Meet Cosette. She is a homeless, hungry waif. Perhaps she is from El Salvador and currently waiting for an opportunity to cross the U.S.-Mexican border illegally (unless she or her family can receive bona fide immigration papers.) Or, maybe she’s Syrian, living in Turkey, and hoping for a boat to Greece. Regardless of her point of origin, she’s likely not welcome at her destination. In Europe, she may spend the winter in a refugee camp with only a tent over her head. In the U.S., she might end up in a cage, or on the floor of a gym at a closed military base. Cosette is cold, but she doesn’t have a Canada Goose jacket. Her clothes are tattered, but she doesn’t own any rag and bone jeans from Saks to carry her iPhone 12 (she has no phone). But she’s special, even if she doesn’t appear so.
One reason she is special is because she is only one degree of separation from God. She has her own personal angel, who sees God on a daily basis. I base this on Matthew 18:10 where Jesus says “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” The Greek word for despise is an interesting one. It is καταφρονήσητε, and means to “scorn,” “insult,” or “disregard.” Also, “to think down upon or against anyone.” That said, maybe we as Christians need to rethink how we react to seeing children locked up at the border or abused in our communities?
I’ve always been aware of this verse, but I never gave it much thought. This week, I was researching the notion of the “communion of saints” which we recite in our creed and it sort of exploded on the page when I saw it. Biblical researcher Erkki Koskenniemi notes that neither have many commentators expounded on it at length, either. Writes Koskenniemi, “Surprisingly, angels whose mission was to avenge the evil made to children have been widely overlooked by scholars.” And what might these evils be? Abuse? Neglect? Labor? Prostitution? God have mercy! But are these avenging angels or protective angels? Or both?
Koskenniemi’s monograph tells us that some theologians think the passage is not about angels at all, while others do not believe it refers to children. Some deny both angels and children in the passage. But we do know that we have angels that minister to us (Hebrews 1:14.). Koskenniemi’s article examines the passage based largely on passages in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (writings falsely attributed to some important person), but we must look beyond that. Nor, as some today believe,is there one angel in charge of all children. “Jesus does not speak of an angel who is in charge of children (ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῶν), but speaks of the angels in the plural (οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν)” writes Koskenniemi. Also included in the broader passage is a reference to ordinary Christians, perhaps those who stray like lost sheep from the fold.
Let’s look at the second part of this passage again. “For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Matt 18:10b.) B.G. Bucur writes “Scholars have noted that “the idiom ‘see the face of’ here connotes access to a sovereign….The addition ‘always’ indicates unrestricted access. It is unusual to have such access to a sovereign, therefore all the more striking to have it to God.”
Based on the articles above, it may seem like I’ve done some “cherry-picking” in my interpretation. However, the more conventional commentaties (Meyer, Pulpit Commentary, Expositors) support the plain interpretation of the verse as I’ve reported it. And, there is something of a precedent in Tobit, Chapter 5, but you’d have to go into the apocrypha to find Tobit.
I used to play “Six Degrees of Separation” with my college classes. I would name a president or a premier, perhaps royalty, and my students would have to show that they are within six degrees of separation from that person. Most students could do it. This is the so-called Small World Hypothesis. Here, as I mention above, it seems as if there is only one degree of separation between a child and God.
Of course, all sorts of secondary questions arise, such as whether all children regardless of the religion of the family have an angel guardian. And, why are some children spared from a car accident or house fire and other children are not?
I know the objections that conservatives (even Christians) have to families from Central America and Haiti “flooding across our borders.” But what if they were Irish, or Swiss or Swedes? Would they still be persona non grata? Hmm. I know what “anchor babies” are. This is a pejorative term. Do we use it “to think down upon or against anyone?” I know that many immigrants are unskilled or uneducated. Where in the Old or New Testament does God make that a disqualification” (Leviticus 19:34 says: “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God”?) In fact, if the typical white American traced his or her roots back far enough, they would find that their ancestors were once aliens in North America, themselves. They came to the U.S. seeking freedom and the opportunity to work hard and build a better life for their children. Are the people trekking north at this moment nd at some perile to their lives any different? You made it, Bubba! Why deny anyone else the same opportunities that you enjoy though an accident of birth?
I don’t want to savage anyone or lay a guilt trip in front of you. I just wanted to get you thinking, because there was a time felt as you did (until I searched the Scriptures for myself.)
Focus on the Family is often a good resource on raising children and being alert to the mistreatment of children. You can find a practical but Scriptural approach to child abuse here.
Citations
Bucur, Bogdan G. “Matt. 18:10 in Early Christology and Pneumatology: A Contribution to the Study of Matthean ‘Wirkungsgeschichte.’” Novum Testamentum, vol. 49, no. 3, Brill, 2007, pp. 209–31, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442555.
Koskenniemi, Erkki “Forgotten Guardians and Matthew 18:10” pp. 119-129.