Christian Angelology

Angelology

Introduction

Why study Angels?

They teach us about God

As part of God’s creation, to study them is to study why God created the way he
did.

In looking at angels we can see God’s designs for his creation, which tells us
something about God himself.

They teach us about ourselves

We share many similar qualities to the angels.

We also have several differences due to them being spiritual beings.

In looking at these similarities and differences we can learn more about the ways
God created humanity.

In looking at angels we can avoid “angelic fallacies” which attempt to turn men
into angels.

They are fascinating!

Humans tend to be drawn to the supernatural.

Spiritual beings such as angels hit something inside of us that desires to “return to
Eden” in the sense of wanting to reconnect ourselves to the spiritual world.

They are different, and different is interesting to us.

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 1

 Christian Angelology

Angels in the Christian Worldview

Traditional Societies/World of the Bible Post-Enlightenment Worldview

Higher Reality God, gods, ultimate forces like karma and God (sometimes a “blind watchmaker”)
fate [Religion - Private]

Middle World Lesser spirits (Angels/Demons), [none]

demigods, magic
Earthly Reality Human social order and community, the Humanity, Animals, Birds, Plants, as
natural world as a relational concept of individuals and as technical
animals, plants, ect. classifications [Science - Public]
-Adapted from Heibert, “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle”

Existence of Angels

Revelation: God has revealed their creation to us in scripture.

Experience: People from across cultures and specifically Christians, have attested
to the reality of spirits both good and bad.

Incomplete creation: St. Aquinas argued for a great chain of being. If there are no
angels, he said, then creation seems incomplete. There are rocks, then plants, then
humans, and then God. But this creates a “gap” between an infinite spirit without
a body (God) and finite spirits with bodies. It would be fitting for this to be filled
by finite spirits without bodies, angels.

Angel Orthodoxy

Much about angels is theological speculation. Even those things that are more certain are
not important enough to divide the Church. There are, however, a few concepts of angels
that must be held to keep within a Christina worldview.

Necessary dogmas concerning angels

The are created creatures

They are finite beings

They are lesser then God and should not be used as a substitute for protection and
guidance

They do not mediate divine grace

Popular Misconceptions

Angels and the afterlife

Human beings do not become angels at death. Angels and Humans are
separate parts of God’s creation. Humanity will be resurrected in physical
bodies, whereas angels are eternally spiritual.

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 2

 Christian Angelology

Angles and power

When people encounter angels in the Bible there are only two responses.
Either the angel hides their true nature and are seen as humans, or the people
respond in fear at the angel’s power. Angels are powerful creatures, capable of
wiping out entire human armies. In fact, considering that Satan can appear as an
angel of light, it may be more likely evil spirits that put on a fearless persona for
the sake of deception.

Angels and personal guidance

The idea of Guardian Angles will be discussed later. However, there is real
danger in following any spirit that presents itself as a “guide”. Particularly if that spirit
seems harmless (see above) and certainly if the spirit guides a person to disobey God or
deny some aspect of the Christian Faith. There is no Christian tradition to seek out our
own personal angel guides. Angels come to us when God sends them, they do not
respond to our demands or desires.

Angels and wings

The idea that angels have wings comes from a few passages about Cherubim and
Seraphim, along with some art described in the Temple. Other then that appearances of
angels in scripture do not include any wings. This idea developed from iconographic art
which used the wings as symbols.

Angel Typology

Angels in General

Angel [%a'l.m / a;ggeloj]

geloj
The English word “angel” is a transliteration of the
greek a;ggeloj, which is the translation of the Hebrew %a'l.m;. In
both cases the word means primarily messenger. Both terms
can be used to refer to human and spiritual agents who perform
the function of a messenger. For instance the prophet Haggai,
(Hag 1:13) as well as the priests (Mal 2:7) are called
“angel/messenger of the Lord” (hw"±hy> %a;ól.m;). In the New
Testament a;ggeloj can refer to disciples of John the Baptist
(Luke 7:24), messengers from Jesus (Luke 9:52) or even used
by James to reference the spies at Jericho. (Jas 2:25)
This etymology points to the primary function of good
spirits as presented in scripture, that of being messengers.
Although the term "angel" denotes function and not nature, as
for any word, usage is more important then etymology.
Throughout the Old Testament, and particularly in the records
of the intertestamental period, the word “angel” began to develop a more technical
meaning for holy spiritual beings while still retaining usage for human messengers. This

