10: Angels

The omission of a discussion of angels in almost every book on the philosophy of religion reveals the gulf between modern mentality and the biblical revelation. Philosophers of religion discuss God, the soul, and nature, but stop short of any serious discussion of angels. Skeptics will spend much time in refuting the proofs of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul but will not even wet the pen to refute the existence of an angelic host. In contrast to this treatment of angels on behalf of philosophers (religious or skeptical) are the profuse references to angels in sacred Scripture.

It must be admitted, however, that there are certain problems or ambiguities attending the discussion of angels, and Calvin himself expressed a great reserve and caution on the subject (Institutes, I. xiv. 3, for example, “It is also our duty cheerfully to remain in ignorance of what is not for our advantage to know”). It is this discrepancy between modern mentality and the biblical disclosure about angels that causes Barth to begin his discussion of angels with so much hesitation (Kirchliche Dogmatik, III/3, Sec. 51).

No Rational Objection. Mankind has no handbook titled, A Guide to All Possible Creations. It has no information about creation apart from the data afforded by this creation. The how and the why and the what of creation can be gained only from the concrete character and the concrete givenness of creation. Humanity has no a priori principles for judging the character or composition of a creation. And in that angels are creatures of God what applies to creation in general applies to angels in particular.

Whether there shall be angels or not cannot be determined by any concept of necessity or fitness of things. There is nothing in the constitution of the human mind which enables it to judge this issue. If there is any necessity or any fitness to the existence of angels, it is known and determined by the divine Majesty.

In a word, modern man can have no a priori objection to the existence of angels based upon some sort of principle of necessity or fitness. The existence or nonexistence of angels can be based only upon an a posteriori judgment arising out of the concrete character of creation itself.

The root of Christian theology is the knowledge of God conveyed to man through special revelation. This is the nerve of Christian theology and if it is cut, theology atrophies into mere religious chatter (even though it be learned chatter). This knowledge of God takes the concrete form of a canon, a Scripture, or in the technical language of the New Testament, a graphe. The New Testament uses this term graphe to indicate the ink and parchment embodiment of the revelation of God. It is this graphe which informs the Church of the structures of creation insofar as these structures pertain to our proper understanding of God, ourselves, and the character of our creaturely and spiritual lives.

It is from the graphe that the Church comes to know the reality of angels. The real conflict with modern man and Christianity concerning angels is not really whether the concept of angels is rational or not but whether the graphe bears an authentic knowledge of God which expresses itself with regard to angels. Modern man has no criterion within himself to judge this issue apart from Scripture.

No Divinely Given Sentiment. Furthermore, mankind has no divinely given sentiment whereby it can judge whether angels are proper or not. Why this refusal to discuss angels by the philosophers of religion if there is not rooted deeper than reason a sentiment which is antipathetic towards angels? Is there not here an unwritten or unspoken appeal to a sense of propriety, a sense of fittingness which boggles at the doctrine of angels?

In a universe of electrons and positrons, atomic energy and rocket power, Einsteinian astronomy and nuclear physics, angels seem out of place. They seem to intrude upon the scene like the unexpected visit of the country relatives to their rich city kinfolk. Atoms seem at home in our contemporary thinking but not angels! The prospect of some interplanetary Beagle cruising among the planets gathering scientific data surprises no educated man of today. But if such a man were called upon to comment upon angels he would either act very nervously or else he would pompously deny that angels existed. He knows the principles whereby he can reasonably imagine a scientific cruise of the planets by a space-age Darwin, but he has no principles whereby he may discuss angels. So he prefers to dismiss the concept of angels as mythological.

The serious question which confronts the Christian theologian in view of modern man’s squeamish attitude towards angels is whether or not there is a logical or theological justification for this attitude. Christian theology would be faced with a serious logical problem if angels and atoms competed with each other in natural law. It is true that God does make angels as winds and as fires (Heb. 1:7), but the angels are never part of the scriptural explanation of the order or ordering of natural things. Angels and atoms do not compete! There can be then no formal logical objection to the existence of angels.

Christian theology would be confronted with a serious theological problem if it could be shown that the concept of angels is inappropriate to the notion of God. But this could only make its case if mankind had an innate criterion by which to judge what is appropriate with reference to God. But as already indicated, man is not gifted with this sentiment and therefore the only possible mode of judging this question is by the revelation of the knowledge of God in sacred Scripture.

The root of modern man’s objection to the reality of angels is not logical nor theological but psychological. It is a psychological squeamishness which stems from the antisupernaturalism of modern mentality. The medieval theologian-philosopher Occam affirmed that no more principles should be employed in explanations than those which are absolutely necessary. This principle has been called “Occam’s Razor.” Modern man feels (for he cannot make his case from logic) that Occam’s Razor enables him to trim off all supernatural principles and all superhuman beings in accounting for the sum total of phenomena in the universe.

To frame this another way, modern mentality may be likened to a decorator’s motif. Only certain colors and styles harmonize in the house and furniture which does not harmonize is hauled out! Angels do not match the modern décor, so they are discarded.

Karl Barth has noted that there is one basis for modern man’s hesitations about angels. Angels are servants and have no reality or purpose in themselves. We can imagine people without servants, but we cannot conceive of servants without people. The rationale of servants is the rationale of people. There is no rationale for servants in themselves. We can imagine God as existing without angels, but it is meaningless to imagine a universe with angels but no God. The rationale for angels is that they are servants of God and man in the interest of the redemption provided by God.

