Introduction<\/p>\n
This is a book about the loyal members of God\u2019s heavenly host. Most Christians will refer to them as angels, but, as we\u2019ll learn, that\u2019s just one of many terms the Bible uses for supernatural beings who serve him.
\nTo clarify, this is not a book about demons. While angels\u2019 failures are discussed here and there, fallen angels are nowhere the focus. In this book, I\u2019m really only concerned with what the Bible says about the good guys.
\nWhat you\u2019ll read here isn\u2019t guided by Christian tradition, stories, speculations, or well-meaning myths about angels. Instead, our study is rooted in the biblical terminology for the members of God\u2019s heavenly host, informed by the wider context of the ancient Near Eastern world and close attention to the biblical text.<\/p>\n
WHY BOTHER?<\/p>\n
But enough defending of our approach. We need to ask a more important question: Who cares? To be sure, popular interest in angels and angel stories is high, which is symptomatic of our culture\u2019s insatiable appetite for the supernatural. It seems every other movie or television show features a paranormal theme, alien superheroes, or some mischievous or malevolent deity. Bookstore shelves are well stocked with books about aliens, preternatural creatures, and, of course, angels and demons. That wouldn\u2019t be the case if they didn\u2019t sell, but sell they do.
\nUnfortunately, the content isn\u2019t very biblical, even when it tries. Hollywood does its best to mesmerize without informing, splattering CGI effects (and plenty of gore) over the screen as some unsuspecting human fights the forces of darkness in a reluctant-but-successful effort to save the world or win a heart.
\nChristian media contributes little that is innovative or even thoughtful in this arena. The Christian voice is usually divided between criticism of \u201cdemonic\u201d media (a label that is occasionally accurate) and carefully mining Hollywood\u2019s creative output for Christian themes and images. That\u2019s a noble pursuit for sure, but such observations are only as useful as they are truly biblically informed. Unfortunately, they rarely are.
\nMuch of what Christians think they know about angels is more informed by Christian tradition than Scripture. The angelology1 of Christian tradition is, to say the least, quite incomplete and, in some ways, inaccurate.
\nBut again, why should we care?
\nThe simple answer is that, if God moved the biblical writers to take care when talking about the unseen realm, then it matters. But these days, that often doesn\u2019t satisfy, since rarely we are taught to think theologically in church. The Sunday experience of most of you reading these words is that the Bible is presented as though its content is little more than children\u2019s Sunday school stories with adult illustrations or perhaps pithy maxims about marriage, parenting, recovery, confession, and fortitude. Of course the Bible can, does, and should speak to these personal issues. Scripture is applicable to every season of life, with all of its joys, challenges, and failures. But there\u2019s more to the Bible than that\u2014a lot more. To be blunt, Jesus is more than a cosmic life coach, and the God of the Bible had more in mind than a list of basic spiritual coping skills when he inspired its writers.
\nBut learning about angels isn\u2019t practical\u2014or so I\u2019ve been told. I disagree, and I think that if you read this book you will as well. Think with me for a moment. A life well lived extends from wisdom. Biblical wisdom involves not only practical, principled, decision-making skills but eternal perspective. Eternal perspective requires understanding what makes God tick. That\u2019s only discoverable with a firm grasp of who God is, what he\u2019s done, why he\u2019s done it, what else he intends to do, and why he doesn\u2019t want to do it alone. Grasping biblical theology is the means to these discoveries. And grasping biblical theology is impossible without knowing the Bible broadly and deeply.
\nWhy should we care about angels? Because angelology helps us think more clearly about familiar points of biblical theology. God\u2019s supernatural family is a theological template for understanding God\u2019s relationship to his human family of believers\u2014and our greater importance compared to them. Learning what the Bible says about angels ultimately is tied to thinking well about how God thinks about us. What God wants us to know about angels contributes to our eternal perspective. Several specifics come to mind.<\/p>\n
HOW GOD LOOKS AT US: Imagers of God<\/p>\n
In our discussion of Old Testament angelology, I\u2019ll draw your attention to the plural language of Genesis 1:26 (\u201clet us make humankind in our image,\u201d LEB). That language isn\u2019t a cryptic reference to the Trinity. God is speaking to his heavenly host. He is sharing a decision with them\u2014decreeing his will, as it were. If he were speaking to the members of the Trinity, they would already know what\u2019s in God\u2019s mind, because they are coequal and coeternal with him. Instead, the plural language of Genesis 1:26 intentionally connects humanity, God, and the members of the heavenly host with respect to an important biblical concept: imaging God. Imaging God is about representation\u2014acting on God\u2019s behalf at his behest. Humans image God on earth. The heavenly host images God in the spiritual, non-terrestrial world. The two are connected by design\u2014and that has amazing ramifications.
\nThe clich\u00e9 concept of \u201cbeing Jesus\u201d to a lost person who needs Christ also captures this idea. Imagers function in God\u2019s place\u2014not because God needs a break or is incapable, but because God has decreed that role. He has designed his supernatural creatures and humanity to fulfill that role. Humans were tasked to make the whole world like Eden: a place where God\u2019s goodness was known and his presence experienced; where humanity\u2019s needs were met and God\u2019s created world could be fully known and enjoyed; where imagers related to each other the way God related to them, with joy and love. God intended humanity to finish a task he had begun. He wanted participation\u2014and that should sound familiar if one is familiar with the heavenly host, God\u2019s initial family.
\nUnderstanding this status provides an answer to questions like, \u201cHow should we then live?,\u201d \u201cHow do we image God?,\u201d and \u201cHow should we see and treat each other?\u201d We image God by doing what he would do, when he would do it, and with the motivation he would have for doing it. Yes, we are lesser than God and will fail. But God forgives\u2014another lesson on what imaging means. We image God when we imitate God, acting on his behalf. It\u2019s difficult to see how any facet of this could be deemed impractical for Christian living.
\nMany illustrations show that imaging theology is crucially needed. There would be no racism if we saw each other as imagers of the same God; imagers estranged from God are still imagers. Injustice and abuse of power would find no place if we valued the fact that we all image God equally. All our relationships\u2014personal, home, business, work, church\u2014would be different if we consciously remembered our equal status as imagers of God. Imaging God is not leashed to church ministry. It can and should occur wherever our lives intersect with others\u2019.
\nYou may not have realized it while you were reading, but we just thought theologically, by means of an insight about God\u2019s heavenly host. Believe it or not, the significant, practical idea of imaging God extended from a more insightful angelology\u2014drawn from the plurals of Genesis 1:26, where God speaks to his heavenly host. That insight helped us think about practical holy living. Surprise!<\/p>\n
WHERE GOD WANTS US: At Home with God<\/p>\n
The second way a biblical theology of the heavenly host helps mold eternal perspective is to remind us that the terrestrial world as we know it isn\u2019t our true home. We are children of God. They were children of God before us. Though there was no weakness or need in God (like loneliness) that our own creation was meant to fill, the Bible makes it clear that God wanted more children. Humans could not traverse to his home, but God could reside in their home. And so the presence of God descended to earth to take up residence.
\nThe point is that God wants to be with his children. He wants us where he is. The plan was to blend his divine and human families on earth in deference to the limitations of human embodiment. Home is supposed to be where God is. But there\u2019s more to it than that.
\nThe fall disrupted the home life God intended for his human children. Nevertheless, the intention stayed secure. God had anticipated the fall. In his foresight, God had already determined that he would become a man in Jesus Christ so that humankind could come home after the fall (1 Pet 1:19\u201320; compare Eph 1:4). The wonder of God\u2019s decision is amplified when we superimpose what we know of angels onto it. God did not create a plan with their rebellions in mind. Instead, God devised a plan of redemption focused on humanity. As we\u2019ve seen, the writer of Hebrews explains this powerfully: \u201cFor it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come,\u201d but it was Jesus, who<\/p>\n
for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.\u2026 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:9, 16\u201317)<\/p>\n
Acknowledging that our supernatural siblings were part of God\u2019s original desire to have human children\u2014so much so that he would act at the expense of the heavenly ones for our benefit\u2014helps shape eternal perspective. If God wants us home to that degree, why would we fear departure from this terrestrial ball? As Psalm 116:15 puts it, \u201cPrecious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his faithful ones\u201d (NRSV). It is incoherent to think that God is less interested in us now, after the cross, than he was before when our redemption is what the cross accomplished. We need not fear death, because we who believe have been granted eternal life\u2014and we will still be in God\u2019s presence after supernatural rebels have long been judged.
\nIf we should not fear death, we should not be so distracted by the affairs of a life that is not being lived in our real home. Do we really believe that life in this world, as wonderful as it can be, can compare to what is to come? Do we really believe that the pain and disappointment that are inevitably part of life in this world is where our story ends? We can mouth the right answers to both questions, but what we really believe about our future can be seen by how we live in the present.<\/p>\n
WHAT GOD HAS PLANNED FOR US: Eternal Rule with Christ<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve met a number of Christians who will admit that, while they\u2019re glad to have eternal life, they find descriptions of heaven boring. I agree. The popular notion that heaven means floating around on clouds, gazing at God, and singing endless praise anthems is deeply flawed. The imagers of God, eternal members in his family, have a lot more to do than cloud-lounging and singing. But discerning that requires grasping heavenly host (\u201cangelic\u201d) participation and reclaiming the nations currently under the dominion of evil, supernatural beings. A theology of the heavenly host is indispensable for conceiving our eternal destiny as co-rulers with Jesus.
\nFirst, \u201cheaven\u201d will be on earth. This is where Revelation 21\u201322 locates the eternal state, but that fact often is missed by Bible readers. Eternal life will be lived out in a new Eden\u2014a global paradise that fulfills God\u2019s original intention. The presence of God and the glorified messianic king, Jesus, will be there. We\u2019re there, too, but we\u2019re not passive (or bored).
\nHaving been transformed to be like the risen Christ (1 John 3:1\u20133; 1 Cor 15:35\u201349), believers in the new Eden inherit the rule of the nations. Jesus himself quotes a messianic psalm (Ps 2:9) and applies it to us (Rev 2:27). Jesus grants us the privilege (and duty) of sharing his throne with him to rule the earth (Rev 3:21).
\nHow is it we have this authority? John tells us: \u201call who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God\u201d (John 1:12). We are the children of God who rule the nations. Old Testament angelology makes the meaning of this clear\u2014the nations are currently ruled by fallen sons of God, who oppress their populations (Deut 32:8; Ps 82:1\u20135). The psalmist recounts God\u2019s judgment in his heavenly assembly, that these sons of God will die like men (Ps 82:6\u20137)\u2014they will be cast away and replaced when the Most High rises up and takes back the nations (Ps 82:8). Paul describes the eternal destiny of the believer in this light: we will judge angels (1 Cor 6:3), language that anticipates their removal and our installation as lords of all the earth with Jesus, who is not merely our king but our brother (Heb 2:11\u201313). I tried to capture the idea in my book Supernatural:<\/p>\n
The members of God\u2019s family have a mission: to be God\u2019s agents in restoring his good rule on earth and expanding the membership of his family. We are God\u2019s means to propel the great reversal begun in Acts 2, the birth of the church, the body of Christ, until the time when the Lord returns. As evil had spread like a contagion through humanity after the failure of the first Eden, so the gospel spreads like an antidote through the same infected host. We are carriers of the truth about the God of gods, his love for all nations, and his unchanging desire to dwell with his family in the earthly home he has wanted since its creation. Eden will live again.2<\/p>\n
Why should we care about angels? Because knowledge of God\u2019s heavenly host helps us think more clearly about our status, our purpose, and our destiny. That\u2019s why.<\/p>\n
WHAT TO EXPECT<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve already shown my hand here: you won\u2019t get church tradition or talk about how angels got their wings (they don\u2019t have any). Instead, our focus will be the biblical text, and our doctrine will be informed by what we see in that text.
\nOur discussion naturally will begin with Old Testament terminology. That terminology then will serve as the basis for framing an Old Testament theology of the heavenly host. The Old Testament section of the book concludes with a chapter on important angels in the Old Testament.
\nRather than jumping to the New Testament, the book will move from the Old Testament to Second Temple (\u201cintertestamental\u201d) period literature.3 During the years between the end of the Old Testament and Jesus\u2019 birth, Jewish scholars were thinking and writing a great deal about their Bible, the Old Testament. A lot of what they wrote influenced how the Jewish people\u2014writers of the New Testament among them\u2014thought about many things, including angels.
\nThe third section of the book then turns to the New Testament. After surveying New Testament language for the heavenly host, noting its relationship to both the Old Testament and Second Temple period, we will devote a chapter to special topics in New Testament angelology. Finally, we will bring our study to a close with a fascinating (and hopefully fun) analysis of Christian myths about angels.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n
Old Testament Terminology for the Heavenly Host<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly, understanding what the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) says about the members of God\u2019s heavenly host must begin with the biblical text. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that merely detecting all the references in the Old Testament to angels accomplishes that task. As will become clear, there are a number of terms aside from \u201cangel\u201d that need discovery and consideration. But there is a preliminary step to casting that wider terminological net.
\nBefore we encounter the range of terms for the beings who serve God in the spiritual world, we need to grasp the fact that a given word will not necessarily yield the same kind of information about those spirit beings. To illustrate: the label \u201cspirit being\u201d tells us only about the nature of a particular being (it is not embodied), not what that being does in God\u2019s service or its particular status in God\u2019s heavenly bureaucracy. This last sentence directs our attention to three kinds of information, all of which are relevant to the terms we\u2019ll consider in this chapter:1<\/p>\n
\u2022 Terms that describe nature (what the members of the heavenly host are or are like)
\n\u2022 Terms that describe status (the hierarchical rank of the members of the heavenly host with respect to God and each other)
\n\u2022 Terms that describe function (what the members of the heavenly host do)<\/p>\n
Old Testament descriptions of the members of God\u2019s heavenly host typically fall into one of these categories, with occasional overlap. Our task in this chapter is to survey the terms in each category. We will reserve lengthy discussion of what these terms teach us about the heavenly to chapter 2.<\/p>\n
TERMS THAT DESCRIBE NATURE<\/p>\n
1. \u201cSpirit\u201d (r\u00fba\u1e25; plural: r\u00fba\u1e25\u00f4\u1e6f)<\/p>\n
The Old Testament makes it clear that the members of God\u2019s heavenly host are spirit beings\u2014entities that, by nature, are not embodied, at least in the sense of our human experience of being physical in form.2 This spiritual nature is indicated in several passages. The prophet Micaiah\u2019s vision of Yahweh, the God of Israel, reads as follows:<\/p>\n
I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, \u201cWho will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?\u201d And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, \u201cI will entice him.\u201d And the LORD said to him, \u201cBy what means?\u201d And he said, \u201cI will go out, and will be a lying spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] in the mouth of all his prophets.\u201d And he said, \u201cYou are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.\u201d Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you. (1 Kgs 22:19\u201323; compare 2 Chr 18:18\u201322)<\/p>\n
There are two important observations to make in this passage. First, the members of the host of heaven are identified as spirit beings in this passage (v. 21). Second, this spirit being is sent by God to \u201cbe a lying spirit\u201d in the mouth of Ahab\u2019s prophets (vv. 22\u201323). We are therefore not supposed to read this passage as though its point was that God gave Ahab\u2019s prophets some sort of internal emotional anxiety or psychological confusion\u2014as though God was troubling their individual spirits, their minds and thoughts. While r\u00fba\u1e25 can certainly be used to describe a person\u2019s intellect and emotional state (e.g., Mal 2:16; Ps 32:2; Prov 15:13),3 1 Kings 22:19\u201323 clearly identifies the lying spirit as a member of \u201call the host of heaven,\u201d who await instruction from their King. This spirit either took control of the minds of Ahab\u2019s prophets or influenced them to speak unanimous deception to the wicked king.4
\nThe divine throne room scene in 1 Kings 22:19\u201323 is therefore useful for considering other instances where r\u00fba\u1e25 may point to an unembodied entity but where ambiguity exists. In this regard, the following passages are relevant:<\/p>\n
Abimelech ruled over Israel three years. And God sent an evil spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, and the leaders of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. (Judg 9:22\u201323)<\/p>\n
Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] from the LORD tormented him. And Saul\u2019s servants said to him, \u201cBehold now, a harmful spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the harmful spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well.\u201d (1 Sam 16:14\u201316)<\/p>\n
The next day a harmful spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand. And Saul hurled the spear, for he thought, \u201cI will pin David to the wall.\u201d But David evaded him twice. (1 Sam 18:10\u201311)<\/p>\n
The princes of Zoan have become fools,
\nand the princes of Memphis are deluded;
\nthose who are the cornerstones of her tribes
\nhave made Egypt stagger.
\nThe LORD has mingled within her a spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] of confusion,
\nand they will make Egypt stagger in all its deeds,
\nas a drunken man staggers in his vomit. (Isa 19:13\u201314)<\/p>\n
When the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah, Isaiah said to them, \u201cSay to your master, \u2018Thus says the LORD: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the young men of the king of Assyria have reviled me. Behold, I will put a spirit [r\u00fba\u1e25] in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land.\u2019\u200a\u201d (Isa 37:5\u20137)<\/p>\n
In each of these passages, a \u201cspirit\u201d (r\u00fba\u1e25) is sent from God and that spirit affects an individual or group in an adverse way. Are these descriptions best understood as God in some way affecting the internal state of mind of the individuals in view or dispatching an unembodied entity to affect behavior?
\nOne could easily conclude, based on the usage of r\u00fba\u1e25 to describe a person\u2019s thoughts, feelings, and decisions, that the latter perspective makes sense. However, in light of 1 Kings 22:19\u201323, which uses quite similar language to that found in these passages, it is at least possible that unembodied divine spirits in the service of Yahweh are in view.5
\nA potential ambiguity of another sort is produced by the fact that the Hebrew word r\u00fba\u1e25 can also mean \u201cwind.\u201d6 This semantic possibility produces uncertainty in regard to interpreting Psalm 104:4.<\/p>\n
Bless the LORD, O my soul!
\nO LORD my God, you are very great!
\nYou are clothed with splendor and majesty,
\ncovering yourself with light as with a garment,
\nstretching out the heavens like a tent.
\nHe lays the beams of his chambers on the waters;
\nhe makes the clouds his chariot;
\nhe rides on the wings of the wind [r\u00fba\u1e25];
\nhe makes his messengers [mal\u02beakim] winds [r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4\u1e6f],
\nhis ministers a flaming fire. (Ps 104:1\u20134)<\/p>\n
The term mal\u02beakim is the plural of the Hebrew word translated \u201cangels\u201d throughout the Hebrew Bible (mal\u02beak). In the ESV translation, that plural is rendered \u201cmessengers.\u201d These messengers are referred to as \u201cwinds\u201d in the ESV, but the Hebrew (r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4\u1e6f) could just as easily be translated \u201cspirits.\u201d
\nIt isn\u2019t uncommon for commentators to understand Psalm 104:4 as referring only to winds\u2014elements of nature or the weather\u2014and not divine beings. The ESV reflects this perspective, as its translation effectively has God poetically making the winds his messengers. Goldingay\u2019s comments are representative of this approach: \u201cOther aspects of creation then form the means whereby God affects other aspects of this management. The clouds are Yhwh\u2019s limousine, the winds its means of propulsion, both the winds and the lightning Yhwh\u2019s aides and officers (Ps 104:3\u20134).\u201d7 This perspective is what leads scholars like Aune to conclude, \u201cThe plural term \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea, r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4t \u2018spirits,\u2019 is never used of angels in the OT.\u201d8
\nThis interpretation of Psalm 104:4 is unconvincing. The preceding psalm and comparative ancient Near Eastern descriptions of angels compel the conclusion that Psalm 104:4 is describing angels as spirits. Psalm 103:20\u201322 reads:<\/p>\n
Bless the LORD, O you his angels [mal\u02beakim],
\nyou mighty ones who do his word,
\nobeying the voice of his word!
\nBless the LORD, all his hosts,
\nhis ministers, who do his will!
\nBless the LORD, all his works,
\nin all places of his dominion.
\nBless the LORD, O my soul!<\/p>\n
The observation to make here is that the angels are referred to as \u201cministers\u201d (v. 21). The Hebrew word thus translated is identical to that which occurs in Psalm 104 (\u201chis ministers a flaming fire,\u201d v. 4). Why translate mal\u02beakim as \u201cangels\u201d in Psalm 103:20 but \u201cmessengers\u201d in Psalm 104:4? The angels in Psalm 103:20 are also called \u201cmighty ones\u201d who obey the command of God, obeying his voice. \u201cMighty ones\u201d (gibborim) is a term used of human warriors throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is nowhere else abstracted to speak of the forces of nature. It does not seem reasonable to make Psalm 104:4 an exception, especially since, as we\u2019ll discuss below, angels are described as men and as a warrior host in the Old Testament.9
\nFurther, other scholars have pointed out that another descriptor in Psalm 104:4, that God has made his ministers \u201ca flaming fire\u201d (\u02bee\u0161 laha\u1e6d), is vocabulary used to describe divine servants in ancient Near Eastern texts. For instance, two messengers of Yamm sent to a meeting of Canaanite El, the high god of Ugarit, are called \u201ctwo flames.\u201d Miller writes:<\/p>\n
The messengers of Yamm appear as warriors, flaming and with swords. There is no reason in this instance to assume that the figures represent lightning, but they indicate that both sides in the Baal\u2014Yamm conflict were disposed to use fire of some sort. There can be no question that these messengers are warriors.\u2026 This suggestion was made \u2026 by Father D. Shenkel, who also relates the messengers of Yamm to the messengers of Yahweh called \u2019\u0113\u0161 (w\u0101) laha\u1e6d in Ps 104:4.10<\/p>\n
2. \u201cHeavenly Ones\u201d (\u0161amayim)<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word \u0161amayim occurs over four hundred times in the Hebrew Bible. In nearly all cases, the referent is either the visible sky, the space above the earth (Gen 1:8; Deut 4:32; 33:26) or the spiritual realm beyond or above the visible sky in which God dwells (Ps 115:3; Isa 66:1). The Hebrew word is found always in plural form.11 In a handful of passages, \u0161amayim describes the members of God\u2019s supernatural host and should be translated (though it often is not) as \u201cheavenly ones\u201d for clarity on that point.12 This usage should be no surprise, since it makes perfect sense that members of the heavenly host should be called \u201cheavenly ones.\u201d Psalm 89:5\u20137 (vv. 6\u20138 in Hebrew) is a case in point:<\/p>\n
Let the heavens [\u0161amayim] praise your wonders, O LORD,
\nyour faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!
\nFor who in the skies can be compared to the LORD?
\nWho among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,
\na God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones,
\nand awesome above all who are around him?<\/p>\n
As we will discuss momentarily, this passage clearly speaks of the heavenly host as a council or assembly in the service of Yahweh, the God of Israel. This divine council has many \u201choly ones\u201d as its constituent members. In verse 5, these holy ones are set in parallel structure to \u0161amayim. The holy ones are \u201cheavenly ones.\u201d13 Goldingay comments on the meaning of \u0161amayim in this context:<\/p>\n
Alongside the parallelism of \u201cwonders\u201d and \u201ctruthfulness\u201d is that of \u201cthe heavens\u201d and \u201cthe congregation of the holy,\u201d the latter giving precision to the former. It is the body called \u201cthe divine assembly,\u201d the assembly of the \u201cgods,\u201d in 82:1.14<\/p>\n
Job 15:15 is another example where \u0161amayim should be understood as spiritual beings:<\/p>\n
Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones,
\nand the heavens [\u0161amayim] are not pure in his sight.<\/p>\n
While the impurity of \u201cthe heavens\u201d could be abstracted to mean that the spiritual world God inhabits has been tarnished in some way by the holy ones, the Hebrew parallelism makes it clear that \u201cthe heavenly ones\u201d are not pure in God\u2019s sight. The apparent meaning is that the heavenly beings of God\u2019s host or council are imperfect, and so God cannot completely trust them. This is reasonable given divine rebellion\u2019s presence in the biblical storyline (Gen 3; 6:1\u20134; Ps 82).
\nDeuteronomy 32:43 is well known to scholars as an instance of \u0161amayim used to describe divine beings. Here is the passage in that translation:<\/p>\n
Rejoice with him, O heavens [\u0161amayim];
\nbow down to him, all gods [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m],
\nfor he avenges the blood of his children
\nand takes vengeance on his adversaries.
\nHe repays those who hate him
\nand cleanses his people\u2019s land.<\/p>\n
The ESV follows the reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this verse. The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls here and for Deuteronomy 32:8 shows that \u201cgods\u201d is demonstrably the correct reading.15 The stanza in Moses\u2019 poetic song very clearly aligns \u0161amayim with \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m, and so a translation of \u201cheavenly ones\u201d is appropriate.<\/p>\n
3. \u201cStars\u201d (k\u014d\u1e35e\u1e07\u0131\u0302m)<\/p>\n
Since the members of God\u2019s heavenly host are referred to as \u201cheavenly ones,\u201d it should come as no surprise that they are also called \u201cstars\u201d (k\u014d\u1e35e\u1e07\u0131\u0302m). Indeed, the very designation \u201chost\u201d draws on descriptions of celestial bodies in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen 2:1; Jer 8:2):<\/p>\n
The identification of personified stars with angels of the heavenly hosts is well accepted within a totally monotheistic religious system: the stars stand in God\u2019s presence, to the right and the left of His throne (1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18); they serve Him (Ps 103:21; Neh 9:6).\u2026 At the head of the heavenly hosts stands a \u201cPrince of the army\u201d (Josh 5:14\u201315; Dan 8:11), probably the highest star and the farthest from the earth, even if the actual leader is God, to whom the starry army belongs. From this conception derives the syntagm \u201cLORD\/God of hosts\u201d (Yhwh \u02be\u0115l\u014dh\u00ea \u1e63\u0115b\u0101\u02be\u00f4t) occurring in numerous biblical passages.16<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most familiar passage in this regard is Job 38:5\u20137, where God asks Job:<\/p>\n
Who determined [the earth\u2019s] measurements\u2014surely you know!
\nOr who stretched the line upon it?
\nOn what were its bases sunk,
\nor who laid its cornerstone,
\nwhen the morning stars sang [k\u014d\u1e35e\u1e07\u00ea b\u014dqer] together
\nand all the sons of God shouted for joy?<\/p>\n
As we\u2019ll note later in our discussion, \u201csons of God\u201d is a term for the divine members of God\u2019s divine family-entourage. The heavenly sons of God who watched the creation of the earth are described as \u201cmorning stars.\u201d In Isaiah 14:13, the hubris of the king of Babylon is analogized with that of a rebel who sought to displace the God of heaven: \u201cI will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God [k\u014d\u1e35e\u1e07\u00ea \u02be\u0113l] I will set my throne on high.\u201d Scholars have long known that these lines in Isaiah 14 draw on a tale of divine rebellion present in Ugaritic texts, where the gods of El\u2019s council are referred to as the \u201cassembly of the stars [kkbm].\u201d17
\nThe point of star language for divine members of the heavenly host should be obvious. The members of Yahweh\u2019s host are not of earth. They are celestial, transcendent beings whose home is in the heavenly realm, the abode of God.<\/p>\n
4. \u201cHoly Ones\u201d (qed\u014d\u0161\u0131\u0302m)<\/p>\n
Two passages we considered above that designate the members of God\u2019s heavenly host as \u201cheavenly ones\u201d also describe them as \u201choly ones\u201d (Ps 89:5\u20137 [Hebrew: vv. 6\u20138]; Job 15:15). The term qed\u014d\u0161\u0131\u0302m may be used to describe people (Ps 16:3; Dan 8:24), but it is more often used of spirit beings in Yahweh\u2019s service (Deut 33:2\u20133; Job 5:1; Zech 14:5; Dan 4:17).18
\nAs we shall discuss in the next chapter, the designation \u201choly ones\u201d does not denote some quality of perfection. God does indeed charge his heavenly host with \u201cerror\u201d (Job 4:17\u201318). They are not infallible. \u201cHoly ones\u201d should therefore be understood in much the same way as earthly \u201choliness\u201d of people, places, and objects. The nature of holiness has to do with proximity to and association with the presence of God.19<\/p>\n
5. \u201cGods\u201d\/\u201cDivine Beings\u201d (\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve written extensively on divine plurality (the reality of multiple \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m) in the biblical text.20 The biblical writers refer to the members of God\u2019s heavenly host as gods, lesser divine beings in his heavenly council or assembly.21 What follows will briefly summarize that prior research.
\nWe have already noted that Psalm 89:5\u20137 (vv. 6\u20138 in Hebrew) describes a council or assembly of \u201choly ones\u201d and \u201cheavenly ones\u201d under the authority of Yahweh, the God of Israel.22 This council is explicitly placed \u201cin the skies\u201d (v. 6; \u1e07a\u0161\u0161a\u1e25aq), eliminating the common interpretation that the sons of God in Yahweh\u2019s divine council are human beings, Israelite judges. The unambiguous nature of this passage is echoed in Psalm 82:1, 6:<\/p>\n
God [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m] has taken his place in the divine council [\u02bfadat \u02be\u0113l];
\nin the midst of the gods [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m] he holds judgment.\u2026
\nI said, \u201cYou are gods [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m],
\nsons of the Most High [ben\u00ea\u02bf n\u00ea\u02bf], all of you \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
In Psalm 82:1 the word \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m occurs twice. The form (morphology) of \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m is plural. The meaning (semantics) of the term, however, is most often singular.23 In the case of Psalm 82:1, both meanings, singular and plural, are present. The first instance of \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m has the singular participle ni\u1e63\u1e63ab (\u201cstands\u201d or \u201cto take one\u2019s place\u201d) as its grammatical partner. That the second \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m must be understood as plural in meaning is indicated by the preposition (\u201cin the midst of\u201d; beqere\u1e07) that precedes it. You can\u2019t be \u201cin the midst of\u201d a singular entity.
\nThe plurality of the second \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m in Psalm 82:1 is made obvious by Psalm 82:6. God tells the other \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m, \u201cyou are gods (\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m), all of you.\u201d Both pronouns (\u201cyou\u201d) in the statement are grammatically plural. These \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m are \u201csons\u201d (plural) of the Most High, who must be the God of the Bible, as there is none higher.
\nMany scholars use these passages to argue that the biblical writers at one point in Israelite history were polytheists. This thinking is misguided and rooted in a mistaken notion of what the word \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m means. We tend to presume that the biblical writers thought about \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m in the same way we think about capitalized G-o-d. When we see the word \u201cGod,\u201d we instinctively assign a unique set of attributes (e.g., omnipresence, omnipotence, sovereignty) to the letters G-o-d. But this presumption is incorrect and leads our thinking astray when we encounter instances where \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m is intended to describe a group of beings instead of the lone God of the Bible.
\nWe know this presumption about \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m is mistaken by virtue of how the biblical authors used the word \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m. Briefly, one will find \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m in the Hebrew Bible employed to describe spiritual beings that are clearly lesser than the God of Israel. While \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m is used thousands of times for the singular God of Israel, it is used for spiritual beings judged by the God of the Bible (Ps 82:1, 6), gods and goddesses of surrounding nations (Judg 11:24; 1 Kgs 11:33), territorial spirits (Hebrew: shedim, often translated \u201cdemons\u201d; Deut 32:17), and the spirits of deceased people (1 Sam 28:13).
\nNo biblical author would think that the deceased dead or territorial spirits shared the same attributes and power as the God of Israel. The term is not intended to speak of a unique set of attributes, as though the God of Israel was just one of many equals. Biblical writers were not expressing polytheism; they used \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m in contexts that require a plural meaning for the term:<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cDemons\u201d (Hebrew: shedim; Deut 32:17)
\n\u2022 The deceased Samuel (1 Sam 28:13)
\n\u2022 Angels or the Angel of Yahweh (Gen 35:7)24<\/p>\n
The fact that biblical writers label a range of entities as \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m that they elsewhere take pains to distinguish as lesser than Yahweh tells us quite clearly that we ought not understand \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m as having to do with a unique set of attributes possessed by only one Being. A biblical writer would use \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m to label any entity that is not embodied by nature and is a member of the spiritual realm. This \u201cotherworldliness\u201d is an attribute all residents of the spiritual world possess. Every member of the spiritual world can be thought of as \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m since the term tells us where an entity belongs in terms of its nature. The spiritual realm has rank and hierarchy: Yahweh is the Most High. Biblical writers distinguish Yahweh from other \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m by means of other descriptors exclusively attributed to him, not by means of the single word \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m:<\/p>\n
Biblical writers also assign unique qualities to Yahweh. Yahweh is all-powerful (Jer 32:17, 27; Pss 72:18; 115:3), the sovereign king over the other \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m (Psa 95:3; Dan 4:35; 1 Kgs 22:19), the creator of the other members of his host-council (Psa 148:1\u20135; Neh 9:6; cf. Job 38:7; Deut 4:19\u201320; 17:3; 29:25\u201326; 32:17; Jas 1:17) and the lone \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m who deserves worship from the other \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m (Psa 29:1). In fact, Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly declares that Yahweh is unique\u2014there is only one Yahweh (\u201cYou alone are Yahweh\u201d).25<\/p>\n
This perspective is consistent with very conservative Jewish thinking in the Second Temple (intertestamental) period, which followed the Old Testament era. For instance, there are nearly 180 instances in nonbiblical material from Qumran\u2019s Dead Sea Scrolls where the terms \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m and \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m (also \u201cgods\u201d) describe members of Yahweh\u2019s heavenly host.26
\nTo summarize our findings thus far, Old Testament writers describe the nature of the members of Yahweh\u2019s heavenly host with terms such as \u201cspirits,\u201d \u201cheavenly ones,\u201d and \u201cgods, divine beings.\u201d We\u2019ll first encounter the more familiar \u201cangel\u201d in the next category.<\/p>\n
TERMS THAT DESCRIBE STATUS IN HIERARCHY<\/p>\n
Psalms 82 and 89 both refer explicitly to the members of God\u2019s heavenly host comprising a council or assembly under God\u2019s supreme authority.27 A range of terms in the Old Testament describe this heavenly bureaucracy:28<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cassembly\u201d (lemma: \u02bf\u0113d\u0101h; construct form: \u02bfada\u1e6f)
\n\u2022 \u201ccouncil\u201d (s\u014d\u1e0f)
\n\u2022 \u201ccongregation\u201d (q\u0101h\u0101l)
\n\u2022 \u201cassembly, assembled meeting\u201d (m\u00f4\u02bf\u0113d)
\n\u2022 \u201ccourt\u201d (Aramaic: d\u0131\u0302n)<\/p>\n
The term \u02bf\u0113d\u0101h appears nearly 150 times in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to a variety of assemblies, throngs, and communities (e.g., Ps 22:17; Num 16:5; Prov 5:14).29 Its use in Psalm 82:1 is clearly describing a group of divine beings (cf. vv. 6\u20137), as many scholars have noted exact parallels to the phrase in the texts of Ugarit, whose language bears close relation to that of Biblical Hebrew.30
\nHebrew s\u014d\u1e0f is less common (21 occurrences) than \u02bf\u0113d\u0101h, but biblical writers employed it more often for references to a \u201ccouncil of holy ones\u201d under Yahweh. We have already cited Psalm 89:7 in this regard, but the following references make mention of Yahweh\u2019s divine council: Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18, 22; and Amos 3:7.31 Certain specifics of these passages with respect to the function of the council will be considered below.
