Can Angels Fall Away At Any Time?

Claim: Angels can fall at any time, and they have, in fact, fallen away multiple times, not just one time. Michael Heiser argues on pp. 58-60 of “Unseen Realm” that “God’s heavenly council members are corruptible; they are not perfect… God knows that none of his imagers, divine or human, can be completely trusted… Without genuine free will, imagers cannot truly represent God.” He asserts this from Job 4:14-19, and also claims that angels (and men) have libertarian free will with the ability to choose to rebel from God at any point in time. This idea is not only rooted in Arminian soteriology, but more specifically to this subject, is fundamental to Heiser’s interpretation of Genesis 6.

Response. The passage in question states, “Behold, he puts no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly” (Job 4:18). This is a statement about the mutable nature of angels if left alone to themselves, but this does not prove that they have libertarian free will, are perpetually corruptible, and that God cannot or will not give them supernatural grace to confirm and establish them in holiness and happiness. Matthew Poole (1624-1679) comments,

“And these God is said to put no trust in, because he could not be confident that they, if left to themselves, and destitute of the succours of his power and grace, would continue to be loyal, and faithful, and serviceable to him, and would not revolt from him, as some of their brethren had done. And for this cause God was pleased, after some time of trial, to give some special and further grace, either by Christ or otherwise, whereby they should be infallibly confirmed in the state of grace and felicity.” [1]

Thus, Job 4 does not support Heiser’s claim about angelic corruptibility. Moreover, the following is a positive case for the incorruptibility of angels after their remaining in the truth and not following Satan in his rebellion.

First, the Lord Jesus states, “That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat. 18:10b). [2] Reasoning by good and necessary consequence from this passage, James Ussher (1581-1656) wrote, “Can the good angels fall at any time? No. God hath confirmed them in their well-being, that they might never fall by sin from their first blessed estate, Mat. 18.10.” (Body of Divinity, p. 103).

Of the angels who did not fall into sin, the Westminster Larger Catechism states that God “established [them] in holiness and happiness (1 Tim. 5:21; Mark 8:38; Heb. 12:22).” (WLC Q. 19). Scripture refers to these as “the elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21) and “the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). If they are elect then they are 1) a subset of the whole, and 2) firmly established and unable to fall. Human beings may be elect and yet fallen only because Christ redeemed fallen mankind. But the Bible teaches that when the angels fell, the eternal Son of God did not take on their nature to save them, “for verily he took not on him the nature of angels” (Hebrews 2:16), but “he hath reserved [them] in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6). While not saving angels in their fall, Christ took on human nature to save fallen mankind: “…but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16), “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14; cf. Philippians 2:7-8). Moreover, Scripture states that “an innumerable company of angels” are present in the “heavenly Jerusalem” along with all elect and glorified men (Heb. 12:22), the implication being that if men are elect and glorified, so are these angels. 

John Damascene (675-749) explained this confirmation or establishment of the elect angels, stating that “through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit were they brought to perfection…” Damascene states that by nature they are moved to evil with great difficulty, yet were originally subject to change and not inherently immovable. But after the confirming grace of God on the elect angels, “they are altogether immovable” to sin. “With difficulty they are moved to evil, yet they are not absolutely immoveable: but now they are altogether immoveable, not by nature but by grace and by their nearness to the Only Good.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.3, NPNF 2-9.18-20). Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) similarly wrote:

“The angels are created in perfect righteousness and holiness, ‘by which they are confirmed to God,’ and the angels who persist in obedience ‘are so confirmed in the holiness and bliss in which they were being created, that although they serve their Creator with the height of free will, they could yet never fall from Him or lapse from the state of righteousness and felicity in which they are.’ This perseverance however they possess ‘by God’s sheer and gratuitous love to them through God’s Son who preserves and rules over them.’” (cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics 10.11, pp. 207-8).

In sum, the holy angels did keep their own estate and habitation in the truth, and did not rebel from God with Satan and his reprobate angels. Guilelmus Bucanus (d. 1603) succinctly states that at first, “they were able to sin and not to sin.” But after remaining loyal, God confirmed and established them in glory, such that “now they are so free from sin, that they cannot even sin [non posse peccare], and from wretchedness, that they could not be wretched any longer. They have become at once most holy and most blessed.” (cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics 10.11, pp. 207-8). “They were confirmed, not only that they should not fall, but that they should be no more capable of falling” (Turretin, IET IV.viii.7, vol. 1, p. 337).

The Pre-Fall Angelic Rebellion.

Claim: Scripture never speaks of the fall of the angels, therefore Jude has to be referring to Genesis 6. Michael Heiser argues on p. 98 of “Unseen Realm” that “there is no biblical evidence for a prefall angelic rebellion,” but rather “the idea comes from Milton’s Paradise Lost, not the Bible.” He argues that Genesis 6:1-4 is the only passage that 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 could be referring to regarding an angelic rebellion.

We have published elsewhere a thorough refutation of the case that these passages are referring to Genesis 6 (cf. Peter & Jude vs Pseudo-Enoch on Angels), but here we want to focus particularly on the assertion that there is no positive case in the traditional view that the Bible speaks of a pre-Fall angelic rebellion.

Response. First, there is no reason to exclude 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 from being explicit and direct references to a pre-Fall angelic rebellion, because there are many indirect and implicit references to it earlier in Scripture (Gen. 3; Isa. 14; John 8; etc.). Indirect and implicit biblical proof drawn from good and necessary consequence is just as valid, authoritative, and decisive as explicit and direct statements are. [3] We will answer this claim systematically rather than diachronically.

The Westminster Larger Catechism states that “God by his providence permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation (Jude 1:6; 2 Pet. 2:4; Heb. 2:16; John 8:44)…” (WLC Q. 19). Some angels “abode not in the truth” (John 8:44). “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation [i.e. heaven, Deut. 26:15], he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6). Turretin (1623-1687) expounds, “By ‘estate’ is meant God, their Creator, or the original holiness and rectitude in which they were created. Falling from this by their own voluntary apostasy, they lost the happy mansions of heaven in which they had been placed as in their own proper habitation with the other angels” (IET IX.v.5, vol. 1, p. 602). When they rebelled, “his angels he charged with folly” (Job 4:18). “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). Their chains are “everlasting,” and there is no hope of redemption. When the angels fell, the eternal Son of God did not take on their nature to save them, but rather took on human nature to save us when we fell: “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16).

When did this Fall of Satan and his angels occur? First, this must have happened after the sixth day of Creation when “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31). Fallen angels, as we saw above, could not be described as being “very good.”  Secondly, it must have occurred before the Fall of Adam and Eve, because “that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 20:2) was there in the “beginning” to temp them into sin (Genesis 3; John 8:44). [4] Jesus says that Satan “was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). Hence, Satan and his reprobate angels must have rebelled sometime between the close of the Creation week and the Fall of Man (cf. Turretin, IET IX.v.2, vol. 1, pp. 601-2).

It cannot be the case that there were multiple fallings away of angels in addition to this one. As we have seen above, the angels who did not fall were confirmed by God in holiness. If all the rest were confirmed in this way, then there would be no more angels which could have fallen.

Scripture does not give us many details, but it alludes to Satan’s original sin and falling away. Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) explains:

“All sin in its nature is the despoiling God of his sole sovereignty, which was probably the first thing the devil aimed at. That pride was the sin of the devil, the Scripture gives us some account of, when the apostle adviseth not a novice, or one that hath but lately embraced the faith, to be chosen a bishop: “Lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6), lest he fall into the same sin for which the devil was condemned. But in what particular thing this pride was manifest is not so easily discernible.

“The ancients generally conceived it to be an affecting the throne of God, grounding it on Isaiah 14:12-13: “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning! for thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” It is certain the prophet speaks there of the king of Babylon, and taxeth him for his pride, and gives to him the title of Lucifer, perhaps likening him in his pride to the devil; and then it notes plainly the particular sin of the devil, attempting a share in the sovereignty of God. And some strengthen their conjecture from the name of the archangel who contended against Satan, Jude 9, which is Michael; which signifies, Who as God? or Who like God? the name of the angel giving the superiority to God, intimating the contrary disposition in the devil, against whom he contended.

“It is likely his sin was an affecting an equality with God in empire, or a freedom from the sovereign authority of God, because he imprinted such a kind of persuasion on man at his first temptation, “Ye shall be as gods” (Gen. 3:5). And though it be restrained to the matter of knowledge, yet that being a fitness for government, it may be extended to that also. But it is plainly a persuading them that they might be in some sort equal with God, and independent of him as their superior. What he had found so fatal to himself, he imagined would have the same success in the ruin of man. And since the devil hath in all ages of the world usurped a worship to himself, which is only due to God, and would be served by man, as if he were the god of the world; since all his endeavour was to be worshipped as the supreme god on earth, it is not unreasonable to think that he invaded the supremacy of God in heaven, and endeavoured to be like the Most High before his banishment, as he hath attempted to be like the Most High since. And since the devil and antichrist are reputed by John in the Revelation to be so near of kin, and so like in disposition, why might not that which is the sin of antichrist, the image of him, be also the sin of Satan, “to exalt himself above all that is called God” (2 Thes. 2:4), and “sit as God in his temple,” affecting a partnership in his throne and worship? Whether it was this, or attempting an unaccountable dominion over created things, or because he was the prime angel, and the most illustrious of that magnificent corporation, he might think himself fit to reign with God over all things else.

