Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/critique-of-the-framework-interpretation-of-creation-1-of-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:28:28+00:00

Document:
Editor’s note:This article was originally published in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, vol. 10 (2005): 19–67. It is posted here with kind permission of the journal.
Beginning with the development of modern geology in the nineteenth century along with its demands for an old earth,1,2 various novel explanations of Genesis 1:1–2:3 have arisen in the evangelical world attempting to harmonize the days of the creation week with an old earth. With these various explanations, a common element is a figurative interpretation of the days of the creation week, rather than the traditional literal understanding.3 One of these approaches, which has become increasingly popular over the last forty years, is the framework interpretation.4 For those who are committed to biblical inerrancy, this view has had a certain level of appeal for at least two reasons. First, framework advocates claim their view of creation is based on a consistent use of exegesis. As Meredith G. Kline has averred: “Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts.”5 Second, the framework view does not restrict a Christian’s conscience about the age of the earth, a subject that the Bible supposedly does not address. With the argumentation used to support the framework view, the claim is made that the age of the earth is not a necessary component with their depiction of the framework. “In fact, one may hold to the framework interpretation and affirm a more recent date for creation, should one be so convinced. . . . Teachers of God’s word cannot say, ‘As a Bible-believing Christian, you must believe that the earth is young (or old).’”6 What are the “exegetical considerations” that make this view so compelling? Is it true that this interpretation has no implications for the age of the earth? More essentially, what is the framework interpretation? Over the course of two articles, my goal is to examine the framework interpretation and to evaluate its biblical consistency. This first article will present four major theses of the framework argument and will critique one of these theses. The second article will evaluate the remaining three theses.
In essence, the framework view asserts that the creation “week” of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a literary framework intended to present God’s creative activity in a topical, non-sequential manner, rather than a literal, sequential one. The framework theory is supported by four theses. First, the figurative nature of the creation account demonstrates that it is topically arranged rather than chronologically. Second, ordinary providence governed the creation account. Third, the unending nature of the seventh day indicates that the six days of the creation week are not normal days. Fourth, a two-register cosmology provides a rationale that explains why the time indicators in Genesis 1:1–2:3 are non-sequential.
As was previously noted, an asserted strength of the framework interpretation is its exegetical basis. This claim provides the first argument supporting this interpretation: the creation “week” itself is a figurative frame comprised of six pictures of workdays, and the actual arrangement of the “days” of the creation “week,” in keeping with its figurative nature, reflects a symmetrically arranged topical account of creation. According to Kline, “Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically.”12 To gain an accurate understanding of Kline’s assertion, a brief explanation about the “six work-day frames,” the topical arrangement of the creation account, and its poetic nature are apropos.
The fourth thesis focuses on another argument that Kline set forth in 1996 to further offset the literal interpretation of the creation account.47 This more recent support focuses on a two-register cosmology. This argument demonstrates that there are two distinguishable registers in the created cosmos, an upper and a lower register, and that this “two-register cosmology explains the significance of the nonliteral nature of the time indicators in Genesis 1 within the overall cosmological teaching of Scripture.”48 In this scheme, the upper register, an invisible dimension, is not co-eternal with God, but is the heavenly place that God initially created for his dwelling and for his angels. The lower register, a visible dimension, is earth, and “includes the whole visible cosmos from the planet Earth to the star-studded sky.”49 The relationship between the lower and upper register is such that the lower register replicates the archetypical upper register. In keeping with the lower register’s imaging the upper register, the days of the creation narrative evidently reflect the time associated with the upper register. As such, the objective reality behind the chronological material in the creation narrative, such as the days of the creation “week” with their attendant evening-morning refrain, is the time associated with the upper register.50 To see how this two-register cosmology is correlated with the creation account, two aspects associated with the framework view’s two-register cosmology need additional development.
The initial aspect pertains to the analogical relationship between the two registers. Because of this relationship, features of the lower register can be used as metaphors to picture features of the upper register. This is to say, realities associated with the earthly register, such as clouds and stars, are used metaphorically51 to represent realities of the heavenly register, such as the clouds picturing the Son of Man coming with the clouds and the stars of the sky representing angels.52 As this relates to the creation account, the argument of the framework view “is that the language of the days and the ‘evenings and mornings’ is not literal but an instance of lower-register terms being used metaphorically to describe the upper-register.”53 To demonstrate that there is a connection between this two-register cosmology and Genesis 1:1–2:3, framework supporters note a number of connections with this text. We will briefly summarize four of these links.
Genesis 1:1 describes the absolute beginning of all created reality.
In summation, we have presented four theses that support the framework theory. We must now turn our attention to evaluate this interpretation to determine if it is “demanded by the biblical evidence.” In the remainder of this article, we begin our critique of the framework by evaluating its first thesis.
Finally, while framework adherents unambiguously argue for a figurative interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3, they clearly distinguish between a figurative understanding of the creation account and “a nonhistorical interpretation of the text. The framework interpretation does not teach that creation was a nonhistorical event.”69 Their defense of the historical substance of some portions of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is commendable. However, I am persuaded that this figurative approach distorts the basic historical fabric of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and promotes an interpretative model that, if fully developed, undermines the historicity of Adam’s federal headship over the created realm that God had entrusted to him. Furthermore, though professing a form of exegetical substance, the exegetical selectivity reflected by the framework position undermines its value as a consistent biblical cosmogony. In the remainder of this paper, I will evaluate the first major thesis of the framework: the figurative nature of the creation account. The second part of this series will critique the remaining three theses.
The first major tenet of the framework interpretation is that the creation “week” itself is a figure that presents six pictures, “days,” of divine creation that are topically arranged, as opposed to a sequential arrangement of six days in a literal week. Framework advocates support this position as an outgrowth of their exegetical analyses of select creation texts that have a poetic type texture and use metaphorical language, both of which indicate that the creation narrative is not a sequential account but a topical one. However, we must examine more precisely the exegetical nature of Genesis 1:1–2:3 to evaluate this thesis of the framework. Does it reflect some sort of poetic style? Also, how much of the language is metaphorical? More importantly, if it reflects something of a poetic style, does this mean that there is a dichotomy between a chronological account and an artistic arrangement? This is to say, if the creation account is a well-organized and symmetrical structure, as apparently reflected by the framework’s two parallel triads,70 does this annul the evidence within the account that demonstrates a sequential understanding?
While there may be some debate about the extent of the creation account’s artistic nature, it is an incontrovertible fact that it is not a poetic text.71 Two items demonstrate this fact.
For He spoke, and it was done.
The use of waw consecutive to communicate sequential, past tense material is the expected style for a historical book like Genesis. If the author of Genesis wanted to preserve past-tense, sequential material, we expect his literary style to include a consistent use of the waw consecutive. What is significant for this point is that the waw consecutive appears 55 times in the thirty-four verses found in Genesis 1:1–2:3. Thus, the use of the waw consecutive in the prologue to the historical narrative of Genesis, Genesis 1:1–2:3, is consistent with the narrative material found in the remainder of Genesis. If Moses did not intend the creation account to be taken sequentially, then why did he so frequently use a grammatical form that is regularly used for sequence?78 My argument is not that waw consecutive always denotes sequence, for, within a narrative sequence, it may occasionally represent non-sequential action that is anterior to the main-line narrative and consequently be rendered as a pluperfect (past perfect),79 but that waw consecutive is generally used sequentially as a preterite in narrative literature.80 Such is the case in Genesis 1:1–2:3. After vv. 1–2, the main-line narrative of the creation account is carried along by the waw consecutive, just as the waw consecutive is consistently used in the book of Genesis.
However, if, as I have previously noted, the waw consecutive may also be translated as a pluperfect, does this not imply that a few of the 55 uses of the waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3 may involve temporal recapitulation, just as framework supporters contend occurred on the fourth day (Gen 1:14–19)?81 While waw consecutive in some contexts may allow for temporal recapitulation, its use as the main-line sequence of the fourth day does not allow for temporal recapitulation that looks back to Day 1,82 as is also true for the other days in the creation week where the main-line narrative is advanced by the use of waw consecutive.83 Not only are the creative activities of this day advanced by the sequential use of waw consecutive, but Moses also indicated that these creative activities took place on a sequentially numbered day, the “fourth day” ( Gen 1:19 ), and that the details of the first day and the fourth argue against temporal recapitulation. To demonstrate that the fourth day is not an example of temporal recapitulation, our discussion must expand beyond the use of waw consecutive to include the seven enumerated days of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and a comparison of the particulars of the first and fourth days.
