Angels & Demons 10: The Fallen Angels of Jude and 2nd Peter

The Book of Jude contains only thirty verses. Of those thirty verses, more than half (sixteen, according to the Nestle-Aland Greek text of the New Testament) have parallels in the Book of 2nd Peter. Most scholars agree that there is a dependency relationship between these two books, but disagree on which book came first and which may have borrowed from the other. These two tiny books are the only New Testament books that explicitly refer to the Fallen Angel story of the book of I Enoch.


The Nestle-Aland Greek text of the New Testament also lists four references to the book of I Enoch in the thirty verses of Jude. It seems clear that the author of Jude was familiar with Enoch material. It is not as clear that 2nd Peter was as familiar with Enoch material as was Jude. Nowhere does the Nestle-Aland Greek text of the New Testament list a reference to I Enoch in 2nd Peter. Nevertheless, in discussing the angels who are being kept, awaiting “judgment,” 2nd Peter 2:4 is the only text that asserts that these were “sinning” angels, and adds that the angels were being held in “Tartarus.” Surely, he got the “sinning” angels detail from I Enoch, but did he get the “Tartarus” detail from I Enoch, as well? I do not think so. Jude 6 is the only text that supplies the information that the angels were kept in “chains.” According to I Enoch 54:5, iron chains were being prepared for the host of Azazel, whom I mentioned earlier, in the post entitled “Angels & Demons 2: The ‘Prometheus’ Connection.” Azazel, if you recall, was the fallen angel from I Enoch who brought culture to mankind, as did the god Prometheus of the Greeks. Prometheus was, according to Greek legends, bound--“chained” to a rock—for bringing culture to mankind; whereas, his brother Atlas had been confined to “Tartarus” as punishment for opposing Zeus in the Clash of the Titans. It is possible that both 2nd Peter and Jude received some of the details of their accounts, not from Enoch, but from Greek legends about Prometheus.

These are the only two verses in the entire New Testament that specifically refer to the Fallen Angel Story. Interestingly, NEITHER of these two passages goes so far as to suggest that angels married human women or that angels rebelled against God. Yet, those two proposed “sins” (marrying humans and rebellion) are the two prominent explanations for the fall of the angels in literature outside the Bible. In fact, NEITHER passage spells out ANY specific “sin” of the angels. So, what was the sin 2nd Peter was referring to?

Do the authors of Jude and 2nd Peter believe I Enoch was actually written by Enoch, the descendant of Adam from Genesis 5, who lived 365 years and then was translated directly to eternal life, according to Hebrews 11:5, avoiding death altogether? If so, why did Enoch write in the Greek language instead of some ancient Semitic language? Even more puzzling: Do the authors of Jude and 2nd Peter believe there really is a place called Tartarus, where Greek gods are imprisoned? Questions such as these actually kept the book of Jude from being accepted into the New Testament canon for a long time. I personally do not believe the authors of Jude and 2nd Peter believed any of this. That is why they refused to mention the specific sin the angels were guilty of. For that matter, Jude does not even call it a “sin.” He only says that they “abandoned their proper dwelling.” Both agree that angels are awaiting judgment, but so does Revelation 20:10. Certain angels’ roles are scheduled to be terminated at the end of history, but not necessarily due to sins they have committed. If the authors of Jude and 2nd Peter do not believe the Fallen Angel Stories to which they refer, what is going on in these passages?

The Jews call it “Homiletic Aggadah.” The authors of Jude and 2nd Peter both lived in the Jewish milieu in which the use of homiletic aggadah was commonplace. The New World Encyclopedia defines aggadah as “folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and advice. Sometimes they refer to mythical creatures, and incredible historical events.” The word “homiletic” refers to sermons. In some churches, today, instead of preaching a sermon, the church leader “delivers a homily.” The word homily means sermon. Budding young preachers study “homiletics” (or the art of preparing sermons) in college or seminary. In sermons, homiletic aggadah may be fictional or historical stories used to support certain moral or spiritual teachings. Jesus used parables. These were homiletic aggadah. Did the Good Samaritan actually exist, or was he just a fictional character Jesus used to illustrate his point that one’s neighbor can sometimes appear to be one’s enemy? Was there an actual Prodigal Son that Jesus had in mind? Were there actually five wise virgins and five foolish ones that went to a marriage feast? Does it matter? No.

Sermon illustrations may be taken from history, current events, or literature. Audiences typically know which is which. A preacher today might ask in a sermon, “Do you think Jack Bauer should be punished for torturing terrorists?” If the audience is familiar with the successful Fox TV series "24," they will know that the preacher does not actually believe a real person named Jack Bauer actually tortured real terrorists. The Jack Bauer character, played by Kiefer Sutherland, presented only a scenario—which is precisely what the fallen angel story presented for the authors of Jude and 2nd Peter. Just because Jack Bauer is a fictional character, it is not necessary to exclude his scenario from discussions of how America should fight a war on terror. Historical accounts may be mentioned right alongside the Bauer reference. The preacher might ask, “Should Osama bin Laden be granted Miranda rights, if he is captured?” He might recount facts about the Fort Hood murders, the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the attempted Times Square car bombing. Audiences can quickly switch back and forth between fiction and history, as they listen to sermons.

So, what sermon point were the authors of Jude and 2nd Peter making? The sermon seems to be most clearly preached in 1st Peter 3:17-20. The point of the sermon (in verse 17) is: “It is better to suffer for doing right than for doing wrong.” The illustrations for this point are homiletic aggadah:

1. Christ suffered and died, but God raised him (3:18).
2. Even spirits who were disobedient at the time of Noah were imprisoned--a possible allusion to the fallen angels of I Enoch (3:19-20).
3. Noah was saved, even though all around him were destroyed (3:20).

2nd Peter 2:1-9 seems to make a similar point with some of the same homiletic aggadah. The point is: “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation and to keep the wicked under chastisement” (2:9). The illustrations are:

1. God did not spare sinning angels, but committed them to Tartarus (2:4).
2. Noah was saved, even though all around him were destroyed (2:5).
3. God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah, but rescued Lot (2:6-8).

Jude 3-7 seems to be warning (7) the audience not to be like those who will be condemned (4). The illustrations are:

1. After the Lord rescued the Jews from Egypt, he destroyed those who had no faith (5).
2. Angels who abandoned their dwelling, He reserved in chains (6).
3. God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah, when they sinned (7).

A quick glance at these three sermons shows how sermons were written in the culture of Peter and Jude. The common conclusion seems to be that God will eventually save the righteous and eventually punish the wicked, even if the wicked were originally as righteous as angels.

Since I commented that the spirits who were disobedient at the time of Noah and were imprisoned was a possible allusion to the fallen angels of I Enoch (1st Peter 3:19-20), I should explain my comment before concluding this post. The Nestle-Aland Greek text of the New Testament lists among its notes on verse 19 the conjecture of two textual critics that the word Enoch was originally in the text, but was somehow removed by scribes who copied the text. Such a mistake would be easily explained. The words usually translated “in which also” were pronounced in Greek: “ENHOKAI.” If this were pronounced “HENOKAI,” the words would be translated “Enoch also.” It is possible that early scribes accidentally made a mistake—or that scribes intentionally removed this reference to Enoch and fallen angels from the book of 1st Peter (because they did not want to teach the fallen angel story). This conjecture would remove a very singular and strange teaching in the Bible--that somehow Jesus went and preached to people in Hell after his death. Such a notion does not occur anywhere else in the Bible. I Enoch, on the other hand, DOES SAY that Enoch went and preached to the spirits in prison—referring to Enoch preaching to the fallen angels who had been chained. If this is an accurate conjecture, we have three references to the I Enoch account of fallen angels in the New Testament, instead of two. Nevertheless, all three seem to be related--developments of the same sermon, and the characterization of homiletic aggadah fits all three references.

My final comment on these passages is that of all three of them, ONLY THE 2ND PETER PASSAGE actually speaks of “sinning” angels (and even that passage leaves an “out” for the author). 2nd Peter 2:4 DOES NOT SAY, “God did not spare sinning angels.” It says, “IF God did not spare sinning angels.” The “IF” effectively removes any clear cut doctrine of sinning angels from the entire New Testament, by making the clause into only a conditional clause.

Angels & Demons 9: Angels Have Only the Good Inclination

Based on the Hebrew text of Genesis 18:5, Judges 19:5, and Psalms 48:14 and 104:15, various Jewish rabbis from the early Christian Era (Isaac, Aḥa, and Hiyya) point out that the “heart” (or inclination) of humans is different from the “heart” (or inclination) of angels. They assert: “The evil inclination has no power over angels.” Furthermore, “The evil inclination will not return [to humans] in the hereafter” (Bereshit Rabbah 48:11). Jesus seems to agree to some extent that humans in the hereafter will have characteristics similar to angels (Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:36), but he does not specifically state that this similarity with angels centers around only possessing the good inclination. On the other hand, it seems inconsistent with a Christian view of the hereafter to envision resurrected humans capable of sinning, once again. The view of angels as lacking the evil inclination dominated Jewish teaching on angels at the time of the New Testament. Citing the Bereshit Rabbah 48:11 passage, Arthur Marmorstein, a highly respected rabbinic scholar who taught at Jews' College, London, from 1912 to 1946 (and author of the entry on “Angels and Angelology” on Volume I, page 968, of the Encyclopaedia Judaica makes the sweeping statement: “The angels . . . are free of the YETZER HA-RA.”

In the Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 88b-89a, Moses is depicted explaining to angels why the Law was not given to them. The Law, according to Moses, is not suitable for angels because they do not have the evil inclination in them. The angels agree.

Midrash Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah 8:11 quotes Rabbi Judan as offering an analogy of a boy who had lost several of his fingers, but trying to learn the art of embroidery or silk-working. Even if an expert teacher were hired, his instruction would be in vain because the boy could not possibly learn it. The essence of the art of embroidery depends on the use of the fingers. Likewise, the angels are incapable of using the Law because they lack something essential to its use. God is quoted as saying: “Certainly, no satisfaction results from [the angel’s] compliance [with the Law].” Marcus Jastrow explains in his Dictionary, Volume II, page 1541: “Your compliance with the Law would afford no satisfaction to Me, because you have no temptation and trials to contend with.” It is clear that this passage also holds with the teaching that angels lack the evil inclination. They are not free moral agents.

This embroidery parable is found also in Midrash Tehillim 8:74 (which I will examine more fully in a future commentary) and in Pesikta Rabbati chapter 25, page 128 a. These passages underscore the sinlessness of angels and assert that they are sinless by nature. According to most official Jewish views from the New Testament period, angels cannot sin because they do not have an evil inclination.

AFTER THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD, Christians did begin to teach that the Fallen Angels fell through sin. Justin Martyr, somewhere around 150 a.d., wrote in Dialogue 79 from his “Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew)” describing Tryphy as becoming irate concerning the suggestion that Fallen Angels fell through sin. Though the specific sin Trypho rejected was the sin of “rebellion” (which I will discuss in a future commentary), Trypho appears to reject the notion that angels could sin at all as being “blasphemous!” I will not assume any responsibility for defending the teachings of uninspired Christian writers--even those so revered as Justin Martyr. I believe Justin was mistaken; I believe Trypho the Jew was correct in this instance. I believe the New Testament supports Trypho more than it does Justin.

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, angels are mentioned 170 times—virtually all of these passages depicting sinless angels. Of these 170 times, only two times is it suggested that angels are capable of sinning: II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Certainly, it is necessary for us to examine these two passages—which are quite similar in many ways—but there is not room for that discussion in this week’s commentary. For that discussion, please return again, next week.

Angels & Demons 8: Sex and the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Jesus, in Matthew 22:36-40, summarized all of the commandments with the one word “love”: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two “love” commands, according to Jesus, hang all of the Law and the Prophets. It is fitting, then, that God waited until humans were capable of love/selflessness until he gave them the ability to reproduce sexually. Animals engage in sex for selfish reasons—they have urges that demand to be met. Many humans, certainly, engage in sex for selfish reasons, as well. Perhaps, virtually all humans engage in sex for selfish reasons, at times. But, at least humans have the option of acting selfishly or unselfishly. This fact relates to the fallen angel issue.

In human beings, the two YETZARIM (inclinations) are closely identified with sexual or reproductive stages of life. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 91b), Midrash Kohelet Rabbah 4:13, Midrash Ha-Gadol Bereshit 108-109, etc., teach that the YETZER HA-RA‘ (evil inclination) came to man at birth. In his Legends of the Jews (Volume V, p. 81), Louis Ginzberg notes: “the good inclination does not make its appearance before . . . the time of puberty.” The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 82a) points out that the official age for girls is 12 years. Midrash Kohelet Rabbah 4:13, Midrash Ha-Gadol Bereshit 108-109, and Midrash Tehillim 9,82 place the official age for boys at 13. Interestingly, Adam and Eve did not notice their own sexuality/nakedness until they had eaten of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” And they were not commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” until after they had eaten.

It is very significant that the girl of version I of the Sinless Fallen Angel Story (related earlier) is described in Hebrew as a NA‘ARAH (“lass”). According to Marcus Jastrow’s Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, NA‘ARAH is a legal term specially designating a “girl between twelve and twelve and a half years of age.” This incident is very possibly her first real temptation since receiving the YETZER HA-TOV (good inclination). Since she responded righteously in this single instance, it could explain her being permitted to come immediately before the Throne of God, a feat that would have been inconceivable even for angels unless they were sinless.

This indicates that it was necessary for an individual to have both “inclinations” in order to be held accountable for sin (and for that matter, to be deemed righteous for passing the test/temptation). The rich young ruler, with whom Jesus interacts regarding eternal life in Luke 18:18-21, insists that he has kept the “commandments” from his youth up. It is possible that he means from the time of his bar mitzvah forward. Hebrews 4:15 asserts that Jesus himself was tempted in every respect, as we are, but was without sin. We know nothing, however, about the childhood of Jesus. After the birth narratives, there is no discussion of Jesus’ actions until we near his bar mitzvah. Luke picks up the narrative again, in 2:41, when Jesus was age twelve. The same theology that allows Jewish writers to tell a story of a “lass” being righteous in one temptation following her youth and being awarded eternal life is the same theology that allows Christian writers to conclude that the sinless life of Jesus permits him to be transfigured on the mountain, and later, resurrected from the dead.

Since the “lass” possessed only the “evil inclination” prior to her twelfth birthday, any selfish behavior committed prior to this time must not have been considered “sinful.” This is precisely the view (the sinlessness of children) that prevailed at this time. Even the second book of Maccabees 8:4 speaks of the “sinless infants.” And the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4) says, concerning the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur): “Little children [anyone just born through 13 years for boys and 12 years for girls] are not made to fast on the Day of Atonement; however, we should be initiating them beforehand one or two years in order that they will be in the habit of [following] the commandments.” It is a simple deduction that, if little children are not required to participate in the yearly atonement exercise, they must not be held guilty of any “sins” for which they would need atonement.

Albrecht Oepke, a German Christian scholar, writing in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, debates the assertion that Judaism accepted “the innocence of children” because, he says, “the evil impulse is there from conception or birth.” That much I readily concede, but in light of the passage just quoted from the Mishnah, which we may definitely call “authoritative,” little children must in some way be considered sinless, or at least not responsible for their sins. I suspect that the Lutheran Oepke may have his own axe to grind, since Lutherans baptize babies for the forgiveness of their sins. If babies are actually sinless, there would be no need to forgive any sins. Perhaps, that’s the point of Jesus’ comment concerning little children that “of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Even if children are simply not responsible for their sin, possessing only the evil inclination, we may very easily suspect that angels who possess only the good inclination would probably be considered sinless, too. Such is the case. I will present the pertinent proof of that assertion, next time.

Angels & Demons 7: Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?

Is it possible for my little dog Nicolete to sin? Not according to official Jewish teachings. Why? Nicolete does not possess both the good and evil inclinations. She possesses only the “evil inclination”—what Jews call the YETZER HA-RA. Although we sometimes anthropomorphize animals—such as Lassie (the canine movie star), Trigger (Roy Rogers’ horse), and Flipper (the dolphin)—to make them appear to have a good inclination, animals do things for essentially SELFISH reasons. Ask any animal trainer how one secures desired behavior on the part of an animal and you will find that selfishness prevails on the part of the animal. Whenever the desired behavior occurs, the animal is rewarded, using the pleasure principle. Continual training using this selfish reinforcement is called “operant conditioning.” Eventually, animal trainers train dogs, horses, dolphins, birds, etc., to behave in ways that “can be interpreted” by anthropomorphizing humans as conforming to a “good inclination”—what Jews call the YETZER HA-TOV—but these “good” behaviors are actually selfish behaviors, induced by reward or punishment.

Is it possible for children to sin? Not according to official Jewish teachings—for the same reason animals cannot sin. Children do not possess the YETZER HA-TOV, according to the Jewish Mishnah, until they reach the age of 12 or 13 (12 for girls, 13 for boys). Prior to that age, they possess only the YETZER HA-RA. They—like animals—are essentially selfish. This is why at age 13, Jewish boys are given a BAR MITZVAH (literally: “son of the commandment”). Girls, at the age of 12, have a BAT MITZVAH (“daughter of the commandment”). They are not even expected to be able to live according to the Commandments until that age. They are considered sinless, even though they are (like animals) essentially selfish. However, the Mishnah suggests that we begin training children to keep the commandments, a few years before they reach the age of accountability. The young girl who tricked the angels in my previous commentary had just reached the age of 12. There is a specific Hebrew word that indicates the fact. She had been sinless prior to this encounter with the angels, due to her age. Since she passed her first specific test and avoided the transgression, she was rewarded by God (with eternal life?).

Is it possible for adult humans to sin? To quote Governor Palin, “You betcha!” Adult humans have both the YETZER HA-RA and the YETZER HA-TOV. They have the knowledge of both good and evil. They have a measure of free will that animals and children do not. They are capable of freely choosing to be either selfish or selfless. Virtually all (but not actually ALL) adult humans have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Even though we, at times, act unselfishly (in accordance with the YETZER HA-TOV), every one of us has also, at times, acted selfishly (in accordance with the YETZER HA-RA). Once humans reach the age of accountability, they are held responsible for their sins. ONLY BEINGS POSSESSING BOTH THE YETZER HA-RA AND THE YETZER HA-TOV ARE CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF SIN. If a being (such as a child or an animal) does not have the full capability to choose freely between good and evil alternatives, that being is not held “accountable” for any sins. God does not hold a being responsible for doing something that being was incapable of doing.

So, is it possible for angels to sin? Not according to official Jewish teachings. This is not because, like animals and children, angels possess only the YETZER HA-RA. On the contrary, angels do not have the evil inclination at all! They possess only the YETZER HA-TOV. They do not have selfish motives whatsoever. Everything they do is what is commanded by the One who created them. They are totally selfless. But, they are not considered as high in God’s hierarchy as are humans. This is because SOME humans who are capable of sinning CHOOSE NOT TO SIN. Angels never even have the opportunity to prove that they would choose correctly. They have no choice. They have no free will. The reason you will find no commandments in the Bible directed at angels (as we considered two weeks ago) is that there would be no point. Angels have no commandments because they are not free moral agents. They cannot sin.

