Unveiling Genesis: Decoding Its Figurative Theological Polemic

Is Genesis Poetry / Figurative, a Theological Argument (Polemic), and Thus Not History?

Critique of the Framework Hypothesis

The 'framework hypothesis' is a popular view among some evangelical seminaries that seeks to reconcile biblical authority with the idea of long ages. However, this interpretation is a departure from the traditional understanding of Genesis as historical narrative. The framework hypothesis suggests that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, but rather as poetry or figurative language conveying theological truths. This view arose in response to the perceived conflict between the Bible and scientific theories of origins.

However, it is important to note that the framework hypothesis is a relatively recent interpretation, first proposed in 1924. Prior to that, the overwhelming consensus among scholars and laypeople alike was that Genesis records real events in real space and time.

Genesis is written in a style consistent with historical narrative. It uses special grammatical forms for recording history and follows the same structure as other historical narratives in the Bible. The Hebrew verb forms used in Genesis 1 indicate a sequence of past events, with the first verb being perfect (indicating completion) and subsequent verbs being imperfect (indicating ongoing action). This grammatical feature aligns with how the Hebrews recorded history or a series of past events.

Furthermore, Genesis 1-11 exhibits several other characteristics of historical narrative. It includes accusative particles that mark the objects of verbs, carefully defines terms, and lacks the parallelisms typically found in Hebrew poetry. While there are rare instances of poetic language in Genesis, they comment on real events and do not represent the overall style of the book.

Advocates of the framework idea argue that Genesis 2 is arranged topically rather than chronologically, implying that Genesis 1 should also be understood figuratively. However, this argument is flawed. The arrangement of Genesis 2 does not determine how we interpret Genesis 1. Additionally, Hebrew scholars overwhelmingly agree that Genesis was written as history, with a clear intention to convey the idea of six literal days of creation.

The claim that Genesis contains two triads of days is another supposed evidence for a poetic structure. However, even if this were true, it would not negate the historical sequence of events. The parallels between the days are overdrawn, and there are significant differences in the creation of certain elements on different days.

Another argument put forth by framework proponents is based on Genesis 2:5, which they interpret as teaching that only normal providence (nothing miraculous) was used in creation. However, this interpretation is based on presuppositions and not supported by the text. It is a leap to conclude that ordinary providence excludes miracles. The absence of rain in Genesis 2:5 suggests that normal providence was not operating during creation week.

It is important to recognize that Genesis 1 is not merely a theological argument or polemic. While it does refute erroneous ideas about God, it does so through the presentation of real events. For example, the creation of light before the sun refutes the worship of the sun. The Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:10–11 cites the events of Genesis 1 as the basis for the commandment, demonstrating that the historical events form the foundation for theological teachings.

In conclusion, the framework hypothesis undermines the historical accuracy of Genesis and puts death and suffering before the Fall, contradicting the overall biblical narrative. The traditional understanding of Genesis as historical narrative aligns with Hebrew grammar and other characteristics of historical writing. This interpretation has been consistently held by scholars throughout history and should be maintained as it faithfully represents the biblical text.

Why This Matters: The interpretation of Genesis has significant implications for our understanding of biblical authority and how we reconcile it with scientific theories. The framework hypothesis attempts to harmonize long ages with the Bible but requires departing from the traditional understanding of Genesis as historical narrative. It is important to critically evaluate interpretations and consider the implications they have for our understanding of God's Word.

Think About It: How we interpret Genesis impacts our view of creation, the Fall, and the overall biblical narrative. Does a departure from the historical narrative interpretation of Genesis compromise the authority of Scripture? What are the theological implications of interpreting Genesis figuratively or as poetry?