THE FLOOD.
1. FIRST, let us note its _moral cause_――the reason why God swept off
the living from the face of the earth by a deluge of waters.――――It was
essential to the moral results which God sought that this reason should
be given very definitely. So we find it given (Gen. 6: 5–13): “God
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually.”
“The earth was corrupt before God; and the earth was filled with
violence.” These points are reiterated in most distinct and emphatic
terms, showing that, outside of the household of Noah, the whole living
race had deeply apostatized from God and were boldly and even defiantly
irreligious. Eliphaz in Job (22: 15–17) gives the tradition current in
his time, thus: “Who said unto God, ‘Depart from us,’ and, ‘What can
the Almighty do for them’”――_i. e._ for Noah and his godly associates?
Despite the words of Noah who bore to them God’s awful forewarnings
and preached the righteousness of repentance, they pressed on in their
sins unmoved and reckless――“till mercy reached its bound and turned to
vengeance there”! It was a whole generation hopelessly corrupt, daring
the Almighty to make good his awful words of warning! The result is
on record that all sinners of every age, tempted to like hardihood and
defiance of God, may study it with profound consideration.
2. The _antecedent occasions_ of this deep apostasy from God as given
in the narrative, next demand our attention. They are
(1.) _The pious families intermarry with the godless._――――
(2.) _The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is withdrawn._
(1.) “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and
they took them wives of all which they chose.” The “sons of God” were
his professed children of the godly race of Seth, Enos and Enoch. The
“daughters of men” were of the Cainites, cultured probably in music
(Gen. 4: 21); attractive in person, fascinating in manners――but alas,
all corrupt in heart as toward God!――――The Jews have a tradition
that these “sons of God” were fallen angels, once first-born sons of
God, who by intermarriage with man’s fair daughters, intensified this
fearful corruption of the race. This tradition we must reject for the
following as well as other reasons:
(a.) Nothing is said here about angels. The record gives us no word
which legitimately designates angels――least of all, the fallen angels.
(b.) According to the Scriptures, angels “neither marry nor are given
in marriage.” The tradition is therefore not only _without_ Scripture
authority but _against_ it.
(c.) If this extreme demoralization had been caused by the marriage
connection of fallen angels with the daughters of men, those
angels should certainly have come in for their share of the visible
retribution. God gave Satan his share of the curse for his agency in
the first great sin. The same justice would have made the fallen angels
visibly prominent under this curse of the flood.――――Either of these
reasons singly would be sufficient ground for rejecting this tradition;
much more must they suffice, combined.
(2.) The withdrawal of the divine Spirit is the second assigned
antecedent of this fatal degeneracy. In our English version we
read――“And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with
man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and
twenty years.’”――――As to the meaning of “My Spirit,” we must reject the
sense――_animal life_――that which God breathed into man to make him “a
living soul” (Gen. 2: 7), as being incongruous with the verb “strive”:
also the sense――_rational soul_――that which makes man a rational being;
and must accept the sense so amply sustained by Scripture usage――the
divine Spirit, sent by Christ to transform human hearts.――――The word
“strive” to translate the Hebrew verb[22] is not bad. We must reject
the construction of some of the old versions, _dwell_, as not in the
original, and as too tame: also the turn given it by Gesenius――to be
humiliated, put down――as not borne out well by the original; and say
that the verb is currently used of judicial transactions――searching
out, convincing, convicting; and seems to have a striking analogy
in that leading word given us by Christ; “When he is come, he shall
_reprove_ the world”――enforce conviction upon the world――as to sin and
righteousness.
The next clause is more difficult and perhaps more controverted: “For
that he also is flesh.” Why is the word “also” here? And what is the
logic indicated by “_for that_”? Can it mean that God withdraws his
Spirit because man is _human_――with a body of “flesh”? Our translators
separated the main Hebrew word into three――the preposition meaning
_in_, the relative written elliptically, and the particle meaning
_also_. The construction of Fuerst is better――“In their wandering, he
is flesh,” _i. e._ their degeneracy has brought flesh completely into
the ascendant: warring against the spirit, the flesh is absolute victor
in the fight. Henceforth all further conflict is hopeless. Hence God
may righteously say――nay must in honor to himself say――My Spirit shall
not plead my cause in man forever. He is utterly gone over to the flesh,
and nothing remains but that he must perish. One hundred and twenty
years of merciful respite[23] for patient warning and exhaustive trial
must suffice:――then, if no penitence appear, judgment must fall, and
that without remedy!――――Thus God places on record the moral causes and
antecedents of this fearful visitation, that its moral lessons may go
down to distant ages for their admonition to the end of time.
The hour of doom draws nigh. The Lord gave Noah definite notice to
enter his ark (7: 1) and allowed him seven days time (7: 4) to gather
in all whom the ark was provided to save. Then “the fountains of the
great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened.” Of
small avail for safety then was the gigantic frame of the giants of
those days or the defiant heart of unbelieving scoffers!
It is scarcely needful to speak of the physical means which God
employed to produce this flood. The agencies which appear in the
volcano and in the earthquake and which God holds imprisoned at no
great depth below the earth’s surface, are all-sufficient for these
results. We may suppose that they lifted the bed of the adjacent seas,
upheaving their waters into the atmosphere to descend in torrents
of rain, and sinking for the time the inhabited lands――and the work
is done. Such alternate upheavals and depressions are, we may say,
chronic to the crust of the earth. The ancient records of geology bear
this testimony. It was not strange therefore but was merciful that
God should allay human fears by his promise to drown the earth no
more. His bow in the cloud, seen when the sun shone forth after the
shower, became by God’s special appointment the sign and pledge of this
covenant.――――I see no good reason to suppose that the rainbow never
existed before. It must have existed by the laws of nature, unless
those laws were greatly changed at the flood――a change which should not
be assumed without sufficient reason. No such reasons are apparent. It
is better therefore to construe the promise――The well known bow in the
cloud I give and ordain to be my sign and pledge that the earth shall
be deluged with water no more.――――Beautiful symbol, kindly and lovingly
ordained; and as we look upon it, delighted with both its beauty and
its significance, let it heighten our joy that God says of himself,
“I will look upon it and remember my covenant.”
* * * * *
_Was this flood universal?_
1. Was it universal _geographically_, overspreading the entire globe?
2. Was it universal as to all _living men_, leaving absolutely none
alive on the face of all the earth, except those in the ark?
1. That the deluge was of limited extent geographically, and not
universal, may be fairly assumed on the following grounds:
(1.) The moral reasons for a deluge do not seem to require it to be
universal, since obviously that corrupt generation whose sins demanded
such a judgment did not overspread all the continents and lands of the
globe, but appear to have been confined within a quite limited area in
Western Asia.
(2.) While on the one hand we may not limit the miraculous power of
the Almighty; on the other hand, it is not legitimate to assume an
expenditure of miraculous power indefinitely beyond what the occasion
demands.――――This objection is designed to apply, not specially to the
supply of water requisite to flood the whole earth at once, for there
is water enough in the oceans and seas to submerge the continents,
provided only that the ocean beds be temporarily uplifted and the
continents relatively depressed: but it does apply with great force to
the preservation of the living animals and plants of the whole world.
The narrative assumes that the deluge will destroy the land animals
and the fowls of the air unless they are protected in the ark. It
also gives us the dimensions of the ark, and leaves us to estimate
proximately how many could be saved alive in it. The narrative,
therefore, does not authorize us to resort to miracle for the
preservation of these animal races.――――Now it is entirely certain that
only an exceedingly small part of all the land animals, insects and
birds of the whole world were saved in the ark. Men versed in natural
science estimate the living species of vertebrate animals at 21,000;
of articulates, 300,000――numbers by far too great to be provided for
in Noah’s ark.――――Yet again: To a great extent the “fauna” (as they are
called)――the animal species of the several continents――differ widely
from each other. South America has its families, many of them unknown
to other continents; Australia has its special group, and Africa its
own. It is simply incredible that all or even the mass of these animals
came to Noah and were preserved in the ark. If they had been destroyed
by the flood, there should be traces of their sudden annihilation
in the drift of that flood, and geological research might trace
the introduction of new races by special creation to repeople those
continents. No such line of proofs for a universal deluge is found.
The absence of such traces of destruction and of new creation makes
it far more than probable that the flood was limited in extent and not
universal.
Still further it is urged against a universal deluge――and for aught
that appears conclusively――that volcanic cones exist――of Etna in Sicily
and of Auvergne in Southern France――which, being composed of loose
scoriæ and ashes, must have been washed away by any deluge that should
reach them. The cones of Etna are estimated to be 12,000 years old.
