Recently, I’ve been exploring the writings of the early church fathers more deeply, and I’ve found many resources there that can help us reconcile Christianity with the findings of modern science. In particular, the Eastern tradition represented by theologians like Origen of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Maximus the Confessor shows how Genesis 1–3 can be reconciled with an ancient universe and evolution. However, even Western theologians like St. Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, who interpreted Genesis differently, didn’t share the same concerns as modern young earth creationists. In this post, I’ll flesh how their views may be valuable for us today.
The creation of reasons
In the writings of Origen of Alexandria, he distinguishes between two distinct creations, “the constructional and providential,” both of which were created by God’s Wisdom (Exp Prov 8 [PG 17.185]). The “providential” creation refers to the reasons (logoi) for which God created everything, that is, his good purposes for the “constructional” (material) creation. It’s in this sense that Wisdom “was ‘created as the beginning of the ways of God’ [Prov 8:22], because she contained within herself the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation” (De Princ I.2.2). [1] Later, he writes that “there have always existed in Wisdom, by a prefiguration and preformation, those things which afterward received substantial existence” (I.4.4–5). [2] The Son of God, as Wisdom, “willed to establish a creative relation to to the future creatures; this is the precise meaning of the saying that she ‘was created the beginning of God’s ways’” (Frag John 1).
Just as humans have thoughts and plans before they build something, “all things have come to be according to the words/reasons [logous] pre-uttered by God that were in Wisdom, ‘for he made all things in Wisdom’ [Ps 104:24]” (Comm in John I.113–15; cf. I.243ff). The reference to God uttering (or “pre-uttering”) words in creation seems to allude to Genesis 1, and Origen makes this connection even clearer elsewhere:
For the declaration concerning each of the created things, “God saw that it was good,” means this: God perceived good in the logoi of each thing, and saw how each of the created things is good in relation to the logoi for which it had come to be. (Comm in John XIII.280–84)
He goes on to apply this specifically to the fifth and sixth days of creation (Gen 1:20–24; cf. Origen, Hom in Gen I.10). [3] In his homily on Genesis 1, he says that “in the beginning” refers to the fact that “all things which were made were made... in the Savior” (I.1). The ‘first day’ of creation was not, strictly speaking, a day, because “there was not yet time... But time begins to exist with the following days” (I.1).
Basil of Caesarea, a fourth-century theologian who was influenced by Origen, interpreted the first day of Genesis 1 as a 24-hour period (Hexaemeron II.8). However, like Origen, he argued that “in the beginning” refers to “the instantaneous and timeless act of creation... the world came into existence instantaneously at the will of God,” with reference to the “invisible things” (I.6). Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa was clearer about the creation of logoi – “God brought forth, in an instant, the principles, causes, and powers of being, and the substance of every being concurred in the first act of his will” [PG 44.72B]. Patristic scholar Johannes Zachhuber, after discussing Gregory’s In Hexaemeron, concludes,
In summary then, God created, according to Gregory, “in the beginning” a pleroma of logoi, of intelligible being which, however, can actualise itself only under the conditions of space and time in order to reach the perfection which is only germinally provided in it. This temporal and spatial development of those forming principles constitutes sensible being in the first place. [4]
It’s unclear whether Gregory held the same opinion as his brother Basil about the days of Genesis 1 being 24-hour periods.
Maximus the Confessor, a seventh-century theologian, further developed the theory of logoi in response to those who asserted the pre-existence of souls. What ‘pre-existed’ the material world weren’t individual souls, but the logoi of all creatures existed in the Logos of God the Father (Ambiguum 7 [PG 91.1077C–80B]). These logoi exist as potentialities – “in the Wisdom of the Creator, individual things were created at the appropriate moment of time, in a manner consistent with their logoi, and thus they received in themselves actual existence as beings” [91.1081AB]. They also exist as divine will-acts, by which God creates and knows his creation [91.1085AC]. Those who act in accordance with their logos (God’s good purpose for them) come to be “in God,” because that is where their logos exists [91.1080C–81A, 84AD].
