Blog

This article will assess how the Noahic Covenant is understood within the Dispensational and Particular Baptist theological frameworks. In keeping with the previous article of this section of the Dismantling Dispensationalism series,[1] each of the three main classifications of Dispensationalism will be categorized with the primary source that corresponds to that respective classification. Furthermore, relevant citations from a Particular Baptist (“1689 Federalism”) primary source will be used to showcase how the Noahic Covenant is widely understood within that theological tradition. After reviewing each pertinent citation at the outset of this article, we will conclude this section of the series with a summary of key areas of agreement and disagreement between Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism with reference to the Noahic Covenant.

*Sources For Each Variation of Dispensationalism:[2]

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism–

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988. 

Revised Dispensationalism–

MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. 

Progressive Dispensationalism–

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

*Source For a Particular Baptist Theological Perspective:

Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019.

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism on the Noahic Covenant

The following excerpts represent every pertinent reference to the Noahic Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism:

The dispensation of human government began with a covenant with Noah and continued from Genesis 8:20 through 11:9. God gave Noah promises which may be referred to as the Noahic Covenant (8:20-9:17). God promised that never again would there be a universal flood (8:21; 9:11). Noah was also informed that the course of nature would continue with the various seasons (8:22). As with Adam and Eve, God told Noah and his    sons to multiply their descendants (9:1). Noah was allowed dominion over animals (v. 2) and for the first time man was allowed to eat animal flesh (v. 4). An important element of the covenant with Noah was that for the first time the principle of human government was introduced in that man was given the right to kill (vv. 5-6). Like preceding     dispensations this one also revealed human failure. This is seen in Noah’s drunkenness   (v. 21), Ham’s sin (v. 22), and the period of moral religious depravity that followed (11:1-4).[3]

In [Genesis] 9:25-27 God predicted that the three sons of Noah would be the progenitors of the entire human race. Details which itemize the descendants of the three sons of Noah are given in Genesis 10.[4]

Prophecies which were given before the revelation of the Abrahamic Covenant were general prophecies concerning the Gentiles or the entire human race… In Genesis 6 God declared His purpose to wipe out the human race except for Noah and his family by a great Flood. These predictions about the Flood have been completely fulfilled (7:1-8:18). After the Flood God declared, “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease (8:21-22).” In Genesis 9 God blessed Noah and made a covenant with him in which He promised that animals, birds, and fish were given into Noah’s hands (v. 2). Also He gave Noah green plants for food and for the first time authorized the eating of meat (vv. 3-5). For the first   time He gave the law that if man sheds the blood of another person, his own blood should be shed (v. 6). God also promised that never again would life on earth be destroyed by a flood (vv. 11-17).[5]

Revised Dispensationalism on the Noahic Covenant

The following excerpt encapsulates every teaching on the Noahic Covenant within the “standard” systematic theology textbook of Revised Dispensationalism. Due to the extensive nature of this citation, it will suffice as being representative of the convictions shared by Revised Dispensationalists:

Man was created with an immediate obligation to worship and serve God his Creator (Genesis 1-2). So man has possessed inherent obligations to God from the beginning. Yet the first occurrence of the word “covenant” (berit) is found in a postfall context in Genesis 6:18… Thus, the first biblical covenant is the Noahic covenant, which is also called an “everlasting covenant” in Genesis 9:16. The establishing or confirming of the Noahic covenant is mentioned in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17. The substance of the covenant is found in Genesis 8:20-9:17. The context of the Noahic covenant is (1) creation (Genesis 1-2); (2) man’s sinfulness (Gen. 6:5-13); (3) Noah finding favor withGod (Gen. 6:8); and (4) the sacrifices of Noah (Gen. 8:20-21). The Noahic covenant makes several provisions for humanity:

1. God commits to provide stability of nature (Gen. 8:22)… This promise is assuring since it guarantees the stability of nature so that mankind can function without the threat of global catastrophe. As long as “the earth remains,” humans can count on the cycle of seasons. Not only is this a blessing to all creation, both animate and inanimate, but it also allows for God’s kingdom plans to unfold. Thus, the Noahic covenant functions as the platform on which God’s kingdom and salvation play out. It is also the basis for the fulfillment of the other biblical covenants.

2. Noah is told to multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 9:1, 7), a reissuing of the command first given to Adam (Gen. 1:28). Immediately after the global flood, Noah and his sons functioned much like Adam did as the initial representative of humanity tasked with procreation.

3. God causes animals, birds, and fish to fear man (Gen. 9:2).

4. Animals become food for man just like the plants were at creation, although humans are not to eat meat with blood in it (Gen. 9:3-4).

5. Man’s life is sacred; neither man nor animal is to kill a human being (Gen. 9:5). This affirms the dignity of man as God’s image bearer even after the fall of mankind.

6. Capital punishment is instated as the punishment for those who murder an image bearer of God (Gen. 9:6).

7. God promises never to destroy the world by water again (Gen. 9:15).

The Noahic covenant is an unconditional and eternal covenant still in effect today. Man continues to experience stability of nature for the outworking of God’s purposes and of man’s relationship to other people and animals.[6]

Progressive Dispensationalism on the Noahic Covenant

Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook that has been produced for the purpose of representing adherents to Progressive Dispensationalism, we have determined that the following textbook is as useful as any other publication on this topic:

Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992).

Unfortunately, this particular volume does not provide any insight as to how Progressive Dispensationalists perceive the Noahic Covenant. Upon making this discovery, the following books were consulted in an effort to ascertain a Progressive Dispensational perspective on the Noahic Covenant:

Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publ. House, 1993).

Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Los Angeles, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2017).

After canvassing both of these literary works, it was likewise determined that no substantial interaction with the Noahic Covenant was offered by these Progressive Dispensationalism resources. More will be said on this matter in the concluding portion of this article (A Critical Analysis of the Primary Sources).

1689 Federalism on the Noahic Covenant

The following excerpt represents a robust portrayal of the Noahic Covenant from a Particular Baptist theological perspective. Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook that holistically represents the Particular Baptist tradition, most contemporary Particular Baptists recognize the following resource as being faithful to what they believe (as further delineated in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith):

Moses, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, composed [the] account of Noah with language that treats it as a new creation account… Noah, like Adam, received a commission to be fruitful and fill the earth… [So] Noah and mankind are called to build and cultivate and expand and construct and establish human civilization. They are to take advantage, in the best sense of the phrase, of the natural world around them… In the   Noahic Covenant, God renewed the culture-building mandate to Noah and mankind. God also laid down laws about justice. These are universal laws that all societies may and must enforce (Gen. 9:5-7)… In the Noahic Covenant, human societies therefore have two basic and related jobs: to preserve life, and to preserve the family… Any society or government that corrupts the family or murders the innocent is a government in direct treason and disobedience to the God of the universe…[Moreover, in the Noahic    Covenant], God promises that the great deep will not overtake the world again. And as a sacrament, or visible word, as a sign of the covenant, God designated the rainbow to be a visible promise of this reality. Seasons, natural processes, and life in general will continue in a stable, predictable, recurring cycle (Gen. 8:22)…[In the Noahic Covenant], God promises to preserve creation, not eternally, but never again will a flood destroy the earth… The reason and purpose for this promise of preservation is that it creates a stable platform upon which God’s plan for salvation can play out. The mystery of Christ will unfold in this theater of preservation. And therefore the people of God can know at all times whether before or after the advent of the promised seed that God will not destroy the earth until He has fulfilled every last promise to His people. This covenant is a comfort, therefore, that however insane life becomes, however much instability we see around us, God’s promises will be fulfilled.[7]

A Critical Analysis of the Primary Sources

Now that the reader has been exposed to a thorough overview of how the Noahic Covenant is understood by Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists respectively, it is necessary to survey where these theological traditions agree and disagree. As emphasized throughout the duration of the Dismantling Dispensationalism series, I am of the persuasion that the Particular Baptist theological tradition (“1689 Federalism”) represents the most faithful summarization of what is conveyed in sacred Scripture. As such, all critical analysis documented in this section of the article has been compiled in light of these convictions. With this in mind by way of preface, let us begin an examination of the Noahic Covenant within each variation of Dispensationalism:

Areas of Agreement/Disagreement Between Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism

By God’s grace, there is much agreement shared between adherents to Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism regarding their understanding of the Noahic Covenant. Both theological traditions share explicit agreement in that the Noahic Covenant:

1. Contains a divine promise that God will never destroy the earth again by flood (Gen. 9:11-17).
2. Establishes an objective expectation that the course of nature will remain uniform (Gen. 8:22).
3. Instructs Noah and his descendants to multiply their descendants throughout the earth (Gen. 9:1).
4. Commissions man to take dominion over all living creatures, even to the point of being permitted to eat animals (Gen. 9:4).
5. Instated a concept of human government that was to preserve human life and punish those who threatened it (Gen. 9:5-7). This included the implementation of capital punishment for those who were found guilty of committing murder.

Particular Baptists should celebrate the continuity that they share with Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists insofar that their synonymous conclusions are compatible with the testimony of Scripture. On the other hand, it is equally important to mention some areas where Particular Baptists would disagree with proponents of Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism regarding the Noahic Covenant:

1. The “standard” systematic theology textbook associated with Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism draws a rigid line between covenants that were made with the nation of Israel, and covenants that were made with Gentiles.[8] Although the literary work goes to great lengths to express that the Noahic Covenant has application to all of humanity, the systematic theology textbook explicitly labels the Noahic Covenant as “concerning the Gentiles.”[9] The intentionality in drawing a rigid distinction between covenants made with people of differing ethnic groups is unhelpful for at least two reasons: (1) It can lead to mistakenly seeing God as having more than one people throughout the duration of redemptive history (which, of course, is the conviction embraced by Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists); (2) It can lead to significant confusion in readers who are unaware of the intricacies embedded within this variation of Dispensationalism. Although Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists will surely disagree with this critique (if they agreed, they would no longer be Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists), the burden falls upon them to resolve this discrepancy within their thought on the Noahic Covenant.
2. Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists do not place adequate emphasis on the fact that the Noahic Covenant is not an eternal covenant. While it is true that this covenant is regarded as an “everlasting covenant” in the word of God (Gen. 9:16), this does not mean that this covenant will have applicability in the eternal state (Rev. 21-22).[10] Insofar that man abides in a fallen, sin-cursed world, the Noahic Covenant will continue to govern the affairs of humanity on the earth. However, the Noahic Covenant is only applicable within the parameters of a creation that depends upon the promises contained therein. After the return of Jesus Christ, and with the institution of the New Heavens and New Earth, the Noahic Covenant will cease to apply to God’s new creation (2 Pet. 3:10-13). How so? Because the Noahic Covenant is inextricably bound to the present creation; a creation marred by sin, suffering and death. With the advent of the new creation, the remnants of the old will eternally pass away (1 Cor. 13:9-12; Rev. 21:3-7, 10-27). While some may accuse this critique of Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism as being “much ado about nothing,” it is nonetheless an area that needs work in their expounding upon the Noahic Covenant.

Areas of Agreement/Disagreement Between Revised Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism

As was the case when comparing the expressed convictions of Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism on the Noahic Covenant, we find that there is much overlap between Revised Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism on this subject. In fact, the points of agreement that are shared between Particular Baptists and Revised Dispensationalists on the Noahic Covenant is identical to the list that was compiled when comparing how Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists think about this issue. As such, we will not repeat the list of continuity that can be found above. Moreover, the second point of disagreement between Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism has direct application to our comparison of Revised Dispensationalism with 1689 Federalism. Therefore, we will likewise not bother repeating that concern in this portion of the article. However, there is one new element of disagreement that is worth noting in our efforts to differentiate between a Revised Dispensationalist and Particular Baptist understanding of the Noahic Covenant. At the outset of its section on the Noahic Covenant, the “standard” systematic theology textbook for representing Revised Dispensationalism makes this (theologically) inaccurate remark:

The first biblical covenant is the Noahic covenant, which is also called an “everlasting covenant” in Genesis 9:16.[11]

The incorrect aspect of this commentary postulated by Revised Dispensationalism is the notion that the Noahic Covenant was the first biblical covenant. If taken with regard to the Bible’s chronological revelation of covenants being made, then we must recognize that the first biblical covenant is the covenant of works (Gen. 2:15-17). On the other hand, if speaking in reference to the time in which covenants were formally established, then we must acknowledge the eternal covenant of redemption to be the first biblical covenant (Isa. 53:10-12; John 17:4, 6; Eph. 1:3-14; Titus 1:3). As discussed at great length in two previous articles within this series,[12] every variation of Dispensationalism denies the validity of the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Dispensationalists continue to stand firm in their argumentation that the Bible does not testify to either of those aforementioned covenants. It is this very issue that illustrates, with perhaps the greatest degree of clarity, where some differences between Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists will likely remain unresolved on this side of eternity. Nevertheless, even in the face of vehement disagreement, may God enable individuals on both sides of this issue to delight in the areas in which we do possess wholehearted agreement.

Areas of Agreement/Disagreement Between Progressive Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism

By way of drawing this article to a conclusion, it is necessary to make a few observations about how Progressive Dispensationalists have interacted with the Noahic Covenant. I make the following observations with the recognition that (1) there is not a “standard” systematic theology textbook that outlines how Progressive Dispensationalists think about the totality of their doctrinal convictions and (2) I have by no means read every publication that has been produced by theologians who self-identify as Progressive Dispensationalists. Therefore, the subsequent commentary is coming from somebody who admits his own limitations in speaking to the subject at hand. If the reader is aware of a prominent literary work that interacts with the Noahic Covenant from a Progressive Dispensationalism perspective, please feel free to notify me about it.

However, with those caveats being conceded, I do think the reader needs to be aware of the lack of treatment that Progressive Dispensationalists have allocated towards the Noahic Covenant. As I mentioned earlier, during the process of writing this article, I examined three of the most popular literary works that have been authored by Progressive Dispensational theologians. Shockingly, none of those books featured any interaction with the Noahic Covenant. While I take that to mean Progressive Dispensationalists share agreement with their Classic/Traditional and Revised counterparts, the lack of clarification as to how these thinkers understand this covenant is disheartening. On a personal note, I recognize that I tend to share far more in common with Progressive Dispensationalists than those of the Classic/Traditional and Revised variations. Yet, be that as it may, the scarce interaction with the Noahic Covenant by some of the most esteemed Progressive Dispensational scholars was not something I expected to discover as I researched this subject.

Having made these observations, my prayer is that Progressive Dispensationalists would devote more time to the Noahic Covenant in future projects. Even if it merely results in regurgitating what has already been said by Classic/Traditional and Revised Dispensationalists, I humbly submit that moving forward, there needs to be significantly more clarity by Progressive Dispensationalists about the Noahic Covenant. This covenant—like all biblical covenants—is far too important to neglect careful study and precise discussions in all Christian contexts (whether lay or academic).

In the next article of this series, we will continue our examination of “Dispensationalism’s Defunct Covenant Theology” by exploring how this system engages with the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-7; 15:1-20; 17:4-8). Stay tuned!

Soli Deo Gloria!

---

[1] https://covenantconfessions.com/examining-dispensationalisms-defunct-covenant-theology-a-rejection-of-the-covenants-of-redemption-works-and-grace/.

[2] In keeping with the observable pattern from the previous articles in this series, each of these literary works will serve as the primary sources for the Classic/Traditional, Revised, and Progressive varieties of Dispensationalism, in supplementation to what is representative of a Particular Baptist theological framework.

[3] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988), Page 212.

[4] Chafer, Systematic Theology, Pages 383-384.

[5] Ibid, Page 431.

[6] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Pages 871-872.

[7] Samuel D. Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Pages 78-82.

[8] Chafer, Systematic Theology, Page 431.

[9] As opposed to the other rigid labels that are used throughout this Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism volume: “Concerning Israel’s Covenants,” “Israel’s 490 Prophetic Years,” “Concerning the Great Tribulation,” and “Concerning the Church.”

[10] For additional insight as to how we should understand the concept of an “everlasting” covenant not being regarded as an “eternal” covenant, see footnote 73 on page 101 here: https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42790974/complete+dissertation.pdf.

[11] MacArthur and Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Page 871.

[12] https://covenantconfessions.com/examining-dispensationalisms-defunct-covenant-theology-recognizing-the-importance-of-the-covenants-of-redemption-works-and-grace/; https://covenantconfessions.com/examining-dispensationalisms-defunct-covenant-theology-a-rejection-of-the-covenants-of-redemption-works-and-grace/.