In the Epistles the Gr. word occurs four times in the singular in this sense (1 Corinthians 15:24, Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 2:10, Judges 1:6), and six times in the plural (Romans 8:38, Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12, Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:15, Titus 3:1). The AV_ gives ‘principalities’ uniformly for the latter, and ‘principality’ in two of the former, preferring ‘rule’ in 1 Corinthians 15:24, and ‘first estate’ in Judges 1:6. The RV_ appears to use ‘principality’ only where the reference to angelic beings is undoubted; it gives ‘rulers’ in Titus 3:1, and ‘rule’ in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and Ephesians 1:21, where earthly powers may be included (T. K. Abbott thinks that this applies also to Colossians 1:16). So in Luke 12:11; Luke 20:20 the RV_ gives ‘rulers’ and ‘rule.’

For the term as used of angels compare certain passages in Daniel (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1), where Michael is called the ‘prince’ of the Jews (LXX_ ἄρχων), and there is also a hostile angel, ‘the prince of the kingdom of Persia.’

It is convenient to consider in this article the various special terms applied to angels in the Epistles, viz. thrones (θρόνοι), dominions (κυριότητες), principalities (ἀρχαί), authorities (ἐξουσίαι), and powers (δυνάμεις).

Romans 8:38 -‘angels, principalities, powers.’

1 Corinthians 15:24 -‘rule (ἀρχή), authority, power.’

Ephesians 1:21 -‘rule (ἀρχή), authority, power, dominion.’

Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12 -‘principalities, powers.’

Colossians 1:16 -‘thrones, dominions, principalities, powers.’

Colossians 2:10 -‘principality, power.’

Colossians 2:15 -‘principalities, powers.’

1 Peter 3:22 -‘angels, authorities, powers.’

The contexts show that in some of the above passages all possible kinds of power, spiritual and earthly, are included; in some the reference is limited to good angels, and in others to evil angels, as Ephesians 6:12. It may be noted that Milton uses these titles for unfallen and fallen angels alike (Paradise Lost, ii. 11 and v. 601, 769).

Do these titles correspond to any objective revelation in the minds of the writers? Lightfoot’s opinion, which Abbott (on Ephesians 1:21) adopts without any hesitation, is that ‘in this catalogue [Colossians 1:16] St. Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but contents himself with repeating subjective opinions.’ The Apostle takes the terms used by Colossian teachers and does not inquire how much or how little truth is in them; Christ is elevated above them all. Salmond (on Ephesians 1:21) says that we must take the terms not as teaching or implying any doctrine of graduated ranks, but as rhetorical terms brought together to express the unique supremacy and absolute sovereignty proper to Christ. And Beet (on Colossians 1:16) states that ‘in this verse … the existence of angelic powers is not absolutely assumed. Paul merely says that if there be such, be they what they may, they were created in the Son of God.’ If the terms were found only in Col., where a tendency to angel worship had to be met, this might be admitted, but similar terms are found in Eph., where there is no such polemical reference, and elsewhere. On the other side may be quoted Ellicott (on Colossians 1:16), who holds that it is by no means so certain as it is assumed to be that St. Paul is simply repeating subjective opinions; there is nothing to show that he regarded these grades and orders as mere theosophical speculations. Peake says: ‘in face of the detailed proof that St. Paul accepted the doctrine of various orders of angels, Lightfoot’s remark (on Colossians 1:16) that a spirit of impatience is shown cannot be maintained, nor is there any polemical reference in Ephesians 1:21’; and Moule’s opinion is that ‘St. Paul is glorifying the Son of God by a view of His relation to created being; and assuredly this would not be best done by alluding to phases of created being which might all the while be figments of the imagination.’ St. Paul’s experience (2 Corinthians 12:1-4) must not be forgotten, and Alexander says that not without reason has a Greek Father (St. Gregory, in Hom. in Ezekiel 8) found in these glowing words a probable reminiscence of that which was actually beheld by him who was ‘caught up to the third heaven.’

A further question is-Can anything be inferred from the order in which these terms occur? No list contains them all; Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16 have four each, but they are not the same four, and while ‘dominion’ is last in Eph. it is second in Col. Fritzsche and Meyer think that in Col. the superior and inferior classes form pairs, but this is precarious. It may be noted, however, that principalities, authorities, and powers (ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνάμεις) always occur in the same order; one may be omitted, but they are never reversed. It is quite possible that in Col. the Apostle is following the order of the false teachers. The Rabbis had a classification of ten orders (see Fritzsche on Romans 8:38-39), but it was elaborated under the influence of Platonism, and evidently at a later date than St. Paul (Meyer). The names, too, are quite different from those of the NT. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi, 3) arranges the angels in seven heavens, placing powers (δυνάμεις τῶν παρεμβολῶν) in the third, and thrones and authorities in the fourth. The Slavonic Enoch (xx. 1) says that in the seventh heaven ‘Enoch saw … all the fiery hosts of great archangels, and incorporeal powers, and lordships, and principalities, and powers; cherubim and seraphim, thrones and the watchfulness of many eyes’ (quoted in Peake, Colossians).

Turning to Christian writings, we find that various systems of angelology were put forward, but it is difficult to say how far they are independent of St. Paul. From Hermas (Vis. iii. 4) we learn that instruction as to the positions of angels (τοποθεσίας τὰς ἀγγελικάς) was regarded as teaching for the more perfect. The lists given by the Fathers vary. Thus Origen (on Jn i. 34) gives thrones, principalities, dominions, authorities, adding that there are other names not so familiarly in use (cf. Ephesians 1:21); but in de Principiis (I. v. 3, vi. 2) he gives in an ascending scale a different order-principalities, authorities, thrones, dominions. Ephrem Syrus (Op. Syr. i. 270) arranges them in three classes: (1) gods, thrones, dominions; (2) archangels, principalities, authorities; (3) angels, powers, cherubim, seraphim. The same order appears in Basil of Seleucia (Orat. 39). Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxviii. 31) mentions angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, authorities, splendours, ascents, intellectual powers or intelligences. The pseudo-Dionysius gives (1) thrones, cherubim, seraphim; (2) authorities, dominions, powers; (3) angels, archangels, principalities. And Gregory the Great (Hom. in Ezekiel 34:7) has the following classes-angels, archangels, powers, authorities, principalities, dominions, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim.

These variations will confirm the opinion of St. Augustine when he says (Enchir. 58): ‘what the organization is of that supremely happy society in heaven: what the differences of rank are, … and what are the various significations of those four names under which the apostle seems to embrace the whole heavenly company without exception, “whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”:-let those who are able answer these questions, if they can also prove their answers to be true; but as for me, I confess my ignorance.’ Meyer’s conclusion is that for Christian faith there remains and suffices the testimony as to different and distinctively designated stages and categories in the angelic world (cf. Matthew 18:10), while any attempt to ascertain more than is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy (on Colossians 1:16).

Two of the above passages require a more detailed examination, viz. Colossians 2:15, Romans 8:38. In Colossians 2:15 (RV_ ‘having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it’; AV_ ‘having spoiled’) there is hardly a phrase the meaning of which is undisputed. The Greek is ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ. ἀπεκδυσάμενος is a rare word which does not appear to occur before St. Paul (though Meyer thinks it is the right reading in Plato, Rep. 612A); and being middle it should mean ‘having put off from himself’ (cf. Old Lat. exuens se principatibus): so the RV_. The older EVV_, following the Vulg._, give it the active meaning ‘having spoiled,’ which is preferred by Bengel, Meyer, Moule, and Peake. It is admitted that the middle is a difficulty, but it is explained as implying victorious self-interest (sibi exspolians). It might apply to good or bad angels, according to the context. If, with the RV_, we take it in the natural middle meaning, the next questions are-What was put off? and Who is the subject? Many of the Greek Fathers and others say that the evil angels were put off, that the Lord by His death stripped away all the opposing powers of evil which sought to win a victory over Him in His human nature. ‘When He died on the cross, when He dissolved that temple into which they, both in earlier, and later and perhaps redoubled efforts of temptation, had vainly endeavoured to make sacrilegious entry, He reft them away for ever, and vindicated His regal power’ (Ellicott). There are two objections to this view. (1) When and in what sense did Christ wear these opposing powers as a robe? Lightfoot says that ‘the powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever’; on which Beet’s criticism is: ‘I do not know that enemies attacking are ever so described: and of such desperate struggle with evil powers we have as yet in this place no hint.’ (2) It necessitates a change of subject, of which the context gives no intimation; in Colossians 2:12-14 the subject is God the Father, and no one would think of changing it but for the difficulty of otherwise giving to ‘principalities and powers’ the meaning of evil angels. The common interpretation of the Latin Fathers was ‘putting off from Himself His body’ (see RVm_), and it found its way into the text of G (τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, ἀρχὰς being omitted; ‘having laid aside His flesh, He made a show of the powers’). The introduction of the metaphor is very abrupt, and there is again the change of subject.

