De Moor IX:25: The First Angelic Sin

[A fundraising update: We are about 30% of the way to our fundraising goal 25 new $100/month subscribers! Thanks be to God. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Concerning the Species of the first Angelic Sin the Sacred Scripture teaches no more determinately, than concerning the Time of the commission of this Sin.  That they, or a part of them, did not sin in the beginning through Carnal Impurity, we have already seen above in § 15, 23.  STEUCHUS EUGUBINUS, de perenni Philosophia, book VIII, chapter XXXVIII, page 560, relates, that there are three opinions on how the Demons sinned, that they were unwilling to be subject to God, and stood forth as rebels:  that they envied the man created, whom they had been obliged to guide:  that they, as lesser gods, and having been put in charge of the governing of the world, burned with lust for women.  But this third opinion he himself repudiates on page 561, and affirms that not one of the good Theologians approves it.  Neither, besides the things already observed, does it at all make for this, that they are said ἀπολιπεῖν τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, to have left their habitation, Jude 6, as if those Angels, of which Jude speaks, are not said to have been cast down from Heaven by God on account of the sin committed there, but are said of their own will to have left Heaven in order to perpetrate sin.  Contrariwise, we believe that thus the Apostle is able to speak most suitably concerning the first sin of Angels, which preceded the Fall of men, by which sin the Evil Angels were deprived of both the state and place of blessedness.  Now, that to leave, as far as it is able to denote the voluntary act of Angels, is to be considered as a consequent of the divine expulsion, arguing their wickedness and now corrupted freedom of choice:  thus Cain also, driven into exile by God, is read to have gone out from the presence of Jehovah, Genesis 4:16.  That the first Fall of Angels ought not to be sought in the commingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men, recorded in Genesis 6, it is at least evident from the Fall of Angel and Men now long before.

Likewise it appears certain to our AUTHOR, that the first sin of the Angels was not against some Corporal and Positive Law, but the Natural Law indited in them by God:  see those disputing out of the Scholastic Theology concerning the various kinds of Law imposed upon the Angels, whom VOETIUS cites, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 916, 917.

Especially probable is the twofold conjecture, which is set forth out of the Ancients and Scholastics.  Namely,

1.  That the first Sin of the Evil Angels was Pride, thrusting themselves forward in Inordinate Affectation, not necessarily of Essential Deity, but of Divine Eminence; see Thomas Aquinas, Summæ, part I, question LXIII, article III, pages 116, 117.  Upon which matter Theologians observe, α.  that with the same sort of sin Satan seduced our first parents, by promising to them greater similitude with God; so that through this affectation of great Eminence he might urge man to transgress the divine mandate, Genesis 3:5.  β.  That Pride is an ongoing sin of the Devil, whose pursuit this has always been and still remains, to conduct himself in the world after the likeness of God, and to urge men to his worship as the Prince of this world, 2 Corinthians 4:4; Matthew 4:8-10.  γ.  That Paul appears to indicate this, 1 Timothy 3:6, where some do indeed think of the Condemnation of the Calumniator in general, with ERASMUS and the GENEVANS, who render it:  de peur qu’ étant enflé d’orgueil, il ne tombe dans la condamnation du calomniateur,[1] lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the calumniator:  where τοῦ διαβόλου, of the devil, is a genitive of the efficient; as if the Apostle would say:  Lest he be liable to calumny, and give to adversaries an occasion for reproaching the office of Bishop; and for saying, that he sought Christianity for this purpose, that he who was lowly among his own might excel in honor among the Christians.  Thus also does HEUMANN[2] take this passage, Pœciles, part II, disputation XVI, page 323.  Yet others believe that it is preferable, that the term διαβόλου be taken here κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, pre-eminently, of the Prince of Evil Angels, both on account of the article τοῦ/the, τοῦ διαβόλου, of the devil, and on account of verse 7 immediately following, where mention is made of the παγίδος τοῦ διαβόλου, snare of the devil, in comparison with 2 Timothy 2:26.  LAMPE is able to be compared on John 8:44, tome 2, page 463b, where he observes on the Pauline text, 1 Timothy 3:6, 7, that these three things are not to be confounded, but are to be distinguished from each other in order to avoid ταυτολογίαν/tautology:  κρίμα, the condemnation; ὀνειδισμὸν, the reproach; and παγίδα, the snare, τοῦ διαβόλου, of the devil:  so that the first might denote the judgment, into which the Devil falls; the second the opprobrium, which threatens others; the third the ambuscades, which he constructs.  Which distinction he derives from the separate subjects; since he observes in verse 6 that the matter concerns the hidden vice of the soul, concerning which the audacity of calumniators was thus having no place; but in verse 7, that external life is treated, especially that which before conversion was conducted among the Jews and the Gentiles, which, if it be without a good testimony, was giving occasion both to the detractions and at the same time the ambuscades of the Devil, whereby he was seeking to lure back into the same crimes, wherein it was evident that one had been immersed in his preceding blindness.  One may add, and also into other crimes, the neglect of the entrusted gift,[3] etc., when the Minister finds himself to be the object of reproach and contempt.  And so, when by διάβολον/devil we understand it here κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, pre-eminently, of the Prince of Evil Angels, his κρίμα/condemnation will not so much be the active Condemnation of that one, so that τοῦ διαβόλου, of the devil, would be a Genitive of the efficient, which signification of the term κρίμα is also quite uncommon in the New Testament; neither does any sufficient reason appear to be given, why on account of Pride alone, so much more than on account of the many other vices of which Paul disapproves in a Bishop, he would meet with the Condemnation τοῦ διαβόλου, of the devil.  But τοῦ διαβόλου, of the devil, is a Genitive of the suffering/enduring subject, and κρίμα/condemnation, according to the signification met everywhere in the New Testament, will express the Judgment of Condemnation and the punishment of sin that the Devil endures.  But, when Paul relates that a punishment and condemnation similar to that of the Devil is to be feared in particular by the proud, on account of this specific similitude of punishment, which the Apostle threatens, the similitude of the sin itself, on account of which the Devil was delivered over to condemnation, appears to be able to be gathered.

