The proper way to interpret Bible passages has been the subject of debate for countless generations. During modern times a dispute about Bible interpretation has played a role in the ongoing debate about evolution. On one side of the debate are people who say that the creation account in Genesis should be interpreted figuratively. On the other side are people who claim that every verse of Genesis must be interpreted literally.
In the minds of the latter people, if just one verse of Genesis is not literally true, then the entire Bible is discredited. This report examines the claim that the creation account in Genesis must be interpreted literally in order for the Bible to truly be God’s Word. Although creationists can be of any faith, for the purpose of this report, it will be assumed that the majority of creationists are of the Christian faith.
In Second Samuel 12:1-7 we are given the account of King David’s sins pertaining to his adultery with Bathsheba. After David has Bathsheba’s husband killed, David marries the woman and then lives as if he has done nothing wrong. The king would soon discover that his sins are not hidden at all.
God sends His prophet Nathan to confront the king about the king’s sin. Instead of confronting David directly, Nathan chooses to use a parable to deliver his message to the king.
"The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”
David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”
In this Bible passage Nathan declares the king to be the man in the parable. Is Nathan’s declaration literally true? Did the king literally go to a poor man’s house, take a ewe lamb from the poor man and then kill and cook the lamb? Did King David literally do these things? The answer is “no.” Literally speaking Nathan’s story was fictitious. Yet the story accomplished its purpose of delivering a spiritual message to the king. Such is the purpose of a parable, to deliver a spiritual message. The message of the parable is true even if the details of the parable are not factual.
The prophet Nathan would not be the last person to use a parable to teach spiritual truths.
Whether or not they believe that Jesus is God-incarnate, people around the world recognize Jesus as a master storyteller. Many of his teachings are delivered through the use of parables.
Parable Defined
What exactly is a parable?
Vine (1985) defines a parable as “a somewhat lengthy utterance or narrative drawn from nature or human circumstances, the object of which is to set forth a spiritual lesson . . .” (p. 457)
The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a parable as “a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle. “
Webster’s 1913 dictionary defines a parable as “a comparison; a similitude; specifically, a short fictitious narrative of something which might really occur in life or nature, by means of which a moral is drawn; as, the parables of Christ. --Chaucer.”
Wikipedia gives the following definiton of a parable:
“A parable is a story that is told to illustrate a religious, moral or philosophical idea. In rhetoric, a parable ('comparison' or 'similitude') was originally the name given by Greek rhetoricians to any fictive illustration introduced in the form of a brief narrative. Later it came to mean a fictitious narrative or allegory (generally something that might naturally occur) by which moral or spiritual relations are typically set forth, as in the New Testament.”
The Biblical Studies Foundation defines a parable as “a fictitious or made up story designed to teach a lesson through comparison.”
The New Bible Dictionary (1998) defines a parable this way:
“In the NT the actual word ‘parable’ is used with the same broad variety of meaning as Heb. “masal” to refer to almost any kind of non-literal utterance.” (p. 877)
Definition Applied
In short, a parable is a non-factual story that is told for the purpose of explaining a spiritual truth. Clearly Nathan’s parable fits this description. What about the parables of Jesus? Do they fit the aforementioned definition of a parable? If we are to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, then does Nathan’s parable help us to interpret the parables of Jesus?
For this investigation Nathan’s parable will be compared to Jesus' parable of the prodigal son. As in Nathan’s parable, the people in the prodigal parable are not identified by name. In Nathan’s parable the rich man represents King David, while in the prodigal parable the father represents God.
The fact that a man is being used to represent God suggests that the prodigal parable is non-factual because no sinful human is suitable to represent God. Also, the father in the prodigal parable has two sons, whereas John 3:16 says that the Heavenly Father has only one son. If the father in the story were an actual man, then he was not fit to represent God. So how could the father represent God if the father were a real man?
These clues in the prodigal parable indicate that the events in this parable are non-factual, just as the events in Nathan’s parable are non-factual. Yet the prodigal parable delivers a spiritual message. That message is truth in spite of the fact that the message is delivered by a fictitious story. Being that the parable is a fictitious narrative, it is incorrect to interpret literally the parable’s details. Thus not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted literally.
