quote:

---

Mephi: From a straightforward reading (combined with your understanding), I come to the conclusion that anytime it rains and a rainbow (or many rainbows) form, it's particularly because God wants to "relive" the flood.

Tom: Not “because” God wants anything. Rainbows occur strictly because of atmospheric conditions. All the covenant God establishes here need mean is that where this natural phenomenon occurs there exists an opportunity for a divine-human encounter that remembers the Flood and appropriate God’s promise to the person. I have to admit to experiencing rainbows in exactly this way! Without denying the science which accounts for the occurrence of rainbows, don’t we have to admit that science does not limit God’s use of this very natural phenomenon?

---

Ok. Overstatement. What I should have said was this:

From a straightforward reading (combined with your understanding), I come to the conclusion that anytime it rains and a rainbow (or many rainbows) form, it MAY BE particularly because God wants to "relive" the flood.

Follow my logic.

I'm looking at verse 14...

14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds,

God's not saying..."whenever clouds HAPPEN to come together" He's saying whenever HE BRINGS THEM TOGETHER. This goes right along with a large view of Old Testament, I think. I believe that many of the OT writers ASSUMED that God could UNILATERALLY control nature. It's the way that many of the miracles make sense, like the Exodus, sun standing still, and all that. Bottom line: the authors believe that God really DID make the wind blow and clouds form. I think we both know this.

See, if we ASSUME that God really did grant autonomy to the formation of clouds (and consequently of rainbows) then of course, your point would stand. It would be just like circumcision in the OVT context. God wouldn't know WHEN someone would be circumsized for certain, but WHENEVER IT HAPPENED, both parties involved would know the meaning.

But...

How do you get around verse 14 (and implicitly with that, verse 13) which greatly alludes to the fact that God CONTROLS weather patterns, namely cloud formation? That much seems clear. And looking at other Old Testament scriptures, it really seems to me that the OVERWHELMING view was that God was LORD OVER NATURE, meaning He had direct control over it. He really COULD hurl "fire from heaven" (ie lightning bolts) like Zeus. He really COULD just make an "east wind" pop out of nowhere. And he really could open a fissure AT WILL and swallow up a whole family. Wouldn't you agree?

Now, of course one could argue that God controls the cloud formation, but NOT the production of rainbows, as I said before. He just, for whatever reason, set it up that way. That would possibly work. But then this would entail that God basically "set up" rainbows to exist at random times whenever he brought clouds together, granting autonomy to rainbows appearing (though NOT to clouds coming together when he does it) I suppose that I could grant that. ANd for the sake of argument, let's assume here that he did this at CREATION, not just the Noah event. But here's the thing. If God really like enjoying covenantal relations as much as we like to think, wouldn't God be just ITCHING for this "mutuality" to happen? It would seem so. And how would these ideas interrelate--God controlling cloud formation and God's wanting to enjoy covenant relations? I think it would work out like so....

God: Ok, I'm bringing the clouds together. Now, it MAY or MAY NOT be the case that a rainbow will form. Oooh, I hope it does! Because if it does, then I will have a chance to "relive" my covenant with the earth and with humans...and have a good chance at them personally experiencing this promise with me.

Does this make sense to you? Hope so. Basically, it's saying that God is always looking for opportunities to have covenantal relations with us. And he does what he can to facilitate that. So, it would seem that God would possibly bring these clouds together, as often as is reasonably possible, in order to "relive" this covenant. What I want you to see is that cloud formation and rainbow formation would NOT just be "natural" (meaning AUTONOMOUS of God). It's not like God just lets nature "take its course" and then uses what occurs NATURAL to his own ends. That's not what verse 14 would indicate.


**********************************************

quote:

---

Mephi: Not only that, but there is an IMPLICIT assumption behind this whole thing that perhaps we don't want to admit. The writer of this assumes that rainbows are NOT a natural phemenon created by light refracting off of water particles in the air...but that clouds coming together and rainbows appearing were DIRECT EVENTS brought about by God. This would mean that the writer may have actually believed that the FIRST RAINBOW EVER was CREATED by God with Noah...and that EVERY SUBSEQUENT RAINBOW has the reminder effect.

Tom: I don’t see that this conclusion is required by anything in the text, do you? I’m sure the writer wasn’t as knowledgeable of the properties of light as we are, but I don’t see that we need to conclude he’s assuming rainbows are NOT natural phenomena.

---

I said this one completely wrong. What I should have said was that I believe that the writer assumes that weather patterns and events are DIRECTLY brought about by God. The author, it seems to me, doesn't believe in the complete autonomy of nature. If this were the case, then it would be possible for the writer to have actually believe that God "set" the rainbow in the sky AT THE TIME OF THE NOAH EVENT. And that every other rainbow after that has that meaning. Basically, what I wanted to combat was the idea that the author GENUINELY BELIEVED that nature was autonomous from God...and that certain implications may follow. I believe THIS conclusion IS warranted by the text.




********************************************

quote:

---

Mephi: Wouldn't this convenantal remebrance be worthless to people who aren't familiar with the Noah story???

Tom: Sure. But so what? This would apply to ANY interpretation of the passage. Rainbows are natural events which potentially may be something more than mere natural phenomena, but only for those who share this particular interpretation of the event. Same is true of Passover, the Lord’s Supper, etc., which are very natural occurrences we call “dinner” but are invested with symbolic meaning that provides an opportunity for faith to engage God. Isn’t bread and wine religiously worthless to people who don’t know the crucifixion story?

---

Gotcha.



********************************************

quote:

---

Mephi: So...three questions for Tom...1) Do you really believe that everytime a rainbow forms in the sky ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that it's God having some type of "rememberance" service with himself?

Tom: Not “with himself,” since what I was suggesting as a way to understand this particular covenant was to take seriously the “mutuality” of covenants and covenant language. I think rainbows provide an opportunity for us AND God (not for either of us independently of the other) to rehearse the historical event of the Flood and celebrate God’s faithful promise.

Consider the case of the Corinthians meeting at the Lord’s table. Let’s assume that on one particular occasion they go through the motions without a single believer genuinely entering by faith into the truth and experience of the occasion. Does this mean God wasn’t there? That God wasn’t available IN the event, hands outstretched to walk us through the crucifixion story again and in so doing bring the healing power of that event to bear on our lives? Is it not possible that the Gen. 9 covenant established by God is to be understood in similar terms as God making use of a natural phenomenon, the rainbow (as the Lord’s Supper makes use of a quite natural social phenomenon, a “dinner”), to keep the memory of it alive not just in HIS mind independently of us, but alive in the relationship? Again, I’m just turning this over and over in my mind looking for options.

---

Ok. I can deal with it better like this.

Gen 9:15-17

I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."


Ok. I own up to the crime of thinking way too anthropocentrically. It could be the case that God does this not JUST for humans (and just THOSE who have a particular interpretation) , but for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, including plants and animals all over. This would make sense sense the Flood was seen to be an extinction level event of all life. So, it could be the case that this sign of the covenant was just meant to be WITNESSED to by earth...and REMEMBERED by Him. (Remember he has called things in the earth to be his "witnesses" before!) And this would not undermine your idea. It would be POSSIBLE for human beings to enjoy mutuality from this, if they so chose (like you do)...but it would not be NECESSARY...nor necessarily explicitly DESIRED.

But this modifies your idea significantly. It really does become largely what I said before...a remembrance service with Himself...that has the POTENTIAL to be a "relational" event with humans. And I STILL wouldn't necessarily agree that this is the best rendering.


*****************************************************

quote:

---

Mephi: Potential answer: The author of Genesis genuinely believed that: 1) God COULD forget (even to the point of having to be reminded of his own nature as a righteous being [Gen 18:25]), thus using reminders

Tom: Do you believe the view of God that this presupposes? Personally, I don’t. A God who “needs” reminders to keep him forgetting his promises is imperfect, Greek philosophy aside. Wouldn’t you think so? However, a God with a perfect memory in terms of pure date-recall who nevertheless desires intimacy with other beings would want, yes even need, to establish means by which that intimacy might be encouraged.

