The gap theory of creation has gained popularity over the last century. It arose in response to geologistsâ claim that the earth is billions of years old. Bible believers apply the theory to a supposed âgapâ of time between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.
But does the biblical evidence support this belief?
Before we analyze the gap theory, there are a few other theories we should review. (All quotations are from blueletterbible.org, an online Bible search and study tool.)
The first is often called the 24-Hour Interpretation. âThe most traditional of interpretations, the 24-Hour Interpretation, holds that Elohim created all the universe in the space of six regular solar days.â
This is what YRM affirms, and the most traditional view. Many years ago I believed in the gap theory. My belief began in high school when I was taught that evolution was a fact and not a theory. Like so many impressionable young people, I wanted to fit evolution somewhere into the Bible, and the gap theory made the most sense. Since then, Iâve come back to the traditional view of creation.
Another popular theory is called Theistic Evolution. âSurrendering the historicity and honesty of Scripture beyond all other popular viewpoints, theories of theistic evolution force interpreters to mythologize the Genesis narrative. While maintaining that God did truly maintain control of all creative processes, the view strips Scripture of its accuracy by positing that Adam was not arrived at by fiat creation but through thousands of years of natural evolutionary process aided and directed by a divine touch.â
This theory is nothing more than a compromise for evolution. Those who espouse it maintain that Yahweh created everything through the process of evolution. In other words, evolution was the mechanism that our Creator used to form this universe, including mankind. As a result, those who hold this view believe that the Genesis account is nothing more than mythology. In other words itâs a great story, but it never happened.
A third theory that has gained some acceptance is called the Day-Age Theory. âEasily one of the most popular of current theories to reconcile scientific evidence with Godâs Word, the Day-Age Theory takes aim on the Hebrew word for âdayâ: yom. Stating that the word, while often meaning a 24-hour period, can also refer to an indeterminate duration, these theorists proclaim that a valid (and moreover, proper) literal understanding of the Creation account will interpret each day as an era, or age, lasting a great length of time.â
As with Theistic Evolution, this belief arose to reconcile evolution with the Bible. It does so by reinterpreting the meaning of the word âyom,â which is the Hebrew word for day. Instead of representing a literal 24-hour day, this belief says that yom represents a long duration of time, even billions of years, making room for evolution.
This belief not only contradicts Hebrew grammar, but also defies the laws of nature. For example, the Bible says that plants were created on the third day and the sun and moon on the fourth day. How it is possible that plants existed a billion years without sunlight? Plants require sun for life and photosynthesis, which is how they produce energy. Based on this single example, thereâs nothing logical about this belief.
Breaching the Gap Theory
The last theory to review is the gap theory. Once more we refer to the blueletterbible.org for an explanation.
âWhen the scientific community began discovering evidence to support long geological eras in the 18th century, a segment of Christendom felt compelled to syncretize their interpretation of Scripture with this newfound empirical data. Motive askew, they postulated that the universe was already in existence for an indeterminate duration before the Creation Week began (and hence allow for a very old earth, but are able still to maintain Godâs recent fiat creation of mankind). A once-popular revision of this theme is the Restoration Theory. Proponents of this version of Gap Theory believed that the universe was created full-form and populated only to be decimated by a cataclysmic war led between God and Satan. This war left the earth a wasteland, âformless and voidâ (and explains why we find fossilized dinosaur bones that seem to be millions of years old). So then, by theory, the recent Creation Week would be a re-Creation or restoration of a world that was once destroyed.â
There are actually two theories connected with the gap theory: the traditional view and the Restoration Theory (no relation to Yahwehâs Restoration Ministry). The traditional gap theory provides a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In this gap proponents believe that billions of years existed.
Generally, itâs also believed that there was a first earth and second earth and the second earth is what we live on now. Now the Restoration theory goes on to say that Yahweh created humans without souls along with animals, including dinosaurs, on this first earth.
Weston W. Fields further explains this in his book, Unformed and Unfilled. âIn the far distant dateless past God created a perfect heaven and perfect earth. Satan was ruler of the earth which was peopled by a race of âmenâ without any souls.
Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satanâs fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth Godâs judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the water of 1:2), and then a global Ice Age when the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed. All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today date from this âLuciferâs floodâ and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth todayâŠ.â
The restoration theory maintains that Satanâs rebellion destroyed the first earth, including dinosaurs, with a global flood. It goes on to say that the plants and animals of today do not resemble those from this first earth. Now the obvious problem with this belief, which again is part of the Gap Theory, is that thereâs no biblical support for two separate creations, including two worldwide floods and a creation prior to Adam and Eve.
