they can sing of the Lord breaking the scepter of the wicked and granting his people peace and rest as a result – indeed, not just peace for his people but for the whole earth (14:7). Babylon’s overwrought claims concerning the divinity of their king would be exposed as folly when he dies and goes down to Sheol, a corpse providing food for worms and maggots (14:11), instead of a figure that induced terror everywhere he went.

2. Pride Goes Before the Fall (14:12-23)

The king of Babylon is compared with the “Day Star, son of Dawn”, which likely refers to Venus. At certain times of the year, this planet could be observed rising and climbing up toward the heights of the sky, and then descending rapidly, as if falling to earth. This astronomical trajectory formed the basis for several myths in the ancient world. In the same way, Babylon might seem to be ascending to the heavenly heights, becoming a universal – and perhaps eternal – empire. Their king claimed to have taken his place among the heavenly council, sitting among the deities gathered on the mount of assembly, that is, in the inaccessible recesses of Mount Zaphon (Isa. 14:13). The ESV translates Zaphon as “north” (14:13), but in context it is almost certainly the name of the sacred mountain, also known as “the mount of assembly.” The Canaanites viewed this location as the home of their pantheon in the same way as the Greeks thought about Mount Olympus the home of the gods. There, the king of Babylon thought to make himself like the Most High (Heb. ‘elyon, a title used by both Canaanites and Hebrews as an epithet for their God).

But when God intervened to judge her (14:22), Babylon’s light would swiftly be extinguished, and she and her king would be left without name or descendants, as if obliterated from existence. The Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten, who forced through unpopular religious changes in the 14th century B.C., suffered a somewhat similar fate. After Akhenaten’s death, his two sons-in-law briefly reigned before each came to an unfortunate end. The new dynasty that followed then sought to erase every memory of Akhenaten, defacing all of the monuments that bore his name. The city of Babylon would be emptied and deserted, returning to its former marshy state, abandoned to the creatures of the wilderness.[1]

---

[1] The ESV quaintly translates qippod as “hedgehog”. This English translation goes all the way back to the Geneva Bible (“a possession to ye hedgehogge”), following the Septuagint. Qippod is also the name assigned in modern Hebrew to these prickly little fellows. Yet in Zephaniah 2:14, qippod seems more likely to indicate a bird, nesting among the columns. The KJV has “bittern”, while NIV suggests “owls” and the CSB has “herons”. Compare also Isaiah 34:11, where the ESV renders the same word “porcupine.”

 

[EvanF]

Looking again at the indictments made against the kings in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 15, they seem to me very fitting of later comparison to the tyranny of the "ruler of this world", and when Jesus responded to the joyful news of the seventy by saying, "I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven", the context could suggest he meant that he beheld the fall of Satan from the lofty heights of his arrogation as the disciples performed their ministry - a fall comparable to the fall of those great kings of old, neither of whom truly fell from heaven, but rather from a figuratively heavenly state of exaltation to a state of ignominious defeat.

The comparison of Satan to an exalted ruler who looks down upon the kingdoms of the world from on high also would seem to fit with the way Satan previously tempted Jesus by bringing him up to the exceeding high mountain to offer him all the kingdoms of the world. There is also some sort of irony when Satan suggests that Jesus should cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple to demonstrate his divine sonship.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I did a sermon on Isaiah 14 about who "Lucifer" was, and I was amazed to find that most commentators held to him not being a pre-fallen satan, but simply the king of Babylon.

Comments made by various commentators on Isaiah 14:12:

John Calvin: "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables."

John Gill: 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.

Matthew Poole: O Lucifer; which properly is a bright and eminent star, which ushers in the sun and the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the high and mighty king of Babylon. And it is a very usual thing, both in prophetical and in profane writers, to describe the princes and potentates of the world under the title of the sun or stars of heaven. Some understand this place of the devil; to whom indeed it may be mystically applied; but as he is never called by this name in Scripture, so it cannot be literally meant of him, but of the king of Babylon, as is undeniably evident from the whole context, which certainly speaks of one and the same person, and describes him as plainly as words can do it.

Adam Clarke: O Lucifer, son of the morning — The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal.

Albert Barnes:
How art thou fallen from heaven - A new image is presented here. It is that of the bright morning star; and a comparison of the once magnificent monarch with that beautiful star. He is now exhibited as having fallen from his place in the east to the earth. His glory is dimmed; his brightness quenched. Nothing can be more poetic and beautiful than a comparison of a magnificent monarch with the bright morning star! Nothing more striking in representing his death, than the idea of that star falling to the earth!
Lucifer - Margin, 'Day-star' (הילל hēylēl, from הלל hâlal, "to shine"). The word in Hebrew occurs as a noun nowhere else. In two other places Ezekiel 21:12; Zechariah 11:2, it is used as a verb in the imperative mood of Hiphil, and is translated 'howl' from the verb ילל yālal, "to howl" or "cry." Gesenius and Rosenmuller suppose that it should be so rendered here. So Noyes renders it, 'Howl, son of the morning!' But the common translation seems to be preferable. The Septuagint renders it, Ἑωσφόρος Heōsphoros, and the Vulgate, 'Lucifer, the morning star.' The Chaldee, 'How art thou fallen from high, who wert splendid among the sons of men.' There can be no doubt that the object in the eve of the prophet was the bright morning star; and his design was to compare this magnificent oriental monarch with that. The comparison of a monarch with the sun, or the other heavenly bodies, is common in the Scriptures.

Son of the morning - This is a Hebraism (see the note at Matthew 1:1), and signifies that that bright star is, as it were, the production, or the offspring of morning; or that it belongs to the morning. The word 'son' often thus denotes possession, or that one thing belongs to another. The same star in one place represents the Son of God himself; Revelation 21:16 : 'I am - the bright and morning star.'

Which didst weaken the nations - By thy oppressions and exactions, rendering once mighty nations feeble.

 

[Ploutos]

That's really helpful - thank you, @Sovereign Grace!

 

[RamistThomist]

But didn’t rulers refer to themselves as deities during that time?

Sure, but
1) It's unlikely God would reinforce their pretensions; moreover,
2) They weren't in "the Garden of God," nor were they a cherub. I'm not sure they stood in the midst of the stones of fire.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Sure, but
1) It's unlikely God would reinforce their pretensions; moreover,
2) They weren't in "the Garden of God," nor were they a cherub. I'm not sure they stood in the midst of the stones of fire.

But the OT is full of figurative language, much like Revelation has. That’s why it’s called the most OT book in the NT. Jesus didn’t literally ride on a swift cloud. The heavens didn’t literally roll up like a scroll. Men’s hearts didn’t literally melt within them, &c. It’s of my opinion, and mine only, that trying to say those two passages are ascribed to Satan’s fall is stretching the elastic way too far. It describes the fall of two rulers, not the fall of Satan. But that’s solely my opinion.

 

[iainduguid]

Sure, but
1) It's unlikely God would reinforce their pretensions; moreover,
2) They weren't in "the Garden of God," nor were they a cherub. I'm not sure they stood in the midst of the stones of fire.

Tyre wasn't a ship either (see Ezekiel 27). It is an ironic metaphor. Just as the unsinkable ship sinks, so too the pretentious king who proclaims himself a God dies. Pride goes before a fall, and the bigger you claim to be the deeper the fall.

 

[Ploutos]

But the OT is full of figurative language, much like Revelation has. That’s why it’s called the most OT book in the NT. Jesus didn’t literally ride on a swift cloud. The heavens didn’t literally roll up like a scroll. Men’s hearts didn’t literally melt within them, &c. It’s of my opinion, and mine only, that trying to say those two passages are ascribed to Satan’s fall is stretching the elastic way too far. It describes the fall of two rulers, not the fall of Satan. But that’s solely my opinion.

