has existed. Also in John’s first letter, “Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). These passages would indicate that the devil has always been a sinner and a murderer, and that he has no great and beautiful past.
Even though it causes philosophical problems, on a practical level there is very little difference between something that was created evil and something that was created good and became evil. The significant matter is that Satan exists and is evil now. Again, this is a question that is not answered in the Bible. God either created Satan as an adversary, or Satan later became an adversary, the end result is the same. One of the reasons for Satan's existence is so that humans as God's created beings should endure some testing. It is never God's will that we sin, but it is God's will that we are tested and tempted. Consistently through the New Testament it is taught that testing is part of the Christian walk (eg. James 1:2-4), so that we learn patience, our faith is strengthened, our love for God proven. Our love for God has to be a positive response and choice. In order to choose to love God, it is necessary to have opposite influence to choose to reject.
What the commentaries and Bible handbooks say
I have yet to find a commentary which, by looking at the whole book and the relevant passages in context, teaches with any degree of certainty that either Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 describe the fall of Satan. However, there are plenty of topical books on spiritual warfare that quote these passages, saying that they definitely describe Satan's fall.
In the Keil-Delitzsch commentary, the fall of Satan mentioned and rejected in Is 14, and not mentioned in Ezek 28. Matthew Henry makes no mention of Satan in either Is 14, or Ezek 28. In the Expositors Bible Commentary, Geoffrey Grogan writing on Isaiah 14 says it points to Satan indirectly as working through world rulers, but not describing the fall of Satan. Also in the Expositors Bible Commentary, 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 reform