My Blog on Global Warming issues http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm
Free Hit Counter
Visitors to these pages since
12-29-97
Related Pages,
Days of Proclamation
Why I beleive Genesis is Historically Accurate
Plain Reading of Genesis 1
The Bible's Way of Telling Us the Earth is Old
Theory for Creationists
Evidence for One World Language
How God used Evolution
The Metaphysical Casino--Why I believe in Design
Genesis 1:11, Why the Bible teaches evolution
One
of the most common claims Young Earth Creationists use when arguing Biblically
for their view point is that YEC was the “original” viewpoint of the Church
until modern times. That is flat out wrong and some of the leading young-earth
creationist groups are blatantly repeating that falsehood. For an example I will
refer you to ICR impact article number 160 “Creation Science and the early
Church“ Answers in Genesis also has a link to that article in their Q&A
section. What makes it even more tragic is that there are many people like me
who stick with YEC in large part because they think the Early Church Fathers (ECF’s)
held to it. My first step in leaving the shackles of YEC thought was when I
found out that a number of high profile ECF’s did not hold a young-earth
interpretation. But of course please do not take my word for it, you can read
what the ECF’s said for yourself below. For ease of research I have only used
quotes from works available online and have attached the links at the bottom of
each quote. Most of the quotes are pretty long because I want to make sure that
they are in context but I have been careful to emphasize the important parts.
There is a straw man that YEC’s will throw at me for writing this. They will
pull quotes of the ECF’s stating that the earth is a matter of thousands of
years old but that is misleading because the ECF’s knowledge of geology is not
what is important but rather whether or not they think Scripture demands a
literal Six Day interpretation. Remember that this essay is not about what the
early church thought of natural history but rather what they thought of the
Bible. If we were to use their words about the age of the earth as “proof”
that Christianity taught a young earth than we must also keep in mind that all
of the ECF’s, as far as I can tell, believed in Ptolemy’s earth-centered
model of the universe. So let us stick to what they said about Bibilical
interpretation.
Let us start with the Early Father of the Church, Origen. In his book Against
Celus he stated:
“…We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's
"commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when
we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all
things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were,
very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the
Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily
Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of
the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that
are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus
causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature
alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic
animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have
treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the
foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in
their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the
creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations
of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD
God made the earth and the heavens."
(Against Celus 6:60 [AD 248])
You can find this book online at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm
Here he is not arguing for a specific view but rather finding fault with the
literalists. Next we move onto someone everyone must be familiar with, St.
Justin Martyr.
“For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we
know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover,
that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected
with this subject.”
(Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])
Online source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm
In this quote we have St. Justin Martyr talking about the word “day” in
Genesis meaning a period of a thousand years by pointing out that despite God
telling Adam he would die within a day of sinning he lived over 900 years. That
is to say that the days were not literal 24 hour periods. This view is not
limited to St. Justin as we see in the next quote Irenaeus speaks of a similar
idea:
“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth
year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not
overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence
of his sin.”
(Against Herasies, 5:23 [AD 189])
Online Source: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...m#P9216_2679777
It appears that this view of each day containing a thousand years was popular
among Early Church Fathers as we read from St. Cyprian of Carthage:
““As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven
thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go
in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle
of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven
columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number
seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven
churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath
borne seven”
(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])
Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0507.htm
I find what Clement of Alexandria writes curious. He says that we cannot know
when creation took place from reading Scripture:
““That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not
suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the
generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that
God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were
created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the
expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God
made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was
made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says,
"This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in
it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us
celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden,
and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day. “
(Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])
Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm
St. Augustine also comments on his view of the word “day” in the Creation
Week. In City of God St. Augustine expressed his amazement of the creation days:
“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation
change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six
or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on
the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh
the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days
these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive,
and how much more to say!”
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])
Online Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm
Augustine refers to the days as “impossible to conceive”. I doubt he would
refer to 24 hour periods as inconceivable. There are more quotes out there and I
intend to find them. But such work takes time and I am but a lowly working
student. I intend to add more quotes as I find them but the ones I have already
found from some of the most influential ECF’s should be more than enough to
dispel the false notion that six 24-hour day creationism held some kind of
monopoly on Christian thought for 1800 years. But that is not to say YEC did not
exist back then. There were some 24 hour day proponents among the ECF's as well.
The truth is there really was no universal consensus on interpreting Genesis but
the fact that there was such a diversity of views proves that organizations like
AiG and ICR are telling people what is clearly not true. It saddens me to think
that Christians would use such apologetics in the name of Christ.
[note added by Glenn Morton: For a quote from Clement of
Alexandria (pointed out to me by John) and some Talmudic views along the same
line see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm