189. III. The Evil Angels.

III. The Evil Angels.

1. Evil by Apostasy.—As previously pointed out, all personal and morally constituted existences are originally created in holiness; that is, with a moral nature in harmony with their moral relations, and spontaneously responsive to the requirements of moral duty. This accords with all the relative facts of Scripture, and is guaranteed by the holiness and goodness of the Creator. How could such persons sin? This question is sure to arise. It is not clear of perplexity, yet not wholly in the dark. The same question arose in connection with the fall of man. It is specially in that view that it is not wholly in the dark. The original constitution of man, even with subjective holiness, left him open to temptation through his sensibilities, and therefore with the possibility of sinning. For any light on the question respecting the apostasy of angels we require the supposition of a constitutional susceptibility to temptation in them. The supposition is not unreasonable, although the mode of such susceptibility in them is hidden from us, while it is quite open in the case of man. The existence of evil angels carries with it the fact of apostasy. That there are evil angels is one of the clear truths of Scripture. With equal clearness the Scriptures account their evil character to an original apostasy. They are described as the angels that sinned, and also as the angels who kept not their first estate or principality, but left their own habitation (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). These facts constitute an apostasy of angels. “When this apostasy occurred we know not. Nor is the number made known. It was the quaint opinion of Anselm that the number of the fallen angels was exactly replaced by the number of the elect out of the human race; but there is no light upon the question in this fanciful view.

2. The Evil One.—The existence of a chief apostate angel is equally a truth of the Scriptures. Various names are assigned him: Devil—calumniator, slanderer, accuser; Satan—the Adversary; Prince of darkness, Beelzebub, Deceiver, Serpent, Dragon, with still other terms expressive of his evil nature and work. This chief apostate is also frequently called ό πονηρός—the Evil One (Matthew 13:19; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 2:13; 1 John 3:12; 1 John 5:18). There is no other name which better expresses his inner nature, none in which all his evil traits more completely center. On the ground of Scripture the existence of the devil, with other apostate spirits, must be admitted. The words of Christ and his apostles, in which this truth lies, cannot be explained away on the principle of accommodation to the common Jewish faith on this question. “Nor can it be said that Jesus and his apostles merely left men in their belief, not thinking it worth while to undeceive them, and trusting that in time they would of themselves discover their mistake. On the contrary, our Lord and his followers very decidedly and strongly confirm the doctrine by numerous express declarations. For instance, our Lord, in his explanation of ‘the parable of the tares and the wheat,’ says expressly that the enemy who sows the tares is the devil. And again, in explaining that portion of the parable of the sower, in which it is said that the birds devoured the seed that fell on the trodden way-side, he says, ‘Then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts,’ etc. And there are very many other passages in which our Lord and his apostles do not merely leave uncontradicted, or merely assent to, what is said by others as to this point, or merely allude to it incidentally, but go out of their way, as it were, to assert the doctrine most distinctly, and earnestly dwell on it. (Respecting “the very many other passages,” the author cites a number, which we give by reference: John 8:44; 1 Timothy 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:26; Hebrews 2:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 20:2.) If, therefore, the belief in evil spirits is altogether a vulgar error, it certainly is not an error which Jesus and his apostles merely neglected to correct, or which they merely connived at, but which they decidedly inculcated.”^{[855] [855]} Whately:Good and Evil Angeles, pp. 65, 66. When Satan fell from his high and holy estate, or by what peculiar form of psychological movement, we know not. It seems plain that it preceded the creation and trial of man, but beyond this all is to us unknown. We have little insight into the sensibilities of spiritual beings without a physical organism like our own. Sensibilities are clearly possible to such beings, and must be actual in their personal constitution—must be, because without them personality itself is impossible. It has been a common opinion that the mental movement of Satan through which he fell was in the form of ambition or pride. This would include an activity of the sensibilities, for there can be neither without them. The ground for this common opinion is in the words of Paul respecting what a bishop should be and should not be: “Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:6). These words are interpreted to mean such a condemnation for ambition or pride as the devil himself incurred. This sense does not seem foreign to the words; yet a single text of the kind is hardly sufficient for any doctrinal determination.

3. Demoniacal Possession.—Demoniacs repeatedly appear in the narratives of the New Testament, and with various forms of mental and bodily disease, which are attributed to the agency of evil spirits, mostly named δαιμόνια. In the case of demoniacs, evil spirits take possession of the subject, and act upon it from within, not from without. The action is upon either body or mind, and often upon both at the same time. In some instances the very center of the personality seems to be seized and held, so that all the action of the subject is attributable to the possessing demon or demons. The results appear in various forms of mental and bodily disease, according to the mode of the demoniacal agency. Many of the specially notable miracles of our Lord and his disciples were wrought in the curing of such cases. We give a few instances by reference, which also will represent the forms of disease resulting from such possession (Matthew 8:28-32; Matthew 9:32-33; Matthew 12:22; Matthew 17:14-18; Mark 1:23-26; Luke 13:11-16; Acts 16:16-18). The reality of demoniacal possession was the common Jewish faith at the time of our Lord. The most rationalistic interpreters of Scripture will not question this fact. If any one thinks such faith distinctively Jewish he greatly mistakes the facts in the case. That faith pervades the theology of the Gentiles, particularly of the Greeks and Romans. In the drift of rationalistic theology objections arose against the doctrine of demoniacal possession. Strenuous attempts were made to displace it and to interpret the Scriptures consistently with its denial. The method of this endeavor was determined by unquestionable facts in the case. One of these facts is that the Jews of the time firmly believed the doctrine; another, that our Lord and his disciples treated the instances of alleged possession precisely as if such possession were a reality. This fact is so open and above question that no advance could be made on the ground of its denial. This endeavor therefore necessarily proceeded upon a principle previously noticed—that of accommodation to the common faith of the people. This faith was a delusion, and our Lord and his disciples knew that it was a delusion, but did not think it important to correct it. Time would make the correction; therefore they treated these cases just as though they were instances of real possession.

Such an interpretation is irreconcilable with the facts concerned, and must be at the sacrifice of the integrity and trustworthiness of our Lord and his apostles and evangelists as religious teachers. The truth of this proposition must appear in the light of the facts. In one instance the subjects of Christ’s healing represent various forms of disease—divers disease and torments, cases of lunacy and palsy, and with the rest demoniacs (Matthew 4:24). If there was no reality in the demoniacal cases why should such distinction be made and perpetuated in the Gospel? How could this be honestly done? Our Lord himself makes a like distinction in his charge to his apostles: “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons” (Matthew 10:8). And this goes into the sacred record. The seventy evangelists return from their mission, “saying. Lord, even the demons are subject unto us through thy name” (Luke 10:17). The answer of Christ responds to the truth of their words. If the demons existed only in imagination why this mutual recognition of them as realities? The demons possess personal qualities and exercise personal agency. They know Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:41). There is interlocution between Christ and these evil spirits, and such as would be impossible with the subject of their possession (Matthew 8:29-32). He commands their action just as though they were personal agents (Mark 1:25; Mark 1:34; Mark 3:11-12; Mark 9:25). Their number emphasizes their meaning respecting the present question. A few instances might not be decisive; but their great number, with their character as above given, is conclusive of demoniacal possession. Our Lord and his disciples could not in all these instances proceed in accommodation to the popular faith, while knowing that faith to be groundless. In many instances there was no reason for such accommodation; not any excuse for it. Nor could that principle justify the narration of such instances in the gospels in the same manner as if cases of real demoniacal possession.

Two instances are regarded as specially decisive of this issue: the temptation of our Lord in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11) and the case of the Gadarene (Luke 8:26-36). In the former the devil is the immediate agent in the temptation, but not in the mode of possession; for he had no such power over the Christ. But while differing in these respects the case equally proves the existence of an evil spirit, operative in the mode of personal agency. In the case of the Gadarene the agency of the evil spirits is operative not only in the madman, but also in the herd of swine. These instances cannot be referred to superstition, or a lawless imagination, or a diseased brain. “The possession of the herd of swine by the demons, and the temptation of the Son of God, are the two cases which—I observed—preclude all such explanation, and which were doubtless recorded, partly, for that very purpose. Whatever effects may be produced in menby a diseased imagination, the brute animals, in the one case, were as much below that influence as, in the other case, the Son of God was above it.”^{[856] [856]} Whately:Good and Evil Angels, pp. 127, 128.

If a real agency of evil spirits is denied, the miracles of Christ in the cure of demoniacs lose their deepest meaning. Indeed, they are not only minified, but brought into uncertainty by the elimination of this vital element. There is nothing clearer in the narratives than the demoniacal agency, and if we deny that we may deny the whole account. In every case their profound significance for the power of Christ over the powers of evil against which we must contend is entirely lost.

There is perplexity for thought in the idea of demoniacal possession. This is readily conceded: but the denial of such possession involves still greater perplexity respecting the interpretation of Scripture and the trustworthiness of Christ and his disciples as religious teachers. The existence of the devil and his angels, as an evil power, is clearly the sense of Scripture. From the beginning that power has ever been active for the moral ruin of man. The mission of Christ for the redemption of the race required the overthrow of this power. This was a leading purpose of his incarnation and death (Hebrews 2:14-15). These evil spirits well knew this purpose, and naturally were stimulated to the utmost stretch of energy against its achievement. It may be that instances of demoniacal possession were temporarily permitted, that the power of Christ over this power of evil might be signalized. The reality of such instances at that time is no proof of present instances. The rational inference is that they began and ceased with the special occasion of their permission. There is no evidence that those possessed of evil spirits were themselves monsters of wickedness; nor were they personally demonized by this possession. Yet it was to them a grievous affliction, and must take its place with other instances which Providence permits, for sufficient reasons to the divine mind, however hidden from our own. We have some explanation in the purpose of this permission as above stated, just as the sore affliction of the family which Jesus loved has some explanation in its gracious purpose (John 11:4-5; John 11:15). As through this affliction the Father and the Son were glorified, and the faith of the disciples most fully assured, so through this permission of demoniacal possession the power of Christ over the powers of evil was specially signalized. The seventy returned from their mission, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:17-18). Further, in replying to the accusation, that he was an agent of Beelzebub, he said with emphasis, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matthew 12:38). With the reality of demoniacal possession these miracles of Christ reveal his transcendent power and assure us of his triumph over all the powers of evil.^{[857] [857]} Whately:Good and Evil Angels, pp. 112-116

