Angels And Men
Most people know that the words translated “angel” in both Old and New Testaments simply mean “messenger” (‘malak’ in the Old, ‘angelos’ in the New). If the translators had followed this literal meaning, and put ‘messenger’ each time either of these two words appear in the Biblical texts, we would have had to decide for ourselves, each time we saw the word ‘messenger’, whether the agent was divine or human, which might not have been a bad thing for us. As it is, the translators have tried to make the decision for us by using a ‘special’ word (angel) whenever they think the messenger is a divine rather than a human agent. (This word ‘angel’ is only a transliteration of the ordinary Greek word for ‘messenger’.)
Of course, the translators could well be wrong in some of their choices. For example, the “messenger of Satan” who buffeted Paul was clearly sent by God – why did not the translators put “angel of Satan”? Was it because they were embarrassed by the idea of an angel of Satan doing God’s work, an idea which cut across their ideas about the Devil? And ought they not to have realized when reading “the angels that sinned” in Peter that sin and death are human experiences, and have used the word- ‘messengers’?
I hope to look at both these passages later in the study. Here I only want to make the point that while there are messengers, sent from God to men,who are divine by nature, God’s messengers in Scripture are not always divine, immortal beings. Sometimes in the past God chose men, and used them to carry His messages, to do the kind of work also done by angels.
“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” asks the Lord in Isa. 6:8. And Isaiah answers, “Here am. I; send me.”
Because God’s prophets were the vehicles of the Spirit, carrying God’s message to men, they took their place beside God’s divine messengers, the angels, before Him. They “stood in his counsel” at His Throne; they ministered to menus did the angels in this instance.
In a similar way the priests in Israel came before God’s Throne in the Holy Place to minister on behalf of men; and they, too, are called God’s messengers (Mal.2:7). They may not have been the direct receivers of a message from God; but because they had been appointed by Him to pass on the knowledge of the Word already revealed, they were counted as His messengers. I repeat that there is no difference between the word “messenger” in Malachi and that usually translated “angel”. Both human messenger and angel did one divine work.
An interesting illustration of this work comes in the last chapter of Malachi. “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of Hosts.”
There are two messengers referred to here, yet for neither do the translators use the word ‘angel’. Yet the “messenger of the covenant” was clearly the Angel of God’s Presence who had once hovered over the ark of the covenant, who had left the temple before the Babylonian invasion (Ez.10). And the first messenger in the verse was to do the work of the angel who had gone before Israel in the wilderness (Ex.23:20). But, of course, this first messenger is referred in the gospels to John the Baptist, and so the translators chose ‘messenger’ rather than ‘angel’.
The New Testament quotation of this verse in Malachi shows how angels and men alike can be God’s agents, doing the same work. The great preparation work similar to that done by the angel in the wilderness was in Jesus’ day done by a man. How great was John the Baptist! Notwithstanding…
The Status of Angels
Which bring us to the next point. Specially chosen men, like John,stood with angels, doing angels’ work, hearing God’s word and seeing His face,at least in the face of angels representing God. “Notwithstanding said” Jesus, “He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (John).” As a fellow-minister with angels, John was equal in status (though not in nature) to them.
But in the Kingdom of heaven the least saint rises far above principalities and powers, and everything that is named, not only in earth,but also in heaven.There is thus a great gap (to be manifested in the future) between angels, and sons of God. This is seen first in the case of the Lord Jesus,who was a little lower than the angels in his time on earth, but is now exalted immeasurably above them. And where the Lord goes, his people follow into heavenly places.
Of course, angels, too, may alter their status in the future. All we know is that now angels, although immortal, are limited in many ways, and stand only a little above a true son of God. (See also Mk.13:32, 1 Cor.6:3, 1 Pet.1:12 which show that angels are limited in knowledge.) They are fellow-servants with those who are called to be the sons of God (see Rev.22:9).
Their Nature
However, in nature there is a great gulf between angels and ourselves selves. As fellow-servants, they and we stand in the same position before God; they are co-workers with us ( a truth which should be of much comfort to us). But they are immortal, while we are subject to sin, pain and death. They are spirit beings, freer, living a kind of life which our minds are too limited even to imagine. Perhaps the difference in life between angels and ourselves is similar to the difference in life between men and plant life. Both are alive – but the quality of life is different. A plant could never begin to appreciate what it is like to be a human – and maybe we are similarly too limited to understand much of what angels are like.
All we know we learn from Scripture; two passages tell us that they are ‘spirits’, and immortal:
“Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” (Ps. 104:4);
“Neither can they (the children of the resurrection) die any more: for they are equal unto the angels” (Lk.20:36).
