As in the Days of Noah – Part 2

This is Part 2 of the essay. Part 1 and be found here:
As in the Days of Noah (Revisited) — Part 1
______________________________

Having examined what Scripture reveals about the days leading up to the flood, a natural question now presents itself. If Jesus described “the end of the age” as being like “the days of Noah,” should we expect to see similar conditions appear again? Do major turning points in history follow recognizable patterns? And could there be repeated attempts—across different ages—to corrupt or distort life, creation, or what Scripture calls “all flesh,” in ways reminiscent of the world before the flood?

To answer these questions responsibly, we must first consider how Jesus’ words would have been understood by those who originally heard them. The question He was answering was not abstract or distant. His disciples were asking specifically about the fate of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the close of the age they were living in. This strongly suggests that the first and most immediate application of Jesus’ warning points toward the events that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

At the same time, Jesus’ use of the days of Noah invites us to look beyond a single moment in history. While 70 AD provides the primary historical reference point, the pattern He described may also offer insight into how similar dynamics have unfolded—and may yet unfold—at other critical moments in human history.

First Century AD:

When viewed this way, the parallels are striking. Like Noah’s generation, the people of Judea were given ample warning. Jesus warned openly and repeatedly. His apostles continued that warning after His resurrection, calling for repentance throughout the land. The message was not hidden, nor was it delivered at the last minute. There was time—decades of time—to respond. Yet, as in Noah’s day, the warnings were largely ignored.

Life, meanwhile, continued as normal. Religious routines carried on. The Temple still stood. Sacrifices were offered. Daily business went on uninterrupted. This mirrors Jesus’ description of the days before the flood, when people were eating, drinking, marrying, and planning for the future right up until judgment arrived. The problem was not a lack of information, but a refusal to take the warnings seriously.

Corruption had also become systemic. Before the flood, Scripture says that “all flesh had corrupted its way.” By the first century, corruption was no longer limited to individuals. Religious leadership had become compromised. Violence filled the land. False prophets multiplied, offering reassurance instead of truth. The system itself was breaking down, much as it had in Noah’s time.

What makes this comparison even more sobering is that, in both cases, people had a sense that something significant was coming. Noah’s generation had a defined window of time. First-century Jews were deeply aware of prophetic expectations and lived with an intense sense of anticipation. Yet knowing that judgment was approaching did not lead to repentance. Instead, it hardened positions, increased conflict, and deepened denial.

In this sense, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD fits Jesus’ warning with remarkable precision. It was sudden, devastating, and avoidable—yet it came upon a people who believed they were secure.

A Pattern Repeated:

At the same time, Jesus’ use of the days of Noah does more than point to a single historical moment. It establishes a pattern. History shows that when warnings are ignored, corruption becomes normalized, and life appears “business as usual,” collapse often follows. These moments are not identical, nor do they all carry the same weight as the flood or the fall of Jerusalem. Still, they echo the same rhythm: patience, warning, refusal, and consequence.

This does not mean that every crisis marks the end of the world, or that every generation is uniquely evil. Rather, it reminds us that judgment often comes after long restraint, and that it usually arrives when people least expect it—not because it was unpredictable, but because the eventuality of the pattern repeating was dismissed.

Seen this way, Jesus’ warning is not meant to inspire fear or endless speculation. It is a call to awareness. The tragedy of Noah’s generation, and of Jerusalem in the first century, was not ignorance. It was inattentiveness. Life went on, signs were ignored, and warnings were treated as noise—until suddenly, they were not. This, more than anything else, is the enduring lesson of “the days of Noah.”

So what about our own day?

History shows that warnings are often ignored, and corruption—present in every age—gradually becomes accepted as normal. People may be disturbed at first by the direction society appears to be heading, but over time they adjust. Life goes on. Daily routines continue. What once caused concern slowly fades into the background and becomes “business as usual.” This pattern often holds for a season—until, suddenly, something breaks. The same rhythm repeats again and again: patience, warning, refusal, and consequence.

Throughout history, we see evidence of judgment following this same general pattern—though certainly not on the same scale as the flood or the catastrophic fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Movements, societies, and nations have continued to rise and fall, sometimes quite suddenly. What often begins as a sincere attempt to build a just and moral society, guided by high ideals, gradually gives way to corruption and deceit. Despite warnings and efforts to halt the decline, this erosion is frequently met with tacit approval or resigned acceptance. This eventually leads to further decline and then collapse.

Are things any different today? If we just look at this present generation and the numerous events occurring in recent years, I believe we can see that evidence of that same pattern. In just the past five years we’ve had the “Covid pandemic”—accompanied by frequent mention of needing to accept, “the New Normal.” During that same period we should have been aware of the numerous economic and political shifts—which in many cases, concentrated power and control into the hands of an elite few. And we could not help but be aware that something was majorly wrong. People had a sense that something significant must be coming—yet many chose to ignore and treat the warnings as nothing more than noise.

In recent years, and in addition to Covid, we have seen a series of unprecedented attacks on long-standing societal and cultural norms. By this I am referring to institutions and norms that were clearly accepted, understood and undisputed for centuries—marriage, sexual norms, and even basic biology including gender. Reality and truth itself are under attack by certain ideologies and world views that seem to be growing in public acceptance.  

In addition to the social pressures, a subject that cannot be overlooked is the intrusion of technology into the very fabric of living organisms. Such technology seems to carry the intention of creating, changing and/or manipulating the basic structures of life. Ever since the discovery of DNA we have seen growing efforts in this direction. History has shown us that as chaos builds, societies eventually collapse. There is still time for us today—but will the warnings be heeded before the pattern of collapse repeats yet again?
 

Tinkering with the Code of Living Cells

Earlier, I mentioned DNA and humanity’s growing desire to experiment with it and control it. This desire often comes from the belief that human intelligence and determination are enough to safely change living systems to suit our goals. History suggests that this confidence is often misplaced.

While it is true that DNA can be altered, far less attention is usually given to whether it should be altered, or what the long-term consequences might be. Again and again, new technologies are introduced before their full effects are understood. In many cases, unintended consequences only become clear later.

One area where this concern appears is in the food supply. Practices such as gene-splicing, cloning, laboratory-grown meat, and genetically modified crops are becoming increasingly common. At first glance, these developments may seem beneficial. However, they raise important questions that are rarely discussed.

Are these foods truly safe over the long term? Could they contribute to health problems, deficiencies, or unexpected side effects? Beyond personal health, there are also broader concerns. Instead of solving hunger, are these technologies always helping to meet the real agricultural needs of struggling nations? Or could they, in some cases, contribute to crop failure, dependency, or instability?

Another issue closely connected to DNA manipulation is control. Increasingly, seeds are patented and must be purchased each year rather than saved and replanted. This raises serious questions about who controls the global food supply and how vulnerable farmers and nations may become as a result.

The following statement from the National Library of Medicine highlights why caution is often urged in this area:

“As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet, concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety… Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may affect several organs and systems… many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment.”
— National Library of Medicine (PubMed ID: 18989835)

Changing Humanity Itself

Beyond changing food or medicine, it is also important to consider efforts aimed at changing humanity itself. One movement often connected to this idea is called transhumanism.

If the term is unfamiliar, the website whatistranshumanism.org defines it this way:

“Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the idea that the human species, in its current form, is not the final stage of development, but an early phase.”

The definition continues by explaining that transhumanism seeks to move humanity beyond its current biological limits through science and technology, guided by what it considers life-promoting values. This description comes from Max More, one of the early voices associated with the movement.

Max More further defined transhumanism in two related ways. First, as an intellectual and cultural movement that supports the idea of greatly improving the human condition through technology. This includes efforts to slow or eliminate aging and to enhance physical, mental, and psychological abilities. Second, as the study of both the promises and dangers of technologies that aim to overcome human limitations, along with the ethical questions that come with using them.

The same source explains that the World Transhumanist Association later changed its name to Humanity+, while continuing to promote these same goals. At the center of the movement is the belief that humanity is still unfinished and can be reshaped.

As Humanity+ describes it:

“Transhumanists view human nature as a work in progress, something that can be improved and redesigned. Humanity does not need to be the final stage of evolution. Through responsible use of science and technology, transhumanists hope to eventually become posthuman—beings with abilities far beyond those of present-day humans.”

This raises an important question. What truly drives the desire to move toward a “posthuman” future? Is it mainly motivated by idealistic goals such as reducing suffering and extending life? Or does it reflect a deeper desire to escape the limits and vulnerabilities that come with being human?

Canada’s Approach:

If you think all this sounds a little farfetched, you may be surprised to know this topic is getting attention from our own Canadian Government – except there it is called “Biodigital Convergence” (see https://horizons.gc.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/).

The Government of Canada website offers the following definition:

“Biodigital convergence is the interactive combination, sometimes to the point of merging, of digital and biological technologies and systems. Policy Horizons is examining three ways in which this convergence is happening.”

Further on in the website we read: “Biodigital convergence is opening up striking new ways to:

- Change human beings–our bodies, minds, and behaviours

- Change or create other organisms

- Alter ecosystems

- Sense, store, process, and transmit information

- Manage biological innovation

- Structure and manage production and supply chains

Under the heading “New ways to change human beings – our bodies, minds, and behaviours,” we find the following. This list is a small sampling of the points in the article:

“...Altering the human genome – our core biological attributes and characteristics

...Machine learning helps scientists predict which genes to target for editing

...Monitoring, altering and manipulating human thoughts and behaviours

...Neurotechnologies read brain signals to monitor attention and manage fatigue

...Digital apps can help enhance brain health

...New ways to monitor, manage, and influence bodily functions, as well as predict, diagnose, and treat disease

...Gene sequencing entire samples helps us understand complex environments such as the human microbiome

...Digital devices can be worn or embedded in the body to treat and monitor functionality

...eg. Amazon patent will allow Alexa to detect a cough or a cold

...Creating new organs and enhancing human functionality

...Biohacking with implanted digital devices to enhance bodily functions

...Nanobots and nanomaterials can operate and precisely deliver drugs within living creatures”

These examples show that biodigital convergence is not science fiction. It is an active area of research and policy discussion.

This leads to serious questions. What limits, if any, should exist when it comes to altering the human body and mind? At what point does treatment become enhancement? And how should society weigh the potential medical benefits against unforeseen and irreversible consequences as well as long-term ethical and spiritual concerns? Alongside these questions, and in keeping with our recent exposure to the Covid experience, should we be concerned with the ramped-up pursuit of potential bio-weapons?

Bio-Weapons and Injectables:

At great risk to themselves, many experts testified, and it can now be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty that the “SARS-CoV-2 virus” was manufactured in the laboratory. In addition, it was subject to “gain of function” study and modification. With the release of this pathogen into the general public, the so called pandemic was born. Here we have an example of man playing around with genetic material and creating one such bio-weapon.

We know the mRNA “vaccine” concept is one technology that is supposed to have the capability to “hack” and issue instructions to your DNA in order to produce certain protein strands. In essence, it hijacks your system to produce a piece of the pathogen. The idea is to stimulate the body’s immune system into producing anti-bodies. However, in the process, it appears that hacking the immune system in this manner has rendered the immune system less efficient at fighting other infectious processes. Might there come a day when we are no longer capable of fighting off infection at all—without the need for patented technology?

With all these unanswered questions in mind, is it unreasonable to entertain at least one additional question: Are we perhaps seeing the corruption of our flesh that could in some way resemble the corruption of all flesh in the days of Noah?

Rise and Fall of Nations

So does the deceit and corruption we see around us today mean we have reached the end? It might… however; it might also simply mean that a familiar cycle is repeating itself. Nations rise, prosper for a time, grow corrupt, ignore warnings to repent, and eventually collapse. In fact, this pattern reflects a central biblical theme: God’s sovereignty over the rise and fall of nations and kingdoms.

Examples of Biblical Foundations for This Pattern:

Job 12:23, This verse states the principle directly: “He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them.” The Message translation renders it, “He makes nations rise and then fall, builds up some and abandons others.” This highlights God’s absolute authority over the destiny of peoples throughout history.

Acts 17:26, In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul echoes this theme, stating that from one man God “made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands.” This reinforces the idea that national rise and fall occur within God’s determined plan.

Jeremiah 1:10, The prophet Jeremiah was appointed by God with a commission “to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant” nations and kingdoms, illustrating God’s use of prophets—and even other nations—as instruments of judgment and restoration.

Daniel 2:21, Daniel affirms that God “changes the times and seasons; He removes kings and establishes them.” This book, which describes the succession of empires (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman), reinforces the principle that all earthly rulers and kingdoms are subject to God’s ultimate authority.

These passages together emphasize several key truths:

Divine Judgment: The fall of nations is often portrayed as a consequence of wickedness, pride, and disobedience to God’s ways.

Human Power Is Temporary: Empires such as Assyria and Babylon, which once seemed invincible, eventually crumbled, showing the temporary nature of human power compared with God’s eternal kingdom.

Divine Sovereignty: Scripture consistently teaches that all authority ultimately comes from God, who oversees all creation—including the destinies of nations.

Conclusion:

I am not in any way saying that events (as we see them today) spell the end of the world. They might however, point to the end of an age. It might simply be that if all warnings are ignored, our western society fails and falls as it faces judgment. This has been the pattern humanity has unfortunately had to repeat many times—history bears this out. Certainly there is nothing in scripture to indicate this could not happen again. In fact, it very well could continue until the kingdom comes fully—“on earth as it is in Heaven.”