Universalism and Particularism between Noah and Abraham Stories: An Approach to Understand Early Jewish and Christian Reception

In this article I have offered some remarks on the details of the Noah story and its relation to the election of Abraham. I have argued in which ways some significant changes in the reception history of Noah influenced how the Noah and Abraham traditions were understood in Jewish and Christian contexts. These different changes give us better possibility to see how ancient interpreters continually sought new different nuances in universalistic and particularistic interpretations of the Noah story.
First, Noah was a model of a righteous person whom God appreciated and saved from the catastrophe of the flood (Gen 6:8–9). In that way Noah provided a prototype of a human being who could have a good relationship with God (Ezek 14). In this respect Noah also became a good model for Abraham and his seed. Early Jewish reception history clearly interrelated Noah and Abraham with each other. While Noah was greatly idealised in early Jewish reception history, his role as a righteous person was downplayed in later rabbinical traditions. This is related to the central role of the Mosaic Torah and probably at least partly to the Christian exegesis where Noah was regarded as an uncircumcised man and a true believer in God (without the Mosaic Torah). In that way Noah was related to the exegesis of Paul, he also emphasised that Abraham was uncircumcised when he believed in God and became righteous (Gen 15; Rom 3–4; Gal 3–4). Noah and Abraham became prototypes of Christian universalistic and salvation-inclusive theology.
Second, I discussed early Jewish exegesis where Gen 10–11 was interpreted in conjunction with Deut 32:8–9 and Gen 6:1–4. This interlinkage between Gen 10–11 and Deut 32:8–9 was interpreted in the Book of Jubilees in order to emphasise the particularistic Jewish monotheistic religion contra pagan polytheistic religions. Abraham is presented in the Book of Jubilees as the first monotheistic believer who, in an aggressive way, abandoned polytheistic idolatry. I also demonstrated how Gen 10–11, Deut 32:8–9 and Gen 6:1–4 were interrelated in Origen’s exegesis. However, Origen understood the texts in a universalistic and salvation-inclusive way so that all peoples have the possibility to learn to know the only real God in the Christian Church while pagan peoples, with their demonic rulers, attempt to annihilate the Christian community without managing to do so.
Third, Noah’s blessing of Shem and Japhet and his curse on Canaan, the son of Ham, contained some universalistic ideas because the Persian government was included among the descendants of blessed Japhet. While the Jewish reception continues to emphasise the important role of Shem as the forefather for Abraham and left the blessing toward Japhet without consideration, Justin attempted to find new nuances by emphasising the universalistic promises in the blessing of Japhet.
Finally, the early Jewish reception history shows that “the sons of God” in Gen 6:1–4 were interpreted as referring to the “fallen angels” but in later rabbinical and Christian (after the Constantinian shift) exegesis this understanding was rejected. As far as the Christian interpretation is concerned, it was possible to see what kind of biblical arguments were used when “the sons of God” were interpreted as the descendants of Seth i.e., the forefathers of Abraham. This new interpretive scenario made it possible to argue that the universalistic community of believers (without the Mosaic Torah) was established from the beginning. What followed was the salvation-historical plan of God which aimed to establish the church for all peoples of the world.
These four themes in the reception history of the Noah story illustrate in which way ancient exegetes sought and found new nuances when they interpreted the story. The reception history is also a good tool for modern exegetes to illustrate different emphases in universalistic and particularistic theology which ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters formulated in their writings. The Noah story and its relation to Abraham tradition is only one example, even though quite illustrative, and more cases must be examined before one can formulate any tendency in ancient Jewish and Christian writings as far as universalism and particularism are concerned.