The Framework Hypothesis—Another Compromised View
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, August 8, 2025 (Donate)
With the bombardment of the idea of “millions of years” in
the 1800s and 1900s, many Christians didn’t know what to do with it. Some
Christians (e.g., Scriptural geologists) fought against it and recognized that
rock layers were largely from the Flood of Noah as opposed to slow gradual accumulations
over millions of years. Good for them—they had it right!
However, a number of leading theologians decided to mix this
origins story with the Bible (this is called syncretism or compromise).
So, they decided to put millions of years of rock layers into Genesis 1 before
Adam and deleted a global flood to a little local Flood. They knew they couldn’t
fit millions of years between Adam and Christ.
One popular view was gap theory (Thomas Chalmers),
another was day-age/progressive creation[1]
(Hugh Miller) and another theistic evolution (Asa Gray). In this article,
I want to discuss another compromised view that showed up later than these
other three and is a little less known—Framework Hypothesis.
The Framework Hypothesis was developed largely by
Meredith Kline in the late 1950s. Since then, it is a view held by some
theologians and scholars who attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account
with long-age or evolutionary interpretations of origins.
According to the Framework Hypothesis model, the six days of
creation in Genesis 1 are not meant to be understood as literal, chronological
24-hour days. Instead, they are viewed as a literary framework or poetic
structure that conveys theological truth, but not historical or scientific
fact. This interpretation often divides the creation week into two triads of
days:
- Days
1–3: Formation (light and darkness, sky and sea, land, and vegetation)
- Days
4–6: Filling (sun, moon, stars; birds and sea creatures; land animals and
man)
Proponents argue that this literary parallelism is meant to
be symbolic rather than literal history. And with this, they then argue that evolutionary
origins are perfectly acceptable. Thus, it is simply a model to reject the plain
and straightforward reading of Genesis 1 to try to justify accepting an evolutionary
worldview with millions and billions of years of earth history before Adam and
Eve.
Why Reject The Framework Hypothesis? The Framework Hypothesis should be rejected for several biblical, theological, and hermeneutical reasons.
It Undermines The Authority of Scripture
The plain reading of Genesis 1 indicates God created
everything in six literal, consecutive 24-hour days. This is supported by the
repeated phrase: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first
day,” etc. as well as subsequent passages like Exodus 20:11 and Exodus
31:17. The grammar and structure are written as a literal historical narrative,
not poetry.
The Framework Hypothesis, by treating the text as figurative
or literary, undermines the authority and clarity of the Bible. Furthermore, it
elevates autonomous human interpretations and external ideas like secular humanistic
interpretations of origins above the plain meaning of the text.
Lack of Church Support Historically
Just as powerful is that no subsequent Bible author, church
father, or reformer ever held to the Framework Hypothesis. The whole reason the
Framework idea was developed was to mix the secular religion with a Christian
worldview by reinterpreting Genesis for an evolutionary worldview.
The lack of support from later Bible authors should be a
noted and highlighted. Proper interpretation uses Scripture to interpret
Scripture. Yet, Bible authors repeatedly held to Genesis as literal narrative,
not a poetic view for an evolutionary origins account.
Framework Hypothesis Contradicts The Biblical Definition Of
A Day
Genesis 1 clearly defines a “day” as an evening and a
morning. The Hebrew word for day (yom) when combined with a number and
the phrase “evening and morning,” always refers to a normal, literal day in Old
Testament usage.
The Framework view disregards these contextual clues and
reinterprets them based on modern secular assumptions rather than biblical
ones. That should be a big red flag.
Framework Hypothesis Disconnects Genesis From The Rest Of
Scripture
Genesis 1 is foundational to the rest of Genesis. Genesis is
foundational to the rest of the Bible. So, Genesis 1 had better be interpreted
correctly. Other parts of Scripture treat the creation account as historical
truth. For example:
- Exodus
20:11 (part of the Ten Commandments) says (NKJV): For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. This command is based on the literal pattern
of God's creative work.
- Jesus
in Mark 10:6 references the creation of male and female as
occurring “from the beginning of creation,” not after billions of years.
The Framework Hypothesis would require that these references
are also metaphorical or mistaken, which creates more theological problems (e.g.,
violated the concept of a week) and greatly undermines the reliability of Scripture. Consider
a major theological problem in the next section
Death Before Sin
The Framework Hypothesis has a firm belief in an old earth
and evolutionary processes, both of which require death, suffering, and disease for millions of years before man appeared. This contradicts the biblical
teaching that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Genesis 1:29-31
coupled with the curse in Genesis 3, Deuteronomy 32:4, Romans 5:12 [human
death] and Romans 8).
If animals and humans were dying for ages before the Fall,
the gospel's foundation is compromised because death and suffering would be
labeled very good and perfect (Genesis 1:31, Deuteronomy 32:4). Are
we to believe that death and suffering—the punishment for sin—is actually good,
wonderful, and perfect instead? No. Thus, death could not enter into creation
until after sin—death is a repercussion and punishment for sin. This is why we
have a sin-death problem that Christ needed to solve through His death, burial,
and resurrection.
Framework Hypothesis Reflects Compromise With Secular
Thinking
The Framework Hypothesis as an attempt to accommodate
secular views of origins, particularly those involving deep time and evolution.
Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret itself, this hypothesis imposes
extra-biblical ideas onto the text.
Christians must begin with the Bible as their supreme authority,
not reinterpret it to fit current secular models or cultural pressures. Secular
humanism is a false religion and there is no reason for Christians to succumb
to that religion and mix it with their Christianity.
Conclusion
The Framework Hypothesis is an unbiblical compromise that
undermines the authority, clarity, and even the foundation of the gospel of
Jesus Christ.
By denying the literal, historical nature of the creation week, it introduces confusion, misrepresents God’s Word, and opens the door to further reinterpretations of Scripture based on human reasoning rather than Christ’s revelation. It is not too hard for an all-powerful God to create the universe in six literal 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago, as plainly revealed in Genesis 1.
Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist
since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website.
He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker,
writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers
News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.
Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in
2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a
501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in
churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.
[1]
Progressive creation is a later variation of day-age.
