Was Genesis 0ne intended to be a literal account of creation? Or are the six days a literary framework helping us to see God’s power in creating the universe? I’ve got my own problems with the theory of evolution and I have no doubts that God is our Creator so I want to fairly represent the literal side of things in this 3 part series. Check out part one here.

THE OBJECTIONS

So how do we arrive at a figurative interpretation of the word ‘day’ when the simplest reading is so straightforward? After all, “The 24-hour view holds that God created the universe and all life in six sequential natural days marked by evenings and mornings. According to this view, God created the universe and all life in approximately 144 hours and in the sequence presented in Genesis 1.”(1) That seems to be the easiest way to interpret the text at first glance. Most holding this literal view are very firm in their convictions. Duncan and Hall, for example, before defending their theory, claim, “As we shall see, the intent of the author of Genesis 1-2 as to the nature of the creation days is so apparent that it is, frankly, beyond dispute.”(2) They continue, “Compelling exegetical evidence for reading the creation days as anything other than normal days is lacking.”(3)

However, theirs and many other literalists fall short in their refutation of the framework hypothesis. To begin with, many literalists start by attacking the motives of the proponents of the framework hypothesis. They suggest that the literary view arose out of a need to reconcile science and the Bible. A review of Hugh Ross’s book “The Genesis Question” by Publisher’s Weekly said, “Thus, [Ross] says, God’s creative activity can be substantiated by physical science. Ross has a faithful following who will welcome this book. Others may wonder why he is trying so hard to turn faith into science.”(4) Coming from a secular publisher, it’s amusing that it tends to be the literalists who try so hard to confront matters of science while the proponents of the framework hypothesis have been carefully exegeting the text for decades.

Secondly, literalists tend to attack the theory, not on exegetical grounds, but by stating that it is not consistent with Church tradition. Duncan and Hall said, “Most of the great interpreters of the Church have construed the creation days as normal days.”(5) Even those like James Barr would agree, “So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers…that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”(6) No one wants to diminish the record of Church history but there are times when new light is shed on a subject. Besides, Barr’s hyperbole is simply not true. Theologians both historical and contemporary have found wisdom in understanding the 24 hour solar days as figurative.

When they finally confront the text, the argument falls flat. Literalists suggest that the days cannot be literary devices because they refer to normal days. The use of “evening and morning”, and the chronological use of “then” that begins each day and the “first day, second day,” language causes them to think these are normal solar days. Duncan and Hall said, “Calvin insists that the creation week was not merely a didactic tool or framework the Lord employed to reveal Himself intelligibly to His finite creatures. Rather, God actually performed His work of creation in an ordinary week out of love for His people, who could identify with the cycle of days.”(7) Rather than respond directly to the substance of Calvin’s statement at this point, suffice it to say that at least he sees the framework even if he believes God literally was bound by it.

Finally, the figurative view of the seventh day is disturbing to the literalist. They believe that the figurative view weakens the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. If the Sabbath is figurative, then why take the commandments literally? In fact, why take the story of Adam and Eve literally? Their view is that if we take Genesis 1 figuratively then the whole of Scripture is called into question.

For the most part, literalists stay away from defending their position on exegetical grounds and yet reject the framework hypothesis on those very grounds…ones which they seem unwilling or unable to articulate. Throughout my research, I found no satisfactory defense of the 24-hour view in light of modern exegetical discoveries. This is not a bias based on scientific discoveries of the past 200 years, it is a bias for the truth of God’s Ancient Word.

So the main arguments against the framework hypothesis are summarized as follows:

1. The text uses concrete language, therefore it must be taken literally; (this is the only argument based on exegetical grounds and it seems very weak in my opinion. I would suggest the exact opposite, that the language of Genesis one seems highly figurative and uses something known – a 24 hour day – to provide a framework for something previously unknown.)
2. Those who believe Genesis one is a framework for creation are simply compromising due to pressure from the scientific community; (Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem? For me, evolution could be conclusively proven or disproven tomorrow and I would still believe Genesis one is figurative.)
3. Church tradition has largely supported literal 24 hour solar days; (Logical fallacy: Appeal to Tradition? My question: Has it? Did church tradition hold to a flat earth or that the sun revolved around the earth?)
4. If Genesis one isn’t literal then why should we take the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy literally? Why should we take the story of Adam and Eve’s Fall literally? Etc. (Logical fallacy: Sweeping Generalization? It may be figurative but it is still theology and it is still teaching us something about God’s values and how we should live.)

What do you think? Do these arguments hold water? Do you have other thoughts for or against the framework hypothesis? How do you answer these objections (or contribute to them)? Part Three will be about my own response to these four issues.

1 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 16.

2 Ibid. 23.

3 Ibid. 23.

4 Amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Question-Scientific-Advances-Accuracy/dp/1576832309/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs (accessed December 13, 2008)

5 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 29.

6 Ibid. 23.

7 Ibid. 29.

Further Reading:

• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three
• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part One
• “In the Beginning” by Henri Blocher

This was a position paper that I presented for one of my theology classes in seminary. Note that it is a position paper, not a research paper. As a result, this is not a thorough treatment of the subject, but just a summary of why I hold the theological position that I do.

