The Gap "Theory"
There are two schools of thought concerning the Gap “Theory”. Generally speaking, both schools of thought agree on this: Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is an undisclosed period of time where several events in the bible take place.
This is the Gap “Theory”. I put “theory” in quotes because I believe it’s fact, not theory.
One of the two schools of thought (that we won’t go too in depth on because I consider it to be quite harmful and heretical), is that millions of years took place between the two verses and that the time between them is the age of the dinosaurs, etc. Or that this is when animals “evolved”.
Again, I don’t consider the above school of thought to be valid in any consideration. In fact, I’m nearly convinced this entire school of thought is a fabrication created by people looking to either hide the truth or twist the bible to fit a more worldly view of creation. Although I couldn’t put a number on how long the Gap was, if I had to guess I would say it could have been as long as two thousand years (I’ll explain why a little later in this write up).
I don’t know who or when the Gap theory was first dubbed or accepted but I know Larkin includes it in his charts as far back as 1910’ish. According to Wikipedia Thomas Chalmers popularized the theory around 1814 but based the concept on the 17th century Dutch theologian Simon Episcopius. It was also included in the footnotes of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.
Although I disagree with aspects of the Gap proclaimed by each of the aforementioned theologians, my belief in the Gap “Theory” comes from discerning the HOLY SCRIPTURES themselves, NOT from old charts or footnotes that I find to be fun or fascinating (which I do). And while some of the Gap “Theory” can indeed only be given to speculation, there is (I believe) enough evidence within the bible to show that it DID in fact take place. This is the school of thought we will now journey on. The school of thought that leads me to call it “the Gap Fact.” The biblical school of thought.
Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In Genesis 1:1 the bible says that “in the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth.” NOT in six days. This is the so called “Big Bang” (No, I don’t actually believe in the the “Big Bang” as it is used today). God said it (John 1:1), and BANG, it happened!
Some modern bibles say, in Gen 1:1, that God created the heavens (plural) and the earth, but this would be incorrect. The “heaven” in Genesis 1:1 is where the throne of God is. Where Lucifer was when he was the anointed cherub that covereth (Ez. 28:14). It is called the third heaven by Paul (2 Cor. 12:2). Since the skies are the first heaven (Gen.1:8), “outer space” would be the second heaven (created in Genesis 1:6, and populated with stars in Gen. 1:14-15). In Genesis 1:1, however, the skies and space had not been created yet. Only Heaven (now called the third heaven) and the Earth.
I know this can be confusing but lets just take the bible at it’s word and accept that we can’t fully comprehend everything God says or does (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Isaiah 45:18
“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.”
Isaiah 45:18 is one of the most important verses in understanding the “Gap Theory”. It identifies some important key elements concerning the creation of the earth:
- God formed the Earth.
- It was created “not in vain.”
- It was formed to be inhabited.
We can all agree (if you believe the bible) that the above three statements are true. They are, after all, taken directly from Isaiah 45:18. And if the above three statements are true (which they are), then when God “created” the Earth he did it “not it vain.” That means he created it to be inhabited. And if he created it to be inhabited (which he did), he created it fully formed.
The last point I just made is where most people who oppose the “Gap Theory” will get hung up on but let me ask, what has God ever created that wasn’t fully formed? When he crated Man was he not sully formed? When he created the animals weren’t they fully formed? Why is just the Earth that people think God didn’t create fully formed?
Of course, I know the answer. People think the Earth wasn’t created fully formed because of Genesis 1:2:
Genesis 1:2
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Well, there you have it. In Gen. 1:1 the bible says God created the earth and in the very next verse it says “the earth was without form, and void.” So when God created the earth it must have been created without form and the rest of the chapter describes HOW God formed it… right?
No.
In order to come to the conclusion above (which is the conclusion of most “bible scholars” and “Gap Theory” critics today), you would need to ignore the fact that the wording of Genesis 1:2 shows us that time has passed between the two verses. The key word here is the word “And” at the beginning of the verse.
Of the 31 verses in Genesis 1, 29 of them start with the word “And” and in every one of those verses the word is used to denote a passage of time. It NEVER means that God did “this” AND “that” simultaneously, but that God did “this” AND THEN He did “that”.
If the “bible scholars” are accurate (that Genesis 1:1 is telling what God did and that the rest of the chapter speaks about how he did it), then Gen.1:2 would NEED to be a passage about building something UP. That is was a constructive event, not a destructive event. But in order to come to this conclusion they would also NEED to ignore the way the bible defines itself, as seen in the following passage:
Jeremiah 4:23
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.”
Here we can see exactly how the bible defines itself. Jer.4:23 is the only other verse in the bible that speaks of the earth being without form, and void. In context, the verse is speaking of the earth during Noah’s flood (Jer. 4:23-28), a DESTRUCTIVE event.
So, if we are to compare spiritual things with spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:13), scripture with scripture, the terms “void” and “without form”, concerning the earth, is destructive, which is the OPPOSITE of how the “bible scholars” apply the words in Genesis 1:2. But why? Because they do err, not knowing the scriptures (Matt. 22:29).
The earth in Jeremiah 4:23 is without form and void because of the world wide catastrophic event of Noah’s flood. But if you look closely, you’ll see another link between this verse and Gen. 1:2. BOTH verses are also associated with water. The last half of Genesis 1:2 reads: “and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.“
So, if the diligent student is to take the bible at it’s word and was to consider that the words of God seem to indicate that:
- God creates everything fully formed.
- There is a passage of time between the first and second verses of Genesis.
- That some destructive event took place between those verses where the earth was destroyed by water.
But does the bible actually describe this event? Yes:
2 Peter 3:4-7
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
On the surface the casual reader would look at the above passage and think it describes Noah’s flood… but it doesn’t. Aside from the absence of any mention of Noah, three important distinctions should be made:
- This event is placed near the beginning of creation (Verse 4).
- The “heavens” of Noah’s flood were NOT destroyed (verse 5,7).
- No one was “willingly ignorant” of Noah’s flood (Verse 5).
Noah’s flood was a world wide event but the above passage describes a universal event where both the heavens AND earth were destroyed. If we have any doubt of this then re-read verse 7, where this universal event is being compared to another universal event that is yet to take place, but one where the heavens and the earth will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3:10).
But... Why?
A lot has been said so far but some key elements are missing. IF we can agree, so far, on what has been discussed; That a period of time passed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, AND that a universal flood occurred in that time that left the earth void and without form, then the question then has to be asked… WHY?
We read earlier, in Isaiah 45:18, that “God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:” The key word there is “inhabited”. God created the earth to be inhabited, but by who?
I’m going to go a bit off track here but please try and bear with me because I believe getting this point will greatly help in understanding so much.
Matthew 22:29
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
This is such an overlooked passage. I overlooked it for years. But did you know there is no cross reference to what Jesus is about to quote?
Matthew 22:30
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
Jesus just accused the Pharisees of not knowing the scriptures when the very thing he speaks of has no cross reference. That means that there is no verse you can go to in the Old Testament, which is all the Pharisees had, to find what Jesus just told them, that those in the resurrection are made as “the angels of God in heaven.” Well, if there is no cross reference, how were they supposed to know?
The answer is that the bible doesn’t spell everything out for you. Don’t get me wrong, it leaves very little open to interpretation but not everything is simply spelled out in a verse. A lot of very important doctrines can only be grasped by reading in-between the lines.
Take the verse Jesus just quoted in Matthew 22:30, for example. There is no verse that flat out tells us that people in the resurrection are made “as the angels of God”, but there are passages speaking of fallen angels that “left their first estate” in the Old Testament (Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4), and of a third of the angels being kicked out of heaven in the New Testament (Rev. 12:4). Likewise there are Old Testament passages such as Zechariah 3:7 that say “Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.“
I can’t get into all of the verses in this article but in short, the people of the resurrection are replacement angels. But not everyone that lives forever will be resurrected. Some are survivors of Jacob’s Trouble or the Millennial Kingdom and they will be made like unto Adam was in the garden. They will be married and have children and will replenish the earth. But those of the resurrection have a different fate, and these differences aren’t all simply spelled out for us. They have to be studied out.
Why is this such an important to get? Because what we’re talking about now is one of those studies. The bible doesn’t spell it out for us. But the information is there for those who study it out. Don’t be a Pharisee that “doth err, not knowing the scriptures.”
Now lets get back to the question, who was the earth originally meant for, before Adam? Who did God create it to be inhabited by, before Adam? Well, who was there when it was created?
Job 38:6-7
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Two quick take aways from this verse:
- The Angels were present at the creation of the earth.
- The Angels are call morning stars (not to be confused with “The Morning Star”).
Isaiah 14:12-14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
This passage is about Lucifer’s fall. When he became Satan. It tells us WHY he fell, in verses 13-14. Two things to note about this passage:
- Lucifer had a throne (verse 13).
- His throne was below heaven (verse 14).
Ezekiel 28:12-15
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
This passage continues to describe Lucifer. While it’s addressed to the king of Tyrus, it is clearly speaking to the principality behind the king (Eph.6:12, Matt.4:8-9), Satan. The passage describes the “mount” mentioned in Isaiah 14:13, AND it shows us that when Lucifer had a throne it was on earth, in Eden, and he was on the mount of God as “the anointed cherub that covereth” and walked down the mountain onto the earth.
Reading these passages one has to ask “if Lucifer had a throne on earth then who or what was he reigning over and when was that reign?”
When Did Satan Fall?
While most “bible scholars” agree that the verses we just read are about Lucifer, they can’t seem to agree on when Lucifer reigned. After all, Ez.28:13 says he was in Eden as Lucifer, not as Satan, so did he rule on the earth after Adam and then fall? It has to be after Genesis 1:14, they say, because Isaiah 14:13 says he wanted to “exalt his throne above the stars of God” and God didn’t make the stars until Gen. 1:14.
Again, they do err, not knowing the scriptures.
