A Critique of the Pre-Creation Chaos Gap Theory

The Proceedings of the International Conference The Proceedings of the International Conference

on Creationism on Creationism

Volume 6

Print Reference: Pages 55-70

Article 8

2008

A Critique of the Pre-Creation Chaos Gap Theory A Critique of the Pre-Creation Chaos Gap Theory

John Zoschke

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings

DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals,

which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon

publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles

published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or re<ect the views of

DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to

[email protected].

Browse the contents of this volume of

The Proceedings of the International

Conference on Creationism

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Zoschke, John (2008) "A Critique of the Pre-Creation Chaos Gap Theory,"

The Proceedings of the

International Conference on Creationism

: Vol. 6 , Article 8.

Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol6/iss1/8

A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

John Zoschke, B.A., M.A., Pastor, Grace Bible Church of Garden City, 2314 B St., Garden City, KS 67846

Abstract

The four key tenets of the precreation chaos gap theory are that “the heaven and the earth” in

Genesis 1:1 refers to the complete organized universe, Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of the six

days of Creation, Genesis 1:2 looks forward to Genesis 1:3, and Genesis 1:2 describes a chaotic state

that existed prior to the Creation mentioned in Genesis 1:1. This theory, which ﬁrst appeared in the

11th–12th centuries A.D., and in a modiﬁed version has increasingly become the choice of scholars,

was evaluated and found to be incorrect. “The heavens and the earth” does not always refer to the

complete organized universe, and speciﬁcally, does not have that reference in Genesis 1:1, where it

instead refers to the two places where things can exist. The commonly acknowledged summary is

at Genesis 2:1, which differs from Genesis 1:1. The circumstantial clause of Genesis 1:2 does not look

forward to Genesis 1:3, but rather back to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:2 does not describe a chaos contrary

to creation, but rather the condition of the earth as it ﬁrst came from the hand of the Creator.

Keywords

Creation, Precreation, Chaos, Gap

In A. A. Snelling (Ed.) (2008). Proceedings of the

Sixth International Conference on Creationism (pp. 55–70).

Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and

Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.

Introduction

A “gap theory” is an interpretation of Genesis 1

which puts a time lapse between the empty, dark,

watery earth of Genesis 1:2 and the 1st divine ﬁat

(a divine command that follows “God said”), “Let

light be” (Genesis 1:3). These ﬁats continue for the

subsequent events of the six days of creation. All gap

theorists contend that only these divine ﬁat events

are part of the Creation week.

The views of gap theorists stand in contrast with

the view being defended in this paper. That view,

called the traditional view by Waltke (1975, p. 217),

understands Genesis 1:1 as an initial creation of

the universe, which was chronologically prior to the

divine ﬁats that begin at 1:3, with 1:2 describing the

condition of that universe as it came from the hands

of the Creator. This initial creation in Genesis 1:1 is

further understood as included within the Creation

week, not separated from it by a time lapse.

Currently, there are three versions of the gap

theory: ruin-reconstruction; precreation chaos; and

soft gap. The precreation chaos view is the one being

evaluated in this paper, but a brief description of the

other two is given in Appendix A. The precreation

chaos view is distinguished from the other two, not

only in its approach to Genesis 1:1–2, but also because

it (1) had its beginnings before the rise of evolutionary

old earth science; (2) has since been formulated by

Hebraists; and (3) is the view presented in some of the

best and most inﬂuential Bible study helps available

today. (See Appendix B for a documentation of this).

Essentially, precreation chaos gap theorists do

not see Genesis 1:1 as an absolute beginning of

creation, but rather as a summary statement of the

creative activity detailed in 1:3–31. Moreover, they

understand Genesis 1:2 to be describing a chaos

that existed prior to the creative activity recounted

in 1:3ff. Hence the view is called “precreation chaos.”

While all proponents of this theory would agree that

Genesis 1:2 describes a chaos, they differ as to its

signiﬁcance: a few view it as a stage of an earlier

creative activity not reported in Genesis 1; whereas

most maintain that it is a negative state in opposition

to God’s creativity activity.

A serious repercussion of this theory is that if

Genesis 1 presents our current creation beginning

as an empty, dark watery earth, then this text

conveys no information on the beginning of the now

existing universe. Some precreation chaos adherents

teach that, although Genesis 1 is silent on it, later

revelation in the Bible assures us that God created

everything, that is, creation ex nihilo. But Waltke

contends that later Old Testament passages do no

more than refer back to Genesis 1, and therefore to

a relative beginning, not the original one (Waltke,

1975, 132:338; 1976, 133:34–40). In this case, the

Old Testament is silent on the doctrine of creation ex

nihilo. [Waltke does say, “Other Scriptures clearly

state that only God is eternal—he made everything

(e.g., Neh. 9:6; Job 41:11; Psa. 102.25; Heb. 11:3; Rev.

1:8),” (2001, p. 68). So presumably, he would say the

Old Testament implies creation ex nihilo].

J. Zoschke

This paper will ﬁrst brieﬂy trace the development

of the precreation chaos theory and then critique its

arguments, demonstrating that they lack sufﬁcient

validity to justify a departure from the traditional

view.

Development of the Precreation Chaos Theory

Waltke (1975, p. 221), who apparently coined the

term, “precreation chaos theory,” divides its adherents

into two groups, those who regard Genesis 1:1 as a

dependent clause, and those who regard that verse as

a summary statement explicated in the remainder of

the chapter.

Perhaps the ﬁrst proponents of the former view were

the Jewish scholars Rashi (d. 1105) and Ibn Ezra (d.

1167). Rashi understood Genesis 1:1 as the protasis;

1:2 as a parenthesis, and 1:3 as the apodasis, whereas

Ibn Ezra understood Genesis 1:1 as the protasis and

1:2 as the apodasis (Waltke, 1975, p. 222).

Rashi’s view is the only form of the dependent

clause view widely held today. It is reﬂected in the

translations of Genesis 1:1–2 in the New Jewish version

(1962), the New American Bible (1970), and the New

English Bible (1972), Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant

versions of the English Bible, respectively. But Young

(1964, pp. 1–3), Waltke (1975, pp. 222–225), and Davis

(1975, pp. 39–40) have all given good refutations of

this position. Also, when the New English Bible was

revised and renamed The Revised English Bible in

1989, it returned to the more traditional translation

of Genesis 1:1 as an independent clause.

The apparent originator of the “Genesis 1:1 as

a summary statement” version of the precreation

chaos view was a professor of Hebrew at New York

University by the name of George Bush. In his 1852

commentary on Genesis, he described Genesis 1:1

as giving “a summary of the work of creation, which

is more fully detailed in its various particulars in

the account of the six days following” (Bush, 1852,

p. 26). Fifteen years later, Franz Delitzsch’s System

of Biblical Psychology, which taught the ruin-

reconstruction theory, was translated into English.

This theory dominated the gap theory landscape

until the last half of the twentieth century, when

scholars began to notice its grammatical difﬁculties,

with many of them opting for the precreation chaos

theory as a better alternative.

In 1958, Merril F. Unger wrote, “Genesis 1:1–2 is

introductory to the seven days of creation and presents

a summary statement of the divine activity it called

forth.” According to him, Genesis 1:3–2:3 “give the

details involved in the generalized declaration of

verses 1 and 2” (Unger, 1958, p. 29). This sounds like

a clear statement of the precreation chaos theory, but

Waltke (1975, pp. 137, 144) includes him with the ruin-

reconstruction gap theorists, noting that (in contrast

to Waltke’s own version of precreation chaos) he takes

verse 2 as circumstantial to verse 1, and considers

later references to creation to refer to an absolute

beginning (Waltke, 1975, p. 144).

Three years after Unger’s article, Gerhard Von

Rad stated in his commentary on Genesis, “One

may understand v. 1 as the summary statement of

everything that is unfolded step by step in the following

verses.” (Von Rad, 1961, p. 47). But he adds, “It would

be false to say, however, that the idea of creatio ex

nihilo was not here at all.” (Von Rad, 1961, p. 49).

The most comprehensive defense of the precreation

chaos theory was given by Dr Bruce K. Waltke in

1974 and 1975–1976, then a professor at Dallas

Theological Seminary. On October 1–4, 1974, he

delivered a series of lectures propounding this theory

at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. These

were incorporated into the book Creation and Chaos.

Waltke revised this book into a ﬁve article series, “The

Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3” which appeared

in Bibliotheca Sacra from January 1975–January

1976. 1n 1996, Allen P. Ross, also of Dallas Seminary,

wrote in support of Waltke’s view in an appendix to

his book Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study

and Exposition of Genesis (Ross, 1996).

Waltke’s Bibliotheca Sacra articles went largely

unchallenged for 17 years—only Weston Fields (1976,

pp. 127–128) and John Whitcomb (1986, pp. 154–155)

brieﬂy responded to him. Finally in 1992, Mark

Rooker, at that time professor at Criswell Bible College,

decisively refuted Waltke in a two article series in

Bibliotheca Sacra entitled, “Creation or Recreation?”

But in 2001, Waltke, who meanwhile had moved to

Westminster Theological Seminary, published his

Genesis commentary. In it, he gives some additional

arguments for his precreation theory, but makes no

effort to interact with Rooker’s articles.

The above survey of the development of the

precreation chaos theory prompts two observations.

First, the only versions of the theory that had their

beginnings before the rise of evolutionary old earth

science were the dependent clause versions taught by

the Jewish scholars of the 11th–12th centuries

A.D.,

Rashi and Ibn Ezra. There is no evidence that these

men intended to debunk the reality of a young earth.

In fact, according to Lewis, Rashi actually understood

Genesis 2:4 to teach that everything was created on

the ﬁrst day, so that Genesis 1:3–31 is only telling

how each created thing came upon its ﬁxed place on

the day God appointed it (Lewis, 1989, p. 451). If that

is the case, Rashi’s view should not really be called a

precreation chaos view.

The second observation is that scholars who regard

Genesis 1:1 as a summary of 1:3–31 often reveal that

a desire to make Genesis 1 harmonize with old earth

science inﬂuenced their interpretation. Bush defended

A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

his view by claiming that it was “undoubtedly more

consistent with ascertained geological facts than any

other, and it is certainly desirable to harmonize, as

far as possible, the truths of revelation with those of

natural science” (Bush, 1852, p. 27). Waltke states,

“Contemporary scientists almost unanimously

discount the possibility of creation in one week, and

we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the

earth scientists” (Waltke, 2001, p. 77). He dismisses

the idea that the days of the creation account are

literal twenty-four hour periods because “most

scientists reject a literal twenty-four hour period”

(Waltke, 2001, p. 61).

Evaluation of the Precreation Chaos Theory

Because Waltke has given the most thorough

presentation and cogent defense of the precreation

chaos theory, this study primarily will focus on his

arguments. The major points he adduces in support

of his position are the following:

(1) ,

   

“the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 are

a merism referring to the ﬁnished organized

universe.

(2) Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of Genesis

1:3–31.

(3) Genesis 1:2 is circumstantial to 1:3, not to 1:1.

(4)

,



in Genesis 1:1 is not creation ex

nihilo

(5)



in Genesis 1:1 is a telic verb referring to

the completed act of creation.

(6) ,

 

in Genesis 1:2 describes

a chaos, a negative state existing prior to the

creation summarized in 1:1.

(7) The Israelite view of creation is distinct from

pagan cosmologies in its depiction of God as

distinct from creation. But the Genesis 1 account

is similar in beginning with preexisting matter,

and in later Old Testament references, the

Rahab-Leviathan monster of pagan cosmologies

is used as a metaphor for God’s creative activity in

overcoming the chaos described in Genesis 1:1.

References to the above points in the remainder

of this paper will be designated as Waltke Point 1;

Waltke, Point 2, etc. Rooker has dealt with all of these

points except Waltke Point 5, which was not available

to him in 1992, as Waltke ﬁrst put it in print in 2001.

So we will not replow this ground, but will deepen the

furrows Rooker made on Waltke Points 1, 2, 3, and 6,

and will also respond to Waltke Point 5.

Is Genesis 1:1 a summary statement of the

Creation week? (Waltke Point 2)

Why has Genesis 1:1 traditionally been understood

as an initial creation? In the centuries since Moses

wrote the book of Genesis, what has been the most

common understanding of his ﬁrst chapter? It is

apparent (as shown in Appendix B) that it has been

as follows:

1:1 describes God’s initial formation of the

universe.

1:2 describes the condition of the earth at this

beginning point of creation.

1:3–31 describes the subsequent creative work that

God did over a six day period of time to ﬁnish the

creation of the earth.

Why have the vast majority of the students of

Scripture, whether trained or untrained, understood

Genesis 1:1 as an initial, still unﬁnished creation? It

is because after Moses describes creation with the two

words, “heavens” and “earth” he refers to one of these

words, “the earth,” again in Genesis 1:2. According

to a discourse pattern that is probably common in all

languages, speakers will use anaphora, that is, refer

back to a word or phrase they have just mentioned,

in order to clarify what they meant by it or give more

detail about it (See Lyons, 1977, pp. 657–677 for a

discussion of anaphora). The traditional view claims

that Moses does this in Genesis 1:2. After giving a

one-sentence statement of God’s initial creation,

Moses alerts the reader that he is not to think of the

earth at that point as in the same state that it is in

today, but as water that is dark and empty.

Is “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 a

merism referring to the ﬁnished, organized universe?

(Waltke Point 1). So how could it be that for centuries

the vast majority of Bible readers and students

have been mistaken about the real meaning of

Genesis 1:1? According to Waltke, it is because they

have not understood the phrase

   

, “the heavens and the

earth.” Waltke contends that to interpret the phrase

as referring to an original, still unﬁnished universe

“demands that we place a different value on the words

. . . than are given to them anywhere else in Scripture”

(Waltke, 1975, pp. 217–218). He insists that “in all its

uses in the Old Testament . . . this phrase functions

as a compound referring to the organized universe“

(Waltke, 2001, p. 59), and that as a compound phrase,

“it will prove erroneous to study the words ‘heavens’

and ‘earth’ in isolation from one another” (Waltke,

1975, p. 218). The phrase must always be understood

as a merism in which “‘the heavens and the earth’

are antonyms to designate ‘everything,’ and more

speciﬁcally ‘the organized universe, the cosmos’”

(Waltke, 1975, p. 218).

Webster’s dictionary deﬁnes a merism as “a

synecdoche in which a totality is expressed by two

contrasting pairs.” It lists the following as typical

merisms: old and young, thick and thin, near and

far (Gove, 1986, p. 1414). In a footnote in his Genesis

commentary, Waltke explains how the meaning of a

























J. Zoschke

merism is at the phrase level rather than the word

level:

The words cannot be understood separately but must

be taken as a unity. Just as the English expression

“part and parcel” cannot be understood by studying

part and parcel as independent terms, so the merism

of the Hebrew words heavens (



) and earth

(



) cannot be understood by studying the words

separately but only by studying the unit”

(Waltke,

2001, p. 59).

So according to Waltke, “the earth” in Genesis 1:2

should not be understood as an anaphoric reference

back to the same word in Genesis 1:1, because in

Genesis 1:1 “the earth” in fact has no meaning of its

own. In essence, Waltke is saying that Moses’ original

intended readers were so used to thinking of “heavens

and earth” as “the organized universe” that either: (1)

it would never occur to them to associate the empty

dark watery “earth” of verse 2, with the word “earth”

in verse 1; or (2) if it did occur to them, they would

know it was an improper association.

In order to determine if in fact “the heavens and

the earth” is always a merism that has the meaning

“everything,” and more speciﬁcally “the organized

universe,” an attempt was made to obtain a list of

all the occurrences of the phrase in the Hebrew Old

Testament. A computer search of ﬁve variations of the

phrase yielded the following occurrences:

(1) , 

  

“the heavens and the earth (with the sign of the

direct object), thirteen times. This is how the

phrase occurs in Genesis. 1:1.

(2) ,

 

, “the heavens

and the earth,” two times (Genesis 2:1 and 4).

(3) ,

 

, “heavens and

earth,” eleven times.

(4) and ,



and



, “heavens” and

“earth,” (with intervening text between the two

words) one time. (The search yielded fourteen

occurrences, eleven of them the same as variation

3. One of the remaining three, Isaiah 65:17, seems

to ﬁt the merism form.)

(5) ,

 

“in the heavens

and in the earth,” six times.

The total number of occurrences comes to 33.

Appendix C gives the references for these, includes

their context, and classiﬁes them according to

grammatical function and/or the words with which

they collocate.

Variation 3 is the merism form that matches the

examples given above of merisms in English. The

other variations are distinguished by the addition

of: the article (2); both the sign of the direct object

and the article (1); an adjective (4); or a preposition

(5). Since these additions are repeated for the second

word of the antonymic pair (“earth”), it raises some

doubt as to whether “heavens and earth” in variations

1, 2, 4, and 5 is in fact in merism form. But in every

case, a computer search for the added modiﬁer(s) on

only the ﬁrst word (“heavens”) and not the second

(“earth”) yielded zero occurrences. So it was concluded

that in Hebrew, the repetition of the modiﬁer on the

second word of the antonymic pair is a feature of the

language, rather than a departure from the merism

form.

Waltke gives ﬁve verses (Genesis 2:1, 4;

Deuteronomy 3:24; Isaiah 65:17; Jeremiah 23:24)

as examples supporting his claim that “in all its

uses in the Old Testament . . . this phrase functions

as a compound referring to the organized universe”

(Waltke, 2001, p. 59). Interestingly, these ﬁve verses

represent variations 1, 2, 4, and 5, the variations

with modiﬁcation added to “heavens and earth.” This

indicates that, as in the analysis above, he would

not see the addition of identical modiﬁcation on both

words of the antonymic pair as a departure from the

merism form, and would regard all 33 of the “heaven

and earth” occurrences as “a compound referring to

the organized universe” that is, a merism.

It does seem that in most of these 33 passages

that exhibit the merism form, “heavens and earth”

does in fact function as a merism for “everything.”

But the classiﬁcation of Variation 1 in Appendix C

lists three times in Deuteronomy (4:26; 30:19; 31:28)

where the phrase “the heavens and the earth” follows

the verb

,



, “give witness.” Heaven and earth

are called as witnesses. The phrase should not be

considered a merism meaning “everything” in any of

these instances. The words instead refer to the stable,

enduring, non-living parts of the universe in contrast

to the living things like people, animals, and plants

that have a shorter existence. There is no essential

difference in meaning between the phrase in these

three verses and the separate words “heaven” and

“earth” in verses like Deuteronomy 32:1 and Isaiah

1:2, where one verb is used with “heaven” and a

synonym verb with “earth” (“Hear, O heavens . . .

Listen, O earth”). And Micah 6:2 speciﬁes what in

earth is called on as a witness: “Hear, O mountains,

the L

ORD’s accusation; listen, you everlasting

foundations of the earth” (NIV).

When the preposition ,



, is added to “heavens

and earth”, as in Variation 5 noted above, in ﬁve of

the six occurrences the phrase is better understood

as referring to heaven and earth as the two possible

places where things can exist rather than to

“everything.” Deuteronomy 3:24 and 2 Chronicles

6:14 make the point that God is unlike any other in

heaven and in earth. In Psalm 135:6 and Joel 3:3,

“in heaven and in earth” is where God does His

actions. The meaning of “two possible places where

things can exist” is even clearer in 1 Chronicles 29:11,



































A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

where David declares that everything in heaven and

in earth is God’s. If “heaven and earth” is taken as a

merism for “everything here,” the passage is saying

that everything in everything is God’s. This is clearly

not what this passage is saying. Rather, “In heaven

and in earth” here refers to the two places where

things can exist. And so, the passage is stating that

everything in every place is God’s, not everything in

everything.

In the second of the Ten Commandments, the words

“heaven” and “earth” deﬁnitely refer to the two places

where things exist. God warns the Israelites, “You

shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness

of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath

or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4;

Deuteronomy 5:8 (NASB)). Here the form is different

from a merism. “Heaven” has a meaning separate

from “earth,” with different modiﬁers used for each,

and then “waters” is added with its own modifying

phrase. But if these words mean “the places where

things exist” here, there is no reason why they could

not have the same meaning when they are stated

more succinctly in a merism form as “heavens and

earth.” It seems apparent that the phrase “heavens

and earth” may be used in the sense of “the two places

where things exist” as well as to express the merism,

“the complete organized universe.”

As Waltke indicated in his explanation of a merism

as cited above, the meaning of a merism “cannot be

understood by studying the words separately but only

by studying the unit.” In light of this, it should be noted

that in the two occurrences of Variation 1 in Haggai

2:6, 21 (where it is the object of the verb

,



“shake”) the writer of Hebrews does single out the two

separate members of the phrase when he quotes it in

Hebrews 12:26. He states that at Sinai God’s voice

shook the earth, but the promise in Haggai is saying

that some day He will shake “not only the earth, but

also the heavens.” Clearly, the writer of Hebrews does

not view the phrase as a merism in which the words

cannot be understood separately. Since at Haggai 2:6,

the writer adds “the sea and the dry land” after “the

heavens and the earth, it appears that this is another

example of “heavens and earth” being used in the

sense of “the places where things exist.”

Genesis 2:1 is the most telling exception to the

phrase “heavens and earth” being used as a merism.

That is because, as part of the Genesis 1:1–2:3

creation account, it is in the same context as Genesis

1:1. “The heavens and the earth” in Genesis 2:1 is one

of the two Variation 2 occurrences. In his comments

on Genesis 2:1, Waltke gives a very insightful and

helpful analysis. He analyzes 2:1a, “the heavens and

earth were completed,” as underscoring “that the

creator has perfectly executed his will with regard

to the ﬁrst triad” (the ﬁrst three days of Creation),

and 2:1b “their vast array” (he uses the NIV text) as

referring “to the second triad” (the last three days of

creation). Then he explains in a footnote, “in 1:1, the

merism ‘heaven and earth’ functions as a synecdoche

for all the vast array as well” (Waltke, 2001, p. 67).

This seems tantamount to an admission that “heavens

and earth” is not a merism meaning “everything” at

Genesis 2:1, because there, in contrast to Genesis 1:1,

it describes the incomplete heavens and earth at the

end of the ﬁrst three days of creation. As noted above,

Waltke, in his comments on Genesis 1:1, speciﬁcally

lists Genesis 2:1 as one of the places where “heavens

and earth” functions as a compound referring to the

organized universe. But in his comments on Genesis

2:1, he contradicts this and takes the phrase as a

description of an incomplete heavens and earth.

In Rooker’s critique of Waltke’s view, he makes the

following cogent points:

It is a valid question to ask whether the initial reference

to the expression in question would have the meaning

it did in subsequent verses after the universe had

been completed. It should be emphasized that this

is the ﬁrst use of the phrase and one could naturally

ask how else the initial stage of the universe might be

described.

(Rooker, 1992, p. 319)

These are important observations. Speakers of

a language should not be denied the right to be

innovative in their use of it, to give words and phrases

a new shade of meaning, or apply them in a new way

to the referential realm. But our above evaluation

of “heaven and earth” leads to the conclusion that

Moses’ readers would have recognized Moses’ use of

the phrase as in line with one of its meanings with

which they were already familiar.

It should be pointed out that both of the other

meanings of the phrase “heavens and earth” that have

been described above are found in Moses’ writings.

The phrase has the meaning, “the stable, enduring

parts of the universe” in Deuteronomy 4:26; 30:19;

31:28, and the meaning, “places where things exist”

in Genesis 2:1 and Deuteronomy 3:24. Genesis 2:1 is

even in the same story as Genesis 1:1. So “heavens

and earth” was already being used with these two

meanings at the time Moses wrote the ﬁrst ﬁve books

of the Bible.

If one of Moses’ ﬁrst readers only read Genesis

1:1, the sentence may have been ambiguous to him.

Because three meanings of the phrase, “heavens and

earth” were in use in their day, he could not know if

Moses was referring to the whole complete universe,

or to the two places where things exist. (Since the

verse does not refer to calling heaven and earth as

witness, he probably would not consider as a possible

meaning “the stable enduring parts of the universe”).

But when the reader went on to verse 2 to read about

the condition of the earth, he knew that Moses was

J. Zoschke

not referring to the whole complete universe in verse

1, but was talking about the two places where things

exist. Of these two places he only gives details on the

earth, not the heaven, because that will be his focus

in the remainder of the story.

Is the summary in Genesis 2:1 a restatement

of Genesis 1:1? There are three ways Genesis 1:1

may be regarded as a summary. It may be: (1) a

summary of the initial creation, resulting in an

earth as described in verse 2 (the view proposed in

this paper); (2) a complete summary that answers

the question, “who made everything” (Young, 1964,

pp. 9–10); or (3) a summary of verses 3–31 (Waltke

Point 2). It is crucial to the precreation chaos theory

that Genesis 1:1 be a summary of verses 3–31, and of

those verses only, because otherwise the situation in

verse 2 (which Waltke believes is a chaos) exists after

the initial creative activity, rather than pre creation.

The other two ways of regarding Genesis 1:1 as a

summary understand the Genesis account of creation

as beginning with God alone, not with an empty,

dark, watery earth already in existence.

In addition to this diversely understood summary

at the beginning of the Creation account, there is an

undisputed summary in Genesis 2:1 at the conclusion

of the six days of creation. Because Waltke has already

analyzed Genesis 1:1 as a summary of Genesis 1:3–31,

when he comes to Genesis 2:1, he is forced to conclude

that this summary statement is a restatement of the

ﬁrst one. He gives the following outline of the Genesis

1:1–2:3 creation account:

(1) Introductory summary statement, 1:1.

(2) Situation prior to the creation, 1:2.

(3) Narrative of creation, 1:3–31.

(4) Concluding summary statement, 2:1.

(5) Epilogue: the Sabbath rest, 2:2–3 (Waltke, 1975,

p. 228)

Can Genesis 2:1, merely be a restatement of Genesis

1:1? Although both verses have the phrase “the

heavens and the earth,” Genesis 2:1 adds the words

“and all their hosts” (NASB). If “the heavens and the

earth” means “the complete organized universe” in

both verses, then it is a redundancy to add “and all

their hosts” at Genesis 2:1. As noted above, Waltke

avoided this redundancy by referring “the heavens

and the earth” in Genesis 2:1 to only the ﬁrst three

days of creation. So on this analysis, the introductory

and concluding summaries are the same, but “the

heavens and the earth” has a different meaning in

the introductory summary from its meaning in the

concluding summary, being a synecdoche (merism)

for the complete organized universe at Genesis 1:1,

but requiring “and all their hosts” for Genesis 2:1 to

have that meaning.

If, instead of understanding “the heavens and

the earth” as meaning “the organized universe” in

Genesis 1:1, it is understood as meaning “the two

places where things exist” as proposed above, then

Moses uses “the heavens and the earth” with the same

consistent meaning in both Genesis 1:1 and Genesis

2:1. When he uses “the heavens and the earth” in his

concluding summary, he collocates it with the verb

,



, “complete” instead of the verb ,



, “create”

used in Genesis 1:1. So in Genesis 1:1, the two places

where things can exist were created. By the end of

the third day, those same two places were completed,

so that the “all their hosts,” that is, the things that

were to exist in those two places, had a place to be

put as they were created and completed over the

course of the next three days. So the introductory and

concluding summaries are complementary rather

than synonymous. The concluding summary does not

restate Genesis 1:1, but it does make an anaphoric

reference to “the heavens and the earth” of that verse

without in any way changing the meaning of the

phrase.

But Moses not only summarizes the creation story

in Genesis 2:1. He also gives God’s own summary of it

when He spoke the Ten Commandments. Recorded in

Exodus 20:11, God commanded the Israelites to rest

on the seventh day “for in six days the LORD made

the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is

in them, but he rested on the seventh day” (NIV).

Here, as in Genesis 2:1, if “the heavens and the earth”

means “everything,” then “the sea and all that is in

them” is a redundancy. It is better to understand that

in this summary, as in Genesis 2:1, “the heavens and

the earth” refer to the two places for things to exist.

The only difference in Exodus 20:11 is that “earth”

now has a more speciﬁc reference to the land part of

the planet rather than to both land and water parts.



in Genesis 1:1 a telic verb? (Waltke Point

5).

In his commentary, Waltke introduced a new

support for his view that Genesis 1:1 must refer to

the organized universe. His comment on ,



, “he

created,” is, “This telic verb refers to the completed

act of creation” ((Waltke, 2001, p. 58). Then he adds

in a footnote,

A telic verb (i.e., die or sell) only ﬁnds meaning at the

end of a process. The Hebrew term



. . . only refers

to a completed act of creation (cf. Deuteronomy 4:32;

Psalm 89:12; Isaiah 40:26; Amos 4:13), so it cannot

mean that, in the beginning, God began the process

of creating the cosmos.

It appears that Waltke may be basing this

statement on a componential analysis system of

verb classiﬁcation, in which verbs like “create” are

assigned the meaning components of + dynamic,

+ durative, + telic. From the standpoint of such a

system, it is appropriate to view



as a telic verb.

But the completed created action depends on the

object that the verb refers to, which in Genesis 1:1

A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

is “the heavens and the earth.” If this refers to the

complete organized universe, as Waltke holds, then he

is correct that it cannot mean that in the beginning,

God began the process of creating the universe. But

if it instead refers to the two places where things

exist, as has been shown above, then that is the act of

creation that is completed. So this additional support

for the precreation chaos view really adds nothing to

the debate, since any conclusion based on it depends

on one’s understanding of the object of the verb.

Is Genesis 1:2 circumstantial to 1:3?

(Waltke Point 3)

Waltke’s contention that “the heavens and the earth”

always refers to the organized universe is crucial to his

argument that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement

of Genesis 1:3–31. It has been shown that to contend

this, one must conclude that “the earth” in Genesis 1:2

is an exception to the common discourse pattern of a

repeated word or phrase serving as a back reference.

If the pragmatic force of verse two is not anaphoric

(back reference) then it must be kataphoric (forward

reference). This is how Waltke understands the verse.

He claims that Genesis 1:2 is circumstantial to 1:3,

not to 1:1. Can this claim be supported?

Why is Genesis 1:2 traditionally understood as

circumstantial to Genesis 1:1? In Hebrew narrative,

the narrator progresses through the events of the

story by using sentences of the common VSO (verb,

subject, object) pattern, connecting them together

with the conjunction ו, waw. But if the narrator wants

to pause in the story line to introduce a new character

or to give background or explanatory information,

he will shift to a clause or sentence that still begins

with a ו, but then has a non-verb (usually a noun,

noun phrase, or pronoun). Grammarians distinguish

these two grammatical structures by referring to the

waw + verb construction as having conjunctive word

order, and to the waw + non verb construction as

having disjunctive word order.

The word order is VSO in Genesis 1:1; SVO

(waw + nonverb) in 1:2; and VSO (waw + verb) in 1:3.

Today, Hebrew scholars generally agree that Genesis

1:2 functions circumstantially rather than sequentially

in the narrative (exx. are Unger, 1958, p. 28; Waltke,

1975, p. 226; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 46; Young, 1964,

p. 7). In fact, this understanding of Genesis 1:2 has

caused most Old Testament scholars to reject the

ruin-reconstruction gap theory. But proponents of the

precreation chaos gap theory recognize that Genesis

1:2 is circumstantial in nature. The challenge for

them is to demonstrate that Genesis 1:2 serves to

prepare the reader for verse 3 rather than to clarify

verse 1 for him.

When speakers of a language refer back to a word

or phrase, they may do so to: (1) emphasize that it

is still the topic; (2) restore it to topic status after

intervening text has replaced it as topic; or (3) make it

the topic for the ﬁrst time. In each of these situations,

the purpose may be to clarify the meaning of the

word or phrase and/or to give more information about

it. According to the traditional view, Moses’ back

reference to “the earth” at Genesis 1:2 converts it from

its object status to topic status so that he can write a

sentence about it informing the readers that the earth

as created in verse 1 was in a different state than at

present. So the sentence in verse 2 is circumstantial

to verse 1. The traditional view understands Genesis

1:2 as circumstantial to verse 1 because this conforms

to the usual pattern of Hebrew discourse, in which

a circumstantial clause provides more information

about an already mentioned topic.

Why do precreation chaos advocates view Genesis

1:2 as circumstantial to Genesis 1:3?

Precreation chaos

advocates not only claim that “the heavens and the

earth” in Genesis 1:1 can only refer to the organized

universe. They also view Genesis 1:2 as describing a

chaotic state. So they are forced to conclude that the

circumstantial clauses in this verse depart from the

usual Hebrew pattern of referring to what precedes.

They cannot view Genesis 1:2 as an anaphoric reference

to 1:1 because, as Waltke points out, “Logic will not

allow us to entertain the contradictory notions: God

created the organized heavens and earth; the earth

was unorganized.” (Waltke, 1975, p. 29). Therefore, he

concludes, “on lexical and logical grounds verse 2 cannot

be construed as circumstantial with verse 1” (Waltke,

1975, p. 226). So, Genesis 1:2 is instead viewed as

kataphoric, that is, circumstantial to verse 3.

How do precreation chaos advocates support their

claim that Genesis 1:2 is circumstantial to Genesis

1:3? Even after demonstrating, as has been done

above, that “heavens and earth” in Genesis 1:1 does

not refer to the whole of ﬁnished creation, those who

hold the traditional view must still concede that

this is its most common meaning. But on viewing a

circumstantial clause as explaining what will follow

rather than what has preceded, the shoe is on the

other foot. The precreation chaos proponent has to

admit that it is highly unusual for a circumstantial

clause to function kataphorically.

In spite of this, Waltke asserts that there is

positive evidence for understanding Genesis 1:2

as circumstantial to 1:3. In proof of this he claims

that: (1) Genesis 2:4–7 and 3:1 exhibit a parallel

pattern to 1:1–3, and the waw + noun clauses in

these two passages also look forward rather than

backward; (2) there are many other examples where

the circumstantial clause precedes the main verb

(Waltke, 1975, pp. 226–227).

Do the circumstantial clauses in Genesis 2:5–6

and 3:1 support a forward reference in Genesis 1:2?

J. Zoschke

How strong is the parallel between Genesis 1:1–3

and Genesis 2:4–7, and the parallel between Genesis

1:1–3 and Genesis 3:1? Waltke shows the parallelism

by assigning a common label to each circumstantial

clause and to the sentences before and after it as

follows:

Genesis 1:1–3

(1) Introductory summary statement:

“In the beginning God created the cosmos”

(Genesis 1:1).

(2) Circumstantial clause of the pattern

waw + noun + verb (היה) describing the negative

state before creation:

“Now the earth was devoid of form . . .” (Genesis

1:2).

(3) Main clause of the pattern waw

consecutive + preﬁxed conjugation form describing

the creation:

“And God said . . .” (1:3) (Waltke, 1975, p. 226).

Genesis 2:4–7

(1) Introductory summary statement:

“This is the account of the heavens and the earth

when they were created . . .” (Genesis 2:4).

(2) Circumstantial clause of the pattern

waw + noun + verb (היה) describing a negative state

before creation:

“Now no shrub of the ﬁeld was yet in the earth…”

(Genesis 2:5–6).

(3) Main clause of the pattern waw

consecutive + preﬁxed conjugation form describing

the creation:

“Then the L

ORD God formed man . . .” (Genesis

2:7) (Waltke,1975, p. 226).

Genesis 3:1

[(1) Introductory summary statement: (Genesis 2:4)]

(2) Circumstantial clause of the form waw + noun + verb

(היה):

“Now the serpent was more crafty . . .” (Genesis

3:1a).

(3) Main clause of the form waw consecutive + preﬁxed

conjugation form describing the creation of sin:

“And he said . . .” (3:1b) (Waltke, 1975, p. 227).

Note that for this passage, Waltke has borrowed the

summary statement from Genesis 2:4, explaining that

the passage “lacks a separate introductory statement

because it is a sub-story of the creation record about

man introduced by 2:4” (Waltke, 1975, p. 227).

This display of these three passages is very helpful

in showing their grammatical parallelism. It shows

that the circumstantial clause in each passage has

a common grammatical pattern—waw + noun + verb

(היה). Also, it shows that each main clause after the

circumstantial clause exhibits the grammatical

pattern for sequencing the narrative, namely waw

consecutive + preﬁxed conjugation form (that is, a

wayyiqtol verb).

But the rest of the parallelism is accomplished

through semantic labels. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4

are labeled Introductory summary statement, even

though they differ in grammatical form, Genesis 1:1

being a sentence with a qal qatal ﬁnite verb form,

whereas Genesis 2:4 is a verbless sentence. Sentences

with markedly different grammatical form are

assigned the same semantic label.

The sentences in Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 2:5–6

are labeled grammatically as waw + noun + verb (היה),

but then the semantic description “describing the/a

negative state before creation” is added. This obscures

the fact that the state in Genesis 1:2 is prior to the

divine ﬁats of Genesis 1, whereas the state in Genesis

2:5–6 is after some of them have been spoken.

Mention was made earlier of Waltke’s helpful

analysis of 2:1a, “the heavens and earth were

completed,” as underscoring “that the creator has

perfectly executed his will with regard to the ﬁrst

triad” (Waltke, 2001, p. 67). It was concluded that

“the heavens and the earth” here is consistent in

meaning with “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis

1:1, with Genesis 1:1 summarizing God’s initial

creation of the two places where things can exist

and Genesis 2:1 the completing of those two places

by God’s ﬁats during the ﬁrst three days of creation.

Now it becomes apparent that Moses begins his

“generations of the heaven and the earth” account

(Genesis 2:4–4:26) by looking back at ,

 

, “the heavens and the earth,”

in Genesis 2:1. He does this by a double anaphoric

reference in Genesis 2:4: ,









, “the heavens and the earth”; and ,

 

, “earth and heavens.” The phrases

in Genesis 2:1 and the ﬁrst Genesis 2:4 reference are

identical, and are the two Variation 2 occurrences of

“heavens and earth” noted above. A time phrase ties

each of these two anaphoric references in Genesis 2:4

back to the creation account: ,



, “in

their creating” for the ﬁrst reference; and ,





 in the day of making” for the second. For these

time phrases, Moses repeats



, “create” and



“make” from the previous verse, putting them in an

inﬁnitive construct form.

It is through this double back reference at Genesis

2:4 that Moses ties his creation account and his

“generations of the heavens and the earth” account

together. Having explained in his creation account

how God by divine ﬁat ﬁlled a world that He had

created empty, he is going to explain in his next

account how God ,



, “from the

ground” formed a man (Genesis 2:7), made all kinds

of trees grow (Genesis 2:9), and formed the beasts of

the ﬁeld and the birds of the air (Genesis 2:19); in a

world that He had created devoid of all these things.

So a suggested semantic label that properly accounts



























A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

for God’s work in both Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 is

Introductory summary statement of God’s preparatory

creative work.

Coming now to the circumstantial clauses in

Genesis 2:5–6, a comparison of these clauses to

the account of creation in Genesis 1 would lead one

to conclude that the setting for the Genesis 2:4–24

account is not “a negative state before creation.”

Instead of beginning at a point prior to the divine

ﬁats of the six days of creation as he did in his creation

account, Moses now begins at a point after God made

the dry ground appear on the third day of creation,

but before He ﬁlled it with animals and people. Yes,

that state can be called negative if one means that the

earth at that point lacks some things that are not yet

created. But it can not be called negative if one means

that it is contrary to creation, because by that point,

God has already observed three times that what He

has made is good. So the semantic description of

Genesis 2:5–6 should not be “describing a negative

state before creation,” but rather “describing an empty

state of the earth at that point in the creation.”

If “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 2:4 refer

to the organized universe, Waltke is correct that the

circumstantial clauses in Genesis 2:5–6 can not look

back at this, but must look forward to verse 7. But

if “the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 2:4 has

the same meaning Waltke understood “the heavens

and the earth” to have in Genesis 2:1 (as we have

suggested above), then Genesis 2:5–6 looks back to

Genesis 2:4 to explain that this account begins at the

point in that creation when the earth was devoid of

three things: (1) plants and shrubs of the ﬁeld, (2)

rain, and (3) man.

When Genesis 2:4–6 is understood in this way, its

parallelism to Genesis 1:1–2 can be displayed as: (1)

Genesis 1:1 and 2:4—Introductory summary statement

of God’s preparatory creative work. (2) Genesis 1:2

and 2:5–6—Circumstantial clauses of the pattern

waw + noun + verb (היה) describing an empty state of

the earth at that point in the creation. In Genesis 1:2

as in Genesis 2:5–6, the circumstantial clauses look

back at the creation described in the previous verse

to explain that at that point in creation, the earth

was still in an empty condition. In Genesis 1:2, it is

dark empty water. In Genesis 2:5 it is ground devoid

of plants and shrubs of the ﬁeld, rain and man. And

neither Genesis 1:2 nor Genesis 2:5–6 is negative in

the sense of being contrary to creation, but only in the

sense of lacking the rest of creation.

But Waltke also claims that the circumstantial

clause of Genesis 3:1 looks forward rather than

backward. He, of course, is correct in viewing Genesis

3 as “a sub-story of the creation record about man

introduced by 2:4” (Waltke, 1975, p. 227). But instead

of going back to Genesis 2:4 for an introductory

sentence for this sub-story, it may be appropriate to

view the verse before Genesis 3:1, Genesis 2:25, as an

introductory sentence. After saying in Genesis 2:25

that the man and his wife were both ,



“naked,” Moses states in the circumstantial clause of

3:1, that the serpent was ,



, “crafty.” Because



has a different sense in Genesis 3:1 and, being

a paronomasia, requires a different English word in

translation, it is easy to miss Moses’ use of the word

in Genesis 3:1 as a back reference to Genesis 2:25.

But it is, and the circumstantial clause of Genesis 3:1,

like the clauses in Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 2:5–6,

looks backwards rather than (or perhaps “as well as”)

forwards.

Are there many other examples where the

circumstantial clause precedes the main verb?

Besides claiming that the clauses in Genesis 2:5–6

and Genesis 3:1 give positive evidence for seeing

Genesis 1:2 as circumstantial to what follows, Waltke

also claims that there are many other examples of

this in the Old Testament. His only support of this

is to appeal to the examples given by Young (1964,

p. 9.). Young cites 11 instances of this (and calls them

“several” examples, not “many”). The passages are

Genesis 38:25; Numbers 12:14; Joshua 2:18; 1 Samuel

9:11; 1 Kings 14:17; 2 Kings 2:23; 6:5, 26; 9:25; Job

1:16; and Isaiah 37:38.

Rooker replies, “This evidence is problematic,

however, as none of the examples cited has the same

structure as Genesis 2:2–3, (sic, he means Genesis

1:2–3) that is, a waw disjunctive clause followed by

waw consecutive preﬁxed form (Rooker, 1992, p. 416).

Only two of the examples (2 Kings 2:23; 6:5) are waw

disjunctive clauses; the others are not introduced by

waw. The circumstantial clauses in all of them are

marked as nominal clauses by a participle (except

Numbers 12:14, which has an inﬁnitive). As such,

they are dependent, becoming part of a complex

sentence by joining with the clause following. They

translate into English as dependent time clauses that

begin with “when,” “while,” or “as.” So they must be

taken with what follows because their grammatical

structure requires it. And Rooker’s point is that if

there is a waw connecting it to the clause following, it

will not be waw consecutive (that is, conjunctive) as it

is in Genesis 1:3, but rather waw + noun or pronoun.

On the other hand, Genesis 1:2 is not a nominal

clause, but an independent verbal sentence that

contains the ﬁnite verb ,



, “was (fem.).”

[Davidson (1901) says that a circumstantial clause

“may be nominal or verbal, though it is chieﬂy

nominal, and even when verbal the order of words

is that of the nominal sentence. . . . vav, subj., pred.”

(p. 186). It is this order in Genesis 1:2 that marks

the sentence as circumstantial.] The very fact that

Genesis 1:2 contrasts with the examples above in these













J. Zoschke

two ways—being independent and verbal rather than

dependent and nominal—actually becomes another

reason to interpret it as referring to what precedes

rather than to what follows.

Instead of appealing to differently structured

circumstantial clauses, a better approach is to look

for other clauses of the same structure as Genesis

1:2. Rooker cites Judges 8:11 and Jonah 3:3 as two

more passages “where a ﬁnite verb is followed by

a waw disjunctive clause containing the verb ”

and points out that in both instances “this clause

qualiﬁes a term in the immediately preceding

independent clause. The independent clause makes

a statement and the following circumstantial clause

describes parenthetically an element in the main

clause” (Rooker, 1992, p. 416). So just as “the earth”

in Genesis 1:2 looks back at “the earth” in Genesis

1:1, “the camp” is looked back at in Judges 8:11, and

“Nineveh” in Jonah 3:3. Another example of a ﬁnite

verb followed by a waw disjunctive clause containing

the verb  occurs in Zechariah 3:3. Here, though,

“Joshua … standing before the angel” refers back

to the same phrase two sentences before, not the

immediately preceding one.

Does Genesis 1:2 describe a chaos?

