De Moor IX:1: The Term, "Angels": Part 2

That the term Angels is used in Scripture in diverse senses, our AUTHOR shows in this §.

1.  The name Angel is often given to Christ, the great Ambassador of His Father, for example, in Genesis 48:16, in which, nevertheless, the Papists imagine a created Angel, hence concluding such help truly divine, which we have from Angels, and the religious Invocation of the same, which rests upon that foundation; as also from this the Socinians argue that the Invocation of Angels has of old been lawful.  But also concerning a created Angel, following CHRYSOSTOM and BASIL, they speak here:  of the Lutherans, CALIXTUS[1] in his Historia Josephi, and HACKSPAN[2] in his notis philologico-theologicis on the passage.  But, although Redemption from all evil and Blessing could perhaps be attributed in an instrumental sense to a created Angel, who at that time himself would not here be addressed, but concerning whom prayer would be made to God in the third person:  nevertheless, it is preferable to understand Christ the Son of God alone; 1.  because that Angel is denominated in the singular with emphasis, ‎הַמַּלְאָךְ, the Angel, that one, most excellent and also better known, or more recently name, than the others:  for it is not without great probability, that the ‎הָאֱלֹהִים/Elohim/God twice mentioned in verse 15 denotes the same person of the Mediator, which then, so that He might be distinguished from the other divine Persons, goes under the name of the הַמַּלְאָךְ, the Angel, without any copula, quite frequently named and variously described out of zeal for His glory.  But thus, 2.  it is settled beyond all doubt, that this Angel is the true God.  Indeed, if either another, or the other two divine Persons, are understood in verse 15 under the name of הָאֱלֹהִים/Elohim/God, yet that incredibly close conjunction of this Angel with the immediately aforementioned God under the same form of speech, is then undoubtedly far more apt, if this Angel is likewise a divine Person.  3.  It is better to retain, as far as possible, the force and emphasis of all predicates in the sacred text, than to take the same in more diluted sense.  But to Christ the Mediator is wont to be attributed the work of the Redemption of His people, and Jacob with the greatest possible emphasis was able to say this of Him, הַגֹּאֵ֙ל אֹתִ֜י מִכָּל־רָ֗ע, who redeemed me from all evil, both bodily and spiritual.  He also, not instrumentally, but as the cause, both meritorious and also principal and independent, is the author of all true Blessing, corporeal and spiritual.  4.  Unless this Angel be a divine Person, the honor of Invocation could not be attributed to him, which nevertheless is to be acknowledged here, where of the same continued manner of speaking, and in one and the same breath, here Jacob makes use concerning God, verse 15, named and most certainly invoked, and concerning this Angel.  Which ATHANASIUS, in Oration IV contra Arianos, observed and urged, and others after him.  But learned Men also bring in some sayings of the Jews, which in the case of this Angel lead us to a divine Person:  see our AUTHOR’S Commentarium in præcipuas quasdam Partes Pentatuchi ad Genesis 48:16, § 13; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period I, section III, § 14, pages 271b-273a.  Now, Christ goes under this denomination quite frequently in the Old Testament; but also, relative to Scripture and ancient history, He is called this in the New Testament, Acts 7:30 compared with Exodus 3:2:  but, that this Angel appearing in the Bush was a divine Person, is evident from this, 1.  that He goes by the name ‎יְהוָה/Jehovah in verses 4, 7; 2.  that He described Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in verse 6, and also as ‎אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, I am that I am, in verse 14.  3.  He alone, hearing the clamorous silences of the heart, is able to hear the prayers of His people, verses 7-10.  4.  He alone, the divine inhabitant of the Bush, is able religiously to be invoked, Deuteronomy 33:16.  But, because Jehovah here is distinguished from Jehovah, whose Angel He is called, it is manifest, that the former is the Son of God, the Mediator:  see BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section I, § 3, tome I, pages 395b-397.  The same is the Angel that then is said to have appeared on mount Sinai, Acts 7:38.  Consult the Most Illustrious ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, Section X, where he demonstrates at length, that the Angel invoked by Jacob in Genesis 48:16 is the Son of God, § 12-14, pages 1016-1021; that the same is the Angel of Jehovah, who appeared to Moses in the flame of fire from the midst of the bush, Exodus 3, § 15, 16, pages 1021-1026; that the same is in addition the Law-giving Angel appearing on mount Sinai, concerning whom Acts 7:38, § 19, pages 1031, 1032:  which he then demonstrates from many other passages, in which the Angel of the Lord is also mentioned with some ἐπεξηγήσει/epexegesis; and which sort are also cited by our AUTHOR in what follows, and are weighed by us.  Now, in the ancient history the Son of God is many times called the Angel of God, whereby He is designated the Mediator of His people; because, 1.  for the execution of this Work He was to be sent into the world as the Great Ambassador of the Father.  2.  Because the Mediatorial work He, as the ἀρχηγὸς[3] πίστεως καὶ σωτηρίας,[4] author of the faith and salvation, of His people, was already of old executing by His intercession and might in the power of the coming redemption.  And, 3.  because, as a prelude of His coming Mission to take up human flesh, He already of old variously manifested Himself in a visible form to believers.

Johannes Wesselius

This Angel, for the sake of distinction, at that time is also called the Angel of the divine Face, ‎מַלְאַךְ פָּנָיו, Isaiah 63:9.[5]  There are those that maintain that the Son of God is often called in Scripture the very Face of God, which opinion and the passages adduced in support of it the Most Illustrious WESSELIUS has called in for examination, Dissertatione Leidensi nona, § 17 and following, where he himself thus determines:  1.  that Christ is able to be called the Face of God for various reasons.  For, as the Face on a man is the image of his soul, and a man is read by his face, and is discerned through it, and by it turns himself to another, especially in favor, and acts and speaks with it:  so Christ is in the Father, most intimately conjoined and coexisting with Him eternally; the Person of the Father, and His perfections and virtues, are known by the person and virtues of the Son, as the natural image of the Father; the Son reveals the counsel of the Father; finally, it is the Son, through whom He communicates Himself and His omni-sufficiency in grace to me, acts and speaks with them.  2.  But if the Passages that are cited, as if in them Christ were called the Face of God be attentively considered, hardly one, indeed perhaps none, is believed to occur, in which this is found to obtain.  Face is attributed to the Son, but it is understood, says he, as the very person at hand, Exodus 23:21;[6] Psalm 72:9;[7] etc.  If by the Face of God Christ should be understood elsewhere, it certainly ought to be evident that God the Father is there:  and, if this be evident, it would not yet be evinced that the Face of God the Father is the Son; since, according the sacred style and common use of the term פָּנִים/face of anyone, it is the very person present, either so called for the sake of honor, 2 Samuel 17:11,[8] or with respect to his wretched or desirable qualities meeting the eyes, as obtains in the expression נְשׂא פָנִים, to lift up the countenance.  Certainly Face is attributed to the Father, where the Son is not at all able to be understood.  And so, in WESSELIUS’ judgment, it shall perhaps be preferable to say, that, whether to God the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit, face is ascribed, wherever it denotes the Triune God’s presence, whether Symbolic, as in the tabernacle, temple, heaven, or exerting itself in grace or wrath operatively in the most attentive contemplation.  The Reverend BOSKOOP[9] in his Commentario on Psalm 139:7,[10] pages 226-241, 245-248, does indeed acknowledge, that not in all places is the Son of God called the Face of the Father, on which Jacob Alting[11] and Johannes van der Waeyen[12] urged this:  but yet he does not think that this denomination of the Son is able to be denied everywhere, but believes that it has to be admitted in Exodus 33:14, 15;[13] Psalm 139:7; Isaiah 9:3;[14] Malachi 3:1,[15] exhibiting at the same time clear reasons for this denomination; but see the considerations opposed to this exegesis of the passages just now cited in WESSELIUS’ Dissertatione just now cited, § 21, 23, 24; and consult Chapter XII below, § 2.  It is more certainly affirmed, that Christ is called the Angel of the divine Face in the passage cited from Isaiah 63:9, with respect to the more highly esteemed ministers of Kings and Princes, who are closer to their Kings, and are admitted into their intimate presence and familiar sight and conversation, which sort are called ‎רֹאֵי פְנֵי־הַמֶּלֶךְ, men seeing the face of the king, 2 Kings 25:19,[16] and those standing before the face of the King, 1 Kings 10:8:[17]  similarly concerning Angels in general we read in Matthew 18:10, ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσιν τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός μου, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father.  At the same time, concerning the Son of God alone, who on account of His mediatorial Office is called Angel, is it affirmed in Isaiah, that He Himself is the Angel of the divine Face, as the whole context speaks that the speech there is concerning Him; in which manner His excellence above the Angels is indicated, both, 1.  with respect to His Person, as one who is infinitely more intimately present with the Father than created Angels, most familiarly making use of the the same as the Fellow of Jehovah,[18] and beholding and knowing Him most perfectly.  And, 2.  with respect to His Office.  For, that Angel of the Face, as Prophet, is the Angel Interpreter, one among a thousand, who, having been sent from the face of the Father, intimate enters into the hidden divine counsels and knows best how to exhibit them and His Father, Job 33:23; John 1:18; Matthew 11:27:  as the sole Priest that Angel alone is worthy to approach most nearly to God, and to appear before His face for us, Jeremiah 30:21; Hebrews 11:24:  as King He is the Man of God’s right hand,[19] who is now sitting forever at the right hand of the throne of divine Majesty in heaven,[20] as the Prince of first rank in the kingdom.  That the title, the Angel of the Face of the Father, is to be interpreted yet more emphatically, GERHARD TEN CATE believes, Epistola de Rebus Jesu Christi ex Prophetis ad Leonardum Offerhaus,[21] after Offerhaus’ Spicilegiorum historico-chronologicorum, pages 834-836, thinking that the Messiah is so called, “because He opens and portrays the face of the Lord, as His proper and natural Son, in whom the likeness and countenance of the Lord Father is seen, as it were, so that he that has seen Him is reckoned to have seen the Father Himself:[22]  indeed, He is the very image and face, or פָּנִים, of the Lord”:[23]  see the passage.  Although WESSELIUS acknowledges this exegesis, already advanced by SCHMIDT,[24] to be altogether true in reality, yet he prefers that which I have proposed above as more agreeable to the manner of speaking found in the text, in the Dissertation cited, § 25-27.

The Angel of the Covenant, Malachi 3:1, where the context also teaches, that this title is able to be understood of no other.  Now, Christ is called the Angel of the Covenant, as, 1.  the supreme Messenger and Interpreter of the Mediatorial Covenant of Grace, but also, 2.  as the Covenant of Grace’s Author and certain Finisher[25] through the merits of His blood and the power of His Spirit, hence elsewhere called the Covenant’s Mediator[26] and Surety;[27] and so in God’s name entering into and confirming with us the divine and salvific Covenant.  Others add, 3.  that in the Covenant He was of old promised by God to the fathers, as the one who would come in His time, Deuteronomy 18:15, etc., and so who is also the whole Substance of the Covenant, Acts 10:43.  However, our AUTHOR in his Commentario doubts whether this third thing, although true in substance, is here in view.

The Angel, in whose midst is the Name of Jehovah, Exodus 23:21,[28] where the whole context again leads us to a divine Person, yet distinct from the Father and to be sent by Him, which in turn manifestly sends us to the Son.  When the Name of Jehovah is said to be in the midst of Him, this is alleged as the reason, both of the obedience of faith and the absolute submission required of the people toward this Angel, and of the truly divine power of remitting sins attributed to this Angel.  And so He notes not only that the Law and Word of God is in the midst or heart of this Angel, or that the gracious Presence of Jehovah is going to be with Him:  but He speaks in a far more sublime sense.  I am in Him by eternal indwelling, John 14:10; 17:21.  All my Essence, Virtues, and Perfections, and hence also all my glorious Majesty, are verily present in Him and shine forth as from the eternal Son begotten by me, Hebrews 1:3; John 10:30; 5:26.

The Angel Interpreter, One of a Thousand, or One among a Thousand, Job 33:23:  see concerning this title and concerning the sense of the passage cited below in Chapter IX, § 17, Chapter XX, § 6.

The Archangel, 1 Thessalonians 4:16.  There are those that by this Archangel understand a created Angel of the first dignity, because they think that the same is expressly distinguished from the Lord Jesus in this passage, which is the opinion of the DUTCH TRANSLATORS in their notes.  Similarly some also believe that Michael is a created Angel.  Among these is the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET,[29] Thesi Scripturæ DCCXLV, “That Michael and Gabriel, Daniel 8-10, were not divine persons, the Son of God and the Spirit, but Angels, principal ministers of those, the greatest captains of the twofold heavenly army, the former of the army of the Son of God, the latter of that of the Holy Spirit; we do not seem to ourselves to believe contrary to the appearance of truth.”  Others hold the Archangel Michael to be the Son of God, but an Archangel simply so called to be a created Angel.  Yet others imagine the Archangel and Michael to be the Holy Spirit, which opinion, following TACO HAJO VAN DEN HONERT[30] in his Veris Dei Viis, book V, chapter II, tome 2, pages 953-956 in the notes, and JAN VAN DEN HONERT[31] in his Dissertatione de Angelo loquente in Campis Bethlehem, Miscellaneorum Sacrorum, tome 2, pages 594-607, HIERONYMUS SIMONS VAN ALPHEN[32] especially attempts to render probable in his exegesis of the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 after his Analysin Epistolæ utriusque ad Thessalonicenses; which writers CURTENIUS[33] follows in his dissertatione ad Judæ versum 9 after the exegesin on Deuteronomy 34, pages 713-720.  As with our Most Illustrious AUTHOR in this place and in his Exspectatione Gloriæ Futuræ Jesu Christi, book I, chapter X, § 4; LEYDEKKER,[34] Face Veritatis, locus IV, question X, § 6, page 224; WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter VI, § 12, 15; WESSELIUS, Dissertationibus Leidensibus, Dissertation I, § 26, page 44; GEORGE FREDERICK NIEHENCK, Dissertatione de tribus Viris Abrahamo apparentibus, held in 1707; BUDDEUS, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period I, section III, § 17, tome I, page 301b (in which is:  the title of Angel is quite frequently attributed in Sacred Scripture to the Son, never to the Father or the Holy Spirit); we are hitherto unfamiliar with the Holy Spirit being given the name of Angel in any passage; as the same is also believed to lead more to a personal mission in an assumed visible form, than to a mission with respect to gifts and operations:  so also with our AUTHOR, and with many ὁμοψήφοις/homologating the same, COCCEIUS[35] on Daniel 10, § 25; WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 2, Exercitation IV, de Michaële, § 30 or final; LAMPE,[36] Exercitation III on Psalm 45, § 12, pages 116-121; and also ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section X, § 34-36, pages 1051-1058, where others, also attached to the same opinion, are cited, and there is a lengthy disputation for the same; we rather hold the Archangel and Michael as the Son of God.  1.  The term ἀρχαγγέλου/Archangel is found only twice, and in the singular in both passages, 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9; which passages, if nothing more weighty stands in the way, are thought best to explain one another.  2.  But, in Jude 9, that Archangel is said to be Michael.  3.  Moreover, that Michael is described for us by Daniel as ‎אַחַ֛ד הַשָּׂרִ֥ים הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים, one of the chief princes, Daniel 10:13, and as ‎הַשַּׂ֣ר הַגָּד֗וֹל, the great prince, Daniel 12:1.  4.  