The Most Mennonite Verse in the Bible

I hope my title intrigued you. I hope it had you guessing. If you haven’t guessed, pause to take a guess. What do you think the most Mennonite verse in the Bible is? You might remember the Mennonites came from the Anabaptists, and Anabaptists mean “re-baptizers,” so it must be some verse that has to deal with baptism. It isn’t. Well, you might remember how the Mennonites were one of the first to view communion as a symbol, so the most Mennonite verse must be when Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It isn’t. You might know the Mennonite have always took a stand of peace, pacifism and non-violence over a position of violence and war, so maybe the verse is in Matthew 5:44, when Jesus says to love your enemies, or Romans 12:17-21, when Paul commands to not repay evil with evil, but evil with good, or Psalm 34:14, in which David advises to seek peace and pursue it. Nope, nope and nope. The Mennonite have always been concerned with social justice. Could the most Mennonite verse be a prophet commanding social justice, like in Isaiah or Amos? Not what I have in mind. Then what is the most Mennonite verse in the Bible? Drumroll please. I believe the most Mennonite verse in Bible is Acts 5:29, where Peter and the apostle say, “We must obey God rather than man!” I hope to show you that this belief began with the apostles in 1^st century, continued with Anabaptist forefathers in the 16^th century, and has big implications for today.

Before diving into the verse, let’s look at the verse in context. The context of this verse starts all the back in the previous chapters, chapter 3 and 4, for those chapters show us that this is not the first time. In Acts 3, a miracle happens. Peter and John are walking in the temple courts when they walk by a lame man. Peter takes the lame man by the hand, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the man can walk (3:1-10). This miracle lands them right in front of the Sanhedrin, the acting Supreme Court, to testify (4:1-7). Naturally, Peter gives all the credit to Jesus (4:8-12). When the members of the Sanhedrin come together to convene, they are completely befuddled! For starters, here they see two uneducated, untrained, common, ordinary men speaking with the authority, boldness and confidence of a scholar, and they don’t know how to deal with that alone. Furthermore, and even worse for them, they have a formerly lame man literally standing before them, too. All the people acknowledge this miracle, so much that even the Sanhedrin can’t deny what they see (4:13-17). So all the Sanhedrin can do is command them to not preach in the name of Jesus anymore (4:18). In Acts 4:19,20, Peter and John answer them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” To me, this is a passive statement. If I may paraphrase what Peter and John said in Acts 4:19,20, they are saying, “You have to decide on your own what’s the right thing to do, but we know the right thing to do.” After that, the Sanhedrin let them go. I suspect they thought, “Well, they technically didn’t say ‘no’”.

But then, a similar scene happens again. More miracles happen in the name of Jesus Christ (5:12-16). Out of jealousy, the Sadducees have the apostles arrested (5:17,18). The Sadducees might have thought this put an end to miracles, but it only causes another miracle to happen. An angel of the Lord frees the apostles from being behind bars, commanding them to return to the temple grounds to preach the gospel message (5:19-21a). When the Sanhedrin finally convenes and is ready to call the apostles forward, the officers cannot find them in their cells. The Sanhedrin launches an investigation, but the investigation leaves them befuddled again! The doors are locked and guarded, but the apostles are nowhere to be seen. Finally, someone discovers the apostles preaching in the temple court (5:21b-25). Once again, the captain and the officers bring the twelve apostles before the Sanhedrin for questioning (5:26,27), and once again, the Sanhedrin commands the twelve apostles to stop preaching about Jesus (5:28). Now Peter, John and the rest of the apostles answer more aggressively than before. They realize that the Sanhedrin had backed them into a corner in choosing between the submitting to their religious authorities and preaching what their rabbi Jesus taught them to do. For the apostles, the real moral choice was clear, and they answer with a strong, direct answer.

When I studied Acts 5:29 in my commentaries, the commentators approached this verse with fear and caution, and rightfully so, for this verse contains great power. In the wrong hands and with wrong intentions, Acts 5:29 can be misused. It can be used for anarchy. An anarchist might say, “In Acts 5:29, Jesus, through the mouth of Peter, tears down all government by inspiring his disciples to revolt in revolution!” On the flip side, religious leaders can misquote and skew this verse to get the average church layman to blindly follow his leadership, even if sinful. Indeed, some of the most wicked popes in church history have gotten Christians to submissively obey them because the pope told the Christians this his acts were acts of God, not as a man, the pope. Both sides would fall in error because the Bible has safeguards against such interpretation in what Bible Hermeneutics calls the immediate context, the near context and the far context.

The far context, or the verse in context to the other passages of the Bible, does not support this. The apostle Peter, the same Peter who boldly proclaims in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men!” will later on say in 1 Peter 2:12,13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” Soon after the story in Acts 5, the church will gain another apostle, named Paul. Eventually, the apostle Paul will write to the church in Rome, Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” Together, 1 Peter 2:12,13 and Romans 13:1,2 show the Christian that Peter’s statement in Acts 5:29 is not a proclamation of anarchy.

The near context, or the verse in context to other verses in the chapter, does not support such bad interpretation. In Acts 5:30-32, Peter goes on to say, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” I personally bolded some words and phrases in those verses for emphasis. I like to call them “juicy nuggets.” These juicy nuggets demonstrate Peter is not pushing an anarchist agenda. First, Peter wisely uses the phrase “God of our fathers.” By doing so, Peter explains to the Sanhedrin that the apostles do not worship a new God or a different God. They were obeying the same God the Sanhedrin worshiped and the same God that both the apostles’ and the Sanhedrin’s ancestors worshipped. The difference was the apostles began following Jesus as God’s promised messiah, and Peter invites the Sanhedrin to accept Jesus as Messiah, too. Second, Peter gives Jesus the title “Prince.” This word has a heavy leadership connotation, especially in regards to government. The apostles may not be submitting to the Sanhedrin’s leadership, but they are submitting to Christ’s kingship. Third, Peter clarifies that God pours out the Holy Spirit to “those who obey him.” For Peter, and the reader as well, the Holy Spirit stands as proof of an apostle living a life of obedience, for the Holy Spirit indwells in Christians who live a life of obedience. (And just to clarify on my part, that obedience is not a list of commands, but rather that obedience is accepting and receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior)

The immediate context, or the context of the words and phrases within the verse, safeguards the passage from bad interpretation. This one a little harder to see without reading the original Greek text. The word used for obey in Acts 5:29 is πειθαρχειν (peitharchein), which is not the common word used to define obedience, which is the Greek word ὑπακούω (hupakoúō). Once again, Peter carefully choses his wording in his defense. The word starts out with peith, deriving from the Greek word peitho, meaning to persuade. The middle part, arch, you might recognize from words like “archbishop” or “archenemy.” The Greek word arche, most literally means “first,” but can mean “first” as in supremacy, the highest. Therefore, the Greeks would commonly use the word for a leader or a ruler. Put it all together. The obedience that peitharchein talks about is an obedience out of persuasion by higher authority, such a ruler or an expert. Honestly, that “persuasion” could simply a ruler exerting his power, as in, “Obey my laws or suffer the consequences.” But I believe it was different for Peter and the other disciples. The disciples had spent the past few years listening to Jesus teach. They heard Jesus teach with authority, and such powerful teaching persuaded the disciples that Jesus had the way, the truth and the life from God. Then the Holy Spirit comes down on Pentecost, and when the disciples listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in their hearts, the Holy Spirits reaffirms the truths Jesus taught and persuades the disciples even more. For Peter and the disciples, they are persuaded by the Holy Spirit that they are not living a life of rebellion, but a life of obedience to a higher authority.

Still, as we read Acts 5:29, we have to stand in awe at the boldness and confidence of Peter and the apostles. Keep in the mind that the high priest and the Sanhedrin was the highest religious governing body of the day. They ruled on all matters religious and spiritual. They determined the difference between the godly and the ungodly, the righteous and the unrighteous, the clean and the sinful. And the Sanhedrin would tell you that God instituted them for that role. Peter and the apostles had been raised all their lives believing that. So when that governing body of 70 men tells them that one rabbi they listened to was off his rocker and a little crazy in the head, How could Peter and the apostles find the courage to stand so boldly and confidently to reply to the Sanhedrin, “No, you’re crazy for not listening to Christ Jesus”? I’ve already mentioned how Jesus taught with authority, and I went over how the Holy Spirit speaking the in apostles’ hearts, but I believe there’s more to it than that. I believe that piece is the Scriptures. We all know that famous verses 2 Timothy 3:16, which reads, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” What we all have a habit of forgetting is that the “Scriptures” that Paul is referring to what we call the Old Testament, the books from Genesis to Malachi. They did not have the New Testament yet. Luke 24:35 tells that after Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus “opened their mind to the Scriptures,” once again referring to the Old Testament. When the apostles read the Old Testament, they did not see the Sanhedrin’s interpretation; they saw Jesus.

But don’t think that the 1st century understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 should be the same for the 21^st century. For us in the 21^st century, 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to New Testament Scripture, too. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter puts Paul’s letters on the same level as the Old Testament Scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul starts out by saying, “The Scriptures say,” and then quotes the Gospel of Luke. Already by the 1^st century, the apostles recognized that their words were not the words of their own heart and their own will, but rather, their words were the words were the words of God the Holy Spirit speaking through them. So when a few generations later, when the Early Church Fathers convened to officially the create the New Testament canon of Scriptures, for the most part, they did the with great ease. Christians of generations past had already recognized those 27 books as God-inspired revelation, not just because the teaching had authority, but also because these had been equipping, edifying and encouraging the church for decades.

So why do I think Acts 5:29 is the most Mennonite verse in the Bible? Let’s fast forward in history to the 1500s for some Anabaptist history (for those of you who don’t know, the Mennonites would come from the Anabaptists). Actually, let’s start with some Anabaptist pre-history. Ulrich Zwingli had begun a Reformation in Zurich, Switzerland, question both Catholic doctrine and Catholic church practices. In fact, the Anabaptist forefathers George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz were disciples of Ulrich Zwingli. They looked up to him, but they saw that he had one big flaw, which Zwingli did not see as a flaw at all! Zwingli had a high view of church and state. Therefore, Zwingli would always ask the city council for permission before making a reform, and Zwingli would only go through with it if he received the city council’s stamp of approval. The Anabaptist forefathers, Blaurock, Grebel and Manz sharply disagreed with Zwingli on this practice. They believed the city council had no authority to make decisions for the Christian or for the church. They believed only the Bible had the authority to do so. This caused the early Anabaptists to hold their own Bible studies, in which they read and re-read the Bible in order to learn how to live life as the Bible says to live life, not as any governing body said so.

 

 

At the time, the pressing issue just happened to be infant baptism. Ulrich Zwingli had actually played around with the thought of removing infant baptism, but when the council refused to get rid of infant baptism because they used the infant baptism as their method of taking census, Zwingli submitted and ceased to play around with the idea anymore.

 

 

 

 

The Anabaptist forefathers, Blaurock, Grebel and Manz could not submit so easily. When they read the Bible, they could not find infants being baptized, but they saw adults being baptized as a symbol of voluntarily joining the church and the kingdom. Therefore, Conrad Grebel refused to baptized his daughter, and George Blaurock had Conrad Grebel baptize him as an adult, for Grebel and Blaurock believed that they followed the Bible more closely by doing so. So let me make a big and bold interpretation of history, for all history is interpreted. The initiation and foundation of the Anabaptism is not adult baptism, as the name hints. If big issue of the day would have been communion, we would have been known as the memorialists. If the big issue of the day would have been war, we would have been known as the pacifists. The initiation, foundation and driving force behind the Anabaptists and the Mennonites is the belief that the Bible, as God’s inspired Word, is the ultimate authority on truth and righteous living not man. To sum it up, I would use our verse, Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men!”

 

 

 

If you need anymore, listen to this quote by Anabaptist forefather Felix Manz. At his trial, he gave this simple defense, “I wish to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to purchase the rest in their present conviction.” As simple as Manz’s defense is, it’s also complex. Not only does Felix give the obedience of the Word a priority in his belief, he also recognize the only way a person can transition from accepting Jesus to following in Christ’s footsteps is obeying his word.

Let’s catch to the present day, to the 21^st century. How do we can continue on the tradition of acknowledging God’s Word as the authority on how to live our life, just like the apostles did in the 1^st century and the Anabaptist forefathers did the 16^th century? First, we have to know the Word. We cannot follow the Word unless we know the Word. This involves reading our Bible on a daily basis. This involves reading that Bible story for the hundredth time, if not more. That means taking to the time read and listen on what other Christians had to say about that passage, in both the past and present. And it involves taking the time to meditate and reflect on the Scriptures that are read. We cannot obey and follow unless we know what to obey and follow.

 

 

If you’re a teacher, or even took one teaching class in college, you’ll know there was this guy with the last name Bloom, who had a taxonomy, famously called Bloom’s Taxonomy. On Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom's taxonomy displays the levels of learning. On the lower end, the base of the pyramid, you have lower end learning, "knowledge," which is as simple as remembering, even if it's by rote memorization. On the higher end, the top of the pyramid, you have higher learning, like analysis (breaking things down), synthesis (putting things together), and evaluation. The reason for the pyramid shape is that higher end learning cannot happen without a base of lower end thinking. Let's look at an example. Consider the question, "Would Augustine have justified World War II with his Just War Theory?" That's a high-end learning evaluation question. In order to answer that question, you needed a base of lower-level thinking knowledge. From the question alone, you need to know who Augustine was, what his Just War Theory was, and what World War II was. After finding out those answers, you'd have to build another base of knowledge and comprehension by making connections. After learning that Augustine's Just War Theory says that all other possible means must be exhausted before declaring war, you'd have to look into what other nations attempted to do to stop Hitler prior to World War II. After learning that Augustine's Just War Theory states the least destructive methods have to be used, you'd have to learn about the weapons and armor used in World War II, from the H-bomb to the fire bombings of Tokyo. See what I mean? If we want this generation of Christians, and the future generations of Christians, to live out a Christian lifestyle, we must start by building a foundation of Biblical knowledge. Without that foundation of Biblical knowledge, how can we expect future Christians to know how to apply a Christian lifestyle to the world that they live in?

 

 

If you still need convincing, you need to read unChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. In most of the book unChristian, Kinnaman and Lyons focuses on surveying non-Christians to understand how they see Christians, but a few times, they survey Christians, and those surveys are quite eye-opening. When surveying Christians, David and Gabe wanted to make sure they were really surveying Christians, not just people who said they were Christian. So in order to qualify as Christian, the person had to call himself or her a “born again Christian,” a “fully devout Christian” or a Christian who “accepted/received Jesus as Lord/Savior.” I think we can agree that those people are indeed genuine Christians. They then wanted to see if those Christians had a Biblical worldview, meaning that they saw the world as the Bible sees the word. In order to have a Biblical worldview, the Christian had to believe that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe, Jesus was sinless, Satan is real, salvation is a gift from God than cannot be earned, a Christian has the responsibility of sharing his/her faith with other people, the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches, there is such thing as unchanging moral truths, and the Bible tells us what those moral truths are. Once again, I believe we can all agree this is the bare minimum of a Biblical worldview. Guess how many Christian could say they have a Biblical worldview because they hold to all 7 beliefs. It’s not half of the Christians at 50%. It’s not a third of Christians at 33.3%. It’s 25%, 20%, 17.6%, 12.5% or even 10%. It’s 3-9%. Among Christians between the ages of 20 to 40, only 3% had a Biblical worldview. That’s roughly 1 out of 33. Among Christians over the age 40, only 9% of Christians had a Biblical worldview. That’s roughly 1 out of 11. Wow.

That’s the not even the shocking part! After determining which Christians had Biblical worldview, Kinnaman and Lyons asked all the Christians in their survey about their lifestyle choices. David and Gabe found that the Christians who signed off on all 7 beliefs of a Biblical worldview live a lifestyle completely counter cultural to the world around. The Christians who could not sign off on any of those beliefs, and the Christians who signed off on only a couple or a few of those beliefs, lived lifestyles very similar to the world and the culture around. We need to realize that the way we think does affect the way we act. It all starts in our brain and in our hearts, and it flows out of our hands. If we want to live out a Biblical worldview, we need to start by thinking a Biblical worldview.

But as the Parable of Wise Builder and the Foolish Builder reminds us, it’s no good to just listen to God’s Words. We must apply it, and we must obey it. I could say so much about that. Of course, if the Bible says do it, you do it. If the Bible says don’t do it, then don’t do it. If you’re unsure, consider doing whatever is counter culture. Sure, it might be sinful, Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians, that while it may not be sinful, we still need to consider if it helps or hinders our spiritual growth and relationship with God. Most often than not, when we choose to live counter-cultural to world around us, we grow spiritual and become closer to God.

Speaking of counter culture, one of the best way to continue the tradition of Biblical obedience that the apostles started in the 1st century and the Anabaptist forefathers continued in the 16^th century is to be a witness by your counter-cultural obedience. When we talk about being a witness, we usually think of Christians witnessing to non-Christians, and rightfully so, for this is where our priority should be. But I believe that Christian denominations can be witnesses to other Christian denominations that certain beliefs work. And what a witness the Mennonite church has been!

Indeed, the Mennonites have influenced the church in the past, and the Mennonites are influencing the church in the present. Don’t believe me? In the United States of American, a majority of the churches (dare I say “most”)  practice adult baptism; only a minority still practice infant baptism. Who began that? The Mennonites. In many American churches (dare I say “most” again?), if you ask the pastor about the church’s view of communion, or read the booklet or pamphlet on church beliefs, you’ll discover that they hold a symbolic view of communion, most similar to what the Mennonites belief. Who started that? The Mennonites. And the Mennonites died over such issues! Those other American churches didn’t start agreeing with the Mennonites until it was safe to come out of hiding.

But the Mennonites’ influence does not cease in the past. The Mennonite still witness to other denominations in the present day. As a seminary student, I try to stay up-to-date with what pastors and theologians. I can’t count the number evangelical pastors who are beginning to say, “You know what? Christians joining the military to fight in a war doesn’t make sense. I can’t see Jesus enlisting to fight, nor can I see any Jesus wanting anyone to enlist. It would contradict what Jesus preached on the Sermon on the Mount.” And these are the most patriotic evangelical pastors, the ones who preach from a pulpit that stands next to the American flag! I can’t help but wonder if the Mennonites gave these evangelical pastors that idea. I’ve read many emergent pastors talk about bringing about the kingdom of God with social justice and social reform. The talk and language they are using is very similar to what I heard Mennonite pastors preach decades earlier. I can’t help but wonder if the Mennonites gave those emergent pastors these ideas. And churches all around the nation are beginning to introduce foot washing into their church practices. It began sneaking in as something a couple would do in a marriage ceremony. But as the pastors would prepare for the wedding ceremony and the foot washing, they began reading John 13, and they realized that this was a practice everyone was involved in, right alongside communion. And so pastors are beginning to introduce this idea of foot washing into the church. Now, they have to introduce it slowly and safely. Some churches are doing hand washing instead of foot washing; other churches have only the pastor administer the washing to the congregation. Still, the Mennonite witness proved that this practice spiritual benefited the church, and now other churches in America are having the same experience.

And I believe the Mennonite church can continue to be that faithful witness. I am slow to mention on how we can because it is a hot topic issue, but it recently has become very relevant in the Mennonite church. The Mennonite church is become more divided over the topic of homosexuality. At the last national conference, the Pink Mennonites (pro-gay Mennonites) were aggressively pushing the Mennonite church as whole to accept homosexuality and reject the idea that homosexuality is a sin. And so Mennonite USA passed a forbearance resolution. If I may be so bold, let me boldly proclaim that I believe our Anabaptist forefathers would be embarrassed to see what we become. Honestly, if I woke tomorrow morning, and I heard the news say, “The federal government has passed a law requiring all church to practice infant baptism. Anyone found baptizing adults will be imprisoned, tortured and killed.”, I would have to pause and ask myself, “Is that really worth dying over?” Our Anabaptist fathers thought it was. They were willing to be imprisoned, tortured and killed in order to Bible exactly to the letter. And here were are, in the 21^st century, falling in and conforming just because we don’t want to be ridiculed, made of fun, or appear as unloving. We have a wonderful opportunity to be that witness again! What an amazing witness it could be, too. Imagine all the other Christian denominations looking upon us and thinking, “Wow, those Mennonites believe homosexuality is a sin, but they are still a loving people, being nice and kind to everyone, even the gays and lesbians. I guess you really can be loving and opposing homosexuality as sinful.” We can be that, but we must stand our ground, despite what our surrounding culture says, both Christian and non-Christian.

Lord, thank you for the Bible. Thank you for your Word. Thank you for wanting to talk to us. May we receive it and show how much we appreciate it. May we use your Word to love and uplift one another, and most importantly, may we use your Word to love you and glorify you. Amen.

The Early Church's Testimony on the Doctrine of Creation

Introduction
Recently in the long span of church history, the traditional view of the Creation, as recorded in Genesis 1, has come into question. Starting the in the nineteenth century, science became more and more secular. This secularization peaked in the middle of century, when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his book The Origin of the Species. At the time, the divide between Creation and evolution was simply a divide between Christians and non-Christians. The divide continued that way until the early twentieth century. The famous Monkey Scopes trial made Christians look foolish for believing in Creation. Now some Christians, fearing looking foolish and ignorant to science, sought to make their faith compatible with evolution, producing groups like theistic evolutionists. Now Creation Christians not only had to combat atheist evolutionists, but also theistic evolutionists.

A growing debate between Creation theists and evolution theist is their origin. Both sides appeal to early church history. The Creation Christians will claim the church always believed in the Creation story as Genesis 1 records it. They claim that believing anything different will be acting against the orthodox doctrine the church has supported all of its history. The theistic evolutionists claim that the early church never read Genesis 1 literally, which opens the door for science, not the Bible, to explain how the universe came into existence. This paper will look at ten of the early church fathers and how they interpreted the first chapter of Genesis.

The Opposition

Before looking at the early church fathers, the opposition to the early church fathers must first be observed. Most of the early church fathers’ writings came in response to popular false teachings that began to penetrate the church. While the early church fathers did not have evolutionists pushing evolution upon the church, they did have philosophers whose philosophies entertained the minds of Christians. Some of these philosophies do even sound like evolution. The philosopher Epicurus taught the universe began when small particles began banging together in empty space. Hippolytus expanded on Epicurus’s idea, even teaching that God Himself came about from these particle colliding. The particles of matter did not have an origin. They simply existed for all eternity, past, present and future. Other philosophers taught about a demiurge. Platonic philosophers, like Plotinus, believed that the spirit was good and that matter was evil. Therefore, the Supreme God, a spirit, could not make anything out of matter, for he would be evil. So these philosophers created a demiurge, a creator god, who was evil because he worked with matter.  While some Christians naturally knew these philosophies did not work with orthodox Christianity, many Christians did try to make their religion and these philosophies compatible. Because of these Christian compromising their faith, the early church fathers knew they needed to speak out against these false philosophies.

Justin Martyr

 

Justin Martyr referenced the creation story in many of his writings. Like many of his day, Justin Martyr recognized the origin of life and the earth to come from the divine God. In his Second Apology, Justin states that the reason Christians call God the Creator derives from the fact that God “created and arranged all things.” Justin takes the belief a step further and recognizes God the Son, Jesus, as the Creator. In another writing, Justin takes the belief another step further and specific recognizes God as the creator of human life. In one of his writings, Justin defends the doctrine of the resurrection. Justin believes that God has the power to give life to any human again because God gave life to humans in the first place, which, to Justin, demonstrates his omniscience. Furthermore, in the same sentence, Justin goes on to say that this first instance of human life came about when God inserted his power into the earth to make the man. This quote demonstrates Justin believed the life of man came about as Genesis 1 recorded.  Same lies true for Justin when it comes to Eve. Eve, coming from Adam’s rib, proved to Justin God’s role as the Almighty Maker of everything he saw. Once again, Justin’s quote verifies that Justin saw Eve as real. To him, Eve was as real as Elizabeth or John the Baptist who only lived a century earlier than he did.  Without a doubt, Justin Martyr believed in the creation story literally, especially when it came to believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

Irenaeus of Lyons

 

Just like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus felt the need to defend God as the Creator of all things. Irenaeus explains that God formed the heaven, earth and seas, as well as all their contents, with his Wisdom and his Word. Like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus takes the doctrine a step further. Unlike Justin Martyr, who focuses on the Son as Creator, Irenaeus specifies the Holy Spirit as active with the Father and the Son at the Creation. The language Irenaeus uses in his defense, such as “formed man” and “planted paradise” proves that Irenaeus believed in a divine God that created the world, as described in Genesis 1. Irenaeus also went further by defending the creation as ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Appealing to Luke 18:27, which says that everything is possible with God, Irenaeus boldly declared God as the first substance, thus requiring all other substances to flow from him. When God created the world, he created the first elements for the first time. Irenaeus also defending creation having over six days of twenty-four hours. Although Irenaeus uses it to erroneously predict the end of the world, it shows Irenaeus took the days literally.

Clement of Alexandria

 

Young earth creationists or any Christian who interprets Genesis 1 literally would not want to quote Clement of Alexandria. Clement interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically, similar to how the Gnostics would have interpreted Scripture. For Clement, Genesis 1:1-5 describes the creation of a spiritual world, not the planet earth. The numbers for the days in Genesis 1 do not serve as ordinal numbers, according to Clement, but rather the value of their importance.  While this interpretation might seem unorthodox, or even heretical, to the literalist, Clement of Alexandria did contribute the orthodox doctrine of ex nihilo. As a matter of fact, Clement of Alexandria clearly states on three different occasions that God created the world out of nothing. On one of those instances, Clement credits the utter use of God’s will as the sole source of everything’s existence. In another instance, Clement explains that everything must come from out of nothing except God’s will alone. If humans came from a previously existing matter, then then humans might worship that matter, but if humans came from God’s will alone, then they must worship God alone.  While literalist Christians might want to shun Clement of Alexandria for his Gnostic-like interpretation of Genesis 1, they can learn from him and appreciate his practical reasoning on the importance of the ex nihilo doctrine.

Hermas

 

Hermas would have Irenaeus and Clement on the importance of the doctrine of ex nihilo. Hermas is most famous for his book The Shepherd of Hermas. His book begins with five vision. During the first vision, Hermas depicts God creating the world with his wisdom and by his strong, imperceptible power. After receiving five visions from the Good Shepherd in his book The Shepherds of Hermas, first mandates his readers to worship God as the creator who gives existence to everything non-existent and set them in motion. Not only does Hermas affirm God as the divine Creator, but he also affirms that the divine Creation formed the earth and everything in it out of nothing.

Tatian

 

Tatian might not seem like a candidate with whom young earth creationists or Christian literalists would want to side. Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Origen all deemed Tatian a heretic. Looking back at this point of history, historians believe some of the Early Church Fathers gave Tatian the title heretic because of his willingness to use Gnostic language in his writings. Looking at the remains of his writings, while using Gnostic language at some parts, Tatian holds to an orthodox belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christians today can learn from Tatian, especially concerning the creation of the world. For Tatian, the creation begins with the eternal God. Nothing existed before, not even reason, even reason God had to begat. From God comes everything, from reason to matter. Tatian’s proves that not only did the early Christians support ex nihilo, but they strongly opposed Greek philosophers like Plato who declared matter to be eternal. To the early Christians, only God alone is eternal.

Theophilus of Antioch

 

Theophilus of Antioch knew what the Greek philosophers believed, and he did not fear challenging those beliefs. Theophilus knew that the Greek philosophers believed matter and nature existed eternally, just like God did. Using logic and reason alone, Theophilus refuted them all. If matter and nature exists eternally like God, Theophilus, then God cannot be the creator of all things. Furthermore, Theophilus states, if matter and nature exists eternally alongside God, then matter and nature stand equal to God. If the first two statements stand, God’s role as creator is limited, for just like man, he can only create with the resources he has. On the contrary, if God is the source of all things, then he cannot be limited. The logic and reasoning of Theophilus demonstrates the early church concerned itself the importance of believing in creation ex nihilo. Christians today should also display that same concern Theophilus had.

Tertullian

 

Tertullian constructs most of his doctrine on the creation in Against Hermogenes. Hermogenes, a Platonic philosopher, believed that matter existed eternally, that everything in existence came from that eternal matter, and that all things made of matter are evil because matter itself is evil. At first, Tertullian has to confess that Scriptures never explicitly say creation came out of nothing. He confesses that Christians believe in creation out of nothing as a presupposition. Yet Tertullian also tells Hermogenes that creation out of nothing only makes logical sense. First, if matter existed eternally, like God exists eternally, then matter is equal to God. Second, if matter is co-eternal with God and equal to God, then God is not omnipotent. Third, God also would not be omnipotent because part of God’s power is that he can create something out of nothing. If God needs matter to create, he ceases to be omnipotent. Fourth, when God does make something from something else, the Scriptures always mention it. For example, Genesis 1 explicitly mentions the sky produced birds and fish springing forth from the season. Therefore, one can conclude that when the Bible does not mention God making something from another thing, it must come from out of nothing. All in all, Tertullian could logically conclude that God made created the world out of nothing, making God the source of everything. Furthermore, Tertullian’s reasoning came from reading and understanding Genesis 1 literally. While Tertullian understood Genesis to be an incomplete account, he still believed it was a trustworthy account.

Basil the Great

 

Basil the Great wrote a sermon series on the opening chapter of Genesis, called The Hexaemeron. From reading these six sermons, the reader can tell Basil the Great took Genesis 1 very literally, as literally as possible. From his sermons, the reader can tell Basil wrote his own theology of the creation. He believed the source of the creation lies within the divine God. He believed the days in Genesis 1 as six periods of time twenty-four hours long, refuting anyone who disagreed, even Augustine! He also refuted Augustine on his allegorical approach to the Scriptures. In his Hexaemeron, he does not only refute Augustine, but also the Platonic philosophers. He disagrees with the philosophers who claim that matter is evil by pointing out how God made everything good. He even calls out the philosophers who claim their ancestors were animals, possibly the first building blocks of evolution. Basil the Great holds to an orthodox view of the creation because he reads and interprets Genesis 1 literally.

Origen

 

Unlike the early church fathers discussed so far, Origen refused to read the first chapter of Genesis literally. For him, believing in a literal reading of Genesis 1 meant thinking contrary to logic, reasoning and history. For example, he could not comprehend how the first three days had a morning and an evening when God had not yet created neither the sun nor the moon. Origen traded in a literal translation of Genesis for a spiritual interpretation. Origen believed for God to be truly omnipotent, a creation always had to exist to demonstrate his omnipotence. Using that logic, Origen concluded that God had already created a spiritual world prior to the events in Genesis 1. This spiritual world contained rational creatures that God could demonstrate his omnipotence to. According to Origen, Moses records this world’s creation in Genesis 1, not the planet Earth. God created the planet earth when a Fall happened in the spiritual world.

While theistic evolutionists might want to rejoice at a church father that did not believe in a literal interpretation, they might want to hold back on using him as an example. Origen applied his spiritual hermeneutic all over the Bible, causing him to doubt many historical events. For example, Origen did not believe that the Devil came and tempted Jesus.  Also, Origen stood alone in his hermeneutic and exegesis of Genesis 1. No bishop, pastor or church leader ever supported his stance.  Therefore, anyone could easily say Origen’s view on the creation was unorthodox.

Augustine of Hippo

 

Like Origen, Augustine did not interpret Genesis 1 literally, but unlike Origen, he took a different route. Whereas Origen read Genesis with a spiritual hermeneutic, Augustine read Genesis with an allegorical hermeneutic. According to Augustine, the “lights” created on the first day were the angels. Instead of the six days meaning six time periods twenty-four hours long, the six days represented six stages of increasing knowledge and wisdom of the earth. For example, on the second day, the angels had knowledge of the sky, and on the third day, the angels gained knowledge of solid land and its vegetation. The Bible has creation happening over six days in order that a day seven, which is the number for completion, could happen. That “seventh day” represents completion of knowledge and rest. Despite his allegorical hermeneutics leading to unorthodox exegesis, Augustine did side with many orthodox doctrines. He defended the earth’s origins coming from the divine God. He sided with his counterparts on the importance of believing the creation came out of nothing. Surprisingly, Augustine also strongly believed in a youth, so much so that he would attack anyone who proposed an old earth. While a theistic evolutionist might appreciate Augustine for not reading Genesis 1 literally, they might want to hesitate siding with him, for Augustine still sided with an orthodox understanding of the creation, especially when it came to a young earth

Conclusion

This article has looked at the preaching and the writings of ten early church fathers. From looking at the consistency of the writings, an orthodox doctrine of the creation comes out of it. The early church believed that all things, living and non-living, come from God. The church firmly held to the creation coming out of nothing, opposing all who thought matter existed eternally, like God did. Most of them held to a literal six-day creation. Those who didn’t, like Origen and Augustine, read the Bible in an extreme spiritual or allegorical way, so extreme, it would make any orthodox Christian uncomfortable. For a theistic evolutionist to pull out Origen or Augustine to claim the early church did not take Genesis 1 literally would be misrepresenting the early church. Still, even these men held to a divine God, creating a young earth, out of nothing. The early church fathers created this orthodox doctrine to defend against non-Christians who questioned and attacked their faith. Christians today can use these defenses of the early church fathers in order to also defend their orthodox, traditional faith.