In Kingdom Through Covenant (Gentry and Wellum), the authors make the claim in Chapter 4 that the Noahic covenant is an affirmation of the Creation Covenant, not the initiation of a new covenant. I am going to examine two lines of evidence that the authors use to support this assertion.
Evidence #1 – The language for initiating a covenant and affirming a covenant are different in Hebrew
Summary: The language in question is the difference between Karat b’riyt (cut a covenant) and Hēqîm Bĕrît. The authors’ claim is every case of Hēqîm Bĕrît (berit = covenant) an affirmation of a pre-existing covenant is in view, while Karat b’riyt is the preferred term for initiating a covenant. Authors quoted below for clarity.
The difference in the expressions can be illustrated in the case of the covenant with Abraham. In Genesis 15, God’s promises to Abraham of land and seed, given earlier in chapter 12, are formalized in a covenant. Notice that in 15:18 we have the standard terminology in the Hebrew text: “cut a covenant” (Karat b’riyt). Later, in Gensis 17, God affirms his covenant promise. Verses 7, 19, and 21 consistently employ the expression Hēqîm Bĕrît, while the expression Karat b’riyt is not used. Here God is affirming verbally a commitment in the covenant made previously, in chapter 15. So God affirms his promise and specifies further that Sarah will have a baby within a year.
The distinction in usage between Karat b’riyt and Hēqîm Bĕrît has been challenged, but exhaustive study has shown that there is not one single case either in the Hebrew Bible or in the later Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls where this distinction in idiomatic useage does not hold true.
A simple, straightforward reading of this text, then, shows that a strong case can be made for the distinction in usage between Karat b’riyt and Hēqîm Bĕrît.
In summary, based on the expression Hēqîm Bĕrît, linguistic usage demonstrates that when God says that he is affirming his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment initiated previously at creation to care for and preserve, provide for and rule over all that he has made, including the blessings and ordinances that he gave to Adam and Eve and their family, is now to be with Noah and his descendants.
Examination of Linguistic Support
I am loath to engage in analysis of a linguistics issue when I am not conversant in that language. Which is to say – I don’t speak Hebrew. But as the authors place an awful lot of emphasis on this line of evidence for their assertion, I am left with no alternative but to storm this bastille.
The first question that came to my mind is how frequently these terms are used to see if there is a large enough sample pool to determine whether the authors’ claim can be established. Relying on study tools, it appears that Hēqîm Bĕrît is used 12 times in the Old Testament (a slightly different phrase is used in 2 Kings 23:3 and Jeremiah 34:18, but their addition would bring the total usage to 14) Those usages are below.
- Genesis 6:18, 9:9, 9:11, 9:17, 17:7, 17:19, 17:21: God establishes the covenant with Noah and Abraham.
- Exodus 6:4: God confirms the covenant with the patriarchs.
- Leviticus 26:9: God establishes the covenant in the context of obedience.
- Deuteronomy 8:18: God establishes the covenant to give wealth.
- Ezekiel 16:60, 16:62: God establishes an everlasting covenant.
Since 4 of these usages are in question (we cannot use the Noahic covenant as part of the study because the point is to use the linguistics to determine whether the Hebrew indicates it is a new covenant or the establishment of an existing covenant), we are left with 8 usages to examine. This is a relatively paltry number compared to the 80+ times that Karat b’riyt is used. Additionally, the authors acknowledge that:
Note that the expression Karat b’riyt is sometimes used in covenant renewals. Because in every case where this happens, people are making a covenant to keep a covenant made previously, This is like a couple renewing wedding vows…
Since the Noahic covenant fits this scenario perfectly, the authors are implicitly acknowledging that either phrase would serve their theological purpose. In other words, even if the Noahic covenant is a continuation of a pre-existing creation covenant, then Karat b’riyt could have been used. It certainly seems possible that the semantic domains of these expressions is broad enough that the kind of distinction the authors make is difficult to prove.
But the most significant issue I have with their position is that they appear to be wrong about the usage. Ezekiel 16:60, 62 are references to the New Covenant. Yahweh has suffered long with Israel and though they have broken the old covenants, Yahweh is going to establish (initiate) a new covenant with them in the future. The authors use some real hermeneutical gymnastics with this text to make the claim that there are no exceptions to the distinction between these phrases, but as they themselves state, “a simple, straightforward reading of this text” would undercut their position.
To recap, we have 12 usages of Hēqîm Bĕrît. Four of these are used in reference to Noah so cannot be part of the “sample pool”. Of the remaining 8, two refer to initiating a covenant, indicating that 25% of the time, Hēqîm Bĕrît refers to initiating a covenant. If there were convincing arguments in favor of the Noahic covenant representing a distinct (and historically new) covenant, then we could say that 6 of the 12 (or half) of the times the Old Testament uses Hēqîm Bĕrît, it is referring to the initiation of a new covenant.
Even without Ezekiel 16, I don’t think the linguistic case is strong enough to stand on its own. If there were convincing reasons to consider the Noahic covenant new and distinct, then we could say that 4 of the 12 (one third) of the OT usages of Hēqîm Bĕrît refer to initiating a covenant. But with the addition of the Ezekiel 16 usage, I think their linguistic evidence fails.
Evidence #2 – The parallels between the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3 and the flood narrative of Genesis 6-9
Summary: The authors argue that key words, dominant ideas, parallel sequences of actions, and similar themes link the Noah narrative with the creation narrative. Some of their key points are enumerated below:
- The flood is presented as a new creation – just as God ordered creation out of the chaos of the deep in Gensis 1, He orders a new creation out of the flood waters of judgment.
- Noah is presented as a second Adamic figure, receiving the same blessings and commands as the original Adam.
- The terms of the covenant are similar: 1) to increase in number and fill the earth, 2) the fear of mankind would be on all animals of the earth, 3) the animals are given as food to man, just as the plants were given in the garden, 4) Human life is pricelessly valuable and therefore anyone shedding blood would forfeit his own, and 5) society was responsible to punish murderers
Examination of Evidence #2
The authors bring out a lot of helpful parallels from the two narrative accounts, but do they demonstrate that the Noahic covenant is a continuation of a pre-existing Creation Covenant? While they account for parallels well, they gloss over the significant differences between the two narratives and therefore, I once again think they fall short of providing definitive support for their assertion.
For example, the original promises of Genesis make no reference to judgment, while the Noahic covenant specifically promises that God will not destroy the earth with a flood and confirms this with a sign (the rainbow). The original promises are given to Adam, while the Noahic promises are given to 4 households who will all move in different directions. The original command to exercise dominion was given in a hospitable world of peace between mankind and the rest of creation while the Noahic blessing is that the animal world would live in fear of mankind, and that mankind was free to eat animal kind. The original promise was given in a garden while the Noahic blessings are given to a broader world of annually recurring seasons. It’s hard to imagine the conditions and context of the Noahic covenant making sense in Edenic world of Genesis 1, and therefore hard to say that the Noahic covenant is just an affirmation of the Creation covenant.
The authors are asking their readers to read into a lot of figures and parallels when what would be really convincing would be some words. Like words that state Noah is another Adam. Words that indicate there is a covenant, and an oath, and a sign in Genesis 1-3. But there is no oath. No sacrifice. No sign. Furthermore, nowhere does the Bible refer to or indicate that Noah is another Adam. Jesus is the second Adam…not the third Adam.
Is the reiteration of God’s command to be fruitful and multiply enough to assert that the Noahic covenant is a continuation of a pre-existent Creation Covenant? I would argue that the command to be fruitful and multiply is present in every covenant, including the New Covenant, so its presence no more makes the Noahic covenant the Creation Covenant any more than it makes the New Covenant the Creation Covenant.
In short, while the authors admirably draw our attention to the parallels, they fail to adequately address the distinctions between Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-9.
Conclusion
The authors have not made an exegetically determinative case for their assertion that the Noahic covenant is an affirmation of a pre-existent Creation Covenant. Having said that, I am enjoying their work and look forward to interacting with it in future chapters.
Nathan Writes 