---

Occam's razor, to me, would say that the EASIEST resolution for some of the problem scriptures is to admit that God does, at times, need to be REMINDED of some things. Think about it. Presentist omniscience does NOT entail COMPLETE MEMORY RETENTION. Nor does infinite intelligence (which primarily seems to deal with possibilities) We really just kind of assume that. We assume that a being of great cognitive power would automatically be able to remember ALL things they experienced. But we must admit this is an ASSUMPTION. Nothing that I see in Scripture asserts that God MUST have perfect memory. I see Scripture that shows that God...

--remembers a great many things
--plans things
--predestines things

None of this NECESSITATES exhuastive past memory, right?


Actually, the TRULY easiest thing to me would be to honestly say that the different authors of the books of the Bible had DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES, and that the view of God may have evolved over time....from a God who did forget and needed reminders...to a God who did NOT forget. Just me.

Example: What does this mean?

Exo 23-25
During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered (from zakar)his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them.

Exo 6:4-5
I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they lived as aliens. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant.

Just by my reading it seems like things went like this:

1.Israelites cried out.
2.God heard it.
3.REMEMBERED his covenant with Abe (and the things within)
4.BECAUSE OF THAT REMEMBERING, looked at the Israelites with care.

Now, what other way should this be read, Tom. Help me out. Wouldn't the EASIEST way be to say that God made the covenant, forgot about it over time, and the crying out of the Israelites REMINDED him of the covenant....like so..

"What's that cry I hear? Hmmm...the Israelites. Boy, they're really going through it. Hey, WAIT. I made a covenant with their ancestor, Abraham. Actually, I told Abe that all this was going to happen....them being made captive and all. AND I told Abe that I'd punish those oppressors too. So, let me go ahead and see what's going on."

Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty natural rendering. A God that is reminded of things. Again, Tom, help me out.



**************************************************

quote:

---

Mephi: 2) God controlled nature EXHAUSTIVELY including clouds, rain, and rainbows Think about it. WHY would a person like the author of Genesis think that a God who needed reminders was IMperfect? Are we not placing later Greek philosophical categories where it does not belong?

Tom: Why would WE assume that the author of Genesis was only capable of framing this passage as he did because he held a) to a supernaturalistic view of nature, and b) that God did in fact have a bad memory and needed the help of natural devices like rainbows? Think about it. Assuming God established as one particular use of rainbows that they should “remind” him of his promise not to wipe us out again, what’s to keep God from forgetting what rainbows are supposed to remind him of? Hmm? Wouldn’t God need the help of other beings whose memory was BETTER than his, being who didn’t need to be reminded of what rainbows stand for?

---

Tom, give me your HONEST opinion from reading the OT material. Do you believe that this author really believed in the full autonomy of nature? Do you believe that MANY OT authors believed in the full autonomy of nature? OR do you believe that the MAJORITY view was that God truly did LARGELY control and dictate weather patterns? I'd love to hear this.

Next, about your concern about God forgetting. Your problem seems like the epistemological question that drives the evangelical concern about inerrancy. "How do we know?" This seems like a more pragmatic argument than anything else. So, what if God forgets certain things. What? You scared or something??



Keep it movin,

quote:

---

I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." (Gen 9:15-17)

---

quote:

---

13

THOUSANDS OF BOOKS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, PROM ALL POSSIBBLE points of view, on memory, this mysterious gift present only in man, and it would be impossible here to simply enumerate all the explanations and theories they provide. But this is unnecessary, for however much man would strive to understand and explain its meaning and "mechanism," the gift of memory would remain ultimately inexplicable, mysterious and even ambiguous.

One thing is without doubt: memory is man's capacity to "resurrect the past," to preserve knowledge of it within himself. But we must say precisely that this capacity is ambiguous. Actually, does its essence not lie in that if, on the one hand, in memory the past is surely resurrected—through it, in it I see a man who some time ago passed from life, I feel in all particularities that morning when I met with him or the last time I saw him, and thus I can "collect" my life—then, on the other, it is resurrected precisely as past, that is, as unreturnable, so that in being realized through my memory the knowledge of this past is simultaneously a discovery of its absence in the present? Hence the sorrow inherent ,in memory. For, in the end, memory in man is nothing other than the knowledge, peculiar only to man, of death, of the fact that "death and time rule on the earth." This is why the gift of memory is ambiguous. Through it man simultaneously "resurrects" the past and comes to know the shatteredness of his own life, which "circling, vanishes in the mist"; he comprehends the shatteredness and unreturnability of time, in which, sooner or later, memory itself will darken, weaken and be snuffed out, and death will reign.

Only in relation to this "natural" memory—to the most human but therefore also the most ambiguous of all human gifts, thanks to which even before death man recognizes his own mortality and life as dying—can man not so much understand as feel the entire newness of that memory, that remembrance, which it is appropriate to call the essence of the new life given to us in Christ.

Here we should recall that in the biblical, Old Testamental teaching on God, the term memory refers to the attentiveness of God to his creation, the power of divine providential love, through which God "holds" the world and gives it life, so that life itself can be termed abiding in the memory of God, and death the falling out of this memory. In other words, memory, like everything else in God, is real, it is that life that he grants, that God "remembers"; it is the eternal overcoming of the "nothing" out of which God called us into "his wonderful light."

And this gift of memory, as the power that transforms love into life, into knowledge, communion and unity, has been given to man by God. Man's memory is his responding love for God, the encounter and communion with God, with the life of life it-^If. Out of all creation it is given to man alone to remember God s-nd through this remembrance to truly live. If everything in the World witnesses to God, declares his glory and renders him praise, then only man "remembers" him and, through this memory, God and raises it up to God.To God's remembrance of him, man answers with his remembrance of God. If God's remembrance of man is the gift of life, then man's remembrance of God is the reception of this lifecreating gift, the constant acquisition of and increase in life.

But then it also becomes understandable why the very essence and depth and horror of sin are most perfectly expressed not in a multitude of "scientific-theological" definitions but in the corn- | mon, popular expression: man has forgotten God. For in relation to | what has just been demonstrated, to the biblical and, so to speak, ;| oncological (and not simply "psychological") understanding of i memory, to forget means above all to cut what has been forgotten off from life, to cease to live by it, to fall away from it. It is not simply to "stop thinking" about God—for the militant atheist is often "obsessed" with his hatred for God, and there are many on earth who, while sincerely convinced of their "religiosity," nevertheless seek in religion everything imaginable, but not God. It is precisely a falling away from him, from life, ceasing to live , through him and in him. And it is precisely in such obliviousness J| toward God that the fundamental—"original"—sin of man con- '» sisted and consists. Man forgot God because he turned his love, '4 and consequently his memory and his very life, to something else, ' and above all to himself. He turned away from God and ceased to see him. He forgot God, and God ceased to exist for him. For the terror and irreparability of obliviousness lie in the fact that, like memory, it is ontological. If memory is lifecreating, then obliviousness is death or, more precisely, the beginning of death, the poison of dying, which poisons life and converts it inexorably, inevitably, into dying. The absence of one whom I forget for me is real, he is actually not in my life, not a part of my life—he is dead for me, and I for him. If it is God, the giver of life and life itself whom I have forgotten, if he has ceased to be my memory and my life, my life itself becomes dying, and then memory, which is the knowledge and power of life, becomes knowledge of death and the constant tasting of mortality.

As man cannot annihilate himself, return himself to that non-existence from which God called him to life, so it is not given to him to annihilate his memory, i.e., his knowledge of his own life.



