My gloss is a little different from yours. The rainbow comes after the rainfall and therefore after God has decided not to use this particular storm to destroy creation. It's a reminder, and maybe a reminder to Himself, but not a reminder "not to do something he's promised not to do" but a reminder to Himself, perhaps, that he has opted to honor his covenant.
I wasn't raised in the Jewish tradition, so my comment may be off in several respects. And to be honest, I haven't really thought about that story since I was a child.
At any rate, I appreciate this blog post, like I appreciate most of your posts. Thanks for writing it.
I'm not sure I entirely understand your take, I admit. In the text (Gen. 7:17-23), the waters fully cover the earth, up to the tops of mountains, and every living thing that isn't in Noah's ark dies. So, God *did* use that storm to destroy the world; He didn't decide not to do so, but did precisely what He planned.
Then, after God "remembers" Noah and the other denizens of the ark, the waters begin to recede, the ark lands on Mount Ararat, Noah sends out the raven and the dove, etc. (Gen. 8:1-11). But it's still months before Noah, his family and the animals can leave the ark. The rainbow isn't mentioned until well after that: after Noah has emerged, and offered sacrifices, God has considered the evil side of human nature and resolved not to destroy the world again (Gen. 8:21-22). Only after making a new covenant with Noah (and with the animals) does God talk about the rainbow (Gen. 9:13ff), and in doing so explicitly says the rainbow will remind Him not to destroy the world with a new flood.
Perhaps I've simply misunderstood your gloss; if so, I'd love for you to clarify. Regardless, I'm very glad you liked my post.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not fully sure I understand my gloss!
I think I was approaching the "rainbow story" more as an origin tale: "here's how the first rainbow happened and why we still have them." Therefore, I was thinking that after that cataclysmic storm, no more rainstorms destroyed creation. And because rainbows always come after a storm and not before it, a rainbow afterward can't be a reminder to not do what the storm didn't do. (To many negatives in that sentence. I hope I'm being clear.)
Your gloss, I think, approaches the story more as a "here's why that specific rainbow happened after that specific storm." I didn't understand that until you made your comment to my comment. But I now see what you were getting at.)
At any rate, I hope it's clear what assumption was informing my gloss. Not that anyone is obliged to accept that gloss.
A Jewish friend of mine once told me that the Jewish people have a rabbinic story that, roughly paraphrased goes:
When Noah came out of the ark and saw the devastation that the flood had wreaked he said "Oh my God what have you done?" and God replied "Don't start with me, Noah, you were supposed to talk me out of it."
And this has always colored my understanding of the Jewish tradition of a people who have a relationship with (and sometimes an argumentative one especially) with God. It has also given me a much deeper understanding of the idea of Noah being considered -merely- "righteous in his generation" with, say, Job standing as a counter example.
Re: the rainbow:
My gloss is a little different from yours. The rainbow comes after the rainfall and therefore after God has decided not to use this particular storm to destroy creation. It's a reminder, and maybe a reminder to Himself, but not a reminder "not to do something he's promised not to do" but a reminder to Himself, perhaps, that he has opted to honor his covenant.
I wasn't raised in the Jewish tradition, so my comment may be off in several respects. And to be honest, I haven't really thought about that story since I was a child.
At any rate, I appreciate this blog post, like I appreciate most of your posts. Thanks for writing it.
I'm not sure I entirely understand your take, I admit. In the text (Gen. 7:17-23), the waters fully cover the earth, up to the tops of mountains, and every living thing that isn't in Noah's ark dies. So, God *did* use that storm to destroy the world; He didn't decide not to do so, but did precisely what He planned.
Then, after God "remembers" Noah and the other denizens of the ark, the waters begin to recede, the ark lands on Mount Ararat, Noah sends out the raven and the dove, etc. (Gen. 8:1-11). But it's still months before Noah, his family and the animals can leave the ark. The rainbow isn't mentioned until well after that: after Noah has emerged, and offered sacrifices, God has considered the evil side of human nature and resolved not to destroy the world again (Gen. 8:21-22). Only after making a new covenant with Noah (and with the animals) does God talk about the rainbow (Gen. 9:13ff), and in doing so explicitly says the rainbow will remind Him not to destroy the world with a new flood.
Perhaps I've simply misunderstood your gloss; if so, I'd love for you to clarify. Regardless, I'm very glad you liked my post.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not fully sure I understand my gloss!
I think I was approaching the "rainbow story" more as an origin tale: "here's how the first rainbow happened and why we still have them." Therefore, I was thinking that after that cataclysmic storm, no more rainstorms destroyed creation. And because rainbows always come after a storm and not before it, a rainbow afterward can't be a reminder to not do what the storm didn't do. (To many negatives in that sentence. I hope I'm being clear.)
Your gloss, I think, approaches the story more as a "here's why that specific rainbow happened after that specific storm." I didn't understand that until you made your comment to my comment. But I now see what you were getting at.)
At any rate, I hope it's clear what assumption was informing my gloss. Not that anyone is obliged to accept that gloss.
A Jewish friend of mine once told me that the Jewish people have a rabbinic story that, roughly paraphrased goes:
When Noah came out of the ark and saw the devastation that the flood had wreaked he said "Oh my God what have you done?" and God replied "Don't start with me, Noah, you were supposed to talk me out of it."
And this has always colored my understanding of the Jewish tradition of a people who have a relationship with (and sometimes an argumentative one especially) with God. It has also given me a much deeper understanding of the idea of Noah being considered -merely- "righteous in his generation" with, say, Job standing as a counter example.
Yasher koach. I'm sorry to hear about your father.