# Framework theory



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 22, 2010)

Over the weekend I heard approx. 9 hrs. of discussion on the Creation narrative with a Framework view. I am really no closer to understanding what this view is really trying to say (although from what I did understand, numerous red flags came up).

So would someone on the PB be so kind as to point me in the direction of 

A. a good synopsis of this view 

B. a good refutation of this view


I did hear that this view is now the majority view at all the RTS campuses in the OT dept. Not sure if I like the sound of that.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2010)

Framework:

Basically, it's the view that the six-day creation narrative in Genesis 1 is a literary framework intended to communicate a theological/apologetic/thematic point and that the actual historical narrative begins in verse 4 of chapter 2. The idea is to avoid the interpretive difficulties that arise from trying to reconcile the order of events in Genesis 1 versus that of Genesis 2.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 22, 2010)

So how did the fall occur? There wasn't a snake in the tree?


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 22, 2010)

Boliver,
How exactly did you make the leap from a narrative literary framework in the days of creation to there was no snake?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 22, 2010)

Philip mentiond the historical narrative did not start until chapter 4. 

So to understand this view correctly, the creation narrative is not a historical narrative but rather something along the lines of a parable. It is a literary device that conveys truth, but is not truth in itself?


----------



## Bookmeister (Mar 22, 2010)

No, he said chapter 2, verse 4.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 22, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Over the weekend I heard approx. 9 hrs. of discussion on the Creation narrative with a Framework view. I am really no closer to understanding what this view is really trying to say (although from what I did understand, numerous red flags came up).
> 
> So would someone on the PB be so kind as to point me in the direction of
> 
> ...


 
I don't believe this is the view taught at all the RTS-campuses. I know for sure that at Charlotte, John Currid is teaching and he is very opposed to Framework. 

You probably have heard of much framework that is taught at RTS Jackson by Miles Van Pelt of which he is most certainly wrong. 


And by chapter 4, you should mean chapter 2:4 as Phillip stated.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 22, 2010)

Bolivar,

You should read this brief article from 1957-58:

Because It Had Not Rained: Kline

Whether or not you end up agreeing with MGK you should try to understand his view on its own merits. It's not that difficult. I'm sorry that someone made it so. 

The basic move of the FI is to recognize the parallelism between the days. There's a nice chart on WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

Days 1-4 are parallel
Days 2-5 are parallel
Days 3-6 are parallel

Days 1, 2, and 3 are kingdoms and days 4, 5, and 6 are corresponding kings. 

The 7th day is separated because it has no "morning and evening." It's an eternal day (see below). The Sabbath is the high-point of the narrative. Exod 20:8 appeals to the Sabbath as the point of the creation narrative. I'm always amused by anti-Sabbatarian 6/24 folks. They know the length of the creation days (24 hours) which is disputed but they miss the Sabbath which, in terms of Gen 1-2 and Exod 20, is indisputable.

Further, parallelism (e.g., A and A') is perhaps the most common and most basic literary device in the Hebrew Scriptures. The narratives of Scripture use it quite frequently as do the psalms. 

Some version of the framework interpretation of Gen 1-2 has been in existence since the 13th century. Thomas Aquinas recognized the parallelism between the days long before there was any pressure from "science" to re-interpret Genesis so it's not the case that the FI is merely a device to make difficulties go away any more than the rejection of geocentrism was an attempt to make difficulties go away.

The main point of the FI is to say that we cannot ask questions that the text does not intend to answer. Trying to make the text answer questions from 19th-century geology (age of the earth) and 19th-century biology (Darwinism) is not a good method for interpreting the text. So Kline tried to ask the text what it intends to say in its own context. That's not a radical method: it's the historical-grammatical method!

As with every view, there are difficulties, however. 

E. J. Young published a critique of this view in:

E. J. Young, _Studies in Genesis One_ (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964).

Earlier, in the 1940s, EJY had taught a version of the FI. By the early 60s, however, he was critical of MGK's approach. Nevertheless, he conceded that the first three days could not have been "solar" days since there was no sun. As I recall, he also agreed that the 7th day is not a 24-hour day (per Heb 4:4-5). So the question is what to make of the 3 solar days. 

