Where did angels come from?
There are a couple of basic theories, one of which is absolutely useless: its a mystery!! The second is almost as useless because it creates an entire scheme based upon a supposition out of Biblical silence concerning their creation. It is known as the gap theory and it posits that the angelic realm was created between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Angels were created, Lucifer developed pride and he was such a silver-tongued devil that he talked a full third of the rest of the heavenly host to follow him into damnation!! I don’t buy that theory. Arguing from silence is never safe especially where one is developing Biblical doctrine. It is too much akin to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary. But so many have taken part in imaginative ‘exegesis’, I thought it only appropriate that I give it a shot. Are you with me? Here goes.
Since Scripture does not give us a day on which the angels were created in the way doctrine has led us to believe, how about this and I will go on to support these thoughts Scripturally at the end:
The first use of the word angel is at Genesis 16:7. This is during the time of Abraham, way far and gone after Adam and the Fall. So here is my theory: The Flood was Judgement on all mankind save 8 people. Man is given once to die and then the Judgement. So what if angels are the eternal transfigurations of the beings who served God before the Flood? We have no idea how many that might be and the only inkling we have as to their make-up is Jesus at the Mount of Transfiguration.
God gave Noah the sign of the rainbow to remember that the earth will never again be destroyed by water–next time will be fire. The whole thing seems to me to point back to the plan of God in His revelation of something coming after — a purpose for His people that does not really include sitting on a cloud playing a harp or strolling along the streets of gold with no purpose at all for the rest of eternity!
So if this theory holds water it means that the angels began with the birth of the people they were born as. Now if that is the case, then the lament for the King of Tyre and the King of Sidon instead of pointing to some ephemeral fallen angel whose genesis we are in the dark about, points to Eden and Adam who is the vessel; the one who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning; the one who passed that curse to all mankind; the one who was not deceived but ate anyway; the one who was created to be the covering cherub and instead coveted the position of chosen one for himself; despising the birthright but coveting the blessing.
There is a great deal we simply cannot know about this, but is it really any more than what we cannot know about the story behind the Fall of Lucifer and how he was able to convince a third of the angels to follow him? I think not. But there is so much we can clarify if we use this as a basis of understanding for our nature and our culpability! Examine the plan of God in a new light and see what is gleaned. Nobody except those with some sort of axe to grind or ego to defend can fault one for asking honest questions and that is how one studies; by asking honest questions and coming up with truthful answers, whether those answers are doctrinal or not depends upon the truthfulness of the doctrine, not the unorthodoxy of the questions!
So what did it say about the King of Tyre?