Iniquity, its Discovery

In my view, iniquity—whether found in angels or in men—has nothing to do with thought, with motive, with behavior, with aspiration, or with any such thing. The iniquity found in Lucifer was not his by reason of his contemplation, his actions, or his inaction. The Light Bearer was the foremost expression of God’s essence, and he served at the pleasure of the father. Bad nor good, the iniquity found in him was a dynamic found within the creation and its creator. Anything at all for which one of his accusers might consider him to be responsible could not have been its cause; neither could he have undertaken countermeasures to prevent its gestation.

Until the very instant iniquity was discovered within Lucifer, the cherub performed in innocent perfection: not in mere adequacy or acceptability, but in perfection! Another question then arises: if the iniquity found in him was failure, was the shortcoming the result of some third-party assault? Had he been touched by a devil? What devil?! The responsibility for Lucifer’s fall was what the prophet Isaiah reported: the work of la!

Iniquity nwo is commonly understood to be "grossly unfair or immoral behavior." I own a dictionary that says just that; but if that were the case here, the angel’s prior perfection had been a sham made possible by his fortitude: by the heroic restraint through which he withstood error while concealing the struggle and its cause. He would have been technically obeying God’s will while concealing contentious issues stemming from inner turmoil. Practicing duplicitous stoicism while posturing as an obedient servant invites perverse, sympathetic intrigue, but it’s far from perfection: he would have been busy maintaining a delusion, so long as would be possible. This would not have earned him the appreciative nod he received when the judgment came.

If the iniquity had gone unnoticed but had come to God’s attention at some later date, it could be argued that a perfect Lucifer had been torpedoed in his innocence, making him a victim. Well, speculation aside, the text says that he was perfect in all his ways. If that genuine perfection later fell prey to imperfection, the Light Bearer had been susceptible to error by his natural design and was therefore imperfect because of an innate vulnerability. If that is so, he had failed— he had missed the mark— because he was not protected by the father; and the judgment ought to have come with the comforting words, “Sit down here until I make your enemy your footstool.”

Without the father’s seal of approval, imperfection might have arisen in Lucifer as a consequence of anything he thought, said, did, or failed to do; or for something he did do, but had done so inadequately or inappropriately. None of these scenarios is likely, however, because the judgment was that the Morning Star had been perfect in all his ways. As I have suggested, there is an understanding of the judgment that makes no accusation at all against the Light Bearer or la; but its premise is very deep. I hope to get to it in this writing. I’ve touched upon it already, but there is a great deal to be said.