Evangelicals who receive Genesis 1–11 as factually portraying God’s creative work should be commended. Yet, defending “literal interpretation” to counter “figurative interpretation” prolongs the misguided debate and tends to induce many Christians to suppress Scripture’s realistic portrayals of God’s creative actions and historical accounts throughout Genesis 1–11. Even so, far more egregious is the subjugation of God’s authorized realistic accounts in Genesis 1–3 to evolutionary interpretations of valid fields of study—geology, archaeology, cosmology, and biology. Thus, by demonstrating that the debate is properly located within the author’s domain and not the reader’s realm, this essay necessarily corrects both errors while concentrating on the flagrant one.

Would a reasonable Christian read John Bunyan’s allegory The Pilgrim’s Progress allegorically or figuratively? The answer is: Neither, because the adverbs “allegorically” and “figuratively” describe not how to read his similitude but how Bunyan wrote it. Thus, he requires us to read it for what it actually is, an allegory. Authors of literature, not readers, have authority over their texts to assign symbolic or figurative properties to settings, events, persons, and things they embed within their texts. Readers are obligated to comprehend how an author represents the world being portrayed textually, whether the realm portrayed is fictional or real. Thus, we are not at liberty to read The Pilgrim’s Progress according to our whims. We are not free to assign our own arbitrary meanings to the author’s text. Bunyan wrote it as an allegory. He assigned figurative representational significances to the settings, events, persons, and things. Readers do not have that role.
However, many Christians who honor the inviolability of what Bunyan wrote do not honor the creation-fall accounts of Genesis 1–3 with the same sanctity. Some seize authority over the biblical text by engaging in “figurative interpretation,” while others do essentially the same thing under the banner of “literal interpretation.” Both approaches are mistaken and misguided because interpretation is neither literal nor figurative. We do not have the authority to determine how we are to read the text; this authority is embedded into the text by the author. Thus, whether we are to interpret the passage “literally” or “figuratively” is a confusing, misleading, and mistaken debate. Interpretation of Genesis 1–3 is neither literal nor figurative. In this article, I will show that it is an error for us to dispute whether we should interpret Genesis 1–3 literally or figuratively. I will show that interpretation is neither literal nor figurative. Evangelicals who contend that the text of Genesis obligates us to read it literally misspeak. What they mean is that the biblical text portrays God’s creative acts literally, which is to say, factually. Creation really took place as Genesis portrays it. So, as you read this article, you will recognize that I more fully direct the needed corrective toward those who contend that Genesis 1-3 calls for a figurative interpretation.
But first, let’s consider some context.
Philo’s Platonic Influence on Ancient Christians
The debate is ancient, and Christians have been posing and debating this since the second century. Exegetes of the Alexandrian school were under varying degrees of pagan Platonic influence through Philo, who viewed the Creator too lofty to be fully accountable for the creation of Adam. Philo believed God distanced himself from the creation of Adam more so than the creation of all other things. Philo infers that when God said, “Let us make man,” the plural “us” includes “other beings to himself as assistants,” such that they bear the blame for Adam’s disobedient acts.[1] Second-century Gnostics expanded on Philo’s inference by positing the presence and influence of demiurges, heavenly beings who shaped and control the material universe.
Some Ancient Christians—Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine—accepted Philo’s teaching that God created everything in one simultaneous action.[2] They explain the six days of Genesis 1 not as a chronological timespan but as a symbolic framework, featuring creation’s increasing worth, with humans ranked highest.[3] Reflecting Philo’s Platonic influence, Origen regards the biblical account as not factually accurate. Mockingly, he inquires, “Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky?”[4] Again, with derision, he asks who could be “so ignorant as to suppose that” God planted trees in a garden with fruit sustaining life or bringing death, or that God walked in the garden and found Adam hiding under a tree? Origen is confident that this portrayal is too fantastic for anyone to fail to recognize that these are “related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.”[5] For Origen, God’s authorized portrayal of his creative acts requires an allegorical interpretive grid to determine its proper meaning.
Candid Acknowledgements that the Writer of Genesis Portrays Reality
Geologists, archaeologists, cosmologists, and biologists pose a worldview that rivals the Bible’s account of creation. This prompts efforts by many Christians to harmonize scientists’ claims concerning the beginnings of all things and Scripture’s account of creation. Two conflicting approaches dominate and polarize debates over the origins of the universe and of life. Many evangelicals improperly insist on a “literal interpretation” of the creation accounts, while many others counter with a “figurative interpretation” concerning the biblical text. Both are missteps.
Even though he accepted the theory of evolution, Marcus Dods admits that every effort to harmonize Scripture’s account of creation with the modern theory of evolution is “futile and mischievous” because all such efforts fail to convince but “prolong the strife between Scripture and science.”[6] He warns, “And above all, they are to be condemned because they do violence to Scripture, foster a style of interpretation by which the text is forced to say whatever the interpreter desires, and prevent us from recognising the real nature of these sacred writings.”[7] He calls interpreters who adjust the Genesis account of creation to fit the modern scientists’ beliefs concerning origins are Scripture’s “worst friends who distort its words.” For example, if the word “day” in Genesis 1–2 does not refer to an earth-day, a period of twenty-four hours, “the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”[8]
Likewise, much more recently, on April 23, 1984, James Barr, who rejects the historicity of the accounts in Genesis 1–11, wrote a letter to David C. C. Watson (Wheaton, IL) in which Barr affirms that, as a Hebrew scholar, his judgment is that the author of the ancient text meant for his portrayal to be believed as historical. He wrote,
[S]o far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.[9]
Barr affirms the same in published books.[10] For example, he contends,
From the genealogies of Genesis the reader could reckon the time down to the flood; from the flood he could reckon on to the exodus, and from there to the building of Solomon’s temple. The figures were meant to be exact and to be taken literally. They do not mean anything at all unless they mean actual numbers of years. Thus to say that Abraham was 75 years old when he migrated from Haran into Canaan (Gen. 12.4) means exactly that, namely that he was 75 years old at that point, and to say that Israel’s stay in Egypt lasted 430 years (Exodus 12.40) means exactly that, that there were 430 years from the time they went in until the time when they came out again. But we have to be aware of the difference between intention and historical truth.[11]
Despite these honest concessions that Genesis 1–11 was written as history, with the expectation that readers should accept the accounts as truthful, many evangelicals have not hesitated to follow the beliefs of Dods and Barr rather than the beliefs of Scripture’s writer, Moses.
Read More
Related Posts:

To listen to the chaotic, nonsensical ramblings of many in our society (many of which reside in our “highest” institutions of learning and who are currently rioting in our streets) is a study in Isaiah 5 and Romans 1. Any man or woman, any family, any nation who, in their pride, reject God’s Word will fall into a dramatically deluded mind and depraved behavior.

Forgive me for some reminiscent rambling. I don’t do it often, but I digress to highlight a comparison and a tragedy. In my lifetime, I remember when…

Most churches were filled on Sunday morning and night.
All businesses were closed on Sunday.
Every day at public school began with a prayer over the intercom or in the classroom.
Children in almost any neighborhood could play or walk to school with no threat of harm.
Most children had zero thought or confusion about their gender identity and happily embraced who they were.
There was a general understanding of many undeniable, universally accepted moral values across the nation.
Certain sins and behaviors were generally condemned, not accepted and applauded.
And on and on…

What has happened? Don’t think I am naive enough to believe that our society was altogether righteous and I am not advocating a return to the 50s. We were rampant with our own brand of iniquity. But to compare our nation in the past to the current highlights a major moral declension.
It’s Beginnings
In Isaiah’s day, the prophet speaks for God to His people…people to whom He had shown great mercy, blessing, and favor. Somewhere they had made a turn, best described in a few verses. It didn’t take many words from God and His prophet to identify what had happened.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.Isaiah 5:21
A fall away from God always begins with pride. We think we know better and are wiser than God, and this pride leads to a further disastrous decision.
Read More
Related Posts:

Given the circumstances of no witness-accuser who possessed a desire for righteous judgment – the only one who could have put the woman to death and satisfied the intention of the law both in letter and spirit would have been God himself. Accordingly, one without sin may have thrown the first stone! By handling the difficult providence as he did, Jesus upheld the law pertaining to a proper accuser’s spirit, yet without compromising the law’s demand for justice.

To confuse absolution with civil justice is a menace to society and the church. Both must be maintained in their proper place, for the law is the backdrop for grace.* (Joshua 7:20,25; Galatians 2:1)
Antinomians and Roman Catholics can be quick to point to the woman caught in adultery (recorded for us in John 8) as “proof” that the general equity of Old Testament (OT) civil law for adultery (if not by extension the essential entailments of all OT civil laws) is no longer applicable today. In this context, my position is a modest one. If the equity of the laws’ demands have been abolished, we may not point to Jesus’ handling of the matter to prove the point. We must find abrogation elsewhere.**
Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 require that both guilty parties are to receive the same civil sanction for adultery. Although that is the requirement of the law, for some reason the mob was uninterested in following God’s prescription even on that essential point. Rather, the Jews substituted God’s law with their own standard by not bringing to Jesus the man who sinned. More than an unjust concealment of truth, John 8 explicitly states that the mob’s intention was to test Jesus in order to accuse him. Consequently, not only was the report false by the standard of the ninth commandant, it was malicious toward Jesus having not been accompanied by a sincere desire for justice. Therefore, had Jesus partaken of their misuse of the law, he would have violated God’s law:
You shall not bear a false report nor join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness, nor follow the masses in doing evil nor pervert justice.
Exodus 23:1-2
In passing we might also observe that since the woman was caught in the act, it is probable that her habits were well known, making her an easy prey for entrapment. Such would only lend credence to the malicious intent of the scheme while also implicating the mob for not being lovingly concerned with the woman’s licentious behavior until such time that it could be used for evil rather than good. Yes, just penalties are intrinsically good but the design for good is eclipsed when not carried out by lawful and lowly servants.
Submission to God’s Providential Infliction of Unruly Government
Romans 13 teaches that we are not to take the law into our own hands but submit to God’s providentially ordained government, even when that government is pluralistic. This principle of lawful-order was to be followed during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the Jews knew it all too well: 
So Pilate said to them, ‘Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.’ The Jews said to him, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death’” 
John 18:31
Yet the Jews were not interested in obeying the precept of submitting to God ordained Roman rule when it did not suit them:
Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?’ But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.’ They brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were amazed at Him.” 
Mark 12: 15-17
With respect to John 8, it was unlawful under those particular circumstances for the law of Moses to be implemented by the Jews; yet that would not seem to be the only impetus behind Jesus’ behavior not to call for immediate justice.
Applying Principles to the State of Affairs
The intention of the mob was the entrapment of Jesus and whether a life was callously taken in the process was of no consequence to these conspirators. Accordingly, had Jesus acquiesced to their plea by condemning the woman to death on their terms, he would have partaken in their scheming and wickedness according to Exodus 23:1-4.
Read More
Related Posts: