Satan as fallen angel

[darinhouston]

Yesterday a caller asked Steve about Satan and in his response it seemed (for the first time I can remember) that he indicated Satan could well have beeb a fallen angel. That notion has always disturbed me, and Steve's position on the subject has always comforted me -- if he wasn't created as a tempter and, instead, only became the tempter after he himself fell, who tempted him? And more to my concern, if he can fall without being tempted, what gives us assurance that we (or perhaps others in eternity with us) could not sin or otherwise be tempted to rebel in the resurrection? I can't imagine doing so, but I suspect many fallen souls today could have said the same thing at some point in their lives.

[steve]

Hi Darin,

I should clarify my position:

1. I don't know whether Satan was an angel who fell or not, because I consider the Bible largely silent on the matter. I have tried to make that clear when addressing the issue in the past. It has been my long-time position;

2. I don't think that any of the passages used to prove Satan to be a fallen angel have anything to do with the subject. Therefore, in discussions I usually spend most of my speaking time in pointing out that those verses teach no such thing;

3. There are verses that might be taken to indicate that God created the tempter to be just that (cf. Deut.13:1-3; Proverbs 16:4), and that Satan was never good (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8), but these verses, too, are capable of multiple interpretations, so that this point cannot be established with certainty;

4. The bottom line is: We don't know. Both theories present some problems philosophically. On balance, I think the problems with the nontraditional view are not as great.

[darinhouston]

phew!

[Paidion]

It seems that the Ante-Nicene Fathers considered Satan to be a fallen angel.

1. Irenæus (120-202 A.D.) stated that the Hebrew word for "Satan" signified an apostate. (Against Heresies, Book V, Ch XXI, Sec. 5

2. Theophilus (115-181 A.D.) wrote that Satan "is called 'demon' and 'dragon' on account of his revolt from God, for at first he was an angel." (Theophilus to Autolycus Book II, Ch XXVIII, near the end)

3. Origen (185-254 A.D.) interpreted Isaiah's prophecy about Lucifer as a reference to Satan. He quoted the passage from Isaiah and then commented:
"Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to exist before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of light. Nay, Even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, 'Behold, I saw Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.' For at one time he was light." (De Principiis, Book 1, Ch V, Sec. 5)

[steve]

Origen, as is well known, was famous for finding innovative "allegorical" meanings in scripture for which no exegetical warrant could be found. That he was comfortable importing such secondary meanings into Isaiah 14, therefore, is unremarkable—especially since modern theologians, who denounce Origin's allegorical methods, seem to feel free to do the same thing in this passage.

In fact, fathers earlier than Origen, as you mention, held a similar view about Lucifer. I have heard that Tertullian (160-225) may have been the earliest of the church fathers to take it this way. But does anything in scripture warrant it?

I feel at liberty to question many interpretations which better scholars than myself have championed (including Calvinism, the traditional view of hell, dispensationalism, infant baptism, etc.). If we are going to place the authority of scripture above that of ordinary men (or even exceptional men), then we must sometimes look at their confident assertions and say, "The emperor has no clothes!"

At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25)

[Paidion]

But does anything in scripture warrant it?

Well, those early Christians not only understood the Lucifer passage as referring to Satan, but also understood the following words of Jesus as referring to the fall of Satan. Many of them referred to this verse to bring forth this belief.
And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18)

I suppose you can say that all of those early Christians misinterpeted scripture, and modern teachers are still doing it with these passages, but how do you know they interpreted them incorrectly? I know you think the Lucifer passage refers to a human being on earth, but how do you know? And even if Origen interpreted it "allegorically", why could not that interpretation be correct? Jesus and the apostles seemed to have interpreted many OT passages in a way that differed from the seemingly obvious meaning and application. "Out of Egypt have I called my son" comes to mind, a passage that clearly referred to God's "son" Israel.

By the way, how do you understand Jesus as having seen Satan fall like lightning from heaven? When did this happen, and why? It couldn't have been at the time of Jesus' defeat of Satan at the cross, since Jesus hadn't died yet.

You believe you have a correct understanding of Scripture, and I'm sure you do have a lot of correct understanding. But I also think those early Christians, especially those who still had the "voices of the apostles ringing in their ears" were in a better position to understand the teachings of the apostles and their memoirs of Christ than we, 2000 years later, who have been heavily influenced by modern theology. Perhaps you think you are not, but are going exactly by the Bible. But so do thousands of other modern teachers, whose interpretations have a wide range of variance.

[steve]

My position remains the same, and seems the only one that does justice to the biblical evidence.

As for Christ seeing Satan fall like lightning from heaven, I believe this was His prophecy (prophets "see" things that have not yet happened) of the downfall of Satan at the cross. He had occasion to mention it when the seventy returned and reported that demons were subject to them in His name. He made a clear reference to this at John 12:31. I believe Revelation 12:9-10 gives a more figurative picture of this same event, when the dragon is cast out of heaven, and, at that point, a voice in heaven proclaims that salvation has now come.

I admit that I am puzzled how men so near the apostolic age could have reached as many unbiblical conclusions as some of them did (e.g., eternal torment from the same man who taught that Satan was Lucifer). I read many commentators, including church fathers, but do not assume any of them to be invulnerable to the pull of tradition, even in their day.

