Spurgeon’s Angelology: A Speculative Thought

Christians should have a healthy fascination with angels. These disembodied, spiritual beings are remarkable. They have extraordinary power and amazing intelligence. They are so radiant with the glory of God that godly men foolishly feel the need to bow down and worship them (Rev. 22:8-9). They appear all throughout the Bible, especially at major redemptive events. You will find them in the Garden of Eden, with the Patriarchs, with Moses, Joshua, and David, at Mount Sinai, all throughout the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Acts of the Apostles, and at the consummation of all things.

Spurgeon Speculated

However, within the Bible, we are not told all that we would like to know about angels. This has caused many people, even faithful students of the Bible, to speculate. And as I have read through some of Spurgeon’s sermons, it has become clear that Spurgeon was not immune to such speculation. My aim in this blog is to inform you of a particular speculative belief Spurgeon held regarding the ministry of angels. By the end of this blog, I think you will find Spurgeon’s thought fascinating and speculative, but not absurd and preposterous.

Angels Guard God’s Elect

In agreement with the Bible, Spurgeon believes that angels are “ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14). Angels rejoice over sinners that repent (Luke 15:7, 10). They “love us and bear us up in their hands lest we dash our feet against the stones.”[1] Spurgeon teaches that every Christian has a guardian angel “who flies about him, and holds the shield of God over his brow, keeps his foot lest he should dash it against a stone, guards him, controls him, manages him, injects thoughts into his mind, restrains his evil desires, and is the minister and servant of the Holy Ghost to keep him from sin, and lead him to righteousness.”[2] (Yes, there is some speculation in this quote as well, but our purpose is to talk about something else.)

Believers do not merely have a guardian angel, though. Spurgeon maintains that Christians have a company of angels always at their side. Indeed, if the Lord enabled us to peer into the invisible, spiritual realm where angels exist, we would see glorious cherubim walking before us.[3] From the time of our birth to the time of our death, God commissions his angels to serve and protect us.

This, however, leaves us with a question: How do angels serve us after we die? What do angels do when our spirits depart from our bodies? Sure, angels play an instrumental role at the second coming when they will separate the righteous from the unrighteous (Mt. 13:49). But what do angels do while we are absent from our bodies and spiritually present with the Lord? Do angels cease serving us until the resurrection of the just? Though most of us have not considered these questions, Spurgeon certainly did. And because Spurgeon gave thought to these questions, it led him to speculate.

Spurgeon’s Speculation: Angels Guard the Bones of the Saints

There is an ambiguous verse in the book of Jude that says, “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you’” (Jude 9). Spurgeon is not sure what this verse ultimately means. He does, however, notice the obvious; that the archangel Michael contended with the devil over the dead body of Moses. From this, he speculates that angels watch over the dead bodies of all the saints:

Now, this refers to the great doctrine of angels watching over the bones of the saints. Certainly, it tells us that the body of Moses was watched over by a great archangel; the devil thought to disturb that body, but Michael contended with him about it. . . From this we learn that an angel watches over every tomb.[4]

 . . . if believers die as poor as Lazarus, and as sick and as despised as he, angels shall convey their souls into the bosom of their Lord, and their bodies, too, shall be watched by guardian spirits, as surely as Michael kept the body of Moses and contended for it with the foe. Angels are both the servitors of living saints and the custodians of their dust.[5]

God has set his angels to watch over them, as he set Michael to watch over the body of Moses. . .[6]

Why Did Spurgeon Believe This?

I do not know all that went through Spurgeon’s mind as he thought through this, but from what I do know, it seems like the importance of the physical body inclined him to embrace the idea that angels guard the bones of God’s elect:

Now would there be a contention about that body if it had been of no value? Would Michael contend for that which was only to be the food of worms? Would he wrestle with the enemy for that which was to be scattered to the four winds of heaven, never to be united again into a new and goodlier fabric? No; assuredly not.[7]

There are cherubs with outstretched wings over the head of the grave-stones of all the righteous. . . in some nook o’ergrown by nettles, there an angel standeth night and day to watch each bone and guard each atom, that at the resurrection those bodies, with more glory than they had on earth, may start up to dwell for ever with the Lord.[8]

God has set his angels to watch over them, as he set Michael to watch over the body of Moses. . .Remember, then, and doubt not that the very body in which you sinned shall be the very body in which you shall suffer in hell; and the body in which you believe in Christ, and in which you yield yourselves to God, shall be the very body in which you shall walk the golden streets, and in which you shall praise the name of God for ever and ever.[9]

Unlike many Christians today, Spurgeon has a healthy view of the human body. He is fully aware that, even after death, God is not done with our bodies. When Christians are spiritually present with the Lord, God is not done redeeming them. “When our Lord Jesus died he did not redeem one half of man,” Spurgeon says, “but the whole man, and he means not to leave any part of the purchased possession in the enemy’s hands.”[10] In other words, Christ did not merely purchase the redemption of our spirits, he purchased the redemption of both our spirits and our bodies. Christ did not rise out of the grave so that our physical bodies would remain in their graves. No. He rose out the grave to guarantee that our physical bodies will one day rise as well. God fully intends to finish our salvation process by reuniting our spirits with glorious resurrection bodies. It seems like these—the value of human body, God’s intention to raise it from the dead, and the full redemption of man—are the impetus behind Spurgeon’s belief that angels are guardians and protectors of our bones.

Speculative but Not Preposterous

I mentioned at the beginning of this blog that you would find Spurgeon’s thought fascinating and speculative, but not absurd and preposterous. As for what has been said so far, you probably only think Spurgeon’s thought—angels watching over the bones of the saints—is fascinating and speculative. So let me try to convince you that this is not as absurd as it seems.

First, if the consummation of our redemption is the resurrection of our bodies, then even after we die, we are still not done being saved. Even though we will be spiritually present with the Lord of glory, we will still be waiting for the culmination of our salvation—the moment where our spirits are reunited with imperishable resurrection bodies that are raised up in glory, honor, and power. Therefore, even after we die, we are waiting for another phase of our redemption, a phase of redemption that is very much tied to a physical body on this earth were Satan and his demons continue to prowl around.

Second, until Satan and his demons are finally “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur” where “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever,” they remain actively opposed to all that God is doing (Rev. 20:10). This is especially true when it comes to all that God is doing in the lives of His people. So, if God the Father has ordained that the consummation of our redemption is the resurrection of our bodies rather than our physical deaths, what leads us to believe that Satan and his minions will cease actively opposing us after we die? The devil, our accuser, may still believe that he can make accusations against us. He may argue that our physical bodies are his rightful possession because we’ve sinned in a myriad of ways. In other words, since God is not done saving us until the day He resurrects our physical bodies from the dead, Satan and his subordinates may see each day as a legitimate opportunity to try and thwart God’s ultimate plan and purpose for our physical bodies.

Third, it is evident from the Bible that angels are “ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). As I have already mentioned, we ultimately come into full possession of our salvation inheritance on the day the Lord Jesus Christ resurrects our physical bodies from the grave. Why should it be considered implausible that God would assign angelic beings to guard our dead, physical bodies until Christ returns to give us our full inheritance?

And finally, you have the account from Jude: “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you’” (Jude 9). This verse is difficult to understand, but Spurgeon’s observation is legitimate; the devil certainly takes an interest in the dead body of Moses and disputes with the archangel Michael about it. This is either a one-off event where an angelic being guards the dead body of one of God’s servants, or it is an event in redemptive history that gives us an idea of angelic activity at all our graves.

I do not think any of these reasons provide an airtight argument for angels watching over the bones of the saints. I just think these reasons make Spurgeon’s speculation a little more reasonable and plausible. To put it another way, I do not think Spurgeon is completely bonkers.

What Do I Think?

I have no idea. I love Spurgeon’s emphasis on the ministry of angels, the importance of our physical bodies, and Christ’s intent to redeem the whole man. Nevertheless, I need Spurgeon to give me more Bible verses. As a rule of thumb, I think it is wise to memorize two of the best Bible verses that substantiate each biblical doctrine you affirm. When it comes to angels watching over the bones of the saints, it seems like Spurgeon only had one ambiguous verse. It will take more than that to convince me. Let me reiterate, though, I do not think Spurgeon’s speculative thought is preposterous. He may be right.


