The view of origins known as the “Gap Theory” is an attempt to harmonize the long ages of evolution with
Genesis 1:1-2. It originated in 1814 with Dr Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University, Scotland. The theory
was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917, and is advocated today by such men as Arthur
Gustance and R. B. Thieme Jr.
In its classical form the Gap Theory “proposes a complete and perfect creation of both universe and earth in
Genesis 1:1, a ruin of the earth during a chronological gap between 1:1 and 1:2, and a subsequent
recreation beginning with Genesis 1:3.” 1
In its more fleshed-out form, the theory may be expressed as follows. “In 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
‘men’ without any souls. Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezek.
28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isa. 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe
and brought on the earth God’s 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 ‘Lucifer’s flood’ and do not bear any genetic relationship
with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth today.”2
The credibility of the Gap Theory has been explored in depth by Weston Fields in his book Uniformed and
Unfilled. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the linguistic and grammatical features of Genesis 1:1-2,
Fields concludes that the Gap Theory, with its stress on ruin and restoration, is not exegetically possible.
Genesis 1:2a consists of a noun clause which is explanatory to the main verb of 1:1; that makes 1:2a a
description of the earth as it was created originally, and not how it became subsequent to creation. The
“and” or “now” (Hebrew waw) at the beginning of 1:2 is copulative or connecting in function, not a word
denoting sequence; it describes a state contemporaneous with the action of 1:1. “The grammar of verse two
forces us to say that the earth was created unformed and unfilled, while the Gap Theory alleges that it
should say the earth became unformed and unfilled after (perhaps centuries after) it was created! It is
grammatically impossible.” 3
Followers of the Gap Theory insist that the verb hayeta in 1:2a must be translated as “became” or “had
become” instead of “was” — “Now the earth was formless and empty.” However, that verb is a copulative; it
connects the subject (earth) with the predicate (formless and empty). “It is the mistranslation of this word
which has, perhaps, added more to the ranks of gap theorists than any one factor” 4 The use of the
pluperfect tense (had become) for the meaning of hayeta would postulate an unformed and unfilled earth
even before the earth was created!
There is nothing in the words “formless and empty” which point to a scene of judgment — some evil state
brought about by the fall of angels. Those words simply depict the condition of planet earth when it was first
brought into existence in its unfinished state and prior to its completion on succeeding creation days.
Gap theorists appeal to Isaiah 45:18 in support of their view; that text states, in part, that God did not create
the earth to be empty but to be inhabited. They assert that since the earth in Genesis 1:2a was tohu
(formless), that then the earth must have become that way after the initial creation. The earth could not, it is
affirmed, have come from the hand of God in the condition described by the word “tohu.” The reasoning,
however, is fallacious.
.
The Gap Theory is devoid of linguistic and grammatical support. Genesis 1 portrays only one creation, not
two creations. Neither is there any trace of sin, Satan, or judgmental destruction in that chapter. Creation, in
all of its parts, was judged by the Creator Himself as being exceedingly good (Gen. 1:31). There were no
imperfections at all in nature — as there are today in consequence of the events of Genesis 3. LSI
References
Fields, Weston, Unformed and Unfilled (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1976), p. 7
Ibid., pp. 85-86
Ibid., p. 88
Ibid, p. 88.
Genesis 1:1-2. It originated in 1814 with Dr Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University, Scotland. The theory
was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917, and is advocated today by such men as Arthur
Gustance and R. B. Thieme Jr.
In its classical form the Gap Theory “proposes a complete and perfect creation of both universe and earth in
Genesis 1:1, a ruin of the earth during a chronological gap between 1:1 and 1:2, and a subsequent
recreation beginning with Genesis 1:3.” 1
In its more fleshed-out form, the theory may be expressed as follows. “In 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
‘men’ without any souls. Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezek.
28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isa. 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe
and brought on the earth God’s 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 ‘Lucifer’s flood’ and do not bear any genetic relationship
with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth today.”2
The credibility of the Gap Theory has been explored in depth by Weston Fields in his book Uniformed and
Unfilled. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the linguistic and grammatical features of Genesis 1:1-2,
Fields concludes that the Gap Theory, with its stress on ruin and restoration, is not exegetically possible.
Genesis 1:2a consists of a noun clause which is explanatory to the main verb of 1:1; that makes 1:2a a
description of the earth as it was created originally, and not how it became subsequent to creation. The
“and” or “now” (Hebrew waw) at the beginning of 1:2 is copulative or connecting in function, not a word
denoting sequence; it describes a state contemporaneous with the action of 1:1. “The grammar of verse two
forces us to say that the earth was created unformed and unfilled, while the Gap Theory alleges that it
should say the earth became unformed and unfilled after (perhaps centuries after) it was created! It is
grammatically impossible.” 3
Followers of the Gap Theory insist that the verb hayeta in 1:2a must be translated as “became” or “had
become” instead of “was” — “Now the earth was formless and empty.” However, that verb is a copulative; it
connects the subject (earth) with the predicate (formless and empty). “It is the mistranslation of this word
which has, perhaps, added more to the ranks of gap theorists than any one factor” 4 The use of the
pluperfect tense (had become) for the meaning of hayeta would postulate an unformed and unfilled earth
even before the earth was created!
There is nothing in the words “formless and empty” which point to a scene of judgment — some evil state
brought about by the fall of angels. Those words simply depict the condition of planet earth when it was first
brought into existence in its unfinished state and prior to its completion on succeeding creation days.
Gap theorists appeal to Isaiah 45:18 in support of their view; that text states, in part, that God did not create
the earth to be empty but to be inhabited. They assert that since the earth in Genesis 1:2a was tohu
(formless), that then the earth must have become that way after the initial creation. The earth could not, it is
affirmed, have come from the hand of God in the condition described by the word “tohu.” The reasoning,
however, is fallacious.
.
The Gap Theory is devoid of linguistic and grammatical support. Genesis 1 portrays only one creation, not
two creations. Neither is there any trace of sin, Satan, or judgmental destruction in that chapter. Creation, in
all of its parts, was judged by the Creator Himself as being exceedingly good (Gen. 1:31). There were no
imperfections at all in nature — as there are today in consequence of the events of Genesis 3. LSI
References
Fields, Weston, Unformed and Unfilled (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1976), p. 7
Ibid., pp. 85-86
Ibid., p. 88
Ibid, p. 88.
| Published 1988/2008 |
The Gap Theory
by Darrel Kautz
by Darrel Kautz