Karlo V. Bordjadze. Darkness Visible: A Study of Isaiah 14:3-23 as Christian Scripture. Eugene: Pickwick, 2017. See here to purchase the book.
Karlo V. Bordjadze has a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible from Durham University
and teaches at Ashland Theological Seminary. This book is part of the
Princeton Theological Monograph series.
Isaiah 14:3-23 prophesies the fall of the oppressive king of Babylon,
at which the nations will rejoice. The fallen king does not receive an
honorable burial. Of particular interest in the history of biblical
interpretation is Isaiah 14:12-15. This passage describes the fall of a
being called Helel ben Shachar, translated in the KJV as “Lucifer, son
of the morning,” after he attempted to become like the Most High. Many
Christians have interpreted this passage to be a description of the fall
of the angel Lucifer, as he became the evil Satan.
The book pursues a variety of tasks. It engages in a
highly-technical analysis of the language used in Isaiah 14:3-23,
warning beforehand that readers may wish to skip that section and get to
the meat of the book, if they are so inclined. The book then proceeds
to mention and evaluate options for the reference points of Isaiah
14:3-23. What king of Babylon, or Assyria (which controlled Babylon at
some point), is discussed in Isaiah 14:3-23? What possible mythological
sources are there for Helel ben Shachar, a supernatural being who
overreaches in an attempt to overthrow or become like a high God?
Bordjadze discusses ancient Near Eastern options and also Greek options
that some claim may have influenced the ancient Near East. Bordjadze
finds many of the proposals for the identity of the king and the sources
for Helel to be wanting.
The book talks about the approaches of Origen and John Calvin to
Isaiah 14:3-23. Origen applied the passage to the fall of Satan, as
that myth came to supplant the sons of God sleeping with human women
(Genesis 6) as the explanation for the origin of evil. Bordjadze states
that the latter story declined in influence in the third century C.E.
because many Christians did not accept I Enoch, which contains the
story, as Scripture. According to Bordjadze, part of Origen’s agenda in
interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15 as he did was to respond to those who
claimed that matter was evil, that God created the devil, or that people
lacked free will. Origen asserted that God did not create the devil
but created Lucifer, an angel, who sinned through free will; the same
choice is available to all people, Origen exhorted. Tertullian and
Augustine also interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15 in reference to the fall of
Satan.
John Calvin, however, interpreted Isaiah 14:3-23 in reference to the
king of Babylon, rejecting the idea that it related to Satan. For
Calvin, the king of Babylon sought to exalt himself above God by
attacking the Jerusalem Temple, and he is a paradigm of all enemies of
the church, who will fall.
Bordjadze then describes and evaluates the perspectives of Walter
Brueggemann and Christopher Seitz. Both employ different methodological
approaches, as Brueggemann draws from Paul Ricoeur and Seitz follows
the canonical criticism of his mentor, Brevard Childs. Still, both
prioritize the view that Isaiah 14:3-23 concerns the king of Babylon,
affirming that its message is that God is sovereign against the
ambitions of human tyrants.
Bordjadze places Isaiah 14:3-23 in dialogue with the New Testament’s
interpretation of the passage. Jesus in Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15
apply the passage to the city of Capernaum, which rejected Jesus’
message, averring that it will meet the end of the pagan king of Isaiah
14. Bordjadze briefly engages Luke 10:18, in which Jesus states that he
saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Bordjadze also contrasts
the king of Babylon with Jesus Christ, as the former selfishly sought to
be like God in power, while the latter selflessly relinquished power
for the benefit of others.
Bordjadze then discusses how Isaiah 14:3-23 influenced J.R.R. Tolkien’s description of the fall of Morgoth.
The assets of this book are many. My description above highlights
key points, but these key points emerged within the context of fuller
discussions. Bordjadze, for example, extensively detailed the
methodologies of Bruegemann and Seitz, as well as the motivations of
Tolkien in crafting the story that he did.
The book is especially informative in surveying scholarly
interpretations of Isaiah 14:3-23, specifically the attempts to identify
the king and the mythological source for Helel.
Overall, Bordjadze effectively demonstrated that Isaiah 14:3-23 could
be about the king of Babylon seeking to become like God. For instance,
in discussing the rejoicing of the cedars of Lebanon at the king’s
downfall, Bordjadze referred to the concept of Lebanon being considered a
garden of God. The notion that the king of Babylon sought to be like
God through oppression, especially oppression of God’s people, is also
plausible.
In Bordjadze’s treatment of Isaiah 14 as Christian Scripture, he
focuses on the passage being about the king of Babylon, without really
doing anything with the Christian application of the passage to Satan. I
am ambivalent about this. This marginalization of the “Satan”
interpretation is understandable. Bordjadze wants to respect the
historical-critical meaning of Isaiah 14, while allowing that
historical-critical meaning to dialogue with the New Testament. Saying
that Isaiah 14 is about Satan is considered anachronistic by many
biblical scholars. Still, can a treatment of Isaiah 14 as Christian
Scripture legitimately marginalize the “Satan” interpretation? It
appears in Luke 10:18 and, arguably, Revelation 12 (and, as far as I can
recall, Bordjadze did not engage the latter). Is there a way to
respect the historical-critical meaning of Isaiah 14, while also giving
the “Satan” interpretation more prominence? Perhaps one could say that
the New Testament sees Satan as being behind oppressive powers, or claim
that the New Testament developed themes from Isaiah 14.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.