Mark Futato followed up on MGK's approach with his essay, "Because it Had Rained." 

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Futato_RainGen2_WTJ.pdf

There are contrasting views here:

J. Ligon Duncan III, et al., The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation (Global Publishing Services, 2000).


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 22, 2010)

I apologize for misreading the 2:4 passage. I saw "4" first and the brain saw chapter. 

As for the RTS campuses. It was Dr. Futato who teaches in Orlando who made the claim the framework is the majority view of the OT profs at the various campuses. 

Thank you Dr. Clark for the information.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 22, 2010)

In addition to the literature that Scott has referred to, I might recommend Currid's commentary for refutation. I simply don't find the FI that convincing exegetically. The literary parallels do not, in my mind, require a non-literal interpretation of the days. A great deal of the impetus for the FI comes from 2 points: 1. Day 4 seems to repeat Day 1, and 2. as Kline argued, Gen 2:4 seems to require natural preservation during the creation week, whereas the literal interpretation would require supernatural preservation. 

To these arguments I would reply that there is another equally good reason why Day 4 would seem to repeat Day 1, and that is the apologetic reason. The sun and the moon are referred to by the circumlocution "greater light" and "lesser light." Not desiring even to mention the names "shemesh" and "yareach," because practically the entire Ancient Near East worshiped these astral bodies as gods. So, if Day 4 has the creation of the sun and moon FOLLOWING the creation of light on day 1, this proves conclusively that light did not originate with the astral bodies, but with God. This explains the similarity of order of Day 4 following Day 1 far better, in my mind, than the FI does. 

Secondly, that there was natural preservation during creation week cannot possibly rule out supernatural preservation, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 22, 2010)

Maybe that is because he is Framework. He possibly wanted others to think of RTS in his view... Just a thought. I would research yourself and call someone in admissions and get each views. 

Brian Gault in Jackson, might know (dean of admissions). he is 6/24 literal.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 22, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> In addition to the literature that Scott has referred to, I might recommend Currid's commentary for refutation. I simply don't find the FI that convincing exegetically. The literary parallels do not, in my mind, require a non-literal interpretation of the days. A great deal of the impetus for the FI comes from 2 points: 1. Day 4 seems to repeat Day 1, and 2. as Kline argued, Gen 2:4 seems to require natural preservation during the creation week, whereas the literal interpretation would require supernatural preservation.
> 
> To these arguments I would reply that there is another equally good reason why Day 4 would seem to repeat Day 1, and that is the apologetic reason. The sun and the moon are referred to by the circumlocution "greater light" and "lesser light." Not desiring even to mention the names "shemesh" and "yareach," because practically the entire Ancient Near East worshiped these astral bodies as gods. So, if Day 4 has the creation of the sun and moon FOLLOWING the creation of light on day 1, this proves conclusively that light did not originate with the astral bodies, but with God. This explains the similarity of order of Day 4 following Day 1 far better, in my mind, than the FI does.
> 
> Secondly, that there was natural preservation during creation week cannot possibly rule out supernatural preservation, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.



Lane, 

I appreciate this. As I read the narrative it's thoroughly supernatural in character - though I don't think Gen 2:4 can be ignored (as I've seen some interpretations do). My own reading is influenced by the FI but it is not identical with it. I agree with Bob Godfrey's view 

The Bookstore at WSC: God&lsquo;s Pattern for Creation by Godfrey, W. Robert

The kings-kingdom view is not incompatible with a "six-day" view and many of our students end up holding a six-day view. Bryan Estelle, who teaches our Pentateuch course, explains several views very carefully and fairly and doesn't force his view on anyone. 

Personally, I think it's clear that the days are meant to be regarded as analogous to our days but not identical. We don't have non-solar days and yet there mornings and evenings. There pattern is similar but the details are not. The point of the narrative is to say that the same Yahweh Elohim who brought us (God's people) out of the desert is the same Yahweh Elohim who spoke into nothing and created (and sustains) all that is. That same Yahweh Elohim established a work-Sabbath pattern in creation that typifies the eschaton, even before the fall. It typifies the eschaton after the fall.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 22, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> To these arguments I would reply that there is another equally good reason why Day 4 would seem to repeat Day 1, and that is the apologetic reason. The sun and the moon are referred to by the circumlocution "greater light" and "lesser light." Not desiring even to mention the names "shemesh" and "yareach," because practically the entire Ancient Near East worshiped these astral bodies as gods. So, if Day 4 has the creation of the sun and moon FOLLOWING the creation of light on day 1, this proves conclusively that light did not originate with the astral bodies, but with God. This explains the similarity of order of Day 4 following Day 1 far better, in my mind, than the FI does.
> 
> Secondly, that there was natural preservation during creation week cannot possibly rule out supernatural preservation, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.


 
Rev. Keister, your "apologetic" argument here is very similar to Calvin's explanation in his commentary on Genesis. Although Calvin did not confine it to the Ancient Near East context. He simply saw God's order of creation which is recorded for us in Genesis as meant to instruct us to look beyond the ordinary means of light, that is the sun and moon, to the true source and Creator, God himself. It's humbling to think that the great Creator undertook the creation of the cosmos with us in mind and with a view to better revealing himself to us as the sole object of our faith.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 23, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > In addition to the literature that Scott has referred to, I might recommend Currid's commentary for refutation. I simply don't find the FI that convincing exegetically. The literary parallels do not, in my mind, require a non-literal interpretation of the days. A great deal of the impetus for the FI comes from 2 points: 1. Day 4 seems to repeat Day 1, and 2. as Kline argued, Gen 2:4 seems to require natural preservation during the creation week, whereas the literal interpretation would require supernatural preservation.
> ...


 
Scott, I can agree with most of what you say here, especially the theological points. My question would be this: what do you think is the exegetical function of the day/night alternation in Genesis 1 if the days are analogous, yet not identical? For that matter, why is it necessary to have the days be analogous and yet not identical? What exegetical point is overlooked or contradicted if the days are identical? Wouldn't the point of the Sabbath command/eschatological pattern be far more cogent if the days were the same? I don't think I can agree that it's "clear" that the days are meant to be regarded as analogous. I'm just not sure what we gain by going in that direction.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 23, 2010)

Sometimes the literary parallels seem to be more taken for granted than really argued for. Wayne Grudem does a good job of pointing out that other parallels can be drawn, and that the parallels are not always so exact as to really result in an exegetically rigorous case.



> Several points may be made against the framework theory.
> 1. First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as “lights in the firmament of the heavens” (Gen. 1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the “firmament” (Heb. ‫ , ָרקיע‬H8385) that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this “firmament” is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on Day 2 (Gen. 1:6–8) and three times on Day 4 (Gen. 1:14–19). Of course Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1 (in terms of day and night, light and darkness), but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days, then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1. Moreover, the parallel between Days 2 and 5 is not exact, because in some ways the preparation of a space for the fish and birds of Day 5 does not come in Day 2 but in Day 3. It is not until Day 3 that God gathers the waters together and calls them “seas” (Gen. 1:10), and on Day 5 the fish are commanded to “fill the waters in the seas” (Gen. 1:22). Again in verses 26 and 28 the fish are called “fish of the sea,” giving repeated emphasis to the fact that the sphere the fish inhabit was specifically formed on Day 3. Thus, the fish formed on Day 5 seem to belong much more to the place prepared for them on Day 3 than to the widely dispersed waters below the firmament on Day 2. Establishing a parallel between Day 2 and Day 5 faces further difficulties in that nothing is created on Day 5 to inhabit the “waters above the firmament,” and the flying things created on this day (the Hebrew word would include flying insects as well as birds) not only fly in the sky created on Day 2, but also live and multiply on the “earth” or “dry land” created on Day 3. (Note God’s command on Day 5: “Let birds multiply on the earth” [Gen. 1:22].) Finally, the parallel between Days 3 and 6 is not precise, for nothing is created on Day 6 to fill the seas that were gathered together on Day 3. With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary “framework,” while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text.


(_Systematic Theology_, pp.256,257)


----------



## MW (Mar 23, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Sometimes the literary parallels seem to be more taken for granted than really argued for. Wayne Grudem does a good job of pointing out that other parallels can be drawn, and that the parallels are not always so exact as to really result in an exegetically rigorous case.


 
There is also no symmetry in the approbation clauses, and these clauses only add clarity to the literary structure if the narrative is received as a chronological account of creation.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 24, 2010)

The fact that the sun was made on the Fourth Day is the best argument for a non-literal view of the days. But even here the case is not that good.

On the First Day God creates light and divides the darkness from the light, thus creating day and night. So on the First Day God is creating days themselves. On the Fourth Day the sun ''takes over'' from God in dividing the darkness from the light, the day from the night.

If the days are meant to be in some sense non-literal, we have God creating non-literal days on non-literal Day One. Then on non-literal Day Four we have the sun ''taking over'' the regulation of the non-literal day and night from God. Does that really make sense from the Framework or Day Age perspectives? But on a literal view, God creates days on Day One, in order that He can create in Six Days! This is in order to provide a pattern for Man's work and son that Man can look forward appropriately on the Seventh Day of the week to entering God's eternal rest at the end, and can enjoy some of that rest with God on the Seventh Day.

God has good reason therefore for creating a universe with an appearance of age if He wanted for good reasons to make it in so short a time as Six Days, just as Jesus - the creative Word - had reason to make wine at Cana with an appearance of age if He wanted the wine to be ready for the wedding! Neither Jesus was lying, nor is God lying through general revelation.

The argument that the Seventh Day is eternal, doesn't really hold water. It's not the Seventh Day that's eternal but God's rest from creating, which _begins_ on the Seventh Day.

The reason that ''there was evening and there was morning'' don't frame the Seventh Day is because God rested on the whole 24-hour day, not just at night.

I know that there are peculiar scientific problems with holding to the literal day view. But there are scientific problems for every view, including for those who hold to the FI and subscribe to OEC or even theistic evolution. The science will have to eventually get itself sorted out and in line with God's Word.

We're not told that the heavens and earth themselves were created on any of the Six Days, but that they were formed and filled on Days One to Six.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 24, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The fact that the sun was made on the Fourth Day is the best argument for a non-literal view of the days. But even here the case is not that good.
> 
> On the First Day God creates light and divides the darkness from the light, thus creating day and night. So on the First Day God is creating days themselves. On the Fourth Day the sun ''takes over'' from God in dividing the darkness from the light, the day from the night.
> 
> ...


 
Great points. I would just like to comment that the idea that:

"God has good reason therefore for creating a universe with an appearance of age" does not seem to be warranted. I do not believe the earth actually appears older than 10, 000 years old, and there is much scientific evidence that the earth is at least that young. The grandiose estimates of the age of the earth touted by "scientists" are largely formed based upon evolutionary presuppositions.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 24, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Bolivar,
> 
> You should read this brief article from 1957-58:
> 
> ...


 
Dr. Clark,

Thank you for the links. This was the first time I had actually read an explanation of the framework view, so it was informative from that standpoint.

I have to say that Kline's premise, that Genesis 2:5 points to ordinary providence at work during the creation week doesn't seem to me like the best or most obvious interpretation of this passage. It seems most logical to me, following the flow of 2:3-6 in my Hebrew Bible, that the references to a lack of prior rain and human tilling of the soil in verse 5 are meant to support the idea of God's creation in verse 4. In other words the author is saying that God created plants, which he then proves by noting that they could not have begun to exist another way, since the ordinary means of growing and preserving plangs did _not_ yet exist prior to God's creation. Therefore, we can be assured that God created plants extraordinarily. By implication the point of this passage would be that God created the universe extraordinarily without the use of ordinary means.

According to my interpretation, this passage supports extraordinary providence during the creation week rather than ordinary providence. I tend to think the AV has the better rendering based on my reading of the original. And if I am right, it seems like this would upend the whole framework hypothesis.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 24, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> Scott, I can agree with most of what you say here, especially the theological points. My question would be this: what do you think is the exegetical function of the day/night alternation in Genesis 1 if the days are analogous, yet not identical? For that matter, why is it necessary to have the days be analogous and yet not identical? What exegetical point is overlooked or contradicted if the days are identical? Wouldn't the point of the Sabbath command/eschatological pattern be far more cogent if the days were the same? I don't think I can agree that it's "clear" that the days are meant to be regarded as analogous. I'm just not sure what we gain by going in that direction.


 
The first three days are sunless "days" bounded by morning and evening. I take it that it's self-evident that such days are analogous but not identical to days as we experience them.

The solar days are like our days but the narrative seems singularly disinterested in strict chronology. This is a common feature of Hebrew narrative. These are real, true, historical accounts but they are written for theological purposes and not to answer questions that no one is asking.

Further, the solar days are days of extraordinary creative activity by God. He continues to exercise the same power in providence but our days are not like the creative days. Again, I take it that the discontinuity with days as we experience is self-evident. We don't experience the world that way. 

Gen 1 ends with Day 6. Gen 2 takes us back, it appears, to Day 6. In what "normal" days is one created by direct divine operation, witness the creation of another of the species, enter into a covenant of works/life/nature/law as the federal head of all humanity, and then proceed to name all the species, fail the probation etc? Clearly this day isn't "normal" by any reasonable definition of the word.

If the days are just like our days, even for pre-fallen humanity (that are still finite) that's a pretty tall order! The narrative cares little about the nature of the "days" and thus ch 2 takes us back to "day 6" and then begins re-telling the story of the creation of man and adding to it the story of the probation and fall. The narrative quite bursts the ordinary boundaries of days as we know them. 

To turn around and to impose on the narrative a construct about which it manifestly cares nothing is to make the text sit up and bark, i.e., to do tricks. 

The text, taken on its own terms, in its own setting, cares about creating a picture of the nature of God, of man, of creation/nature, sin, and redemption. It does so by appealing to analogies of our experience of reality but also by appealing to discontinuities.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 24, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Scott, I can agree with most of what you say here, especially the theological points. My question would be this: what do you think is the exegetical function of the day/night alternation in Genesis 1 if the days are analogous, yet not identical? For that matter, why is it necessary to have the days be analogous and yet not identical? What exegetical point is overlooked or contradicted if the days are identical? Wouldn't the point of the Sabbath command/eschatological pattern be far more cogent if the days were the same? I don't think I can agree that it's "clear" that the days are meant to be regarded as analogous. I'm just not sure what we gain by going in that direction.
> ...


 
Do we necessarily know that the fall occured on day 6? Why could it not have been some undisclosed length of time following creation week?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 25, 2010)

It seems that the Fall happened before Adam and Eve had any children, or conceived any children, otherwise a sinless child would have been born (?)

It seems that the Fall happened before Adam and Eve made sweet love for the first time or maybe they made sweet love but didn't conceive (?)

I don't think it can be argued from the passage that the Fall happened on the Sixth Day, or that the passage is indicating that. Without referring to the wider context it may be an unlikely possibility I don't know if the ''now'' 2:1 indicates some passage of time.

I suppose the passage can be pressed too far by YECs and others. On the other hand others can ignore or explain away details under the assumption that we shouldn't press the passage too far.

Re the naming of the creatures it's interesting that Adam didn't name any fish at this time. Were the birds and beasts a representitive sample of the animal forms God had made?


----------

