A Biblical Response to Skeptics

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. — Genesis 6:5

Skeptics often argue that the Great Flood of Genesis 6–9 is one of the clearest examples of God’s supposed injustice. They claim that a loving and fair God would not wipe out nearly all of humanity in what appears to be an act of divine overreaction. However, this argument fails for multiple reasons. It assumes a misunderstanding of divine justice, ignores the historical and supernatural context of Genesis 6, and overlooks the fact that God extended mercy and warning long before judgment fell.

A biblical approach reveals that the pre-Flood world was not merely sinful in a general sense—it was utterly corrupted by supernatural rebellion, genetic defilement through the Nephilim, and an unrestrained culture of violence and oppression. The Flood was not an arbitrary act of destruction but a necessary intervention to prevent the complete annihilation of God’s original plan for humanity. Moreover, those who claim the Flood was unjust must answer a more fundamental question: on what basis can they declare something “unjust” at all? If morality is merely subjective, then moral outrage at the Flood collapses under its own weight.

---

Was the Flood an Overreaction? Understanding the Corruption of the Pre-Flood World

Genesis 6:1-4 describes how the sons of God (benei ha’elohim, בני־הָאֱלֹהִים) took human women as wives and produced offspring called the Nephilim (han’nephilim, הַנְּפִלִים). While some attempt to reinterpret this passage as referring to the line of Seth intermarrying with the line of Cain, this does not align with the use of benei ha’elohim in the Old Testament, where the phrase consistently refers to divine beings (Job 1:6, 38:7). As Heiser notes:

“The Old Testament use of benei ha’elohim refers unmistakably to divine beings, not humans. The idea that these were simply ‘sons of Seth’ is a later theological invention designed to sidestep the supernatural reading of the text.”¹

The presence of the Nephilim introduced extreme violence, corruption, and lawlessness into human civilization. Genesis 6:11 states, “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence” (ḥāmās, חָמָס), a word that conveys not only physical violence but a breakdown of moral and societal order.² If humanity had continued on this trajectory, God’s design for mankind would have been permanently lost to supernatural rebellion. The destruction of the Nephilim and their influence was an act of justice, ensuring that the world would not be beyond redemption.

If skeptics argue that God should intervene to stop evil, they must acknowledge that this is precisely what He did in Genesis 6. Without divine intervention, humanity would have been irreversibly enslaved to corruption.

---

Was the Flood Unjust? The Problem with the Skeptics’ Moral Standard

The core of the skeptic’s argument against the Flood assumes that God’s actions were “unjust” or “immoral.” But this raises a critical question: how can they claim to know what is just or unjust in the first place?

C.S. Lewis famously made this point when wrestling with his own atheism:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”³

For a moral objection to be valid, there must be an objective standard of justice. But atheism or moral relativism provides no such standard. If morality is merely a product of social evolution, then concepts like “justice” and “injustice” are subjective and cannot be applied universally. Thus, the very act of condemning the Flood as unjust implicitly assumes an absolute moral law—which only makes sense if God exists.

This can be framed as a syllogism:

1. If there is an objective standard of justice, it must come from a transcendent source.
2. If morality is subjective, then no one has grounds to call the Flood unjust.
3. Skeptics claim the Flood was unjust, implying an objective moral standard.
4. Therefore, by their own logic, they must acknowledge a transcendent source for morality—God.

This paradox undermines the entire argument. The skeptic, in objecting to God’s judgment, actually reinforces the necessity of God’s moral authority.

---

God’s Judgment Followed Mercy and Warnings

One of the strongest refutations of the claim that the Flood was unfair is that it did not happen suddenly or without warning. Genesis 6:3 suggests that God gave humanity 120 years to repent before the Flood came. Noah was not only building the Ark—he was preaching righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), warning people of the coming judgment.⁴ Despite this extended period of grace, no one repented. They mocked the idea of divine judgment and continued in rebellion.

This pattern of judgment following divine patience is seen throughout Scripture:

• Before God destroyed Sodom, Abraham interceded for its people (Genesis 18:23-33).
• Before Nineveh faced judgment, God sent Jonah to preach repentance (Jonah 3:4-10).
• Before Israel was exiled, God sent prophets for centuries, pleading for them to return to Him (2 Chronicles 36:15-16).

Skeptics ignore this biblical pattern. God is not unjust; humanity is unrepentant.

---

The Flood as a Theological and Genetic Reset

Genesis 6:9 describes Noah as “blameless in his generation” (tāmîm, תָּמִים). While this word often denotes moral integrity, some scholars argue that it could also imply that Noah’s lineage had not been tainted by the Nephilim.⁵ If the corruption of humanity was not only moral but also genetic, the Flood was a necessary intervention to prevent the human race from becoming something unrecognizable.

The Flood also serves as a foreshadowing of final judgment. Jesus explicitly likened the days of Noah to the end times (Matthew 24:37-39), warning that divine judgment will come again. Just as the Ark provided salvation then, Christ is the means of salvation now (1 Peter 3:20-21).⁶

---

Conclusion

The Flood was not an act of arbitrary destruction but a necessary judgment on an irredeemable world. It was preceded by a long period of divine patience, and those who perished did so because they rejected every opportunity to turn back to God.

Skeptics who claim the Flood was unjust have no objective standard for making that claim apart from God Himself. If morality is relative, then their objection collapses. If morality is absolute, then they must account for the very existence of justice—which only makes sense in a theistic worldview.

Ultimately, the real question is not whether God was unfair in the Flood. The real question is whether we will heed His warnings before judgment comes again.

---

Footnotes

1. Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Lexham Press, 2015).
2. Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11 (Eisenbrauns, 2009).
3. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperOne, 2001).
4. Douglas J. Moo, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Eerdmans, 1996).
5. John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (IVP Academic, 2009).
6. Tom Wright, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne, 2008).