(3.) The apparently universal language of the narrative may be readily
explained as other similar language must be in the Scriptures, without
assuming a range of meaning beyond the writer’s personal knowledge. The
writer of this narrative (Gen. chaps. 6–9) speaks _as an eye-witness_,
especially of the great rain; of the ark borne up upon the waters; of
the surging back and forth of the billows, and of their covering “the
high hills under the whole heaven,” _i. e._ as far as the eye could
reach. The same style of universal language appears frequently in the
Scriptures, yet subject to limitations from the known nature of the
case; _e. g._ Deut. 2: 25: “This day will I begin to put the fear of
thee” [Israel] “upon the nations _that are under the whole heaven_;”
Acts 2: 5――“There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out _of
every nation under heaven_.” Mat. 3: 5: “Then went out to him Jerusalem,
and _all Judea_, and _all_ the region round about Jordan.”――――It is
in point to notice also that the word “_the earth_,” so frequently
used in this narrative, very often has the sense――_the land_. It should
manifestly have a meaning as broad when used of the extent of the
judgment as when used of the extent of the sin, and not necessarily any
more broad. Of the sin it is said repeatedly――“The _earth_ was corrupt
before God;” “the _earth_ was filled with violence.” Obviously this
same “_earth_,” to the same geographical extent and not apparently
any thing more, was destroyed by the flood. It may be noticed also
that the word “ground” [Heb. adamah] is used (Gen. 7: 23) as a synonym
for “earth”――“every living substance which was upon the face of the
_ground_”――but this carries with it no sense of universality as to this
globe.
There is every reason to suppose that at this time both the righteous
descendants of Seth and the wicked descendants of Cain were living in
the great basin of the Euphrates and the Tigris――with great probability
not reaching out beyond the area bounded by the Indian Ocean, the
Persian Gulf, the Caspian, Black, Mediterranean and Red Seas. This,
therefore, we may assume to have been the area submerged by this deluge,
and we have no occasion to look for its traces beyond these limits.
2. Whether the deluge destroyed all living men from the face of
the whole geographical earth except those in the ark, it is perhaps
impossible to decide with absolute certainty. If any were not reached,
they must have been such as had wandered early, far from their native
home, suppose into China or Africa, where neither the corruption which
became the moral cause of the deluge nor the deluge itself reached
them. The question is one of probabilities only, for we have no certain
knowledge on the subject and can not have. The probabilities are in my
view quite against the supposition.
_Traditions of a Great Deluge._
All the great nations of history have traditions more or less definite
of a vast deluge in the days of their fathers. As should be expected,
these traditions compared with the Bible record are variously modified,
corrupt we might say, mixed with fable, magnified as great stories
are wont to be in passing from lip to lip through many generations.
In general those are most pure which are found nearest the locality
of Eden and which were earliest committed to writing. Some authors
classify them into the _West Asiatic_, including the Babylonian, that
of the Sibylline books, the Phrygian, the Armenian, and the Syrian,
some of which are remarkably close to the truth. The _East Asiatic_,
including the Persian, the Chinese, and the Indian; the _Grecian_,
found in Plato, Pindar, Apollodorus, Plutarch, Lucian and Ovid; and
those of _peoples and tribes outside of the old world_――the Celts of
Northern Europe, the Mexicans, the Peruvians, the Indians of America
and the tribes upon the Pacific Islands. Lange remarks that the ethical
idea of the flood as a judgment upon men for their sins is every-where
apparent. The Chaldean traditions, brought down in the writings of
Berosus (wrote B. C. 260), are singularly minute and quite in harmony
with the scriptural account in its main outlines, some of which are as
follows:
Giving the name of Xisuthrus to the last of the primitive kings, it
sets forth that he was warned of the flood in a dream; was commanded
to write down all the sciences and inventions of mankind and preserve
them; to build a ship and save therein himself and his near friends,
and take in also animals with suitable food. After the flood had
somewhat subsided, he let fly a bird which came back; a second which
returned with slime on its foot; a third which never returned. Then
seeing land visible, he opened his vessel and came forth with his wife
and children; built an altar and offered sacrifice to the gods. They
found the country to be Armenia. Portions of the ark were long in
existence, sought for as amulets and charms.
The Chinese story may be taken as a sample of those more remote from
the locality of Noah. As given by the Jesuit, M. Martinius, the Chinese
date this great flood B. C. 4000; say that Fah-he, the reputed author
of Chinese civilization, escaped the flood, and together with his wife,
three sons and three daughters, repeopled the renovated world.
Dr. Gutzlaff communicated a paper to the Royal Asiatic Society (as
in their Journal xvi: 79) in which he stated that he saw in one of
the Buddhist temples in beautiful stucco the scene where Kwanyin, the
Goddess of Mercy, looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah in his
ark amidst the raging waves of the deluge, with the dolphins swimming
around as his last means of safety and the dove with an olive-branch in
his beak flying toward the vessel. Nothing could exceed the beauty of
the execution.[24]
Those which are found among the ancient people of the Western
Continent――the Cherokees, Mexicans and Peruvians――have special interest
as proving that, remote as these tribes were from the locality of Noah,
they must have had a common origin and must have received this common
tradition of the flood from the valley of the Euphrates.