But it is possible to keep the middle meaning of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, and the same subject throughout, if ‘principalities and powers’ are good angels. This was first suggested by J. Peirce (in A Paraphrase and Notes on Colossians, 1729) and adopted by Alford, Ritschl, Beet, Findlay, and Peake. It is consistent with Colossians 2:10; Colossians 1:16, where good angels are meant, and there is no allusion in the Epistle to hostile angels. Peirce’s paraphrase is, ‘and having taken from the good angels their authority, He subjected them to Christ, and proposed them publicly as an example of cheerful obedience to Him (i.e. to Christ), causing them to triumph in Christ.’ What was this authority? In Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2, Acts 7:53 angels are described as the medium through which God revealed Himself at the Lawgiving, and in this sense they might be called His robe or veil. But when Christ came the veil was laid aside and the angels took an inferior position (cf. Hebrews 1:6), God henceforth manifesting Himself in the Person of His Son. ‘He has put off and laid aside the garb of angelic mediation in which, under the Law, He was wont to hold intercourse with men’ (Findlay). On this view, ‘made a show of them’ implies no shame, only that He exhibited them in a true position of inferiority, and therefore not to be worshipped. The chief objection lies in the word ‘triumphing,’ which, if taken in the Roman sense of ‘captives led in triumph by a victorious general,’ seems to require that the principalities and powers should be hostile angels. This is obviated if Findlay’s contention can be established, viz. that ‘triumph’ (θριαμβεύω) here has the meaning of θρίαμβος-a hymn sung in procession in honour of Dionysus; accordingly, the sense would be-God has formed them into a festal chorus ‘who follow the Lamb whitherscever He goeth,’ hymning His praises, and devoted to His service.

In Romans 8:38-39 : ‘I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers … shall be able to separate us from the love of God’ (RV_), the same question arises as in Colossians 2:15. As the other influences are in pairs of opposites, some find here also a contrast, ‘angels’ being heavenly beings and ‘principalities’ earthly; or ‘angels’ being good spirits and ‘principalities’ evil. Others think that both terms mean evil angels, arguing that the good would not try to separate us from the love of God. But this may be only a hypothesis like Galatians 1:8, and the point is that nothing, however powerful, whether likely to harm us or not, can separate us from the love of God; and Godet well says that what is itself good may contribute to lead us astray, if our attachment or adoration stops short at the creature, instead of rising to God. See artt._ Authority, Dominion, Power, Throne.

Literature.-Commentaries on Romans: C. F. A. Fritzsche, 1836-43, F. Godet (Eng. tr._, 2 vols., 1881-82); Ephesians: H. A. W. Meyer (Eng. tr._, 1880), S. D. F. Salmond (In EGT_, 1903); Colossians: J. Peirce (21729), H. A. W. Meyer (Eng. tr._, 1875), C. J. Ellicott (31865), J. B. Lightfoot (31879), J. A. Beet (1890), A. S. Peake (in EGT_, 1903), W. Alexander (Speaker’s Commentary, 1881); T. K. Abbott, ICC_, ‘Ephesians and Colossians,’ 1897; G. G. Findlay, ‘St. Paul’s use of θριαμβεύω,’ in Exp_, 1st ser., x.2 [1881]; Joseph Hall, ‘The Invisible World,’ in Works, new ed. viii. [1837]; and K. R. Hagenbach, History of Christian Doctrines, Eng. tr._, ii. [1880] 131.

W. H. Dundas.

Bibliography Information
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Principality Principalities'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/p/principality-principalities.html. 1906-1918.

Bible Dictionaries Principality Principalities

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Bible Dictionaries
Principality Principalities