THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF AUGUSTINE'S VIEW OF CREATION
Davis
A. Young
Dept. of Geology, Geography &
Environmental Studies
Calvin College Grand Rapids, Ml 49506
From:
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)
A common impression exists among lay Christians and many
non-Christians that the church interpreted Genesis 1-3 literally
until the last
two centuries. This allegedly traditional rendering includes the idea that God
created the cosmos over a span of six ordinary 24-hour days, that there was no
death in the world until the fall of Adam, and that at the time of the fall God
introduced many other unpleasantries into the world-order as a punishment for
sin. Included is the notion that thorns and thistles were not part of the
original creation. Moreover, one encounters the suggestion that the church
firmly held to these traditional ideas until the early 19th century, when
geology proposed the concepts of an old earth and death before the appearance
of man. The conclusion for many evangelicals is that these traditional ideas
are the plain teaching of Scripture, and that attempts to avoid these plain
teachings arose because of an unholy desire to accommodate biblical teaching to
the dictates of an anti-Christian modern science.
That such a reading of church
history is simplistic becomes clear when we consider the views of Augustine,
the church's greatest theologian between Paul and Aquinas, on Genesis 1-3.
Although we can gain an inkling of Augustine's approach to Genesis 1-3 from
scattered comments in Confessions and The City of God, deeper insight is now
possible for a wide audience with the recent publication of a fresh English
translation of his great work, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.' The
few studies of Augustine's view of creation that are based on the Latin text
are not widely accessible. It is my judgment that anyone seriously interested
in the Genesis-science discussion should take the time to study this new
translation. It is full of surprises. I wish to make a few observations about
Augustine's general approach and his specific interpretations of the text of
Genesis 1-3.
General Comments About
Interpretation
Intriguing as Augustine's
interpretations of specific texts may be, let's first look at some general
attitudes that Augustine displays towards the text and its interpretation.
1. Augustine stresses that his
interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is literal and not metaphorical or allegorical
Augustine had tried his hand earlier
at interpretation of Genesis (A Commentary on Genesis: Two Books against the
Manichees) and adopted a more allegorical method. He later came to reject
that method and in this more mature work, written in his late fifties just
before The City of God, he is concerned "to discuss Sacred Scriptures
according to the plain meaning of the historical facts, not according to future
events which they foreshadow" (p. 39). Given his strong commitment to
literal interpretation, it is fascinating to recognize that the outcome bears
absolutely no resemblance to modern literal interpretations. For example, he
concludes that in Genesis I the terms "light," "day," and
"morning" bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning. Yet for
Augustine, spiritual light is just as literal as physical light, and the creation
of spiritual light is just as much a historical event or fact as the creation
of physical light. What is literal for one person may not be literal for
others.
2. Augustine claims that the
interpretation of Genesis I is not at all obvious and is fraught with
difficulties.
Commitment to a literal
interpretation does not solve all problems, nor does it lock the exegete into
only one reading of the text. Perhaps more than any other interpreter,
Augustine was painfully aware of the difficulties of the text. On point after
point he lays out the various possibilities and often does not know how to
commit himself. He freely acknowledges the many problems and options. He says
that he has
worked out and presented the
statements of the book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability;
and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of
stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a
rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each
one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the
interpretation that he can grasp. Where he cannot understand Holy Scripture,
let him glorify " and fear for himself. (pp. 43-44, emphasis mine)
He further observes that "It is
a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see
clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days"
(p. 103). How different is his attitude than those who, disregarding the labors
of many of the church's greatest minds over the past two millennia, have
convinced themselves that the fundamental interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is
perfectly obvious. If we follow Augustine's lead, we will be very careful
before using the words "the clear teaching of Scripture" in
connection with these chapters.
3. .Augustine claims that we
ought to be willing to change our minds about the 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 new interpretations, and openness to new knowledge
that may provide insight into the text. 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 side that, if further progress in the search of
truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to
battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching
to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred
Scripture" (p. 41).
4. Augustine is particularly
emphatic that we ought not to make absurd statements about what the Bible says
when such statements flatly contradict what people already know from other
reliable sources. We ought not to rigidly and dogmatically commit Scripture to
interpretations that can easily be shown to he f4ise on the basis of physical
evidence.
It seems to me that the
following lengthy quotation cannot be heard enough because it is so terribly
relevant to the present discussion about Genesis and earth history. Augustine
says:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows
something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world,
about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative
positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of
the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so
forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and
experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear
a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense
on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it
to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but
that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held
such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the
writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men....
