When Did Satan Fall?

[Colter]

When did Satan fall?

 

[Chesterton]

Wow, how did you and jhwatts post the same thread title at the same time?

 

[Dave-W]

He fell from heaven which is outside of our time frame. So that question does not have an answer.

 

[CodyFaith]

Wow, how did you and jhwatts post the same thread title at the same time?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Satan is generally believed to be the name of the fallen Lucifer. Lucifer fell when (he/she/it) first planned (what God deemed to be) the rebellion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sometime before man fell

 

[RDKirk]

Depends on what you mean by "fall."

Satan was still an agent of God with access to heaven through at least the time of Ahab and Jehosophat.

John's Revelation maps the permanent removal of Satan from heaven to the Church Age.

 

[com7fy8]

When did Satan fall?

Jesus says, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," in Luke 10:18. So, he fell before Jesus said this to His disciples.

I think he fell before he tricked Adam and Eve; so that would have been before the serpent talked with Adam and Eve.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Depends on what you mean by "fall."

I take it to mean 'fall from favor'. As there was no 'grace' at the time Lucifer could not receive it (unmerited pardon).

 

[RDKirk]

Jesus says, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," in Luke 10:18. So, he fell before Jesus said this to His disciples..

Which could have been only the night before He said it.

 

[1am3laine]

Lucifer fell in the Earth and heavens cycle in the age before.

Ezekiel 28:13-19 talks about how and why he fell.
GOD destroyed Earth with water also in the pre-adamaic (2 Peter 3:5-6) period. So He flooded the Earth before Noah's flood as well.
This age GOD will destroy Earth and heavens with fire! (2 Peter 3:7)

It is actually 3 earth and heaven cycles.
1. the world before (Lucifer)
2. the world today (us now)
3. the world to come (New Jerusalem etc)

Isaiah 14:12-17 also tells more about Lucifer's thought process and how he wanted to be like the Most High.

 

[jayem]

Just FWIW:

Rubens did a painting of the archangel Michael battling Satan and the fallen angels. It's titled The Fall of the Rebel Angels. Based on the Revelation account, Satan is depicted as a large dragon. The fallen angels are grotesque human/beast monsters. God appears in the top of the canvas holding what looks like a shield and overseeing the battle. I have a book on Rubens, and that's where I saw it. The original is in a museum in Madrid, but I've never been there. It's a cool, and quite dramatic Old Master painting.

BTW: Rubens was Catholic. In my book, the description notes that this work could be a Counter-Reformation allegory. Michael is the Roman church, defeating the Protestants (who are the hideous fallen angels.)

 

[ViaCrucis]

I mean the simple answer is that this information isn't available to us. Made even more complicated that, going solely by the biblical material, hardly any information about the devils, including Satan, is given to us. The New Testament assumes an already established idea of the existence of devils or demons, and Satan as the chief of them in some capacity.

The Old Testament mentions ha-shatan (Satan) in a very limited way, and in some ways is presented as something of a prosecuting attorney more than the mortal enemy of men's souls.

Many of the ideas about the devil come to us through material from the 2nd Temple period that informed ideas as found in the New Testament. In a number of Jewish apocryphal texts from the 2nd Temple period there is mention of fallen angels, for example figures such as Azazel and Semyaza, 2nd Enoch specifically mentions a fallen figure named Sataniel. Though at some point also the serpent in Eden came to be understood as the devil in some sense, this identification is implicit in the Revelation of St. John, but is more explicit in the apocryphal Life of Adam and Eve.

The reality is that this sort of thing doesn't have a whole lot to go off of. When did the devils fall? What are the devils? Tradition holds that the devils are fallen angels, and that Satan is the chief of these fallen angels--that of course has no explicit mention in the biblical material, and is largely tradition based on the aforementioned ideas present in the 2nd Temple period which the New Testament authors would have been quite familiar with. I would agree with that tradition, but trying to get terribly dogmatic about such matters becomes immensely difficult.

At the end of the day I tend to avoid complex demonology, simply because apart from the fact that there are devils, little can be said with much confidence in terms of Christian theology. I find some of the complex demonology of the middle ages to be somewhat uncomfortable because of its radically speculative nature.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lucifer fell in the Earth and heavens cycle in the age before.

