The church has historically affirmed believe in a realm beyond that of human beings and the visible world. This is a spiritual realm inhabited by (1) angels, which are “created, spiritual beings with moral judgment and high intelligence, but without physical bodies”; and, (2) demons, which are, “evil angels which sinned against God and who now continually work evil in the world.”[1] Throughout the ages questions concerning this spiritual realm have been a source of considerable speculation.
The medieval church seemed especially absorbed with such ridicules questions as “how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” Despite all the speculation, there has never been a serious dispute over the doctrine, nor has there ever been a major church council or statement of faith focused on it.
Scripture presents the reality of the spiritual realm and the doctrine of angels, Satan, and demons has served to remind us that we are not alone in the world of divinely created beings. These beings exist for a purpose, playing an important role in God’s overall plan.
In accordance with Scripture, God created four separate and distinct beings; Seraphim, Cherubim, Angels, and humans. We derive this from the following Scriptures:
1. Seraphim are mentioned only one place in Scripture, Isaiah 61-6. In verses 1 and 2 Isaiah defines both the location and nature of Seraphim; “In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.” In verse 3 Isaiah describes them as declaring praise to God, “And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." It would appear as if part of their function is to purify that which is unpure, but God declares to be pure. Note in verses 6 and 7, “Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. And he touched my mouth [with it] and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven." This is the only information we have about Seraphim.
2. Cherubim are mentioned much more frequently in the Old Testament.
a. Genesis tells us that, “at the east of the garden of Eden He [God] stationed the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.”[2]
b. Exodus we learn that cherubim were to be place on each end of the Mercy Seat which was to sit on top of the Ark of the Covenant. Their wings were to sweep upward and their faces turned in toward the Mercy Seat.[3] It was here, above the Mercy Seat and between the two cherubim that God was to meet Moses and give him all the commandments for the sons of Israel.[4]
c. In Exodus 261,31 God directed the Israelites to include cherubim in the construction of the tabernacle.
d. Exodus 3635-379 describes the building of the cherubim in the Tabernacle.
e. 1Kings 6-8 and 2 Chronicles 3 describes Solomon’s building of the temple and part the cherubim played in that, but no further definition or function is developed.
f. The Psalms (801, 991) speak of the Lord being enthroned above the cherubim as does Isaiah 3716).
g. Ezekiel 9 and 10 describe Ezekiel’s vision. Here we learn a more detailed description of the cherubim. (Cf. Ezekiel 107-14).
h. The only New Testament reference is Hebrews 95.
3. Finally, angels are mentioned 107 times in the Old Testament (52 of those are references to “the angel of the Lord”), and 175 times in the New Testament (1 time to “the angel of the Lord”).
a. A study of the passages containing the Angel of the Lord shows that while at times the angel and Yahweh are distinguished from each other, they are with equal frequency merged into each other. It is obvious that these apparitions cannot be the Almighty Himself, for no man has seen, or can see Him. Two passages in particular help to explain this. In Exodus 2320ff God promises to send an angel before His people to lead them to the Promised Land; they are commanded to obey him and not provoke him, “for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.” Thus the angel can forgive sin, which only God can do, because God’s name, i.e., his character and authority, are in the angel. In Exodus 3234-3317 Moses intercedes on behalf of the people after their first breach of the covenant; God responds by promising, “behold, my angel shall go before you”; and immediately after God says, “I will not go up among you.” In answer to further pleading, God says, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” Here is a clear distinction between an ordinary angel and the angel who carries with him God’s presence.[5]
b. Regarding the common idea that angels have wings there is no biblical support (except, perhaps, Daniel 921 and Rev 146).
c. Whenever angels appear in human form, they appear as male (e.g. Gen 182,16, Ezk 92) never female (contrary to numerous artists’ renditions).[6]
Much of the early church’s beliefs regarding the spiritual realm came from its Jewish roots. Both Old and New Testaments contain numerous stories involving angels.
1. Jacob had a dream of a ladder extending from earth to heaven and “the angels of God were ascending and descending on it” (Gen 2812). Satan was the key protagonist in the book of Job.
2. We find a number of angelic visits surrounding the conception, birth and life of Jesus. Much of his ministry involved the casting out of demons and he taught his disciples about Satan and his work (John 844).
3. The apostle Paul encouraged believers to be alert to spiritual warfare (Eph 612), and the apostle Peter advised his readers how to deal with Satan and his attacks (1 Pet 58-9). James tells us to “resist the devil and he will flee from us” (Jas 47). In Hebrews, Paul tells us angels are “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Heb 114). The last book of the Bible tells the story of a cosmic battle in which God’s angels completely defeat Satan and his evil angels (Rev 127-9).
Following the time of Jesus and the apostles the church continued to teach about angels and demons. The fact that there was so little information available to the church[7] caused imaginations to run wild. Tertullian claimed, “Every Spirit possesses wings. This is a common property of both angels and demons. So they are everywhere in a single moment; the whole world is as one place to them.”[8] The early church also affirmed the belief in the humanly appearance of angelic being. Tertullian notes, “You have sometimes read and believed the Creator’s angels have been changed into human form. They have carried about so real a body that Abraham even washed their feet and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands. An angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body that Jacob desired to be let loose.”[9]
The function of angels also raised considerable thought in the early church.[10]
1. Athenagoras5 claimed that angels were created by God and “entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter….For this is the office of angels: to exercise providence for God over the things created and ordered by him, so that God may have the universal and general providence of the entirety of the universe, while the particular parts are provided by the angels appointed over them.”[11]
2. Some angels were given responsibilities for different parts of the world. [12] According to Origen responsibility was given to the angels at the dispersion of the people at the tower of Babel. He states it this way, “Accordingly, when they had hardened and compacted these materials of clay and matter, and had shown their desire to make brick into stone, and clay into bitumen, and by these means to build a city and a tower, the head of which was, at least in their conception, to reach up to the heavens, after the manner of the high things which exalt themselves against the knowledge of God, each one was handed over (in proportion to the greater or less departure from the east which had taken place among them, and in proportion to the extent in which bricks had been converted into stones, and clay into bitumen, and building carried on out of these materials) to angels of character more or less severe, and of a nature more or less stern, until they had paid the penalty of their daring deeds; and they were conducted by those angels, who imprinted on each his native language, to the different parts of the earth according to their deserts: some, for example, to a region of burning heat, others to a country which chastises its inhabitants by its cold; others, again, to a land exceedingly difficult of cultivation, others to one less so in degree; while a fifth were brought into a land filled with wild beasts, and a sixth to a country comparatively free of these.”[13]
3. Origen also recognized the role of angels in the salvation of men, “there are also certain angels of God … which are his servants in accomplishing the salvation of men.”[14] In keeping with this idea, John Chrysostom found biblical support (Heb 114) for the concept of ministering angels, “this is the office of Angels, to minister to God for our salvation. So that it is an angelical work, to do all for the salvation of the brethren:”[15]
4. Origen also believed that human beings would one day become like angels: “we know that … the angels are superior to men; so that men, when made perfect, become like the angels.”[16] Biblical support for this comes from Jesus’ own words, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven ….”[17]
5. The early church recognized the exulted status of the angels, but also recognized they were not to be worshipped. Cyprian of Carthage (early 3rd cent – 258) noted that in Revelations 1910 and 229 prohibited the worship of angels.[18] The angels themselves seem concerned about but one thing as Lactantius states, “nor do the angels, inasmuch as they are immortal, either suffer or wish themselves to be called gods: for their one and only duty is to submit to the will of God, and not to do anything at all except at His command.[19]
Not all angels were obedient to God. Some chose to follow Satan instead. The early church discussed why and how this happened.
1. Athenagoras attributed this to their own free will, “Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice … , so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them.” [20]
2. Many recognized the terrible sin of the sons of God who had sexual intercourse with human women. This narrative is told in Genesis 62, 4[WES1] . Again, Athenagoras stated, some angels “fell into impure love of virgins, and were conquered by the flesh . . . . Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, those who are called giants were born. . . . These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wonder the about the world, perform similar actions.”[21]
3. Because of the sinfulness of these rebellious angels, they were cast out of heaven and hurled to earth. Clement gives a more detailed account while citing Jude 6 “’But the angels,’ he says, ‘who did not keep their own pre-eminence . . . but left their own habitation . . . [God] has reserved these to the judgment of the great day, in chains, under darkness.’ He means the place near the earth, that is the dark air. Now by ‘chains,’ he means the loss of the honor in which they stood, and the loss of feeble things.”[22]
4. Irenaeus claimed this sin would ultimately result in eternal damnation: “The Lord has said that there are certain angels of the devil for whom eternal fire is prepared.”[23]
Satan is the head of this angelic rebellion. Irenaeus explains, “for the Hebrew name Satan means an apostate.”[24]
1. Origen explains the original high position of Satan:
We find in the prophet Ezekiel two prophecies written to the prince of Tyre. . . . The second is clearly of such a kind that it cannot be understood about a human being, but some superior power which had fallen away from a higher position and had been reduced to a lower, worse condition. . . . This opposing and evil power was not formed or created that way by nature, but fell from a better to a worse position, and was transformed into a wicked being. . . . [This opposing power] was formerly holy and happy; from which state of happiness it fell from the time evil was found in it, and was hurled to earth, and was not such by nature and creation.[25]
2. Cyprian reasons why Satan fell: “When he saw human beings made in the image of God, he broke forth in jealousy and malevolent envy. . . . How great an evil is that by which an angel fell.”[26]
3. Theophilus explains that sin was in the angelic realm before it entered the human realm: “Because she was in the beginning deceived by the serpent, this Eve became the author of sin. Actually, it was the wicked demon, who is also called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent. He is also called ‘demon’ and ‘dragon’ on account of his revolting against God. For at first he was an angel.”[27]
Now, the early church was keenly aware of spiritual warfare between angels and demons, and this developed into the belief in guardian angels.
1. According to Origen, “every human soul is put in subjection to some angel.”[28]
2. Origen also used various passages of Scripture to reach the conclusion that angels are put in charge of not only individuals, but also individual churches: “To one angel the church of the Ephesians was intrusted; to another, that of the Smyrneans. One angel was Peter’s; another, Paul’s. And so on down to each of the little ones that are in the church. For such and such angels as even daily behold the face of God must be assigned to each one of them. And there must also be some angels who encamp around those who fear God.”[29]
3. Recognizing that spiritual warfare exists, the early church concluded that this angelic guardianship was God’s way of protecting humanity. It is between the times that the evil angels were expelled from heaven and when they will receive final judgment that they wreck havoc here on earth. Tertullian went so far as to claim they unlawfully communicate secret knowledge about magic, astrology, and cosmetics; this last element is targeted at women so they become obsessed with external beauty: “they conferred properly and as it were peculiarly upon women that instrumental mean of womanly ostentation, the radiances of jewels wherewith necklaces are variegated, and the circlets of gold wherewith the arms are compressed, and the medicaments of orchil with which wools are coloured [sic], and that black powder itself wherewith the eyelids and eyelashes are made prominent.”[30]
4. While Origen claims that fallen angels invent errors and false doctrines to prevent the church’s progress,[31] Lactantius, in his The Divine Institutes, claims that by this trickery, evil angels “injure men, whom they strive to turn away from the worship and knowledge of the true Majesty, that they may not be able to obtain immortality, which they themselves have lost through their wickedness..”[32]
Demon possession was also an issue of discussion in the early church.
1. Tertullian offered biblical support for the fact that some people were possessed by demons
a. Mary Magdalene (Mark 169)
b. The Gadarene demonic (Matt. 828-34).
2. Origen describes how demon possession happens:
Now, of wicked spirits there is a twofold mode of operation: i.e., when they either take complete and entire possession of the mind, so as to allow their captives the power neither of understanding nor feeling; as, for instance, is the case with those commonly called possessed, whom we see to be deprived of reason, and insane (such as those were who are related in the Gospel to have been cured by the Saviour); or when by their wicked suggestions they deprave a sentient and intelligent soul with thoughts of various kinds, persuading it to evil, of which Judas is an illustration.[33]
3. The next question then is what is the response to demon possession? Justin Martyr explains that it is exorcism: “We call him [Jesus Christ] Helper and Redeemer, the power of whose name even the demons fear. Even to this day, when they are exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ … they are overcome.”[34] An example of this comes to us by way of what took place in the life of Gregory Thaumaturgus (whose last name means “wonder worker”).[35] On one occasion, he encountered a pagan shrine that was under demonic influence and so he purged it of demons through the powerful name of Jesus Christ.[36]
4. If demon possession is real, as the N.T. teaches and the early church believed, the next question is can a demon possess a believer?
a. Origen noted: “A Christian—I mean a true Christian, who has submitted to God alone and his Word—will suffer nothing from demons. For He is mightier than demons.”[37]
b. Cyprian explains why Origen is right: “For as scorpions and serpents, which prevail on the dry ground, when cast into water, cannot prevail nor retain their venom; so also the wicked spirits, which are called scorpions and serpents, and yet are trodden under foot by us, by the power given by the Lord, cannot remain any longer in the body of a man in whom, baptized and sanctified, the Holy Spirit is beginning to dwell..”[38]
5. God provides his angels to assist in protecting the believer, not only from demons, but from the “prince of this world” as well. Origen affirms this: “God does no less than to set his own angels over his devout servants, so that none of the hostile angels—not even the one who is called the ‘prince of this world’—can do anything against those who have given themselves to God.”[39] Thus, it is proper for Christians to ask for angelic protection over both themselves and the church.
The doctrine of both angels and demons held a very important position in the life of the early church. Many spent their entire lives fending off the attempts of the devil and his minions. Cf. one of the earliest Christian monks, St Antony.[40]
Antony's
Wrestling with the Devil
But the devil, who hates and envies what is good, could not endure to see such a resolution in a youth, but endeavored to carry out against him what he had been wont to effect against others. First of all he tried to lead him away from the discipline, whispering to him the remembrance of his wealth, care for his sister, claims of kindred, love of money, love of glory, the various pleasures of the table and the other relaxations of life, and at last the difficulty of virtue and the labour of it; he suggested also the infirmity of the body and the length of the time. In a word he raised in his mind a great dust of debate, wishing to debar him from his settled purpose. But when the enemy saw himself to be too weak for Antony's determination, and that he rather was conquered by the other's firmness, overthrown by his great faith and falling through his constant prayers, then at length putting his trust in the weapons which are 'in the navel of his belly' and boasting in them— for they are his first snare for the young— he attacked the young man, disturbing him by night and harassing him by day, so that even the onlookers saw the struggle which was going on between them. The one would suggest foul thoughts and the other counter them with prayers: the one fire him with lust, the other, as one who seemed to blush, fortify his body with faith, prayers, and fasting. And the devil, unhappy wight, one night even took upon him the shape of a woman and imitated all her acts simply to beguile Antony. But he, his mind filled with Christ and the nobility inspired by Him, and considering the spirituality of the soul, quenched the coal of the other's deceit. Again the enemy suggested the ease of pleasure. But he like a man filled with rage and grief turned his thoughts to the threatened fire and the gnawing worm, and setting these in array against his adversary, passed through the temptation unscathed.
Augustine believed that the number of fallen angels will be replaced by an equal number of believing human beings:
Thus it
pleased God, Creator and Governor of the universe, that
since the whole multitude of the angels had not perished in this desertion of
him, those who had perished would remain forever in perdition, but those who
had remained loyal through the revolt should go on rejoicing in the certain
knowledge of the bliss forever theirs. From the other part of the rational
creation--that is, mankind--although it had perished as a whole through sins
and punishments, both original and personal, God had determined that a portion
of it would be restored and would fill up the loss which that diabolical
disaster had caused in the angelic society. For this is the promise to the
saints at the resurrection, that they shall be equal to the angels of God.[41]
While
Augustine showed great restraint in speculating about the rankings, and nature
of the angelic realm, Dionysius described in detail his belief regarding the
hierarchy that exists among the angels. He took nine biblical terms—thrones, cherubim, seraphim, authorities,
dominions, powers, angels, archangels, and principalities—that refer to members of the celestial realm and
provided a detailed description of each and its hierarchical ranking.[42]
Because of the authority that was attached to Dionysius' writings, they exerted
an ill-founded influence over key leaders in the church in the following
centuries.
While most of the medieval doctrine regarding angels, Satan, and demons has been attributed to Thomas Aquinas, There were numerous other contributors as well.
1. One of the most influential was John of Damascus[43]. His writing Exposition of the Orthodox Faith greatly influenced the thinking of theologians throughout the middle ages. In his treatment of angels John relied heavily on Dionysius’s hierarchical classification[44]. He also described the fall of Satan. John saw him as created good, but abused his free will and rebelled against God: “[He] became roused against God who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against him; and he was the first to depart from good and become evil.”[45]
2. Anselm of Canterbury[46], was called the founder of scholasticism, a method of critical thought which dominated teaching by the academics (scholastics, or schoolmen) of medieval universities in Europe from about 1100–1500. The focus was employing that method in articulating and defending orthodoxy in an increasingly pluralistic context. It originated as an outgrowth of, and a departure from, Christian monastic schools.
a. In his work, Fall of the Devil, Anselm explains the nature of the fall in greater detail than did John of Damascus[47]. He explains that by Satan’s desire to increase his own happiness he exceeded the limits of justice, seeking to be like God himself. He goes on to explain that Satan was not the only one to rebel, but took a number of angels with him. Thus the angels are divided into those who adhered to justice and enjoy all the goods they will, and those who abandoned justice and are deprived of whatever good they desire.
b. Anselm also agreed with Augustine that the number of fallen angels had to be replaced by an equal number of redeemed human beings; thus the atonement of Jesus Christ became a necessity to restore perfect harmony in the universe.
c. Anselm started with the idea that there were a perfect number of reasoning beings, by which he meant both angels and humans.[48] From that starting point, Anselm reasoned that since the fallen angels would have reduced that number, they would have to be made up and the only source would be from human beings, "because there is no other race from which it can be made complete."[49]
3. Peter Lombard (or Petrus Lombardus) (c. 1100 – July 20, 1160, in Paris) was a scholastic theologian and bishop and author of Four Books of Sentences, which became the standard textbook of theology. This book promoted the doctrine of angels to a major topic of academic study and from this point on the doctrine would be part of the theological training of every student preparing for ministry and teaching.
4. Thomas Aquinas, was an Italian Dominican priest of the Catholic Church, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism, known as Doctor Angelicus. Thomas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood. The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica [50]and the Summa Contra Gentiles. As one of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered the Church's greatest theologian and philosopher.
a. While much of what he wrote contained a considerable amount from the teaching of Aristotle, he also relied on biblical teaching to formulate his doctrine. We might summarize the main points of his teaching on angels as follows:
i. Angels were created at the same time as human beings. They were created with freewill, "but they possess it in a higher degree of perfection than in human beings do."[51]
ii. His definition of angels was philosophically derived. Because God created angels by his intellect, they are completely intellectual beings that lack any physical nature.[52]
iii. Angels can pass instantaneously from place to place—since they do not pass through time or space.[53]
iv. Certain angels are "guardian angels", charged with protecting their assigned human beings.[54] The chief reason for this guardianship was the presence of demons in the world.
b. Aquinas gave significant time and attention to the hierarchy of angels. His starting point was that of Dionysius and John of Damascus. He constructed a map of the spiritual realm. Each hierarchy came with detailed job descriptions for each of the beings:
i. The first hierarchy consists of seraphim, cherubim, and thrones.
ii. The second hierarchy consists of dominions, virtues, and powers.
iii. The third hierarchy consists of principalities (which are "the beginners and leaders" who "preside of the government of people and kingdoms") , archangels (which "hold a middle place" and "announce great things above reason to human beings") and angels (which "simply execute that what is to be done" and "announce small things within the realm of reason to human beings").[55]
c. For Aquinas the future of believers is to be taken up into the order of angels so as to become like them. He believed that according to nature, human being can never like the angels, but according to God's grace, human beings can be transformed to become like them.[56]
d. Aquinas's lengthy, detailed treatment of the doctrine of angels and demons cemented the Catholicism's believe on this matter for centuries to come.
Was a German priest, professor of theology. Luther did little to change the understanding of angel s during the Reformation period. The description he gave of angels was pretty much the traditional one: “An angel is a spiritual creature, a personal being without a body, appointed for the service of the divine [heavenly] church.”[57] He also agreed with the early church concerning guardian angels and how they protect particularly children. He believed good angels were also involved in protecting people from band angels, or demons.
1. Luther was very much aware of spiritual warfare and its effect as it raged around him. This is a portion of a letter written to a 31-year-old friend of Martin Luther’s who had taught Luther’s children, lived in his home and was struggling with spiritual despair.
.
. Excellent Jerome, You ought to rejoice in this temptation of the devil
because it is a certain sign that God is propitious and merciful to you.
You
say that the temptation is heavier than you can bear, and that you fear that it
will so break and beat you down as to drive you to despair and blasphemy. I
know this wile of the devil. If he cannot break a person with his first attack,
he tries by persevering to wear him out and weaken him until the person falls
and confesses himself beaten.
Whenever
this temptation comes to you, avoid entering upon a disputation with the devil
and do not allow yourself to dwell on those deadly thoughts, for to do so is
nothing short of yielding to the devil and letting him have his way.
Try
as hard as you can to despise those thoughts which are induced by the devil. In
this sort of temptation and struggle, contempt is the best and easiest method
of winning over the devil.
Laugh
your adversary to scorn and ask who it is with whom you are talking.
By
all means flee solitude, for the devil watches and lies in wait for you most of
all when you are alone. This devil is conquered by mocking and despising him,
not by resisting and arguing with him. . .
When
the devil throws our sins up to us and declares we deserve death and hell, we
ought to speak thus:
“I
admit that I deserve death and hell.
What
of it?
Does
this mean that I shall be sentenced to eternal damnation?
By no means.
For
I know One who suffered and made a satisfaction in my
behalf.
His
name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Where
he is, there I shall be also.”
Yours,
Martin Luther
2. Probably the most widely known statement given by Luther on spiritual warfare was penned in the hymn, A Mighty Fortress is Our God[58]. It is here that Luther lays forth his belief regarding the works of Satan and his minions.
3. Luther also held a traditional view of the fall of angels. He emphasized the fact that Satan was the head of the rebellion and relied on scripture to define Satan as a “prince of this world” and a “murderer and a liar”.
1. He acknowledged that the teaching of the church—particularly Thomas Aquinas—had fallen into error in its teaching about angels. He cautioned against speculation and urged that attention be paid to Scripture instead.[60] He criticized Dionysus saying: “you would think that the man had come down from heaven, and was relating, not what he had learned, but what he had actually seen.”[61]
2. He exhorts believers to look to Scripture for truthful teaching about angels including the different names used and their roles and characters.[62]
3. Calling into question the common belief about guardian angels, Calvin writes: “There is one passage which seems to intimate somewhat more clearly that each individual has a separate angel. When Peter, after his deliverance from prison, knocked at the door of the house where the brethren were assembled, being unable to think it could be himself, they said that it was his angel (Acts 12:15). This idea seems to have been suggested to them by a common belief that every believer has a single angel assigned to him. Here, however, it may be alleged, that there is nothing to prevent us from understanding it of any one of the angels to whom the Lord might have given the charge of Peter at that particular time, without implying that he was to be his, perpetual guardian, according to the vulgar imagination, that two angels a good and a bad, as a kind of genii, are assigned to each individual. After all, it is not worthwhile anxiously to investigate a point which does not greatly concern us. If any one does not think it enough to know that all the orders of the heavenly host are perpetually watching for his safety, I do not see what he could gain by knowing that he has one angel as a special guardian. Those, again, who limit the care which God takes of each of us to a single angel, do great injury to themselves and to all the members of the Church, as if there were no value in those promises of auxiliary troops, who on every side encircling and defending us, embolden us to fight more manfully.”
Most Protestant Theologians in the post-Reformation period tended to both speculate about angels, demons, and Satan, while at the same time encouraging believers to adhere closely to biblical teaching. Francis Turretin[63] criticized the Aquinas and Catholic scholasticism for;
a. Their teachings on angelic hierarchy. [64]
b. The idea that angels act as mediators in the sense of interceding in the prayers of believers.[65]
c. He also warned against the worship of angels.[66]
So where are we in the modern and post-Modern period? Allison states, “The modern period was characterized by two important developments regarding the doctrine of angels, Satan, and demons.[67] He goes on to explain both the liberal and conservative elements in Christianity.
Liberalism: Spirit of
inquiry where nothing is sacred. It became a radical re-interpretation of the
Christian faith.
1. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (November 21, 1768 – February 12, 1834) was considered by some as the “Father of Modern Liberal Theology”.[68]
a. Treated the doctrine of angels with a seeming indifference. “It can, therefore, continue to have its place in Christian language without laying on us the duty of arriving at any conclusion with regard to its truth.”[69]
b. As
to the devil, Schleiermacher denied any possible existence: “As to the
doctrine of a supreme bad spirit called
the devil, whatever may be the source of the idea--whether in the belief in a
servant of God who announces the evil doings of men, or in oriental dualism
with its doctrine of absolute evil, or in the Jewish view of the angel of
death--it can have no place in Glaubenslehre (a
doctrine of faith).”[70]
2. Other liberal theologians following Schleiermacher not only applauded his teachings, but went even further and dismissed the doctrine as impossible: “If the modern idea of God and conception of the world are right, there cannot possibly be beings of this kind.”[71]
The Conservative View
Reaction to the liberal views brought a dearth of articles on the subject in the early half of the twentieth century. Out of nearly one hundred articles published as The Fundamentals of the Christian faith, only one addressed the issue of angels and demons and it was concerning the doctrine of Satan.[72]
1. Karl Barth (May 10, 1886 – December 10, 1968) was most influential in bring the doctrine of angels, Satan, and demons back into the spotlight in the latter half of the century. He felt the need to avoid to extremes: avoiding the issue altogether and wallowing in mere speculation.
a. Barth focused on Hebrews 114 for his development of the doctrine. He saw the error of earlier theologians being the emphasis on the word “spirits” which gives undue emphasis on the nature of angels. Therefore his place his emphasis on the function of angels, which is to play a mediating role between God and man.[73]
b. Only a brief discussion of demons is provided: “Sinister matters amy be very real, but they must not be contemplated too long or studied too precisely or adopted to intensively . . . . The very thing which the demons are waiting for, especially in theology, is that we should find them dreadfully interesting and give them our serious and perhaps systematic attention.”[74]
2. C. S. Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) reminiscent of Barth’s discussion, commented about the two extremes to be avoided when considering demons: “One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”[75]
3. The post-modern period has failed to heed the warnings provided by Barth and Lewis. While the early liberals tended to deny angels and demons, in the post-modern era we seem to have reverted back to the medieval period with our obsessive appetites. With the release of the film The Exorcist in 1975 there have been a rash of movies and books on the subject. Consider the popular TV series Touched by an Angel, and movies like The Preacher’s Wife and City of Angels. Books like Frank Peretti’s This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness have created a whole new genre of books on spiritual warfare.
4. For a more evangelical approach to the doctrine one might consider Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. 2000), 397, 412.
[2] Genesis 324.
[3] Exodus 2518-21.
[4] Ibid, 2522, Numbers 789.
[5] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, G.W. Bromiley, gen. Ed., vol. 1, p. 125. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1979).
[6] Ibid. p. 124.
[7] Origen, First Principles, preface, 6, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm: in ANF, 4:240. “The teaching of the church has laid down that these beings exist indeed: but that what they are, or how they exist, it has not been explained with sufficient clearness.”
[8]
Tertullian, Apology, 22, http://www.logoslibrary.org/tertullian/apology/22.html.
in ANF,
3:36. The text has been rendered clearer.
[9] Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm: in ANF, 3:523. The context is in relation to the fact that God could take on human form and still be God.
[10] Athenagoras (ca 130 – 190 AD) born in Athens.
[11] Athenagoras, A Pleas for the Christians, 24, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html: in ANF, 2:142.
[12] Irenaeus supported this belief by appealing to Deut 328 (as found in the Septuagint): “When the Most High divided the nations and scattered the children of Adam, he fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.12.9, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xiii.html, Origen also appealed to references in Daniel to the princes of Persia and Greece (Dan 1013,20) for support that angels are over individual nations. Origen, First Principles, 3.3.2, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm, in ANF, 4.335.
[13] Origen, Against Celcus, 5.30, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm, in ANF, 4:556
[14] Origen, First Principles, preface, 10, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm, in ANF, 4:241
[15] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, 3.4, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240203.htm.
[16] Origen, Against Celcus, 5.5, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm, in ANF, 4:509
[17] Matthew 2230.
[18] Cyprian, Treatise, 9.24, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm, in ANF, 5:491.
[19] Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 2.17, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07012.htm, in ANF, 7:65
[20] Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians, 24, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html, in ANF, 2:142
[21] Ibid, 24-25. The text has been rendered clearer.
[22]
Clement of Alexandria, “Comments on the Epistle of Jude,” in Fragments from Cossiodorus,
2: http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/ANF-02/anf02-74.htm#P9993_2824767,
Text has been rendered clearer.
[23] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.41.1: http://carm.org/irenaeus-heresies4-21-41, in ANF 1:524. His reference is to Matt. 2541.
[24] Ibid, 5.21.2: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103521.htm, in ANF, 1:549
[25] Origen, First Principles, 1.5.4: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm, in ANF, 4:258-59. The text has been rendered clearer. His reference is to Ezek. 27 and 28.
[26] Cyprian, Treatise, 10.4: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050710.htm, in ANF, 5:492. Though Cyprian says “as it is written,” I could not find any biblical or apocryphal reference.
[27] Theophilus, To Autolycus, 2.28: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02/Page_105.html, in ANF, 2:105
[28] Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 13.5: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm, in ANF, 10:478. Clement of Alexandria pointed to Matt. 1810 in support of this idea.
[29] Origen, First Principles, 1.8.1: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm, in ANF, 4:265. His references are Rev. 2-3; Acts 1215; Matt. 1810; and Ps. 347.
[30] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 2:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm, in ANF, 4:14-15.
[31] Origen, First Principles, 3.3.4: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm, in ANF, 4:336.
[32] Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 2.17: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07012.htm, in ANF, 7:66.
[33] Origen, First Principles, 3.3.4: : http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm, in ANF, 4:336.
[34] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, 30: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html, in ANF, 1:209.
[35] Gregory Thaumaturgus, (ca. 213 – ca. 270) was a Christian bishop of the 3rd century.
[36] Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, in Paganism and Christianity, 100-425 C.E., ed. Ramsay MacMullen and Eugene N. Lane (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), 207-15.
[37] Origen, Against Celsus, 8.36: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04168.htm, in ANF, 4:653.
[38] Cyprian, Letter, 75.15: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm, in ANF, 5:402.
[39] Origen, Against Celsus, 8.36: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xxxvi.html, in ANF, 4:653.
[40] Athanasius, Life of St. Antony, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2811.htm.
[41] Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, 29: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.txt
[42] Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, 6.2 in Pseudo-Dionysius, 160-61: http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/CelestialHierarchy.html, (search for CHAPTER VI)
[43] Saint John of Damascus (c. 645 or 676 – 4 December 749) was a Syrian monk and priest. Born and raised in Damascus, he died at his monastery, Mar Saba, near Jerusalem. He wrote works expounding the Christian faith, and composed hymns which are still in everyday use in Eastern Christian monasteries throughout the world. He is considered "the last of the Fathers" of the Eastern Orthodox church and is best known for his strong defense of icons. The Catholic Church regards him as a Doctor of the Church, often referred to as the Doctor of the Assumption due to his writings on the Assumption of Mary.
[44] John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.3: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33042.htm
[45] Ibid., 2.4: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33042.htm
[46] Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 21 April 1109), was a Benedictine monk, a philosopher, and a prelate (high ranking member of the clergy) of the church who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109.
[47] Online version not available. Can be ordered from Amazon.com (Search “Anselm Basic Writings”, Thomas Williams (translator).
[48] Anselm, Why God Became Man, 1.16, in Anselm,290.
[49] Ibid.
[50] It is intended as a manual for beginners in theology and a compendium of all of the main theological teachings of the Church. It presents the reasoning for almost all points of Christian theology in the West
[51] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pt. 1, q. 59, art. 3: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050.htm
[52]Ibid., pt. 1, q. 50, art. 1.
[53] Ibid., pt. 1, q.52, art. 3.
[54] Ibid., pt. 1, q. 113, art. 4.
[55] Ibid., pt. 1, q. 108, art. 6.
[56] Ibid., pt. 1, q. 108, art. 8.
[57] Martin Luther, What Luther Says, 1:23: not available online.
[58] Martin Luther, “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”, trans Frederick H. Hedge, in The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration (Waco, Tex.: Word Music, 1986), 26.
[59] John Calvin was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism. Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where he published the first edition of his seminal work The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536.
[60] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.14.4: http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid., 1.14.5.
[63] Francis Turretin (October 17, 1623 - September 28, 1687) Swiss Reformed Theologian.
[64] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giver, 3 vols. In 1 (Philipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1997), 7th topic, 7th q., sec. 2-3, 1:551: Not available online.
[65] Ibid., 7th topic, 9th q., sec. 1-12, 1:560-63.
[66] Ibid., sec. 13, 1:563.
[67] Allison, p. 316
[69] Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928), 156: The online version is a total revision of the original book and the statements attributed to Schleiermacher in the book could not be found in the online version.
[70] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/cross_g/theology.txt
[71] David F. Strauss, Die Christliche Glaubenslehre, 1:160-71
[72] Jessie Penn-Lewis, “Satan and his Kingdom,” in The Fundamentals, vol. 4 (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), 183-98.: not available online, however, a related article can be found at http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=16&contentID=4597&commInfo=20&topic=The%20Fundamentals
[73] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, G. W. Bromley and T. F. Torrance, 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936) vol. III/3, 369.: http://books.google.com/books?id=bYsi-e8vLTcC&lpg=PP1&as_brr=0&rview=1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true
[74] Ibid., 519.
[75] C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1941), 9.
[WES1]Homework, Who does the "sons of God" reference?