Also known, though less frequently as the Restitution Theory or Ruin-and-Restoration Theory, the Gap Theory holds that there is a chronological gap between v1 and v2 of Genesis 1, and that the "formless and empty" state of the earth reported in Gen 1:2 was the result of divine judgment on a rebellion of the angels in heaven. Gap geology is the pseudo-scientific theory that the geological column with its fossils of past dead animals is the result of this catastrophe.
According to the Gap Theory Gen 1:1 presents an account of an originally perfect creation. Through Satan’s rebellion (supposedly described in Isa 14:12-17) sin entered the world and reduced it to the chaos described in v2. God then re-created ("restituted") the world afresh, which is described in v3 onwards. There is thus a time gap of indeterminate period between v1 and v2 during which Satan rebelled and the earth was thrown into disorder. Beyond this main outline various other details have been proposed, including, e.g., a pre-Adamic human race and a pre-Noachian flood, supposedly supported by obscure verses given particular interpretations to fit the theory. The theory was important for many Christians in their interpretation of the geological column and the origin of the fossils found in it.
Until it was eventally edged out of the debate by the 'Flood Geology' of Scientific Creationism gap geology was a rather popular idea during the 1960s' revival of the creationism debate.
The teaching, however, cannot stand the test of careful exegesis, because it fails on three elements that are crucial for the theory to stand:
1. It requires that v2 narrates something that is sequential to v1, i.e., ". . . God created the heavens and the earth, and then the earth . . ." The Hebrew conjunction that introduces v2, however, is what Hebrew grammarians call a disjunctive-waw. As its name implies, it never introduces a sequential clause. So, v2 cannot be construed as "and then the earth became empty and void" that the theory requires.
2. It requires the verb, translated 'was' in most translations, to be understood as a pluperfect, i.e., 'had become.' This is unlikely because if this was what the author of Genesis had intended he would not have used the grammatical construction he used here.1
3. Perhaps most important of all, it is based on nothing that Scripture actually says. That there is in fact a gap between v1 and v2 is nowhere self-evident; it was conjured up in some hyperactive mind and cajoled into the text.
The last commentator to have made a comprehensive defence of the theory is Arthur Custance but in his chapter on “The Pluperfect in Hebrew” he contradicts his own analysis to argue for the theory.2
Notes:
1. "Pluperfect" is the tense that denotes that an action happened before some other past action referred to. Victor Hamilton (The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 116) puts the matter like this:
Now, at times the verb 'to be' in the perfect tense can have an obvious active force. Certainly 3.22 says, "Behold, the man has become [haya] like one of us." But for two reasons it cannot have this force here in 1:2. First, if the writer intended v.2 to be read as a sequence to v.1, he would never have used the construction he did: waw consecutive plus subject plus verb (in the prefect). Instead it would be: waw conversive attached to the verb (in the imperfect) plus subject. Thus, one would expect wattehi ha'ares rather than what we do have: weha'ares hayeta.
2. Arthur C. Custance, Without Form and Void (Brookville, Canada: Custance, 1970). The gap-theory was given wide hearing through the once highly popular Scofield Bible.
©ALBERITH
121117lch