In my last article on Genesis 1-3, I wrote about the allegorical nature of these chapters, but I did not lay out all the evidence for why I believe they are allegorical. Because some commenters criticized my article (which is perfectly fine), I want to provide clear and concise reasons, from the Bible alone, for why Genesis 1-3 is an allegory. I should point out that the critics could not provide any evidence for a literal interpretation of these chapters.
By the way, Genesis 1-3 falls under the category of historical allegory, which simply means the story is historically true but written in a way that morally edifies us and/or points us to Jesus Christ. In this article, I would like to briefly outline all the contextual evidence for concluding that Genesis 1-3 is an allegory.
- Genesis 1:2 – God was “moving”. God does not literally move. He is present always (eternal) and everywhere (omnipresent). His power extends to all places and times without failure (omnipotent). He does not change (He is immutable; Malachi 3:6, James 1:7, Hebrews 13:8).
- 1:4-5 – God defined day as light. He did not define it as a 24-hour cycle as the literalists would have us believe. In fact, “day” is not used to represent the earth’s 24-hour rotation anywhere in the first three chapters of Genesis. Although each “day” ends with “and there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day,” these are clearly not the mornings and evenings to which we are accustomed, since God did not create the sun and moon until the fourth day. So, what does this “morning and evening” language mean? Simply that God’s work is perfectly good and visible without even a hint of darkness. The “day” Genesis refers to is full and complete light, and God is light, whereas morning and evening are a mixture of darkness and light. Thus, “day” points to the purity of God, who is light.
- 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31 – God formed, filled, and ordered creation during the day. As I mentioned, Scripture says, “And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth” A literal interpretation of these verses would imply that God works during the day and does nothing at night. But this is nonsense. Due to God’s infinite nature, He does not change and certainly does not need rest. Therefore, He does not work and then rest as if He wears Himself out from a hard day’s labor. He is pure act.
- 1:9-13 – God brought forth all kinds of vegetation and trees that bore fruit. God did not create the sun until the next “day”. Did He not know that the earth was frozen and hostile to plant life? Did He not know that plants need the sun to bear fruit?
- 1:14 – On the fourth day, God made the sun and the moon. Again, since God does not make the sun and moon until the fourth day, we should not believe that “day” means a 24-hour cycle comprised of day and night.
- 2:2-3 – God “rested”. As noted, God does not rest. He is omnipotent, infinite, and pure act. He does not change. “Rested” in this verse simply means that God finished creation. It does not mean that He stopped caring for or guiding it.
- 2:4 – “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens….” In this verse, “day” does not mean a 24-hour cycle either. Its use here refers to the entire time that God made the heavens and the earth. Just to be clear, God is not subject to time, but creation is.
- 2:18 – After making Adam, God said that it was not good for him to be alone. Then He made the beasts and birds. After realizing that these were not good helpers for Adam, He created Eve. Now, God does not think discursively, that is, in a sequence of thoughts, one after another. He does not need to figure things out like humans do. Since He is all-knowing (omniscient), He eternally knows that the beasts and birds would not have been good helpers for Adam. All this passage is communicating is that no creature is “good” for man other than his complementary counterpart, his other half, the woman. Thus, man should never pair himself (i.e., physically unite with or marry) with anyone or anything other than a woman.
- 3:1 – The serpent. The serpent is Satan, a fallen angel. He is not a physical serpent. Rather, he took the form of a serpent by being as subtle, cunning, and as poisonous as one (spiritually, that is). Additionally, Adam and Eve were given all knowledge necessary to exercise their God-given dominion over earthly creation. They would not have looked at a snake and thought, “Wow! A talking snake that is inferior to us. We should really listen to what he has to say. He might just enlighten us.” This is not how Satan presented himself. Satan appeared as an intellectually superior being, an angel. Although he is a fallen angel, Adam and Eve would have been intrigued by his presence and would have listened to his words.
- 3:8a – “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking….” God does not walk. He is pure spirit. And we have no reason to believe that He assumed a human body at the point of creation. What would have been the purpose of this body? God could have communicated without a body, and He did not need a body to redeem man; not yet anyway. God is simply telling us that He approached man, who had separated himself from God through sin. Man did not approach God after the fall. Again, this shows God’s concern for and love of His creation. After all, He is our Father.
- 3:8b – Adam and Eve “hid themselves.” Adam and Eve could not “hide” from God. Rather, “hiding” tells us that they separated themselves from God and refused to come to God after they sinned.
- 3:9 – God asked, “Where are you?” God knew exactly where they were. If He did not know, He would not be omniscient. God wants us to know that He gave Adam and Eve an opportunity to respond to His call with a sincere confession. He does the same for us every moment of every day.
Given the forgoing passages, we can see that Genesis 1-3 presents us with multiple clues, if not outright proof, for accepting the allegorical interpretation of these chapters. It gives us zero clues for accepting the literal interpretation.
Now, a literalist might argue that by interpreting Genesis 1-3 allegorically, the entire Bible can be interpreted through this lens and, thus, lose all its meaning.
This is not the case, however. The use of different literary genres in some Scripture passages does not compromise the literal sense in other Scripture passages. For instance, the books of Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel are filled with symbolic and allegorical language. Simply recognizing this fact does not jeopardize the rest of Scripture.
(For more on the senses of Scripture, read Catechism paragraphs 115-119 and Verbum Domini paragraph 37.)
9 thoughts on “Genesis 1-3: Responding to Critics”
Jesus, can’t you folks just have a good old fashioned mud-slinging without the constant need to signal your piety? A few less “God bless you”s, and a few more “F you”s would be a refreshingly honest change of pace.
Dear Nate,
I attend mass in the Roman Catholic Church, as you do, but that has nothing to do with what has been presented in this discussion. Catholic or not, makes no difference when it comes to mischaracterizing words from the concordance and related lexicon, and then denying the fact that I’ve presented such information to you at all. Not agreeing or being convinced is one thing, but suggesting it wasn’t provided is just further dishonesty.
Given that, I highly encourage you to read and reflect on your own words that you wrote not more two years ago about the deflection and evasion tactics of “interlocutors”. With a little honesty and integrity you will get the point rather quickly, and hopefully you’ll take that to heart with the Lord like I’ve asked you to do before.
In Christ,
Andrew
Andrew, based on your poorly framed arguments, the need to constantly refer to a lexicon (even though the lexicon has numerous definitions for any given word), and, from what I could glean from your drivel about “walking” and “spirit,” I thought you were a Mormon or JW. That’s why I was asking about the church you attend. Now that you say you’re a Catholic, stop being a troll on this site, learn what “walking” and “spirit” really mean (no one needs to constantly refer to some lexicon to understand their meanings…besides you), and submit to Christ. Your so-called arguments are nonsensical. Stop acting like a child! I’ll pray for you because your the worst kind of Catholic; one who needs to nit pick and troll in order to feel you are contributing something. May God deliver you from your own arrogance!
Dear Nate,
I have offered you a great deal but just like before, you are choosing not to participate in any of it. Perhaps that’s because it’s not being controlled and dictated by you. Regardless, may the Lord bless you with His wisdom by bringing His discipline into your heart.
In Christ,
Andrew
Which church do you attend, Andrew?
Thanks Andrew, but you have not provided a sound argument against my position or in support of the literalist position. I can only surmise, at this point, that you do not have a plausible argument. Additionally, I don’t play the semantic range game unless context provides absolutely no clue for a word’s meaning. Finally, I pray to the Holy Spirit sincerely before I approach Scripture. Based on your responses, you either don’t prayer for the Holy Spirit’s guidance or you approach Scripture with a bias toward literalism, thereby dismissing what the Holy Spirit is trying to teach you.
Dear Nate,
I did not argue against your position or support a literalist position in what I wrote to you on this article, but I did argue against the way you are misrepresenting the meaning of words as they are defined in the context in which they are written. I provided the example of that with the word “halak”, used for walking in the verses you mentioned, and even gave it’s Lexicon code and where it could be found on the extremely long list for that word. In addition, I challenged you to look up how “spirit” is defined in the Lexicon when it is used to support your claim that God is pure spirit. You did neither. So, while I thank you for being a little more civil than you have in the past, I am sorry that you are still unwilling to challenge your own assumptions by actually following the truth that is available to you.
As for your claim that I have a bias toward literalism, or the literal sense to be more accurate, I most definitely do have such a bias, and it’s one that the Holy Spirit Himself did a great many works within me in order for that to take root.
I used to think and act the way you do now about His Holy Scripture, which is why I am trying to help you move beyond your own human perspective and need to be right apart from the Word. Scripture is not a tool to make us look better, intellectually superior, or whatever, it’s aspects of His own heart that are meant to help us transform ours into having a new life with Him and others now and forever.
You’ll get a taste of that of you ever actually put your unhelpful pride down and look into what “God is spirit” means like I asked you to. To make it easy go to John 4:24 and look at the Lexicon definition FOR THAT VERSE. May the lord be with you and bring you peace!
In Christ,
Andrew
Dear Nate,
We’re back again and, hopefully, the Holy Spirit will guide and temper your response if you choose to make one.
There is picking and choosing again going on in this article but to be more accurate, most of what I’ve read so far is technically correct (e.g. the specific use and related definition of “yom” mentioned) but it also distorts the documented truth about that word as it’s predominately used in the surrounding scripture verses for creation.
However, rather than spending a great deal of time to address that word again with you, and it’s importance of getting right, it is worth noting that it also makes no sense that you are not accurately stating what the Lexicon gives as a definition for the word “walking” in Genesis 3:8. The meaning of the word, H1980 – halak, is “the sound of Elohim walking about in the garden; of God (El)”, and that is found under the “literal” heading, 1(b), all the way towards the bottom of the definitions page for that word; because there are a great deal of different definitions provided for that word (just like there are for yom) depending on its use in context by the author.
Given all of that, and the fact that these discrepancies keep happening, I am going to both challenge and encourage you to look into what I think is the key assumption you are making that is causing this bias and error for you with the Book of Genesis. Look into what biblical support you have for saying that “He [God] is pure spirit” and then look into the proper definition for spirit in the verse that you find.
It should be very enlightening in more ways than one.
In Christ,
Andrew
Andrew, I see that you’re one of those people who love to sound holy and pious while offering nothing substantive to the conversation. The contextual evidence in Genesis 1-3 for the allegoical meaning of these chapters is clear. God bless and I hope you come to the full truth soon.