Isaiah 14: 3-23 celebrates the death of a ruler who is identified in the text only as “the king of Babylon.” The lack of elaboration on the king’s identity has encouraged scholars throughout centuries to look for clues that could match the central character of the passage with a historical or symbolic figure. Little writes that in the Jewish interpretation, the king of Babylon who is at the center of Isaiah’s taunt is Nebuchadnezzar II, which is evidenced by the Babylonian Talmud’s references to Isaiah 14: 12-14. Nebuchadnezzar ascended to Babylon’s throne after the successful conquest of Syria and Phoenicia and the death of his father Nabopolassar. His Siege of Jerusalem resulted in the captivity of King Jehoiachin and Zedekiah’s appointment as King of Judah. It is said that in the last years of his life, Nebuchadnezzar gave in to cruelty and irrationality, which explains why Isaiah 14:4 refers to him as “the oppressor.”
However, this version is currently opposed by many Christian scholars. For instance, Christian Koester does not concur: the researcher builds an argument in support of the king’s identity as Sargon II. It could be that originally, the text read “the king of Assyria,” but multiple translations of the source transformed it into “the king of Babylon.” Aster argues that the vocabulary and themes used in the passage are similar to those in Isaiah 10:5-34 that refers to Sargon. In particular, in 14:11, Isaiah prophesies that now “[his] pomp has been brought down to the grave. According to Aster, it could be that in this verse, the prophet refers to Sargon’s attempts to gain a higher status through military campaigns, which, however, did not prevent Babylon from the eventual fall.
Some scholars believe identifying a particular historical figure that is the subject of Isaiah 14: 3-23 is a search to no avail because in actuality, Isaiah builds an eclectic image of a ruler that can be applied to any king defined by pride. In this case, “the king of Babylon” is representative of the governance and ideology that led to the downfall of the empire. Interestingly enough, another group of researchers go even further and suggest that Isaiah may as well be speaking of Satan. For instance, helel (literal “shining one”) in Isaiah 14:12 is commonly translated as “morning star” (New International Version), “day star” (English Standard Version), and “Lucifer” (New King James Version). Also, in the passage, Isaiah says that the king “[has] fallen from heaven,” which is reminiscent of Lucifer, God’s former angel who rebelled against Him. Besides, the character’s aspirations go beyond those of a mere human as he wants to “ascend to the heavens” and “raise [his] throne above the stars of God.”
Depending on the interpretation of the Babylonian king’s identity, one can make respective assumptions about the meaning of Babylon itself in the passage. The first version suggesting that “the king of Babylon” is Nebuchadnezzar II means that the events described in Isaiah 14:3-23 take place during the Neo-Babylonian Empire, historically known as the Chaldean Empire. Historically, such an implication would make quite a lot of sense since the Chaldean empire was the last Mesopotamian empires and came to an end in 539 BC. It is during the Neo-Babylonian rule that the empire reached its pinnacle and became a major regional power, which is why Isaiah says that its king “shook the earth // and made kingdoms tremble” (Isaiah 14:16-17). Throughout the Bible, the Neo-Babylonian empire has had an unflattering reputation due to its greatest king Nebuchadnezzar’s atrocities: destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent Babylonian captivity.
Similarly, the second version (“the king of Babylon” is in fact the king of Assyria) leads the reader to believe that Babylon refers to the city of Babylon in the times of the Neo-Assyrian empire of which the reign of Sargon II is part. Again, one can find parallels between the text and historical evidence. The Neo-Assyrian Empire dominated Babylonia that was, however, revolting constantly and chaotically. In 698 BC, the city of Babylonia was destroyed; Assyria’s intrusion did not leave even the religious center intact, which shocked many. Still, there are arguments against this version: firstly, Sargon II ascended to the throne after 698 BC, and secondly, the fall of Babylon was caused by the wrath of God, not the man. It is Isaiah 13 that sheds light on a more tangible version. In this part, the Lord promises to “punish the world for its evil,” which makes it clear that Babylon does not refer to the city but rather to the world that is plagued by arrogance and sin. This verse allows for the eschatological interpretation of Babylon’s fall. The fall of the empire is a cautionary tale for what can happen to the world that stray from God.
Since “the king of Babylon” may be an eclectic or symbolic image, it is safe to assume that the focus of the passage may not be on a single person but rather on the idea of power abuse that caused God’s wrath. During the Neo-Babylonian rule, the empire has reached economic prosperity and unprecedented population growth. Babylonians set out on many large-scale building projects and revived culture and arts. However, for all resourcefulness that the land had right before its decline, its rulers were not able to put their power to good use. Isaiah explicitly condemns them: “you have destroyed your land // and killed your people” (Isaiah 14: 20). Abuse of power is a theme that the reader finds in other prophet’s writings as well. For instance, Ezekiel blames shepherds of Israel for “the weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up” (Ezekiel 34:4). Indeed, Isaiah’s taunt can be understood in a broader context as a critique of how those in power misuse leverage.
Lastly, another angle at which the reader can look at Isaiah 14:3-23 is through its comparison to the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. It has already been mentioned that “the king of Babylon” may signify Lucifer, which means that the passage provides a prophetic glimpse into the last book of the Bible. De Waal argues that the Book of Revelation can only be studied in conjunction with the Old Testament, otherwise its apocalyptic themes may lack a solid foundation. Like the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Revelation describes the fall of Babylon: “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons” (Revelation 18:2). However, it is the Book of Revelation that not only shows the fall of the cruel king but also provides a guarantee for his imprisonment: “[angel] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (Revelation 20:2). All things considered, the Old Testament’s Isaiah uses historical figures to develop an abstract conflict between God and Satan which finds resolution in the New Testament.
References
Aster, Shawn Zeling. Reflections of empire in Isaiah 1-39: Responses to Assyrian ideology. Buenos Aires: Society of Biblical Literature Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA), 2017.
Bordjadze, Karlo V. Darkness Visible: A Study of Isaiah 14: 3-23 as Christian Scripture. Vol. 228. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017.
de Waal, Kayle. “The Downfalls of Satan in the Book of Revelation.” Ministry: International Journal for Pastors, 85, no. 2 (2013): 22-24.
Koester, Craig R. “Babylon and New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation: Imagery and Ethical Discernment.” In Biblical Ethics andApplication Purview, Validity, and Relevance of Biblical Texts in Ethical Discourse. Kontexte Und Normen Neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics. Band IX, edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Stephan Joubert, 353–70, 1. Auflage, 2017.
Little, Timothy Allen. Israel’s Eschatological Enemy: The Identity of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14: 4-21. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2020.
Menn, Jonathan. Biblical Eschatology. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018.