I've been thinking a bit more about how to explain subordination of 1:2 to either 1:1 or 1:3. This is really a central question, no, to go further,
the central question. If you have a gappist that doesn't bring this up, you immediately know that this gappist has no idea what they are talking about. There's a really important point here about the way we approach biblical interpretation that applies to all of us, but as that's more general, I'll come back to that last.
Anyway, so here I want to build on my longer post above. Again, I do hope that you work through it and actually learn the Hebrew letters and vocabulary. I'm only asking you to learn sixteen letters and sixteen words (depending on how you count complex words like על-פני and ורוח), and it rewards really are worth it, I think. In any case, what I think is absolutely definitive from that somewhat lengthy study is that the waw-disjunctive at the beginning of Gen 1:2 (והארץ) indicates a non-sequential clause. That is, verse 2 can, in no way, be construed to move the story forward temporally. That means that if the disjunction gives us circumstantial information about the earth in verse 1, then can be no gap between them.
But there could still be a way forward for the gappist. They can claim that the waw-disjunctive in 1:2 is not subordinate to 1:1, but rather subordinate to 1:3. A good example of this can be found in Ruth 2:1, where we see:
- ולנעמי לאישה איש גבור חיל ממשפחת אלימלך ושמו בעז
You should be able to see the waw attached to the first word. In this case, the word is "weh-le-na-oh-me" or, "Now, Naomi . . ." This is clearly a waw-disjunctive. It doesn't move the story forward temporally at all. In fact, here's the English of the verses right before and after:
- So Naomi returned [ותשב - "we-ta-shav" - waw-consecutive prefixed to an imperfect verb giving it a perfect aspect and moving the story forward] from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning. Now Naomi [ולנעמי - waw-disjunctive, no temporal advance] had a relative on her husband’s side, a man of standing from the clan of Elimelek, whose name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said [ותאמר - "we-t'amar" - waw-consecutive prefixed to an imperfect verb to give it a perfect aspect and moving the story forward] to Naomi, “Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor.”
So this is easy to track.
- Mainline verb, sequential action: Naomi returned
Offline, non-sequential info: Naomi has relative named Boaz
Mainline verb, sequential action: Ruth speaks
A good textual analyst will do this for the entire passage under consideration. It helps you see what the temporal actions are, what is main line, what supportive information is provided, etc. In a lot of ways, the supportive information is more important than the main verbs because that tends to provide the explanation (and so theological weight, ultimately) of the actions. Yeah, Naomi returned. We can make a big deal about that. And yes, we can preach on Ruth's words. But the offline information here is essential: Boaz is Naomi's relative. Why is this included, and here of all places? It puts Ruth's words into a special context and raises our expectations. It tells us something about where the story is going
and what the author wants us to see and focus on. Obviously, in this story, it is the relationship between Boaz and Ruth.
Okay, enough about that. My point is that this one of the ways a waw-disjuctive can be used. It can introduce new information at the beginning of a narrative shift. It's important to note that this shift does not constitute the temporal shift. That only happens with the sequential verbs. But it sets us up to look for the next movement in action. So this type of waw-disjunction has the offline, circumstantial information
before its sequential verb. We see that in the Ruth example above. 2:1 is related to 2:2. The waw-disjunctive does not relate 2:1 back to 1:22.
So, back to Genesis, a gappist could try to claim that 1:2 is not related to 1:1 after all, but that it is instead related to 1:3. To demonstrate in English, the traditional reading goes like this:
- In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.
Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
But the gappist could suggest the following reading:
- In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, and God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
On this reading, there could be (not necessarily is) a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, but that for the rather trivial reason that there is obviously on any reading a gap between 1:1 and 1:3. God created, and then God said "let there be light." Unless you take 1:1 to be a summary statement with God's speaking in 1:3 being the first real action--and no one here is defending that view--then it's clear that God's creating is one event and God's speaking is another, temporally subsequent, event. How long between them? I'll let YECs and OECs argue over
that. For our purposes in discussing gappery, it's sufficient to note the gap here, for the gappist can claim that the gap between 1:1 and 1:2 is there because 1:2 is really a part of 1:3. In other words, you have the events in 1:1, followed by the events in 1:2-3, because the waw-disjunctive in 1:2 introduces the narrative in 1:3.
That's why I said the really central question is the relationship between 1:2 and 1:1 or 1:3. Put simply, does 1:2 modify 1:1 or 1:3?
