NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm taking a Milton course at uni right now. Since I'm in a class full of overdressed and over-read English majors, people who seem to know alot about everything constantly have alot to say, and I feel awkward asking some basic questions that I feel I need to know the answers to in order to understand Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost is a Theodicy: an epic poem that sets out to literally "justify the ways of God to men." It deals with the fall of the angels, Satan, Adam and Eve's betrayal, and later Jesus.

I'm basically wondering about the Christian understanding or "party line" about some things. I realize that one may not exist, or may be contadictory in some places, but a general gist would be cool. My questions are based on a simple "plot" reading of Milton, (who himself was a pious Christian, and is trying to convince his readers to choose the right path.) Before I can delve into less literal interpretations I wanted to understand Milton's story and the scriptural basis for it. So here goes:

1. Paradise Lost's first book deals mostly with Satan. He is presented as having led a political revolt against God, and having lost, is now stuck in the burning pools of hell with his fellow fallen angels. Satan seems to have thought he was capable of overthrowing God, and denies or ignores God's goodness. Is this based in scripture? Where and how is Lucifer's fall from "the brightest of the angels" to well, Satan, dealt with in scripture?

2. Angels are immortal, divine creatures - but apparently, they are not one with God, since they are capable of revolting against him. What is the status of angels? Do they, like humans have "free will"? If so, is it fair to say that Christianity is a polytheist religion (not even touching the Jesus issue) with greater and lesser divine beings possesing conflicting wills? Or are all divine being in fact one with God (which would contradict Milton's story completely)?

3. What implications to God's omnipotence does the existence of a (divine) creature like Satan pose? How is this dealt with in Christianity?

4. Does Beelzebub appear in scripture (just curious)?

5. Is the political and military spin of a revolt and and a subsequent battle in heaven between the forces of God and the forces of the apostate angel at all based in scripture, or is this a humanizing superimposition of Milton's?

That's it fir now - I'm sure more will come up as I read further, and lectures remain unfulfilling. Thanks in advance.

"Better to reigh in Hell,
Than to serve in Heaven."
Yeah, we know. Anything else to add?

"Better to reigh in Hell,
Than to serve in Heaven."

1. Paradise Lost's first book deals mostly with Satan. He is presented as having led a political revolt against God, and having lost, is now stuck in the burning pools of hell with his fellow fallen angels. Satan seems to have thought he was capable of overthrowing God, and denies or ignores God's goodness. Is this based in scripture? Where and how is Lucifer's fall from "the brightest of the angels" to well, Satan, dealt with in scripture?
It's not (Unless you look at some passages in Revelation as describing a past event instead of a future one. Satan is mentioned, Lucifer and the fall is not.

2. Angels are immortal, divine creatures - but apparently, they are not one with God, since they are capable of revolting against him. What is the status of angels? Do they, like humans have "free will"? If so, is it fair to say that Christianity is a polytheist religion (not even touching the Jesus issue) with greater and lesser divine beings possesing conflicting wills? Or are all divine being in fact one with God (which would contradict Milton's story completely)?
God's messangers and they do not have free will, they are God's tools if you will. But, again, the list of angels and the whole war in Heaven thing was made up in the Middle Ages by overly burocratic Catholics (taken from some Jewish traditions though). There's no basis in scripture.

3. What implications to God's omnipotence does the existence of a (divine) creature like Satan pose? How is this dealt with in Christianity?
He isn't divine, he is the Enemy if you will, and the whole why does he exist when God can snuff him at out any time is a rather large argument. The Bible says that the war has been won, but that begs the question as to why have a war in the first place.

4. Does Beelzebub appear in scripture (just curious)?
IIRC, not as such. The name appears, but his attributes were created later.

5. Is the political and military spin of a revolt and and a subsequent battle in heaven between the forces of God and the forces of the apostate angel at all based in scripture, or is this a humanizing superimposition of Milton's?
It has its bases in Revelations where Michael and the angels battle the Great Beast Called Dragon in the Heavens. But the fall as it is really is a creation based seperately from scripture.

There's no real party line for this. Catholics have their own traditions where as everyone else splits off into following Catholic tradition, modifies it, or doesn't follow it at all.

Milton was writing from a Puritan perspective and therefore from a Reformed perspective (aka Calvinism).

Reformed Theology (http://www.theopedia.com/Reformed_theology)

Actually, Paradise Lost is sitting on my desk right now. I going to read it as soon as I get past this writing class madness.

He isn't divine, he is the Enemy if you will, and the whole why does he exist when God can snuff him at out any time is a rather large argument. The Bible says that the war has been won, but that begs the question as to why have a war in the first place.



In my opinion, Satan is not a literal representation of some angelic creature, instead it is the representation of a force, most likely internal to every individual, to draw them away from God, into pain, suffering, loneliness and isolation from God. As you said earlier in the post, this was turned into an all-purpose boogeyman during the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church as an easy way to scare peasants and burghers ill informed on the matters of the world.

Not to absolve the Protestants from responsibility, of course. They fueled this myth on an equal level as the Catholics after they got into sufficient position to do so, it's just that the Catholic Church created it.

Furthermore, uses of names such as "Beelzebub" just seem to reinforce this. Beelzebub is most likely derived from the name of the pagan god Baal, and just happens to be a convenient metaphor for the Jews of the time, to blame badness on him.

It's not (Unless you look at some passages in Revelation as describing a past event instead of a future one. Satan is mentioned, Lucifer and the fall is not.) Not quite shure what you mean by "describing a past event instead of a future one" - does it say anything aobut a revolt in heaven and the rejection of some of the angels as a result?


God's messangers and they do not have free will, they are God's tools if you will. But, again, the list of angels and the whole war in Heaven thing was made up in the Middle Ages by overly burocratic Catholics (taken from some Jewish traditions though). There's no basis in scripture.Ah. that's what I thought. Which Jewish traditions are you reffering to? I'm not aware of any relating to angels as anything more that simple messengers.


He isn't divine, he is the Enemy if you will, and the whole why does he exist when God can snuff him at out any time is a rather large argument. The Bible says that the war has been won, but that begs the question as to why have a war in the first place.OK, so there is a scriptural basis for Satan, but not to Lucifer? That is, the story of Lucifer becoming Satan is a later addition? Also, I wouldn't mind hearing what the purpose of a divine "Enemy" thing is, and how such a thing's existence is reconciled in Christianity with an omnipotent and wholly good God? (despite it's being a large argument)

IIRC, not as such. The name appears, but his attributes were created later.Any idea where the name is from?
It has its bases in Revelations where Michael and the angels battle the Great Beast Called Dragon in the Heavens. But the fall as it is really is a creation based seperately from scripture.Do you happen to know of any of the middle ages documents where ideas about a "fall" are first recorded?

Furthermore, uses of names such as "Beelzebub" just seem to reinforce this. Beelzebub is most likely derived from the name of the pagan god Baal, and just happens to be a convenient metaphor for the Jews of the time, to blame badness on him.Whoa, I'm totally confused by this. Baal? Jews? Where does Beelzebub appear first, and what evidence is there that he is associated with either?

Whoa, I'm totally confused by this. Baal? Jews? Where does Beelzebub appear first, and what evidence is there that he is associated with either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub

View my plagiarization of wiki and enjoy.

Not quite shure what you mean by "describing a past event instead of a future one" - does it say anything aobut a revolt in heaven and the rejection of some of the angels as a result?
Meaning that, depending on your point-of-view, the following has either happened or WILL happen. If it has already happened, it talks about the fall. However, if it is going to happen, there is no reference to the fall in the Bible (at least as currently understood).

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. Rev 9:1 (KJV)

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. Rev 12:7-9 (KJV)

That's about it, but it seems to be talking about events yet to come, not those that have already happened.

Ah. that's what I thought. Which Jewish traditions are you reffering to? I'm not aware of any relating to angels as anything more that simple messengers.
Jewish mystisim (Such as the Kabla (sp?) have lists of the angels. These were expanded upon in Catholic tradition and addopted afterwards. The Catholics really went bananas with assigning spheres of influence to the angels.

OK, so there is a scriptural basis for Satan, but not to Lucifer? That is, the story of Lucifer becoming Satan is a later addition? Also, I wouldn't mind hearing what the purpose of a divine "Enemy" thing is, and how such a thing's existence is reconciled in Christianity with an omnipotent and wholly good God? (despite it's being a large argument)
For the most part, yes. It is a later edition (Wiki BTW has some good articles on this under Satan and Lucifer).

The idea of an Enemy is the same as the snake in the Garden of Eden, it's to tempt people away from God and from doing what is right. Now, depending upon which way you read it, either this enemy is doing so out of just being a really bad dude and stupidity (given how God is omnipotent, the Devil can't win). This would mean that God is allowing Satan to exist, not because He cannot destroy Satan when He wishes, but because Satan serves a purpose. This would fall in line with the "Why is there pain?" question, to which many religious figures have likened God to a father. A parent doesn't WANT to see his child in pain, but you have to let a child make his or her own choices (and experiance a little bit of pain) for them to actually grow up.

Or, perhaps, God leaves Satan alone to test us (same idea).

Another possibility I have heard is that Satan is NOT an enemy, but is acting on God's orders for the above and we humans just think of him as such. It's interesting to note that the Jewish tradition of Hell was a place were one was compleatly cut off from God. The idea of fire and brimstone was a Christian tradition (But is mentioned in the Bible).

Any idea where the name is from?
Already answered.

Do you happen to know of any of the middle ages documents where ideas about a "fall" are first recorded?
No idea, sorry. Wiki would be a good place to start. A friend of mine was really into angels for the longest time and he used to talk endlessly about them. So I have some good, broad knowledge, but not really in depth. In other words, damnit Jim, I'm an English teacher, not a theologian. ;)

In my opinion, Satan is not a literal representation of some angelic creature, instead it is the representation of a force, most likely internal to every individual, to draw them away from God, into pain, suffering, loneliness and isolation from God. As you said earlier in the post, this was turned into an all-purpose boogeyman during the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church as an easy way to scare peasants and burghers ill informed on the matters of the world.
Yup. He doesn't get much of a mention in the Bible for being such a bad guy and all that.

Not to absolve the Protestants from responsibility, of course. They fueled this myth on an equal level as the Catholics after they got into sufficient position to do so, it's just that the Catholic Church created it.
My apologies, I'm not letting Protestants off the hook from this either, we have taken Satan and made him the cause of every bad thing that has ever happened. But, yes, Catholics started this one.

thanks for all the responses so far. They have been helpful.

I have another reflection. The idea of a foreign/knowledgable/powerful woman as a temptress, corrupting force, and basic draw to wrong is an ancient and powerful archetype, obviously originating in genesis. However, I've never seen it as blatantly and expressed as here in paradise lost. Eve, when she eats the fruit, is literally described as having been "deflowered" - having had her virginity stripped away. Obviously this works with the idealization of a Virgin Mary, and the deliberate mirrors and contrasts between the two female figures.

The thing that struck me is what comes after. It is Adam's deep and profound love for Eve that makes him follow her and eat from the fruit too. The poetry in this portion is so incredibly lyrical and beautiful, that it seems like this is almost a love story between Adam and eve (in a way it is). After though, they are both harshly punished - she for having eaten the fruit, and him for having followed due ot her "womanly charms" - a very different tone from Adam's speech itself.

The implication of all this seems to be the pitting of human love against the love of God. Is this the implication in Christianity? Moreover, the blame for this conflict is landed squarely on the shoulders of the woman outlined above. Is this fair to say?

