De Moor IX:23: The Cause of the Wickedness of Demons, Part 4

Whatever the case may be, this Sin, whereby the Evil Angels defected from God, is treated, as our AUTHOR observes, in 2 Peter 2:4, with which passage he wants Jude 6 to be compared; for the comparison of the passages shows with sufficient clarity, that one and the same thing is treated.  Now, here in 2 Peter the Angels in a general way are said to have sinned; in Jude they are mentioned in a particular way to be μὴ τηρήσαντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντες τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, not keeping their first estate, but leaving their own habitation.  Whether you translate τὴν ἀρχήν, the first estate, as origin, and understand God, by whom they were created; or principium or beginning, so that the original purity of their nature might be signified, from which they fell; or principate, dignity, in which sense this term is also used elsewhere of Evil Angels, Colossians 1:16;[1] 2:10,[2] 15;[3] Ephesians 6:12,[4] so that they are said, not having been content with their natural dignity, to have affected greater, whence also they were deprived of their natural principate, which they had received from God, for the punishment of their pride:  while, whether from their prior natural condition, or even from the eminent power over other creatures, which, with God permitting them for the aggravation of their final punishment, remains, even now they are called ἀρχαὶ/principalities.  That other, that they are said ἀπολιπεῖν τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, to have left their habitation, is able to be referred to their fault and punishment at the same time, as if Jude had said, says the Most Illustrious WITSIUS, Commentario in Epistolam Judæ, Meletemata Leidensia, page 469, that they, not having been content with their felicity, and as if weary of heavenly blessedness, undertook new things, and thus inconsiderately and impudently left the glorious seat of their proper affairs.  But also, by the most just indignation of God, they were driven from that glorious court; since they had made themselves unworthy of it by their rebellion:  compare Genesis 4:16.

Now, it is to be held with respect to these passages, א.  that the same deal entirely with Evil Angels, infernal Demons, the satellites of the Devil, 1.  especially according to the solemn use of the term τῶν ἀγγέλων, the Angels, which here occurs absolutely without any added periphrasis for the sake of clarity, except what has regard to the distinction between Good Angels and Evil Angels:  by which very thing it is indicated, that the term ἀγγέλων/angels here occurs in its accustomed and most proper signification.  2.  A description is added both of the sin, and especially also of the punishment of these sinning Angels, which squares most properly and in its greatest emphasis with those infernal spirits, such that the Apostles could not have spoken of them with greater clarity.  This is to be maintained against Daillon, a French Theologian, in his tractate de Dæmonibus,[5] and Balthasar Bekker, who is followed closely by Daillon, Mundi Fascinati, book II, chapter IX, § 1-11:  compare LEYDEKKER’S Dissertationem historico-theologicam contra Bekkerum, section VII, pages 103, 104:  who deny that the Apostles speak of Angels κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, pre-eminently, so called and their Fall; but contend that they speak of the Legates of the Israelites sent to spy out the land of Canaan, and direct the mind to the history that is found written in Numbers 13 and 14:  because, α.  the title of ἀγγέλων/angels, that is, messengers/envoys is not applicable to Devils, since they never discharge a Legation in the name of God.  β.  They think that in the Epistle of Jude, in the middle place between the sins and punishments of the Israelites delivered out of Egypt, verse 5, and those of the Sodomites, verse 7, the most ancient example of the Evil Angels, which the Scriptures of the Old Testament ignore, is incongruously mentioned.  γ.  But they think that all things square best with the Spies of the land of Canaan, who by sinning μὴ ἐτήρησαν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν, kept not their first estate, or principality, that is, that dignity and dominion, whereby they were excelling others; who left τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, their own habitation, the land of Canaan given to them, which they were refusing to occupy, and whose consequent temporal death, under the chains of which they will be detained until the day of final Judgment, by the Apostles is signified through the added description of the punishment; since it is possible, that the souls of those, corrected by the punishments of this life, rest in peace in the presence of God, and temporal judgment befalls them for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 5:5.