The “stars of God” in Isaiah 14:13 does not mean physical stars, like our sun. We’ve already seen in Job 38:7 that stars can refer to angels. The common retort then is that Lucifer was already “higher than the angels” because he was the “anointed cherub.” But the word “anointed” does not mean “higher”. Both Moses and Aaron were anointed during the same time frame. Samuel anointed both David and Saul and Samuel himself was anointed. The word anointed doesn’t mean “higher”, it simply means “chosen” for some purpose. After all, is Jesus himself not called “the bright and morning star” (Rev.22:16)? Would anyone imply Lucifer was a higher rank than Jesus who himself appeared as “the Angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament? Of course not. In fact, both Jesus and Cyrus are referred to as the Lord’s anointed (Isaiah 45:1, Acts 10:38), but would anyone dare claim that Cyrus is somehow “higher” than Jesus? Of course not. So the sceptic’ arguments fall short again in this regard.
As for the argument that the Eden of Ezekiel 28:13 must have been the Eden of Adam, once again we can look at the scripture and see that Satan, as Lucifer, could not have had dominion at the same time Adam did:
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
The bible states here that on the sixth day, when God created Adam, he appointed Adam as ruler “over all the earth.” Therefore, Lucifer and Adam could not have ruled over the earth at the same time. Therefore the Garden that was in Eden, when Adam was created, was not the same Eden Lucifer walked in when he was perfect (Ez.28:13,15). Or, if it was, it was re-created after the destruction of the earth in Gen. 1:2.
By now the diligent student should be able to discern that the fall of Lucifer had to of occurred BEFORE God made Adam. Therefore the rule and throne of Lucifer had to be BEFORE the events of Gen. 1:2. The universal flood of 2 Peter 3:4-7 was a direct result of Lucifer becoming Satan (a study could be done here on Leviathan and the deeps) which is why Satan is already fallen and called a serpent when we first see him in the Garden.
Lets surmise what we’ve covered so far:
- God created the earth fully formed (Gen.1:1, Is.45:18).
- God created the earth to be inhabited (Is.45:18).
- Lucifer’s throne/rule was on the earth (Is.14:13, Ez.28:13).
- Lucifer fell (Is.14:12-14, Ez.28:15).
- God made a universal flood to wipe out the earth (2 Peter 3:4-7, Gen.1:2).
- God reforms the earth (Gen. 1:3-31).
- God creates Adam to rule the earth (Gen. 1:26).
But wait, there's more!
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The bible says that God told Adam to “replenish the earth.” Let me ask you something… If the bible contradicts the English Dictionary, which is your final Authority? Because every critic will point to the 1828 dictionary and show that “replenish” simply means “to fill”, not to “fill again.” Well, when I get a re-fill at McDonalds I’m not going to “fill” my drink for the first time. I’m going to “fill it again” after I drank it.
Likewise, if the bible meant “fill”, it would say “fill” because the bible defines itself! After all, in the VERY SAME CHAPTER it uses the word “fill” in references to animals of the sea:
- “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” –Gen 1:22
When God blesses Noah in Genesis 9 and gives Noah the exact same commission as Adam, is his commission to “fill” the earth or to “re-fill” the earth?
- And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. –Gen. 9:1
Even more similarities between these two men and their blessings, along with the angelic influence on the earth between the two floods, can be round in Peter Ruckmans’ sermon on the Gap, but if you compare scripture with scripture then you’ll see the word “replenish”, as the bible defines it, means to “fill again” every time. This would Imply that Adam is re-filling the earth from the destruction of the angels that dwelt on the earth, under Lucifer, before him (another reason added to the rebuke of Matt.22:9).
2,000 Year Speculation
So, coming back to my speculation from the beginning of this article, on why I think the period of the Gap could have been two thousand years… Again, this is only speculation but we know that the millennial reign of Christ is likened to the seventh day of rest (I’m not going to list verses to prove this because it is outside the scope of this article). That the time of the Old Testament was 4,000 years, and the time God has given for the church age of the new testament to be 2,000 years (Hosea 6:2). And since a day with Lord is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8), then the time of the Old Testament is as 4 days, the time of the New Testament is as 2 days (making 6 days), and the seventh day of rest is the millennial reign.
But some speculate that if the Jews has accepted Christ in Acts 7, when Stephen saw Jesus standing, not sitting, then that could have marked Jesus’ return. But because they denied him, the Church age was grafted in. Again, this is speculation and could be the basis of an entire study itself. But IF that is the case, and IF the millennial reign is likened to the sabath day, then it would have capped the week off by making the Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, 2,000 years (or 2 days), followed by 4,000 years (or 4 days) of the Old Testament, and then the seventh day of the millennial reign if Christ had returned right then.
Again, I wouldn’t stand on this part of the theory as doctrine. Just speculation.
Lastly, none of this should divide the brethren. All I’ve done is given the reason why I personally believe the Gap Theory to be true. But the belief in the Gap Theory is not necessary for salvation nor is it reason to separate over others who don’t believe it. I have great brothers in Christ that don’t believe in the Gab Theory. Their speculations haven’t given me reason to not believe it, but they also haven’t given me reason to separate from them.
Personally, for me, the Gap holds true and explains many of the missing pieced of the puzzle I had struggle with when trying to comprehend the timeline of events in the Bible. Hopefully it helps someone else as well. Thank you.