Angelic Modes

Philip Hilton scribbles,

In this week of Advent, we are all reading the story of Jesus’ birth according to Luke. For some, this may inspire joy, credulity and various levels of inspiration. These chosen mortals can relive the Annunciation, and feel only what they ought to feel — the joy of the coming, the terror of the angel, the solemnity of the presence of the wise men. Unfortunately, I am rather willful, and I have been endowed with a regrettable amount of skepticism, particularly when it comes to the angelic pronouncements.

To be honest, I am not so much skeptical of the angels themselves. Angels are simply supernatural, and if one accepts such things (which I do), it is no great leap to assume that angels must have appeared to man at sometime, and that they were quickly noticed by those in the room. I am far more puzzled by the terror they seem to inspire in those who see them — in Mary and Zechariah, for instance.

Let us suppose that I were cooking dinner, and an angel of the Lord appeared right behind me. Would I be surprised? Yes. Would I be frozen with terror? Probably not. I would at most feel that it was a ‘most wondrous sight’. A few questions about angelic transport mechanisms, some light bantering about climate change, and what’s the heavenly message this time, Gabe? — I’m afraid that that is the gravest conversation I can imagine, without personal experience. Consequently, I find it very difficult to sympathize with Mary and Zechariah, who both — incredibly, to me — tremble with fear.

I believe that this is in part due to a misunderstanding that is incurred by hindsight, and thrust on us — and me — by language. We misunderstand the ambiguity of the angels, because we know that in the end, everything turns out all right. On our second reading — and for most of us this is at least a second reading –, every angel immediately gains the footnote ‘good’. We simply assume that the angels are all good, because we know that in the end they are. This is the barrier between us and Mary or Zechariah. For what we already know is not necessarily a given for Mary and Zechariah.

If we bar the idea that unusual presences give rise to unusual emotions, it is fair to assume that humanity has not changed a great deal over two thousand years. Simply put, Mary and Zechariah are basically similar to you or I. They are not going to be terrified by an unambiguously good angel. However, they might be terrified by an angel whose loyalties are unknown.

My whole point is this: if we are to relive this story, it is a mistake to keep thinking about angels. Angels are a fundamentally known factor in modern culture. They are invariably good. The whole idea of an angel takes all uncertainty out of the story, and hence, all credibility out of Mary and Zechariah’s fear. That is why we cannot believe for a second that Mary and Zechariah are afraid.

I think it would be far better if we all stopped thinking about angels, and kept in our mind the notion of a Jinn. I think this is a reasonable alternative, because it allows us to understand why Mary and Zechariah were afraid in the first place. A Jinn is, per se, an unknown factor. Either they are or they are not good: unfortunately, it is not easy to say which — not until it’s too late, at any rate. Clearly, a Jinn is much more scary than a mere angel, and so it is more in line with what the text is trying to convey.

Secondly, given that Jinns originated in Middle Eastern culture, it seems not unreasonable to assume that this was generally the Hebrew idea of a spirit. True, we do not find in Hebrew writings the arbitrary, capricious spirits that reign everywhere in the Arabian Nights. On the other hand, the Bible does not go into very much detail about evil spirits — only about good ones. The good ones are, by definition, loyal servants. The evil ones may well be arbitrary and capricious, for all we know.

But in any case, how else can we make sense of the motives of Mary and Zechariah?

Posted at 8:19 am EST on the 13th of December 2009 by P. B. Hilton.

Under Essays, Theology as , ,

There are 6 replies.
 
  1. Lucie Bretwalda says on December 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am

    I agree. Modern culture definitely likes to make things cute and fluffy. I’m reminded of Madeline L’Engle’s “Wrinkle in Time” series. In the second book, there is a Cherubim (Cherubim are awesome-in the more archaic sense of “inspiring awe”- dragon-type creatures) who goes on a rant about this aspect of humanity when he’s mistakenly called a Cherub. (“I’m a CHERUBIM! NOT a fat naked baby with wings and a bow and arrow!”) (-Not an exact quote. Can’t find the book right now)

    Another thing to remember is that elsewhere angels’ outward appearances are described- and they aren’t exactly what we’d call beautiful. There’s one angel somewhere in the Old Testament who has a thousand arms and eyes. (I’ll try to find the passage later today) MUCH more terrifying than the things with halos and wings that we’re used to.

