Does Reading Genesis as Metaphor Cast Doubt on Its Historicity?

In my recent article, How Should We Interpret What the Bible Says, I emphasized the importance of deciding what matters most to us: grammar or history. Chadwick Beiler responded in the comment section with some really thoughtful questions about what I said and so I decided to turn my response to him into another article. Perhaps you had similar question.

In my previous article, I used Genesis as an example of why we need to figure out what is more important to us (grammar or history). I referenced how if we understand Genesis through a primarily historical background, we will realize that most epics of origin in the Ancient Near East (ANE) used a lot of metaphor and figures of speech. Mr. Beiler felt that reading Genesis as metaphor cast doubt on the literal/historical interpretation of Genesis and wondered if I intended to do that or if I could explain more of what I was talking about.

We had some back and forth in the comment section (which you can read the comments here), but I felt his questions were so good that they deserved a more in-depth response than I was giving in the comment section.

So over the next several articles, I’m going to address the following five questions Mr. Beiler presented to me:

1. What discrepancies are we trying to clear up in Genesis by reading it as metaphor and what problems are there with a strong, literal interpretation?
2. If we approach Genesis with a historical/cultural perspective of an ANE epic, are we not reinterpreting what is clearly said in scripture based on things mere men say of history?
3. Doesn’t reading Genesis as metaphor open the door to viewing the earth as Old or redefining marriage?
4. Is it possible to know the historical background of the ANE as well as we do of New Testament letters, such as 1 Corinthians?
5. If we miss historical background of Genesis, are we forever doomed to misunderstand its message?

Again, these are great questions! I am personally in favor of wrestling through the many different views people come at scripture with because it helps solidify for ourselves our confidence in God and his word.

I do not think we should teach only the approach we have personally settled on, especially in a day and age where people will undoubtedly be presented with alternative approaches through digital and online media, the mass production of resources, or friendships with other Christians. It’s important that we can engage thoughtfully and respectfully with them, even if we disagree.

So much of the animosity that happens between Christians who disagree has more to do with not understanding each other than it has to do with being an eternally critical issue. And it never works to insist on being understood. We ought to be trying to understand others.

That’s exactly what I sense Mr. Beiler doing here.

It’s also exactly why my original article did not say what I believe about Genesis and how we should approach it. I was not trying to help people interpret Genesis in that article. Rather, I was trying to stir up within them an awareness of why it’s important to decide what matters more to us: grammar or history.

I think I succeeded. 🙂

If you have not read the article yourself, to help you understand where the following articles are coming from, let me share an excerpt of the original:

Most Bible scholars will talk about the Grammatical-Historical Method of studying the Bible. This means we look at what the text actually says (grammatical) and compare it with what we discover of historical background to the audience the text was written for (historical) and blend the information together to come to a conclusion. Often, they will present it as if fifty percent of our study should be grammatical and fifty percent should be historical.

In reality, however, we usually are banking primarily on either what the text says or on what the historical background we know about the audience suggests we should conclude about the text.

So, for you and I, we need to figure out what is most important to us. If historical background suggests we should conclude something that seems different than what is actually said, does that matter to us? If understanding a passage by only what is written ignores the overwhelming reality that its audience would have heard something different, does that matter to us?

This has significant implications for how we understand Genesis 1 and 2. Most epics of origin at the time of the writing of Genesis would have been filled with metaphor and imagery not meant to be taken literally but explored for its deeper meanings.

So how should we understand Genesis? Just take what is actually said and interpret it according to how we would interpret such things today? Or do we explore how the people in the time of Moses would have taken such writings?

As you can see, I am not projecting a particular way of interpreting Genesis but attempting to provoke thought about why it’s important to decide what matters most to us when it comes to reconciling historical background with what the text actually says.

I will admit that because I am assuming most of my readership interprets Genesis through a fairly literal, Young Earth Creationist (YEC) perspective, I framed it in such a way that would stir up within such people some questions—questions like Mr. Beiler presented.

I also want to emphasize on the outset that my personal commitment is to be as faithful as I can to what the text actually says.

As an author myself, I know the value and use of figures of speech such as metaphor, analogy, simile, hyperbole and so forth. I also know that I don’t use random examples in my analogies or hyperboles.

So, when I discover that a particular biblical author may be writing in a different genre of literature than what I was first imagining—say, using a metaphor instead of detailing an event—I don’t believe that means I can then choose random, abstract meanings for what the author is saying through that metaphor. While the particulars of said metaphor may not have actually happened, I believe we have to assume the particulars of said metaphor still have a point in understanding what happened.

With that, when I am wanting to be “faithful to what the text actually says,” I’m not going to stop with what gets translated into the English (or whatever language I’m reading from). Rather, I want to do the work of understanding what is said in its original language and how what was said would have been taken in its original language.

Again, I appeal to my experience as an author for why this is important. There are illustrations I use in my book Live Free to make a particularly specific point that would be entirely missed by someone without awareness of the common experiences of twenty-first century America.

I reference side-bar ads with absolutely no explanation. Young people today don’t even know what I mean by side-bar ads because they all use mobile devices when accessing the internet. Furthermore, the side-bar ads have completely changed in format. They don’t function the way they used to. Extrapolate that out several thousand years and people won’t have the slightest clue what I’m referring to (assuming my book lasts that long 😉 ).

So when someone says, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” I have red-flags that go up.

God said what?

God did not say specifically what you read in English.

God breathed out the breath of life, His Holy Spirit, and stirred up within godly men a message to put into their own languages that would communicate to humanity his design and purpose for all of creation (Gen. 1:2b, John 16:13, 2Tim. 3:16).

It’s not as simple as “wrestling with what we have in English.” We have to wrestle with another language. And whenever working with understanding another language, we realize the importance of understanding culture in order to accurately understand that language.

My perspective is that most literal, YEC explanations of Genesis have some problems with the way they are presented and that’s why I think it’s worth revisiting. I also believe that many Old Earth or evolutionary explanations of Genesis project too much into the Biblical narrative. Both of the last two sentences deserve their own series of articles, so in this series I’m simply going to touch on elements as it relates to YEC explanations of Genesis. Besides, I have a lot I’m still parsing out as it concerns the second sentence. 🙂

In my next article, I’m going to address the questions of what discrepancies reading Genesis as metaphor might help clear up and what problems exist with strong, literal interpretations.

Until then, I’d love to hear any thoughts or questions you have. Who knows, you might provoke the next series of articles. 🙂 You can share in the comments below. God bless!