When did Satan fall like lightning?

Hello,

While reading the Gospel of Luke this week, I came upon the passage where Jesus said that he saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven. Here is the passage from the NASB and KJV:

---

LUKE 10:17-20 NASB

17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” 18 And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. 20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”

LUKE 10:17-20 KJV

17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19 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.
20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

---

I have always interpreted this to relate to Satan's fall from Heaven. I know that there is some debate over whether the passages in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are referring to Satan. However, I believe that this interpretation is primarily one based upon the passage in Luke 10.

I read one commentary online that interpreted it somewhat differently. The author proposes that Satan fell from Heaven "like lightning" while the apostles were spreading the Gospel. He stated that it might have been akin to the way Satan approached God in the Book of Job chapter 1:

---

JOB 1:6-8 NASB

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, "From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” 8 The Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.”

---

The author proposed that Satan fell back to Earth because the apostles were carrying out the Lord's work -- and seeing something that the prophets longed to see (Luke 10:23-24).

While this ultimately isn't that important (although I am interested in what others think about this), my question is primarily about the timeline of events.

It is commonly understood that the serpent who tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden was Satan. While Satan isn't specifically identified here (because the first time the word "Satan" appears is in I Chronicles 21:1), we can make this conclusion on the basis of context and, of course, the passage in Revelation:

---

REVELATION 20:1-2 NASB

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, WHO IS THE DEVIL AND SATAN....

---

I am confident that this passage equates that "serpent of old" as the one in the Garden of Eden. It can be interpreted that the "serpent" was a "dragon" prior to the consequential curse placed upon it in Genesis 3:13-15.

So, that brings me to the question:

Since we can conclude that the serpent is Satan, when did Satan fall?

Obviously, this is all speculation. I also know that we should be careful about speculation or building any sort of "belief" out of it. Still, I am curious about this.

I suppose that it would have occurred between the sixth day of creation (since God said that it was "good" at that time) and when the serpent spoke with Eve. Are there any historic views about this?

I believe it was this:

Genesis 1:2
2 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.

How would God create something that was void, dark and without form? I believe it was Satan who had corrupted the earth.

God created the heavens and the earth, including the angelic host who inhabited first the heavens and the earth. There were no other beings and at that time apart from them.

Satan conducted worship in heaven and coveted the praise that angels offered to God, so he started to "trade" in worship and spirtual things - is that not still happening today?
After Satan's rebellion in heaven, 1/3 of the angels joined him and he was cast onto the earth so it became empty and void - tohuwabohu - (that is how my father used to describe my playroom when I was a kid.

Satan corrupted a tree and the snake in order to corrupt man, the subject and instrument of God's salvation. So he waited until man appeared on the scene.

Of course, God could have anihilated Satan, but instead God created everything else in it on day 1 to 6 as an environment for man to live and rule. He was made a little lower than the angels. God wanted to show his wisdom by sending his son as man to rescue fallen man and bringing man to victory so that they could also defeat Satan in the power of his son in the end. This would bring greater glory to him and of course we can take a share in the heavenly kingdom.

I recently listened to a sermon by Stephen Kaung, who elaborated on this, can't remember the title of the sermon, I think it was titled "To him who overcomes" or "Overcoming for God's Purpose"

I believe Jesus was speaking prophetically looking forward to the cross.

John 12:31 seems to state this specifically:

"Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world **will be** cast out."

double post

NP wrote:

"Satan conducted worship in heaven"

I am curious as to where you get this idea.

OK - that’s what I figured. Thanks.

Quote by narrowpath:

"How would God create something that was void, dark and without form? I believe it was Satan who had corrupted the earth."

As I understand it this point comes from the gap theory that allows for millions of years for the earth and the universe to evolve, or as some would label it theistic evolution.

My understanding of this verse is that the writer is stating a subject he is about to explain: "The creation of the earth and the universe.In the beginning there was no earth, nothing and now I am going to tell you in the succeeding verses how it came about." We would call this a title...and then the writer proceeds to inform us how it was made and how long it took to do it.

Simple, to me.

Sandra

Hi Sandra,

I do not believe in gap theory. There were no other living beings in the beginning apart from the Godhead and angels before everything else was created from Gen 1:3 onwards.

I actually believe Satan's fall was in the garden, not prior to the garden. Ezekiel 28 seems to indicate that Lucifer was in the garden of Eden while still in a state of angelic glory, not having fallen yet.

