Thursday, April 25, 2019

The fall of Lucifer

Two traditional prooftexts for the fall of Lucifer are Isa 14 and Ezk 28. Although Isa 14 isn't directly about the fall of Lucifer, it employs civil war in heaven imagery. The losers are expelled. The interpretation of Ezk 28 is complicated by ambiguous syntax. A neglected passage is Isa 24:21-22, which suggests disobedient angels. 

The clearest OT passage might be Dan 10. It has four figures, three of whom seem to be angelic. There's Daniel. Then there's a good angel, who might be Gabriel or a cherub (see Iain Duguid's commentary, 180-81). The good angel is blocked by "the Prince of Persia," who appears to be an evil territorial spirit. The Prince of Persia is then overpowered by the Archangel Michael. The fact that the Prince of Persia has the ability to obstruct the good angel suggests that some fallen angels are more powerful than some heavenly angels. 

Although this doesn't narrate the fall of angels, it seems to presume their downfall. There are only two logical options: either they were originally evil or else they became evil. 

This also raises the intriguing question of where the Prince of Persian ranks in the infernal chain-of-command. As a territorial spirit, we might consider him to be a Satanic subordinate–if we think Satan has a wider sphere of influence than a territorial spirit. 

On the other hand, Satan is a finite agent. He must concentrate his efforts. At the time, Israel was in exile. And ancient Israel was the locus of God's earthly kingdom. So perhaps the Prince of Persia is Satan himself. At that time and place, Israel was the primary thing for Satan to oppose. And the base of operations temporarily shifted to the exilic community. In terms of diabolical strategy and allocation of resources, it makes sense for Satan to direct his efforts at the exilic community. 

Admittedly, this is somewhat speculative. There's not a lot to go on. At a minimum, the passage is an indirect witness to the angelic fall. But the angelic villain in this passage may well be Satan himself. That would dovetail with other altercations between Satan and the Archangel Michael (Jude 9; Rev 12:7-9).

4 comments:

  1. --Then there's a good angel, who might be Gabriel or a cherub (see Iain Duguid's commentary, 180-81). The good angel is blocked by "the Prince of Persia," who appears to be an evil territorial spirit.--

    I've read before (for example, by Spencer Stewart https://www.projectone28.com/books/ in book two, pages 75-79) that the 'man clothed in linen' who speaks in Daniel 10 is the preincarnate Christ, based on several clues especially the parallels to the description in Revelation.

    The stymieing by the Prince of Persia is the biggest hurdle to this interpretation, but there are ways around it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting, nothing wrong that I see in the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Prince of Persia has to be a subordinate of Satan and of the highest rank in the chain of command. Satan took control over the earth at the fall in Eden, then sealed ownership with the blood of Abel. It was Satan himself who preys upon Jesus at His weakest moment, near the end of the 40 day fast. He offers to give Jesus the 'kingdoms of the world'. How could he make such an offer if he they weren't his. The response by Jesus does not rebuke satan for making a false statement about ownership, it is for not worshipping the Lord your God, Jesus himself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul talks about Prince and principalities in the air. That leaves me to believe the Prince of Persia this possibly one of those

    ReplyDelete