Genesis

IN view of the brief and summary character of the first five chapters of Genesis it cannot but be noticed how full of detail these chapters are in their record of the Flood. Bearing in mind the constant spiritual purpose of the book it would seem as though we are intended to study as carefully as possible every detail in order to learn the lessons God would teach us.

I. The Record of the Events.

This chapter is noteworthy for the point of time mentioned. The details can best be studied along these lines.

First, we have the last week preceding the flood (Gen 7:1-6). During this time God gave the final invitation to Noah, and announced to him the coming of the flood within seven days.

Then we have the day on which Noah entered into the ark (Gen 7:7-10). It requires very little imagination to realize the solemnity of the occasion, and the procession and the entrance of all those who were to be preserved from the Flood.

Next comes a record of the forty days of rain (Gen 7:11-17). Together with the rain we are told of the movements of the great deep, both combining to bring about the Divine judgment.

The chapter closes with the statement of the one hundred and fifty days during which the waters prevailed upon the earth (Gen 7:18-24). The word prevailed is the keynote of this section, and may suggest not merely a physical prevalence of the Flood, but a spiritual prevalence of Divine judgment, irresistible, irretrievable, irrevocable.

The evidence for the destruction of the human race except one family is very strong apart from Genesis. It seems impossible that so widespread and persistent a tradition can be regarded as an invention or myth. There is nothing mythical or unworthy about the Bible account, and it is perhaps worth while observing that the proportions of the ark are not essentially different from those of ships of corresponding size now sailing between here and America. It is scarcely likely that the proportions given in Genesis could be mere guess work.

Further, the tendency of recent geological discoveries is to render the account in Genesis more credible than it was even twenty-five years ago. There are clear proofs of a widespread catastrophe to animals and plants immediately preceding the period of man’s appearance on the earth, and it is urged by some geologists that these changes suggest that man was introduced into the world before the instability of the glacial period had given way to the apparent stability of the present order of affairs. All this, while it is, of course, no proof of the genuineness of Genesis, is distinctly in keeping with the narrative there given (Geology’s "Witness to the Flood, by Dr G. F. Wright, American Sunday School Times, July 6, 1901).

It is essential, in considering this question, to view it from the standpoint of the writer of Genesis. Then we at once realize that to an eye-witness, or to one dealing with the subject from the standpoint of human sin and Divine judgment, the universality of the Flood would be certain, even though the area was quite local. The description of the Flood, so far as the destruction of human life is concerned, would be much the same, whether local or literally universal. The one and only purpose of the writer seems to be the record of the destruction of man.

The universal tradition of the Flood is no necessary proof of its universality, since the tradition, as handed down, would be necessarily carried wherever men went. At the same time there are geological facts in different parts of the world which seem to suggest something more than a local flood in Western Asia. The narrative in Genesis has been aptly likened to a sea captain’s log-book (Wright, ut supra), and certainly all the universality demanded is that which was necessary for the destruction of the human race. The spiritual purpose of the narrative, which is, of course, the predominant factor, would be perfectly realized by supposing that the Flood was confined to the locality then inhabited by the human race (Pulpit Commentary, Genesis, pp. 119 f.: Urquhart, New Biblical Guide, vol. i., chapters xi., xii., xiii.; Howorth’s Mammoth and the Flood).

According to Lenormant the story of the Flood is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family, with the sole exception of the black race. The Babylonian tradition is remarkably like the Hebrew account, and at the same time remarkably unlike. The coincidences suggest a community of origin, while the divergences show that there cannot have been any direct influence of Babylonia on the Hebrew account. It is hardly likely that the Jews would have copied it from any exilic records possessed by their inveterate foe. As is well known, the Babylonian account is grossly polytheistic, while the Hebrew is as purely monotheistic, and no theory Gen. 7 of their relationship will ever be satisfactory unless the divergences as well as the coincidences are accounted for. It is much more natural to believe that the Hebrew preserves for us the pure spiritual version of the tradition, and that the Babylonian account is a corrupt version.

The antecedents of Abraham are ample to account for the Hebrew tradition, and if we may assume that he brought it with him to Canaan we can quite understand how the purer account was preserved. Civilization in the days prior to Abraham shows that this view is perfectly reasonable and even likely.

It is urged that two, if not three, accounts are united, not by the blending of excerpts, as in previous sections, but by close interweaving. This is argued on the grounds that each account is complete in itself and that only thus can the repetitions and alternations of the Divine names be accounted for. It may, however, be pointed out that each account is not complete, for if the sections attributed to each source respectively are read continuously, it will be found that there are gaps of great importance, and no real continuity of the narrative.

The story as it stands has a unity, and certainly was intended by the compiler to be regarded as a whole. If we allow the recognized thirty days to the month, and commence with Noah’s six hundredth birthday as in Gen 7:11, we shall find that there is no inconsistency in the chronology.

The use of the Divine names gives us the two aspects of the Flood in relation to the God of Judgment (Elohim) and the God of Grace (Jehovah). Both titles are used, and that with remarkable discrimination, while on the partition theory the differences of use are inexplicable. It is admitted by one leading critic that other phraseological criteria, apart from the use of the Divine names, are slight; while another critic holds that the theory of a division of the narrative based upon this distinction of usage of Divine names is now manifestly exploded, and the disproof is absolute and irrefragable.

Above all, the theory of two documents entirely fails to account for the Chaldaean narrative of the Flood, which contains the characteristics both of the alleged author who uses Elohim and of the one who uses Jehovah. There are at least twenty-five items of the story of the Flood common to Genesis and the Assyrian tablet; and as these items cover nearly the entire story they necessarily include nearly all the literary characteristics upon which criticism bases its claim of two documents. As this tablet is said to be as old as 3000 B.C. (Hastings Bible Dictionary), it is difficult to understand how we are to account for the separate narratives of the two authors, who are said to have lived more than a thousand years later.

The story in Genesis undoubtedly appears before us as a unity; and even if there were originally two Gen. 7 stories they have been remarkably well blended into one. Certainly contradictious only arise when the attempt is made to dissect the narrative as it now stands (Green, Unity of Genesis, in loc.; Everts, Homiletic Review, vol. xl. p. 124; Sayce, Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies).

If in Genesis 6 we find we have a portrait of the servant in relation to God, in Genesis 7 we have a number of statements concerning God in relation to His servant.

1. The Divine Invitation (Gen 7:1).

"Come thou." This is the first time that the familiar word Come occurs. It is found some six hundred times in the rest of the Bible. It is noteworthy that God said "Come into the ark," not "Go." Surely we have here the suggestion that in some sense God would be with him there. His presence is salvation. The personal character of the invitation is also noteworthy, Come thou. Yet again, the inclusion of his family in the invitation should be observed, Come thou and all thy house."

2. The Divine Observation (Gen 7:1).

"Thee have I seen." The thought of God watching His servants is at once a joy and a responsibility, an inspiration and a warning. When the life is wholly surrendered to God and lived in genuine sincerity the thought of Thou God seest mo in a delight. Not seldom in Holy Scripture have we expressions telling us that God is well pleased with His faithful servants. The thought that our life can give pleasure to God is one of the greatest incentives to holy living.

3. The Divine Requirement (Gen 7:1).

"Righteous before Me." This practically sums up everything that God demands from man. Article 11 of the Church of England defines justification as accounted righteous before God. Somewhat similar in idea is the description of Zacharias and Elisabeth. They were both righteous before God (see Gen 17:1; 1Ki 9:4; 2Ki 20:3; Job 1:1; Act 23:1; Php 3:6). The Old Testament is necessarily concerned only with the divine requirement of righteousness. It remained for New Testament times to reveal the provision of a perfect righteousness in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:20-26).

4. The Divine Testimony (Gen 7:1).

"Righteous before Me in this generation." Once again we have the thought of Noah s contemporaries brought before us, but this time from the divine side. God here proclaims His servant s righteousness, and bears witness thereto. Like Abel and Enoch before him, he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his life (Heb 11:4-7). When a man’s ways please the Lord God always lets other people know it.

5. The Divine Commandment (Gen 7:5).

"The Lord commanded him." The Word of God is brought constantly before us in connection with Noah (Gen 6:13, Gen 6:22; Gen 7:5, Gen 7:9, Gen 7:16; Gen 8:15, Gen 8:21; Gen 9:1, Gen 9:8, Gen 9:12, Gen 9:17), as indeed it is all through the Bible. God speaks, man listens; God commands, man obeys. The Word of God is at once the standard and the guide of life, and no life or service is possible unless it is ever subject thereto.

6. The Divine Protection (Gen 7:10).

The Lord shut him in. This suggests that he was not dependent upon himself for safety, but upon the Lord. It was a divine, not a human fastening that guaranteed his perfect shelter. Those whom God protects never need have any fear.

7. The Divine Preservation (Gen 8:1).

God remembered Noah. The servant was not forgotten by his Lord, and this point, which is the culminating thought of the section, shows the constant divine care of Noah and his family. There is only one thing that God forgets with reference to His children, that is, their sins. "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." As for God’s people themselves, the words are blessedly and eternally true, "They shall not be forgotten of Me."