Davis A. Young
Calvin College Grand Rapids, Ml 49506
From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith40.1:42-45(3/1988)
common impression existsamong lay Christians and many non-Christians that the church interpreted Genesis1-3 literally
until the last two centuries. This allegedly traditional rendering includes theidea that God created the cosmos over a span of six ordinary 24-hour days, thatthere was no death in the world until the fall of Adam, and that at the time ofthe fall God introduced many other unpleasantries into the world-order as apunishment for sin. Included is the notion that thorns and thistles were notpart of the original creation. Moreover, one encounters the suggestion that thechurch firmly held to these traditional ideas until the early 19th century, whengeology proposed the concepts of an old earth and death before the appearance ofman. The conclusion for many evangelicals is that these traditional ideas arethe plain teaching of Scripture, and that attempts to avoid these plainteachings arose because of an unholy desire to accommodate biblical teaching tothe dictates of an anti-Christian modern science.
That such a reading of church history is simplistic becomes clear when weconsider the views of Augustine, the church's greatest theologian between Pauland Aquinas, on Genesis 1-3. Although we can gain an inkling of Augustine'sapproach to Genesis 1-3 from scattered comments in Confessions and The City ofGod, deeper insight is now possible for a wide audience with the recentpublication of a fresh English translation of his great work, On the LiteralMeaning of Genesis.' The few studies of Augustine's view of creation that arebased on the Latin text are not widely accessible. It is my judgment that anyoneseriously interested in the Genesis-science discussion should take the time tostudy this new translation. It is full of surprises. I wish to make a fewobservations about Augustine's general approach and his specific interpretationsof the text of Genesis 1-3.
Intriguing as Augustine's interpretations of specific texts may be, let'sfirst look at some general attitudes that Augustine displays towards the textand its interpretation.
1.Augustine stresses that his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is literaland not metaphorical or allegorical
Augustine had tried his hand earlier at interpretation of Genesis (ACommentary on Genesis: Two Books against the Manichees) and adopted a moreallegorical method. He later came to reject that method and in this more maturework, written in his late fifties just beforeThe City of God, he isconcerned "to discuss Sacred Scriptures according to the plain meaning ofthe historical facts, not according to future events which they foreshadow"(p. 39). Given his strong commitment to literal interpretation, it isfascinating to recognize that the outcome bears absolutely no resemblance tomodern literal interpretations. For example, he concludes that in Genesis I theterms "light," "day," and "morning" bear aspiritual, rather than physical, meaning. Yet for Augustine, spiritual light isjust as literal as physical light, and the creation of spiritual light is justas much a historical event or fact as the creation of physical light. What isliteral for one person may not be literal for others.
2. Augustine claims that the interpretation of Genesis I is not at allobvious and is fraught with difficulties.
Commitment to a literal interpretation does not solve all problems, nor doesit lock the exegete into only one reading of the text. Perhaps more than anyother interpreter, Augustine was painfully aware of the difficulties of thetext. On point after point he lays out the various possibilities and often doesnot know how to commit himself. He freely acknowledges the many problems andoptions. He says that he has
He further observes that "It is a laborious and difficult task for thepowers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacredwriter in the matter of these six days" (p. 103). How different is hisattitude than those who, disregarding the labors of many of the church'sgreatest minds over the past two millennia, have convinced themselves that thefundamental interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is perfectly obvious. If we followAugustine's lead, we will be very careful before using the words "the clearteaching of Scripture" in connection with these chapters.
3. .Augustine claims that we ought to be willing to change our minds aboutthe interpretation of Genesis 1-3,
particularly as new information comes to light.
Consistent with the claim that Genesis 1-3 is difficult and obscure,Augustine repeatedly urges restraint, flexibility, openness to newinterpretations, and openness to new knowledge that may provide insight into thetext. He says that "in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one sidethat, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines thisposition, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching ofHoly Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereaswe ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture" (p. 41).
4.Augustine is particularly emphatic that we ought not to make absurdstatements about what the Bible says when such statements flatly contradict whatpeople already know from other reliable sources. We ought not to rigidly anddogmatically commit Scripture to interpretations that can easily be shown to hef4ise on the basis of physical evidence.
It seems to me that the following lengthy quotation cannot be heardenough because it is so terribly relevant to the present discussion aboutGenesis and earth history. Augustine says:
2Augustine says that the six-day creation structure has nothing to dowith the passage of time during creation but is a logical framework
Augustine repeatedly stresses that the six days are not six successiveordinary days. They have nothing to do with time. For him, this is unequivocallythe case for the first three days before the making of the sun, but he isequally inclined to say the same of the last three days. The days are repeatedlyclaimed to be arranged according to causes, order, and logic. For example:"These seven days of our time, although like the same days of creation inname and in numbering, follow one another in succession and mark off thedivision of time, but those first six days occurred in a form unfamiliar to usas intrinsic principles within things created" (p. 125). The days ofcreation "are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earthboundmen ... we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creationbut without in any way being really similar to them" (p. 135). Further,"we should not think of those days as solar days.... He made that whichgave time its beginning, as He made all things together, disposing them in anorder based not on intervals of time but on causal connections" (p. 154).And finally, "But in the beginning He created all things together and completed the whole in six days, when six times he brought the 'day' which he madebefore the things which He made, not in a succession of periods of time but in aplan made known according to causes" (pp. 175-176). Why does the narrativeemploy the device of the six days? "The reason is that those who cannotunderstand the meaning of the text,He created all things together,cannot arrive at the meaning of Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowlystep by step" (p. 142).
As the six days have nothing to do with the passage of time, Augustinerelates them to the knowledge that intellectual creatures-that is, angels-haveof created things, both as they exist in the Word of God and as they exist inthemselves. This knowledge was made known to the angels in the six orderingsteps: "That day, which God has made, recurs in connection with His worksnot by a material passage of time but by a spiritual knowledge, when the blessedcompany of angels contemplate from the beginning in the Word of God the divinedecree to create" (p. 134). Or, "The seven days ... with which we arefamiliar ... are like a shadow and a sign reminding us to seek those dayswherein created spiritual light was able to be made present to all the works ofGod by the perfection of the number six" (p. 145). There is no doubt thatAugustine's view is strange and difficult to absorb, but he has a ready commentfor us: "And when you hear that all things were made after day was made,you may possibly understand this sixfold or sevenfold repetition which tookplace without lapse of time. If you cannot yet understand it, you should leavethe matter for the consideration of those who can" (p. 150).
3. Augustine does not envision the fall resulting in fundamentalstructural changes in the cosmos, or even the introduction of death into theanimal realm.
For many Christians, Genesis teaches that substantial changes occurred in thestructure of creation at the time of Adam's fall. There is widespread beliefthat thorns and thistles were specifically introduced into the world to be anannoyance to sinful human beings. Such plants, it is thought, did not exist inthe original creation. That was certainly not Augustine's view. He says:
It is a further surprise to note that Augustine does not even see animaldeath and corruption as a direct result of the fall. In answer to the questionas to why animals eat each other, he claims that it is because that is the waythey were made. Human sin is not considered as the cause. Moreover, it isbecause we are fallen that we perceive animal death and corruption as an evil.
He also speaks of death as follows: "For He has wrought them all in Hiswisdom, which, reaching from end to end, governs all graciously; and he leavesnot in an unformed state the very least of His creatures that are by theirnature subject to corruption, whose dissolution is loathsome to us in our fallenstate by reason of our own mortality" (p. 90, emphasis mine).
4.Augustine suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were created mortal
Augustine raises the interesting question: why would Adam and Eve have to eatif they were created immortal? "It is difficult to explain how man wascreated immortal and at the same time in company with the other living creatureswas given for food the seed-bearing plant, the fruit tree, and the green crops.If it was by sin that he was made mortal, surely before sinning he did not needsuch food since his body could not corrupt for lack of it" (p. 97). Hissolution is that Adam and Eve were created with mortal bodies. Their death wasthe result of their sin, but Augustine suggests that, had they not sinned, theywould have been given the spiritual bodies with which we will be endowed at theresurrection.
Those interested in the issue of human origins should take a closer look atAugustine's views.
1. It is historically inaccurate to maintain that modern science alone forcedthe church to come up with ideas about Genesis 1-3 that differ from theallegedly traditional views. Many of Augustine's interpretations are plainly atvariance with what are commonly perceived in evangelicalism as traditional viewsof Genesis. And, I might add, he was never accused of heresy for his views. Itis plain that we cannot accuse Augustine of departing from the plain meaning ofScripture in order to make peace with science as we know it. Obviously,Augustine was not looking over his shoulder at scientific geology orpaleontology. It is therefore all the more remarkable and significant that headopts positions generally not perceived as the traditional church positions.
2. Given that a theological thinker of Augustine's genius arrived at theviews he did after years of careful study of the text, it is incumbent upon usto approach the early chapters of Genesis with far less dogmatism and far morehumility and caution than we often do. Augustine's interpretations should helpus guard against facile claims about the obvious meaning of these texts. Thepoint here is not that we should adopt Augustine's specific interpretations(I've got problems with some of them myself, but that we should recognize whatAugustine recognized: namely, the early chapters of Genesis are in fact complexand do not tender easy, pat answers. Once the entire evangelical world comes togrips with that simple conclusion, we will have made some progress.
1. St. Augustine,The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated andannotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982).All page references in the text of this paper are to pages in volume 1.