Question:
If the flood was limited to Noah’s region of the
world, then why would he need to take animals onto the ark? The account is
clear that the animals on the ark, as well as Noah and his family, are the
stock which replenishes planet Earth. Genesis 8:15-17 (NKJV) says, “Then God
spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and
your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh
that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the
earth, so they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the
earth.’” This proves all animals and people on the earth descend from Noah and
the ark.
Answer:
There are a few
unexamined assumptions in this objection to a local flood. First, it is important
to note that Genesis 8:15-17 uses the Hebrew word erets for “earth.” This, by itself, cannot prove the context of the
account is “planet Earth” or the globe as we think of it. This objection
assumes what first must be proved.
When placed in the
wider covenant context of Scripture, it is not difficult to see why animals are
intimately involved in the account. Animals are always involved in how God
deals with man: both in judgment and salvation. When Israel was in Egypt and Pharaoh’s disobedience brought the
plagues on the land, the plagues affected both man and beast (Ex. 8:18; 9:1-4, 19; 11:5; 12:12, 29). Also, when God delivered Israel from Egypt he delivered Israel’s animals as well. In fact, this was a bone
of contention between Moses and Pharaoh (Ex. 10:24-26; 12:31-32). The Sabbath prohibited work for both
man and animals (Ex. 20:10). We see another connection between man and
animals at the conquest of Canaan. Israel was told not only to utterly destroy the
human population of the Canaanites, but their animals as well (Jos. 6:21). When we get to the prophets we find that our
gracious God cares not only for man, but his animals, too (Jon. 4:11). The animal sacrifices were to be the best of
the flock or herd, raised by the owners’ own two hands (Gen. 4:4, Deut. 12:6). The
family had a personal stake in their sacrifice.
The easy answer to this
objection is that God’s covenant judgments and salvation always involve animals throughout redemptive history. All through
the Bible it is as if animals are, in a very real sense, part of man’s
household. Those who live in a modern, urban setting often miss the natural connection
between animals and human life because we are far removed from the agrarian context
of the Bible. Perhaps the closest modern experience to help us understand
Noah’s situation with the animals would be our relationship to our pets. If we
experienced a raging house fire, we would not only want our family saved, but
our pets saved as well. Could we really say that our entire family survived a
house fire if everyone got out of the burning house except for our beloved
family dog?
It would have been
distinctly out of character for God to save Noah and his family without
including the animals that surrounded him. To argue that Noah took animals on
the ark merely for the purpose of replenishing planet Earth after the flood
misses the holistic character of God’s judgment and salvation. God’s salvation
is total; it does not apply merely to individual human souls. This objection also
overlooks the fact that some animals from the ark were sacrificed to God after
the flood (Gen. 8:20).
|