“Noah” is one of the finest movies ever made.

First, let me say that Mattson gets it wrong. Aronofsky does not present a Gnostic Noah. I’ve worked through a lot of Gnostic texts, I’ve read Irenaeus several times (I have even taught Irenaeus to seminarians), and “Noah” is not Gnostic. For instance, the snakeskin is what the serpent *left behind* (the good part of creation) — and is no more a symbol of following the serpent than Moses’ Bronze Serpent indicates that Moses was a devotee of Satan! It would be more appropriate to see the snakeskin as a foreshadowing of how the Seed of the Woman will crush the head of the Seed of the Serpent (and further, Mattson errs in saying that *Noah* reclaimed the snakeskin [which he claims resulted in his enlightenment] — it was *Ham* who reclaimed the snakeskin, and Ham remains beclouded by his association with Tubal-Cain and repudiates the snakeskin). Sure, there are lots of Kabbalist imagery and associations — but his Gnostic comments miss the mark. Aronofsky is interacting with the whole history of interpretation when dealing with Noah — which is greatly to his credit!

Aronofsky explores the themes of total depravity, justice, and divine grace — together with the problem of Genesis 8:21 — namely, that human depravity is *not* going to go away after the flood. Even more important, Noah is portrayed as a righteous man from first to last. He *always* does what is right — even when he thinks he is wrong, he does right! The thoughts of his heart are wicked from his youth — but he is a righteous man, blameless in his generation.

Some have objected to the silence of God in the movie (although I can’t say that I’ve ever seen God portrayed well in a movie!). Let me put it this way: Aronofsky tells the story of Noah with more of God’s revelation than is found in the book of Esther. But after all, what exactly does it mean “Then the LORD said to Noah…”? We usually assume that God spoke in an audible voice. But what if he didn’t? What if he used dreams and visions?

In Genesis 6:13, God says, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh.” Think about that! That would sound to me like the utter annihilation of humanity. Sure, in our Bibles we get Genesis 6:18 five verses later. But we get the Flood story as told millennia later from the standpoint of the Exodus.

To put it another way, *almost* everything found in the Bible is there in the story (except Noah’s burnt offerings after the Flood — a serious omission in my view). The wives of the three sons are all on the ark. The ark is the proper size and shape. I, for one, particularly appreciated the clear distinction between the two distinct visions of “dominion” (and it is certainly a respectable position to claim that Noah was a vegetarian).

Maybe “Noah” doesn’t fit the Sunday school stories — but the Sunday school stories don’t particularly fit the Bible either! Let me put it this way: if you can stomach the moralistic drivel of Veggie Tales, you should love “Noah.” (This is not to say that you should let your three-year old watch “Noah”!) This is one of the few movies that upholds both the justice and mercy of God — and makes you wonder “do I really like the justice of God?” — but also makes it painfully clear that whether you like it or not, you are under it!

I think that Thornbury‘s review is definitely the best one that I’ve seen. He gets it exactly right when he says: “Only with the juxtaposition against radical depravity can mercy actually make sense. Failing this understanding, you cannot sustain Christian theism. Otherwise, mercy becomes weak, expected, and even demanded. Seeing Russell Crowe-as-Noah grit his teeth and war against real flesh-and-blood evil makes sin, a notion seemingly incredible to Hollywood, to be real. As a viewer, locked into the gaze of the film, you’re thinking, I’m with God, and this Noah guy.”

But I don’t think that Thornbury’s theological objections hold water. First, Aronofsky’s “Creator” *does* speak very clearly — perhaps not audibly — but when Tubal-Cain demands an answer from God, the rain continues to pour down; when Noah demands an answer, the rain stops. (And God sends miraculous signs and wonders over and over again). If Noah will listen, he will hear. Further, the visions and signs are clear communication from God.

And second, it is clear from Aronofsky’s telling that God does *not* intend Noah any harm. Noah and his family will only come to harm if they follow in the ways of Cain. (Which means, of course, that in the end humanity is doomed — because the corruption of Adam remains). Methuselah says that his father, Enoch, had spoken of a judgment by fire — but Noah says no, it will be water — and the point of water is to purify and cleanse — in order to save the innocent.

In his follow-up comment, Mattson says “A number of people challenged my idea that God wanted to kill Noah and his family too, because Emma Watson’s character explains, “Maybe The Creator wanted you to decide” whether the human race lives or dies. Well, fine. The Creator doesn’t reveal anything about himself or his purposes in this film, so you’re certainly allowed to take her word for it. But it gets you no closer to anything resembling a biblical doctrine of God.”

But Mattson fails to remember why God chose Noah. Noah is the last of the line of Seth. He is the heir of Enoch and Methuselah. He is the one righteous man. Noah has been chosen as the second Adam. God knows that Noah will do what is right. That’s what righteous men do. The difference between the biblical account and Aronofsky’s account is that Aronofsky is trying to figure out, “what would it have felt like to be Noah?” (And admittedly he throws in a bit of an Abrahamic twist into the mix along the way!)

So, I’m left with one substantial objection: there were no burnt offerings after the flood. But even that is assuaged by Aronofsky’s introduction of the theme of Abraham and Isaac into the narrative. Kierkegaard said in Fear and Trembling that you cannot understand the psychology of Abraham — and most attempts wind up turning Abraham into a monster. By putting it into pictures rather than words, Aronofsky comes closer than Kierkegaard could. Noah believes that God has called him to kill his granddaughters. And from the logic of Genesis 6:13 [“I have determined to make an end of all flesh”], this would be the just thing to do. But he cannot. Why? Because he loves them. And yet Noah *knows* that if his offspring does not die, then humanity is doomed to repeat the corruption of the first creation. But of course, that is precisely how the image of God should think. It would be just for humanity to be extinguished. But God loved the world thus, that he sent his only-begotten Son…

At the end of the movie, humanity remains under condemnation. Water could not wash away the corruption of Adam. Only fiery destruction is left. Can anything prevent this? I realize that Aronofsky probably believes that humanity’s only hope is ourselves, but if Aronofsky was *trying* to set us up for the gospel of Christ, he could not have said it better.