Motivating Factors
According to wikipedia.org, âFrom 1814, gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers, who attributed the concept to the 17th century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Chalmers became a divinity professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of the Free Church of Scotland, and author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises. Other early proponents included Oxford University geology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitchcock. It gained widespread attention when a âsecond creative actâ was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.â
The gap theory attempts to reconcile with the Bible the claim that the geological record proves that the earth is billions of years old. This is like many other creation theories attempting to merge the Bible with pseudo-science.
The problem is, not all scientific theories are based on good science and evolution is an example. Just because science may say that something is a certain way doesnât make it true. For example, if nothing was known about Mount Saint Helens, geologists might date the layers created by the explosion by millions of years, when we know it took only a short period of time.
- The âproofâ for billions of years of development can be explained by the account of Noahâs flood. Two things happened at that time:
- the earth was ripped open, Genesis 7:11 flood waters covered the entire earth. This catastrophic event explains many of the geological sediment and rock layers today. We can see how something like the gouging of the Grand Canyon could have occurred very quickly and not over billions of years.
So we find at least three problematic issues with the Gap Theory:
- It presupposes life and death existed before Adam and Eve;
-  It was formulated in response to the unproven belief that the earth is billions of years old and It contradicts the Bible as well as its Hebrew grammar.
Scriptural Evidence
Letâs now consider the evidence from Scripture. Our investigation begins in Genesis 1:1-2: âIn the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.â
The traditional view says that Yahweh created both the heavens, i.e., universe, and earth and that in the very beginning the earth was formless and empty.
The gap theory interprets this passage this way: âIn the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth [insert in billions of years]. And the earth was [had become] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.â
By inserting billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 they reconcile the theory that the earth is billions of years old. The gap theory also assumes that the earth was not without form and void, but had become that way. According to Hebrew grammarians, this assumption is not supported by the Hebrew grammar.
First, we must understand the word âcreated,â which comes from the Hebrew baraâ. We must also understand the use of the âAndâ at the beginning of verse 1, which comes from the Hebrew letter waw. Another word to consider is âwas,â which is from the Hebrew hayah. Finally, we will review the phrase âwithout form and void,â which is from the Hebrew tohu wa bohu.
Created (Baraâ)
We begin with the Hebrew baraâ. Strongâs defines this term as, ââŠa primitive root; (absolutely) to createâŠâ The Brown- Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon states ââŠto create, to shape, to form.â Vineâs Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words provides a more exhaustive definition: ââŠThis verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can âcreateâ in the sense implied by baraâ. The verb expresses creation out of nothingâŠAll other verbs for âcreatingâ allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.â
According to Hebrew linguistics, baraâ refers to original creation. Why is this important? It means that the creation in Genesis 1:1 is part of an original creation and not a re-creation as believed by the gap theorists. This is why itâs important that we understand the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
And (Waw)
Now the most critical word is the word âAnd,â as we find in Genesis 1:2. This word comes from the Hebrew letter âwaw,â which corresponds to our âw.â In the Hebrew language you have whatâs called the waw consecutive and the waw disjunctive, also called the waw copulative.
What is the differences between the two? The waw consecutive expresses a sequence of time or continuation of a new thought, while the waw disjunctive is an explanatory thought for the previous phrase.
Do we know which waw is used in Genesis 1:2? Based on the Hebrew grammar, itâs the waw disjunctive or copulative because it is not fixed to a verb, but to a noun. As support, hereâs what W. Fields states, âGenesis 1:2 begins with âandâ (Hebrew waw, a copulative) which argues against a long time span between these verses. The Hebrew grammars and lexicons consider 1:2 to be an explanatory noun clause which describes a state contemporaneous with that of the main verb in verse 1â (Unformed and Unfilled, Weston Fields, pp. 75-86).
We find a similar statement from Dr. Robert McCabe, Professor of Old Testament from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, âThe waw disjunctive appears at the beginning of v. 2. This type of waw is also easily identifiable. It is always attached to a non-verbal form, such as a substantive, pronoun, or participle; and it stands at the beginning of a clauseâŠAs a waw disjunctive relates to its preceding clause, it can be used in a number of different ways, such as introducing a clause of contrast, reason, etc. In this context, the waw disjunctive is best seen as introducing an explanatory clause, and could be translated as ânowâ (meaning, âat the timeâ of its creation in v. 1), or in some similar wayâ (oldtestamentstudies.org).
