A Case for the Framework View[1]

 

Mark D. Futato, Ph.D.

Reformed Theological Seminary--Orlando

 

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching” (2 Tim 3:16-17), so Genesis 1-2 is inspired and useful for teaching. But what do Genesis 1 and 2 principally teach? Genesis 1 and 2 principally teach what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of us.[2]

 

Based on Genesis 1 and 2, we are to believe that God is the Creator. He created all things out of nothing. We are to believe that God is Lord of the creation. When he named various aspects of the creation, he was exercising his royal dominion in his kingdom. We are to believe that God is good. Everything he made is a reflection of his character, and everything he made was good, even very good. We are to believe that God is the Alpha and the Omega.[3] “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Rom 11:36). Those who hold a framework, day-age, or literal view of Genesis 1 agree on these most important points of theology.

 

We also agree that Genesis 1 and 2 teach us our duty to be like God. We are to fill the earth and rule over it, as we wait for the consummation of God’s intention for his creation, a consummation anticipated in the Sabbath. To quote Galileo, “the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven,”[4] and in the Reformed tradition we understand that in broad terms.

 

But the full quotation from Galileo is, “the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Genesis 1 and 2 do not principally teach physics or geology, or botany or astronomy or biology. In commenting on Ps 136:7-9, which gives thanks to God as the one “who made the great lights…the sun to govern the day…the moon and stars to govern the night,” John Calvin said, “The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy.”[5] Calvin based this statement on the fact that the Bible told him that God made the two big lights, the bigger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night (Gen 1:16), while astronomers told him that Saturn is bigger than the moon. It was obvious to Calvin that Gen 1:16 was true theologically while not intending to teach astronomy.[6]

 

The point to be made here is that expectations influence conclusions. What do we expect Genesis 1 and 2 to teach us? Certainly our answer must be informed by what the text taught the original readers. Who were the original readers of Genesis 1-2, and what were their concerns? Were their concerns scientific? Were they concerned about the age of the universe? Were they concerned about the chronological sequence of the days or the length of the days? What did the Scriptures principally teach them?

 

For the sake of space, I will simply presume agreement that Moses is the author of Genesis 1 and 2 and that the original audience was the Israelite tribes about to enter the land of Canaan. In this article I will show that Genesis 1 and 2 was written as a polemic against the Canaanite religion[7] the Israelites would encounter in the Promised Land, so that the original audience might believe that the true and living God is the Lord God of Israel and not Baal.

 

The key that unlocks this major theological insight is the literary interpretation of Gen 1:1-2:3, known as the framework view, together with the parallel literary interpretation of the sequel in Gen 2:4-25. The framework view teaches that the creation week is a literary construct chosen for theological purposes. In this construct, the creation days are not solar days but are part of a metaphorical week.[8] In this week, Days 1-3 are paralleled by Days 4-6. The arrangement is topical, not strictly chronological.[9]

 

It is my opinion that this literary and theological interpretation of the text would have been obvious to the original readers, who were conversant with the literary conventions of their own day and their theological struggles with Baalism. My interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is not a capitulation to science. Rather, it is a servant of theology. It is an honest analysis of the literary fabric of the text for the sole purpose of discovering what these chapters teach us about God and what duties they require of us.

 

First, I will set forth the literary structure of Gen 1:1-2:3. Next, I will show how this structure finds confirmation in the argument of Gen 2:5-7 and the structure of Gen 2:8‑25. Finally, I will draw out the theological implications of this literary interpretation.

 

The Literary Structure of Gen 1:1-2:3

 

Gen 1:1-2 and 2:1-3 form a frame around the creation account. This can be seen in the repetition of “the heavens and the earth” in 1:1 and 2:1.

 

Gen 1:1 begins the account with the grand affirmation that in the beginning God created everything. Gen 1:2 then provides the setting for vv3-31, by presenting a twofold problem: 1) the earth was “unproductive and uninhabited”[10] and 2) “darkness was over the surface of the deep.” Both dimensions of this problem are solved in vv3-31.