2.  That Devils first sinned through Envy of mankind, they conjecture, whether they were considering mankind as to be saved in Christ, who would through the assumption of the human nature exalt it above the angelic, concerning which see what things were just now taught in § 23 near the end; or rather as too near to them in present felicity.  So that this opinion might be rendered more probable, an appeal is wont to be made, α.  to the Mosaic history, which in the Temptation of Man posits no prior external Sin, that is agreeably derived from Envy of human felicity.  β.  To the testimony of the Lord, wherein Murder and Deception are ascribed to the Devil from the beginning, John 8:44; however, that the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, is to be expounded rather of the beginning of the created world, than of the beginning of the angelic Fall, we saw in § 22.  γ.  To the character of the Devil, continually begrudging to man his felicity, and hence continually seeking to destroy it, 1 Peter 5:8.

And, according to the observation of our AUTHOR, to this also tends the fable of Muhammed, namely, of the Fall of certain Angels and of the Devil, who, after they had served God eighty thousand years, sinned, since he was unwilling to adore Adam, which God had commanded him; that is, because he was esteeming himself more excellent than Adam on account of his origin, since his body was made of fire, but Adam’s of clay, easily to be consumed by fire.  Which fable HOORNBEECK narrates out of the Quran, Summa Controversiarum, book II, pages 144, 145, and also out of RELAND, de Religione Muhammedica, book II, § 14, pages 189-195.  WESSELIUS, Dissertationibus Academicis XVIII, § 3, who at the same time observes, that the scope of the fable appears to be, to teach the great excellence of Adam, greater than the Angelic excellence, and the first sin of the Devil, namely, Envy; he, having been drawn by Envy, was unwilling to acknowledge the excellence of man and refused to serve him.  But, with respect to the origin of the fable, insofar as it speaks of the Adoration of Adam, which God commanded the Angels, as WESSELIUS relates in that very place, JOHANNES LUDOVICUS VIVES,[4] book IV de Veritate Fidei, chapter X, thinks that Muhammed drew it from Hebrews 1:6, where he took the Firstbegotten for Adam, although the speech is concerning Christ.  But HACKSPAN, in his Sylloge Disputationum, page 254, judges more truly, that Muhammed followed Jews asserting exactly the same thing, which he says to be evident to one flipping through GALATINUS, who in book VII de Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis,[5] chapter IV, relates the opinion of the Jews out of Rabbi Moses Haddarsan.^[6]  To Hackspan assent is given by ODÉ, citing many ὁμοψήφους/like-minded, de Angelis, section IV, chapter II, § 15, pages 485, 486.  But, that the Jews drew these things also from Psalm 97:7 incorrectly understood, which text Paul cites in Hebrews 1:6, WESSELIUS thinks not improbable.  That this fable of Muhammed likely took its rise from the words of Paul in Hebrews 1:6 incorrectly understood, is also the observation of MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 22, note b, page 265.

At the same time, our AUTHOR rightly observes, that the Envy of the Angels against mankind just now mentioned is actually either a species or a near descendant of Pride:  hence we conceive without difficulty Envy and Pride to concur in the first sin of Devils.  ODÉ appears to have reduced everything to order, and that not far off the mark, de Angelis, section IV, chapter II, § 10, when he says, We will not stray far from the truth, which we investigate accurately and studious more by demonstration, than by conjecture, if we establish, that the beginning of angelic sin was excessive love of themselves and a vain and perverse confidence in their own gifts and strength of nature:  and then that its progress, and the very sin, which he perpetrated in heaven, and on account of which he was cast out of heaven, was the pride, the affectation and envy of divinity, arising from those:  and finally, that the full measure and consummation of the preceding fall was the temptation and deception of man, which therefore the full malediction of that Angel and his seed at length followed.  See yet more things concerning the Species of the first Sin of Angels in ODÉ’S de Angelis, section IV, chapter II, § 1-13, pages 469-484:  see also SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book III, Exercitation VIII, § 4-9, pages 545-549, who believes that the Fall of Angels began from their more lax Attention to the Contemplation of God:  but he believed that the species of the completed sin ought to be said to be Pride rather than Envy.

But in this act of Sin of whatever sort, there is a Want of Understanding, etc.:  compare VOETIUS, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, page 920, number VIII; TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus IX, question V, § 7.

[1] La Bible de Genève (1669).

[2] Christoph August Heumann (1681-1764) was a Lutheran divine, and Professor of Theology at the University of Gottingen.

[3] 1 Timothy 4:14.

[4] Juan Luis Vives (1493-1540) was a Spanish Renaissance humanist and scholar.

[5] Petrus Galatinus, or Pietro Colonna Galatino (1460-1540), was an Italian Franciscan, theologian, and Orientalist.  His de Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis is a massive apologetic work (drawing heavily upon Rabbinic sources), defending the fundamentals of the Christian faith against Jewish objections.

[6] Moses Haddarsan (eleventh century) was a French Rabbi.  He was an expert in Rabbinic tradition.