\nIn addition to s\u014d\u1e0f, Psalm 89:5 utilizes the word q\u0101h\u0101l (\u201cassembly of the holy ones\u201d). This assembly includes the \u201csons of God\u201d and meets \u201cin the skies\u201d (Ps 89:6). Hebrew q\u0101h\u0101l occurs over 120 times and, like \u02bf\u0113d\u0101h, elsewhere describes a variety of groups: mass groups of people (Num 20:4; Deut 5:22; 1 Kgs 8:14) and military companies (Ezek 17:17; 23:46; 38:15).
\nThe noun m\u00f4\u02bf\u0113d refers generally to a meeting place.32 The notion that the assembly of the gods meets at a \u201ccosmic mountain\u201d is common across ancient Near Eastern literature.33 At Ugarit the \u201cmount of assembly\u201d varies with the deity and his council. In biblical thought (Isa 14:12), the \u201cmount of assembly\u201d (har m\u00f4\u02bf\u0113d) is the place where the \u201cstars of God\u201d meet with the Lord in \u201cthe far north\u201d (yarket\u00ea \u1e63\u0101p\u0331\u00f4n).34
\nThe Aramaic lemma d\u0131\u0302n occurs five times in Ezra and Daniel. Each occurrence has something to do with justice or rendering judgment. In Daniel 7:9\u201310, amid the heavenly scene where \u201ca thousand thousands \u2026 and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before [the Lord],\u201d the seated Ancient of Days, \u201cthrones\u201d are put in place and the \u201ccourt\u201d (d\u0131\u0302n\u0101\u02be; council) \u201csat in judgment.\u201d35
\nMany scholars have pointed out that there is a discernible hierarchy within the divine council. All council members, including Yahweh, are heavenly spirit beings (r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4\u1e6f; \u0161amayim;\u2005\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m).36 However, a careful comparison of the council terminology sketched here with texts from ancient Canaan, particularly Ugarit, and the terms \u201csons of God\u201d (ben\u00ea [ha]\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m\/\u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m) and \u201cangel\u201d (mal\u02be\u0101k), allows one to discern three tiers within the council.
\nThe term \u201cprince\u201d (sar) is also relevant for hierarchy. Not all members of the heavenly host bear this title. As I discussed at length in The Unseen Realm, the \u201cprinces\u201d of the supernatural realm are to be identified with the \u201csons of God\u201d assigned to the nations of the world in divine judgment by the Most High (Deut 32:8\u20139 [Qumran, LXX]).37 These are the \u201cprinces\u201d over nations that oppose Yahweh and his people (Dan 10:13, 20).38 These sons of the Most High are later judged for corruption and rebellion in Psalm 82, thereby defecting from Yahweh\u2019s service.39 More positively, the princely terminology is used to describe the \u201ccommander (sar) of the army of the LORD\u201d (Josh 5:14).40 The term \u201cchief princes\u201d obviously suggests tiered authority. Michael, the \u201cprince\u201d of Israel (Dan 10:21; 12:1) is one of the \u201cchief princes\u201d (Dan 10:13). As Collins notes:<\/p>\n
The origin of this [prince] idea is to be sought in the ancient Near Eastern concept of the Divine Council. The existence of national deities is assumed in the Rabshakeh\u2019s taunt: \u201cWho among all the gods of the countries have delivered their countries out of my hand that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?\u201d (2 Kgs 18:35 = Isa 36:20).41<\/p>\n
Detailed discussions of the evidence for the hierarchal structure within the divine council may be found elsewhere.42 \u201cSons of God\u201d is familial language. \u201cAngel\u201d is the English translation of Hebrew mal\u02beak (\u201cmessenger\u201d). This language is intentional. Sonship language in the context of royal ideology conveyed the notion of high-ranking administration. The children of the king were not mere messengers; they outranked messengers. The sons of the king were an elite level of authority; they were extensions of kingly authority, granted that status by the king himself. The king\u2019s governance would include hundreds, even thousands, of individuals, but authority was tiered. Family members (immediate and extended) had high ranking.
\nThe hierarchy of the divine council is illustrated by the functional terminology for the members of God\u2019s heavenly host, to which we now turn.<\/p>\n
TERMS THAT DESCRIBE FUNCTION<\/p>\n
There are a number of Hebrew words that denote what the members of the heavenly host do, or which provide a profile of activity. It might help the reader to think of these terms as job descriptions or attributes related to some task.<\/p>\n
1. \u201cAngel\u201d (mal\u02be\u0101k; plural: mal\u02be\u0101\u1e35\u0131\u0302m)<\/p>\n
As noted above, the Hebrew word mal\u02beak means \u201cmessenger.\u201d43 It is therefore not surprising that the related noun mel\u0101\u02be\u1e35ah refers generally to a \u201cbusiness journey\u201d or \u201ctrade mission\u201d in the Hebrew Bible.44 In terms of the word\u2019s form, it is very likely that mal\u02beak derives from the Semitic verb l\u02bek (\u201cto send\u201d), though this verb is not attested in the Hebrew Bible. This has led some scholars to suspect mal\u02beak was brought into Biblical Hebrew vocabulary from an external Semitic language.45
\nThe meaning of \u201cmessenger\u201d for Hebrew mal\u02beak is quite apparent from passages where human messengers are sent to deliver a message (Gen 32:3, 7; Deut 2:26; Neh 6:3; 2 Sam 11:19) or to bring back a message or report (Josh 6:17, 25). Human beings sent from God are also described with mal\u02beak (prophets: Hag 1:13; 2 Chron 36:15; priests: Mal 2:7). These examples (e.g., priests, those initially sent out without a message to deliver) show us that the primary idea behind the term is not a message but being sent out to serve God. Supernatural spirit beings sent from God are the most frequent referent of the term. The English translation \u201cangel,\u201d which is actually drawn from the Greek New Testament (angelos) serves to distinguish supernatural messengers from human ones.
\nIt is interesting to note that angelic messengers are at times explicitly described as \u201cmen\u201d (\u02be\u0103n\u0101\u0161\u00eem) in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen 18:1\u20138, 16, 22; 19:1\u201322).46 Human form can more or less be assumed in other passages, as it would seem necessary for a human being to be able to comprehend that divine beings were present (e.g., Gen 28:12; 32:1).47 There are exceptions to this template (Gen 21:17; 22:11), and so it cannot be said that human form was necessary for angelic interaction with people. Human form for God himself is also common in the Old Testament.48
\nThe term \u201cangel,\u201d then, is basically a job description\u2014a spirit being from God\u2019s heavenly host sent by God to deliver or receive a message. This is a particular subset task of the broad service the members of the heavenly host render to God. As we shall see later, the term also factors into discussions of hierarchy in the supernatural world of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
2. \u201cMinister\u201d (verb: \u0161rt, Piel stem: \u0161\u0113r\u0113t)<\/p>\n
We encountered this job description earlier in our survey of terminology. Psalm 103:20 refers specifically to angels, then adds \u201cBless the LORD, all his hosts, his ministers [me\u0161ort\u0101yw],49 who do his will!\u201d (Ps 103:21). Translating mal\u02beakim per our earlier discussion, Psalm 104:4 tells us that God \u201cmakes his angels [mal\u02beakim] winds, his ministers [me\u0161ort\u0101yw] as flaming fire.\u201d50
\nThe Hebrew verb \u0161rt has been broadly defined as \u201cattending to the service of God.\u201d51 The two instances in Psalms 103 and 104 are the only occasions where the verb is used to describe angelic service. Daniel 7:10 conveys the same \u201cministering\u201d idea, though with an Aramaic verb (\u0161m\u0161): \u201ca thousand thousands served [ye\u0161amme\u0161\u00fbn] him.\u201d
\nThe verb is used frequently of priestly service in Israel (\u201cto minister to God\u201d; e.g., Deut 10:8; 21:5; Jer 33:21; Ezek 40:46), and so a more nuanced understanding is possible:<\/p>\n
Given the basic meaning \u201cto attend (a superior),\u201d it is understandable that the most important category for the theological use of \u02bfbd, \u201cto serve God with one\u2019s entire being,\u201d does not occur with the verb \u0161rt (Piel). Rather, the meaning corresponding to the verb \u0161rt (Piel) does not refer to people but to God, the performance of the cult. \u0161rt (Piel) is the specific verb for this activity.52<\/p>\n
The fact that most of the Old Testament usage is linked to priestly service contributed to the development of the notion of an angelic priesthood in Second Temple Judaism.53 However, the Old Testament concept of angelic mediation (considered below) is also an important element of that concept.<\/p>\n
3. \u201cWatcher\u201d (\u02bf\u0131\u0302r; plural: \u02bf\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302n)<\/p>\n
The Aramaic term \u02bf\u0131\u0302r occurs three times in the Old Testament (Dan 4:13, 17, 23 [Aramaic vv. 10, 14, 20]):<\/p>\n
I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher [\u02bf\u0131\u0302r], a holy one,54 came down from heaven. (v. 13)<\/p>\n
The sentence is by the decree of the watchers [\u02bf\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302n], the decision by the word of the holy ones. (v. 17)<\/p>\n
And because the king saw a watcher [\u02bf\u0131\u0302r], a holy one, coming down from heaven \u2026 (v. 23)<\/p>\n
As we shall see in a subsequent chapter, this Aramaic term is found much more frequently in Second Temple Jewish literature.
\nScholarly understanding of the meaning of \u02bf\u0131\u0302r depends on the presumed Semitic root from which one presumes it derived. Dahood proposed that the term came from Ugaritic \u01f5yr (\u201cto protect\u201d).55 Murray initially believed that a better option was Akkadian \u00earu (\u201cbe wakeful\u201d), but changed his mind after Kaufman\u2019s important work on Akkadian influences in Aramaic couldn\u2019t find primary source data for the connection.56 As Collins notes, however:<\/p>\n
Some biblical precedents for the notion of angelic beings as \u201cwatchful ones\u201d, but with different terminology, have been proposed. The most noteworthy is Zech 4:10 which refers to seven \u201ceyes of the LORD which range through the whole earth\u201d. The Watchers, however, never have this function in Daniel or the non-canonical literature.57<\/p>\n
More recent research by Amar Annus leads to the conclusion that the term does indeed have a connection to Akkadian material\u2014specifically, the supernatural apkallu, the central figures in the Babylonian story that is the specific backdrop to the infamous episode in Genesis 6:1\u20134.58 Annus writes:<\/p>\n
Figurines of apkallus were buried in boxes as foundation deposits in Mesopotamian buildings in order to avert evil from the house. The term ma\u1e63\u1e63ar\u0113, \u201cwatchers,\u201d is used of these sets of figurines in Akkadian incantations according to ritual texts. This appellation matches the Aramaic term \u02bfyryn, \u201cthe wakeful ones,\u201d for both good angels and the Watchers.59<\/p>\n
As the work of Annus and other scholars demonstrates, Second Temple Jewish literature, particularly 1 Enoch and The Book of Giants, draws on Mesopotamian material for its retelling of events associated with the flood.60 \u201cWatchers\u201d is the overwhelming choice of term for the fallen sons of God in Genesis 6:1\u20134 in this later literature; the connection to the Akkadian ma\u1e63\u1e63ar\u0113 provides a secure basis for understanding the meaning of \u02bf\u0131\u0302r to be \u201cvigilant watchfulness.\u201d This, of course, is consistent with being wakeful and a guardian role.<\/p>\n
4. \u201cHost\u201d (\u1e63aba\u02be; plural: \u1e63e\u1e07a\u02be\u00f4t); \u201cMighty Ones\u201d (gibbor\u0131\u0302m, \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m)<\/p>\n
It is best to consider these Hebrew terms as a group, since they ostensibly pertain to the same functional service to Yahweh: that of serving in his heavenly army. The broadest is \u1e63aba\u02be, a common noun that generally refers to a multitude of people (Ps 68:12), compulsory labor (Isa 40:2; Job 7:1), conscripted military service (Num 1:3; 31:3), or an army (Num 2:8; 2 Sam 3:23).61
\n\u201cHost\u201d terminology overlaps with several of the Hebrew words we\u2019ve studied. As we saw in 1 Kings 22:19, God is surrounded by the heavenly host (\u1e63aba\u02be) of spirit beings. His ministers in Psalm 103:21 are called \u201chis hosts\u201d (\u1e63e\u1e07\u0101\u02be\u0101yw). The same term is used in parallel to \u201cangels\u201d in Psalm 148:2. Since the spirit beings in God\u2019s service are called \u201cstars,\u201d it is no surprise to see them collectively referred to as the \u201chost of heaven\u201d (Jer 33:22; Neh 9:6; Dan 4:35).
\nThe most familiar association of \u201chost\u201d terminology with God\u2019s loyal heavenly agents is \u201cLord of hosts.\u201d The phrase is highly controversial in Old Testament scholarship, mainly because it is quite unusual in Biblical Hebrew to link the divine name with another noun. Some scholars argue that it is grammatically impossible.62 Consequently, scholars have proposed a variety of translations of the combination other than the traditional \u201cLord of hosts.\u201d
\nAs Mettinger points out, opinion on this matter has shifted, mainly because clear instances of the divine name in the Hebrew construct position in phrases have surfaced in extrabiblical texts:<\/p>\n
The traditional understanding, viz. as a construct relation, \u201cYahweh of \u1e63\u0115b\u0101\u02be\u00f4t\u201d seems the most probable solution and is made less problematical by the epigraphic attestation of analogues such as \u201cYahweh of Teman\u201d and \u201cYahweh of Samaria\u201d in Kuntillet Ajrud. But, even if this is the case, the construct relation itself allows for various interpretations of the Zebaoth element.63<\/p>\n
For our purposes, Mettinger\u2019s point is well taken. The traditional translation can stand, but its meaning needs a bit more attention. What exactly does Lord \u201cof\u201d hosts mean? Certainly, it speaks of Yahweh as commander in chief. It is not disputed that the hosts are his and he commands them. Perhaps the most fruitful of the alternative translation attempts is to consider the second element of the phrase, which Hebrew grammarians call \u201can intensive plural abstract.\u201d64 The result would be that the phrase means \u201cYahweh, the Almighty.\u201d The phrase therefore conveys \u201ca characteristic designation for the God-King enthroned on the cherub throne\u201d as uncontested lord of all heavenly powers (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; Pss 80:2; 99:1).65
\nAngels are referred to as gibbor\u0131\u0302m in one passage, Psalm 103:20 (\u201cBless the LORD, O you his angels, you mighty ones [gibbor\u0131\u0302m] who do his word\u201d). The wider context isn\u2019t overtly military. That acknowledgement does not eliminate the possibility that the psalmist was influenced by the divine warrior motif when he chose the term. It is true that gibbor\u0131\u0302m frequently describes warriors (e.g., Isa 21:17; 2 Kgs 24:16; Ps 33:16),66 but this is not always the case. The term is occasionally employed to describe community leaders or upstanding citizens (Ruth 2:1; Ezra 7:28). Had Psalm 103:20 described the heavenly gibbor\u0131\u0302m as \u201cthose who defeat God\u2019s enemies,\u201d a warfare context would be clearer. But the lack of an explicit context here does not undo a warrior perspective. Readers would have quite naturally read the term as a reference to members of Yahweh\u2019s heavenly army.
\nThe description of heavenly beings as \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m in Psalm 78:25 must be approached in a similar fashion. As part of his lengthy recollection of Israel\u2019s obstinate behavior in the wilderness the psalmist wrote:<\/p>\n
And he [God] rained down on them manna to eat
\nand gave them the grain of heaven.
\nMan ate of the bread of the angels (\u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m);
\nhe sent them food in abundance. (Ps 78:24\u201325)<\/p>\n
The immediate context is not militaristic. Yet \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r (singular) is used of warriors (Jer 46:15; Lam 1:15), but the term broadly refers to virility and strength (Job 24:22; 34:20; Ps 76:5 [Hebrew, v. 6]; Isa 10:13). \u201cAble-bodied\u201d is likely an appropriate understanding of \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r. This characterization would of course be required of a soldier, so usage of the term for fighting men makes good sense.
\nThis brief survey of usage may create the impression that the ESV translation of \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m as \u201cangels\u201d is idiosyncratic. The choice is not as odd as one might suppose. Manna was called the \u201cbread of heaven\u201d (Exod 16:4; Neh 9:15). The plural \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m can be understood as an instance of metonymy, \u201ca figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated.\u201d67 Plural \u201cmighty ones\u201d associated with heaven, the dwelling place of God, would make \u201cangels\u201d an option for translators. But as metonymy, this instance of \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m contributes little to the military metaphor.68<\/p>\n
5. \u201cMediator\u201d (m\u0113l\u0131\u0302\u1e63)<\/p>\n
In Job 33, Elihu, one of Job\u2019s \u201cmiserable comforters\u201d rebukes him as follows:<\/p>\n
Man is also rebuked with pain on his bed
\nand with continual strife in his bones,
\nso that his life loathes bread,
\nand his appetite the choicest food.
\nHis flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen,
\nand his bones that were not seen stick out.
\nHis soul draws near the pit,
\nand his life to those who bring death.
\nIf there be for him an angel,
\na mediator, one of the thousand,
\nto declare to man what is right for him,
\nand he is merciful to him, and says,
\n\u201cDeliver him from going down into the pit;
\nI have found a ransom \u2026\u201d (Job 33:19\u201324)<\/p>\n
The verse of interest for our study is Job 33:23: \u201cIf there be for [a man] an angel, a mediator.\u201d The Hebrew term translated \u201cmediator\u201d is m\u0113l\u0131\u0302\u1e63.69 It occurs in the phrase mal\u02be\u0101k m\u0113l\u0131\u0302\u1e63, a grammatical construction that is not a construct phrase that would require a translation like \u201ca messenger\/angel of a mediator.\u201d70 Rather, as Meier notes, \u201cthey are either in apposition, function as poetic parallels, or the first noun is modified by the second adjectival participle.\u201d71 The result is that Job 33:23 puts forth the concept of angelic mediation for human beings.
\nAs we will learn in the next chapter, mediation can be understood as \u201cturning\u201d to someone for an explanation of God\u2019s activity. This would make good sense in Job\u2019s case, but the coherence of the idea requires understanding participation within the divine council.<\/p>\n
6. \u201ccherubim\u201d (keru\u1e07\u0131\u0302m); \u201cseraphim\u201d (\u015ber\u0101p\u0331\u0131\u0302m)<\/p>\n
It may seem strange to find these familiar words considered together in the section focused on functional terms. In fact, both Hebrew terms describe the same function: guardianship of the presence of God. Hartenstein notes:<\/p>\n
Seraphim and cherubim both belong to the so-called \u201cMichwesen,\u201d hybrid figures. This means they are combining attributes from various animals and from humans.\u2026 We find such beings in the ancient Near East especially in contexts necessary to represent power and to prevent evil.\u2026 [In Mesopotamia] the powers of the universe were concentrated in the main city. The inhabitants of that city were (on a mythical level) identical with the cosmic abodes of the gods. This spatial symbolism involves distinctions between the higher and lower regions of the world (vertical dimension) and outer areas (horizontal dimension). When the ancient mind travels (in reality or imagination) through peripheral regions, the inhabitants of distant lands seem to be strange and dangerous. So the [hybrid figures] often were depicted as non-humans and monsters in opposition to men.\u2026 When tracing the traditional background of the biblical cherubim and seraphim, this symbolism of time and space should be remembered.72<\/p>\n
Hartenstein\u2019s point is that cherubim and seraphim would be viewed as a blessing (protection) by those welcome in the sacred space they guarded, but as a terror to those unwelcome.
\nThese terms could be considered as describing the nature of heavenly beings, since cherubim and seraphim are divine creatures. Both are said to have wings, though the number varies (Exod 25:20; 37:9; Isa 6:2). Cherubim are at times assigned four faces and both human and bovine body parts (Ezek 1; 10). Seraphim is the plural form of \u015b\u0101r\u0101p\u0331, a Hebrew word also translated \u201csnake\u201d (Num 21:6, 8; Isa 14:29). These descriptions are reflected in iconography from the biblical period.Jehova73 Neither is ever qualified with the term mal\u02be\u0101k, and so it is incorrect to think of cherubim and seraphim as angels.74
\nIn Alice Wood\u2019s detailed treatment of the Hebrew term in her major study on cherubim,75 she notes:<\/p>\n
Shades of meaning that are attributed to the cherubim in the biblical texts can be further accentuated by means of a comparison with the corresponding Semitic data. It is the form kur\u0131\u0304bu, derived from the Akkadian kar\u0101bu \u201cto pray\u201d, which provides us with the closest lexical parallel to the biblical \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1. If the two words are etymologically related, then the Akkadian evidence highlights the apotropaic76 qualities of the cherubim.\u2026 The cherubim are placed at the boundary between the sacred and the profane, to protect the holy from contamination.77<\/p>\n
Protecting the sanctity of God\u2019s presence is obviously a functional role. While this meaning is elicited from comparative Akkadian material, it is Egyptian literature which informs us that seraphim perform the same function.78
\nIt is common for interpreters to presume the lemma behind seraphim is the verb \u015b\u0101rap\u0331, which means \u201cto burn.\u201d79 As recent research has shown, this is only part of the picture. As I noted in The Unseen Realm, \u201cIt is more likely that seraphim derives from the Hebrew noun \u015b\u0101rap\u0331 (\u201cserpent\u201d), which in turn is drawn from Egyptian throne guardian terminology and conceptions.\u201d80 As recent research demonstrates, the Egyptian Uraeus serpent, drawn from two species of Egyptian cobras, fits all the elements of the supernatural seraphim who attend Yahweh\u2019s holy presence in Isaiah 6. The relevant cobra species spit \u201cburning\u201d venom, can expand wide flanges of skin on either side of their bodies\u2014considered \u201cwings\u201d in antiquity\u2014when threatened, and are (obviously) serpentine.81 As Joines notes, the protective nature of the uraeus cobra is evident: \u201cA function of the uraeus is to protect the pharaoh and sacred objects by breathing out fire on his enemies.\u201d82<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
Our brief overview of Old Testament terms for God\u2019s heavenly host and its members ought to make clear that talk of \u201cangels\u201d in the Old Testament is both too simplistic and incomplete. We are of course accustomed to that term, but it fails to do justice to the how an Israelite would have thought about the spiritual world. As we proceed chronologically into the Second Temple and New Testament eras, we\u2019ll discover how the variegated vocabulary of the Old Testament outlook was lost, providing some explanation for our own contemporary ignorance of the complexities and nuances of an Old Testament theology of the heavenly host. Our immediate task is far from complete, though. Now that we have a grasp of the Old Testament terminology for God\u2019s divine council and its members, we need to get into specifics: what they actually do.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n
The Heavenly Host in Service to God<\/p>\n
As noted in the last chapter, the label \u201cangel\u201d is just a job description\u2014a particular service rendered on God\u2019s behalf by certain members of the heavenly host. The same is true of \u201ccherubim\u201d and \u201cseraphim,\u201d both of which describe guardianship of the divine presence. But there is more to what angels and other members of the heavenly host do in God\u2019s service than these terms convey.
\nAn accurate understanding of how the members of the heavenly host serve God must derive from the biblical text. Our goal is to build upon our earlier survey of relevant terms, beginning with some general observations about the abilities of members of the heavenly host.<\/p>\n
SHARED ABILITIES FOR SERVICE<\/p>\n
The biblical vocabulary makes it clear that the members of the heavenly host are by nature unembodied spirit beings. Their normative domain is the spiritual world. They were present with God before the creation of the world and human beings.1 This \u201cotherness\u201d raises questions for many Bible readers:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Are the members of the heavenly host eternal?
\n\u2022 Are they impersonal forces or persons (i.e., do they have personality?)
\n\u2022 What attributes and limitations do they possess?
\n\u2022 Do they have free will, or are they \u201cspiritual robots\u201d?<\/p>\n
The first question is the easiest to answer. In biblical theology, there is only one Spirit Being who is eternal\u2014having no beginning and no end, never described as being created, whose existence preceded creation and is therefore \u201cfrom everlasting to everlasting\u201d (Ps 90:2).
\nAll other \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m were created by the lone, uncreated God of the Bible.2 He is the creator of the other members of his host council (Ps 148:1\u20135, esp. v. 5). Since the members of the host of heaven are identified with the stars (Job 38:7) or called stars (Isa 14:12), passages that describe the creation of the heavens \u201cwith all their host\u201d speak to the belief of the biblical writers that everything in the heavens came to be from God alone (Gen 2:1; Neh 9:6; Ps 33:6). Consequently, the members of the heavenly host aren\u2019t eternal since they had a beginning.3
\nThe members of the heavenly host also aren\u2019t everlasting or immortal, at least in terms of their unchangeable, intrinsic attributes. Their immortality is dependent on God\u2019s will. Psalm 82:6\u20137 is explicit proof of this limitation. The \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m spirit beings in rebellion against Yahweh will have their existence terminated in God\u2019s own time and at God\u2019s discretion. These beings \u201care gods (\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m), sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.\u201d The theological point is transparent. God is the single being whose existence is entirely under his own control. No other being can take it away. That is not true of other spirit beings.
\nAs created beings, the members of the heavenly host therefore are not exhaustive \u201cattribute replicas\u201d of God. They have inherent limitations in many respects in comparison to God. Like human beings, whatever the \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m of the heavenly host are, they are less than God. And what they are (and what we are) is contingent upon God\u2019s own decision to create them and share his attributes with them.
\nThis connection to humanity is not a mere convenience. The idea is scriptural, deriving from the plural language in Genesis 1:26 (\u201cAnd God said, \u2018Let us create humankind in our image and according to our likeness\u2019,\u201d LEB). In The Unseen Realm I devote a good deal of space to discussing the exegetical basis for this passage being an announcement by God to the members of his council and not an oblique reference to the Trinity and for interpreting the image as representation of God, not as a specific attribute given to humans or the members of God\u2019s council.4 The plural language links God both to us and to the members of the council, to whom he is speaking.5 They, like us, are reflections of their Creator. Humans and intelligent spirit beings are representatives of God in their respective domains.
\nOther scholars have taken note of this connection and its implications. For example, Patrick D. Miller observes:<\/p>\n
\u201cLet us make humankind in our image, after our likeness\u201d (Gen. 1:26). While other interpretations are possible, the most plausible understanding of these first person plural verbs and suffixes is that God\u2019s words are a directive to the divine council. At the point in the text where the narrative speaks of a close relation between the divine world and the human world and suggests that the human partakes of the divine in some fashion, it refers not simply to the deity but to the whole divine world, the divine beings. The human is both a consequence of Yahweh\u2019s decision in and to the council and a reflection of the divine world as it is embodied in the heavenly assembly. The ben \u2019\u0101d\u0101m [\u201cson of man; human one\u201d] is like the ben \u2019\u0113l\u00eem [\u201cson of God; divine one\u201d], a notion expressed explicitly also in Psalm 8.\u2026 The creation of the human creature is the establishment of a representative from the divine world to rule the created order. The image of the divine ones is placed on earth to embody and represent the divine ones in subduing, ruling, and governing the earth. The creation of male and female provides for the sustaining of that rule in the perpetuation of the creation.6<\/p>\n
The implication of this connection is that, if we desire to know what the members of the heavenly host are like, we should consider ourselves analogous. Psalm 8:5, the passage cited by Miller, informs us that God has made us \u201ca little lower than the heavenly beings [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m].\u201d7 Yet God shared his attributes with us as he first did with them. What are members of the heavenly host like? They are like God and like us. Think about these attributes that we share with our Creator: intelligence, creativity, emotions, rationality, and volition. Our fellow imagers, the members of the heavenly host, have them as well, because they are also his imagers.
\nOur embodiment naturally means we live with significant limitations that unembodied intelligent beings don\u2019t. Because of what happened in Eden, our lifespans are severely curtailed. We die after a brief existence in the world God made for us. It is only at that point that we experience the presence of God, presuming we are part of his family through redemptive grace. We are thus far less intelligent, creative, and wise than the members of the spiritual world. We simply do not know what they have learned through access to God and lifespans of many eons. But what they are and know is part of our own destiny in Christ.8
\nFree will is part of this attribute matrix. The interest in free will as it relates to members of the heavenly host arises from questions about how and when Satan turned against God, or whether angels still can, at some future time, rebel. There is no scriptural indication in either the Old or New Testament that the ability to rebel against God\u2019s authority was \u201cturned off\u201d at any time. Consequently, they can still conceivably fall. But one would suspect that, given the fate of divine rebels recounted in Scripture, those who remain faithful would be much less inclined toward rebellion.9
\nThis brief foray into the attributes heavenly beings possess by virtue of their status as representatives of their Creator helps us to grasp what they do. Their service to God can be expressed in three broad categories: participation in God\u2019s heavenly council, obedience to God\u2019s decisions, and praise of the Most High. We will consider each with its respective aspects.<\/p>\n
PARTICIPATION IN GOD\u2019S HEAVENLY COUNCIL<\/p>\n
Our discussion of Yahweh\u2019s divine council in the previous chapter made brief mention of council roles, mostly in regard to how the role messengers (mal\u02be\u0101k\u0131\u0302m; angels) provided evidence for tiered authority in the council.10 Council members do more than just run the heavenly mail room. They engage with God as a functioning bureaucracy, a role nuanced in three ways.<\/p>\n
1. Contributing to Council Resolutions<\/p>\n
We looked briefly at 1 Kings 22:19\u201323 in the previous chapter. Our goal then was to establish that the members of Yahweh\u2019s host were spirit beings. There is more to observe in the passage:<\/p>\n
I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, \u201cWho will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?\u201d And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, \u201cI will entice him.\u201d And the LORD said to him, \u201cBy what means?\u201d And he said, \u201cI will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.\u201d And he said, \u201cYou are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.\u201d Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.<\/p>\n
This glimpse into a heavenly council meeting is framed by the wickedness of King Ahab of Israel. It is clear from verse 20 that God has decided that it is time for Ahab to die. The members of the host of heaven are described as \u201cstanding\u201d (Hebrew, \u02bf\u0101mad; \u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d3) in attendance to the seated King-Judge. This language is stock vocabulary for attending to a superior. \u201cStanding\u201d in this setting is not a passive act. Rather, the posture speaks of being available, ready, and willing to carry out the superior\u2019s commands. Martens summarizes the idea:<\/p>\n
A more technical, somewhat idiomatic use of the vb. \u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d3 relates to government, especially royalty, before whom persons \u201cstand\u201d as messengers or ministers, prepared to take directives (Dan 1:4). As for God, King over all, he can deploy prophets, priests, and others who stand before Yahweh as his messengers. True prophets, for example, are privy to the decisions made in the divine council where they stand (\u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d3) (Jer 23:18, 22; cf. 18:20). Elijah introduces himself as the prophet of Yahweh, \u201cbefore whom I stand\u201d (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:15). God raises up prophets to serve him (\u201cstand before him,\u201d Deut 18:5, 7; cf. Jer 15:1). Priests, Levites especially, are acknowledged ministers before the Lord (Deut 10:8; 18:7; Zech 3:1; cf. 2 Chron 29:11) who \u201cperform their service\u201d (\u05e2\u05b8\u05de\u05b7\u05d3) (1 Kgs 8:11 NIV; cf. Ps 134:1; 135:2). In the heavenly court, hosts are at God\u2019s right and left hand (2 Chron 18:18). To be in God\u2019s service is a high honor.11<\/p>\n
When the council meeting commences, God asks the spirit beings present how Ahab\u2019s death should be accomplished. God had decreed Ahab was going to die at Ramoth-Gilead, but he allows debate and participation when it comes to the means of Ahab\u2019s demise. One of the spirit beings proposes a plan (vv. 21\u201322): \u201cI will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.\u201d God approves, knowing full well that the plan will succeed. Had the omniscient God of Israel known the proposition would fail, he would have heard another one or proceeded on his own account.
\nThe text presents us with a clear instance where God has sovereignly decided to act but allows his lesser, intelligent servants to participate in how his decision is carried out. God wasn\u2019t searching for ideas, as though he couldn\u2019t conceive of a plan. He allowed those who serve him the latitude to propose options. In other words, the members of the host were involved in the divine decree. As Miller has observed:<\/p>\n
The symbol of the divine council is a quite concrete if multi-faceted one. Yahweh is seen as seated upon his throne of kingship in a temple or palace surrounded by a nameless host of divine beings who are sometimes portrayed as present before or beside Yahweh (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:19\u201321) and elsewhere as coming in to take their position in the presence of Yahweh (Job 1:6; 2:1). The assembly, or members of it, whether the \u201cdivine ones\u201d or the \u201choly ones\u201d or particular groups within the whole, for example, the seraphim, are sometimes depicted as serving or worshiping the Lord, a part of the holy array that gives God glory (Isa. 6:1\u20133). At other times, they converse among themselves or the Lord converses with them, for example, in the prologue to the book of Job and in the vision of Micaiah in 1 Kgs 22:19\u201323.\u2026 The Lord takes counsel with the council, commissions them with certain tasks. They sit as a court or governmental body in which the Lord judges a case or utters a decree.12<\/p>\n
There is no hint that the suggestion of the spirit being to deceive Ahab was preprogrammed. God was also not bound to it. Had a member of the heavenly host proposed an idea God in his omniscience knew would not succeed, he could have vetoed it. The criterion was simple: will it succeed? The omniscient God knew the suggestion would succeed and approved it.
\nThe fact that God was seated in 1 Kings 22:19 is also of interest. While standing is the normative description for attendants, sitting can be presumed as the posture of the one rendering judgment. The Old Testament certainly utilizes this description in the context of rendering judgment (Judg 4:5; Joel 3:12; Prov 20:8), but there are also interesting exceptions\u2014in the divine council. Daniel 7:9\u201310 reads:<\/p>\n
As I looked,<\/p>\n
thrones were placed,
\nand the Ancient of Days took his seat;
\nhis clothing was white as snow,
\nand the hair of his head like pure wool;
\nhis throne was fiery flames;
\nits wheels were burning fire.
\nA stream of fire issued
\nand came out from before him;
\na thousand thousands served him,
\nand ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;
\nthe court sat in judgment,
\nand the books were opened.<\/p>\n
The seated (v. 9) Ancient of Days is obviously the leader of the council. But \u201cthrones\u201d are set in place for at least some members of the council (\u201ccourt\u201d; v. 10).13 The council members occupying the other thrones are part of the decision-making process. This is quite evident from Daniel 9:26: \u201cBut the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end.\u201d The verdict on the fourth beast is connected to the court sitting in judgment.
\nThe seated council in Daniel 7:9\u201310 is therefore not just window dressing. In ancient Israelite thought, the party (or parties) seated in an assembled meeting had decision-making authority.14 The seated posture of the council expresses a participatory role. But the other details of 1 Kings 22:19\u201323 and Daniel 7:9\u201310 are equally significant. The council neither acts alone nor without a Head. The members of the heavenly host partner with God in carrying out his will. They are not autonomous.<\/p>\n
2. Bearing Witness to God\u2019s Decrees<\/p>\n
In addition to participating in divine decisions, members of God\u2019s heavenly host also bear witness to God\u2019s decrees. We have already encountered two such instances. In Job 38:4\u20137, the morning stars\/sons of God bear witness to the majesty of the creation event. In Genesis 1:26 God announced to the assembled council host his decision to create humankind. That the purpose of the declaration \u201clet us create\u201d was to announce intention, not solicit help in creating, is evident in Genesis 1:27, where the verbs of creation are all grammatically singular.15 The members of the heavenly host perform an endorsement role, not in terms of authorizing God\u2019s decision, but rather validating or confirming its goodness, wisdom, and desirability.16
\nPerhaps less well known, but just as transparent in the biblical text, is the idea that the law was delivered by angels (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2).17 This belief derives from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 33:1\u20134, which has a multitude of divine beings at Sinai (v. 2), whereas the Hebrew Masoretic text does not.18 The Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 33 has angels (its translation of qed\u014dsh\u0131\u0302m, \u201choly ones,\u201d in v. 2) accompanying God when he gave the Law to Israel. The Masoretic text instead suggests that the \u201choly ones\u201d are the Israelites receiving the law.19
\nThe biblical text makes it clear that the giving of the law was a covenantal act between Yahweh and Israel (Exod 19:5\u20136; 24:1\u20138). Members of Yahweh\u2019s assembly are present to bear witness to the covenant enactment.20 Miller again summarizes the implication well: \u201cThe rule of the cosmos is in the hands of Yahweh, but the context in which that rule takes place is the activity of the council where Yahweh\u2019s decrees directing the human community and the divine world are set forth and through whom they are communicated or enacted.\u201d21 The ultimate expression of this idea was the Sinai covenant between Yahweh and his own people.
\nCouncil participation as witnesses to covenant stipulations is quite consistent with ancient Near Eastern covenant structures:<\/p>\n
These treaties also typically listed those \u201cthird parties\u201d who would witness the enactment of the treaty. It is of especial interest that the witnesses were exclusively deities or deified elements of the natural world. The list of deities was frequently so lengthy as to justify the conclusion that it was intended to be exhaustive: all gods relevant to both parties were called upon as witnesses, so that there was no god left that the vassal could appeal to for protection if he wanted to violate his solemn oath.\u2026 The witnesses were those entities that were called upon to observe the behavior of the party under oath and to carry out the appropriate rewards and punishments (the blessings and curses) connected with the treaty (see below). The fact that these enforcers are all supernatural beings reflects the underlying idea that in this covenant ideology strenuous (if not pretentious) efforts were made to place the entire covenant complex outside the realm of political and military coercive force, and into the realm of a voluntary acceptance of a commonality of interest between suzerain and vassal. In other words, there is expressed here the hope that the vassal\u2019s obedience will be \u201cself-policing,\u201d i.e., based upon a conscientious regard for higher principles (the gods) than simply upon the fear of superior military force.22<\/p>\n
Set against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the members of the heavenly council also serve as witnesses in another biblical-theological context: \u201clawsuits\u201d taken up by God against his guilty people for covenant violation.23 The following passages are illustrative:<\/p>\n
\u201cHear, O my people, and I will speak;
\nO Israel, I will testify against you.
\nI am God, your God.
\nNot for your sacrifices do I rebuke you;
\nyour burnt offerings are continually before me.\u201d \u2026
\nBut to the wicked God says:
\n\u201cWhat right have you to recite my statutes
\nor take my covenant on your lips?
\nFor you hate discipline,
\nand you cast my words behind you.\u201d (Ps 50:7\u20138, 16\u201317)<\/p>\n
And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD\u2019s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, \u201cWhy does he not?\u201d Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. (Mal 2:13\u201314)<\/p>\n
Occasionally as part of God serving as a witness in his own legal dispute against his people, an unidentified group is also called on to bear witness to God\u2019s accusations and the validity of the pronounced verdict. The plurality (i.e., a group) is evidenced in the Hebrew text by the use of plural imperatives (underlined):<\/p>\n
Proclaim [hi\u0161m\u0131\u0302\u02bf\u00fb] to the strongholds in Ashdod
\nand to the strongholds in the land of Egypt,
\nand say [\u02beimr\u00fb], \u201cAssemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria,
\nand see the great tumults within her,
\nand the oppressed in her midst.\u201d
\n\u201cThey do not know how to do right,\u201d declares the LORD,
\n\u201cthose who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds.\u201d \u2026
\n\u201cHear [\u0161im\u02bf\u00fb], and testify [h\u0101\u02bf\u0131\u0302d\u00fb] against the house of Jacob,\u201d
\ndeclares the Lord GOD, the God of hosts,
\n\u201cthat on the day I punish Israel for his transgressions,
\nI will punish the altars of Bethel,
\nand the horns of the altar shall be cut off
\nand fall to the ground. (Amos 3:9\u201310, 13\u201314)<\/p>\n
In a recent study of Amos 3, David Bokovoy explains the judicial thrust of the passage this way:<\/p>\n
This reading of Amos 3:13 as a summoning of God\u2019s assembly coheres with the general judicial role fulfilled by the council throughout ancient Near Eastern traditions. Reflecting secular institutions, the heavenly council of the gods in ancient Near Eastern thought formed an important judicial body, governing the affairs of the cosmos. As Richard J. Clifford has explained concerning the Phoenician depiction of the assembly, \u201cas elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the assemblies are pictured as subordinate to individual gods, although the assembly\u2019s consent seems necessary for important decisions.24<\/p>\n
Other passages do that as well, including an interesting nuance. Isaiah 40:1\u20132 read as follows (the plural imperatives once again underlined):<\/p>\n
Comfort [na\u1e25am\u00fb], comfort [na\u1e25am\u00fb] my people, says your God.
\nSpeak [dibber\u00fb] tenderly to Jerusalem,
\nand cry [qir\u02be\u00fb] to her
\nthat her warfare is ended,
\nthat her iniquity is pardoned,
\nthat she has received from the LORD\u2019s hand
\ndouble for all her sins.<\/p>\n
In this set of plural imperatives, Yahweh is calling for someone in an unnamed group to comfort his people, whose exile is portrayed as ending.25 As the chapter continues, a voice from among the addressed group cries out (v. 6a: \u201cA voice says, \u2018Cry!\u2019\u200a\u201d), which the prophet answers (v. 6b: \u201cAnd I said, \u2018What shall I cry?\u2019\u200a\u201d). The prophet thus becomes part of the conversation between God and his heavenly council.
\nCommentators agree that Isaiah 6 and 40 have a number of connections. In Isaiah 6, only God, Isaiah, and the divine throne guardians (seraphim) are in the room. God addresses the assembled divine host by asking a rhetorical question: \u201cWho will go for us?\u201d (v. 8). God isn\u2019t asking Isaiah directly; the prophet is a spectator. A conversation ensues within the council in Isaiah 40:3\u20136, wherein the prophet becomes a participant (reading \u201cand I said\u201d with the Dead Sea Scrolls text of the passage at v. 6). This is very similar to Isaiah 6, where, after the \u201cWho will go for us?\u201d question, the prophet responds, \u201cHere am I, send me\u201d (v. 8).26 In that passage, one of the seraphim purifies Isaiah\u2019s mouth for service as the spokesman for Yahweh (Isa 6:6\u20137).
\nThe divine council also bears witness to Yahweh\u2019s choice of prophets. In biblical theology, prophets are validated by divine encounter, which at times takes place in the divine council. I treat this motif at length in The Unseen Realm.27 Jeremiah 23:16\u201322 is the classic passage on the pattern:<\/p>\n
Thus says the LORD of hosts: \u201cDo not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, \u2018It shall be well with you\u2019; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, \u2018No disaster shall come upon you.\u2019\u200a\u201d<\/p>\n
For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD
\nto see and to hear his word,
\nor who has paid attention to his word and listened?\u2026
\nI did not send the prophets,
\nyet they ran;
\nI did not speak to them,
\nyet they prophesied.
\nBut if they had stood in my council,
\nthen they would have proclaimed my words to my people,
\nand they would have turned them from their evil way,
\nand from the evil of their deeds.\u201d (Jer 23:16\u201318, 21\u201322)28<\/p>\n
The implications of the passage are that true prophets have stood and listened in Yahweh\u2019s council, whereas false prophets have not. The divine council bears witness to Yahweh\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
3. Assisting in God\u2019s Governance of the Human World<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, church tradition has produced a myopic understanding of the well-known episode in Job 1\u20132, where a challenge is issued against God\u2019s assessment of the righteous Job by a heavenly adversary (\u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n) reporting in a divine council meeting.29 The focus on this figure distracts readers from a larger point of biblical theology\u2014the role of the heavenly host in God\u2019s governance of his terrestrial creation.
\nJob 1\u20132 describes a gathering of the sons of God in a heavenly council meeting. The \u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n attends the meeting, describing himself as \u201cgoing to and fro\u201d (\u0161\u00fb\u1e6d) traversing throughout the earth.30 This activity is not without purpose. As Clines notes:<\/p>\n
The verb \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05d8 refers predominantly to going about for a particular purpose (Num 11:8, to search for manna; 2 Sam 24:8, to take a census; Jer 5:1, to see if a righteous man can be found in Jerusalem; Amos 8:12, to seek a word from Yahweh; cf. 2 Chr 16:9; Ezek 27:8, 26; Zech 4:10; only Dan 12:4 and Jer 49:3 appear to be exceptions).\u2026 Whether the implication is that the Satan\u2019s particular mission has been to assess the piety of humans, as may appear from the next verse, is hard to determine. Most probably the reason for the Satan\u2019s movement throughout the earth is simply not specified for dramatic reasons: he has nothing to report, nothing to advise, nothing to initiate; but he has nevertheless been abroad on earth with his eyes wide open, amassing the reserve of observations which his sovereign can use as he wills.31<\/p>\n
Why does the \u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n report in the council? The answer is found in the conception that the divine council is God\u2019s task force for governing the world. In Zechariah 1:10 we learn that God sends angels \u201cto patrol the earth.\u201d Those angels report to the angel of the LORD, \u201cWe have patrolled the earth, and behold, all the earth remains at rest\u201d (Zech 1:11).32 In Psalm 82 the council \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m under God\u2019s indictment are being judged because of their failure to administrate the nations according to the principles of Yahweh\u2019s justice (Ps 82:2\u20134). The result is chaos on earth (\u201call the foundations of the earth are shaken\u201d; Ps 82:5). Miller elaborates:<\/p>\n
The maintenance of justice and righteousness is the foundation of the universe, the responsibility of the divine council, and the issue upon which hang both the stability of the universe and the stability and effective reality of the divine world.\u2026 It is against this background that one must look at one of the texts in which the council of Yahweh is most explicitly present, Psalm 82. It takes place entirely in the world of the gods, although what is clear from the story is that that world is totally ruled and controlled by the Lord. The psalm depicts a meeting of the \u201cdivine council\u201d (v. 1) in which God rises and pronounces judgment on the gods. The reason for the verdict against them is spelled out in detail and unambiguous. The divine ones, the gods who are supposed to provide for order\/righteousness among the peoples of the earth, have utterly failed to do so. They have shown partiality to the wicked and failed to maintain the right of the poor and the weak. The consequence of this is stated to be a shaking of the foundations of the world.\u2026 The text assumes that justice as the center of world order is a responsibility of the divine world as a whole. Failure to bring that about calls into question the divine world. Indeed its consequence is a decree against the divine world that relativizes it and renders the divine ones mortal. The gods are condemned to death. The fate of the divine world, of gods as well as of human beings, is determined in the divine council.33<\/p>\n
The most dramatic instance of council members participating in God\u2019s governance of the world is associated with judgment. According to Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139, members of the heavenly host were assigned as administrators of the nations:<\/p>\n
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
\nwhen he divided mankind,
\nhe fixed the borders of the peoples
\naccording to the number of the sons of God.34
\nBut the LORD\u2019s portion is his people,
\nJacob his allotted heritage.<\/p>\n
We learn from Genesis 11:1\u20139 that humanity was divided up into the nations at the Tower of Babel event. Yahweh\u2019s division of humanity into the nations listed in Genesis 10, which descended from Noah\u2019s sons after the flood, was a punitive act. God had decided to put his relationship with humanity as a whole on hiatus. After the nations were divided and allotted to lesser divine beings (\u201csons of God\u201d), God called Abraham to form a new people\u2014his \u201cinheritance\u201d as described in Deuteronomy 32:9.35 Through this new people, God planned to bless the nations in the future (Gen 12:3; cf. Acts 17:26).36
\nDeuteronomy 32:8\u20139 is foundational for understanding the remainder of the Old Testament. As Miller notes of the passage, \u201cThe order of nations is rooted in the order of heaven.\u201d37 Though readers are given no timeline, eventually the sons of God charged with this task turn adversarial, seducing the Israelites into idolatry (Deut 32:17) and abusing their populations (Ps 82:1\u20135). God\u2019s response is to pronounce their eschatological deaths at the day of the Lord (Ps 82:6\u20138; Isa 24:21; 34:1\u20134).38
\nThese areas of participation allow us to draw the conclusion that the members of the heavenly host exercise the attributes shared with them by their Creator, among them freedom and intelligence. Again, our own condition and status is analogous. They, like us, do not act autonomously, but God does indeed expect us (and them) to serve as his representatives, utilizing the abilities he has bestowed.<\/p>\n
RESPONSIVE OBEDIENCE TO DIVINE DECISIONS<\/p>\n
Decisions made by God and his council required action. Scripture describes members of the heavenly host responding accordingly in a variety of ways.<\/p>\n
1. Delivering Divine Decrees<\/p>\n
In the previous chapter we briefly discussed the term mal\u02be\u0101k (\u201cmessenger\u201d),39 often translated \u201cangel\u201d in English Bibles, though that rendering is a transliteration of the New Testament Greek angelos. Messengers (mal\u02be\u0101k\u0131\u0302m) may be human or divine.40 The task of delivering messages from God is not always evident in passages where a divine mal\u02be\u0101k is mentioned (e.g., Gen 32:1; Pss 91:11; 148:2). Certain contexts are overtly military (Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2).
\nNevertheless, God does send divine mal\u02be\u0101k\u0131\u0302m to deliver messages (Zech 1:9, 19; 2:3). One particular divine emissary, the mal\u02be\u0101k yhwh (\u201cangel of Yahweh\/the LORD\u201d), is prominent in this regard.41 As we will see below, such instances can include vocabulary other than mal\u02be\u0101k. The point for consideration extends beyond the lemmas that are utilized by the writer. Members of the heavenly host deliver information from and about God that derive from council decisions or direct decrees from the Most High.
\nFor our purposes, the point is well illustrated in Daniel 4. The chapter records the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in which he saw a stupendously tall tree that reached into the heavens. Part of the dream included a visitation from \u201ca watcher, a holy one\u201d (Dan 4:13, 17, 23). The watcher informed the Babylonian despot that the tree of his dream would be chopped down, leaving only its stump. The divine messenger explained that the tree and its stump were symbolized Nebuchadnezzar and his future fate. The tall tree was emblematic of the king\u2019s greatness, while the stump pictured his destiny. God was judging Nebuchadnezzar for his arrogance; he would suffer temporary insanity and become like an animal (Dan 4:13\u201316). The wordings of Daniel 4:17, 24 in this regard are of special interest.<\/p>\n
The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men. (Dan 4:17)<\/p>\n
This is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king. (Dan 4:24)<\/p>\n
Not only does the watcher deliver the decree of the Most High, but we learn that members of the heavenly host (here called watchers) participated in issuing the sentence upon Nebuchadnezzar.
\nThe passage is clear, however, that input from the members of the heavenly host did not impinge on the sovereignty of God:<\/p>\n
You [Nebuchadnezzar] shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will. And as it was commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be confirmed for you from the time that you know that Heaven rules. (Dan 4:25\u201326)<\/p>\n
Despite the participation of the holy ones in Daniel 4:17, the text affirms that the Most High is sovereign.42 The council does not act independently of its Head. Decisions are made and delivered to those affected when that is in concert with God\u2019s will. Their duties as emissaries bring us to the next role of members of the heavenly host.<\/p>\n
2. Explaining Divine Activity<\/p>\n
In chapter 1 we learned that angels are referred to as \u201cmediators\u201d (m\u0113l\u0131\u0302\u1e63; Job 33:23) and suggested the idea conveyed by the Hebrew term was \u201cturning\u201d to one of the holy ones for an explanation of God\u2019s activity. Since members of God\u2019s council participate in the issuing of God\u2019s decrees (1 Kgs 22:19\u201323; Dan 7:9) and deliver messages to human affected by those decrees (Gen 19:1\u201322; Dan 4:13, 17, 24), the concept of explanatory mediation would make sense. It also has implications for grasping the free decision-making ability of the holy ones.
\nRecall that Job 15:15 taught us that God \u201cputs no trust in his holy ones.\u201d Job 4:17\u201318 and 5:1 are also instructive in the regard:<\/p>\n
Can mortal man be in the right before God?
\nCan a man be pure before his Maker?
\nEven in his servants he puts no trust,
\nand his angels he charges with error. (Job 4:17\u201318)43<\/p>\n
A few verses later in his dialogue (Job 5:1), Eliphaz demands of Job, \u201cCall now; is there anyone who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn?\u201d
\nFurther, Job 4:17\u201318 and 15:15 have Eliphaz ridiculing Job. His unrelenting taunts can be paraphrased as: \u201cWho are you to think you\u2019re righteous? Are you better than the angels? Will any of them intercede for you? Go ahead; make an appeal to one of the holy ones.\u201d The answer to the rhetorical barb is that Job should expect no heavenly advocacy on his behalf.
\nThe notion that heavenly beings were presumed to function as mediators between the leadership of the divine council and mortal humans, in effect functioning as witnesses for humans to plead their case in the context of unjust suffering, is a very ancient one, perhaps going back to divine assemblies at Sumer.44 As Clines notes:<\/p>\n
We have heard of such beings previously at 5:1, where Eliphaz warned Job that there was no point in calling out to such a heavenly being for deliverance from the web of sin and punishment in which he was now caught. There too the angel was envisaged as a mediator between humans and God who would seek mercy from God for the suffering human. The angel is an \u201cinterpreter\u201d or \u201cmediator\u201d (\u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05e5), apparently meaning that its function is to \u2026 explain God\u2019s purpose in the infliction of suffering.45<\/p>\n
The point of the comments about the holy ones in Job 4:17\u201318; 15:15 is not indictment for rebellion. Rather, the context of these passages is establishing the perfect wisdom and righteousness of God compared to his other intelligent creatures (Job 15:7\u201316). Though fallible, the angels are still explicitly called God\u2019s servants. That the holy ones are capable of making less than correct (or even optimal) decisions in mediating God\u2019s will cannot mean that those fallible decisions were God\u2019s decisions, as though the decisions of the holy ones had merely been programmed into them by God. Rather, angels can fail because God allows them to make decisions and they are lesser beings than the perfect God. We saw this in 1 Kings 22:19\u201323, where God allowed debate within his council. By definition not all the spirit beings came to the same conclusion, which means that some thought errantly or, at the very least, less optimally than others. They weren\u2019t preprogrammed spirit robots whose errant thoughts were implanted in their minds by God. That proposition is not only absurd, it tarnishes God\u2019s character.
\nAngels also explain what God is doing or will do in the future, a phenomenon referred to as the \u201cinterpreting angel motif\u201d by scholars.46 Daniel\u2019s encounters with Gabriel and another unidentified heavenly figure (Dan 8\u201310) are clear examples.<\/p>\n
When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man\u2019s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, \u201cGabriel, make this man understand the vision.\u201d So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, \u201cUnderstand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.\u201d (Dan 8:15\u201317)<\/p>\n
While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, \u201cO Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding.\u201d (Dan 9:20\u201322)<\/p>\n
In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.\u2026 Then I heard the sound of his words, and as I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground. And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. And he said to me, \u201cO Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.\u201d And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. Then he said to me, \u201cFear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.\u201d (Dan 10:2\u20136, 9\u201314)47<\/p>\n
The book of Zechariah has a number of similar scenes, where angels converse with prophets to explain what the future holds according to God\u2019s plan (Zech 1:9\u201321; 4\u20135). According to one scholar whose focus is this material:<\/p>\n
The angel who is talking to Zechariah is an intermediary figure. He belongs to the divine sphere. Therefore, he is representing YHWH as an interpreter of the vision.\u2026 Obviously, Zechariah perceives that God is saying something, but he cannot understand the words. Therefore, the angel tells him God\u2019s words (Zech 1:14a) and quotes them (Zech 1:14b\u201315).\u2026 The strange things Zechariah sees in this sequence of visions turn out to be highly metaphorical illustrations that need explanation. The interpreting angel functioning as God\u2019s representative provides the visionary with these explanations. This is his primary function.48<\/p>\n
Lastly, there is some indication that angelic mediation also involved record keeping. I refer here to the notion that either God or his heavenly agents keeps a record of human behavior (Isa 65:6\u20137; Dan 7:10; 10:21) or suffering (Ps 56:8), or of those who belong to God or not (Exod 32:32; Isa 66:22\u201324; Jer 17:13; Ps 87:5\u20137; Dan 12:1; Mal 3:16).49 While several of these passages have God keeping track of such things, the wider ancient Near Eastern context has such divine record keeping as a duty of the divine council.50 The metaphor conveys a simple but profound thought: God and his agents will not overlook evil, injustice, and faithfulness.<\/p>\n
3. Executing Divine Judgment<\/p>\n
The now-familiar scene in 1 Kings 22:19\u201323 is a convenient place to begin our sketch of this next role for the heavenly host. After God asks how Ahab should be seduced into the battle that would result in his death, a spirit being among the host offers, \u201cI will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets\u201d (v. 22). God approves, and the plan to effect God\u2019s verdict ultimately came to pass.
\n1 Kings 22:19\u201323 is an illustration, via one council member, of a much wider theme in a biblical theology of the heavenly host: the role of the host as warrior agents in service of Yahweh against the wicked whom Yahweh has targeted for judgment. As one scholar notes, \u201cAccording to some of the religious beliefs of Israelites, Yahweh was not the sole transcendent warrior. Like earthly rulers who have their officers and soldiers, Yahweh had many heavenly subordinates at his disposal.\u201d51 In an essay entitled, \u201cThe Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to War,\u201d Patrick Miller adds:<\/p>\n
In a few places in the prophets \u2026 there are indications that the divine council participates as a cosmic or heavenly army in the eschatological wars of Yahweh, those military activities associated with the Day of Yahweh, and that these conflicts (or this conflict?) involved a joint participation of human or earthly forces and divine or heavenly armies.\u2026 For from earliest times on Israel viewed its battles as under the aegis of Yahweh and with the participation of the various cosmic forces which he commanded as the divine warrior, general of the heavenly armies.52<\/p>\n
In succinct terms, the heavenly host is God\u2019s army, and he calls that army into service against his enemies, the wicked, who oppress his people and who abhor him and worship other gods. Isaiah 13 is one example:<\/p>\n
The sound of a tumult is on the mountains
\nas of a great multitude!
\nThe sound of an uproar of kingdoms,
\nof nations gathering together!
\nThe LORD of hosts is mustering
\na host for battle.
\nThey come from a distant land,
\nfrom the end of the heavens,
\nthe LORD and the weapons of his indignation,
\nto destroy the whole land.
\nWail, for the day of the LORD is near;
\nas destruction from the Almighty it will come!\u2026
\nFor the stars of the heavens and their constellations
\nwill not give their light;
\nthe sun will be dark at its rising,
\nand the moon will not shed its light.
\nI will punish the world for its evil,
\nand the wicked for their iniquity;
\nI will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant,
\nand lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
\nI will make people more rare than fine gold,
\nand mankind than the gold of Ophir.
\nTherefore I will make the heavens tremble,
\nand the earth will be shaken out of its place,
\nat the wrath of the LORD of hosts
\nin the day of his fierce anger. (Isa 13:4\u20136, 10\u201313)<\/p>\n
Commenting on Isaiah 13, Miller observes:<\/p>\n
Using the ancient designation \u201cYahweh of hosts,\u201d the prophet announces that Yahweh has mustered a great army to wipe out the whole earth. The heavenly army is summoned \u201cfrom the ends of the heavens.\u201d If indeed kol-ha\u2019\u0101re\u1e63 [\u201cthe whole land\u201d] is to be interpreted as the whole earth, as seems to be the case, the picture is one of the final destruction in the Day of Yahweh\u2014a destruction wrought by Yahweh and his heavenly army (v. 5a).53<\/p>\n
Other passages illustrate the theme well. In Joel 3:11, the prophet insists, \u201cBring down your warriors (lemma: gibb\u00f4r\u0131\u0302m), O LORD.\u201d In Isaiah 40:26 and 45:12, Yahweh musters his heavenly host, calling out their names, commanding the host as an army. Muilenburg states about these verses:<\/p>\n
God, the captain of the host, calls out his myriads upon myriads of stars, and each star takes its appointed place as its name is called. There they stand in their great battalions in response to the call of the captain. Not one is missing; each responds to the call of its own name.54<\/p>\n
The celestial language of Isaiah 13:10\u201311 calls to memory Judges 5:20, where \u201cfrom heaven the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera.\u201d In 2 Kings 6:8\u201319, a servant of the king of Syria sees the heavenly army of Yahweh, a multitude of horses and chariots of fire, surrounding the prophet Elisha. Zechariah\u2019s vision of the day of the Lord includes the heavenly host army: \u201cThe LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him\u201d (Zech 14:5). Isaiah 24:21\u201323 makes the connection between Yahweh\u2019s day of judgment and the divine council explicit:<\/p>\n
On that day the LORD will punish
\nthe host of heaven, in heaven,
\nand the kings of the earth, on the earth.
\nThey will be gathered together
\nas prisoners in a pit;
\nthey will be shut up in a prison,
\nand after many days they will be punished.
\nThen the moon will be confounded
\nand the sun ashamed,
\nfor the LORD of hosts reigns
\non Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,
\nand his glory will be before his elders.<\/p>\n
Yahweh\u2019s victory will result in his glorification \u201cbefore his elders.\u201d Who are God\u2019s \u201celders\u201d? They are \u201csenior officials of the divine court.\u201d55 When Yahweh decrees judgment on his enemies, the members of the heavenly host report for duty.<\/p>\n
PRAISING THE MOST HIGH GOD<\/p>\n
The final role in this survey of how the loyal members of God\u2019s heavenly host serve him is usually where popular treatments of angelology focus: the praise of the Most High God. As we\u2019ve seen, there\u2019s a lot more to the service of God by his divine agents than praise, yet the praise they render is significant.
\nPsalm 29:1 opens with a series of plural imperatives (underlined), again indicating a command directed at a group:<\/p>\n
Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings [ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u00eem],
\nascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
\nAscribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
\nworship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.<\/p>\n
The recipients of these commands are the supernatural sons of God (ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u00eem) of his divine council (Ps 89:5\u20137). They are exalted beings, but not deserving of the praise due to their creator and Lord, the Most High God.
\nThe conclusion of Psalm 103 makes the same demand of the members of the heavenly host. The command \u201cbless\u201d is again grammatically plural.<\/p>\n
Bless the LORD, O you his angels,
\nyou mighty ones who do his word,
\nobeying the voice of his word!
\nBless the LORD, all his hosts,
\nhis ministers, who do his will!
\nBless the LORD, all his works,
\nin all places of his dominion.
\nBless the LORD, O my soul! (Ps 103:20\u201322)<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that the psalmist focuses on those members of the host who do Yahweh\u2019s will (v. 21). Divine beings in rebellion are no longer part of God\u2019s task force.
\nOur last example of serving God through praise is Psalm 148:1\u20135:<\/p>\n
Praise the LORD!
\nPraise the LORD from the heavens;
\npraise him in the heights!
\nPraise him, all his angels;
\npraise him, all his hosts!
\nPraise him, sun and moon,
\npraise him, all you shining stars!
\nPraise him, you highest heavens,
\nand you waters above the heavens!
\nLet them praise the name of the LORD!
\nFor he commanded and they were created.<\/p>\n
The psalm appropriately articulates the lesser, created status of angelic host (v. 5). As Miller aptly observes, \u201cPsalm 148 begins \u2026 with a call to \u2018all his angels \u2026 all his hosts\u2019 (v. 2).\u2026 If all reality finds its ultimate purpose in the praise of God, the divine assembly leads the choir.\u201d56
\nMuch more could be said about each aspect of this overview. The heavenly host serve their God in both participatory and subordinate ways. The analogy struck earlier between us\u2014as children and imagers of God\u2014and his heavenly host applies here as well. God graciously allows us to participate with him in fulfilling his kingdom plan on earth, yet he is sovereign. In the end, only he will deserve praise.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n
Important Angels<\/p>\n
The emphasis of what the Bible says about the intersection of heaven and earth is, understandably, God himself. Angels are rarely named or brought to the forefront of divine activity. Though an integral part of how Scripture shows God\u2019s will being carried out on earth, the heavenly host\u2019s service operates like a computer program running in the background. As we\u2019ll see in this chapter, there are exceptions, and they are significant.<\/p>\n
THE ANGEL OF YAHWEH<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most well-known angel in the Old Testament is the one described specifically as the mal\u02be\u0101k YHWH, the \u201cangel of the LORD.\u201d1 This figure is actually Yahweh himself in the visible form of a man.2 Consequently, the angel of Yahweh is central to the concept of a Godhead (God being more than one person, each person being the same and not ontologically greater or lesser).3 This concept is at the heart of the ancient Jewish teaching that the Hebrew Bible bore witness to two Yahweh figures\u2014\u200b\u201ctwo powers\u201d in heaven, one invisible and the other visible.
\nMy position on this is neither idiosyncratic nor novel.4 As Jewish biblical scholar Benjamin Sommer stated in his study of divine embodiment and multiple persons of Israel\u2019s God:<\/p>\n
The God of the Hebrew Bible has a body. This must be stated at the outset, because so many people, including many scholars, assume otherwise. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.\u2026 We can term this conception material anthropomorphism, or the belief that God\u2019s body, at least at times, has the same shape and the same sort of substance as a human body.\u2026 What I mean by \u201ca body\u201d in this book [is] something located in a particular place at a particular time, whatever its shape or substance.5<\/p>\n
To understand that the angel of Yahweh is Yahweh himself in human form, we must look at what Old Testament scholars call \u201cName theology\u201d and how these two Yahweh figures are interchanged in the Old Testament.6 Exodus 23:20\u201322 is a fundamental passage in understanding the identity of the angel of Yahweh:<\/p>\n
Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.<\/p>\n
On its surface, the description of this particular angel draws interest because this angel seemingly has the authority to withhold forgiveness for the sin of disobedience. The wording is reminiscent of the scene in the Gospels where Jesus claimed that authority. The Pharisees objected: \u201cWho can forgive sins but God alone?\u201d (Mark 2:7; cf. Matt 9:1\u20138). Their consternation reflected good theology\u2014they were right. As Jesus proceeded to do miraculous acts, he showed that he had such authority, because he was God. The same thought process is applicable to the angel of Yahweh.
\nA close reading of scriptural references to God\u2019s name shows that \u201cthe name\u201d (Hebrew, ha-shem) is another way of referring to God himself. For example, Isaiah 30:27\u201328 uses \u201cthe Name\u201d as a substitute for \u201cYahweh\u201d and personifies \u201cthe Name\u201d:<\/p>\n
Behold, the Name [ha-shem] of the LORD [Yahweh] comes from afar,
\nburning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke;
\nhis lips are full of fury,
\nand his tongue is like a devouring fire;
\nhis breath is like an overflowing stream
\nthat reaches up to the neck;
\nto sift the nations with the sieve of destruction,
\nand to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray.<\/p>\n
The interchangeability of \u201cYahweh\u201d and ha-shem is quite evident in Psalm 20:1: \u201cMay the LORD [Yahweh] answer you in the day of trouble! May the name [ha-shem] of the God of Jacob protect you!\u201d Isaiah 60:9 makes the correlation equally clear:<\/p>\n
For the coastlands shall hope for me,
\nthe ships of Tarshish first,
\nto bring your children from afar,
\ntheir silver and gold with them,
\nfor the name of the LORD your God,
\nand for the Holy One of Israel,
\nbecause he has made you beautiful.<\/p>\n
The prophet states, \u201cHe has made you beautiful.\u201d The preceding lines identifies to whom the prophet refers: \u201cthe Holy One of Israel,\u201d \u201cthe name of the LORD your God.\u201d
\nThe book of Deuteronomy is central to Old Testament Name theology, as it repeatedly associates sacred space with the Name. Deuteronomy 12 is representative of this theology (my emphasis in italics):<\/p>\n
You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.\u2026 You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way. But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go.\u2026 Then to the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you. (Deut 12:2, 4\u20135, 11)<\/p>\n
This command points to the future temple that would be built once Canaan was occupied. When God instructed worship to take place in the place where \u201chis name\u201d would dwell, he meant the space his own presence would occupy and sanctify. \u201cHis name\u201d was another way of referring to himself.7
\nThe importance of this language for Exodus 23:20\u201322 should be clear. When God describes for Moses the angel he is sending before the people to guide them to the promised land as having his name in him, he is telling Moses that his very presence is within this angel. The angel is the visible form of Yahweh himself. In Judges 2:1 the angel of Yahweh reports that he accomplished the mission: \u201cNow the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, \u2018I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers.\u2019\u200a\u201d The first-person language\u2014the angel of Yahweh says it was he who swore to the earlier patriarchs that they would have the land\u2014identifies him with Yahweh.
\nVarious Old Testament passages validate this proposition. Look at who delivered Israel from Egypt and brought the nation to the land of promise: God (Yahweh) is credited with that accomplishment (Exod 13:5, 11; Lev 25:38 [cf. Gen 15:7]; Deut 6:10\u201311; 7:1; 9:4; 11:23; Ezek 20:28) by means of his very presence (Deut 4:37\u201338). Israel was not brought to the land by different deliverers, nor is the angel claiming some separate deliverance of the people in Judges 2:1\u20133. All of the deliverers are the same deity spoken of in different ways.
\nSome scholars argue that the angel of Yahweh is interchanged with Yahweh himself because protocol in ancient Near Eastern culture called for the messengers of a king or deity to be treated as that king or deity. While this cultural feature is no doubt in play, biblical language goes beyond this mental substitution. Genesis 28:10\u201322, the \u201cJacob\u2019s Ladder\u201d story,8 describes Jacob\u2019s first encounter with Yahweh. Jacob sees Yahweh standing, one of the more common anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament for the visible Yahweh (28:13).9 Jacob named the location of the encounter Bethel (\u201chouse of God\u201d) and erected a stone pillar to commemorate the event (vv. 18\u201319). The episode is referenced in Genesis 31:<\/p>\n
Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, \u201cJacob,\u201d and I said, \u201cHere I am.\u201d And he said, \u201cLift up your eyes and see\u2014all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.\u201d (Gen 31:11\u201313)<\/p>\n
The angel of God explicitly tells Jacob in verse 13 that he was the God of Bethel. There is no need to posit that the angel isn\u2019t Yahweh in visible form because the earlier account in Genesis 28 described Yahweh in human form without the angel of the Lord ever being in the scene. How does it make sense to have the angel in Genesis 31 essentially saying, \u201cI\u2019m the messenger of Yahweh, but consider me Yahweh for the sake of protocol\u201d when no such protocol mediation was necessary in the earlier event referenced by the angel? It makes far more sense to take the angel at his word: \u201cI am the God of Bethel\u2014you\u2019ve seen me before.\u201d
\nIn Genesis 32, Jacob encounters a \u201cdivine man\u201d once again and a physical struggle ensues. The divine nature of the \u201cman\u201d is assured in vv. 28\u201330:<\/p>\n
Then he said, \u201cYour name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.\u201d Then Jacob asked him, \u201cPlease tell me your name.\u201d But he said, \u201cWhy is it that you ask my name?\u201d And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, \u201cFor I have seen God [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m] face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hosea 12:3\u20134 confirms this interpretation but takes the identity further, theologically:<\/p>\n
In the womb he [Jacob] took his brother by the heel,
\nand in his manhood he strove with God [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m].
