A common interpretation of Isaiah 14:12–15 views the passage as being about Satan, but the biblical case for this is surprisingly weak.
This series has shown how we can develop a better understanding and more robust defense of Scripture through the use of biblical theology. The first article defined biblical theology and contrasted it with systematic theology before showing how this approach yields an extremely strong argument for the days of Creation being normal-length days. The second and third articles focused on the “120 years” of Genesis 6:3 and how biblical theology brings great clarity to this much-debated passage.
The fourth article highlighted the two most common approaches to biblical theology within conservative Christianity today. What I labeled as the “Less Inductive Approach” encompasses views that have been identified as the “Chicago School” and the “Philadelphia School” by Klink and Lockett in their book Understanding Biblical Theology. The authors named these after well-known schools in these cities: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago and Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. The view that I favor and labeled as the “Mostly Inductive Approach” is titled by Klink and Lockett as the “Dallas School” after Dallas Theological Seminary.
In this article we are going to look at another passage that is usually misunderstood by Christians in general, and many creationists have followed suit. While the passage is not essential to the biblical creation model, it is often cited by creationists. However, as we apply principles of biblical theology to the passage, it will become clear that it has been misinterpreted and misapplied.
Does Isaiah 14 Describe Satan’s Fall?
Beginning in Isaiah 14:3, the prophet begins speaking against the King of Babylon and pronounces a terrifying judgment against him. Then in the middle of this taunt against the king, in verses 12–15, the prophet seems to reference another entity that many have assumed is Satan. And it is here where we read these infamous words:
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. (Isaiah 14:12–15)
Many Christians see the name “Lucifer” and assume that this must be talking about Satan. After all, Lucifer was Satan’s pre-fallen name, right? Was it really? Where does the Bible say that? This is the only place in the Bible where the name “Lucifer” appears, but most Bibles other than the KJV or NKJV, have something very different. That name does not appear. Instead of Lucifer, you will see something like “Day Star, son of Dawn” (ESV) or “star of the morning, son of the dawn” (NASB).
So why do some Bibles have “Lucifer” in verse 12? This word is based on the Latin Vulgate’s translation of the first Hebrew word in the name Helel ben Shachar. The Latin combined two words lux and ferre (“light bringer”) to make the word lucifer, which over centuries of church tradition became a popular moniker for Satan. The second and third terms (ben Shachar) mean “son of Shachar” or “son of the dawn.” So the real question that must be asked is who or what was helel ben Shachar?
It may come as a surprise to many Christians that the earliest Jewish and Christian interpreters did not connect Helel to Satan. Let’s use some biblical theology to see why that is the case. Isaiah prophesied in the eighth century BC. At that point in history, what had God revealed about Satan? If you read your Bible chronologically, what has been said about Satan up to this point?
Job 1 and 2 tell us about Satan’s attacks on Job’s property, family, and Job himself. So we can learn several things about Satan from this passage. He is able to communicate with God, and he is able to cause incredible harm. The term Satan means adversary, and from these chapters it seems that he is an adversary of both man and God.
And that’s it. Those are the only passages in the Old Testament prior to Isaiah’s day that clearly identify Satan as a personal adversarial figure. Someone might bring up 1 Chronicles 21:1, which states, “Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel” (ESV). There are at least two reasons why this passage does not contradict my claim that Job 1–2 are the only passages that specifically refer to Satan by name. First, the word translated as Satan simply means “adversary,” and it can refer to an adversary (an opponent) or the adversary (Satan himself). If this verse was about Satan, it would be more natural to see the definite article before the Hebrew noun, but it is not there. This means that the verse is likely talking about an adversary. This argument is inconclusive because a personal name or title does not require the definite article, but if it should be understood as “an adversary,” then it would refer to a foreign power that prompted David to unwisely order a census of his own warriors. While such a reaction would be quite natural for a king, it would demonstrate that he was trusting in the might of his army instead of God’s strength. The second reason this verse does not contradict my claim is that 1 Chronicles 21 was almost certainly written after Isaiah’s time. Yes, all the details refer to a time prior to Isaiah, but both 1 and 2 Chronicles were almost certainly written after the Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile. Ezra is often credited as the author or compiler, but we cannot be certain about this identification.