But, if Peter and Jude wanted to refer to the well-known history of the Spies, why did they not do that with equal clarity as in the case of the history of the Flood, of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, etc.?  Why did they use such obscure ways of speaking, that they were not rightly understood by any mortal until this age?  Neither do the arguments produced to the contrary avail much:  since, α.  Devils, by their common nature with the πνεύμασι λειτουργικοῖς, ministering spirits,[6] are rightly called ἄγγελοι/angels, although on account of their defection they do not engage in the honor of the Legation in the name of God, to attend to which their nature was especially suited.  Therefore, they are able to be said to have the common denomination of Angels, but only to a certain extent, from their former common state and better part, while the Evil Angels are elsewhere for the sake of distinction called the Angels of the Devil, Matthew 25:41.  β.  Among the examples that are able to make for the deterring of believers from apostasy, no more apposite example was able to be produced than that of the Evil Angels, who, although by nature they were far more excellent and mightier in strength than us, were not able to escape most grievous judgment, when they defected from God.  This matter was not unknown, but was undoubtedly commonly received among the Hebrews.  Now, this example is mentioned in its proper order by Peter, who, first of all, even before the history of the Flood, relates this most ancient sin.  But Jude is able to be said not to have attended so much to the order of time; seeing that the punishment of the men of Sodom and Gomorrha, verse 7, he placed also after the punishments that he mentions God to have inflicted at a far later time on the unbelieving Israelites led out of Egypt, verse 5:  but he is to be said to have proposed to himself a real order, for deterring from three eminent sins, to which those impious men, mentioned in verse 4, were given, and to which they were also attempting to seduce others; and the Apostle is able to be observed to furnish this, with a threefold example set forth, 1.  of the unbelieving Israelites, whereby he warns against unbelief, verse 5; 2.  of the rebellious Angels, whereby he deters from apostasy from the profession of Evangelical holiness, verse 6; 3.  the most notorious example of the Sodomites, whereby he calls each from carnal lasciviousness and impurity, verse 7.  γ.  All things are twisted, if we expound the Passages of the Spies of the Land of Canaan.  1.  It is unusual for human Legates to be called ἀγγέλους/angels in this absolute manner, with mention of the one sending, of the work for which they were sent, or of the men to whom they were sent, with no circumstances added, which would make human Legates of this sort known; while the ἄγγελοι/angels/messengers, mentioned in James 2:25, are readily recognized by the added mention of Rahab, by whose hospitality in receiving the Spies the history is recognized with perfect ease.  2.  The Spies, who are treated in Numbers 13 and 14, are not found before their death to have been deprived because of their sins of their principate, which they were obtaining among the Israelites.  3.  Neither is that ἀπολιπεῖν τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, to have left their habitation, which is best attributed to Angels leaving Heaven, as much by their voluntary sin as by the just expulsion of God; able to be said agreeably of those Spies, since they had no fixed and abiding habitation in the wilderness to leave; and whose οἰκητήριον/ habitation was not yet the land of Canaan, which land they did not so much ἀπέλιπον/leave, as neglected to occupy.  4.  Moreover, whoever attentively considers the remaining description added of the Angelic punishment, and judges that, without irreverent twisting of the words of the Spirit, to be able to be explained of the mere temporal punishment of those whose spirits might have been saved, is to be said not to exhibit a very clear delineation of infernal punishment, eternal and most grievous; nay, he is altogether blind!

ב.  In addition, it is to be observed on the passage in Jude 6, that it is not to be expounded of Illicit Intercourse of Angels with women among men, as if this passage were to be correlated with Genesis 6:2, on account of verse 7, immediately following here, and its coherence with verse 6.  For, 1.  the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha are able here to be compared with the Fallen Angels, not so much in the genus of the same sin, as in the exemplary punishment following the sin:  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, etc., giving themselves over to fornication, τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον πρόκεινται δεῖγμα, etc., in like manner to them are set forth for an example, etc.[7]  2.  By those words, τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον, in a manner like to them, the Cities surrounding Sodom and Gomorrha, αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, the cities about them, in the case of fornication are able to be compared with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, which is the observation of WITSIUS; with which, nevertheless, the feminine gender of αὐτὰς/them, and the masculine of τούτοις, unto them, do not appear to agree very well.  3.  But why might we not say, that the τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον, in a manner like to them, pertains to ἀνθρώπους ἀσεβεῖς, ungodly men, from whose seduction the Apostle attempts to preserve the faithful, mentioned in verse 4; especially if we attend to the application of this example of the sinning Sodomites to these ἀσεβεῖς/ungodly in the time of Jude, verse 8, who, with the exemplary punishment exacted of the Sodomites notwithstanding, were nevertheless nefariously giving themselves over to similar sins:  see HEIDEGGER’S[8] Historiam Patriarcharum, tome 1, Exercitation XI, § 10, pages 291-293, who in that Exercitation disputing concerning the Nephilim or antediluvian Giants, opposes the opinion of those that explain the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6:2 of the sons of the powerful, of the noble, and the daughters of commoners; but he supports the exegesis of those expressions concerning the pious Sethites, on the one hand, and the impious Cainites, on the other.

In addition, John 8:44 is wont to be referred to the Devil’s Fall and his first sin, inasmuch as he is said not to have persisted in the Truth, ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἕστηκεν, which Truth they interpret both of the Truth of Fidelity, which Angels owe to God, as subject to their King, and the Truth of Integrity, in which they had been created, not abiding in which they were also deprived of communion with God Himself, who is the highest Truth:  see HEIDEGGER’S Historiam Patriarcharum, tome 1, Exercitation XI, § 10, page 292; TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus IX, question V, § 5.  But our AUTHOR rather refers this expression to the external sin of the Devil in the seduction of man, which was already presupposing an evil principle in him, and was manifesting ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ, that there is no truth in him, but that he had already cast away the love of the Truth.  And so our AUTHOR explains, οὐχ ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, he abode not in the truth, in a simple manner, he lied, or he set forth a lie, induced by these reasons:  1.  Because the natural notion of Truth is thus retained.  2.  Because in context this expression is immediately explained more than once by the term lie; even indeed that, to which the mendacious Devil is even now given.  3.  Because, that He here treats of the Truth that is set forth with the mouth, Christ also sufficiently shows, since in this verse in opposition to the Truth He sets the speaking of a lie, and in verses 45, 46, on the other hand, He sets Himself forward as one who τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγει, tells the truth.  But whoever recedes from this Truth, whoever abides not in it, commits a lie.  4.  Because by not abiding in the Truth the Lord wished to express that which was of old conjoined with the murder or seduction of man, or through which that seduction happened.  But it is certain, that in that murder Satan lied, but in the denial of the Truth of the divine threat, and in the altogether false promise of obtaining greater similitude with God through the eating of the fruit.  5.  Because Christ wished to enumerate several particular lusts of Satan, in which the Jews were imitating him like sons; wherefore He not only mentions murder, since the unbelievers were seeking the life of Christ; nor sin in general, which would have had to have been indicated to them more specifically, so that they might know; but to murder He joins lying, in which the Jews were verily imitating the Devil in his hatred of the Truth, and His dissembled wickedness.  Thus our AUTHOR argues, Exercitationibus Textualibus XXXV, Part I, § 3.  While in addition, in § 4, he teaches that they wander completely out of the way, who refer that not abiding in the Truth to the revealed Will of God concerning man; whether with LIGHTFOOT[9] in his Horis Hebraicis they understand the ordination of the present happiness in Paradise, in which Satan did not at all acquiesce; or even with COCCEIUS they think of the Truth of the Gospel, that is, which is inferred by him to have already been revealed to the Angels before the Fall.  ZANCHI also stands in favor of this opinion as the most probable, opera, tome 3, part I, book IV, chapter II, columns 170b-173.  But against whom ODÉ disputes on this matter, Commentario de Angelis, section IV, chapter II, § 13, pages 482-484.

The disputations of the Scholastics are vain, whether an Angel is able to sin?  Which question THOMAS AQUINAS, Summæ, part I, question LXIII, article I, page 116, sets forth with arguments in favor of the negative opinion; but he then concludes in favor of the affirmative anyway:  compare also ZANCHI, opera, tome 3, part I, book IV, chapter II, column 170.  Concerning the distinctions of Sin against Precepts Natural and Supernatural, in the decision of the question mentioned, see VOETIUS’ Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 916, 917.

[1] Colossians 1:16:  “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities (ἀρχαί), or powers:  all things were created by him, and for him…”

[2] Colossians 2:10:  “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality (πάσης ἀρχῆς) and power…”

[3] Colossians 2:15:  “And having spoiled principalities (τὰς ἀρχὰς) and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

[4] Ephesians 6:12:  “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities (τὰς ἀρχάς), against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

[5] Jacques de Daillon (1645-1726) was a Huguenot minister, exiled to England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), and serving as a presbyter in the Church of England.  In his Daimonologia, Daillon takes a rationalistic stance, minimizing the number of demons and their effect upon the world.

[6] Hebrews 1:14.

[7] Jude 7:  “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner (τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον), giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example (πρόκεινται δεῖγμα), suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

[8] Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633-1698) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Steinfurt (1659-1665), and then at Zurich (1667-1698).

[9] John Lightfoot (1602-1675) was an English churchman and divine of such distinction and learning that he was invited to sit as a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster.  He specialized in Rabbinic learning and lore.  He brought that learning to bear in his defense of Erastianism in the Assembly and in his comments upon Holy Scripture.  He had a long and distinguished career at Cambridge, serving as Master of Catharine Hall, and later as Vice-chancellor of the University.