The Creation-Renovation View

The Word of God begins with one of the most highly discussed and too often debated passages in all of Scripture. The primary question regarding Gen. 1:1-2 is when the first day of Creation Week actually began, verse 1 or verse 3. The two primary views consist of those who believe the first five verses to be merely descriptive of Day 1, and the Creation-Renovation View (C-RV)—those who believe Day 1 began in verse 3, with verses 1 & 2 describing something entirely separate: verse 1 referring to God's perfect creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth then becoming waste and empty due to God's judgment in verse 2, and the beginning of its renovation in verse 3. I hope to show in this paper that the latter view is not only reasonable, but the sound biblical interpretation of Gen. 1:1-2.

It has been my experience that those who disagree with the so-called "Gap Theory" usually do so based on an unclear understanding of what those who hold the Creation-Renovation View (C-RV) actually believe. Invariably, or so it seems, any conversation on this topic usually results in a discussion of evolution, geology, fossils, Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. Although many Theistic Evolutionists see Darwinism between verses 1 & 2, this is certainly not the position taken by me or most who claim this interpretation.

During the nineteenth century, when scientists began to find "absolute evidence" that the earth was billions of years old with its numerous ancient species, many fundamental Bible teachers logically placed these epochs of time between verses 1 & 2 of Genesis 1; not to imply that these creatures evolved, but only that they had previously existed. Although I do not agree with this position, it was, nonetheless, a sound and reasonable answer to these humanistic attacks on the Bible. What is of the utmost importance, is that the C-RV was certainly not "devised" to answer the scientific community; it had been widely accepted, based on sound scriptural interpretation, long before the "discoveries" of Darwin, et al. Augustine, living in the 4^th century, agreed with the same. He certainly didn't "devise" his interpretation as an answer to false science, but did so based on a prudent understanding of the two verses.

The fact that many sound, biblical teachers placed the geologic column within the first two verses of Genesis 1 certainly doesn't nullify their correct interpretation of the passage. Their only mistake was to place the catastrophe of Noah's flood in Genesis 1, rather than in Genesis 6, which in no way supports Darwinism or any other blasphemous scientific theory. Although any error attached to the truth may confuse the truth, it certainly doesn't cancel the truth itself. Because some, incorrectly, place extinct species, etc., within the period of time mentioned, it in no way dictates that the C-RV is unbiblical.

As I hope to show, Genesis 1:1-2 has nothing to do with geology, biology, paleontology, etc., but has to do primarily with Lucifer: his initial elevated position, his rebellion, and God's subsequent judgment upon him and his domain.

Job 38:1-7

Jehovah's rebuke of Job, a man who delved into the ways of God thus exposing his lack of understanding, reveals a very interesting fact about God's creative sequence. God Himself tells us that the angels, created beings themselves, witnessed God's creation of the earth when they "shouted for joy." God "lays the foundation of the earth" in v. 4 (see also Ps. 102:25), which was observed by the angels in v. 7. In order for angels to witness this creation, they must have been created prior to that of the earth. God, existing in Himself from eternity, creates the angels first and then the heavens and the earth:

To learn about it [creation] we turn naturally to the beginning of Genesis, where we find it the special subject of revelation. But all is not told us at once, for we must turn to Job 38:7 to learn whether any created intelligences witnessed the fastening of the foundations of the earth. To rebuke Job, who was speaking of things he knew not, the Lord mentions the morning stars singing together, and all the sons of God shouting for joy, as they beheld almighty power dealing with this our earth. How then should Job, whose existence, compared with these, was so limited, and whose knowledge was so scanty, presume to sit in judgment on the actions and motives of his Creator?

— James Butler Stoney, Ministry, Vol. 9

"When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" The angels were made before the earth was made, but this is not at all referred to in Genesis 1; and the reason is plain. The point in Genesis 1:1 is simply to give, first of all, the creation of all the universe where there was nothing.

— William Kelly, Lectures on Job.

What is very interesting about Job 38 is that only the earth is mentioned in reference to the angels proclaiming their joy. Why did they shout for joy? And why, apparently, for the earth only?

Ezekiel 28:11-19

The prophecies of Ezekiel shed some light on these most interesting questions. Although addressed to the king of Tyre, most agree that the actual person discussed is the power behind the king, Satan:

The description of the king of Tyre... taken together seem too impressive for any great ruler, even allowing for great use of hyperbole, or literary exaggeration. For this reason many Bible students see... a description of Satan and of his fall...

— William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary.

Although the power behind the king of Tyre was Satan, the description in vv. 12b-15 is of Lucifer, so-named before his fall. He was "full of wisdom... perfect in beauty... the anointed cherub...[and] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created." These attributes clearly speak of Lucifer, the archangel, before his rebellion against God, and of whom Michael, the archangel after him, did "not bring against him (after his fall!) a railing accusation" (Jude 9). Although a created being, Lucifer was originally placed in a position of great prominence.

Verse 13 explains that Lucifer had "been in Eden the garden of God...[and] was upon the holy mountain (= governmental authority) of God; thou has walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire..." Only one location is given in the Bible as to the whereabouts of Eden, Gen. 1:10-14. This, of course, is the garden in which God placed Adam. I believe this to be the same place where Lucifer had ruled as the anointed cherub, prior to the creation of man. Some, quite reasonably, disagree and take the position that Lucifer's garden was in heaven and Adam's was on the earth. There is one problem with this however; Eden (meaning "ordered and pleasurable") is always spoken of in Scripture as being a place on the earth, but is never spoken of as being in heaven. Referring to Adam's garden, Gen. 2:8 says God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." Notice, it does not say God planted "the Garden of Eden," which most assume, but that He planted a garden in Eden, a place which had apparently already existed on the earth; "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden..." (Gen. 2:10). Remember, Job 38 states that the angels "shouted for joy" when God laid the foundations of the earth, not the heavens. Why? Because the earth was originally created for the angels, with Lucifer created to have dominion over it and its hosts.

There is little description of the angel's original earth, but a few details are given in Ezekiel 28. Here we learn that Lucifer was covered with numerous precious stones and that he walked on the stones of fire. He not only wore them, but he also walked on them before his fall! It can therefore be deduced that the angelic earth was composed exclusively of minerals and precious stones, as specifically mentioned with reference to Lucifer:

... the heathen always began with chaos, but we begin with God the Creator... how was man to get down to the bowels of the earth? How was he to know that there were treasures of gold, silver, precious stones, and marble and slate, and granite, and all the other most useful things that God had created? They were down deep in the earth...

— William Kelly, Lectures on Job.

Let me say emphatically that no mention is made in reference to animals, plants, fungi, etc., in Ezekiel 28. In other words, there was no evolution occurring during this time for the obvious reason that nothing organic had yet been created. It must be admitted, however, that there is also no mention of precious stones, etc., during God's creative week. It cannot be ignored that the earth is today filled with stones and minerals that have no context whatsoever to the description of the earth on which Adam walked. The logical time and place where these stones had relevance and purpose was with Lucifer and the other angelic hosts. Lucifer's garden was composed exclusively of stones and rock; Adam's of plants and animals.

Some have logically asked, "Why would God create a physical earth for angels which are spirits? What need would angels have for a physical earth?" I usually respond by asking why men and women buy, steal, and often kill for such things as gold, silver, diamonds, and many other "valuable" materials today. Why do we similarly adorn ourselves with gold and precious stones? Can we eat diamonds as food? Can we drink gold as water? Do we need rubies to breath? Certainly not! Man has absolutely no need for any of these things. Why then does he covet them so?; because they are desired to make one beautiful and important. In Ezek. 28:17, Lucifer is described as being draped in precious stones, causing him to be "lifted up because of thy beauty." Lucifer, like man after him, forgot that he was created to bring glory and honor to God, never to himself (Rev. 4:11). It is in this spirit that Paul tells godly men to "pray in every place, lifting up pious hands...[and likewise, godly women are to] in decent deportment and dress adorn themselves with modesty and discretion, not with plaited hair and gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, but, what becomes women making profession of the fear of God... " (1 Tim. 2:8, 9—Darby). In contrast to Lucifer, the believer is to never forget that all glory and honor belongs to God alone, and the manner in which we live our lives is to reflect this:

O ye simple, understand Wisdom: and you fools, be ye of an understanding heart... Receive My instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather that choice gold. For Wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things desired are not to be compared to it... Riches and honour are with Me; yea... My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and My revenue than choice silver... The LORD possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was... I brought forth... I was by Him, as One brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing before Him;...

— Proverbs 8:5, 10, 11, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 30.

Many who reject the view that the earth was originally created for the angels see in Ezekiel 28 a symbolic picture of Lucifer only, not to be taken literally. We must always use the utmost caution when we "symbolize away" portions of scripture with which we disagree or do not fully understand. Lucifer's covering stones certainly had symbolic meaning, but that is no reason to assume these stones with which he was covered, and upon which he walked in Eden, the Garden of God, were not literal:

These precious stones are displayed but three times as recorded in the Bible: (a) in the high priest's breastplate, and were a manifestation of divine grace; (b) in the New Jerusalem, which reflects the glory of God; and (c) as the covering of this great angel, which signalizes the highest in creation.

— Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2.

If it is insisted upon that the language pertaining to Lucifer is merely symbolic, must we then assume that the stones of the high priest's breastplate were symbolic only, and the stones filling the New Jerusalem are not to be taken literally? All three certainly have a greater symbolic meaning, but in connection with their literal existence. To understand the literal beauty of Lucifer and his literal earth, just visit one of the thousands of jewelry stores with their millions of literal precious stones, valued at the millions of dollars. Amazing that man places the greatest value, not on food, clothing, water, etc., but on inorganic minerals and stones which have no practical value whatsoever!

The awesome beauty of Lucifer while in his first estate is hard to imagine. Covered in precious stones and seated, by God Himself, in the highest place amongst the angels, he was certainly the most magnificent of all God's creation. But what was the one thing required to display the fullest beauty of these stones with which he was covered? Light! A problem arises when we read that physical light was not created until Day 1 of Creation Week. With no light to magnify the beauty of these stones, what purpose would they have had in this apparent dark domain? A close study of Lucifer's name produces some interesting insight. "Lucifer" literally means "Light-Bearer, Shining One, or Morning Star." Lucifer, placed in the highest position, was apparently created to shine forth the glory and beauty of God Himself. Lucifer, God's Light-Bearer, possessed no light in himself, but was to reflect the glorious Light of his Creator:

... he had been covered with precious stones (that is to say, with all the variety of beauty and perfection, in which the light of God is reflected and transformed when manifested in, and with respect to, creation). Here the varied reflection of these perfections had been in the creature: a creature was the means of their manifestation. It was not light, properly so called. (God is light; Christ is the light here below, and so far as He lives in us, we are light in Him). It was the effect of light acting in the creature, like a sunbeam in a prism. It is a development of its beauty, which is not its essential perfection, but which proceeds from it.

— John Nelson Darby, Synopsis on Ezekiel

This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

— 1 John 1:5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made by Him... There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through Him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light...

— John 1:1, 3, 6-9.

Just as the stones of the high priest's breastplate shone only when in the presence of the Shekinah glory within the Holy of Holies, so too were Lucifer's to shine, "till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezek. 28:15).

Isaiah 14:12-15

The prophet here gives the account of the fall of Lucifer, the Light-Bearer and Morning Star of God. Lucifer shows his true, rebellious intentions against God when he sins within his heart. In Job 38, the angels shouted for joy at the creation of the earth. Here, Lucifer is fallen from heaven because his desire was to ascend into heaven, ^[1] where he would seek to exalt his throne above the Lord of Hosts. He would sit on his own holy mount where he would be like the Most High. It's important to note that Lucifer's intent wasn't to be like "God," but like the "Most High," and this becomes quite revealing as to what he truly coveted:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the Priest of the Most High God. And He blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth... And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up mine hand unto the LORD, the Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth.

— Genesis 14:18, 19, 22.

A careful reading of the passage in Isaiah shows us that Lucifer's desire was to have dominion in heaven. Nothing is said about exalting himself on the earth. Lucifer already had dominion over the earth as the anointed cherub who covered, but he wanted more. The ultimate possession was heaven itself, the very Throne of God. Lucifer's sin, which was nothing more than self-ambition (Who of us hasn't done the same in our heart?), resulted from his elevated position as God's Light-Bearer:

He is cast out of the mountain of God on account of his iniquities; his heart was lifted up because of his beauty, and he corrupted himself. Farther, we find that which, as to the creature, is most exalted; he acts in the judicial government of God according to the intelligence of God (this is the character of the anointed cherub). He is clothed with the moral beauty that variously reflects the character of God as light... He had been there also where the authority of God was exercised—on the mountain of God. He walked where the moral perfections of God were displayed in their glory, a glory before which evil could not stand—"the stones of fire." His ways had been perfect. But all these advantages were the occasion of his fall, and characterised it. For the privileges we enjoy always characterise our fall. Whence have we fallen? is the question; for it is the having failed there, when we possessed it, that degrades our condition... He exalted himself against God, and he was cast out as profane from the mountain of God.

—John Nelson Darby, Synopsis, Isaiah.

Had God's plan to show forth His glory failed? Lucifer, the Morning Star, had fallen and there wasn't another to replace him, or was there? This is when the description given of Lucifer's precious stones in Ezekiel 28 becomes even more fascinating. God, indeed, had Another to show forth His glory.

Did God the Creator know Lucifer would rebel? Certainly! Did He know Adam would sin? Of course! The LORD, existing outside of time and thus declaring the beginning and the ending, shows us that in His eternity to come, He will show forth His own glory:

And there came unto me one of the seven angels... saying, Come here, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away... and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal...

And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones... jasper... sapphire... chalcedony... emerald... sardonyx... sardius... chrysolyte... beryl... topaz... chrysoprasus... jacinth... amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls (see Matt. 13:45-46—As a picture of the Church, nowhere are pearls mentioned in connection with the coverings of Lucifer. With their origins found in unclean animals [not present until creation week], pearls, signifying the outcalling of "unclean" Gentiles, fit perfectly within the description of the New Jerusalem); every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. And the city had no need of the sun, neither the moon (both created on Day 4, after Lucifer and the earth), to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof...

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I AM... the Bright and Morning Star...

— Revelation 21:9-11, 18-23; 22:16.

Have you ever wondered why both Lucifer and the Lord Jesus Christ share the name, "Morning Star"? Lucifer, originally created to show forth the glory and beauty of God, rebels, leaving God with the only One who could ever perfectly fulfill this responsibility into eternity, the Eternal Son. Only GOD, the Author and Finisher of all, could arrange His plan to have time end, precisely as He had created it to begin.

Genesis 1:1

A proper perspective of God's dealings with Lucifer allows one to read the beginning of Scripture with a greater understanding. God begins His Book with Himself as the Creator and Originator of everything. Verse 1 speaks of God's creation of the heavens and the earth with no descriptive information offered:

Nor is there any reference to man or even to any other animal in this primary mention of the earth (verse 1). All is left strikingly open... The Bible, then, nowhere puts creation in connection with Adam—expressly not; nor is it in connection with animated being, with beasts, or birds, or fishes, or reptiles, nor even with the grass and fruits of the earth. It simply affirms what man never knew as a certainty without the Bible, that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis

But there is not a word in scripture to warrant the strange and hasty assumption that the universe was brought into being in the six days of Gen. 1: 3-31, so often referred to throughout the Bible. Construe the six days as men will, it is out of the power of any on just principles of interpretation to deny that the first day begins with light, and that the first two verses are marked off in their nature, as well as by their expression, from the work of the six days. Nothing indeed but prepossession can account for the mistake, which the record itself corrects. "In the beginning"' has its own proper significance, and is in no way connected with "the days..."

— William Kelly, In the Beginning

... where there was nothing, God created the universe, the heavens, the earth, and all their host, but in a very different state from what it is in now.

— William Kelly, Lectures on Job

... for people who talk about untold millions of years are like babies who prattle about untold millions of money. "God created." The emphasis here is commonly misplaced. It is not that the earth was created, but that GOD created it.

— Sir Robert Anderson, The Buddha of Christendom.

The Bible includes four Hebrew words which deal with God's creative acts, and certainly adds to our comprehension of His works. Although they may seem to be contradictory and insignificant at first glance, the different words provide a deeper meaning, and give proper context to the book of Genesis. The Holy Spirit didn't use these words declaring God's creative acts glibly, and without specific context and meaning. It could be assumed that any who would propose that, "scripture uses these different words basically interchangeably, so not too much should be made of their various meanings," must certainly have a very low estimation of Scripture.

The Hebrew word for "create" in Gen. 1:1 is bara, which places emphasis on God creating something which previously hadn't existed:

Only three times in this account is creation spoken of: first, of the heavens and the earth at the beginning; secondly , of the living soul—the animal creation; thirdly, of man, who is spirit, as well as soul. In each case in which it is used, therefore, the new thing is brought into being, not developed out of pre-existing material. That the word is used elsewhere in a less exact way is true, and not hard to understand either; but to the six days work as a whole it is never applied...

— F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible

"God created the heavens and the earth," where nothing of the kind existed previously. They were created out of nothing as men speak, pehaps loosely, but not unintelligibly.

— William Kelly, In the Beginning.

Although bara is also used with reference to whales and man in Genesis 1, the context and emphasis of the usage of the word isn't directed on how God created them, but that they had not previously existed. God deals with the how in later verses.

The next creative word used is asah, translated "made." The primary meaning of this word is "to fashion or make" something. First found in Gen. 1:7, the word has to do with God fashioning the firmament, but also of the sun and moon, the beasts of the earth, and in Gen. 1:31, of all God's creative acts during the six days. On Day 7, God "rested from all His work which God created (bara) and made (asah)" (Gen. 2:3). The emphasis is that God had, during the six days, created entities which hadn't yet existed, by the process of fashioning them from what had previously been created. The next verse begins to restate God's creative process, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the LORD God made (asah) the earth and the heavens." In other words, God had created the heavens and the earth out of nothing, as no matter had yet existed, but it was God alone Who made or fashioned them.

The next creative word used is yatsar, translated "formed," and connotes fashioning something as a potter forms his clay. "And the LORD God formed (yatsar) man of the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7). Here we learn explicitly that Adam was not created out of nothing, but was fashioned from the dust of the ground. The usage is not to be taken that God sculpted Adam over time (He simply "snapped His fingers"), but that Adam arose from the elements of the earth; materials which were already present. (Interestingly, science has just recently confirmed that all the "building-blocks" which make up man can be literally found in the dust of the earth. Science confirms the truth of the Bible once again, but as usual, a few thousand years later!) Yatsar is also used in Gen. 2:19 in reference to the beasts which God had made, but is never used in reference to the creation of the heavens and the earth, because they alone were created out of nothing.

So it is true that all three Hebrew words can, in certain situations, be used together; the context of the passage dictating the truest meaning. Adam was created (bara), being the first man; he was also fashioned (asah) by the power of God; and was formed (yatsar) from the dust of the ground. Only the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing, with all "materials" used in subsequent creative acts arising from those which were already present upon the earth:

What we do find is the creation of heaven and earth in the beginning; but when you come to the six days, it is the making of heaven and earth. So manifest is the difference at once. "Create" (bara), if we are to distinguish the words, refers to the efficient cause; "make" (asah) points to the formal cause; and they have another word (yatsar), which brings in the material.

Thus, without going farther, this very chapter of Genesis shows that, while the word here translated "create" is proper to describe God's origination of being where there was none before, at the same time it may express a particular act of God's will where there existed materials of which God made use. For instance, where He created the sea-animals, and where He created man in the image of God, it is evident that in neither case does it mean without pre-existent materials.

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis.

The fourth word used with reference to God's creation pertains only to the woman, banah, which means "to build." "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made (banah) He the woman, and brought her unto the man" (Gen. 2:22). Certainly, God also created (bara) and made (asah) Eve, not by forming (yatsar) her from the dust of the ground, but by building (banah) her from Adam. Eve, as a picture of the Bride of Christ, is built, just as the Church is built. Paul, speaking of gentile believers, says, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In Whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2:19-22). Peter adds, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5). It's amazing how wonderful scripture can be when "too much" is made of words!

Genesis 1:2

The second verse of Genesis 1 becomes the "meat" of the C-R model, and quite frankly, where those who reject it have the most difficulty defending their position with any sense of a proper hermeneutical application. If they translate the Hebrew words correctly, they're left with God originally creating the earth as a wasteland. Impossible, in that everything the Lord begins is perfect at its outset; "as for God, His way is perfect" (Ps. 18:30):

But I repeat my assertion that the creation of a chaos, or the existence of a chaos as a primeval state, is a heathen and not a biblical thought.

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis.

Their only option is to mistranslate a passage of Scripture which is quite easily understood if apprehended for what it says. It should be stated that those who hold the view that Gen. 1:1-5 comprise Day 1, do so with good intentions. Their disdain for pseudoscientific theories such as evolution is the primary rational for this position. However, the proper understanding of this passage leaves no room for evolution of any kind. Although their intentions are admirable, they possess shaky interpretive ground which need not be taken in order to refute these humanistic attacks on Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 clearly says that God created the heavens and the earth. Because His way is perfect, there is then no doubt that the heavens and earth were perfect at their beginning. Those who reject the C-RV claim that these two verses are simply included as the description of God's creative Day 1. This is hard to accept however in light of a proper understanding of Gen. 1:2. Verse 2 clearly depicts the earth in a state in which it couldn't have been originally:

The fact is stated that God created all things, all man sees, all the material universe. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What may have taken place between that time and the moment when the earth (for it only is then spoken of) was without form and void, is left in entire obscurity. Darkness was then upon the face of the deep, but the darkness is only spoken of as resting on the face of the deep... From out of this state of chaos and darkness in which the earth then lay God brought it, first introducing light into it by His word, and then formed seas and dry land, and furnished it with plants and living creatures.

— John Nelson Darby, Synopsis on Genesis

Here it is in the Bible without them and before geology was heard of: "And the earth was without form, and void." It is clearly a condition totally different from the first verse. Not a word about the heaven being without form, and void; the earth alone was so.

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis

It is not chaos first, as Greek and Latin poets feigned, in accordance with heathen tradition never wholly right, though often mixing up what was not wrong... Here is therefore the surest warrant to separate v. 2 from v. 1 (save, of course, that it is a subsequent fact)... and characterised by a catastrophe, at least as far as regards the earth. Indeed it would be strange to hear of an ordered heavens along with a "formless earth" as the firstfruits of God's creative activity.

— William Kelly, In the Beginning

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Here was, in good truth, a scene in which God alone could act... All was darkness and chaos; but God is the God of light and order.

— C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Book of Genesis

...in the second verse we find things fallen into a state of ruin... This was certainly not as it was created... a solemn change had come about between the first and second verses of Genesis 1.

— C.A. Coates, An Outline of Genesis

... revelation concerning Satan begins with the dateless period between the creation of the heavens and the earth in that perfect form in which they first appeared (Gen. 1:1) and the desolating judgments which ended that period, when the earth became waste and empty.

— Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2

One of several conservative interpretations of the Genesis account of creation, the creation-reconstruction view [the only view offered by Mr. MacDonald], says that between verses 1 and 2 a great catastrophe occurred, perhaps the fall of Satan (see Ezek. 28:11-19). This caused God's original, perfect creation to become "without form and void"... only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of verse 2... "The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters", preparatory to the great creative and reconstructive acts to follow.

— William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary

... it existed in a chaotic state. That this was not its original condition, Scripture expressly declares. But how its ruin came about-it was probably due to some cataclysm which engulfed an earlier economy of life [e.g., the angels]...

— Sir Robert Anderson, The Buddha of Christendom

It is of the greatest importance to understand that the condition in which the earth (not the heavens) is described in the second verse is not how God created it in the beginning... The original earth passed through a great upheaval. A judgment swept over it, which in all probability must have occurred on the account of the fall of that mighty creature, Lucifer, who fell by pride and became the devil. The original earth, no doubt, was his habitation and he had authority over it which he still claims as the god of this world.

— Arno C. Gaebelein, Gaebelein's Concise Commentary

In the second, the earth—emphasized and in contrast with the heavens—is waste and void. Darkness is on the face of the deep—not everywhere, and the light of the first day is not created then... the "deep," too, is not a true chaos, (nor is the earth that,) but "waters," under which the earth lies buried, in which are removed on the third day, so that the dry land appears. All this shows a state of things quite in accordance with the idea of some cataclysmic overthrow... This thought of a ruined condition of the earth succeeding its original creation, so far from being nearly an attempt to meet the demands of geology, is no less required by the typical view. It is a new birth of a fallen creature which is depicted in the first days work. ^[2]

— F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible.

Though many of these men accepted the idea that most of science's "irrefutable" discoveries of their day (most lived in the 19^th century) could be answered by the period of time between Gen. 1:1 and 2, they in no way devised the so-called "Gap Theory" out of any fear of Darwin. They simply made the logical assumption that if this "evidence" had indeed been discovered, the likely answer from the Bible was during this unknown period of time after Lucifer's fall, but before the six days. None of these godly men saw a glimpse of evolution within their interpretation:

It is especially important that we should be established in the truth of this first chapter in an infidel age like the present, when all kinds of theories as to the origin of things are abroad... I doubt whether it lies in the power of man's mind to conceive creation; it is a thought which can only be entertained really by faith... No one need be afraid that discoveries of geology, or any other science, will ever shake the truth of this chapter... Any theory which definitely conflicts with the account here given is certainly wrong.

— C.A. Coates, An outline of Genesis

It is to God we are brought... There is nothing here on which idle curiosity may feed-nothing on which the poor, human mind may speculate... It could never come within the range of the Spirit of God to gratify idle curiosity, by the presentation of curious theories... Geologists may explore... They may speculate upon fossil remains; but the disciple hangs with sacred delight, over the pages of inspiration. He reads, believes and worships.

— C.H. Mackintosh, Notes on the book of Genesis

There are many questions which the evolutionists cannot answer and many difficulties which they cannot explain. Their scientific assertions and speculations require one to believe what is against reason, while God never expects us to believe what is contrary to reason... "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear" (Heb. 11:3). This disposes of evolution and the other theories of unbelieving men, who reject God's Word.

— Arno C. Gaebelein, Gaebelein's Concise Commentary

I live: How did life begin?... To reply that he was evolved or developed from a life-germ, is merely to put the difficulty back... the only possible alternative to the hypothesis of evolution is that of creation... [with the objection being] an unintelligent one... while the evolutionist, perchance, would train his babies to bow down to some "symbolic conception" of the great "primordial germ," the cult being regulated by the Principles of Biology, others, with the help of a very different book, will teach their children to worship the "God who created the heavens and the earth"... man is the product of special creation... There is no reason perhaps why the various Buddhas, including the Buddha of Christendom - the traditional Jesus of the so-called "Christian religion"—should not have been derived from an ape. ^[3] But the suggestion that the Lord Jesus Christ of Christianity was thus derived, is one which the Christian will instinctively recoil... many people are evolutionists for the same reason that small boys smoke cigarettes—it seems naughty, and they imagine it shows their independence.

— Sir Robert Anderson, The Buddha of Christendom.

The earth is described in Gen. 1:2 as being "waste (tohu) and empty (bohu)" (Darby). A proper understanding of the usage of these two Hebrew words is extremely important to gain a clear perspective of this passage. The primary meaning of tohu is "to lie waste, vanity, confusion, or an empty place"; the primary meaning of bohu being "void, empty, or waste." As stated earlier, God's way is perfect, so the earth's condition described in verse 2 certainly is not its original state. Those who place this verse within Day 1 have real difficulties with the phraseology so must interpret tohu and bohu as "empty" and "unfulfilled." This is simply an erroneous mistranslation of these very specific and meaningful words.

Tohu refers to Divine judgment or has negative connotations in every passage of Scripture with, perhaps, one exception in Job 26:7, where God "stretches out the north over empty space (tohu)." The empty space, here stated by Job, could also refer to a space that is void (and therefore doesn't change the correct meaning of the word as used in Gen. 1:2); so perhaps this isn't the smoking gun after all. Based on this one instance in Job, those who reject the C-RV take license to force "empty" on Gen. 1:2, but this makes no sense since the Holy Spirit places tohu in conjunction with bohu, which already describes something as being empty.

I could find not a single person or reference which translates bohu as "unfulfilled." Even so, what is meant by "unfulfilled"? This position remains at variance with the attributes of God, for His way is always perfect. When did God ever create anything that was "unfulfilled"? "This refers to the fact that creation week was not yet complete and therefore the earth was 'unfulfilled,'" some might respond. This is misguided however, in that God ended each of His creative acts with "It is Good," even though the entire creation sequence was not yet complete! Was light unfulfilled at its beginning? What about the plants, animals, and finally man? God Forbid! Everything God creates is perfect and fulfilled at its origin, just as was the earth in Gen. 1:1. Every part of every day was perfect; never unfulfilled because there was more which God intended to create. Take a new, immature believer for instance, at the moment of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross, he is said to be a "new creation"; not unfulfilled, but "glorified [and]... seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus"! Is not the primary purpose of the sanctification journey to grow, practically, in our understanding of the glorified position we have in Christ when we first believed, and therefore casting aside the dead works of the old man?:

... applied: "in six days the Lord made," not "created." The closing words, which I have rendered literally, make a distinction between creating and making, and affirm the making here to be a purpose off the original creation. When men are born again, here also they are "created" in Christ Jesus, and have a new, "divine nature'' which is "eternal life."

— F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible.

Even if tohu is translated "empty," combining it with bohu would render Gen. 1:2 as, "The earth was empty and empty." It's safe to assume the Holy Spirit is beyond such a redundant sentence structure as this. The thought is that the earth was "waste and empty" due to the judgment upon its former rebellious inhabitants. When Scripture is allowed to say what it says, all becomes clear.

As has been referred to previously, there is an additional question to be addressed if these verses are to simply describe the earth as an "empty, unfulfilled" place. If these verses are to be read in the context of describing Day 1, why is the earth alone referred to as empty? Why are the heavens not described as such? If the verse is to be taken as descriptive only, it seems odd that the heavens, which were truly empty (the heavenly bodies weren't created until Day 4), wouldn't also be included in the Holy Spirit's portrayal of Day 1. This gives further credence to the view that verse 2 is descriptive of the earth after Lucifer's fall; waste and empty of its former inhabitants.

For one to translate Gen. 1:2 as "empty and unfulfilled," he would have to take the position that every translation and an overwhelming number or sound teachers, whose understanding of Hebrew can best be described as profound, are all wrong! Shaky ground indeed!

And the earth was without form, and void — KJV

The earth was without form, and void — NKJV

And the earth was waste and empty — Darby

Now the earth was formless and empty — NIV

the earth was a shapeless, chaotic mass — Living Bible

And the earth was formless and void — New American Standard

The earth was formless and desolate — Good News Bible

The earth was without form and an empty waste — The Amplified Bible

Are all of these translations an incorrect rendering of tohu and bohu? It's safe to say that the meaning of Gen. 1:2 in unequivocally not, "empty and unfulfilled," but "waste and empty."

Even if one insists to translate tohu as "empty," Isaiah explicitly tells us it wasn't created that way:

The record declares that God created not a "formless earth," but "the heavens" (where at no time do we hear of disorder) "and the earth." But even as to "the earth," which was to be a scene of change, we are expressly told by an authority no less inspired, and therefore of equal authority with Moses, that such disorder was not the original state. "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens; he is God; that formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a waste [tohu], he formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. 45:18). The R.V. is purposely cited, as confessedly the more correct reflection of the prophet.

— William Kelly, In the Beginning

... tohu... The fact is, it is very much more forcible when taken in connection with the passage in Genesis 1:2. One of the terms Moses employed in verse 2 is used by Isaiah, who declares that Jehovah did not create the earth so. What conclusion can one draw but that Moses described an after state, and not the primary result of God's creation!

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis

Since God didn't create the earth waste and empty (Isa. 45:18), only a mighty cataclysm could explain the chaotic condition of verse 2.

— William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary

Read Isaiah 45:18. The Hebrew word for "without form" is tohu, which means waste. "The earth was waste and void." But in the passage of Isaiah we read, "He created it not a waste."

— Arno C. Gaebelein, Gaebelein's Concise Commentary

There is no rational argument against the fact that Isaiah declares the earth as not having been created a tohu, whatever meaning one wishes to assign to the word. Waste, void, or empty, whatever the case may be, it was not the earth's original state. Realizing that Isa. 45:18 nullifies the position that places Gen. 1:2 within Day 1, the only response is that the verse, as applied to creation, is taken out of context. The claim is made that Isa. 45:18 refers only to the land of Israel, and not to the earth. How one could come to this conclusion, even with a less-than-thorough reading of this passage, is hard to imagine. Although the passage has to do with the God of Israel and her people, the full context of the passage deals with Israel's God as the only true Creator-God:

Drop down, [ye] heavens... I, Jehovah, have created it... Woe unto him that strives with his Maker!... Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker... I that have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, My hands, that have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded... Verily You are a God that hides Yourself, O God of Israel, the Saviour [Of Israel, yes, but of the whole world as well]... For thus saith Jehovah Who created the heavens, God Himself that formed the earth and made it, He Who established it,—not as a waste (tohu) did he create it: He formed it to be inhabited:

— Isaiah 45:8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18 (Darby).

The LORD God of Israel is clearly demonstrating in this passage His rightful position as Maker and Creator, of not only Israel, but of the heavens and the earth, which He created not a tohu.

Additional contextual uses of tohu and bohu are also most helpful in understanding the usage of the words in Gen. 1:2:

Thus in Isaiah 34:11 we have these same expressions once more. In describing the judgment upon the land of Edom, we read, "The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it; and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion (tohu), and the stones of emptiness" (bohu). No man can say that this is a description of the original state of the land of Edom; it is a condition to which God's judgment brought it down. This, then, confirms the interpretation already given of Genesis 1:2. The second verse is brought in as an additional statement to the first (not an exhibition of the state which was before us in the first verse). But, further, the use made of the terms elsewhere (as Isaiah 34) shows that they suit there a condition to which God consigned what He had made, and certainly do not describe that in which He made or created it.

"Again Jeremiah 4:23 refers to these same terms, and clearly in allusion to Genesis. There the prophet writes in view of the land of Israel and the judgments impending—"I beheld the earth and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled [Interestingly, Satan is referred to as "the prince of the power of the air"!]." That is, it is not at all a vision looking back to a primeval condition, but one that looks onward to the utter desolation with which God would visit a particular land, the terms being pointedly chosen from the second verse of Genesis 1. What I gather is very simple; that there is an analogy in the use to which the Spirit of God applies His own words; that Genesis 1: 2 is a description of the state, not in which God made the earth, but to which He was pleased subsequently to reduce it.

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis

With this agrees the occurrence of the remarkable phraseology "waste and empty" elsewhere. There are but two other occasions:—Isa. 34:11, "the line of confusion and the stones of emptiness;" and Jer. 4:23, "I beheld the earth; and lo! it was waste and emptiness." In both it is a desolation indicted, not the primary condition. So it is in Genesis 1:2.