But Satan Was in the Garden of Eden
Yes, it’s true that Satan was in the garden and tempted Eve. But here is a detail that most Christians miss: neither Genesis nor the rest of the Old Testament give any indication that the serpent was Satan (whether Satan manifested as a serpent or possessed a serpent is largely irrelevant to this discussion and is a debate for another time). The reason we know that Satan was in the garden is because the New Testament tells us this.
In Revelation 12, John describes his vision of “a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns” (v. 3). Then he identifies this dragon as follows:
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:7–9)
Notice that this dragon is the deceiver of the whole world. He is “that ancient serpent” who is also called “the devil and Satan.” He is identified the same way in Revelation 20:2. There can be little doubt that John intends to connect Satan with the serpent in the garden.
Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, but did you know that the Old Testament never makes this connection? (Photo of the serpent at the Creation Museum)
The Apostle Paul likely made the same connection. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, he is in the middle of warning the Corinthians to be on guard against deception, and he mentioned that “the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness.” Then while wrapping up his warning about deception, he wrote, “And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (v. 14). While we cannot be certain that Paul viewed Satan and the serpent as one in the same, he does seem to use them interchangeably in this passage.
In one of his debates with some Jews in Jerusalem, Jesus stated, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44).
Putting these three passages together, we see that the New Testament teaches that Satan was the one who deceived Eve. He has been a murderer from the beginning, and he still seeks to deceive people. But as John’s vision revealed, he will be kicked out of heaven someday and later bound and imprisoned for 1000 years (Revelation 20:2–7).
Did Jesus Allude to this Passage?
Luke 10 tells us that Jesus sent out 70 of his followers (or 72, depending on manuscript) to go throughout Israel and announce to the people in each city that “the kingdom of God has come near to you,” (v. 9). They were given the ability to heal the sick and cast out demons. When they returned to Jesus, they were excited and stated, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name” (v. 17).
Jesus replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:18–19). Many Christians assume that when he said that he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven he was alluding to Isaiah 14. However, according to Robert Stein in his commentary on Matthew, the verb (the?re?) is an inceptive aorist (also called an ingressive aorist), so it would be better to translate as “I was seeing.” The NASB translates Jesus’ words accordingly: “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” This strongly favors the view that Jesus was not referring back to some passage in the Old Testament. Instead, he referred to the activities the disciples had just spoken about. The fact that they were casting out demons was a demonstration of Satan’s defeat.1
Even if Jesus had in mind Satan’s initial rebellion, there is very little in Luke 10 to tie it to Isaiah 14, other than the fact that some important figure was described as fallen or being in the process of falling in both passages. While it is not beyond the realm of possibility, it is a rather questionable base to build such a common view.
Applying Biblical Theology to Isaiah 14
Since Isaiah’s original audience had no prior revelation that would guide them to think of identifying Helel ben Shachar with Satan, then this identification seems highly unlikely. But what if there was someone that the Israelites would have readily connected with Isaiah’s words? Remember that Isaiah prophesied in the eighth century BC. Four or five centuries earlier, the ancient Canaanites had written about their pantheon of gods. You may have heard of Baal, El, and Asherah. Well, according to Canaanite beliefs, after Baal died during his conflict with Mot the gods needed to find someone to replace him and take his seat on Mt. Zaphon. After Asherah’s first recommendation was rejected, she proposed the following:
And Lady Asherah of the Sea replied:
“Why not make Athtar the Awesome king? Let Athtar the Awesome be king!”
Then Athtar the Awesome went up to the heights of Zaphon; he sat on Baal the Conqueror’s throne. His feet did not reach the footstool, his head did not reach the headrest.
And Athtar the Awesome spoke:
“I can’t be king on the heights of Zaphon.”
Athtar the Awesome descended, descended from the throne of Baal the Conqueror…2
So Athtar attempted to ascend to Baal’s throne on Mount Zaphon, but he couldn’t measure up and stepped down in humiliation. At first glance, you may not have picked up on the similarities between this story and our passage from Isaiah 14. But consider these three details. First, Baal was known as the “Most High” (Elyon). Second, in South Arabian and Northwest Semitic cultures, Athtar was associated with Venus, the “morning star.” Third, the place where Baal, Asherah, Athtar, and other Canaanite deities assembled was Mount Zaphon, which is the word translated as “north” in Isaiah 14:13. Now let’s look at Isaiah 14:12–15 again, this time from the NIV Bible.
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12–15, NIV, emphasis added)
Now do you see the strong parallels? The King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 was compared to someone identified with Venus, the “morning star,” who sought to be like “the Most High” on “Mount Zaphon.” But he could not measure up and was brought low.
