Was "The Snake" in Genesis was actually a Seraph, Eden close to God's throne?

[Ragnarok]

Saw this very interesting video, this guy's videos are very interesting



Here are the main points:

1. In Hebrew, the word used in Genesis for "serpent" is spelled identically to the verb "to make divine" and adjective "shining", and the guy argues that it's a triple pun associating snakes with light (see also: "Lucifer", or in Latin, "the light bearer")
2. In Hebrew, the word used for "Seraph" literally means "It which burns", but it can also be used to refer to a snake, and derives from the Egyptian word for snake
3. We have these Judean seals from the time of the Prophet Isaiah from Jerusalem, and number 273 is a seal depicting God surrounding by the Seraphim; the circle is a symbolic representation of God, not depictable in images, with a crown, and two seraphs. These seraphs look like snakes.


4. The Book of Enoch, although apocryphal, was still used by Jews and Christians during the Second Temple Period, and uses the Hebrew terms for "Snake" and "Seraphim" interchangeably to refer to the Seraphim
5. In the Apocryphal "Visions of Amram", found in the Cave of the Dead Sea Scrolls, depicts a vision of Amram, Moses's father. In this vision, St. Michael and Satan are fighting over the soul of Amram, and Satan is described as "terrifying in appearance, like a serpent" and "his visage like a viper"
6. Ezekiel 28 depicts a being who was present in Eden, while also on God's Holy Mountain (where, allegedly per Isaiah 14, God's Divine Council symbolically met). He argues that Ezekiel 28 doesn't refer to Adam, but refers to Satan; regardless, he argues that Adam, being in Eden, would've seen all these angels going to and from where the Divine Council met
7. The phrase "eating dust" is a phrase that, in Ancient Near Eastern cultures, referred to being sent to the Realm of the Dead (Sheol, or Hades) - in Ezekiel 28, God talks to the being who was thrown on the ground, from the Mountain of God, and then subsequently talks to the Prince of Tyre, who in parallelism to the being in Ezekiel 28, tells him they shall strike down your splendor and be cast down to the pit (Sheol); Isaiah 14 likewise says that Lucifer has been cut down to the ground, and will be cast into the pit (Sheol). In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the place of the dead is described as a house whose residents are deprived of light, where dust is their food and clay is their meat.

So therefore, he concludes saying that the Serpent was quite literally a Seraphim that tempted Eve, and when God cursed that serpent to eat dust, He was cursing him to Hades "all the days of his life" for what he did, with a Child of Eve eventually crushing his head

[Melkor]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

[Philip G.]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

Tradition holds that Lucifer was once a Cherubim, not a Seraphim.  Michael the Archangel being of the second to the lowest in the celestial hierarchy leading the good cause/angels against Lucifer, who was one of the second to the highest in the hierarchy is evidence of this in my opinion.   

[Ragnarok]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

Tradition holds that Lucifer was once a Cherubim, not a Seraphim.  Michael the Archangel being of the second to the lowest in the celestial hierarchy leading the good cause/angels against Lucifer, who was one of the second to the highest in the hierarchy is evidence of this in my opinion.

I think tradition is ambiguous as to what rank Lucifer was.

[Philip G.]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

Tradition holds that Lucifer was once a Cherubim, not a Seraphim.  Michael the Archangel being of the second to the lowest in the celestial hierarchy leading the good cause/angels against Lucifer, who was one of the second to the highest in the hierarchy is evidence of this in my opinion.

I think tradition is ambiguous as to what rank Lucifer was.

From newadvent, Seraph means "to consume with fire".  If Lucifer was a seraph, an eternal punishment of hellfire doesn't make much sense.  For, the fires of hell are a punishment for the devil as well. 

[Ragnarok]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

Tradition holds that Lucifer was once a Cherubim, not a Seraphim.  Michael the Archangel being of the second to the lowest in the celestial hierarchy leading the good cause/angels against Lucifer, who was one of the second to the highest in the hierarchy is evidence of this in my opinion.

