Creation Sunday School Series

The Hermeneutics of Genesis 1, Part III
by Matt Powell

4. Alternate Views - Framework Hypothesis
     Within Reformed circles, there is probably no more compelling non-literal view of Genesis 1 than the Framework Hypothesis, whose main proponent is Meredith Kline from Westminster West. Kline’s main point is that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is to be understood as providing for us a framework for God’s creative act, and that the six days simply do not refer to chronology at all. An example that is frequently used is one of a traveler driving across the United States, taking photographs, who then arranges the photographs topically, rather than in the order he saw them. The days of creation are thus to be understood entirely symbolically. Kline speaks of an upper heavenly register and a lower earthly register, on which the Biblical drama plays out. God’s sovereign acts occur in the upper register. Man speaks of what he sees on the lower register, and God provides copies in the lower register in terms that man can understand of what is occurring in the upper register in heavenly, incomprehensible terms. Thus the temple, sacrifices, etc. In the specific context of Genesis 1, then, "While the "let there be" is uttered at the upper register, the "and it was so" occurs at the lower register."[1] Therefore, Kline says, "the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins."
     "A quite literal case of the two-register format is seen in graphic representations like the Assyrian reliefs that picture the king in a lower register, whether driving forward in battle or returning triumphantly, and in a higher register the god in a matching stance."
     Analysis:
   
   1. The Framework Hypothesis is driven by two basic motivations, both of them external to the text:
      1. The need to reconcile Genesis 1-2 with modern evolutionary hypothesis
      2. The belief that Genesis expressions and ‘typology’ are driven by ancient Near Eastern views and mythologies. He says, "Theological differences aside, the cosmology of mythology is analogous", and four times (at least) in his paper, Kline compares Genesis modes of expression to those of the ancient Near East.
   2. The main internal consideration is not in Genesis 1 at all, but in Genesis 2:5. Recognizing the problem with letting external considerations drive such a radical interpretation, Kline places much weight on this passage. His argument is that Genesis 2:5-7 showed that the earth was actually created through normal cause and effect means, not by miraculous fiat.
      1. However, Kline himself admits that this section could refer to a local condition, and that Moses is only describing the preparation of Eden here. He claims that this does not affect the central point.
      2. The fact that Kline admits to other possible interpretations of Genesis 2:5-7 casts a great deal of doubt on his only internal indication of the above interpretation, leaving us with only the external drivers, categorizing this interpretation as eisegesis, not exegesis.
      3. Kline recognizes the broader hermeneutic problem that is possible here, which the "cosmology of mythology" school falls into with a vengeance.
     In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. But while I regard the widespread insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth, I at the same time deem commitment to the authority of scriptural teaching to involve the acceptance of Adam as an historical individual, the covenantal head and ancestral fount of the rest of mankind, and the recognition that it was the one and same divine act that constituted him the first man, Adam the son of God (Luke 3:38), that also imparted to him life (Gen. 2:7).
     But Kline has no basis for saying that the destruction of literal truth occurs only where he wants it to, to remove the doctrines that he wants to remove, but not affect the rest of Scripture in ways with which he is uncomfortable.
   
   [1] See Meredith Kline’s paper, "Because it Had Not Rained", From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:2-15 (1996, American Scientific Affiliation), hyperlinked at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html. All quotes from Kline taken from this paper.