Origins 5(2):83-98 (1978).
Related page — |
IN A FEW WORDS |
A study of the events of the Genesis flood narrative is more significant if one knows the original meaning of the expressions used by the author. In this paper Dr. Hasel seeks to bring us closer to that meaning as he analyzes the contextual setting of several important expressions of the flood narrative.
PLEASE NOTE: Unfortunately, we are unable to reproduce all of the special accent marks that were present in our printed version of the Hebrew transliteration. Our apologies for any inconvenience this might cause.
The account of the flood as given in Genesis is brief, and many different interpretations have been given to the events described therein. Three expressions used in that narrative will be analyzed below in an attempt to show their original meaning.
I. The Corruption of "All Flesh" in the Genesis Flood Account
The subject of discussion under this heading deals with the question
of what the phrase "all flesh" (kol-basar) means in Genesis 6:12, 13. Does it refer
to the totality of mankind only or does it include all living beings, i.e., men and
animals? Some commentators restrict the phrase kol-basar
to mankind only.1 There are equally prestigious commentators that suggest that
the phrase kol-basar in this passage (Genesis 6:12f) refers to
the world of men and animals.2 In view of this divergence of opinion a careful
investigation of the meaning of this phrase is mandatory.
The Hebrew term for "flesh" is basar3
and appears 270 times in the Old Testament. There are three usages of the Aramaic cognate
in the Old Testament (Daniel 2:11; 4:9; 7:5). An overview of the usages of the Hebrew term
"flesh" in the Old Testament reveals that it is employed both with reference to
mankind and also with reference to animals.4 Although an investigation of the
Hebrew term basar is of great significance for a general
understanding of the concept of "flesh" in the Old Testament, the usage of the
phrase "all flesh" is more crucial for an understanding of the meaning of this
expression in Genesis 6:12, 13. It is, therefore, advisable to restrict our investigation
to the meaning of this formula in the Old Testament.
The formula "all flesh" (kol-basar)
appears in the Old Testament about 46 times.5 It is remarkable that 13 usages
of the expression "all flesh" appear in the flood narrative (Genesis 6:5 -
9:17).6 The majority of recent translations render this Hebrew phrase in these
12 instances consistently with "all flesh" (Revised Standard Version, New Jewish
Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard Bible, Anchor Bible), but some recent
versions use a variety of renderings.7 It should be noted that the expression
"all flesh" appears in the Old Testament for the first time in the passage under
discussion (Genesis 6:12, 13) which makes it especially tantalizing.
Our first attention shall be placed upon the scope of the phrase
"all flesh" throughout the Old Testament, leaving aside for a moment the
employment of this expression in the flood narrative of Genesis. The phrase "all
flesh" can refer to the "whole body" of man (Leviticus 13:13; Numbers 9:7)
or animals (Leviticus 4:11; cf. 17:11, 14; Job 41:15). The emphasis in these texts rests
upon "all flesh" in terms of the entire body in contrast to bones, skin,
entrails, etc. In Proverbs 4:22 "all flesh" also refers to the "whole
body" (New American Standard Bible).8
The second range of meaning of the phrase "all flesh"
includes men and animals, namely "all living beings."9 In Numbers
18:15 reference is made to the first-born of "man or animal" which is summarized
by the expression "all flesh." This explicit statement designates "all
flesh" to include "men and animals." In both Numbers 16:22 and 27:16 Moses
addressed God as "God of the spirits of all flesh." In this epithet, as applied
to God, Moses appeals to the God of all creation. It is evident that with the expression
"all flesh" Moses refers to all creatures, both men and animals, and confesses
that God is the Creator and Preserver of all creatures and gave and still gives life and
breath to "all flesh."10 The author of Job expresses the idea that if
God should gather together His spirit and breath "all flesh would perish
together" (Job 34:15). The idea is again that God is the Giver of breath and the
spirit of life to all perishable created beings. The Psalmist gives thanks to the
"God of heaven" (Psalm 136:26) and testifies to Him as his God whose grace
endures forever. He describes Him as the God of creation and history and praises Him for
giving "food to all flesh" (v.25). As the Creator He feeds all living creatures
which includes men and animals.11 There are also several statements in the
prophetic writings which contain the usage of "all flesh" with reference to all
living beings or creatures.
There are passages in which the scope of the phrase "all
flesh" has still a meaning other than the two discussed thus far. It can be used in
the sense of "all men," i.e., the whole human race or all mankind. The author of
Job contrasts "the life of every living thing" with the "breath of all
mankind" (Job 12:10, New American Standard Bible). Literally the last phrase in
Hebrew reads "all the flesh of man."12 The Psalmist comes to speak of
God's abundant favor to earth and man, expressing his conviction that God hears prayer and
that to him comes "all flesh" (Psalm 65:2, [3]). There can hardly be any doubt
about the meaning of the phrase "all flesh" because it is used here in
connection with prayer and appears therefore to refer to men.13 In Psalm 145:21
the writer unites his personal testimony in praising God with a mandate that "all
flesh will bless his holy name." The ultimate purpose aims in asking the whole body
of "all flesh" to join in the praise of God.
In discussing the remaining passages which speak of "all
flesh," we may turn first to Joel 2:28 (Hebrews 3:1) where God gives the great
promise of the outpouring of His Spirit upon "all flesh." What does "all
flesh" mean here? It certainly does not mean "all living creatures," men
and animals, because the result of the outpouring of the Spirit of God is described in the
following phrases in terms of prophesying, dreaming dreams, and seeing visions which are
activities restricted to men. Some interpreters seek to understand this phrase in a very
narrow sense as referring to everyone in Israel.14 But this does not seem
necessary. The phrase "all flesh" appears to have a broader connotation. We must
keep in mind that in Genesis 6:3 God threatens that He will no longer let His Spirit rule
the human race because it has become "flesh" (basar).
The association of "flesh" with the "Spirit of the Lord" indicates
that the restriction of the expression "all flesh" merely to the members of the
literal Israel is too narrow. It has been said that the word "all" in this
phrase does away with the limitation to one particular nation and that Joel 2:29, 30 does
not exhaust the idea of "all flesh."15 Taking into consideration also
the fulfillment of this prophecy at Pentecost where Peter quoted the Joel passage and
applied it to the Christian Church — with a richer outpouring yet to be expected
— we come to recognize that the expression "all flesh" refers to men
generally in terms of members of spiritual Israel as well as literal Israel.16
In Zechariah 2:13 (Hebrews 2:17) the expression "all flesh" refers to mankind
(cf. Habakkuk 2:20; Zephaniah 1:7).17 It is often suggested that the phrase
"all flesh" in Isaiah 40:5f; 49:26; 66:23f; Ezekiel 20:4, 9f refers to mankind
as a whole.18 While this may well be true, it is difficult to be certain in all
instances. We may well ask with L. Köhler, when "all flesh" shall see that it
is God who acts (Ezekiel 20:4), when "all flesh" shall see the glory of God
(Isaiah 40:5), when "all flesh" shall know that the Lord has drawn forth His
sword out of its sheath (Ezekiel 21:5), does "all flesh" mean indeed only man,
or does it mean man and animals together?19 If one considers Romans 8:22, an
absolute answer cannot be easily provided.
The expression "all flesh" in the Old Testament (outside the
13 usages of this expression in the Genesis flood account) is used to mean at times: a)
the whole body of either man or animals; b) sometimes all living beings, namely both men
and animals; and c) sometimes all men.20
Let us turn our attention to an investigation of the 13 usages of the
expression "all flesh" in the Genesis flood account. Leaving aside for the
moment the crucial passage of Genesis 6:12, 13, we turn next to the expression "all
flesh" in verse 17. Here God expresses His plan to bring the flood upon the earth in
order to destroy "all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven;
everything that is on the earth shall perish" (New American Standard Bible). It is
recognized by all commentators alike that the expression "all flesh" in this
passage refers to men and animals. The same meaning of the phrase "all flesh,"
namely referring to men and animals, appears again in Genesis 9:11: "And all flesh
shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood" (New American Standard
Bible).
It is especially noteworthy that in the covenant scene of Genesis
9:9ff, God emphasizes again and again that "all flesh shall never again be cut off by
the water of the flood" (vv.11, 15b). The expression "all flesh" refers
again to both men and animals. This means that when God looks back to the destruction that
has come upon the earth He speaks of "all flesh" in terms of the whole world of
living creatures. This may have a bearing on the first appearance of this expression in
Genesis 6:12, 13, to which we shall return later.
In the same covenant scene we find two times the expression of God
making a covenant "between me and you [Noah] and every living creature of all
flesh" (Genesis 9:15a, 16). It is noteworthy that in both of these phrases the
preposition be is used before the phrase "all flesh." The
preposition be, literally "in," is in these instances
explicative,21 and can be rendered by the word "comprising"22
or "namely" or "that is." This means that this particular clause may
be translated more properly: "between me and you and every living creature,
comprising (namely, that is) all flesh."23 Thus it follows that "all
flesh" refers to both men and animals. That this is the clear intention of the text
is supported by 9:17 which speaks of the establishing of the covenant "between men
and all flesh that is on earth." "All flesh" is used here comprehensively
to include every living being, namely men and animals. The meaning of the expression
"all flesh" in the passages discussed so far in the Genesis flood narrative
coincides with a usage of this phrase in other parts of the Old Testament.
Let us discuss the remaining passages in the Genesis flood account.
They reveal another usage of the expression "all flesh" which we have not yet
encountered in the Old Testament. From Genesis 6:19 it is clear that Noah receives the
command to take some of the animals into the ark to keep them alive, namely birds,
animals, creeping things, which are summarized in the phrase "every living thing of
all flesh." In this instance the expression "all flesh" refers only to
animals. The restricted sense of "all flesh" as referring to animals alone
appears also in 7:15, 16, 21; 8:17.
What perished according to Genesis 7:21 was "all flesh that moved
on the earth of (be) birds and of (be) cattle and of (be)
beasts and of (be) every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and
all men." This literal translation seeks to bring out an aspect usually overlooked.
The expression "all flesh" is here clearly limited in that it includes only the
enumerated kinds of animals. The function of the preposition beth is used to
specify which kinds of animals are destroyed by the flood.24 The writer of the
flood account wanted to specify clearly the constituents of the animal world that perished
in the flood. He attempted to exclude the water creatures which belonged to "all
flesh" but would not perish in the flood.
It has become apparent that the expression "all flesh" in the
Genesis flood narrative (aside from 6:12, 13) expresses either the notion of all living
beings, including men and animals, or is used merely with reference to animals, excluding
water creatures. It is to be noted that a fourth major meaning for the expression
"all flesh," namely animals on land, has become apparent which is so far not
encountered anywhere in the Old Testament.25
It now remains for us to return to the initial question whether the
expression "all flesh" in Genesis 6:12, 13 refers to "men and animals"
or just to "men." On the basis of the investigation of the expression "all
flesh" in the Old Testament and in the Genesis flood narrative it has been shown that
this expression can refer to: a) a body of men and animals;26 b) all living
beings, including men and animals; c) all men, i.e., the whole of mankind; and d) the
whole animal kingdom. It is striking that in the flood account only two of the four usages
appear, namely "all living beings," including men and animals, and just
"animals." The latter usage does not appear again anywhere in the Old Testament.
It is also striking that the expression "all flesh" with the meaning of men or
mankind is not used anywhere in the Pentateuch.27 On the basis of these
observations it seems sound to suggest that the expression "all flesh" in 6:12,
13 denotes "all living beings," namely men and animals, and is so used in six of
the other occurrences in the flood account.28 This interpretation is consistent
with the other usages of this expression in the flood account.
There are a number of additional considerations which lend support to
this view. In Genesis 6:3 the Lord says that His Spirit (rûah) shall not abide (yadon)29 with man
"inasmuch as he is also flesh."30 The term "flesh" here
refers to "man" in the generic sense.31 It seems that since
"flesh" refers in 8:3 to "man" that the expression "all
flesh" in 6:12, 13 would mean more than just "man." This consideration
supports the suggestion that "all flesh" in 6:12, 13 refers to "all living
beings," namely men and animals.