To show that Days 1 and 4 are two distinct days, four items associated with the sequentially numbered, literal days need to be addressed.
The first item that should be noted is that Hebrew word translated as “day” in Genesis 1:19 is the singular noun יוֹם. When the singular יוֹם is not part of a compound grammatical construction,84 it invariably refers to literal days or to the daytime portion of a normal day.85 The singular יוֹם is used 1,452 times in the Old Testament.86 In Genesis 1:1–2:3, the noun יוֹם is used 14 times, 13 times in the singular, with none in a compound grammatical relationship, and once in the plural.87 Of the 13 uses of “day,” 4 refer to “day” as opposed to “night” (1:5, 14, 16, 17).88 As such, each day involving divine creative activity is divided according to the natural phenomena of “daytime” and “nighttime.” It is this day and night cycle that constitutes each full day of the creation week,89 as Genesis 1:5 specifies: “God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day”90 (see also in 1:16, where the greater light governs the daytime and the lesser light the nighttime). The remaining 9 uses of יוֹם are distributed in such a way that 6 make up the enumerated days of the creation week, the “first day” through the “sixth day” (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 24, 31), and 3 uses are enumerated forms of the “seventh day” (2:2 [twice], 3). If the singular use of “day,” when it is not part of a compound grammatical construction, is always used throughout the Old Testament as a literal day, then this provides solid evidence that the “fourth day” was a literal day.
We should additionally note that singular noun יוֹם is qualified by the ordinal number “fourth,” רְבִיעִי (Gen 1:19). A number is used to qualify both the singular and plural forms of “day” more than 350 times in the Old Testament.91 As a singular noun, a number modifies יוֹם approximately 150 times.92 When a number qualifies יוֹם, it is used time after time in a literal sense.93 An example of this is found in Exodus 12:15 : “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.” Anything other than literal days would make a mockery of the penalty for this covenant violation.94 Another example of a number modifying יוֹם is Exodus 24:16 : “The glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days; and on the seventh day He called to Moses from the midst of the cloud.” Though this text is not used by framework defenders, it provides a good comparison with Genesis 1:2, since it also points to the alleged two-register cosmology.95 In addition, since Exodus 24:16 uses numbers with days,96 it provides a further point of comparison with Genesis 1:1–2:3. In Exodus 24:16, the “Glory-presence of God,” to use Irons and Kline’s expression,97 may represent the upper register, while the earthly cloud the lower register. In Genesis 1:2, “the Spirit of God” represents the upper register, while “the deep” over which the Spirit moves represents the lower register.98 In light of the framework’s two-register cosmology, the appearance of the LORD in this cloud is an example of an “earthly thing” that is “used as a metaphor for upper-register realities.”99 As such, lower register terms, such as “cloud” and “days,” are metaphors used “to describe the upper register. Just as the heavens where God dwells does not have literal clouds or a rainbow, so heavenly time is not literally measured by solar days or earthly evenings and mornings.”100 In addition, Exodus 24:16 provides an example of the use of the simple,101 singular יוֹם, with numbers. Commentators do not contest the literal significance of “six days” and “the seventh day.”102 However, this text is a problem for the framework position, because it combines their two-register cosmology with earthly literal days, and not heavenly days. Let us assume for argument’s sake that the days of Exodus 24:16 do refer to heavenly time, then are the “forty days and forty nights” in v. 18 also examples of heavenly time (“Moses entered the midst of the cloud as he went up to the mountain; and Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights”)?
Whatever substance there may be with Irons and Kline’s two-register cosmology, Exodus 24:16 indicates that it requires only one kind of time, earthly literal time, rather than two temporal systems of heavenly and earthly time. The use of a literal “day” with a numeric qualifier, in Exodus 24:16, is consistent with the other 150 Old Testament uses of the same type of construction reflecting the same pattern of literal days. Consequently, this suggests that the use of “day,” יוֹם, in Genesis 1:19, with a numerical qualifier, is also a reference to an earthly literal day, rather than a heavenly day.
In another historical narrative, Numbers 29:17–35 , the successively arranged days are also literal days. In the 7th month of an Israelite year, the Feast of Tabernacles began on the 15th day of this month and continued for seven successive days until the 21st day, followed by a sacred assembly on the 22nd day. In this account, offerings were prescribed for each day of the feast. Beginning with the second day and continuing through the eighth, God prescribed the offerings for each day. For the offerings of each day, the prescription is begun with a waw conjunction attached to a prepositional phrase that uses the simple, singular noun “day,” יוֹם, followed by a sequential number. For example, the offering for the second day is begun with “then on the second day,” וּבַיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי, in v. 17. The third day is started with “then on the third day,” וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, in v. 20, and this pattern of description continues for the remaining five days of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 23, 26, 29, 32, 35). Consequently, the offerings of the second day and third day form a unit of two uninterrupted, distinct days.
Based upon the two historical narratives where יוֹם is used with sequentially arranged numbers, each day is part of a sequence of successive, uninterrupted, literal days. The use of sequentially numbered, literal days in both passages supports a similar interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3. More specifically, the use of sequentially numbered days demonstrates that Day 4 must be a literal day and this day is the fourth day of the creation week, rather than any other day of that week.
To review this point about sequentially numbered, literal days, we have demonstrated that Genesis 1:19 summarizes the “fourth day” with the simple, singular “day,” which is qualified by the numeric adjective “fourth,” and that the “fourth day” is an earthly literal day, as opposed to a heavenly day. Additionally, the “fourth day” cannot, by nature of the sequential use of numbers, be identical with any of the other days of the creation account. The framework’s argument that the first and fourth days are an identical heavenly day, describing the creation of light from two perspectives, is in direct conflict with the biblical evidence we have observed. If the numerous other biblical texts showing that “day” is an earthly literal day have any substance, the “fourth day” must be a distinct, literal day.111 Nevertheless, framework proponents minimize the force of this argument by maintaining that first and fourth days describe the same event. Do the textual details for Days 1 and 4 justify negating the force of the sequentially numbered, literal days? To answer this question, we must compare the particulars of each day.
In comparing the first day and fourth day of the creation week, we have previously noted that framework advocates point out that there is an inconsistency for a chronological interpretation of these two days. Since God creates light on the first day and the source of light on the fourth day, the days must be identical.112 According to the framework position, this inconsistency indicates that the creation account should be interpreted topically rather than chronologically.113 According to Irons and Kline, the parallelism of the creation account “is also exhibited in the relation of Days 1 and 4, which not only deal with the same topics of light/darkness and day/night but also employ identical language of separation (Gen. 1:4, 14, 18).”114 In short, “the divine purposes in creating the light on Day 1 and the luminaries on Day 4 are identical.”115 To demonstrate that this is an invalid interpretation, the first day and fourth day will be compared in two ways.
The details of the creation narrative reflect a chronological movement from Day 1 to Day 4, rather than a merger of the two days as one.
Third, the details of the creation narrative reflect a chronological movement from Day 1 to Day 4, rather than a merger of the two days as one. At the inception of creation, God created the heavens as empty space and the earth as an unformed and empty, watery sphere, surrounded by darkness, while being nurtured by the Spirit of God ( Gen 1:1–2 ). With the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, God created darkness. By fiat, the next creative act of God was the creation of light: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (v. 3). While light is generally connected to luminaries, it may also exist independently from them, as is the case with the physical phenomena of lightning. According to some rabbinic interpreters, God created a primeval source of light that was independent of the sun.120 Since God is light, he certainly could have created a nonsolar source of light, prior to the sun’s creation.121 As Whitcomb has suggested, “God created a fixed and localized light source in the heaven in reference to which the rotating earth passed through the same kind of day/night cycles as it has since the creation of the sun.”122 Another example of this may be drawn from starlight. Once light has been emitted from a star, it passes through space independently of the star, whether or not it remains in existence.123 A final example may be drawn from Revelation 21:23 : “And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” The New Jerusalem will not be illuminated by the sun or moon.124 As Genesis began with light immediately emanating from God, so the book of Revelation ends in a similar manner.125 Though God has not revealed how the light of Day 1 operated, he is more than capable, as the self-existent, self-sufficient, self-contained Creator, of speaking light into existence prior to his creation of the sun. Therefore, there is no biblical justification for equating Days 1 and 4, as the framework does.
