"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

So let's hear your "exegesis" of the passage.

Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Please don’t take the English meaning of the word “hated.” God did not hate Esau; God rejected Esau and the reason why God rejected Esau is because Esau rejected God. If you read the whole history of Esau, you will notice that he sold his birthright — which means he sold what God had promised him — for a bowl of lentil soup. But the word “hated” is the wrong word in English; it should not have been used. But, anyway, that’s what it says here in your Bibles. [jack]

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

It is not the case that a principle must come from the Bible to be true.

This is true, but when it comes to arriving at a universal principle regarding God, it must be verified by special revelation before we accept it. That is the only reliable source for knowing what God is like. If the Bible contradicts the "principle," we should accept the Bible record.

There are many examples of so-called universal principles that turned out not to be as universal as people at first thought.

One example:

Some people think that since the law of God says, "Thou shalt not kill," it means that God would never command people to kill others. But this is based on a faulty assumption. They think all killing is immoral and wrong. But is this true? If it isn't, then their whole argument falls to pieces. Do the commandments of God really prohibit the taking of any human life under any circumstances? No. So it's all about how we we define our terms.

Please quote the context of what I'm saying so I can remember what the train of thought was. I hunted for this and couldn't find it. Is it from this thread? I went back 7 pages. I have no idea why you're making the points you are, nor even why I said what I did.

Regarding the "Thou shalt not kill idea," it sounds like you're saying that at first reading, it seems this would be a universal principle. But upon further investigation, it's seen that this is a faulty assumption. There are exceptions to this rule. Sometimes it's OK to not follow the commandment.

I've understood you correctly?

[pnattmbtc]

I disagree. Why would God have done that any more in that case than He would if the war was one that you are proposing. It was God's decision not to destroy Satan. It didn't matter what Satan did-- God would not have destroyed him. God knew that it was best to let Satan live and prove what he was really like.

If God had punished Satan at that time, befoe he had an opportunity to show his character, Satan would have had a lot of sympathizers, who doubtless would have second-guessed God and doubted His fairness and love. As it is, there isn't be any doubt in my mind that he's fair, just, loving and wise.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

I disagree. .... It was God's decision not to destroy Satan. It didn't matter what Satan did-- God would not have destroyed him. God knew that it was best to let Satan live and prove what he was really like.

Earth to John! If there was war in heaven all the sinless worlds would have seen the results of Lucifer's love of self. He would have been exposed and hence no need to see iniquity's results....It would have been evident: Bloodshed and conquest.

By the way, EGW says that the inhabitants the unfallen worlds have microscopic and telescopic eye sight....

You now have a huge conundrum

Rob

No, you are the one with the conundrum. The war in heaven wasn't enough to show what the results of sin really were, and how black Satan's heart really was. God had to let it run it's course. After Satan's caused the cruel murder of Jesus Christ, then it was truly seen. That was the turning point. That was when Satan was defeated.

By causing the death of the Sovereign of heaven, Satan defeated his own purposes. The death of the Son of God made the death of Satan unavoidable. Satan was allowed to go on until his administration was laid open before the worlds unfallen and before the heavenly universe. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he uprooted himself [from sympathy], and was seen by all to be a liar, a thief, and a murderer. {CTr 14.5}

Even when it was decided that he could no longer remain in heaven, Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since the service of love can alone be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of other worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice and mercy of God in the destruction of Satan. {GC 500}

Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost.

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory. {DA 758}

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

lets remember that God said He "hated" esau. does that mean that He hated esau? or is He using our language and our mentality to get a point across?

The original word means that God loved Esau less.

Or that God preferred Jacob. I think that more accurately conveys the thought.

[pnattmbtc]

I guess that just means God is going to keep the brain alive. Not a hard thing at all for God to do.

Not nearly as ridiculous sounding as throwing out the words of God's prophet.

Your idea is that God keeps the brain alive so that the person can continue to suffer while his body is consumed, until nothing is left. For the brain to be alive, it would have to be the last piece left, wouldn't it? Or are you suggesting that God keeps the brain alive even after it has been consumed by fire, so that the person can suffer pain while his foot is burning? And is someone understands her vision in any other way than this they are throwing out the words of God's prophet?

