Anything but that

I'm going to make a few comments about the framework hypothesis. I'm going to discuss this from a sociological standpoint.

I think the popularity of the framework hypothesis in Reformed circles is obviously parochial and even chauvinistic. It's popular in Reformed circles because it was popularized by an influential Reformed OT prof. If the framework hypothesis had been devised by, say, a Lutheran seminary prof., I seriously doubt it would have the same cachet in Reformed circles. In that respect, the appeal of the framework hypothesis is somewhat provincial and cliquish. A sectarian in-house affair.

Now, some of you might say it's unfair to judge the framework hypothesis on that basis. I agree. I think we ought to judge the framework hypothesis on the merits. However, we also need to be on the alert to our motives. There's a natural tendency, to which we're all prone, to favor our own kind. We need to guard against that. 

For the record, I believe that Meredith Kline introduced the framework hypothesis into Reformed discussion when he was teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary while E. J. Young was on sabbatical. Kline took over Young's course load. After Young returned, he was displeased with the framework hypothesis, and wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal critiquing it, which was later republished in Studies in Genesis One, chap. 3. BTW, if you want to evaluate the framework hypothesis on the merits, Young's critique is a good place to start.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting there was anything devious about Kline seizing the opportunity to plug his own interpretation while Young was away. I'm just giving a bit of historical background which some folks might find interesting. 

Kline taught about three generations of Reformed seminarians, converting some of them to his position, including some who became seminary profs. in their own right. It remains to be seen how much staying power the framework hypothesis will have after Kline retired, died, and his proteges retire. If I were a betting man, I'm guessing that the cosmic temple interpretation will overtake and displace the framework hypothesis as the "literary" interpretation of choice. 

There are elders in Reformed denominations who think the calendar-day interpretation of Gen 1 is scientifically indefensible. As such, they are on the look-out for an alternative interpretation. In a sense, it doesn't matter what the alternative is. Anything but the calendar-day interpretation. E. J. Young was a day-age proponent.

More recently, the anological-day theory is gaining some traction in Reformed circles. Once again, I think this is popular in large part because it is promoted by a Reformed seminary prof. 

I expect the framework hypothesis will begin to lose ground in part because it's old hat by now. I also think it will begin to lose ground because the generation that sponsored it is on the way out.

The popularity of the cosmic temple interpretation is due in part to the fact that it's a newer approach that hasn't been exhausted. It's happy hunting ground for many scholarly monographs. 

I think the temple interpretation illuminates some features in Gen 1-2. But like any interpretive paradigm, it has limited explanatory power. It's a mistake to treat the cosmic temple interpretation as a master key to unlock the "hidden secrets" of Gen 1-2. I don't think the significance of Gen 1-2 is reducible to a single interpretive principle.

Let's take a comparison: Some scholars interpret Gen 1 as a polemic against pagan creation stories. An oft-cited example is the refusal of the narrator to name the sun, moon, and stars on the Fourth Day. That's because their names were names of pagan solar and lunar deities. By contrast, the narrator is demoting the celestial luminaries to mere inanimate creatures.

And I think that explanation is valid as far as it goes. But surely that's not the only reason or primary reason that Gen 1 describes the creation of celestial luminaries. Rather, the text describes their creation because this is a global creation account. The purpose is to inform the reader about how certain natural phenomena that are fundamental and familiar to the humans came into being. There's a corrective aspect to that exercise, but it's not purely reactionary.