11. § 30. The Spiritual World.
§ 30. The Spiritual World.
. According to Holy Scripture, creation falls apart into a spiritual and a material world, into heaven and earth, τα ἐν τοις οὐρανοις και τα ἐπι της γης, τα ἀορατα και τα ὁρατα, Col. 1:16. The existence of such a spiritual world is acknowledged in all religions [425]. Besides the proper gods, all kinds of demigods or heroes, daemons, genii, spirits, souls etc. are also objects of religious veneration. Especially in Parseeism this doctrine of the angels was strongly developed. A whole host of good angels, Jazada, is there gathered around Ahuramazda, the God of light, just as the God of darkness Ahriman is surrounded by a number of evil angels, Dewa's.
According to Kuenen, G. v. I. II 254 v. and many others, the Jews borrowed their doctrine of the angels chiefly from the Persians since the Babylonian
Captivity. But in this there is very great exaggeration. For, in the first place,
Kuenen also acknowledges that belief in the existence and activity of higher beings is Old-Israelitish. Secondly, there is a great difference between the angelology in the canonical writings and in Jewish popular belief. And finally, there is still so much uncertainty in the reciprocal relationship of
Judaism and Parseeism, that James Darmesteter in his work on the Zendavesta in 1893 derives the Persian doctrine of angels precisely conversely from Judaism, cf. Dr. Geesink in the Heraut 830, and against Darmesteter, Tiele, Versl. en Meded. v. d. Kon. Ak. van Wet. Letterk. 1895 bl. 364 v. The existence of the angels was, however, according to Hd. 23:8 denied by the Sadducees, who therefore probably regarded the angel appearances in the Pentateuch as momentary theophanies. Josephus leaves various angel appearances unmentioned and attempts to explain some naturally, e.g. Ant. VIII 13, 7. According to Justin, Dial. c. Tr. 128, the angels were by some held to be temporary emanations from the Divine being, which after completion of their task returned again into God. In later time the existence of the angels was denied by the followers of David Joris, cf. Hoornbeek, Summa Controv. 1653, p. 413, by the Libertines, cf. Calvin,
Opera ed. Schippers VIII 383, by Spinoza, Tract. Theol. pol. II 56 and Hobbes, Leviathan III c. 34, who simply saw in them revelations and workings of God. Balthazar Bekker did not go so far in his Betoverde
Werelt II c. 6-15, but nevertheless limited the activity of the angels, held them many times to be human beings, and taught, like Spinoza, that Christ and his apostles in the doctrine of the angels had repeatedly accommodated themselves to the belief of their contemporaries. Leibniz, Wolff, Bonnet,
Euler and the supranaturalists attempted to maintain their existence chiefly on moral [426] grounds; from man upward as well as downward there could exist no vacuum formarum in the ascending series of creatures, Reinhard,
Dogm. 184. Bretschneider, Dogm. I 746 f. Even Kant considered the existence of other thinking beings than human beings not impossible,
Zöckler, Gesch. der Bez. zw. Theol. u. Naturw. II 69. 249. The eighteenth century erased the distinction between angels and human beings, just as the
nineteenth did that between human beings and animals. Swedenborg for example had heard from the angels themselves that they were actually human beings; the inner being of man is an angel and man is destined to become an angel, Die wahre christl. Religion, 2e Aufl. Stuttgart 1873 S. 42.
178. In more recent theology, however, little has remained of the angels.
Rationalists such as Wegscheider do not indeed deny the existence of the angels but nevertheless deny their appearance, Inst. theol. § 102.
Marheineke in the second edition of his dogmatics omitted the paragraph on the angels. Strauss thought that the modern worldview had taken away their dwelling from the angels; they owe their origin only to folk legends, to the urge to counterbalance the mass of matter in the world with somewhat more spirit, Gl. I 671 f. With Lipsius they are but bildliche Veranschaulichung des lebendigen Wirkens der göttlichen Vorsehung and belong only in religious symbolism, Dogm. § 518 f., cf. Biedermann, Chr. Dogm. II2 510 f. And Schleiermacher too did indeed consider their existence not impossible, but nevertheless judged that Christ and the apostles taught nothing positive about them, because they had accommodated themselves to the people and had spoken of angels as we do of fairies and elves, and that they had no dogmatic and religious significance for us, Chr. Gl. § 42. 43, cf. Bovon,
Dogm. Chrét. Lausanne 1895 I 297. Even those who still maintain their existence often change their nature. Schelling held the good angels to be
Potenzen, Möglichkeiten, which because of the fall had not entered into actuality and now are nothing other than the idea or potency of an individual or people, Werke, II 4 S. 284 f., cf. Martensen, Dogm. § 68. 69.
Others have changed the angels into inhabitants of the planets. Already early we find the opinion that the planets were inhabited. It already occurs with Xenophanes and some Stoics. After modern astronomy had given
some idea [427] of the tremendous space of the universe, that thought again found acceptance with Descartes, Wittichius, Allinga, Wilkins, Harvey,
Leibniz, Wolff, Bonnet, Kant, Reinhard, Bretschneider, Swedenborg and others, cf. Zöckler, Gesch. der Bez. II 55 f. Lange, Gesch. des Mater. 431.
Büchner, Kraft und Stoff 55. Strauss, Alte u. neue Gl. 165. C. du Prel, Die Planetenbewohner, Leipzig 1879. C. Flammarion, Les terres du ciel. 7 ed.
Paris 1881. Id., Are the heavenly bodies inhabited? Dutch trans. by Dr. H.
Blink, 1891. And some theologians have thus come to think of angels with those inhabitants, Kurtz, Bibel und Astronomie, 3te Aufl. S. 173 f. 346 f.
Keerl, Der Mensch das Ebenbild Gottes I 278 f. Splittgerber, Tod, Fortleben und Auferstehung 5te Aufl. 1879 S. 150. Lange, Dogm. II 362 f. K. Keerl,
Die Fixsterne und die Engel, Bew. d. Gl. Juni 1896 S. 230 f. etc. And finally, over against materialism a reaction has arisen in spiritism, which not only acknowledges the existence of departed spirits but also considers a communion between them and human beings possible and thereby has again paved the way for belief in a spiritual world among thousands.
Special literature on the angels: Suarez, de angelis, Lugd. 1620. Jac. Ode, Comment. de angelis, Traj. 1739. Voetius, Disp. V 241-268. Kuyper, Heraut no 858-915. Oswald, Angelologie, Paderborn 1883.
2. The existence of the angels cannot be proved philosophically. The reasoning of Leibniz, that from man downward likewise as upward all kinds of sorts of creatures must exist, so that there may be no vacuum formarum and no saltus naturae, is not plausible, because it would by consequence erase the distinction between Creator and creature and would lead to a gnostic pantheism. Yet philosophy can still much less adduce any argument against the possibility of such an existence. So long as we ourselves are psychic beings and cannot explain the life of the soul from metabolism, but
for that have to assume a spiritual substance, so long is also the existence of a spiritual world in conflict with no single argument of reason or with any fact of experience. Not only Leibniz and Wolff, but also Schleiermacher and Kant have fully acknowledged the possibility. The universality of [428] the belief in such a spiritual world moreover proves that in this acknowledgment something other and something more than arbitrariness and chance is hidden. The explanation of Strauss, that the world of angels is a compensation over against the quantity of matter in the creation, is not worth a refutation. And likewise the reasoning of Daub has no value, that man, because placed between good and evil, created types toward both sides and thus came to the ideas of angel and devil, in Dorner, Chr. Gl. I 536. The belief in a spiritual world is not philosophical but religious in nature. It is most closely connected with revelation and miracle. Religion is not conceivable without revelation, and revelation cannot exist, without there being above and behind this visible world a spiritual world, which stands in communion with this. In all religions the angels are not factors of the religious-ethical life itself, but of the revelation on which this life is built. With religion the belief itself is given, that its deepest causes do not lie within the circle of visible things. The good and the evil, both in religious and in ethical sense, are rooted in another world than that which appears before our eyes. The belief in angels gives expression to that. It does not constitute the essence and the center of religion, but nevertheless stands in connection with it. The transcendence of God, the belief in revelation and miracle, the essence of religion of itself brings with it the belief in spiritual beings. The Diesseits does not satisfy man. He thirsts again and again for another world, which is no less rich than this.