I think tradition is ambiguous as to what rank Lucifer was.

From newadvent, Seraph means "to consume with fire".  If Lucifer was a seraph, an eternal punishment of hellfire doesn't make much sense.  For, the fires of hell are a punishment for the devil as well.

But according to Catholic Tradition, the demons which fell from Heaven were one third of all the angels from every rank, including Seraphim.

"That which burns" is a reference to them being the closest to God / highest rank of angel.

Fire is associated with Divinity throughout the Old Testament and New Testament - God's throne and God Himself are covered in fire (Ezekiel 1, Revelation 1, Revelation 4), when God appears to his followers He appears in a fiery storm, covered with thunder and lightning (Ezekiel 1, Exodus 19), the Burning Bush to Moses, Elijah's fiery chariot carrying him into Heaven, God's fiery wrath from Heaven to Sodom and Gomorrah and the false prophets who challenged Elijah, the tongues of fire which appeared on the Apostles' (and Virgin Mary's) heads during Pentecost, etc.

In fact, it's probably the theological explanation as to why we use candles in Church services.


Also, fun fact, the Zoroastrians believe it's blasphemy to try to portray God, and for them, the closest form on earth that even comes close to resembling God in their religion is fire due to its formlessness - and as such its a symbol of divinity for them. They are often called "fire-worshippers" because of that.



The fact that almost all the Indo-European religions use candles in their religious services suggest that the association with fire and divinity is extremely ancient.

[Philip G.]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

Tradition holds that Lucifer was once a Cherubim, not a Seraphim.  Michael the Archangel being of the second to the lowest in the celestial hierarchy leading the good cause/angels against Lucifer, who was one of the second to the highest in the hierarchy is evidence of this in my opinion.

I think tradition is ambiguous as to what rank Lucifer was.

From newadvent, Seraph means "to consume with fire".  If Lucifer was a seraph, an eternal punishment of hellfire doesn't make much sense.  For, the fires of hell are a punishment for the devil as well.

But according to Catholic Tradition, the demons which fell from Heaven were one third of all the angels from every rank, including Seraphim.

"That which burns" is a reference to them being the closest to God / highest rank of angel.

Fire is associated with Divinity throughout the Old Testament and New Testament - God's throne and God Himself are covered in fire (Ezekiel 1, Revelation 1, Revelation 4), when God appears to his followers He appears in a fiery storm, covered with thunder and lightning (Ezekiel 1, Exodus 19), the Burning Bush to Moses, Elijah's fiery chariot carrying him into Heaven, God's fiery wrath from Heaven to Sodom and Gomorrah and the false prophets who challenged Elijah, the tongues of fire which appeared on the Apostles' (and Virgin Mary's) heads during Pentecost, etc.

In fact, it's probably the theological explanation as to why we use candles in Church services.


Also, fun fact, the Zoroastrians believe it's blasphemy to try to portray God, and for them, the closest form on earth that even comes close to resembling God in their religion is fire due to its formlessness - and as such its a symbol of divinity for them. They are often called "fire-worshippers" because of that.



The fact that almost all the Indo-European religions use candles in their religious services suggest that the association with fire and divinity is extremely ancient.

Scripture and Tradition are the source of divine revelation.  Tradition void of Scriptural representation cannot necessarily be considered Tradition.  With that said, where in scripture does it say or imply that 1/3 of the angels "from every rank" sided with Lucifer?

[Ragnarok]

Lucifer was a former Seraphim when he tempted our first parents. Hell was created specifically for Satan and the bad angels after he rebelled against God.

Tradition holds that Lucifer was once a Cherubim, not a Seraphim.  Michael the Archangel being of the second to the lowest in the celestial hierarchy leading the good cause/angels against Lucifer, who was one of the second to the highest in the hierarchy is evidence of this in my opinion.

I think tradition is ambiguous as to what rank Lucifer was.

From newadvent, Seraph means "to consume with fire".  If Lucifer was a seraph, an eternal punishment of hellfire doesn't make much sense.  For, the fires of hell are a punishment for the devil as well.

