 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
(Latinangelus; Greekaggelos; from the Hebrew for "one going" or "one sent"; messenger). The word is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine orhuman messenger. TheSeptuagint renders it byaggelos which also has both significations. The Latin version, however, distinguishes the divine or spirit-messenger from thehuman, rendering the original in the one case byangelus and in the other bylegatus or more generally bynuntius. In a few passages the Latin version is misleading, the wordangelus being used wherenuntius would have better expressed the meaning, e.g.Isaiah 18:2;33:3-6.
It is with the spirit-messenger alone that we are here concerned. We have to discuss
The angels are represented throughout theBible as a body of spiritual beings intermediate betweenGod andmen: "You have made him (man) a little less than the angels" (Psalm 8:6). They, equally withman, are created beings; "praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all His hosts . . . for He spoke and they were made. He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:2-5;Colossians 1:16-17). That the angels were created was laid down in theFourth Lateran Council (1215). Thedecree "Firmiter" against theAlbigenses declared both the fact that they were created and thatmen were created after them. Thisdecree was repeated by theVatican Council, "Dei Filius". We mention it here because the words: "He that liveth for ever created all things together" (Ecclesiasticus 18:1) have been held to prove a simultaneous creation of all things; but it is generally conceded that "together" (simul) may here mean "equally", in the sense that all things were "alike" created. They are spirits; the writer of theEpistle to the Hebrews says: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister to them who shall receive the inheritance ofsalvation?" (Hebrews 1:14).
It is as messengers that they most often figure in theBible, but, asSt. Augustine, and after himSt. Gregory, expresses it:angelus est nomen officii ("angel is the name of the office") and expresses neither their essentialnature nor their essential function, viz.: that of attendants uponGod's throne in that court ofheaven of which Daniel has left us a vivid picture:
I behold till thrones were placed, and theAncient of Days sat: His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like clean wool: His throne like flames of fire: the wheels of it like a burning fire. A swift stream of fire issued forth from before Him: thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him: the judgment sat and the books were opened. (Daniel 7:9-10; cf. alsoPsalm 96:7;Psalm 102:20;Isaiah 6, etc.)
This function of the angelic host is expressed by the word "assistance" (Job 1:6;2:1), andour Lord refers to it as their perpetual occupation (Matthew 18:10). More than once we are told of seven angels whose special function it is thus to "stand beforeGod's throne" (Tobit 12:15;Revelation 8:2-5). The same thought may be intended by "the angel of His presence" (Isaiah 63:9) an expression which also occurs in thepseudo-epigraphical "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs".
But these glimpses of life beyond the veil are only occasional. The angels of theBible generally appear in the role ofGod's messengers tomankind. They are His instruments by whom He communicates His will tomen, and inJacob's vision they are depicted as ascending and descending the ladder which stretches from earth toheaven while theEternal Father gazes upon the wanderer below. It was an angel who found Agar in thewilderness (Genesis 16); angels drewLot out ofSodom; an angel announces toGideon that he is to save his people; an angel foretells the birth of Samson (Judges 13), and the angel Gabriel instructs Daniel (Daniel 8:16), though he is not called an angel in either of these passages, but "the man Gabriel" (9:21). Thesame heavenly spirit announced the birth ofSt. John the Baptist and theIncarnation of the Redeemer, whiletradition ascribes to him both the message to the shepherds (Luke 2:9), and the mostglorious mission of all, that of strengthening theKing of Angels in HisAgony (Luke 22:43). The spiritualnature of the angels is manifested very clearly in the account whichZacharias gives of therevelations bestowed upon him by the ministry of an angel. The prophet depicts the angel as speaking "in him". He seems to imply that he wasconscious of an interior voice which was not that ofGod but of His messenger. TheMassoretic text, theSeptuagint, and theVulgate all agree in thus describing the communications made by the angel to the prophet. It is a pity that the "Revised Version" should, in apparent defiance of the above-named texts, obscure this trait by persistently giving the rendering: "the angel that talked with me: instead of "within me" (cf.Zechariah 1:9-14;2:3;4:5;5:10).
