9 Climate Change and Eschatology
161
end-time Armageddon (Apocalypse model) as a contingency, they strongly favored
the Nineveh Model: “It invites us to take very seriously the warnings of today’s
prophets, namely the thousands of scientific experts who advocate urgent change
[…], begin to cover ourselves (figurately speaking) with sackcloths, and organize a
dramatic turnabout of our thinking and behavior” (Luetz et al., p. 66).
The authors also reminded their readers of the oft-cited verse from 2 Chr 7:14: “If
my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and
seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and
will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (NIV, emphasis by Luetz et al.) And
the authors asked: “Could it be that such heartfelt human repentance may prompt
God to hear, forgive and heal the land?” (Luetz et al., p. 65).
To summarize: While the Rainbow Model assumes that another worldwide
destruction will never take place again (the rainbow being its warranty) and the
Apocalypse Model presumes an unequivocal and ultimate end-time world annihilation, the Nineveh Model advocates that the prospect of an envisioned end-time
annihilation can still be avoided if humanity repent from their destructive behavior
and amend their ways to avoid the ultimate eschatological disaster. In other words:
The detrimental (and potentially lethal) effects of climate change must not of necessity constitute the “end of the world” that Biblicist conservatives anticipate—IF
humankind chooses, and successfully manages, to reverse its destructive course.
In this paper, I shall now make an attempt to give more background to the three
models by looking at the respective theological and—if any—historical contexts
of the Noah story, the Jonah story, and the apocalyptic scenarios which were so
abundantly prevalent during the time of Jesus. In terms of the Noah narrative, I shall
not only look at the theological intent of the story but also on what we today can know
about the historical roots of the flood account. In terms of the Jonah narrative, I shall
not only investigate the intent of the Book of Jonah and its plot, but also its later usage
by Jesus (the “sign of Jonah”) and its possible application to today’s global challenges.
In terms of the apocalyptic end-time scenarios, I shall investigate the nature and intent
of apocalyptic literature in general as well as the intent of the apocalyptic passage in
Matthew 24–25 where Jesus apparently announced the imminent end of the world
(which German theologians have called Naherwartung). How must we interpret this
imminent end-time expectation (Naherwartung) today—in light of it being thwarted
and postponed again and again for some 2000 years?
The result of this paper will show that all of the three narratives (Rainbow, Nineveh,
Apocalyptic scenario) are characterized by an inherent component of contingency.
That is to say, none of them are unequivocally unconditional, but each contains an
inherent conditionality or contingency. And the question is to be raised what this
conditionality means in light of the current climate crisis.
161
end-time Armageddon (Apocalypse model) as a contingency, they strongly favored
the Nineveh Model: “It invites us to take very seriously the warnings of today’s
prophets, namely the thousands of scientific experts who advocate urgent change
[…], begin to cover ourselves (figurately speaking) with sackcloths, and organize a
dramatic turnabout of our thinking and behavior” (Luetz et al., p. 66).
The authors also reminded their readers of the oft-cited verse from 2 Chr 7:14: “If
my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and
seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and
will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (NIV, emphasis by Luetz et al.) And
the authors asked: “Could it be that such heartfelt human repentance may prompt
God to hear, forgive and heal the land?” (Luetz et al., p. 65).
To summarize: While the Rainbow Model assumes that another worldwide
destruction will never take place again (the rainbow being its warranty) and the
Apocalypse Model presumes an unequivocal and ultimate end-time world annihilation, the Nineveh Model advocates that the prospect of an envisioned end-time
annihilation can still be avoided if humanity repent from their destructive behavior
and amend their ways to avoid the ultimate eschatological disaster. In other words:
The detrimental (and potentially lethal) effects of climate change must not of necessity constitute the “end of the world” that Biblicist conservatives anticipate—IF
humankind chooses, and successfully manages, to reverse its destructive course.
In this paper, I shall now make an attempt to give more background to the three
models by looking at the respective theological and—if any—historical contexts
of the Noah story, the Jonah story, and the apocalyptic scenarios which were so
abundantly prevalent during the time of Jesus. In terms of the Noah narrative, I shall
not only look at the theological intent of the story but also on what we today can know
about the historical roots of the flood account. In terms of the Jonah narrative, I shall
not only investigate the intent of the Book of Jonah and its plot, but also its later usage
by Jesus (the “sign of Jonah”) and its possible application to today’s global challenges.
In terms of the apocalyptic end-time scenarios, I shall investigate the nature and intent
of apocalyptic literature in general as well as the intent of the apocalyptic passage in
Matthew 24–25 where Jesus apparently announced the imminent end of the world
(which German theologians have called Naherwartung). How must we interpret this
imminent end-time expectation (Naherwartung) today—in light of it being thwarted
and postponed again and again for some 2000 years?
The result of this paper will show that all of the three narratives (Rainbow, Nineveh,
Apocalyptic scenario) are characterized by an inherent component of contingency.
That is to say, none of them are unequivocally unconditional, but each contains an
inherent conditionality or contingency. And the question is to be raised what this
conditionality means in light of the current climate crisis.