Iniquity, its Discovery

In my view, iniquity—whether it might be 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 Lucifer have undertaken countermeasures to prevent its gestation.

Until the very instant iniquity was discovered within him, 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 was 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: a hoax perpetuated by his fortitude—by a heroic restraint, through which he had managed to hold off error while concealing the struggle and its causes.

Had he been a troubled Light Bearer, he would have been technically obedient to God’s will while he was concealing contentious issues stemming from an inner turmoil. Unlike the lily of the field, his cloak of perfection would have been mere pretense.

Practicing duplicitous stoicism while posturing as an obedient servant begs for 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 succumbed to imperfection because of his innate vulnerability

If that were so: if he had failed—if he had missed the mark only because his imperfect nature had been poorly protected by the father, the 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 protective seal of approval, imperfection could have arisen in Lucifer as consequence of anything he thought, said, did, or failed to do; or as correction for something he did do, but inadequately or inappropriately.

None of these scenarios is likely, however, because the judgment was that he who is called the Morning Star had been perfect in all his ways.

As I have suggested, there is understanding of the judgment that makes no accusation at all against the Light Bearer or his 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.