Deconstructing God’s Covenant with Noah
In Christian circles, covenants are very important. According to Dictionary.com, a covenant is an agreement or promise, usually formal, between two or more people or groups to do or not do something specified. You might have heard that the word covenant is derived from the same root word meaning “to cut”, and therefore in the culture of the Bible, a covenant carried weight and was often cut, or sealed, in blood because the agreements were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice. But is this really what is taking place between God and Noah and why does it matter?
Christian theology says that the Noahic covenant began back in Genesis 8:20, but the Hebrew word that is translated as “covenant” isn’t even found until 9:9. In fact that word, bᵊrîṯ (ber-eeth') is not even a root word. Instead it comes from the root bārâ (baw-raw), which from what I can find means to choose or select. And as we have mentioned before in previous posts, what precedes, when stripped down to the roots appears quite a bit different then what you may have been told.
During our research on covenants, an article was found on ligonier.org, a reformed theology website, in which it compares the so-called covenants between God and Adam and God and Noah and others.
First off, is there even enough evidence to suggest that a “so-called covenant” was made between God and Adam? According to the article it says that, “Divine covenants structure the relationship between God and mankind.” I suppose this is similar to how we defined it above but I don’t 100% agree with this statement, especially not when we are comparing Adam and Noah. An agreement and a relationship are not necessarily the same things.
It goes on to call it a “covenant of works with Adam that held out the blessing of life if our first parents would obey the covenant’s terms and cites Genesis 2:15-17” as the scripture reference. The Christian translation reads, 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” In this translation, we see that God had a purpose or job for Adam which had conditions, which were then followed by consequences. However as we continue to study, I wonder if that is really what the ancient text says?
When I shared my thoughts on this passage a few weeks ago I had failed to completely deconstruct down to the root words and now as we reflect back, I see the significance of doing so, and in our opinion this is critical to the understanding not only of this passage but of the story as a whole. I will need to take some more time to gather my current thoughts on the root word translation of Genesis 2:15-17 and if necessary, do a follow up post.
This whole process has been one of continued contemplation and reflection. If I could describe it somehow, so far I would say that it feels like a loose thread on a piece of fabric. At first glance you think you can pull just a little, rip off the thread and the fabric will be saved. But once you start, you find that it is not that simple and as you pull, eventually everything unravels. This is where I continue to find myself. A constant unraveling.
Looking again at just the English translation of Genesis 2:15-17, we believe it is easy to see that this is conditional and intended only for Adam, not all of humanity forever and ever. And that there were consequences if the conditions were not followed. There is nothing in the text that implies anything more, especially nothing like Ligonier’s theology that God promised to redeem His people through an agent who would keep the so-called covenant of works citing, and I use these terms loosely, as a “proof text”, Genesis 3:15 which says, I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Please see our previous post where we deconstruct the idea that this is a future prophecy of a messiah, it is not. In fact our current understanding of the Tanach is pretty cut and dry. If there is a God, and if that God is the God of the Hebrew Bible, then it is our duty to have respect for Him and to live in a way that is beneficial and functional, no savior necessary, and the God of the Hebrew Bible will judge every deed.
The article goes on to say that, “God’s curse on the serpent is the first announcement of the (so-called) covenant of grace, which is the covenant through which salvation comes. This covenant is revealed in several subsequent covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ.” Really, I mean really, come on. God’s curse on the serpent was just that, a consequence for the serpent because of its actions and has absolutely nothing to do with a future covenant. If it was, wouldn’t it have to be explicitly obvious in that text but upon closer investigation, clearly it is found wanting.
But I digress and apologize, I fear I may have gotten off topic slightly, so let’s try to sum a few things up. In the so-called covenant with Adam, or covenant of works, there was no cutting of animals and the root words used for these agreements if you will, are different in Adam’s story and Noah’s story.
In the so-called Noahic covenant, yes, we do find the slaughtering of animals in Genesis 8 but I would argue that it is a stretch to say that it was the cutting of a covenant. Remember our understanding is that the slaughtering or giving of animals for food, had to do with mankind’s rest from the consequences of their disobedience in which the ground was cursed back in Genesis 3. What follows the slaughtering says, to say to exist God heart not to add to make light to repeat the ground to pass over Adam, that to be straightened heart Adam, dysfunction (evil) to shake off. Not to add to repeat to strike all to live which to do. 22To repeat all days earth to sow, to cut off, to chill, to be hot, to clip off, to pull off day to fold back not to cease.
It looks as though this section here has everything to do with what had taken place between God and man back in Genesis 3 and not really the flood. It says God won’t make light to repeat the ground to pass over Adam. And that not to add to repeat to strike all to live. This is not the promise not to flow the waters to decay the earth again, that comes later. Again it would seem that what takes place in chapter 8 with the animals is separate from what takes place later in chapter 9 with the promise of not to repeat the flow of water to decay the earth.
At the beginning of chapter 9, Noah and his sons were told to kneel to God to fear and prostrate and to increase. That the animals were given as food for mankind’s rest, not for them to set themselves up.
Then in chapter 9 verse 8, the conversation changes.
8to say God, God (to) Noah, God (to) sons to say 9I behold to rise to select (you) to sow to be after 10all to breathe to live which to fly beast all to live earth all to go out ark all to live earth 11to rise to select not to cut off all to be fresh to repeat water to flow not to exist to repeat to flow to decay earth 12 to say God this to come to select which I to give to discern all to breathe to live which to go around to veil from sight 13to be difficult (hard) to give to cover to exist to come to select to discern the earth 14to exist to cover to cover to ascend the earth to see to be difficult to cover 15To remember to select which to discern all to breathe to live all to be fresh, not to exist to repeat the water to flow to decay all to be fresh 16to exist to be difficult to cover to see to remember to select to conceal to discern God to discern all to breathe to live all to be fresh which to ascend the earth 17to say God, God (to) Noah this to come to select which to rise to discern all to be fresh which upon the earth.
Did you hear anything in this section about a covenant or agreement or a bow or a rainbow? Ahh nope! Remember the word translated as covenant is not a root word. Its root word means to select. And in fact the word qešeṯ (keh'-sheth), which is translated as bow in this section, isn’t a root word either and it actually comes from the root word qāšâ (kaw-shaw') which means to be difficult or hard… very interesting.
Honestly I am a little puzzled, we see some familiar phrases in this portion, do they have any connection to what happened before in the story? To cover, is that referencing man covering the earth, or possibly the waters covering the earth? To veil from sight, that was used back in Cain’s story, what is concealed, God or mankind? To be difficult… again is that the relationship between God and mankind or will it be difficult for mankind to cover the earth or will it be difficult to cover the earth again with water… and lastly, to select which to rise to discern all to be fresh which upon the earth. Is God doing the selecting and the discerning? Much to consider! So where does this leave us with the so-called Noahic covenant?
Sure, the idea of the rainbow as a promise is beautiful and I don’t think it is harmful to think of it in this way. However, likewise, I don’t think it is harmful if we don’t view it in this way. It may just be another natural phenomenon of this natural world. And that so far, what the Hebrew Bible says about there not being another flood to decay all, has in fact been true. But if another worldwide flood did occur, then the text would not line up with reality and would in fact be untrue. I don’t believe either that this section of the scripture is revealing the so-called covenant of grace, like Ligonier says. Yes, to not destroy the earth again through a flood, would be a display of God’s grace but let’s not read into the text something that is not there. Yet again, I don’t think this is evidence pointing to a future savior but that it may support the continuing theme of fear God and obey, for He will judge every deed. So, I suppose we could say that time reveals all things and at this moment in time, time will tell in regards to the truth of the so-called Noahic covenant.