The relationship between human beings, angels, and higher hierarchies is redefining itself. Spiritual reality changes. Our relationship with angels plays a decisive role.
The following presentation takes a number of risks. But, in terms of both its content and method, it hopes to offer something much-needed today. We proceed from the present state of the relationship between angels and human beings to examine some little-known indications offered by Rudolf Steiner. Please note that we are not proceeding from the reverse direction: we are not attempting to develop the present relationship with angels by starting from the same place that Steiner began. Rather, by way of a clear method based on a spiritual-scientific and esoteric perspective, we are attempting to clarify a principle of development that has received little attention—even in the study of Steiner’s work. The contemporary state of spiritual science cannot be derived from the past, not even from the work of Steiner. Rather, the reality, force, and strength of spiritual science from that time can only emerge and take effect when we begin from the present-day position of spiritual science, which must be grasped independently and with personal responsibility.
As a kind of cross-check or way to test this principle of the ongoing development of spiritual science, we can consider an interesting imagination concerning the future development of spiritual science. Let us try to form concepts of the form Steiner’s “anthroposophy” would have taken if he had not developed it autonomously, as was in keeping with his time, but instead if he had derived it from the works of others, for example, from Thomas Aquinas, from the Rosicrucian stream, from the tradition of Platonism, Aristotelianism, theosophy, etc. In fact, anthroposophy was not presented by Steiner as derivative of some other current of thought, but rather the reverse was true: these and other currents were only able to continue to be effective and influential (including having an influence on spiritual science itself) because Steiner’s anthroposophy already had its own autonomous existence shaped in accordance with the circumstances of the time.1
The Angel as the Boundary of Hierarchical Reality
A change in the relationship between angel and human also results in a change in the relationship to the beings of the higher hierarchies. And the converse is also true: development within higher spiritual dimensions—for example, in the relationship between spirits of form (second hierarchy) and spirits of personality (third hierarchy)—can be conveyed into the human stage of existence only when the relationship between angels and humans also undergoes a corresponding change. The operational principle here referred to will be elaborated below.
Before we go on, we must state clearly as a preparatory consideration how important it is to understand that all conceptual formations corresponding to such realms of reality should not be regarded as descriptions of content. Instead, concepts and the contextual formations they help establish should be understood as a means of sensitizing us to a potential mode of perception within the thought realm. The thought realm is the sphere of capacity for spiritual perception appropriate to contemporary human development and the corresponding spiritual-scientific approach. Spiritual formations of knowledge must take shape in this field if they are not to reinforce outdated forms of comprehension. Thus, in the contextual formations and connections established through conceptual thinking, we do not encounter a form of spiritual content, but rather, through thinking about the contents resonant here, our own comprehension can become more sensitized to a new mode of perception. And this developing sensitivity occurs, specifically, in our thinking. The concepts should not be confused with the content of spiritual perception.
With this in mind, our first step is to make a tentative assumption that the separation long ago between the developmental community of angels and human beings has since ended; that is, angels and human beings have now become accessible to one another on the same plane, angels to humans and humans to angels. This situation can be seen as partly an effect of anthroposophy’s more than one hundred years of work. We ought to keep in mind, however, that anthroposophy has had—and continues to have—an effect not only consciously through its content but also beneath the surface in the spiritual, soul, and bodily constitution of human beings and in the system of hierarchical relationships. In short, according to this assumption, the angel is again at hand, present and accessible. It is necessary for us to realize this, given the above-mentioned spiritual-scientific prerequisite that we begin our research from our own contemporary times and the current state of the spiritual world and relationships.
The Angel and the Lived Experience of the ‘I’
The concept of the “‘I’ individuality” (described in anthroposophy within the context of the so-called “four members” of the human being) remains a part of our everyday speech and our associated day-to-day consciousness. But in psychology, the concept of the ‘I’ is losing its significance more and more and has basically been abandoned in favor of, among other things, the so-called first-person perspective. In fact, it seems enormously difficult to understand and establish any reality designated by the concept of the ‘I’. A prerequisite for ‘I’ consciousness is the more-or-less-conscious lived experience (including even the faintest of notions) that “I am that which is livingly experiencing the present situation: the human that stands before me, the landscape, the mood of the space, etc.” This lived experience, which distinguishes me from animals and from angels, is the foundation of my ability to remember and the prerequisite for a consciousness of my own biography.
No animal, nor any angel, celebrates a birthday. Animals move from lived experience to lived experience, from perception to perception, from activity to activity—without any ‘I’ consciousness as referred to above. For the angel, on the other hand, object consciousness and self-consciousness—that is, the world reality accessible to it and its own reality—are identical. Thomas Aquinas, among others, already indicated this in the thirteenth century when he stated that if an angel were to lose self-knowledge, it would also lose knowledge of the world, and if it were to lose knowledge of the world, it would also lose self-knowledge.2
To truly understand the lived experience and reality of ‘I’ identity, a comprehensive new approach to anthropological studies and psychology—one that takes into account relationships with angels—might be helpful. We could posit, as a tentative starting point, that the earthly birth of a human being includes the loss of the previously shared spiritual identity between angel and human. But we must also consider that it is from out of this identity—where reality and consciousness are one—that the emergence of the organism, for example, even becomes possible in the first place. Then, from birth onward, the human being develops a sense of ‘I’ consciousness, which includes the possibility for deception, error, and, incidentally, the ability to lie—all of which, we should recall, are prerequisites for freedom. The ‘I’ consciousness of the human being continues to develop more and more in its relation to the world. Ignorance, error, incompetence, and even untruth can be overcome time and again.
In human beings, then, being and consciousness are separated. In angels, they are united. The angel’s consciousness is reality, and reality, within its respective realm, is the consciousness of the angel. For the angel, self-consciousness and world-consciousness are identical. Humans are only able to build up an individual ‘I’-conscious beingness over the course of their lives because their angel stands by them as their counterpart. This gives rise to a double consciousness and, at the same time, a singular substance of being. For the angel, consciousness and being are identical. The angel is reality. In contrast, humans initially build up a fragile consciousness that can only step-by-step, more and more come to grasp its own beingness. ‘I’-reality (the “central ‘I’”) arises through and from the grasping and comprehension of world reality (the respective individual “peripheral ‘I’”). Thus, in the given necessary relationship between angel and human, consciousness is twofold: always real in the angel but only potentially real in the human. At the same time, the beingness, the substance of being, to which this twofold consciousness refers, is always singular (often referred to as “simple,” meaning not complex or multiple); that is, being is one and the same in the angel and in the human being, insofar as it is reality, as it is real being. In this situation, humans can livingly experience and know themselves in the exploration of reality—and they remain bonded to reality through the angel’s consciousness of reality, notwithstanding the fact that humans can be (initially) deceived.
Through error and ignorance, human beings discover truth and reality because the angel “holds us” to reality in our consciousness—confronting and supporting us with reality. In this process, only human beings—and not the angel—can develop ‘I’ consciousness because human beings experience themselves in the process of uncovering the reality of the world, whereas the angel is perpetually identical with reality in both consciousness and being; the angel is reality as consciousness and being. Thus, human ‘I’ consciousness arises only in a potential—not an immediately real—relationship to reality, accompanied by the fact that we sense and think, “I am that which livingly experiences this; I am that which acts.” From all such experiences, which we link together through thinking, the consciousness of our own individual biography develops—something animals do not have. From this perspective, the animal can appear as a kind of earthly “angel,” one who has forgotten or unlearned the human ‘I’ process. And the angel can participate in the human’s ‘I’ development and build-up of the individuality if the human ‘I’ touches the spirit self—that is, the angel’s plane of existence.
In the ninth century, Johannes Scotus Eriugena described this inherent closeness between angels and humans in an inimitable way.3 During his time, before the actual ‘I’ development, a human’s experience of self and of angels and an angel’s experience of self and of humans still coincided. Interestingly, Steiner dates the beginning of ‘I’ individualization to the same time, due, in part, to the gradual separation of angels and humans.4 Eriugena sees the identity of angels and humans in the intellectual spirit, that is, in thinking. About a millennium later, Steiner identifies that the beginning of this separation and individualization likewise occurs in our thinking.
