The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man

(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

There are a variety of theories regarding

the creation of life and the universe. Atheistic evolutionists deny even that there was a creation, saying that everything created itself somehow starting from and including the Big Bang! How determined must one be in denying that there's a God in order to believe something that absurd! While I can't explain why God is eternal (though shouldn't Love personified be so?), its easier for me to believe that an eternal God created the complexities of Life and the physical world, than it is for me to believe that matter was created by nothing, and that life sprang from non-life. We had to have started somewhere.. from something, so I'd like to start the way the Bible starts with Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, God created the heaven(s) and the earth"

universe is estimated at between 13 and 14 billion years. 2. Old Universe creationists: A. Day-Age theory: The idea that the Six Days of Genesis chapter one are to be understood symbolically, as indefinite ages, rather than as literal days. In these ages they place the big bang, billions of years ago, the slow development of the stars and planets, then, primitive life on up to more complex life as is suggested in the Creation Story. Some in this camp would hold to God's active involvement, others would defer to evolutionary models. B. Gap theory: The idea that there was a world prior to Adam which was judged, but then restored as recorded in Genesis 1 in six literal days. Most who hold to the Gap theory deny that God used evolution to create life forms or species. "Gappists" acknowledge that the universe, including the earth, is likely billions of years old as science says, but believe that human life starting with Adam began around 6,000 years ago as the Bible implies. For that reason, I subtitled this lesson: Old Earth, Young Man. This study can get very involved and complex. There are a lot of debatable issues and beliefs, so from the outset I want to emphasize that this is a theory of how things happened. It involves reading the Bible texts, looking for clues, drawing some conclusions and trying to read between the lines. The interesting thing about this theory is that it gives us a way to believe both the testimony of astronomy and other sciences, including the history of the dinosaurs, while still reading the Bible literally. However, if science contradicts the

At this point, all creationists are in agreement. Even theistic evolutionists agree that God created everything, they just think that God used evolution to bring it about. But, most Christians like to read their Bible more literally than that, so we tend to find ourselves in one of the following groups regarding Creation: 1. Young earth creationists: Those who regard all of the universe, galaxies and earth as having been created by God in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago (some say 10,000 years; some also say that just our solar system is young, the rest is old) By "old", I mean the scientifically accepted age of our solar system being 4.5 billion years and life beginning about 2.5 billion years ago. The age of the

Page 1

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
Bible, we still hold to the Bible over it.
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

The Gap theory

The "Gap Theory" gets its name from the belief that there was a gap of time between verses one and two of Genesis 1. The theory is that verse one describes the original creation of heaven and earth; then, during the Gap, events took place which ended with the earth being judged, covered with water and in darkness which is what is being described in verse two, rather than it being simply the description of the original state of the earth at creation. The idea that the Bible suggests that the earth was already here and old before Adam was created would harmonize with the claims of science. Some have thought that the Gap Theory was an accommodation to the theory of evolution, but it actually preceded it. The Gap theory, also known as the ruin-restoration theory, was being promoted in the 18th century in response to the findings of geologists and other scientists who began publishing that the earth had to be millions, not thousands, of years old. Those who have studied the history of the Gap theory say the idea goes back to the second century A.D possibly to the teachings found in the Jewish Targum of Onkelos from which Dr. Custance translates Genesis 1:2 as "the earth was laid waste", suggesting that being "without form and void" was a judgment, not the original state. (Dr. Custance is a Gap theory proponent.) In agreement with this are the words attributed to a disciple of one of the developers of the Mishnah, written around 135 AD in "The Book of Light" : "And these are the generations of the destruction

which is signified in verse 2 of Genesis 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty." The Book of Light is a book accepted by Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism. There's another ancient Jewish writing called The Legends of the Jews which is supposed to be a record of the oral traditions that were passed on before and after the time of Christ. In it there is a comment on Genesis 1:4: "Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several other worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours." I found these references in Dr. Custance's "Without Form and Void" who is a major proponent of the Gap theory. So, the idea that there may have been a prior world that came under judgment and was destroyed is apparently a pretty old one. The important thing to determine though is not when this theory began, but does the Bible give evidence to support it. So, let's look a little more closely at the scriptures and gap theory itself. Again, this theory suggests that all the universe, including the angels and the earth were created in verse one. (I'll begin now to speak of the theory as my belief) During the time between verses one and two, the fall of Satan seems to have occurred. Apparently, his prior dominion or territory included the earth. That rebellious world was overthrown and the whole earth was covered with water, "the deep" as we find the earth in verse 2. The rest of Genesis chapter one describes a restoration of the earth to a habitable state, including the

Page 2

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

creation of Man. The reason the gap theory teaches that Satan fell before Day One of Genesis is because there is no mention of his creation during the creation week, yet Satan is seen as a fallen angel, in the garden tempting Eve, presumably on the eighth day. The scriptures (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:12-18a; Luke 10:18) which we think describe the fall of Satan, have references to the earth, so we believe that Lucifer's dominion included the pre-adamite earth and explains why a judgment on Satan's kingdom would leave the earth "waste and empty". The gap theory also suggests that at the time of Satan's rebellion, there were physical creatures living on earth, subordinate to and in rebellion with Satan and his angels. It is believed that they were destroyed either by a global flood ("darkness was upon the face of the deep") or annihilated by other means, and then a global flood occurred. This we will call "Lucifer's flood" to distinguish it from "Noah's flood". It is thought that the disembodied spirits of those inhabitants of the pre-adamite earth became what we would later know as demons. Thus, this is one theory of the origin of demons. Another theory is that demons are actually the angels that fell with Lucifer in his rebellion, which we presume were one-third of heaven's angels based on the vision in Revelation 12. That vision is likely a future scene, but the tail of the dragon throwing onethird to the ground suggests that they are under his control. A third theory of the origin of demons is found in the Jewish apocryphal Book of Enoch. It suggests that in Genesis 6, when the "sons of God" took human wives and

produced a race of giants or heroes known as the nephilim, that these creatures became demons upon their death. This view interprets the "sons of God" as angels. It's believed that this intermingling of fallen angels with humans may have compounded iniquity in Noah's day, so that the world had to be destroyed before the godly seed was contaminated from whom would spring Christ our Savior. (See Addendum on Sons of God, Fallen Angels) The humans who died in Noah's flood could go to Sheol/Hades, but the "nephilim" were left on earth in a disembodied state, becoming demons. This makes sense to me, though I don't believe the nephilim account for all the demons, plus there are some other factors to consider, for example, how do we know that the souls of the nephilim didn't go to hell? It's my belief that demons are the disembodied spirits of the pre-adamite creatures, some of whom may have been human or simian in appearance. Next, I'll explain why I don't believe that demons are fallen angels. [At this point, I'll have to warn you to beware of circular reasoning (by me or anyone else) as it's very easy to assume one's conclusion, so that two people can draw opposite conclusions from the same evidence, because they see what they want to see. So, I'll try to be accurate and not make assumptions.] First, we know that angels have the ability to look like human beings. We know that from Abram and Lot's experience and that of Samson's parents; the writer of Hebrews tells us to entertain strangers who may be angels disguised as men. Those are good angels.

Page 3

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

What about evil angels? Satan is said to be able to transform himself to appear as an angel of light, so that suggests to me that he could also appear as a human. We have the account already described of "sons of God" which I believe must be angels, apparently becoming as men in Genesis 6 in order to have sex with human females. The point here is that angels can invade earth life by appearing as men. Angels, then, apparently have bodies, spirit bodies. Is there any reason for us to think that good angels have bodies, but fallen angels do not? They aren't mortal, so I would say that they retain their bodies, though they are fallen. We read about people seeing angels, but we don't read in the Bible about people seeing demons and mistaking them for men. Plus, we always read about people being possessed by demons or demons being cast out of people, so a demon's method of injecting itself into earthly life is not the same as angels, apparently. If we are correct that fallen angels have bodies, then it wouldn't make sense for them to want to inhabit a human body. Yet, demons seem to be desperate to become and remain embodied; even if they have to live in pigs they would accept it, but the pigs didn't like it; they committed "sue-ee"-cide! (Sorry) Another difference between angels and demons is that they don't seem to be human in size. As many as 6,000 demons, a legion, inhabited just one man that Jesus met in Gadara. To me this suggests a different type of creature, one that is much smaller than a man or an angel. I have read accounts of people who have seen demons which said that they looked like large flies or bats. This brings me to another aspect of my beliefs that demons are the

disembodied spirits of once physical creatures rather than being fallen angels. In the Bible, we find that Israel is a type of the Church, in the sense that many of the things that happened to Israel in the physical realm are fulfilled in the Church in the spiritual realm. Being in bondage in Egypt under Pharoah is like being in the world bound in sin under Satan. We are redeemed by the blood being sprinkled. We pass through the water of baptism and under the cloud of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we are led by Joshua (Yeshua) into the promised land, which is a type of the Spirit-filled life, gaining victories over the enemy and enjoying our inheritance. Lots of types and shadows. Many of the ceremonial laws are found fulfilled in Christ as are the feasts and the animal sacrifices. Another major feature of life for the people of God under Moses' law was they were strictly forbidden to eat, maybe even not to touch, unclean animals. The text goes into great detail to define clean and unclean. Yet, in the New Testament we see that distinction and law being withdrawn, not that it wasn't observed, but it was no longer a matter of righteousness before God. (Acts 10, 15, etc.) Yet, Paul says, quoting the Old Testament: "Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you and I will be a Father to you" (2 Cor. 6:17-18a) The context was about not making fellowships with sinners, having unequal yokes. Paul is quoting Isaiah 52:11 to teach believers to "come out from among the world"... (okay, fine) then, to "touch not the unclean thing". What's that mean? If the distinction between clean and unclean animals expired or had lost its importance in the

Page 4

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

physical realm for the New Testament believer, what was Paul talking about? But, first, why were the Jews forbidden to eat unclean meats to begin with? Was it simply for dietary health or did it have a symbolic meaning that has also been fulfilled in our spiritual life in Christ as with other observances? What if the unclean meat laws of the Old Testament were symbolic of staying clear of demons today? Weren't demons often called "unclean spirits"? Here's a question: Could an Old Covenant believer, not having been redeemed by the blood of Christ, not having His authority or indwelling presence, take authority over demons? No, not until Christ came was this possible, and He gave His authority to his disciples that they might also do this, then he told all believers to take authority over demons. This is something that was impossible even to John the Baptist, whom Jesus said was "the greatest to arise among women" prior to Him, but that "the least person in the kingdom" was greater than John, the greatest person among the OT saints! How so? The least Christian has been born again; they are no longer under Satan's authority, they have been delivered from it and translated into Christ's kingdom! Technically, the OT saints were not born again. They had the Spirit of grace upon them which imputed to them righteousness by faith, just as with Abraham. So, though they were counted as alive to God, they were spiritually still "dead"; As Jesus told His disciples, the Holy Spirit has been with you, but He shall be in you after Jesus ascended to the Father. The promise of the Spirit was the new thing promised by Joel and experienced by the Jews at Pentecost. This was the "better thing" that

"perfected the spirits of just men" in Hebrews 11 and 12. Once Jesus died and was resurrected, the saints in Paradise (below) could leave Sheol/Hades and be transferred to Heaven, which Paul later called Paradise (2 Cor.12:2-4) (above). Jesus led "captivity captive"(Eph.4:8) and "set them free who through fear of death had all their lifetimes been subject to bondage" (Heb.2:14-15). My point here is to explain that the prohibition on unclean meats for the Jews may have symbolized our freedom from the world, which includes authority over unclean spirits. In many biblical accounts referring to demons, they are called "unclean and hateful birds , owls, doleful creatures, scorpions and snakes"... nearly always unclean animals. In modern times, people have seen demons which looked like imps or monkeys, again, unclean animals. My theory is that since the Old Testament believer didn't have authority over demons, but was subject to bondage because of them, that the prohibition on unclean animals symbolized their future spiritual inheritance of authority and victory over them. As to why these particular animals were selected, my theory is that they bear the greatest resemblance to the preadamite creatures which became demons. Yeah, kind of a wild theory, but I think its worth considering since it ties so many things together. Another indication that demons aren't fallen angels is that they seem to be distinguished in the same list. For example, in 1 Peter 3:22 we read about Jesus, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him". If authorities

Page 5

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

and powers were angels, why are they listed separately? Who are these "angels, authorities and powers"? They must be Satan's agents, don't you think? Are we to believe that the holy angels weren't subject to the Son of God while He was on earth? I know He was made for a little while lower than the angels, but it is written that they ministered to Him more than once and when Jesus was born God said:"And let all the angels of God worship Him." On the other hand, aren't there wicked angels and demonic authorities and powers that rebel against the authority of Christ, and more to the point, stole the authority that Man had to rule the earth? Didn't the writer of the Hebrews address this very point in Hebrews 2: 5-9? We see not yet all things subject to mankind, but we see Jesus, the captain of our salvation, crowned with glory and honor. Didn't Paul say we "wrestle" against principalities, powers,"rulers of the darkness" and "spiritual wickedness in the high places". The margin reads "wicked spirits in the heavenlies", the realm of spiritual authority above the earth currently held by Satan and his forces. Comparing this list to the one in Peter, it would seem that the last group here "wicked spirits" would refer to the fallen angels, and that this list is given in order from lowest to highest in rank. Prinipalities and powers would be low ranking demons. Rulers of the darkness would be the demons that we call familiar spirits who rule over the principalities and powers. Kenneth Hagin said that Jesus taught him these things in a vision when he was given the gift of discerning of spirits. He said that the "darkness of this world" is the souls of the unsaved and that each one is more or less under the influence of these "rulers". If someone gets possessed

by a ruler, that ruler lets the lower ones in with him. Thus, when the demon in the madman of Gadara spoke to Jesus, he said "My name is Legion, for we are many", using the man's voice. Yet, when Jesus commanded them to leave it says "all the demons" began begging him not to cast them into the abyss. According to Hagin's testimony, no one but Jesus heard these demons crying out in unison because they were speaking in the spiritual realm not through the man's voice, which was controlled by the ruler demon. Hagin said that Jesus told him not to worry about the "wicked spirits in the heavenly places", because we don't come into contact with them, that is when it comes to deliverance. I interpret that to mean that these "wicked spirits", which are the highest in rank, are the fallen angels, who don't possess people, though they do oppress the Church, so we do wrestle against them in that sense. There are some other scriptures that indicate that demons are not the same as angels, but I hope these have given you some help in studying this subject. Now, I have to return to the subject at hand: The Gap Theory of Genesis What is there in Genesis 1:2 to suggest that it is talking about a change having occurred to a prior inhabited earth? First, the word "was" in "the earth was without form and void" is an action verb; it isn't a connecting verb. What I mean by that is, Hebrew doesn't use the verb "to be" or "was" to join a subject to a predicate adjective. The Jews simply said "the man __ tall". They didn't say "the man was tall" in describing the man. In the KJV, this fact can be seen by the use

Page 6

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

of the italics whenever a word isn't present in the Hebrew but has been supplied in English. For example, "and God saw that the Light was good" or in chapter two "the gold of that land is good" or in chapter three "the fruit was good for food". These are examples of the verb "to be" used as a copula, a verb to join a subject to a predicate adjective. Hebrew doesn't do that. So, the Hebrew word hayah translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 is an action verb, indicating a changed state. Young's Literal translates it "the earth hath existed", because the verb is in the perfect tense. Rotherham's translates: "the earth, had become waste and wild", but these translations are in the minority. You may have noticed a footnote in the NIV, saying "or possibly, became". The debate over this verse and the words in it take up whole chapters in scholarly books. Lexicons disagree over it. Each side has its arguments, so I won't try to solve it here. Here is Strong's dictionary definition of the verb "hayah": "to exist, that is, be or become,
come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula)" Out of the 1162 times this verb

Isaiah passage, the word "tohu" is rendered confusion in the KJV and "bohu" is emptiness. Again, these words are subject to debate. But, as you take all of the evidence and bring it together, it suggests that the Gap theory is correct. The traditional view of Genesis 1:2 is that when God initially created the heavens and the earth, the earth was "formless and empty", that "tohu va bohu" describes the way the earth was at its initial creation. However, Isaiah 45:18 reads " For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (tohu), he formed it to be inhabited." This suggests that when God created the earth it was not "a waste, wilderness, empty place or without form" all words used to translate tohu , but that he formed it to be inhabited." Each side of the debate can read this to support their view, yet I think its striking that God went out of His way to specifically deny creating the earth tohu. Yes, he formed the earth to be inhabited on the Third day, but really on the third day we read very little about the actual formation of the earth, God laying the foundations or shaping the mountains , et cetera, whereas these things are described in other passages, which to me, means the forming and shaping of the earth took place in verse one of Genesis chapter one, not in verse 3 where it just reads "the dry land appeared" and God called it earth. We know the mountains existed at that time, because the waters of Noah's flood covered all the mountains. Those flood waters

is used in the Bible, 809 times it is translated either become, became, come to pass, or came to pass. I find the evidence convincing myself. The next factor that suggests that verse 2 describes a changed condtion of a previous inhabitable earth into one that has become "without form and void", are these very words which in Hebrew are tohu va bohu. The only time these two words are used together in other places in scripture, it is to describe judgment: Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23. This may be just a coincidence, but you read the passages and see what you think. In the

Page 7

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
took over 150 days to gradually recede and the ground to dry. But, when we read Psalm 104:5-7 a passage about Creation we read: Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. This passage says that God covered the earth with "the deep", so it wasn't that way when He first made it, correct? Then, He rebuked the water and it "hasted away", which means to leave quickly. Clearly, this isn't about Noah's flood waters. The phrase "they go up by the mountains and down by the valleys" would be better rendered: "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down" for this was the time when God created them. Of course, there are many things even in this to debate, such as the continental drift and when it occurred, et cetera, but I think you can see by now that there are many suggestive passages in the Bible on this subject, which are easy to overlook until you realize that there might be another meaning. Finally, I want us to examine a curious passage in 2 Peter: 2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Peter says that "the world that then was" perished by being overflowed with water. This seems to be talking about Noah's flood... but is it? Remember, I suggested calling the "deep" in Genesis 1:2 "Lucifer's flood"? Is it possible that Peter, by the Holy Spirit, is describing Lucifer's flood and not Noah's? First of all, did the "world" of Noah's day perish or did just the sinners of that day perish? Didn't Noah preserve the animals and the human race? Weren't the same plants here after the flood that were here before the flood? But, if Lucifer's flood wiped out a prior world, then God would have had to recreate animals, plants and a habitable environment including the "heavens" which He called the "firmament". Did God create a new heaven or firmament after Noah's flood? I don't think so. It says that the "windows of heaven" were opened and when the flood ended it says "the windows of heaven were stopped". Yet, here in Peter we read: "the world that then was perished" or destroyed and that "the heavens and earth which are now"are reserved to be destroyed by fire. There wasn't a new heavens or a new earth after Noah's flood. It was the same. But, the six days of Genesis describes a new heaven being formed on the second day and the earth being revived on the third day, and plants and animals being created after that, which corresponds better to the idea of

Page 8

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

one world being destroyed and a new "heavens and earth" being created which are now. Look again at verse five: "by the word of God the heavens were of old". This describes how God created things originally by speaking them into existence. "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Psalms 33:6 which corresponds to Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear". If verse 5 then is about the original creation of the heavens by the word of God, then it looks to me like it says the earth was created "standing out of the water", not "tohu", waste, empty and covered by the deep. I realize you can read this in another way, but the preponderance of the text and all the other texts we have read suggest that when God created the earth, it wasn't submerged under water and darkness. There are a couple of verses to look at that are often employed to contradict the idea that six days of Genesis describes a re-creation, not the original creation. First: Exodus 20:11 Exo 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:" Opponents of the Gap theory say this proves that God made the heaven and earth during the Six days, not in verse one prior to the six days. In other words, they are saying that the Six days describe all of God's creative work in making the world. First of all, the Genesis 1:1

itself says that God made the heavens and the earth before Day One. Second of all, in Gap theory, there is a distinction drawn between "create" and "made" or "form". Create is almost always used referring to God creating something out of nothing by His spoken word as we read in Psalms and Hebrews. Make can refer to man or God fashioning something out of raw material that already exists. When God made man, it is said that He created man (his spirit and soul) and that He made man (formed his body from the dust). This distinction is seen throughout Genesis one and two. You will find that the word created was only used twice during the Six days of supposed creation: when God made the mammals and humans. I can't go into the details, but when Exodus 20:11 says in Six days God "made" the heaven and earth and all that is in them, this doesn't say God "created" them in Six days. For example, God "made" the heaven on day 2 when he "made the firmament", not "created" the firmament. He "made" the earth when "the dry land appeared". It doesn't say He created a single mountain or valley during the Six days. I believe they had already been made long before that. I hope this explains how you can read Exodus 20:11 and still see that it is in harmony with the Gap theory viewpoint. Second: Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Opponents claim that the Gap theory is antagonistic to the gospel. They say that if we claim that death, disease and suffering existed

Page 9

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

for billions of years during the "Gap" time period before Adam's sin, that this contradicts Romans 5:12 and denies that we needed Jesus to die for our sins and take the death penalty for us. I can see why they think it contradicts Romans 5:12, but I don't get how it contradicts our need for a Savior. In my opinion, it doesn't do either one. Romans 5 is talking about the "world" of men, not creation, or earth. Just like "God so loved the world" is talking about people not the planet or animals, etc. If the opponents want to claim the word "world" here refers to the planet, plants and animals, they are saying then that these inanimate things and animals are committing sin! The verse itself says "death passed upon all men, for all sinned"... this is the world that sin entered, not the world of creation itself. Yes, man's sin affected creation because it all came under the curse in Genesis 3. I don't see how the fact that there was sin and death before Adam has any effect whatsoever on our salvation from sin and death by faith in Christ's sacrifice. It's pretty simple. There was no sacrifice or redemption for those in that former world that sinned , whether angels or the pre-adamite race of creatures. We can't judge God for the way He does things or may have done things. ----------------One final tidbit:--------------"Hell was made for the devil and his angels" - Matthew 25:41 But what will become of the demons, if they aren't the same as angels? Glad you asked: "Fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen! She has become a home for demons. She is a prison for every unclean spirit, a prison for

every unclean and hateful bird" Rev. 18:2 "And the seventh angel poured out his vial...and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.. the cities of the nations fell.... every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. ...and great Babylon came in remembrance before God," Rev.16:17-20 "And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." Rev 18:21 "And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates: And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her." (Jeremiah 51:63-64) ADDENDUM

Were the sons of God in Genesis 6 fallen angels? I mentioned in class that I thought I had written about this question in the Gap theory lesson and that we would get to it later, but I was in error on that. I talked about why demons are unlikely to be fallen angels. So, as to this question, my answer is: Yes, I think so. First, the phrase "sons of God" is only used a few times in the Old Testament: (Gen 6:2) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Gen 6:4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,

Page 10

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Job 1:6) Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 2:1) Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. (Cp. 1 Kings 22:19-22 Notice in this text that angels are distingished from an evil spirit) (Job 38:7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (at the creation of the earth) Most commentaries recognize the phrase "sons of God" in Job to refer to angels, whether they are meeting at the throne for review or they are witnessing the creation of the earth. However, there is much debate about the meaning of the words "sons of God" in Genesis 6. Obviously, its the context that is causing the controversy. There are some similar phrases where God calls His people "my sons" in the Old Testament, though that phrase was rare in that usage. Israelites would be more accurately termed "the servants of God" according to Paul in Galatians and Jesus in John's gospel. The argument against this referring to angels having had intercourse with human females is that they are thought to be incapable of sexual relations, or certainly to have no interest in it, like eunuchs. We know from the words of Jesus that those in the resurrected state during the Millennium don't marry, Jesus said, because they are like the angels and live forever, thus there is no purpose for them to have children to maintain the race of angels. Although there is no necessity for angels to reproduce, does that mean that they wouldn't be able to-- for example if there were female