John Scotus Eriugena, a ninth-century Irish philosopher who tried to reconcile Eastern and Western Christian philosophy, developed an allegorical reading of Genesis 1 in accordance with Gregory and Maximus (Periphyseon III.690C–742B). It would be too much to go into the details of his interpretation here, but he takes the events of the six days to refer to the creation of natures, matter, forms, elements, and other metaphysical categories. Thus, Eriugena argues that Genesis 1 refers to the logical (not temporal) sequence in the creation of the material universe, which was actually instantaneous (III.708B–09B). He also insists that the “Causes” (Platonic forms) and “reasons” of all things exist eternally in God, and proceed into their effects in a semi-incarnational fashion (e.g., I.446BC; II.529AB; III.678AD), an idea which was developed by Maximus. [5]
Although the Eastern readings of Genesis 1 weren’t as popular in the West, the Western interpretation of this passage wasn’t woodenly literal either. Augustine of Hippo, who was a hugely influential Latin theologian, wrote a Literal Commentary on Genesis intended to provide “the proper assessment of what actually happened [in creation]” (Retractiones 22.24). In this commentary, he argued at length that the days of Genesis 1 were “very, very different” from 24-hour days (IV.27.44), as they were instantaneous (e.g., V.5.12) and refer to the logical, not temporal, ordering of creation (IV.25.56). He developed this view on the basis of difficulties within the text itself. [6]
In summary, the theologians of the early church (both East and West) didn’t confine themselves to a woodenly literal reading of Genesis 1. There were a wide range of views, including the view that the days of Genesis 1 were 24-hour periods (Basil the Great), that they were instantaneous (Augustine), and that they refer to the “providential creation” of logoi (Origen).
Adam and the Fall
In his response to the pagan critic Celsus, Origen of Alexandria interprets Adam as a symbol of the entire human race:
In the Hebrew language, “adam” signifies man, and in those parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the nature of humanity in general. For “in Adam,” as the Scripture says, “all die” [1 Cor 15:22], and were condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not of one particular individual but of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply to one particular individual [i.e., Gen 2–3], the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken in reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception. (Contra Celsum IV.40)
Later on, he again asserts that “Adam” means “man” in general, which was “driven out of paradise for sin” (VII.50). It’s interesting to note that Origen makes this claim on textual, not philosophical, grounds – namely, that adam in Hebrew means “human,” that “all” are said to be “in Adam” (1 Cor 15:22), and that the curse of Adam applies to every human. In On First Principles, he writes, “who is so ignorant as to suppose that” there was a physical garden of Eden with a tree of life and a tree of knowledge, and that God walked in the garden; these things are “related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it” (IV.3.1).
Origen is often accused of believing in a Platonist ‘Fall’ of pre-existent souls into material bodies, but he didn’t believe in pre-existent individual souls [2], and he insists that the Christian doctrine of the Fall “far transcends that of Plato” (Cels IV.40). In his summary of First Principles, he says that God created material bodies due to his “foreknowledge” that differences would arise in rational creatures from sin (IV.4.8). Origen makes much of the fact that Scripture refers to the creation of the world as a katabolē, that is, a “throwing down” or “downfall” (e.g., John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). From this, he concludes that the Fall is actually simultaneous with the creation of the material universe, which was a “throwing down” from the “logoi of all things” that exist in Christ (De Princ III.5.4; Comm in John XIX.146–50). This isn’t to say that the material creation is evil – Origen strenuously argued against that gnostic view – but that from the beginning, it fell short of God’s good purposes (logoi), as a result of sin.
In the Philokalia, an anthology of Origen’s writings compiled by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, they reproduce his insistence against a physical garden of Eden with trees of life and knowledge (I.17). The third Cappadocian, Gregory of Nyssa, followed this view: the tree of life refers to the contemplation of God, while the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” refers to lesser sensible pleasures, which appear good to sinners; the sin of Adam and Eve was to abandon the contemplation of God, who is the Good, for these lesser, apparent goods (De Hom Opif XIX–XX).
Gregory of Nyssa appears to have believed that Adam was a historical individual. But for him, the creation of man in Genesis 1:26–27 refers to “all humanity,” the universal human nature (De Hom Opif XVI.16–18). This creation took place “when Adam was not yet, because the thing formed from the earth is called ‘Adam’” (XXII.3). [7] Furthermore, the division of humanity into “male and female” (Gen 1:27) was done by God in his foreknowledge of human sin (XVI.7–9; XXII.4–5; cf. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith IV.24). Humanity wasn’t meant to be divided in this way – for “in Christ there is not ‘male and female’” (Gal 3:28) [8] – but this was a consequence of the human’s choice of sensible apparent goods over God, thereby assimilating them to the irrational beasts (XVI.18–XVII.5; XXII.4).
Maximus the Confessor follows Gregory’s interpretation of the garden of Eden, and adds that the human chose sensible goods over God at the very moment of his creation (Ad Thal 59.12; 61.2; Amb 42 [PG 91.1321AB]). Therefore, he existed in “paradise” (the pure contemplation of God) for no length of time at all, because he chose sensible goods instead. Maximus likewise insists that the division of humanity into male and female is a result of sin (Amb 41 [PG 91.1305AD]), and that Christ annuls this division, so that “‘in Christ,’ as the divine apostle says, ‘there is not male and female’” [91.1309AB]. With regard to the fallenness of the creation, he offers two options:
This happened either because God, on account of the transgression, mixed the soul together with our body, and placed within it the capacity to undergo change, just as he gave the body the inherent capacity to suffer, undergo corruption, and be totally dissolved, which is made clear by the girding with dead skins [Gen 3:21], according to Scripture, which says that “creation itself was made subject to corruption, not willingly, but for the sake of him who subjected it in hope” [Rom 8:20] — or because God created matter in this way from the beginning, according to his foreknowledge, in view of the transgression he had already seen in advance. (Amb 8 [PG 91.1104AB])
John Scotus Eriugena, who was deeply influenced by Maximus, also insists that the human sinned at the moment of his creation, so that he existed in paradise for no temporal interval, and that “male and female” were introduced because of sin (Periphyseon IV.800A–14A; 833C–38B). In support of this, Eriugena says that the devil “was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth” (John 8:44), meaning that both the devil’s fall and human sin and death existed from the moment of creation (IV.838AB). In order to reconcile this with Augustine’s literal interpretation of the garden of Eden, however, he argues that the events of Genesis 2–3 took place historically after Adam’s sin: “all these things Holy Scripture records by anticipation and out of their proper sequence as having taken place in Paradise, whereas they are the consequences of sin” (IV.837C–38A).
Once again, these Eastern interpretations weren’t as common in the West, but premodern Western theologians still didn’t share the concerns of modern young earth creationists. For example, Augustine believed in a historical Fall that resulted in human death in temporal sequence; however, against the Manichaeans, he asserted that animal death is natural and was made by God, like the seasons, as part of his good creation (City of God XII.4). Basil the Great, an Eastern theologian who tended to interpret Genesis more historically, likewise asserted the goodness of animal death before the Fall (Hexaemeron IX.5). Thomas Aquinas claimed that it’s “unreasonable” to believe that “the nature of animals was... changed by man’s sin,” so there must have been carnivory before the Fall (Summa Theologiae I.96.1.2).
To sum up, once again, there were a wide range of views in the early church about Adam and the Fall. Most church fathers believed in a historical Adam, while Origen notably did not, arguing that “Adam” refers to all humanity. The Eastern fathers, including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus (along with Eriugena), believed that humanity was created in a fallen state due to God’s foreknowledge of their sin. This perspective wasn’t shared by Western theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, but these theologians agreed on the goodness of natural animal death before the Fall, unlike modern young earth creationists.
The Bible, history, and science
Origen argues that Scripture, because it isn’t only the work of men but also of the Trinity, doesn’t merely have a “fleshly” (literal/historical) meaning, but also a “soulish” and “spiritual” meaning (De Principiis IV.2.4–9). It’s the heretics who limit Scripture to its literal meaning, and thereby fall into errors (IV.2.1–3). Furthermore, some passages have no “bodily” sense at all (IV.2.5); we know this because
the Word of God has arranged for certain stumbling blocks, as it were, and hindrances and impossibilities to be inserted in the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not be completely drawn away by the sheer attractiveness of the language, and so either reject the true doctrines absolutely, on the ground that we learn from the scriptures nothing worthy of God, or else by never moving away from the letter, fail to learn anything of the more divine element. (IV.2.9)
Therefore, there are passages which “taken in a literal sense are not true, but actually absurd and impossible,” alongside passages in which “we are clearly aware that the historical fact is true” (IV.3.4). The reader of Scripture must discern what parts, taken historically, are impossible, and which are known to be historically true (IV.3.5). Origen provides many examples of things that he believes to be historically untrue, including the idea that there were three days before the sun existed and that there was a physical paradise in which God walked (IV.3.1–15). This doesn’t challenge the divine inspiration of the text, which Origen strenuously defends (IV.1); on the contrary, it’s because of divine inspiration that these passages have a spiritual, and not bodily, meaning.
Gregory of Nyssa shares the concern that portions of Scripture are impossible if interpreted literally. For example, with regard to the death of the firstborn in Egypt, Gregory expresses doubt that this could be “worthy of God,” for the son to be punished for the sins of the father (Ezek 18:20) – “how can history so contradict reason?” (Life of Moses II.91) Therefore, “do not be surprised if... the death of the firstborn... did not happen to the Israelites,” but do not on that account reject the deeper, spiritual meaning of the text (II.100).
Interestingly, in his discourse On the Soul and the Resurrection, Gregory says that “Scripture informs us that the Deity proceeded by a sort of graduated and ordered advance to the creation of man.” He began by creating inanimate matter, then vegetative life, then sensitive life, and finally rational life (humanity) which incorporates “every single form of life.” This references the idea that humanity is a microcosm, containing within itself every aspect of the material and immaterial worlds. It shouldn’t be taken to refer to human evolution as it’s now understood, but there are clear resonances between Gregory’s metaphysics and the modern theory of evolution.
Maximus the Confessor agrees with Origen and Gregory that
something illogical has been mixed in with the literal account in order for us to search for the true meaning of what has been written. Accordingly, the corporeal understanding of Scripture... is completely removed... Thus, if we take this passage according to its literal sense, we will not find Scripture to be speaking truly. (Ad Thalassios 65.17–20)
This doesn’t degrade Scripture, but forces us to search for the deeper spiritual meaning of the text, which brings us closer to God than the “corporeal” meaning. Maximus also argues (although in a different context) that both creation and Scripture are valuable revelations of God, since Christ is both the Word and the Creator: “the two laws – the natural and the written – are of equal value and equal dignity, both of them reciprocally teach the same things, and neither is superior or inferior to the other” (Amb 10.17–18). Thus, if one seems to contradict the other, we shouldn’t reject either one wholesale, but seek out how the two can be reconciled.
From the West, Augustine offers another interesting perspective:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about [the natural world]... 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 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. (Confessions V.5)
He presents the same concern elsewhere – Christians shouldn’t claim that the Scriptures contradict well-established natural facts, because this will lead non-Christians to reject Scripture on those grounds (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis I.19.39).
Interestingly, like Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine presents a view of creation which resonates with the modern theory of evolution. Even though he believes that the creation event was instantaneous, living species were created in a seminal form which grew out of the elements of earth and water; this is why God told the land and sea to “bring forth” life (Literal Interpretation V.7.20, 22). Thus, he goes on to say, God “created all [creatures] together... whose visible forms he produces through the ages, working even until now” (V.23.44–46).
In summary, the early church fathers didn’t share the same hangups as young earth creationists about Scripture and natural science. Some of them, including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus, even believed that the literal meaning of Scripture could be false where it contradicted history and reason, and for them this only confirmed the divine inspiration of the spiritual meaning of Scripture. Augustine was especially concerned that Christians should take care when discussing natural science, lest they discredit Scripture in the eyes of non-believers. This suggests that, if they were around today, these church fathers would accept the modern findings of an ancient earth and evolution – especially Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine, whose views on creation already resonate with the theory of evolution.
Conclusion
Using the resources provided by the early church fathers, we can reconcile the modern scientific understanding of evolution and an ancient earth with the young earth creationist concern for a faithful (albeit not woodenly literal) reading of Genesis. Here’s one possible interpretation of Genesis that draws upon the teachings of the Eastern fathers:
1. The creation account in Genesis 1 refers to the timeless “providential creation” of logoi within the Wisdom of God. This is similar to OT scholar John Walton’s proposal that Genesis 1 describes the functional creation of the cosmos and not material creation. [9] These logoi came to be instantiated in visible forms over time, as God’s providential plan unfolded.
2. The paradise of Genesis 2–3 may have existed historically, or it might only refer to the spiritual reality that the human chose sensible goods over God. Likewise, Adam may have been a historical individual, or he may represent the entire human race. (In my view, both the historical and spiritual interpretations have validity.) If Adam was a historical individual, he need not have been literally the first human, because –
3. The Fall was “meta-historical”, that is, it affected our entire created reality from the very beginning (even before Adam existed). In his foreknowledge, God knew that the human would choose sin, and created a world that partially departed from his good purposes (logoi) in order to accommodate the fallen humanity that he knew would exist. [10] This is why animal and human (?) death existed temporally before Adam.
Alternatively, here’s another possible interpretation of Genesis that draws upon Augustine’s more Western view:
1. The creation account in Genesis 1 refers to the instantaneous creation of all things. The days of Genesis 1 refer to the logical (not temporal) order in which the creation event was revealed to the angels (this was Augustine’s view). Living beings were created in a seminal form, which developed into their modern forms over time, as God’s providential plan unfolded.
2. Adam and the paradise of Genesis 2–3 existed historically, and Adam was a historical individual who was truly the first human. We can’t identify the “first human” from a biological point of view, but because “human” is first and foremost a metaphysical category, there was a first member of the (metaphysical) species and this was Adam.
3. The Fall was not “meta-historical” but purely historical, that is, human death came in temporal sequence after Adam’s sin. However, natural animal death is a part of God’s good creation, and this existed long before Adam sinned.
These are just two of many possible faithful readings of Genesis that are in line with the range of teachings of the early church fathers. This range of teachings is compatible with a young or ancient earth, special or evolutionary creation, a historical or ahistorical Adam, and a historical or meta-historical Fall. Although the early church fathers believed in a young earth, this was because they had no reason to believe otherwise (and they certainly didn’t agree with Aristotle about an eternal earth!), and for the reasons described above I think they would have no trouble accepting an ancient earth and evolution. This might help explain why modern young earth creationism is largely confined to American Evangelicals, and finds comparatively little purchase among Catholics and Orthodox who are more closely rooted in the teachings of the early church.
______________________________
[1] Origen argued that God can’t be comprehended apart from his Wisdom, and that God’s Wisdom is the uncreated second Person of the Trinity, so in herself Wisdom isn’t “created” in any sense (De Princ I.2). Instead, it’s in her relation to the providential creation that Solomon speaks of Wisdom as having been “created as the beginning of God’s way” (Prov. 8:22).
[2] It’s in this sense that Origen believed creatures were originally made incorporeal – not that they existed as disembodied souls (as later ‘Origenists’ believed), but that they existed as reasons within God’s mind. He argued that only the Trinity can exist without a body, and all creatures are essentially embodied (De Princ II.2.2; 3.2–3; IV.4.8), so contrary to popular belief he didn’t believe in the ‘pre-existence of souls.’
[3] For a further discussion of Origen’s “providential creation” and his reading of Genesis 1, see Panayiotis Tzamalikos, Origen: Cosmology and Ontology of Time (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 39–64.
[4] Johannes Zachhuber, Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 154.
[5] Jordan Daniel Wood, The Whole Mystery of Christ: Creation as Incarnation in Maximus Confessor (Notre Dame, 2022).
[6] Gavin Ortlund, “Did Augustine Read Genesis Literally?”
[7] For a lengthy discussion of Gregory’s understanding of the creation of humanity, see Johannes Zachhuber, Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa, 154–86.
[8] Something that’s often missed about Galatians 3:28 is that Paul actually quotes Genesis 1:27c, and negates it. Whereas the first two pairs of opposities, he says “neither A nor B” (ouk eni A oude B), he goes on to say “not ‘male and female’” (ouk eni arsen kai thēlu), which is a direct quote from the Greek text of Gen 1:27c (LXX). This wasn’t lost on early commentators like Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus, who understood it to mean that the division of humanity into “male and female” is a distortion of our nature that resulted from sin.
[9] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP Academic, 2009).
[10] In the modern era, the concept of a meta-historical fall is supported by Christian theologians like Sergei Bulgakov (The Bride of the Lamb) and William Dembski (The End of Christianity).
