Thoughts on Jonah



 

[Bible - OT - Jonah | Link | Print]

Some random thoughts on Jonah, inspired by a conversation with my student, Brillana McLean.

 

1) The first chapters of Jonah seem to follow something of an exit-and-return story. Jonah gets in a boat and crosses some water; he is cast out and is swallowed by the waters and by a sea monsters; he is spewed out and then goes to confront the wicked king of a wicked city. This is the same sequence Israel followed in their exile and return: They left the land across the Jordan, were swallowed by the giant fish of Babylon, which later spewed them out, so that they could re-conquer the land.

 

2) James Jordan suggested years ago that the plant in Jonah 4 is a symbol of Nineveh's over-shadowing protection. Thinking more about the context, that interpretation makes a good deal of sense. Jonah, after all, has just converted the king of the up-and-coming Gentile empire. That empire is going to be solicitous for Israel so long as they remain God-fearers. They are going to provide shade for Israel. This is exactly parallel to the situation at Israel's Babylonian exile: Nebuchadnezzar has been converted, and Jeremiah instructs the people to submit to Nebuchadnezzar because they will find shade and protection there.

 

....

Taken from: http://www.leithart.com/archives/002565.php

 

Of Fish and Tombs



 

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Among critics of the Bible there are few stories discussed more often than that of Jonah and the great fish (Jonah 1:17). This account has been ridiculed perhaps as frequently as any in the Bible. It is too difficult, critics allege, to believe that a man could be swallowed by such a fish, and then emerge alive and well three days later. In reality, however, the problem with this account is not the fact that a fish could swallow a man. While in the past it was suggested that no fish had a gullet large enough to allow it to swallow a man, today scientists acknowledge that the sperm whale, which inhabits the Mediterranean Sea, is capable of swallowing an object as large as, or larger than, a man (see Scheffer, 1969, pp. 82-87). The whale shark and other great marine animals can do like wise. Nor is the problem a dispute over whether a man could live for approximately 72 hours inside such an animal. Accounts of that actually happening have been documented (see Rimmer, 1936, pp. 188-189).

Even though fish exist with a gullet large enough to swallow a man, and even though it has been documented that a man can live three days inside such a fish, these matters actually are beside the point. Why so? They are irrelevant because the text acknowledges that God’s miraculous powers were at work in the life of Jonah. Jonah 1:17 specifically states that God “prepared a great fish” to swallow Jonah. Jonah 2:10 notes that God “spake unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” The critics’ ridicule is directed at the account of Jonah because it is miraculous, not because of the size of a fish’s gullet or the life span of a man inside a fish. What we are dealing with here is a clear-cut case of antisupernatural bias.

The real question is this: Is supernaturalism credible? If God exists, then miracles are possible. If there was a creation by God, then supernaturalism is credible, because God could choose to intervene in His creation at any time. If Christ was raised from the dead, then supernaturalism not only is possible, but proven. Ultimately, then, the rejection of supernaturalism is the rejection of Christ. This may mean little to the hardened atheist, or to the religious modernist who attacks the account in Jonah as nothing more than a myth and who long ago gave up any real belief in the deity of Christ. But what should be the Christian’s response?

First, let us note that the account in Jonah is presented as authentic history, detailing the conversion of multitudes of people in a real city—the great Assyrian city of Nineveh (Jonah 3:5). Jonah is discussed as a real prophet in 2 Kings 14:25. The entire record of Jonah was accepted by ancient Jewish historians and commentators—all of whom were much closer geographically and chronologically than modern-day atheists or liberals. Second, the most compelling reason for accepting the record of Jonah is that it was accepted by Christ Himself. Notice that in Luke 11:32 Christ commented on the fact that “the men of Nineveh...repented at the preaching of Jonah.” With respect to the miracle of the great fish, Jesus said: “For as Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Thus, the Lord Himself appropriated Jonah’s miraculous preservation and restoration as a type and prophecy of His own death, burial, and resurrection.

This leaves the Christian with three options. (1) Jesus was mistaken, and simply unaware of His error in regard to Jonah. Jonah really did not spend three days in the belly of a great fish, even though Christ said that he did. (2) Jesus lied about the matter. He knew that the events recorded never took place, but He still employed the account “as if ” it actually had taken place, in order to effect a comparison with His own situation. (3) Jesus told the truth regarding the matter; the events recorded in the book of Jonah really did occur, and as such, were used appropriately by the Lord in reference to His own impending death and the circumstances surrounding it.

Jonah and Jesus stand or fall together. One may not repudiate the account of Jonah, as if it were some kind of unimportant fairy tale, and then advocate the truthfulness of the deity of Christ at the same time. Jesus’ testimony was that the events surrounding Jonah in his day and time were as literal, and as historical, as the events of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection would be in His. The evidence that attends the latter attests to the fact of the former.

Were it not for the antagonism of atheism, and the compromise of religious modernism, the story of Jonah would be accepted at face value, just as Jesus accepted it. Those of us who respect Christ and His testimony will acknowledge, and defend, what Christ acknowledged and defended. To do anything less impugns the deity of our Lord, and that is something we must not take lightly.
 

REFERENCES

Rimmer, Harry (1936), The Harmony of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 188-189.

Scheffer, Victor B. (1969), The Year of the Whale (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), pp. 82-87.

---

Copyright © 1996 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

....

Taken from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=284

Stubbornness of Prophet Jonah



....

 

The opening words of the book, by their similarity to other prophetic books, present Jonah as a prophet. His name confirms this for the attentive reader familiar with the story of Israel as told in 1 Kings. Jonah is not merely a prophet but a famous one.

 

However, no sooner has Jonah the prophet been presented than his character becomes problematic.

 

Prophets deliver God's messages (Am 3:3-8; 7:10-17)

even if they wish they cannot avoid doing so (Jer 20:9),

indeed even false prophets claim to proclaim a divine message (Ezek 13:2).

Yet Jonah's response was "to flee from the presence of Adonai" (1:3).

This dissonance instantly makes his character problematic. The flashback of 1:5 suggests further dissonant behaviour, "while" the crew are so frightened by the storm that they crying to their "gods" and throwing the cargo overboard, Jonah is down in the hold, where he has "lain down" and is "fast asleep"!

Jonah continues to act in contrary ways, when the lot has picked him out as the cause of the problem, he proudly boasts of his religious and ethnic identity (1:9). While the sailors ask God's pardon before throwing Jonah to the waves, and continue with sacrifices after, Jonah safe in the belly of the fish shows no sign of repentance! The great success of his brief sermon in Nineveh produces either no reaction from Jonah, or displeasure and anger (4:1).

However, from this point on the character and his words begin to fit together in a more coherent way. He tells us that God's decision to spare Nineveh, following their repentance, is what he feared at the start, thus explaining the motive of his flight towards Tarshish (4:2a). Adonai's tendency to pardon and Jonah's - presumed - desire to see wicked Nineveh punished, explains his flight and resignation.

God may stubbornly seek to convert and to pardon wicked Nineveh (1:2) but his prophet is also stubborn. Following the divine repentance (3:10) and Adonai's implied refusal to allow the unwilling prophet death (4:3-4), Jonah still waits "to see what would become of the city" (4:5).

Jonah's stubbornness is reinforced when God asks him a second time if he is "right" to be angry, for Jonah denies what God implies and proclaims himself "angry enough to die" (4:9).

---

© Tim Bulkeley, 2003

 

....

 

Taken from: http://bible.gen.nz/jonah/jonah.htm

Saint Ambrose Likened Belly of Great Fish to Womb of Mary

 



Jonah and Jesus: Descending to the Abode of the Invisible Fish of Death

Leave a reply

 

A recent paper I handed in for my class on the Prophets.

The Early Church Fathers read the story of Jonah being swallowed by the fish as a type of Christ’s burial and resurrection. Paulinus compares the fish’s belly to the tomb of Jesus, while Ambrose compares it to the womb of Mary. Theodoret and Cyril highlight the hell-like nature of the fish’s innards to find a type of Christ’s descent into hell. Finally, in a crude analogy, Tertullian compares the vomitting of Jonah out of the fish to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly, the Fathers’ readings are based on the words of Jesus in Matthew and Luke:

But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. (40) For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (41) The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matt 12:39-41 ESV)
An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. (Matt 16:4)
When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (30) For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. (31) The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (32) The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Luke 11:29-32)

The Fathers’ interpretations underscore their Cristo-centric hermeneutic. Yet they also reveal an interpretive tradition which cites Jesus as its first exegete. The validity of their reading depends wholly on Christ’s teaching. For them, all of Scripture points to Christ and Jonah is merely an example. It is fascinating that especially in this instance it appears that Jesus himself relates all Scripture to himself as the ultimate point of reference.

Paulinus of Nola comments that Jonah “walked in the cavern of the whale’s body, a prisoner both captive and free….and though physically incarcerated, the prophet emerged in spirit to return to God.”1 The prophet was prisoner in that he was trapped inside the whale, but free in that he was floating on the open waters, albeit in a rather confined way. Paulinus pulls out a brilliant spiritual understanding of the passage: Jonah transcended his situation by going out of himself through prayer in order to “return to God.” The disgruntled prophet who had rejected his calling and run away from God makes his return in a spiritual manner though he is physically limited. According to Paulinus, Jonah “broke out of his prison by prayer and reached God’s ears” (ACCS 138). This interpretation effectively demonstrates the Fathers’ understanding of Christian life and Christian prayer as a transcendant act. Jonah “believed that the Lord was with him even inside that whale” (ACCS 138). The transcendant nature of of Jonah’s prayer connects with Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus goes beyond his own suffering in order to return all of mankind to God. His physical confinement in the tomb cannot restrict the spiritual return which his sacrifice effects. For Jonah, “who typifies the holy mystery, foreshadowed the death which lasted three days and the salvation it restored” (ACCS 138). The Fathers’ read the life of Jonah through a Christological lens which opens a deep allegorical interpretation.

Ambrose’s comments about Jonah and the fish are unique among the Fathers, but give a useful insight into Christ’s life. He delicately compares the “belly of the fish” to Mary’s womb in this prayer: “Like Jonah when he was in the belly of the fish, I prayed to you on behalf of the people. Similarly Christ was with God from his mother’s womb” (ACCS 138). Ambrose takes Jonah’s “return” to God in the belly of the whale as a spiritual example. This example is fully typified in Christ’s oneness with God in Mary’s womb. Therefore Ambrose uses a typological reading of Jonah through Christ to make a tropological application. As Jonah was with God in the belly of the fish, so Christ was with God in the womb, so should the Christian be with God in prayer. Significantly, the word for “womb” in the NT is ??????,2 which is the word Jesus uses when referring to the “belly of the great fish.” (Matt 12:40) It is also the same word used for the fish’s belly in the LXX version of Jonah (Jonah 1:17; 2:1,2 – Hebrew numbering). This lexical connection strengthens Ambrose’s reading and the link he draws between the fish’s belly and Mary’s womb.

While meditating on Jonah’s prayer, Theodoret makes an insightful observation about Christ’s mention the prophet. He brings out the fact that Jonah calls the fish’s stomach the “belly of Sheol,” (Jonah 2:2) but Jesus compares the “belly of the fish” to the “heart of the earth” (Matt 12). Jonah becomes a dual type. First, he foreshadows those redeemed by Christ. For he was “already presumed dead” but “survived only by God’s grace” (ACCS 138). He is saved from the belly of the fish, but more significantly from the belly of Sheol, from Hell itself. Second, he is a type of Christ for the three days he spent in the fish like Christ’s three days in the tomb. Yet Theodoret draws out the fact that Jonah was an imperfect type. He was in the “belly of Sheol” but Christ was in the “heart of the earth” (ACCS 138). This difference exists “because the life of Jonah was beyond his control, while in the case of the Lord both his death and resurrection were voluntary” (ACCS 138). Jonah’s lack of freedom indicated his powerlessness and dependence on God’s grace. But Christ’s entombment was his own choice. The one is in need of grace because of his confinement, while the other gives grace through his confinement.

Cyril uses this comparison to illustrate the nature of Jonah’s prayer as a type of Christ’s words. Jonah “prophesies in the person of Christ” (ACCS 138). Similar to Ps 22, Jonah’s prayer can be read as Christ’s own prayer. Just as Jonah sought the Lord from the belly of the whale, so Christ sought the Lord from his tomb. Cyril brings Jonah’s typological example to the fore by drawing out the fact that he says that he is in the “netherworld” (2:2) and that he went down to the “roots of the mountains” (2:6) while he was “in fact in the fish” (ACCS 138). Cyril goes so far as to suggest that Jonah was conscious of his typological role. He even quotes the prophet’s supposed thoughts, “I know…that I am a type of him who is to be laid in the sepulcher hewn out of rock” (ACCS 138). Cyril sees Jonah’s prayer as giving a clue to the reader that the story should be read in an allegorical manner. Jonah’s story does not exist for his own sake, but for Christ’s.

Tertullian, more than any other Father commenting on this passage, draws out details in Jonah to piece together a more comprehensive interpretation. He highlights Jonah’s flight from his “duty of preaching” to the Ninevites (ACCS 134). He argues that “it was because of a pagan city, which did not yet know God and which sinned i
n ignorance, that the prophet was almost lost. And he would have been lost, were it not for the fact that what he endured was a type of the Lord’s suffering, by which pagan penitents also would be redeemed” (ACCS 135). Tertullian’s comments emphasize the similarity of Jesus’ and Jonah’s callings. Cyril concurs that “Jesus was sent to preach repentence. So was Jonah” (ACCS 135). Jonah ran from his calling, but Jesus embraced his. In a paradoxical manner, Jonah’s unwillingness to fulfill God’s call prefigures Christ’s willingness. God would have eliminated Jonah, but for the fact that he was meant to be a type of Christ. Since Jonah avoided preaching to the pagans, God sent him to suffer. But since Jesus embraced his suffering and “descended to the abode of the invisible fish of death,”3 many pagans would be saved. Jonah is the only OT prophet who is sent exclusively to the Gentiles for their conversion. His calling is to reach the Ninevites with the message of repentence and begin the in-gathering of the nations mentioned throughout the prophetic books. This unique vocation aptly prefigures Christ’s redemptive suffering for all mankind, which frees both Jew and Gentile, prophets and pagans alike.

The story of Jonah is often deemed an “ironically didactic novella”4 without a shred of historicity. Modern commentators avoid even discussing the historicity of the book. Yet Augustine sets up an apt dichotomy which deals with the miraculous aspect of Jonah’s encounter with the big fish. He states that “either all the divine miracles are to be disbelieved or there is no reason why they should not be believed. We should not believe in Christ himself and that he rose on the third day, if the faith of the Christians feared the laughter of the pagans” (ACCS 135). Augustine senses the disintegration of biblical allegory if it is not based on factual history. If the stories are not true, they lose their power. We have seen how the Fathers view Jonah as a type of Christ. The belly of the fish prefigures Mary’s womb and the rock-hewn tomb. Jonah’s vocation as prophet to the Gentiles is a type of Christ’s vocation as Savior of the world. Jonah’s exaggeration that he is in the “belly of Sheol” (2:2) serves to strengthen his typological relationship with Jesus. Just as Jonah’s unrighteousness landed him in Sheol, so Christ’s righteousness will save many souls from Sheol. From the Fathers perspective, Jonah clearly though awkwardly acts as a type of Christ. The main point of confluence is the three days in the belly of the fish compared to Jesus’ three days in the tomb. This, of course, is the “sign of Jonah” which Jesus mentions in the gospels. The sign comes to a not-so-glorious end when Jonah is “vomited out again safe and sound”5 as “a symbol of the future mystery”6 of Christ’s resurrection.

1.Ferreiro, Alberto, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: The Twelve Prophets, Old Testament v. XIV (Downers Grove, IL: Innervarsity, 2003) 138. Henceforth ACCS.
2.cf. Matt 19:12; Luke 1:15,41,42,44; 2:21; 11:27; 23:29; John 3:4; Acts 3:2; 14:8; Gal 1:15.
3.Cyril of Jerusalem, ACCS 135.
4.Wolff, Hans W., Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Augusburg, 1986) 85.
5.Tertullian, ACCS 139.
6.Ambrose, ACCS 139.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on December 5, 2006 by catholicbiblestudent.

 

....

 

Taken from: http://catholicbiblestudent.com/2006/12/jonah-and-jesus-descending-to-abode-of.html

 

 

John R. Salverda On Textual Links Between Noah and Jonah Stories



Your recent entries to the site "Jonah the Prophet" [see previous post] have prompted this comment from me.

I too have noticed striking similarities of textual matter and style between the Scriptural stories of Noah and Jonah, and have done a bit of research in this area. You may like to refer to the Concordia Seminary of St. Louis website ( <http://seminary.csl.edu/facultypubs/TheologyandPractice/tabid/87/ctl/Details/mid/494/ItemID/40/Default.aspx> ) where the following is noted;

“Another example demonstrating that the narrator of Jonah employs earlier texts – while also subtly changing them – is his use of the Noah cycle.　　　 In a broader stroke Eric Hesse and Isaac Kikawada believe that there are numerous connections between Jonah and Genesis 1-11,　 but what follows is a representative list of phrases, characters, and images from Genesis 5:28 10:32 that find resonance within the narrative of Jonah.　 First, “one hundred twenty years” (Gen 6:3) – this is the length of time allotted by Yahweh to human life; it is also how many thousands of people are in Nineveh at the narrative’s end (4:11).　 Second, “the evil of humankind” (Gen 6:5) – this is what Yahweh observes on the face of the earth; it is also what has come to his attention with respect to the Ninevites in Jonah 1:2 (“for their evil has come up before me”).　 Third, Yahweh changes his mind (Gen 6:6) concerning his very good creation (Gen. 1:31) and wants to destroy it.　 Yahweh’s change of mind is what the Ninevites bank on in Jonah 3:9 (“who knows, God may turn and change his mind …”).　 This is exactly what God does in 3:10; in 4:2 Jonah states that it is Yahweh’s nature to do this.　 The fourth connection between Noah and Jonah is the phrase “... people together with animals” (Gen 6:7). This phrase – or something very similar to it – occurs throughout the Noah narrative (e.g. Gen. 7:23); the book of Jonah is remarkable for its very deliberate inclusion of animals along with people, both in how the Ninevites and their animals repent (3:7-9) and in how God presents his final question to Jonah (4:10-11).　　 Fifth, violence (Gen 6:11) is the reason given for God's decision to destroy the earth and its inhabitants by means of the Flood; it is also the sin that the Ninevites recognize as their own, and repent of (3:8).　 Sixth, “forty days and forty nights” (Gen 7:4) is the period of time that the rains last, destroying all human and animal life that is not with Noah in the ark.　 Similarly, this is the amount of time from the moment of Jonah's prophecy until Nineveh is to be “turned upside down” (3:4).　 This association of “forty days” as a period of testing with the result of a new beginning is a link to these two stories.　　 The seventh connection is　 the phrase “and God made a wind blow” (Gen 8:1).　 Through the Flood narrative Yahweh actively controls individual winds for specific purposes; for example in Gen. 8:1 he manages the wind to cause the flood waters to subside.　 In Jonah, Yahweh hurls a wind into the sea to create a storm (1:4) and, later, sends a searing wind from the east that adds to Jonah's misery (4:8).　　 Eighth, the statement “… nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done" (Gen 8:21) is the eternal pledge that Yahweh makes to Noah, his family, and to all living creatures after the Flood. This pledge is, to a great extent, the motivation behind Jonah's refusal to be Yahweh’s prophet to Nineveh as he knows that this God has voluntarily given up total destruction (at least by Flood) as a means for dealing with the habitually violent (4:2).　 The final example of intertextual echoes from Noah to Jonah is　 Yahweh’s promise, “I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature ... my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh” (Gen. 9:9a, 10a).　 In this covenant Yahweh specifically includes not only humankind but also animals, domestic and wild.　 This means that the umbrella of this covenant is extended to non Israelite humans (the Ninevites) as well as their animals, whose donning of sackcloth and bleating perhaps serve to remind Yahweh of this promise (3:7-9).”　
There is more, but you get the idea (I would urge anyone interested in this area of research to visit the Concordia website and read the entire article where there are some intriguing connections between Elijah and Jonah as well).
I have been using this line of reasoning to explain certain obvious references to the story of Noah in the Greek myth of Jason (possibly a shibboleth of the Greek version of the name of Jonah, “Jonas”) and the Argonauts (It must furthermore be admitted that there are also several references to the story of Eden, Abraham, and the Exodus in the tale.). Such Noahic references include the release of a dove by the captain of the Argo in order to determine whether it is safe to proceed (the dove also figures in the story of Jonah in that the name “Jonah” means “dove.”). Also the name of the ship itself “the Argo” is plausibly somehow related to the “name” of Noah’s ship the Ark. Jason’s Argonauts are often represented to as “Minyans” and the story “Argonautica” is called by the Greek mythographers “the Minyan tale.” The "Minni," named in connection with Ararat, by Jeremiah (from Jeremiah 51:27), are the same People as those mentioned by Josephus (quoting Nicolaus of Damascus), who uses the Greek form "Minyas," (Antiquities i. I. 6,) to indicate a place in Armenia, the country where Noah’s Ark landed (The idea being that the Minyans, connected with the Argonautica, certainly would have been aware of the story of Noah‘s Ark.). In fact, the general destination of the Agro, Colchis, could easily be considered as a subdivision of the land of Ararat (Urartu) where the Ark landed. Lastly there is the main theme of the Book of Jonah, namely that the God of Jonah is the God, not only of the Israelites but of the whole world. Similarly the occupants of the Ark are the ancestors of all of mankind and the religion and laws that were propagated by Noah are universally applicable. The Jewish Legends by Ginzberg relate the notion that the companion sailors of Jonah were representatives from every nation on Earth and the “cargo” that they carried (and jettisoned to lighten the load) was actually each one’s particular idol. Likewise the companions of Jason were the “heroes” from each of the city-states of Greece and the purpose of the tale was to join them all in the same religious quest.

-John R. Salverda

Textual Links Between Book of Jonah and Genesis Account of Flood



 

Reading the Rainbow Rachel Muers University of Cambridge The striking textual links between the book of Jonah and the Genesis account of the Flood, noted by the Cambridge Biblical Reasoning group, call for further reflection on the relationship between the stories. Jonah is after Noah; but he, like his reader, is turned back to reread the story of Noah and ask what it means for those who identify themselves as "children of Abraham". The covenant with Noah is a covenant with "all flesh", and it centres on a change in God's heart (Genesis 8:21). From this point onwards, God has determined Godself for patience with, and faithfulness to, everything living – a covenant whose scope is unimaginable, taking in as it does not only "all generations" of humanity but the vast numbers of living creatures. The rainbow, the very first sign God makes, is established to remind God of this covenant (Genesis 9:15). God declares how it is to be read by other readers – as a sign for God of God's own faithfulness to "every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth". God is, in this story, a reader of signs who draws others into the process of reading. In the book of Jonah, I suggest, we see God teaching Jonah to read the signs of God's faithfulness and steadfast love, as God reads them. The point is not the continuing need of humanity to be reminded that God is faithful and "abounding in steadfast love" - Jonah knows that already (Jonah 4:2) – but rather the need to learn to read the signs of God's faithfulness. The natural world in the book of Jonah is full of signs of God's faithfulness to "all flesh" - the fish that "the LORD appointed", the bush, the people and animals in Nineveh – which are repeatedly misread by Jonah. What explains the tension between Jonah's acknowledgement that the LORD "made the sea and the dry land" and his seemingly futile attempt to flee from God by going to sea? Perhaps it can be explored in terms of the tension between an assertion of God's "global" concern and the practices of exclusion that such an assertion can often mask. It is one thing to say "God has made a covenant with all flesh" and another to say "God has made a covenant with both me and my enemy". The former requires no new readings, the latter only comes about when one is taught by God to read the signs. Jonah learns to read the fish, the bush, and finally Nineveh itself. We might see this as part of the ongoing encounter between God and all the children of Abraham through which they, as (also) children of Noah, learn to "read the rainbow". The "reading" of the rainbow (and it must be noted here that the rainbow itself is not a "word" of God, not quite the same as a text; davar does not appear in Genesis until chapter 11) occurs in connection with the reading of texts that convey and interpret the divine sign. Noah is silent until after the flood and the declaration of God's covenant.[i] After Noah, people enter conversation with one another and with God. The very fact that Jonah can call on God (for the first time in this story, although the sailors have addressed God already!) from the belly of the fish serves as a reminder that his life is located in the aftermath of the covenant with Noah, in the time in which the natural and human worlds are full of signs. Jonah, then, knows that God is "slow to anger and abiding in steadfast love" because he is of the people within which that particular naming of God by Godself is recorded and reflected on – because he is, as he says, a Hebrew (1:9). Being a child of Abraham as well as a child of Noah means, perhaps, not only being taught to read the rainbow, each time in each particular situation, but being taught how to read the rainbow. The readers of these texts are made into "readers of the rainbow" by being given a further set of signs – signs that bring them into practices and ways of relating appropriate to readers of the sign of God's faithfulness. Also remembered in the book of Jonah, however, is the threat of destruction – without which the contexts in which the divine promise of faithfulness is relearnt make no sense. The waters that Jonah enters do not destroy him; and his liturgy from the depths points back to a puzzle in the story of Noah. God's words in Genesis 8:21 suggest that God has destroyed "all flesh", this once and never again; so what is the status of Noah and those with him, with whom the covenant is made? (There is an interesting comparison with Jonah's declaration that he speaks from "the land whose bars closed upon me for ever", 2:6 – how would it really be possible to speak from this place?). A deep question seems to remain about the nature of the resolve God makes – compounded by the close association between that resolve and God's recognition of the "evil intention" of the human heart. The rainbow is obviously an "open sign", perhaps the open sign that opens all the divine signs; less obviously, it seems at the same time to be a sign of something hidden. As the Christian scriptures reread the story of Noah, these tensions in interpretation, far from being resolved, become even more apparent – together with words concerning the "one greater than Jonah", who is also greater than Noah. 1 Peter 3:18ff. speaks of God's patience before the flood, "during the building of the ark", hence for the sake of the salvation of the few. On one reading of this passage, what is spoken of here in connection with Christ is a repetition of that patience, which consigns those outside (that is, outside the group reading this letter and owning these words) to the deluge. That is the repetition of divine patience that Jonah seems to seek, or assume God seeks. For Jonah, God will wait until the right time to destroy those excluded from God's future – that must be either Jonah or the Ninevites. However, Jonah's story takes a different turn, and 1 Peter 3:18ff. takes a very different turn. Christ's preaching is to "the spirits in prison, who were disobedient during the days of Noah". Part of the point about Noah's story, it seems, is that it cannot be repeated; God has sworn never again to destroy all flesh. Its "non-repetition" in the book of Jonah is directed at the relearning, within the order established by the covenant with Noah, of the scope of God's faithfulness. Its non-repetition in 1 Peter seems to be about a further reinterpretation even of the "change in God's heart" – somehow to include the "spirits in prison". A discussion of this latter point would lie outside the scope of this article; but this whole consideration of Jonah raises an important question for the exercise of scriptural reasoning itself. If Jonah, this figure of the "Abrahamic" scriptures, only makes sense in the context of the covenant with Noah, what is the relationship between Abraham and Noah? What would it mean for the children of Abraham to understand themselves as also children of Noah? [i] See on this Andre Neher, L’exil de la parole. It is noteworthy, however, that the Qu’ranic account of Noah focuses on his preaching before the deluge (Surah 71), and that rabbinic commentaries describe him praying in the ark. Title Page | Archive © 2003, Society for Scriptural Reasoning   ....   Taken from: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume3/number1/ssr03-01-e04.html

Jonah and the Story of Noah

 

 

Sign of Jonah: Aide Memoire of Cambridge Society for Biblical Reasoning (CSBR)

Rachel Muers,
from a meeting held on 11^th February 2002.
Present were Jon Cooley, David Ford, Dan Hardy, Jason Lam, Rachel Muers, Chad Pecknold.
At this first meeting of the CSBR, it was suggested and agreed that one participant should prepare an "aide memoire" summarising the discussion. The "aide memoire" is then circulated for comment and for participants' records. The two articles that follow it are, respectively, a further commentary on one issue raised in the aide memoire; and a response to the discussion, the aide memoire and the further commentary.

Since this was the first meeting of the CSBR focused on a particular text, we began by spending some time recalling the wider context of scriptural reasoning (SR) within which we work, and some of the reflections on SR processes that have already been put forward (in the Rules of Scriptural Reasoning and commentaries on them).

Our consideration of Jonah started from the enquiry that first suggested the choice of this text – what is the "sign of Jonah"?[i] Considering the context of the reference to the "sign of Jonah," we are confronted with the further question: what is the relationship between wisdom and the sign of Jonah? [ii]

Further reading of this context[iii] produces an initial suggestion about Jonah's sign. Jonah's sign is an eschatological sign of judgement – but a judgement that is not simply deferred to an unspecified future. The people of Nineveh "rise up" in judgement on a present generation, in the present, when the story of their repentance is recounted.

We turn to the text of Jonah asking, in the first instance, about the nature of the judgement that the text contains. Jonah himself is judged in puzzling ways. He does not fulfil what the LORD requires of him - looking ahead in the scriptural canon to Micah, he does not "do justly", "love mercy" or "walk humbly with [his] God" (Micah 6:8). He begins by fleeing from the presence of the LORD, and continues by attempting at every point to establish his own agency over against that of the LORD.

At the same time, it seems on one level that Jonah's theology is accurate, and that he acts logically in accordance with it, in refusing to prophesy Nineveh's destruction. The sailors, in throwing him overboard, and the Ninevites, in repenting to avoid destruction, also act logically. It is, it would appear, only the LORD who is not logical.

We see, however, that the logics employed by all the human protagonists keep failing, or in some way reach the limits of their usefulness, in the particular situations confronting those who employ them. In each case, "it all made sense at the time". If the LORD is only a local or tribal god, it makes sense to flee from the LORD's presence; if the storm is the meaningless act of some capricious deity, it makes sense to throw the goods overboard; if deities do not exceed the parameters of human conflicts, it makes sense to expect that either the Ninevites or Jonah, but not both, can enjoy the LORD's favour and mercy.

It is only the LORD who is not logical. Another way of saying this is that the LORD consistently and faithfully acts to transform ways of understanding when the previous modes of logic have proved inadequate, and this transformation occurs through contingent historical circumstances. We suggest, or hypothesise, that this points towards a transcending or universal divine "logic"; or, to put it another way, to a living logos of God. To speak of a "living logos" leads us further to hypothesise that the "sign of Jonah" (pertaining to "one greater than Jonah") given to "this generation" is the resurrection.

It seems, having proceeded thus far with the reading, that the logic of the text is the steadfast love of the LORD – who intervenes whenever anyone is about to suffer. But this is not quite true; consider chapter 4 and the sultry wind[iv] that blows upon Jonah and the bush. The immediate reason for Jonah's suffering here seems to be his misreading of God's desire – in adhering to his single prophecy, as if it were still what God demanded, even when its failure has become clear.

We consider the excessive character of the repentance of Nineveh. The king of Nineveh puts on sackcloth (is he perhaps at this point himself made into a prophet, given his repetition of the call to repentance and the proclamation of God's anger (3:8f.)?), and the whole city does the same. It might be said, following a distinction developed by Rosenzweig and others, that the event of God's command in the "now", conveyed by Jonah's preaching, has been converted into law.[v] Something in its character as law, as the king of Nineveh speaks it, gives rise to this excess of "repentant action" – so that even the animals put on sackcloth.

The reference to the animals (3:7f., 4:11) draws attention to a wider biblical context and to the account of the covenant/logic of God's faithfulness to the earth and all its inhabitants –in the story of Noah. The book of Jonah retells and reverses this story – such that the logic of the covenant with Noah is rediscovered through the text and used to re-read its events. The book begins, as does Noah's story, with God's resolve to destroy the wicked, and the word of the LORD to the righteous man (see Gen 6:11ff.). It seems that the story of Noah may be repeated; but the LORD has promised never to repeat that story (Gen 8:21: "…nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done") and has made a covenant with "all flesh that is on the earth" (9:16). So, instead of being repeated, the story is inverted: the call of the LORD is refused, the wicked are saved, and the one called by God – who is also the dove, the meaning of his name – is submerged in the waters.[vi]

As if this were in danger of becoming too tidy – even, too logical – this reference to being "submerged in the waters" calls us back to the centre of the book, chapter 2. In Jonah's psalm from the belly of the whale we hear a liturgy arising from trauma, a "liturgy of the depths", coming from the depths within the depths. The sea monster marks the place of absolute horror, the pit of Sheol - in the LXX the belly of Hades and the last abyss; a void at the centre of the text. Is this a fate worse than death? (See 4:8, in which Jonah declares that it is "better for [him] to die than to live"). Readings like this force us to ask – where does a psalm come from that comes from the pit of Sheol, whence none of those in the book of Psalms come? How can anyone engage in liturgy (note the references to the temple, to the sacrifice, and to the thanksgiving song!) in this place? How, in particular, is it possible to say here to God that "you cast me into the deep"?

Recalling our earlier reflections on the resurrection as the sign of Jonah – and recalling particularly Mt 12:40[vii] – a further suggestion arises: could this song of thanksgiving be the sound of the preaching to the "spirits in prison"? In the LXX the psalm speaks the language of resurrection - "you have raised up my life from decay"; and the question in 2:5 - "shall I indeed look again towards your holy temple?" appears to expect the answer "yes".

---

[i] Mt 12:39ff., see 16:4; Lk 11:29ff.

[ii] Mt 12:42f., Lk 11:31

[iii] See Mt 12:41, Lk 11:32: “the people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!”

[iv] In the LXX a pneuma kauson, a “fiery spirit”

[v] Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, trans. Hallo (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971), pp. 176-77.

[vi] The LXX for verse 2:14 has the sailors refer to Jonah�s killing as the shedding of “righteous blood”.

[vii] “Just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth”.

Title Page | Archive
© 2003, Society for Scriptural Reasoning

 

....

Taken from: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume3/number1/ssr03-01-e03.html