Flood Narrative When God Flooded

Flood Narrative

When God Flooded the World

The Covenant

Come Inside the Ark

The Warnings Genesis 7:21-24

The Rains Came

Lesson on Family Values

When God Flooded the World

The story of the great flood is one of the most well-known narratives in the Bible. Every Bible School child can recite it by heart. The story appears simple, at first, but on closer examination, there are many nuances that create controversy. Biblical scholars continually debate the flood story, particularly in regards to the scope of the great flood. Theories as to the scope of the flood and whether the story should be treated as literal or symbolic have been the cause of many divisions among the church. This research will examine the flood story and the many interpretations that exist about the flood and the man called Noah.

Summary

The story of the flood can be found in Genesis 6-8. In the story, God sees the wickedness of the world, which provokes his wrath. Noah and his family are deemed to be the only people worth saving. God warns Noah and tells him to build an ark, to precise specifications. Noah faithfully obeys. Noah is told to gather his family and all living creatures and enter the ark. The flood begins and the ark door is shut. The floods build for 40 days. All other living flesh on earth is destroyed by the flood.

God dries up the waters. The ark comes to rest on Mount Ararat and Noah sends forth a dove. When the dove returns with an olive branch, Noah goes out of the ark and offers a sacrifice to God. God sends a rainbow as a promise that he will never flood the world again. This is the story as told to children around the globe, in its most simple form. However, as one delves into the individual verses, a much more complex story begins to emerge.

The Setting

Genesis 6: 1-7 sets the stage and provides the reader background as to the condition of the world and the need for change. The unbounded evil of those in the world before God chose to destroy it was the most remarkable part of the opening of the flood story. It is difficult to imagine that God became so angry that he decided that wholesale destruction of his creation was the only answer. Henry does not expand on the meaning of this evil the root of it. John Wesley comments that when men began to multiply, this represented the blessing, and that man's corruption was an abuse of this blessing.

Henry suggests that God has given the sinners a chance to repent and prevent the disaster that will ensue if they do not reform. Wesley considers the one hundred and twenty years proclaimed to Noah to be this period of grace, where men had a chance to turn around their ultimate fate. We find that Noah was not popular in the eyes of men and that they persecuted him for his life and preaching. The world felt that he condemned them through his preaching. However, Noah found favor with God because of his faithfulness. We learn that the world is not all evil and that there are a few who continue to pray, but they do not stand up and fill in the gaps for the wicked. Wesley points out that God examined every person on earth and found good only in Noah. He did not examine a representative sample and decide that the good outweighed the bad. He examined every one and found only a few that were worth saving.

Two words in this passage provide clues as to how bad the world was when God decided to destroy it. Verse 11 gives us the words corrupt and violence. This suggests that corruption has led to violence. It demonstrates that a life that when things are not right with God, they are not right with fellow man.

The Covenant

Building the ark is seen as the ultimate act of faith and obedience. God could have simply given him the ark, but he needed to test Noah to see if he was worthy of the task. The flood story is the first place where the word covenant appears in the Bible. The Hebrew word is berith and has two basic forms. The meaning that is chosen depends on the context in which it is used. The first form of covenant is the parity covenant, which is a covenant between two persons of equal statues, such as Abraham and Abimilech and Jacob and Laban. The second type of covenant is the suzerainty covenant, which is made between two people of unequal social status, such as a King and a peasant. The covenant between God and Noah is a Suzerainty covenant. There are several interesting factors that come into play with this type of covenant.

With the parity covenant, because both parties have an equal stake in the outcome of the agreement, they both have negotiating power. They will both be affected by the outcome. With the suzerainty covenant, the party with the lesser power has no negotiating power. One party has the ability to dictate to the other about the terms. The party of lesser power has little choice, but to accept the 'offer' of the other. For Noah, the only choice if he did not accept the covenant was to perish with the others. The covenant between God and Noah resembles more of a reprieve than an actual covenant.

God promised that Noah would be spared, if he entered into and followed the prescriptions set forth by God. Noah had no bargaining power in the covenant and faced severe punishment if he did not follow it. However, God had little stake in the outcome. God could change his mind at will and decide not to destroy the earth. Noah had no control over whether God honored his end of the bargain. In a parity covenant, there is an element of trust that the other party will honor the terms of the agreement. However, in the suzerainty covenant, trust more resembles hope. However, if Noah did not believe that God would keep his covenant, it is not likely that he would have pursued construction of the ark. He would have simply lived out his days waiting for the inevitable doom. Noah did not do this, which indicates a level of trust that God will keep his promises and allow him to live when the rains come.

Come Inside the Ark

God tells Noah to bring in all animals, both clean and unclean, into the ark. This question troubles many theologians is why he chose to preserve the clean and the unclean. John Wesley tells us that this is because all of the creatures of earth are in service to man. Modern Judaism has specific laws regarding what is considered clean and unclean animals. Kosher law makes a clear distinction between what is allowed and what is not allowed. However, in the early days of Israel, what was considered clean and unclean displayed regional variation. Even pagans of the time had their own set of rules as to what was clean or unclean. The need to distinguish between clean and unclean animals was rectified in the New Testament by Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. According to Wesley, God does not save the animals because of their accord, but because they will be useful to man.

One of the most interesting occurrences in verse 4 is that God gives man one more chance to repent before the destruction. Wesley reminds us that God gave man a long-term warning, but before he deals out the final sentence, he gives them one more chance to repent. They have one week to make things right before the final sentence is carried out. When God summons Noah to come into the ark, he does not do it in a commanding manner, but rather in the tone of a father summoning his son to come in out of the storm.

When the animals were shut in the ark, their personalities were changed so that they did not fight with one anther or try to eat each other. However, when they were released, they were the same as they were before they entered the ark. God did not change them all into peaceful creatures; they still had their original personalities before they went on the ark.

The logistics of the animals on the ark is a key point of contention among those who wish to disprove the flood narrative. One of the key problems stems for analysts such as Whitcomb and Morris who suggest that large number of animals became extinct as a result of the flood. Woodmorappe reminds us that God told Noah to take a sample of all kinds of land animals to save them from extinction. This leaves many questions and gaps among local flood supporters. These arguments are heated and emotional, it is doubtful that these arguments will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. The real question is not which party is right or wrong, but rather, what lessons can be learned and applied to modern man.

The Warnings in Genesis 7: 21-24

In these verses, we learn that God tried to warn his children, but on the day of the flood, they were still eating and drinking without abandon. They did not heed the final warning. This demonstrates that God was not set on his resolve to destroy humankind. He was acting the part of the father, giving his children one last time to change their ways. God gives his children many chances to repent. It is clear that he wishes them to repent, rather than to destroy them. First, he gives them 120 years, then a final week, and then on the day set for the flood to occur, he gives them one final chance. They can save themselves at any point in this time period by simply giving up their sin and returning to the grace of God. However, in the end, man's nature wins out, leading to his ultimate destruction.

The multiple warnings and grace periods given by God also demonstrate that man has a choice in his own destiny. Although God has the ultimate control over when his chosen people live and when they die, they still have choices to make. They are not like puppets or dolls, where the master determines their every move. They have a choice, indicating a certain degree of independence. They can choose to turn from sin and return to God, once again returning to his good graces, or they can continue to sin and suffer the ultimate consequences.

The argument of how much control God has over our lives is a key point of contention that divides Christians into many denominations. Some feel that we have no control; others feel that God allows us some control, but that we must be willing to suffer the consequences, for good or bad, of our actions. In the flood story, God does not say directly that he will cancel the flood if man returns to his graces, but it is strongly implied by God's actions in giving them many chances to repent and return to Godly ways. The flood was not a one way train with any brakes. God's multiple warnings before the flood suggest that man could have prevented his own destruction by a few simple acts, but he chose not to in the end, trading earthly pleasures for eternal peace.

The Rains Came

Genesis Chapter 7: 11-24 are the most widely debated among both Christians and non-Christians. The real question on everyone's mind is how big the flood actually was and how much devastation it entailed. This is a question that may never actually be answered by man, but it has become the key point of contention between scientists and theologians. Therefore, to not at least state the arguments of both sides would not do the flood narrative justice. The differences in interpretation of the flood differ as to whether the flood was universal, or whether it is simply a local event blown out of proportion.

When examining the two primary sides of the flood issue, one finds extremes on both sides. However, an examination of these sides appears to follow two basic patterns. Those that argue for wholesale destruction of the earth often do so through an exegesis of the flood narrative, Randy Hardy's exegesis falls into this category. His exegesis focuses on four keywords in the text, Machah (blot out), tehom (the deep), mayan (fountain or spring), and mabbul (cataclysm). The single point of this exegesis was to support his own position as to the size and scope of the flood, missing the deeper meanings of the rest of the flood narrative entirely.

Researchers who agree with the interpretation that the flood was a localized event often use outside evidence to support their argument. Mark Isaak's work is a prime example of this type of work. Mark Isaak poses many questions regarding logistics and the implications of the flood in an attempt to "prove" that the story of a global flood simply is not true. Hardy and Isaak exemplify the extremes of these two opposing viewpoints of the flood narrative. There are others that are somewhere in between these two extremes, but a majority of the writing regarding flood narrative gravitates heavily towards one of these extremes or the other.

The first point that needs to be made in this regard is that had the flood occurred in modern times with out satellites and communication devices, we would know the answer of how big the flood actually was. However, in the days of Noah, their knowledge was limited to the world around them. They could not see past the horizon and did not even know that the world was round at that point. We do not know how big the flood was, we only know how big the flood appeared to the naked eye and the experiences of the survivors.

The only thing of which we can be certain is that the ark was a very large vessel, even by today's standards. We know that the waters were deep enough and strong enough to launch the ark and make it float. We know that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, which suggests an extended rainstorm and a very large rainstorm. Once again, we only have a local perspective, and have no way of looking in on other parts of the world. In Genesis 7:11 and 8:14, we can surmise that the waters were on earth 371 days.

The argument that has arisen over this particular portion of text is whether the concept of a global flood negates the Bible. In some circles, so much importance has been placed on the issue that the very foundation of Christian faith appears to be in the balance. However, whether geological evidence, literal translation, symbolic translation, or personal opinion prevails in a majority of society, the truth of the matter is that we were not there and the people who were there did not have the perspective to tell us.

The size of the flood is not the point of the flood narrative. In our world of Hollywood mega-disaster movies, we have developed a fascination with global destruction. However, to the Christian, the size of the flood is not the central issue. The only thing that we know about the flood for certain is that it was large enough to change the lives of the survivors and that is was inescapable to those in the immediate area. It was a dramatic event, regardless of whether it lives up to out modern Hollywood conventions and the standards of modern communication to qualify as a mega-disaster. It had the effect of shock and awe on Noah, his family, and the sinners who would not change. The key to understanding the flood narrative is to not become hung up on the size of the disaster, but the actions of the people and how it changed them and their relationship with God. Divine justice is satisfied and the sinners are now dead, except for Noah. God's hand has brought desolation and now must bring deliverance.

Lesson on Family Values

If one continues with the theme of looking at the larger lessons that can be filtered from the aftermath of flood, the narrative makes some valuable points about family values. God delivers the faithful family. God's resting of the ark on Mount Ararat can be interpreted as the rest that God gives to the faithful after a good tossing. It teaches us that God does not keep pounding us, but gives us a place to rest as a reward for our faithfulness. Now Noah and his family are given a respite from the deluge.

One might remember that God made a covenant with Noah, not the other members of his family. Yet, Noah's family was saved through his faithfulness. It is unlikely that any of those on the ark were sinners and worthy of destruction. This brings in a lesson about Noah's role as leader of his family. It is not likely that as Noah's children were growing up that Noah would have tolerated sinfulness in his own household. Neither would it make sense for Noah to remain committed to a sinful wife. Although, these elements of the story are not brought out in the text, it can be assumed that Noah, being a righteous man, would have maintained a righteous family as well. This is the only scenario that makes sense. If Noah's family were not worthy, they would have died in the flood too.

The survival of Noah's family suggests that Noah instilled his faithfulness in his family as well. This places a heavy burden on family leadership of today. It suggests that we not only have a responsibility to remain obedient ourselves, but that we must keep up a certain moral standing in our families as well. We do not know if Noah kept his family faithful through reward and punishment, or whether his simply provided an example to follow him. In the end, regardless of the mechanism, he had raised a family that was worthy of becoming the ancestors of all those that would come in the future.

David Petersen reminds us that the prominent families in the Hebrew Bible would not stand the up to the conservative standards of today. He cites instances of polygamy, murder, and divorce in the Old Testament. However, he also makes the point that family and the maintenance of the family is of primary importance in the Bible. The flood story was and still is a family story. In the beginning of the story, the focus is on Noah and God. His family is implied and the reader knows that they are there with Noah somewhere. As the flood approaches and the family is drawn into the ark, the focus shifts to a more family-oriented narrative. Now all Noah has is God and his family. Everything else is being destroyed. There are many lessons about keeping one's priorities straight in the flood narrative. The precedent is set that first comes God and next comes one's family.

Rashi explains that the stories of the Talmud do not only apply to the ancients, but that they stand as a guide for the future as well. Much of what is taught in Genesis is lost in the debate over the size and destructiveness of the flood. However, in the actions of the family after the great cataclysm, modern man can find examples of what God expects in reference to faith and obedience on a familial level.

After what must have seemed like endless time on the ark, God commands them not to open the doors yet. They have one last act of faith and must endure a little more. God knows what is best for us, even when it is not what we want at the time. This is often the most difficult concept to remember in a world where advertisers promise to provide our every need immediately for a small material fee.