The Framework Interpretation of Genesis One

James L. Miller

The purpose of this short paper is to present some of the arguments in favour

of the framework interpretation of Genesis One and to defend this

interpretation from many of the arguments put forward against it. In doing so

we consider this view to be not only a valid option for the conservative

evangelical but the best interpretation we have of the creation narrative in the

opening chapters of the Bible.

1. A Conservative Evangelical Interpretation

The framework interpretation is not liberalism and is based on strong

exegetical arguments. It focuses on the theological meaning of the biblical text

rather than tangential scientific concerns. It regards Genesis One as history,

not as myth, legend or mere parable. As such it represents a conservative

evangelical view of Genesis One. The main proponents of this view have been

Reformed evangelicals who affirm that, in the simplest and most

straightforward terms, the creative acts of God in Genesis One are historical

events. They really happened. This point is critical to understand, but is too

often either misunderstood or deliberately distorted by opponents.

The framework interpretation has a conceptual link with Augustine’s

interpretation of Scripture. Although Augustine believed in an instantaneous

creation he would agree with the framework interpretation that the creation

days are a figurative arrangement written for our teaching rather than a

chronological history. The framework view also has conceptual links with the

1
Day-Age view, but whereas the latter thinks that the ‘days’ are literally epochs

and the week a figurative one, the framework interpretation regards the ‘days’

as ordinary solar days but the ‘week’ as figurative.

The attitude to mainstream science in both these interpretations also

tends to be similar – not uncritically accepting, but not uncritically rejecting

science either.

2. An Old Earth Interpretation

Strictly speaking the framework interpretation is compatible with both Young

Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, but is usually maintained by

Old Earth Creationists who accept the scientific consensus on the age of the

universe and the earth in terms of billions of years rather than a few thousand

years only as Young Earth Creationism contends.

The framework interpretation teaches that the Bible does not directly

address the Western scientific questions of when the creation took place, how

long it took or how it was actually accomplished. As such, the framework

interpretation is fully compatible with an Old Earth understanding of the age

of the universe and the earth. The framework interpretation removes any

potential conflict with information gained from God’s general revelation by

observation and analysis of scientific data.

Framework advocates tend to accept that the serious criticisms levelled

against Young Earth Creationism are legitimate, and that mainstream science

is broadly correct in assessing the ages of the universe and the earth. Young

Earth Creationism, on the other hand, virtually requires all orthodox science to

be substantially and massively wrong, across all kinds of fields, including

2
geology, oceanography, biology, physics and astronomy. Such matters as the

constancy of speed of light, the visibility of distant stars, sedimentary rocks,

radiometric dating, dinosaurs, geology, and so forth are simply dismissed as

incorrect or atheistic corruptions. Young Earth Creationism plays fast and

loose with the science all the time and is very selective in its use and abuse of

scientific method.

3. A Literary Interpretation

In essence the framework interpretation regards the creation week of Genesis

One as a literary framework or pictorial device that frames God’s creative

work as a week of ordinary solar days. This literary device is used by Moses

as a teaching tool for all God’s people in all times and places, beginning with

Israel in the period following their exodus from Egypt, long before scientific

questions were even being asked far less answered by human beings.

The framework interpretation does not regard Genesis One as poetry. It

recognises that the passage bears none of the most significant hallmarks of

Hebrew poetry. Yet though not poetical, neither is Genesis 1:1–2:3

straightforward history. The prose is highly stylised and almost

mathematically precise in its use of the numbers three, seven and ten. It is

impossible to ignore the tremendous literary skill involved in the composition

of Genesis One. There is a marked contrast in style between Genesis One and

Genesis 2:4 onwards. Genesis One might be called ‘exalted prose’ or ‘semi-

poetical’ (Edward J. Young) or ‘hymn-like’ prose designed to draw its readers

into the worship of Elohim, the one true God who is the focus of the chapter

3
(and the whole Bible). It is certainly a literary masterpiece, which appears to

be weaved with the precision and art of an ornate tapestry.

