1

REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (JACKSON)

A CRITIQUE OF THE FRAMEWORK HYPOTHESIS

SUBMITTED TO DR. MICHAEL MCKELVEY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

OT508 GENESIS - DEUTERONOMY

BY

DENNIS E. CONROY

APRIL 7, 2015

2

Introduction

For the first eighteen hundred years of church history there has been a near unanimous consensus

that God created everything in six normal solar days. With the dawn of the Enlightenment and

the separating of mankind from the traditions and authority of the church men have attacked the

authority of the Bible and any supernatural account for the creation of the world. More recently,

with the newer sciences of geology, paleontology, and other modern sciences proposing new

evidences for an old earth, many Christians have abandoned the church’s historic position and

have worked hard at developing theories to harmonize new scientific data with the text of

Genesis. The purpose of this paper is to examine one of the more popular views of creation in

Genesis 1. The claims of the Framework Hypothesis or Framework view will be summarized and

then evaluated.

The Framework Hypothesis

Definition

For the last two hundred years various models have been promoted to explain the creation

account in Genesis chapters one and two. Each view has its own complications and problems.

Each has it advocates. The issue has become a very controversial topic with the various

advocates promoting their view and denigrating the views of others. One of the more recent

views to gain popularity is the so called Framework Hypothesis. What is this view?

“The Framework Hypothesis argues, on exegetical grounds, that the organizing

principle of the creation account is topical rather than chronological. It denies, on

exegetical grounds, that the seven-day week is intended as a chronological unfolding of

3

the separate acts of creation limited in duration to one calendar week. It explains the use

of the seven-day framework as motivated by theological considerations, which both

undergird and extend the concept of man’s being in the image of God. Man’s labor as

well as his being is to be patterned after the divine image.”1

Proponents2 of this view regard the seven-day structure as a figurative framework and not as

literal. Some early church fathers held to non-literal views on the creation days. Augustine is

cited as well as Anselm, Peter Lombard, and others.3 Advocates are quick to caution us that we

are not to equate non-literal interpretation with a non-historical interpretation of the text.4 They

maintain that they are committed to the historicity and accuracy of the Genesis account.

Two Triads

The first exegetical argument for the framework interpretation that God uses the imagery of an

ordinary week to illustrate a theological structure for God’s creative acts in Genesis 1 is the use

of the two ‘triads’ where Days 1-3 find their parallel in Days 4-6. This can be illustrated in the

following chart:5

Creation kingdoms Creature kings

Day 1 Light Day 4 Luminaries

Day 2 Sky

Seas

Day 5 Sea creatures

Winged creatures

Day 3 Dry land

Vegetation

Day 6 Land Animals

Man

Day 7 Sabbath - The Creator King

This chart shows the structural organization of both triads, indicating that the literary

arrangement of the days reflects a topical arrangement instead of a sequential days account and

1 Mark Ross, “The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3,” in Did God Create in Six

Days? (ed. Joseph Pipa and David W. Hall; Taylor, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), 114. 2 Proponents of the Framework Hypothesis include: Lee Irons, Meredith G. Kline, Mark Ross, Mark Futato,

Bruce Waltke, and many others. 3 Archer, G. L., H. Ross, M. G. Kline, L. Irons, L. J. Duncan, D. W. Hall, and D. G. Hagopian, The Genesis

Debate (ed. D. G. Hagopian; Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press, 2001), 219. 4 Ibid., 220. 5 Ibid., 224.

