ers 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 made when comment is made on either Isaiah 14, or Ezekiel 28. It is only the Hodder Bible Handbook, which is published as Unger’s Bible Handbook in USA, which says that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give revelation of the fall of Satan, but no justification is given for this opinion.
Taking these two passages in their literary and historical contexts, it is a very questionable interpretation to claim they are describing the fall of Satan. This teaching is very popular, but was rejected by the Reformers and by most evangelical scholars in modern commentaries. The Bible appears to give little or no information about the origin of Satan or of evil, but very clearly describes the defeat of Satan through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and predicts his final judgement with great certainty.
It is not necessary for teaching on spiritual warfare to include an explanation of the origin of Satan. Spiritual warfare is real, and it is important to develop a biblical understanding of it. The existence of evil beings is assumed in the Bible, and their work consistently mentioned, particularly in the New Testament. Christians are given the assurance of Jesus’ victory over the powers of darkness, even though they are still active in this world until the time of the final judgement.
Bible quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), unless otherwise noted.
GNB Good News Bible
KJV King James Version
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version
Alexander, D & P. The Lion Handbook to the Bible. Lion Tring 1973.
Bruce, F.F., ed. New International Bible Commentary. IVP Leicester1986.
Gaebelein, F., ed. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Ezekiel. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Zondervan Grand Rapids 1986.
Halley, H.H. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Zondervan Grand Rapids 1965.
Keil-Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Hendrickson 1989.
Motyer, A. Isaiah. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP Leicester 1999.
Oswalt, J.N. The Boo