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 3

 Christian Angelology

is evidenced by how and when the LXX chooses to use the greek a;ggeloj to translate
various Hebrew texts traditionally seen as angelic, and when it chooses to avoid
translating %a'l.m as a;ggeloj when the referent is human.1 Thus even when these beings
are not functioning in a messenger role in the New Testament they are still termed
a;ggeloj. This also explains why there is larger set of words in the Old Testament such as
“sons of God”, “watchers”, and “holy ones”, when in the New Testament the only term
used is “angel”. To sum up the entire evidence of the word an "angel" is helpfully defined
by Kevin Sullivan as "a heavenly divine being that mediates between earthly and
heavenly realms"2 and more specifically a being that:3
1- Has as a primary function the delivery of God's message/plan to human
beings (and sometimes interpretation of the message).
2- Typically resides in heaven but also travels to earth to perform various
tasks.
3- Is able to alter its form (e.g., can become anthropomorphic), especially
when on earth.
4- Is not bound by limitations of the earthly realm, such as the passage of
time, death, hunger, sexual desire, ect.

Sons of God [~yhiêl{a/h' ynEåB.]

This phrase occurs rarely in the Old Testament with the most famous being
Genesis 6:2. As Genesis 6:2 is debated, the meaning of the term is better gleaned from
other passages. One of the few other places for this term is in Job where it clearly refers
to angels. (1:6, 2:1, 38:7) The first two references in Job have the Sons of God coming
before the Lord in the context of a meeting of heavenly beings, when the Lord holds
court, fitting into the Ancient Near Eastern context of the chief god who has a divine
council of lesser deities. Interestingly, Satan appears at both instances and thus appears to
be classed among the "Sons of God", though some argue the text is intending to
differentiae him from the others. The last reference in Job concerns angels and creation.
Here God points out that the Sons of God watched him set the foundations of the earth.
This indicates that to some extent angels were created before the rest of creation.
There are other Old Testament phrases that are close, usually interjecting another
adjective such as in Hosea 1:10 which has "sons of the living God", other times there are
references to Israel being "children" (Deut 14:1, 32:5; Ps 73:15) but all contexts are with
Israel as a national whole. There are no references to a King of Israel or King of any
Gentile nation being a son of a god in the Old Testament. Although pagan kings did use
this title, there is no apparent reason within the text of Genesis 6 to equate the sons of
God with tyrants. Although culturally this is a good argument, there is no corroborating
scriptural evidence nor evidence from Jewish sources that the Israelites used this phrase
of kings. With other possibilities that fit the context closer, this solution should be
rejected unless others prove untenable.
The context leading up to chapter six are two genealogies, Seth and Cain. A
leading alternative to the angel view is to argue a Sethite/Cainite marriage issue. God was

1 See R.M.M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy, (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Sibeck) p.82.
2 Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels. (Boston: Brill, 2004), 34.
3 Ibid.

