9 Climate Change and Eschatology
167
Eschatological Implications
The biblical flood narrative offers the comforting assurance that there would never
again be another catastrophe that would destroy the whole earth. But that optimistic
promise was relativized by none other than Jesus who in his forewarnings, on the
Mount of Olives, of the time when “heaven and earth will pass away”, made explicit
reference to Noah’s time by saying:
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days
before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to
the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the
flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
… Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. (Mt
24:37–39.42 NIV)
Hence, according to Jesus, the rainbow in the sky was no guarantee that there would
not be another global and final destruction of the earth. Jesus, therefore, assumed the
contingency of the Rainbow Model. As already shown above in the discussion of the
covenant, a covenant promise is generally hinged upon the conditions which both
parties of the covenant must adhere to in order for the covenant to hold. What was true
for the covenant with Israel from which God retracted after Israel had failed to fulfill
her part (hence the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering into the diaspora),
may also be true for the covenant that God made with all of mankind after the flood:
God can retract from it, if mankind fails to abide by the covenant. One could argue,
though, that in the case of the rainbow covenant God had made only a one-sided
covenant without detailing any requirements to which man must adhere in order for
the covenant to hold. Nevertheless, I would suggest two implicit conditionals for the
rainbow promise: For one, it was Noah’s thank offering after the rescue that prompted
God to grant the covenant in the first place; hence, man’s gratitude and faithfulness
to God was reciprocated by God’s promise and constituted man’s inherent part in
the deal. For another, if mankind works against the very protection that God had
promised to provide, then this covenant too becomes null and void. Why should
God protect the earth if man undermines God’s effort in that regard? It would be
tantamount to man calling off the covenant.
The Nineveh Model (Jonah’s Message)
Literary and Theological Background
Although the Book of Jonah is enlisted among the “twelve minor prophets”
(Dodekapropheton), it does not, contrary to the other eleven books, contain any
prophetic message of the prophet that gave the book its name—except for the one
message God told him to deliver to the Ninevites: “Forty more days and Nineveh
will be overthrown.” (Jon 3:4 NIV) Hence, the book is not the record of a prophet’s
167
Eschatological Implications
The biblical flood narrative offers the comforting assurance that there would never
again be another catastrophe that would destroy the whole earth. But that optimistic
promise was relativized by none other than Jesus who in his forewarnings, on the
Mount of Olives, of the time when “heaven and earth will pass away”, made explicit
reference to Noah’s time by saying:
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days
before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to
the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the
flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
… Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. (Mt
24:37–39.42 NIV)
Hence, according to Jesus, the rainbow in the sky was no guarantee that there would
not be another global and final destruction of the earth. Jesus, therefore, assumed the
contingency of the Rainbow Model. As already shown above in the discussion of the
covenant, a covenant promise is generally hinged upon the conditions which both
parties of the covenant must adhere to in order for the covenant to hold. What was true
for the covenant with Israel from which God retracted after Israel had failed to fulfill
her part (hence the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering into the diaspora),
may also be true for the covenant that God made with all of mankind after the flood:
God can retract from it, if mankind fails to abide by the covenant. One could argue,
though, that in the case of the rainbow covenant God had made only a one-sided
covenant without detailing any requirements to which man must adhere in order for
the covenant to hold. Nevertheless, I would suggest two implicit conditionals for the
rainbow promise: For one, it was Noah’s thank offering after the rescue that prompted
God to grant the covenant in the first place; hence, man’s gratitude and faithfulness
to God was reciprocated by God’s promise and constituted man’s inherent part in
the deal. For another, if mankind works against the very protection that God had
promised to provide, then this covenant too becomes null and void. Why should
God protect the earth if man undermines God’s effort in that regard? It would be
tantamount to man calling off the covenant.
The Nineveh Model (Jonah’s Message)
Literary and Theological Background
Although the Book of Jonah is enlisted among the “twelve minor prophets”
(Dodekapropheton), it does not, contrary to the other eleven books, contain any
prophetic message of the prophet that gave the book its name—except for the one
message God told him to deliver to the Ninevites: “Forty more days and Nineveh
will be overthrown.” (Jon 3:4 NIV) Hence, the book is not the record of a prophet’s