The third passage used to create the myth of the fall of Satan, besides those in Isaiah and Ezekiel, is Revelation chapter 12. I contend that this chapter has nothing to say on the subject.
Apocalyptic
The first problem with seeing the fall of Satan in this chapter is that Revelation is an apocalyptic work filled with visions, symbolism, and fantastic imagery to convey a message of comfort in severe crisis; it is not historical description. This genre was popular around the time of Jesus and cannot be pressed to serve as information about the fall of Satan.
Christians were severely persecuted by Rome and desperately needed hope that the Church would survive. Assurance of victory is the message of the Revelation, and the writer uses themes and allusions from a range of sources to make his point.
There is no better summary of this message than John chapter 16:
In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.
The Persecuted Woman and the Dragon
However, there is an even greater difficulty—the text itself. Symbolic or not, Revelation 12 attempts to tell us something. What is it?
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born.
The story tells of a persecuted woman, an endangered child, and a hostile dragon so powerful that his huge, thrashing tail wipes stars from the sky. What do these characters represent?
The woman is the people of God.
The dragon is a force hostile to the Church—the Romans. The Church endured tremendous persecution under Emperor Domitian in the late first century, and this is most likely the backdrop to the apocalyptic encouragement.
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. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
The son seems to be a reference to Jesus who was crucified by Rome but was resurrected and ascended to God.
Rome Identified as Satan
The dragon was Rome; the Babylonians and other eastern peoples often identified oppressors with the mythical chaos dragon. Jews and Christians knew this power as Satan, so in the next paragraph Satan symbolizes Rome.
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 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.
The resurrection of Jesus has great consequences for the dragon-Satan-Rome, and God prevents the dragon from destroying his people. The remainder of the chapter shows the dragon continuing its efforts against the people of God, but it does not prevail.
Is the Devil in the Details?
Let us look at details that might relate to Satan. Some see the imagery of the stars swept out of the sky as an historical detail—Satan in his rebellion persuaded a third of God’s angels to abandon God and join him. There is nothing here to suggest that, and there is nothing elsewhere in the Bible to suggest it. All the image tells us is that the dragon was huge, powerful, and overwhelming just as Rome was huge, powerful and overwhelming.
What about the war in heaven resulting in the hurling of Satan to the earth? Clearly, timing is a problem in applying this to a prehistoric rebellion. This fall is a result of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension—the dragon’s power was broken and God’s people were able to overcome it by the blood of the lamb (Jesus).
Chronologically, this relates to the time of the resurrected Jesus and not to some prehistoric era. But since the writer of Revelation borrows from many sources, might we discover one to clarify this theme for us?
Yes!
I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning!
Luke chapter 10 tells about the fall of Satan, and many in the persecuted Church likely were familiar with it.
During Jesus’ ministry, he sent out seventy-two followers to spread the good news to the villages of Israel. They were told to heal people and announce the kingdom of God. They returned from the mission very excited and told Jesus, ‘Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!’
Jesus was no less excited than they were; he exclaimed:
I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Was Jesus referring to an event he witnessed in the mists of time past? No, he was responding to the results of his work in his own lifetime.
Revelation 12 is a story about persecution and victory. It has nothing to do with the fall of Satan. Then where did the myth originate? We will talk about that next time!
Articles in this series:
Is the Fall of Satan a Myth?
The Fall of Satan in Isaiah 14
The Fall of Satan in Ezekiel 28
The Fall of Satan in Revelation 12
The Fall of Satan in the Book of Enoch
Satan in the Old Testament
Was Satan the Serpent in Eden?
Was Satan in the Desert with Jesus?
Does Satan Exist?
Do Demons Exist?
Jesus Without Baggage 
I found your post about Revelation 12 most interesting.
The identification of the dragon/Satan with Rome is good.
I believe that the whole of Revelation is about the downfall of Rome.
(See my post “The Book of Revelation” September 2013 at: http://www.michaeleeast.blogspot.com.au )
The beast/dragon with the seven heads and ten horns is Rome.
Rome was built on seven hills.
The ten horns are ten emperors.
The blasphemy is that the emperor is a god.
This backs up your thesis perfectly.
