The doctrine of, or teachings about, angels is not a man-made teaching. It is not fantasy and legend. It is revealed in holy Scripture. Despite both ancient and modern theologians who argue to the contrary, holy Scripture presents this manifestation of God’s ongoing care in clear, precise words.
We can begin to construct what can be called a Biblical angelology by examining relevant Scripture passages and asking:
1. How does holy Scripture define angels?
2. What does Scripture teach about the place of angels in the heavenly courts?
1.1. ‘Angel’ In The Old Testament
It has been held by a few theologians in every generation that there is not a developed angelology in the theology of the Old Testament scriptures, that the New Testament has magnified the “traces” of angelic belief pictured in the Old Testament to support the New Testament new and unique doctrine of angels. While great evidence is available which supports the fact that the importance of angels grew during the intertestamental and New Testament eras, one cannot discount the specific and deliberate names used of the Old Testament angels. We are not given warrant to dismiss the Old Testament doctrine of angels simply because that doctrine is assumed by the writers in their work without any attempt to prove or explain the existence of angels.
In this section we will build our working definition of angels by looking at the words which were used by the inspired writers of the Old Testament.
µyriyBia mighty, valiant
Psalm 78.25 introduces us to the word µyriyBia, “Men did eat the bread of [µyriyBia]; He sent them food in abundance.” This Hebrew word is found but once in the Old Testament is universally translated as ‘angel’. As a title it is descriptive rather than a name and emphasizes the strength, the might, the power of the heavenly spirits. The basic definition then is ‘mighty’, or ‘valiant’. We can see this description of angels borne out in another Psalm, 103.20, where David writes: “Praise YAHWEH, you his angels, mighty ones of strength who do his bidding, obeying the voice of his word.”
µyhiløa‘] divine ones, holy ones, angels
Of all the designations used of the angels in the Old Testament, none has evoked as much discourse as has µyhiløa‘. The Septuagint (LXX), the earliest translation of the Hebrew texts, translates µyhiløa variously as ‘gods’ and ‘angels’. Much has been said of many of these passages, but three passages from the Psalms may illustrate the need for the variety in translation which allows the context to dictate µyhiløa to be translated as “angels,” these are Ps 8.5; 97.9; 138.1.
First, Psalm 8:
O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise
Because of your enemies,
To silence the foe and the avenger.
When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
What is man that you are mindful of him,
The son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [ µyhiløa]
And crowned him with glory and honor.
You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
You put everything under his feet:
All flocks and herds,
And the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
All that swim the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord,
How majestic is your name in all the earth! (NIV)
Of Psalm 8.6 F. Delitzsch writes
The translation of the LXX, with which the Targum and the prevailing Jewish interpretations also harmonize, is, therefore, not unwarranted, Because in the biblical mode of conception the angels are so closely connected with God as the nearest creaturely effulgence of His nature, it is really possible that in µyhiløa‘m David may have thought of God including the angels. Since man is in the image of God, he is at the same time in the likeness of an angel, and since he is only a little less than divined, he is also only a little less than angelic…. The writer has only this one thing in mind, that man is inferior to God… [and] to the angels… he is a finite and mortal being.(Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, V, p. 154. Hereafter referred to as K&D).
In Psalm 97.9 LXX translates µyhiløa‘ as ajggevloi, or ‘angel’, however, the context demands that µyhiløa.. be translated as “gods.”
The LORD reigns, let the earth be glad;
Let the distant shores rejoice.
Clouds and thick darkness surround him;
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.
Fire goes before him
and consumes his foes on every side.
His lightning lights up the world;
The earth sees and trembles.
The mountains melt like wax before the LORD,
Before the Lord of all the earth.
The heavens proclaim his righteousness,
And all the peoples see his glory.
All who worship images are put to shame,
Those who boast in idols —
Worship him, all you gods! [µyhiløa‘]
Zion hears and rejoices
And the villages of Judah are glad
Because of your judgments, O LORD.
For you, O LORD, are the Most High over all the earth;
You are exalted far above all gods.
Let those who love the LORD hate evil,
For he guards the lives of his faithful ones
And delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
Light is shed upon the righteous
And joy on the upright in heart.
Rejoice in the LORD, you who are righteous,
And praise his holy name. (NIV)
A survey of the context shows us that in verse seven the psalmist is writing against the idols, the graven images. “When the glory of YAHWEH becomes manifest, everything that is opposed to it will be punished and consumed by its light” (K&D, v., p. 95). In the presence of God Almighty the deified powers will fall down before the true µyhiløa‘. It is foreign to the text to interject God’s holy ones into this picture of judgment. Most of our modern translations use ‘gods’ to translate this word in Psalm 96.7.
The last Psalm we will look at is Psalm 138:
I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart;
Before the gods [µyhiløa‘] I will sing your praise.
I will bow down toward your holy temple
And will praise your name
for your love and your faithfulness,
For you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.
When I called, you answered me;
you made me bold and stouthearted.
May all the kings of the earth praise you, O LORD,
When they hear the words of your mouth.
May they sing of the ways of the LORD,
For the glory of the LORD is great.
Though the LORD is on high, he looks upon the lowly,
But the proud he knows from afar.
Though I walk in the midst of trouble,
you preserve my life;
You stretch out your hand against the anger of my foes,
with your right hand you save me.
The LORD will fulfill his purpose for me;
Your love, O LORD, endures forever —
Do not abandon the works of your hands.
No claim can be made that any where in these texts the writer was definitely referring to angels. Delitzsch, in commenting on Psalm 138.1, remarks on LXX’s translation
“…Before the angels,” …is in itself admissible and full of meaning, but without coherence in the context of the Psalm, and [therefore must] be rejected because it is on the whole very questionable whether the Old Testament language uses µyhla thus, without anything further to define it, in the sense of ‘angel’ (K&D, v., p. 339).
Given the principle of sound interpretation stated above by Delitzsch, µyhla must be tested by its context each time it occurs. Maybe the compromise solution used by some is to be preferred when µyhiløa‘ is rendered “heavenly beings” or “holy ones.” Where it does not violate the sense of the text, ‘angel’ remains a possible translation.
µyhiløa‘h ygEB] sons of god = angels
µyhiløa‘h; ygEB;, or “sons of God,” as a term for angel is in no way exclusive to the members of the heavenly court. It is this very term which many commentators stumble over in their interpretation of Genesis 6 where, “the [µyhiløa‘h; ygEB] saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they took them for themselves, whomever they chose” (Genesis 6.2). Unable to distinguish the context, they see µyhiløa‘h; ygEB‘ as always referring to angels. Thus the angels would violate the will of God and their very nature, so blinded are they by the physical beauty of women.
Context also informs us in another example, that of Job 38.7:
… while the morning stars sang together
and the [µyhiløa‘h; ygEB;]] shouted for joy?
Because of the poetic style in which the section is written, the context would seem to require µyhiløa‘h; ygEB; to be seen in poetic parallelism with “the morning stars.” While this is true, this does not mitigate against the µyhiløa‘h; ygEB being angels. This is in fact the traditional Jewish and early church fathers understanding of the text.
While we note that exceptions exist, the title µyhiløa‘h; ygEB;,, or ‘sons of God’, does in many instances refer to the angels. In Job we are given a glimpse into the court of heaven on “a day when the [µyhiløa‘h; ygEB] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came before them” ( Job 1.6, also 2.1). The translations surveyed agree that Job is referring here to angels. In Psalm 8, man is written of as being “created a little lower than the µyhiløa‘h; ygEB” (Psalm 8.5). LXX and King James Version(KJV) takes the translation as ‘angel,’ while New International Version (NIV) and New American Standard version (NAS) translate it as ‘holy ones.’ Hebrew and Biblical tradition tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was amazed to see a fourth man, an angel, in the fiery furnace where there was to only have been Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. “Look,” said the King, “I see four men… and the fourth looks like a son of the gods” (Daniel 3.25).
Schweizer, looking at the use of ygEB in the Old Testament, writes, “The primary meaning is ‘son,’ but [the] term may also denote other degrees of relationship…. Mostly the term serve[s] to denote personal status. [This] by relating people to their fathers or ancestors.” And finally, “Sons are under the father’s authority” ( Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VIII, p. 354-57. Hereafter referred to as TDNT.) In the use of µyhiløa‘h; ygEB by the biblical writers, we are given a description of the angels. The angels have a position with God analogous to sons because they have their origin in God, they have a personal status with God, and they remain under the Father’s authority.
laeyrib]G" gabri-el/ man ofel
In Daniel , the one sent to the prophet to provide the interpretation of Daniel’s dream is called laeyrib]G,, or ‘Gabri-El’ (Daniel 8.16; 9.21). Whether this is an appellation or a proper name is an open question. In either case, we can identify the component parts as rbG and la or, in its most general sense “The Man of God.” The noun rb,G,& comes from the verb ‘to be strong, mighty’ ‘a compelling force’. The noun carries the weight of the verb, thus BDB: “‘man’ as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants whom he is to defend” (BDB, 150a).
In the Gabriel of the Old Testament we have revealed several interesting characteristics of the one who appears on behalf of God. First, he appeared in the recognizable form of a man, not just man in the broad anthropological sense, but as a male of the species, over against the female. Second, Gabriel is commanded to reveal the meaning of the vision. He is sent. He is not acting on his own initiative. Finally, in this name we are given a glimpse at his character, for Gabriel, while strong and valiant, is bound to defend those who are weaker than he.
Gabriel also appears in the nativity account of Luke’s Gospel. He is the member of God’s heavenly court sent to Zacharius to bring the good news of a son who would be called John the Baptist. Later, he appeared to Mary announcing that she had found favor in God’s sight and would be the mother of the long-foretold Savior. Both Zacharius and Mary were troubled by ‘Man of God’s’ appearance, it was not ordinary to be in the presence of an angel of God. In response to Zacharius’ challenge, Gabriel simply states who he is and from whence he has come. To Mary he brings the greetings and blessings of God Himself. Gabriel’s authority does not come from anywhere else but from the heavenly throne. He acts only with, and under, the authority of God.
bWrK] cherub
‘Cherub’ is the name used of angelic beings represented with features appearing to be a combination of animal and human forms. The word is found twenty-six times in the singular and sixty-four times in the plural form (cherubim) in the Old Testament. Cherubim are first mentioned in Genesis 3.24 where they guard the tree of life from fallen humanity, preventing access to the fruit of the tree of life, the eating of which would result in living forever in sin, forever apart from God. Their appearance is not described in Scripture at that point, but evidently their mien was indelibly inscribed upon the mind and history of man.
