De Moor IX:15: The Office of Angels, Part 1

[We could use your help: If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The Office of the Good Angels is the Ministry of God, the same that belonged of old to all Angels, concerning which above in § 12; but which the Good Angels alone willingly furnish.

However, to this is incorrectly referred, 1.  The perpetual Prefecture of certain Regions or Men, to each of which the Papists attribute their own Angels as Custodians.  Thus the Gentiles of old imagined, that to each Man was given his own Guardian Spirit or Dæmon:  thus MENANDER[1] in AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS,[2] Rerum Gestarum, book XXI, chapter XIV, For the Theologians maintain, that with all men at their birth, but with certainty of fate preserved, are associated certain divinities of this sort, as directors of their conduct; but they have been seen by only a very few, whom their manifold merits have exalted.  And this has been shown by oracles and eminent writers; among the latter is also the comic poet Menander, in whom are found these two senarii:

Ἅπαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ συμπαρίσταται

Εὐθὺς γενομένῳ μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίο, that is,

Beside every man a dæmon stands,

as soon as he is born, as a mystagogue of life

See also what additional things follow in that very passage of Ammianus, and to the words cited compare the notes of LINDENBROGIUS[3] and VALESIUS.[4]  ARRIANUS,[5] in Epicteto,[6] book I, chapter XIV:  Ἐπίτροπον ἑκάστῳ παρέστησε τὸν ἑκάστου δαίμονα, καὶ παρέδωκε φυλάττειν αὐτὸν αὐτῷ, καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοίμητον καὶ ἀπαραλόγιστον, that is, over each one set he (Jupiter) an overseer, his own dæmon, and delivered the man to the dæmon for protection; and this dæmon is sleepless and impossible to deceive.  This doctrine is mentioned to have belonged to Plato, at least in appearance, as STEUCHUS EUGUBINUS renders this out of his writings, de Perenni Philosophia, book VIII, chapter XXIII:  In the fourth book, says he, de Legibus he writes these things:  Saturn, recognizing that human nature, should all things be made subject to its rule, could not avoid resorting to injustice and iniquity in governing, ἐφίστη βασιλέας γε καὶ ἄρχοντας τὴν πόλεσιν ἡμῶν, οὐκ ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλὰ γένους θειοτέρου τε καὶ ἀμείνονος δαίμονας, set Kings and Princes over our cities, not men, but Dæmons of a more divine and superior race.  Then he subjoins:  …a merciful God set a more excellent race of Dæmons over us….  In Politico he also says verbatim:  …All the partitioned parts of the world, and even the animals, generally and flocks, the Dæmons, like divine shepherds, have divided among themselves, each of which is sufficient for governing his province, which God has entrusted to them.  The same is handed down by tradition among the Jews:  see À LENT, de moderna Theologia Judaica, chapter VIII, § 15, 16, where in § 15 he writes, To the individual peoples and regions they assign Angels as prefects and Governors, etc.  And they confirm their doctrines concerning the government of Angels both out of Deuteronomy 32:8, and out of Daniel 10:13.  Now, he cites Don JOSEPH JACHIADES[7] on Daniel 10:13, where these things are found:  To the seventy people correspond seventy princes in heaven, and thus the Israelites have one Prince, namely, Michael.  But JACHIADES in the place cited observes, that there is difference between the prince of Israel in the governing of his people, and the princes of the other peoples:  The princes of the other peoples are also their gods, and they operate upon them after the likeness of gods, and they are not governed except by their own princes.  But Israel is directed by the providence of God; and, although Michael governs them, yet this is done according to the prescription of his Creator, without whose permission he never attempts anything, small or great.  In which manner the Jew is injurious to the divine government of the Gentiles.  À LENT proceeds from there, § 16, They likewise assign a certain guardian spirit to each and every man of their nations, which Angel is the Custodian, abiding continually in the presence of that man, and keeping him, but, if the man should sin, withdrawing from him for a brief time.  Concerning this Tutelary Angel the books of the modern Hebrews are full, not to mention now those of the Ancient Jews.  Thus their Doctors place Angels among mortals, who ensure that the commandments are observed.  They call the Angel Raziel the Teacher of Adam,[8] etc.  Certainly, that a particular Guardian Angel has been set both over certain republics, and over individual men, especially the pious, is also the opinion of many of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, one may learn from HUGO GROTIUS[9] on Matthew 18:10 and GERHARD JOHANN VOSSIUS in de Idololatria, book I, chapter VII, pages 20b, 21a, who show themselves not to be averse to this opinion.

