Gary Pollard
[This is a continuing translation of Origen’s systematic theology in modern language]
We need to approach the subject of angels in the same way. It isn’t by chance that certain tasks are assigned to specific angels. For example, Raphael is entrusted with healing, Gabriel with carrying out wars, and Michael with presenting the prayers and petitions of mortals.1 These roles were not given randomly. They were assigned according to the angels’ own merits—the zeal, effort, and excellence each one demonstrated before the world was created. Based on this, some were placed in the order of archangels, each given a specific responsibility. Others were assigned to the lower ranks of angels, serving under particular archangels or leaders.
All of this was arranged by God—not randomly, but with perfect justice, according to what each angel deserved. So, for example, one angel was entrusted with the church in Ephesus, another with the church in Smyrna. Peter had an angel assigned to him, Paul had his own, and so on for all the “little ones” in the Church—for as Scripture says, their angels see God’s face every day. Likewise, “the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him.” These things are not the result of chance, nor are they due to the way the angels were created—otherwise we might accuse God of favoritism. Instead, God, the just and impartial ruler of all, distributed these tasks according to the worth, goodness, and strength of each individual spirit.
Let us now address those who claim there are different kinds of spiritual natures, so we can avoid the foolish and irreverent myths of people who imagine that heavenly beings and human souls were created by different makers. They think it absurd that one Creator could have made rational beings of such different kinds. But in saying this, they fail to understand the real cause of the differences. They argue that it would be unfair for the same Creator to grant authority to some without merit, while making others subject to rulers. But as we explained earlier, the real reason for diversity among rational beings was not divine favoritism but the conduct of each being—whether they acted with diligence and goodness, or with negligence and sin.
Let’s use examples from human life. Paul and Peter are certainly recognized as men of spiritual character. Yet Paul persecuted God’s church, and Peter, when questioned by a servant girl, denied Christ with an oath. How could these men—who according to those who claim “different natures” must have sprung from a purely spiritual root—commit such serious sins? Didn’t Jesus say that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit? And if that is true, how could Peter and Paul, coming from a “good tree,” produce such evil fruit? Some try to escape the problem by saying it wasn’t really Paul who persecuted, but some other being within him, or it wasn’t really Peter who denied Christ, but another acting through him. But then why did Paul confess, “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted God’s church”? Why did Peter weep bitterly after his denial? They knew they had sinned, and this shows that the theory of “different spiritual natures” is groundless.
1 This comes from Tobit 3.17, 12.18; Enoch 9, 20.1-7; Dan 8.16, 10.13, 21; Rev 12.7
The Preacher Pollard Blog 