But just as man's life in separation from God was filled with death and became dying, so also his memory became knowledge of death and its kingdom in the world. Through memory he wants to overcome time and death, to "resurrect the past," to not allow it to be absorbed without a trace by the "abyss of time," but this resurrecting itself turns out to be a pitiful knowledge of the unre-turnability of this past, of the smell of corruption that fills the world. In religion, in art, in all the culture of this fallen life—for it is the life of fallen man—"life, like a wounded bird, wants to soar off and cannot." These upward flights can be infinitely beautiful, but on earth what is really beautiful is only the sorrow for genuine life, only the memory of what is lost and the yearning for it, only "holy melancholy." These flights can remain in the "memory" of man as thirst, appeal, repentance, entreaty, and all the same, in the final analysis, they are devoured by oblivion, just as after the death of the last relatives, the last of those who "remember," wild grass begins to grow over the grave over which they not so long ago sang "memory eternal." The gravestone crumbles, and it is no longer possible to decipher the faded letters of the name it bears. All anyone can make out are two terrifying and senseless dates of a forgotten life, no longer of use to anyone.

14

HERE IS WHY THE SALVATION OF MAN AND THE WORLD—WHY the renewal of life—consists in the restoration of memory as a life-creating power, remembrance as the overcoming of time and of the destruction of life and the reign of death that it entails. This salvation is accomplished in Christ. He is the incarnation in man and for man, in the world and for the world, of God's remembrance, of the divine and lifecreating love directed toward the world. And he is the perfect manifestation and fulfilment in man of his remembrance of God, as the content, the power and the life of life itself.

The incarnation of the memory of God: if man has forgotten God, God has not forgotten man, he has not "turned himself away" from him. He has transformed the fallen and mortal time of "this world" into the history of salvation. He has revealed its meaning as expectation of and preparation for salvation, the gradual restoration in man of memory of himself, and in this memory, ' knowledge and anticipation and love, so that at the coming of the fulness of time, i.e., at the accomplishment of this preparation, | man could recognize God in the Savior who had come, remember^ the forgotten, and in it find his lost life. The restoration, through . God's remembrance of man, of man's remembrance of God—such is the meaning of the Old Testament, and it is impossible to separate Christ from it, to know him otherwise than through the Old ' Testament, because it is nothing other than the gradually dis—i closed recognition of Christ, the "creation" of his "memory" before 4 his coming in time. And when Simeon took Christ into his elder-.' ly hands and called him the "salvation prepared before the face of all people," when the forerunner John pointed him out in the Jordan wilderness as the lamb of God who takes upon himself the sins of the world, when Peter, on the road to Caesarea Philippi, confessed him as the Christ, the Son of God, it was not a puzzling and inexplicable "miracle" but the apex and fulfilment of that memory of the Savior and salvation, that recognition, in which God's remembrance of man is fulfilled as man's remembrance of God.

Salvation consists in this; that in Christ—perfect God and perfect man—memory comes to reign and is restored as a lifecreating power, and, in remembering, man partakes not of the experience of the fall, mortality and death, but of the overcoming of this fall through "life everlasting." For Christ himself is the incarnation and the gift to mankind of God's memory in all its fulness—as love directed toward each man and toward all humanity, toward the world and all creation. He is the Savior because in his memory he "remembers" all, and through this memory he receives all as his own life, and he gives his own life to all as their life. But being the incarnation of the memory of God, Christ is likewise the manifestation and fulfilment of man's perfect remembrance of God, for in this memory—love, self-sacrifice and communion with the Father—is his entire life, the entire perfection of his humanity.