Angels & Demons 6: An “Innocent” Fallen Angel Story

Remember that the Fallen Angel Story invented by the Greek-speaking Jewish author of I Enoch relied on his interpretation of the Genesis 6 passage referring to the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men.” He thought the passage should be understood to mean that “angels” married “human women.” These unions between angels and humans produced as children “mighty men of old who made a name.” This is somewhat strange. First, to assume that angels have DNA is fairly far-fetched, since angels, according to Psalm 104:4, are “spirits” and “flames of fire.” One would think DNA would be necessary in order to produce offspring. Second, if the offspring shared the DNA of angels and humans, one would suspect that some of these offspring would be men, but others would actually be angels. Why is it that the offspring of these unions produced ONLY MEN—albeit, MIGHTY men of old who made a name?

Returning to the book of Genesis, only one other passage even remotely suggests that angels could engage in sexual behavior—let alone be reproductive. Genesis 19 tells of two angels visiting Lot in Sodom before God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. In 19:5, the men of the city, the Sodomites, surrounded Lot’s house and demanded the right to rape these angels—who, they presumably thought, were men. We will never know if such behavior would have been possible, because Lot, in an attempt to protect the angels, offered the mob his own virgin daughters, instead. The Sodomites rejected the offer and threatened to rape Lot. The angels, of course, did not really need Lot’s protection. They pulled Lot inside his house and struck the Sodomites with blindness. No one has ever accused these angels of being guilty or fallen angels, even though there was a “hint” that they could have been raped. It occurs to me that the angels in the Sodom account might have offered the inspiration for the following approach to the Fallen Angel Story from Jewish culture at around the time of the New Testament. Here, we also have a “hint” that angels may have been capable of sexual encounter, but—like the angels in Sodom—such an encounter never occurred.

This seems to be a distinct attempt to reform the Fallen Angel Story into something compatible with the strongly Jewish, non-Hellenistic attitudes of the New Testament period and following. This is not the only attempt to produce a Sinless Fallen Angel Story from this period, but it demonstrates the point that Jews were trying to reshape the Fallen Angel Story into something that would be less offensive to their theology.

SINLESS FALLEN ANGELS

From the medieval commentary Hadar Zekenim (in its exposition of Genesis 6:2) comes a small account of the “revised” Fallen Angel Story. It is the story of a woman who was transformed into a star (or group of stars). When the angels descended to Earth, they propositioned a certain virgin. They wanted to “marry” her. Wise young lady that she was, she tricked them. She promised to agree to their proposition on one condition: they must give her their wings. Upon receiving the wings, AND PRIOR TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SEXUAL UNION, she flapped her wings and flew away to God’s throne. According to a slightly different version of this story, she made no deal whatsoever. She just asked them what they would give her, if she obeyed them. They offered to give her their wings and to teach her to pronounce the (unpronounceable) name of the Lord (YHWH, as I discussed in the previous commentary). Without an explicit agreement, the angels did both of these things. She then flew to Heaven—presumably, pronouncing God’s name and flapping her wings. God rewarded her for her innocence and her resisting the transgression. Either she was made into the constellation Virgo or the constellation Virgo was named for her.

The following is my translation from these two Mishnaic Hebrew texts, which so far as I know, are not available elsewhere in English translation:

VERSION 1:

“‘For they were beautiful.’ (Gen. 6:2): In the Midrash Tobath [apparently, a lost midrashic fragment on Genesis 6:2 in which the word ‘TOBATH,’ meaning ‘beautiful,’ occurs] it is written: There was once a pious virgin lass. And when the ‘sons of God’ (Gen. 6:2) descended, they said to her, ‘Obey us!’ She said to them, ‘I shall not obey you unless you do this thing—that is, that you give me your wings; as it [Isaiah 6:2] says, “six wings for each one.”’ They gave her their wings. Immediately, she flew to Heaven and escaped from the transgression, and she touched (the surface of) the Throne. And the Holy One—Blessed be He—spread his cloud over her and received her, and he fixed her among the constellations: namely, the constellation Virgo. The angels remained on Earth and were not able to ascend until they found the ladder of which Jacob our ancestor dreamed; then, they ascended. This is of which it is written: ‘the angels of God ascending and descending upon it’ (Gen. 28:12).”

VERSION 2:

“‘The angels of God ascending and descending upon it’ (Gen. 28:12): Those angels who descended, when they saw the daughters of man that they were beautiful, did not ascend until this time; for [at the time] when they went down, they found a certain virgin. They said to her, ‘Obey us!’ She said to them, ‘And what will you give to me?’ They said to her, ‘Our wings. And we will teach you the Explicit Name.’ And they taught her the Explicit Name and they gave her the wings. Immediately, she flew into the Heavens. The Holy One—Blessed be He—said to her, ‘Since you fled from the transgression, I will appoint for you a name among the constellations; namely the constellation Virgo.’ And the angels that gave to her their wings were not able to ascend until this time, when they found the ladder to ascend.”

