Literal Reading
(stub) (incorporate old material? start again? Problems with Literal Readings of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3)
Examples of literal readings
"We accept the creation record as literal in its details." — IEAC, Reaffirmation Statement Concerning Creation and the Fall of Man
Creation in six days
Additional "Doctrines to be Rejected" (from the Constitution of the Tea Tree Gully Ecclesia, South Australia)
- #36.[1] That the presence of all matter is seen to be the outworking of the process of evolution and that the complex forms of life on earth, including man himself, came into being by what is known as "natural selection" and are not the work of an intelligent Creator.
- #37.[2] That the theory of evolution is the true explanation of the method used by God as the Creator of the heavens and earth, and that the idea of a special creation accomplished in a six day period is unscientific and unscriptural.
- (It is unclear whether this additional clause 37 was intended to make belief in a six day "accomplishment" of creation obligatory even for those who reject evolution. What is clear, though: those who thought the addition was necessary didn't believe non-literal readings were already precluded!) – BP
- (It is unclear whether this additional clause 37 was intended to make belief in a six day "accomplishment" of creation obligatory even for those who reject evolution. What is clear, though: those who thought the addition was necessary didn't believe non-literal readings were already precluded!)
- The "God says" argument depends on the assumption that a literal reading is the only correct way to read particular verses. With respect to creation in six days, it has been used to accuse Evolutionary Creationists of believing "that as far as the [Genesis ch. 1] creation record is concerned the Bible does not mean what it says".
Literal serpent, etc, understood to be the "rationale" of Jesus Christ and the Gospel
In summary then this debate about a secondary line of evolving beings existing as contemporaries with Adam and Eve is not just a fanciful idea – it is contrary to the principles of our Statement of Faith and a departure from the Christadelphian faith.
If the Genesis account is metaphorical there is no literal serpent, no tree of knowledge of good and evil, no lie, no fruit, no sin, no sentence of death; Jesus Christ, our Saviour and his Gospel of salvation have no rationale or basis, as set forward by the Apostle Paul in Romans etc.
(as of February 2024, hidden behind paywall)
Compare "Plan B".
Flat Earth Beliefs
Leading 20th Century flat earther Charles K Johnson “sincerely believed that a literal reading of the Bible required one to recognize that the world is flat.” See at Isaiah 40:22
A proof that the serpent was literal
- It is sometimes claimed that 2 Corinthians 11:3 (...as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty...) is an "endorsement" of the interpretation that the serpent must have been literal. The context, however, also includes mention of Satan's ministers and Satan himself, about which the same claims are not made by Cristadelphians.
Examples of non-literal readings
Ancient examples
where non-literal is required
- Ezekiel 37:7-10
- Compressed Genealogies must not be read literally
- See discussion of the example of Jesus below.
- An ancient non-literal reading of Genesis 1:6-9 by Basil of Caesarea (329-379) is here.
A similar approach in modern times: the limits of literal reading
- Is there, or has there been, in the wilderness of outside of it, a mountain from which all kingdoms could be seen at once? One can almost hear the rejoinder that these things are written, and we must believe them. True; but perhaps they can be understood in another way. . . . Any interpretation of Scripture that does not make sense must be rejected.
- See A review of historical Christadelphian approaches for comments by bro C. C. Walker relevant to the Bible's use of long and short (i.e. literal) "days" and "hours":
". . . we believe that Genesis, chapter i. furnishes the most remarkable and controverted example [of non-literal time periods]."
- Bro Mike Pearson lists references in The Fourth Conversation to show that Christadelphian authors who did not consider the six days of Genesis 1 as literal, consecutive days include: Henry Sulley, Peter Watkins, John Carter, Alfred Norris, L G Sargent, H A Whittaker, Alan Fowler, Alan Hayward, Alan Eyre, and Wilfred Lambert.
A Jewish approach
See Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' comments about Jewish thought, particularly point 4, about training in the multiple interpretations that can be given to any text, and the error of fundamentalism.
A Scholarly approach
Brother Wilfred Lambert argues against assuming that a literal reading is required:
The major problem of the two accounts of creation is that while for Christian faith they must be true, there are difficulties in harmonising them with the facts of geology and palaeontology. By stating the problem in this way we have already prejudiced the issues. Truth has been assumed to be literal truth only. We have prejudged what God intended by these narratives. We have raised difficulties which come from our particular cultural background. We are wanting God’s word to conform to our way of thinking. There is something both naive and arrogant in such a stance. The Scriptures were surely meant to communicate God’s will and purposes to believers all down the ages, not only to 20th century believers in a western intellectual environment. If one insists that Scripture, being true, cannot conflict with the facts of science, the person making such a claim is presuming that his own science is infallibly correct. Perhaps God’s science is better than ours, and in any case believers before 1800 AD had very little science judged by our own age, yet God was appealing to them as well through his self-revelation in Scripture.
A further serious objection to those who insist that Genesis 1–3 must be wholly literal truth is that any narrative may be mixed in this respect: in part literally true, in part true in other senses. There is very little literature that belongs wholly to one category or the other. What appears from a superficial reading as literal only, usually turns out on deeper inspection to have its share of metaphor and other forms of figurative language with which the casual reader is so familiar that he fails to note that literally these items should be judged as untrue. When the prophet said, ‘All flesh is grass,’ he communicated the basic truth of human mortality in words that are literally untrue. Flesh is not grass – ask the scientists!
— Wilfred Lambert, Creation A Christadelphian Study—Understanding Genesis chapters 1-3, pub. L Boddy, 1998
Full text of the the study is here.
Importance to Christadelphian Beliefs
Bro Jonathan Pogson gives examples of traditional Christadelphian non-literal interpretations of Scripture that are important to our faith in a literal saviour, Jesus Christ, in his open letter to Australian Ecclesias.
Arguments against Literal Reading
Errors caused by unwarranted literal readings
- The paper Should Christadelphians reject the sciences, become biblical literalists, or teach ‘young earth creationism’? by bro Alan Eyre outlines errors that arise as a consequence of unwarranted literal readings.
- Hyper-literal reading of selected verses of early Genesis, and misreading of Paul's speech to the Areopagus, etc. leads to the acceptance of the concept of Primordial Incest.
Textual Indications that we are not to read literally
- See Genesis 1:11-12 and Does Genesis 1:26 refer to Adam or humankind? for links to discussion of internal textual evidence that the seven-day framework of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is not to be taken literally.
- See also Non-literal days in the Bible.
- Comparing Scripture with Scripture can often expose the weakness of an inappropriately literal reading:
- see notes at Psalm 33:6-9 and Psalm 68:11.
- see the problem with reading both Job 38:4-7 and Genesis 1:14-19 literally. What should we learn from that? See here.
Literal readings fail in practice
- Follow the link to this comprehensive list of Passages said to imply literal Genesis and see how many of them you can actually read literally.
- Consider a serious attempt to understand literally one important aspect of Adam's creation at Breath of Life#literal
The Example of Jesus
Jesus' own rhetorical language against literal reading
See at Have ye never read?
An extract from an article by the Christadelphians Origins Discussion group:
. . . Jesus warned a literal approach to the Scripture could disguise bad judgement. Caution is warranted. Consider the Sabbath law. The law was absolute. No work was to be done on the Sabbath. The penalty for working was death (Exod 31:14-15). The definition of work extended to things like collecting and cooking food which was to be done the day prior as with the manna Exod 16:23. The first transgressor was an individual who was collecting sticks – presumably to keep the home fire burning – and was killed as a result Num 15:32.
The gospels paint a picture of Jewish literalists taking great umbrage at Jesus’ apparent disregard for the literal meaning of the Sabbath. Why could good works not be deferred till the next day? The law was simple and clear. Jesus explained how the literal approach to the Scripture missed the point
. . . .
[Jesus was arguably] discarding the simple literal meaning of the text . . . [but] substituting the black and white text with the living intention of God. . . .
Does a non-literal reading of early Genesis pose problems?
From an email by one of our members:
Hi Bro ______,
You mentioned tonight in the class that you didn’t consider the early chapters of Genesis were literal. This poses problems that you may or may not realise. This may be the case too with those at the class, so I have copied them into this email.
Please explain to us, perhaps in your next class, answers to the following questions that arise if Genesis is not literal:
See the questions, and participate in discussion, at Questions if Genesis is not Literal. Note the comments about "lying".
Problems arising from a literal reading
Very relevant: C. C. Walker's Is it wrong to believe that the earth is a sphere?
Also see Isaiah 40:22 and information there about the Biblical motivation for the International Flat Earth Society.
Is truly literal reading even possible?
See above at Literal readings fail in practice.
Claiming to read literally doesn't mean doing it
"Most people who claim they read Genesis 1 “literally” don’t. They believe that what they believe about Genesis 1 is literal. But they aren’t reading Genesis 1 literally.
"If we read Genesis 1 literally, we come out with a very different picture than most literalists imagine. Indeed, we find ourselves firmly planted in the Hebrew worldview—an ancient worldview. And, if we know our history, we know that the Hebrews had no concept of a round earth that coursed around the sun. They believed the earth was flat, the sky was a dome, and the sun revolved around the earth."
