The Genesis Cataclysm. W. Joseph Stallings

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ it warns prophetically of a judgment yet to come, when the sovereign God shall again intervene in terrestrial events, putting down all human sin and rebellion and bringing to final fruition His age-long plan of creation and redemption.4

It is our contention that the Flood must be viewed from both the broad and the narrow as well as the blatant and the hidden perspectives in order to grasp its veracity.5 Following Whitcomb and Morris, the Scriptures do not statically present the Noahic Flood as just another notable event which happened sometime in the distant past, but as a divine apex action inundated with profound theological meaning that occurred within the bounds of both natural and human history. They also offer a reminder that the Flood event of history serves as a precursor to another cataclysmic event—an event in chronos that is still yet to come—the eschatological return of Christ and the Final Judgment. This particular concept, as shall be later shown, is extremely important.

There are three major views concerning the Flood. First, there is the traditional view, which posits that the Flood was an actual historical event that transpired as a global, worldwide cataclysm. Second, there is the local view, which posits that the Flood was an actual occurrence, but was limited and somewhat regional in nature (most regional models place the Flood in the Mesopotamian area). Third, there is the symbolic view, which holds that the Flood was not an actual historical event, but rather a story written to teach theological truth.6 It should be additionally noted that it is also possible to devise creative hybrid understandings as well. For instance, some scholars will formulate various combinations of the local and the symbolic view (e.g., Longman and Walton).

We immediately refute the symbolic view on the grounds that the biblical account of the Noahic Flood is self-affirming of its historical nature. While scholars may attempt to refute the historicity of the biblical Flood on empirical and extra-biblical grounds, it is a pointless endeavor to claim that the intention of the scriptural revelation is not to present the Deluge as an actual, factual event.7 As Richard M. Davidson8 states:

[W]e must note the evidences within the biblical account affirming the historical nature of the Flood. In the literary structure of the Flood story, the genealogical frame or envelope construction (Genesis 5:32 and 9:28–29) plus the secondary genealogies (Genesis 6:9–10 and 9:18–19) are indicators that the account is intended to be factual history. The use of the genealogical term toledot ([Hebrew for] ‘generations,” “account”) in the Flood story (6:9) as throughout Genesis (13 times, structuring the whole book), indicates that the author intended this story to be as historically veracious as the rest of Genesis. Walter Kaiser analyzes the literary form of Genesis 1–11 and concludes that this whole section of Genesis must be taken as “historical narrative prose” . . . [Furthermore] The historical occurrence of the Flood is part of the saving/judging acts of God, and its historicity is assumed and essential to the theological arguments of later biblical writers employing Flood typology.9

He concludes: “Thus according to the biblical writers, far from being a non-historical, symbolical, or mythical account written only to teach theological truths, the Flood narrative is intended to accurately record a real, literal, historical event.”10 We concur with Davidson that the Noahic Flood, as recorded in Scripture, was a divine event set in human space-time history.

Having said that, there are those—even some who are professing evangelicals purported to have a conservative theological bent, such as Francisco—who claim that the Noahic text should not be modernly interpreted as it appears plainly written. According to this view, the narrative was simply given as somewhat of an emblematic story (probably itself derived from “correspondencies between the Hebrew and Babylonian stories” which are likely “based upon a common antecedent,”11 whether that antecedent was an even older story or group of stories, or an actual prior local flood event or series of local events that occurred over time, or some sort of combination of the above) which the author embedded with a (hyperbolic) Hebrew extremism literary device (i.e., in this case, by crafting it into a worldwide event) to clearly make a much stronger “moral of the story” point. In this light, Francisco states just how he perceives the real truth to be:

The biblical account does not [really] demand the interpretation that every foot of the earth be covered with water any more than the statement in Acts 2:5, that there were in Jerusalem “devout men from every nation under heaven,” claims that even men from America were there! Just as Acts declares that men were there from all the civilized world, the essential claim in Genesis 6 is that the water covered all the inhabited earth.12

Francisco’s assertion could possibly pass some degree of logical muster if it were not for, at least, one small feature in the Noahic text: that is, the important depth detail in Genesis 7:20—”the waters prevailed above the mountains covering them from fifteen cubits deep.” Mind you, not fourteen nor sixteen; not ten nor twenty; not greatly nor deeply nor barely, but fifteen. While we concur that the Acts 2 text (which is also historical narrative prose) does indeed utilize a Hebrew extremism device in order to make an emphatic point,13 the comparison of the two texts is not an equal one and thus essentially presents a strawman argument. It would have been much more appropriate to compare the Noahic text with, say, the passage in John 21, specifically verse 11—“So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them.” Mind you, not a hundred and fifty-two nor a hundred and fifty-four; not a hundred and fifty; not just a boatload or a lot or a few, but a hundred and fifty-three. These seemingly inconsequential details in the story are really not so inconsequential. Completely aside from any presumed emphatic points to be made, or from any interpretation of the meanings of these passages whatsoever, both of these texts present their details with a very narrow specificity for one reason and one reason alone: because they each chronicle exactly what happened. Not only did Peter and his fellow fishermen catch a whole lot of fish, but they caught 153 of them (and even “large” ones, no less). Likewise, not only did the Noahic Flood cover every foot of the planet Earth including the highest peaks (which alone is self-affirming that every foot of the ground was indeed already covered), but it covered those highest peaks to a depth of 15 cubits (which is the equivalent of 22.5 feet in our modern English system of measurement). We contend that these are both cases of precise detail and narrow specificity designating actual history.14

Meanwhile, in a vein of thought similar to that of Francisco (above), yet presented in the form of a notable hybridic variation of the symbolic view, Longman and Walton agree that the Noahic text is indeed fully intended to present a worldwide Flood event. However, in their understanding, the Mosaic author was actually using rhetorical language with graphic imagery—not because it actually happened that way—but because anything other than a dramatic universal Flood presentation would not have the necessary impact to effectively communicate the desired theological truth.15 In this line of thinking, the historicity (or degree of historicity) of the Flood is not essentially important; it is rather the deeper theological message that really matters.16 The reality of its actual occurrence is, at best, secondary—perhaps even irrelevant.

Of course, the problem with these sorts of postulations is that if the event portrayed is removed from (or even diminished within) history, then perhaps the theological truth can be removed (or, at least, greatly diminished) as well. In fact, John Warwick Montgomery17 speaks forcefully of such a divorce: “History can be removed from Christian theology only by the total destruction of theology itself.”18 The vital implication is that the truth of both history and theology would be mutually eradicated by their severance. The occurrence of the biblical events in general history is the bedrock of their theological truth. It is our firm conviction that the Judeo-Christian reality is an actual reality because it is indeed fully set in space-time. We believe that one of the most important features of the Hebrew-Christian scriptures is that they purport to place its recorded events in some form of actual historic geochronology. This is the very reason that the Bible regularly includes—squarely in the midst of its proclaimed theological and spiritual precepts—certain personal and historical details on its sacred pages. The point of the details is to substantiate that the particular thing recorded really happened. The mighty acts and lessons of God and our respondent faith and life as set in actual time and place are as fleshy real as it gets. The efficacy of the faith itself—as СКАЧАТЬ