When you couple this with the reason for his fall, given in Isaiah 14, it seems to me that Lucifer saw the authority and glory given to man and desired to have that for himself. The angels were made to be ministering spirits. Man was made in God's image and given dominion and authority. Lucifer wanted that dominion, that place of honor and authority, for himself. I believe his fall came when he decided to usurp the authority that God had given man by deceiving Eve.

I know many use the passage from Revelation 12 about the dragon dragging a third of the stars from heaven and a war in heaven and use that passage to imagine that at some time long ago Satan staged a rebellion in which he convinced a third of the angels to try to fight against God. But I think one would have to admit that this is quite a bit of speculation to read into these verses. It is problematic because it takes one or two sentences and makes them happen before creation while the rest of the chapter is obviously not speaking of that time period.

Of course, I could be all wrong, but this makes the most sense to me.

Lucifer is nowhere identified with Satan in the scriptures.

Todd: If you mean that there is nowhere in scripture that explicitly says, "Lucifer is Satan", I have to totally agree with you. But there is no being in scripture matching the description of Lucifer given in Isaiah other than Satan. So Isaiah has to be speaking of a totally unknown being not mentioned in scripture or he has to be speaking of Satan.

"Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) is clearly identified as the "king of Babylon" (Isa.14:4) and as a "man" (v.16). The lofty ambitions of "Lucifer" are exactly those of the builders of the Tower of Babel (the origins of Babylon).

I surely understand that this idea got started somewhere way back and it is now firmly grounded in tradition, but I have to reiterate that no where in scripture is Lucifer identified as satan.

Trust me, I am not questioning the existence of satan- I just don’t accept the very questionable exegesis of the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages. Those passages specifically state who is being described, granted in hyperbolic language as is common in prophetic passages.

A few other clues we have...
Lucifer means "light bearer". In 2 Cor. 11:14 Paul calls him an angel of light.
Isaiah says that he weakened (brought to a prostrate position) the nations. John in Revelation 12:9 says that Satan deceived the nations.
Isaiah says he would be brought to hell, to the sides of the pit. Revelation 9 says he is in hell, in a bottomless pit.

"The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians."~~John Calvin(wow, we agree on something!)

Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse (Is 14:12) to the devil.

//As for Ezekiel 28, it is one of many Scripture passages that we call dual prophecy.//

Who says?

There are times in scripture when we find a person and the power at work in or behind that person mentioned together. For example, Jesus told Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan." We would never conclude from this passage that Peter is Satan. We conclude that there was a thought process and actions working through Peter that were not God's way of thinking, but the thoughts and emotions of a person that were still corrupted by sin (Satan). But then Jesus also deals with the physical man Peter.

The same is true in both OT passages that refer to Satan. For example, in Ezekiel 28, we read that Ezekiel is commanded to "say unto the prince of Tyrus. " This is about the real ruler of the physical Tyrus, and is very evident by the nature of what is said. But then God shifts focus. He then says, "take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus" . These verses then speak to the spiritual power, the real driving force, behind the king of Tyrus. In this case, it is describing Satan, and is also very clear in its description.

The same happens in Isaiah 14. God speaks against the king of Babylon. Not the physical ruler of the day, but the real power and motivator behind the empire and its deeds, in this case Satan again. Then he addresses what will happen to the physical nation of Babylon, the things that are in the physical realm that we would see.

But the verses mention nothing about a spiritual power. That interpretation is clearly coming from outside the text.

Some people don't want to see what the Bible actually says, if it is not going to support what popular teachers say. I have encountered this mentality an awful lot.

The question to ask is: "Who does the Bible say that Lucifer is?" There is only one place in the entire Bible that mentions "Lucifer," so it should be easy enough to consider all the biblical evidence. Comparing Isaiah 14:12 and v.16, we find that the only individual ever referred to as "Lucifer" is a "man" (not an angel) and, according to v. 4, he is the king of Babylon. Mystery solved!

It is also clear that the individual in Ezekiel 28 is not Lucifer, since Lucifer was "the king of Babylon," and the person in Ezekiel was "the king of Tyre" (28:12). There was not one individual who was both king of Babylon and of Tyre.

Of course, the popular view is that these both refer to Satan, as the "power behind the throne" in both Babylon and Tyre. However, there is nothing in either passage (nor elsewhere in scripture) to suggest this theory, which makes it, obviously, an "unscriptural" assumption.