The creation account in Genesis 1 reveals the Creator, who demonstrates power in creating the universe, wisdom in ordering life on earth, and love in caring for the people He created. While many interpretations of the creation account are literal, others, like the framework hypothesis, are symbolic. Accordingly, the framework hypothesis suggests that Genesis 1 isn’t a chronological account of creation; rather, it is a carefully arranged poetic description intended to convey theological truths rather than scientific details.

Notably, the framework hypothesis dismisses the interpretation that the term day in the creation account describes a specific length of time (Genesis 1:5, 6, 13, 19, 23, 31). This differentiates it from other views, such as young earth creationism, which interprets day as a 24-hour period, and old earth creationism, which views the term as symbolizing longer epochs spanning billions of years. The framework interpretation is based on how certain events in Days 1—3 correspond to acts in Days 4—6. Proponents of the framework view propose that the corresponding descriptions serve a literary purpose rather than a historical or scientific one, emphasizing the theological principles reflected in the organization of creation.

In the framework hypothesis, Days 1—3 are described as “forming,” reflecting God’s creation of the earth’s realms. Days 4—6 are described as “filling,” referring to the entities God created to inhabit those realms. For example, God’s creation of the sky is a “forming” act, as He made the atmosphere above the land and sea. His creation of birds is a “filling” act, as they are the life forms that fill the realm of the sky. Advocates of the framework hypothesis emphasize the significance of this pattern in the creation account.

Specifically, the forming of light on Day 1 (Genesis 1:3–5) is preparation for the filling of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 (Genesis 1:14–19). The forming of the sea and sky on Day 2 (Genesis 1:6–8) is preparation for the filling of the birds and fish on Day 5 (Genesis 1:20–23). The forming of land and vegetation on Day 3 (Genesis 1:11–13) is preparation for the filling of animals and humans on Day 6 (Genesis 1:24–31). Finally, since God rested on Day 7, no forming or filling acts occurred.

There are three main criticisms of the framework hypothesis. First, the forming-and-filling correspondence is inconsistent. For example, the relationship between the light that God made on Day 1 and the stars, moon, and sun He made on Day 4 does not fully align with the hypothesis, as these celestial bodies do not “fill” the “form” of light. Another critique is that Day 3 includes both forming and filling acts, as God creates land and the vegetation that grows on it.

Second, many scholars point out that there are clear indicators suggesting that day in the passage does not have a symbolic meaning, as each day is described as being “evening and morning” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31). Furthermore, the word day is described in relation to the sun (Genesis 1:14), indicating a more literal interpretation. Additionally, in the writings of Moses, whenever day is used with a numerical adjective, such as in the phrase first day, it consistently refers to a literal, 24-hour period. Finally, the establishment of every seventh day as a day of rest suggests that the original recipients of Genesis interpreted day in the creation account as a literal, 24-hour period.

The third criticism of the framework hypothesis is based on its reading of the passage as Hebrew poetry. Genesis 1 does not display the major characteristic of Hebrew poetry, namely, the parallelism such as is found in Psalms and Proverbs. For instance, Psalm 19:1 contains two clauses that match up in a one-to-one equivalency: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (ESV). The so-called forming and filling acts of Genesis 1 do not display that type of synonymous parallelism. Other common types of literary parallelism in Hebrew poetry are antithetic parallelism (e.g., Psalm 1:6), synthetic parallelism (e.g., Psalm 93:5), emblematic parallelism (e.g., Psalm 42:1), and climactic parallelism (e.g., Psalm 29:1). None of these appear in the creation account. Moreover, prominent advocates of the framework hypothesis, like Meredith Kline, interpret Genesis 2 as historical, even though there is no change in literary genre between chapters 1 and 2.

In summary, the framework hypothesis lacks support within the creation account. It also contradicts the way the ancient Israelites interpreted the passage (Exodus 20:11) and is inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching on Genesis 1 (e.g., Matthew 19:4–5; Mark 10:6). Furthermore, some leading proponents of the framework hypothesis, like Kline, have expressed openness to Darwinian evolution. This raises the question of whether their interpretation of the creation account is an accommodation to that secular theory.