When Did Satan Fall?

[Brother Rick]

Doing a little more digging, it appears the Gap theory was reborn in the 1800s, but that it was actually originated by Dutchman Episcopius in the 1500s.

I believe in a young Earth, but I'm not against the idea that something happened between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.

[Salyan]

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.

Right, and I seem to remember that pre-fall Satan was in some God-given spiritual authority (or is that just implied?). But how much would an authority over a spiritual hierarchy have bearing on the physical universe at that point in time?

I read or heard a message recently that commented on Satan's current authority as the prince of this world. (I think maybe it was a message by a Van Gelderen? Not sure...) The idea it basically presented was this: when God created Adam, He gave him authority over this earth (Genesis 1:28). When Adam chose to sin, he forfeited that authority to Satan (2 Peter 2:19, Romans 6:16), and that is when Satan became the prince of this world. Based on those thoughts, my thinking regarding the current subject was that if Lucifer was not in authority over this physical world, his actions would have no consequence on it, whereas Adam, at the time he fell, was in authority, but forfeited that to Satan. :shrug:

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

I don't have a reply to that one. You're right, it is an oddity. And it's not just the planet, it's the whole of the undetailed universe. Is the first verse the 'one shot' description you're looking for, or is it just an overview to the detail of the rest of the chapter (much like chapter 1 is an overview to the detail of chapter 2)? The only thought I have is that God really didn't detail it one way or the other. He didn't say he only created the earth once, and He didn't say He destroyed it before Gen. 1:2.

My main opposition to the gap theories I have heard before is that they all maintain the existence of death before sin. Which just plain doesn't work. And allowing for some vague, unspecified event between the first two verses of Genesis just opens up a whole can of worms. (Didn't we use to have a smiley for that?) Edited November 8, 2011 by salyan

[Brother Rick]

I don't see any "death before sin" in either case. Adam's sin brought death to this world, and if there was death in the last world it was Lucifer's sin that brought it on (hypothetically). Either way, sin brought it on. That being said, nowhere in Scripture are any of the fallen angels described as "dead" - they're fallen or reserved in chains of darkness. So one could argue that there wasn't death before Adam's sin at all, regardless of whether or not there was a gap.

I think Larkin teaches that there was a "pre-adamic race" of men. I don't believe that at all - the first man was Adam, the Bible is clear about that. The Bible is also clear that angels were created before the Earth or Adam was, so if there was a gap it was inhabited by angels.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[anime4christ]

The following is quoted from a facebook comment I wrote:

Let's actually turn our attention to the said passage:

"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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But 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." - 2 Peter 3:5-7

Interpretation #1: Noah's flood: The original Earth was created standing out of the water and in the water. This sounds a bit like the canopy theory, which states there was water above the atmosphere. This also sounds like there was more water under the Earth. That makes sense since we are later told that it never rained, but mist came up from the ground. The water above was a protective barrier while the water beneath watered the plants. When God decided to destroy the world (btw, New Orleans was destroyed by water as well, but not utterly), He let the water come up from the fountains of the deep and the water above fell down in the world's first rainfall. This flooded the Earth and left most of the water on the surface of the Earth. After the flood, the mountains rose up and the valleys sank, so the water flowed into the low places and the high places are now where people and animals live. The scoffers mentioned in the previous verse are willingly ignorant that God has brought about such a judgment even though it is clearly written about in His word. Such people (and the whole world) will be in like manner destroyed by fire at Jesus' second coming. This time the destruction will be on a more massive scale.

Interpretation #2: Gap theory: The world has been destroyed twice with a flood. The first time utterly, the second time on a smaller scale. So small in fact, that even though only 8 people survived, it doesn't count as destruction. The first time the world was destroyed by a flood, it was not recorded anywhere in scripture, except this particular passage. Peter is saying that these scoffers are willingly ignorant of what he just wrote. And Peter writes it in a way that it looks so close to Noah's flood (but he uses a little bit of world play so if you're very super diligent in your study, you will get it) that most people are even unwillingly ignorant of this fact. This makes even most Christians ignorant of this event. Only some dispensationalists are aware of this event. In the end, Jesus will destroy the Earth on the same exact scale as He did with the first flood which is almost obscure in the Bible, except He will use fire instead of water this time.

The most interesting thing about the gap theory is that Peter blames them for being ignorant of an event only obscurely described in this very epistle he is writing and found nowhere else in scripture. The importance that Jesus and the apostles put on Noah's flood is also downplayed in such an interpretation and is inconsistent with how Jesus and the apostles always used the event as the greatest example of judgment that has happened in history.

[anime4christ]

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11

Why do we think we are smarter than the Bible when it comes to the time frame in which God created the Earth (don't tell me God created the Earth and made it in different time frames; the Bible makes no such distinction)? I rest my case when it comes to the time frame.

However, there is a purpose for the language that describes the first day of creation in Genesis.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." - Genesis 1:1-5

It is given in 2 Corinthians 4:6: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

God created the world in a way to illustrate the gospel. As the world was created dark and void, so we are born sinful and lost. And as God commanded light to shine out of darkness, so He shines the light of the gospel in our hearts when He saves us. So we are then children of the light and of the day and no more children of darkness and night. God makes it clear that Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross is the center of the Bible and all things point to it.

[Salyan]

The most interesting thing about the gap theory is that Peter blames them for being ignorant of an event only obscurely described in this very epistle he is writing and found nowhere else in scripture. The importance that Jesus and the apostles put on Noah's flood is also downplayed in such an interpretation and is inconsistent with how Jesus and the apostles always used the event as the greatest example of judgment that has happened in history.

Excellent point!!

[Brother Rick]

Excellent point!!

Yes it was, and one certainly worth considering!