Might it be possible that there's some other way to understand the vision?

[teresaq]

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

Quote:

. Sins are forgiven, and are blotted out from the books in the heavenly sanctuary; but they are not destroyed there. Just as in the type the fires of the brazen altar in the court consumed that which in type represented sin; so in the antitype, the wicked will be "on the breadth of the earth" when fire comes down from God out of heaven and devours them. 13 This earth is the great antitypical court, where all the work typified in the court of the earthly sanctuary will meet its fulfilment. {1914 SNH, CIS 176.3}

The constant burning upon the altar of that which typified sin, caused an accumulation of ashes. The priests in the earthly sanctuary served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things," 14 and even the removal of the ashes was directed of the Lord to be done in a manner to typify a portion of the final work of Christ. The priest was to be clothed in the pure white linen garments, when he removed the ashes from the altar. The ashes were first taken up by the priest and placed "beside the altar" on the east side. 15 When the time came to remove them from beside the altar, the priest laid aside his priestly robes, and "put on other garments;" then he carried the ashes forth without the camp, and poured them out in "a clean place." 17 Ashes are all that will remain of sin, the devil and sinners after the fires of the 1ast day have finished their work. When the purifying fires of the Lord have removed the last trace of sin, there will appear a new earth, a clean place, without one taint of sin upon it; and as the righteous walk over the face of the clean, pure earth, the ashes of sin and all that clung to sin in this earth will be under their feet. Truly the type will then have met its antitype, and the ashes of all sin will be in "a clean place." {1914 SNH, CIS 176.4}

When the priest placed the ashes beside the altar, he was clothed in his priestly robes. The ashes represented the confessed sins of the righteous. When Christ bears the confessed sins of His people, He wears His priestly robes; but the time comes when He will place the sins of the righteous on the head of Satan, lay aside His priestly garments, and come to this earth clad in kingly robes, to gather out of His kingdom all things that offend and do iniquity. 18 Then all sin and sinners will be burned in the fire. Not in priestly robes will Christ come out into the antitypical court, the earth, to complete the final destruction of sin; but as King of kings and Lord of lords. {1914 SNH, CIS 177.1}

i dont remember anywhere where the victim was not slain first before burning.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, very good point.

I'm sure many would simply commit suicide rather than face the suffering they see others going through.

I just don't see how this would work. I really think the Bible portrays it the best way: with a God of love and justice and mercy in charge of the death of his own creatures. He's proved that he's trust-worthy. I would trust myself and my loved ones to His hands any day.

I agree with the sentiment expressed here, that God has proven Himself trustworthy, but don't understand how you can relate "God of love and justice and mercy" to "set people on fire to make them suffer for days." It's amazing to not see the disconnect here.

[Guest]

Two things:

1] In my scenario everything is burned up except the person's toe....Since the brain is ashes he/she can't feel pain

One thing:

Your scenario is just that. Your scenario. You are not God, therefore you don't really have a scenario, only God does. And it is not dependent on yours in any way.

[pnattmbtc]

How can justice be served by putting the wicked and Satan in control of it? For me that would like the court sentencing murderers to be killed by other murderers in whatever way they choose. WE can be sure they would kill in terrible ways, making it impossible to bring about any kind of justice in the punishment. That only makes it worse, not better, wouldn't it? Would it have made things better if God had allowed Sodom to be destroyed by killers instead of destroying it Himself?

I think it's very instructive that both 2 Peter 2: 6 and Jude 7 refer to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as "examples" of the destruction of the wicked. Well, how did they die? They died, the Bible says, by fire that comes down from God out of heaven. God was in charge. God did not leave it up to the arbitrary will of criminals to punish the wicked. What reason, then, do we have to believe that God will change at the end and punish the wicked at the hands of the wicked?

There seems to be some apples and oranges going on here. The judgment is after the resurrection, and involves a proportion of suffering to sin. That is, the lost suffer in proportion to their sin. This isn't the case in this life.

The principle is not that Satan is in control of the destruction that comes upon the wicked in the last days in the sense of punishment like in a court room, but that God gives those whom have chosen Satan and rejected Him to the master they have chosen. God respects their free will. This is what happened in the destruction of Jerusalem, which is cited as an example for what will happen in the last days before Christ's return.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

I disagree. .... It was God's decision not to destroy Satan. It didn't matter what Satan did-- God would not have destroyed him. God knew that it was best to let Satan live and prove what he was really like.

Earth to John! If there was war in heaven all the sinless worlds would have seen the results of Lucifer's love of self. He would have been exposed and hence no need to see iniquity's results....It would have been evident: Bloodshed and conquest.

By the way, EGW says that the inhabitants the unfallen worlds have microscopic and telescopic eye sight....

You now have a huge conundrum

Rob

No, you are the one with the conundrum. The war in heaven wasn't enough to show what the results of sin really were, and how black Satan's heart really was. God had to let it run it's course. After Satan's caused the cruel murder of Jesus Christ, then it was truly seen. That was the turning point. That was when Satan was defeated.

By causing the death of the Sovereign of heaven, Satan defeated his own purposes. The death of the Son of God made the death of Satan unavoidable. Satan was allowed to go on until his administration was laid open before the worlds unfallen and before the heavenly universe. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he uprooted himself [from sympathy], and was seen by all to be a liar, a thief, and a murderer. {CTr 14.5}

Even when it was decided that he could no longer remain in heaven, Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan. Since the service of love can alone be acceptable to God, the allegiance of His creatures must rest upon a conviction of His justice and benevolence. The inhabitants of heaven and of other worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin, could not then have seen the justice and mercy of God in the destruction of Satan. {GC 500}

Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost.

To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, "It is finished," had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. They with us share the fruits of Christ's victory. {DA 758}

[teresaq]

Then there was war in heaven. Angels were engaged in the battle; {EW 145}

He then declared that he was prepared to resist the authority of Christ and to defend his place in heaven by force of might, strength against strength. {SR 18.1}

[karl]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, very good point.

I'm sure many would simply commit suicide rather than face the suffering they see others going through.

I just don't see how this would work. I really think the Bible portrays it the best way: with a God of love and justice and mercy in charge of the death of his own creatures. He's proved that he's trust-worthy. I would trust myself and my loved ones to His hands any day.

I agree with the sentiment expressed here, that God has proven Himself trustworthy, but don't understand how you can relate "God of love and justice and mercy" to "set people on fire to make them suffer for days." It's amazing to not see the disconnect here.

How did we get prolonged suffering out of being consumed by fire?

God will not take them to heaven, neither will he cause them to suffer eternally. He will destroy them utterly, and cause them to be as though they had not been, and then his justice will be satisfied. He formed man out of the dust of the earth, and the disobedient and unholy will be consumed by fire, and return to dust again. I saw that the benevolence and compassion of God in this, should lead all to admire his character, and to adore him; and after the wicked shall be destroyed from off the earth, all the heavenly host will say, Amen! Spiritual Gifts. Volume 1 (1858), page 118, paragraph 1

-----------

What if the fire falls on everyone? What if the fire that consumes sin is inherent in God's unveiling of Himself and thus applied universally. What if those who have been purified of sin by cooperation with the Holy Spirit are not consumed, but those who cling to their sins are burned as the sin is consumed? Would you consider that to be fair?

[Robert]

The war in heaven wasn't enough to show what the results of sin really were.... After Satan's caused the cruel murder of Jesus Christ, then it was truly seen.

Dude...think this out. If there was war in heaven then wouldn't Lucifer try to kill Christ? That's evidence...

[Robert]

Your scenario is just that. Your scenario.

-BC- EW

-TI- Early Writings of Ellen G. White

-CN- 3

-CT- Spiritual Gifts

-PR- 01

-PG- 294

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

The war in heaven wasn't enough to show what the results of sin really were.... After Satan's caused the cruel murder of Jesus Christ, then it was truly seen.

Dude...think this out. If there was war in heaven then wouldn't Lucifer try to kill Christ? That's evidence...

[pnattmbtc]

anthropomorphism (Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior) describing God’s power and majesty in very human metaphors, the only ones we have at our disposal. God often paints Himself in terms of human experience, the only medium of description we can understand.

