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
.jpg){kind=icon}
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment