De Moor IX:11: The Office of Angels, Part 1

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The Office of Angels is to minister to God:  hence in a special manner and κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, pre-eminently, they are called the Ministers of God, Psalm 103:21; 104:4:  but God makes use of their Ministry, not out of necessity or want; for, as He created all things by His mere Word, so also is He able to govern all things by the Word of His Power[1] without the intervention of the Ministry of Angels:  but out of indulgence and charity, both towards the Angels themselves, to whom He grants the highest honor, that God wills to make use of them as His primary Ministers in conducting the greatest affairs:  and towards believers, to whom pertains no less this honorific and eminent argument of consolation, that they are so dear to God, that He ordains heavenly Spirits, far more excellent than them, to advance their salvation by their ministry:  God principally makes use of the Ministry of Angels for His own Glory, which shines exceedingly bright in the ministry of such noble creatures.

But this Angelic Ministry consists, not in continuously leading the Stars about in their revolutions, which Aristotle maintained; see VOSSIUS, de Idololatria Gentili, book I, chapter VI, book II, chapter XL, opera, tome V, pages 15, 194, 195; but of which matter the Sacred Page makes no mention:  nor in fixed Prefectures of regions or persons, nor in bearing the Prayers of men to God, as our AUTHOR will teach at length in § 17.  But, α.  in Proclaiming the Glory of God, Job 38:7; compare § 1, 4 above; Isaiah 6:3, in which by the Seraphim proclaiming the τρισάγιον/ trisagion are best understood Angels, called‎שְׂרָפִים /Seraphim, fiery ones, with the greatest possible justification, since God in Psalm 104:4 is said to make His Angels flaming fire, as our AUTHOR shows at length in his Exercitationibus Textualibus XIV, Part VI, and also WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 2, Exercitation I.  Especially worthy of notice is the intervening ministry of one of these Seraphim concerning Isaiah the Prophet, verses 6, 7, where some maintain that by Isaiah Paul is typically represented, by that Seraph Ananias[2] is emblematically represented, as in general by Seraphim the Ministers of the Church of the New Testament among men are represented.  But, 1.  it does not appear that Isaiah was ever similar to Saul in sins, blasphemy, persecution of the people of God,[3] etc., so that he might aptly represent him in type.  2.  Isaiah, although in a Vision, nevertheless truly, was consoled by that Seraph through his intervening ministry:  but in what manner ultimately was Isaiah able to be lifted up and to receive consolation in his own person from a bare emblem of the Ministry of the New Testament?  3.  Neither do the parts of the Vision cohere in a suitable way, if Paul be here represented by the Prophet truly existing and living at that time, but Ananias by a mere emblematic representation of that which was not yet at that time existing in the nature of things.  Therefore, that Seraph, who was flying to Isaiah, and was touching his lips with a coal from the sacred fire, with consoling words added, was a Spirit truly existing at that time; but, since that one is found of the same condition with the remaining Seraphim here mention, the judgment to be made will also be the same concerning those:  neither by them will be able to understand any others than heaven Angels:  that not even those are here to be considered as Emblems of the human Ministers of the Kingdom of Christ, our AUTHOR shows in Exercitationibus Textualibus XIV, Part VI, against the Most Illustrious VITRINGA.