Let me put a test to you. Suppose you knew nothing of any teacher or theologian who believed Lucifer to be Satan. Suppose you had only the scriptures to go on, and were entirely unaware of traditions. How t=would you make an argument for Satan being Lucifer from scripture alone? Remember, the first person to identify Lucifer with Satan had to take just such an approach. How well did he do in his exegesis?

[Paidion]

Thank you, Steve, for your explanation of Christ having seen Satan falling like lightning from heaven as a prophecy. This makes sense to me. Indeed, I understand His words, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," as a prophecy of the Father through Him. John clearly stated that Jesus spoke of the temple of his body. But it is written that God raised Him from the dead. How can a dead person raise himself up? (unless we believe in an immaterial spirit which is joined to the flesh and which doesn't die). So as I see it, just as God speaks through prophets in the first person, God spoke through Jesus in the first person, saying that He would raise Christ bodily from the dead. But I can't prove that through exegesis. It is simply the way I interpret it. And yes, my interpetation is based on what I have already come to believe from other scriptures, that when a person dies, he's dead, and that he doesn't possess a disembodied spirit that goes somewhere after death.

I don't see how anyone can exegete the prophets. The prophets continually spoke in figurative language. So we can't exegete them; we can only interpret them and the symbolic meaning of their words. You have written a book about four views of Revelation. (or could we say four interpretations of Revelation?) The various views can be explained according to the interpretation of their proponents. But doing so is not what I understand to be exegesis.

New Testament writers constantly indicated Jesus' acts as fulfillments of prophecy, whenever He did things which corresponded to what the prophets wrote. Yet the prophecies in themselves often seemed to have nothing to do with Jesus, but with something altogether different. I mentioned the case of "Out of Egypt have I called my son." So if the New Testament writers were correct in their application of prophecy, why could not these second century writers have been correct in interpreting the passage about Lucifer (Day Star), son of the morning being brought down to the grave, as Satan's fall from heaven? (even though the proverb was directed to the king of Babylon).

Anyway, the other indications that Satan rebelled against God (along with other angels who "left their first estate") is enough to convince me, even if I concede that the Lucifer passage has nothing to do with Satan. I can't see God as creating Satan for the specific purpose of leading mankind into wickedness and rebellion against God. The very concept is too Calvinistic for me. From scripture, I see all the angels as having been created by God with free wills. Some rebelled; others didn't. He also created man with free wills. Some rebel against God; others don't.

[steve]

So if the New Testament writers were correct in their application of prophecy, why could not these second century writers have been correct in interpreting the passage about Lucifer (Day Star), son of the morning being brought down to the grave, as Satan's fall from heaven? (even though the proverb was directed to the king of Babylon).

I actually believe it would be possible for a church father (or for you or me) to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to see something in scripture that could not be proved by exegesis. The problem is knowing whose opinions do and whose do not reflect such inspiration. I think, since the apostles had their understanding opened by Christ, so that they might understand the Old Testament scriptures, that I would not doubt their inspired interpretations.

The fathers, however, were in a position a lot like that in which we find ourselves—seeking to understand the apostolic writings without the apostles being present for us to consult about their intended meanings. Thus, I find the fathers to be as fallible as you or me. Of course, they had the advantage of chronological proximity and native command of koine Greek (in some cases). To the degree that we can approximate, through study, a similar grasp of the times and of the meaning of the language, however, I think the same Holy Spirit renders our interpretations potentially as reliable as theirs.

Anyway, the other indications that Satan rebelled against God (along with other angels who "left their first estate") is enough to convince me, even if I concede that the Lucifer passage has nothing to do with Satan. I can't see God as creating Satan for the specific purpose of leading mankind into wickedness and rebellion against God. The very concept is too Calvinistic for me.

That concept would be too Calvinistic for me, as well. I would not believe that God could be the cause of man's falling away, and then would punish man for doing so. I do believe, however, that God desires His responsible agents to experience and endure testing (Deut.13:1-3; Genesis 22:1). I realize that scriptures from the Old Testament do not carry as much weight with you as they did to the New Testament writers, but the New Testament also speaks of facing temptation at the hands of the devil to be within the will of God for His children, including Christ (Luke 4:1).

Since God's subjecting His people to testing is a theme taught throughout scripture, I see no reason for God not to create the agent of testing—i.e., the devil. Again, I am not claiming to know that this is what He did. I am simply seeing no reason to rule it out in favor of the "fallen angel" theory.

[mikew]

I would roughly agree with Steve's assessment that the devil is there to test men.

The starting point (and maybe predominant source) for describing Satan is Gen 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?

It seems that he was a creature created with a cunning mind. And he might have been the only one copy of such creature in existence. Then oddly, as distinct from other beasts, he was not limited in life span.

On the basis of scripture speaking of temptation by the devil, it seems that Satan then was created essentially to attract the faulty or evil elements (I am assuming that 'faulty' existence leads to wrong -- and even evil -- behavior ) away from that which is 'good.' He is essentially a scum sucker. In the case of the garden of Eden, he did his job too well -- took it too far.

In this line of thought, Satan seems not to be a fallen angel but rather to be a creature designed as he is from the beginning.