Angels and Reproduction!

Is it possible that angels can reproduce?  It was a question asked during a spirited debate regarding a good understanding of Gen. 6:1-4.  It is an interesting question that was spawned out of when angels were created, how much do we really know, and can we know with any certainty.  I would like to look at this briefly in hopes of addressing the opening question.  Though it is not the intent of the article to clarify what Gen. 6 is communicating, I do hope that the answer to the first question will bring the reader to a better position of understanding.

First, when were angels created?  In all honesty, Scripture is unclear as to when they were created.  However, we do know that they were created during the six days of creation.  Reason: Genesis 1:1 speaks, “In the beginning, God created…”  There was nothing else but God before He created the heavens and the earth.  Notice that it did not say, “In the beginning, God and the angels were there and then God created heavens and the earth.”  The next time we see this language used is in John 1 where it is much clearer as to who was there and was not there prior to creation.  John 1:1-3 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 ESV)  Putting these two Scripture references together, one sees the picture that the only being in existence was God prior to the creation we see in the six days.  This leads to a follow-up question, “On what day did God create the angels?”  The Scriptures do not specifically address this issue.  However, there may be a few clues we can glean from the Scriptures.

As stated, all things were created by God, Col. 1:16 adds that all things were created by Him everything that is in heaven and on the earth including, “whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers…” (Col 1:16 NET)  The ESV is not as clear as to what Paul is talking about, but in the footnotes one does see agreement that Paul is talking about the angelical realm.  One more clue as to the timing of their creation rests in Job 38 where we find the “morning stars” rejoicing at the laying of the earth’s foundation.  This would infer that the angelical realm was created no later than day 3 of Creation.  At best, we can surmise that the angels are created sometime between day 1 and day 3 of Creation. 

Second, we need to understand that angels are spiritual beings that are not created in the image of God.  This is an important distinction that must not be forgotten.  The question comes into mind if spiritual beings can reproduce after their own kind.  Jesus clarifies this when asked by the Sadducees regarding a hypothetical question of the seven brothers each dying before producing a child with the woman of the first brother doing their Levitical duties.  They asked whose wife she would be at the resurrection.  Jesus’ response, “"You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Mat 22:29-30 ESV) One of the main reasons for marriage is the sexual union that makes a husband and wife one physically and spiritually as well as pro-creation.  This is no longer needed at the resurrection and we will be similar to the angels that are not given in marriage.  Because angels do not marry, we can rightly conclude that they are asexual beings.  Meaning, they do not have reproduction capabilities that would warrant the need for marriage.

Let’s say that this understanding of angels is just out there and that most certainly they can reproduce.  When God created, He created everything to its kind and within its kind they can reproduce.  This is fundamental to our understanding of the created order.  For example, can a dog and a cat mate to reproduce?  No.  Why?  Because, they are not of the same ‘kind.’ There is no two kinds that can come together to produce a new “kind”.  Likewise, angels and humans (only humans bear the image of God) are of different kinds and therefore could not come together to produce a new “kind”. 

Finally, “sons of God” has more than one meaning.  The phrase is used seven times outside of the Gen. 6 passage.  Of those seven times, four times the phrase is best understood as being human followers of God.  The other three references are found in the book of Job that refers to the angelical beings.  With the contextual clues of the Genesis 6 passage, it is not out of bounds to think that the “sons of God” may in fact be men of the Seth line that did call on the name of the Lord.

Conclusion: Angels are created by God sometime in the first three days of creation, more than likely on day one.  They do not have reproduction capabilities since no marriage is found in Heaven and even if they could, they would only reproduce their own kind, which is different from Man who is made in the image of God.

Tim Keller Answers a Question regarding the Literal Adam

Tim Keller does a Q & A, answering the question regarding the histrocity of Adam at the Gospel Coalition blog. 

I find this blog post interesting.  I deeply respect Tim Keller and his effectiveness in communicating Biblical truth.  I found much of his arguments sound, resonating with the idea of upholding the inerrancy and inspiration of God's Word.  He essentially argued that Genesis 2-11 needs to be understood as events that had actually happened.  With regard to Adam, he succintly tied the idea of federalism of Romans 5 with the understanding of Adam being an historical person.

Sadly, Dr. Keller arguing for the literal Adam because the author of Genesis 2 conveys this, states the following,

"I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 wants us to take the “days” literally."

Within the very paragraph he makes the statement above, Dr. Keller argues that Paul desires for his readers to understand that he takes Adam and Eve literally and therefore we must take it literally.  He closes the paragraph stating,

"When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority."

The question that is being begged is, "If the author did not want us to take the six days literally in Genesis 1, how are we to understand the same author when he refrences back to Genesis 1 in Exodus 20:11?"  If Tim Keller rightly argues that we are to take Paul's understanding are we not to take Moses' understanding as well?  For Dr. Keller to hold to his belief on Genesis 1, he would need to argue that Moses was arguing for the need of the literal Sabbath based on a figurative one.  He correctly disproves such an argument from those who question the histrocity of Adam and yet is willing to overlook a more historical understanding of Genesis 1 from Exodus 20.

Creation vs Evolution - The Historical Adam

Have you ever wonder why farmers install electrical fences around their horses or even cattle?  The use of low voltage fences is to make sure that the animals stay within the boundary.  The shock an animal receives when it gets close enough, reminds the animal that they are not to step any further or they may get hurt.  Likewise, many who reject the “electric fence” of the historicity of Adam seem to think that his position is not important and has little or no impact on their belief.  In the last chapter of Denis O. Lamoureux’s book, Evolution Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, asserts, “My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity.”

In my last post, I tried to lay out a deep foundational concern for the growth within the Evangelical movement to disregard or underplay the importance of the historicity of Adam.  In this posting, I would like to continue down this path and think about the implications of such an idea that Adam is a mythical person more so than an actual, historical being.

First, we must admit that the very idea that Adam is mythical is a new idea in Christiandom.  In the two thousand years of Christianity, it has only been the past 100 – 150 years that this seed was planted and started to grow.  For most of this development, it was held fiercely by the Liberal wing of Christianity.  Evangelicals were amongst the strongest to criticize such a position.  Evangelicals defended the simple understanding that Adam was an actual man, created by God in God’s own image. 

It has been just in the past decade or less that those who consider themselves as evangelicals start attacking the very notion that Adam was a historical person and are in agreement with the Liberal wing that Adam is simply a myth.   Personally, when evangelicals start sounding a lot like those they criticized in the past, a red flag rises in my mind.  The growth and strengthening of these attacks on the historical Adam are rooted in the complacency of Evangelicals towards the defense of orthodoxy.

Before we look deeper into the why’s of how this shift in thought has started to seep into the Christian mind like yeast in dough, I will share why the defensive of the historical Adam is paramount to the very foundation of our faith.  As James Anderson, Professor of Theology at RTS, says: “…the historicity of Adam is ta thread woven all the way through the Bible’s history, theology, and ethics.  Pull out that thread and sooner or later the whole garment will unravel.”[1]

David Murray in his article titled, The Quest for the Historical Adam outlines five doctrines that are weaken if not destroyed if Adam was not a real person.  I would like to summarize each one as well as add one or two more to his list.

1.  Doctrine of Sin: Hamartiology

If Adam is not the man in which sin came into the world, then the outcome must be that sin was always a part of man’s very existence.  Accordingly, those who deny the literally existence of Adam truly believe that the “Fall” is just a symbol for mankind’s imperfection, an imperfection that was always there.  If sin always existed in man, how can we be responsible to God for it?  Likewise, God had called his creation good; how can God call an imperfection, a sinful being ‘Good’?

The theological idea of Federal Headship comes into question.  Those who, Murray calls “Adam-deniers,” believe that Adam is representative for mankind believe the “Fall” is simply a group fall.  If true, Paul’s idea of the “one for many” falls flat on its face.

