David Brooks, “Harvey, Irma, Jose … and Noah” (12 SEP 2017), on The New York Times at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/harvey-irma-jose-and-noah.html [accessed 14 SEP 2017]; a version of this op-ed appears in print in the New York edition of The New York Times (12 SEP 2017), pg. A27; and under the title “Noah all wet; heed Abraham,” The Times Tribune (Scranton, PA; 13 SEP 2017), pg. A11.
1. The author,
along with those he cites, appears to be ignorant of the Old Testament contexts
concerning both Noah and Abraham, and the subsequent New Testament revelation
concerning Noah along with his linkage to Abraham.
Noah did “hearken” to the commands that God gave him.
Anyone suggesting otherwise finds their judgment indicted by the Word of God.
“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as
yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which
he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by
faith.” (Hebrews 11:7)
Abraham also obeyed God, but his obedience in no sense
involved, on the one hand, a reconstructed Ur in Canaan, or on the other hand,
a reconstruction of the cities of the plain like Sodom.
To assume that there is a divide between Abraham and Noah
when it comes to faith, obedience, and their relationship to God, as this
author does, is ludicrous when examined in the light of Scripture which refers
to Noah’s faith, his response of godly fear, and his inheritance of “the
righteous which is by faith.”
There were no “collective institutions” for Noah to yoke
himself to. On this point alone the entire premise of Brooks’ article falls to
the ground. This realization should cause the readers of this column to respond
with incredulity to the final paragraph. One is left wondering if perhaps the
responsibility for the universal destruction is to be laid at Noah’s feet due
to his failure to yoke himself to “collective institutions” prior to the
deluge, or perhaps a localized flood is imagined leaving institutions in place
for him to yoke himself to. Following this train of thought for the sake of
argument the judgment at Babel looms as the result (Genesis 11:1-9).
Besides this, the only “collective institution” that
Abraham was yoked to was the covenant family, intentionally separated from
Sodom, Gomorrah, or any other city of the plain destroyed by fire from God. His
intercession is intentionally concluded by the successful deliverance of his
extended family members, and only then on the basis — presented as a given — of
their relationship to God. In the sense apparently intended by Brooks Abraham’s
intercession failed miserably, since Sodom was not saved, and the few who were
saved only experienced this by being removed from the scene prior to the fall
of judgment. Those attempting to position Abraham and his intercession against
Noah and his lack thereof must admit that Abraham’s initial intercession
compromised by entering into a reductionist process that could only be
paralleled in the Noahic account by linking the 8 members of Noah’s family
being delivered while the world is destroyed to the family of Lot being led out
of Sodom just prior to its destruction.
The supposed “silence” of Noah in the face of the
revelation from God concerning the coming destruction is demonstrated to be
erroneous in the New Testament where Noah is portrayed as far from silent. “And
spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of
righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Peter
2:5) Understanding that Noah is a preacher of righteousness may not be limited
to the post-announcement, pre-deluge period, but must embrace the period prior
to God’s revelation of the coming destruction by deluge. Avivah Gottlieb
Zornberg, the daughter of a Rabbi, and considered to be a Torah scholar, is
cited by Brooks as affirming that Noah was “incurious,” ignorant and apathetic
towards those who are about to be destroyed by God, and incapable of meaningful
speech to God and his fellows. I will leave to others to establish whether or
not this evidences even good Torah scholarship. Such judgmental assumptions are
certainly contrary to Moses’ description of this just man who found grace in
the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 6:8-9), and Peter’s recorded characterization of
him as a preacher of righteousness.
Fact: Noah’s family was saved. The pre-deluge world was
not.
Fact: Abraham’s relatives were delivered. Sodom and the
cities of the plain were not.
Fact: Moses’ nation was not immediately destroyed, but
only two from that generation entered the Promised Land: Joshua and Caleb. The
rest died on the other side of the river as a judgment from God (including
Moses).
Fact: All three of these men, Noah, Abraham, and Moses
are found commended for their faith in Hebrews 11, the “Hall of Fame” of the
faithful.
2. Criticism of
what Noah did or did not do prior to or subsequent to the Deluge evidences
the proud self-righteousness of an
armchair patriarch or Monday morning prophet.
We have no idea concerning the specific details of what
Noah saw or heard from the world condemned and destroyed by God. Any insistence
concerning what he did or did not do beyond what the text of Scripture
explicitly reveals is an argument based on silence. Such eisegestical
presumptions must be summarily rejected as speculative at best.
The absence of any revelation concerning an attempt by
Noah to intercede for this pre-deluge world likewise condemns assumptions to
the contrary as begging the question (petitio
principii). If Noah did attempt to intercede, it is not revealed. God’s
inscripturated revelation does not speak in the negative of such an attempt. In
other words, God did not choose to tell us in His inspired Word that Noah did
not attempt to intercede for the condemned world. From the previous point it
would seem a stretch to assume that intercession did not accompany the
preaching of this righteous man.
The first question begged is therefore, “Why not? Why are
we not told one way or the other whether Noah attempted to intercede for the
pre-deluge world?” Furthermore, if Noah did not intercede, the second question
begged is, “Why didn’t Noah intercede for the pre-deluge world?” To pass
judgment on Noah for this assumed failure by comparison to Abraham and Moses as
this columnist does is to ignore the differences in the historical events, and
the fact of this silence.
“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the
longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:20)
There are points of comparison between Noah and Abraham,
but also contrasts that must not be ignored. In fact, Noah may have more in
common with Lot, and Abraham with the ark than with each other. There is a
sense in which Abraham and his intercession functions for Lot and his family in
much the same way as the ark did for Noah and his family in the Biblical
narratives.
One would think that even if Brooks is unfamiliar with the
Nevi’im the Torah scholar and Rabbinical authorities he cites would be
cognizant of the Latter Prophet Ezekiel’s linkage of Noah with Daniel and Job
in his righteousness: “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in
it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the
Lord GOD….Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord
GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their
own souls by their righteousness.” (Ezekiel 14:14, 20) For them to sit in
judgment on Noah for what he did or did not do would seem to position
themselves as more righteous than this threesome which includes Noah.
I would recommend that in the future this columnist might
consult a wider variety of Biblical scholarship if he is going to attempt such
ancient indictments and modern applications as he has in this article.
Sola Scriptura,
Soli Deo Gloria,
John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA
16 SEP 2017
