What does it mean that the earth was without form and void (Genesis 1:2)?

Response

Genesis 1:1 informs us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which is not surprising. However, the subsequent statement has caused some surprise: the earth was formless and empty «And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. », (Genesis 1:2). The Hebrew word tohu is commonly translated as “formless,” and bohu as “empty.” Genesis 1:2 could be interpreted as “it came about that the earth was formless and empty.”

Some have proposed that God created the heavens and the earth, and then something occurred that led the earth to transition from being fully created and beautiful to being “formless and empty.” This sequence of events aims to explain the perceived ancient age of the earth. Referred to as the gap theory, this perspective suggests a significant period of time (a gap) between the events of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Thomas Chalmers, often credited with popularizing the gap theory, expressed in 1814 that “it [Genesis 1:1] forms no part of the first day—but refers to a period of indefinite antiquity when God created the worlds out of nothing. The commencement of the first day’s work I hold to be the moving of God’s Spirit upon the face of the waters. We can allow geology the amplest time . . . without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record” (Russell R. Bixler, Earth, Fire, and Sea: The Untold Drama of Creation, Baldwin Press, 1986, p. 86–87). The gap theory interprets the phrase “the earth was formless and empty” as a consequence of something that occurred between the two verses. While Chalmers’ perspective was influential, subsequent theologians like C. I. Scofield advocated for the vView and influenced many in favor of the gap theory.

The challenge for the biblical interpreter is to understand whether or not the author of Genesis intended to communicate that something might have taken place in a possible gap. The simplest and most historically held position prior to Chalmers and other gap advocates was that the representation of the earth as without form and void was simply an expression of stages of progress during the first day and not a statement of condition prior to the creation week.

In that non-gap understanding, there is no attempt to explain the appearance of age and no special consideration for any theological implications. Advocates of the non-gap interpretation might simply assert that everything created had the appearance of age. For example, Adam was created as a man, capable of speech and critical thought. He obviously wasn’t created as an infant, hence the appearance of age. The same could be said of trees, mountains, etc. Proponents of the non-gap understanding generally don’t sense a theological need or exegetical reason to insert a gap of time between the two verses and conclude that to do so would be an argument from silence and not based on sound interpretive principles.