11

A couple of recent questions regarding Satan/devil on this site, has prompted me to ask a related question.

In Luke 10:17 after the seventy-two returned,they say to Jesus (NIV),

"Lord,even the demons submit to us in your name."

In verse 18 Jesus replied by saying,

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven."

Is it possible, through the interpretation of scripture, to determine approximately when this event happened?

  • @Davïd thanks for comment.Revelation 12 (in my opinion) has the best clue's to answer the question,but i cannot understand why it is seldom used to answer the question,regarding Satan falling from heaven like lightning.I do not believe that Isaiah 14:-12 is connected to Satan being hurled from heaven to earth,but i can see why many people think this. – Bagpipes Dec 23 '15 at 14:23
  • I think Rev 12 isn't pressed into service because many would think that Luke wouldn't know it -- or put another way, it is far more likely that the vision of Rev 12 has been influenced by Luke 10, and so Rev can't be used to explain Luke. The comment in the other Isa 14 question doesn't depend on Isaiah, btw - rather simply on the syntax of the Greek in Luke 10 itself. FWIW! – Dɑvïd Dec 23 '15 at 18:05
  • Jesus saw Satan fall from the high point of the temple where they stood. He saw Satan hit the ground, and he saw him get up and shake off the dust from his clothes, completely unscathed. Question is if Jesus challenged him to it, or if he volunteered to show off his power. – Constantthin Apr 4 at 12:44
5
+250

Context, Context, Context

When reviewing this passage, it is important to remember three facts

  1. Most scholars believe that this book of the Bible is written to a gentile, "Theophilus"

    So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
    (Luke 1:3)

  2. This comment occurs in a passage about 72 people returning from missions work in response to their report that they could cast out demons

  3. This scene occurs after the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12)


Roman mythology, not Jewish

Because the audience of Luke is gentile/Greek, their first and primary framework for understanding this comment would have been Greco-Roman mythology, not Jewish mythology. The Book of Enoch, which many scholars (and answers here) reference for this comment was in the Ge'ez language, a Semitic language from Ethiopia that was distinct from Hebrew and Aramaic. While a Roman who lived in Israel might be expected to be fluent in Aramaic and know some Hebrew, it is doubtful he would have been able to read Ge'ez. Furthermore, as a Gentile, it is unlikely that that that audience of Luke was educated in Jewish schools and have an intimate knowledge of the Torah. Because of that, if Luke's audience was at all aware of the angelic mythology of the Book of Enoch and the fall of Satan recorded therein, it would have been on a very limited and broad basis. Instead they would first incline towards Greco-Roman mythology.

At this point, it is important to note that "Satan" as it is transliterated into greek (and used here) simply means "adversary" or more often "the adversary". Furthermore, reviewing the BDAG regarding οὐρανοῦ (heaven) you will note that the secondary meaning of this word can refer to the dwelling place of God or the gods (Zeus):

BDAG - Heaven

And the Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd Edition) concurs.

Let us they try-rewriting this verse a little bit based on that understanding

So he [Jesus] said to them, “I saw the adversary fall like lightning from olympus."

While I am not suggesting that this is a better translation, for the purposes of this excercise it does help us to see the passage in a new light which is probably closer to the origional meaning. What happens instead is that we see Jesus comparing the fall of the adversary to the fall of Zeus' lightning bolt from Olympus - something that would obviously be a literary allusion and simile which is not to be taken literally. And Greco-Roman references are not unprecedented with the author of Luke making references to Zeus in Acts 14:8–13 and Acts 28:11. In these references it is implied that believers are embued with the strength of Zeus, just as in Luke 10:18.

While I am not typically into numerology, I also note that there were 12 olympians consisting of six pairs and two major generations of gods. Similarly, the 72 were sent out in pairs (Luke 10:1) and:

6 pairs X 12 Olympiads = 72

which seems to be an interesting coincidence.