A great many Papists maintain the same, and upon this hypothesis build their error concerning the Invocation of Angels, like certain tutelary gods, because, as our perpetual Custodians, they are most certainly to be invoked, who both know our necessities and intercede for us in particular.  While in addition MALDONATUS[10] was thinking it to be likely, that, as to individual men God appointed good Angels to protect them, so against individual men the Devil sets Demons to assail them; which is able to be compared with the good and evil Guardian Spirits of the Gentiles:  see SPANHEIM’S Vindiciarum Evangelicarum on Matthew 18:10, opera, tome 3, columns 484-487.  However, HERMAS, in his Shepherd,[11] book II, mandate VI, chapter II, already of old asserted that two Guardian Spirits or Angels were assigned to each man, one of equity, the other of iniquity:  but, that some other Fathers afterwards followed Hermas in this, GROTIUS notes on Matthew 18:10.

Hugo Grotius

Now, as I advised above, that Grotius and Vossius show themselves attached to this opinion concerning Tutelary Angels, so ZANCHI, tractatu de Angelis, is also of the same opinion, opera, tome 3, part I, book III, chapter XV, columns 142-145, where he defends these Theses, 1.  That to each elect man is assigned by God a certain and particular Angel, who is his perpetual keeper and companion, from birth all the way to the end of his life:  but, that a multiplicity are sometimes sent extraordinarily to him for the sake of greater consolation according to the good pleasure of God, it is probable, and quite agreeable with the Sacred Books.  2.  That over individual provinces are ordinarily set certain Angels:  but that a multiplicity and diversity are sent extraordinarily to them, appears probable and agreeable with the Sacred Books.  Similarly MACCOVIUS,[12] Locis communibus, chapter XL, thesi IV:  We assert that ordinarily to each elect man a certain and particular Angel is assigned by God, who is perpetually his keeper and companion, from birth all the way to the end of his life.  Neither is the matter of itself of great importance, as SPANHEIM observes, in the place cited, column 485, although he himself defends the negative with our AUTHOR and most of Our Men; α.  On account of the Silence of Scripture, which, although speaking on so many occasions of the Ministry of Angels, especially concerning believers, nowhere makes mention of an Angel as a Keeper of this sort; which it would not have passed over in silence, being so useful for the consolation of believers, it to each of them were appointed a certain Angel as a Keeper from birth, who would attend them continually.  But if for good reason it is judged, that nothing is to be affirmed concerning the Office of Angels beyond Sacred Scripture; neither may one distribute the government of entire Kingdoms among them, without Scripture indicating this.  β.  On account of the rather indiscriminate extension and various determination of the Angelic Ministry in Scripture, Hebrews 1:14, which passage sufficiently teaches, that individual Angels are not bound to certain men, but are sent indiscriminately to various ministries, now here and now there.  γ.  On account of the Many Angels sometimes appointed to One, Psalm 91:11; 2 Kings 6:17, and the One sometimes appointed to the Many, Psalm 34:7; 2 Kings 19:35.

