Reconsidering Noah's Flood

Back in my conservative Christian high school days, I was confronted with all too many attempts to pit Genesis’ flood narrative against various aspects of science. There were critiques of carbon-dating, uranium-dating, and theories pertaining to evolution in all its aspects. I remember being shown a film attempting to prove that all the animals of earth could have found space in the ark, with calls for speciation to come about after the flood so as to allow for appropriate space.

It struck me as investing way too much time and energy into proving that the Bible had to be taken literally, word for word, despite obvious issues as the text’s antiquity reaching back far beyond the introduction of the scientific method and concerns with precision. The existence of other flood narratives around the world was deemed proof that there was a monumental flood that remained entrenched in human conscience on a global scale. Even so, there was no attempt to actually read some of these other narratives to compare them to the Genesis account.

I brought some of my questions to Dad (Th.D. in Old Testament), and he referred me to some of the distinctives between the Gilgamesh epic and the Genesis narrative as regards their theology. He helped me see that there was much more going on here than attempting to defend notions of a global flood. He raised some other issues with taking the narrative literally. Where did all the water go? As I did further research on it, I discovered a host of other notions behind the Hebrew text that called for a lot more reflection than simply attempting to force the narrative into a literalist mold.

In the Gilgamesh epic, Gilgamesh is a hero. He not only rescues humanity and preserves the created order, he is even responsible for rescuing the very gods. They had not counted on the fact that by wiping out humanity, they would starve as there would be no one to offer them sacrifices. When Gilgamesh does offer sacrifice at the end of the epic, the gods swoop down like birds to satiate their hunger. Gilgamesh has taken all sorts of initiative to proactively set things aright, while the gods were too busy worrying over their lost sleep due to human noise pollution to think through the consequences of their decisions and actions.

Noah is no Gilgamesh. Noah is no hero. Noah takes no initiative. Noah does not even speak in the narrative until the flood is already past. Yahweh is the one who directs Noah’s steps, tells him how to construct the ark, brings the animals on board, and even shuts the door. Afterwards, Noah offers sacrifice. Then he plants a vineyard. It is as if he plants in the morning and reaps grapes that afternoon. When he presses them, wine flows out, not juice. The fruitfulness of earth has reverted to a paradise in the absence of sin. The scourge of sin’s consequences have been wiped away. Then Noah speaks.

The first words we find recorded for Noah are a curse on his son and grandson. Sin has made its way back into creation at the first opportunity of human initiative. We are left with some questions to ponder. Did Yahweh not foresee consequences any better than those Babylonian deities? If wiping out humanity was an ineffective response to sin, why would Yahweh have sent the flood in the first place? As a matter of fact, maybe we should be asking a deeper question. If punishment for sin is not a significant deterrent, why would God even attempt to wipe out evildoers? If it were necessary, why not wipe out Noah, as well? After all, the excuse given for leaving Noah behind was that Noah had found grace before Yahweh.

Suddenly, this flood narrative is a call to theological reflection. It is a polemic or critique of the Babylonian flood myth. It is also a cause for monumental theological reflection on the character of Yahweh. Why would the same Yahweh who had protected Cain after his fratricide of Abel suddenly decide to wipe out humanity because of our sin? Which is the more appropriate picture of Yahweh?

If we are still stuck on a literalist reading of the narrative as the only appropriate way to interpret Scripture, why did Methuselah die in the year of the flood? Why is Noah’s son, Seth still alive decades into the lifetime of Abraham, and yet seems to have been a long-forgotten character in the background to Abraham’s arrival on the scene?

It would seem that the Noah story is nothing at all like what my high school attempted to teach me. It is not that God is quick to punish. It is not that God is more concerned with condemnation than with life. It is not that the importance of the Scriptures are knowing details of human history. Rather, it is a call for us to reflect upon God, God’s goodness, God’s grace, even while understanding that our sin gets in the way and diminishes life as it could be. God is not the one hung up on a desire to murder and condemn. That is who we are. We are the ones who had destroyed God’s creation at the beginning of the story. The earth was already destroyed, so Yahweh was just putting creation out of its misery to start over.

This is now a theological narrative with several overlapping layers. It is a text that becomes a rich well-spring for reflection. It is a call to take a renewed look at who Yahweh is and see God’s character in a new light. There are the questions and concerns that matter. The details of the ark’s construction become irrelevant in the light of these other questions. Being concerned with debunking science also gets swept aside, as this is a theological narrative, not a scientific account of history from a pre-scientific people. If we can’t see that, we can’t begin to grapple with the weightier theological concerns here. They will just rush past us like the waters of a flood.



— ©Copyright 2023, Christopher B. Harbin 



http://www.sermonsearch.com/contributors/104427/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel Is Not Conservative

Image
Fundamentalism and conservativism are intrinsically averse to change. They are tied with conserving a status quo or moving back to a former era. They seek a safe place, a respite from change and transformation in the world around them. They are threatened by new ideas. They fear that the foundations on which they base their lives will be uprooted, causing their view of reality to fall apart. Growth depends on change. Life requires change. Survival depends on responding to changes in our environment. It requires new ideas. It requires new answers to old questions, as well as new questions with even newer answers. Jesus was by no means conservative. Jesus challenged the status quo. He fought against the groundwork of much of the religious thought around him, as well as the structures erected to empower its values. He called out those who benefited from social, religious, and political power. He demonstrated God's love, forgiveness and grace to those deemed una...
Read more

God in the Hands of Angry Sinners

Image
Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” set a very poor direction for much of Christianity in the Colonies. His Puritan tradition presented God as an essentially angry deity whose desire was to condemn and torture. Grace or mercy existed simply in regard to how long God waited until calling down judgment upon sinners. That is not good news. It never was. Such is not the message of Jesus whom the gospel writers claim as good news. They echo the words of the celestial messengers declaring Jesus’ birth as good news of great joy to all peoples. Rather than look to Jesus as the clearest example of God’s identity, character, and will, that tradition surrounding Edwards began with an altogether different understanding that could not account for what Jesus actually taught. The Puritan perspective began with angry sinners and projected that upon God. Anger begins with fear, uncertainty, discomfort, and the inability to control one’s environment, ot...
Read more

Our Language of Choice

Image
I woke up this morning and decided to be a woman. I really like the idea of earning less money on the job. I like the idea of being passed over for promotions. I like that I will be held more accountable for the care of my home and familial responsibilities than any of the men around me. I’m looking forward to having my expertise ignored. I like that I’ll more likely be treated as a lower-level assistant to male colleagues than an actual colleague. It should be a good experience to live as more of a target for domestic violence and abuse. It will be so freeing to let go of my bodily autonomy and place it in the hands of men who will not understand me. With so many voices in our society shifting back toward the attitudes of 70 years ago, I am really looking forward to setting aside all trappings of male privilege and power to live as a second class citizen whose voice and opinions are essentially irrelevant. Just look at all the advantages women have! They get t...
Read more