Materialism by reaction calls forth spiritualism. But while now in all
religions and spiritistic theories the doctrine of the angels appears falsified and corrupted, erases the boundary line between God and creature and fails to recognize the distinction between revelation and religion, this doctrine in Scripture again occurs in such a way that it robs nothing from God's honor and leaves religion in its purity untouched. The revelation in Scripture is for the Christian the firm ground also for his belief in the angels. In earlier time one attempted to prove the existence of the good and especially also of the evil angels historically, from oracles, apparitions, ghosts, demoniacs,
Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 50 art. 1. Zanchius, Op. II 2. Vossius, de orig. et progr. idololatriae I c. 6. Voetius, Disp. I 985-1017. [429] V 241 etc. But these proofs were just as little convincing as those from reason. On the other hand, the existence of the angels is taught very clearly in Scripture. To be sure, Spinoza and Schleiermacher have objected against that, that Christ and the apostles spoke about angels by accommodation to popular belief and themselves taught nothing positive about them. But Jesus and the apostles themselves express their belief in the angels unequivocally and repeatedly, e.g. Mt. 11:10, 13:39, 16:27, 18:10, 24:36, 26:53, Luk. 20:36, 1
Cor. 6:3, Hebr. 12:22, 1 Petr. 1:12 etc. When we speak of elves and fairies, everyone knows that this is meant in a figurative sense. But in Jesus' time the belief in the angels was general; if they spoke of angels, everyone had to think that they themselves also believed in them. The ultimate ground for our belief in the angels therefore also lies in revelation. Christian experience as such teaches nothing of it. The object of true faith is the grace of God in Christ. Angels are no factors of the religious life, no object of our trust, no object of our worship. They are that nowhere in Scripture and therefore also may not be that for us. In the Protestant confessions therefore there is very little mention of the angels, Ned. Gel. art. 12. Heid. Cat. vr.
112. 117. Niemeijer, Coll. Conf. p. 315. 316. 476. The Reformed in particular sinned rather in defectu than in excessu. At Rome angelology occupies a much greater place, but there it also falsifies religion and falls short of God's honor. However much the angels are nevertheless no factor and object of our religion, they are nevertheless of great significance in the history of revelation and derive from that especially their value for the religious life.
3. The name angel, under which we usually comprehend the whole class of the higher, spiritual beings, is in Scripture not a nomen naturae but a nomen officii. The Hebr. מלאך simply means messenger, envoy and can also denote a man, whether sent by men, Job 1:14, 1 Sam. 11:3 etc., or sent by God, Hagg. 1:13, Mal. 2:7, 3:1; and likewise it is the case with ἀγγελος, which is more than once used of men, Mt. 11:10, Mk. 1:2, Luk. 7:24, 27,
9:52, Gal. 4:4, Jak. 2:15; it is then wrongly rendered in our Statenoverzetting by angel instead of by envoy, e. g. Mal. 3:1, [430] Op.
1:20 etc. A common, distinctive name for all spiritual beings together is not found in Scripture, even though they are also often called sons of God, spirits, saints, watchers. There are different kinds and classes of angels, all of which bear a name of their own. The world of angels is as rich as the material world; just as in this there are all kinds of creatures, which together nevertheless form one whole, so it is also with the world of spirits. The class of the cherubim is mentioned first in Scripture. They appear in Gen.
3:24 as guardians of the garden. In tabernacle and temple they are depicted above the ark with faces turned toward the mercy seat, and with wings that cover the mercy seat, Ex. 25:18v., 37:8, 1 Chr. 28:18, 2 Chr. 3:14, Hebr. 9:5 and between which the Lord dwells, Ps. 80:2, 99:1, Jes. 37:16. When God descends to the earth, He is represented as sailing, riding upon the
cherubim, 2 Sam. 22:11, Ps. 18:11, cf. Ps. 104:3, Jes. 66:15, Hebr. 1:7. In Ezekiel 1 and 10 they occur under the name of ַחּיֹות, four in number, in human form, each with four wings and with four faces, namely of a man, lion, ox and eagle; while finally in Op. 4:6v. as the four ζωα, each with one face and each with six wings, they surround the throne of God and sing the thrice-holy day and night. The name ְכרּוִבים is derived in various ways, now from ְ and ֹרב, as many (Hengstenberg), then from רלוב chariot, or also from כרב ar. to terrify, thus as it were horrible beings, but mostly from a stem that means to seize, to hold fast, cf. γρυψ, Delitzsch on Gen. 3:24 and Ps. 18:11.
An equally great difference exists concerning the nature of the cherubs.
Some regard them as mythical beings, others as symbolic figures, still others as powers of God in creation, or also as an original designation of thunderclouds or storms, Smend, Altt. Rel. 21 f. But in Gen. 3:24, Ezek. 1,
Op. 4 they are nevertheless clearly represented as living and personal beings; indeed the human form is predominant in them, Ezek. 1:5. Because, however, they are beings of extraordinary, human strength and glory,
Scripture calls symbolic representation to its aid, in order to give us some idea of their spiritual nature. They are portrayed as ζωα, in whom the power and the strength of God comes to expression much better than in weak man.
They [431] have the strength of an ox, the majesty of the lion, the swiftness of the eagle and with that the reason of man. The wings which they bear, and the sword with which they guard the garden, point to those same properties. From this representation, which is not an image but a symbol, it appears that they are also among the angels highly placed beings, who more than any other creatures reveal the power, the majesty, the glory of God and who therefore are also charged with the task, to watch over His holiness at the garden of Eden, in the tabernacle and temple and also at God's descent
to the earth, Dr. Joh. Nikel, Die Lehre des A. T. über die Cherubim und Seraphim, Breslau 1890. Further, in Jes. 6 the ְׂש ָרִפים are mentioned, probably from the arab. stem sarufa, nobilis fuit, who there also are symbolically represented in human form but with six wings, of which two serve for covering the face, two for covering the feet and two for the swift execution of God's commands. In distinction from the cherubim, they stand as servants around the King, who sits on His throne, sing His honour and wait for His commands. Seraphim are the nobles, cherubim are the strong ones among the angels. Finally, with Daniel there still occur two angels with proper names, namely Gabriel, cap. 8:16, 9:21 and Michael c. 10:13,
21, 12:1, who both, in deviation from many earlier and later interpreters, such as the van den Honerts, Burman, Witsius, Hengstenberg, Zahn e. a., are to be regarded as created angels and may not be identified with the Son of God. Also according to the N. T. there are different classes of angels. The angel Gabriel appears in Luk. 1:19, 26. Michael occurs in Judas 9, Op. 12:7,
1 Thess. 4:16. And further among the angels there is mention of αρχαι, ἐξουσιαι, Ef. 3:10, Col. 2:10, κυριοτητας, Ef. 1:21, Col. 1:16, θρονοι, Col.
1:16, δυναμεις, Ef. 1:21, 1 Petr. 3:22, all of which point to a distinction in rank and dignity among the angels, while finally in the Apocalypse of John seven angels very clearly repeatedly come to the foreground, c. 8:2, 6, 15:1 etc. In addition, the number of the angels is very great. The name Tzebaoth, cf. above p. 111v., Mahanaim, Gen. 32:1, 2, legions, Mt. 26:53 and host,
Luk. 2:13, and the numbers of thousand times thousands indicate this, Deut.
33:2, Ps. 68:18, Dan. 7:10, Hebr. 12:12, Judas 14, Op. 5:11, 19:14. Such [432] a great number of itself already requires distinction of order and rank, and all the more, because the angels do not, like men, stand in family relations to one another and thus in so far are much more like one another.
Scripture then also clearly teaches that among the angels there is all manner of distinction, of rank and station, of dignity and service, of office and honour, even of class and kind. This beautiful, rich thought of diversity in unity must not be surrendered, even though it has been worked out in a fantastic manner by the Jews and by the Roman Catholics. The Jews made all manner of distinctions among the angels, Weber, System 161 f. In the Christian church one at first remained with the data of Scripture, Iren. adv. haer. II 54. Orig. de princ. I 5. Augustine still said not to know how the societas of the angels was ordered, Enchir. 58. But Pseudodionysius in his writings the coelesti and the ecclesiastica hierarchia gave a schematic division. Proceeding from the thought that God in creation as it were stepped out from His unity into multiplicity, the div. nom. II 11, he teaches that all things proceed from God in an ever descending series and thus again successively return to Him. God is the centre, the creatures gather peripherally around Him. There is a hierarchy of things, the coel. hier. III 1.
Such a hierarchy is of two kinds, a heavenly and an ecclesiastical. The heavenly is formed by three classes of angels. The first and highest class serves God exclusively; it comprises the seraphim, who unceasingly contemplate the Divine being; the cherubim, who ponder His counsels; and the thrones, who worship His visions. The second class serves the whole visible and invisible creation; it comprises the dominions, who order what must happen according to God's will; the powers, who carry out what has been decided, and the virtues, who bring it to completion. The third class serves the earth, the individual men and peoples; it comprises the principalities, who promote the general welfare of men, the archangels, who lead the particular peoples and the angels, who watch over the individual men, the coel. hier. VI sq. Of that heavenly hierarchy the ecclesiastical is an
image, in its mysteries (baptism, eucharist, ordination), organs (bishop, priest, deacon) and laity (catechumens, Christians, monks), the eccl. hier. 2 sq. And this whole hierarchy has its origin and head in Christ, the [433] incarnate Son of God, the eccl. hier. I 1, and its goal in deification, ib. I 3.
This division of Pseudodionysius, which makes the hierarchy in heaven and on earth known as the intimate thought of the Roman system, found a fertile soil. Damascenus, de fide orthod. II c. 3. Lombardus, Sent. II dist. 9.
Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 108. Petavius, de angelis tib. II. Oswald, Angelologie. Paderborn 1883 S. 57 f. etc. Now in Scripture also a distinction and order of rank of the angels is indeed clearly taught. Some wrongly think that by the different names the same angels are always meant, only viewed from a different point of view, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis
I 301. It must even be acknowledged that this order of rank in Protestant theology has not come sufficiently into its own. There is rank and order among those thousands of beings. God is a God of order in all the congregations, 1 Cor. 14:33, 40. The world of spirits is no less rich and beautiful than the world of material beings. But the hierarchy of Roman doctrine goes far beyond the revelation of God in His word. It was therefore unanimously rejected by the Protestants, Calv. on Ef. 1:21. Voetius, Disp. I 882 sq. Rivetus, Op. III 248 sq. Quenstedt, Theol. I 443. 450. Gerhard, Loc.
V cap. 4 Sect. 9. And likewise all calculations of the number of the angels were regarded as vain and unfruitful; thus e.g. that of Augustine, who after the fall of some had the number of the angels supplemented by the praedestinati homines, Enchir. 29. de civ. XXII c. 1. Anselmus, Cur Deus homo I 18; or of Gregory, who thought that as many men were saved as there were angels who had remained standing, cf. Lombardus, Sent. II 9; or of William of Paris, who called the number of the angels infinite; or of
Hilary and many others, who on the ground of Mt. 18:12 thought that the number of men stood to that of the angels as one to ninety-nine, cf.
Petavius, de angelis I c. 14; or of G. Schott, who set the number of the angels at a thousand times a thousand millions, in Busken Huet, Het Land van Rembrand II 2, 37. And likewise one concerned oneself little with the question whether the angels among themselves also differed in essence and kind, essentia and specie; Thomas taught this decisively, S. Theol. I qu. 50 art. 4, but the church fathers are mostly of another opinion, Damasc. de fide orthod. II 3. Petavius, de angelis I c. 14. Voetius, Disp. V 261. However manifold distinction may exist among the angels, [434] Scripture does not enter into this and offers only a few data. With respect to us, unity comes much more to the foreground than diversity; they all have a spiritual nature, are all called ministering spirits, and all find their principal activity in the glorification of God.
4. The unity is expressed first of all in this, that they are all created beings.
Schelling does indeed say that the good angels, as pure Potencies, are not created, Werke II 4 S. 284. But the creation of the angels is clearly expressed in Col. 1:16, and is implied in the creation of all things, Gen. 1:1,
Ps. 33:6, Joh. 1:3, Rom. 11:36, Ef. 3:9, Hebr. 1:2. Concerning the time of their creation, however, little can be said with certainty. Many church fathers, appealing to Job 38:7, thought that the angels were created before all things, Orig. on Gen. 1, Basilius, Hexaem. hom. 1. Greg. Naz. Orat. 38 and 42. Damascenus, de fide orthod. II c. 3. Dionysius, de div. nom. c. 5 etc., and later the Socinians judged thus, Crell, de Deo et attrib. I c. 18, and the Remonstrants, Episcopius, Inst. Theol. IV 3, 1. Limborch, II 20, 4, who in this way weakened the distinction between the Logos and the angels. But this thought finds no support in Scripture. Nothing precedes the creation of
heaven and earth, of which Gen. 1:1 speaks. Job 38:7 does indeed teach that they were present at the creation, just as the stars were, but not that they already existed before the beginning of creation. On the other hand, it is certain that the angels were created before the seventh day, when heaven and earth and all their host were completed and God rested from his work,
Gen. 1:31, 2:1, 2. But for the rest we are in uncertainty. Only it may be regarded as probable that, just as the earth in Gen. 1:1 is indeed already created as earth but nevertheless still must be prepared and adorned, so also heaven was not completed in a single moment. The word heaven is proleptic in verse 1. Only later in the history of revelation does it become apparent what is implied in it. Scripture now speaks of heaven as the cloudheaven, Gen. 1:8, 20, 7:11, Mt. 6:26, then as the starry heaven, Deut. 4:19,
Ps. 8:4, Mt. 24:29, and finally as the dwelling of God and of the angels, Ps.
115:16, 2:4, 1 Kon. 8:27, 2 Chr. 6:18, Mt. 6:19-21, Hebr. 4:14, 7:26, [435] 8:1, 2, 9:2v. etc. Just as heaven as cloudand starry heaven was prepared only in the course of the six days, so it is possible and even probable that the third heaven with its inhabitants was also formed only gradually. The more that spiritual world is conceived as richer and fuller, in diversity still far surpassing the material world, the more acceptable it is also to posit for that preparation of the heavens a certain lapse of time, even though the creation narrative is entirely silent about this.
5. Next, the unity of the angels appears from the fact that they are all spiritual beings. Concerning this, however, there has at all times been great difference of opinion. The Jews ascribed to them airy or fiery bodies,
Weber, System 161 f. And likewise it was judged by most of the church fathers, such as Justinus, c. Tryph. 57. Orig. de princ. I 6. Basilius, de Sp. S. c. 16. Tertull., de carne Chr. 6. Augustinus, de trin. II 7 etc. At the second
synod at Nicaea 787, a dialogue was read aloud by the patriarch Tarasius, by a certain John of Thessalonica, in which he argued that the angels had subtle bodies and therefore might also be depicted. Tarasius added to that, that they were limited in space and had appeared in human form, and therefore were depictable. And with this the synod testified its agreement,
Schwane, D. G. II2 235. But gradually the boundary between matter and spirit was drawn more sharply, and many ascribed to the angels a purely spiritual nature, such as Pseudodion., de coel. hier., Damascenus, de fide orth. II c. 3. Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 50 art. 1. qu. 51 art. 1. The fourth
Lateran council in 1215 called the nature of the angels spiritualis, Denzinger, Enchir. n. 355 and most Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians agreed with that. Nevertheless, a certain corporeality of the angels was also later repeatedly taught, by Roman Catholics such as Cajetanus, Eugubinus, Bannez, by some Reformed such as Zanchius, Op.
III col. 69. Vossius, de idol. I 2, 6, further by Episcopius, Inst. Theol. V c. 2 p. 347, Vorstius, Poiret, Böhme, Leibniz, Wolff, Bonnet, Reinhard etc., and in more recent times e.g. by Kurtz, Bibel und Astronomie, 3e Aufl. S. 152.
Beck, Lehrwiss. I 176. Lange, Dogm. II 578. Kahnis, Dogm. I 443 f.
Vilmar, Dogm. I 306. [436] Keerl in Bew. d. Gl. Juni 1896 S. 235-247 etc., cf. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych.2 65 f. The principal ground for this opinion is that the concept of a purely spiritual, bodiless nature is metaphysically unthinkable and also incompatible with the concept of creature. God is pure
Spirit, but He is also simple, omnipresent, eternal. The angels, however, are limited, also with respect to time and place; if they really move from one place to another, then they must in their way be bodily. And likewise the angels are not simple as God but are composed of materia and forma, and for that reason too a certain, indeed not coarse, material, but still subtle,
etheric corporeality must be ascribed to them. To this consideration there was added the exegesis, which in the sons of God in Gen. 6 thought of angels. This interpretation of Philo, Josephus, the Jews, the LXX, was taken over by many church fathers, Justinus, Apol. I 1. Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV 16,
2 V 29. 2. Clemens, Tertull., Lactantius, Cyprianus, Ambrosius etc., also found acceptance with Luther and in more recent times was again defended by Ewald, Baumgarten, Hofmann, Kurtz, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, Köhler,
Kübel and others. Further, for the corporeality of the angels one also appeals to their appearances, to some particular texts in Holy Scripture, such as Ps. 104:4, Mt. 22:30, Luk. 20:35, 1 Cor. 11:10, and sometimes also to the fact that as inhabitants of the stars they must be bodily. Over against all these arguments, however, stands the clear statement of Holy Scripture that the angels are πνευματα, Mt. 8:16, 12:45, Luk. 7:21, 8:2, 11:26, Hd.
19:12, Ef. 6:12, Hebr. 1:4, who do not marry, Mt. 22:30, are immortal, Luk.
20:35, 36, and are invisible, Col. 1:16, can be a legion in one limited space, Luk. 8:30, and as spirits have no flesh and bones, Luk. 24:39. Further, the view of the ְבֵני־ָהֱא ֹלִהים in Gen. 6:2 as angels and not as men is untenable, for although this designation is often customary for angels, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, yet it can also very well denote men, Deut. 32:5, Hos. 2:1, Ps. 80:16, 73:15; and in any case it is not applicable to the evil angels, who here must have committed the sin; further, the expression לקח אשה in Gen. 6:2 is always customary of a lawful marriage and never of fornication; next, the punishment for the sin is executed only upon men [437] , for they are the guilty ones and of angels there is no mention, Gen. 6:3, 5-7. The other
Scripture passages also do not prove the corporeality of the angels; Ps.
104:4, cf. Hebr. 1:7 only says that God uses his angels as servants, just as wind and fire also serve to carry out his commands, but by no means
indicates that the angels are changed into wind or fire; Mt. 22:30 implies that the believers after the resurrection will be like the angels, in that they no longer marry, but contains nothing about the corporeality of the angels; and 1 Cor. 11:10 says that the women, as a sign of their subjection to the man, must also be covered in the congregation, in order not to displease the good angels who are present in the congregation; of evil angels, who otherwise would be seduced by the women, there is here no thought at all.
As for the angelic appearances, it is indeed certain that they have always taken place in bodily, visible form, just as symbolism also always represents the angels in all kinds of visible forms. But from this nothing follows for their corporeality. For God is Spirit and yet is beheld by Isaiah in cap. 6 as a King, sitting on his throne. Christ appeared in the flesh and yet is true God.
The angels appear, both in the appearance and in the symbolism, repeatedly in other forms; the representation of the cherubs in Gen. 3:24, above the ark of the covenant, in Ezekiel and in the Apocalypse, differs very strongly among itself; and the forms in which they appear are by no means alike,
Gen. 18, Judg. 6, 13:6, Dan. 10:11, Mt. 28 vs. 3, Luk. 2:9, Rev. 22:8. How these bodies are to be conceived is another question. Whether they were essential bodies or apparent bodies cannot be said, Damascenus, de fide orthod. II 3. Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 51 art. 1-3. Turret., Theol. El. VII 6, 5. etc. The strongest proof for the corporeality of the angels, however, is, as said above, borrowed from philosophy. But in that there is all sorts of misunderstanding at play. If corporeality only means that the angels are limited, both in time and in space, and also are not simple as God, in whom all attributes are his being itself, then certainly corporeality would have to be ascribed to the angels. But usually corporeality nevertheless includes a kind of materiality, be it then also of a finer nature than in man and animal.
And in this sense there can and may be no talk of a body in the case of the angels. Matter and spirit exclude each other, Luk. 24:39. It is pantheistic identity-philosophy to mix the two and to erase the distinction. Scripture, however, always maintains the distinction between heaven and earth, angels and men, spiritual and material, invisible and visible things, Col. 1:16. If therefore the angels are to be conceived as spirits, they stand in another, freer relation to time and space than men. On the one hand they are not exalted above all time and place like God, for they are creatures and thus finite and limited. There does not belong to them an ubi repletivum, omnipresence and eternity. On the other hand they also have no ubi circumscriptivum, like our bodies, for the angels are spirits and therefore have no dimensions of length and breadth, and thus no extension, no diffusion through space. Therefore it was commonly said that there belonged to the angels an ubi definitivum; that is, as finite and limited beings they are always somewhere; they cannot be in two places at the same time; their presence is not extensive but punctual; and they are so free from place that they can move with the greatest speed and cannot be held back by any material objects; their change of place is momentary. Indeed such a speed of movement and such a Zeitund Raumfreiheit, which nevertheless is no Zeitund Raumlosigkeit, is for us inconceivable. But Scripture indicates it clearly, and in the speed of thought and imagination, of light and electricity, we have an analogy not to be despised, August. de civ. XI 9.
Damascenus, de fide orthod. II 3. Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 52 and 53.
Voetius, Disp. V 252 sq. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. II 302. Oswald, Angelologie
S. 23-43.
6. The unity of the angels is further manifested in this, that they all are rational beings, endowed with understanding and will. Both these faculties
are repeatedly ascribed in Scripture to the angels, both evil and good, Job 1:6v., Zach. 3:1v., Mt. 24:36, Mt. 8:29, 18:10, 2 Cor. 11:3, Ef. 6:11 etc.; all kinds of personal characteristics and activities occur in them such as selfconsciousness, Luk. 1:19, [439] speaking, ib., desiring, 1 Petr. 1:12, rejoicing, Luk. 15:10, praying, Hebr. 1:6, believing, Jak. 2:19, lying, Joh.
8:44, sinning, Joh. 3:8 etc. In addition, great power is also attributed to them; the angels are not timid beings, but an army, a host of mighty heroes,
Ps. 103:20, Luk. 11:21, Col. 1:16, Ef. 1:21, 3:10, 2 Thess. 1:7, Hd. 5:19, Hebr. 1:14. On this ground it is incorrect, with Schelling and others, to regard the angels as properties or forces. But nevertheless, in the description of the personality of the angels one should remain with the simplicity of Holy Scripture. Augustine distinguished a twofold knowledge of the angels; one, which they as it were in the morning of creation, a priori, obtained through the contemplation of God, cognitio matutina, and another, which they as it were in the evening of creation, a posteriori, became partakers of from the creatures, de Gen. ad litt. V 18. de civ. XI 29. The scholastics not only adopted this distinction, Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 54, but also attempted to determine more precisely the nature and degree of the knowledge of the angels. Their knowledge is not, as in God, identical with their being and essence. But they do not know by sensory perception; the distinction between intellectus possibilis and agens is not present in them; the intellectus in them is never mere capacity and never at rest, but always active; they cannot be without knowing; they know themselves, their own being, through themselves, perfectly and unchangeably; they know created things not from their appearance but through innate ideas, not by abstraction and discursively, but intuitively and intellectually; and indeed the angels with their natural powers know not immediately but per speciem
impressam, through and at the same time with their own being; yet in the supernatural order, to which the good angels have been elevated, they nevertheless know God by immediate contemplation, Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 54-58. S. c. Gent. II c. 96-101. III c. 49. Bonaventura, Sent. II dist. 3 art.
4 and dist. 4 art. 3. Petavius, de angelis I c. 6-9. Kleutgen, Philos. der Vorzeit I2 196 f. Oswald, Angelologie 43-51. It was even taught by some, in order to defend prayer to the angels and also to the saints, that they, seeing
God who sees all things, saw all things in Him and thus knew all our needs and necessities, Gregorius, Moral. lib. 12 c. 13. Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu.
83 art. 4. III qu. 10 [440] art. 2. Bellarminus, de sanct. beat. I c. 26. The Protestants were more cautious; they admonished to modesty. In the manner in which we come to knowledge, there is so much that is mysterious; how much more in that of the angels, Zanchius, Op. III 108 sq. Voetius, Disp. V 267. Gerhard, Loci theol. V c. 4 sect. 5. This alone can be said, that they are richer in knowledge than we here on earth, Mt. 18:10, 24:36, that they obtain their knowledge from their own nature, Joh. 8:44, from the contemplation of God's works, Ef. 3:10, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Petr. 1:12 and from revelations which God communicates to them, Dan. 8, 9, Op. 1:1. But they are nevertheless bound to the objects, Ef. 3:10, 1 Petr. 1:12. They do not know our, nor one another's hidden thoughts of the heart, 1 Kon. 8:39, Ps.