Objection α:  in Deuteronomy 32:8, where the bounds of the peoples are said to have been set according to the number of the Angels of God in the Septuagint, ἔστησεν ὅρια ἐθνῶν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Angels of God.  Response:  1.  This reading is faulty, which perhaps is indeed able to show, that already of old that opinion concerning the Angels as prefects over individual peoples and nations was thriving in the writings of many among the Jews, upon which matter Sirach deserves to be consulted, perhaps alluding to our text with the following verse in Ecclesiasticus 17:17;[13] nevertheless, it is not able to be proven, that this opinion was inculcated by Moses.  For, although this version is everywhere followed by the Fathers, Greek and Latin, yet the Original Text reads otherwise, where in the place of the ἀγγέλοις Θεοῦ, angels of God, it has ‎בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃, the children of Israel, which reading is also followed by Aquila,[14] Symmachus,[15] and Theodotion.[16]  But this is maintained by Moses, that God in the distribution of lands among men after the Flood, set the bounds of the other peoples in such a way that in that matter He always had a special regard to the children of Israel, and the other peoples were accordingly accommodated to the number of the children of Israel, to whom He was determining the land of Canaan to be inhabited by hereditary lot.  Also to this there was a special regard in this, that the land, which God had destined for Israel as a possession, fell first to the posterity of Canaan, who according to the prophecy of Noah were going to serve the Shemites,[17] especially since the Semitic seed of Israel invaded the land of Canaan, and either destroyed or expelled, or oppressed or subjugated, the Canaanite people.  But, whence the Septuagint translators took that reading of the ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ, angels of God, in the place of ‎בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃, the children of Israel, is all the same to us and gives us very little concern.  In our AUTHOR’S Commentario on this passage, page 798, you will see that there are not wanting those that think that in the place of ‎בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃, the children of Israel, the Septuagint translators read  ‎בְּנֵי אֵל, the sons of God; since in their Codex the letters ישר were able to have been blotted out or to have evaded their eyes, etc.; but it has ever been well-known that Angels also go by the name of the Sons of God in Sacred Scripture, whence then they interpreted the Sons of God by the Angels of God.  The Most Illustrious VENEMA,[18] in his notis Vitringæ on Deuteronomy 32, conjectures instead, that the Septuagint translators read אֵל יָשָׁר בְּנֵי, the righteous sons of God, with יִשְׂרָאֵל/Israel divided into two words, besides another conjecture, which he additionally suggests, to be found on page 77.  The Most Illustrious VRIEMOET, Thesi Scripturæ CCXXIX, conjectures, that they conceived of those two words, בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃, the children of Israel, through a certain disjunction, and with one or the other י/yod not attended to, as if it were אֵל שַׂר בְּנֵי, the sons of the prince of God, that is, of the Archangel.  The Most Illustrious ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, Section VIII, chapter III, § 5, believes, that the Septuagint translators, in reading ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ, the angels of God, instead of the υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, the children of Israel, made use of this artifice, fearing, lest, if, as it was fitting, they posited, that God set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, by this Translation and the matter itself they would have offended the King of Egypt, who was supposing that at least he was possessing his own sovereignty by right, and was able to lay claim to and occupy that of the neighboring peoples by arms:  while Aquila and Symmachus, because in their own age they had nothing to fear from the Kings of Egypt, translated the words correctly.  On this point, let each one delight in his own ingenuity.

