In Christian discourse, it’s extremely common to find people making claims like “my position has been the historical position of Christianity”, or something like “the early Christian leaders would agree with me.” This appeal to authority is often used to give legitimacy to a specific interpretation of scripture.
But, the hard truth is that for every ~100 years you go back in time, the cultural worldview changes dramatically. Thousands of years ago, when the author of Genesis wrote about the “firmament”, they clearly knew nothing about modern astronomy, how the universe works, and how old the Earth is. It may be hard to imagine, but they probably weren’t interested in a question like “exactly how old, in years, is the Earth?” and instead were more interested in questions like “what is God’s relationship with man?”
If the genre of a certain passage (like Genesis 1-11) is not that of history and/or science, then there is no need to try to make it “concord” with science.
…Any theologian who says that because of evolution we need to read Genesis 1-11 in a different way is absolutely wrong. We should read Genesis 1-11 in light of its intended, inspired genre and meeting, completely apart from evolutionary theory. Science and evolution are completely irrelevant to Genesis 1-11—they should have ZERO impact on the way we read and interpret Genesis 1-11.
— Joel Anderson, “Rescuing Inerrancy” by Hugh Ross: A Book Analysis Series (Part 4)
It’s incredibly easy to proof-text your positions by cherry-picking quotations from Scripture, or the early church fathers, or John Calvin, or anyone you want. I see this all the time online. If you hear someone claiming one of these authorities, be careful: there’s a high likelihood you are reading a biased account, carefully crafted to support a specific agenda. As a writer, I’ll admit that this bias is incredibly difficult to avoid, even if you’re aware of it.
…most attempts to use the church fathers by both old-earth and young-earth creationists are seriously flawed, just in different ways.
— John Millam, Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers’ Perspective on Genesis, Part 1 (of 5)
I spent hours reading through early Christian literature, attempting to categorize historical influential Christians like Irenaeus, Augustine, and Martin Luther based on how they interpret Genesis: as history, as allegory, or something in between. One of my conclusions is that it’s very difficult to make such statements; you must have a high degree of understanding of each person’s social, political, and scientific culture. To make things more difficult, positions don’t always fit into neat boxes, and sometimes peoples’ opinions change, too.
Church Fathers and Genesis Literalism
Right off the bat, it should be noted that many influential church fathers across history have accepted that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Others don’t make explicit statements about the age of the Earth but probably would have held to a young Earth if you asked them.
But, the scientific evidence for an old Earth didn’t arise until at least the 1700s, so it’s not completely fair to seek their opinion; they didn’t have all the data we do now! However, we can still see these influential church fathers dealing with interpretive problems of their own and reacting to scientific findings, so it’s a useful endeavor.
In this section, I’ve chosen to ask a very specific question: did each influential church father ever explicitly deny a strict literalistic reading of Genesis? I looked for evidence like:
- A denial that Adam was a real human who existed and fathered all of humanity
- A denial that God actually walked in the garden
- A denial that the world was created in six 24-hour periods
- A denial that the tree of life actually existed
NOTE: God says in Genesis 2:17 that “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” However, Adam/Eve eat of that tree, and do not physically die that day; the standard allegorical interpretation is that they died a “spiritual death” or become mortal that day.
This is perhaps the most straightforward example of an obvious allegorical reading of Genesis. Virtually all Christians deny an absolutely literalistic interpretation of this verse, and thus do not take Genesis completely literalistically. So, for this conversation, I’m not counting this verse in my analysis. It’s worth pointing this out, though, because it shows that even the most literalistic readers are not completely committed to literalism.
Anyways, here’s what I found:
| Person | Lifespan (CE) | Denied Literalism? |
|---|---|---|
| Irenaeus | 130 — 202 | No |
| Clement of Alexandria | 150 — 215 | Yes |
| Origen | 185 — 253 | Yes |
| Jerome | 340s — 420 | No |
| John Chrysostom | 347 — 407 | No |
| Augustine | 354 — 430 | Yes |
| Thomas Aquinas | 1225 — 1274 | No |
| Martin Luther | 1483 — 1546 | No |
| John Calvin | 1509 — 1564 | No |
Click here to see explanations...
Irenaeus
In Against Heresies Book V, Chapter XXIII, Irenaeus argues that God’s claim that Adam will die in the same die as he eats of the fruit was actually fulfilled when Christ died on the cross. It was a metaphorical day. However, other interpretations of creation in Against Heresies seem to be literalistic, so I counted him as such. Some people disagree, saying “Irenaeus thought each day of creation was 1000 years, meaning on his view, the earth would be roughly 12,000 years”, but I just don’t see it.
Clement of Alexandria
- *The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 16, The Fourth Commandment: argues that God did not literally rest: “God’s resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder.”
- *The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 16, The Fourth Commandment: expresses a belief that creation happened at one instance, not over literal 6/7 days. The clearest expression is “And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist”, but there is additional evidence.
Origen
- First Principles, Book IV: Origen clearly displays an allegorical reading of Genesis. He calls anyone who considers the tree of life to be literal “ignorant”, and says “No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.” About even the gospels, Origen says “anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.”