There has been a strong reaction from the rationalistic drift of German thinking which denied the existence of evil spirits. Dorner gives this testimony: “Therefore also the most noteworthy theologians after Schleiermacher have not agreed with him upon this point. Even Lucke and Eomang are not opposed to the supposition of fallen evil spirits, although they reject the possibility of an absolutely evil person or an absolutely evil kingdom. Nitzsch, Twesten, Eothe, Julius Muller, Tholuck, Lange, Martensen, as well as Thomasius, Hoffman, Kahnis, Philippi, and Luthardt, avow that not merely is sin found in humanity, but that a kingdom of evil spirits with a head over them is also to be inculcated. Romang rightly satirizes the fond enlightenment which takes much credit to itself for being above this representation.”^{[858] [858]} System of Christian Doctrine, vol. iii, p. 96.

4. Work of the Devil and his Angels.—In the words of our Lord we have the phrase, “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). In this realm of evil the devil is chief and evil spirits are under his leadership, and execute his commands. In this sense they are his angels. There may also be an implicit reference to the original apostasy on the supposition that these subordinate spirits followed the devil in his revolt from God. The formula implies an organic union of evil spirits. There are other forms of expression which give the same sense. The devil is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:3). There are principalities and powers of evil, rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in high places, evil spirits, in distinction from men, against which we must contend (Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 1:13; Colossians 2:15). The idea of a realm of evil spirits, with the headship of the devil, runs through these forms of expression. The work of the devil and his angels is such as their evil nature prompts—within the limit of their power, or of the divine permission. They are not free from the divine restraint. It follows that what may be possible to them at one time is not so at another. Demoniacal possession may still be possible to their own powers, but not possible under the divine restraint. There are other modes in which evil spirits may work evil. They are actuated by a common impulse of hatred against God and man. This appears in the whole history of their agency. A central purpose, springing from their malignance, is to compass the moral ruin of the race. Their method is to lead man into sin and to counterwork the means of his salvation. This appears in the temptation of Eve (Genesis 3:1-6); in the temptation of our Lord in the wilderness 9Matthew 4:1-11); in the seduction of Judas into his work of betrayal (Luke 22:3-4); in the power of darkness, which may well signify the rulers of the darkness, and their rage against our Lord in the hour providentially permitted to his murderers (Luke 22:53; Ephesians 6:13); in the sowing of tares among the good seed (Matthew 13:39); in catching away the word of the kingdom before it can become profitable (Matthew 13:19). The mode of this evil agency in its enticements to sin, and in counterworking the gracious means of our salvation, is hidden from our insight. It has no coercive power over us; for even the devil, if resisted, shall flee from us (James 4:7). Such as are taken captive at his will give the consent of their own will, and may still recover themselves out of his snare (2 Timothy 2:26.). The agency of evil spirits must, for any practical result, in some way act upon such forms of our sensibility as shall, when thus quickened into activity, withstand the good or become an enticement to the evil. Herein lies the mystery of the question. Have they immediate access to our sensibilities, or must they act through some means. Just as any one of us must act in moving the sensibilities of another? We have no unqualified answer to this question. However, this evil agency is not incredible because its mode is a mystery. We know the means by which one man moves the sensibilities of another; but when we go below the means to inquire in what mode the effect is produced we are quite as much in the dark as in any inquiry respecting the mode in which evil spirits act upon our sensibilities.

5. Final Overthrow.—The beginning of the Gospel was in the promise of a seed which should bruise the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15). This promise, so veiled at the time, has unfolded into the fullness of the Gospel. The mission of the Son of God, as thus foreshadowed, was for the purpose of destroying the devil and his works (Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8). For the accomplishment of this purpose he is invested with all authority and power; and all enemies shall be put under his feet (Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:2). So shall he suppress the devil and his angels as a power of evil.

Wesley: On Good and Evil Angels, Sermons, lxxvi, lxxvii; Dunn: The Angels of God; Duke: The Holy Angels; Whateley: Concerning Good and Evil Angels; Clayton: Angelology; Matson: Satanology.