But according to Catholic Tradition, the demons which fell from Heaven were one third of all the angels from every rank, including Seraphim.

"That which burns" is a reference to them being the closest to God / highest rank of angel.

Fire is associated with Divinity throughout the Old Testament and New Testament - God's throne and God Himself are covered in fire (Ezekiel 1, Revelation 1, Revelation 4), when God appears to his followers He appears in a fiery storm, covered with thunder and lightning (Ezekiel 1, Exodus 19), the Burning Bush to Moses, Elijah's fiery chariot carrying him into Heaven, God's fiery wrath from Heaven to Sodom and Gomorrah and the false prophets who challenged Elijah, the tongues of fire which appeared on the Apostles' (and Virgin Mary's) heads during Pentecost, etc.

In fact, it's probably the theological explanation as to why we use candles in Church services.


Also, fun fact, the Zoroastrians believe it's blasphemy to try to portray God, and for them, the closest form on earth that even comes close to resembling God in their religion is fire due to its formlessness - and as such its a symbol of divinity for them. They are often called "fire-worshippers" because of that.



The fact that almost all the Indo-European religions use candles in their religious services suggest that the association with fire and divinity is extremely ancient.

Scripture and Tradition are the source of divine revelation.  Tradition void of Scriptural representation cannot necessarily be considered Tradition.  With that said, where in scripture does it say or imply that 1/3 of the angels "from every rank" sided with Lucifer?

Revelation 12:3-9

"3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon,[d] with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. 6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.
7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, 8 but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it."

This is where the 1/3 of angels comes from.

As to the claim "from every rank"; I don't have an exact source on that, but I know it generally comes from the idea that each demon has a vice associated with it, as a distortion of what its former function was - and that comes from even the first millenium with the Apocryphal "Testament of Solomon", where Saint Michael visits King Solomon and gives him the "Seal of God" to command demons, and King Solomon uses that power to command the demons to build the Temple of Solomon.

From the Testament of Solomon:

"And I Solomon, having heard this, rebuked him, and said: "Silence for this present1, and continue to saw the marbles as I commanded thee." And I Solomon praised God, and commanded another demon to present himself to me. And one came before me who carried his face high up in the air, but the rest of the spirit curled away like a snail. And it broke through the few soldiers, and raised also a terrible dust on the ground, and carried it upwards; and then again hurled it back to frighten us, and asked what questions I could ask as a rule. And I stood up, and spat2 on the ground in that spot, and sealed with the ring of God. And forthwith the dust-wind stopped. Then I asked him, saying: "Who art thou, O wind?" Then he once more shook up a dust, and answered me: "What wouldst thou have, King Solomon?" I answered him: "Tell me what thou art called, and I would fain ask thee a question. But so far I give thanks to God who has made me wise to answer their evil plots."  But [the demon] answered me: "I am the spirit of the ashes (Tephras)." And I said to him: "What is thy pursuit?" And he said: "I bring darkness on men, and set fire to fields; and I bring homesteads to naught. But most busy am I in summer. However, when I get an opportunity, I creep into corners of the wall, by night and day. For I am offspring of the great one, and nothing less." Accordingly I said to him: "Under what star dost thou lie?" And he answered: "In the very tip of the moon's horn, when it is found in the south. There is my star. For I have been bidden to restrain the convulsions of the hemitertian fever; and this is why many men pray to the hemitertian fever, using these three names: Bultala, Thallal, [24] Melchal. And I heal them." And I said to him: "I am Solomon; when therefore thou wouldst do harm, by whose aid dost thou do it?" But he said to me: "By the angel's, by whom also the third day's fever is lulled to rest." So I questioned him, and said: "And by what name1?" And he answered: "That of the archangel Azael." And I summoned the archangel Azael, and set a seal on the demon, and commanded him to seize great stones, and toss them up to the workmen on the higher parts of the Temple. And, being compelled, the demon began to do what he was bidden to do. And I glorified God afresh who gave me this authority, and ordered another demon to come before me. And there came seven spirits1, females, bound and woven together, fair in appearance and comely. And I Solomon, seeing them, questioned them and said: "Who are ye?" But they, with one accord, said with one voice2: "We are of the thirty-three elements of the cosmic ruler of the darkness3." And the first said: "I am Deception." The second said: "I am Strife." The third: "I am Klothod, which is battle." The fourth: "I am Jealousy." The fifth: "I am Power." The sixth: "I am Error." The seventh: "I am the worst of all, and our stars are in heaven. Seven stars humble in sheen, and all together. And we are called as it were goddesses. We change our place all and together, and together we live, sometimes in Lydia, sometimes in Olympus, sometimes in a great mountain."


