PKINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR PRINCIPALITY, PRINCIPALITIES 273
Judaism to assign part at least of tlie government of tlie world. These spirits are represented as having brought about the death of Christ in their blind ignorance of tlie Uivino wisdom. Had thej' known the Lord of glory, they would never have committed such a fatal mistake.
LlTEEATURB. — H. Lietrmann's llandhvck mm MT. 1912, comm. on 1 Co 26 ; W. Bousset, Die Reliniun des Judfiitunis im lunitrst. Zeilalter'J, lUUli, p. 371 H. ; F. H. Chase, The Credi- bility of the Acts, 1902, p. 129 f. ; HDB, art. • Prince.'
G. Wauchopk Stewart. PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR.— See
Aiu.
PRINCIPALITY, PRINCIPALITIES (dpx^, 'the first place, principality, rule, magistracy' [Grimm- Thayer]). — In the Epistles the Gr. word occurs four times in the singular in this sense (1 Co 15-^, Eph 1=', Col 2'", Jude"), and six times in the plural (Ro 8^, Eph 3'" 6'-, Col P" 2'^ Tit 3'). The AV gives 'principalities' uniformly for the latter, and ' principality ' in two of the former, preferring 'rule' in 1 Co 15'^*, and ' first estate ' in Jude". The RV appears to use ' principality ' only where the reference to angelic beings is undoubted ; it gives ' rulers ' in Tit 3', and ' rule ' in I Co 15'-'' and Eph r-\ where earthly powers may be included (T. K. Abbott thinks that this applies also to Col 1'*). So in Lk 12" 20™ the RV gives ' rulers ' and ' rule.'
For the term as used of angels compare certain passages in Daniel (10'^--' 12'), where Michael is called the 'prince' of the Jews (LXX d/jxw), 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 {8p6poi), dominions (Kvpilrrri- TEs), principalities (apx"'). authorities (i^omiai), and powers (Swiixeit).
Ro 838 — *angela, principalities, powers."
1 Co 1524 — ' rule (dpxTJ), authority, power.'
Eph 121 — 'rule {apx^, authority, power, dominion.*
Eph 310 612 — • principalities, powers.'
Col l'*> — 'thrones, donjinions, principalities, powers.*
Col Sit* — 'principality, power.'
Col 215 — 'principalities, powers.'
1 P 322 — '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 Eph 6'-. 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 Eph 1-') adopts without any hesitation, is that ' in this catalogue [Col 1'^] St. Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but contents himself with repeating sub- jective 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 Eph 1-') 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 Col 1") 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 liad 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 EUicott (on Col 1"), who holds that it is by no means so certain as it is VOL. 11. — iS
assumed to bo that St. Paul is simply repeating subjective opinions; there is nothing to show that he regardcil these grades and orders as mere theo- sophical .speculations. Peake says : 'in face of the detailed proof that St. Paul accepted the doctrine of various orders of angels, Lightfoot's remark (on Col 1'") that a sjiirit of impatience is shown cannot be maintained, nor is there any polemical reference in Eph 1"' ; 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 pha.ses of created being which might all the while be figments of the imagination.' St. Paul's experience (2 Co 12'-') must not be forgotten, and Alexander says that not without reason has a Greek Father (St. Gregory, in Horn, in Ezek. 8) found in these glow- ing words a probable reminiscence of that which was actually beheld by him who was ' caught up to the tliird heaven.'
A further question is — Can anything he inferred from the order in which these terms occur ? No list contains them all ; Eph 1=' and Col l" 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 princi- palities, authorities, and powers (apxai, ii,omLai., 5wd;teis) 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 Ro g38. ss)^ 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 (SwAfieis tSiv wapefi- ftoXuv) 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 watch- fulness of many eyes ' (quoted in Peake, Colossians).