No.7. The Nature of Angels.
Man, we learn from the Scriptures, was made a little lower than the angels, but is destined by grace eventually to be made higher than these celestial spirits. In Heb. ii., this twofold relationship is spoken of Christ Himself. The section of the epistle that deals with this phase of the redemptive purpose is introduced by the words.
“For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak” (Heb. ii. 5).
If “the sons of God” and “the morning stars” sang together and shouted for joy at creation were angels (Job xxxviii. 7), then it would appear that they had some administrative power in the world that has passed away. If, as we learn, some of the angels fell, that again would suggest a gap which the creation and redemption of man was designed to fill.
In order to follow the implications of Heb. ii. 5, and of the several references to angels that are found in Heb. i. and ii., a careful examination of the Scriptures on the nature, sphere and relationship of angels with the purpose of the ages seem called for.
Four Hebrew words and one Greek word are translated “angel” in the A.V. which we will first of all consider:
(1) Abbir “mighty”. “Man did eat angel’s food” (margin the bread of the mighty) (Psa. lxxviii. 25). The translation ‘angels’ here is by reason of the employment of that word by the Septuagint, but there is nothing in the context or in the general usage of the word to warrant this rendering. The expression seems rather to draw attention to the miraculous sustenance provided by the manna that fell from heaven throughout Israel’s wilderness journeys.
(2) Elohim “God, or gods”. “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.” This translation is confirmed by the rendering in Heb. ii. 7. While elohim in the bulk of occurrences is rightly translated “God”, it is rendered ‘gods’ 240 times, ‘judges’ 5 times, ‘great’, ‘mighty’ and ‘very great’ once each. Upon consulting the Septuagint we find that elohim is rendered in that version ‘angel’ on four occasions, namely Gen. xxxi. 24; Psa. viii. 5; xcvii. 7; and cxxxviii. 1. Of these translations, Heb. i. 6 “And let all the angels of God worship Him” endorses the LXX rendering of Psa. xcvii. 7. Thus in two passages quoted in Hebrews, namely in Heb. i. 6 and 7 the word ‘angel’ is in the original Hebrew elohim.
(3) Shinan “repetition”. “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels” (Psa. lxviii. 17). The employment of the word ‘angels’ here is gratuitous. Shinan is a term indicating ‘repetition’ and refers to the preceding enumeration. It must be remembered that neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks had the use of the numerals employed by us today in our arithmetic. They used the letters of the alphabet, and the Greeks were able to represent any sum up to 9,999 but after that they were obliged to resort to the expedient of prefixing the letter “M” which turned the number into a “myriad”. By this method the ancient Greek could represent any number up to 99,999,999 but he could get no further. Ten thousand times ten thousand is a multitude ‘which no man can number’. Similarly, different expedients were employed by the Hebrews, and Psa. lxviii. 17 is an example.
A literal translation is “The chariots of God are myriads twice told thousands of repetition”. While angels may be intended in this passage, it cannot be legitimately quoted as a proof text.
Before we take up the examination of the two main words malak and angelos that are translated ‘angel’ in the O.T. and in the N.T., there are buried in theSeptuagint version a number of references that must be included in our survey in order that the fullest light upon this subject shall be obtained.
We wish to avoid overloading this article with transliterations of either Hebrew or Greek words, and will dispense with their citations wherever it can be done without endangering the argument, believing that any reader who desires, can verify every reference with ease.
We have seen that elohim is rendered ‘angel’ in the LXX and to this, one or two other references must be added.
El (Job xx. 15). No reason is offered for translating this by the word angel, we merely record the fact. The title ‘sons of God’ found in Job i. 6 and xxxviii. 7 is translated ‘angels’; in Deut. xxxii. 8 where the original reads ‘according to the number of the sons of Israel’, the LXX reads ‘according to the number of the angels of God’.
Speaking of Leviathan, the Lord says to Job, according to the LXX:
“This is the chief of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by His angels” (Job xl. 14).