2. Christology

If we are to reject the Bible’s teaching of an historical Adam, why should we not also reject the Bible’s teaching of an historical Jesus?  If sin did not come by one man, how would it be possible for one man to redeem mankind?  Not only would the historicity of Jesus need to be questioned, but also Jesus’ integrity.  When Jesus was asked by Pharisees regarding divorce, Jesus went back to Genesis 1.  Matt. 19:4-5 we find this, “He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?”  From this text, it is obvious that Jesus believed in the historical creation of man and woman.  If not, then what was Jesus referring to?  If God did not create the historical Adam, then we must question the veracity of Jesus’ statements.  Is it possible that Jesus, the Son of God, mistakenly applied Genesis 1, understanding the creation to be historical?

3. Soteriology

Paul spells out in Romans 5 that all men are either in Adam or in Christ.  We are all fallen, declared guilty in Adam.  Likewise, all who believe in Christ are justified, declared righteous. 

James Montgomery Boice wrote: “You do not need an historical atonement to undo a mythological fall or a mythological transgression.  All you need is another myth.  But if Christ needed to be real to save us, then Adam was real, too.  It is because Adam was real that Christ also had to be real to make atonement.”[2]

4. Eschatology

I will quote Murray’s point in length, “If Adam was not a historical person and the fall into sin was not a historical event, then can we have any certainty about Christ’s resurrection or our own?  If Adam was simply a teaching model, how can we be sure that Christ’s resurrection is not also merely a teaching model.  In 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 44-49, Paul uses the analogy of Adam and his fall into sin bringing us all down, to teach that similarly Christ and his perfect obedience will raise his people up from the dead.  Adam’s sin and death do not merely illustrate our condition, they determine it.  Similarly, Christ’s obedience and resurrection do not merely illustrate the Christian’s life and resurrection, but determine it.”

In other words, where is our hope to be founded in if there is no historical existence for Adam?  E. J. Young comments on Paul’s teaching here, “Remove Adam and his historicity from these verses and all the profound truths that Paul is teaching go by the board.  They are then not truths at all and Paul’s words must be abandoned.  Adam is gone, but so is Christ.”

5. Practical Theology

Paul’s argument for male headship is dependent upon the historicity of Adam being made first.  Paul’s argument and application would fall flat if he erred in such an assumption.

The above five are areas that David Murray touched on.  One other that is implicit in this whole discussion though is the doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word.

6. Inspiration of Scripture

If Adam is not a historical person, then the question of inspiration must be placed on the table.  For the Adam-denier to hold firm to the rejection of the historicity of Adam has to declare that the writer of 1 Chronicles, Jesus’ words, Luke, and Paul are all wrong in their application and/or assertions we find in the Bible.

 Sadly, the apostle Paul is already under heavy attack by men like Peter Enns.  He has emphatically stated that accepting Paul’s understanding of human origins is untenable as members of the human race in the twenty-first century.[3] 

7. Evangelism & Discipleship

What is the Gospel if there is no entrance of sin into the world?  How is one saved from a myth?  Are not our limited resources of time, money, and people better served?

As can be seen, there is much damage that is done when we circumvent the “electrical fence” of the historical Adam.  We as Christians if we go down such a path simply are rejecting the Truth, the veracity of God’s witness, His Word.

---

[1] James Anderson, Was Adam a real historical individual? Analogical Thoughts Blog. http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/was-adam-a-real-historical-individual/

[2] James Montgomery Boice, Romans (Grand rapids, MI: Baker 1992), 2:583

[3] Peter Enns Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible: Moving Toward a Synthesis. The Biologos Foundation.  He further goes on to assert that rejecting Christianity and accepting evolution is a much more tenable solution than to believe that Paul is correct in his understanding of who Adam is.

Creation - Evolution Debate....

Tim Challies had a link to C Michael Patton's article putting into a nutshell the six different views of the Creation/Evolution Debate. The link to his article is here. Four of the six positions seem to be bent towards a more biblical understanding of things. However, Patton defines the Relationship between science and Scripture for the Literal Biblical View (much better than YEC, and will be known as LBV) as follows:

Scientific discovery always submits to Scripture in all matters. Science is interpreted in light of Scripture. YECs see the early chapters of Genesis, taken at face value, as an accurate and authoritative (even scientific) guide to the basic details of the origin of the universe. Science is of great value so long as it starts with the Bible

The difference between this position and the other three (OEC, Time-Relative Creationism, Gap Theory) in regards to this vital relationship is that the three:

Typically sees nature as a complementary guide from God which speaks authoritatively to issues about which the Scriptures are unclear or silent. Whatever source is more clear is the authority in matters of origins. If both seem equally clear, yet seemingly conflicting, Scripture is the final source.

Comparing these two statements regarding the relationship, it would seem that for the latter positions, nature is not equally weighted but heavily weighted. At the same time, none of these three positions seem to clearly agree with one another so would it be fair that by this definition that Patton is using would disqualify science in regard to origins? Would it not be obvious that if nature is so clear that there would be overlap in such a way that the differences would be minimal? Yet, this does not seem to be the case. At the same time, one would think that the proposed definition would raise a red flag in regards to biblical inerrancy and inspiration. For the definition, Patton is arguing for the specific case of origins which would seem to be quite clear from Scripture as to where we have come from.

I propose that the definition given for the latter three positions grant the following freedoms: 1) they can simply ignore the hermeneutic argument; 2) gives them liberty to question the veracity of Scripture; 3) have a common enemy, the LBV position.

Reading comments and original arguments, those who seem to hold to the latter three positions have a hermeneutical problem inherent with their position. When one decides that the historical position of a more literal understanding of the creation story is wrong, one would suppose that they must demonstrate a strong argument to jettison the older understanding. Instead, they reframe the discussion around their interpretation of the "scientific evidence" regarding the origins of man. No longer is the Bible the starting and ending point, it is on the sidelines and will be called upon when it is necessary. The hermeneutic argument seems to go along the lines of a) the term "day" in Hebrew is not clearly define and b) apparent age is a deception that God cannot use for that makes God a liar. Then the positions move quickly to all of the "scientific evidence."

The second freedom is the most problematic. Carl Truman mentioned recently that one of the two major issues that Evangelicals will be facing in the next ten years is the positioning on the historicity of the first man, Adam. As David P. Murry stated,

Not everyone who denies literal-six-day-creation ends up denying the literal Adam. However, from what I've read, everyone who ends up denying a literal historical Adam began by denying a literal-six-day-creation.

This should shake the foundations of evangelicalism. We see Biologos writers denounce the existence of a historical Adam, and pushing the envelope by essentially arguing that Paul errs in believing that Adam was a historical person when he wrote 1 Cor 15 and Romans 5. In fact, Biologos seems eager to support that Adam & Eve is a story of Israel's origins or just stereo typical figures representing the human race as a whole.

In essence they are saying, "Let us brush aside the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. It is obvious that not all Scripture is useful for teaching and training a person for the authors are wrong in their understanding of the historical Adam." We must not forget that it is not only the Apostle Paul that they are willing to challenge but the great historian, Luke and our Lord Jesus whom believed in the historicity of Adam as well.

The other attack on the veracity of Scripture goes along the lines that God would never create an earth with apparent age because then God would deceive us. Yet, if one wants to attack the historicity of Adam, they would have to advocate that God deceived the very authors of Scripture to believe an error (a lie) and still write it into Scripture. One cannot have it both ways.

In my next post, I will dive further into the theological problems that occurs when one desires to make Adam and Eve: a myth, or a symbol, and not historical as the Biblical writers argue for and believed.

The Six Days of Creation: Are they God's workdays or 24hr. Days Part 2

Earlier, I shared what seemed to me a novel theory on the six days of creation being what one commentator called, “God's Workday.” The theory argues that these six days are analogous to man's days. The analogous theory's argument rests primarily on the interpretation of the seventh day.

Today, I would like to look at the traditional understanding, six 24hr. days of creation. There is strong evidence from Scripture that would demonstrate that the most natural understanding of “day” in Genesis chapter one would be a 24hr period of time. The line of argument is not difficult to follow and the simplicity would seem to point to an overall acceptance of the position by all Christians.

The line of thought for the six 24hr. days is as follows:

1. The Hebrew word for “day” throughout Scripture when used with numbers always reflects a 24hr. day.
2. The Hebrew word for “day” throughout Scripture when used with the terms “evening” and “morning” refers to a literal day. 
3. Exodus 20:11 – The Lord is explaining why the Israelites are to keep the Sabbath. The reason – “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” It is hard to imagine that those listening to the Lord would be thinking, “Wow, these days must have had years separating these days.” Or, “Yeah, these days couldn't be literal, they have to be analogous, because that makes the most sense.” 
4. Exodus 31:17 – In a different context, the reasoning behind the Sabbath is given as, “that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.”
5.  7th Day – The lack of the phrase, “evening and morning” does not need to be understood as being a day without end. It may be explained that the lack of the phrase is to indicate that the Lord has never stop resting from His creative actions, not that the day did not end.

A general rule regarding the exegesis of a text is that the most natural reading/understanding should be preferred. An appropriate question is how did the Israelites understand the words found in both Exodus references. The Lord and Moses had an opportunity to help the listeners to understand what was meant when God stated days in both passages, if these references are not to be taken literally.

There has been a considerable lack of explanation regarding the two Exodus references when commentators or apologists defer to another theory regarding the days of creation. For example, the commentator that argued for the analogous position did not explain their position in light of the texts mentioned above. How does one who does not interpret Genesis creation literally, interpret the above passages? One is hard press to prove that the Israelites understanding would be anything but literal when reading Exodus chapter 20 and 31.

One of the issues facing the analogous position is the sense that God could not have created the heavens and the earth is six literal days. Why is there such a need to “extend” time in order that the creation can happen? Why do we as Christians have very little problem interpreting literally within the confines of genre everything but Genesis chapter 1? As one author pointed out, “Instead they (scientists) say, “Our science is based on universally accepted assumptions, and yet our findings disagree with the Creator’s account of what He did. His account must be incorrect.” And, we Christians seem eager to believe the “scientists” over the Creator. Your thoughts?

PuritanD

The Six Days of Creation: Are they God's workdays or 24hr. Days

At Auburn Alliance Church, we are going through the book of Genesis and have spent some time working on God's creative acts in chapter one. It is perhaps the most controversial passage in the Bible and yet one of the most important. Christians seem to be stuck between a proverbial rock and a hard place trying to figure out how to make sense of all the material that has been thrown at them, especially in regard to how we are to interpret the term, “day.”

There are many theories out there in regard to the timing of each of the six days of creation. However, I would just like to discuss two of these theories in this brief article. In researching the first sermon on this series, I came across a commentator who strongly believes that the days are to be literally taken to be actually six days but not as calendar days.

He states, “Most probably the six days of creation are God's workdays, which are not identical to ours but are analogous to ours.” His reasoning: 1) the first three days could not have been solar because God made the sun and moon on the fourth day, and 2) the seventh day has no end. The phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” does not appear with day seven.

This was the first time I have ever heard of this view and find it quite fascinating. Though the commentator seems to have been able to bring out a better way of combining many different understandings, the reasoning seems a bit lacking. One may properly ask, “If there was no sun and no moon, how was there “evening and morning” in the first place?” Sadly, he does not elaborate on “evening and morning” phraseology in regard to days one through three if there was not a 24 hour period. The second question that must be present is, “Does this phraseology change meaning when the sun and moon are created on the fourth day?” In other words, when does the switch happen from analogous to actually 24 hour periods?

Upon reading the fourth day, one would need to surmise that the sun and moon where created to govern the Light and Darkness of day one. They were also though created to help man with keeping time, not to have time created at that moment. In other words, it is plausible that the 24 hour day existed prior to the creation of the sun and moon, but man would not have been able to identify it properly without these luminary bodies being created.

The other piece of the puzzle that the author mentioned is regarding the seventh day is missing the phrase, “evening and morning,” may not be indicating that the day is continuing but that God's actual rest from his creative act has not ended. Upon further observation of the creation account, one will notice that when God was done with what He was doing, we had the phrase, “evening and morning.” With the seventh day not having the phrase, one could simply interpret it to mean that God is continuing to rest from His creative activity.

The second understanding I would like to look at is to understand the six days of creation as being six, 24 hour days, which will be on another post. However, what do you think of the theory of an analogous workweek?

PuritanD