Isa 14:323: The Taunting of

Trevor Peterson May 6, 1998

1 Introduction
Isa 14:1214 is often assumed to refer to the fall of Satan from his original state of perfection before God.1 This may or may not be so (since it is the only place where the name Lucifer appears in English Bibles), but these few verses must be understood in light of their context. They fall within a larger prophecy addressed to the king of Babylon (v. 4) and as such, must be explained as a part of that prophecy.

1.1 English translation of Isa 14:323

The translation of Isa 14:323 which follows will be seen to fit the authors exegesis of the passage: it will happen, in the day that the Lord gives you rest from your pain, and from your agitation, and from the hard labor which was served among you, 4 that you will take up this chant against the king of Babylon and say: How the oppressor has ceased[your] raging has ceased! 5 The Lord has broken the rod of wicked ones, the staff of rulers, 6 that used to strike the peoples an unceasing blow in fury, that used to dominate the nations in anger, that did not withhold persecution.
L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (8 vols.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993) 2:44, 246; F. H. Barackman, Practical Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1992) 239; and C. C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody, 1972) 94 for instance offer no argument whatsoever for referring the passage to Satan, while R. P. Lightner, Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 142 merely acknowledges the presence of disagreement and dismisses it by saying that here the addressee is Lucifer, rather than the king of Babylon.
1

3 And

7 All

the land has been at rest [and] at peace; they have broken forth with a ringing cry. 8 Even cypress trees have rejoiced over you, [even] cedars of Lebanon: Since you have lain down, no cutter ascends against us.
9 Sheol

from beneath has been agitated about you to meet your coming. It has roused ghosts to youall the leaders of the land. It has raised all the kings of the nations from their thrones. 10 They all answer and say to you: Even you have been weakened like us; you have become like us. 11 Your exaltation, the sound of your harps, has been brought down [to] Sheol. Maggots have been spread out beneath you, and your coverings are worms.
12 How

you have fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn! You who were weakening the nations have been hewn down to the land. 13 Now you yourself said in your heart, I will ascend the heavens. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. Indeed, I will sit on the mountain of assembly on the extremities of north. 14 I will ascend upon high places of dark clouds. I will make myself like the Most High. 15 But you are being brought down to Sheol, to the extremities of a pit.
16 Those

who see you gaze at you; they recognize you: Is this the man who used to agitate the land and shake kingdoms; 17 who set the world like the wilderness and tore down its cities; who did not release his prisoners to go home? 18 All kings of nations, all of them, have lain down in glory, each in his house. 19 But you have been cast from your grave like an abhorred branch, [like] a garment of men slain, sword-pierced, [and] descending 2

to stones of a pit, like a down-trodden corpse. will not be united with them in the burial, for you have ruined your land; you have slain your people.
20 You

The seed of evildoers must never be proclaimed: 21 Establish a slaughtering-place for his sons because of the iniquity of their fathers; they must not arise, and take possession of land, and fill the face of the world [with] cities; 22 and I must arise against them, declares the Lord of hosts, and cut off name, remnant, offspring, and posterity from Babylon, declares the Lord, 23 and set it as a possession of a porcupine and marshes of water, and sweep it with the broom of annihilation, declares the Lord of hosts.

1.2 Method and interpretive issues

This study will progress from an exegesis of the whole passage (vv. 323) into a summary and evaluation of the various perspectives on the identity of Lucifer or , -as he is identified in the Hebrew text, with a view to determining exactly whom the verses in question describe. Included will be such issues as the relationship of the Lucifer passage (vv. 1214) to the king of Babylon prophecy and to the preceding prophecy against the nation of Babylon; the role of pagan myth in the depiction of Lucifer; and the conformity of the details to various historical Babylonian kings.

