The Star Falling, the Dragon Cast Out, and Satan Bound

In my last blog post, I answered a brother who asked questions about amillennialism. Since his response was considerably less than positive, I took the opportunity to expand upon my original answer and answer some additional points or queries he raised which I now share in this post, and in (DV) some subsequent posts.

I previously related John 12:31 to Rev. 20:3, concerning in the casting out or down of Satan, and referred in general terms to the casting out of devils in the gospels as a sign of the kingdom of God being near and breaking forth. I neglected to mention Luke 10:18 which speaks of a fall of Satan from heaven during the ministry of Christ (in the sending out of the seventy):

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 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. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:17-20).

This directly relates to Revelation 9 which speaks of a star falling (peto; same verb) from heaven:

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon (Rev 9:1-11).

The devil is called a star here like in Isaiah 14, where he is pictured by the king of Babylon and called Lucifer or morning/day star (Isa. 14:12). To him (i.e. to this personified star) was given the key of the bottomless pit, so that he can release upon the earth hordes of scorpion-like locusts from its smoke to torment people (Rev. 9:1-11). Our passage in Luke describes the power of the enemy as being like that of scorpions or serpents with the power to hurt. The later part of the same chapter, though another vision, speaks similarly of a demonic army, like lions or serpents (i.e. like the devil; I Pet. 5:8), with the same character of the smoky, fiery, hellish pit, and which hurt or kill the impenitent (Rev. 9:16-21).

Significantly, both in Luke 10 and in Revelation 9, these demonic spirits are unable to hurt or kill God's people (Luke 10:19; Rev. 9:4). In this important sense, these  terrible lion-like armies of locust-scorpions or horsemen-serpents with human-like intelligence and feminine allurements are bound. With regard to the timing of this vision, considering its connection to Luke 10 is that describes the activity of Satan and his host in the New Testament age (Rev. 1:19).

Revelation 12 also speaks of the casting out of a great dragon, specifically after the birth of Christ:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time (Rev 12:9-12).

First of all, the dragon in the vision is positively identified as representing the devil, or Satan. Secondly, the timing of this casting out of Satan occurs at the birth and ascension of Christ (Rev. 12:5), and is associated with the coming of the kingdom of God (Rev. 12:10). The result of the casting down of Satan is woe for the inhabitants of the earth, as we just saw in the vision of Revelation 9 (Rev. 12:12). This vision builds upon this further by illustrating that this casting down of Satan also means persecution for the church, but in such a way that the church is miraculously preserved despite all Satan's opposition (Rev. 12:13-17; cf. Matt. 16:18; John 16:33). In this way too, though Satan's casting down means persecution for the church, Satan is nevertheless bound. Incidentally, the Old Testament church pictured by the woman which gives birth to Christ, is the same woman here pictured as the persecuted New Testament church (alluding to the enmity promised in Gen. 3:15).

The verb translated "cast" throughout this chapter is variously, ballo, ekballo [out], or kataballo [down/against]. This is the same verb used in Revelation 20:3, John 12:31, and Matthew 12:28, to which we previously referred. Other details of the vision differ from Revelation 9. In Revelation 9, the key of the bottomless pit given to Satan only allows him to open the bottomless pit to let loose demonic armies on the earth. In Revelation 20, a very different angel with a very different key of the bottomless pit (with a great chain) binds Satan, casts him into the bottomless pit, shuts him up, and sets a seal on him so that he can no longer deceive the nations. This seal does not mean that he cannot loose his demonic armies upon those who do not have the seal of God in their foreheads, nor does it mean that he cannot persecute the church upon the earth. Rather it means that his efforts and abilities are strictly limited. His demonic armies cannot hurt God's elect (Revelation 9), and his persecution cannot destroy the church (Revelation 12) or prevent the gathering of the church from all nations (in Revelation 20). Interpreted correctly, these visions teach exactly what the rest of Scripture teaches about Satan's power and its limits in the New Testament age.

When confronted with the same event or concept described in different places in Scripture by different visions or accounts, the typical tactic of dispensationalists is to propose that these are multiple events. So in warring against the essential unity of Scripture, they have multiple resurrections, multiple comings of Christ,  multiple final judgement, multiple kingdoms of God, multiple peoples of God, multiple covenants of God (not just multiple administrations or revelations), and even multiple new heavens and new earths. Now, the dispensationalist must propose multiple castings down of Satan, but how can he be cast down out of heaven again unless he somehow got back up into heaven? The absurdity of the dispensationalist scheme never fails to reach new depths.

Finally, Revelation 20 describes the loosing of Satan to deceive the nations to gather them together under the anti-christian beast and false prophet to make war against the church (Rev. 20:7-10). Until his "little season," he could not do achieve this goal. This restraint of Satan to prevent the coming of antichrist and the deceiving of the nations before the time is exactly what is described elsewhere:

And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (II Thess. 2:6-12).

Does God have a kind benevolence toward all who receive good things from Him?

