Biblical Demonology: Part 3 – Fallen Angels
Fallen Angels
Fallen angels are almost universally accepted across Christian traditions throughout the millennia as the angels that have engaged in rebellion against God [1]. However, “angel” means “messenger” and is a job description. It’s like there are guards at Buckingham palace, but there are also guards in a beehive. No-one would argue that the queen is guarded by bees, nor a beehive guarded by busby hatted humans. Both are guards, but they are different classes of beings – bees and humans.
Many Christians believe that there was at least one fall of the “angels”, often citing Revelation 12:3 as the dragon’s (taken to be Satan) “tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth”, and the subsequent war in heaven revealed in the rest of the chapter. This is not actually about the fall of a third of the angels as Milton teaches in Paradise Lost, but is a reference to the constellation Hydra which spans a third of the celestial heavens and the timing of the birth of Jesus, when the Sun was in Virgo and the Moon between the feet of that asterism.
In Scripture there there are four falls:
- The fall of the nāḥāš, (pronounced “na-cash”) the original “Rebel” being of Genesis 3, often understood as a snake / serpent, for reasons below. This may be due to pride, linked with Ezekiel 28’s King of Tyre.
- The fall of humans in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), spurred on by the nāḥāš.
- The fall of the Watchers (Genesis 6:1-4; 1 Enoch 6-11).
- The fall of the Sons of God (Divine Council Members), Genesis 10, Deuteronomy 32:8,9, Psalm 82 and 89.
In Jewish understanding, the first two points above are generally compressed into a single ‘Edenic’ fall.
Satan – Anointed Cherub / Seraph, not Fallen “Angel”
We need to nip one misconception in the bud at this point – that the being known as Satan, was an angel.
The nāḥāš of Genesis 3 is alluded to particularly in Ezekiel 28 where the “King of Tyre” that’s been spoken of is called an “anointed cherub” in verse 14 [2].
Cherubim are not as we moderns portray – chubby babies with wings – but are winged guardian beings, protecting sacred trees (Genesis 3:24, 1 Kings 6:23-35; 7:36 and Ezekiel 41:18-25) or as throne guardians (Exodus 25:20; 37:9; Isaiah 6 (see seraphim paragraph below) and Ezekiel 10:20). They mark and guard the boundary between the divine and human realms [3]. They were chimeral in nature, like winged lions with human heads, similar to the Egyptian sphinx beings [4], and their imagery influenced by Babylonian and other surrounding cultures of the times. In various places they appear in different forms:
The cherubim in Ezekiel 10 have four faces and two pairs of wings. In Ezek 41:18–20, they are portrayed with two faces, although this is probably because they are depicted in profile. Elsewhere in the Bible, they seem to have one face and one pair of wings (Ex 25:18–22; 37.7–9; 1 Kgs 6:23–28). In Ezekiel, the cherubim may be biped (Ezek 1:5, 7), whereas elsewhere they appear to be quadruped (Ps 18:10 = 2 Sam 22:11).
Wood (2008), 2 n 4.
Although sounding very different, Seraphim appear to carry out very similar functions to cherubim, and may well be simply a different cultures understanding of them – the Hebraic / Egyptian cultures and the Babylonian. Seraphim comes from the Hebrew śārap̲, saraph, meaning “to burn” as well as “serpent” and fits well with the Egyptian Uraeus serpent, based on cobras which spit “burning” venom and have hoods which in ancient near east understanding were “wings” [5]. In Egyptian understanding, the uraeus were serpentine beings which protected the pharaoh.
As such, the nāḥāš, Hebrew for serpent or bright shining one as a cherubim throne guardian makes more sense. Given too that the Egyptians and other ancient cultures had theriomorphic (animal imagery) for divine beings (think the jackle for Anubis and frog for Kek), it would make sense that the Hebrews, living in that culture for 400 years, would have brought with them such theriomorphic concepts to the story of the Garden of Eden and the “talking snake”. Thus, seeing that story through the eyes of the original recipients, we now can see that it’s a divine being that’s being described, not a member of the animal kingdom per sé.
Throughout the OT, we see the particular figure of “the satan” being an accuser. It was a legal role within the Divine Council, being the legalistic prosecution for humankind, based upon the material recorded in the heavenly books. It is therefore likely that ‘the satan’ in Job 1 isn’t the same being as the original Rebel in the Garden of Eden.