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and
sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous
false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and
obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for
proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their
position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things
about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43)
It seems to me that some of the
young-earth, flood geology proponents of this century exemplify those whom
Augustine had in mind. One can only guess at the damage done to evangelistic
efforts among scientists by the persistent claims of Christians that the Bible
teaches a young earth and a global deluge.
Augustine sees only trouble in
committing Scripture to interpretations that supposedly provide information
about the physical structure of the earth or the cosmos. Consider these two
examples:
Let no one think that, because the
Psalmist says, He established the earth above the uater, we must
use this testimony of Holy Scripture against these people who engage in learned
discussions about the weight of the elements. They are not bound by the
authority of our Bible; and, ignorant of the sense of these words, they will
more readily scorn our sacred books than disavow the knowledge they have
acquired by unassailable arguments or proved by the evidence of experience.
(pp. 47-48)
And:
But someone may ask: 'Is not
Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who
stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their
statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with
proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture
about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. (p. 59)
Augustine shows respect for
scientific activity, and does not want to put Scripture in a situation of
conflict with it.
5. Augustine is obviously interested
in the science of his own day
and interacts with it. He takes extra-biblical knowledge seriously.
For example, it is clear that he
accepts spontaneous generation of organisms and the four elements of Greek
thought. He expends considerable effort in relating Genesis I to the four elements
and to the Greek theory of natural places: "One must surely not think that
in this passage of Holy Scripture there has been an omission of any one of the
four elements that are generally supposed to make up the world just because
there seems to be no mention of air in the account of sky, water, and
earth." (p. 76).
From his general approach to this
text, it would appear that Augustine, the great theologian, a man saturated in
Holy Scripture, actually encourages the church not to cling dogmatically to
specific renderings of the text but to rethink its interpretations in the light
of genuine extra-biblical knowledge. Perhaps we should pay him serious
attention.
Specific Interpretations
Now let's look at some of
Augustine's specific interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.
1. Augustine says that God
created all things simultaneously.
There can be no mistaking that
Augustine teaches that God created everything simultaneously in the beginning.
Some things were made in fully developed form as we see them today, and other
things were made in a potential form, so that in time they might become the way
we see them now. Augustine went far beyond any superficial reading of the text
by claiming that neither the creation nor the subsequent unfolding took place
in six ordinary days. He is explicit that God did not create the world over the
course of six temporal days. "The sacred writer was able to separate in
the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative
act" (p. 36).
2 Augustine says that the six-day
creation structure has nothing to do with the passage of time during creation
but is a logical framework
Augustine repeatedly stresses that
the six days are not six successive ordinary days. They have nothing to do with
time. For him, this is unequivocally the case for the first three days before
the making of the sun, but he is equally inclined to say the same of the last
three days. The days are repeatedly claimed to be arranged according to causes,
order, and logic. For example: "These seven days of our time, although
like the same days of creation in name and in numbering, follow one another in
succession and mark off the division of time, but those first six days occurred
in a form unfamiliar to us as intrinsic principles within things created"
(p. 125). The days of creation "are beyond the experience and knowledge of
us mortal earthbound men ... we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall
the days of creation but 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 which gave time its beginning, as He made all things together,
disposing them in an order 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 made before the things which He made, not in a
succession of periods of time but in a plan made known according to
causes" (pp. 175-176). Why does the narrative employ the device of the six
days? "The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the
text, He created all things together, cannot arrive at the meaning of
Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step" (p. 142).
As the six days have nothing to do
with the passage of time, Augustine relates them to the knowledge that
intellectual creatures-that is, angels-have of created things, both as they
exist in the Word of God and as they exist in themselves. This knowledge was
made known to the angels in the six ordering steps: "That day, which God
has made, recurs in connection with His works not by a material passage of time
but by a spiritual knowledge, when the blessed company of angels contemplate
from the beginning in the Word of God the divine decree to create" (p.
134). Or, "The seven days ... with which we are familiar ... are like a
shadow and a sign reminding us to seek those days wherein created spiritual
light was able to be made present to all the works of God by the perfection of
the number six" (p. 145). There is no doubt that Augustine's view is
strange and difficult to absorb, but he has a ready comment for us: "And
when you hear that all things were made after day was made, you may possibly
understand this sixfold or sevenfold repetition which took place without lapse
of time. If you cannot yet understand it, you should leave the matter for the
consideration of those who can" (p. 150).
3. Augustine does not envision
the fall resulting in fundamental structural changes in the cosmos, or even the
introduction of death into the animal realm.
For many Christians, Genesis teaches
that substantial changes occurred in the structure of creation at the time of
Adam's fall. There is widespread belief that thorns and thistles were
specifically introduced into the world to be an annoyance to sinful human
beings. Such plants, it is thought, did not exist in the original creation.
That was certainly not Augustine's view. He says:
We should not jump to the
conclusion that it was only then that these plants came forth from the earth.
For it could be that, in view of the many advantages found in different kinds
of seeds, these plants had a place on earth without afflicting man in any way.
But since they were growing in the fields in which man was now laboring in
punishment for his sin, it is reasonable to suppose that they became one of the
means of punishing him. For they might have grown elsewhere, for the
nourishment of birds and beasts, or even for the use of man. Now this
interpretation does not contradict what is said in the words, Thorns and
thistler shall it bring forth to you if we understand that earth in producing
them before the fall did not do so to afflict man but rather to provide proper
nourishment for certain animals, since some animals find soft dry thistles a
pleasant and nourishing food.... I do not mean that these plants once grew in
other places and only afterwards in the fields where man planted and harvested
his crops. They were in the same place before and after; formerly not for man,
after- wards for man. And this is what is meant by the words to you. (p. 94)
It is a further surprise to note
that Augustine does not even see animal death and corruption as a direct result
of the fall. In answer to the question as to why animals eat each other, he
claims that it is because that is the way they were made. Human sin is not
considered as the cause. Moreover, it is because we are fallen that we perceive
animal death and corruption as an evil.
One might ask why brute beasts
inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which they could
be a punishment, and they cannot acquire any virtue by such a trial. The
answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish
that it were otherwise would not be reason- able. For all creatures, as long as
they exist, have their own measure, number, and order. (p. 92)
He also speaks of death as follows:
"For He has wrought them all in His wisdom, which, reaching from end to
end, governs all graciously; and he leaves not in an unformed state the very
least of His creatures that are by their nature subject to corruption, whose
dissolution is loathsome to us in our fallen state 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 eat if they were created immortal?
"It is difficult to explain how man was created immortal and at the same
time in company with the other living creatures was 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 need such food since his
body could not corrupt for lack of it" (p. 97). His solution is that Adam
and Eve were created with mortal bodies. Their death was the result of their
sin, but Augustine suggests that, had they not sinned, they would have been
given the spiritual bodies with which we will be endowed at the resurrection.
He was mortal ... by the
constitution of his natural body, and he was immortal by the gift of his
Creator. For if it was a natural body he had, it was certainly mortal because
it was able to die, at the same time immortal by reason of the fact that it was
able not to die. Only a spiritual being is immortal by virtue of the fact that
it cannot possibly die; and this condition is promised to us in the
resurrection. Consequently, Adam's body, a natural and therefore mortal body,
which by justification would become spiritual and therefore truly immortal, in
reality by sin was made not mortal (because it was that already) but rather a
dead thing, which it would have been able not to be if Adam had not sinned.
(pp. 204-205)
Those interested in the issue of
human origins should take a closer look at Augustine's views.
Conclusions
1. It is historically inaccurate to
maintain that modern science alone forced the church to come up with ideas
about Genesis 1-3 that differ from the allegedly traditional views. Many of
Augustine's interpretations are plainly at variance with what are commonly
perceived in evangelicalism as traditional views of Genesis. And, I might add,
he was never accused of heresy for his views. It is plain that we cannot accuse
Augustine of departing from the plain meaning of Scripture in order to make
peace with science as we know it. Obviously, Augustine was not looking over his
shoulder at scientific geology or paleontology. It is therefore all the more
remarkable and significant that he adopts positions generally not perceived as
the traditional church positions.
2. Given that a theological thinker
of Augustine's genius arrived at the views he did after years of careful study
of the text, it is incumbent upon us to approach the early chapters of Genesis
with far less dogmatism and far more humility and caution than we often do.
Augustine's interpretations should help us guard against facile claims about
the obvious meaning of these texts. The point 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 what Augustine recognized: namely, the
early chapters of Genesis are in fact complex and do not tender easy, pat
answers. Once the entire evangelical world comes to grips with that simple
conclusion, we will have made some progress.
REFERENCES
1. St. Augustine, The Literal
Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated 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.
as of 4-2008