Multiple Angelic Falls? – The Challenge of Enoch, Jewish Tradition, & the Early Church

Reader Antonius said:

Peace be with all of you, brethren and sistren: שָׁלוֹם, Ειρήνη, Pax! (cf. John 19:20).

I recently had a wonderful, faith-rejuvenating stay at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic monastery in California. The monks there follow the Rite of the Great Church of Constantinople (Byzantine Rite) according to the Ukrainian Slavic type. They are truly authentic & genuine; godly men seeking to live their tradition and love the Lord with all their hearts. I was most blessed to be with them!

As is customary during breakfast, a table reading is done whilst the monks eat in silence. The reader for this meal with one of the novices. He read from a book by an Eastern Orthodox priest which discussed the nature of the Gospel from an Eastern view. One of the striking claims he made in the book was that there was not only a single Fall of the Angels, but subsequent ones as well. These continued until the Great Flood, which was in part a response to these successive angelic falls. The priest further argued that one of the major missions of Christ, beyond redemption for mankind, was to conquer these demonic beings that had effectively taken rulership of most of the nations. As a former Dominican friar and seminarian, I immediately connected this book with the Enochian tradition of Second Temple Judaism, as well as the "Christus Victor" view of Atonement that is cherished in the East.

Yet, at the same time, I was troubled by this. My own Roman/Western Catholic (shared by most Protestants) is that Satan and his angels' Fall was a once-and-for-all event. After it, demons began to exist and perhaps Hell as well. Yet, this very clear-cut view does not seem to have been how the Second Temple Jews or even some Early Fathers conceived of the Fall of Satan. If you went back in time, many would probably agree that Satan (the twelve-winged leader of the fallen angels) fell at an early point, but they would also tell you that much of the evil of the world was also due to the fall of the "Watchers."

To make a long story short, the Enochian tradition (popular in ancient Judaism & early Christianity) proposed that there was a Fall of about 300 angels due to lusting after human women. Indeed, this Enochian idea is probably rooted in Genesis 6:1-4, and derives from it (more on that later!). Basically, Azazel, their leader, makes them bind an oath that, if they do this, they will not repent. They agree and make the oath on Mt. Hermon in Israel, which gives the mountain its name. They take human women as "brides," but also teach mankind things we were not ready to know. Weaponry, astrology, make-up to be more sexually attractive, metal-working, mining, etc. Worse, the offspring of these demonic-human unions were Nephilim (Aramaic: "giants"). Apparently they made slaves of most of the sons of St. Adam, forcing them to provide them with food. But the voracious appetite of the giants outstripped the human ability to produce...and so the Nephilim began eating humans. The cries of suffering and calling out to God were heard by the Archangels. God, in turn, sent them forth to defeat and bring the situation under control. Moreover, he chose a righteous son of St. Seth, St. Enoch, to be His prophet. The Watchers, interestingly, beg Enoch to intercede before God for them, having now seen the horrors they had created. St. Enoch does as they ask, but God refuses their half-hearted "repentance." Subsequently, he punishes the main perpetrators (importantly, Azazel is bound deep in the deserts) and prepares a Great Flood to wipe out both the wickedness of man and the giants. St. Noah is given warning in advance after St. Enoch is taken into Heaven, and the story follows more or less as Genesis recounts it.

According to most Jews and some early Christians (even orthodox ones), much of the evils of the world are due to this "Fall of Azazel" (distinct from Satan's Fall). It has interesting parallels also with the other ancient stories, like Prometheus in Greece, for example.

Over time however the Apostolic Church judged by the Holy Spirit that 1 Enoch, while long having been reverenced, was not inspired and thus not to be included in the canon. It wasn't long after that point that 1 Enoch began to fade away; being copied less and less. In our day and age, only the Ge'ez Ethiopian version of 1 Enoch contains the entirety of the book, although most scholars have compared it with Greek survivals and it does appear quite accurate as a translation.

All that aside, I have been reflecting and discerning on this idea of multiple falls of angels. My Thomistic training suggests it is metaphysically problematic. My Catholic Faith tells me that it is unlikely given the common teaching. Yet, my Church has never formally ruled one way or the other. Moreover, non-Roman Catholics have a variety of views on this, some of them not that different from that Eastern Orthodox priest's book.

Could it really be possible that, even after Satan fell from Heaven, other angels subsequently followed his example at later times? There's nothing I know of in angelology that rules it out per se, and if we take into account the story of Lot (cf. Genesis 19:10), for example, angelic beings do seem to have the capacity (the "how" is uncertain) to take physicality or engage in it functionally. Is it so far-fetched that they could have done something abominable with those women, bringing forth monstrous giants? Is it so impossible, to put it another way, that they manipulated human reproduction out of envy for our ability to procreate with God?

Indeed, it has long been held that Satan and the demonic envy mankind because God has given us the ability to "create" with Him. No demon, not even Satan himself, can create...he can only corrupt what is made, or otherwise alter it. Thus, a truly wicked and abominable thing (quite worthy of a catastrophic Flood!) would have been to try to manipulate or ape the gift that God gave to humanity alone as beings both spiritual and material. And the results of such wickedness were monstrosities in the most basic sense of the term.