 

Gen 1:3-31 tell the story of God’s eight creative acts in six days. Days 1 and 2 each contain one creative act; there is one “And God said” on each day. Day 3 contains two creative acts; two times we read, “And God said.” Like Days 1 and 2, Days 4 and 5 each contain one creative act. And like Day 3, Day 6 contains two. This arrangement of 1+1+2 followed by 1+1+2 makes the parallel nature of Days 1 through 3 and Days 4 through 6 obvious.

 

The parallels go beyond that of the number of creative events and days, however. There are other obvious parallels between Days 1 through 3 and Days 4 through 6. The creating of light on Day 1 parallels the creating of the luminaries on Day 4. The creating of the waters below and the sky above on Day 2 parallels the creating of the fish and the birds on Day 5. The creating of dry land on Day 3a, the first creative act of this day, parallels the creating of land animals on Day 6a, and the creating of vegetation on Day 3b, the second creative act of this day, parallels the creating of mankind on Day 6b.

 

It may seem that the parallelism breaks down at the end, however, because vegetation and mankind may not seem like much of a parallel. But vegetation and people are a perfect parallel as is clear from the details of this text.

 

The first three days reach their goal in the creation of vegetation on Day 3b, and the second three days reach their goal in the creation of humanity on Day 6b. Day 3b speaks of the creation of vegetation in two broad kinds: “seed-bearing plants” and “trees that bear fruit.” Day 6b specifics that people are permitted to eat from both kinds of vegetation: “seed-bearing plants” and “every tree that has fruit with seed in it.” So Days 3b and 6b are bound together by the repetition of vocabulary as well as by theme: the people of Day 6b eat the vegetation of Day 3b.[11]

 

Thus we are beginning to see that Gen 1:3-31 is arranged topically, which is the very heart of the framework view. This topical interpretation is confirmed by some further details from Days 1 and 4, as well as by the structure of Gen 2:4-25.

 

The parallelism between Days 1 and 4 goes beyond the general correspondence between the creation of light on Day 1 and the creation of the luminaries on Day 4. What did God accomplish on Day 1 by means of the creation of light? “God divided the light from the darkness,”[12] and the result was “day” and “night.” So by the end of Day 1 God had successfully divided the light from the darkness and had established the sequence of day and night.

 

Now, what was God’s purpose in creating the luminaries on Day 4? We are given a variety of purposes, e.g., they will serve as signs and will rule the day and the night. But what is the overarching purpose? The overarching purpose is indicated by the repetition of “to divide” in v14 and v18, a repetition that forms a frame around Day 4 and connects Day 4 to Day 1, since the same Hebrew verb is used for “divide” in both days. In v14 we are told that God created the luminaries “to divide the day from the night.” But God had already divided the day from the night on Day 1! In v18 we are told that God created the luminaries “to divide the light from the darkness.” But God had already divided the light from the darkness on Day 1!

 

This repetition of vocabulary in Days 1 and Day 4 must not be overlooked. The original readers certainly would not have overlooked it, but would have understood the significance immediately: the accounts of God’s work on Days 1 and 4 are two different perspectives on the same creative work.

 

The repetition of vocabulary binds the work of Days 1 and 4 together into a single activity. In terms of chronology, Day 4 thus brings us back to where we were in Day 1. Day 4 takes us behind the light described in Day 1 to the physical mechanisms that produce that light.[13] The literary sequence is not the same as the historical sequence. The account of Day 4 simply adds information to that given on Day 1: the sun, moon, and stars are the sources of the light created on Day 1, and there are subordinate purposes for the creation of the sun, moon, and stars as well.

 

Some might argue that such a topical and non-chronological interpretation is not the obvious interpretation. I would reply by asking, “Not the obvious interpretation to whom?” To modern readers who are distant geographically, temporally, and culturally from the text? Or to ancient readers, who intuitively understood the literary conventions of their time?

 

Upon encountering the language “to divide day from night” (v14) and “to divide light from darkness” (v18), the original readers would have immediately recognized that Moses was going back to Day 1 to retell the story of Day 1 while providing additional information. This is an example of the Hebrew stylistic technique of synoptic/resumption-expansion.[14] A Hebrew author will at times tell the whole story in brief form (synopsis), then repeat the story (resumption), adding greater detail (expansion).  Day 1 tells the whole story in brief: God created light to divide light from darkness and day from night. Day 4 repeats the story and adds greater detail: God created light to divide light from darkness and day from night by creating the sun, moon, and stars; God created these luminaries for other purposes as well. So Day 4 is not chronologically sequential to Day 1, but is chronologically concurrent.

 

A rarely discussed but important text that bears on the question of chronology in Genesis 1 is Job 38:4-7, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation…while the morning stars[15] sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” This text teaches that the stars were created (Day 4) before the founding of the earth and before the separation of the seas and dry land (Day 3), a teaching that fits quite nicely with the framework interpretation but stands at odds with any chronological interpretation of Gen 1:3-31.

 

Gen 1:3-31 is a coherent account of creation that has been arranged topically to focus the reader’s attention on vegetation (Day 3b) and humanity (Day 6b). This focus sets the stage for the sequel in Gen 2:4-25, which itself resumes and expands upon this twofold focus in a variety of ways, one in particular being the role that rain plays in the production of the vegetation that people eat.

 

The Literary Structure of Gen 2:5-7

 

Why does Gen 2:5 bother to tell us that certain kinds of vegetation were absent “for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth?” Is the absence of rain mere geographical decoration that sets the stage for the really important material that follows? Or is this information foundational to the narrative and its theology?

 

When Gen 2:5-7 is interpreted in the immediate and broader literary contexts, as well as the geographical context of the Ancient Near East and the theological context of Canaanite religion, puzzles are solved and a coherent picture emerges.

 

Like Gen 1:1-2, Gen 2:5-7 articulates a twofold problem. This twofold problem is explained by a twofold reason for the problem, and then provided with a twofold solution.

 

Verse 5a articulates the twofold problem: “No ‘shrub of the field’ had yet appeared in the land, and no ‘plant of the filed’ had yet sprung up.” “Shrub of the field” refers to the wild vegetation that grows spontaneously after the onset of the rainy season, and “plant of the field” refers to cultivated grains.[16]

 

At the end of the dry season and after five months of drought the hills of Israel are as dry as dust, and the vegetation is brown. The farmer’s field is as hard as iron, so plowing and planting are impossible. Then come the rains, resulting in the hills of the steppe being clothed with vegetation (Job 38:25-27). The rains also soften the soil and allow the farmer to plow and plant (Ps 65:9-10). It is in this geographical context that we must understand “shrub of the filed” and “plant of the field.”[17]

 

The word “shrub” occurs only four times (Gen 2:5, 21:15; Job 30:4, 7). From the three texts outside Gen 2:5 it is clear that “shrub” refers to desert vegetation, i.e., to uncultivated vegetation that grows spontaneously as a result of rain. In Gen 21:15, for example, Hagar placed her young son under “one of the shrubs” in the desert of Beersheba. The two occurrences in Job 30:4 and 7 are similar.

 

On the other hand, “plant of the field” occurs in texts like Exod 9:22, which have cultivated grain in view: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that hail will fall…on everything plant of the fields of gypt.’” Verses 31-32 identify these plants as flax and barley, so “plant of the filed” clearly refers to cultivated grains. Similarly, cultivated grains are in view in Gen 3:18, where the farmer will eat the grain that is the result of his arduous labor.[18]

 

This proposed contrast in Gen 2:5 between wild vegetation and cultivated grain finds immediate confirmation in v5b.

 

Verse 5b articulates the twofold reason for the twofold problem with impeccable logic: “because the Lord God had not sent rain on the land, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.” There was no vegetation that springs up spontaneously as a result of the rains, because there was no rain. And there was no cultivated grain, because there was no cultivator. A coherent picture is emerging.

 

By this point the author has created an expectation in the mind of the reader: the twofold problem with its twofold reason will be given a twofold solution. Yet, here is where virtually all interpretations fail for lack of coherence.

 

Verses 6-7 provide the twofold solution: “So [God] caused rain clouds to rise up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, and the Lord God formed the man….” Verse 7 says, “the Lord God formed the man,” and here lies the solution to the second prong of the twofold problem and reason. The logic is cogent and the picture is coherent: “no cultivated grain had sprung up...for there was no one to cultivate the land...and the Lord God formed the man.” That is all rather straight forward and uncontested.

 

The disputed element is the meaning of the word ed in v6. Scholars have proposed numerous meanings for ed,[19] and “stream” seems to have won the day.[20] But “stream” cannot possibly be correct for two reasons: 1) The text does not say that the problem was a lack of water in general, a problem which could be solved by water from any one of a variety of sources, for instance, a stream. The problem was a lack of rain in particular, because in the Promised Land rain was that without which vegetation was impossible. 2) “Stream” makes nonsense out of such a well-constructed and tightly argued text. If “stream” is understood, the sense is something like “no wild vegetation had appeared in the land...for the Lord God had not sent rain...but a stream was arising to water the whole surface of the land.” If a stream was present to water the whole surface of the land, then there was ample water for the appearance of wild vegetation, and the reason clause (“for the Lord God had not sent rain”) is completely irrelevant and illogical.[21]

 

So v6 is begging to be interpreted as a reference to rain. The expectation is for something like, “no wild vegetation had appeared in the land...for the Lord God had not sent rain...so God sent rain.”

 

The only other recognized occurrence of Hebrew ed is Job 36:27, which the NIV translates, “He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams (ed).” Mitchell Dahood, translated Job 36:27, “When he draws up drops from the sea, they distill as rain from his rain cloud (ed).”[22] Such a rendering not only makes sense in the narrow confines of the verse and Syro-Palestinian meteorology, but note how well it fits the context: evaporation (v27a), rain cloud (v27b), clouds (v28a), and abundant rain on the land (v28b). Clearly, the text has in view abundant rain falling from rain clouds.

 

Given that ed has the sense “rain cloud” in Job 36:27, it is certainly plausible that ed has the same sense in Gen 2:6.[23]

 

Meredith Kline has adopted Dahood’s interpretation of ed as “rain cloud” and has further suggested taking the verb in an inceptive sense,[24] “he began to make rain clouds[25] arise.” Grammatically the inceptive sense is possible,[26] and contextually the inceptive sense is required, for if there had been rain clouds previously, there would have been rain and the reason clause (“for the Lord God had not sent rain”) would be irrelevant and illogical.

 

As with the second prong of the twofold problem and reason so also with the first prong, a coherent picture emerges: “no wild vegetation had appeared in the land...for the Lord God had not sent rain...so[27] he began to make rain clouds arise from the land and water the whole surface of the ground.”

 

Gen 2:5-7 is quite logical, highly structured, and perfectly coherent:

 

Problem:	Reason:	Solution:
1) No wild vegetation	1) No rain	1) God sent rain
2) No cultivated grain	2) No cultivator	2) God formed a cultivator

 

The Literary Structure of Gen 2:8-25

 

The narrative of Gen 2:8-25 flows at a steady pace, moved along by a sequence of verbs called “waw-relatives.” The “most obvious and frequent” use of these verbs is “that of simple chronological succession.”[28] So, the obvious reading of Gen 2:8-25 is chronological.

 

A clear exception to the apparently chronological sequencing of material is the information provided in vv10-14, pertaining to the river; this section is marked as non-sequential and circumstantial in the normal manner for Hebrew.[29]

 

External considerations (comparing Gen 2:8-25 with Gen 1:1-2:3) and internal considerations (the flow of the narrative in Gen 2:8-25), however, will not allow a strictly chronological reading of Gen 2:8-25.

 

 

An external example of dischronology (relating events in non-chronological order) is found in Gen 2:19a, “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.”[30] The Hebrew verbs translated “formed” in v7 and v19 are waw‑relatives, resulting in the obvious sequence of God’s forming of Adam (v7a), followed by God’s forming of the animals (v19a). A straight forward, chronological reading of Gen 2:19, in other words, puts Gen 2:8-25 in conflict with a chronological reading of Gen 1:1-2:3, where the animals were formed before the man (Gen 1:24-27).[31] The point is that while the obvious reading is chronological, a closer reading leads us to the conclusion that the obvious reading is not correct,[32] just as is the case in Gen 1:3-31. The author is guided at this point by concerns that are not chronological.

 

A key internal consideration confirms that strict chronology is not the organizational control for Gen 2:8-25. Having formed Adam (v7a), God proceeded to place Adam in the Garden (v8b).  But then in v15 we read that “the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden.” Again, the verb translated “took” in v15 is a waw-relative, that, if taken to indicate chronological sequence, would result in Adam being placed in the garden in v8 and then being placed in the garden a second time in v15. There is an easy solution to this apparent problem, one that is explicable within the conventions of Hebrew style.

 

Like Days 1 and 4, Gen 2:8-25 provides another example of the Hebrew stylistic technique of synoptic/resumption-expansion: Gen 2:8 is a synopsis of the whole section, that is resumed and expanded in Gen 2:9-25.

 

First, God planted a garden (v8a), then he placed in the garden the man whom he had formed (v8b). This synopsis with its focus on vegetation and the man in the garden is clearly integrated with and flows from the preceding concern with the lack of vegetation and the lack of a man to cultivate the ground and from the focus in Days 1-3 on vegetation and in Days 4-6 on humanity. In other words, the coherent picture that emerged in vv5-7 and the topical arrangement of Gen 1:3-31 continue to manifest themselves in the synopsis of v8. Gen 2:4-25 is not a second account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, but is an account that focuses on the planting of a garden and human life in that garden (vv9‑25).[33]

 

Verses 9-14 resume and expand v8a. In v9a the planting of the garden is detailed in terms of God causing to sprout from the ground “every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food.” Pleasing to whose sight and good for whose food? The man’s sight and his food, obviously. Gen 2:9-14 describes a garden of vegetation clearly designed for human habitation.

 

Verses 15-25 resume and expand v8b. Verse 15 repeats v8b with different vocabulary and adds the explicit purpose for placing the man in the garden: “to cultivate  it.” Verses 16-17 explicitly connect the man and the vegetation. The remainder of the text (vv18-25) provides the details of how God created a suitable helper for the man in the garden. By the end of Genesis 2 the man and the woman are living blissfully in the garden.

 

Like Gen 1:3-31, Gen 2:8-25 is a highly structured topical account with a twofold focus on vegetation and humanity. The twofold synopsis of God planting a garden and putting the man in the garden to cultivate it (v8), and the twofold expansion with the same focus on vegetation and humanity (vv9-25) parallels and confirms the topical structure of Gen 1:3-31.

 

Implications for the Theology of Genesis 1-2

 

The literary structure of Genesis 1 and 2 is significant for the theology of the text in a variety of ways. The theology of the Sabbath is certainly central to the theology of Gen 1:1-2:3. Others have treated this subject.[34] I will focus on a different but vitally important aspect of the text’s theology by answering the twofold question, “Why the concern with rain and why the topical structure that focuses on vegetation and people?”

