Comments on: Milton’s Satan http://okikim6.umwblogs.org/2008/07/03/miltons-satan/ Just another UMW Blogs.org weblog Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:49:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Emma http://okikim6.umwblogs.org/2008/07/03/miltons-satan/#comment-25 Emma Mon, 07 Jul 2008 04:57:41 +0000 http://okikim6.umwblogs.org/2008/07/03/miltons-satan/#comment-25 I think I understand what you are saying; I am having a lot of trouble wrestling with Milton's portrayal of Satan too. The picture Milton paints of Satan does seem very sympathetic at times, but I don't think he downplays Satan's evilness. Book one and book two describe and mention many instances of Satan's sins and the reasons for his fall from heaven - it's just tricky for the reader because it's from Satan's point of view. I've been wondering why Milton decided to do this for several days, as I know that he knows that Satan is "bad to the bone," to use a terrible cliche...but why is he so darn likable then? It's a good question to ask. I think you're right when you say that sin can be disguised as something good, so why not apply that to Milton's Satan? He's playing off our emotions, playing to our sympathies and getting us to like him; us, as readers, are falling in to the trap. I do think it's too simplistic to simply dismiss Satan as completely evil and irredeemable; if he repents, he too would be forgiven by God. I think we are meant to see a lot of ourselves in Milton's Satan, observe where his actions and his personality got him, and then improve ourselves by not following his example. Let's be honest: I feel sad and sorry for Satan, but I really don't want to BE Satan or hang out with him. There is a difference between sympathy and agreement. Also, I have enjoyed looking up things in my Bible too, and I have the really helpful notes in mine (it's the Life Application Study Bible, New International Version,Tyndale House Publishers) and the note about Isaiah 13:12-14 might be helpful to you and everyone else too. It casts some doubt that Isa 14:14 is actually talking about Satan; it may not be that Man is trying to cast doubt over Isaiah's words, he's just probably not really talking about Satan anyway (so, Madeline, your instincts may be right about this). My Bible's note says: "There are several interpretations for the fallen one in these verses. (1) He is Satan, because the person here is too powerful to be any human king. Although Satan may fit verses 12-14, he does not fit well with the rest of the chapter. (2) THis could be Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzer, kings with supreme power. Their people looked upon them as gods. These kings wanted to rule the world. (3) This could refer to both Satan and a great human king, possibly Nebuchadnezzer, because Babylon is pictured as the seat of evil in Revelation 17:18. Pride was Satan's sin as well as Babylon's. Common to all three viewpoints is the truth that pride willfully opposed God and will result in judgment. Israel made the mistake of being too proud to depend on God, and we are vulnerable to that same mistake" (1100-1101). I hope my two cents helped, maybe a little. Obviously my Bible skews things a certain way, but I figured it may be useful in the search for all this knowledge. :-) I think I understand what you are saying; I am having a lot of trouble wrestling with Milton’s portrayal of Satan too. The picture Milton paints of Satan does seem very sympathetic at times, but I don’t think he downplays Satan’s evilness. Book one and book two describe and mention many instances of Satan’s sins and the reasons for his fall from heaven - it’s just tricky for the reader because it’s from Satan’s point of view. I’ve been wondering why Milton decided to do this for several days, as I know that he knows that Satan is “bad to the bone,” to use a terrible cliche…but why is he so darn likable then? It’s a good question to ask. I think you’re right when you say that sin can be disguised as something good, so why not apply that to Milton’s Satan? He’s playing off our emotions, playing to our sympathies and getting us to like him; us, as readers, are falling in to the trap. I do think it’s too simplistic to simply dismiss Satan as completely evil and irredeemable; if he repents, he too would be forgiven by God. I think we are meant to see a lot of ourselves in Milton’s Satan, observe where his actions and his personality got him, and then improve ourselves by not following his example. Let’s be honest: I feel sad and sorry for Satan, but I really don’t want to BE Satan or hang out with him. There is a difference between sympathy and agreement.

