Question on the Noahic Covenant (for 1689 Federalists)

Status
Not open for further replies.

TryingToLearn

Puritan Board Freshman
I was reading Sam Renihan's "The Mystery of Christ" and this paragraph on the Noahic Covenant left me with a few questions,

"This is a cultural mandate as part of a covenant ruling a kingdom. And it applies to all mankind equally. Everyone must take this very seriously. God rules His kingdoms through covenant. We belong to the kingdom of creation, thus we are accountable to this covenant. We are a part of man-kind, with whom God made this covenant, and this commission applies to mankind today, as it did in the days of Noah. Federal headship reaches to all generations so long as the covenant remains active" (pg. 79).

My questions are:

1. Is the Noahic Covenant a covenant of works? Shouldn't we classify the Noahic Covenant as one of works since Noah was given the same commission as Adam?

2. If the Noahic Covenant, which commands us to "be fruitful and multiply" is binding on all of mankind, wouldn't this make singleness a sin? How do we understand this in light of the N.T. teaching that marriage isn't for all and that single men and women and eunuchs who make themselves so for the Kingdom of Heaven are not in sin?

3. Most importantly, going off the above question, if the Noahic Covenant is a universally binding covenant that commands us to have physical offspring, wouldn't that mean that Jesus disobeyed the covenant?

Just a few thoughts that were going through my mind as I read that.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
The Noahic covenant is neither a covenant about salvation, nor about staying in a state of sinlessness, as the first CoW was. That ark had sailed.
To "Be fruitful and multiply" whether viewed as requirement or blessing, has to be applied to humankind writ large, not to every individual in every situation. Clearly, not everyone needs to procreate in order for humanity to replenish the earth and subdue it.
A law is given about the shedding of blood: this was timely because it was the violence that filled the earth that precipitated the Flood. It serves to remind us that God takes violence against other image-bearers seriously.
Finally, it's not clear to me whether the covenant was just the promise that God would never again flood the earth, since He did make it with every living thing, animals included, or whether the other bits about blood and such were meant to be part of the covenant itself. It seems like it could go either way, and I could never find out much about it.
Edited to add: I am not a 1689 Federalist, so sorry if I answered out of turn. Only noticed that after...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top