Noah, the Ark and the Flood -- Three Main Points

[Fidelis]

I’m looking for a little help here.

I am leading a Bible study at our parish and next weeks lesson includes the story of Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6:5–8:22). As it appears in Genesis is a very long account so we don’t have time to go through the whole thing line by line. And since the story is so familiar to almost everyone, I really only want to draw out maybe three main points about the text itself --primarily: literal meanings of words and/or phrases, key points of the story, interesting and important Old Testament connections etc. Just like:
I am NOT interested in hearing points on how the text relates to the Christian life and the New Testament. I am confident I already have that part covered.

Also, I am NOT interested in “higher criticism” or other skeptical vews by modernist scholars that employ the hermenuetic of suspicion when it comes to the miraculous or historical character of Scripture. I have plenty of that too (more than I need ).

Within those parameters. I’d appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut you could provide. Thanks in advance.:tiphat:

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Obedience might be a good point. I have seen it claimed that Noah had never seen a flood; so had little idea of the threat. None the less, he got busy and did as he was told. Can you imagine the comments from his neighbors during all that time while he was building it?

 

[spauline]

I’ll try to make one big point. The first great age of human history was anti-Baptism (humanity fell for the lie of the serpent, and became wicked, with no faith in God’s Truth, nor the desire to do His Will).

And God’s response was the Baptism of humanity, just as the Catechumen goes back to Genesis and undoes the lie of the dragon just prior to receiving the literal waters of Baptism at Easter Vigil (“Do you reject Satan, the father of lies, and all his empty promises? Do you renounce sin, and refuse to be mastered by it, so as to live in the freedom of God’s children? Do you believe …[enter the Creed]”).

Don’t know if this helps.

types of Baptism: the parting of the Red Sea, the Baptism of Christ, the sacrament of Baptism. See 2 Peter 3: the old world of sin was destroyed by water. The current world is reserved for fire at the end. In the beginning, the destruction of the world is redemptive. At the end, the destruction is condemnatory.

 

[spauline]

oops, i just realized i violated your rules.

 

[quiet52]

I’m looking for a little help here.

I am leading a Bible study at our parish and next weeks lesson includes the story of Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6:5–8:22). As it appears in Genesis is a very long account so we don’t have time to go through the whole thing line by line. And since the story is so familiar to almost everyone, I really only want to draw out maybe three main points about the text itself --primarily: literal meanings of words and/or phrases, key points of the story, interesting and important Old Testament connections etc. … I’d appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut you could provide. Thanks in advance.:tiphat:

When I think of the story of Noah I think of the rainbow and the hope of God’s covenantal promise.

I suggest you look at the online bible study class on www.salvationhistory.com (St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology). Look at the “Salvation History” track, second lesson of Course One on “Covenant Love.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. The ark represents the Church; just as the only ones saved from the flood were in the ark, so also the Church is the only salvation for the world; the water of the flood represents Baptism, without which no one is saved (this includes non-formal Baptism, such as Baptism of desire).
2. Noah and his family were saved by faith; though the rest of the world ridiculed them, their trust in God proved to be their salvation.
3. The story of the flood need not be understood as either of two extremes, completely literal or completely figurative. Noah existed, built an ark at the command of God, and there was a very widespread flood. But elements in the story such as the extreme depth of the water, or that only 8 persons out of the whole world were on the ark, are figurative elements in a story that also has literal elements. Like the story of Adam and Eve, it is a dramatic retellling of an historical event.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi Fidelis!

One thing that I found helpful was being shown that Genesis 6-9 is perhaps a chiasm which throws an emphasis on God remembering Noah in the midst of the flood. The following breakdown was taken from christian-thinktank.com/aec2.html:

Genesis 6.10-9.19: The Flood Story (G. J. Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative” in VT, 28 (1978): 336-48, (cited in BAW p. 105)

A Noah (10a)
B Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10b)
C Ark to be built (14-16)
D Flood announced (17)
E Covenant with Noah (18-20)
F Food in the Ark (21)
G Command to enter the Ark (7.1-3)
H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)
I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)
J Entry to ark (11-15)
K Yahweh shuts Noah in (16)
L 40 days flood (17a)
M Waters increase (17b-18)
N Mountains covered (18-20)
O 150 days waters prevail (21-24)
P GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8.1)
O’ 150 days waters abate (3)
N’ Mountain tops become visible (4-5)
M’ Waters abate (6)
L’ 40 days (end of) (6a)
K’ Noah opens window of ark (6b)
J’ Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)
I’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (10-11)
H’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)
G’ Command to leave the ark (15-17)
F’ Food outside the ark (9.1-4)
E’ Covenant with all flesh (8-10)
D’ No flood in future (11-17)
C’ Ark (18a)
B’ Shem, Ham, Japheth (18b)
A’ Noah (19)

Another nugget that I like is Genesis 7:16 where it tells us that “the LORD shut him in,” emphasizing God’s initiative and protective care. I’ve seen some say that this is a sign of God’s judgment, that one day it will be too late for anyone else to get into the ark of salvation. But I think the emphasis is on the security of the believer, the assurance of salvation in knowing that it is God Himself Who will keep us safe to the end. I prefer this interpretation because the text reads that the LORD shut him in; it does not read that the LORD shut them out.

Relating the flood to the tower of Babel, I appreciated reading an observation of Augustine’s (if I remember correctly) who surmised – although not stated by the text – that part of the reason the people were building the tower to heaven was to avoid destruction from another possible flood sent by God. It really brought home the point of how hard we work at rationalizing and avoiding the consequences of sin instead of avoiding the sin itself. This would also indicate a profound lack of trust in God’s promise not to flood the earth again.

I see the animals being at fault for filling the world with violence, as well as man, where the text reads that “all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (6:12). Although some interpreters consider “all flesh” to be sinful humanity, I think the broader interpretation is more consonant with the way that “all flesh” is used in the rest of the flood story (cf. 6:13, 6:17, 6:19, 7:15, 7:16, 7:21, 8:17, 9:11, 9:15, 9:16, 9:17).

You could mention that the flood account shows God’s concern for all of His creatures, for species preservation.

Also, it could be mentioned that the flood did not seem to effect a change in man’s predilection towards sin: “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (8:21). This is a carrying out in history of the proverbial sayings, “A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool” (Prov. 17:10 and others).

You might want to emphasize Noah’s unquestioning and complete obedience:

“Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him” (6:22).

“And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him” (7:5).

You can also point out that as Noah (man’s representative) was in perfect submission to God, the animals also appear in perfect submission to God through man. A sort of replay of the harmoniously ordered relations pictured in the creation account. We see the animals going into the ark, not as God had commanded them directly, but “as God had commanded Noah”:

“two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah” (7:9).

“And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him” (7:16).

Of course the parallels between the first creation and this “recreation” are brought out more explicitly in chapter 9, which is beyond your study.

I hope you find something useful here.

May God bless you!

 

[Fidelis]

Thanks to everyone who answered – especially Pete: that was extremely helpful.

While I’m at it, I’d like to throw something out about the following passage:

18 The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. 20 Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; 21 and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” 26 He also said, “Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.” 27 God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Genesis 9:18:27)

Now, traditionally,it is often assumed that it was Ham that somehow dishonored Noah and thus his son Canaan was cursed. However, I recenly head one interpretation which says it was actually Canaan that was the offending party–that Ham had simply been the one to find out and tell Shem and Japheth. That would explain why it was Canaan that was cursed directly rather than Ham.

This makes sense in it’s own way and I was wondering if anyone had ever heard this or what you otherwise thought of it?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Now, traditionally,it is often assumed that it was Ham that somehow dishonored Noah and thus his son Canaan was cursed. However, I recenly head one interpretation which says it was actually Canaan that was the offending party–that Ham had simply been the one to find out and tell Shem and Japheth. That would explain why it was Canaan that was cursed directly rather than Ham.

This makes sense in it’s own way and I was wondering if anyone had ever heard this or what you otherwise thought of it?

Thanks for the encouragement, Fidelis!

If you have the time, the following thread is the best one I’ve read on this topic, offering various interpretations and criticisms: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=129070.

 

[Teflon93]

I’ve always found it interesting to compare and contrast the patriarchs—Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses in particular. The resonances are of course profound.

For example, each of these led an exodus of sorts:

Adam from Eden
Noah from the antediluvian world
Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees
Moses from Egypt

It is of course interesting to look at them from the covenantal perspective as well.