The question we must ask today is whether, for the further development of the ‘I’, we must not cultivate a consciousness in which I—having drawn strength from the lived ‘I’ experience throughout human history—can once again livingly experience myself as being witnessed by the angel. Can I see the angel as a co-experiencer in my life? Being able to livingly experience oneself as being co-experienced—and that also includes by other human beings—is an important phenomenon in the psychology of childhood and of the ‘I’. To date, it has received little attention, but it is an indispensable dimension of human development. The individuality of the child (and ultimately also of the adult) can only learn to engage with the world and thereby continue to develop if this individuality can livingly experience itself as being witnessed or co-experienced against the background of its own ‘I’ experience and its development in relation to the world. This experience need not always be specifically and directly related to one’s ‘I’ (to the feeling for one’s own ‘I’), but it must be present in principle.
Attentive to Changes
In a notebook entry (presumably from 1918), the following statement by Steiner appears: “A new exterior is to livingly grow out of a new spirituality—the spirits of form are to relinquish their forming, and the spirits of personality are to take their place—the archangels are to enter into the personality, that is, human beings are to learn to understand the spiritual order; the angels are to provide the force of strength for this—but human beings are to discover that they are not within their bodies; they can do so only if they spiritually understand their bodies […].”5
The statement about the “new exterior” presupposes that humanity’s relationship with its surroundings is becoming increasingly problematic. Apparently, however, this relationship with our surroundings cannot be healed directly. The problem is, instead, to be regarded as a symptom of the need to develop a “new exterior” out of our own spiritual capacity. In this regard, we could designate this “new exterior”—which is both subjective-individual and objective—as the new peripheral ‘I’ of the human being. Were it not objective in the sense of a substantial reality, it would be an illusion. In the passage that follows, Steiner expresses the view that it would be an error to regard the phenomena that arise in this way as mere “fantasies.” The “false pretense” of seeing these phenomena solely as fantasies would have the restrictive intention of wanting to detain human beings at their present stage of development.
When human beings are given the spiritual creativity and productivity needed to shape the new external world, a necessary step of evolution can then also take place within the spiritual hierarchies: the spirits of personality (Archai) can then, in their effectivity, replace the spirits of form (Exusiai). These concepts alone make it clear that here, the “objective” effectivity of the spirits of form gives way to the “subjective” effectivity of the spirits of personality. “Subjective” here refers to what also resonates in the concept of the personality: the activity of personality beings depends upon the spiritual activity within the individual human lived experience—that is, their activity depends upon the spiritual personality.
Through human spiritual consciousness, through what this consciousness becomes through the personality, the transition is mediated from the “old” spirits of form (second hierarchy) to the “new” spirits of form, the spirits of personality (third hierarchy). The spirits of personality are the “new spirits of form, who now reveal and manifest themselves,” and as such, they are the new “creators.”6 Should the prerequisites for this transition within the hierarchical realm not be created through human beings, it would result in not only a stagnation of development and evolution but also a renewed power of effectivity for the “spirits of darkness.” Steiner’s formulations given here imply that, as a result of this potential human failure, the hierarchical beings themselves would be compelled to act in a way that they would then be seen as spirits of darkness.
If, however, the transfer to the spirits of the personality is successful, the Archangeloi (archangels) can “enter into [the human being’s] personality.” This statement is explained, or better, concretized, as the human being’s ability to comprehend the “spiritual order.” This refers to the constitution of the world and of reality, as is evident from the preceding formulations. In order to cope with “earthly conditions,” a human being need not adapt to earthly circumstances, but rather we “must adapt to spiritual conditions.”7 The relationship to spiritual reality determines a human being’s relationship to earthly life and earthly conditions, “for through the human being, the new spirits of personality will be able to grasp and take hold of the conditions of the Earth.”8
So, when the Archangeloi bind themselves together with the human personality, the spiritual foundation of the world becomes accessible. But, as is almost always the case in the spiritual realm, the reverse is also true: when a human being comprehends the spiritual constitution of reality, the Archangeloi can enter into his soul processes. The power to accomplish this comes from the angels, the Angeloi (as later stated by Steiner). This is not an external but rather an inner force, one that is, as it were, on the same spiritual level as the human being. The archangels (Archangeloi)—now within the human being—represent the relationship to the world. Previously, they formed and maintained this relationship from outside the human being.