Honestly, I go back and forth on this...especially since no definitive judgement by my Church has been made. But here is my current hypothesis, which I'd like to discuss with anyone willing:

I. God creates Adam. Satan is disgusted that a creature made from dust, a hybrid of matter and spirit, is so loved by God. Out of envy, pride in his glory, and disobedience, he rebels. Satan is defeated with those angels who joined him, and cast down. Presumably this is also when Hell begins to exist.

II. After mankind has grown numerous, angels in Heaven become fascinated by us to the point of temptation. "They can do what we cannot..." perhaps they thought, and so decided to rebel against God as Satan did...but for a different purpose. This fall, which I call "Azazel's Fall" or "The Fall of Hermon" is motivated by slightly different interests, but is nevertheless deeply sinful and wicked. It spreads sinful ideas among mankind, and creates unnatural things that warp God's good Creation. The results are catastrophic and God must intervene drastically. Hence, the Great Flood. Due to the planetary & spiritual upheaval of the Deluge, the postdiluvian world sees no more falling of angels. The enmity and sides, effectively, become rigid.

III. Despite the Great Flood bringing stability, the demons begin to dominate mankind by ruling nations (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). There is Biblical warrant for this, which I can discuss later. This total domination, allowed by human sin, is checked slightly by the faith of Abraham and the creation of the People of Israel, with whom God uniquely interacts. Through them, God brings Christ Jesus, who through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection conquers the demons and takes away their dominion. He also passes judgement on them (John 16:11), which will come to pass at the Second Coming.

It's not an entirely indefensible proposition, however weird it may sound. And I wonder: Does it give us more insight into how our earliest forefathers in the Faith actually perceived their world?

What think you, my brothers and sisters?

Click to expand...

very interesting, how do you see the beatific vision effecting this, was this not withheld until after the fall of satan and then those left were enriched with it, resulting in them not being susceptible to temptation by pride?

Orthodox tradition mentions that satan had time to repent until the creation of man or The Crucifixion. He did not repent, so hell is certain for him.

There may have been other angels who fell together with satan, possibly from all ranks: seraphim, cherubim, thrones, etc.

Yet, their fall was not a result of free will, but an act of disobedience before God. In addition, they were given certain missions, in the beginning, which they failed.

They may be still enjoying a state of relative freedom which is illusory, for everything is subject to God. As well, they may think that hell is a valid kingdom/world separate from God. However, God sees such a foundation as sinful and illegal, and will punish it, with eternal death even.

I was going to type some copy from a book I've got called "Interview with an Exorcist" by Fr. Jose Antonia Fortea, but I found most of the material at this site.


There are a number of articles by Fr. Fortea dealing with the spiritual word on the site. I've referenced two of them below.



The following quote comes from the last link -

How can purely spiritual beings fight among themselves? What weapons do they use? Angels are spirits, so their battles must be purely intellectual. The only weapons that they can use are intellectual arguments. The angels gave reasons to the rebels for why they should return to obedience to God. The rebel angels countered with their reasons to support their position and spread their rebellion among the faithful angels. In this epic angelic battle, some who were inclined to rebel returned to obedience, while some of the faithful angels were seduced by the evil arguments of the rebels.

Click to expand...

While I take the "Enochian position" with a big grain of salt, it would appear that there was some debate between angels during their final rebellion, which would long have preceded humanity's fall.

One thing that intrigues me though is why they were cast down to earth. If you wanted to be certain Adam and Eve made the wrong choice, I could hardly think of a surer way to do it.

I suppose God tested the angels, and then He used the fallen angels to test humans.

Since He is "Good", He could hardly tempt them Himself.

Or as my old pastor put it one day when I asked him why God made the devil of all creatures, he thought for a moment, shrugged and said "Oh, I suppose he's got a job to do!"

Reader Antonius said:

Peace be with all of you, brethren and sistren: שָׁלוֹם, Ειρήνη, Pax! (cf. John 19:20).

I recently had a wonderful, faith-rejuvenating stay at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic monastery in California. The monks there follow the Rite of the Great Church of Constantinople (Byzantine Rite) according to the Ukrainian Slavic type. They are truly authentic & genuine; godly men seeking to live their tradition and love the Lord with all their hearts. I was most blessed to be with them!

As is customary during breakfast, a table reading is done whilst the monks eat in silence. The reader for this meal with one of the novices. He read from a book by an Eastern Orthodox priest which discussed the nature of the Gospel from an Eastern view. One of the striking claims he made in the book was that there was not only a single Fall of the Angels, but subsequent ones as well. These continued until the Great Flood, which was in part a response to these successive angelic falls. The priest further argued that one of the major missions of Christ, beyond redemption for mankind, was to conquer these demonic beings that had effectively taken rulership of most of the nations. As a former Dominican friar and seminarian, I immediately connected this book with the Enochian tradition of Second Temple Judaism, as well as the "Christus Victor" view of Atonement that is cherished in the East.

Yet, at the same time, I was troubled by this. My own Roman/Western Catholic (shared by most Protestants) is that Satan and his angels' Fall was a once-and-for-all event. After it, demons began to exist and perhaps Hell as well. Yet, this very clear-cut view does not seem to have been how the Second Temple Jews or even some Early Fathers conceived of the Fall of Satan. If you went back in time, many would probably agree that Satan (the twelve-winged leader of the fallen angels) fell at an early point, but they would also tell you that much of the evil of the world was also due to the fall of the "Watchers."

To make a long story short, the Enochian tradition (popular in ancient Judaism & early Christianity) proposed that there was a Fall of about 300 angels due to lusting after human women. Indeed, this Enochian idea is probably rooted in Genesis 6:1-4, and derives from it (more on that later!). Basically, Azazel, their leader, makes them bind an oath that, if they do this, they will not repent. They agree and make the oath on Mt. Hermon in Israel, which gives the mountain its name. They take human women as "brides," but also teach mankind things we were not ready to know. Weaponry, astrology, make-up to be more sexually attractive, metal-working, mining, etc. Worse, the offspring of these demonic-human unions were Nephilim (Aramaic: "giants"). Apparently they made slaves of most of the sons of St. Adam, forcing them to provide them with food. But the voracious appetite of the giants outstripped the human ability to produce...and so the Nephilim began eating humans. The cries of suffering and calling out to God were heard by the Archangels. God, in turn, sent them forth to defeat and bring the situation under control. Moreover, he chose a righteous son of St. Seth, St. Enoch, to be His prophet. The Watchers, interestingly, beg Enoch to intercede before God for them, having now seen the horrors they had created. St. Enoch does as they ask, but God refuses their half-hearted "repentance." Subsequently, he punishes the main perpetrators (importantly, Azazel is bound deep in the deserts) and prepares a Great Flood to wipe out both the wickedness of man and the giants. St. Noah is given warning in advance after St. Enoch is taken into Heaven, and the story follows more or less as Genesis recounts it.

According to most Jews and some early Christians (even orthodox ones), much of the evils of the world are due to this "Fall of Azazel" (distinct from Satan's Fall). It has interesting parallels also with the other ancient stories, like Prometheus in Greece, for example.

Over time however the Apostolic Church judged by the Holy Spirit that 1 Enoch, while long having been reverenced, was not inspired and thus not to be included in the canon. It wasn't long after that point that 1 Enoch began to fade away; being copied less and less. In our day and age, only the Ge'ez Ethiopian version of 1 Enoch contains the entirety of the book, although most scholars have compared it with Greek survivals and it does appear quite accurate as a translation.

All that aside, I have been reflecting and discerning on this idea of multiple falls of angels. My Thomistic training suggests it is metaphysically problematic. My Catholic Faith tells me that it is unlikely given the common teaching. Yet, my Church has never formally ruled one way or the other. Moreover, non-Roman Catholics have a variety of views on this, some of them not that different from that Eastern Orthodox priest's book.

Could it really be possible that, even after Satan fell from Heaven, other angels subsequently followed his example at later times? There's nothing I know of in angelology that rules it out per se, and if we take into account the story of Lot (cf. Genesis 19:10), for example, angelic beings do seem to have the capacity (the "how" is uncertain) to take physicality or engage in it functionally. Is it so far-fetched that they could have done something abominable with those women, bringing forth monstrous giants? Is it so impossible, to put it another way, that they manipulated human reproduction out of envy for our ability to procreate with God?

Indeed, it has long been held that Satan and the demonic envy mankind because God has given us the ability to "create" with Him. No demon, not even Satan himself, can create...he can only corrupt what is made, or otherwise alter it. Thus, a truly wicked and abominable thing (quite worthy of a catastrophic Flood!) would have been to try to manipulate or ape the gift that God gave to humanity alone as beings both spiritual and material. And the results of such wickedness were monstrosities in the most basic sense of the term.

Honestly, I go back and forth on this...especially since no definitive judgement by my Church has been made. But here is my current hypothesis, which I'd like to discuss with anyone willing:

I. God creates Adam. Satan is disgusted that a creature made from dust, a hybrid of matter and spirit, is so loved by God. Out of envy, pride in his glory, and disobedience, he rebels. Satan is defeated with those angels who joined him, and cast down. Presumably this is also when Hell begins to exist.

II. After mankind has grown numerous, angels in Heaven become fascinated by us to the point of temptation. "They can do what we cannot..." perhaps they thought, and so decided to rebel against God as Satan did...but for a different purpose. This fall, which I call "Azazel's Fall" or "The Fall of Hermon" is motivated by slightly different interests, but is nevertheless deeply sinful and wicked. It spreads sinful ideas among mankind, and creates unnatural things that warp God's good Creation. The results are catastrophic and God must intervene drastically. Hence, the Great Flood. Due to the planetary & spiritual upheaval of the Deluge, the postdiluvian world sees no more falling of angels. The enmity and sides, effectively, become rigid.

III. Despite the Great Flood bringing stability, the demons begin to dominate mankind by ruling nations (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). There is Biblical warrant for this, which I can discuss later. This total domination, allowed by human sin, is checked slightly by the faith of Abraham and the creation of the People of Israel, with whom God uniquely interacts. Through them, God brings Christ Jesus, who through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection conquers the demons and takes away their dominion. He also passes judgement on them (John 16:11), which will come to pass at the Second Coming.

It's not an entirely indefensible proposition, however weird it may sound. And I wonder: Does it give us more insight into how our earliest forefathers in the Faith actually perceived their world?

What think you, my brothers and sisters?

Click to expand...

What is the name of the monastery you visited? There was a Byzantine Rite Catholic monastery in Newberry Springs, near the Coptic Orthodox Monastery of St. Anthony, but it failed, and the Copts use it as a guesthouse.

By the way, regarding the rest of your post, firstly, I don’t think you can say the Apostolic Church rejected 1 Enoch as uninspired, since St. Jude quotes it in his Epistle, and it has always been canonical in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, and the expansive Old Testament canon has never been an issue in their relations with the other Oriental Orthodox churches, even before they became autocephalous under the martyred Emperor St. Haile Selassie and were an autonomous part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, neither has it been an issue in ecumenical discussions between the Oriental Orthodox and Rome.

Now concerning the doctrinal part, I haven’t encountered any priests from any Eastern church who had much or anything to say about Enoch or the specific fall it describes. But such a view to my knowledge is not anathema, so I suppose one could adhere to it as a theolougoumemnon. Usually the way a book like 1 Enoch would be read however would be in an Alexandrian Christological-prophetic manner that looks for metaphors and typological prophecy rather than in an Antiochene-literal way

Reader Antonius said:

Oh sure, just to quickly clarify. Sorry for the wait! It's Holy Transfiguration Monastery – the Monks of Mt. Tabor under the omophorion of Bishop Venedykt of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy of St. Nicholas in Chicago. They are located on "Mt. Tabor," a mountain in Redwood Valley, CA. The current hegumen is the Very Rev. Fr. Abbot Damian Higgins. They are Studite Basilian monks (Монахи Студитського Уставу) of the revival of that tradition by Ven. Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky in the last century, after it had fallen into abeyance due to Russian Orthodox (MP) & Soviet persecution at that time.

An extremely authentic and dedicated monastery which is strictly faithful to the Studite Basilian tradition. I can attest to that! Their asceticism was almost too much for me, lol. I cannot praise them enough for their genuineness & fidelity to Eastern, Byzantine monasticism...and for how much they have saved my life in many ways. Pray for them in your kindness...I assure you they are praying for us all.

Click to expand...

Sounds lovely. I will have to visit!

You might look into the aforementioned Coptic monastery, the ROCOR Monastery of St. Herman of Alaska, founded by Fr. Seraphim Rose, which I would avoid visiting in the hot or cold months as it has no electricity or running water, and the OCA Monastety of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco.

Also excellent is the Greek Orthodox Athonite monastery of St. Anthony in Florence, AZ, but being Athonite, they are not ecumenically minded.

Reader Antonius said:

Peace be with all of you, brethren and sistren: שָׁלוֹם, Ειρήνη, Pax! (cf. John 19:20).

I recently had a wonderful, faith-rejuvenating stay at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic monastery in California. The monks there follow the Rite of the Great Church of Constantinople (Byzantine Rite) according to the Ukrainian Slavic type. They are truly authentic & genuine; godly men seeking to live their tradition and love the Lord with all their hearts. I was most blessed to be with them!

As is customary during breakfast, a table reading is done whilst the monks eat in silence. The reader for this meal with one of the novices. He read from a book by an Eastern Orthodox priest which discussed the nature of the Gospel from an Eastern view. One of the striking claims he made in the book was that there was not only a single Fall of the Angels, but subsequent ones as well. These continued until the Great Flood, which was in part a response to these successive angelic falls. The priest further argued that one of the major missions of Christ, beyond redemption for mankind, was to conquer these demonic beings that had effectively taken rulership of most of the nations. As a former Dominican friar and seminarian, I immediately connected this book with the Enochian tradition of Second Temple Judaism, as well as the "Christus Victor" view of Atonement that is cherished in the East.

Yet, at the same time, I was troubled by this. My own Roman/Western Catholic (shared by most Protestants) is that Satan and his angels' Fall was a once-and-for-all event. After it, demons began to exist and perhaps Hell as well. Yet, this very clear-cut view does not seem to have been how the Second Temple Jews or even some Early Fathers conceived of the Fall of Satan. If you went back in time, many would probably agree that Satan (the twelve-winged leader of the fallen angels) fell at an early point, but they would also tell you that much of the evil of the world was also due to the fall of the "Watchers."

To make a long story short, the Enochian tradition (popular in ancient Judaism & early Christianity) proposed that there was a Fall of about 300 angels due to lusting after human women. Indeed, this Enochian idea is probably rooted in Genesis 6:1-4, and derives from it (more on that later!). Basically, Azazel, their leader, makes them bind an oath that, if they do this, they will not repent. They agree and make the oath on Mt. Hermon in Israel, which gives the mountain its name. They take human women as "brides," but also teach mankind things we were not ready to know. Weaponry, astrology, make-up to be more sexually attractive, metal-working, mining, etc. Worse, the offspring of these demonic-human unions were Nephilim (Aramaic: "giants"). Apparently they made slaves of most of the sons of St. Adam, forcing them to provide them with food. But the voracious appetite of the giants outstripped the human ability to produce...and so the Nephilim began eating humans. The cries of suffering and calling out to God were heard by the Archangels. God, in turn, sent them forth to defeat and bring the situation under control. Moreover, he chose a righteous son of St. Seth, St. Enoch, to be His prophet. The Watchers, interestingly, beg Enoch to intercede before God for them, having now seen the horrors they had created. St. Enoch does as they ask, but God refuses their half-hearted "repentance." Subsequently, he punishes the main perpetrators (importantly, Azazel is bound deep in the deserts) and prepares a Great Flood to wipe out both the wickedness of man and the giants. St. Noah is given warning in advance after St. Enoch is taken into Heaven, and the story follows more or less as Genesis recounts it.

According to most Jews and some early Christians (even orthodox ones), much of the evils of the world are due to this "Fall of Azazel" (distinct from Satan's Fall). It has interesting parallels also with the other ancient stories, like Prometheus in Greece, for example.

Over time however the Apostolic Church judged by the Holy Spirit that 1 Enoch, while long having been reverenced, was not inspired and thus not to be included in the canon. It wasn't long after that point that 1 Enoch began to fade away; being copied less and less. In our day and age, only the Ge'ez Ethiopian version of 1 Enoch contains the entirety of the book, although most scholars have compared it with Greek survivals and it does appear quite accurate as a translation.

All that aside, I have been reflecting and discerning on this idea of multiple falls of angels. My Thomistic training suggests it is metaphysically problematic. My Catholic Faith tells me that it is unlikely given the common teaching. Yet, my Church has never formally ruled one way or the other. Moreover, non-Roman Catholics have a variety of views on this, some of them not that different from that Eastern Orthodox priest's book.

Could it really be possible that, even after Satan fell from Heaven, other angels subsequently followed his example at later times? There's nothing I know of in angelology that rules it out per se, and if we take into account the story of Lot (cf. Genesis 19:10), for example, angelic beings do seem to have the capacity (the "how" is uncertain) to take physicality or engage in it functionally. Is it so far-fetched that they could have done something abominable with those women, bringing forth monstrous giants? Is it so impossible, to put it another way, that they manipulated human reproduction out of envy for our ability to procreate with God?

Indeed, it has long been held that Satan and the demonic envy mankind because God has given us the ability to "create" with Him. No demon, not even Satan himself, can create...he can only corrupt what is made, or otherwise alter it. Thus, a truly wicked and abominable thing (quite worthy of a catastrophic Flood!) would have been to try to manipulate or ape the gift that God gave to humanity alone as beings both spiritual and material. And the results of such wickedness were monstrosities in the most basic sense of the term.

Honestly, I go back and forth on this...especially since no definitive judgement by my Church has been made. But here is my current hypothesis, which I'd like to discuss with anyone willing:

I. God creates Adam. Satan is disgusted that a creature made from dust, a hybrid of matter and spirit, is so loved by God. Out of envy, pride in his glory, and disobedience, he rebels. Satan is defeated with those angels who joined him, and cast down. Presumably this is also when Hell begins to exist.

II. After mankind has grown numerous, angels in Heaven become fascinated by us to the point of temptation. "They can do what we cannot..." perhaps they thought, and so decided to rebel against God as Satan did...but for a different purpose. This fall, which I call "Azazel's Fall" or "The Fall of Hermon" is motivated by slightly different interests, but is nevertheless deeply sinful and wicked. It spreads sinful ideas among mankind, and creates unnatural things that warp God's good Creation. The results are catastrophic and God must intervene drastically. Hence, the Great Flood. Due to the planetary & spiritual upheaval of the Deluge, the postdiluvian world sees no more falling of angels. The enmity and sides, effectively, become rigid.

III. Despite the Great Flood bringing stability, the demons begin to dominate mankind by ruling nations (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). There is Biblical warrant for this, which I can discuss later. This total domination, allowed by human sin, is checked slightly by the faith of Abraham and the creation of the People of Israel, with whom God uniquely interacts. Through them, God brings Christ Jesus, who through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection conquers the demons and takes away their dominion. He also passes judgement on them (John 16:11), which will come to pass at the Second Coming.

It's not an entirely indefensible proposition, however weird it may sound. And I wonder: Does it give us more insight into how our earliest forefathers in the Faith actually perceived their world?

What think you, my brothers and sisters?

Click to expand...

This is similar to books by Eastern Orthodox Father Stephen de Young’s “Religion of the Apostles” (written for non scholars and I believe he’s now writing a scholarly version) and the late Christian Old Testament scholar Dr. Michael Heiser’s “Unseen Realm” (and other books of his).

Also, you may be interested in the very popular and fascinating podcast “Lord of the Spirits” by Eastern Orthodox Fathers Stephen de Young and Andrew Stephen Damick on Ancient Faith radio.

I‘ve read both books and even though I have no way of proving or disproving anything and there’s A LOT I don’t understand, some of it rings true to me and has impacted the way I now ‘see’ some of the things I read in the Scriptures. It makes me stop and question my worldview and whether or not I have a spiritual, scriptural worldview or uncritically assume secular materialism which blinds me to what the ancient Scriptures are saying.

It’s also worth considering whether Jesus and his disciples knew and accepted books like the Book of Enoch, Assumption of Isaiah, etc.

Reader Antonius said:

II. After mankind has grown numerous, angels in Heaven become fascinated by us to the point of temptation. "They can do what we cannot..." perhaps they thought, and so decided to rebel against God as Satan did...but for a different purpose. This fall, which I call "Azazel's Fall" or "The Fall of Hermon" is motivated by slightly different interests, but is nevertheless deeply sinful and wicked. It spreads sinful ideas among mankind, and creates unnatural things that warp God's good Creation. The results are catastrophic and God must intervene drastically. Hence, the Great Flood. Due to the planetary & spiritual upheaval of the Deluge, the postdiluvian world sees no more falling of angels. The enmity and sides, effectively, become rigid.

III. Despite the Great Flood bringing stability, the demons begin to dominate mankind by ruling nations (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). There is Biblical warrant for this, which I can discuss later. This total domination, allowed by human sin, is checked slightly by the faith of Abraham and the creation of the People of Israel, with whom God uniquely interacts. Through them, God brings Christ Jesus, who through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection conquers the demons and takes away their dominion. He also passes judgement on them (John 16:11), which will come to pass at the Second Coming.

It's not an entirely indefensible proposition, however weird it may sound. And I wonder: Does it give us more insight into how our earliest forefathers in the Faith actually perceived their world?

What think you, my brothers and sisters?

Click to expand...

I agree those are some very fascinating stories - no doubt about that.

I prefer the Bible though.

In the bible the fall of Satan was already at the point where he had been cast out of heaven -- before tempting Eve Eden, thus in Rev 12 Satan is "the serpent of old".


Satan took 1/3 of the Angels when he fell according to Rev 12.

The idea that angels were not smart enough to notice that Satan's plan failed to the point of getting him cast out of heaven -- is highly doubtful.

Reader Antonius said:

Peace be with all of you, brethren and sistren: שָׁלוֹם, Ειρήνη, Pax! (cf. John 19:20).

I recently had a wonderful, faith-rejuvenating stay at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic monastery in California. The monks there follow the Rite of the Great Church of Constantinople (Byzantine Rite) according to the Ukrainian Slavic type. They are truly authentic & genuine; godly men seeking to live their tradition and love the Lord with all their hearts. I was most blessed to be with them!

As is customary during breakfast, a table reading is done whilst the monks eat in silence. The reader for this meal with one of the novices. He read from a book by an Eastern Orthodox priest which discussed the nature of the Gospel from an Eastern view. One of the striking claims he made in the book was that there was not only a single Fall of the Angels, but subsequent ones as well. These continued until the Great Flood, which was in part a response to these successive angelic falls. The priest further argued that one of the major missions of Christ, beyond redemption for mankind, was to conquer these demonic beings that had effectively taken rulership of most of the nations. As a former Dominican friar and seminarian, I immediately connected this book with the Enochian tradition of Second Temple Judaism, as well as the "Christus Victor" view of Atonement that is cherished in the East.

Yet, at the same time, I was troubled by this. My own Roman/Western Catholic (shared by most Protestants) is that Satan and his angels' Fall was a once-and-for-all event. After it, demons began to exist and perhaps Hell as well. Yet, this very clear-cut view does not seem to have been how the Second Temple Jews or even some Early Fathers conceived of the Fall of Satan. If you went back in time, many would probably agree that Satan (the twelve-winged leader of the fallen angels) fell at an early point, but they would also tell you that much of the evil of the world was also due to the fall of the "Watchers."

To make a long story short, the Enochian tradition (popular in ancient Judaism & early Christianity) proposed that there was a Fall of about 200 angels due to lusting after human women. Indeed, this Enochian idea is probably rooted in Genesis 6:1-4, and derives from it (more on that later!). Basically, Azazel & Samyaza, their leaders, makes them bind an oath that, if they do this, they will not repent. They agree and make the oath on Mt. Hermon in Israel, which gives the mountain its name. They take human women as "brides," but also teach mankind things we were not ready to know. Weaponry, astrology, make-up to be more sexually attractive, metal-working, mining, etc. Worse, the offspring of these demonic-human unions were Nephilim (Aramaic: "giants"). Apparently they made slaves of most of the sons of St. Adam, forcing them to provide them with food. But the voracious appetite of the giants outstripped the human ability to produce...and so the Nephilim began eating humans. The cries of suffering and calling out to God were heard by the Archangels. God, in turn, sent them forth to defeat and bring the situation under control. Moreover, he chose a righteous son of St. Seth, St. Enoch, to be His prophet. The Watchers, interestingly, beg Enoch to intercede before God for them, having now seen the horrors they had created. St. Enoch does as they ask, but God refuses their half-hearted "repentance." Subsequently, he punishes the main perpetrators (importantly, Azazel is bound deep in the deserts; cf. Leviticus 16) and prepares a Great Flood to wipe out both the wickedness of man and the giants. St. Noah is given warning in advance after St. Enoch is taken into Heaven, and the story follows more or less as Genesis recounts it.

According to most Jews and some early Christians (even orthodox ones), much of the evils of the world are due to this "Fall of Azazel" (distinct from Satan's Fall). It has interesting parallels also with the other ancient stories, like Prometheus in Greece, for example.

Over time however the Apostolic Church judged by the Holy Spirit that 1 Enoch, while long having been reverenced, was not inspired and thus not to be included in the canon. It wasn't long after that point that 1 Enoch began to fade away; being copied less and less. In our day and age, only the Ge'ez Ethiopian version of 1 Enoch contains the entirety of the book, although most scholars have compared it with Greek survivals and it does appear quite accurate as a translation.

All that aside, I have been reflecting and discerning on this idea of multiple falls of angels. My Thomistic training suggests it is metaphysically problematic. My Catholic Faith tells me that it is unlikely given the common teaching. Yet, my Church has never formally ruled one way or the other. Moreover, non-Roman Catholics have a variety of views on this, some of them not that different from that Eastern Orthodox priest's book.

Could it really be possible that, even after Satan fell from Heaven, other angels subsequently followed his example at later times? There's nothing I know of in angelology that rules it out per se, and if we take into account the story of Lot (cf. Genesis 19:10), for example, angelic beings do seem to have the capacity (the "how" is uncertain) to take physicality or engage in it functionally. Is it so far-fetched that they could have done something abominable with those women, bringing forth monstrous giants? Is it so impossible, to put it another way, that they manipulated human reproduction out of envy for our ability to procreate with God?

Indeed, it has long been held that Satan and the demonic envy mankind because God has given us the ability to "create" with Him. No demon, not even Satan himself, can create...he can only corrupt what is made, or otherwise alter it. Thus, a truly wicked and abominable thing (quite worthy of a catastrophic Flood!) would have been to try to manipulate or ape the gift that God gave to humanity alone as beings both spiritual and material. And the results of such wickedness were monstrosities in the most basic sense of the term.

Honestly, I go back and forth on this...especially since no definitive judgement by my Church has been made. But here is my current hypothesis, which I'd like to discuss with anyone willing:

I. God creates Adam. Satan is disgusted that a creature made from dust, a hybrid of matter and spirit, is so loved by God. Out of envy, pride in his glory, and disobedience, he rebels. Satan is defeated with those angels who joined him, and cast down. Presumably this is also when Hell begins to exist.

II. After mankind has grown numerous, angels in Heaven become fascinated by us to the point of temptation. "They can do what we cannot..." perhaps they thought, and so decided to rebel against God as Satan did...but for a different purpose. This fall, which I call "Azazel's Fall" or "The Fall of Hermon" is motivated by slightly different interests, but is nevertheless deeply sinful and wicked. It spreads sinful ideas among mankind, and creates unnatural things that warp God's good Creation. The results are catastrophic and God must intervene drastically. Hence, the Great Flood. Due to the planetary & spiritual upheaval of the Deluge, the postdiluvian world sees no more falling of angels. The enmity and sides, effectively, become rigid.

III. Despite the Great Flood bringing stability, the demons begin to dominate mankind by ruling nations (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). There is Biblical warrant for this, which I can discuss later. This total domination, allowed by human sin, is checked slightly by the faith of Abraham and the creation of the People of Israel, with whom God uniquely interacts. Through them, God brings Christ Jesus, who through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection conquers the demons and takes away their dominion. He also passes judgement on them (John 16:11), which will come to pass at the Second Coming.

It's not an entirely indefensible proposition, however weird it may sound. And I wonder: Does it give us more insight into how our earliest forefathers in the Faith actually perceived their world?

What think you, my brothers and sisters?

Click to expand...

At least from my POV, while I had only ever considered it to be a one-time event, I don't know why it has to be. On the other hand, the fact that some extra-canon source may say it was an ongoing fact, makes no difference to me.

BobRyan said:

I agree those are some very fascinating stories - no doubt about that.

I prefer the Bible though.

In the bible the fall of Satan was already at the point where he had been cast out of heaven -- before tempting Eve Eden, thus in Rev 12 Satan is "the serpent of old".


Satan took 1/3 of the Angels when he fell according to Rev 12.

The idea that angels were not smart enough to notice that Satan's plan failed to the point of getting him cast out of heaven -- is highly doubtful.

Click to expand...

Only 1 war in heaven. (This is before Genesis 1)
Only 1 result with Satan and his angels cast out of heaven
Only 1 victory at the cross where once again Christ defeats satan - only this time - it is on Earth.

Reader Antonius said:

Since I'm sort of being a little...close to the vest about my own opinions on this (or so I feel), I figured I'd lay my current synthesis of the data, and arguments on it, on the table:

As a former Dominican Friar and still (somewhat) of a Thomist, one of the problems of St. Thomas Aquinas & the Scholastic treatment of this is that – on this particular point, since there isn't much of it – they do not draw much on the sources of Revelation as much as a logical route. In other words, it is first established the nature and mode of angelic being (which is accurate, btw), then proceeds to conclude (not irrationally) that there couldn't have been multiple falls. Just one that happened after some sort of testing.

Yet, there are problems with this approach. Which I will enumerate for brevity:

I. Many Eastern Catholic Churches hold differing views from the Thomist position. In principle, they accept the differentiation between the human & angelic use of the will and the capacities of "bodiless powers" (as the Greeks say). Yet, they are also more conversant (frankly) with the Patristic tradition on this matter. Speaking as a Latin, while our theology is still quite Patristic, we have largely moved to seeing Thomism as a sufficient synthesis & summary of Patristic teaching (which is mostly true). Yet, Vatican II & ressourcement theology has quite rightly questioned the full application of this assumption. We simply cannot dismiss the East's traditions on this matter due to Thomistic science. As St. Pius X (and later Vatican II taught), Eastern Catholicism must holdfast to its traditions "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" ("no more, no less, no different").

II. As Jimmy Akin noted in a podcast discussing Dr. Michael Heiser's work – a Protestant scholar who has thoroughly researched Enochian literature and its demonstrably large influence on both Second Temple Judaism & Early Christianity – there are mysteries to the angelic world that simply are not accessible to us because God has not revealed it. For example, the scholastic manualist tradition long asserted that angelic beings cannot take material form since they are pure spirit. Yet, this creates a problem with many Old Testament passages (e.g. the story of Lot, esp. Gen. 19:3 & Gen. 19:10). Hence, Thomists tends to dismiss the Enochian basis of Genesis 6:1-4 and try to argue (unconvincingly) other interpretations (Sethite, divine kingship, etc.). Yet, there is no reason why a being as powerful as an angel could not either engage in matter and/or manifest in such a way that is, functionally, indistinguishable from a human. Thus, ruling out Enoch's account as impossible solely on the grounds of the *ordinary* mode of existence of angels is too rash. This is part of why the East does not do this, actually. See here for the podcast: https://sqpn.com/.../the-mysterious-nephilim-of-the.../

