How should Christians view the Noahic covenant?

[PR6771]

P1 /8:15/ And God spake unto Noah, saying, /16/ Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. /17/ Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

/18/ And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him: /19/ every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

/20/ And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

P2 /21/ And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done. /22/ While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

P3 /9:1/ And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. /2/ And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. /3/ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. /4/ But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. /5/ And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. /6/ Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. /7/ And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

P4 /8/ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, /9/ And I, behold, I will establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; /10/ and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. /11/ And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

P5 /12/ And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: /13/ I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. /14/ And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: /15/ and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. /16/ And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

P6 /17/ And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.



So, my question is- What parts, if any, of this passage applies to Christians, AND Biblically, why or why not? (Please reference all Biblical support, whether from this passage or others)

 

[Ransom]

Perhaps you could list the terms of the covenant, as you interpret it.

 

[PR6771]

Perhaps you could list the terms of the covenant, as you interpret it.

Sure, I'll try...

 

[PR6771]

Paragraph 1: The eight (Noah, wife, 3 sons, and 3 sons' wives) are commanded in 8:15-17.

Paragraph 2: All present and future earth-dwelling mankind is addressed in 8:21-22

Paragraph 3: The four (Noah and 3 sons) are commanded, warned, and promised multiple times in 9:1-7

Paragraph 4: The four (Noah and 3 sons), all seed descended from them, all ark creatures, and all present and future earth-dwelling flesh is promised in 9:8-11

Paragraph 5 and 6: Noah and all ark creatures and all of his and their descendants, for perpetuity, are promised in 9:12-17

Important to me is that paragraph 3 also applies to all descendants of Noah, in perpetuity. If the Blood-consuming Requirement does not apply to us today, then neither does the Flesh-consuming Allowance itself. Which means we revert to the Herb-etc-consuming Allowance given to Adam and Eve. In other words, if we are not bound to the requirements of paragraph 3, we are also not given its allowances.

 

[PR6771]

Created a poll for the lurkers who have no desire to post a typed reply... And for everyone else, too

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Important to me is that paragraph 3 also applies to all descendants of Noah, in perpetuity. If the Blood-consuming Requirement does not apply to us today, then neither does the Flesh-consuming Allowance itself. Which means we revert to the Herb-etc-consuming Allowance given to Adam and Eve. In other words, if we are not bound to the requirements of paragraph 3, we are also not given its allowances.

How would you define "blood-consuming"?

 

[PR6771]

Important to me is that paragraph 3 also applies to all descendants of Noah, in perpetuity. If the Blood-consuming Requirement does not apply to us today, then neither does the Flesh-consuming Allowance itself. Which means we revert to the Herb-etc-consuming Allowance given to Adam and Eve. In other words, if we are not bound to the requirements of paragraph 3, we are also not given its allowances.

How would you define "blood-consuming"?

Flesh with blood still in it would seem to be how God describes it. He doesn't specify with Noah how to get the blood out, so I would think it could be drained, cooked, etc.; so long as by the time of consumption the blood is no longer there or chemically altered to something else.

 

[christundivided]

You know.....

I'm certain this same type of argument was made against our Lord when He declared..

Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The commandment given to Noah was nothing more than an allusion to the coming sacrifice of our Lord.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Flesh with blood still in it would seem to be how God describes it. He doesn't specify with Noah how to get the blood out, so I would think it could be drained, cooked, etc.; so long as by the time of consumption the blood is no longer there or chemically altered to something else.

For the sake of understanding, do you believe this prohibits eating raw meat, or undercooked meat?

Some commentators believe that the prohibition was simply eating animals while they were still living. For example:

The sole intention of this prohibition was to prevent these excesses of cannibal ferocity in eating flesh of living animals, to which men in the earlier ages of the world were liable.

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat;" or, as it is explained by the best interpreters, flesh, or members torn from living animals, having the blood in them, thou shalt not eat. We see by this prohibition, that the abuse of eating living meat, or part of animals while yet alive, was known in the days of Noah, and forbidden after being known: and it is precisely what is practiced in Abyssinia to this day.

With the life thereof, i.e. whilst it lives, or taken from the creature before it be quite dead; which was an ancient practice, and an effect either of luxury or cruelty.

 

[PR6771]

You know.....

I'm certain this same type of argument was made against our Lord when He declared..

Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The commandment given to Noah was nothing more than an allusion to the coming sacrifice of our Lord.

