But they really don't know what they're supporting. In fact, I don't know that I fully understood what I was condemning. When I wrote my initial review, I banged it out the same night I saw the movie, trying to get something down while the thoughts were still fresh on my mind. There were some elements of the movie I wanted to research, but wouldn't have the chance to do so until later.
What those elements revealed was something far more sinister than I first understood. I thought I was watching a movie through the worldview of an atheist environmentalist vegan. I mean, that's bad enough. That's pretty much the pagan trinity, right? I'm kind of kicking myself now because the signs were obvious and I didn't catch it right away.
The movie Noah is Satan's retelling of the first 9 chapters of Genesis. Yes, I know it's April 1st. And no, this is not an April Fool's joke. The joke was on us.
Perhaps I should start back at the beginning of the film. After the opening prologue, the first two characters we see are Noah and his father, Lamech (the Lamech of Genesis 5:28-31, not the Lamech of Genesis 4:23-24). They are sitting alone together, and Lamech is giving Noah a history lesson, about to bestow on him a blessing. While he's talking, he's wrapping something around his forearm. It's the shed skin of a snake.
We know from the prologue that the skin is specifically from the serpent in the garden, shown shedding its skin before it slithers off to tempt Eve. At the end of the movie, after the flood and all of that is over, Noah is seen wrapping the same skin around his arm in the same way. It lights up as he speaks, just as it did for Lamech. He blesses his children to be fruitful and multiply over the earth.
That bothered me even when I saw the film. Why was the serpent's skin, essentially a mark of the devil, being used to touch people and issue blessings? But I just tossed up the significance to creative liberties and a careless director. Oh, the snake skin was deliberate alright. But what really broke it for me was when I was looking up the word "zohar."
At one point, Noah and his family come across what looks like abandoned machinery. Someone asks, "Is this a zohar mine?" I thought "zohar" was just some ancient element made up for the movie. Here's Wikipedia's definition of it:
"The Zohar is the foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought known as Kabbalah. It is a group of books including commentary on the mystical aspects of the Torah (the first five books of Moses) and scriptural interpretations as well as material on mysticism, mythical cosmology, and mystical psychology."I said in my first review that I thought Aronofsky had an understanding of the source material, meaning that he'd actually read Genesis to write his film. I was wrong. The Bible was not Aronofsky's source. It was the Kabbalah, a Jewish gnostic text.
Suddenly, the things I knew about gnosticism started clicking. During a scene that showed a flashback to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they were depicted not as humans but as human-shaped beings of light. When they ate the fruit they weren't supposed to and were driven from the garden, God made them "skins." No, not animal skin. Human skin. The gnostic twist on Genesis 3:21.
I thought that Aronofsky's rock creatures he called Watchers were his version of the Nephilim. They weren't. They were the gnostic beings known as Archons, not quite the same as mere angels as they supposedly helped the Creator in making the physical universe. In fact, the names of these beasts in the movie came from the names of demons mentioned in the Kabbalah.
By the way, the Creator himself, according to the gnostics, is not God. The creator of the material world is an intermediary being, a concept called the "demiurge," and is considered to be imperfect and even evil. One of the names the gnostics had for him was "Yahweh." Yeah.
So even though there are constant references to the "Creator" throughout the film, the reason why Aronofsky never includes the name "God" is because the Creator is not "God." The only one who thinks of him as God are Christians who see the film and impose that perception on this unseen, unheard character that keeps getting referred to as the Creator.
The gnostics think of the Creator as selfish, withholding divine knowledge. It was the serpent that told Adam and Eve they could be like God if they ate the fruit of the tree that the Creator told them not to eat from. So the serpent, according to the gnostics, was right, attempting to grant knowledge, and the Creator is the monster who withholds it. That's why the snake skin is such a prominent piece of the film.
When Lamech is going to bless Noah, they're interrupted by Tubal-Cain, who kills Lamech and takes the snake-skin as kind of a trophy. But Tubal-Cain never uses the skin. He just wears it around his neck. Later in the film, Noah and Tubal-Cain come in contact with one another again. It's about that time that Noah begins his descent into madness and becomes a monster while trying to fulfill the Creator's will. The snake-skin is always in proximity, but never in his possession.
Noah and Tubal-Cain become the same person. They're both monsters, and they both worship the Creator. Yes, even Tubal-Cain, who says he was made in the Creator's image. Essentially, their creator is a monster, so they're both monsters. When Noah defeats Tubal-Cain, who had stowed away on the ark, he gets the snake-skin and starts coming back to his senses. That's how he's able to refuse the Creator's will, which would have required him to kill his own newborn granddaughters.
And it's with the snake-skin that he blesses his family and tells them to be fruitful and multiply.
asdkfj;as;lkjasdf;lkjf;lkjasf (That's the only thing I could think of typing to express the heebie jeebies.)
All of this is deliberate. The film is not just taking creative liberties with a well-known Bible story. It's Satan's version of the first 9 chapters of the book of Genesis. We're such a biblically illiterate culture right now that the gnostic overtones slithered right past us.
Al Mohler writes, "In a lengthy essay for The New Yorker, Tad Friend recounted Darren Aronofsky's road to making Noah. The essay is not for the faint-hearted. In it, Aronofsky declares Noah to be 'the least Biblical Biblical film ever made.' We can't say we weren't warned." And we still didn't catch it. Christian leaders who have been supporting this movie, you will have to give an account for every idle word you speak (Matthew 12:36).
I conclude this follow-up review the same way I concluded the first: Know your Bible, and know it well. This is not the last time something like this will be thrown our way. Say... Wasn't there an earthquake in southern California the same day this Hollywood epic started raking in its millions?