It is also important to ask what mythology fits this image. Immediately what comes to mind is the battle between the Olympians and the Titans. In this clash, Zeus' primary adversary is Chronus. In the myth, Zeus defeats his adversary by casting him into and locking him in the Abyss (Similar to Revelation 20:1-3). This actualy became a theme or metaphor in later mythology with King Sisyphus, King Tantalus, the Danaides and Tityos being cast into the Abyss. Most interesting of all however is the myth of King Salmoneus who was imprisioned in the abyss after impersonating Zeus. As punishment, Zeus smote him with a thunderbolt and cast him into the Abyss. Similarly, King Ixion was struck with a thunderbolt and cast into the Abyss after he murdered his father-in-law by pushing him onto a bed of coal and attempting to seduce Hera (Zeus' wife). He was punished in the Abyss by being tied to a flaming wheel.

Ultimately, we should regard this as a simile comparing the casting out of demons to Zeus' defeat of his adversary and not regard this as a historic event, a prophetic event or a reference to Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28. In in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Dr. Craig Keener reminds us:

Although the texts often cited today as describing Satan’s fall (Is 14; Ezek 28) refer contextually only to kings who thought they were gods

Thus, Dr. Mark Black tells us in College Press NIV Commentary:

Jesus is speaking figuratively here, and his point is simply that Satan is being defeated, as his demonic forces are being cast out. This is not a comment on the origin of Satan.

Dr. Robert Stein agrees in The New American Commentary, stating:

I saw. The verb “saw” can mean an ordinary physical experience (14:29; 21:6; 23:35, 48; 24:37), a gift of foresight or insight (Acts 27:10; John 4:19; 12:19), or have a symbolic meaning. Here it could refer to the fall of Satan seen by the pre-existent Son (Isa 14:12). It is more likely, however, that it refers symbolically to what the exorcisms performed by the seventy(-two) meant. Their casting out of demons demonstrated the defeat of Satan (cf. Luke 11:20–22). The tense of this verb, an inceptive aorist, is better captured by translating it “I was seeing.” Luke understood each exorcism by the seventy(-two) as demonstrating the defeat of Satan.

(Emphasis added)




Satan: Not imprisioned yet

If we must regard this as an actual event instead of nothing more than simile, we must realize that based on the above Satan is still roaming free at the time of the 72 disciples' mission. Based on the above analysis, Satan's destination after the fall would not be earth, but the Abyss. We know that Satan is not yet imprisioned because we see him out of the Abyss tempting Jesus in Luke 4 and we see that his armies are not yet defeated in Luke 10. Thus, if we must regard this as an actual fall from heaven by Satan, it is evident that this event must be transpiring in the present (as other answers have noted well).

This is consistent with Dr. Keener's analysis of this text in:

...the context and the imperfect tense of the Greek verb (“I was watching”) may suggest that something altogether different is in view here: the self-proclaimed ruler of this age (Lk 4:6) retreating from his position before Jesus’ representatives.

Dr. John Nolland believes that the fall must be at least in the present or the future, stating in the Word Biblical Commentary

The use of the aorist participle for the verb “to fall” ensures that the reference is to a final fall and not some temporary reversal, and to the fact of the fall, rather than to the movement of transition as such (cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 269).

Drs. Black and Stein agree with Alfred Plummer, writer of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke who states:

At the very time when His ministers were casting out Satan’s ministers,—nay, even as He was sending them forth to their work, Jesus knew that Satan was being overcome, In the defeat of the demons He saw the downfall of their chief.




Conclusion

This comment by Jesus is a Simile, and was never meant to regard the downfall of Satan. It is unconnected to either the Book of Enoch, the fall of the king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28) or the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14). If one must overextend or overexert the text, then this fall would be in the present (at the time of the mission of the 72) and would be after Satan's fall to earth (Revelation 12) but before Satan is cast into the Abyss (Revelation 20). If we must apply the text in this way at all, then it would record the events of Revelation 20 based on the reference to Zeus.

