Revelation; Satan fell from Heaven

I want to offer some thoughts on Revelation ch12 vv 7-11

This is about the downfall of "the great dragon", alias "the ancient serpent", alias the Devil, alias Satan, alias "the deceiver of the whole world", alias "the accuser of the brethren".

I'm going to be asking the question; when. and how, did Satan fall from heaven?

We can find one version of the story in Paradise Lost.
We learn about the great rebellion before the foundation of the world.
We learn about the hard-fought battles in heaven, and how Satan's force was driven off the edge of Heaven and fell into the Abyss;
"Him the Almighty Power
Hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky
With hideous ruin and combustion down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In adamantine chains and penal fire
Who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms".

Paradise Lost may well be the greatest poem of its length in the English language.
Nevertheless, Paradise Lost is not scripture.

Possible Biblical parallels for the event;

There's a frequently quoted source in Isaiah ch14 v12;
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn"- traditionally quoted in the "Lucifer, son of the morning" translation.
This really says nothing, though, about the timing of the event. The prophet is not talking about the past, necessarily, but foretelling what people will be able to say at some point in the future.
In any case, the verse is clearly labelled in the context as part of the prophet's taunt against Babylon.

There's a less ambiguous example in Luke's gospel. This comes out of the episode of the seventy disciples, chosen by Jesus and sent out ahead of him. They return from the mission "with joy", telling him that "even the demons are subject to us in your name."

His immediate response to this report is the declaration "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven"- Luke ch10 vv17-18

We need to understand that claim in a way that fits the context; that is, as a response to what his disciples have just told him.

If we assume that he's describing a Milton-style fall "before the creation of the world", then it's not easy to make sense of the reference as part of the conversation. It seems to be a little "off-topic", as they say in these parts.

It would make much more sense if there were some kind of connection between the Fall itself and the success they've been reporting, if he was describing the cause (or perhaps the effect) of their success in the mission field. That would be possible if the phrase "fall from heaven" could be understood as referring to a degree of fall from power.

How can Satan fall from power?

Well, where does his power come from, in the first place?

The name "Satan" come from the Hebrew phrase meaning "The Adversary".
It's also significant that he's described in Revelation ch12 as "the Accuser of the brethren".
Part of the Jewish understanding of Satan is that it's his function, as it were, to make our sins known to God, and draw them to his attention.
That makes him the kind of "Adversary" who would stand against us in a court of law.

That seems to be what he's doing in Job, walking up and down the earth, and reporting back to the presence of God (he seems to have forgotten about any previous "expulsion", and nobody bothers to remind him).

That's certainly what he's doing in Zechariah ch3.
Joshua the high priest stands in the presence of God.
Satan stands at his right hand to accuse him.
The intended accusation is certainly not a false accusation, because Joshua's iniquity is clearly visible, symbolised by his filthy garments.

In this episode, we can see a picture of the power which an Accuser can hold over humanity. It is not much different from that of an informant or a blackmailer.
Effectively, the power is based upon the possession of damaging information about human Sin.
Or, to be exact, it is based on the existence of human Sin, about which damaging information can be possessed.

The best way to deal with a blackmailer is to make his information useless.
That is exactly what happens in Zechariah ch3.
The Lord says to Joshua, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you"-Zechariah ch3 v4.
The filthy garments are removed, and replaced by clean ones. Satan's evidence has been taken away from him- he stands rebuked and silenced.

When you take away the Sin, you necessarily take away the power of the Accuser.

It's time now to turn to Revelation ch12, and see what it tells us about the downfall of Satan, and the way "the Accuser of the brethren" was overcome.

The chapter begins with a "great portent" seen in heaven, a woman giving birth to a child who is to "rule the nations with a rod of iron" (I looked at the "woman in heaven" in my previous thread). The child is born and then "caught up to God and to his throne". The defeat and downfall of Satan follows immediately afterwards.

This goes a long way towards answering at least one of my original questions; the downfall of Satan occurs in the immediate context of the birth and ascension of Christ himself.

We are then told by a loud voice from heaven that the brethren have conquered him "by the blood of the Lamb".