For most conservative evangelicals, anything other than a literal, sequential, 24-hour solar day is incomprehensible. Arguing that the simplest reading must be correct and that a literary or figurative view of the days in Genesis bows to modern science. Having held, studied, and supported the literal view of the days in Genesis 1 for most of my life, I understand the arguments and the concerns of those who take the word “day” literally. However, I have recently become convinced that Genesis 1 provides a framework, rather than a literal six day creation week. This shift in my thinking didn’t come from any scientific discovery or because I wanted to fit in with my friends who happen to be scientists that are Christians. Instead, after hearing several lectures on the exegesis of the first few chapters of Genesis in the larger context of the Pentateuch, I now hold to, study and support the literary view of the days in Genesis 1.

THE LITERARY VIEW

The literary view of the creation account has taken many forms throughout history. The best expression today is found in the framework hypothesis. The framework hypothesis states that the inspired author of Genesis offers us a story (or “saga”(1) as Barth would have it) of creation. He does not intend, however, to report the exact details of that event that would satisfy our naturally scientific and curious minds. Instead, his goal is to impress upon the reader that all that exists has been created by God. He does this by placing the eightfold work of creation into a framework of six days. The seventh day, then, is the day of rest, which encourages humanity to celebrate the Sabbath as our act of worship and as our imitation of God.(2) The framework that the author employs is not arbitrary. It is logical, not chronological in sequence. Therefore, the two main characteristics of the framework hypothesis is that it is nonliteral and nonsequential.

The problem is that such seemingly nonliteral phrases like “evening and morning”, “the first day”, and “then God said” are characteristic of the text. In fact, the main difficulty comes from the use of the word “day”. Karl Barth says, “At this point the saga tells us something very noteworthy: namely this, that God created also time and our time at that…and hence, concretely: time in its unity (day) and time in its coherence (week), and that he created in this manner that to the light he gave the name day.”(3) N. H. Ridderbos says “One must take seriously the possibility that the account of creation in six days is no more than a mode of presentation.”(4) It’s important to note, however, that this “mode of presentation” is not contradicting the historicity of the act of creation. Lee Irons writes, “We do not equate a nonliteral interpretation with a nonhistorical interpretation of the text.”(5)

A more detailed look at the days of creation might be helpful at this point. Ridderbos writes, “There is mention of eight works of creation. Four of these take place in the first triduum, and four in the second. Two works each are associated with the third and the sixth day.”(6) In order to understand the reason for the “triduums” or framework, we have to consider verse 2. Gordon  Hugenberger translates the text, “Now the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited.”(7) As a result, the first three days show how God makes the land habitable and then makes the land to be inhabited. As was stated earlier, on the seventh day, God sets an example for humanity in that He rests from His creative activity. This is not to assume that we must literally believe that God needs to physically rest. Instead, Meredith Kline says, “God created the heaven and the earth to be his cosmic palace and accordingly his resting is an occupying of his palace, a royal session…Hebrews 4, Israel’s dominion-rest in Canaan…is expressly interpreted in terms of the Creator’s seventh day rest.”(8) According to Kline, and to the framework hypothesis, the seventh day is still happening. We are currently in the “seventh day” figuratively speaking because the seventh day was meant to be understood figuratively. Therefore, the days of Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally. To be consistent, we have to make a choice; either the days are literal and God’s rest is figurative, or the whole week is to be taken figuratively.

Advocates of the framework hypothesis also argue that there are several discrepancies in the stories of creation found in 1:1-2:4 and 2:5-25 if you take a literal view of creation. Day 6 would’ve been a very busy day. In addition to the animals, God would’ve created man, Adam would’ve named the animals, and God would’ve created Eve, etc. Not only does the 24 hours of day 6 pose a problem, but the orders are different in the second story. “It has often been said that there is a contrast in the order of the works of creation between Genesis 1 and 2, because Genesis 2 first posits the creation of man, then the plant-world, and last the animals.”(9) Exegetically, then, it seems that the literary view of creation is the best interpretation of the text.

What do you think of the word “day” in Genesis? Do you hold a literal or a literary view of the word? Do you feel that the literary view of creation is simply intending to reconcile science with the Bible or do you feel that the theory has an exegetical leg to stand on? Part Two will talk about the objections to the Framework Hypothesis.

1 Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 13-14.

2 Ibid. 45.

3 Ibid. 57.

4 Ibid. 30.

5 Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 220.

6 Ibid. 33.

7 Hugenberger, Gordon. “The Theology of the Pentateuch” GCTS. Spring semester 2007.

8 Kline, Meredith. Kingdom Prologue (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006) 35.

9 Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 25.

