# Noahic Covenant as Royal Grant without stipulations?



## DavidGGraves (Jun 11, 2008)

I am currently reading Michael Horton's _God of Promise_ in it he repeats a line I have seen elsewhere, such as in Geerhardus Vos that the Noahic Covenant with the bow pointing upward is gracious and has no stipulations placed on Noah and his progeny. Sounds good, but I am struck by the explicit stipulations against eating blood and homicide. As both are passing over these issues quickly in an overview they do not even flesh this out. I am wondering what is the standard (is there a standard?) view of these stipulations and their relation to the Noahic Covenant?


----------



## MW (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't subscribe to the grant and treaty ideas imported into the biblical account with no exegetical basis for doing so. I think John Murray's Covenant of Grace explains the conditions well:



> Significantly enough, the commandments which are appended, compliance with which on the part of Noah is indispensable to the blessing of preservation, do not in the least suggest mutuality of agreement or compact. The commandments are added in such a way that they are just as sovereign and unilateral in prescription or dispensation as is the annunciation of the covenant itself. The appended requirements are simply extensions, applications, expressions of the grace intimated in the covenant. The directions are as sovereign as the annunciation of the covenant and they flow naturally from it so that there is no deflection from the idea of sovereign dispensation. We may think of Noah as cooperating with God in carrying out the provisions of the covenant but the co-operation is quite foreign to that of pact or convention. It is the co-operation of response which the grace of the covenant constrains and demands.


----------



## DavidGGraves (Jun 13, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> I don't subscribe to the grant and treaty ideas imported into the biblical account with no exegetical basis for doing so. I think John Murray's Covenant of Grace explains the conditions well:
> 
> 
> 
> > Significantly enough, the commandments which are appended, compliance with which on the part of Noah is indispensable to the blessing of preservation, do not in the least suggest mutuality of agreement or compact. The commandments are added in such a way that they are just as sovereign and unilateral in prescription or dispensation as is the annunciation of the covenant itself. The appended requirements are simply extensions, applications, expressions of the grace intimated in the covenant. The directions are as sovereign as the annunciation of the covenant and they flow naturally from it so that there is no deflection from the idea of sovereign dispensation. We may think of Noah as cooperating with God in carrying out the provisions of the covenant but the co-operation is quite foreign to that of pact or convention. It is the co-operation of response which the grace of the covenant constrains and demands.



Could you point me to where Murray makes this argument? It would be most appreciated.

Thank you again.


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2008)

DavidGGraves said:


> Could you point me to where Murray makes this argument? It would be most appreciated.



"The Covenant of Grace" is in booklet format. It is also available online here: The Covenant of Grace by Dr. John Murray. The quoted portion is the last paragraph under "The Post-Diluvian Noahic Covenant."


----------



## S. Spence (Jun 14, 2008)

Although I've found John Murray to be very helpful in other areas, when it comes to the Covenant I have found his mono-covenantal view to be confusing more than helpful. Just my


----------