Also, almost every Exorcist who studies Exorcism says this - in the same way that sin is a corruption of what was good ("sin" in Greek literally means "to miss the mark"), the demons who once served a noble function for God are distorted and tempt people with what what their function once was - e.g., an angel which would have helped couples in marriage is an angel of lust, etc.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/demons-dont-sleep-interview-with-a-demonologist

"At the beginning, God created the angels with free will and the abilities to do their particular jobs. All of time was explained, and the angels were asked if they would serve in the roles they were created for—to encourage chastity, for instance. Led by Satan, about a third said no and were cast out of heaven down to Earth to roam here until the end of time. They made that choice with full knowledge of the consequences to the end of time, so they never want to repent, nor can they.

After they were cast out, the fallen angels retained their abilities. As demons they use their abilities, called faculties, to do the opposite of what they were created for. So, the angel who was created to encourage chastity now becomes a demon of lust. Satan was initially the most gifted angel and was the one that led the other fallen angels in their revolt. There are nine choirs of angels; some fell from each choir, so we have a hierarchy in heaven and also among the demons.

The demons do what they are told because they fear the punishment from higher-level fallen angels, particularly Satan. Ultimately God will punish them all individually in the lake of fire, but that comes at the final judgment."


https://spiritualdirection.com/2012/10/18/are-all-demons-the-same

"As St. Paul and the tradition of the Church indicate, we need to remember that there are nine hierarchies of angels (from highest to lowest): seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, and angels. The superior hierarchies are more powerful, beautiful, and intelligent than the inferior ones. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, each angel is completely different from other angels. In sociological terms, there are no angelic "races"; rather, each one is its own species. As we have said, though, it is possible to group the angels into hierarchies. These hierarchies are also called choirs, since these groups form themselves into choirs that sing praises to God. Their praise is obviously not that of the voice, but rather a spiritual type of praise that comes from their will to know and love the Trinity.

Because some angels from each of the nine hierarchies sinned and transformed themselves into demons, a demonic hierarchy exists. In other words, there are demons that are principalities, virtues, powers, etc. Even though they are demons, they retain their particular angelic power and intelligence."

Also, Fr. Malachi Martin, regardless of how much you trust him, said the same thing.

[Philip G.]

Ragnarok - I was not questioning the 1/3 number of fallen angels.  I am aware that it is sourced from the sacred scriptures, and am already in agreement.  However, the rest of what you cite as Tradition is not.  And, the apocrypha are not Sacred.  There is certainly a hole in your argument "from every rank", when there are seven deadly angels/sins(for the sake of arguing) yet nine choirs of angels(most certainly).  What about the other two? 

And, the church makes use of language, but language, in this case Greek, does not "define" or even influence for that matter our understanding of the word, once the church has adopted and elevated it by it's perpetual use.  The church's understanding of sin is not to be compared to the Greeks use or understanding, in this case that sin is simply "to miss the mark".

As a result of your post, I am even more convinced of my belief/position in this regard that Lucifer was one, not a Seraphim, and that two, no Seraphim is to be counted among the ranks of the fallen.

Concerning the lowest choir of angels, God appoints to every soul a guarding angel. These angels are Good. There are no fallen guardian angels.  If the guardian angels are to be sourced from any rank, would it not seem not only at the very least wasteful, but potentially harmful to have an evil person paired with a high ranking guardian angel?  It is my opinion that the guardian angels are of the lowest choir(s).  Thomas Aquinas would agree with this.  With that said, it is my opinion that the guardian angels, who may very well constitute the entirety of the lowest choir of angels, would then theoretically render the whole of the lowest choir not fallen.  For, the lowest choir of Angel's would "serve" God, whilst the highest choir "praises" God. 

Both the lowest choir and the highest choir did not fall.  That is my belief. This is how Christ can say, as he did after he washed his disciples feet, John 15;15 - "I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth.  But I have called you friends because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you".  Is it not true that one can genuinely serve, without knowing what the one they serve doth?  Jesus said it. 

If the Guardian Angels, who traditionally are considered to be amongst the lowest of the angels, can serve man whether he be heading in the direction of heaven or headlong to hell, and God, whom Jesus implies they to an extent know not, how can they serve satan, who was forced to drag 1/3 of the angels with him down to earth/hell?  By the very fact that Satan used the force of his tail implies he did not drag the lowest choir of angels, who solely "serve" down to hell with him.  Hence, the lowest choir of angels is not fallen.   

Satan said, "non serviam", I will not serve".  The lowest choir of angels by their very nature as angel's who "serve" are incapable of participating in satan's rebellion.     

Next, concerning Jesus words at the washing of the feet, there are two types of societies in the world. There is the society of the "lord and the slave", and there the society of the "servant and the friend".  What is the difference between these two societies?  The difference is that "the kingdom is among us", said Jesus.  And, "the prince of this world cometh", said Jesus.  That is the difference. 

A servant is whole.  A friend is whole.  "The gates of hell shall not prevail".  A Lord on the other hand is not whole.  A Lord cannot be a Lord without Slaves.  And, a slave is not whole, because they owe a debt, that even God honors "to the last penny".  With that said, God has not forsaken the slave.  But, God has forsaken antichrist.  "In me, he hath not a thing" said Jesus.  The fallen angels only wish they could be Guardian Angels.  The fallen angels only wish they could be Seraphim.  But, they are not.   

[Philip G.]

The concept of Seraphim(the highest choir that Praises God without cease) and Guardian Angels(the lowest choir who serves God without question) not falling or participating in Lucifer's rebellion has implications for the EENS conversation.  Just think about it for a moment.  It is quite obvious if you ask me. 

[Ragnarok]

The concept of Seraphim(the highest choir that Praises God without cease) and Guardian Angels(the lowest choir who serves God without question) not falling or participating in Lucifer's rebellion has implications for the EENS conversation.  Just think about it for a moment.  It is quite obvious if you ask me.

Guardian Angels aren't the lowest choir; simple "Angels" are the lowest choir - Guardian Angels do belong to the lowest choir, but they aren't the only kinds of angels in that choir.
The word "angel" just means messenger in Greek; the messenger angels in the Bible who weren't guardian angels (for example, the one who visited Daniel) belong to this rank, but they aren't guardian angels.

Also, even if you reject the idea that an angel from every rank fell from Heaven (something I've heard multiple times from multiple sources), that doesn't at all address any of my points of Lucifer being a Seraph, and that point is still contested - not only do some identify him as a Cherub (because some believe that Ezekiel 28 typologically refers to Lucifer and compares him as a Cherub - although I personally think that it's just a reference to Adam), but some even identify him as an Archangel because the Jews do so (Samael, who is the Jewish Lucifer, is officially an Archangel).

[Philip G.]

The concept of Seraphim(the highest choir that Praises God without cease) and Guardian Angels(the lowest choir who serves God without question) not falling or participating in Lucifer's rebellion has implications for the EENS conversation.  Just think about it for a moment.  It is quite obvious if you ask me.

Guardian Angels aren't the lowest choir; simple "Angels" are the lowest choir - Guardian Angels do belong to the lowest choir, but they aren't the only kinds of angels in that choir.
The word "angel" just means messenger in Greek; the messenger angels in the Bible who weren't guardian angels (for example, the one who visited Daniel) belong to this rank, but they aren't guardian angels.

