In Part 3 of this series I concluded that angels, although spiritual beings, are nevertheless created beings. They have not existed from eternity as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have existed. Now we come to the question of when these angelic beings were created.The Bible tells us that "the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" all in six literal days (Exodus 20:11). Therefore, like every other created creature, angels were created some time within the six days of creation. Some scholars have expressed doubt, however, suggesting the creation story in Genesis was not meant to serve as a technical record for spiritual entities and allow the possibility that angels predate the Genesis account. They offer verses like Job 38:4-7, which states:
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth . . . or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (ESV)The "Sons of God" used here is another term for angel. The Hebrew ("bene haelohim") is also used in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Psalm 29:1 and Psalm 89:6, and each time synonymously with the English word "angel." The question remains whether this verse is sufficient for arguing the presence of angels before creation. As Louis Berkhof, the great theologian who taught for almost four decades at Calvin Theological Seminary writes in his Systematic Theology:
The time of their creation cannot be fixed definitely. The opinion of some, based on Job 38:7, that they were created before all other things, really finds no support in Scripture. As far as we know, no creative work preceded the creation of heaven and earth. The passage in the book of Job (38:7) teaches, indeed, in a poetic vein that they were present at the founding of the world just as the stars were, but not that they existed before the primary creation of heaven and earth. The idea that the creation of the heavens was completed on the first day, and that the creation of the angels was simply a part of the day's work, is also an unproved assumption, though the fact that the statement in Gen. 1:2 applies to the earth only would seem to favor it. Possibly the creation of the heavens was not completed in a single moment any more than that of the earth. The only safe statement seems to be that they were created before the seventh day. This at least follows from such passages as Gen. 1:2; Ex. 20:11; Job 38:7; Neh. 9:6.
Wayne Grudem, the Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary, agrees. He writes in his Systematic Theology:
There may be a hint at the creation of angelic beings on the first day of creation when we read that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1), and then immediately after we read that "the earth was without form and void" (Gen 1:2), but with no mention of the heavens in this second verse. This may suggest that the uninhabitable state of the earth is contrasted with the heavens where, perhaps, God had already created angelic beings and assigned them various roles and orders. This idea is made more plausible when we read that "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" at the time when God laid the "cornerstone" of the earth and sunk its "bases" in the process of forming or founding it (Job 38:6-7). If the angels ("the sons of God") shouted for joy when God was making the earth inhabitable, this could imply that God created the angelic beings early on the first day.
The main objection I've seen raised most often against the date for the creation of angels is not Job 38, but the date of when the angels fell. Satan must already have been a fallen angel when he tempted Eve to eat the fruit. Most people think God rested on the seventh day and then Satan was there to tempt Eve into sin on the eighth day. That seems like an extraordinarily short amount of time for Satan and his rebellion to occur! But that's not quite how it happened. We really don't know how much time had passed between the seventh day and the Fall in the Garden of Eden. The only insight I have into this issue is that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3). After we subtract the minimum amount of time it took for Eve to give birth to Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1, 2), and the minimum amount of time it took them to grow up and be old enough for Cain to murder his brother (Genesis 4:8), and the minimum amount of time it took for Eve to conceive Seth, there still remains plenty of time (though certainly an unknown quantity) for Satan to have launched his rebellion between day seven and the fall.
The angelic rebellion against God is definitely something we'll discuss in further detail in future posts. What I want my readers to take away from this post is the point that angels were created in the same 6-day period as everything else in creation and, in that regard, are no different from any other creature.
Editor's Note: Click Here to view this entire series.
Boy, I wouldn't want to touch that with a 10-foot pole. I'm going to go with the assumption that if you believe in the Bible and the writings of all these different people from different time periods, then it's entirely possible that a portion of the information is missing, either still retained in a some cave, crumbled by the millenia, hiding in the Vatican, or being held hostage by someone who doesn't want it released for whatever it says. Since the Bible is incomplete and some of it is still being supposedly interpreted, these questions you're asking about angels will only be as good as the popular Bible that's in circulation. Admittedly, this 7-day thing may not need to be taken so literally, like how old Noah was, I think either things are lost in interpretation or exaggerated to make the story a more effective lesson. I like your series, although I share zero of your beliefs, I really respect that you want to gain a better cerebral knowledge as well as a spiritual one. Good for you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words, Autumnforest. I know that you, as well as several others, don't share my beliefs. The point of this series, however, is to drop the popular notions about angels and analyze the Biblical view of these beings. I suspected long before starting that by doing so I would be butting heads with other smart thinkers, such as yourself.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I unashamedly take most things in the Bible literally (like the "7-day thing" and how old Noah was) and I'll continue to do so until logic or science proves otherwise. I'm not holding my breath. The Bible has a long history of holding up under close scrutiny - the driving force behind my confidence in it - so I'm not likely to stop interpreting it literally anytime soon.
Bravo! I'm happy when anyone follows their beliefs and beliefs are set down by a life journey. I always get mad when my fundamentalist brother wants to make everyone follow his doctrines. The problem is that we all have different experiences, different abilities to believe, different intellectual processes, so no one should shovel their beliefs on others. That's what I respect about you is that you're a quiet wellspring of belief and you don't care if others share it. That's how it should be. Not shoveling it on others, just enjoying what you know internally. I wish everyone had your attitude. I enjoy the education about angels. Whenever I go to Sedona and people talk about angels as spirit guides, I roll my eyes. But, then, I roll my eyes when Christians dye eggs on Easter and follow old Pagan methods. It's pretty funny how people can adapt beliefs when necessary. At least you're trying to be literal which gives you some basis (the Bible) to make assumptions. Keep it up. I'm enjoying the series.
ReplyDeleteI know some have proposed a way around it, but I don't see how Adam could get created and placed in a garden to hang out with God for a while. And, then, name the animal kingdom. Then, God creates woman. All in seven days.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, what do you think of THIS ARTICLE Let me know if this answers your question:
ReplyDelete"There are several factors, which may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader, that need to be considered. Firstly, Adam did not have to go out and round up or track any of these animals. Genesis 2:19 clearly states that God brought the animals to Adam. Secondly, although many objectors have claimed that the species Adam had to observe and name would have numbered in the millions, the actual number would almost certainly have been only a small fraction of this.
Note that Scripture explicitly states that Adam named all the ‘livestock’ (Heb. behemah),the ‘birds of the air’ (Heb. op hassamayim) and all the ‘beasts of the field’ (Heb. chayyah hassadeh). There is no indication that Adam named the fish in the sea, or any other marine organisms, nor any of the insects, beetles or arachnids. In fact, of the two million known species, 98% are invertebrates, which include a variety of animals from sponges, worms and jellyfish, to mollusks and insects. The remaining 2% are vertebrates and number approximately 40,000 species.2 This number is further reduced when the 25,000 marine vertebrates3 and four thousand amphibians4 are discounted, since they clearly do not fit into any of the categories of animals listed in Genesis 2:20.
In addition, assuming that speciation has been an on-going occurrence since Creation, the eleven thousand vertebrate species in question would have most likely descended from a much smaller number of proto-species. Each would be the ancestors of animals in the group that taxonomists call a genus5 (or possibly the higher taxonomic order known as a family6) and what the Genesis account calls a ‘kind’.7 Since many genera contain dozens, even hundreds, of species, it is far more likely that Adam had to name only a couple of thousand of these proto-species—a task which could easily have been achieved in a few hours. (Assuming Adam had to name 2,500 proto-species (genera), and he named a single proto-species every five seconds, it would have taken him approximately three hours and forty-five minutes to complete the task if we include a five-minute break every hour.)
It is important to note that God’s purpose in parading all the animals before Adam was not merely so that he would give them names. It was also to reinforce the fact that he was different in kind from the rest of creation, so that none of these animals could ever serve as a physical, emotional, intellectual or spiritual companion."
Yes, I've read that before which is why I opened my statement as I did, but I'm not satisfied with the answer. But, thanks for posting that.
ReplyDeleteI always try to answer all questions to the best of my ability but I don't know how you can expect me to answer your question if you don't tell me what part of that statement you disagree with or which part of it is not satisfying to you.
ReplyDeleteyour post is certainly plausible and I'm not trying to win the discussion. It just seems unlikely to me that it would have happened that way. I think naming would have taken some time. Five seconds per. Kind of detracts from the description as paradise.
ReplyDeleteiow, the gulag of Eden
ReplyDeleteGod to Adam, "Hurry up, biped. We're behind schedule and over budget and I don't know about some of those names you've picked. Hippopotamus, rhinoceros -- good, but platypus? Wombat? Goatsucker? Orangutan? Warthog? Dodo?"
ReplyDeleteSorry. Just kidding of course.
THen, "Seriously, Adam. I've already scheduled the serpent."
ReplyDelete'nother example of inexact use of numbers in the Bible such as non literal seven day creation story is found in Matthew's genealogy. Compare Matthew's ancestral line to the Messiah with the Old Testament and you'll see that he left some out in order to show the 14 generation symmetry. Though western thought can be precise and mathematical, not all Biblical numbers and mathematical concepts were intended to meet the same criteria. (I'm only anonymous because I can't figure out the "comment as" drop down list and I've only posted in this section.....c...I get "your request could not be processed. Please try again" even when I post anonymously)
ReplyDeleteC, is that you? Hmm . . . Anyway, I think taking the Genesis account literally is legitimate and one is on shaky ground when they step away from that. The genealogical record in Matthew is not trying to give direct ancestors, but those who would have been legally in line for the throne of David. At any rate, I'm sure the omission of names has nothing to do with keeping 14 generation symmetry.
ReplyDeletehmmm, wouldn't they be in line for the throne if they were Jesus' ancestor?
ReplyDeletec
but of course my point was that it is not unusual for there to be numbers that are imprecise such as Matthew and Genesis. You seem to agree that Matthew is imprecise. And you don't say why it's a problem if it took more than 7 days to create the universe. The NT refers to "the beginning of creation," but it doesn't refer to a six or seven day creation.
ReplyDeleteC, what are your thoughts on this Answers in Genesis article:
ReplyDelete1. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).This makes it clear that Jesus taught the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed ‘from the beginning ’–not billions of years after the universe and Earth came into existence.
2. Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you –Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? (John 5:45-47). In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. This, of course, is the basis of our seven-day week –six days work and one day rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.
so I take it from your request for my thoughts that you don't really have a problem with more than seven days since you didn't answer my question about why more than seven days is a problem?
ReplyDelete1. I didn't say anything about billions of years. I just said a literal day six is too busy to squeeze in Adam's creation, etc and then Eve's creation. It could have taken years to complete day six. Or less. In Ex 20:12 Moses says that your days may be long perhaps just like the first six days were long.
ReplyDelete2. Obviously Jesus believes what Moses said about him which is the only part of the Law that Jesus validates in John 5. It's not so clear that one must believe the rest of what Moses wrote. Jesus clarifies up front that it's the Jews that trust in Moses. He's pointing out that their logic is contradictory. They trust in the Law (written by Moses), but they don't believe what the Law says about the Messiah (written by Moses also)....contradiction.
Donald Miller writes, "I wonder if when we take Christian theology out of the context of its narrative, when we *ignore the poetry* in which it is presented, when we turn it into formulas...we lose its meaning entirely and the ideas have no impact on the way we live our lives or think about God. This is perhaps why people are so hostile toward religion." That sounds similar to Jesus' point being made to the Jews.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem with creation taking more than six days is the fact that the Bible says it only took six days. The point of this series is to give a view of angels that assumes a literal understanding of the Bible. I know many do not agree with me that the Genesis passages should be taken literally. That is another series, though, perhaps for another time. Let me get through some of these posts about angels , and a few other things, and I'll try to do a series on creation. Until then, try to understand that right now my posts assume literal interpretation.
ReplyDeleteJohn Calvin explained that Moses wrote in a way that his audience would understand. But please proceed with your approach.
ReplyDeletefor the record and future discussion though your answer to "why more than seven days is a problem?" is like "it is what it is" and therefore not an answer. I'm really asking what harm is done by assuming it took more than six days such as one would do in other passages which wouldn't be taken literally.
ReplyDelete