2 Exegesis of Isa 14:323

It is imperative to begin with an exegesis of the passage as a whole. Taken out of context, these few verses could be made to fit any particular interpretive scheme. Now, this begs the question of what the proper bounds in fact are of this pericope. As reproduced in BHS, the Masoretes indicated vv. 323 as a unit by preceding v. 3 with the of a closed paragraph and following v. 23 with the of an open paragraph. While it is acknowledged that the distinctions between these two paragraph markers were relatively inconsistent by the time of Codex Leningradensis (the foundational manuscript of BHS), at one time these would have indicated that v. 3 was divided on the line from v. 2, whereas v. 24 would have actually 3

begun a new line altogether.2 This makes sense, in light of the fact that v. 2 concludes a prophecy against the nation of Babylon (which would naturally lead into the prophecy against Babylons king), while v. 24 takes up a prophecy against Assyria. On the whole, commentators tend to concur with this division.3 Grogan begins with 13:1, thus including the whole prophecy against Babylon, while Oswalt begins with 14:1, taking these first two verses as introductory.4 Gray and Kaiser assert that vv. 2223 were added by a later hand and therefore end the song at v. 21, while Watts goes still further to consider vv. 48 a mere prologue to the song itself.5 The place of vv. 48 and vv. 2223 within the song will be addressed in the exegesis of the passage; but these matters aside, it seems best to view the song as a unit, including v. 3 as a brief introduction, while acknowledging its close relationship with the preceding chapter.

2.1 Circumstantial introduction (vv. 34a)

The pericope begins, therefore, with an introduction, explaining the time when the song would be sung. It is important to set the prophets words throughout the passage in this perspective which is established in v. 3: . Since preceding verses have identified the time of Gods judgment upon Babylon as a time of restoration for Israel to the land (v. 1) and to sovereignty over her enemies (v. 2), the waw-consecutive perfect is best rendered as future, corresponding to that same future time: and it will be. This is further amplified by the prepositional phrase in the day, together with the infinitive construct, functioning as a temporal adjective: that [the Lord] gives [you] rest.6 Here, the giving of rest is most naturally connected to in v. 1; thus, the timing of this song is pinpointed as the time of Israels promised restoration. V. 4a completes
W. R. Scott, A Simplified Guide to BHS (Birmingham, AL: Bibal, 1995) 1. See R. E. Clements, Isaiah 139 (The New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 13945; J. P. Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) 18390; G. A. Smith, The Book of Isaiah (vol. 1) (The Expositors Bible; Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham) 408415. 4 G. W. Grogan, Isaiah, The Expositors Bible Commentary (ed. F. E. Gaebelein; 12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 6:95108; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 139 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 31026. 5 G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah IXXXIX (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962) 24762; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1339: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 2743; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 133 (WBC; Waco: Word, 1985) 24:203214. 6 See GKC, 35253.
3 2

the thought: that you will take up, viewing the waw-consecutive perfect as subordinate to in v. 3. can refer to a proverb, a parable, or a poem, but in light of its deriva tion from to be like or similar toand the nature of this passage, it seems best to see here an emphasis on parallel speech: thus, chant.7 Significantly, it is this chant; i.e., the one which follows, and it is against the king of Babylon.8 It is noteworthy that this is the only point in the pericope where the addressee of the whole song is explicitly identified.

2.2 The land at rest (vv. 4b8)

The song proper opens with an exclamatory How! expressing the amazement of the singers at the fall of this king. He is described as the , which speaks of a taskmaster or more generally of an oppressor.9 That he has ceased ( )is stated twice in this first line, but the text of the parallel is problematic. While the MT reads 1 , QIsaa reads ,which seems to underlie Symmachuss Greek translation, Theodotions Greek revision, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and possibly the LXX.10 Given the wide range of opposing evidence, the likelihood of replacing a with a ,and the fact that is an Aramaic equivalent of ( which would have been less likely to stand in the text as early as the original writing of Isaiah), it seems best to follow the recommended emendation. Internally, also fits better into the parallel, since it would function as the subject of the second clause, rather than as a directional object: raging has ceased. The fact that this line stands in parallel with the preceding indicates that raging should be taken with reference to the person described as . As the first stanza continues, this individual is not identified explicitly until v. 8, where he is referred to in the second person. This designation is predictable, since the chant is addressed against him personally; it therefore seems best to take this first line in the second person as well. The singers go on to depict this oppressive king as a rod of wicked ones and a staff of rulers. Both elements of the synonymous parallel convey
BDB, 605. The translation of follows the tone of the passage, in that this chant is taken up for the purpose of taunting the demise of this king. 9 Ibid., 620. 10 Great Isaiah Scroll [facsimile on-line] (MoellerHaus, 1998, accessed 17 March 1998/ available from http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-12.htm; Internet); BHS 695. The LXX reading is actually , which means taskmaster, but this rendering can be more readily connected with than with ,and the difference may be explainable in that the translators would have sought for a closer parallel to .
8 7

the kings position of royal authority and tyrannical dominion, in an image that naturally lends itself to the expressed judgmentto be broken by the Lord. The image is continued in the description of the kings rule. The participle expresses durative action in past time, since it describes his past rule after he has already fallen. The cognate accusative expresses the direct object, so that functions as the indirect objectthe recipient of the unceasing blow. As Gesenius explains, the perfect carries on the force of the preceding participle, so that all three statements in v. 6 are durative in aspect and serve to describe the former action of the staff in v. 5.11 Vv. 78 then proceed to describe the impact of the kings fall upon the land. There seems to be a mismatch between the singular - and the plural ,but the authors focus is on those who subsist on the land, rather than particularly the land itself, most notably the cypress trees and cedars of v. 8. The verbs in vv. 78a are all perfect, which seems best translated with an English present perfect, showing a past act producing a present state. In v. 8b, the singers quote the cypress and cedars as expressing their own joy at the outcome of the kings downfall, for now there is no [wood]cutter to harm them.

2.3 Sheol stirred up (vv. 911)

At this point, there is a natural thematic break in the song, as the scene shifts from the impact of the kings downfall upon the land to the response his descent into Sheol stimulates. As Oswalt notes, the contrast is striking whereas the land is at rest and at peace, Sheol has been agitated () over his arrival.12 This is the same word that appeared in v. 3, speaking of Israels former situation, from which she would be granted rest.13 The purpose of this agitation is to meet the kings coming, specifically to rouse the former kings who now dwell there, to mock this fallen tyrant. These kings (presumably kings who had fallen to Babylon in their day) are described as and . The first of these terms is uncertain as to its root, but according to BDB the popular approach is to see it as derived from ,thus somehow related to the idea of sinking down or weakness.14 Its usage is somewhat more revealing, although even here there is some confusion. The earliest referent was a people group inhabiting the region of
GKC, 36162. Oswalt, Isaiah, 318. 13 ;note the similar correspondence between Israels restoration and the state of the land in v. 7. 14 BDB, 952.
12 11

Bashan during the time of Abraham, but dying out in later centuries (Gen 14:5; 15:20; Deut 3:13; Josh 15:8; 17:15; 18:16), so that their last king is identified as Og (Josh 12:4; 13:12). They seem to have been characteristically tall (Deut 2:1011, 2021; 3:11), leading to the notion that some of the Philistine champions were their descendants (1 Chr 20:4). This usage, however, bears little evident relationship with their poetic appearance as the inhabitants of Sheol and Abaddon (26:5; Ps 88:10; Prov 9:18; cf. Prov 2:18; 21:16). Elsewhere, Isaiah seems to distinguish them from the material aspect of the dead, possibly indicating that they were seen as the disembodied souls of dead humans (26:14, 19). In this passage, it may be that the term is intended to convey both meanings, since these are clearly inhabitants of Sheol, but they are also men who in their days upon the earth were powerful, leading figures. The second term literally means he-goats of the land, but here it is used figuratively. Their status as breeders (Gen 31:10, 12) and leaders in the flocks (Jer 50:8) prepared a natural association with human leaders in prophetic literature (Ezek 34:17; Zech 10:3). While this seems to be the primary thrust of the usage here, it is noteworthy that one of the most prevalent contexts in which the term appears literally is as an object of slaughter.15 This connotation lends some weight to the suggestion that these kings were past victims of the Babylonians. They are pictured at the end of v. 9 as rising up from their subterranean thrones to welcome this former adversary. In v. 10, these kings address the Babylonian king, taunting him for the severity of his demise. The tense of their introduction is imperfect, but it seems best to render it as English present, since the speech follows immediately upon their past action of having been raised. The quote begins in v. 10b, but its conclusion is difficult to pinpoint. Beyond this first line, no personal reference is made to any particular speaker until v. 13, where -is quoted. Thus, it is possible that the kings continue their speech no further than v. 10, through v. 11, or as far as v. 15, which still deals with his descent into Sheol. Bultema prefers to include v. 11, but he offers no explanation.16 Continuation through v. 15 would allow for the strong connection between the terminology of vv. 1214 and Canaanite paganism that some scholars seek to establish. As Kaiser suggests, however, the length of the speech attributed to the trees in v. 8b seems a good precedent on which to limit the kings to one line only.17 The kings therefore
Ps 50:89, 13; 66:15; Num 7:17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53, 59, 65, 71, 77, 83, 88; Deut 32:14; Isa 1:11; 34:6; Jer 51:40; Ezek 39:18. 16 H. Bultema, Commmentary on Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981) 167. 17 Kaiser, Isaiah, 37; cf. F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (v. 1)
15

