Isaiah 24 and the Covenant of Creation: A Better Covenantal Explanation for Political Order

This is a guest post by Southern Seminary student Michael Carlino.

Recently, Andrew Walker has released an article repudiating the notion that Theonomy is the answer for America’s ills. Therein he makes the following comment, “In sum, the error of Theonomy is that its hermeneutic stretches beyond the Bible’s understanding of its own authority. From this mistaken hermeneutic comes serious distortions, with drastic consequences for the church’s role in fallen political orders.” The core distortion that Walker rightly diagnoses is the covenantal error made by someone who maintains that the civil precepts of the OT need to be enforced for true freedom and justice in society to be had. Getting the covenants right is crucial to correcting this error and understanding God’s will for the church’s role in the public square. Daniel Elazar puts it well, “The covenant motif is central to the biblical worldview, the basis of all relationships, the mechanism for defining and allocating authority, and the foundation of the biblical political teaching.”[1]In other words, understanding the covenants on their own terms by correctly interpreting to whom, when, and how long they are binding is of utmost importance. In keeping with this thought, the purpose of this brief article is to sketch out the abiding implications of the Noahic covenant and how the prophet Isaiah validates its continuing authority over the earth’s inhabitants.

The Noahic Covenant

Stephen Wellum helpfully notes, “The word ‘covenant’ first appears with Noah (Gen. 6:18; cf. 9:9-11), but it should be viewed as a continuation of the prior creation covenant. The Noahic covenant is the reinstatement and upholding of God’s commitment to creation, now in light of sin.”[2] Or as Jonathan Leeman articulates, “The Noahic covenant is where the Creator God’s rule over creation is given institutional expression in the post-fall world.”[3] What both are correctly unpacking is that after God judges the human race in the universal flood, he is by no means going to lose creation to sin and that mankind continues to bear God’s image despite the sobering reality that “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21; cf. 9:6). Further, this covenant is made as long “as the earth remains” (Gen. 8:22). Thus, in establishing to whom, when, and how long, we can conclude that the Noahic covenant is made with Noah—who is standing in as a federal head for all of humanity (it is significant that you is plural in Gen. 9:7 which includes Noah, his sons, and all their offspring cf. 9:8). That it is made after the flood in which God judged the wickedness of man worldwide, thereby maintaining his authority over the creational order. And the covenant is binding as long as “the earth remains” (Gen. 8:22). Thus, Wellum concludes, “The Noahic covenant explains why fallen humanity simultaneously exists alongside God’s people until the consummation. Instead of continually wiping away fallen humanity and starting over again, two kingdoms emerge until the end: God’s kingdom or saving reign…and the kingdom of man or of this world.”[4] Or as Augustine famously designates: The City of God and the City of Man. Christians ought to expect these kingdoms to continue on together until the day the Lord Jesus returns and brings this present age to its divinely ordained end. Which is not through the church wielding the sword, but King Jesus striking down the nations with the sharp sword of his word on that great day (Rev. 19:15).[5]   

Isaiah 24:5-6 and Responding to Theonomy

In Genesis 9:16 God explicitly refers to his arrangement with Noah as an “everlasting covenant.” When we arrive at the prophet Isaiah, specifically chapters 13-27, we encounter a major literary unit detailing the judgement oracles against foreign nations. In Isaiah 24:5-6 the prophet writes, “The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the covenants, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.” Peter Gentry makes the following comment on this passage, “Since the reference is to all humans breaking the ‘everlasting covenant,’ the Mosaic covenant given to Israel at Sinai is hardly in view. The most probable referent is the covenant made with Noah…Isaiah’s oracle predicts the complete desolation of the earth because its people have violated the instructions and terms of the Noahic covenant.”[6]

This is a crucial point that needs made in view of the common refrain made by Joe Theonomist. He will often say things like, “I’d rather be under God’s law than man’s law,” or, “God’s law is far freer than man’s law.” What is implied by this statement is that when the Mosaic law is the foundational authority for human society, we will be better off. It is important in responding to this line of thought to emphasize that it is not a capitulation to the world to go back to the creation covenant and the Noahic covenant when engaging in the public square. Rather, it is reading the Bible on its own terms that leads to this conclusion. To put it another way, Joe Theonomist may be well-intentioned, but he is misreading and misapplying God’s Word by desiring to enforce a covenant that is no longer in effect upon society. 

It is significant to note that nowhere in the OT is the Israelite/Mosaic covenant called an everlasting or permanent covenant. In fact, the apostle Paul is abundantly clear that the Mosaic covenant came with a divinely ordained expiration date (Gal. 3:19-25). Meaning this covenant is no longer even binding for the Christian, much less the city of man. The theocratic institution that was old covenant Israel as a whole has been rendered obsolete in view of the Great High Priest (Heb. 8:13). And as we have briefly considered in Isaiah 24:5-6, even when the Mosaic Law was in effect over the people of Israel, God judges the world on the basis of the Noahic covenant, not the special covenant he made with Israel at Sinai, the one they broke and has now been fulfilled in Christ. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Daniel J. Elazar, “Althusius’ Grand Design for a Federal Commonwealth,” in Politica: Politics Methodically Set Forth and Illustrated with Sacred and Profane Examples, ed. and trans. by Frederick S. Carney (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1964), xxxvi.

[2] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical- Theological Understanding of the Covenants(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 685

[3] Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 205. 

[4] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 686. 

[5] See Jonathan Leeman here for a much deeper dive into these implications: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-relationship-of-church-and-state/

[6] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 206.