How can God be good if He drowned babies in Noah’s flood?

Answer

Scripture often presents us with unsettling events. Some, like the flood, involve incidents that we naturally find distressing, such as infants and children drowning along with adults. Other examples include Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Korah’s rebellion. It’s important to acknowledge that the Bible does not avoid these events—but it does present them in a clear context. To fully grasp how God’s goodness aligns with His actions in those cases, we must keep that context firmly in mind.

Of course, this context is within the Christian worldview, but it is the only context that is relevant. A critic cannot criticize the Bible for its content while disregarding the rest of its contents. That would be akin to criticizing a science fiction novel for being “unrealistic” when the hero is saved by a teleporter, arguing that teleporters do not actually exist. Whether a person believes in God’s existence is an entirely separate question from whether the God of the Bible is consistent with the Bible’s teachings on goodness.

It is beneficial to explore the Christian response to general versions of this question as well. These include issues such as “why do bad things happen to good people?” and “why does God allow the innocent to suffer?”

It is essential to recognize that God is not similar to us. Many—if not all—criticisms of God’s actions assume that He can be judged like any other person. However, even in human contexts, not all authority figures are identical. God is not a flawed, limited human interacting among other humans. He is the Creator and the ultimate source of existence. His transcendent position and perfect nature establish a significant distinction between what He is morally “allowed” to do to His creations and what His creations are morally “allowed” to do to each other.

That is not an emotionally gratifying concept. Whether one is a

Believer or skeptic, no one is entirely comfortable with the idea that God is God and we are not. However, if we are going to examine issues such as this with fairness and integrity, we must start with that observation. That starting point leads to several valid points to consider in response to the issue of God drowning children in the flood.

First, human death and suffering are the result of human sin. That is true both on a personal level and a corporate level; whether it is death by “natural” means or at the hands of other people, the ultimate source of that destruction is mankind’s rejection of God. Unpalatable though this truth may be, human beings cannot escape collective responsibility for suffering, even that of “the innocent.” We are all complicit.

Second, there is the issue of the “greater good.” Humans sometimes use the “greater good” excuse to cloak their own evil, but it makes more sense when applied by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator. One purpose of the flood was to prevent even worse evil or the perpetuation of certain evils. It is reasonable to think that many, many times more children might have suffered even worse experiences had God not intervened with the flood.

Third, there is a strong argument to be made that God’s act of taking those children’s lives was divine mercy. Given what the Bible seems to teach about the age of accountability, children who were killed in the flood escaped damnation in hell. Those who grew up to hate and defy God would have been eternally lost. While not certain, it is at least possible that the flood was an act of mercy on the young, for that reason. To be abundantly clear, this is not an argument that can be applied to human beings making such choices.

Fourth, we need to realize the flood was part of preparing the world for Jesus, the means of human salvation. This does not negate the emotional impact of drowning children, but it does provide perspective. The God of the flood is the same God who came, in human form, to be brutalized.

and humiliated as a sacrifice. That same God provided a way for all individuals to be redeemed and saved from an everlasting hell. Once more, this suggests that God had completely legitimate justifications for permitting children to perish in the deluge, even if we cannot fully comprehend those justifications.