This is a really interesting point. Yes, God can only communicate to us in language that we can understand. If He were to communicate to us through a prophet now, I'm sure the language would include cars, televisions, and the internet. We read that in heaven things are written in books (actually scrolls), and think this must be literal. But why would heaven be limited to books? (or actually scrolls) Surely the angels recording our sins and good works could use something better than pen and scroll. But this is what they had in the past, so what good would it have done to speak of computers or videos to those who would have had no clue as to what these were. And perhaps this is really crude compared to the technology of heaven, which would be beyond what we can comprehend.

What's really tricky is figuring out when something is an anthropomorphism and when it's not. This isn't at all clear, but many cry out "this is what the Bible says!" One man's anthropomorphism is another man's literal truth.

[Robert]

Is 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. [NKJV]

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law [the 2nd death] by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Christ took upon Himself the guilt of every man, woman and child ever born into this world. He took the curse of the law for all mankind. "God made him who had no sin to be sin"....

Every sin was accounted for by Christ's death. He suffered the penalty for the sins of the whole world.

Question: How long did Christ suffer?

a] Many days

b] Many years

c] 9 hrs

Answer: C

Mark 15:33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ""Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? ""--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" ... 37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Now here's a question concerning justice...fairness, and we believe God is fair...and He is just, right?

How could Christ suffer the penalty for the sins of every man, woman and child ever born into this world in only 9 hours, but yet we are told that a single sinner (like Hitler) would burn many days?

Yes?

[Robert]

You can rationalize away what the Bible says all day if you want to. I prefer to believe what the Bible says.

Then there was combat in heaven. Christ and His angels did battle with Lucifer and his angels. In battle the opposing sides try to slay each other. Clearly Satan wanted Christ's position, so he was trying to murder him, wouldn't you think? If so this the unfallen worlds could see....

If not then it wasn't war as we know it....It was rebellion, but not with violence. It was a war of ideology, agape vs. self-seeking....Lucifer probably demanded that his love be put to the test, but God knew its outcome so He didn't permit it....Hence it was unclear to the unfallen worlds the outcome of iniquity (one's bent to self)....This last scenario makes the most sense, especially because I'm stating it.... teehe

[Robert]

The one on the left represents a war of ideas. Note Christ on the left side and Lucifer on the right side....

The one on the right represents a real war

[Guest]

[Guest]

This is what really happened.

[John317]

JOHN3:17: Also deal with the fact that the Bible uses the word, ballo ["thrown out," "hurled down"], which, in the passive voice, is NEVER used to refer to something someone does voluntarily.

Quote:

I responded to this too.

Yes, you did but we need to revisit this question. Please see my comments below in reponse to yours.

Quote:

By the way, you're saying it's never used to something someone does voluntarily is assuming what you're wishing to prove, isn't it? You'd have to say that nowhere else is it used in this way.

Once you understand what's being said, I'm confident you will agree that the passive voice cannot possibly refer to what someone does willingly. It is referring to what is done to someone-- always. If they were doing something willingly, the verb would be in the active voice, not the passive. It's really the same in English grammar. As the following shows:

1) I threw the book out the door.

2) I was thrown out the door.

Or another:

1) The angels threw themselves down on the fire.

2) The angels were thrown down on the fire.

I think you can see that #2 in both sets of examples is passive and that subject is being acted upon. He is not doing things willingly but is having things done to him by another.

Quote:

I see three places where it's used:

Two are not the same word and one of these is not passive but middle voice. Therefore only one of your examples is valid.

Quote:

1."Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed." (2 Cor. 4:9)

This is not the passive verb that I was referring to, ballo, which occurs in Rev. 12: 9.

The word used here is the passive participle, kataballomenoi, from the word, kataballo, Strong's #2598. In 2 Cor. 4: 9, it means "struck down," as in persecution. The Amplified version translates it, "we are struck down to the ground." Williams' translation renders it, "always getting a knock-down, but not a knock-out."

I think you will agree that it is not referring to anything that someone is doing willingly. It refers to severe persecution against Paul and his associates, persecution that was often violent.

Quote:

2."Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God." (Heb. 6:1)

"Laying" is a translation of the word kataballo, Strong's #2598. It is not a passive verb but a present middle participle, and is therefore unrelated to our discussion.

