Symbolic or Literal, ctd.

2. Now, concerning the reference to the six days of creation. You will notice that the theistic evolution idea asks, "How do we understand Genesis One in light of science's revelations of a billion-year-old earth?" As I said in my post, it does not ask, "How do we understand science's theory of a billion-year-old earth in light of Genesis One?"

My return question would be: Which one cannot be wrong? Can science be wrong? Of course it can be wrong, and no scientist will deny it. For scientists are ready and willing to submit to peer review because it is so easy even for a scientist to draw wrong conclusions or fall into error. Also, they will change a prevailing theory as soon as some new theory seems to make more sense in covering a wider spectrum of conclusions. If you need proof of this you only need to read Dr. Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time. You will find that scientists have changed their minds on several theories.

On the other hand, can God's Word be wrong? Well, no one asks that except those who do not believe it. The only thing the Christian evolutionists wish to change is men's conclusion that a literal translation is the right one when, as they claim, there are other equal and equally valid views which are more consistent with general revelation. They do not intend to indicate that they think the Bible could be wrong, for their stated intention is to show that the Bible would be interpreted rightly if it was interpreted differently, therefore assuming the Bible is always right.

The problem is two-fold, at the very least. First, the different interpretations are not equal. And second, evolution is assumed to be the same as general revelation, since they are interchanged here as if they are the same thing. For the second problem let us notice that it is one thing to say that general revelation is completely harmonious with special revelation, and it is another to say that the Bible is to be completely harmonious with evolution and therefore we are compelled to re-interpret the Word of God. They do not even speak of letting the Word speak for itself, but want to re-interpret the Word, including changing some articles of faith that have been there from the beginning. They demand an imported interpretation on the Word of God. And those who are dedicated to Sola Scriptura object to this.

For the first problem, we are faced with a question of whether a symbolic or a literal meaning is original to the Bible's own meaning because they are claimed to be equal. The Christian groups which believe in evolution would like you to think that all the symbolic interpretations are equal to the literal one, and therefore equally valid. So, let’s assume for a moment that they are.

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, if there is a question of interpretation the one to be preferred is the plainest one until one is revealed to us that is right: if we don’t know which one is right then we should prefer the plainer one. Now, if it is true that they are all equal and equally valid, then it follows that they equally share the status of “unknown”, and we are to give way to the plainer meaning until such a time as we can be sure of a meaning. We dare not make up our own answers, so we take the one that does so the least. So even if they are all equal then the literal interpretation still stands above the rest simply on the grounds that they are also equally unknown to be the true interpretation, and that we are therefore obliged to prefer the plainer one, the literal one, over the others. But, as I said, they are not equal.

You will notice that all the evolutionistic interpretations involve introductions to the text which do not come from the Bible itself. But neither do they come from science. They come from superimposed theories which try to unite a multitude of individual scientific conclusions. Science itself gives us a partial list of evidences, but not the whole theory which includes a number of filled-in "facts" as well. It is these theories that are imposed on Genesis One. But the literal translation not only imports no such ideas (contrary to what you hear from evolutionists) but is suggested to us by God Himself as seen in the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments.

Does God make a direct correlation here? It doesn’t matter, because the point is that God does make a literal correlation, a view on Genesis One that comes from the Bible itself. We see here, then, that it is not a question of whether a symbolic or a literal meaning is to be understood. It is a question of alien ideas or thoughts imposed upon the Word of God so as to alleviate doubts imposed by questions evolutionists themselves have. They are not our doubts, but are doubts planted in us so that their solutions might find a place in our beliefs. It is their doubts that make their symbolic interpretations necessary, not science or the Bible. The literal interpretation, however, is not alien or imported from outside the Word of God.

3. As to the Jehovah's Witnesses' assertion, he said that 'firstborn of God' refers literally to “a product” of God which is not divine in the same sense, but that the idea of Jesus as equally divine is a contrived idea symbolically imposed on the Word of God by Christians. He was referring to Col. 1:15, He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; which refers to Jesus’ nature as the Son of God while He is also the son of man. They deny that the image of God refers to a nature of equal divinity, and that we should therefore interpret firstborn of all creation literally. We should call to mind the many references to Jesus' person and character which attributes to Him what is only to be attributed to God. He is worshiped, and He does not forbid it as both the Apostles and the angels do. He is called good, and also identifies that with God alone, and yet He does not forbid it. The people of God are greeted in the Father's name and in Jesus' name equally, and the Spirit witnesses to it by speaking to us through those very letters begun in this way, the blessing of it showing the approving of it. He is identified with God in the book of Revelation as the same Alpha (first) and the Omega (last) as in the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 41:4, which refers to God Himself. And there are many more, which are too numerous to list. All we need is one proof, but even many proofs are not enough to those who find fault with the Word itself so that they may "interpret" their own meanings.

But let us suppose he is right. Again, let us look at the theology, since you and I are not able to dispute authoritatively on the question of symbolic or literal meaning. What he is actually suggesting is two kinds of divine beings, a lesser and a greater, because to them Jesus is also not just a man: Jesus is divine, but in a lesser, more creaturely sense. But how can two beings be divine and yet distinct and unequal? A divine being is one who is perfect in everything, in eternity, in love, in truth, in righteousness, in justice, and in mercy. He is eternally unchangeable. But if there are two such beings, a lesser and a greater, then they are completely identical and yet not identically the same, which is a contradiction.

There is only one way that there can be two distinct persons which are both God and that is if they are one God in two persons, and not two types of Gods. If the JW would carry his so-called "literal" interpretation to its conclusion he would eventually come around to the Christian confession of the Trinity: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God; three distinct persons in one God. He should willingly confess it the same as we do in Belgic Confession article 10. But he prefers his own inconsistent and incomplete interpretation, which cannot be taken either literally or figuratively.

The underlying points of your question have been explained. Israel had introduced many ideas into worship, so that they no longer worshiped the one true God, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses, and also as the evolutionists are attempting to do. It begins with: What exactly did God mean by this or that? In trying to answer such a question the people constructed their own answers, importing meanings and thoughts into the text of God's revelation which seem to give answers for them. They find a licence to do it when they confuse the literal and symbolic meanings, or by disregarding the rules for determining which one to understand. They feel the need because the Word of God in and of itself is not adequate to them.

Our consciences are freed by Christ. Now freedom of conscience is not a freedom to invent our own foundations, but rather a freedom to build upon the one true foundation. We are free to discover truth, and to embrace truth as we discover it. Now truth would sooner deny that 1+1=2 than to deny that God exists, because addition is true within the bounds of change, while God is unchangeably true. And we know this because truth itself is unchangeable. A thing that is true might change to becoming untrue, but truth itself remains unchangeable.

What do we mean when we say that something is temporarily true? Do we not mean that it is true now but not at another time? We speak, then, of the thing or circumstance changing, not of the truth changing. But if truth itself changed then we could never know whether a thing is true in the first place, not even temporarily. Think of colours. If at one time a certain colour is called 'blue' and at another time it is called 'red', and we cannot know when to change what we call it, what will we call it when we see it the next time? 'Blue' or 'Red', or perhaps a different colour again? And how did we come up with a name in the first place if this was the case? We will say that the 'blue' thing might be called 'red' or some other colour, because we still have a fixed and common notion of colours in our minds. So it is with truth: for us to say something is true we have to have some fixed and common notion of truth in our minds otherwise we will not know whether something is true or not. We cannot think in such terms as an unfixed notion of truth.

It is this fixed truth that we are freed to pursue. That means that we have been freed so that we are neither captured by worldly ideas which lead us astray, nor even by our own fallible ideas. This is the freedom which underlies our Western notion of liberties, and not the notion that everyone is free to pursue his own truths: we are free to pursue THE truth. And this coincides exactly with what our Lord has purchased for us with His blood, that we may be set free and be free indeed.

So the general rule is that the literal meanings interpret the symbolic ones. Since Biblical theology comes from the literal meanings, you can study the theology to understand whether a meaning is literal or symbolic. The Confessions are the statements of faith confessed by the Church, not made up by the Church: they are historically traceable; and they come out of the literal meaning of the Bible. So they too are of great help.

I have tried to answer the question of why a symbolic meaning or a literal meaning is chosen when reading God's Word by indicating a simple rule of thumb: consistency of truth. And then I have tried to show how firm a foundation the Christian has upon which to decide between the two. I hope that you will find these answers for yourself when you study the Bible. Some things are harder than others, because wisdom is prized all the more because it takes work to achieve it. The order of priority is this: turn first to the Word itself; and then seek the Spirit’s witness through the Church’s historic confessions; and then look to men that God has gifted to search out some of the more difficult meanings. A teacher should never pre-empt or nullify a confession, and a confession should never pre-empt or nullify the Bible.