Do the Stars in Genesis 1 support an allegorical view on the Creation account

Question

Stars are commonly used in biblical views as an allegory to angels. The most common of these is in Revelation when it states a third of the stars will "fall down from heaven". We can also see a lesser obvious view in Job 38:7. If we see the Genesis creation account in chapter 2, it is highly allegorical in how humans were created. All of the intricacies like how God "breathed into us" and stuck us in a garden point to it representing a play on pagan idolatry. In the first 3 days of the creation story we have the light, the sky, and the land. The last three are the rulers of the realms. The "stars" rule the heavens, the birds inhabit the sky, fish inhabit the waters, and people rule over the world. Establishing this allegorical view that the creation days are not literal but instead us seeing God create different realms and we as people rule over realms similar to angels ruling over their realm. We can also use this viewpoint to help explain the problems with the fallen angels and Babel. Both parties were trying to rule outside of their God-given realms. I believe allowing us to view creation from this perspective allow us to see both creation and the book of Genesis in a better light.

Answer 1

I note the following about the Gen 1 record. The record is both literal and metaphorical as will be demonstrated.

1. The two halves of creation week follow the same pattern. The first half mostly concerns the act of separating (eg, waters above from waters below, light from darkness, land from sea, etc.), while the second half mostly concerns populating these separated habitats with living creatures or lights (the sun and moon are not explicitly mentioned). This directly follows the pattern set up in Gen 1:2 where the earth is declared, “tohu and bohu” = formless and empty; God then proceeds to form and fill.
2. There are three phases of creation involving light, water, and dry ground. Each required two steps separated by three days. In the case of the land (the third phase of day 3 and day 6), two distinct creation acts are recorded each time, each terminated by the declaration that the result was good: on day 3 it is the separation of dry land from the water and then the creation of vegetation; on day 6 God made the land produce animals, and then the land (or soil Gen 2:7) was made to produce mankind.
3. The creation of the sun and moon is not recorded in this passage. All that is stated is that God created lights in the expanse of the heaven (“sky” NIV, not outer space or the starry heaven), which according to Gen 1:6 is what separated the waters below (what became on day 3 rivers, lakes and seas) from the waters above (presumably the source of dew, rain and snow in the atmosphere). Hebrew has perfectly good words for “sun” (שֶׁמֶשׁ shemesh) and “moon” (יָרֵחַ yareach) that the author obviously goes to some trouble to avoid using.
4. The passage contains several nomenclature or definition statements which are introduced by the phrase, “God called the…”. This occurs for “day” and “night” (1:4), the “sky” or “heaven” (1:8), and the “land” or “earth” and the “seas” (1:10). All these definition statements occur in the first three days only. The naming of the living creatures was (presumably) to be left to Adam (2:19).
5. Further, there is no record (in Gen 1:1–2:3) of God creating planet Earth on any of the six days. Nor is there any record of creating the water covering the planet – this was apparently all done before the first day of creation week which began in V3. Thus, at the beginning of the first day of creation week, the Earth consisted of a “formless”, planet covered in water, totally lifeless and dark, over which the Spirit of God was moving (Gen 1:2).
6. Gen 1 is written from a phenomenological point of view - what an observer would simply see. It is NOT a scientific nor astronomical record. This is reinforced with passages like Eccl 1:5 about the sun and moon rising and setting and hurrying back again.
7. The fact that the sun produces its own light and the moon is a reflector of light (as we now know from astronomical analysis) is quite irrelevant to the record of Gen 1 because all that matters is that they are both sources of light for the inhabitants on earth. The stars are also sources of light as also recorded elsewhere, such as Eze 32:7, Jer 31:35, etc.
8. One of the several functions of the Gen 1 record is as type of salvation. God takes a world that is (Gen 1:2) “tohu and bohu and hosek” = formless and void and dark; and by the end of the record we have, (v31) “And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good.” That is, we have the opposite - form, value and brightness!

Thus, Gen 1 is a literal record of actual events that forms a metaphor of salvation.

Answer 2

I would prefer to use the word symbolic instead of allegory here.

To me, allegory means something like what is described here in the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary's frequently asked questions response to "What is the difference between an allegory and a metaphor?"

Allegory is the expression of truths or generalizations about human existence by means of symbolic fictional figures and their actions. It encompasses such forms as fable and parable.

The parables of Jesus fit the pattern of this definition of allegory: each of these stories happen in a made up world, and none of the events refer to anything real, they are just the vehicle of a moral or lesson.

Genesis 1, however, is not an allegory. It uses complex poetic and literary forms, and is highly symbolic, but it intends to describe the actual world that we live in.

But that is not all it is. It is also a text integrated into a larger literary unit, the Bible.

So, yes. Genesis 1 does begin introduce many of the themes in the rest of the Bible about angels and rebellious spiritual beings. But it is also intending to portray the creation of the literal lights of the sky of the world we live in.

Answer 3

If the question is "Can Genesis 1 be approached from an allegorical perspective" the answer is yes, it can be.

The method of interpretation is determined by the reader - not by the text. The method of interpretation is the lense through which the reader approaches the text.

A few possible methods of interpretation are:

• Literal - reading the txt for its plain meaning based on its genre, context and grammar.
• Moral interpretation - an ethical and moral view
• Allegorical interpretation - per the question
• Anagogical interpretation - viewing the text from a spiritual and eschatological perspective.
• Existential
• Dogmatic
• Christological

I'm sure there are others.

Genesis 1 can be approached from a perspective of any method of interpretation which can derive many different results.

If the question is "Did the author intend the reader to approach the text from an allegorical perspective" then the answer is - there is no indication in the text that the writer intended the reader to approach the text from an allegorical perspective.

