{"id":2303,"date":"2026-06-13T22:21:27","date_gmt":"2026-06-14T02:21:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/?p=2303"},"modified":"2026-06-14T11:00:27","modified_gmt":"2026-06-14T15:00:27","slug":"enhancing-creation-apologetics-through-biblical-theology-part-five","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/?p=2303","title":{"rendered":"Enhancing Creation Apologetics through Biblical Theology\u2014Part Five"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

A common interpretation of Isaiah 14:12\u201315 views the passage as being about Satan, but the biblical case for this is surprisingly weak.<\/p><\/div>\n

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 \u201c120 years\u201d of Genesis 6:3 and how biblical theology brings great clarity to this much-debated passage.<\/p>\n

The fourth article highlighted the two most common approaches to biblical theology within conservative Christianity today. What I labeled as the \u201cLess Inductive Approach\u201d encompasses views that have been identified as the \u201cChicago School\u201d and the \u201cPhiladelphia School\u201d by Klink and Lockett in their book Understanding Biblical Theology<\/em>. 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 \u201cMostly Inductive Approach\u201d is titled by Klink and Lockett as the \u201cDallas School\u201d after Dallas Theological Seminary.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Does Isaiah 14 Describe Satan\u2019s Fall?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u201315, the prophet seems to reference another entity that many have assumed is Satan. And it is here where we read these infamous words:<\/p>\n

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!
\nFor you have said in your heart: \u2018I 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;
\nI will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.\u2019
\nYet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. (Isaiah 14:12\u201315)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Many Christians see the name \u201cLucifer\u201d and assume that this must be talking about Satan. After all, Lucifer was Satan\u2019s pre-fallen name, right? Was it really? Where does the Bible say that? This is the only place in the Bible where the name \u201cLucifer\u201d 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 \u201cDay Star, son of Dawn\u201d (ESV) or \u201cstar of the morning, son of the dawn\u201d (NASB).<\/p>\n

So why do some Bibles have \u201cLucifer\u201d in verse 12? This word is based on the Latin Vulgate\u2019s translation of the first Hebrew word in the name Helel ben Shachar<\/em>. The Latin combined two words lux<\/em> and ferre<\/em> (\u201clight bringer\u201d) to make the word lucifer<\/em>, which over centuries of church tradition became a popular moniker for Satan. The second and third terms (ben Shachar<\/em>) mean \u201cson of Shachar\u201d or \u201cson of the dawn.\u201d So the real question that must be asked is who or what was helel ben Shachar<\/em>?<\/p>\n

It may come as a surprise to many Christians that the earliest Jewish and Christian interpreters did not connect Helel<\/em> to Satan. Let\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n

Job 1 and 2 tell us about Satan\u2019s attacks on Job\u2019s 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<\/em> means adversary, and from these chapters it seems that he is an adversary of both man and God.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s it. Those are the only passages in the Old Testament prior to Isaiah\u2019s day that clearly identify Satan as a personal adversarial figure. Someone might bring up 1 Chronicles 21:1, which states, \u201cThen Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel\u201d (ESV). There are at least two reasons why this passage does not contradict my claim that Job 1\u20132 are the only passages that specifically refer to Satan by name. First, the word translated as Satan simply means \u201cadversary,\u201d and it can refer to an<\/em> adversary (an opponent) or the<\/em> 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 \u201can adversary,\u201d 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\u2019s strength. The second reason this verse does not contradict my claim is that 1 Chronicles 21 was almost certainly written after Isaiah\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

But Satan Was in the Garden of Eden<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

In Revelation 12, John describes his vision of \u201ca great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns\u201d (v. 3). Then he identifies this dragon as follows:<\/p>\n

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<\/em>\u2014he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:7\u20139)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice that this dragon is the deceiver of the whole world. He is \u201cthat ancient serpent\u201d who is also called \u201cthe devil and Satan.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

\"\"

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)<\/p><\/div>\n

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 \u201cthe serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness.\u201d Then while wrapping up his warning about deception, he wrote, \u201cAnd no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light\u201d (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.<\/p>\n