angels? Jesus has a glorified body, the same male body he had before He died, doesn't He? Reading Genesis, we see that God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and that He also wished for them to eat of the tree of live and live forever. Would living forever, gaining immortality, contradict or cancel the command to "be fruitful and multiply"? When the angels visited Abram, they ate and drank food with him. Afterwards, they walked to Sodom and were thought to be strange male visitors whom the men of the town wanted to molest. This doesn't prove anything about their private parts or their biology of course, except that they are known to look and act like men. They never appear as females, always males. The angels were all created directly by God by the billions and their number was filled at the time of Creation apparently, so that there is not any need for more of them. They each stand on their own before God, either innocent or guilty, with no mediator, therefore, no redemption. Reading the passage in Genesis 6:1-4: Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Page 11

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

Some have suggested that the "sons of God" were the descendants of godly Seth and the "daughters of men" were the daughters of Cain's ungodly line. It is true that there is a focus on the lineage of Seth, through Enoch until Noah. However, if Seth's descendants were so godly, why were there only 8 people counted worthy to be saved of perhaps millions living on earth at the time? If this is what Moses meant, why didn't he say this? The word "man" in verse one is the normal word for mankind, adam. Moses focuses on the "daughters of men (mankind)" and contrasts them with the "sons of God", which in the book of Job (believed to have been written at the same time as Genesis and possibly edited by Moses himself) refers to angels. The next question is why would the children produced by intermarriage of Seth's sons and Cain's daughters (not Seth's daughters and Cain's sons?) be born as anything other than normal human beings, not "giants", nephilim? Regardless of what nephilim were, its obvious that they were considered other than normal humans. That would involve another study into the Hebrew words for giants, of which there are about six as I recall. Don't ungodly parents sometimes give birth to children that become godly? By the way, the reason angels would be referred to as "sons of God" was that they were his sons by creation, not by redemption. Adam is called "the son of God" in Luke's genealogy for the same reason. Likewise, in Acts, Paul says "we are all His offspring", that is, even the ungodly are God's sons, by being created in Adam, though they are morally and spiritually, sons of the devil. The last verses to consider in identifying these "sons of God" of Genesis are in 2 Peter and Jude. Compare these two passages: 2Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and

delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. (RV) You see the similarity of the verses. The question is what are the angels being accused of having done and when did it occur? If this refers to all of the fallen angels of Satan's rebellion, then God better go down and check the locks on those "chains of darkness", because a lot of them got loose! Do you think? No, these have to be a special group of wicked angels who have done something worse than just rebel along with Lucifer. Peter says they "sinned", which means they "missed the mark", a moral failure, not a falling away or apostasy. Jude tells us they "kept not their first estate", the word "estate" is "principality", which I understand to be a ruling position in the heavenlies above the kingdoms over the world as described in Colossians and Ephesians. He next tells us by the Spirit that these angels "left their own habitation", the last word of which Thayer's comments: "a dwelling place, habitation 1a) of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit". It's the same word Paul uses of our "house from heaven", the glorified body. Seems to imply that they left their normal bodily state as angels. Then it says that "Sodom.. in like manner with these (angels) committed fornication (broke sexual boundaries)". When did such a thing take place if not for the events in Genesis 6:1-4 ? Translations vary on which noun "these" refers to in Jude 7, but my study convinces me that since the word

Page 12

The Gap Theory of Genesis:

Old Earth, Young Man
(with Addendum on Gen.6 "sons of God")

"these" is masculine in the Greek, "towns" is feminine, that it refers back to angels in verse six. (The KJV left out the words.) This interpretation though is just that an interpretation, an opinion, that makes sense to me. It doesn't mean its the correct interpretation and of course, as with the Gap theory, it doesn't determine Christian fellowship; its an interesting puzzle, not an essential of the faith. 02/26/2012

Page 13