Noah's fall, a question

  • Thread starter Thread starter CeciliaS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CeciliaS

Guest
Dear All,

I have been doing an on-line Bible study course (Scott Hahn’s) and I am stuck on part of it, and I am wondering if anyone can help me.

In discussing Noah, the study mentions that, when Noah got drunk, his eldest son looked upon him in his nakedness (paraphrase), and that, in ancient idiom, that was a way of saying that the son had slept with his own mother, and that doing so would be a way to challenge the authority of the father, implying family instability (and since God had made a family-oriented covenant with Noah, this was very grave.) Why, though, in this and other studies and commentaries, is NOAH considered to have fallen? His son (and only one of his three sons) did the disobedience, if that indeed is what the “Noah’s fall” episode refers to.

And, as a Catholilc, I cannot accept the teaching I have seen on various fundamentalist or evangelical sites, that Noah’s fall has to do with the fact that it was evil of him to have saved the grape plant in the Ark, that God doesn’t want us to produce alcohol!

So, what exactly does Noah’s fall refer to?

Thanks,

CeciliaS
 
CeciliaS said:
Dear All,

I have been doing an on-line Bible study course (Scott Hahn’s) and I am stuck on part of it, and I am wondering if anyone can help me.

In discussing Noah, the study mentions that, when Noah got drunk, his eldest son looked upon him in his nakedness (paraphrase), and that, in ancient idiom, that was a way of saying that the son had slept with his own mother, and that doing so would be a way to challenge the authority of the father, implying family instability (and since God had made a family-oriented covenant with Noah, this was very grave.) Why, though, in this and other studies and commentaries, is NOAH considered to have fallen? His son (and only one of his three sons) did the disobedience, if that indeed is what the “Noah’s fall” episode refers to.

And, as a Catholilc, I cannot accept the teaching I have seen on various fundamentalist or evangelical sites, that Noah’s fall has to do with the fact that it was evil of him to have saved the grape plant in the Ark, that God doesn’t want us to produce alcohol!

So, what exactly does Noah’s fall refer to?

Thanks,

CeciliaS
Click to expand...
CeciliaS

You can’t fall because of what another does, you fall because of your own doing. (in this case)

Gen:9:24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

This teaching is retched at best, for Noah was a righteous man who walked with God.

Gen:6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Unjust teachings of a sick imagination, that desires to prove evil, rather then good…
 
CeciliaS said:
Dear All,

I have been doing an on-line Bible study course (Scott Hahn’s) and I am stuck on part of it, and I am wondering if anyone can help me.

In discussing Noah, the study mentions that, when Noah got drunk, his eldest son looked upon him in his nakedness (paraphrase), and that, in ancient idiom, that was a way of saying that the son had slept with his own mother, and that doing so would be a way to challenge the authority of the father, implying family instability (and since God had made a family-oriented covenant with Noah, this was very grave.) Why, though, in this and other studies and commentaries, is NOAH considered to have fallen? His son (and only one of his three sons) did the disobedience, if that indeed is what the “Noah’s fall” episode refers to.

And, as a Catholilc, I cannot accept the teaching I have seen on various fundamentalist or evangelical sites, that Noah’s fall has to do with the fact that it was evil of him to have saved the grape plant in the Ark, that God doesn’t want us to produce alcohol!

So, what exactly does Noah’s fall refer to?

Thanks,

CeciliaS
Click to expand...
Cecilia - I’m not sure I’m understanding the question. The Scripture says Noah pronounced God’s punishment on Canaan, not that Noah was punished. Can you post the actual sentence or paragraph in which you’re finding the expression “Noah’s fall?”
 
CeciliaS said:
Dear All,

I have been doing an on-line Bible study course (Scott Hahn’s) and I am stuck on part of it, and I am wondering if anyone can help me.

In discussing Noah, the study mentions that, when Noah got drunk, his eldest son looked upon him in his nakedness (paraphrase), and that, in ancient idiom, that was a way of saying that the son had slept with his own mother, and that doing so would be a way to challenge the authority of the father, implying family instability (and since God had made a family-oriented covenant with Noah, this was very grave.) Why, though, in this and other studies and commentaries, is NOAH considered to have fallen? His son (and only one of his three sons) did the disobedience, if that indeed is what the “Noah’s fall” episode refers to.

And, as a Catholilc, I cannot accept the teaching I have seen on various fundamentalist or evangelical sites, that Noah’s fall has to do with the fact that it was evil of him to have saved the grape plant in the Ark, that God doesn’t want us to produce alcohol!

So, what exactly does Noah’s fall refer to?

Thanks,

CeciliaS
Click to expand...
The Haydock Commentary says that Cham and his father, who were the son and grandson of Noah, laughing at Noah’s nakedness. They saw this as a wicked thing.
 
Noah got drunk and let his family fall to pieces. His other two son’s did a hear no evil, see no evil, “turning” their backs to what the youngest had done. They allowed Ham to disrespect their mother and father, and did nothing to stop him, instead covering it up (as with a cloke).

Thus Noah the father of humanity became a drunk, his own son usurped his role of head of the family (to put politely), and his other two sons colluded to cover the affair up. Hence the fall of Noah - Where is biblical Maury Povich when you need him!

Obviously preserving the grape vine wasn’t Noah’s sin, as God later exalted the fruit of the vine almost just as he exalted the fruit of Mary’s womb!
 
I may have to write a couple posts in response to this. I’m not sure what his ‘fall’ was either.

Did your study take note of the introduction to the story of Noah? Does it say that there are two accounts of Noah’s flood, interwoven?

Notice Gen 5:29, where Lamech says that Noah (possibly meaning “to comfort”) will provide us relief…(etc.)"

One commentary says that Noah was a failure as far as this prediction goes – for the obvious reason that God destroyed all mankind, except for those on the ark.

Notice that later, after the flood, Noah DOES offer a sacrifice whereupon God issues a covenant never to destroy mankind again like that. So, if we’re a little critical of Noah here, maybe he should have prayed to God a bit sooner, no?

He did not intercede for mankind, as, say, Moses did later. So, you see? He did not provide relief of any sort for mankind, in this respect.

Gen 6:9 says that Noah was righteous, blameless in his age. This suggests that is sort of a qualified verdict on him. This suggests he was better than all the others, but perhaps not in any absolute way was he righteous.

We don’t see the flaw until after the flood, in the episode of his drunkenness. Maybe this is the ‘fall’ ? I have to look this up in the commentary. Is the drunkenness obviously a sin?

This story is parallel to the creation account, because God is getting mankind started again. So, in this parallel sense, perhaps the drunkenness is itself the sin. Have to check this.
 
The Bible is vague about Noah’s drunkenness and what happened in the tent.

One theory is that Noah didn’t know the wine would make him drunk, and that’s how he ended up that way. Another idea is that he knew exactly what would happen, and he got drunk, in remorse over all the humankind that perished in the flood.

He makes the sacrifice to God, who “repents” and says He will never destroy mankind this way again. So, recognizing that he should have made the sacrifice to God earlier which may have spared all the people their lives, he gets drunk.

After all, Genesis gives Noah and his father, Lamech, hundreds of years of life. Surely, Lamech must have discussed many times what his hopes for his son, Noah, were – to be comfort or relief to the people. Then, Noah blows it. He doesn’t intervene as he should have, and the flood happens.

You can also argue that Noah knew what the Lord was going to do, and he didn’t warn anybody else to repent.

Recall, that earlier, Abraham had intervened in the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, and at least Lot’s family was saved. But, Noah didn’t intervene for anybody, We know the result.

The sin of Ham is not clear. An earlier post suggested incest. It may have been sodomy or mutilation of Noah (as Noah has no further children after this incident).

Generalizing from the above, Noah’s ‘fall’ might have been not trusting in God, to pray to God for relief of the people.
 
To answer the question of my source, I was studying chapter 4, part IB, of the online Bible study course on Covenants, at www.salvationhistory.com. There also are several times, later in the course, in which Noah is referred to as having fallen, as if it is a well-known fact, and no explanation is given.

Thanks you all for your answers, you have given me lots of food for thought!

CeciliaS
 
I still don’t see anything in the text that suggests Noah was punished or even reprimanded by the Lord.

From a literary standpoint the story functions to explain why God promised the land of Canaan to the descendents of Isaac and ordered that the Chosen People drive out/destroy the Canaanites - because they were cursed.

The only place I can find references to Noah’s sin is on Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant websites. Which makes me even more curious to know what Scott Hahn might have said.
 
Another place in Scott Hahn’s study that mentions Noah’s fall:

In Lesson Two of that same study on covenants, part C, I quote:

"The Scriptures also depict Noah, like Adam, falling from grace…as the forbidden fruit of the gaarden proves to be Adam’s downfall, so the fruit of Noah’s vine, wine, becomes his. And like Adam’s fall, Noah’s exposes his sin and nakedness (see Genesis 3:6-7; 9:21) and results in a curse (see genesis 3:14-19; 9:25).

It goes on to explain that, while one of Noah’s sons was cursed, the other two were blessed, and Noah himself lived a long life.

