Literal and Figurative in Genesis 3

I have been reminded several times recently in private conversations of just how inadequate the literal to figurative continuum is in discussing how we understand scripture.

Bruce Alderman has written an interesting article on the number of things we take as figurative in Genesis 3, and then asks:

Why is it that so many Christians who have no problem reading Genesis 3 metaphorically, can’t do the same with Genesis 1 and 2?

While I agree with Bruce on the need to read these chapters largely figuratively, it is important to note another factor.  One can read something both historically and figuratively.  I have mentioned here before teaching one of the first classes I taught in a United Methodist church, and it was on Genesis 1-11.  To my right sat a theistic evolutionist; to my left a young earth creationist.  When we discussed Genesis 3, both were able to agree on the figurative meanings (though I could do some arguing!), but one saw historical events behind the figures, while the other did not.

But even here you have to ask what historical events might be referred to as a figure.  Let’s consider the parable of the trees (Judges 9:8-15).  Here we have definite reference to historical events, but in a general and figurative way.  In Genesis 3, I don’t regard there as being much history behind the figures, but it is quite possible to read it figuratively with a one-on-one correspondence between the characters and something real.  For example, many readers would take the snake as a symbol pointing to Satan who then acts in tempting a historical Eve who speaks to a historical Adam.  There would be an interplay between historical and figurative elements.

But at the other end of the spectrum there are historical events that are narrated for figurative reasons.  The Exodus is certainly treated as a literal event in scripture, yet it is related with meanings well beyond any historical events.  For something will less controversy, take the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon.  Here we have broad consensus that the events are historical, yet they are not narrated to answer the question:  What happened in the early 6th century BCE?  Rather, they are narrated to point to spiritual things, first in the life of Israel, then more distantly in New Testament reading.

It seems to me that both “we don’t take it literally”, and “we do take it literally” are very inadequate statements.