Framework interpretation (Genesis)

"This article focuses on the views of certain Christian commentators and theologians. For a more general account of the topic, see Creation according to Genesis. For a canvass of some of the Jewish approaches, see Jewish views on evolution."

The framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.

While based primarily on exegetical considerations, the framework interpretation also attempts to synthesize knowledge of historical and cultural conditions out of which the text arose, as well as a theology of general revelation. It has been advanced in modern times by scholars such as Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher and has the support of commentators including Gordon Wenham. It stands in contrast to more literalist approaches to the Genesis text.

Theology of the framework

Two triads and three kingdoms

Genesis 1 divides its six days of Creation into two groups of three ("triads"). The introduction, Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning ... the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep...", describes the primal universe containing darkness, a watery "deep", and a formless earth, over which hovers the spirit of God. The following three days describe the first triad: the creation of light and its separation from the primal darkness (Gen.1:3-5); the creation of the "firmament" within the primal waters so that the heavens (space between the firmament and the surface of the seas) and the "waters under the firmament" can appear (Gen. 1:6-8); and the separation of the waters under the firmament into seas and dry land with its plants and trees. The second triad describes the peopling of the three elements of the first: sun, moon, and stars for the day and night (Gen. 1:14-19), fish and birds for the heavens and seas (Gen. 1:20-23), and finally animals and man for the vegetated land (24-31).

Framework theologians observe that the first and fourth day of creation appear to have many similarities which leads them to conclude that these are two descriptions of one single event: the creation of "light and darkness" and "day and night". A critical analysis of the passage reveals that on the first day God "separated the light from the darkness" and "called the light day, and the darkness He called night" ( states God "rested, and was refreshed" on the seventh day. This seems to contradict ] Advocates of the framework view respond [R. J. Berry, "God's Book of Works — the Nature and Theology of Nature", 2003.] by noting that Scripture affirms God's general revelation in nature (] it has become popular in modern times through the work of such theologians and scholars as Meredith G. Kline, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke, to name but a few, and has gained wide acceptance among, clergy and laypeople in both mainline and some conservative Christian denominations.

Old Testament and Pentateuch scholar Gordon Wenham appears to support the framework interpretation in his commentary on Genesis. (Wenham uses the term "schema" to describe the framework.)

quotation|"It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator's work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically... The six day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusio, the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on. If these hints were not sufficient to indicate the schematization of the six-day creation story, the very content of the narrative points in the same direction."|Gordon Wenham [cite book
author=Gordon Wenham
title=Genesis 1-15 (commentary)
publisher=Word Books
date=1987
pages=39, 40]

Rob Bell's popular Everything Is Spiritual teaching features "framework interpretation" in its foundation.

Comparison to alternative interpretations

The framework interpretation is an alternative to more literal interpretations which take Genesis 1 as a factual record of actual creative events. The most literalistic alternative is the one adopted by Young Earth creationists, who believe that the seven days are literal 24-hour periods of time within actual history. A modification of this approach is the gap theory, which likewise holds that the days are literal 24-hour periods, but proposes a large "gap" within the account (usually between verses 1 and 2) during which geologic time is considered to have elapsed. The day-age view takes the word "day" as non-literal and representing a long era of time.

Like the literalist view, but unlike the day-age view, the framework interpretation considers that in the context of the creation story the word "day" has a literal sense. [cite_journal|author=Lee Irons|title=The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary|journal=Ordained Servant|volume=9|issue=1|date= January 2000|pages=pp. 7–11|url=http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html] However, unlike the literalist view, the framework view takes the "entire week" as figurative rather than historical.

Criticism of the framework interpretation

Some Young Earth creationist writers have criticised the framework interpretation, which they see as a compromise with science in order to accommodate evolutionary ideas. [Citation
title=From Chaos to Cosmos:A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis
author=Joseph A. Pipa
date=January 1998
accessdate=2007-02-19] A wide variety of authors have defended a chronologically based interpretation of Genesis 1, with publications from the Presbyterian church [cite web
author=Louis F. DeBoer
title=THE FRAMEWORK HYPOTHESIS
url=http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/framework_hyothesis.htm] , the Reformed church [cite web
author=Herman Hanko
title=The Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1
url=http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html] [cite web
author=Frank Walker
title=The Framework Hypothesis
url=http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/framework.htm] , and others [cite web
author=Andrew S. Kulikovsky
title=A Critique of the Literary Framework View of the Days of Creation
url=http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf] [cite web
author=Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland
title=Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
url=http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5450/] .

References

Bibliography

*cite_book|author=Henri Blocher|title=In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis|publisher=InterVarsity Press|date=1984|isbn=978-0877843252
*cite_journal|author=Mark Futato|title=Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3| journal=Westminster Theological Journal|volume=60|issue=1|date=Spring 1998|pages=pp. 1–21|url=http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Futato_RainGen2_WTJ.pdf (Also reprinted in "Reformed Perspectives Magazine": [http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/mar_futato/TH.Futato.Rained.1.html part 1] and [http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/mar_futato/TH.Futato.Rained.2.html part 2] .)
*cite_journal|author=Lee Irons|title=The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary|journal=Ordained Servant|volume=9|issue=1|date= January 2000|pages=pp. 7–11|url=http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html
*cite_book|author=Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline|chapter=The Framework Interpretation|title= The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the "Days" of Creation|editor=David G. Hagopian (ed.)|publisher=Global Publishing Services|date=2000|isbn=978-0970224507
*cite_journal|author=Meredith G. Kline|url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html|title=Because It Had Not Rained|journal=Westminster Theological Journal|volume=20|issue=2|date=May 1958|pages=pp. 146–57
*cite_journal|author=Meredith G. Kline|url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html|title=Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony|journal=Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith|issue=48|date=1996|pages=pp. 2–15
*cite_book|title=Genesis|author=Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks|date=2001|publisher=Zondervan|isbn=978-0310224587
*cite book|author=Tremper Longman III|title=How To Read Genesis|publisher=InterVarsity Press|isbn=978-0877849438

ee also

*Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
*Theistic evolution
*Creation-evolution controversy

External links

* [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm "The Logical Framework in Genesis 1"] from the American Scientific Affiliation (advocating the framework view)
* [http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301bt.asp "The Six Days of Creation"] by Jimmy Akin (describing the framework view and its general agreement with Catholic teaching)