Who first taught that Isaiah 14 is about Satan?
- Thread starter TheLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Satan is a liar https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4&version=ERV He only has power over unbelievers.
Indeed he is. But not everything he says is a lie. He tells enough truth such that people are deceived.
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
In Luke 4:5-6, if Jesus had thought the devil was lying, he would have called him on it.
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
In Luke 4:5-6, if Jesus had thought the devil was lying, he would have called him on it.
The source of deception, boasting against God, reviling God, rebellion, etc. is always Satan/Lucifer. There is only the dichotomy of The Living God and the god of this world. Just like there are only two sons: the Son who is Christ, a life-giving Spirit, or the son who is Adam, already condemned in his sins.
The words of the Bible are spiritual and thus spiritually discerned. The Lord is the Lord of His word and we should not cede His authority to the historians or the English professors.
The words of the Bible are spiritual and thus spiritually discerned. The Lord is the Lord of His word and we should not cede His authority to the historians or the English professors.
Has the devil been cast out yet? Have you noticed the state of the world?
Was Paul wrong in saying that the devil is the "god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4)?
Was John wrong in saying that "the whole world is under the control of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19)?
Was Peter wrong in saying that the devil "roams around seeking whom he can devour" (1 Pet 5:8)?
The end times, when the devil and his cohorts WILL be cast out, has been delayed. God intervened with Christianity.
Was Paul wrong in saying that the devil is the "god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4)?
Was John wrong in saying that "the whole world is under the control of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19)?
Was Peter wrong in saying that the devil "roams around seeking whom he can devour" (1 Pet 5:8)?
The end times, when the devil and his cohorts WILL be cast out, has been delayed. God intervened with Christianity.
"
Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: how art thou cut down to the ground;
like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see ( Isaiah 10:18 Isaiah 10:19 ) ( Ezekiel 31:3 ) ( Daniel 4:10 Daniel 4:22 ) and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, ( Revelation 18:21 ) : which didst weaken the nations!
by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:13 Revelation 17:15 Revelation 17:17 Revelation 17:18 ) . Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna F4, and explained in the Talmud F5; and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see ( Ezekiel 21:19-23 ) . The Targum is,
Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: how art thou cut down to the ground;
like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see ( Isaiah 10:18 Isaiah 10:19 ) ( Ezekiel 31:3 ) ( Daniel 4:10 Daniel 4:22 ) and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, ( Revelation 18:21 ) : which didst weaken the nations!
by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:13 Revelation 17:15 Revelation 17:17 Revelation 17:18 ) . Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna F4, and explained in the Talmud F5; and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see ( Ezekiel 21:19-23 ) . The Targum is,
``thou art cast down to the earth, who killedst the people:''
" https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-14-12.htmlThis is the site that is mostly off page https://www.studylight.org/commentary/isaiah/14-12.html
"Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the “morning star” has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16). "
...
"
12. O Lucifer; son of the morning] In his splendour he is likened to the morning star; which was worshipped by the Babylonians under the name of Istar, and is described in Assyrian by an epithet, mustilil (shining star), which seems to correspond to the word here used (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, on this verse). The translation “Lucifer” (light-bearer) is quite correct, and is needlessly abandoned by the R.V. By some of the fathers the passage was applied to the fall of Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); hence the current use of Lucifer as a name of the devil.
For weaken, read lay prostrate.
12–15. The third strophe contains the prophet’s reflection on the sudden fall of the king of Babylon. That he should go to Sheol at all was a fate never contemplated by his soaring and self-deifying pride."
...
(Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon, which might be called ben- shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.)
Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character. The additional epithet chōlēsh ‛al-gōyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum:
(Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the "conqueror of the king's enemies," "breaker of opposition," etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i.160).)
cholesh signifies "overthrowing" or laying down (Exodus 17:13), and with ‛al, "bringing defeat upon;" whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh ( equals purah, lot) of the Mishnah. A retrospective glance is now cast at the self-deification of the king of Babylon, in which he was the antitype of the devil and the type of antichrist (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and which had met with its reward." https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-12.htm
...
"
12. O Lucifer; son of the morning] In his splendour he is likened to the morning star; which was worshipped by the Babylonians under the name of Istar, and is described in Assyrian by an epithet, mustilil (shining star), which seems to correspond to the word here used (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, on this verse). The translation “Lucifer” (light-bearer) is quite correct, and is needlessly abandoned by the R.V. By some of the fathers the passage was applied to the fall of Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); hence the current use of Lucifer as a name of the devil.
For weaken, read lay prostrate.
12–15. The third strophe contains the prophet’s reflection on the sudden fall of the king of Babylon. That he should go to Sheol at all was a fate never contemplated by his soaring and self-deifying pride."
...
(Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon, which might be called ben- shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.)
Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character. The additional epithet chōlēsh ‛al-gōyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum:
(Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the "conqueror of the king's enemies," "breaker of opposition," etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i.160).)
cholesh signifies "overthrowing" or laying down (Exodus 17:13), and with ‛al, "bringing defeat upon;" whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh ( equals purah, lot) of the Mishnah. A retrospective glance is now cast at the self-deification of the king of Babylon, in which he was the antitype of the devil and the type of antichrist (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and which had met with its reward." https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-12.htm
"
Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word בקר as ‘morning’: " https://bible.org/article/lucifer-devil-isaiah-1412-kjv-argument-against-modern-translations
Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word בקר as ‘morning’: " https://bible.org/article/lucifer-devil-isaiah-1412-kjv-argument-against-modern-translations
Note: "Lucifer" can also be translated "Day star"
In its context, these verses seem to refer only to the king of Babylon.
Why do some people believe that these verses are about Satan?
...
Which king of Babylon has vexed commentators for centuries. Suggestions ranging from Sargon II to Alexander the Great (!) have been made. If the key term hêlēl provides a key (it was used only rarely as a royal epithet),1 the it would point to Esarhaddon (the only Babylonian or Assyrian king for whom its use is attested).
Meanwhile, this is a "taunt against the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4), even if we don't know for certain which one.
...
One would need to do a thorough search throughout the centuries of Christian intepretation to be certain of the adoption and diffusion of the idea that "Satan" is referred to in Isaiah 14:12. In Reformation period commentary, it was known and resisted. Franz Delitzsch, in his fine Isaiah commentary (1890; first German edition, 1875), quotes Luther to the effect that the tradition that Isaiah 14:12 referred to Satan was "insignis error totius papatus" = "a noteworthy error of the papacy" ... but he would say that. But Calvin, in fact, also noted and repudiated this identification in his Isaiah commentary as "arising from ignorance", and when commenting on Luke 10:18, he makes no mention of this allusion. "
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....1412-15-interpreted-by-some-to-refer-to-satan
In its context, these verses seem to refer only to the king of Babylon.
Why do some people believe that these verses are about Satan?
...
Which king of Babylon has vexed commentators for centuries. Suggestions ranging from Sargon II to Alexander the Great (!) have been made. If the key term hêlēl provides a key (it was used only rarely as a royal epithet),1 the it would point to Esarhaddon (the only Babylonian or Assyrian king for whom its use is attested).
Meanwhile, this is a "taunt against the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4), even if we don't know for certain which one.
...
One would need to do a thorough search throughout the centuries of Christian intepretation to be certain of the adoption and diffusion of the idea that "Satan" is referred to in Isaiah 14:12. In Reformation period commentary, it was known and resisted. Franz Delitzsch, in his fine Isaiah commentary (1890; first German edition, 1875), quotes Luther to the effect that the tradition that Isaiah 14:12 referred to Satan was "insignis error totius papatus" = "a noteworthy error of the papacy" ... but he would say that. But Calvin, in fact, also noted and repudiated this identification in his Isaiah commentary as "arising from ignorance", and when commenting on Luke 10:18, he makes no mention of this allusion. "
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....1412-15-interpreted-by-some-to-refer-to-satan
"I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation . . .--The words have often been interpreted of Jerusalem or the Temple, as the "mountain of assembly" (as the tabernacle was "the tent of the congregation," or "of meeting"), and "the sides (better, recesses) of the north" have been connected, like the same phrase in Psalm 48:2, with the portion of the Temple which the king of Babylon is supposed to threaten. Most modern scholars are, however, agreed that this interpretation is untenable. What is brought before us is the heaven, the "mountain of assembly," where the great gods in whom the king of Babylon believed sat in council. So Assyrian hymns speak of "the feasts of the silver mountains, the heavenly courts" (as the Greeks spoke of Olympus), where the gods dwell eternally (Records of the Past, iii. 133). And this ideal mountain was for them, like the Meru of Indian legend, in the farthest north. So in the legendary geography of Greece, the Hyperborei, or "people beyond the north wind," were a holy and blessed race, the chosen servants of Apollo (Herod., ii. 32-36). "
https://bibleapps.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-13.htm
https://bibleapps.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-13.htm
" The king may regard himself as, in a certain sense, Divine; but still he entertains a deep respect and reverence for those gods whom he regards as the most exalted, as Merodach, Bel, Nebo, Sin, Shamas. He is their worshipper, their devotee, their suppliant (see 'Records of the Past,' vol. 5. pp. 111-148). The Babylonian monarchs may have believed that after death they would mount up to heaven and join the "assembly of the great gods" (ibid., vol. 3. p. 83); but we scarcely know enough as yet of the religions opinions of the Babylonians to state positively what their belief was on the subject of a future life. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation. The early commentators explained this of Mount Zion, especially on account of the phrase, "in the sides of the north," which is used of the temple-bill in Psalm 48:2. But it is well objected that Mount Zion was a place of no grandeur or dignity or holiness to the Babylonians, who had made it a desolation; and that no Babylonian monarch would have desired to "sit" there. Moreover, the "mountain" of this passage must be one which is "above the heights of the clouds" and "above the stars of God," which the most imaginative poet could not have said of Mount Zion. A mythic mountain, belonging to the Babylonian theosophy, was therefore seen to be intended, even before the times of cuneiform decipherment (Rosenmüller, Michaelis, Knobel). Now that the Babylonian inscriptions can be read, it is found that there was such a mountain, called "Im-Kharsak," or "Kharsak-Kurra," which is described as "the mighty mountain of Bel, whose head rivals heaven, whose root is the holy deep," and which "was regarded as the spot where the ark had rested, and where the gods had their seat" ('Records of the Past,' vol. 11. p. 131, with the comment of Mr. Sayce, p. 130). In Babylonian geography this mountain was identified, either with the peak of Rowandiz, or with Mount Elwend, near Ecbatana. In the sides of the north. Both El-wend and Rowandiz are situated to the northeast of Babylou - a position which, according to ancient ideas, might be described indifferently as "north" or "east." "
https://bibleapps.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-13.htm
https://bibleapps.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-13.htm
The receiving the king of Babylon into the regions of the dead, shows there is a world of spirits, to which the souls of men remove at death. And that souls have converse with each other, though we have none with them; and that death and hell will be death and hell indeed, to all who fall unholy, from the height of this world's pomps, and the fulness of its pleasures. Learn from all this, that the seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned. The royal city is to be ruined and forsaken. Thus the utter destruction of the New Testament Babylon is illustrated, Re 18:2. When a people will not be made clean with the besom of reformation, what can they expect but to be swept off the face of the earth with the besom of destruction?
-
1
- Show all