Compromises of Creation

[Michael V. Frazier]

History of Gap and Day-Age Theories
In 1795, Scottish farmer and naturalist James Hutton, considered to be the founder of modern geology, published his book Theory of the Earth which suggested that the earth is continuously being formed by the rising and eroding of continents. His idea suggested that the earth was far older than the 6,000 years as suggested by Holy Scripture. The Catastrophe Theories (such as the Flood) began to look less and less as a valid understanding of earth's geology.

Then in 1814, instead of relying upon the integrity of Scripture alone, the Word was reinterpreted by Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers who began to teach the "Gap Theory." While not immediately accepted at first, and certainly contrary to the understanding of Scripture prior to that time, his theory would take on greater significance as humanity began disbelieving in a young earth.

Hutton's book had a great influence on lawyer turned geologist Charles Lyell. Eleven editions of Lyell's book Principles of Geology were published between 1830-1872, progressively teaching the idea of Uniformitarianism—that slow and gradual changes have created the geologic wonders of our world—that the "present is key to the past." Lyell's book continued Hutton's assessment that the Earth was vastly older than a mere 6,000 years, causing people to doubt the truth of God's Word as plainly written. No longer could mankind simply trust God at His Word; we now had to figure out how to interpret the Bible in light of scientific discovery.

Chalmers' theory allowed people to accept "millions of years" by reinterpreting the Bible, reading into the Scripture the supposed "million of years" required by Hutton, Lyell, et. al. Chalmers' "Gap Theory" was therefore given even more circulation in 1876 by George H. Pember's book Earth's Earliest Ages, a study of Genesis 1-6. The theory next took on great leaps within Christianity after it was included in the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. A more recent proposal is that by J. Sidlow Baxter in his 1760 page tome Explore the Book, in which he writes, "Between the first two verses of Genesis there is ample scope for all the geologic eras" (p. 35).

Not satisfied with Chalmers' "Gap Theory," Anglican theologian George Stanley Faber introduced the "Day-Age Theory" in his book Treatise on the Genius and Object of the Patriarchal, the Levitcal and the Christian Dispensations (1823), suggesting that the days of Genesis 1were vast periods of time—ages. His theory also helped people to rationalize the "millions of years" into the Scriptures. Instead of relying upon the authority of God's Word, theologians were trying to use the "science" of their day to reinterpret the Bible. Like Chalmers, Faber's theory was not widely accepted until prominent Scottish geologist Hugh Miller, who happened to be a friend of Chalmers, abandoned the "Gap Theory" in favor of the "Day-Age Theory." Later still, Ferrar Fenton, a London businessman, began working to publish a new translation of the Bible in 1853 (finally published in 1903). The opening verse of Genesis 1:1 reads, "By Periods, GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth." Verse 5 ends, "This was the close and the dawn of the first age." The Day-Age ideology is now called Progressive Creationism, and it's most prominent advocate is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.

To summarize, Hutton's book, published in 1795, caused people to doubt the earth was 6,000 years old. Chalmers' Gap theory was proposed in 1814 and Christians accepted the "millions of years" idea into the Bible. Faber proposed the Day-Age theory in 1823, casting still more doubt on the validity of God's Word. And finally, in 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (And now we have some, albeit very few, Apostolics believing and teaching that God used evolution to bring about everything, calling it Theistic Evolution or BioLogos.)

The Fall of Lucifer
As to Lucifer falling during (or prior to) Chalmer's Gap, we really need to look (and accept) what the Scriptures declare instead of working to develop intricate theories to rationalize it all. Why not accept God at His infallible Word rather than a man's fallible opinion?

Certainly, any confusion of accepting Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 as references to Satan is understandable. Many theologians do not feel that these Scriptures refer to our Adversary since Isaiah refers to the "king of Babylon" and Ezekiel refers to the "king of Tyrus." Looking at Ezekiel, it is interesting to note that the prophet changes from "prince" in verse 2 to "king" in verse 12. It almost appears that there are two distinct prophecies here: one in verses 1-10 where Ezekiel rebukes the ruler, though only a man, who claims to be a god; and a second in verses 11-19, where Ezekiel describes the "king" in words that seem unreasonable, even impossible, to apply to a human.

In Biblical hermeneutics, the principle of double fulfillment or double reference is well-established. One only need to look at the various passages used in the Old Testament that were applied to Jesus Christ, e.g., Hosea 11:1, Deut. 18:15, Ps. 22, etc. Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 can also be understood as possessing double references if the texts are to be taken to refer both to a man and an influencing spirit. Hopefully this is enough to help provide support for the use of the texts as references to Satan, though much more could be said. Finally, we can now investigate what the Bible portrays regarding the timing of Lucifer's fall.

Ezekiel 28 tells us the Lucifer had once been in the Garden of Eden (v. 13) and that he was a created being (v. 13). He was an anointed cherub (angel) (v. 14) and was perfect in every manner from the day he was created until iniquity was found in him (v. 15). His sin may have been the result of pride in his own beauty (v. 17). The Garden of Eden was created by God on Day 6 of Creation (Gen. 2:8). God informs Job that "all the sons of God shouted for joy" when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job 38:4, 7). When we compare this verse to the opening scene of Job, the Bible explains who these sons of God were, and that Satan was included among them (Job 1:6, 2:1). Satan is distinguished from the rest of the angels because of the dialogue that transpires between God and himself. Genesis implies that the foundations of the earth were laid on Day 3 when God caused the dry land to appear (Gen. 1:9-13). Genesis also clearly declares that God, after completing His Creation, declared everything that He had made "very good" on Day 6 (Gen. 1:31).

Now piecing this all together:
1. Everything was created in six days. Ex 20:11
2. Satan was a created being. Ezek. 28:13-14
3. Satan was in Eden until he sinned. Ezek. 28:13-14
4. Eden was made on Day 6. Gen. 2:8
5. All the angels rejoiced when the foundations of the earth were laid. Job 38:1-4
6. The dry land was created on Day 3. Gen 1:9
7. Everything was "very good" at the end of Day 6. Gen 1:31

It appears that the angels were created sometime before Day 3 since they were able to witness certain things of the creation. I personally believe that could have been as early as Day 1. Satan could not have fallen prior to this time since he is described as being perfect in all his ways while in the Garden of Eden, which was not made until Day 6.

Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. We don't know how hold he was at the birth of Cain and Abel, but it seems safe to assume that many years could have passed before Adam was forced to leave the Garden. It is possible that Satan's Pride could have resulted from his witnessing the fellowship between God and man and desiring man's adoration for himself.

Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (cf. Mt. 18:10). If angels were designed to help us, why would God create them "millions of years" beforehand?

The Gap Theory (and others) have some serious problems.
1. It violates certain Scriptures: Gen 1:5, 31; 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Heb. 4:4.
2. It puts death before Adam's sin, violating Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21.
3. It has Satan falling before Day 7, seemingly violating Gen. 1:31; 2:8; Eze. 28:12-15.
4. It denies that we are living on "the first earth": Rev. 21:1.
5. It denies that Adam was "the first man": 1 Cor. 15:45.

I know that I haven't addressed the idea of the earth being destroyed for I do not believe the words "without form and void" of Genesis 1:2 require a destruction. The Hebrew "tohu wa bohu" means to be unformed and unfilled. It does not require any idea of destruction. The only reason for the Gap and Day-Age theories has been to make the Bible conform to the present belief that the Earth and Universe are 4.6 billion and 13.7 billions years old respectively. Outside of this, "tohu wa bohu" would never have been reinterpreted to imply a devastating destruction which wiped out a former Creation.