Such appearances of angels generally last only so long as the delivery of their message requires, but frequently their mission is prolonged, and they are represented as the constitutedguardians of the nations at some particular crisis, e.g. during the Exodus (Exodus 14:19;Baruch 6:6). Similarly it is the common view of theFathers that by "the prince of the Kingdom of the Persians" (Daniel 10:13-21) we are to understand the angel to whom was entrusted the spiritual care of that kingdom, and we may perhaps see in the "man ofMacedonia" who appeared toSt. Paul atTroas, theguardian angel of that country (Acts 16:9). TheSeptuagint (Deuteronomy 32:8), has preserved for us a fragment of information on this head, though it is difficult to gauge its exact meaning: "When theMost High divided thenations, when He scattered the children of Adam, He established the bounds of thenations according to the number of the angels ofGod". How large a part the ministry of angels played, not merely in Hebrew theology, but in the religiousideas of other nations as well, appears from the expression "like to an angel ofGod". It is three times used of David (2 Samuel 14:17-20;14:27) and once by Achis of Geth (1 Samuel 29:9). It is even applied byEsther toAssuerus (Esther 15:16), andSt. Stephen's face is said to have looked "like the face of an angel" as he stood before theSanhedrin (Acts 6:15).
Throughout theBible we find it repeatedly implied that each individualsoul has itstutelary angel. Thus Abraham, when sending his steward to seek a wife forIsaac, says: "He will send His angel before thee" (Genesis 24:7). The words of theninetieth Psalm which thedevil quoted toour Lord (Matthew 4:6) are well known, andJudith accounts for her heroic deed by saying: "As the Lord liveth, His angel hath been my keeper" (13:20). These passages and many like them (Genesis 16:6-32;Hosea 12:4;1 Kings 19:5;Acts 12:7;Psalm 33:8), though they will not of themselves demonstrate thedoctrine that every individual has his appointedguardian angel, receive their complement inour Saviour's words: "See that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say to you that their angels inHeaven alwayssee the face of My Father Who is inHeaven" (Matthew 18:10), words which illustrate the remark ofSt. Augustine: "What lies hidden in theOld Testament, is made manifest in theNew". Indeed, thebook of Tobias seems intended to teach thistruth more than any other, andSt. Jerome in his commentary on the above words ofour Lord says: "The dignity of asoul is so great, that each has aguardian angel from its birth." The generaldoctrine that the angels are our appointedguardians is considered to be a point offaith, but that each individual member of thehuman race has his own individualguardian angel is not offaith (de fide); the view has, however, such strong support from theDoctors of the Church that it would be rash to deny it (cf.St. Jerome,supra).Peter the Lombard (Sentences, lib. II, dist. xi) was inclined to think that one angel had charge of several individualhuman beings.St. Bernard's beautifulhomilies (11-14) on theninetieth Psalm breathe the spirit of theChurch without however deciding the question. TheBible represents the angels not only as ourguardians, but also as actuallyinterceding for us. "The angel Raphael (Tobit 12:12) says: "I offered thyprayer to theLord" (cf. Job 5:1 (Septuagint), and 33:23 (Vulgate);Apocalypse 8:4). TheCatholic cult of the angels is thus thoroughlyscriptural. Perhaps the earliest explicit declaration of it is to be found inSt. Ambrose's words: "We shouldpray to the angels who are given to us asguardians" (De Viduis, ix); (cf.St. Augustine,Reply to Faustus XX.21). An undue cult of angels was reprobated bySt. Paul (Colossians 2:18), and that such a tendency long remained in the same district is evidenced by Canon 35 of the Synod ofLaodicea.
The foregoing passages, especially those relating to the angels who have charge of various districts, enable us to understand the practically unanimous view of theFathers that it is the angels who put into executionGod's law regarding the physical world. The Semiticbelief ingenii and in spirits which cause good orevil is well known, and traces of it are to be found in theBible. Thus the pestilence which devastatedIsrael forDavid'ssin in numbering the people is attributed to an angel whom David is said to have actually seen (2 Samuel 24:15-17), and more explicitly, I Par., xxi, 14-18). Even the wind rustling in the tree-tops was regarded as an angel (2 Samuel 5:23-24;1 Chronicles 14:14, 15). This is more explicitly stated with regard to the pool of Probatica (John 5:1-4), though there is somedoubt about the text; in that passage the disturbance of the water is said to be due to the periodic visits of an angel. The Semites clearly felt that all the orderly harmony of theuniverse, as well as interruptions of that harmony, were due toGod as their originator, but were carried out by His ministers. This view is strongly marked in the"Book of Jubilees" where the heavenly host of good andevil angels is ever interfering in thematerial universe.Maimonides (Directorium Perplexorum, iv and vi) is quoted bySt. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologicæ I.1.3) as holding that theBible frequently terms the powers of nature angels, since they manifest theomnipotence of God (cf.St. Jerome, In Mich., vi, 1, 2; P.L., iv, col. 1206).
