What did the church fathers believe concerning Genesis?

[shunyadragon]

There has been confusion and a diversity of 'opinions' concerning how the church fathers view Genesis. This thread I hope clarifies this issue. My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

I believe it is Augustine, not some, who described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on evidence.

I consider the belief that Creation took place in 6 days or 6,000 years (2 Peter 3:8) to be literal Creation accounts.

I will focus on those church fathers who did express their views on Genesis. It is true some church fathers did not even mention this issue of the interpretation of Genesis.

Source: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:


“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2

Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3 This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:


“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:


“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”

© Copyright Original Source

As we will see the earliest writer had a distinct effect on the later church fathers.

Augustine seemed to express an independent view from other church fathers. I will discuss his view in more detail later. I believe described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on future discovered evidence.

[rogue06]

There has been confusion and a diversity of 'opinions' concerning how the church fathers view Genesis. This thread I hope clarifies this issue. My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

I believe it is Augustine, not some, who described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on evidence.

I consider the belief that Creation took place in 6 days or 6,000 years (2 Peter 3:8) to be literal Creation accounts.

I will focus on those church fathers who did express their views on Genesis. It is true some church fathers did not even mention this issue of the interpretation of Genesis.

Source: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:


“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2

Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3 This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:


“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:


“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”

© Copyright Original Source

As we will see the earliest writer had a distinct effect on the later church fathers.

Augustine seemed to express an independent view from other church fathers. I will discuss his view in more detail later. I believe described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on future discovered evidence.

I'll try to remember to get to this after the holidays but for now I want to point out something about what I bolded.

Even according to the days being literal 24 hour long interpretation humans were not around on the first day. IIRC Genesis 1 describes Adam as being created on the fourth day making it real hard for him to "[fall] into sin on the literal first day of Creation."

[seanD]

My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

Paul and Luke were the first to espouse a literal Genesis creation.

[Truthseeker]

Paul and Luke were the first to espouse a literal Genesis creation.

That implies atleast one verse in the Bible that you think supports such an assertion. Please tell us what.

[seanD]

That implies atleast one verse in the Bible that you think supports such an assertion. Please tell us what.

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

[shunyadragon]

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

I agree with you, sort of, indirectly that he believed in a literal Adam in the context of a literal Genesis.

I think it is justified to request that you provide scripture to justify your claim.

[shunyadragon]

Two more church fathers and the belief in a literal Genesis. Please note the link as students of previous church fathers.

Source: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome (AD 170 – 236), was trained in the faith by Irenaeus, and like his mentor, he held to literal Creation days. He writes:

“And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”6

Lactantius, a Bible scholar (AD 260 – 330) who tutored Emperor Constantine’s son, Crispus, taught the official Christian doctrine of the traditional church. He wrote:

“To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days…. In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night….”7

As with the other church leaders at the time, he accepted the prophetic days of 2 Peter 3:8, and tells us:

“Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.”

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

I'll try to remember to get to this after the holidays but for now I want to point out something about what I bolded.

Even according to the days being literal 24 hour long interpretation humans were not around on the first day. IIRC Genesis 1 describes Adam as being created on the fourth day making it real hard for him to "[fall] into sin on the literal first day of Creation."

I believe Barnabas is reference to Genesis 2:4, interpreted as the first day God created human, and possibly why Augustine considered Creation instantaneous.

Genesis - 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

[robrecht]

The idea of creation occurring simultaneously was already a more ancient Jewish idea, prior to the church fathers, offered as one interpretation among others of Genesis 1. By the way, Genesis 1 describes the creation of mankind on the sixth day. Genesis 2,4 was indeed part of the problem being resolved by this Jewish midrash, but it also related to the syntax of Genesis 1,1, for which there were diametrically opposed Jewish interpretations, one of which can be used to support creatio ex nihilo and the other which could be used to support the idea of pre-existing stuff out of which God created the heavens and the earth. Both uses of this text probably go beyond the intent of the original authors of Genesis 1 as there does not seem to be any indication that this was an explicit consideration of this question being addressed by the Hebrew text.

[shunyadragon]

The idea of creation occurring simultaneously was already a more ancient Jewish idea, prior to the church fathers, offered as one interpretation among others of Genesis 1. By the way, Genesis 1 describes the creation of mankind on the sixth day. Genesis 2,4 was indeed part of the problem being resolved by this Jewish midrash, but it also related to the syntax of Genesis 1,1, for which there were diametrically opposed Jewish interpretations, one of which can be used to support creatio ex nihilo and the other which could be used to support the idea of pre-existing stuff out of which God created the heavens and the earth. Both uses of this text probably go beyond the intent of the original authors of Genesis 1 as there does not seem to be any indication that this was an explicit consideration of this question being addressed by the Hebrew text.

Agree

[arnoldo]

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

Also, see Matthew 19:4.

[seanD]

I agree with you, sort of, indirectly that he believed in a literal Adam in the context of a literal Genesis.

I think it is justified to request that you provide scripture to justify your claim.

He didn't just believe in Adam, he believed that Adam was the "first man" and that through this man death entered the world, which is diametrically opposed to not just ToE but any esoteric accommodative theories about a "special" race of humans that God isolated from evolving lower primates (which the science of ToE doesn't support either). In other words, the choice is either or. Either ToE happened or Genesis creation happened. Paul and Luke believed the latter.

[Truthseeker]

First answer me this: If you don't believe that Paul and Luke understood the Genesis creation as history, explain to me what they believed about it exactly.

I need to look in the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

Let's take a look at Clement

Source: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

Clement of Alexandria (AD 153 – 217), was famous as a Bible teacher, and he taught Origen. Although some evangelicals think he held to a liberal view on Creation, he actually had a mixed approach. He has an historical date for Creation of 5592 BC (Stromata, or Miscellanies 1:21) and he said about the Creation days:

“For the creation of the world was concluded in six days ...Wherefore also man is said to have been made on the sixth day ... Some such thing also is indicated by the sixth hour in the scheme of salvation, in which man was made perfect.”15

Although the context of the above passage is indeed figurative, it is clear that Clement was referring to a literal six-day Creation with man being “made perfect” in the sixth hour of the sixth day. Clement was influenced by the rabbinical teaching of the six hours in which God completed man, an idea which goes beyond the bounds of Scripture, but yet demonstrates a literalist view.16

In conclusion, my investigation clearly demonstrated to me that the Church Fathers were almost unanimous on the twin beliefs of a literal six-day Creation and a “young earth”. Origen, who was influenced by pagan views and held to some heretical ideas, was the main exception to the rule. Although the Church Fathers were literalists, it is true that they also used Genesis in a figurative way to point prophetically to the return of Christ, and to draw out spiritual messages for their audiences, as do literal creationists today.

© Copyright Original Source

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43

I consider the list given in this source incomplete. I will follow up with the view of others also.

The exception given here is Origen. We will explore Origen's view next. I also consider Augustine also an exception worth exploring.

[shunyadragon]

The following is a selection of Origen's writings concerning this subject.

Source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

Origen

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . 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" (ibid., 6:60).

"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

© Copyright Original Source

The previous source claimed Origen was influenced by pagan sources. Any other evidence for this?