Iniquity, its Discovery

In my view, iniquity—whether it is found in angels or in man—has nothing to do with thought, motive, behavior, aspiration, or 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 served at the pleasure of the father. Bad nor good, therefore, the iniquity found in him was symptomatic of the dynamics of creation and of its creator. Anything at all for which the Light Bearer’s 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 had performed in innocent perfection: not in mere adequacy or acceptability, but in perfection! The question then arises: if the iniquity found in him was failure, was it the result of some third-party assault? Had he been wounded by a lurking devil? No. Responsibility for Lucifer’s fall is attributable to what the prophet Isaiah reported: the hand of hla!

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

If the iniquity had gone unnoticed but had come to God’s attention at some later date, it could be claimed that Lucifer had been torpedoed in his innocence, making him a victim. Speculation aside, the text says that the cherub was perfect in all his ways. If genuine perfection later fell prey to imperfection, the Light Bearer would have been susceptible to error because of his design and had become imperfect through innate vulnerability. If that were so, he had failed—had missed the mark— only because his nature was unprotected by the father; and judgment against him 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 could have arisen in Lucifer in consequence of anything he thought, said, did, or failed to do; or for something he did do, but had done 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.