After the creation of light, God himself “separated the light from the darkness” (Gen 1:4). Since God himself explicitly separated the light from darkness, this act of separation is “not an act of providence, but a distinct creative act.”126 After separating light from darkness, God assigns the names “day,” יוֹם, to the light and “night,” ַלַּיְלָה, to the darkness. The divine act of naming suggests that the actual quality of the object named is indicated by the divinely assigned name. In this context, God’s assigning names that are consistent with the nature of the object being named is God’s consistent pattern throughout biblical history. What this suggests is that what characterizes the day is visible light and what characterizes the night is physical darkness. With the assignment of names on Day 1, there is no hint of any metaphorical sense to “day,” יוֹם, or “night,” ַלַּיְלָה; rather, this indicates the literal substance of day and night.127 These are the divine activities of the first day of creation.
The fourth day advances from the first. The waw consecutive at the head of v. 14 suggests sequence and not temporal recapitulation.128 On the fourth day, God’s creation of the sun, moon, and stars, along with the necessary transitional light, are direct acts of creation; however, once this creative activity of God is finished, the luminaries operate as they normally would in providence. God specifically states his purposes for the creation of the luminaries. The luminaries are created for the function of separating “the day from the night,” for “signs and for seasons and for days and years” (Gen 1:14), and as “lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth” (v. 15). More specifically, God created the sun “to govern the day” and the moon “to govern the night” (v. 16). God created the sun and the moon “to separate the light from the darkness” (v. 18).
Our preceding examination of the creation account’s sequentially numbered, literal days and comparison of Days 1 and 4, not only demands that Days 1 and 4 were distinct, but also suggests that the creation week involved seven, earthly literal days that were sequentially arranged without any interruption. If the creation account is a historical narrative, as the preceding discussion indicates, how then are the creation account’s stylistic features to be explained? More specifically, how are these stylistic features harmonized with the narrative material of the creation account? Additionally, is a stylized use of narrative inconsistent with a chronological account? While framework supporters agree this passage is a narrative, rather than a strict poetic account, their description of this passage as containing a greater degree of stylistic features than normal narrative literature suggests that this elevated use of narrative is not bound to the same historical constraints as the remainder of Genesis.134 Their qualifications of this passage as “highly stylized”135 or as not “presenting a strict historical account”136 is stated in such ways to undermine any chronological significance. These “highly stylized” features include the two parallel units of three days, the repetitious progression in each of the days, and the metaphorical use of the temporal markers. Our discussion will proceed by examining these items followed by a presentation of the specific textual details that identify the narrative arrangement in Genesis 1:1–2:3.
At first blush, the parallel triads of days are not as symmetrical as they may seem. With their defense of this parallel arrangement, framework defenders are unified in their agreement that there are eight creative events in the creation account with the first four events distributed over the first three days and the last four over the last three days, with the concluding day in each triad presenting two creative activities. According to Irons and Kline, “there are a total of eight distinct creative works distributed over six days. The last day within each triad (i.e., Days 3 and 6) contains two creative acts.”137 However, a more precise look at the creation account suggests that this is an artificial interpretation. Three textual observations from the creation account reflect that the two parallel triads, as represented by framework advocates, are a contrived understanding.
First, on the first day of the creation account, framework backers argue that the creation of light was the only creative event. However, apparently because Genesis 1:1 is not governed by the divine creative proclamation, “God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר), they exclude two other creative acts: the heavens and the earth. While a few framework proponents argue that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement and, therefore, not part of the creation account,138 Irons and Kline understand that Genesis 1:1 is the “absolute beginning” when “God created the heavens (upper register) and the earth (lower register).”139 However, if Genesis 1:1 is an expression of the absolute beginning of the heavens and the earth, does this not mean there are three creative events on the first day of creation? In addition to this, should not “careful exegesis”140 integrate other clearly defined creative activities besides those governed by “God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר)? At least, for those framework advocates who argue that Genesis 1:1 teaches the absolute beginning of the heavens and the earth, this reflects an exegetical discrepancy. Is not good exegesis that which factors in the entire text of the creation account?
Second, as noted earlier, the framework position says that Day 5 corresponds with Day 2. However, this parallel is also strained. On the second day, “God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר) that an “expanse” would be created to “separate the waters from the waters” ( Gen 1:6 ). This divine announcement, while having two fiats, reflects one creative activity: “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” However, its supposed parallel day, the fifth day ( Gen 1:20 ), has one divine announcement, “God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר), that reflects two creative activities: “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures” and “let the birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”141 In respect to creative events, Day 5 is not genuinely parallel to Day 2.
In addition, assuming the reputed exegetical strength of the framework position, should we conclude that sea creatures made on Day 5 are to fill the “expanse” created on Day 2, especially when God calls them the “fish of the sea” in 1:26, 28? An exegetically based understanding of Genesis 1 supports the sea creatures of Day 5 filling the seas formed on Day 3, and not Day 2.142 Moreover, the birds that are to fly in the “expanse” formed on second day also live and reproduce on the dry land created on third day ( Gen 1:22, 29–30 ).143 As such, the correspondence between the second day and the fifth is imprecise.
Third, the parallel between the third day and the sixth is also unconvincing. According to Futato, “the creating of dry land on Day 3a parallels the creating of land animals on Day 6a, and the creating of vegetation on Day 3b parallels the creating of mankind on Day 6b.”144 Genesis 1:24 reflects a link between the dry land created on the third day and the land animals: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind.” The animals are produced from the dry land, “the earth.” The linkage between the dry land and terrestrial animals is an accurate assessment.
However, the second parallel is strained, as Futato admits: “It may seem that the parallelism breaks down at the end, because vegetation and mankind may not seem like much of a parallel.”145 To circumvent this “breakdown,” Futato maintains that “when one recalls the twofold focus on vegetation and humanity in Gen 2:4-25, the parallelism becomes evident.”146 Theologically, it is clear that Adam’s probation in Genesis 2 is related to the vegetation of the Garden of Eden, in particular the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nevertheless, the connection between man and vegetation in Genesis 2 is not the same thing as the connection between land animals and dry land. In order to have a consistent parallel, it should follow that man was formed out of vegetation, as the animals were formed out of dry land. In reality, this example is a comparison of apples and oranges. Furthermore, if there is a consistent parallel between Days 3 and 6, why is there no parallel to the formation of the sea on third day ( Gen 1:9 )? On the sixth day, nothing is formed to fill the sea.147 The parallels between the third day and the sixth day are not as clear-cut as the framework proponents have suggested.148 Therefore, the two triads of days reflect a parallelism that is not textually based but one that framework advocates have superimposed on the text. Grudem’s observation about the framework’s contrived parallelism is applicable: “With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary ‘framework,’ while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text.”149 Precisely stated, the textual distinctions between the supposedly parallel days do not consistently support the framework’s symmetrical arrangement of two triads of days and, in contrast, is congruent with the traditional, literal interpretation of the creation week.
While the framework’s two triads of days do not convincingly treat the exegetical details of the narrative in Genesis 1:1–2:3, this does not mean that the creation narrative is not a stylized use of narrative. The author of Genesis used repetitive elements, such as “God said” (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29), “let there be” or an equivalent jussive (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26), “and there was” or “and it was so” (vv. 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30) “and there was evening and there was morning” (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31),150 to reflect a stylized use of Hebrew narrative. Framework supporters and their opponents, including recent creationists, have some level of agreement that the text has a number of repetitive elements that demonstrate a stylized narrative. For example, framework advocate, Meredith Kline, describes the style of narrative in this text as “semi-poetic.”151 Likewise, an opponent of the framework position, Edward J. Young,152 describes this text as having been “written in a semi-poetic language.”153 Opponents of the framework view who clearly affirm that Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a recent creation, such as J. Ligon Duncan and David W. Hall, also recognize that this passage is written in a stylized fashion.154 Likewise, Joseph A. Pipa acknowledges that this is “exalted prose.”155 Seventh-day Adventist scholar, Gerhard F. Hasel, has described Genesis 1:1–2:3 as “a historical prose-record, written in rhythmic style.”156 Consequently, both framework advocates and their opponents, including young earth creationists, can describe the literary style of this text as some form of stylized narrative, though each view the same material in two distinct ways.
