A linguistic side note on the opening aside: I don't think it is at all inexplicable that Jesus Christ is untranslated. After all, it is a transliteration of the kione Greek, Iesous* Christos, which is the language in which the New Testament is written. Koine was a common trade language in the Roman world - the earliest missionaries who introduced the name of Jesus to the pagans of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East would have spoken, and read, the koine form of his name to their hearers. I understood this better when I was learning the West African language of Wolof. There, the Wolof word for God, Yalla, is a transliteration of the Arabic word for God, Allah, introduced to the West Africans by North Africans - there just isn't another word to use for God in the language. After all, Joshua (or Yeshua) the Messiah is only a transliteration from Hebrew. A full translation of the name meaning into English would be Saviour the Anointed One, which is much less personal than the transliteration.
*The pronunciation shift from 'Iesous' to Jesus is due to differences in ability to pronounce vowels and consonants between languages - the shift from 'Ie' (a 'y' sound) to 'Je' seems to have happened as Latin split into regional pronunciations, as the Latin version, Jesu, may be pronounced with a 'y' or 'j' sound. Full translation of the name meaning might help with pronunciation, but it would also wipe out the familiar sound of the name to the person. For example, in my travels I found my name is nearly unpronounceable to Spanish and Portuguese speakers. Some of them with a little knowledge of English, tried to translate what they assumed was the meaning of my name into their language and call me Santa, because they thought Holly meant 'Holy'. I had to laugh and say, no, my name is untranslatable because I'm actually named after a plant - Old Germanic speakers called it 'Holegn', which morphed to 'Holi' in Middle English, and thus to 'Holly' in modern English. But had my name translated to Santa, it would have taken me a long time to associate the sound with myself, especially given the North American tradition of Santa Claus.
That is so fascinating, Holly. Language is endlessly fascinating, especially the relationship between language written and language spoken—as you show here. And the example of the difficulty with your own name for others really is illustrative!
Yes, I first realized the difficulty when I went on a mission trip to Chihuahua, Mexico and wore a name tag. I had studied Spanish and as I heard the Mexican children try to read my name, I suddenly realized the difficulty - in Spanish, H is totally silent, while double 'll' is pronounced 'elyea'. The children came up with a pronunciation that sounded like 'Alyee'. I thought afterward I should have just spelt my name 'Joli' and there would have been no difficulty.
This is a great overview of how rich and complex language transmission, thank you, Holly.
As to why it’s inexplicable: the name is the same name as a Moses’ servant who leads Israel into the promised land, and thus if a Bible calls that character Joshua, from Yeshua or Yehoshua, then the name of the person the gospels speak of should be Joshua. Put the other way, Moses’ servant’s name should otherwise be translated as Jesus.
Failure to do this eliminates literally the most essential and obvious association of Jesus’ Jewishness and his part in the story of Israel: he is the new Joshua. Everyone in the original context saw that, and we don’t, because to our minds, Joshua and Jesus are two different names.
But the Old Testament is translated from Hebrew, and the New Testament from Greek, so the transliteration of proper names was different. Modern translations tend to make this less obvious by standardizing most of the names, but in the KJV the difference in language sources is obvious, for example, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah's name is transliterated as Isaiah in the Old Testament and as Esaias in the New Testament. In the KJV book of Hebrews, Moses's servant Joshua is translated as Jesus (4:8), because the Greek Iesous in the koine is itself a transliteration of the Hebrew Joshua/Yeshua.
I am thoroughly entranced by Milton’s Paradise Lost. I never was asked or required to read this work - in college or seminary. If I had not stumbled across your work (beginning with your book. Fierce Convictions) I would have never had an opportunity to read your work, I only wish I had been a seminary student when you were still at SEBTS - but my seminary days are looooong past (MDiv, 1987; DMin, 2009). Keep on writing! I am enjoying the reading!
This makes my heart so glad, Steve! (Well, not the part about not being asked to read it before, heh.) I’m glad the Lord made our paths cross. Better late than never for all of this!
Thank you for this essay. If man is made in the image of god, man must have the capacity for angelic goodness. But the bible is a record of man's great and varied capacity for evil.
Thank you, Karen, for introducing us to Samuel and thank you Samuel for your fascinating and instructive article. I especially enjoyed the Wordsworth poem and the connections with Shakespeare and CS Lewis. And, I had no idea Milton knew so many languages.
You’re welcome, it’s such a privilege to be in the Priory! I know, I was amazed when I learned about Milton’s erudition, and he has helped me understand Lewis better. Milton had truly great desire, and all the blessings and curses that come with great ambition. I’m in awe of what he accomplished.
