entary, Ralph Alexander writing on Ezekiel says it is difficult to understand this passage as describing the fall of Satan. He says that Satan was the force behind the King of Tyre (as he is behind all anti-Christian governments), but that there is no scriptural backing for using this as a description of Satan's fall.
In an older edition of the one volume New Bible Commentary, Derek Kidner sees the similarity between Isaiah 14 and the pride and downfall of Satan in Lk 10:18, but sees the biblical descriptions of Satan's fall as the break-up and destruction of his kingdom, not his fall from grace. In the same volume, when commenting on Ezekiel chapter 28, G.R. Beasley-Murray makes no mention of Satan. In the one volume International Bible Commentary, David Payne writing on Isaiah says that it is inappropriate that Lucifer is a name for Satan, and F.F. Bruce writing on Ezekiel says that this passage contributed some details to the traditional picture of the fall of Satan, but makes no other comment.
In his commentary on Isaiah, Calvin makes some strong statements. He says that saying Lucifer refers to Satan, “has arisen out of ignorance, as the context clearly must be understood in reference to the King of Babylon.” He continues by saying, "But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the prophet (Isaiah) gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables."
In his three volume commentary on Isaiah, Edward Young dismisses any idea of Satan being mentioned in Is 14. He sees this passage describing the downfall and removal of a tyrannical king (Babylon), rather than Satan falling from heaven.
John N. Oswalt commenting on Isaiah 14 mentions that certain of the church fathers taught that this passage taught the fall of Satan, but that the reformers dismissed this when the book is studied in context. He says this passage describes human pride, rather than angelic pride, and says that the day star (Lucifer) is the planet Venus.
Barry Webb tries to seek a balance when he wrote this about Is 14:3-23: “The cosmic sweep of the poem led some early interpreters, and many since then, to see here a symbolic description of the fall of Satan. But if this reads too much into the text (and I think it does), it is equally misguided to reduce it to a description of the fall of a particular earthly monarch. The King of Babylon here, like Babylon itself in ch 13, is a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defies God and tramples on others in its lust for power.”
Alec Motyer notes that in chapter 14, Isaiah is alluding to a Canaanite myth of Helal or Ishtar who attempted a heavenly coup but failed. However, he makes no mention of this being a description of Satan.
In his two volume commentary on Ezekiel, Daniel I. Block makes this comment: “Since the time of Origen many conservative Christians in particular have equated the king of Tyre with Lucifer (= Satan) ... Accordingly, Ezekiel’s prophecy is thought to recount the circumstances of the original fall of Satan, who had previously been one of the cherubim attending the throne of God. But those who interpret the oracle historically reject this approach. Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre. In any case, for this prophet and his professional colleagues, as well as for the Hebrew historiographic narrators, human rebellion is problem enough. A detailed treatment of the origin of the demonic is not to be expected from the O.T.” In a footnote he also gives a list of books which use this passage in Ezekiel to teach the fall of Satan.
In his commentary on Ezekiel 28, John Taylor makes no mention of Satan. In both Halley’s Bible handbook, and the Lion handbook of the Bible, no mention of Satan is mad