Objection β:  The Narration concerning the Prince of the Kingdom of the Persians and of Greece, Daniel 10:13, 20; from which, following some of the Ancients, the chief of the Papists affirm a Tutelary Angel given to each Kingdom; see SPANHEIM in the passage cited above, column 487.  This GROTIUS, in the passage cited above, holds to be probable.  But also BEZA on 2 Peter 2:11 thinks it to be evident from this pericope of Daniel, the Good Angels are put in charge of the keeping of kingdoms, even the kingdoms of the impious, as the ministers of God.  Responses:  1.  This passage is not able to be understood of Good Angels, since between Good Angels, perfectly holy and all equally forward in obeying the divine will and the authority of the Archangel Christ, no conflict is able to obtain, still less an assault upon the Archangel Michael, the Son of God.  2.  At most, if it were necessary to think of Angels here, we would have to understand Evil Angels, seducing those peoples with the permission of God, as our AUTHOR also teaches, Exercitationibus Miscellaneis VII, text XIX, page 360.  3.  But, that regard is here paid to Human Captains, is most aptly observed by TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question VIII, § 5, and by SPANHEIM, in the passage cited, columns 485, 487; and that is understood in verse 13 either King Cyrus,[19] or Cambyses Prince of Persia, who, with his father Cyrus advancing into Asia against the Scythians, administrated the kingdom,[20] and he stood against the Angel, that is, he was an impediment to the building of the temple, which Cyrus had granted by Edict.[21]  That by these counsels there was resistance to be offered to him, the Angel tells Daniel, and that Cambyses had to be restrained, lest he pour out his fury upon the people of God:  indeed, he says that the resistance of this one was so powerful that Michael, the first of the Princes and Prince of the people of God, the eternal Son of God, greater than Angels and princes, came to his help.  While in verse 20 that Angel speaking with Daniel says, that by the command of God his effort against the King of Persia was to be continued, in restraining his cruelty against the people of God; in the meantime the Prince of Javan, that is, of Greece,[22] namely, Alexander the Great, would come, who was destined to overthrow the Persian kingdom.

Objection γ:  the Angels of the Churches, Revelation 1:20, through whom ORIGEN and others understood heavenly Angels.  Responses:  1.  The human Ministers of the Churches are understood, which sort are justifiably called Angels, as the Legates of God; it is fitting that they be similar to the heavenly Angels in various perfections, and that they place these before themselves for imitation.  And, as these are called Angels of God from the sending of God, Haggai 1:13;[23] Malachi 2:7;[24] so they are able rightly to be called the Angels of the Churches from the object of their care, 2 Corinthians 4:5.  2.  It is evident that it is not able to be contemplated here concerning heavenly Angels, since we see in Revelation 2 and 3, that to these Angels the judgment and commandments of the Lord Jesus concerning the state of the Churches committed to their care and their duty, with the ministry of a man, namely, the Apostle John, intervening, had to be signified in writing; that does not at all agree with an Angel properly so called.

Objection δ:  1 Corinthians 11:10.  I Respond:  If by ἀγγέλους/ angels in this place heavenly Angels come to be understood, hence indeed it would be evident that Angels are also determined for the inspection of the Churches; and that, when they are present at sacred rites, they become witnesses of the piety or impiety, of the humility or impudence, of the men present there, whom they ought for this reason to reverence:  but nothing is able to be taken from this in favor of the committing of Churches or individual men to the perpetual care of individual, and always the same, Angels.  But compare what was taught concerning the sense of this text in § 12.

Objection ε:  Matthew 18:10, in which Angels of Little Ones are mentioned.  Response:  1.  The Lord does not assert, that to individual Little Ones Angels are given as Guardians, much less is it spoken of individual men without any exception; but even to these Little Ones, who were believing in Christ, He indefinitely assigns Angels as ministers, and by this argument He dissuades anyone from despising and scandalizing these Little Ones.  2.  No more from this indefinite saying of the Lord, οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν, their angels, is it permissible to gather that individual Little Ones are under the guardianship of particular Angels, or that even to each man from his birth onward is attached an Angelic Guardian; but if from the saying of the Lord, Isaiah 3:4, I am going to give children to be their Princes, you infer such, then to individuals of the people He is going to given individual children to be Princes.  Thus it would be altogether absurd, says SPANHEIM in the passage cited, column 485, if in speech furnished concerning disciples, citizens, servants, children, captives, or others, one should say in this manner, their Instructors, their Consuls, their Masters, their Fathers, their Guardians, their Tribunes; by this very thing anyone should think to individual disciples, citizens, servants, sons, captives, soldiers, to ascribe individual Ephors, Consuls, Masters, Fathers, Guardians, Captains, and Tribunes.  3.  Christ does not say, that the Angels are always present with the Little Ones, but that they do always behold the face of the Father which is in heaven, to await and to receive their God’s commandments, as His attendants, His ministers, to be sent for the keeping τῶν μικρῶν, of the little ones, with the matter itself thus requiring.

