Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/Sermons/zz20041226.htm

ANSWERING OTHERS WITH REASONS FOR OUR FAITH
Part V: Answering The Framework Theory From The Hebrew Bible
(Genesis 1:1-2:9)

Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

(1) Though we teach the Bible does not allow any room for evolutionary processes in God's creation of the universe, some Evangelical scholars hold the Hebrew text at Genesis 1 allows for the Framework Theory that makes room for God to have used evolution:

(a) Around 1950, Meredith G. Kline, professor at the Westminster Theological Seminary started to teach the "Framework Theory" that had been held by Liberal Theology scholars since 1850. It asserts some passages of Scripture once thought to be Hebrew prose are actually poetic, and that Genesis 1 is such a passage. Thus, Genesis 1 is alleged to be a series of poetic snapshots of events rather than a chronological record of history as we now know it. These snapshots allegedly describe events that could have covered great eras of time when evolution might have occurred! (Rev. Frank H. Walker, "The Framework Hypothesis," Reformed Herald, February 1998, p. 1-2)

(b) One of my former Dallas Seminary professors, Bruce K. Waltke who now teaches at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida published the book, Genesis: A Commentary in 2001 that suggests "a type of literary framework view" according to a review by Andrew S. Kulikovsky of the Answers In Genesis ministry; Kulikovsky claims Waltke claims Genesis 1-2 is "a 'dischronologized' literary account rather than a strictly historical account. The narrator's concern is theological rather than historical . . . Genesis 1 is not a record of human history . . . it cannot be seen as 'straightforward or positivistic history' (pp. 75-76)." (Answers in Genesis Technical Journal, v. 16, issue 2, "Disappointing Discourse.")

(2) However, as we before learned in this sermon series, if God used evolution to create in Genesis 1, then death existed before Adam, for evolution's "survival of the fittest" process requires death to exist prior to man's creation on the sixth "day". If death existed before Adam, Christ's atonement does not give victory over physical death, and believers who have physically died will not physically be raised!

Accordingly, HOW can we KNOW just HOW to ANSWER even a FELLOW EVANGELICAL BELIEVER who asks us WHY we believe in PURE CREATION when SAVED, REPUTABLE, EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS hold the original Hebrew text at Genesis 1-2 CAN make room for evolution to have occurred?!

(We turn to the sermon "Need" section . . . )

