Most scholars believe that the doctrine is plainly and indisputably taught therein. Jesus said, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:10.) The writer of Hebrews informs us that angels are “ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation,” (Heb. 1:13), and David declared that “the angel of Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” (Psalm 34:7.) Acts 12:15 and 27:23, are also often cited in support of the view that each disciple has an angel assigned to him for guidance, protection and encouragement. Practically all denominational writers defend the doctrine of “Guardian angels;” and various brethren among us (though by no means all), endorse the view. B. W. Johnson says that “the doctrine of guardian angels is emphatically taught in the scriptures,” and J. W. McGarvey wrote that the phrase, “their angels,” in Matt. 18:10, refers to “the angels especially charged with ministering to them individually.” A current writer has asserted that “the New Testament teaching of angels, and particularly the providential care which they exercise over individuals, is too plain to be disputed by informed Bible students.”
In spite of these strong affirmations by great and good men, I can only state that, in my view, the premises do not fully support the conclusions they have drawn and that the doctrine is beset by much difficulty. (1) Neither in the foregoing passages, nor elsewhere in the scriptures, is it said that each person has a guardian angel. (2) Neither here, nor elsewhere is it affirmed that there is actually present with each disciple an angel; “their angels,” are said to be “in heaven,” where they “always behold the face of” the Father. Inasmuch as angels serve in the administration of God’s plan to save (Heb. 1:13), “their angels” belong to all who inherit salvation.
Angels were indeed actually engaged in influencing people in ancient times, but it must be remembered that these were miraculous actions performed in lieu of the inspired written record which we today have. An angel appeared to Philip in Samaria, and to Cornelius in Caesarea, but these were instances of a type not today possible. (Acts 8:4, 26; 10:3.) Undoubtedly, in the operation of God’s marvelous plan to save, angels are participants, but this is far, very far, from saying that they direct, control, and overshadow their earthly wards as the doctrine demands. When Peter was miraculously released from prison, and appeared at the gate of the house where the saints were assembled, the report of Rhoda of the apostle’s presence there, was assumed by them to be “his angel.” (Acts 12:15.) But, all this can possibly mean is that they concluded Peter had been killed by Herod and that it was his spirit which had come. There is nothing here to support the doctrine of Guardian angels; indeed, the implication is quite the reverse, inasmuch as the conclusion which the disciples drew was that Peter had been killed.
The doctrine, in my view, involves difficulties which cannot be resolved either in scripture or by experience. (1) It cannot be reconciled with the clear, explicit teaching of the scriptures regarding the free agency of man. Those who subscribe to the doctrine believe that the angel exercises watchful care and divine protection. Protection from what? Illness, injury, violent death? Many of the Lord’s finest people today languish on beds of affliction, their every wakeful hour in agony. Where is the “guardian angel” during these interminable days of pain and lonely sleepless nights? Not infrequently, Christian people, perhaps at the moment on a trip motivated by the desire to be engaged in service to God, die violently in automobile accidents. How can the theory be harmonized with these recurring and all too common tragedies involving the best of Christians? A theory in conflict with known and demonstrable facts cannot be true.
(2) Matt. 18:10, positions the presence of “their angels,” before the face of the Father in heaven—not here on earth. Many scholars believe, and I think correctly, that this is a figurative statement alluding to the Oriental view that those who are deserving of high honors and great favors are most often permitted in the king’s presence. The plural form (their angels) is suggestive of all angels who serve for all the saints in God’s great plan—not, that each has a separate angel. Taught metaphorically then is the fact that faithful saints, even the most obscure of them on earth, are honored and highly regarded before the throne of God.
(3) The doctrine of the “guardian angels,” as popularly believed, involves many of the same errors as the current theory of direct, independent operation of the Holy Spirit, apart from the Word—the New Testament. It necessitates the conclusion that there is immediate, personal direction by the angel on his ward. How is this accomplished? By means of the implantation of thoughts in the heart? How can the recipient of such alleged suggestions determine whether they originate with the angel or are prompted by other influences? By the Bible? If so, why may not the Bible be appealed to always and everywhere for such direction, since it is the monitor by which the “leading” of the angel is determined? What possible suggestion could the angel make contributory to the well-being of the disciple which is not already set out in the scriptures? Is the angel’s direction irresistible or dependent on the will of the disciple? If the former, is the disciple responsible for his failure to follow the angel’s leading? There are many formidable difficulties associated with the doctrine of “guardian angels.” We ought to be very cautious about accepting a view which conflicts with both reason and revelation.
—Guy N. Woods, Questions and Answers- Open Forum, 1976, pp. 263-265.
Editors Note: I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by brother Woods.