One of the major differences between angels and humans, as Heiser rightly points out, is that the former are deathless, and therefore they have no need to propagate their species by marriage. (p. 88). This is doubtless why Jesus says that in the Kingdom we will neither marry nor be given in marriage for we will be like the angels. This is not about become neuters or sexless beings, it’s about becoming deathless ones instead of mortals, and by implication it makes clear that the major purpose of marriage in Jesus’ view is the propagation of the species. Marriage is a temporal blessing for our earthly good. It’s not eternal. As Heiser also rightly adds, this doesn’t mean God could not do away with angels. They are capable of being judged by God and then ceasing to exist. One of the more interesting lessons we learn from a text like 1 Enoch 17 is that angels can be called flames of fire, but they can also appear as and be called men. This is undoubtedly how we should view Mk. 16 which refers to the ‘young men’ that the women saw at the empty tomb. Angels can assume human form.
Why the proliferation of angelology in early Judaism and even on into medieval Judaism even to the point of giving names to many angels (e.g. Raphael), but rather less so in the NT? Two plausible reasons are found on p;. 95— firstly the emphasis on distance between God and humans, or put another way transcendence of God, made God seem less accessible and so angels took on more of a mediating role, even mediating the Torah to Moses in various texts (see Galatians even). Secondly, anthropomorphic language for God became less and less used, and there was a tendency to insert angels into texts where God had previously appeared (see Jub. 17.15-18.19). But the writers did not need this expedient– they had Christ as the one all sufficient mediator, hence less reference to angels in the NT and other early Christian literature.
Another interesting development was the association of angels with the running of the natural world, not merely as weather predictors, but as weather producers. But more important than that is the material in the Animal Apocalypse which draws on Dan. 7 in conjunction with Gen. 6.1-4. What is interesting about this is “the implication of these texts, including Daniel 7, is that judgment of the wicked cannot take place in the heavens
(p. 106). For one thing the wicked cannot enter heaven to be judged. For another, as Revelation says, Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven, and only then consigned to the Pit or Tartarus and then finally the lake of fire. In short, Tom Wright and others are wrong about the judgment scene in Dan. 7– the Yom Yahweh takes place on earth and is implemented by the Son of Man, and according to Mk. 14.62 this happens when the Son of Man returns to judge the Sanhedrin itself, and others.
There is plenty in early Jewish literature about angels interceding for believers in distress, see e.g. Test. of Daniel 6.1-2, and in this sense, we can talk about guardian angels who are looking out for human beings, without suggesting ‘everyone has a guardian angel’. Nothing like that is said about non-believers. (see p. 108).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In