It is impossible to know how long the garden and the cherubim remained. Quite possibly they continued until the Flood in Noah’s time. However long it was, it seems to have been sufficiently long enough to have forever impressed the figure of the mighty cherubim upon mankind.
When Moses was later directed to make the likeness of cherubim for the tabernacle, there is a notable absence of detail given for creation of their likeness, in a text filled with detailed instructions (Exodus 25.17-20). Cherubim. Nothing more had to be said. It appears that the knowledge of their form and appearance was well enough known. Multiple ancient cultures constructed massive winged creatures to guard gates, tombs and thrones in the Near East. Deities were pictured on, or possessing, the wings associated with these servants of God. This universal knowledge of the cherubim was corrupted in one way or another as the truths of the true God were forgotten or changed by the pagan cultures.
Solomon used the image of the cherubim to adorn the temple he built (1 Kings 6, 7). 1 Chronicles 28.18 refers to them as the chariot of the Lord. Psalm 18.10 speaks of YAHWEH riding forth on cherubim with the imagery of the fury of a storm cloud. In Psalm 104.3 the storm clouds are said to be His chariot. 1 Samuel 4.4 speaks of Him being enthroned upon the cherubim.
The greatest passages on the cherubim, though, are to be found in the account of Ezekiel. The cherubim bear the throne of God. The cherubim are said to be four in number. This does not rule out the possibility that there may actually be more than four cherubim, but the number four has special significance to Ezekiel as well as to other Old Testament writers: Ezekiel speaks of “the four winds” (Ezekiel 37.9)) while Isaiah has spoken of “the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11.2). Ezekiel sees not only four cherubim, but four wings, four faces, four hands, four sides, four wheels in this chariot as well as four scenes of worship in chapter 8 and four plagues in chapter 14. The number four carries with it some sense of completeness.
The whole throne-chariot moved as a single unit under the impulse of the spirit, meaning that God exercised His will upon these beings to coordinate their movements. The speed of the chariot is like that of lighting. In chapter 10 Ezekiel identifies the living creatures as the cherubim. That which had been hinted at elsewhere, now is fully described, as it is seen that the cherubim actually form the throne of God. The cherubim which had served to function as guardians of the place of God in the tabernacle, and later, the temple of the Israelites, and whose wings covered the ark, also known as the “mercy seat of God,” are now revealed in all their awesome significance.
Linguistically, there is widely debated what lies behind the meaning of the cherubim of the Bible. Eichorn attempts to identify them by relating the word to “griffin.” Gaster sees the word to be identical with the Akkadian brK, which he believes is a winged monster somewhat like a griffin (pg 567). Buttrick relates it to the same word, but defines it as “intercessor” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, s. v. “Seraphim,” by Buttrick, p. 131). Fallon seems to take the same view explaining that a brK in Phoenician culture had the function of ushering worshipers into the presence of the deity. While in Akkadian the brK was an advisor to the gods and an advocate for devotees.(New Catholic Encyclopedia, s. v “Cherubim,” by T. L. Fallon, p. 551) Yet Fallon admits that such ideas are foreign to Israelite thinking. Goldziher believes the root brK is used in Himyarite inscriptions in titles of the kings designating them as" protectors." He explains that in Semitic parlance, words which signify “to protect” are often derived from the fundamental idea of covering. The cherubim spread forth their wings in 1 Kings 8.7, that is, they cover the mercy seat with their wings. To spread one’s wings over someone, is, in the language of Scripture, the usual expression for the protection which is afforded an individual (pg 197). In Arabic, the same word means not only a bird’s wing, but also concealment and shade (see Psalm 91.1-4). Harris believes that the Akkadian cognate is the most suitable and probable source for the background of the Hebrew word. He gives the meaning “to bless, praise, adore.” Harris deems this most suitable since it is one of the main characteristics of the cherubim of the Old Testament.
These are only a sampling of the exegetical debates and conjecture which encircle the concept of brK. The inverse of this discussion is the belief that surrounding cultures borrowed cognates from the Hebrews, not the other way around. We must agree with Harris when he admits that the derivation of this word is extremely difficult to determine. Yet, nothing crucial hangs in the balance. The idea of cherubim in the Bible is still quite easily understandable. And whatever cognates the Hebrew may be related to, does not automatically carry all of the theological/pagan baggage of the neighboring culture.
The Talmud relates brK as the combination of the Hebrew words “as” and “a lad.” This influenced the well-known Renaissance artists’ conception of cherubs, as well as the writings of such men as John Lydgate and John Milton. This occurred not only in England but throughout Europe. Such derivation is certainly without Biblical support, but is much the reason for the mistaken appearances and concepts of angels in modern times.
laek;ymi micha-el/ who is like el
Overwhelmed by the visions and messages which he has been given, an Angel comes to Daniel to bring him the peace and comfort of God. The Angel reassures the prophet that “from the first day that [he] set his mind to gain understanding and humbled [himself] before [his] God, his words were heard.” The Angel was sent in response to those words. Yet the response is twenty-one days in coming. The Angel explains that the “prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.” Later, the Angel who brought Daniel the comforting message of God says that He will return to fight the prince of Persia, and that Michael, the prince who protects the people of Israel, will be His only supporter (Daniel 10).
