In his commentary on the Noah story, Gordon Wenham observes a number of ways that Noah and Moses are typologically related to one another. In a section that asks how God’s mind was changed towards mankind after the Flood, he rightly suggests that the sacrifice of Noah had a propitiatory effect on God’s anger (Gen 8:20–22).
In developing this point theologically, Wenham posits two things: (1) the acceptance of every sacrifice requires the antecedent grace of God and (2) the sacrifice of Noah serves as a “prototype of the work of later priests.” (Genesis 1–15, 190). In other words, Wenham deals with both the character of God that is both holy and gracious; and he contends that in order for sinful man to enjoy God’s mercy and avoid his wrath, a priestly sacrifice is necessary.
Assigning to Noah a priestly role, he then relates Noah’s function to that of Moses another priest of God (cf. Ps 99:6). He cites R. W. L. Moberly with approval.
The striking similarity between the flood and Sinai, between Noah and Moses, is of great theological significance for the interpretation of each story. . . . The world, while still in its infancy, has sinned and brought upon itself Yahweh’s wrath and judgment. Israel has only just been constituted a people, God’s chosen people, yet directly it has sinned and incurred Yahweh’s wrath and judgment. Each time the same question is raised. How, before God, can a sinful world (in general) or a sinful people, even God’s chosen people (in particular), exist without being destroyed? Each time the answer is given that if the sin is answered solely by the judgment it deserves, then there is no hope. But in addition to the judgment there is also mercy, a mercy which depends entirely on the character of God and is given to an unchangingly sinful people. (At the Mountain of God, 92; cited by Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 191)
Moberly is exactly right on at least two accounts. Continue reading