f20

ISAIAH 14

In Isaiah 14:4, God tells the prophet to take up a “taunt” (Hebrew: mashal ) against the king of Babylon. A mashal is better described as a comparative parable. The question to keep in mind as we proceed is, to whom is the king of Babylon being compared? 1

The beginning of the parable sounds as unfavorable to the king of Babylon as Ezekiel’s description of the prince of Tyre is to that ruler. The king of Babylon is called an “oppressor” ( ESV ; v. 4) who ruthlessly persecuted the nations (vv. 5–6). The world will finally be at rest when the oppressor is “laid low” ( ESV ; vv. 7–8). In anticipation of the joy of finally being rid of the king of Babylon, the prophet writes:

9 Sheol below is getting excited over you,

to meet you when you come;

it arouses the dead spirits [ rephaim ] for you,

all of the leaders of the earth [ ʾerets ].

It raises all of the kings of the nations from their thrones.

10 All of them will respond and say to you,

“You yourself also were made weak like us!

You have become the same as us!”

11 Your pride is brought down to Sheol,

and the sound of your harps;

maggots are spread out beneath you like a bed,

and your covering is worms (Isa 14:9–11).

As in Ezekiel 28 , the figure in Isaiah 14 who is the target of its diatribe goes to Sheol, the underworld. The Rephaim are there, here identified again as the dead warrior-kings (“you have become the same as us”). The king of Babylon will be one of these living dead, just like the prince of Tyre.

Recall that Ezekiel 28 shifted from the prince of Tyre to a divine figure in Eden. That shift informed us that the writer was using a story of cosmic, divine rebellion to, by comparison, portray the arrogance of the earthly prince. After verse 11, Isaiah 14 shifts to a divine context with clear links to Ezekiel 28 . Those connections in turn take us conceptually back to Genesis 3 .

Isaiah 14:12–15 reads:

12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn!

You are cut down to the ground, conqueror of nations!

13 And you yourself said in your heart,

“I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise up my throne above the stars of God;

and I will sit on the mountain of assembly

on the summit of Zaphon;

14 I will ascend to the high places of the clouds,

I will make myself like the Most High.”

15 But you are brought down to Sheol,

to the depths of the pit (Isa 14:12–15).

The divine council context is transparent. You’ve already seen much of the terminology in chapter 6 about divine gardens and mountains.

The figure to whom the king of Babylon is being compared is a divine being fallen “from heaven” (v. 12). He is called the “morning star, son of dawn.” The language takes us back to Job 38:7, where the sons of God were called “morning stars.” But the Hebrew terms in Isaiah 14:12 are different than those in Job 38:7.

“Morning star, son of dawn” is an English rendering of the Hebrew helel ben-shachar , which literally means “shining one, son of the dawn.” When we talked about Job 38:7 in chapter 3 , I noted that “morning stars” were the visible bright stars seen on the horizon as the sun rose. Astronomers (ancient and modern) knew another celestial object that behaved the same way—an object so bright it could still be seen as the sun rose. That object was Venus, and so Venus, though a planet, became known to the ancients as the “bright morning star.”

In essence, borrowing the language of Ezekiel 28 , Isaiah portrays this particular divine being as hopelessly enamored of his own brilliance. So great was his arrogance that he declared himself above all the “stars of God” ( kokebey el ), the other members of the divine council (Job 38:7).

That this “shining one” sought superiority over the other members of the divine council is indicated by the phrase “raise … my throne” and his desire to “sit” on “the mountain of assembly.” That this “mountain of assembly” speaks of the divine council is clear from its location in “Zaphon” (“the north”; tsaphon ) and the clouds. The “seat” language is familiar from Ezekiel 28:2 (the “seat of the gods”). Isaiah 14 reads like an attempted coup in the divine council. Helel ben-shachar wanted his seat in the divine assembly on the divine mountain to be above all others. He wanted to be “like the Most High” ( elyon ). But there can be only one of those.

It’s no surprise that helel ben-shachar , the shining one, meets the same end as the divine throne guardian in Ezekiel 28 . In three places we see his fate. You’ve seen two of the verses already. Take note of the emphasis in bold:

9 Sheol below is getting excited over you,

to meet you when you come;

it arouses the dead spirits for you,

all of the leaders of the earth.

It raises all of the kings of the nations from their thrones.…

12 “How you have fallen from heaven,

morningstar, son of dawn!

You are cut down to the ground [ ʾerets ].…

15 But you are brought down to Sheol ,

to the depths of the pit (Isa 14:9, 12, 15).

The punishment of helel is to live in the realm of the dead. Helel ends up in Sheol, the pit ( bor ); brought down to earth (ʾerets ) by God, the truly Most High.

The table below expands on the one we began in the previous chapter. As we move forward, I’ll add terms and verses to those from Ezekiel 28 . I’ll focus on divine council connections between that chapter and Isaiah 14 and Genesis 3 , but will include references from elsewhere when appropriate.

