I have been working on a post about Isaiah 14 for a few days now, and the initial post has turned into a paper (that is no where near being completed, maybe I will post the fruits of this project when I am done). I have currently written four pages, and I have only scratched the surface of where I want to go with this, so I thought I would post a pertanant comment that John Calvin made regarding this often misunderstood passage instead of a partial research paper.
“The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. 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 them as useless fables.” (From Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah)
I don’t think one can add much to the advice given by Calvin regarding the exegesis of this passage of Scripture. I think Calvin is spot on with his understanding and his advice (“let us pass them as useless fables”). Isaiah 14, in my opinion, has nothing to do with Satan, and any information that has informed one’s theology of Satan that derives from this passage should be abandoned.
As a side note, I take the word מָּשָׁל in Isaiah 14:4 to mean taunt or taunting song, not as a proverb as some translations suggest. I believe Isaiah is told to mock the king using sarcasm that plays off of Mesopotamian Royal Ideology, which employs the King as cultic figure that is in league with the gods of Babylon.
As much as it pains me, I think I agree with Calvin on this. Odd, considering my name.
I agree with you on Isaiah 14, as well as the relevant Ezekiel passage. The really interesting thing is, after one removes those two passages, how much is left to “satanology?”
By: Calvin on March 17, 2008
at 12:24 am
Don’t let agreeing with the genius who is Calvin pain you.
It is so odd to me why some people want to find Satan in passages like these. I think it is because they have all ready built there theology that has been somewhat validated by their experience, ultimately they don’t want to upset their theological apple cart by not having Satan in passages such as this. At least that is my impression based on recent conversations
By: parkersmood on March 18, 2008
at 12:03 pm
I’d agree with that assessment. It’s one of my problems with systematic theology. As soon as we put together the system, we suddenly have a vested interest in preserving the said system, even if it means propagating bad exegesis.
By: Calvin on March 18, 2008
at 6:36 pm
True, true! I am all for systematics, but I am for a systematic theology that is willing to conform to good exegetical practices, and one that is willing to be altered based on the results of said practice. But as you suggested, too many people have a vested interest in a particular system.
We have talked about this before, but that is partially why I am drawn to Calvin, he is a theologian who was guided by a pretty sound exegetical method. His method further informed his Institutes, creating a spiral of sorts.
In my opinion, John Calvin has to be the most famous theologian never read. He is often adored and often reviled by people who have never cracked a single spine of a book that he has penned. (sigh)
By: parkersmood on March 18, 2008
at 7:23 pm
In my opinion, John Calvin has to be the most famous theologian never read. He is often adored and often reviled by people who have never cracked a single spine of a book that he has penned.
Quite possibly. Perhaps I should have picked up his commentary on the Bible for $17 at the CBD sale. Eh. I’ve not been a big fan, but all I’ve read is the Institutes…and not completely.
By: Calvin on March 18, 2008
at 11:53 pm
I just re-read my post and it sounded as if I was insinuating that you fell into either camp. Sorry for that. Generally speaking I find peoples reaction to him to be either extremely hot and extremely cold, but usually for no real good reason.
By the way, they had a single volume commentary on the Bible that he wrote at CBD? I didn’t know that such a volume existed. A few years ago, I purchased a 22 vol. set of his commentaries by Baker for about $90 at CBD.
By: parkersmood on March 19, 2008
at 12:03 am
[...] either; however, the same interpretive methodology is often used to interpret Isaiah 14 (see my recent post). People that would never advocate that 1 Kings 2:16-20 teaches that Mary serves as [...]
By: The queen mother and the Queen Mother (and Satan?): An exposition on 1 Kings 2:16-20, As It Relates to Interpretive Methodologies. « Thoughts from a Young, Slightly Cantankerous, Aspiring Theologian on March 19, 2008
at 4:06 am
I would probably come to the same conclusion on this Isaiah passage, let us know when the paper is done. But there are other parallel-seeming passages in the Bible – not very clearly, but from which someone may viably accept these passages as talking about Satan, at least in the antitype of the king. It’s not really like 1 Kings 2 (although i take your point), because 1 Ki 2 is so far removed from anything to do with Mary.
Consider Luke 10:18, 1 Tim 3:6 and others that have refer to Satan being cast from Heaven, and being proud, and Even Rev 12 which talks about him being cast to the earth. Ezekiel 28 has a lot more problems to answer. You need to solve those, which is not very easy, and if you feel perhaps Eze28 could be talking about Satan, then Isa 14 starts looking more possible too.
I personally would opt for a both-and, kind of double fulfilment. Whether the prophet knew it or not, I’m not sure.
By: Malcolm on April 6, 2008
at 10:41 am
Hello Malcom,
Welcome to my small corner of the World Wide Web. I will gladly post my paper on Isa. 14 when I am finished (once my semester is over, I will probably get around to finishing it).
My concern to be honest with you is hermeneutics. My problem is that I don’t think that their is a need to seek a double fulfillment hermeneutic, because the text clearly defines the recipient of the mashal as the King of Babylon.
I don;t want to go too deep into why, I’ll save it for the paper, but I would also put Eze28 in the same category s Isa14 (who knows maybe I will expand the paper to cover that verse as well).
By: parkersmood on April 7, 2008
at 12:58 pm
[...] When I checked out Isaiah 14 for myself, I learned that it’s about the king of Babylon, which wasn’t exactly highlighted (or even mentioned) whenever I heard Armstrongites or Adventist teachers expound the passage. For them, it was about the origin of Satan, period! And some Christians have asserted that Isaiah 14 has nothing to do with Satan because it’s about the king of Babylon, as this passage from John Calvin’s Isaiah commentary demonstrates (see here): [...]
By: Helel Ben Shachar: Satan « James’ Ramblings on November 6, 2009
at 9:31 pm