We understand that they are never dying, and made of spirit, described as ‘flaming fire”. They are also “holy” (Mk.8:38, Acts 10:22).
They have been seen by men in the guise of other men (e.g. Gen.18 1&2), or as glorious beings (Jud.13:6); and sometimes they have not been seen at all, even when present.
Their Invisible Presence
This last point raises a question. There is more than one case In Scripture where an angel at first unseen became visible to a particular per-son; as, for example, the angel who was seen by Balaam’s ass, but not at first by Balaam, or the horses and chariots visible to Elisha, but not to his servant at first. Does this mean that angels can appear and disappear at will? My own opinion is that this is the wrong way of approaching the question. Balaam could not see the angel at first, but the ass could.
And the servant’s eyes had to be ‘opened’ before he could see the horses and chariots. Therefore, it seems to me, men cannot usually see angels because of their own limitations. When God wishes to make men see angels, He opens their eyes, alters their physical senses in some way, so that they can see things not normally seen by humans.
Balaam called himself “the man whose eyes are open” (Num.24:3); and the earliest prophets. were called “seers”, those who see. Did all God’s prophets see angels? Certainly many of them did. “I looked, and behold…”; “And I saw…”; “I saw in my vision…”; “I lifted up mine eyes…”; “And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord..” – these are some of the many references to those who had their eyes opened by God, who saw angels, and who received messages from God.
And so we need not think of angels appearing and disappearing like genie, or imagine them as magical in some way, because we do not see them.We have God’s assurance that they are present; we fail to see them because we are made of a different, less perceptive nature, which cannot, without help, see things which are of a spirit nature. The way in which God influenced some men, so that they could see and hear angels, and could even act like angels,will be dealt with, God willing, in the fourth article in this series.
Messengers and Agents
Because angels are by their very nature and creation agents, we may sometimes misunderstand the things they do and say. We can so easily confuse the angel with the one who sent him, or even with the one to whom he was sent. When, for example, we read that the LORD (Yahweh) descended on Mount Sinai in fire, and said, “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt…. Thou shalt have no other gods before me”, it is easy to imagine that God,the Father, actually spoke to Moses. But Stephen tells us that it was an angel who spoke (Acts 7:31). And so we understand that,when this angel said, “I am the LORD”, he was not using the “I” of himself; he was speaking with the voice of God; he was God’s representative.
Most Christadelphians appreciate this point, because of the work of Dr. Thomas on God-manifestation. My own experience with other denominations is that most of them are completely confused over this point. I propose to expand this question in the next article, ‘The Presence of God.’
While we Christadelphians usually understand how angels represent God, I wonder if we give enough thought to the ways in which angels represent men? We know and accept certain things – that the angels who represent humans stand before God (Matt.18:10), and that they carry the prayers of saints before the Throne in heaven (Rev.8:3). Does each saint have one particular angel to represent him? I do not know a complete Scriptural answer to this question.
We know, however, from Scripture that there are different ranks of angels; angels and archangels (since the archangel Michael is in Daniel called ‘prince’, it would seem that ‘prince’ is the Old Testament equivalent of ‘archangel’); and that their rank seems to be related to their work on earth with men.
“Michael your Prince” in Daniel is called “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people” (Dan.12:1). Michael stood for the people of Daniel, i.e. Israel. He represented the whole nation before God. Each Israelite may have had an angel to represent him, and to carry his prayers before God; but the nation as a whole was represented by an angel of higher rank, a “great prince”.
This kind of arrangement seems to be carried over into. New Testament times. In Revelation we read of the angels of the churches, and these seem to be the seven angels who stand before God. Each of the seven churches had its own angel, maybe an archangel, though each believer in the church may also have had an individual angel.
In the letters to the churches the One Like the Son of Man speaks to these seven angels, and says, “I know thy works…”. Surely he is addressing these angels as representatives of their churches. So that when the message is addressed to Laodicea, “I will spue thee out of my mouth”, it is the church, not the angel, which is condemned. The angel merely receives the message as the church’s representative. This question of angels representing men will be looked at again in the 4th and 5th articles. It is hoped that the view which imagines certain angels to be evil demons will find an answer here.
This introduction shows the general lines I hope to follow in this study. Some of it will seem very traditional, largely based on work done by Dr. Thomas and others; some will, perhaps, seem controversial: yet I believe that even when new ideas are being canvassed, they will be found to be only extensions of the ideas which have been held by us from the earliest days, and follow the same traditional principles.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One