De Moor IX:19: The Order of Angels

[A fundraising update: We are a little more than 25% of the way to our fundraising goal of 25 new $100/month subscribers! Thanks be to God. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The Order of those Angels is undoubtedly the Best:  whether that rests upon the diversity of the duties imposed upon them, or upon the mere choice of God.

This Order is proven, α.  By the Titles, 1.  Of Hosts, 1 Kings 22:19; Revelation 19:14; for, unless an Army is duly ordered, things are in a bad way.  2.  Of Principalities, etc., Colossians 1:16; etc.; which sort of title then strongly implies an Order of superiors and inferiors, if it be given to Angels relatively to each other.

β.  By analogy with the Evil Angels, with respect to which Scripture mentions the Devil and his Angels, Matthew 25:41, to which are opposed Michael and his Angels, Revelation 12:7.

γ.  And by the wise ordering in God’s lower House of the Church, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40, whence by legitimate consequence a conclusion is able to be drawn concerning God’s upper, heavenly House.  For, if God loves Order, where with respect to His Majesty He is at a distance, how much more, where He gloriously manifests His Majesty on His throne, shall all ἀταξία/disorder be kept far off?

δ.  That thus by Seraphim, Isaiah 6, and Cherubim, Ezekiel 1; 10, are represented to us certain primary and excellent Angels, even perhaps the former superior to the latter; while nevertheless again by Cherubim are designated Angels excelling others that are depicted in the Wheels, and that are impelled and governed by the Cherubim; observes our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Texualibus, Part VI, Exercitation XIV, § 11, and Exercitation XXIV, § 15:  compare ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 1-6, pages 705-708.

But what that Order might be, we do not know:  whether it be always the same, how long it might extend itself, and what sort it might be; all these things are unknown:  whence our AUTHOR condemns with AUGUSTINE the Rash Presumption of those that too curiously determine these things, having regard to passages of AUGUSTINE, as here cited by TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question VII, § 2, contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas, chapter XI:  That there are Throne, Dominions, Principalities, and powers in heavenly ranks, I most firmly believe; and that they differ somewhat from each other, I hold with undoubted confidence.  But, as for the reason that thou despisest me, whom thou regardest as a great teacher, I do not know what those are, and how they differ among themselves.  And according to AUGUSTINE, in the same place:  It appears that the rash presumption in them is more to be blamed than cautious ignorance; see opera, tome 8, column 438.  Things similar to which are found in Enchiridio ad Laurentium, chapter LVIII, tome 6, column 160:  But how that most blessed and heavenly society, which there has diversities of persons, situates itself, so that, although they are all called Angels as under a general title…yet there are Archangels there:  and whether the same Archangels are called powers…and how those four terms differ from each other, wherewith the Apostle appears to have embraced that entire heavenly society, in saying whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power, let those that are able to say say, if they are indeed able to prove what they say:  I myself confess that I am ignorant of these things:  compare VOETIUS’ de Hierarchia cœlesti, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 882-897.

What things they have concerning the Three Classes and Nine Orders of Angels are curious trifles, etc.  In a better place are not able to be put the tenets,

1.  Both of the Platonists, who were saying that there were three kinds of Genii, Supercelestial, Celestial, and Subcelestial; as it is in IAMBLICHUS’[1] Mysteriis Ægyptiorum, and in PROCLUS[2] upon Plato’s Alcibiadem:  see ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 12, pages 711, 712.