have only one thing to mention: that this Babylonian, who triumphed over them in life, is now their equal. In v. 11, the song continues to proclaim his pathetic state: his exaltation and all the accompanying manifestations, symbolized here by the musical instruments of the Babylonian court, are seen as passing into Sheol with him. His bed and covering are appropriate to the condition of deathmaggots and worms.

2.4 The king fallen from heaven (vv. 1215)

At this point, two major indicators introduce the next section of the song. First, here alone is repeated from v. 4, indicating a major division in the flow. Second, the perspective now shifts into the more distant past, as the details leading up to the fall itself are recounted. This section is addressed to , -literally, shining one, son of the dawn. The LXX renders it , and from the Latin Vulgate, some notable English translations (kjv, nkjv) have retained Lucifer. The issue here is not so much whether it ought to stand as a proper name or not, but whether it is addressed to some person other than the king of Babylon, to whom the song as a whole is directed. In any case, he is recalled as having been hewn down from his former state of weakening the nations. In vv. 1314, he is quoted as having expressed a desire in his heart to achieve an impossible status. His five cohortative statements show his extreme arrogance, climaxed in actually making himself like a pagan deity but for the Israelites a title of God.18 The word that he uses here () 19 a resemblance of glory,20 or can refer to a circumstantial resemblance, a natural resemblance (Ps 50:21; 144:4); but in this context, it seems that he desires Gods glory, which Isaiah elsewhere describes as impossible to achieve (40:18, 25; 46:5). The reflexive nature of the Hithpael stem as used here seems to indicate in a very bold way that he thinks to do it
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960) 311; Lange, Isaiah, 183; W. E. Vine, Isaiah: Prophecies, Promises, Warnings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 55; Watts, Isaiah, 205; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (vol. 1) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 438. The choice between v. 10 and v. 15 can have much to do with ones division of the passage. Weight is added to the shorter quote if v. 12 is seen to begin a new stanza. 18 Gen 14:1820, 22; Num 24:16; Deut 32:8; 2 Sam 22:14; Ps 7:17; 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 46:4; 47:2; 50:14; 57:2; 73:11; 77:10; 78:17, 35, 56; 82:6; 83:18; 87:5; 91:1, 9; 92:1; 97:9; 107:11; Lam 3:35, 38. 19 Num 33:56; Judg 20:5; 2 Sam 21:5; Esth 4:13; Ps 49:12, 20; 102:6; Cant 1:9; 2:9, 17; 8:14; Isa 1:9; 10:7; 14:24; Lam 2:13; Hos 12:10. 20 Ps 48:8; 89:6; Cant 7:7; Isa 40:18, 25; 46:5; Ezek 31:2, 8, 18; 32:2.

under his own strength. V. 15, however, is very clear on the outcome: instead of achieving his grandiose vision, this Babylonian king is being brought down to Sheol.21 And so, with this statement, the song returns to the present circumstances. Again, the imperfect seems best taken as expressing a present state, since the perspective of the whole song is from after the judgment has already been issued.

