As promised, I will attempt to show that the Creation story in Genesis was intended as a metaphor, but I first want to say a few things about metaphor. I think that conservatives as so amped up about holding out Scripture as ‘literal’ due to their strange belief that if something is not literally true, it’s value-less.
I hope that my examples last week were sufficient to dispense with this line of thinking. For instance, Paul speaks of becoming a ‘new man,’ which is obviously not intended to be literal. But Christians are still able to agree that it means something important. If anything, the reverse is true: ideas with profound meaning can often only be communicated in non-literal terms. We have this great word in the English language: myth. To many, a myth is defined as a false or misleading story, but that is not what a myth is. A myth is simply a story crafted to communicate a truth so profound that it would be impossible or else dry to communicate it in literal terms. In this sense, I have no problem saying that Genesis is a myth.
But before I get to the textual evidence, it’s worth asking if we would really get any deep meaning from the first three chapters of Genesis if it were not literally true. This is a very important exercise, because the Creationists often say that if evolution is true, then the Genesis story is worth nothing. Well, let’s list the things we learn in those few verses: 1) the relationship of God to humans, 2) the relationship of humans to each other, 3) the relationship of humans to animals, 4) the relationship of humans to the environment, 5) the relationship of humans to sin, 6) the need for redemption, and 7) the relationship of humans to work. You know – just random theological tidbits like that. I’m sure there are many more things there, but this list is enough to prove my point that the first three chapters of Genesis are absolutely packed to the brim with meaning. And keep in mind, none of those truths depend on a literal reading.
In fact, the only thing that would be gained through a literal reading is a science lesson. YAWN. Why would God spend time teaching us science? The purpose of the Bible is not to give us irrelevant facts, but is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). How would your spiritual and moral life be affected at all if you knew how much time it took for God to create the earth?
And here’s the proof that Genesis 1-3 is not literal. Read the first chapter of Genesis, and then read the second chapter. Then do it again more closely. Then do it a third time. Notice anything? That’s right: the timelines in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are totally different! For instance, in Genesis 1 the creation order is plants, animals, and then humans. In Genesis 2, the order is humans, plants, and then animals. So the next time you meet a Creationist would insists that Genesis must be literal because God would never lie to us, ask him whether God was lying in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2! And then tell them not to worry, because there’s plenty of earth-shaking theology there in the text even without the science lesson.