Maybe you can think about this more if I refer to a few Scriptures, and ask a few questions: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (I Tim. 4:4-5). What if we receive good things from God without giving thanks for these things? We can find forgiveness only in Christ. But does this tell us what God's attitude is toward the recipient when He gives a person a good thing, whom He knows (according to His eternal determinate counsel) will not give thanks for it?

If the greatest good gifts are not given in benevolence, what of the lesser gifts? Would a less good gift be given with more benevolence or less? Would no gifts be the greatest benevolence? "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2; cf. Rom 9:4-5) Can you conceive of a greater gift apart from salvation itself, than what the Jews received which the Gentiles did not? And yet which will receive the greater condemnation? "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Matt. 11:21-26) Isn't hearing the gospel a very good gift? But what is God's attitude in preaching it to the impenitent?

Consider God's attitude toward the recipients of such marvellous good gifts in His purpose for them and their receipt of these things: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." (Rom. 11:7-10). These words, quoted from a Psalm of David, are also the words of Christ concerning those who betrayed and crucified Him (centrally Judas, but also the unbelieving Jews - to which they are applied in Romans 11 - and also by extension to all apostates or hypocrites). Therefore we find in the attitude of Christ toward those to whom He gives such good things: "Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap." Is there a kind benevolence toward those who receive the wonderful gifts here?

Christ Himself is the greatest most wonderful gift: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ..." (John 3:16). As a good and precious gift, what is the attitude and purpose of God in giving Him or presenting Him to those who refuse to believe, to those who take Him and crucify Him? "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken." (Isa. 8:14-15). "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." (I Pet. 2:6-8)

Practically how is the comfort of a good breeze on a hot day very different to the comfort of full table when hungry? But we know that specifically the table is a snare to those who are not in Christ. "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:" (Psalm 92:7) What is the purpose of God in giving earthly benefits to the wicked according to this verse? Consider also Psalm 73 and 37. I think that should provide sufficient ground for understanding the truth about the idea of a general benevolence of God - which after all is historically what the pagans of the Roman empire liked to believe in, not the "hard God" of the Christians. It is not a general benevolence of God toward wicked men revealed in the created things, but rather: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Rom. 1:18-21) This is the content of the witness of God against the heathen in the dark days (for the Gentiles) of the Old Testament: "Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14:15-17) If a good comforting breeze is therefore given as a witness of the good God against the unthankful idolatrous unbeliever, how can it be sent in a kind benevolence?

There are many more simple theological reasons which could be added: how could a general benevolence be compatible with God's eternal decree of predestination? Is it not mockery to claim to be kind to someone whom you have determined beforehand to send to eternal torment in hell? God doesn't send mixed messages. He is simple and in perfect peace and harmony within Himself. He does not have mercy for a few days, and then decide to throw you into hell. What comfort could we then find in the knowledge of His mercy or benevolence toward us? Rather, His mercy endures forever. He does not change, and therefore His attitude toward us does not change. If He had benevolence toward the wicked in this present earthly life, He would therefore continue to have benevolence toward them in hell. But we know that God even refuses to give good gifts to those in hell: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." (Luke 16:24-26).

If the wicked do not heed the witness of these good things, they therefore receive them to their condemnation, to the accumulation of evil things to be received when they end up in the lake of fire. That is the terrible judgement and righteously discriminating wrath of God - with which benevolence is incompatible.

God's reproof of Cain's evil anger

I recently quoted commentaries from John Calvin, John Gill, and Matthew Henry in answer to a question on the meaning of Genesis 4:7.

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

One surprising reply was this:

"Those are absurd commentaries, twisting the language to avoid the obvious. The passage is a direction for Cain to repent. It has nothing to do with Able [sic]. But when you deny free will, you have to twist God's words into something He did not say."

Nothing to do with Abel? Wasn't he the one who was murdered?

But to interpret it this way , "sin's desire shall be for you, but you shall rule over him" - I ask, how can sin (which is not a person) "desire"? And also, how can one say that Cain ruled over sin? Was it not the very opposite, that sin was Cain's ruler (cf. John 8:34; Rom. 6:16)?

And you have provided no answer to the argument given by Calvin: "I omit to notice that to the Hebrew word for sin is affixed the mark of the feminine gender, but that here two masculine relative pronouns are used."

From these arguments it is very obvious that the relationship between the firstborn Cain (and the ungodly) and Abel (and those saved by grace) is meant in this last phrase, as part of the reproof emphasising the wickedness of Cain's anger. It applies indirectly to all those who follow afterward, since it is ordinary for the ungodly to exercise dominion over the persecuted saints in this present evil age.

God says these things, and they are recorded here for us, to show us the sinfulness that is each one of us, apart from grace, since though Cain was reproved by God Himself, yet he reacted to that reproof by murdering his brother. In this we see more of the terrible results of the Fall, and the manifestation of the seed of the serpent.

In the murder of Abel, we see also that the destruction of this wicked seed is necessary for the salvation of the church, as God demonstrates when He sends the Flood to preserve His church (at that time reduced by apostasy and persecution to only Noah's family) as a type of the final judgement.

This is probably the worst place to look for something good in man's ability, since this passage only shows his slavery to sin despite being reproved by God Himself. God demonstrates by this what fruit we produce by our fallen nature, our hopelessness and misery apart from His grace. We see here our need for Christ, that promised seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), in whom Abel trusted by the grace which Cain did not receive according to the sovereign purpose of God.

Enough of my thoughts, here are the excellent commentaries I referred to above:

Calvin explains:

"And unto thee shall be his desire. Nearly all commentators refer this to sin, and think that, by this admonition, those depraved hosts are restrained which solicit and impel the mind of man. Therefore, according to their view, the meaning will be of this kind, ‘If sin rises against thee to subdue thee, why dost thou indulge it, and not rather labor to restrain and control it? For it is thy part to subdue and bring into obedience those affections in thy flesh which thou perceivest to be opposed to the will of God, and rebellious against him.’ But I suppose that Moses means something entirely different. I omit to notice that to the Hebrew word for sin is affixed the mark of the feminine gender, but that here two masculine relative pronouns are used. Certainly Moses does not treat particularly of the sin itself which was committed, but of the guilt which is contracted from it, and of the consequent condemnation. How, then, do these words suit, ‘Unto thee shall be his desire?’ (240) There will, however be no need for long refutation when I shall produce the genuine meaning of the expression. It rather seems to be a reproof, by which God charges the impious man with ingratitude, because he held in contempt the honor of primogeniture. The greater are the divine benefits with which any one of us is adorned, the more does he betray his impiety unless he endeavors earnestly to serve the Author of grace to whom he is under obligation. When Abel was regarded as his brother’s inferior, he was, nevertheless, a diligent worshipper of God. But the firstborn worshipped God negligently and perfunctorily, though he had, by the Divine kindness, arrived at so high a dignity; and, therefore, God enlarges upon his sin, because he had not at least imitated his brother, whom he ought to have surpassed as far in piety as he did in the degree of honor. Moreover, this form of speech is common among the Hebrews, that the desire of the inferior should be towards him to whose will he is subject; thus Moses speaks of the woman, (Gen_3:16,) that her desire should be to her husband. They, however, childishly trifle, who distort this passage to prove the freedom of the will; for if we grant that Cain was admonished of his duty in order that he might apply himself to the subjugation of sin, yet no inherent power of man is to be hence inferred; because it is certain that only by the grace of the Holy Spirit can the affections of the flesh be so mortified that they shall not prevail. Nor, truly, must we conclude, that as often as God commands anything we shall have strength to perform it, but rather we must hold fast the saying of Augustine, ‘Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.’"

Also Gill:

"but rather it refers to Abel; and the meaning is, that notwithstanding his offering was accepted of God, and not his brother Cain's, this would not alienate his affections from him, nor cause him to refuse subjection to him; but he should still love him as his brother, and be subject to him as his eider brother, and not seek to get from him the birthright, or think that that belonged to him, being forfeited by his brother's sin; and therefore Cain had no reason to be angry with his brother, or envious at him, since this would make no manner of alteration in their civil affairs: 'and thou shall rule over him', as thou hast done, being the firstborn."

And Henry:

"That he had no reason to be angry at his brother: “Unto thee shall be his desire, he shall continue his respect to thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the first-born, shalt rule over him as much as ever.” God's acceptance of Abel's offering did not transfer the birth-right to him (which Cain was jealous of), nor put upon him that excellency of dignity and of power which is said to belong to it, Gen_49:3. God did not so intend it; Abel did not so interpret it; there was no danger of its being improved to Cain's prejudice; why then should he be so much exasperated? Observe here, (1.) That the difference which God's grace makes does not alter the distinctions which God's providence makes, but preserves them, and obliges us to do the duty which results from them: believing servants must be obedient to unbelieving masters. Dominion is not founded in grace, nor will religion warrant disloyalty or disrespect in any relation. (2.) That the jealousies which civil powers have sometimes conceived of the true worshippers of God as dangerous to their government, enemies to Caesar, and hurtful to kings and provinces (on which suspicion persecutors have grounded their rage against them) are very unjust and unreasonable. Whatever may be the case with some who call themselves Christians, it is certain that Christians indeed are the best subjects, and the quiet in the land; their desire is towards their governors, and these shall rule over them."

This is much like how Paul instructs us to pray and seek the good of those who have the rule over us (because God will have all men to be saved - even kings and governors [not everyone nor even the majority, but of every sort]).

Cain of course, would not hear this reproof, and ignored the obvious injustice of his anger. So it is today. Despite the peacefulness of Christians waiting on the just vengeance of God in due time, seeking the good of their persecutors to whom they are subject, these sons of Cain still rise up to murder the children of God for no other reason than to satisfy their own rage. The wicked have no peace, like the troubled sea. 
photo credit: Fergal Mac Eoinin via photopin cc