These two versions of the same account present fallen angels to whom no sin is attributed. Hence, they may be termed Sinless Fallen Angels. In the next few commentaries, I will elucidate the details of the relationship between this account and the prevailing doctrines concerning angels in the early Christian era. There are definite BIBLICAL doctrinal motives for reforming the Fallen Angel Story into one in which the angels DID NOT SIN. We will begin, next time, with the very doctrine of sin and whether angels are capable of it.

Angels & Demons 5: What Law Did the Angels Break?

Fallen Angel Stories are typically justified on the basis of some perceived Law that the angels broke. Look through the Ten Commandments. Do you see any commandment targeted at angels? I do not. The Law was given to humans, not angels. But, even so, let’s consider whether angels could have been guilty of breaking one of these Laws:

1. “You shall have no other gods.” Angels supposedly know the truth . . . that there ARE NO OTHER GODS, right? I suppose that if Persian Dualism were accepted, there would be one other god—the evil god. That’s what “dualism” means: that there are TWO gods—one good and one evil. By the time Jesus was born, however, Judaism was apprehensive about the dualistic implications involved in the fallen angel theme. If Greek theology were accepted, there would be dozens of gods—all marrying each other and having sexual relations with humans and having offspring—both divine and human. After toying with these polytheistic (multiple gods) ideas for nearly 400 years, Jewish teachers were determined to fight against them. If believers today are determined to resurrect these Persian and Greek theologies, they may themselves be guilty of breaking the first commandment, but did angels break this commandment?

2. “Do not make graven idols.” No angel stories tell of any angel making an idol.

3. “Do not take my name in vain.” In a non-inspired angel story from the time period of the New Testament, angels knew the name of God and knew the power of pronouncing his name. The story suggests that pronouncing his name brings one to the very throne of God. To keep humans from taking his name “in vain” (i.e., using it in an empty way), the Jews hid the pronunciation. “Jehovah” is NOT the pronunciation of his name. The Jews “wrote” his name, but only used the consonants of his name: YHWH. They inserted vowels, but these vowels were not the vowels from his name; they were the vowels to the word “Adonai.” Adonai is translated “Lord.” When you take the vowels from Adonai and insert them in the consonants from YHWH, the result is the word Yahowah (or Jehovah). The letters Y and J are interchangeable, as are the letters W and V. Anyone who knows the German language, for example, knows that the German expression for yes (Ja wohl) is actually pronounced “Yah Vohl.” Hence, Yahowah becomes Jehovah. Actually, the Jews never pronounced this composite word. They pronounced only the word Adonai (Lord), so that they would not take “The Lord’s name” in vain. When you read your English version of the Old Testament, and find the word “Lord,” what is actually written in the Hebrew text is the word YHWH. It is unpronounceable, because the Jews were helping you avoid breaking this commandment. (Incidentally, even the popular pronunciation of this word today—Yahweh—is almost certainly incorrect. It is still very difficult for you to violate this commandment.) Nevertheless, there are NO angel stories that tell of an angel taking the name of the Lord in vain.

4. “Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.” No angel stories tell of any angel breaking the Sabbath.

5. “Honor your father and mother.” Angels don’t have mothers. While Jesus teaches humans to address God as “Our Father in heaven,” and while God calls humans his children, angels do not seem to share in that intimacy. It is true that angels were called “sons of God” in the Book of Job, but no one seriously contends that angels are the offspring of God in any parent-child sense. Ultimately, no angel stories every accuse angels of failing to honor their “father.”

6. “Do not kill.” Fallen Angel Stories do not portray the angels as murderers. John’s gospel, on the other hand, quotes Jesus responding to certain Jews who were seeking a way to kill him (8:37-44): “You have the devil for your father and you wish to practice the desires of your father; he was a slayer of men from the beginning, and he could not stay in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks according to his nature; for he is a liar and the father of liars.” Jesus was probably referring to the devil’s roles as tempter/tester and executioner. Hebrews 2:14 speaks of Jesus as neutralizing the one who wields the power of death, namely the devil. The first time the term Satan appears in the Bible is in the Book of Job, where Satan not only tests Job but also KILLS his wife and children. God restricts his power so that he cannot KILL Job himself, because Job is righteous. For those of us who are not as righteous as Job, Satan does indeed pose the threat of death. But, is this killing of humans a sin? Is Satan breaking the Law by killing men? Not if we deserve it. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. Romans 3:23 says all have sinned. In my previous commentary, I observed: “I Timothy 1:20 says that Paul surrendered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, so that they might be disciplined. In a similar vein, I Corinthians 5:5 has Paul counseling the church to hand over a fornicator to Satan so that Satan can destroy the fornicator’s ‘flesh,’ in order that the fornicator’s ‘spirit’ might be SAVED.” Ultimately, however, Jesus came to rid mankind of the various “roles” of Satan. Revelation 12 introduces the Fall of Satan as a result of Jesus’ sacrifice. Satan can no longer “accuse” the brothers in the heavenly courts, because they are forgiven. However, Revelation does not assert that “accusing the brothers” was a sin; it was Satan’s job in Heaven, just as punishing and executing sinners on Earth was. Revelation 20 begins by further subjugating Satan: he is bound and thrown into the Abyss. Revelation 20 ends (at least 1000 years later) by casting the devil into the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death. At that point, Satan will be gone—but not because he sinned. He will be gone because there will no longer be a need for any of his roles—tempter/tester, accuser/prosecuting attorney, punisher/executioner, or raiser of world empires.