The essence of our faith and the new life granted in it consists in Christ's memory, realized in us through our memory of Christ. From the very first day of Christianity, to believe in Christ meant to remember him and keep him always in mind. It is not simply to "know" about him and his doctrine, but to know him— living and abiding among those who love him. From the very beginning the faith of Christians was memory and remembrance, but memory restored to its lifecreating essence—for, as opposed to our "natural," "fallen" memory, with its illusory "resurrection of the past," this new memory is a joyous recognition of the one who was resurrected, who lives and therefore is present and abides, and not only recognition but also encounter and the living experience of communion with him. While directed to the "past"—to the life, death and resurrection, in the time of Pontius Pilate, of the man Jesus—while rooted in this "past," faith eternally knows that the one who is remembered lives. He "is and shall be" among us. Faith could not be this recognition were it not a remembrance, but it could not be a remembrance were it not knowledge of the one remembered. We were not alive "in the days of his flesh," in the time of Pontius Pilate, and therefore we can neither remember nor recall what occurred at that time. Yet if we not only know about what happened—from "texts" that have reached us—but actually remember and recall it; if, moreso, our faith and our life in essence consist in this memory and in this remembrance, then it is because the one whom we remember lives, and everything that he has accomplished "for the sake of us men and for our salvation"—his life and death, his resurrection and glorification—he has given us and eternally gives to us, and through them he eternally communes with us. That is why it is no longer the "past" that we remember, but Christ himself, and this remembrance becomes our entry into his victory over time. over its collapse into "past," "present" and "future." It is an entry not into some abstract and motionless "eternity" but into "life everlasting," in which all is alive, everything lives through the lifecreating memory of God, and everything is ours—"the world or life or death or the present or the future"—all is ours, for we "are Christ's; and Christ is God's" (1 Co 3:22-23).

Such is the essence of that remembrance, which, as was said above, comprises the basis of the life of the Church and which is realized above all in her worship. The services are the entry of the Church into the new time of the new creation, gathered by the memory of Christ, transformed by him into life and the gift of life, salvation from the collapse into "past," "present" and "future." In the worship of the Church—the body of Christ, which lives by his life, by his memory—it is necessary for us to again and again recall, and this means to comprehend and realize, how for us, in us and with us "what was accomplished," what was given to us—t.he creation of the world and its salvation in Christ and the kingdom of God, which is coming in glory but in Christ is already revealed—has already been granted. We recall, in other words, both the past and the future as living in us, as given to us, as transformed into our life and making it life in God.

15

ONLY IN THE LIGHT OP WHAT HAS BEEN SAID CAN WE NOW understand the meaning of this commemoration, which appears as a sort of verbal expression of the Great Entrance, the bringing of the eucharistic gifts to the altar. Through this commemoration we include the ones being remembered in the lifecreating memory of Christ: God's memory of man, man's memory of God, that diune memory which is eternal life. We return each other, in Christ, to God, and in this giving back we affirm that the one remembered and given back is alive, for he abides in God's memory.

The commemoration is united with the offering, and together they constitute one whole. It is its verbal fulfilment, because Christ offered himself "on behalf of all and for all," because in himself he offered and gave back all of us to God, he united all in his memory. The remembrance of Christ is the entry into his love, making us brothers and neighbors, "brethren" in his ministry. His life and presence in us and "among" us is certified only by our love for each other and for all whom God has sent into, has included in our life, and this means above all in the remembrance of each other and in the commemoration of each other in Christ. Therefore, in bringing his sacrifice to the altar, we create the memory of each other, we identify each other as living in Christ and being united with each other in him.

In this commemoration there is no distinction between those who live and those who have fallen asleep, for God "is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Mt 22:32). In this is the whole joy and the whole power of this commemoration, that, in including the remembered ones in the lifecreating memory of God, the borders between the living and the dead are erased, for all are recognized and manifested as living in God. That is why the serving of a special "liturgy for the departed" (and in black vestments, no less!) would have been incomprehensible and impossible in the early Church—incomprehensible because in each liturgy, and precisely in this inclusion of all in God's memory, we celebrate the union of all, both of the living and of those who have fallen asleep, in the "life everlasting." In this sense, every liturgy is "of the departed," and in every liturgy the memory and love of Christ that has been given to us triumphs over death, over separation and obliviousness. "There will be no separation, 0 friends..."

Thus, in the commemoration of our very selves, of each other and all our life, in its return through this commemoration to God, our offering is fulfilled. The offering by ourselves of Christ, and in Christ of ourselves, makes possible and fulfils our commemoration.


Schmemann, THE EUCHARIST: (cpt .6: The Sacrament of Offering. pp. 124 – 131)

---