Be prepared. It will take a while to read through this whole post but remember that I have a two-fold purpose in maintaining this blog. First, I desire to keep a record of thoughts, issues, problems, joys and resources for easy electronic retrieval. Second, if the Lord graciously uses it to encourage, inspire, or convict others – well, may He be praised. So take some time and read this through.
A couple of years ago I got into a discussion with a man who was attending the church at the time concerning the “Gap Theory.” The Gap theory suggests that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a gap of time into which the long ages needed for evolution might be inserted into the Biblical Text. This topic recently came up again and so, as I was reminiscing through some notes, I found this letter I wrote explaining some of the fundamental issues (problems) that both I and the congregation in general had with the Gap theory. It was felt that the church was making this an issue of fellowship (which is was not). Rather, we simply desire to take God face value at His Word and not read into the text to satisfy the whims of man.
I hope this might answer a few questions and inspire you one to trust in God’s Word all the more. Obviously I have withheld the name and I did need to make a few adjustments to make it blog worthy.
- - - -
With regard to our current volley of considerations regarding the gap theory and the Church’s position on it, I do once again thank you for allowing a dialogue to take place. I also thank you for giving me some background as to what has shaped your thinking. So now, I continue the volley with some thoughts as they relate to your last email.
To begin with, the purpose of listing the doctrinal distinctives of the church are not meant to dissuade or exclude anyone from attending fellowship. Rather, the point of such distinctives is to define the church within Biblical parameters. It is to reveal to the community what (and in and limited sense, why) we believe what we believe. For too long the church has compromised on the reliability and trustworthiness of God’s Word. Today, many, if not most churches, are nearly definitionless so as not to offend or exclude anyone from fellowship. However, the church has forgotten that the source of true and genuine fellowship is found “in Christ” and specifically “in the faith”. Generally, when the New Testament speaks of “the faith,” it is referring to the body of truth held to by believers, which we know most certainly included the doctrine of God as the Creator (Acts 17:23-24; John 1:3; Colossian 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:2).
All we are doing is seeking to define what we see in the Scriptures as the content of the faith. To be sure, the lowest common denominator concerning what is appropriate to “the faith” regarding the origins of man and creation is that God is the Creator. To this I know you and I agree. Obviously there are also what you and I would consider to be genuine believers who hold outrageous theories of “how” God did this creating, including the Day-Age Theory, Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution and the like. The one thing all such theories have in common is that they still attribute, in some fashion or another, God as the source, origin or creator.
But as you have implied in your emails, such views, as listed above, create more problems than they seek to answer both scientifically and biblically. We believe that such views undermine the very authority of Scripture, calling into question (as already noted) the trustworthiness and reliability of God and His revelation. Such views seek to place the interpretations of science as more binding and reliable than the revelation of God to man. And, to the extent that secular science rejects the infallible foundation provided by Scripture, it threatens to cheat Christians out of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge which are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3). The Christian should not expect science that is founded on anti-Christian philosophical premises to be a reliable guide to truth about reality or a reliable aid in interpreting Scripture. And, any theory that seeks to limit or remove God’s creative power cannot to be regarded as relying on and trusting in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). I would never presume to say or believe that people who hold such views of creation and Scripture are not believers, only that their interpretations of Scripture do much to diminish or damage the credibility of the faith. The book of Genesis is the book of origins and foundations. “If the foundations are destroyed,” writes the Psalmist, that is, if the reasons for sin, death, clothing, family, marriage, government, and the like are called into question or removed, “what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). Such theories undermine the meaning of the foundational issues of Scripture.
With regard to the Gap Theory, I realize now, through your emails, that you are putting a different twist on the traditional view. When you first asked about the gap theory, all I could do was to assume that you were referring to a theory whose initial purpose and intent was to allow the new theories of Charles Darwin, who needed vast periods of time to account for evolutionary changes, and of the fledging science of geology, with its vast geologic ages, a place in the Scriptural account. This is a fact well attested to. The Gap Theory arose as an attempt to accommodate the interpretation of Scripture to the dogmas of science. Obviously Scofield popularized it among the Christian community in his reference Bible. Over the course of time, the traditional view of the theory began to wane, as the anti-Christian and anti-Biblical idea of uniformitarianism was being discredited as more and more evidences of catystrophicism came to light. Then, in order to maintain the theory, more and more elaborate ideas came to be part of the theory, placing the fall of Satan, and a pre-Adamic race and flood prior to the supposed subsequent six days of recreation.
I had asked you what the purpose of the Gap Theory was in your thinking. You shared some thoughts concerning the laying down of the first strata from a pre-Adamic world and flood followed by the second strata laid down in the flood of Noah. I would ask why is such a pre-Adamic world necessary? But then you stated,
“As to my understanding of what happened during the gap, my primary focus is on whether the text supports the concept. I truly believe the gap theory is the best literal interpretation of scripture and I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes sense.”
I am in whole hearted agreement with you that what is at question is “whether the text supports the concept.” We can argue back and forth regarding whether or not various verses suggest or refute the Gap, such as whether or not Romans 5:12 speaks of death only in mankind or death invading the world. We can argue back and forth at the placement of the fall of Satan. But such arguments are mute if there is no Scriptural basis for such a Gap. In my studies, the invasion of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is not discernable by a normal, plain reading of the text and is at best, highly questionable, if not impossible, as an appropriate result of the grammar presented. Before I delineate some of the grammar, let me also state that while there are a few notable exceptions among the so-called “giants” of the faith who have departed from the historic young earth position, even these men pointed out that the text gives no hint or inkling as to this “gap.”
Dr. James M. Boice wrote in Genesis, An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 1,
“...We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong...In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists...Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and an even older universe...” [emphasis mine].
Please note that before capitulating to the questionable scientific “data from various disciplines” pointing to a very old earth, Boice must admit that “the exegetical basis of the creationist is strong” and that there is “careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view.” In other words, this man, who by and large depends solely on the revelation of Scripture for his doctrine, at this point abandons the strong exegetical basis of the Word of God in favor for the fallible theories and methods of men.
Also, Charles Hodge (a man I well respect) wrote the following in His Systematic Theology, p. 571.
“It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.”
Hodge is sometimes sited as a champion of supporting long ages and did in fact make some concessions in his understanding of Genesis 1. But again we note that Hodge first admits, “…it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense.” His exegetical understanding of Genesis 1 was that it was natural to read and understand only six days. What changed his otherwise normal practice of trusting in the reliability of the Word of God? The fallible conclusions of science and men. Hodge believed “that if the idea of a long earth history were to be established, then the early chapters of Genesis should be interpreted accordingly.” While he evidently believed that the new science of geology did establish long earth history, we may note two things, first, if the data supporting long earth history were to be refuted, then Hodge would have conceivably recanted; and second, since the time of Hodge, much evidence (as noted by Boice above) has refuted the idea of long earth history.
Pattle T. Pun noted in, A Theology of Progressive Creationism, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 39(1), March 1987.
“It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.”
My point in giving these examples is that even among the notable exceptions there is a realization that a normal, plain reading of the text, along with proper exegesis (interpretation) would yield a “young” earth position where “in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them…” (Exodus 20:11). In Matthew 19:4 Jesus states “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female…” Jesus is clearly placing the creation of man (on the sixth day) within the framework of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning…” In other words, Jesus is communicating that the six days of creation began with the words, “In the beginning…” The events of Genesis 1:1-2 then are included in the timeframe of the six days of creation and simply represent the state or condition of the earth when God called it into existence, ready to proceed to the steps that would form it and fill it. Textually, there is no basis for understanding this to be some “out of time” or “out of sequence” event. Rather, these verses are simply and naturally understood as a summary statement of the state of earth before God performed His successive creative acts over the period of the next six days, the events of 1:1-5 being the first day. This was John Calvin’s argument as well, that from “in the beginning” to “there was evening and morning, one day” comprised a real, literal and 24 hour day.
So, if we apply proper hermeneutical principles to Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the principles that men like Boice and Hodge agreed and applied, the only conclusion is that no gap exists in the white spaces between these verses. And while I know that many will be unconvinced by the proper hermeneutics and understanding of the grammar of these verses, neither I, nor Hope CBC, regard as inferior any who yet hold to this view and do not make it a matter of fellowship. However, I hope it is being revealed that we define ourselves as six day literal creationist not to “put off” or “put out” others, but again to reveal our commitment to honor the normal, plain, literal, grammatical and historical interpretation of these verses. I do hope the following sheds some light on whether or not “the text supports such a concept.”
To begin with, the immediate context (plain reading) of the Genesis one narrative gives no indication of a gap. After verse 1, each verse in the first chapter in the Hebrew begins with the conjunction “and.” This is significant because the structure clearly means that each statement is sequentially and chronologically connected to the verses before and after. The pattern would then have to apply to the first two verses, as well as any other pair of verses in the chapter. Thus, the supposed chronological gap is grammatically nonexistent. To be consistent, to say there is or could be a gap in between verses one and two would mean of necessity that such gaps would then exist in between each of the verses. This is something that no sound exegete has proposed. The condition of the mass and material in verse two follows immediately upon the creative act of verse one. The pattern, then, is set through the remainder of the chapter
Those who hold to the gap theory must claim that the grammar of Genesis 1:1-2 not only allows, but also requires a time gap of some measure between verses 1 and 2. Again, this would be a most unnatural interpretation and is not suggested by the plain meaning of the text. The most straightforward reading of the verses sees verse 1 as a subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three ‘circumstantial clauses’—that is, three statements further describing the circumstances introduced by the principal clause in verse 1. The conjunction “and” (waw in Hebrew) in verse 2 is called a “copulative” meaning that the ideas of the previous verse, verse 1, is not a separate event from verse 2, but that verse 2 is the subsequent continuation of verse 1. According to the Gap Theory, some or many events take place between these verses, but again, the grammar does not give any indication or room for such non-stated events that break the sequential thought of the verses.
Yet in addition to this grammatical issue, there is another that calls into question the legitimacy of the Gap Theory. Those who hold to the Gap theory claim that there is grammatical support for their view from the use of the verb “was” in verse 2. The Hebrew word for hayetha, that is translated “was,” can also be translated “became,” “to be,” or “to come to pass,” in some instances and according to Gap theorists, hayetha should be translated as one of those alternatives. If the verb is translated “became” or “to be,” it would suggest a change of state from the original creation of verse 1 to the chaotic condition inferred from verse two.
Is there any grammatical viability for this translation – to say that rather than “and the earth was formless and void” we should read “and the earth became formless and void.”? The verb, hayetha is the regular verb of being, and to re-translate it as the gap theorists claim, would produce a grammatical inaccuracy. If the author of Genesis had meant to describe that a changed state took place between the two verses, he would have used haya, the word normally used to denote such a changed state.
Now, it should be pointed out, that in the context of some Hebrew passages hayetha can be interpreted to indicate a changed state, like the gap theory suggests. But in all cases the context must clearly indicate this. Otherwise, in 98 percent of its occurrences, the verb means “was.” Since there is nothing contextually to indicate any other translation than “was” it would be improper grammatically to change the translation to “became.” So, not only is a Gap grammatically non-existent based upon the copulative “and” – it is also rendered impossible by the verb usage “was” making verse 2 circumstantial to verse one. Even one of the premier commentaries of the Old Testament (Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament) that works out the grammar expressly states that the verb cannot rightly be translated “became.”
Finally, while this is not “authoritative” it certainly bears substantial weight. The earliest available manuscript of Old Testament in general and of Genesis 1:1-2 specifically is the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX). It was composed around 250-200 B.C. The translators of the Septuagint, who knew the Hebrew they were translating, understood and translated Genesis 1:1-2 so as to remove any possible variant reading of the text. While they were not concerned with a Gap or “Ruin-Reconstruction” Theory (which in my mind yields even greater strength to the argument), their translation would exclude any idea of the creation of the heavens and the earth in verse 1 as becoming or changing states for a subsequent recreation. The short of it is that the gap theory imposes an interpretation upon Genesis 1:1-2 that is unnatural and grammatically unsound.
In addition to the grammatical concerns and addressing the question why a literal creation is included in our doctrinal distinctives, we believe that there is much at stake when it comes to questioning the validity and readability of the first two verses of the Bible. Historically speaking, the Jews believed in a young earth. Moses was not a gap theorist and the people of Israel clearly understood and taught their children as truth the creation account as understood plainly and normally. In fact, according to the Hebrew Calendar, we are only in the year 5765 since creation. In other words, if the Gap theory, in its traditional sense, includes any more time than 5765 years (which would have to be of some measure to account for the supposed flora and fauna of the first layer of strata containing their fossils) such was unknown to the people of God didactically in their teaching and grammatically understood from their Scriptures. This ignorance of reading a gap into the text continued on through the New Testament era and into the Church age. All these generations of believers knew nothing of such a gap. Regardless of why some hold to the gap today, it wasn’t until the anti-Christian influences of Charles Darwin and the new science of geology and its vast ages took root in societies that the gap theory was proposed in order to account for the supposed long ages. If the gap is not needed to reconcile Scripture with science, then why is it needed at all? To be sure, it is possible that God has done all sort of things that we know nothing about. But grammatically and contextually it does not appear that God intended to give any indication of something other than a creation that began on day one with “In the beginning” and ends with “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31).
Now, if it takes the special knowledge of science to reveal to believers today a previously unknown gap in Genesis 1, then we become like the Gnostics of the first century who plagued the church with their claims of needing to be initiated into deeper truth in order to understand Scripture. Such is what I perceive to be the slippery slope of the Gap Theory.
While I respect and firmly believe that Dr. James M. Boice was a champion of the faith and would have loved the opportunity to talk with him and to sit under his teaching (something I do routinely reading his books and commentaries), and while I do not see that his adherence to the Gap Theory necessarily adversely affected him, I do know that others tend to take such an influence as that of Boice and begin to take it to the next level, questioning then other crucial and vital doctrines of the faith.
So, dear Sir, I submit to you that Hope CBC’s declaration and defining of itself as holding to a creative act of God in which the heavens and the earth and all things created were made in the space of six literal twenty-four hour days is an issue of upholding the integrity of the Word of God, that we do not need some special knowledge or science above and beyond Scripture to understand Scripture. I know that you are not claiming the need of such knowledge and science, and for this I respect you greatly. However, your position is not the normal or traditional one. According to the word, all we need to know God’s Word is the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-12) and faith as Hebrews 11:3 declares, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”
I am sorry to hear that your faith was tested as a result of a church that taught a “young earth.” I cannot address that issue as I do not know the specifics. If the church was legalistically holding to a teaching without properly teaching it, I understand. The Presbyterian Church today is the recipient and holder of the Westminster Standards and the inspiring teachings of John Calvin. Yet, large segments of the Presbyterian Church have rejected and rebelled against such teachings and have rejected as reliable of the Bible. How does a church that possesses the teachings of John Calvin reject the Bible! My point is this – do not hold a specific teaching necessarily as the cause of your rejecting God’s truth. Perhaps it was the manner in which the information was delivered or not delivered to you that is the cause. For in this case, I do have an understanding of what you are talking about. Having come to faith when I was 17, I spent a year and a half in a church prior to attending the University of California at San Diego to major in bio-chemical engineering. My Pastor taught the Gap Theory, or more correctly, stated that the Gap Theory was the only plausible explanation for science and the Bible. When I attended UCSD, two of my first classes were faith shakers – one in the humanities where we studied the Old Testament and it was presented not as a book of faith, but a book of fallacies including the opening chapters - and the other was in Biology called “Origins and Evolution” where I was specifically told publicly that science and the Bible could not be reconciled and that only the naïve and ignorant sought to do so.
Needless to say I lost a great deal of respect for my Pastor – for these teachers were calling him naïve and ignorant. I went through a faith crisis of my own but was determined to investigate and understand truth. If the Bible was a crock – if I could not rely or depend upon it, especially in its first book, first chapters and first verses, then I was ready to give it all up. I give praise to the Lord that through prayer, much study and faithful men and women of God who guided me through the process, I was convinced not only of the validity of the Genesis account according to a plain-normal reading, but also of the necessity to teach and inform believers both how and why such a faith in Genesis is proper. I did not and do not desire to be ignorant – nor do I or the leadership of the church desire for this congregation to be such. If someone determines to hold a variant view of the Genesis account and can do so in good conscience and uphold Sola Scriptura, praise the Lord, but, as they attend Hope CBC, they will know Scriptural and scientific reasons for holding to the most normal, literal and plain interpretation of the Genesis account. So, to that end, may we truly be as Proverbs 27:17 which says,
Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
I count it a privilege to share these thoughts with you. I am humbled at the opportunity to convey the reasons for the hope that I have and pray that you will and have received these thoughts with the heart and spirit of Proverbs 27:17. I look forward to continued discussions (maybe on varying subjects as well) and pray that such times will only strengthen our faith.
In humble reverence and awe of our Creator God,
Soli Deo Gloria
Pastor Ed