Spiritualization of Reality
This development is a comprehensive process of spiritualizing substantial-objective reality. We can approach this spiritualization by trying to sense how the archangel takes the place formerly held by the angel and how the human being—through the power of the angel within the human being—takes the place of the angel’s former spiritual power. Thus, the angel is again here, near at hand. This is similar to the situation in the ninth century before the separation, but now occurs at a time when the further development of the ‘I’ has taken place and, thus, the ‘I’ is now capable of touching the spirit self.
The process of “living into” the spiritual foundation of substantial reality also encompasses the human organism: “[B]ut that human being shall find that he is not in his body […].”9 The word “but” here refers to the fact that the human being is integrated into the hierarchy of beings. The spirits of personality (Archai) take up the function formerly held by the spirits of form; the Archangeloi enter the human soul; and the Angeloi form the human being’s spiritual power—“but” the human being himself is called upon to spiritually understand his body and thereby to sense that he does not live in the body, but simply through the body: in actuality, he lives in the new spiritually-reestablished world.10
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas made a prediction regarding the relationship between angels and humans. This prediction makes it clear that one cannot meaningfully speak of angels or other hierarchical levels “in and of themselves,” but only in terms of their developmental relationship to human beings. Aquinas stated that, for now, every human being is still “assigned” an individual guardian angel at birth. There will come a time, though, when humans will no longer have a guardian angel. Instead, they will either reign together with the angel or they will be tormented by an evil demon. The Latin pair of opposing concepts in the original text is “angelus conregnans” and “daemon puniens.”11
Thus, the further development of the “former” angels depends on humankind. Aquinas does not address the impact of this development on the other hierarchical levels. It is implied, however, that humankind shapes the angel’s spiritual force for the positive or for the negative, depending on whether we succeed in reaching the spiritual height of the angel and “co-reigning” (conregnans). If we do not, the angel is compelled, by virtue of the nature of its power and function, to take on a punishing role and form instead, appearing as a demon and experienced by the human being as acting in the sense of the aforementioned “spirits of darkness.”
When the ‘I’ development of a human being reaches the stage of the spirit self, they become responsible for the angel, as it were, by destiny. Human beings thus reach the stage of the angel, and the angel finds itself once again on a plane where the human being is also present. The angel works as the spiritual power or force of the human being, and in this process the human being can, as it were, see themself as a “new angel” who can impart ‘I’-individuality to the “old angel.” Two spiritual beings encounter one another in the new spiritual reality of the Earth. Who, then, is the angel, and who the human being? The consequences for life and the prerequisites for knowledge of this situation will be explored in a subsequent article.
Translation Joshua Kelberman
Footnotes
- The above-mentioned anthroposophical principle of spiritual-scientific development was described in my book several years ago in relation to the topics of reincarnation and karma; see Wolf-Ulrich Klünker, Die Empfindung des Schicksals: Biographie und Karma im 21. Jahrhundert [The sense of destiny: Biography and karma in the 21st century] (Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 2004).
- For more details on these statements by Thomas Aquinas regarding the so-called “morning and evening knowledge” of the angels, see Wolf-Ulrich Klünker, Die Erwartung der Engel. Der Mensch als neue Hierarchie [The expectation of the angels: Man as a new hierarchy], 2nd edn. (Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 2004), 195–199.
- See also Wolf-Ulrich Klünker (footnote 2), 11 and 180 ff.
- Rudolf Steiner, Leitsätze—Leading Thoughts. Bilingual Edition, CW 26 (Arlesheim, Switzerland: Ita Wegman Institute, 2024), 231–233, “The Condition of the Human Soul before the Dawn of the Michael Age” (August 31, 1924).”
- Rudolf Steiner, Nachgelassene Abhandlungen und Fragmente 1879–1924 [Posthumous essays and fragments, 1879–1924], GA 46 (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 2020), fragment 95, p. 782; emphasis in original.
- Ibid., 781.
- Ibid., 782.
- Ibid., 781 f.
- Ibid., 782; emphasis in original.
- On the relationship between hierarchies and nature, see Wolf-Ulrich Klünker (footnote 2), particularly the chapter “Über die Natur” [On nature], 36–50.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 113,4. See Wolf-Ulrich Klünker (footnote 2), 9 ff.
