Justin’s demonology consists of three types of demons, each under the rule of Satan: fallen angels, souls of the Nephilim, and souls of the wicked dead. He views fallen angels as having sinned though lust of human women giving both to the Nephilim, angel/human offspring whom God destroyed in the flood of Genesis. The souls of these Nephilim, however, continue to torment humanity along with their rebel angel fathers. Lastly, some demons are the souls of other wicked humans who remain on earth after death and seek to possess the bodies of those still alive.
Under the metaphysical framework of substantive angelology, [1] Justin is able to explain Genesis 6:1-4, reflecting similarity to such pseudopigraphal writings as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. As an explanation for the fall of the angels, Justin works from Genesis 6 where the “sons of God” took wives from among “daughters of men”, and in turn the Nephilim were born, which the LXX renders “giants”. Pseudopigraphal literature would interpret the “Sons of God” as angels, and so propose the Nephilim as human-angel offspring. (e.g. 1 Enoch 6-7) Later Christian thought after Justin would repudiate this theory, but for Justin it forms a vital part of his theology and provides, for him, a solid explanation for evil and demon possession (see St. Augustine, City of God 15.25).
It is within the issue of theodicy that Justin presents his most comprehensive account of the fall of the angles and their offspring. Returning to 2 Apology 5, Justin begins with the objection of his enemies that “if we confess God as our helper, we should not…be oppressed and persecuted”. His answer to this objection is the free will of the angels who fell and both became demons and gave birth to demons. The angels “transgressed” the order given them over creation due to human women. Their offspring, Justin asserts, are “demons.” It is these demons along with the fallen angels, elsewhere also labeled as demons (1 Apol. 23, 54, Dlg. 76), which become the gods of the poets and lead men away from the logos, which is Christ.
The most interesting of Justin’s categories is found in 1 Apol. 18, and closely coincides with the Nephilim. In an effort to prove the reality of an after life, Justin argues from pagan magical practices and necromancy for the consciousness of human souls after death. “Let these persuade you” he says “that even after death souls are still conscious”. In addition, he puts forward evidence from pagan oracles, equating them with demoniacs, saying that the “spirits of the dead” possesses them. The beings described are not the same as the Nephilim, but are certainly real spirits of dead humans. To see the spirits here as Nephilim instead of humans would invalidate his argument, as he specifically desires to demonstrate human sensation after death in context of divine judgment.
Souls of the dead as a demonic category are not overly surprising considering the Greco-Roman background of Justin. A daimo,nion (daimonion) in the cultural milieu was certainly not a fallen angel, and typically was not even evil. Daimo,nioa (daimonioa) were supernatural entities which occupied a middle ground between humans and gods, these could vary in source, but were commonly spirits of dead humans.[2] The LXX would later adopt this term to apply to a host of passages concerning false gods and evil spirits, obscuring a more robust Old Testament demonology.[3] Justin Martyr in the same vein uses the term for false gods, which he sees as fallen angels, yet also keeping the Greco-Roman definition to apply to at least some cases of possession. There is no indication Justin sees this as the either the normal result or death or the normal cause of possession. At most can be said is that Justin asserts the reality of human souls possessing other humans, without regard to frequency. These wicked souls occupy the final rung of Justin’s demonic categories.
[1] I'll comment about this on a latter post
[2] In essay by Peter Bolt in Anthony N.S. Lane, ed. The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm (Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press and Baker Book House, 1996), 75-102. Bolt presents several examples such as souls of the dead. He overstates his case that daimo,nioa (daimonioa) must mean dead human spirits in the New Testament, as he fails to take into account sufficiently the appropriation of the word in Jewish contexts, but does provide strong evidence for this being the case in the larger culture.
[3] See for example Deut 32:17 and Isa 34:14, compare MT to LXX.
Posts