β.  In the Declaration of His Counsels.  Thus, with their Ministry intervening, the Israelites received the Law, Hebrews 2:2; compare below Chapter XI, § 25.  The Angel Gabriel, concerning whom § 13, revealed to Daniel an eminent part of the Gospel of Promise, Daniel 9:21-27.  The Angels were also the first to announce the Gospel of Fulfillment, Luke 2:9-14, where by the ἄγγελον Κυρίου, angel of the Lord, appearing to the shepherds of Beth-lehem in verse 9, it is not fitting to understand a Divine Person, whether the Son or the Holy Spirit, but it is proper to think here of a created Angel:  for, 1.  that Angel in verse 9 is simply called ἄγγελος Κυρίου, an angel of the Lord, without the article ὁ, just as the good Angels are with perfect propriety denominated from their Lord, in opposition to the Angels of Satan; and, just as in the plural created Angels are quite frequently called  ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ, the angels of God, so also it is not able to be denied, that in many passages of the New Testament an ἄγγελος Θεοῦ, angel of God, or Κυρίου, of the Lord, in the singular is mentioned, where all the circumstances suggest, that we should rather have recourse to the signification commonly cleaving to the term Angel concerning a created ministering spirit, than to an uncreated Angel, a Divine Person.  Concordances give examples.  2.  That Angel of the Lord is called ὁ ἄγγελος, the angel, in verses 10 and 13, without any epithet.  3.  By the same term, οἱ ἄγγελοι, the angels, this Angel is comprehended with the remaining multitude of the heavenly host, verse 15.  4.  As Angels announced Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension; so it is most apt, that Angels were the first preachers of His Nativity.  In particular, it does not appear likely, that the Son of God Himself would appear here to the shepherds, announcing His own nativity:  1.  The Nativity of Royal sons is wont to be announced by ministers of an inferior condition:  and thus it is able to appear more glorious to the Son of God, that a minister Angel would here announce His nativity, than if He Himself had to discharge this duty.  2.  Of old was the Son of God wont to represent Himself in human form to the Fathers, as a type of the future Incarnation:  but an appearance of this sort in any human form was not now suitable, when the Son of God had assumed a human nature through a personal Union with it, and thus was now lying as an infant in the manger.  The Gospel does not elsewhere mention anything similar concerning the incarnate Christ, while He was living on earth.  3.  Concerning the birth of that Infant the Angel of the Lord speaks in the third person, verses 11 and 12, as of another diverse from himself.  Nor with any greater probability is that Angel believed to be the Holy Spirit, to whom, 1.  it was not customary to appear in human form, which, nevertheless, it is hardly able to be called into doubt concerning the Angel evangelizing the shepherds.  2.  That anywhere else in the Sacred Codex the Holy Spirit goes under the name of Angel, with our AUTHOR we believe has not yet been solidly evinced:  see § 2.  3.  Gabriel distinguishes himself expressly enough as much from the Holy Spirit as from the Son of God, Luke 1:31, 32, 35, for whose place we admit the Angel speaking in the fields of Beth-lehem not incongruously to be held.

The Most Illustrious HONERTS gratuitously Object, both the Father, whom see in de Veris Dei Viis, tome 2, pages 947-957, and the Son in Dissertatione de Angelo loquente in Campis Bethlehem, inserted in his Mescellaneis Sacris, tome 2, pages 581 and following:  1.  That this expression, the Angel of the Lord, in the singular number is never used in the Sacred Codex of a created Angel with respect to a work that was accomplished with the Economy of promise or Old Testament still in force.

Response:  a.  Not without good reason is doubt entertained concerning the truth of this assertion, if we call all passages in which this expression occurs in for examination:  for example, what prevents one from thinking of a created Angel, when the Angel of Jehovah is mentioned in 2 Kings 19:35, and in 2 Samuel 24:16? should you say that here the Angel and Jehovah appear to be the same in verse 17, I respond, a.  the same are expressly distinguished from one another in verse 16.  b.  With greater appearance of truth would this Angel be held as Jehovah, if that Angel had Himself responded to the prayers of David; but now we see in verse 18 that the response of the Lord to him is thereafter reported through the Prophet Gad.  c.  I heard HONERT the Younger himself affirming this in a sermon, that the Angel of the Lord is to be distinguished from the Lord in 2 Samuel 24, in the same way that in Exodus 12:23 ‎הַמַּשְׁחִית, the destroyer, is distinguished from ‎יְהוָה/Jehovah as Jehovah’s Minister, of whose work the Lord makes use in executing judgments.  In any event, he is not a divine Person, concerning whom it is said in Malachi 2:7, ‎מַלְאַ֥ךְ יְהוָֽה־צְבָא֖וֹת הֽוּא׃, he is the messenger of Jehovah of hosts.

b.  It is enough, that this expression is able to be used truly of created Angels, is used of the same in the plural number, indeed is quite frequently used in the singular number in the New Testament, upon which matter HONERT the Elder himself cites Matthew 28:2; Acts 12:7, to which passages add Acts 12:23.

c.  Vain is that captious criticism concerning the Economy of Promise and Old Testament, since, a.  the Title Angel of the Lord is applicable to a created Angel under the New Testament with no greater right than formerly.  b.  The angelic work that is narrated in Luke 2 equally and more pertains to the beginning of the New Testament than to the end of the Old Testament.  c.  The Gospels pertain to the Books of the New Testament, and the Greek phraseology of these comes to be illustrated more out of the New Testament than out of the Old Testament.  d.  And, when under the Old Testament this title, the Angel of the Lord, is used of a Divine Person, it pertains more to the Son than to the Holy Spirit, Exodus 3; Judges 13; etc.

