Framework
April 23, 2009
From Lee Irons' "Exegetical Summary of the Framework Hypothesis" (The complete text can be found at http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html)
"The framework interpretation agrees with the 24-hour view that at the literal level Gen. 1 speaks of ordinary solar days. In fact it is even more consistently literal since it insists on this meaning even for the first three days. What sets the framework interpretation apart is its claim that the total picture of the creation week is figurative. The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week in which the divine craftsman goes about His creative toil for six days and finally rests from and in His completed work on the seventh. To insist on taking this picture literally is to miss the profound theological point - that the creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of God Himself in incorruptible glory."
There's a lot of exegesis that needs to be done on this exegesis, but in response to a comment on the last post, here's an example of a Framework Hypothesis advocate denying the historicity of the creation account.
"The framework interpretation agrees with the 24-hour view that at the literal level Gen. 1 speaks of ordinary solar days. In fact it is even more consistently literal since it insists on this meaning even for the first three days. What sets the framework interpretation apart is its claim that the total picture of the creation week is figurative. The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week in which the divine craftsman goes about His creative toil for six days and finally rests from and in His completed work on the seventh. To insist on taking this picture literally is to miss the profound theological point - that the creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of God Himself in incorruptible glory."
There's a lot of exegesis that needs to be done on this exegesis, but in response to a comment on the last post, here's an example of a Framework Hypothesis advocate denying the historicity of the creation account.
chris Coleman says:
April 23, 2009 @ 17:56 — Reply
Where in Lee's comments does he deny the historicity of the creation account? He says the "creation HISTORY is figuratively presented as a ordinary week..." Note, he never denies the historicity of Genesis 1, he simply doesn't take it as seven literal days. There is a huge difference between denying the historicity of Genesis 1 and saying that the Creation "week" is literal. I just don't think you are representing Lee's position (Framework) accurately.
Jim says:
April 23, 2009 @ 22:01 — Reply
A brief historical account: During the Second World War, it's estimated that some 5.9 million Jews were slaughtered, along with large numbers of Soviet prisoners of war, Poles, Gypsies, disabled people, Freemasons, Homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. My 'Framework Hypothesis' concerning the Holocaust: I believe that these numbers are presented to give us insight into the bigger picture. At a literal level, the historical account above speaks of 5.9 million real, flesh-and-blood human beings. This cannot be disputed. However, I believe that the total picture of the historical account above is figurative. The number of Jewish deaths is figuratively presented as 5.9 million, which, when rounded upwards, is six million (the commonly used number when the subject of the Holocaust is discussed on an informal level). Six is the number of man, and the addition of the 'million' to the number six indicates that this is a complete picture of humanity as personified in the Jewish ethnic group and other groups that were targeted by the Nazis. The historical account above is figuratively presented as the killing of 5.9 million Jews, in which this number of people was killed, after which the Germans lost the war. To insist on reading the above historical account literally is to miss the profound philosophical point – that the Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, Freemasons, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses have been oppressed, and their oppression represents the oppression throughout history of certain groups. Am I denying the historicity of the Holocaust?
John says:
April 23, 2009 @ 22:02 — Reply
Chris, you ask: "Where in Lee's commends does he deny the historicity of the creation account?" Perhaps what Jim means by "historicity" is not what you (or Irons) have in mind, but here's what I at least noticed. Irons writes: "What sets the framework interpretation apart is its claim that the total picture of the creation week is figurative. The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week in which the divine craftsman goes about His creative toil for six days and finally rests from and in His completed work on the seventh." Note the word "figurative(ly)": whatever actually occurred (in history) did not take place during an ordinary week. It is only figuratively presented as if it took place during an ordinary week. Sure, Irons believes something here in Genesis 1 is "history." What he doesn't believe is historical is the process lasting six days and culminating in the seventh. And since that's what Genesis 1 says happened, for Irons to say that the seven-day-process is only figurative is to deny the historicity of Genesis 1. That is, it is to deny that what Genesis 1 says happened really did happen in time and history, in the chronological order in which it is presented.
Stuart says:
April 24, 2009 @ 07:28 — Reply
What gets me is that people seem to like separating the history from the theology, as if God could not order history to his will in order to, using literal history, reveal something about himself and his working in the world. He did it with Joseph, whose life is a type of the Christ (is Joseph then figurative and not literal?), he did it with Jonah's three days in the whale being a preview of Jesus' three days in the belly of the earth (is Jonah then not literal history?). Why must we separate theology from history if we believe in an all-powerful God who works in and through history?
Chris Coleman says:
April 24, 2009 @ 09:30 — Reply
Jim- There is a difference between the genre of human history and redemptive history. Redemptive history, as presented in the OT and NT is intentionally Theological (which I don't think you would deny, as your earlier post makes clear). We both agree that Genesis 1 is about God, to read it any other way would do injustice to the text. So, in some real sense Gen 1 is theological. Your example is human history and not divinely inspired history, there is no necessary "theology" in your example. They are two different genres. Even so, would it not be incorrect NOT to learn from the Holocaust? Would we not do injustice to the victims if we did not learn from this atrocity? We can certainly say that it shows us the utter wretchedness of man (at least). So, we have to interpret history, we must learn from the past. It's not merely facts. (So, I don't think your analogy applies to Gen 1) Just because we can learn from history, doesn't mean that we deny the historical facts. John- You again assume that figurative is synonymous with unhistorical. Why does "non-chronological" or denying an "ordinary week" mean unhistorical? This just seems like rhetoric to me. Just because Framework denies that creation took place in an "ordinary week" doesn't mean that it's unhistorical, just because Framework denies the chronological order of Gen 1 doesn't make it unhistorical. (Note: You also assume that "day" in Gen 1 means a 24 hour period. How do you understand "day" in Gen 2:4? Does that refer strictly to a 24 hour period? "Day" (yom) does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period, throughout the OT it is used to refer to a myriad amount of time periods.) Stuart- I agree, we should not and can not divorce history and theology. I think we all agree on that: Gen 1 (and indeed all of scripture) is both historical and theological. Again, this is because Redemptive History, as presented in the OT and NT, is ultimately focused on the central character: the Triune God!