Philo, Legum Allegoriae 1
It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world.
While I do not dismiss the allegorical interpretations of this Hellenistic Jewish scholar I do not regard his line of interpretation as compatible with the Apostle Paul's. Indeed, some take a figurative view of many things in Genesis, not because of the language of the narrative but because they simply don't believe it. Time and space are the dimensions by which we measure the physical world, it is absurd in the extreme to dismiss time as 'posterior' to the world. I think what your attempting here is a dialectical unification of Genesis with the naturalistic assumptions of evolution. It may go over well with evolutionists but I know what you are doing and it won't work on any watching bird. (Proverbs 1:17)
Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time,
Stop! Now compare that statement to this one and tell me: Did the incarnation happen 'in time'? Answer this one and we can move on. Try to ignore it and you will be seeing it again and again until you do:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; (Nicene Creed)
but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time. (3) When, therefore, Moses says, God completed his works on the sixth day, we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.
Nonsense, 7 is the number of divine perfection. The rule of thumb is that the significance of a word or phrase goes back to the first mention of it in the Bible. The significance of the number six goes back the sixth day of creation.
What is far more important is that these are not mystical numbers, there is no pagan mystery to unravel. The use of numbers in Genesis 1 are ordinal, in other words, the are numbers counted in succession (1, 2, 3...) the way you would count the days of a month, a year or...what else...oh yea....an actual week!
Your attempting to get all philosophical and it's fun to watch. The problem is that when you trying to deal with Genesis philosophically you must define your terms. You can start with the incarnation, in fact you will reference your definition to time as you have defined it here or you will keep seeing it. Then we can talk about the clear meaning of Scripture with regards to the ordinal numbers associated with the days of creation.
...it need be remembered that this was an era when writing wasn't widely practised and it wasn't possible to just write anything. The fact that Philo wrote what he did and felt it able to suggests that there were others who shared his views. His wasn't a position that upon producing his works would involve repercussions of heretical views.
The very fact that he wrote this text and could write it suggests that his wasn't a lone voice.
Neither was Paul's understanding of Adam as the first parent of humanity, his certainly was not a lone voice. I have no major issues with Hellenism or exploring what ancient philosophers have to share with us. I do question a mystical interpretation of Genesis and some search for the 'deeper meaning' of Genesis since it negates the book as an historical narrative. What of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph, shall we dismiss them as mysteries and figures of speech as well?
...I think you may be making some assumptions that are not in evidence, but that isn't really my issue. I agree that writing wasn't as copious as we find today, but I just want to make sure that that isn't trying to make some inference that the general population couldn't read and write.
Did you really just accuse someone of false assumptions? The Law was taught to the populations by the Levitical priests who were responsible for communicating God's word to them. When Israel rejected the Law of God through unbelief God sent prophets who warned of impending judgment, these warning were largely unheeded. Finally God sent his Son to them and was crucified, resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Paul, brought the Gospel to the Gentiles and we as Christians must give ear to the teachings of the Apostle before we consider the rationalizations of the Hellenistic scholar who did not know the Gospel and consequently could not examine Genesis in light of the New Testament witness regarding Creation.
Before you belabor Phillo, I would ask, what do you think of Paul's interpretation of Adam?
As to 'others who shared his views', I have no doubt, but that neither makes his view the truth. Consider that in the days of our Lord's visitation to us there was a fairly large and important group of Jews called the Sadducees. It is reported in the Scriptures themselves that they didn't believe in the resurrection. So, let's clarify the picture. A fairly sizable group of Jews who held to a belief that I think the Scriptures prove is obviously wrong and yet are we not able to find other writing that condemns them as heretical? So, this idea that you have that because Philo wrote what he wrote and there don't appear to be any attacks leveled against him in that day that we have any written historical evidence of must, therefore, mean that it was accepted, may not really be a good indicator that it is the truth. After all, as born again believers we do seek the truth, right?
You need to learn your history, the Jews did not accept his blending of Hellenistic philosophy. They favored a literal interpretation and he dismissed them as ignorant and simple minded. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Philo used philosophical allegory to attempt to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was important for several Christian Church Fathers, but he has barely any reception history within Judaism. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls the literalist Jews,[1] "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. He believed that literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible would stifle mankind's view and perception of a God too complex and marvelous to be understood in literal human terms.
Philo, Wikipedia
Historically, Philo is known as a Jewish philosopher who spent most of his life trying to harmonize Jewish philosophy with Greek philosophy. Kind of like christians today who want to harmonize God's account of creation with the scientific account. Consider that the very idea of 'harmonizing' is that you give a little bit here and you get a little bit there and you twist this around to fit here and you pull that out of there so that everything fits better there, etc. Until finally one is able to say, "Ah-haa! See! It all fits together just fine!" But for the born again believer we must return to the original question, "But is it the truth?" Great we got it all to fit now and everybody's in agreement, ...but is it the truth?
I couldn't agree more...
So, let's look at some more evidence that just claiming that a Jew said something or believed something or wrote something can't be taken as support that the claim must therefore be true. Isaiah opens up his wonderful book of propecy with these words:
The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand."
God raised up a nation of people from the loins of Abraham and had nurtured them and carried them out of harms way and protected and loved on them and had shown them some of His most amazing miracles, and yet, here is God telling Isaiah some several hundred years later, my people do not understand.
Just one question, if I can't take Genesis 1 literally why should I take Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or even Isaiah literally?
Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of being born again and Nicodemus' first question to him was, "How is it possible for a man to return to his mother's womb?"
Being born again is to become a new creation, that's why the incarnation and new birth are so closely related to the creation. Bear that in mind and we can move on with your exposition.
My point, friend, is be very, very careful who and what you believe. It will have eternal consequences. I know, that for myself, one of my greatest anxieties is that I would ever stand before my God and Creator and be told, "Ted, in this, you did not teach others the truth."
Ted can defend himself in this, I see no difficulty in doing so for him.
Friend, I fully understand and agree that Philo believed and taught that this issue of the Scriptures regarding the creation of all things should not be taken literally, but rather more metaphorically or allegorically. I'm sorry, but I am firmly convicted by the Spirit of truth that lives within me that that is not the truth. Our God is a great and powerful and wise and majestic God. He has told us the truth in all things. He is able to do what man calls impossible with the greatest of ease. By the words of His mouth He can speak every star, every planet and every heavenly body from one end of the universe to the other into existence in mere moments. That, friend, is the God I serve.
That is the God that the naturalistic assumptions of evolution reject.
For me, it comes with understanding God's purpose. I find that in studying the Scriptures God has clearly revealed that this entire realm of existence was created by Him so that this creature that He would create to love and to serve Him and be loved and served by Him, man, is why He created this universe. All of it!! From one end to the other was so that this creature, He called man, would have a suitable place to live that would last forever and ever. In the end friend, the last two chapters of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, tell us that God will achieve His ultimate purpose for which He created this realm. He will wipe away every tear and there will no longer be any pain or sorrow and He will declare, "Now, the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people." You see, if you take the first couple of pages in Genesis and fold them over to the last couple of pages in the Revelation you can see the working out of God's plan.
As long as you take it all figuratively?
The question for you today is: Did Philo understand and teach the truth any more than any of the other Jews who lived in Jesus' day?
The question for you is did he teach it any differently then the pagan world regarding the origin of the universe and life on this planet? More importantly, did he really reject the Apostle Paul as ignorant and simple minded because Paul was one of those Jewish literalists he despised so much.
Have a nice day
Mark