# If there's lots of different OT manifestations of the Covt of Grace, why is Abraham Paul's favorite?



## JTB.SDG (Mar 28, 2017)

Guys,

The question in the heading was put in a simplistic way, but here is my question:

The question is actually related more especially to the Noahic Covenant. In light of all the gospel truths revealed in the Noahic Covenant, why is it that it seems to be given so much less attention in the NT? (For that matter, why is the Davidic Covenant given less attention?) I know we have a lot in the NT about Noah and David, but what I mean is: Why doesn't Paul appeal to the promises made to Noah or David in defending justification as he does to Abraham? Was it because the different OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace convey different particular truths about the Covenant of Grace, and though all the stages of the covenant convey grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, some manifestations of the Covenant of Grace communicate particular truths more clearly than others (IE, Abraham: how we're justified; Noah: why we need to be justified--because God's wrath is coming)? Or is it perhaps, that the covenants with Noah and Abraham respectively, point just as clearly and surely to Christ and the gospel, but whereas God's covenant with Noah communicates these truths mostly through pictures (much like with Moses at Sinai), God's covenant with Abraham does so mostly through actual promises? Thoughts?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Guys,
> 
> The question in the heading was put in a simplistic way, but here is my question:
> 
> The question is actually related more especially to the Noahic Covenant. In light of all the gospel truths revealed in the Noahic Covenant, why is it that it seems to be given so much less attention in the NT? (For that matter, why is the Davidic Covenant given less attention?) I know we have a lot in the NT about Noah and David, but what I mean is: Why doesn't Paul appeal to the promises made to Noah or David in defending justification as he does to Abraham? Was it because the different OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace convey different particular truths about the Covenant of Grace, and though all the stages of the covenant convey grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, some manifestations of the Covenant of Grace communicate particular truths more clearly than others (IE, Abraham: how we're justified; Noah: why we need to be justified--because God's wrath is coming)? Or is it perhaps, that the covenants with Noah and Abraham respectively, point just as clearly and surely to Christ and the gospel, but whereas God's covenant with Noah communicates these truths mostly through pictures (much like with Moses at Sinai), God's covenant with Abraham does so mostly through actual promises? Thoughts?


Maybe that was due to the truth that of the 3, Abraham really showed us the example of living by faith in the Lord, as His walk ended on a high note? Moses did not get into the promised land, and Noah had his moral problerm also?


----------



## jw (Mar 28, 2017)

Because the Holy Ghost bid it so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2017)

Abraham was the father of many nations. The Judaisers claimed Abraham for their father as the basis of national privileges, which ran contrary to God's purpose that the Gentiles would be blessed in him. That makes him a pivotal person in the developing history of redemption, especially for showing some major continuities and discontinuities in God's purpose of grace. The nature and extent of the promise made to him and of his faith in the promise was vital for showing the differences between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, as well as of the inclusion of the Gentiles.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 28, 2017)

I agree with Matthew. Paul deals with a lot of Judaizing errors in this writings. It's either on or beneath the surface of the things he's answering in his letters. The Judaizers are insisting on what for Gentile believers? Circumcision. Who first received circumcision? Bingo.

He's useful in so many ways in illustrating spiritual life versus confidence in the flesh. Paul absolutely destroys a misapprehension of the nature of circumcision and of the Law itself in the life of Abraham and even his offspring.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 29, 2017)

Good stuff, thanks guys.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 30, 2017)

So much of the covenant of grace starts to come into focus with Abraham. Try to envision the faith knowing nothing more than our alienation from God, that He delivers his people, and a vague idea of sacrifices. 

Under Abraham, you see a people set apart, the eventual reach of God's kingdom, a pledge unto death by the covenant giver, substitutionary atonement, and I'm likely leaving out a few things.

More than anyone preceeding him, with Abraham, you begin to see the details of sanctification in a believer's life. The man who is willing to sacrifice Isaac is far more mature than the one who would use a servant to manipulate God's promise of a son.


----------



## KeithW (Mar 30, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Because the Holy Ghost bid it so.


A different way of saying this is, it is not Paul who is placing emphasis on one Old Testament person or another, it is God who is instructing us.

It might be helpful to not start so much with "covenant theology" but instead read every place in the Bible which talks about Noah. What is clearly said about Noah? Then read every place in the Bible which talks about Abraham. What is clearly said, especially in the New Testament commentary about Abraham?

(hint) Do both Noah and Abraham teach us about God's promises, those men's faith, and the resulting obedience from being fully persuaded that what God promised that He was faithful to keep and had the ability to do?


----------

