After discussing the angels of the churches, primarily from the early chapters of Revelation, Walter Wink examines the “Angels of the Nations.’ He centers his argument on the appearance of the Archangel Michael in the book of Daniel. In this context, Daniel, nearing the end of his life, serves as a wise counselor who fasts and prays for his nation, the people of Israel, before being visited by a vision of an angel:
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great terror fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. Therefore, I was left alone when I saw this great vision, and no strength remained in me; for my vigor was turned to frailty in me, and I retained no strength. Yet I heard the sound of his words; and while I heard the sound of his words, I was in a deep sleep on my face, with my face to the ground.
Suddenly, a hand touched me, which made me tremble on my knees and the palms of my hands. And he said to me, “O Daniel, man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you.” While he was speaking this word to me, I stood trembling. Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia. Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.”
When he had spoken such words to me, I turned my face toward the ground and became speechless. And suddenly, one with the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke to him who stood before me, “My lord, because of the vision my sorrows have overwhelmed me, and I have retained no strength. For how can this servant of my lord talk with you, my lord? As for me, no strength remains in me now, nor is any breath left in me.”
Then again, the one with the likeness of a man touched and strengthened me. And he said, “O man greatly beloved, fear not! Peace be to you; be strong, yes, be strong!” So when he spoke to me, I was strengthened, and he said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.”
Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; when I have gone forth, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael, your prince (Daniel 10:5-120).
This interesting passage suggests that an angel, Michael, who is the defender of God’s people, has been battling the angel of Persia, who opposes them. Moreover, and most importantly for Christians, the message is delivered to Daniel by “one like a son of man,” whom Christians consistently identify with Christ. Thus, one interpretation of the passage is that it represents a visitation from the word of God to a prophet, providing insights about angelic messengers.
The Context of Daniel
To interpret the passage, one must form an opinion about when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. Many evangelicals believe that the book was written between 586 and 531 B.C. In contrast, liberal scholars argue that it was composed much later, around the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, possibly around 167 B.C. Traditionally-minded scholars view the book as a source of encouragement for the Jewish people from the period of the fall of the Babylonian Empire and the rise of Cyrus of Persia to the time of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, more liberal scholars consider it the work of a later author. Lastly, there is a perspective that I find appealing: the story of Daniel originates from the time of the Babylonian captivity (605-531 B.C.), but it was later revised and adapted by another writer to address the challenges faced by the Jewish people during the Hellenistic Era.
The most straightforward question raised between the two groups is whether we should understand these angels as genuine angelic beings who revealed themselves to the prophet Daniel or as literary metaphors conveying God’s message to a later time. In Daniel’s case, I lean toward viewing the angelic language as primarily metaphorical, intended to communicate God’s word to the audience the author is addressing. The “vision” language suggests a need to express in human words a divine encounter that was not physical but rather mental or noetic in nature. This should not be interpreted as indicating that the words received by Daniel are not words from God.
Wink’s Analysis
In line with his underlying theory that views angelic beings as the true inner essence of a social entity, Wink aligns himself with the second group of interpreters while adding a unique twist to his interpretation. For Wink, Michael embodies Israel’s spirituality and serves as its “guardian angel.” The same can be said for the angel of Persia or any other nation. As the inner spirituality of a social entity, this angelic being holds the potential for both good and evil. Nevertheless, the concept of angels represents the nation’s brightest future, symbolizing an idealized personal perfection of that nation. This becomes especially evident as he discusses what he believes the angel of the United States might represent and what God might communicate to such an angel. Thus, for Wink, angels embody both the unrealized potential of a society and its current state.