2.5 The king cast aside (vv. 1620a)

It is plausible that v. 15 belongs in this next section, but it seems that the assertions of -require an immediate response of some sort, before moving on to the next theme, that being the reaction of those who see the kings corpse. The meaning of is a bit difficult to ascertain, but in context, it seems to be a pondering look which leads to the more certain ,the reflexive Hithpolel showing that they bring themselves to a point of recognition. They know whom they have seenthis former tyrant who would agitate the land22 and shake kingdoms. Already, his current state is insinuated by their apprehensive reaction Is this the man? As was seen in v. 6, the perfects of v. 17 continue with the relative force of the participles in v. 16, further describing the man. He set the world like the wilderness and tore down its cities, but the next line is somewhat more confusing. Literally, it reads: His prisoners he did not open to a house. The Piel would probably be smoother, but there is no reason to object to rendering with regard to people as release. Still, is rough, since opening or releasing does not normally carry the idea of a direction. Davidson classifies this as a pregnant construction, wherein a preposition of motion is used with a verb that does not express motion, and recommends that another verb be implied, in this case send.23 As Geise points out, however, this is not really necessary. The sense is clear enough without any insertions: He did not afford his captives the opportunity to go free, whereupon they would naturally find their way back home.24
The translation of is difficult, in that the imperfect here does not seem to indicate a future tense but a present. The Hebrew state is versatile enough to handle this use, but a proper English translation may seem to indicate the use of a participle, since is a word that naturally indicates process of action. 22 This is the same term applied to Sheols response in v. 9 and more importantly to Israels condition from which she has been given rest in v. 3. It is difficult to avoid making a strong tie between here and Israel, to whom the agitation of v. 3 refers. 23 A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901) 138. 24 J. B. Geise, An Exegesis of Isaiah 14:423 (M.Div. thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1973) 37.
21

At this point, the king is seen to go beyond the mere equality with his defeated enemies that was declared in v. 10. He is in a state of abjection that even these ordinary kings would never endure. Contrary to their formal and often luxurious burials (v. 18), he has been cast from his grave like three worthless objects. The first is a literally, an ab horred branch. The second is a a garment of men who are slain. These are not just any corpses, however, for these men have been slain by the sword in battle and find their burial in a common grave covered with stones. The third is a a down-trodden corpse. When it is said that he will not be united with them in the burial, Geise argues from proximity, redundancy, extent, and logic that them refers to the common battle-slain of v. 19, but his argument fails on all four counts.25 can be considered the nearer antecedent only if it qualifies as an antecedent at all, but its use in v. 19 is to identify the garment to which the king is compared. does establish the contrast with the state of the other kings, but v. 20 need serve as nothing more than a negative statement of what has just been positively expressed. There is no need to go beyond the fate of the kingsall that is necessary is to establish that the Babylonian is not buried, whether in comparison with kings or with commoners. Finally, introduces the reason for his lack of burial, regardless of the specific comparison used. Since all three comparisons serve to illustrate the extent of the kings shameful state in contrast with that of other kings, it seems that there is no need to force a further comparison with one of those illustrations.

2.6 His offspring cut off (vv. 20b23)

In the final section the Lord Himself speaks. Three times He is identified as the speaker, but since each pertains to what precedes it, there is some small difficulty identifying the beginning of His speech. Still, the thematic continuity and the volitive force, particularly the waw-consecutive perfect tie between - and , , , , , and joins at least vv. 2123 as a unit. The last line of v. 20 may be included in that it shares an emphasis on offspring26 and in light of the jussive meaning which may be given to . Also, this connection accounts better for the change from second person to third, and it provides a logical antecedent for . Here then, the Lord carries the judgment beyond what has obvi
25 26

Geise, Isaiah, 44-45. Cf. with .