Though the angels who appear in the earlier works of theOld Testament are strangely impersonal and are overshadowed by the importance of the message they bring or the work they do, there are not wanting hints regarding the existence of certain ranks in the heavenly army.
After Adam's fallParadise is guarded against our First Parents bycherubim who are clearlyGod's ministers, though nothing is said of their nature. Only once again do thecherubim figure in theBible, viz., in Ezechiel's marvellous vision, where they are described at great length (Ezekiel 1), and are actually calledcherub inEzechiel 10. TheArk was guarded by twocherubim, but we are left to conjecture what they were like. It has been suggested with great probability that we have their counterpart in the winged bulls and lions guarding theAssyrian palaces, and also in the strange winged men with hawks' heads who are depicted on the walls of some of their buildings. Theseraphim appear only in the vision ofIsaias 6:6.
Mention has already been made of the mystic seven who stand beforeGod, and we seem to have in them an indication of an inner cordon that surrounds the throne. The termarchangel occurs only inSt. Jude and1 Thessalonians 4:15; butSt. Paul has furnished us with two other lists of names of theheavenly cohorts. He tells us (Ephesians 1:21) that Christ is raised up "above all principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion"; and, writing to theColossians (1:16), he says: "In Him were all things created inheaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations, or principalities or powers." It is to be noted that he uses two of these names of the powers of darkness when (2:15) he talks of Christ as "despoiling the principalities and powers . . . triumphing over them in Himself". And it is not a little remarkable that only two verses later he warns his readers not to be seduced into any "religion of angels". He seems to put his seal upon a certain lawful angelology, and at the same time to warn them against indulgingsuperstition on the subject. We have a hint of such excesses in the Book of Enoch, wherein, as already stated, the angels play a quite disproportionate part. SimilarlyJosephus tells us (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 7) that theEssenes had to take avow to preserve the names of the angels.
We have already seen how (Daniel 10:12-21) various districts are allotted to various angels who are termed their princes, and the same feature reappears still more markedly in theApocalyptic"angels of the seven churches", though it is impossible to decide what is the precise signification of the term. These sevenAngels of the Churches are generally regarded as being theBishops occupying thesesees.St. Gregory Nazianzen in his address to theBishops at Constantinople twice terms them "Angels", in the language of theApocalypse.
The treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia", which is ascribed toSt. Denis the Areopagite, and which exercised so strong an influence upon theScholastics, treats at great length of the hierarchies and orders of the angels. It is generally conceded that this work was not due toSt. Denis, but must date some centuries later. Though the doctrine it contains regarding the choirs of angels has been received in the Church with extraordinary unanimity, no proposition touching the angelic hierarchies is binding on ourfaith. The following passages fromSt. Gregory the Great (Hom. 34, In Evang.) will give us a clearidea of the view of the Church's doctors on the point:
We know on the authority ofScripture that there are nine orders of angels, viz., Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Throne,Cherubim andSeraphim. That there are Angels and Archangels nearly every page of theBible tell us, and the books of theProphets talk ofCherubim andSeraphim.St. Paul, too, writing to theEphesians enumerates four orders when he says: 'above all Principality, and Power, and Virtue, and Domination'; and again, writing to theColossians he says: 'whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers'. If we now join these two lists together we have five Orders, and adding Angels and Archangels,Cherubim andSeraphim, we find nine Orders of Angels.
St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:108), followingSt. Denis (De Coelesti Hierarchia, vi, vii), divides the angels into three hierarchies each of which contains three orders. Their proximity to theSupreme Being serves as the basis of this division. In the firsthierarchy he places theSeraphim,Cherubim, and Thrones; in the second, the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers; in the third, the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. The onlyScriptural names furnished of individual angels areRaphael,Michael, andGabriel, names which signify their respective attributes.ApocryphalJewish books, such as the Book of Enoch, supply those of Uriel and Jeremiel, while many are found in otherapocryphal sources, like those Milton names in "Paradise Lost". (Onsuperstitious use of such names, see above).