\nHe strove with the angel [mal\u02be\u0101k] and prevailed;
\nhe wept and sought his favor.
\nHe met God at Bethel,
\nand there God spoke with us.<\/p>\n
This passage links the \u201cman\u201d with whom Jacob wrestled and the encounter at Bethel. Therefore, Genesis 32 is a physical encounter with the visible, embodied Yahweh, who in Genesis 31 is the angel of the Lord. There is little merit in proposing that we should read these passages and pretend that Jacob wrestled with an entity who was a stand-in for Yahweh. The text does not veil or obscure that this figure is Yahweh in human form.
\nPerhaps the most striking example of how Old Testament writers conflated \u201cthe name\u201d (ha-shem) with God himself is Genesis 48:14\u201316 (LEB), part of Israel\u2019s (i.e., Jacob\u2019s) blessing of Joseph\u2019s sons:<\/p>\n
And Israel stretched out his right hand and put it on the head of Ephraim (now he was the younger), and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands, for Manasseh was the firstborn. And he blessed Joseph and said,<\/p>\n
\u201cThe God [ha-\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m] before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked,
\nThe God [ha-\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m] who shepherded me all my life unto this day,
\nThe angel [ha-mal\u02be\u0101k] who redeemed me from all evil,
\nmay he bless (yeb\u0101r\u0113k) the boys.\u201d<\/p>\n
The key observation here is the verb (\u201cmay he bless\u201d). The form in Hebrew (yeb\u0101r\u0113k) is grammatically singular. This means that a translation of \u201cmay they bless\u201d would violate the grammar. God and the angel are the singular grammatical subject of the request to bless the boys. They are co-identified in the Hebrew text. Had the writer wanted to avoid having his readers think it was theologically permissible to conflate God and his angel, he would have chosen a plural verb form to keep them distinct. This is not what we find in the text.10<\/p>\n
THE COMMANDER OF YAHWEH\u2019S ARMY<\/p>\n
Another significant member of the heavenly host is the unnamed commander (sar; \u201cprince\u201d) of Yahweh\u2019s heavenly host-army who appeared to Joshua on the cusp of the conquest:<\/p>\n
When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, \u201cAre you for us, or for our adversaries?\u201d And he said, \u201cNo; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.\u201d And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, \u201cWhat does my lord say to his servant?\u201d And the commander of the Lord\u2019s army said to Joshua, \u201cTake off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.\u201d And Joshua did so. (Josh 5:13\u201315)<\/p>\n
Most readers will recognize the important connection between this passage and the burning bush incident in Exodus 3. The command to Joshua to \u201ctake off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy\u201d also is found in Exodus 3:5. In this regard it is important to note that the angel of Yahweh was in the burning bush passage (Exod 3:2). The angel was apparently visible; if he had not been visible, it would make little sense for the writer to note his presence and then have the voice of God coming forth from the bush (as opposed to the voice of the angel; Exod 3:4; cf. Exod 3:14). This reading is confirmed by Acts 7:30\u201331, where Stephen notes that an angel \u201cappeared\u201d to Moses in the bush and the voice of the Lord emerged from it. The language both tightly identifies the angel of Yahweh and Yahweh (they both occupy the same sacred space) and yet distinguishes them (one is visible, the other is not).
\nIn Joshua 5:13\u201315, a \u201cman\u201d appears to Joshua, and his words echo those spoken by Yahweh out of the bush in Exodus 3. This signals that Joshua is speaking to the embodied Yahweh, the angel of Yahweh. This suggestion is confirmed by a close examination of how the commander of Yahweh\u2019s host is described (v. 13): \u201ca man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand.\u201d The phrase \u201chis drawn sword in his hand\u201d (\u1e25arb\u00f4 shel\u00fbph\u00e2 bey\u0101d\u00f4) occurs only two other times in the Hebrew Bible:<\/p>\n
And [Balaam\u2019s] donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand [\u1e25arb\u00f4 shel\u00fbph\u00e2 bey\u0101d\u00f4]. (Num 22:23)<\/p>\n
David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the LORD standing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword [\u1e25arb\u00f4 shel\u00fbph\u00e2 bey\u0101d\u00f4] stretched out over Jerusalem. (1 Chr 21:16)<\/p>\n
In both passages the figure with the \u201cdrawn sword in his hand\u201d is the angel of Yahweh. Given how the writer of Joshua 5:13 pointed his readers to the burning bush incident in Exodus 3, it is evident that the commander of the commander of Yahweh\u2019s army is the angel of Yahweh.<\/p>\n
THE DESTROYING ANGEL OF PASSOVER<\/p>\n
The characterization of the angel of Yahweh as a destroyer in 1 Chronicles 21:16 has ramifications for identifying another mysterious angel in the Old Testament. Let\u2019s include verse 15 in the description of the angel, noting the italicized words:<\/p>\n
And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy [sh\u0101\u1e25at] it, but as he was about to destroy [sh\u0101\u1e25at] it, the LORD saw, and he relented from the calamity. And he said to the angel who was working destruction [mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t], \u201cIt is enough; now stay your hand.\u201d And the angel of the LORD was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. And David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the LORD standing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
All the italicized words share the same root, sh\u0101\u1e25at. Two are verbs (infinitives); one is a participle. They occur in the same Hebrew verb stem, the hiphil. Not surprisingly, the parallel passage in 2 Samuel uses the same terminology and forms:<\/p>\n
When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy [sh\u0101\u1e25at] it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who was working destruction [mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t] among the people, \u201cIt is enough; now stay your hand.\u201d And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people. (2 Sam 24:16\u201317a)<\/p>\n
It is clear from both passages that the angel of Yahweh is in view and that he brings \u201cdestruction\u201d (mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t). Interestingly, this is the identical term used to describe the angel of death in the account of the death of the firstborn on the eve of the first Passover:<\/p>\n
The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy [mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t] you, when I strike the land of Egypt.\u2026 Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, \u201cGo and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb.\u2026 For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer [mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t] to enter your houses to strike you. (Exod 12:13, 21, 23)<\/p>\n
The mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t who was the angel of Yahweh in 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24 is here distinguished from Yahweh by the line, \u201cthe LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer [mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t] to enter your houses to strike you.\u201d Yet we read elsewhere that it was Yahweh who destroyed the firstborn:<\/p>\n
He sent Moses, his servant,
\nand Aaron, whom he had chosen.\u2026
\nHe struck down all the firstborn in their land,
\nthe firstfruits of all their strength. (Ps 105:26, 36)<\/p>\n
For I know that the LORD is great,
\nand that our Lord is above all gods.\u2026
\nHe it was who struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
\nboth of man and of beast. (Ps 135:5, 8)<\/p>\n
Give thanks to the Lord of lords,
\nfor his steadfast love endures forever.\u2026
\nto him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
\nfor his steadfast love endures forever. (Ps 136:3, 10)<\/p>\n
Remember: the destroying angel of Yahweh is actually the visible Yahweh. Given that background, these statements are not incompatible. However, Psalm 78:48\u201351 seems to complicate matters:<\/p>\n
He [Yahweh] gave over their cattle to the hail
\nand their flocks to thunderbolts.
\nHe let loose on them his burning anger,
\nwrath, indignation, and distress,
\na company of destroying angels [mal\u02beak\u00ea r\u0101\u02bf\u0131\u0302m].
\nHe made a path for his anger;
\nhe did not spare them from death,
\nbut gave their lives over to the plague.
\nHe struck down every firstborn in Egypt,
\nthe firstfruits of their strength in the tents of Ham.<\/p>\n
The complication is only surface level. The ESV\u2019s translation, \u201cdestroying angels,\u201d is somewhat misleading with respect to the terminology we are attempting to trace. The Hebrew term translated \u201cdestroying\u201d is not the word mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t associated with the destroyer in the passages we saw earlier. We should also observe that Psalm 78:49 does not say the \u201cdestroying angels\u201d killed the firstborn. That act is, once again, attributed to Yahweh (v. 51). Yahweh may have sent angels to enact the other plagues, but the death of the firstborn is attributed to him. These angels do not act in the role of the destroyer.
\nGiven the use of the term mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t of that angel in other judgments handed down by Yahweh, a coherent way to reconcile all these passages would be to have Yahweh receiving the credit for the judgment on the firstborn by sending out his destroyer (mash\u1e25\u0131\u0302t), the angel of Yahweh, who elsewhere is identified as being the visible Yahweh. This would be akin to God himself being present in the burning bush yet also having the angel of Yahweh present. These and other passages are the foundation of the later Jewish theology of two powers (two Yahweh figures).11<\/p>\n
GABRIEL, MICHAEL, AND THE PRINCE OF THE HOST<\/p>\n
Gabriel and Michael are best discussed together, since their appearances are in the same chapters of the book of Daniel. Along with these two, an unidentified \u201cPrince of the host\u201d also appears. Gabriel and Michael are the lone angels mentioned by name in the Bible.12 They are well known as archangels, though that term is not used in the Old Testament, and only Michael is called so in the New Testament (Jude 9).13 In the book of Daniel, Gabriel\u2019s appearance precedes that of Michael, and so we begin with Daniel 8.
\nDaniel 8 opens with the prophet\u2019s vision of the ram and the goat (Dan 8:1\u201314). After conquering the ram, the goat\u2019s great horn was broken. Out of that horn sprouted four horns (Dan 8:8). From one of those horns came a little horn that grew, high and exalted, to the heavens, where it cast down some of the heavenly host to the ground (Dan 8:9\u201310). Then, in verse 11, we read that the little horn \u201cbecame great, even as great as the Prince [\u015bar] of the host.\u201d This phrase, \u201cprince of the host\u201d is the same in Hebrew as \u201ccommander of the army\u201d in Joshua 5:14.
\nIn Daniel 8:15\u201326 a \u201cman\u201d comes to assist Daniel in understanding the vision:<\/p>\n
When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man\u2019s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, \u201cGabriel, make this man understand the vision.\u201d So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, \u201cUnderstand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.\u201d (Dan 8:15\u201317)<\/p>\n
The description of this assistance is our focus here, and its wording will prompt us to return to the phrase \u201cprince of the host.\u201d The \u201cman\u201d Daniel sees turns out to be the angel Gabriel (v. 16). But Gabriel is commanded to speak to Daniel by the voice of another \u201cman,\u201d emanating from between the banks of the Ulai river, where Daniel had been when overcome by the vision (Dan 8:2). The unseen \u201cman\u201d is superior to Gabriel for he commands him. Gabriel appears again to Daniel to interpret a subsequent vision (Dan 9:20\u201323).
\nIn Daniel 10 the prophet once again sees a vision involving a glorious \u201cman clothed in linen\u201d:<\/p>\n
On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.\u2026 Then I heard the sound of his words, and as I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground.
\nAnd behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. And he said to me, \u201cO Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.\u201d And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. Then he said to me, \u201cFear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.\u201d
\nWhen he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was mute. And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, \u201cO my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. How can my lord\u2019s servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.\u201d
\nAgain one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. And he said, \u201cO man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.\u201d And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, \u201cLet my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.\u201d Then he said, \u201cDo you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince. (Dan 10:4\u20136, 9\u201321)<\/p>\n
It is important to note several things about this exchange. First, this \u201cman\u201d is not identified as Gabriel. Second, the speaking \u201cman\u201d was opposed by the \u201cprince\u201d of Persia (v. 13) and Greece.14 Third, the \u201cman\u201d is not only distinct from Gabriel; he is also not Michael, since he refers to Michael in the third person (vv. 13, 20). Michael assisted this unidentified figure in his spiritual warfare against the prince of Persia. Fourth, the unidentified figure later touches Daniel (v. 18) to strengthen him, informing him in the first person, \u201cI will return to fight against the prince of Persia,\u201d adding that he expects the \u201cprince of Greece\u201d will also be part of the battle (v. 20).
\nWhile the \u201cman\u201d is never identified in Daniel 10, it is clear he is neither Gabriel nor Michael. We meet the \u201cman\u201d again in Daniel 12:<\/p>\n
At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.\u2026 Then I, Daniel, looked, and behold, two others stood, one on this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the stream. And someone said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, \u201cHow long shall it be till the end of these wonders?\u201d (Dan 12:1, 5)<\/p>\n
\u201cThe man clothed in linen\u201d takes us back to the initial appearance of this mysterious figure in Daniel 10:5. Who is this \u201cman\u201d? I would argue that he is to be identified with the \u201cprince of the host\u201d mentioned in Daniel 8:11\u2014the one whom the magnified little horn opposed. In this regard, Bampfylde comments:<\/p>\n
Who then is this man? The author does not identify him with Gabriel, which he could easily have done (cf. 8:16; 9:21). Daniel has already met Gabriel (8:16), and would have recognised him if there were a renewed acquaintanceship. The man whom he sees in ch. 10 is to be identified with the one who had spoken to Gabriel and sent him to Daniel: \u201cAnd I heard a man\u2019s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, \u2018Gabriel, make this man understand the vision\u2019 \u201d (8:16). The man whom Daniel sees in ch. 10 \u201cclothed in linen\u201d is described again in 12:6 as \u201cthe man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream\u201d. He is therefore the man whose voice Daniel heard coming from between the banks of the Ulai when he first saw Gabriel. The man is not Michael. Indeed, he appears to have a higher status than Michael, the patron of Israel according to 10:21, \u201cthere is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince\u201d. This man seems not to be in charge of any particular nation, but supports those who are on \u201chis side.\u201d \u2026 He is therefore to be identified with \u201cthe Prince of the host\u201d (8:11). This Prince of the host is not Michael, for although Michael is the patron of Israel and an archangel, he is not chief of the archangels in intertestamental literature, e.g. 1 Enoch 9:1\u201310:16; 20:5; 24:6; 54:6; 60:4\u20135; 68:2; 71:9. In the Book of Daniel there is no possibility that Michael might be the chief Prince. He is known as \u201cone of the chief princes\u201d (Dan. 10:13), whereas the Prince of the host (8:11) is called \u201cthe Prince of princes\u201d (8:25). The man described in 10:5\u20136 is certainly one of the highest angels,\u2014a \u201cPrince\u201d and a heavenly military commander. Neither is he to be identified with Gabriel, for he addresses Gabriel himself.15<\/p>\n
These observations are important in light of my earlier contention that the commander (\u201cprince\u201d) of Yahweh\u2019s host in Joshua 5:14 is the angel of Yahweh, the visible embodiment of Yahweh himself.16 This commander cannot be Michael, because Michael is one among other \u201cchief princes.\u201d The visible Yahweh would have no such company. As we will see when we discuss Second Temple Jewish angelology, certain writers of that period conflate the two on the basis of three passages:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Joshua 5:14 speaks of the \u201ccommander\u201d (\u015bar) of Yahweh\u2019s army
\n\u2022 Michael is Israel\u2019s \u201cprince\u201d (\u015bar) in Daniel 10:21
\n\u2022 Michael is \u201cthe great prince who has charge of your people\u201d in Daniel 12:117<\/p>\n
This thought trajectory is of course marred by the description of Michael in Daniel 10:13 (\u201cone of the chief princes\u201d). If Michael is the commander of Joshua 5:14, then that commander is but one of the commanders of Yahweh\u2019s host\u2014any of which could presumably have told Joshua to remove his sandals because he stood on holy ground. This suggests in turn that any number of angels could have occupied space with Yahweh in the burning bush or been identified with Yahweh in Genesis 48:15\u201316. This simply isn\u2019t consistent with the way the angel of Yahweh is portrayed. Further, the claim of Joshua 5:14 is that the commander leads Yahweh\u2019s heavenly host. The prince is not assigned to the people of Israel as in the Daniel passages.
\nMichael clearly is not the highest authority in the heavenly sphere. He assists the divine \u201cman\u201d who speaks to Daniel (Dan 10:13, 21). As such, it would be this unidentified figure to whom all members of the heavenly host, including Michael, report. Daniel 8:11 suggests that there is a \u201cprince\u201d over the entire host. In addition, Daniel 8:25 refers to a \u201cprince of princes.\u201d Michael is but one of the chief princes, and so he cannot be the prince that is over all the other princes. These descriptions are best understood as describing the commander (\u201cprince\u201d) of Yahweh\u2019s entire host, who is the angel of Yahweh, the second Yahweh figure encountered by Joshua.18
\nThere remains another point of proof for this identification. Daniel 8, the passage where the little horn is magnified \u201ceven as great as the Prince of the host\u201d (v. 11) and \u201crise up against the Prince of princes\u201d (v. 25), has an intriguing parallel elsewhere in Daniel. Since most scholars identify the little horn as Antiochus IV, the little horn is the king described in Daniel 11:36\u201339, a description that fits Antiochus IV well.19 Putting the respective descriptions side-by-side is revealing:<\/p>\n
Daniel 8:11, 25
\nDaniel 11:36\u201337
\n\u201c[The little horn] became great, even as great as the Prince of the host.\u201d
\n\u201c[The king representing the little horn] shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes.\u201d
\n\u201cAnd the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods.\u2026 He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.\u201d<\/p>\n
These parallels lead some scholars to suggest that the titles of 8:11 and 8:25 are epithets that refer to God himself. This makes good sense if the \u201cprince of the host\u201d and the \u201cprince of princes\u201d is the angel of Yahweh, the prince of Yahweh\u2019s host in Joshua 5:14. The parallels cannot be adequately explained if the phrases in Daniel 8 point to Michael.20 Michael cannot simultaneously be one of the chief princes and \u201cthe God of gods.\u201d<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4<\/p>\n
The Language of the Heavenly Host in Second Temple Judaism<\/p>\n
The \u201cSecond Temple period\u201d refers to the era in Jewish history that began with the founding of Israel\u2019s second temple (c. 516 BC) until the destruction of that temple by the Romans in AD 70.1 The period is often rounded to 500 BC\u2013AD 100. It is also called the \u201cintertestamental period,\u201d since most of the period takes place between the end of the events of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament.
\nSome authors who wrote during this period, such as Josephus and Philo, are well known today. Other writers are unknown; nevertheless, their work received wide readership during the period and into the initial centuries of Christianity. Examples include books of the Apocrypha (Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, 1-2 Maccabees) and the Pseudepigrapha (1 Enoch, Jubilees).2 The documents from Qumran that are not biblical manuscripts are also part of this literary output.3 These documents range from treatises about life in the Qumran community (sectarian texts) to expansions of biblical stories (e.g., the Genesis Apocryphon).
\nThese compositions frequently interact with the content of the Hebrew Bible and its theology. Part of that interaction inevitably concerns portrayals of the heavenly host, providing a window into the thinking of Judaism after the Old Testament period on the spiritual world and its activities.
\nSecond Temple Jewish literature was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, the Second Temple period literary corpus includes translations\u2014namely, the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. While there are some curiosities, the Old Testament range of terms we surveyed in chapter 1 aligns well with the work of LXX translators.4 With one exception, the actual data don\u2019t support certain academic speculations about Second Temple angelology. As we will see in this chapter, this is significant not only for discussing intertestamental Jewish thinking about the heavenly host but also because New Testament writers utilize the LXX so frequently.5<\/p>\n
GENERAL CONGRUENCE<\/p>\n
The vocabulary of the heavenly host loyal to the God of Israel in Second Temple Jewish literature is largely consistent with Old Testament vocabulary for God\u2019s heavenly agents. The chart below compares Hebrew vocabulary we surveyed in chapter 1 with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek vocabulary used of supernatural beings in service to God in Second Temple literature. It is representative, not exhaustive.6<\/p>\n
Hebrew Bible
\nSecond Temple Texts
\nSeptuagint (LXX)
\n\u201cspirit\u201d (r\u00fba\u1e25; plural: r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4\u1e6f)
\n1 Kgs 22:19\u201323; Judg 9:22\u201323; 1 Sam 16:14\u201316; 18:10\u201311; Isa 19:13\u201314; 37:5\u20137; Ps 104:4
\n\u201cspirits\u201d (pneuma)
\n1 Enoch 15:7, 10; 25:4, 6; 37:2; 38:2; 39:2; 40:2; 41:2; 43:4; 46:3; 48:2; 2 Enoch 16:7
\nJosephus, Against Apion (Extract of Discourse on Hades, 6); Qumran (r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4\u1e6f): 1 QS iii.18, 24; iv.23; 1QM xii.9; xiii.2, 4, 10; xiv.10; 4Q400 1.i.5; 4Q403 1.ii.7; 4Q404 5.5; 4Q405 23.i.9; 23.ii.6
\npneuma
\n1 Kgs 22:19\u201323; Judg 9:22\u201323; 1 Sam 16:14\u201316; Isa 19:13\u201314; 37:5\u20137; Ps 104:41
\n\u201cheavenly ones\u201d (\u0161amayim)
\nPs 89:5; Job 15:15; Deut 32:43
\n\u201csons\/children of heaven\u201d2 (ouranos)
\n1 Enoch 6:2; 13:8; 14:3; Qumran (beney \u0161amayim): 1QS iv.22; xi.8
\nouranos
\nplural (\u201cheavenly ones\u201d): Ps 89:5; Deut 32:43
\n\u201cstars\u201d; \u201chosts\u201d3
\nPs 103:21
\n\u201cpowers (dynamis) of heaven\u201d; \u201cstars\u201d (kokab\u0131\u0302n)
\n1 Enoch 18:14\u201315; 21:3, 6; 46:7; 86:3; 88:3; 90:21; 2 Enoch 29:3; Life of Adam and Eve 15:3
\ndynamis or astron
\n\u201cLord of hosts\u201d is rendered \u201cLord of mighty powers\u201d using dynamis
\nPs 103:21 (plural); Job 38:7 (plural from astron)
\n\u201choly ones\u201d (qed\u014d\u0161\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 89:5\u20137 [Hebrew: 6\u20138]
\nJob 15:15; Deut 33:2\u20133; Job 5:1; Zech 14:5; Dan 4:17
\n\u201choly ones\u201d (hagioi; qed\u0131\u0302\u0161\u0131\u0302n)4
\n1 Enoch 1:9; 9:3; 12:2; 14:23, 25; 45:1; 47:2; 61:10; Jubilees 17:11; 31:4; 33:12; Qumran: 1QS xi.8; 1QM x.12; xii.1, 4, 7; xviii.2; 1QHa xix.12; 11QMelch ii.9
\nhagioi
\nPs 88:6; Job 15:15; Zech 14:5 (plural)
\nDeut 33:2; Job 5:1 = angelos
\n\u201cminister\u201d (verb: \u0161rt, piel stem: \u0161\u0113r\u0113t)
\n\u201cservant\u201d (leitourgos)
\nTestament of Abraham (A) 15:1; Prayer of Joseph (frag A) 8; Qumran (\u201cministers of the Presence\u201d): 4Q400 1.i.4, 8; 4Q401 15.3; 4Q405 23.i.3
\nleitourgos
\nPss 102:20; 103:45
\n\u201cwatcher\u201d (Aramaich: \u02bf\u0131\u0302r; plural: \u02bf\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302n)
\nDan 4:13, 17, 23; [Aramaic text: vv. 10, 14, 20]
\n\u201cwatcher\u201d (egr\u0113goroi); Aramaic: (\u02bf\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302n)
\n1 Enoch 1:5; 10:7, 9, 15; 12:2, 3, 4; 14:1, 3; 13:10; 15:9; 16:2; Jubilees 4:15; 7:21; 8:3; 10:5; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 5:6
\nangelos
\nDan 4:13, 21, 24
\n\u201cmighty ones\u201d (gibbor\u0131\u0302m, \u02beabb\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302m)
\nPss 78:25; 103:20
\nQumran: (gibbor\u0131\u0302m): 1QHa xvi.11; xviii.34\u201335; 1QM xv.14; 4Q402 1.4; 4Q403 1.i.21
\n\u201cangels \u2026 strong ones in strength\u201d (angelos, dynatos; ischus), Ps 103:20; \u201cangels\u201d in Ps 77:25
\n\u201cmediator\u201d (m\u0113l\u0131\u0302\u1e63)
\nJob 33:23
\n\u201ca thousand angels of death\u201d
\n(angelos)
\nJob 33:23
\n\u201ccherubim\u201d (keru\u1e07\u0131\u0302m)
\nEzek 10 (throughout)
\n\u201cseraphim\u201d (\u015ber\u0101p\u0331\u0131\u0302m)
\nIsa 6:2, 6
\n\u201ccherubim\u201d (cheroubim)
\n1 Enoch 14:11, 18; 20:7; Sibylline Oracles 3:1; Apocalypse of Moses 19, 22, 32, 38; Testament of Abraham (B) 10:8, 11; Qumran (keru\u1e07\u0131\u0302m): 4Q403 1.ii.15; 4Q405 20.ii-21\u201322.3, 8
\ncheroubim
\nEzek 10 (throughout)
\nseraphim
\nIsa 6:2, 6
\n\u201cangel\u201d
\n(mal\u02be\u0101k; plural: mal\u02be\u0101\u1e35\u0131\u0302m)6
\n(Gen 19:1, 15; 28:12; 32:1; Job 4:18; Pss 78:49; 91:11; 103:20; 104:4; 148:2)
\n\u201cangel\u201d (angelos)
\n1 Enoch 6:2; 10:7; 14:4, 21; 18:14; 20:1\u20137; 21:5, 9, 10; 22:3, 6; 24:6; 32:6; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.196; 1.200; 1.325; Philo, Allegorical Interpretation III.177; On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 5; On Giants 6:2; On Flight and Finding 212; Qumran (mal\u02be\u0101\u1e35\u0131\u0302m): 1QHa ix.11; xiv.13; xxiv.top.4, 7; 1QM i.15; xii.1, 4, 8; xiii.12
\nangelos
\nGen 19:1, 15; 28:12; 32:1; Job 4:18; Pss 77:49; 90:11; 102:20; 103:4;7 148:2<\/p>\n
The chart omits the Hebrew vocabulary of \u201cgods\u201d and \u201csons of God\u201d since the aforementioned point of scholarly conjecture concerns that terminology. Before we turn our attention to that matter, we need to observe a few things about the vocabulary in the chart.
\nThe significant uniformity of the terminology, even in translation (LXX), shows that a number of Second Temple Jewish writers preserved the nuancing of Old Testament terminology. There are exceptions, though. The LXX translators rendered \u201choly ones\u201d (qed\u014d\u0161\u0131\u0302m) in Deuteronomy 33:2 and Job 5:1 with angeloi (\u201cangels\u201d). The translation isn\u2019t unexpected, since plural \u201choly ones\u201d in God\u2019s presence suggests the heavenly host. Something similar occurs in the book of Daniel, where \u201cwatchers\u201d become \u201cangels\u201d in LXX, whereas the Greek text of 1 Enoch is more literal (egr\u0113goroi: \u201cwatchers\u201d). The choice is perhaps explained by the fact that the watcher sent from heaven in the beginning of Daniel 4 to explain the dream is also called a \u201choly one.\u201d Again, it is not surprising that a \u201choly one\u201d sent to deliver information would prompt a translation of \u201cangel,\u201d since that was what angels typically did in the Hebrew Bible.
\nIt is difficult to know precisely what the translator of Job 33:23 was thinking in rendering m\u0113l\u0131\u0302\u1e63 (\u201cmediator\u201d) as \u201ca thousand angels of death.\u201d In his study of the LXX angelology of Job, Gammie offers a coherent, though not certain, explanation:<\/p>\n
It could be argued that the translator did not any longer conceive angels capable of being \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd (meli\u1e63\u0131\u0302m), \u201cspokesmen\u201d in behalf of men, as happens, for example, in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 15:2). Such a tack, however, would be in error, in my judgment. The translator may rather be recalling the Prologue where the Adversary, \u03cc \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (the Devil) is also a death-bearer in the sense that he bears intermediate responsibility for the death of Job\u2019s children. What is said in these verses thus more probably reveals the translator\u2019s taking into account the Book as a whole. In the term \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u201cdeath-bearing,\u201d he may be simply reiterating a role already assigned to one of the angels called \u201cThe Adversary\u201d earlier in the book.7<\/p>\n
Gammie takes note of other oddities in LXX Job: \u201cLXX occasionally renders \u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 on the basis of an MT [Masoretic Text] that contains no obvious reference to angels.\u201d8 A comparative survey of the \u201cangelic\u201d terminology of the Hebrew Bible and the LXX shows that this phenomenon is wider than the book of Job. Of the 213 occurrences of the lemma mal\u02be\u0101k in the Hebrew Bible, just over half refer to supernatural beings (\u201cangels\u201d) instead of humans (\u201cmessengers\u201d).9 Most of the supernatural instances involve the angel of Yahweh. There are 10 instances where the plural mal\u02be\u0101\u1e35\u0131\u0302m speaks of supernatural beings, all of which are listed in the earlier chart. LXX uses angelos 292 times, 160 of which refer to supernatural beings. With respect to our focus here, LXX uses a plural form of angelos when referring to supernatural beings 23 times in addition to the 10 references in the chart.10<\/p>\n
REJECTION OF DIVINE PLURALITY?<\/p>\n
Statistically, then, LXX refers to angels as a group three times as often as the traditional Hebrew text (33 vs. 10). The higher count is partially due to the inclusion of books in the Septuagint that are not part of the Hebrew canon. But the canonical issue cannot completely account for the greater reference to angels (angeloi) in LXX. In several instances, the language of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible (references to \u201cgods\u201d via plural \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m or \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m and ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m\/\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m) was rendered with angeloi. What are we to make of this?
\nMany scholars believe this indicates a rejection of divine plurality as part of a theological evolution out of polytheism toward a rigid, intolerant monotheism. The idea is basically assumed by scholars who write about Second Temple Period angelology,11 but it is based on a misunderstanding of divine plurality and a failure to examine the totality of the data. I have addressed the former at length elsewhere; our focus here is the latter.12
\nIn assessing the coherence of whether Jewish writers in the Second Temple period saw a problem with the language of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible, there are two primary sources: the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY OF THE HEAVENLY HOST IN THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX)<\/p>\n
As noted above, LXX does indeed render the language of divine plurality with angeloi. But there are two facts that must be considered before drawing conclusions: the LXX translators do not do this consistently and in most of the places where they do opt for angeloi, other texts of the LXX render the divine plurality literally and do not use angeloi. The table below lists all the passages that factor into the discussion, showing which ones LXX translators translated as angeloi.<\/p>\n
Hebrew Bible
\n\u201cgods\u201d\/\u201cdivine beings\u201d (\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m; \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m)
\n\u201csons of God\u201d (ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m\/\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nLXX renders the Hebrew terms with plural of angelos (\u201cangel\u201d)
\nLXX preserves divine plurality by using a plural form of theos (\u201cgod\u201d)1
\nTorah references to other gods (\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m). Examples:
\nExod 18:11 (\u201cgreater than all gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nDeut 8:19 (\u201cgo after other gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nDeut 10:17 (\u201cGod of gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nDeut 17:3 (\u201cserved other gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nDeut 29:26 (\u201cserved other gods \u2026 gods whom they had not known and whom [God] had not allotted to them\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m twice)2
\nPlural of theos is ubiquitous in Torah legal literature (over 60 times, including all the verse references to the left): Exod 18:11; Deut 8:19; 10:17; 17:3; 29:26
\nExod 15:11 (\u201camong the gods\u201d; \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m)
\nExod 15:11 (theois)
\nPs 82:1 (\u201cin the midst of the gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 81:1 (theous)3
\nPs 86:8 (\u201camong the gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 85:8 (theois)
\nPs 95:3 (\u201cgreat King above all gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 94:3 (theous)
\nPs 96:4 (\u201cfeared above all gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 95:4 (theous)
\nPs 97:9 (\u201cyou are exalted far above all gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 96:9 (theous)
\nPs 136:2 (\u201cthe God of gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 135:2 (the\u014dn)
\n1 Sam 28:13 (\u201cI see a god\/gods coming up out of the earth\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\n1 Sam 28:13 (theous)
\nGen 6:2 (\u201csons of God\u201d; ben\u00ea h\u0101-\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nGen 6:2 (\u201csons of God\u201d; hoi huioi tou theou)
\nPs 29:1 (\u201csons of God\u201d; ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 28:1 (\u201csons of God\u201d; huioi theou)
\nPs 89:7 (\u201csons of God\u201d; bene \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 88:7 (\u201camong the sons of God\u201d; en huioi theou)
\nPs 8:5 (\u201cyou have made him a little lower than God\/the gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 8:6 (\u201cless than the angels\u201d; brachy ti par\u2019 angelous)
\nPs 97:7 (\u201cworship him all you gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 96:7 (\u201call his angels\u201d; pantes hoi angeloi autou)
\nJob 1:6; 2:1 (\u201csons of God\u201d; ben\u00ea h\u0101-\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nJob 1:6; 2:1 (\u201cthe angels of God\u201d; hoi angeloi tou theou)
\nDeut 32:8 (\u201csons of God\u201d; ben\u00ea h\u0101-\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)4
\nDeut 32:8 (\u201cangels of God\u201d; angel\u014dn theou)
\nDeut 32:43 (\u201cbow down to him, all gods\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)5
\nDeut 32:43 (\u201cangels of God\u201d; angeloi tou theou)6
\nJob 38:7 (\u201csons of God\u201d; ben\u00ea h\u0101-\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nJob 38:7 (\u201call my angels\u201d; pantes angeloi mou)
\nPs 138:1 (\u201cbefore the gods I sing your [Yahweh\u2019s] praise\u201d; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m)
\nPs 137:1 (\u201cbefore the angels\u201d; enantion angel\u014dn)<\/p>\n
The chart illustrates that there are eight passages where an LXX translator has taken the language of divine plurality and rendered it as \u201cangels.\u201d But the chart indicates there are more places where the LXX translator decided otherwise, preferring a more literal equivalent. Some of those instances (Pss 29:1; 82:1 89:7; Exod 15:11) are among the most frequently cited passages by scholars seeking to argue that the Hebrew Bible preserves vestiges of polytheism. If Jews of the Second Temple period were concerned that such language might be taken as polytheism, it would make little sense to leave passages like these intact\u2014undisguised as angels. The unevenness of what we find shows that the LXX cannot be regarded as proof for a campaign to erase polytheistic language and downgrade instance of divine plurality to angels.
