Welcome to Marscast, a podcast from Mid-America Reform Seminary, where our faculty members address all things theological and cultural through a reformed lens. I'm your host, Jared Luchibor, and I'm joined once again by Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies, Rev. Mark Vander Hart. Thanks for coming back. So good to have you. Thank you. So we addressed last time the question of creation. I want to go to another account that we find in Genesis, that being the flood of Genesis 6 through 9. It's an important account that really impacts how we frame a lot of our theology moving forward, believe it or not, and we'll get into that. But Reverend Vander Hart, let's talk about the distinction that is out there in the world, even the Reformed world, between this flood being either global or local. So I want to start with this. What are the main arguments for interpreting the Genesis flood as a global event? Thank you, Jared. The principal passage that I think we must begin with is Genesis 7 verses 19 and 20, and I'm reading from the New King James Version of the Bible for those verses, and they read this way, And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. Now, think about that. All the high mountains were covered. Now, you can't argue, well, one mountain was covered in a local area. And if we talk about 15 cubits, we're talking about the amount of water that would have been needed reasonably. to allow the ark to float and not be grounded on that. If we argue for a local flood, how can all the high mountains be covered with 15 cubits of water? It just defies imagination. Water flows downward according to the laws of gravity, and if so, if there was one area that had this depth, the water would have flowed away. And furthermore, why would God require over 100 years of construction on an ark of that size if moving, shall we say, 25 miles away would have prevented Noah and his family and all of those animals from being destroyed in the flood. And so it seems to me that the import and the impact and the understanding of those verses from Genesis 7, 19, and 20 is that The flood was not merely a local event, let's say Mesopotamia, because that has been argued. There was a local flood in Mesopotamia and there were excessive snowstorms in Siberia. I don't know how that is the understanding of Genesis chapter 7. To me, it just defies explanation. So, again, as I said, the clear import of those verses is that the Flood was universal. Now the purpose of the Flood was, according to Scripture, to destroy all living things, all things in which the breath of life existed. And the reason for that is that mankind, not just a local area, but mankind had become sinful and wicked. Genesis 6 describes mankind in the following way. Genesis 6 verse 5 reads, Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Again, it's not just a local area, but it is mankind. And the passage, Genesis 6 verse 5, could not be more explicit. And if you want to find at least one verse for the total depravity of mankind before the flood, every thought, only evil, all the time. That's what Genesis 6 verse 5 says. Every thought, only evil, all the time. And so the human race in its entirety, not just in one local area, was to be destroyed by the flood. Now, perhaps you have some other follow-up questions from that. Well, are there any other linguistic, literary aspects of the text that would help inform this debate? Well, if we think of the New Testament, again 2 Peter 3, Peter describes in contrasting the destruction of the earth in the time of the Old Covenant era, the Old Testament era, in distinction from the method of destruction and purification in the New Testament era, he says the world was created out of water And we read of that in Genesis 1 where the Spirit hovers over the face of the deep, over the water, the deep water, and then God creates the world, the earth, out of that water and then destroys it by water. And so that Noah functions in the text theologically as not simply a historical being, which he was, but he's sort of Adam part two. I don't want to call Noah the second Adam because that kind of language is reserved for the Lord Jesus Christ. The head of the old covenant was Adam, the head of the new covenant was Jesus Christ. So Noah sort of is a recapitulation, sort of Adam reissued, starting the human race again through his three sons and their wives, so that the human race, as we know it today, is descended from Noah. Peter, in 2 Peter chapter 3, says the world was created out of water, destroyed by water, in distinction from how the Lord will destroy the world again with fire when the Lord returns. So biblically there are two ways of destroying the world, water and fire. The Lord has used one method before, And he will use, not water again, the rainbow is a covenantal sign that God would not destroy the world again through water, flooding, but rather the next time the Lord comes to purify the world, it will be through his great fire. So what are the theological implications of a local versus a global flood? How do these different flood interpretations affect our understanding of God's character and his actions in history? Well, again, I think it comes back to, shall we say, kind of a plain reading of the text, in which if water's covering the highest mountains, the high mountains, And again, we can't be sure of how tall the mountains were in the antediluvian, the pre-flood situation. If that plain sense reading of the text is denied, and there are evangelicals who even will say, wow, no, there was no universal flood, there was no worldwide flood, it was a local event, How do we read Scripture? The confidence that we have of reading Scripture, comparing Scripture with Scripture, reading the more difficult passages in the light, the easier or simpler passage, the more straightforward passages, that's called, all called into question. One scholar of a previous generation, John War Montgomery, was eager for us to find the remains of Noah's Ark, because that would be evidence that demands a verdict. But then he doesn't believe in a universal flood. Well, how do you look for the ark but denying the very flood that put it on one of the mountains of Ararat? That's just very strange to me. It just sort of defies logic. I'm just very puzzled by that. And therefore, the, what should we say, the credibility, the believability of Scripture is undermined if the plain sense reading of one verse collapses and is called into question for any reason. That seems to me the import of that approach to reading the flood account. So how would this affect our understanding of who God is if we were to hold to a local flood, for example? The verdict that is rendered against mankind as recorded in Genesis 6 is to be believed, and I believe it is, the earth had become violent, filled with violence and corruption. Now sometimes people think the pre-flood world was just filled with all kinds of sexual debauchery and that kind of thing. Now, that may have been there, but the language of Genesis 6 is to say that the world was filled with violence and corruption, and therefore the verdict against mankind as a whole is also a maintenance of God's justice. God is a God of justice, and if only the neighbors of Noah were the ones to be flooded out and destroyed, then what do we say about what the text says is the verdict against the human race? The human race was to be destroyed by God's just justice, and Noah finds favor, that is, grace was extended to Noah. Noah is not a sinless man. We see in the story after the flood of him becoming drunk and the problem that that raises when Ham sees him and reports on that to his brothers. The verdict of God is that the human race is sinful, it needed to be destroyed, and by a universal flood the human race was destroyed except for believing Noah and his family. Well, I have to say these conversations on creation and the flood have been a delight. So thanks, Reverend Vennerhart, for joining me today. Thank you. In our next episode, Dr. Marcus Mininger, our resident professor of New Testament, joins me in the studio to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of interpreting biblical prophecies as already fulfilled in the past, particularly in the first century AD. We'll explore this view known as preterism by examining the book of Hebrews. If you enjoyed this episode of Marscast, please consider subscribing and telling others who may be interested. Also consider leaving a review. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated and they help us to enhance our content further. Your support allows us to produce engaging content and to build a community of lifelong learners and thoughtful practitioners. I'm Jared Luchobor signing off for now. See you in the next episode of Marscast.