THE DIVINE COUNCIL CONTEXT
Hebrew Term	English Meaning	Concept	Important Verses
elim , elohim (plural)	“gods”	council members	Gen 3:5, 22; Psa 82:1, 6; Ezek 28:2
beney elim beney elohim kokebey boqer kokebey el helel ben-shachar	“sons of God” “morning stars” “stars of God” “shining one, son of the dawn”	council members shining appearance	Job 38:7; Pss 29:1; 89:6; Isa 14:13; Ezek 28:13 (gems)
gan	“garden”	divine abode, council meeting place	Gen 2:8–10, 15–16 Gen 3:1–3, 8, 10, 23–24 Ezek 28:13
ʾed nahar yamim	“(watery) mist” “river” “seas, waters”	description of the well-watered garden of the council	Gen 2:6, 10–14 (Zion); Ezek 47:1–12 (Jerusalem temple; cf. Zech 14:8); Ezek 28:2
tsaphon yarketey tsaphon bamot	“north” “heights of the north” “heights”	mountain range where divine council met	Psa 48:1–2 (Jerusalem temple; cf. Ezek 40:2); Isa 14:13–14
har	“mount, mountain”	mountain range where divine council met	Exod 24:15 (Sinai; cf. Psa 68:15–17; Deut 33:1–2); Isa 14:13; 27:13 (Zion); Ezek 47:1–12 (Jerusalem temple)
adat sod moʿed moshab	“assembly” “council” “meeting” “seat” (governing)	the divine assembly	Pss 82:1; 89:7; Isa 14:13; Ezek 28:2

THE NACHASH OF GENESIS 3

The pivotal character of Genesis 3 is the serpent. The Hebrew word translated serpent is nachash . The word is both plain and elastic.

The most straightforward meaning is the one virtually all translators and interpreters opt for: serpent. When the Hebrew root letters n-ch-sh are a noun, that’s the meaning.

But n-ch-sh are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vowels to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have nochesh , which means “the diviner.” Divination refers to communication with the supernatural world. A diviner in the ancient world was one who foretold omens or gave out divine information (oracles). We can see that element in the story. Eve is getting information from this being.

The consonants n-ch-sh may also form an alternative noun, nachash , which is at times used descriptively, like an adjective. This term is used in place names outside the Bible and once within the Old Testament. First Chronicles 4:12 refers to “Tehinnah, father of Ir-Nachash .” The otherwise unknown Tehinnah is regarded in this verse as the founder of the city (Hebrew: ir ) of nachash .

This city has yet to be securely identified by archaeologists. The phrase means “the city of copper/bronze (smiths).” Hebrew words like nechosheth (“bronze”; “copper”) are derived from this noun. Ir-nachash was a place known for copper and bronze metallurgy. The option is interesting because copper and bronze are shiny when polished. In fact, the Old Testament uses nechosheth to describe divine beings (Dan 10:6).

We have words with such elasticity in English, where meaning depends on the part of speech. For example:

(Noun): “Running is a good form of exercise.”

(Verb): “The engine is running on diesel.”

(Adjective): “Running paint is an eyesore.”

Sometimes writers, when they use a term, want their readers to think about all possible meanings and nuances. If I ask, “How has your reading been?” the reader is forced to think about all three. Do I mean the latest assignment (noun)? Am I wondering if you got the right glasses (adjective)? Or am I referencing the process (verb)? What I’m suggesting is that, since there are immediate clues in the story that the serpent is more than a mere snake, that he may be a divine adversary, the term nachash is a triple entendre. The writer wants his readers to consider all the possible nuances in their interpretive, intellectual experience. All of them carry theological weight. 2

The serpent ( nachash ) was an image commonly used in reference to a divine throne guardian. Given the context of Eden, that helps identify the villain as a divine being. The divine adversary dispenses divine information, using it to goad Eve. He gives her an oracle (or, an omen!): You won’t really die. God knows when you eat you will be like one of the elohim . Lastly, a shining appearance conveys a divine nature. All the meanings telegraph something important. They are also consistent with the imagery from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 .

DIVINE JUDGMENT

I tend to be sympathetic toward Eve. She all too often gets cast as stupid and naïve. Given the divine council context of her status as God’s imager and new member of his family, what the nachash said to her had the ring of validity. Of course God wants us to be like the elohim —we’re all one family. We all represent the creator, don’t we? Why would we die?

This doesn’t excuse Eve (or Adam). Their disobedience had dire consequences. But while the reason for God’s judgment is transparent, the meanings of that judgment beg for some careful thought. Entire books have been written on the implications of God’s response, so my thoughts will be very selective. 3

The curse levied at Adam (Gen 3:17–19) did not supersede God’s mandate to subdue the earth and take dominion. But it did make the task harder. The expulsion of humankind from Eden (Gen 3:22–25 ) turned a glorious dominion mission into mundane drudgery. We know that God would take steps to restore his rule, and that descendants of Adam (especially one of them—Gen 3:15) would be critical to that kingdom. The human yearning for utopia is interesting in this light. We seem to have an inner sense of need to restore something that was lost, but Eden cannot return on purely human terms. 4

God’s judgment of Eve is in some sense entwined with the curse of the nachash . Eve would suffer intensified pain in childbirth (Gen 3:16: “I will multiply your pain.”). There is no indication that, had she borne children before the fall, Eve would have felt no pain at all. She was human. And it was important that she bear children, since her childbearing would have some relationship to the destiny of the nachash and his deed.