Ezekiel 28:13-19 talks about how and why he fell.
GOD destroyed Earth with water also in the pre-adamaic (2 Peter 3:5-6) period. So He flooded the Earth before Noah's flood as well.
This age GOD will destroy Earth and heavens with fire! (2 Peter 3:7)

It is actually 3 earth and heaven cycles.
1. the world before (Lucifer)
2. the world today (us now)
3. the world to come (New Jerusalem etc)

Isaiah 14:12-17 also tells more about Lucifer's thought process and how he wanted to be like the Most High.

Neither Ezekiel or Isaiah mention the devil.

Ezekiel is talking about the ruler of Tyre on the Phoenician coast, and Isaiah is talking about the ruler of Babylon. Both human beings.

"Lucifer" is not the name of any supernatural creature, it is the Latin translation of the epithet used by Isaiah in reference to the king of Babylon, which in Hebrew is הֵילֵל (heylel) which means "bright" or "shining" and refers to the planet Venus, in the Greek of the LXX it is translated as ἑωσφόρος (heosphoros) which means "dawn-bringer", and in Latin lucifer meaning "light-bringer". It's not a proper name, it is an epithet used sardonically.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1am3laine]

Neither Ezekiel or Isaiah mention the devil.

Ezekiel is talking about the ruler of Tyre on the Phoenician coast, and Isaiah is talking about the ruler of Babylon. Both human beings.

"Lucifer" is not the name of any supernatural creature, it is the Latin translation of the epithet used by Isaiah in reference to the king of Babylon, which in Hebrew is הֵילֵל (heylel) which means "bright" or "shining" and refers to the planet Venus, in the Greek of the LXX it is translated as ἑωσφόρος (heosphoros) which means "dawn-bringer", and in Latin lucifer meaning "light-bringer". It's not a proper name, it is an epithet used sardonically.

-CryptoLutheran

He was comparing both the ruler of Tyre and the ruler of babylon to Lucifer and how He fell.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Please consider the two creation accounts in parallel:

Gen 1:26-27 [P] = Gen 2:7-2:23 [J] = God creates man then woman
Gen 1:28-30 [P] = Gen 2:23-24 [J] = God blesses man & woman to be fruitful & multiply [P] through marriage of man cleaving to woman making one flesh [J]
Gen 1:31-2:3 [P] = Gen 2:25 [J] = God sees all is good & rests [P] and man & woman are not ashamed [J]​

By this time, God has created all plants, and given all vegetation & trees “producing seed” to humans as good for food (Gen 1:29), but has simultaneously warned humans against the tree of knowledge of good & evil (Gen 2:8,15).

Ergo, the tree of knowledge of good & evil did not produce seed, or else it would have been good for food (Gen 1:29). The tree bearing fruit without seed (to regrow a next generation) comports with it causing death anyone consuming its fruit.

Now, the Serpent invades, and causes our Fall, immediately afterwards (Gen 3:1). Ergo, the onslaught of the Adversary begins at the end of the 7th Divine Day (Gen 2:3) even as Satan is unchained at the end of the 7th Biblical Day of the Christian Millennium (Rev 20:7), which echoes the original tragedy:

• 500-1500 AD (LXX which dates Creation to 5500 BC)
• 2000-3000 AD (M which dates Creation to 4000 BC)

The fall of Satan, becoming the Adversary, and sowing wickedness throughout God’s creations (in heaven & on earth), ended God’s rest, as relations degenerated into a “cosmic civil war”.

The first “Monday work morning” as it were

 

[bromius]

"When did Satan fall?"


This is an awesome question and one with multiple answers from my view. Satan fell when he sought to do things his way. In the Garden, God the Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit (the presence of the LORD) were both unified on the Tree of Life (Echad).

The serpent was the "Anointed" (very important term) Cherub that covers an archangel which protects the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life needs protection because Eden (Heaven) is an Earthly Kingdom. The midrashim (rabbinical exposition) understands that satan enticed (beguiled Eve) to have sexual relations - ergo she exclaims, "I have gotten a man from the Lord."

This is a little tricky to understand because angels are spirits or rather they exist in the realm or dimension of mind or consciousness. So Satan indwelt both Adam and Eve and they fornicated. Which is why she said the LORD gave her a man - Cain - after she KNEW Adam. Although Adam was not the spiritual sire of Cain. (Hence, the notion that the nephilim had offspring with the daughters of men - who were giants, (hugely increased intellectual capacity, angelic powers or chrisms)).

