Would you Adam and Eve it?

For some it’s very simple. You either believe in the Bible or you believe in science. According to the creation story in first three chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book in the Bible, God created the world in six days; but according to science it took billions of years for the earth to form and human life to evolve upon it. The Bible says every human being is a direct descendent of Adam and Eve; but science says humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. The Bible and science can’t both be right, they say. You have to choose between them, and the evidence supports science, so the right choice is clear: believe in science. After all, if you can’t believe the story of Adam and Eve, the story that begins the Bible, then how can you believe any of it?

There are actually two creation stories: the six-day creation story (Gen 1:1 – 2:3) and the Adam and Eve story (Gen 2:4 – 3:1-24). Most scholars consider that the two stories come from different sources and different centuries (Anderson, 21-23) and so the two require somewhat different approaches. In short, to paraphrase George Orwell, all stories are figurative, but some are more figurative than others.

The six-day creation

Scientific dating techniques now give the age of the earth as around 4.6 billion years, and big bang cosmology gives the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years. So, what are we to make of the six days of creation in Genesis chapter one? You can take the word ‘day’ literally if you like, that is you can take it to mean ‘a period of 24 hours’, but there’s no particular reason why you should. The meaning of the word ‘day’ is flexible in the Bible and the word is often used non-literally. For an example of this which references the creation see Hebrews 4:1-9.

Like many traditional stories, especially stories in the Bible, the six-day creation story has a formal structure. The main structure is provided by the working week: six days of work and one of rest. Within this skeleton each day has its own substructure:

• and God said …
• and it was so …
• and God saw that it was good …
• and there was evening and morning, another day.

The story is about the work of God, which is beyond time and beyond human comprehension, but it is set in a context which everyone can relate to: the working week. This provides a theological rationale for the traditional seven-day week and the sabbath rest which ends it.

On the seventh day God finished his work which he had done; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work of creation which he had done. (Gen 2:2-3)

This rationale also appears in the fourth commandment (Exodus 20: 8-11). Which came first: the seven-day week or the creation story? This is a chicken and egg question which is unlikely to be answered in the near future.

The story (and the Bible) begins like so:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light “day”, and the darkness he called “night”. There was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1: 1-4)

God spoke. The light (and everything else) was created by the Word of God. If you took this literally you would suppose that God has a mouth, tongue, lips, voice box, lungs and so on to enable him to speak. That is certainly not what is meant. In the Old Testament the Word of God is often spoken of as if it had a life of its own.

So is my word that goes out of my mouth: it will not return to me void, but it will accomplish that which I please, and it will prosper in the thing I sent it to do. (Isaiah 55:12)

John’s gospel takes this much further

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it … The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world … The Word became flesh and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only born Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-14)

The gospel does not understand ‘and God said …’ as a literal statement but as a truth of profound significance expressed as a figure of speech. This is followed by ‘… let there be light’. Scientifically, that is literally, the word ‘light’ means electro-magnetic radiation of wavelength around 500 nanometres. This is clearly not what St John’s gospel understands by ‘light’.

So far, so figurative. What’s next?

The order of creation is:

• Before the first day: Heaven and Earth
• Day 1. Light and dark
• Day 2. Sky and surface
• Day 3. Land and sea, plants and trees
• Day 4. Sun and moon
• Day 5. Sea creatures and birds
• Day 6. Land animals and humans
• Day 7. Rest

We see here a process that you might call cosmic evolution. The universe has a beginning (Genesis 1:1). To start with it is ‘without form and void’ (Genesis 1:2). Over a period of time, in stages, and through a process of ‘separation’, it becomes more ordered and complex (Gen 1: 4, 6, 9, 18).  It culminates in the most complex being on earth - the human - who bears within him or herself the image of God. In this respect the story resembles the scientific history of the universe described in chapter five of this book. The order of events though is different. The order in Genesis made logical sense to the authors but it is not the scientific order. Does this matter?

The six-day creation story is a story, not a science text book. In the ancient world, there were no science text books. The story does not convey modern scientific knowledge. Why would it? It says almost nothing about the sorts of things that interest scientists. It makes no comment on: the shape of the earth, size of the universe, the positions and motions of the earth, sun, stars, and moon. It does not attempt to describe the mechanisms which created the earth, or the laws of nature which govern its development. It is not interested in those things. It is a theological account of creation not a scientific one. Its message and its meaning are theological. That theological message is quite definitely meant literally!

• There is one God: the uncreated creator and designer of all that began to exist
• There is a tantalising hint of the idea of the Trinity: Creator, Word, Spirit of God i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
• The universe is ordered and God is the source of that order
• The Sun, Moon, and stars are not gods. In the ancient world it was necessary to make this point
• The creation is good
• Humans should be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and rule it

And finally:

God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27)

Arguably this verse is the source for the idea that, in spite of our multiple failings, there is a dignity to being a human being, a spark of divinity in fact, and that, thus, even the humblest human being should be valued and treated with respect. Thus it is the ultimate basis for human rights. Notwithstanding the patriarchal nature of the Bible, this foundational verse in the creation story declares the essential equality of male and female. Speaking of male and female gives us a nice segue to the second creation story: Adam and Eve. But before that, an important digression.

A Digression: Genesis is unique

You often hear the claim that that this story is just one of many, no different to the plethora of other creation stories which people believed in the past. Every ancient culture had one and they’re all much of a muchness. In fact, the authors of the six-day creation story were fully aware of the many creation stories of the peoples who surrounded them and their story is deliberately, self-consciously, and systematically different to the others, as a comparison will quickly show. Here is a story which they would certainly have known about: the Babylonian ‘Epic of Creation’.

The younger gods were full of vitality and often had rowdy gatherings, and the elder gods, Apsu and Tiamat, were upset by their noise. With his page Mummu, Apsu plots to kill the younger gods, which enrages Tiamat. Ea, however, recites a spell that causes Apsu to fall into a deep sleep and kills him. Ea then erects shrines for himself and the other gods on the body of Apsu and lives there with his wife, Damkina. Marduk is born of their union and grows to be a majestic and powerful figure. Tiamat, however, is furious about the death of Apsu and gives birth to a host of dragons and monsters. She then leads them and other gods to battle. Marduk kills her and cuts her body in two, using one half to create earth and the other half to create heaven. The remainder of the story deals with Marduk’s organization of the cosmos, his creation of human beings, and his assigning to the gods their various cosmic offices and tasks. (Murtoff, ‘Enuma elish’).

This sort of thing is satirised by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought. (Adams, 1)

Douglas Adams was a great friend of Richard Dawkins and Dawkins’s book The God Delusion is dedicated his memory. Adams usually thinks things through very carefully, which is one of the things that makes his satire so sharp, but he’s not fully paying attention here. Polytheists do not believe that ‘in the beginning, the Universe was created’ in the sense that the Bible means it, that is in the sense of creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing. The term creation story is somewhat misleading in this respect. Generally speaking, polytheists believe that everything, including the gods, emerged out of primordial chaos or formless pre-existent matter. They do not believe in the God of Genesis: God with a capital G, that is, the uncreated creator and designer of everything that began to exist. He is not ‘some sort of God’. He’s just God. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, polytheists are actually atheists!

Polytheistic creation stories are full of elements such as gods, dragons and monsters, wars and conflicts. None, as far as I know, go as far-as to suppose that the universe was made out of snot, but as you can see from the story of Marduk and his chums, they’re often not far off that. There are no such things in Genesis one.

In spite of some superficial similarities to other creation stories, the Genesis six-day creation is unique.

The seismic impact of Darwin’s book

The real challenge to the traditional view of creation, came not from scientific discoveries concerning the age of the earth or the universe, but from Darwin.

The impact of the Origin of Species when it was published in 1859 was seismic. No one’s view of how to interpret the Bible or Christian teaching, or indeed of how to interpret the nature of human existence, would be the same again. According to the Origin, and Darwin’s later book The Descent of Man first published in 1871, we are descended not from Adam and Eve, but from an ape-like ancestor, and ultimately from the (relatively) simple lifeforms which appeared on the earth billions of years ago.

In this book we accept the idea of the evolution of life on earth in broad terms as a fact, as almost all scientists do. Many Christians take a different view of evolution, and of course we respect that view and understand why they disagree. Accepting evolution means that we must understand the Adam and Eve story figuratively. Is that a valid way to read Genesis?