Many ancient Israelites frequently abandoned the worship of the true God and worshiped Baal instead. They were well aware of Canaanite mythology.
Keep in mind the cultural background and amount of divine revelation about Satan available to Isaiah’s original hearers and readers, and ask yourself which of the two following interpretations is more likely. First option: Isaiah’s original listeners and readers guessed that this passage with strong Canaanite connections referred to Satan, a spiritual being that they may not have ever heard of or that they might have read about in Job, the one book in their holy writings that originated outside of their own people group—Job was a man “of the east” (Job 1:3). Second option: Isaiah’s original listeners and readers were Israelites who during the the period of the Judges and throughout the divided kingdom years struggled with the worship of Canaanite deities like Baal and Asherah. The basics of Canaanite mythology were almost certainly familiar to Isaiah’s audience. So the prophet draws upon that cultural knowledge to let the Israelites know that even though Babylon’s king seems so impressive and intimidating, he is going to be humbled like Athtar of Canaanite mythology.
And just in case you think that I am denying that Satan rebelled against God or that I am somehow trying to let him off the hook, you should know that I wholeheartedly affirm what Revelation 20 teaches about Satan’s future. I believe he will one day be bound and imprisoned for 1,000 years, and after being let loose for a short while, he will be defeated once again and thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity. And since this chapter seems to indicate that individuals will be judged according to their works, it seems that there will be degrees of punishment. And I believe that Satan will suffer more than anyone since he will be guilty of the most evil. And I do believe that pride was at the center of his rebellion, because some form of pride seems to be at the root of every sin against God.
Polemical Theology
Some Christians have trouble accepting that Isaiah 14 and other passages in the Bible engage in this type of rhetoric, known as polemical theology. This occurs when a biblical speaker or writer develops an illustration by alluding to pagan mythology and then undercutting or subverting that mythology. This is usually done to show that these deities are inferior to Yahweh, but in this case, it seems that the goal was simply to show that the Israelites did not need to fear the King of Babylon because one day he, like Athtar, would be greatly humbled.
Other examples of polemical theology can be seen in Isaiah 27:1 when the prophet speaks about Leviathan. Isaiah draws upon the Canaanite myth about Litan (also called Lotan) and uses identical wording to describe Levithan (the fleeing and twisting serpent in the sea). Many commentators believe he is using this imagery to describe the judgment that God would mete out on Assyria. Ezekiel 28 is similar to Isaiah 14 in that in the middle of a prophecy directed at the Prince of Tyre, the prophet includes a number of verses that seem to be directed at a rebellious spiritual entity. Those who think that entity is Satan have a much stronger case since it describes him as being “in Eden, the garden of God” (Ezekiel 28:13) and being an “anointed cherub” (v. 14) who was blameless in his ways until iniquity was found in him (v. 15). Another case of polemical theology occurs in Exodus where each of the ten plagues brought against Egypt were directed at a corresponding Egyptian deity. God did this so that the Egyptians and Israelites would know that Yahweh is more powerful than all the other gods and that he is the true God.
Conclusion
By following popular traditions that developed in the early church and Medieval Period, Christians have occasionally misinterpreted passages in Scripture. Many of these mistakes can be averted if we would strive to understand the cultural and historical setting of the original audience, seeking to see the text the way they might have seen it.
While later revelation can clarify earlier revelation, we should be cautious about reading later theological developments back into an Old Testament passage in a way that changes its original historical meaning. While there may be noble intentions in this practice, it is sort of like claiming that the Old Testament did not get things quite right, so it is up to us to correct it. Of course, this certainly would not be the goal for most people who do this, but this is an unintended consequence of such an approach. It would be much better for us to affirm that the Holy Spirit knew precisely what he was doing while inspiring the text of both the Old and New Testaments and to consistently interpret the Bible with that conviction in mind. The New Testament and church history can shed light on older passages, giving insight or clarification, but they cannot reinterpret the text to mean something different from what the original author intended.
Using biblical theology forces us to think about the text from the point of view of the original audience, so it helps us avoid erroneous interpretations that are often based on centuries of tradition rather than the text itself. As we have seen in this series, it is not always our go-to approach since many of us tend to approach the text from the perspective of systematic theology. However, as with many things, the more we practice thinking from a biblical theology perspective, the more natural it becomes to read the biblical text in a manner closer to the way the original audience would have understood it.
