I Wear Glasses

I have a very dear friend who is not a Christian.  She is one of the most supportive and kind friends I have.  I could spend this whole post just talking about how I love her and respect her, even if she and I disagree on religion.  I can honestly say that she has never been anything but supportive and encouraging, always pushing me on even when I've talked with her about how frustrating some parts of my life have been.  At the same time she's always been honest and open, laughing, complaining, and even sometimes just talking about what's going on in life.

I mention her because she recently told me that I should spend some time blogging on things not related to religion and politics.  My response to her is that I have no idea what I would write about if it weren't for religion.  Even my politics revolves around my religion.  I know that upsets some people, they feel as though people like me, who measure everything by our religious profession, are a danger, because we want to enforce our religion through the power of government, or because we can't separate religion from other aspects of life.

I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about why I view everything through religion.  I want to do this for two reasons: first, I want to explain to those who don't view life like I do why I view life through the glasses of Christianity, and secondly I want to encourage other Christians, who may sometimes struggle with how to think about life, to let Christ be the one through whom they understand all things.  For those who don't see the world like I do I hope this will help them to understand the views of people like me, so that hopefully they see there is less reason to be concerned than they might otherwise think.  For those who are struggling with how to view life I want them to be confident in how they walk, so that they might remain strong in the face of a questioning world.

My reason for viewing the world through a religious lens is quite simple: I don't know of any other way to view the world and still hold God as first in my life.  What I mean is that Christ commands of his followers to put him as first; the only and absolute standard by which we live.  He commands me to take up my cross, deny myself, and daily follow him.  That means that in every situation I must first and foremost consider him and his desires, dying to myself above all else.

When I was young this is what I feared the most about Christianity.  As I saw it God was the only one who was ever called good in Scripture (Jesus himself affirms that when the rich young ruler calls him "good teacher").  But, if God is the only one ever called good, and if my life was to aim for the highest good, then that would mean that I would have to ever die to myself and become more and more like Christ.  My fear was quite simply that I would no longer be me, but I would be more and more like Christ, and I wasn't sure that was what I wanted.

The reality is that I like me, for the most part.  I know me better than I know anyone else, and I'm pretty happy with the me I know.  After all, if I didn't like who I was I could change who I was into who I like, or at least that's what I tell myself.  Yes, there are aspects of me I don't like so much, there are parts of me I wish I could change, but over all I'm pretty content with me, and I don't know that I'd like being anyone else quite as much.  There is something terrifying in thinking that one day I might find that I'm not me anymore, that I'm someone else, because I don't know that I'd like that person as well as I like who I am today.

But, as I have walked more and more with Christ I find that I like him far more than I like me.  I've come to learn that Jesus loves my wife better than I love her.  God cares for my daughter more than I ever will.  In fact the Lord cares for my friends, my enemies, and the strangers that I will never meet in a way that I could only dream of.  In every way I've discovered, Christ is a better man than I am, and I want to be more like him.

Because I want to be more like him I try and view everything through the lens of Scripture, trusting that it is his very word, given that I might know him and his ways better.  With this foundation I look to passages such as Ephesians 5:16 wherein Paul calls to us to make the most of our time, realizing that the days are evil.  Thus every moment of my time must be measured, recognizing that I won't ever get that moment again.  Since every moment of my time must be viewed through that lens, that means everything that happens in that moment must be equally viewed through that same lens.

If I spend 30 minutes watching a video, then what else could I have done with that 30 minutes?  If I spend 30 minutes relaxing, then have I set my mind and body at ease so I can be of better service in the upcoming struggles of life?  If I spend 15 minutes talking with my neighbor about his work, then have I wisely spent that 15 minutes so that I might serve God?  In everything these is a balance, and every minute must be counted and weighed so that I know that I have made use of the times I have.

Do I perfectly think of everything in this way?  No, of course not.  If I so thought perfectly then I would never sin, for how could even one moment of sin or misbehavior ever be considered worth the trade off in time I could have spent in righteous pursuits?  Yet, in the large view of life, this is how I view everything.

I think politics is important, but I'm not as active or as vocal as I sometimes want to be because I would rather not deafen someone by talking politics when the things of God are of greater import.  Sure in the time that Jesus walked the earth there were very important political questions, yet for the most part Christ never engaged in open political criticism or discourse, because he understood that the kingdom of God is more important than any kingdom in this world.  How can I take any different view?

I like movies, entertainment, and even computer games, but why talk about them when there are more important questions to discuss, like the coming eternity?  Moreover, how do I view those games if not through the redemptive lens of Christ, thinking about how the themes of the games and movies I entertain myself with relate to the greater narrative that God is unfolding in all of reality?  I long ago told my wife that I realize it was impossible to tell an interesting story without intersecting with gospel themes, because Christ is the final anti-type of every hero, his romance with the church is the culmination of every romance we have ever dreamed, and the threat of eternal damnation and the enslavement of humanity to the powers of evil is the root of every helpless orphan and every abject terror or ruthless villain man has ever conjured.

You see, I cannot help but see the world through the lens of Christianity because Christ is the architect of this world, and he has woven it so that everywhere I look I see him looking back.  I see the grace of God in the sunrise of the morning, the power of God in a thunderstorm, the horror of sin in sickness, death, and dissolution, and the hope of redemption in every child's smile, in the dew on the ground, and the gentle breeze on a hot summer day.  I'm hardwired to think this way, it is not just my religion, it is my whole being.  While I love to write, and while I'd love to write on a hundred topics, I know that they would always come back to this: The gospel is the only story worth telling, and any story that doesn't point us to it is a poor story indeed.

Moral Perfection and Christ

The other day I had a friend ask me a question about the impeccability of Christ, and whether we downplay the humanity of Christ in appealing to this doctrine.  For those who aren't familiar with theological terminology the question of the peccability of Christ has to do with whether or not Christ could have sinned.  Usually this is a debate among Christians who all agree that Christ did not sin, but the question is whether or not Christ could have sinned.  In some sense we are asking whether in an alternate universe it would be theoretically possible that Christ could sin.  It may seem like a non-issue, but there can be some serious implications that develop from this question depending on which side you take.

I'm not going to go into the whole argument on the impeccability of Christ here.  Instead I am going to assume the position of Christ being impeccable, that is that Christ not only did not sin, but that Christ could not have sinned.  If you want to read the whole argument for the impeccability of Christ there are multiple websites that give a very good analysis of the doctrine (a simple search in any good search engine can get you to multiple discussions on the matter).  For now, whether you agree or disagree with the doctrine I want to address the specific question that was sent to me: how does the impeccability of Jesus Christ impact our understanding of his humanity?

There is a concern that due to the impeccability of Christ we could end up minimizing the humanity of Christ as we apply his righteousness to ourselves, fighting temptation, etc.  However, I think this would only be the case if we divide Christ in these areas instead of considering the whole counsel of Scripture.  If we allow all of Scripture to speak to us and we consider the fullness of Christ then we are never in danger of falling away from the clear teaching of Scripture.  In this area, applying the righteousness of Christ and thinking about fighting temptation should not detract from the humanity of Christ, but rather should bring that humanity into focus.

Yes, we have a truly righteous savior because of the divine nature of Christ.  Because he truly was the righteousness of God he was able to live perfectly, never falling into temptation as Adam did.  And because he was righteous and of infinite worth he allows all those who have faith in him to participate in that righteousness.  No mere man could ever offer this righteousness to others, because, as Job says, if we are righteous, our righteousness affects only us, not God.  Yet, the righteousness of God in its infinite value can be applied to all men through the atoning sacrifice of the perfectly righteous Christ.

At the same time we are able to fight sin not merely because of the presence of Christ, which we ought never denigrate, but also because he promised, and sent, the Holy Spirit, who is the very person of God living in us.  As the Spirit indwells us he fills us with power to resist temptation, whether we walk in that power or not depends on whether we follow in obedience to Christ in crucifying the human nature that lives within us.  Thus we must rely totally on God in bringing us out from sin, so that the divinity of Christ is well seen as we think on these things.

But, that is only one aspect.  On the other hand we have passages such as Hebrews, as you quoted in your text.  In Hebrews 2 we see that the righteousness of Chris is applied to us not because he is God, but because he is our high priest.  As our high priest he must be fully human, for if he were only God then how would he have any connection to the fallen state of humanity to redeem us?  By becoming human and suffering as a man Christ brought humanity into perfection, something that was necessary and that could only be done by God joining to man in perfect unity.  Now we have a high priest who is like us in every way, that is being totally human, yet without sin in any way, that is being totally God.  Thus we need both his humanity and his divinity if we are to walk in his righteousness.

Likewise when we come to him to ask that he would give us strength to fight sin, he knows our every temptation.  God cannot be tempted by Sin, as James 1 makes clear.  Since God cannot be tempted by sin, while yet being omniscient, how could we say that God knows our sufferings of temptation so as to be merciful to us and respond to our cries with such grace?  But, because Christ is fully man he knows our sufferings, he has experienced temptation, and thus he is able to be merciful to us, responding in grace because of the great love with which he loved us.

So while Christ is impeccable and eternally unable to sin, yet at the same time this does not take away from his humanity.  If it were not for his impeccability would we not always have to worry that our high priest might yet sin against God?  For Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, meaning that his nature never changes.  But, knowing that our brother will never sin against God we have the eternal comfort of a redeemer who testifies on our behalf at the throne of God, interceding for those who would otherwise deserve only the judgment of God and hell thereafter.  And because of his humanity we know that we never need to fear being rejected by him, for he was made as one of us that he might call us brothers.

So we have a great hope in Christ and a wonderful participation in the righteousness and power of God because of Christ's divinity and his humanity.  We ought always remember that there is no separation of Christ's nature, for while he is fully human and fully God he is also only one, not two Christ's divided by nature.  We must remember it is because of both of these natures we participate in the divine blessings.  And we must remember that it is by means of both natures that we can come and offer praise and blessing to him who lives forever and ever.  We come not in our own humanity, but rather in the robes of righteousness given us by the Son of God; humanity reborn, dressed in divine clothing as given by our merciful Father.

The Beauty of Marriage

I learned something recently about tree surgery. Apparently it is possible to use concrete to help heal sick trees. You see, holes often develop in trees due to bacteria causing an infection which then causes the wood to rot, leading to a hole in the tree. It is these trees, the ones with holes in them, that can be helped with a bit of time and some concrete.

The first step in caring for these trees is actually to remove wood from the hole. You see you can not help the tree until you have first stripped all the infected wood out of the hole. The only way to help the tree is to cut out all the infected wood, otherwise you will simply have more rot even if you treat what remains.

Next, you must use something to clean the healthy wood that remains once you have fully hollowed out the hole. You need an antibiotic of sorts to clean the wood so you can make sure no remnants of the infection remain in what appears to be healthy wood. Again, the purpose of this is to prevent the infection from returning after treatment.

The third step is to use something like pitch, tar, or some other substance to coat the wood in the hole. You see you need to seal it so that every void is covered. You need to create a surface sufficient for the concrete to hold on to. Without this step, even if you were to try and use the concrete to help the tree, it may not hold, or you may have air pockets where, again, infection can develop and cause more damage to the tree.

Finally, you pour concrete into the hole. Since the voids in the tree are covered the concrete will now stick to the insides of the hole. Doing this allows the concrete to reinforce the remaining tree. Now, no additional infection can get in, and if the rotten area removed some of the integrity of the tree, the concrete will help to reinforce those weak points. On top of that, the additional weight of the concrete makes the tree less susceptible to wind damage as it will be much harder for the wind to bend or move the tree.

So, why do I begin with trees when talking about marriage? Because for many Christians our definition of marriage is a bit rotten. Like a tree, we still have the right shape and form, and we may still be producing good fruit, but our poor definition and understanding of marriage is like rot in the trunk of a tree. Eventually, unless we treat the problem, we will no longer have a foundation to stand on, and then our understanding of marriage will die.

Why do I say we have a bad definition of marriage? Well, follow along with me, and I think you'll agree, most of us need a bit of a refresher course on what marriage really is. Far too often we define marriage by what it isn't, but the problem is that course does not defend what marriage is. We fight for marriage in our popular culture, but in doing so what we fight for is a view of marriage that is sometimes alien to what marriage really is.

Let's begin where we would if we were treating a rotten tree. Let's start by stripping out all the dead wood, and see if we can find something healthy to preserve. Get rid of what you think marriage is. Marriage isn't about faithfulness, it isn't about love, it isn't about happiness, it isn't about communication, and it isn't about the proper exercising of our physical passions. Marriage isn't about family, it isn't about mutual support, it isn't about establishing a healthy foundation for society. Marriage isn't about any of that, though all of that may be included in a healthy marriage.

Everything I just said may sound outrageous to the Christian. But bear with me. The problem is that what we often defend is not marriage, but rather how marriage has come to be expressed in our culture. After all, some will argue that the idea of monogamous faithfulness are mere cultural entities. Abraham was never rebuked by God for having multiple wives, Solomon, son of Bathsheba was chosen as the successor of David, despite the fact that she was not the first wife of David, nor was he the first born of David's children. And, if we needed to be reminded, even God sanctioned levirate marriages in the case of a man dying without any heirs.

By stripping out all of what marriage is not, we are then able to get to the healthy wood of determining what marriage is. In order to determine what marriage is we must turn to some foundation, some source of teaching us about marriage. In this case we must turn to the bible. Specifically one section of Scripture stands as the crux of understanding the bible's teaching on marriage.

Ephesians 5:31-33 reads thus, “'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” And this is the bedrock of our understanding of marriage. This is the healthy wood in the hole we have dug out of the tree of our understanding of marriage.

The implications of this passage are what we will flesh out for our concrete filling, but for now we know how deep we have to dig to get to the healthy wood. Likewise, when we pause to think of how we will cleanse the wood so as to make sure the infection has been treated, we see that the antibiotic we need is the Word. The infection is our cultural and worldly tendency, how we allow the definitions and arguments of the world to influence our understanding of what is important. We must come to the Word, and let the Word cleanse us and purify our minds, so that we can rightly understand what is important to the Christian.