Nevertheless, Winks wants to underscore that the angels are real:
The angels of the nations, who have already exacted upwards of 100 million human sacrifices in less than a single century, are not personifications. They are real. But their reality cannot be grasped as if it is projected onto the sky. They are not “out there” or “up there” but within. They are the invisible spirituality that animates, sustains, and guides a nation. And we reckon with them, whether we acknowledge their reality or not. [1]
The dual nature of angelic representations of nations—created good yet fallen from perfect alignment with God’s purpose—conveys a truth we observe all around us: the institutions that provide meaning and purpose to our lives, along with many of our actions in the world, are imperfect and often operate contrary to what even their supporters consider right. Recognizing the angel of a nation as distinct from the people and institutions that constitute it allows us to understand the complexity of change, the inevitable slowness of improvement, and the limitations of our best efforts. It encourages us to view our social endeavors as reflections of our personal and collective limitations, fostering a sense of fallibility in our social projects (or at least it should).
Wink warns:
The angels of the nations are not static, changeless entities, nor are their vocations irrevocably fixed in their foundations. God’s will, for the nations is continually being modified, in accordance with God’s primary objectives, in order to encompass the nations’ latest infidelities and achievements. [2]
Wink also wants to warn us against trivializing angels or nations. [3]We are all familiar with national characterizations: the Scottish are dour, the French unreliable allies, the British overly concerned with formalities, the Chinese inscrutable, and so on. These are not angelic spiritualities; they are characterizations. Their only utility is in pointing us to a deeper truth: all nations and cultures are not alike. Human beings from different cultures are not the same. To understand the human race and the conflicts of human history, it is necessary to consider the vast differences among people as well as our common humanity. We believe that the language of angels and nations helps us analyze and peacefully reconcile these differences.
Just as the angels of the nation should not be trivialized, they should also not be rendered excessively static. The angel of the social entity, like the social entity itself, evolves over time. A good way to understand this is by considering the United States of America and its beginnings as a small, rural nation. Today, it is a large, powerful, and primarily urban nation. The angel of America today is not the same as the angel of America in 1789. This serves as a warning against overly romanticizing the past or making misguided attempts to reclaim a history that cannot be recreated within human experience. While Americans should remain loyal to the principles and central institutions of our political life, adjustments must be made to adapt to vastly different circumstances.
Vocation of Israel, the Church, and Others
If the angels of the churches have fallen and failed to fulfill their vocation, it shouldn’t be surprising that the institutions they represent also fail. Wink allows Martin Buber to speak for him when discussing Israel’s failure to fulfill its vocation as a light to the nations and a beacon of justice.[4] Similarly, in Wink’s view, the church, and particularly the American church, has failed to fulfill its divine calling.[5]
There is a hint of bitterness in Wink’s analysis as he discusses the church’s failure to fulfill what he believes to be its prophetic destiny, as if it were a form of blasphemy. I’m not sure he should feel disappointed in any tangible manifestation of the church in this regard. It is the nature of human institutions to overvalue themselves and their opinions. Naturally, when any established institution seeks to critique the current state of society, it does so from a particular and inevitably flawed perspective. The failures of the churches, like the failures of Israel, should not surprise us in the least. Instead, they should warn us of the fallibility of our own positions.
If the churches and Israel have failed, Wink believes that secularism has also failed. Secularism has taken the worst position of all:
Secularism has simply insured that, in the absence of any divine constraints whatever, nations are free to behave as if they had complete autonomy, as if the nations were indeed absolute: as if it itself were God, deciding the fate of nations.[6]
Israel and the church have indeed failed, but fundamentally, they recognize the limitations of their own institutions. Ultimately, they are self-correcting. Secularism contains no such self-correcting boundaries. It imagines humans as gods and those in power as entitled to act as they please, driven by a Nietzschean certainty of their right to impose their will on others. Ultimately, to use religious language, secularism inevitably becomes demonic.
Conclusion
At his best, Wink understands that the language of angels ultimately speaks to self-correction and self-judgment. When people use patriotic language, including an idealized concept of their own national righteousness, they are, at their best, reflecting on a goal—a future state the nation seeks to achieve. To assert that the angel of a nation can embody both positive and negative aspects allows for critique of the current state of the nation or its administration, as well as the potential for future restoration. In the language of our Constitution, it is about achieving a “more perfect union.”
Copyright 2025, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved
[1] Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1986), 93.
[2] Id, 94.
[3] Id, 93.
[4] Id, 95.
[5] Id, 96.
[6] Id, 100.