The Biblical Flood

00:00 - James Spencer (Host)
The flood reverses the order of creation. And now what's happening? All of that is collapsing back in on itself. God is making creation sort of go back to a formless and void space. As He then restores creation through Nova, we're seeing Him continue to remain faithful to a people.

00:19 - Speaker 2 (None)
Welcome to PREPPED, the podcast that equips you to live out God's story, not the world's story. Hosted by James Spencer, PhD, each episode bridges the gap between academic insights and everyday life, preparing you to understand the Word of God and put it into practice. Whether you're diving into biblical studies, looking for ministry guidance or aiming to deepen your faith, PREPPED empowers you to think biblically and theologically in a world that encourages you not to Ready to get PREPPED. Subscribe now and transform the way you bring God's story into the world.

00:52 - James Spencer (Host)
Hey everyone welcome to this episode of PREPPED, the podcast where we explore biblical, theological and ministry topics to help you better understand God's Word. I'm your host, James Spencer, and today we're diving into the story of the flood in Genesis 6 through 9 and exploring how this narrative reflects themes of decreation and recreation. We're also going to look at some of the questions this story raises, you know, was it a global catastrophe that covered the entire planet? Was it a regional event with a significant theological meaning? And what should we make of the ancient Near Eastern flood stories that bear striking similarities to the biblical account? And so in this episode we're going to examine some of the major views of the flood scope. We'll discuss some of the key parallels from the ancient Near Eastern flood narratives, like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic, and reflect on the theological implications of the flood. And whether you lean toward a literal global flood or see the story as describing a local event, there's much to learn from how the Bible describes God's judgment, mercy and covenantal relationship with humanity. So today we're going to overview some of those things. We're going to get into not only the major views of the flood, but we'll also discuss Noah's role as sort of a new Adam at the beginning of humanity, as well, as take a look at the story of Noah's nakedness and the curse of Ham. That ties into this broader post-flood world, reshaping humanity's role and responsibilities, and by understanding the flood story in light of creation and humanity's moral failures, hopefully we'll see how Genesis gives us this profound picture of judgment, renewal and hope.

02:24
So we're going to start just looking at some of the major views of the flood scope. The first one really is the global flood view, and this one is probably one of the more traditional views. It's probably one of the more widely held views. But the flood is described in Genesis 6 through 9. The key idea of this is that that flood is described as a worldwide event that covered the entire planet and it destroyed all land-dwelling creatures except for those preserved on the ark. And so we have, like things you know, statements in Genesis 7, 19 through 20, which reads and the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered, and the use of the universal language like all flesh, everything that had the breath of life and other passages supports the idea of a global catastrophe.

03:13
Now this has been sort of brought into question by, I suppose, scientific considerations, and so proponents of this view often have to argue for this rapid geological changes caused by the flood, and that requires you know the analysis of fossil formation and sedimentary layers, and you know it's very common position among young earth creationists. Now, keep in mind, I know nothing about science, nothing about geology, nothing about fossils or sedimentary layers, and so I'm really going to be laying out the views, but I am not at all equipped to dig in and help you understand how to look at the various geological or other evidence related to the biblical flood. That is just not something that I understand or have spent the time to study. My take on all of this, and where we'll get to sort of in this episode, is that, regardless of how you view it, this flood narrative is giving us a picture of who God is and how he interacts with humanity, and so my tendency has been to stay on more the theological side of this and to think it through. From what is the narrative trying to explain about who God is, who humanity is in relation to him, and what implications does that have for us? So I'm not going to be going into a lot of the evidence, but I'm just presenting the views and kind of describing some of the evidence as we go.