\nThe argument that the LXX sought to eliminate \u201cpolytheistic\u201d language gets even weaker when one investigates the text-critical data for the eight passages that render plural \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m or \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m and ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m\/\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m with angeloi. Of the eight instances noted above where the translator decided to use angeloi, there are variant LXX manuscript readings preserving the more literalistic rendering in half of them.13 This again indicates the lack of a theological concern with the Hebrew terminology within the literate Jewish community. It may be the case that a few LXX translators preferred \u201cangels\u201d to \u201cgods\u201d or \u201csons of God,\u201d but the data show that many had no such concern.<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY OF THE HEAVENLY HOST IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS<\/p>\n
The view of many scholars\u2014that Jewish writers, concerned about the language of divine plurality, leveled the vocabulary to angels\u2014is dealt an even more severe blow when we come to the Dead Sea Scrolls. One would never know that upon reading statements such as this one:<\/p>\n
There are various OT texts which speak of many gods (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd; \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m). However, at least by the turn of the era these [\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m] were regarded as God\u2019s angelic host. This can be seen in particular in the DSS where \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd or \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd [\u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m] is a common way of referring to angels.14<\/p>\n
This statement is erroneous. The data of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) data in fact point us toward the opposite conclusion. I have refuted this idea at length elsewhere in an article on divine plurality in the Dead Sea Scrolls.15 In the remaining space in this chapter, I\u2019ll summarize that refutation.
\nThe Dead Sea Scrolls contain a number of references to the divine council of the Hebrew Bible. Those references utilize the same terminology for the council we surveyed in chapter 1\u2014a council of \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m or \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m. There are no instances in the scrolls of council terminology that includes the Hebrew term for angels (mal\u02beak\u0131\u0302m). This omission is curious to say the least if, as Fletcher-Louis and many others suggest, there was a theological trend in Second Temple Judaism to avoid allegedly polytheistic language and these council members were transformed to angels.16
\nAccording to Abegg\u2019s authoritative database of the Qumran sectarian manuscripts,17 there are 106 instances of plural \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m in the scrolls.18 The phrase ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m occurs five times.19 Nowhere are these terms negative or polemic, and nowhere are these terms accompanied by mal\u02beak\u0131\u0302m to make the point that the \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m are to be understood as angels.
\nThe word \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m occurs over five hundred times in the scrolls, seventy of which are semantically plural.20 These instances are not references to idols. It\u2019s evident that the Qumran authors, in concert with the Hebrew Bible, considered them spirit beings based on phrases like \u201cspirits of the gods\u201d (r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4t \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m) and \u201cspirits of the living gods\u201d (r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4t \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m \u1e25ayy\u0131\u0302m).21
\nAs I wrote in my study of the scrolls for the language of divine plurality:<\/p>\n
There are nearly 180 instances of explicit divine plurality in the sectarian Qumran scrolls, a number far greater than in the Hebrew Bible. Many of these instances are found in unequivocal divine council contexts of the type associated with the allegedly polytheistic stage of the religion of biblical Israel. These gods are found in the heavenly temple-heights praising God and serving him. Angels (\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd; mal\u02beak\u0131\u0302m) are seldom found in these contexts. When they are, there is no clear instance where \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd (\u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m) or semantically plural \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd (\u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m) are described as \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dd (mal\u02beak\u0131\u0302m). The data therefore portray a theological situation quite contrary to what would be expected if Jewish theological thinking was moving away from polytheistic belief toward an intolerant monotheism.<\/p>\n
To summarize our findings, the vocabulary of Second Temple Jewish literature is quite consistent with that of the Hebrew Bible, even in translation. Despite this consistency, Second Temple Jewish angelology moves beyond the Old Testament in imaginative ways.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5<\/p>\n
Second Temple Jewish Angelology1<\/p>\n
In her 1926 thesis, Dorothy Leiffer stated, \u201cOne of the outstanding features of the Intertestamental literature is the appearance of a well-developed belief in angels.\u201d2 The statement is accurate, though it reads like a dramatic understatement today, since Leiffer did her research over two decades before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That material underscores just how much of an obsession angelology became in the Second Temple period.
\nMembers of God\u2019s heavenly host are mentioned repeatedly in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls contain nearly 170 instances of plural \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m or \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m and the related phrases ben\u00ea \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m and \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m. While these figures are nowhere described as mal\u0101k\u0131\u0302m, that term does appear in the plural over 100 times in the Qumran scrolls.4 The Greek text of the Pseudepigrapha references angeloi (\u201cangels\u201d) 196 times.5 The same Greek corpus includes egr\u0113goros (\u201cwatcher\u201d) 13 times, all in the plural. The Old Testament Apocrypha includes \u201cangel\u201d (9 times), \u201cangels\u201d (38 times), and \u201cspirits\u201d (5 times).6 In the writings of Josephus, of the 66 occurrences of angelos, 22 of them point to a supernatural being.7
\nThis sort of frequency indicates a strong interest in the heavenly host. Second Temple literature portrays the abilities and behavior of angels and their service to the Most High in many of the same ways as the Old Testament does, but there are also differences. Both the comparative and contrastive elements in Second Temple portrayals of angels will be our focus in this chapter.<\/p>\n
NATURE AND ABILITIES<\/p>\n
Second Temple Jewish texts frequently refer to angels as \u201choly ones,\u201d no doubt due to their proximity to the presence of God. The description of God\u2019s heavenly host as \u201choly ones\u201d occurs repeatedly in the Dead Sea Scrolls (147 times), as well as in Greek texts of the Pseudepigrapha (98 times).8 The divinity of angels is also put forth when Second Temple writers utilize r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4t (\u201cspirits\u201d) 175 times to describe members of the heavenly host. According to Jubilees 2:2, the spirit members of the heavenly host were created on the first day of creation.9 Philo famously referred to them as \u201cdisembodied souls\u201d (On the Confusion of Tongues 34:174). The Dead Sea Scroll 1QHa ix.8\u201311 declares that God \u201chas formed every spirit\u201d and created all the hosts of heaven \u201caccording to your will.\u201d The fact that angels are called (fallen) stars also attests to their divine nature (1 Enoch 18:13\u201316; 21:6; 41:5; 86:1\u20133; 88:1; 90:21).10
\nWriters of the period leave no doubt as to the lesser status of the members of the supernatural world (holy or fallen) relative to the God of Israel. Citing the texts devoting the most space to angels\u20141 Enoch and the Qumran scrolls\u2014Davidson writes:<\/p>\n
There is no trace in the Enochic books of a cosmic dualism in which two equal, or nearly equal, heavenly powers are opposed to each other.\u2026 The Enochic authors gave no place to any rival to God. Even though angels are very important \u2026 no angel ever challenges God to usurp his authority.11<\/p>\n
This detail is important in light of lengthy academic discussion on the Qumran community\u2019s dualism, an easily misunderstood term. In the early stages of the scholarly investigation of the Qumran material, some researchers incorrectly argued that the Rule of the Community (1QS) revealed a cosmic dualism in which God had an equal, evil rival. The mistaken idea was based on a portion of 1QS now referred to as the Two Spirits Discourse. Davidson\u2019s words are again appropriate:<\/p>\n
The Two Spirits Discourse in the Rule of the Community (1QS 3.13\u20134.26) has occasioned much discussion on this issue, since it involves mutually opposed angels, the Prince of Lights with whom are associated the sons of light, and the Angel of Darkness with whom are associated the sons of darkness and a contingent of other angels (1QS 3.20\u201321, 24\u201325). Given the clear statement that God has made all things and ordained their patterns (1QS 3.15\u201318), it was argued that the Two Spirits Discourse presupposes a cosmic dualism, but not one involving equally or nearly equally matched powers. Nor is the opposition to be described simply in terms of God and an evil angel.\u2026 The dualism of the Discourse is indeed a variety of cosmic dualism, but with God clearly unequalled.12<\/p>\n
Angels (\u201cwatchers\u201d in Enochian terminology) might fall due to a lapse in moral judgment or rebel in concert with their own hubris; 1 Enoch suggests both with respect to forbidden unions with human women before the flood.13 As such, Second Temple Judaism saw the holy ones as imperfect. That the fallen watchers are punished by God (1 Enoch 10) reveals they were considered subject to divine judgment.14
\nMembers of God\u2019s host also were not considered omniscient. When asked about certain events in the distant future, an angel answers the scribe: \u201cConcerning the signs about which you ask me, I can tell you in part; but I was not sent to tell you concerning your life, for I do not know.\u201d15
\nSecond Temple Jewish writers considered angels to be immortal. Indeed, part of the rationale in 1 Enoch for condemning the decision of certain angelic beings to cohabit with human women was that they were immortal beings having no need to perpetuate their kind (1 Enoch 15:6\u20137). The scroll 1QHa xix.13 speaks of the \u201ceverlasting\u201d host of heaven, suggesting that \u201cangels will live on indefinitely.\u201d16 However, as Kuhn notes, their immortality was contingent on God\u2019s favor: \u201cThey were considered to be deathless, and yet to be capable of annihilation by an intervention of divine judgment.\u201d17
\nAngels were also intimately connected with natural forces. Jubilees 2:1\u20132a is representative:<\/p>\n
For on the first day he created the heavens, which are above, and the earth, and the waters and all of the spirits which minister before him:<\/p>\n
the angels of the presence,
\nand the angels of sanctification,
\nand the angels of the spirit of fire,
\nand the angels of the spirit of the winds,
\nand the angels of the spirit of the clouds and darkness and snow and hail and frost,
\nand the angels of resoundings and thunder and lightning,
\nand the angels of the spirits of cold and heat and winter and springtime and harvest and summer,
\nand all of the spirits of his creatures which are in heaven and on earth.18<\/p>\n
This selection from the book of Jubilees associates angels with the behavior of the skies and weather, a thought echoed by 1 Enoch 60:11\u201313, 17\u201319:<\/p>\n
Then the other angel who was going with me was showing me the hidden things: what is first and last in heaven, above it, beneath the earth, in the depth, in the extreme ends of heaven, the extent of heaven; the storerooms of the winds, how the winds are divided, how they are weighed, how the winds divide and dissipate, the openings of the winds, each according to the strength of its wind; the power of the light of the moon and how it is the right amount, the divisions of the stars, each according to its nomenclature, and all the subdivisions; the thunders according to the places where they fall, and the subdivisions of the lightnings according to their flashing of light and the velocity of the obedience of the whole array of them.\u2026 The frost-wind is its own guardian [literally, \u201cangel\u201d] and the hail-wind is a kind messenger [literally, \u201cangel\u201d]. The snow-wind has evacuated (its reservoir); it does not exist because of its strength; there is in it only a breeze that ascends from (the reservoir) like smoke, and its name is frost. And the wind and the mist do not dwell together with them in their reservoirs. But (the mist) has its own reservoir, for its course is glorious. It has light and darkness both in the rainy season and the dry season; and its reservoir is itself an angel.19<\/p>\n
This thinking amounts to an extrapolation from the biblical association between angels (\u201csons of God\u201d), the stars, and the sky, as well as God\u2019s sovereign control over season and weather (Job 5:10; Pss 107:25; 147:16; 1 Kgs 17:1, 14). As \u201csky beings,\u201d angels would naturally be God\u2019s agents for such things.20 Kuhn notes:<\/p>\n
Concerning the function of angels in the natural world, the doctrine is substantially as follows: as \u201cspirits\u201d of the natural powers they are thought of in terms of the elements over which they exercised superintendence: the sea, frost, hail, mist, dew, and rain. They attend the sun, direct the lightning, control \u201cseasons and years\u201d and direct the course of the vegetative growth on the earth.21<\/p>\n
For Second Temple Jewish thinkers, angels were supernatural, celestial beings, yet their descriptions went beyond those offered in many biblical scenes where angels interact with people.<\/p>\n
ANGELS AS MEN<\/p>\n
According to 1 Enoch 17:1\u20132, angels are like \u201cflame of fire,\u201d but when they desire to do so, they can \u201cappear like men,\u201d a consistent feature of Second Temple angelology. It is especially prevalent (and apparently necessary) with respect to interaction with humans.22 The book of Tobit, composed in the third century BC, is a prime example. Tobit sends his son Tobias to find a travel companion for a journey to Media to collect a debt. Tobias meets a \u201cman\u201d who turns out to be the angel Raphael (Tobit 5:3\u20136). Raphael does not reveal his true identity until the end of the book.23 Curiously, Tobit 6:5 suggests that Raphael shared a meal with his human companion, but Raphael attributes the scene to a mere vision in Tobit 12:19.24
\nThe first century AD work Joseph and Aseneth features a \u201cheavenly man\u201d who is human in form, save that \u201chis face was like lightning, and his eyes like sunshine, and the hairs of his head like a flame of fire of a burning torch, and hands and feet like iron shining forth from a fire, and sparks shot forth from his hands and feet\u201d (Joseph and Aseneth 14:9).25 The luminescent angel accepts the hospitality of Aseneth but specifically requests a honeycomb as food, which Aseneth does not have (Joseph and Aseneth 15:14\u201316:2). The angel instructs Aseneth where to find one, but the honeycomb was one made by \u201cthe bees of paradise\u201d from \u201cthe dew of the roses of life that are in the paradise of God\u201d (Joseph and Aseneth 16:8\u20139).26
\nThe late first-century Apocalypse of Abraham describes the angel Iaoel (Yahoel) as coming to the patriarch \u201cin the likeness of a man\u201d (Apocalypse of Abraham 10:3).27 Iaoel appears physically, as he takes Abraham by the hand (Apocalypse of Abraham 11:1), despite the fact that the patriarch sees a body of spectacular radiance when looking upon the angel (Apocalypse of Abraham 11:1\u20133).
\nThe belief that angels assumed human form, even flesh, was no doubt based on certain Old Testament incidents involving angels where fleshly embodiment is presumed (e.g., Gen 6:1\u20134; 18\u201319).28 First Enoch 6\u201316 is an expanded retelling of the incident of Genesis 6:1\u20134, where the heavenly sons of God produce offspring (Nephilim) with human women.29 The same physicality is assumed in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. II.1\u201326) from the Dead Sea Scrolls.30 Focusing on Josephus, Begg writes in this regard:<\/p>\n
Josephus\u2019 initial mention of angels comes in Ant 1.173 where, in line with a LXX reading in Gen 6:2, he alludes to \u201cangels of God\u201d who generate hybrid beings (\u201cgiants,\u201d 6:4) with human women.\u2026 In this instance, Josephus envisages angels as engaging in a very human and physical activity, copulation.\u201d31<\/p>\n
Elsewhere Josephus has angels performing other acts of embodiment, such as fighting (Ant. 1.332\u201333) and wielding a sword (Ant. 7.327a), while remaining capable of ascending unaided to heaven (Ant. 5.284; 7.327b).
\nThis is similar to what we see in the Old Testament, yet Second Temple descriptions of angels, even when described as \u201cmen,\u201d are more elaborate. In the Old Testament it is rare for angels to be visibly distinct from humans. Often people who encounter such figures have no idea that they are anything but men (cf. Gen 19; 32:22\u201332; Judg 6) until some sort of self-revelation. Second Temple texts take more liberty in portraying angels as men with features not common to humans.<\/p>\n
NAMING THE ANGELS<\/p>\n
One of the more noteworthy innovations in Second Temple Jewish angelology is the naming of angels. In the Bible, Michael and Gabriel are the only holy, celestial servants of Yahweh that bear personal names.32 This number swells in the Second Temple period. The innovation also operates more widely, as groups of angels also receive names. Olyan\u2019s observations capture the development:<\/p>\n
The emergence of angelic names and the designations for angelic divisions \u2026 poses a problem for historians attempting to understand developing belief, and has been widely noted as a salient characteristic of ancient and medieval Judaism in contrast to Israelite religion. Where pre-exilic and exilic biblical texts suggest a divine realm populated by thousands of unnamed angels praising God and serving him in war and in judgment, the materials of ancient and medieval Judaism present a very different picture: The angelic host is beyond counting, named and articulated in detail.\u2026 The developments include the emergence of named angels, classes of heavenly beings, angelic hierarchy, archangels, a complex of heavenly temples and cults, conflict between good and bad angels, expanding roles of angels in the human sphere, and characterization of angels.33<\/p>\n
In terms of specific names, Barton lists nearly thirty \u201cgood angels\u201d given names in \u201cthe apocryphal literature.\u201d34 Begg uncovers five additional names in his brief discussion of angelology in Pseudo-Philo.35 As Olyan\u2019s work demonstrates, there are more, and the number increases after the Second Temple era.36
\nThe discussion of named angels typically revolves around those heavenly beings identified as archangels, also called \u201cwatchers\u201d (\u02bf\u0131\u0302r\u0131\u0302n) in 1 Enoch 20:1.37 Second Temple Jewish literature is not consistent with respect to their number. Primary sources might enumerate four, six, or seven archangels. Commenting in 1 Enoch 9\u201310, Nickelsburg writes:<\/p>\n
A complement of four, and later seven, named archangels (here \u201choly ones\u201d) appears first in 1 Enoch 9\u201310 and then becomes something of a staple in Jewish and Christian literature. Their existence and the number four were doubtless inferred from the four living creatures (\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea) in the throne vision of Ezekiel 1\u20132. The later literature makes an association with Ezekiel 1\u20132 explicit. In the action of 1 Enoch 9\u201310, however, the four are not placed at the throne. They go forth from heaven, view the world, approach the divine throne with their petition in behalf of humanity, and are then dispatched to the world to act in God\u2019s behalf.\u2026 In 1 Enoch 20\u201336 + 81 the number four is expanded to seven (adding Uriel, Reuel, and Remiel to Michael, Sariel, Raphael, and Gabriel) in order to provide a complement of angels who are associated with the places of Enoch\u2019s cosmic tour, rather than God\u2019s throne.\u201d38<\/p>\n
Why the upsurge in naming angels in this era? What drive the impulse among Second Temple Jewish writers? Several theories have been put forth. In his extended study of the names of angels and angelic \u201cbrigades,\u201d Olyan outlines and critiques the approaches thus:39<\/p>\n
1. Foreign Influence: Religious ideas outside Judaism provided the catalyst for \u201cpersonalizing\u201d angels and making them more prominent.
\n2. Magical Practices: Religious rituals aimed at combating demons or practicing divination were thought to be more potent if named angels were invoked.
\n3. Transcendence of God: The term \u201ctranscendence\u201d refers to the idea that Jews thought God less accessible, and so angels took on more of a mediating role. Angels in turn became more personalized.
\n4. \u201cGnostic\u201d Trajectories: In terms of specific sects and formulations, the Second Temple era is too early to speak of Gnosticism. However, various elements of gnostic thought were drawn from Jewish mysticism. One such thread was the proliferation of named entities (e.g., aeons).
\n5. Internal Jewish Development: By this, scholars point to an apparent evasion of anthropomorphic language for God. One example would be how the book of Jubilees inserts an angel in the story of the binding (and near sacrifice) of Isaac in the place of God in the biblical account (Jubilees 17:15\u201318:19). Other Second Temple texts similarly relieve God of his role in Old Testament stories. This approach is related to the third option noted above. The approach argues that personal angels replaced God in stories as God is perceived as being more remote.<\/p>\n
Olyan\u2014and I\u2014find these suggestions unconvincing, though several of them have some worthwhile insights.40 Olyan views the internal development thesis most favorably, but by this he does not mean misgivings about an anthropomorphic Deity. Rather, he discerns an exegetical development\u2014specifically, that angel names were the product of creative Jewish exegesis of the biblical text. He writes:<\/p>\n
Many names of individual angels as well as angelic divisions were the result of biblical exegesis, particularly of theophanic and angelophanic texts and descriptions of the divine council.\u2026 Exegesis is at least a major aspect, if not the most significant component, of the elusive framework sought by scholars in order to better understand the development of ideas about angels in late biblical and post-biblical texts.\u2026 Many epithets or adjectives describing angels in theophanic\/angelophanic settings in the Hebrew Bible became the designations of angelic brigades in some of the more elaborate descriptions of angels.\u201d41<\/p>\n
To briefly explain, Olyan discovered that common words associated with scenes in God\u2019s throne room\u2014or rare words, in the same scenes, made confusing by errors in manuscript transmission\u2014were used by Jewish writers to create the names of angelic contingents.42
\nOlyan discovered that Second Temple writers used the same techniques to manufacture the names of specific angels. After surveying ten angel names, he observes:<\/p>\n
Patterns of exegesis emerge from this survey of ten angelic personal names. All appear to be of biblical derivation.\u2026 A number of the names discussed in this chapter appear to have been derived from textual cruces in the [Hebrew Bible], some from hapax legomena in particular (e.g., sidr\u0131\u0302\u2019\u0113l, yep\u00eapiyy\u00e2, d\u014dq\u0131\u0302\u2019\u0113l, keballa\u2019). Most of these cruces or hapax legomena occur in theophanic\/angelophanic or related settings.\u2026 tied closely to God\u2019s activity.43<\/p>\n
THE HEAVENLY HOST: Soldiers of the Most High<\/p>\n
Olyan\u2019s choice of a term like \u201cbrigades\u201d of angels may strike some readers as odd. Second Temple vocabulary validates such a perspective. The names of angelic groups are often militaristic. A variety of combat terms are attributed to angels, clearly casting them as celestial warriors. For example, texts from Qumran refer to angels as \u201ctroops\u201d (ged\u00fbd\u0131\u0302m), \u201cwarriors\u201d (gibbor\u0131\u0302m), and \u201ccompanies, brigades\u201d (degal\u0131\u0302m).44
\nOther scholars who focus on the angelology of the period have noted that angels are frequently cast in a militaristic role and that such portrayals are frequently part of apocalyptic literature. In his important study on angels as warriors in Second Temple Jewish literature, Michalak notes:<\/p>\n
In the apocalyptic works of this time the development of elaborated angelology\/ies took place. One of the marks of the identification of apocalyptic literature is the idea that a seer is able to see the heavenly world together with its angelic inhabitants. Therefore it is hardly surprising that in this literature a trend appears which makes a distinction between the various categories of angels and establishes their hierarchy.45<\/p>\n
This feature of Second Temple angelology is consistent with, and in fact derives from, the portrayal of God\u2019s holy ones as a host (\u1e63eba\u02be\u00f4t) led by a supernatural commander (sar; \u201cprince\u201d).46 Several passages in the Old Testament describe an end-times conflict involving the army of the holy ones unleashing the wrath of God on both his earthly and heavenly enemies (Isa 24:21\u201323; 34:1\u20134; Zech 14:1\u20135). It is quite understandable, then, that Second Temple angelology includes this element of the heavenly host in service to God.
\nThe most obvious instance of supernatural armies in Second Temple literature comes from Qumran\u2019s War Scroll (1QM), a lengthy text envisioning human forces fighting side-by-side with angels against wicked men and supernatural powers of darkness. Michalak summarizes its contents:<\/p>\n
The major theme of the work is the eschatological war waged by the sons of light against the sons of darkness under the command of Belial. The main work consists of nineteen columns from Qumran Cave 1. In Cave 4, six manuscript fragments have been found, all of which correspond to 1QM.\u2026 The War Scroll improves our knowledge of Jewish angelology. The already mentioned notion of human communion with angels is particularly noticeable in this work. Angels are brothers in arms of the sons of light in the holy war against the \u201carmy of Belial\u201d.47<\/p>\n
Davidson, author of another major study of Qumran angelology, adds:<\/p>\n
God\u2019s army consists of \u201ca multitude of holy ones\u201d and \u201chosts of angels\u201d in heaven, and \u201cthe elect ones of the holy nation\u201d on earth (1QM 12:1). Both groups are to be mustered for the battle (1QM 12:4\u20135).\u2026 The writer not only asserts that angels will be with them, but he also believes that God himself, the Mighty One of War, will be too. The thought is similar to that in 1QM 15:13\u201314, where God raises his hand to act against the wicked spirits, and the angels gird themselves for battle.48<\/p>\n
Angel armies are also found in the Pseudepigrapha. The watcher-archangels are cast as guardians and \u201cspecial forces\u201d charged by God with rounding up the fallen, rebellious watchers and destroying their progeny, the giants (1 Enoch 9\u201310). In the scene where God shows Enoch how he created \u201call the forces of heaven and earth\u201d (2 Enoch 28:1) God says, \u201cI created the ranks of the bodiless armies\u2014ten myriad angels\u2014and their weapons are fiery and their clothes are burning flames. And I gave orders that each should stand in his own rank.\u201d49
\nIn a passage that echoes the eschatological judgment of the princes of the nations and their inhabitants (Isa 34:1\u20134; cf. Ps 82:6\u20138; Ezek 38\u201339), 1 Enoch 56\u201357 describes an angelic assault on the enemy nations:<\/p>\n
In those days, the angels will assemble and thrust themselves to the east at the Parthians and Medes. They will shake up the kings (so that) a spirit of unrest shall come upon them, and stir them up from their thrones.\u2026 In those days, Sheol shall open her mouth, and they shall be swallowed up into it and perish. (Thus) Sheol shall swallow up the sinners in the presence of the elect ones.\u2026 And it happened afterward that I had another vision of a whole array of chariots loaded with people; and they were advancing upon the air from the east and from the west until midday. And the sound of their chariots (was clamorous); and when this commotion took place, the holy ones in heaven took notice of it and the pillars of the earth were shaken from their foundations. (1 Enoch 56:5, 8; 57:1\u20132a)50<\/p>\n
Angelic warriors are also prominent in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work, as its title suggests, divisible into twelve separate works, each focused on one of the sons of Jacob.51 A solitary angel soldier appears on behalf of Judah (Testament of Judah 3:10) and at the request of Levi (Testament of Levi 5:6). Several scholars consider the angel in the latter instance to be Michael. An oblique reference to this same angel occurs in Testament of Dan 6:1, a passage reminiscent of Jude 9. An army of angels is described in Testament of Levi 3:3.
\nOther Second Temple literary works present angels as an attacking force. In 2 Maccabees 3:25\u201334, we read that God protected the temple treasury from the invading Heliodorus with supernatural warriors (2 Macc 3:24\u201326 NRSV):<\/p>\n
But when [Heliodorus] arrived at the treasury with his bodyguard, then and there the Sovereign of spirits and of all authority caused so great a manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were astounded by the power of God, and became faint with terror. For there appeared to them a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien; it rushed furiously at Heliodorus and struck at him with its front hoofs. Its rider was seen to have armor and weapons of gold. Two young men also appeared to him, remarkably strong, gloriously beautiful and splendidly dressed, who stood on either side of him and flogged him continuously, inflicting many blows on him.52<\/p>\n
The incident in 2 Maccabees 3 is not unique. There are similar episodes in 2 Maccabees 4:1\u20132; 5:2; 10:29\u201330; 11:6\u20138; 15:22\u201323. The third book of Maccabees relates an angelic intervention (along with \u201cthe holy face of God\u201d) against Ptolemy IV Philopator (3 Macc 6:1\u20135).53 Pseudo-Philo describes two named warrior angels who come to the assistance of Kenaz in his struggle against the Amorites (Liber antiquitatum biblicarum [LAB] 27:10). Michalak notes that Kenaz is depicted in a manner similar to the Israelite judges Samson and Gideon.54 Interestingly, angels appear in Pseudo-Philo\u2019s retelling of several of the stories in the Old Testament book of Judges.55<\/p>\n
THE DIVINE COUNCIL: Scenes of Praise and Judgment<\/p>\n
As was the case with the Old Testament theology of the heavenly host, angels in Second Temple literature appear in council with God, both to praise him and discharge his decrees.
\nIn the previous chapter we noted the profound number of instances where the language of divine plurality (multiple \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m or \u02be\u0113l\u0131\u0302m) is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, often in scenes of the heavenly throne room, the place of Yahweh\u2019s council. Second Temple period literature does not downgrade the biblical idea of a divine council; it embraces it and adds a few innovations.56
\nThe language of the divine council is most evident in Second Temple texts from Qumran and certain books of the Pseudepigrapha. For example, the complex angelic liturgies found in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400\u2013407; 11Q17; Mas1K) contain important vocabulary of the Hebrew Bible for the meeting place of Israel\u2019s divine council.57 For example, one of the council scenes reads as follows:<\/p>\n
30 Of the Instructor. Song of the sacrifice of the seventh sabbath on the sixteenth of the month. Praise the God of the heights, you exalted ones among all the<\/p>\n
31 divinities of knowledge. May the holy ones of God magnify the King of glory, who makes holy with holiness all his holy ones. Chiefs of the praises of<\/p>\n
32 all the gods, praise the God [of] majestic praises, for in the magnificence of the praises is the glory of his kingdom. Through it (come) the praises of all<\/p>\n
33 gods, together with the splendour of all [his] maje[sty. And] exalt {his} exaltation to the heights, gods of the exalted divinities, and his glorious divinity above<\/p>\n
34 all the exalted heights. For h[e is the God of the gods] of all the chiefs of the heights, and king of king[s] of all the eternal councils. {By the will}<\/p>\n
35 {of his knowledge} At the words of his mouth a[ll the exalted divinities] exist; by what issues from his lips, all the eternal spirits; [by the w]ill of his knowledge, all his creatures<\/p>\n
36 in their enterprises. Sing with joy, those of you enjoying [his knowledge, with] rejoicing among the wonderful gods.58<\/p>\n
The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice bear witness to an elaborate angelic hierarchy:<\/p>\n
[The Songs are] characterized by repetitious formulas in which the number seven figures prominently, the sixth and eighth songs enumerate the praises and blessings uttered by the seven chief and deputy princes respectively. The central, seventh song elaborates the initial call to praise into a series of seven increasingly elaborate calls to praise addressed to each of the seven angelic councils. After these calls to praise the song then describes the heavenly temple itself bursting into praise, concluding with a description of the chariot throne of God and the praise uttered by multiple attendant chariot thrones (merk\u0101b\u00f4t), their cherubim and wheels (\u02bfophann\u0131\u0302m).59<\/p>\n
The Pseudepigrapha has similar scenes. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (Text A) describes Zephaniah\u2019s divine council vision in the fifth heaven: \u201cI saw angels who were called lords, and the diadem was set upon them in the Holy Spirit, and the throne of each of them was sevenfold more brilliant that the light of the sun.\u201d60 Reminiscent of the divine council scene in Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 47:3 has Enoch relating, \u201cI saw the Chief of Days when he seated himself upon the throne of his glory, and the books of the living were opened before him; And all his host which is in heaven above and his council stood before him.\u201d Second Enoch 20:1 describes a council meeting of \u201cmany-eyed thrones\u201d with numerous archangels, dominions, and authorities. Second Enoch has God seated the tenth heaven, so it is clear that these lesser-ranking thrones are for divine council members.
\nPortrayals of the heavenly host and the divine council in the Pseudepigrapha are no less elaborate than those of Qumran. There are many terms besides the militaristic labeling noted above, and it is difficult to discern what the perceived hierarchical relationships were between the groups.
\nFor example, 1 Enoch 61:10 says, \u201cAnd he [God] will summon all the forces of the heavens, and all the holy ones above, and the forces of the Lord\u2014the cherubim, seraphim, ophanim, all the angels of governance, the Elect One, and the other forces on earth (and) over the water.\u201d61 Like others we have already considered, this one correlates members of the heavenly host to the throne presence of God and the elements of the natural world. Consequently, we presume that Second Temple Jewish angelology had distinct groups close to God\u2019s presence and others in charge of nature. In 2 Enoch 19:1\u20135, Enoch describes a number of tasks for heavenly beings:<\/p>\n
And those men took me from there, and they carried me up to the 6th heaven, And I saw there 7 groups of angels, brilliant and very glorious, And their faces were more radiant than the radiance of the sun, and there was no difference between their faces or in their dimensions or in the style of their clothing. And these groups carry out and carefully study the movements of the stars, and the revolution of the sun and the phases of the moon, and the well-being of the cosmos. And when they see any evil activity, they put the commandments and instructions in order, and the sweet choral singing and every kind of glorious praise. These are the archangels who are over the angels; and they harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly; and angels who are over seasons and years, and angels who are over rivers and the ocean, and angels who are over the fruits of the earth and over every kind of grass, and who give every kind of food to every kind of living thing; and angels who record all human souls, and all their deeds, and their lives before the face of the LORD.62<\/p>\n
Here we learn that archangels are over angels, and they seem to be busily in charge of maintaining created order, plotting out times and seasons, and praising the Most High. Other angels record the lives of human beings and, it seems, never depart from God\u2019s presence. There is, not surprisingly, much more we could investigate. It is clear that the heavenly bureaucracy of the Second Temple period is complex. Jewish texts from this period refer to \u201cangels of the Presence\u201d (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 4:11), \u201cangels of sanctification\u201d (Jubilees 15:27), \u201carchangels\u201d (e.g., 1 Enoch 20\u201322, 40:8\u201310); Life of Adam and Eve 25:3\u20134), \u201carchons\u201d (Testament of Job 49:2; 1 Enoch 6:7\u20138; 2 Enoch 20:1); \u201crulers of the stars\u201d (2 Enoch 4:1\u20132), \u201csatans\u201d (1 Enoch 40:1\u20138), \u201cpowers\u201d (1 Enoch 40:8\u201310; 65:6\u20137; 82:8\u20139), \u201cprincipalities\u201d (1 Enoch 61:10\u201311), and \u201cdominions\u201d (1 Enoch 61:10; 2 Enoch 20:1). In 1 Enoch 6:7\u20138, the labels arch\u0113 and arch\u014dn are used interchangeably as titles for twenty named watchers.63
\nSpeculative as it is, this material still generates logical questions. Are archangels too busy to participate in praising God? Are they so preoccupied with supervising lesser angels and running creation that they don\u2019t get much time in God\u2019s presence? First Enoch 40:2\u20134, 9\u201310 seems to clear up the matter, as the four archangels (Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel) \u201cstand before the glory of the Lord \u2026 blessing the name of the Lord of Spirits \u2026 saying praises before the Lord of Glory\u201d (cf. 1 Enoch 40:9; 54:6; 71:8\u20139, 13).64
\nRegardless of the lack of hierarchical clarity, Second Temple Jewish angelology is not ambiguous when it comes to the divine council rendering and administering judgment. 1 Enoch 89\u201390, an allegory referred to as the \u201cAnimal Apocalypse\u201d by scholars, contains a provocative divine council scene. The Animal Apocalypse is, as its name suggests, a vision of the end of days.65 Collins describes the content as<\/p>\n
a complex allegory in which people are represented by animals. Adam is a white bull. Cain and Abel are black and red bullocks; Israel are sheep. In the period after the exile, the sheep are given over to seventy shepherds, representing the angelic patrons of the nations.66<\/p>\n
The seventy shepherds of 1 Enoch 89\u201390 are the fallen sons of God allotted to the gentile nations at the Tower of Babel event (Deut 32:8).67 They are given charge over Israel as a punishment. The idea being conveyed in the allegory is that the chief shepherd, the Lord of the sheep of Israel (i.e., Yahweh), handed over the governance of his sheep (Israel) to the seventy angelic under-shepherds put over the nations at the Babel event. Israel is forsaken and would be governed by those lesser agents (i.e., would remain in exile) until the end of days (1 Enoch 89:51\u201367). The author of 1 Enoch 89\u201390 seems to be tracking on Jeremiah 25, transforming the human rulers who had conquered and abused Israel into angelic shepherds placed over Israel while in exile.68 In other words, the Animal Apocalypse frames Israel\u2019s apostasy and exile in supernatural terms.