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 4

 Christian Angelology

angered that faithful decedents of Seth were marring unfaithful decedents of Cain. This is
certainly tenable as would be a good flow into the passage in question. The issue is that
the phrase "sons of God" in common scriptural context, and thus also all standard
lexicons, means "angels". There is also no indication that the Sethites where really more
faithful then the Cainites. In chapter six only Noah and his family were considered
righteous, not all Sethites. The context of verse one is that men began to increase on the
face of the earth, this surely cannot only be a reference to the line of Cain, and if not then
it is hard to see how the next verse which contrasts the sons of God with daughters of
men could be using "men" in a different more exclusive sense. If this is the case then in
verse six should we assume that God was only sorry he made Cainites on the earth? This
position does not deal well with these issues and is more likely based on other theological
objections to the idea of angel/human offspring of some sort.
For all the conceptual of problems, seeing "sons of God" as angels seems the most
plausible from an exegetical level in Genesis 6. This is the most natural and scriptually-
contextual interpretation of "sons of God", and explains the contrast with "daughters of
men".
One reference that is at issue is Deuteronomy 32:8 which is translated various
ways due to a textual issue, (NRSV=”number of the gods”, ESV=”number of the sons of
God”, NASB=”number of the sons of Israel”, NET=”number of the heavenly assembly”).
The reason for this is that the MT text reads laer'f.yI ynEB. (“sons of Israel”), while the LXX
reads avgge,lwn qeou/ (“angels of God”). The LXX reading may be supported by a
fragment from Qumran that reads ~yhiêl{a/h' ynEåB. (“sons of God”) and thus indicates the LXX
and MT have conflicting interpretations of that passage. This verse will become
important later when we discuss the possibility of a “Divine Council” of angels.4

Holy Ones [~yvi(doq.]

Only occurs in a few places. Psalm 89:5-7 presents an image of God surrounded
by a council of “Holy Ones” in the context of praise for his power. Several times in
Daniel (4:13-23, 8:13) during apocalyptic visions. Finally in Zechariah 14:5 also in an
apocalyptic vision. Perhaps in these cases the phrase was chosen because these creatures
where not functioning in a role as messengers, and so the writer needed a different word.

Watchers [ry[i]
The exact meaning of the Hebrew is not entirely clear but the root means "to
rouse oneself" or "be awake".5 In Scripture they are only found in Daniel 4:13-23 in the
same context as “Holy Ones”. Later pseudepigraphal books of Enoch and Jubilees
classed these beings primarily as those who were seduced by human women and taught
secret arts to men, thus falling from grace. (1 Enoch 6, 10) Fallen angels was the most
common meaning of "watchers" from intertestamental times though the early history of
Christianity. Though it is important to note this is not always the case. Not only does

4 For more information see M. S. Heiser, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" Bibliotheca Sacra
158 (2001) 52-74.
5 Kevin Sullivan, The Watchers Tradition in 1 Enoch 6:6-16, in "The Watchers in Jewish and

Christian Traditions", Angela Harkins, Kelley Bautch, and John Endres (eds.) (Minneapolis:
Fortress 2014) p.92

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 5

 Christian Angelology

Daniel list Watchers beside Holy Ones, 1 Enoch 20 also calls such holy angels as
Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael as "those who watch". In Syriac literature this become the
most common term for angels.6

Elohim (?) [~yhi

~yhi_l{a/]
One interesting and controversial idea may be that the term ~yhi_l{a/ (usually
translated as God or gods) originally in ancient Hebrew meant merely “divine being” and
had a broader range then what developed as revealed monotheism took root in Israel.
Some argue that the word ~yhi_l{a/ (elohim) was in the similar category as “bird”, or
“beast”.7
These words perhaps denoted the realm of existence for a creature. Therefore
when Scripture calls God the unique elohim it means that out of all the elohim (including
angels) God is special and in some sense not really like the others, something ancient
Israel had a difficult time conceiving due to the influence of polytheistic neighbors.
One possible example of this is Psalm 82 where God brings judgment on the
“gods”. This idea is associated with the opinion that God appointed angels to have charge
in governing creation and as part of a “Divine Council”. These ideas will be discussed
later.

Archangel

Archangel (avrca,ggeloj) means “chief angel”. Scripture gives little more

information then that. There is apparently some form of authority structure
among the angels, an idea that will be developed later in Jewish and Christian
tradition. Typically these are the only angels given an actual name, and so more
detail will be discussed later.
Only Michael is referred to by name as an Archangel in Jude 1:9, although
in the OT he is referred to as a “prince” (rf;;) (Dan 10:11-21, 12:1-2). The only other
reference to an Archangel is in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and gives no name, although
the similarity to this angel as eschatologically important may indicate Michael is
intended.
It is important to note that Gabriel is not called an Archangel in either
Scripture or the Apocrypha. In the New Testament he says he is one of the angels
that stands in the presence of God. He is typically classed as an Archangel due to
his association with Michael in intertestamental literature, and a few references
such as 2 Enoch 21:3-6 to him as an Archangel.
Raphael from the Apocrypha is classed as an Archangel many times as
well. Although Tobit does not use the term specifically, it does call him one of
the seven holy angels who stands before the presence of God (Tobit 12:15). He is,
like Gabriel, listed with Michael in the Pseudepigrapha, and called an Archangel

6R.M.M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy, (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Sibeck) p.91.
7See the argument in M. S. Heiser, You've seen one Elohim, you've seen them all? A Critique of
Mormonism's use of Pslam 82. Paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, Washington
DC 2006.

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 6

 Christian Angelology

directly in the Testament of Solomon 5:9-10 (24) in a clear reference to the Book
of Tobit.
The tradition of seven archangels derives primarily from intertestamental
literature. Only in the Book of Revelation are there references to a specific set of
"seven spirits". (1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6) Though they are never called "archangels" in the
text, the reference to spirits who stand before the throne/presence of God is
similar to Gabriel's statement about himself, (Luke 1:19) in addition to Raphael in
Tobit 12:15. Assuming the tradition of Gabriel as an archangel it is possible
Revelation is also referring to a set of seven archangels.
All other archangels are variously named depending on the source, and
there is little consistency among the different traditions aside from Michael and
Gabriel. Raphael is mentioned much more often, and then the next runner up is
Uriel. Beyond those four the names can get confusing, with only one letter
difference between a supposed holy angel and a supposed fallen watcher.
Note that you may encounter four of the Archangels (Michael, Gabriel,
Raphael, and Uriel) connected with the four compass points. This attribution
seems to date late and is found earliest in a “Bedtime Shema” prayer in the
Jewish tradition and first recorded in the Siddur of Rashi in the 11th Century.
This arrangement then become more widely known though Kabbalah, and
through that into the western occult tradition during the European renaissance
such as in The Lesser Key of Solomon. If you see this in context of art it does not
mean the person is aware of the non-Christian origins, but be advised that there
is little in Jewish tradition and none outside of western occultism that associates
these angels with the four compass points or four winds. There is however a
Biblical connection with the Cherubim and the four compass points which will
be covered below.
Archangels by Source, cf Davidson, A Dictionary of Angels
1 Enoch 3 Enoch Testament of St. Gregory the Pseudo-Dionysius Modern Eastern
Solomon Great the Areopagite in Orthodoxy
De Coelesti
Hierarchia

3/4th BC - 1st AD 5th AD 1st-3rd AD 6th AD 5th AD Present (?)

1 Michael Michael Michael Michael Michael Michael

2 Gabriel Gabriel Gabriel Gabriel Gabriel Gabriel
3 Raphael Shatqiel Uriel Raphael Raphael Raphael
4 Uriel Baradiel Sabrael Uriel Uriel Uriel
Raguel (Ruhiel,
5 Shachaqiel Arael Simiel Chamuel Selaphiel
Ruagel, Ruahel)

6 Zerachiel (Araqael) Baraqiel Iaoth Orifiel Jophiel Jehudiel

Remiel (Jeremiel,
7 Sidriel (Pazriel) Adonael Zachariel Zadkiel Barachiel
Jeahmeel)
Alt. (Jeremiel)

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 7

 Christian Angelology

Cherubim (Tetramorphs) [~ybiÞrUK.]