  • 2
    Is it my imagination or did Stein make a mistake there about the "inceptive aorist"? That verb is imperfect, as noted by Keener in your other quote and expounded in David's answer. (Stein draws the same meaning out of it.) Anyway, interesting, +1! – Susan Dec 30 '15 at 23:34
  • @susan - That is a strong possibility – James Shewey Dec 31 '15 at 5:18
  • 3
    Enoch is only fully extant in Ge'ez, but it is also known form Aramaic, Greek, and Latin fragments which means at one time it existed in all of these languages. The original language is debatable, but it is certain Enoch was extant in Greek during the New Testament period (for example, it is quoted by church fathers). As such, I think your argument about Luke's audience being unaware of Enoch falls apart. – ThaddeusB Dec 31 '15 at 18:41
  • 2
    @ThaddeusB - They may not have completely been ignorant of it, but regardless, it still would not have been their first thought - Roman mythology would have been, as this was their cultural, educational and theological background and framework. There are however some who believe that Theophilus was Jewish which has some merit, which is why I cited the claim about a Gentile audience so heavily. I think that is actually the strong(er/est) challenge to this idea. – James Shewey Dec 31 '15 at 18:54
  • 2
    Good answer! This extract from your answer: "or have a symbolic meaning. Here it could refer to the fall of Satan seen by the PRE-Existent Son,"- is not to be over-looked (IMO). – Bagpipes Jan 2 '16 at 15:07
12

OP: Is it possible, through the interpretation of scripture, to determine approximately when this event happened?

Yes, I believe it is.

Luke 10:18 in Greek (SBL GNT), with the New American Standard Bible, reads this way:

εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· Ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα.
eipen de autois, Etheōroun ton Satanan ōs astrapēn ek tou ouranou pesonta
And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. ...”

As it happens, there is a clue to the time of the event of the "fall of Satan" in the way that Luke has reported this. Most translations render the first word of Jesus' direct speech, etheōroun, as "I saw", or "I watched" or the like: in other words, as a simple past. Phrased this way, the time is indeterminate, and it could be at any point in the past.

As some commentators note, however, simple past is not the best choice to represent etheōroun. It is not in the aorist tense, which might convey a "punctiliar" sense (or, at least, simple!). Rather, it is imperfect: "linear action in the past".1 The only English translation I'm aware of that attempts to convey this is the New American Standard Bible, quoted above: "I was watching...". In context, it suggests that while the Seventy-Two were out on mission, Jesus "was watching...".

This combines, then, with what Jesus was watching. The Seventy-Two report on their return (10:17):

The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name."

This elicits Jesus' reply, that he "was watching Satan fall [pesonta] from heaven". pesonta here is an aorist participle. Grammarians describe this form as coincident and timeless.2 There is, then, no particular temporal reference in the action of "falling"; rather the implication is that the "falling" took place while the "watching" was going on.

Taking this together, the narrative portrays the situation in which the actions of those on mission (in which the "demons [were] subject to us in Your name") was coincident with Satan's fall, as observed by Jesus.

This implication has been picked up by some commentators. For example, Alfred Plummer wrote in his ICC commentary:3

At the very time when His ministers were casting out Satan's ministers, — nay, even as He was sending them forth to their work, Jesus knew that Satan was being overcome. In the defeat of the demons He saw the downfall of their chief.

More recently, Joseph Fitzmyer has argued for something like this understanding, even while noting some limitation in the grammatical argument regarding the use of theōreō:4

Fitzmyer

As will be seen from that quote, the precise formulation of the verb is sufficient for Fiztmyer to exclude other possibilities (distant past, or apocalyptic future).

In sum, then, the answer to OP's question:

When did “Satan fall from Heaven like lightning”?

is this: while the Seventy Two were carrying out their mission (Luke 10:1-12) under Jesus' express commission, their kingdom activities (Luke 10:9, 11) coincided with Satan's fall.


Notes

This interpretation was first suggested on this site in footnote (#2) to an answer to a related question on this passage. It converges with and complements an existing answer to the current question.