Also, I have enjoyed looking up things in my Bible too, and I have the really helpful notes in mine (it’s the Life Application Study Bible, New International Version,Tyndale House Publishers) and the note about Isaiah 13:12-14 might be helpful to you and everyone else too. It casts some doubt that Isa 14:14 is actually talking about Satan; it may not be that Man is trying to cast doubt over Isaiah’s words, he’s just probably not really talking about Satan anyway (so, Madeline, your instincts may be right about this).

My Bible’s note says:
“There are several interpretations for the fallen one in these verses. (1) He is Satan, because the person here is too powerful to be any human king. Although Satan may fit verses 12-14, he does not fit well with the rest of the chapter. (2) THis could be Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzer, kings with supreme power. Their people looked upon them as gods. These kings wanted to rule the world. (3) This could refer to both Satan and a great human king, possibly Nebuchadnezzer, because Babylon is pictured as the seat of evil in Revelation 17:18. Pride was Satan’s sin as well as Babylon’s. Common to all three viewpoints is the truth that pride willfully opposed God and will result in judgment. Israel made the mistake of being too proud to depend on God, and we are vulnerable to that same mistake” (1100-1101).

I hope my two cents helped, maybe a little. Obviously my Bible skews things a certain way, but I figured it may be useful in the search for all this knowledge. :-)

]]> By: madelinekelly http://okikim6.umwblogs.org/2008/07/03/miltons-satan/#comment-11 madelinekelly Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:44:57 +0000 http://okikim6.umwblogs.org/2008/07/03/miltons-satan/#comment-11 I think the reason scholars debate Satan’s rebellion (the motivations, how it came about, its probability, etc.) is not that they don’t give credit to Isaiah where credit is due, it’s that there is so little concrete evidence in the Bible surrounding the issue. The particular passage in Isaiah that Carey cites, 14:14, comes right after the triumph of Israel over Babylon. So when critics suggest that Isaiah’s ‘Lucifer’ may actually be the King of Babylon, it makes sense; he has just been cast down into Hell. Isaiah’s cry of “How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,” etc. might, then, be metaphorical. Carey also raises the point that Milton’s Satan is a fusion of three sometimes separate figures: Lucifer the Archangel, the Prince of Demons, and the serpent. Whether or not they’re supposed to be fused (in Christian tradition), I don’t know, but I imagine the compilation of all their various deeds and mentions could raise some interpretive confusion. Was Isaiah’s Lucifer really the same as Milton’s? Can Isaiah 14:14 be applied? I don’t know if I’m making sense. What I’m hoping to do is help you feel less frustrated. (Also, it was kind of fun to dig out my Bible and look some things up, for a change. I should do that more often... carry it around for reference!) I think the reason scholars debate Satan’s rebellion (the motivations, how it came about, its probability, etc.) is not that they don’t give credit to Isaiah where credit is due, it’s that there is so little concrete evidence in the Bible surrounding the issue. The particular passage in Isaiah that Carey cites, 14:14, comes right after the triumph of Israel over Babylon. So when critics suggest that Isaiah’s ‘Lucifer’ may actually be the King of Babylon, it makes sense; he has just been cast down into Hell. Isaiah’s cry of “How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,” etc. might, then, be metaphorical.

Carey also raises the point that Milton’s Satan is a fusion of three sometimes separate figures: Lucifer the Archangel, the Prince of Demons, and the serpent. Whether or not they’re supposed to be fused (in Christian tradition), I don’t know, but I imagine the compilation of all their various deeds and mentions could raise some interpretive confusion. Was Isaiah’s Lucifer really the same as Milton’s? Can Isaiah 14:14 be applied?

I don’t know if I’m making sense. What I’m hoping to do is help you feel less frustrated. (Also, it was kind of fun to dig out my Bible and look some things up, for a change. I should do that more often… carry it around for reference!)

]]>