Jesus' words are obviously allegorical. Are you seriously saying that when He commanded Noah and his sons, He didn't really mean for them to do what He said, but just believe in the allegorical meaning of the words? I agree that there is an allegorical meaning to the words, but strongly disagree that they were not meant literally as well. And again, if that's allegorical, then logically,  we really shouldn't even eat meat in the first place since that covenant is the foundation of why we can.

 

[PR6771]

Flesh with blood still in it would seem to be how God describes it. He doesn't specify with Noah how to get the blood out, so I would think it could be drained, cooked, etc.; so long as by the time of consumption the blood is no longer there or chemically altered to something else.

For the sake of understanding, do you believe this prohibits eating raw meat, or undercooked meat?

Some commentators believe that the prohibition was simply eating animals while they were still living. For example:

The sole intention of this prohibition was to prevent these excesses of cannibal ferocity in eating flesh of living animals, to which men in the earlier ages of the world were liable.

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat;" or, as it is explained by the best interpreters, flesh, or members torn from living animals, having the blood in them, thou shalt not eat. We see by this prohibition, that the abuse of eating living meat, or part of animals while yet alive, was known in the days of Noah, and forbidden after being known: and it is precisely what is practiced in Abyssinia to this day.

With the life thereof, i.e. whilst it lives, or taken from the creature before it be quite dead; which was an ancient practice, and an effect either of luxury or cruelty.

Assuming the raw/undercooked meat still has blood in it, then yes, I believe the Noahic covenant prohibits it. By the grammar of the sentence itself, it seems clear to me that God strictly defined "the life" as "the blood." He gave no allowance otherwise, despite the teachings you quote.

Additional thought: if God had just said, "with the life thereof," I think those teachings would have merit. But, to clear up any possible confusion someone might have, He clearly states "which is the blood thereof" not the qualifiers those teachings use.

 

[christundivided]

You know.....

I'm certain this same type of argument was made against our Lord when He declared..

Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The commandment given to Noah was nothing more than an allusion to the coming sacrifice of our Lord.

Jesus' words are obviously allegorical. Are you seriously saying that when He commanded Noah and his sons, He didn't really mean for them to do what He said, but just believe in the allegorical meaning of the words?

Sure. The literally observance was allusion to the fulfillment in Christ. One does not preclude the other. I have Christ now. I can talk of His sacrifice. I don't have to go by a commandment that was meant to allude to that sacrifice.

I agree that there is an allegorical meaning to the words, but strongly disagree that they were not meant literally as well. And again, if that's allegorical, then logically,  we really shouldn't even eat meat in the first place since that covenant is the foundation of why we can.

Nonsense. You really should get away from dispensationalism at all cost....

There is absolutely no reason to believe that man did not eat the flesh of other creatures before the covenant made with Noah. Show me where meat is forbidden before Noah?

 

[PR6771]

Sure. The literally observance was allusion to the fulfillment in Christ. One does not preclude the other. I have Christ now. I can talk of His sacrifice. I don't have to go by a commandment that was meant to allude to that sacrifice.

This is where I have difficulty. Where in Scripture do you find support for your belief that a believer in Christ is freed from obeying the literal command of the Noahic covenant? Paul? Jesus? John? Hebrews?

Additional thought: Just to be clear, salvation is most definitely not conditioned on adherence to the Noahic covenant. But i do not believe that means we are freed from adhering to it.

 

[PR6771]

Nonsense. You really should get away from dispensationalism at all cost....

There is absolutely no reason to believe that man did not eat the flesh of other creatures before the covenant made with Noah. Show me where meat is forbidden before Noah?

But I don't think I'm hyper-dispensationalist. No one has ever been or ever will be saved from adherence to any covenant or commandment. Noahic, Mosaic, or otherwise. Due to the simple fact that every man and woman  is incapable of perfection without Christ.

And yes, it was not prohibited expressly before the Noahic covenant, but God did place limits on what was provided for the diet of mankind. I would argue that by taking the life of another living creature to fulfill your dietary needs, you are guilty of murder and of misuse of God's creation. Except now, we are allowed to take the life of the creatures not created in the image of God, for our dietary needs, thanks to the Noahic covenant.

 

[christundivided]

Sure. The literally observance was allusion to the fulfillment in Christ. One does not preclude the other. I have Christ now. I can talk of His sacrifice. I don't have to go by a commandment that was meant to allude to that sacrifice.

This is where I have difficulty. Where in Scripture do you find support for your belief that a believer in Christ is freed from obeying the literal command of the Noahic covenant? Paul? Jesus? John? Hebrews?

