Framework Hypothesis

[theFijian]

Hi all,

Does anybody have any recommended reading on the Framework Hypothesis interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2? Any books or websites that would give a good outline? Thanks in advance!

grace and peace
Andy

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation edited by David G. Hagopian includes the framework view along with the 24-hour and day-age views. In my opinion, the book demonstrates just how superior the framework view is. The case is made by Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline. The format of the book allows for quite a bit of interaction between the writers of the various positions.

This book focuses very narrowly on the length of the creation days and does not get into issues such as evolution. In fact, none of the writers for the book accept evolution, and all affirm biblical inerrancy. But, their scientific position doesn't really matter since the framework view is agnostic when it comes to evolution and other science. It establishes that Genesis isn't telling us about science but also goes further to show what Genesis is telling us.

It's a good introduction to the view, especially for someone who doesn't want to tackle the science side of the question until the biblical interpretation side is more established.

Here's some good web sites related to the framework hypothesis:

• The Framework (with articles by B.A. Bucher and links to papers by Meredith Kline and Mark Futato)
• Genesis Bible Study: Creation 1, God and Boundaries (see also The Cultural Context of Israel) by Dennis Bratcher (not strictly framework, but it ties together)

 

[Vance]

I will second that recommendation. I think it is important for YEC's to realize that it is not a belief in evolution which fuels a figurative reading of Genesis. And, yes, the Framework Theory is easily the most powerful of the three presentations. It should also be pointed out that each of the three viewpoints is presented by a strong advocate of the view. Hugh Ross, for example, presents the Day-Age view.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I really think the framework hypothesis is on to something. Rather than the canonical version of it, I prefer the version as explained by Wheaton's John Walton (in his NIV commentary on Genesis, 2001 Zondervan). The distinction lies in the fact that contemporaneous ANE religious literature shows that the oriental mind was more interested in God's establishment of function than of form. If you read any Sumerian or Akkadian mythology, you'll see that they make a great deal of ME's (the Sumerian word) and parsu's (the Akkadian word), which are the functions or roles that make up the universe, such as the ME's found in the Sumerian story of Inana and Enki: these include kingship, wise old age, club and sword, priesthood, love-making, hard work, truth, and dozens more. These roles make up the universe. In other words, it simply wasn't as noteworthy to the ancient mind that that there is wine (the form) unless there is a purpose or function of it, so they assumed that the main gods assigned gods, kings, temples, and cities to govern each role or function. The Hebrews, however, knew it was God who governed the roles of the universe. The "creation kingdom vs. creature king" parallelism of the general framework hypothesis thus shows up in ANE mythology (and hence in Walton's model) as function vs. functionary.

In Genesis 1: day 1 concerns the basis of time, and day 4 concerns the "time-keepers"; day 2 concerns the basis for weather, and day 5 concerns the "weather-keepers"; day 3 concerns the basis of vegetation, and day 6 concerns the "vegetation-keepers." It's functions versus functionaries. In Moses' model, God makes the functionaries the immediate keepers of the functions, but subjugates those keepers to man (who is given the significant function of dominion over the earth), who is in turn submitted to God. It's a perfect sytem.

The conception of functionaries might change (we don't consider the birds to have any say on the weather), but the basic roles that make up the fabric of the universe remain the same, and Genesis 1 shows God as the ultimate ruler who is ultimately in charge of the functions of the cosmos by highlighting his establishment of the most important three. That these three are most basic and unchanging is shown in Genesis 8:22: "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

Some people think Walton pushes the limits of the meaning for that Hebrew verb bara' in Genesis 1, usually translated as "create", to "establish a function" or "assign a role". However, that's not required. It simply and easily can be translated "establish".

An online presentation by Walton of this can be found at http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html

 

[Vance]

You should post that in the main forum, I think!

 

[neverforsaken]

hmm... Im gonna have to check this book out.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I have John Walton's Genesis commentary too, but I haven't read it all yet. I was a bit surprised at his swipe at theistic evolution on page 156, especially since what he describes at the top of page 157 is closer to what most theistic evolutionists believe: "Instead of talking about God's use of natural laws to do his work, I believe that nature and that which we identify as natural laws are simply our explanation of how God does what he does in creation." Unfortunately, he presents this view as being his own and contrary to theistic evolution.

 

[Didaskomenos]

True, he is definitely more conservative than I am in many areas. But what a boon to our argument: that's quite a wrench in the works of those who assume that those of us who don't read the creation accounts as historical narrative must have come to that conclusion because we're trying to make the Bible line up with current scientific beliefs. Throughout the commentary, Walton keeps coming back to the main point: what did the text mean to the first audience? He actually believes what he does about Genesis 1 because of literary/cultural evidence.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i posted this earlier on the topic:
It is not the kind of thing you can do in a few lines.
the sections of both the OPC and PCA creation reports on framework interpretation are excellent:
http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

there are a few well written essays on it:
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html
http://www.asa3.org/gray/framework/frameworkOPC-SC.html

there is a major effort at ASA to bring pieces of the CED puzzle together at:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agetheology2.htm#fw
this is the sublink to framework, the rest of the page is displayed as well

i've tried to keep a running list of the books i've read and thought valuable at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...RX8/ref=cm_aya_av.lm_more/002-5738269-7769631

it's not an easy question because it is contrary to the modern common sense notion that Gen 1 is talking about modern scientific order and is primarily historical.

for instance, there is no time in Gen 1, only the Sabbath week. you do not learn when or in what order creation was accomplished. What it is talking about is: God did it, He provided kingdoms first then the rulers of the kingdoms, both kingdoms and kings are de-mythologized, that is they are not gods themselves but subservient to the word of God. that all is do in a framework of 7 days in order to establish the correctness of the Sabbath week. it is the Sabbath that is primary and why Genesis 1 can be described as the prologue of the Great King.

but again, it relies on a lot of open minded reading, especially for anyone soaked in the modern Gen controversy. Which goes to show how the literal, common sense, man in the pew, 19thC Scottish influenced hermeneutic has such a nature power over the modern mind. But it is a modern hermeneutic not a 2nd millenium BC one, which is precisely the point.
at:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16953604&postcount=62

but what i want to point out is:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agetheology2.htm

is part of an extraordinary effort to organize the field.
worth several hours of reading here.


....