04:36
I think the strengths of this view is that it does take the biblical text more at face value and it emphasizes its universal language. Now, when I say taking the biblical text at face value, that doesn't necessarily mean that the other views don't. It simply means that as we as modern readers read this text, this seems to be what the text is saying. But, like many ancient texts, what I would just put out there for you is that a lot of times there are socio-cultural meanings for these narratives that we don't fully understand, and that's where some of these ancient Near Eastern parallels can really inform our view of things. There was a whole cosmic geography that we can talk a little bit about, probably as we look at the local flood view. But I think that when we say face value, the strength of it is that for most modern readers of the biblical text, when we read these words, that's what we think. So it also tends to align with more traditional interpretations of the story, and so you know the criticisms of this. Again, you know more.

05:38
The geological and archaeological evidence don't offer clear support for a worldwide flood, and I think it's just important to say that when you're thinking through the geological and the archaeological evidence, it's like anything else you have the evidence, but that evidence is it needs to be interpreted. And so what's happening when you're looking at geology and archaeology is you are looking for evidence and you're trying to understand how that evidence might bolster one particular position or point you in one particular direction. But it isn't as if you find one single rock that just demonstrates that everything in the biblical narrative happened in this exact way. It isn't usually like that, and so archaeology and geological explorations are interpretive as well, and so we just have to recognize that there's evidence and counter evidence and ways of interpreting that evidence that would support a worldwide flood and some ways of interpreting that evidence that would suggest that a worldwide flood is less likely. I think the reality is that you know there's a sufficient amount of evidence for a worldwide flood, and there's a lot of people who have done really good work on this that what we can, at the very minimum, say is that the worldwide flood view is extremely plausible. It's the one I tend to lean toward, I would say, but again, you know my exploration into this is pretty light. I tend to look just at the biblical text on this one and try to focus on the theological side, so I haven't spent a lot of time trying to figure out where I land on these actual geological and archaeological issues.

07:18
I will say that there are also some other criticisms. Like some scholars have argued that the universal language in scripture can be hyperbolic or figurative, I certainly can think of places where that's true, you know, but I'm not sure that I see that that's the case in this Genesis 6 through 9. That, in a lot of ways, you know, when we look at this new, the next view, the local flood view, there are some really compelling arguments and, I think, some things that we need to take into account as we're looking at this biblical flood. My tendency is to say, though, that there's a way to tell this story that is both worldwide and local, or worldwide with a local emphasis, and so I may be the only one who really holds that view, but my tendency is to sort of think of it that way. I don't think that the significance of the worldwide flood is central to the narrative. In other words, if it happened that way, let me say it like this. If it happened that way and again I lean toward thinking that it did happen that way I don't think the biblical text is trying to emphasize that it happened that way. I don't think that it's trying to suggest that everything is now gone, because I think what it's really speaking to is this more ancient Near Eastern region, near Eastern region, and so for the whole world to be, you know, covered with water. That can be true in a different way for us knowing the world in a broader expanse than it would have been for those who maybe didn't understand how big the world was back then. So hopefully that makes sense.

09:02
You know, it's almost like there's a, there's this great show on I don't know what. It's great, it's a show. It's on Netflix and it's called the Indomitable Kimmy Schmidt, and this young woman is sort of kept in this bunker and she doesn't know, she thinks the world has gone through some sort of nuclear holocaust and so all her life she's grown up in this little bunker and this is her world, that's the whole of it. She's grown up in this little bunker and this is her world, that's the whole of it. And so for her, if someone would say, well, the world's been destroyed, like when she's thinking the whole world, she's just thinking this little bunker, but then eventually she obviously gets out of the bunker and sees the world for this whole new thing, for what it is.

09:37
And I do think there's something to that sort of idea is that the scope of vision for the ancient Near Easterner who was reading this particular text didn't necessarily understand that the whole world would encompass all seven continents and all these different countries and all these different peoples. They knew what they knew, and so that's what I'm really trying to convey is to say that, as we look at this, I think that it could be a universal flood in historical terms, but a regional focus in literary terms. Hopefully that makes sense. Next one the key idea here is that the flood was a massive but regional event and it was limited more to that Mesopotamian basin or another localized area which destroyed all life in the known world at the time. You can kind of see, then, how I'm trying to sort of draw these two together.

