3. Nature and abilities of the angels.
The angels are spirits (πνεύματά), that is, immaterial beings. That we must not ascribe to themselves a subtle (ethereal) corporeality is evident from Luke 24:39. In this passage Christ defines what a spirit is. When the disciples took Him for a spirit at an appearance after His resurrection, He instructed them: "A spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see that I have." According to this, being a spirit stands in perfect opposition (oppositio adaequata) to all corporeality (even the subtle or transfigured). The same thing comes to be said of the nature or essence of the evil angels, when it is said Eph. 6:12, "We have not to contend with flesh and blood." There is therefore no scriptural ground when church fathers, etc., and also more recent theologians ascribe to themselves a fine body in various proximities.1508) The bodies, in which the in themselves bodiless and invisible angels appeared on certain occasions (e.g. Gen. 18 and 19), we may therefore only understand as temporarily assumed figures, which did not belong to their nature (unio accidentalis) and only served the purpose of the temporary visualization. As for the eating of the angels (Gen. 18:8; 19:3), we are not justified to take it as a mere appearance. It was not, of course, for the nourishment of the assumed body, which had no need of such food, but it was for the purpose of intercourse with men, and the food was consumed in a manner not comprehensible to us, about as, say dogmatists, food is consumed by fire.1509) In the doctrine of God
1508) A detailed antithesis in Quenstedt I, 658 sqq. Hollaz also treats the antithesis in detail, Examen, P. I, c. IV. IV, qu. 3, after the Thesis: Angeli sunt spiritus omnis materiae, tam crassioris quam subtilioris, expertes. Walther against the newer theologians who ascribe a corporeality to the angels, L. u. W. 22, 166 ff. The longer quotation from Kurtz's "Bible and Astronomy” 2, pp. 78-84 [Ed. — English edition The Bible and Astronomy here], to which Walther's criticism is particularly opposed, is also reprinted Baier-Walther II, 108 f. Kurtz has stooped to the assertion [see English edition here]: "Within the creature, corporeality is the condition of all existence, the organ of all activity, the foil of the spirit; through it the creature receives its limitation, its certainty, and its holding point; without it it would blur and dissolve without attitude." Where does that leave the almighty God? Cf. also what was said about the "intermediate body" of the departed souls, Vol. III, 8. 577 f. Philippi, Glaubenslehre 3 II, 296 ff, also opposes the angelic body.
1509) Jn. Adam Osiander, Colleg. Theol. II, 165; in Baier-Walther II, 109: Homines edunt et bibunt ob egestatem, angeli autem
605 > Angels [English ed. 501]
it has already been recalled1510) that there is an infinite distance between God as πνεύμα (John 4:24) and the angels as πνεύματα (Hebrews 1:14), since the angels are finite spirits and creatures. The angels differ from the immaterial human soul in that they are complete beings as spirits, spiritus completi, while the human soul is spiritus incompletus, because to the complete man belongs also the body as an integrating component.
As far as the abilities of the angels are concerned, the Scriptures ascribe to them, both the good and the bad ones, cognition (intellectus) and volition (voluntas). The good angels recognize the manifold wisdom of God in the church (Eph. 3:10) and are willing servants of those who are to inherit salvation, Hebr. 1:14. That the evil angels also have intellect and will is evident from the temptation through which the devil approached Eve (Gen. 3) and Christ (Matt. 4). From the Scriptures it also stands that the angels, although immaterial, have the ability (potentia) to act outwardly (on bodies). Angels take Lot and his wife and daughters by the hand, Gen. 19:16, and the devil leads Christ with him into the Holy City and places him on the pinnacle of the temple, Matt. 4:5. An analogy for this
instar flammae consumunt cibum ob potentiam. [„Men eat and drink because of want, but angels like flames consume food because of power.“] Brochmand speaks extensively about the eating of the angels, saying that unnecessary difficulties are made here, and recalls the analogy of the eating of Christ after the resurrection. He says: Non ignoro, inveniri, qui hic nodum in scirpo quaerant. Sunt enim, qui contendunt, angelos vere non obire in assumptis corporibus munia vitalia, sed tantum in speciem, ita ut angeli visi fuerint Abrahamo et Lotho comedere, cum tamen revera non comederint. … Non necessarium esse ad veram comestionem, ut cibus in ventriculo concoquatur et in succum sanguinemque vertatur, testis locuples est Christus, Luc. 24:41-43, qui post resurrectionem ad confirmandam resurrectionis suae veritatem coram discipulis suis comedit, utut cibus in nutrimentum non sit conversus, hoc enim corporis glorificati natura non permittebat, Luc. 20:36. Frustra vero regeritur, corpora ab angelis assumpta non fuisse vere vitalia. Nam licet non vivificabantur ab anima, virtute tamen angelorum singulari ita afficiebantur, ut apta essent, per quae loquela, tactus, motus et similia viventium opera exercerentur. Hoc addimus, disputari a patribus et doctoribus scholasticis, an corpora, quibus induti angeli apparuerunt, ex nihilo a Deo creata sint, an vero ex praeexistente materia ab ipsis angelis formata et assumpta sint. Verum hic meam libens fateor ignorantiam. [Google] (System. Univ. Theol., art. 8, c. 2, q. 2, f. 98; in Baier-Walther II, 113 sq.)
1510) p. 537 f.
606 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Angels. [English ed. 501-502]
we have in the effect of the immaterial human soul on the material human body. The how is beyond our human imagination. More about this under the sections "The good angels and their actions" and "The bad angels and their actions". Only it is to be remembered what was already explained in the doctrine of God, that the angels do not know all things and especially also future things (from themselves), because omniscientia and praescientia only belong to God. The angels also do not know the thoughts of men, because this is also a prerogative of God, 1 Kings 8:39.1511)
The power of the angels is very great, which is evident from the predicates attached to them in Scripture (Ps. 103:20: strong heroes, גִּבֹּ֣רֵי כֹ֭חַ [HEBREW] Thess. 1:7: άγγελοι δννάμεως αντον, namely Christ; Matt. 12:29: ισχυρός etc). It is a power that surpasses the power of men (superhuman power). The good angels, as protectors of men, are stronger than those protected by them, Ps. 91:11-13. The evil angels are stronger than men because the devil keeps all unbelievers safely imprisoned in his kingdom (Luke 11:21-22), but the believers can withstand the attacks of the devil only in God's power, Eph. 6:10-17. However, the power of the angels is not infinite and is subject to the power of God at any time. The question of whether the devils can perform miracles has been dealt with here. The dogmatists answer this with a distinction. The devils cannot do real miracles, e.g., cannot create new things, cannot raise the dead, etc., because the Scriptures ascribe this to God alone and to His almighty power; Ps. 72:18: "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who alone doeth wonders." But the devils, under God's permission and judgment, can do things that appear to men as miracles, because men lack comprehensive insight into the realm of spirits and especially into the power and ability of spirits. Thus the Scripture expressly says that the anti-Christian procures an appendage among men, "after the working of Satan with all manner of lying powers and signs and wonders," εν ηάσΐ} δυνάμει και σημείοις και τέρασιν ψεύδους, 2 Thess. 2:9. And that this is out of God's judgment is added in the words, " Therefore [because they have
1511) Baier II, 111: De cogitationibus hominum occultis angeli non nisi ex signis aut effectibus collectam opinionem [Conjecture] habent.
607 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Angels. [English ed. 502]
not embraced the love of truth] God will send them strong error, that they may believe the lie, that they all may be judged who do not believe the truth, but delight in unrighteousness," vv. 10-12.1512) Dogmatists distinguish between miracula and mirabilia seu mira.
It belongs to the realm of fable that the angels can enter into marriages with the men, as also newer theologians wanted to teach again by calling on Gen. 6:2: "The children of God looked after the daughters of men as they were beautiful, and took as wives whom they wished." The Scriptures refer to it as a characteristic of angels that they are neither free nor allow themselves to be free, Matt. 22:30.1513)
1512) Quenstedt deals with the power of angels in great detail under a special Quae et quanta sit angelorum potentia, I, 666 sqq.
1513) Cf. about newer theologians, who have assumed angelic marriages on the basis of Gen. 6:2, the quotations from Kurtz' "Die Ehen der Söhne Gottes mit den Töchtern der Menschen", Berlin 1857; p. 1. 11 ff. — Rightly, August Pfeiffer in his Dubia Vexata 2, p. 59 sq., refers against angelic marriages both to Matt. 22:30 as well as to Acts 17:26. In the words Matt. 22:30: "In the resurrection they [men] shall neither be free nor allowed to be free, but they shall be as the angels of God," a twofold thing is said: 1. That the conjugal life among men belongs to this life on earth, but in the resurrection, that is, in the life after this life, it no longer takes place; 2. That men are like the angels of God in this respect, namely, in that they are neither free nor allowed to be free, by which it is said: As it belongs to the nature of the angels that they are neither free nor allowed to be free, so it also belongs to the nature of men that for them "in the resurrection" the conjugal life ceases. In short, in the argument it is taken for granted that there is no such thing as angelic marriage. Pfeiffer expresses it thus: Repugnat naturae angelicae. — Furthermore, Pfeiffer rightly refers to Acts 17:26, where it is said that all men who have ever lived, are now living, and will live until the Last Day, are descended from one blood (εξ ενός αίματος), namely from Adam. Assuming, however, that according to Gen. 6:2 the angels entered into marriages with the men, the human race would be mixed with "angel blood" and represent a kind of half-breed race. In order to weaken this argument, some have reinterpreted the text words of Gen. 6:2 as if only an occasional mixing of the angels with the men is addressed there. Also this would have already brought "angel blood" into the human race and contradict the εξ ενός αίματος. But the words Gen. 6:2: "They took to wives (נָשִׁ֔ים [HEBREW]) whom they would" denote a regular and permanent married life. The defenders of the confinement fiefdoms, who do not want to go that far, have no right to refer to Gen. 6:2. — But also the context of Gen. 6:2 completely excludes close fiefdoms.
608 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Angels. [English ed. 503]
About the relationship of the angels to the place we can say this much, that they can be in a certain place (like the angel with Peter in prison, Acts 12:7), but as immaterial beings they are non-spatial in the sense that they do not occupy any space and can be where there is already another body. Quenstedt:1514) Coexistunt loco corporeo vel corpori. Of course, angels do not have omnipresence, but are only in one certain place at a certain time. They are, as dogmatists put it, somewhere (πον), which "somewhere" can be determined.
In the immediately preceding passage, v. 1, only men are addressed: "when men began to multiply on the earth and to beget daughters for them. Likewise, in the immediately following, namely v. 3, only men are addressed: "Then the Lord said, 'Men will no longer let my spirit rebuke them, for they are flesh. I will yet give them term an hundred and twenty years." Likewise in the following verses, 5-7: "When the Lord saw that the wickedness of men was great in the earth, ... then it repented him that he had made men, … and said: I will destroy man which I have created from off the earth, from man even unto cattle." In short, in the whole setting of Gen. 6:2, in the preceding and in the following context, the address is only of men, never of angels or angelic men (half-breeds). — But the use of language! Does not the expression "the children of God" prove angelic fiefdoms? As to the appeal to the usage of language, that בְנֵי-הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ [HEBREW] always denotes angels only, Ströbel, in the advertisement of Kurtz's "Marriages of the Sons of God with the Daughters of Men," describes the state of affairs thus: "Moses very frequently addresses angels, but never calls them 'sons of God.' So, he also speaks not seldom of 'sons [children] of God', but every time he understands men by it. The designation of angels as 'sons of God' is a usage quite unknown before David's time and after Daniel's time, and to want to find this designation already in Genesis is an anachronistic psbido principii." (Quoted in L. u. W. 5, 188 from Rudelbach-Guericke's publication 1859.) Cf. also Philippi's detailed exposition (Glaubenslehre 3, pp. 182-192) with the result: "For the relation of Bne Elohim to the Sethites [not to angels] the context seems to us irrefutably decisive. This even Delitzsch acknowledges; cf. Genesis, p. 225, third edition, p. 232, although for his part he prefers the angelic interpretation held only by several exegetes of the first centuries and of modern times (cf. especially Hofmann, Schriftbeweis 2 I, p. 424 f., and Kurtz, "Die Ehen der Söhne Gottes mit den Töchtern der Menschen"). August Pfeiffer l. c. reached the same result as Philippi: Filii Dei, qui uxores ducunt et generant, non sunt angeli boni, nedum mali, sed homines pii eorumque posteri, qui, licet hic desciverint, dicuntur tamen filii Dei tum a statu priori, tum ob externam societatem cum vera ecclesia. [Google]
1514) Systema I, 633.
609 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Angels. [English ed. 503-504]
The human soul can serve as an example. The immaterial human soul does not occupy any space either, and yet we can indicate where it is. In a still living man it is not outside the body, but in it; Acts 20:10: "Make no tumult, for his soul is in him."1515)