For some reason YouTube keeps recommending me Videos about how "Satan isn't in The Bible" often with the specific emphasis on "Lucifer" being a King of Babylon not a Fallen Angel.
The thing is as my last two posts on this blog which were also in part about Isaiah 14 show, I am all for questioning the traditional understanding of Satan. One of those however focuses on "Lucifer" being a mistranslation in Isaiah 14:12 while I'm pretty sure all these "it's just about a Human King" people think the verse is indeed a poetic reference to the Planet Venus as the Morning Star. Also this "Isaiah is talking about a Human King" thesis often goes hand in hand with the "it's referencing a Canaanite myth about the Morning Star" idea I already debunked.
However a lot of people who do think Isaiah 14 is talking about Satan at least as early as verse 12, think it starts out talking about a King of Babylon and then at some point ambiguously or amorphously changes to being about Satan, and will say Ezekiel 28 does the same.
Ezekiel 28 does talk about the human Prince of Tyre first but the change of subject is not ambiguous, anytime a Prophet says "The Word of The LORD came unto me, saying" it is the start of a new Prophecy, maybe still connected to the prior Prophecy maybe not but either way it is an unambiguous shift in focus, so no the Prince (Nagyim) of Tyre and the King (Melek) of Tyre can't be interpreted as the same person.
Babylon had a King in Isaiah's time, but he was a subject of Assyria who did attempt to rebel agaisnt Assyria but the attempt failed. I don't think the Human ruler of Babylon at that time is one truly worthy of the title of King, certainly not a King described with the grandiosity attributed to the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14.
Isaiah 14 does indeed call someone the "King of Babylon", I'm not denying that textual fact. But the title of King is not in The Hebrew Bible limited to mere mortal political leaders. All the way back in The Torah the intent was for YHWH to be the King of Israel, but Deuteronomy 18 foretold that Israel would one day reject YHWH as King and demand a Human King like the other Nations had, this happened in the days of Samuel.
Most if not all times you see "King" in English translations of The Hebrew Bible the Hebrew word is Melek, and words derived from it get translated things like "Kingdom" and "Queen". Every time you see Molech or Moloch in the King James Version it's a word that in the vowless Hebrew Alphabet is spelled the same as Melek but pronounced different via different vowel indicators, and Milcom is it's plural form. However different texts don't always agree on where it's Melek and where it's Molech like for example Amos 5:26 (quoted by Stephen in Acts 7:43), the Masoretic is Melek but the LXX is Molech for that verse.
Some Hebrew scholars believe originally the distinction between these words didn't exist and it was always just the Hebrew word for King sometimes being used as a title for certain Pagan gods the same way Baal is a word that means Lord or Master.
I believe every reference in the Pentateuch to Molech or Milcom has no specific deity in mind but is just about worshiping any King other then YHWH whether they were human or a god. 1 Kings 11:5, 7, 23 and 2 Kings 23:13 do use them specifically of the national patron god of the Ammonites, 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 32:35 are about the Tophet where what pagan deity is truly in mind is ambiguous. Then there is the Malcham of Zephaniah 1:5 where in context it seems to be synymous with Baal.
Tyre had a patron deity known by the name Melqart derived from the same Semitic root as Melek and commonly interpreted to mean "King of the City". Likewise, when Ezekiel 30 calls Pharoah King of Egypt the Great Dragon I believe the reference is to Sobek the Crocodile god who was the power behind Pharoah not the Human ruler.
Babylon during this period had a Patron deity associated with Kingship named Marduk, he's also associated with Utu in some texts even seemingly called a Son of the Sun which could explain "Son of the Dawn" since Utu's wife was a Dawn Goddess named Aya.
Heck if you want to keep the idea that Heylel son of Shahar refers to a Planet, then Marduk was identified with Jupiter, in which contexts Jupiter was called Nibiru. (The Planet Jupiter in Greek Mythology was also a Son of Eos named Phaethon which meant "Shiner" or "Radiant".) The Shining One interpretation of Heylel would also fit Marduk being described as "radiant".
The Canaanite deity one would likely equate with Marduk during this period was Hadad called Baal in the Ugarit Baal Cycle, it was he not any "Morning Star" that was the Rebel agaisnt El in Canaanite mythology. Marduk was also called Bel a variation of Baal.
The King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 is Satan identified with Marduk.
No comments:
Post a Comment