The meaning of this phrase is well-understood by reference to the rest of the New Testament. "The Lamb" is a title given to Christ himself, in this book and in John's gospel, because of his death. "The blood of the Lamb" is a more specific reference to the same death.

So an Accuser who has been conquered "by the blood of the Lamb" has been conquered by the fact that Christ died on the cross.

The key to his defeat, as in Zechariah ch3, is the removal of Sin. We are told elsewhere that the Lamb of God "takes away the Sin of the world" (John ch1 v29).
And it is, of course, the central teaching of the New Testament that his death- his blood- was the means of achieving it.
"We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses." -Ephesians ch1 v7

And, as I said before- when you take away Sin , you necessarily take awy the power of an Accuser.

So the brethren conquered the Accuser "by the blood of the Lamb"- they destroyed his power over their own lives by accepting the offered forgiveness.
They also conquered him "by the word of their testimony"- they were continuing to destroy his power over others by spreading the news of the offered forgiveness, even if it brought danger to themselves "for they loved not their lives even unto death".

The real meaning of the "battle in heaven", then, is what happened on the cross.
And the real meaning of the "fall from heaven" is that forgiveness became available because of what haopoened on the cross.
And that was how "the salvation and the power and the kingdom" of God and his Christ (v10) came into the world.

So, whatever Milton says, the story of the battle in heaven and the "Great Fall" is really nothing more- and nothing less- than a dramatised version of the doctrine of the Atonement.

In my previous thread, I described this chapter as a "flashback", interrupting the main flow of the story. How does it fit into the the plan of Revelation?

Firstly, it shows us the root of the apparent animosity of the powers of evil towards the followers of Christ, evident all through this book. That is to be understood as a reaction to Satan's "downfall".

But it also shows us the root of the power which defends them. It is not a coincidence that the "slain Lamb", in ch5, was responsible for setting these saving events in motion. The power which defends the persecuted church in this book is based on the same power which originally defeated those ultimate enemies, Sin and Death.

The Atonement would thus be the driving force at the heart of the Revelation, just as it is the driving force of the rest of the New Testament.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

Lucifer was the 5th cherub, the covering cherub of the mercy seat, who gained other names after he imagined himself as God.

His morningstar name is a copy of the Messiahs....because he can only copy but never be equal to the Creator.

He was never the accuser until the rebellion!

I only got a quick teaching on Rev 12:7 not too long ago, so I'll have to find it again and review it before I can comment further

Honestly, did you just write all that to say that you had the revelation that the devil fell from heaven??

When it is well known in Christian dogma that Lucifer, the light bringer and one of
"God's" most loved of angels fell from grace, because of pride (reason it is a deadly sin) and was cast out of heaven to rule over hell.

Why do you think the devil is called "The Fallen Angel"

Because Satan / Lucifer IS an Angel

you don't need to write all that just to state common knowledge

But well done on the work anyway!

Admitedly I did not read the entire post. so if I am stating the obvious, then whatever, but if this is just a bible study post, then is this really the place??


[edit on 30/505/1010 by JakiusFogg]

I love those people who are spiritual and love Yahweh!
You must watch this video!
It will rock your world!
dallaswoody.com...

Satan might still have access to Heaven, He would still have access according to the book of Job. He is still the King of the Earth.

I was absolutly mesmerised by that. Obviously a great understanding of the word.

Thank you
Thank you indeed.

Stillessence

Great info in this thread.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by toasted

He was never the accuser until the rebellion.

I'm not quite sure where this point is fitting into my argument. Are you saying that he was not the Accuser at the time that he "fell" in Revelation ch12? In other words, are you disagreeing with my argument that this "Fall" in Revelation is something which needs to be associated with the event of the cross?

Originally posted by randyvs
I was absolutly mesmerised by that. Obviously a great understanding of the word.

Thank you, sir.
I've seen many of your contributions on this site, and praise from your goodself is very valuable.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Honestly, did you just write all that to say that you had the revelation that the devil fell from heaven?

You tell me that you did not read the whole post, but I think I would have guessed that even without being told.