Jerome
Jerome’s opinion on the literalistic historicity of Genesis is difficult to determine. In Hebrew Questions on Genesis, he interprets and explains some difficult passages in Genesis, but I wasn’t able to confidently assess his opinions on the historicity of Genesis and how literalistically it should be interpreted. At least, speaking of Genesis 2:17, Jerome says “you shall surely die” should be interpreted “you shall be mortal,” so we have some creative interpretation going on, but it’s still not clear.
John Chrysostom
In his Homilies on Genesis, John Chrysostom expresses a pretty clearly literalistic understanding of Scripture. I couldn’t find an extremely explicit quotation, but he frequently references the “days” of creation like actual days, and seems to interpret all the events of Genesis 1-11 as literal history.
I always find something interesting in these early texts, and here I found an early expression of Intelligent Design:
After all, what could be more pitiful and more stupid than people coming up with arguments like this, claiming that beings get existence of themselves, and withdrawing all creation from God’s providence? How could you have the idea, I ask you, that so many elements and such great arrangement were being guided without anyone to supervise and control it all? Surely no ship ever managed to navigate the waves of the sea without a pilot, or soldier do brave deed with no general in command, or house stand firm with no householder in charge-whereas this immense universe and the design of all these elements could happen simply by chance without anyone present with the power to guide it all, controlling and maintaining all things in existence from his innate wisdom is this feasible?
— John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis
Augustine
Augustine generally sought highly literalistic interpretations, and I can understand why Protestants love him. But, I can identify at least one example of Augustine denying absolute literalism in Genesis: in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, he expresses a belief that the 6 days of creation did not take place in time, because God created all things simultaneously:
The earlier narrative stated that all things were created and finished on six successive days, but now to one day everything is assigned, under the terms “heaven” and “earth,” with the addition also of “plants.”… I do not now appeal to another book of Holy Scripture to prove that God created all things together. But the very next page following the first narrative of creation testifies to this when it tells us, When day was made, God made heaven and earth and every green thing of the field. Hence, you must understand that this day was seven times repeated, to make up seven days. And when you hear that all things were made after day was made, you may possibly understand this sixfold or seven-fold repetition which took place without lapse of time. If you cannot understand t, you should leave the matter for the consideration of those who can; and, since Scripture does not abandon you in your infirmity, but with a mother’s love accompanies your slower steps, you will make progress.
The “[other] book of Holy Scripture” Augustine refers to is Sirach 18:1, which is translated here in English as “God created all things together”, but that same word together is interpreted by Augustine to mean “simultaneously”. This interpretation is clear when he says “the very next page… testifies to this”.
In other parts of The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, we see his internal dialogue playing out, sometimes struggling with strict literalism. Augustine expounds on the potential meaning of “God said, ‘Let there be light,’”, asking e.g. “was there the material sound of a voice?” and “what was the language of this voice?” before finally saying “perhaps this is an absurdly material way of thinking and speculating on the matter.”
Also in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine expresses a belief in divine accommodation: “the narrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children.” In another chapter, when interpreting “But a spring rose out of the earth and watered all the face of the earth”, Augustine says “Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding, while at the same time teaching a lesson to be understood by the reader who is able.” This blog post covers some of these references and more.
I think it would be a stretch to say anything like “Augustine interpreted Genesis allegorically”— he clearly sought the literalistic interpretation over any secondary allegorical reading. But, as explained, there is at least one exception to this (which probably only exists because Augustine had to harmonize Genesis with his reading of Sirach).
Thomas Aquinas
In Summa Theologiae, Aquinas is obviously interpreting Genesis is highly literalistic ways, attempting to answer questions like Augustine did, such as the specific technical details of the firmament. In his discussion of creation being simultaneous vs happening over 6 days (Summa Theologiae, Part I, Q68),
John Calvin
In his Commentary on Genesis, John Calvin expresses some literal readings (e.g. attempting to answer the design of the holes in Noah’s ark), but also expresses a view of divine accommodation: for example, Calvin says the lesser star to rule the night (the moon) is actually smaller than Jupiter, but “Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand… since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all.” (Volume 1, Chapter 1, 16).
This research has taught me that yes, many early and late church fathers interpreted Genesis literalistically— but not all of them. They also engaged Genesis with nuance, often seeing metaphorical interpretations layered on top of literalistic ones, and they engaged with the scientific disputes of their day (primarily regarding the “two great lights”). We see an openness to non-Christian science and working alongside it to interpret Scripture. Many church fathers expressed a belief in divine accommodation and were at least willing to say that God or the author of Genesis “dumbed it down” for the less intelligent readers.
I’ve also learned that interpretations of Genesis are complicated. If you read about the early church fathers online, you will quickly be misled by cherry-picked quotations. The odds are, if someone is trying to oversimplify things (“YEC is the historical church position!”), it’s just not accurate, and details are probably being left out. For example, any discussion of Augustine’s view of Genesis must include the fact that he interpreted the now-apocryphal book of Sirach as scripture. Or that Thomas Aquinas often quotes Augustine without clearly expressing support or denial of his claims. Or that many Christians interpreted the “formless and void” snippet to be a gap in time. These important details are often left out to expedite prooftexting.
I plan to read Craig Allert’s Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation to further supplement this research.