10

ously happened to the king personally and culminates this prophecy against Babylon and her king with a sentence upon name, remnant, offspring, and posterity (v. 22). Again, the whole section carries a volitive forcethe seed ( ) must not be proclaimed; a slaughtering-place ( ) must be es tablished; his sons must not arise, take possession of land, or fill the face of the world; the Lord must arise against them; He must cut them off; He must set Babylon as a desolation; He must utterly annihilate it. Critics seem almost universal in their agreement that this last section (chiefly vv. 2223) was added by a later redactor. Clements states it as a fact without explanation,27 while Gray briefly asserts that it does not fit the poetic structure.28 Kaiser goes as far as to identify him with the same redactor that he sees in vv. 2021, though he does not explain how he determines this.29 Granted, there is some discontinuity in that this section alone is addressed as specifically the words of the Lord, but this whole song is characterized by quotes from various groups and individuals. If poetic structure is truly the problem that the critics make it out to be, it is possible that these last verses are not part of the song proper but form Gods divine response to the content of the song. But structurally and thematically, there is no discernible conflict or indication of interference with the original writing.

3 Identity of -
Having concluded a broad exegesis of the song, then, it remains to identify the addressee of vv. 1214. As cited before, many commentators and theologians simply assume that the reference is to Satan, but some are equally presumptuous against the thought.30
Clements, Isaiah, 145. Gray, Isaiah, 262. 29 Kaiser, Isaiah, 43. 30 J. Calvin, on p. 442 of his Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (vol. 1) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) writes:
28 27

The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; . 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.

11

3.1 Views on the identity

Although they could probably be classified differently, it seems that there are three basic identities assigned: Satan, a mythical illustration, or a historical king. He is Satan. As mentioned in the introduction, many who hold the Satanic interpretation seem to find no need to explain their case. Ironside does little better, connecting the passage with Ezekiel 28 and identifying Lucifer with the covering cherub, but without any more explanation than to say that these words cannot apply to any mere mortal man.31 Dickason argues primarily for the future Antichrist as the object of the prophecy as a whole and for Satans control of him as specifically developed in vv. 1217. He also cites the analogy with Ezekiel 28 and the terminology of vv. 1214.32 He is a mythical illustration. Most other views admit some influence of pagan mythology, but a line can be drawn, however fine, between those who perceive this force as primary and those who merely see some terminological influence within the prideful kings assertions. The extreme mythical position is seen in Van Leeuwens attempt to reconstruct portions of the text in accordance with the Gilgamesh Epic.33 Others, such as Gray and Watts, assert an intention of identity between the king and a mythical character, but with obvious difficulty in lining up all of the details to any known myth.34 Kaiser and Clements acknowledge this lack of clear evidence but still incline toward a mythical fragment or at least an allusion.35 All seem basically agreed that Canaanite mythology is the best possible source, both from terminology and from familiarity for Isaiahs audience. He is an historical king. As with the mythical category, there are variations within the historical king viewpoint. Young sees Isaiah as placing
31 H. A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah (New York: Loizeaux, 1952) 88; cf. Bultema, Isaiah, 167. 32 C. F. Dickason, Angels, Elect and Evil (Chicago: Moody, 1975) 13132. 33 R. C. Van Leeuwen, Isa 14:12, Hles al Gwym and Gilgamesh XI, 6, JBL 99 (1980) 17384. 34 Gray, Isaiah, 255; Watts, Isaiah, 209. 35 Kaiser, Isaiah, 3839; Clements, Isaiah, 14243. It seems fair to place Grogan in this same category, although he tries to maintain a balance between the literal, mythical, and Satan-typological approaches (Isaiah, 105106).