— William Kelly, In the Beginning

Then in the second verse we find things fallen and into a state of ruin... This was certainly not as it was created-for we are expressly told that "not waste [the same word as in Gen. 1:2] did he create it" (Is. 45:18). The same words "waste" and "empty" are used of Edom (Isa. 34:11), and Israel (Jer. 4:23), when those nations have come under Jehovah's vengeance and fierce anger.

— C.A. Coates, An Outline of Genesis.

The primary thought of tohu has to do with God bringing judgment upon a land due to the sin of its inhabitants, and thereby making the land lie waste. This is precisely the condition of the earth in Gen. 1:2; a waste, empty place brought about by the sin of Lucifer and his angels, who had "left their first estate." As is always the context, it was not the earth that sinned, and thereby causing this Divine judgment, but its inhabitants:

Behold, the LORD makes the earth, empty, and makes it waste and turns it upside down, and scatters abroad the inhabitants thereof.

— Isaiah 24:1.

The land in Isaiah 24:1 is made waste, not due to anything the land did, but due to the rebellion of the land's inhabitants. Although tohu and bohu are not used (tohu is used in verse 10), the thought is certainly the same, a land made waste and empty due to God's judgment upon its occupants:

Isaiah 24 sets before us the overturning of everything in the earth. The land of Israel is first in view. But there all the elements of all the systems of this world will be gathered together and judged. We have already remarked that this extends to the judicial overthrow of the power of wickedness in the heavenlies, as well as of the kings of the earth upon the earth:

— John Nelson Darby, Synopsis of Isaiah.

The context and meaning of tohu and bohu in Gen. 1:2 assuredly makes plain that the earth, at that time, was in a condition which it had not been previously; thus different from its original condition as implied in verse 1. Even with this being understood, many have difficulties with the usage of the word "was" (hayah) in verse 2. Hayah, used thousands of times throughout the Bible, means "to be, become, became, or exist." Many claim that hayah is always to mean "to be" in the Old Testament. The word, or so they say, dictates that any entity associated with hayah is in a condition in which it has always been ("to be"). In other words, it didn't "become" that way. Even if "was" is to mean "to be" in Gen. 1:2, this makes no difference with regard to the intended thought. The fact that the earth "was" (in a state of being) waste and empty at the time mentioned in verse 2, before Creation Week, does not mean it had always been in that particular condition. Read in proper context, it is certain that the earth was waste and empty, but it definitely hadn't always been that way; i.e., If I say that I was ("to be") ill, it doesn't take an in-depth word study to come to the conclusion that I hadn't always been so.

For some to imply that "was" (hayah) can never be translated "became" even though used thousands of times, would be humorous were it not such a gross interpretive reach:

—And he said, I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid... — Gen. 3:10.

Though Adam was in a state of being afraid, did he not become that way?

—And Abel was a keeper of the sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. — Gen. 4:2.

Though Abel was in a state of being a keeper and Cain a tiller, did they not become that way?

—And Noah was five hundred years old... In the six hundredth year of Noah's life... — Gen. 5:32; 6:11.

Is this not a serious error in the Canon? How could Noah have always been in a state of being 600 years old, when he had previously been 500? He obviously became 500, and then 600.

—... and the earth was filled with violence. — Gen. 6:11.

Wasn't the earth "good" at the beginning. Did it not become violent?

—And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. — Gen. 7:12.

Was this not the first instance of rain upon the earth?

—And he drank of the wine, and was drunken. — Gen. 9:21.

Had Noah always been in a drunken state?

—And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt... — Gen. 12:14.

Had Abram always been in Egypt?

—And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him... — Gen. 13:14.

Did Lot not "become" separated from Abram?

—And Abram was ninety years old, when he was circumcised... And Ishmael his son was thirty three years old, when he was circumcised... In the selfsame day was Abram circumcised, and Ishmael his son. — Gen. 18:24-26.

Had they always been in a state of circumcision?

These are but a few examples where "was" (hayah) is properly understood as "to become" when read in proper context. Like in Gen. 1:2, the word need not be translated "became" for its proper meaning to be understood. To be 500 years old is "to be" in that state, but common sense dictates that the current state had not always been.

Some Hebrew "scholars," in response to the C-R model, say, "If the form of the 'to be' verb in Gen. 1:2 is meant to be understood as "became" it would be the only place in the entire O.T. where it is translated that way!... [being] used thousands and thousands of times throughout the OT" Amazingly, they assign this rigidly fixed rendering of "was" and then proceed to give the very next words (tohu & bohu) such loose definitions as to practically make them void of their intended meanings. Too bad these "scholars" no longer have the opportunity to match wits with the likes of Mr. Kelly; ^[4] certainly a Hebrew scholar; not self-proclaimed however, but so-named by other learned scholars who feel it no great shame to defer to his profound understanding in such matters:

And the earth was (or became) waste* and empty, and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God [was] brooding upon the face of the waters (v. 2).

* "Without form" is hardly exact, for all matter must have form, but desolate or disordered it may be made subsequently. "To become" (not "be") is the force of the verb in some twenty places in this chapter.

Some, no doubt, have found a difficulty because of the word "and" (!) being introduced, as if it linked the second verse with the first in point of time; but this is all a mistake. The well-known and flexible particle of connection in the Hebrew text introduces the verse. Its meaning, usually and simply copulative, is often modified, as almost all words in every language must be, by contextual considerations. Hence the learned Dathe, in 1781, renders it here "posthaec vero," expressly to distinguish the state of things in v. 2 from that referred to in v. 1, and sends us to such instances as Num. 5:23, Deut. 1:19. Now there is no doubt that the Hebrew conjunction admits of an interval as often as facts demand it; but there is no need of departing from its primary force, "and"... For the usage of the past verb when thus employed is to express a state subsequent to, and not connected with, what goes before, but previous to what follows. Hebrew idiom does not use that verb simply as a copula, as may be seen twice in this verse, and almost everywhere; or it puts the verb before the noun. The right conclusion therefore is that Moses was led to indicate the desolation into which the earth was thrown at some epoch not made known, after creation, but prior to the "days" in which it was made the habitation for Adam and the race.... Our v. 2 then brings to view a confused state of the earth, as different from the order of primary creation as from the earth of Adam and his sons, in regard to which state the Spirit of God is said to have been "brooding upon the face of the waters." By His Spirit the heavens are beautified; and as to creatures generally it is written, "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created, and thou renewest the face of the ground" (Ps. 104:30). Here it was to be for man's earth. This is the link of the transition.

— William Kelly, In the Beginning

Literally "became." The opening sentences of the Bible are these:—"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth became waste and void."

— Sir Robert Anderson, The Buddha of Christendom

2. Satan's first rebellion.

Gen. 1:2... "WAS" is translated "became" in verse 2... Isa. 45:18... He created it not in vain...

— J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics.

Many reject this period of time between the first two verses because it somehow condones evolution. This is incorrect however, in that Creation Week didn't begin until verse 3. To me, there is much more room offered for the prehistoric, evolutionary swamp if the position is taken that the earth was originally "waste and empty" or "empty and unfulfilled," whichever translation one prefers. In fact, most theistic evolutionists with whom I have spoken base their belief on the interpretation that the earth was "waste and empty" at its genesis. From this primeval swamp, or so they say, God began the process of evolution as described in the six "ages" which followed. The C-R model, utterly rejecting this, declares the earth as having been perfect at its beginning, as are all God's ways, and then became waste and empty due to Lucifer's rebellion. Shortly thereafter, for the length of time makes no difference, God began the renovation process which consisted of six literal days.