Many take the view that the explanation of creation in Genesis and the explanation given by science are different types of explanation, and are complementary not contradictory. Science tells us the history of creation, physically speaking, in literal way; Genesis tells us what the creation means, and about our place in it, in a figurative way. We illustrated in chapter four how there can be different complementary explanations for the same thing, using the example of the motor car. If you asked an engineer, an historian, and a driving instructor to explain the motor car, you would get three very different responses. The engineer would tell you about pistons, driveshafts, carburettors and so on; the historian would tell you the story of Karl Benz, Henry Ford et al; and the driving instructor would instruct you how to drive. All three different explanations would be true – they would be complementary not contradictory.

We noted in the prologue that scientists don’t usually abandon a theory when it encounters difficulties, or if newly discovered evidence appears to contradict it. They hold their nerve, since they know from experience that the new evidence may well turn out to be wrong or misleading.  If the problem doesn’t go away, they modify the theory to fit the new situation. Experience shows that sometimes this is the right thing to do. This can lead to an improved version of the theory. If you keep on doing this though, if you keep on modifying your theory, you can end up theory which looks increasingly contrived. Eventually the modifications become ever more ad hoc and even desperate, and the time comes to abandon the old theory in favour of a new one; although we noted that often, this doesn’t happen until the old generation of scientists dies off and is replaced by the next one.

Is this what happened to the ‘Adam and Eve theory’, if we can call it that, when Darwin published the Origin of Species? Most Christians before Darwin did not understand the creation stories purely literally; they knew the message of Genesis was a spiritual one, that much is obvious; but, with notable exceptions, most did think that Adam and Eve were people who lived in history, and that they were literally the ancestors of the whole human race. But now, Christians who accept mainstream science, need to modify the ‘Adam and Eve theory’ to adapt it in to the new situation created by Darwin. They must say that Adam and Eve were not literally our ancestors, but symbolic characters in a figurative story. Is this the right thing to do? Has science, in fact, led us to an improved interpretation of Genesis? Or is this modification to the ‘Adam and Eve theory’ contrived, ad hoc and desperate.

As far as I can see, understanding the story of Adam and Eve figuratively, far from being contrived and ad hoc, is actually quite natural. Genesis is a theological book intended to convey spiritual truths and it does so through symbolism and storytelling. This is how I read the story of Adam and Eve:

At the centre of the story is the famous ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ and its ‘fruit’. The storyteller tells us that God placed the tree in the centre of the Garden of Eden. This positioning of the tree is symbolic. The storyteller is not telling us how to find the tree. ‘Yeah, mate, just go down that path and take the second turning on the left and you’ll find it. You can’t miss it!’ It’s not that kind of statement. The storyteller is telling us that the tree is of central importance in this story. The fruit of the tree, as all pedants will enjoy telling you, is not an apple. Generally speaking, I am a fan of pedantry, but to be concerned about which variety of fruit we are dealing with here is to completely miss the point. It is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It symbolises something; and the thing it symbolises is the knowledge of good and evil.

The tree is not a magic tree and the fruit is not a magic fruit. At a wedding, the rings symbolise the marriage, and the exchange of rings brings about the marriage. No one thinks they are magic rings; everyone knows that they are symbolic rings. When the bride and groom place the rings on each other’s fingers, through that act, they cease to be the bride and groom, and become husband and wife. Likewise, in the story, the fruit symbolises the knowledge of good and evil, and the taking of the fruit brings it about. It is in the act of taking and eating the fruit that the Man and the Woman acquire the knowledge of good and evil. They have made the fateful choice to go their own way. They have become like God, but that has consequences. This act is their awakening, but also their downfall. Once they have seen, they cannot unsee; once they know, they cannot unknow. Paradise is lost, and there is no going back.

And so, this is who we are, we men and women, we Adams and Eves. We are like God. We are awake; we freely choose; we create, we destroy; but above all we are moral beings. We are like God, knowing good and evil. This is central to who we are. This is our glory, but also our doom.

Why did God put the tree in the centre of the garden, or create the serpent, the wisest of all the creatures that he had made, to draw the Man and the Woman’s attention to it? Because you can only choose good if you can also choose evil. The fall is a catastrophe, but a necessary one. We lose one kind of glory but then set out on the long and winding road to a greater one.

There is another tree in the garden: tree of life. This tree, having made its debut at the beginning of the first book of the Bible, reappears right at the end, in the final chapter of the final book: Revelation.

On this side of the river and on that was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Rev 22:2)

Revelation is full creatures and objects which are obviously meant to be symbolic. The most famous are the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but there are plenty of others. This means that it is reasonable to assume that the tree of life, in the context of the book of Revelation at least, is meant to be symbolic. I once met a man who insisted that everything in the Bible is literally true; that none of it is symbolic. So, for him the four horsemen do not symbolise pestilence, war, famine and death; they are four actual riders on four actual horses (Rev 6). Likewise, for him, the tree of life does not symbolise life, and its leaves do not symbolise the healing of the nations; it’s an actual tree. So, some people really do take everything literally; but in Revelation, the symbolic interpretation is the most natural one.

The road to the tree of life, the road to redemption, lies ahead now. You cannot go back to Eden, for that way is guarded by a mighty angel; yes, figuratively speaking. Yet, there is one who has gone ahead of us. Christ does not do away with the creation story, he completes it (Matt 5:17-18).

As St Paul puts it:

Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped [the precise opposite of Adam and Eve], but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [the precise opposite of Adam and Eve] to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross.  (Phil 2:5-8)

And again:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)

Adam can be a personal name, but in the Bible, the word Adam also means humankind. Adam symbolises the old humanity, separated from God, and doomed to destruction; but Christ embodies the new humanity, through which we are redeemed, renewed, and reconciled to God.

So, there it all is, in the first three chapters of the Bible! The story makes sense if you take it to be literally true, so long as you recognise that its meaning is spiritual, and it also makes sense if you interpret it purely figuratively. However, if you accept mainstream science, then Darwin rules out the first option when it comes to Adam and Eve. Clearly the story’s meaning is a spiritual one; but if it is not literally true does that, nevertheless, undermine the whole thing?

To answer this question, it is helpful to consider how scholars of the Bible who lived long before Darwin interpreted Genesis in particular, and the Bible generally. Amongst these, we can include the NT writers themselves. They cannot be accused of making contrived, ad hoc, and desperate modifications to the ‘Adam and Eve theory’ for obvious reasons.

Long before the rise of modern science, there were different views on this subject. I picked on two ancient authors, Origen and Celsus, as my disputants in the last chapter. This time it’s Origen (again), Theodore, and Augustine.

Origen took the view that the scripture should be understood on different levels. These he called the body, soul and spirit of the scripture; that is the obvious literal sense, the obvious figurative sense, and a deeper spiritual sense, which might require some considerable effort to understand (Wiles and Santer, 138-145). An example might be Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on the Sunday of the last week of his life, remembered each year by Christians on Palm Sunday, the Sunday before Easter (my example, not Origen’s).

They brought the young donkey to Jesus, and threw their garments on it, and Jesus sat on it. Many spread their garments on the way, and others were cutting down branches from the trees, and spreading them on the road. Those who went in front, and those who followed, cried out, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!’ (Mark 11: 7-10)

The plain literal meaning is, obviously, that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. What is the figurative meaning; what is the soul and the spirit of the passage? In this case you really are spoilt for choice. Jesus is the Messiah, but not the one you expected; the King, son of King David, makes his entrance, but using the humblest possible form of transport. It recalls an earlier saying of Jesus:

But Jesus summoned them, and said, ’You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your bondservant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’. (Matt 20: 25-28)

Origen goes on to say there are some passages, though, which are not literally true and should only be interpreted figuratively. There are some passages where this is uncontroversial, such as the following famous Old Testament prophecy (Origen’s example this time):

The wolf will live with the lamb,
    and the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
    the calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf together;
    and a little child will lead them.
The cow and the bear will graze.
    Their young ones will lie down together.
    The lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole,
    and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain;
    for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh [God],
    as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:6-9)

Origen says that there some Jews in his day who took this passage literally. To them it meant that one day you will see actual wolves, living with actual lambs, and so on, on an actual mountain. Most people would have no trouble understanding this passage as figurative, but clearly there can be exceptions!

In others cases, though, Origen’s views were, and are, more controversial. He says this about the creation stories.

