Today we are going to cover gap theories and John Walton’s temple idea. Will Barlow explains how gap theories work, including the classic idea that there’s a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2 as well as the modified version. After explaining the pros and cons for these views, he briefly explains John Walton’s theory that Genesis 1 solely focuses on function not physical creation.
• Standard – multiple options here
• Modified (“Preparing the Garden”)
Pros of Standard Gap Theory
Here are some pros with the standard formulation of Gap Theory:
• It takes the word “day” literally as a 24-hour period
• It fits directly with scientific evidence for an old Earth
• It looks to the text (both in Genesis 1 and remote texts) to reach conclusions
Internal Evidence
Genesis 1:2 The earth was [or became] without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
“Was” or “became”?
• Generally, in Hebrew, the verb “was” is unnecessary when talking about simple existence
Genesis 23:17 So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave that was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over
“Was” or “became”?
• Some scholars suggest that the verb is needed for the past tense, but here is a counterexample:
Genesis 41:12a A young Hebrew was [not in Hebrew] there with us, a servant of the captain of the guard.
• So, some scholars believe that when the verb “was” is there, it takes on a more specific meaning: “become”
• In other words, the word “was” takes on a meaning denoting change, not simple existence
How did God create?
Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Compare with Jeremiah 4:23-26, Isaiah 34:11, Isaiah 45:18-19, among others
Terms Used in Genesis
• Genesis 1:5 “God called the light day”
• Genesis 1:5 “God called the darkness night”
• Genesis 1:8 “God called the expanse heaven”
• Genesis 1:10 “God called the dry ground land”
• Genesis 1:10 “God called the waters seas”
Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
The word “made” does not generally mean “create.” In this context, it can be understood as God working on His creation.
Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
The word “set” can mean “appoint, designate, assign.” In this context, it can be understood as God providing a purpose for the stars, not the original creation.
Is Gap Theory a recent invention?
Detractors of Gap Theory say that it became popular after scientific evidence for an old Earth came in vogue around 200 years ago.
• Jewish sources throughout time lend credence to the Gap interpretation
• Ancient Christian sources, including Thomas Aquinas, mentioned the possibility of a gap
Problems with Standard Gap Theory
Here are some problems with the standard formulation of Gap Theory:
• Gives Satan too much power
• Grammatical concerns over “was”
• There is no scientific evidence for a reconstituted heaven and Earth
• Contextual concerns with Jeremiah 4 and Isaiah 34
• Genesis 1:28 says “fill,” not “replenish”
Modified Gap Theory
Modified Gap Theory holds that:
• Genesis 1:1 refers to the beginning of creation
• Genesis 1:2 focuses on God putting order into the wasteland, preparing the garden
• Nothing in Genesis 1:2ff is talking about creation but rather about shaping the garden and the promised land
Views Compatible with Either
• The “God’s Temple” interpretation — John Walton
• Any non-literal interpretation that does not involve evolution
Walton’s “Temple” Interpretation
Walton’s view is based on 18 separate propositions. Proposition 1: Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology.
“So if God aligned revelation with one particular science, it would have been unintelligible to people who lived prior to the time of that science, and it would be obsolete to those who live after that time…”
“We gain nothing by bringing God’s revelation into accordance with today’s science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood.” (pg. 15)
Giving an analogy from the ancient view of the liver, kidneys, and intestines:
“Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions, and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood.” (pg. 16)
Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented
“Even staying in the realm of English usage we can see that we don’t always use the verb create in material terms. When we create a committee, create a curriculum, create havoc or create a masterpiece, we are not involved in a material manufacturing process.” (pg. 23)
“In this book I propose that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” (pg. 24)
Walton believes that God’s Temple is the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 66:1-2). Thus, the six-day creation account is not a scientific depiction of the creation of the Universe, but rather a description of God setting up his Temple and putting it in order.
Parallels between Genesis 1 and other Temple accounts:
• Seven day consecration of tabernacle in Exodus 39-40
• Seven-year construction of Solomon’s Temple, followed by a seven-day dedication feast (1 Kings 6)
• Description of Eden and the Temple have some similarities
Bottom line:
• Wants to interpret Genesis 1 in light of Ancient Near East culture and scientific understanding
• Gives a context for the text that focuses on God’s relationship with Israel, not with the creation of physical matter and space
Problems with Walton’s “Temple” View
Here are some problems with the “Temple” view:
• Atheists love to attack non-literal readings, since it shows that Jews and Christians can “pick and choose.”
• There is no clear evidence that anyone has held this specific view at any point in Judeo-Christian history.
• It leaves many questions unanswered, especially relating to science.
How should we read Genesis 1?
• Remember who the original audience was (coming out of slavery, coming out of idolatry)
• Consider the text and the various options to interpret it
• Consider the scientific evidence and how much weight you want to give it
Resources
• Young Earth Creationism (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb)
• Day-Age (Hugh Ross, Gerald Schoeder)
• Gap Theory (Arthur Custance, Jack Langford)
• Temple (John Walton)
1 thought on “463 Scripture & Science 5: Reading Genesis One, Part 3 (Will Barlow)”
The thought occurred to me that we often make the claim that only God can “create” something from nothing. However, as we looked at “create” along with “was” and try to figure out what the Hebrew words actually mean, one can take the point of view that God did not “make something out of nothing.”
Create (bara) means to shape or form. No mention of “something from nothing.” Did God really shape or form elements already in existence? And in so doing the result “existed” (haya) formless and void? The “was” in Genesis 1:2 is the same word God gave Moses as His name. Are we going to apply this conundrum to the name of God? Maybe we should just say the earth “existed” formless and void after it was “shaped” or “formed” by God from elements that already existed. To take this one level further, if create really means reveal or assign purpose then God didn’t really materially create anything. He merely assigned purpose to what already existed. The stated conclusion has retrospective determinism of preexisting elements. Also, insisting that anything God makes has to be “perfect” is rather arrogant. Who are we to declare that God has to do something to our arbitrary standard.
There are no verse numberings in the original. So, verse two did not “happen” after verse one. God shape the heavens and earth formless and void. Did time even exist before the God made the sun and moon to give us a means of “measuring time?”
The day four issue is moot. God makes things grow. God “is” light. He said, “Let there be light.” Or “exist light exist light.” This is again a translation issue. There is no chronology in the original words. There is no “God said” – – – and THEN “there was.” God did not “create” light, He established it for our realm of existence. A great book on this is “Energy Is, Therefore God Could Be: Modern Science Refutes Atheism”, by Dr. Patrick McGrath. I like to call this the “wall of light” that separates us from the “other side of light” where God and Jesus are now. God established the “speed of light” for our world. We have no idea what His light is really all about.
The stars “mean” the same thing today. How has their meaning or purpose changed? The ancient person was no different. Again, chronological snobbery and arrogance. Who are we to determine what went through the minds of “ancient” people? Sounds like Mr. Walton is a hard corps chronological snob. Will seems to be definitely enamored with Waltons points of view. However, I do not agree that any of his propositions are “powerful”. They are merely an opinion that has no real substance. Repeatedly referring to “thinking from an ancient persons perspective” is repeatedly employing chronological snobbery. The “original audience” is no different than us.
Finding other references to “7-day events” in scripture that have nothing to do with Genesis 1:1 is a good example of how people can “make the Bible say whatever they want.” This is the problem with forming views or opinions about topics that really do not matter. Usually this is done by folks who look for “other” or “deeper” meaning to scripture rather than just taking it at face value. The subtle message here is that “I am smarter than the average bear because I can see something that others do not.” Let’s stick to reading scripture – in context – and take it at face value for what it actually says. Scientific evidence is always changing, but God’s word does not change – unless we tweak it as we “interpret.” This means we actually “interpolate” it, which Proverbs 30:5-6 warns against.
The Bible does NOT teach a flat earth! Again, I recommend the two books by David Nikao that I mentioned in my comment on Session 2.
Thanks for the many hours you had to have spent researching all this material. Your final comment certainly sets the tone and helps maintain a positive perspective on so much nonsense in the world today.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
The thought occurred to me that we often make the claim that only God can “create” something from nothing. However, as we looked at “create” along with “was” and try to figure out what the Hebrew words actually mean, one can take the point of view that God did not “make something out of nothing.”
Create (bara) means to shape or form. No mention of “something from nothing.” Did God really shape or form elements already in existence? And in so doing the result “existed” (haya) formless and void? The “was” in Genesis 1:2 is the same word God gave Moses as His name. Are we going to apply this conundrum to the name of God? Maybe we should just say the earth “existed” formless and void after it was “shaped” or “formed” by God from elements that already existed. To take this one level further, if create really means reveal or assign purpose then God didn’t really materially create anything. He merely assigned purpose to what already existed. The stated conclusion has retrospective determinism of preexisting elements. Also, insisting that anything God makes has to be “perfect” is rather arrogant. Who are we to declare that God has to do something to our arbitrary standard.
There are no verse numberings in the original. So, verse two did not “happen” after verse one. God shape the heavens and earth formless and void. Did time even exist before the God made the sun and moon to give us a means of “measuring time?”
The day four issue is moot. God makes things grow. God “is” light. He said, “Let there be light.” Or “exist light exist light.” This is again a translation issue. There is no chronology in the original words. There is no “God said” – – – and THEN “there was.” God did not “create” light, He established it for our realm of existence. A great book on this is “Energy Is, Therefore God Could Be: Modern Science Refutes Atheism”, by Dr. Patrick McGrath. I like to call this the “wall of light” that separates us from the “other side of light” where God and Jesus are now. God established the “speed of light” for our world. We have no idea what His light is really all about.
The stars “mean” the same thing today. How has their meaning or purpose changed? The ancient person was no different. Again, chronological snobbery and arrogance. Who are we to determine what went through the minds of “ancient” people? Sounds like Mr. Walton is a hard corps chronological snob. Will seems to be definitely enamored with Waltons points of view. However, I do not agree that any of his propositions are “powerful”. They are merely an opinion that has no real substance. Repeatedly referring to “thinking from an ancient persons perspective” is repeatedly employing chronological snobbery. The “original audience” is no different than us.
Finding other references to “7-day events” in scripture that have nothing to do with Genesis 1:1 is a good example of how people can “make the Bible say whatever they want.” This is the problem with forming views or opinions about topics that really do not matter. Usually this is done by folks who look for “other” or “deeper” meaning to scripture rather than just taking it at face value. The subtle message here is that “I am smarter than the average bear because I can see something that others do not.” Let’s stick to reading scripture – in context – and take it at face value for what it actually says. Scientific evidence is always changing, but God’s word does not change – unless we tweak it as we “interpret.” This means we actually “interpolate” it, which Proverbs 30:5-6 warns against.
The Bible does NOT teach a flat earth! Again, I recommend the two books by David Nikao that I mentioned in my comment on Session 2.
Thanks for the many hours you had to have spent researching all this material. Your final comment certainly sets the tone and helps maintain a positive perspective on so much nonsense in the world today.