Literary history is so rich, isn’t it? So many connections and discoveries to make, and Samuel brought quite a few forward for us here. I’m grateful as well.
There are several things to meditate on in this brief post. One thing that is striking about Milton is his obsession with freedom and freedom's goal. Milton believed that freedom should always be in service to reunion with our creator. Powers and principalities could become corrupted in bondage to their own appetites and thus become repressive to the human being's attempted reunion back to his or her creator. This seems to be why Milton could be an iconoclast to denominations (and especially the Roman church) as well as a functionary in Oliver Cromwell's anti-royalist government; while at the same time write works that demanded loyalty to God as the pinnacle of Creation. In his book, "Making Darkness Light," Joe Moshenska has a rather long quote about the unified substance of Creation and the place of angels in it. He notes that in one section Milton’s angel Raphael explains a universe where everything is interconnected and constantly evolving, with potential for spiritual growth and unity. This vision of prelapsarian life suggests that the divisions between humans, angels, and realms could eventually dissolve. (Moshenska, Joe. Making Darkness Light: A Life of John Milton pp. 257-258). Does this mean that freedom is a good in itself for Milton or that freedom is a tool to be given to the creatures in order to accomplish reunion?
What is also interesting is how the culture into which someone enters creates the way in which the speak of the world. One is reminded of Ludwig Wittgenstein's observation that "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 5.6) Milton is a product of his age. He sees the world of the recently established nation states as having existed from eternity, in much the same way that we see the world as having always existed in its present state.
The Roman Catholic political thinker, William T. Cavanaugh, argues that the rise of the modern nation-state in the 16th and 17th centuries was not a peaceful transition, but rather a violent process that involved the consolidation of power and the suppression of local customs and jurisdictions. He contends that the state's claim to a monopoly on violence and its creation of a sharp distinction between the "religious" and the "secular" were key factors in this transformation. Cavanaugh's analysis challenges the conventional view that the state arose as a neutral arbiter of religious conflict. Instead, he suggests that the state itself was instrumental in creating and exacerbating such conflicts in order to justify its own expansion of power. Cavanaugh continues, "The gradual transfer of loyalty from international church to national state was not the end of violence in Europe, but a migration of the holy from church to state in the establishment of the ideal of dying and killing for one’s country." (William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 10.) Elsewhere Cavanaugh argues that the rise of the modern nation-state involved a fundamental shift in how society was organized, moving from a complex web of interconnected communities to a simplified structure dominated by the individual and the state. (Cavanaugh, William T. Migrations of the holy: God, state, and the political meaning of the Church. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2011. 27)
What is interesting is that Milton's view of the Nation State is not that it is illegitimate, but rather that it needs to reach its apotheosis in the uncovering of the true faith. This true faith, however, is not rooted in the universal church; but instead finds its truest expression when the nation state is baptized by the true faith which Milton and those like him have uncovered. The irony being that this church would be constructed from the English cultural religiosity and thus be beholden to the priorities of that culture.
This notion puts the statement above into context, namely, "The unity of Milton’s political republicanism with his poetic theology of freedom reflects his insight that tyranny is the inevitable logic of sin. The false and chaotic regime of sin, born from the misuse of freedom, threatens not only individuals, but societies, and even the very world itself." In this way, Milton's anti-establishment sentiment is actually rooted in his belief that the nation state would lead back to truth.
The final interesting point is Milton's philosophy. It is interesting to see how Milton seems to reflect Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism, originating in the 3rd century AD, posits a hierarchical reality emanating from the One, emphasizing the unity of all things and the pursuit of mystical union. They main thing that distinguished it from Platonism was Neoplatonism's obsession with almost naturalistic materialism. This seems to fit perfectly with the way magic and the supernatural had changed in the Enlightenment period. In previous eras, Western Culture seemed to have more of what the philosopher Charles Taylor called, "a porous" understanding the supernatural. The Enlightenment prioritized things that could be observed by the natural senses; while the previous eras held to a belief that what we now call the supernatural was constantly intermingling with our reality.
Nicholas McDowell notes:
Soon after he returned to England in 1639, Milton made a note from the Church Father Chrysostom that encapsulates his sense in this period that virtuous behaviour can raise a man to angelic status, and may render such a man even more worthy of salvation, given the internal conflict with a body inclined to sin: ‘The good man in some sense seems to surpass even the angels, and that because he, wrapped in a feeble and mortal body, wrestling always with his desires, nevertheless aspires to live his life like those in heaven.’ (McDowell, Nicholas. Poet of Revolution: The Making of John Milton (p. 353). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.)
What is important to observe is that for Milton is the otherness of the supernatural even though he believes humanity can obtain it. I appreciated your pointing out Lewis' statement here. However, in the Screwtape Letters, Lewis has his demons observing that humanity is completely different than the angels as Screwtape refers to human beings as "amphibians," that is creatures with one foot in the physical and one foot in the spiritual. While the viewpoint carries a pejorative connotation from the demon's lips, Lewis is obviously wrestling with the composite identity of humanity.
I find the Jewish concept of the Nefesh, often imperfectly translated as the soul, to be instructive. The concept of the nefesh in Jewish thought does differ from Greek philosophical ideas about the soul. In Greek thought, especially in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, the soul (or "psyche") is often seen as an immaterial essence that can exist independently of the body.
For Plato, the soul is immortal and pre-exists before entering the body, and it strives to return to the realm of forms (a perfect, non-material reality) after death. The body is often viewed as a temporary vessel that the soul inhabits, sometimes even as a hindrance to the soul’s pursuit of truth and perfection.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a more integrated view of the soul and body. He saw the soul as the "form" of the body, meaning it is what gives the body life and purpose. However, he still believed in different levels of soul (vegetative, sensitive, and rational), with the rational soul being the highest and most uniquely human.
In contrast, the Jewish concept of nefesh emphasizes the unity of body and soul, viewing the nefesh as the animating life force rather than a distinct, separable entity. This understanding reflects a more holistic view of human existence, where the physical and spiritual are intertwined and interdependent.
This difference between the two perspectives highlights the diverse ways in which various cultures and philosophies have sought to understand the nature of life and the essence of being.
It seems Christianity is only now just beginning to emerge from the Greek way of seeing the duality of soul and body. (John and Paul's statements about the duality seem, at first blush, to agree more with the Greek understanding; but deeper readings have yielded far more nuanced conceptions.) For Milton, the division of the Enlightenment meant a restatement of the Greek understanding, especially against the Jewish understanding. Yet the physical and spiritual are indivisible meaning that angelic spirituality is a completely other, though not hierarchically better, quality to humanity. For my money, Satan's jealousy emerges because God has created a whole new cosmos for humanity. Human beings, in other words, possess something which angels do not. And like Fernand Mondego's jealousy of Edmond Dantes; it is not the fact that he has something more but rather that he has something else.
I find it deeply rich and rewarding to learn more (I have so much to learn) about Christianity's indebtedness to Jewish and Greek philosophy. Thank you bringing out those strains in this context. After all, Christianity did not emerge from a philosophical and cultural vacuum, and as others have shown, Christ came to earth at very interesting juncture in terms of the developments of philosophy and language at the incarnation.
@Samuel Loncar has studied all of this extensively, so you seem to be on the same page, Philip.
Samuel, thank you so much for that fascinating look at the significance of the angels in Milton. You mentioned that Milton was exceptionally Protestant, especially in his epistemology (sola scriptura). Can you help me understand the scriptural source for the large role of angels in Milton? We have noticed a few times in this discussion how God is absent from the Garden, and the more I read the more significant this seems. In Milton, the angels seem almost deputized on God's behalf, and the distance between God and humans is wide. But in Genesis, God walks with them daily. I've been interpreting this "substitution" of angels for God himself as Milton's reference to pagan mythology, but your essay suggests that he found this basis in scripture. It's probably obvious, but it's very different than how I've read the Genesis account and God's engagement with it, so I'm having trouble seeing the scriptural basis for this.
I am eager to see what Samuel has to say but here are my thoughts:
Genesis 3:8 (in all the translations I’m familiar with) mention the sound or voice of God being heard “walking” in the Garden. The verses that follow are all about God speaking and being present through his voice. I may be wrong but I can’t recall any other kind of physical presence of God in the garden. Milton clearly throughout shows God’s voice being present (in heaven, through the angels). Is there something I’m missing or not remembering from the biblical text that makes it certain God walked bodily in the garden? Now I’m also interested in the interpretive history around this, which I don’t k ow at all.
I looked up available commentators of Genesis 3:8 and they all said that the way this phrase was stated indicates that God was in the habit of walking in the Garden, that it wasn't unexpected for him to come, which is exactly what I remember hearing in church when I was young. It also makes sense theologically, since Scripture states repeatedly that it's our sin that separates us from God, so before the Fall, Adam and Eve hadn't sinned. That God walked with them is also indicated in the vision of Revelation 20 & 21, where it restores in the New Creation, the Tree of Life (23:2-3) that Adam and Eve were barred from eating, and where it says that God himself will be with us (20:3).
