Isaiah 14:12-17

[TheSword]

I know Isaiah 14:12-17 is commonly used as a reference to the fall of Satan:

 

¹⁴ I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

¹⁵ Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

¹⁶ They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

¹⁷ That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

 

What is/are the justification(s) for this interpretation? I understand that some apply the "law of double-reference" here in the same way it is applied to Ezekiel 28 for the same purpose; but what is the evidence to support this application and/or interpretation as opposed to a single reference to a king or nation?

 

 

**Please note, this is a study-type question. I'm not necessarily disagreeing or discounting the notion that is meant to reference the fall of Satan**

[Invicta]

I do not believe that these. verses refer to Satan.  I cannot see that you can take those verses from those before and after.  The whole chapter seems to fallow on and refers to the king of Babylon, in my view.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I know Isaiah 14:12-17 is commonly used as a reference to the fall of Satan:

 

¹⁴ I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

¹⁵ Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

¹⁶ They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

¹⁷ That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

 

What is/are the justification(s) for this interpretation? I understand that some apply the "law of double-reference" here in the same way it is applied to Ezekiel 28 for the same purpose; but what is the evidence to support this application and/or interpretation as opposed to a single reference to a king or nation?

 

 

**Please note, this is a study-type question. I'm not necessarily disagreeing or discounting the notion that is meant to reference the fall of Satan**

Historically it applies the king of Babylon.

 

Spiritually it applies to Satan.

 

Doctrinally or prophetically it applies to the Antichrist (vs 16-" Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms").

 

All throughout scripture the kings of this world are compared to spiritual wickedness in high places. The two go hand in hand. Look at I Cor. 2:8 where it says that Christ was crucified by the "princes of this world" or in Daniel 10:13 where a devil is called "the prince of Persia.

 

All you need to do is compare scripture with scripture to realize Isaiah 14 is referencing the fall of Satan. But this is only one application.

[JerryNumbers]

I agree with what you say they are commonly use to prove.

[Covenanter]

Reading Isaiah 13 & 14 together as a very graphic description of the defeat of Babylon by the Medes. We can see the satanic pride of Nebuchadnezzar & Belshazzar in Daniel 4 & 5. Lucifer is used once in Scripture, so it is not possible to develop it beyond the idea of "morning star." The morning star shines brightly, but the rising sun obliterates it. Isa. 14 sees Israel restored when Babylon is overthrown.

 

Babylon was raised up & used by God for the punishment of Judah, & its doom was also prophesied. See Habakkuk.

 

Ezek. 28 does give the creation & attributes of the "king of Tyre" which seems more appropriate to Satan than a human king. However, when we read Ezek. 26 - 28, we see the arrogance of Tyre, taking advantage of the weakness of Jerusalem(26:2)

 

I see nothing wrong with taking these graphic descriptions of the destruction of Israel's enemies & applying them to the great enemy of Christ. We should look beyond the literal & apply Scripture spiritually.

[irishman]

I believe it falls under the title of "typology".  Just as thee are several "types" of Christ in the Bible, we see a type of Satan here.  Who is it that motivated the king of Babylon?  Who else was "Lucifer, the son of the morning" or, as some say, "the morning star"?

(I don't like to interpret it as morning star, since this name refers to Christ in Revelation 22:16.)

[TheSword]

Thank you all for your inputs. (Song, yours was quite helpful; Irishman, I wish I had seen yours before writing the essay because it would have been helpful as well I think).

 

Here's the brief essay I wrote trying to answer the question. If you have the time and can stand reading through it, I'm open and appreciative of any critiques on the points made:

 

The application of Isaiah 14, particularly verses 12 thru 17, to the fall of Satan is a difficult one to interpret. Historically and contextually speaking, Isaiah is speaking specifically about the king of Babylon. He uses a multitude of metaphors to describe the pride of the king and/or kingdom and the way in which he has been or will be cast down. Sandy points out, metaphors are often utilized in prophecy to “create a visual image” and “increase memorability” (Sandy 2001, 60). He also notes that metaphors are a “function of community” (Sandy 2001, 61) making the employment of the figurative language specific to the audience. Indeed, Bray points out that Isaiah was not addressing the king of Babylon direct, but rather speaking to the people of Judah. Within its own context, Isaiah 14 is not intending to directly reference Satan, but the “downfall of arrogance and oppression, represented here by the king of Babylon [emphasis in original]” (Webb 1996, 83). Webb asserts that interpreting a reference to Satan in this passage reads too much into the text, but still sees it the king of Babylon as “a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defies God” and that its metaphorical references are rooted in human self-pride (Ibid).

 

It is rather clear that this passage is not specifically intended to reference Satan. However, I do believe that it does describe the fall of Satan by way of the metaphor. If the king of Babylon is being depicted as the embodiment of pride and arrogance then a metaphor intended to parallel his fall to the fall of Satan is completely logical. If the metaphorical goal is to create a visual image that will be remembered then a comparison to Satan is the best hyperbole that can be used. Though Isaiah 14 is not written specifically about the fall of Satan it describes that fall by way of metaphoric comparison. This is particularly true if Webb is accurate in asserting that the king of Babylon is being derided as a representation of all such kings and rulers who share his behavioral traits. They all point in the common direction to the nature of Satan and his attributes as the adversary of God.

 

The connection between Isaiah 14 to the fall of Satan is often said to be an example of the “law of double reference” (Richards 1991, 14:12-15). This hermeneutical interpretation says that though the intended subject or audience is one thing (usually something earthly or temporal) there is an additional intended reference either by the human author or the Holy Spirit (usually something spiritual). A similar interpretation is generally applied to Ezekiel 28:13-19 in which the prophet is speaking to or about the king of Tyre in a manner that is applied to the origin and fall of Satan. Double reference applications such as this are rather common in prophecy. In our survey of just the first fourteen chapters of Isaiah there have been three such possible cases: the sign of Immanuel (7:10-16, 9:6-7), the Branch (11:1-16), and Lucifer (14:12-17).

 

Additionally, there are references within Scripture asserting that Satan is behind wicked and ungodly kings and kingdoms. One such reference can be found in Daniel 10:13 in which the prophet describes a spiritual battle between Satan and Michael the archangel, referring to them as “princes”, or rather representatives or higher beings. Further, New Testament insight into spiritual warfare and the scope and reality of Satan’s sphere of power and influence all seem to indicate that he is the one in the background with which we are to be fighting as opposed to the human rulers. Ephesians 2:2 declares that he is the “prince of the power of the air” while 2 Corinthians 4:4 and John 12:31 refer to him as “the god/ruler of this world.” First Timothy 3:6 explains that when people take on the pride that defines Satan they share in his condemnation.

 

Taken only in the context of Isaiah 14, the passage does not specifically refer to the fall of Satan, though I believe the metaphorical inference still describes that fall. Additionally, when the whole of Scripture is applied, the application of Isaiah 14 can be fittingly interpreted in terms of the fall of Satan.