  1. Cf. A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Hodder & Stoughton, 1914), p. 882-883, citing Luke 10:18 on p. 883 as one example of the imperfect conveying a "moving panorama".
  2. So Robertson, Grammar, p. 864, following J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (T & T Clark, 1908), p. 134.
  3. A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (ICC; 5th edn; T & T Clark, 1922), p. 278.
  4. J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Doubleday, 1985), vol. 2, p. 862.
  • 1
    With reference to this phrase from your answer- "I was watching...". In context, it suggests that while the Seventy-Two were out on mission, Jesus "was watching...". Since Jesus is watching events unfold in heaven,on earth,is it reasonable to say that "Jesus was receiving a vision." ? – Bagpipes Dec 26 '15 at 10:24
  • 2
    @Bagpipes While the Greek formulation gives a clear guide (I think) on the timing of the "fall" (the main question here), it doesn't indicate how Jesus was "watching": whether this is literal or figurative, and if the former, by which means this "seeing" took place. There might be more than one "reasonable" guess here (a vision being one of them), but I think they would all be speculative. – Dɑvïd Dec 26 '15 at 11:09
  • David Aune,in his book,Prophecy in early Christianity and the ancient Mediterranean world, notes: books.google.co.uk/… and also in Mark Edwards answer,we have a quote from Greene- "Luke portrays Jesus as having a prophetic vision, then, whose content was the future (and ultimate) downfall of Satan." – Bagpipes Dec 26 '15 at 14:24
  • I wonder if adding "like lightning" is relevant. In the natural, lightning is a two-stage event: light followed by sound. Perhaps Satan's fall, like Jesus coming to earth is not a single event and should be considered more like a process which requires the passage of time between the two (or more?) events. – Revelation Lad Dec 26 '15 at 14:54
10

Historically, Luke 10.18 was often incorporated into a broader mythos concerning the fall of 'Lucifer' in prehistory.

Hoppe briefly touches on this when commenting on Isaiah:1

In [Isaiah] 14:12 the prophet calls the king of Babylon the "Morning Star," which Jerome rendered into Latin as "Lucifer." Patristic and medieval interpreters, influenced by Jerome and connecting Isaiah 14:12 with Luke 10:18, read this passage as a description of the fall of rebellion angels.

Modern interpreters tend to favor the idea that Luke 10.18 is not referring to a primordial exile of the satan from heaven. Instead, since the context has Jesus' disciples telling him about their exorcism of demons, Jesus' response is an enthusiastic and quasi-symbolic description of what their efforts have accomplished.

So Porter and Pitts:2

... Jesus saw exorcism as an indication that the kingdom of God was present in his ministry and that Satan's kingdom was being plundered and destroyed (Mark 3:24–27; Luke 10:18).

Marshall, while seeming to accept the full 'Lucifer myth' interpretation of Isaiah 14, nevertheless identifies Jesus' saying as tied into the current exorcisms, not an ancient event:3

The saying is related to a Jewish tradition. In Rev. 12:7–10, 13 Michael fights and overcomes the dragon (Satan) in heaven, so that he is cast down to the earth where he pursues the woman who bore the male child. Behind the picture lies the myth of the fall of Lucifer from heaven (Is. 14:12; cf. the allusion to this myth in Lk. 10:15). ... The exorcisms are a sign of the defeat of Satan (cf. Mk. 3:27). Thus the eschatological defeat of Satan is seen to take place in the ministry of Jesus and his disciples.

Green's approach combines the two ideas above. He accepts the connection of Luke 10.18 with Isaiah 14.13, but likewise insists that Jesus' statement must be constrained by the context of the exorcisms the disciples have just told Jesus about:4

Heretofore, Luke has referred to "the devil" rather than to "Satan"—the latter a loanword from the Aramaic: God's supernatural adversary, the chief of those diabolic forces opposed to God's purpose. Jesus had just used Isaianic imagery to describe the descent of Capernaum (v 15; Isa 14:1–27); the same is now used with reference to Satan, whose claim to glory and allegiance (cf. 4:5–7; cf. Isa 14:13) is antecedent to, even mandates, his fall. ... The question is, When did/will Satan fall? Some find in Jesus' assertion a reference to a primordial event or an event in the life of Jesus himself, but neither of these options makes sense of the actual, ongoing exercise of satanic influence in the Lukan narrative. Indeed, in the Lukan presentation the death of Jesus itself is a manifestation of the power of darkness (22:53; 23:44). Nor is it likely that the fall of Satan is occasioned by Jesus' resurrection and ascension—again, since Satan remains proactive in the narrative of Acts (e.g., Acts 13:4–12; 26:18). Certainly the success of the ministry of exorcism by the seventy-two does not presuppose the downfall of Satan; rather, their mission presupposes only what Jesus claims (analeptically)—namely, that he had given them authority over all satanic forces. Luke portrays Jesus as having a prophetic vision, then, whose content was the future (and ultimate) downfall of Satan, presumably scheduled for the time of the judgment to which he alludes in vv 12 and 14. ... The decisive fall of Satan is anticipated in the future, but it is already becoming manifest through the mission of Jesus and, by extension, through the mission of his envoys.