Mention is made of Him in Daniel 10:13, that He came to the help of Gabriel, verse 21, that no one would strengthen himself with Gabriel against the prince of Persia and Greece, except the Prince of the Jewish people, Michael.  And so He was more powerful than Gabriel and the Prince of the people of God.  And with all probability that Michael is the very one that presents Himself to Daniel in consummate magnificence, Daniel 10:5, 6, with which verses ought to be compared Daniel 12:6, 7; and these things are found to agree closely with those that are discovered concerning Christ in Revelation 1:13-15; 10:5, 6:  compare WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter VI, § 4, 5, 8, 12, 13.  In Daniel 12:1, 2, it is said that Michael is going to stand for the children of the true Jewish people, in a time of great straits, and is going to deliver those that were written in the book, with the destruction of the others:  with which are able to be compared what things are attributed to the Angel of the divine face, Isaiah 63:9.  Moreover, in the vexed passage of Jude, and in Revelation 12:7, Michael is set in opposition to Satan, and to Him is attributed the battle and victory over Satan, his Angels, and his kingdom; with which again I would want to be compared Genesis 3:15; Joshua 5:13, 14; Luke 10:18, 19; 1 John 3:8; etc.  Now, whoever might attend carefully to all these things, and not detract anything from the emphasis of the words or things ascribed to Michael, it appears that without any difficulty he is going to recognize in Michael a divine Person, indeed, the Son of God; who is also able with the utmost ἐνεργείᾳ/emphasis to be called Michael, that is, Who is like God? whether by God we understand the very Son of God Himself, to whom no creature is said to be equal:  or we contemplate God the Father, to whom then no one except this Son is affirmed to be similar; just as in Jeremiah 30:21b it is asked, For who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith Jehovah:  that is, no one, except that Magnificent Governor of Jacob.  For, although even to ten different mere men, as Concordances show, the name Michael is attributed in the Old Testament, it does not follow from this, that the name Michael is also rightly expounded of a created Angel in the passages which we now treat.  Indeed, our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus XXV, Part VI, § 9, in comparison with § 2, responds:  1.  If the bare Name is equally applicable to the Creator and the Creature, from the other things predicated a decision for the Creator should be easy here.  2.  There is hardly any Name, that would not admit a signification more or less full for the diverse conditions of Persons; where, nevertheless, a fuller signification is with good reason to be attended to and embraced, to the extent that it is able to be held without difficulty.  3.  Especially great is the distinction between this same Name, when Men give it to Men, on account of these or those reasons less evident to us, and often misleading enough, and when God Himself by His Angel or sacred Amanuenses ascribes it to some heavenly Spirit to express to us the true condition of that Spirit.  But if you still want the whole matter illustrated with a perfectly clear example, merely attend to the Names of Joshua or Jesus, Messiah or Christ, Mediator or Redeemer, etc., which are used with greater emphasis concerning our Savior than concerning any other; and also from the fuller significance of these applied we rightfully conclude that in most passages He is treated, although it is elsewhere evident, that those are also in other passages taken more broadly, and are thus applied to other Men.  Similarly, to Christ the Son of God with the greatest justification agrees the title Ἀρχαγγέλου/Archangel, to whom, as the first of the chief Princes, agrees dominion over all Angels, and who is constituted as Head of them, Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 2:10; 1 Peter 3:22.

Neither, 1.  is it to be objected against the divine glory of Michael, that Jude says, verse 9, οὐκ ἐτόλμησε κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας, ἀλλ᾽ εἶπεν, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, He durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.  For:

α.  In Zechariah 3:2, the same thing is also mentioned concerning the Angel of Jehovah, who is there expressly called ‎יְהוָה/ Jehovah.

β.  This is not to be ascribed to Michael’s impotence, but to His holiness, that οὐκ ἐτόλμησε κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας, He durst not bring against him a railing accusation:  because this deed of Michael is set in opposition to the sin of those that κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities, as it was related in verse 8.  And so Michael did not abstain from the judgment of the cursing of Satan, indeed, He says, Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, the Lord rebuke thee; so grave a prayer of divine rebuke is the greatest curse, and it is lawful and fitting to curse the Devil.  But, according to the opinion of our AUTHOR Michael did not dare to pronounce a judgment of blasphemy, or a judgment blasphemous and injurious, against God; this is the sort of judgment that detracts from divine Providence, called κυριότητι/ dominion, the the Divine Virtues demonstrated in it, going by the name of δόξων/dignities/glories, with which sort those altogether wicked men, mentioned in the preceding verse, were defiling themselves, but of which sort none appears in those words, Jehovah rebuke thee, powerfully asserting rather God’s Dominion and Virtues:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Miscellaneas, Disputation VII, text XIX, pages 359-366, Exercitationes Textuales XXV, Part II, § 22.  Consult VAN ALPHEN in the place cited, pages 23-25, who observes, that Jehovah also, in a similar manner, is said ἀνθρωποπαθῶς/anthropopathically to be impeded, that He might not do a thing for fear of the wrath of the enemy, certainly not out of impotence, Deuteronomy 32:26, 27.  He also answers the other objection against the Deity of Michael, arising from the comparison of Him with other Angels, when He is called ‎אַחַ֛ד הַשָּׂרִ֥ים הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים, one of the chief princes, Daniel 10:13, pages 21-23.  After he had attempted to prove His Deity by various arguments, pages 13-16.

Nor, 2.  does even the distinction between the Archangel and the Lord, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, hinder:  our AUTHOR does not even acknowledge this, in this matter following CLOPPENBURG’S disputation against WALÆUS; hence we read in Exspectatione Gloriæ futuræ, book I, chapter X, § 5, I myself am not able to deny, that that distinction of the Archangel, no more than of God, from our Lord descending is necessary, where most suitably that threefold designation is referred to the One Christ, as the one who is our Lord, and is going to show Himself such in His return, in such a way that He is also as truly God, true and supreme with the Father and the Spirit, as Archangel, or the supreme Prince of absolutely all Angels, whom He will at last bring with Himself as His army and escort.  Just as Cloppenburg, among others, went before, writing:  The form of speech here is similar to that in 1 Samuel 3:21, so that, just as in that place by the Word of Jehovah is to be expounded as by His Word, similarly here the Shout and the Voice of the Archangel and also the Trump of God are understood as the Shout and Voice or Trump of the Lord Christ Himself, whereby in that glorious advent He will show Himself as the Archangel and God.  They harmonize with these things, which are found in COCCEIUS, cited also by our AUTHOR in the place just now cited, and also in the work of VOGELSANG,[37] also mentioned by WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 2, Exercitation IV, § 24.  Therefore, the Son of God, the Lord Jesus, is the Archangel, and the Voice of the Archangel, the Trump of God, with which He will come, is the Voice and Trump befitting the Archangel and God, and is going to declare that He is such a Lord:  similarly as the Word of Jehovah, whereby Jehovah manifested Himself to Samuel, denotes the mode of revelation, whereby Samuel knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that He was Jehovah.  With no greater right are you able to contend, that τὸν Κύριον, the Lord, here is to be distinguished from the ἀρχαγγέλῳ/Archangel and Θεῷ/God, than from Χριστῷ/Christ, when at the end of the verse οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ, the dead in Christ, are said to rise first.  With our AUTHOR in these things, which he teaches concerning the Archangel and Michael as the Son of God, completely agrees JACQUES ALEXANDRE VOS in his Commentario in Danielem, tome 2, pages 433-439, 460-467, 482, 483, 633-635, 659-661.

Therefore, Theologians properly speak of the Uncreated Angel, understanding the Son of God, whom we saw to go in the Scriptures under the name of Angel with various ἐπεξηγήσει/epexegesis added.

But, that the same Name is attributed to the Holy Spirit, who is also said to be sent with respect to His Gifts and Efficacious Operation, they inadequately demonstrate, who urge this; either out of Genesis 19:1, where mention is made of Created Angels, or out of Revelation 8:3, where under the emblem of an Altar the representation of Christ in no way hinders from the same being simultaneously the Angel Priest and the One true Paraclete before the Father:  compare what things are taught below in § 12, 17, and above on the title Archangel, and also in Chapter V, § 16.  Concerning the title of Angel, whether it is attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Sacred Books, or not, see also, in disputation against Cocceius, WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, chapter VI, § 3-15; our AUTHOR, Commentario on Zechariah 1:9, pages 237-239, compared with pages 230, 231; VITRINGA the Elder,[38] Commentario on Zechariah, pages 114-120.

