Loading...
Behold, he put no trust in his servants - This verse is generally understood to refer to the fall of angels; for there were some of those heavenly beings who kept not their first estate: they did not persevere to the end of their probation, and therefore fell into condemnation, and are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day; Judges 1:6. It is said he put no trust in them - he knew that nothing could be absolutely immutable but himself; and that no intelligent beings could subsist in a state of purity, unless continually dependent on himself, and deriving constant supplies of grace, power, and light, from him who gave them their being.
And his angels he charged with folly - Not chargeth, as many quote the passage. He charged those with folly who kept not their first estate. It does not appear that he is charging the others in the same way, who continue steadfast.
The several translations of this verse, both ancient and modern, are different from each other. Here are the chief: -
In angelis suis reperit pravitatem, "In his angels he found perverseness," Vulgate. The Septuagint is nearly the same. II met la lumiere dans ses anges, "He puts light into his angels," French Bible. Even those pure intelligences have continual need of being irradiated by the Almighty; wa -bemalakui neshim temcho, "And he hath put amazement in his angels," Syriac. The Arabic is the same. In angelis suis ponet gloriationem, "In his angels he will put exultation," Montanus. The Hebrew is תהלה toholah, irradiation, from הלה halah, to irradiate, glister, or shine. In this place we may consider angels (מלאכים malachim ) as heavenly or earthly messengers or angels of the Lord; and the glory, influence, and honor of their office as being put in them by the Most High. They are as planets which shine with a borrowed light. They have nothing but what they have received. Coverdale translates the whole verse thus: Beholde he hath founde unfaythfulnesse amonge his owne servaunts and proude disobedience amonge his angels. The sense is among all these interpreters; and if the fallen angels are meant, the passage is plain enough.
Behold, he put no trust in his servants - These are evidently the words of the oracle that appeared to Eliphaz; see Schultens, in loc. The word servants here refers to angels; and the idea is, that God was so pure that he did not confide even in the exalted holiness of angels - meaning that their holiness was infinitely inferior to his. The design is to state that God had the highest possible holiness, such as to render the holiness of all others, no matter how exalted, as nothing - as all lesser lights are as nothing before the glory of the sun. The Chaldee renders this, “Lo, in his servants, the prophets, he does not confide;” but the more correct reference is undoubtedly to the angels.
And his angels he charged with folly - Margin, Or,” Nor in his angels, in whom he put light.” The different rendering in the text and in the margin, has arisen from the supposed ambiguity of the word employed here - תהלה tohŏlâh It is a word which occurs nowhere else, and hence, it is difficult to determine its true signification. Walton renders it, gloriatio glorying; Jerome, pravitas, wickedness; the Septuagint, σκολιόν skolion fault, blemish; Dr. Good. default, or defection; Noyes, frailty. Gesenius says that the word is derived from הלל hâlăl (No. 4), to be foolish. So also Kimchi explains it. According to this, the idea is that of foolishness - that is, they are far inferior to God in wisdom; or, as the word folly in the Scriptures is often synonymous with sin, it might mean that their purity was so far inferior to his as to appear like impurity and sin. The essential idea is, that even the holiness of angels was not to be compared with God. It is not that they were polluted and unholy, for, in their measure, they are perfect; but it is that their holiness was as nothing compared with the infinite perfection of God. It is to be remembered that a part of the angels had sinned, and they had shown that their integrity was not to be confided in; and whatever might be the holiness of a creature, it was possible to conceive that he might sin. But no such idea could for a moment enter the mind in regard to God. The object of this whole argument is to show, that if confidence could not be reposed in the angels, and if all their holiness was as nothing before God, little confidence could be placed in man; and that it was presumption for him to sit in judgment on the equity of the divine dealings.