LikeLike
Michael, you may be right about the symbolism of the heads and horns. I can’t commit to it because I just don’t know. I read your blog post on Revelation and found it interesting. It seems that you hold an historical amillennial perspective of the book. I am more preterist.
I always enjoy your contributions! You have a lot of good things to say.
LikeLike
I am also an amillenialist. I came to this viewpoint after reading David B Currie’s excellent book entitled “Rapture: The End Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind.” Mr Currie was raised a Protestant and cut his teeth on the Rapture theology. His father used to have the giants of the industry over to dinner, and Mr Currie himself used to teach it. His book is an interesting discourse on how the cut and paste methods of exegesis by some Protestants got it wrong, and his own proposals about the end times makes for fascinating reading. I highly recommend the book.
LikeLike
Sheila, I am an amillennialist too! But amillennialist come in different sorts. Amillennial simply means a person does not believe there is a literal thousand year period that some see in Revelation 20.
Historical amillennialist see the book of Revelation as a prediction of future events from the days of the early church until the end of time. I believe the book of Revelation was written for the people who first read it or heard it–those who were experiencing the Roman persecution near the turn of the second century. This is more of a preterist amillennial view. There are also other amillennial views.
Doo you have a particular amillenialist view?
LikeLike
My particular view is that the final chapter of Revelation is the future prophesy. The rest of it was a book written in code to the early Christians, which depicted the fulfillment of other prophecies, most notably the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Of course, we have the letters to the seven churches at the beginning, but those also are not at all like the other epistles in the NT canon. Honestly, there have been so many views on the 7 churches letters that I really don’t have an exact opinion on those one way or the other. So, here is my own amillienial view: there is no secret Rapture of the believers. When Christ returns the second time, that’s when time as we know it will cease. Jesus will put all things in order, and the entire body of believers will be with God for eternity. Those who don’t believe are cast out. What they are cast out into, I don’t know. I’m rethinking the whole hell concept because of this blog. But I reject the notion of a 1000 year reign. Based on the little bit that I’ve read about how numbers were used as symbols, that 1000 year reign just means a really long time. For me, it is a symbol of eternity. And, it was actually Ezekiel that first turned my away from the Rapture stuff. The Scriptures are definitely taken out of context by the Left Behind folks. Unfortunately, that includes my entire family of siblings, aunts, uncles, and parents. It makes life really, really, hard. I don’t have a lot of contact with most of my family; just one sibling who thinks along the same lines I do. Sorry this is so long.
LikeLike
The Rapture is a nonsense which has no basis in scripture.
The Left Behind books are reading for people who want to gloat.
Talk about Schadenfreude!
LikeLike
Sheila, you describe things pretty well in my opinion: “There is no secret Rapture of the believers. When Christ returns the second time, that’s when time as we know it will cease. Jesus will put all things in order, and the entire body of believers will be with God for eternity. Those who don’t believe are cast out. What they are cast out into, I don’t know.”
This certainly matches my view, though I would use different language about those who don’t accept God’s gift of eternal life in his new order. I don’t see their being cast out so much as that they are allowed to reject God’s new order. What happens to them, I am not sure, but without eternal life the natural result seems to be extinction.
I am sorry you are having difficulty with your family, but I know you can find like-minded companionship on this and other blogs. I am glad you found us!
LikeLike
Pingback: The Fall of Satan in Ezekiel 28 | Jesus Without Baggage
Tim, I think your understanding of Revelation is not very sound. In the beginning of this revelation by our Lord Jesus Christ, St. John is directed to write down what has happened, what is, and what will happen in the future. From chapter four onward the revelation is given from the heavenly perspective where past, present, and future are not clearly understood. To try to understand this revelation in the sequence in which it is given is a mistake. We must rely upon the rest of the revelation of Holy Scriptures to understand the proper sequence. The consensus of the Church is that the entire Holy Scriptures can only be understood in the revelation of Jesus Christ. This is confirmed in the Book of Revelation (see Revelation chapter 5). Only Jesus can open the seals and reveal what is inside the scroll. The scroll is the entire Bible. The first through the fourth seals are a recapitulation of the Creation, the dominions given to Adam and Eve, and the effects of their rebellion and fall: death by murder or war, famine and decease, or a hostile environment. This reality has been in effect for the human beings who inhabit one fourth of the planet since before history began. The fifth seal is a revelation about the reality of great tribulation of the Church from AD 33 to the present time. The sixth and seventh seals are prophecies about what will happen as the events of the Day of the Lord unfold. The Book of Revelation is a confirmation to the Church given in our Lords greetings and admonitions to seven churches who represent the complete Church through out time. It is then a recapitulation of what has happened since Creation. Finally it is a revelation of what will happen as the events of the Day of the Lord unfold. Chapter 12 of Revelation is recapitulation within a recapitulation, so Revelation 12:7-9 should be understood literally. Your contention that Satan and demons did not rebel and fall from grace is very weak Tim. Because it is baggage to belief that Satan and the demons are immortal and that they have far more influence than they do, I support your efforts. However, I believe that you are in error when you state that the fall of Satan and the demons is probably a myth. The Holy Scriptures and traditions of the Church refute this.