Again it is beyond our present knowledge to explain the great divergence manifested here between the Hebrew original and the LXX. In Job xl. 6 where the A.V. reads (in verse 11, the enumeration is not similar throughout) “Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath’, the LXX reads ‘Sent forth angels with wrath’. Lastly, so far as Job xxxvi. 14 is concerned, it reads in the LXX:
“Therefore let their soul die in youth, and their life be wounded by angels (of death).”
The underlying link between these various and strange renderings is the substitution of the “angel” as the instrument or agent for the personal activity of God Himself. Where the modern man speaks of ‘forces of nature’, the Hebrew speaks of ‘angels’. In both cases instruments or agents are intended.
In II Sam. xv. 13 the word nagad is translated ‘angel’ in the LXX, which word in slightly different forms appear in this same chapter as ‘certify’, ‘told’ and ‘tell’ (verses 28, 31 and 35). This rendering bears out the ordinary meaning that attaches to both the Hebrew and the Greek words which are generally translated ‘angel’, namely ‘a messenger’.
There remains just the translation by the word ‘angel’ of the word ‘servant’ (Isa. xxxvii. 24); of the word for ‘ambassador’ (Jer. xxix. 14); and ‘by the hand’ (Prov. xxvi. 6).
These somewhat curious examples of translation may not, it is true, contribute much to our understanding, but the very fact that in them is exhibited every existing reference in the LXX to the word angelos (except of course those which now await our examination), means that no light or truth that might have been revealed has been neglected. We can now turn our attention to the most important words that are translated ‘angel’ namely malak in the Hebrew and angelos in the Greek. Malak occurs 213 times, of which 111 occurrences are translated ‘angel’; 98 ‘messenger’, and 4 ‘ambassador’. Angelos occurs 188 times, of which 181 occurrences are translated ‘angel’ and ‘messenger’ 7 times.
The first fact to be recorded and to remember throughout this study is that angels belong to the spiritual world. “He maketh His angels spirits” (Psa. civ. 4) and are numbered among ‘things in heaven’ as contrasted with ‘things on earth’ (Matt. xviii. 10; xxiv. 36; xxviii. 2). Those that attain to the resurrection are said to be ‘as the angels which are in heaven’ so far as the matter of marriage is concerned (Mark xii. 25). Scripture moreover insists upon the vastness of the number of these ‘holy myriads’, speaking of ‘the heavenly host’ (Luke ii. 13); and as the Saviour Himself said that he had but to ask and the Father would send Him ‘more than twelve legions of angels’ (Matt. xxvi. 53). When Jacob was met by the angels while on his way to meet Esau, he said “This is God’s host” (Gen. xxxii. 2) and although a different word is used, much the same meaning is intended when the Scriptures speak of God as “The Lord of Hosts”, and it will be observed that angels are placed in correspondence with hosts in Psa. cxlviii. 2:
“Praise ye Him, all His angels
Praise ye Him, all His hosts.”
Angels are said to be ‘mighty’, to ‘excel in strength’, and ‘holy’, even to so great a saint as Daniel (II Thess. i. 7; Psa. ciii. 20; Acts x. 22 and Dan. x. 5-8), and are of superhuman intelligence (Mark xiii. 32). Some angels are called ‘the elect’, and some angels ‘fell’ (I Tim. v. 21; Jude 6). There are indications in Scripture that there is some kind of order among the ranks of angels, Michael is called ‘The archangel’ and Gabriel is deputed on several specific and important occasions to bear a message (Dan. xii. 1; Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7; and Dan. viii. 16; ix. 21; Luke i. 19, 26).
Not only are there differences of rank among the angels, but the angels appear to be one section of a vast spiritual world consisting of ‘angels, principalities and powers’ (I Pet. iii. 22). Neither the Hebrew ruach nor the Greek pneuma go so far as the modern use of the word ‘spirit’, which is immaterial, as one philosopher wrote:
If we seclude space there will remain in the world but matter and mind, or body and spirit.”
