# Noahic Covenant found in the New Covenant



## Sovereign Grace (Jun 10, 2022)

I can obviously see the Abrahamic, Davidic, and Mosiac Covenants permeating the New Testament. Where is the Noahic Covenant found exactly in the NC?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 10, 2022)

It's a bit hard for me to understand your question, partly because I suspect you may be coming at the issue from a different perspective than I might.

The OT covenant forms, while not precisely conforming to an ever-expanding or widening paradigm, do trace an organic developmental trajectory. They build on prior establishments while they exercise and expand into hitherto unrealized potential. The covenants of the OT work together toward the NC moment of fulfillment.

The covenant with Noah that receives clear expression after the flood establishes an unshakable connection between the _stage_ on which redemption is enacted--namely creation, this world, which was originally created and which just underwent an "unmaking" of sorts in the deluge, and a kind of re-creation or renewal when the waters subsided--and the history that will culminate in the great acts of redemption in history, with implications for participants that extend into the age to come. That coming age will see at its inception a more radical demolition and renovation of the created order. The kingdom of glory will begin by seeing Noah's covenant pass away in much the same way (and for a similar reason) that Moses' covenant passed away. The purpose for Noah's covenant will have been perfectly realized.

The concept of a more thorough regeneration (Mt.19:28) of the created order (than was effected by water) is alluded to by Peter in 2Pet.3:3-13. There, the apostle ties the first "perishing" of the world to the second one which we still anticipate. All this to say: God covenanted to Noah, and through him to a restarted human race (but in particular those believers in the promises made) that this world will not end by anything in creation, on this planet or beyond it, nor by his own power from beyond the universe, until all his saving purposes have been accomplished.

That this world continues is a testament to the fact that he is not done with it yet. Man should not fear an asteroid strike, or a climate catastrophe, or nuclear annihilation (even as we pray for relief from real threats, especially on colossal scale). Instead, man should live in hope of his future on this world, even in spite of cosmic powers beyond his control; and even in spite of his own evil, carelessness, and folly capable of doing significant damage to creation in the meantime.

I hope this is helpful.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jun 10, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It's a bit hard for me to understand your question, partly because I suspect you may be coming at the issue from a different perspective than I might.
> 
> The OT covenant forms, while not precisely conforming to an ever-expanding or widening paradigm, do trace an organic developmental trajectory. They build on prior establishments while they exercise and expand into hitherto unrealized potential. The covenants of the OT work together toward the NC moment of fulfillment.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your reply, but much of this is over my head at the moment, so I will need to look at this deeper as time permits. What I meant in the OP is we can see the Davidic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic Covenants being mentioned in Ezekiel 37 for instance. We can see the Abrahamic Covenant being mentioned in Galtians 3. 2 Peter 2 speaks of the flood, but I don't know of any other place this is mentioned in the NT. 

I guess what I should ask is what part does the Noahic Covenant play in the Covenant of Grace? I've always held to CT, but coming from the Baptist perspective, it's apparent my view is differing from the Presbyterian view of CT. I am trying to study the Presbyterian view of CT, as I am thinking my Baptist CT view is not as biblical as I once did. I saw it on an individual level, but I cannot help but see the covenant family view being the biblical view. 

So, expect some rather stupid questions, as I am afraid I may ask them as I try to learn all this. Please everyone, if I do ask a question that sounds rather stupid, its not meant to be that way. Sometimes I have odd ways of expressing myself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 10, 2022)

I don't think your Q is silly or unworthy. I suspected your original Q could be the product of a struggle to express ideas you have some grasp of, but I have a different (and perhaps more complete or secure) grasp of the same subject. My answer might then not make good sense to you, at least right away. We could be talking a similar-but-different language.

In Mt.24:37-39 Jesus refers to the flood of Noah's time, and (likewise to Peter) implies an analogy between the catastrophe that "undid" creation the first time and Final Judgment. So, there you have a second NT mention of the _context _in which God makes covenant with Noah to preserve him and, more broadly, to preserve the earth/creation and the human race until such time as he removes the earth.

What I propose to you is that God's covenant with Noah is his promise for this world to continue as one vital and necessary condition for the completion of redemption. The covenant of Redemption/Grace has as an integral aspect the ongoing (through the _whole_ of human history) expression of Noah's covenant kept. It most certainly is gracious, not least in which the Creator simply makes a unilateral promise to Noah and all who will be redeemed in time that: the earth will stand. He has kept and is keeping his promise.

Christ has taken ownership of that covenant/promise by inheriting the earth and all dominion of it, Mt.28:18. He upholds all things by the word of his power, Heb.1:3. In him all things "consist" or "hold shape," Col.1:17. Jesus is _keeping_ the covenant God made with Noah, and he will keep doing so until there is no further purpose for it's maintenance. It will be fulfilled then in time and toward mankind generally, just as in principle it is already fulfilled in him as the Son of Man.

For what it's worth, I don't think it is too relevant what kind of CT a person uses, if Noah's covenant is as _foundational_ as I claim. More than any other covenant arrangement, this covenant has a "stand alone" quality. That quality is a product of the unilateral divine action guaranteeing the stage on which redemption is accomplished and applied. The rest of creation--inanimate, animal, and the unbelievers--all enjoy a temporary benefit of a place in which to profit, where they exploit the good things of God for a season. Those good things don't exist, however, for any _ultimate_ purpose beside furthering the covenant of Grace. There isn't any actual stand-alone purpose for creation other than as the stage for God-glorifying life. God's covenant with Noah is the surety means to the redemptive end.

I hope this is helpful.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jun 11, 2022)

@Contra_Mundum 

Do you see this earth being burned up, dissolved at the consummation of the ages? We may be able to expand this topic, but I want to know where exactly you stand before proceeding further. TIA


----------



## hammondjones (Jun 11, 2022)

At the level of (at least) a reference in the New Testament to the Noahic Covenant, I submit that you can find such in the Jerusalem Council:

Acts 15:29 - that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality
Compare:
Genesis 9:4 - But you shall not eat flesh with its life, _that is,_ its blood.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 12, 2022)

Sovereign Grace said:


> @Contra_Mundum
> 
> Do you see this earth being burned up, dissolved at the consummation of the ages? We may be able to expand this topic, but I want to know where exactly you stand before proceeding further. TIA


I think that's what Peter says explicitly, 2Pet.3:10,12. Mt.19:28 calls the coming age of glory a _regeneration, _a new Genesis in other words. A hew heavens and new earth comes forth out of the umaking of the old. The stuff from which the new is created is the same as God brought into being out of non-being at the primal origin; there is no _ex nihilo _creation again, with everything reduced to nothingness. But the stuff will be "formless and void" once more.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jun 12, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think that's what Peter says explicitly, 2Pet.3:10,12. Mt.19:28 calls the coming age of glory a _regeneration, _a new Genesis in other words. A hew heavens and new earth comes forth out of the umaking of the old. The stuff from which the new is created is the same as God brought into being out of non-being at the primal origin; there is no _ex nihilo _creation again, with everything reduced to nothingness. But the stuff will be "formless and void" once more.


Personally, I see Peter’s second epistle is speaking to a restored earth, just as God destroyed the earth in Noah’s day, which was not an obliteration but getting rid of the chaff. John Owen had a really good sermon on New Heavens and New Earth.






John Owen On the New Heaven and New Earth-Preterism, new heaven and new earth, and eschatology and Preterist soteriology; Preterism and Preterist eschatology, rapture and prophecy from a preterist perspective


Even John Owen interpreted 2 Peter 3 from the preterist perspective of eschatology concerning the new heaven and new earth.



eschatology.com


----------



## Brett (Jun 12, 2022)

I've been wondering lately if Melchizedek had his priestly functions as a part of the Noahic covenant. Reading Melchizedek's Wikipedia page, there is this blurb:

"Chazalic literature — specifically Targum Jonathan, Targum Yerushalmi, and the Babylonian Talmud — presents the name מלכי־צדק)) as a nickname title for Shem."

Shem was the son of Noah. And he was personally blessed in the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9:27. If one takes a literal approach to the genealogy in Genesis 11, Shem would still be alive during Abram's call.

So if it was a belief in second temple Judaism that Shem, the individual explicitly blessed in the Noahic covenant, was Melchizedek, maybe the author of Hebrews was using that belief to describe Christ's relation to the Noahic covenant in Hebrews 7.

This is just my personal speculation which I've only been wondering for a couple days. I'm open to be corrected.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 13, 2022)

Brett said:


> I've been wondering lately if Melchizedek had his priestly functions as a part of the Noahic covenant. Reading Melchizedek's Wikipedia page, there is this blurb:
> 
> "Chazalic literature — specifically Targum Jonathan, Targum Yerushalmi, and the Babylonian Talmud — presents the name מלכי־צדק)) as a nickname title for Shem."
> 
> ...


A few questions come to mind.
1) Why would Moses, after concluding all focus on Shem (Gen.11:11), later on in in Genesis bring him back in the story while disguising his identity?
2) What is the precise connection between Noah's blessing on Shem and the divine covenant God made with Noah?
3) How could it happen that an ancient Shem/Melchizedek came to live in the lands belonging to and in the midst of the descendants of cursed Canaan?
4) How does the Heb.7 reference to Melchizedek verge on support for this view, other than by shifting attention from one historic figure (and the fact he has NO genealogical information, especially a father but also no son--Melchizedek is presented as a "abiding" figure in the text of Genesis) to another who has an extant genealogy; then following another remove from an individual to a covenant abstraction?

There seems to be an _a priori _at work in the Talmudic speculations, in which for Abraham to show honor or deference to another man it must be someone in his family tree, preferably someone in the text, someone to whom respect is evidently owed (note the "works" principle). But Abraham is saved by grace through faith out of rank idolatry. He isn't chosen by God because he's great, or because he has potential, or because he at least did the least that was required of him in spite of his handicaps. A person so saved recognizes another who shares his faith, and is not primarily concerned to establish each one's relative position in any spiritual hierarchy. For his worldwide redemptive purposes God inaugurated a fresh covenant establishment with Abraham, and there follows from that moment an historic transition-time between the prior age and the next. A saint of one era or covenant is equal to the saint of another, for their faith is in the same covenant God. However we stand in covenant and in connection with one another, it is not by nature or achievement but all of grace.

It appears from the person of Melchizedek, that although knowledge of God was in serious decline (again) in the post-flood world, yet it continued (even robustly) at one place or another; see e.g. Gen.20:11. Abram regarded Melchizedek as someone fit at least in Adamic or Noaic covenant terms to mediate as a priest on his behalf. It is impossible to tell from the bare text of Genesis if Melchizedek's faith preceded Abram's, which I suppose; or if he was converted by Abram's ministry to him, no impossibility. But in either case, Abram acknowledged Melchizedek's legitimate ministry, paid tithes to (through) him, and received his blessing as from a "superior" to an "inferior" per Heb.7:4,7. It was not required that this person be someone patrilineal with him, someone that might be regarded as the "greatest living person" who had a natural or legal right to compel Abram's obeisance. For my part, I very much doubt of the identification of Seth as Melchizedek, or of a connection intended between Noah and Christ in Heb.7.

There are times when as interpreters we may take steps out on a limb to aid us in promoting the plausibility of some theory. We do this when the evidence is scant, and don't plan to rest undue weight on it. We acknowledge the limit to such conclusions, and the existence of alternative views. In the absence of serious questions or doubts against a favored opinion, it can be argued there aren't any good reasons (yet!) for dismissing a hypothesis as unpromising. We need always to be _grounded _in the text of Scripture, held fast by the actual words on the page, taking only secure steps to reasoned conclusions, not from ideas spun out from the text, and further bolstered by pious proposals and speculations whether ancient or modern; but settling on that which appears necessary from incontrovertible fact.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

