Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

Sketches of Angelology in Robinson's Bibliotheca Sacra, No. 1, 1843. L. F. Voss, Zeitschrift f. Luther. Theologie, 1855. Lücke in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851, review of Martensen. Twesten, transl. in Bibliotheca Sacra, by H. B. Smith, vols. i. and ii. 1844, 1845. Smith's Dicty. Herzog, etc.]

The doctrine of angels, the devil, and demons, forms an important appendix to the statements respecting creation, providence, and the government of the world; partly because the angels (according to the general opinion) belong as creatures to the creation itself; partly because, as others conceive, they took an active part in the work of creation, or are the agents of special providence. The doctrine of the devil and demons also stands in close connection with the doctrine of physical and moral evil in the world.

$ 50.

The Angels.

Though the primitive Church, as Origen asserts, did not establish any definite doctrine on this subject (1), we nevertheless meet with several declarations respecting the nature of angels (2). Thus many of the earlier Fathers rejected the notion that they took part in the work of creation (3), and maintained, on the contrary, that they are created beings and ministering spirits (4). In opposition to the doctrine of emanation and of æons (5), even bodies were ascribed to them, of finer substance, however, than human bodies (6). The idea of guardian angels was connected in part with the mythical notion of the genii (7). But no sure traces are to be found during this period of a real cultus of angels within the pale of the Catholic Church (8).

(1) De Princip. procm. 10 (Opp. i. p. 49, Redep. p. 95): Est etiam illud in ecclesiastica prædicatione, esse angelos Dei quosdam et virtutes bonas, qui ei ministrant ad salutem hominum consummandam; sed quando isti creati sint, vel quales aut quomodo sint, non satis in manifesto designatur.

HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. 1.

N

(2) "The doctrine respecting angels, though a very wavering element of the patristic dogmatics, is yet handled with manifest predilection," Semisch, Just. Mart. ii. s. 339. Comp. Athenagoras, Leg. 24, and note 1 to the next section.

(3) Iren. i. 22 and 24 (against the opinions of Saturninus and Carpocrates), comp. ii. 2, p. 117: Si enim (Deus) mundi fabricator est, angelos ipse fecit, aut etiam causa creationis eorum ipse fuit. iii. 8. 3: Quoniam enim sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive throni, sive dominationes ab eo, qui super omnes est Deus, et constituta sunt et facta sunt per verbum ejus. Comp. also iv. 6. 7: Ministrat ei (patri) ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, i.e. Filius et Spir. S., verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. Comp. Duncker, s. 108 ff., and Baur, Trin.-Lehre, s. 175. The latter, from the manner in which the earliest Fathers frequently bring the angels into close connection with the persons of the Trinity, sees evidence that their views respecting this great mystery itself were yet very indefinite. Origen, however, teaches with reference to the passage in Job xxxviii. 7, in his Comm. on Matt. xviii. 27 (Opp. iii. p. 692), that angels, although created, yet belong to an earlier creation.

(4) “Justin M. regards the angels as personal beings who possess a permanent existence," Semisch, ii. s. 341. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128: "Otɩ μèv ovv eioìv äyyeλoi, kaì ảeì pévovtes, καὶ μὴ ἀναλυόμενοι εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗπερ γεγόνασιν, ἀποδέδεικται. . . . Athenagoras, Leg. c. 10: Πλῆθος ἀγγέλων καὶ λειτουργῶν φαμεν, οὓς ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ δημιουργὸς κόσμου θεὸς διὰ τοῦ παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ λόγου διένειμε καὶ διέταξε περί τε τὰ στοιχεῖα εἶναι καὶ τοὺς οὐρανοῦς καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν AVTỆ Kai TηV TOÚTWV EȧTažíaV. Comp. c. 24, and Clem. Strom. vi. 17, p. 822, 824; according to him, the angels have received charge over provinces, towns, etc. Clement, however, distinguishes the ǎyyeλos (singular), nin, from the other angels, and connects him in some degree with the Logos, though assigning to him an inferior rank. Comp. Strom. vii. 2, p. 831-833. He also speaks of a mythical Angelus Jesus, Pæd. i. 7, p. 133, comp. G. Bulli, Def. Fidei Nic. § 1, c. 1 (de Christo sub angeli forma apparente). Opp. Lond. 1703, fol. p. 9. [Pye Smith, Scripture Test. to the Messiah, i. p. 445-464.]-On the employments of angels, Origen can already

say what sphere is assigned to each angel. Raphael has to do with diseases, Gabriel with war, Michael with prayer, De Princip. i. 8. 1. The angels are the invisible yewpyoi and oikovóμo who rule in nature, Contra Celsum, viii. 31 (Opp. i. p. 764), ibid. v. 29 (Opp. i. p. 598), and Hom. xii. in Luc. (Opp. iii. p. 945).

(5) Philo had already transformed personal angels (e.g. the cherubim) into divine powers, see Dähne, 227 ff. Justin M. also informs us, that in his time some had compared the relation in which the angels stand to God to that which exists between the sun and its beams (analogous to the Logos); but he decidedly rejects this opinion, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128. Comp. Tert. Adv. Prax. c. 3 (in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity): Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Millies millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant ei: nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia virtutum procuratur, etc.

(6) Justin M. attaches most importance to the body of angels as analogous to that of man. Their food is manna, Ps. lxxviii. 25; the two angels who appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 1 ff.) differed from the Logos who accompanied them, in partaking of the food set before them, in reality and after the manner of men, comp. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 57, and Semisch, ii. s. 343. As regards their intellectual powers and moral condition, Justin assigns an inferior position to the angels, Semisch, s. 344, 345. Tertullian points out the difference between the body of Christ and that of the angels, De Carne Christi, c. 6: Nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte suscitaretur. Si nunquam ejusmodi fuit causa angelorum corporandorum, habes causam, cur non nascendo acceperint carnem. Non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci. . . . Igitur probent angelos illos, carnem de sideribus concepisse. Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. Constat, angelos carnem non propriam gestasse, utpote naturas substantiæ spiritalis, et si corporis alicujus, sui tamen generis; in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus videri et congredi cum hominibus posse. Igitur, cum relatum non sit, unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui

.

nostro, non dubitare, hoc esse proprium angelicæ potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. . . Sed et, si de materia necesse fuit angelos sumpsisse carnem, credibilius utique est de terrena materia, quam de ullo genere cœlestium substantiarum, cum adeo terrenæ qualitatis extiterit, ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. Tatian, Or. c. 15: Δαίμονες δὲ πάντες σαρκίον μὲν οὐ κέκτηνται, πνευματικὴ δέ ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἡ σύμπηξις, ὡς πυρὸς, ὡς ἀέρος. But these ethereal bodies of the angels can be perceived only by those in whom the Spirit of God dwells, not by the natural man (the psychical). In comparison with other creatures they might be called incorporeal beings, and Ignat. ad Trall calls them ἀσωμάτους φύσεις. Clement also says, Strom. vi. 7, p. 769, that they have neither ears, nor tongues, nor lips, nor entrails and organs of respiration, etc. Comp. Orig. Princip. in proœm. § 9, who, however, also wavers between corporeal and incorporeal existence. On the question, whether the Fathers taught the spiritual nature of the angels at all, see Semisch, ii. s. 342. The moral nature of the angels was also debated, and the question discussed, whether they were good essentially, only by habit, freely exercised. Origen held decidedly the latter view, De Princip. i. 5. 3.

or

(7) This idea is already found in the Shepherd of Hermas, lib. ii. mand. vi. 2: Δύο εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι μετὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰς τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ εἰς τῆς πονηρίας· καὶ ὁ μὲν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄγγελος τρυφερός ἐστι καὶ αἰσχυντηρὸς καὶ πρᾷος καὶ ἡσύχιος. Οταν οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, εὐθέως λαλεῖ μετὰ σοῦ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, περὶ ἁγνείας, περὶ σεμνότητος καὶ περὶ αὐταρκείας, καὶ περὶ παντὸς ἔργου δικαίου, καὶ περὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἐνδόξου. Ταῦτα πάντα ὅταν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, γίνωσκε, ὅτι ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης μετὰ σοῦ ἐστιν. Τούτῳ οὖν πίστευε καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγκρατὴς αὐτοῦ γενοῦ. Ὅρα οὖν καὶ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς πονηρίας τὰ ἔργα. Πρῶτον πάντων ὀξυχολός ἐστι καὶ πικρὸς καὶ ἄφρων, καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ καταστρέφοντα τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ· ὅταν αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, γνῶθι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. (Frag. ex doctr. ad Antioch.) Comp. the Latin text. Justin Mart. Apol. ii. 5 : Ο θεὸς τὸν πάντα κόσμον ποιήσας καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια ἀνθρώποις ὑποτάξας . . . τὴν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρόνοιαν ἀγγέλοις,

οὓς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔταξε, παρέδωκεν. We have already seen (note 4) that Clement and Origen assign to angels the office of watching over provinces and towns; this is connected with the notion of individual guardian angels; comp. Clem. Strom. v. p. 700, and vii. p. 833, and the passages quoted above from Origen. Schmid, l.c. A principal occupation of the angels is also to bring the prayers of men before God. Origen, Contra Cels. v. 4, and Tertull. De Orat. c. 12, who speaks of a special angel of prayer.

(8) Col. ii. 18, mention is made of a θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων which the apostle disapproves; comp. Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9. The answer to the question whether Justin M. numbered the angels among the objects of Christian worship, depends upon the interpretation of the passage, Apol. i. 6 : "Αθεοι κεκλήμεθα καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων θεῶν ἄθεοι εἶναι, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληθεστάτου καὶ πατρὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, ἀνεπιμίκτου τε κακίας θεοῦ· ἀλλ ̓ ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ' αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες. The principal point in question is, whether the accusative τὸν τῶν ἄλλων . . . στρατόν is governed by σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν or by διδάξαντα, and consequently where the punctuation is to fall. Most modern writers adopt the former interpretation, which is probably the more correct one. Thus Semisch, s. 350 ff. Möhler (Patrologie, s. 240)1 finds in this passage, as well as in Athen. Leg. 10, a proof of the Roman Catholic adoration of angels and saints. But Athenagoras (c. 16) rejects this doctrine very decidedly in the following words: Οὐ τὰς δυνάμεις τοῦ θεοῦ προσίοντες θεραπεύομεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ποιητὴν αὐτῶν καὶ δεσπότην. Comp. Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760. Orig. Contra Cels. v. 4. 5 (Opp. i. p. 580), and viii. 13 (ib. p. 751), quoted by Münscher, Von Cölln, i. s. 84, 85. [Gieseler, i. § 99, and note 33. Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nic. Fath. to the Trinity, etc., p. 15-23. On the Gnostic worship of angels, comp. Burton, Bampton Lect., note 52.] According to Origen, the angels rather pray 1 In an earlier essay in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1833, s. 53 ff., Möhler rejected the interpretation, that the worship of angels is here spoken of.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »