Genesis 1: Fact or Framework?

December 5, 2011

Click here to read previous articles by John MacArthur

One popular view held by many old-earth advocates is known as the “framework hypothesis.”

This is the
belief that the “days” of creation are not even distinct eras, but
overlapping stages of a long evolutionary process. According to this
view, the six days described in Genesis 1 do not set forth a chronology
of any kind, but rather a metaphorical “framework” by which the creative
process is described for our finite human minds.

This view was apparently first set forth by liberal German
theologians in the nineteenth century, but it has been adopted and
propagated in recent years by some leading evangelicals, most notably
Dr. Meredith G. Kline of Westminster theological seminary.

The framework hypothesis starts with the view that the “days” of
creation in Genesis 1 are symbolic expressions that have nothing to do
with time. Framework advocates note the obvious parallelism between days
one and four (the creation of light and the placing of lights in the
firmament), days two and five (the separation of air and water and the
creation of fish and birds to inhabit air and water), and days three and
six (the emergence of the dry land and the creation of land
animals)–and they suggest that such parallelism is a clue that the
structure of the chapter is merely poetic.

Thus, according to this theory, the sequence of creation may essentially be disregarded, as if some literary form in the passage nullified its literal meaning.

Naturally, advocates of this view accept the modern scientific theory
that the formation of the earth required several billion years. They
claim the biblical account is nothing more than a metaphorical framework
that should overlay our scientific understanding of creation. The
language and details of Genesis 1 are unimportant, they say; the only
truth this passage aims to teach us is that the hand of divine
Providence guided the evolutionary process. The Genesis creation account
is thus reduced to a literary device–an extended metaphor that is not
to be accepted at face value.

But if the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six
literal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis
does? The length of the days is defined by periods of day and night that
are governed after day four by the sun and moon. The week itself
defines the pattern of human labor and rest. The days are marked by the
passage of morning and evening. How could these not signify the chronological progression of God’s creative work?

The problem
with the framework hypothesis is that it employs a destructive method of
interpretation. If the plain meaning of Genesis 1 may be written off
and the language treated as nothing more than a literary device, why not
do the same with Genesis 3? Indeed, most theological liberals do
insist that the talking serpent in chapter 3 signals a fable or a
metaphor, and therefore they reject that passage as a literal and
historical record of how humanity fell into sin.

Where does metaphor ultimately end and history begin? After the
flood? After the tower of Babel? And why there? Why not regard all the
biblical miracles as literary devices? Why could not the resurrection
itself be dismissed as a mere allegory? In the words of E. J. Young, “If
the ‘framework’ hypothesis were applied to the narratives of the virgin
birth or the resurrection or Romans 5:12 ff.,
it could as effectively serve to minimize the importance of the content
of those passages as it now does the content of the first chapter of
Genesis.” [Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.), 99.]

Young points out the fallacy of the “framework” hypothesis:

The question must be raised, “If a nonchronological view of the days
be admitted, what is the purpose of mentioning six days?” For, once we
reject the chronological sequence which Genesis gives, we are brought to
the point where we can really say very little about the content of
Genesis one. It is impossible to hold that there are two trios of days,
each paralleling the other. Day four . . . speaks of God’s placing the
light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament, however, had been made on
the second day. If the fourth and the first days are two aspects of the
same thing, then the second day also (which speaks of the firmament)
must precede days one and four. If this procedure be allowed, with its
wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be consistent and equate
all four of these days with the first verse of Genesis? There is no
defense against such a procedure, once we abandon the clear language of
the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that the
first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one
and four? To ask that question is to answer it. [Ibid.]

The simple, rather obvious, fact is that no one would ever think the
time-frame for creation was anything other than a normal week of seven
days from reading the Bible and allowing it to interpret itself. The
Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding
that the days of God’s creative work parallel a normal human work week.

The framework hypothesis is the direct result of making modern
scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret
Scripture. The basic presupposition behind the framework hypothesis is
the notion that science speaks with more authority about origins and the
age of the earth than Scripture does. Those who embrace such a view
have in effect made science an authority over Scripture. They
are permitting scientific hypotheses–mere human opinions that have no
divine authority whatsoever–to be the hermeneutical rule by which
Scripture is interpreted.

There is no warrant for that. Modern scientific opinion is not a
valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of
Scripture, for that matter). Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 2:16)–inspired
truth from God. “[Scripture] never came by the will of man, but holy
men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice versa.


  Click Here to Read John MacArthur’s Full Bio
  John MacArthur’s books may be bought at,, and wherever fine books are sold.
Publisher: Harvest House Publishers 


Buy Now on 

Buy Now on 

Buy Now on 

Buy Now on