When we get to the New Testament, Satan becomes personified as the original Rebel in Eden and Accuser of the Saints, as well as the one mentioned in Revelation as the Dragon.
Thus, Satan, the original Rebel, was an anointed cherub / seraph, and not a mere messenger (angel) role being. We’ll do an in-depth article / series on Satan in the OT and NT, but that’s for another time.
Fallen Angels, Sons of God and Watchers
The relationship between fallen angels, the Enochic Watchers and the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 has created much debate amongst Christians.
The oldest understanding of the Watchers within the Church is that they were heavenly beings which fell; these were fallen, rebellious angels or ‘sons of God’ [6]. According to the Watchers tradition were led by two main spirit beings:
- Azâzêl, whose rebellion taught humans weaponry and warfare, and seduction techniques (1 Enoch 8:1).
- Semjâzâ (1 Enoch 6:3), whose plan was for he and his two hundred followers to impregnate human women and have children by them, and who also taught magical practices (1 Enoch 7:1-2)
Partridge notes two figures, Justin Martyr and Martin Luther, both understood that the Watchers and “sons of God” were “fallen angels” [7]. Bates says that ‘The fallen-angel view is a common view held by the translators of the Septuagint … ancient Jewish interpreters, the historian Josephus [and] the earliest Christian writers’ [8]. Contra to this, writers such as Augustine in his City of God, Book XV, Ch. 22 says ‘Of course, the “sons of God” were the sons of men by nature, but by grace they had begun to have another name.’ and in Ch. 23 goes on to state his belief that the writer in 2 Peter 2:4 meant the ‘angels that sinned’ referred to the angels that fell with the Devil as their leader, and has nothing to do with the Genesis 6:1-4 passage of Scripture. Augustine’s reticence to acknowledging the angelic connection to the “sons of God” may come from his understanding of passages such as Psalm 82:6 as pertaining to humans, rather than a Divine Council of heavenly beings [9]. Augustine however wasn’t the first to deny the supernatural nature of these passages, Julius Africanus (AD 160-240) is the first recorded teacher who believed the Old Testament “sons of God” were not divine beings [10].
Heiser, whilst acknowledging the importance of Church history and tradition, recognises the issues that arise from an over-reliance upon them in biblical studies, and argues: ‘The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers – the context that produced the Bible.’ [11] His work, The Unseen Realm (2015), argues persuasively that Augustine’s perception of Psalm 82 is erroneous, and that the passage refers to a Divine Council of the “sons of God” who are heavenly beings that are judged for their wicked ways in misleading the human race and were cast down upon Mount Hermon. Heiser explains their current role: ‘the nations are currently ruled by fallen sons of God, who oppress their populations (Deut 32:8; Ps 82:1–5) [12]. The psalmist recounts God’s judgement in his heavenly assembly – that these sons of God will die like men (Ps 82:6–7).’ If Augustine is correct, that these are purely human beings in Psalm 82, then it is surely superfluous to say that they will “die like men”. A key understanding of the heavenly realms comes from realising the existence of a Divine Council through which God operates in the heavenly realms, much as the world and church operates in the earthly realm. I highly recommend The Unseen Realm for further exploration of the Divine Council, ‘Deuteronomy 32’ worldview, as it helps unlock so much about the Bible which we don’t see with an Enlightenment perspective reading of Scripture.
Where are the Fallen Angels?
There must be at least two sets of fallen angels:
Fall 3 – Genesis 6:1-4
A group of Watchers, who fell through breaching cosmic ordained boundaries between the heavenly and earthly realm, by either encouraging deviant pursuits of various skills, and / or hybridisation with human beings. These are chained and bound until the final judgement as per Jude 6, 1 Enoch 10. The Animal Apocalypse (which is 1 Enoch 85-90, but here specifically 88:3) and Jubilees 5:6,10.
1 Enoch 10 states that a group of archangels (beings over the angels which are ‘in charge of maintaining created order, plotting out times and seasons, and praising the Most High’ [13]) were sent to deal with both Semjâzâ and Azâzêl, the Watchers which fell with them, their offspring and their subsequent offspring. According to Walton [14], Azâzêl, being first to be mentioned for binding in 1 Enoch 10, and who was responsible for teaching seduction techniques, may well be ultimately to blame for the resulting fall of Semjâzâ and the Watchers with the human women that engaged in sexual relations with them.