Where framework proponents and their opponents diverge is how they interpret this stylized use of narrative. Kline qualifies his description of the creation account’s literary style with this: “The semipoetic style, however, should lead the exegete to anticipate the figurative strand in this genuinely historical record of the origins of the universe.”157 While calling the account a “genuinely historical record,” Kline uses a “semi-poetic style” to find more “figurative” elements in this account than what are normally found in narrative material.
In contrast, Young understands the stylized narrative differently: “Genesis one is written in exalted, semi-poetic language; nevertheless, it is not poetry.”158 Young’s use of “semi-poetic language” may reflect the general use of repetitive elements,159 but he clearly states that this text is “not poetry.” Duncan and Hall, while recognizing that the creation account has a stylized nature, resolutely claim that it “is written with many other markers typical of literal historical accounts. Moreover, it is consistently taken as historical throughout Scripture.”160 Pipa qualifies his use of “exalted prose” by his insistence that Genesis 1 is written in the same historical style as the remainder of the book of Genesis.161 And Hasel’s “rhythmic style” was clearly qualified as “a historical prose-record.”162 From a hermeneutical perspective, the framework’s “semi-poetic style,” or whatever similar descriptive category one of its proponents uses, wishfully provides framework interpreters a license to interpret key aspects of the text figuratively. From an opposite hermeneutical standpoint, an opponent of the framework view, Young, and young earth creationists interpret the text literally, just as they do the remainder of the historical material in the book of Genesis, while they recognize that this passage, by the use of repetitive textual details, is stylized.
“Evening” and “morning” are used in similar ways in other passages of the Pentateuch. One example is found in Exodus 27:21 . Moses instructed Aaron and his sons to keep the lamps in the Tabernacle burning all night until they were extinguished in the morning: “In the tent of meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall keep it in order from evening to morning before the LORD; it shall be a perpetual statute throughout their generations for the sons of Israel.” The night cycle of evening to morning is also reflected in the description of the Passover ritual in Deuteronomy 16:4 : “For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning.”182 These uses suggest that a literal use of “evening” and “morning” refer to the nighttime. As such, the alternation of “evening” and “morning” in Genesis 1 represents the nighttime portion that concludes a literal day and prepares for the next day.183 With this interpretation, each day of the creation week has an “evening-morning” conclusion. The use of waw consecutive with each clause containing evening (“and there was evening”) and morning (“and there was morning”) indicates that at the conclusion of a creation day, the next sequence was evening and this was followed by the next significant sequence, morning.
From the perspective of a literal interpretation, how are the repetitive elements of the creation account to be explained? As Moses sought to represent in written form the events from the creation account, the literary shape of his material was controlled by two necessary elements: the actual events that took place during the creation week and his divinely-given interpretation of the material. In the case of the creation account, God obviously gave direct revelation concerning the details of Genesis 1:1–2:3 to someone as early as Adam but no later than Moses, and Moses accurately preserved this in written form. That which actually happened during the creation week placed certain limitations on Moses’ use of this material, and his theological message controlled how he selected and arranged this material. As he shaped his material, repetition was a key element; however, he did not use repetitious elements either in a rigid manner or to undermine the historical substance of the creation account.184 The repetitious elements of the text relate to a general pattern that provides an outline for each day of divine creative activity. The focal point in this arrangement is the motifs of fiat and fulfillment.
However, both motifs are part of a structural pattern that includes a few other elements associated with each day of creative activity. For each day, God’s creative activity and its cessation are summarized by a fivefold structure: divine speech (“God said”), fiat (“let there be,” or an equivalent, such as “let the waters teem,” v. 20),185 fulfillment (“there was,” “it was so,” “God created,” etc.), evaluation (“God saw that it was good”),186 and twofold conclusion (“there was evening and there was morning,” the first day, etc.).187 With this structural arrangement, excluding the first day where vv. 1–2 provides God’s creative backdrop that initiates his first two creative activities that begin Day 1,188 each day of creative activity is begun with a waw consecutive, “God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר), and is concluded with two waw consecutives, “and there was evening [וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב] and there was morning [וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר” followed by a sequentially numbered day.
While this structural scheme highlights key activities for each day, the waw consecutive advances the events of each day sequence by sequence, and, after a concluding appositional phrase for each day containing a sequentially numbered day, it advances to the next day by introducing it with another waw consecutive, “God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר). With a literal interpretation of the creation narrative, the fivefold structural scheme is integrated with the use of waw consecutive. As we have previously noted, the main-line narrative in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is advanced by waw consecutive. Of the 55 uses of waw consecutive in this text, the majority of these move forward the sequences in the creation account. I have identified 46 waw consecutives as sequential, 8 as epexegetical, and 1 as consequential.
The use of waw consecutive is readily observable in a Hebrew text. Unfortunately, the same is not true with an English text. The chart [below] shows how each waw consecutive fits into one of three categories, classifying each of the 55 waw consecutives into a more precise subcategory.189 With this chart, I have adapted NASB’s translation and have focused on illustratively showing some basic information about the waw consecutive, rather than providing a functional translation. In identifying the 55 uses of waw consecutive, I have supplied an italicized “then” with the 46 constructions containing a sequentially arranged waw consecutive (abbreviated in the chart as Sequential WC), an em dash (“—”) for the 8 epexegetical uses (abbreviated Epexegetical WC) and an italicized “thus” for the only example of a consequential use (abbreviated Consequential WC).
Some observations about the various uses of waw consecutive are necessary. First, the main-line narrative does not begin until v. 3. This indicates that vv. 1–2 is an informing background for the development of the narrative line in Genesis 1:3–2:3. What this further suggests for an exegetical treatment of the text is that the historical narrative in the remainder of the account explains how an unformed and empty earth, as well as the heavens in v. 1, was purposefully and progressively formed and filled.190 Second, since the seventh day does not advance the sequence of creative activities, the waw consecutive that begins 2:1 summarizes and draws a consequence from Genesis 1. Third, we should not be surprised that there is only one sequential use of waw consecutive on the seventh day. After the text’s announcement that God ceased from his creative work, the sequence that follows is the pronouncement of God’s blessing on the seventh day. Fourth, the main-line narrative of the creation account is advanced by the 46 sequential uses of waw consecutive. Whatever else the many uses of this type of waw consecutive may reflect, we are dealing with historical narrative that is sequentially advanced. Thus, waw consecutive advances the main-line narrative of this account. Fifth, while the 8 epexegetical uses of waw consecutive may seemingly create a problem for my interpretation of the creation account, they are readily harmonized with the sequential material. Since most of the difficulty with the waw consecutive revolves around the epexegetical category, we need to consider the various epexegetical uses of waw consecutive.
The next two epexegetical uses of waw consecutive appear on Day 4 in vv. 16–17. These two epexegetical uses of waw consecutive are clearly epexegetical and are even used by framework proponents, such as Irons and Kline,195 to undermine a sequential understanding of any waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3. Using these two epexegetical waw consecutives in Genesis 1 to bolster the framework position, Irons and Kline argue that the activities of Day 4, represented by the seven uses of waw consecutive in vv. 14–19, are an example of dischronologization.196 This implies that first use of waw consecutive on Day 4, “then God said” (v. 14), is an example of temporal recapitulation, a pluperfect, that describes the same events as Day 1, but from a different perspective, as we have previously observed. This would also be true for the second use of waw consecutive on Day 4, “then it was so” (v. 15).197 In answer to the framework, however else v. 14, as well as v. 15, may be understood, the waw consecutive that begins this verse, “then God said” (וַיֹּאמֶר), cannot be an example of temporal recapitulation of Day 1. If there is any consistency to the main-line narrative sequence, as reflected by waw consecutive, and especially with the number of consistent uses of וַיֹּאמֶר (“then God said”), a pluperfect understanding of וַיֹּאמֶר, “God had said” (in recapitulation of the first day), in v. 14 has absolutely no warrant in the main-line narrative sequence of this account. Verses 14–15 are part of the general structure that we have already noted: divine speech (“then God said,” v. 14), fiat (“Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,” vv. 14–15), and fulfillment (“then it was so,” v. 15). Therefore, the waw consecutive in v. 14 is not an example of temporal recapitulation but is a normal, sequential use of waw consecutive.
