Skip to main content

Evil Angels?

Really enjoying reading a brilliant article by the magisterial Dale Martin, like all good scholarship familiar texts are revealed to hold surprising and unsettling possibilities!

Angels populated Paul's world in a lively way. Contrary to modern popular assumptions, angels for Paul were not always good. They could be evil and malicious or simply morally ambiguous. There certainly are "good" angels in Paul's world (2 Cor 11:14; Gal 1:8; 4:14), and certainly also "bad" angels. 1 Corinthians 6:3 mentions that "we" (presumably Paul and other followers of Jesus) will "judge" angels, implying that there are angels who are criminal. If Paul's reference to the "thorn in the flesh" that tortures him is to an "angel of Satan" (2 Cor 12:7), which I take to be the case, and not just a metaphorical "messenger of Satan," we would have here a satanic angel as Paul's tormentor.

Some scholars believe that the phrase "because of the angels" in 1 Cor 11:10 is a reference to angels who may threaten women, perhaps sexually. Some scholars take Gal 3:19 to teach that angels were those who gave the law to Moses, rather than God himself. That text, if interpreted in light of Acts 7:53, may imply a less than benevolent, if not downright negative, view of their activity, given what Paul says about the intervention of the law elsewhere in Galatians. Finally, if one takes "the rulers of this age" in 1 Cor 2:6 and 8, who did not understand Gods mystery and therefore "crucified the lord of glory," to be a reference to angels (note that αρχαι are coupled with "angels" in Rom 8:38), this would certainly represent a reference to evil angels.

Dale B Martin, "When Did Angels Becomes Demons?" JBL 129, 2010, 657-77

Let me know what you think, :-)


  1. When is a messenger not a messenger? When they become an invisible (semi-?)autonomous power?

  2. To be honest, the first two examples given - 1 Cor 11:10 and Gal 3:19 - don't bode well for the article as a whole in my mind. While I personally think a case can be made that the angels in 1 Cor 11:10 are fallen angels, I have found almost no scholars who support that view, as opposed to the "some" that Dale Martin asserts. Admittedly my resources are limited, but that assertion seems to lack care.

    Even more troubling is the attempt to make out that the angels in Gal 3:19 are fallen angels. The association of the angels with the negative effects of the Law completely misses the concept of a good Law discussed in Romans 7:7. Just because the Law produces death in wicked people does not make the Law itself bad, nor, by extension, the angels involved in it's delivery. The idea that God delivered his Holy Law through fallen angels is bizzare.

    So, the lack of care and weird conclusions in what you have quoted give me the impression of a thesis looking for something, anything to prop it up. Is it really worth the read?

    Having said that, here is my take on 1 Cor 11:10. You may accuse me of the same...

  3. The above comment was by Alistair, not Paula.

  4. Hi Tim and Ali, nice to hear from you both!

    Tim, the rest of the article deals with just that question, this quote is more of an aside.

    Ali, re 1 Cor 11, Of course my blog post missed out the footnotes, which shouldn't be taken as evidence Alison's arguments are unsupported. Given the influence of 1 Enoch/ Book of Watchers on the NT it seems a very plausible suggestion to me. You are also misreading to say that Martin said the law was delivered by "fallen angels", things are a bit more subtle than that! Eitherway, while not someone you would always agree with as an evangelical, Ali, Martin is a top scholar whose arguments definitely are worth hearing.



Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .