Skip to Content

Category Archives: Angels

On Angels: Myth and Belief East and West, Part 2

by April 6, 2021

Written by Stefan Sencerz, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom

Part 1 of this series can be found here.

In Wim Wendersmovie, Wings of Desire”, Peter Falk is credited as himself” but really represents a fallen angel, the angel who had rejected his angelic nature, ceased to be but a spirit, and acquired a human body with all that it entails. In the film, angels see” the world in black and white instead of in color like humans, a beautiful poetic device first adopted by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger in their romantic fantasy A Matter of Life and Death”.

Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire

To me, my sensations are what make me feel human. The first sip of hot coffee in the morning, a gentle kiss of a breeze on my neck, feeling the taut strings of a stunt kite tugging on my arms. Or falling in love: holding hands, a dance late into night, the smell of her hair, the magical moment right before our lips meet, the soft alabaster of her skin under my touch. This is how we, mortals, perceive and relate to reality.

To angels, all that could be but a set of highly abstract mathematical equations and complex geometrical figures. We surely feel their calm, soothing love but we humans are also creatures of passion. And passion is what they seem to lack.  In turn, maybe sometimes angels need our passion, too. Thats what the character played by Falk seems to imply. Let me explain.

One of the biggest problems for a theist, the so-called problem of evil”, concerns an apparent tension between Gods perfections (i.e., that God is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing) and the fact that bad things happen even to good people.

Detail of angels from Giotto’s Crying Angels, Lamentation of Christ fresco, Padua, Scrovegni Chapel, 1305-13

One of the most important responses to this problem, originally put forth by the second century Greek theologian Irenaeus, is known as the virtue or soul-making defense”. The gist of this defense is to postulate that bad things happen to us because they are necessary to build up our character. We need pain to develop empathy and compassion, obstacles are necessary to build up fortitude, those less fortunate to perfect generosity and the sense of justice and fear to become truly courageous.

This relatively simple response has some obvious problems. Namely, why do we have to struggle before fully realizing our potential? Why are we not created with already fully-developed characters? Isnt it all some kind of cruel test or, even worse, a bad joke? Thus, the original form of virtue defense seems to require additional explanations.

Detail of Jan van Eyck’s The Annunciation, 1434

The 20th century philosopher, theologian, and exponent of the virtue defense, John Hick, attempts to provide some answers in his seminal book Evil and the God of Love” (1966). Hick postulates that developing virtues is more valuable than being created as already a fully developed being. To use a metaphor, the journey to reach the mountain top is more valuable than being magically transported there just to see magnificent sights. He also postulates that character growth must be based on genuinely free choices, choices that involve free will.

Now, free will seems incompatible with coercion. Force and even a reliable threat of using it seem to undermine our freedom. Thus, Hick postulates, God has to be somehow hidden from us; there must be some epistemic distance” between God and his creation. Otherwise, we would be motivated by fear of Gods retribution rather than by a genuine desire for good. Consequently, our choices would be coerced and not truly free.

The Inspiration of Saint Matthew, by Caravaggio, Rome, 1571-1610

In order to preserve this epistemic distance”, God cannot intervene into human affairs too much, too obviously, and too openly. Too much help and too many miracles could give us certainty about Gods existence and plans. Remember, a dissolution of the epistemic distance” from God would seriously undercut our free will. This is why God cannot remove every problem or obstacle that we may encounter. This is why, sometimes, we encounter difficulties that seem insurmountable.

Now, to return to angels, perhaps— like us— they are not yet fully realized, completed” or perfect beings. Maybe they still have some work to do to actualize their potential, maybe they still have some mountains to climb. As paradoxical as it may seem, perhaps God maintains some epistemic distance” from them, too. Otherwise, if they were fully in the presence of the Divine with the full understanding of Gods immense powers as well as his plans, could we really make sense of their fall? Could we really understand how they are able to make choices? Could we really comprehend how angels, too, seem to have free will?

Fallen angel painting, author unknown

Well, you could respond, can angels truly evolve if they are disembodied? Dont they need pain, obstacles, doubts, and fear to fully develop their natures? Angels seem to lack all of this.

Thus, perhaps, something about them needs to thaw and open up too, so they can transcend their sophisticated yet sterile mathematical ideas and ethical imperatives and start using their senses and hearts.

Maybe, to be truly happy, to truly flourish, to fully realize their potential, angels too have to learn how to feel and not just how to reason. Perhaps this is the only way to transcend the world of black-and-white”.

Still from Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire

In Wenders film, angels sometimes climb up high towers of churches and hang out on roofs of the tallest buildings as if waiting for the gift of a dawn. But there is always a price to be paid for not having senses. No matter how high they climb, no matter how high they fly, they’ll never see the flaming, crimson-orange rays of the setting sun.

End of Part 2

On Angels: Myth and Belief East and West, Part 1

by March 31, 2021

Written by Stefan Sencerz, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom

Part 1: Angels in the Western Tradition

When Michelangelo accepted a commission to paint frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, he stepped right into it. And by it” I do not mean just an exquisite work of a breathtaking scope; that much is obvious. Rather, I mean the centuries-old debate concerning angels and the nature creation. You can see his input right there, on the ceiling of the chapel, painted into his frescoes for posterity. Both the first human, Adam, and all Michelangelos angels are endowed with navels.

Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel (detail)

Perhaps its not a surprise at all for someone adopting the 21st century perspective on arts. After all, the greatest artist of his era, Michelangelo (1475 – 1564) has established many artistic conventions. But the matters were much less clear during the times of High Renaissance. For example, there are no angelic navels at all in paintings of Leonardo. And there are but few of them in works by Raphael and none of these is very pronounced. And yet, interestingly enough, not only Adam and angels but also even God the Father himself are portrayed as endowed with navels.

The Annunciation by Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1472–1475

Taken literally, this approach makes no sense. God is supposed to be a pure spirit not having any bodily parts. The first human is supposed to be created by God and not born from others. And even if angels have bodies, surely, they are not born from other beings, they are not flesh of other flesh. If they exist at all, either they are everlasting like God, in which case they have never come into existence, or else they are like Adam, brought into existence by a direct divine act of the Creator. One way or another, why would they need to have navels and be portrayed as having them?

Now, to put Michelangelos choice in its historical and philosophical contexts, since time immemorial angels have been considered to be benevolent celestial beings mediating between Heaven and earth, sacred and profane, the world of the Divine and the world of mortals. That much has been constant. And just as consistently, philosophers and theologians have debated issues concerning their nature.

Some conceived angels to be mere messages from God or, perhaps, the divine tasks rather than real beings carrying those tasks. A radical position, indeed, but one that has some textual support at least in the context of the Scriptures.

For example, in the Book of Genesis, three angels visit Abraham (18:2) but only two meet Lot (19:1). The first one appears to inform Abraham about his coming child (18:10) and, after this task is completed, this angel is never mentioned again. The job of the other two was to protect Lot and to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah; so, they stayed with mortals quite a bit longer.

Lot Fleeing from Sodom, 1810, by Benjamin West

Pointing to passages like these, some esoteric teachings of Kabbalah suggest that, after the message is delivered or the task is completed, the angel literally ceases to exist.

This is not, however, the view that emerged as prevalent in Western and Middle Eastern circles. A more popular approach postulates that angels are not just messages but rather messengers, not just tasks but rather beings who carry those tasks, not just aspects of divine actions but rather independently existing substances”.

If this is so, however, what kinds of beings are they? What are they made of? Do they have physical bodies like ordinary mortals or are they pure spirits unattached to anything physical?

Angel detail, The Pistoia Santa Trinità Altarpiece by Francesco Pesellino, 15th century, National Gallery of Art

Again, let us turn to Scripture. Almost all encounters with angels begin with humans trembling in their presence and an angel saying fear not” or do not be afraid”. It seems obvious that angels were thought of as having not only immense powers but also a rather terrifying aspect or presence.

As Rainier Maria Rilke observed in both in the 1st and the 2nd Duino Elegy, Ein jeder Engel is schrecklich” – “every angel is terrifying”.

Jacob wrestling with the angel, Italian School, 17th century

A far cry from representing them as sweet-looking babies with golden locks and delicate fairy wings or good-looking young ladies and lads painted by Michelangelo and Raphael! But whatever their looks might be, what does their physical aspect hide? Or what does it reveal?

Some thought angels to be essentially like humans in terms of having real physical bodies, eating real physical food, wearing real physical clothes, using real physical tools and, perhaps, even being able to mate with us.

Thus, to use but few examples, the cherub guarding the Garden of Eden is wielding a flaming sword” (Genesis 3: 24); Abraham slaughters a calf and treats his visitors to a fine meal”; and fallen angels have children with daughters of men (Genesis 6: 1-4).

Abraham Serving the Three Angels, by Rembrandt, 1646

The view that angels are, in part, made of physical stuff found its expression in their typical visual representations. The archangel Michael leading the forces of good in the heavenly war against the dragon” (Revelation 12: 7-12). He is usually portrayed as a warrior wearing an armor and carrying a shield. (Below, on the left Saint Michael Overthrowing the Demon” by Raphael and, on the right, Saint Michael expelling Lucifer and the Rebellious Angels” by Peter Paul Rubens.)

Gabriel, described by Daniel (8:15) as appearing in the likeness of man”, is frequently depicted as carrying a white lily or a cross. Eventually, depictions of angels were routinely seen as possessing not only heads, torsos, arms, legs, and wings but also even navels, as in Michelangelos frescoes.

Other theologians argued, however, that no matter how we might choose to represent angels, these images are but visual metaphors rather than the real thing. For, in reality, angels are pure spirits, disembodied intellects, bundles of mental energies unattached to anything physical.

However, this approach raises some fundamental philosophical questions. Having no bodies at all and thus no senses, how can angels see, hear, feel, smell, or taste? How do they perceive the world? How can they relate to us? What mediates between their surroundings and their subjectivity? If not senses and sensations, what anchors them to our “reality”?

End of Part 1