Q&A: An Objection to Attempts at Allegorical Interpretations of the Creation Account
An Objection to Attempts at Allegorical Interpretations of the Creation Account
Question
In the Torah it says that the Jewish people are commanded to cease from work on the seventh day, the Sabbath, because on the seventh day the Holy One, blessed be He, finished creating the world. Likewise, it is clear that the way to reconcile the creation account with the scientific knowledge we have today about the age of the world—its billions of years—and evolution is by means of an allegorical interpretation of the “days” in Genesis 1 and of the creatures created on those “days.” But in order to commemorate God’s ceasing from work, the Jewish people were commanded—and indeed observe the Sabbath—every seven days, not every 7,000 years or one-seventh of a billion years or something like that. That seems to show that the Torah really did mean that creation lasted literally six days and that God literally rested on the seventh day. Doesn’t this constitute a serious objection to attempts at allegorical interpretations of the beginning of the book of Genesis?
Answer
Not at all. This is our way of remembering the creation of the world. We use the biblical description as if it were real, and through it we remember creation.
Discussion on Answer
Definitely.
How does the Rabbi deal with the Sages’ statement that “Scripture never departs from its plain meaning”?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that it depicts an image of divine creation, instead of saying that it’s a historical description except that the days are millennia?
With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “Noah walked with God,” year 83
Papagio — greetings,
Although regarding the Torah’s narratives Rashba reacted sharply to attempts at allegorical interpretation (of the type that “Abraham and Sarah” are “matter and form”)—when it comes to the “creation account,” which is among the secrets of the Torah, there is much room to allow even non-literal interpretation (and this is also what was written in Igrot Re’iyah 134). The same is true regarding descriptions of God: the non-corporeal interpretation is accepted, and it is clear that “the eyes of the Lord” and “the hand of the Lord” are expressions of His providence and His power, and not their literal meaning.
With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath, Menashe Barkai Buch-Trager
You can’t say the days are literal, because how can there be a day before there is a sun and moon? What defines a day doesn’t exist.
In any case, it seems we’re talking about seven periods. Our week corresponds to those seven periods in which the world was created.
Papa,
Scripture doesn’t depart from its plain meaning except in cases where it does. How do Maimonides and Nachmanides deal with that? They too understand biblical descriptions not according to their literal wording. Beyond that, sometimes the literal interpretation is not the plain meaning. And beyond that, the Sages can also be mistaken in their interpretation of Scripture and in their approach to biblical interpretation.
I recommend that anyone who rejects allegorical interpretation take a look at Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, chapter 25.
Does the Rabbi agree with this allegorical explanation?