Explanation:

We want to know what Jesus means when he says that the angels behold the face of the Father in heaven. To understand what Jesus means we can look to the grammar. When we do, we notice that Jesus warns not to despise the little ones because their angels always see the face of the Father. It is important to notice that Jesus modifies the angels with their. So he refers not to angels in general but to specific angels.⁴ In other words, the angels who always see the face of God are individual guardian angels who have been assigned to each believer.

Counterargument:

While it is true that Jesus modifies the noun the angels with their, we have reason to reject the notion that Jesus has literal guardian angels for each individual person in mind. That is because, if it is true that there are individual guardian angels for each believer, this is rather significant, so we should expect to find further biblical support for their existence. Since we do not find any further support, we should assume that Jesus has something else in mind. For example, he might have in mind that angels watch over the church in general, and so uses their in a collective sense.⁵ That is, Jesus says that the angels that watch over the church in general also watch over those who are lonely and despised.

Response to counterargument:

That Jesus may have in mind angels in general and not individual angels is fine, as far as this interpretation goes. Even so, Matthew 18:10 is consistent with the notion that there are individual guardian angels, and this counterargument does not undermine this. That is because something does not need to be mentioned multiple times for it to be true. Scripture is authoritative, so whether something is mentioned once or one hundred times makes no difference to the truth of what is mentioned. Thus, if by modifying the noun the angels with their Jesus is making a literal remark about individual guardian angels, this is all we need to admit that there are individual guardian angels. Of course, this is not to say that support for individual guardian angels from other passages is not helpful, but only that it is not necessary.

Explanation:

We want to know who the angels are that always see the face of the Father. On the face of it, it sounds like Jesus is referring to individual guardian angels, but there is some ambiguity. Maybe he refers to angels in general, or he is using a figure of speech to suggest that the concerns of the lowly are always before God. Interestingly, we have support from another passage that suggests there are individual guardian angels. In Acts 12:1–25, we read that while Peter is in prison an angel comes to rescue him (Acts 12:7–11). Then Peter goes to the house of Mary where the person who answers the door tells the others that Peter has arrived, to which they respond, It is his angel (Acts 12:15)! In other words, not only did Peter’s guardian angel rescue him from prison, but the people in the house affirm the notion that each person has an angel.^6,7

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this appeal to Acts 12:7–15 to affirm the notion that there are individual guardian angels. First, while it is true that an angel rescues Peter from prison, there is no indication that the angel is Peter’s own guardian angel. In fact, after Peter escapes from prison he refers to the angel as the Lord’s angel (Acts 12:11). Further, we know from Scripture that the Lord uses angels to intervene in human affairs, but we are not to infer from these occasions that each individual has a guardian angel. At most we can infer that angels intervene in human affairs to accomplish the Lord’s will.

Second, the notion that when Peter arrived at the house, they said that it was Peter’s angel and not Peter, does not suggest that there are guardian angels. For what is the likelihood that guardian angels look like the people they guard? In all likelihood, when the people say that Peter’s angel is at the door, they likely mean something like Peter’s spirit.⁸

Response to counterargument:

While it might be that there are no instances aside from Matthew 18:10 where individual guardian angels are inferred, we can at least agree based on Acts 12:15 that God does use angels to protect and defend humans. In fact, we also learn from Revelation 1:20 that there are angels watching over the churches. So while there might not be individual angels for every believer, there are angels watching over the believers so that the concerns of each, including those who are low, are known to God.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this interpretation is that it cannot decide between the reality of individual guardian angels and angels in general.

Explanation:

We want to know what Jesus means when he says that the angels of the lowly always see the face of his Father. To understand Jesus’ point, we must look at the saying in context. When we do, we find that Jesus has been explaining to his disciples the importance of humility. The disciples have asked who is the greatest in the kingdom, to which Jesus replies that whoever is humble is greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 12:1–4). He then explains that whoever receives a child, receives Jesus (Matthew 12:5), before explaining that the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father. In other words, Jesus’ point has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of angels. Rather, he uses picturesque language to drive home the point that God knows the concerns of, and cares for, the lowly.¹¹

Counterargument:

While it might be that Jesus is concerned with explaining that God cares about the lowly, this does not mean that we should not take him literally when it comes to the reality of angels. Rather, that he conveys God’s care for the lowly by explaining that the angels of the lowly always see the face of God, commits us both to the fact that God cares for the lowly, and to the existence of guardian angels. If there were no guardian angels, Jesus would not have spoken as though there are.

Response to counterargument:

On the contrary, Jesus often says things that we ought not to take literally, including in the verses that immediately precede Matthew 18:10. There he explains that if your hand causes temptation, you should cut it off (Matthew 18:8), or if your eye causes temptation, you should pluck it out (Matthew 18:9). Clearly Jesus does not mean us to take him literally on this score, otherwise no Christian would have hands or eyes. The fact is, he uses hyperbolic, or one might say, picturesque language, to highlight the problem of sin. Similarly, when he says that the angels of the little ones always see the face of his Father, he seems to mean that God always watches over those who are lowly and despised.

Explanation:

Jesus says that the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father. The problem is that the status of angels is not clear, so it is not clear what Jesus means when he refers to angels. There are angels in the Bible, but these angels are not normally depicted as guardian angels. Rather, in Daniel 10:13 we learn that there are angels for each of the nations, and in Revelation 1:20 there seems to be an angel for each of the churches.¹² Further, we know that Matthew was writing about two thousand years ago, and at the time there was a general notion that there were beings who interceded between humans and God. The Jewish tradition had it that there were guardian angels, while the Persians believed in Fravashis, the Romans the genius, and the Greeks the daimon. Of course, our modern minds do not accept the notion that there are beings who carry the concerns of humans to God. But the Lord Jesus lived at a time when it was popular to think there are beings between humans and God. Though our modern minds can no longer accept this, we have to see that Jesus is simply trying to say that God cares for the lowly.¹³

Counterargument:

There are four significant problems with this view. First, that the Bible speaks about angels in various ways does not mean that we should discount their importance or treat them as picturesque characters. Jesus may be saying something about God’s concerns for the lowly and angels.

Second, the fact that other cultures believed that there were beings who were intermediaries between humans and God does not mean that there are no beings who are intermediaries between humans and God. It simply means that the other cultures have identified the wrong beings. For, we know that other cultures believed in some sort of god, but by the line of reasoning above, because other cultures believed in a god, there is no God. Also, one might argue that the fact that other cultures believed in intermediaries between humans and God lends to the credibility of the existence of such beings.

Third, the fact that a concept is ancient does not mean it is incorrect. The argument that angels are not suited to a modern mind assumes some sort of universal progress has been made from the ideas presented two thousand years ago. Even if some progress has been made (which is arguable), it’s obviously not the case that every old idea has been shown to be false. In fact, one might argue that ancient cultures who believed in intermediaries between humans and God were more in tune with reality than modern minds who deny such being.

Finally, the Bible discusses angels in many places where they are presented as literal beings who do God’s will on earth. Even if Jesus is not being literal in our passage, it cannot be because there are no such things as angels, because the Bible commits us to angels. Thus, one has to make a different argument to show that Jesus does not have actual angels in mind in Matthew 18:10.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it does not leave us with the right resources to take it seriously. We may want to affirm that Jesus does not necessarily commit us to the existence of individual guardian angels, while retaining the fact that there are angels who do God’s will. Unfortunately, this view presents us with a lack of consistency, where either Jesus commits us to individual guardian angels, or there are no such beings as angels. This inconsistency is too strong, for it may be that Jesus depicts the angels in general as individual guardian angels in order to make his point that God cares for the lowly.

Explanation:

Jesus says that no one should despise the little ones because their angels always see the face of the Father in heaven. Most likely we ought to translate the phrase as their spirits. In other words, Jesus is saying that the spirits of those who are lowly who have passed away are always in the presence of the Father.

Counterargument:

There problem is that there is no precedent for the notion that we ought to translate the noun ἄγγελος as spirit. The most appropriate translations include human messenger or transcendent power who carries out tasks/angel.¹⁴ We cannot translate a term however we want in order to suit the context, but instead, if we are unsure, we ought to gather the usual meanings of the term and translate the term such that it is consistent with its usual usage.

Response to counterargument:

There are other places where the term ἄγγελος (angel) can rightly be translated as spirit. For example, in Acts 12:15 we learn that the people in the house mistake Peter’s voice for Peter’s angel. Likely Luke uses the term ἄγγελος to refer to Peter’s spirit. Also, Jesus says that at the resurrection we will be like the angels.¹⁵ Thus, we can see that the term ἄγγελος sometimes has to do with spirits.

Response to response to counterargument:

First, the notion that Jesus says that at the resurrection we will be like angels is not a relevant argument for the notion that we should translate ἄγγελος (angel) as spirit. Second, that the people in the house mistake Peter’s voice for Peter’s angel does not mean we ought to translate the term ἄγγελος as spirit. Rather, it likely means that the people thought there was a resemblance between people’s angels and the people they watched over. Further, even if we should take it that the people in the house have Peter’s spirit in mind, this does not mean that we can translate every instance of ἄγγελος as spirit. That is because we must look to the context, and when we do in the case of Matthew 18:10 we have reasons against translating ἄγγελος as spirit. For one, Jesus says that their angels always see the face of the Father. The verb see is in the present active tense, which means that the the angels currently see the face of the Father. Why should Jesus tell the disciples not to despise little ones who have died and currently see the face of the Father?

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it goes against the norm of how we would translate ἄγγελος (angel) because it does not know how to make sense of what Jesus means by angel. Still, offering an unconventional translation that does not suit the context arguably makes the problem worse, not better.