Two questions about Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9

[JTB.SDG]

Guys,

A few questions about Genesis 9:1-6:

FIRST, on v4: this appears to be something akin to the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic era. I usually associate ceremonial laws with Moses, but this is well before Moses. Do we think of this as merely a ceremonial law BEFORE the great majority of ceremonial laws were given?

SECOND, on vv5-6, the sanction of the death penalty. What is the significance of the fact that the sanction of the death penalty is given in the context of the Covenant of Grace (as given to Noah and his sons)? (that is, if we do indeed take it as a manifestation of the Covenant of Grace). This seems to apply to the civil state, to the government (Romans 13, the emperor doesn't bear the sword for nothing, etc). But it's given in the context of God's covenant. What is the significance of that? (is there any?) . My initial (but very general) thought for application here is that there are consequences in the covenant of grace. Believers can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean there aren't earthly consequences for sin. David was forgiven, but his sin brought about lasting consequences. Not denying the function of the government to wield the sword, just trying to discern the significance of this being placed smack dap in the middle of the Covenant of Grace as revealed to Noah and his sons. Any thoughts??

 

[MW]

On verse 4, it seems to me to be partly moral, forbidding cruelty, and partly ceremonial, having respect to the sacrifices.

On the power of the sword, it forms the basis of the magistrate's power; but there is also a redemptive historical purpose which is evident in the divine warrior motif of the Old Testament, and comes to be manifested in the blood-dipped vesture and sharp sword of the One who is called "the Word of God." He is the great Avenger of the saints whose blood is shed for the testimony of Jesus.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I add this above my post: My reply was composed while Rev.Winzer was posting. I usually think he says things better and more succinctly.

For my part, I interpret the denial of blood-to-eat as a universal ethic. It's positive, in that it's not strictly moral or confined to worship. Obviously, not all agree on this; and simply read this as a proleptic ceremony; and dispense with it along with the Mosaic ceremonies now in the NT age. I interpret Act.15:20,29 (with reference to "blood") not as concession, and temporary, for the Jews' sake; but with reference to the pre-Mosaic and universal prohibition.

As for sanctioning the death penalty; the "power of life and death" is something like the ultimate expression of (mere) human civil authority. If God never gave this legitimate threat to a lawful ruler, violent men would never fear the meek--which is not synonymous with "weak."

Scripture does not teach ongoing human existence is an end of itself. In Gen.9, God has judged the world, but preserved man alive for redemptive purposes. Man continues, and all his services continue, as life-support for God's elective purposes. So, human government has a utilitarian function in relation to the covenant of grace; it has a providential function of preservation for the context of the covenant of grace. "Kings shall be your nursing fathers."

I do believe that ideally, no one should employ death-dealing who does not believe in final judgment. He sends someone there; and he himself will appear there in due time. This knowledge makes the whole business of execution or warfare most solemn. But I do not read the authorization of capital punishment as if it is an adjunct to the covenant of grace.

The covenant of works, with its cause-and-effect, reward and punishment dynamic dominating creation, and oriented toward death since the fall, is the ongoing stage and backdrop against which the covenant of grace is offered. There is a consequence for rejecting the covenant of grace (I think "in" it is the wrong term): remaining in the covenant of works, under sin, and reaping the wages of it.

 

[a mere housewife]

What is the significance of the echo of Genesis 1 and 2 here? God has judged the world (violence seems particularly noted: highlighted as only increasing when God spared Cain, in the bragging of Lamech). What follows with the handful of people in the new world is a something of replay of the garden with a sin involving fruit, shame of nakedness, covering, and a curse?

Before that God gives a similar command to be fruitful, take dominion, and a similar granting of provision -- referencing the provision He gave to Adam and Eve -- with a similar prohibition of one thing. That one thing carries similar consequences of death.

I don't know how I am supposed to relate all of that, or the lifeblood to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -- but isn't this a withdrawal of a special dispensation before the flood, rather than a new institution? Cain assumed that anyone who came across him would kill him, and God acted in mercy to prevent that. He's not preventing that anymore.

 

[MW]

What follows with the handful of people in the new world is a something of replay of the garden with a sin involving fruit, shame of nakedness, covering, and a curse?

The blessing and curse are applied to specific people, which goes beyond the way they functioned after the fall in the garden of Eden. There appears to be a specific development in terms of the "seed" promise, (1) against the background of human sin and the commitment to preservation, and (2) looking forward to the call of Abram.

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. I can see differences but don't always understand the significance of those or the similarities. I was struck by the parallels and found out trying to look up more one day that others have been too. It seems that having passed over the flood into a new world -- there is this echo of the pattern of the beginning, but it's clear that the pattern of sin is still present? I wasn't sure how the forbidding of blood fit into the (purposefully, 9:3) echoed creation mandate and provision -- if that echo has any significance in understanding this (for now) sole prohibition?

Maybe I should ask in a separate thread, but reading Matthew 23, where all the righteous blood shed on the earth or land was coming on that generation -- I remembered your remark about the redemptive historical significance of 'by man shall his blood be shed'. Would you (or others) have thoughts on this verse as it relates to that? Was there a special fulfillment in Christ's crucifixion?

 

[MW]

I wasn't sure how the forbidding of blood fit into the (purposefully, 9:3) echoed creation mandate and provision -- if that echo has any significance in understanding this (for now) sole prohibition?

It is generally taken as safeguarding life against the backdrop of human sin within the context of the promise of divine preservation. The creation mandate does not appear to be as absolute in this scheme of things because man is now seen as being susceptible to the animals.

Was there a special fulfillment in Christ's crucifixion?

Perhaps in terms of the suffering Servant that is possible. As with the recent thread on Isa. 54, it would have to be carefully placed within its contextual motif. E.g., The Gospel of Matthew's scheme of recapitulation. Here, though, there would be the extra concern that the primary presentation of the crucifixion of Christ is not undermined.