In reality, the two epexegetical uses of waw consecutive in vv. 16– 17 appear after two sequential waw consecutives in vv. 14–15 and make the most exegetical sense when taken as having a supportive role for the preceding sequential waw consecutives in vv. 14–15. In reference to the first waw consecutive used at the beginning of v. 16 (“—God made the two great lights”), Irons and Kline insist that this waw consecutive cannot be used chronologically: “The waw-consecutive occurs in the very next verse: ‘And God made the two great lights’ (v. 16). If the waw-consecutive always denotes sequence, this statement would have to refer to an event chronologically subsequent to verses 14–15.”198 On the one hand, I can agree with Irons and Kline’s point that waw consecutive is not always used sequentially and that there are several examples in the creation narrative that are clearly nonsequential. As reflected by the preceding chart, not all the waw consecutives in the creation account are used sequentially. I calculated that 46 of the 55 waw consecutives (83.64%) are used sequentially, 8 (14.54%), epexegetically, and 1 (1.82%) consequentially.
On the other hand, I totally disagree with Irons and Kline’s conclusion: “Therefore, students of the Bible cannot appeal to the presence of the waw-consecutive in Genesis 1 as evidence for a strictly sequential reading.”199 Their conclusion is overstated. Why cannot students of the Bible appeal to the waw consecutive to defend a sequential reading? The 46 sequential uses of waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3 indicate that the main line of the narrative is advanced by this sequential construction. While there are 9 exceptions (16.36%) to the general sequential pattern of waw consecutive, these exceptions do not negate the general function of this grammatical construction. In fact, the general sequential use of the waw consecutive in 46 examples undoubtedly suggests a chronological reading of the text.
How, then, are the two epexegetical uses of the waw consecutive on Day 4 to be understood? In a similar way to v. 12, vv. 16–18 give detail to the fulfillment (“then it was so”) by providing more specific data and suggesting the immediacy of the fulfillment of the fiat. In keeping with the fiat of vv. 14–15, the epexegetical uses of waw consecutive at the beginning of v. 16 (“God said”) and the beginning of v. 17 (“God placed them”) specify the content of vv. 14–15. Verse 16 identifies the “lights” of v. 14 as the sun, moon, and stars, and vv. 17–18 specifies that these luminaries are placed in “the expanse of the heaven” and reiterates their threefold function stated in vv. 14–15.200 Rather than interpreting vv. 14–19 as a temporal recapitulation of Day 1, the general structural pattern of this creation day and the uses of waw consecutive reflect that it is a progression after Day 3, including two epexegetical uses of waw consecutive in vv. 16–17 that provide greater detail to the fiat and fulfillment sequence of vv. 14–15.
Two epexegetical uses are found on Day 6. The first one is in v. 25: “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind.” Like the epexegetical uses in vv. 12, 16, and 17, v. 25 explains the fulfillment motif (“then it was so”) of v. 24. With this explanation, v. 25 reiterates the fiat of v. 24 (“Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”). While the “earth” of v. 24 is the secondary source used in creating animal life, v. 25 places an emphasis on God as the ultimate source. The second epexegetical use of waw consecutive is found in v. 28: “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” This divine speech gives detail to the sequential waw consecutive that appears at the head of v. 28: “God blessed them.” The divine command for mankind to reproduce and to rule over the earthly kingdom explains the divine blessing on mankind.
Our examination of the 55 uses of waw consecutive has demonstrated that the main-line narrative of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is advanced by the 46 sequential uses of waw consecutive. With the cessation of God’s creative work at the conclusion of the sixth day, the lone use of a consequential waw consecutive is appropriately used as an introduction to Day 7 in 2:1. Each of the 5 epexegetical waw consecutives found on Days 3, 4, and 6 explain the divine fiat and fulfillment for each respective day. The final 3 waw consecutives used epexegetically on Day 7 explain either God’s cessation from creative work or his blessing on this day of rest. This analysis of the waw consecutive has an impact on interpreting Day 4 as an example of temporal recapitulation for Day 1. If there is any consistency to the uses of the waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3, the sequential waw consecutive that begins the fourth day in 1:14, “God said,” cannot be construed as some form of pluperfect waw consecutive, temporal recapitulation—a retrospective identification of Day 4 with Day 1. Furthermore, the epexegetical waw consecutive in 1:16 (“God made”) does not support Day 4 being construed as an example of temporal recapitulation with Day 1; rather, like the other epexegetical waw consecutives in the creation account, it explains the activities associated with the fiat and fulfillment of that specific day.
Therefore, my argument is that when the singular “day” is qualified by a sequential use of numbers, such as “first” through the “seventh,” and it is tethered to a clear context that has its main-line sequence advanced by the waw consecutive, this provides solid evidence that the context of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a sequential, literal narrative rather than a figurative framework. In short, the use of waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is an unambiguous example of sequential narrative literature supporting a literal creation week,210 in contrast to a figurative framework of a week that topically recounts select creation motifs.
This article is the first of two that are intended to provide a critique of the framework interpretation of the creation account. This article has summarized the framework position by developing four major propositions of the framework position followed by an evaluation of its first major proposition. In summarizing the framework view, this paper has presented these four theses along with supporting arguments: the figurative nature of the creation account, the creation account controlled by ordinary providence, the unending nature of the seventh day, and the two-register cosmology.
In evaluating the first thesis of the framework, I have demonstrated that a figurative interpretation arguing for a topical arrangement of the “days” of the creation “week” is incongruous with the exegetical details of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and undermines the literary nature of the creation account as a genuine historical narrative serving as a prologue for remainder of the Genesis narrative. In supporting our counter thesis, I have used three arguments. First, the fifty-five uses of waw consecutive in Genesis 1:1–2:3 identify this passage as an unequivocal narrative account.
Second, the use of sequentially numbered days in Scripture is regularly used to reference literal and distinct days. The Scriptural use of numeric qualifiers with the singular “day,” יוֹם, unequivocally testifies to the literal nature of each day in the creation narrative. In addition, the uses of “day” with numeric qualifiers that are sequentially arranged appear in two other Old Testament contexts. In both contexts, the days are sequentially arranged, allowing for no interruption between the numbered days. Not only do these contexts support a literal understanding of “day,” but they also demonstrate that each day is set apart from the other days in the numbered sequence. This also suggests that the days of Genesis 1:1–2:3 are sequentially arranged literal days and that each day of the creation week is distinct from the other days of the creation week. As such, Days 1 and 4 cannot be equated, and, furthermore, Day 4 of necessity must follow Day 1, with Days 2 and 3 separating both days. To buttress this distinction between Days 1 and 4, the textual differences between Days 1 and 4 indicated that the two days were distinct and that Day 4 presupposed Day 1.
Third, the stylized nature of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is congruent with a chronological understanding of a literal creation week. The stylized narrative of the creation account uses a literal week with six days of divine creative activity followed by the seventh day reflecting God’s delight in his work of creation along with his divine blessing on this literal day that concluded the first week in temporal history. As the author of Genesis shaped his historical material, two items controlled his shaping of the material: the actual events of the creation week and his God-given understanding of these events. With the arrangement of the material, the author used repetition, such as a fivefold structure that summarized each day of creative activity. Furthermore, with this structural scheme highlighting key activities for each day, the waw consecutive was used to sequentially advance the events of each day, and, after a closing appositional phrase with a sequentially enumerated day, it advanced to the next day by commencing it with another waw consecutive, “God said.” Therefore, when sequentially numbered, literal days are integrated with numerous sequential uses of waw consecutive that serve as the main-line sequence in a historical narrative, this provides reasonable evidence that Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a literal week.
These three arguments reasonably show that the first thesis of the framework interpretation is, at best, tenuous. However, the objective of this series will not be complete until we evaluate the final three theses in the subsequent article.
Dr. Robert V. McCabe is Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.
This article was originally published in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, vol. 10 (2005): 19–67. It is posted here with kind permission of the journal. The author made minor revisions to this article in January 2006.
See Terry Mortenson, The Great Turning Point (Green Forest, AR: Master Books 2004), pp. 27–40.
In this paper, I am using the expression “literal” day to refer to a normal, 24-hour day and “figurative” day to refer to a non-literal day.
Kline, Meredith G., Because It Had Not Rained, Westminster Theological Journal 20 (May 1958): 157.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 218.
For a summary and critique of Noordzij’s 1924 work, God’s Word en der Eeuwen Getuigenis, see Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1964), pp. 43–105.
Trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957).
Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48(March 1996): 2.
Pp. 145–57. See also his subsequent article, “Space and Time,” pp. 2–15.