The implication of all this seems to be the pitting of human love against the love of God. Is this the implication in Christianity? Moreover, the blame for this conflict is landed squarely on the shoulders of the woman outlined above. Is this fair to say?
Yes to the first and it depends upon whom you ask on the second. There is a passage in the Bible where man states that he would follow Jesus, but he needed a few months before hand to go bury his father. Jesus rebukes him and pretty much states that one should be willing to follow and love God above your family. This is again stated in the commandments that Jesus left; namely to love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This obviously elevates the love of God above all other things, including your family (as stated in other parts of the Bible).

This doesn't mean that human love is evil, indeed human love is celebrated in the Bible, but when it comes into conflict with God's commands/laws, you are supposed to follow God.

As the second part, again it depends upon whom you ask. Women were kept as second class citizens due to passages from the Bible, though there are other passages that speak of women and men acting as equals. This is also one of those large argument questions in the Bible that Christians are fighting over and why some sects have ordained women and some do not. Some promote marriage as a meeting of equals, and some still ask the woman to obey her husband.

Well, here's the next question. I think it is related to christianity more than milton specifically, but I already have a thread, so what the hell.

Milton, in Paradise Lost, goes to great lengths to make the free-will defense. He purposely makes the characters relativistic and free from the agency of God to emphasize this. The classic conflict is the question of "how can free will exist if God knows the future?"

The defence goes something like this: God, since he exists outside of time can look upon the world, as a person can look from a helicopter over a highway. HTough the person is not determining which direction or what turns the cars make, she can see them and all their choices all along the highway. This makes good enough sense to me, and I'll buy it (in the paradigm of religion).

What I have more trouble with, is not the issue of seeing the future, but rather the buisness of christianity's stradegy for salvation. Jesus follows what' I'll call the "substitution model" - basically the idea that you can be guilty, but someone else, who is free of guilt, can take on your guilt, thus releasing you. The idea of the biblical scapegoat is the same concept. Here though, what I find disturbing is that the only way of gaining salvation is by accepting that someone else will take your sins upon themselves - NOT by CHOOSING NOT TO SIN. That is, our much-touted freeom of choice indeed exists, but we only have ONE choice relevant to salvation, or our relationship with God. We cannot choose whether or not to do right/wrong, only whether or not to accept Jesus's "subtitution model" deal. That is, instead of modeling a savior on the idea of teaching good deeds, the saviour is modelled on erasing people's inevitable sins. Inevitable sin is not free choice the way I always thought of it. The one free choice we're left with, (of accepting a free ride into heaven, or not accepting it,) I find much less powerful or meaningful.

So the question is: why does did Christian theology choose the less meaningful "substitution model" of a savior, as opposed to some other model that would emphasize the every day choices we make as relevant and meaningful to our relationship with God?

If I remember rightly, you probably want to check out the book of enoch (part of the jewish apocrypha), it deals with the fall of angels and such.

Yeah, we know. Anything else to add?

Even better to reign in heaven.

Well, here's the next question. I think it is related to christianity more than milton specifically, but I already have a thread, so what the hell.

Milton, in Paradise Lost, goes to great lengths to make the free-will defense. He purposely makes the characters relativistic and free from the agency of God to emphasize this. The classic conflict is the question of "how can free will exist if God knows the future?"

The defence goes something like this: God, since he exists outside of time can look upon the world, as a person can look from a helicopter over a highway. HTough the person is not determining which direction or what turns the cars make, she can see them and all their choices all along the highway. This makes good enough sense to me, and I'll buy it (in the paradigm of religion).