Also, even if you reject the idea that an angel from every rank fell from Heaven (something I've heard multiple times from multiple sources), that doesn't at all address any of my points of Lucifer being a Seraph, and that point is still contested - not only do some identify him as a Cherub (because some believe that Ezekiel 28 typologically refers to Lucifer and compares him as a Cherub - although I personally think that it's just a reference to Adam), but some even identify him as an Archangel because the Jews do so (Samael, who is the Jewish Lucifer, is officially an Archangel).

Jesus says in the Gospels: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven."   The phrase always see the face of my Father in Heaven is significant.  Contrast that with the Seraphim, who I believe are where we derive the Sanctus prayer.  What do we do at the Sanctus?  We kneel.  But, a greater form, would be prostration.  When prostrate, one cannot "see" what they are prostrate to.  Why would prostration not characterize the Seraphim at such a moment?  I think it does.  On top of that, the seraphim also have wings to specifically  veil their faces.  I don't think I need to do the math for anyone.   If our guardian angels "always see" the face of the Father, and the Seraphim are characterized in ways by the opposite of that, it is not unreasonable to conclude that guardian angels, would then also be sourced from a contrasting choir of angels.  If the Seraphim are the highest choir, then that would mean the guardian angels, are sourced from the lowest choir of angels.  I don't think it is flawed reasoning.  And, tradition does support the notion that guardian angels are sourced from the low(est) choir of angels. 

[Ragnarok]

The concept of Seraphim(the highest choir that Praises God without cease) and Guardian Angels(the lowest choir who serves God without question) not falling or participating in Lucifer's rebellion has implications for the EENS conversation.  Just think about it for a moment.  It is quite obvious if you ask me.

Guardian Angels aren't the lowest choir; simple "Angels" are the lowest choir - Guardian Angels do belong to the lowest choir, but they aren't the only kinds of angels in that choir.
The word "angel" just means messenger in Greek; the messenger angels in the Bible who weren't guardian angels (for example, the one who visited Daniel) belong to this rank, but they aren't guardian angels.

Also, even if you reject the idea that an angel from every rank fell from Heaven (something I've heard multiple times from multiple sources), that doesn't at all address any of my points of Lucifer being a Seraph, and that point is still contested - not only do some identify him as a Cherub (because some believe that Ezekiel 28 typologically refers to Lucifer and compares him as a Cherub - although I personally think that it's just a reference to Adam), but some even identify him as an Archangel because the Jews do so (Samael, who is the Jewish Lucifer, is officially an Archangel).

Jesus says in the Gospels: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven."   The phrase always see the face of my Father in Heaven is significant.  Contrast that with the Seraphim, who I believe are where we derive the Sanctus prayer.  What do we do at the Sanctus?  We kneel.  But, a greater form, would be prostration.  When prostrate, one cannot "see" what they are prostrate to.  Why would prostration not characterize the Seraphim at such a moment?  I think it does.  On top of that, the seraphim also have wings to specifically  veil their faces.  I don't think I need to do the math for anyone.   If our guardian angels "always see" the face of the Father, and the Seraphim are characterized in ways by the opposite of that, it is not unreasonable to conclude that guardian angels, would then also be sourced from a contrasting choir of angels.  If the Seraphim are the highest choir, then that would mean the guardian angels, are sourced from the lowest choir of angels.  I don't think it is flawed reasoning.  And, tradition does support the notion that guardian angels are sourced from the low(est) choir of angels.

I'm not contesting that - I'm just saying they are from the lowest choir of angels, not that they are identical with the lowest choir of angels (that is, the lowest choir of angels are guardian angels only).

Also, that prayer comes from Seraphs and Cherubs in Isaiah and Revelation, respectively - although the Cherubs in Revelation seem to be a callback to the Seraphs in Isaiah (because Revelation is built on Old Testament symbols)