1 Leslie J. Hoppe, Isaiah, 48–49.

2 Stanley E. Porter, Andrew Pitts, Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture, 136.

3 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 428–429.

4 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke. (Ebook edition.)

  • Does the Greek of Luke 10:18 clearly indicate the event has taken place or is it possible to understand Jesus statement as looking forward to something that has yet to happen? – Revelation Lad Dec 21 '15 at 22:34
4

Howard Marshall addresses this concept well in his NIGTC commentary on Luke. Based on correlations with Aramaic, the best aspect for the imperfect used here might be a simple past tense. However, Luke could have chosen the imperfect to indicate an on-going process begun in the past.

Marshall points out that the concept here is very active in Jewish tradition around the time of Christ citing T. Levi 18:12; T. Jud. 25:3; T. Ash. 7:3; T. Dan. 5:10f.; Ass. Moses 10:1; Jub. 23:29 along with the passage in Rev. 20:1-3, 10 where Michael battles with Satan and casts him out. The passage in Revelation appears to be the consummation of the aforementioned Jewish tradition. Marshall notes the reference to lightning probably has more to do with the quickness of the act than to any connection of Satan with light.

The passage in Luke is set in the return of 72 who have preached and cast out demons. Most likely, Jesus is envisions the work of the 72 to be the beginning of a process consummated in Revelation. Marshall rightly identifies this as an eschatological event having begun with Jesus's ministry perhaps with the sending of the 72, but most likely with His advent.

The location here in Luke includes the work of disciples in the expulsion of Satan from a place of power in heaven. Disciples contribute in this battle through preaching and healing. The battle is currently on-going. Further evidence of this as eschatological and on-going are Paul's references to the powers of the air in Eph 2:2 and 6:12. Essentially, Satan stands defeated with the final eviction yet to come.

Related to this statement is the one in John 12:31.

When was Satan cast from heaven? It seems that the best answer is Satan began to be thrown out of heaven at the advent of Christ. He will be finally removed at or near the return of Christ. Disciples participate in this eviction through telling others the Good News about Christ and healing the ills of the world in Christ's Name.

2

Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 551, lists a usage that appears to fit called a Tendential Imperfect = (Not Begun, but About/Desired to be Attempted (Voluntative/Tendential)

Satan would be cast out of heaven in the future (Rev 12) but what Jesus was seeing in the present was his human disciples making demons subject to themselves by his authority. It was as if he had already been case from heaven.

  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange Georg, thanks for contributing! Be sure to take our site tour to learn more about us. We're a little different from other sites. – Steve Taylor Dec 2 '16 at 14:43
  • This is a Hermeneutics Q&A site, so it would be good to see more interaction with the text here, and application of hermeneutical methods to support your conclusion. – Steve Taylor Dec 2 '16 at 14:44
0

I would say that the scriptures do give an insight into when the event of Jesus seeing Satan falling from Heaven happened.

The seventy two say to Jesus,

"Lord,even the demons submit to us in your name."

In the reply from Jesus, he does not focus on the demons falling from Heaven,but he does focus on Satan falling from Heaven.In the book of Revelation at chapter 12:9-7 it is written,

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.

Rev 12:7-9, informs the reader that when Satan was "hurled to earth," his angels were also hurled to earth with him.The angels are obviously "demons."

With the focus being on "demons" according to the seventy two,i feel that the text could be better understood if Jesus had replied by saying,

I saw Satan and his angels fall like lightning from Heaven.

I do not think that the fall of Satan and the fall of the angels are separate events,but it does intrigue me that Jesus does not address the demons in his reply to the seventy two.

Now to determine approximately, when this event happened the following scriptures give the reader guidance.

In the book of John at chapter 8:44, Jesus says,

"You belong to your father,the devil and you want to carry out your father's desire.He was a murderer from the beginning."

Jesus is recalling when Cain murdered Abel (in the beginning) as referenced in Genesis chapter 4,so it is clear to the reader that Satan had already been hurled to earth.Also in Genesis chapter 3 at the "fall of man," we read that the "serpent," (who is Satan) was in the garden when he caused the fall of man.This makes it clear to the reader that Satan had already been hurled to earth at this time.