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel (Gen 3:15 ESV ).

The wording of Gen 3:15 is veiled. For reasons that I’ll make clear later, I believe prophecies like this that ultimately move in a messianic direction were deliberately cryptic. At the very least the verse tells us that God was not done with humanity yet. The goal of his rule on earth through humanity would not be abandoned. A descendant of Eve would come forth who would someday undo the damage caused by the divine rebel, the nachash . That this descendant is linked to Eve implies that the score will be settled through her bloodline.

This human threat to the nachash is fitting. The seduction to sin meant that Yahweh would have to be true to his word and eliminate humanity. The nachash counted on the justice of God to eliminate his rivals. God was just in this regard. Elimination from Eden did indeed mean death, but not in the sense of immediate annihilation. God would see to it that their lives ended, but not before continuing his plan. Humanity would die, but it would also, at some point, produce a descendant who would ultimately restore God’s Edenic vision and destroy the nachash .

Adam and Eve had contingent immortality prior to the fall. They had never-ending life, depending on certain circumstances. The imagery of Eden, home of the life-giver, and its tree of life convey the notion that, so long as Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, called Eden their home, and didn’t do anything that resulted in mortal injury (they were truly human after all), they would live. 5 Protected in their perfect environment, they could multiply and carry out their tasks as God’s representatives on earth until the job was done.

All of that goes by the wayside once they are removed from Eden. God even takes the extra step of preventing them from returning to Eden’s tree of life (Gen 3:24). Had they access to it, they would have gone on living, despite what had happened. After the fall, the only way to extend the work of God’s human council-family was childbirth. Eve was redeemed through childbearing (1 Tim 2:15). So were the rest of us, in the sense that that is the only way God’s original plan remained viable. Where there are no offspring, there can be no human imaging and no kingdom.

But the judgment on Eve also tells us that the nachash would have offspring as well. The rest of the biblical story doesn’t consist of humans battling snake people. That’s no surprise, since the enemy of humanity wasn’t a mere snake. The Bible does, however, describe an ongoing conflict between followers of Yahweh and human and divine beings who follow the spiritual path of the nachash . All who oppose God’s kingdom plan are the seed of the nachash .

Many readers who still feel the urge to see only a snake in Eden would no doubt contend that the curse pronounced on the nachash requires that. I disagree. Literal readings are inadequate to convey the full theological messaging and the entirety of the worldview context.

Consider what happens to the nachash against the backdrop of the judgment language found in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 :

SERPENT/SHINING ONE IMAGERY & PUNISHMENT
Hebrew Term	English Meaning	Concept	Important Verses
nachash	“serpent” (noun) “to use divination, give omens” (verb) “bronze, brazen” (adj)	word play; triple entendre Image of serpent (divine throne guardian), information from divine realm (divination), shining appearance associated with divinity (brazen)	Gen 3:1–2, 4, 13–14
chawwat	“serpent”		Ezek 28:12 (with silent m )
helel ben-shachar	“shining one, son of the dawn”	shining appearance associated with divinity	Isa 14:12 Ezek 28:13 (gems)
yarad gadaʿ shalak	“brought down” “cut down” “cast down”	an expulsion from the divine presence and former service role to Yahweh 6	Ezek 28:8, 17 Isa 14:11–12, 15
ʾerets	“earth, ground” (abstractly): underworld realm of the dead	underworld, realm of the dead NOTE : the nachash of Gen 3 is made to crawl on his belly, put on the ground, under the feet of animals (Gen 3:14)	Ezek 28:17 Isa 14:9, 11–12, 15
sheol	Sheol; realm of the dead
rephaim	Rephaim; the “shades”; the dead in the underworld	underworld occupants	Ezek 28:17 Isa 14:9
me lakim	“kings” (fallen enemies)

The nachash was cursed to crawl on its belly, imagery that conveyed being cast down (Ezek 28:8, 17; Isa 14:11–12, 15) to the ground. In Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 , we saw the villain cast down to the ʾerets , a term that refers literally to the dirt and metaphorically to the underworld (Ezek 28:17; Isa 14:9, 11–12, 15). The curse also had him “eating dirt,” clearly a metaphorical reference, since snakes don’t really eat dirt as food for nutrition. It isn’t part of the “natural snake diet.” The point being made by the curse is that the nachash , who wanted to be “most high,” will be “most low” instead—cast away from God and the council to earth, and even under the earth. In the underworld, the nachash is even lower than the beasts of the field. He is hidden from view and from life in God’s world. His domain is death.

After the fall, though humankind was estranged from God and no longer immortal, the plan of God was not extinguished. Genesis 3 tells us why we die, why we need redemption and salvation, and why we cannot save ourselves. It also tells us that God’s plan has only been delayed—not defeated—and that the human story will be both a tragic struggle and a miraculous, providential saga.

But the situation is going to get worse before it gets better.