LikeLike
“The Holy Scriptures and traditions of the Church refute this [belief that the fall of Satan is a myth].” That’s exactly the point. Long held traditions can be baggage. Tim is looking at Holy Scripture with fresh eyes. It’s why his blog exists. I like the challenges he puts forth. It makes me re-examine what I believe and why. At this point I am still inclined to believe in a real Satan, but not sure about what I was taught regarding his fall from heaven. There is good and evil in the world, and each has a source.
LikeLike
“Long held traditions can be baggage.” This can be true, however Holy Apostolic Tradition provides a framework for understanding. The sectarian attitude that respects no authority other than one’s own opinion, leads to confusion and corrupts the Gospel.
LikeLike
Apostolic tradition is certainly part of the deposit of faith in Catholicism, but not all of the Church Fathers agreed on every doctrine. That’s partly why it takes the Church such a long time to proclaim certain beliefs as dogma. So, if Sacred Tradition is a framework, which I agree with, remember that the framework is the external structure. What gets filled in is, unfortunately, not always free from complexity, controversy, and contradiction. I consider myself on a journey towards truth. I am not there yet, which is why I love this blog. There is so much more out there that I can learn. Of course, there are some things on which I stand firmly, like anyone, but I have by no means exhausted every scholarly thought on these matters. I am a student, and I trust that God is writing my lesson plans for life.
LikeLike
Thanks Marc,
I am not saying here that Satan does not exist (or demons either), but I do not believe the myth of the fall of Satan, and I do not believe the Bible teaches it.
It seems that you are an historical Amillennialist who sees the book of Revelation as a prediction of the history of the church; I believe that Revelation was written for the people who first heard it. Its purpose was to bring hope to a church under extreme duress by declaring that the church under Jesus would ultimately be victorious over Rome, which it was.
Any time or place that the church suffers persecution, we can turn to Revelation for hope and encouragement.
I have a genuine question: if Revelation was written to predict events in the history of the church, what was its benefit to those who first heard it?
LikeLike
Hi Tim, I agree that Revelation was written for the faithful undergoing persecution at the time it was written, and like most of the other Scriptures for all the time after until the end of this age. I see Genesis and Revelations as book ends to the canon. That Revelation would recapitulate historical events of Israel/Church and affirm that it can only be understood through Jesus Christ is important. That the future events associated with the judgments and resurrection harvest of the Day of the Lord.are addressed with great symbolism in the passages associated with the sixth and seventh seals, confirms the ultimate victory of good over evil. They also confirm that the Day of the Lord is not a 24 hour period of time, but rather a time specific to the actions of God, just like the Days of Creation. For those who must live through these judgments, the symbolism will take on real meaning.
LikeLike
I believe that the Book of Revelation refers to the end of the age that Jesus lived in, i.e.. the ancient world.
That is why Tim’s assertion that Revelation 12 refers to the fall of Rome is so relevant.
The Book of Revelation has no relevance to our time at all..
LikeLike
I’ve never been able to read Revelation all the way through and I’ve also never really tried to figure it out. My gut tells me though that your general analysis is at least close, as I don’t think there was an actual guy named John who had those visions, but rather it was a crafty and imaginative writer who told a story to parallel (and degrade) real leaders and cities.
LikeLike
The consensus of the early Church Fathers is that St. John the Theologian and Apostle, wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The consensus had to be worked out over two hundred years, but it was arrived at by the undivided Church of the forth century that defined the Canon of the New Testament.
LikeLike
Thanks Marc. Admittedly I know very little of Revelation and have never even read it all the way through. My comment was based on the idea that the little I have studied about it seemed to identify redactions and strong agenda against Rome, and a very little known author who was not the John who walked with Jesus…which led me to believe that it was more carefully crafted, possibly even by a community. When you say St. John, are you saying “the” John the Apostle who walked with Jesus?
LikeLike
Hi CE, The prophetic scriptures of Daniel and Revelation identify in symbols, the persecutors of God’s people. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Because Rome was the persecutor of the early Church, and a reconstituted Rome will become the final persecutor of the Church, there clearly is a strong agenda against Rome. St. John the Apostle, who walked with Jesus and cared for His Mother Mary, is the author of Revelation.
LikeLike
Hi Marc, thanks for your response. Because comments can be quite impersonal, let me say that I am in no way arguing these points, but just enjoying the conversation and trying to learn a thing or two. That said, I just grabbed an old book off my shelf from a few years ago and blew the dust off it to see if I was remembering something correctly. This book, written by a old scholar Raymond E. Brown, says that John of Patmos was a different John than John the Apostle (son of Zebedee and apostle of Jesus) which is what I seemed to remember. I can’t say for sure if Brown is “right” but I just googled the question and found that many modern scholars are in agreement that the early church fathers didnt realize that St. John and John of Patmos were different people.
Now to the other question, these scholars agree that John of Patmos was the writer (so it was not as communal as the Book of John as I guessed it might be, but they do agree that it likely incorporated a variety of visions and predictions of the time into one crafted narrative as if it were all one linear account.)
What do you think?
LikeLike
Hi again CE. Regarding your questions below, there was indeed controversy regarding the authorship of Revelation in the early Church. However, the fact that this was worked out, and the Holy Spirit guided the Church Fathers to include it in the canon carries a great deal more weight for me than the work of modern scholars. I believe the first three chapters of Revelation are linear, but from the fourth chapter on the visions received were given from a heavenly perspective where past, present, and future are not always clearly understood. St. John wrote down the visions in the sequence in which they were given to him, but I do not believe they are in chronological order. The sequence of the seals is a good guide, but the sequence of the trumpets is not. The trumpets should be thought of as a section in an orchestra to better understand the eschatological visions associated with the seventh seal.
LikeLike
Hey Tim.
“The first problem with seeing the fall of Satan in this chapter is that Revelation is an apocalyptic work filled with visions, symbolism, and fantastic imagery to convey a message of comfort in severe crisis; it is not historical description. This genre was popular around the time of Jesus and cannot be pressed to serve as information about the fall of Satan.
Christians were severely persecuted by Rome and desperately needed hope that the Church would survive. Assurance of victory is the message of the Revelation, and the writer uses themes and allusions from a range of sources to make his point.”
Oh yes, that’s entirely true.
Actually, if fundamentalists are right and the writer really meant all these things litteraly, then it was nothing but psychopathic delusions.
Sadly, many atheists who were formerly fundies believe it is the case.
Otherwise you are right that the historical interpretation with the Romans makes much more sense of the story.
Lovely greetings, Marc.
LikeLike
Regarding Luke 10:17-18 the seventy affirm the existence of demons (fallen angels) saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” The Lord then confirms that He, as the Son of God in heaven was present when Satan was cast out of heaven.
LikeLike
I totally disagree. When Jesus said he saw Satan fall from heaven, He was speaking in the moment of sharing the joy of his disciples who had just had spiritual success. I see it as Jesus saying “I just saw” Satan fall from heaven. The power of evil had been defeated. As to the demons, remember that in Jesus’ day epileptic seizures were blamed on evil spirits. We always need to keep context in mind when reading the Bible. I’d love a Greek scholar to weigh in on this passage. And, Tim, you might want to discuss the existence of demons at some future point in time. Without Satan’s fall, are there demons at all?
LikeLike
Good question Sheila!
Just because the fall of Satan and other rebellious angels has no foundation, it does not mean there is no Satan or demons at all. I will address that soon; I had not planned to do so quickly, but there seems to be an interest in it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Does Satan Exist? | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: Do Demons Exist? | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: Was Satan the Serpent in Eden? | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: Was Satan in the Desert with Jesus? | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: Satan in the Old Testament | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: The Fall of Satan in the Book of Enoch | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: The Fall of Satan in Ezekiel 28 | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: The Fall of Satan in Isaiah 14 | Jesus Without Baggage
Pingback: Is the Fall of Satan a Myth? | Jesus Without Baggage
Greetings, I must admit that while reading your blog, I find it interesting and on target much of the time with my understanding of the Bible. However, my being a preterist and viewing both old and new testaments as typology and fulfilled eschatology, I cannot agree with the assessment most responders render concerning Revelation.
Why is it that most non-preterists insist on disregarding the enumerable time statements regarding the return of Yeshua and His judgment against the “world”, age? I think too much emphasis is given to Rome as the satanic force fighting against Yahweh and Yeshua. Sound exegesis throughout the entire Bible clearly identifies the true foe! There is so much scripture proving that the Mosaic Israelites were the chief persecutors and enticed Rome as one of the major enforcers against Christianity.
I recommend starting with Matthew 21 and reading through Matthew 25 to compare what he wrote concernings eight woes against the Jews and predicting the siege of Jersulem. Have we not thoroughly studied the gospels to read how Yeshua prophesied of these things? Please diligently study Acts and the epistles and compare them to Old Testament prophecies to see this obvious truth before attempting to make sense of Revelation! I am perplexed beyond imagination as to how the Christian age is fumbling over such obvious evidence both historically and most importantly, biblically.
I agree that Rome persecuted Christians, but Nero was most guilty and vicious with this persecution which lasted 3 1/2 years before his suicide? Josephus and others wrote that the Jewish counsel encouraged Nero to blame the Christians for the fire that destroyed a good portion of Rome while Nero “fiddled”! The first account with many to follow in Acts of heavy persecution and murder was by the Jews, not Romans. The Jews incited the people in every city against the apostles and called upon the Jewish priests, Roman soldiers and governors to punish the apostles for their preaching of Jesus Christ crucified and the hope of Israel being resurrected!
There is no biblical evidence and very little historical evidence that Domitian ever persecuted Christians! People who hold to that idea I consider to be 96AD Doctrine errant believers. I cannot hold to the late date of Revelation as it is so far off and wrong that the people who hold to it have wrought such confusion in the Church that Christians are becoming so divided by it.
Other evidence to consider:
The tenth emperor was Vespasian, not Domitian. Josephus, being a Jew, listed the emperors beginning with Julius Caesar. Domitian would have been maybe the 12th or 13th? Have you never considered that there are seven hills which surrounded Jersulem where that city sat highest above all of them?
My oh my, I could on and on presenting sound exegesis that proves the second coming and judgment of the age occurred between 70-73AD. REVELATION IS A COMPLETE DIVORCE DECREE FROM YAHWEH AGAINST ISRAEL! How many times did Yahweh declare that Israel was His adulterous wife and that He would divorce then punish her? Again, read the 8 woes Yeshua declares upon His generation of Jews in Matthew 23 and the besieging and destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24 & 25!
Have you thought within yourself why Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote of the impending judgment of that age (Mosaic Age), but John wrote nothing in his gospel? Interesting, the answer lies within Revelation. He wrote a whole book telling of the things which shortly must come to pass both at the prologue and epilogue of the book, so that there would be no confusion on which time (age-Aion) and generation of people those prophecies WERE FULFILLED!
By the way, I agree that Yahweh punished Rome for their part in the persecution and instrument of crucifixion as it is clearly defined in Revelation. But, only after Yahweh employs their legions of armies to destroy the Mosaic Age including the chaff (Jersulem). The woman travailing in giving birth in the wilderness is the consummation of the church and kingdom as the faithful Jews who converted to Christianity fled to Pella shortly before Titus surrounded Jerusalem. Revelation speaks of their singing the song of Moses and a new song of the Lamb. This occurred after they crossed the Jordan River as it reminded them of the exodus from Egypt! This time it was Yeshua leading them through to safety as their enemies were being destroyed!
Hallalejuh, what a King we have and a new heaven and earth to celebrate the victory over evil!
LikeLike
Hello Trent,
I agree with you that many Jews in power enlisted Rome’s help to oppose both Jesus and the new movement of his followers, but it was the Romans who crucified Jesus as a potential leader of an anti-Roman uprising (see Josephus for a number of other similar responses to such leaders) and, later, the Christians.
In my opinion, Revelation responds to a late first century Roman persecution; but if you are correct that it was written in conjunction with Nero’s persecution and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem the point is still the same–it has nothing to do with the fall of a mythical Satan.
By the way, I suppose it is clear from the post that I am also preterist in my view of Revelation.
Thanks for sharing your interesting perspective!
LikeLike
Thank you for reading my points and responding! I have no idea what state you live in or church you attend, but I wish we lived close enough to study together because we share some of the same understandings. I attend a very conservative church and have been in trouble for expressing my views. There are others who share my understandings, but have kept quiet for fear of being called out after seeing what another and I have suffered… I saw preterist leanings in your writings, it takes courage to even admit that one is a preterist because we are probably the most attacked Christians.
I will go back and try to (re)read all of your posts and sub-points made to get a better idea about a “fall of the mythical Satan.”
The point I was responding to was about the late date evaluation of Revelation. The Jews rejected Yeshua and cried for Pilate to crucify Him. We must remember that Pilate’s wife warned him to have nothing to do with Christ. Pilate tried to get out of participating in their murdering our Saviour. Review John 19:15, this takes place after Yeshua was scourged and presented to the Jews as their King. What was their response, they said that Caesar was their king? They began the persecution and incited all nations against Christians throughout the first century. Rome was only a tool used by the Jews to try and stamp out Christianity. You are correct, Rome did respond to try to keep the peace and revolts down.
Late date:
Revelation 11 tells us that John was told to measure the temple. Not only was the Jewish temple standing, but the outer courts also where there was a warning the Gentiles would trample them for 42 months. This agrees with the gospel accounts of the warning by Daniel about the abomination causing desolation being near when Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, which were the Romans and their legions. The temple and all courts were destroyed 11 years before Domitian ever took power. Nowhere in Revelation is the temple told it was rebuilt after 70AD. None of the epistles speaks of a future rebuilt temple in their generation between 30AD and after… Revelation has many more evidences of an early date of being written before the fall of Jerusalem.
Again, I will take an even closer look at the mythical Satan. Thank you for allowing my responses! It’s so nice to see men like you who are not swayed by mans’ false teachings and traditions! I encourage you to keep searching the scriptures as the Bereans were famous for doing. When we ask the correct questions and are willing to let the Bible teach, it’s amazing what truths come out and lies exposed that have been taught for centuries!
Regards,
Trent
LikeLike
Hi Trent, it is no secret that I hold a preterist view of Revelation, though I rarely mention it because most people don’t know, or care, what ‘preterist’ means. I am not really attacked for being preterist because I don’t hang out much with dispensationalists. It sounds like you might also hold to covenant theology, which I do not.
To me the later date for Revelation makes the most sense, but I don’t argue with those who hold a date connected to the fall of Jerusalem. What I really have difficulty with is the very harmful futurist interpretations of Revelation by dispensationalist.
For my series on the mythical fall of Satan, of which ‘The Fall of Satan in Revelation’ is a part, you can go to the first article https://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/is-the-fall-of-satan-a-myth/. You can also find links to all the articles in the series at the bottom of this page.
I live in Florida. ~Tim
LikeLike
Thank you Tim, I have begun from the beginning segment and will study your writings about the mythical fall of Satan. I live in Indiana where it gets really cold and wet in the winter…
Identifying oneself as a preterist up here will most likely get a big gasp from the person you tell once you begin to tell him what it means. On occasion an intervention will ensue immediately by the elders or preacher with a withdrawal letter from the congregation if one doesn’t repent from this belief. Sad really, because few people are too satisfied and trust tradition, many don’t study the Bible and honestly are afraid to learn that they have believed error.
I like your writing style, your thought process and knowledge of scripture. Of course, knowledge can be intimidating to people who want to be told what to believe rather than study and learn. I guess it’s easier that way…
Regards,
Trent
LikeLike
Trent, thank you so much for your comment about my writing style, thought process and familiarity with scripture. I am sorry for you treatment in church; no preterist, or dispensationalist, should be excluded from a church because of their beliefs.
LikeLike