Biblical Chronology: Literal or Allegorical?

Vol. 1 - Chapter 1.1 - Orthodox Teachings on Creation and the Theory of Evolution

A new chapter has been translated, and is ready for you to read below! — Excited readers from around the world have joined forces, via an overwhelmingly successful campaign on Indiegogo, to translate three spectacular volumes on Creation & Evolution from Russian into English. One of the campaign perks is to “Get each chapter online, early!” — giving supporters the opportunity to read each chapter online as soon as it is translated — and this is one of those chapters, hot off the press…

Orthodox Teachings on Creation and the Theory of Evolution

Chapter 1.1 — About the Bible and Biblical Chronology

Not all people perceive the text of the Bible as sacred and historically accurate. The first chapters of the Book of Genesis are particularly difficult for many modern readers to comprehend.

People raised on evolutionary teachings find it difficult to accept some of the biblical evidence "as written". Therefore, a number of proponents of the theory of evolution argue that the first chapters of the Book of Genesis "are written from the beginning with the language of images and allegories" and that therefore "they cannot be understood in the literal sense, but only as images, parables and symbols" [52, p. 45].

1. About the literal, non-allegorical understanding of the Six Days by the holy Fathers

1.1 A literal and allegorical understanding of the Bible

In the tradition of sacred theology, different pages of Holy Scripture are not commonly perceived in the same way. It is proper to take some biblical verses literally, while others are properly taken allegorically. This latter way of reading requires caution and reasoning.

St. John Cassian of Rome wrote, "Of those things which are expressed in clear words we can firmly determine and boldly pronounce our opinion. But as for those subjects which, giving to our reflection and exercise, the Spirit of God has placed in the Holy Scriptures, desiring that they should be inferred from certain signs and suppositions, these should be discussed slowly and cautiously, so that their verification or confirmation depends on the discretion of the reasoner or receiver." [64, с. 308]

The Roman historian Paulus Orosius counted "ten persecutions from Nero to Maximian" [110, p. 468], which the Church of Christ endured. He pointed out that these persecutions corresponded to the ten Egyptian persecutions described in the Book of Exodus. For all the outward "persuasiveness" of such an allegorical interpretation, his close friend, St. Augustine, in On the City of God, assessed his companion's attempted interpretation of scripture thus: "I do not think that those events in Egypt were prototypes of the persecutions; though those who think so with apparent subtlety and wit compare each execution with each of the persecutions, not according to the prophetic spirit, but according to the conjecture of the human mind, which sometimes reaches the truth, but sometimes is deceived." [quoted from: 110, p. 468]

Thus this example of allegorical interpretation of the Bible has been rejected by the Church, even though outwardly it may seem quite convincing (and even executed with "subtlety and wit").

Here is another example of an allegorical, or rather prophetic, interpretation of the Word of God, which may not seem quite obvious to some, but which is, however, accepted by the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The Biblical episode about the ascension of the prophet Elijah in a chariot of fire into heaven (2 Kings 2:11-12) is perceived in liturgical tradition as a prototype of the Ascension of Jesus Christ:

Strange is Thy Nativity, strange is Thy Resurrection, strange and awesome is Thy divine Ascension from the mountain, O Giver of Life, which was depicted before by Elijah's ascent in the chariot, hymning Thee, O Lover of Mankind. [160] (Ascension, canon 2, song 5, troparion 2)

Confirmation of the validity of the fact that Elijah's ascension is prototypical, depicting the Ascension of the Savior, can be found in the writings of the holy Fathers.

St. Gregory the Dialogist: "Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot, as proof that as a man he could not do without external aids. This aid was given to him by the angels, when he ascended to heaven, because he himself could not ascend there, because his natural weakness did not allow him to separate from the earth. Yet the Savior did not need a chariot, nor did he need angels, for the Creator ascended to heaven by His own divine power." [quoted from: 46, pp. 784-785] (May)

Both literal and allegorical readings of the Bible can be found in our book. The choice of interpretation seems to us a natural and simple matter: one should understand Scripture as the holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church commented on it. And, if possible, we should refrain from those versions of understanding which we do not find in the writings of the saints.

