Tag Archives: literal creation

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three

Posted on by

This is the third part in a series explaining my position on the first chapter of Genesis. I believe the six days of creation are meant to be taken as a framework showing how God made the earth habitable and inhabited. You can read about the literary view of creation (part one) and the objections by the literalists (part two) here and here before reading my final conclusions presented in this third part.

THE RESPONSE

Let me summarize the four basic problems that literalists have with the literary view of the days of creation (which I brought up in part two of this series): 1. They believe the motive for the framework hypothesis is a desire to reconcile science and the Bible and not from pure exegetical discipline. 2. They believe it is inconsistent with Church tradition. 3. They believe the simplest reading of the days in Genesis should be understood as 24-hour units of time. 4. They believe the figurative nature of the seventh day would lead to a rejection of the fourth commandment and a belief that we can interpret the Bible any way we like. Each of these are serious objections so let me answer them seriously but briefly.

For the most part, the discussion about science has distracted us from the true beauty of the story of creation. To suggest that the framework hypothesis is just an attempt to marry modern philosophies and sciences together with the Bible is false. However, it is not too much to assume that at times God’s natural revelation will confirm and coincide with His special revelation. Henri Blocher says, “The sciences will stimulate the interpreter from without, driving him to verify his exegesis and test the evidence, or encouraging him by favorable convergences which bear witness to the common origin of the two Books of God [general and special revelation].”(17)  After all, this interpretation isn’t new. “Augustine predated the rise of modern evolution by fourteen centuries…his professed reasons for taking the days nonliterally were strictly exegetical.”(18)  Ridderbos concludes, “Therefore the situation is this that though natural science may at no point decree how Scripture should be interpreted, the views it proposes may occasion the question whether what we believed should and could be derived from Scripture is in fact teaching and whether we must not exegete the relevant Scriptural data in some other way.” (19)  When our exegesis is called into question by our modern observations, it is not an unworthy endeavor to study again the pertinent texts of our faith.

Second, the literalists argue that the literary view is inconsistent with Church tradition. That assertion is untrue and irrelevant. Ridderbos says, “There are interpreters who believe that the arrangement of seven days is intended as a literary form. This view was already current in the early Church (Philo of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine).”(20)  But this argument isn’t even relevant. The point is not to determine the who’s who of each position but to determine what the text actually says. We don’t cast aside church tradition but it is possible for our understanding of God’s Word to change as new light is shed on the subject. In Iron’s response to the rebuke from Duncan and Hall, he says, “Ironically, Duncan and Hall, who have accused us of engaging in exegesis motivated by outside factors (what they call ‘scientific eisegesis’), themselves engage in a type of exegesis driven by the outside factor of Church tradition.”(21)  Again, church tradition is important and we are “standing on the shoulders of giants”. As a result, we can see much farther into the text than we could if we didn’t have such men and women of faith going before us. But if we are to call the framework hypothesis “scientific eisegesis” then we must apply the same to those who boldly declared that the earth was round and later, to those who believed that the earth revolves around the sun.

Third, literalists argue that the simplest understanding of the word day means a literal 24-hour day. But are we to then believe that the week must be taken literally? As Hugenberger points out “A week is an unnatural (not earthly) unit of time.” (22)  The day is marked by the earth’s revolution, a month is marked by the movement of the moon and a year is marked by the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. Where did we get the week? Besides, it is not unprecedented for the Bible to use figurative language. In fact, what makes a metaphor successful is precisely that we know what it actually means. Lee Irons uses the metaphor of the fox for Herod in Luke 13. There isn’t another meaning for the word “fox”, we know exactly what Jesus means when He refers to Herod as a fox because we know the characteristics of an actual fox. Day is used to demarcate the framework that indicates the activity of a creating God.

Finally, the seventh day in Genesis can be seen as figurative without believing that we should abandon the fourth commandment or consider the story of the Fall to be figurative. According to Noordtzij, “the six days of Genesis 1 are obviously intended as the sum of two triduums which consequently reveal a clearly pronounced parallelism, while the total arrangement is intended to place in bold relief the surpassing glory of man who attains his true destiny in the Sabbath…Given this plan of the creation account we may infer meanwhile that the author consciously used days and nights, evenings and mornings, as a literary framework.”(23)  Ridderbos says, “Does the author mean to say that God completed creation in six days, or does he make use of an anthropomorphic mode of presentation? Did he arrange the works of God in a given scheme (as Von Rad, for instance, has it), or a framework (as Noordtzij has it)? I may refer at this point to Genesis 2:7 and 3:21. Does the author mean to say there that God acted as a potter and as a maker of furclothes? These surely are anthropomorphic expressions. Another anthropomorphism is the saying in Genesis 2:2 that God rested; one may not infer from it that God had to exert Himself to create the world.”(24)  Lee and Kline refer to all the other nonliteral uses of the Sabbath and the number 7 in Scripture, referring to the 70 years of captivity (actually 66 or 67), the seventy “weeks” in Daniel (actually longer than 490 years) and the three uses of 14 in the genealogies of Matthew to indicate that the generation of the Messiah (some names were intentionally dropped so that there would be three sections of 14). Irons writes, “Use of the Sabbath concept to provide a literary scheme for conceptualizing redemptive history is a major feature of Scripture.”(25)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the framework hypothesis has merit on exegetical grounds. On the other hand, the 24-hour day view has a lot to explain. It cannot maintain its consistency. Either the day in Genesis 1 is an ordinary day and God used extraordinary means to give light on Day 1 and sustain vegetation on Day 3, or, the story is constructed in a framework that helps us see how God made the earth inhabitable and inhabited. The framework hypothesis is not merely a recent invention contrived by the fear that science will be proved right and God to be wrong. Rather, that God, being the Author of both has given us an account of His work to create. Even Calvin, in his refutation of the figurative or literary view, at least recognizes the presence of the framework. Rather than reject the framework hypothesis, modern interpreters should survey the evidence to see if it can stand. As for me, I believe the weight of the evidence falls to a literary interpretation and that the author employed a framework to articulate divine truths to his audience.

After reading part one, two and three of this series, what are your thoughts on the framework hypothesis?

[17] Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984) 27.

[18] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 90.

[19] Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 20-21.

[20] Ibid. 11.

[21] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 90.

[22] Hugenberger, Gordon. “The Theology of the Pentateuch” GCTS. Spring semester 2007.

[23] Ridderbos, N. H. Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1957) 11.

[24] Ibid. 30.

[25] Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 227.

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Two

Posted on by

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.

Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part One

Posted on by

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.