Many also suppose this "gap" between the earth's creation, judgment, and subsequent renovation to be a considerable amount of time. Though many, including some of the men cited in this paper, do include an extensive length of time between the verses, this has little to do with fitting evolution into the Bible. They simply placed the "irrefutable" discoveries of science in the only place where they could have occurred, this untold period of time between Gen. 1:1 and 2. They fully knew that death came in with Adam, but realized that sin came in with Lucifer, for did he not sin before Adam? To take the position that Lucifer's sin resulted in the death of his earth with its creatures, and likewise, that Adam's sin resulted in the death of his earth with its creatures, is most reasonable. This then, would have logically, and biblically, placed such extinct creatures as dinosaurs during this period. Although we now know this to be false, it must be remembered that these men lived before there was any such thing as "creation science," or any other such apologetic discipline. Again, their only mistake was to misplace the events of Noah's flood with that of Lucifer's, but they in no way accepted any of science's blasphemous attacks against Genesis! It must also be made abundantly clear that their placement of the geologic column before Gen. 1:3 had nothing to do with their correct interpretation of the passage. That the earth was created perfect in verse 1, subsequently judged in verse 2, and then renovated in verse three is the only prudent interpretation of the Hebrew words as read for what they actually mean, regardless of any "error" which may be attached.

In relation to the office of Lucifer before his fall, notice the interesting language in the latter part of Gen. 1:2. Made waste and empty due to the fall of God's Light-Bearer, the earth is now said to be in darkness and covered with water. The fact that God would inflict His wrath on the earth by means of a cataclysmic flood is most interesting in light of the similar situation with regard to Noah. It is over this earth then, that the Holy Spirit moves to begin its renovation for man:

Let me here state another patent fact. It is after all this that the days come in. It is quite a mistake to count them long periods. They are nothing of the sort. I see no reason to doubt that they are simple cycles of twenty-four hours. If long periods had been meant, do you think that God would have spoken about "the evening and the morning"?

— William Kelly, Lectures on Genesis

The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, prepatory to the great creative acts to follow. The remaining verses describe the six days of creation and reconstruction which prepared the earth for human habitation.

— William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary.

Menu

Top

Creation Overview

Gen. 1:1 — Heavens and earth created perfect.

Gen. 1:2a — Earth alone becomes waste and empty due to Lucifer's sin.

Gen. 1:2b — Holy Spirit begins renovation process.

Day 1 — God creates physical light for the physical eyes which are to follow.

Day 2 — The judgment waters are now raised from off the surface of the earth.

Day 3 — God causes the land to appear. Notice, the land isn't created at this point, but made to once again appear from beneath the waters of judgment.

— Plants, the first mention of organic life. Created, not evolved.

Day 4 — Heavenly bodies created. Again, since this is the first occurrence of the heavenly bodies, why weren't the heavens described as "empty" in Gen. 1:2?

Day 5 — Animal life. Created, not evolved.

Day 6 — Animal life and man. Created, not evolved.

Day 7 — God's creative work was complete. All was good, as He intended. No Evolution.

In Gen. 1:28, God orders the man and woman to "fill" the earth. The Hebrew word used is male and, knowing that these were not the earth's first inhabitants, can be rightly translated "replenish," as done in the KJV. Adam and Eve were not filling the earth for the first time, but were, in fact, refilling it. Many find this suggestion ludicrous, as they say male can only mean "to fill." A problem with this objection arises when we find male once again used in Gen. 9:1. Speaking to Noah, God says, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill (male) the earth." Precisely the same language as used with Adam & Eve! Some have suggested that to say "fill" means to "refill," is like saying "repent" means to "pent" again. Although perhaps an attempt at wit, it is in reality, nonsensical. With many models showing the earth's population at approximately 3 billion people before the flood, was Noah not, in contextual reality, refilling the earth?

When placed in Eden, Adam is given two very important responsibilities to fulfill. In Gen. 2:15 Adam is told to "dress" and "keep" the Garden. A brief look at these words becomes very enlightening. "Dress" (abad) means "to serve in"; "keep" (shamar) means "to guard, take heed, or protect as a watchman." From whom would Adam have to protect Eden? God? Certainly not! Eve hadn't yet been created. Who was the one other person who would have had any interest in Eden, the Garden of God? The word is also used in reference to the cherubim who were to "keep (shamar) the way of the tree of life" following Adam's sin; Adam was to guard Eden from Satan after his fall, the cherubim were to guard Eden from Adam after his fall!

The account of the fall of man brings in some additional insight. Eve, while dwelling in Eden, the Garden of God, is approached by the wily serpent. The fallen archangel now walks his former domain in a fallen state. It's important to note that after his fall, he never again is referred to as Lucifer, God's Light-Bearer, but only as Satan, God's Adversary. Many, mistakenly, use these two names interchangeably, but this ignores the importance of the names' very different meanings.

How does one explain the two different mentions of Lucifer/Satan while in Eden? In Ezekiel 28, he's described as the anointed cherub who covers and sits in the position of greatest privilege. In Genesis 3, he takes the form of a created serpent, and though a beautiful creature, in no way compares with his former magnificence. Though before he was perfect in his ways and was in a position of great prominence, he is now relegated to the form of a lowly animal. If the C-RV is to be rejected, when did this drastic change in Lucifer's form take place?

It would have to be assumed that Lucifer and Adam lived simultaneously while in their unfallen states. However, both are said to have dwelt in Eden before they sinned. If both dwelt in Eden at the same time, why the very different descriptions of same place. Again, Eden is always mentioned as a place on the earth. Even if this is rejected, and one presumes that Lucifer's Eden was in heaven; why, after his fall, would he then want Adam's? Just to be a troublemaker? Not likely! This would do a disservice to his ingeniousness. Are we to believe that Lucifer was created, placed in Eden, and then Adam was created a few days later and also placed in Eden? Lucifer then falls, becomes Satan, and then causes Adam & Eve to fall, consequently causing all three to be ejected from the garden? And all this in only a few days! The conjoined timelines of Lucifer and Adam does nothing but throw confusion on the entire passage if both existed in their unfallen condition at the same time. Proper sense is made when it is understood that Lucifer had dominion over the earth first, subsequently fell, and thus turned it over to Adam. Desiring to be like the Most High, Satan then takes it back by causing Adam to fall; once again to become the ruler and "god of this world":

Adam was first as man but second in person, for Satan was a headship also... The one who marred the first creation, mars the new creation. Adam identifies himself with Eve's sin and sin enters the human race... The entire race was brought into subjection to Satan.

— J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics

And the devil, taking Him up into a high mountain, showed unto Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give You, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomever I will I give it. If You will worship me, all shall be Yours [possessing earth, Satan now seeks to possess heaven by tempting God to worship him!]. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind Me Satan... [Notice, the Lord does not "correct" Satan's bold assertions, but simply puts him in his place!]

— Luke 4:5-8.

