What Noah Could Have Said But Didn't

[EricH]

Give me a break. What has happened to this board? A person cannot even post something worthy without it being picked to death. I never "drew conclusions" or made "lexical" anything. And if you agreed with the concept, then why do you feel the need to pick it apart? If I had been in grave error or stated something unbiblical I could see a correction. But this is ridiculous. You're wasting your time. If you want to pick something apart...how about taking a stab at the original article with is packed with unsound doctrine and scriptural errors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2 Tim 2:24-25 NASB

Just food for thought

[Guest shiloh357]

If you read nothing else I've said...please read the following:

Was it the ark that saved Noah? Was it his obedience to God's instructions that saved him? Let's see....

In Genesis 6 God tells Noah to build the ark and gives him very specific instructions. He tells him to use gopherwood and to make it about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Everything God tells Noah is very detailed and specific, but there is something tucked away inside those instructions that most people overlook. In verse 14, God tells him to coat it with "pitch" inside and out. This is highly important to the story. Pitch was something really thick, similar to tar or maybe sap. Why would God tell Noah to cover the entire ark with this? One, because it was sort of a "waterproof" agent and it would protect and preserve the wood. Two, because although Noah I'm sure worked hard and did his absolute best with the materials he had in order to make the ark exactly as God had instructed, being human..there is no doubt there was bound to be some gaps, some holes..some imperfections. The purpose of the pitch was to seal up all the cracks. Here's what is so cool, the word for "pitch" means: to cover, make atonement, make reconciliation, to ransom, purge, cleanse. Does that sound familiar?

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom (covering, atonement) for many." Mark 10:45

Jesus, in effect, was our "pitch". Yes, we are called to live a holy life...just as Noah was instructed to build this vessel that would save his family. But at the same time....God knows we are human and that we will fail at perfection. He doesn't leave us to drown in our failures and sins, He provides the covering we need and He "seals us" with His Spirit.

"Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered." Ps. 32:1

"You forgave the iniquity of your people and covered all their sins." Ps. 85:2

"Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set His seal of ownership on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." 2 Corinthians 1:21

This is the beauty of grace and forgiveness, that He covers us. He wants us to obey, to seek holiness and to repent of sin. But He knows that we will always fall short of perfection. Hence, the whole purpose of Him coming to cover us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Re-posting this because the last few repsonses seem to suggest it might've been overlooked. Amen to Ovedya's post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is one problem with your "pitch" analogy.

The word for pitch is Kopher

The word for atonement is kaphar as a verb and kippur as a noun (like yom kippur).

They are really two different words. Even through I agree with your conclusions, that part of your argument is not strong and is in fact fallacious

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh...I never said it was the same word. I showed how Scripturally the concept was very similar. Calling it "fallacious" is a bit strong don't you think? Especially considering I never claimed it was the same word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kaphar, Kopher are connected to Kippur or atone/cover. The pitch is a picture of the blood of Christ which atones or covers our sin. The picture is obvious, I think.

There is no fallacy in Tess's words. It would only be "fallacious" if her explanation of the picture was wrong. Kudos to all you have said, Tess. Especially your first response on this thread. Well done!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it is fallacious. It is called the "root fallacy". It assumes that because words have a similar point of origin or root, that the meanings of both are inherant any time either is used.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I wouldn't debate it with Shiloh, if I remember right he's fluent in Hebrew.

Secondly, where did she claim what you're accusing her of? Be careful how you make accusations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She maintains that kippur and kopher are all connected to the word atone, so since they are connected nuances can be borrowed between the two. I took 5 years of Hebrew for the record. My question is how can we be sure Mose intended the concept of atonement to be included when he described God's command to put pitch on the ark. The danger is that we are reading a meaning into the story that was not intended by the author

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can we be sure the author didn't mean that?

If anything, she is making a play on words and drawing an analogy. Just as the sap covered up the holes left by Noah, so God's grace covers our imperfections. It's an analogy...I think that is where you are getting confused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is my point exactly. We can't be sure either way. So the most we can say is that by analogy the concepts appear to be alike. But we cannot appeal to this on lexical grounds as if it is concrete fact. It is our opinion, because it cannot be substantiated.

Again I agree with her conclusions. I just don't thin they can be supported from the text in question. My question is how can we be sure Mose intended the concept of atonement to be included when he described God's command to put pitch on the ark. The danger is that we are reading a meaning into the story that was not intended by the author. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 6, other than the similarity of the word for pitch and atone that demands we connect the placing of pitch on the ark with what Christ does for us at atonement.

Mind you, I am in full agreement with her conclusions of what Christ does. I just don't think the "pitch" / "atonement" argument is the strongest. It is not clear to me that the inclusion of Noah putting pitch on the ark has the significance she attributes. That Moses intened we make this connection. It is not demanded from the text. We may be able to make an anecdotal connection. But the commonality of the root of the 2 words does not support the analogy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tess is speaking in a typological sense. The text does not have to "demand" the word "atone" in Genesis 6.

The Ark is a type of Salvation, indeed a type of Christ Himself. It is the blood of Jesus that covers us. The 8 in the ark were covered by the pitch. Likewise we who are in Christ are covered by His blood. Just as the ark preserved Noah and his family from the wrath of God, we who are in Christ are preserved from the wrath of God to come.

[Kabowd]

Give me a break. What has happened to this board? A person cannot even post something worthy without it being picked to death. I never "drew conclusions" or made "lexical" anything. And if you agreed with the concept, then why do you feel the need to pick it apart? If I had been in grave error or stated something unbiblical I could see a correction. But this is ridiculous. You're wasting your time. If you want to pick something apart...how about taking a stab at the original article with is packed with unsound doctrine and scriptural errors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2 Tim 2:24-25 NASB

Just food for thought

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel." Prov. 20:3

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." Prov. 18:2

Just some more food for thought. I think it would benefit many if everyone made an effort to understand where a person is coming from and see through to their intent, rather than rush to quarrel over semantics. Some issues (such as principle and doctrine) should be defended and corrected if there is a need....but jumping on one another over small issues is foolish, as Solomon teaches.

Thank you shiloh, serotta, Super Jew and others who have sought to understand the heart of what I was saying instead of trying to crush me with the weight of criticism. I'm not a Greek/Hebrew scholar and may never be, but I seek to understand the truth of God's word with a heart that is hungry and eager to learn. I know I'm young, but you never despise my youth. Thank you. There are a few still left on these boards who are gracious and loving, lovers of truth, who desire to see fruit and to see other people grow in their faith. You guys are some of those few and you are greatly appreciated.

[EricH]

If you read nothing else I've said...please read the following:

Was it the ark that saved Noah? Was it his obedience to God's instructions that saved him? Let's see....

In Genesis 6 God tells Noah to build the ark and gives him very specific instructions. He tells him to use gopherwood and to make it about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Everything God tells Noah is very detailed and specific, but there is something tucked away inside those instructions that most people overlook. In verse 14, God tells him to coat it with "pitch" inside and out. This is highly important to the story. Pitch was something really thick, similar to tar or maybe sap. Why would God tell Noah to cover the entire ark with this? One, because it was sort of a "waterproof" agent and it would protect and preserve the wood. Two, because although Noah I'm sure worked hard and did his absolute best with the materials he had in order to make the ark exactly as God had instructed, being human..there is no doubt there was bound to be some gaps, some holes..some imperfections. The purpose of the pitch was to seal up all the cracks. Here's what is so cool, the word for "pitch" means: to cover, make atonement, make reconciliation, to ransom, purge, cleanse. Does that sound familiar?

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom (covering, atonement) for many." Mark 10:45

Jesus, in effect, was our "pitch". Yes, we are called to live a holy life...just as Noah was instructed to build this vessel that would save his family. But at the same time....God knows we are human and that we will fail at perfection. He doesn't leave us to drown in our failures and sins, He provides the covering we need and He "seals us" with His Spirit.

"Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered." Ps. 32:1

"You forgave the iniquity of your people and covered all their sins." Ps. 85:2

"Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set His seal of ownership on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." 2 Corinthians 1:21

This is the beauty of grace and forgiveness, that He covers us. He wants us to obey, to seek holiness and to repent of sin. But He knows that we will always fall short of perfection. Hence, the whole purpose of Him coming to cover us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Re-posting this because the last few repsonses seem to suggest it might've been overlooked. Amen to Ovedya's post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is one problem with your "pitch" analogy.

The word for pitch is Kopher

The word for atonement is kaphar as a verb and kippur as a noun (like yom kippur).

They are really two different words. Even through I agree with your conclusions, that part of your argument is not strong and is in fact fallacious

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh...I never said it was the same word. I showed how Scripturally the concept was very similar. Calling it "fallacious" is a bit strong don't you think? Especially considering I never claimed it was the same word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kaphar, Kopher are connected to Kippur or atone/cover. The pitch is a picture of the blood of Christ which atones or covers our sin. The picture is obvious, I think.

There is no fallacy in Tess's words. It would only be "fallacious" if her explanation of the picture was wrong. Kudos to all you have said, Tess. Especially your first response on this thread. Well done!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it is fallacious. It is called the "root fallacy". It assumes that because words have a similar point of origin or root, that the meanings of both are inherant any time either is used.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I wouldn't debate it with Shiloh, if I remember right he's fluent in Hebrew.

Secondly, where did she claim what you're accusing her of? Be careful how you make accusations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She maintains that kippur and kopher are all connected to the word atone, so since they are connected nuances can be borrowed between the two. I took 5 years of Hebrew for the record. My question is how can we be sure Mose intended the concept of atonement to be included when he described God's command to put pitch on the ark. The danger is that we are reading a meaning into the story that was not intended by the author

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can we be sure the author didn't mean that?

If anything, she is making a play on words and drawing an analogy. Just as the sap covered up the holes left by Noah, so God's grace covers our imperfections. It's an analogy...I think that is where you are getting confused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is my point exactly. We can't be sure either way. So the most we can say is that by analogy the concepts appear to be alike. But we cannot appeal to this on lexical grounds as if it is concrete fact. It is our opinion, because it cannot be substantiated.

Again I agree with her conclusions. I just don't thin they can be supported from the text in question. My question is how can we be sure Mose intended the concept of atonement to be included when he described God's command to put pitch on the ark. The danger is that we are reading a meaning into the story that was not intended by the author. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 6, other than the similarity of the word for pitch and atone that demands we connect the placing of pitch on the ark with what Christ does for us at atonement.

Mind you, I am in full agreement with her conclusions of what Christ does. I just don't think the "pitch" / "atonement" argument is the strongest. It is not clear to me that the inclusion of Noah putting pitch on the ark has the significance she attributes. That Moses intened we make this connection. It is not demanded from the text. We may be able to make an anecdotal connection. But the commonality of the root of the 2 words does not support the analogy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tess is speaking in a typological sense. The text does not have to "demand" the word "atone" in Genesis 6.

The Ark is a type of Salvation, indeed a type of Christ Himself. It is the blood of Jesus that covers us. The 8 in the ark were covered by the pitch. Likewise we who are in Christ are covered by His blood. Just as the ark preserved Noah and his family from the wrath of God, we who are in Christ are preserved from the wrath of God to come.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In order for a text to have a meaning, there must be signals in the text that demand a given meaning. There is only one meaning for a given Biblical text. Typological interpretations are indicated only if the author has indicated that was their intention. Otherwise, people are free to read typologies wherever they see fit. Also a danger is taking typologies too far. That everything in the story has a corresponding object in reality. People make this mistake with parables all the time.

I actually worry more about someone who comes to the right conclusions using the wrong method, than I do someone who comes to the wrong conclusion using the right method. It is easier to correct the latter.

So I guess it depends on what you are attempting with a text. If you want the freedom to add typologies that the author did not intend, you are right. The text need not demand them. But realize as you do this, you may not be on the firmest of ground. You may cometo a correct conclusion, but you may not. But if you are trying to get at the intent of the author, you are limited to what he conveyed in the text.

A text has one meanng and many applications. Applications are only valid if they reflect the meaning of the text. For our applications to be correct, we have to get as close as we can to the author's intent. The way authors typically convey meaning is through the rules of grammar, linguistics, and context.

A final danger is that by making a text a type that was not intended to be so, we may miss out on the true meaning that the author intended. We have read a meaning over the text, that may be true, but not relected in the text in question. Thus we miss out on the truth that the text in question had to offer.

[Kabowd]

I'm 16 years old man, give me some credit. At least I attempted to explain a biblical concept that apparently many adults don't even comprehend. You want to debate typology, lexical gronds and analogies that's all well and good ...but the entire meaning and content of what I posted...even the truth in it has now been lost within the last several posts.

[apothanein kerdos]

Oh my gosh Eric, give it up. We all see what she was doing but you continue to insist that your view is the only view. That apparently the way you saw it is the only correct way to see it. Face it, you saw it the wrong way, you jumped on it, and now you're acting like a typical seminary student with too much knowledge and no wisdom on how to use it. Give up the debate, we know what she meant, and she's not in error. It's okay, we all jump to conclusions without asking. This time your conclusion was wrong, we all learned, thank you. But don't keep accusing her of something she didn't mean to do. A simple, "Oops, read too much into it, sorry" will do.

[Fisher of Men]

Though faith was the root from which Noah's works came, can we separate the two to say the one saved him without the other?

If I declare to you that a million dollars is waiting for you at a certain location and all you have to do is go and get it:

Two things are necessary to get it. Faith in what I have declared and the work of acting on that faith to go and get it.

Can you say that faith is what got you the money and it wasn't the work of going to get it? Would you not be seen to be perhaps even insane for making such a conclusion?

Any sane person would agree that though faith was the initial and important ingredient that made the getting of the money possible, the money would not have been gotten if it were not for the going and getting it. Both were responsible for the getting of it.

Both the faith and the work were responsible for getting Noah saved.

Didn't someone confidently write earlier that it was Noahs faith that saved him and not his works?

So the ark, his work didn't save him? This is insane.

[Guest cheryn220]

Wow Tess, you're 16?

If had half the sense at that age or was as scripturally discerning as a new Christian...

Getting back to the original post. In order for Noah to have completed the "works" God gave him to do, he had to believe and trust in the Lord. He was "saved" because he first found favor with God not because he could follow directions.

If works alone could save us then why do we need a savior?

Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

[Ovedya]

Fisher, regardless of how you put it, faith is the factor by which we are saved.

Works is the natural result of genuine faith. It is the product of faith. However, works in and of themselves do not save. Yet faith in and of itself does save, because faith is more than just placing your belief in something.

Faith is the element of God imparted into the believer the moment that they hear the gospel and believe, it is not just some nebulous concept:

"For I say, through the grace given to me, to every one who is among you, not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think, but to think so as to be sober-minded, as God has apportioned to each a measure of faith." (Rom. 12:3)

"But to each one grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (Eph. 4:7)

"Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love." (Eph. 4:16)

"So faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17)

"This only I wish to learn from you, Did you receive the Spirit out of the works of the law or out of the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:2)

"He therefore who bountifully supplies to you the Spirit and does works of power among you, does He do it out of the works of the law or out of the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:5)

A general principle of all life is that it acts according to its nature. A dog barks because it has the nature of a dog. A cat purrs because it has the nature of a cat. An apple tree produces apples because it has the nature, the life, of an apple tree.

The believers in Christ have become a new creation by virtue of two things: First and foremost, by the shedding of Christ's blood upon the cross. On the cross Christ accomplished an all-inclusive redemption for mankind.

Second, the believers have become a new creation according to the creative work which Christ accomplished on the cross. Now this sounds like a new concept, but actually it is not. Before the Lord Jesus Christ went to the cross all of mankind was of the old creation. That is, they were a part of the fallen creation from Adam (Rom. 5:14). This is referred to in a personal sense as the "old man" (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9; 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 8:13; Matt. 9:16-17; 1 Cor. 5:7-8; Heb. 1:11). However, it was this old man that was crucified with the Lord Jesus on the cross, put to death with Him (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20), and out of His death and resurrection Christ formed the one new man, which is the aggregation of the new creation (Eph. 2:15; 4:24; Col. 3:10; Gal. 6:15).

Therefore, all the believers in Christ have become a new creation, and they are part of the one new man, which is the Body of Christ. What is the Body of Christ? It is the the corporate composition of all the believers in Christ in spirit, who both contain the Lord and who are contained by the Lord (He is in us and we are in Him together) (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12; 27; Eph. 4:12).

Because we are part of the new creation, and are members of the Body of Christ, we have also become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), this nature is nothing less than the indwelling Triune God in our spirit (John 14:23), who is also the element of the Body of Christ. Christ is the "life blood" of the Body. He flows in and out and through all the members.

Finally, because all of the believers are partakers of the divine nature it is natural that God will be expressed through the believers. Remember: The life possessed determines the expression. A dog barks because it has the life and nature of a dog, a cat purrs because it has the life and nature of a cat. So if you, as a believer possess the life and nature of God, by virtue of being a partaker of that nature, what do you expect that your expression would be? God, right? God expressed is God (But actually we call it "godliness)!

Believers do not do good works not because they believe that the works will in and of themselves will "get them into heaven." If that were the case, then there would be no need to believe into Christ at all. We could just do the works! In fact, doing good works pretty much completely nullifies Christ's work on the cross!

No, believers do good works because works are the result, the product of a life lived out of faith! Do you know what godliness is, according to the Bible? Godliness is the living out - the expression of God - by the believers in their daily life. This is self-evident by their good works.

[Christ's Free Servant]

Wow Tess, you're 16?

If had half the sense at that age or was as scripturally discerning as a new Christian...

Getting back to the original post. In order for Noah to have completed the "works" God gave him to do, he had to believe and trust in the Lord. He was "saved" because he first found favor with God not because he could follow directions.

If works alone could save us then why do we need a savior?

Galatians 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The GREATS OF THE FAITH in Hebrews 11 were saved by their faith in the promised Messiah. They were looking ahead to the promise. We are saved by our faith in the Messiah. We are looking back to what he did for us on the cross and they and us are all looking forward to a home in heaven. Our works are just evidence of our faith. Without such evidence, then how can such faith exist?