[1] C.H. Spurgeon, “Another and a Nobler Exhibition,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 8 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1862), 263.

[2] C.H. Spurgeon, “God’s Providence,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 54 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1908), 495-496.

[3] C.H. Spurgeon, “The Kingly Priesthood of the Saints,” in The New Park Street Sermons, vol. 1 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1855), 72-73.

[4] C. H. Spurgeon, “The Resurrection of the Dead,” in The New Park Street Pulpit Sermons, vol. 2 (London: Passmore & Albaster, 1856), 100.

[5] C. H. Spurgeon, “The Lord is Risen Indeed,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 19 ((London: Passmore & Albaster, 1873), 207.

[6] C. H. Spurgeon, “Resurgam,” in The New Park Street Pulpit Sermons, vol. 6 (London: Passmore & Albaster, 1860), 159-160.

[7] C. H. Spurgeon, “The Resurrection of the Dead,” in The New Park Street Pulpit Sermons, vol. 2 (London: Passmore & Albaster, 1856), 100.

[8] Ibid.

[9] C. H. Spurgeon, “Resurgam,” in The New Park Street Pulpit Sermons, vol. 6 (London: Passmore & Albaster, 1860), 159-160.

[10] C. H. Spurgeon, “The Believer in the Body and out of the Body,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 22 (London, Passmore & Alabaster, 1876), 392.

An Untimely Use of a Spurgeon Story

If you know me, then you know that I can weave C.H. Spurgeon quotes or stories into just about any conversation I’m in—yes, this may be why it’s hard for me to make friends! And my goal in this blog is to amuse you with a story of how I used an account from Spurgeon’s life at the end of an interview I had at First Baptist Church Durham in Durham, North Carolina. So, this is basically a biographical blurb I wanted to put into a brief blog for the entertainment of those bored enough to read it.

A Phone Call from Andy Davis

On Monday, July 18, 2016, I received a phone call from Andy Davis, the Senior Pastor of FBC Durham. I had been attending FBC Durham for about eighteen months, and even though I had been sitting under Andy Davis’ preaching and teaching during this time, I was not accustomed to receiving phone calls from him. At this point in my life, I viewed Andy as an incredibly gifted preacher, a great author, a church historian, a seminary professor, and one of the last Puritans,[1] not someone that typically showed up in my recent calls list.

A Ministry Opportunity

As I talked to Andy on the phone, he began to inform me of a ministry opportunity. The former College Director of FBC Durham left to plant a church in Winston Salem, North Carolina. For months, the elders of FBC Durham sought to replace this guy—you can’t replace this guy; he was, and still is, an incredibly gifted servant of the Lord. The elders interviewed numerous candidates that had turned in their resumes. For various reasons, none of these candidates worked out.

Me? You’re Kidding, Right?

Before long, some of the lay-elders and staff members at FBC Durham began to mention my name as a potential candidate for the position.[2] And let me just make this clear; this was not because I put a resume in. I wrote in my journal: “I would never have put my resume in for this position because I know how unqualified I am for such a service.” At this point in my life, I was twenty-four years old, I hadn’t finished my Master of Divinity degree, and I had no college ministry experience. I practically had no ministry experience outside of teaching Sunday School classes and occasionally preaching for small, rural Southern Baptist churches. 

Seriously, from the time I was eighteen to the time I was twenty-four, I spent way more time operating a weed-eater than doing ministry. I even mentioned this in my journal: “I know that I am terribly insufficient for a role such as this. It is hard for me to see myself doing anything other than weed-eating and preaching a few times a year.”[3] In other words, I was completely unprepared for Andy’s phone call. This ministry position wasn’t even on my radar.

Apparently, though, my lack of knowledge and experience didn’t mean much to Andy and the staff. They saw certain aspects of my life that gave them sufficient reasons to interview me for the College Director position. And even though I was slightly baffled by the phone call, I agreed to come in for the interview.

An Interview with an Awkward Ending

Later that night, I found myself in Andy’s study being interviewed by a few of the staff elders.[4] A few of the elders asked me numerous questions related to doctrine, personal holiness, and college ministry. I was intimidated and nervous, but the Lord graciously allowed me to answer the questions honestly and adequately. Then Andy Davis asked me, “Well, what do you think about all this? What’s going on in your mind?” To which I responded, “I feel like a young Charles Spurgeon.”

Everyone, especially Andy Davis, looked puzzled. You see, what Babe Ruth is to the history of baseball, Charles Spurgeon is to Baptist history. Babe Ruth is the “Sultan of Swat” and C.H. Spurgeon is the “Prince of Preachers.” Babe Ruth is the “Behemoth of Bust” and C.H. Spurgeon is the Baptist Behemoth. Spurgeon is regarded as one of the most gifted preachers in all of church history. Even the greatest preachers of our day regard Spurgeon as a preaching prodigy. If there was a Mount Rushmore for preachers, Spurgeon would, by overwhelming agreement, be found on it. 

So, why in the world was I, at twenty-four years old with practically no ministry experience or extraordinary gifting, feeling like a young Charles Spurgeon? The fact that I put my name alongside Spurgeon’s name seemed like the height of arrogance. If there was such a thing as Baptist blasphemy, I had committed it. Everybody that heard it grimaced.

Well, what happened? Andy Davis did what he always does, he asked a question to give me the opportunity to clarify myself. He asked, “What do you mean?”

An Account of the Young Charles Spurgeon

As a young Spurgeon enthusiast, I knew this was my chance to salvage my job opportunity, so I quickly began to explain myself. You see, Charles Spurgeon came to faith in Christ on January 6, 1850. He was only fifteen years old when the Lord saved him. A little over a year later, Spurgeon was called to fill the pulpit of a small Baptist Church in Waterbeach. Though Spurgeon was only sixteen years old, he was already a preaching prodigy. When the good Christian folks of Waterbeach recognized this, they quickly called him to be their pastor–the Church had forty members when Spurgeon became their minister at the age of seventeen.

Spurgeon was such a phenomenon that the church at Waterbeach began to grow exponentially. And because of his consistent emphasis on the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God brought about a miraculous change to the entire village. By 1852, the Baptist Church “at Waterbeach was not only full, but crowded with outside listeners at the open windows.” Due to Spurgeon’s giftedness and the Baptist Church’s quick growth, the people of Waterbeach began to fear the very thing that most small Baptist Church’s fear; they feared a larger church was going to take away their beloved pastor.[5]

Sadly, for the faithful sheep of Waterbeach, this fear became a reality. “On the last Sabbath morning in November, 1853, I walked,” Spurgeon said, “according to my wont, from Cambridge to the village of Waterbeach, in order to occupy the pulpit of the little Baptist Chapel.” He was overwhelmed and excited about his “pulpit exercises.” In other words, he was extremely excited to herald the gospel all Sabbath Day long.

Just as he sat down, though, “a letter bearing the postmark of London” was passed to him. “It contained an invitation to preach at New Park Street Chapel, Southward, the pulpit of which had formerly been occupied by Dr. Rippon.” With that, one of the most prominent and reputable Baptist Churches in one of the most well-known cities in all of England asked him to come fill their pulpit—Spurgeon was nineteen when he received this invitation. So, what was Spurgeon’s response? What went through his mind when he read this letter?

Well, Spurgeon recounts: “I quietly passed the letter across the table to the deacon. . . , observing that there was some mistake, and that the letter must have been intended for a Mr. Spurgeon who preached somewhere down in Norfolk.”[6] To put it another way, Spurgeon responded saying, “You have the wrong Spurgeon!” He was in disbelief that the New Park Street Chapel would extend an invitation for him to fill the pulpit. He thought they sent this invitation to the wrong guy.

Back to My Interview

So, when I told Andy and the rest of the staff that I felt like a young Charles Spurgeon, I wasn’t implying that I was extraordinarily gifted. Nor was I saying that, like the young Charles Spurgeon, my ministerial future was incredibly bright, that future fame awaited me.

Rather, I was trying to tell FBC Durham: “I think you guys have made a mistake. You have the wrong guy! You have the wrong Philip McDuffie.” I wanted them to know that, just as the young Spurgeon was in disbelief that the New Park Street Chapel would reach out to him to fill their pulpit, I was in disbelief that FBC Durham would interview me for the College Director position—a full-time ministry position alongside an incredibly gifted staff in a very healthy church.[7]

At this, they no longer grimaced uncomfortably in my presence. Sure, they probably thought it was an odd time to weave a Spurgeon story into the conversation. It was perhaps the strangest way someone has ever ended an interview. But I can tell you this, shortly after the interview, they graciously offered me the position. Perhaps the unexpected Spurgeon story got me the position. Probably not. . . but maybe!


[1] I’m joking about Andy Davis being “one of the last Puritans.” But I did, and still do, have a ton of respect for Andy Davis. If you’re unfamiliar with who Andy Davis is, then you should check out TwoJourneys.org. His teaching and preaching ministry will bless you tremendously.

[2] This is a shout out to Kevin Schaub. Unbeknownst to me, Kevin was recommending me to the other elders.

[3] This comment sounds kind of sad now that I’m thinking about it. I guess you could have regarded me as a young man with relatively modest ambitions!

[4] Yes, they made me interview the same day I received the phone call. 

[5] C.H. Spurgeon, The Early Years (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 245-246.

[6] C.H. Spurgeon, The Early Years, 246.

[7] I know a College Director position doesn’t seem like a huge deal, but it was a big deal to me at this point in my life. This was my first-time interviewing for a ministerial position within a local church. I was nervous, felt woefully inadequate, and lost sleep thinking about this position.

Spurgeon On Church Membership

Have you ever met a fellow Christian that showed an indefatigable zeal in their pursuit of church membership? I didn’t think so. However, if you had lived near a teenage boy named C.H. Spurgeon in the 19th century, you may have answered that question differently. Because, if you had run across this young boy named Spurgeon, you would have witnessed a freshly converted Christian that was tireless in his pursuit of membership within a local church.

After Spurgeon was born again, he desired to become a member of a local church. When he reached out to the minister, though, he never received a reply. Spurgeon sought to contact the lackadaisical minister three to four more times, still to no avail. So, Spurgeon reached out again. This time he informed the minister that, as a follower of Christ, he had done his Christian duty. If the minister continued to ignore him, Spurgeon vouched to call a church meeting himself where he would notify the church that he had believed in Christ and then ask if they would receive him as a member. As you can see, Spurgeon, even at a young age, saw it as his Christian duty and privilege to be a healthy member of a local church.[1]

In the same sermon that Spurgeon recounted this somewhat humorous story—I don’t know if Spurgeon intended for it to be humorous, but I couldn’t help but laugh as I read the account—he addressed certain excuses that kept many Christians from pursuing membership within a local church. And though this sermon was preached in the 1800s, we hear the same excuses today. With that said, in the remainder of this blog, you’ll discover how Spurgeon addressed these apparently timeless excuses with wisdom and boldness.

Excuse #1: I do not need to join a church “because I can be a Christian without it.”

Now, are you quite clear about that? You can be as good a Christian by disobedience to your Lord’s commands as by being obedient? Well, suppose everybody else did the same, suppose all Christians in the world said, “I shall not join the Church.” Why there would be no visible Church, there would be no ordinances. That would be a very bad thing, and yet, one doing it—what is right for one is right for all—why should not all of us do it? Then you believe that if you were to do an act which has a tendency to destroy the visible Church of God, you would be as good a Christian as if you did your best to build up that Church? I do not believe it, sir! nor do you either. You have not any such a belief; it is only a trumpery excuse for something else. There is a brick—a very good one. What is the brick made for? To help to build a house with. It is of no use for that brick to tell you that it is just as good a brick while it is kicking about on the ground as it would be in the house. It is a good-for-nothing brick; until it is built into the wall, it is no good. So you rolling-stone Christians, I do not believe that you are answering your purpose; you are living contrary to the life which Christ would have you live, and you are much to blame for the injury you do.

Excuse #2: “If I were to join the Church, I should feel it such a bond [i.e., heavy commitment] upon me.”

Just what you ought to feel. Ought you not to feel that you are bound to holiness now, and bound to Christ now? Oh! those blessed bonds! If there is anything that could make me feel more bound to holiness than I am, I should like to feel that fetter, for it is only liberty to feel bound to godliness, and uprightness, and carefulness of living.

Excuse #3: “If I were to join the Church, I am afraid that I should not be able to hold on.” 

You expect to hold on, I suppose, out of the Church—that is to say, you feel safer in disobeying Christ than in obeying him! Strange feeling that! Oh! you had better come and say, “My Master, I know thy saints ought to be united together in church-fellowship, for churches were instituted by thine apostles: and I trust I have grace to carry out the obligation: I have no strength of my own, my Master, but my strength lies in resting upon thee: I will follow where thou leadest, and leave the rest to thee.”

Excuse #4: “I cannot join the Church; it is so imperfect.” 

You, then, are perfect, of course! If so, I advise you to go to heaven, and join the Church there, for certainly you are not fit to join it on earth, and would be quite out of place.

Excuse #5: I do not want to join the Church because “I see so much that is wrong about Christians.”

There is nothing wrong in yourself, I suppose! I can only say, my brethren, that if the Church of God is not better than I am, I am sorry for it. I felt, when I joined the Church, that I should be getting a deal more good than I should be likely to bring into it, and with all the faults I have seen in living these twenty years or more in the Christian Church, I can say, as an honest man, that the members of the Church are the excellent of the earth, in whom is all my delight, though they are not perfect, but a long way from it. If, out of heaven, there are to be found any who really live near to God, it is the members of the Church of Christ.

Excuse #6: I do not want to join the Church because “there are a rare lot of hypocrites.” 

You are very sound and sincere yourself, I suppose? I trust you are so, but then you ought to come and join the Church, to add to its soundness by your own. I am sure, my dear friends, none of you will shut up your shops to-morrow morning, or refuse to take a sovereign when a customer comes in, because there happen to be some smashers about who are dealing with bad’ coins. No, not you, and you do not believe the theory of some, that because some professing Christians are hypocrites, therefore all are, for that would be as though you should say that, because some sovereigns are bad, therefore all are bad, which would be clearly wrong, for if all sovereigns were counterfeits, it would never pay for the counterfeiter to try to pass his counterfeits; it is just the quantity of good metal that passes off the bad. There is a fine good quantity of respectable golden Christians still in the world and still in the Church, rest assured of that.

Excuse #7: I do not want to join the Church because “it is so looked down upon.”

Oh! what a blessed look-down that is! I do think, brethren, there is no honour in the world equal to that of being looked down upon by that which is called “Society” in this country. The most of people are slaves to what they call “respectability.” Respectability! When a man puts on a coat on Sunday that he has paid for, when he worships God by night or by day, whether men see him or not: when he is an honest, straightforward man—I do not care how small his earnings are, he is a respectable man, and he need never bend his neck to the idea of Society or its artificial respectability.[2]

Conclusion

As you can see, from the time Spurgeon tirelessly pursued membership within that local church to the time he preached this sermon, he regarded church membership as both the duty and privilege of every Christian. Since the visible church, the church on earth, is not optional, church membership is not optional. Until the return of Christ, church membership makes the distinction—a legitimate but imperfect distinction—between the church and the world visible.[3] Therefore, every Christian should visibly make themselves distinct from the world by becoming a healthy member of a healthy local church.


[1] C. H. Spurgeon, “Joining the Church,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 60 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1914), 294-295.

[2] Ibid., 296-297.

[3] Geoffery Chang, Spurgeon the Pastor: Recovering a Biblical & Theological Vision for Ministry (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2022), 110.

Refraining Wisdom

“When words are many, transgression is not lacking, 

but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.”

Proverbs 10:19

If you are anything like me, and I am confident that I am not the exception here, then you love to hear yourself talk. According to the Bible though, this is not a good thing. Lately, this particular sin pattern of mine has been at the forefront of my thinking—it has caused me to examine myself. And I figured one of the best ways to examine myself was to ponder and meditate on Proverbs 10:19. In this blog, I’ll just mention a few of my thoughts on this popular but poorly applied, at least in my case, verse.

The Untamed Tongue

It should not surprise us, biblically or experientially, that our hearts are evil (Gen. 6:5). And when we consider that our words flow from our evil and wicked hearts (Matt. 12:34), “we cannot conceive of words, much less a multitude of words, without sin.”[1] It is as though our tongue is a “restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:8). Sure, the tongue is a small member of our body, but it is a small member that has catastrophic affects—much like a small spark that causes a devastating wildfire (Jas. 3:5). Even though the tongue is a slender portion of flesh, it contains a whole world of iniquity[2], defiles and stains the whole body, sets our lives on fire, and is fueled by the very flames of hell (Jas. 3:6). 

Therefore, proverbial wisdom concludes that the increase of words inevitably leads to the increase of transgressions. In other words, the more we talk the more we sin! And I am sure that by now, if we are honest, we have come to realize that no other “member” of our body wreaks more havoc to our Christian lives as our tongues do.[3]

Godly Restraint

Thankfully, this verse does not just teach us that the increase of words leads to an increase of transgressions. The Spirit of God goes on to tell us that “whoever restrains his lips is prudent” (Prov. 10:19). To restrain means to keep back, withhold, or hold off. Prudence is simply the God given wisdom that enables us to live a life that magnifies the Lord. And it is the one who has enough self-control to restrain his lips that is prudent. So godly wisdom reveals that it is far better to largely keep our mouths shut than it is to incessantly open our mouths and multiply transgressions against our good and gracious God.

But how come so many Christians, including myself, do not restrain their lips? Well, I believe it is because we are not nearly as spiritually mature as we think we are. We think that if we put away sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, drunkenness, murder, and things like these, then we are spiritually mature—and to an extent this may be true. We forget, though, that few things clearly reveal the credibility and maturity of our Christian faith like how we manage our tongues (Mt. 12:33-37; Jas. 1:26; 3:1-4). 

So do some self-examination. Evaluate your spiritual maturity based on how you govern your tongue. How are you doing with these sins: grumbling, complaining, lying, crude joking, quarreling, degrading humor, gossip, slander, flattery, destructive sarcasm, and irritable responses? And do not just evaluate your spiritual maturity based on how you speak to co-workers and strangers; evaluate it based on how you speak to those closest to you, i.e., your friends, family, and spouse.

Gospel Comfort

This type of self-examination is helpful. Regarding sins of speech, self-examination enables us to see that these sins are not trivialities—they are treasonous acts against our Sovereign Lord that deserve a sentence of condemnation. Self-examination alone, though, is never good. It must also be paralleled with an examination of the grace of God in Christ.

If the Lord counted these sins of speech against us, who could stand on the day when we must give an account of every careless word we have ever spoken (Ps. 130:3; Mt 12:36)? None of us. Thankfully, in Christ, the Lord does not count these sins against us. Christ, with His single and efficacious sacrifice for sins, has made complete atonement for our sins, even our sins of speech (Heb. 10:11-13). Now we can exclaim with the Psalmist, “As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12). Praise the Lord!

Gospel Obedience

Gospel obedience is an obedience that is rooted in God’s love for us in Christ. Well, what does gospel obedience look like regarding Proverbs 10:19? Let me mention four ways this may look in the lives of Christians.

First, we need to have a biblical view of the seriousness of speech sins. We must never think of these sins “as anything less than the nails that pierced” Christ’s hands and feet. This will lead us to pray for an increase of “refraining wisdom.” [4] Second, we should be prudent and restrain our lips, “not indeed in silence, but in caution; to weigh our words before uttering them; never speaking, except when we have something to say; speaking only just enough; considering the time, circumstances, and person; what is solid, suitable, and profitable.”[5] Third, we must exercise the same level of refraining wisdom on social media, email, text, and any other medium we use to communicate these days. And fourth, when we hastily open our lips and use our tongues in destructive ways, we need to repent and cry out with Paul, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:24).


[1] Charles Bridges, Proverbs, Geneva Series of Commentaries (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 2008), 102.

[2] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 320.

[3] Douglas Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 159.

[4] Charles Bridges, Proverbs, 103.

[5] Ibid.

Calvin’s Angelology: Christ is the Chief Angel

Calvin considers the angel of the Lord that frequently appears in the Old Testament as the pre-incarnate Christ. Calvin knows this is not an original thought because he mentions in his Institutes that “the orthodox doctors of the church have rightly and prudently interpreted that chief angel to be God’s Word, who already at that time, as a sort of foretaste, began to fulfill the office of Mediator.”[1] Even though Calvin’s view on the angel of the Lord is not original, it is still important to consider in regards to Calvin’s angelology. Thus, the following blog will give an overview of Calvin’s view of the angel of the Lord.

The Pre-Incarnate Christ is the Angel of the Lord

Calvin repeats that the pre-incarnate Christ is the angel of the Lord throughout his writings. Regarding Exodus 23:20, Calvin says that “what we have already said should be remembered, that no common angel is designated, but the chief of all angels, who has always been also the head of the Church.”[2] In his comments on Daniel 8:13-14, Calvin says, “Then, who does not see that Christ is denoted, who is the chief of angels and far superior to them all?”[3] In his Institutes, Calvin dedicates an entire paragraph to “The Angel of the Eternal God” in his section that deals with the doctrine of the Trinity.[4] Here, also, Calvin teaches that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ.

The Pre-Incarnate Christ Didn’t Have the Nature of Angels

In Calvin’s commentary on Hosea 12:3-5, he argues lengthily that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ. In this section, though, Calvin clearly emphasizes that this does not mean that the pre-incarnate Christ had the nature of angels:

But it must be noticed, that God and angel are here mentioned in the same sense; we may, indeed, render it angel in both places; for אלהים, Aleim, as well as מלאך, melac, signifies an angel. But, however, every doubt is removed by the Prophet, when he at last adds, Jehovah, God of hosts, Jehovah is his name, for here the Prophet expressly mentions the essential name of God, by which he testifies, that the same was the eternal and the only true God, who yet was at the same time an angel. But it may be asked, How was he the eternal God, and at the same time an angel? It occurs, indeed, so frequently in Scripture, that it must be well known to us, that when the Lord appeared by his angels, the name of Jehovah was given to them, not indeed to all the angels indiscriminately, but to the chief angel, by whom God manifested himself. This, as I have said, must be well known to us. It then follows, that this angel was truly and essentially God. But this would not strictly apply to God, except there be some distinction of persons. There must then be some person in the Deity, to which this name and title of an angel can apply; for if we take the name, God, without difference or distinction, and regard it as denoting his essence, it would certainly be inconsistent to say, that he is God and an angel too; but when we distinguish persons in the Deity, there is no inconsistency. How so? Because Christ, the eternal Wisdom of God, did put on the character of a Mediator, before he put on our flesh. He was therefore then a Mediator, and in that capacity he was also an angel. He was at the same time Jehovah, who is now God manifested in the flesh.[5]

The Pre-Incarnate Christ is an Angel in His Ministerial Function

For Calvin, the pre-incarnate Christ can be regarded as an angel because of his pre-incarnate ministry. So, the pre-incarnate Christ is not an angel in his essence; he is an angel in his ministerial function. This becomes even clearer when Calvin rebukes Servetus. Servetus “imagined that Christ was from the beginning an angel, as if he was a phantom, and a distinct person, having an essence apart from the Father.” “This diabolical conceit ought to be wholly discarded by us,” Calvin argues. He then emphasizes, “But Christ, though he was God, was also a Mediator; and as a Mediator, he is rightly and fitly called the angel or the messenger of God, for he has of his own accord placed himself between the Father and men.”[6] So Christ has voluntarily placed himself as a mediator between God the Father and men. Because of his mediatorial work in the Old Testament, the pre-incarnate Christ is rightly called the angel of the Lord and the messenger of God.

What were the pre-incarnate Christ’s ministerial duties? Angels are to guide, protect, and look after the safety of the Church. For Calvin, the pre-incarnate Christ “was the angel of highest rank, by whose guidance, safeguard, and protection, the church has been preserved and upheld.”[7] Though Calvin strongly opposes the idea of angels as mediators, he consistently, and perhaps confusedly, argues that this was one of the main reasons the pre-incarnate Christ was called the angel of the Lord. Earlier, this was evident when Calvin rebukes Servetus. It is also evident in Calvin’s comments on Zechariah 1:18-21:

But we must remember what I have already said, that this chief angel was the Mediator and the Head of the Church; and the same is Jehovah, for Christ, as we know, is God manifested in the flesh. There is then no wonder that the Prophet should indiscriminately call him angel and Jehovah, he being the Mediator of the Church, and also God. He is God, being of the same essence with the Father; and Mediator, having already undertaken his Mediatorial office, though not then clothed in our flesh, so as to become our brother; for the Church could not exist, nor be united to her God without a head. We hence see that Christ, as to his eternal essence, is said to be God, and that he is called an angel on account of his office, that is, of a Mediator.[8]

Thus, the pre-incarnate Christ’s primary ministerial duty was as a mediator for God’s people. Calvin says that even “though the time of humbling had not yet arrived, that eternal Word nevertheless set forth a figure of the office to which he had been destined.”[9] In other words, as the angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Christ ministered in specific ways that pre-figured how he was ultimately going to minister in the Incarnation. And since Christ is ranked above all angels, is superior to angels, and carries out the ministerial duties of an angel, Calvin consistently emphasizes that Christ is the chief of all the angels.


[1] Calvin, Institutes, I.8.10.

[2] Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, 1:403.

[3] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:105-106.

[4] Calvin, Institutes, I.8.10.

[5] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:420-421.

[6] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:421.

[7] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 4:348.

[8] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:57.

[9] Calvin, Institutes, I.8.10.

Calvin’s Angelology: Angels Appearing as Men in Scripture

The author of Hebrews writes, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (Heb 13:2). Calvin’s argues that the author of Hebrews commands his recipients to practice hospitality and then motivates them to obey by adding “that angels had sometimes been entertained by those who thought that they received only men.”[1] Calvin is referring to the time that angels appeared as men to Abraham. Disappointedly, Calvin’s comments on Hebrews 13:2 are rather brief regarding this particular topic—angels appearing as men. Nevertheless, Calvin’s comments in some of his other commentaries are much more extensive. This section will cover how Calvin understands angels occasionally appearing as men in Scripture.

God Clothed Angels with Human Bodies

Calvin elaborates on this topic in his comments on seven sections of Scripture (Gen 18:1-21; Dan 10:5-6; 12:5-7; Zech 2:1-4; Lk 24:43; Acts 10:30; Heb 13:2). In Calvin’s explanations of these passages, he repetitively emphasizes two truths: (1) the angels are clothed with human bodies, and (2) the angels do not actually become men. Moses “calls the angels men,” Calvin writes, “because, being clothed with human bodies they appeared to be nothing else than men.”[2] God, the creator of all things, gives the angels “bodies, for a time, in which they might fulfill the office enjoined them.”[3] While the angels are clothed in these bodies “they truly walked, spoke, and discharged other functions,”[4] but he also writes that angels “suffer no human thing” so long as they are in the shape of men.[5] In Genesis 18:1-21, the angels even ate, though Calvin does not believe “that the meat and drink yielded them that refreshment which the weakness of the flesh demands.”[6] After the angel was done with his ministerial task, “God speedily annihilated those bodies, which had been created for temporary use”[7] and restored angels to their own nature.[8]

Angels Never Actually Became Men

Nevertheless, even though angels were occasionally clothed with human bodies, Calvin continually mentions that angels did not actually become men. “If it be asked, whether angels did really put on human nature?” Calvin states, “the obvious answer is, that they never, strictly speaking, became really men.”[9] He says in another place, “We ought not to believe them to be really men, because they appeared under a human form.”[10] Calvin’s belief, that angels do not actually put on human nature, is also apparent when he emphasizes that the angels’ food and drink did not yield them any nourishment, and that the angels were unable to suffer when they were clothed with human bodies. Calvin wants his readers to understand that God occasionally clothed an angel with a body, but that God in no way truly added a human nature to the angel’s celestial nature. Why did Calvin care to highlight this so much?

The Incarnation is Unique

Calvin does this because he wants to preserve the uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Son of God. “Christ, indeed, was really man, in consequence of his springing from the seed of Abraham, David, and Adam,” Calvin says. He then argues, “But as regards to angels, God clothed them for a single day or short periods in bodies, for a distinct purpose and a special use.”[11] In his comments on Daniel 12:5-7, Calvin makes a similar argument: “For Christ took upon Him our flesh and was truly man, while he was God manifest in flesh. (1 Tim. 3:16) But this is not true of angels, who received only a temporary body while performing the duties of their office.”[12] In Calvin’s desire to maintain the mystery, wonder, and glory of the Incarnation of the Son of God, he insists that angels were occasionally clothed with human bodies, but that they in no way became fully and truly human.

Does this Still Happen Today?

Does Calvin think that this still happens today? Disappointedly, he does not even address this question in his comments on Hebrews 13:2. Instead, he thinks the author of Hebrews wants his readers to understand that God honors those who practice hospitality. However, based on his belief that angels no longer appear to individuals as emissaries, it is probably correct to assume that Calvin does not believe that angels still appear to men clothed in human bodies.

In Sum!

The previous section discussed how Calvin understands angels appearing as men throughout Scripture. God occasionally clothed an angel with a human body for a specific ministerial duty, but God never added a truly and fully human nature to an angel’s celestial nature. As he addresses this topic, Calvin remains fixed to the Scripture, but he occasionally goes beyond Scripture for the purpose of emphasizing the uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Son of God.


[1] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, ed. and trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software), 340.

[2] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 1:468-470.

[3] Ibid., 1:471-472.

[4] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 1:471-472.

[5] Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, 1:434-435.

[6] Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 2:373-382.

[7] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 1:471-472.

[8] Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, 1:434-435.

[9] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:59.

[10] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:240-241.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 2:381.

Calvin’s Angelology: The Function of Angels

Calvin has a high view of the function and work of angels. Warfield, as he writes on how extensive the function of angels is in Calvin’s angelology, says, “There is at least a prima-facie appearance that Calvin thought of them as the instruments through which the entirety of God’s providential work is administered.”[1] Calvin says this much himself when he argues that by means of angels “God exercises his power, and might, and dominion,”[2] and that “God works through the angels to direct human affairs.”[3] Calvin goes further when he states “that angels are celestial spirits whose ministry and service God uses to carry out all things he has decreed,”[4] and that even “the very violence of the winds is governed by angels as God has ordained.”[5] In short, Warfield is right. For Calvin, all of God’s providential work is dispensed through the ministry of angels. The following section will consider four functions that angels have in Calvin’s writings: angels function as emissaries of God, as ministers of God’s wrath, as servants and guardians of God’s elect, and as admirers of God’s gospel.

Angels are Emissaries

First, Calvin believes that angels are emissaries of God the King. Angels appear to men and speak on behalf of God “in order that, as we have before said, the embassy of those who bear his name, may have the greater authority, by their being clothed with his majesty.”[6] Throughout the Bible “angels transfer to themselves the person and titles of God, when they are performing the commissions entrusted to them by him.”[7] In other words, Calvin believes God commissions the angels, clothes them in glory, gives them a message, and enables them to be his representatives before men. Thus, when God employs angels as agents to speak on his behalf, “God himself is said to speak.”[8] Nevertheless, though angels do this throughout the Bible, Calvin does not believe that angels still function in this capacity. In his comments on Daniel 7:15-16, Calvin says that “angels do not appear to us, and do not openly and conspicuously descend from heaven,” and that believers must “not seek the understanding of God’s word from angels, who do not appear to us.” God now chooses to teach and instruct his elect “by means of pastors and ministers of the gospel.”[9]

Angels are Ministers of God’s Wrath

Second, Calvin regards angels as ministers of God’s wrath. Calvin understands this in two distinct ways. On the one hand, as Calvin studies Scripture, he is aware that “God executes his judgments by reprobate angels”[10] and “executes his wrath by the agency of reprobate angels, as if they were his executioners.”[11] Then, to emphasize the ultimate role of the elect angels as minister of God’s wrath, Calvin goes on to say that “God causes his elect angels to preside over those judgments which he executes by means of the reprobate,”[12] and that God “gives the elect angels the pre-eminence over” the reprobate angels as they carry out God’s wrath.[13] In sum, Calvin believes that the elect angels preside over the reprobate angels as God sovereignly uses the reprobate angels as executioners of his vengeance.

On the other hand, as Calvin considers all of Scripture, he realizes this distinction—elect angels presiding over reprobate angels as reprobate angels carry out God’s wrath—is not always observed. At times, elect angels execute God’s vengeance and wrath themselves. It was an elect angel that killed all the first born in Egypt, and it was an elect angel that slayed 185,000 Assyrians. Because of this, Calvin emphasizes to his readers “that it is not foreign to the office of elect angels, to descend armed for the purpose of executing Divine vengeance, and of inflicting punishment.”[14] To people that may object to this, elect angels inflicting punishment, Calvin argues that elect angels “cannot watch for the preservation of the godly without being prepared for fighting—that they cannot succour them by their aid without also opposing their enemies.”[15] Ultimately, in order to protect and preserve the Church, Calvin believes elect angels must oppose the Church’s enemies.

Angels are Servants and Guardians of God’s Elect

Third, Calvin believes angels are servants and guardians of God’s elect. Calvin is convinced that the world, the flesh, and the Devil constantly assault God’s children. The impious “pour forth their threats against us” and “desire to destroy us, and are ever plotting for our complete ruin.”[16] The god of this world utterly detests the elect, rages against them, opposes their prayers, and lays snares for their destruction. The flesh is soft and frail, gives way to exhaustion, and is incapable of making it through a life filled with so many “thorns and briers, steep roads, intricate windings, and rough places.”[17] The way of God’s elect is filled with unnumerable dangers, toils, and snares. Consequently, Calvin often mentions the importance of angels as servants and guardians of God’s people.

Calvin maintains that the Lord makes “use of the ministration of angels to promote the safety of believers.”[18]Because of the elect’s feebleness, Scripture teaches that angels “keep vigil for our safety, take upon themselves our defense, direct our ways, and take care that some harm may not befall us.”[19] Even though God’s people have countless enemies, “the angels of God, armed with invisible power, constantly watch over us, and array themselves on every side to aid and deliver us from all evil.”[20] God sends his angels “against all the endeavors of Satan, and all the fury of the impious who desire to destroy us.”[21] If angels did not carry out this ministry, God’s children “would easily fall or give way through exhaustion, and would hardly ever make way amidst so many thorns and briers, steep roads, intricate windings, and rough places.”[22] For Calvin, God’s providential use of angels is essential for the preservation of the saints.

Calvin’s teaching, that angels are servants and guardians of the elect, is meant to comfort Christians; not to lead Christians to an undue reverence for angels. “Therefore we must beware of falling into the superstition of the Papists,” Calvin stresses, “who, by their absurd worship of angels, ascribe to them that power which belongs to God.”[23] Instead of revering angels, Calvin desires for Christians to see “the singular love of God towards us; for he employs his angels especially for this purpose, that he might show that our salvation is greatly valued by him.”[24] After he emphasizes the ministry of angels, Calvin writes, “The Lord alone. . . preserves us; for the angels may be regarded as his hand,” and that “all praise is due to God alone, of whom the angels are only instruments.” For Calvin, the fact that God commissions the angels to comfort the elect in their weakness, to console them in their distress, and to strengthen them in their faith, is one of the remarkable displays of God’s unwavering love for them.

What about Guardian Angels?

What does Calvin say about individual guardian angels? Calvin denies the popular belief that each believer has a personal guardian angel. He is aware of the verses that are commonly used to defend this doctrine (Dan 10:13, 20; 12:1; Matt 18:10; Acts 12:15). Joseph A Pipa Jr. helpfully breaks down Calvin’s arguments, specifically within the Institutes, against people who defend personal guardian angels from these verses:

He answers three arguments for individual guardian angels. First, that particular angels have been assigned to serve as guardians over kingdoms (Dan. 10:13, 20; 12:1) does not imply that each individual has a specific guardian angel. Second, the reference to children’s angels beholding the face of the Father (Matt. 18:10) does hint that certain angels have been assigned to look after the safety of children, but this is not sufficient ground to assert a guardian angel. Third, with respect to Peter’s angel (Acts 12:15), it is possible the servant girl believed that Peter had a particular guardian angel, but nothing prevents the interpretation that an angel was appointed care of him in prison.[25]

Pipa’s summation is helpful. Ultimately, Calvin is not convinced that these passages supply a solid foundation to believe that each Christian has a personal guardian angel. 

Instead, Calvin argues that Scripture “declares that the angels encamp around (Ps. 34:7) the godly, and that not one angel, but many, have been commissioned to guard every one of the faithful.”[26] So, instead of defending personal guardian angels from these passages, it is more faithful to Scripture to argue that “the whole host of heaven doth watch for the safety of the Church; and that as necessity of time requireth sometimes one angel, sometimes more do defend us with their aid.”[27] In other words, God commissions all the angels to watch over the Church, and at times commissions an angel to serve one of his children in a specific way. Calvin deals with this extensively in his Institutes and commentaries because he thinks God’s honor is at stake. “Therefore they who think that each of us is defended by one angel only,” Calvin writes, “wickedly depreciate the kindness of God.”[28] Why make the people of God settle for one angel when Scripture clearly indicates that we have the host of heaven watching over us?[29]

Angels are Admirers of God’s Gospel

Fourth, Calvin believes angels are admirers of God’s gospel. The apostle Peter writes that angels long to look into the Old Testament prophesies concerning the sufferings and subsequent glories of the Messiah (1 Pet 1:10-12). For Calvin, the glory of the salvation that is promised in Christ is exceedingly wonderful “because even angels, though they enjoy God’s presence in heaven, yet burn with a desire of seeing it.”[30] Paul mentions that the church, consisting of reconciled Jews and Gentiles, displays the wisdom of God “to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph 3:10). “Paul’s meaning is this,” Calvin writes, “The church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, is a mirror, in which angels behold the astonishing wisdom of God displayed in a manner unknown to them before.”[31] Calvin also asserts that the substitutionary death of Christ is not only the foolishness of the cross, it is also the admiration of the angels.[32] From this, Calvin concludes that angels admire the wonderful works of God in the government of his Church day after day.[33] Now that angels have witnessed the glories of the gospel unfold in the death and resurrection of Christ, they desire to see “the last display of divine justice, when the kingdom of Christ shall be completed.”[34] Thus, Calvin thinks that angels, in all their celestial glory, are now eagerly awaiting the consummation of the Church’s redemption—the return of Christ.

In Sum!

In sum, this section covered Calvin’s understanding of the function and work of angels. Calvin regards angels as emissaries of God the King, ministers of God’s wrath, servants and guardians of God’s elect, and admirers of God’s gospel. Because Calvin believes God uses angels to carry out all that God decrees, more could be said about Calvin’s understanding of the ministration of angels. Nevertheless, throughout Calvin’s Institutes, sermons, and commentaries, he consistently teaches God’s people that angels work and serve in these particular ways.


[1] Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Calvin and Calvinism, 319.

[2] John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, 216.

[3] Calvin, Sermons on Job: Chapters 1-14, chapter 4, Kindle.

[4] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.5.

[5] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:271.

[6] John Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, ed. and trans. John King, vols. 1-2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 571.

[7] Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of Harmony, 1:61.

[8] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, ed. and trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 5:116.

[9] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:47-48.

[10] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 504-505.

[11] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 3:261-263.

[12] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 504-505.

[13] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:578-579.

[14] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 504-505.

[15] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:578-579.

[16] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:253.

[17] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, ed. and trans. William Pringle (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 2:217.

[18] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 3:145-146.

[19] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.6.

[20] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:563.

[21] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:253.

[22] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:217.

[23] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:217.

[24] Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:38.

[25] Joseph A. Pipa Jr., “Creation and Providence: Institutes 1.14, 16-18,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis, ed. David W. Hall and Peter A Lillback (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 132.

[26] John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, ed. and trans. William Pringle, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 338-339.

[27] John Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 487.

[28] Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 2:186.

[29] Pipa, “Creation and Providence: Institutes 1.14, 16-18,” 133.

[30] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, ed. and trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 38.

[31] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, 256.

[32] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, 92.

[33] Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 42-43.

[34] Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 42-43.

Calvin’s Angelology: The Creation, Essence, Order, and Number of Angels

Calvin believes that God created the world in six days. Man, as the climax of God’s creation, ought to look at the world and “contemplate God’s fatherly love toward mankind, in that he did not create Adam until he had lavished upon the universe all manner of good things.”[1] For Calvin, the creation account of Genesis 1-2 preeminently reveals God’s goodness toward humanity. And in Calvin’s estimation, God unquestionably displays his benevolence toward humanity in the creation of illustrious and noble angelic beings.[2] In this blog, we will examine how Calvin understands the creation, essence, order, and number of angels. 

God Created the Angels

First, Calvin believes that God created the angels. Calvin concedes that the creation account of Genesis 1-2 mentions “no other works of God than those which show themselves to our own eyes.”[3] So, the creation account does not explicitly mention or even allude to the creation of angels. Yet, since angels are regarded as servants of God, even later in Genesis, Calvin deduces that “he, to whom they devote their effort and functions, is their Creator.”[4] Calvin is more direct when he comments on Colossians 1:15—where Paul teaches that Christ is the creator of all things visible and invisible—saying, “Not only, therefore, have those heavenly creatures which are visible to our eyes, but spiritual creatures also, been created by the Son of God.”[5] In sum, Calvin believes the Scripture implicitly and explicitly teaches that God created the angels.

When it comes to the specific day the angels were created, Calvin keeps to his rule of modesty and sobriety. He believes it is unprofitable to investigate when the angels were created.[6] Because the creation account does not explicitly mention the creation of angels, he considers it pointless to contemplate how the creation of angels is related to the creation account of Genesis 1-2.[7] So, Calvin believes that in the beginning God created all things visible and invisible. However, because Scripture is silent about the day the angels were created, Calvin remains silent as well.

Angels are Spirits with Angelic Natures

Second, concerning the essence of angels, Calvin believes that angels are spirits and that they have an angelic nature.[8] It aggravates him that the Libertines of his day, like the Sadducees of old, deny the existence of angels and argue that angels are “either the impulses that God inspires in men or those examples of his power which he puts forth.”[9] For Calvin, this does injustice to the biblical account regarding angels. Angels have joy attributed to them (Lk 15:10), lift believers by their hands (Ps 91:11; Matt 4:6; Lk 4:10-11), carry believers’ souls to rest (Lk 16:22), and see the face of God (Matt 18:10).[10] For Calvin, it is apparent that angels are “not qualities or inspirations without substance, but true spirits.”[11]

Even though angels are true spirits, Calvin constantly endeavors to keep angels in their proper rank and degree by describing the differences between the divine essence and the essence of angels. Calvin believes that angels, as heavenly spirits adorned with divine glory,[12] are “superior to corporeal creatures.”[13] To put it another way, angels are superior to creatures that have bodies. Yet he passionately argues that angels are not part “of the divine essence or substance, as some fanatics dream.”[14] So, angels are superior to corporeal creatures but they are inferior to God, who alone has the divine essence. God created the angels as immortal spirits that will never perish, but angels are only “immortal insofar as they are sustained by the power on high, and insofar as God maintains them, he who is immortal by nature and in whom is the fountain of life.”[15] Angels are wise, but because omniscience is an attribute of God alone, “the knowledge of angels is necessarily limited.”[16] Angels are remarkably strong, but because omnipotence is a quality of God alone, “angels have no power distinct from God’s.”[17]

In Calvin’s delineation of the differences between the essence of angels and the divine essence, it is important to consider how Calvin understands elect angels after the fall of Satan and the other reprobate angels. In Colossians, Paul says that through Christ God the Father has reconciled “to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col 1:19-20 ESV).[18] Since Christ’s death is instrumental in reconciling all things to God the Father, even things in heaven, Calvin infers that Christ functions as a mediator for elect angels. Since even the elect angels, as creatures, were at risk of falling too, God, by extending the grace of Christ, gave them a “fixed standing in righteousness, so as to have no longer any fear of fall or revolt.”[19] However, he is quick to add that “Christ is not the Redeemer of the angels, for they do not need to be ransomed from death, which they never fell into, but he is their Mediator.”[20]

Calvin has similar thoughts in his comments on Job 4:18—the verse that says God charges his angels with error. For Calvin, this means that “there is folly and vanity in the angels, which means that there is something lacking in them.”[21] He says in another place that this verse teaches “that the greatest purity is vile, if it is brought in comparison with the righteousness of God.”[22] As far as creatures go, the elect angels are perfect and righteous and they render perfect obedience to the Lord. In comparison to God, though, even the elect angels are iniquitous. Because of this, Calvin believes the angels have “need of a peace-maker, through whose grace they may wholly cleave to God. Hence it is with propriety that Paul declares, that the grace of Christ does not reside among mankind alone, and on the other hand makes it common also to angels.”[23] In other words, Christ graciously functions as a mediator for the angels to keep them from falling like Satan and the other reprobate angels, to fix and confirm them in a state of righteousness, and to enable them to remain before God.

There’s a Hierarchy Amongst the Angels

Third, Calvin abides by his rule of modesty and sobriety regarding the order of angels. It is not that Calvin rejects the idea of a hierarchy of angelic beings. He considers the pre-incarnate Christ as the angel of the Lord that functions as the head and chief of the elect angels (this blog series will discuss this later).[24] He knows Scripture teaches that Michael is called “the great prince” in the book of Daniel and “the archangel” in Jude (Dan 12:2; Jude 9).[25] From Ephesians 1:21, Calvin concludes “that there are various orders of angels.”[26] So, Calvin believes there is order amongst the angelic beings. Nevertheless, Calvin believes the biblical evidence is insufficient to “determine the degrees of honor among the angels, distinguish each by his insignia, and assign to each his place and station.”[27] Since Scripture does not give a complete theory of the organization of angels, Calvin does not strive to concoct one either.

There Are Lots of Angels

Fourth, this is true about the number of angels as well. Calvin is aware that Christ taught there are many legions of angels (Matt 26:53), that Daniel taught there are many myriads of angels, that Elisha’s servant saw an army of angels (2 Kg 6:17-20), and that angels are encamped around those who fear God (Ps 34:7).[28] In Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy, he even states that the number of the angels is infinite.[29] Therefore, Calvin is aware that there is a great multitude of angels. Nonetheless, he considers it “rash, wicked, and dangerous” to attempt to formulate a fixed number of the angels.

In Sum!

In this blog, it was apparent that Calvin believes God, the creator of all things visible and invisible, created the angels, that angels are glorious and celestial spirits, that there is order amongst the angels, and that there are multitudes of angels. Calvin, for the most part, fixes himself to Scripture. Yet, pertaining to the essence of angels, he slightly deviates from his rule of modesty and sobriety to emphasize the superiority of the divine essence in comparison to the essence of angels.


[1] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.2.

[2] Calvin, Institutes, 1.14.3.

[3] Calvin, Institutes, 1.14.3.

[4] Calvin, Institutes, 1.14.3.

[5] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 150.

[6] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.4.

[7] Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Calvin and Calvinism, 312.

[8] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.5.

[9] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.9.

[10] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.9.

[11] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.9.

[12] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ed. and trans. James Anderson (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 3:424.

[13] John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, ed. and trans. John Owen (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 49.

[14] Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 3:424.

[15] John Calvin, Sermons on Job: Chapters 1-14, trans. Rob Roy McGregor (Banner of Truth Trust, 2014), chapter 16, Kindle.

[16] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, ed. and trans. Thomas Myers (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 2:106.

[17] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:267.

[18] Unless otherwise noted, all Bible translations come from the ESV.

[19] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 156.

[20] Calvin, Sermons on Job: Chapters 1-14, chapter 16, Kindle.

[21] Calvin, Sermons on Job: Chapters 1-14, chapter 16, Kindle.

[22] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 156.

[23] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 156.

[24] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of Harmony, ed. and trans. Charles William Bingham (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 1:61.

[25] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.8

[26] Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, 216.

[27] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.8.

[28] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.8.

[29] John Calvin, The Sermons of John Calvin upon the Fifth Booke of Moses Called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 1187.

Calvin’s Angelology: His Approach

Calvin approaches angels with one rule: modesty and sobriety.[1] Calvin’s one rule of modesty and sobriety is due to his fear of idolatry.[2] Throughout history, fallen man has perpetually attributed divinity to angelic creatures. As a pastor and theologian, Calvin is mindful of this when he writes and speaks about angels. He does not want to say or write anything that will lead people to an unhealthy adulation of angels. For this reason, Susan Schreiner infers that Calvin’s “angelology was governed less by an interest in angels in and of themselves than by the concern to keep angels in their proper ‘rank’ or ‘degree.’”[3] It is not that Calvin is uninterested in angels; he is just more concerned with the supremacy of God over angels. In Calvin’s Institutes, commentaries, and sermons, he keeps angels in their proper rank and degree in three ways: he attempts to avoid speculation, to edify Christians, and to direct people’s gazes toward God.

Don’t Speculate!

First, Calvin attempts to avoid speculation. He opposes men like Dionysius who write and speak so much about angels that if you read their books “you would think a man fallen from heaven recounted, not what he had learned, but what he had seen with his own eyes.”[4] Calvin strongly disagrees with such an indulgent curiosity. Instead, because Scripture does not address every fruitless question people have about angels, the theologian must not address these fruitless questions either.

In regard to angels, Calvin tells his readers “not to speak, or guess, or even to seek to know. . . anything except what has been imparted to us by God’s Word.”[5] In his sermon on Ephesians 1:19-23, he shepherds his congregants to “only give ear to God’s Word, and in all soberness learn from him without giving rein to our own foolish curiosity, as some do, disputing subtly about the angels.”[6] This pastoral advice—not to speak, know, or guess anything about angels except what has been revealed in Scripture—is one aspect of Calvin’s approach to angelology. He wants to avoid speculation and to remain grounded in Scripture. Yet, though Calvin largely avoids speculation, it is important to add that Calvin occasionally deviates from this method when he wants to emphasize an important theological point. This will become apparent in some of my upcoming blog posts.

Seek to Edify Christians!

Secondly, Calvin seeks the edification of Christians. In Scripture, God wills to instruct his people in sound godliness, the fear of the Lord, in true trust, and in the duties of holiness.[7] Calvin believes that “the theologian’s task is not to divert the ears with chatter, but to strengthen consciences by teaching things true, sure, and profitable.”[8] Thus, Calvin’s discussion on angels “is marked by the strongest practical tendency.”[9] Calvin wants people to know that God did not create men for angels; God created angels for men. In other words, when Calvin discusses angels, he generally limits his discourse to biblical truths that will build up and encourage the church.

Direct People’s Gazes Toward God!

Thirdly, Calvin endeavors to direct people’s gazes toward God. Calvin was aware that some Medieval Roman Catholics taught that angels were mediators—that angels were intermediaries that enabled people to approach God. He also knew that other people superstitiously attributed divinity to angels.[10] These practices inevitably led people to turn their gazes away from God and toward angels, a practice that Calvin regarded as preposterous.[11]

Instead, for Calvin, angels must turn people’s gazes toward God. Angels should lead Christians toward God so “that we may look upon him, call upon him, and proclaim him as our sole helper . . . that we may wholly depend upon him, lean upon him, be brought to him, and rest in him.”[12] To put it another way, Calvin desires the study of angels to lead people to God, the one who commissions the angels. So, like the apostle Paul, Calvin constantly labors to prevent the imaginary luster of angels from dazzling the eyes of men and obscuring the radiant glory of Christ.[13]

In Sum!

In summary, Calvin’s approach to angelology is modest and sober. He avoids speculation by adhering to Scripture. To prevent an unhealthy adulation of angels, he teaches that God created angels for the benefit of the church. To stop Christians from fixating on angels, he constantly turns their eyes toward God. Calvin recognizes that angels are distinguished and glorious creatures, and he strives to teach and write about them in a way that will not detract from the glory of Christ.


[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), I.14.4.

[2] Susan E. Schreiner, “The Theatre of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin,” 97.

[3] Susan E. Schreiner, “The Theatre of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin,” 97.

[4] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.4.

[5] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.4.

[6] John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 3rd ed. (1973; repr., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 2017), 113.

[7] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.4.

[8] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.4.

[9] Benjamin Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Calvin and Calvinism, vol. 5 (London: Oxford University Press, 1931), 309.

[10] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, ed. and trans. John Pringle (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 195-196.

[11] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.12.

[12] Calvin, Institutes, I.14.12.

[13] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, ed. and trans. William Pringle (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 216-217.

Calvin’s Angelology: An Introduction

Calvin’s angelology has not garnered the same amount of attention as other aspects of his theology. In her 1983 Ph.D. dissertation, Susan Schreiner said that Calvin’s angelology has “not been the most popular aspect of Calvin’s theology.”[1] Almost forty years later, Herman Selderhuis, writing in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Journal, agreed with Schreiner when he wrote, “To be clear from the beginning: Calvin’s views concerning angels is not really spectacular. That might be the reason that not much has been written on the subject.”[2] As you can see, even as early as last year, a Calvin scholar acknowledged that Calvin’s angelology is still not a popular aspect of his theology. 

When scholars do give attention to Calvin’s angelology, they primarily focus on Calvin’s view of angels in his Institutes of the Christian Religion—the book that set the stage for the Reformed Tradition of angelology—and they give less attention to his commentaries and sermons.[3] This is why Selderhuis concluded his article on Calvin’s angelology mentioning that “continued research on his works and especially his commentaries and sermons will add substantially to our knowledge of Calvin’s theological thoughts about angels.”[4] In making this comment, Selderhuis urged his readers to continue studying Calvin’s theological thoughts about angels, especially his thoughts about angels in his commentaries and sermons.

My Next 5 Blog Posts

In this series of blog posts, I will take heed to Selderhuis’ counsel—I will cover Calvin’s views concerning elect angels in his Institutes, commentaries, and sermons. Calvin’s commentaries and sermons, like his Institutes of the Christian Religion, will not offer new insights into the world of angels or present a new, reformed angelology. However, angels will appear frequently enough in Calvin’s writings to enable us to better understand Calvin’s view of angels.

In my upcoming blog posts, I will give attention to five aspects of Calvin’s angelology: (1) Calvin’s approach to angelology, (2) Calvin’s view of the creation, essence, order, and number of angels, (3) Calvin’s outlook on the function and work of angels, (4) Calvin’s view of angels appearing as men in both the Old and New Testament, and (5) Calvin’s belief that the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ. If you are a Christian and have not spent much time thinking about angels, perhaps these blogs will stimulate you to develop a biblical view of angels.


[1] Susan E. Schreiner, “The Theatre of His Glory: Nature and Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin” (PhD diss., Duke University, 1983), 95-96, accessed March 1, 2022, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

[2] Herman Selderhuis, “Calvin’s View of Angels,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 25, no. 2 (Summer 2021): 75, accessed March 7, 2022, http://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2022/01/SBJT-25.2-complete.pdf.

[3] Dustin Benge, “Nobles and Barons of the Court of Heaven: A Survey of Angelology from the Patristic Era to the Eighteenth Century with Particular Emphasis Given to Jonathan Edwards” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018), 92, accessed March 1, 2022, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

[4] Herman Selderhuis, “Calvin’s View of Angels,” 83.