An example of a passage that indicates the reader should use an allegorical approach might be Luke 15:1-32. This passage contains a string of stories designed to illustrate a point.

Answer 4

Could the use of stars be allegorical? Of course. As seen in the question, treating "stars" as angels follows the use later and agrees with a sequence in which angels were created before man.

Should they been seen as allegorical and if so does this allow us to see the book of Genesis in a better light? I think not.

If we ignore the element of time but accept the current scientific interpretation for the physical evidence God has allowed man to find testifying to His work on the first seven days recorded in Genesis, this is the sequence of the formation of the stars: Big Bang --> Hydrogen and Helium --> First "stars" --> First "stars" explode --> All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium scattered throughout the universe --> Formation of other objects and newer stars.

With the exception of attributing the first "stars" as the source of all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium by the process of stellar nuclear fusion, this is the same sequence found in Genesis. God defines stars as objects which give light, not physical material to the earth:

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. (Genesis 1 ESV)

The Bible is not a scientific manual and man is free to read it allegorically or to take it literally: both contain truth. Yet believers should not shirk from the literal truth God has recorded in His word. We should point out to those who claim the universe simply "happened," how the sequence they claim "happened" was recorded over 3,500 years ago and that is plagiarism to take ideas without giving credit to where it was first written.

Answer 5

Allegorical explanations of Genesis 1 became popular in response to scientific skepticism. My objective in this response is to address the hidden presumption that Genesis 1 is at odds with science.

First of all, Genesis 1 is obviously not intended to be a scientific account, but rather a general description of creation. Note that the current scientific consensus referenced below will certainly change over time. Science constantly changes, but the Bible does not.

If we know what stars are, then must references to stars in the Bible be only allegorical?

Ancient cosmologies often describe warring gods, dismemberment, and repurposed body parts in their creation stories. The earth is supported on the backs of large animals such as tortoises and elephants. One of the Greek Titans, Atlas, holds up the heavens. The sun and moon are powerful deities. In contrast, the Bible contains no similar stories. According to Genesis, the sun and moon are simply luminaries—lamps, not gods—and the earth is not supported by any giant animals.

For hundreds of years, it was assumed that the universe was static and infinite, having no beginning or end. During that time, critics of the Bible would ask how light could possibly exist before the stars came into being. Now, science itself provides an answer to their objection—photons came into existence before stellar formation occurred.

But, how could light exist before the sun, moon and stars were created?

Consider the following quotes from the Big Bang Central webpage relating to star formation:

Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was a hot, dense plasma of electrons, protons and photons. This plasma was opaque to electromagnetic radiation (light), as the distance each photon could travel before scattering off another charged particle was extremely short.

As a by-product of the formation of hydrogen [about 380,000 years after the Big Bang], electromagnetic radiation (light) could now freely travel so that the universe became transparent.

In February, 2014 the international media trumpeted the discovery by Australian scientists of the oldest star in the universe - SM 0313. SM 0313 . . . just about 200 million years after the Big Bang (13.8 billion years ago). Remarkably, it is located right in our own Milky Way just 6,000 light years away.

Thus, cosmologists currently believe that light appeared before any stars were formed.

But, how could God “separate” the light from the darkness?

Dark Nebula are interstellar clouds that are so dense that they block all light from stars and other sources of visible radiation that are behind them.

Dark Nebula are a collection of sub-micrometer (less than a millionth of a meter) sized dust particles, coated with frozen carbon monoxide and nitrogen. They block all light at visible wavelengths. The shape of Dark Nebula is very irregular, they have no clearly defined boundaries. Dark Nebula are the spawning grounds of stars and planets.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 suggests that the earth itself started in darkness and covered in water.

Is this a plausible scientific possibility?

As reported in Live Science in March 2020, a study published in Natural Geoscience, researchers lead by geoscientist Benjamin Johnson report that they have compelling evidence from isotope ratios. It reads

What did Earth look like 3.2 billion years ago? New evidence suggests the planet was covered by a vast ocean and had no continents at all.

Nevertheless, there is undeniably an association between stars and planets in the Bible with people and angelic beings. But, current scientific research does not force believers to interpret Genesis 1 only as an allegory or a polemic.

Answer 6

The simplest and most cogent explanation I have found for what the author's sources and intention were, is that it was a retelling of a much earlier poem called "Enuma Elish," just as Noah's Flood was a retelling of the much earlier Epic of Gilgamesh

The Moses version seems to suggest an EL ELYON [hegemony?] tradition. i.e. "EL ELYON" is the "Highest god" aka "The Most High god," etc.

The Moses version may possibly have been influenced by the cosmology of Thales.

But some astute scripture addicts have identified patterns in the Moses version of the making of the sky and dry land, the sun, moon and stars, etc. patterns similar to the construction of the Tabernacle: In fact, the same video ties together many related metaphors.

The evidence suggests that the Jews took scripture very literally, or at least rooted in orthopraxy. However, at least since their stay in Babylon, the musings of the Rabbis suggest that they also were more open-minded to mystical reading than many might imagine. However, their readings were still more rooted in orthopraxy than what we see in Paul and others. Please see the wiki on Philo.

"Paul" (or whoever wrote Colossians, which was probably not the same "Paul" that wrote Romans) essentially repeats Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." Plato taught that "there is no spoon" (ala the Matrix), and here's Paul's repeat of it:

Colossians 2:16-17 NASB95

¹⁶ Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- ¹⁷ things which are a [mere] shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Jesus criticized Nicodemus for reading the scriptures overly literally:

John 3:3-4, 10 NASB95

³ Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." ⁴ Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" ... ¹⁰ Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Some say Plato influenced Christianity and others say that Christianity influenced Platonism, but it is clear that they are profoundly connected, i.e. John 1:1.