These subsequent defenses have been written by the following: Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984); Mark D. Futato, Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5–7 with Implications for Gen 2:4–25 and Gen 1:1–2:3, Westminster Theological Journal 60 (Spring 1998): 1–21; Mark Ross, The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3, in Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), pp. 113–30; Irons and Kline, Framework View, pp. 217–56; W. Robert Godfrey, God’s Pattern for Creation (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003); and Mark A. Throntveit, Are the Events in the Genesis Creation Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No, in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Nelson, 1986), pp. 36–55. While not attempting to provide a full defense of the framework view, there are some evangelical commentators who provide support for this interpretation: Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 53–56; R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing, Preach the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), pp. 24–27; Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 56–58, 73–78; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), pp. 19, 39–40; and Ronald F. Youngblood, The Book of Genesis, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), pp. 24–33.
Meredith G. Kline, “Genesis,” in New Bible Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 82; see also Ross, “Framework Hypothesis,” p. 114.
John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1910), pp. 5–6; Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” pp. 227–28; Hamilton, Genesis, p. 119; Waltke, Genesis, p. 56; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, pp. 6–7.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 224.
Ibid., p. 224. For other examples of this type of chart, with slight variation, see Godfrey, God’s Pattern, p. 51; Throntveit, “Chronological Order,” p. 46; Waltke, Genesis, p. 57; and Youngblood, Genesis, p. 25.
Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 50.
Ridderbos, Genesis 1 and Natural Science, p. 32.
Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” p. 156.
Ross, “Framework Hypothesis,” p. 120; and Godfrey, God’s Pattern, pp. 40–41.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” pp. 229–30.
Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” pp. 149–51; Futato, “Because It Had Rained,” pp. 13–17.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 229.
Blocher In the Beginning; p. 50.
Kline “Because It Had Not Rained”; p. 156.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 240; Ross, “Framework Hypothesis,” p. 120.
Ridderbos, Genesis 1 and Natural Science, p. 30; Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 57; Waltke, Genesis, p. 77.
Ibid., p. 57; Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 10.
Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 52.
Ibid., p. 50. After acknowledging his agreement with Blocher about the genre of Gen 1:1–2:3, Waltke describes the “creation account as an artistic, literary representation of creation intended to fortify God’s covenant with creation. It represents truths about origins in anthropomorphic language so that the covenant community may have a proper worldview and be wise unto salvation” (Genesis, p. 78).
Blocher, In the Beginning, p 50.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 230.
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the 1995 edition of NASB.
Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” pp. 149–50. See also Futato, who provides more detail to Kline’s original argument on Gen 2:5–6 (“Because It Had Rained,” pp. 2–10). Because Futato’s article is predicated upon Kline’s original treatment, his article is intended to complement Kline’s. After providing more exegetical details to Gen 2:5–7, Futato uses these details to show their implications for reading Gen 2:4–25 and 1:1–2:3 and for their theological implications in Gen 1–2 (ibid., pp. 10–21).
Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 13.
Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” p. 152.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 234.
Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 10.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 245.
Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 56.
Kline, “Space and Time,” p 10.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 236.
Kline, “Space and Time”; p. 10.
The language of the text representing God’s creative activity that is beyond man’s comprehension has been referred to as anthropomorphic language, so Ridderbos, Genesis 1 and Natural Science, p. 30, and Waltke, Genesis, p. 77.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 239.
Not all advocates of the framework interpretation agree that Gen 1:1 refers to the absolute beginning of the heavens and earth. For example, Bruce Waltke takes Gen 1:1 as a summary statement (Genesis, pp. 58–59). However, Waltke’s defense of Gen 1:1 as a summary statement was not developed as an integral part of his defense of the framework view. He had earlier articulated this understanding of Gen 1:1 when he adhered to the “precreation chaos theory” (see his “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 [July–September 1975]: 216–28).
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 241.
Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 5.
When framework advocates maintain that the seventh day is God’s heavenly time of rest, they understand God’s rest as an example of him accommodating his revelation to serve as a model for finite man. To imply from this that God needed rest would be blasphemous (Godfrey, God’s Pattern, pp. 61–62). In keeping with the Creator-creation distinction, young earth creationists recognize that God of necessity is fundamentally distinct from any created object. Because of this fundamental distinction, God necessarily accommodated himself in his work of creation over six, normal days. In agreement with framework proponents, young earth creationists argue that it is blasphemous to think that God needed a rest from his creative work. However, young earth creationists insist that God’s rest must include his cessation from creative activity on the final, twenty-four hour day of the first week of creation’s history.
Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 6.
The chart is taken from ibid.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 243.
Kline, “Space and Time,” page 10.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 246.
M. Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 10.
Ross, “Framework Hypothesis,” p. 114.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 220; Ross, “Framework Hypothesis,” pp. 117–18; Godfrey, God’s Pattern, pp. 76–78, 111–24; Waltke, Genesis, pp. 69–71, 101–4.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 220.
See Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” p. 154; Futato, “Because It Had Rained,” p. 14; Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 224.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Literary Form in Genesis 1–11,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), pp. 59–60; and Gerhard F. Hasel, “The ‘Days’ of Creation in Genesis 1,” Origins 21 (1994): 19–21. Framework advocates also recognize this point. For example, see Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 32, and Hughes, Genesis, p. 26.
So also Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of ‘Progressive Creationism’ (Billions of Years), as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), pp. 94–95.
Young, Genesis One, pp. 82–83.
Unique to Hebrew are two narrative sequences: the waw consecutive attached to the imperfect form, a derivative of the archaic preterite (other titles are used in place of waw consecutive, such as waw conversive, waw inversive, relative waw), and the waw consecutive attached to the perfect aspect. The former is primarily used in narration associated with past time, as in Gen 1:1–2:3, and the latter in narration connected with future time (Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971], pp. 107–9). The waw consecutive verbal forms “are used primarily in narrative sequence to denote consecutive actions, that is, actions occurring in sequence” (Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], p. 192). For current discussions of this form, see Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 543–63; Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1998), pp. 94–99; Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 83– 87.
Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., trans. and rev. T. Muraoka (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993), 2:390, sec. 118c. See also Mark S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran, Harvard Semitic Studies 39 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 17–33; and Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 47–72.
Arnold and Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 84, sec. 3.5.1. For pedagogical purposes, Pratico and Van Pelt describe the waw consecutive when prefixed to an imperfect/preterite form as a “past tense narrative sequence” (Basics of Biblical Hebrew, p. 195, n. 3). From a text-linguistic perspective, Longacre describes the waw consecutive as “the backbone or storyline tense of Biblical Hebrew narrative discourse” (“Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation and Restatement,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992], p. 178).
I have derived these statistics about the uses of waw consecutive from Accordance 6.7 (OakTree Software, 2005), available at www.oaksoft.com.
John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1: Genesis 1:1– 25:18 (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2003), p. 39; so also Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., “From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Non-Literal Interpretations of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), p. 156.
The NIV translates the waw consecutive verb וַיִּצֶר, in Gen 2:19, as a pluperfect, “had formed.” In contrast to the NIV’s translation, most versions, NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NET Bible, render וַיִּצֶר as a past tense, “formed” (also followed by Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline, “The Framework Reply,” in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian [Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001], pp. 282–83). Since successive waw consecutives generally advance a narrative sequence, the translation of most versions may be understandable. Support for the past tense has been drawn from S. R. Driver (A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew [Oxford: Clarendon, 1892], pp. 84–89) and Randall Buth (“Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen [Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994], pp. 138–54). Written from a textlinguistic perspective, Buth argues that waw consecutive should be translated as a pluperfect when two conditions appear in a given context. First, lexical repetition or a specific reference may look back to a preceding event. Second, based “upon common cultural experience an event can be interpreted as giving a reason or otherwise commenting on the immediately previous event” (ibid., p. 147). From Gen 2, Buth uses וַיִּטַּע (“planted”) in v. 8 and וַיִּצֶר (“formed”) in v. 19 as a test case and argues that, since neither condition is present, both verbs should be summarily translated as past tense verbs (ibid., pp. 148–49). Building upon Buth’s textlinguistic analysis, C. John Collins provides a necessary corrective to Buth’s second condition, “common cultural experience.” Drawing from W. J. Martin (“‘Dischronologized’ Narrative in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume, Rome 1968, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 17 [Leiden: Brill, 1969], pp. 179–86) and David W. Baker (“The Consecutive non-Perfective in the Historical Books of the Hebrew Old Testament (Genesis–Kings)” [M.C.S. thesis, Regent College, 1973]), Collins demonstrates that Buth’s “common cultural experience” should be replaced with what Collins calls “the logic of the referent” (“The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” Tyndale Bulletin 46 [May 1995]: 128, especially n. 40). With “the logic of the referent,” the literary context establishes that the event represented by a waw consecutive verb “took place prior to the event presented by a previous verb” (ibid.). Collins effectively shows that the logic of the referent for the event summarized by וַיִּצֶר in Gen 2:19 is the literary environment of Gen 1:3–2:3 that has been clearly linked to Gen 2:4–25 by the chiastic arrangement of Gen 2:4 (ibid., pp. 138–39). If the author of Genesis intended 1:1–2:3 and 2:4– 25 be read as complementary accounts, this suggests that וַיִּצֶר in 2:19 be translated as a pluperfect, “had formed,” with the NIV (ibid., pp. 135–40). The translation of וַיִּצֶר as a pluperfect is consistent with a traditional reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 as an overview of each day in the creation week and 2:4–25 is an expansion of the sixth day of the creation week (so also Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” pp. 156–57; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (Pentateuch, 3 vols. in 1, trans. James Martin, in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. [reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 1:87–88; and H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols., reprint ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974], 1:130).
See Arnold and Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 84–85, sec. 3.5.1.
See Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” pp. 221–24, 228–30.
See Charles V. Taylor, “Syntax and Semantics in Genesis One,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11 (1997): 183–86.
For a discourse analysis that has a level of consistency with this argument, though allowing for variation, see Alviero Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), pp. 181–84. There are two items of Niccacci’s discourse analysis that allow for ambiguity. First, the background information of Gen 1:1–2 allows for either an old earth model or a young earth model. In my understanding, vv. 1–2 provide an informing background, the first two creative works of God on Day 1, from which God does the remainder of his creative work in the space of six, consecutive, literal days. However, in contrast to my use of Niccacci’s work, C. John Collins uses it to support his anthropomorphic days. According to Collins, the informing background represents an “unspecified length of time prior to the beginning of the first ‘day’” (“Reading Genesis 1:1–2:3 as an Act of Communication: Discourse Analysis and Literal Interpretation,” in Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall [Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999], p. 144; see also his comments on Niccacci’s discourse analysis on p. 134, n. 6). Collins’s interpretative remarks about the background information in Gen 1:1–2 certainly allow for an old earth model. Second, in contrast to Niccacci, who takes Gen 2:4 as a conclusion to Gen 1:1–2:3 (ibid., pp. 183–84), I am persuaded that Gen 2:4 serves as an introduction for the new generation that follows immediately after Gen 2:4. Since Gen 2:4 is introduced by אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת (“this is the account of”) and this same expression is consistently used 10 other times in Genesis (אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת is translated in various ways in NASB: “this is the account of,” “these are the books of,” “these are the generations of”) to introduce a new section of material, אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת should not be taken as a conclusion for preceding material of Gen 1:1–2:3 but as a heading for an account about the next generation that follows in Gen 2:5–4:26 (Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 158, and Young, Genesis One, pp. 59–61). These two items, therefore, reflect something of the subjective nature of discourse analysis. As far as hermeneutics are concerned, discourse analysis cannot bear the same weight in theological discussions as propositional revelation. In the history of orthodox theology, the perspicuity of Scripture has consistently been correlated with propositional revelation and the analogy of Scripture, and not discourse analysis.
A compound grammatical construction refers to the following items: the noun יוֹם as a part of a complex prepositional construction, יוֹם as a part of a longer prepositional construction which has a verbal immediately following it, יוֹם being a part of the multi-word construction known as the construct-genitive relationship, יוֹם as part of a formula, and יוֹם in a reduplicated construction (יוֹם יוֹם). For a more complete development of these types of grammatical constructions, see Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v. “יוֹם,” by M. Sæbø, 6:14–20 (hereafter cited as TDOT).
See my article, “A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (Fall 2000): 102.
These statistics are derived from Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “יוֹם” by E. Jenni, 2:526–27 (hereafter cited as TLOT).
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols., rev. W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000), 2:401 (hereafter cited as HALOT).
TDOT, s.v. “יוֹם,” 6:22–23. Robert E. Grossmann has correctly argued that days of the creation week are defined by Gen 1:5 , rather than as solar days based on Gen 1:14–19 . According to the Mosaic definition, a day is “the period of light-separated- from-darkness” and this “can only be taken in the sense of an ordinary ‘earthly day’; and it must apply throughout the days of creation” (“The Light He Called ‘Day,’” Mid-America Journal of Theology 3 : 9).
I have changed NASB’s translation of “one day” in 1:5 to “the first day.” The difference between these two options for translation relates to how אֶחָד is rendered. While אֶחָד is often translated as a cardinal number, it may also be translated as an ordinal, “first”; see HALOT, 1:30. The very nature of the progression of “second” through “seventh” supports אֶחָד being taken as an ordinal. The grammatical significance of this has been stated: “The indefinite noun plus אֶחָד has a definite sense in the opening chapter of Genesis: אֶחָד יוֹם ‘the first day’ (Gen 1:5)” (Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 274); so also Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p. 8, and see his discussion of this in his endnote 14, p. 353.
See James Stambaugh, “The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 5 (1991): 73.
See Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. “Reformed Theology and Six-Day Creation,” in Creation According to the Scriptures, ed. P. Andrew Sandlin (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Foundation, 2001), p. 53.
See Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), p. 58.
From a theological vantage point, the “two-register cosmology” of Irons and Kline has some level of merit in that it upholds the Creator-creation distinction. All of reality has two realms: the realm of the Creator and the realm of creation. This distinction is apparent in Gen 1:1, as Morton H. Smith has accurately observed: “The opening words of the Bible declare the fact that there is a two-layered view of reality. God is set forth as the self-existent, self-contained and self-sufficient Being who eternally existed prior to the creation of all else that exists. The phrase ‘heavens and earth’ is an all-encompassing phrase of all that exists besides God. Everything that exists outside of God is created. It is, therefore, created and dependent reality, while God is uncreated, self-contained Being” (“The Theological Significance of the Doctrine of Creation,” in Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall [Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999], p. 244). In contrast to the two-temporal aspect of their two-register cosmology, time begins with the creation of the “heavens and earth” in Gen 1:1 (see ibid., p. 245).
This type of syntagmatic relationship with יוֹם and numbers is consistently used for the numbers 1 through 1000 (so Hasel, “‘Days’ of Creation,” p. 26). An exception to this literal understanding is found in Zech 14:7, where אֶחָד יוֹם, “a unique day,” is apparently used with a non-literal sense of a “unique day” or a “continuous day.” While Zech 14:7 is problematic and presents some translation difficulties, as a comparison of different English translations indicates, it certainly cannot be used to undermine the great number of clear examples reflecting that a “day” when qualified by a number is a literal day (see Stambaugh, “The Days of Creation,” p. 75). While Zech 14:7 reflects that the use of a number with “day” is not absolute, the amount of clear examples supporting our argument is enormously lucid.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” page 242.
When I describe יוֹם as a “simple” noun, what I mean is that it is not part of a compound grammatical construction. For a more complete description of a compound grammatical construction, see above, n. 83.
See Sarna, Exodus, p. 154, and John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus, Volume 2: Exodus 19–40 (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2001), p. 143.
See Peter Enns, Exodus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), p. 494.
James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999), p. 62.
R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 2000), p. 141.
John C. Whitcomb, Jr., “The Science of Historical Geology in the Light of the Biblical Doctrine of a Mature Creation,” Westminster Theological Journal 36 (Fall 1973): 67.
Dave Bush, “Non-Literal Days in Genesis 1:1–2:4: Exegetical or Hypothetical?” in Creation According to the Scriptures, ed. P. Andrew Sandlin (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Foundation, 2001), pp. 96–97.
By examining Genesis 1–2 and every other biblical text that relates to the days of creation, J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall demonstrate that if there is any substance to the analogy of Scripture, the literal interpretation of the creation account is consistent with Scripture’s overall message on this subject (“24-Hour View,” in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian [Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001], pp. 25–47).
Kline, “Space and Time,” p. 8, and Futato, “Because It Had Rained,” pp. 14–17.
Godfrey, God’s Pattern, pp. 45–49.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 228.
Young, Genesis One, p. 96.