What I have more trouble with, is not the issue of seeing the future, but rather the buisness of christianity's stradegy for salvation. Jesus follows what' I'll call the "substitution model" - basically the idea that you can be guilty, but someone else, who is free of guilt, can take on your guilt, thus releasing you. The idea of the biblical scapegoat is the same concept. Here though, what I find disturbing is that the only way of gaining salvation is by accepting that someone else will take your sins upon themselves - NOT by CHOOSING NOT TO SIN. That is, our much-touted freeom of choice indeed exists, but we only have ONE choice relevant to salvation, or our relationship with God. We cannot choose whether or not to do right/wrong, only whether or not to accept Jesus's "subtitution model" deal. That is, instead of modeling a savior on the idea of teaching good deeds, the saviour is modelled on erasing people's inevitable sins. Inevitable sin is not free choice the way I always thought of it. The one free choice we're left with, (of accepting a free ride into heaven, or not accepting it,) I find much less powerful or meaningful.

So the question is: why does did Christian theology choose the less meaningful "substitution model" of a savior, as opposed to some other model that would emphasize the every day choices we make as relevant and meaningful to our relationship with God?

Only some of Christian theology follows the "substitution model", as you put it. Specifically, that's the result of Augustine, and it has as much to do with the time period he wrote (approximately the fall of the Roman Empire) as it does actual theology. Constantine had just begun mass conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, and there was an expectation (facilitated, no doubt, by theologians and preachers such as Augustine) that such a conversion would preserve and sustain the Empire; it was not doing so. As such, it is perhaps unsurprising that Augustine made such a strong case for there being such a strong distinction between the innately fallen City of Man and the redemptive City of God-- a redemption that emphasizes faith rather than actual physically manifestable qualities such as earthly success.

That being said, Augustine's approach and selling method (essentially, Augustine invented the Self-Help book tradition and used it to peddle the Bible) was controversial in its day and later on. It disagreed strongly with the teachings of other theologians like Saint Jerome and Irenaeus at the time, and later thinkers like Thomas Aquinas moved away from it heavily. Aquinas especially is notable for linking your Christianity not to your faith, but to your habits of behavior and use of reason.

Only some of Christian theology follows the "substitution model", as you put it. Specifically, that's the result of Augustine, and it has as much to do with the time period he wrote (approximately the fall of the Roman Empire) as it does actual theology. Constantine had just begun mass conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, and there was an expectation (facilitated, no doubt, by theologians and preachers such as Augustine) that such a conversion would preserve and sustain the Empire; it was not doing so. As such, it is perhaps unsurprising that Augustine made such a strong case for there being such a strong distinction between the innately fallen City of Man and the redemptive City of God-- a redemption that emphasizes faith rather than actual physically manifestable qualities such as earthly success.

That being said, Augustine's approach and selling method (essentially, Augustine invented the Self-Help book tradition and used it to peddle the Bible) was controversial in its day and later on. It disagreed strongly with the teachings of other theologians like Saint Jerome and Irenaeus at the time, and later thinkers like Thomas Aquinas moved away from it heavily. Aquinas especially is notable for linking your Christianity not to your faith, but to your habits of behavior and use of reason.I've heard Augustine cited before, and this makes sense. Obviously if you're selling a religion, a ticket into paradise that erases all sin is an attractive trump card. But this is solidly grounded in scripture. Jesus was sent to Earth specifically to die for our sins, no? How do Aquinas and others reconcile this with the idea that making other choices (other than that of accepting Jesus) are also part of the deal in Christianity?

I'm genuinely curious. It just seems that the model of salvation (which you say augustine invented, but I'm quite sure I've also read in the new testement) is inherently pessimistic about people's actions a priori, leaving little room for meaningful positive choices.

I'm basically wondering about the Christian understanding or "party line" about some things.

there isn't one.

Furthermore, uses of names such as "Beelzebub" just seem to reinforce this. Beelzebub is most likely derived from the name of the pagan god Baal, and just happens to be a convenient metaphor for the Jews of the time, to blame badness on him.

they also kind of based all goodness on him, too. "El", one of the most common names for the hebrew God, is also based on Ba'al.

Jesus was sent to Earth specifically to die for our sins, no? How do Aquinas and others reconcile this with the idea that making other choices (other than that of accepting Jesus) are also part of the deal in Christianity?