2.  It also denotes whatever Messenger among Men, James 2:25;[39] Luke 7:24, in comparison with verse 19:[40]  in this manner also is ‎מַלְאָכִים/ angels/messengers in the Old Testament, Genesis 32:3.[41]

Especially Messengers of God, that is, Teachers of salvation sent by God, Haggai 1:13;[42] Malachi 2:7:[43] thus the Forerunner of the Lord was also His Messenger, the Angel sent before His face, Malachi 3:1.[44]

3.  But here it is taken for Ministering Spirits, as the name Angels is most commonly used in Sacred Scripture; and, indeed, the name of Angels, posited absolutely, generally used of Good Angels, occurs in Acts 7:53; 1 Peter 1:12; etc.; yet the same title posited absolutely, to be understood of Evil Angels, is found in 1 Corinthians 4:9; 6:3:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales XLII, Part III, § 6; and his Mantissam Observationum Textualium after the Exegesin on Isaiah 53, X, Pages 444 and following:  in favor of understand Evil Angels in 1 Corinthians 4:9, ALTMANN,[45] Meletematis philologico-criticis, tome 3, page 67, cites also ELSNER[46] and MOSHEIM;[47] while Altmann himself rashly rejects this opinion completely, as not at all suitable and removed from all appearance of truth.  In this Chapter, our AUTHOR discourses concerning both Good and Bad Angels.

[1] Georg Calixtus (1596-1656) was a German Lutheran theologian, remembered for his efforts to provide a broad enough base for the reconciliation and reunion of all Christendom.  His very irenicism was an object of controversy throughout his career.  Nevertheless, he was able to retain his post as Professor of Theology at Helmstedt from 1614 to 1656.

[2] Theodoricus Hackspan (1607-1659) was a Lutheran divine and eminent Oriental scholar.  He served at Altdorf as Professor of Hebrew (1636-1654), and Professor of Theology (1654-1659).

[3] Hebrews 12:2:  “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith (τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν); who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

[4] Hebrews 2:10:  “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation (τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν) perfect through sufferings.”

[5] Isaiah 63:9:  “In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence (‎וּמַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיו֙) saved them:  in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.”

[6] Exodus 23:21:  “Beware of him (‎מִפָּנָיו, of His face), and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions:  for my name is in him.”

[7] Psalm 72:9:  “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him (‎לְפָנָיו, before His face); and his enemies shall lick the dust.”

[8] 2 Samuel 17:11:  “Therefore I counsel that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, as the sand that is by the sea for multitude; and that in thine own person (‎וּפָנֶיךָ) thou go to battle.”

[9] Johannes Boskoop (1714-1772) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[10] Psalm 139:7:  “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence (‎מִפָּנֶיךָ)?”

[11] Jacob Alting (1618-1679) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Hebraist.  At Groningen he served as Professor of Hebrew (1643-1667), and then as Professor of Theology (1667-1677).

[12] Johannes van der Waeyen (1639-1701) was a Reformed divine; he served as Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Franeker (1677-101).

[13] Exodus 33:14, 15:  “And he said, My presence (‎פָּנַי) shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.  And he said unto him, If thy presence (‎פָּנֶיךָ) go not with me, carry us not up hence.”

[14] Isaiah 9:3:  “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy:  they joy before thee (‎לְפָנֶיךָ, before thy face) according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.”

[15] Malachi 3:1:  “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me (‎לְפָנָי, before my face):  and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:  behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”

[16] 2 Kings 25:19:  “And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence (מֵרֹאֵ֤י פְנֵֽי־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙), which were found in the city, and the principal scribe of the host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city…”

[17] 1 Kings 10:8:  “Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee (‎הָֽעֹמְדִ֤ים לְפָנֶ֙יךָ֙ תָּמִ֔יד), and that hear thy wisdom.”

[18] See Zechariah 13:7.

[19] Psalm 80:17.

[20] See Psalm 110.

[21] Leonard Offerhaus (1699-1779) was a German historian.  He was a professor of history at Groningen, beginning in 1725.

[22] John 14:9.

[23] See Hebrews 1:3.

[24] Sebastian Schmidt (1617-1696) was a German Lutheran Theologian and Hebraist.  He studied under Buxtorf the Younger, and his efforts to interpret Scripture with philological accuracy influenced Philipp Jakob Spener.  He commented on much of the Scripture.

[25] See Hebrews 12:2.

[26] Hebrews 8:6; 12:24.

[27] Hebrews 7:22.

[28] Exodus 23:20, 21:  “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.  Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions:  for my name is in him (‎כִּ֥י שְׁמִ֖י בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃).”

[29] Emo Lucius Vriemoet (1699-1760) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Orientalist, serving as Professor of Oriental Languages at Franeker.

[30] Taco Hajo van den Honert (1666-1740) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1714-1740).

[31] Jan van den Honert (1693-1758) was a Dutch Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1727-1734), and later at Leiden (1734-1758).

[32] Hieronymus Simons Van Alphen (1665-1742) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1714-1742).

[33] Petrus Curtenius (1716-1789) was a Dutch Reformed Pastor and Theologian.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at the Athenæum in Amsterdam in 1754.

[34] Melchior Leydekker (1642-1721) studied under Voetius at Utrecht, and Hoornbeeck and Cocceius at Leiden.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1676).

[35] Johannes Cocceius (1603-1689) was born in Bremen, Germany, and went on to become Professor of Philology at the Gymnasium in Bremen (1630), held the chair of Hebrew (1630) and Theology (1643) at Franeker, and was made Professor of Theology at Leiden (1650).  He was the founder of the Cocceian school of covenant theology, bitter rival to the Voetian school.

[36] Frederic Adolphus Lampe (1683-1729) studied under Campegius Vitringa, and held various ministerial posts.  At Utrecht he was appointed Professor of Theology (1720), then of Church History (1726).  He departed to teach at Bremen in 1727, and died there in 1729.  He was especially learned in ecclesiastical history and antiquities.

[37] Reinerus Vogelsang (1610-1679) was a Reformed divine, and Professor of Theology at Deventer (1676-1679).

[38] Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659-1722) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Hebraist.  He was a critical Cocceian, and heavily influenced by his pastor, Herman Witsius.  He served the university at Franeker, first as professor of Oriental languages (1681), then of Theology (1682) and Church History (1697).  He is remembered for his work in Jewish antiquities, and for his commentaries on Isaiah and Revelation.

[39] James 2:25:  “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers (ἀγγέλους/angels), and had sent them out another way?”

[40] Luke 7:19, 24:  “And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?...  And when the messengers (τῶν ἀγγέλων, the angels) of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see?  A reed shaken with the wind?”

[41] Genesis 32:3:  “And Jacob sent messengers (‎מַלְאָכִים) before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.”

[42] Haggai 1:13:  “Then spake Haggai the Lord’s messenger in the Lord’s message (‎מַלְאַ֧ךְ יְהוָ֛ה בְּמַלְאֲכ֥וּת יְהוָ֖ה) unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the Lord.”

[43] Malachi 2:7:  “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth:  for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts (‎מַלְאַ֥ךְ יְהוָֽה־צְבָא֖וֹת).”

[44] Malachi 3:1:  “Behold, I will send my messenger (‎מַלְאָכִי), and he shall prepare the way before me:  and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant (‎וּמַלְאַ֙ךְ הַבְּרִ֜ית), whom ye delight in:  behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.”

[45] Johann Georg Altmann (1695-1758) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, historian, and philologist.

[46] Jakob Elsner (1692-1750) was a German Lutheran theologian.

[47] Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) was a German Lutheran church historian.  He is especially remembered for his Institutionum historiæ ecclesiasticæ.