2 Peter 2:4 tells us that they were in hell, though this doesn’t actually translate well into English, for the term used here for hell is the Greek word tartarus – which in the mindset of those reading and hearing Peter’s words meant a specific place that was as far below the underworld as the heavens are above it. In Greek mythology, it was the place of punishment for rebellious titans, gods and later, sinners (read more here).
Fall 4 – Tower of Babel
Fallen sons of God which did not engage in following Semjâzâ or Azâzêl, and are thus not bound in the same way and were part of the fourth falling. This came at the time when the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25) into the 70 nations of Genesis 10 after the Tower of Babel rebellion in Genesis 11 (the two chapters are not in chronological order), and were assigned gods from the fallen Divine Council “sons of God” over them – see Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82 & 89.
Walton [15] notes that Daniel’s Watchers were “good angels”, suggesting that either all the previous class of watchers were fallen and new ones chosen to replace them by Yahweh, or that there was only a partial fall of the Watchers. Either is a possibility up for conjecture, though the latter suggestion seems to have more Scriptural backing.
According to Heiser (2015), the fallen “sons of God” which were not imprisoned, were assigned over the nations as their gods as we have explained above. However, they have been disarmed in their authority over those who are in Christ (Colossians 2). That there are 70 nations mentioned in the Table of Nations, links with the sending of the 70 disciples – into Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), i.e. there’s a redemption of the nations which were assigned disinherited “sons of God” over them.
Summary
It now seems clear that the further away in time we get from the early church, the less likely there seems to be an acceptance that the “sons of God” are the fallen angels which fell according to Genesis 6:1-4. However, the recovery by the Western Church of 1 Enoch over the past two hundred years, and its renaissance of interest amongst scholars, together with angelology being a legitimate branch of biblical studies, shows that we may be able to recover the paranormal understanding of these passages and rediscover the original idea of the fallen angels being fallen, heavenly “sons of God”.
The spirit beings we know as fallen angels, were Watchers in the Divine Council “sons of God”, who were originally good and sang at the dawn of Creation, but fell through their own rebellious acts against their ordained purposes and roles within the created order. They are evil by nature now, and are a subset of a bigger group of evil spirits that incorporates other spirit beings which are aligned with the forces of darkness.
The Rebel character in Eden, which we now call Satan, was not an angel in the sense of a divine messenger, but was an anointed cherub / seraph member within the Divine Council, responsible to protecting the boundary between the profane and sacred, and a throne guardian for Yahweh.
Next Time – Having looked at fallen angels as Watchers, fallen “sons of God”, we come to the “bastard sons of God”, the gibbōrim (giants), their offpsring, the Nephilim, and their spirits when they are killed. These fall into the bigger category of evil spirits.
Bibliography
Bates, G. (2004) Alien Intrusion – UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Heiser, M. S. (2015) The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Heiser, M. S. (2018) Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God’s Heavenly Host, Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Martin, D. B. (2010) ‘When Did Angels Become Demons?’, The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 647-677.
Nickelsberg, G. W. E. and VanderKam, J. C. (2012), 1 Enoch – The Hermenia Translation, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Partridge, C. (2005) The Re-Enchantment of the West: Volume 2, London: T & T Clark International.
Unger, M. F. (1994) Biblical Demonology: A Study of Spiritual Forces at Work Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Van der Toorn, K., Van der Horst, P. W., et al (1998), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Lieden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.
Walton, J. H. and Walton, J. H. (2019), Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in its Cultural and Literary Context. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Wood, A. (2008) Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Zema, D. B., Walsh, G. G. (2008), The City of God, Books VIII-XVI: Vol. 14 (Fathers of the Church Series). Washington: Catholic University America Press.
Footnotes
[1] Unger, 52-55.
[2] Some translations (eg NRSV) have “with an anointed cherub” in Ezekiel 28:14, but this is an inferior translation coming from the LXX, whereas the MT is a better choice of translation. For a full discussion on this, see Wood (2008:66-75).
[3] Wood, 53.
[4] Van der Toorn, Van der Hoorst et al, 190.
[5] Heiser, 2018:26-7.
[6] Martin, 2010:666. Yes, I too smiled at the page number, appropriate for this topic.
[7] Partridge, 211.
[8] Bates, 352.
[9] Zema and Walsh, 473-474, n. 7 (which erroneously references Psalm 81:6).
[10] Heiser, 2020:109.
[11] Heiser, 2015:16.
[12] Heiser, 2018:13.
[13] Ibid, 104.
[14] Walton, 114.
[15] Ibid, 115.
