Ralph Winters Modified Gap Theory

(La modificada teora de la brecha de Ralph

Winter)
Hello folks, trust you are all having a nice summer.
Im sure many of you are familiar with Ralph Winter. He is the editor of the acclaimed
bookPerspectives on World Missions and is arguably the foremost expert on missions in the
world today. Ralph and I exchanged several letters a number of years ago, right after God at
War was first published (1997). (By the way, God at War just went into its 13th printing this
week. Yeah!). I dont know what influence, if any, my work had on him, but he told me at that
time of a revelation of sorts that hed had regarding missions and spiritual warfare.
Just as Ive been arguing, Ralph had at some point come to understand that nature as we now
find it has been corrupted by demonic powers. Since missions is all about spiritual warfare,
Ralph came to believe that missions must include engaging in warfare against all aspects of
nature that have been corrupted. If my memory serves me correct (it may not), he established a
program to fund research into the origins of disease as a result of this revelation. The vision that
funds this research program is that fighting viruses, parasites, diseases and the like is part of
missions!
I couldnt agree more!
Now, I recently received some mailings from a lady named Beth Snodderly in response to my
recent blogs on natural evil. Shes the director of William Carey International University (I
believe). She reminded me that Ralph had proposed a version of the gap theory that avoids
the scientific difficulties Id been struggling with in my own version of the gap theory
namely, the lack of corroborating geological and paleontological evidence. (If there was a
world-wide do over, there ought to be massive evidence of it and theres none). I now recall
Ralph explaining his view to me eight or nine years ago, and I remember not being very
persuaded by it which perhaps explains why I forgot about it altogether. But Beth graciously
sent me several research papers shed written on Ralphs view as well as one of Ralphs own
writings, and I have to say this view looks much more plausible to me now than it did when I
first heard it.
I cant possibly do justice to Ralphs view in a short (well, sort of short) blog like this, so Ill
just give the outline of the view and ask you to trust me that Beths excellent essays defending
this view make a surprisingly compelling case. (Maybe in future blogs Ill flesh out some of the
argumentation). What follows is mostly from Beths essays, and I have to the confess that it
wasnt always clear to me from these essays which insights are Ralphs and which are Beths.
So when its not clear to me, Ill just refer to them as Ralph (and Beths) view.
To begin, Ralph offers the not-entirely-implausible speculation that God commissioned angelic
beings to oversee aspects of nature and the production of life, similar to the way God later
commissioned humans to have a domain of authority over nature and animals. These angels, he

speculates, were in training, which in part perhaps explains why life evolved so slowly (from
our human perspective). (Read Ps. 82 if you think angels are exempt from needing training).
Some of these angels-in-training rebelled, and this is why the areas they continue to exercise
authority over became corrupt. Ralph (and Beth) offer evidence that this corruption began early
on during an epoch called the Cambrian explosion, roughly 580 million years ago. It is at this
point that we find the first traces of violent forms of life, and they increase in complexity and
viciousness with remarkable speed (by geological standards).
Now, similar to what I argue in God at War, Ralph argues that the phrase formless and void
(tohu wa bohu) in Genesis 1:2 denotes a pejorative state of affairs. It doesnt reflect creation as
God originally intended it, but rather reflects a creation that has been overcome with chaos and
futility. One of the documents Beth Snodderly sent me was a 25 page research paper she wrote
on this phrase, and I have to say its the strongest case for the pejorative interpretation Ive ever
encountered. (Way to go Beth!).
Where Ralphs (and Beths) view differs from the view I defended in God at War concerns the
interpretation of the rest of Genesis 1. In agreement with a number of conservative Old
Testament scholars, Ralph (and Beth) argue that Genesis 1 is written from the perspective of a
person standing on the earth. In fact, its written from the perspective of the sort of ancient
Israelite the piece was originally written for. It reflects their worldview. (Thus, for example, the
reference to the vault that holds water up in the sky, vs. 6). Its not intended to be anything
like a comprehensive, scientific account. So the creation of light, for example, does not
necessarily imply that light didnt exist before this time. It only means that this is when an
observer on earth would have seen light.
Not only this, but Ralph (and Beth) also argue (also in agreement with many Old Testament
scholars) that the structure of Genesis 1 is determined by the tohu wa bohu state of affairs
referred to in verse 2. The chapter isnt intended to give us anything like a literal chronology of
events, in other words. This view is usually referred to as the literary framework theory of
Genesis 1. (For a presentation of this and three other competing views of Genesis 1, see Boyd
and Eddy, Across the Spectrum).
In this view, the author is interested in proclaiming how God overcomes the state of tohu wa
bohu. On days 1-3 God battles the state of tohu (formlessness) by creating space for things to
exist, and on days 4-6 God battles the state of bohu (emptiness) by filling out these spaces with
appropriate things. Days 1-3 and 4-6 parallel one another, in other words.
More specifically, God fights formlessness by creating day and night (from the perspective of
someone on the earth) on day 1 (vss. 3-5) and then battles emptiness by creating lights to
govern the day and night on day 4 (vss. 14-19). Similarly, on day 2 God battles formlessness by
separating the waters above (by creating the sky) from waters below (the sea) (vss. 6-8) and
then battles emptiness by filling the sky with birds and the seas with fish on day 5 (vss. 20-23).
And, finally, God fights formlessness on day 3 when he separates the land from the water and
produces vegetation on the land (vs. 9-13), and then battles emptiness when he fills out the land
with animals and puts human in charge of them both on day 6 (vss. 24-31) .
This creation is all described by the Genesis author as good. But remember, Ralph (and Beth)
argue that everything about Genesis 1 is said from the perspective of one standing on the earth.

So Ralph (and Beth) argue this goodness doesnt extend to the whole cosmos. Rather, they
argue that God had carved out a special Eden, as it were, on the otherwise corrupted earth.
Ralph suggests God specially created humans and re-created animals as he originally intended
them prior to the cosmic corruption and placed them in the garden. Standing in the center of
this specially created Eden all would appear good. But Eden, in this view, was an oasis of
blessing in a cursed desert.
But it wasnt supposed to remain a small oasis. Ralph argues that Eden was intended to be a
sort of mustard seed beachhead from which God planned to launch his assault against the
rebel forces that corrupt nature and to eventually reclaim the entire globe as his Kingdom. His
plan was to extend the freedom for the state of tohu wa bohu in Eden to eventually encompass
the entire planet. We were, in other words, created for warfare.
This plan, however, was conditioned on humans remaining obedient to God, which, as you
know, unfortunately didnt happen. Eden was thereby forfeited and engulfed in the very state
of tohu wa bohu it was established to overcome. Yet, God didnt abandon his plan. He simply
modified it. He graciously continued to work in and through humans to restore them to their
rightful place of authority on the earth and eventually establish the entire planet as a domain of
Gods reign. In Christ this happened, in principle. And through the Church this is happening in
fact.
We are still battling the state of tohu wa bohu and this, for Ralph, is what missions is all
about. Indeed, its what the Kingdom is all about.
I will need to do more research and reflection before I throw my hat entirely in the ring with
this revised gap theory. But I have to confess I find it very compelling. It allows one to continue
to hold to the gap theory on an exegetical basis, which Ive always thought was very strong.
Yet, by localizing the gap it completely avoids the geological and paleontological problems
that accompany the standard gap theory.
Not only that, but while Im sure the interpretation of Genesis 1 as reflecting the perspective of
one on the earth and as structured for literary, not chronological, purposes may strike many lay
readers of this blog as idiosyncratic, there are, as I mentioned, a host of conservative Old
Testament scholars that have been arguing this for decades. In fact, a majority Old Testament
scholars, evangelical and otherwise, embrace some version of the literary framework theory.
Its certainly something to think about.
My heart felt thanks to Beth for bringing Ralphs view, and her fine defense of it, to my
attention.
Stay centered in his peace,
Greg
- See more at: http://reknew.org/2007/07/ralph-winters-modified-gap-theory/#sthash.yGgZcSX0.dpuf

http://reknew.org/2007/07/ralph-winters-modified-gap-theory/

22 02 2016