III. Lastly, it is not sufficient to simply say that, since these books are not canonical, they cannot provide either evidence of Apostolic Tradition nor that they cannot give a valid hermeneutical theological prism to the canonical Bible. The Byzantine East fully accepts, almost on a quasi-canonical level, the story of the Protoevangelium of St. James as fundamentally true on almost all points. The West does too in accepting Sts. Joachim & Anne as the parents of the Blessed Virgin, as well as the Feast of her presentation in the Temple as a Temple handmaid – perhaps as one of the weavers of the Temple curtains (feast-day November 21st, East & West). The Book of Jubilees provides ample textual evidence of monogenesis (that all mankind comes from a single pair, Sts. Adam & Eve) which was authoritatively upheld by Ven. Pius XII. And, perhaps above all, even the original Fall of Satan is not truly presented in the canonical Scriptures (although many have tried in Ezekiel, Isaiah, & Revelation), but is rather derived from a combination of oral, liturgical, and apocryphal sources (for the latter, the Aggadah especially). It's worth quoting some portions of the Fall of Satan:



This is almost identical to the traditional view of the Fall of Satan in Protestantism, Roman & Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, etc. Moreover, it explicates the reasons for it: pride, envy, and disobedience (which, btw, are also the traditional reasons given for Satan's Fall).

Lastly, as both the Fathers & the East generally notes, if there were multiple angelic falls, they ceased after the antediluvian period. After this, things become more stable, in part because the Deluge was to destroy much of the evils committed by the demons and "reboot" the course of salvation history. The enmity was now impassible.

One final point: A common misconception about angels is that they do not exist in time. This is part of what many mistakenly use to try to explain the irrevocable nature of their choice to rebel. Yet, this is inaccurate. Strictly speaking, God alone is timeless because time is a created reality. Hence why the idea of "eternity" and "immortality" are often conflated. The capacity to never cease existing is not equivalent to having neither beginning or end, which is proper only to God. See here also: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/3-views-of-time-and-eternity

Moving on, and as one poster here has already brought up, the problem is that not all of it is "unrevealed." The Sacred Tradition of the Eastern Catholic Churches has great weight, and is more than mere speculation. For example, the Byzantine Churches have preserved the names of the Seven Archangels (Sts. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Selaphiel (Salathiel), Jegudiel (Jehudiel), & Barachiel) all of which are plausible Jewish names. The Coptic Church has maintained the Pachomian monastic tradition without which the theology of cenobitic monasticism would simply not exist. Even the fact that the modern Roman Rite continues to celebrate the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple is a testament that non-canonical sources are not garbled data simpliciter.

Thus, it is extremely important we tread cautiously on these matters. Yes, there is great mystery in the angelic world...yet, perhaps not as much as we Latins (including Protestants as Western Christians) might think, especially given how much our theological tradition has been dominated by Neo-Thomism & scholasticism (for good and ill), and classical Protestant Reformers on the other side. Much has been preserved in the Apostolic Tradition, especially in the East, which derives directly from Second Temple Judaism and the "oral Torah" of Old Covenant, confirmed by Our Lord Himself (Matt. 23:2-3).

Thus, the canonical passage of Gen. 6:1-4 is at the real, true heart of this question. Despite many attempts over the centuries to avoid the literal meaning here, new research and evidence is demonstrating that the sacred author probably intended to speak literally. "Nephilim" cannot mean "fallen ones" in the laws of Hebraic grammar, despite many attempts by some to "square the circle" here. It is clearly derived from Aramaic...and it means "giants" (just as the LXX translators understood). The "sons of God" are (or were) obviously angelic beings, a fact that is perhaps the most easy to demonstrate from the Bible, however difficult to understand. Moreover, there is an entire Mesopotamian literary tradition which the sacred author, presumably St. Moses or another Prophet, is referring to and criticizing (polemically) in both these verses and the larger Great Flood account. Modern research, Biblical and secular, is increasingly showing that the Enochian account is a derivative of these *inspired* and canonical series of verses.

Naturally, this creates a problem. We can no longer rely on previous theories of interpretation if we want to discern what the Holy Spirit wished to author in Scripture. Rather, we must be humble & accept the possibility that Revelation itself – both in Holy Writ & in Sacred Tradition – is dealing us a *very* theologically uncomfortable hand. A "hard saying" as Our Lord put it (Jn. 6:60).

Hence, all of this derives from multiple disciplines of Biblical research, historical texts, Patristics, secular scholarship, and Judaic studies.

And to reiterate, this question isn't so much driven by speculation from apocryphal sources like 1 Enoch, but rather the Patristic tradition, the hermeneutics of Genesis 6:1-4 (not to mention NT evidence of these lines of thought), and the growing realization that better understanding the revelatory data of the "bodiless powers" (especially the demonic) allow us to better fight their influence, preach the Gospel which has much to do with destroying demonic works (1 Jn. 3:8), and engage in pastoral care to those afflicted by demonic activity.

And this especially now that numerous reputable sources of the Church are raising the alarm that the influence of the demonic is rising fast.

Anyway, that's my general view, although it is currently being refined and I will return tonight to add my newer attempts at synthesis.

Click to expand...

You were a Dominican Friar?

I love the traditional Dominican Rite Mass.