The Cherubim are first described in a manner that indicates the Israelites had
some concept of these creatures. In Genesis they are "matter-of-factly" guarding the
Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24), and when God commands the Israelites
to make the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:19-22) and Tabernacle (Ex
36:35). He never describes the Cherubim they are to make, seeming
to imply that a cherub was common knowledge for both the
Israelites and the readers. This gives weight to the idea that
"Cherubim" where not original to Scripture, but something already
known in the time of Moses, and something common to the Ancient
Near Eastern culture. Etymologically, the word is uncertain, but
may come from Akkadian "karibu", genii in Mesopotamian art.8 In
Babylonian religion these karibu were human/animal composite
creatures who protected doorways and gates.9 Outside of
Mesopotamia, some scholars see a parallel in Canaanite and
Egyptian religion of winged animal/human spirits who guarded
royal and divine thrones.10 Considering the parallels of both
aspects, it seems likely the Cherubim in scripture are related to
both.
There is actually plenty of evidence for similar creatures
from the Ancient Near East. An example of this is from an image
found in Arslan Tash dating to the 9th or 8th century BC, carved in
ivory and decorated with palms.11 The creature on the image is a
composite of a man, a lion, a bull and an eagle. This composition
was to denote omnipotence and omnipresence by combining the
wisdom of a man, the strength of a lion, the swiftness of an eagle,
and the procreative power of a bull. (Ibid.) In the vision it is
obvious that Ezekiel is being giving a living image of the common ANE creatures that
both guarded the sacred and deities, (Gen 3:24,12 Ex 36:35) and provided a throne for
divine kings. (Ex 25:19-22) In Ezekiel they are the chariot of God as well as guardians
and indicators of sacredness, as would have been common to the culture of the time.
In the Book of Ezekiel there are two visions with similar, but different,
descriptions. Ezekiel spends most of the first vision describing two things: the living
creatures (1:1-14) and the wheels beside them (1:15-21). Each creature had the body, or
form of a human (1:5), but differed from humans in that each also had four faces and four
wings (1:6), calf's hoofs (1:7), and perhaps four "sides" with human hands (1:8). The
number four is a major image in the section and likely references the four cardinal

8 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p.190

9 As noted in R.M.M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy, (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Sibeck) p.16.
10 As noted in Ibid. 17
11 Image can be found in Borowski, Elie. “Cherubim: God’s Throne?.” Biblical Archaeology Review,

Jul/Aug 1995.
12 See Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (New York:

Seabury Press, 1978), 142-3. for an example of guarding a sacred tree of life.

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 8

 Christian Angelology

directions.13 Demonstrating this is verse seventeen where the wheels are able to move in
any direction without turning, and the movement of the wheels and the creatures are
unified (1:19). Each creature had four heads: man, lion, bull and eagle (1:10). From the
vantage point of Ezekiel each must have been "facing" the same direction, because on all
four the lion face was on the right and the bull on the left.
One of the oddest parts is the connection between the wheels and the creatures.
Each creature's spirit was said to actually be in the wheels (1:21ff). It's hard to tell how
Ezekiel could determine that their "spirit" was in the wheels, yet he does not explain what
this meant exactly. Due to the throne above the creatures and the wheels (1:22-28), which
seems to be the throne of the Lord, the entire vision takes on the idea of a chariot. This
would be consistent with other imagery in the Old Testament such as 2 Samuel 2:11 and
Psalms 104:4 where the Lord rides on cherubim in judgment and deliverance, as a divine
warrior.14 The vision is that of a living throne, later he would receive a similar vision, but
with a few differences.
The second vision takes place inside the Temple itself. In this instance Ezekiel
says he sees "cherubim" specifically (10:2). These creatures are the same as in the first
chapter, not only because he directly makes the connection (10:15), but also because both
describe a relationship between the wheels and the beings (1:21; 10:2, 9), both had coals
of fire between them (1:13; 10:7), and each had similar faces (1:10; 10:14). Ezekiel
spends less time describing the creatures, but now realizes what they are.
The major difference between the two accounts is with the faces. In this second
account the face of the bull has been replaced with the face of a cherub, the order of the
faces in also different. There is little description as to
what a "cherub" face looks like. Scripture normally
only mentions Cherubim as if the reader is to know
what they are, and what they look like. If these are
descriptions of Cherubim, then to describe the face as
that of a cherub is to not describe anything at all. One
suggestion to the problem comes from the Talmud,
where it is said this face was changed on account of the
Lord being asked for mercy. The bull was a symbol of
idolatry according to this Jewish tradition, and so being
changed was indicative of the Lord's mercy. (Block, 324-5) Some Rabbi's also believed
that the cherub face was a boy's face, and the man an older human. (Block, 325) Neither
are probably correct, yet the reason for the change is uncertain, as well as what a
"cherub" face is. Making the passage even more puzzling is that he states they each had
the "same faces," even though he called one a bull and the other a cherub. Due to the
connection in the ANE between bulls and fertility, the removal of the bull may have been
an indication that God's fertility towards Israel had already been rescinded.
When it comes to the order of faces, Block notes that the vantage point of Ezekiel
is different then in the first vision, leading to a different order. (p.325) In the first vision,
the cloud came from the North (1:4) indicating the prophet was facing that direction. In
that account the human face was mentioned first (1:10) because it was the first face of
each creature that he saw, then he described the two flanking faces, and the last face

13 Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 1-24. NICONT, p.97

14 Ibid. 319-320

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 9

 Christian Angelology

which was behind them. In the second instance he saw the glory of the Lord lifting up to
the cherubim, which probably put him facing the east gate as indicated by 10:19. Here the
first face seen would be the Eastern one, the bull/cherub, then he moves counter
clockwise, which makes the order of the faces the same as in chapter one.
Later in Revelation these creatures appear again, this time just called “living
creatures” (4:5-11) Although Revelation only says "living creatures", the description is
almost identical in form and function to Ezekiel's visions, except that each creature has a
single different face of a lion, man, ox, and eagle. Traditionally the Cherubim have been
seen as a class of angel closest to God. (Noll, Angels of Light, Powers of Darkness, 180)
There are at least six of them, the four that form God's throne and the two that guard
Eden. There are possibly more, especially if Ezekiel 28:14 is taken as a reference to Satan
who would then be a Cherub class angel. There is not a completely consistent image of
these beings, but in general when they manifest physical presence they display power,
royalty, wisdom and speed. Four faces, with the ability to move in any direction also
indicates the omnipresence of God's throne. Each reference to them is slightly different in
number of wings, and faces, and which faces are present. It may be they take on similar,
yet different and appropriate forms depending on the situation they are in. Unlike other
angels, they have a unique role as guardians of Divinity, and direct servant of God as his
throne.

Christian tradition would also associate the Cherubim with the four evangelists:
Man Lion Ox Eagle
Matthew Mark Luke John

Seraphim [~ypi’r"f.]

It is difficult to provide much commentary on Seraphim because they are

mentioned only in one passage in scripture. In Isaiah’s vision (Isa 6) they are
described as having six wings, with two that cover their heads, two their feet,
and fly with the remaining two. Beyond that they had two actions, praise God
continually with the trisagion (“Holy, Holy, Holy”) and place a burning coal on
the lips of Isaiah to purify him to proclaim God’s message to Israel.
The root word for seraphim is @rf which means “burn” as in fire or
metaphorical burning. The serpents used to punish Israel in the desert are also
called “(the) Seraphim” [~ypiêr"F.h;] (Num 21:6, Deut 8:15), likely due to the intense
burning sensation of the poison. In two other places Isaiah uses the term more
likely to also refer to poisonous serpents, (14:29, 30:6) this is indicated by the
connection in judgment between the two verses and that 30:6 is in a list that
contains real animals.
They appear twice in the Book of Enoch (61:10, 71:7) in a list that includes
both Cherubim and Ophanim (“wheels”, the Book of Enoch takes the wheels in
Ezekiel’s vision as separate beings). In later Christian angel hierarchy lists the
Seraphim are consistently placed at the very top. Although generally considered
different from the Cherubim, note the strong similarities in Revelation 4:8 where