What intelligent person can believe that the first, second, and third days existed, along with evenings and mornings, without the sun, moon, and stars? [The Sun and the Moon are created on the fourth day in Genesis] Or that the very first day occurred without a heaven? Who would be naive enough to think that God, like a gardener, planted a paradise in Eden to the east, and placed within it a tangible tree of life, such that eating its fruit would bestow life; or that consuming from the tree named after good and evil would impart such knowledge? Moreover, when it is said that God strolled through the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam concealed himself behind a tree, it is unlikely anyone would dispute these are symbolic phrases that reveal deeper truths through the guise of a historical narrative rather than literal events.

Origen, De Principiis 4.3.1 1 (adapted from Stevenson, 205).

Many strongly disagreed with Origen, for example, Theodore.

They [Scholars like Origen] aim to equate the entire history recorded in divine scripture with night-time dreams. They claim that Adam is not truly Adam, paradise is not truly paradise, and the serpent is not truly a serpent. They prefer to interpret divine scripture in a manner which they refer to as ‘spiritual interpretation’. This is what they like they have their nonsense called. However, once they begin to remove parts of history, they will be left with no history at all.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Galatians 4: 24 (adapted from Wiles and Santer, 151-152)

We should say that Theodore was no crude literalist, and Origen considered most of the history in the Bible to be literally true. I’m with Origen on this one, as you probably guessed, but Theodore clearly makes an important point. Unless we keep our feet firmly on the ground, figurative interpretations can easily become fanciful and a bit random, or in extreme cases, frankly, entirely random. And if you take some passages in the Bible as literal and others as symbolic, how do you know which is which? If the story of Adam and Eve is understood figuratively, then why not the story of the resurrection, for example? This question is difficult to answer, but not impossible.

We met St Augustine in chapter one. We noted there that John Draper, author of the notorious work of anti-Christian propaganda History of the Conflict between Religion and Science attributed to Augustine views ‘more appropriate to a dim nineteenth-century non-conformist preacher’. Augustine was in fact one of the great intellects of the ancient world and one of the most influential thinkers in history.

Augustine wrote his book On the Literal Meaning of Genesis partly as a reaction against what he considered to be fanciful and random symbolic interpretations of the scriptures. He did not use the word literal in the way we would today, however. By literal interpretation Augustine means something like, ‘in the sense intended by the author’ (McGrath, 98). Augustine takes the view that God created the universe instantaneously, and not in six literal days. He says:

So why was there any need to set out six distinct days, one after the other, in the narrative? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the phrase ‘he created all things together’ will not understand the meaning of scripture as a whole, unless the narrative proceeds slowly, in this step wise manner.

Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis 4.33.52 (McGrath, 101).

So, to sum up Augustine admittedly crudely, but not misleadingly, it’s a way of telling the story that everyone will understand.

All things in the universe, Augustine says, were there in potential form from the beginning, in seed form as he puts it; and they came into being through a process which unfolded over a period of time. He answered the question ‘what did God do before he created the universe?’ by saying that there was no ‘before’ the universe in the sense of there being a time before time. Time is part of the creation. God is before the universe in sense that he is its cause, and cause always precedes effect (McGrath, 95-108). As far as cosmology is concerned, that’s pretty much spot on! Remember that although Augustine was influenced by philosophy and well as the Bible, he got all that out of a ‘literal’ interpretation of Genesis.

Augustine did consider that Adam and Eve were historical people and literally the ancestors of all human beings. He had no particular reason not to do so. But he also says:

In matters that are obscure and beyond our vision, even those we find in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In this case, we should not rush in impetuously and adopt a position on one side with such commitment that, if further progress in the search for truth should undermine this position, we too should fall with it. That would be to contend not for the teaching of Holy Scripture, but for our own teaching.

Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1.18.37 (McGrath, 104)

Is that an anticipation of Darwin’s ‘further progress in the search for truth?’ Smart guy, Augustine.

The NT writers often interpret the scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, in a symbolic way. For example, St Paul says:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal 4:22-26)

Both Origen and Theodore quote this example, but as Theodore is at pains to point out, that fact the St Paul sees an allegorical meaning in the story of Abraham, does not mean that he thought that Abraham, Sarah and Hagar did not exist in history. Presumably, he did not think that. It’s not either symbolic or literal, it’s both. (Wiles and Santer, 142, 152-154)

The same could be said of St Peter, who sees the story of Noah and the Great Flood as symbolic of Christian baptism (1 Pet:18-22).