Andrew S. Kulikovsky, “A Critique of the Literary Framework View of the Days of Creation,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 37 (March 2001): 239.
These types of issues are not explicitly addressed by framework proponents, as is illustrated by Godfrey, God’s Pattern, pp. 31–32.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 302; so also Young, Genesis One, p. 67.
Jack Lewis, “The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32 (December 1989): 449.
Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour View,” p. 52.
John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Early Earth, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), p. 31.
Grossmann, “Light He Called ‘Day,’” pp. 10–11.
Kulikovsky, “A Critique of the Literary Framework,” p. 239.
Benjamin Shaw, “The Literal Day Interpretation,” in Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), p. 205; so also Jordan, Creation in Six Days, p. 66. Hamilton, a framework advocate, also recognizes this (Genesis, p. 121, n. 7).
Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 174.
Grossmann, “Light He Called ‘Day,’” p. 15.
A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part One—From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), p. 43.
Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 176; see also Noel Weeks, Sufficiency of Scripture (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1988), p. 105.
Young, Genesis One, p. 95.
See Kulikovsky, “A Critique of the Literary Framework,” p. 240.
For example, Hughes, Genesis, pp. 25–26.
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 37.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 227.
So Waltke, Genesis, p. 56, and Hamilton, Genesis, p. 117.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 240; so also Ross, “Framework Hypothesis,” p. 119; Godfrey, God’s Pattern, pp. 22–23.
So Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 238.
Young, Genesis One, p. 85.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 302.
Ibid.; Jordan, Creation in Six Days, p. 59.
“Because It Had Rained,” p. 14.
Grudem, Systematic Theology; p. 302.
So also Young, Genesis One, pp. 84–86; Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, “Day-Age Response,” in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), pp. 272– 73; Jordan, Creation in Six Days, p. 59.
See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 6.
“Because It Had Not Rained,” p. 156.
While Young was a staunch opponent of the framework position, he did not seem to recognize that the earth was a recent creation (see Collins, “Reading Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 145, n. 33).
“‘Days’ of Creation,” p. 20.
Genesis One, p. 82; so also Whitcomb, Early Earth, p. 78.
See Young, Genesis One, pp. 84–86.
Grossmann, “Light He Called ‘Day,’” p. 9.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” page 246.
See Young, Genesis One, pp. 3–7; Shaw, “Literal Day Interpretation,” pp. 201–3; and Gerhard F. Hasel, “Recent Translations of Genesis 1:1: A Critical Look,” The Bible Translator 22 (October 1971): 156–60.
See Bush, “Non-Literal Days in Genesis 1:1–2:4,” pp. 90–91; Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour View,” pp. 33–34; Weeks, Sufficiency of Scripture, pp. 114–15; and Whitcomb, “Biblical Doctrine of a Mature Creation,” p. 68.
These statistics are derived from Stambaugh, “Days of Creation,” p. 72; see also Abraham Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1985), pp. 451–59.
Terence E. Fretheim, “Were the Days of Creation Twenty-Four Hours Long? ‘Yes,’” in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Nelson, 1986), p. 19.
Hasel, “‘Days’ of Creation,” p. 28.
See Grossmann, “Light He Called ‘Day,’” pp. 23–25; and Sarna, Genesis, p. 8.
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, s.v. “בֹקֶר” by A. H. Konkel, 1:715 (hereafter cited as NIDOTTE).
See Cassuto, Genesis, p. 28.
David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 5 vols. to date (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994–), 2:252.
NIDOTTE, 1:711; see also TDOT, s.v. “בֹקֶר” by Ch. Barth, 2:222.
The words evening and morning in the two verses cited in this paragraph, are italicized for my own emphasis.
Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 184.
Inerrancy allows for literary shaping but never at the expense of the historical accuracy of the actual events, and it requires that the historical account set parameters on literary shaping.
The only exception to this evaluation (“God saw that it was good”) is the second day. In contrast to the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint contains an additional clause of evaluation in v. 8. This addition was apparently to harmonize all the days of the creation week, but it does not represent the reading of the original Hebrew text. The omission of this clause in the Hebrew text may indicate that the author saw the creation of the expanse on this day as an incomplete stage and would require the expanse to be filled with luminaries, on Day 4, as a finalization of divine activity in separating light from darkness (Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 176). Whatever the reason for the omission of this by Moses, we understand that this fivefold structure was intended only as a general arrangement.
With some qualification, Young follows this fivefold pattern (Studies in Genesis One, p. 84); this structural arrangement is also recognized by critical scholar Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), pp. 84–85. Duncan and Hall take this as sixfold pattern (“24-Hour View,” p. 32). Others have seen a sevenfold scheme; see Wenham, Genesis 1–15, pp. 17–19; see also the discussion in Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 53–54. While any of these arrangements needs some qualification, the fivefold structure appears to require less qualification with the text of Gen 1.
For a presentation of all the verbs in Genesis 1:1–31, not just the waw consecutives as my chart reflects, see Taylor’s chart in “Syntax and Semantics,” pp. 184–85.
See Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” pp. 188–89, and Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour View,” p. 28.
See my earlier discussion “Presence of a Key Narrative Device” and footnotes 73, 75, and 78.
See Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 547–54, sec. 33.2; and Arnold and Choi, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 84–87, sec. 3.5.1.
Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 551, sec. 32.2.2a.
Irons and Kline, “Framework Reply,” p. 283.
Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 222; see also Futato, “Because It Had Rained,” p. 14.
See Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 221.
Irons and Kline, “Framework Reply,” p. 283. The remarks by Irons and Kline were meant to counter the support used by Duncan and Hall for their assertion that “the creation of the sun on Day 4 does not prove the creation days to be nonliteral or nonconsequential” (“24-Hour Response,” p. 261). Duncan and Hall correctly support this assertion: “You simply cannot get away from sequence and extent of time if you pay attention to the language and grammar of Genesis 1: the numbered days, the refrain ‘evening and morning,’ and the use of the Hebrew waw-consecutive are decisive arguments against seeing the creation of the sun on Day 4 as exegetical ‘proof’”(ibid.).
The threefold function attributed to the luminaries appears to reflect a chiastic arrangement between vv. 14–15 and vv. 17–18 (Currid, Genesis, p. 76).
Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” p. 187.
Though there is not necessarily an immediate cause and effect relationship between the framework position and a denial of a universal flood in Noah’s day, it would seem that a nonliteral hermeneutic that undermines the creation account opens a door for other accommodations such as a local flood in Noah’s day, as recently seen in Paul H. Seely (“Noah’s Flood: Its Date, Extent, and Divine Accommodation,” Westminster Theological Journal 66 [Fall 2004]: 291–311, especially note pp. 303–11).
Creation and Change (Fearn, Great Britain: Mentor, 1997), p. 115; so also Young, Genesis One, pp. 65–66; Weeks, Sufficiency of Scripture, pp. 107–8; and Bush, “Non-Literal Days in Genesis 1:1–2:4,” pp. 97–99.
So Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour View,” p. 35; Pipa, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” pp. 182–86; and Hasel, “‘Days’ of Creation,” p. 20.
See Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour View,” pp. 29, 47–52.
Hasel, “‘Days’ of Creation,” pp. 21–31; so also Whitcomb, Early Earth, pp. 28–32; and Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour View,” p. 31.
While Irons and Kline do not explicitly deny the analogy of Scripture with their figurative interpretation of the temporal markers in the creation account, their dismissal of all the relevant Scripture supporting a literal interpretation may imply this: “Lexical research on the word yôm—giving statistics about the frequency of its literal usage, showing that when it occurs with a series of ordinals it always means a normal day, etc.—is irrelevant. It misses the basic point that the critical question is not the meaning of yôm but the nature (literal or metaphorical) of the total image of the week of days” (Irons and Kline, “Framework View,” p. 252). Can a word that is used as often as יוֹם in Scripture mean anything other than what it means elsewhere in Scripture? Furthermore, since the literal understanding of יוֹם as attested in the rest of Scripture can be coherently defended with a literal interpretation of the creation week, one must wonder whether the issue is “careful exegesis” or a worldview, at least in the area of cosmology, that has been unwittingly or wittingly influenced by the current culture of our age that is antithetical toward a literal interpretation of the creation account as well as minimizing the significance of this doctrine in the history of Protestant theology.
The essence of this argument is made by Duncan and Hall, “24-Hour Response,” p. 261. Cavalierly, Irons and Kline gloss over this argument (“Framework Reply,” p. 282).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.