139:2, 4, Hd. 1:24, so that they also among themselves have need of a language, in order to communicate their thoughts, 1 Cor. 13:2, and in general in their way and according to the nature of their nature can also, speaking and singing, glorify God, Petavius, de angelis I c. 12. They do not know the future, nor the futura contingentia, except only per conjecturam,
Jes. 41:22, 23. They do not know the day of judgment, Mk. 13:12. And their knowledge is capable of increase, Ef. 3:10. In addition, it may certainly also
be added that knowledge and power among the angels are very different.
Also in this respect there is diversity and order. Indeed, from the mere names that occur in Scripture it may be inferred that the angels are distinguished not only in classes but also as persons and that they each bear a particular individuality, even though the opinion of some scholastics is to be rejected, that each angel forms a particular species, Bonaventura, Sent. II dist. 3 art. 2. Thomas, S. c. Gent. II 52.
7. Finally, the angels are also one in this, that they are all moral beings.
This appears both from the good angels, who serve God night and day, and from the evil, who did not remain standing in the truth. Concerning the status originalis of the angels, Scripture says very little. It only testifies that God at the end of the work of creation saw and sees all things, they were very good, Gen. 1:31. Moreover, in Joh. 8:44, Judas 6, 2 Petr. 2:4 a good condition of all angels is presupposed. And this same is required by the theism of the [441] Scripture, which entirely excludes Manichaeism.
Precisely, however, because Scripture reveals so little, imagination and reasoning found ample play here. Augustine thought that the angels at the very moment of their creation had partly fallen and partly remained standing; to the latter God thus at the same time with their nature gave the grace of perseverance, simul eis et condens naturam et largiens gratiam, de civ. XII 9, cf. de corr. et gr. c. 11 n. 32. To this the scholasticism later appealed for its doctrine of the dona superaddita also with the angels.
According to Bonaventura, Sent. II dist. 4 art. 1 qu. 2, Halesius, Lombardus, Scotus e. a., the angels first existed for a time in puris naturalibus and later received the auxilium gratiae actualis. Thomas, however, thought with others that the distinction of nature and grace was only to be understood logically, and that grace, in order to be able to remain
standing, had also been bestowed upon the different angels in different measure, S. Theol. I qu. 62 art. 3. and 6. Equipped with that grace, the angels could merit the highest, inalienable blessedness, which consists in the vision of God, Petavius, de angelis I 16. Becanus, Theol. Schol., de ang. c. 2. 3. Theol. Wirceb. 1880 III 466 sq. Pesch, Prael. III 204 sq. Oswald,
Angelologie 81 f. Jansen, Prael. II. 361 sq. In the locus de homine the doctrine of the dona superaddita will demand our special attention. Here let it only be pointed out that in any case it finds not the least ground in Scripture with the angels. Protestant theology therefore also rejected it unanimously. It contented itself with the fact that the angels who remained standing were confirmed in the good. And this it maintained with Augustine and scholasticism over against Origen, de princ. I 5. 3. 4, and the Remonstrants, who still held the will of the good angels to be changeable.
Indeed, the good angels in Holy Scripture are also always presented to us as a faithful host, which unchangeably does the will of the Lord. They are called angels of the Lord, Ps. 103:20, 104:4, ἐκλεκτοι, 1 Tim. 5:21, ἁγιοι,
Deut. 33:3, Mt. 25:31, angels of light, Luk. 9:26, Hd. 10:22, 2 Cor. 11:14, Op. 14:10. They daily see God's face, Mt. 18:10, are set before us as an example, Mt. 6:10; and the believers will one day become like them, Luk.
20:36. [442] 8. In all these properties of createdness, spirituality, rationality, and morality the angels agree with human beings. Precisely because in Scripture the unity of the angels comes to the foreground and their mutual diversity recedes, there is danger of overlooking the difference between angel and human being. Their agreement seems far to surpass the distinction. Both, human being and angel, are personal, rational, moral beings; both were originally created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; both received
dominion, immortality, and blessedness; both are called in Scripture sons of God, Job 1:6, Luk. 3:38. And yet their distinction is most strictly maintained in Scripture by the fact that the human being, but never the angel, is said to have been created in God's image. In theology this distinction has in many respects been neglected. According to Origen the angels and the souls of human beings are of the same species; the union of the soul with the body is a punishment for sin and thus actually accidental.
Origen came to this because he taught that all inequality was from the creature. God created all things in the beginning equal, that is, He created only rational beings and all of them equal, angels and souls. Inequality came among them through free will; some remained standing and received reward, others fell and received punishment; the souls were determined to be bound to bodies. The whole material world and all the diversity that is present in it is thus due to sin and to the different degree of sin; it is not there in order to reveal God's goodness but in order to punish sin. This doctrine of Origen has indeed been rejected by the church, and theology has maintained the specific difference of human being and angel, Thomas, S.
Theol. I qu. 75 art. 7. But nevertheless the thought has not been wholly overcome that the angels, because only spiritual, stand higher than human beings, and therefore have still more or at least as much right to the name of bearers of God's image, Damasc., de fide orth. II 3. Thomas, S. Theol. I qu.
93 art. 3. Commentatores op Sent. II dist. 16. Oswald, Angelologie 25 enz.
In the hierarchy of creatures the angels, as purely spiritual beings, stand closest to God. Tu eras et aliud nihil, unde fecisti coelum et terram, duo quaedam unum prope te, alterum prope nihil; unum quo superior tu esses, alterum quo inferius nihil esset, [443] Aug. Conf. XII 7. Non tantum substantiam a se longinquam, scil. naturam corpoream, producere debuit
(Deus), verum etiam propinquam et haec est substantia intellectualis et incorporea, Bonav. Brevil. II 6. But Lutherans and Reformed too have lost sight of this distinction between human being and angel too much and have called the angels bearers of God's image, Calvijn, Inst. I 15, 3. Polanus,
Synt. theol. V c. 10. Synopsis pur. theol. XII 7. XIII 17. Ex. v. h. Ontw. v.
Tol. IX 187. Moor, II 335. Gerhard, Loc. V c. 4 sect. 5. Delitzsch, Bibl.
Psych. 63. Only a few such as Theodoretus, Macarius, Methodius, Tertull. adv. Marc. II 8 and others opposed this, Petavius, de sex. dierum opif. II c.
3 § 4-8. Augustine says expressly, Deus nulli alii creaturae dedit quod sit ad imaginem suam nisi homini, in Thomas, I qu. 93 art. 3, cf. also Maresius,
Syst. Theol. V 37. However much agreement there may be between human being and angel, there is no less great difference. There are indeed all kinds of traits of the image of God in the angels, but the human being alone is the image of God. That image of God lies not only in that which human being and angel have in common, but equally in that which distinguishes them.
The principal points of difference are these: first, the angel is spirit and as spirit complete; the human being, on the other hand, is soul and body together; the soul without the body is incomplete. The human being is thus a rational but equally a sensible being; through the body he is bound to the earth, he belongs with the earth and the earth with him. And of that earth he is head and lord. After the angels had already been created, God says that He wills to create the human being and wills to give him dominion over the earth, Gen. 1:26. Dominion over the earth is essentially proper to the human being, a part of the image of God, and is therefore also given back by Christ to His own, whom He makes not only prophets and priests but also kings.
The angel, however, however strong and mighty, is a servant in God's creation; no lord of the earth, Hebr. 1:14. Second, the angels as purely
spiritual beings are also not mutually bound by bonds of blood. There is among them no father and son, no physical connection, no community of blood, no consanguinitas; they stand, however intimately ethically connected, nevertheless loose alongside one another, so that many could fall and others nevertheless remain standing. In the human being there is therefore a shadowing forth of the Divine being, in which there are also persons who are one not only by will and affection but also by essence and nature. Third, therefore there is indeed a humanity, but in this sense no "Angelhood". In one human being all fell, but also in one the human race is preserved. In humanity there is an Adam and therefore also a Christ possible. The angels are witnesses, human beings are objects of God's most glorious deeds, of the works of His grace. The earth is the stage of God's wonders; here the battle is fought, here the triumph of the kingdom of God is achieved, and the angels turn their eye toward the earth and desire to look into the mysteries of salvation, Ef. 3:10, 1 Petr. 1:12. Fourth, even if the angel may be the more powerful spirit, the human being is nevertheless the richer spirit. In understanding and power the angel far surpasses the human being. But through the wonderfully rich relations in which the human being stands to God, the world, and humanity, he is deeper of soul and richer of heart. The relations which the life of sex and family, life in household, state, and society, life for labor, art, and science brings with it, make every human being into a world in miniature, which in many-sidedness, in depth, in richness far surpasses the personality of the angels. Therefore also the richest and most glorious virtues of God are knowable and enjoyable only for the human being. Angels experience His power, wisdom, goodness, holiness, majesty; but the depths of God's eternal mercies disclose themselves only for the human being. In the human being, or better still in
humanity, therefore only in a creaturely way is the full image of God unfolded. Finally, let it be added here that the angels thus also stand in a wholly different relation to Christ than human beings. That a relation exists between Christ and the angels is indubitable. First, various passages of Scripture teach that all things, Ps. 33:6, Spr. 8:22v., Joh. 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Ef.