The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel 7:10;Apocalypse 5:11;Psalm 67:18;Matthew 26:53). From the use of the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for theheavenly army it is hard to resist the impression that the term "Lord of Hosts" refers toGod's Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf.Deuteronomy 33:2;32:43;Septuagint). TheFathers see a reference to the relative numbers ofmen and angels in theparable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-3), though this may seem fanciful. TheScholastics, again, following the treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia" ofSt. Denis, regard the preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host (cf.St. Thomas,Summa Theologica I:1:3).
The distinction of good and bad angels constantly appears in theBible, but it is instructive to note that there is no sign of anydualism or conflict between two equal principles, one good and the otherevil. The conflict depicted is rather that waged on earth between theKingdom of God and the Kingdom of theEvil One, but the latter's inferiority is always supposed. Theexistence, then, of this inferior, and therefore created,spirit, has to be explained.
The gradual development of Hebrewconsciousness on this point is very clearly marked in the inspired writings. The account of the fall of our First Parents (Genesis 3) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who wasjealous of thehuman race. The statement (Genesis 6:1) that the "sons ofGod" married the daughters ofmen is explained of the fall of the angels, in Enoch, vi-xi, and codices, D, E F, and A of theSeptuagint read frequently, for "sons ofGod",oi aggeloi tou theou. Unfortunately,codices B and C are defective inGenesis 6, but it is probably that they, too, readoi aggeloi in this passage, for they constantly so render the expression "sons ofGod"; cf.Job 1:6,2:1 and38:7; but on the other hand, seePsalm 2:1 and88 (Septuagint).Philo, in commenting on the passage in his treatise "Quod Deus sit immutabilis", i, follows theSeptuagint. For Philo's doctrine of Angels, cf. "De Vita Mosis", iii, 2, "De Somniis", VI: "De Incorrupta Manna", i; "De Sacrificis", ii; "De Lege Allegorica", I, 12; III, 73; and for the view ofGenesis 6:1, cf.St. Justin,First Apology 5. It should moreover be noted that the Hebrew wordnephilim renderedgigantes, in6:4, may mean "fallen ones". TheFathers generally refer it to the sons of Seth, the chosen stock. In1 Samuel 19:9, an evil spirit is said to possess Saul, though this is probably a metaphorical expression; more explicit is1 Kings 22:19-23, where aspirit is depicted as appearing in the midst of the heavenly army and offering, at the Lord's invitation, to be alyingspirit in the mouth of Achab'sfalseprophets. We might, withScholastics, explain this ismalum poenae, which is actually caused byGod owing toman's fault. A truerexegesis would, however, dwell on the purelyimaginative tone of the whole episode; it is not so much the mould in which the message is cast as the actual tenor of that message which is meant to occupy our attention.
The picture afforded us inJob 1 and2 is equallyimaginative; butSatan, perhaps the earliest individualization of thefallen Angel, is presented as an intruder who isjealous ofJob. He is clearly an inferior being to theDeity and can only touchJob withGod's permission. How theologic thought advanced as the sum ofrevelation grew appears from a comparison of2 Samuel 24:1, with1 Chronicles 21:1. Whereas in the former passageDavid'ssin was said to be due to "thewrath of the Lord" which "stirred up David", in the latter we read that "Satan moved David to numberIsrael". InJob 4:18, we seem to find a definite declaration of the fall: "In His angels He foundwickedness." TheSeptuagint ofJob contains some instructive passages regarding avenging angels in whom we are perhaps to see fallen spirits, thus33:23: "If a thousand death-dealing angels should be (against him) not one of them shall wound him"; and36:14: "If theirsouls should perish in their youth (through rashness) yet theirlife shall be wounded by the angels"; and20:15: "Theriches unjustly accumulated shall be vomited up, an angel shall drag him out of his house;" cf.Proverbs 17:11;Psalm 34:5-6 and77:49, and especiallyEcclesiasticus 39:33, a text which, as far as can be gathered from the present state of themanuscript, was in the Hebrew original. In some of these passages, it istrue, the angels may be regarded as avengers ofGod'sjustice without therefore beingevil spirits. InZechariah 3:1-3, Satan is called the adversary who pleads before the Lord against Jesus theHigh Priest.Isaiah 14 andEzekiel 28 are for theFathers theloci classici regarding the fall of Satan (cf.Tertullian,Against Marcion 2.10); andOur Lord Himself has given colour to this view by using the imagery of the latter passage when saying to HisApostles: "I saw Satan like lightning falling fromheaven" (Luke 10:18).