It's most interesting to note that in Gen. 3, "serpent" (nahash) means "the shining one." Satan's most effective tactic in perverting the things of God is to now present himself in the "form" of his earlier brilliance:

For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan transforms himself into an angel of light... and his ministers... as ministers of righteousness [Satan desires to be "like" God, not "unlike" God];

— 2 Cor. 11:13-14

... Satan comes in against what God was set upon; he comes in to explain away the Word. It is the Word he assails, not things. When you lose the Word you have lost your power. So he does not begin so much by pointing out to the woman the advantages to be gained as by assailing the Word. Having got the Word he attempts to pervert it. It is, "Yea, hath God said?" and, "Ye shall not surely die."

— James Butler Stoney, Ministry, Vol. 9.

Satan's work in this day is to be worshipped by subverting the Truth with a counterfeit, thus robbing God of what is rightfully His. His final place is ensured however, the Lake of Fire, which was "prepared for the Devil and his angels"; but they shall not be there alone, for this place of judgment "has enlarged herself" to include all those in Adam's lost race who do not believe the gospel.

As is apparent, Gen. 1:1-2 has really to do with the fall of Lucifer and his necessary judgment, rather than God's description of Day 1. God begins with Himself, and that is all man needs to know; for, regardless of what science says, the creation itself declares His eternal power, sovereignty, and existence. Man will not be judged because he believed evolution, but because he didn't believe the Gospel of God! God created, and that is certainly the beginning of an understanding of Who He is.

Whichever position one takes regarding Gen. 1:1-2, it's troubling to see an ever increasing intellectualization of the Word, which can never be understood by such means. Although such groups as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) et al. have done important, edifying work in refuting false science, the fact remains that one need not be a scientist to understand Genesis, just as one need not be a medical doctor to understand the shed blood of Christ. Most today reject the C-R model solely because many creation scientists see it as condoning evolution, etc., and therefore this "'theory' must be false."

As has been stated, many theistic evolutionists more emphatically fit their error within the "Day 1" view that the earth was originally "waste and empty." It's hard for me to understand, therefore, why so many "Day 1" creationists defend their position so adamantly as the primary basis for rebutting the theistic evolution position; going so far as to change the definitions of the words to the point that they become utterly devoid of their intended meanings. If it took the insight of creation scientists to correctly explain Gen. 1:1-2; on what basis then did Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, etc., interpret the passage?

In preparing to write this letter, I could not find a single biblical teacher or scholar of reputation who held the view that Day 1 began in Gen. 1:1. Are all these men, with their vast knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, wrong? Are we to assume that the Hebrew language, which is 3,500 years old, is more properly understood by the Christian scientists of today than by the godly teachers cited in this letter? Although those at ICR, etc., are certainly well grounded as to the scientific evidences supporting God's creation, they are most definitely not the most profound authorities on sound biblical interpretation. For no single discipline of apologetics declares "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

As educated in the sciences myself, I can say with the utmost confidence that scientific knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with interpreting Genesis 1 or any other passage of Scripture. Although important in the field of apologetics, creation science becomes irresponsible when its members accuse Darby, Kelly, Mackintosh, MacDonald, Anderson, Scofield, Stoney, Gaebelien, Grant, Coates, Hartill, and Chafer, just to name a few, as:

... desperately trying to somehow "salvage" biblical inerrancy... [by disregarding] sound hermeneutics to their study [and thus] devising [this] theory, supported from the Bible using vague references at best, and just plain bad biblical interpretation at its worst... [and therefore] finding "whatever they want to find" in the Bible. Thus, we have so many different interpretations and denominations...

Who would know more about this than the "Brethren" with their schismatic loyalties to their chapels and halls? (see 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and Eph. 4:3-6). Where, in the New Testament, are such denominational labels ever used by the one Body (see Rom. 16:5 and Col. 4:15)? Since when are differences of interpretation the grounds of separation (see 1 Cor. 14:29-33)?

Although such an individual may have attended a few creation conferences, he clearly knows not of what he speaks. Were these men also using vague references and just plain bad biblical interpretation when they rediscovered the doctrines of the Body of Christ, the heavenly position of the believer, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the future literal reign of Christ, etc., etc.? I wonder if these Brethren pups would be as bold in their incredulous accusations if the likes of these, the Lord's mighty men, were actually sitting in the room? I've never been openly rebuked by a Darby, Kelly, or Anderson, but I'm sure it would be a most unpleasant experience!

I recall not long ago, after briefly discussing a few proofs of special creation, being approached by an older gentlemen from Scotland. He quietly asked my position on Gen. 1:1-2. With a voice so all could here, I professed that the earth had obviously undergone some sort of judgment between the two verses. "I agree!" he exclaimed quite joyfully,"That's what I'd always been taught growing up, but now, whenever I bring it up, it always results in some sort of argument or fight." This is precisely what I have also experienced. Why? Has Darwin won after all? So many believers are in such fear of the idiotic doctrines of pseudo-science that they are willing to wrest the Holy Word from what it actually teaches, and then come close to mocking those who dare disagree.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of individuals, even within the "Brethren," who are shocked at this "new" (even though it was accepted in the 4^th century and by virtually all the "Brethren" founders) and "strange" "Gap Theory." It seems as though many believers of today have gone the route of Christendom; while holding fast to the name, they reject most of the teachings which founded the "movement," i.e., just ask a Lutheran to explain what Luther actually taught. The blank stare that usually follows the question is an answer in-and-of-itself. Do we who gather unto the name of the Lord alone know why? Can we "give an answer to everyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is within us" (1 Pet. 3:15), or have these truths become nothing more than "vain traditions"?

May we not look to our intellects to rightly divide the Word of Truth, but to the Holy Spirit. For it is He Who will lead us into all Truth. As helpful and interesting as they may be, many areas of apologetics have become nothing more than ventures into curiosity. Why is it that so many jump at the chance to attend conferences on creation or prophecy, but would show little or no interest towards the same if its subject were merely Romans 6?

It reminds me of a Roman Catholic with whom I recently talked. He could tell me anything I wanted to know about prophecy, even the Pre-Trib. Rapture! What is sad though, was that his understanding of the antichrist was matched only by his lack of understanding of the real Christ! Ironically, after many additional discussions, I managed to convince this man that special creation was true and evolution, which he had ardently defended, was indeed false. Encouraged, I invited him to an upcoming Bible study. "No thanks," he replied, "I'm not very interested in that sort of thing." How sad that so many creation and prophecy "junkies" will spend all eternity separated from their Creator because they were never told what was truly important. Peter says we are to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:18); not in an exhaustive and all-encompassing knowledge of His creation, but of Him:

It assuredly is not God's object to make us astronomers or geologists, or to occupy us with details which the microscope or telescope lays before every schoolboy. His object is to lead us into His presence, as worshipers, with hearts and understandings taught and duly governed by His holy Word.

— C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on Genesis

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews [a scientist of the scientists]; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of Christ Jesus my Lord: for Whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them dung, that I may win Christ...

— Phil. 3:4-8

For Christ sent me... to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect... Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer if this world? hath God not made foolishness the wisdom of this world?... For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called...[therefore] when I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified... And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit... that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

— 1 Cor. 1:17, 20, 26; 2:1-5.