Framework interpretation (Genesis)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the series on |
| Creationism |
|
|
| Christian views |
|
Day-age creationism |
| Non-Christian views |
| Creation Theology |
|
Creation in Genesis |
| Creation science |
| Controversy |
|
Politics of creationism |
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 text which outlines a religious doctrine of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the Sabbath commandment. The story is allegoric in the technical sense, as opposed to a historical record of the creation events.
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.
Contents |
[edit] Theology of the framework
[edit] Two triads and three kingdoms
After studying the first chapter of Genesis, some theologians and commentators have observed that the six days of creation are apparently divided into two groups of three ("triads") which closely parallel each other. For example, Youngblood proposes the outline presented in the table below.[1] In the description of the first three days, God subdivides the world into regions: heavens, sea, and earth; he then fills each of these regions sequentially during the following three days.
| First triad | Second triad | ||
| Day 1 | Let there be light (1:3). | Let there be lights (1:14). | Day 4 |
| Day 2 | Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6). | Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20). | Day 5 |
| Day 3 | Let dry land appear (1:9). Let the land produce vegetation (1:11). |
Let the land produce living creatures (1:24). Let us make man (1:26). I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29). |
Day 6 |
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" (Gen 1:3-5), which is repeated again on the fourth day when God created the two great lights in order "to separate the light from the darkness" and "to separate the day from the night" (Gen 1:14-19).
| CREATION KINGDOMS | CREATURE KINGS |
|---|---|
| Day 1: Light | Day 4: Luminaries |
| Day 2: Sky/Water | Day 5: Birds/Fish |
| Day 3: Land/Vegetation | Day 6: Land animals/Man |
| THE CREATOR KING | |
| Day 7: Sabbath | |
Using the interpretation of the first and fourth days, framework advocates argue the similarities between the days indicates the days progress in topical rather than chronological order. It appears parallelism is the method the author of the creation account used in order to describe God's work, not in a way that was intended to be read literally. In this sense, the creation account serves a greater role in purpose as revelation rather than simply to give a historical account of the events of creation.
Differences exist on how to classify the two triads, but Meredith G. Kline's analysis is suggestive: the first triad (days 1–3) narrate the establishment of the creation kingdoms, and the second triad (days 4–6), the production of the creature kings. Furthermore this structure is not without theological significance, for all the created realms and regents of the six days are subordinate vassals of God who takes His royal Sabbath rest as the Creator King on the seventh day. Thus the seventh day marks the climax of the creation week.[2]
[edit] Other considerations
[edit] Exegetical
[edit] God's rest
Many theologians prefer the non-literal interpretation of the seventh day because it explains the apparent contradiction between the literal interpretation of the events of the seventh day and God's nature. Exodus 31:17 states God "rested, and was refreshed" on the seventh day. This seems to contradict Isaiah 40:28 which says God "does not become weary or tired."
Most creation literalists argue for a literal interpretation of the days in Genesis as the only view which is logically compatible with the fourth commandment:
| “ | Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus, 20: 8–11 |
” |
They claim the author of the commandment speaks of it in a literal sense and therefore it must be interpreted literally. Framework theologians believe the days were symbolically added to the creation account through divine inspiration as a literary device and to emphasize this commandment, rather than taking it literally.
[edit] Literary genre
Many theologians concur that Genesis 1 represents a unique literary genre which differs significantly from the later, straightforward narrative sections of Genesis. The text has been described as being "full of repetitive formulae and quasi-poetic language". Suggested designations for the genre include "mytho-historical", "proto-historical" and "theological history".[3] The semi-poetic nature of the text is a further argument against taking it literally and in favour of the framework view.
[edit] Dual creation account
A close exegesis of the first two chapters of Genesis reveals two distinct creation accounts with conflicting chronologies. The first account, which uses the Hebrew word Elohim in reference to God, places the creation of man and woman on the sixth day, at the very end of creation. In contrast, the second ("Yahwist") account (which begins in chapter 2 verse 4) has plants, animals and birds created after the man. This is taken as evidence that the accounts should not be read literally as a chronological record of creation.
[edit] Heaven's Firmament
It is noted that the seven-day creation account (Genesis 1) has a formulaic structure with repetition and other poetic elements. Furthermore, it is based on an ancient cosmology with the firmament of heaven acting as a solid ceiling which holds up the waters of heaven, and within which the sun, moon and stars are embedded. These considerations are used to further argue the case that the Genesis creation accounts were not written as a scientifically accurate report, but rather as a religious text.
[edit] Historical and cultural
The text of Genesis was written in the historical and cultural context of the Ancient Near East. Historians now know that this setting was characterized by a milieu of competing world-views, deities and theories about creation. Framework advocates argue that the author of Genesis constructed his creation account with the intention of combating these various animistic, pantheistic and polytheistic ideas. He thus portrays the one true Elohim (the God of Israel) as supremely transcendent and sovereign over creation. The details of the account serve this end, rather than to satisfy the scientific curiosity of the modern era. Accordingly, it is argued that literalists who wish to derive scientific data from Genesis are committing the hermeneutic error of interpreting the text outside of its original context.
[edit] Scientific
- See also: Age of the Earth and Age of the Universe
The framework view is compatible with the scientific evidence which strongly suggests the Earth is old and was created through various processes such as plate tectonics and evolution. Unlike the framework view, a literal 24-hour interpretation goes against evidence that the Earth and universe are very old. Augustine had much to say about the dangers of remaining ignorant of science and yet arguing against it using a specific interpretation of scripture which may or may not be correct:
| “ | Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the Heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19[4] |
” |
John Calvin speaks of the importance of natural theology in many things which he has written. For example:
| “ | In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the Heavens and the Earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them. It is true, indeed, that those who are more or less intimately acquainted with those liberal studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper insight into the secret workings of divine wisdom. John Calvin |
” |
Creationists who take a literalist approach have often laid the charge that Christians who interpret Genesis symbolically or allegorically are assigning science an authority over that of Scripture.[5] Advocates of the framework view respond[6] by noting that Scripture affirms God's general revelation in nature (Ps 19, Rom 1:19-20), and therefore in our search for the truth about the origins of the universe we must be sensitive to both the "book of words" (Scripture) and the "book of works" (nature). Since God is the author of both "books", we should expect that they do not conflict with each other when properly interpreted.
[edit] Supporters
The framework interpretation is held by many theistic evolutionists and some progressive creationists. While it had a precedent in the writings of the early church father St. Augustine,[7] it has become popular in modern times through the work of such theologians as Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher, and has gained wide acceptance among scholars, clergy, and laypeople in mainline and some conservative Christian denominations.
Influential 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.)
"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[8]
[edit] 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. However, unlike the literalist view, the framework view takes the entire week as figurative rather than historical.
[edit] 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.[9] However, in general the framework interpretation has received comparatively less attention from biblical literalists than other interpretative options such as the day-age theory and the gap theory.
[edit] References
- ^ R. F. Youngblood, The Book of Genesis, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1991)
- ^ Kline, "Space and Time," p. 6.
- ^ "Creation", New Bible Dictionary third edition, Inter-Varsity Press 1996
- ^ St. Augustine (1982). The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, The Newman Press, pp. 42–43. ISBN 0809103273.
- ^ Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. Did God really take six days?.
- ^ R.J. Berry, God's Book of Works — the Nature and Theology of Nature, 2003.
- ^ Davis A. Young (1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40 (1): 42–45. Retrieved on 2007-02-19.
- ^ Gordon Wenham (1987). Genesis 1-15 (commentary). Word Books, 39, 40.
- ^ Joseph A. Pipa (January 1998). From Chaos to Cosmos:A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis. Retrieved on February 19, 2007.
[edit] Bibliography
- Henri Blocher (1984). In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0877843252.
- Mark Futato (Spring 1998). "Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3". Westminster Theological Journal 60 (1): pp. 1-21. (Also reprinted in Reformed Perspectives Magazine: part 1 and part 2.)
- Lee Irons (January 2000). "The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary". Ordained Servant 9 (1): pp. 7-11.
- Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline (2000). "The Framework Interpretation", in David G. Hagopian (ed.): The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the "Days" of Creation. Global Publishing Services. ISBN 978-0970224507.
- Meredith G. Kline (May 1958). "Because It Had Not Rained". Westminster Theological Journal 20 (2): pp. 146-57.
- Meredith G. Kline (1996). "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony". Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith (48): pp. 2-15.
- Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks (2001). Genesis. Zondervan. ISBN 978-0310224587.
- Tremper Longman III. How To Read Genesis. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0877849438.
[edit] See also
[edit] External Links
- Catholic.com: The Six Days of Creation by Jimmy Akin
- The Logical Framework in Genesis 1, from the American Scientific Affiliation
- A critique of the literary framework view of the days of Creation by Andrew Kulikovsky
| Topics about or related to Creationism |
|---|
| Types: Creationism - Young Earth Creationism - Old Earth creationism - Progressive creationism - Theistic evolution - Intelligent design |
| Interpretations of Genesis: Framework interpretation - Day-Age theory - Gap theory - Biblical literalism |
| Related concepts: Creation according to Genesis - Omphalos hypothesis - Specified complexity - Irreducible complexity - Dating Creation - Theistic realism - Intelligent designer |
| Pseudoscience: Creation science - Creationist cosmologies - Creation biology - Created kinds - Flood geology - Vapor canopy - Modern geocentrism - Flat Earth creationism |
|
Controversy: Creation-evolution controversy - History of creationism - Creation and evolution in public education - Quotes about creation and evolution - Teach the Controversy |