“Or if his sin were envy, as some think, at the felicity of man in paradise, it was still a quarreling with God’s dominion, and right of disposing his own goods and favours; he is therefore called Belial: “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15), i.e. with the devil, one “without yoke,” as the word Belial signifies.”
(The Existence & Attributes of God, discourse 13, vol. 2, pp. 1481-1483)

Are Fallen Angels Currently in Hell?

Question: If Peter and Jude are not referring to fallen angels in Genesis 6, but rather to all fallen angels, then how do we understand their punishment in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6? How are the fallen angels said to be “cast down into hell,” “bound in chains of darkness,” and “reserved unto judgment,” if we see them present on earth and are warned of them all throughout the Bible (1 Peter 5:8; Eph. 6:11; Mat. 4:24; 1 Cor. 10:20, etc.)?

Answer: Peter seems to be speaking a posteriori by way of anticipation to emphasize that the devils’ judgment is inescapable and that it is as sure and certain as if it were already taking place. Turretin explains:

“Although in truth, this most just sentence of God against the Devil was immediately passed, yet it was not immediately executed as to all its parts. Although he has been cast down from heaven, he was not straightway hurled into hell, but is still permitted some delay in the world—God loosening the reins somewhat in his wisdom, both for the exercise of the pious and the punishment of the wicked. Hence he is called “the prince of the air” and “[the prince] of the world,” “the god of this age” who, “as a roaring lion, walketh about [us] seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). Here is to be referred that passage concerning “the loosening and binding of Satan until the last day, when he shall be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where he shall be tormented forever” (Rev. 20:10, 14).” (IET IV.viii.21, vol. 1, p. 341; cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, p. 186).

The word for “hell” in 2 Peter 2:4 is tartarus (ταρταρώσας) elsewhere called the abyss (ἄβυσσος) or deep (Luke 8:31) and the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1; 11:7-8; 20:1, 3) (cf. Matthew Poole commentary), and likely points to the sense of a prison more-so than a fully realized eternal punishment in the lake of fire. As Turretin writes, “the chains which are now for custody will then be for punishment; and what is now somewhat relaxed will then be most weighty and close.” (IET XX.vi.11, vol. 3, p. 600). Poole comments, “darkness may imply the misery and horror of their condition, and chains, their obduracy in their wickedness, their despair of deliverance, their expectation of future judgment (Heb. 10:27), together with the providence and power of God, watching over and holding them in that condition, till final vengeance come upon them. It is a metaphor taken from malefactors condemned, who are bound in chains, and kept in the dungeon till execution.” This may also be similar to how Satan is bound and cast into, shut up, and sealed in the bottomless pit (Rev. 20:2-3), and yet many do not understand this to necessarily be a spatially confined binding and that Satan still prowls among us as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8), against whom Christians must resist by faith and the full armor of God (James 4:7; Eph. 6:11-18). [5]

Conclusion

In sum, Q. 19. What is God’s providence toward the angels? A. God by his providence permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation (Jude 1:6; 2 Pet. 2:4; Heb. 2:16; John 8:44), limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own glory (Job 1:12; Matt. 8:31); and established the rest in holiness and happiness (1 Tim. 5:21; Mark 8:38; Heb. 12:22); employing them all (Ps. 104:4), at his pleasure, in the administrations of his power, mercy, and justice (2 Kings 19:35; Heb. 1:14).

---

[1] Matthew Henry (1662-1714) similarly comments on Job 4:18, “So mutable is even the angelical nature that God would not trust angels with their own integrity; if he had, they would all have done as some did, left their first estate; but he saw it necessary to give them supernatural grace to confirm them.”

[2] Regarding personal guardian angels, Poole notes on Mat. 18:10b: “Here is no ground in this text for their notion, who fancy that every particular child of God hath his proper angel to attend him. Our Saviour doth not say their several and respective angels, but their angels; and if all the angels be ministering spirits, for the good of God’s elect (Heb. 1:14), I see no great reason to contend for a particular angel for every individual amongst them. But be that as it will, the opinion hath no patronage from this text.”

[3] Cf. Are Only Explicit Scripture Proofs Valid?

[4] Heiser also denies that “the serpent” in the Garden, and “the Satan” in Job are the same person, although, he admits, the label “the Satan” was later appropriated for him; according to Heiser, the Satan in Job is not even a fallen angel, but is on God’s side (p. 57; p. 243, n. 6; pp. 278-9). This simple statement in Revelation 20:2 is so clear that only an academic could conjure up sophistical doubts about this.

[5] Cf. James Durham here, under subheading: “Satan’s Binding (Rev. 20:2-3) is not Absolute.”