Genesis 1: Mirror-Reading vs Allegorical
/This is a compare and contrast between the two different approaches that Travis Finley, from Rethinking Revelation, and myself take when interpreting the Bible. I only briefly summarize his position here, so be sure to check out this website where he has lots of articles and podcast episodes on the topic. I’ve done one other compare and contrast post called Mirror-reading vs John Piper. The mirror-reading below is only a cursory mirror-reading which suggests some possible mirrors but doesn’t provide the detailed causal connections that my Mira Scriptura methodology would normally provide. If you would like to see all of my mirror-readings, check out this page.
Even though our hermeneutical approaches are different, Travis and I do share some common ground. For one, he’s interviewed some of the same guests that I interviewed on my now defunct RE2 podcast (Chris Date, Mike Heiser, John Walton, Brian Godawa). We also both have issues with Bible translators not being consistent in their translating of words. I point out, in this post, how important keywords and phrases are in mirror-reading.
We also both believe that the Bible is propaganda (although I think it’s more political than theological propaganda in most of the OT). Lastly, we are both passionate about knowing the original intent of the Biblical authors, and we both believe that readers are missing information when reading the Bible. However, we differ on how to fill that gap. Travis uses a meta-narrative while using allegory. I use opposing narratives while using mirror-reading.
Although I am open to allegorical interpretation (see my post on how Habakkuk has more than one layer of meaning), I come into conflict with those who say certain parts of the Bible are strictly allegorical when I see mirror-reading showing me that it was meant to be taken literally. Having said that though, I do think that much of Travis’ allegorical interpretations are a stretch and I’d like to see his methodology refined, which prompted me to write “A Call for An Allegorical Methodology”. I think even the original readers would have had a hard time connecting the dots that Travis puts forth.
I take Genesis 1 to be the work of what’s called the Priestly source, which I’ll simply refer to as "P" for the rest of this post. P is characterized by his lists and attention to the boring details that he adds to the Biblical narrative. So he doesn’t seem like an allegorical type right from the get go. To learn about my conversion to the supplementary hypothesis, listen here.
Travis has not worked out an allegorical interpretation for all of Genesis 1 (at least to my knowledge), so his views are missing from quite a few sections below. He would point anyone wanting to learn more about allegorical interpretation to the work of James Jordan. I hope to present Travis’ views accurately, but if I’m off, he is free to let me know, so I can correct, or he can simply clarify or expand in the comments section below (less work for me!).
Also, I should note, although the title says Genesis 1, the P creation account extends to Genesis 2:4, which my comments will address.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Allegorical:
Travis takes genesis 1 (and 2) eschatological, which symbolically shows the redemptive history of the nation of Israel. Thus, God creating the heavens and earth is about the creation of Israel as a nation.
Travis points to elsewhere in the Bible to show how “heavens and earth” is used metaphorically to refer to Israel. He cites examples in the prophetic writings such as Isaiah, as well as Deut. 32, where sand and stars are used to describe Abraham’s offspring, and in Genesis where Joseph’s dream uses sun, moon and stars to describe his family. If it’s symbolic there, Travis claims, then the original readers would have automatically assumed Genesis 1 was an allegory referring to Israel, even though there are no explicit indicators in Genesis 1 that would tell us to take it allegorically.
Also, because Deut 32 says that God “created” Israel, this is further evidence that Genesis 1 is talking about Israel when God created the heavens and earth.
He also feels “earth” is better translated “land” (as do I), and since it’s taken in a restricted local sense elsewhere in the Bible, we should take it in a local sense in Gen 1, referring to the land of Israel.
The phrase “without form and void” shows up in Jeremiah, and since it refers to Israel there, it is further evidence that we should take Gen 1 allegorically.
Mirror-Reading:
“In the beginning”: Did God not create the heavens and earth in the beginning? Other ancient myths told of gods ascending, so even though their god was the “top god”, that god may not have been the creator god. Was the same thing being said about the God of Israel? Is this what P was responding to? These and other questions I raise below would need to be verified and causally connected from other statements made in the priestly source, as put forth in my Mira Scriptura mirror-reading method.
We see that the Gospel of John was responding to a similar opposing narrative that was saying that the apostles were teaching something different than what they had taught in the beginning. John responds to this and in the process alludes to Gen 1.
“God created the heavens and the earth”: Did God not create the heavens? Or the earth? Or neither? Throughout the OT, Biblical authors seem to be responding to an opposing narrative that God was not a god of fertility or a god of war, or that He was only a god of chaos, destruction and darkness. P may be responding to something similar, in that, an opposing narrative was trying to relegate God’s dominion to either the heavens only or the earth only.
Although I agree with Travis that “earth” is better translated as “land”, it is still a reference to all of the land, as it is in contrast to all of the water.
