The Creation Controversy, Part Three: The Weight of Traditional Views

Also in this series:

Introduction
Part One: Biblical Authority
Part Two: Authority from Tradition - the Jewish Sages and Early Church Fathers

From Part Two:

As we’ve seen from the preceding excerpts, past Jewish and Christian scholars alike held differing opinions on the Genesis creation account, with nearly all affirming that the account is at least partially figurative. Various elements of YEC and OEC beliefs appear in their writings, but none of the ancients appear to have held beliefs identical to these modern, opposing creation frameworks. With regard to the Early Church Fathers specifically, YEC authors have pointed out that the fathers believed in a young earth due to the biblical genealogies, and that is certainly true; however, there are some very important things that should be noted here.

The Weight of Traditional Views

When we consider the writings of the ancients on creation and the Genesis text, I believe it’s important to recognize that, while they addressed science in their writings and tried to demonstrate that the physical world readily conformed to the scriptures, they were not involved in the sort of “Bible right/science wrong” debates we see today. The context of the modern debate is simply not transferrable to the ancient context. The church fathers were not disputing what we’re disputing in the creation debate today. They were primarily concerned with imparting tradition and principles for godly conduct, defending the teachings of the faith against various outright heresies, investigating eschatology, and developing a systematized theology (especially where the doctrine of Christ was concerned).

Yes, it’s true that the church fathers thought the creation was rather recent due to the Genesis genealogies, but they had no reason to believe otherwise. They didn’t have access to hard scientific data showing that the earth is far older than a few thousand years; and even if they had had such data, I don’t believe their automatic response would have been “Bible right/science wrong.” The impression I’ve gathered from their writings is that they would have gone back to the scriptures to see if perhaps they had misunderstood something, as the church was forced to do during the geocentrism controversy. Indeed, we’ve seen some examples in the work of men like Origen and Augustine that, to at least some extent, the fathers explored the biblical text in search of hidden meanings. Augustine didn’t think he understood Genesis completely; in fact, he knew he didn’t.

Furthermore, as noted by Dr. John Millam, we should bear in mind that the early Christian writers were not schooled in ancient Hebrew, but used Greek and Latin texts in conducting their studies and composing their commentaries and apologies. Millam notes that Hebrew is different enough from Greek and Latin that even faithful translations of those languages “will not necessarily represent” the original Hebrew text.[1]

On another front, while it’s well-known that mysticism has always played a role in Jewish thinking and scriptural interpretation, what is not so well known (at least outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is that it also played a significant role in early and medieval Christian thinking and exegesis. In his review of the early Christian writers’ beliefs about creation, Millam notes that they saw the Old Testament in terms of its being a veiled revelation of Christ, and that they often drew upon allegorical and numerological methods in order to “uncover hidden Christological meanings” in the text.[2]

The famous compiler of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome (c. AD 347 to 420), furnishes two noteworthy examples of Christological inferences drawn from the text of Genesis. The first example comes from Jerome’s first Homily, and has to do with spiritual applications drawn from Solomon likening wisdom to a “tree of life” in Proverbs 3:18:

 

Now, if wisdom is the tree of life, Wisdom itself indeed is Christ. You understand now that the man who is blessed and holy is compared to this tree, that is, he is compared to Wisdom… He is, in other words, like Christ, inasmuch as He ‘raised us up together, and seated us together in heaven.’ You see, then, that we shall reign together with Christ in heaven; you see, too, that because this tree has been planted in the Garden of Eden, we shall all have been planted together there with Him.[3]

The second example comes from Homily 10 (written on Psalm 76), where Jerome derives a “mystical” meaning from Genesis 1:2, where the Spirit of God is said to be present over the waters of the earth:

 

Now for its mystical meaning. ‘The Spirit was stirring above the waters’; already at that time baptism was being foreshadowed. It could not be true baptism, to be sure, without the Spirit.[4]

Another particularly noteworthy example of what we might call ‘Christological mysticism’ in the writings of early Christian theologians can be found in Augustine’s treatment of God’s separation of light and darkness on the first day of creation. In The City of God, Augustine maintained that God’s statement, “Let there be light,” does not apply to the visible spectrum, but is actually a description of the creation of angels, and that God’s subsequent separation of light from darkness was the separation of the holy angels from the fallen angels:

 

There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called “Day,” and whose unity scripture signalizes by calling that day not the “first day” but “one day.” For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same one day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that there should be knowledge both of God’s works and of His rest. For when God said, “Let there be light and there was light,” if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illuminated by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called “Day”…

 

To me it does not seem incongruous with the working of God, if we are to understand that the angels were created when that first light was made, and that a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels, when, as is said, “God divided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” For he alone could make this discrimination, who was able also before they fell, to foreknow that they would fall, and that, being deprived of the light of truth, they would abide in the darkness of pride.[5]

This is certainly a very different interpretation than what is offered by young-earth creationists today!

Progressive Revelation

The Bible makes it clear that God is dealing with humanity according to a plan he conceived and set in motion long ago, the details of which are fully known only to him. He has chosen to make aspects of that plan known to men, but scripture reveals that he has done this in a progressive fashion, often in veiled language, and at particular times of his choosing. As a result, quite often a word given to one generation may not be entirely understood until some later time.

 

There is an appointed time for everything; and there is a time for every event under heaven…He has made everything appropriate in its time…He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. – Ecclesiastes 3:1, 11

 

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. – Proverbs 25:2a

 

“It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.” – Acts 1:7

We see an example of this sort of veiled revelation in the book of Daniel, where an angel who provided Daniel with significant revelations of the future told him to “conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will be increased” (Daniel 12:4).[6] In the New Testament, the apostle Paul refers to the inclusion of gentiles in the blessings of the New Covenant as “the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested” (Romans 16:25), “the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things” (Ephesians 3:9), and “the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but now has been manifested to His saints” (Colossians 1:26). In his first epistle, the apostle Peter is likely referring to this same mystery of Christ and the church when he writes that “the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries…It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you” (I Peter 1:10-12).

In these passages, Peter and Paul make it clear that the Old Testament prophesies, in spite of being well known among the Jewish people, were not entirely understood when they were given. Witness the fact that the first-century Jewish religious leaders, they who were the most well-versed of all Jews when it came to the scriptures and their various prophecies, did not recognize their own Messiah when he finally came and fulfilled those prophecies right before their eyes!

Even Christ’s own disciples who followed him and daily heard his teachings often did not understand what he was doing or what he meant by what he said until later. We see an example of this in Matthew 16:6-12, where Jesus warns his disciples to “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples thought this warning came because they had forgotten to bring bread with them on their journey, but Jesus responded that they had misunderstood him:

 

“You men of little faith. Why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread…How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In John 2, Jesus tells the Jews, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” When the Jews ask him how he planned to do this, given that it had taken forty-six years to build the temple in the first place, John tells us that Jesus was not speaking of the physical temple, but rather, “of the temple of His body.” No one understood this at the time, but “when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (John 2:22).

Also, consider the night of the Last Supper, when Jesus began to wash his disciples’ feet. Simon Peter was aghast at Christ taking on the role of a common servant, but Jesus emphasized that what he was doing was necessary, remarking “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter” (John 13:7b).

On at least two occasions, Jesus had to spiritually open the eyes and minds of his disciples in order for them to perceive truth:

 

When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it He began giving it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. – Luke 24:30-31

 

Then He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures. – Luke 24:44-45a

As for the crowds who followed Jesus, the gospels plainly tell us that the meaning of his teaching was deliberately hidden from them. They received truth in the form of obscuring symbolism, whereas only his disciples were allowed to know the deeper significance of his teachings:

 

And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.” – Matthew 13:10-12

A ready example of this is Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse, recorded in John 6. After feeding the 5,000 and being challenged to perform yet another sign, Jesus declared “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven,” and “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves” (vv 51, 53). The people were perplexed by this, and argued amongst themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v 52). John goes on to tell us that the people were so confused by this teaching that “many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with him anymore” (v 66).

It’s critical to note here that Jesus allowed the people to leave in confusion when they didn’t understand his teaching. He didn’t pursue them and try to persuade them to come back. He didn’t even try to explain his teaching in deeper terms, other than to remark that his words were “spirit and life” (v 63). He could easily have said something like, “Come on, people, don’t be dense: you know what a metaphor is,” but he didn’t do this. He allowed them to believe the wrong thing and to walk away from him.

In light of these and other examples that could be provided, we have abundant scriptural proof, even coming from the lips of the Lord himself, that is sometimes actually unwise to take what God tells us in what seems to be the most literal fashion. He often speaks in symbolism, even when describing real things, and he sovereignly chooses when, and to whom, to reveal deeper truths. Even the ceremonies the Hebrews observed under the Law of Moses—which certainly had literal, practical applications in their daily lives—were but “shadows of the things which were to come” (Colossians 2:16-17).