Objection ϛ:  the Example, a.  whether of Jacob in Genesis 48:16, but who by the Avenging or Redeeming Angel understands Christ Himself; see above, § 11:  b.  or of Peter in Acts 12:15, but to which our AUTHOR rightly responds, 1.  that, If this passage is to be understood of a heavenly Angel, it is to be observed, that we do not find here the words of the Holy Spirit, nor a declaration of the faith of the whole Christian Church of that time; but only the Opinion of certain ones in that house, the doors of which Peter was knocking, who were able even now to be less fully imbued in Christian doctrine, so that some errors of Judaism were yet adhering to them.  Neither does Luke then approve their words, which he relates historically.  2.  That at that time there was a special case of Necessity and Crisis, since Peter was being kept in Prison; and so, even if those that thus spoke believed that at that time an Angel was present with Peter, comforting and releasing him, which sort of comforting Angel was present with the Lord at Gethsemane,[25] and just as in actuality Peter was now led forth from prison by the Angel of the Lord, verses 7-11; it does not follow from this that they believed that a certain and perpetual Guardian from the choir of Angels was assigned to Peter.  3.  The passage is not necessarily explained of a good and heavenly Angel.  Perhaps, says our AUTHOR, they thought it to be some Specter, Matthew 14:26.  But against the understanding of this passage either of a good Angel, or of a Specter, appears to be able to be posited, that those disciples could scarcely have persuaded themselves, that a spirit of this sort, in human form, indeed appearing in the likeness of Peter himself, would knock on the closed doors, and would need a helper who might open them.  Therefore, the passage is also able to be explained of some human Messenger, which sort we saw in § 11 also to go by the name of Angels, so that the Angel of Peter might be שליחו, his Messenger,[26] a Messenger sent by Peter, who might report concerning Peter in Peter’s name; as those that are in chains are wont often to make use of Messengers, who might relate in what state are their affairs.  Neither is it any objection, that the damsel Rhoda is said to have recognized the voice of Peter:  since in this she did not win confidence:  and the disciples were able to think, that, with the mention of Peter having been introduced by Peter’s Messenger, that damsel had misunderstood the matter.

On this controversy consult CALVIN’S Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, chapter XIV, § 7; SPANHEIM’S Dubia Euangelica, part III, Doubts LXI, LXII, pages 273-279; VOETIUS’ de Angelis Tutelaribus, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 897-905; and ODÉ, who most thoroughly handles this argument, Commentario de Angelis, section VIII, chapters III, IV, where in chapter III, pages 771-845, he discourses concerning the Ministry that Angels render to God in the administration of the World and of the Church, and in chapter IV, pages 845-895, concerning the Ministry that Angels render to Men.

[1] Menander (342-291 BC) was a Greek playwright.  He wrote more than a hundred comedies, but they survive only in fragments.

[2] Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330-c. 390) was Roman noble, soldier, and historian.  His Res Gestæ covered the period of Roman history from the reign of Nerva in 96 to the Battle of Adrianople in 378; unhappily, only the last portion (353-378) survives.

[3] Friederich Lindenbrog (1573-1648) was a German classical scholar and statesman.  He published a critical and annotated text of Ammianus Marcellinus’ Rerum Gestarum in 1609, which was a significant improved upon the 1533 Basel edition.

[4] Henricus Valesius (1603-1676) was a French classical scholar.  Continuing the work of Lindenbrog, in 1651 he published a critical and annotated edition of Ammianus Marcellinus’ Rerum Gestarum.  His younger brother, Adrien Valesius, produced an improved second edition in 1681.

[5] Lucius Flavius Arrianus of Nicomedia was a second century Greek historian and a Roman senator.