Further Reading:

• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Two
• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three
• “In the Beginning” by Henri Blocher

In Chapter 1, Blocher talks about the approach to Genesis. Dominating the discussion is the question of whether to approach Genesis literally or figuratively. Before reaching his conclusions, however, Blocher spends some time talking about the role of science in the interpretation of Scripture. Blocher presents the main approaches to this question: Concordism which seeks to rectify science with the Bible, “anti-scientism” which is Blocher’s view of creationism (the alternative to evolutionary theory), and fideism which seems to suppress the issue altogether. Blocher proposes a new way that allows science to “serve” our approach to studying Genesis, but not authoritatively. God’s Word is the authority and Blocher tries to take the positive advances of concordism, anti-scientism, and fideism and use those positives to help understand the book of Genesis. When he concludes the chapter talking about the literal or literary interpretation of Genesis 1, the reader can see that this is a unique story unlike any other story ever written.

Chapter 2 is a specific look at the week of Creation and it is Blocher’s view that the seven days are a literary device used to show the framework of God’s creating act. He writes, “The proofs we have given [in chapter 1] of the author’s careful structuring of his material would be enough to warn us not to suppose that the sevenfold shape is either imaginary or incidental.” (39) In this chapter, Blocher approaches four major interpretations of Genesis 1 in order of probability. Opponents may disagree, but the order in which Blocher organizes the probability of these theories begins with the reconstructionist theory as the least probable. This theory believes God reconstructed His creation after the fall of the devil. Next comes the concordist interpretation which is the idea that the days in Genesis 1 are ages or geological eras. Thirdly, Blocher deals with the literal interpretation that says the days are literal 24 hour days. Finally, Blocher believes the literary interpretation to be the best and he spends the rest of the chapter making the case for this interpretation.

Chapter 3 is about the content of Genesis 1. Rather than focusing on the framework and what that means, Blocher encourages the reader not to lose sight of the real purpose of Genesis. He suggests that if we get too caught up in science and creation then we may forget all that God is communicating to us. We can be distracted from the fact that God created ex nihilo, we can forget the work of all the members of the Trinity in the act of creation – including the Spirit, we can forget some of the characteristic nature of God (like He is a God of peace, not of disorder), etc. It is important to consider the purpose rather than just the conflict with modern science when we study Genesis.

Chapter 4 has to do with the Image of God and how humans are image bearers, unique among all the animals in their relationship with God. Blocher first makes sure we are sufficiently humble in our understanding of being “in the image of God”, in that we are “only an image.” “Mankind is infinitely lower than his Creator.” (82) With that humility as the backdrop, Blocher then turns to the privileged status we have over the rest of creation and talks about what it means to be made in the image of God.

In chapter 5, Blocher writes about the relationship between man and woman. The man and the woman are different sexually, with differing roles and yet they are connected. He treats “from the rib” as figurative language for their connectedness and relationship with one another Blocher supports this assertion when he says, “The Arabs apparently use the expression ‘He is my rib’ to mean ‘He is my close friend.’” (99) Blocher concludes the chapter by talking about the institution of marriage and that “the charter of marriage is summarized in Genesis 2:24″ (108), that is, at least implicitly.

Chapter 6 focuses on covenant. Even though that word doesn’t exist in Genesis 2, Blocher believes it to be of primary importance for understanding that chapter. The outline of the covenant is found in the text according to Blocher. “Eden is the covenant gift.” (120) The two trees in the garden become “the chief provisions of the covenant agreement.” (121). “You shall surely die” is the penalty for breaking the covenant. This outline implies a covenant between God and Adam.

Chapters 7 and 8 deal with the breaking of the covenant and the penalty for Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Blocher suggests that at the heart of their disobedience was the desire to claim autonomy. This disobedience “overthrows the created order.” (154) As a result of breaking the provisions of the covenant agreement, Adam and Eve must die. However, they don’t “cease to be” as is our normal understanding of death. Instead, our understanding of death must “broaden and diversify”. It is not mere physical death but it is of a spiritual nature. Blocher writes, “As soon as the disobedience is committed, the beauty and harmony of existence is shattered, and in their place come shame, fear and pathetic excuses.” (173) Their death is a result of their “claim to be like God in their autonomy.” God curses the man, the woman, and the snake and sends them out of the harmonious existence of Eden (the covenant gift).

Finally, Blocher concludes in chapter 9 by talking about the nature of the aftermath of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the garden of Eden. Much is written here about Adam and Eve’s son Cain who killed his brother Abel. “Sin proliferates along with mankind.” (197) but God is merciful and though it seems that only God’s justice is on display in the opening chapters of Genesis there is an element of grace. For one thing, Blocher writes that God kept Adam and Eve from eating from both trees because that would’ve been unthinkable. He hinders the completion of the Tower of Babel by confusing their language. This is to prevent the unthinkable from happening. Therefore, God’s justice is merciful. But ultimately, it is through the promise of the seed of the woman that we see the grace of God on full display.

Blocher concludes with a very helpful appendix on “Scientific Hypotheses and the beginning of Genesis”. Several scientific theories are given and this appendix helps to show that there is some harmony in science and the Bible. Taken together, every chapter of this book is both descriptive of events as found in the opening chapters of Genesis and relevant for many of today’s controversies surrounding those chapters. Blocher’s work is a commentary on Genesis that is helpful to the pastor, the theologian, and the general laity.

Further Reading:

• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Two
• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part One
• Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three