The earth was without form and void: Gen 1 and Jeremiah’s use of this phrase is connected but not in the way that Travis thinks. Again, P was responding to an opposing narrative. Steven DiMattei does a good job explaining the situation that P was responding to:
That is to say, the author of Genesis 1 purposely composed his creation narrative to portray the creator deity creating habitable earth from a desolate formless void (a tohu wabohu) in order to console his sixth-century audience who saw themselves living upon desolate, barren, and uninhabitable land. It is meant as an affirmative message: that as God had created a habitable earth from a preexistent formless waste (tohu wabohu), so too he can, and will, reestablish the land of Judah as habitable from its current condition of desolation and barrenness: “He did not create it a desolation (tohu), but formed it to be habitable.”
DiMattei, Steven. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs (pp. 17-18). Wipf and Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Allegorical:
Again, Travis takes light to refer to Israel since the nation is described elsewhere in the Bible in terms of light, such as being “a light unto the nations”.
Days are periods of time in Israel’s history.
Mirror-Reading:
Let there be light,” and there was light: This is one of many examples of a command/compliance motif in Gen 1. God commands it, it gets done. Later in the P text, this command/compliance theme is used to support P’s laws and for the exclusivity of Aaronic priesthood, which is a major issue in P.
God saw that the light was good: Did God not see light was good? This ties in with the previous phrase, and it raises the question, what kind of God was God? P responds that God is not a God of darkness, but that light originated with God, and God sees light as good.
This theme of God seeing things as good is repeated throughout the P creation account. We should not place so much emphasis on what God saw as good, or which days do not mention that God saw as good. Rather, we should realize that the things that God saw as good were the things being challenged by the opposing narrative, that was saying God did not see them as good.
And God separated the light from the darkness: This is one of the main themes of P: dividing the holy from the unholy, the clean from the unclean. Keep in mind that holy simply means set apart. In the context of the Bible, it usually means set apart for God. But it also implies that God is a God of order, not of chaos. This modus operandi of God is established on the first day of creation.
This theme of dividing is also used to support the function of the Aaronic priesthood:
In other words, the priestly writer portrayed the creator god in his composition not only according to the terms that best exemplified and legitimated his own worldview and cultic concerns, but also according to the functions of his own profession as a priest: separating, consecrating, and blessing.
DiMattei, Steven. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs (p. 78). Wipf and Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
And there was evening and there was morning: This is a further example of how God divides things.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Mirror-Reading:
let it separate the waters from the waters: Again, this is about division, The expanse or “firmament”, in some translations, is referring to the Hebrew cosmology that was common in the ancient near east. If you are not familiar with that cosmology, see here.
And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Mirror-Reading:
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear: Dividing. See comments above.
And it was so: Command/Compliance. See comments above.
And God saw that it was good: God saw as good. See comments above.
And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Allegorical:
The Hebrew here refers to only grass, herbs and fruit trees. Travis takes this as an indicator that we should read it allegorically, since, if it was meant to be taken literally, it would have mentioned all types of vegetation.
Mirror-Reading:
Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed: P may have only referenced these types of vegetation because they were the only types being challenged by the opposing narrative. Since they were the only ones being challenged, there was no need to mention any others. To argue otherwise is to argue from silence. The vegetation mentioned was also food, and the opposing narrative may have been calling some of those “kinds” unclean and forbidden for people to eat. If P was aware of the Yahwist source, he may be responding to the misinterpretation of the forbidden fruit narrative. Leviticus 19:23 may be at play here too: “When you come into the land and plant any kind of tree for food, then you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten.
And it was: Command/Compliance. See comments above.
And God saw that it was good: God saw as good. See comments above.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Mirror-Reading:
to separate the day from the night: Dividing. See comments above.
And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years: This is one of three parts in the creation account that conflicts with a strictly allegorical interpretation. The argument that is being made by P is that the festivals of Israel must be celebrated because the time tables for them were built right into creation itself. If this is strictly allegorical then it would be of no value in supporting the positions made later in P regarding the festivals.
What this author has subtly done is to argue that there is no excuse for the nonobservance of these mo‘adim, of Yahweh’s festivals, given that the creator god himself created the luminaries so that mankind would know when these fixed times/festivals occurred and thus be able to observe them. In other words, according to the views and beliefs of the priest(s) who wrote Genesis 1:1—2:3, the inviolable obligation for all Israelites to observe Yahweh’s appointed holy days and festivals was directly woven into the very fabric of creation itself and indicated to mankind by way of the celestial luminaries which served as signs informing mankind when Yahweh’s fixed festivals were to be celebrated. There is no excuse for noncompliance. According to this author, and the god of his text, both the Torah (the book of Leviticus) and the world as the creator God created it bear witness to the eternal obligation of mankind to observe and keep Yahweh’s festivals.
DiMattei, Steven. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs (pp. 31-32). Wipf and Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
In other words, the moon was created first and foremost according to the priests who penned Genesis 1 so that Yahweh’s people would be able to ascertain when these sacred days, these eternal laws, occurred, which were woven directly into the fabric of creation. These eternal laws too, in other words, were deemed inherent parts of the creation, just as our author perceived the sun and seas as inherent parts of God’s creation.
DiMattei, Steven. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs (p. 115). Wipf and Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
separate the light from the darkness: Dividing. See comments above
And God saw that it was good: God saw as good. See comments above.
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
Mirror-Reading:
And God saw that it was good: God saw as good. See comments above
Be fruitful and multiply: A phrase that is used repeatedly in the P text: in the creation account, Noah and Abraham. This is a phrase that could be countering the idea that God did not want them to be fruitful and multiply.
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: Just like vegetation, the opposing narrative may have been saying that God did not create all of the living creatures.
And God saw that it was good: God saw as good. See comments above.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Let us make man in our image: The “our” here refers to a plurality. The idea of a divine council is discussed thoroughly by Michael Heiser. This infers that man had some divine aspects. In contrast to the Yahwist narrative, which seems to want to prevent man and woman from becoming too much like them, by forbidding the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the Tree of Life.
Perhaps God’s image is only for the basis for the P position in Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” This may be to counter the idea that animal blood could atone for the murder of a human. This is another part that conflicts with a strictly allegorical account. Without a literal interpretation, P has no basis for such a rule.
And let them have dominion over: This could be responding to the idea that some animals had dominion over man, or that God was not a God of order. By God setting someone over the animals shows that He provided some structure or rule over creation.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Mirror-Reading:
male and female he created them: The “male and female” phrase shows up later in the P text, during the flood narrative as the male and female animals are required in the ark by God. This could be to counter the idea that God did not create females or that females were not in the image of God - a misinterpretation that could have occurred by some reading the Yahwist account of Adam and Eve.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Mirror-Reading:
Be fruitful and multiply: Fruitful and multiply. See comments above.
have dominion over: Dominion. See comments above.
And it was so: God saw as good. See comments above.
Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food: This could have been countering the idea that some seed vegetation was unclean.
I have given every green plant for food: This could have been countering the idea that some vegetation was unclean for animals to eat.
everything that he had made: Throughout the P creation account, we can see that God is the one that made everything, but it becomes more obvious in the latter part of the account that P is responding to the idea that God did not create everything.
it was very good: God saw as good. See comments above. P tops off the “very good” issue by saying that God saw everything he made as very good. Not just some things. Everything.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Allegorical:
Travis is a preterist, so his meta-narrative culminates in the destruction of the heavens and the earth, which is symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, after which, God rests.
John 5 is used as further evidence: “My Father is working until now”.
Furthermore, since there is no evening on the 7th day, this is a reference to the constant light of Jesus and the new covenant as opposed to the dark periods of Israel’s history.
Mirror-Reading:
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them: It was all done. This could be responding to the idea that God did not finish creation and created other animals or plants at another time.
God finished his work that he had done: God made it. See comments above.
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy: Here is the 3rd point that I think conflicts with a strictly allegorical approach for this text. This verse is the logical basis for demanding that the Sabbath be observed (by penalty of death). If it wasn’t literal, P would have no support for such a rule.
We actually have the answers to these questions, and they are found in this author’s creation account: because the seventh day’s holiness is an intrinsic structure of the created world, consecrated and even observed by the creator god himself when he created the world. Any nonobservance, therefore, not only failed to recognize the sacred nature inherent in creation itself, but it was also a blatant and deliberate act of blasphemy against the creator God and his creation. This is why our priestly writers take such an uncompromising stance on the matter.
DiMattei, Steven. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs (p. 108). Wipf and Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The Priestly writer’s thesis is that by not observing this holy day, one not only intentionally transgresses one of Yahweh’s commandments, but more significantly this is a transgression of the worst degree since one has consciously and willingly elected to profane creation itself as well as the creator deity himself. How could there be a more severe crime than profaning God’s creation?
DiMattei, Steven. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs (p. 108). Wipf and Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
all his work that he had done: God made it. See comments above.
These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Allegorical:
Travis claims that this is another indicator that it should be taken as an allegory, since the heavens and earth can’t literally have sex and procreate the universe.
Mirror-Reading:
These are the generations: Just because generations is used metaphorically, does not demand that we take the whole account as allegorical. The point of the phrase is simply to say that this is an account of how the heavens and earth came to be.
the Lord God made: God made it. See comments above.