This is what I was always taught as well. I have never questioned it. I don't necessarily question it now, but I do wonder if this interpretation was common in Milton's time. I just re-read Genesis 1-3 and see nothing about God walking in the garden besides 3:8. The habit of walking makes sense, but it's really interesting to realize that that is an interpretation!
I love this thread . I find Paradise Lost beautiful but am really struggling with i theologically as to my mind God and Jesus are both appearing harsh and unforgiving . Perhaps this reflects that it was written in a harsh and unforgiving time, and Milton has created God in his image, as we so often do .
Incidentally, for light reading during our break I really recommend Robert Harris ‘Acts of Oblivion’ which is a thriller set just after the civil war and follows the man hunt of those who signed the king’s death warrant . But it is also about faith and particularly about tolerance and forgiveness ,and very very exciting.
I was thinking about this whole substack , and I really like the leisurely approach, that I have no idea when it will end ( Pulitzer Prize winner of 2045?) and don’t care either as it feels like a long and winding and interesting path , and makes me happy every Wednesday when I read the next episode.
Also, God is on record in Genesis 1 & 2 as talking repeatedly with the first man and woman - giving them the Creation mandate, giving Adam the instructions regarding the tree, and there is no record of any angel being a go between. In addition, it says God caused Adam to go into a deep sleep, and God opened up Adam's side and made Eve, and brought her to Adam.
Right. It's interesting to me in reading these chapters this morning how present God is in words and voice and speaking, which seems to be what Milton is emphasizing.
Islam and Milton have one thing in common, a skepticism towards Jesus Christ being eternal God. As Paul states, there is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus.
I am from the Baptist tradition, which even more closely adheres to Sola Scriptura than the Prostestant tradition - that is why Baptists originally departed from the Protestants regarding when to baptize and in stating that the church should be separated from the state. The Bible certainly indicates that the angels witnessed and rejoiced over Creation (Job 38:6-7):
"What supports its foundations?
Or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
But it also indicates that the workings of God on earth are something of a mystery to them (I Peter 1:12):
"These things have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—angels long to catch a glimpse of these things."
The most influential pastor I ever had gave a reason for this relative absence for the angels when he preached through the book of Hebrews. In the first chapter of Hebrews it states:
'After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
'For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?
'Or again,
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
'And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”...'
My pastor said this was significant in writing to the Hebrew church because they had a cultural tradition of revering angels, and the writer of Hebrews is saying, "No, Jesus Christ is the one who must receive your reference."
Holly, thank you so much for your thoughts. I've been pondering this, and the more I think about it the more I suspect it is a significant distinction. Genesis, in English at least, talks about God's presence in the garden directly. If that's the case in the original Hebrew, then it seems like interposing angels as intermediaries of that presence must have come from somewhere else. I'm super curious where that would come from.
I'm also curious what the implications are. Are there theological traditions today whose view of God and His relationship to humanity pivot on this idea? When I start to think about a God who creates from afar and sends angels to communicate His will to humans, I imagine a different image of God's care, attention, and delight in humans than the close one I've thought of before.
C.S. Lewis has been mentioned as a fan of Milton. However, Lewis's image of creation, at least the creation of Narnia, is of Aslan himself walking on the ground, creating the world and its creatures through song, talking with people and enjoying what He has made. Is this image a break with Milton, or are the two really not that different? Perhaps I'm making much of a thing that's not that significant.
Lastly, and then I promise I'm done with thoughts on this, this conversation has reminded me of how much my own preconceived ideas play into how I read a text. If you had asked me yesterday whether God was in the habit of walking with Adam and Eve bodily, I would have said 100% that the Genesis narrative says so explicitly. Today, I would say it's a matter of interpretation, and I'm reminded to read and discuss more humbly.
There is at least one tradition that I can think if, at least in certain strains of it, that does pivot on a vision of God communicating to humans through angels, and that is Islam. In West Africa, when visiting the city for supplies, the television programming cam out of Qatar and Jordan. I still remember while flipping through channels coming across an imam speaking in English who talked about how, due to the conjunction of the stars during their holy month, a portal between heaven and earth was opened wider and angelic activity was increased. He said that was why the great prophets, including Jesus in that list, were conceived or born during that month.
A linguistic side note on the opening aside: I don't think it is at all inexplicable that Jesus Christ is untranslated. After all, it is a transliteration of the kione Greek, Iesous* Christos, which is the language in which the New Testament is written. Koine was a common trade language in the Roman world - the earliest missionaries who introduced the name of Jesus to the pagans of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East would have spoken, and read, the koine form of his name to their hearers. I understood this better when I was learning the West African language of Wolof. There, the Wolof word for God, Yalla, is a transliteration of the Arabic word for God, Allah, introduced to the West Africans by North Africans - there just isn't another word to use for God in the language. After all, Joshua (or Yeshua) the Messiah is only a transliteration from Hebrew. A full translation of the name meaning into English would be Saviour the Anointed One, which is much less personal than the transliteration.