My problem, I guess, is that it seems wrong to pin the sin on Noah himself. One of his sons did something wrong, so why is Noah referred to as falling?

CeciliaS
 
Maybe Noah’s sin was his drunkeness and maybe that’s not a small matter in God’s eyes When we voluntarily relinquish control over our free will by becoming totally intoxicated, we must still assume responsibility for what happens to our family while we are passed out. Maybe God is saying that we can’t use the excuse of being drunk to relieve our guilt about what we should have been doing. Just as police, fire-fighters, soldiers, etc are responsible for what happens on their watch, Noah was responsible for what happened to his wife while he was drunk.
 
I’ve read in some Jewish commentary on the story of Noah, that the Jewish scholars believe there must have been some covenant in place that mankind violated, to reap the wrath of God in the flood.

If you read the Sinai covenant (with Moses), there are many, many commands and statutes and laws and rules, and penalties for violating the covenant.

So, in Noah’s time, we read only about great widespread sin,but there probably had to be a covenant in place that was violated, to merit God’s wrath. We don’t know what that covenant was, but the rabbis have conjectured on what it might have been.
 
cecilia,
I’m reading ‘noah’s fall’ as the new hope for a virtuous post-flood humanity originating in noah that, of course, fails.

so, for me, the phrase could be reiterated as ‘the fall of the noahic hope.’

Also there may be something to be said regarding Noah’s ‘drunkenness’. He didn’t merely drink and take a nap. The text seems to indicate he passed out from excessive drinking.

interesting.

Petek
 
Noah is being somewhat irresponsible at this point, indulging in vulgar, excessive drunkenness. Although not a sin, really, it is a form of degradation and disrespect.

The wrong of Ham is to have added to Noah’s shamefulness by directly witnessing it and doing nothing to help Noah redress the shame. Furthermore, the suggestion is that Ham mocked Noah to the brothers, thus augmenting the shame.

I think that “incest” is reading too much into this scene.
 
CeciliaS said:
Dear All,

I have been doing an on-line Bible study course (Scott Hahn’s) and I am stuck on part of it, and I am wondering if anyone can help me.

In discussing Noah, the study mentions that, when Noah got drunk, his eldest son looked upon him in his nakedness (paraphrase), and that, in ancient idiom, that was a way of saying that the son had slept with his own mother, and that doing so would be a way to challenge the authority of the father, implying family instability (and since God had made a family-oriented covenant with Noah, this was very grave.) Why, though, in this and other studies and commentaries, is NOAH considered to have fallen? His son (and only one of his three sons) did the disobedience, if that indeed is what the “Noah’s fall” episode refers to.

And, as a Catholilc, I cannot accept the teaching I have seen on various fundamentalist or evangelical sites, that Noah’s fall has to do with the fact that it was evil of him to have saved the grape plant in the Ark, that God doesn’t want us to produce alcohol!

So, what exactly does Noah’s fall refer to?

Thanks,

CeciliaS
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you can dispense with the grape plant business–there’s no support for it in the text.

I would be curious to see how Scott Hahn backs up his assertion or what evidence he provides and I agree that the problem seems to be with the son, not the father. I also agree with the posters that say that the sin of Ham is vague in the text. Just my own opinion, but I think Scott Hahn has a tendancy to assert his own ideas as facts without always making it clear that his interpretation is one of only a number of possibilities.
 
Crumpy said:
I’ve read in some Jewish commentary on the story of Noah, that the Jewish scholars believe there must have been some covenant in place that mankind violated, to reap the wrath of God in the flood.

If you read the Sinai covenant (with Moses), there are many, many commands and statutes and laws and rules, and penalties for violating the covenant.

So, in Noah’s time, we read only about great widespread sin,but there probably had to be a covenant in place that was violated, to merit God’s wrath. We don’t know what that covenant was, but the rabbis have conjectured on what it might have been.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not a covenant but that we are created in God’s image (essence of God)? I know we lost that “essence” at the time of the fall in the Garden. However, scripture does states this in Genesis 1:27-28 - then to compare that passage to the next passage found in Genesis 9:6 we note that the passage states “6 “Whoever sheds human blood,by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” 7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

We may not be created in a physical sense but in a spiritual image giving us the wisdom to judge, that is, to counsel people, to teach people the ways to God (understanding), to forgiveness others(Mark 11:25)…and the most important (I think) is that we have the ability to communicate with God everyday in prayer - to ask God for the things we need (Matthew 6:6)

So how I felt about that part of scripture - the flood, was the fact, that people lost “all” sense of morals or that sense of that image of God (or essence) that mankind had at the beginning of creation. I believe the wickedness and violence was more so than Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:9) and for that reason (see Book of wisdom 10:1-4) God decided to wipe out His creation due to the violence. (See Psalm 8:4)

“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet.”

Book of Wisdom 9::1. God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, 9:2. And by thy wisdom hast appointed man, that he should have dominion over the creature that was made by thee, 9:3. That he should order the world according to equity and justice, and execute justice with an upright heart:

Man was given wisdom - the very image of God. So man became violent in his nature and this was listed in two passages. note this:

The passage begins - 5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

and then again (as to repeat)

1 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
 
CeciliaS said:
Dear All,

I have been doing an on-line Bible study course (Scott Hahn’s) and I am stuck on part of it, and I am wondering if anyone can help me.

In discussing Noah, the study mentions that, when Noah got drunk, his eldest son looked upon him in his nakedness (paraphrase), and that, in ancient idiom, that was a way of saying that the son had slept with his own mother, and that doing so would be a way to challenge the authority of the father, implying family instability (and since God had made a family-oriented covenant with Noah, this was very grave.) Why, though, in this and other studies and commentaries, is NOAH considered to have fallen? His son (and only one of his three sons) did the disobedience, if that indeed is what the “Noah’s fall” episode refers to.

And, as a Catholilc, I cannot accept the teaching I have seen on various fundamentalist or evangelical sites, that Noah’s fall has to do with the fact that it was evil of him to have saved the grape plant in the Ark, that God doesn’t want us to produce alcohol!

So, what exactly does Noah’s fall refer to?

Thanks,

CeciliaS
Click to expand...
Hi Cecilia;

I agree with you about the various explanations on that part of Genesis. Right now, I’m only looking at one passage and the harvesting of wine in Israel. The passage is listed in Genesis 9:20, “Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.” I think that passage might be the place to start looking.

If that is the case, I don’t read anything in Genesis that even gives the hint that Noah has fallen - but if so, it would be that perhaps that the wine was not being blessed before consuming nor the field that he planted the vine? - not kosher, see the processing of wine. I’m only looking at that in the sense of Cain and Abel, Cain offering up the fruit of the harvest - the soil being cursed at the time of the fall in the garden…and that’s tugging far on fact, I think maybe too far.

You might look at the history of wine in Israel -
Part 7: A Long History of Wine
and also, WINE IN THE BIBLE: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (about fermented wine and unfermented wine)

“And behold this vine…was planted in a good soil by great waters that it may bring forth branches and that it may bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine.” – Ezekiel, 17.7 (harvesting of wines - August/September and see Deut. 8:8 )
 
cecilia,
on that same web site Dr. Hahn has some papers he has submitted to scholarly journals for review. one of them deals specifically with the curse of canaan and the sin of ham being incest. As could be expected Dr. Hahn (and a co-author whom I forget) provide solid scriptural support for these assertions. I’ve read the paper (it’s 6 or 7 pages) and find it’s incest explanation more persuasive than other explanations for the nature of ham’s sin.

Anyway, the main point of the flood narrative is often missed by those who are out to prove the historical fact of an earth encompassing flood. Maybe this did occur, but it’s not the main point. The main point is that if one were to eliminate all of humanity save eight people in an attempt to eradicate evil from the face of the earth - that attempt would fail. Because the capacity for evil exist within humans themselves. It is not an external problem but an internal one. This idea is picked up by Jesus when he says it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out (of his heart).

It’s man’s heart where the capacity and potential for evil resides and nowhere else.

I have been guilty of harboring this false notion corrected by the flood narrative. When I was younger, in my frustration with the homosexual community I often thought, why don’t they just put them all on an island somewhere and get them out of our lives so things can get back to normal. Naive as it is, this is a common attitude toward groups of people that irritate us. The lesson in the flood narrative corrects this line of thought with the answer that even if these frustrating evil people were all washed away by some torrent never to return - evil would remain as long as humankind walks the earth. The irritation would soon return and maybe stronger than before.

So this post-flood episode is considered a ‘fall’ because it was thought all evil would be eradicated giving humanity a fresh clean slate.

Just random thoughts.
Peterk
 
PeterK said:
cecilia,
on that same web site Dr. Hahn has some papers he has submitted to scholarly journals for review. one of them deals specifically with the curse of canaan and the sin of ham being incest. As could be expected Dr. Hahn (and a co-author whom I forget) provide solid scriptural support for these assertions. I’ve read the paper (it’s 6 or 7 pages) and find it’s incest explanation more persuasive than other explanations for the nature of ham’s sin.
Click to expand...
Could you post a link to this website?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top