10:37
You know if, yes, you can have that regional view, you know, the people who are reading this in that original context, in that original culture, are seeing it and saying it destroyed all life, and what they mean by all life may be very different than what actually happened. So their referent for all life is something more like oh, it killed everything in the Mesopotamian basin. Everything that we know to be alive is now gone. But what they may not understand is that the whole world is available and God has covered the entire earth with this water. And so this view, I think, has a real strength when it looks at the ancient Near Eastern cultural context and how the ancient Near Easterners looked at the world. I think it's really important for us to understand that. But I think where it may fall apart is in narrowly reading that from a, in allowing that more narrow or niched understanding of the world that was available in the ancient Near East to sort of end the meaning of the biblical narrative, to sort of end the meaning of the biblical narrative. So there is biblical basis for this view as well.

11:47
The word earth, eretz, in Hebrew can also mean land or region, so the whole earth may refer to the extent of the flood from the perspective of those living in that region. Now again I will say, even though that's possible, I don't think it's particularly plausible. I don't see that the Hebrew word eretz, which is used in the creation narrative and earlier on in Genesis to refer to everything. I don't know that I see that the eretz is really. It's really possible to view that, or plausible to view that as a region in this narrative. Noah's ark would only need to preserve then local fauna and livestock, which may then align with this view. I will say one of the things that I would, I would say, most people struggle with is the flood and and I don't really know the the full answer to this but how did all the animals fit? How did all the vegetation fit? What is all all that? There are great people who do this. I believe it's called the Ark in the Darkness is a video available on YouTube. I interviewed the gentleman who served as sort of the executive producer of that film, and so I'll try to link that in this podcast as well, so you can go and listen to that if you'd like. That would be where one of the places I would point you to to say, say, if you want to start exploring the geological and archaeological aspects of this, those are the folks you'd want to go to. It's a group called Genesis Apologetics and there's others out there.

13:15
I think, from a scientific considerations, this local flood view. The geology and the archaeology suggest the possibility of massive ancient floods in Mesopotamia. The geology and the archaeology suggest the possibility of massive ancient floods in Mesopotamia. And so you do have some specific, you know, archaeological or geological evidence. It does, you know, tend to harmonize the biblical account with scientific evidence, although I think that's debatable. And so the local flood view. Folks tend to suggest that it harmonizes with the biblical narrative, but I'm not as sure about that. And then occult accounts for the universality of the flood narrative within the ancient Mesopotamian literature are seen as more helpfully parallel, helpfully parallel. So my tendency is to say that again, where I land on this, I tend to see the flood as historically universal, but from within the narrative, probably referring to those folks who had that point of view and that cultural understanding, probably referring to a more constrained area. But I don't know that that necessarily demands that their understanding of the whole earth has to be our understanding of the whole earth, and hopefully I've given you enough that you can make sense of that. There's also, I think and this may be a little bit more what I'm trying to articulate the theological and symbolic view of the flood.

14:44
The flood story, while rooted in a real historical event, is primarily a theological and symbolic sort of event, emphasizing God's judgment, mercy and covenant. You know, again, I don't know that these three views need to be separated and teased out so strongly, because, as we look at this, it's obvious that Genesis 6-9 is highly structured and symbolic in its presentation and it has these themes of decreation and recreation. The flood reverses the order of creation, so in Genesis 1, we see that God separates the land and the water. And now what's happening? All of that is collapsing back in on itself. God is making creation sort of go back to a tohu vabohu or a formless and void space, and so it does symbolize his judgment and as he then restores creation through Nova, we're seeing him continue to remain faithful to a people who have a humanity that is continually moving far from him. So we see God's mercy.

15:46
I do think it highlights the theological depth of the text and I think it avoids unnecessary conflict with scientific evidence, though I don't really mind the conflict with scientific evidence Because, as I said before, scientific evidence isn't ironclad evidence. Because, as I said before, scientific evidence isn't ironclad, I mean even when a piece of evidence doesn't seem to jive with what the biblical narrative is saying. You're kind of like well, okay, but let's just see what happens. Right, it's not as if you have this sort of ironclad scientific evidence that disproves scripture. You don't, you don't have that, and so you have to think it through from an interpretive standpoint. The scientific evidence yes, some of it may conflict with the biblical text, others of it may not. But ultimately it's all sort of part of us trying to figure out all of these different questions we have and then bringing back to the biblical text and saying, well, what's the Bible really trying to do? It's not trying to explain geological or archaeological evidence, and so if it conflicts with them, do we really have that big of a problem with that?

16:46
The criticism here is that it risks being seen as reducing the flood story to just a myth. When we talk about myth, I don't mean to make myth into simple fiction. I think myth conveys truth through symbol, and so when we usually talk about myth, we associate it with fiction. But I don't think that's what it needs to be. So we might say that it risks reducing the flood and area to a fictional story, some sort of allegory. Certainly not what I'm suggesting? What I'm suggesting is that these historicity of the event, the actual bald facts of what happened in the biblical account, are given meaning by the narration and the revelation of God.

17:51
So was the flood global or local, or something else? I mean, I think the answer may depend on how we read the text in light of broader biblical narrative and in the ancient world's context, and whether you see it as a global or regional event. The flood reaches us, you know, teaches us these, like these profound truths about God's holiness and humanity's sin and hope of restoration. And so my argument, just to sort of sum this up, is that my tendency is to think that the flood is universal, that it covered the entire earth. I don't know that I'm worried as much about whether the science is ironclad on that. I know there's a lot of evidence supporting that view, but I'm not sure that I'm overly concerned with understanding that evidence or with even needing that evidence. I think when the Bible talks about the flood covering the whole of the earth, I don't see that as it referring to just a region or being limited to a region, although what I would say is that those who are reading this and writing this back in the ancient Near Eastern timeframe may very well have understood it, as when they are reading the whole earth, what they're seeing is they're not seeing the whole earth as in, like I said, the seven continents and the globe and all that good stuff. They're seeing it as the whole earth that they know and in that sense I think the flood narrative could be construed and have it might be. I find it to be fruitful to think through. Okay, how do we read this as a regional story, a regional account of something that's happened in more of a constrained space, even though I think historically it's probably a worldwide flood? All right, well, that was. Those are the major views and hopefully I didn't confuse things too much.

19:44
But now I want to jump over into the ancient Near Eastern flood narratives. I think the biblical flood isn't unique in ancient Near East, although it has a number of interesting and unique elements. So we often get into the issue of borrowing when we talk about the ancient Near Eastern flood narratives. Is the biblical account of the flood really just a rehashing of the Epic of Gilgamesh in some way? I think that's sort of a naive approach to this. I don't love that approach. I think what you could say is that why can't we assume that the flood happened and that these different cultures now are trying to offer up an account of why this flood happened, and they're framing it in terms of their own theological bents, their own understanding of who God is, who they are, what their role in the world is. And so the biblical flood account is another one of those, an iteration on this that has been revealed by God, and we see that Genesis 6 through 9, in this flood narrative within the Bible, is deeply rooted in the rest of the Pentateuch and the whole biblical story. It's rooted in this creation story that we have in Genesis 1, 1 through 2, 3. It has all of these various different elements, and so I don't really think of it in terms of borrowing. I think of it in terms of look, there's this flood that happened and everybody's got to explain it, and they explain it through a particular lens. It's just that the biblical lens happens to be inspired and revelatory. It's just that the biblical lens happens to be inspired and revelatory.

21:20
So let's take a look at the two most famous examples of ancient Near Eastern parallels. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the first one, and so this is a Mesopotamian epic, and the hero Gilgamesh meets Utnapishtim, a man who survived this great flood that was sent by the gods, a man who survived this great flood that was sent by the gods. And this gentleman was warned by the god, ea, to build a boat, save his family and preserve the animals. And after the flood, the boat lands on a mountain and he sends out birds to find dry land. And so you see the different parallels to the Genesis narrative there's this divine warning to build a boat, there's a flood that destroys humanity, there's sending out birds to find land and the ark coming to rest on a mountain. All of those are sort of the same thing.

22:05
That sort of happens with Noah, but I think in Gilgamesh the flood is sent because the gods are annoyed by humanity's noise, not because of moral corruption, and so humanity is keeping the gods from sleeping. Their work is too loud. And so what happens is the gods say well, humanity has become too numerous, we need to control the population, and so we're going to send a flood and kill a lot of them. And so what we see is not a morality tale so much. What we see is the capriciousness of the gods, the arbitrary nature with which they deal with these humans that they've created, and so the gods really are capricious. They're also dependent on human offerings. So we see these differences in the theologies across the two. But these basic events, the basic narrative, you can see the parallels between Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh and you can understand how these two would represent maybe slightly different perspectives on the flood.

23:21
Now, the Atrahasis epic is actually an Akkadian story and it describes how the gods create humanity to relieve themselves of labor, but they send the flood later to reduce the human population because it got too large, so very, you know. In some ways resonant with what we see in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis is this man who is favored by one of the gods. He's warned to build an ark to survive, and so again we see these parallels with Genesis. We've got a divine warning to a single individual, we've got the building of an ark to save humanity and animals, and then we've got a catastrophic flood that destroys most of humanity. But the differences are important. The gods in Antrahastus are driven by more selfish motives and, like these internal disputes, the gods in these other epics are largely portrayed as humans. They're sort of infighting, there's power struggles, there's all this angst and frustration. And I would also say that both of these stories really do lack the covenantal themes of Genesis. So later on, in Genesis 9, god is going to give Moses a new covenant. It's a covenant with all creation. It's marked by the rainbow. So we do see these parallels and we understand.

24:24
Okay, these stories would have been around. But it appears that each culture is sort of baptizing this story into its own theological space. So what's the theological significance of these parallels? Well, the ancient flood stories really provide this cultural backdrop for the biblical account. But they also highlight the biblical account's distinctiveness. So the biblical flood emphasizes God's justice and mercy, not arbitrary or selfish motives.

24:51
I think also, the Bible really does demonstrate that the reason for the flood is based on evil. So the multiplication of evil is the rationale given for the flood narrative in Genesis 6. Whereas these other narratives, it's really the multiplication of humankind. It's the noise, it's the hustle and bustle of humanity that is bothering the gods and that's why the flood is sent. So that's a difference. We also see the covenant of Noah as being unique and making this divine promise never to flood the earth again. And so now, humanity, can you know, go ahead and be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, you know, carry on that sort of divine commission that was given at creation without the threat of a flood looming over their heads. The Bible also places humanity's corruption at the center of these narratives. That gets back to this idea that it's evil that is multiplying, not the people. So I think the parallels with ancient Near Eastern stories remind us that this event is part of a shared cultural memory.

25:55
But the biblical account really does stand apart in its theological depth and its focus on the covenant. So when we're looking at Genesis 6 through 9, what we're really looking at, I think, is that we are seeing a judgment on human sin, and it is God's decreation of the world that he once called very good, and that theme emerges through some really striking parallels with Genesis 1. So if we look at Genesis 1, god's going to separate the waters to form dry land and he's going to bring order out of chaos. That's Genesis 1, 6 through 10. But during the flood, those boundaries are reversed. Everything that God pulled apart in order to make the world fit for human flourishing is now collapsed in on itself, and so we see that the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens burst forth, covering the earth with water. That's Genesis 7, 11. And the world descends back into a state of formless and void, or tohu vabohu, echoing the chaos of Genesis 1 through 2. Now these ideas of the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven.

26:54
Let me just go into this because I said I'd talk a little bit about cosmic geography. It's going to be difficult to explain it, but here's the way I would think about it. First, you have to think about the conceptualizing. The earth is flat. Right, we know the earth isn't flat. Sorry, flat earth is out there. The earth is round. But in the ancient Near East the cosmic geography looked like more of a flat earth, and there were two large mountains on the side that everything else would sort of sit between. There was a water canopy above right, where you'd have the waters above and you'd have the deeps below, the waters under the earth. And so what's happening is that this water canopy's sort of windows are opening and all the water that God separated at the beginning of creation starts flowing back in, back in, and so it's almost like this is where that sort of local or regional view, I think, has some credibility, because when we're looking at it from the perspective of the cosmic geography of ancient Near Easterners. What they're seeing is the space between two mountains being filled up, and so that's really what the references are to some of those, like I said, the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens bursting forth.

28:08
Second thing we're seeing we're seeing the destruction of life. So God fills the earth with living creatures. During the flood, all life except that preferred on the ark and those that can live in the water are wiped out. The ark as a new creation vessel is also really significant. The parallels that the ark tends to, I think, parallel the spirit hovering over the waters in Genesis 1-2. It becomes the vessel that preserves life through the waters of judgment, functioning like a sort of a microcosm of the creation event and then the renewal of creation. After the flood, the waters recede, dry land reappears and then that's done with the flood. The waters recede, dry land reappears and then that's done with. You know, the wind, the breath, the, you know God sends this wind, and that wind Ruach is the same as the spirit Ruach. That's sort of hovering over the earth in creation. And so we see another parallel there, when Noah emerges from the ark into this new world, he's given this instruction that parallels what humans are to do in Genesis 1. So in Genesis 9-1, god blesses Noah and his family and he says be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth. And that echoes this blessing that he gives to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-28.

29:21
Noah is then presented sort of as a new Adam and he's tasked with stewarding creation. But this time, in a world now marked by the reality of human sin, noah is going to have different troubles than Adam had. And so that's where we get into this difficulty of what happens after, as Noah is in his vineyard and he gets a little tipsy and he ends up having to curse Ham, his son. So after the flood, noah is going to plant a vineyard, he drinks its wine and he becomes drunk and he's laying there uncovered in a tent. And this narrative mirrors, I think, earlier themes of Adam and Eve. If you remember, you know Adam and Eve. They eat the fruit of the tree and they realize that they're naked and they feel shame. And so Noah's consumption of wine tends to result in a similar exposure.

30:14
And Ham sees his father's nakedness and somehow dishonors him by seeing this and maybe mocking his vulnerability. Maybe some would suggest that there's a sexual act that takes place. Some even suggest that Noah's nakedness refers to Noah's wife and that Ham sleeps with Noah's wife. There's a lot of odd and difficult language here that we don't really know how to deal with. So when we think about Ham's sin which we'll get into we just have to realize that these are things that most biblical scholars don't really agree on yet, and so what we see, though, is that, you know, noah is essentially sort of laid bare. He's taken part in this, he's planted this vineyard, he's consumed too much alcohol and you know, or the too much of the wine, and, and he, he finds himself in this really vulnerable position, and Ham somehow dishonors him in that setting, and I think that does echo humanity's prior failures in Genesis three and probably also in Genesis four. So what is? What is Ham's sin really here?

31:22
But, like I said, scholarship really debated the precise nature of Ham's actions, but we might say that there are three major views. One Ham sees Noah naked and dishonors him by failing to cover his shame. So, in contrast to Shem and Japheth, who respectfully cover their father without looking, ham goes and tells his brothers what's happened, and so he leaves his father naked. And I think there's some interesting things that we could that sort of lean me into this sort of view. Because what do the, what did the man and the woman do when they find themselves naked in the garden? Well, they make themselves coverings. And then God ultimately, you know, they do it out of fig leaves. God ultimately makes them coverings out of, out of flesh. And so there's part of me that thinks well, this may very well just gesture back to this parallel in Genesis 3, where we see the consumption of the fruit of the tree and the realization that they're naked, and then the covering of that nakedness. And so Ham, instead of covering his father's nakedness, he goes and tells his brothers that his father's naked, and the implication is hey, come see it. And so he doesn't cover his father's shame.

32:35
The second one would be sexual sin. Some have suggested that seeing nakedness is just a euphemism for a sexual act. We see this sort of language in Leviticus 18, six through eight, and it implies that Ham somehow violated Noah sexually or dishonored him in a more egregious way than just seeing his nakedness. And then we also have that maternal incest view where the nakedness refers to the nakedness of his wife, and so I think the text just doesn't spell out what Ham's sin is explicitly. In my estimation, the more that first view where he's just seeing the nakedness and not covering his father up. I like the parallels there with Genesis 3. But I would also say that the link between the language in this text and Leviticus 18, 6 through 8 is compelling. I'm not as strong on the maternal incest issue, simply because Noah's wife doesn't really appear that strongly in the narrative, and so I think if that's what was meant, it's very ambiguous that that's what was meant.

33:40
So I think overall, while the text doesn't spell out Ham's sin explicitly, the consequence Noah's curse on Canaan had some points to the severing of the brothers, which again is a common theme, and it's a breach of honor and moral boundaries of some sort. So why curse Canaan? Why curse I'm not Canaan? Why curse Ham? Why the curse on Canaan? I think Noah's curse falls not directly on Ham but on Canaan, ham's son, because the curse raises theological and narrative questions. So this curse reflects how sin's effects ripple through generations We've kind of seen that with Cain and how it rolls down to Lamech. But it also anticipates Israel's future conflict with the Canaanites. Ham's dishonor, prefigures the Canaanites' moral failures, which again we kind of see in Leviticus 18, which ultimately lead to their expulsion from the land, and I think there's just a lot to that view.

34:41
So what do we think about in terms of the flood in? You know, having covered all that, what do we do with the flood in the broader context of creation? I think the flood narrative ultimately teaches that God's response to human sin is both judgment and mercy. Creation is undone, but it is also reestablished through Noah. Yet the post-flood world is not a return to Edenic innocence. Humanity retains the commission to steward creation, but violence and brokenness still remain in the world, and that's symbolized by the fear between humans and animals and the moral failures of Noah's descendants. I think you know the story of Noah and Ham also illustrates humanity's increased autonomy in the recreated world, and I think we see that God is going to step back and allow humans greater responsibility to govern themselves, and that autonomy comes with the danger of moral failure and the need for human accountability.

35:36
So while the flood story highlights humanity's sin and judgment, it also points forward to God's redemptive plan. The ark, as this symbol of salvation is really crucial, I think, just as the ark preserved life through the waters of judgment. We also see 1 Peter, and this is 3, 20 through 21,. We see him sort of gesturing back toward that as a moment of salvation, and so Christ becomes the ultimate vessel of salvation. There's also recreation through Christ.

36:03
In Christ we see the fulfillment of God's plan to restore creation. He is the second Adam. So while I said you know, noah is sort of a type of Adam or a second Adam, christ is truly the second Adam who brings life and righteousness where the first Adam brought sin. We see that in Romans 5. And so the curse of Ham serves as a cautionary tale about dishonor and sin, but it also points us to the hope of God's justice and redemption.

36:25
Even as humanity stumbles, god's plan to restore creation and establish his kingdom continues unabated. So overall, I'd say Genesis 6 through 9 reveals this profound pattern of decreation and recreation, and the flood is a judgment on human sin. But it's also a fresh start, one that highlights both humanity's potential for failure and God's enduring grace. Noah's story reminds us that sin distorts creation, relationships, moral order. Yet even in a fallen world, god calls us to honor him, steward his creation and trust in his redemptive plan. So hopefully that discussion of the flood has been helpful and I just appreciate you joining me on this episode of PREPPED. If you enjoyed the episode, subscribe, share it with others and leave a review. Join me next time as we explore more out God's story.

37:30 - Speaker 2 (None)
Share this episode with a friend, family member or loved one, and together let's keep challenging the world's narratives. Until next time, stay grounded, stay inspired and continue living out God's plan. See you soon on our next episode of PREPPED.