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:
- 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.)
- 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.)
- 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?)
- 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.
Pingback: Genesis One and the Framework Hypothesis: Part Three | ChurchETHOS