BDB defines laek;ym only as a proper name, its meaning is “Who Is Like God?” Thus, even as “chief of the princes,” Michael’s very name ascribes to God honor and praise. Like all the appearances of the angels in the Old Testament, Michael is given no introduction, no prologue. The only expansion we have is the parenthetical remark of the Angel. Michael is the “prince” of Daniel’s people. He is the chief of princes. He is the only prince who will support the Angel’s struggle with the prince of Persia. Michael is also the angel who will rise up in the last days as the champion of God’s people. Jude tells us that Michael is an archangel and that he is no stranger to confrontation with the Devil (Jude 9). John’s Revelation also speaks of Michael. It is this “chief of princes” who will lead God’s angels into battle against the dragon in the last days.
Biblically, we can say no more about Michael. But, many roads of discussion are opened by the scriptural witness, and traditional scholarship has attempted to determine more about Michael and the angels by following some of these various avenues. From the ascribed positions of ‘archangel’ and ‘prince,’ and those positional titles given by Paul, which will be discussed below, many have tried to develop a hierarchical ranking of the angels. Thus, by association with Michael, the archangels are placed in one of the closest choir of angels arrayed before God’s throne. With reference to princes of the nations in Daniel, one can adduce that each nation has a guiding/guarding angel, and at the time of Daniel, only the people of God in Israel had a prince from the heavenly court, and not just a prince, but the ‘chief prince.’ The other nation’s princes, being opposed to Michael and the Angel sent by God, were opposed to God himself. These angels are subject to the ‘Prince of this World,’ the dragon whom Michael and the heavenly angels will throw down in the last days, the fallen angel Lucifer, that is, Satan.
Michael is pictured as Christ’s champion, the Commander of the angel legions, Satan’s adversary. If we allow the Bible to speak in large terms, Michael is the champion of the church of Christ on earth, for as Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees, all who believe in Him are the true descendants of Abraham. The Church is the true apocalyptic ‘nation’ of Abraham, David, and Daniel, and Michael is its prince.
_a;l]m' messenger
A _a;l]m is “one who is sent” to speak on behalf of another, or, “one who is sent” to perform a deed or action on behalf of another. In the ancient world such a legate spoke with the authority of the one who sent him. Thus, when Abraham sent his servant with ten of his camels and “all kinds of good things from his master,” he was acting with Abraham’s authority and could negotiate the terms of a dowry to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24). A prophet, too, speaks with the authority of the One who sent him. A human _a;l]m, or messenger, of God is seen as speaking the very words of God, and his prophetic actions are God’s power and will manifested through that one who is His chosen messenger. Malachi admonishes the priests to be those who preserve true knowledge, “and [that] from his mouth men should seek instruction — because he is the messenger of the Lord Almighty” (Malachi 2.7; also Ecclesiastes 5.5).
While _a;l]m is used in Scripture to refer to such human legates, “messenger” is the term used most frequently when the Old Testament writers speak of angels. From man’s point of view, angels are indeed God’s agents, sent from God’s side to do his will and service among men. Besides describing the function of the angels, the term becomes a name for them. The term is used by the psalm writer who writes of their character and heavenly activity:
Praise the Lord, you his [_a;l]m],
you mighty ones who do his bidding,
who obey his word.
Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts,
you his servants who do his will (Psalm 103.20, 21. Also Psalm 148.2).
The term is used of angels charged with the care of men (Psalm 91), when they are recognized as the wise and excellent creatures of God (1 Samuel 29:9. 2 Samuel 14.17, 20), and even when they are in the role of destroyers(2 Samuel 24.16). As the true and loyal _a;l]m of God, angels always act with and within the authority of God. They are an extension of His will and affection toward man.
1.1.8. t;r]v; minister
(leitouro;_); MINISTER; Servant; servant.
This is another name which stresses the activity of the angels, their duty of performing the will of God. It appears only twice, in successive Psalms.
Praise the Lord, you his angels
you mighty ones who do his bidding,
who obey his word.
Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts
you his t;r]v who do his will
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
He makes winds his messengers,
flames of fire his t;r]v
The Hebrew couplets come to our aid in discerning the context of this title. Commentators generally regard these passages as referring to the spirits of heaven as the servants, or ministers, of God.
1.1.9. ry[i watcher
(a[ggelo_); WATCHER; Angelic Watcher; messenger.
Of all the biblical authors only Daniel calls the angels by this name. “I looked and there before me was a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven.” “You, O king, saw a watcher, a holy one coming down from heaven….”
The root of the Aramaic ry[i is allied to Hebrew rW[, “to rouse oneself, awake,” but more closely to the Syriac ‘or, “be awake,” and New Hebrew ‘eyr, “awake.” The versions of Aquila Symmachus render it by ejgrh´gro_, while Theodotion merely transcribes it as ei[r; the Septuagint makes the interpretation a[ggelo_, “angel.” Source material being so meagre most commentators are content to note with St. Jerome that the ‘watcher’ “signifies angels, because they are ever valiant and prepared to do the commands of God.”
