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?

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

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

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

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!

__________________
Bob Vigneault C.O.L, L.E., G.E, Dr.O.P., O.U.T.
The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog)
Deacon/Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Bump...

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.

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

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.

__________________
Louis DiBiase
Louisville, KY

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

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.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

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.

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.

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.

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.