\nGod commands these shepherds to slaughter his sheep (1 Enoch 89:59\u201360), but they disobediently go beyond the parameters he had set. The severity of Israel\u2019s condition until the time of release is therefore the fault of the disobedient patron angels of the nations. This brings us to the divine council scene (1 Enoch 90:20\u201327).
\nThe Animal Apocalypse combines the judgment of the fallen sons of God (the watchers) of Genesis 6:1\u20134 and that of the seventy disobedient sons of God who rule as princes over the nations. It is, in effect, the writer\u2019s imaginative enactment of the final verdict that the \u02beel\u014dh\u0131\u0302m over the nations are sentenced to \u201cdie like men\u201d (Ps 82:6\u20137). But the human inhabitants of the nations who oppressed Israel are also judged. As in Old Testament theology, the apocalyptic judgment of the day of the Lord is enacted in both the earthly and supernatural realms (Dan 7:1\u201312; Isa 24:21\u201323; 34:1\u20134; Joel 3:11 [Heb 4:11]). Lopez writes:<\/p>\n
As has been previously mentioned, Joel 3 is an earlier example of the connection of divine\/human battle with the earthly judgment of all those who oppose Yahweh. Another parallel text is found in Isaiah 24:17\u201323.\u2026 While the act of judgment is not mentioned directly, as it is in Joel 3, the heavens and the earth are all punished. The implication of these texts, including Daniel 7, is that the judgment of the wicked cannot take place in the heavens. The divine council scene in I Enoch 90 further implies that it is not just the wicked of the earth that cannot enter the heavens; the heavenly beings who have disobeyed God are also forbidden entrance.\u2026 After the books are opened, judgment is carried out against three distinct groups: the fallen stars, the seventy shepherds, and the blind sheep (vv. 24\u201327). It should be noted that within this one judgment scene separate traditions are maintained. First, there is the judgment of the Watchers, here called the fallen stars. They are mentioned here in the same order as the fall: first the star that is identified with Asael and then the remaining stars who followed. Here the fallen stars are placed alongside the seventy shepherds who did not fall from the heavens (i.e. openly reject God), but rather were appointed by God to rule over Israel. Their reason for punishment is not that they directly rejected God but that they carried out God\u2019s punishment more severely than was ordered. The two groups of heavenly beings are judged separately and are sent to \u201ca place of condemnation,\u201d and \u201cthat abyss of fire.\u201d The place of punishment is somewhere at the ends of the earth, and the description of the place of punishment is in keeping with that found throughout I Enoch.69<\/p>\n
GUARDING, INTERCEDING, INTERPRETING<\/p>\n
In our earlier comments on archangels, we briefly looked at 1 Enoch 20, which described some of the functions of archangels. Two of those duties were \u201cinterceding and praying on behalf of those who dwell upon the earth and supplicating in the name of the Lord of the Spirits.\u2026 expelling the demons and forbidding them from coming to the Lord of the Spirits in order to accuse those who dwell upon the earth.\u201d70
\nThe passage brings into focus the angelic ministries of guardianship of God\u2019s people and intercession on their behalf.71 Angelic intercession is described in a range of Second Temple texts. In Tobit 12:12, Raphael reveals that \u201cwhen you and Sarah prayed, it was I who brought and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord.\u201d In the book of 1 Enoch the antediluvian patriarch sees the holy ones who \u201cinterceded and petitioned and prayed on behalf of the children of the people\u201d (1 Enoch 39:5) and hears an angel \u201cinterceding and praying on behalf of those who dwell upon the earth and supplicating in the name of the Lord of the Spirits\u201d (1 Enoch 40:6).72 In a scene reminiscent of Revelation 6:9; 8:3\u20135, where the \u201cprayers of the holy ones\u201d were on a golden altar attended by an angel before the throne of God, under which were \u201cthe souls of those who had been slain for the word of God\u201d (Rev 6:9), 1 Enoch 47:1\u20132 says:<\/p>\n
The prayers of the righteous ascended into heaven, and the blood of the righteous from the earth before the Lord of the Spirits. There shall be days when all the holy ones who dwell in the heavens above shall dwell (together). And with one voice, they shall supplicate and pray\u2014glorifying, praising, and blessing the name of the Lord of the Spirits\u2014on behalf of the blood of the righteous ones which has been shed. Their prayers shall not stop from exhaustion before the Lord of the Spirits\u2014neither will they relax forever\u2014(until) judgment is executed for them.73<\/p>\n
The Testament of Dan 6:1\u20132 admonishes, \u201cAnd now fear the Lord, my children, be on guard against Satan and his spirits. Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you, because he is the mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel.\u201d74 Archangels \u201cserve and offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones\u201d (Testament of Levi 3:5).75
\nAs it relates to individuals, while there are generic references to protection (e.g., in Jubilees 35:17, Rebecca told Jacob he had a \u201cprotector\u201d who was mightier than Esau\u2019s), the guardianship role of angels in Second Temple Judaism is cast in terms of protective intercession or instruction. With respect to intercession, the role is akin to what we saw earlier in the Old Testament.76 First Enoch abounds with the motif, as Nickelsburg notes:<\/p>\n
In almost all the strata of 1 Enoch, angels play a crucial role as intercessors for humanity.\u2026 The angelic role of intercessor and its context can be traced back into the Hebrew Scriptures, and it continues to be important in early Christian theology. The heavenly intercessor is of some prominence in the Book of Job, where it is envisioned as a legal protagonist in Job\u2019s dispute with God. As such the figure is described variously as an \u201cumpire\u201d or arbiter (Job 9:3; cf. 16:21), a \u201cwitness\u201d (Job 16:19), a \u201cmediator\u201d (Job 16:20; 33:23), and a \u201cvindicator\u201d or \u201credeemer\u201d (Job 19:25\u201327). The concept goes back to the ancient belief that each individual had a personal god who acted in one\u2019s behalf in the divine council.\u2026 The closest parallel to the Enochic texts occurs in Tob 3:16\u201317 and 12:12\u201315. As in Job, at stake is the innocence of the suffering righteous\u2014Tobit and Sarah. Raphael is one of seven holy angels, who present a \u201creminder\u201d of the prayers of the \u201choly ones\u201d in the presence of the glory of the Great One and Holy One. As such an intercessor and as the divinely sent healer who will adjudicate the situation, Raphael corresponds to the angelic intercessors and agents of judgment described in 1 Enoch 9\u201310.\u2026 In the story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Jub. 17:15\u201318:16, the biblical account is framed by a Job-like prologue in which the angels of the presence praise Abraham\u2019s righteousness, while the chief of demons, the prince of Mastemah, accuses him.\u2026 For the author of 3 Baruch, Michael receives both the prayers of the righteous and their merits (chaps. 11\u201312). Here, as elsewhere, the mediating of prayer is tied to the upright status of those who pray.77<\/p>\n
Individuals also receive instruction from angels. Again, there are peripheral instances, such as how angels taught Adam how to work in the garden of Eden (Jubilees 3:15\u201316). For the most part, however, angelic instruction becomes a developed motif in Second Temple Jewish literature, that of the \u201cinterpreting angel.\u201d The Old Testament describes a number of occasions when angels deliver messages, but by the time of later books such as Daniel, the messages become more formal, usually revolving around the interpretation of a vision or dream. As Collins notes, this portrayal becomes prominent in the Second Temple period, particularly in apocalyptic literature:<\/p>\n
It is possible to trace the evolution of some literary forms from prophecy to apocalypticism. For example, the role of the interpreting angel, the supernatural mediator, appears first in Zechariah, in the late sixth century BC.78<\/p>\n
Nickelsburg highlights the features noting the Old Testament connections:<\/p>\n
The accompanying, interpreting angels in this section of 1 Enoch are an extension and formalization of similar figures in the prophetic books of Ezekiel and Zechariah. In Ezekiel 8\u201311 an otherworldly figure of brilliant appearance takes the prophet, \u201cin the visions of God\u201d (8:3), from his house in Babylon to Jerusalem, where he escorts him around the temple and comments on the abominations there, before returning him to Babylon. In chaps. 40\u201348, after Ezekiel is again taken to Jerusalem \u201cin the visions of God\u201d (40:2), the same figure, presumably (40:30), again escorts Ezekiel through the temple and explains various of its features to him. Noteworthy is the formula, \u201cBrought me \u2026 he said \u2026 this is.\u201d In Zechariah 1\u20136 an angelic interlocutor engages Zechariah in a question-and-answer format relating to the content of the prophet\u2019s visions.\u2026 In this section of the Book of the Watchers, the combination of vision, question, and an answer by the interpreting angel is the sole vehicle of revelation, as is already hinted at in the book\u2019s superscription ([1 Enoch] 1:2). Moreover, here, as in Ezekiel 40\u201344, the angel accompanies the seer on his vision journey. The device will continue to structure parts of the Book of Parables ([1 Enoch] 40:8; 52:3; 53:4; 54:4; 56:2; 60:9, 11, 24; 61:2; 64:2). The idea may also be presumed in the Book of Tobit, where Raphael guides Tobias across Mesopotamia and explains the magical properties of the fish\u2019s viscera to the inquiring young man ([Tobit] 6:6\u20138).79<\/p>\n
The concept of angelic interpretation of course presumes access to divine knowledge about the affairs of humans and human destiny. Some of that knowledge is portrayed as the result of direct access to divine decrees. However, as with the Old Testament, there are allusions in Second Temple literature to divine record keeping. Jubilees 19:9 informs us that Abraham \u201cwas found faithful and he was recorded as a friend of the LORD in the heavenly tablets.\u201d80 The same pseudepigraphical book notes that Levi\u2019s elevation to priestly duty was \u201cwritten (on high) as a testimony for him in the heavenly tablets before the God of all\u201d (Jubilees 30:20). Those who break God\u2019s covenant are recorded \u201cin the heavenly tablets as enemies \u2026 [and] will be blotted out of the book of life and written in the book of those who will be destroyed and with those who will be rooted out from the land\u201d (Jubilees 30:21\u201322).81 First Enoch 47:3 has the Ancient of Days seated on this throne and \u201cthe books of the living ones were open before him.\u201d82
\nCorporate guardianship is most evident in the way angels are cast as warriors. The contexts of the passages we previously examined typically had something to do with the protection of Israel. In concert with Daniel 10:21; 12:1, Michael is the chief guardian of Israel (Assumption of Moses 10:2). In several Greek Pseudepigrapha he is called archistrat\u0113gos (Testament of Abraham 2:3; 2 Enoch 22:6; 33:10; 71:28; Joseph and Aseneth 14:8 [Grk:7]), a term that denotes military superiority over a strat\u0113gos, the normative term for commanding generals in Greek literature. The term archistrat\u0113gos is how the LXX describes the commander (\u201cprince\u201d; sar) of Yahweh\u2019s host in Joshua 5:14.83 At other times an unnamed angel appears who claims to be Israel\u2019s guardian (Testament of Levi 5:6).84 4Q529, though fragmentary, suggests that angels were assigned by Michael to guard the temple.
\nGuardianship has a dark side as well. We saw that in the Animal Apocalypse the writer believed that God had turned over his people to judgment at the hands of the patron angels of the nations because of their apostasy. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch has Jerusalem being destroyed by four anonymous angels just before the Babylonian attack (2 Baruch 6:4\u20138:1).85 In Pseudo-Philo (Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 15:5), Israel\u2019s guardian angels are commanded to not intercede for the people but instead afflict them.<\/p>\n
PROMINENT ANGELS AS SECOND YAHWEH FIGURES<\/p>\n
In chapter 3 we discussed the identity of the Old Testament\u2019s angel of Yahweh as Yahweh himself in human form. This angel, in conjunction with the Old Testament \u201cName theology,\u201d was the foundation behind later Jewish speculation as to the identity of the \u201csecond Yahweh\u201d or the second of the \u201ctwo powers in heaven\u201d motif in Second Temple literature and rabbinic Judaism.86 The most important study of Second Temple literature with an eye toward this issue is that of Charles Gieschen, whose research reveals that writers of the period cast both exalted (glorified) humans and angels as the second power in heaven.87 Criteria for the second power can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n
There are five criteria that scholars agree merit special consideration when seeking to understand exalted vice regency: (1) divine position (Is the figure with or near God and his throne?); (2) divine appearance (Is the figure described in the same ways as God\u2019s physical form in the Hebrew Bible?); (3) divine functions (Does the figure perform actions typically ascribed to God?); (4) divine Name (Does the figure bear the name of Yahweh, or is he described as a hypostasis88 of the Name?); and (5) divine veneration (Is the figure worshipped, or is prayer offered to the figure?). With respect to the last criterion, the exaltation of a figure most often has its roots in Exod 23:20\u201323; Exod 24:9ff.; Dan 7:9ff.; and Ezekiel 1; 10. It is not a coincidence that these texts are precisely those at the root of the two powers controversy since they evince a second divine personage.89<\/p>\n
For our purposes, we will focus on angels who fit the criteria most closely.90
\nIn Joseph and Aseneth, Aseneth\u2019s visitor, the \u201cheavenly man\u201d (Joseph and Aseneth 14:4\u201317:10) is referred to as a god (theos) two times (17:9; 22:3), and yet he is distinguished from God by virtue of his titles: \u201cchief of the house of the Lord and commander of the whole host of the Most High\u201d (Joseph and Aseneth 14:7\u20138). Many scholars believe the heavenly man is Michael, though the text never says this, nor is Michael ever referred to as theos in any Second Temple text.91
\nIn making the argument for Michael, scholars take note that the heavenly man is called archistrat\u0113gos (Joseph and Aseneth 14:8 [Grk: 7]) in this passage, which is the term used in LXX for the commander (\u201cprince\u201d; sar) in Joshua 5:14. However, the same title is also used of Raphael (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:4), a slightly later text,92 and Michael\u2019s military functions are not unique to him, being shared by other archangels (1QM 9.15\u201316; 1 Enoch 20:5; 40; 54; 71:8\u20139, 13; 3 Baruch 4:7; Apocalypse of Moses 40; Sibylline Oracles 2:214\u201337).93
\nA deified figure distinct from Michael does appear in Second Temple literature:<\/p>\n
And it came to pass when I heard the voice pronouncing such words to me that I looked this way and that. And behold there was no breath in me, and my spirit was amazed, and my soul fled from me. And I became like a stone, and fell down upon the earth, for there was no longer strength in me to stand up on the earth. And while I was still face down on the ground, I heard the voice of the Holy One speaking, \u201cGo, Ya\u2019el of the same name, through the mediation of my ineffable Name, consecrate this man and strengthen him against his trembling.\u201d The angel he sent to me in the likeness of a man came, and he took me by my right hand and stood me on my feet. And he said to me, \u201cStand up Abraham, friend of God who has loved you, let human trembling not enfold you! For lo! I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you. Be bold and hasten to him. I am Ya\u2019el.\u2026 Stand up, Abraham! Go boldly, be very joyful and rejoice. And I (am) with you, for a venerable honor has been prepared for you by the Eternal One. Go, complete the sacrifice of the command. Behold, I am assigned (to be) with you and with the generation which is predestined (to be born) from you, And with me Michael blesses you for ever. Be bold, go!\u201d (Apocalypse of Abraham 10:1\u20137, 15\u201317)94<\/p>\n
The passage is noteworthy since the angel in view bears the name of God, Ya\u2019el (\u201cYah is El\u201d), he appears as a man, and is explicitly distinguished from Michael (Apocalypse of Abraham 10:17).95 Not only does this angel bear the divine name, but readers learn later in the same work that Ya\u2019el is the God of Israel. In the Apocalypse of Abraham 17:4\u201313, Abraham is commanded to worship God \u201con the place of highness\u201d by reciting a song listing God\u2019s names (17:4). Abraham obeys with these words:<\/p>\n
Eternal One, Mighty One, Holy El, God autocrat self-originated, incorruptible, immaculate, unbegotten, spotless, immortal, self-perfected, self-devised, without father, without mother, ungenerated, exalted, fiery, just, lover of men, benevolent, compassionate, bountiful, jealous over me, patient one, most merciful. Eli, eternal, mighty one, holy, Sabaoth, most glorious El, El, El, El, Ya\u2019el! (17:8\u201313)<\/p>\n
The point to be made is that the litany of names proclaimed to God includes Ya\u2019el. The co-identification of this angel with God himself is echoed in the Life of Adam and Eve. God is once again addressed as Ya\u2019el:96<\/p>\n
When the Lord had said these things, he ordered us cast out of paradise. And your father (Adam) wept before the angels opposite Paradise, and the angels said to him, \u201cWhat do you want us to do for you, Adam?\u201d Your father answered and said to the angels, \u201cSee you are casting me out; I beg you, let me take fragrances from Paradise, so that after I have gone out, I might bring an offering to God so that God will hear me.\u201d And they (the angels) came to God and said, \u201cYa\u2019el, eternal king, command that fragrant incenses from Paradise be given to Adam.\u201d And God ordered Adam go come that he might take aromatic fragrances out of Paradise for his sustenance. When the angels allowed him, he gathered four kinds: crocus, nard, reed, cinnamon; and other seeds for his food. And he took these and went out of Paradise. And so we came to be on the earth. (Life of Adam and Eve 29:1\u20136)<\/p>\n
It should be apparent that Second Temple angelology bears a strong resemblance to the Old Testament theology of the heavenly host. As we\u2019ll see, and as many readers have no doubt discerned, Second Temple thoughts about angels also have clear connections to the New Testament.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n
The Heavenly Host in the New Testament<\/p>\n
Our examination of vocabulary to this point has revealed a good deal of continuity. Members of the heavenly host are referred to in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature in much the same way, though some of the vocabulary of the former is not repeated in the latter. There were also innovations in angelology during the Second Temple period along with quite a bit of speculation. The New Testament shows marked differences with respect to both the Old Testament and Second Temple literature. New Testament angelology is rooted in the Old Testament but has much less variety in its vocabulary for the heavenly host. It also shows little interest in innovation and speculation of Second Temple Jewish literature.1<\/p>\n
NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY FOR THE HEAVENLY HOST<\/p>\n
The vocabulary choices of New Testament authors can be easily misunderstood. For example, the plural of theos (\u201cgod,\u201d \u201cgods\u201d) is found in the New Testament only eight times. It would be incoherent to see this as a rejection of Old Testament thinking about the supernatural. Rather, the limited usage is pragmatic. New Testament writers use divine plurality language when needed, such as in citation of an Old Testament passage, a reference to pagan (gentile) idols, or some point of gentile religion. It is quite evident that Paul, for instance, considered the gods of the Old Testament to be actual, sinister entities. In 1 Corinthians 8:1\u20136 Paul tells the Corinthians that there were indeed other gods (theoi) and lords (kurioi) worshipped by people instead of Yahweh and Jesus, entities that Paul, following the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:17, considered demons (1 Cor 10:21\u201322).2 Paul feared the Corinthians would be \u201cparticipants with demons\u201d if they ate the sacrificial meat (1 Cor 10:20).3
\nThe same caution about drawing erroneous conclusions in regard to New Testament vocabulary is appropriate given the virtual absence of other terms found in the Old Testament or Second Temple Jewish thought. The New Testament uses \u201choly ones\u201d only once of celestial, non-human beings (Jude 14), and that instance is drawing on material from a pseudepigraphical book (1 Enoch 1:9). This infrequency of usage would not lead us to the conclusion that New Testament writers didn\u2019t think the members of the heavenly host were holy or that God\u2019s presence was void of other heavenly beings. New Testament references to \u201csons of God\u201d or \u201cchildren of God\u201d refer to human believers (glorified or not).4 We would be quite wrong if we concluded that New Testament writers thought that angels were not created by God (as spirit \u201cchildren\u201d) or that they thought there was something theologically amiss about the phrase \u201csons of God.\u201d5 New Testament writers had their own focus points. There was no need to rehearse Old Testament angelology in their writings.
\nOntological language (e.g., \u201cspirits\u201d) is frequently employed and qualified with adjectives (\u201cevil spirits\u201d) to describe demons, a term that is itself ontological. \u201cDemon\u201d is actually a transliteration of the Greek daim\u014dn (or the related daimonion), which in classical Greek literature describes any supernatural being without regard to its disposition (good or evil). A daim\u014dn can be a god or goddess, a lesser supernatural being, or even the disembodied spirit of a human.6 Consequently, daim\u014dn is semantically akin to Hebrew \u02beel\u00f4h\u0131\u0302m.7 Gospel writers use daim\u014dn in combination with descriptive phrases like \u201cevil\/unclean spirits,\u201d8 and so daim\u014dn\/daimonion in the New Testament nearly always point to a disembodied entity hostile to God.9 These supernatural fallen spirits are also cast as fallen or wandering \u201cstars\u201d (Matt 24:29 [cf. Isa 34:4]; Mark 13:25; Jude 13).
\nOutside the Gospels, particularly in the writings of Paul, vocabulary for the powers of darkness is characteristically described with functional or role terminology. Most of Paul\u2019s terms for the powers of darkness describe geographical rulership. The word choices make good sense given the content of Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139 and Psalm 82, which explain the origin (and corruption) of the fallen sons of God assigned to the nations by Yahweh:<\/p>\n
[Paul] understood and presumed the Deuteronomy 32 worldview: \u201crulers\u201d (archont\u014dn or arch\u014dn); \u201cprincipalities\u201d (arch\u0113); \u201cpowers\u201d\/\u201cauthorities\u201d (exousia); \u201cpowers\u201d (dynamis); \u201cdominions\u201d\/\u201clords\u201d (kyrios); \u201cthrones\u201d (thronos); \u201cworld rulers\u201d (kosmokrat\u014dr). These lemmas have something in common\u2014they were used both in the New Testament and other Greek literature to denote geographical domain authority. At times these terms are used of humans, but several instances demonstrate that Paul had spiritual beings in mind.10<\/p>\n
With respect to the faithful members of the heavenly host, the vocabulary of the New Testament is more functional than ontological. Ontological vocabulary is occasionally used to describe God\u2019s servants. They are occasionally described as \u201cspirits\u201d (Heb 1:14; Rev 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6),11 \u201cheavenly ones\u201d (epouranioi; 1 Cor 15:48), \u201cglorious ones\u201d (doksai; 2 Pet 2:10; Jude 8); \u201clights\u201d (ph\u014dt\u014dn; Jas 1:17); \u201choly ones\u201d (hagiais; Jude 14); and (possibly) \u201cstars.\u201d12 New Testament writers seldom qualify the term \u201cangel\u201d with \u201choly\u201d (Mark 8:38 [cf. Luke 9:26]; Acts 10:22; Rev 14:10). However, angels are associated with heaven (Matt 22:30; 24:36; Mark 12:25; 13:32; Luke 2:13, 15; Heb 12:22; Rev 10:1; 14:17; 18:1; 20:1).
\nThe functional word \u201cangel\u201d (angelos) is by far the principal New Testament moniker for celestial beings in service to God. The label\u2014effectively a job description (\u201cmessenger\u201d)\u2014communicates assistance from heaven. Only 4 of the 175 occurrences of angelos point to fallen divine beings.13 For New Testament authors, angelos is a catchall term for the supernatural agents who faithfully attend God. The varied vocabulary of the Old Testament and Second Jewish literature is therefore largely conflated into angelos.
\nIn accord with the Old Testament, the New Testament names only two angels, Michael (Jude 9; Rev 12:7) and Gabriel (Luke 1:19, 26). There is therefore far less interest in specific angels than found in Second Temple literature. Unlike the Old Testament\u2019s emphasis on the angel of Yahweh, and the space devoted to angelic \u201csecond Yahweh\u201d figures (Melchizedek, the Prince of Light, the heavenly man, Yahoel) in Second Temple literature, the New Testament\u2019s focus is on Christ.14 For New Testament writers, the second power became incarnate in Jesus Christ.15
\nThe obvious exception to New Testament indifference toward exalted angels is the scant attention paid to archangels. The term archangelos is found only twice. The instance in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 makes reference to the role of at least one archangel in the proclamation of the return of Christ. No specific archangel is mentioned.
\nMichael receives the title once in Jude 9, where the archangel \u201ccontends\u201d with the devil about the body of Moses. This puzzling passage is most often thought to hearken back to passages such as Zechariah 3, where has\u015b\u0101\u1e6d\u0101n (the \u201cadversary\u201d) accuses Joshua the high priest. Bauckham\u2019s thoughts are representative: \u201cThe devil in his ancient role as accuser tried to establish Moses\u2019 guilt, in order to prove him unworthy of honorable burial and to claim the body for himself.\u201d16 Bauckham\u2019s discussion of Jude 9 (especially pp. 65\u201376) has much to commend it, especially its assemblage of Second Temple literature that might contribute to the strange episode, but it is ultimately untenable because associating Zechariah 3 with the devil depends on violating Hebrew grammar.17
\nThere is another possible point of reference for the content of Jude 9 that potentially redeems Bauckham\u2019s conclusion. According to Deuteronomy 34:6, God buried Moses \u201cin the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-Peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day.\u201d The location has significance for Israelite cosmology and religion. This location is part of the geographical area that includes Oboth and Abarim (Num 21:10\u201311; 33:43\u201348). Mount Nebo, the mountain atop which Moses viewed the promised land before God laid him to rest (Deut 34:1), is in fact explicitly linked to Abarim in Deuteronomy 32:49. These locations were associated with the underworld and ancient cults of the dead. Consequently, the \u201cvalley\u201d mentioned in Deuteronomy 34:6 may well be the valley of the \u02bf\u014db\u0115r\u00eem mentioned in Ezekiel 39:11. Spronk discusses the place names:<\/p>\n
The participle Qal plural \u02bf\u014db\u0115r\u00eem of the verb \u02bfbr, \u2018to pass from one side to the other\u2019 seems to have a special meaning in the context of the cult of the dead, denoting the spirits of the dead crossing the border between the land of the living and the world of the dead. It can be interpreted as a divine name in Ezek 39:11, 14, which may have also been preserved in the geographical name Abarim (Num 21:10\u201311; 27:12; 33:44, 47\u201348; Deut 32:49; and Jer 22:20). Its Ugaritic cognate, then, would be \u02bfbrm in KTU2 1.22 i:15.
\nIn the Ugaritic text KTU2 1.22 describing a necromantic session, the king invokes the spirits of the dead (Rephaim) and celebrates a feast, probably the New Year Festival, with them. It is told that they came over traveling by horse-drawn chariots. As they are taking part in the meal served for them they are explicitly called \u2018those who came over\u2019.
\nThe valley of the \u02bf\u014db\u0115r\u00eem is located \u2018east of the sea\u2019 (v 11), which is probably the Dead Sea. So it was part of Transjordan. This is a region which shows many traces of ancient cults of the dead, such as the megalithic monuments called dolmens and place names referring to the dead and the netherworld, viz. Obot, Peor, and Abarim.18<\/p>\n
In view of this data, it seems reasonable to conclude that Moses would have been buried in the place associated with the realm of the dead. It is in turn quite understandable if a Second Temple Jewish tradition arose about the body of Moses\u2014arguably the central figure in Israelite history\u2014being contested by the lord of the dead, Satan, by the time of that period. Michael was Israel\u2019s prince, the guardian of Yahweh\u2019s portion according to Daniel 10 and 12, so he would be the logical candidate to claim the body of Moses for the eschatological land of promise, or the domain of Yahweh in the afterlife.
\nNew Testament writers utilize other functional terms, some of which, as noted earlier, also describe fallen supernatural beings. Paul referred to the supernatural beings appointed by God over the nations (Deut 32:8) as \u201crulers,\u201d \u201cthrones,\u201d \u201cdominions,\u201d and \u201cauthorities\u201d hostile to God (Col 2:15; Eph 1:21).19 He also used these terms more neutrally. In Colossians 1:16, God is credited with creating all things \u201cin heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.\u201d The verse\u2019s use of these terms to refer to spiritual, disembodied (\u201cinvisible\u201d) beings as they were created informs us that they were intended by God to be overseers and administrators on his behalf. In Ephesians 3:10 we cannot presume that only the fallen rulers and authorities learned the fullness of the wisdom of God\u2019s salvation plan.20 The spiritual authority (kuriot\u0113s) of 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude 8 (\u201creject authority and blaspheme the glorious ones\u201d) is arguably God, though, as discussed below, it could refer to the heavenly council with God (Luke 12:8\u20139). If the latter option is coherent, the spiritual authorities referred to are obviously loyal members of the heavenly host.<\/p>\n
NEW TESTAMENT ANGELOLOGY: Nature, Abilities, Status<\/p>\n
The nature and abilities of God\u2019s loyal heavenly host extend from, the ontological language we noted above. Angels are disembodied supernatural spirits. Hebrews 1:7 quotes Psalm 104:4 in this regard, characterizing angels as \u201cwinds\u201d and \u201cflames of fire.\u201d21 Whereas the psalmist utilized the term r\u00fb\u1e25\u00f4t, which often speaks of a supernatural entity, so the writer of Hebrews employs pneumata, which is often used in the same way (Acts 23:8; 1 Cor 3:16; Heb 12:9). Seven verses later (Heb 1:14) the writer refers to these entities as \u201cministering spirits\u201d (pneumata).
\nAs disembodied beings, angels have no need of physical procreation (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25), though they can assume physical form and appear as men (Acts 12:7, 13\u201314).22 Their disembodied spiritual nature is apparently what makes them \u201cgreater in might and power\u201d than humans (2 Pet 2:11).23 That a spirit existence was considered superior to embodiment is indicated by certain statements about the incarnation of the Second Person of the Godhead as Jesus of Nazareth. Philippians 2:5\u20138 describes the incarnation as an act of humility and condescension. The writer of Hebrews informs us that the incarnation resulted in the son of God being made \u201ca little lower than the angels\u201d (Heb 2:7).24 This secondary status was temporary. After his resurrection and subsequent ascension, Christ became \u201cas much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs\u201d (Heb 1:4), with \u201cangels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him\u201d (1 Pet 3:22).
\nDespite having this exceptional nature, angels do not know everything; they are not omniscient. They do not know at what time Jesus will return (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32) and didn\u2019t know precisely how God\u2019s salvation plan would work out (1 Pet 1:10\u201312).
\nAs was the case in the Old Testament, angels are not considered infallible. Paul\u2019s comments in 1 Corinthians 11:10 indicate that Paul feared angels could be tempted. In discussing why women should have their head covered and the fact that a woman\u2019s hair was given to her as a \u201ccovering,\u201d Paul advises that women should heed his words \u201cbecause of the angels.\u201d Recent scholarship has shown that in the Greco-Roman worldview, of which Corinth was obviously a part, Paul\u2019s discussion of these items is inherently sexual in nature, ultimately having to do with conceiving children.25
\nAs Stuckenbruck has observed, the sexual nature of Paul\u2019s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2\u201316 is an echo of the sin of the watchers in 1 Enoch, the well-known Second Temple Jewish retelling of the violation of the cosmic order in Genesis 6:1\u20134.26 Stuckenbruck has analyzed and critiqued the three primary scholarly proposals for understanding 1 Corinthians 11:2\u201316 in considerable detail. After demonstrating the deficiencies of these approaches, Stuckenbruck marshals a number of primary sources in his defense of a connection between the passage and Genesis 6:1\u20134 and 1 Enoch\u2019s watcher story. He writes:<\/p>\n
Although the wearing of head coverings among men in antiquity was not uncommon, the practice among women carried with it strong sexual connotations. Apparel was, of course, one way of marking the differences\u2014or, better, boundaries\u2014between the sexes, that is, to keep gender categories distinct.\u2026 The notion in Graeco-Roman antiquity of female vulnerability and inferiority, assumed in many Jewish sources, and the attendant practice of prophylactic head covering fit well with the early Jewish mythological interpretations of Gen 6:1\u20134. With regard to this, NT scholars have customarily focused on the essentially evil character of the angels who \u201cfell\u201d because they were attracted by the beauty of the \u201chuman daughters.\u201d This would be much in line with the Book of Watchers of 1 Enoch (see chapters 7\u20138) and the Book of Giants.\u2026 [Paul\u2019s] reasons for commending head coverings are unable to break away from the deep-seated assumption that women constitute the locus where boundaries between different parts of the cosmos are most likely to be violated.\u2026 Paul\u2019s reference to the angels betrays a subtle warning that more than just social relationships between men and women are at stake; ultimately, wearing veils is a matter of maintaining the cosmic order. The head coverings are prophylactic in the sense that they protect this order by helping to draw boundaries between distinct, yet sometimes socially overlapping, spheres more clearly. These boundaries, which have structured the universe since creation, are to be respected.\u2026 The head coverings also function to keep women distinct from the angels who, for the sake of this argument, are considered an essentially different order of creation.27<\/p>\n
What this means for our purposes is that Paul was worried that angels could fall again. The incident in Genesis 6:1\u20134 was considered by Second Temple Jewish writers to be the main catalyst to human depravity, and so Paul\u2019s concern would be understandable.28
\nAs fallible beings it is no surprise that angels were not the agents of salvation (Heb 1:4\u20135). Rather, angels are cast as curious observers of God\u2019s plan of salvation, not privy to all its details:<\/p>\n
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1 Pet 1:10\u201312)<\/p>\n
The passage reminds us that a divine nature does not translate to omniscience. Like humans, angels are imagers of God and therefore share his attributes, but neither possess them fully or have God\u2019s perfect nature.29 We can clearly discern that angels are intelligent beings, both in their obedient service and self-willed rebellion. They are also emotional beings, as they \u201crejoice when sinners believe\u201d (Luke 15:10; Heb 12:22).