*The pronunciation shift from 'Iesous' to Jesus is due to differences in ability to pronounce vowels and consonants between languages - the shift from 'Ie' (a 'y' sound) to 'Je' seems to have happened as Latin split into regional pronunciations, as the Latin version, Jesu, may be pronounced with a 'y' or 'j' sound. Full translation of the name meaning might help with pronunciation, but it would also wipe out the familiar sound of the name to the person. For example, in my travels I found my name is nearly unpronounceable to Spanish and Portuguese speakers. Some of them with a little knowledge of English, tried to translate what they assumed was the meaning of my name into their language and call me Santa, because they thought Holly meant 'Holy'. I had to laugh and say, no, my name is untranslatable because I'm actually named after a plant - Old Germanic speakers called it 'Holegn', which morphed to 'Holi' in Middle English, and thus to 'Holly' in modern English. But had my name translated to Santa, it would have taken me a long time to associate the sound with myself, especially given the North American tradition of Santa Claus.
That is so fascinating, Holly. Language is endlessly fascinating, especially the relationship between language written and language spoken—as you show here. And the example of the difficulty with your own name for others really is illustrative!
Yes, I first realized the difficulty when I went on a mission trip to Chihuahua, Mexico and wore a name tag. I had studied Spanish and as I heard the Mexican children try to read my name, I suddenly realized the difficulty - in Spanish, H is totally silent, while double 'll' is pronounced 'elyea'. The children came up with a pronunciation that sounded like 'Alyee'. I thought afterward I should have just spelt my name 'Joli' and there would have been no difficulty.
This is a great overview of how rich and complex language transmission, thank you, Holly.
As to why it’s inexplicable: the name is the same name as a Moses’ servant who leads Israel into the promised land, and thus if a Bible calls that character Joshua, from Yeshua or Yehoshua, then the name of the person the gospels speak of should be Joshua. Put the other way, Moses’ servant’s name should otherwise be translated as Jesus.
Failure to do this eliminates literally the most essential and obvious association of Jesus’ Jewishness and his part in the story of Israel: he is the new Joshua. Everyone in the original context saw that, and we don’t, because to our minds, Joshua and Jesus are two different names.
But they aren’t, they are the same.
But the Old Testament is translated from Hebrew, and the New Testament from Greek, so the transliteration of proper names was different. Modern translations tend to make this less obvious by standardizing most of the names, but in the KJV the difference in language sources is obvious, for example, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah's name is transliterated as Isaiah in the Old Testament and as Esaias in the New Testament. In the KJV book of Hebrews, Moses's servant Joshua is translated as Jesus (4:8), because the Greek Iesous in the koine is itself a transliteration of the Hebrew Joshua/Yeshua.
This was excellent, Samuel. Wow. I am one who has been captivated by this book. Your essay was spiritually encouraging as well. Thanks.
Thank you 🙏 I’m so happy to hear that!
I am thoroughly entranced by Milton’s Paradise Lost. I never was asked or required to read this work - in college or seminary. If I had not stumbled across your work (beginning with your book. Fierce Convictions) I would have never had an opportunity to read your work, I only wish I had been a seminary student when you were still at SEBTS - but my seminary days are looooong past (MDiv, 1987; DMin, 2009). Keep on writing! I am enjoying the reading!
This makes my heart so glad, Steve! (Well, not the part about not being asked to read it before, heh.) I’m glad the Lord made our paths cross. Better late than never for all of this!
Thank you Samuel , that is fascinating .
Thank you for this essay. If man is made in the image of god, man must have the capacity for angelic goodness. But the bible is a record of man's great and varied capacity for evil.
It sure is, David.
I’m so glad you liked Samuel’s essay. I’m so proud of him and astonished by his work! I hope you check out more of it.
Thank you, Karen, for introducing us to Samuel and thank you Samuel for your fascinating and instructive article. I especially enjoyed the Wordsworth poem and the connections with Shakespeare and CS Lewis. And, I had no idea Milton knew so many languages.
You’re welcome, it’s such a privilege to be in the Priory! I know, I was amazed when I learned about Milton’s erudition, and he has helped me understand Lewis better. Milton had truly great desire, and all the blessings and curses that come with great ambition. I’m in awe of what he accomplished.
