Noah: A Look at the Message through the Medium

The Noah Story as Myth

The story of Noah is myth. This is not to say that it is false. Myth denotes a genre, a way of telling a story, not the integrity of the story itself. It wasn’t really until the 1^st century AD that philosophers (namely Plutarch) strongly began categorizing myths as falsehoods, but even prevailing up through the first few centuries was an understanding that this genre could be either a true or a false narrative. For instance, Clement of Alexandria describes the Apostle John’s writings as “a myth, but not just a myth.” It just so happens that the Scriptures have had a tendency of proving all of these other myths false, and we as a culture have come to associate the entire genre likewise. But this shift in cultural vernacular has not changed the fact that the true story of Noah as found in the Bible is written in mythic style.

This has several implications for the story, but the primary item I wish to bring forward is that myths are highly selective in the details they choose to recount and the way in which they are recounted. As with most Hebrew narrative, chronology may be shifted to emphasize similar events, details may be repeated, and terms may be exchanged for more or less common ones. These stories should be consumed much more like a Christopher Nolan (or Darren Aronofsky) movie than like a NatGeo documentary. That being said, the text in question is by no means deceptive, but it clearly has left out some fairly large details. This is presumably because they did not go with the overall literary ebb and flow the author had in mind. For an example of this read 1 Pet 3:18-20 and 2 Pet 2:5. Peter, in his epistles, has deemed to reference the story of Noah twice and on both occasions gives us details that appear nowhere in Genesis. The first snapshot given to us (1 Peter) is very strange—disobedient spirits in prison? What? Theologians have been scratching their heads over it for centuries and have a variety of explanations, but suffice it to something happened which is not present in the Genesis text. And that’s okay. It was not necessary for that particular telling of the events.

The proclaiming/preaching that occurs in 2 Peter is very understandable. It makes complete sense that Noah, this man who seems to fill both a Patriarch and Prophet role amongst the peoples, would have things to say about his lifestyle. It is such a natural conclusion that regularly when the story of the flood is told, we include Noah preaching to crowds of mockers. Yet in the Genesis story, Noah is strangely silent. In fact, he doesn’t speak until he gives the blessings and curse upon his sons. And then he dies. These two scenes from Peter should remind us that no, we don’t have every single detail of how things happened. The danger that we all run into when teaching, discussing, or filming stories like these is that we have a tendency to fill in extra details. So often we fill in things that could have happened. And the question becomes: Did Aronofsky tell the story in a way that it could have happened?

Man and the Earth

I am aware of Aronofsky’s religious views and his statement of Noah being the first environmentalist. And whereas I am not willing to give him full credence on such a statement I do believe that he has picked up on something which is easily passed over during a reading of Genesis 1-9—the connection of man (ʾadam) with the earth (ʾadamah). There are really two words at the start of Genesis consistently used for ground/land/earth. The first, ʾadamah, which is often translated ground is generally referring to the substance of the earth, the actual soil. The second, ʾerets, is often translated land (like the LAND of Canaan) and generally refers to the location or “the space in reference.” Both of these terms appear peppered throughout Noah’s story. By contrast, the ʾerets is the main subject of Genesis 1, but ʾadamah is the main subject of Genesis 2.

The ʾadam is formed from the dust of the ʾadamah (Gen 2:7)

The LORD God cause out of the ʾadamah trees to grow (Gen 2:9)

The LORD God forms from the ʾadamah the animals (Gen 2:19)

But it should be noted that ʾadamah does not really have a nice connotation by the time Noah comes on the scene.

Cursed is the ʾadamah because of you (Gen 3:17)

. . . Till you return to the ʾadamah, because from it you were taken (Gen 3:19)

God sent him out from the Garden of Eden, to cultivate the ʾadamah from which he was taken. (Gen 3:23)

He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ʾadamah. Now you are cursed from the ʾadamah, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ʾadamah, it will no longer yield its strength to you. (Gen 4:10-12a)

After this we are given some history on Cain and his family, then introduced to Lamech and his sons. One of these sons is Tubal-Cain. Since Tubal-Cain was a metal worker and one of the possible meanings for his name is “You will be brought/lead by the spear,” his character makes a lot of sense in the movie. Lamech becomes the next murderer in the narrative. His statement of killing a “man for wounding” him and then a “boy for striking” him shows us that the violence among men is increasing and worsening. To expand it further, there is also a legitimate theory that the sons of Cain began eating meat (which would be seen as a bad thing since the killing has extended beyond mankind) while others did not. While I am not willing to say this is a solid fact, it has some merit since God seems to have to tell Noah that meat is on the menu after the flood.

