Ancient Jewish sources often associated angels with various aspects of the universe that people in the modern world often don't associate angels with, such as stars and weather (e.g., Job 38:7, Revelation 1:20, 12:4-9). Angels were perceived as highly active in the world and responsible for much of what happens in earthly life. It's been suggested that the call for mountains, trees, snow, and other sources to bless and praise God in Psalms 103 and 148 are directed to angels, the angels who have charge over those aspects of life. Supposedly, those references to angels are further evidence that those psalms support prayer to angels. And taking those parts of the psalms as references to angels undermines the appeal to impersonal objects in the psalms as evidence that a rhetorical device (apostrophe) is involved rather than prayer.
That sort of argument can take more than one form. A call for "all you works of His" to bless God (Psalm 103:22) or mountains to praise God (Psalm 148:9), for example, could be taken as referring to both angels and the other entity in question (all God's works or mountains, for example). Or it could be taken as referring only to angels.
Let's consider some problems common to both forms of the argument and problems that are distinct to each form:
- As a general principle, simpler explanations are better than more complicated ones. Taking a reference to cattle or kings as referring to cattle or kings is simpler than taking it as a reference to cattle and angels associated with cattle, kings and angels associated with kings, or just angels.
- When other Biblical passages refer to somebody eating something, should we conclude that an angel is being eaten? If a passage of scripture refers to the death of an animal, should we conclude that an angel has died? Should passages about human sin be taken as referring to angels sinning? If, instead, we distinguish between what's said of those non-angelic entities and the angels associated with them in those other Biblical passages, why shouldn't we make that distinction in the psalms under consideration?
- The entities mentioned in these psalms aren't just associated with angels. They're also associated with other sources, such as God and demons. Should we conclude that sources like God and demons are being referred to when things like all of God's works, sea creatures, and trees are mentioned? To the extent that demons are associated with the entities mentioned in these psalms, should we conclude that the psalms support prayer to demons? Psalm 148:8 refers to wind. In light of Job 1:19, should we take that passage in Psalm 148 as justification for praying to Satan? Demons are often referred to as an animal or associated with animals. Should we conclude that demons are among the animals referred to in Psalms 103 and 148 and that, therefore, prayer to demons is supported by those psalms? Daniel 10:13 refers to a prince of Persia who seems to be an evil spirit opposed to the angels. When Psalms 103:22 and 148:11-12 call on people in general to bless and praise the Lord, should we conclude that it's acceptable to pray to that evil prince of Persia, since the people of Persia are among the people referred to in those psalms, and those people are affiliated with that evil spirit? No. A reference to wind or animals or people is most naturally taken as having wind or animals or people alone in mind, not something else instead or a combination between wind or animals or people and something else. Something else may be involved, but an argument would need to be offered to that effect rather than just appealing to the possibility of it. And there are other factors involved that make it unlikely that such verses are referring to Satan, demons, God, etc. God has authority over all of the entities mentioned in these psalms and is associated with them in other ways, but we don't conclude that the references to mountains, trees, and such are therefore references to God. It would be unusual for the psalmist to call on God to praise God. Similarly, taking the wind in Psalm 148:8 or the references to animals or the references to people as not including a reference to an angel or group of angels is a simpler and better interpretation and makes more sense of other factors involved (other factors discussed elsewhere in this post).
- Even if angels were being referred to alongside mountains, trees, etc., a rhetorical device would still be involved in explaining the involvement of the non-angelic entities. And if a rhetorical device is involved in at least part of the passage, then a simpler, more continuous, better way to take the passage as a whole is as using a rhetorical device throughout the references to the sources in question who are to bless or praise God, including the angels. Moving from not using a rhetorical device to using one is a more complicated, less likely reading.
- Even if we took all of the relevant portions of these psalms as referring only to angels (not angels alongside other entities), prayer to angels wouldn't follow. Both psalms refer to all angels (103:20-21, 148:2). But angels aren't omnipresent or omniscient. There's no reason to think all angels are in our presence or have the relevant knowledge about us at all times or most of the time. Rather, they're often referred to as being sent (Hebrews 1:14), implying their being in one place and not another, and they can be occupied in one setting while being absent in another, including being kept from a particular person (Daniel 10:10-20). They're ignorant of some things (e.g., 1 Kings 8:39), and there's no reason to think they know all they'd need to know in order for the psalmist to be praying to them. I see no reason to think all angels would have been aware of the psalmist's words initially (as he thought of them or as he wrote them). I see no reason to think that any angel had that knowledge during the initial stages of the psalmist's process of communication. Given what scripture tells us about the angels' limits in terms of presence and knowledge, like in the passages cited above, it would be incongruous to expect them to know the psalmist's thoughts before he wrote them or know his words as he was writing them. The angel in Daniel 10 wasn't always in Daniel's presence, and he was delayed in getting to Daniel and communicating to him. If the angel was delayed in communicating to Daniel, why think all angels would immediately know what the psalmists thought and wrote? If the angel of Daniel 10 wasn't immediately giving his information to Daniel, why think all angels would immediately be receiving information like the thoughts of the psalmists and what the psalmists were writing as they wrote? Even if the psalmist had a guardian angel who wasn't distant from him at the time, distant as in the Daniel 10 scenario referenced above, there's no reason to think the angel's activities would have involved something like reading the psalmist's mind or reading his words as he wrote them. There's also no reason to think the psalmists expected the angels to be doing things like reading their minds and reading their writings as they wrote. The references to all angels in these psalms make the most sense as a rhetorical device, one not involving prayer. To whatever extent angels, demons, humans, and whoever else would eventually find out about what the psalmist wrote, prayer wouldn't be involved. Similarly, if I write a book and expect some people to read it, and I expect some angels and demons to find out about what the book says by one means or another, it doesn't follow that I'm praying to humans on earth, angels, and demons.
- Furthermore, the idea of only addressing angels in these psalms makes less sense than addressing more sources. God is worthy of being blessed and praised by more than just angels, as the most straightforward reading of these psalms suggests. Humans are an obvious additional group likely to be included, and they probably are in Psalms 103:22 and 148:11-12. You could focus on one source, such as angels, in a given context, but referring to more than one is more likely upfront and makes better sense of the diversity of language we see in both psalms and the length of the relevant material in Psalm 148.
- And that raises the issue of repetition. Scripture does sometimes repeat things for emphasis or for whatever other reason. But the fact that repetition is used in some contexts doesn't prove that repetition is always the best explanation of a passage. Given the number and variety of calls to praise God in Psalm 148, calling upon a larger rather than smaller number of entities makes more sense.
- Another way to judge which interpretation of these psalms makes the most sense is to look at which interpretation best explains what we see elsewhere. There are many references to prayer to God in the Biblical record, from Genesis onward. The lack of references to praying to angels (and saints) makes more sense if Psalms 103 and 148 are using a rhetorical device that doesn't involve praying to sources other than God.
No comments:
Post a Comment