Introduction
The global interpretation of the Flood account is very old and very common in Jewish and Christian thought. It rests on a straightforward reading of the “global language” of the account. Today, the strength of the local flood reading is often seen to lie in the scientific objections to a global flood, which come from diverse but converging disciplines. The fact that many different scientific subject areas have something to contribute against a global reading means that such a reading requires wholesale revision of a lot of scientific conclusions. In this article, we will examine the argument that the flood is a global reversal of the Genesis creation.
Reversing Genesis
The argument to consider is that the language of Genesis 6-9 is a reversal of Genesis 1, and therefore the planetary scope of Genesis 1 should be the same in Genesis 6-9. While it is conventional to consider Genesis 6-9 in terms of two sources (very much like Genesis 1-3 contain two creation accounts), we are examining the final form of the narrative and ignoring scholarly source criticism. There are number of points of contact between Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-9 that we need to consider in this argument. Our counter-argument will be that Genesis 6-9 includes points of contact with the local creation account of Genesis 2 and so the flood is not a simple reversal of Genesis 1.
1) Yahweh looks from heaven and sees that the wickedness of man was great in the earth (eretz, Gen 6:5), and he repents regarding his “making” of man upon the earth (Gen 6:6). The common verb for “making” links to Gen 1:26 where the intention of elohim to “make” man is stated. The argument is put that as there is global intent in Genesis 1 so too there is in Genesis 6.
However, there is no statement about Yahweh making man in Genesis 1 and it is well known that the name “Yahweh” is characteristic of the second and local creation account; here we read of Yahweh “forming” man and “making” his helpmeet (Gen 2:7, 22). This raises a doubt over the global reading of Genesis 6-9—the echo implied in the use of the name “Yahweh” is with the local creation of the Garden of Eden. When we read therefore of Yahweh looking and seeing that man’s wickedness was great, he was looking upon a land and repenting of the fact that he had made man upon the earth.
Is God looking and seeing the planet, or is he looking and seeing a land? Yahweh states that he will destroy man from off the “face of the adamah” (“ground” (RSV), “land” (NASB), Gen 6:7). This links with Gen 4:14 which has the first occurrence of the expression, “face of the adamah”. Cain’s use of the expression does not signal a planetary perspective. Cain had offered the fruit of the adamah, and so his remark that he has been cast out from the face of the adamah is a reference to the cultivated land. It would seem therefore that Yahweh is not looking at the planet in Genesis 6. He has created man on earth, but when he looks and evaluates man he is looking at the land where man lives.
Man is to be destroyed from the face of the ground i.e. the adamah; this is a significant detail insofar as its focus is not the eretz. The “ground” is the leading motif of the second creation account: Adam is created from the adamah. This would imply a local scope for the destruction that God intends to bring with the flood.
Yahweh states that he will destroy man, beast, creeping thing and fowl of the air (Gen 6:7, KJV). The term for “beast” is behemah, which is translated “cattle” in Gen 2:20, which is also where the expression “fowls of the air” occurs first in conjunction with behemah. This link is a further indication that the local creation account of Genesis 2 forms the backdrop to Genesis 6-9. This creation related to Eden and a garden; hence, the animals that Yahweh forms out of the adamah (Gen 2:19) are domestic beasts of the field and these are brought to Adam for naming. The bringing of animals to Adam is reflected in animals being brought to Noah (Gen 6:20).
However, it needs to be noted that “creeping things” are not mentioned in the second creation account and this detail is from Genesis 1. Further, the notion of “kinds” of animal is a link with Genesis 1 (Gen 6:20). Nevertheless, these links and the connections we have noted with Genesis 2 show that the flood account is not a simple reversal of the creation of Genesis 1.
2) A definite link with the first creation account lies in the phrase “the fountains of the great deep” (Gen 7:11); the first mention of “the deep” is Gen 1:2. Here the argument is made that in the beginning the planet was covered by the deep and the flood is a return to that state—it is a reversal of Genesis 1.
However, this interpretation is not secure: Genesis 6-9 does not say that “the deep” covered the earth, which would give the reverse picture to that in Genesis 1. Further, the account describes the waters as covering the hills (Gen 7:19-20) rather than the earth. It does not seem therefore that the narrative is seeking to portray a reversion to the primordial state of Gen 1:2.
The narrator’s perspective is displayed in the description, “fountains of the great deep”. If this was a description used by Yahweh, it might refer to the ocean(s) of the planet. In the perspective of the narrator, “the great deep” is the local sea—the local open sea. Isaiah uses the expression “great deep” to refer to the Red Sea (Isa 51:10); the psalmist contrasts the mountains of Judea with the great deep of the Mediterranean (Ps 36:7); and Amos uses the expression as a metaphor for a political power (Amos 7:4).That the “great deep” is the local open sea is shown by Gen 8:1-2 where it states that the fountains of the deep were stopped.
3) The initiation of the end of the flood is by a wind (ruach) passing over the earth (eretz, Gen 8:1). There is an echo here with Gen 1:2 where the Spirit (ruach) hovers over the face of the waters. It is argued that as one ruach is global, so too the other ruach is global.
But does the statement in Gen 8:1 relate to the whole planet? Is the new creation in Genesis 8 of the same global scope as Genesis 1? The dissimilarity with Genesis 1 consists in the fact that there the dry land appears upon the separation of waters; in Genesis 8 there is no such “separation” of waters and the appearance of dry land as a result. Further, in Genesis 1 the ruach is not linked to any separation of waters. If the flood was global, and the new creation consequent upon the end of the flood, exactly analogous to the creation of Genesis 1, the terminology of the “separation” of waters would have been entirely appropriate. On a global scale the separation of waters described the appearance of land in Genesis 1. In Genesis 8, the notion of the “assuaging” of the waters is not the idea of “separation”. Waters assuage or recede (or abate or subside) from existing land masses: the flood waters therefore reached up to a certain point on the land mass and assuaged from that point. Winds are indigenous and local and do assist the assuaging of flood waters.[1]
This detail of the waters assuaging sets the scope for the “fountains of the deep”. The Hebrew word for “fountains” is not an uncommon word and denotes a “spring” on land. What the “fountain” might have been in the deep is a matter of speculation,[2] but that they were local fountains seems clear.
4) The final detail which is said to reflect Genesis 1 is the “fruitful and multiply” theme (Gen 8:17; 9:1). This is a clear echo of Gen 1:28 as the motif is absent from the second creation account. This shows that the new creation after the flood is comparable to the Genesis creation.
However, this does not require a global perspective for the destructive element of the story. It is just as possible that Noah is commanded to replenish the land and to consider this a new creation analogous to the command to the male and female of Genesis 1. In later scripture, Israel is a “creation” and a “heaven and earth”; they are also to consider themselves in the light of Genesis 1—but they are not global creations.
The above points, (1)-(4), make the case for a local flood reading of the allusions to Genesis 1 and 2 in Genesis 6-9.
Conclusion
The “global” language of the flood story is not global. What appears global is in fact local. Nevertheless, there is a design in the story which makes the flood a reversal of creation. This design, however, is for example and for teaching—the flood that came upon Mesopotamia is compared to creation (Genesis 1) as an event of equal significance for that region.
[1] Current weather systems do not allow for a single wind to pass over the whole planet; there are multiple wind systems in place.
[2] Repeated tidal waves caused by undersea volcanic activity would be one scenario. The Arabian Plate has one edge running along the east coast of the Persian Gulf. Any undersea volcanic activity here could produce repeated tidal waves inundating the top of the Mesopotamian basin.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One