Gap Theory is also called the Ruin-Restitution Theory or the Recreation View. As the name suggests, this view holds that there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. How much time transpired? Scripture doesn’t say, but most gap theorists agree with the standard ages of the universe and the Planet Earth. During this gap of time, the Earth “became” formless and void. Gap theorists often claim that this was a divine judgment—perhaps caused by the fall of Satan. Genesis 1:3 and following describe God’s recreation of the world (or perhaps a local region).
The Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) popularized the Gap Theory in the 1800’s. Later, C.I. Scofield further popularized this view in his Scofield Reference Bible (1909), and it became the most popular view among evangelicals during this time.
Arthur Custance—a PhD in anthropology and an MA in Middle Eastern languages—is probably the most able defender of the Gap Theory.[1] Others proponents include J. Vernon McGee,[2] A. G. Tilney,[3] Steven E. Dill,[4] G. H. Pember,[5] Arthur Pink,[6] Harry Rimmer,[7] Robert Saucy,[8] and Gorman Gray.[9]
Francis Schaeffer wrote that this view was a “possibility” and “a hypothesis.” Nevertheless, writes Schaeffer, it remains a “theoretical possibility, and that is all I am setting forth.”[10] C.S. Lewis’ science fiction books Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra give the idea that Satan ruled Earth before humans. After Satan’s revolt, this led to the Earth becoming perverted and a “silent planet.” Even those who reject the theory like James M. Boice still write that interpreters “often dismiss it too easily, without adequate attention to the biblical data on which the gap theorists built. This theory may be wrong, but it is not possible to dismiss it cavalierly.”[11] And later he writes that the arguments for the gap theory “have not been taken seriously enough by those who oppose the theory.”[12]
Others hold to what has been called a “soft gap theory.” This view doesn’t state that the Earth was destroyed—only that an indeterminate gap exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. C. John Collins, John Sailhamer, and John Lennox do not affirm the traditional gap theory, but they do see a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.[13]
How does the Gap Theory support this view?
Gap Theory teaches that there is an unspecified gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
(Gen. 1:1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
The Gap Theory agrees with other interpreters that this refers to the creation of the material universe. They would also agree with the modern scientific consensus that this occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
(Gen. 1:2) “The 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 waters.”
Gaps are common in the OT (e.g. Zech. 9:9-10; Isa. 9:6; 11:1-5), and the Gap Theory contends that one exists here. However, wherever gaps exist, the interpreter bears the burden of proof to demonstrate this. Proponents of this view give several arguments.
First, virtually all interpreters recognize that verses 1-2 are separate from the rest of Genesis 1. The “days” of Genesis and the waw-consecutive do not begin until verse 3, so these two verses are clearly before the creation week. How much time elapsed between verses 1-2 and the rest of the chapter? The text doesn’t say. This is why “soft gap theorists” allow for a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Traditional gap theorists go further than this, offering evidence that the planet came under judgment during this time.
Second, all interpreters agree that Genesis does not give an exhaustive account of creation. After all, God created hundreds of millions of angels during the creation of the world (Job 38:7), but this entire species of spiritual beings never appear in Genesis 1-2. Yet, they do appear rather suddenly in Genesis 3:24 (“cherubim”). Moreover, Satan himself appears abruptly in the text with no mention as to when he was created (Gen. 3:1ff; Ezek. 28:12ff).
Third, all interpreters agree that a gap exists in the creation of the first humans. On an initial reading, Genesis 1:27 seems to state that God created humans at the same time (“male and female”). Yet later, Genesis 2:7-22 shows that an indeterminate gap of time existed between the creation of the original human couple.
Fourth, grammatically, Genesis 1:2 could be rendered, “But the earth became formless and void.” In the Masoretic Text (MT), there is small scribal marker after Genesis 1:1 called a rebia (a disjunctive accent, rather than a conjunctive accent). This could render the conjunction as “but,” rather than “and.”[14] Thus Genesis 1:2 would read, “But the earth was formless and void…” Edward J. Young writes, “It is true that the second verse of Genesis does not represent a continuation of the narrative of verse 1, but as it were, a new beginning. Grammatically, it is not to be construed with the preceding, but with what follows.”[15] In other words, the conjunction explains the command of verse 3, because the waw-consecutive is used to begin verse 3.
The Hebrew word “was” (hāyâ) could also be rendered “to be, become, exist, happen.”[16] Grammatically, it’s possible to translate Genesis 1:2 as the earth “became formless and void” (see note in the NIV 1984). It’s also possible to translate the verb as pluperfect, which would state, “But the earth had become…”[17] (Parallel examples occur in Gen. 3:20; 37:20).
Critics of the Gap Theory state that the translation “became” is faulty. For instance, Henri Blocher writes, “The translation ‘And the earth became’ takes inadmissible liberties with the Hebrew grammar… Only in defiance of philology may the pseudo-translation ‘the earth became’ act as the basis of the theory.”[18] Weston Fields calls this “grammatically impossible.”[19] However, other Hebraists—even those who disagree with the Gap Theory—believe that this is a possible (albeit unlikely) rendering of the Hebrew “to be.”[20] Most importantly, don’t miss the forest for the trees: The Gap Theory does not depend on this translation, because other arguments demonstrate a gap. The Gap Theory does not depend on the translation of this one Hebrew word.
Arthur Custance states that this interpretation of Genesis 1:2 is an ancient view, even citing 2nd century Jewish rabbinical sources.[21] Regarding Genesis 1:2, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write that this could be rendered “confusion and emptiness,” citing Isaiah 34:11. They write, “This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the world was made to arise.”[22]
Gap Theory teaches that Genesis 1:2 describes a previous creation in ruins and under God’s judgment
(Gen. 1:2) “The 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 waters.”
The prophets use the expression “formless and void” (tohu wabōhû) to refer to judgment and destruction in the rest of the Bible. Jeremiah writes, “My people are foolish, they know Me not; they are stupid children and have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know. 23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void [tohu wabōhû]; and to the heavens, and they had no light” (Jer. 4:22-23; cf. Isa. 34:10-11). Jeremiah connects the evil of the people with the earth (or land) being “formless and void” (i.e. under judgment). According to Gap Theory, this would imply that Genesis 1:2 describes a world under judgment and in need of recreation.
Furthermore, the OT often uses the term “darkness” to refer to judgment (Ex. 10:21), death (Ps. 88:13), oppression (Isa. 9:1), and wickedness (1 Sam. 2:9; Isa. 45:7). Even in Genesis 1, God calls the light “good,” but he doesn’t call the darkness good.
Critics of the Gap Theory retort that this is reading too much into the text. God calls the darkness “night,” which doesn’t carry negative connotations (Gen. 1:5, 14, 16, 18).
(Isa. 45:18) “[The Lord] created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place [tōhû], but formed it to be inhabited).”
The Gap Theory notices that Genesis 1 teaches that God did create the world formless (tōhû), contrary to Isaiah’s statement. Thus, they argue that this could be commentary on the original creation not being formless, but rather, becoming this way after some sort of judgment event.
Critics of the Gap Theory again argue that this is reading too much into this text. Isaiah 45 simply states that God did not create the world to be a waste place, and God continued in the process of creating the world.
(2 Cor. 4:6) “Light shall shine out of darkness.”
Paul cites Genesis 1:3, and he states that God brings light (i.e. goodness) out of our darkened hearts (i.e. evil). If Genesis 1:3 is analogous, then Paul is stating that the “darkness” of Genesis 1:2 refers to a sinful, evil existence.[23]
(Heb. 11:3) “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.”
The word “prepared” (katartizō) could be rendered “put in order again” or “restored.” The NT uses the term to refer to “repairing” fishing nets (Mt. 4:21; Mk. 1:19), or how believers are being “perfected” by suffering (1 Pet. 5:10; cf. Gal. 6:1). Thus, according to Gap Theory, the author of Hebrews would be saying that God repaired the world of Genesis 1:2 after a fallen state.
(2 Pet. 3:5-6) “By the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”
When Peter writes, “At that time…” gap theorists note that the context refers to “the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:4), not the Flood. Thus, they argue that this is a reference to the destruction or judgment recorded in Genesis 1:2. This would also fit with the world being covered with water in Genesis 1:2 (“the surface of the waters”).
Critics of the Gap Theory argue that the only flood Peter mentions in his letters is Noah’s flood (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5).
Every interpreter must agree that some sort of moral fall occurred before Adam and Eve, because Satan is already in a fallen state by Genesis 3. Thus the question isn’t whether a Fall occurred, but rather, when it occurred. Since Scripture places Satan’s Fall in the Garden (Ezek. 28:11ff), this might have occurred long before the first humans were created.
