The so-called “fall of Satan” is a pillar of traditional theology. This “fall” is also called the “fall into hell” and is derived from extra-biblical sources. The purpose of this teaching is to define the origin of sin. While the Bible leaves no doubt that everything is of God, man thinks that “sin” should not be a part of it. That is why Satan is said to have been good once. At some point he rebelled and so invented apostasy. The once spotless angel had then “fallen into sin”. So what is meant here is a “moral case” and it is said to be the first sin in history. However, this “Satan’s case” is a made-up story – a hoax.
With trident and flames
One imagines this case of Satan roughly like this:
- Satan was once a perfect heavenly being
- Revolt to God led to a moral fall
- Satan was cast down into hell
Here images arise in the mind, of a Satan who dwells in hell, standing in the flames and holding a trident in his hand. Such images are unknown to the Bible. The assumptions, however, that lead to this image are widespread in Christian theology. The “fall of Satan” is said to have taken place before the fall of Adam and Eve, because the serpent (a figurative language of Satan) seduced Eve there.
There are definitely different views within this doctrine. Not everyone is convinced that Satan has “moved” from heaven to hell and now “dwells” in hell. One refers, for example, to Job 1:6, where it is mentioned that Satan is in heaven. Because he sues Job there, this meeting is said to have taken place after the alleged moral case. So there are different manifestations of the doctrine. What remains is this: Satan is said to be responsible for sin. He is the real villain of the story and therefore God is exclusively good (another hoax).
Where Satan falls
If you want to test the Bible for doctrine, the first question should be: Is there a record of a “fall of Satan” anywhere? In fact, there is a passage where Satan is thrown out of heaven. However, this biblical passage has nothing to do with the alleged moral fall of Satan. But everything in turn. In the Revelation to John, we find the following statements:
“And a battle arose in heaven. Michael and his messengers quarreled with the dragon, and the dragon and his messengers also quarreled. But they could not do anything against him, nor were their cities found in heaven. Then the great dragon, the ancient wicked one, who is called Satan, was thrown down. He who deceives the whole dwelling earth was thrown down to the earth; and his messengers were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, “Now salvation, power and kingship have come to our God, and authority to His Christ! For the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before the eyes of our God day and night, was cast down.”
Rev 12:7-10
The whole book concerns a vision (Rev 1:1). This is also true for this “kicking Satan out of heaven”. Although there is no mention here of a “fall of Satan” in the traditional sense, he is here at least “cast down” from heaven to earth. That’s kind of close. However, tradition speaks of something else.
Let us compare tradition with this passage from Revelation:
Chronologically, tradition places the fall of Satan even before the fall of Adam and Eve. John, on the other hand, speaks of Satan being cast down to earth (not: to hell) as a future event. Nowhere in the book of Revelation does it say that Satan was once good and suddenly invented sin. It is fundamentally bad here – as in every other place in the Bible.
The seduction of Christianity
The doctrine of the “fall of Satan” is a hoax – a made-up story. The term “hoax” is used a lot on the Internet today. Countless invented stories and “alternative facts” circulate there. The problem with these false reports is that many people share them unchecked. Thus, false information sometimes spreads like wildfire and causes great damage. Many false reports are deliberately used to disinform and influence the masses. It is no different with some theological ideas.
For many Christians, the doctrine of the fall of Satan is a biblical fact that should simply be believed without bias. This view is problematic for many reasons. Not only is there nothing of this teaching in the Bible, but who says we should not turn on our thinking? Cadre obedience to tradition is supposed to be advisable? A distinction must be made here between “attempts at explanation” and “statements of the Bible”. The doctrine is an attempted explanation by theologians, not a statement of the Bible.
We can find it great that in past times people have dealt with these questions. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept unchecked what they thought at the time. We will not be able to explain everything from the Bible, but at least we can distinguish between things that are actually written in some context and those things that are not mentioned anywhere. After that, you can try to interpret.
If you want to approach the subject from the Bible, these two questions will help:
- Is this teaching unambiguously mentioned in clear words in the Bible or is it only interpreted into it?
- What do we find on the subject in the Bible?
The first question seeks statements that clearly express the assumed facts. No figurative language, no hints that no one understands, but unmistakable direct statements. If it is an important theme in Scripture, these things must be present. Otherwise, doctrine is not an issue in the Bible. In this way, you get a first impression and gather information. Step by step, a better understanding can be developed. This approach is quite different from how the teaching is often presented. Studies on the topic often start from a very specific mix of blind assumptions:
- The untested assumption is that this teaching is true. That is the immovable starting position.
- One quotes Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to fabricate this alleged case from it.
- There are inferences about various other texts.
- Direct statements of the Bible on the subject are avoided.
I have found this kind of presentation to be mostly a regurgitation of old views. Once one recognizes how the doctrine is “proven,” the way is clear for closer examination. The Bible passages mentioned will be looked at in more detail in the following articles. This paper is about making visible the basic assumptions of what is being worked with. These are in direct contrast with the Bible itself, for which some texts will be quoted immediately afterwards.
Satan sins “from the beginning
The doctrine of a “fall of Satan” assumes that in this fall the origin of sin must be sought. The being who later became the devil would have been a flawless and sinless being before. However, this assumption is not read in a single place in the Bible. It is indeed interpreted into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, but in these two chapters Satan is not mentioned at all. These two chapters will be discussed in separate articles.
Is it now the case that Satan started sinning at some point and was he blameless before? No. John writes:
“The resister sins from the beginning.”
1Joh 3,8
This is the testimony of Scripture. It’s clear. Satan sinned from the beginning and did not start later. So not only is there no trace of an alleged fall of Satan as a story or description, but there are biblical passages that directly contradict this assumption. However, John says even more to the resister.
“You are of the father, the counteractor, and you want to act according to your father’s desires. The same was a man-killer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him.”
John 8:44
John knows of no fall of Satan, no being of light who has made a misstep and fallen into sin. This Satan was a problem case “from the beginning”. In addition to this, the apostle also mentions that this counter-effector “did not stand in the truth”. There was no good old time, but the resister was a resister from the beginning. That is its essence. There is no truth in it.
It takes courage and patience to test something
When you examine what is true about a statement step by step in this way, you need courage. You have to be willing to turn existing thoughts into concrete questions to follow up on. If one does not become concrete, also no examination succeeds. If one receives concrete answers to concrete questions, this can cause astonishment or even dismay. Once again, it takes courage to engage with the text. It is now necessary to allow further questions and not to immediately project a known answer into it. Gradually you gain insight into what is actually written and gain an understanding of broader contexts.
This process is demanding and by no means error-free. Anyone who sets out so bravely also sometimes follows a false trail. Then you can turn around and pick up the thread where you lost it. Staying curious helps to engage with the text in an unbiased way. What is written (e.g. Satan sinned from the beginning) can be in direct contrast to doctrine (Satan was good and blameless in the beginning). One must first become aware of these differences and only then can one look for further clues as it is written in the Bible.
The fall of Satan is a hoax. This tells us what it is not. There are other passages of Scripture that need to be looked at more closely, such as the passages mentioned in Isaiah and Ezekiel. It also needs a positively worded realization of why this is really going on.
Stay tuned.