It is nothing but presumption to assume we possess a full understanding of all of the levels of truth in scripture. As the apostle Paul famously says in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For we know in part and we prophesy in part…for now we see in a mirror dimly.” Note that this is being said in the era after the Holy Spirit had been given, and by an apostle who had received special revelation, written scripture, and performed unusual miracles. Even Paul didn’t claim to have complete knowledge of all spiritual matters.

Young-earthers will likely object here that, in Genesis, we’re dealing with a simple, historical account rather than with parables or complex prophecies; therefore, a simple, literal reading of the text must be what is intended: “Why should we not understand Genesis in the same way that we understand the account of the woman at the well in John chapter four?” they often ask. In response, I point out two things:

First, the notion that the Genesis creation account is meant to be understood as a simple historical account (and nothing more) is an assumption, and only an assumption. To assert something is one thing, to prove it is another.

In the past, I’ve heard young-earth teachers say things like, “You know, the ancient Jews and Christians were just dumb enough to take God at his word in Genesis.” This is a sarcastic dig at anyone who thinks the creation account may not be entirely literal, and is yet another means of attempting to make the Genesis debate a matter of biblical authority. In response, I must reiterate biblical precedents here. As we have seen, those who interpreted Jesus’ teachings in the same hyper-literal fashion that young-earth creationists interpret Genesis today got his meaning completely wrong—and he didn’t always correct them. Again, John tells us that Jesus actually allowed many of his disciples to turn away from him in consternation because they took him too literally.

In conjunction with this, remember that Christ himself was the agency of creation, per John 1:1-3. Given that he consistently taught in parables, it is at the very least possible that the revelation he provided as the living Word of God concerning the creation process may itself be in the form of illustrative symbolism.

Second, although the Genesis creation account is not prophecy, it’s quite similar to prophecy in some very significant ways. Consider for a moment: What are three defining characteristics of biblical prophecies?

 

1. They are often given in veiled language.
2. Often, they are not completely understood until after they are fulfilled.
3. No one has seen the events they describe take place yet.

Just as no one has seen prophetic events fulfilled yet, so no one saw the events of the Genesis creation account take place. If God routinely describes future events humans have not yet seen in terms of veiled language, it seems at the very least possible, plausible, that he may have described past events that men did not see in similar language. In fact, God himself may be suggesting this to us in Isaiah 46:9-10:

 

“Remember the former things long past, for I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure.’”

If the beginning and the end are tied together—and we know we have not yet understood the end—it seems at least reasonable, plausible, that we may not have completely understood the beginning, either. It may be that neither will be entirely understood until the work God has planned to carry out through the physical creation has been accomplished. It may be that, at present, we see both the beginning and the end “in a mirror dimly.”

Indeed, there are interesting similarities between the first and last books of the Bible. In Genesis, creation is revealed in a period of seven days. In Revelation, the end of the age is revealed through the opening of seven seals. The seventh day of Genesis has no evening, while the events of the seventh seal of Revelation have no apparent end—thus both appear to inaugurate open-ended periods of time. In Genesis 2:2, we’re told “By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.” In Revelation, the opening of the seventh seal leads to silence in heaven, which may represent a rest following the tumultuous events of the six seals—rest or, perhaps, simply completion. In Genesis, the end of the sixth day is described as follows: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts” (Genesis 1:31-2:1). In Revelation, the seventh bowl judgment, which, to my understanding, is the last event of the sixth-seal time period and occurs immediately before the opening of the seventh seal, is accompanied by the proclamation “It is done” (Revelation 16:17).

Thus, it appears that, as the work of the six days of Genesis was completed by the seventh day, so the “work” of the six seals is also completed by the opening of the seventh seal. As the six days of Genesis prepared the earth for man’s rule under Adam, so the six seals of Revelation appear to prepare the earth for the rule of Christ, whom Paul calls “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Given the evident connection here, it seems reasonable to ask: If the seven seals of Revelation convey future history in symbolism, why cannot the seven “days” of Genesis convey past history in symbolism? Is that really so implausible, especially when we consider that Moses was a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15-18)?

What all of this does or does not prove is up for debate, but I do not believe these similarities are coincidental. The early Christian writers were probably correct to look for Christological parallels in Genesis, and I think it would be very unwise to evaluate the text with a purely surface level approach. We are in the midst of a divine plan that is still in motion, and until it is complete, no one will understand all of its intricacies apart from God himself.