Literary history is so rich, isn’t it? So many connections and discoveries to make, and Samuel brought quite a few forward for us here. I’m grateful as well.
There are several things to meditate on in this brief post. One thing that is striking about Milton is his obsession with freedom and freedom's goal. Milton believed that freedom should always be in service to reunion with our creator. Powers and principalities could become corrupted in bondage to their own appetites and thus become repressive to the human being's attempted reunion back to his or her creator. This seems to be why Milton could be an iconoclast to denominations (and especially the Roman church) as well as a functionary in Oliver Cromwell's anti-royalist government; while at the same time write works that demanded loyalty to God as the pinnacle of Creation. In his book, "Making Darkness Light," Joe Moshenska has a rather long quote about the unified substance of Creation and the place of angels in it. He notes that in one section Milton’s angel Raphael explains a universe where everything is interconnected and constantly evolving, with potential for spiritual growth and unity. This vision of prelapsarian life suggests that the divisions between humans, angels, and realms could eventually dissolve. (Moshenska, Joe. Making Darkness Light: A Life of John Milton pp. 257-258). Does this mean that freedom is a good in itself for Milton or that freedom is a tool to be given to the creatures in order to accomplish reunion?
What is also interesting is how the culture into which someone enters creates the way in which the speak of the world. One is reminded of Ludwig Wittgenstein's observation that "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 5.6) Milton is a product of his age. He sees the world of the recently established nation states as having existed from eternity, in much the same way that we see the world as having always existed in its present state.
The Roman Catholic political thinker, William T. Cavanaugh, argues that the rise of the modern nation-state in the 16th and 17th centuries was not a peaceful transition, but rather a violent process that involved the consolidation of power and the suppression of local customs and jurisdictions. He contends that the state's claim to a monopoly on violence and its creation of a sharp distinction between the "religious" and the "secular" were key factors in this transformation. Cavanaugh's analysis challenges the conventional view that the state arose as a neutral arbiter of religious conflict. Instead, he suggests that the state itself was instrumental in creating and exacerbating such conflicts in order to justify its own expansion of power. Cavanaugh continues, "The gradual transfer of loyalty from international church to national state was not the end of violence in Europe, but a migration of the holy from church to state in the establishment of the ideal of dying and killing for one’s country." (William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 10.) Elsewhere Cavanaugh argues that the rise of the modern nation-state involved a fundamental shift in how society was organized, moving from a complex web of interconnected communities to a simplified structure dominated by the individual and the state. (Cavanaugh, William T. Migrations of the holy: God, state, and the political meaning of the Church. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2011. 27)
What is interesting is that Milton's view of the Nation State is not that it is illegitimate, but rather that it needs to reach its apotheosis in the uncovering of the true faith. This true faith, however, is not rooted in the universal church; but instead finds its truest expression when the nation state is baptized by the true faith which Milton and those like him have uncovered. The irony being that this church would be constructed from the English cultural religiosity and thus be beholden to the priorities of that culture.
This notion puts the statement above into context, namely, "The unity of Milton’s political republicanism with his poetic theology of freedom reflects his insight that tyranny is the inevitable logic of sin. The false and chaotic regime of sin, born from the misuse of freedom, threatens not only individuals, but societies, and even the very world itself." In this way, Milton's anti-establishment sentiment is actually rooted in his belief that the nation state would lead back to truth.
The final interesting point is Milton's philosophy. It is interesting to see how Milton seems to reflect Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism, originating in the 3rd century AD, posits a hierarchical reality emanating from the One, emphasizing the unity of all things and the pursuit of mystical union. They main thing that distinguished it from Platonism was Neoplatonism's obsession with almost naturalistic materialism. This seems to fit perfectly with the way magic and the supernatural had changed in the Enlightenment period. In previous eras, Western Culture seemed to have more of what the philosopher Charles Taylor called, "a porous" understanding the supernatural. The Enlightenment prioritized things that could be observed by the natural senses; while the previous eras held to a belief that what we now call the supernatural was constantly intermingling with our reality.
Nicholas McDowell notes:
Soon after he returned to England in 1639, Milton made a note from the Church Father Chrysostom that encapsulates his sense in this period that virtuous behaviour can raise a man to angelic status, and may render such a man even more worthy of salvation, given the internal conflict with a body inclined to sin: ‘The good man in some sense seems to surpass even the angels, and that because he, wrapped in a feeble and mortal body, wrestling always with his desires, nevertheless aspires to live his life like those in heaven.’ (McDowell, Nicholas. Poet of Revolution: The Making of John Milton (p. 353). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.)
