PMW-2021-002 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
As I have been noting in this series: creation and consummation are theologically-linked in Scripture. Therefore, a proper view of creation is significant for the eschatological argument for postmillennialism. Simply put: if you do not begin right, you will not end right. Therefore, when I present a full argument for postmillennialism, I begin with creation.
Not only am I a postmillennialist, but I am also a Six-day Creationist, hence a non-evolutionist.
In this series I am defending Six-day Creation against the Framework Hypothesis by demonstrating the Framework’s errors. This hypothesis is as a major evangelical opponent of Six-day Creation, and not surprisingly, is held mainly by amillennialists.
I am drawing the material for this series from my recently released book, As It Is Written: The Genesis Account: Literal or Literary? In that book you will find a thorough analysis of the issues that I can only summarize here. In the previous article I highlighted the triad of days argument which gives the “Framework” Hypothesis its name: the triad presents the framework that Moses used for presenting the fact of creation. In this article I will present a second major argument for this theistic-evolutionary interpretation of Genesis 1–2.
The providence argument
In Genesis 2:5 we read:
“Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground.”
In 1957 Old Testament theologian Meredith Kline developed this verse into an argument supporting the Framework Hypothesis. He holds that this verse establishes God’s mode of operation during the creation week which shows that he used slow providence rather than instantaneous miracle.
He Shall Have Dominion
(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)
A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Kline argues that this verse speaks of “day” three of creation when God created plant life. He sees this verse as suggesting that the plants had to gradually sprout and slowly grow with the application of water — just as they do today. This would take time, much more time than the few hours of the third “day” of creation. And this shows that God used providence rather than miracle in creation week. Kline emphaticalliy declares that this is “conclusive exegetical evidence . . . that prevents anyone who follows the analogy of Scripture from supposing that Genesis 1 teaches a creation in the space of six solar days.”
The providence error
Unfortunately, this argument will not hold water, you might say. I would note that Kline misses the point of Moses’ statement.
Kline himself admits that this is a new view. In fact, it is an understanding of Gen 2:5 and creation that had escaped 3500 years of Jewish exegesis and 2000 years of Christian exegesis. Not only so, but the majority of contemporary Genesis commentators do not adopt it — even when they hold to theistic-evolution (as most of them do).
Rather than indicating slow providence as God’s creation method, this verse serves contextually to anticipate the main point of the creation narrative: the creation and testing of God’s moral creature, man. That is, it anticipates Adam’s temptation and fall. Let me explain.
Gen 2:5 is focusing on the garden in Eden, not the world at large. Significantly, God’s name appropriately changes from Elohim (“the strong one”) as the Creator of the entire universe throughout Gen. 1 to Yhwh in Gen. 2 because this is his personal, relational, covenant name. Not only so, but Gen 2 is highlighting Day 6 (the day of man’s creation), not Day 3.
As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry
Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Furthermore, Gen 2:4 shows that the actions in Gen 2:5ff are the results of God’s creative work in Gen 1:1–2:3. Gen 2:4 reads: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” The phrase “this is the account” in Hebrew is toledoth. This “account” continues until the next toledoth statement at Gen 5:1 (which gives the “result” of Adam: his offspring). Therefore, this section covers Adam’s creation, testing, and fall which result from God’s creating Adam.
Consequently, Gen 2:5 anticipates the fall which impacts the rest of this section. In Gen 2:5 we read of the “shrub of the field” and the “plant of the field,” while in Gen 2:7 we read of Adam’s formation from “dust.” These are reported in such a way as to point ahead to their reappearance in God’s curse for Adam’s sin. How so?
In Gen 3:17-19 we read:
“Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the field, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
The “plants of the field” in Gen 2:5 reappear in the exact phraseology in the curse section, whereas the “thorns and thistles” are a subset of the “shrub of the field.” And of course, the dust of Adam’s destruction reflects the dust of his composition.
Therefore, Gen 2 is focusing on the creation of man by the covenant God, and man’s moral testing at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16–17), which results in his fall (Gen 3:1–7). Gen 2:5 has nothing to do with ordinary providence, but with an extraordinary test; a test which results in the fall of man that dominates the whole rest of Scripture.
In this regard, we must note that Gen 2:3 concludes the general survey of creation week (and should really be in Gen 1) while Gen 2:4 introduces the “account” or results or offspring of God’s original creation: man’s fall. It is explaining what happened to God’s “very good” creation, since creation is no longer “very good.”
In my next article I will highlight the last of the three main foundation stones for the Framework Hypothesis. Hopefully that article will not be too slow in coming, if you know what I mean!
Click on the following images for more information on these studies:
 |
 |
 |
Tagged: Framework Hypothesis, six day creation
Postmillennial Worldview 
Thank you, Dr Gentry. As always, incredibly enlightening and thoughtful. I tend to be in the middle when it comes to “age of the earth,” creationism and here’s why.
First, I don’t see that we know how long Adam was in the garden. That time could have been short or it could have been very, very long, or time itself could not have been applied in the garden — I just don’t see how we can know. I don’t see the genealogies as providing any help because it doesn’t make sense to me that Adam would have been aging until after the fall, and the genealogies only start after the fall. Adam was created as a grown man to live forever, and as I understand it, would not have aged had he not sinned and started the clock of his own mortality. It was mortality that started the clock and I suppose that when we are in eternity, we will no longer age, either, but I it seems to me that it was at the time of the fall that Adam “began to die.”
The other aspect that I hear very little about in these discussions among theologians, is the relativity of time itself. It seems to me that time being relative to mass and energy and inescapably intertwined in the space/time continuum is a well established scientific fact that theologians should consider when discussing their theological positions on the “age of creation,” but rarely do I hear any mention of it. Perhaps because it crosses over into physics but I think it would be helpful to get the opinion of thoughtful Christian physicist on the effects of relativity on creation. If time is intertwined with mass and energy, what would have been the effect on time at the moment of, “let there be light.”
We know the universe is still expanding from the initial creation moment and I envision time spinning wildly at the first moments of creation and gradually slowing down as the universe expands and mass and energy are dispersed. Not being a physicist, I have no idea if my idea holds any merit, but I do think it is something that needs to be considered in our “age of the earth,” debates.
I don’t subscribe to the day/age or framework hypothesis or gap theory. I see those as attempts to subvert the clear mean of the text, but I do think there are questions about the length of time Adam was in the garden and time itself that leave open the possibility that the universe might be older than the genealogies would indicate at face value, and I can believe that without subverting the text.
Thank you again for your wonderful contributions to biblical understanding. I remain grateful.
Oh, I almost forgot. I wrote a long response to you deciphering from one of my posts that I was a Graham Bible College student in the ’70s, but the response did not get posted for some reason, and I’ve been meaning to say something again, but we’ve been through the ringer here lately. My son’s house was completely destroyed in a tornado a few weeks ago but our Lord miraculously protected him and his wife and my grand daughter. Easter was especially joyous for us.
May God pour out his blessing upon you,
Richard Adams
Pensacola, FL.
It seems logical that Adam was in the garden only for a short period of time. He was commanded on the day of his creation to be fruitful and multiply. This surely would not have taken him ages, or even years. Surely Eve would have been quite fertile and they would have been setting about to bear fruit. But we know that their children were born outside of the garden.
Excellent point!