Thank you, Jerrold – that is highly edifying! I would like to add: Does not Isaiah 14:12-14 also add a reason for Satan’s apostasy? :
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
And also Ezekiel 28:13-17:
“Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.”
Note especially, the phrase from v. 17, “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness”
And note in the passage from Isaiah 14:13, 14 “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: . . . I will be like the most High.”
So, Jerrold, my question is, was it not also from pride in his own beauty, might, and majesty that he desired to supplant the Most High and take the throne of glory? And, if such were the case, might not the LORD God have hidden from Satan the fullness of His Person? Else, how could a mere angel presume to supplant the Omnipotent and Omniscient One?
To be sure, what you have written is also true, and a prime factor; are not both true?
Thank you for this, brother. You have put your finger on the nerve.
That pride was the first sin of the devil is beyond dispute, as you point out. Paul gives secondary insight into the subject when he warns that a novice must not be ordained, "lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil" (1 Timothy 3:6). Very interesting. Augustine made pride the beginning of all sin, the creature curving in upon its own excellence and loving itself in the place of God. Whatever else remains hidden about that dark moment, this much stands in the light: the angel looked upon his own brightness and loved it inordinately. So yes, both are true. Pride in his created glory belongs at the very center of the account.
Where I hold back is on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as direct records of that fall. Isaiah names his subject: "take up this proverb against the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4). Ezekiel does the same: "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus" (Ezekiel 28:12). Calvin was blunt about reading Lucifer as Satan there, judging that the passage speaks of the king of Babylon and that the other application arose from inattention to the context. I think he was right about the primary sense. I appreciate Hendrickson, who modulated the passages between object and shadow. Meaning first the earthly kings, then secondarily, Satan. But I think it is a stretch of the exegesis of the genre. I could be wrong. Perhaps we could use them that way, as a mirror rather than a biography.
To me your deeper question, whether God hid the fullness of His Person from Satan, else how could a creature presume against Omnipotence, is most interesting. I would answer differently. No creature, angel or man, ever comprehends God; the finite never contains the infinite, and that is no concealment, but the necessary condition of being a creature. Satan knew enough. He stood in the glory of the Light, beheld that glory, and sinned against better knowledge than Adam had. The real mystery lies elsewhere. Augustine confessed that seeking the cause of the first evil will is like straining to see darkness or hear the sound of silence. Pride is essentially irrational; that is its horror. The text you quote says it exactly: "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness." His wisdom was whole until self-ruin. If we posit that God withheld some knowledge whose presence would have prevented the fall, we come near to laying the occasion of sin at God's door, and there Scripture forbids us to go. God permitted the fall for His own holy ends, but the whole cause of it lay in the mutable will of the creature. Beyond that the Lord has drawn a veil, and I have learned to stop where the veil hangs.
So, warmly: yes to pride, yes to these texts as wisdom allows it (though I can't see it clearly), and a friendly no to the thought that ignorance about God explains it. Nothing explains it. That is what makes it sin. A complete vacuum. I confess that these things are beyond my comprehension. I feel like the aphids flying about my head right now as I sit by the river.
Thank you, Jerrold, for your gracious reply! Some thoughts on this matter:
In especially the Ezekiel 28:13-17 passage, the references are to unearthly things that could apply to no man: "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God"; "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire"; and, "I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."
Where in Hendriksen did you find that you referred to? (could you quote me what he said, please?) – I had a good collection of Wm. Hendriksen’s writings / books, but with my severe illnesses gaining on me, I gave my entire library away to pastors and churches while I still was able (it would have been too much for my wife to manage). W.H. is one of my favorite commentators. I have no more books to consult and help me in my thinking!
About God withholding the fulness of His Person. As regards humans, He does this in the case of the non-elect. To one thief on the cross He revealed His glory and saved him, to the other, He withheld His glory, and he perished in his sins. To the non-elect He does not give them this gift – it is only for His children.
As regards angels, the LORD knew which were non-elect, and passed over them by withholding the fulness of His majesty. This did not cause them to sin; He only did not save them from the evil He saw in them.
I’m sorry to interrupt your edifying study, Jerrold! I will seek to hold my peace henceforth.
Thank you, Jerrold – that is highly edifying! I would like to add: Does not Isaiah 14:12-14 also add a reason for Satan’s apostasy? :
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”
And also Ezekiel 28:13-17:
“Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.”
Note especially, the phrase from v. 17, “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness”
And note in the passage from Isaiah 14:13, 14 “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: . . . I will be like the most High.”
So, Jerrold, my question is, was it not also from pride in his own beauty, might, and majesty that he desired to supplant the Most High and take the throne of glory? And, if such were the case, might not the LORD God have hidden from Satan the fullness of His Person? Else, how could a mere angel presume to supplant the Omnipotent and Omniscient One?
To be sure, what you have written is also true, and a prime factor; are not both true?
Thank you for this, brother. You have put your finger on the nerve.
That pride was the first sin of the devil is beyond dispute, as you point out. Paul gives secondary insight into the subject when he warns that a novice must not be ordained, "lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil" (1 Timothy 3:6). Very interesting. Augustine made pride the beginning of all sin, the creature curving in upon its own excellence and loving itself in the place of God. Whatever else remains hidden about that dark moment, this much stands in the light: the angel looked upon his own brightness and loved it inordinately. So yes, both are true. Pride in his created glory belongs at the very center of the account.
Where I hold back is on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as direct records of that fall. Isaiah names his subject: "take up this proverb against the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4). Ezekiel does the same: "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus" (Ezekiel 28:12). Calvin was blunt about reading Lucifer as Satan there, judging that the passage speaks of the king of Babylon and that the other application arose from inattention to the context. I think he was right about the primary sense. I appreciate Hendrickson, who modulated the passages between object and shadow. Meaning first the earthly kings, then secondarily, Satan. But I think it is a stretch of the exegesis of the genre. I could be wrong. Perhaps we could use them that way, as a mirror rather than a biography.
To me your deeper question, whether God hid the fullness of His Person from Satan, else how could a creature presume against Omnipotence, is most interesting. I would answer differently. No creature, angel or man, ever comprehends God; the finite never contains the infinite, and that is no concealment, but the necessary condition of being a creature. Satan knew enough. He stood in the glory of the Light, beheld that glory, and sinned against better knowledge than Adam had. The real mystery lies elsewhere. Augustine confessed that seeking the cause of the first evil will is like straining to see darkness or hear the sound of silence. Pride is essentially irrational; that is its horror. The text you quote says it exactly: "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness." His wisdom was whole until self-ruin. If we posit that God withheld some knowledge whose presence would have prevented the fall, we come near to laying the occasion of sin at God's door, and there Scripture forbids us to go. God permitted the fall for His own holy ends, but the whole cause of it lay in the mutable will of the creature. Beyond that the Lord has drawn a veil, and I have learned to stop where the veil hangs.
So, warmly: yes to pride, yes to these texts as wisdom allows it (though I can't see it clearly), and a friendly no to the thought that ignorance about God explains it. Nothing explains it. That is what makes it sin. A complete vacuum. I confess that these things are beyond my comprehension. I feel like the aphids flying about my head right now as I sit by the river.
Thank you, Jerrold, for your gracious reply! Some thoughts on this matter:
In especially the Ezekiel 28:13-17 passage, the references are to unearthly things that could apply to no man: "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God"; "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire"; and, "I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."
Where in Hendriksen did you find that you referred to? (could you quote me what he said, please?) – I had a good collection of Wm. Hendriksen’s writings / books, but with my severe illnesses gaining on me, I gave my entire library away to pastors and churches while I still was able (it would have been too much for my wife to manage). W.H. is one of my favorite commentators. I have no more books to consult and help me in my thinking!
About God withholding the fulness of His Person. As regards humans, He does this in the case of the non-elect. To one thief on the cross He revealed His glory and saved him, to the other, He withheld His glory, and he perished in his sins. To the non-elect He does not give them this gift – it is only for His children.
As regards angels, the LORD knew which were non-elect, and passed over them by withholding the fulness of His majesty. This did not cause them to sin; He only did not save them from the evil He saw in them.
I’m sorry to interrupt your edifying study, Jerrold! I will seek to hold my peace henceforth.
Correction, it was John Gill. Isaiah 14:12. Also Isaiah Matthew Henry. Sorry for the haste, dear brother. You remain in my prayers.