Growing up in a church environment, one thing that would cross my mind every so often is that it would be absolutely GREAT to be an angel. Glowing face, big 'ole wings, and tons of eyes. What could be better than that? Our readings this week have been the latest edition in a series of realizations that have lead me to the conclusion that, while it might be really cool (and certainly unique) to be an angel, it's definitely better to be a human.
Let's start out with some of the New Testament texts relating to the relationship between humans and angels. One of the most famous and intriguing of these is 1 Corinthians 6:3, "Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world?" (Douay-Rheims). What on Earth could this mean? How is it that mankind judges angels when Psalm 8:6 says that, "Thou hast made [man] a little less than the angels" (Douay-Rheims)? The answer seems to be who the human beings these two passages referred to are. Psalm 8 is clear in that it is referring to human beings at the moment of their creation (and so presumably through out their lives), while 1 Corinthians is talking about others. St. Paul is presenting this as something that will occur in the future because he is talking specifically about the saints. It is the saints, glorified in heaven, who will "judge angels" rather than humans as we are on Earth right now.
But why? What is it about the saints that really makes them greater than angels and therefore able to judge them? Let's turn for a moment to Christ. Hebrews 1:4 states that, "Being made so much better than the angels, as [Christ] hath inherited a more excellent name than they" (Douay-Rheims). Nothing too surprising here. One would expect the Only Begotten Son of God the Father to be better and higher than his creation. But then Hebrews 2:9 then throws in, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all" (Douay-Rheims). What on Earth is happening here? The same text is stating that Christ is made higher and lower than the angels. However, it is not in the same sense. Christ is higher than the angels in his divinity, in his identity as God the Son. But in the Incarnation he assumes flesh and becomes truly human, which means also becoming lower than the angels. It is also made clear that this is done for the purpose of mankind's redemption and that it has been changed once again. Christ was higher than the angels in his divinity, lowered himself in adopting his humanity, and then raised his humanity back above the angels. What does this have to do with the saints? Hebrews 2:9 makes it clear that Christ lowered himself for the redemption of mankind, and so it follows that his following elevation is also a part of that same redemption. He became lower than the angels so that he could be the way for man to become higher than the angels and the fulfillment is seen in the saints, those who judge the angels.
It is also worth mentioning that a similar option, to be raised from a fallen state, is not offered to the fallen angels. They are stuck in their choice, stuck in their damnation, while mankind has an out, a chance at redemption.
What's the purpose of all this? Why would it even be an option to become higher than the angels? The play "The Fall of the Angels" sheds some light on this exact question. After the angels have fallen, God says,"Since then their might is formarred that meant all amiss, Even to mine own figure this bliss to fulfil, Mankind of mould will I make" (Lines 139-141). Mankind is taking the place of the fallen angels, they will fill in the gaps left by those that fell. And the reason for this, the reason that it (seemingly) must happen is made clear in the work of Dionysius the Areopagite. Of the celestial hierarchy he says, "The purpose, then, of Hierarchy is the assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God... and again spreading this radiance ungrudgingly to those after it" (Chapter III, Section II). This is the final piece. Mankind fills in the gaps in the heavenly hierarchy because that hierarchy is meant to be a reflection of and a praise to the glory and radiance of God, and without the gaps filled, this is incomplete and the works of the fallen angels is, to a degree, successful.
Needless to say, this option of being a saint to replace a fallen angel seems better than what the angels are given.
-Sam Landon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
A Meditation on Comedy as a Christian Genre – Andy Cohen It is no doubt that Christianity has left an indelible mark on ‘the West’– wi... -
Our discussions and readings this week I believe had much to do with how we consider Christ can be glorified, either in the Crucif... -
While going through our readings about angels this week I tried to keep in mind certain passages from scripture which talk about angels....
I think you do a very good job of laying out the key problems of the texts we read. I especially like your point that a fallen angel is forever stuck in their choice, while one of the key gifts that is inherent in being human is the ability to become un-fallen, as it were.
ReplyDelete--OK
I too think this point that Sam makes is spot on, and I find it really meaningful to meditate on. Angels didn't have a second chance if they chose to reject the will of God. The idea that humans were made by God in order to replace the fallen angels is of crucial importance to this point. This origin story of humans highlights perhaps man's most beautiful quality: the ability to do better next time. God knew that man would fall, but he wanted to create a being that would be able to experience the beauty of redemption, and this creation was performed purely out of His grace. With some imagination, one can see humans as an evolved offshoot of angels. Humans still have free will, but they were granted the adaptation (if you will) of redemption, of being able to learn from one's mistakes and overcome sin through faith in God.