1.1.10. a;b;x] host
(sabawvq); HOST; Host; host
The t/a`b;x] hw:hy, or, “Lord of hosts,” is an important title of God, judging from its frequent use in the Old Testament. And, while they were writing in Greek, Paul and James nevertheless used the Hebrew t/a`b;x (“hosts”) in the transliterated form of “sabawvq” Paul, writing of his great love for his own nation as well as his faith in God, speaks these words of hope for a future:
And just as Isaiah foretold, ‘Except the [t/a`b;x] hw:hy] had left to us a posterity; we would have become a Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah’”
The “hosts” part of the divine name is plural of the noun abx. In itself the word can refer to the hosts of heaven or a host of soldiers, i.e., an army. This regal name does not appear in the Penteteuch. It first occurs in 1Samuel 1.3: Elkanah “would go up from his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts in Shiloh.” Now that Israel had become a nation, it became necessary to stress that the head of their nation was the Lord. However, He was not merely the head of Israel’s forces, but of all hosts, celestial and terrestrial, angels and humans.
“Hosts,” then, while being inclusive of all God’s forces, is used by the Biblical writers to refer specifically to God’s angels. Three passages in which angels are certainly referred to with the term abx] are, Micaiah’s vision, in which he saw “the Lord sitting on His throne and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left,” the Levites prayer in Nehemiah, “You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their host, … You give life to all of them and the heavenly host bows down before You,” and the Psalmist’s invocation, “Praise him, all his angels, praise him all his hosts.”
One of the most familiar passages which uses abx] is, “Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.” These are multitudes of angels gathered around the throne, bowing down and praising God. These are the host of God, not a spirit world marshaled for collective warfare (in other words, not a collective Israeli-angel army), but “His ministers, who do his pleasure.”
1.1.11. wyn:P; (Ëaæl]mæ) (angel) envoy
(a[ggelo_); ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE; Angel of His Presence;
angel of his presence.
In all their distress he too was distressed,
and the angel of his presence saved them.
In his love and mercy he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them
all the days of old.
All of the discussion of the possible meaning of the translation of “angel of His presence” is irrelevant, since that expression occurs nowhere else in the Bible. The majority of the orthodox writers agrees with August Pieper’s determination that Isaiah’s wyn:P Ëaæl]mæ “is of course, the Christ … the ‘angel of the Lord,’" and thus should be discussed in the scope of that concept. Heidt claims that “this term being synonymous with mal’akh adds practically nothing to our knowledge of angels." But the question remains, “Why did Isaiah use the term wyn:P Ëaæl]m [in speaking] of this particular angel?”
The use of the “angel of God’s presence” expresses the author’s desire to show to Israel God’s presence through His personal medium, the ministering spirit of the angel. Secondly, the most literal translation of wyn:P Ëaæl]mæ, is “the angel of God’s face.” This mediating spirit, the “angel of God’s face,” while being regarded as being distinct from God, is also regarded as one that is completely hidden before Him, whose name is in him.[24] The angel carried out the protection and redemption of the people of the olden times spoken of by Isaiah.
The context gives us possible clues as to the author’s choice of using wyn:P Ëaæl]mæ as opposed to the unmodified _a;l]m. The angel’s mission is, as _a;l]m expresses, to act on behalf of God. But more than that, the Angel brings to man the very presence of God. So completely does God’s will and direction fill the ‘angel of His presence’, the Angel’s entire existence is subservient to God. Isaiah reveals this very special, very specific, nature of God’s angel to comfort the people. Through the ‘angel of His presence’ He lifted them up and carried them; He gave them daily assistance, care and protection. The representative of God is the presence of God. There is no small amount of discussion invested in this term. Many scholars see this term as synonymous with the term “Angel of the LORD,” in other words, the preincarnate presence of Christ.[25]
1.1.12. µyviroq] holy ones[26]
(aJgiwn); SAINTS; Holy Ones; holy ones.
The basic meaning of the root, µyviroq, is that which is set apart. Anything that is “holy” is set apart. It is removed from the realm of the common and moved to the sphere of the sacred. YHWH who is utterly set apart from any earthly taint is by that very fact infinitely holy — hence the threefold µyviroq of the seraphs in Isaiah’s vision.[27]
Another aspect of angelic theology is advanced by this name. It is the angels who, as “the council of the holy ones,”[28] praise God’s faithfulness. It was to the holy ones that Job, according to Eliphaz, was unable to turn.[29] God himself, however, is so transcendent that he puts no trust in his holy ones;[30] still, on the day when God will come, “all the holy ones [shall be] with him.”[31] And Daniel, amid his vision on the banks of the Ulai Canal “heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, ‘How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled…?’”[32]
“Holy” is most aptly applied to the angels, those members of God’s creation who are so far removed from worldly imperfection, so completely set apart for service of the all-holy One.
1.1.13. _r;c] seraph[33]
(serafivm); SERAPH; Seriph; seraph.
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”
At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.”[34]
Though this is the only passage in the Bible in which angels are called seraphs, the casual way in which Isaiah introduces them without any further explanation is sufficient evidence that the concept was not unfamiliar to the readers. Yet, like the cherubs, much speculation, controversy, and misinformation, has encircled the biblical witness of the seraphs. According to the ancient orthodox view, which originated with Dionysius the Areopagite (aka Pseudo—Dionysius), they stand at the head of the nine choirs of angels, the first rank consisting of the Holy Thrones, the Cherubim, and the Seraphim.[35] While Dionysius contends that his celestial hierarchy is a sacred order[36] and the majority of orthodox scholars admit that scripture really teach that there are gradations in rank in the hierarchy of heaven,[37] few subscribe to such hierarchical arrangements as anything more than fanciful imaginations of pious men.
The etymology of the word _rç has led to much conjecture. Some commentators suggest that the seraphs were not angels at all, while others suggest that seraphs were simply a modification of cherubs used to represent the ideal creation under the form of light or fire, Still others have noticed the consonantal similarity between the seraphs of Isaiah and the serpents of Numbers,[38] thus, the seraphs are surely fiery winged snakes.[39] No common derivation is yet to be agreed upon. However, there can be little doubt that the verb form _r;c means “to burn,” occurring as it does frequently in the Old Testament.[40]
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
He makes winds his messengers,
flames of fire his servants
These inspired words of the psalmist recall the position of the cherubs as the throne bearers of God (page 16, above), and what Isaiah tells us of the seraphs hovering around the seated King,
Isaiah himself supports the plain meaning of _r;c. Every time the seraphs raised their voices in the heavenly chorus of “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty,” “the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.” Delitzch writes, “The smoke was the immediate consequence of the seraph’s song of praise.”[41] The work then of the seraph is plain, for as awesome and noteworthy as they are in Isaiah’s vision, it is not the seraph themselves whom Isaiah notices, for Isaiah writes: “My eyes have seen the King, the YHWH of Hosts.” They are engaged in the unbroken task of chanting the glory and praise of God.
The concept of angels serves some important theological ideas. It serves first of all to illustrate the exhaltedness and majesty of YHWH. Secondly, the concept of the angel world causes God’s people to rejoice over the divine help which such a world gives to the world of men at the direction of God. The Old Testament information concerning angels is also a comforting revelation from God, as well as a vital point in history of God’s dealings with his people — not just in the past but in the present.
1.2. Angelic Nomenclature In The New Testament
Many contend that the Jewish interest in angels became heightened in the intertestamental times. This charge is made on the basis of the elaborate angelic descriptions in the book of Enoch, and the descriptions of Jewish and Rabbinic culture in the histories of Flavius Josephus. Still others add that intertestamental angelology is strongly influenced by the pagan religions of the Near East and the pantheons of gods found in the Greco-Roman world. “Certainly, early Christian perceptions of who, or what, angels are is poisoned by such incursions,” is the modern theologian’s refrain. Yet in all the occurrences of angels in the New Testament, no inconsistent information is added to the truths of the Old Testament witness. No apology is ever made for an angelic appearance. The biblical writers do not find it necessary to explain, or even introduce them, implying that their reality is to be simply and faithfully accepted by the believer.
It is an interesting and telling fact that there is more said concerning angels in the New Testament than the Old Testament Scriptures. Angels are most frequently mentioned in the beginning of the New Testament Scripture, that is, in the Gospels, and at the close, in the book of Revelation.[42] This in it itself has deep meaning. The chief interest of the angels seems to be in connection with the redemption of man and the earth, which God gave to His creatures.
We meet angels on the threshold of the New Testament. It could not be otherwise. It was Jesus who had created the angels and was worshipped by them as Lord. Yet, by his incarnation, He was now on earth having been made a little lower than the angels. He would, after a few years return in His glorified humanity to heaven to receive a place higher than the angels. Because He was here the angels were here and seen by human eyes. He was accompanied by the angels. Even after Jesus left the earth, angels were still seen by early Christians in connection with the beginning of the church for this was the body of Christ. The church was a great mystery to angels, for it had not been revealed in former ages.
In the last book of the Bible, John’s Revelation, angels are still more prominent, for that book concerns mostly the coming of the Lord, His return to the earth. Just as the angels attended Christ at His first coming, they will attend him in His last. Angels will be seen in their heavenly glory, the invisible things will become visible. It is the angel’s attendance to the Christ that makes them so prominent in the beginning and ending books of the New Testament.
1.2.1. a{ggelo_, a{ggeloi messenger[43]
ANGELS; Angels; angels.
Already established by the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, a{ggelo_ remains the vocable used in the New Testament to represent the reality of God’s personal mediators between man and Himself. They represent the heavenly realms; and their appearance is a revelation of the other-worldly in the earthly realm.
As was seen in the case of _a;l]m in Hebrew usage (p. 17, above), a{ggelo_ has its secular uses in the common language of the Roman Empire. A{ggelo_, however, unlike its Hebrew counterpart, does not have a ‘common’ usage. In the Greek of the New Testament era a{ggelo_ is a technical term reserved for use within the hierarchy of the government. The a{ggeloi were the empowered emissaries of the Caesar and the Senate. Such an emissary, carrying the proper papers, could not only deliver a message, but answer questions and clarify points related to the communication. He could initiate and conclude treatise, receive the official tribute, and receive the oaths of parties making contract with Rome. The a{ggeloi were to be received as though they were the person of the sender himself, and thus they were afforded protection and deference.[44] Of the 175 occurrences of a{ggelo_ in the New Testament only six speak of human emissaries.[45]
An overview of the Evangelists’ writings shows the angels diverse functions; The angel of God appears and transmits to human beings messages and commissions from God,[46] frees and strengthens the apostles after Easter,[47] and punishes Herod.[48] The life of Jesus is accompanied by angels, who are constantly at his service.[49] And, in the last days, Angels will accompany the Son of Man at the execution of the final judgment and assume functions associated with it.[50] And the angels, after a lifetime of guardianship[51], carry the faithful after death to the ‘bosom of Abraham.’[52] With only one exception, Mt. 25. 41, the New Testament writers emphasize statements about God’s angels.