12

terms from Canaanite myth in the kings title and assertions but sees the basic reference as to the king himself.36 Oswalt acknowledges verbal similarity to Canaanite myth but sees them only as motifs used in the prophets description.37 Delitzsch, Martin, and Smith view the language as appropriate to a pagan kings depiction of himself,38 while Alden, Luther, and Vine see the language as hyperbolic but draw no connection to mythology.39 Lange is typical of this view in that he sees some connection to pagan terminology as well as a possible illustration of Satanic spirit in sinful human activity, but still finds the primary emphasis consistent with the context, which focuses on the king himself.40

3.2 Isa 14:1214 related to its context

Probably the most important question to be dealt with on this issue is how vv. 1214 relate to the passage as a whole. Few, if any, would dare to apply all of vv. 323 to Satan; rather, they would see these verses as depicting a spiritual ruler behind the physical ruler. The question, though, is whether there is any warrant from the structure and flow of the passage to view it this way. If the structure proposed in the first part of this paper is correct, the section in question should actually include v. 15. But v. 15 seems forced in its application to Satan, since his fall was not to such a great extent that he is presently confined to Sheol (1 Pet 5:8). It is possible, since the perspective of the song is from the time of Israels restoration, that the fall is described as including the full extent of Satans punishment, but if that were the case, there would be no necessary reference to a past fall of Satan at all, but the only event in view would be his expulsion from heaven which transpires in Rev 12:9 and culminates in Revelation 20. A more serious problem for the Satanic view comes in relating vv. 12 15 to the rest of the song. Although proponents tend to analogize this passage with Ezekiel 28, the division in Ezekiel 28 has a clear distinction between addressees. Here in Isaiah 14, the whole song is introduced as directed against the king of Babylon (v. 4), which precludes any other recipient being identified within the song. Since the first in v. 4 does
Young, Isaiah, 44042. Oswalt, Isaiah, 32123. 38 Delitzsch, Isaiah, 31113; J. A. Martin, Isaiah, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; 2 vols.; Victor, 1985) 1:106162; Smith, Isaiah, 411. 39 R. L. Alden, Lucifer, Who or What? JETS 11 (1968) 37-39; M. Luther, Lectures on Isaiah: Chap. 139 (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1969) 14041; Vine, Isaiah, 55. 40 Lange, Isaiah, 18788.
37 36

13

not name its recipient, there is no reason to suppose that he is any other than the same individual identified in the second statement (v. 12). Dickason also appeals to supposed redundancy from the first part of the song.41 But there is no striking repetition, and what little redundancy does exist can be explained by the major shift in the song, whereby the focus is now on the past activity of the king rather than his present condition. But an even greater problem for the Satanic view than the lack of a specifically identified shift in recipient from the first section is the continuity between vv. 1215 and what follows. There is no indication whatsoever that the second-person references are to anyone different, but in v. 16 he is called an explicitly human termand in the following verses, he is described as a corpse without a grave. He is described in the final section as having seed and sons, which will be cut off (vv. 2021). In short, the judgments described throughout the entire song are appropriate only to a human king.

3.3 Isa 14:1214 related to pagan myth

The mythological view shares in common with the Satanic view that it seeks to explain the terminology of vv. 1214 by referring it primarily to a non-human individual. As has already been stated, even proponents of this view recognize the difficulty involved with pinpointing a specific Canaanite myth as the referent. The details are not nearly complete enough to infer an actual reproduction of a myth fragment, so that it seems best to restrict this view to little more than some common terminology.

3.4 Isa 14:323 related to history

One of the difficulties involved with the historical king view is that no past king seems to fit the details of the song. Martin suggests Sennacherib, explaining that the Assyrian kings in fact referred to themselves as Babylonian kings.42 But even if this stretch is valid, Sennacheribs assassination would fail to achieve all of the details involved. To select any Babylonian king, for that matter, is virtually impossible, for two major reasons. First, most of the conquering kings died before the downfall of their kingdom. Second, the fall of Assyria, Babylon, or Persia never gave Israel the rest described in v. 3.
41 42

Dickason, Angels, 131. Martin, Isaiah, 1061.

