The historiography of the Old Testament is an important topic of debate both among scholars as well as the layman in the pew. Some of the most contested debate revolves around the historicity of the creation account in Genesis 1. This debate is not confined to scholars in Old Testament studies but is carried out on the pulpits and in the pews of the Christian church. The debate is carried on in the context of the relationship of the scriptures to the study of both history and science.

There are a number of different approaches to understanding this relationship. C. Van Dam writes that mainstream critical scholars have relegated the creation account to the realm of myth and not to real history and therefore they have not tried to fit the current scientific theo­ries into Genesis 1. Therefore the real debate today is found among conservative scholars who wish to harmonize Genesis 1 with current science.¹

I will not be dealing with the many approaches that can be found to Genesis 1 in order to come to a definitive approach. Instead it is my inten­tion to focus on the Framework Hypothesis in order to explore the validity of this approach to Genesis 1. Meredith Kline was the first proponent of the Framework View in North America. His first article appeared in 1958² and his second in 1996.³ His latest exposition is a collaboration with Lee Irons published in 2001.⁴ Since this is the most recent and most articulate statement on the Framework View, it will be the main focus for this article. Bruce Waltke⁵ as well as Mark Futato⁶ have added their voices to the Framework view.

The Framework view attempts to give an answer to the question of the literary genre of Genesis 1.⁷ Waltke asks whether its genre is his­tory and concludes that the language is 'figurative, anthropomorphic, not plain'. Because it is written from the transcendent sphere, the narrative must employ metaphor. Therefore, although the six days are our twenty-four hour days,

yet he says, 'they are metaphorical repre­sentations of a reality beyond human comprehension and imitation.'⁸

His understanding is in line with that of Kline and Irons who maintain that the creation week in Gen 1 is not to be taken literally. It simply functions as a literary structure in which God's creative acts are narrated in topical order. The days need to be understood as picture frames that give us a snapshot of God's creative activ­ity.⁹ Therefore the days should not be under­stood as literal 24-hour days, but they are a metaphor to describe the heavenly situation, which they refer to as the 'upper register'. Since in the upper register (the heavenly realm) the days are not measured by solar days (the rising and setting of the sun), therefore the days in Genesis 1 should not be understood as literal days.¹⁰ They insist that the Genesis account,

presents the facts accurately and iner­rantly, but in a literary form intended to convey the rich theological significance of the creation history.¹¹

In order to support this framework view of Gen. 1 they not only use three exegetical argu­ments but they also believe that the theological insights they have achieved add weight to their view. In addition, we will also examine how the relationship between theology and science is dealt with in this hypothesis.

Arguments for the Framework Hypothesis Two-triad Argument⤒🔗

The first exegetical argument is that Genesis 1 consists of two triads. In the first three days God creates the creation kingdoms and during the last three days he fills these with creature kings. The seventh day pictures the creator King enthroned in his heavenly rest.

They conclude, 'So strong is this parallelism that many scholars consider it to be a literary device intentionally crafted by the author.'¹²

Therefore the use of days and nights, evenings and morn­ings must be seen as a literary framework that arrange the creation events in topical units.

To strengthen this argument, they point to the subsequent use of the seven-day scheme in redemptive revelation in a symbolic way that is not necessarily concerned with exact chrono­logical calculations. Since there is symbolic usage of the Sabbath in other parts of scripture, therefore we would expect the same for the original Sabbath structure of Gen. 1.¹³ They also argue that the chiastic relationship between days 2 and 5 strengthens the symmetry be­tween the two triads and so points to the pres­ence of an artistic arrangement.¹⁴ In addition they see a parallelism between days 1 and 4 for they both have the same purpose. The light on day 1 and the sun on day 4 are to separate the day from the night. Therefore they conclude that days 1 and 4 are dealing with the same topic but from different aspects. Day 1 relates the results of God creating the light and day 4 goes back and informs us about the mechanism God used to produce those results.

This argument attempts to show that real creation events are related to us in Gen. 1 with the use of metaphors. Real events are revealed through figurative or anthropomorphic lan­guage. The case here is built on the fact that they see an artistic literary arrangement that makes use of two triads to convey an important theological message. The Framework theory has done a service in pointing out the carefully crafted literary structure of Genesis 1 but this does not in itself prove that Genesis 1 must be understood in a figurative way. There are many other Old Testament narratives that show a well-crafted literary structure and yet are not intended to be taken figuratively.

Ross and Archer acknowledge that the Bible employs metaphorical constructs, but the diffi­culty with the Framework position is that there are no internal clues for this in Genesis 1 nor is there any corroboration for this in the rest of scripture.¹⁵ Jordan quotes G.C. Alders concern­ing Genesis 1, that there "is not a single allu­sion to suggest that the days are to be regarded as a merely stylistic device."¹⁶ The critics point to the fact that there are no markers that indi­cate Genesis 1 is dealing with metaphorical lan­guage. It can also be argued that the two triads naturally follow one another in a real way, for God first creates the 'creature kingdoms' before he is able to fill them with the 'creature kings.' Therefore the literary form is being dictated by the real order of creation.

I consider their argument that the symbolic use of the Sabbath in other parts of scripture gives support for the symbolic nature of Genesis 1 to be weak. God's command in Exodus 20 to keep the Sabbath is based on the pattern God set in his creation.¹⁷ Therefore the argument can go the other way, namely that the use of the Sab­bath in the Old Testament is founded on a real, literal creation week. The argument, therefore, really does not prove what it sets out to prove.

The other important argument that falls under the two-triad argument is the parallelism be­tween days 1 and 4. There appears to be a con­tradiction since light already appears on day 1 but the sun, moon and stars do not appear until day 4. The framework theory attempts to harmonize the two days by making the same event the topic for both days. They see this apparent contradiction as an argument for the framework. The difficulty with this is that there is no independent verification for the solution to that which they identify as a problem. There are other solutions that allow the narrative to be taken in a literal way. Many have pointed out that because of the supernatural nature of creation, the source of light on day 1 may be different from that of day 4.¹⁸ As to the ques­tion why would God change the mechanism by which the earth receives light, one can answer that this belongs to the mystery of creation. The Lord does not reveal every detail of his work.

Argument from Gen 2:5-6←⤒🔗

The second exegetical argument for the frame­work revolves around the relationship of Gen 2:5-6 to Gen. 1. The Framework argues that Gen. 2:5-6 establishes the principle that the mode of providence was the same during and after the creation period. If it can be established that the normal mode of providence was in use before creation, then the sequential order of Genesis 1 makes no sense, for the plants on day 3 would have been created before the Sun on day 4. Without the sun, plant life cannot survive. Therefore Genesis 2:5-6 reveals that the real order in which God called creatures into existence is different from Genesis 1. This forces one to understand days 1 and 4 to be parallel days, for the sun must have been there from the beginning.¹⁹ They consider this to enhance the plausibility of their view that the creation week is arranged into two panels, with the creative events pictured in each one accord­ing to the topical and theological concerns of the author.²⁰

While the framework considers this to be their strongest argument, it is also one that is open to much criticism. The main criticism lies in the fact that Genesis 1 has a different purpose than Genesis 2. E.J. Young points out that Genesis 2 is not a second account of creation, but it, in effect, declares that the account of creation is complete and the author will now focus his attention on that which has been begotten in creation, namely man. The question then arises, what is the relation between Genesis 2:5-6 and the days of Genesis 1? Does Genesis 2 refer to the third day in Genesis 1, or does it describe God's preparation of the Garden of Eden so that 2:5-6 should only be related to the sixth day?²¹

Genesis 2:5-6 is a difficult text in that it does not state clearly how the events described in it are related to the days in Genesis 1. That appears to me an indication that Genesis 2 is not inter­ested in giving a chronological order that can be neatly fitted into Genesis 1. Ross and Archer point out that there is a recapitulation between Genesis 2:4 and 2:5. This is to be expected since the focus of the passage shifts from a physical description of creation to instructions for man­aging all aspects of creation. The frameworks' recapitulation between the third and fourth days does not rest on such an obvious shift.²²

I understand them to argue that in Genesis 1, there are no obvious points of recapitulation for it gives us a straight forward account of creation, whereas in Genesis 2 there is a reca­pitulation of past events. This is an important point that should make one careful to use the more difficult and obscure text in Genesis 2 to prove that Genesis 1 cannot be understood in a chronological way but rather metaphorically. Genesis 2 simply recapitulates those elements that are necessary to give the setting for the history of man.

Two-register Cosmology Argument←⤒🔗

The third exegetical argument revolves around the Two-Register Cosmology. This argument attempts to answer what the days in Gen. 1 refer to if they are not to be taken as literal 24-hour days. The heart of the argument is that the scriptures speak about a cosmology that consists of the upper (invisible) and lower (visible) registers. The two registers relate to each other spatially, not as different locations, but as different dimensions of the one cosmos. The upper register is God's heavenly habitation that exists for us on a mysterious, invisible, and spiritual plane. Therefore the upper register is the archetype and the lower register is an analogical replica of it. They conclude that the language of the 'days' and the 'evenings and mornings' is not literal, but are lower-register terms used to metaphorically describe the upper register. Since heavenly time cannot be literally measured by solar days or earthly evenings and mornings, therefore the days in Gen. 1 cannot be taken as literal solar days since they are metaphors for heavenly time.²³

Waltke concludes:

To be sure the six days in the Gen­esis creation account are our twenty-four hours days, but they are metaphorical representations of a reality beyond human comprehension and imitation.²⁴

The two-register argument is open to criticism for it is based on the assumption that the upper register has a time different from that of the lower register. While scriptures clearly speak about upper and lower register (heaven and earth), there is no indication that heavenly time is different from earthly time. Jordan says that the framework assumes that the bipolarity of space implies a bipolarity of time so that there must be heavenly days and earthly days.²⁵ The question arises, if in Genesis 1 the days are heavenly days, are there periods of dark­ness and light in heaven that mark days and nights, or is heaven already filled with light?²⁶ In addition I would ask, if both heaven and earth are part of God's creation and not "co-eternal with God,"²⁷ would not all of creation, the entire cosmos, experience the same time? Whereas God as the eternal One is above time so that for God a day is as a thousand years, yet his creation, both upper and lower register, is bound by time.

Duncan and Hall suggest that Genesis 1:2 shows that the creation events unfolded in earthly time, for the frame of reference for the 6th day creation is identified as the surface of the earth's waters.²⁸ Although God speaks from heaven yet the narrative describes what hap­pens from the viewpoint of earth. Jordan comes to the same conclusion that Genesis 1 describes events in the earthly realm and not the heav­enly one, even if the perspective on what is happening comes from heaven.²⁹

Duncan and Hall question whether the two-register cosmology is really evidence for the framework view. At the most it is something that is consistent with this view if it were true, but it would also be consistent with other views on Genesis 1.³⁰ The two-register argu­ment is based on an assumption about two kinds of time in two different parts of creation that is not supported by scripture. This assumption is needed in order to maintain that the days are non-literal and metaphorical.

Theological Argument←⤒🔗

The framework view argues that the '24 hour day' and 'day-age' views do not grasp the overriding theological message of Genesis 1 and that,

the framework interpretation stands out among its competitors on account of its sensitivity to literary, thematic, and theologi­cal aspects of the creation narrative.³¹

Duncan and Hall comment that the framework view believes that,

Their view emphasizes the covenantal relationship between God and man, the call to covenant obedience, God's wisdom and power in the created order, the imago Dei, the Sabbath ordinance, and the eschatological dimension of the created order.³²

It seems to me that the Framework claims too much for their view. Duncan and Hall correctly observe that other commentators working outside of the framework view have already discovered all these theological themes.³³ Whether one understands Genesis 1 to be ar­ranged topically, or to refer to 24-hour days or a day-age, these theological themes arise from the plain reading of the text. Therefore I do not see any special benefit for the framework view with regard to the theological message.

Theology and Science←⤒🔗

The difficult issue that arises in the debate about the genre of Gen. 1 is the relationship be­tween theology and science. The debate about Gen. 1 is not whether it is history, but the nature of this history. The framework view puts a wedge between the historical account and questions of science by taking the stand that we have a historical account that is not concerned to satisfy our curiosity about sequence or chro­nology but mostly concerned about theological and literary concerns.³⁴ Since the focus of scrip­ture is theology, the conclusion is that there is very little said about science other than God in general has created the cosmos.

In this way Kline admits he has, 'advocated an interpreta­tion of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe.'³⁵

Waltke argues that the biblical record "cannot give a satisfying scientific account of origins for it is not scientific literature."³⁶ He correctly points out that scripture is not a scientific book, for the subject is God. It is not concerned about scientific questions, the language is unscientific and its purpose is non-scientific.³⁷ It is indeed true that Genesis 1 does not give a scientific analysis of God's creating work. Collins points out that the "narrative is not intended to be complete: rather, it is a broad-stroke descrip­tion."³⁸ Since the creation narrative gives us a broad-stroke description, there is still much that remains a mystery about creation.³⁹ While Genesis 1 does not intend to give scientific information, what is science able to tell us? Collins points out that at the very least, the created order is able to reveal to us that we are made by our Creator. Therefore we are without excuse for knowing our Creator.⁴⁰

The question then arises, what is the relation­ship between the biblical narrative and science? The biblical narrative gives us history but is not scientific in nature, while science attempts to discover the detailed processes but is not his­torical in nature. History does not give science and science does not give history. And yet there must be a point at which they relate to one an­other. With regard to creation, God is the only witness and he has given us an historical over­view of this event in Genesis 1. Science needs to take into account the only source we have of our origins and work with scientific knowledge within the historical framework given by God.

Van Dam writes that the Lord "relates true and real history that can and should be reckoned with, also in scientific endeavours."⁴¹ Science cannot be allowed to contradict that which is related to us by God as real history.⁴²

Conclusion←⤒🔗

It appears to me that advocates of the Frame­work View have allowed scientific theory about the origins of the earth to guide their exegesis of Genesis 1. They could very well maintain that Genesis 1 is a literary masterpiece without the need to resort to the days being metaphors of the upper register, or that the days are heav­enly days. In this article I have tried to outline the main arguments for the framework view in order to examine the validity of the claim that Genesis 1 is a metaphorical representation. While the concept is intriguing I do not believe that there are any compelling literary mark­ers to justify this approach. The arguments concerning the two-triads and the two-register approach do not give strong evidence for a metaphorical approach. The strongest argu­ment may be the alleged discrepancy between Genesis 2:5-6 and Genesis 1 although when Genesis 2 is understood to give a recapitula­tion of some of the creation events, it argues against the framework view of Genesis 1. In a time in which the evolutionary theory of the origin of the world is being undermined by scientific research, it is foolish for God's people to attempt to interpret Genesis 1 in a way to leave opening for such theories. The Lord has given a simple and straightforward account of creation in which he has called everything into being. Therefore it is wise to heed the words of the Lord to Job,

Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you under­stand.Job 38:4

It is the divine witness who has revealed that he has called into being his creation in six days and the seventh he rested.