    (BTW, I think it’s more properly spelled djinn. Plural is djinni, I think. From which we get ‘genie’)

  2. Erin says on December 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    I don’t know, Philip. God is intrinsically good – but He’s scary because he is so awesome we can’t fathom it…I always thought it was something more like that – the Angel is SO good, that you don’t feel up to talking to him – what if he knows that you took chocolate illegally out of your freezer that night? Not only that, the Angel is big, and awesome and beautiful and amazing – and he’s so good, it hurts. At least, that’s how it came across to me…

  3. Nathan says on December 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    I can hardly agree with you, Philip. Angels are described in the Bible as being terrible to see; if an angel suddenly appears, I don’t think skepticism would stop you from at the least edging away. I would be terrified out of my wits if a hundred-eyed monster suddenly appeared in my kitchen, wouldn’t you? Especially when I know that he knows that his Lord, Master, and God, Christ Jesus died on my account, and therefore I’m the reason for His death. I don’t think he’d like it, and would just be able to restrain himself from destroying me where I stand (or quiver, as the case may be). See, I don’t think angels are cute naked babies; those little arrows that they have don’t do too terribly well against seven-headed dragons and demons.

    Granted, the Devil may choose to appear as an angel of light. As far as that’s concerned, take what an angel tells you with a pinch of salt.

    SDG!

  4. Sarah says on December 18th, 2009 at 2:18 am

    I really can’t imagine where your skepticism on this comes from. And I really can’t imagine myself having a cozy chat with an angel (or for that matter can barely imagine imagining such a thing; it’s very odd to me) But I think CS Lewis is good for this. There are parts in the space trilogy where amazing descriptions are given of Lewis’s version of angels, involving if I remember correctly among other things and incredible “bigness” which was terrifying and crushing. This of course goes along with Lewis’s ideas about some things being sort of more or less “real” (and the realer they are, the bigger and scarier they are to the less real beings). I’m not always sure I agree with Lewis but I find it to be a very interesting explanation.

    And also…if angels are unambiguously good, isn’t that terrifying? That is to say, a really good creature might just as easily be bringing judgment as good news. He has every right to strike you down where you stand because you are not good.

    Oh, and you know, there HAS been a significant change in humanity since Mary and Zechariah’s time. We HAVE our savior and they were still waiting in the darkness for one. Which might make a difference, because we can in some sense be comfortable in the presence of holiness (because of our “borrowed” holiness–from Christ). Whereas all they had to date was the blood of bulls and goats (and of course God’s promise)

    I don’t think there’s any call in the text for ambiguity as to whether angels are good or not. That COULD be present but it seems much more reasonable to assume that to miserable sinners holy angels might well be a cause of great terror. (as when they appear in the OT, people more or less say “Woe is me. I’m a wretched sinner. I’m dead meat.”

  5. Lucie says on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 am

    I’m sorry it took me so long to get back. I did not find the exact passage I was thinking of earlier- but this is good. It’s Judges 13:17-23. (Before this, an angel came to the wife of Manoah and tells her that she will have a son, who will be Samson. He tells her not to eat or drink unclean foods or fermented drink of any kind, then leaves. She tells Manoah what happened, he wants to see this person, the angel shows up again, repeats his message. Manoah invites him over to dinner. Angel says he won’t eat any of their food, but they can prepare a burnt offering to the Lord. The whole time Manoah doesn’t realize that this is an angel of the Lord.)
    Quoting from my NIV Study Bible:
    —
    (17) Then Manoah inquired of the angel fo the LORD, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?” (18) He replied, “Why do you ask my name? it is beyond understanding.” (19) Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the LORD. And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: (20) As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heave, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. (21) When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
    (22) “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!” (23) But his wife answered, “If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”
    —
    This shows us different reactions to angelic appearances. Manoah is oblivious at first, then completely freaks out afterwards when he realizes he’s seen an angel. His wife apparently stays calmer, but I think she was pretty shaken. (In part of Judges 13:6, she says “He looked like an angel of God, very awesome.” And I have a suspicion that she didn’t mean the current reduced version of ‘awesome’ – she meant its original meaning : “awe-inspiring.”) And the sight of an angel ascending in flames would unnerve most people, I bet. It’s definitely worth mulling over.

  6. Carson Spratt says on January 19th, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    I agree with Sarah completely. Most of the time when angels appear, the people have to be lifted off their faces, because they want to worship the being. I’d imagine that if a being wasn’t very terrifying, you wouldn’t involuntary collapse at its appearance. Heck, we don’t even understand their mode of existence. Saul couldn’t even stomach the ghost of Samuel. The soldiers at Jesus tomb fainted at the sight of an lightning-like angel at the stone. How do you think that you would be blase enough to have a casual conversation over dinner with someone who lives in God’s presence eternally?

    Again, their purpose for appearing is always terrible. They could be destroying cities with fire, or announcing the biggest event in history. They could be saving you from execution or burning your lips with purifying coals of fire. “Mere angel”, indeed.

    P.S. Angels are not necessarily always good. The demons are fallen angels.