Apr 1, 2014 5:08 am

Noah Not Even Close

I actually had one suspicion confirmed by a great review from Dr. Joel McDurmon. Basically, we enjoyed Russell Crowe in “Gladiator”. Then enjoyed him in Robin Hood which was just “Gladiator” in the woods. We now have “Gladiator” in an Ark.

In other words “Noah” was actually closer to the story line of “Gladiator” when Noah took to fighting people than it was to the Bible account. I realize I’m a day late and $9.00 short on a review, but I decided to chime in with my second review of the latest trend of “Christian” viewing pleasure.

Dr. McDurmon already showed the link between this movie and Jewish Mysticism so I won’t need to repeat that here. I also will try not to reproduce the good Dr.’s (Al Mohler) presentation that did a wonderful job in reviewing Noah here.

Having said that, allow me to give my two cents. It’s obvious that we shouldn’t have expected a movie that would be “based” on portions of Scripture that don’t have nearly two hours worth of movie content to be strictly bound to the text itself. We knew “Noah” would have added artistic liberty to the text. Something that in and of itself with the amount of Biblical material available wouldn’t have been an issue necessarily. I’m sure there could’ve been exegetical ways to portray the life of a righteous man and his family as they prepare for a deluge.

Yes, I probably would’ve still been critical of the aforementioned liberties but that would’ve been better than what I experienced during this movie. The fact is, Christianity is not viewed as a valid world religion but as mythology. We can even see this with the fact that in this movie Noah hears from God in a dream. Strikingly reminiscent of the way Gilgamesh is warned by E a. Granted there aren’t enough parallels between “Noah” and Gilgamesh to brand a total one to one comparison, but I do find it odd that they align on the method of apocalyptic warnings.

1). The Watchers

“Noah” represents a group of fallen angels called the Watchers as light spirits bound by bodies of rock and forced to live in exile upon the earth. The name is a clear nod at the Book of Enoch, though their happenings are far from that story. In the movie they descend from Heaven in an effort to help out fallen humanity. Since they descended from Heaven they were punished and bound in rock form. Also a clear nod, this time, at the first installment of the Hobbit (haha we can make rock creatures too).

They still teach man to fashion industrial advancements, however, it becomes the sin of mankind to twist these wonderful gifts into perversions. They turn on these wonderful, rock angels and begin to even kill some of them. Man would’ve eradicated these fallen angels had not Methuselah, Noah’s grandfather, shown up and spiked the ground with his fire sword to create a wall of fire that eliminated a ton of bad guys (I kid you not). Awesome cgi, though.

These watchers agree to help Noah build the Ark and even protect the Ark, Noah, and his family from Tubal-Cain of the line of Cain and his army. The Watchers then earn redemption with God by dying to protect Noah and the Ark. Which, from a theological perspective, a works based salvation would have to do, since the blood of Jesus Christ does not redeem fallen angels.

Obviously, this is bizarre that these fictional characters would gain fictional redemption. However, this was a real valiant attempt of Aronofsky to explain how Noah and his family could’ve built such a huge Ark. All that extra giant, stone creature-power really comes in handy when you need to survive a flood… and an attack from an army…

Ok this was particularly disappointing especially since I had my hopes up from the advertisements. When Tubal-Cain says to Noah that he is alone he responds, “I’m not alone”. Yay! Noah acknowledges that God is with him. Sike! He’s not alone because he has giant stone encased fallen angels who can come to the rescue—and they do exactly at this point. Too many New Testament passages to turn to in refutation of this.

The fact is that there is nothing in the Biblical account to warrant fallen angels having any part played in the antediluvian debacle. “Sons of God” can just as easily refer to men and “Nephilim” meaning giants doesn’t have to refer to fallen angels. Numbers 13:33 uses the same term and there’s no reason to believe the word refers to anyone angelic.

“Giant” is a term that can simply refer to the strength of someone or someone who’s a larger size than most. Nephilim also derives itself from a Hebrew term that means “fallen”. The issue is then either their fallen (sinful) status or the fact that their wickedness caused others to fall before them.

At any rate, the issue of fallen angels being involved in the account of Noah and the flood is clearly an extra-Biblical concept.

2). Speaking of Noah

Noah is not pictured as a righteous man nor as a preacher of righteousness. At best, he’s the old homeless guy standing on the street corner with a cardboard sign, “the end is near”. He oddly transitions from being able to have dreams from God that instruct him on what to do and the counsel from his Gandolf-godly-grandfather to a guy who just makes it up as he goes along. Oddly, he then gets it wrong. Really wrong. He falls prey to an Earth-First agenda that removes man from the earth through God’s judgment. The Biblical account shows that Noah’s mistaking God’s grace upon him and his family as the ultimate doom of his household is an utter impossibility.

This symptom just presented is, of course, as follows:

3). Straying from the Biblical text and/or twisting it

Again, there’s much we should’ve seen coming in this film and this is obviously one of them. The reason why I harp on this particular point is that the Bible isn’t just our sacred textbook. This is what God has spoken. And to change it bears immediate consequences:

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5–6 ESV)

Noah, just like the movie, “Son of God” is a lie.

And the real issue here is the shear fact that they haven’t just changed the Bible they’ve changed the Gospel since the flood account is about the Gospel. Christ is the anti-type of the Ark bearing the wrath of God (flood waters) for all those in Christ. All we see in this movie is not Noah’s obedience to God and pursuit of righteousness but Noah attempting to do what he thinks is right in his own eyes and calling it God’s will. I guess you could argue, “see what happens when you go your own way” but that still begs the disdain for what God actually said about Noah.

And no, I don’t see this as a good depiction of the wickedness of man in that day. The movie falls short of showing that considering the wickedness was enough to grieve God and have Him apologize for creating man. The wickedness that would do that makes Aronofsky’s Noah look like Lamb Chops Play Along.

The closest they came to being strictly Biblical was Noah’s postdiluvian debauchery. Except for the fact that he resorted to drinking because of the issues he was having with his family and his wife. You know, the part were he plotted to kill his two grand-daughters because he thought God wanted to eradicate mankind and he couldn’t risk repopulating the planet through the offspring of Shem and Hermione. And, he blew off his marriage because his wife thought it was a bad, unforgivable idea but he still thought he should go through with it. Noah’s sermon on righteousness, “post-birth abortion is ok because God doesn’t want people….” Right, that’s definitely Biblical Noah.

All this happened even though God clearly made a Covenant with Noah in Genesis 6:18. This covenant was with Noah, his sons, Noah’s wife, and the wives of Noah’s sons. I’m not too sure how God making a covenant with Noah could be so easily confused with, “make sure no human is left alive or at least not able to procreate.” Again, Tubal-Cain shines a little better than Noah since he wanted to take Noah’s women and repopulate the earth. Again, albeit his conclusion was flawed and he wanted a race “in his own image”, you still get confused enough on who’s the antagonist and who’s the protagonist in this movie, nonetheless.

Luckily, Hermione offers wonderful words of wisdom to Noah to resume family life. Except for Ham who apparently receives a “Mark of Cain” like exile, seemingly for his confusing internal conflict to help Tubal-Cain. Ham leaves his family to wonder the earth in a very mysterious way. Where did he plan to go and what did he plan to see?

With all this muddied information we also see that “Noah” decided to change the number of passengers on the Ark. Namely, they excluded Ham and Japheth’s wives (and included Tubal-Cain). I mean, the Bible says “his son’s wives” at least four or five times.

This of course is an obvious in-your-face attempt of the Jewish heritage producer to make sure that no one is confused that the Jews descended from Shem. Shem, also spelled “Sem” is where you get the word “Semite”. Genesis 9 shows us that his sons were blessed by God and they were fruitful and multiplied. This, Biblically, would’ve been with their wives that they had.

Ham almost had an apparent no-longer-than-ten-minute romance with a woman he met in a pile of dead bodies when he snuck away to Tubal-Cain’s camp to find a wife.

Their romantic postmortem-first-date cuddle was cut short by the inconvenient flood. And then literally cut short when they tried to run back to the Ark and Ham’s romance ended when his girl got caught in a bear trap and Noah forced Ham not to help her. She was then trampled by the angry “we will take the Ark” mob. Was this necessary?

Ham actually is the father of a notable race that plays a prominent role in Biblical history, Canaan. He definitely couldn’t do this with the movie, “Noah” since he rides off into the sunset to not find a wife.

Since I’ve addressed two of Noah’s sons I’d like to give a shout out to Japheth, the most irrelevant character in this movie and therefore the most Biblical. Due to the fact that he really plays no part in a bizarre storyline.

4). The Creation account is evolution.

The Creation account is told by Noah, apparently the world’s first evolutionist. Noah, while on the Ark, gives us the Genesis account by following what looked more like a big bang creation of earth. We then follow the evolution of a sea creature who pops up on the earth, evolves into a land animal, and then subsequently up the evolutionary chain.

Also, Noah states that the creation account took days whilst the time-lapse footage clearly takes a lot longer.

This version of the creation also shows a glowing Adam and Eve. No, I mean literally glowing. Which confirms one of the above reviews’ understanding that this movie is full of gnosticism. Are we to honestly not recognize Adam and Eve in their glowing, sinless state as spirit creatures? And thus, the gnostic understanding that all that is material is evil and all that is spirit is good.

The information that this movie presents is plenty for the Christian to fail to recognize the movie with the Biblical account. There’s a concept of a deity who seeks to destroy the wickedness of men via a flood and a man is able to escape this judgment via an Ark and later gets drunk and uncovers himself. The rest of the two hours of the movie is a hodgepodge of extra-Biblical mythology and mysticism. Period.

But I do believe a resounding response of, “I told you so” is due.

This post was written by Jeremy Menicucci

Comments are closed.