I do not trust angels. They are capricious, arbitrary, impulsive, and mercurial. If Gabriel is any example they are also officious and apt to lash out if slighted. I doubt they are instructed very well on how to behave with humans. I don’t like them, the biblical sort anyway.
But try reading about angels found at the I Believe in Angels web site, or BeliefNet, or Angels Online. The stories offered are about angels falling into a category best described as “unfailingly helpful,” guardian Boy Scouts out to do a good turn. There was the angel in the car lot, caught in a photograph benignly hovering over a new car owner. There was “The Angel That Honked My Mother’s Car Horn” and thereby saved a life with a loud, strategically timed warning blast. There is even a meditative ritual designed to introduce one’s self (and one’s needs) to Gabriel, called “Archangel of the West.” There’s another for summoning Raphael, “Archangel of the East.”
But angels—especially biblical angels—should come with warning labels. Take Gabriel in the gospel according to St. Luke. There is no nice way to put it: his announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah is a public-relations disaster. Zechariah is tending his duties as a priest, offering incense in the sanctuary when Gabriel pops in to the right of the altar. Zechariah is understandably startled and overcome with fear, but Gabriel makes the pro forma “do not be afraid” announcement and forges ahead with his news: Zechariah’s prayer has been answered; his wife Elizabeth will bear a son; he shall be named John; this son will prepare a people that shall be fit for the Lord; and all the rest.
Zechariah—still stunned, one would guess—manages to squeak out a not unreasonable question given the circumstances. “How can I be sure of this; I’m an old man and my wife is well on in years?” Mind you, this is more or less the same question Abraham posed to the three “men” at Mamre when they told him Sarah would bear a son. Sarah even laughed out loud at it, but nothing happened to either of them. That’s because Gabriel wasn’t there. Zechariah isn’t so lucky.
Gabriel reacts to Zechariah’s question, shall we say, harshly. “I am Gabriel!” he declares—I can hear some thunderously sputtering outrage in there. “I stand in attendance upon God,” as if that’s supposed to clear it all up. “I was sent to speak to you and bring you this good news.”
Those three declarations, each beginning with “I,” is a summary of the archangelic attitude Zechariah encounters. Gabriel takes offense. He believes his position, his importance, has been challenged and, declaring that his own word has been doubted, Gabriel testily shuts Zechariah up: nine months without speech until John is born. (Something may be said for a husband who knows to keep his mouth shut during the wife’s pregnancy, but it’s a lesson best learned without angelic interference, I think.) The whole deal here is Gabriel and Gabriel’s pride.
Fast-forward six months and Gabriel shows up in Nazareth. He takes Mary through a Zechariah-like spiel, dropping off another “do not be afraid,” and then waits to hear what Mary has to say. What is Mary’s reaction? “How can this be; I am still a virgin?” And nothing happens to her.
You tell me what possible difference there is between Zechariah’s question and Mary’s. Zechariah’s “how can I be sure” expresses no lesser or greater degree of doubt than Mary’s “how can this be.” I’m not even certain either one necessarily expresses any doubt at all. Both could be understood as just, oh, logistical inquiries. Yet for Mary, Gabriel exhibits some consideration and patiently gives her with three reasons why it will be so.
What accounts for Gabriel’s change in demeanor? If there were some lines to read between, I’d say God maybe sent him off to a sensitivity training seminar. I wait for the day when a lost Gnostic gospel turns up with an account of God’s post-Zechariah debriefing with Gabriel: “I don’t care if she talks back, you be nice to her. That Zechariah thing made me look bad.”
Yet there’s something about undisciplined angels that should produce just a little bit of a thrill. Nowadays, starting with Clarence from It’s a Wonderful Life, angels have become domesticated wussies. They are tame, even adorable. Yet I do not recall a single instance in scripture where someone encountering an angel points at it and declares, “Oh, how cute.” No, as much as I may prefer to avoid them—something I think I have managed so far—I also prefer my angels a little like Gabriel, a whole lot scary, always unpredictable, and thoroughly untamed.
