The Flood: Local or Global?

And Other Essays

Preface

THIS FINAL volume of Doorway Papers is made up of a miscellany of studies dealing with various aspects of biblical faith and Christian experience.

The first two papers, "The Extent of the Flood" and "Flood Traditions of the World," are self-explanatory. In the first, it is argued that a strict adherence to the literal wording of chapters 6 to 8 of Genesis leaves us with little alternative than to view the Flood as universal insofar as mankind was concerned since the human race was reduced to eight souls only, but local insofar as man was at that time still confined to a comparatively small geographical area. The second paper ~s a broad survey of Flood traditions from all over the world with a consideration of their significance in the light of the current position maintained by those who hold to a global catastrophe.

The third paper, "The Problem of Evil," is subtitled, "Some Little-considered Physical Aspects." It is not a theological discourse, nor even strictly speaking a biblical study. It is a review of some of the physical evils with which man has to struggle as he makes his journey through this blessed vale of tears both as an individual and as part of human society. Earthquakes, deserts, storms, thorns and thistles, cold and heat, and a host of other such trials and tribulations that in an ideal world would surely be absent entirely--those are the gist of this paper. I believe that there are some answers for those who ask "Why?" about such things, and that in the truest biblical sense, "God is justified" (Luke 7:29) in permitting them in view of man's fallen nature and the consequences which result from this sad fact of life. These evils are, in one way or another, expressions of His common grace.

Part IV, "What's in a Name?" is a paper we considered leaving out. It was rewritten so many times that we despaired of producing a smooth and effective essay. But in the end we decided to leave it in and let it stand because of its potential value and inherent interest. It has to do with the vital relationship between the name of the individual and that individual's very being and character. Most cultures besides ours attach far greater importance to a person's name or names, equating them with that person's soul. In certain significant respects, the Word of God does the same. To change a name is to change a nature: to know a name is to achieve a measure of control over the one named. It is sometimes well for us in our culture to be aware of this attitude when dealing with people of other cultures, especially "in the name of the Lord."

The fifth paper, "The Meaning of Sweat as Part of the Curse" (Gen. 3:19), stems from my own work as Head of the applied physiology laboratories of the Department of National Defence in Ottawa for many years. Here I was concerned chiefly with research into the effects of heat stress upon man--and in particular, the phenomenon of sweating. It is remarkable that there are three specific kinds of sweating in man and that in a very special way all of them are witnessed and distinguishable and measurable in the brow region. Even here, Scripture shows itself to be abreast of modern discovery, when Genesis 3:19 is taken quite literally.

Part VI, "The Place of Art in Worship," is one of my favorite papers. It deals with an issue that I, with a Church of England background, feel is a neglected subject among many of my closest evangelical friends. The issue is whether a structured liturgical form of service is more, or less, conducive to worship than an entirely spontaneous form of service. It raises some points of importance which are sometimes overlooked by those who feel that a highly structured form of service, including written prayers, destroys the true spirit of Christian worship.

"One Man's Answers to Prayer," the seventh paper, is a personal testimony to the faithfulness of God. It is a witness to the fact that God is concerned with the smallest details of our lives and delights to hear and answer us in very specific ways. It also shows that the truly miraculous element in answered prayer is as often m the timing of the answer as it is in the means by which the prayer is answered.

The final paper, "Christian Scholarship: A Protest and a Plea," was issued separately from the rest of the Doorway Papers and distributed freely to all who requested a copy. It is an expression of my own conviction that while every serious writer has certain responsibilities to fulfill in order to qualify as scholarly, there is one unique responsibility for the Christian writer which has all too frequently been entirely overlooked. Perhaps it is time to pay greater attention to this factor or, alternatively, to admit frankly that Christian scholarship is no different from any other kind of scholarship except insofar as it must take into account things supernatural as well as natural. Personally I believe we are in danger of neglecting an essential component and this neglect is doing great disservice in the defense of the Faith.

Part I: The Extent of the Flood

Introduction

SOONER OR later every student of Scripture, if he has any confidence whatever in its authority, tries to make a decision as to the extent of Noah's Flood. Perhaps as much as anything because childhood imaginings are unrestrained by the existence of any physical limitations, most of us who have known the story even vaguely have tended to start with the impression that it was world-wide. Any subsequent suggestion that it might have been of limited extent has seemed only an expression of unbelief. It is not, in a way, that the incident is fundamental to faith in the sense that the virgin birth or the physical resurrection of our Lord is. Yet it is important to have some fairly clear idea of the real nature of the event. From the point of view of the course of human history, it was either a local incident not greatly affecting the rest of the world's people, or it was a total break in the thread of man's cultural development. Present reconstructions of prehistoric times make no allowance for it. What did really happen?

To settle the issue to the satisfaction of everyone will surely be an impossible task, and it is even doubtful if there is much that can be said on the subject that could make any serious claims to originality. However, there are a few things that, as far as I know, have not been noted in the vast body of literature which the debate has called forth. And it may also help to illustrate a little more completely than is customary, by reference to other parts of Scripture, the extent to which hyperbole is used with somewhat more restricted meaning than might normally be allowed in English literature. The reader of any one of the commoner versions now available cannot help but be impressed with the insistence of the record upon the total destruction and magnitude of the Flood. It is far easier to believe that the writer intended the reader to understand that the waters really did rise 30,000 feet above sea level to cover the highest mountain tops.

Yet how could he know this? It is easy to say that it was revealed to him by the same God who had warned him of the catastrophe before it came. Revelation of the extent would be no more difficult than the revelation involved in the forewarning. But in reading the account in Genesis there is every evidence that this is the record of a man who simply set down his daily observations in the form of a ship's log. There is no room in the account, once the Flood began, for the element of revelation, at least insofar as the literary form is concerned. If, therefore, Noah was told that the whole globe had been submerged at this time, to a depth of over fifteen cubits--a fact quite beyond his power of observation--it seems certain that he would have indicated this in some way. The figure "fifteen cubits" was surely derived from observation, not from revelation.

It is not customary in the Old Testament for any godly man to claim as the fruit of his own understanding or observation that which was in fact a subject of revelation. Noah does not say that the Lord revealed it to him.

This will indicate to the reader that the view presented in this paper is of a limited Flood, albeit a Flood which wiped out the whole human race save for Noah and his family. All we can hope to do is to show the evidence for the view presented, while acknowledging the opinion of those who, in all sincerity and by no means in ignorance of the laws of physics, have argued to the contrary.

Broadly speaking, it can be said that views about the Flood tend to group themselves in four general categories. There are those who believe that the Flood was global and covered the highest mountain chains on earth, destroying every breathing thing except what was preserved in the ark. Then there are those who believe that the story represents the exaggerated recollection of a small group of people who suffered very heavy loss while the rest of the world went merrily on its way. There are those who discredit the story entirely as a kind of fictional creation of some early myth-maker. And finally, there are those who believe that a divine judgment upon mankind brought a Flood of sufficient proportions to wipe out the human race, still not very widely dispersed, except for one favored family who was warned beforehand. We are presenting the final view.