Based on these sources, the waw in Genesis 1:2 is waw disjunctive because the waw is connected to a noun and not a verb. What this means is that Genesis 1:2 is an explanatory verse of Genesis 1:1. It also confirms that thereâs no possibility of a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. For a gap to exist this would require a waw consecutive, of which we donât find evidence here.
According to author W. Fields, we also find evidence for the waw disjunctive from the Greek Septuagint. âThe Septuagint translationâ
ââ
As previously stated, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek by Jews in Alexandria (traditionally by 70 scholars, hence the name) about 250 B.C. is known as the Septuagint, and generally abbreviated LXX. While it is a translation, and therefore subject to all the problems of such, it nevertheless gives a very ancient opinion about how the Hebrew should be rendered. The work of the Septuagint in the Pentateuch has generally been recognized as some of its best, and it appears that in Genesis 1 and 2 the translators were especially careful, for they were remarkably precise in distinguishing the waw disjunctive from other uses of the waw. The only waw disjunctive in Genesis 1 is the one in verse 2.
âThis is also the only occurrence of the Greek word de. The second waw disjunctive is found in 2:6 along with the second de; the third waw disjunctive is in 2:10 together with the third de. The fourth waw disjunctive is in 2:12 and so is the fourth de. Now this is not really surprising. On the contrary, it is exactly what one might predict from Geseniusâ statement that a waw copulative (disjunctive) which connects a noun clause to the main thought of the sentence, and which describes a state or circumstance, corresponds to the Greek de, used to interpose an explanationâ (Unformed and Unfilled, pp. 83).
As W. Fields explains, the Greek word âdeâ corresponds to the waw disjunctive and is found only once in Genesis 1 and that is in verse 2. Both the Hebrew and Greek confirms the use of the waw conjunctive. This removes the possibility of a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Was (Hayah)
We transition to the English word âwasâ in verse 2. This word comes from the Hebrew hayah. For those who may not know, hayah is the primitive root of Yahwehâs Name. Every Hebrew word goes back to a primitive or trilateral root.
So what is the meaning of hayah within the context of Genesis 1:2? Hereâs how itâs defined in Strongâs Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew Dictionary and Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, respectively.
ââŠa primitive root; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to passâŠ.â
ââŠto be, to become, to come to pass, to exist, to happen, to fall out.â
As we see from these definitions, âbecomeâ or âcame to passâ is a possibility based on the Hebrew. However, as we saw from the waw disjunctive, we must also understand the Hebrew grammar. And based on the Hebrew grammar of verse 2, hayah cannot be rendered âto become.â
Dr. McCabe explains, âThe only translation that can be consistently justified is the translation âwas.â This translation can be supported in three ways. First, as I noted above, âwasâ is in an explanatory clause introduced by a waw disjunctive, connecting this verse with v. 1âŠ. Second, the translation of hayetah as âwasâ finds early support from the SeptuagintâŠthe Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch rendered this Hebrew verb as âwas,â the imperfect form of eimi (to âbeâ)âŠBecause of the semantic distinctives of the verbs eimi (to âbeâ) and ginomai (to âbecomeâ), the Septuagint provides early support for the rendering âwas.â Third, the vast majority of lexicons and grammars support the rendering as âwasâ âŠ. Whitcomb and Smith have appropriately summarized this evidence: âHebrew grammars could be cited in abundance to the effect that a nominal clause (with no verb or else with a form hayah) as in Genesis 1:2âŠis the normal way to describe a state of being without any verbal activity or change of stateâ (p. 134). Therefore, the traditional translation of hayetah as âwasâ is the most accurate translation.â
As we saw from the waw disjunctive, both the Hebrew and Greek indicate that the best rendering of hayah in Genesis 1:2 is âwas.â As Dr. McCabe confirms, this is overwhelmingly the opinion of many Hebrew grammarians.
We also see this in nearly every historical English translation of Genesis 1:2. Here are a few examples:
âThe erth was voyde and emptie ad darcknesse was vpon the depe and the spirite of god moved vpon the water.â (William Tyndale Bible, 1530).
âAnd ye earth was voyde and emptie, and darcknes was vpon the depe, & ye sprete of God moued vpo the waterâ (Myles Coverdale Bible, 1535).
âAnd the earth was without fourme, and was voyde: & darknes [was] vpon the face of the deepe, and the spirite of God moued vpon the face of the watersâ (Bishops Bible, 1568).
âAnd the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the watersâ (Geneva Bible, 1599).
âThe earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the watersâ (RSV, 1952).
âThe earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the watersâ (NAS, 1963).
From old to new translations hayah is translated as âwas.â Abundant evidence shows that the rendering of âhad becomeâ in Genesis 1:2 is simply not supported.
Without Form and Void (Tohu WaBohu)
Letâs consider the phrase âwithout form and void.â The phrase comes from the Hebrew tohu wabohu and generally refers to a state that is formless and empty. According to the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, ââAnd the earth was (not became) waste and void.â The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating.â
This commentary confirms again that the Hebrew hayah should be rendered âwasâ and not âbecame.â It also states that tohu wabohu refers to a state that is waste and empty or barren.
Letâs now examine the evidence for these words separately. The first is tohu:
ââŠfrom an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing,â Strongâs
ââŠformlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness,â BDB.
The second is bohu:
ââŠfrom an unused root (meaning to be empty),â Strongâs.
ââŠemptiness, void, waste,â BDB.
Based on these definitions, tohu wabohu describes a state that is formless, empty, waste, chaotic, or void.
In a desire to be balanced in our study, this phrase can also refer to a void or emptiness from previous destruction. Examples of this usage are found in Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Letâs first consider Isaiah 43, âBut the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls,â verses 11-43.
This passage is a prophecy of Yahwehâs wrath that will befall the nations of this earth. We know from eschatology that the day of Yahweh, representing Yahshuaâs Second Coming, is going to be one of destruction and judgment. According to Isaiah 24, few men will be left.
Now we see the words tohu and bohu both used here to convey destruction upon the earth. So in this instance, tohu wabohu is used to describe a state of ruin and devastation that was caused by a previous destruction.
We find a similar usage in Jeremiah 4:23-26: âI beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of Yahweh, and by his fierce anger.â
This prophecy is again speaking about destruction. But here it is focused on the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. And as we saw in Isaiah, tohu wabohu is used here to covey this devastation.
Now why are these examples important? Those who advocate the gap theory will often use them to prove that tohu wabohu refers to an emptiness or void caused by previous destruction. The problem with using this to support the gap theory is that tohu wabohu doesnât always describe a previous destruction. And as weâve already seen, the grammar of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 doesnât allow for a gap in time.
Meaning of Replenish
In addition to Isaiah and Jeremiah, Gap Theorists will also point to Genesis 1:28 as proof for their belief: âAnd Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.â
Those who believe in the gap theory will focus on the word âreplenishâ as evidence for this doctrine. In this case, this is an easy passage to explain. The word âreplenishâ is from the Hebrew male, which is a primitive root, meaning âto fill or be full of, in a wide application,â Strongâs.
There is nothing within the definition of male denoting the concept of replenishing or refilling, as often defined in English. The word âreplenishâ in Genesis 1:28 simply means to fill.
For in Six Days
Another common argument in defense of the gap theory comes from Genesis 20:8-11: âRemember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of Yahweh thy Elohim: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.â
Notice that it says that Yahweh made the heavens and the earth in six days. Exodus also states that both the heavens, i.e., universe, and the earth were made in six days. According to Hebrew grammar, when the Hebrew yom (English, âdayâ) is connected with a numeral, as found here, it refers to a 24-hour day.
Now some will point that the word âmadeâ found in Exodus 20:11 is not from baraâ, but from the Hebrew asah. They will then claim that asah refers to a re-creation and not to an original creation. According to Strongâs asah literally means, âto do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application.â
So whatâs the difference between baraâ and asah? Baraâ specifically means original creation from nothing, while asah is a general or broad word referring to any act of creation. Whatâs important is that baraâ and asah are not contradictory as it pertains to creation. While baraâ is limited to original creation, there is nothing within the definition of asah that would prohibit this interpretation. In other words, since asah is broad in meaning, it can be used synonymously with baraâ. Matter of fact, both baraâ and asah are used interchangeably in the first chapter of Genesis.
Adamâs Sin
One of the most significant challenges against the gap theory is that death was introduced through the sin of Adam. Paul in Romans 5:12-14 writes, âWherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adamâs transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.â
If death did not exist until Adamâs sin, what about those who died on the âfirst earthâ as a result of Satanâs flood? Paul provides the final nail in the coffin of the gap theory.
Just why is it important that we understand the error behind this popular theory? Because the gap theory contradicts the Bible and it undermines the authority of Yahwehâs Word. It places more emphasis on pseudo-science than on Scripture.
As believers we must never allow our personal beliefs, pseudo-science, or man-made doctrines to contradict what our Heavenly Father says within His Word.
The Bible has never been proven wrong and never will be. Let us not be remiss to remember that Yahwehâs ways are greater than manâs ways. He thunders, âGird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding,â Job 38:3.