Judgment and Salvation

If you were to imagine the face of God during the great Flood recorded in Genesis, what emotion would you see? Anger? Wrath? Ferocity? These would be common and reasonable answers since the purpose of the Flood is the destruction of a wicked and violent world. But, just perhaps, God’s face is better visualized as one fully determined to provide protection and salvation amidst an all-encompassing judgment.

Such is the thrust of Dustin Burlet’s argument in Judgment and Salvation: A Rhetorical-Critical Reading of Noah’s Flood in Genesis. His thesis is that “despite the vivid picture of devastation the Genesis Flood account depicts, the emphasis on the narrative is deliverance and redemption, i.e., salvation, not judgment” (4). To explore this thesis, Burlet employs the analytic methods of rhetorical criticism, which probe the text to determine its persuasive intent and effectiveness on the reader.

Burlet’s rhetorical-critical evaluation involves four steps:

• Determining the rhetorical units encompasses identifying the boundaries of literary sections and subsections. A rhetorical unit is characterized by its unified purpose, expression of related events and descriptions, recognition of particular speeches, and so on.
• Determining the rhetorical situation involves recognizing the exigent circumstances that the rhetorical unit addresses. As with the rhetorical units, there may be more than one rhetorical situation, with primary and secondary levels of importance.
• Determining the rhetorical strategy explores the manner in which the rhetorical unit addresses the rhetorical situation, such as the literary devices and structural patterns used in presenting the overall message of the text.
• Determining the rhetorical effectiveness ascertains the way in which the rhetorical strategy fulfills its duty (or not) of addressing the exigence of the rhetorical situation in light of the initial audience’s expectations. Would they have found the unit persuasive?

This is a nuanced modification of George A. Kennedy’s method in his New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (University of North Carolina Press, 1984). As such, Burlet’s approach to the text is in keeping with the “rhetoric-as-persuasion” school of rhetorical criticism, as opposed to those who emphasize rhetorical criticism as “art of composition.” Like other biblical scholars who follow Kennedy’s approach, Burlet’s rhetorical-critical evaluation involves a synchronic analysis of the text as currently presented, in this case Genesis 6:1–9:17. While text-critical issues are discussed at appropriate occasions, the analytic focus remains on the final composition.

In keeping with a large body of earlier scholarship, Burlet identifies four major rhetorical units of the flood narrative in Genesis: 6:1-22, 7:1-24, 8:1-22, and 9:1-17. Each of these rhetorical units is given a chapter-length analysis, which also includes fresh translations of the Hebrew text. Numerous subunits are identified within each primary unit, and these units are then evaluated on the basis of their particular situation, strategy, and effectiveness. At times, the four chapters dedicated to these rhetorical units are rather repetitive. But this is because Burlet takes no shortcuts; he rigorously and consistently applies his methodology to each portion of the text under consideration.

Burlet seeks to show that God’s salvific work, in general, comprises two aspects: “First, God’s intention for creation is not thwarted and, secondly, God commits himself to his intentions of creation” (4). This intention is bent toward upholding life of all kinds and human life in particular. How then does this idea of God’s salvific intention square with the greatest judgment described in the Hebrew Bible?

Two findings lend themselves to the thesis. Burlet notes that, among the sixty-seven instances of the Hebrew term kol (“all”), forty-three relate to salvation while only twenty-four are employed in the context of judgment. Similarly, among the eighty-one verses in the passages evaluated, fifty-one relate to salvation while the remaining thirty do not (either neutral of judgment-related). Perhaps because the judgment-related verses and instances of kol are front-loaded in the account, it is natural for readers to get the impression that God’s bringing the Flood is merely a reaction to the rampant evil and violence described in Gen 6:5-7. But this perception must be balanced by the continuous and more numerous salvation-related verses and instances of kol that relate to God’s intention to preserve life through Noah and the Ark.

Burlet’s argument for a salvation-emphasized reading of the Flood comports with other recent work on this topic, such as Todd Patterson’s The Plot-Structure of Genesis (Brill 2008), which argues that it is not the Flood that is a force of disorder, but rather that humanity itself has undone the world via sin and violence. Seen this way, the Flood is a universal cleansing that removes the stain of corruption and purifies a defiled world so that God’s project of life, and in particular humans made in His image, can have a second chance.

There is fruitful work that can be derived from Burlet’s approach. One possibility is an exploration of the exigent circumstances explored in step two of his approach, and charting where in the narrative they are resolved. In particular, Burlet notes that the first and most significant exigency, human violence, is not fully resolved until after the Flood has ended and Noah has emerged from the Ark. Only then does God implement the principle of lex talionis (blood-for-blood), which serves as a check on humanity’s corrupt nature and a way to ultimately preserve life. Given the overall chiastic structure of the Flood narrative, one wonders whether there are similar patterns to the exigencies and resolutions within the text. This and other suggestions presented in Burlet’s concluding chapters would be a welcome addition to the rich body of literature exploring the Flood of Genesis.

Marcus R. Ross is a fellow of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University.

Marcus Ross

Date Of Review:

March 13, 2024