InNew Testament times theidea of the two spiritual kingdoms is clearly established. The devil is a fallen angel who in his fall has drawn multitudes of theheavenly host in his train.Our Lord terms him "the Prince of this world" (John 14:30); he is the tempter of thehuman race and tries to involve them in his fall (Matthew 25:41;2 Peter 2:4;Ephesians 6:12;2 Corinthians 11:14;12:7).Christian imagery of the devil as the dragon is mainly derived from theApocalypse (9:11-15 and12:7-9), where he is termed "the angel of the bottomless pit", "the dragon", "the old serpent", etc., and is represented as having actually been in combat with Archangel Michael. The similarity between scenes such as these and the earlyBabylonian accounts of the struggle between Merodach and the dragon Tiamat is very striking. Whether we are to trace its origin to vague reminiscences of the mighty saurians which once people the earth is a moot question, but the curious reader may consult Bousett, "The Anti-Christ Legend" (tr. by Keane, London, 1896). The translator has prefixed to it an interesting discussion on the origin of theBabylonian Dragon-Myth.
We have had occasion to mention theSeptuagint version more than once, and it may not be amiss to indicate a few passages where it is our only source of information regarding the angels. The best known passage isIsaiah 9:6, where theSeptuagint gives the name of theMessias, as "the Angel of great Counsel". We have already drawn attention toJob 20:15, where theSeptuagint reads "Angel" instead of "God", and to36:14, where there seems to be question ofevil angels. In9:7,Septuagint (B) adds: "He is the Hebrew (5:19) say of "Behemoth": "He is the beginning of the ways ofGod, he that made him shall make his sword to approach him", theSeptuagint reads: "He is the beginning ofGod'screation, made for His Angels to mock at", and exactly the same remark is made about "Leviathan" (41:24). We have already seen that theSeptuagint generally renders the term "sons ofGod" by "angels", but inDeuteronomy 32:43, theSeptuagint has an addition in which both terms appear: "Rejoice in Him all ye heavens, andadore Him all ye angels ofGod; rejoice yenations with His people, and magnify Him all yeSons of God." Nor does theSeptuagint merely give us these additional references to angels; it sometimes enables us to correct difficult passages concerning them in theVulgate andMassoretic text. Thus the difficultElim ofMT inJob 41:17, which theVulgate renders by "angels", becomes "wild beasts" in theSeptuagint version.
The earlyideas as to the personality of the various angelic appearances are, as we have seen, remarkably vague. At first the angels are regarded in quite an impersonal way (Genesis 16:7). They areGod's vice-regents and are often identified with theAuthor of their message (Genesis 48:15-16). But while we read of "the Angels ofGod" meeting Jacob (Genesis 32:1) we at other times read of one who is termed "the Angel ofGod"par excellence, e.g.Genesis 31:11. It istrue that, owing to the Hebrew idiom, this may mean no more than "an angel ofGod", and theSeptuagint renders it with or without the article at will; yet the three visitors at Mambre seem to have been of different ranks, thoughSt. Paul (Hebrews 13:2) regarded them all as equally angels; as the story inGenesis 13 develops, the speaker is always "the Lord". Thus in the account of the Angel of the Lord who visitedGideon (Judges 6), the visitor is alternately spoken of as "the Angel of the Lord" and as "the Lord". Similarly, inJudges 13, the Angel of the Lord appears, and both Manue and his wife exclaim: "We shall certainly die because we have seenGod." This want of clearness is particularly apparent in the various accounts of the Angel of Exodus. InJudges 6, just now referred to, theSeptuagint is very careful to render the Hebrew "Lord" by "the Angel of the Lord"; but in the story of the Exodus it is the Lord who goes before them in thepillar of a cloud (Exodus 13:21), and theSeptuagint makes no change (cf. alsoNumbers 14:14, andNehemiah 9:7-20. Yet inExodus 14:19, their guide is termed "the Angel ofGod". When we turn toExodus 33, whereGod isangry with His people forworshipping thegolden calf, it is hard not to feel that it isGod Himself who has hitherto been their guide, but who now refuses to accompany them any longer.God offers an angel instead, but at Moses's petition He says (14) "My face shall go before thee", which theSeptuagint reads byautos though the following verse shows that this rendering is clearly impossible, forMoses objects: "If Thou Thyself dost not go before us, bring us not out of this place." But what doesGod mean by "my face"? Is it possible that some angel of specially high rank is intended, as inIsaiah 63:9 (cf.Tobit 12:15)? May not this be what is meant by "the angel ofGod" (cf.Numbers 20:16)?
