04 The Gap and Day-Gap Interpretations

Previous Lecture | Next Lecture

The Gap and Day-Gap Interpretations

1. The Gap Interpretation

   1. Definition: Posits a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
   2. Purpose: To account for geological ages, fossil records, and extinct life as belonging to a previous world created in Gen 1.1 that was judged and destroyed before God’s re-creation/restoration described from Gen 1.2 onwards.
   3. Assessment:
      1. Plausibility of a Time Gap (between v. 1 and v. 2/3): There could be a gap between the creation of the universe in v. 1 and the preparation of the Earth’s surface for habitation beginning in v. 3.
      2. Critiques and Rebuttals of a Gap:
         1. Grammatical Argument (vav-consecutive):
            1. Critique: Some argue the grammar of v. 2 links it sequentially to v. 1, preventing a gap.
            2. Rebuttal: The grammatical form of v. 2 (vav(and) + subject(the earth) + perfect verb(was)) is a vav-disjunctive construction, indicating a circumstantial clause providing background info for what follows (v. 3), not a sequential action.
         2. Exodus Passages (Exod 20.11, Exod 31.17):
            1. Critique: These verses state God made “heaven and earth” in six days, supposedly including Gen 1.1 within the six days.
            2. Rebuttal: These are general summary statements referring back to the creative days in Genesis 1; the author likely wasn’t focused on whether Day 1 started at v. 1 or v. 3. Pressing them literally can backfire (e.g., implies heavens/earth made only on Day 1).
      3. Critique of the Core Idea (Prior World): There is nothing in the text of Genesis 1 (or elsewhere in the Bible) to support the idea of a prior world, its destruction, and a subsequent re-creation.
      4. Conclusion: The Gap Interpretation is a form of concordism, reading modern scientific data into the text without textual warrant.

2. The Day-Gap Interpretation

   1. Definition: Holds that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days, but they are separated by long, indeterminate periods of time (gaps).
   2. Purpose: To accommodate the long ages of geological time and potential limited evolution of life forms during the gaps between the creative days.
   3. Assessment:
      1. Lack of Textual Support: There is no indication in the text that there are long gaps between the days.
      2. Contradiction with Text: The structure “and there was evening and there was morning, the X day” suggests that each day follows immediately upon the heels of the previous one, leaving no room for gaps.
      3. Motivation: Like the Gap Theory, this view seems motivated by a desire for concordism with modern science.
      4. Effectiveness (Secondary Critique): Even as concordism, it is not very effective, as modern science indicates processes occurring over millions of years (e.g., development of animal life) that cannot be confined to 24-hour creative bursts with long gaps in between.
      5. Conclusion: The Day-Gap interpretation reads gaps into the text that are not present and seems contrary to the narrative structure.

---

Discussion

• Q1: Could the seven “days” represent classifications or boundaries rather than strict chronology, such as separating light/dark, waters, land/sea, and then populating those areas? A: Yes, this is a recognized interpretation, often called the “literary framework view,” which sees the structure as thematic or logical classification rather than a strict chronological sequence. This will be discussed in a future lecture.
• Q2: What about John Sailhamer’s view that the gap isn’t between verses 1 and 2, but that the phrase “in the beginning” itself refers to a long, indeterminate period of time? A: Sailhamer argues “in the beginning” (בראשית, bere’shit) refers to an extended period, not an instant, citing examples like “in the beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah” which refers to several years into an eleven-year reign. While the phrase can refer to an early period of something, it doesn’t have to mean a long period, nor does it preclude it from referring to the very first moment or initial period of creation.
• Q3: In Jeremiah 28:1, “in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, in the fourth year…” uses the same Hebrew construction and refers to several years into an eleven-year reign. Does this support Sailhamer’s view? A: Yes, that example from Jeremiah accurately illustrates how “in the beginning of…” can refer to an early period of its existence, even if it’s not the absolute first instant. This is consistent with Sailhamer’s point about the flexibility of the word “beginning,” but does not necessarily mandate that the “beginning” of creation in Genesis 1:1 must be a long period.
• Q4: Could God saying “Let there be light” and “there was light” imply a delay in fulfillment, similar to the Israelites’ initial disbelief that they would be freed from Egypt when Moses first spoke to them? A: In the specific case of “Let there be light, and there was light,” the text presents it as an immediate occurrence (“and there was light”). While God’s promises in other contexts may involve delays in fulfillment, there’s no textual indication of a delay here in Genesis 1:3. However, the command for the Earth to “bring forth” vegetation might be understood to imply a process over time.