A recent survey we conducted revealed that almost 34% of those who identified as Christian felt that the biblical account of a global flood was either metaphorical or an outright fable. This statistic correlated with a more systemic distrust of the Bible as being historic or relevant to the respondents’ lives.[1] The theological implications of this lack of confidence in the biblical account are significant. The flood account is not limited to a few chapters in Genesis but extends throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. These references include events that demonstrate that Jesus Himself considered it an actual universal event. Understanding that the global flood was a consequence of leaving a covenant relationship with God is critical to a Christian understanding of Christ’s role in the creation, fall and salvation of man.
We will review the biblical references to the global flood in an effort to determine what the theological implications are for Christian’s today.
The pervasive references throughout scripture, including references made by Jesus Christ, demonstrate the importance of this event in a current Christian worldview. A worldview that embraces the importance of the global flood can more fully appreciate the cost of sin, and Christ’s role in lifting the burden of that sin.
The Global Flood
Old Testament
Genesis 6:5-10:32
This account serves as the foundational theological reference point for this study. Each narrative section of Genesis begins with the term toledot. The term means “begettings” or “bringings-forth.” It implies that Genesis is the “history/account of beginnings.”[2] It is used here in Genesis 6:9, connecting the events of the flood with the whole of the Genesis historical narrative.[3]
In Genesis 6:18 God first promised that He would establish a covenant with Noah. This is the first occurrence in the Bible of the term translated as covenant, b’rit. This covenant would be a formal agreement between God and man. God fulfilled this promise in Genesis 9:9. The nature of the covenant further emphasizes the reality and extent of the flood event that preceded it. A universal covenant follows a universal flood as described in this section of Moses’ record.
This phrase, “sons of God,” in Genesis 6:2 warrants explanation From the beginning, mortal men could qualify as “sons of God,” beginning with Adam. (Luke 3:38) Thus, when Noah is referred to as being “a righteous man, blameless in his generation,” and that he was able to “walk with God,” (Genesis 6:9)[4] Noah can be considered a “son of God.” In short, the sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God. Genesis 6:2 reveals these men giving up their title as “sons of God” when the “took as their wives any they chose,” even those outside the covenant. They then became “sons of men.”
The word often translated as “giants” in Genesis 6:4 is the Hebrew word nephilim.[5] These individuals are further described here as gibborim (“mighty men”)[6]. The nephilim were mentioned again in scripture when the spies returned from their exploratory mission of the land of Canaan. These spies reported that Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai (descendants of Anak, progenitor of the Anakim) dwelt in Hebron. They also stated, “…the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.” (Numbers 13:28)
The chapter concludes with ten of the spies giving “a bad report” trying to convince the Israelites that they could not conquer the land:
“And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel…And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants…” (Numbers 13:32-33, emphasis added)
The Hebrew נפלים, (the nephilim of Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33) is here translated as “giants.” We get this rendition largely due to an original translation into Greek, the Septuagint, of the Hebrew Torah.[7] There nephilim is translated as gigantes, hence “giant.”[8] However, gigantes is literally “earth-born.”[9] The Hebrew term nephilim is more accurately translated as “he fell,” as in “fallen from the true religion.”[10] And these “mighty men…men of renown” (גברים), the gibborim, translates best as “conquerors or heroes”. In the Greek translation, it also represents anthropoi onomastoi, or a unique phrase, “twice named”; named once with the name they received from their fathers, and again with the name they received for their daring exploits, such as “Alexander the Great.”[11] The rejection of the covenant causes these mighty men to become sons of men, and identifies them as those living outside the covenant, and worthy of God’s punishment.
Genesis 9:1-19 outlines the structure of the covenant that is instituted after the flood. After Noah builds an altar to the Lord (Genesis 8:20) he offers sacrifices to God. God then binds himself in the covenant with Noah and “perpetual generations.” God provides the bow as a token of this covenant. The token of the bow is a token of this miraculous covenant, that the Lord will never again destroy the world by flood. Inherent in this covenant is recognition that God provided the protection to his righteous servant Noah. God was the architect of the redemption provided through this ark to save Noah and his posterity.
Genesis 11:10
As the world moved on from the flood, Noah’s son, Shem had a son. This occurred two years after the flood and signaled the repopulation of the earth. This reference to the flood connects Shem and the flood he endured, through the genealogy that follows, with his descendant, Abraham. In Genesis 14:17-20, Abraham gives a tenth of everything he has, as a tithe, to the “priest of God Most High,” the “king of Salem,” Melchizedek.
Shem is thought by some to be the King of Salem himself, Melchizedek. They were certainly contemporaries (after the flood). Melchizedek may be considered a title. In Hebrew it can be rendered malki, “My King” and sedek, “righteousness.” Together, “My Divine King is Righteousness.”[12] While there certainly could have been two priests of God Most High, the honorific is enticing, as is the interpretation of Melchizedek as a title.
Jewish tradition supports this interpretation, describing him as “Shem, or, as he is sometimes called, Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, priest of the Most High God…”[13] The apocryphal Book of Jasher, Chapter 16, verses 11 and 12, record that “Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram and his people…And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram gave him a tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil of his enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God.”
In further support, much is known about Shem’s youth, but little about his older years. With Melchizedek, the reverse is true, with nothing known of his youth. The genealogy recorded in Genesis 11:10, with its anchor to the flood, provides a compelling connection between Shem and Abraham, and the perpetuation of righteousness and covenant-keeping through and beyond the flood.
Joh 22:15-16
When the compatriot to Job, Eliphaz, attempts to make the case that Job’s trials are the result of his unrighteousness, he uses the separation from God caused by ungodly behavior to make his case. He implies that Job has kept to the “old way which wicked men have trod.” These same men “were cut down before their time, whose foundations were swept away by a flood.” (Job 22:15-16) This is interesting language because it acknowledges the consequences of sin, while at the same time questioning God’s ability to see what is transpiring in His creation, and challenging His righteousness when Eliphaz claims they were cut down “before their time.”
The term translated “flood” here is the Hebrew nahar. While this term is often translated as “river,” here and in Joshua (ch. 24) it is rendered “flood.”[14] In this instance to turn Job’s thoughts to the destruction that befalls the wicked, and in the Book of Joshua as a reminder to the Israelites of the God who carried their righteous ancestors through the flood.
The central argument of this passage remains: Punishment and destruction are the result of wicked, covenant-breaking behavior.[15] Job is understood to be the oldest book in the Bible and is relying not on Moses’ account of the flood to make its case, but on the recalled events themselves to understand the significance of the global flood to those who do not keep their covenant with God. This temporal proximity to the event of the global flood gives Job’s writings a unique relevance.
New Testament
Matthew 24:37-42
The phrase in Genesis 6:2, “they took as their wives any they chose,” reveals no mention of God, or of a covenant with God. This comment concerning the people who refused to listen to Noah, becomes an example used by the Savior when He is describing the time when He will return. When His disciples asked, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3) Christ responded, “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe [Noah] entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away…” (Matthew 24:38-39 and Luke 17:27) They were so preoccupied with their own lives, with the everyday events (eating and drinking), and with their own version of the covenant, a simple business arrangement, marrying and giving in marriage, that they had no time for the Lord or place for the covenant with Him in their lives.[16]
The apocryphal Book of Jasher shares an interesting perspective on these events:
“And after the lapse of many years, in the four hundred and eightieth year of the life of Noah, when all those men, who followed the Lord had died away from amongst the sons of men, and only Methuselah was then left, God said unto Noah and Methuselah, saying, Speak ye, and proclaim to the sons of men, saying, Thus saith the Lord, return from your evil ways and forsake your works, and the Lord will repent of the evil that he declared to do to you, so that it shall not come to pass. For thus saith the Lord, Behold I give you a period of one hundred and twenty years; if you will turn to me and forsake your evil ways, then will I also turn away from the evil which I told you, and it shall not exist, saith the Lord. And Noah and Methuselah spoke all the words of the Lord to the sons of men, day after day, constantly speaking to them. But the sons of men would not hearken to them, nor incline their ears to their words, and they were stiffnecked.” (Jasher 5:6-10)
It is interesting that in this rendition, Methuselah is beside Noah, the last in the line of righteous men, proclaiming the gospel, and calling the people to repentance. The phrase “and only Methuselah was then left…” is compelling. This passage, while not biblical, demonstrates the status of Jewish thought in antiquity, and the understanding held at the time of Jesus concerning the events prior to the flood. Men had abandoned the covenant, and God called Noah to preach to the people. When they did not, they became the “sons of men,” and were subject to the punishment God promised.
Luke 17:24-30
The words of Christ recorded by Luke place the destruction of the world “alongside the destruction of Sodom and the destruction of the ungodly at the time of Christ’s Second Coming.”[17] Just as the destruction of the ungodly at the time of Noah was a universal event, the consequences for the ungodly at the time of Christ’s return will be universal in its affect.
Luke's reference to Noah entering the ark, eisēlthen . . . eis tēn kibōton (v. 27), connects this passage with Gen. 7:7 where this same phrase is used to describe Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives going into the ark. A further connection to Genesis occurs when Luke uses a term that only occurs here in his gospel and the Book of Acts; kataklysmos to describe the flood. This word, kataklysmos , is the source for the English word, cataclysm.
As Luke linguistically ties his writings to the Book of Genesis, he also connects with Jewish tradition “that uses the flood as a prototype of the last judgment or of the end of the world.”[18] The reference here, and connection to tradition, relates to the unwillingness and inability of those He is addressing to accept the concept of divine judgement. Both biblical and extrabiblical texts document this traditional view among the Jews of a last and final judgement. From Isaiah (24:18) to Josephus (Antiquities 1.72-76) to Jubilees (20:5-6) and 1 Enoch (1-6) there is a rich cultural foundation for this judgement, and here Luke connects his message to it.[19]
Hebrews 11:7
In chapter 11 of the Book of Hebrews, the author presents a compelling argument for faith. He does so by presenting the heroes of human, and Jewish, history as archetypes of faith. Among the list which includes Abel, Enoch and Abraham, we find Noah. The writer notes that it was by faith that Noah constructed the ark. Connecting verse seven with verse one, faith is connected with things unseen. In the case of Noah, God warns of “events as yet unseen.” It was by acting on this faith that Noah “became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” (v. 7) Once again it is covenant-keeping that ensures protection. The focus in Hebrews is not on the ungodly, but on the godly, covenant-keeping archetypes who received the blessings and protection of the Lord through their righteousness.
The term used in verse 7, “condemned”, is translated from the Greek katekrinen.[20] It is from the term katakrinó, or “to give judgement against.” This term is used throughout the New Testament and is accusative.[21] Through Noah’s faithfulness, he exposed the ungodly behavior of the world. His faithfulness was a condemnation of the unfaithfulness of the world. This unfaithfulness and covenant rejection are the antecedent to the judgement of the flood.
1 Peter 3:18-20
In the verse preceding this passage, Peter presents the argument that “it is better to suffer for doing good…than for doing evil.” (1 Peter 3:17) With this framework in place, it is understood that verses 18-20 further that argument. The flood is then seen as the judgement for doing evil. “But the flood waters also ‘save’ Noah and his family, thus becoming a type of Christian baptism.”[22] Verse 21 connects the principle of baptism to the flood when Peter says it “corresponds to this.”
Calvin believed that this passage (v. 19) described Christ entering the spirit world and preaching to those who perished in the flood and by doing so brought His grace to the righteous dead and condemnation to the wicked.[23] In spite of their great sin, God was able to express great love, and offer salvation to them.
The continuation into verse 20 sheds great light on the nature of God…God is patient. This passage makes it clear that God waited to deliver His punishment, an argument supported by the apocryphal Jasher text quoted previously. While the ark was being built there was an opportunity for others to come back to their covenant relationship, but ultimately only “a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.” (v. 20)
2 Peter 2:4-5
Early Christians viewed the flood as the consequence of sin, and seeing their world overcome with sin, expected the same to come to them. These groups looked for the day when Christ would return and awaited the flood of fire described by Peter.[24] It was a factual, anticipated event, and only their individual covenant-keeping righteousness would protect them.
In this passage, Peter presents an argument that actually extends into verses 7 and 8. The argument, presented in typical Greek fashion is in the form if, then, and. This form of argument is a form of Greek rhetoric, syllogismos.[25] In this case in the form of a conditional syllogism; if God judged the wicked in Noah’s generation, then it is clear He will also preserve the righteous (as He did with Noah). And, it is also clear that he will punish the wicked (as He did in the flood).
2 Peter 3:3-7
Like the previous chapter of Peter’s letter, in Chapter 3 he returns to the topic of the flood and the judgement it represented. Once again it serves as a reminder for what will occur at the second coming of Christ. Peter describes the world as being “stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the ungodly.” (v. 7) Once again those who have rejected the covenant are to be judged. Cohn stated that Noah warned of imminent judgement as “a sort of John the Baptist.”[26]
Justin wrote that this fire of judgement would bring the same destruction as the waters of the Flood. Justin further believed that Peter was describing a delay in Christ’s return (and the destruction that would come to those outside the covenant) to provide time for believers to preach repentance, just as the flood was delayed to allow Noah to preach.[27] We find here a “distinction between what happened to people at large and what happened to Noah and his family.”[28] The creates a clearer understanding that God is able to distinguish between the righteous and the wicked when judgement comes. In verse 4 Peter clearly intends to challenge those who deny the coming judgement by indicating it is just as real as the creation. He says that those who deny creation “deliberately overlook” the creation and the flood in their desire to overlook the penalty of their covenant-breaking lifestyle.
Revelation 4:3
While this passage does not contain direct reference to the flood, the inclusion of the rainbow in the description of God’s throne is relevant. As with the occurrence in Ezekiel 1:28, the presence of the rainbow implies that God’s judgement will not simply include punishment, but will also embody mercy, as with Noah and his family.[29] Those who embrace covenant-keeping will enjoy this mercy, just as recorded in the covenant made with Noah in Genesis 9:1-19.
Just as the rainbow was an emblem of mercy, peace, and reconciliation with God for Noah and his posterity after the destruction of the world by the flood, so the covenant imbued in the rainbow is a covenant of grace and mercy today.[30] The rainbow is an assurance to the world that destruction by a flood will not come again. The covenant is a promise of protection from eternal destruction. Not only will covenant-breaking incur judgement, but covenant-keeping offers mercy and peace.
Implications
Creation
When the Lord first states that he “will destroy humankind,” he also confirms His creative role in it when he declares “whom I have created…both man, and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air…” (Genesis 6:7) Joseph Blenkinsoop refers to the flood as an “uncreation.”[31] Just as the world first arose out of water, the destruction of it would come from the waters. The order of creation is repeated in this deluge. First waters cover the earth, then the mountains, then birds, beasts, and ultimately men.[32]
Similarly, the events immediately after the flood are reminiscent of the creation. The commandment given to Adam in Genesis 1 is now repeated to Noah in Genesis 9. Man is to fill or replenish the earth. In Genesis 1:2 Adam is commanded to ūmil’ū, or “fill” the earth.[33] In Genesis 9:1 the same term is used, ūmil’ū, reinforcing the concept that the flood is a new creation event.[34]
Fall
The Dead Sea Scroll 4Q422 provides a unique correspondence between the story of the flood, and the events of Creation…in particular, Eden. The flood story is connected from Column I to Column II of the scroll with the transition, “with an evil inclination.” This juxtaposition highlights one of the primary themes of 4Q422: the sin-judgement cycle. This connection is further expanded in Column III of 4Q422, where the plague judgements of Egypt are recounted.[35] The flood becomes the full embodiment of the fall, demonstrating the punishment promised as a result of covenant-breaking sin.
Throughout the scriptures cited, frequent references to the separation of man from God are present. Beginning in Genesis, the description of the Nephilim as “he fell,” or “fallen from the true religion,”[36] is consistently reinforced. Luke’s cultural connections with the flood and the ultimate judgement that it predicts are further reminders of the fallen nature of humanity, and the penalty of this covenant-breaking state.
Salvation
A further connection with 4Q422 is made when the content of Column II is more closely examined. As Dorothy Peters points out, the language in Column III comes from the books of Exodus, Psalm 78 and Psalm 105, “except for one particular phrase in line 7, where Pharaoh’s heart was hardening to sin” in order to make known the glory of God for eternal generations.[37] The sign of the covenant, the rainbow, is given for eternal, or perpetual generations in Genesis 9:12. This phrase does not appear at any other time in the Bible. The relationship in 4Q422 is clearly intended to connect the plague deliverance with the deliverance from the flood.
In the Old Testament, the proximity of two references to the term “token” is also important. Not only does it occur in Genesis 9:13, but also in Exodus 12:13.[38] It is interesting because in the first instance God is referring to the token given to Noah and in the second it refers to the manner the Israelites would use to separate themselves from the Egyptians. This token is a sign of the covenant that salvation will come to those living within it. The rainbow that followed the flood is similarly a token of the covenant offering salvation to those who will live within this new covenant.
Conclusion
As each of the passages reviewed demonstrate, the flood represents the consequence of living an ungodly life. One that is devoid of covenant keeping righteousness. Throughout scripture this event serves as a touchstone for man’s abandonment of God and the subsequent judgement that follows. As Christians, the choice of living as “sons of men” or “sons of God” has consequences. Worldly influences may encourage a denial of the flood, but as Christians it is important to understand the cost of denying the lessons learned. Just as those of Noah’s time, it is a case of “the godly being influenced by the ungodly, or the children of God looking with lustful eyes on the daughters of man.”[39] Considering the reality of the flood as an intellectual argument to be won, or an inconsequential aspect of Christian belief is inadequate. The Bible is a record of God’s relationship with humanity, and with individuals. Inherent in the events of the global flood is the reality of both covenant-breaking suffering, and covenant-making mercy. The persistent use of the past event of the flood as a model for events of the future, and Christ’s return, make this a critical point in any Christian worldview.
[1] This survey was conducted from November to December 2018 through an online application. 240 individuals were surveyed. These individuals identified as being religious (attending church at least once per month) and considered themselves active Christians. Of the respondents, 82 stated that they either: 1). Considered the Bible to be moral stories or 2). Thought the Bible was not reliable history.
[2] Richard M. Davidson, “The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 42 No. 1, (Andrews University Press, 2004): 51.
[3] Tremper Longman III, The Story of God Commentary: Genesis, (Zondervan Academic, 2016).
[4] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced employ the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).
[5] Francis Brown, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001).
[6] Walter, Kaiser Jr., Hard Sayings of The Bible, (Intervarsity Press, 1996): 78.
[7] William H. Sanford, Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures. Vol. 1: Torah, (Canada: CCB Publishing, 2015).
[8] Brown
[9] G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936).
[10] Kaiser, 77.
[11] Sanford, Torah.
[12] Francis Brown, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001).
[13] Louis Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews, (Jewish Publication Society. 1909): 233
[14] Sanford, Torah.
[15] D.A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, (Baker Academic. 2007): 1051.
[16] Rodney Reeves, The Story of God Commentary: Matthew, (Zondervan Academic. 2017).
[17] John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2011): 20.
[18] G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, (Baker Academic, 2011): 347.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Abbott-Smith
[21] William H. Sanford, Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures. Vol. 4: Gospels, (Canada: CCB Publishing. 2016).
[22] Carson, 1039.
[23] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2007): 433
[24] Norman Cohn, Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, (London: Yale University Press, 1966): 23.
[25] Abbott-Smith.
[26] Ibid. 24.
[27] Justin Martyr. Apologia II, 5: 6, 452.
[28] Beale, 1058.
[29] Beale, 1100.
[30] John Gill, An Exposition of the Bible, (Illinois: Primitive Baptist Library, 1976).
[31] Clines, 137.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Sanford, Torah.
[34] Sanford, Torah.
[35] Jeremy D. Lyon, Qumran Interpretation of the Genesis Flood, (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications. 2015): 134.
[36] Kaiser, 77.
[37] Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity, (Society of Biblical Literature. 2008): 139-141.
[38] Sanford, Torah.
[39] Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flood in Light of The Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, (Saint Louis, Missouri Concordia Publishing House. 1951): 346.
Comments