I am not likely to personally summon an angel for any reason. Avoid them, I say, and I sure don’t want one living next door. Mine is a primitive, primal prejudice against the “other,” I admit. But it is hardly without reason, so I won’t even bother trying to disguise it by telling you that some of my best friends are angels. None of my best friends are angels.
A pastor of the North American Lutheran Church Russell E. Saltzman is the author of The Pastor’s Page and lives in Kansas City, Missouri. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
I Believe in Angels
Angels Online
Raphael
Comments:
One recalls Juvenal - Magnaque numinibus vota exaudita malignis [Enormous prayers that Heaven in vengeance grants]
The difference between Mary and Zechariah is that Mary wondered and Zechariah doubted. In English, the phrase "I don't believe it!" is used to express both wonder and doubt or disbelief. Doubt signals a weak spirit, wonder signals a lively one.
The interpretation of Gabriel offered here is, I think, unduly disturbing, and I wonder how accurate it is.
Of the Lord's devoted angels, "Do not be afraid!" As Francis de Sales said, "Make friends with the angels, who though invisible are always with you. Often invoke them, constantly praise them, and make good use of their help and assistance in all your temporal and spiritual affairs."
"You tell me what possible difference there is between Zechariah’s question and Mary’s. Zechariah’s “how can I be sure” expresses no lesser or greater degree of doubt than Mary’s “how can this be.” I’m not even certain either one necessarily expresses any doubt at all....What accounts for Gabriel’s change in demeanor?"
Rev. Saltzman mistakenly suggests that Gabriel was acting out of pique in making Zechariah mute for the period of John's gestation. In fact, Zechariah (who we should remember was "righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly") had asked for a sign, as Craig Roberts and Frank Sheed have pointed out.
Zechariah got one that was unquestionable and that was manifest not just to him but to all those about him who came to know that he had come out mute from the sanctuary of the Lord. A sign that punctuated in a very clear way that Zechariah's son John was the Forerunner of Jesus; one that led to Zechariah's great prophetical canticle (Luke 1: 67 et seq) that John would make straight the way of the Lord! Zechariah's sweet canticle is all the proof needed that Gabriel's action in striking Zechariah dumb was not an act of punishment but a necessary signpost on the road to salvation that Holy Mother Church has seen fit to preserve in the Canon of the New Testament.
Another reason for the difference in "demeanor" was that Gabriel was well aware that, in addressing the Blessed Virgin Mary, he was speaking to the Mother of God. Holy Mother Church in her wisdom has taught us how we are to regard the Ever Virgin Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: with hyperdoulia (the heightened degree of reverence reserved to Mary alone among all mankind). When she asks a question, it should be answered in a straightforward way.
So instead of wasting time on amateur psychology about God's Archangel Gabriel's supposed "harsh, testy, thunderously sputtering outrage and pride," Rev.Saltzman might do better to pray a rosary and ask the Seat of Wisdom for guidance before he next opens up his Bible. We don't need to figure all this stuff out for ourselves starting from scratch with all our flaws and no guidance. God is Good.
I think that Zechariah will have the last word.
Angels are particularly suited for warfare; I am sure they are called upon to do battle with demons ia a very real sense. I like to call them "God's Marine Corps."
If they are like, as William Harnist points out, 'God's Marine Corps', than the least we can do is thank them for their service. Better still, let's invoke their help, pick up a rosary, and fight alongside them.
In Revelation, John addresses seven of the very first Christian churches in Asia - and in Rev. 2-3, castigates the presiding "angel" of nearly every church, for one wrong or another.
Then too? In Revelation, Satan "and his angels," wage war in heaven, against God.
And in Isa. 34.4? "All" the host of heaven, fall.
Stay away from angels.
Gabriel (played by Christopher Walken): I'm an angel. I kill firstborns while their mamas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even, when I feel like it, rip the souls from little girls, and from now till kingdom come, the only thing you can count on in your existence is never understanding why."
Thomas Daggett (Elias Koteas): "Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
Nice turn by Viggo Mortenson as Lucifer, too.
You say what you cannot know about Bible texts- the tone with which things were said, for example. You are right that angels are not 'domestic wussies', but the whole point of the column is void. Good luck staying away from angels in the next life. It's almost as if you think goodness and fierceness aren't compatible. In those lines, you'd better stay away from God and Christ too!
I had a Catholic professor of Theology say, quite correctly I think, that if you were to actually encounter Lucifer you would be overcome with his pure beauty. The most beautiful creature you can imagine would not compare to the dazzle of Lucifer. The admonition of course is.........be careful. He can be quite cuddly.
Good point. Lucifer is seductive, glamorous, maybe even dazzling...but cuddly? He was the most beautiful angel until his "I will not serve" got him cast out of the presence of God. Although he still has power, he's a shadow of his former self. He lied to Eve, but didn't dazzle her with his beauty. Even if he had appeared as a bunny rabbit or a kitten things would probably have turned out the same. Of course we should be careful. But it is the pride that got him banished that is as dangerous to us as it was to him.
Your guardian angel should slap you up side the head for this article.
Better apologize, quick!
A good Father that wants to pour in The Mother love into His children , through a chosen Mother , to heal the wound caused through The Fall , making it difiicult for many to trust in God and to recognise their own dignity - such a perspective could help us to take in the mercy of God in the above incidents !
Zachariah, on priestly duty , praying for a child , yet not able to trust when so told by the angel - may be an indication of how weakened faith itself had become in the culture at the time , in contrast to even the earlier times , of Abraham and so on !
Yet , we see The Woman , filled with grace , who gives her loving trust , even when she knew she is to be ever virgin , wondering how she could be a Mother, to be Mother to God made man , an 'impossibilty ' for humans and her questioning the angel , in trusting courage possibly even a contrast with Eve's foolish choice to trust the fallen angel's words !
The consequence for the disbleief for Zacahriah becoming mute could be an indication of the nature of The Immaculate Conception, through noncarnal union of the parents of Mary !
Elisabeth and Zacharian too could have been thus blessed , to bring forth 'the voice crying out in the desert ' ; yet , The Mother comes, whose voice , when it fell in Elisabeth's ears , she was filled with the Holy Spirit !
Thus , the angelic mission helps us to better grasp the truth of the type of Mother we have been so graciously given , of a Queen whom the holy angels love to venerate , knowing who The Son is and one whom the fallen angels detest !
'Holy , holy , holy ' - the angelic hymn that is invoked with power, esp. during The
Liturgy , and whose help we seek in our strugles againt powers nd principalities , may their prayers and presence protect and guide us , with the aid of the Queen of angels , all for the glory of our Father !
So, here I am checking out First Things, and I read Saltzman's article first. I immediately think to myself, how does Saltzman know what motivated Gabriel to speak thusly?
Is it possible that since angels (angelos) are messengers, God might actually have told him in advance to deal harshly with Zechariah if required? Might there not be a stern reaction when a Priest (of all people) can't trust the word of an angel sent by God?
Might not Gabriel's references in the first person be an admonition to Zechariah for being so bold as to question him? After all, no one can see God and live.
Maybe Gabriel was being overly condescending and patient. What school of hermeneutics did Saltzman come from? Very useless article.
It demonstrates that Saltzman is willing to be tongue-in-cheek with a most precious story. There is no fear in their eyes.
But he makes an even more relevant observation. Mary was frightened by Gabriel...but Gabriel was confronting a creature whose spiritual splendor out shown his own. He was addressing his Queen. I don't think he had to be told not to muck it up.
I imagine Gabriel's "Do not be afraid" to Mary was more of a reverent plea than a perfunctory greeting.