Remember that the verb, ballo, that we're interested in are in the passive voice.

Quote:

and Rev. 12:10, of course. Neither of these appears to have to do with a person being forcibly thrown out of someplace.

Quote:

Are there other examples of this word being used?

Yes, the word ballo in the passive voice occurs about 34 times in the New Testament. If you analyze at each one, you will see that the passive voice NEVER refers to something that someone does willingly. It is always talking about something that is being done to someone, as in the 4 examples given above.

To help you see the difference, please compare below the active forms in #6 and #14 with all the others, which give the passive form.

Here are all of the verses where this word occurs in the passive voice in the NT, and I have quoted the main parts of the sentence containing the relevant word:

1) Matt. 3: 10-- tree cut down and thrown into the fire

2) Matt. 5: 13-- good for nothing but to be thrown out

3) 5: 25, 29, 30--

4) 6: 30-- thrown into the oven

5) 7: 19

6) Active voice of the verb ballo: Matt. 13: 42-- "they will throw them into the furnace"

13) 13: 47-- A net that was cast into the sea

14)Active voice--Matt. 13: 50-- "And they will throw them into the furnace of fire"

15) 18: 8, 9-- thrown into the eternal fire; to be thrown into hell fire

16) Mark 9: 42, 45, 47

17) 11: 23-- "Be taken up and thrown into the sea." (Observe the distinction between the passive voice here and the middle voice of the same verb in Luke 4: 9, "throw yourself down." As you can see, middle voice refers to an action that the subject participates in, whereas the passive voice describes acts that are performed upon the subject.)

18) Luke 3: 9-- "tree... cut down and thrown into the fire."

19) 12: 28-- "grass... thrown into the fire."

20) 16: 20

21) 23: 25

22) John 3: 24-- John the Baptizer was thrown into prison

23) John 12: 6

24) John 15: 6-- those who do not abide in Christ are thrown away like a branch

25) Rev. 8: 7, 8

26) Rev. 8: 8

27) Rev. 12: 9 (twice)-- "the dragon was thrown down;... he was thrown down to the earth"

28) Rev. 12: 10-- "the accuser was [has been] thrown down"

29) Rev. 12: 13

30) Rev. 18: 21 (twice)

31) Rev. 19: 20-- were thrown into the lake of fire

32) Rev. 20: 10-- was cast into the lake of fire

33) Rev. 20: 14-- were cast into the lake of fire

34) Rev. 20: 15-- "He... was thrown into the lake of fire."

[pnattmbtc]

I appreciate the work you put into this, John. Two thoughts come to mind. One is the following:

Quote:

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10.

Satan saw that his disguise was torn away. His administration was laid open before the unfallen angels and before the heavenly universe. He had revealed himself as a murderer. By shedding the blood of the Son of God, he had uprooted himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings. Henceforth his work was restricted. Whatever attitude he might assume, he could no longer await the angels as they came from the heavenly courts, and before them accuse Christ's brethren of being clothed with the garments of blackness and the defilement of sin. The last link of sympathy between Satan and the heavenly world was broken. (DA 761)

We see here that she uses the verb in the same sense, "cast down," and there's no force involved here. When we take into account that the war is not one of force, but one of ideas and influence, I believe she is interpreting this correctly. Satan was cast down in that he lost the influence he had had with heavenly beings, not in the sense of being physically thrown out of heaven.

As I pointed out previously, both Scripture (e.g. Job) and the SOP, (e.g. here) present Satan as having access to heaven, but his access was limited, not by God's using compelling power against him, but by his own actions in showing himself to be a murderer, thus uprooting himself from the sympathies of the heavenly beings.

The second thought is the GC 542, which I've quoted several times now.

Regarding "compelling power," we read that "compelling power is only found in Satan's government." I don't see how this can be taken to mean that sometimes it's found in God's government. If it's only found in Satan's government, then it's never found in God's government. I really don't see how this could be more clearly stated.

[pnattmbtc]

If not then it wasn't war as we know it....It was rebellion, but not with violence. It was a war of ideology, agape vs. self-seeking.