We have only three angels named in the Bible – Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, and a nameless “the prince of Greece”. We know that there are seven spirits of God – seven top angels, so why aren’t more of them mentioned?

In the apocrypha there are a few others named, as well as one or two in the Talmudic sources, but in the Bible only those three. And of those three, only two are righteous.

First off, let’s examine a separate question which has a bearing on this; was Lucifer one of those original seven angels, and is He still?

Lucifer is a Latinized word; the original Hebrew name in Isaiah 14:12 is “Hillel” which translates as “Praise”, or “Pride” with a connotation of “Light-bearer”. God said of Him in Ezekiel 28:12 “Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.” – God is not one to use such words lightly.

Ezekiel 28:14-15 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

From this we gather that Lucifer was the best that God could create. Perfect in beauty, full of wisdom, sealing up the sum – the best of the best. THE anointed Cherub – not one of, but THE. So from this, it is hard to conclude anything else but that he was chief of the seven angels – the strongest, wisest, and best. I could also make a case for Him being the first one God created, God’s “firstborn” of the angels.

In any case, it is inconceivable that he was not at one time chief of the seven angels. So we are left with the question, is he STILL one of the seven? Or was He fired and replaced with another angel to make seven angels, or are there only six now?

Answering the questions in reverse order, it’s clear there are still seven. Too many scriptures speak in present tense about the “seven eyes of God”. As you’ll recall from my earlier comments, the seven angels were seven divisions of the nature of God – and so to continue to have seven angels, if one was to be replaced, God would have had to replace him with another angel with the same section of God’s spirit.

So was Lucifer/Hillel/Satan replaced with another angel, or is he still one of the seven? A good case can be made for both opinions; here are reasons to believe he WAS replaced:

1. Daniel 4:17 speaks of the seven watchers (top angels) as “the holy ones”. It would seem strange to continue to call Satan “holy”.
2. Ezekiel 28:16 says “I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God” – and it would seem that if he was cast from the mountain/government of God, that He was replaced
3. If Satan is still one of the seven, it would require him to be one of the angels of the seven churches; and it would seem strange to put Satan in charge of the church of God.

Those are compelling reasons to believe that. But now consider the reasons to believe that he was NOT replaced:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be RESERVED unto judgment; –- And remember, WE shall judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). So if they haven’t been judged, God cannot have replaced them in their offices.

So all those points are pretty heavy. To harmonize the first set of points with the second, Satan is still an anointed cherub of God; David, a type of Christ, showed a great respect for the fact that Saul was the anointed of God – far out of proportion with what I always felt Saul deserved:

1 Samuel 26:23 The LORD render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness: for the LORD delivered thee [Saul] into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the LORD’S anointed.

2 Samuel 1:14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD’S anointed?

Note that all this came LONG after Samuel said “the kingdom is rent from you this day”. LONG after Saul was sent “an evil spirit from the Lord”. After years of trying to kill David, who was the newly anointed King, and the last reference came even after Saul consulted the witch at Endor. And yet despite all of Saul’s many sins, David – again, a type of Christ – refused to kill Saul and spoke highly of “the LORD’s anointed”.

God said that Lucifer is STILL the anointed of God. And as such, despite his sins and iniquities, he is still holy. Since that’s a bold statement, let me back it up one more way:

After the rebellion of Korah, when 250 men offered incense against Moses, God made a very odd command; even though these men were evil, carnal, and rebellious, God considered their censers holy.

Numbers 16:38 (RSV) the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives; so let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar, for they offered them before the LORD; therefore they are holy. Thus they shall be a sign to the people of Israel."

As Satan is the Lord’s anointed, and “walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire”, and literally dwelt in the temple of God, he is certainly holy; regardless of his present nature, God still must consider him holy just as the vessels in the temple were holy. Rebellious, of course; evil, and destined for the lake of fire; but in the meantime, until the judgment is complete, he is the Lord’s anointed as Saul was and worthy of respect as such.

So my conclusion is that yes, Satan is one of the seven angels. So now part two;

Section 2: Why Do We Only Know Of Three Angels?

The answer may be simple. God didn't feel it necessary to mention the others, the end. However, I don't like answers that are that simplistic. God has done very little, if anything, for no reason. I mean, we know the name of Moses' sister and Lamech's daughters and lots of other trivial information; a simple list of seven angels wouldn't have been too much for God to include if it was relevant. So if it wasn't relevant – if the angels who collectively guided the world at various times weren't important – why?

Functioning under the conclusion that Satan was one of the seven, we know Michael and Gabriel are also. In my article on the seven spirits, you'll remember that Michael is the first of the chief princes; that Gabriel admits that Michael is superior to him in rank. Because of this, in Revelation it is “Michael and HIS angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and HIS angels,” (Revelation 12:7)

So we have two factions; the righteous angels, including Gabriel, led by Michael; and the unrighteous angels, led by Satan. We know from Revelation 12:4 that Satan's “tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth” – so one third of the angels have fallen. But which third? If these articles on the seven spirits have shown anything, it's that angels are organized by rank; seven on top, some under them, some under them, and so on – perhaps in captains of 10, 50, 100, 1000 etc. Regardless, it is clear that there are several echelon of angels – both good and bad.

Luke 11:26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

So some demons are more wicked than others; and therefore higher in Satan's rank. Daniel 10:13 also bears this out. So the question is... was this third of all angels that fell to Satan's side an EVEN third – or a slanting third? By that I mean did one third of the top angels, one third of the captains of 100, one third of the captains of thousand, and so on – did an EVEN third fall to Satan, or did more fall of one rank than of another?

Satan's sales pitch was simple; appeal to vanity and greed, play on the thirst for power and freedom to sin that all creatures have. But consider two factors; from Satan's point of view, whom would you rather convert to your cause – a top angel, or a lowly grunt? A general or a private? When forming a seditious movement, it's always most efficient if you can convert a general, because his army usually follows him; so by convincing one angel, you would get perhaps a million angels on your side; whereas if you convert a private, you have exactly one. So from Satan's point of view, he would try hardest on the top angels.

But from the angel's point of view, who stands to gain the most from a rebellion? A private in God's army or a private in Satan's army will be little different; he'll still have to do what he's told, he'll still be doing all the hard work, and so the risk involved in defying God is not worth it. Not nearly as worth it, that is, as it would be for a general.

It's always the top movers who have the most to gain; Satan can go, as Milton put it, from serving in heaven to ruling in hell. The generals might go from being 8^th or 100^th in line to the throne, to being second or third; from toeing the line, to having their own kingdom where they can do what they wish. So the risk is much more justified for them – they stand to gain more from the same risk the private would take.

So these two facts together tend toward a conclusion that the rebellion was NOT an even split; that many more of the higher echelon fell to the rebellion than of the lower. And that prepares you for the next statement I am going to make:

We know of only two righteous top angels because there ARE only two righteous top angels. All the other top angels joined the rebellion, and so are named under Satan since “his servants ye are to whom ye obey” (Romans 6:16). Now if this is true, we should be able to support it from several angles. And we can.

Section 3: Abraham's Two Servants

Abraham is a type of God the Father and Isaac a type of Christ. Hebrews 11:17-19 as compared to John 3:16 is a fast place to look for proof. Suffice it to say that Abraham offering Isaac and then receiving him back from the dead (in a manner of speaking), is a type of God the Father offering “His only begotten Son” and receiving Him “back from the dead”. I mention this because of several unusual things that happened when Abraham offered Isaac:

Genesis 22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, ... Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

Note two things; that it was “the third day” when Abraham “saw the place afar off”. I can't prove it here, but it is extremely likely that Abraham was told to do this on the tenth day of the first month, when the Lamb was set apart for the sacrifice (Exodus 12:3), and then they traveled for three days and then after sundown on the 13^th (beginning the 14^th) at the time of the passover, Isaac was actually offered. Bear in mind, too, that this took place on mount Moriah, where the temple was later built.

But more to our present point, Abraham took TWO men with him. Of all his hundreds of servants, he took two with him – and they didn't even help!

Verses 5-6 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

Notice too that Abraham had Isaac carry the wood for his own sacrifice – just as Jesus did. Of course Jesus was hung on a stake and Isaac was to be burnt, but the connection is there nonetheless. Paul made it in Hebrews 11.

As for the fire and the knife that Abraham carried, the fire could represent trials as it often does, and the knife could represent the stripes for our healing. Isaiah does put the blame on the Father for both of those things:

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin ...

But again, I stray from the point. The point is, that Abraham brought TWO men with him to the sacrifice; both of whom did nothing and stayed back with the horses. So why did He bring them? Abraham only sent one servant to get a wife for Isaac. Only one was heir to his house, Eleazar of Damascus. So why two here? It doesn't say. But this happened to them for our admonition. And so look what happened a few chapters earlier...

Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto [Abraham] ... And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

If the Lord appeared, and there were three men, then one was God and two were not. Several times in subsequent verses “the Lord” said something. Then all three “men” left:

Verse 16-21 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; … And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Notice that God heard a cry of Sodom, but hadn't witnessed it personally. We know that these seven angels are the “eyes of God”, and that “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.” (Proverbs 15:3) – So these angels are the “watchers”. They manage the affairs in broad, but when a city or a country gets too bad for them to handle, they pass it up the chain of command – just like Jethro advised Moses:

Exodus 18:22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

And so Sodom and Gomorrah had been passed on to God; the angels had taken a cry of it up to God and He had decided to address it personally. God doesn't usually do that, as He said to Israel...

Exodus 33:2-3 And I will send an angel before thee; … for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.

But Sodom was specifically an example of what happens when God DOES judge a place.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

So God came down, talked to Abraham, and then told Abraham what He was going to do to Sodom. Then the two “men” left.

Genesis 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

Then Abraham bargained with God about the 50, 45, 40, 30, 20 and 10 righteous in the city; and God said if even ten righteous were there, God wouldn't destroy it.

Verse 33, 19:1-3 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place. And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot [talked them into staying the night] … And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

So here the two angels came to Sodom, and Lot made them a feast with unleavened bread. Again, it's another article, but this almost certainly happened at the beginning of the last day of the feast of unleavened bread. Regardless, the angels told Lot to leave the city because it was slated for destruction, pulled Lot out, his wife became salt, he whined about not having a city to live in, and so on; then the angels and God destroyed the city:

Genesis 19:13 For WE will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent US to destroy it.

Verse 22 Haste thee, escape thither; for *I* cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

Verse 24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

But the point of all of this is that when God went and judged evil, he took TWO men with Him; two angels that is. We know of two righteous angels. Angels are always referred to as “young men” when their age is mentioned at all (Mark 16:5). And Abraham took two “young men” with him when he, symbolizing the Father, went to sacrifice Isaac, symbolizing Christ.

We have two angels over the mercy seat. Not seven. Two righteous angels, God's right and left hand lieutenants who go with him any time a major job is to be done; but who work independently, along with the other five angels, at ruling their various segments of the Earth and their various Church Eras.

As has been said much earlier, it is certain that Michael is the angel over all of the house of Israel. Gabriel said so (Daniel 12:1). It is also certain that Gabriel was over the Medes, as he himself said (Daniel 11:1). this means that, today, Israel is still guided by Michael, and the Medes – the middle east – is still guided by Gabriel.

These are the only two righteous angels left, and of the two Michael is the greater prince, again, as Gabriel said. Therefore Michael is the more righteous. It is noted that in terms of obedience to the law of God, the Northwestern Europeans/Americans and the Muslims are the two most righteous groups of people on Earth.

You'll also notice that the Muslims have a much more warlike take on religion; which perhaps reflects the influence of Gabriel, the “Warrior of God”. Many of the Muslims are descended from Ishmael; all of the Israelites are descended from Isaac. Two sons of Abraham. And while when working with Abraham, God apparently used both angels, when working with Ishmael only one appears:

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

Genesis 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.

So apparently Ishmael was “Gabriel's job”. In times of trouble, as with Daniel, they clearly team up against the forces of darkness, however. After talking about battling the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece, Gabriel says...

Daniel 10:21 (RSV) 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.

Gabriel says that NO ONE stands with him against the prince of Persia – that is, Satan – and the prince of Greece – except Michael. Which pretty much says in one verse what I've been saying for several pages – that only Michael and Gabriel, of the top seven angels, are still loyal to God.

Section 4: The Spectrum Of Righteousness And Strength

As you'll recall from the earlier sections of this rather long series, I said that God was a complete spectrum of light, and that the light was broken up into seven colors, each of which pictured one angel, one note in the octave that is the nature of God.

I said that light pictured the nature of God much more exactly than we've been accustomed to believe, and that in all it's quirks and patterns, light is exactly like the nature of God, and since the angels are patterned after sections of that nature, light is exactly like them.

Since these seven angels govern the seven churches, it stands to reason that each of the seven churches is also like one color of light. Now let's add a few more things I didn't know when I wrote that.

It has always bothered me that light is not even. By that I mean that when you measure light, some colors take up more of the spectrum than others. Wavelength is measured in nanometers – the actual width of the wave. In terms of nanometers, light looks like this chart.

Here you see that almost half of the chart is red. Roughly 150 nanometers. Another 50 for orange, about 40 for yellow, and so on – with the remainder of the chart being about 40 nanometers for each color. This is strange, for it would seem logical that the chart is symmetrical.

But light is arranged in an octave, and visible light is almost exactly one octave, with UV being almost exactly twice the vibrational speed – or half the wavelength – of IR. Music works the same way – the notes C through C again form one octave, with one C being exactly twice the vibration – or half the wavelength – of the C below it.

It is well known in musical chords – such as C-E-G – that the lowest note is what carries the heaviest “punch”. Which is why those three notes played together are called a “C” chord – because the C is the strongest sound. It is the bass wave that carries the vibration of the other notes along on it.

It is this phenomenon that makes thumpa-thumpa music at the traffic light vibrate someone's car fifty feet away, when you can't hear the words – the lower the frequency, the more “punch” a wave carries. This is also why clothes block ultra violet light, with a short wavelength, but doesn't block infrared light, with a long wavelength – the IR has enough “punch” in its wave to force its way through your clothes and several inches into your skin, whereas the UV which is much smaller, gets lost rattling around the surface of your clothes.

The point of this is, the lower the frequency, the more power a wave has; the higher the frequency, the more delicate and accurate a wave is. All things being equal, of course. So while trying to make intelligible sound come out of “thumpa thumpa” music is impossible, you can't penetrate as many feet of pavement with opera as you can with rap.

So if the spectrum really does represent angels/churches/eras, then the lower frequency, earlier churches should be stronger AND more massive. Also, the lower-frequency angels should also be stronger and more massive, while the higher frequency ones are more and more intelligent and less forceful.

Somewhat like the difference between Esau and Jacob; Esau was a strong man, a hunter, but clearly not too bright compared to Jacob; Jacob liked tents, was a wuss, and achieved his ends not by strength, but by subtlety. If this theory is correct, then the higher the frequency of the angel, the more likely he will be to solve problems with his mind than his might.

Now if you look at the spectrum again, and imagine each color – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet – as being one church of the seven eras, and one angel, let's see what we get.

The first color is Red. Red has the most volume by far of any color. The first church was Ephesus, and seems to have been by far the most prolific era; 5,000 here, 3,500 there, and so on. Ephesus was characterized by zeal, and power. Gabriel is the Warrior for God, which would seem to lend itself to zeal and strength and power. This all fits quite nicely, for a theory.

The last color is violet. The smallest volume of any color. The last church is Laodicea, of which Jesus said “when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). And several other scriptures testify of the evilness of the time, and of the church. A church that has God locked outside, knocking at the door. And if what I said earlier is correct, no angel could be a better fit for Laodicea – Pride – than Hillel/Lucifer/Satan. If someone can come out of this age, it will be because they overcame Satan's greatest deception ever.

It will mean they come out of a world where “the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Revelation 12:12). Anyone who makes it into the kingdom out of this time will be there because they were able to see through Satan's lies and understand the truth through the greatest temptation the world has ever seen. And so no one will be wiser, or have a higher “frequency” than the Laodiceans. But also, no era will have a lower success rate.

And Laodicea will not be strong. Not like Ephesus. They will have come out of a time when their enemy was subtle deception, not the sword. When persecution meant being laughed at, not being burned at the stake. There is no way that a Laodicean will have the “punch” of the lower frequencied Ephesian or Smyrnan or Sardisian at resisting physical persecution – but at the same time, there is no way they can understand the ins and outs of deception the way Laodiceans can. So there is a use for both.