The Hebrews when they called angels ‘spirits’, did not deny that they were endued with ‘bodies’, even as the Apostle, speaking of the resurrection, when believers will be like unto the angels of heaven, says ‘there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body’, and we may, with sufficient safety, assume that angels are spiritual bodies, rather than pure spirits in the modern acceptation of the word’ (Kitto).
The oldest book in the Canon, together with the last book in the N.T. uses the figure of the stars to represent angels.
“The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (LXX ‘angels’) shouted for joy” (Job xxxviii. 7).
“The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” (Rev. i. 20).
A star is used prophetically to symbolize the coming Saviour and Ruler, Christ:
“There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall arise out of Israel” (Numb. xxiv. 17).
This too finds its echo in the Revelation:
“I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright and morning Star” (Rev. xxii. 16).
In Rev. ix. 1 a star is seen to fall from heaven, to whom was given the keys of the abyss. It is obvious that an angel is here intended. So also in Rev. viii. 10, 11 “A great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp” is named ‘Wormwood’. Once again a star in the astronomical sense cannot be intended. Yet again in Rev. xii. 4 we read that the tail of the dragon ‘drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth’. It is a physical impossibility for ‘a third part of the stars of heaven’ to fall upon the earth, and the whole passage is symbolical of the fall of the angels through the influence of Satan. A somewhat similar passage is that of Dan. viii. 10 where we read:
“And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.”
It was evidently an accepted teaching in the days of Job, that ‘the stars’ were not pure in the sight of God (Job xxv. 5), a belief expressed in other words by Eliphaz (Job xv. 15), where ‘His saints’ are placed in parallel correspondence with ‘the heavens’ which he declared ‘are not clean in His sight’, and this is more definitely stated in Job iv. 18 where Eliphaz says ‘Behold, He put no trust in His servants; and His angels He charged with folly’.
The same epistle that reveals that the angels kept not their first estate but left their own habitation, who are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, likens those who came under that baleful influence to ‘wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever’ (Jude 6, 11).
The Chaldeans and early races of mankind appear to have had a knowledge of the association of the stars with both the angels and with rule which became distorted and perverted, leading them to extravagances of Astrology and the association of the planets with their gods Astarte and Baal, which later appear as Jupiter and Venus.
What are we to understand by ‘the star’ which led the Magi to the cradle of the infant Christ? The Companion Bible comments “all questions are settled if we regard this as miraculous. (Cp. Numb. xxiv. 15-19)”. This is true, and recognizes the peculiar nature of the phenomenon. We are all doubtless aware of the many attempts that have been made by astronomers and divines alike to solve the mystery of this peculiar star. Kepler, by observing the conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, which took place in the year 1604, made calculations that led him back to a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of the Fishes (a fish is the astronomical symbol of Judaea), and so to the first year of the Christian era. While all this is very interesting, we must in all fairness reject it as an explanation of the words of the Holy Writ.
This star which the wise men saw in the East ‘went before them till it came and stood over where the young child was’ (Matt. ii. 9). Such a statement cannot by any explanation be made to refer either to a star in the heavens or to any conjunction of the planets. But if angels are so often called ‘stars’, if one star at least was described as falling from heaven to the earth ‘burning as it were a lamp’ for the purposes of judgment; if moreover it is no new thing for an angel to lead the people of God, accompanied by a pillar of cloud by day, and by a burning fire by night (Exod. xiv. 19; xxiii. 23); if an angel can ascend in a flame (Judg. xiii. 20), and finally if it is within the power of a man, to kindle a lamp to guide a friend, or to devise an artificial ‘moon’ to encircle the earth, is it not within the power of an angel of God to guide the Magi to the house in which the Infant Christ could be found? The angel Gabriel was especially sent to Mary to announce the miracle of the Incarnation, and a multitude of the heavenly host heralded His birth. Is it not reasonable to believe that an angel led the Magi by means of the star which they had seen in the East, and so deliver the whole subject from the astronomical problems that beset the ordinary interpretation?
We have done little more than survey the material contained in Scripture. Our next study must be directed to the place which angels occupied in the ages that are past and what part they will play in the world to come. Anticipating our findings, we believe that we shall discover that the ‘gap’ occasioned by angelic fall was ‘filled’ by the creation and subsequent redemption of man made ‘for a little lower than the angels’.
One further note upon these references to angels and this article must close. We refer to Heb. ii. 16 which reads as follows in the A.V. and the R.V.
“For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.”
A.V. margin Gr. reads: “He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.” The R.V. follows the A.V. margin.
A great mass of conflicting opinions will be found in commentaries upon this verse, some seeking to prove that Christ did not assume angelic form, but human, some seeking to prove that the passage means that He did not succour or assist angels, but men. As there is no agreement, either among commentators or the A.V. and the R.V., we must turn once more to the Fountain Head. One writer complains that the usage of the word ‘to take hold’ does not help him; the reason seems that the references do not help his idea of what it means. Let us examine the word afresh, epilambanomai.
Matt. xiv. 31 “Stretched forth His hand, and caught him.”
Mark viii. 23 “He took the blind man by the hand.”
Luke ix. 47 “And Jesus . . . . . took a child.”
Luke xiv. 4 “He took him, and healed him.”
Luke xx. 20, 26 “Take hold of His words.”
Luke xxiii. 26 “They laid hold upon one Simon.”
Acts ix. 27 “But Barnabas took him.”
Acts xvi. 19 “They caught Paul and Silas.”
Acts xvii. 19 “They took him.”
Acts xviii. 17 “The Greeks took Sosthenes.”
Acts xxi. 30, 33 “They took Paul.”
Acts xxiii. 19 “Took him by the hand.”
I Tim. vi. 12, 19 “Lay hold on eternal life.”
Heb. ii. 16 The passage under consideration.
Heb. viii. 9 “I took them by the hand.”
An impartial examination shews that the word is colourless. There is no moral meaning inherent to it. The same word can be used when Christ takes a man by the hand to heal him, as when the Roman soldiers take hold on Simon to compel him to bear the cross. The same word can be used for Barnabas’ kindly act in taking hold of Paul to bring him to the apostles, as for the mob who took Paul with intent to kill him. The characteristic use of the word precludes the idea of ‘assisting, helping, succouring’. It also seems to preclude the idea of assuming, as in the rendering ‘assuming the nature of angels’. It simply means to take hold upon, whether good or evil motives and objects.
We have already observed that the A.V. italics make Heb. ii. 16 a somewhat needless repetition. May there not be some meaning which has been on the surface all the while? We believe there is. There is a footnote in The Emphatic Diaglott which reads, “For truly it”, i.e., the fear of death, or death itself, ‘does not lay hold of, or seize on angels, but of the seed of Abraham it does lay hold’. (Theolog Ref. and Kneeland). Those of our readers who are not conversant with the original must know that the ‘he’ or the ‘it’ is contained within the verb epilambanomai, and epilambanetai means equally it, as well as he, takes hold. Let us look at the structure again, verses 14-16 are included together there under one member:
C | 14-16. Oneness in death and deliverance. |
a | The death of Christ.
The destruction of the Devil who had the strength of death.
a | The deliverance of those subject to bondage of fear of death.
The seed of Abraham laid hold of by fear of death.
With the exception of the fourth line, the emphatic word is death. If the A.V. reading be retained it introduces a discordant note. If the idea of ‘assisting’ is adopted it harmonizes with ‘deliverance’, but has no relation with the emphatic word ‘death’. What has Scripture to say about angels and death? Luke xx. 35, 36 says:
“But they which are accounted worthy to obtain that age (the very pith and marrow of Hebrews) and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage NEITHER CAN THEY DIE ANY MORE FOR THEY ARE EQUAL TO THE ANGELS.”
If the seed of Abraham, and flesh and blood, were laid hold of by the fear of death and thereby brought into bondage, Christ’s becoming flesh and delivering them from that bondage is a fitting sequel.
.jpg)
