The Gap Theory Fails to Explain Genesis 1:2

I have not posted anything here for some time. Bigger fish to fry; bigger battles to fight. Or maybe not. Maybe I have my priorities mixed up. 

I spent many years in a church that taught that the account of creation in Genesis 1, upon which Genesis 2 elaborates and expands, is really an account of a re-creation. The thought was that the earth came into being a very long time ago and its surface was destroyed. Then God, brought into being new species. The teaching was that between the first two verses of Genesis is a big time gap. I was reminded of that now when someone directed my attention to a discussion involving Victor Kubik of the United Church of God and found at https://www.ucg.org/members/united-news/inside-united/inside-united-podcast-093-steven-britt-sound-science-and-the-bible-part-3. 

I have a problem with the teaching, otherwise known as the gap theory. The theory has a history. So far as I know, it was first promoted by Thomas Chalmers a bit over 200 years ago. And about120 years ago, Bullinger took the baton and ran with it. The chief voice of the gap theory in the twentieth century was Herbert Armstrong. 

Supporters of the gap theory are trying to reconcile the Bible to what they think science has proven. In doing so, they contradict the Bible. Based on notes I gathered years ago (largely from David Hocking I suspect), I will now provide detailed comment on Genesis 1:2: the gap theorists say that instead of being rendered “Now the earth was…..” the correct reading should be “the earth had become….” I bought into that teaching for almost 40 years until I realized that had become is an impossible translation of the Hebrew text of that verse. Some versions start the verse with and instead. The point is that there is a conjunction, signified by a waw. ‘Waw’ is the name of the Hebrew letter which is used as the conjunction. It can mean ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘now’, ‘then’, and several other things depending upon the context and type of waw involved. It occurs at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 and is translated in the KJV, ‘And [waw] the earth was without form, and void.’ While gappists use their own translation to support the gap theory, the most straightforward reading of the text sees verse 1 of Genesis 1 as the principal subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three ‘circumstantial clauses’. This is what Hebrew grammarian Gesenius terms a ‘waw explicativum’ [also called waw copulative or waw disjunctive] or explanatory waw, and compares it to the English ‘to wit’.’

Such a waw disjunctive is easy to identify in the Hebrew, because it is formed by waw followed by a non-verb. It introduces a parenthetic statement, i.e.: it’s alerting the reader to put the succeeding passage in brackets as a descriptive phrase about the previous noun. It does not indicate something following in a time sequence. This would have been indicated by a different Hebrew construction called the waw consecutive, where waw is followed by a verb [the waw consecutive is in fact used before the different days of creation . Thus the Hebrew grammar shows that a better translation of Genesis 1:2 would be, ‘Now the earth …’, and it could be paraphrased, ‘Now as far as the earth was concerned …’

 
It is as if the author of Genesis (under God’s direction), by the use of such a joining word, is going out of his way to stress that there is no break between the two verses. ‘Was’ [Hebrew “Hayah” (haw-yaw)] in Genesis 1:2 is translated ‘became’ by gappists, giving the reading, ‘And the earth became [or had become] without form and void.’ Gap theorist A.C. Custance devotes nearly 80% of his book Without Form and Void, including 13 Appendices, to advocating this translation, especially with the pluperfect, ‘had become’. However, recognized grammarians, lexicographers, and linguists have almost uniformly rejected the translations ‘became’ and ‘had become’. It is a basic exegetical fallacy to claim that because Strong’s Concordance lists ‘became’ as one of the meanings of haya, it is legitimate to translate it this way in the particular context of Genesis 1:2. It is simply grammatically impossible when the verb haya is combined with a waw disjunctive. In the rest of the Old Testament, Waw + a noun + haya (qal perfect, 3rd person) is always translated, ‘was’ or ‘came’, but never ‘became’.
   
Moses could have chosen to employ a noun-clause (omitting a verb) in place of the disjunctive clause of verse 2. However, he chose (under the supervision of God) not to employ a noun-clause. The verb he chose is hayetah (“it was”). The qatal (perfect) of the stative verb indicates that the force of the verb involves a state of being (a static stative). In other words, the focus is on the existing condition of the earth. Had Moses employed a yiqtol (imperfect), the force of the verb would have been on a state of becoming, transition, change, or occurrence (a dynamic stative). Ultimately, the text depicts the earth as it existed following the act of creation in verse 1.
   
Interestingly, the choice of Greek verb in the Septuagint translation of verse 2 demonstrates that the Jews 250 years before Christ understood that the qatal (perfect) of hayah in the Hebrew text is equivalent to a form of the Greek eimi (“to be” = static stative) rather than an equivalent to a form of ginomai (“to become” = dynamic stative). This confirms the observation that the Hebrew verb refers to existence rather than to change. 

The Bible has another beef with the notion that the earth was made and then billions of years later the stuff on it was made --- Exodus 20:11, which plainly says that God created the heavens, the land, the sea, and everything in them in six days.  

The efforts to reconcile science and the Bible are wasted on the gap theory. Another approach is needed.

A Few Years in the Absolute Elsewhere

I recently read a novel called The Mephisto Club about a small private club of Satan hunters. I am not clear on their objective, but they wanted to hunt/study Satan by observing people possessed by him. Not something I’d want to do, but it induced some thoughts. Our modern humanistic world of materialism completely discounts the notion of absolute evil or the idea of it having sentience or even personality. Yet we don’t have to reach back very far into history to encounter events that befuddle any other explanation. For example, the atrocities of the Third Reich. I don’t care what theory of psychology, or of sociology or of anthropology you care to put forth, it will not explain lampshades made from human skin. This concept is discussed in the seminal work of Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier, The Morning of the Magicians, in a section of the book entitled “A Few Years in the Absolute Elsewhere.” The revolting fact is that there are even today many manifestations of pure evil --- crimes whose details you don’t want to know. Sometimes these are multiplied on a large scale, and sometimes not.

The pop Christianity view of some tug-o-war, involving you, caught between God and Satan, is an infusion of paganism into Christian thought. The Bible paints no such picture. I recall being challenged decades ago, in an undergrad class, to write a term paper about Satan in the Old Testament. It was a short paper. There isn’t much there. The most extensive treatment is in the book of Job, that seminal book of philosophy from the catalogue of early Wisdom Literature. What we see there is Satan (who would have then been called saw-TAWN), a word which means adversary, but Satan is an adversary that is of no significant challenge to God on any level. In fact, in that account, he performs God’s will and then plays no more role in the story. The Bible depicts a sovereign God whose abiding and overriding value is Love, and it is a love that is characterized by an unconditional loyal caring, affection, and manipulation of lives to bring about certain outcomes. And sometimes that manipulation includes using evil spirits to bring about events that are springboards to personal growth.

In the New Testament, Satan (or “the Devil”) is developed in a much more detailed and larger treatment. There he is painted as a desperately dangerous Evil One seeking to devour and destroy, but in none of that literature is there anything to suggest that he is not fitting completely into God’s plan. No, there too we have the picture of a clever and powerful God who determines and engineers outcomes.

Letting Go of the Past

We sometimes get bogged down with the past.  Sometimes we blame our addictions on it.  We dwell on what we think someone did to us. We assume certain addictions cannot be reprogrammed on the basis that they were formed in the past.

We hold grudges and burn up our present, chasing the past, even though we know that we cannot change it.

When we blame the past for the present and use it as an excuse to not reprogram, we lose an opportunity to get rid of thought habits that are setting us up for unhappiness.

Each moment has its own circumstances.  Each moment is new, and we should allow each moment to arrive without shackles.  We need to learn to live in the moment.  This is not the same as living for the moment.  Living in the moment means that we let each moment possess its own blessings and we realize that at this very moment we have what we everything we need for the moment. 

There is no point fretting about what someone did or what happened to us.  The past is dead.  It is over.  It is not coming back. Our reality is our here and now.  The current moment. 

Paul, in an encouraging letter to an encouraging people, advises us (Philippians 3:13) to be “forgetting what lies behind”: it is back there in life and gets further back there the longer we live. 

It’s an even bigger issue.  Y’shuah says that if we look back, we aren’t fit for the Kingdom of God.  Read the 19^th chapter of Genesis and see what happened in verse 26 when someone looked back.  This isn’t about blaming the past, but it’s about clinging to it when it ought to have been let go.  

We need to live in the moment, not the past.

Government Run Schools

In last week's HFT Connect by David Hocking is the following article. The main issue seems to be the government control of schools. I get that there are problems with this, but I also get that there are problems with NOT having this system. What is the alternative? We would be short-sighted and remiss if we created a system through which a child was denied an education by reason of his parent's inability or unwillingness to pay for it.

Here is that article:

Greetings!

FRANKLIN GRAHAM, SCHOOL PRAYER, AND GODLESS SOCIALISM

Franklin Graham's outrage over government-school coaches being forbidden to pray on school property and at school functions reveals the deep inner conflict that has inflicted the greatest damage upon conservative Evangelicals in America.

Graham posted Friday blasting a decision by the Ninth Circuit to uphold a government school district's suspension of a coach for praying at the 50-yard line after every game. He says,

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that coaches can't pray or make religious gestures on the field after a game. These progressive activist judges have gone too far.

He calls for action:

At next Friday night's game, on Sept. 1, I think it would be great if football coaches across the country went out on the field wherever they are and prayed. And those there to watch the game stand in prayer with them.

Perhaps nothing gets conservative evangelicals as riled up as messing with "our" schools. Whether school prayer, religious symbols on clothing, Bible reading, or the homosexual agenda, Christians today routinely express their feeling that they are "under attack" in government schools.

Christians less often, however, see the underlying problem. When the government owns the building, property, buses, teaching contracts, administration, books, and virtually everything else about the system, and also taxes local property owners to pay for the system, we have a phrase for that: government ownership of the means of production. We also have a single word for that: Socialism.

Stick with me, now.

The deep inner contradiction among conservatives and evangelicals today is that in so many areas of life, they are the foremost opponents of socialism; yet when it comes to education, we are totally blind to it.

Franklin Graham's career over the past couple of decades or so exemplifies this conflict. Graham has been among the most vehement critics of "socialism." Just last fall during the election season he decried the "forces of evil" and their "irresponsible socialism."

About the same time, he rightfully condemned socialized health care, saying "socialists and atheists are scared to death of the church." He criticized "Democratic socialists" for wanting government-run programs in health care and welfare where private individuals and the church ought to provide solutions.

Earlier last year, he blasted socialism on Fox News: "Socialism is godless," he said.

That being the case, why would any Christian desire to hand their children over to it? Who would want their children raised, trained, and educated by a system fully rooted in that which is "irresponsible," "evil," "godless," and "scared to death of the church"?

Yet when it comes to the government education system, Graham is its foremost defender. Just a couple years ago, Graham decried the teaching of "gender fluidity" in government schools. His solution was for Christians to run for school board. While it may sound good to put righteous people in leadership, that will not work if the system is what is corrupt to begin with. This does nothing but legitimize the system the left invented. Baptized socialism is still socialism.

As far back as 2004, Graham spoke on a proposition at the Southern Baptist Convention to pull children out of the socialistic school system. He opposed the move, saying, "I hope Christians will not surrender the public schools. Instead, let's take them back. Let's consider them a mission field."

There was no acknowledgment of the "godless" socialism inherent in that system.

Graham probably has not realized that his argument is exactly how the socialist "Christians" around the world, and on the left in America, defend every other socialist program. Imagine how you (or Graham) would react if you heard a liberal saying:

I hope Christians will not surrender public health care. Instead, let's take it back. Let's consider it a mission field.

I hope Christians will not surrender on raising the minimum wage to $15/hr. Instead, let's take it back. Let's consider it a mission field.

I hope Christians will not surrender food stamps. Instead, let's take them back. Let's consider them a mission field.

I hope Christians will not surrender the public housing subsidies. Instead, let's take them back. Let's consider them a mission field.

On down the list of socialist welfare programs we could go. Granted, all of these areas-poverty, housing, health care-are mission fields, but we don't want the government in them! They are not the government's job! And neither is education.

Now Graham is speaking out because a federal court has inched the bar of "godless" socialism one step further and forbidden a coach from exhibitions of public prayer. He calls for Christian coaches everywhere to defy this ruling and pray.

On the one hand, it's wonderful that a Christian leader is willing to call for civil disobedience. Bravo! We should ignore, criticize, resist, demonstrate, nullify, and in some cases even fight against unjust laws. So few Christians today believe it's acceptable to resist unjust laws in general. It's refreshing to hear one, even if only for such a small thing.

But that's just it. This really is a "safe" thing to speak up about, isn't it?

Because on the other hand, the real problem is godless socialism itself: the redistribution of wealth and state control of the educational system in general, and Graham (and millions of other evangelicals and evangelical leaders) not only won't speak up about that, he defends it.

There is no greater expression of socialism in our culture than the government-run school systems. There is hardly an area in which government ownership and control of the means of production is more entrenched than in education.

Christians like Graham also don't realize that the moment we try to defend government schooling, that very moment they legitimize every other socialist welfare program that exists, and many others than leftists would like to exist. If it works for education, and Christians defend it, it's only a matter of time before it will "work" for health care, housing, jobs, transportation, industry, agriculture, and everything else, too. Why not? The Christians already told us they'd defend it once it's in place.

Leaving your kids in government schools is such a powerful endorsement to socialism in all other areas of life, it far outweighs a direct vote for Bernie Sanders any day. Bernie, Hillary, and Karl Marx have all been laughing for decades as we prove them "right," not by speaking socialism, but by practicing it.

Christians, you have good options, and the more we pull out of government schools, the better the free market reacts and makes those options even better: home school, private schools, private tutors, online schools.

The only way to defeat socialism is to delegitimize it. This means, we must get out of the system while we can, while we are free to do so, and replace it with that which we truly believe and preach: private, free market solutions.

Socialism is theft. Don't be a thief. Let him that stole, steal no more (Eph. 4:28).