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.
Having been asked by a church to give my view of the Creation stories in Genesis 1-2, I mentioned the following:
•“By him [Christ] all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
•We weren’t there when God created all things (by, through and for Christ).
•An individual’s view concerning the “how” and “when” of creation will not save them (or damn them). We are saved by grace, through faith…. It’s time to stop making a person’s view on creation a (or the) litmus test for the authenticity of regeneration. The issue we want to place before people, the name we want to place on the lips of every person, is Jesus, the Creator God.
Thus, I appreciate your statements here.
Rick, you are exactly right. I think we have tried to make Genesis 1 a matter of science and fact. The fact in Genesis 1 is that God created the heavens and the earth. I personally think that the theory of evolution has a lot of explaining to do so I'm not basing my thoughts on recent scientific discovery. I'm basically saying what you are saying, that the point isn't to try and discover exactly how or when God created but that he did create and that it was "good"! Besides, there are some major problems with a young earth, literalist translation as well.
My recent post Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis- Part One
Pingback: Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Two | ChurchETHOS
Pingback: Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three | ChurchETHOS