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 10

 Christian Angelology

the Cherubim have six wings and stand around God’s throne singing the
trisagion.
There is some possible evidence for these beings in iconography from
ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptians had images of snake-like beings with
wings, and sometimes human faces, called "uraei" that adorned and protected
gods and kings.15 None of these images have six wings, and many have none.
The closest cultural parallel to a six winged being comes from the ancient city of
Byblos where six wings commonly symbolized divinity, such as on the god El.16
I’m skeptical about this connection due to lack of evidence in description
and out of hesitancy to put too much stress on the root of a word. In addition, as
Tuschling notes, their role in Isaiah bares little to no connection to other serpent
pagan dieites of the time.17 But if there is something to this background perhaps
it shows the ultimate power and holiness of Yahweh that these creatures that
protect the gods and kings of the nations themselves stand in terror and cover
their faces in the presence of Yahweh who needs no protection. (For more see
Toorn, Becking, and Van der Horst. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible.
2nd ed. Boston: Eerdmans, 1999)

Other Terms

General Overview
These terms come almost exclusively from intertestamental literature such as the
Pseudepigrapha as well as early Christian tradition. We associate them with angels
primarily through the influence of pseudo-Dionysius ’ Celestial Hierarchy. In Christian
art and music they have become a standard part of the Nine Choirs (discussed later).

Thrones and Dominions

Both appear sparingly in the Pseudepigrapha, but one instance is 2 Enoch 20:1 [J] along
with a list of the angelic hierarchy which may or may not be in any order. In the New
Testament Paul uses these terms in Colossians 1:16 in a possible reference to spiritual
powers. In the Celestial Hierarchy the Thrones are “exempt from...any base and earthly
thing” (VII), and represent “openness to the reception of God” (XIII). Dominions have a
“certain unbounded elevation to that which is above” and are seen as true lords
encouraging perfection to the ultimate Lord, God. (VIII)

Virtues
In the Book of Adam and Eve they help prepare Eve for the birth of Cain. Eusebius says
that it was this order of angels that were present at the ascension of Jesus. (see citation in
Danielou, 35) In Celestial Hierarchy Virtues have a “powerful and unshakable virility
welling forth into all their Godlike energies; not being weak and feeble for any reception
of the divine Illuminations granted to it” (VIII)

15 R.M.M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy, (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Sibeck) p.18
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid. 19

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 11

 Christian Angelology

Powers
Although the Old Testament does not really use this term for angels, the LXX does use
the Greek for “power” (du,namij) several times when translating words of military power
such as “army” or “host”. See 1 Chronicles 18:18 for a case where du,namij is used for an
army/host of angels. This word is used only a few times in the New Testament to refer to
some form of spiritual being, in some cases and evil one, particularly by Paul. One
specific case is in Rom 8:38 where he argues that powers as well and principalities and
angels cannot separate Christians from God’s love. Another place may be Eph 1:21, but
this is ambiguous and could be used generically here, although Eph 6:12 is much more
definite for evil powers. A more certain example is Colossians 1:16 where the context
seems very likely to refer to personal powers as well as principalities, dominions, and
thrones. However in this text the reference is more likely neutral or good. A non-Pauline
example is in 1 Peter 3:22 in reference to Christ’s future triumph over all power and
authority, although this as well could be generic or refer to any personal power angel and
human. Another possible positive example is Eph 3:10 which is specifically those powers
in heavenly places, so perhaps the qualifier of heavenly could mean good angels. In the
Celestial Hierarchy the Powers signify “the regulation of intellectual and supermundane
power which never debases its authority by tyrannical force” (VIII)

Principalities
Like Powers, used some in the Pseudepigrapha for part of the angelic hierarchy (cf 2
Enoch 20:1 [J]) and by Paul in the New Testament at times for something evil. Examples
include 6:12, and Col 2:15. Like Powers, Eph 1:21 and 3:10 may actually be a case for a
positive conception of them as the text is somewhat neutral. Essentially, Christian
tradition saw these negative NT references as evil versions of good angels and not terms
for demons per se. In the Celestial Hierarchy the Principalities signify “signifies their
Godlike princeliness and authoritativeness in an Order which is holy and most fitting to
the princely Powers” (IX)

Fr. J. Wesley Evans 12