14

3.5 The addressee of Isa 14:1214

In light of these difficulties with each of the above stated positions, it seems preferable to view the referent as a future king of Babylon. According to 13:2022, Babylons ultimate defeat must result in total desolation, which did not happen at the hand of the Persians.43 Likewise, Jeremiah 50 51 prophesied a degree of destruction which has not yet been fulfilled.44 Since both prophecies speak also of Israels final restoration as a result, it seems best to infer that there will be a future Babylon under a future king, which will experience the full prophesied destruction of these and other passages.45 If Dyers thesis is correct, that Revelation 1718 speaks of a rebuilt Babylon, there will be a very close association between this city and the world ruler who will seek to destroy Israel. Perhaps this king is therefore to be identified with the Beast of the Apocalypse, whose campaign would be quite fittingly described by the terminology of vv. 1314 and against whom the response of this song would be quite appropriate.

4 Conclusion
In closing, the song of Isa 14:323 will be taken up by Israel at the time of her restoration to the land, when Babylon is ultimately overthrown and her future king is cast down, his body flung aside on the bare ground, and his soul confined in Sheol. The most direct meaning would then be with regard to the campaign and fall of this future tyrant, who will seek to assert himself against God in heaven but will be utterly defeated at the return of Christ (Revelation 19). If there is any allusion to Satan as the one empowering this man, it cannot be divorced from the clear meaning, and it could not be construed to extend any further back than Satans own future defeat in the person of this same ruler.

References
[1] Alden, R. L. Lucifer, Who or What? JETS 11 (1968) 35-39.
See D. R. Rembold, The Rebuilding and Destruction of Babylon According to Isaiah 13-14 (Th.M. thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1981). 44 C. H. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1991) 17281. 45 See W. A. Banks, Will Babylon Be Rebuilt? (Th.M. thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1980); C. H. Dyer, The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979).
43

15

[2] Banks, W. A. Will Babylon Be Rebuilt? Th.M. thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1980. [3] Barackman, F. H. Practical Christian Theology: Clear Discussions of Great Doctrines of the Faith. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1992. [4] Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. [5] Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, C. A. The New BrownDriverBriggs Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979. [6] Bultema, H. Commentary on Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981. [7] Calvin, J. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (vol. 1). Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. [8] Chafer, L. S. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993. [9] Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1-39. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. [10] Davidson, A. B. Hebrew Syntax: Introductory Hebrew Grammar. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. [11] Delitzsch, F. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (vol. 1). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. [12] Dickason, C. F. Angels, Elect and Evil. Chicago: Moody, 1975. [13] Dyer, C. H. The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18. Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979. [14] Dyer, C. H. The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1991. [15] Geise, J. B. An Exegesis of Isaiah 14:4-23. M.Div. thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1973. [16] Gray, G. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962. [17] Great Isaiah Scroll [facsimile on-line]. MoellerHaus, 1998, accessed 17 March 1998/ available from http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/ qum-12.htm; Internet. 16

[18] Grogan, G. W. Isaiah. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Ed. F. E. Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. 6:3-354. [19] Ironside, H. A. Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah. New York: Loizeaux, 1952. [20] Kaiser, O. Isaiah 1339: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. [21] Kautzsch, E. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. [22] Lange, J. P. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical: Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d. [23] Liddell, H. G.; Scott, R.; Jones, H. S.; McKenzie, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. [24] Luther, M. Lectures on Isaiah: Chap. 139. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1969. [25] Martin, J. A. Isaiah. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. 2 vols. Victor, 1985. 1:10291121. [26] Oswalt, J. N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 139. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. [27] Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1935. [28] Rembold, D. R. The Rebuilding and Destruction of Babylon According to Isaiah 1314. Th.M. thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1981. [29] Ryrie, C. C. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody, 1972. [30] Scott, W. R. A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings. Birmingham, AL: Bibal, 1995. [31] Smith, G. A. The Book of Isaiah (vol. 1). The Expositors Bible. Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, n.d. [32] Van Leeuwen, R. C. Isa 14:12, Hles al Gwym and Gilgamesh XI, 6. JBL 99 (1980) 17384. [33] Vine, W. E. Isaiah: Prophecies, Promises, Warnings. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971. 17

[34] Watts, J. D. W. Isaiah 1-33. WBC. Waco: Word, 1985. [35] Wigram, G. V. The New Englishmans Hebrew Concordance. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984. [36] Young, E. J. The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (vol. 1). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

18