What is important to observe is that for Milton is the otherness of the supernatural even though he believes humanity can obtain it. I appreciated your pointing out Lewis' statement here. However, in the Screwtape Letters, Lewis has his demons observing that humanity is completely different than the angels as Screwtape refers to human beings as "amphibians," that is creatures with one foot in the physical and one foot in the spiritual. While the viewpoint carries a pejorative connotation from the demon's lips, Lewis is obviously wrestling with the composite identity of humanity.
I find the Jewish concept of the Nefesh, often imperfectly translated as the soul, to be instructive. The concept of the nefesh in Jewish thought does differ from Greek philosophical ideas about the soul. In Greek thought, especially in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, the soul (or "psyche") is often seen as an immaterial essence that can exist independently of the body.
For Plato, the soul is immortal and pre-exists before entering the body, and it strives to return to the realm of forms (a perfect, non-material reality) after death. The body is often viewed as a temporary vessel that the soul inhabits, sometimes even as a hindrance to the soul’s pursuit of truth and perfection.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a more integrated view of the soul and body. He saw the soul as the "form" of the body, meaning it is what gives the body life and purpose. However, he still believed in different levels of soul (vegetative, sensitive, and rational), with the rational soul being the highest and most uniquely human.
In contrast, the Jewish concept of nefesh emphasizes the unity of body and soul, viewing the nefesh as the animating life force rather than a distinct, separable entity. This understanding reflects a more holistic view of human existence, where the physical and spiritual are intertwined and interdependent.
This difference between the two perspectives highlights the diverse ways in which various cultures and philosophies have sought to understand the nature of life and the essence of being.
It seems Christianity is only now just beginning to emerge from the Greek way of seeing the duality of soul and body. (John and Paul's statements about the duality seem, at first blush, to agree more with the Greek understanding; but deeper readings have yielded far more nuanced conceptions.) For Milton, the division of the Enlightenment meant a restatement of the Greek understanding, especially against the Jewish understanding. Yet the physical and spiritual are indivisible meaning that angelic spirituality is a completely other, though not hierarchically better, quality to humanity. For my money, Satan's jealousy emerges because God has created a whole new cosmos for humanity. Human beings, in other words, possess something which angels do not. And like Fernand Mondego's jealousy of Edmond Dantes; it is not the fact that he has something more but rather that he has something else.
I find it deeply rich and rewarding to learn more (I have so much to learn) about Christianity's indebtedness to Jewish and Greek philosophy. Thank you bringing out those strains in this context. After all, Christianity did not emerge from a philosophical and cultural vacuum, and as others have shown, Christ came to earth at very interesting juncture in terms of the developments of philosophy and language at the incarnation.
@Samuel Loncar has studied all of this extensively, so you seem to be on the same page, Philip.
Samuel, thank you so much for that fascinating look at the significance of the angels in Milton. You mentioned that Milton was exceptionally Protestant, especially in his epistemology (sola scriptura). Can you help me understand the scriptural source for the large role of angels in Milton? We have noticed a few times in this discussion how God is absent from the Garden, and the more I read the more significant this seems. In Milton, the angels seem almost deputized on God's behalf, and the distance between God and humans is wide. But in Genesis, God walks with them daily. I've been interpreting this "substitution" of angels for God himself as Milton's reference to pagan mythology, but your essay suggests that he found this basis in scripture. It's probably obvious, but it's very different than how I've read the Genesis account and God's engagement with it, so I'm having trouble seeing the scriptural basis for this.
I am eager to see what Samuel has to say but here are my thoughts:
Genesis 3:8 (in all the translations I’m familiar with) mention the sound or voice of God being heard “walking” in the Garden. The verses that follow are all about God speaking and being present through his voice. I may be wrong but I can’t recall any other kind of physical presence of God in the garden. Milton clearly throughout shows God’s voice being present (in heaven, through the angels). Is there something I’m missing or not remembering from the biblical text that makes it certain God walked bodily in the garden? Now I’m also interested in the interpretive history around this, which I don’t k ow at all.
I looked up available commentators of Genesis 3:8 and they all said that the way this phrase was stated indicates that God was in the habit of walking in the Garden, that it wasn't unexpected for him to come, which is exactly what I remember hearing in church when I was young. It also makes sense theologically, since Scripture states repeatedly that it's our sin that separates us from God, so before the Fall, Adam and Eve hadn't sinned. That God walked with them is also indicated in the vision of Revelation 20 & 21, where it restores in the New Creation, the Tree of Life (23:2-3) that Adam and Eve were barred from eating, and where it says that God himself will be with us (20:3).
This is what I was always taught as well. I have never questioned it. I don't necessarily question it now, but I do wonder if this interpretation was common in Milton's time. I just re-read Genesis 1-3 and see nothing about God walking in the garden besides 3:8. The habit of walking makes sense, but it's really interesting to realize that that is an interpretation!
I echo what Tara just commented here.
I love this thread . I find Paradise Lost beautiful but am really struggling with i theologically as to my mind God and Jesus are both appearing harsh and unforgiving . Perhaps this reflects that it was written in a harsh and unforgiving time, and Milton has created God in his image, as we so often do .
Incidentally, for light reading during our break I really recommend Robert Harris ‘Acts of Oblivion’ which is a thriller set just after the civil war and follows the man hunt of those who signed the king’s death warrant . But it is also about faith and particularly about tolerance and forgiveness ,and very very exciting.
I was thinking about this whole substack , and I really like the leisurely approach, that I have no idea when it will end ( Pulitzer Prize winner of 2045?) and don’t care either as it feels like a long and winding and interesting path , and makes me happy every Wednesday when I read the next episode.
🥺🥺🥺 Thank you, Miranda. I am enjoying it so much, too.
I’m going to check that book out!
Also, God is on record in Genesis 1 & 2 as talking repeatedly with the first man and woman - giving them the Creation mandate, giving Adam the instructions regarding the tree, and there is no record of any angel being a go between. In addition, it says God caused Adam to go into a deep sleep, and God opened up Adam's side and made Eve, and brought her to Adam.
Right. It's interesting to me in reading these chapters this morning how present God is in words and voice and speaking, which seems to be what Milton is emphasizing.
But that is what God the Son is, the Word, the Logos - and Milton doesn't believe the Son is eternal.
Now that would make sense…
Oh yes! I just wrote something on the Bible for a book and made that contrast with the Koran and Islam. Very interesting.
Islam and Milton have one thing in common, a skepticism towards Jesus Christ being eternal God. As Paul states, there is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus.
I am from the Baptist tradition, which even more closely adheres to Sola Scriptura than the Prostestant tradition - that is why Baptists originally departed from the Protestants regarding when to baptize and in stating that the church should be separated from the state. The Bible certainly indicates that the angels witnessed and rejoiced over Creation (Job 38:6-7):
"What supports its foundations?
Or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
But it also indicates that the workings of God on earth are something of a mystery to them (I Peter 1:12):
"These things have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—angels long to catch a glimpse of these things."
The most influential pastor I ever had gave a reason for this relative absence for the angels when he preached through the book of Hebrews. In the first chapter of Hebrews it states:
'After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
'For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?
'Or again,
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
'And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”...'
My pastor said this was significant in writing to the Hebrew church because they had a cultural tradition of revering angels, and the writer of Hebrews is saying, "No, Jesus Christ is the one who must receive your reference."
Holly, thank you so much for your thoughts. I've been pondering this, and the more I think about it the more I suspect it is a significant distinction. Genesis, in English at least, talks about God's presence in the garden directly. If that's the case in the original Hebrew, then it seems like interposing angels as intermediaries of that presence must have come from somewhere else. I'm super curious where that would come from.
I'm also curious what the implications are. Are there theological traditions today whose view of God and His relationship to humanity pivot on this idea? When I start to think about a God who creates from afar and sends angels to communicate His will to humans, I imagine a different image of God's care, attention, and delight in humans than the close one I've thought of before.
C.S. Lewis has been mentioned as a fan of Milton. However, Lewis's image of creation, at least the creation of Narnia, is of Aslan himself walking on the ground, creating the world and its creatures through song, talking with people and enjoying what He has made. Is this image a break with Milton, or are the two really not that different? Perhaps I'm making much of a thing that's not that significant.
Lastly, and then I promise I'm done with thoughts on this, this conversation has reminded me of how much my own preconceived ideas play into how I read a text. If you had asked me yesterday whether God was in the habit of walking with Adam and Eve bodily, I would have said 100% that the Genesis narrative says so explicitly. Today, I would say it's a matter of interpretation, and I'm reminded to read and discuss more humbly.
As I noted just above just now, I had exactly the same response in re-reading Genesis 1-3 this morning!
There is at least one tradition that I can think if, at least in certain strains of it, that does pivot on a vision of God communicating to humans through angels, and that is Islam. In West Africa, when visiting the city for supplies, the television programming cam out of Qatar and Jordan. I still remember while flipping through channels coming across an imam speaking in English who talked about how, due to the conjunction of the stars during their holy month, a portal between heaven and earth was opened wider and angelic activity was increased. He said that was why the great prophets, including Jesus in that list, were conceived or born during that month.