Tyre wasn't a ship either (see Ezekiel 27). It is an ironic metaphor. Just as the unsinkable ship sinks, so too the pretentious king who proclaims himself a God dies. Pride goes before a fall, and the bigger you claim to be the deeper the fall.

If we allow that this passage can be figurative and can say things about the rulers of Babylon that aren't literally true - why would we then argue against its being about Satan because there are things that aren't literally true about Satan? Could not the language about Satan also be figurative? Why would making this passage about Satan stretch the elastic too far?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

If we allow that this passage can be figurative and can say things about the rulers of Babylon that aren't literally true - why would we then argue against its being about Satan because there are things that aren't literally true about Satan? Could not the language about Satan also be figurative? Why would making this passage about Satan stretch the elastic too far?

Where can we arrive at that it is referring to his fall? How can we know it is about that?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly"


"When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: (Isaiah 14:3–4, )

So would you be asserting that the plain reading of the text would be referring to the King of Babylon, but the full sense is referencing Satan and his fall? The King of Babylon is a "type" of Satan?

Acknowledging the language that is used is full of imagery, and therefore we are not forced to look for a literal embodiment of those images, is there anything in the immediate text that forces us to look beyond what is apparent?

 

[EvanF]

Interesting thread from 18 years ago on the same topic:

https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-satan-myth.28759

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

It is Ezekiel 28:11-17 KJV that says,

Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.[emphases added]​

And this may cast light on the Isaiah 14:12 passage. (re v. 16, often in Scripture angels are referred to as men.)

It is not something I know with certainty – as with other teachings of Scripture – but the references seem to me such that they cannot be applied to a human, despite the argumentation of many godly and astute commentators. On the face of it it seems plain it is a spiritual being being spoken of who is the spiritual master/father of the king of Tyrus, just as when Jesus told the Pharisees, "You are of your father the devil" (John 8:44). In Ezek it does not appear that the description can apply to a human person.

 

[Ploutos]

Where can we arrive at that it is referring to his fall? How can we know it is about that?

I think that's a better question to ask than questions about how the passage would literally apply to Satan. If we grant that the passage is figurative in its references to the king of Babylon, then we can't apply a different standard when questioning the alternative interpretation.

 

[EvanF]

I think that's a better question to ask than questions about how the passage would literally apply to Satan. If we grant that the passage is figurative in its references to the king of Babylon, then we can't apply a different standard when questioning the alternative interpretation.

Isn't there a difference between recognizing figurative language used of a definite topic and speculating that the topic itself is figurative? The former is a common communication technique used to add emphasis or descriptive quality, the later would be unexpected unless as a technique to conceal meaning.

Why would God conceal an origin story of a fallen angel under several prophecies he told the prophets were about different subjects? If God wished to reveal such a story to his people, or if it were important for them to understand such a story from scripture, wouldn't he reveal it plainly somewhere in scripture as he did the origin of the world and everything in it?

Origen seems to have been the first theologian to write about a connection between these passages and Satan. Part of his reasoning for finding such a hidden meaning within them was his principle of searching for three-fold significance throughout scripture - namely literal, moral, and spiritual/allegorical significance. Do we have a similar reason to consider that these prophecies necessarily have a spiritual/allegorical or cosmic significance, let alone to settle on this specific one? It may seem like a reasonable connection to us who have been raised amid the ubiquitous cultural understanding that Lucifer is a synonym for Satan and he a fallen angel who led a heavenly rebellion and who upon his expulsion is said to have declared it "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven". But that cultural understanding is built upon the very interpretation we're presently debating. Without importing this idea we all have to the text, is there truly sufficient reason to find it in the text itself?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I think that's a better question to ask than questions about how the passage would literally apply to Satan. If we grant that the passage is figurative in its references to the king of Babylon, then we can't apply a different standard when questioning the alternative interpretation.

I used to be a close companion of Andrew Jukes in the way I looked for types in EVERYTHING. That sent me down lots of rabbit holes. I think too many times looking for these types and shadows forces ppl to see things that are not really there. Again, that’s just one man’s opinion, mine.