Thread: a question about the Noahic covenant

The Noahic covenant seems like a small picture of the Abrahamic, in that one family is saved out of judgment, saving the earth: and the covenant extends universally as things play out. So we have a small framed picture to help us see the larger picture we are currently in. Is this accurate? And if so, how does this impact the way we understand how Peter uses Noah's story in speaking about the end of the world and even about baptism -- or does it?

I have heard a sermon from an RPCNA pastor/RPTS prof that if we look at Noah, we'll see that in the end it will be the wicked who are removed from earth (ie: the "rapture") and the faithful who will remain.

I've always thought about the Noahic (via Peter) as a type of baptism. Baptism, of course, is not just about inclusion among the people of God. It's not just a sign and seal of what we have by faith in Christ. It is also a sign of judgment. Jesus talked about the baptism with which He was going to be baptized (and was thus not talking about His own baptism in the Jordan). He was referring to His death. Romans 6 connects death and baptism as well, though what that connection means is the subject of many many books. In the case of Noah, Noah was saved through water, which is a type of baptism (by the way, I think Peter is using the term "baptism" in the broadest possible sense of sign plus thing signified plus sacramental connection between sign and thing signified; that's how he can say "baptism now saves you."). Interestingly, and against immersion only advocates, it was the rest of the world that was immersed, not Noah! The same is true of Israel going through the Red Sea in 1 Corinthians 10: it was the Egyptians who were immersed, whereas the Israelites went through on dry ground. Noah therefore means both salvation for those in the ark, and judgment for those outside. The ark can also be seen as a type of Christ, in whom is the only hope for salvation.

The connection to the Abrahamic covenant goes something like this: God showed to Abraham that the judgment part of the covenant would fall on God, and not on Abraham, by means of a substitute (I am combining the theology of Genesis 12, 15, 17, and 22 all together here). The self-maledictory oath that God took passing through the pieces and providing Abraham with a substitute for Isaac is proof that it would be Jesus who would take upon Himself the immersion into death, and yet come out the other side.

Thanks very much for the answers -- I don't have my thanks button back.

I need to think more about the aspect of judgment; that is what I am trying to understand more with my poorly phrased question -- thank you.

Originally Posted by he beholds

I have heard a sermon from an RPCNA pastor/RPTS prof that if we look at Noah, we'll see that in the end it will be the wicked who are removed from earth (ie: the "rapture") and the faithful who will remain.

The problem with looking at that view, is not all of the wicked were destoryed, as we see applied in ham, in Genesis 9.

A mere housewife, good question. I am writing a paper on the nature and relationship of the covenants, so istead of just giving you a couple of sentences let me think of a decent response.

PS. It seems that a main focus Peter has in speaking of baptism/judgement both in Christ's death and in the future is the new world that we are born to through that 'water'? So it's not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the resurrection -- the answer of a good conscience towards God, that 'saves us'? I'm sorry if I'm phrasing poorly -- I honestly don't know how to ask the questions I have about this.

Heidi, John Fesko is coming out with a great book in the next year or two that will deal with this subject very explicitly (the book itself is a comprehensive treatment of baptism). He gave the book to me to be one of his editors, and I can tell you that it is a dandy. The line of judgment goes from: the world except Noah being judged in the Flood, to Egypt being judged in the Red Sea, to circumcision being a sign of being cut off for covenant infidelity to Christ being cut off for the sins of the people. That's why we don't need circumcision anymore: Christ has been cut off. Now, all that is left for the believers is the positive side of baptism. Of course, Colossians 2 warns us that people who receive the sign but fall away will still be cut off, and eternally. But John Fesko will draws this out in great detail in his book. I wish it were published already.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Heidi, John Fesko is coming out with a great book in the next year or two that will deal with this subject very explicitly (the book itself is a comprehensive treatment of baptism). He gave the book to me to be one of his editors, and I can tell you that it is a dandy. The line of judgment goes from: the world except Noah being judged in the Flood, to Egypt being judged in the Red Sea, to circumcision being a sign of being cut off for covenant infidelity to Christ being cut off for the sins of the people. That's why we don't need circumcision anymore: Christ has been cut off. Now, all that is left for the believers is the positive side of baptism. Of course, Colossians 2 warns us that people who receive the sign but fall away will still be cut off, and eternally. But John Fesko will draws this out in great detail in his book. I wish it were published already.

Wow, me too. I will remember to keep that on my wish list.

Originally Posted by Grimmson

Originally Posted by he beholds

I have heard a sermon from an RPCNA pastor/RPTS prof that if we look at Noah, we'll see that in the end it will be the wicked who are removed from earth (ie: the "rapture") and the faithful who will remain.

The problem with looking at that view, is not all of the wicked were destoryed, as we see applied in ham, in Genesis 9.

A mere housewife, good question. I am writing a paper on the nature and relationship of the covenants, so istead of just giving you a couple of sentences let me think of a decent response.

David, it still means that all the wicked will be destroyed. It was a proleptic warning in addition to being judgment in and of itself. Peter himself uses the Flood as a sign of coming judgment in 2 Peter. Therefore, among other things, the Flood MUST mean that all the wicked will be destroyed. However, just as with the benefits of Christianity, so also with the wicked: judgment has an already not-yet structure to it.

However, just as with the benefits of Christianity, so also with the wicked: judgment has an already not-yet structure to it.

I think that is part of what I am trying to ask about the judgement and the new world, the way it's pictured through Noah and way Peter uses it of the cross and the end. That's very helpful.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by Grimmson

Originally Posted by he beholds

I have heard a sermon from an RPCNA pastor/RPTS prof that if we look at Noah, we'll see that in the end it will be the wicked who are removed from earth (ie: the "rapture") and the faithful who will remain.

The problem with looking at that view, is not all of the wicked were destoryed, as we see applied in ham, in Genesis 9.

A mere housewife, good question. I am writing a paper on the nature and relationship of the covenants, so istead of just giving you a couple of sentences let me think of a decent response.

David, it still means that all the wicked will be destroyed. It was a proleptic warning in addition to being judgment in and of itself. Peter himself uses the Flood as a sign of coming judgment in 2 Peter. Therefore, among other things, the Flood MUST mean that all the wicked will be destroyed. However, just as with the benefits of Christianity, so also with the wicked: judgment has an already not-yet structure to it.

It also makes several assumptions (not explicitly found in the text) regarding the condition of Ham's soul. It also assumes that Canaan was not the culprit in the text, a quite natural supposition from the reading.

And if we take Peter's divinely inspired commentary on the Gen. account seriously, we really are obliged to think more hopefully of Ham.

The Noahic Covenant involves a repetition of the cultural/creation mandate given through Adam, with certain things added e.g. death penalty for murder, no more worldwide disaster until the end of the world, etc. Things like the giving of the death penalty for murder and the lex talionis are added to the creation ordinances of Sabbath and marriage.

After the emergence of various nations, the Abrahamic Covenant involves temporary narrowing down of focus on one nation, although Israel always had the potential to embrace the surrounding nations more wholeheartedly than she did. There was provision for Gentiles to become Jews and be incorporated into Israel.

In the New Covenant e.g. at Pentecost we learn that that nation the Church/the New Israel is going to incorporate all nations through the Gospel. That process is continuing and will be achieved before the End of the World.

Christ must reign until He has put all his enemies under His feet, and we do not see that yet.

This is a long slow process that involves the Devil and his minions resistance at every step, but each time he tries to make a stand he is eventually pushed back by the progress of the Church under Christ.

The Devil's current redoubt in Western Europe is secular humanism with which he has had and is having great success, but that will eventually give way.

So is 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh' in 1 Peter 3:21 a reference to circumcision, with baptism and resurrection standing against that, parallel to Col 2.11,12? Or does baptism itself as judgement have some significance that is similar to circumcision in putting or cutting off?

Heidi,

Baptism, among other things, signifies union with Christ. In Romans 6:1-11 Paul emphasizes the death to Sin in Christ's crucifixion where Sin as power is defeated and the resurrection in Christ where life unto righteousness is empowered. Putting off the filth of the flesh has more to do with the recognition that we are dead to such things and need not walk in them. See here for a fuller treatment of our union with Christ and our death to sin and life to Christ.

That said, I believe there is an aspect of judgment here because, forensically, sin has been judged and put away and this accounts for the break of Sin's dominion (because it has been put to death in Christ). I think the discussion here on judgment complements what Paul says elsewhere about how Sin has been judged and its power stripped.

Speaking about the Covenant with Noah specifically - The language God employs with Noah so closely resembles the language God used with Adam, that Dr. Block argued in class two things:

1. Arguing from God's interaction with Noah (in which the word "covenant" IS used) backward to Adam - the language is covenantal. It is right to think of Adam as being in covenant with God. However he didn't call it covenant of works.

2. He argued that the Noahic Covenant is essentially a recapitulation (in terms of content) of the covenant God made with Adam.

Thoughts?

I'm reading the link now Rich; thank you.

Rev. Keister had mentioned something about the flood as judgement progressing through various judgements or signs of judgement (including circumcision) to Christ's death as a cutting off. Circumcision seems to have special significance in this aspect of Christ's death as judgement for sin? So is Peter making some reference to the symbol of circumcision when he speaks of the 'putting away filth of the flesh' (not as I understand you are pointing out, that this reality isn't part of our whole union to Christ, symbolised also in baptism) that contrasts with the emphasis of what is symbolised by baptism? Again I'm sorry if my question is very unclear.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

The Noahic covenant seems like a small picture of the Abrahamic, in that one family is saved out of judgment, saving the earth: and the covenant extends universally as things play out. So we have a small framed picture to help us see the larger picture we are currently in. Is this accurate? And if so, how does this impact the way we understand how Peter uses Noah's story in speaking about the end of the world and even about baptism -- or does it?

A. W. Pink sheds light on the subject here.

Sola Scriptura
1. Arguing from God's interaction with Noah (in which the word "covenant" IS used) backward to Adam - the language is covenantal. It is right to think of Adam as being in covenant with God. However he didn't call it covenant of works.

Yes, it couldn't be a Covenant of Works again because only Christ could keep that since the Fall. Noah's Covenant is sometimes called the Covenant of Common Grace - God promises to restrain sin and the forces of nature to allow the Abrahamic Covenant in its two phases of Old Covenant and New Covenant to go ahead.

The emphasis is on Man's task once again which is called the creation/cultural mandate and is still in force unlike the Covenant of Works. The task is to subdue and cultivate the world in every faculty of life - art, science, environment, cuisine, technology, politics, economics,etc, etc to God's glory.

In the New Covenant the cultural mandate is overlaid by the great commission, because the cultural mandate cannot be properly followed without converted people doing God's will.

Originally Posted by JM

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

The Noahic covenant seems like a small picture of the Abrahamic, in that one family is saved out of judgment, saving the earth: and the covenant extends universally as things play out. So we have a small framed picture to help us see the larger picture we are currently in. Is this accurate? And if so, how does this impact the way we understand how Peter uses Noah's story in speaking about the end of the world and even about baptism -- or does it?

A. W. Pink sheds light on the subject here.

Thank you for this useful link.

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I'm reading the link now Rich; thank you.

Rev. Keister had mentioned something about the flood as judgement progressing through various judgements or signs of judgement (including circumcision) to Christ's death as a cutting off. Circumcision seems to have special significance in this aspect of Christ's death as judgement for sin? So is Peter making some reference to the symbol of circumcision when he speaks of the 'putting away filth of the flesh' (not as I understand you are pointing out, that this reality isn't part of our whole union to Christ, symbolised also in baptism) that contrasts with the emphasis of what is symbolised by baptism? Again I'm sorry if my question is very unclear.

I'm a bit unclear as to what you're asking but I believe circumcision and baptism both have within them the idea of judgment within them. In other words, as in the link, baptism represents (among other things) that Christ has been judged in our place and put Sin to death on the Cross. Another way of saying that would be that He was cut off (or circumcised) from among the living. There are many overlapping themes that I cannot eloquently put together but I think they all serve to give us a richer sense of God's grace toward us and the Flood telescopes that theology.

I understand and agree with overlapping ideas and themes.

I think perhaps a better way to ask would be are there different emphases in the symbols of circumcision and baptism?

Here is Colossians 2:
'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are raised with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.'

And then 1 Peter 3:
'The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'

It seems like Peter may be making a similar reference to circumcision/baptism in 1 Peter 3 as there is in Colossians 2. I am wondering if the emphasis on the symbol of circumcision isn't on this putting off, and in contrast, though baptism as a symbol does contain judgement and death to sin, the emphasis -- at least as contrasted with circumcision -- is thrown onto resurrection?

It seems if so, that Noah would be a very apt analogy to contain all the meaning because not only did he pass through judgement but into a new world.

"A wonderful text is this, and a more obscure passage perhaps than any other in the New Testament, so that I do not know for a certainty just what Peter means."

Martin Luther on this portion of 1 Peter 3.


My pastor preached on this passage this morning, and shared that quote with us.

My pastor called the Baptism that saves the "Spiritual Baptism," as in, not the event that happens with water, but what the Spirit has done to those that believe. It is the baptism that cleanses the guilty conscience that saves you. He said sacraments do not cause salvation but they confirm God's promises. (Not a direct quote. I was trying to take notes, but we do have two toddlers that sometimes prohibit my ability to get my hand to the paper in time!)

Heidi,
From a RB point of view the answer to all of the above is very simple. The text is not speaking about immersion,or sprinkling.
God uses judgement throughout redemptive history to preserve the godly line. He always provides a place of safety for His covenant people.
In the day of Noah, it was in the Ark, at the Exodus it was with Moses, In Lot's day it was outside the city.
In our day and since the cross the only place of safety is to be In Christ savingly by Spirit baptism and new birth.
In the passage that is what is meant by not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,ie by water- whatever mode or water baptism- it is the answer of a clear conscience, this comes from the Spirit of God to those who are in actual union with Christ and only those who are new creations by being born from above.
The old testament types, give way to the NT.reality. No mental gymnastics here. All of the types speak of the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ and a proper identification with him.
Believer's baptism would be a proper confession of our death ,burial, and resurrection In Christ-Romans 6/Col 2, by [BSpirit Baptism[/B].