164
K. Bangert
is read from an historical-critical perspective, the covenant theology ought to be
reversed: Based on the covenant consciousness of the Jews during the time of their
exile, the covenant idea was projected back into Israel’s earlier history (cf von Rad
Bd 1, 1978, pp. 147–149.). For instance, when in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it is
repeatedly stated that God will scatter his people amongst the nations in response
to their disobedience (Lev. 26:27–35; Deut. 4:25–31, 40; 8:19–20; 28:36–37, 62–
68), then these references may be considered to be back projections by which the
covenant idea is extended to the time of the exodus, then to the time of the patriarchs
and finally even to the time of Noah. The covenant given to Abraham may have
served to reassure the exiles not only of their identity as Abraham’s offspring but
also of their right to the holy land.
We must also recognize a contingency factor in the covenant idea. The fact that
Jerusalem and its temple were actually destroyed and the Jews were indeed scattered
amongst the nations suggests that God had, at least for the time being, abandoned
his “eternal” covenant because His people had broken it repeatedly: “[T]hey did not
obey your voice or walk in your law. They did nothing of all you commanded them
to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them.” (Jer 32:23 ESV)
What was originally meant to be an everlasting covenant (cf. Gen 17:13; Num 18:19;
1Chr 16:17; Ps 105:10; Is 55:3; Jer 50:5; Ez 16:6 etc.) was cut short and—at least
for the time being—terminated due to Israel’s disobedience. Hence, despite God’s
intention to abide by his eternal covenant, the contingency of that covenant cannot
be overlooked.
One of the important theological lessons to be learned from the flood story is that
man is inherently depraved (“man’s heart is evil from his youth”: Gen 8:21), and that
violence and evil will therefore always be an existing reality on earth. The destruction
of the earth could not and would not prevent evil from rising up again, even amongst
Noah’s own descendants. Man’s depravity is a given in this world. Nevertheless, it
is not only desirable but also possible that some people (like Noah and others after
him) can and will be righteous “in their generation”. The continuation of the Genesis
story (and the whole biblical account) offers ample evidence for man’s depravity
while at the same time giving many examples of men and women adhering to the
covenant with God and living a righteous life.
The flood story, then, is a narrative that encourages man to live righteously and,
hence, receive the blessings of a merciful and benevolent God who will consider
man’s righteousness as a “pleasing aroma”. The story, of course, also assumes very
strongly that there will not be another world-wide disaster destroying life on earth.
That promise—vouched for by the rainbow in the sky—was a comforting and reassuring pledge that was to take away from humankind any fear of another such global
disaster.
K. Bangert
is read from an historical-critical perspective, the covenant theology ought to be
reversed: Based on the covenant consciousness of the Jews during the time of their
exile, the covenant idea was projected back into Israel’s earlier history (cf von Rad
Bd 1, 1978, pp. 147–149.). For instance, when in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it is
repeatedly stated that God will scatter his people amongst the nations in response
to their disobedience (Lev. 26:27–35; Deut. 4:25–31, 40; 8:19–20; 28:36–37, 62–
68), then these references may be considered to be back projections by which the
covenant idea is extended to the time of the exodus, then to the time of the patriarchs
and finally even to the time of Noah. The covenant given to Abraham may have
served to reassure the exiles not only of their identity as Abraham’s offspring but
also of their right to the holy land.
We must also recognize a contingency factor in the covenant idea. The fact that
Jerusalem and its temple were actually destroyed and the Jews were indeed scattered
amongst the nations suggests that God had, at least for the time being, abandoned
his “eternal” covenant because His people had broken it repeatedly: “[T]hey did not
obey your voice or walk in your law. They did nothing of all you commanded them
to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them.” (Jer 32:23 ESV)
What was originally meant to be an everlasting covenant (cf. Gen 17:13; Num 18:19;
1Chr 16:17; Ps 105:10; Is 55:3; Jer 50:5; Ez 16:6 etc.) was cut short and—at least
for the time being—terminated due to Israel’s disobedience. Hence, despite God’s
intention to abide by his eternal covenant, the contingency of that covenant cannot
be overlooked.
One of the important theological lessons to be learned from the flood story is that
man is inherently depraved (“man’s heart is evil from his youth”: Gen 8:21), and that
violence and evil will therefore always be an existing reality on earth. The destruction
of the earth could not and would not prevent evil from rising up again, even amongst
Noah’s own descendants. Man’s depravity is a given in this world. Nevertheless, it
is not only desirable but also possible that some people (like Noah and others after
him) can and will be righteous “in their generation”. The continuation of the Genesis
story (and the whole biblical account) offers ample evidence for man’s depravity
while at the same time giving many examples of men and women adhering to the
covenant with God and living a righteous life.
The flood story, then, is a narrative that encourages man to live righteously and,
hence, receive the blessings of a merciful and benevolent God who will consider
man’s righteousness as a “pleasing aroma”. The story, of course, also assumes very
strongly that there will not be another world-wide disaster destroying life on earth.
That promise—vouched for by the rainbow in the sky—was a comforting and reassuring pledge that was to take away from humankind any fear of another such global
disaster.