(Waltke Point 6)

Ruin-reconstruction gap theorists believed that

Genesis 1:2 speciﬁcally informed the reader about

a chaos that happened subsequent to God’s initial

creation of the heavens and earth, which is reported

in Genesis 1:1. This initial creation included the

creation of angels, but when some of them rebelled

against God, the earth was plunged into ruin (hence

“ruin” in the designation “ruin-reconstruction)

resulting in the chaotic state of verse 2. Precreation

chaos advocates recognize that Genesis 1:2 is

circumstantial rather than sequential, but they join

with ruin-reconstructionists in believing that Genesis

1:2 describes a chaos, and that this chaos contrasted

with, rather than being a stage of, God’s creative

activity.

Because the understanding of Genesis 1:2 as

a chaos is a tenet of the formerly popular ruin-

reconstruction view, defenders of the traditional

interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2 have already written

at length to support the view that Genesis 1:2 is the

beginning phase of creation rather than a subsequent

condition opposed to creation. It is beyond the scope

of this paper to review all of their argumentation,

but the sources include the following: Davis (1975,

pp. 45–46); Fields (1978, pp. 113–134); Rooker (1992,

pp. 320–323; 420–423)Whitcomb (1986, pp. 141–158)

and Young (1964, pp. 11–14; 30–38).

Young’s view bears some similarity to precreation

chaos. He takes Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement

and Genesis 1:2 as circumstantial to Genesis 1:3. But

he views Genesis 1:1 as summarizing, not Genesis

1:3–31, but creation as a whole, as the answer to the

child’s question, “Who made the world?” (Young, 1964,

p. 9). Understood in this way, Genesis 1:1 refers to the

original creation. Then he says that verse 2 “states

the condition of the earth as it was when created, and

until God began to form from it the present world.”

(Young, 1964, p. 11). So he defends both original

creation at Genesis 1:1, and the earth in Genesis 1:2

as being the ﬁrst stage of God’s creative activity.

Perhaps one of the reasons people have been

so inclined to view Genesis 1:2 as a chaos is the

translation of



, in the phrase ,





, as “without form (KJV, NKJV) or “formless”

(NASB, NIV). Rooker quotes Tsumara as assigning

the meaning “desert” to it after considering the

word in relation both to cognate Semitic languages

and its use in the Old Testament (Rooker, 1992,

p. 320). Regarding the complete phrase,



Tsumara concludes, “both the biblical context and

extra-biblical parallels suggest that the phrase





in Genesis 1:2 has nothing to do with “chaos”

and simply means “emptiness” and refers to the earth

which is an empty place, that is, “an unproductive and

uninhabited place” (quoted in Rooker, 1992, p. 322). A

better translation than “formless,” therefore, would be

a word more closely synonymous to “void” or “empty,”

such as “desolate.” “Desolate” does not suggest chaos

in the way that “formless” does.

When Genesis 1:2 is viewed as a negative state

opposed to creation, it affects both the distinction in

classical theology between creation and providence,

and between creation and redemption. The statement

in the Sabbath account, Genesis 2:2–3, that by the

seventh day, God had completed His work and rested

from all of it is commonly taken as the point where

creation concluded and providence began. But if God

had actually just ﬁnished remaking a world that

had fallen into chaos since its original creation, the

creating was more like a heightened providence as

compared to the original creation, and the resting

was a return to a lower providence not unlike what

He must have been doing when He let the world fall

into chaos.

Similarly the distinction between creation

and redemption is blurred. Instead of redemptive

history beginning after the fall of man, it was really

happening during the six days of creation, if God was

restoring a world that had fallen into chaos. On this

point Merrill says:

Many scholars’ attempts to see salvation as a central

theme even in the creation account are not convincing

because such attempts draw most of their support

from pagan mythology in which creation occurs as a

result of the subjugation of primeval chaotic waters



 





 

A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

by the gods. There is no hint of such a thing in the

Old Testament except in passages where such mythic

themes may be used as poetic illustration of Yahweh’s

victory over His enemies, who are at times likened to

chaotic and destructive ﬂoods

(Merrill, 1991, p. 22).

Other considerations

If Genesis 1:1–2 refers to an initial creation as

claimed in this paper, must it be included in the ﬁrst

creative day? Although Genesis 1 may be considered

ambiguous on this, Exodus 20:11 resolves that

ambiguity when it says “in six days the LORD made the

heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them”

(NASB). This clearly requires that Genesis 1:1–2 be

a part of the ﬁrst day of creation. It should be noted

that precreation chaos advocates must view “made”

more in the sense of “remodeling” or “remaking” and

“the sea and all that is in them” as a redundancy.

How can Genesis 1:1 say that God created the

heavens as an initial creative event when during

the six days He created the expanse and called it

heaven (second day), and also created the sun, moon

and stars (fourth day)? Humphreys, noting that the

“deep” of Genesis 1:2 has a surface, suggests that

the heavens of Genesis 1:1 was the space above that

surface (Humphreys, 1994, p. 64). Whitcomb, noting

Paul’s reference to a third heaven in 2 Corinthians

2:12, stated that the creation of the heavens in Genesis

1:1 resulted in a third heaven populated with millions

of angels (Whitcomb, 1986, p. 53). Perhaps it would

be better to say that the space above the surface was

populated with angels, with that space becoming the

second heaven after the expanse was made on day

two. It should be noted that a place of existence is

what it is because of the spiritual beings who live in

it, whether that be God in the third heaven, angels

in the second, or human beings on earth with the

stellar ﬁrst heaven as part of their scenery. The New

Jerusalem is not “the bride, the wife of the Lamb”

(Revelation 21:9) because of its jasper wall and golden

streets, but because the Lamb’s redeemed people live

there.

Conclusion

This paper has explained what the precreation

chaos gap theory is, traced how it developed, and

shown how its key argument—that “the heavens and

the earth” in Genesis 1:1 must refer to the ﬁnished,

organized universe—overlooks the fact that the phrase

sometimes refers to the two places where things exist.

The opposing arguments of the traditional theory have

been shown to have the best support: “the earth” in

Genesis 1:2 refers back to Genesis 1:1; Genesis 1:1 is a

summary only in the sense of being a summary of the

initial creation, whereas Genesis 2:1 is the summary

for the whole creation account; the circumstantial

clause of Genesis 1:2 refers back to Genesis 1:1, and

describes emptiness, but not chaos. In short, Exodus

20:11 can be taken at face value, “In six days the L

ORD

made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that

is in them.”

References

Barker, K. L., Stek, J. H., Wessel, W. W., & Youngblood, R.

(Eds.) (2002). Zondervan NIV Study Bible (Rev. ed.). Grand

Rapids: Zondervan.

Batten, D. (2004). Soft gap sophistry. Creation, 26(3), 43–47.

Baylis, A. H. (1996). From Creation to the Cross: Understanding

the ﬁrst half of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Bush, G. (1852). Notes critical and practical on the book of

Genesis. New York: Newman and Ivison. (Reprinted 1976,

Minneapolis: Klock & Klock).

Calvin, J. (1965). A commentary on Genesis (Trans. J. King).

London: Banner of Truth Trust.

Custance, A. C. (1970). Without form and void. Brockville,

Ontario, Canada: Arthur Custance.

Davidson, A. B. (1901). Hebrew syntax (3rd ed.). Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark.

Davis, J. J. (1975). Paradise to prison. Grand Rapids: Baker

Book House.

Deremer, F. (2005). Book review of The age of the universe:

What are the biblcal limits? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical

Journal, 19(2), 51.

Fields, W. W. (1976). Unformed and unﬁlled. Phillipsburg,

New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Gove, P. B. (editor in chief). (1986). Webster’s third new

international dictionary of the English language,

unabridged. Springﬁeld, Massachusetts: Merriam-

Webster.

Gray, G. (1997). The age of the universe: What are the

biblical limits? Washougal, Washington: Morning Star

Publications.

Hasel, G. (1971). Recent translations of Genesis 1:1. The Bible

translator, 22, 154–167.

Humphreys, D. R. (1994). Starlight and time. Green Forest,

Arkansas: Master Books.

Lewis, J. P. (1989). The days of creation: An historical survey

of interpretation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society, 32, 433–455.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Merrill, E. H. (1991). The theology of the Pentateuch. In

Roy Zuck (Ed.), A biblical theology of the Old Testament.

Chicago: Moody Press.

The new english translation Bible. (2001). Biblical studies

Press. Retrieved from www.netbible.org.

Rooker, M. F. (1992). Genesis 1:1–3: Creation or recreation?

Bibliotheca Sacra, 149, 316–323, 411–427.

Ross, A. P. (1985). Genesis. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck

(Eds.), The Bible knowledge commentary—An exposition

of the Scriptures by Dallas seminary faculty. Wheaton,

Illionois: Victor Books.

Ross, A. P. (1996). Appendix 1. The interpretation of Genesis

1:1–3 & Appendix 2,



“to create”. Creation & blessing:

A guide to the study and exposition of Genesis (pp. 718–728).

Grand Rapids: Baker.

Unger, M. F. (1958). Rethinking the Genesis account of

J. Zoschke

creation. Bibliotheca Sacra, 115, 27–35.

Von Rad, G. (1961). Genesis (Trans. John Marks). Philadelphia:

The Westminster Press.

Waltke, B. K. (1975). The creation account in Genesis

1:1–3. Bibliotheca Sacra, 132, 25–36, 136–144, 216–228,

327–342.

Waltke, B. K. (1976). The creation account in Genesis

1:1–3. Bibliotheca Sacra, 133, 28–41.

Waltke, B. K. (2001). Genesis: A commentary. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan,

Whitcomb, J. C. (1986). The early earth (Rev. ed.). Winona

Lake, Indiana: BMH Books

Young, E. J. (1964). Studies in Genesis one. Philadelphia:

Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Appendix A

The Three Gap Theories of Genesis 1:1–2

This paper has defended the traditional view of

Genesis 1:1–2. The challenges to this view have

taken a variety of forms. Faced with the long ages

insisted on by evolutionary scientists, many have

tried to read long periods of time into the six days

of creation. Recognizing the exegetical problems with

this approach, more conservative biblical scholars

have instead argued for disconnecting Genesis 1:1–2,

from the six days of creation.

In the Genesis 1 account, the ﬁrst divine ﬁat, “Let

there be light,” is at verse 3. Then this same divine

ﬁat creation continues for all the subsequent creative

events of the chapter. But neither verse 1 or 2 states

that “God said, Let there be . . .” It is this distinction

between the ﬁrst two verses and the remainder of

the chapter that seems to allow the possibility that

the light created on day one was all that was created

that day. Rather than recognizing that Exodus 20:11

disallows this possibility, gap theorists accept it. This

leads them to conclude that the empty dark watery

earth of verse 2 was already in existence before day

one, so that there is a gap between an earlier form of

the universe, and the ﬁrst day of creation.

Although, as this paper has shown, there was a

version of the precreation chaos theory before modern

times, the various gap theories have for the most part

developed since the rise of uniformitarian evolutionary

science with its contention that the earth is billions

of years old. The ﬁrst gap theory to gain prominence

since that time, and possibly still the most familiar

one today, was the ruin-reconstruction view, also

known as the restitution theory. This theory regards

Genesis 1:2 as describing a chaos that was due to

some catastrophe, generally assumed to be the result

of Satan’s fall. This chaos was successive to an initial

creation at Genesis 1:1, so the gap occurs between

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

According to Davis, the ruin-reconstruction view

was ﬁrst proposed by Thomas Chalmers in 1814

“to accommodate Georges Cuvier’s theory that the

earth’s fossiliferous strata are the product of a series

of catastrophes” (Davis, 1975, pp. 42–43). It became

more widely popular when Franz Delitzsch taught

it in his System of Biblical Psychology, which was

translated into English in 1867. Its popularity carried

over into the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century, partly

due to its advocacy by George Pember, whose Earth’s

Earliest Ages appeared in 1907, and by the 1909

Scoﬁeld Reference Bible

Although the ruin-reconstruction view was

a popular way for Bible believing Christians to

respond to evolutionary arguments in the ﬁrst half

of the twentieth century, it was eventually shown

to be exegetically untenable, and has largely been

abandoned today, at least in most scholarly circles.

Today the most thorough defense of this gap theory

may be found in Arthur C. Custance’s book Without

Form and Void, published in 1970. The most

exhaustive refutation of it is by Fields (1976).

The second gap theory to gain prominence since

the rise of old earth science was the precreation chaos

theory that has been presented and evaluated in this

paper. Although George Bush (1852) appears to have

been the ﬁrst to present this view in modern times,

the 1958 article by Merril F. Unger appears to have

played an important role in its rise to prominence

in the twentieth century. Unger continued to hold to

the cosmogony of the ruin-reconstruction theory, and

as noted, is classiﬁed with them by Waltke. But by

referring to Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement, he

in essence placed the gap before that verse It was by

building on this idea of Genesis 1:1 as a summary

statement that Waltke developed the precreation

chaos theory that has been critiqued in this paper.

Although there is a decided difference in the

interpretive method used by ruin-reconstructionists

and precreation chaos defenders, there appears to be

little difference in their cosmogonies. Both groups

regard Genesis 1:2 as a chaos that must have resulted

from some kind of action opposed to God’s ﬁrst

creative activity. But precreation chaos adherents,

because they correctly recognize that Genesis 1:2

comprises three circumstantial clauses rather than

a main movement of the narrative (which would be

indicated by a verbal clause with wayyiqtol), have no

deﬁnite statement of Scripture to that effect. They

can only argue this point from a presupposition that

God would never create anything like the chaos they

allege to be in view in Genesis 1:2, even as a stage in

His overall creation activity. Rather than posit a pre-

Adamic fall to explain Genesis 1:2, Waltke refers to

it as “surd evil” (Waltke, 2001, p. 68). He explains his

position as follows:

But what about the uncreated or unformed state, the

darkness and the deep of Genesis 1:2? Here a great

A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

mystery is encountered, for the Bible never says that

God brought these into existence by His word. What,

then, can be said about them?

First, it can be said that the Book of Genesis does

not inform us concerning the origin of that which is

contrary to the nature of God, neither in the cosmos

nor in the world of the spirit. Where did the opposite

of Him that is good and bright originate? Suddenly,

without explanation, in Genesis 3 an utterly evil,

brilliant, intelligent personality appears in the

Garden of Eden masquerading as a serpent. The

principle of origins, so strong in our minds, demands

an explanation. But the truth is that the Book mocks

us. The Bible provides no information regarding that

which is dark and devoid of form. Here are some of

the secret things that belong to God.

(Waltke, 1975,

p. 338)

Precreation chaos theorists must also be less

deﬁnite about creation ex nihilo. As noted in the

introduction of this paper, since they do not believe

Genesis 1:1 teaches this, they must either search for

it elsewhere, or deduce it as an implication from the

Scriptures that say only God is eternal.

In addition to the proponents of the precreation

chaos theory noted in the paper, Rooker lists the

following:

John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), 14; S. R.

Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 1904),

3; Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, trans. David G.

Preston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984),

63. Brongers, Cassuto, Eichrodt, Gunkel, Procksch,

Schmidt, Strack, von Rad, Westermann, and

Zimmerli also hold to the summary view according

to Hasel (Gerhard F. Hasel, “Recent Translations of

Genesis 1:1: A Critical Look,” The Bible Translator

22 [1971]: 164)

. (Rooker, 1992, p. 412)

Recently, still a third gap theory has been proposed.

In 1997, Gorman Gray wrote the book, The age of the

universe: What are the biblical limits? He contended

that Genesis 1:1 does describe the original creation,

and that 1:2 describes its condition when created, a

creation that existed for an indeﬁnite period of time,

but was not a chaos. This view has been named the

“soft gap” view, presumably because the state of the

earth in 1:2 is only a stage of creation, not the result of

some anti-creation development such as a catastrophe.

This gap theory places the gap between 1:2 and 1:3.

It has been refuted by Batten (2004) and Deremer

(2005). Due to its various alterations of traditionally

understood Hebrew vocabulary and grammar, it is

unlikely that it will gain a large following among

scholars of biblical Hebrew.

Added to the ﬁrst two, this third gap theory

appears to have exhausted the ways an extended

time period can be placed into Genesis 1:1–2. The

precreation chaos theory puts it before verse 1, the

ruin-reconstruction theory puts it between verses 1

and 2, and the soft gap theory puts it after verse 2.

Appendix B

The Popularity of the Precreation

Chaos Gap Theory

In 1971, Gerhard Hasel said of the traditional

view, “it has the support of the majority of Jewish

and Christian interpreters” (quoted in Waltke, 1975,

p. 217). Calvin, for example, gave this explanation of

the ﬁrst two verses of Genesis, “For Moses simply

intends to assert that the world was not perfected at

its very commencement, in the manner in which it is

now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of

heaven and earth” (Calvin, 1965, p. 69).

In more recent times, however, this traditional

view has been repeatedly challenged. Just four

years after Hasel’s statement, although not denying

it, Waltke noted that “Although this view is still

supported in modern times, its number of adherents

is diminishing.” (Waltke, 1975, p. 217)

Of course, for those of us living in the 21st century,

the question is whether or not that diminishing

trend did in fact continue during the years since

Waltke made this claim. On the one hand, it seems

that for some Christians, this diminishing trend has

been arrested by the growth of some outstanding

creationist movements. But on the other hand,

many in the world of biblical scholarship are more

persuaded by outstanding exegetes like Bruce Waltke

and Allen Ross than they are by creationist scientists.

It is not difﬁcult to ﬁnd their inﬂuence in a variety of

Bible study helps intended to assist the reader in his

understanding of the Scriptures.

For example, The Bible Knowledge Commentary

has been a popular resource for Bible study since

it ﬁrst appeared in 1985. It was written by Dallas

Seminary faculty and was originally published by

Victor Books, the book division of Scripture Press,

which produced Sunday School curriculum. It

still is listed as a resource in the Scripture Press

curriculum (now owned by Cook Communications)

and in other Sunday School curriculums. In the book,

the commentary on Genesis by Allen Ross (1985)

defends the common precreation chaos arguments:

Genesis 1:1 is not an original creation; Genesis 1:2

describes a chaos and is circumstantial to Genesis

1:3. (p. 28)

In 1996, Allen Ross’s work Creation & Blessing:

A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis was

published. It has also been a popular and helpful

Bible study resource for students of the Scriptures.

In Appendix 1 of the book, he gives an overview of

J. Zoschke

the different interpretations of Genesis 1:1–3, which

includes a helpful explanation of variations among

precreation chaos proponents (Ross, 1996, pp. 719–

720). Following this overview, he defends the

precreation chaos view (Ross, 1996, pp. 720–723).

Albert H. Baylis, in his ﬁne work, From creation

to the cross: Understanding the ﬁrst half of the Bible,

refers the reader to both Waltke and Rooker’s opposing

articles on precreation chaos in the Bibliotheca Sacra.

While refusing to come down decidedly on one side or

the other, he goes on to say that the creation of the

heavens in Genesis 1:1 followed by the creation of the

sun on day four “raises some interesting questions

about duplication for the traditional view” (Baylis,

1996, p. 36). It should be noted that he incorrectly says

“Rooker defends this traditional view (held by Calvin,

Luther, etc) as “the initial chaos view” (Baylis, 1996,

p. 36). Rooker, however, only uses the term “initial

chaos” because it is the terminology of Waltke, whom

he is critiquing. As he explains in a footnote, “Waltke

labeled the view as the initial chaos view, but because

of the uncertainty of what is meant by chaos this title

is not so useful as referring to the position simply as

the traditional one.” (Rooker, 1992, p. 475). Baylis’

work continues to be a popular resource for Bible

study, and is required reading in some Bible colleges

and seminaries.

The New English Translation Bible, more

commonly known as the NET Bible was completed in

2001, and is available as an online resource at www.

netbible.org. It was designed with Bible translators

in mind, and has an extensive amount of translator’s

notes accompanying the text. A footnote in the preface

says that SIL/Wycliffe has included it in its standard

reference materials furnished to its ﬁeld translators.

Its editors point out that “electronic distribution

via the internet allows free delivery of unlimited

amounts of biblical materials to anyone worldwide

who could otherwise not afford or access them—for

zero incremental cost” (preface) Undoubtedly, its

online availability as a free resource has given it a

wide usage.

The ﬁrst note on Genesis 1:1 explains that the verse

may either be taken as (1) a reference to the original

act of creation or (2) a summary of Genesis 1:3–31.

Then it goes on to defend the second view, saying, “the

following narrative strongly favors the second view,

for the heavens/sky did not exist prior to the second

day of creation (see v. 8) and ‘earth/dry land’ did not

exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of

creation (see v. 10).” Of course, the explanation given

in this paper is that Moses speciﬁcally wrote Genesis

1:2 to alert the reader that the earth as God ﬁrst

created it was not in the form that we know today.

Another example of the inﬂuence of the precreation

theory is the recent 2002 revision of the NIV Study

Bible. It repeats the study note of the 1985 ﬁrst

edition, stating that Genesis 1:1 is “a summary

statement introducing the six days of creation,” and

that the phrase “the heavens and the earth” means

“all things.” (NIV Study Bible, p. 5).

The above listing of popular Bible study helps

defending the precreation chaos gap theory is selective,

not exhaustive, but it should be sufﬁcient to make it

clear that this theory is the primary gap theory that

young earth creationists need to address today. The

ruin-reconstruction theory is waning; the soft gap

theory is unlikely to attract a large following; but the

precreation chaos theory is waxing in its popularity

in this early part of the 21st century.

Appendix C

Verse Lists for the Five Variations of “the

heavens and the earth”

NIV Verse List for the 1st variation: ,





, “the heavens”

( was searched rather than ,

   

, “the heavens and the

earth” so as to also see how many times it occurred

with intervening text before (two times) or by

itself (two times))

1. created/made ______ and the earth

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the

earth.

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the

earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on

the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath

day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever,

for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,

and on the seventh day he abstained from work and

rested.

2 Kings 19:15

And Hezekiah prayed to the Lord: “O Lord, God of

Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are

God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made

heaven and earth.”

2 Chronicles 2:12

And Hiram added: “Praise be to the Lord, the God

of Israel, who made heaven and earth! He has given

King David a wise son, endowed with intelligence and

discernment, who will build a temple for the Lord and a

palace for himself.”

Isaiah 37:16

“O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the

cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of

the earth. You have made heaven and earth.”





















A Critique of the Precreation Chaos Gap Theory

Jeremiah 32:17

“Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and

the earth by your great power and outstretched arm.

Nothing is too hard for you.”

2. call _______ and the earth

Deuteronomy 4:26

I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this

day that you will quickly perish from the land that you

are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live

there long but will certainly be destroyed.

Deuteronomy 30:19

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against

you that I have set before you life and death, blessings

and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your

children may live.

Deuteronomy 31:28

Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all

your ofﬁcials, so that I can speak these words in their

hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against

them.

3. ﬁll/shake ____________ and the earth

Jeremiah 23:24

“Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot

see him?” declares the Lord. “Do not I ﬁll heaven and

earth?” declares the Lord.

Haggai 2:6

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘In a little while I

will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea

and the dry land.’”

Haggai 2:21

“Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah that I will shake the

heavens and the earth.”

4. the heavens [with “the earth” added after

intervening text]

Nehemiah 9:6

You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the

highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and

all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give

life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship

you.

Hosea 2:21

“In that day I will respond,” declares the Lord—“I

will respond to the skies, and they will respond to the

earth.”

5. the heavens [without adding “the earth”]

Deuteronomy 11:17

Then the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and he will

shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground

will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the

good land the Lord is giving you.

Deuteronomy 28:12

The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his

bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless

all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations

but will borrow from none.

NIV Verse List for the 2nd variation: ,





 

, “the heavens and the

earth,”

Genesis 2:1

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all

their vast array.

Genesis 2:4

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when

they were created. When the L

ORD God made the earth

and the heavens—

NIV Verse List for the 3rd variation ,



, “heavens and earth,”

1. used as subject

Psalm 69:34

Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and all that

move in them.

Jeremiah 51:48

“Then heaven and earth and all that is in them will

shout for joy over Babylon, for out of the north destroyers

will attack her,” declares the Lord.

Joel 3:16

The Lord will roar from Zion and thunder from

Jerusalem; the earth and the sky will tremble. But the

Lord will be a refuge for his people, a stronghold for the

people of Israel.

2. used as object of participle



“creator” in

construct state

Genesis 14:19

. . . and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by

God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.”

Genesis 14:22

But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my

hand to the L

ORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven

and earth . . .”

3. used as object of participle



“maker” in

construct state

Psalm 115:15

May you be blessed by the Lord, the Maker of heaven

and earth.

Psalm 121:2

My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and

earth.

Psalm 124:8

Our help is in the name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven

and earth.

Psalm 134:3

May the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth, bless you

from Zion.

Psalm 146:6 (‘oseh is in absolute state)

. . . the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything

in them—the Lord, who remains faithful forever.

4. used as complement of noun



 “ﬁxed

laws” in construct state

Jeremiah 33:25

This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not established

my covenant with day and night and the ﬁxed laws of

heaven and earth . . .’





J. Zoschke

NIV Verse List for the 4th variation: and



and



, “heavens” and “earth,”

Isaiah 65:17

“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth.

The former things will not be remembered, nor will they

come to mind.”

NIV Verse List for the 5th variation:

 

, “in the heavens and in the

earth”

Deuteronomy 3:24

“O Sovereign LORD, you have begun to show to your

servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what

god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds

and mighty works you do?

”

1 Chronicles 29:11

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power

and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,

for everything in heaven and earth is yours.

Yours, O L

ORD, is the kingdom;

you are exalted as head over all.

2 Chronicles 6:14

He said: “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you

in heaven or on earth—you who keep your covenant of

love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in

your way.”

Psalm 113:6

who stoops down to look

on the heavens and the earth?

Psalm 135:6

The LORD does whatever pleases him,

in the heavens and on the earth,

in the seas and all their depths.

Joel 3:3

I will show wonders in the heavens

and on the earth,

blood and ﬁre and billows of smoke.

Verse list for or ,







(Because these verses are in Aramaic, they were

not listed as a variation in the paper. However, the

Jeremiah 10:11 verse is another example of the phrase

used in the sense, “the two places where things can

exist.” In the last half of the verse, Jeremiah reverses

the order and selects a different preposition for each

member of the phrase, which would not be done for a

merism meaning “everything.” And it should be noted

that the phrase here is the object of the verb “make.”

So it is in a creation context. Since Jeremiah was a

native speaker of Hebrew, it is doubtful that this one

verse that he put into Aramaic for the beneﬁt of the

nations which he was addressing, loses its signiﬁcance

as another example of a non-merism usage of “the

heavens and the earth.)

Ezra 5:11

This is the answer they gave us: “We are the servants of

the God of heaven and earth, and we are rebuilding the

temple that was built many years ago, one that a great

king of Israel built and ﬁnished.”

Jeremiah 10:11

“Tell them this: ‘These gods, who did not make the

heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and

from under the heavens.’”

Other results

Searches for variations of “heavens and earth” in

which any modiﬁcation before “heavens” (the article,

; the sign of the direct object, ; both of these; the

preposition  ; or the adjective ) was not repeated

before “earth” yielded 0 results.





















