Examining the Framework Hypothesis

by Tim Chaffey

      Since the concept of an ancient earth became popular in the early 19^th century, many Christians have tried to figure out a way to blend the biblical record with this idea.  Several views have been advanced but each has serious flaws.  Over the past few decades a new and dangerous approach to Genesis 1 has gained favor in many seminaries and Bible colleges.  As a result of this, it is starting to be promoted in numerous churches. 

      This view is known as the Framework Hypothesis or the Literary Framework view.  Essentially, this view attempts to identify elements in the text that should not be interpreted literally.  Those who hold this view believe that if they can point out non-literal phrases or elements in Genesis then it would be wrong to interpret it literally.  By claiming this, Framework adherents claim that the Bible does not teach anything about the age of the earth.  As such, they think it is fine to believe in billions of years.

      The Framework view is based on three major arguments.  They are 1) Textual Parallelism, 2) Ordinary Providence, and 3) The Cosmogony Argument.  One argument will be covered each of the following newsletters.  For this article, we would like to highlight two flaws in this system before digging into the actual arguments.

      The first problem with this view is that it is based on faulty logic.  Even if it can be shown that non-literal elements exist in the text, it does not follow that the entire chapter should be viewed in a figurative manner.  For example, it is entirely possible to write literal history and include figurative language. 

      The second problem is that the Framework Hypothesis violates a major interpretive principle of the Reformation.  This is known as the perspicuity of Scripture.  According to Theopedia.com, this principle states that “the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will.”  This does not necessarily mean that every verse is easy to understand but it does mean that the ordinary Christian can come to an understanding of a given passage through careful and prayerful study.

      In contrast the doctrine of perspicuity (also known as the clarity of Scripture), the Framework Hypothesis is difficult to understand and is definitely not based on an ordinary reading of the text.  This is evidenced by the fact that the view was not “discovered” in the text until last century.  If it came from the plain meaning of the text, surely the ancient Jews and Christians would have promoted it.  Also, it is based on questionable interpretations of difficult passages.

      The late Meredith Kline was the view’s leading promoter.  As a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, he had tremendous influence in pushing the Framework Hypothesis.  He wrote that “…the successive members of the first triad of days correspond to the successive days of the second.”  Hebrew professor Mark Futato wrote, “Days 1 and 4 are two different perspectives on the same creative work.” 

      What these men are saying is that days 1 and 4 are not two different days in the creation week but the same day viewed from a different perspective.  After all, day one saw the creation of light and day four brought the sun, moon, and stars.  They believe that parallelism exists for days 2 and 5 and days 3 and 6.  At first glance, they may seem to have a decent argument but upon careful review of the text, this argument is seriously flawed.

      The claims of parallelism are overblown.  Framework advocates often claim that God made water on the second day when God separated the waters from the waters to create the expanse or firmament.  However, water was present on the first day because we read that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2).  This throws off all of the parallelism because perhaps days 1 and 5 should be parallel.  After all, the sea creatures were made on the fifth day and the water on the first.  Or maybe days three and five are parallel.  God named the waters “Seas” on the third day and the sea creatures were on the fifth.  Also, the birds that fly in the air (2^nd day) were created on the fifth day yet they “multiply on the earth” (Gen. 1:22), which was made on the third day.

      There are more problems with this notion of parallelism.  God made the expanse (firmament) on the second day and He placed the sun, moon, and stars “in the firmament” (Gen. 1:17).  So perhaps days two and four are parallel.

      The biggest problem with this argument is that it fails to recognize that the order of the creation events is crucial.  Framework advocates claim that they are topically arranged rather than chronologically arranged.  This is impossible because each day builds upon the previous day.  Water was made on day one but separated on day two.  Dry land appeared from the midst of the waters on the third day and the plants of the third day grew on the land (third day) and into the air (second day).  The stars (fourth day) were placed in the firmament (second day).  The birds (fifth day) multiplied on dry land (third day).  Most importantly, man was given dominion over all of creation so he had to be created last.  Each day after the first day needs the events of the previous day(s) in order to be possible.  This completely refutes the claim of topical parallel arrangement.

      The second major argument used by Framework advocates is known as the argument from Ordinary Providence and it is a bit more difficult to understand than the previous argument.  Meredith Kline called this “the decisive word against the traditional interpretation.”  Of course, the traditional interpretation refers to the young-earth interpretation that views each day as being of normal length. 

      The Ordinary Providence argument is based on Genesis 2:4-6, which states: 

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.   

Kline and others believe that the claim that verses 5 and 6 refer back to the third day of the Creation week when God made the vegetation.  Next, they say that since the plants needed the rain in order to grow then this indicates that God was only using ordinary means to create the world, as opposed to supernaturally creating all the vegetation in less than 24 hours on the third day.  And, if God was simply using ordinary providence, then the Creation “week” must have been much longer than six twenty-four hour days.

      At first glance, this argument may also sound reasonable; however, upon deeper investigation, we see that it falls apart just like the textual parallelism argument.  The first problem is that this argument is the same as uniformitarianism – the unbiblical philosophy held by the “scoffers” of the last days mentioned by Peter (2 Peter 3:3-4). 

      This philosophy reduces God’s ability to work miracles and denies the biblical principle of immediacy.  When Jesus performed a miracle healing, the healing took place immediately (see Mark 5:42 and 10:52).  When God parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14:29) and the Jordan River (Joshua 3:17) the Israelites were able to cross on land that immediately became dry.  Yet Kline claims that continents that had just emerged from the water (Genesis 1:9) do not become dry right away and thirsty for rain.  Apparently, when God performs miracles, they can dry up immediately and support plant life.  Also, Psalm 33:9 stated about the Creation, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.”

      The second major problem is that verses 5 and 6 are not referring to the third day of the Creation week.  They are describing a particular region of Earth where God was about to make the Garden of Eden and Adam. 

      This can be demonstrated by the terms used to denote plant life in these verses and those used on the third day.  Genesis 1:12 mentions “grass”, “herb that yields seed”, and the “tree that yields fruit”.  Verses 5 and 6 use the phrases “plant of the field” and “herb of the field” to describe the plants that had not yet grown.  These last two are specific Hebrew terms referring to wild desert shrubs (with thorns) and cultivated plants.  It should be obvious that the reason these two types of plants had not grown yet is because man had not been created.  It was man’s sin that brought forth the thorny plants and the need to work the ground (cultivate) by the sweat of his brow 

      The third problem is that it makes no sense.  If Kline wants us to believe that God was using ordinary providence during the Creation week (not an actual week from his view but billions of years) then we have to wonder why God had not caused it to rain yet.  After all, if there were billions of years of ordinary providence then surely it must have rained.  The view is internally inconsistent and yet it is supposed to be the strongest argument promoted by Framework advocates. 

      The third major argument is easily the most confusing of the three – a difficult task to be sure since all of the arguments are confusing.  It is known as the Cosmogony Argument.  Consider the following mouthful from Kline and see if you can figure out what he is saying:

It is found that a metaphorical relationship exists between the two levels; the heavenly level (upper register) is described in figures drawn from the earthly level (lower register).  As for the seven-day scheme, it belongs to the upper register and is, therefore, to be understood figuratively, not literally.

      In case you were not able to follow what Kline was stating, allow me to interpret.  He claimed that the perspective of Genesis 1 alternated between the heavenly (upper) realm and the earthly (lower) realm.  He believes that the term day was a description of a heavenly time, which he believes is different than earthly time.  As such, we should view these days as being figurative.  He went on to say that the “the ‘days’ are merely symbolic of heavenly time.”  This is truly an imaginative argument but has no basis in Scripture and, like the other arguments, it has fatal flaws. 

      First, for the sake of argument, we will assume that there is even such a thing as “heavenly time.”  If that is true, then we must ask whether or not there is any indication in Scripture that it is different than earthly time.  In Daniel 10:13, an angel reveals to Daniel that while he was on his way to deliver his message, he was delayed by the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” for 21 days until Michael the archangel came to his aid.  Most Bible scholars believe the prince of Persia refers to a demon.  If so, the angel’s words suggest that “heavenly time” is the same as ours.  (See also Luke 1:36 for an angel’s use of time)

      Second, there is simply no reason or indication in Scripture that the two times are different.  This point must be demonstrated rather than assumed.  As it stands, this is an example of circular reasoning.  The argument goes like this, “Heavenly time and earthly time are different; therefore, the days in Genesis one should be viewed as long periods of time.”  If we ask how they know this, the response will be something like this, “The days in Genesis obviously are not literal days; therefore, we must conclude that earthly and heavenly time is different.”  This proves nothing!

      Third, and this is the biggest problem, the focus of Genesis one is on earth (the lower register) and not heaven (the upper register).  As such, there is no reason to think that the days should be viewed as heavenly time. 

      Finally when days are described as being a period of “evening and morning” and are listed in a numbered sequence, it is quite natural to see these as referring to earthly days.  There is no problem with the sun’s creation being on the fourth day.  God created light on day one and there was still an evening and morning for the first three days.  From this we can conclude that the earth was rotating from the start. 

      The Framework advocate cannot account for the “evening and morning” phrase so Kline resorts to calling the phrase “imagery”, a “picture”, and a “formularized framework” in Genesis one.  Again, he utilizes circular reasoning.  He assumes all of language in Genesis one is a framework so any wording that contradicts his view must simply be part of that framework.

      We have looked at each of the major arguments for the Framework Hypothesis.  All three of these arguments have fatal flaws.  The view rejects a grammatical-historical approach to interpreting Genesis 1 – 2.  It forces numerous contradictions into the text and creates numerous theological impossibilities.  The view is couched in confusing and technical language, requires an incredible imagination, and was not even developed until the last century.  Finally, the Bible simply does not support this view.  As such, this view should be rejected by all Christians.