2.  And of the Jews, who also make mention of Three Classes of Angels.  To the first Class they refer הפנים שרי, the Princes of the divine face/presence,[3] four Angels, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael, who never withdraw from the divine face/presence, but perpetually surround the divine throne ministering to God, and hence are never seen in bodily form.  The Second Class is made up of the Good Angels, קדש מלאכי, Holy Angels, who sometimes assume bodies, and move about among mortals, especially serving the interests of the pious; they appear to the Prophets communicating prophecies, who at one and the same time rule the inferior world and govern the orbs of the heavens, dwelling above the orbs of the heavens:  hence they are called the Hosts of Heaven and מלאכי השרת, Angels of ministry.[4]  In the Third and greatest Class of Angels are the Corrupting Angels, called חבלה מלאכי, Angels of destruction or perdition, because they bring hurt and loss upon mortals according to the divine sentence; and called מות מלאכי, Angels of death, because they bring and administer death; and also שטנים/satans/executioners, because they exact punishments of the wicked, having their ordinary seat both in the sublunary and in the infernal regions; they say that of these was the Angel smiting in the midst of the camp of the Assyrians,[5] the Angel that David saw holding the sword drawn against Jerusalem,[6] the Angel that afflicted Job,[7] etc.:  see MANASSEH ben Israel, de Creatione, problem XXII.  But now the Good Angels of the Second Class they again divide into Ten lesser Orders, differentiated both by wisdom, and by dignity and power:  these MAIMONIDES enumerates, de Fundamentis Legis, chapter II, § 8,שינוי שמות המלאכים על שם מעלותם היא ולפיכך נקראים חיות הקדש והם למעלה מן הכל אופנים ואראלים וחשמלים ושרפים ומלאכים ואלהים ובני אלהים וכרובים ואישים, that is, the Variety of the titles of the Angels is according to their degree, and for this reason they are called Living Creatures of Holiness, which are the highest of all, and Wheels, and the Mighty, and the Gleaming Ones, and the Seraphim, and the Angels, and the Elohim, and the Sons of Elohim, and the Cherubim, and Men.  The highest of these are below the throne of the divine majesty:  the lowest, the אישים/Men are Angels that spoke with the Prophets, and were seen by them in visions, § 9.  According to others of the Jews there are seven Angels, more excellent than the rest and of the most intimate admission in the presence of God, as it is in Tobit 12:15,[8] while we heard above, that Raphael is one of those four, whom others maintain to be of the first order, and of the most intimate admission in the presence of God.  That opinion of Seven primary Angels is embraced by CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA, Stromata, book VI, page 685, Ἑπτὰ μέν εἰσιν οἱ τὴν μεγίστην δύναμιν ἔχοντες πρωτόγονοι ἀγγέλων ἄρχοντες, that is, There are indeed seven, who have the greatest power, the first-born princes of the Angels.  Now, those Ten titles of the various Orders in the Second Class, they are in part well known and common to all, like Angels, Elohim/Gods, and Sons of Elohim/Gods:  whence shall it be proven that those, with the Seraphim and Cherubim, follow one another in that order, wherein they were set forth above?  The title אישים/Men does not designate a separate Order of Angels, but a form and habit, under which Angels often appeared.  Others were sought from the vision of Ezekiel 1, but not happily.  They are called חיות הקדש, the Living Creatures of Holiness, only from their form and figure, under which the Cherubim were represented to Ezekiel in the vision:  and so these Living Creatures were not distinct from the Cherubim, nor do they denote a distinct Order of Angels.  The title אופנים/Ophannim is taken from Wheels, which together with the Living Creatures appeared to Ezekiel; but under which it is not altogether certainly evident that Angels were represented, although this interpretation is judged by our AUTHOR to be the simplest, Exercitationibus Textualibus XXIV, Part VI, § 14, page 836, where he also appeals to the agreement of COCCEIUS; add § 15.  Much less a distinct Order of Angels, which are called חשמלים/Chasmalim, may one carve out of ‎הַחַשְׁמַל/ha-Chashmal, the Amber, mentioned only in verse 4, so that the Prophet might signify that the color seen by him was similar to amber.  While the title אראלים/Oralim was obviously devised without Scripture, and it, occurring only one place in the Sacred Scriptures as אֶרְאֶל or אֶרְאֵל/Erel, Isaiah 33:7,[9] does not have regard to Angels there:  see HOORNBEECK, contra Judæos, book IV, chapter I, page 308; GUILIELMUS VORSTIUS[10] in notis ad Maimonidem on the place cited above, pages 18-20; JOHANN À LENT, de moderna Theologia Judaica, chapter VIII, § 4-9, pages 248-259; ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 8-11, pages 709-711.

3.  And of the Scholastics and Papists commonly, who understanding out of Pseudo-Dionysius, in an arrangement similar to that of the Jews, but with the order of Angels somewhat changed, also establish Three Classes of the Heavenly Hierarchy, which each in turn have Three Orders under themselves:  in the First Class they place the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Thrones, and they extol these as enjoying the vision of God most immediately; in the Second Class Dominions, Principalities, and Powers; in the Third Class Mights, Archangels, and Angels:  see ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, pages 714-716, where he also mentions some disagreement in the recounting of these angelic Orders among the patrons of the heavenly Hierarchy.  In addition to the passages in GREGORY the GREAT cited by ODÉ, examine also homily XXXIV in Euangelistas, opera, tome 3, column 115.  Now, they maintain that the denominations are imposed upon those individual Orders, either according to the properties in which they excel, or according to the offices that are committed to them, as you are able to see the distinct character of these Nine Orders reviewed by TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, § 3; and by ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 16, page 716:  for it is idle to delay in repeating these trifles.

But, α.  Scripture, being silent concerning these things, teaches that thus defining the Order of Angels, and distributing the same into various Classes by name, is ἐμβατεύειν ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν, to intrude into those things which one hath not seen, as Paul says, when he speaks of the θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, worshipping of the angels, commended by some, Colossians 2:18.  Everywhere in Paul there is a deep silence concerning these Three Classes and Nine Orders of Angels, from which Apostle notwithstanding Dionysius boasts to have received this doctrine.  Now, an ἄγραφος/unwritten Tradition of Paul concerning this matter, as if he taught these mysteries to his disciples only with the living voice, is rashly supposed.

β.  It is thus supposed at that same time, a.  That there are many Archangels, and that these are in the lowest Order; while Scripture has mentioned the ἀρχαγγέλου/archangel only in the singular, whom it at the same time calls Michael, and who is most likely to be considered the Son of God Himself, as we saw above, § 2.  But if many Archangels are granted, the very title appears to urge, that these are to be place, not in the lowest Class, but in the first, and to be set above the rest.  b.  That there is a Distinction between Angels Attending and Ministering, so that the first four Order are always attending to the divine throne, and are not sent from there into the world, as indeed are the Inferior Orders; which sort of distinction among the Angels we refuted in § 13.  Paul expressly overthrows that, when in Hebrews 1:14, 1.  he says that all Angels equally are πνεύματα λειτουργικὰ, ministering spirits; 2.  he asserts without distinction that they are sent to advance the salvation of elect men:  neither may one understand this of the inferior Classes of Angels alone, without destroying the force of the Apostolic argument, whereby he busies himself to prove, that the Angels are not to be made equal to Christ, which has to be understood of absolutely all Angels.

γ.  Diverse titles do not imply diverse Orders, since, a.  there are many other Titles of Angels, in addition to these nine, in the Scriptures, like Morning Stars,[11] Hosts, Elohim/Gods,[12] Sons of God,[13] Watchers:[14]  therefore, if various Titles imply diverse Orders, far more than Nine of this sort are to be numbered.  But, b.  Multiple Titles, especially in diverse passages, are able to denote one and the same Order.  Thus those that in one passage are called שְׂרָפִים/Seraphim, Blazing ones,[15] as it were, both from the fiery splendor wherewith they appear, and from their fiery alacrity and zeal in executing the divine will:  why are not they able to be found in another place under the name כְּרוּבִים/Cherubim from covering,[16] because they were covered and removed from human sight, covered by their wings in the presence of God, at one and the same time covering and overshadowing the seat of God in the ancient sanctuary, and His heavenly throne which they perpetually surround, and covering believers around whom the camp is wont to be measured off?  Concerning which, however one may not determine anything as altogether certain:  our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus XXIV, Part VI, § 15, has, But whether the Cherubim are certainly the same as those that go under the name of Seraphim in Isaiah, I judge not to be equally certain; neither does the conjecture displease, that the Seraphim appearing above the Throne, and the Cherubim in Ezekiel below the same (yet for which difference there could be another reason), thus appear to be distinguished as superior and inferior.  While Paul in Colossians 1:16 enumerates θρόνους, κυριότητας, ἀρχὰς, ἐξουσίας, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers; but in Ephesians 1:21 mentions πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ κυριότητα, all principality, and power, and might, and dominion; shall we prove from this that δύναμιν/ might here denotes a specific Order of Angels, diverse from those that are recounted in the Epistle to the Colossians; and that θρόνους/thrones, appearing in the first passage, are not comprehended under that names that are found in Ephesians 1?  Whence also shall that Order be evidence, which is to be ascribed to these diverse Classes of Angels? while in Colossians 1 κυριότητες/dominions are placed before ἀρχὰς/ principalities and ἐξουσίας/powers; but in Ephesians 1 they follow after the same and also after δύναμιν/might.  They are indeed able, if you have regard to human dignities, thus to be distinguished into four Titles, of which Paul makes use in Colossians, so that the θρόνοι/thrones might be said to belong to Kings and Monarchs; κυριότητες/dominions might have regard to Petty Kings; ἀρχαὶ/principalities might be those that by Kings are set over provinces and cities; and ἐξουσίαι/powers might be inferior Magistrates:  but, when Paul analogically transfers these to Angels, in order to magnify the sense he is able to conjoin multiple Titles denoting dignity, which taken together shall indicate in general:  1.  the highest Majesty of God, the heavenly King, who is surrounded with a royal escort, in such a way that θρόνοι/thrones also surround His throne.  2.  The excellence and dignity of the Angels and their offices, which various offices are wont to be entrusted to them.  3.  That order also obtains among them, and that all things are conducted by them in an orderly way:  but of what sort that Order might be, and whether it is always the Same, and whether, on the other hand, the same Angels are wont to be employed in various offices of greater and lesser dignity at diverse times; it is not able to be gathered with sufficient certainty from this passage.  Now, whom Paul here, in Colossians 1:16, marks with four diverse Titles, in Colossians 2:10 he comprehends under two Titles, ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, principality and power.  Again, Peter, in 1 Peter 3:22, makes mention of ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων, angels and powers and mights; and so in diverse places the diverse epithets of the Angels appear to be used altogether interchangeably.  For I do not now dispute, whether those titles of θρόνων, κυριοτήτων, ἀρχῶν, ἐξουσιῶν, δυνάμεων, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and mights in the passages cited are referred to Angels, or are more rightly explained of Human Princes and Powers; concerning which against COCCEIUS and BRAUN, Selectis Sacris, book I, § 122, pages 109-111, consider our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales XXIV, Part VI, § 23; and ODÉ’S Commentarium de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 2, page 706; and also what things BUDDEUS teaches against Van Til,[17] de statu Ecclesiæ Apostolicæ, pages 470-472.

Against the Heavenly Hierarchy of the Papists, see, in addition to VOETIUS, in his Disputation cited above, TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question VII, § 7-11; ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 17, pages 718-722.

Now, that work de Cœlesti Hierachia, from which the Papists have drawn these diverse Classes and Orders of Angels, our AUTHOR without any rashness calls a child falsely ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite.  For, although Baronius,[18] Possevinus,[19] Bellarmine, and other Papists contend, that this book is rightly ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, of whom Luke relates, Acts 17:34, that adhered to and believed Paul’s preaching:  1.  Yet the more judicious of the Papists in considerable numbers judge this work to be of a more recent date; see whom TURRETIN cites, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question VII, § 5.  2.  For about five Centuries, the works that are now circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, were unknown and unmentioned, and they only became known after the times of Jerome and Augustine.  Neither Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor Gennadius,[20] who diligently gathered the books of the ancients, make any mention of the same.  Indeed, out of Irenæus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine, it is able to be shown that the whole heavenly Hierarchy was unknown in previous centuries.  3.  The style argues the more recent age of this work, since it is not simple and unadorned, as was the speech of the Apostles or Apostolical Men; in which the Author, in affecting sublimity, purses a certain vicious grandiloquence:  he studiously refrains from the customary terms received by the use of the Church, as if they were poorly suited to the ὄγκον/grandeur that he was seeking; and in all his speech he labor above all for pomp.  4.  That impersonated Dionysius writes many things concerning temples, altars, sacred places, choirs, and catechumens to be assembled outside the doors of the temple, to whom he goes forth, while these things were not able to have any place in the age of the true Dionysius.  The same thing is proven from those things that he has concerning Monks and their consecration, of whom, our opponents are not able to deny, there were none in the Apostolic age.