Genesis 5 gives us Noah’s genealogy, and in this record we see the struggle of humanity in the solemn statement of death after death after death. So when Noah (whose name means rest) is born, his father says:

This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands from the ʾadamah which the Lord has cursed. (Gen 5:29b)

Clearly, some bad things have gone down involving this word. Now, man was blessed to be fruitful and multiply on the earth (ʾerets), and this is important to know since as the blessing is passed down, ʾerets is regularly the word used. But in Genesis 6, when man begins to multiply it is neither fruitful nor on the ʾerets.

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the ʾadamah

(Gen 6:1)

 It’s a small change, but by taking this now painful word—ʾadamah—and inserting it where ʾerets would normally occur we are instantly alerted that something is not right. And sure enough, there are sons of God and Nephilim (fallen ones) and men-of-renown (most likely the old primitive warlords) everywhere. This is another place where theologians are left scratching their heads. There are many theories, one of which being The Watchers, which is not too different from what actually occurred in Aronofsky’s movie. But whatever it was, it was bad enough that God removed his Spirit and limited lifespans.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the ʾerets, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the ʾerets, and He was grieved/vexed in His heart.

The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ʾadamah, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

(Gen 6:5-7)

There is a powerful connection between the relationship of God ßà man and the relationship of man ßà earth. He put man on the earth to stewards and vice-regents for His land (Gen 1:28). This carries over into the Mosaic covenant where the people are told that if they follow the LORD the land will be blessed, and if they do not the land will be cursed. The state of the land is a litmus test for the hearts of man.

This passage says that the LORD was sorry (lit. regretful/repentant) for what He has done. And it vexed his core. These two statements alone are chilling. He has seen what man has done, the man whom He turned out of the garden. And now He sees that the space is so corrupted that the substance must be cleansed.

The land, both the ʾerets and the ʾadamah are a key part of the story. After the flood is done, we are told in 8:13 that when Noah looked out the ʾerets and the ʾadamah were dried up. The verb used has a more negative tone, like a dried riverbed or cistern. It is not, for instance, the verb used in Exodus when they crossed the sea on dry land; it is not a beneficial dryness. The space and the substance were parched and desolated. It’s not until the next verse (which is almost two months later) that the ʾerets is returned to its Genesis 1 description of dry land (which is definitely seen as a good thing).

If we move down to Gen 6:21 we see a very similar scene as in 6:5-7. Once again, even though He has just purged the land of the wickedness of man, we have the LORD considering in His heart the evil of man’s heart. And He comes to a decision:

I will never again curse the ʾadamah on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

(Gen 6:21)

The word curse (qalal) or despise is not the same kind of curse (ʾarar) used in Gen 3:14, 17; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25. The word used here in Genesis 6 is also used in Exodus 21 of despising one’s parents. It is damning detestation of someone or something. So God looks down at the earth, which is more or less back in order, and realizes that the heart of man is still the same —even after all that destruction and all that cleansing—and the implication is that He must reckon the ʾadam and the ʾadamah separately for the sake of the land. This is an aspect that Aronofsky’s film does a good job of portraying. A mere tree-hugging environmentalism (even if Aronofsky may think so) is not the goal. It’s a matter of His stewards using their authority to decimate His monument to His glory.

Righteousness, Favor, and the Voice of God in Pagan Practices

Bringing it back to the beginning of the story: when the LORD looks down and sees all of this evil, there is one, Noah, who finds favor (grace) in His eyes. We are told that he is righteous/just, blameless in his time/generation (i.e. among everyone around him), and that he walked with God. This last statement is fascinating since, even though the English translation is not particularly unique, the exact wording in Hebrew only appears for one other person—Enoch. This is one of the several ways the author tries to show us just how good Noah was compared to everyone else drawing breath: good like Enoch…but apparently not enough like Enoch to be spared of death. We really don’t know much else about Noah. From Hebrews 11 we know that he condemned the world. This is very evident in the film where he condemns the world so much that he believes even he and his family must die. ʾAdam is what contains the evil and the earth must be cleansed of ʾadam. Noah has several prophet-role characteristics, and considering that prophets regularly embodied the suffering of God, the movie does interesting things by having Noah embody the sorrow and indignation at the evil he sees. Though the Noah from the movie does some bad things (and I am not sure that willingness to kill one’s own children is too farfetched, considering Abraham was also willing to do the same thing), it should be remembered that finding favor in God’s eyes doesn’t mean being perfect. Look at the rest of the people next to Noah in Hebrews 11. Abraham was a liar. Jacob was a manipulating cheat of the worst caliber. Even more so it says that Gideon, Barak, and Samson did righteousness. David was at the least an adulterer, at the most a rapist and murderer, and Samuel was such a terrible father that his sons drove Israel to beg for a king. And this is the often times horrifying truth of God’s grace: that truly miserable creatures like ourselves are given favor from God. And I’m not sure why we should think Noah was any different.

The first thing he does when he gets off the ark is make some sacrifices (Gen 8:20-21). What’s important to understand is that the kind of sacrifices he makes are whole burnt offerings (ʿolah) meaning they were completely incinerated. It’s important because after a man and his family have just been spared from sure and complete annihilation, one would think he would express some gratitude to the God who made it all possible. But ʿolah aren’t offerings intended for thanksgiving (tōdah), and God does not like it when the two get switched around (that’s actually a big part of the issue in Micah 6:6-8). But the text tells us that this offering pleased God. And it’s even more interesting because ʿolah were meant for the atonement of sin. Now, the point of sin offerings is so God doesn’t kill the sinner for what they’ve done. And all the wicked people have been dead for quite some time now. And yet God is glad that Noah made this sin offering. And then immediately decides that man’s heart is so evil that ʾadam and ʾadamah cannot be reckoned together.

We must distinguish between some things we know for certain from the text and some things we do not know for certain from the text. We know for certain that God talked to Noah. We do not know for certain how He did it. We may read the phrase “walked with God,” which in itself is linguistically tricky and many scholars still are not positive as to what it means, and immediately import hymnal verses of walking and talking with a fluffy Jesus in a garden. But we really shouldn’t do that.

The dialogue between God and the Patriarchs (or their families) is a very sticky subject and multiple occasions look like something we would never expect—they look downright pagan. In the movie, Methuselah gives Noah a drink that sends him into a vision, and Naameh (Noah’s wife) divines with tea or some other leaf that Ila (Shem’s wife) is pregnant. This sort of thing very likely did happen. We see Rebekah beseeching God with incense, Abraham planting trees and people meeting God under trees and on mountains (trees were like little natural shrines, and mountains were ‘closer to heaven’ which gave rise to the high places in 1-2 Kings). These things may seem innocuous now, but they were packed with theological relevance then. Even Joseph had a divination cup. Though these kinds of things were bad in a post-Law context, God spoke to them on terms they would understand then (which is not too different from what Methuselah says in the movie). Keep in mind that Noah is pre-Law, meaning before the time God spelled out how and when He wanted the people’s communication.

As I said earlier, Noah’s voice is strangely silent in his own story. It is absent until the cursing of Canaan. Is it because he never responded vocally whenever God spoke? Possibly. There is, I believe, a more likely answer where the myth genre really comes into play. The story of Noah is clearly being told at a much later date than the flood, probably written down and crafted by Moses from oral tradition of some sort, and this is generally the thought in many Evangelical circles. So, as was stated, the author has taken great care to tell the story in a certain way (not a false way, just a certain way) to make a point. The author has also imported, to a degree, an authorial omniscience—rooted in post-Mosaic knowledge—to the story. A simple evidence of this is the referencing to clean and unclean animals, which aren’t defined until Leviticus 11.

Clearly the author, as do we, can see the end of the story from the beginning. Noah, living the story, could not. Because of the obscure and unfamiliar nature of dialogue with God during this time I do not find it impossible to say that the way God’s instructions are presented in Genesis may be polished ex post facto by Noah and/or his descendants. Did Joseph understand the full extent of his dream of sheaves when he immediately had it? Most likely not. Jacob had to tell him what the sun and the moon represented. And this is indicative of a relationship with God, in that so often the pieces are before us yet they do not make sense until we have been brought through.

In the movie Noah at first believes God will have mercy on his family, then seeing how evil he himself is, comes to the conclusion that for justice to truly be meted out they would also have to die. God tells Noah He will make a covenant with him, and it is not clear whether Noah knew that was THE covenant. Covenant was a common civic word and Noah, being just and blameless among his generation/time (both descriptors having somewhat civic tones) could have well thought, in the moment, that the covenant was a contract: Save my animals, don’t die in a horrific flood. The thought of human multiplication only has a bad connotation at this point in the story, and it’s not until after the ʿolah that God returns the hopeful meaning to it. In short, Noah’s conclusion in the movie is actually not too far out there.

To worsen things, God stops talking to Noah during the flood. For three hundred days. About half way through the text says that God remembered them, which calls my mind to Zechariah, the prophet whose ministry was telling people who felt forgotten by God in the midst of judgment that God actually remembered them. But again, the author tells us God remembered them. God does not tell Noah this. And even when Noah looks out and sees the land which is dry, God keeps silent for a month and a half. I could see how after months of destruction, with such silence once could feel forgotten, or worse—condemned.

Overall, this movie did a wonderful job of undoing a pastel colored Noah’s Ark Flan-O-Graph. This is the first real scene of God’s unfettered wrath in the Bible, written as an epic myth, and we’ve turned it into a Mother Goose fairy tale. I do not say these next few sentences lightly. I say them accurately and I do not advise children to see this movie in any way, shape, or form.

The scenes of these tribal kingship war camps are gut wrenching, accurate portrayals of the evil of the time, with men being taken captive to fight in ruthless armies, young women being traded as currency, and a king keeping his people so hungry that they rip still living animals to pieces just to get some scraps of food (there’s a reason God tells Noah to not eat meat with the lifeblood in it). The screaming of people as their bodies smash on rocks and against the Ark while Noah and his family fearfully huddle inside is a solemn reminder of the justice, wrath, and mercy of God.

This is not meant to be a review telling you to go or not to go see the movie. I am merely trying to address some of the theological aspects/issues which have been brought to my attention. I hope this essay has not hindered in any way, but helped in understanding more the beautifully crafted story of our amazing God.

P.S.-the Watchers and Such

I would like to discuss the Watchers more, but since I am already close to 4000 words I probably should not. However, since they come from the Book of Enoch, thematically their appearance in some way makes sense. Since we clearly don’t know many of the nitty-gritty details of the story, Genesis as a whole likes to be unbelievably vague about supernatural things, and we regularly see some form of angelic being assisting the servants of God, I don’t find their inclusion in the movie all that offensive. I do think, though, that the story of the Watchers is very likely one of the “myths and genealogies” Paul is referring to in 1 Tim 1 and Titus 1, so I suggest that all take his command to not devote oneself to them. They are an interesting story, clearly included for crazy volcano-angel-warrior-transformer-tinkerbellonsteroids cinematography, and nothing more.

Also, whereas I feel this one to be a stretch, the whole thing about the wives of Ham and Japheth being born from Ila on the boat is, by the letter of narrative, acceptable. It’s not the most compelling for me, per se, but they do use it as the lead into “Noah, God is showing us mercy.” The reason it is acceptable is because the author of Hebrews does something very similar. If you read Hebrews 7, apparently the presence of biological substance is enough to qualify someone as “being there.” This probably stems from 1) older thoughts on how bodies and souls were made, and 2) our culture tends to associate the consciousness with the person, and our bodies are vehicles…which is certainly not how every single author of the Bible has seen it.