THE GENESIS FLOOD THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES: PART 2

Theological Approaches

Those who concentrate strictly on the literal methods of understanding the Flood often fail to comprehend the reason this story is present in the Bible in the first place. It is not there simply because it actually took place but also because of the meaning the event has. And one way to see this clearly is to compare the biblical account with the Gilgamesh Epic which contains mainly similar events but placed in an entirely different theological environment.

Tremper Longman summarizes some of these basic differences: “The significant differences are theologically telling, indicating a completely different understanding of the divine realm. In the Mesopotamian story, the multiple gods are at cross-purposes with each other (Enki orders the flood, and Ea warns Utnapishtim), while in the biblical text, Yahweh, the one God, both orders and warns. The motivation for the flood in the Gilgamesh Epic is overpopulation and human noise disturbing Enlil, while in the biblical text God brings about a flood because of humanity's sin. The response of the gods to Utnapishtim's sacrifice is to crowd around it like flies since they depend on sacrifices of their devotees for their food. Yahweh receives Noah's sacrifice as an action of worship and enters into a covenant with him.”

And even more importantly, several scholars have noted that in this one event, the Flood, God demonstrates both His holiness (through his righteous judgment) and His love (through the salvation of a remnant). Additional theological points in the story are brought out by other biblical authors, as demonstrated below.

Grammatical-Historical Method

This is the standard way in which most Scripture is interpreted, and it centers on coming to an understanding of how the text would have been understood by its original audience. This can best be done by a combination of some of the previously mentioned approaches as well as utilizing our knowledge of the historical setting and the meaning of the original words in the grammatical context of each sentence. Below are a few examples of such an analysis of a randomly chosen portion of the Flood story, the sending out of the dove from the ark in Genesis 8:10-11.

Walton: This scholar points out that olive trees do not grow in Mesopotamia, so that one detail separates the biblical account from the similar stories originating in that area.

Wenham: “The discovery of an olive was no doubt highly auspicious. One of the commonest trees in Palestine and source of the invaluable oil, the olive was regarded as symbol of beauty and fertility. Like many other ingredients of sacrifice (Lev 2), the olive also symbolized Israel (Jer 11:16). The find was the more significant in that it was 'freshly plucked' (tarap, only here; cf. Aramaic tarufa 'fresh'), indicating that plants were growing again ready to feed man and beast (cf. 1:30), and that 'the waters had gone down on the earth.' The last remark shows that the dove has fulfilled her mission (cf. 8:8) and anticipates her non-return next time she is dispatched.”

Van Dam: the Hebrew root trp “in its basic sense refers to the tearing into pieces by animals of prey. The exception is that tarap refers to plucked vegetation, as in Gen 8:11.”

Schibler notes that the root Hebrew word yhl means both “wait” and “hope for”. It appears in the Pentateuch only in Genesis 8:10,12.”

Hamilton feels that “there is an implicit reference to navigational equipment on the ark – the window (for reading the stars) and the birds (homing pigeons who help find directions). Thus Noah's releasing of the birds should be seen as a reflection of actual navigational practice, rather than a bit of folklorist coloring.”

Note that sometimes this basic approach to the text appears to be rather pedantic to the reader, but at other times it can bring out some important details in a passage that are not obvious on the surface.

Biblical Context

It almost goes without saying that no one portion of Scripture exists in a vacuum. Therefore, to completely understand the meaning of a given passage, one must consider what other biblical authors had to say about it. In that regard, I would recommend two useful books: Old Testament Use of Old Testament by Gary Schnittjer and Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by Beale and Carson. The first of these resources is a bit clunky to use, but the second one contains a wealth of interesting and useful information. In lieu of those resources, any good study Bible will have a number of Bible cross-references attached to passages in question.

Getting back to Genesis 6-9, below are just some of the places in the Bible where Noah and the Flood are mentioned. You can begin to see from these how inspired authors of Scripture viewed this subject:

Psalm 29:10 “The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD sits enthroned as king forever.” Kselman explains: “The LORD's enthonement as king over the flood (defeated forces of chaos); a double entendre is likely intended, with the LORD reigning since the flood, and forever.”

Isaiah 54:9 “This is like the days of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would never again go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you.” God, through the prophet, states that there will be an end to the Babylonian Exile just as there was an end to the Flood.

Ezekiel 14:14,20 Twice in this passage, God stresses the inevitability of judgment coming upon Jerusalem and says that even if it contained three men as righteous as Noah, Daniel (or Danel), and Job, they could not stave the disaster from coming though those three themselves would be saved.

Matthew 24:37-38 In this “little apocalypse” of Jesus, he explains that just as the Flood came upon the people unexpectedly, so will be the Second Coming. This fact is emphasized in both verses 36 and 39. This is an interesting example of how well-meaning Christians can twist Scripture so that it says the exact opposite of its intent. Thus, I have heard as an explanation of this statement by Jesus the fact that the Second Coming will happen when people on earth are as evil as those at the time of the flood and that time is obviously upon us since today people are “eating” (i.e. making gluttons of themselves), drinking (becoming drunks), and marrying (those of the same sex). As a conclusion to that reasoning, they feel we can predict when judgment is coming, in express contradiction to what Jesus is saying here.

Hebrews 11:7 The author includes Noah among his hall of fame list of righteous people in OT times. In the process, he says that Noah was “an heir to the righteousness that is in accordance with faith.”

I Peter 3:18-21 I will not attempt a full explanation of this passage, which is often cited as the most difficult one in the whole New Testament. Suffice it to say that Peter manages to allude to Jesus' descent into hell, the Flood, and Christian baptism all in these few verses and to tie the disparate concepts together. Especially interesting is his contention that the Flood was a type of baptism in that both were a means of salvation.

II Peter 2:5 In this passage, Peter labels Noah as “a herald (or preacher) of righteousness. I discuss this concept in more detail in the post “Was Noah a preacher?”.

II Peter 3:5-7 Here Peter introduces the concept that the destruction of the present earth will not be through a flood, but by means of fire. I have a friend who used this passage to discredit the whole concept of the destruction of the present creation and replacing it with a New Creation. His reasoning was that the Genesis Flood did not in fact destroy the earth at all. Missing from his argument is the fact that the word for “perish” in the Greek does not mean to blast into individual atoms; it conveys the concept of being made useless for its original purpose.

This serves as another example of twisting Scripture to say the opposite of what was intended since the passage above begins by pointing to those scoffers who say that the world has continued the same ever since it began in order to discredit any sort of widespread judgment on the earth. That is exactly what my friend was doing.