In one of his debates with some Jews in Jerusalem, Jesus stated, \u201cYou are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning\u201d (John 8:44).<\/p>\n

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\u2019s vision revealed, he will be kicked out of heaven someday and later bound and imprisoned for 1000 years (Revelation 20:2\u20137).<\/p>\n

Did Jesus Allude to this Passage?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u201cthe kingdom of God has come near to you,\u201d (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, \u201cLord, even the demons are subject to us in your name\u201d (v. 17).<\/p>\n

Jesus replied, \u201cI 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\u201d (Luke 10:18\u201319). 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?<\/em>) is an inceptive aorist (also called an ingressive aorist), so it would be better to translate as \u201cI was seeing.\u201d The NASB translates Jesus\u2019 words accordingly: \u201cI was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.\u201d 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\u2019s defeat.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Even if Jesus had in mind Satan\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Applying Biblical Theology to Isaiah 14<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since Isaiah\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s first recommendation was rejected, she proposed the following:<\/p>\n

And Lady Asherah of the Sea replied:
\n\u201cWhy not make Athtar the Awesome king? Let Athtar the Awesome be king!\u201d
\nThen Athtar the Awesome went up to the heights of Zaphon; he sat on Baal the Conqueror\u2019s throne. His feet did not reach the footstool, his head did not reach the headrest.
\nAnd Athtar the Awesome spoke:
\n\u201cI can\u2019t be king on the heights of Zaphon.\u201d
\nAthtar the Awesome descended, descended from the throne of Baal the Conqueror\u20262<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So Athtar attempted to ascend to Baal\u2019s throne on Mount Zaphon, but he couldn\u2019t 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 \u201cMost High\u201d (Elyon<\/em>). Second, in South Arabian and Northwest Semitic cultures, Athtar was associated with Venus, the \u201cmorning star.\u201d Third, the place where Baal, Asherah, Athtar, and other Canaanite deities assembled was Mount Zaphon, which is the word translated as \u201cnorth\u201d in Isaiah 14:13. Now let\u2019s look at Isaiah 14:12\u201315 again, this time from the NIV Bible.<\/p>\n

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star<\/strong>, son of the dawn!
\nYou have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
\nYou said in your heart, \u201cI 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<\/strong>.
\nI will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High<\/strong>.\u201d
\nBut you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12\u201315, NIV, emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now do you see the strong parallels? The King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 was compared to someone identified with Venus, the \u201cmorning star,\u201d who sought to be like \u201cthe Most High\u201d on \u201cMount Zaphon.\u201d But he could not measure up and was brought low.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Many ancient Israelites frequently abandoned the worship of the true God and worshiped Baal instead. They were well aware of Canaanite mythology.<\/p><\/div>\n

Keep in mind the cultural background and amount of divine revelation about Satan available to Isaiah\u2019s original hearers and readers, and ask yourself which of the two following interpretations is more likely. First option: Isaiah\u2019s 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\u2014Job was a man \u201cof the east\u201d (Job 1:3). Second option: Isaiah\u2019s 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\u2019s audience. So the prophet draws upon that cultural knowledge to let the Israelites know that even though Babylon\u2019s king seems so impressive and intimidating, he is going to be humbled like Athtar of Canaanite mythology.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Polemical Theology<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cin Eden, the garden of God\u201d (Ezekiel 28:13) and being an \u201canointed cherub\u201d (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.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

  1. Robert H. Stein, Luke<\/em>, vol. 24, The New American Commentary<\/em> (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 309. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li>
  2. The Baal Cycle, Tablet 6, Column 1, Michael D. Coogan, Mark S. Smith, ed. and trans., Stories from Ancient Canaan<\/em>, 2nd ed. [↩<\/a>]<\/span><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    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 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,87,67,23],"tags":[6,50,37,25,70],"class_list":["post-2303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apologetics","category-biblical-theology","category-interpretation","category-theology","tag-bible","tag-misused-verses","tag-new-testament","tag-old-testament","tag-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2303"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2303\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2312,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2303\/revisions\/2312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}