7. “Do not commit adultery.” Adultery consists of having sexual relations with someone else’s wife or husband. Having sex with one’s own wife or husband is not a sin. Even if Genesis 6 were correctly interpreted as suggesting that angels married human women, would that be a sin? We don’t know of any commandments given to angels not to marry humans, and the term “marry” is definitely in the Genesis 6 passage. Whoever the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are, they are not raping the “daughters of men” or having sex with them outside the bonds of marriage. They are “marrying” them. Since this is the most significant version of the Fallen Angel Story in the Greek period, we will return to the issue of angels having sex with humans in a future commentary. Jesus seems to suggest that it is impossible. But, for now, we are just considering what Law angels may have broken. We do not know of any Law against marrying human women.

8. “Do not steal.” If, as I discussed in “Angels & Demons 2: The ‘Prometheus’ Connection,” Azazel and the fallen angels had (like Prometheus) STOLEN fire and cultural arts from God, they might be accused of breaking this commandment. However, I Enoch 65:6-7 speaks of the angel’s secrets that were passed on to humans, including sorcery, incantations, and working with melted metals such as silver, lead, and tin—but never accuses the angels of STEALING such things. Furthermore, this Fallen Angel Story of bringing culture to humans is not found anywhere in the New Testament. I surmise, therefore, that this is ALSO NOT a Law broken by angels.

9. “Do not bear false witness.” This is a tough one, but it never shows up in Fallen Angel Stories. As I mentioned when discussing “Do not kill,” John’s gospel quotes Jesus (8:44): “You have the devil for your father and you wish to practice the desires of your father; . . . he could not stay in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks according to his nature; for he is a liar and the father of liars.” As I also mentioned, Jesus is probably referring to Satan’s role as a tempter. If as the New Testament asserts, the serpent of Genesis is actually Satan, it is clear that he lies. He said, “You shall not surely die.” The serpent was, as a result of his act, cursed: the offspring of woman will eventually crush his head. Is this, then, the Law broken by an angel that could result in a Fallen Angel Story? It has possibilities, but, strangely enough, the Fallen Angel Stories do not make that much out of it. Jesus mentions that Satan is a man killer and a liar, but when Satan is cast out of Heaven in Revelation 12, it seems to have happened because there was no longer any room for him in Heaven. Why wait until Jesus’ sacrifice to cast him out, if he has been a liar from the beginning? Even though Revelation calls him the “deceiver of all humanity,” one wonders if his deceit simply amounts to something like putting a False statement in a True-False test. Yes, it is a lie, but the student is being tested to see if s/he recognizes it as such. Am I sinning when I give my students True-False tests?

10. “Do not covet.” Unless it was connected to the commandment “Do not commit adultery,” no Fallen Angel Stories seem to claim that this specific Law was broken by angels. Even if connected to the sexual angel story, there seems to be no indication that the women whom the angels married belonged to someone else. Hence, the Law against coveting does not apply.

Why did we consider whether angels broke any of the Ten Commandments? Because, some sort of justification is needed for a Fallen Angel Story. Usually, that justification is found in some perceived “sin” of the angels. In my next commentary, I will relate to you a story. This is a fictional story, but it was written about the time of the New Testament. It tells of fallen angels who DID NOT SIN, but fell anyway. It attempts to justify a Fallen Angel Story without claiming a sin on the part of the angels. Why do you think that might be?

Angels & Demons 4: “The Great Satan” of Iran

The Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Time magazine named “Man of the Year” in 1979, and who became the Supreme Leader of Iran when the Shah of Iran was deposed during the Jimmy Carter administration, is famous for labeling America “The Great Satan.” It is fitting that someone from Iran speaks of “The Great Satan.” Iran is another name for Persia and in the years prior to the Persian Empire, Persian religion developed the concept of an Evil God who was constantly at war with a Good God. In other words, Persians/Iranians are largely responsible for giving us our popular misconceptions about Satan.

Before I discuss “The Great Satan,” permit me a quick review of world history, as it pertains to the history of the Jews:

The BABYLONIAN Empire 627-539 b.c. (King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon carried the Jews away into captivity in 567 b.c. The prophet Daniel and his friends—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—were among the young men who were captured. Daniel predicted the eventual Fall of Babylon to the Persian King Cyrus.)

The MEDO-PERSIAN Empire 539-323 b.c. (Jewish princess Esther becomes the Queen of Persia from 492 to 460 b.c. Around 400 b.c., under the rule of Persia, the last two books of the Bible were written—Ezra and Nehemiah—as these two men reestablished the Jewish religion in Jerusalem.)

The GREEK Empire 323-146 b.c. (In a period entirely between the Old and New Testaments, the Greek religious influence was strong. This is called the Hellenistic period. During this time, the Maccabees mounted a successful Jewish revolt against Greece and Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes defiled the Jerusalem Temple with Greek religious practices and forbade the practice of the Jewish religion.)

The ROMAN Empire (146) b.c.-476 a.d. (While the Romans conquered Greece in 146 b.c., they really did not become an “Empire” until their first “Emperor” Augustus Caesar in 27 b.c. Augustus was the Emperor during whose reign Jesus was born. Christians will certainly remember the decree that went forth from Augustus Caesar. Augustus was most likely the First Head of the seven-headed Beast of Revelation.)

One reason the influences of the Greeks and Persians on the Fallen Angel stories is missed by so many Christians is that these influences occurred mostly during the void of 400 years spanning the end of Old Testament history and the beginning of New Testament history. Readers may wonder why I am spending so much time debunking the mistaken notions about Fallen Angels. The simple answer is that it is necessary to “unlearn” all of the FALSEHOODS so that one can clearly see the TRUTHS. The New Testament and rabbinic Judaism were largely fighting against these falsehoods (as I shall demonstrate in future commentaries). In my book, Revelation: The Human Drama, I comment:


“Some interpreters of Revelation consider the informing anecdote of the book to be the conflict between God and Satan. This perceived conflict is a vestige of Judaism's contact with Persian religion. Martin Hengel discounts such ‘iranische Dualismus’ [or Persian Dualism] in accounting for the scene which, for example, produced the ‘fallen angel’ stories in the centuries preceding the New Testament period. In perusing John's Revelation, examples of a direct rivalry between God and Satan cannot be found. While allusions are made to ‘fallen angels’ in Revelation, it is not clear that they are typical of the fallen angel stories of the centuries preceding the Christian Era.”

By this comment, I mean what I stated before: “Persian religion developed the concept of an Evil God who was constantly at war with a Good God.” There is no picture in the Old Testament of a Satan who could rival God. The Hebrew word “SATAN” means “adversary” or “prosecuting attorney.” That’s all Satan was in the Book of Job. He certainly had not “fallen” from Heaven by then. Job 1:6 has Satan joining the angels in presenting themselves before God. He petitions God for permission to “test” Job. He certainly does not demand anything of God. This “testing” role is also the one he assumes in the New Testament as he “tests” Jesus in the desert, following his baptism. At the end of Jesus’ life (Luke 22:31), Jesus informs his disciples that Satan has asked permission to sift them all like wheat. This sounds to me like the same Satan who was in the courts of Heaven in Job.

Many of my university students view me as a professor who gives difficult tests. It’s probably true. Because of that fact, some of them view me as an adversary. So, if Satan forces us to endure difficult “tests,” we may easily view him as the “adversary” of MAN.

But, where is the hint in either the Old or New Testament that he is the adversary of GOD? God cannot be tested, and Satan “asks permission” from Him to test us. Some readers will immediately refer us to the “Lucifer” passage in Isaiah 14:12, but be careful! Nowhere does this passage mention “Satan.” (I’ll write more on this passage in a future commentary.) There is no such "Great Satan." If you are reading “Satan” into the passage, YOU ARE READING THE PASSAGE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PERSIAN RELIGION. The thirtieth Yasna, the ancient Zoroastrian worship texts from Persia, states: “Well known are the two primeval spirits correlated but independent; one is the better and the other is the worse as to thought, as to word, as to deed, and between these two let the wise choose aright.” This scripture from Persian religion tells you where your concept of Satan originated. Satan and God, according to Persian dualism, are the two INDEPENDENT, PRIMEVAL SPIRITS. One is good and one is bad. You must choose between them.

Paul even sees Satan as a useful agent in salvation. I Timothy 1:20 says that Paul surrendered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, so that they might be disciplined. In a similar vein, I Corinthians 5:5 has Paul counseling the church to hand over a fornicator to Satan so that Satan can destroy the fornicator’s “flesh,” in order that the fornicator’s “spirit” might be SAVED. Satan can apparently drive us to repent. That’s useful, right?

Do not misunderstand. I am not arguing that Satan is good. I am just pointing out that he is NOT the “Evil God” some make him out to be. He tests humans. In that sense, even though the serpent in Eden was not specifically called a “satan,” the New Testament correctly identifies him as such. When he finds that we are guilty, he is the prosecuting attorney, accusing us before God. Once God judges us, he is the executioner. These are all negative roles, from our (human) perspective. And Jesus came to put him out of a job. Jesus told his disciples, in Luke 10:18, that he had a vision of Satan falling from Heaven, like lightning. In Revelation 12, John sees Jesus’ prophecy fulfilled with Satan being cast out of Heaven (by Michael, not by God) when Jesus died on the cross. Satan was thrown out because his job as “accuser” was no longer needed. Jesus’ blood had secured forgiveness. No accuser is necessary in Heaven.