The Narrow Path Ministries

Many believe the law began at Sinai. If this is truly the case, then how did Noah know which animals were clean or unclean (Genesis 7:2,8)? There are many such examples (adultery, idols) where this kind of knowledge predates the giving of the law at Sinai and onwards...

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him. Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood. Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth, two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. Gen. 7:1-9

Hello Mellontes,

I can think of two ways to satisfy my curiosity without affecting my opinion of what might have happened at Sinai. 1) We don't have a complete transcript of the conversation God had with Noah, and it can be assumed that God gave him further information regarding which animals were clean, and which were not. 2) Verse 9 might indicate that the animals, rather than being directed by Noah, were directed by God to go into the ark in the order prescribed by Him.

That's my two cents' worth.

l2j

look2jesus wrote:

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. , to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him. Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood. Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth, two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. Gen. 7:1-9

Hello Mellontes,

I can think of two ways to satisfy my curiosity without affecting my opinion of what might have happened at Sinai. 1) We don't have a complete transcript of the conversation God had with Noah, and it can be assumed that God gave him further information regarding which animals were clean, and which were not. 2) Verse 9 might indicate that the animals, rather than being directed by Noah, were directed by God to go into the ark in the order prescribed by Him.

That's my two cents' worth.

l2j

That's a lot of mights and assumptions...

Your point #1: It is quite possible that God did give additional instructions to Noah OR that Noah had already known. God could have given additional instruction to individuals way before Noah, like Cain and Able for example. How could they carry out any offering to God without prior knowledge and instruction? Why was Cain punished for murdering Abel if there was no law against it? The points are too numerous to number...

Your point #2: Genesis 7:9 says that the animals went into the ark AS GOD HAD COMMANDED NOAH. How did God command Noah? God said, "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female..." I think Noah knew.

How did Joseph know that adultery was wrong? [Genesis 39:8-9]

How did Jacob know that idol worship was wrong? [Genesis 35:2-3]

Hi Melontes,

Might be easier to discuss if we knew what you are getting at? look2jesus gave a reasonable response.

You wrote:

Many believe the law began at Sinai

Are you interested in law or the Law of Moses? The definite article makes a difference, and we are better able to understand what you are interested in.

Moral law has existed from creation. Positive laws are in effect from the time they are promulgated. "The Law of Moses" came through Moses and obviously did not exist as an entity before then. That does not mean various features of the law of Moses were not in effect prior to Moses, just as theft was wrong before the United States was formed. It can not be said that the law of the United States was in effect since creation since theft has always been wrong.

There is both moral law and positive law in the Law of Moses.

Blessings, Homer

Homer wrote:Hi Melontes,

Might be easier to discuss if we knew what you are getting at? look2jesus gave a reasonable response.

You wrote:

Many believe the law began at Sinai

Are you interested in law or the Law of Moses? The definite article makes a difference, and we are better able to understand what you are interested in.

Moral law has existed from creation. Positive laws are in effect from the time they are promulgated. "The Law of Moses" came through Moses and obviously did not exist as an entity before then. That does not mean various features of the law of Moses were not in effect prior to Moses, just as theft was wrong before the United States was formed. It can not be said that the law of the United States was in effect since creation since theft has always been wrong.

There is both moral law and positive law in the Law of Moses.

Blessings, Homer

I'm not sure how you differentiate between moral and positive law... Would you consider ceremonial law associated with offerings? Would you consider ceremonial law as given only from Sinai onwards? If so, how would you explain Cain and Abel's offerrings?

Why am I engaging this conversation? Its purpose is to put to rest the idea that ceremonial law (and as a direct result - THE LAW) began in Moses' lifetime... It probably doesn't have much significance among the partial preterist camp as it does within full preterism. The apostle Paul deals with the resurrection using Adamic terminology (first Adam, last Adam, etc.) and old covenant terminology. If THE LAW is to be associated with the old covenant, and if there were already known aspects of THE LAW circulating prior to the alleged beginning of THE LAW (Sinai and onward), then it could be said that the old covenant began way before it is normally believed to have begun...The ramifications for this may not be obvious to all, but they do have a tremendous amount of significance...I won't be delving into these ramifications...

Mellontes wrote:The ramifications for this may not be obvious to all, but they do have a tremendous amount of significance...I won't be delving into these ramifications...

Why not?

Michelle wrote:

Mellontes wrote:The ramifications for this may not be obvious to all, but they do have a tremendous amount of significance...I won't be delving into these ramifications...

Why not?

...because these ramifications deal with Genesis One as not being associated with physical creation...something a little similar to John Walton's view of the temple construct. Please do not even think for an iota of a nanosecond that I believe God did not create the physical universe - I just don't necessarily think Genesis One deals with that interpretation. The Bible is a book about redemption. It is not a science book. The ancient near East understanding of these things are totally foreign to our 21st century Western Hellenistic understanding. It will not be discussed here. Now, may we please get back on topic?

Okay.

When do you believe the law (or THE LAW) began? Right after the Fall? In Eden? Pre-Eden?

Michelle wrote:Okay.

When do you believe the law (or THE LAW) began? Right after the Fall? In Eden? Pre-Eden?

Honestly, my best answer would be "yes," and I am not trying to be facetious. There are many factors indicating Adam as not the first human being, but rather the first to be in covenant with God - which would lend itself to a pre-Eden answer. It is logically held that if the first Adam was the first human being then the last Adam should represent the last human being, but we do not hold to the last Adam being the last human being, do we? 1 Cor 15:45 associates these two Adams with the natural body and the spiritual body. The natural body is the Adamic (first Adam) body and the spiritual body is the body of Christ (last Adam) - - - - yet most everyone exegetes this resurrection passage as dealing solely with physical, human tissue...

We HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ's death (Romans 6:3) (yet we have not physically died), HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED with Christ (Galatians 2:20) (yet have not been physically crucified), HAVE BEEN BURIED with Christ (Col 2:12)(yet we have not been physically buried) and HAVE BEEN RAISED in Christ (Colossians 2:12) (yet we have not been physically raised). Futurists seem to understand only 3 out of the 4 from the above.

Romans 6:5 - For if we HAVE BEEN PLANTED together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

The likeness of His death is compared to the likeness of the resurrection.

Notice that the same planting (past tense) is applied to the 1st century Christian. Now if this refers to PHYSICAL death, then so also would be the likeness of our resurrection. But the very fact that the same planting is viewed as PAST TENSE (for presently alive people) completely removes the idea that physical is the focus!

I know, I know...way off topic...

Have you read John H. Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One?

Mellontes wrote: Have you read John H. Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One?

No, but it sounds interesting.