Introduction
In the early twentieth century, a footnote in The Scofield Reference Bible made popular a theory of creation recognized as the “Restitution Theory” or the “Gap Theory.” The theory proposed a significant gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The question is whether the Gap Theory provides an adequate explanation of creation. A correct evaluation of the cosmogony of Genesis 1 has implications for an accurate theology and a proper apologetic of the Christian faith. The following analysis proves the Gap Theory to be untenable on three fronts. First, the theory deteriorates on grammatical-syntactical grounds. Next, relevant word studies undermine the approach. Finally, the literary structure of Genesis 1-2 frustrates the theory.
Grammatical-Syntactical
Although the Gap Theory has a history of attempting to reconcile the cosmogony of Genesis with science, supporters assert the theory is a matter of proper exegesis. Bruce Waltke explains that defenders of the Gap Theory assert that verse 1 in Genesis represents an organized universe, then verse 2 represents chaos, and then verse 3 reverts to organized, thus describing “three successive stages in the history of the earth.”[1] In other words, the organized universe of Genesis 1:1 juxtaposed with the chaos of verse 2 arguably provides evidence of a gap. However, the sequential nature of the theory is problematic for three reasons.
First, Friedrich Gesenius explains that the Hebrew language represents the sequence of time with a “waw consecutive” construction, which is the conjunction waw attached to a verb.[2] However, Genesis 1:1 begins with a preposition attached to a noun, not a waw attached to a verb. Furthermore, Genesis 1:2 begins with the conjunction waw attached to the noun “earth” (ארץ), not a verb. Accordingly, the absence of a waw consecutive provides grammatical-syntactical evidence for non-sequential activity, which undermines the core of the Gap Theory.
Second, since the waw consecutive is absent from Genesis 1:2, the waw must be a “waw conjunctive” or a “waw disjunctive.” Waltke prefers the waw conjunctive, which is a simple coordination that “does not introduce an independent sequential clause.”[3] Alternatively, Weston Fields prefers the waw disjunctive, which adds explanatory information that breaks the sequence of the narrative.[4] Regardless, both support a syntactical structure of three dependent clauses in Genesis 1:2. Since the Gap Theory requires three independent clauses (events) sequentially strung together, the evidence of dependent clauses in verse 2 further frustrates the theory.
Finally, two additional grammatical observations support the possibility that even Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. First, Victor Hamilton notes the vowel structure in the first word in Genesis 1:1 indicates the word בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית is in the construct rather than the absolute state. In other words, instead of rendering the first phrase of Genesis “in the beginning” the first phrase would render “in the beginning of.”[5] Second, the word בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית also lacks the definite article due to the shewa under the ב, which would render the phrase “when God began to create,” rather than “in the beginning, God created.” Although arguments exist against the rendering of Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause, both the vowel structure and indefiniteness of בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית suggest the possibility certainly exists. Accordingly, based on an analysis of the grammatical-syntactical relationship of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it appears that no justification exists for positing a long gap of time between the two verses.
Relevant Word Studies
Although the syntactical-grammatical evidence vigorously supports the non-sequential nature of Genesis 1:1-2, if the proponents of the Gap Theory can prove a sequence of events in the first two verses, then the Gap Theory may stand. Defenders of the theory use two relevant word studies to attempt to prove their case. First, Hamilton explains that Gap Theory proponents claim the verb “was” (הָיְתָ֥ה) in Genesis 1:2 is active rather than stative to support a sequential argument.[6] In other words, instead of rendering Genesis 1:2, “the earth was desolate,” it would render verse 2, “the earth became desolate.” A broad lemma search on the word (היה) suggests the word has the sense of “become” or “became” only about 10 percent of the time, but the possibility does exist. However, by using the Andersen-Forbes syntax database, one can mimic the grammatical structure of היה in Genesis 1:2 to analyze its use in more detail. The result of the analysis provided by Michael Heiser results in only one occurrence that mimics the grammatical structure of Genesis 1:2, which is a narrative in 2 Kings 5:1 that supports a translation of “was” not “became.”[7] Accordingly, no significant evidence exists to support the Gap Theory’s assertion that הָיְתָ֥ה should be translated “became.”
Second, M. W. J. Phelan explains that proponents of the Gap Theory contend the state of the universe in Genesis 1:2, without form and void, resulted from a catastrophe due to the judgement of God.[8] The logic behind the assertion supports the idea that the destruction in Genesis 1:2 follows the activity in verse 1 sequentially. A broad concatenated lemma search for תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ provides only two results: Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 34:11, which both appear to pertain to God’s judgement. Waltke acknowledges the structural relationship between Jeremiah 4 and Genesis 1, but also recognizes the non sequitur in applying the judgement that dismantles creation in Jeremiah 4:23 to a precreative state; the author then applies the same logic to Isaiah 34:11.[9] Furthermore, a broad lemma search on each term produces no additional results for בֹּהוּ and seventeen additional results for תֹּהוּ. Of the seventeen results, the contexts of the usages are often morally neutral. For example, Fields recognizes the language referring to the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy 32:10 has “nothing to do with judgment, or with creation.”[10] Consequently, to suggest that the words תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ necessarily mean a judgement of God that results in catastrophe significantly overstates the case. Accordingly, neither suggesting the word הָיְתָ֥ה means “became” nor the words תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ mean God’s judgement proves a sequence of events in the first two verses of Genesis.
Literary Structure
The literary structure of Genesis 1-2 also frustrates the Gap Theory. Waltke references D. F. Payne’s admission that science was a catalyst for the renewed interest in the Gap Theory.[11] However, the question remains whether Genesis must harmonize with science. The answer arrives in an analysis of Genesis’s literary genre. Waltke provides four options for the genre of the book, which include myth, science, history, and theology, all of which fail to satisfy completely.[12] However, a brief analysis of the framework of creation shed light on the genre in two ways. First, Waltke recognizes a chronological framework of the anthropomorphic language in Genesis where God announced, commanded, reported, named, and evaluated the days in an orderly fashion.[13] Second, Waltke observes the intentionality behind the thematic, not chronological, representation of the created days literarily as two triads, where the first triad forms creation and the second triad fills creation by inhabiting and ruling the first.[14] In other words, Waltke agrees with Henri Blocher that Genesis provides a “literary-artistic” genre with the purpose of communicating a theological message that grounds “covenant people’s worship and life in the Creator, who transformed chaos into cosmos, and their ethics in His created order.”[15] Accordingly, if the genre of Genesis is not science, then the Gap Theory potentially suffers from using the book to answer questions it never meant to answer.
Conclusion
Without question, the evidence proves the Gap Theory fails. First, the theory fails based on the grammatical usage of the non-sequential nature of waw and the syntactical structure that supports dependent clauses in Genesis 1:1-2. Next, the theory fails in light of word studies that suggest the proper interpretation of הָיְתָ֥ה is “was” not “became” and proves that תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ is often a morally neutral phrase that does not mean God’s judgement. Finally, the literary genre of Genesis as literary-artistic, rather than scientific, further frustrates the theory.
Bibliography
- Fields, Weston. Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books, 2005.
- Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and Arthur Ernest Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.
- Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995.
- Heiser, Michael S. “Genesis1v2” (video). Accessed September 26, 2015. http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Genesis1v2.mov.
- Phelan, M. W. J. The Genesis ‘Gap Theory’: Its Credibility and Consequences. Waterlooville, UK: Twoedged Sword, 2005.
- Waltke, Bruce K. “Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory.” Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 527 (April 1975): 136–44.
- ———. “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One.” Crux 27, no. 4 (December 1991): 2–10.
- Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
[1] Bruce K. Waltke, “Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 527 (April 1975): 139.
[2] Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 132–35.
[3] Waltke, “Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory,” 140.
[4] Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory (Green Forest, AZ: Master Books, 2005), 82.
[5] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), 104.
[6] Ibid., 116.
[7] Michael S. Heiser, “Genesis1v2” (video), accessed September 26, 2015, http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Genesis1v2.mov.
[8] M. W. J. Phelan, The Genesis ‘Gap Theory’: Its Credibility and Consequences (Waterlooville, UK: Twoedged Sword, 2005), 61–62.
[9] Waltke, “Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory,” 141–42.
[10] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory, 118.
[11] Waltke, “Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory,” 138.
[12] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 73–78.
[13] Bruce K. Waltke, “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux 27, no. 4 (December 1991): 5.
[14] Ibid., 5–6.
[15] Ibid., 9. See also Meredith G. Kline and Lee Irons, “The Framework View,” in David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux, 2001).