4

emphasizes God’s creative activities climaxing with the Creator’s Sabbath rest. The first triad

deals with the kingdoms and the second with those that exercise authority over those kingdoms.6

“Because it had not rained – Genesis 2:5-6

The second argument used by the Framework proponents comes from the name of an article by

Meredith G. Kline’s 1958 article, “Because It Had Not Rained.”7 Kline presents the argument

that God used ordinary providence to control the creation sequence. Genesis 2:5 presumes that

God would not have created plants until he first created a situation with the necessary rain to

sustain the growth of those plants. If God used ordinary means to control creation, then Genesis

1:1-2:3 cannot be a sequential account of creation.8 For example, since light on Day 1 without

luminaries (created until Day 4) is not a normal sequence, Genesis 1 must be arranged topically

and not chronologically.9

Two-Register Cosmology

The third argument that is used by some advocates of the Framework view is the use of what is

called the Two-Register Cosmology of Scripture. There is the upper or invisible and the lower or

visible registers. “The upper registry is the invisible dwelling place of God and His holy angels,

that is, heaven. The lower registry is called earth, but includes the whole visible cosmos from the

planet Earth to the star-studded sky.”10 Mankind cannot perceive the upper registry because it is

invisible. If we perceive it at all it is by faith.11

6 Robert V. McCabe, “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2),”

DBSJ 10 (2005): 22-23. 7 Meredith G. Kline, “Because it had not rained,” WTJ 20 (2 1958): 146-157. 8 Another proponent of this the Framework view, see Futato, Mark D. “Because it had rained: A study of Gen

2:5-7 with implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3.” Westminster Theological Journal 60 (1998): 1‒21. 9 Mark D. Futato, “Because it had rained: A study of Gen 2:5-7 with implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-

2:3,” WTJ 60 (1998): 1. 10 Irons and Kline, Genesis Debate, 237. 11 Ibid., 236-238.

5

How does this two-register cosmology relate to the Framework theory? “The days of

Genesis 1 belong to the upper registry. . . The upper registry is an archetype, and the lower

register is an analogical replica of the upper registry.”12

Critique of Framework Hypothesis

Problems

Duncan and Hall list four problems with the Framework view of creations. The first problem

they list is that the Framework advocates claim that their view is unique in that it does not speak

to the age of the earth and so frees us to merge scientific data with the Scriptures. They seem to

boast that theirs is the neutral view as against other views such as the Day-Age or the 24-hour

views. They just want to “listen to the text.” Duncan and Hall claim that this is an apologetic and

is not an exegetical concern. “None of us can approach this passage in our current setting without

apologetic concerns, (Nor should we!) The more quickly we realize that fact, the better.”13

The second problem with the Framework view is that, contrary to the advocated, this view

does not free the conscience of the believer regarding the age of the earth. The “freedom” of the

Framework view has a cost to it – “the unprecedented denial that the creation account speaks to

the issues of chronology and sequence.” They claim that Genesis One and Two are historical but

yet can say nothing about the order of the days, the length, or the sequence. This is unique in the

history of the church. “This denial is what caused some to charge the framework interpretation

with nominalism, however odious that charge may seem to its proponents.”14

12 Ibid., 239. 13 Duncan and Hall, Genesis Debate, 258. 14 Ibid., 259.

6

The third problem Duncan and Hall find is one of tone – how they present their view. They

find the framework proponents views as “condescending,” “overdrawn and self-congratulatory.”

The framework view claims unique insights in understanding the text. This view “removes the

false expectations that have muzzled the text in the past and liberates it to address the people of

God kerygmatically and theologically.”15 Statements such as this cause concern for many within

conservative evangelical circles. It seems that with this view two thousand years of biblical

interpretation are ignored.16

The fourth problem cited by Duncan and Hall is that the exegetical argument of the

framework proponents is unconvincing. This is a serious problem since this is at the heart of the

view amid claims of superior exegesis. Duncan and Hall summarize the framework exegesis into

eight points and then take each one and refute them and either an exaggerations, restating old

arguments, or appeals to the logic of the statement. One critique in particular is that of the

parallel days of creation of Day 1 and Day 4 where the sun appears only on Day 4 and therefore

demonstrates that the order of days cannot be sequential but topical. “That argument has been

around for several centuries, has not proved compelling to mainstream Christian exegesis, and

seems to rest upon an implicit denial of the work of creation as ‘miracle.’”

The impact of the Framework View

There are issues at stake in the debate over the differing views of the creation account and

particularly with the Framework Hypothesis view. What has been the impact of this view on the

modern church? Has this view undermined the evangelical confidence in the authority of God’s

Word?

15 Irons and Kline, Genesis Debate, 218-19. 16 Duncan and Hall, Genesis Debate, 259.

7

One of many problems that occurs with the framework view is what might be called the

‘slippery slope’ problem. Joseph Pipa summarizes the problem:

The problem . . . is that there are no internal brakes. Only the individual's orthodoxy

will keep him from all of these and further conclusions such as: Adam was not an

historical person, but a symbol; Eve was not created from Adam; plagues were simply

providential events ordered by an all-knowing God. Then we are a step removed from

no miracles and no physical resurrection.17

Additionally, Duncan and Hall mention five additional problems or consequences for

holding the framework view. The first one might be called the interpretive problems. The

framework proponents claim that this view liberates the text from false expectations and false

interpretations of the text. Their view requires more sophistication of the original audience’s

literary capabilities. It contradicts all later Old Testament exegesis. It opposes the vast majority

of commentaries on creation. And it opposes the orthodox position of the Church until relatively

recent. Duncan and Hall see this viewpoint as an attempt to conform to the views of science and

our secular culture.18

The second problem is that the framework view seriously undercuts our confidence in the

perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. God had graciously revealed Himself to us in such a way that

even children can understand the basics of the Bible. Did not the same Spirit rest on the saints in

the past and enable them to understand the plain meaning of the Scriptures? The framework view

seems to go to extremes in creating a theory difficult to understand and believe. Duncan and Hall

charge proponents with having a “theological agenda” that leads them to “re-engineer the text.”19

17 Joseph A. Jr. Pipa, “From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Non-Literal Interpretations of Genesis 1:1-

2:3,” in Did God Create in Six Days? (ed. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and David. W. Hall; Taylors, SC: Southern

Presbyterian Press, 1999), 198. 18 Duncan and Hall, Genesis Debate, 264-265. 19 Ibid., 265-266.

8

The third issue deals with the framework interpretation of the Sabbath. The Framework

theory complicates the Sabbath with the triad configuration of the six days of creation. The

pattern is not 6 + 1 but rather 3+3+1. “In the name of exalting the Sabbath, the framework

interpretation completely undermines it.”20

The fourth problem that Duncan and Hall point to is the total absence of this theory in

Church History. It was first mentioned by Professor Arie Noordzij of the University of Utrecht

early in the 20th Century.21 This is the earliest mention of this theory. If the framework theory is

accepted than it has to be admitted that all that have come before were wrong on this issue.

The fifth problem of the framework view is that is diminishes the miraculous nature of the

creation account. The framework view presupposes “that the mode of providence that was in

operation during the creation period and that which is currently in operation . . . are the same.”22

Notable is the response that E. J. Young gives in a remark concerning the interpretation of

Genesis One concerning the framework view, “In the text of Genesis itself . . . there is not a

single allusion to suggest that the days are to be regarded as a form or mere manner of

representation and hence of no significance for the essential knowledge of the divine creative

activity.”23

Conclusion

To conclude this paper, the reader should be reminded that there are a number of different

perspectives on the Creation account and that while not all can be correct, none are necessarily

20 Ibid., 266. 21 For a summary and critique of Noordzij’s 1924 work, God’s Word en der Eeuwen Getuigenis, see E. J.

Young, Studies in Genesis One (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964), 44-45. 22 Kline, “Because it had not rained,” 1. 23 E. J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964), 47.

9

heretical either. Godly and scholarly people are in each camp as to the interpretation of Genesis

One and Two. However, some cautions and concerns need to be observed about the Framework

Hypothesis.

It seems that the framework view proponents may be guilty of imposing an strange

hermeneutic onto the text instead of using proper exegesis to understand the text of Genesis. One

comes away from reading their material that this view is quite complicated and on the surface

looks like an attempt to make modern scientific data fit the Biblical account. In the process a

very complicated and unnatural hermeneutic is imposed on the text. Calling some portions of the

creation account figurative when the plain reading of the text negates this category seems to

invite the interpreter to categorize other portions of Scripture as figurative when needed to make

the text fit to a biased starting position. The framework view creates a situation where we will

have trouble drawing the line between literal and figurative interpretations.

Another concern stemming from this view is the possibility of an open door to a weakened

view of God’s miraculous work in creation. The framework proponents want to force a non-

miraculous, ordinary working of God in Genesis 2:5ff and impose that ordinary working on

Genesis One. Related to this is the issue of the perspicuity of Scripture. Is it possible that the

framework view of Creation weakens our view of the Word and inerrancy? E. J. Young says it

best when he reminds us of how we are to handle the Word of God:

It is of course true that the Bible is not a textbook of science, but all too often, it would

seem, this fact is make a pretext for treating lightly the content of Genesis one.

Inasmuch as the Bible is the Word of God, whenever it speaks on any subject, whatever

that subject may be, it is accurate in what it says.24

One can be a legitimate Christian and hold to a number of different views of Creation. This

is not a matter of salvation. We need to be careful not to be overly dogmatic about this issue.

24 Young, Genesis One, 43.

10

Each position has its difficulties and strengths. It is not worth breaking Christian fellowship over.

At the same time, we should also be diligent in our study of God’s Word and seek to be more

faithful in our interpretation and applying the Word to our lives.

11

Bibliography

Archer, G. L., H. Ross, M. G. Kline, L. Irons, L. J. Duncan, D. W. Hall, and D. G. and Hagopian.

The Genesis Debate. Edited by D. G. Hagopian. Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press,

2001.

Chaffey, Tim. God Means What He Says: A Biblical Critique of the Framework Hypothesis.

Kindle Edition. : Midwest Apologetics, 2008.

Futato, Mark D. “Because it had rained: A study of Gen 2:5-7 with implications for Gen 2:4-25

and Gen 1:1-2:3.” Westminster Theological Journal 60 (1998): 1‒21.

Gurney, Robert. “History and pseudo-history.” Creation Magazine 32 (July 2010): 36‒37.

Irons, Lee. “The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary.” Ordained Servant 9

(January 2000): 7‒11.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis. London: The Tydale Press, 1967.

Kline, Meredith G. “Because it had not rained.” Westminster Theological Journal 20 (2 1958):

146‒157.

———. “Creation in the image of the Glory-Spirit.” Westminster Theological Journal 39

(Spring 1977): 250‒272.

Kruger, Michael J. “An Understanding of Gen 2:5.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11 (1

1997): 106‒110.

McCabe, Robert V. “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1

of 2).” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 10 (2005): 19‒67.

———. “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2).”

Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 11 (2006): 63‒133.

———. “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5

(Fall 2000): 97‒123.

Pipa, Joseph A. Jr. “From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Non-Literal Interpretations of

Genesis 1:1-2:3.” Pages 153‒198 in Did God Create in Six Days. Edited by Joseph A. Pipa

Jr. and David. W. Hall. Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999.

Pipa, Joseph A. Jr. and David. W. Hall, eds. Did God Create in Six Days. Taylors, SC: Southern

Presbyterian Press, 1999.

Ross, Mark. “The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3.” Pages 113‒130

in Did God Create in Six Days. Edited by Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and David. W. Hall. Taylors, SC:

Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999.

Waltke, B. K. and Fredricks C. J. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Weeks, Noel. “Problems in methods of interpretation - Genesis 1-11: Part 2.” Creation Magazine

Volume 2, Issue 4 (October 1979): 22‒26.

Young, E. J. In The Beginning. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

———. Studies in Genesis One. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964.

“Report of the Creation Study Committee.” Study Committee Report, Presbyterian Church in

America, 2000.