They Object, 2.  Although the brightness attending a created Angel as a sign of divine mission, could fittingly be called δόξα/glory, yet is not able to be called δόξα Κυρίου, the glory of the Lord,[4] because that saying of the Lord in Isaiah 42:8 prevents; and so it is here to be contemplated either concerning the Glory and glorious brightness, surrounding the Lord Himself here appearing, or δόξα Κυρίου, the glory of the Lord, will be another denomination of the same, who had just now been called ἄγγελος Κυρίου, the angel of the Lord.

Response:  a.  It is altogether artificial, to hold the δόξα Κυρίου, glory of the Lord, here, even without the article, as a second denomination of ἄγγελος Κυρίου, the angel of the Lord, just now mentioned.  For Κύριος/Lord in both expressions shall denote the same divine Lord, and in the second place he shall not be called Κύριος/Lord who was just now called ἄγγελος, the angel.  But δόξα/glory in this passage manifestly denotes that brightness that was illuminating the shepherds round about.  For it is not simply related, that δόξα Κυρίου, the glory of the Lord, was appearing, was presenting itself there, but περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς, was shining round about them.

b.  But if the brightness of the light accompanying the Angel as a testimony of his divine mission, as HONERT acknowledges, it is able most satisfactorily to be expressed as δόξα/glory; indeed, I say, the same δόξαν/glory is able best to be denominated after its principal efficient cause, δόξαν Κυρίου, the glory of the Lord, by use of the genitive of the efficient.  Neither does Isaiah 42:8 hinder in any way; for it is necessary to know how to distinguish between the inherent, if I might so speak, or essential Glory of God, and the effective Glory of God.  The Glory that is inherently or essentially applicable to the Lord is no more able to be communicated with the creature, than the very divine Nature, Life, and Perfections, which are the foundation of that Glory; neither is that Glory anything corporeal, as it is here understood in Luke:  which sort of glorious brightness, with the incommunicability of the divine Glory presenting no obstacle, is most fittingly able to be produced by the Lord, and to be denominated after Him as its efficient cause.

c.  In what sense the Glory of God is incommunicable, in the same sense also is His Life incommunicable, which nevertheless Scripture determines to be communicable, Ephesians 4:18:  but then ζωὴ Θεοῦ, the life of God, also by use of the genitive of the efficient, is the Life produced by God, which κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν, by analogy, reflect the Life of God in some slight way.

d.  Let HONERT look to it, that he himself not dash against the argument that he forms out of Isaiah 42:8, when in his own Disseratione de Angelo loquente, page 589, on the place in Romans 3:23, τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, the glory of God, he expounds of the moral rectitude granted to our first parents by creation:  for here by parity of reasoning, but equally ineptly, I could object, that thus God has surrendered His Glory to a creature.  Thus Paul, making mention in Romans 5:2 of τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεου, the hope of the glory of God, holds it as certain, that believers will one day obtain the Glory of God, in comparison with 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 1 Peter 5:10.  As also by the same Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 11:7, a ἀνὴρ/man is said εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, to be the image and glory of God.  Concerning the glorified Church, John writes in a similar manner, Revelation 21:10, 11, ἔδειξέ μοι τὴν πόλιν τὴν μεγάλην, τὴν ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλήμ, καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχουσαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, he showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God; upon which place see our AUTHOR’S Commentarium.  Indeed, concerning the beauty of the people of God, which He Himself graciously blesses, you read in Ezekiel 16:14,‎כָּלִ֣יל ה֗וּא בַּֽהֲדָרִי֙ אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי עָלַ֔יִךְ נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֥י יְהוִֽה׃, it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord Jehovah.

They Object, 3.  that the Shepherds esteemed this Angel to be the Lord Himself, out of verse 15, ἴδωμεν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο τὸ γεγονός, ὃ ὁ Κύριος ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν, let us see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

I Respond, From this only is inferred, that they esteemed this Angel to be a Messenger of God, who had made known to them the words of the Lord at His command, Micah 6:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; etc.

So that I might dismiss the more trifling,

They Object, 4.  that the saying of Paul in Hebrews 2:3 is not able to be aptly explained, if a created Angel, and not a Divine Person, was the first to announce the Gospel of Fulfillment.

Response:  a.  ὁ Κύριος, the Lord, in the passage cited is most certainly the Son of God incarnate; and so, should you conclude from this passage, that a Divine Person, not a created Angel, evangelized the shepherds of Beth-lehem, you must at the same time conclude that this was not the Holy Spirit, but the Son of God.  b.  But the Lord and the Apostles are set over against each other here, and with respect to the Apostles the Lord is rightly said to have initiated the preaching.  c.  Neither into the same reckoning with the Lord here deserve to come the Angels, Simeon, Anna, who at particular points announced and confessed one or another head of the Gospel; since the Lord by an ongoing act expounded the whole Gospel of the Kingdom in most ample sermons.  Although John the Baptist also did this in his own way, he is a μεσίτης/mediator of the Old and New Testaments, and ought to be numbered among the Prophets and Ministers of the Old Testament more than among those of the New, Matthew 11:11.  d.  If the Κύριος/Lord here is that one who announced the Gospel in the fields of Beth-lehem, through τοὺς ἀκούσαντας, those that heard, by whom the same Gospel is said to have been confirmed εἰς ἡμᾶς, unto us; then in the first place the shepherds of Beth-lehem ought to be understood, if not these alone; which is quite unsuitable:  compare what things were observed concerning this expression, ἐβεβαιώθη εἰς ἡμᾶς, it was confirmed to us, in Chapter II, § 12.  e.  JAN VAN DEN HONERT himself, in a sermon delivered on this text in 1757, by the Lord understood the Son of God, and referred the preaching of this great salvation performed by the Lord to the public ministry of the Lord Jesus walking about on this earth.

They Object, 5.  That from 1 John 4:2 it is certainly gathered, that the Holy Spirit was the first of all to announce the Incarnation of the Son of God, after this had verily now occurred.

Response:  a.  John himself here explains τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the spirit of God, by πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, a spirit from God, or of a created Spirit, which is guided by the divine Spirit:  for the syncategorematic term πᾶν/every before πνεῦμα/spirit implies this, although otherwise the third Person of the Godhead is also able simply to be called πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Spirit from God.  And so τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God, in the expression τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the spirit of God, in John will be a genitive of the efficient, just like Κυρίου, of the Lord, in δόξα Κυρίου, the glory of the Lord, in Luke 2:9.  Unless τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the spirit of God, by metonymy of the efficient is put for the doctrine effected by the Spirit of God.  b.  But, however this matter may stand, nothing more is evinced from this, than that the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth,[5] instructed men in the true Incarnation of Jesus Christ, as a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.  But this He was equally able to do through Angelic ministers as immediately.  While the same thing to which John here bears witness concerning the Holy Spirit with respect to the Incarnation of the Son of God, equally comes to be acknowledged concerning Him with respect to all the heads of supernatural Theology.

Compare our AUTHOR in Exercitationibus Textualibus XXV, Part VI, § 17-20.  For it is not idle to spend additional time on this business:  hence, as our AUTHOR in the place cited dexterously responds to the various argument that are able to be advanced, that it is evinced that the Angel speaking in the Fields of Beth-lehem was a Divine Person, so I will be content in turn to send the Reader there, where the sinew of the remaining arguments of the Most Illustrious JAN VAN DEN HONERT for understand here specifically the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, shall be able to appear completely severed.  More specifically, Jan van den Honert contends:

I.  That of old the Holy Spirit was also sent from God to men under a visible form, and under the denomination of Angel and Angel of the Lord.  But, when he attempts to prove the same,

              a.  On pages 595, 596, from the Apparition granted to Abraham and Lot, Genesis 18; 19; I deny the minor; see above, Chapter V, § 16, Part I.

              b.  On pages 596-598, from Zechariah 1:17; 3; I wish merely that MARCKIUS be consulted, Commentario in Prophetas minores on the passage cited; Exercitationibus Textualibus XXV, Part VI, § 15, page 875; and WITSIUS, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter VI; VITRINGA the Elder, Commentario on Zechariah, pages 114-120.

              c.  On pages 597, 598, out of Revelation 8:3-5; compare again our AUTHOR’S Commentarium in Apocalypsin on this passage; and Compendium Theologiæ, chapter IX, § 2, 17.

II.  That the Holy Spirit is specifically called an Archangel and the Archangel Michael, 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9.  But see what things our AUTHOR gives in reply, Exercitationibus Textualibus XXV, Part VI, § 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19; and in Compendium Theologiæ, chapter IX, § 2.

HONERT adds Revelation 12:7, page 602; but see again our AUTHOR’S Commentarium in Apocalypsin on this passage; Exercitationes Textuales XXV, Part VI, § 6, 12, 14 (page 874), 15.

HONERT additionally appeals to Daniel 10; 12, pages 602-605.  But he rashly supposes, that the same man appearing and depicted to Daniel, Daniel 10:5, 6, is the same as the one that speaks with Daniel and distinguishes himself from Michael, verses 10-21; and he contends, page 603, that there is nothing in the whole nexus of the oration, that is apt to demonstrate that any other than the Son of God here speaks.  But compare our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales XXV, § 3, 4, 8-11, 14, 17-20, and attend especially to the tie of Daniel 10:5, 6, with Daniel 12:6, 7, indicated in § 11; and thus you will discover, that the one speaking in Daniel 10:11-12:4, distinguishing himself from Michael more than one time, is by no means the Son of God.  As also, as MARCKIUS relates in Exercitationibus Textualibus XXV, Part VI, § 18, COCCEIUS and HEINRICH HULSIUS[6] believe the person speaking in Daniel 10:11-21 to be the Holy Spirit, who speaks of the Son of God appearing in verses 5 and 6 under the name of Michael.  Which is also the same opinion of LAMPE, Exercitationibus III, § 12, on Psalm 45, according to the citation of JAN VAN DEN HONERT in the passage cited, page 606, who himself, pages 606, 607, following his Father, thinks that the Holy Spirit is now called Michael, now Gabriel:  add LAMPE, Dissertationum philologico-theologicarum, volume II, Disputation IX, chapter X, § 6, page 325, who otherwise thinks that in Luke 2:9 both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit appeared to the Shepherds, § 7, pages 325, 326, in comparison with § 11-16, pages 327-335.

γ.  And in the Execution of the same, Psalm 103:20:  through the destruction of the Impious, as it is seen in the case of the Sodomites, Genesis 19:11; the Egyptians, Exodus 23:29; the army of Sennacherib, 2 Kings 19:35; Herod, Acts 12:23; and thus on the last day they will cast reprobates into eternal punishment, Matthew 13:41, 42:  through the testing and chastening of the Pious, 2 Samuel 24:16, 17; their keeping, Psalm 34:7; 91:11; 2 Kings 6:17; Daniel 3:25, 28; 6:22, 23; their consolation, Daniel 10:11, 12, etc.; Genesis 32:1, 2; Luke 1:28 and following; and their deliverance, Genesis 19:15, 16; Acts 5:19, 20; 12:7-11.

[1] See Hebrews 1:3.

[2] Acts 9.

[3] Acts 8; 9; 22:4; 26:9; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:13.

[4] Luke 2:9:  “And, lo, the angel of the Lord (καὶ ἰδού, ἄγγελος Κυρίου) came upon them, and the glory of the Lord (καὶ δόξα Κυρίου) shone round about them:  and they were sore afraid.”

[5] 1 John 4:6; John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13.

[6] Heinrich Hulsius (1654-1723) was a German Reformed theologian.  He was of the Cocceian school, and he served as Professor of Theology at Duisberg (1681-1723).