Sunday, May 07, 2017

Their angels always see the Father's face

10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven (Mt 18:10). 
15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” (Acts 12:15).

Commentators find the reference to "angels" in these passages somewhat puzzling, but they usually settle on guardian angels as the best identification (Carson is a notable exception.) However, the comparative literature they adduce for that identification is scant and tenuous. The closest analogy is the role of the Archangel Michael. However, he's the guardian angel of Israel. One can't extrapolate from that to a doctrine of guardian angels for every individual.

One problem is that Bible scholars, like other scholars, suffer from tunnel vision. They may know a lot about their area of specialization, but not much outside their specialty.

Given widely reported apparitions of the dead generally, as well as crisis apparitions in particular, I think it's more likely that Acts 12:15 reflects popular belief in apparitions of the dead. Belief that, at the moment of death, or shortly thereafter, the decedent may appear to friends and relatives. Or may appear to friends and relatives when they are undergoing a crisis. That fits the context of Acts 12 like a glove. On that view, Rhoda figured that Peter had died in custody, and this was his way of saying good-bye before he went to heaven.  

I'm not using this as a prooftext for apparitions of the dead. It reflects the viewpoint of a figure in the narrative (Rhoda), and not necessarily the viewpoint of the narrator (Luke). Moreover, Rhoda is not an inspired speaker or normative character.

Nevertheless, if this identification is correct, it presumably reflects popular folklore about ghosts and apparitions of the dead. And what would give rise to that belief? Well, maybe real encounters of that kind.

Assuming this interpretation is correct, it sheds light on Mt 18:10. If "angel" is sometimes a synonym for a ghost or apparition of the dead, then that refers to the souls of the departed. And if that's the correct identification, then this may be the most promising prooftext for universal infant salvation. 

An objection to that inference is that Jesus is using "little ones" as a metaphor for Christians. Since, however, he introduces his comparison by using a child as an object lesson, it would seem rather incongruous to exclude literal children from the tally when he presents them as the exemplary standard of comparison which Christians are required to emulate in that regard. But I admit this isn't a knock-down argument.  

9 comments:

  1. This is an intriguing interpretation, but do you know of any evidence that the semantic range of aggelos includes human spirits?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our surviving sample of period Koine Greek is limited and haphazard, so even if there's little available evidence for that meaning, I'm not sure how significant that is. This might be vernacular usage (given the lower class status of the speaker) that isn't well-represented in extant Koine Greek from the period.

      And context is primary inasmuch as context is how we determine the semantic range of words in the first place. Lexicographers infer the meaning of words generally from how they're used in sentences. In that respect, they don't begin with the semantic range of words, but determine the semantic range of words from sample sentences.

      The other thing is that everyone is in the same boat on this issue, for while there's not much attestation for the word including that particular denotation, there's not much attestation for alternative identifications either.

      Delete
    2. The use of "angel," singular, in Acts 23:8, and the way it is juxtaposed with "spirit," is intriguing as a possible parallel to Luke's usage in Acts 12. He is evidently not reporting that the spirit the Sadducees disbelieved in was the Spirit of God; rather it is the human spirit; and plausibly, he is drawing a connection of some kind between that and angel.

      This is pretty speculative, but you can see a plausible interpretation here if "angel" refers to some kind of quasi-sensible form that a spirit takes; a temporary, angel-like mode of existence between death and the resurrection.

      Delete
    3. That's an interesting connection. Definitely worth exploring.

      Delete
    4. Commenting on Acts 23:8, Barrett says: "But the statement that the Sadducees do not believe in angels or spirits, if taken in its most obvious sense, has no parallel, and indeed can have none, for the Sadducees accepted the authority of the written Torah and the Pentateuch contains many references to angelic and spiritual beings, in whose existence the Sadducees must have believed…It is not claimed that the Sadducees denied outright the existence of spiritual beings–they could not have done so–only that they denied the existence of an interim state, in which those who had died existed as angels or spirits, these being more or less synonymous terms (see 1 Enoch 22:3,7; 45:4-5; Mt 22:30; Mk 12.25; Lk 20:36)," C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles (T&T Clark, 1998), 2:1065-66.

      Delete
  2. If there's some truth to that understanding of "messenger", and if [big "if"] it extends back to OT times, that might have some ramifications for the OT phrase "a/Angel of YHVH". Meaning, it might strengthen the case for the [special/unique] Angel of YHVH as being fully divine Himself, viz. the pre-incarnate Christ. Though, I do think from the OT and NT there are some cases where the phrase "angel of YHVH/kurios" refers to lesser finite being(s) (e.g. Matt. 1:20).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since, according to my proposal, "angel" is being used in these two passages as a synonym for disembodied human souls, that doesn't cohere with the connection you're attempting to make.

      Delete
    2. " For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."- 1 Cor. 2:11

      It seems to me that Paul wasn't averse to making an analogy between the bipartite or tripartite nature of man and the nature of God. Just as John seems to distinguish between God and God's Reason/Logos. Just as the OT refers to the Holy Spirit as God's "breath". I was thinking that maybe something similar is happening with the concept of the "Angel of YHVH". But admittedly, it's a stretch.

      Delete
    3. There's noting tripartite in 1 Cor 2:11. Rather, it's saying the Spirit of God is to God as the soul is to a human. It's a powerful statement regarding the deity and personality of the Spirit.

      Delete