In this post, I’m not going to review the film because I haven’t seen it.
But I feel compelled to say three things about it.
1. Whether this movie is inaccurate, accurate, good, bad, epic, or stinks to high heaven, the attention it’s getting right now is an opportunity for you, dear Christian, to turn the event into a conversation piece with your friends who don’t know the Lord. Especially if you unveil the “real meaning” of the biblical story.
2. What do I mean by “real meaning?” Peter helps us here by pointing out (in both his letters, mind you) that the story of Noah and the flood points to Jesus Christ and God’s act of salvation in Him. Here’s a riff from my book with Len Sweet Jesus: A Theography on this score (the endnotes aren’t included, just the numbers for them):
“The principle of regeneration and new birth repeated itself in Noah’s day, after the floodwaters covered the old creation. According to Peter, the old world perished under water in the Flood.29 And eight souls were saved in the ark. For Peter, this was an allusion to the salvation that baptism represents.30
Just as God’s first creation passed away under the flood of Noah’s day, so, too, our old selves passed away when we came into Christ.31 The burial of the old earth through the Flood is a picture of how our old sinful nature (which belonged to the old creation) has been buried through water baptism. Do you recall how the dove set foot on the earth only after the Flood waters had receded and the new world was manifested? So, too, the Holy Spirit will abide only in the new creature in Christ.32 Similarly, the dove that rested on Jesus at His baptism was a signpost that God was heralding a new world with Christ, echoing Genesis.
Eight is the number after seven. Many Bible students believe the number seven in the Bible points to completeness or perfection. Eight, therefore, seems to represent a new series, the beginning of a new order. For example, the eighth day is the first day of the week after the seventh (the Sabbath). There were eight souls saved in the ark to greet a new creation and begin a new world.122 Israelite males were circumcised on the eighth day, which foreshadowed the circumcision of the heart that occurs during regeneration.123 The firstborn sons were to be given to YHWH on the eighth day.124 David, the man who would begin a new dynasty in Israel, was the eighth son.125 Jesus was raised again on the first day of the week, or the eighth day.126
The church was born on the eighth day. The old creation was part of the seven-day cycle; the new creation emerged on the eighth day. For this reason the early church “celebrated the first day of the week as ‘the Lord’s day.’”127 The first day of the week is the eighth day.”
3. William Paul Young wrote his thoughts on the movie recently. I don’t follow Paul’s work, but someone forwarded the review to me. Before some of you who found this post in the blogosphere start ranting and raving out of love or hate for Mr. Young, let me issue this disclaimer. I’m not endorsing Paul, his books, or even what he writes about the film here. Neither am I disavowing. That’s not the purpose of this post.
(Focus, focus, focus . . .)
Very simply, I’m running his review for one reason: I thought it was interesting (a nice generic word) and want to hear your reactions to it. Here’s the excerpt that I want you to read and comment on:
“I saw the movie last night. I confess I wanted to like Noah! I hoped to find creative storytelling of artistic depth, authentic humanity and self-righteous justification for reminding my religious brothers and sisters not to be so narrow-minded. My conclusion: controversy might be the only hope this movie has of paying for itself. It has a few moments that are decently acted and written, but overall it is disjointed, incoherent and awful.
For all the expense, even the CGI was hit and miss. I consider myself adequately capable of suspending a sense of ‘realism’ and entering the imagination of science fiction or fantasy, but from the jarring introduction of transformer-ish fallen-angel rock creatures, I struggled. There is barely enough truth in this film to warrant attention, almost no humanity in the main character (Noah), God is the antagonist from the start, and mercy and justice are opposing forces.
I submit to you that authentic creative work brings into our lives more space than it uses. It encourages dialogue and questions and celebrates our humanity, all that we bring to the table whether wondrous or wrecked.
We are emerging from the bloodiest century of recorded human history, where atheistic ideology, moral relativism and religious sectarianism have wreaked more global devastation than anything imaginable in Genesis. And yet, I am hopeful, that the story line is due for a different sort of Arc, one in which we find common ground in the community of our humanity and together taking a stand against our will to power and violence, protecting and celebrating our differences; all elements of good story telling and all absent from Noah.
With all our offensive wall building and unwillingness to ask questions of our own traditions, it seems we have lost the plot. While we sometimes forget that every translation and every commentary and every sermon are creative expressions of the text, Christian theology not only leaves room for and invites creativity, it also defines the essential nature of every human being as imaginative co-creators.
We don’t have the original manuscripts, God failed to give us a literalistic FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section at the back of the Scriptures, and Jesus enters our human history when there were no ‘reality’ TV shows, or even video or photographs. Perhaps the ambiguity and mystery of relationship and the creative exploration of ‘story’ is where we will find Truth, and Hope, and Faith and Love.”
What do you think?
Jack Swager
This movie was horrible on every count. Bad plot, bad acting, bad directing and story conclusion let alone desecration of scripture. I thought some notable Christian figures had commented it was reasonably good. Regrettably I didn’t check out reviews too closely not wanting to spoil the story. Wasted over $50.00 at Cinamax expecting good screen visual. That also was mostly disappointing. Couldn’t stay for the end but left after the bad guy started to be portrayed as the good guy.
Angela
Yes, use this movie as for discussion, and I will put my positive take-away at the end, but be aware that Gnosticism is pushed in this film (the director is Jewish and likes to puts Kabbalah into his films) and honor is given to the serpent, which gives magical powers, blessings and enlightenment to the good guys. I spotted this right away, but few reviewers mention it, and it is far more disturbing than the other plot additions or weirdness that people are raging about.
I went with an open mind and was moved by the emotional arc (boy can Emma Watson act!), and amused by the inclusion of Nephilim, but the subtle making of my Lord the bad guy and handing the final blessing of mankind over to the serpent was more heartbreaking than the story. Also besides the plot twist that everyone is upset about, Noah kills A LOT of people in this movie, is never upset by it, and animal life is always considered much more precious — there are a few scenes that show the earth is filled with violence, but when a man sells his daughters for some meat to eat, it’s played as if it is much worse that the animals are being killed for food, than the girls being sold for who knows what horrible fate.
A basic understanding of Gnosticism doesn’t take much time to acquire and is necessary to understand the epistles, and Gnosticism is on the rise today, but apparently few have that knowledge — even Christian ‘leaders’ who reviewed the film harshly.
My personal take away from the movie’s actual story was the dangers of legalism — once Noah got away from what God actually told him to do, and starting making up what he THOUGHT God wanted, things went south pretty fast. This is so like us! Also, his selfish depression afterwards, thinking he had failed and everything was ruined, after all God’s care and miraculous blessings had shown quite the opposite.
My other takeaway was the assurance of judgement on wickedness– Enoch is mentioned as having preached a judgment of fire that is yet to come. People love to hate on God for his justice, but if you spend quality time with the Lord, you will at some point get a sense of his righteous wrath. As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man … they did not understand until the flood came and took them away. I walked out of the movie with my heart breaking over the wickedness in the world, the certainly of judgment coming, and those who will be taken by surprise. I hope that some who see the film will get a glimpse of the necessity of God dealing with wickedness, and the way he made for us to be redeemed and rescued from it because does NOT delight in the death of the wicked.
Susan Irene Fox
I thought your three comments made a lot of sense. After seeing Son of God, I was hoping that Noah would be a more accurate retelling, particularly with the acting chops involved in the movie. However, the intent of the producers/directors was different.
I also believe we as Christians have done enough “wall building,” as Young puts it. We need to take every opportunity to show Christ’s love and light. This certainly is one of them.
Richard
God seemed to use story – a lot. God always had (has) a point to the stories He tells. As others tell stories – remakes of God’s stories included, why is it that so-called followers of Jesus otherwise know as “the church” get so annoyed if “the truth” is misrepresented? I should think, as Frank points out that such stories are a spring board for discussion. If Jesus could speak to the church of His day, and say things like “you have heard … but I say” while bringing about a new spin on what was true up to that point in history, then why can we not hear what others say, for example about this movie – and then respond with a “I hear you saying …. have you ever considered ….”? I think “winning the lost” is done through dialogue much more so than preaching – and I am a preacher!
Philip Keiter
Well said, Richard!
mark
1. Agree. I’ve actually had some conversatins with people at work that typically steer waaaaay clear of anything Christian. The movie actually allowed us to talk about the story without it “getting weird”.
2. Love the theme of rebirth and new life that is present in the Noah story foreshadowing Christ’s preservation of those who are “in” Him.
3. It’s interesting that WPY is critquing someone for taking creative license with a Bible story, given the nature of his own writing (I’ve only read The Shack and really liked it). Other than that, I want to be careful not to read too much into his words. I like the thought that “Christian theology… invites creativity”. The Scriptures often provide stories without a lot of the cultural context, and it seems that some creativity is needed to bring the stories to life, and then many different aspects, pictures, sides, angles, perspectives etc of the story unfold. (The danger, of course, is reading something into the story that isn’t there.) I’m probably not going to see the movie in theaters, but I would probably approach it as a creative view of what the story might have looked like in reality. As with any similar effort, I’m sure it nails some things and misses others by a mile (or several).
Eärdil
First I must say that I’m a fan of Aronofsky’s films. I think that Noah is my least favorite one, but not for theological/historical reasons.
I think it’s interesting to hear what Darren has to say about the film, I read an interview where he pointed out at the word “righteous” that the bible uses to describe him, and that the best way to define it according to a lot of theologians that they spoke to was “a perfect balance of justice and mercy”, and I think that is what he’s trying to put in the movie. And according to the experpt that you post, he managed to explore exactly that (“mercy and justice are opposing forces”).
He compares Noah to Abraham: God says Noah that He’s gonna destroy the world, and Noah goes on to build the Ark; God tells Abraham that He’s gonna destroy a couple of cities and Abraham argues “but what if I find some people that are righteous.
What I didn’t like about the film is that it concentrates a lot on humans. But it made me think about the story of Noah in the Bible, because there are a lot of parts (in the movie) that Noah looks up to the sky, waiting for a sign, and I was waiting for it too and God is silent; the thing is, God didn’t talk to Noah that much in the Bible story (I think just once), and everyone keeps saying to Noah “He chose you for a reason”. I think Noah must have thought lots of things since God spoke to him and the Bible too implies He’s silent.
Anyway, what I absolutely LOVED about the film, was the creation story told by Noah. I think is one of the most awesome sequences I’ve seen and the movie paid itself for me just because of that.
Eärdil
I think I wrote this with too much haste. I want to clarify that when I quoted “and everyone keeps saying to Noah “He chose you for a reason”” I was talking about the movie and what I got from that is the fact that Noah made his own choices, but God chose him because He trusted his judgement.
Cherilyn Phipps
I have not seen the movie, but I agree with point one. It was the first thing I thought of when people started bashing or defending the movie. It’s an opportunity for a conversation and point to Christ. I have read Jesus: A Theography and need to again. The book was helpful in seeing Christ everywhere in the Bible.
I cannot agree with Mr. Young’s assessment that every translation of the Bible is a creative expression. I am also not sure what he believes “the plot” is. The Bible? I do agree with his willingness to question tradition. Now I think his use of co-creator is interesting. While I do agree with his notion of God making us imaginitive creatures and using that to draw us to Him, a co-creator somehow elevates humans above where we truly are and lacks humility. Finally, I am not sure where Mr. Young was going with that last sentence, but it seems he is happy being ambiguous. I believe Jesus Christ was and is a much straighter shooter. The mystery was solved (revealed) with Jesus. Overall, I really do not get a sense of a strong stand anywhere in his review, which is what I expect.
Tifani McC
Young said, “While we sometimes forget that every translation and every commentary and every sermon are creative expressions of the text…” I think Young meant creative as God is creative with his Word and not translations of the bible itself. Maybe not. I do not think his idea of being co-creators lacks humility but announces our “made in the image of God” qualities. We create here on earth with the materials God already created. What do you think?
Jim Caldwell
“I cannot agree with Mr. Young’s assessment that every translation of the Bible is a creative expression.”
I’m curious (please don’t read this as combative) to which translation you believe not to be a creative expression. Since few of us read Hebrew and we do not have the original manuscript, it would seem like every translator comes to the text with their own understanding of what words mean. They translate with their understanding and biases. Then (this is what I believe Mr. Young is getting at with the “co-creator” part) each of us reads the translated words with our own understanding, context and biases. Are we objective? We hope to dial in on the real truth but none of us are completely objective. As we step into the beautiful dance of life in relationship to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they are capable and willing to work with our subjectivity to lead us to truth. To me, that is a wonderful paradigm shift that frees me to look for the overall grand story of the Bible of God’s relentless pursuit of us in love.
Cherilyn Phipps
For, Tifani and Jim. Not offended in the least. Love discussion.
When I use the word “creative,” I mean making something entirely new from nothing, whether it is written word, art, etc. I believe we are creative, all of us in some way. (I alluded to that in my post, maybe not strongly enough.) But I am not sure that makes us co-creators. I will chew on that one a little longer since one can also argue that we are always imitating the Creator, for there is nothing new under the sun. That said, I personally know my own pride gets in the way of my creativity (I am a musician), so I am constantly needing a humility check.
Translators are indeed fallible people incapable of a perfect translation of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages with all their nuances. There is a difference in scholarly translation and an interpretation of the Bible (i.e. The Message, which I do read now and then). I believe we need to be careful we don’t confuse them.
I guess the way I read the review is not the way you read it. Maybe he’s just messing with people to get them to have discussions, which is great. 🙂 Blessings!
Tifani McCauley
I agree with your points exactly. I am unmoving on the fact that this Hollywood movie is blatantly a lie and used the typical Christian as a way to make money. I also will not see it and will use it to ask those who do not believe is they know the biblical story so they can compare it. Who knows, it may spark a great conversation and lead to Jesus. That is the point. As I love the world I will not be a supporter of their lies. That is not a contradiction. I will trust the reviews I have read due to the upstanding character of those who have watched and reported on it (William Paul Young, Ray Comfort, and Glenn Beck). Back to your points: unveiling the real meaning can even help the Christian relate to the Jew. I often see posts on Jews News about how a Jew will never accept Jesus as Messiah. This is sad due to what seems obvious to me and that you stated above as links from the First Covenant to the New Covenant. Let us use this to spread the Gospel!
Mary B
I saw the movie and hated it. It was the farthest from the truth, a real “bastardization” of the scriptures. But, I think the three points were right on, concerning the movie only. Paul’s other comments are open to interpretation but I am not the one to provide the dialect for that. The movie couldn’t have been more Scripturally false, even to the extent of blasphemy, BUT, once again, I agree with you, Frank, that it can be used to open discussions to the lost or young unknowing or stagnant Christians. Also, I love your commentary about the correlation regarding the baptism of the earth vs. the baptism of JESUS and us! Right on, Frank.
Greg
I haven’t seen it, but was looking forward to seeing it.
From what I’ve heard, someone who is looking for a close rendering of the Genesis text will be disappointed, because that’s not what Aronofsky did. I’m sure that even if he had done that most people would still be disappointed, because there isn’t much dialogue in the Genesis account.
Allison
I loved the movie. I think the overall point of the story stays exactly the same – the world was wicked, God provided deliverance and salvation. They added some plot lines, because it’s a movie, but the story is the same. We don’t know what Noah was thinking, or what his family was feeling – so they guessed. That’s what you do when you turn a historical event into a movie. If you weren’t there, you add plot lines to the facts. It’s the same if someone makes a movie about the civil war. We know how the war ended, but to tell the story – some human drama is added. I thought the Noah movie was beautiful. Noah was relatable, because he was a little crazy. He doubted what God was doing – and that is so human.
I hope that Christians who don’t like the movie (which is fine), don’t turn this into a “Christians vs. the world” type of dialogue. If the movie contains falsehoods, Jesus is okay. He is not threatened, or in danger, or even insulted. He’s much bigger than that. And mostly, I think, of all the problems in the world (war, poverty, slavery,etc) – this movie is very far down on the list of things to get worked up about.
Frank Viola
Thx. for commenting. What did you think of the 3 points I made, including Young’s critique?
Allison
Regarding point two, I think that most of the symbolism you mentioned remains intact. Eight people are delivered in the Ark. There is even a birth, which speaks to the birth of the Church, as you mentioned. This is why I don’t understand that people are angry about the movie. Some plot lines were thrown in there to make it a bit more interesting to watch, but the overall message of the story…is the same! There is also some other REALLY beautiful symbolism in the movie. Spoiler alert – towards the beginning of the film, there are a few raindrops, and some water that bubbles up from the ground. Everything the water touches springs to life. Grass grows, flowers bud – wherever that water goes. This speaks so beautifully about the water of life, who is Jesus. I could honestly almost weep, just thinking about it. I have lived through some periods of time that seem so dark, and so barren, just like the landscape in the movie. And just like in the movie, I have seen life spring from nothing – just because Jesus touched it.
Regarding point three, I’m thankful that Mr. Young acknowledges the value in creative expression. That is why I really enjoyed the movie. There is scene where Noah tells the creation story to his children, and even the way that is told is striking. I disagree that there was no humanity in Noah. His response (once he got on the Ark) to what God really wanted – was so human. Another spoiler alert – he started to see that all humans have the potential to act wicked. He saw the life of the flesh in himself, and in his family, the “good people.” How true that is, right? We are all capable of wickedness. Because of that, he thought that God would want him and his family to die – and not survive. That’s where the plot lines/drama come in. It’s not Biblical, but it is so human. I think it is exactly what I would have thought, in his position. And – it’s more of the Gospel! There is no one righteous. Isn’t this what we believe?
So, because of all that, I agree with your point one. This creates such a good opportunity to talk about Jesus. The real Jesus. The One who touches dead things and they spring to life. The One who rescues us from our sinful nature, because all of us are capable of dark deeds – and we need a deliverer.