\nLoyal angels are aware of their lesser status in this regard, and so they refuse the worship of humans in the New Testament:<\/p>\n
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, \u201cYou must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.\u201d For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Rev 19:10)<\/p>\n
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, \u201cYou must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.\u201d (Rev 22:8\u20139)<\/p>\n
Scholars have noted that this New Testament idea is not unique:<\/p>\n
In addition to the passages in Revelation, the motif of an angel refusing worship by a seer in a visionary encounter is preserved in the Second Temple period, in a number of Jewish, Jewish-Christian, and Christian writings. These are presently listed (with the names of the angelic figures in parentheses):<\/p>\n
Tobit 12:16\u201322 (Raphael)
\nApocalypse of Zephaniah 6:11\u201315 (Eremiel)
\nAscension of Isaiah 7:2 (a glorious angel); 7:18\u201323 (one seated on a throne?): 8:1\u201310, 15
\n2 Enoch 1:4\u20138 (two huge men)
\n3 Enoch 1:7 (princes of the chariot); 16:1\u20135 (Metatron)
\nCairo Genizah fragment \u201cT.-S. K21.95.C\u201d (Zehobadyah\/youth\/Metatron)30
\nApocryphal Gospel of Matthew 3:3 (an angel of God)31<\/p>\n
Not only do angels refuse worship, but in concert with the greatest commandment (Exod 20:3), humans are not to worship them. Their divine status does not entitle them to worship due only to the Most High God. Paul encountered some sort of angelic worship at Colossae and addressed it in Colossians 2:18\u201323:<\/p>\n
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations\u2014\u201cDo not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch\u201d (referring to things that all perish as they are used)\u2014according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.<\/p>\n
The phrase translated \u201cworship of angels\u201d (thr\u0113skeia t\u014dn angel\u014dn) has generated some disagreement among scholars. Does the phrase describe worship given to angels (i.e., they are the object) or participation with angels in their worship? One scholar summarizes the options this way:<\/p>\n
The phrase has normally been taken (with the genitive being regarded as objective) to denote \u201cthe worship directed to the angels.\u2026 This statement concerning angel-worship seems to go beyond speculation about angels present in the Jewish schools and denotes an actual cult of angels. The principalities and powers might have been in view but Paul here refers to angels as a class.\u2026 There is little evidence for the worship of angels among the Jews.\u2026 [A]nd so it is argued that the expression is evidence of the syncretistic character of the \u201cphilosophy\u201d at Colossae. It was Jewish mixed with pagan elements. The angels determined the course of the cosmos and with it man\u2019s circumstances. Men submitted to the angels in the cult by performing the prescribed acts and by fulfilling the regulations laid down.\u2026
\nFrancis, on the other hand, has argued that the phrase (taking the genitive as subjective) denotes \u201cthe worship which the angels perform.\u201d Using a wide range of sources representing what he terms ascetic-mystic piety Francis drew attention to the many descriptions of angelic worship.\u2026 Participation in the angelic worship is detailed in several sources: so Isaiah participates in the worship of the fifth, sixth and seventh heavens (Asc Isa 7:37; 8:17; 9:28, 31, 33), while the daughters of Job praise and glorify God in an angelic tongue (Test Job 48\u201350). Frequently the Qumran literature refers to the members of the community as priests who offered sacrifice (= the Qumran way of life) not only before Yahweh but also in communion with the angels (cf. 1QSb 4:25, 26; 1QH 3:20\u201322).\u2026 Accordingly, the false teachers claimed to have joined in the angelic worship of God as they entered into the heavenly realm and prepared to receive visions of divine mysteries.32<\/p>\n
No matter the alternative, Paul\u2019s warning is comprehensible. Angels are neither the correct object of worship, nor is the worship of God defined by religious performance. Paul was clear that spiritual worship was about the heart\u2014sacrificially presenting one\u2019s life to Christ, not being conformed to the world, but being transformed by a renewed mind or heart (Rom 12:1\u20132).
\nAngels will actually be in a subservient status to glorified believers in the eschaton. The writer of Hebrews notes, \u201cit was not to angels that God subjected the world to come,\u201d a thought that is to be framed by Paul\u2019s exhortation declaring that believers will \u201cjudge angels\u201d (1 Cor 6:3). Paul is referencing the fact that the fallen spiritual beings who presently rule the nations will be replaced by believers.33 The point is made twice in the book of Revelation:<\/p>\n
The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. And I will give him the morning star. (Rev 2:26\u201328)<\/p>\n
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (Rev 3:20\u201321)<\/p>\n
The point of these passages is that we share the rule of the nations with Christ as his family members. Numbers 24:17 says, \u201ca star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter will rise out of Israel.\u201d That text was considered messianic in Second Temple Judaism. While its royal nature is obvious (\u201ca scepter will rise\u201d) we need to remember that divine beings are referred to as stars (Job 38:7).
\nThe morning star language in Revelation makes complete sense in conveying the rule of a divine messiah. The idea is even more explicit in Revelation 22:16: \u201cI am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star\u201d (Rev 22:16). Incredibly, John has Jesus refer to his followers the same way in Revelation 2:28: \u201cI will give him [who overcomes] the morning star.\u201d Believers have the authority to rule with Christ.<\/p>\n
NEW TESTAMENT ANGELOLOGY: Service in Heaven and on Earth<\/p>\n
As noted earlier, the term \u201cangel\u201d (angelos; \u201cmessenger\u201d) is nearly always reserved for God\u2019s loyal emissaries in the New Testament. The objects of their service are both God and human believers. Angels serve God in heaven in roles of praise, council judgment, and enacting God\u2019s decrees. On earth they assist believers (and, perhaps less obviously, Jesus), a role that takes various forms, and are God\u2019s agents of judgment upon unbelievers.
\nScenes of angelic interaction with people are likely more familiar to us. Consequently, we\u2019ll begin with a human focus for angelic service.<\/p>\n
1. Ministry on Behalf of Believers<\/p>\n
Descriptions of angelic activity on earth are more numerous in the New Testament than scenes of heavenly service. An earthly focus occupies roughly three-quarters of the approximately 180 references to angels in the New Testament. This frequency should not be surprising, as it is God\u2019s will that his heavenly agents serve his human family.
\nInstead of being objects of worship or adoration, angels are cast in the New Testament as \u201cministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation\u201d (Heb 1:14). Angels are portrayed rendering their service in a variety of ways. They delivered apostles from prison (Acts 5:18\u201321; 12:7\u201311). One comforted Paul when his life was threatened (Acts 27:23). Angels brought messages to people in dreams (Joseph: Matt 1:20\u201324; 2:13, 19) and visions (Mary, the mother of Jesus: Luke 1:26\u201338; Zechariah: Luke 1:8\u201323; Cornelius: Acts 10:3\u20137, 22 [cf. Acts 11:13]; Mary Magdalene and \u201cthe other Mary\u201d at the empty tomb: Matt 28:1\u20137 [cf. Luke 24:23]; John 20:12\u201313; cf. 1 Tim 3:16). Angels appeared in the heavens to the shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:9, 10).
\nAngels could also encounter humans physically. An angel struck Peter on the side to awaken him in prison and supernaturally freed him from his shackles (Acts 12:7). The apostle nevertheless presumed he was experiencing a vision until he found himself outside the jail alone on the street (Acts 12:7\u201311). The circumstance of an angel of the Lord appearing to Philip (Acts 8:26) is not qualified as a vision, and so a physical appearance is a possible reading of that encounter. Angels ministered to Jesus after he resisted the devil in the wilderness (Matt 4:11; Mark 1:13). An angel rolled back the stone covering the tomb of Jesus and subsequently used it for a seat (Matt 28:2).
\nThese instances are all consistent with portrayals of angels in the Old Testament. It is not surprising, in view of this earlier revelation, that the New Testament has Jewish characters expressing the belief that angels could appear and speak to people (John 12:29; Acts 23:9). As the writer of Hebrews notes, an angel\u2019s true identity in such an encounter could be completely imperceptible: \u201cDo not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares\u201d (Heb 13:2). The implication is that angels could not be distinguished from ordinary men. The writer is apparently thinking of Old Testament episodes such as Genesis 18\u201319.34 However, explicit references to angels as men are rare in the New Testament (Luke 24:4 [cf. John 20:12]); Acts 1:10; 10:30), and when they do occur, the \u201cmen\u201d wear dazzling, luminous robes, suggesting they were extraordinary.35
\nOne of the more pronounced ministries to people in which angels engage is that of interpreting visions or divine decrees. We saw earlier that this thematic portrayal (the \u201cinterpreting angel\u201d motif) occurred in Old Testament apocalyptic literature.36 The same is true of apocalyptic literature in the New Testament, particularly the book of Revelation, where angels regularly interpret the visions seen by John (1:1; 4:1; 10:7\u201310; 17:1, 17; 21:9, 10; 22:1, 6, 8). As one specialist of this motif notes:<\/p>\n
The book of Revelation is the archetype of the apocalyptic genre, and as such it largely conforms to the norms of the type. It presents itself as a revelation (\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b7, apokalyps\u0113) given through the mediation of heavenly beings.37<\/p>\n
Angels are also described in an advocacy role, popularly referred to as \u201cguardian angels.\u201d38 Earlier we saw that the Old Testament referred to holy ones as \u201cmediators,\u201d a role that involved explaining divine decisions and functioning as witness on behalf of the innocent in their suffering. The New Testament contains hints of this same idea, though it is clear that believers no longer need an advocate mediator, because Jesus himself now intercedes for us before God (1 Tim 2:5).
\nMatthew 18:10 reads, \u201cSee that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.\u201d This statement of course precedes the high priestly work of Christ and draws on Old Testament concepts of angelic mediation. Barrett notes, \u201cJudaism believed in protecting and guiding angels.\u201d39 Pseudo-Philo (Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 59.4) and the Testament of Jacob (1:10) draw on Psalm 91:11\u201312 (cf. Luke 4:10) to express the guardianship of angels. In the book of Tobit, when Tobit and his wife send their son on a journey, he tells her:<\/p>\n
Do not worry; our child will leave in good health and return to us in good health. Your eyes will see him on the day when he returns to you in good health. Say no more! Do not fear for them, my sister. For a good angel will accompany him; his journey will be successful, and he will come back in good health. (Tobit 5:21\u201322 NRSV)<\/p>\n
Acts 12 apparently has some aspect of angelic oversight in view. After an angel freed Peter from prison, Peter went \u201cto the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying\u201d (Acts 12:12). A servant girl named Rhoda responded to his knock recognized his voice but, in her excitement at hearing Peter, ran to tell those gathered instead of letting him inside. Despite their prayers, they didn\u2019t believe her report, replying, \u201cIt is his angel!\u201d Peter kept knocking and was finally welcome (12:15\u201316). The believers gathered that night believed that Peter had a personal angel.
\nThe idea of guardian angels apparently includes protection, as angels did rescue people, but angelic \u201coversight\u201d in the human sphere also includes keeping track of evil perpetrated on the innocent for later judgment or a record of those who will inherit eternal life. Recall that the \u201cbooks in heaven\u201d concept was associated with the divine council in the ancient Near East. Jesus says specifically of believers in Revelation 3:5 that \u201cI will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.\u201d The reference to angels speaks of both \u201ccouncil validation\u201d of those who belong to Christ (see below), but also of angelic witness to such a verdict. Elsewhere in the book of Revelation, this \u201cconfession\u201d (or rejection) has to do with the \u201cbook of life\u201d (Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). In Luke 10:20 Jesus told the seventy disciples, \u201cdo not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.\u201d Other believers are recorded in the \u201cbook of life\u201d (Phil 4:3). This may be the context for a verse like Luke 16:22, where, upon death, the poor man was carried by angels to the afterlife comfort of \u201cAbraham\u2019s side.\u201d Given that some of these passages in Revelation are naturally associated with the apocalyptic eschaton, it is relevant to note that angels are also tasked with gathering the elect\u2014those found in the book of life\u2014at such time (Matt 13:39; 24:31; Mark 13:27).<\/p>\n
2. Judgment of Unbelievers<\/p>\n
That the New Testament portrays angels as agents of divine judgment should be no surprise. As we have seen, both the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism describe God as having angel armies to punish the wicked. We saw that most of these portrayals were eschatological, but not all. This is true of the New Testament as well. The only exception is the judgment of Herod, whose ignominious end is described in Acts 12:21\u201323:<\/p>\n
On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, \u201cThe voice of a god, and not of a man!\u201d Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.<\/p>\n
As implied above, the New Testament motif of angelic judgment is nearly always apocalyptic, situated at the time of the end of days, in concert with the day of the Lord or \u201cday of Christ\u201d at his second coming. For example, Jesus told the assembled crowd a parable about weeds in a wheat field (Matt 13:24\u201330) and then explained its meaning (Matt 13:36\u201343):<\/p>\n
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, \u201cExplain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.\u201d He answered, \u201cThe one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.<\/p>\n
The parable of the net set forth the same point. Part of Jesus\u2019 explanation was, \u201cThe angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace\u201d (Matt 13:49b\u201350a). Angels function in the role of destroyers as part of this frightful apocalyptic vision, assaulting the earth and the wicked with plagues, war, famine, disease, and cosmic upheaval at the time of the end (Rev 7:1\u20132; 8:5\u201313; 9:1, 13\u201315; 10:1, 5, 7; 15:1, 6, 7, 8; 16:1, 5; 17:1; 18:1, 21). Amid the judgment angels at times warn the inhabitants of earth and encourage the righteous to endure (Rev 14:6\u201310).
\nThe reverse situation\u2014gathering the elect\u2014is described in Matthew 13:27. Jesus taught that, at the time of the end, God \u201cwill send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.\u201d The synoptic parallel to this passage in Matthew 24:31 adds an element: \u201cAnd he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.\u201d Here the angels gather the elect in conjunction with a loud trumpet call. This description links the motif of angels gathering the elect with other passages dealing with the return of the Lord (1 Thess 4:16\u201318; cf. 1 Cor 15:52).
\nCasting a wider net beyond the angelic role of gathering the elect reveals that angels are more generally described as accompanying the Lord at his return: \u201cFor the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father\u201d (Matt 16:27; cf. Matt 25:31; 26:53; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 2 Thess 1:7). In certain instances the entourage is overtly militaristic; Jesus returns with an angelic army (Matt 26:53; Rev 19:11\u201316). The portrayal by design draws the attention of the reader to Yahweh\u2019s angelic host accompanying him at the day of the Lord (Zech 14:5).<\/p>\n
3. Service in Heaven<\/p>\n
Though it seems obvious that angels would be engaged in praising God, specific references to that effect are not common in the New Testament. Earlier we noted the instance in Luke 2:13, where \u201ca multitude of the heavenly host\u201d praised God at the announcement of the birth of messianic child. Angelic worship is noted in passing in Revelation 4\u20135, a scene which many readers presume is focused on angelic worship of the Lamb. In reality, it is the twenty-four elders, the four living creatures, and glorified human worshippers who fall down before the Lamb.40 Only in Revelation 5:11\u201312 (cf. Rev 7:11) do angels enter the picture\u2014and then in a great multitude:<\/p>\n
Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice,<\/p>\n
\u201cWorthy is the Lamb who was slain,
\nto receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
\nand honor and glory and blessing!\u201d<\/p>\n
Angels have other responsibilities in heaven besides praising God. The term \u201carchangel\u201d suggests hierarchical rule. That is, certain angels have oversight over other angels. But the two references to archangels we noted earlier (1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9) do not reveal much about that oversight.
\nMore interesting are those passages that cast angels as approving divine decisions, a role akin to the divine council scenes of the Old Testament. Revelation 4\u20135 is commonly accepted by scholars as a divine council scene. As Aune notes:<\/p>\n
The focus of the throne vision is God enthroned in his heavenly court surrounded by a variety of angelic beings or lesser deities (angels, archangels, seraphim, cherubim) who function as courtiers. All such descriptions of God enthroned in the midst of his heavenly court are based on the ancient conception of the divine council or assembly found in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Phoenicia as well as in Israel.41<\/p>\n
While we clearly have a meeting in heaven involving God and his host, the role of angels operates on the periphery. One angel asks loudly (Rev 5:2): \u201cWho is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?\u201d and then the multitude joins in the praise (Rev 5:11).
\nOther passages reveal more of what we\u2019ve come to expect as council input. Several stand out:<\/p>\n
The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. (Rev 3:5)<\/p>\n
And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. (Rev 12:8\u20139)<\/p>\n
In both passages Jesus presents believers destined for heaven not only to God, but also to the heavenly host. It is not that Jesus or the believer whose name is in the book of life need an administrative stamp of approval from the divine assembly. Rather, the scene is one of introducing a new family member into their heavenly home. The council validates or enthusiastically endorses those who are in Christ who have endured in faith to the end.<\/p>\n
The most dramatic passage in this regard is Hebrews 2:10\u201315 (LEB):<\/p>\n
For it was fitting for him for whom are all things and through whom are all things in bringing many sons to glory to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings. For both the one who sanctifies and the ones who are sanctified are all from one, for which reason he [Jesus] is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,<\/p>\n
\u201cI will proclaim your name to my brothers;
\nin the midst of the assembly I will sing in praise of you.\u201d
\nAnd again,
\n\u201cI will trust in him.\u201d
\nAnd again,
\n\u201cBehold, I and the children God has given me.\u201d<\/p>\n
Therefore, since the children share in blood and flesh, he also in like manner shared in these same things, in order that through death he could destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and could set free these who through fear of death were subject to slavery throughout all their lives.<\/p>\n
Note that Jesus calls believers his siblings \u201cin the midst of the assembly.\u201d Because of his incarnation, work on the cross, resurrection and ascension, Jesus brings human believers into the divine family, and the supernatural sons of God of the heavenly host rejoice.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7<\/p>\n
Special Topics in New Testament Angelology<\/p>\n
Our survey of terminology for the heavenly host and angelic service provided a starting point for understanding what the New Testament says about angels, but a number of thorny issues in New Testament angelology still require attention.<\/p>\n
WHO ARE THE \u201cANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES\u201d IN REVELATION 1\u20133?<\/p>\n
The book of Revelation is the New Testament\u2019s most well-known example of apocalyptic literature.1 A central element of apocalyptic literature is visions involving angels. Revelation opens with John\u2019s vision of the son of man (Rev 1:9\u201320). The awestruck John describes him with these words:<\/p>\n
The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. (Rev 1:14\u201316)<\/p>\n
The \u201cson of man\u201d in the vision is the risen, glorified Christ: \u201che laid his right hand on me, saying, \u2018Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades\u2019\u200a\u201d (Rev 1:17b\u201318). The \u201cseven stars\u201d in the right hand of Jesus are significant for our discussion. The passage anticipates our question and goes on, \u201cAs for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches\u201d (Rev 1:20).
\nHow are we to understand these angels? Are they supernatural beings? If so, why pair them with churches? Or perhaps they are human beings, since the term angelos simply means \u201cmessenger,\u201d and New Testament writers (Luke 7:24; 9:52) and the Septuagint (Hag 1:13; Mal 1:1; 3:1 [cf. Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2]; Josh 7:22 [cf. Jas 2:25]) employ the word to speak of mere mortals. Aune introduces the controversy this way:<\/p>\n
The term \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 [angelos] \u201cangel, messenger,\u201d occurs seventy-seven times in Revelation in both singular and plural forms. Only eight of these references are problematic, those that refer to \u201cthe angels of the seven churches\u201d (1:20) and the seven occurrences of the singular term \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 as the particular addressee of each of the seven proclamations to the churches (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). Since most of the sixty-nine occurrences of the term \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 [angeloi] refer to benevolent supernatural beings who serve as mediators and messengers between God and his creation, \u2026 Most scholars presume that the eight problematic references must also refer to beneficent supernatural beings.2<\/p>\n
1. Proposed Identifications<\/p>\n
Aune does not presume to have answered the question of identity in this comment. The question is not answered so simply. Several interpretive options have emerged out of the vocabulary and grammar of Revelation 1\u20133. The rationale for each can be succinctly explained.3
\nThe dominant approach to the angel terminology in Revelation 1\u20133 is to view them as supernatural beings. The primary argument for this view is based on Revelation 1:20, which calls the seven angels \u201cthe seven stars.\u201d Star language \u201cis used in various texts (primarily Jewish apocalypses) to refer to heavenly representatives of earthly nations.\u201d4 Beale adds:<\/p>\n
The formal interpretation of the \u201cstars\u201d as \u201cangels\u201d of the churches in v 20b would seem to confirm further the suggestion above that the \u201cstars\u201d are drawn from Dan. 12:3, since Michael is seen as the guardian \u201cangel\u201d of Israel in Dan. 12:1 (cf. Dan. 10:21) and is associated directly with the \u201cstars\u201d of 12:3.\u2026 Indeed, Dan. 12:3 probably likens the heavenly status of resurrected Israelites to that of angels since \u201cstars\u201d in Dan. 8:10 refer to angels, as borne out by 8:11; 7:27; and 8:24.\u2026 1 Enoch 104:2\u20136 develops Daniel 12:3 in this manner by promising believers who endure tribulation that they \u201cwill shine like the lights of heaven \u2026 will have great joy like the angels of heaven \u2026 will become companions of the hosts of heaven.\u201d5<\/p>\n
Some scholars cite the analogy of the sons of God, divine \u201cprinces\u201d allotted to the nations (Deut 32:8; Dan 10:20\u201321; 12:1) in favor of the angels of the churches being heavenly beings. The reasoning goes thus: since \u201cangels\u201d are over nations, they can also be over churches in some supervisory role. The Ascension of Isaiah 3:15\u201316 is especially interesting in this regard. The passage reflects Christian reworking to make the prophet Isaiah refer specifically to the resurrection of Christ: \u201cAnd the descent of the angel of the church which is in the heavens, whom he will summon in the last days; and that the angel of the Holy Spirit and Michael, the chief of the holy angels, will open his grave on the third day.\u201d6
\nThe notable idea for our discussion is that the church (\u201cthe church which is in the heavens\u201d) is corporately represented by an angel. That an angel (Michael) could represent the human family of God in the Old Testament (Dan 12:1) seems to be the touch point for this unidentified angel representing the body of Christ, the church. The analogy is imprecise with regard to individual churches but provides an interpretive trajectory for viewing the angels of the churches as heavenly beings that represent those churches.
\nA second approach is to view the angels of the seven churches in Revelation 1\u20133 as speaking of the human leadership of those churches. The specific title (bishop? elder?) is not provided, of course. In view of this omission, some scholars suggest that the \u201cangels\u201d are generic prophetic figures who preach the message given via John\u2019s apocalypse to the churches.
\nThe main defense of this viewpoint is that angelos is used in both the New Testament and Septuagint for human emissaries.7 Aune points out that some scholars assert that \u201csince the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 [angeloi] of the seven churches are the recipients of letters, it is presupposed that they are on earth, and that they should be understood as humans rather than angels.\u201d8 The weakness of this contention is that angels regularly brought messages to humans on earth\u2014the \u201cangel of a church\u201d need not be \u201cstationed\u201d on earth prior to receiving a message.
\nA third opinion that has gained little traction in scholarship is to view the seven angels as celestial bodies\u2014specifically, the sun, moon, and the five planets visible in naked-eye astronomy (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter). The textual rationale for this equation is in 1 Enoch 18:13\u201316 and 21:1\u20136, which mention seven fallen stars that are actually angels, and 2 Enoch 30:2\u20133, which names the seven stars created by God in accord with the above listing.
\nThis perspective operates on the assumptions that these passages are to be read alongside each other and that the seven stars in the Enochian material are the same seven stars referred to in Revelation 1:20. There seems to be no basis for this textual marriage other than the number seven. Additionally, the seven stars in 1\u20132 Enoch are fallen angels, and there is no indication that the angels of Revelation 1\u20133 are fallen divine beings.
\nIn his defense of this perspective, Wojciechowski cites the same references in 1\u20132 Enoch and notes (correctly) that the Greek term translated \u201cstar\u201d (ast\u0113r) can include planets. He writes, \u201cIt seems therefore probable that the seven stars held by the Son of Man are to be identified with the sun, the moon and the five planets. The whole image represents his full power over the univers [sic].\u201d9 Unfortunately, the connections Wojciechowski tries to make between the astrological thought about these celestial bodies and the descriptions of the churches in Revelation 1\u20133 are strained. This thesis has consequently not garnered much approval.<\/p>\n
2. Features of the Text as Clues to Identification<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the grammar of Revelation 1\u20133 provides the greatest clarity in showing us how to consider the angels of the churches.10
\nIn each of the seven directives given to the churches (\u201cTo the angel of the church of X write\u201d), each church is addressed with second-person singular pronouns. For example, Revelation 2 begins with the directive to the church at Ephesus. The speaker then says, \u201cI know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil\u201d (Rev 2:2, emphasis mine). In each case of the second person (your, you), the pronoun or verb form is grammatically singular. The point is: while the angel of the church is addressed by the directive, the messages are not for the angel. They are instead for the collective church.11
\nThis perspective makes sense; when John was first commanded to write, the intended audience was specifically said to be the seven churches, not the angels (Rev 1:11, \u201cWrite what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches\u201d). As Aune notes:<\/p>\n
The message of each proclamation is clearly said to be spoken by the Spirit \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 [tais ekkl\u0113siais], \u201cto the churches\u201d (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), the addressee of each of the proclamations is the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 [angelos] to which that message is directed (2:1, 7, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).12<\/p>\n
Each directive to each church concludes with the formulaic \u201cHe who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches\u201d indicates clearly that each message was for the congregation. Though each directive is addressed to an angel, its content is for the church.13 The angel of each church is therefore some sort of surrogate. The angels and the churches are not identical, but they are related.
\nGiven the other textual merits of understanding the angels in Revelation 1\u20133 as supernatural beings, it seems best to understand them as members of the heavenly host assigned to the churches in a surrogacy role.14 Angelic mediation of God\u2019s will and word to believers\u2014which involved both praise and admonition, as we saw in the Old Testament\u2014seems to be operative in this relationship.<\/p>\n
CAN \u201cFALLEN ANGELS\u201d BE REDEEMED?<\/p>\n
This question does not receive much attention in scholarship. The reason is, as we shall see, largely because Hebrews 2:14\u201318 seems to make the answer obvious.
\nThe argument for the notion that fallen angels can be redeemed is articulated along two trajectories: (1) language in Revelation 1\u20133 directed toward the angels of the churches that includes calls for repentance, and (2) Colossians 1:19\u201320 (\u201cFor in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross\u201d). We will consider and evaluate both in turn.
\nWe must not overlook the intended audience of the messaging of the risen Christ: the human membership of each respective congregation. It is significant for discussing the first argument for angelic redemption. By way of example, consider the following examples from Revelation 2:<\/p>\n
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: \u201cThe words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.\u2026 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.\u201d (Rev 2:1, 5)<\/p>\n
And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: \u201cThe words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.\u2026 Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.\u201d (Rev 2:8, 10)<\/p>\n
And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: \u201cThe words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.\u2026 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.\u201d (Rev 2:12, 16)<\/p>\n
It is noteworthy that each of these instances contains the same statement that makes it clear that the intended audience of these calls for repentance is the church, not the angel through whom the message is mediated. Each passage ends with the statement, \u201cHe who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches\u201d (Rev 2:7, 11, 17).
\nThe text makes it clear that the risen Christ is speaking to the congregations, composed as they are of human believers. The angel is not the church; the angel is a communicative surrogate for the church. Consequently, the angel is not the target audience for the calls to repent. Moreover, there is no indication that the angel surrogates are fallen and estranged from God. Rather, in concert with the model of Michael, Israel\u2019s patron angel, we have every reason to believe these angels are faithful members of the heavenly host. The language of Revelation 1\u20133 does not support the idea that fallen angels can be redeemed.<\/p>\n
ARE FALLEN ANGELS INCLUDED IN RECONCILING \u201cALL THINGS\u201d?<\/p>\n
While Revelation 1\u20133 does not confirm that fallen angels are offered redemption, Colossians 1:19\u201320 has been utilized to justify that idea:<\/p>\n
For in him [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself (eis auton) all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.<\/p>\n
Most scholars would acknowledge that \u201call things, whether on earth or in heaven,\u201d includes the heavenly host.15 In light of that assumption, the issue that requires consideration is the meaning of \u201creconcile\u201d and \u201cmaking peace\u201d through the cross. Most readers presume that this language refers to the forgiveness of sins, but that is not the case. The idea of reconciliation is multifaceted. For example, the work of Christ is connected to the renewal of creation. That has nothing to do with forgiving sins. Creation did not sin\u2014it committed no moral offense against God. Its \u201creconciliation\u201d (creation is, of course, included in \u201call things\u201d) means something different than forgiveness of sins. O\u2019Brien introduces his discussion of the passage with some salient observations:<\/p>\n
The unusual feature of this passage is that it refers to the reconciliation of \u201call things\u201d (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1; ta panta) and that as a past event. Although 2 Corinthians 5:19 (cf. John 3:16 and similar passages) speaks of the reconciliation of the world (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; kosmos), it is clear that it is the world of men which is in view. Further, it is argued that the freeing of creation from its bondage to decay so that it obtains the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:19\u201321) is a future eschatological event. Three related questions, therefore, arise: (a) What is the meaning of the phrase \u201cto reconcile all things to him\u201d \u2026 (b) What is the relationship of this expression to the words which follow, \u201chaving made peace through the blood of his cross\u201d \u2026 (c) Is it possible or even desirable to equate verse 20 with the notion of God\u2019s leading the evil powers in his triumphal procession at chapter 2:15?16<\/p>\n
Two points are especially crucial for accurate parsing of this question about angelic redemption. First, the reconciliation of which Colossians 1:20 speaks is a past event. Many who presume the passage is about the offer of salvation now being open to angels fail to grasp this point, as it derives from Greek grammar and syntax. One scholar explains:<\/p>\n
Eis auton (to him) here does not indicate the completion of \u201cimminent\u201d reconciliation, and thus does not indicate a futuristic occurrence. The expression, which is construed in the aorist tense, \u201call things are reconciled with him,\u201d is to be interpreted as a parallel construction to the expression in stanza 1 [Col 1:16], \u201call things were created in him,\u201d and its special significance derives from there. It signifies, as the use of the aorist shows, the fulfillment of the corresponding expression in 1:16. Accordingly, reconciliation has its foundation in the creation and is now arriving at its completion in the dominion of the Son over all things.17<\/p>\n
The point is that the statements in Colossians 1:16 (\u201cfor by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible\u201d) must be understood in tandem with Colossians 1:20 (\u201cthrough him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven\u201d). Both statements are in the same paragraph unit, and both verbs are aorist tense, the Greek tense which focuses on completed action\u2014not action in process, or action yet unaccomplished.18 Therefore, the reconciliation of Colossians 1:20 (which still needs to be defined) is rooted in creation, and now, after the cross, it is moving toward its consummation, which itself is expressed as the dominion of the Son over all things.
\nThe link connecting the reconciliation language of Colossians 1:20 (and the original creation order of Col 1:16) to the kingship of the Son derives from Colossians 2:15, as noted above by O\u2019Brien. The basis for its relevance in understanding Colossians 1:20 is that it also references supernatural powers\u2014spirit beings \u201cin heaven\u201d that were created by the Son (Col 1:16) and which now have been reconciled to him through the cross. We will include the wider context here:<\/p>\n
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Col 2:13\u201315)<\/p>\n
Note first that the cross does result in the offer of redemption for humanity. But for supernatural rulers and powers\u2014the supernatural forces arrayed against God due to their rebellion\u2014there is no resulting offer of redemption. Instead, the cross brings their defeat and shame.
\nConnecting Colossians 1:20 with 1:16 and 2:15 shows us that \u201creconciliation\u201d does not mean an offer of forgiveness that is still on the table. It means something else. Like in Colossians 1:16, 20, all the verb forms in Colossians 2:15 are aorist and therefore describe a real condition that is completed. The \u201creconciliation\u201d that is being described in Colossians 1:20 must be defined as an already-completed reality that is consistent with both original creation order and the kingship of the risen Christ.
\nOf the various suggestions made by scholars for understanding the meaning of reconciliation in Colossians 1:20, only one both acknowledges that supernatural beings must be included and remains true to the verse\u2019s relationship to Colossians 1:16; 2:15.19 Eduard Lohse articulates the meaning of reconciliation in concert with these contexts:<\/p>\n
Although there has been no previous mention of it, it is presupposed here that unity and harmony of the cosmos have suffered a considerable disturbance, even a rupture. In order to restore the cosmic order reconciliation became necessary and was accomplished by the Christ-event. Through Christ, God himself achieved this reconciling. The universe has been reconciled in that heaven and earth have been brought back into their divinely created and determined order through the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. Now the universe is again under its head and thereby cosmic peace has returned. This peace which God has established through Christ binds the whole universe together again into unity and underlines that the restored creation is reconciled with God. Contrary to apocalyptic expectations, peace is not something which will come only at the end of time; rather, it has already appeared in all things and the cosmic work of redemption has been done (cf. Phil. 2:10f.). As the one who reconciled the cosmos, Christ has entered his kingly rule. Because he is the mediator of reconciliation, he is therefore also praised as the mediator of creation, as Lord over the universe, over powers and principalities.20<\/p>\n
The point is that reconciling \u201call things, whether on earth or in heaven\u201d in Colossians 1:20 refers to the restoration of creation order and authority. As O\u2019Brien observes:<\/p>\n
Heaven and earth have been returned to their divinely created and determined order and this has occurred through the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The universe is again under its head, and cosmic peace\u2014a peace which according to some apocalyptic expectations would only occur at the end time\u2014has returned.\u2026 The principalities are stripped of their power (cf. 2:14, 15) and the reconciliation of all things has taken place.\u2026 Victory over these powers, presumed to be hostile toward God or Christ, does not mean they are done away with or finally destroyed. It is evident that they continue to exist, inimical to man and his interests (cf. Rom 8:38, 39). Nevertheless they cannot finally harm the person who is in Christ, and their ultimate overthrow in the future is assured (1 Cor 15:24\u201328; see on Col 2:15).21<\/p>\n
In Colossians 1:20, \u201creconciliation\u201d means the return to creation order and the re-installment of Christ to his position of rulership at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55\u201356; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 5:1) after his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. An offer of salvation to angels is not in view. Instead, the aberration of their dominion over the affairs of men is corrected. Their authority is now illegitimate.22 Of course, they will not willingly surrender power, and so that must be\u2014and will be\u2014taken from them. Humans still estranged from God are thus deceived and enslaved by powers unauthorized by the true king. That is the point of the Great Commission\u2014setting captives free.<\/p>\n
ARE ANGELS DENIED REDEMPTION?<\/p>\n
The supremacy of Christ over angels is the central theme in the first two chapters of the book of Hebrews. Hebrews 1:13\u201314 establishes that point: \u201cAnd to which of the angels has he ever said, \u2018Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet\u2019? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?\u201d
\nNote the wording of verse 14 carefully. Angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation. The passage distinguishes angels from those who inherit salvation, suggesting that angels do not.
\nWhy this wording? Why would the writer focus on human beings when it comes to salvation and, apparently, exclude angels? Hebrews 2:5\u201318 answers those questions and in so doing shuts the door on redemption for fallen angels. Consider the first four of those verses (Heb 2:5\u20138a):<\/p>\n
For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere,<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is man, that you are mindful of him,
\nor the son of man, that you care for him?
\nYou made him for a little while lower than the angels;
\nyou have crowned him with glory and honor,
\nputting everything in subjection under his feet.\u201d<\/p>\n
The writer makes reference to the world to come, the new earth described in Revelation 21\u201322. The new earth is cast as a global Eden, the climactic consummation of God\u2019s salvation plan. Eden is restored. Human beings inherit this salvation precisely because the original Eden and the world itself were created for human beings. God\u2019s original plan was to live among his human family on earth. We who were made lesser than the divine beings (Heb 2:6\u20137) were destined to become members of God\u2019s household. At the fall, this goal was derailed. The rest of the Bible is about God\u2019s effort to restore what was lost\u2014to dwell among his people, transforming the earth into his kingdom.
\nThe point is straightforward: the plan of salvation is focused on human beings because human beings were the original object of eternal life in God\u2019s presence on earth. Angels were not the focus, because the fall disrupted an earthly enterprise. God\u2019s human imagers were corrupted, left estranged from God\u2014left unfit to live in God\u2019s presence.23 In the end, it will be human beings who will share authority with Christ in ruling the new earth, not angels. This is why passages in the book of Revelation about the same eschatological outcome focus on human believers, not angels:<\/p>\n
The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. And I will give him the morning star. (Rev 2:26\u201328)24<\/p>\n
The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (Rev 3:21)<\/p>\n
The apostle Paul makes the point emphatic by reminding the Corinthian believers that they would one day judge angels (1 Cor 6:3). Human believers have a higher status in the new earth.