Gap Theory teaches that a fall may have occurred before Genesis 1:2, and the rest of Genesis 1 details the recreation of the Planet Earth
Many gap theorists associate this destruction and judgment with the fall of Satan. Since Satan is so central to the story of the Bible, his fall would potentially wreak havoc on the Planet Earth. Harry Rimmer writes,
The original creation of the heaven and the earth, then, is covered in the first verse of Genesis. Only God knows how many ages rolled by before the ruin wrought by Lucifer fell upon the earth, but it may have been an incalculable span of time. Nor can any students say how long the period of chaos lasted; there is not even a hint given. But let us clearly recognize in these studies that Moses, in the record of the first week of creation, is telling the story of God’s reconstruction; rather than the story of an original creation.[24]
If this theory is true, then there is no conflict between science and scripture, because the two are describing two entirely separate eras of history. Antecedent hominins in the fossil record would have existed before the gap, and under this view, the Bible simply doesn’t speak to this. Arthur Pink writes, “The unknown interval between the first two verses of Genesis 1, is wide enough to embrace all the prehistoric ages which may have elapsed; but all that took place from Genesis 1:3 onwards transpired less than six thousand years ago.”[25] G.H. Pember (rightly) remains more agnostic on how much time elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, when he writes,
It is thus clear that the second verse of Genesis describes the earth as a ruin; but there is no hint of the time which elapsed between creation and this ruin… There is room for any length of time between the first and second verses of the Bible. And again, since we have no inspired account of the geological formations, we are at liberty to believe that they were developed just in the order in which we find them. The whole process took place in preadamite times, in connection, perhaps, with another race of beings, and, consequently, does not at present concern us.[26]
The strength of the Gap Theory comes from its lack of articulating specific historical events. As Pember rightly notes, we do not know what happened during this time before Genesis 1:3, and it’s wise to avoid wild speculation about what we are not told.
First, there is very little scriptural support for this view. Critics of the Gap Theory argue that we should have more evidence for this view if it is true. However, advocates of the Gap Theory retort that this era of history has nothing to do with us. The Bible explains information to us on “a need-to-know basis,” and apparently, God didn’t feel it was necessary for us to know about this epoch of history. As Pember noted, this era before Genesis 1:2 “does not at present concern us.”[27]
Second, the Gap Theory implies a complete reconstruction of the Planet Earth (as well as the sun, moon, and stars). This recreation would include the existence of light (Gen. 1:3), the atmosphere (Gen. 1:6-8), dry land (Gen. 1:9-10), plants (Gen. 1:11-12), the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-18), aquatic and avian life (Gen. 1:20-22), terrestrial life (Gen. 1:25), and finally, humans (Gen. 1:26-27). If the entire Earth was flooded at such a catastrophic level in the recent past, we would expect to discover this in natural history. Moreover, do gap theorists really believe that God recreated the sun, moon, and stars only several thousand years ago?
Gap theorists argue that God did refill certain aspects of creation. Specifically, the use of the term “create” (bara’) in Genesis 1:21 and Genesis 1:27 implies creating new species: “God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves… God created man in his own image.” It would be very difficult to identify such creative acts in the fossil record.
At the same time, gap theorists also note that most of the created order already existed in Genesis 1:2. After all, the “waters” mentioned on Day Two already existed but were simply separated (Gen. 1:6-8), and the land mentioned on Day Three already existed but merely “appeared” on that day (Gen. 1:9). The same is true of the sun, moon, and stars, which were created at the outset of Genesis 1:1 (cf. Job 38:6), and these only appeared on Day Four. Furthermore, throughout the entirety of the six-days of creation, the Earth already existed (Gen. 1:2). Therefore, according to the text, these features of the natural order already existed and most were simply refashioned during the creation week.
It’s also possible that the recreation was local—not global. While we haven’t heard this explanation from gap theorists, the “earth” (ʾereṣ) can be rendered as “land.”[28] Perhaps a local recreation is in view—much like after the Flood (Gen. 6-9). This dovetails with John Sailhamer’s view in his book Genesis Unbound.[29]
Third, how could God call his creation “very good,” if it included the existence of Satan? On Day Six, Genesis states, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). How can this be the case if Satan was already on the loose?
Gap theorists retort that the term “made” (ʿāśâ) only refers to what God had created in the six creation days—not to everything he had made for billions of years before that time. In other words, the frame of reference starts in Genesis 1:3. This does not refer to the events before this time (i.e. before the gap). Genesis 1:2 is never called “good” or “very good,” because this was before God began to act.
Fourth, Exodus 20:11 states that God performed his entire creation in six days. This includes the physical universe (“heavens and earth”).
Gap theorists retort that Exodus 20:11 refers to the six days of creation, which do not begin until Genesis 1:3 (after the gap). Moreover, Exodus 20 uses the term “made” (ʿāśâ), rather than the term “create” (bara’). The term “made” (ʿāśâ) is “much broader in scope, connoting primarily the fashioning of the object with little concern for special nuances.”[30] In other words, this language stops short of stating that God’s creation in Genesis 1 refers to a brand new creation. It could refer to a refashioning or recreation of the existing world. James Boice—himself not a gap theorist—states that this subtle shift of language “allows for a recreation or reforming.”[31]
Fifth, God’s command to fill the Earth would need to be translated refill the Earth (Gen. 1:28). Of course, it’s true that God commanded the first humans to fill the Earth (Gen. 1:28). But he gave the same exact command to Noah after the Flood (Gen. 9:1). If the command to Noah actually meant to refill the Earth, then this would be consistent with his initial command to Adam and Eve.
