Genesis 1: Fact or Framework?
May 5th, 2008
(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.
The final passage sums up “the Punchline”:
DO YOU CONFIRM JESUS’ Authority and Clear Affirmation of Scripture (Which would include the Torah (LAW – Books including Genesis), as Divine TRUTH?
OR
Do you wish to EXLUDE Christ’s Testimony and Assurances, to YOUR Own detriment?
———–
I believe that by the grace of our LORD through His Spirit, we will affirm what He Himself in the person of Christ Jesus AFFIRMED as His OWN ACCEPTANCE and APPROVAL of the Hebrew Scriptures at the VERY Least as INSPIRED Truth as the VERY WORDS of YAHWEH (Albeit He confirms the New Testament perfectly by His OWN Words also. I AM NOT advocating that ANY Scripture in the Bible is lesser in authority, rather that ALL Scripture is confirmed by Messiah, whther OLD or NEW, as it all conforms to His Very Words and AFFIRMATIONS).
Not every tenant of fundamentalism was first denied by German liberals! Young earth views of Genesis were denied by Origen, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Clement and Augustine. Even B.B. Warfield didn’t see Genesis as mandating six-day creationism. None of that is to say that it isn’t true – but it does mean that opposition to young earth creationism isn’t necessarily a liberal tendency. It is sometimes even motivated by concerns for authorial intent, where the “plain meaning” of Genesis should be understood in terms of the literary genre it belongs, which for many in church history has not been understood as “historical narrative”.
Since some people have seen Genesis as an introduction to the Law which intentionally foreshadows the Mosaic code and story of Israel (i.e. creation of Adam = election of Israel, Eden = promised land, the eating of the fruit = violation of the food laws, exile from garden = exile from land, promise of deliverer = messianic prophecy, etc.), the author may have intended the symbolism and imagery of the first several chapters (i.e. the prologue to the OT) to highlight these things. Others have taken the first two chapters of Genesis to be a parody of ancient near eastern creation stories, taking its cues from and intentionally modifying these other versions to show that God (and not Baal) was really the Creator. These kinds of suggestions are attempts to show how the text would have “plainly” been understood at the time.
What prevents a person from identifying other texts as symbolic or metaphorical is basically EVIDENCE. It could be a combination of factors like how it was historically received by ancient audiences, how later texts make use of earlier ones and more importantly whether a person can show features from the text itself that highlight the intention of the author (talking snakes and familiar Ancient Near Eastern symbolism in Gen. 1-2 vs. the historical detail and forms of ancient biography in the synoptic accounts of Jesus).
Again, all that to say that there are reasons why some orthodox, non-liberal, theologically conservative people don’t take these accounts literally, including some of the most influential and respectable people in church history. Whether we agree or disagree with them, I personally don’t think they can be dismissed as “obviously wrong” or as prioritizing “modern scientific theories” over the Bible.
Sharad Yadav says, “Young earth views of Genesis were denied by Origen, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Clement and Augustine. … opposition to young earth creationism isn’t necessarily a liberal tendency.”
Argumentum ad Popul(e/u)m. Origen posited pre-existence of the soul without Scripture to support it, I believe.
Liberals are as Liberals do — eis-egesis [syncretism] instead of exegesis.
Putative “Church Fathers” may have been theological infants before the advent of Scofield’s Notes and Moody Press.
S.Y. says, “Others have taken the first two chapters of Genesis to be a parody of ancient near eastern creation stories….” The Roman Catholic Church denegrates Genesis, declaring it a modification of a tale about a Council of the Gods who collude concerning how to create the world. The RCC also adheres to Evolution (-R.A. Morey, Dr. of Comparitive Religion, confer http://www.FaithDefenders.com).
S.Y. refers to “EVIDENCE” = Argumentum ad > Fifi + Arg. ad Baculum [baculine approach] + Arg. ad Popul’m. One man’s liver-quiver [good vibrations] is another man’s liver-shiver. The text dictates its own meaning. Procede from there, duuuuuude.
Hello, Tom.
My point about the early church fathers stands – old earth views aren’t liberal by definition, since theological liberalism is usually (and explicitly here) a technical attribution which refers to the late 19th C. German modernism. These views are pre-liberal in origin. Calling them “liberal” is anachronistic. That doesn’t validate them (as I said) – it just corrects the claim of origin made in this post. Liberalism has nothing to do with exegetical method. Some of the most acute exegetes in recent memory are liberals. Likewise exegetical method can’t properly be criticized as “syncretism” since the Bible doesn’t actually communicate an authoritative exegetical method (as opposed to, say, a person’s view of angels and demons or their practice of prayer).
As for the church fathers, I leave it up to you whether those who built the foundation upon which the church’s confessional vocabulary stands were “infants” or not. I suppose I’d put Scofield’s Notes and Moody Press somewhere below the Chalcedonian or Nicene Creed – but we may just have to differ there.
The position you mentioned, i.e. Genesis as parody, isn’t a Roman Catholic one. In any case, its somewhat immaterial – the point is that an attempt to understand the author’s intent doesn’t necessarily yield a young earth view (though it might). The whole point was that many different varieties of old earth views hold the transparent meaning of the text to be something else – and they demonstrate their case with a kind of reverence for the text and evangelical concern for doctrine that is very unlike German liberals. Their proceeding with the text’s own meaning makes you’re liver shiver.