Another consideration is in place at this point. After the flood when
God has destroyed men and animals from the face of the earth by the waters of the flood,
God makes a covenant with "every living creature" (kol-nepheš hayyah), an expression found three times in
Genesis 9.32 The repeated use of "all flesh"33 indicates
the universal application of the promise to "all living beings" of both men and
animals "on the earth" (9:14, 16, 17). The fact that God established a covenant
between Himself and every living creature of "all flesh" (9:17) seems to
indicate that both men and animals are also included in the identical phrase "all
flesh" at the opening of the flood account. There seems to be an arc of connection
between the continued life of every living being after the flood and the expression
"all flesh" used in the beginning of the flood account (Genesis 6:12, 13) where
God speaks of its destruction as also in Genesis 9:15b which refers in its context to
"all living creatures" of man and animals. This is further supported by the fact
that in both 6:13 and 9:15 the Hebrew verb "to destroy" (šahat) is employed. These links
indicate the same meaning for the same expression in 6:13 and 9:15, 17.
On account of the foregoing arguments it is fairly certain that the
expression "all flesh" in 6:13 embraces indeed both men and animals. This is
conceded even by some of those who would like to admit this meaning in 6:13 but would not
allow it in 6:12.34
If the expression "all flesh" in Genesis 6:13 includes both
men and animals, then it would seem to follow that the phrase "for the earth is
filled with violence because of them" in the same verse would also have to refer to
both men and animals. It has been objected that "all flesh" could not refer to
"all living beings" because the Hebrew term for "violence" (hamas)
is used in the Old Testament only in connection with man.35 It seems true that
in the Old Testament this noun is used only in connection with man.36 Whereas
the regular meaning of this Hebrew word is "violence, wrong,"37 it
has been pointed out that this term makes reference to wickedness generally, to
unrighteousness as a whole.38 This noun is used in the Old Testament a total of
only 59 times39 and may therefore not give the total range of the usage of this
word. The verb form, derived from the same root, appears several times in the Old
Testament with the meaning "to treat violently" (Jeremiah 22:3; Ezekiel 22:26;
Zechariah 3:4; Proverbs 8:36) and is used also in connection with beings other than men
(Job 15:33; Lamentations 2:6).40 There may be, then, an indication here that
the noun "violence" may also have broader connotations, although these do not
often appear in other passages of the Old Testament. Let us look at one example.
The prophet Jonah says that "both men and beasts" are to take
part in the mourning by being covered with sackcloth; both are to "call on God
earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from their violence (hamas)
which is in their hands" (Jonah 3:8). The context shows clearly that "man and
beast" is the subject of this clause and that beasts, therefore, along with men can
have part in "violence" (hamas).41 No objection should be
taken to the word "hands" as indicating that the "violence" can refer
only to the wrong actions of men, because the Hebrew term for "hand" is kaph
and used for both the "hand" and "foot" of man as well as the
"foot" of a dove (Genesis 8:9) and the "paws" of a quadruped
(Leviticus 11:27).42 In short, the Hebrew term for "violence, wrong"
(hamas) can be used in connection with "men
and animals" as is clearly indicated by Jonah 3:8. This means that the argument used
by C. Westermann that "violence" is used only in connection with men43
and that therefore the expression "all flesh" must be restricted to men is
without force.
We cannot be certain as to the "violence" of the animals,
because we do not have sufficient information from the Old Testament which would indicate
clearly what it could refer to in the animal world. Some of the wrongs, transgressions,
and sins expressed by the word "violence" in the Old Testament generally include
the shedding of blood44 and likely sexual aberrations (Jeremiah 13:22) which
defile the land (Leviticus 18:58; 20:22) and are to be punished by death (Leviticus
20:11-18). It is possible that these usages of "violence" give us a hint of the
kinds of corruption in the animal world.
The writer of the biblical flood account wrote in Genesis 6:12:
"And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted
their way upon the earth." It seems that on the basis of the context45 the
meaning of "all flesh" in this verse is the same as in the following verse,
namely "men and animals."46 This interpretation is supported by the
fact that the expression "all flesh" in the Genesis flood narrative already
refers seven times to "men and animals" (Genesis 6:17; 9:11, 15a, 15b, 16, 17;
6:13) and that it otherwise refers only to "animals" (6:19; 7:15, 16, 21; 8:17).
Since the meaning "animals" does not possibly fit into the context of this
verse, the meaning "men and animals" seems the only other consistent choice.
This is further supported by the fact that in 6:3 the term "flesh" specifically
means mankind and that the more comprehensive designation "all flesh" would
point to the inclusion of living creatures beyond the class of man.
The major argument advanced against the suggestion that in Genesis 6:12
the expression "all flesh" cannot include both men and animals rests upon the
dating of the particular passages in the Genesis flood narrative in which this expression
occurs (cf. Hulst, Westermann). Critical scholars customarily date this to the so-called
Priestly (P) document which was supposedly written in the post-exilic period somewhere in
the 5th century B.C.47
We do not agree with the hypothetical source division and redating of
the Genesis flood narrative.48 "If we examine the section of the Flood
without bias and pay heed to its finished structure, ... it becomes apparent that the
section in its present form cannot possibly be the outcome of the synthesis of fragments
culled from various sources; or from such a process there could not have emerged a work so
beautiful and harmonious in all its parts and details."49 Those
maintaining a source division of the Genesis flood narrative claim that the respective
passages with the expression "all flesh" come from a late period (ca. 5th
century B.C.). Thus, according to one commentator, "the most important argument"
is that the term "all flesh" in prophetic writings "appears in connection
with guilt and judgment and always means only men."50 This "most
important argument" has cogency only on account of the redating of the Genesis flood
narrative sections. If no such late date is proven for the sections, then this argument
loses its force altogether.
The other argument advanced in favor of the position that the
expression "all flesh" in Genesis 6:12 does not include animals is based upon
the phrase "corrupted their way." This phrase is said to be "applicable to
man alone."51 This raises the question whether the verb "to
corrupt" and the noun "way" are restricted in their usages only to men.
Let us turn our attention to the qualifying object "way" in
order to see whether or not "only a moral being can corrupt its way."52
The Hebrew noun which is generally translated as "way" appears in the Old
Testament 706 times.53 This term can be rendered in English as "way, path,
journey, undertaking, business, manner, custom, conduct, behavior, situation,
strength."54 It is by no means true that the noun "way" is used
only in connection with man. Proverbs 30:19 speaks of "the way of an eagle" and
"the way of a snake." In the same text reference is made also of "the way
of a man with a woman" and in v. 20 of "the way of an adulteress." In the
last two instances the word "way" is used in connection with normal sexual
relations between man and woman (v.19) and even illicit sexual relations (v.20).55
It may be possible that the expression "way of an eagle" can in this context
refer to more than just the flight of a bird of prey. The same may be supposed for
"the way of the snake" which may refer to more than just the gliding of a snake
over a rock. In each case the "way" of the respective animal's sexuality may
also be referred to. It appears that the word "way" can be used as a metaphor
for sexual relations.56 If the noun "way" is used in the Old
Testament as a metaphor for sexual relations, then could this mean that in Genesis 6:12
the corruption of the way of all flesh refers among other things to transgressions in the
sphere of sexual relations between man and man, animal and animal, and man and animal?
It is evident, then, that the word "way" is not consistently
restricted to man, as some have claimed (Keil, Leupold), but is indeed used in the Old
Testament also in connection with animals (cf. Jonah 3:8). The noun derek in
Genesis 6:12 could accordingly be translated very properly with "conduct" or
"behavior."57 It is a word that sums up the entire sphere of conduct,
behavior and manner of life which had been corrupted by "all flesh," namely men
and animals.
The Hebrew verb that expresses the idea of corruption derives from the
Hebrew stem šht and occurs 5 times in Genesis 6 (vv.11, 12 [twice], 13,
17) and twice in Genesis 9 (vv.11, 15). The very fact that we find this verb used 3 times
in 6:11, 12 indicates that great emphasis is placed upon the idea expressed by it.58
This is in harmony with the emphasis explicitly placed upon the great wickedness on
"earth" that was mentioned several times before (6:5, 11). The corruption of the
"earth" means the corruption of "all flesh."
The emphasis on the corruption of all flesh seems to be intended as a
definite contrast to the account of creation. In Genesis 1:31 it is stated "and God
saw" which is followed by the appraisal of the divine inspection which resulted in
the verdict, "it was very good." The same opening phrase "and God saw
(looked)" appears here in Genesis 6:12, and what He witnessed now was the complete
opposite, the corruption of all flesh on earth. The world as it emerged from the hands of
the Creator was exceedingly good, but now, because of the conduct and behavior of all
flesh, it was corrupt. Already in Genesis 1 we find a close association between men and
animals in that the animals were created on the same day on which God created man (vv.
24ff). The same close association between man and animals appears in Genesis 2 where both
men and animals were formed from the dust of the ground (vv. 7, 19).59 The
corruption of their "way" seems to include also sexual deviation as we have
pointed out above. It has been shown that sexual deviations are also included in the
universal corruption of mankind60 and as 6:2 indicates where "the sons of
God saw the daughters ... and they took wives for themselves, whomever they choose."
The first part of this verse indicates intermarriage. It has been suggested that the
phrase "whomever they choose" implies polygamy61 and other sexual
sins.62
The Hebrew verb "to corrupt" is used of animals as well as of
man. In 1 Samuel 6:5 reference is made to mice which are said "to corrupt the
earth," using also the Hiphil form of the verb as in Genesis 6:12. This means that
the claim that the phrase "corrupted their way" is applicable to man alone63
cannot be upheld, because both the verb "to corrupt" is used with an animal as
its subject (1 Samuel 6:5) and the noun "way" is also used in connection with
animals (Proverbs 30:19f).
On the basis of the foregoing evidence it seems safe to conclude that
the expression "all flesh" in Genesis 6:12, 13 refers comprehensively to
"men and animals." To speak in terms of Genesis 6:7, "all flesh"
included "man and beast and creeping things and flying creatures of the air."
The phrase "all flesh" is a summary expression of all living beings on earth
which have "corrupted their way." The corruption was universal and should not be
restricted to man, for the latter had moral implications. Among the transgressions that
corrupted all living beings were apparently also various deviations in the sphere of
sexuality.
II. The Term Mabbûl (Flood) in the Genesis Flood Account
The Hebrew term for the catastrophe described in the Genesis flood
account is mabbûl, occurring everywhere in the flood account with the definite
article64 with the exception of two instances.65 This usage suggests
that for the ancient Hebrews this term was a well-known entity to which water belonged
(Genesis 6:17; 7:7). Its only other appearance in the Old Testament is Psalm 29:10. In the
apocrypha it appears in Sirach 44:17.
The various theories that trace the Hebrew word mabbûl back to
an Akkadian original have generally been given up and can be said to have been soundly
refuted.66
In 1928 the suggestion was made that the Hebrew term mabbûl
means in several passages "heavenly ocean" (Genesis 6:17; 7:6, 7, 10, 17; Psalm
29:10), whereas in other passages it simply means "flood, deluge" (Genesis 9:11,
15, 28; 10:1, 32; 11:10; cf. Sirach 44:17).67 There are two primary arguments
for this distinction: a) It is based upon the separation of the Genesis flood account into
two basic documents (P and J), each of which is interpreted by itself without reference to
the other and then the differences are used to arrive at the distinction of these terms.
For example, it is claimed that in the so-called P document God announced to Noah His
intention at the beginning to bring the mabbûl of waters upon the earth (6:17).
Accordingly it is claimed that the new thing for Noah obviously is not the well-known mabbûl,
but the announcement of its being brought upon the earth. On this basis it is assumed that
Noah knows very well what a mabbûl is. On the other hand, in the J document, Noah
to begin with learns only God's intention to destroy the earth with water and only later
is a first mention made of the mabbûl (7:10).68 b) The other major
argument rests on the usage of the only other biblical text in the Old Testament in which
the designation mabbûl appears, namely Psalm 29:10.
With regard to the first argument we would like to point out that the
source division of the Genesis flood narrative is entirely hypothetical and artificial.
Therefore, no real case can be built upon such a division with regard to the meaning of
this Hebrew term. A careful reading of the context of the first appearance of the word mabbûl
in the Genesis flood narrative will throw much light upon the meaning of this term. The
traditional translation of Genesis 6:17 is "For behold, I will bring a flood of
waters upon the earth" (Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible). This
traditional rendering has obscured the fact that the Hebrew reads eth-ha-mabbûl mayim.
The fact that the article is used with the object mabbûl indicates that the word
"waters" is not considered to be the genitive of the word "flood" (mabbûl)
as the traditional renderings indicate.69 This means that the words
"waters upon the earth" are in apposition to the word "flood" (mabbûl).70
A literal translation of this clause in Genesis 6:17 will therefore read, "And
behold, I myself am bringing the flood — waters upon the earth — to destroy all
flesh."71 The appositional phrase "waters upon the earth" is not
a later addition but necessary in this context.72 In other words, Noah is being
told that the mabbûl would be made up of the waters that cover the earth. Earlier
God had revealed to Noah that He would destroy the earth (6:13); now Noah is told that the
destruction comes by a "flood" (mabbûl), namely by means of "waters
upon the earth."
There is no hint anywhere in the biblical flood narrative that the
flood comes by means of the ocean. On the contrary, the flood is said to come by
torrential rains and violent outbursts of subterranean waters. Contextually the waters of
which the "flood" (mabbûl) did consist of is made up of "rain"
(7:12) and "the fountains of the deep" (7:11; 8:2), the subterranean waters.
This indicates clearly that with the term mabbûl reference is made to all the
waters that came upon the earth and as such should be understood as a "flood" by
waters of a "deluge."73 This conclusion is further supported through
the later expression "waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9) which is used for the
"flood." In the Genesis narrative itself the flood is many times referred to as
"the water" (Genesis 7:18-20, 24: 8:1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13).
The usage of mabbûl in Psalm 29:10 can hardly be used to
explain the term in Genesis, because the Psalmist's reference is a later one. The claim
that mabbûl is "an old designation for the heavenly ocean"74
can hardly be upheld because not a single piece of evidence can be marshaled in support of
this conclusion.
It appears that mabbûl is an ancient Hebrew term. It has been
suggested that it may be derived from the Hebrew root ybl, "to flow, to
stream,"75 which is also used in Ugaritic.76 If the derivation
from ybl is correct, then mabbûl is a technical term for waters flowing or
streaming forth and as such designates the flood (deluge) being caused by waters.
In short, a careful investigation of the arguments for the suggestion
that mabbûl in certain passages means "heavenly ocean" falls far short
from being coercive. To the contrary, it appears that mabbûl is in the Old
Testament a term consistently employed for the flood (deluge) which was caused by
torrential rains and the bursting forth of subterranean waters.
III. The Receding of the Waters of the Deluge
The biblical flood narrative describes twice (Genesis 8:3, 5) the
receding of the waters after the waters from the sky and earth were stopped (8:2). A
literal translation of the first part of Genesis 8:3 is as follows: "And the waters
resumed wayyašubû from
the earth going and returning (halôk wašôb)." The wording in the
original of this clause is not identical with the one in 8:5: "And the waters
remained,77 going and diminishing, until ... (wehasôr)." The idea expressed in Genesis
8:5 by the infinitive absolute halôk
is "to go on, to continue," namely a "long continuance"78
in the process of gradually diminishing,79 becoming less and less day by day.80
The idea of 8:3 is different. The verb "to return" (šûb)
is emphasized in this text,81 by being employed twice (wayyašubû and wašôb), a fact to which
commentators pay usually no attention.82 But on account of this emphasis it may
be gathered that the waters "returned" to the respective places from which they
came, i.e., the upper sphere and the lower or subterranean sphere. It may be well to
remember that the waters of the flood (mabbûl) came from the heavens and the great
deep (tehôm).83 The usage of "returned" (wayyašubû) in 8:3a appears to refer
to the "return" of the waters to the sources from which they derived.
The phrase "going and returning" (halôk wašôb)
in Genesis 8:3b speaks seemingly of the protracted process84 of the subsiding
of the flood waters. The sources of the waters had stopped (8:2) and God had caused a
"wind" (rûah)85 to blow across the earth causing the waters
to subside (8:1; wayyašokkû). The process of the subsiding and going down of
the water is next described as "going and returning" (8:3b), i.e., the waters
recede gradually over some period of time86 with a continuous movement of
"going and returning," rushing back and forth in an action that reminds of tidal
activity. Contextually the only cause mentioned which contributed to the continuous
"going and returning" activity of the receding waters is the "wind"
(8.1). The passage (8:1-5) does not state whether other forces were also at work.
ENDNOTES
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New
| Resources
| Search
| Links
|