Last week, I participated in a Q&A with Sisterhood, the women’s ministry here at Seacoast Church. I realized going in that there was no way I would be able to respond to all of the questions in the time that I had, and thought that Matter at Hand would be a good place to do that. So, every few weeks my Tuesday post will be a Q&A, where I’ll respond to those remaining questions. I am, of course, also happy to answer any questions that readers would be interested to see me address. You can email us, or leave your question in the comments below.
Here’s the question I wanted to respond to today:
What is your thinking on Gap Theory?
I am probably going to oversimplify this, but the Gap Theory is basically the idea that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is an indefinite amount of time. The theory attempts to make sense of two things:
The apparent very old age of the universe, despite sections of Genesis (the genealogies, for example) that seem to suggest a more recent creation.
The apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1:1 suggesting a finished “heaven and earth,” and Genesis 1:2, which says that this earth God created in 1:1 was “formless and void.”
Gap Theory says that after God created the heavens and earth in verse 1, during that indefinite period of time before verse 2, something happened that rendered creation “formless and void.” It is often suggested that perhaps this is when Satan fell, and in doing so marred what God had made. Thus, in verse 2, God has to start over, so to speak.
I’ve never found the Gap Theory persuasive, for a couple of reasons. First, it is too neat and tidy. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, every problem has an answer that’s neat, tidy, and wrong. Gap Theory doesn’t persuade me precisely because it is such a simple answer to big “problems.” I have “problems” in quotes because the other objection I have to Gap Theory is that it solves problems that aren’t problems.
First, as many scholars have pointed out, the goal of Genesis isn’t really to give a precise age for the universe. Moreover, the genealogies in the Old Testament (or the two offered in the Gospels) probably do not contain every person in the lineage. Ancient genealogies were often selective in who they included in the genealogy. Kind of a “greatest hits” of a certain family line, so to speak. For the authors, the genealogies are more about demonstrating the faithfulness of God than reconstructing a perfect family tree, and thus are not necessarily helpful in establishing an actual timeline. There is no reason to think anything in Genesis precludes a very old universe.
Second, I don’t see any discrepancy between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. I don’t agree that the description of the earth as “formless and void” contradicts verse 1’s claim that God had finished creating “the heavens and the earth.” That assumes that 1:1 is a statement of completion, whereas I think it is pretty clear the author means God created the heavens and earth as a starting point, which he picks up in verse 2.
But would God create something unfinished and chaotic? Yes! I think “unfinished and chaotic” is a pretty good description of every new human that’s born!
Also, I would point out that each of God’s subsequent creative acts in Genesis 1 still leave an incomplete earth. I understand the discomfort people might feel with the idea that God’s initial creation in Genesis 1:1 was an unfinished, unformed work. But in Philippians 1:6 Paul writes, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
An “unfinished and unformed work” is precisely what each of us is, And the God who shaped everything is still shaping us. In my opinion, we should have no trouble with the idea that God creates progressively, over time.
Let me share what I do think is a helpful way of understanding Genesis 1.
I think Genesis 1:2 is actually the foundation to understand what the author is doing with his account. The key is that phrase, “formless and void.” Another way of saying that could be, “uninhabitable, and uninhabited.” In a sense, what God is doing in Genesis 1 is creating habitations and then their inhabitants. The problem Genesis 1:2 poses is that God wants his creation filled up. But there are no suitable homes, and thus no one can live there.
The author of Genesis has a brilliant way of portraying how God responds to this: Days 1-6 (however long they were) are not linear, but paired. On the first three days God created habitations and then on the second three days God created their inhabitants:
Day 1: day and night // Day 4: sun, moon, and stars
Day 2: “expanse” (sky), “waters” (sea) // Day 5: birds and fish
Day 3: dry land // Day 6: land animals and humans
The creation of humanity is singled out and expanded upon in the second chapter, but what’s remarkable is that the “habitation/inhabitant” pairing is still present. Every other creature God makes is portrayed as being alive as soon as he speaks them into existence. But not man. Not only does God take the time to “form” man (pointing our attention back to the “formless” earth") but Adam does not live until God breathes into him.
Humanity was formless until God shaped them; they were void until he entered them. This is really incredible to me because what it means is this:
People are the final habitation God made
He is the inhabitant we were made for
The Old Testament features a couple of moments where a dwelling is made for God (the tabernacle and the Temple) and in each, a big deal is made of the fact that God’s presence comes, visibly, to dwell there. Neither of those places exists anymore and, interestingly, God never seems very upset about it. I think it is because in Acts 2, we see the Holy Spirit (in Hebrew, “spirit” and “breath” are the same) enter the upper room and visibly rest on each believer.
There are a lot of interesting theories that try to deal with challenges in Genesis, and that’s great. But to me, they are all beside the point because Creation is about a God who made a home for everybody, including himself.
Excellent response. Thank you for spelling it all out so clearly.
Great stuff! The best discussion of these issues I’ve ever read. Good job.