I'm genuinely curious. It just seems that the model of salvation (which you say augustine invented, but I'm quite sure I've also read in the new testement) is inherently pessimistic about people's actions a priori, leaving little room for meaningful positive choices.

actually, many of the ancient church fathers and modern eastern orthodox theologians who understand salvation through Theosis (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis) would say that Christ would have come to earth no matter what. people in the west seem to view the incarnation of christ, easily the most significant event in the history of the universe, as a fluke, or something that *shouldn't* have happened had everything gone as planned.

you've read new testament translations in english, and if you don't read koine then you haven't read an edition that was translated by anyone outside of the western schools of theology. people who sit down to translate a book, who assume they already know its meaning, are going to produce a book that confirms thier beliefs. there's just as much in the new testament that points, from an eastern point of view, to a completely different understanding of it all.

What I have more trouble with, is not the issue of seeing the future, but rather the buisness of christianity's stradegy for salvation. Jesus follows what' I'll call the "substitution model" - basically the idea that you can be guilty, but someone else, who is free of guilt, can take on your guilt, thus releasing you.

this is only one school of thought on the matter, and one that was not fully enumerated until the 11th century. early christianity and eastern christianity (there are far more eastern orthodox christians than protestants, they just have very little representation in the west...being eastern and all) completely reject this theory of salvation. I personally think it is insulting to God, as well as being completely illogical and un-just.

this is only one school of thought on the matter, and one that was not fully enumerated until the 11th century. early christianity and eastern christianity (there are far more eastern orthodox christians than protestants, they just have very little representation in the west...being eastern and all) completely reject this theory of salvation. I personally think it is insulting to God, as well as being completely illogical and un-just.Ok, so what are the eatern orthodox churches all about? How do you gt saved there?

Ok, so what are the eatern orthodox churches all about? How do you gt saved there?

God became man that Man might become god

in a nutshell, humans are not damned, they are sick from birth. christ unifies himself with all of the human experience. as christ is divine, all that christ is unified with must become divine, ergo humanity becomes divine - like a branch from a sick tree being grafted onto a healthy one. "I am the vine, you are the branches" it says in the new testament. to the ancient christians and modern eastern thinkers, it never had anything at all to to with debt, very little to do with guilt, nothing to do with punishment, everything to do with organic union with God. Christ experienced death because death is an integral part of the human experience. had humanity not been fallen, christ might still have come down and joined himself in the human experience. he only had to die because if he didn't experience death and hell, he couldn't redeem our experience of it by making it his own.

here is the Orthodox easter sermon read every year, which explains thier view of salvation perfectly (http://www.monachos.net/library/John_Chrysostom,_Paschal_Homily)

this is a more in-depth explanation (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis)

if you're more interested, I might recommend "how are we saved?" by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, as well his "The Orthodox Way"

in a nutshell, humans are not damned, they are sick from birth. christ unifies himself with all of the human experience. as christ is divine, all that christ is unified with must become divine, ergo humanity becomes divine - like a branch from a sick tree being grafted onto a healthy one. "I am the vine, you are the branches" it says in the new testament. to the ancient christians and modern eastern thinkers, it never had anything at all to to with debt, very little to do with guilt, nothing to do with punishment, everything to do with organic union with God. Christ experienced death because death is an integral part of the human experience. had humanity not been fallen, christ might still have come down and joined himself in the human experience. he only had to die because if he didn't experience death and hell, he couldn't redeem our experience of it by making it his own.

here is the Orthodox easter sermon read every year, which explains thier view of salvation perfectly (http://www.monachos.net/library/John_Chrysostom,_Paschal_Homily)

this is a more in-depth explanation (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis)

if you're more interested, I might recommend "how are we saved?" by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware, as well his "The Orthodox Way"Wow! your explanation plus the wiki article are awesome. I will definitely have to investigate this further. *sigh of relief that all christians are not doomed freeloaders*