\nThe writer of Hebrews continues describing the hope of the eschaton (Heb 2:8b\u201313):<\/p>\n
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,<\/p>\n
\u201cI will tell of your name to my brothers;
\nin the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.\u201d<\/p>\n
And again,<\/p>\n
\u201cI will put my trust in him.\u201d<\/p>\n
And again,<\/p>\n
\u201cBehold, I and the children God has given me.\u201d<\/p>\n
Who is the \u201ceveryone\u201d in the beginning of this passage? If we care about reading in context, it\u2019s the human beings the writer referred to a few lines ago (\u201cWhat is man \u2026?\u201d). The Greek term translated \u201ceveryone\u201d is pantos. The grammatical form is masculine singular, a reference to the totality of humankind.25
\nIn verse 9 Jesus is compared to these humans, inferior as they are, to angels, because Jesus was human. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation links Jesus to us. Why was the incarnation important? Because atoning for the sins of the world of humankind (John 3:16) required an eternal sacrifice. But eternal beings cannot die, and so God had to become a man. The eternal Son cannot die for sin unless he is human and capable of dying. One cannot have a resurrection that defeats death unless there is first a death. In other words, atonement for sin could not be accomplished without incarnation.
\nDo you see the connection? The Second Person of the Godhead became a man because the object of the atonement was fallen humanity (Luke 19:10; 2 Cor 5:21). Jesus became a human because he needed to save humans. Becoming human was necessary because its ultimate purpose was a death that atoned for humans. Becoming human had no necessary link to angels, who are not human. Christ\u2019s death for sin substituted for our death for sin (Gal 3:13; Rom 4:25).
\nThe necessity of a human sacrificial death means the death of Christ did not have angels, who are not human, as its object. As such, the atoning death is not linked to angelic sins, but to human sins.
\nThe remainder of Hebrews 2 confirms this interpretation:<\/p>\n
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Heb 2:14\u201318)<\/p>\n
A few key lines deserve comment.<\/p>\n
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he [Jesus] partook of the same things. (Heb 2:14a)<\/p>\n
This language establishes the rationale of the incarnation. Jesus became a human because we, the object he intended to redeem, are human.<\/p>\n
\u2026 that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (Heb 2:14b\u201315)<\/p>\n
The obvious point here is that human death had to be overcome. Less obvious is the related thought that the devil also had to be overcome because he had the power of death over humanity. The idea is that, without redemption, Satan\u2019s power over humans\u2014his \u201clegal\u201d ownership of every human, estranged from God in the wake of what happened in Eden\u2014would remain intact. But Scripture nowhere endorses the notion that angelic sin resulted in this sort of bondage to Satan. Humanity is under the curse because of Eden. Angels are nowhere said to be under the curse of Eden\u2014which is what the atoning sacrifice of Jesus targets\u2014nor under any other curses that gives Satan \u201clegal\u201d claim to their lives.<\/p>\n
For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:16\u201317)<\/p>\n
These statements make explicit the answer to our question. The sacrifice of Jesus does not help angels. It helps believers\u2014the children of Abraham by faith (Gal 3:26\u201329). Jesus had to become like his human siblings, lower than angels (Heb 2:9\u201311), to atone for the sins of those siblings.
\nIn summary, the language of Hebrews 2:5\u201318 leaves no doubt that the object of Christ\u2019s redemptive work is humanity, not angels.<\/p>\n
WHO ARE THE \u201cELECT ANGELS\u201d IN 1 TIMOTHY 5:21?<\/p>\n
In Paul\u2019s admonition to Timothy to rebuke unrepentant sinners, the apostle seemingly wants to underscore the importance of his words: \u201cIn the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.\u201d As Mangum observes, the wording is uncommon:<\/p>\n
Paul intensifies his warning in 1 Tim 5:21 by invoking God, Christ Jesus, and \u201celect angels\u201d as witnesses to his exhortation. Paul uses a similar invocation in 1 Tim 6:13 and 2 Tim 4:1, but there he calls on only the presence of God and Christ Jesus. The addition of \u201celect angels\u201d to the formula here is unusual. Paul may have added a third witness to the formula because of the preceding OT allusion in 1 Tim 5:19 referring to the need for \u201ctwo or three witnesses.\u201d \u2026 Since he had just mentioned the need for two or three witnesses, Paul may have felt it necessary to expand the witness formula to include a third witness.\u2026 What is more unusual about this reference to angels is that they are described as \u201celect angels.\u201d The term eklektos (\u201celect\u201d) is typically used in NT writings for God\u2019s elect\u2014people who have believed in Christ (Matt 24:31; Mark 13:27; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 2:9; Rev 17:14).26<\/p>\n
As we saw earlier, \u201cangel\u201d is a generic term in the New Testament for heavenly beings loyal to God.27 Scholars are divided in their understanding of what \u201celect\u201d signifies. It is probably reasonable to conclude that the designation is designed to contrast these angels with members of the heavenly host in rebellion against God (i.e., \u201cfallen angels\u201d).28 However, other scholars argue that \u201celect angels\u201d is a stock epithet akin to \u201choly angels\u201d and is not intended to convey a contrast with fallen angels.29 More popular conceptions include the notion that \u201celect\u201d angels cannot sin, an idea that certainly overstates the data, as the closest parallel to the phrase is found in 1 Enoch 39:1, a clear reference to the watchers who transgressed with human women (cf. Gen 6:1\u20134): \u201cAnd it shall come to pass in those days that the children of the elect and the holy ones [will descend] from the high heaven and their seed will become one with the children of the people.\u201d30
\nElsewhere in the New Testament when angels are mentioned in tandem with Christ, the context is eschatological judgment (Matt 13:39, 41, 42; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 2 Thess 1:7; Heb 12:22\u201324; Rev 14:10, 14\u201320). The context of 1 Timothy is not eschatological, however. It therefore seems best to take the description generically. \u201cElect angels\u201d are good angels in service to the Father and the Son. That Paul is calling them to bear witness is consistent with the role of angels we have discussed already in several places.<\/p>\n
WHAT ARE \u201cTONGUES OF ANGELS\u201d?<\/p>\n
First Corinthians 13 begin, \u201cThough I speak with the tongues of men and of angels.\u201d Paul\u2019s introductory line to this famous and beloved passage has engendered much curiosity and controversy. What did the apostle mean by \u201ctongues of angels\u201d?
\nScholarly consideration has vacillated between two alternative explanations, both of which have ancient roots.31 As early as the Second Temple period, Jewish apocalyptic texts bear witness to the notion that angels have their own esoteric language. Before the fifth century AD, the rabbinic community was of a different mind\u2014that angels spoke Hebrew, the language of God according to the rabbis. After the fifth century, Jewish writings reflected more openness to the older, esoteric language perspective.
\nThe idea that angels spoke Hebrew\u2014and that this is the notion upon which Paul draws in 1 Corinthians 13:1\u2014is based almost entirely on two Second Temple texts.32 The first of these texts is from the book of Jubilees, created in the mid-second century BC.33 In Jubilees 12:25\u201327, the claim is put forth that Hebrew was the original language of creation and that when God called Abraham out of Ur he needed to be supernaturally enabled to understand it:<\/p>\n
And the LORD God said to me, \u201cOpen his mouth and his ears so that he might hear and speak with his mouth in the language which is revealed because it ceased from the mouth of all of the sons of men from the day of the Fall.\u201d And I opened his mouth and his ears and his lips and I began to speak with him in Hebrew, in the tongue of creation. And he took his father\u2019s books\u2014and they were written in Hebrew\u2014and he copied them. And he began studying them thereafter. And I caused him to know everything which he was unable (to understand). And he studied them (in) the six months of rain.34<\/p>\n
This passage along with other elements in Jubilees suggests that the original language in Eden was Hebrew. In fact, the author of this work apparently believed \u201cGod used Hebrew to call the universe into existence [and] every living creature originally spoke Hebrew.\u201d35 This included animals: on the day God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden, \u201cthe mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped from speaking because all of them used to speak with one another with one speech and one language\u201d (Jubilees 3:29). The implication is that angels, as created beings in service to God, therefore spoke Hebrew.
\nAlong with the book of Jubilees, the notion that Hebrew was the language of angels is witnessed in the Dead Sea Scroll 4Q464. This incomplete text is considered to be related to Jubilees.36 Fragment 3 (column 1) reads as follows:37<\/p>\n
1 [\u2026]
\n2 [\u2026] \u2026
\n3 [\u2026] servant
\n4 [\u2026] in one
\n5 [\u2026] confused
\n6 [\u2026] to Abraha{ra}m
\n7 [\u2026] for ever, for he
\n8 [\u2026] \u2026 the holy language
\n9 [\u2026 Zeph 3:9 I will make] the peoples pure of speech
\n10 [\u2026]
\n11 [\u2026] \u2026 [\u2026]<\/p>\n
Though the text is quite fragmentary, it seems evident that, in concert with Jubilees, reference is made to Abraham acquiring Hebrew (\u201cthe holy language\u201d).
\nThe esoteric language option has more precedent than the Hebrew explanation. The last eight chapters (46\u201353) of the Testament of Job, a pseudepigraphical text that scholars date as early as the first century BC, describes the daughters of Job singing with angelic tongues.38 These chapters describe a gift from Job to his daughters of three golden boxes, inside each of which were shimmering, multicolored cords, which the patriarch referred to as \u201camulets\u201d of the Father (Testament of Job 47:11). After the daughters complain about the apparent uselessness of the gift, Job tells them, \u201cNot only shall you gain a living from these, but these cords will lead you into the better world, to live in the heavens\u201d (Testament of Job 47:2b\u20133).39 When one of Job\u2019s daughters decides to adorn her amulet, \u201cshe took on another heart\u2014no longer minded toward earthly things\u2014but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels\u201d (Testament of Job 48:2\u20133). The other two daughters have similar experiences, speaking \u201cthe dialect of the archons\u201d (Testament of Job 49:2) and \u201cthe dialect of the cherubim\u201d (Testament of Job 50:2).
\nAs Poirier has observed, the passage has garnered a good deal of attention from New Testament scholars in regard to Paul\u2019s reference to angelic tongues. Interestingly, the three successive dialects appear to denote heavenly rank in ascending order toward the divine presence (angel \u2192 archon \u2192 cherubim).40 This observation is in accord with merkabah mysticism, where angels of ascending class are encountered in ascents through levels of heaven.41
\nThe fact that the amulets that were to be worn came in golden boxes (and were thus \u201cconnected\u201d with them) is also significant. As Poirier comments:<\/p>\n
Golden girdles are standard angelic wear throughout apocalyptic literature. Gold symbolized the divine throughout the Mediterranean world. Moreover, golden girdles were also associated with inspired unintelligible speech.42<\/p>\n
Poirier marshals a number of examples in this regard from a range of sources. For example, in Daniel 10:5, the divine man who speaks to Daniel wears a sash of gold, quite similar to the angel in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6:12 who speaks to the prophet. The twenty-four elders of Revelation wear golden crowns (Rev 4:4, 10), as does another divine man in Revelation 14:14.43
\nThere are other allusions to angelic language (occasionally mentioning \u201cangelic wear\u201d) in Second Temple and early Christian literature that is not human in nature.44 In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah 8:2\u20134, we read:<\/p>\n
Thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels gave praise before me. I, myself, put on an angelic garment. I saw all of those angels praying. I, myself, prayed together with them, I knew their language, which they spoke with me.45<\/p>\n
The Ascension of Isaiah 6\u201311 contains several instances of non-human angelic languages. In this pseudepigraphical text, the prophet is transported to the seventh heaven, where he is able to praise God with the angels (\u201cmy praise was like theirs\u201d) and read books they had composed regarding the deeds of the children of Jerusalem,\u201d books \u201cnot like the books of this world\u201d (Ascension of Isaiah 7; 9:20\u201323, 27\u201332).46 A similar scene occurs in the Apocalypse of Abraham 15:2\u20137, where Abraham is taken to the seventh heaven and angelic creatures\u2014whose form was in some respects human (though they changed shapes)\u2014are crying out in a language he does not know. Like Isaiah, Abraham later is able to participate in the angelic praise.
\nIn my opinion, the esoteric-language explanation carries more weight. The Jubilees material requires the assumption that angels are in view. Jubilees 12:25 actually speaks of the original language in regard to \u201cthe sons of men,\u201d not angels. This is not the case with the esoteric angelic language idea; several texts assign a non-human tongue explicitly to angels. 2 Corinthians 12:1\u20137 may also add weight to this determination, depending on how it is read. In Paul\u2019s description of being transported to the heavens, he writes:<\/p>\n
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven\u2014whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise\u2014whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows\u2014and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. (2 Cor 12:2\u20134)<\/p>\n
Does the statement in verse 4 mean that Paul could not understand the language? If so, Hebrew as the language of heaven is decisively ruled out. Paul could mean, however, that he felt forbidden to relate what he heard\u2014that it was inappropriate for humans to convey such conversations. This latter possibility would be odd, given the numerous angelic conversations in the Bible and other Second Temple literature Paul would have had access to, so his experience may be more coherently understood as his hearing an unintelligible angelic language. But if this is the case, then his statement in 1 Corinthians 13:1 (the same audience as in 2 Corinthians) is merely hypothetical. \u201cIf I speak with the tongues of men and angels\u201d would not mean that Paul did speak in an esoteric angelic language. The idea would be that, even if he could and lacked love, that ability would mean nothing.47<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n
Myths and Questions about Angels<\/p>\n
Angels have been objects of fascination for Christians for centuries. It should be no surprise, then, that a good number of speculative myths have arisen about them. This is partly because most people interested in angels do not have access to the primary sources and ancient languages required for an academic study like this one. English translations fail to preserve nuances important in angelology, and popular studies depend on those translations. Little attention is paid to the wider ancient contexts of the biblical material, such as the ancient Near East and the Second Temple period. But pure imagination is also part of the equation.
\nIn preparing for this book, I asked readers of my earlier books (The Unseen Realm and Supernatural) to share strange things they\u2019ve heard or ask questions they have about angels. Some of the responses were truly bizarre. Others had a peripheral relationship to something Scripture actually teaches.
\nThis chapter is based on those responses and seeks to separate fact from the fictions that many Christians hold about angels. Toward that end, this chapter draws on the preceding study. There is no attempt to reproduce the textual references found in earlier chapters that support the argumentation here. Where appropriate, I have combined common misconceptions and questions.<\/p>\n
\u201cANGELS HAVE WINGS \u2026 AND THEY\u2019RE WOMEN, TOO\u201d<\/p>\n
As we saw in our first chapter, the terms mal\u02be\u0101k\u0131\u0302m (\u201cangel\u201d), keru\u1e07\u0131\u0302m (\u201ccherubim\u201d), and \u015ber\u0101p\u0331\u0131\u0302m (\u201cseraphim\u201d) are not interchangeable. They are, in effect, job descriptions performed by different spirit beings. In biblical literature, cherubim and seraphim are never sent to people to deliver messages. That task belongs to angels. Cherubim and seraphim are heavenly throne guardians, a role that at times brings them into contact with humans, but they are not sent to earth to instruct people. Conversely, angels are found in the divine presence as well. Old and New Testament writers place them there. Rather, the terminology distinguishes roles.
\nWe have also seen that whenever angels encounter humans in their messaging role, they appear in human form. In the Old Testament their appearance makes them indistinguishable from men. It is only when they do something unearthly that their transcendent nature becomes apparent. The only visible exceptions in to this pattern are found in the New Testament, where members of the heavenly host appear to people along with luminous glory (Luke 2:9, 13) or dazzlingly white clothing (Matt 28:3). Angels are never described as having inhuman features (wings, multiple faces) like cherubim and seraphim are. The reverse is actually the case. Cherubim and seraphim may share human traits, but angels do not have creaturely attributes. The conclusion can be drawn, then, that angels\u2014those divine beings sent to earth to interact with people\u2014look like people and do not have wings.
\nZechariah 5:9 is often offered as an exception to both the human (and male) portrayal of angels:<\/p>\n
Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.<\/p>\n
Despite the fact that even some scholars speak about these women with wings as angels, there is no textual basis for identifying the women as angels. The \u201cwomen\u201d (Hebrew, na\u0161\u0131\u0302m) are never described as angels. In the very next verse the prophet speaks to an angel (mal\u02be\u0101k), a figure distinct from the women (Zech 5:10). When the angel speaks (Zech 5:11), the writer used the masculine form of the verb (y\u014d\u02bemer), not the feminine form (t\u014d\u02bemer). The text is clear.
\nZechariah 5:8\u201311 therefore provides no biblical evidence for the notion that angels have wings or come to humans in female appearance.1 While it is clear that wings mark the women as being from heaven (as opposed to earth), the point is not \u201cthese are angels.\u201d Rather, the point is to highlight their contrast with the wicked woman in the basket a few verses earlier (Zech 5:5\u20138). Akin to the removal of the filthy garments of Joshua the high priest in Zechariah 3, the women represent God\u2019s removal of wickedness from his land and people to Shinar (Babylon), where evil belongs.2
\nOne could actually make a more reasoned case for the women being cherubim. In addition to their creaturely attribute of wings, Zechariah 5:9 notes, \u201cThe wind [r\u00fba\u1e25] was in their wings.\u201d The term r\u00fba\u1e25 is frequently translated \u201cSpirit\u201d\/\u201cspirit.\u201d This is the same \u201clocomotion\u201d of the winged cherubim in Ezekiel 1:12, 20; 10:17. Like Ezekiel 1, the context is oriented to Babylon, the source of cherubim iconography.
\nSince Zechariah 5:8\u201311 cannot validate that angels are winged creatures, the passage also fails as evidence that angels can appear as women (biblically speaking, at least). If the women are not angels, then Zechariah 5:9 cannot teach us that angels can appear as women.
\nThe assumption presupposes the idea that angels have gender. They do not\u2014indeed they cannot be gendered, since they are spirit beings and gender is a biological attribute. When angels assume visible form or flesh to interact with human beings, Scripture always has them male. The flesh they assume is gendered because it is flesh, not because that corporality is an intrinsic part of angelic nature.3
\nWith respect to the New Testament, the primary appeal to angels having wings comes from Revelation 10:1:<\/p>\n
Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.<\/p>\n
The argument goes: the passage never mentions wings, but because the angel \u201ccomes down from heaven,\u201d he must have wings. The same argument (and omission of any reference to wings) is characteristic of Revelation 14:6, 17, where angels emerge from the heavenly temple and altar, respectively (cf. Matt 28:2).
\nThe flaw in this argument is its dependence on descent language. It is not difficult to demonstrate its terminal weakness. Are we to conclude that Jesus has wings? After all, he descends from heaven (1 Thess 4:16). Does the Holy Spirit have wings? He descends on Jesus at his baptism (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22). The point with both examples is that for supernatural beings, descent from heaven does not require wings. The point may be a floating descent, or an urgent one, depending on the context. It may also be figurative language designed purely to denote point of origin\u2014God\u2019s abode.4 For example, the same language is used of Jesus\u2019 first coming, which we know was by virtue of being born of Mary, having nothing to do with wings: \u201cNo one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man\u201d (John 3:13). It is quite evident that descent language for divine figures does not require wings and so provides no support for angels having wings.<\/p>\n
\u201cIS THE ANGEL OF THE BOTTOMLESS PIT GOOD OR EVIL?\u201d<\/p>\n
This issue derives from Revelation 9:1\u20135, 11:<\/p>\n
And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone.\u2026 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.<\/p>\n
The potential confusion here involves presuming that \u201cthe angel of the bottomless pit\u201d (Abaddon\/Apollyon) is the same angel mentioned in verse 1, who \u201cwas given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.\u201d They are not the same figure.5 Further, the angel with the key to the bottomless pit should not be considered an evil divine being.6
\nAt first glance it might seem as though the angel of Revelation 9:1 is an evil being because of John\u2019s description, \u201cI saw a star fallen from heaven to earth.\u201d The verb is perfect tense and so should be translated \u201chad fallen,\u201d a translation that seems to affirm the idea that the angel is evil. Aune notes in this regard:<\/p>\n
Falling stars often represent evil angelic beings or demons (1 Enoch 86:3; 88:1; 90:24; T. Sol. 20.14\u201317; Jude 13), or even Satan (1 Enoch 86:1; Apoc. El. 4:11; Luke 10:18; Rev 12:9). Here the fallen star should be understood as an angelic messenger (see 20:1) and not be identified with the angel of the abyss named Abaddon or Apollyon in 9:11 or Satan in 12:9. In 1 Enoch 86:1, Enoch sees a star falling from heaven, followed (v 3) by many stars, all obviously fallen angelic beings.7<\/p>\n
The use of \u201cfall\u201d language for divine beings in rebellion against God is quite consistent but not entirely one sided in that regard. One need only look at Revelation 20:1\u20132, where we have the same language about an angel and the key to the bottomless pit to establish this point and to suggest that \u201cfallen\u201d can mean \u201cdescend\u201d if the context does not speak of rebellion and judgment:<\/p>\n
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit.<\/p>\n
I suggest that Revelation 9:1\u20132 ought to be interpreted in light of Revelation 20:1. This prevents several interpretive inconsistencies: First, it makes little sense for God to give a fallen being control over the pit. Second, the idea that a fallen angel functions as a servant of God runs contrary to the rest of Old and New Testament angelology. Third, suggesting that the angel of Revelation 9:1\u20132 is an unholy being armed with the key to the bottomless pit contradicts Revelation 20:1, where a clearly good angel has the same status or job.8 It is far simpler to have the angel of Revelation 9:1 sent from heaven to release Abaddon\/Apollyon in obedience to carrying out a woe decreed by God.9<\/p>\n
\u201cANGELS CAN NO LONGER REBEL\u201d<\/p>\n
Though it is a common idea in Christian angelology, there is no specific evidence in Scripture that suggests unfallen heavenly beings cannot rebel against God. To the contrary, scriptural evidence leaves that possibility on the table.
\nIn chapter 2 we briefly discussed two passages in Job regarding the imperfection of God\u2019s holy ones:<\/p>\n
Can mortal man be in the right before God?
\nCan a man be pure before his Maker?
\nEven in his servants he puts no trust,
\nand his angels he charges with error. (Job 4:17\u201318)<\/p>\n
Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones,
\nand the heavens are not pure in his sight. (Job 15:15)<\/p>\n
These passages are post-fall in context. That is, they are statements made about heavenly beings well after the events of Eden. We discussed these passages earlier in relation to the role of the heavenly host as mediators (Job 33:23). We noted that the point of the unflattering language of Job 4:17\u201318; 15:15 is fallibility, not rebellion. However, fallibility involves the possibility of rebellion. The only guarantee against rebellion would be moral perfection\u2014having God\u2019s very nature in totality. Imperfect beings can indeed fail, and nothing about imperfection suggests they are immune to rebellion.<\/p>\n
\u201cANGELS EXIST OUTSIDE TIME AND SPACE\u201d<\/p>\n
Though this is a popular axiom for the nature of angels, it is difficult to know precisely what someone who expresses the thought actually means by it.10
\nAngels are not \u201ctimeless\u201d in the sense of being eternal beings. They had a beginning as created beings. They are immortal (Luke 20:36), but that immortality is ultimately contingent, based on God\u2019s authority and pleasure. As God wills, angels are not subject to time in terms of aging or having a necessary terminus point for their existence, but this says nothing, for instance, about whether they can travel back in time or forward into the future. The latter would be more relevant to being \u201coutside of time.\u201d
\nBy \u201cspace,\u201d we do not refer to outer space but to the matter of how a bodiless being can be said to occupy space (i.e., place). Philosophical theologians have, of course, thought a great deal about the question. Peter Williams, following Peter Kreeft, suggests that \u201cangels may be in definite places or make things happen in definite places\u201d not because they are materially present or occupy material space but because they are \u201cspiritually present.\u201d11 By \u201cspiritual presence\u201d Williams and others mean that the presence of angels is evidenced by activity, not substance. The idea is certainly biblical, as angels are described as affecting people that are materially present without being materially present (Gen 21:17; 22:11, 15; 31:11; Matt 1:20; 2:13, 19; Acts 8:26; 10:3).12
\nThis approach does not require angels be spatially present in a material way. They can, however, be materially and spatially present. For example, two angels share a meal with Abraham (Gen 18:1\u20138; cf. 19:1) and physically seize Lot (Gen 19:10); an angel struck Peter to awaken him (Acts 12:7).
\nRather than existing \u201coutside space,\u201d we might say that angels exist without regard to space. Space and spatiality are not necessary to angelic existence or presence.<\/p>\n
\u201cANGELS CAN READ MINDS AND MANIPULATE THE MATERIAL WORLD\u201d<\/p>\n
Though there is no scriptural evidence that members of the heavenly host knows a person\u2019s mind or thoughts the way God does, the question of whether angels can read minds is not as silly as it sounds. The question becomes reasonable in the context of angelic appearances in the mind or consciousness of people via dreams of visions. Such instances, which are obviously scriptural, can be parsed as angels having access to the consciousness of human beings. If they have such access, then (some would argue) they by definition have access to the thoughts already in a person\u2019s mind.
\nThe absence of any scriptural explanation for how angels appear in dreams leaves us only with speculation. On one hand, we could presume that angels have access to information stored in a person\u2019s brain or consciousness. There is no way to demonstrate that idea is valid. On the other hand, we are on the same footing if we speculate that dreams are nothing more than transmissions of information into a person\u2019s consciousness. Information transmission is not information retrieval. To use a modern illustration, angels may be able to \u201cwrite\u201d to our CD or DVD, but not read from it. It is therefore just as reasonable to assume that angels cannot read minds. Both options are nothing more than speculation.13
\nWhen it comes to affecting the material world, we are on more scriptural footing. They can, as we have seen, assume material form and act upon material objects. The two angels that visited Lot, for instance, were able to strike the men of Sodom with blindness (Gen 19:10\u201311). No explanation is offered as to how this was done, but the two angels were the cause of that effect. An angel somehow freed Peter from his shackles (Acts 12:7), opened an iron gate without touching it (Acts 12:10; cf. Acts 5:9), and struck Herod with a disease (Acts 12:23). An angel moved the stone from the tomb of Jesus (Matt 28:2).
\nThe ability of spirit beings to assume human form, including material corporeality, becomes even more interesting when considering 2 Corinthians 11:14, where Paul wrote that \u201cSatan disguises himself as an angel of light.\u201d The verb translated \u201cdisguises,\u201d metasch\u0113matiz\u014d, is rendered \u201cmasquerades\u201d by other translators and scholars. Guthrie notes:<\/p>\n
The verb [metasch\u0113matiz\u014d] means \u201cto disguise oneself\u201d or \u201cto pretend to be what one is not,\u201d thus \u201cto masquerade.\u201d In the pseudepigraphical work Testament of Job, Satan disguises himself as a beggar (6.4), the king of the Persians (17.2), and later as a baker (23.1), and this same verb is used. A number of Jewish traditions also present Satan as transforming himself into an angel or an angel of light in order to get the better of those he tempts. For instance, Paul may have been aware of a passage in Life of Adam and Eve (9.1) in which Satan tempts Eve again after the fall: \u201cThen Satan was angry and transformed himself into the brightness of angels and went away to the Tigris River to Eve and found her weeping.\u201d14<\/p>\n
There are other Second Temple period texts that provide some context for Paul\u2019s words. In the Life of Adam and Eve 17:1\u20132, Eve saw Satan (the serpent?) in the form of an angel:<\/p>\n
Then Satan came in the form of an angel and sang hymns to God as the angels. And I saw him bending over the wall, like an angel. And he said to me, \u201cAre you Eve?\u201d15<\/p>\n
The point is that Second Temple material shows us that the notion that spirit beings could change their appearance was alive and well in the first century. Some might suggest that the meaning is metaphorical, that Satan\u2019s \u201cpresentation\u201d of himself as something he is not refers broadly to lies and deception, not visible appearance. Considered in isolation, that perspective is possible in 2 Corinthians 11:14, but some of the contemporary instances cited above go beyond such an abstraction. It may well be that Paul was thinking of visible manifestations in addition to deception. The possibility means that, along with assuming corporeal form, spirit beings might be able to alter that form\u2014that is, changing appearance may be among their suite of abilities.<\/p>\n
\u201cANGELS TAKE PEOPLE TO HEAVEN\u201d<\/p>\n
In Luke 16:19\u201331, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we read this line: \u201cThe poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham\u2019s side\u201d (Luke 16:22). Abraham\u2019s \u201cside\u201d (or \u201cbosom\u201d) was figurative language referring to the blessed afterlife.16
\nBock notes that \u201can angelic escort [to heaven] is a common Jewish image. In the Christian apocrypha, such imagery took on great detail, with pictures of angels doing battle over the souls of people who had passed away.\u201d17 Two examples illustrate his point.
\nThe Testament of Job ends with the death of Job. Prior to his passing, he tells his daughters:<\/p>\n
Now then, my children, since you have these objects you will not have to face the enemy at all, but neither will you have worries of him in your mind, since it is a protective amulet of the Father. Rise then, gird yourselves with them before I die in order that you may be able to see those who are coming for my soul, in order that you may marvel over the creatures of God. (Testament of Job 47:10\u201311)18<\/p>\n
After three days, as Job fell ill on his bed (without suffering or pain, however, since suffering could no longer touch him on account of the omen of the sash he wore), after those three days he saw those who had come for his soul. And rising immediately he took a lyre and gave it to his daughter Hemera. To Kasia he gave a censer, and to Amaltheia\u2019s Horn he gave a kettle drum, so that they might bless those who had come for his soul. And when they took them, they saw the gleaming chariots which had come for his soul. And they blessed and glorified God each one in her own distinctive dialect. After these things the one who sat in the great chariot got off and greeted Job as the three daughters and their father himself looked on, though certain others did not see. And taking the soul he flew up, embracing it, and mounted the chariot and set off for the east. But his body, prepared for burial, was borne to the tomb as his three daughters went ahead girded about and singing hymns to God. (Testament of Job 52:1\u201312)19<\/p>\n
The Testament of Abraham offers an account of the death of Abraham:<\/p>\n
And immediately Michael the archangel stood beside him with multitudes of angels, and they bore his precious soul in their hands in divinely woven linen. And they tended the body of the righteous Abraham with divine ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death. And they buried him in the promised land at the oak of Mamre, while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven singing the thrice-holy hymn to God, the master of all, and they set it (down) for the worship of the God and Father. (Testament of Abraham 20:10\u201312, Recension A)20<\/p>\n
The Testament of Job is perhaps as old as the first century BC, providing evidence that Jewish traditions about angels escorting believers to the blissful afterlife had been put to writing. The idea was certainly part of Second Temple Jewish thought. The specific Abraham material is, at best, contemporary to the Gospel of Luke.<\/p>\n
\u201cBELIEVERS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COMMAND ANGELS\u201d<\/p>\n
Hebrews 1:14 has at times been used to justify the notion that believers have authority over angels. The verse says of angels (emphasis mine): \u201cAre they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?\u201d In other words, God has tasked angels to perform tasks that will benefit believers on their faith journey. But some suggest that what is meant is that God has sent angels to minister at the behest of believers, suggesting that Christians can command angels to do their bidding.
\nThere are two reasons why Hebrews 1:14 does not give Christians authority to command angels\u2014one grammatical, the other contextual.
\nFirst, the preposition translated \u201cfor the sake of\u201d (dia) has a limited semantic range. When it occurs before an article, noun, or pronoun in the genitive case, it has the meaning \u201cthrough\u201d or \u201cby means of.\u201d This preposition can also occur before the accusative case, where it denotes cause or purpose (\u201cbecause of\u201d; \u201cfor the sake of\u201d). In Hebrews 1:14, dia is followed by a plural article in the accusative case. The accusative marks the object of the service of angels, not the source of their service. The leading Greek reference grammars never speak of dia as meaning \u201cat the behest of.\u201d21
\nThe second reason that Hebrews 1:14 does not mean angels were sent to serve at the behest of Christians is the wider context of the New Testament\u2014and really the entire Bible: there isn\u2019t a single instance in Scripture where a human being commands an angel. Human beings converse with angels. They ask questions. They do not give angels orders. This fact demonstrates that interpreting Hebrews 1:14 in such a way is idiosyncratic and creates incongruity with the rest of Scripture.<\/p>\n
\u201cCHRISTIANS BECOME ANGELS WHEN THEY DIE\u201d<\/p>\n
Many who embrace the idea are not conscious of its biblical roots.22 These roots are deep, though \u201cbecoming an angel\u201d is precisely what\u2019s in view.
\nThe idea that believers become angels after death draws on several scriptural threads. Two that might be familiar to most Christians are the doctrine of glorification (being made like Jesus; 1 John 3:1\u20133); statements that a believer\u2019s existence in the afterlife makes them \u201clike the angels\u201d (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25); and Paul\u2019s teaching that the believer\u2019s resurrection body is \u201ccelestial flesh\u201d (a \u201cspiritual body\u201d; 1 Cor 15:35\u201349). Less familiar is the fact that the family and inheritance vocabulary used of Christians in the New Testament is tied to vocabulary for the divine family (divine council) in the Old Testament, and Eden (including the new Eden) derives from \u201ccosmic abode\u201d motifs in the ancient Near East.
\nI devoted a good deal of attention to all of these trajectories in The Unseen Realm, and so readers are directed to that discussion for details and sources.23 Briefly, these threads weave a tapestry of the believer\u2019s destiny that culminates in being made divine. Christian theologians use various terms for the doctrine: glorification, deification, theosis among them. The idea is not that we become the same as Yahweh or Jesus, but, as John wrote, \u201cwe shall be like him\u201d (1 John 3:2). Believers are already \u201cpartakers of the divine nature\u201d (2 Pet 1:4). We are destined to reconstitute the divine council of Yahweh alongside his spiritual children, the \u201csons of God,\u201d the members of his loyal heavenly host. The same language is used of believers (1 John 3:1\u20133). We are the \u201choly ones,\u201d the common term for angels in the Old Testament.24 We have been \u201cadopted\u201d into God\u2019s heavenly family. Our \u201cinheritance\u201d is in heaven, and that heaven will come to earth as the new global Eden. We will be placed over the nations, currently under the dominion of the fallen sons of God, displacing them in that role, sharing messianic rule with Jesus, our brother (Heb 2:5\u201318; Rev 2:26\u201328; Rev 3:21). In so doing, we will \u201cjudge angels,\u201d ruling over them in terms of Old Testament divine council hierarchical terminology (1 Cor 6:3; John 1:12).
\nThe end result is not that glorified believers become angels. Rather, we are fully grafted into the glorious family council of God. Our \u201calready\u201d status in that regard becomes full reality at death. We join the heavenly children of God in a blended divine family and actually outrank angels in the new global Eden.<\/p>\n
Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God\u2019s Heavenly Host
\nauthor=Heiser, Michael S.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction This is a book about the loyal members of God\u2019s heavenly host. Most Christians will refer to them as angels, but, as we\u2019ll learn, that\u2019s just one of many terms the Bible uses for supernatural beings who serve him. To clarify, this is not a book about demons. While angels\u2019 failures are discussed here … <\/p>\n