Is the Genesis Creation Account a Chronology—or a Framework?
September 15th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
One popular view held by many old-earth advocates is known as the “framework hypothesis.” This is the belief that the “days” of creation are not even distinct eras, but overlapping stages of a long evolutionary process. According to this view, the six days described in Genesis 1 do not set forth a chronology of any kind, but rather a metaphorical “framework” by which the creative process is described for our finite human minds.
This view was apparently first set forth by liberal German theologians in the nineteenth century, but it has been adopted and propagated in recent years by some leading evangelicals, most notably Dr. Meredith G. Kline of Westminster theological seminary.
The framework hypothesis starts with the view that the “days” of creation in Genesis 1 are symbolic expressions that have nothing to do with time. Framework advocates note the obvious parallelism between days one and four (the creation of light and the placing of lights in the firmament), days two and five (the separation of air and water and the creation of fish and birds to inhabit air and water), and days three and six (the emergence of the dry land and the creation of land animals)—and they suggest that such parallelism is a clue that the structure of the chapter is merely poetic.
Thus, according to this theory, the sequence of creation may essentially be disregarded, as if some literary form in the passage nullified its literal meaning.
Naturally, advocates of this view accept the modern scientific theory that the formation of the earth required several billion years. They claim the biblical account is nothing more than a metaphorical framework that should overlay our scientific understanding of creation. The language and details of Genesis 1 are unimportant, they say; the only truth this passage aims to teach us is that the hand of divine Providence guided the evolutionary process. The Genesis creation account is thus reduced to a literary device—an extended metaphor that is not to be accepted at face value.
But if the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six literal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis does? The length of the days is defined by periods of day and night that are governed after day four by the sun and moon. The week itself defines the pattern of human labor and rest. The days are marked by the passage of morning and evening. How could these not signify the chronological progression of God’s creative work?
The problem with the framework hypothesis is that it employs a destructive method of interpretation. If the plain meaning of Genesis 1 may be written off and the language treated as nothing more than a literary device, why not do the same with Genesis 3? Indeed, most theological liberals do insist that the talking serpent in chapter 3 signals a fable or a metaphor, and therefore they reject that passage as a literal and historical record of how humanity fell into sin.
Where does metaphor ultimately end and history begin? After the flood? After the tower of Babel? And why there? Why not regard all the biblical miracles as literary devices? Why could not the resurrection itself be dismissed as a mere allegory? In the words of E. J. Young, “If the ‘framework’ hypothesis were applied to the narratives of the virgin birth or the resurrection or Romans 5:12 ff., it could as effectively serve to minimize the importance of the content of those passages as it now does the content of the first chapter of Genesis.” [Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.), 99.]
Young points out the fallacy of the “framework” hypothesis:
The question must be raised, “If a nonchronological view of the days be admitted, what is the purpose of mentioning six days?” For, once we reject the chronological sequence which Genesis gives, we are brought to the point where we can really say very little about the content of Genesis one. It is impossible to hold that there are two trios of days, each paralleling the other. Day four . . . speaks of God’s placing the light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament, however, had been made on the second day. If the fourth and the first days are two aspects of the same thing, then the second day also (which speaks of the firmament) must precede days one and four. If this procedure be allowed, with its wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be consistent and equate all four of these days with the first verse of Genesis? There is no defense against such a procedure, once we abandon the clear language of the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that the first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one and four? To ask that question is to answer it. [Ibid.]
The simple, rather obvious, fact is that no one would ever think the time-frame for creation was anything other than a normal week of seven days from reading the Bible and allowing it to interpret itself. The Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding that the days of God’s creative work parallel a normal human work week.
The framework hypothesis is the direct result of making modern scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture. The basic presupposition behind the framework hypothesis is the notion that science speaks with more authority about origins and the age of the earth than Scripture does. Those who embrace such a view have in effect made science an authority over Scripture. They are permitting scientific hypotheses—mere human opinions that have no divine authority whatsoever—to be the hermeneutical rule by which Scripture is interpreted.
There is no warrant for that. Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of Scripture, for that matter). Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 2:16)—inspired truth from God. “[Scripture] never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice versa.
Bravo, John!!
I appreciate your clear and compelling critique of the Framework Hypothesis. I have always felt the FH constitutes a serious compromise on the part of men who are otherwise very solid in their theology.
I pray that the Lord Jesus will use your article to open the eyes of those who have become enamored with this faith-diluting heresy.
Blessings to you and to all at GTY & MCC.
Dr. MacArthur,
I can’t thank you enough for this series. It’s as equipping in my young ministry as your sermons, books and commentaries. I know you meet quite a few people, but I was able to meet you in Little Rock, Arkansas, at Lance Quinn’s anniversary service on August 6th. I had driven four hours from the Northwest corner of Arkansas (Springdale) that day to meet you, and I was blown away by your gentleness and kindness.
I wanted to thank you for your encouragement in my pursuit of the Master’s Seminary. Because of my youth in this wonderful calling, it meant more than you know. Regardless of if you remember me at all, I still thank you for both the messages that day and our brief conversation after the conclusion of the services. May God continue to bless your ministry!
This is a good critique of how Framework Hypothesis advocates misuse Genesis 2:5.
Dear John:
I am a Bible believing Christian and fully believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture. I have asked this question many times and have gotten some of the most ridiculous answers from Evangelicals about the age of the Earth. I am convinced now that the Genesis Account is just a spiritual summary and not a literal 24 hour creation account. I have received some very unkind responses accusing me of being a liberal, a Theistic Evolutionist and the “Dinosaurs were on the Ark” Explanation etc. None of the answers addressed my question and were form letters sent out without understanding the question. Included with my question is the Scientific evidence. Here is my question:
—————————————————
If the Earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old — where did all these Asteroid and Meteor Impact craters come from? One small impact would have wiped out civilization! Since no cataclysmic event (by an Asteroid or Meteor) has taken place in the last 10,000 years — the Earth must be older than 10,000 years. Also there is the evidence of the Yukatan Peninsula Asteroid Crater which shows a cataclysmic event. Please explain.
—————————————————
Lake Manicouagan, Quebec
Lake Manicouagan, in Quebec, Canada, is an example of a crater that was formed by the explosive impact of a meteorite.
NASA/Corbis
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Asteroid and Comet Collisions
In 1908 a comet or a stony asteroid with an estimated diameter of about 40 m (about 130 ft) exploded at an altitude of about 6 km (about 4 mi) above the Tunguska region of Siberia, Russia, flattening more than 1,000 sq km (400 sq mi) of forest, left. Meteor Crater, right, located near Flagstaff, Arizona, is a 1.13-km (0.7-mi) crater carved out 50,000 years ago by a metal asteroid about 50 m (about 150 ft) in diameter.
Andrea Pistolesi/The Image Bank, Novosti Press Agency/Science Photo Library/Photo Researchers, Inc.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Asteroid Collision with Earth
Many scientists believe that a large asteroid or comet struck Earth about 65 million years ago, changing the Earth’s climate enough to kill off the dinosaurs.
John R. Foster/Photo Researchers, Inc.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Meteor Crater, Arizona
Long thought to have been a volcanic feature, this crater near Winslow, Arizona, was first identified as having been caused by a meteoric impact by astronomer Eugene Shoemaker. It was the first large crater on Earth to be identified as an impact feature, and is now known as Meteor Crater. It was created about 50,000 years ago by a meteorite up to 50 m (165 ft) in diameter. It is some 1,200 m (3,900 ft) across and about 180 m (600 ft) deep.
Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
God Bless You John,
Wayne Sacchi
PS I was a Member of Grace Church from 1984-1990 — You still are my favorite Bible Teacher and we love you!
I too have struggled with this for years. I have no doubt that God could have accomplished it in 7 literal days, but whether He did. I have wondered how Adam could have been created and had the time to be lonely and name all the animals in 24 hours. I also wonder scientifically, what kind of light would have been available before the sun and moon were created.
I do not buy the parallel argument though.
To quote a paragraph #
>
Genesis is the introduction to the Law of Moses in which the 7 day religious week culminating in a sabbath is foundational. That is why a literary account of creation is built round that structure. As you point out yourself day and night have no meaning without the sun and the moon. Is this not a clear indication of the Holy Spirit that we are not dealing with calendar days?
The Bible is not supreme truth. The one who inspired it is supreme truth. He reveals himself in scripture and nature. Within scripture He has employed every literary genre to express His Truth. Because He is truth all reality is founded on Him. This is why properly understood geological truth cannot contradict properly understood scriptural truth.
Erik,
The Bible is absolutely supreme truth. It’s right there at the end of Pastor John’s article… John 17:17.
If you don’t buy that, how about John 1:1-13? The one who inspired the eternal Word IS the eternal Word. Jesus is the truth (Jn 14:6) and the Word is the truth (Jn 17:17). These aren’t different things.
MIKE
John 1:1-14… not 1-13. Verse 14 is a biggie to miss. Sorry about that.
there are so many good books that have been written that address specifically what has been discussed on this thread that it is hard to recommend just one. One could go back to the modern rebirth of the creation scientist movement with Morris & Whitcomb. “The Genesis Flood” by Whitcomb & Morris is excellent and way ahead of its time (1967 if is recall). And “the Genesis Record” by Morris is a treasure. Check these out - they will answer many questions from men who spent their lives in the treaches of this battle when everyone else (in the scientific community & most in the church) seemed afraid.
“Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis”
ah…if only we would be brave enough to embrace this.