The framework interpretation recognises this fact and tries to take into

account the genre of literature that Genesis One seems to be. It simply states

that the historical events of Genesis One did not happen in the literal timescale

or order that they are portrayed. The difference in style between Genesis One

and the rest of Genesis is marked. The framework view understands that

through the artistry of Moses, creative acts that are too vast and complex for

anyone to understand even in our scientifically literate age, could be grasped

and understood by ordinary people all through history.

The framework interpretation says in effect that Genesis One is like an

art gallery showing a series of pictures in a particular arrangement, each

portraying a creative act of God, and together forming an analogy between

God’s work of creation and humanity’s weekly pattern of work and rest. It

should be noted that the pictures are of real, historical events, but they remain

distinct from the chronology of those events. Just as a passport photograph of

a person is a true depiction of the person, yet we realise that the picture is not

the person, and nor is it on the same scale, size or shape as the actual person it

represents, so the days of Genesis One, according to the framework view, are

depictions of creation on the scale of a week of ordinary days.

Each picture-day shows the creative activities of God. The six days

portray God going to work during daylight hours and resting during the hours

of darkness – just like a typical agricultural worker in ancient Israel. This is a

major clue that the working week is a figurative one and an analogy is being

drawn by the author between God’s creative work and the weekly labour of

4
human workers. After all, God does not literally grow weary and nor does he

have a problem seeing in the darkness of night.

The framework view pictures all six creation days as being ordinary

solar days but the week is regarded as figurative. It is sometimes claimed

‘evening and morning’ must mean they were 24-hour days. But this is simply

incorrect. The phrase means the period of darkness between sunset and sunrise

and is the period in which workers in ancient times would stop work and rest.

The words are equivalent to ‘from dusk till dawn’ in English. Psalm 55:17

uses a different formula when it means a full 24-hour day – ‘evening, and

morning, and noon.’ The fact that Days One to Three are themselves solar

days means the sequence of days is not chronological since the sun is

mentioned as being created only on Day Four. Nowhere does Scripture say the

light on Day One was not sunlight and in fact the use of sunrise and sunset on

Day One points to the sun already existing. This points to the figurative nature

of the text.

The framework interpretation also has a number of didactic and

polemical functions. The week draws an analogy between God’s creative acts

and human work in there being a pattern of six days of work followed by a day

of rest. The six creation days are like six picture frames arranged in an art

gallery to show God’s working week followed by a day of rest.

The framework interpretation thus argues that Genesis One presents

historical truth or true history in a non-chronological, thematic form. This

interpretation sees in the days of Genesis One a pattern of warp and weft that

reveals both a 123–456 logical sequence and a 14–25–36 topical parallelism.

5
The sequential element is intended to be a pattern for the covenant people to

follow as they work six days and keep a weekly sabbath.

4. A Straightforward Interpretation

Some have dismissed the framework interpretation as being very difficult to

understand, but we do not accept this appraisal. In fact, it is no more or less

complex a view than any other interpretation. At a simple level, the creation

week can be understood by a child – God created the world in six days and

then rested on the seventh day, and so we are to work six days and rest one

day a week. That is the teaching of the framework view at the simplest level,

just as it is the teaching of more literal views.

The framework interpretation only becomes more complex when we

approach it with more complex questions. But exactly the same can be said of

the other views. The literal 24-hour view in particular requires the speculations

of creation science and flood geology to sustain its claims once a certain level

of scrutiny is reached. It is therefore unfair to label the literary approach to

Genesis One as hopelessly complex as if this was in contrast to other views.

5. A Satisfying Interpretation

The framework interpretation states that the days of Genesis One are presented

in a non-chronological order yet arranged in a sequential pattern designed to

teach the readers about how God’s creative acts formed and filled the earth to

make it a suitable home for mankind and how and God has given mankind a

weekly sabbath rest of one day in seven. Rather like a tapestry with threads

running in two directions, the warp and weft of Genesis One includes the

6
topical and parallel arrangement of days that has been noted by many

commentators throughout history, but it also contains a sequential march of

days that clearly points to the creation of mankind as the pinnacle of creation

and onwards to the story’s climax in God’s rest on the seventh day.

There is a strong parallelism between the days as has been noted by

many Old Testament scholars. Meredith Kline’s scheme is typical:

Creation Kingdoms Creation Kings

Day 1. Light Day 4. Light Bearers

Day 2. Sky and Seas Day 5. Birds and Fish

Day 3. Land and Plants Day 6. Animals and Mankind

7. Sabbath Day of Rest

The parallelism features the concept of dischronologisation where the

events of Day One when light is created and is viewed as God giving form to

the universe are then repeated on Day Four where the same light source – the

sun – is mentioned as a light bearer filling the heavens. This is known as

temporal recapitulation and is a common narrative device in Hebrew

narratives.

The parallelism seeks to focus the attention on the seventh day and is a

teaching tool to show the importance of observing the weekly sabbath rest to

God. But the parallels also This points to a strong link between the creation of

plants and mankind. The reason for this becomes apparent in Genesis 2 and 3

where man’s relationship to the plants is closely linked with the covenant

7
relationship between man and God before the Fall in terms of life in the

Garden and the trees of life and of knowledge.

However, there is also a strong sequential march over Days 1-3 and

then Days 4-6 followed by Day Seven. Robert Godfrey’s idea is that the key to

interpreting Genesis One comes in verse two. Immediately after the creation of

the earth and heaven the focus of the narrative turns to the earth and there are

four problems of chaos that need to be solved before the newly created planet

can be a suitable home for God’s image bearers, human beings. The four

problems are: darkness, wateriness, formlessness and emptiness. God is then

pictured as a workman, working from sunrise till sunset and then resting at

night, each day fashioning the earth to be a suitable home for his image

bearers. On Days One to Three God sorts out the issue of darkness, wateriness

and formlessness by creating light, sky and sea, and land and vegetation, then

on Days Four to Six God sorts out the problem of emptiness by creating the

light bearers, birds and fish, land animals and finally mankind. The point to

remember is that this ‘form and fill narrative’ is logical and historical it must

be noted, but it is not chronological.

6. A Narrative Interpretation

The framework interpretation agrees that Genesis One is written as a narrative

or story. This is shown by the presence of the ‘waw consecutive’ verb form

characteristic of Hebrew narratives. Those committed to a Young Earth 24-

hour day interpretation often use this fact to argue against the framework

view. In fact, this is not the significant problem for the framework

interpretation that some literalists seem to think. There are many biblical

8
narratives that present historical information in a non-chronological or topical

arrangement. This is known as dischronologisation. Ezra 4:1-24 is a clear

biblical example. The same happens in the Gospels, for example in the

temptation of Christ. There is also a device known as temporal recapitulation.

This is where an event is repeated out of chronological sequence for some

other purpose. The framework interpretation sees Genesis One as a narrative

of a week of creation acts. Within the narrative structure, the events are

presented sequentially, but it is clear that the narrative is not purporting to

report events in the actual chronological order in which they occurred. Indeed,

it is our view that Moses was completely unconcerned with the chronological

order of events, preferring to impose his own form and fill narrative structure

on the creative acts. A similar argument would apply to the numbered

sequence of days.

It is for this reason that the framework interpretation is not phased by

literalist claims that the days are portrayed as ordinary solar days of 24 hours.

Indeed, the framework view completely agrees this is the case. However, they

are not literal 24-hour days but literary days.

7. An Exegetical Interpretation

Opponents may dismiss the view as a compromise with ‘atheistic science’ and

other such cavils, but above all the framework interpretation is grounded in the

exegesis of the biblical texts. The exegetical case for the framework

interpretation is based on a number of different biblical arguments.

9
a) The Unending Seventh Day

The Bible indicates that the seventh day of creation week is an unending day

and that at the present time in human history we are still living in the seventh

day. If this is so, then the seventh day in Genesis One is figurative and there is

no reason the same cannot be true of the other days. Hebrews 4 treats the

seventh day as ongoing and shows that creation week was not a normal human

week of seven 24-hour days. This makes sense since the seventh day in

Genesis One has no ‘evening and morning’. Hebrews 4:3-5 explains why this

is so. God’s people are called to enter into God’s own Sabbath rest. This

argument is well-handled by Lee Irons in his section of The Genesis Debate

book.

b) ‘Because it had not rained’ (Genesis 2:5)

Genesis 2:5 shows that ordinary providence was at work in the creation

period. It states that plant growth was dependent on rain falling. This indicates

that much longer periods than 24 hours must have passed during the time that

plants grew on the earth on Day Three. So the days of Genesis One cannot be

literal 24-hour days. This is one of the key arguments of Meredith Kline and

Mark Futato in their seminal essays on the framework interpretation.

Similarly the events of Day 3 indicate it was much longer than 24

hours in duration. The simple reading here is against the literal 24-hour view.

Genesis 1:11 says the land ‘sprouted’ or ‘produced’ vegetation. It does not say

that God simply created the vegetation out of nothing, but that it sprouted and

grew. This process takes months, not minutes. The eminent Old Testament

scholar, Edward J. Young, states: ‘And the work of the third day seems to

10
suggest that there was some process, and that what took place occurred in a

period longer than twenty-four hours.’ (In the Beginning: Genesis Chapters 1

to 3 and the Authority of Scripture)

c) The Temporal Recapitulation of Days One and Four

As we have previously mentioned, the fact that Day One talks about the

creation of light and has an evening and morning (using words that literally

mean ‘sunset’ and ‘sunrise’) means that the sun was created on Day One and

is the source of light from Day 1 onwards. When the sun is mentioned again

on Day Four as the ‘greater light’ this is a typical example of Hebraic

recapitulation in a narrative. The focus second time round is on the sun as light

bearer, filling heaven, and its functional purpose in setting day and night and

in marking the seasons by its height above the horizon.

d) The Long Day Six

A plain reading of Day Six reveals that too many events happened on this day

for it to be realistically a period of less than 12 hours (remember literally

evening and morning is the period from dusk till dawn). From Genesis 2, we

learn much of what had to have happened on that Day Six. God planted the

Garden of Eden and had it grow to maturity (so there would be fruit on the

trees) and no mention is made of this happening instantaneously. The text does

not say God created the plants and trees mature. Also all the animals were

created by God and then brought to Adam to be named by him. Adam also

named the birds. During this same day, the text indicates Adam had time to get

lonely – the word for ‘Now’ in Genesis 2:23 could be translated ‘At long last!’

11
It is a word that shows Adam’s relief. Why would he be lonely if he had only

been created a few hours? Patience is a virtue, not a vice. So how would

unfallen Adam not have patience, and how could he be dis-satisfied with all

that God had given him in such a short time? Especially bearing in mind he

was in perfect fellowship with God and had so much to see and do. Then in

the same few hours, Eve was created as well. The great Reformed theologian,

Herman Bavinck makes the point that it is unlikely this would all happen in a

few hours. It is simply not feasible that Day Six was a literal 24-hour day.

8. An Analogical Interpretation

Meredith Kline talks about a concept called ‘two register cosmology’ which

basically says that there is heavenly time and earthly time, and Genesis One

talks about earthly things created in heavenly time. His language can at times

be quite difficult to understand. The concept would be better simply viewed as

analogy or anthropomorphism – that the creation days are not identical to our

24-hour days but are instead analogous to our days. The Genesis days are

God-days, not human-days. The reason Genesis One is written as a week of

days is so that the creative work of God can be readily understood by the

ordinary men and women of God. Time indicators are merely

anthropomorphisms for simple people to understand God’s unimaginably long

and complex creative time periods.

C. John Collins writes: ‘God’s rest is not the same as [as ours] but is

analogous to ours, he will go back and read the passage looking for other

instances of analogy. Then he will see what the significance of the refrain is:

it, too, is part of an anthropomorphic presentation of God; he is likened to the

12
ordinary worker, going through his rhythm of word and rest, looking forward

to his Sabbath. The days are God’s work days, which need not be identical to

ours: they are instead analogous.’ (Collins in Did God Create in Six Days? pp.

138-39).

The Bible is full of analogies and it would not be out of place for

Genesis One to be written in the same way. An analogical view is how we find

the New Testament sometimes interpreting the Old Testament. In Matthew 4

the 40 days in the wilderness is an analogy of the 40 years in the wilderness of

the Israelites. Mankind is an analogy of God – created in the image of God,

but not identical to God. As Van Til has argued, even our knowledge is

analogical to God’s knowledge.

Creation can only be understood properly when we see the relationship

that exists between heaven and earth. Scripture teaches that the earthly is a

picture of the heavenly or as something that is a copy of heavenly. Examples

include the tabernacle and temple, the sacrificial system, David’s throne, and

the Sabbath rest. All involve divine realities and human analogies. In no case

is the earthly shadow identical to the heavenly reality or ‘archetype’. It is

important to note that it is not that the creation days are a symbol of our days,

but that our days are symbolic of those momentous creation days of God. Both

Herman Bavinck and W. G. T. Shedd (‘God-divided days’) suggest the

creation days were alike our days in one way, but not like our days in other

ways.

A common argument against the framework view is that Exodus 20:11

plainly means that creation week was just an ordinary week of time like our

weeks. The fact that the creation week can be viewed as an exemplary analogy

13
takes the sting out of this argument. The point surely in the commandment is

that we are to work and rest because God worked and rested, even if our days

and God’s days are on a different scale this would not affect the example or

command.

9. A Didactic and Polemical Interpretation

Genesis One is primarily constructed as a theological text to teach the

covenant people about God and his acts of creation and secondarily as

polemical text showing the superiority of Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel,

over the pagan agricultural fertility gods of the nations that surrounded Israel

and against the pagan creation myths of other nations. It is no accident surely

that the very things that the pagans worshipped as gods or where they thought

the gods lived are specifically mentioned as things created by Yahweh: the

sun, moon and stars, the sea, the sea monsters and the crops for example.

In stark contrast, it is made clear that God made everything and he is

not part of the created order, but rather stands above and beyond it. The

Genesis account will not even let anyone delude themselves that the universe

has always existed. The idea of eternal matter is alien to the biblical narrative.

In the beginning God – and God alone existed – and he created everything else

out of nothing by his powerful word.

In writing his polemic, Moses seems to have used the traditional

creation stories in his world and adapted them. The narrative shows the true

God superior to any pagan false gods like the sun and moon, the stars, or the

great sea creatures. It is not a text written to answer modern scientific

questions about origins.

14
10. A Commendable Interpretation

The framework interpretation stands up to exegetical scrutiny and focuses on

the theological meaning of Genesis rather than getting caught up in a modern

phoney war with science. As such it allows the sacred text to speak to readers

on its own terms and to present the covenant God to his covenant people as the

creator and ruler of the world. As such he is to be worshipped, loved, obeyed,

enjoyed and glorified.

11. Further Reading

Books
• Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis
• C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?
• W. Robert Godfrey, God’s Pattern for Creation
• Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline: ‘The Framework Interpretation’ in David
G. Hagopian (ed.), The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the ‘Days’ of
Creation
• Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips & Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr, Genesis
One and the Origin of the Earth
• Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?
• David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
• John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One
• Mark S. Whorton, Peril in Paradise
• David Wilkinson: The Message of Creation (Bible Speaks Today)

Articles
• C. John Collins, ‘Reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 as an Act of Communication:
Discourse Analysis and Literal Interpretation’ in Joseph A. Pipa & David
Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?
• Mark Futato: ‘Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With
Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3’ (1998) Westminster
Theological Journal 60(1): 1-21
• Meredith G. Kline, ‘Because It Had Not Rained’ (1958) Westminster
Theological Journal 20(2): 146-157
• Meredith G. Kline, ‘Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony’ (1996)
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (48): 2-15
• Lee Irons: ‘The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary’ (2000)
Ordained Servant 9(1): 7-11

15
• Donald M. Poundstone (Chairman), The Report of the (OPC) Committee to
Study the Framework Hypothesis < http://www.asa3.org/gray/framework/
frameworkOPC-SC.html> [accessed 30 October 2010]
• Mark E. Ross, ‘The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis
1:1–2:3’ in Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six
Days?
• Peter J. Wallace, ‘The Archetypal Week: A Defense of the Analogical Day
View’ < http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/analogous.htm> [accessed 10
November 2010]
• Rowland S. Ward, ‘Length of Days in Genesis’
<http://spindleworks.com/library/ ward/framework.htm> [accessed 7 May
2005]

16