The Structure of Divine Mediation. Creation is that order, that space-time reality, which is created by God and is thereby different from God. His omnipotent word spoke it into existence (Heb. 11:3). There is, therefore, an ineradicable difference between God and the creature. In the language of categories, it is the eternal contrasted with the temporal, the infinite with the finite, the uncreated with the created, and so on. The communication between this great God and finite, limited man must thus always be a mediated communication.

This is not a judgment about the “impurity” of the world which would force God to communicate indirectly lest he contaminate himself with the world. It is based upon the transcendence of Creator over the creature. Therefore when God comes to humanity in revelation, he comes through mediators. The prophetic word is a mediated word. The theophany is a mediated manifestation of God. The Incarnation is the glory of God mediated through the human nature of Christ (John 1:14). Angels are ‘part of the complex structure of the divine mediation.

With reference to this divine mediation man has no a priori understanding of it. Man does not know if there shall be one or a million mediators. He has no aesthetic power whereby he can evaluate one scheme of mediation over another. If man wishes he may reject the notion of angels. Barth cites Goethe as saying, “Let me name for you an appendage: What you call angels” (ibid., p. 436). But the necessity of mediation remains and if the divine Majesty shall say something to his creatures it must be a mediated word!

In this matter there is only one point of judgment. In the concrete data of revelation either the mediatorial role of angels is set forth or it is not. At this point the witness of scriptural record (cf. Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:7) is accepted or rejected. To speculate about angels apart from the concrete, historical, and specific character of revelation is like attempting to fly in a vacuum. We have no a priori principle to judge this matter; we have no innate aesthetic sense to assess its fittingness. We either rest upon the contents of revelation, or we pass the question by.

The Heavenly Servants of God. If angels function in the schema of divine mediation, their role is essentially that of servant (Heb. 1:14). The service of angels in special revelation and divine redemption is the second scriptural rationale for angels. Man is the earthly servant of God; Jesus Christ is the theanthropic servant of God (Phil. 2:5 f.); and the angels are the heavenly servants of God, for they are always represented as coming from heaven and returning to heaven.

Angels serve God in the administration of his kingdom and his redemption (Dan. 8:16; Luke 1:19, 26, and so forth). The range of their service is phenomenal. From the Old Testament incidents in which they appear like ordinary men (Judges 13), we move through the biblical record of their actions to the great dramatic pictures of the book of Revelation where angels assume cosmic powers. The association of Jesus Christ with angels is remarkable—compare his birth narratives, his temptation, his experience in Gethsemane, his resurrection, his return with great hosts of angels.

In this connection is the remarkable Old Testament revelation of the angel of the Lord. Because the angel of the Lord is both a representation and a type there is some obscurity attached to the subject matter which an honest exegesis will not overlook. But the angel-form of the Mighty One who comes in the service of God is a happy anticipation of Philippians 2:5 ff., where the exalted Son of God empties himself to take the form of a servant.

One other remark is pertinent to the servant-role of angels: everywhere in Scripture their worship or veneration is sternly rebuked (cf. Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10).

The Glory of God. The third rationale for angels is to be seen in the manner in which they surround the throne of God (Heb. 12:22). One of the names of God is the Lord of Hosts. He is pictured in Scripture as surrounded by an innumerable company of angels (“numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,” Rev. 5:11). One of the primary means by which Scripture represents to us the glorious nature of God is always to surround him with an endless host of powerful and majestic angels, particularly the seraphim who cry “holy, holy, holy” day and night (Isa. 6:3). If the angelic hosts are deleted from our representation of God, then one of the strongest possible modes of representing the glory, the might, the majesty, and the holiness of God is lost. Just as the royal palace, the fabulous furnishings, and the royal court are all part of the means of expressing the dignity and royalty of an earthly king, so the visions of heaven and the majestic court of glorious angels are part of the biblical method of impressing the human mind with the glory of God. The abstract listing of divine attributes may be theologically precise, but such a list can never do for the human imagination what is done by the biblical presentation of God surrounded with an innumerable host of great, glorious, and powerful angels.

If men have entertained angels unawares (Heb. 13:2), theologians should be the first to attempt to make their visit welcome, and their stay desirable.

Bibliography: K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, III/3, Sec. 51 (the historical and theological materials found in remarkable fullness); W. Grundmann, G. von Rad, G. Kittel, “aggelos, archaggelos, isaggelos,” Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, G. Kittel, ed., Vol. I; W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, “Angels,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; G. W. Bromiley, “Angel,” Dictionary of Theology, E. Harrison, ed; “Angel,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, ed.; Dionysius, The Celestial Hierarchy (historically has played a fantastically large role); T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Vol. I, 50–64, 106–114; Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol. II, 91–101; J. Calvin, Institutes, I. xiv (where he remarks that Dionysius treatment is “mere babblings”); F. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (comments upon the abstract possibility of angels but of their religious dispensability); R. Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” Kerygma and Myth, H. W. Bartsch, ed., trans. by R. H. Fuller (rejection of spirits, good or evil).

Professor of Systematic Theology

California Baptist Theological Seminary

Covina, California

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.