That a process of evolution in theological thought accompanied the gradual unfolding ofGod's revelation need hardly be said, but it is especially marked in the various views entertained regarding the person of the Giver of the Law. TheMassoretic text as well as theVulgate ofExodus 3 and19-20 clearly represent theSupreme Being as appearing toMoses in the bush and onMount Sinai; but theSeptuagint version, while agreeing that it wasGod Himself who gave the Law, yet makes it "the angel of the Lord" who appeared in the bush. ByNew Testament times theSeptuagint view has prevailed, and it is now not merely in the bush that the angel of the Lord, and notGod Himself appears, but the angel is also the Giver of the Law (cf.Galatians 3:19;Hebrews 2:2;Acts 7:30). Theperson of "the angel of the Lord" finds a counterpart in the personification of Wisdom in the Sapiential books and in at least one passage (Zechariah 3:1) it seems to stand for that"Son of Man" whom Daniel (7:13) saw brought before"the Ancient of Days".Zacharias says: "And the Lord showed me Jesus thehigh priest standing before the angel of the Lord, andSatan stood on His right hand to be His adversary".Tertullian regards many of these passages as preludes to theIncarnation; as theWord of God adumbrating the sublime character in which He is one day to reveal Himself tomen (cf.Against Praxeas 16;Against Marcion 2.27,3.9,1.10,1.21-22). It is possible, then, that in these confused views we can trace vague gropings after certaindogmatictruths regarding the Trinity, reminiscences perhaps of the earlyrevelation of which the Protevangelium inGenesis 3 is but a relic. Theearlier Fathers, going by the letter of the text, maintained that it was actuallyGod Himself who appeared. He who appeared was calledGod and acted asGod. It was not unnatural then forTertullian, as we have already seen, to regard such manifestations in the light of preludes to theIncarnation, and most of theEasternFathers followed the same line of thought. It was held as recently as 1851 by Vandenbroeck, "Dissertatio Theologica de Theophaniis sub Veteri Testamento" (Louvain).
But the great Latins,St. Jerome,St. Augustine, andSt. Gregory the Great, held the opposite view, and theScholastics as a body followed them.St. Augustine (Sermo vii, de Scripturis, P.G. V) when treating of the burning bush (Exodus 3) says: "That the same person who spoke toMoses should be deemed both the Lord and an angel of the Lord, is very hard to understand. It is a question which forbids any rash assertions but rather demands careful investigation . . . Some maintain that he is called both the Lord and the angel of the Lord because he was Christ, indeed the prophet (Isaiah 9:6,Septuagint Version) clearly styles Christ the 'Angel of great Counsel.'" The saint proceeds to show that such a view is tenable though we must be careful not to fall intoArianism in stating it. He points out, however, that if we hold that it was an angel who appeared, we must explain how he came to be called "the Lord," and he proceeds to show how this might be: "Elsewhere in theBible when a prophet speaks it is yet said to be the Lord who speaks, not of course because the prophet is the Lord but because the Lord is in the prophet; and so in the same way when the Lord condescends to speak through the mouth of a prophet or an angel, it is the same as when he speaks by a prophet or apostle, and the angel is correctly termed an angel if we consider him himself, but equally correctly is he termed 'the Lord' becauseGod dwells in him." He concludes: "It is the name of the indweller, not of the temple." And a little further on: "It seems to me that we shall most correctly say that our forefathers recognized the Lord in the angel," and he adduces the authority of theNew Testament writers who clearly so understood it and yet sometimes allowed the same confusion of terms (cf.Hebrews 2:2, andActs 7:31-33).
The saint discusses the same question even more elaborately, "In Heptateuchum," lib. vii, 54, P.G. III, 558. As an instance of how convinced some of theFathers were in holding the opposite view, we may noteTheodoret's words (In Exod.): "The whole passage (Exodus 3) shows that it wasGod who appeared to him. But (Moses) called Him an angel in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw — for whose angel could the Father be? — but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of great Counsel" (cf. Eusebius,Church History I.2.7;St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies 3:6). But the view propounded by the LatinFathers was destined to live in theChurch, and theScholastics reduced it to a system (cf.St. Thomas, Quaest., Disp., De Potentia, vi, 8, ad 3am); and for a very good exposition of both sides of the question, cf. "Revue biblique," 1894, 232-247.
TheBible has shown us that abelief in angels, or spirits intermediate betweenGod andman, is a characteristic of theSemitic people. It is therefore interesting to trace thisbelief in theSemites ofBabylonia. According to Sayce (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, Gifford Lectures, 1901), the engrafting ofSemiticbeliefs on the earliest Sumerian religion ofBabylonia is marked by the entrance of angels orsukallin in theirtheosophy. Thus we find an interesting parallel to "the angels of the Lord" in Nebo, "the minister of Merodach" (ibid., 355). He is also termed the "angel" or interpreter of the will or Merodach (ibid., 456), and Sayce accepts Hommel's statement that it can be shown from the Minean inscriptions that primitiveSemitic religion consisted of moon and star worship, the moon-god Athtar and an "angel" god standing at the head of the pantheon (ibid., 315). TheBiblical conflict between the kingdoms of good andevil finds its parallel in the "spirits ofheaven" or the Igigi--who constituted the "host" of which Ninip was the champion (and from who he received the title of "chief of the angels") and the "spirits of the earth", or Annuna-Ki, who dwelt in Hades (ibid. 355). TheBabyloniansukalli corresponded to the spirit-messengers of theBible; they declared their Lord's will and executed his behests (ibid., 361). Some of them appear to have been more than messengers; they were the interpreters and vicegerents of the supreme deity, thus Nebo is "the prophet of Borsippa". These angels are even termed "the sons" of the deity whose vicegerents they are; thus Ninip, at one time the messenger of En-lil, is transformed into his son just as Merodach becomes the son of Ea (ibid., 496). TheBabylonian accounts of the Creation and theFlood do not contrast very favourably with theBiblical accounts, and the same must be said of the chaotic hierarchies of gods and angels which modern research has revealed. perhaps we are justified in seeing all forms of religion vestiges of a primitive nature-worship which has at times succeeded in debasing the purerrevelation, and which, where that primitiverevelation has not received successive increments as among the Hebrews, results in an abundant crop of weeds.
Thus theBible certainly sanctions theidea of certain angels being in charge of special districts (cf.Daniel 10, and above). Thisbelief persists in a debased form in theArab notion of Genii, or Jinns, who haunt particular spots. A reference to it is perhaps to be found inGenesis 32:1-2: "Jacob also went on the journey he had begun: and the angels ofGod met him: And when he saw then he said: These are the camps ofGod, and he called the name of that place Mahanaim, that is, 'Camps.'" Recent explorations in theArab district aboutPetra have revealed certain precincts marked off with stones as the abiding-laces of angels, and the nomad tribes frequent them forprayer and sacrifice. These places bear a name which corresponds exactly with the "Mahanaim" of the above passage inGenesis (cf. Lagrange, Religions Semitques, 184, and Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 445).Jacob's vision atBethel (Genesis 28:12) may perhaps come under the same category. Suffice it to say that not everything in theBible isrevelation, and that the object of the inspired writings is not merely to tell us newtruths but also to make clearer certaintruths taught us bynature. The modern view, which tends to regard everythingBabylonian as absolutely primitive and which seems to think that because critics affix a late date to theBiblical writings the religion therein contained must also be late, may be seen in Haag, "Theologie Biblique" (339). This writer sees in theBiblical angels only primitive deities debased into demi-gods by the triumphant progress ofMonotheism.