Conclusion
The Gap Theory often seems strange to interpreters, and speculation abounds about what exactly happened during this gap of time. Scripture simply doesn’t say, so this has led to outrageous conjecture among gap theorists. (For example, that Satan possessed a race of humans during the gap!) This is not only foolish but also unbiblical; these interpreters should be careful “not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).
The greatest strength of the Gap Theory is in its agnosticism—namely, we simply don’t know what happened during this time. Gap theorists are at their best when they simply say, “We don’t know,” and leave it at that. Moreover, if the Gap Theory is true, it would resolve some of the most controversial subjects between creation and modern science—though a worldwide flood in the last ~10,000 years would still remain a difficulty. Finally, it should be noted that a theory with the most explanatory power and explanatory scope is usually the theory that is correct, and Gap Theory offers a possible model that has both.
Further Reading
Arthur Custance—a PhD in anthropology and an MA in Middle Eastern languages—is probably the most able defender of this view in his book Without Form and Void (Brockville, Canada: 1970). It is free online here.
Steven E. Dill, In the Beginnings (Xulon Press, 2010).
Jack Langford, The Gap is Not a Theory! (Xlibris, Corp, 2011).
Weston W. Fields has written the most detailed critique of the Gap Theory in his book Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1, 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Light and Life Press, 1973). Fields critiques this from a YEC perspective.
[1] Arthur C. Custance, Without Form and Void (Brockville, Canada: 1970).
[2] J. Vernon McGee, Genesis: Volume I (Pasadena, CA: Through the Bible Books, 1980).
[3] A. G. Tilney, Without Form and Void (Hayling Isl., Hants., U.K.: Evolution Protest Movement, 1970).
[4] Steven E. Dill, In The Beginnings (Xulon Press, 2010).
[5] G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (London and Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.).
[6] Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis (Chicago: Moody Press, 1950), 11.
[7] Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941).
[8] We are not aware of Saucy having any sort of extended writing on this subject. However, a debate was sponsored on the Trinity Broadcasting Network called Round Table on Genesis One, 120-minute video cassette (Pasadena, CA: Reasons To Believe, 1992). James Buswell, Hugh Ross, Robert Saucy, and Dallas Willard participated, and Robert Saucy represented the gap theory.
[9] It’s questionable to include Gray as a gap theorist. He calls his view the “biosphere model,” rather than the gap theory. He places the gap between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3. He argues for the creation of a young “biosphere” over six literal days, while the universe and earth can be billions of years old. Gorman Gray, The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits? (Morningstar Publications, US), 1997.
[10] Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 62.
[11] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.58.
[12] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.60.
[13] John Collins writes, “There is a gap between verses 1 and 2, but it is not the gap of the gap reading.” C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.128.
John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1996), p.105.
John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p.53.
[14] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.58.
[15] Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed. 1964), p.30.
[16] Hamilton, V. P. (1999). 491 הָיָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 213). Chicago: Moody Press.
[17] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.59.
[18] Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), p.43.
[19] Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1, 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Light and Life Press, 1973), p.86.
[20] Gleason Archer—though himself not a gap theorist—agrees that this is a possible grammatical rendering. He writes, “It should be noted in this connection that the verb ‘was’ (hāyeṯâ in Gen. 1:2) may quite possibly be rendered ‘became’ and be thus construed to mean: ‘And the earth became formless and void.’” Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998), p.198.
[21] The Targum of Onkelos (2nd c. AD) translates Genesis 1:2 as “The earth was laid waste.” Akiba ben Joseph (AD 135) in his work The Book of Light or Sefer Hazzohar comments on Genesis 2:5-7. He writes, “These are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty.” Arthur C. Custance, Without Form and Void (Brockville, Canada: 1970). See Chapter One: “A Long Held View.”
[22] Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 1, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). p.17.
[23] Custance writes, “I believe it makes excellent sense to assume here that Paul had in mind an interpretation of these first three verses of Genesis 1 which sees the situation as a ruin about to be restored by God’s creative power, commencing with the giving of light where all was formerly darkness.” Arthur Custance, Without Form and Void (Brockville, Canada: 1970), p.16.
[24] Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 28.
[25] Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Genesis (Chicago: Moody Press, 1950), 11.
[26] G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (London and Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.), p.28.
[27] G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy (London and Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.), p.28.
[28] Hamilton, V. P. (1999). 167 אֶרֶץ. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 74). Chicago: Moody Press.
[29] John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1996).
[30] Mccomiskey, T. E. (1999). 1708 עָשָׂה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 701). Chicago: Moody Press.
[31] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.61.