We conclude, that not before the fifth Century were the books, which are treated, written, and were published under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, so that greater authority might be procured for them:  compare RIVET’S[21] Criticum Sacrum, book I, chapters IX-XI, opera, tome 2, pages 1079-1084; USSHER’S[22] Dissertationem in Historiam dogmaticam de Scripturis et Sacris Vernaculis, pages 281 and following; TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question VII, § 6; ODÉ’S Commentarium de Angelis, section VII, chapter I, § 17, pages 716-718; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter IV, § 8, tome 1, pages 675-677; and many other Authors, whom, discoursing concerning the νοθείᾳ/ spuriousness of this work, WALCH cites, Miscellaneis Sacris, book III, Exercitation I, § 3, page 491.

[1] Iamblichus of Chalcis (in Syriac) (c. 245-c. 325) was instrumental in both shaping and spreading Neoplatonic philosophy in the ancient world.

[2] Proclus (412-485) was an influential systematizer of late Neoplatonism, which system he presented in his Elements of Theology.  He also wrote extensive commentaries on a number of Plato’s Dialogues.  Pseudo-Dionysius was heavily influenced by the hierarchical ideas of Proclus.

[3] See Isaiah 63:9; Exodus 23:20, 21.

[4] Psalm 104:4:  “Who maketh his angels (‎מַלְאָכָיו) spirits; his ministers (‎מְשָׁרְתָיו) a flaming fire…”

[5] 2 Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36.

[6] 2 Samuel 24:16, 17.

[7] Job 1; 2.

[8] Tobit 12:15:  “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.”

[9] Isaiah 33:7:  “Behold, their valiant ones (‎אֶרְאֶלָּם) shall cry without:  the ambassadors of peace shall weep bitterly.”

[10] Guilielmus Vorstius (died 1652) was a Dutch Hebraist. 

[11] Job 38:7.

[12] Psalm 8:5:  “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (‎מֵאֱלֹהִים, than the Elohim; παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους, than the angels, in the Septuagint), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.”  Hebrews 2:7:  “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels (παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους); thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands…”

[13] Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.

[14] Daniel 4:13, 17, 23.

[15] שָׂרַף/saraph signifies to burn.

[16] The intended root appears to be חָרַם, to devote/ban, to consecrate, to prohibit.

[17] Salomon van Til (1643-1713) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.  He served as Professor of Church History and Philology at Dordrecht (1685-1702), and of Theology at Leiden (1702-1713).

[18] Cesare Baronio (1538-1607) was an Italian Cardinal and Vatican librarian.  He is remembered primarily for his work in ecclesiastical history, Annalibus Ecclesiasticis.

[19] Antonio Possevino (1533-1611) was a Renaissance Humanist and Counter-Reformation Jesuit.

[20] Gennadius I (died 471) served as Patriarch of Constantinople.  He was heavily influenced by the literal exegesis of the Antiochean school.  Fragments of his works on Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Daniel, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Hebrews survive.

[21] Andrew Rivet (1573-1651) was a Huguenot minister and divine.  He ministered at Sedan and at Thouara; he went on to teach at the University of Leiden (1619-1632) and at the college at Breda.  His influence among Protestants extended well beyond France.

[22] James Ussher (1580-1655) was an Irish churchman and scholar of the first caliber, who eventually rose to the office of Archbishop of Ireland.  He is most remembered for his Annals of the World.