Thus, in the chapter "Adam as a type of Christ", we give many allegorical interpretations, which greatly enrich and expand our understanding of God's Word. In the present chapter on the Six Days, all the interpretations given are literal, for the saints have left us no other judgments on this dogmatic subject.

***

In antiquity there were two famous theological schools, the Alexandrian and the Antiochian. The first was known for its tradition of allegorical interpretation. The second was the literal interpretation of the biblical text. Sometimes one encounters the opinion that the question of the biblical Six Days in these schools was solved differently: in the "Alexandrian" school - allegorically, in the "Antiochian" school - literally.

However, this is not the case. In this chapter we show that without exception all the saints, representatives of both theological schools (as well as church teachers from other Orthodox schools) took the Six Days of the prophet Moses literally.

1.2 A Literal Approach to the Events of the Six Days.

All "Christian evolutionists" accept the allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic text. They are forced to do so because the traditional literal reading of the Bible contradicts their worldview. When it comes to interpreting the Bible, evolutionists are guided by their "scientific criteria" rather than by the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

One "Orthodox evolutionist" states:

"The language of the first chapter of the Bible is the language of Myth" [98, p. 87].

Characteristically another author writes:

"It is unlikely that in the time of Moses, when the book of Genesis was written, the inflationary theory of the origin of the universe could have been understood. To correspond to any epoch, the language of the Bible must be allegorical, and its texts must be interpreted according to the level of knowledge of a particular historical epoch." [180, с. 325]

These thoughts are purely speculative. The Bible should not be used, as C.S. Lewis put it, as "a rack for hanging one's own thoughts" [89]. The Word of God contains truth that does not depend on "the level of knowledge of a particular historical age". It is not by scientific knowledge that we interpret the Word of God correctly, but by following the tradition of the Church, the spiritual legacy of the holy Fathers, who passed on the baton of the prophets and apostles. The Fathers sought to have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). Therefore, an appeal to their spiritual legacy brings us into the mystical fullness and depth of the Church's Tradition.

The language of the Bible is allegorical, not in the down-to-earth, profane sense suggested by evolutionists, but in the ecclesial sense inherited from the holy Fathers. It is not safe to introduce new "allegories" in the spiritual sense. It is fraught with distortions of meaning, even up to sacrilege and direct blasphemy against the Creator. The allegorical meaning of the biblical texts should not be taken from scholars or modernist theologians, but from the holy Fathers.

It should be emphasized with all certainty: the tradition of the sacred Fathers does not use an allegorical mode of interpretation in relation to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. To be more precise, in regard to the writings of the prophet Moses, of course figurative speech and allegory can be applied to the Six Days (as to any other text) - but the Orthodox Church does not allow for theological interpretations on this subject that would deny the literal historical meaning of the narrative of God's first creative week.

"Orthodox evolutionists" write to the contrary:

"The most fruitful approach is an allegorical interpretation of the text of Genesis." [181, p. 217]

"Many scholars and theologians see possible ways of bringing science and religion together in an allegorical interpretation of the biblical text on the creation of the world... This is the most productive approach, and it has been followed by many theologians from the holy fathers to modern authors." [180, с. 329]

One cannot agree with these thoughts. For the holy Fathers, the allegorical interpretation of a text was a means of elevating the reader to a more subtle and elevated spiritual realm, rather than relegating the content of the Word of God to mechanics and physiology. This may be the reason why the holy Fathers did not leave us any allegorical interpretations of the Bible. If there are some thoughts of allegorical nature in the holy Fathers, the interpreters of the Six Days, then, firstly, they never deny the direct literal meaning, and secondly, they are a retreat from the main theme in the moral and philosophical direction, but not in the direction of cosmogony. The proposed "allegorical" reading of the biblical text in a more crude, physical, material sense than that written by the prophet Moses (as "orthodox evolutionists" constantly do) can hardly even be called allegorical, but should rather be recognized as a profanation.

The question of Creation is dogmatic, that is, doctrinal. It is included in the Creed and invariably occupies one of the first places (both in its significance and in the sequence of the presentation of the dogmas) in all Orthodox treatises on dogmatic theology, beginning with St. John of Damascus' Exact Presentation of the Orthodox Faith. For example, in Archbishop Macarius (Bulgakov)'s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, the section "On God as Creator" is over 150 pages long [92, pp. 350-512].

Let us also pay attention to when verses from the biblical Six Days are read in Orthodox worship.

This narrative from the Book of Genesis is heard as a reading at Great Vespers at the beginning of Lent, and also on the eve of three major feasts of the Lord: Easter, Christmas, and Epiphany. The inclusion of the theme of the Six Days in the service of Holy Saturday and the services on the eve of the great feasts testifies to the crucial importance of these pages of the Old Testament in the Church's dogmatic teaching about God the Creator.

Many symbols and allegories can also be found in other dogmatic themes of Scripture — for example, in the pages of the Gospel that tell of the Savior's Passion or of His Resurrection. Not to take them literally, but to see them as symbols without historical content, is tantamount to a distortion of Orthodox doctrine. This is fully true of the biblical theme of Creation. This is one of the reasons why none of the teachers of the Church took the Six Days of Moses the Prophet as an allegory.

Here are characteristic opinions of the holy Fathers about their attitude toward the events of the Six Days.

St. Augustine, in a treatise with the remarkable title: "On the Book of Genesis, Literally" — he wrote: "Thus the words: 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' (Genesis 1:1) may be the subject of the following investigation: whether they must be understood only in a historical sense, or whether they also mean something allegorically, how they agree with the Gospel, and for what reason the book of Genesis begins this way. In the historical sense, further, it is possible to ask what 'in the beginning' means, i.e., whether in the beginning of time, or in the Beginning - in the Wisdom of God itself." [1, с. 99].

St. Ephraim the Syrian: "One must know that just as heaven and earth, and not anything else, is meant by the name of heaven and earth, so what is said about everything else that was created and put in order after the creation of heaven and earth, does not contain empty names, but the force of these names corresponds to the very essence of the created natures." [42, с. 211]

St. Basil the Great: "The rules of allegories are known to me, although I did not invent them myself, but found them in the works of others. According to these rules some people, taking what is written in a sense not generally used, call water not as water, but as any other substance, give a meaning to plants and fish at their discretion, and even explain the being of creeping things and beasts according to their understanding, like the interpreters of dreams give interpretations to the dream they see, according to their own understanding of what is going on in their dreams. But when I hear about the grass, I mean grass; I also mean the plant, fish, beast, and cattle, and whatever it is called, I take it for that. For I am not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1: 16)" [18, 157-158]. In the opinion of this universal teacher, to substitute the literal meaning of the Six Days with an allegorical interpretation "is to setup oneself as wiser than the words of the Spirit, and under the guise of interpretation to introduce one's own thoughts. Therefore let us understand it as it is written." [18, 159]

Saint John Chrysostom: "Not to believe what is contained in Divine Scripture, but to introduce another from one's own mind, this, I think, subjects to great danger those who have ventured to such an undertaking." [60, с. 106] "We explain it this way, not because we understand the words as allegory, but because we have discerned it in history itself. It is one thing to forcibly turn history into allegory, and another thing to preserve both history and to invent a higher meaning." [62, с. 767]

***

An evolutionist’s reading of the biblical Six Days denies a literal understanding of it and thus "turns history into an allegory".

The only deviation from the literal understanding of the Six Days in the sacred tradition is the perception of verbal anthropomorphisms addressed to Him, such as "saw", "planted", "set", "rested", etc., which is proper for an incorporeal God. Such expressions, as St. John Chrysostom writes, should be perceived as "appropriate to God" [60, с. 106].

Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) rightly noted: "We are not free to interpret Sacred Scripture as we please, but we must follow the holy Fathers. I am afraid that not everyone who talks about the Book of Genesis and evolution pays attention to this principle." [135, p. 467]

---

Funds have been successfully raised to complete the translation of the first volume in this set. If you would like to support the ongoing effort to translate volumes 2 and 3, go online to the Indiegogo campaign, Creation & Evolution - Groundbreaking New Book Set, making a generous donation and selecting one of the available perks. Thank you for supporting this noble effort, helping get these three volumes translated into English!