3:9, Hebr. 1:2 and in particular also the angels, Col. 1:16 have been created through the Son, and thus He is the Mediator unionis of all that is created.
But in the second place Ef. 1:10 and Col. 1:19, 20 contain the deep thought that all things also stand in relation to Christ as Mediator of reconciliation.
God has namely reconciled all things to Himself through Christ and gathers them all under Him as the Head. The relation now does indeed not consist
[445] in this, as many have thought, that Christ for the good angels has acquired the gratia and the gloria, cf. Voetius, Disp. II 262 sq. Gerhard, Loci
Theol. XXXI c. 4 § 42 and later in the doctrine of satisfaction; nor also, as others judged, in this, that the angels could be called membra ecclesiae, cf.
Gerhard, Loci Theol. XXII c. 6 sect. 9. But it is nevertheless situated herein, that all things which through sin have been disturbed and shattered are again in Christ mutually reconciled, restored to their original relation, and gathered together under Him as the Head. Christ is thus indeed Lord and Head, not Reconciler and Savior of the angels. All things have been created through Him, and therefore they have also been created unto Him, in order that He, reconciled and restored, may give them back to the Father. But human beings alone form the church of Christ; it alone is His bride, the temple of the H. Spirit, the dwelling of God.
9. With this nature of the angels their service and activity correspond.
Scripture clearly makes a distinction in this respect between an extraordinary and an ordinary service of the angels. The extraordinary
service first begins after the fall, and has become necessary through sin. It is an important element in special revelation. We see the angels appear for the first time to guard the garden, Gen. 3:24, but then they appear and convey revelations, act in blessing or in punishment in the history of the patriarchs and of the prophets, and throughout the whole O. Test. They appear to Abraham, Gen. 18, Lot, Gen. 19, Jacob, Gen. 28:12, 32:1; they serve at the giving of the law, Hebr. 2:2, Gal. 3:19, Hd. 7:53; they take part in the battle of Israel, 2 Kon. 19:35, Dan. 10 vs. 13, 20; they proclaim God's counsel to Elijah and Elisha, to Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah. As if to refute that they are no remnants from polytheism and do not belong to a prehistoric period, their extraordinary service increases still further in the days of the N. T.
They occur at the birth of Jesus, Luk. 1:13, 30, 2:10, at his temptation, Mt.
4:11, accompany him throughout his entire earthly life, Joh. 1:52, and appear especially at his suffering, Luk. 22:43, resurrection, Mt. 28 and ascension, Hd. 1:10. After that they still appear a few times in the history of the apostles, Hd. 5:19, 12:7, 13, [446] 8:26, 27:23, Op. 1:1, then to cease the extraordinary service and to appear again only at the return of Christ,
Mt. 16:27, 25:31, Mk. 8:38, Luk. 9:26, 2 Thess. 1:7, Judas 14, Openb. 5:2 etc., in which they wage battle against God's enemies, Op. 12:7, 1 Thess.
4:16, Judas 9, gather the elect, Mt. 24:31, and cast the ungodly into the fire, Mt. 13:41, 49. The extraordinary service of the angels thus consists in this, that they accompany the history of salvation at its turning points. They do not themselves bring that salvation to pass, but they nevertheless take part in the history of that salvation. They convey revelations, protect God's people, fight his enemies, and perform all manner of service in the kingdom of God. Always they are thereby active on the terrain of the church; even where they receive power over the forces of nature, Op. 14:18, 16:5, or
intervene in the destinies of the peoples, this takes place in the interest of the church. In doing so they never displace the sovereignty of God, nor are they mediators of the communion of God with man. But they are ministering spirits in the interest of those who shall inherit salvation. They serve God in the kingdom of grace, not in that of nature. This extraordinary service has therefore of itself also ceased with the completion of revelation.
While formerly they repeatedly had special revelations to convey and descended to the earth, they are now rather an example to us and we ascend to them. As long as special revelation was not yet completed, heaven drew near to the earth and God's Son descended to us. Now Christ has appeared, and the word of God has been spoken to us completely. Thus the angels look toward the earth, in order to learn from the church the manifold wisdom of God. What could angels still be able to give us, now that God himself bestowed his own Son upon us?
But Scripture also speaks of an ordinary service of the angels. First of all, it belongs thereto that they praise God day and night, Job 38:7, Isa. 6, Ps.
103:20, 148:2, Rev. 5:11; and Scripture gives the impression that they do that in audible sounds, although it is also the case that we can form no conception of the speaking and singing of the angels. But to that ordinary service also belongs that they rejoice over the conversion of the sinner,
Luke 15:10, watch over the believers, Ps. 34:8, 91:11, protect the little ones, Mt. 18:10, are present in the congregation [447], 1 Cor. 11:10, 1 Tim. 5:21, follow it in its course through history, Eph. 3:10, allow themselves to be instructed by it, Eph. 3:10, 1 Petr. 1:12 and carry the believers in Abraham's bosom, Luke 16:22. They are thus active coram Deo consistendo, hominibus piis assistendo, atque diabolis et hominibus malis resistendo,
Hollaz, p. 390. Scripture generally remains with this general description of
the ordinary service of the angels and does not descend into particulars. But theology has not been satisfied with that; it has specialized it in all manner of ways. This happened especially in the doctrine of guardian angels. The Greeks and Romans had something similar in their δαιμονες and genii; not only did one ascribe to every human being a good and an evil genius, but one also had genii of houses, families, associations, cities, countries, peoples, of earth, sea, world etc. The Jews assumed seventy national angels with appeal to Deut. 32:8 and Dan. 10:13, and further gave to each Israelite an angel for guidance, Weber, System 161 f. Christian theology soon adopted this. The Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. VI 2 assigns to every human being two angels, εἱς της δικαιοσυνης και εἱς της πονηριας and further also placed the whole creation and the entire structure of the church under the guardianship of the angels, Vis. III 4. With predilection this doctrine of guardian angels was developed by Origen. Sometimes every human being with him has a good and an evil angel; sometimes he adds to it that only the good angels of the baptized Christians see the face of God; or he also says that only the Christians and the virtuous have a guardian angel, and that they receive, according to their merit, a lower or higher angel as guide. But further he also assumes special angels for churches, countries, peoples, for arts and sciences, for plants and animals; thus Raphael is the angel of healing, Gabriel of war, Michael of prayer etc., cf. de princ. I 8. III 3. c.
Cels. V 29. VIII 31 etc. And thus essentially all church fathers taught, although there was difference over whether all human beings or only the Christians had a guardian angel; whether every human being had only a good or also an evil angel; when the guardian angel was bestowed on the human being, at birth or at baptism, and when he was taken from him, upon the attainment of perfection [448] or only at death. With all it was also
established that there are not only guardian angels of human beings but also of countries, peoples, churches, dioceses, provinces etc., Schwane, D. G. II2
244. Later this protection of the angels was in part limited and in part further extended. Limited, insofar as some, in the footsteps of Pseudodionysius, de coel. hier. c. 13, taught that the three principal classes of the angels, cherubim, seraphim and thrones, served God alone in heaven,
Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 112. Extended, insofar as scholasticism thought the whole providence of God in nature and history, in particular in the movement of the stars, to be mediated by angels, Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 70 art. 3. qu. 110 art. 1. S. c. Gent. III 78 sq. Bonaventura, Sent. II dist. 14 p. 1 art. 3 qu. 2. Guardian angels of human beings are generally assumed by the Roman theologians and are also acknowledged in the Catech. Rom. IV c. 9 qu. 4 and 5. But otherwise there is among them great difference of opinion over all the above-mentioned points, cf. Petavius, de ang. II c. 6-8. Becanus,
Theol. schol. tract. III de angelis c. 6. Theol. Wirceb. Paris. 1880 III 480. C.
Pesch, Prael. dogm. III 210. Oswald, Angelologie 120 f. etc. The same doctrine we find with Luther, cf. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 345; but the Lutheran theologians were mostly more cautious, Gerhard, Loci theol. V cap. 4 sect. 15. Quenstedt, Theol. did. pol. I 450. Hollaz, Syst. theol. p. 390.
Calvin rejected the angeli tutelares, Inst. I 14, 7. Comm. on Ps. 91, Mt.
18:10 and most Reformed followed him, see especially Voetius, Disp. I 897 sq.; only a few assumed guardian angels of human beings, Zanchius, Op. III 142 sq. Bucanus, Inst. theol. VI 28. Maccovius, Loci Comm. p. 394.
Rivetus, Alsted, Vossius, also Hugo Grotius on Mt. 18:10, cf. Heppe, Dogm. der ev. ref. K. 155. M. Vitringa II 117. In more recent times the doctrine of guardian angels has again found support with Hahn, Weiss, Bibl.
Theol. des N. T. 594. Ebrard, Dogm. § 239. Vilmar, Dogm. I 310.
Martensen, Dogm. § 69 e. a. Furthermore, the ordinary service of the angels was also further defined in this, that with their intercession for the believers on earth they were beneficially active in heaven. This too was already taught by the Jews, and also by Philo, and then taken over by Origen, c.
Cels VIII 64 and the church fathers and established in the Roman symbols, Catech. Rom. III c. 2 qu. 5 n. 2. The Lutheran confessional writings also still speak [449] of this intercession, Apol. Conf. art. 21. Art. Smalc. II 2, and likewise the Luth. dogmatici, Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. II 324. On the other hand, it was unanimously rejected by the Reformed.
For this special service of protection and intercession appeal is made to some passages of Scripture, especially Deut. 32:8, Dan. 10:13, 20, Mt.
18:10, Rev. 1:20, 2:1 etc., Job 33:23, Zech. 1:12, Luke 15:7, Rev. 18:3, and especially also to Tobit 12:12-15. In itself this doctrine of the protection and of the intercession of the angels is not objectionable. That God, as in the special, so also in the general revelation, often or even regularly makes use of angels, is in itself not impossible; and likewise it is not absurd that the angels send up their prayers for men to God, since they nevertheless take an interest in their lot and follow the course of the kingdom of God in the history of mankind. But, however little there is in itself to object to it,
Scripture, with respect to protection and intercession of the angels, observes a sobriety which must be a rule for us. In Deut. 32:8 we read that God, at the separation of the peoples, already thought of his people Israel and determined their dwelling ְלִמְסַּפר ְּבֵני־ִיְׂש ָרֵאל, according to the number of the children of Israel, i.e. in such a way that Israel, according to its number, received a sufficient inheritance. The LXX, however, translated these words by κατα ἀριθμον ἀγγελων and thereby gave occasion to the doctrine of the angels of the nations. The original text, however, teaches nothing of this
here and thus falls away entirely as a proof-text. It is otherwise with Daniel 10:13, 20. There it is said that the figure appearing to Daniel in v. 5 stood over against the prince of Persia and, helped by Michael, who is called one of the first princes v. 13, the great prince for the children of Israel 12:1,
10:21, drove away that prince of Persia and took his place with the kings of Persia. Calvin and the Reformed usually thought, with that prince of Persia, of the Persian kings. But it seems that under that prince something else, namely the protecting spirit of Persia, must be understood. For, in the first place, there is no doubt that Israel has such a protecting angel in Michael, who is called its prince, 10:13, 21, 12:1; in the second place, the kings of Persia in 10:13 are clearly distinguished from that prince; and in the third place, the analogy requires that the spiritual power on the one side wages war against a [450] spiritual power on the other side. The book of Daniel thus really gives us the representation that the struggle between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world is fought not only here on earth but also in the realm of spirits among the angels. More may and can not be inferred from it. It does not at all lie in it that each land and people has its own angel. But in the mighty conflict that is fought between Israel and Persia, that is here essentially between the kingdom of God and that of Satan, there appear on both sides angels who take part in the conflict and support the peoples. Still much less can it be inferred from Rev. 1:20 etc. that each congregation has its angel, for under the ἀγγελοι of the seven congregations nothing else is to be understood than their teachers; they are, after all, wholly regarded as representatives of the congregations; it is their works that are praised or blamed; to them the letters are written. The doctrine of the protecting angels finds the most support in Mt. 18:10, which text undoubtedly contains that a certain class of the angels is charged with
the protection of the little ones, but where yet it is not stated in the least that to each elect person an angel is assigned. This is found only in the apocryphal book Tobit. But thereby this doctrine of the protecting angels also betrays its origin. It is essentially of pagan origin. It moreover leads to all kinds of subtle questions and idle issues. It does not know whether to every man, e.g. even to the antichrist, as Thomas thought, I qu. 113 art. 4, or only to the elect an angel is assigned, or only a good or also an evil angel accompanies all, when he is given to someone and taken from him, what his service is, etc. Therefore we may not go further than that to certain classes of the angels also the care of certain interests on earth has been entrusted.
And likewise it is with the intercession of the angels; it is taught in Tobit 12:16, but does not occur in Scripture. In Job 33:23 there is mention of the Angelus increatus. Luke 15:7 does indeed teach that the angels rejoice over the conversion of a sinner and thus does indeed presuppose that they desire it, but nevertheless speaks of no intercession in the proper sense. And in Rev. 8:3 an angel does indeed receive a censer with incense, in order to make the in themselves sinful prayers of the saints sweet and acceptable to the Lord; [451] but of intercession also here not a word is made mention.
The angel is simply a servant; he does not set up the altar, he does not prepare the incense itself but receives it, and only lets the prayers with that incense ascend to God. He performs such a service as the seraphim in Isa.
6:6, 7.
10. This doctrine of the guardian angels and of their intercession has finally also had this disadvantage, that in practice it soon led to a veneration and worship of the angels. Col. 2 vs. 18 teaches that such a θρησκεια των ἀγγελων already occurred in the apostolic time. Theodoretus remarks in his commentary on that passage, that such a service of the angels still existed in
Phrygia in his time and that the synod at Laodicea had forbidden the veneration of the angels, lest God be abandoned, Schwane, D. G. II 245.
Many church fathers warn against veneration and worship of the angels, Iren. adv. haer. II 32. Orig. c. Cels. V 4, 5. VIII 13. Athanasius, c. Ar. II 23.
Augustinus, de vera relig. 55. Conf. X 42. de civ. VIII 25 etc. The conviction is still general, that God alone may be worshiped, and that to the angels only a civil honor is due. Honoramus eos caritate, non servitute,
Aug. de vera relig. 55. They are potius imitandi quam invocandi, de civ. X 26. And even Gregory the Great says in his exposition on the Song of Songs cap. 8, that, since Christ has come to earth, ab ipsis etiam angelis ecclesia honoratur; under the O. T. Joshua did indeed worship the angel, Jos. 5:19, but in the N. T. the angel rejects the worship of John, Op. 22:9. But yet these warnings prove precisely that in practice the boundaries between the worship of God and the reverence for the angels were being erased. Clearly the invocation of the angels is first expressed by Ambrosius, de viduis, cap.
9 § 55, where he, among other things, says: obsecrandi sunt angeli, qui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt. Already Eusebius made the distinction between the τιμαν, which is fitting for us toward the angels, and the σεβειν, which belongs to God alone, Praep. Ev. VII 15, and in substance we find this also already in Orig. c. Cels. VIII 13. 57. Augustinus adopted it, precisely in order to prevent the religious veneration of the angels, de civ. V 15. VII 32. X 1. But soon that distinction was employed in order to legitimate the invocation of the angels. Thus already at the council of Nicaea 787 [452] and then further among the scholastics, Lombardus, Sent.
III dist. 9. Thomas, S. Th. II 2 qu. 103 art. 3. Trent called the invocation good and useful, sess. 25; the Catech. Rom. III cap. 2 qu. 4 n. 3 grounded it on the fact that the angels always see God's face and have taken upon
themselves the patrocinium salutis nostrae; the Breviarium Romanum also included prayers in festo angelorum and the Roman dogmaticians defend it unanimously, Bellarminus, de sanct. beatit. I c. 11-20. Petavius, de angelis
II c. 9 and 10, although they usually treat it later under the cultus sanctorum. Lutherans and Reformed and almost all Protestants, however, stood firm when they rejected this religious veneration of the angels, as also that of the saints, Luther, in Köstlin, L. Theol. II 23 f. Zwingli, Op. I 268 sq.
