Except Abdiel’s point is that God isn’t a tyrant, and so that following God isn’t servitude, but Satan is setting himself up to be one, so following Satan would be. If you look at his whole speech in VI, bolding mine:
So, it’s not that Abdiel’s serving a tyrant. God has the right to rule, because God “excells them whom he governs”, and it’s natural and good to obey Him. It’s servitude to “serve the unwise, or him who hath rebelled against his worthier”
This, I think, is the core of the issue. I think it’s safe to say that Milton didn’t himself endorse this position; he was one of the staunchest republicans and opponents of the “Divine Right” theory of monarchy, even in his revolutionary times. However, I accept that Abdiel regards it as legitimate - obviously a good Aristotelian, who thinks that there are such things as “natural leaders” and “natural servants”. A view that has had unfortunate consequences in human history, but at least an understandable one.
Of course, we could argue that God is, almost by definiton, greater than any of His creatures, and therefore can legitimately claim our service; I must admit that, while God may be a better candiate for “natural ruler” than King Charles I was, I still can’t wholeheartedly endorse this view myself. I would never say that being obliged to serve is a good thing; service should come from the free choice of the servant, not merely from the “legal” claims of the ruler, and still less from the fact the ruler is more powerful.
Remember also that Satan rebels, not against God, but against being made to serve “Messiah”. As this is depicted in V:600-615, “Messiah” or “The Son” is not God, but another creation of God, of the same (apparent) type and order as the angels. Even if Satan’s rebellion against God, his Creator, is unjustified, I think he has a case for objecting to be placed in the service of another creature.
Oooh! V:613-615.
This brings us back on-topic, just. Evidence that Hell “dates” from at least this point in the narrative, before Satan had taken any active steps to rebellion.
By “Fall” I meant the fall of Satan. I refer to the Garden of Eden events collectively as the “Apple Incident”.
Quoting a couple of additional lines:
Him who disobeys,
Me disobeys, breaks union, and that day,
Cast out from God and blessed vision, falls
Into utter darkness, deep ingulfed, his place
Ordained without redemption, without end.
God knew hell might be needed, but this still does not say it was pre-created. (Of course if you read Milton’s God as having created a creature (Satan) he knew would sin, then the theological difficulty the OP is asking about is embodied right there–what difference does it make when hell was created if God knows in advance he will need to create it?)
The second bolded bit relates to what ralph asked–can Satan change his mind? Milton is contradictory on this point, IMHO because, despite several statements like the bolded part, he also has the following in Book IV (Satan speaking):
Me miserable! which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath, and infinite despair?
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And, in the lowest deep, a lower deep
Still threatening to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heaven.
O, then, at last relent: Is there no place
Left for repentance, none for pardon left?
None left but by submission; and that word
Disdain forbids me, and my dread of shame
Among the Spirits beneath, whom I seduced
With other promises and other vaunts
Than to submit, boasting I could subdue
The Omnipotent. Ay me! they little know
How dearly I abide that boast so vain,
Under what torments inwardly I groan,
While they adore me on the throne of Hell.
With diadem and scepter high advanced,
The lower still I fall, only supreme
In misery: Such joy ambition finds.
But say I could repent, and could obtain,
By act of grace, my former state; how soon
Would highth recall high thoughts, how soon unsay
What feigned submission swore? Ease would recant
Vows made in pain, as violent and void.
For never can true reconcilement grow,
Where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep:
Which would but lead me to a worse relapse
And heavier fall: so should I purchase dear
Short intermission bought with double smart.
This knows my Punisher; therefore as far
From granting he, as I from begging, peace;
All hope excluded thus, behold, in stead
Mankind created, and for him this world.
So farewell, hope; and with hope farewell, fear;
Farewell, remorse! all good to me is lost;
Evil, be thou my good; by thee at least
Divided empire with Heaven’s King I hold,
By thee, and more than half perhaps will reign;
As Man ere long, and this new world, shall know.
This stuff is reaaly wonderful reading. It also leaves it unclear whether or not Satan could change his mind.
What does the Bible have to say about hell?
Very little. There is a brief mention in Numbers of of “The Pit” or Sheol. That was an underground place where the souls of the dead went. It would have been a part of the 7 day creation I suppose. There is also a mention in Isaiah that I can’t at the moment come up with.
There was also the reference in Matthew that Tevildo referred to in his post.
I asked this question some time ago here
Cunctator tells us that based on Catholic teachings that no, fallen angels cannot be forgiven. (Assuming that saten is a fallen angel.) post
Isaiah 24:21-22.
This is probably as close as we’re going to get to Old Testament support for the traditional Christian/Miltonic conception of Hell. Note that:
(a) The fallen angels and evil humans are cast into “the pit” after the end of the world, not immediately after their fall or death, and
(b) It’s not permanent - after a suitable time of punishment, all the wicked (including Satan, if he’s one of the “high ones that are on high”) will be “visited” - what that involves isn’t certain, it may be release or annihilation, but the passage clearly refutes any concept of Hell as eternal torment.
There’s also Isaiah 14:4-19 (emphasis added):
This passage supports the idea of “Hell” as just the abode of the dead, not as a place of punishment - “pit”, in the rest of the passage, refers more to a hole in the ground rather than the elaborate tomb that a ruler would expect as a literal grave. Note especially that “Lucifer” does not refer to Satan, but to the king of Babylon to whom the passage is addressed.
There’s also our old favourite, Psalm 140:9-10 :
That, however, seems either to refers to a literal, physical pit on earth, or to be intended as a metaphor.
Numbers 16:28-31 quite definitely refers to a literal pit (miraculous, but still an actual hole in the actual ground):
There’s Job 33:27-28 :
But this (especially considering other uses in Job, such as 17:16) is more likely to refer to the literal grave and physical death, rather than the “spiritual death” of Hell. Most of the other uses of “pit” in the Old Testament (Psalm 30:3, Psalm 55:23, Isaiah 14 as quoted above, Ezekiel 31:16, etc) similarly refer to the literal grave.
This is very similar to the Islamic notion of the place IIRC. In Islam Hell is a place so detached from existence and terrifying that Satan will not go near it but knows he will eventually be sent there for punishment, and it is also a place where, like Purgatory, souls will be cleansed so that they can return to God eventually. Very few will spend eternity there (only Hitler, Manson and Katie Couric are specifically named), the concept of eternal damnation being one I could never grasp and found super interesting.
What is the contemporary orthodox Jewish concept of Hell (if there is one)? Reform and liberal Jews I believe envision a place with three clones of their mother and no premium cable channels.
I know that this is a stupid question, but exactly how much of that is a joke?