We do not have another mention of Satan on earth prior to "the fall of man,"but if the reader returns to Revelation 12 we do have a scripture that speaks about Satan being hurled to earth which alludes to the statement of Jesus in Luke 10:18.

I like to refer to this scripture as the "lightning scripture." because it is written in revelation 12:13 that,

When the dragon (Satan) saw that he had been hurled to earth,he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

My understanding of this scripture is that, at a point in time Satan was in Heaven,but Satan did not realize that he had been hurled to earth until he saw that he was on earth, which must certainly imply that Satan fell to earth "like lightning."This text again allude's to Luke 10:18 and the statement of Jesus,

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven."

And we do know from scripture that in Rev 12:5,Jesus was in Heaven and able to view, "Satan fall like lightning," for it is written,

She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne

Now in Rev 12:12 it is written,

"Therefore rejoice,you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short."

This scripture would appear to be saying that there is life in heaven at this time,

"Therefore rejoice,you heavens and you who dwell in them."

But there does not appear to be life on earth,because the scripture does not mention anyone dwelling on earth.The scripture only speaks about the earth and sea.

But woe to the earth and sea, Because the devil has gone down to you.

And because of the wording in this scripture we are given a clue as to the approximate time when Satan was hurled to earth,for it is written in Genesis 1:9-10,

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

There is no life on earth at this time,not until Genesis 3, when God create's Adam and Eve,but the scripture in Revelation does say,

"woe to the earth and sea."

The focus is clearly on the earth and sea,and not on humans, because they have not yet been created.

Conclusion

There are two visions' received by Jesus.One is received when he is on earth,(Luke 10:-18).The other is received when Jesus is in Heaven, (Rev 12:7-9).What the reader must decide is-When Jesus replies to the seventy two with his statement,

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven."

Is Jesus receiving a Flash-Back as to when he was in Heaven with his father,?and when the father and son both viewed Satan fall to earth, or-

Is Jesus receiving a vision on earth prior to the return of the seventy two.?

From the information available to the reader through all these scripture's,it is reasonable to suggest that Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning according to the book of Revelation at chapter 12, and that the timing of the event, happened between Genesis 1:9-10,when God made the earth and sea, and Genesis 3, when the fall of man was instigated by the "serpent."

  • Revelation was written after the gospel attributed to Luke. However, it might be relevant if you can find such an idea in Jewish mythology that was extant prior to Luke's composition. – Dan Dec 28 '15 at 17:28
  • @Dan, "Revelation was written after the gospel attributed to Luke." I note a similar comment from David.I think what is relevant is, "what is recorded in scripture," and the "striking similarities," that exist between Luke and Revelation. – Bagpipes Dec 29 '15 at 14:14
  • What is relevant is that we approach the text in its original historical, linguistic, and literary context. And citing a later work to support an earlier one is anachronistic. Luke could not have been influenced by a text that wasn't written yet, and thus Revelation offers no insight into his intended meaning when writing his gospel. It only offers how it may have been reinterpreted by later Christians (which is also interesting, but only after you have started from the text asked about, shown your work, and built up solely from that text first). This answer doesn't do that. – Dan Dec 29 '15 at 14:21
  • @Bagpipes This is an instance where "Occurance" and not "Time" are the essential elements. 1) Satan is NOT a physical being(someone w/ a physical body, so we cannot ascribe the laws of space and time to him. John 'saw' in Rev. the ages past, present, and future, NOT in chronological order. 2) If you have trouble w/this, examine how Jesus can say, "before Abraham was-I AM"? I agree w/your conclusion that he was cast out of the 1st Heaven(God's Throneroom) at the time of his sin, and will be bound at Rev. 20. Until then he is in the 2nd Heaven, wreaking havoc until his 'hour' comes. – Tau Dec 31 '15 at 2:40
  • @Bagpipes (cont.) Having said that, it is difficult to make a "grammatical" argument from this, as grammar needs to separate the undetermined past from the present and future. The best way I can say it is this: the laws of the flesh govern the flesh, and the laws of the spirit realm govern the spirits. Where they 'meet' is where they interact in the life of a man(or men), and then time gets recorded. – Tau Dec 31 '15 at 2:54

protected by James Shewey Sep 27 '17 at 22:20

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.