280 sq. III 135 sq. etc. Calvin, Inst. I 14, 10-12, cf. III 20, 20-24. Gerhard, Loci theol. XXVI § 370-480, on the angels especially § 427. Quenstedt I 486 sq. Turretinus, Th. El. VII qu. 9. Id. De necessaria secessione nostra ab ecclesia Romana, Genevae 1692, disp. 2-4 de idololatria Romana p. 33-109.
For in the first place there is not a single example of it in Scripture; indeed the Roman Catholics appeal to some passages of the O. Test. such as Gen.
18:2, 32:24, 48:16, Ex. 23:20, Num. 22:31, Jos. 5 vs. 14, Judg. 13:17, but here everywhere it is not a created angel but the Malak Ihvh that is spoken of, and in the N. T. there is not even the appearance of any proof to be found. But not only that; the veneration of angels is not only without precept and without example in Scripture, so that Rome with some appearance of ground could assert that the veneration of angels and saints is not forbidden in Scripture and thus permitted, and therefore also in fact does not impose and command it, but only allows it and deems it useful,
Jansen Prael. theol. III 1008; it is also positively forbidden in it, Deut. 6:13,
10:20, Mt. 4:10, Col. 2:18, 19, Op. 19:10, 22:9. Religious honor may according to Scripture be rendered only to God and belongs to no creature.
The Roman Catholics have not dared to deny this entirely, but have nevertheless sought with the distinction of latria and dulia to justify the veneration of the angels. Now in Rome this is not a distinction between
religious and civil honor, which would be defensible; no, the veneration of angels and saints at Rome indeed bears a religious [453] character, even if this is relative. The dulia is a cultus religiosus. But thus understood, it is condemned both by Scripture and by practice. Scripture knows no twofold religious veneration, a lower and a higher. The Roman Catholics also concede that latria and dulia are absolutely not distinguished in Scripture as they do, and that they also etymologically give no ground for it. The Hebr.
עבד is now translated by δουλεια, then by λατρεια, cf. Deut 6:13 and 1 Sam.
7:3, 1 Sam. 12:20 and Deut. 10:12; to Israel both the δουλευειν and the λατρευειν of other gods is forbidden, Ex. 20:5, Jer. 22:9. Likewise the Hebr.
ׁשרת is rendered by both Greek words, Ez. 20:32, Isa. 56:6. More than once δουλευειν is used of God, Mt. 6:24, Rom. 7:6, 14:18, 16:18, Gal. 4:9, Eph.
6:7, Col. 3:24, 1 Thess. 1:9 and λατρευειν is also sometimes employed of service toward men. Neither etymologically nor scripturally are the two words distinguished as Rome teaches this. The whole distinction is arbitrary. Besides, monotheism entails that there is and can be only one religious veneration; all veneration of creatures is either only civil or it falls short of monotheism and ascribes to creatures a divine character. Practice teaches this all too clearly. Even if one says repeatedly that angels and saints are only mediators, that they are not themselves directly but God in them who is invoked, that God's honor is not diminished but increased by their invocation; it all in fact makes no difference, experience shows all too clearly that the Roman Christian places his trust in creatures. Moreover, even if the distinction were in itself correct, it would nevertheless not be able to justify the religious veneration of the angels. For if this reasoning were sufficient for defense, no idolatry and no image-worship would any longer be condemnable. The Heathens, worshiping animals and images,
knew very well that these were not the gods themselves, Rom. 1:23. The Jews did not hold the golden calf to be Jahveh himself, Ex. 32:4, 1 Kings
12:28. Satan, tempting Christ, absolutely did not demand that he should hold him for God, Mt. 4:9. And John by no means thought that the angel who appeared to him was God, Op. 19:10. And yet Jesus answers: the Lord your God you shall worship and Him alone [454] serve. This alone is exclusive, just as the one Mediator Christ Jesus excludes all other angels or men as mediators. But this is precisely what is denied by Rome. Just as Mt.
19:17, 23:8, John 9:5, 1 Tim. 2:5, 6:16 etc. do not exclude that men too can be called good, master, light, mediator, immortal, so also according to Rome Mt. 4 vs. 10 does not prove that God alone may be worshiped. The angels and saints are namely according to Rome partakers of the divine nature itself; the dona supernaturalia are indeed bestowed, derived, but are of the same nature as the divine being itself. And therein lies with Rome the deepest ground of the worship of the saints and angels. God in the justitia supernaturalis communicates himself, his own being, to creatures; and therefore these too may be venerated in a religious way. And the proper thought of Rome is this: tot esse species adorationis, quot sunt species excellentiae, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 103 art. 3. Bellarminus, de sanct. beatit. I c. 12. Petavius, de angelis II c. 10. Jansen, Praet. Theol. III 1017.
Möhler Symb. § 52. 53.
By the rejection of the religious veneration of the angels, Protestantism has acknowledged that the angels are not an indispensable element in the religious life of Christians. They are not the agents of our salvation, not the ground of our trust, not the object of our veneration; not with them, but with God do we stand in communion; indeed, they no longer appear to us now, and all special revelation through angels has ceased. The angels cannot and
may not take that place in the Prot. churches and confessions which is assigned to them in the Roman. But yet not all significance of the world of angels for religion has thereby been denied. This lies, in the first place, in the fact that God, in His works on the terrain of grace, wills to make use of the service of angels. The angels are of extraordinary significance for the kingdom of God and its history; at all turning points we meet them; they are mediators of the resurrection, witnesses of God's great deeds. Their significance is much more of an objective than of a subjective nature. Of communion with the world of angels we know nothing in our religious experience. Neither upon our religious nor upon our moral life do the angels have an influence that can be brought under clear words. Their value lies in the [455] history of revelation, as Scripture makes that known to us. In the second place, therefore, the angels also cannot be an object of our reverent homage, as we render that to human beings. Very certainly there is a civil honor, which we have to show to them. But this, too, is again different than toward human beings whom we personally know and meet. The Roman
Catholics also chiefly defend the veneration of the angels with the reasoning that, as envoys of the Most High, they nevertheless have a claim to our homage, just as in the ambassadors of princes those princes themselves are honored. And this is also, in itself, entirely correct. If an angel appeared to us, he would have to be greeted by us with reverent homage. And so it also happened, when angels in the days of revelation appeared to human beings. Only, such appearances are no more. Of a homage such as the patriarchs, prophets, apostles rendered to the angels appearing to them, there can be no question with us. It is not possible to render such a reverence and homage to them. In the third place, therefore, there is indeed still an honor that the angels must receive from us. But this
honor is in no respect religious, but only civil in nature, in the essence of the matter like that which we ascribe to human beings, to creatures. And this honor civilis consists in this, that we think of them and speak of them with reverence, that we do not despise them in the small, Mt. 18 vs. 10, that we are mindful of their presence, 1 Cor. 11 vs. 10, that we proclaim to them the manifold wisdom of God, Ef. 3:10, that we make them see into the mysteries of salvation, 1 Tim. 5:21, that we by our conversion prepare joy for them, Luk. 15:10, imitate them in the practice of God's will, Mt. 6:10, that we feel and live one with them in the expectation of going to them,
Hebr. 12:22, that we with them and all creatures form one choir for the magnifying of the Name of the Lord, Ps. 103:20, 21. Herein consists the true veneration of the angels. And if this is well understood, then finally, in the fourth place, the doctrine of the angels can also be for us unto comfort and encouragement. God has also revealed this doctrine to us, in order that He might strengthen us in our weakness, raise us up in our despondency.
We do not stand alone in the spiritual struggle. We stand in connection with an entire cloud of [456] witnesses around us. There is yet another, better world than this, where God is served in a perfect manner. It is to us for an example, for a spur and incitement, and at the same time for longing and final goal. As the world of angels in revelation has descended to us, so the congregation in Christ ascends to it. We shall be like the angels and daily see the face of our Father, who is in the heavens, Mastricht, Theol. theor. pr.
III 7, 25. Love, Theol. practica p. 205. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. II 320 f. Frank, Chr. Wahrh. I 353. v. Oosterzee, Chr. Dogm. § 57, 10.