Angels and the Gap

This is yet more follow up on the discussion of my earlier post The Problem of Death Before the Fall. (Be sure to read the interesting comments.) Yesterday's post, More on Death Before the Fall dealt with what I call a natural reading of the text and the problem of interpreting the Scriptures in light of scientific assumptions rather than vice versa. This post is in response to the comments regarding angels.

The issue of angels is a subject of much confusion and often wild speculation. I think perhaps this has always been the case, as the writer of Hebrews begins his book by correcting a view of the angels as far more spectacular and powerful than they really are. As we are not privy to the goings on in the spirit world, except for the rare glimpses of it that Scripture gives us, we are very ignorant on the subject. I think it wise, then, that we not engage in too much speculation beyond what Scripture gives us. The Scriptures are sufficient for us, so I assume that some of these things are things we just don't need to know right now.

The Creation of the Angels

One of the issues raised was the creation of the angels, with the suggestion that the Gap Theory gives us a period of time in which the angels were created and some of them fell.

We are not given an explicit statement of the day on which angels were created, but we do have some clues. Genesis 2:1 concludes the six-day account of creation with this statement, "The the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished." Notice it does not say, "and all the host of it," with it indicating the host of the earth alone. It says, "the host of them," meaning the heavens and the earth. Which are the created host of heaven? I would argue that this refers to the angelic host.

In Job 38:4-7 we have what seems to be the angelic host singing, "when I laid the foundations of the earth." When were the foundations of the earth laid? The earth was formed on day three. Hence it is reasonable to assume that the angels were created on either day two or three. Day two seems a likely candidate, as that is the day when heaven is created, but that is mere speculation and goes beyond what we are given.

A Tangent on Day One

Some might say that the foundations of the earth were laid on day one. At the risk of going off on an unrecoverable tangent, I want to say a few things about day one. The description of day one of the creation is a beautiful example of how inspired Biblical truth is in complete harmony with scientific truth. It was the 20th century after Christ before science began to understand the relationship between space, time, matter and energy. Einstein gave us his famous statement of that relationship, E=mc².  In the equation E relates to energy, m is mass, a measure of the amount of matter, and c is the speed of light, which is an expression of distance (in 3-d space) over time. These four things (time, matter, space and energy) are foundational to the physical universe. No physical thing could exist without all four.

Yet while it took mankind 30 centuries to see this relationship, the inspired text of Genesis has all four created on the first day as the physical universe is established. In the beginning, (Time is created.), God created the heavens, (Space is created.), and the earth without form, (Matter is created.). The He said, "Let there be light." (Energy is created.) You gotta love it.

My point in that tangent (besides pointing out a spine-chillingly really cool thing) was that the nature of God's works on the first day of creation was more of a calling the physical into existence, while it is day three that the earth we live on was formed--an event at which the angels seem to have been present.

The creation of the angels, then, does not require a gap. Though we are not given a specific day on which the angels were created, the Biblical record is consistent with the theory that they were created within the creation week.

The Fall of the Demonic Angels

The next issue that was raised was the fall of the non-elect angels.

Again, I am not sure why this would require eons of missing time, either. Mankind fell in the space of a few seconds when Adam ate the fruit he was forbidden to eat. Why would the fall of the demonic angels take any longer? Perhaps, even, the act that was Satan's downfall was the act of beguiling Eve to eat. After all, he receives a curse from God at the same time Adam and Eve do. It is at that time that Satan is informed that the Seed of the woman will be his destruction. His day of judgment and theirs is the same. If he had already been judged and condemned, why would the judgment be repeated that day?

I said before in a comment that I believe the fall of man happened very soon after the creation week. It is after they are sent out of the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve are said to come together as husband and wife and begin bearing children. As they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall, and they were at that point not yet fallen, one would think they would have (joyfully) obeyed that command rather quickly.

However, when one thinks of God's plan of redemption, there is a definite connection between all men falling "in Adam," and with Christ as the new Head, all who will be redeemed being redeemed, "in Christ." If a child had been conceived before the fall, he would not have sinned, "in Adam," and he and his descendants would be a still innocent line of men maintaining the original covenant by their obedience. Should they later also fall, they would not come under the covenant made with Adam and another covenant of redemption would be necessary for them. I will admit that this is my speculation at this point, but I believe it may have been necessary for God's plan of redeeming mankind and securing for them a position that was better than they had it before the Fall, that the Fall of man happen very quickly.

Even if you don't agree with that, there seems to be no reason not to believe that the fall of angles and the fall of men could both have happened within days or hours of the Creation week, and no necessity to insert a gap into what is written.

The Sons of God of Genesis Six

In the comments the issue of Genesis six also came up, in which we read, "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose." Two verses later we learn that the offspring of these marriages included giants, mighty men of old, and men of renown. The commenter stated that "most scholars agree," that the sons of God referred to here were fallen angels, and creatures for whose creation the first chapter of Genesis does not account.

I'm not sure how it is that it was determined that "most scholars agree," on this interpretation. However, I will acknowledge that this interpretation has been out there for a very long time. It dates back to early Jewish writings. You can see this view reflected in Jewish historian Josephus' Antiquities, written in the first century of Our Lord. (Book 1, chapter 3), though the view existed for centuries before Josephus. The problem with relying on these ancient texts, however, is that they were not inspired and are full of some quite fanciful stuff.

Is there another reasonable explanation for these passages? If I was to describe two groups of people as, "children of God," and "children of the flesh," how would you interpret that? Chances are, you would think I meant believers and non-believers. I believe that this is the distinction being made in this passage. The sons of God are of the redemptive line of Seth and the daughters of men are of the unbelieving line of Cain.

This is a traditional Protestant Christian view of this passage and is well-summarized by Matthew Henry in his classic Commentary on the Whole Bible:

Chapter 6, Verses 1-2 Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:--1. The increase of mankind..........2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those who were profane and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain...

There is a sweeping theme throughout Scripture of Satan plotting to destroy the "Seed" promised to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15 and God working through a combination of judgment and redemption to preserve the people of God until the Redeemer came. He first preserved Adam and Eve from the death they deserved on the day they ate the fruit by applying the substitutionary death of Christ (as symbolized by the covering of animal skins). When the birthright of Seth was at risk of being absorbed into unbelief, God preserved the only man "pure in his generations," Noah, when He destroyed those who threatened his destruction. The theme continues as God calls Abram out of pagan Mesopotamia, and the people of God out of Egypt amongst spectacular displays of His judgment and miracles of preservation. Theirs was the moral law and the prophets, as well as a ceremonial law that served to distinguish and separate them from all other people of the earth until the Redeemer came and that system of separation had accomplished its purpose and was brought down as the Gospel was freely offered to all nations and tribes.

I see Genesis chapter six as just another part of this ongoing theme. As we trace this theme of preserving grace throughout Scripture, never is the threat of corruption from any source other than unbelieving men. If, in fact, the demons were able to copulate with human women, would they not have continued to use this corrupting tactic at least until Christ came?

Another point in favor of this view is that the Scriptures are concerned with the sons of God marrying daughters of men, but not vice versa. While a believing woman marrying an unbeliever would have been personally tragic, it would not corrupt the one carrying the birthright of the Redeemer, as that was inherited on the male line.

But even if you hold to the demonic explanation for Genesis six, there is still no need to insert a gap somewhere to explain the existence of these creatures. We are not told explicitly when every part of the creation was made. (When were bacteria created, for example?) The lack of detail does not mean the things left out of the narrative had to be made outside of the six days, when we are told that, "God made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is."

Summary

There is nothing in what we know about angels that is not consistent with a straightforward reading of Genesis chapter one. There is nothing that necessitates inserting into the text a gap of time about which the Scriptures are silent.

Comments

[John Luke]

Interesting post. You should be able to write a superscript by using the "sup" tag.

[Dory]

Thanks, John! It looks much better now!

[Alnot]

Nice commentary and thanks for posting it Dory. If the Creator could not be in harmony with his own scriptures he would be a lessor being. Only those who stubbornly deny him claim to know better. I thank God for so great a salvation.

[Steve]

Though I do not believe that the gap theory should be raised to the level of doctrine, I do believe there are many things that can be said in favor of this view. Mind you these are things in favor of this view apart from modern scientific inquiry.

For one, the linguistic evidence: In the NIV, Genesis 1:2 has the footnote "or possibly became" as a possible translation of 'hayetah' rendering the verse as "Now the earth became formless and empty."

Further "formless" and "empty" when combined in this way, are used only twice in Scripture and refer to the state of affairs following God's judgment (Jer. 4:23; Is. 34:11).

Still further, the word "create" (bara) is only used in regards to animals and humans whereas "make" (asah) is used of all else in this passage. "Make" means to "fashion out of preexisting material" (see Custance, "The Meaning of the Verb 'Make' by Contrast with the Verb 'Create,'" in "Time and Eternity", pp. 115-17).

Additionally, the author of Genesis 1 does not report God creating or making the formless, empty, darkness, deep, or the waters found in 1:2. At the very least, this suggests that Genesis 1 is not an exhaustive, modern, scientific, or literal documentary of creation. This is further demonstrated in that the creation of angels is not mentioned and yet their existence appears to be presupposed by the author. What would it harm if some things were created outside of the six days recorded in Genesis 1, specifically before those 6 days? What would it harm if we do not take these as 6 literal days?

As to Genesis 6 and the "most scholars agree" comment...here's a qualification: the vast majority of contemporary interpreters; see, Wenham's commentary on Genesis in the Word Biblical Commentary and V.P. Hamilton's commentary on Genesis in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament for starters. These scholars follow this interpretation because the "line of Seth" argument does not account for why the offspring of the "line of Seth" and the "daughters of men" would by unnaturally large and identified as giants.

The gap theory did not arise out of a need to reconcile the Bible with science. Rather the gap theory seeks to make the most sense out of the linguistic evidence within the text. It has been around since premodern times advocated by "a significant number of ancient Jewish commentators, Origen, perhaps Augustine, Hugo of St. Victor and Jacob Bohme" (see A. Custance, Without Form and Void).