In the first place, I was not discussing the fact THAT the devil fell from heaven.
As I explained in the third sentence in, I was questioning WHEN and HOW he fell from heaven.
And I was not, incidentally, claiming special revelation. Just careful study.

When it is well known in Christian dogma that Lucifer, the light bringer and one of
"God's" most loved of angels fell from grace, because of pride (reason it is a deadly sin) and was cast out of heaven to rule over hell.
you don't need to write all that just to state common knowledge.

"all common knowledge"?
Did you not notice that I was spending the entire post disagreeing with everything you've just said?

I was arguing that the "fall from heaven" was a NOT a fall from grace, but a fall from power.
That it was NOT caused by pride but by the fact that the death of Christ had made forgiveness available to his former victims?
That it was NOT about ruling hell, but about losing the power to bring accusation of Sin?

Did you not notice that I was taking all the scriptures that you would probably have been using in support of the "fall from grace" theory, and saying that they really meant something else altogether? Implying that the "fall from grace" theory had no biblical support?

I suppose I ought to appreciate the fact that you weren't flaming me, but at least a flaming would have shown that you understood what I was saying.

but if this is just a bible study post, then is this really the place??

Yes, it is.
This forum is described as a place for discussion of, amongst other things, "ancient prophecies."
Revelation is an ancient prophecy.
That means that this forum is an appropriate place to discuss it.

In my last four paragraphs I was explaining the connection between the teaching in this passage and the prophecies which fill the rest of Revelation.
Revelation is filled with prophecy about the persecution of the church; I explained how the roots of this go back to Satan's downfall in this chapter.
Revelation is filled with prophecy about the destructive effects of God's power used in defence of the church; I explained how the roots of this go back to Satan's downfall in this chapter.

It all fits together.
Please come back for the rest of the series and see what I mean.

Originally posted by stillessence
You must watch this video!
It will rock your world!
dallaswoody.com...

Thank you for supplying that link.
I've been watching the videos.
I must admit that I don't really go in for date calculations as you will see when I reach the relevant sections of Revelation, and I approach the Beast in a different way as well.
And- I'm sorry, but nobody born in England can hear Prince Charles being identified as the Antichrist without breaking out into fits of laughter.

Originally posted by Target Earth
Satan might still have access to Heaven, He would still have access according to the book of Job. He is still the King of the Earth.

Thank you for your contribution.
In fact, I don't think we're disagreeing with each other.

The access to God, mentioned in Job, is for the purpose of bringing accusation of sin.
My line of thought was that this access is cut off in relation to those who have accepted Forgiveness.
But the implication is that it is NOT cut off in relation to other people.
Is this what you're talking about?

Thus Ephesians ch6 is able to talk about the powers of spiritual wickedness "in high places".
In other words, as you say, Satan is still "king of the earth"-
But only in relation to those who are not part of the other Kingdom.
Are we agreed here?

reply to post by DISRAELI

I must admit that I don't really go in for date calculations

You could possibly consider a calculation to parallel the knowing of a season.
We both know predictions of" that day" are for charlettons.
Jesus said, "It is possible to know the season". knowledge of seasons beginning and ending has never been a science of an exact day.
It is only for the sake of the calender that an exact date a season begins and the other ends is given. Maybe it could also have something to do with the farmers almanac. I remember hearing that somewhere .
Or maybe that's my dain bramage acting up again.

Sorry Disreali,

Tired and bored last night. (as well as a little drunk)

Read the first 2 paragraphs and not much more, and jumped to conclusion on the thread title.

So apologies if I came of harsh.

Anyway. From a Pagan perspective, Lucifer is a metaphor for the old sun gods. and we take the opinion that this has been "bastardised" from old legend as a mechanism to aid the coversion of the popultation in the 4th to 13th Centuries.

Depending on Christianities progression.

So sort answer from me there is now devil. However, trying to find the true meaning in any cryptic text is always a worthwhile endeavour.

Originally posted by randyvs

Jesus said, "It is possible to know the season". knowledge of seasons beginning and ending has never been a science of an exact day.
It is only for the sake of the calender that an exact date a season begins and the other ends is given. Maybe it could also have something to do with the farmers almanac. I remember hearing that somewhere .