Many things in the Old Testament, including inanimate objects such as rocks, can symbolise Christ:

Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:1-4)

There are frequent instances in the gospels where Jesus uses figures of speech which the disciples mistakenly take literally, and have to have it explained to them. Most famously:

Jesus answered him, ’Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.’

Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?’ (John 3:3-4).

Use a bit of common, Nick! There are plenty of other examples e.g. Matthew 16: 5-12 and Luke 22:36-38. According to John, Jesus used figures of speech all the time, right up until the end (John 16:25-30).

And to finish, we return to the beginning. The gospel of John brings out the spiritual meaning of opening words of Genesis. To make the comparison clear, here are the two passages in a table:

 

 

The ‘light’ is a major theme running throughout John’s gospel.

Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying, ’I am the light of the world.  He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life’. (John 8:12)

Jesus answered, ’Aren’t there twelve hours of daylight? If a man walks in the day, he doesn’t stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if a man walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light isn’t in him.’ (John 11:9-10).

On the first day, God separated the light from the dark, the day from the night. And God saw that the light was good (Gen 1:3-5). Which will you choose? Whether you are male or female, Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, whether your life is hard or easy, this is the first choice of your life. Light or Dark, Day or Night.

It is necessary, if you accept the findings of mainstream science, in particular the idea that humans evolved from an ape like ancestor, to interpret the creation stories in the Bible in a figurative way. But I believe that we have shown that this is a natural interpretation, in keeping with the way the Bible is interpreted generally. Others might disagree but ‘different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received’. Christians can disagree about how to interpret the Bible in some matters, always remembering the principle, ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity’.

Summary

If we accept the scientific view that human beings evolved from an ape like ancestor, how should we read the story of Adam and Eve? If the story is understood figuratively then there is no clash with science. We looked at how the story has been interpreted in the past, and argued that a figurative interpretation is a perfectly natural interpretation.

 

Epilogue. What’s next?

This book does not set out to prove by reason that Christianity is true - as if such a thing were possible by reason alone.

It does set out to show that the Christian faith is rational and credible, and that its truth claims are worthy of your serious attention.

I hope I have convinced you of that!

If so, what next? Starting with the evidence presented in this book, you could choose take a step of faith and consider the claim that there is indeed a God that cares about his creation, and that you can come to know him through Jesus, his Son.

You might then have a powerful experience of God; or you might not. For some knowing God starts with a Big Bang; for others it is a much gentler, slower process. But don’t worry about that; slow and steady wins the race. If you don’t get the Big Bang experience, what signs can you look out for? St Paul names these as the fruits of spirit:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith[fulness], gentleness, and self-control

(Gal 5:22-23).

Over time, these should grow in you more and more.

A way to remember the fruits of the spirit is to notice that they come in three groups of three.

• love, joy, peace (one syllable)
• patience, kindness, goodness (two syllables)
• faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (three syllables)

Keep it simple. After all:

What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8).

What does ‘walking humbly with your God’ mean? Read your Bible, say your prayers; keep them simple too (Matt 6:5-13); and make contact with your local Christian community. You could join any mainstream denomination, and there are many excellent independent churches too. Some people do a tour of local churches, and choose the one which is best for them. By choosing the best for you, I do not mean choosing the one which you’re most comfortable with - Christianity is not supposed to be comfortable! I mean choosing the one that will support you and help you grow, and that you in turn can support and help grow.

God bless!

 

Works Cited.

Adams, Douglas. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Pan, 2020

Anderson, Bernhard. The Living World of the Old Testament. 4^th ed. Pearson Education Ltd, 1988.

McGrath, Alister. A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology. Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Murtoff, Jennifer. "Enuma elish". Encyclopedia Britannica, 13 Sep. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Enuma-Elish. Accessed 7 January 2026.

Stevenson, J. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD337. 2^nd ed., revised by W.H.C. Frend, SPCK, 1987.

Wiles, Maurice and Mark Santer. Documents in Early Christian Thought. Cambridge University Press, 1975.