[6] Epictetus (c. 50-c. 135) was a Greek Stoic philosopher.

[7] Joseph ben David ibn Yahya (c. 1494-1539) was an Italian, Sephardic rabbi and Biblical scholar.  He wrote on almost the entire Hebrew Bible, include an extensive commentary on the Book of Daniel (Perush al Sefer Daniel).

[8] In the Jewish mystical tradition, Raziel is the Archangel of Secret Knowledge and Wisdom.  The Sefer Raziel Ha-Malakh records that Raziel, standing near to the Most High and recording everything discussed in a book, visited Adam and Eve upon their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and gave the fallen protoplasts the book of secrets, so that they might find their way back to God.

[9] Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) distinguished himself in the field of international law, but he was interested in many fields of learning, including Christian apologetics, theology, and Biblical criticism and exegesis.  He was a strict practitioner of the historical-contextual method of exegesis, and both his methods and conclusions are on display in his influential Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum.  He is also remembered for his role in the Arminian controversy, siding with the Remonstrants, and for his governmental theory of atonement.

[10] Juan de Maldonado (1534-1583) was a learned Spanish Jesuit, excelling in philosophy, exegesis, and Counter-Reformation theology.  Pope Gregory XIII had such confidence in his learning that he appointed him to superintend the publication of the Septuagint. 

[11] The Shepherd of Hermas was written in either the late first century, or mid-second century.  The work consists of five visions, twelve mandates, and ten parables, in which the Church is called to repentance; the method of instruction is allegorical.  It was considered canonical by some early Christians.

[12] Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) was a Polish Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1615-1644).  Maccovius’ supralapsarianism, use of scholastic terminology in metaphysics, and loose living, brought him into conflict with his colleague, Sibrandus Lubbertus.  Lubbertus drew up fifty charges against Maccovius, and those charges were taken up at the Synod of Dordt, at which Maccovius was acquitted of heresy, by admonished to be more cautious and peaceable.

[13] Ecclesiasticus 17:17:  “For in the division of the nations of the whole earth he set a ruler over every people; but Israel is the Lord’s portion…”

[14] Aquila of Sinope produced his Greek version of the Old Testament in the second century of the Christian era.  Aquila’s translation champions the cause of Judaism against Christianity in matters of translation and interpretation.  The product is woodenly literalistic.

[15] Symmachus (second century) produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which survives only in fragments.  Symmachus’ work is characterized by an apparent concern to render faithfully the Hebrew original, to provide a rendering consistent with the Rabbinic exegesis of his time, and to set forth the translation in simple, pure, and elegant Septuagint-style Greek.

[16] Theodotion was a linguist and convert to Judaism, who translated the Hebrew Scripture into Greek in the middle of the second century AD.  His translation appears to be an attempt to bring the Septuagint into conformity with the Hebrew text.

[17] Genesis 9:26.

[18] Herman Venema (1697-1787) was a student of Campegius Vitringa, specializing in Old Testament exegesis and Church History.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1723-1774).

[19] Cyrus the Great ruled the Persian Empire from 559 to 530 BC.

[20] Cambyses served as co-regent in 538, but succeeded Cyrus and reigned from 530 to 522 BC.

[21] See 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23; Ezra 1; 3:7; 4:3; 5:13-6:22.

[22] Daniel 10:20:  “Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia:  and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia (‎שַׂר־יָוָן) shall come.”

[23] Haggai 1:13:  “Then spake Haggai the Lord’s messenger (‎מַלְאַ֧ךְ יְהוָ֛ה, the angel of Jehovah) in the Lord’s message (‎בְּמַלְאֲכ֥וּת יְהוָ֖ה) unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the Lord.”

[24] Malachi 2:7:  “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth:  for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts (‎מַלְאַ֥ךְ יְהוָֽה־צְבָא֖וֹת, the angel of Jehovah Sabbaoth).”

[25] Luke 22:43.

[26] שָׁלַח signifies to send.