Archangels

Despite the term only occuring twice in the Protestant Bible, most people seem to know quite a bit about who and what the archangels are. But what texts are our sources for this information?

## Etymology

Greek, arch angel- what does the word and it's component parts literally mean? How is the word used? Clarification. Are we talking about the transliterated English word or the ancient Greek word or the collection of ancient words that we assume to be referring to the same concept as our modern English word and conception?

Should this etymology go up here or at the end of the article? I prefer to let the texts speak for themselves- to go into the texts as empty as possible and let the usage of the words in the texts slowly begin to inform me rather than loading my mind with what a word is supposed to mean then taking all of that baggage into the reading and interpretation of the text.

## Texts

### 1 Thessalonians

Dates

"15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 NIV

Speaking of the coming of the Lord, the author says that a command will be given with the voice of the archangel. Is the archangel giving the command or is God speaking with the voice of the archangel? In what tradition is the author operating? Who is the archangel? Why not the voice of an archangel or the voice of the angel of the Lord or the voice of an angel or the voice of the Lord? At the command of this archangel voice and trumpet call- the dead in Christ will rise.

### Jude

Dates

"8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[a] 10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them."

Jude 1:8-10 NIV

Michael is identified as *the* Archangel. This seems to imply that he is the only one but that is not definite. It could be read as he is the archangel as he is the president (of which there is normally only one at a time) or it could be read as he is the archangel as he is the American (of which there are many). Greater context is needed to understand what the author intends to communicate by including the article "the." However the author appears to be juxtaposing Michael's rank and authority as the archangel with the ignorance and irrationality of ungodly people in an appeal to encourage the audience to be humble when speaking of what we do not understand.

## Conclusions

Should I end every page with a summary of the term or character? Recording my thoughts and questions on the topic in general? Maybe. Or just more categories. Maybe sections for different things... like "my canon" based on this research... or pretending all of the sources are true- the full implications of the body of information. Or a section that discusses the evolution of the idea as represented in the texts. Should I have sections speaking to the different faith traditions doctrines on each topic? Or is that represented in the texts I am collecting? Or at least a discussion of the different teachings. How many traditions am I going to include in this research? Where should I draw the line? These topics get very messy the wider the scope. Jewish and Christian angelology is a wide topic on its own without branching into Yezidism and Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism and New Age spiritualism and witchcraft... Perhaps the texts being broken into sections would be a good point to discuss the faith traditions as the appear in time and with each text discuss how the ideas are evolving and later become reinterpreted- but that is layers on layers of interpretations. Each generation of Christian theologians are looking back at a text through new lenses and writing increasingly more and more about each topic. It exponential how many texts need be read and considered and cited. For me the texts of most interest are the oldest and their contemporaries and then the from there- the ones moving forward through time that either seem to have most influenced our beliefs and understanding of the older texts. The texts that are most helpful in documenting the evolution of ideas and beliefs to our or my modern society.

I also wonder if I shouldn't be doing these explorations on more important topics than angels. Shouldn't I concern myself with the much heavier topic of salvation or Christology or heaven or the afterlife? Those things do not interest me as much. They are serious and sad. (with the exception of the afterlife- that one is fun) My journey away from Christianity has been in part through my exploration into angels- but the true catalyst was my study of homosexuality in the Bible. The cognitive dissonance became too great. One can make a million excuses for why cherubim, seraphim and the living creatures are contradictory portrayals of the same entities but it's much more difficult to explain why the God forbids same sex sex. The Bible is devoid of an explanation outside of it being unnatural in Romans and the implication in Lev. that it is infanticide. I will make a page about this topic. It is relatively related to angels via Sodom and Gomorrah and the Nephilim and Jude. Besides this whole wiki is for fun. For me. In some respect this is also me exploring my ex-religion. I shall meander back and forth from fun mythology to serious topics like misogamy...

evolution of YHWH and Elohim

Erasure and suppression of women in the NT and early Christian writings.

Contradictions in the Bible.

Evolution of Judaism and Christianity.

Logical problems with theology and teachings.

The true history of the Bible and Bible lands...

Cole.

If god is real...

What do I want to talk to Cole about? Why can't I be calm and patient and humble when I talk to him or anyone else who disagrees with me? Why do I assume they are all condescending me?

## Conclusion

With the texts we have assembled- we see that archangel is probably a rank. Though later sources will seem to imply that it is a type rather than a title.

I wonder what relation the term "archangel" has to the term "prince" in the OT? Is "arch" used in a parallel fashion to "prince" when used of humans?

Why does PsuedoDionysus make a group of assumedly few, the "archangels" into an entire choir in his hierarchy? The same could be asked of Cherubim and Seraphim. They are only ever seen four at a time- hardly enough to warrant a rank. At most we may potentially have evidence for 7 cherubim to exist. The four that carry God's throne in Ezekiel's vision, the more than one (at least two) that guard Eden's entrance, and the guardian cherub that is cast out. Of course any of these could overlap with the others but that reduces our number back to 4. It's strange to me that a difference in job, proximity to God, or appearance is enough to warrant a difference in rank and that these ranks are strictly linear in authority. Why? The presidents secret service are closest to the president but they do not outrank the secretary of defense. And so on.