Moving along,

so this unauthorized action by the serpent caused him, Adam and Eve to be ejected from Eden (Heaven).
The serpent is spirit and so it lived in its offspring Cain who took up residence to the East of Eden (Nod).

i.e. "He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

This is tough to intellectually parse so bear with me, please,

God the Father in Heaven and his Wife or significant other, The Holy Spirit are spirits (consciousness; mind) just like the serpent and so they initially indwelt Adam and Eve. Note: sex is not something angels do in Heaven...

i.e. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

IOW: Spirits (Angels) don't have the equipment to have sex until they indwell a human host. Yet even when they do, they won't be thinking about sex - there will be no need to reproduce because they are eternal beings.

Long story short, Satan represents our FLESH (the natural man) notice that the flesh COVERS or acts as a container for the soul and spirit. Coincidence? I think not

in conclusion, Satan is cast out by righteous thinking which is why being righteous in thought - "holding every thought captive", so on and so forth is so important. Which is what Jesus was talking about when he said,

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."


Satan is cast out! Thus he can't hurt you IF we understand what Jesus was really talking about and put his philosophy into action. The contrary also applies,

"And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

IOW if you don't put Jesus' words into action then you will be hurt by satan because that is what he does - Satan is Judgement. And this rather confusingly is how he PROTECTS the Tree of Life (eternal life). By enticing you to sin so that you are not righteous and thus are prohibited from Eden (Heaven) or the resurrection of eternal life (able to eat from the Tree of Life)


I know this is one heck of an exegesis, some will say, eisegesis.. but no matter.. This is my and many a rabbinical jew's opine of events. If anyone has any questions i can try to be more thorough.

Thanks

 

[Erik Nelson]

Definitely construable "sexual overtones of innuendo" in the enticement of Eve story in Gen3

Would be very similar to the fallen angelic Watchers ("sons of God") seducing human women (Eve's daughters) creating the Nephilim demigods in Gen6

Of course, if the parallel was complete, Cain would have been the first Nephilim...and he wasn't...implying some significant difference between the temptation of Eve by the Serpent in Eden, and the seduction of her daughters by the fallen angelic Watcher "sons of God" followers of the Serpent after Eden?

The Adversary does seem to be described as a "covering Cherubim" (Ezek 28) guardian, is it possible he was assigned to guard the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil ???

Is there a connection between the Adversary being a "covering" guardian and Adam & Eve covering themselves after eating the fruit? They were imitating the "covered" appearance of the Adversary?

Michael Heiser equates Seraphim (Serpents, throne guardians in Egyptian depictions) with Cherub'im (throne guardians in Mesopotamian depictions) with the Nachash (Naga, Snake) of Eden

You can do a video search for "michael heiser nachash seraphim"

 

[Deus Vult!]

Neither Ezekiel or Isaiah mention the devil.

Ezekiel is talking about the ruler of Tyre on the Phoenician coast, and Isaiah is talking about the ruler of Babylon. Both human beings.

"Lucifer" is not the name of any supernatural creature, it is the Latin translation of the epithet used by Isaiah in reference to the king of Babylon, which in Hebrew is הֵילֵל (heylel) which means "bright" or "shining" and refers to the planet Venus, in the Greek of the LXX it is translated as ἑωσφόρος (heosphoros) which means "dawn-bringer", and in Latin lucifer meaning "light-bringer". It's not a proper name, it is an epithet used sardonically.

-CryptoLutheran

If you restrict the biblical texts as only to be interpreted literally then you are missing out on the unsearchable depths of the Sacred Scripture.
The literal is to be considered first, however, the obvious reading of the bible teaches anyone that the Holy Bible is not merely to be considered literal.
The 4 layers of meaning in Scripture to be considered are (in order) :
-Literal
-Allegorical
-Moral
-Mystical
The Isaiah passage in Isaiah 14 is most definitely in reference to Lucifer/satan/devil,etc.
You do know this don't you?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Offer that the Akkadian "Karibu" and Hebrew "Cherub" might possibly be related to the modern English word "Cobra", from Latin "Colubra", which certainly does happen to preserve the notion of (Egyptian) throne guardian, and so the ancient Latin might echo an ancient Egyptian word that the Romans encountered in the days of the Caesars

"Seraph" seems etymologically related to "Serpent" and "Nachash" to "Naga" & "sNake".

Tan (H8577) might be rendered Python or (given their marine nature) Anaconda

If all so, then the OT could be translated into modern English as:

• Nachash --> Snake (Gen 3)
• Seraph --> Serpent (Isaiah 6,14)
• Cherub --> Cobra (Ezek 28)
• Tan --> Anaconda (Ex 7)