Delete-Andy Cohen
I like how you used scripture to link Christ and the Redemption of man with the Angels - it did a good job of highlighting how the contrast between man and Angels is something that people have been thinking about for a very long time. I agree with your point, that Saints, and by extension man, can somehow be placed above the Angels. Hugh of St. Victor discusses how Angels are rational creatures made of spiritual matter, whereas humans have bodies from the earth and souls that are made from nothing. I wonder if the fact that humans have earthly bodies gives them more of an ability to change their very selves according to their free will. Although Angels possess free will, I believe their bodies are more fixed. This contrast could play into man’s ability to ultimately be redeemed, which, as your post makes clear, the Fallen Angels do not possess.
ReplyDeleteJW
You bring up the important point that mankind fills in the gaps to complete the heavenly hierarchy. As I was reading, this question came to mind: if mankind is meant to take the place of the fallen angels, then why must humans be higher than the angels, as opposed to equal to them? (That is, why couldn’t Christ just be the way for man to become equal with the angels?)
ReplyDeleteHugh of St. Victor points out the difference between man’s creation providing for the restoration of the angels, in the sense that man wouldn’t have been created if angels hadn’t fallen, versus man’s replacing of the fallen number (91). To be honest, I’m not quite sure I understand the distinction, but the way I interpreted this was to mean that replacing angels is not the main function of humanity, but rather, restoring the hierarchy is another privilege that humanity receives from God. Then, in his description of the angel hierarchies, Dionysius mentions how the attributes of the higher ranks of angels encompass those of the lower ranks (Chapter 11, Section 2). In this way, I think the purpose of humanity’s creation itself could indicate our higher rank in the hierarchy—we are more than mere angel replacements; while we will occupy the spots of angels (just as higher angels have the attributes of lower angels), we will also have what they do not (which is the subject of several other posts and comments).
KY
Your post helped me put into perspective some comments Dionysius the Aeropagite makes about the human's contemplative access to divine things. In explaining why heavenly beings are often represented to us in ways we might consider base or repugnant, Dionysius claims it is because we are "unable immediately to elevate [ourselves] to the intelligible contemplations" (Chap.II, Section II) and it is best we learn by negations rather than failed attempts at similitude, and moreover such sacred things should be "inaccessible to the multitudes." This is because "it is not everyone who is holy," but for those who are, such images will encourage "the upward tendency of the soul" (Chap II, Section III). For humans, it is only the holy that will see God and enjoy union with the divine. This also strikes a chord with some of Hugh of St. Victor's thought, concerning how the contemplation of the invisible, the divine thought in sensible things, grows humans in virtue, and ultimately leads them to eternal life, union with God. The angels have this union immediately. It is hard to see at first how the angelic position is not enviable in every way, their union with God and their direct reception of the Light (at least in the case of the first order), simply given them. However, the immediacy of this union, given what has been said before and some of the points you brought up in your post concerning redemption, is not necessarily so enviable. Without this immediate direct contact with God, we know the wanting of it, and, with the help of His grace, want to work towards it. The angels had no such opportunity, knew no such separation to begin with; thus, the ones who fell fell once, and that is the end of it.
ReplyDelete- JM
I think your blog post is very interesting and uses the readings to create a well-developed argument. I share the opinion that being a human is better than being an angel. You specify that being a saint would be better than being an angel, but I think being a human in general (even in our fallen state) is more enviable than being an angel. The free will that seems available to humanity is better than the state of the angels. I also think that your discussion of humans serving as a bridge in the heavenly hierarchy was particularly interesting.
ReplyDelete-AC
Who wants to be an angel? I agree—oddly, it is not the better option, and yet, it seems it should be. Why? Is it our human perspective that creates our preference? We would rather be complicated—body and soul, material and spiritual—than simple intelligences? Is it something about how we are able to experience creation, through our bodies as well as our minds? Or is it that having physical bodies gives us the ability to see God more fully in the Incarnation? A paradoxical conclusion—given that the thing people most often rail against is our limitation in body, including our mortality. RLFB
ReplyDelete