While a{ggelo_, strictly speaking, describes a function or duty performed from time to time by some of the holy ones of God, by the time of the New Testament ‘angel’ has reached a common usage in referring to all the members of God’s heavenly court.
1.2.2. pneu'ma spirit[53]
SPIRIT; Spirit; spirit.
“Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation”? asks the author of Hebrews.[54] There is no difficulty in recognizing the angels as spirit beings, in other words, without the limits of a corporeal reality. However, this terminology is not prevalent in the New Testament. Besides Hebrews, only in John’s Revelation do we have another positive reference of angels as “spirits” when John recounts the “seven spirits of God” before His throne.[55] In the Gospels Jesus always speaks of the ‘spirits’ as evil, wicked, those needing control or expulsion. Luke portrays them as the antithesis of angels.[56] It becomes readily apparent that in common thought “spirits” were regarded as doing the Devil’s work, even being demons (fallen angels) themselves. Of the 31 occurrences of pneu'ma, the New Testament all but reserved “spirits” as non-angelic, non-heavenly terminology.
1.2.3. Difficulties
Under the ‘standardizing’ effect of the LXX interpretations, and the Rabbinic tradition’s acceptance and expansion of the ideal and concept of God’s personal mediators, there is little debate over the term or meaning of a{ggelo_ in the New Testament. Morrison notes of the New Testament authors: “Although uninterested in setting forth the [underlying] Jewish doctrine as such, the New Testament found the terminology which had been formed and tempered by Jewish thought valuable in the proclamation of its own message.”[57] Yet it is within the penning of one of the New Testament’s most prolific and influential writers that controversy and exegetical difficulties arise concerning the realm and role of angels. Specifically, the difficulties revolve around the Apostle Paul’s us of ajrch (authorities),[58] duvnami" (power),[59] qrovno" (throne)[60] and, kuriovth" (rulers),[61] what we will collectively call the “Powers.”
The earliest commentators saw in Paul’s Powers clear reference to the spirit world beyond our comprehension and sight. Thus these ‘angels’ were included in hierarchical schemes and included in one or two of the various choirs that are said to surround the throne of God.[62] Others have noted certain patterns in Paul’s usage of these terms; they always appear in pairs,[63] they are always seen as opposed to Christ’s salvific work, they are something to be discerned and resisted, and finally, they will eventually be subjugated under Christ in the last days.[64]
Others, while agreeing that Paul always sees the authorities, powers, thrones, and rulers as set against Christ and his work and will, deny that Paul is speaking of angels. Citing 1) the predilection of the Roman mind to assign a god for every important or unexplainable operation in their world, and 2) the emphasis on Jewish custom of assigning ‘folk angels’ with similar abandon, opponents suggest Paul would not enter into such perilous theological ground without explanation. They contend that in Paul’s day the philosophical idea of ‘emanations of power’ was so prevalent and universally accepted, that they did not have to be defined — just identified as being against Christ. Morrison writes:
“Paul observes that life is ruled by a series of Powers. He speaks of time, of space, of life and death, of politics, and philosophy, of public opinion and Jewish law, of pious traditions, and the fateful course of the stars. Apart from Christ man is at the mercy of these Powers.” “… The main point is that by His cross Christ has unmasked and disarmed the quasi-divine authority of these structures.” “… the very presence of the church in a world is a superlatively positive and aggressive fact … for the Powers it is a sign of the end time, of their incipient encirclement and their imminent defeat.”[65]
Did Paul conceive of these “Powers” as angels? Consider this remarkable fact. As influential as Paul’s writing has been, theology in its exposition concerning angels has drawn hardly at all upon Paul’s statements about the Powers. This seems strange at first, but was unavoidable. For what would we have to think of the “Powers” if we also thought of them as angels? Are they good angels? Most have answered in the affirmative. The startling equation Powers = Angels was probably drawn from Ro 8. 38, where they are named in the same breath.
But then what are we to do with the texts which speak of victory over, or combat with, the Powers? How shall we understand the statement that “all rule and all authority and power must be dethroned” as enemies?[66] There are too many difficulties to permit a careful theologian to think of taking seriously all that Paul says as describing the nature and function of the good angels.
One thing is very clear: Jesus introduced a new era in world history. The old order was replaced by a new one. Jesus’ arrival was the coming of the new order in which Jesus superseded all intermediary powers. They lost their faculty of government forever. The main text which supports this interpretation is in Paul: On the cross “he stripped rulers and powers of their armor and made public show of them as He celebrated His victory.”[67] Those powers Jesus threw off were the ‘spirits’ to whom man had been subject: “When we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe…” Formerly when you did not acknowledge God, you were the slaves of beings which in their nature are no gods. But now that you do acknowledge you — or rather, now that he has acknowledged you — how can you turn back to the mean and beggarly spirits of the elements? Why do you purpose to enter their service all over again?[68] Christ canceled the old world order. Jesus himself is our only angel. God set Jesus ‘far above all government and authority, all power and dominion, and any title of sovereignty that can be named, not only in this age but in the age to come. He put everything in subjection beneath his feet …”[69] What these texts are really talking about is the dethronement of the “Powers.”
The conclusion is obvious. We must set aside the thought that Paul’s “Powers” are angels. Whether they be conceived as persons, or as impersonal structures or emanations of created order, they form a category of their own. Therefore, since they are not angels as the Biblical witness has defined such, and since, as the Apostle Paul clearly states, the Powers have come under the authority of the Prince of this World and now oppose Christ and the church, the terms summarized as the “Powers” fall outside of this study, belonging most correctly in a study of Satan and the Demons.
[1] BDB, 1058a.1d
[2] Ps 103.20,21.
[3] Ps 104.4
[4] BDB, 1105b
[5] Da 4.13
[6] Da 4.23.
[7] BDB, as cited above; Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1954), p. 682.
[8] Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1894), vol. 3, pp. 527-529.
[9] C. F. Keil, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, trans. M. G. Easton (Edinburgh, 1891), p. 142.
[10] BDB, 839a.1b
[11] “As we have noted, the Greek Old Testament sometimes transliterated the word as sabawvq, apparently taking it as a technical term. This is probably the source of Paul’s and James’ transliteration.” S. v. “The Lord of Hosts,” p. 330, The New Open Bible, Study Edition [New American Standard Bible © THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION] (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1990)
[12] Ro 9.29, NASB; (NIV, and others, translate “Lord Almighty”).
[13] 1Sa 17.45.
[14] 1Ki 22.19.
[15] Ne 9.6.
[16] Ps 103.20,21.
[17] Ps 24.10.
[18] Ps 103.21
[19] BDB, 521d.3.
[20] Is 63.9.
[21] K&D, v. 7, p. 452-3.
[22] August Pieper, Isaiah II: An Exposition of Isaiah 40—66, trans. Erwin E. Kowalke (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 1973), p. 641.
[23] Heidt, Angelology of the OT, p. 12.
[24] Pieper, Isaiah II.
[25] See Appendix A, for a discussion of the term “Angel of the LORD.”
[26] BDB, 872d.2c.
[27] Is 6.5.
[28] Ps 89.6.
[29] Job 5.1.
[30] Job 15.16.
[31] Zec 14.5.
[32] Da 8.2, 13.
[33] BDB, 977b.
[34] Isa 6.2-5.
[35] Pseudo—Dionysius, Pseudo—Dionysius: The Complete Works, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, c1987), p. 160.
[36] Ibid, p. 153.
[37] Cf. K&D, v. 7, p. 191.
[38] Nu 21.6.
[39] Such theories are noted in many of the lexicons and in a general way by Delitzsch in his commentary on Isaiah (K&D, v. 7, p. 183ff), Heidt (Heidt, Theology of Angels in the OT) lists several specific proponents of these views in his footnotes on the seraphs; p. 14-17.
[40] E.g., Ex 32.30; Lev 4.12; Nu 19.5; 2Ki 10.26; Ps 74.8; Is 44.16, 19; 47.14; Eze 5.4; Jer 36.28, etc.
[41] K&D, v. 7, p. 195.
[42] Of the 175 occurances of ‘angel,’ 51 occur in the synoptics, 67 in Revelation. Colin Baker (General Editor), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervon Publishing House, 1975), vol. 1, p. 101 - 105.
[43] TDNT, v. 1, p, 74-87.
[44] Ibid, p. 74.
[45] Mt 11. 10; Mk 1.2; Lk 7. 27 (of Mal 3. 1); Lk 7. 24; 9.52; Jas 2.25.
[46] Mt 1. 20-23; 2. 13, 19-20; 28. 5; Lk 1. 11ff; 2. 9ff; Ac 8. 26; 10. 3, 22; Lk1. 26ff.: of Gabriel; Lk 24. 23.
[47] Ac 5. 19f; 12. 7ff; 27. 23f.
[48] Ac 12. 23.
[49] Mt 26. 53; Mk 1. 13 and its parallel: Lk 22. 43; Jn 1. 51.
[50] Mt 13. 39ff; 25. 31; Mk 8. 38 and its parellel: Lk 12. 8; 2Th 1. 7.
[51] Mt 18. 10; Acts 12. 15.
[52] Lk 16. 22.
[53] Terrance Pendergrast, ed. Dictionary of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishing House, 1980), s.v. “pneu'ma.”
[54] Heb 1. 14.
[55] Rev 1. 4ff.
[56] Ac 23. 8.
[57] Clinton Morrison, The Powers That Be; Earthly and Demonic Powers in Romans 13. 1-7 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc, 1960), p. 26-7.
[58] Cf. Ro 8.38; 1Co 15.24.
[59] Cf. Ro 8.38.
[60] Cf. Col 1.16.
[61] Col 1.16; Eph 1.21
[62] See Pseudo-Dionysis: Hierarchies (noted above), Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica; also angelic hierarchies are noted in the works of St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, John of Damascus, and Karl Barth’s Christian Dogmatics.
[63] The only notable exception is in Ro 8. 38, where ‘principalities’ appears alone, in contrast to angels.
[64] Cf, William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary; An Exposition of Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1964), see especilly extended footnote #35, p. 135 - 137; Morrison: The Powers That Be; H. Berkhof Christ and the Powers, trans John Howard Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1962)
[65] Morrison: The Powers That Be, p. 10, 16-17, 42
[66] 1Co 15. 24.
[67] Col 2.15, GWN.
[68] Gal 4.3-9, RSV and paraphrase.
[69] Eph 1.21-22.
