#105 – Noah’s Flood

Trying to find a silver lining in a very dark cloud: does it take an esoteric literary tool to redeem this classic Sunday School story?

Remember the story of Noah’s Flood from when you were a kid in Sunday School? The pictures of a smiling Noah stepping off a cute little ark with happy animals, and a happy sun beside a bright rainbow in the clear blue sky? At the time, did you notice all the dead bodies buried in the mud under the ark?

Yeah, my teacher avoided that part too.

This story of Noah’s Flood is a Trojan Horse for many people. The parts of it that are in plain sight are perfectly fine. A sight to behold. Beautiful even. And so you let your guard down and embrace it. But it’s what’s hidden inside that can eventually destroy one’s faith. It certainly did destroy mine.

For many who grapple closely with this story, it’s the incongruity between the details of this ancient Semitic story and our modern understanding of science which erodes faith. There’s just so much evidence against the story. Not just pieces of evidence, but so many different kinds of evidence. From geology … archaeology … genetics … ecology … hydrology … cosmology … engineering (of the Ark) … history (evidence for civilizations before and after the Fundamentalist dating of the event which show no evidence of a global flood). Even evidence from the Bible itself: the “Nephilim” which haunted the Semites even after the Flood!? And so one often feels forced to either choose science or the Bible, because it seems you can’t have both. [Although appearances can be deceiving.]

But another toxic ingredient in this story is the basic morality which you have to accept. That an all-loving and all-powerful God finds humans to be so evil that he has to wipe them out. And to do so by drowning them, rather than a painless and immediate annihilating snap-of-the-fingers . Ironically, the text says it’s their violence that he finds so abhorrent, and yet his solution to the problem is … oh so very violent!?

And finally, there are so many details that quite anthropomorphize God. He seems to be repeatedly making mistakes. First He says he shouldn’t have created humans, then later that he shouldn’t have destroyed them; and then his solution to the human problem evidently fails because there’s just as much evil after the flood as there was before the flood (and some would say that some people — “the Nephilim” — seemed to have survived the flood). What’s that common saying in baseball: “Three strikes and ….”? And that puzzling scene where God smells the meat that Noah is barbecuing (as a sacrifice), and finds it so pleasing that his anger is cooled: what’s that about?

In this episode, we talk to Dr. Dustin Burlet, who focused his PhD project on the story of Noah’s Flood. In particular, he used a specialized literary tool called “rhetorical critical analysis” to reveal a whole new perspective on this story: that the latter actually reveals the compassionate, loving and provisional side of God! And I’ll admit that I can see how he gets there using this kind of linguistic and literary analysis. I just wish it didn’t require a specialized literary tool (one that only some scholars know about) to get there. I’m not trying to be insulting here, but I’m sure that even if a handful of scholars from different universities got together for beer and conversation at some major conference, and one of them said “we should apply some rhetorical critical analysis to what you just said there, Frank” I’m sure at least one of those other learned scholars will say “and remind me what that is again.” And more to my point, the average lay-person engaging with this story that was supposedly written for the benefit of anyone who wants to engage with God’s word just simply isn’t going to scratch their head for a second or two and then say: “I guess I’m going to have to apply some rhetorical critical analysis to this.” And I don’t think I’m far off by saying they’ll never hear their pastors mention “rhetorical critical analysis” in a Sunday morning sermon. Am I wrong?

So, again, using this tool, it is indeed possible to pull out a message that the story of Noah’s flood is about compassion, salvation, provision, and hope. But I myself am still left with the images of God opening up floodgates and turning on sprinkler systems, and then watching so many people struggle desperately till they die by drowning, including kids, babies, and pets, let alone a reasonable number of adults that I have to believe were around who really didn’t do anything deserving of being drowned to death. If we maintain that he’s all-powerful and all-loving, why couldn’t he just identify the worst trouble-makers and just … vaporize them. And then as soon as a few other characters started getting out of line, vaporize them too. And keep vaporizing until finally the people get the message and start staying in line. That’s what our police do using speeding tickets, and the government does with tax cheats. How is that not a better way to solve the problem than to just completely and utterly destroy everything and everyone on the face of the earth, as well as the face of the earth itself?

Or is this instead a story written by an ancient Semitic people who experienced a major, catastrophic flood at some point (apparently floods happened every year in that part of the world, and there would always be “the big one” that Grandpa would remind his clan of), and they, together with their Sumerian and Akkadian neighbors, tried to process that event in the way that they always did: they tried to see it as a divine act sent for some particular reason. I’m now leaning much more in that direction.

As always, tell us what you think …

Check out Dr. Burlet’s book at Amazon.

If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like Episode #31, where we talked to David MacMillan, who was working his way up through the ranks at Answers in Genesis until he had his own Plato’s Cave experience, saw through their rhetoric and distortion ……. and left.

Episode image by Gerhard from Pixabay.

To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher.

Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook.

Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

3 responses to “#105 – Noah’s Flood”

  1. I struggled with Dustin’s proposal of the theme of hope in the flood narrative as a way of letting God off a pretty nasty hook. It just stretches things too much to say it’s OK that 99.99% of humans and creatures can die in the “hopeful” re-creation event of a new beginning. There was plenty of grace shared around in this podcast – which was good – but Dustin was pretty cringeworthy at times. He did show guts and resilience while defending his view.

    Like

  2. Dear Nick

    While I would concur with your assessment that there was plenty of grace shared around in this podcast (which is indeed good, and I thank both Luke and Scott for even extending me the kindness of appearing on their podcast) and while I thank you for affirming my “guts and resilience while defending my view,” I am not 100% certain that your articulation of my position does justice to what I actually believe

    Allow me to re-articulate some things in a different way

    David J. A. Clines incisively states that the “theme” of Genesis (and, of course, the rest of the Pentateuch, hence the name of his book) could be said to be either:

    (a) Humankind tends to destroy what God has made good. Even when God forgives human sin and mitigates the punishment, sin continues to spread, to the point where the world suffers uncreation. And even when God makes a fresh start, turning his back on uncreation forever, the human tendency to sin becomes manifest

    Or:

    (b) No matter how drastic human sin becomes, destroying what God has made good and bringing the world to the brink of uncreation, God’s grace never fails to deliver humankind from the consequences of their sin. Even when humanity responds to a fresh start with the old pattern of sin, God’s commitment to his world stands firm, and sinful humans experience the favour of God as well as his righteous judgment

    Clines claims that Gen 1–11 is “utterly ambiguous” in helping one “opt decisively” between option ‘a’ or ‘b;’ He thus states one must look to the rest of the Pentateuch for answers. As is made clear, though, in the analysis portions of my book (chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6), I maintain that the Noachian deluge narrative (in itself) necessitates option ‘b.’ The main point is that Noah’s Flood is not so much “focused on destruction, but . . . God’s salvation.” The Flood is a “severe mercy.”

    At the risk of belaboring things, canonically speaking, there is a well-established precedent within Scripture for precious few people to be delivered from the dire consequences of sinning against an all-holy, all-righteouss, and all-sovereign God

    In the book of Ezekiel, it is written:

    “Son of man, suppose the people of a country were to sin against me, and I lifted my fist to crush them, cutting off their food supply and sending a famine to destroy both people and animals. Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were there, their righteousness would save no one but themselves, says the Sovereign LORD . . . ‘they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness [v. 20].” (14:13-14, 20)

    NB: for further clarity on this point, see the accompanying link to the following article: Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/2 (Autumn 2001): 132–144.
    Article copyright © 2001 by Jo Ann Davidson. “Even If Noah, Daniel, and Job” (Ezekiel 14:14, 20)—Why These Three?

    https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=jats

    In much a similiar way, it is also written that God “by no means kills the righteous along with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike” (see Gen 18)

    If all that I have written here remains “cringeworthy” then I have reason to believe that the issue actually lies in one’s preunderstanding/pressupositions/hermenutics than in my own actual position or the precise articulation of what it is that I believe

    Dustin

    Like

    1. Given that it has been some time I would also like to clarify something about Hermeneutics from Tremper Longman that I think is important to recognize.

      The Wise Person is Hermeneutically Savvy

      (The Fear of the LORD is the Beginning of Wisdom)

      “But is it enough just to learn Scripture? In the first place, hearing God’s voice in Scripture is more than simply memorizing Scripture. It is possible to know the Bible well but use it foolishly. One must study the Bible carefully to hear God’s voice well. Some people have a misconception of the Bible – and that is, to out it bluntly, that it is easy to understand. This view is a particular misconception of Protestant Christianity. Over against certain medieval Catholic views, Protestant theology urged that everyone can read their Bible in their own and didn’t need a priest to read it and interpret it for them. Much good came out of this emphasis on the priesthood of all believers and the clarity of Scripture .After all, the Bible is clear-on its main and essential teachings. But, though the main and essential teachings are perspicuous, to use the technical theological term, the entire teaching of Scripture is not clear by any account. To read Scripture well in order to hear the voice of God takes study, and not just individual study. It takes a community to read Scripture well and to keep us from our own idiosyncratic readings.

      Thus, the twenty-fist Christian sage is an adept interpreter of the Bible, which requires much study of ancient genres, literary conventions, and history. The sage knows that the Bible is written FOR us but not TO US. The various books of the Bible were written to their original audiences, and we need first of all to ask what God was saying through the human authors of Scriptures to their original audiences before asking what God is saying to us today. The twenty-first century sage understands that we read the Bible from a limited perspective constructed by our economic status, gender, ethnicity, educational level, and so forth. Thus, we need to listen to (and read) interpretations from people who share our faith but who are different from us. Much more could be said here, of course, but the pint is clear: the sage is hermeneutically savvy” (italics removed and replaced with CAPS).

      Speaking pointedly, Luke has a PHD in a rather technical field

      As such, I believe that I can stand confident in saying that Luke leverages and employs a vast array of technical tools and certain nomenclature in his work

      Why, then, should one deny an expert in biblical interpretation and exegesis the same ‘privilege,’ i.e.,, why ‘poo poo’ my own scholasticism as being “ECCENTRIC”

      Is it not necessary for every professional to utilize technical specificity and competence within their respective field(s) of expertise without shame or ridicule?

      Like

Leave a comment