Young-earth teachers are right to point out that the revelation in the Genesis creation account is given to enlighten our understanding of the world; but in their zeal to uphold the Word of God, they have overlooked the subtle fact that our knowledge of the world also aids our understanding of the revelation concerning it. We have seen a degree of confusion in the writings of the Jewish sages and the Early Church Fathers regarding Genesis, and I submit that some of this confusion stemmed from their primitive knowledge of the universe. They had revelation concerning the physical world, but they did not have the understanding of the physical world necessary for understanding the revelation concerning it. This limitation must be kept in mind when we evaluate their views of Genesis.

I have often referred to Genesis as “the kindergarten account of creation” because it was given to people who lacked a sophisticated knowledge of cosmology, to say nothing of the expertise we have since acquired in other scientific disciplines as well. It was still relevant to them because it revealed the truth of God as the creator and organizer of all things, the only one to whom worship and service are rightly due, and the very God of Abraham who was the founder of the Hebrew nation. This was entirely appropriate given the pagan, polytheistic society from which the Hebrews had just emerged when Moses wrote the Torah, and it served as the foundational truth for all of Hebrew society, worship, law, and justice at the time. It’s no coincidence that the first of the Ten Commandments reiterates this in saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:1-2). Without this commandment, there would have been no reason for Israel to obey any of the other commandments. For this reason, Genesis 1 could be viewed as the historical background offered in support of the First Commandment.

Think for a moment: When Christ called himself “the good Shepherd,” he was drawing a picture for his audience that was only relevant to them because they came from an agrarian society and shepherding was common. Because they understood the nature and duties of a shepherd on the natural level, they were able to understand the comparison Christ was making on a spiritual level. Had Christ attempted to draw the same comparison before a group of Inuit hunters, however, it would have had no relevance to them because shepherding is unknown in Inuit society.

In summary here, while we should not dismiss the opinions of ancient and medieval scholars out of hand where the Genesis creation account is concerned, nor should we consider ourselves bound by them.

The church fathers were products of Greco-Roman society, and Moses was already ancient history even in their day. As we’ve seen, none of them were experts in ancient Hebrew, and the culture and mindset of the ancient Near East were foreign to them. They were trying to reverse-engineer the Old Testament just as much in their day as we are in our time; and modern scholars have access to a wealth of materials that were apparently unavailable to Christian scholars in the first few centuries AD—materials that were not unearthed until relatively recently.[7] Moreover, the fathers were trying to further their understanding of creation and the scriptures on the basis of primitive scientific methods and a woefully inadequate understanding of the physical universe.

To paraphrase Augustine, the church fathers knew all they required for the sake of their eternal salvation; and to paraphrase Origen, their attempts to understand these mysteries left them with plenty of food for pious thought—but deeper understandings of the mechanics of creation, and how biblical revelation touches on it, would have to wait until future generations came on the scene.

Even now, however, in our scientifically sophisticated age, we should not assume we know everything needed to understand creation and the scriptures completely. In fact, to assume this is to effectively place oneself in the category of persons to whom God consistently refuses to reveal his truths, such as those whom the apostle Paul tells us are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Timothy 3:7). It’s essential we remain open to what the Lord may yet reveal, for as James tells us:

 

God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. – James 4:6b

 

 

 

Next in this series: Man's Fallible Opinions

---

[1] John Millam, “Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers’ Perspective on Genesis.” God and Science.org. Millam notes that Origen, “and possibly Eusebius,” did study Hebrew but that neither of them had expertise in the language.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3] Marie Liguori Ewald, trans. The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Volume 1 (1-59 on the Psalms). (Washington D.C., Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 7.

[4] Ibid, p. 74.

[5] Augustine, The City of God. Book XI, Chapters  9 and 19.

[6] Some take this to reference a general increase in human knowledge toward “the time of the end,” but given the context I believe the angel specifically meant that the prophecy he had just given Daniel would not be fully understood until a time in the distant future. To this day, we are still debating the true meanings of Daniel’s visions, just as we debate the meanings of the visions that John recorded for us in the book of Revelation. In spite of the detailed prophetic paradigms of Bible teachers who believe they’ve figured everything out, it is entirely possible that we may not fully understand these prophecies until after they have been fulfilled.

[7] I’m specifically thinking of Ancient Near Eastern resources here, such as the Ugaritic texts, and expertise in the languages of the region.