So... You actually look to an "allusion".... rather than the fulfillment of said "allusion"?

Don't you think that is strange?

What "specifically" do you see as being inherently evil about eating flesh with blood in it? I personally love a good medium rare porterhouse steak. I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.

 

[christundivided]

Nonsense. You really should get away from dispensationalism at all cost....

There is absolutely no reason to believe that man did not eat the flesh of other creatures before the covenant made with Noah. Show me where meat is forbidden before Noah?

But I don't think I'm hyper-dispensationalist. No one has ever been or ever will be saved from adherence to any covenant or commandment. Noahic, Mosaic, or otherwise. Due to the simple fact that every man and woman  is incapable of perfection without Christ.

And yes, it was not prohibited expressly before the Noahic covenant, but God did place limits on what was provided for the diet of mankind. I would argue that by taking the life of another living creature to fulfill your dietary needs, you are guilty of murder and of misuse of God's creation. Except now, we are allowed to take the life of the creatures not created in the image of God, for our dietary needs, thanks to the Noahic covenant.

So... What changed??? What changed between when it was wrong and when it was okay? You can't provide any evidence to say that didn't happen before Noah...... So what changed?

 

[PR6771]

Nonsense. You really should get away from dispensationalism at all cost....

There is absolutely no reason to believe that man did not eat the flesh of other creatures before the covenant made with Noah. Show me where meat is forbidden before Noah?

But I don't think I'm hyper-dispensationalist. No one has ever been or ever will be saved from adherence to any covenant or commandment. Noahic, Mosaic, or otherwise. Due to the simple fact that every man and woman  is incapable of perfection without Christ.

And yes, it was not prohibited expressly before the Noahic covenant, but God did place limits on what was provided for the diet of mankind. I would argue that by taking the life of another living creature to fulfill your dietary needs, you are guilty of murder and of misuse of God's creation. Except now, we are allowed to take the life of the creatures not created in the image of God, for our dietary needs, thanks to the Noahic covenant.

So... What changed??? What changed between when it was wrong and when it was okay? You can't provide any evidence to say that didn't happen before Noah...... So what changed?

I don't think I understand what you're asking here, but I'll try to respond.
Things that changed- a worldwide flood eliminated countless kinds of plants, making it extremely difficult for plants to fulfill the dietary needs of man. Few, if any, plants were saved by the ark.
Things that changed- God, the Creator of it all, amended his allowances by spoken covenant.
Let me know if this wasn't what you were asking me.

 

[PR6771]

Sure. The literally observance was allusion to the fulfillment in Christ. One does not preclude the other. I have Christ now. I can talk of His sacrifice. I don't have to go by a commandment that was meant to allude to that sacrifice.

This is where I have difficulty. Where in Scripture do you find support for your belief that a believer in Christ is freed from obeying the literal command of the Noahic covenant? Paul? Jesus? John? Hebrews?

So... You actually look to an "allusion".... rather than the fulfillment of said "allusion"?

Don't you think that is strange?

What "specifically" do you see as being inherently evil about eating flesh with blood in it? I personally love a good medium rare porterhouse steak. I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.

Although there may be some allegorical parts to the Noahic covenant, I do not see Scriptural support for the idea that Christ's sacrifice and resurrection fulfilled or completed the Noahic covenant, freeing mankind from it.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

We can drink blood, but we should stay away from mirrors and sunlight.

 

[christundivided]

Sure. The literally observance was allusion to the fulfillment in Christ. One does not preclude the other. I have Christ now. I can talk of His sacrifice. I don't have to go by a commandment that was meant to allude to that sacrifice.

This is where I have difficulty. Where in Scripture do you find support for your belief that a believer in Christ is freed from obeying the literal command of the Noahic covenant? Paul? Jesus? John? Hebrews?

So... You actually look to an "allusion".... rather than the fulfillment of said "allusion"?

Don't you think that is strange?

What "specifically" do you see as being inherently evil about eating flesh with blood in it? I personally love a good medium rare porterhouse steak. I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.

Although there may be some allegorical parts to the Noahic covenant, I do not see Scriptural support for the idea that Christ's sacrifice and resurrection fulfilled or completed the Noahic covenant, freeing mankind from it.

Just because you don't see it..... doesn't mean it's not there.....

Have you ever read the words..... Lo, I come. in the volume of the book is written of me?

What do you think that means?