When Did Satan Fall?

[Brother Rick]

This is something I’ve always struggled with understanding: when did Satan fall?

It’s easy to tell when Lucifer was created:

Job 38:4-7, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5) Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”


So the morning stars and the sons of God were there before Genesis 1:1, because they were singing and praising God as the Earth was created. So it makes sense that Lucifer was there too.

Also:

Ez. 28:13-15, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.”


Eden wasn’t here until Genesis chapter two, after God made man, which leads me to think that Satan fell sometime after man was created:

Gen. 2:7-8, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8) And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”


I’m open to the Gap theory, but I’ve never been convinced of it. I don’t believe in the evolutionary Gap Theory for a second, but the one that states that Satan and the universe fell between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 seems somewhat plausible – but I’ve never been convinced of it. If you believe in this theory or understand it pretty well please explain it. If you think that Satan fell after man was created could you elaborate on that? Either way, I’m looking for some feedback.

Oh, and lastly, I’m assuming that the stones of fire and the mountain of God were something in the Garden of Eden – does anyone have anything on that?

Thanks!

Edited November 4, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[Seth Doty]

This is something I’ve always struggled with understanding: when did Satan fall?

It’s easy to tell when Lucifer was created:

Job 38:4-7, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5) Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”


So the morning stars and the sons of God were there before Genesis 1:1, because they were singing and praising God as the Earth was created. So it makes sense that Lucifer was there too.

Also:

Ez. 28:13-15, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.”


Eden wasn’t here until Genesis chapter two, after God made man, which leads me to think that Satan fell sometime after man was created:

Gen. 2:7-8, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8) And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

I agree that it is likely satan fell some time after the creation of man.

Oh, and lastly, I’m assuming that the stones of fire and the mountain of God were something in the Garden of Eden – does anyone have anything on that?

​My assumption is this is referring to the coals of fire under the throne of God and between the cherubims where Gods glory dwells. It would fit in with the fact that lucifer was "the anointed cherub that covereth". The mountain of God also probably has nothing to do with Eden, but rather heaven. Edited November 5, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[John81]

What Seth said :icon_smile:

[anime4christ]

My problems with the gap theory are the same as with dispensationalism: It chops up the Bible where it was never meant to be chopped up, it uses a faulty hermaneutic that ignores the New Testament's interpretation of the Old Testament (which was intended by the writers of the NT and therefore was the interpretation inspired by the Holy Spirit), and it didn't exist for centuries in the church until somebody came up with the cut-and-paste hermaneutic. The gap theory is a dispensational teaching not found in any other framework for interpreting the Bible.

As for when Satan fell, I commented on your facebook post. I can quote it here if you want, but my quotation of the Bible there is in the ESV.

[Brother Rick]

My problems with the gap theory are the same as with dispensationalism: It chops up the Bible where it was never meant to be chopped up,

No, that's hyperdispensationalism, but thanks for answering - I appreciate it! :-)

[John81]

The gap theory was introduced by those who didn't have confidence the Bible could stand up to the "realities" of modern science. In an attempt to "cover God" on this, they came up with the idea of a gap in the Gensis account to make room for evolution and millions and billions of years. Along the way, many ideas have been stuffed into that gap in order to accomodate "science", pet views, personal opinion or to simply engender strife.

[anime4christ]

There are two different gap theories, John. One tries to accommodate evolution; the other doesn't. But both are false, IMO. The latter gap theory is popular among Ruckmanites, btw. And somewhere in that gap are aliens and other weird things that Ruckman teaches.

[John81]

There are two different gap theories, John. One tries to accommodate evolution; the other doesn't. But both are false, IMO. The latter gap theory is popular among Ruckmanites, btw. And somewhere in that gap are aliens and other weird things that Ruckman teaches.

Yes, but from what I've read on the subject it seems the gap idea really took off as a means to accomodate evolutionary theories. From there folks have added all sorts of things into their view of the gap, including as you say, very strange things such as aliens. Today it seems there has been made enough room in the gap for people to say just about anything took place there, whether it be evolution, alien actions, pre-Adamic race, time of dinosaurs, just one of many pre-earths, etc.

Considering most IFBs are against gap theories it still seems strange that the Scofield Bible is so accepted among IFBs. Although it seems that in the newer versions they have taken out Scofields references to his belief in a gap theory.

[Brother Rick]

There are two different gap theories, John. One tries to accommodate evolution; the other doesn't. But both are false, IMO. The latter gap theory is popular among Ruckmanites, btw. And somewhere in that gap are aliens and other weird things that Ruckman teaches.

While Dr. Ruckman does have some weird theories about aliens, his teaching on the gap is the same as Clarence Larkin's: Lucifer and the sons of God existed and ruled the Earth of Genesis 1:1, and then everything came crashing down. I was reading The Spirit World by Clarence Larkin last week and I thought to myself, "This guy is a Ruckmanite!" I looked at the front and it was published in 1921.

The teaching that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are spiritual angelic beings is something that Dr. Ruckman teaches as well, but it's not limited to him at all. I was reading a book by Dr. Al Lacy on Saturday (The Mystery of Angels) and he was saying the same thing. Al Lacy even went so far as to say that Judas Iscariot was the birth/biological son of Satan himself, something I've never heard Dr. Ruckman say.

I've heard some people teach that weird serpent seed thing which is really out there in my opinion.

[John81]

If it's not clearly told to us or taught in Scripture then it's not something we need to concern ourselves with. God tells us in Deuteronomy 29:29 that some things He chooses to keep to Himself. We are not meant to know all things, but what we are meant to know, and what is good for us to know, He has revealed to us in His Word.

[Brother Rick]

If it's not clearly told to us or taught in Scripture then it's not something we need to concern ourselves with. God tells us in Deuteronomy 29:29 that some things He chooses to keep to Himself. We are not meant to know all things, but what we are meant to know, and what is good for us to know, He has revealed to us in His Word.

I agree to a certain degree, but there's nothing wrong with studying and sharing ideas. I'm not "concerned" about when Satan fell, but I'm interested.

[John81]

We can't even all agree on the things God does reveal to us, what benefit is there to delve into a matter that we have no foundation to turn to?

To be clear, I'm not saying this as a poke at you Rick (or anyone else), just discussing. I can understand the curiosity factor and that such discussions can be interesting. It wasn't all that long ago I really got into some similar sorts of things. I can remember having long discussions over whether or not the universe is infinite...if yes, how can that be if only God is infinite...if no, then is there some "wall" out there where the universe ends, and if so, what's on the other side of the wall, or is the wall infinite from that point...

Then it was pointed out to me some good teachings on avoiding "vain imaginations". Along with that, the great truth that I (we) should be studying what God has revealed to us in His Word until we fully understand it and have it mastered...something that will take us all our lives to even scratch the surface.

[Brother Rick]

I've been going back and forth on this thing a lot lately, but I think I'm leaning more and more towards a Larkin gap. I'd like some feedback though, if you guys wouldn't mind. Here are the reasons I'm leaning that way:

1. II Peter 3:5-7, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
⁶Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
⁷But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

This can be either Noah's flood or a gap flood. With this flood it says that the world perished. You could hardly make the case that the world before Noah perished or was destroyed! The Genesis account shows that the flood only wiped out land and air life - things with nostrils that walked or creeped upon the Earth. Noah didn't pack fish tanks onto the ark because the fish survived. Also, if absolutely no trees and vegetation survived, seeds at least survived.

Within the passage there is a description of our Earth being destroyed in the future. The destruction of verse six is likened to the destruction of verse seven - a complete and utter destruction of everything. I think Noah's flood falls very short of this as you could argue more things actually survived than died.


2. The description of the Earth in Gen. 1:2 is "void," "without form," and "dark." This is the description commonly used for judgment all throughout the Bible (Jer. 4, Matthew 24, Joel 2). Why is Genesis 1:2 the exception to the rule? If there is no judgment gap, then this a blaring exception to the law of first mention in the Bible. Doesn't it seem odd that with everything else in Genesis chapter one God simply made it in one shot, "let there be light," "let there be grass," "let there be birds." Doesn't it stand to reason that He did the same with the planet in Gen. 1:1? Why is the planet the exception to the rule?

If you have an understanding of Bible prophecy you know that within one verse God can describe two events that take place two thousand years apart (or if you're a Preterist about 35 years apart) - with that understanding I do not see how it is completely unreasonable to think that the same thing could have happened with Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.


3. When Adam fell, he brought sin into the world (Rom. 5:12) and everything went down with him. Everything was cursed and fell. Sin had devastating effects on the entire cosmos when Adam fell. What about Lucifer? When he fell.... nothing happened? Did he not bring sin into something? After all, he sinned before Adam ever did! Somehow when Lucifer sinned it had no effect on the universe at all, but when Adam did there was devastating effects? It makes more sense that Lucifer brought sin into a prior universe, with even more devastating consequences than when Adam brought sin into this world.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[Salyan]

I have to disagree with the statement that the flood of Noah's day was not sufficient to fill the description of 2 Peter. The 'world that then was' -- the culture and accomplishments of antediluvian civilization - was overthrown without a trace. The entire face of the earth was changed - mountains & oceans were altered, and some say that even the environment was altered. That seems enough like perishing for me.
Along the thought of a gap flood being needed for the world to perish... if perish means everything has to go, wouldn't that mean that the 'formless and void' earth and water would have to be utterly obliterated as well? Also, looking at the flood (gap or Noah) as being a picture of the second destruction of the world at the end of time, well, there will be those that survive the second destruction as well.

I have to admit, I hadn't heard of the Larkin theory before. Looking at point three, what does Larkin say about the effects of a prior sin upon the world? Was it only a spiritual effect, or were (as you suggest) there physical consequences? If it was the latter, it's going to create some difficulties with what the Bible says about the effects of Adam's sin. Death entered the world, and the whole of creation was affected. Yet before Adam's sin, all was 'very good.' Furthermore, does Larkin suggest there was sentient life on the planet before Lucifer's fall? There can't be, for 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' (Not trying to set up any straw men here, just don't know what the theory suggests.)
The one thing that does come to mind in regards to point 3 is that Adam was put in authority over the earth. It makes sense that his sin would affect the creation he was placed over. We don't read of Lucifer having any such authority given him that would affect some previous creation.

I just don't see there being enough detail given to support a previous destruction.

[Brother Rick]

You're right, a lot of this is supposition and I have no problem admitting that. People tend to get very riled up about this and they shouldn't.

As far as Lucifer ruling, many passages in Scripture show a spiritual military hierarchy so to speak. Michael is spoken of as leading an army in Daniel and Revelation. There is the prince of Greece and Persia, both satanic. Job speaks of Satan as being "king" over the children of pride and having a throne.

The formless Earth strikes me as debris left over after massive destruction. Take a big ball of bread and plunge it into a bucket of water for three minutes. When you're done, it's formless and void for all intents and purposes. It has perished, and while there is debris left, it is formless. Yes Noah's flood wiped out all breathing life and changed our landscape, but I have a hard time saying believing that the pre-flood world "perished" when more things survived than died. I guess it all comes down to the definition of "perish."

Point 2 is significant as well; do you have any thoughts on it?