The second-to-last color is Indigo. Philadelphia as the second-to-last era, despite being the best single church mentioned, was not as strong as Ephesus; God said “for thou hast a little strength” (Revelation 3:8), because Philadelphia had few enemies; they weren't being burned, or beaten, or deceived on the scale that most eras were; so they were weaker, more easily absorbed. They never had the enemies to fight, the enemies that build strength. They had it too easy.

And that is why Indigo is a color that is very easily absorbed by other colors; in fact, on many spectrum charts it isn't mentioned as a separate color. As a color, it is the “weakest”. It stands out the least. It is very difficult to distinguish blue from indigo with the naked eye, just as it is very difficult to distinguish a Phildelphian Christian from a Laodicean one.

Revelation 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

And then there is that rainbow we saw behind the throne that was mentioned in earlier installments; and this rainbow has a predominant green color. It's not all green, or it wouldn't be a rainbow! But the green clearly stood out to John. Green is the central color in the spectrum. Green is the color most visible in any light. And Thyatira is the central church.

Thyatira was the longest-lived era of any, lasting about a thousand years – covering the dark ages. And so if one was to paint a rainbow, basing the width of the colors on the number of years they lasted, you would have a very wide block of green in the middle – making a “green” rainbow. There isn't much I can say about the other colors right now. But I do have one last thought to try to explain before I get off this subject...

Section 5: Why Do Clean Animals Have Two Horns?

This has bugged me since I noticed it. There are no unclean animals that have horns. Period. Elephant tusks are teeth, not horns. Rhinos have a horn, but it's not a true horn – it's actually just dense hair. Everything else that has horns – cows, antelope, gazelle, giraffe, goats, sheep, moose... EVERYTHING that has horns is clean.

And yet horses, which are similar to some of those animals, have no horns. Nor do burros, cats, camels, dogs, or any other unclean animal. Of course, not everything that IS clean has horns – fish, grasshoppers and birds for instance – but I'm at a loss to come up with a clean mammal that doesn't have at least vestigial horns.

This fact, which can't possibly be coincidental, has irritated me no end at being unable to answer it. But maybe I have now. It comes back to this scripture here:

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, … a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I have explained this scripture in context of angels several times now; but not in context of the lamb itself. This is of course a symbol, and equally of course there isn't a seven-horned lamb out there. The lamb represents Christ, the horns represent kingdoms, and the eyes represents the spirits that run those kingdoms.

And yet all of our earthly lambs have only two horns, and two eyes. Why?

When God made animals He had a plan. There was a pattern, long before He made Adam in the garden. I won't presume to talk about the details of that pattern. But we do know that Satan had fallen long before the animals were made.

We therefore know that the Lamb, who had once had seven kingdoms ruled by seven righteous angels, Then knew that He was going to have to “cut off” five of those horns, and blind five of those eyes. As I said earlier, it hadn't happened yet because they had not been judged – but being God, He knew it had to happen eventually.

So when He made animals – specifically, the animals “of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD” (Leviticus 7:25), which in context was the mammals – He made them to reflect the fact that from now on when the Lamb went somewhere, as to deal with Abraham or Sodom, He took two horns and two eyes with Him.

Had the angels not fallen, we might have had seven-horned clean animals – who knows? As for the eyes, one eye equals one spirit of God; We all receive one spirit from our mother and one from our father; these blend following the laws of spiritual genetics just as the babe grows according to the laws of physical genetics.

This process produces a new unique person, a two-note chord heterodyned on the four notes of his parents, the eight of his grandparents, and so on – so that each generation overlays a new frequency on the old, up to a certain limit – and after four generations, the frequency of the great great grandparents is so faint as to be indistinguishable... and so the iniquities are no longer visited past that limit, and it's legal to marry your fourth cousins.

The Lamb made seven spirits; but to make each of us unique, and to make some of us far better at some things than others, and far worse at other things, our nature must be narrower; we have to be composed of fewer notes; and so we have two eyes.

Clean mammals are intended to be sacrificed, and so like the Lamb who was sacrificed, they have two horns now. And all creatures have two eyes. Just as the Lamb will when the angels are judged.