Possible to know the season?
I'll have to look up the word in the morning, but I know the Acts ch1 reference says "not times nor seasons". Although the other poster's video explained that differently. The video also took the line "pray that your flight be not in winter or on the sabbath" and took that as evidence that the flight would be in winter and near the sabbath (though I don't see that this follows logically).

My resistance to calculations is partly a reaction to what I see as the over-elaborate nature of some Revelation interpretation. so I'm trying to strip things down to the bare minimum of what's really there. My version of a Revelation timeline is going to be a bare skeleton compared with some charts I've come across. But, hopefully, not the kind that can go out of date.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
So apologies if I came of harsh.

Anyway. From a Pagan perspective, Lucifer is a metaphor for the old sun gods. and we take the opinion that this has been "bastardised" from old legend as a mechanism to aid the coversion of the popultation in the 4th to 13th Centuries.

So sort answer from me there is now devil. However, trying to find the true meaning in any cryptic text is always a worthwhile endeavour.

Thank you for coming back.
Sorry, perhaps I overreacted a bit as well.

As for the "devil" concept, there may be something in what you say with regard to the way the concept developed in later church life. Anyway, what I'm really looking at here is the earlier stage, before that mediaeval development really got going. The basic, original, idea is what I'm after.

Some people have suggested, incidentally, that the mediaeval devil was influenced by the Greek god Pan, but it's a little late at night for me to be thinking about these things.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by DISRAELI


Well I am not just talking about the medieval part thought. as you look at the ancient Greek god Pan. or the Celtic God Cernnunos. Each depicted with horns, cloven hoof etc. but although this maybe have been romantised during a later period, the origin was much earlier.

Even the god of the sun, by making the link that the brightest of gods angels, had fallen, and cast to hell, maybe that was a good metaphoric tool that the old sun god had fallen, and was now something to be despised. Where as now the son (sun) of God was shown to be the savior.

All interesting stuff.

But I guess we will never know from looking at one text until the day when when they scan and release the contents of the Vatican library on the internet!.

[edit on 31/5/2010 by JakiusFogg]

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Interestingly, I believe that the concept or at least the word Hell comes from the norse Hel, who was the goddess of the underworld. and the one that passed the dead from this life to the next. (those that did not go to Valahalla)

At least in the anglo term of the word,

Although I am sure the concept of the "inferno" preceded that.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg

Well I am not just talking about the medieval part thought. I mean look at the ancient Greek god Pan. or the Celtic God Cernnunos. Each depicted with horns, cloven hoof etc.

Even the god of the sun, by making the link that the brightest of gods angels, had fallen, and cast to hell, maybe that was a good metaphoric tool that the old sun god had fallen, and was now something to be despised. Where as now the son (sun) of God was shown to be the savior.

Yes, but the horns, cloven hoof, etc, are not actually part of the Biblical concept of Satan. Satan, as described in OT and NT, is independent of all that, and the horns are added in later. The two areas of thought are merged together at a late date.

Incidentally, the sun/son wordplay only works in English, not in the original languages.

Fall of sun-god? I'll have to think about that side of things. I think, in relation to the Luke and Revelation passages, it could only be an extra, "side", thought, rather than the main point.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by JakiusFogg

On the English word "hell";
My dictionary (Concise Oxford) traces it back to Old German "hella" and Old Norse "hel", and thinks they come from a root word "hel-" or "hal-" meaning "to hide". I'm not an expert there, so I just copy down what it says.

On the older concept of the inferno, there was a very learned ATS thread running a couple of months ago on the meaning of "Sheol" and "Gehenna" in the Old Testament; it was called something like "All you Christians are going to Hell". I did not read all of it, but they certainly went into a lot of detail on the history of the ideas.

Originally posted by Target Earth
Satan might still have access to Heaven, He would still have access according to the book of Job. He is still the King of the Earth.

Satan was cast out of heaven and he cannot go back in since "no unclean thing shall enter the kingdom of God"
also, satan is ruler of this world and the face of the waters.