Need: "As SOME key Evangelical SCHOLARS present Genesis 1 in some form of the Framework Theory that is based on handling Genesis 1 as POETRY, and as this theory allows for evolution, how can WE at OUR level of knowledge still stand for pure creation?!"
  1. Even by Liberal Theology standards, the Framework Theory is HISTORICALLY PROBLEMATIC: its UNDERLYING BASE that Genesis 1 is POETRY was MARKEDLY COUNTERED by a noted Liberal scholar when this THEORY FIRST AROSE!
    1. Though adopting Liberalism's errant Documentary Hypothesis, George Buchanan Gray wrote, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry in 1915 in part to critique initial claims by fellow Liberal Theology scholars that Genesis 1 was poetry, Ibid., 1972 ed., p. 216; p. vii-xlvi.
    2. Now, Gray was a noted scholar, being the Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis in Mansfield College and Speaker's Lecturer in Biblical Studies at the University of Oxford (Ibid., title page).
  2. Gray's argument was based on the grammar and form of Genesis 1:
    1. [To clarify his argument, we explain Gray's "waw conversive" term:
      1. In Hebrew, the letter, "waw" that is like the end of a parenthesis [")"], is prefixed to some words to signify various kinds of clauses.
      2. One such use Gray termed the "waw conversive", what we now call the "waw consecutive"; it signals the presence of "one continuous narration", Weingreen, Pract ical Gram. for Classical Hebr., p. 90f.]
    2. Well, Gray claimed the use of the "waw conversive" [i.e., the waw consecutive] in Genesis 1 meant " . . . with the exception of verse 2, which describes the conditions existing at the time of the creative act mentioned in verse 1, the narrative runs on in a single continuous line down to verse 26," Ibid., Gray, p. 52 (emphases ours). This line consists of a "line of successive events " (Ibid., emph. ours) and is different from verses found in Hebrew poetry at Ps. 33:6, 7, 9, Isa. 45:12 or Pr. 8:24-29 where portrayals of creation are given in "independent clauses or sentences, so that they must be represented by lines constantly broken . . . at fairly regular intervals . . .", Ibid., p. 54
    3. We thus can see that Gray held Genesis 1:1-26 to describe God's creative acts on days 1 up to 6 as successive, historical events !
    4. Now, Genesis 1:27-28 interrupts the use of the "waw consecutive" [Kittel, Bib. Heb., p. 2] to highlight God's creation of man; yet, this interruption can not make room for evolution, for the 1st woman came from the 1st man's rib, so humans did not evolve, Gen. 2: 21-22!
    5. Gray also critiqued Sievers' editing of Genesis 1 to make it poetry:
      1. Gray noted "the vocalisation [sic] on which they [the proposed poetic stanzas] depend is . . . hypothetical", Ibid., Gray, p. 212.
      2. He also objected to the great number of hypothetical corrections Severs made on Genesis 1 to have its text fit his theory, Ibid.
      3. Gray wrote that for his theory to work at Genesis 1, Sievers had to create his own "non-stop" lines [where he makes a verb end on one line and its accusative start on the next line] and "enjambed clauses" [where he removes usual breaks or causes poetic lines with full-stops to appear at in-line breaks or where he leaves no stop when they appear at the end of the original line!], Ibid., 212f.
      4. Gray claimed Sievers knew his theory did not apply well at Gen. 1, noting: "Sievers expressly states that his analysis of this particular chapter is . . . uncertain and tentative . . . ", Ibid., p. 211.
  3. So, if Evangelical scholars adopt a form of the Framework Theory, they do so at GREAT COST to their CREDIBILITY, for the BASE of that stance is a theory that is HISTORICALLY PROBLEMATIC EVEN in LIBERAL THEOLOGY circles in that it was countered by a NOTABLE LIBERAL SCHOLAR on BASIC grammatical and literary format grounds when the theory FIRST APPEARED!
  4. Ultimately, the Framework Theory is countered by Scripture:
    1. Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:12-17 teach the solar week's Sabbath rest is patterned after the Genesis 1-2 seventh day rest, implying Genesis 1-2 records God's creation of the universe within one solar week.
    2. Also, Genesis 1:14-19 reveals on day 4, God made the heavenly bodies for man to keep time as we now know it [in terms of seasons, days, and years]; since these periods existed from day 4 on, and since there is no difference in the words used to describe such periods from those used for "days" 1-3, God made the universe in a solar week!
Application: (1) Be sure that Genesis 1 does not allow for the Framework Theory that gives room for theistic evolution; (2) Thus, trust in Christ as Savior to be saved not only from eternal, but also from PHYSICAL death, (3) and confidently HOLD to these truths!

Lesson: (1) We need not depart from belief in special creation even if key Evangelical scholars adopt the Framework Theory; EVEN a noted Liberal Theology scholar, on the grounds of Hebrew grammar and literary form OPPOSED the BASIS for this Theory when it FIRST arose; (2) besides Scripture affirms God made the universe within a solar week!

Conclusion: (To illustrate the sermon lesson . . . )

 One of the stands taken by promoters of the Framework Theory is that the sun and daylight were created at the same time and not daylight on day one and the sun on day four as the simple reading of Genesis 1:3-19 implies! The sun is an instrument used to measure "days" according to Genesis 1:14, so the promoters of the Framework Theory hold there was no possible way to measure the first three days of time UNLESS one concludes the events of days one and four belong together as a poetic couplet, a couplet where the creation of daylight and the sun occurred together! (Ibid., Rev. Frank H. Walker, p. 1-2)

However, from God's perspective, it is not necessary for the existence of daylight and night depend upon the existence of the sun, for God could make daylight function independent of the sun. Indeed, He did just that in Exodus 10:21-23: God there judged the Egyptians to be smitten with "thick" (KJV) darkness for three consecutive solar days while allowing Israel to have regular daylight. God did this expressly to critique the worship of Egypt's sun god, Ra (Ex. 12:12; 18:11; Num. 33:4; Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, p. 119-120.

If God could make daylight and darkness function independent of the sun in regular human history when Israel was in bondage to ancient Egypt, it is not necessary for us to demand the first and fourth days of Genesis 1 to be poetic snapshots of what occurred at the same time in some "non-straightforward, non-positivistic" record as supporters of a form of the Framework Theory!



Let us trust the straightforward narrative of Genesis 1 in light of regular Hebrew grammar and literary form, and let us trust what God implied happened by His patterning the Sabbath solar Day rest after that Genesis creation: GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE IN SIX CONSECUTIVE SOLAR DAYS AND RESTED ON THE NEXT DAY, THE SEVENTH DAY!



May we thus trust in the truth that God created by way of pure creation SO THAT, for trusting in Christ as Savior from sin and death, we have God's promise of VICTORY over PHYSICAL DEATH!