We must understand, we are the new creation. Being new, we cannot allow our old understandings to stand in the way of the new reality we live in. We must conform to the truth of God's Word, we cannot think that our civilization, our culture, or our ways are necessarily true unless we find that what we hold to be true matches the Word of God. For instance, we hold that murder is wrong, but not because of the inherent value of man, or because murder weakens our society, but rather because murder is a defamation of the image of God, because man is made in the image of God. To murder a man is to trespass against the holiness of God, because we are taking his image and making it nothing, we are taking what was made to be a representative of God and treating him with contempt.

So with marriage. In laying our concrete in the hole, assuming we have allowed the Word to both cleanse us and to fill in the voids of our understanding, we see that marriage is more than love, more than faithfulness, more than all the worldly things we want to say it is. Marriage is about Christ and the church. Yes, men are called to love our wives, but not as the world tells us to love. Men are to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. We are to be sacrificial in our love, unfailing, faithful in the face of faithfulness.

We said what marriage is not about, but here we see what marriage is about. Marriage is about Christ, it is about us demonstrating a lifestyle that makes much of Christ and shows how he is the foundation of every relationship. He is the one who establishes what marriage is. Marriage is about all the various things we want to put at the heart of marriage in as much as Christ is about any of those things. Yet Christ is the true center of marriage, Christ is the focus of marriage, Christ is the support and foundation of marriage. We can tear away everything else and yet, if Christ is the center, the marriage will remain. A man may abandon his wife, treat her with disgrace and hatred, refuse to provide for her or give her physical accompaniment, and yet if she married him with her focus on Christ, the marriage still remains, and she still has hope that Christ, in his power, will redeem her husband and bring him back to her.

So for the bride, her role is that of the church. She represents the hope of redemption that we find in Christ. If a woman is unfaithful to her husband, disrespects him, uses him for money or for power, or in any other way fails to live up to her image as the church, it does not negate the marriage. The marriage remains because the man, in his role representing Christ, still has hope that his wife will be redeemed, even as the church is redeemed in Christ.

The focus of marriage is Christ and nothing else. If we want to rightly define marriage, we cannot put anything at the center of marriage apart from Christ. Which means the world will never accept our definition of marriage, because the world will never acknowledge that Christ is the center of marriage. No one, apart from the Christian, will ever accept Christ as the center and focus of marriage.

Think about this. The world wants us to change who we worship and how we worship. If the world wants us to change what goes on in the church and condemns us because they do not understand our God, how can we expect them to embrace our view of marriage? The world thinks we are strange, arrogant, illogical, and foolish, all because we claim that there is only one way to be saved, and that way is through faith in the God-Man who was crucified and raised some 2000 years ago. If the world cannot understand our worship and cannot understand how we could really believe in a God who would die on a cross and bring reconciliation through his death and resurrection, how could they understand why we would think he is at the center of a relationship that is thousands of years older than they think our religion is?

We, as Christians, must make a point of not fighting for a false definition of marriage. Unfortunately that means that we cannot fight just for an idea of marriage that says, “Marriage is one man and one woman for life.” That idea of marriage is just as false as any other view of marriage, because marriage is really, “The union of a man and woman as one flesh, representing the relationship of Christ and his church, lived out to the glory of God as a testimony to the truth and purpose of the gospel,” or, to paraphrase from Paul, “Marriage is a man leaving his father and mother, holding close to his wife, the two becoming one flesh, and it is a great mystery that has now been revealed as speaking of Christ and the church, and how the church is both the body and bride of Christ.”

If we argue for less than this, then we are not arguing for marriage. But, our definition will never be accepted by a culture that rejects Christ. Therefore, we make greater gain not in fighting against this or that definition, but rather in preaching the gospel, winning souls wherever we can for Christ, and realizing that we must be counter-cultural, embracing a definition of marriage that no one but a Christian can accept. We must realize that we will always have to teach our children, “Culture does not understand marriage, they get it wrong, and even when they look like they have it right, it is only a facade, because the truth of marriage lies with Christ, who this present world system rejects.”

If we want to see the beauty of marriage and argue for what marriage must be in our culture, then we must place Christ at the center of marriage as he is supposed to be. When Christ is at the center of marriage then marriage becomes about forgiveness, about the worship of God, about honor of one another as our own flesh and blood, about submission to authority and care for the weak, about giving sacrificially, and about reconciliation. Marriage becomes a ministry of all the hard things that culture puts secondary, and we realize that love, compassion, intimacy, and joy flow out of these hardships.

Who are the Nephilim?

Prior to the 19th century there was no archaeological evidence for the people known as the Hittites in the bible.  Historians and critics of the day had declared the Hittites to be nothing more than a myth of the bible.  Likewise in the 1950's it was determined that the biblical story of the fall of Jericho was wrong, the city was destroyed much too early for it to have been taken by the Israelites.  And then after the evidence was re-examined it was determined that in fact the biblical account seems to be the most accurate.  The point is that there are a lot of things that the bible has been proven accurate about, but there are some things in history we still don't know, because there are simply no records to look to.

One of the perplexing puzzles of Scripture is who were the Nephilim?  The word is only used three times in Scripture, once in Genesis 6:4, and the other two times in Numbers 13:33.  Genesis says only this: "When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive.  And they took as their wives any they chose.  Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: hid days shall be 120 years'.  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and they bore children to them.  These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." (Gen 6:1-4 ESV)  And in Numbers we read, "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (Numbers 13:33 ESV)

Early Greek manuscripts translated the Hebrew "Nephilim" as "gigantes" or "giants" based on the reading found in Numbers, and bolstered by the description of the Anakim as found in Deuteronomy (the word "Anakim" is used nine more times there).  However, the problem is that Genesis does not say that the Nephilim were giants, neither does Numbers.  Numbers says that Anak was a descendant of the Nephilim, and that he was a giant, and that his children were giants.  This does not necessarily mean that all Nephilim were giant themselves.

What Genesis does specifically say is that the Nephilim were mighty men of old, they were men of great renown.  Also it notes that the Nephilim existed in a time corresponding to the "sons of God" coming to the "daughters of man."  Genesis does not explicitly say that the Nephilim were the results of these unions, but rather that the Nephilim existed in the days when this was happening.  A common understanding of the passage is that the Nephilim were the result of this union, but the passage itself does not explicitly say as much, though perhaps the text intends that to be the point.  In either case we cannot authoritatively say that the Nephilim were all giants, but rather that the sons of Anak were giants, and Anak was from the Nephilim.

There are a myriad of issues in the text that need to be taken apart for us to figure out what is going on and offer any possible solution to who the Nephilim are.  But, no matter what answer we come up with one thing must be understood as certain: we will only be able to give an educated opinion.  Our opinion may be based on strong evidence, but ultimately this ought not be a point to divide over.  Paul himself says that arguing over endless genealogies is pointless and improper.  Therefore, while I intend to offer my understanding and interpretation of who the Nephilim are I also want to make clear that this is just my opinion, I am not saying that Scripture is adamant on this or that anyone should make a doctrinal issue out of the Nephilim, there simply is no biblical warrant for doing such.

A very common interpretation of the passage is perhaps the most straightforward: the Nephilim are the offspring of human-angel relationships where angels took human wives and produced these children with them.  Obviously in this case the angels might be better recognized as demons as the bible indicates that angels were not supposed to wed.  We see in Matthew 22:30 that Jesus makes clear that angels in heaven do not wed.  Therefore, if angels were taking human wives they would necessarily be abandoning their proper role in heaven.

Perhaps the main reason for thinking that the Nephilim are descendants of angels is because of the use of the term "sons of God."  This term is used twice in Job to indicate angels.  In Job 1:6 and 2:1 we see the term "sons of God" used directly in connection with angels.  Clearly, for the writer of Job, the term had a divine significance.  Thus, based on the clear indication of what is meant in Job, it becomes reasonable to read that understanding of the term back into Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:4 then becomes an explanatory verse for what we see in Jude.  In Jude we read of angels who were bound in chains because they left their proper dwelling.  Because the comments immediately following this section discusses Sodom and Gomorrah there is perhaps additional evidence of sexual immorality being implied against these angels.  If that is the case then perhaps what Jude is referring to are the angels who sired the Nephilim, who left heaven and took wives and brought forth children, all against the will of God.  Thus now these angels are awaiting punishment and humanity had to deal with the wickedness of their offspring.

While this understanding sums everything up very nicely, it also has a few major theological problems.  The first problem that must be addressed has to do with who and what angels are.  One thing is certain in Scripture: angels are not physical beings.  Yes, angels kill and destroy, yes they can be touched and can touch things, but they are not physical.  Angels are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.  This is further reinforced by the fact that angels come into the presence of God, who is himself spirit.  Thus the idea of a spiritual being engaging in a physical relationship so as to bear a child seems contrary to what we find in Scripture.  (Yes, Christ was begotten by the Spirit as a special miracle of God, but unless we intend to become heretics we must remember that Mary was still a virgin, thus there was no physical relationship between God and Mary.)  There is no indication that God gave angels the ability to get women pregnant, unless we assume it in Genesis 6.

Angels are not physical beings living on some other planet or coming from some other place within the universe.  Angels are spiritual beings whose proper dwelling is heaven.  Thus in Jude what we see is Angels who abandoned their position before God and rebelled with Satan.  Even Revelation discusses the idea of 1/3 of the stars of heaven (which seem to be representative of the angels) being cast out of heaven, and Satan being cast out as well.  Angels are not physical, they do not have physical bodies, which is made clear by the fact of demons seeking to possess others, because they have no bodies of their own.

The second problem with the idea of the Nephilim being the offspring of angels is what is found repeated of all living things in Genesis 1.  Living things were made to reproduce after their own kind.  Now, exactly what "kind" means is somewhat vague, but it seems that there is a limitation to the variety that a thing can reproduce as.  So dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fishes produce fishes.  But we see in nature there is some cross over, so that certain types of birds, fish, and other animals are capable of reproducing with what would normally be considered another species, but the possible variations are sill very limited.  Frogs do not reproduce with fishes or cats.

The reason this presents a problem for the Nephilim being children of angelic and human unions is because angels and humans are two different kinds.  In fact humans are a unique kind, there is nothing else like us.  Humans alone were said to be made in the divine image.  Thus for humans and angels to even be able to have children we would have to assume something that would radically change the whole of our understanding of Scripture and divine image: that humans and angels are the same kind of creature, in a biblical sense.  As man is described as unique by Scripture, and as there is on indication of angels being the same type as man (as Psalms says, man was created a little lower than the angels) it seems this presents a major problem for those who would say humans and angels were capable of having children.

Okay, but if the Nephilim were not the result of angelic and human relationships, who were they?  Here I think we can find a fairly simple answer that uses the information present in Genesis, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and makes sense of biblical theology as well.  Let us begin with the question of who the sons of God are.

I noted that "sons of God" is used in Job to refer to angels.  However, there is one other place the term, "Sons of God" is used in the Old Testament.  In Deuteronomy 32:8 we read, "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind,/ he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV)  This verse doesn't seem to be of much help, until you consider the context of the passage.  Once we look at the context of the passage, the meaning of "sons of God" becomes clear.

In order to understand the context of this passage you need to know how Hebrew poetry works.  Hebrew poetry usually works through a repeated idea or through a central thought being brought out in different ways.  So in Genesis we read, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."  See how the idea of God as creator is repeated, along with the use of the terms "earth" and "heavens."  Notice that to create balance the author even reverses the order of "heavens and earth" to "earth and heavens."  At the center of the whole passage, balanced between heavens and earth and created and mind, we find " the LORD God."  The point of the poem is to emphasize the divine power of God as creator, to bring him glory as the one who made all things.

So, in Deuteronomy 32 we read, "They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a twisted and crooked generation./  Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people?/ Is he not your father, who created you, who made you and established you?/  Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations;/ ask your father and he will show you, ask your elders and they will tell you./ When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind,/ he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:5-8 ESV)

The term "sons of God" in Deuteronomy 8 matches the idea of 32:5, that God has rejected these people because of their sins.  They have become corrupt and wicked, and thus, though they were the children of God, now they are aliens to him.  Though he was their father they rejected him and forgot him, and now they have no claim with him.  Sons of God in Deuteronomy 8 shows the idea of the people of the earth in an early stage, those who God would use to develop as nations.

This use of the term should be the one given the most weight because the authorship of Genesis is the same as that of Deuteronomy.  That is, it is generally accepted as tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible (obviously with a later editor).  If this is the case then we should use this instance of the "sons of God" as the guiding usage as it would be the closest correspondent use of the term in Scripture to what we find in Genesis.  Further, since we have additional information on the Anakim in Deuteronomy, thus showing a development of what is found in Numbers, we see how the books are tied together in concept, thus, in my opinion, giving more weight to using Deuteronomy as the best source for understanding the vague identity of the Nephilim.

Using Deuteronomy helps to explain why the term Nephilim is used as well.  The term itself most closely means "fallen ones".  In context it does not seem that the term Nephilim is used of a specific people, that is a group descended from just one man.  Often we see groups identified either from their ancestor, such as the Anakim (sons of Anak) or based on their location, such as the Caphtorim (who come from Caphtor).  In the case of the Nephilim, assuming my understanding is correct, we see a people described by their condition.  The Nephilim would be the fallen "sons of God" who were the powerful men used to build civilizations and who groups were named after.

Thus Anak would have come from the Nephilim and had a people named after him.  But he was fallen, no longer walking in the way of God, but twisted and concerned with his own glory.  He was a giant of men and used his power and strength to establish himself.  In this he was a man of great renown, a man of power on the earth.  But he was also a man who rejected God and repaid God with evil.

This use of Nephilim further makes sense when you consider where it first occurred in Scripture.  Remember, when the bible was first written there were no chapter and header divisions.  Thus the earliest manuscripts would have gone straight from chapter 5 to chapter 6.  Chapter 5 of Genesis is the record of the genealogy of Adam.  Adam is made by God, he fathers Seth, Seth fathers Enosh, who fathers Kenan, and all the way down to Noah, who fathers Shem, Ham, and Japheth.  Then immediately we read about the "sons of God" going after the "daughters of man" and we read about the flood coming and the Nephilim being on earth.  It would make sense for the Nephilim to refer to fallen men who came out of the Adamic line who abandoned the knowledge of God and instead pursued their own names.  They thus bring forth the Nephilim who will establish nations (based on the fact that they are the ones who will establish names for themselves) but their fallen nature is shown in their rejection of God.

The idea of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 also shows how the repeated idea of creation and fall has become part of the cycle of life.  Adam was created, he sinned and fell and caused the whole earth to become cursed.  Now his children, instead of pursuing godliness and seeking to reform the earth, continue in the fallen nature of the world around them.  Where there was perhaps some hope that godliness could reign through the establishing of godly offspring slowly taking over the whole earth, instead, as men multiplied, they saw what they desired and took it for themselves, just as their father did.  (Notice the use of the words in Genesis 6: "saw" "attactive" "took" "chose".  These words echo what we see in Genesis 3 of Eve seeing the fruit to be attractive and then taking it because she wanted it.)  So the pattern of sin in the world is re-emphasized with there being only one recourse to God: he will wipe the world clean and start anew with Noah.

So, the Nephilim were not angelic or demonic children.  The Nephilim is a group designation given to the fallen men who would go on to be the founders of various nations.  These were men who abandoned the worship of God for the worship of themselves, and thus epitomized the fallen reality of the world.  They were powerful, they were renowned, and whole civilizations would be named after them, but in the end they were merely men.  And God would eventually wipe the stain of these men off of the earth through a weak people, descended from an old man and a childless woman.  And God would eventually remove the stains of these people through the foolishness of the cross and the weakness of preaching; and those who were fallen would be lifted by the gentle hands of the Son of God, so they one day they might be called the sons of God, all to the glory of the Father.

If you only had one chance: conclusion

If you found yourself trapped on an elevator with someone for an hour, what would your conversation look like?

I suppose you could use that as an example of the opportunity that my friend asked me to write about.  She wanted me to write a step-by-step guide for witnessing to someone when you only have one opportunity and the person is a complete stranger.  For many Christians this situation can arise while doing street witnessing, or door-to-door visits in a neighborhood.  But, regardless of where the opportunity arises, the fact is that we will face this opportunity on a regular basis, if we are normal Americans.  When you go out to eat, when you talk to a cashier at a grocery store, even when you chat with someone via an online game, you have brief interactions with someone you may only see one time.  So, if you were going to take that opportunity to witness to the person in front of you, what would that look like?

I did the last post on the first of three divisions: Be prepared.  This post will address the last two divisions in my step-by-step recommendation: Witnessing, and Afterwords.  Most of the time will be spend on the first of those two divisions: Witnessing.  This is the part that scares most people, but I've already written that this is the easiest part, assuming you have done the necessary preparation.  If you are prepared, knowing Scripture, being in regular prayer, and trusting God, then the witnessing itself is the easy part of the event.

The witnessing is the easy part because it should be something you do naturally.  Consider it this way, for a Christian the news about what Christ has done should be the easiest thing in the world to talk about.  I don't mean that you necessarily need to tell about all the things you've done and how God has radically changed your life (not every Christian has that testimony) but rather that telling someone that Christ stands ready to forgive all who come to him should be a simple matter.  Someone told us about the gospel, and we believed what they told us.  So likewise all we have to do is tell others, even if in our own stumbling way, and trust God that they will believe.

But how do we actually do the witnessing?  It is easy to say, "Go talk to someone about Christ," but it is a different thing to actually do that.

The first step in witnessing is the first step in any relationship: develop rapport.  If the person you are talking to is dismissive or closed off to others then you will have a hard time talking with them about the gospel, so you have to find a way to open the conversation.  There are basically an infinite number of ways to do this, from the blunt and direct approach, to asking leading questions, to engaging in intentional conversation that will slowly let you work your way to what you want to talk about.  Which of these methods you choose will depend on your personality, the situation you are in, and what the other person seems to respond to.

One of the things we discussed in personal evangelism classes, and something I have used myself in talking with others, is a developing a number of questions that can be used as bridges to the gospel.  For instance, you could ask someone what is really of worth, how they think people get to heaven, who the most important person in history is, or even if they consider themselves to be "good" people, and why that matters.  There are lots of questions you can ask that will open up doorways to discuss the gospel.  Using these questions is one way of developing a rapport that will then lead to a discussion involving the gospel.

This step is probably the hardest part of doing one-time witnessing, because we live in day where more and more people are less and less connected to those around them.  It is easy to get on a bus or a plane and see that everyone has some kind of electronic device or book in their hands.  In such situations it can be very hard to develop rapport because people have walls up and do not want others to get into those walls.  For this reason we must be both brave enough to breach the defensive walls of those around us, but also polite enough to know how to do this in a way that is not offensive, lest we ruin the chance to speak to the person about Christ.

Once you've established rapport, everything else becomes easy.  Once you open your conversation you should be intentional about leading your conversation to the gospel.  Again this can be a blunt statement like, "I know you're busy, but I'd like to tell you about what I think is the most important thing in the world, do you have a minute?"  But, it can also be a much more subtle conversation that allows you walk up the gospel rather slowly.  Depending on how much time you have with the person and how good you are at conversation you may be able to take a much longer path to the gospel, or you may have to be very blunt.

If you've taken the time to know the gospel as Scripture lays it out, and you've developed rapport with the person you are talking to, then you simply need to lay out the gospel to that person.  Again, this can be a rather simple presentation, such as telling the person that everyone is a sinner (guilty of crimes against God), and because of that, God, being holy (meaning worthy of perfect devotion) has condemned all men for their crimes.  But, because God loves humanity he has made a way for all who will to come to him through his Son.  Jesus, the Son of God, lived a perfect life, then died the death of a criminal, so that our crimes could be placed on him.  But, because he was innocent of any crime, death could not ultimately hold him, and so he rose again from the grave.  Now, everyone who puts their trust in Jesus and loves him (obedient love, not mere lip service) will find forgiveness for their crimes against God through his kindness to us.  And one day we too will be raised from the dead just as he way.  This is a somewhat simple but understandable presentation of the gospel.

One thing you have to be careful with is the words you use.  Remember, we have a lot of words that don't have the same meanings to everyone.  For instance if I were to say people are sinful, people would take that in different ways.  If I were to say that all men are guilty of crimes against God, then that makes more clear what I'm talking about.  I may have to explain what crimes specifically we are guilty of, but "crime against God" carries less cultural baggage than a word like "sinful" does.  The best thing to do when talking about Christ with someone you don't know is to try not to use words that may have vague or specialized meanings.  If you want to be clear about the gospel, then use clear language that the other person can understand.  Be careful with what words you choose.

An older way of discussing the words you want to use is to be "winsome."  Intentionally craft your words so that the other person wants to listen to what you are saying.  Asking someone, "Have you ever stolen anything, even something as simple as an extra few minute of break time, from your employer?" is better than saying, "Look, you're a thief.  I know you're a thief because all people steal."  In the second case you will likely cause the person to become guarded.  In the first instance you let the person talking to you tell you about themselves, something that most of us like to do.

The final step in the actual witnessing event is to make sure you exit the conversation in a graceful manner.  What I mean is that if you are going to take the time to witness to your waitress (please make sure it is not a busy time and you are not keeping her from other tables), then leave her a tip that shows you actually care about her.  If you took 5 minutes talking with her about Christ, and 45 minutes eating at the table and leave her a 5% gratuity, she isn't going to be very grateful.  Think about the impression you leave behind when you finish your conversation.

This final step can be all the more important if the person gets hostile in reaction to your conversation.  Remember, we are supposed to love others.  Don't treat the person as some notch on your spiritual belt of righteousness.  When you witness to others your motivation needs to be out of a deep love for humanity and an understanding that hell is real and those who don't come to Christ are facing very real and eternal danger. If you do not have love then you don't have much business going out and talking about the God who is love, and his love in sending his Son, his very heart, to earth.

If you've done the work to be prepared to witness, and you've taken the opportunities that God has given you to be a faithful witness, then there is one last step after witnessing to someone.  This it the step I call Afterwords.  Literally it is what you do after words have been spoken.  This step brings us full round to the first step.  After you have witnessed, pray to God on behalf the person you spoke with.  Bring intercession for the person and offer a supplication to God that the seed planted might grow into a fruit bearing plant.  Remember, the point of prayer is to ask the Father for those things which will glorify the Son, and this, being the delight of the father, he will do.

If you are living your life in a way that glorifies Christ and reflects your commitment to his holiness, then the steps I've outlined above should be fairly simple.  Unfortunately there is a lot that can be said about witnessing.  There is not shortage of books on the subject.  This is unfortunate because there is no way I can exhaustively cover everything in a few blog posts.  But, if you want a series of steps you should follow to make the most of the opportunities you have to speak with someone one time and share the gospel, these are the steps I would follow:  Prepare; Witness; Afterwords.

But, in all that you do, do it for the glory of Christ.  It is not the gifted speaker or the know-it-all guy who will accomplish the works of God, but it is the faithful servant who loves God and speaks the truth.  Moses, who spoke the Word to a whole nation and confronted one of the most powerful kings in the world in his day, said that he could not talk.  Paul tells us that people said that his words were weak and that he wasn't a good public speaker.  Yet, God tells us that he made the tongue of man, and that it is not powerful words but the work of the Spirit that brings his results.  So do not be afraid, but glorify Christ in sharing the good news about him every time you get the chance.

If you only had one chance

I had a friend on Facebook ask me if I would put together a step-by-step instruction guide for witnessing to a lost person who I would only meet one time.  This is probably the most common form of intentional evangelism most Christians will participate in.  However, just because it is so common doesn't make it the best form.  So, I'd love to put together a step-by-step guide, but first I want to discuss the goal of evangelism and the best way to evangelize.  Most of us will meet many people throughout our lives, and a large number of those people will be brief encounters, so it is important for us to think about how we would share our faith in the short time we have.

I stated that I don't think that the best form of evangelism is witnessing to strangers.  I'll stand by that position and I'll explain why.  Most of the evangelism we see done in the New Testament (there just isn't quite as much in the Old) is done over time.  Yes, Paul went and argued with people, but usually he met with them multiple times in his discussions.  And yes, Jesus shared with people, but usually he stayed with them for an extended time in talking with them.  One time meetings with strangers robs evangelism of one of its most important aspects: the ability to test the truth by experience.

The goal of the Christian should be to witness to others.  The proclamation of the gospel is our goal, and that means we need to live lives that prove the gospel to be true.  While no one will know that we are following Christ if we never tell them, at the same time know one will know what it means to follow Christ if we don't show them.  Words are easy, a Lothario can woo a woman with empty words, but an Orpheus will travel the very halls of death to win back his bride.  If our goal is to win others to Christ, then our lives must reflect the love of our savior that our words proclaim.

Unfortunately in short, one-off meetings you will get a very limited amount of time to prove your character an thus demonstrate the love you have for Christ.  You may have opportunity to tell someone of Christ, which is of utmost importance, but they will have little time to form a judgment about the truth of what you say from that meeting.  This is the unfortunate limitation in all brief encounters.  You cannot develop a relationship with commonality, and you cannot establish commonality without time and shared experience.  Therefore, while brief and fleeting meetings are altogether common, and present opportunities to share the gospel, they are also limited in what can be accomplished.

Okay, so brief opportunities aren't the best, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use every opportunity we have to share Christ.  So what should we do with the brief opportunities we have?  Our answer can be broken down into three major steps that each have smaller parts within those steps.

The first thing we must do is be prepared for the encounter.  Peter tells us to be prepared at all times to give a defense for the hope within us.  Specifically in 1 Peter 3:15-16 we read, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."  Obviously this passage expects that there should be some relationship between those asking and those giving a defense, for it expects that those who accuse should also have the ability to judge our character, but there are still parts of the passage that can be applied to the opportunity of a onetime encounter.

The first step of witnessing to anyone, whether someone you have a relationship with or someone you don't know is to be prepared to actually witness.  Therefore our first part of witnessing must begin with preparation.  That preparation starts with what Peter tells us here: honoring Christ the Lord as holy.  The use of the term "heart" indicates not that Peter is talking to us about an emotional commitment, but rather a whole person commitment.  Our whole person must be devoted to the holiness of Christ our Lord.  This is the beginning of our preparation to witness.

You may know all the right words, you may know facts and figures, you may even have all the tracts and tools you want at hand, but despite all of that sin in your life can be a hindrance to your opportunity to share Christ.  The encounter you have with a bank teller right after you get done rudely cutting others off in line or cursing under your breath because you just realized you are going to get back to work late after lunch will likely not be an opportunity for you to share Christ, because your failure to live as though in the presence of a holy God have just put the lie to everything you might say.  But, even more insidiously, sin in your life that happened previously, that you are still struggling with, can be a hindrance in that you may allow the feelings of guilt and shame prevent you from speaking the truth of Christ.  I don't hear note that unresolved sin can make your words ineffective because Paul said that the only thing that mattered to him was that Christ was preached regardless of the reasons for why people were preaching Christ.  Thus I believe that the Word of God will be faithful to complete the task God has set for it, but that an unfaithful witness harms us in other ways that hinder the gospel's affects.

So, if we begin with living our lives as though we truly are living for a Holy Christ, then what should the next step of preparation be?  Here the answer must be knowledge of the Word of God.  We must be students of the Word so that we can proclaim that Word.  How can you tell others of the good news of Christ if you don't know it yourself?

You may say that you can simply tell others of what Christ has done for you, but the fact is that if you don't know the Word, you don't know what Christ has done.  If you are unfamiliar with the condemnation of the Law, then you cannot fathom the mercy of God's grace.  If you do not see yourself as a sinner who was due the righteous wrath of a holy God, then you will not be able to share what exactly you have been spared from for the sake of Christ.  One of the most familiar illustrations of Christ was the idea of removing the plank in your own eye before you could remove the saw dust from the eye of your brother.  If you have not seen the reality of your sin in the mirror of Scripture, so as to remove that plank from your eye, then how can you look to the speck in someone else's eye and tell them how to remove it?  Knowledge of Scripture is not ancillary to witnessing, rather it is crucial.

On top of this, we read that the gospel of Christ is what saves us.  But what is the gospel?  The gospel is the message of Christ, the good news, that was passed down in the bible.  The gospel is that God is holy and made all things for his glory, but that man rebelled against God and so brought sin and death into the world.  Because all men are sinners, all men deserve to die, because we have all rebelled against the one true, holy, and perfect God.  Yet God, in his love for us, sent his Son, the Lord Jesus, to live a perfect life of holiness to God and then to take sin upon himself by dying upon the cross.  Because the cross was the fulfillment of the curse of sin, and because that sin was born by Christ, all those who come to Christ can have their sins forgiven in him.  This forgiveness was proven by the fact that Christ raised from the dead and so conquered death that reigns through sin.  Now, all those who trust in Christ are saved by the power of his blood cleansing us from sin.

This is a more detailed explanation than is perhaps necessary, but I wanted to at least briefly touch on a lot of the issues that the gospel contains.  But, understanding the fullness of this gospel means understanding Scripture.  If you are not a student of Scripture, while you may be able to tell people that there is forgiveness to be found in Jesus, you will not really be able to understand what that means.  That means you will fall short of sharing the full gospel and will only be able to share part of it.  You don't have to share a detailed step-by-step explanation of the gospel that starts in Genesis, goes through the Mosaic Covenant, explains the outworking of God's plan through the prophets, and gives a detailed account of how wisdom is found in God.  But, you do need to know the basics of the faith and at least a general understanding of what Scripture has proclaimed about the forgiveness found in Christ; and that knowledge can only be found in Scripture.

So then, to be prepared to share we must live lives of holiness and know Scripture.  But, there is one more thing we must do as well.  We must be trusting God.  This goes with the first point and is sharpened by the reading we do in the second point, but it also stands apart from the other two.  Trusting God means being confident in what we say, being in prayer on a regular basis, and being prepared that whatever happens, God is the one in control of the situation.

If we are not in regular prayer then we will be weak when opportunities to share come to us.  Prayer is part of our faith.  It is something we are commanded to do and it is the conduit through which God chooses to put his power into effect.  Christ, in John 14 and 16, commands us to pray to the Father so that he will glorify himself in accomplishing those prayer.  The goal of these prayers, as shown in these sections (I didn't link verses because you really should read both chapters to get the context) is not for us, but that we might be seeking to bring glory to God.  Thus our prayer lives should be about opportunities to glorify God, and so should include the witnessing we do and seeking that God would work his power through our witnessing.  If we are witnessing, but are not in prayer, then we are missing part of the point: The Father delights to use our prayers as a way to bring glory to the Son, whose body we are on earth.

If we are living lives of holiness as Peter commands, studying Scripture as we ought to, and being in regular prayer to God, then we can expect that God will glorify himself through us when the opportunities for us to share our faith arise.  If we are doing all of this, not as some simple "3 steps to prepare to witness" but as a matter of our true lives and who we are, then we will be prepared for the opportunities as they arise.  This is the final step of trusting in God, of actually taking the opportunity when it comes, of putting aside doubts and hindrances, and of being bold in proclaiming Christ in every opportunity we get, and it won't be forced or awkward, but it will be the natural outflow of a love born of understanding the great kindness God has shown us.

This is the first part of witnessing, just being prepared to be a witness.  It is actually the hardest part because it requires a full life commitment to the holiness of Christ and a devotion to the Word of God as being able to accomplish his will.  The second part, which will be the next post, is easier, though it is often the part we make the hardest.  The second part is the actual witnessing, and the third is what we do afterwords.  But, if we glorify Christ in our lives, then telling others about him in those "chance" encounters becomes far easier than many of us think.

Why I believe in a literal six days of creation: Part 2

So, I said in my last post that I would lay out the positive case for a literal six days of creation.  The goal of this post will be to at least partially fulfill this promise.  The reasons for believing a literal six days of creation are complex and require a thorough biblical theology to explain.  Therefore, in order to establish the reasons for believing in a literal six days of creation I will attempt to look at the text, and then look at how the rest of Scripture deals with this text and the ideas in the text, and then demonstrate that the strongest argument for reading this text is to understand that Scripture is arguing for God literally making the earth in six days.  This is not to say that there are no other ways to read the text of Genesis 1, and I will attempt to address the other ways of reading the text some throughout the section, but I do intend to argue that a literal understanding of the six days of creation is the best way to read the text.

Let us look at the text then:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1 ESV)

This is the full text of Genesis 1.  Obviously the argument rests on the question of whether "day" in each of these verses is a literal day, or if it could be metaphorical.  Basically the argument for the metaphorical interpretation says that "day" in this instance could very well mean "period of time" or something similar.  This is based upon the fact that the Hebrew "yom" (y-oh-m) can mean both a literal day and a period of time.

That the author of Genesis uses "yom" in a metaphorical way is quite easily demonstrated just by looking to chapter 2 where we read, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."  The author clearly intends "day" to refer to everything that happened prior, so that where we previously see "day" used 7 times (by the beginning of chapter 2 we have the seventh day) here all 7 of those days are included in one reference.  The author of Genesis clearly uses day to indicate metaphorical days, and thus could have intended "yom" in the first chapter to be metaphorical.

However, in the case of Genesis one we see strong evidence that "day" is not meant to be metaphorical.  What we see is the word "yom" used with the phrases interpreted "evening and morning" and each "day" is numbered.  In every other  happens in Scripture, so that a day is linked to an evening or a morning, or a day is numbered, it always means a literal day.  For instance, there are no metaphorical instances of the words "evening" or "morning" in any other passage in Genesis, and in each other passage where you read of a "first," "second," "third," etc., day, it always refers to a literal day.  Thus, if the author intended to use the term metaphorically he did not indicate it in the text by the words he chose.

Some argue that the metaphorical nature of the text is obvious because the sun and moon do not exist until day 4, therefore the days cannot be literal because you cannot have an evening or a morning without a sunrise and a sunset.  However, this argument misses the point that the only thing necessary for an evening and a morning is a fixed point on the earth where light is focused that there is darkness and light in succession.  Thus the sun is not necessary so long as light is being provided by some other source, which is what the creation account indicates in Genesis.  Yes, today we need a sunrise and a sunset for evening and morning because the sun is the source of light for our earth, but when creation was occurring we see the statement that God was the source of light, in that God spoke and light existed independently of the sun.

To back up the claim that God operates as an the independent source of light we can turn to Revelation where we see the profession that there will be no sun and no moon, for God himself will be the source of light.  (Rev 21:23; 22:5)  Even if one were to argue that Revelation is intending this in a metaphorical sense, the argument for God as light is made throughout Scripture.  Thus the argument from Scripture is that God serves as the light of creation in a very real sense.  In Genesis the most logical understanding of the text is that God was acting as the source of light for creation establishing his presence prior to the creation of the sun and the moon.

So, we have the use of the term "day" in conjunction with the words "evening" and "morning" along with specifically numbered days.  All of these terms in Genesis 1:1-2:3 indicate literal days in the text.  To argue that there is contextual evidence to indicate a metaphorical use of "day" in Genesis 1 is to beg the question.  First you have to assume the metaphorical interpretation and then you can find the evidence from reading the text.  However, if you do not assume the proposition of a metaphorical interpretation in Genesis 1, you cannot find evidence to support a metaphorical interpretation.  The same is not true for the literal interpretation whose evidence exists even assuming a metaphorical interpretation and then looking for evidence to the contrary.

Along with the terms we already looked at there is a second point, going back to Genesis 2:4.  Genesis 2:4 reads "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth."  This sentence is important because we see it repeated throughout Genesis.  In Genesis 5 we read of the generations of Adam.  In total this term is repeated 11 times in Genesis.  In every one of those instances the author lays out an actual genealogical list to go with the words and in each section he gives real details of events that happened implying that these lists are to be taken literally.  Thus this term links the story of creation to the rest of the history given in Genesis.  While some people think the lists of genealogies are mythological, the text does not treat the histories in this way.  Thus the textual evidence is that the creation story is to be understood along side the history of Genesis, and that the history is to be understood in a literal sense, which means the creation story should be understood just as literally.

But, we do not only have to rely only on Genesis to help us understand whether the days of creation were literal.  We can also look to Exodus.  In Exodus 20:11 we see Moses tell the Israelites that they were to keep the Sabbath because the Lord created the heavens and the earth in six days and then rested on the seventh.  Thus the law of the Sabbath in the Old Testament is based on a literal understanding of the days of creation.  Arguing for a metaphorical seven days would undermine the reasoning behind the Sabbath because one could say, "God didn't really create the earth in six days and rest of the seventh, that's just a metaphor."

The reason this evidence should be compelling is because the traditional understanding of the authorship of Genesis is that Moses wrote it just as he wrote Exodus.  Since Moses is recognized as the author of both of these books his understanding of the days of creation as revealed in his statement on the Sabbath should carry significant weight.  Moses relied on the literal interpretation of creation to give understanding to the requirement of rest on the Sabbath, therefore we should pay attention to his reasoning.

This understanding of creation not only plays out in Moses and the Law, but in all the rest of Scripture.  As I indicated in my discussion of the first day of creation, God created the universe in a way that imbued history with meaning.  If we read the creation story as a literal story imbued with meaning we see why the seven days of creation are so important.

I already discussed day one, but I'd like to zoom out and discuss the whole creation narrative.  Many people have noted that the form of Genesis 1 is a kind of poem.  There is a repetition and agreement within the creation narrative that speaks to balance.  What you have is days one to three, then days four to six.  Each of the first three days corresponds in some way to the last three days.  On the first day you have light and dark, on the fourth you have the sun and moon.  On the second day you have the seas and the heavens as well as the dry land and earth, and on the fifth day you have the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, who multiply to fill the earth.  On the third day you have vegetation on the earth and fields and grass, and on the sixth day you have the ground animals and man, who will eat and tend to the vegetation.  Thus the first three days are mirrored in the last three days, demonstrating a poetic ordering of the universe.

The concept of an ordered universe as revelatory of God is furthered in the New Testament when we read, "God is not a God of disorder but peace" and further "But all things should be done decently and in order." (1 Cor 14:33, 40 ESV.  I chose a different interpretation of the word "confusion" going with "disorder" in 1 Cor 14:33 as the Greek root is the same and the conceptualization of "not disorder" but "order" is better seen with this interpretation.)  This idea of God setting up an ordered universe is important as it underlies the argument of Romans 1, wherein we read that the attributes of God have been clearly revealed in creation.  The idea of God creating the universe in a way that displays his glorious attributes, including order and a beauty (as seen in the poetic balancing of creation) is thus supported throughout the rest of Scripture.

So, let us close the theological net here and lay out a reason for the seven days of creation as we see them.  Assuming the points above, that God seeks to reveal himself through his works, and assuming a standard Christian theology that Christ is the one God desires to glorify (for the Father desires to glorify the Son as the object of his love, and the Son gives that glory to the Father as the object of his worship and adoration) then we can draw forth a picture from creation that speaks to the beauty of God, the need for order in the universe, and results in the glory of God.

Here we go:  God created the world as way of exalting Christ, displaying poetic beauty, and establishing the law of love.  The first day speaks to the Son, as he is the Word of God and is the light of the world and the life of men.  From the first day we then see how the first week speaks to the beauty of God, as creation becomes a kind of poem with the days becoming mirrors of one another.  At the same time by specifically bringing about the various parts of creation on different days God shows his care for each part of creation and how important each aspect is to him.  Finally on the seventh day, God rests from the work of creation, thus establishing a pattern that man was to follow.  This shows the mercy of God in giving man rest by basing the pattern of rest on creation itself.  Thus those who refuse to give rest to their workers, or the rulers who do not allow their citizens to rest, or even the masters who do not allow their slaves to rest, are violating the rules of creation and not acting in love toward their fellow man.

The seven days of creation thus end up pointing to Christ a second time in the law of rest.  For man was created to work the world before it was fallen.  In a fallen world the work of man is all the harder and is now toilsome instead of purely joyful.  Man cannot rest for he is under the constant condemnation of God, to rest would be to give way to hopelessness as man would have to admit that he cannot escape his condition.  However, in Christ man finds his rest.  In Christ man is no longer striving and working for his salvation, and even the work a man does in his regular life becomes more enjoyable as he understands it as an act of worship for Christ and not merely toilsome labor for bread that perishes.  Christ becomes the bookends of creation, being the first part of creation, and the goal of all of creation.

To Christ be the glory, as the one who began creation, as the one who sustains creation, and as the one all of creation points us back to.  To argue for a non-literal reading of the days of Genesis seems to me to rob Christ of some of this glory.  To say that God did not create the earth in six literal days, despite all the text says, and to say that the literal beauty of matching poetic stanzas in the act of creation is only a literary creation, robs Christ of his glory.  To say that there were not seven literal days where Christ was both the beginning and the end of the story, to say it was all just a literary creation to point to Christ weakens the force of the text.  Rather, let us say that Christ was the beginning of creation, the Word as life, shining light in all creation, and Christ is the end of creation--the object of our faith, so that we can enter into the sabbath rest of our God.  Let us trust in him and see that Christ has imbued all of creation with his beauty so that history itself finds its meaning in him.