Beyond Sound Hermeneutics: 

How the Regional Flood Theory Violates Hermeneutical Norms and Presumes Upon the Silence of the Scriptures

 by Kurt M. Simmons

Introduction

I have a great affection for Tim Martin and would never want to say or do anything to hurt him.  To know the man is to like him.  However, I felt the articles he has posted recently required a response, for they seem to me highly dangerous.  Having studied his arguments and examined his evidence, I will conclude that Tim’s methodology is unsound, his conclusions unsupported, and his departures from the Biblical text irresponsible.  In posting this brief reply to Tim’s articles, I hope he will back away from the subject of the regional flood and devote his energies to a topic more worthy of his many talents.  It is also hoped that my frank statement about his position will not prevent us from being friends.

There is no Logical Corollary between Preterism

and the Scope of Noah’s Flood

Tim Martin has written a small book and posted a series of articles in which he hopes to persuade Preterists that it is inconsistent to believe in fulfilled eschatology and hold to a belief in a global or universal flood.  Tim asserts that

Thus, according to Martin, a literal reading of Genesis governs our reading other portions of scripture merely because similar language is used. According to Martin, to read the flood account literally is to accept the hermeneutic of dispensationalism.  In fact, readers will be surprised to learn that according to Martin 

Martin goes even further and claims that the Creation Science movement, whose purpose is to defend the Bible’s creation account, has caused the prevalence of dispensationalism today.  Martin states he hopes through his book and articles:  

Martin is wrong.  Dispensationalism was conceived by John Nelson Darby before Darwin’s theory was even written.  Darby began preaching dispensationalism in the 1830s, Darwin did not publish his Origin of Species until 1859.  Dispensationalism in America predates Creation Science by almost one hundred years.  The prevalence of dispensationalism is a completely separate phenomenon unrelated to Darwinism, which Creation Science attempts to refute.  There is no connection between Creation Science and dispensationalism other than the fact that many who believe the one also believe other.  However, millions of people believe in the literal account of the flood who have no eschatological convictions at all.  Moreover, many Postmillennialists, Amillennialists, Historicists, and Preterists also believe in the literal flood account.  Yet they have completely different eschatological perspectives than dispensationalists.  Far from condemning belief in the flood, the wide diversity of people embracing it suggests that a literal understanding of the text is the intended one and that it is both natural and reasonable.   

Tim Martin argues that proponents of the global flood err in interpreting the historical narrative of Noah’s flood literally.  For Martin, because literalism is the hermeneutic of dispensationalism and dispensationalism is wrong, therefore to interpret the flood account literally is wrong.    

Martin asserts, but does not prove, that Morris and Whitcomb, the founders of Creation Science, ignore this question because of their dispensational bias.  However, a literal reading of the flood account in no way depends upon a dispensational bias.  People have been reading the flood narrative literally for thousands of years.  For example, Josephus, who lived two thousand years ago and wrote the history of the Jews, understood the flood narrative literally – and he read it in the Hebrew tongue, thus destroying Martin’s assertion that it is only because of inadequacies in our English translations that we blunder into a literal reading of the text.  Here is what Josephus states: 

Martin’s assertion that a literal reading of the flood account somehow grows out of dispensationalism may thus be seen to be groundless.  Dispensationalism arrived in history less than 200 years ago. Clearly, one can interpret the flood account literally quite apart from dispensationalism or any other school of eschatology.  Dispensationalism wrongly applies a literalistic hermeneutic to prophetic and apocalyptic passages of scripture to be sure, but not to historical narratives.  In historical narratives, a literal reading and interpretation is normally correct, granting the usual allowances for the habits and figures of speech.  History would not be history if it was not read literally; it would be allegory or legend. 

For Martin, the notion that Preterism refutes the global flood is “a call to consistency.”  He feels that the logical implications of Preterism require one to abandon belief in the global flood.  Martin states:  

This is mistaken.  Jesus also likened his A.D. 70 parousia to the destruction of Sodom.  (Luke 17:26-30)  Is how we read the Sodom account logically related to our eschatological paradigm?  Is a literal reading of the destruction of Sodom inconsistent with Preterism and require that we abandon a literal interpretation of that text?  Hardly.  There is no logical connection between Preterism and the flood narrative such as makes them stand or fall together.  Preterism may refute futurism, dispensationalism, and other schools of eschatology, but it does not refute the global flood. The scope of Noah’s flood is an issue totally separate from Preterism and eschatology.  Preterism no more refutes the global flood than it refutes the destruction of Sodom, the tower of Babel, or any other historic narrative of Genesis.  Nothing about Preterism requires that one abandon belief in the flood. Questions about the flood, the literalness of the Genesis creation account, and the age of the cosmos involve issues of hermeneutics, not Preterism.  It is a logical fallacy to attempt to join these issues as if what one believes about one of them somehow determines what he must believe about the other. 

The Genesis Flood Account is Historical Narrative, not Apocalyptic; Eschatological Interpretive Methods are Inapplicable to the Flood

Tim Martin’s argument that one’s eschatological paradigm must determine what he believes about the flood (and age of the earth and universe) is based upon the unproved and erroneous premise that the flood narrative is of the same class of literature as New Testament passages about the coming of Christ.  Tim alludes to this when he states:  

By identifying Genesis as belonging to the same class of literature as prophecy and apocalyptics, Tim hopes to make these unrelated subjects stand or fall together.  Moreover, he also wants to apply the interpretive principles used for the figurative language of prophecy to the flood and creation accounts.  He hopes by doing this to avoid Genesis’ language making the flood world-wide and the “evenings and mornings” of the six days of creation twenty-four hour periods.   

One of the key elements of prophetic passages is the use of cataclysmic imagery to describe merely local or regional judgments visited by God.  For example, Isaiah prophesied God’s judgment upon Babylon thus: 

A candid reading of the passage will show that the universal language employed by the prophet was merely figurative and poetic.   It is not intended to be understood literally.  It is intended merely to suggest overwhelming nature of the crisis God was sending upon Babylon; the judgments were so great, it was as if the world were coming to an end.  And for Babylon, of course, it was.  And although Babylon suffered the judgment of God, none of the cataclysmic events described by Isaiah actually occurred.   

It is this aspect of the prophetic method that Tim assumes is applicable to the flood account.  But Is Genesis of the same genre of literature as prophecy and eschatology?  One has only to compare the flood narrative with prophetic passages from Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation to see that we are dealing with totally different types of literature.  They have virtually no points of contact in terms of literary style or genre. The flood account is historic narrative, not poetic, prophetic or apocalyptic.  Prophecy foretells the future, Genesis recounts the past; the prophets employed poetic exaggeration, metaphors, and symbols; Genesis simply relates facts.  The only thing they have in common is the universal language.  But, because they are of totally separate genre, they must be interpreted differently.  Thus, we understand that the cataclysmic events described in the destruction of Babylon were merely figurative, they did not occur.  But the flood account of Genesis being historical narrative, we interpret the language literally; the flood actually happened.   

This fact alone proves that they are not of the same genre.  In prophecy the cataclysmic events are figurative and never literally occur.  In Genesis the cataclysmic event (the flood) is literal and an admitted fact.  Tim admits the flood occurred, but wants to limit its scope.  But classifying Genesis as apocalyptic does not provide a basis for limiting the flood’s scope.  If Genesis is apocalyptic, we would interpret the flood itself figuratively, not merely its scope.  This is fatal to Tim’s position.  His position is destroyed if Genesis is not apocalyptic and its language is understood literally.  It is destroyed if it is apocalyptic, for then the flood itself must be taken hyperbolically.  Either way, Tim’s whole construct falls to pieces and collapses upon the ground. 

The Historical Purpose and Context of the Flood Account must Govern

Interpretation and Translation of the Text

 If Genesis is not apocalyptic, do the definitions of words and non-literal figures of expression justify limiting the flood’s scope?  Tim relies a great deal upon the different definitions attached to words and the exaggerated nature of many figures of speech to argue for a regional flood.  Of course, this is tantamount to an admission that Genesis is not of the same genre as apocalyptic prophecy.  If the flood account were apocalyptic, he would not need to argue from word definitions and common expressions to make his case, for the apocalyptic nature of the language would be cause alone to destroy its literalness.  But that aside, let us examine a few of these words and expressions. 

Tim makes much of the word Hebrew word “erets”, arguing that it often signifies merely land, country, or region.  The word erets occurs repeatedly in the flood account, which the translators of the Authorized (King James) Version, men of imminent learning and ability, chose to translate “earth,” not land or country.  (Gen. 7:17-24)  In fact, we are not aware of a single translation that uses “country” or “region” in these places.  Tim Martin stands alone.  Why do the translators decide in favor of “earth” and not some more limited definition of the word?  Because the context virtually compels them to. 

No responsible translator confronted with this language would choose anything less than earth in this context.  The same word occurs in the creation account, saying “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  (Gen. 1:1)  The same heavens and earth of Gen. 1:1 are mentioned in the flood narrative in Gen. 7:19.  What principle of hermeneutics suggests that the word be given the more restrictive definition urged by Tim?  Clearly, there is none for and much against.  Merely because a word can be translated differently does not mean that it ought to be.  Arguments made from novel translations of Greek and Hebrew words are always suspect.  Why should we listen to a man untrained in Hebrew and with no translating skills or experience when he argues for a novel translation attested by no other Bible in print?  A little common sense goes a long way in assessing arguments based upon the definitions of words.  

Tim cites examples from the Old Testament to show that expressions of global proportions are sometimes used for regional things or events.  For example, he cites the prophet Zephaniah, who prophesied the coming judgment upon Judah, saying the Lord would consume all things from off the land, including man and beast.  (Zeph. 1:2, 3) However, Zephaniah is an example of the hyperbolic language of the prophets, whose custom was to couch prophecies of coming wrath in terms pregnant with poetic exaggeration.   The highly figurative nature of the prophet’s speech is apparent upon its face and therefore cannot serve as a comparison with the flood account, which is of a totally separate genre.  Tim cites Ezra 1:2: “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says, ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth.’” Tim asks “Was the kingdom of Cyrus global?” He answers, “No, the term ‘earth’ is used in a regional way.” Tim also cites Habakkuk 1:6: “I [God] am raising up the Babylonians, that ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth to seize dwelling places not their own.” Tim then asserts “The consistent literalist has a real problem with this text. Archaeology teaches Babylonia was a regional power.”  According to Tim, these examples show that the flood could have been merely regional because these kingdoms were allegedly regional.   

The short answer to this line of argument is that “could” is not proof it “was.” Before we decide that universal language is used figuratively, there must be evidence of this intent.  But Tim has no such evidence.  For Tim, the possibility that the language can be figurative is all the proof required to make it so.  Furthermore, the context in which these expressions occur is different from the flood.  Cyrus’s expression is a form of exaggerated speech common to monarchs.  It is a relative expression, and is not intended to be understood in strictly literal terms.  The same with Hab. 1:6; this is a figure of speech and probably not a single person would press its literalness.  But the flood account is very different.  There, the literalness of the account is driven home over and over again by the precision of the language employed:  the waters increased greatly, they prevailed exceedingly; all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered, as were the mountains; every living thing upon the face of the earth died; all flesh, all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and every living substance was destroyed.  Clearly, this account lacks the casualness common to everyday expressions like those cited by Tim.  By repeating again and again the breadth of the flood and its devastation, God intended to impress upon the reader the universal nature of its scope: every living thing died. 

Tim points to language in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse likening the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem to Noah’s flood.  (Matt. 24:36-41)  Tim argues that since Christ’s coming in A.D. 70 was not global, therefore, Noah’s flood need not have been global.  Tim adds that Jesus’ comparison of his parousia to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is proof that the flood was regional.  (Lk. 17:28-36)   In other words, if A = B and B = C, then A = C.  There are two errors here.  First, Jesus referred to Noah’s flood because of the suddenness with which it caught its victims unaware and the completeness of the destruction it brought, not to indicate its size or scope.  Daniel 9:26, which indicates the end of Jerusalem would come like a flood, is to the same effect.  Jesus’ reference to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah is similar, showing both the suddenness and completeness of the devastation wrought.  If anything, Jesus’ citation to these events shows their historicity; that they were not mere legends or exaggerations, but actual events whose literal record in the scripture can be implicitly trusted.  Applied to Jerusalem, these events foreshowed the utter desolation that would be wrought upon the Jews: Jerusalem would be like Sodom, reduced to ash, and wiped from the face of the earth as by the flood.  Second, Christ’s eschatological coming was not merely limited to Judea, but was world-wide: it brought ruin and devastation throughout the inhabited earth (Roman empire) as Christ avenged the quarrel of his church and gospel.  There were great famines and plagues in Rome and Asia; there were earthquakes that devastated cities in Asia minor; Rome experienced uprisings in foreign lands and civil wars at home; there were four emperors in the space of a single year, whose wars wrought devastation to all of Italy and Rome; Romans watched in amazement as the capital and temple of Jupiter was burned to ash in combat between the forces of Vitellius and Vespasian’s brother, Sabinius; last of all, Jerusalem and Judea were completely destroyed.  Thus, quite contrary to Tim’s assertions, Christ’s coming in the first century was indeed felt and seen world-wide.   

In II Pet. 3:5-7, the apostle compares the coming of the Lord to the flood.  Tim argues that because the desolation attending Christ’s coming was not universal, therefore the flood was not universal.  This argument is faulty.  The heavens and earth in II Pet. 3:7-13 do not speak to the physical creation and its elements at all.  The heavens and earth Peter refers to are spiritual and covenantal, not physical and terrestrial; they speak to the world system that inhered from the fall of the race, of which the old covenant was part; the new heavens and earth speak to the regeneration of man in Christ which would attend the removal of the former world system in which there was no forgiveness of sins, of which the destruction of the city and temple were signs. Because the heavens and earth of II Peter 3:7-13 are not physical, the language of this epistle cannot help Tim.  Besides, the removal of the elements of the old covenant system was as universal and complete in the spiritual realm as Noah’s flood was in the earthly; not one element of the old system remains before the face of God; all were wiped clean away forever.  (Cf. Heb. 8:13; 12:26-28)  Thus, if any thing, II Peter argues for the universality of the flood, not its circumscription. 

The Authority and Silence of the Scriptures 

One hermeneutical principle that Tim does not use or respect – and is why his teaching is dangerous and should be driven from the church - is the authority and silence of the scripture.  Tim consistently leads his readers to put faith in things the Bible does not say and which cannot be proved.  He is guilty of the same sort of thing the Catholic Church has done for centuries.  The Bible mentions nothing about the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and assumption of Mary.  It says nothing about purgatory or infant baptism; it is silent about the relics of saints and prayers requesting their intercession.  These and hundreds of other things have all found permanent home in the Catholic Church by its failure to respect the authority and silence of the scriptures.  Tim does the same.   

The Bible expressly states that eight souls were saved from the flood.  (I Pet3:20)  Everything else in which there was the breath of life died.  (Gen. 7:22) The biblical account is very explicit in describing the nations that sprang from Noah’s sons after the flood. (Gen. 10)  The account concludes, stating, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.”  (v. 32; cf. Acts 17:26)   The Bible then provides the account of Babel and how mankind was of one language, and how God confounded the language “of all the earth,” and they were scattered abroad from thence upon the face of the globe.  (Gen. 11:1-9)  In other words, the Bible provides a complete account of the origin of every nation of men after the flood. Tim cannot name one nation of people that the Bible does not attribute to Noah’s sons.  He cannot point to one language that was not confused at Babel.  Tim cannot produce one verse of scripture – not one - that teaches more survived the flood than eight.  Yet, he does not scruple to affirm what the Bible does not say.   

The Bible expressly states that “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is.”  (Ex. 20:11)  Could anything be clearer?  Yet, led away by science falsely so-called, Tim chooses to disregard the divine account and place faith in men; he believes the earth took more time to create than six days and that the earth is perhaps billions of years old.  Indeed, he is not even sure that the creation account of Genesis speaks to the creation of the cosmos, but posits that it may be an allegorical account of the creation of national Israel!  It is difficult to imagine a more irresponsible treatment of the scriptures.  This man should not be teaching the Bible until he learns how to remain within the confines of the scriptural text.  The first rule of hermeneutics is that words are to be given their usual and accepted meaning unless context requires (not permits) otherwise.  Context determines interpretation.  The mere presence of heavens and earth in Genesis is no reason to assume they are figurative and covenantal.  Nothing in the narrative even remotely suggests a covenantal context.  To the contrary, the pattern is first the natural then spiritual; God created the natural heavens and earth in Genesis, the covenantal heavens and earth of the Old Law in Exodus, and the new heavens and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness in A.D. 70.   

Tim’s methodology produces the most extravagant, speculative, and dangerous doctrines.  One person I know who has come under Tim’s influence has been led to believe that God created other men before Adam and Eve. (After all, where did Cain get his wife?  See the email I received, below)[2]  Using Tim’s methodology of “speaking where the Bible is silent,” one could affirm that God created life on other planets and that Mars is colonized by little green men!  I do not say that in jest.  Gary DeMarr recently published a series of articles refuting the notion that the “nephelim” of Gen. 6:2 were aliens.[3]  Once we venture beyond “book, chapter, and verse” anything becomes possible. 

Tim cites Milton Terry and F.W. Farrar as also making statements about the non-literalness of the Genesis creation account to bolster his deviation from scripture.  But, these men made their remarks in the late 1800s when Darwinism was overthrowing the faith of millions and churchmen were everywhere in retreat before the advance of scientific claims about the origin of life.  These claims have now all been discredited and Christians are returning to their Bibles.  That Terry and others were temporarily led astray is no reason we should do so. 

The Bible charges that “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.”  (I Pet. 4:11)  Another way to say this is “to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”  This is not to say that every conclusion must be spelled out in black and white by the Bible.  There are some things the Bible does not tell us.  We are not told where Cain got his wife.  However, the Bible is clear that all men derive their descent from Adam; that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”  (Acts 17:26; cf. Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:21, 22)   A scriptural answer would be that Cain married his sister, not that there were other men created before Adam and Eve.   

Did the flood overwhelm every acre of dry land under the whole heaven?  We can only answer this question by reference to the Bible.  If we venture to say, No, we speak purely upon human authority.  Were the days of the Genesis’ creation account longer than the 24 hour “evening and mornings” we know today?  If we say, Yes, we speak from ourselves, for this can nowhere be shown or proved by the word of God.  And so it goes, at every turn Tim leads readers away from the word of God unto the doctrines and teachings of men.   

If we were to place a circle upon paper and ask Tim to write in it all the verses showing the earth is materially older than the sum of generations from Adam to ourselves, that the earth took longer to make than six 24 hour days, that more were saved from the flood than eight, and that the flood was merely local or regional, at the end of the day that circle would still be empty.  Why?  Because there are no verses in the Bible which teach these things.    

The question thus becomes, where do we stand, upon the solid rock of scripture and “thus saith the Lord”, or the speculative notions of men that presume upon the silence of the word of God?