# The Fall of Satan?



## no1special18 (Feb 18, 2005)

Hey, I was wondering about where we get the idea of Satan's rebellion and fall? I am some what newly reformed, so I do not even know if reformed people hold the same view (as far as this goes) as most other Christians. Anyway, any thoughts and especially scriptural support on this idea would be appreciated. Thanks! 

P.S I hope I posted this in the right forum; I trust, though, that if it is not it will be moved.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 19, 2005)

Isaiah 14:12-20, "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13 For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' 15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit. 16 "Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms, 17 Who made the world as a wilderness And destroyed its cities, Who did not open the house of his prisoners?' 18 "All the kings of the nations, All of them, sleep in glory, Everyone in his own house; 19 But you are cast out of your grave Like an abominable branch, Like the garment of those who are slain, Thrust through with a sword, Who go down to the stones of the pit, Like a corpse trodden underfoot. 20 You will not be joined with them in burial, Because you have destroyed your land And slain your people. The brood of evildoers shall never be named."

Speaking about the King of Tyre, but also through to Satan.


----------



## street preacher (Feb 19, 2005)




----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 19, 2005)

Matt, 

Do you see a parallel or connection between the Isaiah passage and this passage:



> Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luke 10.13-18


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 19, 2005)

No, not the same context or idea. Isaiah is talking about Satan's beginnings and fall. Christ is talking about the cross in the context of victory and "Satan falling light lightening" is a refernce to HIS work and what will be accomplished at the cross.


----------



## Robin (Feb 19, 2005)

Amen  ....Dr. McMahon!

Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 19, 2005)

Ok, thanks, I think I understand the distinction. It was interesting to me, though, that Tyre is mentioned in both passages.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 19, 2005)

Was Satan possesing the King of Tyre? So that he was speaking directly to Satan in Tyre or it was just a use of a past event to demonstrate the King of Tyre?

blade


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 19, 2005)

Its like the serpent. The serpent was "manipulted" by Satan, althought he serpent was NOT Satan (i.e. Satan is not scaley and does not slither ont he ground). God cursed the serpent, (i.e. the TOOL) but was speaking through the serpent to Satan indirectly, though directly.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by no1special18_
> Hey, I was wondering about where we get the idea of Satan's rebellion and fall? I am some what newly reformed, so I do not even know if reformed people hold the same view (as far as this goes) as most other Christians. Anyway, any thoughts and especially scriptural support on this idea would be appreciated. Thanks!
> 
> P.S I hope I posted this in the right forum; I trust, though, that if it is not it will be moved.



Calvin _in loc_:



> 12. How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn;8 and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. 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 gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DTK (Feb 20, 2005)

The Bible informs us that sin had its origin in the angelic realm. We know that God created all things good, which would, of course, apply to the angels as well (Gen 1:31). Concerning the angelic hosts, the Bible indicates that a large number were involved in a sinful rebellion against God, But We are not informed precisely when this rebellion/fall occurred. Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that the Devil was a murderer from the beginning ( Jn 8:44). Interestingly enough, elsewhere in Johannine literature, we are told that the devil “sinned from the beginning” ( 1 Jn 3:8), but we cannot be sure when this beginning was. Very possibly, it means the beginning of human history. As for the angelic hosts in general, Jude 6 makes this comment: _And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day_. The fact that there was a large number involved in this rebellion can be inferred from the account of the casting out of the legion of demons from the demoniac in Luke 8:30, if we are indeed correct in the presumption that demons are fallen angels. In the list of qualifications for a bishop, 1 Tim 3:6 suggests in passing that the sin of the devil was pride, _not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil_. The sins of the kings of Babylon (Is 14:12ff.) and of Tyre (Eze 28:2ff.) are given in such exalted terms that many (as Calvin pointed out) feel these are to be understood accounts of the fall of Satan. But Calvin rejected these interpretations of the above prophecies, but the sins of these men do seem to have been of the same nature as Satan’s. Rev 12:7–9 gives us an account of warfare in heaven, and the casting out of Satan.

*R. L. Dabney* made these comments: That all these spiritual beings were created holy and happy, is evident from God’s character, which is incapable of producing sin or misery; see Gen. 1:31; from the frequent use of the term holy angels, and from all that is revealed of their occupations and affections, which are pure, blessed and happy. The same truth is implied, in what is said, 2 Pet. 2:4, of “angels that sinned,” and so were not spared, but cast down to hell, and Jude 6, of “angels that kept not their first estate.” This first estate was, no doubt, in all, an estate of holiness and happiness. As to the change which has taken place in it, we are indeed left mainly to inference, by God’s word; but it is inference so well supported by His attributes, and the analogy of man’s case, that I feel a good degree of confidence in drawing it. A holy, intelligent creature, would owe service to God, with love and worship, by its natural relation to Him. And while God would be under no obligations to such a creature, to preserve its being, or bestow a happy immortality, yet His own righteousness and benevolence would forbid His visiting external suffering on that creature, while holy. The natural relation then, between such a creature and God, would be this: God would bestow perfect happiness, just so long as the creature continued to render perfect obedience, and no longer. For both the natural and legal consequence of sin would be spiritual death. But it would seem that some of the angels are elect, and these are now confirmed in a state of everlasting holiness and bliss. For holiness is their peculiarity, their blessedness seems complete, and they are mentioned as sharing with man the heavenly mansions, whence we know glorified saints will never fall. On the other hand, another class of the angels have finally and irrevocably fallen into spiritual death. The inference from these facts would seem to be, that the angels, like the human race, have passed under the probation of a covenant of works. The elect kept it, the non–elect broke it; the difference between them being made, so far as God was the author of it, not by His efficacious active decree and grace, but by His permissive decree, in which both classes were wholly left to the freedom of their wills. God only determining by His Providence the circumstances surrounding them, which became the occasional causes of their different choices, and limiting their conduct. On those who kept their probation, through the efficacy of this permissive decree, God graciously bestowed confirmation in holiness, adoption, and inheritance in life everlasting. This, being more than a temporary obedience could earn, was of pure grace; yet not through a Mediator; because the angels, being innocent, needed none. When this probation began, what was its particular condition, and when it ended, we know not; except that the fall of Satan, and most probably that of his angels, preceded Adam’s. Nor is the nature of the sin known. Some, from Mark 3:29, suppose it was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Others, from 1 Tim. 3:6, suppose it was pride; neither conclusively. Guessing is vain, where there is no key to a solution. It may very possibly be that pride was the sin, for it is one to which Satan’s spiritual nature and exalted state might be liable. The great difficulty is how, in a will prevalently holy, and not even swayed by innocent bodily wants and appetites, and where there was not in the whole universe a single creature to entice to sin, the first wrong volition could have place. At the proper time I will attempt to throw on this what light is in my power. See his _ Topical lectures on Scripture_.

*Robert Murray M’Cheyne* said in one of his sermons: We read of two great rebellions in the history of the universe—the rebellion of the angels, and the rebellion of man. For infinitely wise and gracious purposes God planned and permitted both of these, that out of evil He might bring forth good. The first took place in heaven itself. Pride was the sin by which the angels fell, and therefore it is called “the condemnation of the devil.” “They kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.” “God spared them not, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” 

DTK


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 20, 2005)

Not quite I always thought it was satan in the garden. Hmmm.

blade


----------