Now, before I offer my own answer, I want to pause to point out that it doesn't matter how a YEC or OEC answers this. It doesn't really effect our theology. Again, remember the question for us is how long the "gap" is between 1:1 and 1:3, not whether or not there was one at all. If we take 1:2 to modify 1:1, we just recognize that the initial creation was formless and void, etc. If we take it to modify 1:3, we still take it to say that God spoke light into a[n initial] creation that was formless and void, etc. There's no consequence here. But gappists are in a different boat. They are
required to defend the notion that 1:2 is connected to 1:3 and not 1:1, because that is the only way to sustain their view. For if 1:2 is connected to 1:1, their view is condemned by Scripture explicitly. And further, connecting 1:2 to 1:3 does not prove their view. It simply allows them to argue that between 1:1 and 1:2-3, there were catastrophic events, such that the creation that was tohu wabohu was not the initial creation. Obviously, they would have to make those arguments based on other texts, because they certainly don't get them from this passage.
Anyway, so what evidence is there that 1:2 is connected to 1:3 and not 1:1?
In a word, none.
The only reason one would accept such a reading is to support a bias. There is literally no reason whatsoever to view verse 2 as subordinate to verse 3. To be very clear, showing that a reading is grammatically possible is not the same thing as showing it is grammatically plausible. You have to provide reasons for the syntactical classifications. So the first problem for a gapper is that, when writing their exegesis of the passage and coming to the waw-disjunctive in 1:2, they have to say something like, "Now, here we have the waw-disjunctive. It is to be taken here in an introductory, not circumstantial, sense, for 1:2 is subordinate to 1:3. This is true, because if it were not, then there would be no gap between 1:1 and 1:2." I want to make this even clearer and demonstrate the logic of this argument. In syllogism it goes as follows:
- 1. If Gen 1:2 is subordinate to 1:1, then there is no sequential gap between 1:1 and 1:2
2. There is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2
3. Therefore, Gen 1:2 is not subordinate to Gen 1:1; which is to say, Gen 1:2 must be subordinate to 1:3
Now, this is a valid argument. But that doesn't make it persuasive, and I think it shows a major, major problem with this entire gappy enterprise. This argument
presumes the gap theory in order to defend it. In other words, it's just circular reasoning. You can't get to the gap theory, then, unless you already assume the gap theory. And then there's a deeper linguistic point, which is that
theology cannot be used to determine syntactical classification. This is a general principle that I see violated all the time. Commentators and exegetes are forever classifying verbs and conjunctions into this or that syntactical category on the basis of a theological assumption. This really, upon minimal reflection, ought to be self-evident. Such classifications are determined based on linguistic, not theological, features. Therefore, anytime someone classifies based on a theological assumption, the argument should either be completely rejected as a non-sequitur or else held as very seriously suspect.
Against this, I think there is excellent linguistic evidence to hold to the traditional view that 1:2 it subordinate to 1:1. I'll offer three points of support.
First, with regard to the waw-disjunctive generally, whenever it is used in an introductory (rather than circumstantial) sense, it generally found "at the beginning of a story episode" in which "new characters are often first mentioned." (See
An Introduction to Hebrew Syntax by Bruce Waltke, p. 740.) You see that in Ruth 2:1 as discussed above. You also see it in Gen 3:1 (Mounce's example), and Gen 4:1 makes another interesting case study. There we see Eve, who has already been introduced, so she isn't new
per se, but the whole purpose of the line ("Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, Cain") is to introduce Cain. Further, if you look at all three of these examples, you see that they are very clearly introducing an entirely new story. That is, there is a shift of scenery. So in Ruth 2:1, we move from Naomi having just returned to Bethlehem, and now the scene changes to Ruth going to meet Boaz. In Gen 3:1, we have left off the story of God having created Adam and Eve and them living in harmony in Eden to a new scene in which we will see the story of their Fall. In Gen 4:1, we have left the story of the Fall and the scene has shifted to a new geographical location and new characters, where now we will look at the relationship between Cain and Abel (as illustrative of the effects of the sin in chapter three).
None of that applies to Genesis 1:2. No new characters are introduced and there is no change of scenery. There is just no way to separate 1:1 from 1:2-31. The scene is obviously the same: creation. Again, to argue that the scene changes based on a preexisting theological commitment is circular reasoning at best. There is absolutely no linguistic evidence whatsoever of a change of scenery. Therefore, the waw-disjunctive does not display the linguistic markers for an introductory function, and so that classification should be rejected. On the other hand, it fits very well as a circumstantial understanding of Gen 1:1.
Second, you have in the narrative structure of Genesis 1, a very clear pattern of days. From 1:3 on, you have six days described. In all six days, the events are marked off with the phrase "And God said" (ויאמר), and ends with the number of the day. The NIV does a good job representing that graphically, which you can see
here. But if we take 1:2 to be subordinate to 1:3, we have a violation of the pattern. The first day when begin with a waw-disjunction and only later have the important "And God said" phrase. On the other hand, it seems more obvious that 1:2 is connected to 1:1 and the pattern of the six days is preserved. Since 1:2 fits very naturally with 1:1, and since the rest of the creation story deals explicitly with the three circumstantial clauses in 1:2, we should prefer the subordination of 1:2 to 1:1 and reject its subordination to 1:3.
Third, we see the connection of הארץ in 1:1 and 1:2. The word does not appear again until verse 11, although it does appear without the definite article in verse 10 (ארץ), here not talking about the whole earth but the land itself producing vegetation. It simply makes no linguistic sense to propose that 1:1 introduces the creation of הארץ, and then there is some unspecified gap after which 1:2 reintroduces הארץ in connection with the creation of light. Against this, the two uses of הארץ seem
clearly connected. Look at the Hebrew text again:
- בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים
Notice that the the last word of 1:1 is הארץ and the first word of 1:2 is הארץ. Very literally, Moses discusses the creation of earth and
immediately, with no (literary) gap whatsoever, not even a single word, begins discussing the state of that earth. I cannot imagine a way to more clearly denote that 1:2 is connected and subordinate to 1:1 than this. It would be one thing if Moses started 1:2 with the darkness (which Hebrew would allow) or with its formless (which Hebrew would allow). But the phrasing, הארץ והארץ (the earth, and [that] earth . . .), is so obviously connected that to deny it is to be willful in doing so.
I could offer more evidence, but I think this is enough to demonstrate the point. There is evidence, and powerful evidence at that, that 1:2 is subordinate to 1:1, and no evidence whatsoever that 1:3. Therefore, it should be so construed and the introductory understanding should be rejected--
even though we could accept it and still reject the gap theory.
------------------------------
Having said all that, I want to go back and revisit a point I hinted at twice above and lift it up more plainly here, as I think this is something we can all learn from. It is common for us to start with an interpretation and then go in search of evidence for our position. I hope if you ever find yourself doing that you
immediately step back and realize what you are doing. What is happening to our gappist friends here is that they started with the claim that there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. When that was proven grammatically impossible, they went in search of a way out, and they found it in a possible classification of the waw-disjunctive. This, though, forced them to change the claim. Rather than having 1:2 be an independent clause (so the "and" argument they make so much), they now have to claim it is introductory and so dependent on and subordinate to 1:3. Do you see the goal posts moving there?
Any time we see that, we should immediately stop and ask ourselves what is going on. Whenever someone refutes our argument and we go looking for one to replace it, we will almost certainly find one. And when we then present that replacement argument, we should recognize that we have moved the goalposts. And that is problematic, not because it means our replacement argument is wrong (it might be the right one!) but because it says something about our motivation. We are now no longer trying to understand what the Bible actually says, but we are, rather, looking for evidence to preserve our understanding of what the Bible says. We have, in this, made ourselves, and not Scripture, the authority. And I see that happening a lot in this thread and with this argument in particular. I would suggest to you all, then, that our gappists don't actually believe the Bible. They believe their theory, and they are simply being dishonest. Not with us! They are being dishonest with themselves. They refuse to admit what they are actually doing. And I want to raise this as a red flag for the rest of us. All of us are in danger of falling into this very trap whenever we discuss an interpretation we favor. That includes me. Our motivation for defending a particular view should be judged and judged again to ensure that we are looking for truth and not simply looking to be right.
Anyway, sorry again for the long post. Blame Rick. He asked me to do more work to put this to bed, and so I thought I'd oblige him.
Want me to help you out? Here they are:
. So, let me get this straight: when Genesis 1:2 says "the earth" "the deep" "the waters", in reality, there was no "earth" or "deep" or "waters". You don't believe what Genesis 1:2 plainly says. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."