Attempts have also been made to trace a connection between the angels of theBible and the "great archangels" or "Amesha-Spentas" of theZend-Avesta. That thePersian domination and theBabylonian captivity exerted a large influence upon the Hebrew conception of the angels is acknowledged in theTalmud of Jerusalem, Rosch Haschanna, 56, where it is said that the names of the angels were introduced from Babylon. It is, however, by no means clear that the angelic beings who figure so largely in the pages of the Avesta are to be referred to the olderPersian Neo-Zoroastrianism of the Sassanides. If this be the case, as Darmesteter holds, we should rather reverse the position and attribute the Zoroastrian angels to the influence of theBible and ofPhilo. Stress has been laid upon the similarity between theBiblical "seven who stand beforeGod" and the seven Amesha-Spentas of theZend-Avesta. But it must be noted that these latter are really six, the number seven is only obtained by counting "their father, Ahura-Mazda," among them as their chief. Moreover, these Zoroastrian archangels are more abstract than concrete; they are not individuals charged with weighty missions as in theBible.
Hitherto we have dwelt almost exclusively on the angels of theOld Testament, whose visits and messages have been by no means rare; but when we come to theNew Testament their name appears on every page and the number of references to them equals those in theOld Dispensation. It is their privilege to announce to Zachary andMary the dawn ofRedemption, and to the shepherds its actual accomplishment.Our Lord in His discourses talks of them as one who actually saw them, and who, whilst "conversing amongst men", was yet receiving the silent unseenadoration of thehosts ofheaven. He describes their life inheaven (Matthew 22:30;Luke 20:36); He tell us how they form a bodyguard round Him and at a word from Him would avenge Him on His enemies (Matthew 26:53); it is the privilege of one of them to assist Him in HisAgony and sweat of Blood. More than once He speaks of them as auxiliaries and witnesses at thefinal judgment (Matthew 16:27), which indeed they will prepare (13:39-49); and lastly, they are thejoyous witnesses of His triumphantResurrection (28:2).
It is easy for skeptical minds to see in these angelic hosts the mere play of Hebrew fancy and the rank growth ofsuperstition, but do not the records of the angels who figure in theBible supply a most natural and harmonious progression? In the opening page of thesacred story theJewish nation is chosen out from amongst others as the depositary ofGod's promise; as the people from whose stock He would one day raise up aRedeemer. The angels appear in the course of this chosen people's history, now asGod's messengers, now as that people's guides; at one time they are the bestowers ofGod's law, at another they actually prefigure theRedeemer Whose divine purpose they are helping to mature. They converse with Hisprophets, with David andElias, with Daniel andZacharias; they slay the hosts camped againstIsrael, they serve as guides toGod's servants, and the last prophet, Malachi, bears a name of peculiar significance; "the Angel of Jehovah." He seems to sum up in his very name the previous "ministry by the hands of angels", as thoughGod would thus recall the old-time glories of the Exodus andSinai. TheSeptuagint, indeed, seems not to know his name as that of an individual prophet and its rendering of the opening verse of his prophecy is peculiarly solemn: "The burden of theWord of theLord of Israel by the hand of His angel; lay it up in your hearts." All thisloving ministry on the part of the angels is solely for the sake of theSaviour, on Whose face they desire to look. Hence when the fullness of time was arrived it is they who bring the glad message, and sing "Gloria in excelsis Deo". They guide the newbornKing of Angels in His hurried flight intoEgypt, and minister to Him in thedesert. His second coming and the dire events that must precede that, are revealed to Hischosen servant in the island of Patmos, It is a question ofrevelation again, and consequently its ministers and messengers of old appear once more in thesacred story and the record ofGod'srevealinglove ends fittingly almost as it had begun: "I,Jesus, have sent Myangel to testify to you these things in the churches" (Revelation 22:16). It is easy for the student to trace the influence of surrounding nations and of otherreligions in theBiblical account of the angels. Indeed it is needful and instructive to do so, but it would be wrong to shut our eyes to the higher line of development which we have shown and which brings out so strikingly the marvellous unity and harmony of the whole divine story of theBible. (See alsoANGELS IN EARLY CHRISTIAN ART.)
In addition to works mentioned above, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, QQ. 50-54 and 106-114; Suarez De Angelis, lib. i-iv.
APA citation.Pope, H.(1907).Angels. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm
MLA citation.Pope, Hugh."Angels."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 1.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1907.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Jim Holden.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.