At this point it would be reasonable to ask, “What do the parables of Jesus have to do with the debate about evolution?” The answer to this question lies in the identity of Jesus. In Christian theology Jesus is God the Son. Because Jesus is God, the spiritual lessons of his parables are truth. Yet, God the Son delivered such truth by telling stories that are fictitious.
If God the Son can tell fictitious stories in order to deliver spiritual messages, then what is there to stop God the Father from doing the same thing? The answer is “nothing.” According to Christian theology, God is omnipotent and sovereign. He can do anything that he wants to do, and He doesn’t need Man’s permission. If God wants to include fictitious stories in the Old Testament, then He can do so. Indeed, Nathan’s parable is evidence that God has done just that.
Now it is time to deal with another question. Is it possible that the creation accounts in Genesis are more of God’s parables?
In his book Darwin On Trial Phillip Johnson writes, “I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead.”(p. 14) To creationists the debate about evolution is a debate about the way that God chose to create. According to creationist thinking, God would not have chosen to “work through a natural evolutionary process.”
Is it possible that creationists are mistaken about God’s way of thinking? Yes, it is possible. Indeed, in the Bible God warns people against assuming that He thinks like humans. In Isaiah 55:8-9 we read the following:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Does the Bible indicate that God has done things that go against human logic? Indeed the Bible does. In Exodus 4: 11 God says, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” According to the Bible, God is love. It goes against human logic for God to deliberately make a person blind, deaf or mute. Yet in Exodus we are told that God does such things.
The New Testament gives an example of God doing something that didn’t make sense according to human logic. In John 9:1-3 we read about a man who was born blind. According to the logic of the Jews, the only reason that the man was born blind was because someone had sinned. Jesus declared that such human logic was not correct. In verse 3 Jesus says, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
In summary, God can and will do things that defy human logic. Thus, we cannot use human logic to rule out the possibility that God created life as we know it “through a natural evolutionary process.”
Before continuing, a review is in order. According to Christian theology God can do anything that He wants to do, and sometimes God chooses to do things that defy logic. The Bible gives evidence that God has used fictitious narratives to teach spiritual truths. A fictitious narrative given by God is not to be interpreted literally. Yet the spiritual message of such a narrative is supposed to be accepted as being true. Now it is time to apply these lessons to the creation story in Genesis.
Because God is sovereign, He could have chosen to give the ancient Hebrews a fictitious narrative about creation in order to give the ancient Hebrews a spiritual message. Such a choice might defy human logic, but God does not use human logic. On the other hand, God could have chosen to give the ancient Hebrews a factual narrative about creation. Which choice did God make?
According to creationist theology God chose to make the Earth out of nothing. Is such an idea supported by the creation account in Genesis? To answer this question Genesis1:1-2 will be examined.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”(KJV)
Nothing in these verses (no pun intended) indicates that the Earth was formed out of nothing. It is common for people to mistakenly believe that the phrase “without form and void” means that the Earth was created ex nihilo. In the Hebrew the phrase is tohu wa-bohu. Gibson (1981) states that tohu means “desert” or “wasteland”. Gibson goes on to state that the expression tohu wa-bohu is an ancient Hebrew description of a place filled with chaos. (p. 32) A chaotic desert isn’t “nothing.” It has substance. So where do people get the idea that tohu wa-bohu refers to a nothingness? Gibson (1981) explains the reason:
“The Greeks generally thought of chaos as empty space, a kind of insubstantial stuff as opposed to the cosmos of the organized material world, and in their more philosophical moments they could even speak of it as “not being” over against the “being” of the cosmos. It is not a large step from these rather refined notions to the orthodox Judeo-Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, so there would be considerable pressure on the Greek-speaking Jews who were responsible for the Septuagint and its sister versions to move their renderings in the direction they did. Like all good translators they were trying to make the Bible meaningful to their contemporaries. But I feel that they may have gone too far in this case and all but lost touch with the original Hebrew.” (pp. 31-32)
In short, the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo comes from Greek philosophy, not from a literal reading of Genesis in its original language.
Furthermore, it is not just Genesis 1:1-2 that contradicts the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. When the Apostle Peter mentions the creation of the Earth, he says that the Earth was "formed out of water and by water."(2 Peter 3:5) Water is not "nothing" either.
This information suggests that creationist theology may be in error.
Along with Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:27 is also a problem for creationist theology. The verse says, “So God created man in his own image.” According to a strict literal interpretation of the verse, at the time of creation God had a body consisting of all the parts of a human body.
According to Christian theology “God has not a body” (Henry, 1991, p. 6) Jesus said, “God is spirit.”(John 4:24) For this reason creationists do not interpret Genesis 1:27 literally.
A question needs asking. If creationists insist that every verse of Genesis be interpreted literally, then why don’t they interpret Genesis 1:27 literally?
If creationists themselves don’t interpret Genesis 1:27 literally, then they are admitting that Genesis does not require a 100% literal interpretation. By making such an admission creationists are also admitting that every verse of the Bible doesn’t have to be interpreted literally in order for the Bible to be God’s Word.
In short, creationists themselves contradict creationist theology when they fail to interpret Genesis 1:27 literally. Such a contradiction by creationists also suggests that creationist theology is in error.
Is there anything else that points to error in creationist theology? Perhaps God’s creation can answer this question.
In Romans 1:20 the Apostle Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Paul indicates that people can learn what God is like by learning from Nature. In his poem Tables Turned William Wordsworth tells his audience to “Let Nature be your teacher.” So what does Nature tell us about how God chose to create?
According to scientists, empirical data from Nature indicates that God chose to create “through a natural evolutionary process.” Creationists admit that the empirical data conflicts with creationist theology. So how do creationists explain the conflict? In general, creationists say that God intentionally created Nature to give false empirical data. In other words, creationists are saying that God created Nature to lie.
Does Christian theology support the idea that God would lie? No, it does not. In Numbers 23:19 the prophet Balaam declares, “God is not a man, that he should lie.” If God does not lie, then it would be out of character for him to deliberately cause His creations to lie. Thus Nature is not lying.
According to creationists the Bible reveals the ways that Nature works, and thus whatever the Bible says about Nature must be interpreted literally. However, it appears that creationists don’t always follow their own rule.
In Joshua 10: 12-13 we read the following:
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
“O sun stand still over Gibeon, O moon over the Valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the book of Jashar.
According to a strict literal interpretation of this Bible passage, the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is why a tribunal of Roman Catholic cardinals condemned Galileo Galilei for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. [To read an English translation of Galileo's condemnation, click here.]
So do creationists interpret Joshua 10:12-13 literally? Do creationists believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? No, they do not. Creationists accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, as indicated by empirical data.
Why then do creationists reject what empirical data says about the rest of Nature?
The Prophecy Angle
In the 15th chapter of First Corinthians the Apostle Paul proclaims that the Christian faith stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection is not a fact of history, then the Christian faith is not valid. So how is the resurrection of Jesus related to the creation story in Genesis? When the story is interpreted literally, it doesn’t mention the Jesus. Some people read into the creation story a prophecy about Jesus. If the creation story is a parable, then its spiritual message about Jesus can be true without the details of the story being factual. So why else do people insist on a literal interpretation?
The Sin Angle
Some people claim that the sin of Adam and Eve is crucial to Christianity. According to this claim, if Adam had not sinned, then people would not have a sin nature, and thus Jesus would have died in vain. While it is true that in the Bible Adam and Eve introduce sin into the world, the Bible does not explicitly state that everybody has genetically inherited a sin nature from Adam. Anyone claiming that a sin nature is inherited genetically has a problem. Any person making such a claim has to explain why Adam and Eve sinned, because according to Genesis they did not have ancestors to inherit anything from. If Adam and Eve had a sin nature before they sinned, then God must have given them a sin nature when He created them. Does any creationist claim that God gave Adam and Eve a sin nature?
The Reference Angle
Some people claim that everything in Genesis has to be interpreted literally because references to Genesis are in the New Testament. Even Jesus made a reference to the first chapter of Genesis. An examination of these references shows that spiritual messages of Genesis were used to support spiritual messages in the New Testament. As stated earlier, if the creation story in Genesis is a parable, then its spiritual message would be true even if the details of the story are non-factual.
The Evolution Angle
Finally, some people insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis because in their minds the acceptance of modern evolution theory is not an option. These people have false ideas about what modern evolution theory says. Here are some of their errors:
1. “Modern evolution theory says that humans evolved from apes.” The theory says no such thing. It says that homo sapiens and primates have a common distant ancestor.
2. “Modern evolution theory is atheistic.” Nothing in modern evolution theory does away with God.
3. “Modern evolution theory says that everything came about by random mutations.” No, it doesn’t. The theory says that mutations caused genetic changes in life forms, but the theory doesn’t depend on all mutations being random. The theory doesn’t deny the possibility of mutations being directed.
Modern evolution theory may challenge a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, but it doesn’t eliminate the Christian faith.
It doesn’t eliminate the Christian concept of God.
It doesn’t eliminate the concept of an original sin.
It doesn’t eliminate the concept of all people being sinners.
It doesn’t eliminate the concept of everyone needing a savior.
It doesn’t eliminate what the New Testament says about Jesus.
It doesn’t eliminate the resurrection of Jesus.
The idea that evolution destroys Christianity is an idea born out of myths about modern evolution theory.
So does the Bible’s validity stand or fall with a strict literal interpretation of Genesis? The parables of Nathan and Jesus reveal that God has used fictitious stories to reveal spiritual truths. Thus not everything in the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally.
What then requires people to interpret the creation account in Genesis literally? Nothing prevents God from using a parable to speak about creation. His doing so may defy human logic, but God doesn’t use human logic. Indeed He has done things that defy human logic.
Although creationists claim that they interpret Genesis literally, an examination of the Hebrew manuscripts reveals that creationists have been interpreting the Genesis 1:2 according to ancient Greek philosophy. Creationists don't interpret Genesis 1:27 literally. Plus, creationists read into Genesis a prophecy about Jesus that isn’t a literal interpretation.
Creationists admit that data from Nature contradicts a strict literal interpretation of Genesis. If creationists insist that Nature is lying, then they are making God out to be a liar because Nature is supposed to reveal God.
Data from Nature may support modern evolution theory, but it doesn’t threaten the Christian faith. Christianity does not depend on a strict literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story.
Whether or not modern evolution theory is valid from a scientific perspective is an issue to be debated by scientists, and such an issue is beyond the scope of this report.
Whether or not the Bible requires a rejection of modern evolution theory is an issue open to debate by anyone. The biblical data presented in this report suggests that creationist theology doesn’t have as much biblical support as is claimed. The data suggests that the validity of the Bible as God’s Word doesn’t depend on every verse of Genesis being interpreted literally.
If the Bible doesn’t require 100% literalness in interpretation, then perhaps Christians can stop spending time arguing about evolution and start spending more time demonstrating to the world that their faith is valid. In Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46) God’s sheep take care of the poorest and weakest members of humanity. The sheep don’t debate the “how” of God’s creation.
Perhaps it would be best for creationists to heed the warning of Augustine, the 5th-century Bishop of Hippo. He wrote the following.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds as to being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion[1 Tim. 1:7].
Augustine (354-430 CE). The literal meaning of Genesis. (J.H. Taylor, trans.). In M.A. Knoll’s The scandal of the evangelical mind. (pp. 202-203). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
Douglas, J.D., ed. (1988). New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Gibson, J.C.L. (1981). Genesis (Vol. 1). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Henry, M. (1991). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
“Introduction to parables.” Biblical Studies Foundation. < http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/parables/para-01.htm > (2003, December 15).
Johnson, P.E. (1993). Darwin on trial. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
“Parable.” Merriam-Webster Online. < http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=parable > (2003, December 15).
“Parable.” Wikipedia. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable > (2003, December 15).
“Webster’s 1913 Dictionary.” hyperdictionary. < http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/parable > (2003, December 15).
Vine, W.E. (1985). Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible verses quoted from The Holy Bible, New International Version©, Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved worldwide .
