Malevolent Inheritance: Biola Professor on The Fall

[tabibito]

John refers to a war in Heaven, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at:

⁷ Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. ⁸ But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. ⁹ The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

What would the purpose of a war be if not with the objective to win?

Perhaps Satan thought claims about God's omnipotence were mere propaganda. On the basis of the scriptural record alone, it is not clear whether God's omnipotence is absolute or relative.

[whag]

Perhaps Satan thought claims about God's omnipotence were mere propaganda. On the basis of the scriptural record alone, it is not clear whether God's omnipotence is absolute or relative.

That’s too big of a perhaps. The depiction of Satan rebelling against God mirrors human political rebellions and power struggles, where your speculation requires needless expenditure of energy to maintain, serving as a sort of patchwork to make the story believable.

ANE and surrounding cultures had myths and stories involving divine beings engaged in battles and entertaining intrigue. Mythology and storytelling was their cinema, to an extent, in a harsh world. Gods in conflict was the norm. These cultural narratives more likely influenced biblical writers than the other way around, where the original storytellers were being given special information from God about the history and operations of Heaven. In the same way, we don’t speculate about how Greek oracles and Zoroaster were telling partial truths in their transmission. The evidence is strong that they projected their beliefs about these matters based on their experience with men, war, and politics.

Passages like Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, while often interpreted as references to Satan, were originally directed at earthly kings. The fall of these kings is described in terms reminiscent of a cosmic rebellion, which suggests that the language of political overthrow was a powerful tool for conveying theological messages.

[tabibito]

That’s too big of a perhaps. The depiction of Satan rebelling against God mirrors human political rebellions and power struggles, where your speculation requires needless expenditure of energy to maintain, serving as a sort of patchwork to make the story believable.

ANE and surrounding cultures had myths and stories involving divine beings engaged in battles and entertaining intrigue. Mythology and storytelling was their cinema, to an extent, in a harsh world. Gods in conflict was the norm. These cultural narratives more likely influenced biblical writers than the other way around, where the original storytellers were being given special information from God about the history and operations of Heaven. In the same way, we don’t speculate about how Greek oracles and Zoroaster were telling partial truths in their transmission. The evidence is strong that they projected their beliefs about these matters based on their experience with men, war, and politics.

Passages like Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, while often interpreted as references to Satan, were originally directed at earthly kings. The fall of these kings is described in terms reminiscent of a cosmic rebellion, which suggests that the language of political overthrow was a powerful tool for conveying theological messages.

That might work if God was a fictional character, I suppose.

Revelation' 12?
If so, the passage in question is part of a dramatic and allegorical recapitulation of Christ's advent and its aftermath. In a manner similar to the use in English though more restricted, "stars" (in Koine Greek, I believe, the use only occurs in allegorical texts) can also refer in one way or another to "leading lights" - as (ENGLISH) "rock stars" or "movie stars."

[whag]

Revelation' 12?
If so, the passage in question is part of a dramatic and allegorical recapitulation of Christ's advent and its aftermath. In a manner similar to the use in English though more restricted, "stars" (in Koine Greek, I believe, the use only occurs in allegorical texts) can also refer in one way or another to "leading lights" - as (ENGLISH) "rock stars" or "movie stars."

Whoosh, right over my head. What do you mean by rocks stars and movie stars, and how does that relate to what we’re discussing?

[tabibito]

Whoosh, right over my head. What do you mean by rocks stars and movie stars, and how does that relate to what we’re discussing?

The entire chapter is allegorical. Why assume that "stars" refers to suns? More likely they are stars in a loosely analogous sense to the way we use the term when referring to people who are in no way suns.

[whag]

The entire chapter is allegorical. Why assume that "stars" refers to suns? More likely they are stars in a loosely analogous sense to the way we use the term when referring to people who are in no way suns.

No argument that some of it is allegorical, however they didn’t know that stars were suns. It’s a bit anachronistic to argue they purposely used allegory when they could very well have considered it physically possible because stars to them were tiny dots in the sky—not extremely distant massive objects.

And apologies for the confusion. I thought we were talking about the celestial war described in the same chapter, which I quoted earlier:

⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

⁹ 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.

That’s not allegory but a real literal belief of John, extrapolated from the mythologies that developed in the intertestamental period.

[tabibito]

No argument that some of it is allegorical, however they didn’t know that stars were suns. It’s a bit anachronistic to argue they purposely used allegory when they could very well have considered it physically possible because stars to them were tiny dots in the sky—not extremely distant massive objects.

It is not only physically possible, it is a certainty. Not that they will actually fall, but that they will disappear from view.

I'm not saying that the writer knew anything about the nature of stars, but I am saying he wasn't talking about those "little dots of light." It the passage under review, (as can be adduced from v9) the stars are angels.

And apologies for the confusion. I thought we were talking about the celestial war described in the same chapter, which I quoted earlier:

⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

⁹ 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.

That’s not allegory but a real literal belief of John, extrapolated from the mythologies that developed in the intertestamental period.

That underlined and bolded bit happened during the first evangelical mission of the (then yet apprenticed) apostles.
The account is in the middle of an allegorical passage starting with Mary's pregnancy and concluding with the persecution of believers.
So no, it is not based in works of the intertestamental period.

[whag]

It is not only physically possible, it is a certainty. Not that they will actually fall, but that they will disappear from view.

I'm not saying that the writer knew anything about the nature of stars, but I am saying he wasn't talking about those "little dots of light." It the passage under review, (as can be adduced from v9) the stars are angels.

That’s a valid interpretation of verse 9. Revelation 1:20 complicates this a tad:

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

Each church was assigned an angel?

And none of what you’ve presented here brings any clarity to the idea that John the Revelator didn’t regard the celestial war as literal—an actual occurrence—an explosion of dissatisfaction with his station, resulting in a real attempt at insurrection. This was obviously influenced by the myths that proliferated through intercultural exchange leading up to Rome’s occupation of Palestine. That preceded John’s supposed vision and influenced it. You’re proposing it came to him independently?

Satan, the adversary described in Job, has evolved into a more complicated figure by the time of Revelation—a rogue military leader with charisma to dupe even half the angels. His evolution into a jealous prince reflects the ideas generated during the intertestamental period.

That underlined and bolded bit happened during the first evangelical mission of the (then yet apprenticed) apostles.
The account is in the middle of an allegorical passage starting with Mary's pregnancy and concluding with the persecution of believers.
So no, it is not based in works of the intertestamental period.

You’ll have to explain this further, since none of what you wrote precludes the influence of Enochian (and other apocraphal) myths that were fully cooked by that time. What am I missing?

[Sparko]

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience”

Do you take that to mean Satan conducts his business in the atmosphere? That’s what I mean by you’re taking Paul too literally. He’s not saying you’ll be rocketed into the sky.

Sigh. Jesus went up into the air when he went back to heaven, and said he would return the same way.

[Sparko]

John refers to a war in Heaven, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at:

⁷ Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. ⁸ But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. ⁹ The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

What would the purpose of a war be if not with the objective to win?

I don't think that is about Satan starting the war, but God starting it (passing Judgement) and Satan trying to fight back and losing. Even if you know your attacker is superior and will win, you would fight back, no?

[Sparko]

The entire chapter is allegorical. Why assume that "stars" refers to suns? More likely they are stars in a loosely analogous sense to the way we use the term when referring to people who are in no way suns.

Stars are a symbol for Angels, and in in Revelation of Satan and his demons being cast down

Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”

[whag]

Stars are a symbol for Angels, and in in Revelation of Satan and his demons being cast down

Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”

He said that earlier.

The Isaiah verse is quite the stretch interpret it as God giving us Satan’s story.

[tabibito]

Stars are a symbol for Angels, and in in Revelation of Satan and his demons being cast down

There is, also in Revelation, a reference to the angels of the churches - the text does not make it clear whether it refers to celestial angels, or human messengers.

Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”

That was a declaration to a very ordinarily human king - a usage loosely akin to the common modern use of star with reference to a person ... pop- movie- rising- -star.

[tabibito]

You’ll have to explain this further, since none of what you wrote precludes the influence of Enochian (and other apocraphal) myths that were fully cooked by that time. What am I missing?

That "myths" might have anticipated the event does not indicate that the event is a fictional account.

The sinking of the Titanic, obviously a myth developed from and influenced by the earlier fictional account of the Titan?
Lasers as weapons, obviously a myth developed from and influenced by the earlier fictional accounts of death rays?
AI, obviously a myth developed from and influenced by the earlier fictional accounts of thinking robots?
South Park is reputed to frequently anticipate events that later transpire.

History is littered with actual events that mimic earlier fictional accounts. Events cannot be dismissed as myth simply because there is an earlier and similar fictional account.
In this case, it is the record of an actual event which occurred during Logos mission as the messiah; briefly alluded to in Luke 10:18, and recapitulated in Revelation.

[whag]

I don't think that is about Satan starting the war, but God starting it (passing Judgement) and Satan trying to fight back and losing. Even if you know your attacker is superior and will win, you would fight back, no?

A rebellion in that context would be a declaration of war.

I find the idea of celestial war anthropomorphic to the extreme, but I’m trying to play along and see it from a human perspective, as you are:

• God appoints Satan to a high office.
• Satan rebels.
• Satan enlists 1/3 of heavenly hosts to mutiny.
• God conveniently sends mutineers to the place they could cause the most damage.