 

The dominant religious threat for pre-exilic Israel was Baalism.[35] “The agrarian peoples of the ancient Middle East were acutely aware of the most basic equation: water = life.”[36] So water played a major role in the theologies of ancient Near Eastern peoples. Canaan, however, was not like Egypt or Mesopotamia, where agriculture was based on irrigation from rivers. Canaan was a land where agriculture was dependent on rain (see Deut 11:10-11). Canaanite religion was consequently not concerned with river gods, as were the religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The primary god of the Canaanites was Baal, “the rider on the clouds,” the storm god, whose rain was considered absolutely necessary for the growth of crops and hence for life itself.[37]

 

When the Hebrew tribes left the stable environment of Egypt and headed toward the land of Canaan, they encountered a people who worshipped the storm god called Baal and his retinue…As the Israelites settled in Canaan, they were tempted to ask their Canaanite neighbors, “How does your garden grow?” Such inquiry was seen by later writers as having led to eventual apostasy and exile as Israel became idolatrous and eventually drowned in Baalism.[38]

 

This struggle against Baalism is part of the fabric of Genesis through Kings.[39] The contest on Mt. Carmel brought this struggle into sharp relief. The alternatives were clear: “If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1 Kgs 18:21). The means of determination was clear: “The god who answers by fire—he is God” (1 Kgs 18:24). When Baal failed to answer by fire and the Lord sent fire from heaven, the conclusion was clear: “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!” (1 Kgs 18:39).

 

But this contest was not about which deity controlled fire. The issue at hand was, “Who controls the rain?” The struggle began with Elijah’s threat that “there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word” (1 Kgs 17:1). The struggle ended when the Lord God of Israel sent rain, “the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain came on… (1 Kgs 18:45).

 

The polemic against Baalism is at the heart of OT covenant theology, as articulated in Deut 11:10-17. Covenant loyalty to the Lord would have resulted in rain, grain, and life. Worshiping other gods would have resulted in no rain, no grain, and death. Now, what god in particular would Israel have been tempted to turn to with a view to procuring rain and the resultant vegetation? Baal, of course.

Reading the OT, it becomes clear that it was the Baal cult that provided the greatest and most enduring threat to the development of exclusive Yahweh worship within ancient Israel. The fact that…Palestine is a land utterly dependent for its fertility upon the rain, accounts for the tempting nature of this cult as well as the strength of the OT polemic against it.[40]

 

The ever present threat of Baalism provides the theological context in which Genesis 1-2 is to be read.

 

Genesis 1-2 proclaims that the Lord, the God of Israel, is the Lord of the rain and the resultant vegetation that people eat in order to live. This central aspect of the message of Genesis 1-2 is embedded in the literary structure of the accounts. A topical reading of the text brings this theology to light.

 

Why the twofold focus on vegetation and the people that live on that vegetation? Why even bring into consideration the lack of vegetation owing to a lack of rain? Is this simply geographical decoration?

 

No, for the Book of Genesis serves as the prolog to the history of Israel.[41] Genesis makes the point that the God of the nation of Israel is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12-50), and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Creator of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1-11). The God of Israel is the Creator. From the beginning the God of Israel, not Baal, has been the provider of the rain that is the prerequisite for life. The Lord God of Israel has been the Lord of the rain and the grain from the beginning! Redemptive theology is rooted in the creation theology of Genesis 1-2. The literary structure of Genesis 1-2 makes the theological claim that the Lord God of Israel is the true and living God, whom Israel must serve to the exclusion of all rival deities, Baal in particular.

 

This literary interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is not a capitulation to science. Rather, it is a servant of theology. I have shown that a sensitivity to the literary conventions of ancient Israel produces a harvest of theological insight. The structural focus on vegetation and humanity, together with the deep concern for the relation between rain and grain, serves to underscore the foundational creational and redemptive theology of the Bible: “The Lord—he is God! “The Lord—he is God![42]