| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to Jonah
This summary of the book of Jonah provides information about the
title
author(s)
date of writing
chronology
theme
theology
outline
a
brief overview
and the chapters of the Book of Jonah.
The book is named after its principal character
whose name means
"dove"; see the simile used of Ephraim in Hos
7:11 to portray the northern kingdom as "easily deceived and
senseless." See also Ps 68:13; 74:19 and notes.
Though the book does not identify its author
tradition has
ascribed it to the prophet himself
Jonah son of Amittai (1:1)
from Gath Hepher (2Ki 14:25; see note there) in Zebulun (Jos 19:10
13). In view of its many similarities
with the narratives about Elijah and Elisha
however
it may come from the same
prophetic circles that originally composed the accounts about those prophets
perhaps in the eighth century b.c. (see Introduction to 1 Kings: Author
Sources and Date).
In the half-century during which the prophet Jonah ministered
(800-750 b.c.)
a significant event affected the northern kingdom of Israel:
King Jeroboam II (793-753) restored her traditional borders
ending almost a
century of sporadic seesaw conflict between Israel and Damascus.
Jeroboam
in God's good providence (2Ki 14:26-27)
capitalized on Assyria's defeat
of Damascus (in the latter half of the ninth century)
which temporarily crushed
that center of Aramean power. Prior to that time
not only had Israel been
considerably reduced in size
but the king of Damascus had even been able to
control internal affairs in the northern kingdom (2Ki 13:7). However
after the Assyrian campaign against
Damascus in 797
Jehoash king of Israel had been able to recover the territory
lost to the king of Damascus (2Ki 13:25). Internal troubles in Assyria
subsequently allowed Jeroboam to complete the restoration of Israel's northern
borders. Nevertheless
Assyria remained the real threat from the north at this
time.
The prophets of the Lord were speaking to Israel regarding these
events. About 797 b.c. Elisha spoke to the king of Israel concerning future
victories over Damascus (2Ki 13:14-19). A few years later Jonah
prophesied the restoration that Jeroboam accomplished (2Ki 14:25). But soon after Israel had triumphed
she began to gloat over her newfound power. Because she was relieved of foreign
pressures -- relief that had come in accordance with encouraging words from
Elisha and Jonah -- she felt jealously complacent about her favored status with
God (Am 6:1). She focused her religion on
expectations of the "day of the Lord" (Am 5:18-20)
when God's darkness would engulf
the other nations
leaving Israel to bask in his light.
It was in such a time that the Lord sent Amos and Hosea to announce
to his people Israel that he would "spare them no longer" (Am
7:8; 8:2) but would send them into exile "beyond
Damascus" (Am 5:27)
i.e.
to Assyria (Hos
9:3; 10:6; 11:5).
During this time the Lord also sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn it of the imminent
danger of divine judgment.
Since Jonah was a contemporary of Amos
see Introduction to Amos:
Date and Historical Situation for additional details.
For a number of reasons
including the preaching to Gentiles
the
book is often assigned a postexilic date. At least
it is said
the book must
have been written after the destruction of Nineveh in 612 b.c. But these
considerations are not decisive. The similarity of this narrative to the
Elijah-Elisha accounts has already been noted. One may also question whether
mention of the repentance of Nineveh and the consequent averted destruction of
the city would have had so much significance to the author after Nineveh's
overthrow. And to suppose that proclaiming God's word to Gentiles had no
relevance in the eighth century is to overlook the fact that already in the
previous century Elijah and Elisha had extended their ministries to foreign
lands (1Ki 17:7-24; 2Ki 8:7-15). Moreover
the prophet Amos (c.
760-750) set God's redemptive work in behalf of Israel in the context of his
dealings with the nations (Am
1:3 -- 2:16; 9:7
12). Perhaps the third quarter of the
eighth century is the most likely date for the book
after the public
ministries of Amos and Hosea and before the fall of Samaria to Assyria in
722-721.
Many have questioned whether the book of Jonah is historical. The
supposed legendary character of some of the events (e.g.
the episode involving
the great fish) has caused them to suggest alternatives to the traditional view
that the book is historical
biographical narrative. Although their specific
suggestions range from fictional short story to allegory to parable
they share
the common assumption that the account sprang essentially from the author's
imagination
despite its serious and gracious message.
Such interpretations
often based in part on doubt about the
miraculous as such
too quickly dismiss (1) the similarities between the
narrative of Jonah and other parts of the OT and (2) the pervasive concern of
the OT writers
especially the prophets
for history. They also fail to realize
that OT narrators had a keen ear for recognizing how certain past events in
Israel's pilgrimage with God illumine (by way of analogy) later events. (For
example
the events surrounding the birth of Moses illumine the exodus
those
surrounding Samuel's birth illumine the series of events narrated in the books
of Samuel
and the ministries of Moses and Joshua illumine those of Elijah and
Elisha.) Similarly
the prophets recognized that the future events they
announced could be illumined by reference to analogous events of the past.
Overlooking these features in OT narrative and prophecy
many have supposed
that a story that too neatly fits the author's purpose must therefore be
fictional.
On the other hand
it must be acknowledged that Biblical narrators
were more than historians. They interpretatively recounted the past with the
unswerving purpose of bringing it to bear on the present and the future. In the
portrayal of past events
they used their materials to achieve this purpose
effectively. Nonetheless
the integrity with which they treated the past ought
not to be questioned. The book of Jonah recounts real events in the life and
ministry of the prophet himself.
Unlike most other prophetic parts of the OT
this book is a
narrative account of a single prophetic mission. Its treatment of that mission
is thus similar to the accounts of the ministries of Elijah and Elisha found in
1
2 Kings
and to certain narrative sections of Isaiah
Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
As is often the case in Biblical narratives
the author has
compressed much into a small space; 40 verses tell the entire story (eight
additional verses of poetry are devoted to Jonah's prayer of thanksgiving). In
its scope (a single extended episode)
compactness
vividness and character
delineation
it is much like the book of Ruth.
Also as in Ruth
the author uses structural symmetry effectively.
The story is developed in two parallel cycles that call attention to a series
of comparisons and contrasts (see Outline). The story's climax is Jonah's grand
prayer of confession
"Salvation comes from the Lord" -- the middle
confession of three from his lips (1:9;
2:9; 4:2). The last sentence emphasizes that the
Lord's word is final and decisive
while Jonah is left sitting in the hot
open
country outside Nineveh.
The author uses the art of representative roles in a straightforward
manner. In this story of God's loving concern for all people
Nineveh
the
great menace to Israel
is representative of the Gentiles. Correspondingly
stubbornly reluctant Jonah represents Israel's jealousy of her favored
relationship with God and her unwillingness to share the Lord's compassion with
the nations.
The book depicts the larger scope of God's purpose for Israel:
that she might rediscover the truth of his concern for the whole creation and
that she might better understand her own role in carrying out that concern.
I.
Jonah Flees His Mission (chs. 1-2)
A.
Jonah's Commission and Flight (1:1-3)
II.
Jonah Reluctantly Fulfills His Mission (chs. 3
- 4)
──《New
International Version》
Introduction to Jonah
Jonah was a native of Galilee
2Ki 14:25. His
miraculous deliverance from out of the fish
rendered him a type of our blessed
Lord
who mentions it
so as to show the certain truth of the narrative. All
that was done was easy to the almighty power of the Author and Sustainer of
life. This book shows us
by the example of the Ninevites
how great are the
Divine forbearance and long-suffering towards sinners. It shows a most striking
contrast between the goodness and mercy of God
and the rebellion
impatience
and peevishness of his servant; and it will be best understood by those who are
most acquainted with their own hearts.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Jonah》
00 Overview
JONAH
INTRODUCTION
IT is very interesting and very instructive to scrutinise the faces
in a great gallery of portraits. The man who does so has before him materials
which should help him to gain a wide knowledge of human character. Here is a
countenance noble and winsome. The spectator is certain that it was a tender
and brave and faithful heart which beat beneath an exterior so fair. Features
like these could not cover any littleness of soul. Perhaps it is a soldier in
his coat of mail
whose likeness the artist has drawn
or it may be a woman’s
face that looks out from the canvas; but whoever it be
the onlooker is glad
that he has seen the picture. But a painting of a different kind attracts him
next--that of one who has evidently had many fierce battles with temptation
and who has not come out of them all scathless. This much the spectator learns
from the sad expression which rests on the features; and yet
as he examines
them more carefully
he sees that dissatisfaction and sorrow are not their most
prominent characteristics. There is peace stamped on the face as well as
trouble--peace which seems in the end to have gained the mastery over the
trouble. There are no portraits like those which have been painted for us in
the pages of the Bible. They have been drawn by the hand of a Master
and they
are very varied in the types of character which they represent. In the goodly
fellowship of the prophets--to think meanwhile of no others--what differences
of natural disposition
and of spiritual attainments
there are I Some
like
Joel
and Amos
and Hosea
are without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.
Beside them we see our own shortcomings
and know what manner of men our Lord
would have us to be. And others
like Jonah
are far from faultless. They are
genuine servants of God
but servants who sin and fall
whose loyalty is not
steadfast and immovable
who carry to this day dark blots on their fair name.
We are encouraged ourselves to make trial of His compassion and His grace. That
Jonah
after his wilful disobedience and foolish querulousness
was healed of
all the diseases of his spirit--that
like many a wayward child
he learned to
sorrow over his self-will
and came home with a penitent and reproachful heart
to his Father’s house--who
of us can doubt? I take it that he was himself the author of the book which
bears his name
though some have thought of it as the embalming by a subsequent
writer of an ancient and venerable tradition. £ I can see no reason for
doubting that the prophet penned with his own hand these four short chapters.
Before his life closed he sat down to recount for the generations that should
follow the story of his memorable journey to Nineveh. And how does he tell the
story? Very humbly
we shall admit
and very impartially. They are bitter
things which he writes in it against himself. He extenuates nothing. He unveils
all his hardness of heart
all his Jewish exclusiveness
all his murmuring
against the Lord. He is relentless in his self-condemnation
whilst over
against the confession of his lack of obedience and of charity he places the
record of God’s loving-kindness and tender mercy. The book exalts God
indeed
and rebukes and punishes Jonah. It is a book of Confessions which Jonah has
written
not an Apologia pro vim sua. He acknowledges publicly the
wrongness of his thinking and acting. When we read his chapters we are reminded
of Peter going out to weep bitterly
and afterwards inspiring the Gospel of
Mark
which tells more fully than any of the other evangelical records how he
sinned and fell; of Augustine
composing the narrative of his foolish youth; of
John Bunyan
declaring how grace had abounded in his experience to the chief of
sinners. Jonah must have been a new man
with a heart within him from which the
old pride and unkindness and disobedience had been driven quite away
before he
could pen the book which bears his name. The Book of Jonah is not like other
prophetic writings. It is not a recital of discourses
but a vivid narrative of
a strange episode in its author’s life. It has been described as a drama in
three acts
each of which is full of interest and replete with instruction.
I. First of all
the prophecy deals with Jonah himself. Very little is known regarding him
beyond what we learn from these chapters. There is
however
one other mention
of him in the Old Testament. We read
in the Second Book of Kings
about
Jeroboam II.
the powerful and able and sinful ruler of the Northern tribes
under whom Amos and Hosea lived and preached
that “he restored the coast of
Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain
according to the
word of the Lord God which He spake by the hand of His servant Jonah
the son
of Amittai
the prophet
who was of Gath-hepher.” Jonah was a native
then
of
Lower Galilee
a child of the tribe of Zabulon
born in a little village among
the hills not far from Nazareth. And his first message as a prophet was a
message of gladness
in which he took delight
and which brought him honour and
esteem. He had foretold the success of the king of Israel
how he should regain
provinces that had been lost
how he should win back for a short space the
glory of his empire. It is strange that one whose ministry began under such
bright auspices should end it under a cloud
and should be presented to us not
as a model but as a beacon. It is a warning to take heed lest we fall--an
illustration of the truth that even the saints of God are weak and brittle in
themselves
in constant danger of losing the crown
and needing always the
support of a higher hand. We can scarcely be surprised that legend should have
busied itself about Jonah
and should have tried to augment our scanty
knowledge of his earlier years. There is the old tradition
for example
that
he was the son of the widow of Zarephath
the boy whom Elijah brought back from
death to life. And indeed it would be pleasant to think that the first apostle
of the Gentiles
sent on a mission of mercy to a heathen people
was himself a
Gentile on the mother’s side; £ and that he stood in so interesting a relation
to the great prophet who fought single-handed the battle of God against Baal.
But the very pleasantness of the fancy is its condemnation. It fits in too
neatly with our preconceptions and desires. Whether
during the years when he
lived at home in the Northern Kingdom
Jonah had other announcements given him
to publish to his countrymen beside that happy announcement of victory and
national enlargement
we cannot say. The time was very evil
and the land was
sick unto death. What we do know is
that to the prophet
dwelling among his
own people
there came one day a message from God which startled him
and for
which he had no liking. He was commanded to leave his kindred
and journey to
Nineveh
the capital of the Assyrian empire. There he was to proclaim the
Lord’s judgments. When God pointed in one way
he moved in exactly the opposite
direction. What made him so rebellious? Partly it may have been fear. He was
appalled at the greatness and the hazardous nature of the task allotted him. He
forgot that God’s servants
who do His will
are kept by Him safe in the hollow
of His hand. But there was another reason for his disobedience
as he tells us
himself. He could not help feeling that though he was sent to Nineveh with a
fearful woe on his lips
his mission was in reality one of love. He understood
well that often his God threatened in order that He might afterwards spare
and
that His terrors were meant to drive to Himself
for forgiveness and healing
those who would not be won by gentler methods. And Jonah had no desire to go on
an errand of compassion to Nineveh. A mistaken patriotism prompted him to
recoil from seeking the good of the metropolis of Assyria. He would rather a
thousand times that it should be left to its fate--that it should sink beneath
God’s hand to rise no more for ever. We can sympathise in some measure with
him. We know how the hearts of our own fathers were filled with a stern joy
when the tremendous power of the first Napoleon
which hung like a thundercloud
over Europe
was dispelled and dissipated. They thought it no shame to triumph
in his downfall. The instinct of self-preservation and the love of country
kindled these emotions within them. So it was with Jonah; and indeed he had
even better ground for the feelings he cherished. For Assyria was a heathen
empire
while Israel was the land which God had blessed
the home of His chosen
people. Why should an effort be made to save the foes of the true faith?
Therefore he disobeyed. He thought himself wiser than God. He imagined that he
had the interests of God’s peculiar people more truly at heart. But whither
shall a man go from the Spirit of the Lord? or whither shall he flee from His
presence? If he dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea
even there shall God’s
right hand hold him. The traveller who climbs a high mountain in the tropics
passes through many zones of temperature
leaving the luxuriant vegetation of
the plain to enter a land of pine forests and of colder skies
and finding
himself at length in a region where God giveth snow like wool and casteth forth
His ice like morsels. If we imagine the order reversed
we shall understand the
progress of Jonah’s prayer. It starts from the cold and gloomy wilderness
and
it ends in the bright and warm sunshine. “Salvation is of the Lord
” salvation
even for souls so unworthy as mine--that is the last triumphant note. “The Lord
spake unto the fish
and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” Thus the
first section of the book closes. And this is the truth which it teaches us
the comfortable message which it brings
that the goodness of our God passeth knowledge.
There can be no sin so grieving to Him as the sin of His chosen servants--those
whom He has brought into His kingdom and entrusted with its high and honourable
work. He expects much from them because they have received much from Him; and
when they disappoint Him
He must be wounded to the very heart. He must feel
their disloyalty
as David felt the treachery of Ahithophel
his own familiar
friend
and the rebellion of Absalom
the son whom he loved most fondly; as
Christ felt the cruelty and faithlessness of Peter
the foremost of His
disciples. Yet He forgives these worst offenders; He restoreth their souls. Is
not this the very acme and climax of His mercy? Is not this what distinguishes
Him from the best of men? They are unwilling to permit a servant who has failed
them once to have an opportunity of retrieving himself; they will hardly allow
him a second chance. Even Paul
the very noblest and tenderest of the apostles
refused to trust John Mark when he turned away from the work
and looked askance
on him for many a day.
II. So we come to
the second division of the narrative
that which concerns itself with Nineveh.
It is a brief and yet most graphic account which is given us of the grandeur of the
city. Its vast size is described; and the imagination is left to complete the
scene
to fill in the wide area with royal palaces and crowded markets and
vineyards and gardens
to summon up to view the most magnificent of all the
capitals of the ancient world. The city was great
great not only to man’s
thinking but to God’s
for that is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase. Looking
down from heaven upon it
the Lord of all things admired its extent and
stateliness and strength. But He sorrowed over its sin; and He bade His prophet
travel all the way from Israel to warn it of its danger. His injunction
deliberately slighted at first
was graciously renewed; and
when it came the
second time
Jonah made haste and delayed not to keep God’s commandment. It is
like what Josephus tells us of Jesus
the son of Anan
the unlettered rustic
from the wilderness
who shortly before Jerusalem was destroyed burst in upon
the people at the feast of tabernacles with the piercing and oft-repeated cry
“A voice from the East
a voice from the West
a voice from the four winds
a
voice on the bridegroom and the bride
a voice on the whole people.” The
magistrates and the cold and cynical historian himself thought that there was
something preternatural here. But Jerusalem’s day of grace was past; happily
Nineveh’s was not altogether gone; it was the eleventh hour indeed
yet there
was time still for repentance. And the city knew the things which belonged to
its peace. Critics have sought to throw discredit on the Book of Jonah
because
of the physical miracle of the prophet’s preservation within the great fish
which the book narrates. But it recounts a more wonderful miracle still--the
moral miracle of the sudden and complete repentance of all Nineveh. In part
no
doubt
the reason may be found in the superstitious bent and tendency of their
minds. Like the ancient Athenians
they were very religious. They would listen
eagerly to any word which purported to come from the unseen world. Then
too
they had heard of the God of Israel. They knew something of the marvellous
deeds He had wrought on behalf of His people. They may have felt that
although
He ruled over an alien race
it would be dangerous to disregard a message which
reached them from Him. But Christ hints at a deeper cause for their penitence.
They had learned in one way or in another the miraculous history of Jonah’s
mission. He was “a sign” to them
our Lord affirms. They were aware that he had
passed through death to a new life
in order that he might publish God’s word
in their city; and his deliverance seemed to hold out a prospect of their
deliverance
too
if like him they sought pardon and salvation ere it was too
late. In this second part of the tale we read of two repentances--that of
Nineveh and that of God; and the one is consequent on the other. God turns from
the infliction of threatened punishment
because Nineveh turns from its sin. It
is always so. Shallow minds have misunderstood these passages which tell us of
God’s repenting. They have said
“Then He cannot be immutable; He must be
fickle and unstedfast
of one mind to-day
of another mind to-morrow.” Why
should there be such a discrepancy
they have asked
between His words and His
deeds--between His announcement of a purpose of evil and His abstention from
the execution of that purpose? The matter is mysterious; but of this we may be
certain
that there is no caprice in our God. Nay
it is because He is
unalterably the same
because His government is so uniformly righteous and just
and true
that He must change His procedure toward men when their relation
toward Him is changed. Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of His
throne. If we abhor ourselves and repent in dust and ashes--if we sorrow over
our disobedience with a godly sorrow--He will lose none of His consistency when
He forgives us. He will remain a just God while He is a Saviour; rather
He
will prove Himself a just God simply because He shows Himself a Saviour.
III. The third
section of the history takes us back to Jonah. We should have supposed that
after the experience through which he had gone
he would never again murmur
against God; but the old nature dies hard in all of us
even in the prophets
and ministers of the Lord. Jonah
with that proud Hebrew heart within him
was
utterly displeased at the result of his mission. He grew weary of life itself.
He prayed Chat he might die. He built a little booth on the hills to the east
of Nineveh
and sat under its shadow for forty days
still hoping for the
worst--sat there
pitiless and revengeful
“till he might see what would become
of the city.” And God was grieved that His child should be of such a mind
and
should foster so carefully a spirit the very opposite of His own. He would cure
him of this bitterness of soul. So He caused a wide-spreading plant--the Palma
Christi
botanists call it--to spring up and cover with its refreshing
shade the prophet’s booth
out there on the hot and parched hillside. But Jonah
had scarcely commenced to rejoice in the welcome shelter when God sent some
destructive insects against the tall and graceful Palmchrist
to strip it of
its leaves and to make it pine away. Now was God’s opportunity. He spoke to His
prophet
not angrily but yet most effectually. He asked him a significant
question. “Thou couldst have pity on a short-lived plant
” He said
which cost
thee nothing
which thou hadst not trained or watered; thou art displeased on
account of its loss; and shall not I
who am Maker and King of all
have
compassion on a great city full of souls that are ready to perish? “Are not
these much better than the gourd?” And Jonah adds not a word more. He drops his
pen when he has recorded God’s tender and pregnant reproof. It is a most
impressive contrast which this Divine question draws between man’s pity and
God’s. We think with kindliness of the objects of the natural world--of the
flowers so blue and golden which are the stars in the firmament of the lower
earth
of the trees which shelter us from the heat of the noonday sun. It is
true that these flowers and trees have but a short life at the longest. It is true
also that we did not call them into being of ourselves. We have not laboured
for them
neither made them to grow. Yet we are interested in them. We love
them after a true fashion. But God
while He forgets none of His works
is most
deeply concerned about His human creatures. Jonah might sorrow over the gourd;
Jonah’s Lord sorrowed over the souls of the Ninevites. It was but one; and they
were many
“a whole cityful” of men and women and children. It had been sent to
him without any thought or toil of his; but God had given them their being;
they were His sons and daughters. He was their Father. Still
it is chiefly for
souls like yours and mine
gifted with many great powers and with an undying
life
that God yearns. Their redemption He accounts precious. To bring about
their salvation He plans and pleads and strives. He has His richest joy when
His children who were dead live again
and when the lost are found. And shall
we not give Him this joy? Shall we not look unto Him and be saved? These
then
are the three parts of the Book of Jonah
The great difficulty in reference to
the book is this:
Is it historical? Is it a narrative of what actually happened? Or is it an
allegory
a fable fraught with important meaning? The strange events which it
describes--did they really occur
or had they an existence only in the mind of
him who wrote them down? To me there is one reason which is sufficient to prove
that these chapters are a true history. Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of them as
such. He declared that the imprisonment of the ancient prophet in the depths of
the sea typified His own death and burial and resurrection. “As Jonas was three
days and three nights in the whale’s belly
” He said
“so shall the Son of Man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The one event was
symbolic of the other. And once again
He affirmed that the men of Nineveh
condemned by their repentance the men of His own generation. But how could He
have instituted such a comparison if Jonah had never passed through the streets
and squares of the Assyrian city
startling its inhabitants from their lethargy
by his terrible cry? Christ must have reckoned this Old Testament prophecy a
reliable narrative of actual occurrences. The great lesson of the book is the
lesson that God loves all men--Greek and Jew
Barbarian and Scythian
bond and
free. The prophet did not think that it was so. With the spiritual pride--the
grudging narrow-mindedness--of his people strong in his breast
he imagined
that only the chosen race was dear to God. He did not dream that Nineveh could
be great in His sight. “He sought the honour of Israel
the son
” an old rabbi
said
“rather than the honour of Jehovah
the Father.” But he was taught the
truth by little and little through the vicissitudes of his history. Let us
believe it and rejoice in it. God would have all men to be saved. His love is
infinite
like Himself. “In every nation he that feareth Him and worketh
righteousness is accepted with Him.” Yes
and oar hearts will show likest His
when they despair of none
and hold aloof from none
and seek and save all.
That is the spirit inculcated upon us by the Gospel of the New Testament; but
the Old Testament
too
is full of the rich
free
evangelical Gospel. It rings
with the same music. (Original Secession Magazine.)
The Book of Jonah
One thing that strikes the careful reader of the Book of Jonah is
its difference from the other books in the canon of Scripture among which it is
classed
and in the midst of which it is placed. It does not consist of any
connected series of prophetic discourses bearing upon the future of God’s
kingdom and the nations of the earth
such as are found in the Books of Hosea
and Amos; neither does it consist of one distinct prophecy
such as that
contained in the Book of Obadiah
by which it is immediately preceded. It
rather bears the character of a history of a special mission to a heathen city
which was laid upon one of the prophets. The biographical element in it is
stronger than in other prophetic books
and surrounds it with a peculiar
interest and attraction. This position in the canon of Scripture indicates the
view taken of it by those who arranged it; and this view has
with very few
exceptions
been adopted by both the Jewish and Christian Church. In discussing
the book we may first state this view
and then deal with the objections which
have been urged against it. In this old view there is embraced these four
points--
1. That the facts it narrates possess a symbolico-typical meaning. If
it had been only the record of events that happened to the prophet in the
fulfilment of a divinely intrusted mission there could be no valid reason for
its being placed among the prophetic books. It would have found a more fitting
place in the historical books
where we have mention of one prophecy that was
given through Jonah. It is in this connection that we have the record of
remarkable incidents in the lives of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha. From
its being found where it is
the Book of Jonah must have been regarded as a
practical prophecy
and the facts which it narrates must have been viewed as
invested with a symbolical and typical meaning. This is the character it has
sustained in the opinion of the great majority of both Jewish and Christian
interpreters. “The book is
” in the language of one who has well expressed this
view
” in a great measure historical
but in such a manner that
in the history
itself
there is
hidden the mystery of the greatest prophecy
and that Jonah proves himself to
be a true prophet by the events that happened to him not less than by his
utterances.” It is easy to understand how those facts connected with Jonah’s
mission to Nineveh bore against the exclusiveness and bigoted isolation in
which the Jews shut themselves up. That there was mercy for the Gentile world
was taught from the very first
for the promise to Abraham ran in these terms: “In thee and in thy
seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” But Jonah was the first
to teach it plainly and directly to the Jews
and it was taught himself by the
wonderful incidents connected with his mission to Nineveh. But this is not all
the teaching of the book according to common Christian interpretation. There
was in this mission not only a prefiguring or foreshadowing of the time when
mercy would be extended to the Gentile world
but also a prefiguring of the way in which this was to
be brought about. When Jonah rebels against the communal to go to Nineveh
and
seeks by flight to escape from the duties of his prophetic office
he is overtaken
by a terrific storm. It is only allayed by his being thrown into the angry
waves
and he remained entombed within a living grave beneath the waters for
three days. After his resurrection from this living grave he goes to Nineveh
the inhabitants of which repent at his preaching and escape the threatened and
impending judgment of God. In this there was a type of Christ’s burial and
resurrection
the subsequent preaching of the Gospel among the nations
and the
conversion of the Gentiles. According to this view
then
there is embodied in
the facts narrated in the book a hidden prophecy of Christ’s work
the meaning
of which was not made plain until He came.
2. Regarded in this light
the book has been received as historically
true. It is in marvellous events which actually took place in the prophet’s own
experience--and not in vision only--that the prophecy lies. Just as in the
birth of Isaac
Samson and Samuel we have a foreshadowing of the miraculous
birth of Christ:
in the death of Abel
and the substitute for Isaac
there was prefigured
Christ’s death. These typical events are all regarded as historical--as having
transpired in the region of actual life
and not in the region of vision.
3. The position of this book in the canon indicates that it belongs
to the earliest or Assyrian period of Scripture prophecy. In the collection of
the minor prophets it is placed among those who prophesied during this period.
Some have even thought that it was placed immediately after Obadiah
because
Jonah was regarded as “the ambassador to the heathen” mentioned in his
prophecy.
4. This assignation of the book to an early period was connected with
the belief that Jonah himself was its author. Objection has been taken to its
historical truthfulness
first
on the ground of the miraculous element
contained in it. As might have been anticipated
it became a special object of
attack on the part of those who sought to explain Scripture narratives on
rationalistic principles and to eliminate from them the element of the supernatural
Some at first were disposed to regard it as a Jewish adaptation of heathen
legends about the deliverance of heroes from sea monsters. But it was soon
perceived that this account of the story was an absurd one
and that there was
not the slightest probability of its being derived either mediately or
immediately from heathen fables. The likelihood is all the other way
if there
is any connection at all between them. The fact that Jerome states that near
Joppa lay rocks which were pointed out to him as those to which Andromache was
bound when exposed to the sea monster gives some maintenance to the thought
that the story of Jonah may have passed through Phoenicia in corrupted form to
Greece. Modern rationalists incline to the view that it is simply a parable or
tale designed to teach an important lesson. It is not regarded by them as a
record of actual events
but simply as a parable or myth attached to a
historical name by which are inculcated truths important for the age in which
it was written. All miracles
either in actual event or in prophetical
intimation
are taken out of it. The design of the book
which on this view
must have been written long after the time of Jonah
was simply to teach Israel
lessons that were being too much forgotten
and not to foreshadow or foretell
any coming event. Ewald thinks that it was designed to show how the true fear
of God and repentance bring salvation
first in the case of the heathen
sailors
then in the case of Jonah
and lastly in the case of the Ninevites. Block
conceives it to have been written by an intelligent liberal-minded Jew for the
purpose of exposing the narrow religious particularism which prevailed among
his countrymen. It was
as we have mentioned
the miraculous element in the book that
in the first
instance
led to the adoption of this theory Not only does it record miracles
but
without an understanding of the prophet’s design
miracles of the most
strange and startling description. It is a true principle that God never wastes
His power--never works any miracles except for purposes worthy of Himself. But
in this circumscribed view of the book there appears to be a useless
expenditure of miraculous power. These lessons could surely have been taught
without the prophet’s being required to pass through such wonderful
experiences. Even to those who have no philosophical objections to miracles in
themselves
the working of such miracles for this end can hardly but appear
uncalled for and unnecessary. But when we view the book as essentially a practical
prophecy designed to prefigure by typical events the burial and resurrection of
Christ
and through this the opening of the gates of mercy to the Gentile
world
there can be no difficulty on the part of any who believe miracles
possible to accept those recorded here as true. No one will venture to say that
Jonah’s preservation in the belly of the great fish
and his remarkable
deliverance
viewed as charged with typical and prophetical meaning
was an
unnecessary exhibition of Divine power. No one will venture to say either that
the miraculous growth and miraculous destruction of the gourd was needless--if
by it God’s mercy to the heathen world was vindicated
and its truth placed in
the very forefront of the prophetic writings. Many have thought
not without
reason
that in this book we have the oldest written prophecy
and that it is
because this truth is so prominent here that it is so conspicuously exhibited
in all subsequent prophetic writings. It gives the keynote to them all
and
as
serving this purpose
the miracles recorded in it cannot be regarded as useless
manifestations of supernatural power. The miracles themselves too have
oftentimes been so presented as to make faith as difficult as possible. It is
not everyone that can say that though it had been recorded that Jonah had
swallowed the whale it would not have affected or shaken their faith in the
story. Faith
though it may soar high above reason
cannot accept what plainly
contradicts its teachings and exceeds the utmost bounds of possibility.
Attempts have been made to show that it is altogether impossible for the
whale--which is the fish spoken of by our Lord when referring to the sign of
Jonas--to have accomplished the feat here ascribed to it unless some remarkable
change had been affected upon its structure. Some have allowed these attempts
to weigh so much with them that they have intensified the miracle by insisting
either that this change was affected or that a special fish was created by God
for the emergency. The miracle proper seems to have consisted in the
preservation of Jonah in his living grave for three days
and then being
vomited unhurt upon the land. The sudden growth and destruction of the gourd
becomes
on closer examination
merely a supernatural quickening of the power of
nature. But objections have been taken to the old view of the book
not only on
the ground of its miraculous element
but also on the ground of its literary
construction and features. It bears a resemblance to the myths or parables that
spring up in the course of a nation’s literature and become attached to
historical names. An example of this may be found in the tales which have
gathered around our Saxon King Arthur
in the last development of which by
Tennyson there is believed to be embodied moral and spiritual truth. Because of
this resemblance this book is assigned to this class of literary production. On
this view it must have been written as a parable with the design of rebuking
the narrowness and exclusiveness of the Jewish people. The cause of its being
connected with Jonah may have been some tradition of his having beau sent to
Nineveh on an errand of mercy. In regard to this view of the book we may note
that were it thoroughly established it would not destroy its prophetic value.
The parable
instead of the actual miraculous events
as in the old view
would
become prophetic. It would teach the boundless mercy of God
by prefiguring the
burial and resurrection of Christ
the subsequent calling of the Gentiles
and
their reception into the kingdom of God. “It would be
” as has been said
“an
epitome of prophecy
of the mediatorial work of Christ.” The difficulties in
the way of accepting this new critical view seem to us many and insurmountable.
I. We cannot
regard the argument from the literary construction of the books of the Bible
and their resemblance to the literary works of other nations as very safe or
conclusive. It may be quite valid and conclusive for those who accept the Bible
simply as the growth of Hebrew literature--simply as the product of the
national mind and consciousness in the various stages of its growth and decay;
but not for those who accept it as a supernatural revelation of the God of the Hebrews. The
supernatural element not only in narrative
experience
and prophecy
but also
in the very composition itself
must be taken into account. This puts a vast
difference between the literature of the nation of Israel
along the whole line
of its history
and the literature of any other nation. It is a growth
but it
is not the product of genius or mere piety. It is the result of a continued
revelation and inspiration. To refer again to King Arthur
the growth of
legends around his name has led many to question if he was a historical person
at all
and we cannot believe that God would give countenance to anything that
would tend to lead to this confusion. The employment of parables in itself is
not wrong
for Christ Himself frequently took advantage of this mode of
instruction. But it was always done by Him openly
and so that His hearers
understood that His statements were parabolical. There was no difficulty in
distinguishing between the parts of His teaching that were parabolical and
those parts which were historical. He never attached any of His parables to
historical names.
II. We may say that
this new view of the book tends to shake our faith in other historical parts of
Scripture. It bears a resemblance
both in its form and contents
to the
narratives of remarkable incidents in the lives of Elijah and Elisha. If this
be a parable
why may we not regard the others as possessing the same mythical
character?
III. This book bears
many marks of being authentic history. It is
indeed
fragmentary
and does not
furnish us with full information on all points about which our curiosity is aroused.
It does not tell us anything about Jonah’s life and labours previous to his
call to go to Nineveh. It does not tell us anything about the spot where he was
vomited by the fish upon the dry land
nor describe his journey to Nineveh; and
some have seen in this evidence that it is not true history
but fable. “But
”
as Keil has remarked
“the assertion that completeness in all external
circumstances which would serve to gratify curiosity rather than help to an
understanding of the true facts of the case
is indispensable to the truth of
any historical narrative
is one which might expose the whole of the historical
writings of antiquity to criticism
but can never shake their truths. There is
not a single one of the ancient historians in whose works such completeness as
this can be found; and still less do the Biblical historians aim at
communicating such things as have no close connection with the main object of
the narrative
or with the religious significance of the facts themselves.”
This lack of detail in the narrative may also be accounted for by its prophetic
character. It is not the
design of the writer simply to give a historical account of Jonah’s mission to
Nineveh
but to present those incidents in connection with it which have a
typical and prophetical signification. But while the narrative is by no means
complete
there seems to us to be an unmistakable touch of reality in the
experience of Jonah as here described. In the description of his feelings and
conduct
when the call came to him to go to Nineveh; in his prayer in his
wonderful grave; and in the record of his feelings and conduct under the
unwished for and disappointing success of his mission
there is something so
strange and yet so natural as to place them outside the domain of fiction. And
when the narrative touches upon points on which any light can be thrown by the
researches into antiquity
these researches have confirmed its truthfulness.
The attempt to show from the statement in the third verse of the third chapter
“and
Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey
” that the
greatness of Nineveh was a thing of the past when the book was written
has
been perfectly futile. The plain meaning of the words is
as granted even by the
rationalistic critics themselves
that Nineveh was a city of vast dimensions
when Jonah reached it
in the prosecution of his heaven-given mission. Its
dimensions as thus indicated have been found to correspond with the description
of ancient profane historians
and with recent examination of the ruins of this
city. The command too
issued by the King of Assyria
in proclaiming a national
fast to put sackcloth on the beasts and flocks and make them fast
is quite in
accordance with the customs which are known to have prevailed in the ancient Persian
Empire. The book thus bears traces of having been written by one who had seen
Nineveh in its greatness and glory
and who had gained some acquaintance with
its customs.
IV. We would simply
mention that the book was received as historical by the Jews. The fact is
indisputable
whatever weight may be attached to it in determining its literary
character.
V. The book was
regarded as historical by our Lord Himself. In this reference there is also
established the reality of the marvellous circumstances attending the mission.
He Speaks to us of Jonah’s being in the belly of the great fish as a sign
σημεῖον
a term which is often applied to His own miraculous deeds
in
which
through deliverance from bodily diseases
was typified His great work of
spiritual salvation. It was thus spoken of by Him as a real miracle
and
designed by God to be a type of the still greater miracle of His own
resurrection. And receiving the book as historical
the most likely author is
Jonah himself. The objection against assigning it to so early a period because
of the Aramaic colouring of its language has been so admirably dealt with by
Dr. Payne Smith that we will conclude by quoting his answer to it. “This
argument proves nothing; for scholars are not by any means agreed whether these
Aramaisms belong or not to the declining age of Jewish literature
or whether
they may not have been the patois or vernacular dialect of the country people.
There is very much to make it probable that pure Hebrew was the language only
of people of the highest caste
the kings and princes
the priests and prophets of
Jerusalem
or at most of Judah; and that the mass of the people spoke Aramaic
or a debased Hebrew full of Aramaic words. Even with us many phrases which
strike us as Americanisms are thoroughly good English forms
which
however
have not been used in literature
but belong to certain country districts
where
if some poet had arisen
or writer of repute
they would
from his
pages
have won their way into the language of scholars. Now
Jonah was of
Gath-hepher
a village far away to the North in the tribe of Zabulon. If he had
used no words except such as were employed by Isaiah
critics might with good
reason have disputed the authenticity of the book. They might fairly have said
‘This book was not written by a man brought up in the provinces
but by one of
the literati of Jerusalem; some practised hand there has employed the
legend of Jonah as a vehicle for much pleasing instruction
and has constructed
out of it a very admirable allegory.’“ (R. Morton.)
Is the Book of Jonah true history?
Let us examine the question critically
but fairly: Was there ever such a
man as Jonah? I answer
there is just as good evidence of his being a real
personality as is found in the case of any other of the prophets; and if we
assume him to be a mythical character we may as well make a like assumption
respecting almost any other personality brought before us in the Old Testament.
He is distinctly mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25. Here he is mentioned
in an incidental way (which is the most convincing); his father’s name is also
given
and he is designated as “the prophet.” The identification is complete.
He is also spoken of in Tobit
one of the apocryphal books
dating about 200
b.c. But far overtopping all other evidence
and in itself of sufficient force
to settle any question whatever with those who accept the New Testament history
and Christ’s commission as the Son of God
is what is recorded in Matthew 12:38-41
and also in Luke 11:29-32. Let the reader please
notice that Christ does not say
“as Jonah was represented as
” etc.
as
if this book were a fictitious story. Neither does He refer to any moral lesson
that this book might be intended to teach; but He simply refers to the facts
recorded in the book. That Christ believed and accepted the genuineness and
truthfulness of this history is too plain for argument. And was He mistaken in
regard to it? If He did not know
what becomes of His Messiahship? Did Christ
refer to some Munchausen fiction when He gave Jonah’s history to the generation
in which He lived as an infallible sign of His Messiahship; and that He should
rise from the dead on the third day? Are we to compare the whole teaching of
the Gospel respecting Christ’s resurrection to Gulliver’s travels? That is just
what Christ Himself did if there be only a wild piece of fiction in the Book of
Jonah. As it was with Jonah
so shall it be with the Son of Man
says Christ.
Whoever makes Jonah to be a dream makes the resurrection of Christ to be also a
dream. I call attention to the form of introducing the book as being the same which is found in
other books of the prophecies. For example
“the word of the Lord that came
unto Hosea
the son of Beeri”; “the word of the Lord that came unto Joel
the
son of Pethuel”; “the word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah
the son of
Cushi”; “the word of the Lord unto Zechariah
the son of Berechiah”; and so
“the word of the Lord that came unto Jonah
the son of Amittai.” The writer of
this book evidently intended that the reader should accept it as genuine
history; and he is justly chargeable with intentional deception if it is not
so. I may state further that the Jews always regarded this book as true history
(Josephus
9:11.
sec. 2). And so the Christian Church has esteemed it such with great unanimity.
One who spends hours and days in the catacombs of Rome sees the representation
of this history on the walls many times repeated. I come in the next place to
argue for the truth of this history from what it says about Nineveh. And this
Book of Jonah has been illuminated and illustrated and substantiated by the
discoveries of the nineteenth century
so that what sceptics used to say about
it no one would think of saying now. They argued up to 1841 that there could
not possibly have been such a city as is described in this book
because the
historians and geographers (Strabo
Diodorus Siculus
and Ptolemy) made no
mention of it
and certainly they would have spoken of it if there had been a
city of three days’ journey around it; and one containing one hundred and
twenty thousand infants who did not know their right hand from their left. So
they said
Alexander would have found it and fought it. But what now? This
city
after having been buried up for more than twenty-five hundred years
was
discovered in 1841; and every competent judge knows now that it was as large as
this book represents it. It might easily have contained more than one hundred
and twenty thousand infants. Marvellous are the testimonies of these uncovered
monuments at Nineveh; and only a small part
probably
of the whole is yet in
our hands. But already Hiram
king of Tyre
1000 b.c.
is recognised in these
records at Nineveh. Benhadad and Jehu
900 b.c.
Hezekiah
king of Judah
Sennacherib and Lachish reappear. Demonstrations of high civilisation but
monumental wickedness abound. We understand now why the Greek historians and the
Roman say nothing about great Nineveh. Simply because they knew nothing about
it. For although it was spared more than one hundred and fifty years after
Jonah’s day
it had been blotted out more than three hundred years before
Alexander was born; more than two hundred years before Herodotus was born;
nearly three hundred years before Xenophon was born; more than five hundred
years before Ptolemy
Diodorus Siculus
or Strabo had learned their alphabet.
It had been founded more than 2000 b.c. In Genesis 10:11 we read
“Out of that land
went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh.” It was standing in the day of its
greatest glory in Jonah’s time. It was finally destroyed about 713 b.c.
in
accordance with the terrible words of prophecy uttered by Nahum. For two years
it was besieged by the Medes and Babylonians
and at that time was completely
devastated. Herodotus passed over the site two hundred and fifty years later
but makes no mention of even any visible ruins. Neither does Xenophon. Is it
incredible that Jonah should have been sent to such a city on such an errand of
mercy? Is it incredible that he should have hesitated to undertake the mission?
Is it incredible that he should have taken a ship for Joppa? He was born only
sixty miles from that city
at Gath-hepher. Is it incredible that a storm
should have overtaken him? It was in those same waters that Paul went through
the trying experiences narrated in the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth
chapters of Acts. Is there anything incredible in the account of the sailors
praying to their respective gods? Is there anything incredible in a sea monster
following a ship
ready to swallow a man if he should be thrown overboard? This
story is often spoken of as the story of “Jonah and the whale
” but the Hebrew
word “dagh” is one of wide import. Our translation in the Old Testament calls
it “a great fish”; in the New Testament it is called a “whale.” Just five years
ago in the Chicago Inter-Ocean
vouched for by the editors
was a
communication from a sea captain
saying that it was a mistake to maintain that
the “great fish” could not have been a whale; and he went on to say that he had
no interest in defending Jonah
or in defending our New Testament translation;
but in the interest of natural science and of simple truth he stated that
having been for some years the captain of a whaling vessel
he knew that the
sperm-whale could easily swallow a man whole; that one member of his crew
weighing one hundred and seventy pounds
had repeatedly crawled through a
whale’s throat (different whales at different times) as the throat lay on the
deck of the ship. And then he proceeded to narrate a particular case of
personal experience in which a man weighing one hundred and sixty-five pounds
was one of his helpers; and one day they were in an exciting chase after some
whales
when one of the boats was struck by one of the whales and the men were
thrown out. All of them were successful in getting back into the boat save one
whom they missed on calling the roll after they had captured the monster they
were pursuing. They gave him up for lost; but on cutting up the whale the next
day they found him inside--unconscious
but alive. He was restored
and was
still living
and was following his vocation at the time the captain wrote.
Courbet
in Cosmos
of March 7
1895
writes (and let the reader observe
that this is not “a fish story” by a romancer
nor “a sailor’s yarn
” but the
report of a scientific expedition; and such substantially are all the
testimonies which I quote):
“The discoveries of the Prince of Monaco were such as to relieve me of all
difficulty in believing the Bible story that a whale swallowed Jonah.” A writer
in the Academy of Sciences--M. Joubin--says: “A sperm whale can easily swallow an animal
taller and heavier than a man.” And he adds: “The animals when swallowed can keep alive
some time in the whale’s stomach.” Lyman Abbott is reported as stirring up the
mirth of his congregation a while ago by alluding to the “half-digested man
Jonah.” But if Lyman Abbott will study physiology a little he will learn that
although the gastric fluid is a remarkably powerful solvent
capable of
dissolving many solid substances
yet it has no power whatever over living
substances. And if he used a very little logic
superadded to his physiology
he would see that unless this were true the gastric fluid would at once assail
the coats of the stomach itself
and render all animal life impossible. This is
one of those wonderful proofs of the Divine wisdom in the working of living
organisms. Jonah must first die before digestion could even begin. If we deny
all miracles
then we must away with all revelation and all the supernatural.
“But
” says one
“I am prepared to admit miracles wherever there is a
justifying reason; but what reason is there here?” Think a moment; think a
moment. Here was a wicked city going to destruction. God so loved them that He
bade His servant give them warning; and when he obeyed the Divine voice the
whole city was moved to turn away from their sins
and as a matter of history
prolonged their existence for the space of more than a hundred years. And no
doubt Jonah’s wonderful experience proved to be as the mighty power of God in
bringing about the result. What a preacher Jonah must have been after that
living burial! The Lord knows when it is worth while to work a miracle; and a
more satisfactory mason for one than is found in this history no man ought to
ask. Jonah was worth saving; the Ninevites were worth saving; the one hundred
and twenty thousand infants especially were worth saving. (E. B. Fairfield
D.D.)
JONAH
INTRODUCTION
IT is very interesting and very instructive to scrutinise the
faces in a great gallery of portraits. The man who does so has before him
materials which should help him to gain a wide knowledge of human character.
Here is a countenance noble and winsome. The spectator is certain that it was a
tender and brave and faithful heart which beat beneath an exterior so fair. Features
like these could not cover any littleness of soul. Perhaps it is a soldier in
his coat of mail
whose likeness the artist has drawn
or it may be a woman’s
face that looks out from the canvas; but whoever it be
the onlooker is glad
that he has seen the picture. But a painting of a different kind attracts him
next--that of one who has evidently had many fierce battles with temptation
and who has not come out of them all scathless. This much the spectator learns
from the sad expression which rests on the features; and yet
as he examines
them more carefully
he sees that dissatisfaction and sorrow are not their most
prominent characteristics. There is peace stamped on the face as well as
trouble--peace which seems in the end to have gained the mastery over the
trouble. There are no portraits like those which have been painted for us in
the pages of the Bible. They have been drawn by the hand of a Master
and they
are very varied in the types of character which they represent. In the goodly
fellowship of the prophets--to think meanwhile of no others--what differences
of natural disposition
and of spiritual attainments
there are I Some
like
Joel
and Amos
and Hosea
are without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.
Beside them we see our own shortcomings
and know what manner of men our Lord
would have us to be. And others
like Jonah
are far from faultless. They are
genuine servants of God
but servants who sin and fall
whose loyalty is not
steadfast and immovable
who carry to this day dark blots on their fair name.
We are encouraged ourselves to make trial of His compassion and His grace. That
Jonah
after his wilful disobedience and foolish querulousness
was healed of
all the diseases of his spirit--that
like many a wayward child
he learned to
sorrow over his self-will
and came home with a penitent and reproachful heart
to his Father’s house--who
of us can doubt? I take it that he was himself the author of the book which
bears his name
though some have thought of it as the embalming by a subsequent
writer of an ancient and venerable tradition. £ I can see no reason for
doubting that the prophet penned with his own hand these four short chapters.
Before his life closed he sat down to recount for the generations that should
follow the story of his memorable journey to Nineveh. And how does he tell the
story? Very humbly
we shall admit
and very impartially. They are bitter
things which he writes in it against himself. He extenuates nothing. He unveils
all his hardness of heart
all his Jewish exclusiveness
all his murmuring
against the Lord. He is relentless in his self-condemnation
whilst over
against the confession of his lack of obedience and of charity he places the
record of God’s loving-kindness and tender mercy. The book exalts God
indeed
and rebukes and punishes Jonah. It is a book of Confessions which Jonah has
written
not an Apologia pro vim sua. He acknowledges publicly the
wrongness of his thinking and acting. When we read his chapters we are reminded
of Peter going out to weep bitterly
and afterwards inspiring the Gospel of
Mark
which tells more fully than any of the other evangelical records how he
sinned and fell; of Augustine
composing the narrative of his foolish youth; of
John Bunyan
declaring how grace had abounded in his experience to the chief of
sinners. Jonah must have been a new man
with a heart within him from which the
old pride and unkindness and disobedience had been driven quite away
before he
could pen the book which bears his name. The Book of Jonah is not like other
prophetic writings. It is not a recital of discourses
but a vivid narrative of
a strange episode in its author’s life. It has been described as a drama in
three acts
each of which is full of interest and replete with instruction.
I. First of all
the prophecy deals with Jonah himself. Very little is known regarding him
beyond what we learn from these chapters. There is
however
one other mention
of him in the Old Testament. We read
in the Second Book of Kings
about
Jeroboam II.
the powerful and able and sinful ruler of the Northern tribes
under whom Amos and Hosea lived and preached
that “he restored the coast of
Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain
according to the
word of the Lord God which He spake by the hand of His servant Jonah
the son
of Amittai
the prophet
who was of Gath-hepher.” Jonah was a native
then
of
Lower Galilee
a child of the tribe of Zabulon
born in a little village among
the hills not far from Nazareth. And his first message as a prophet was a message
of gladness
in which he took delight
and which brought him honour and esteem.
He had foretold the success of the king of Israel
how he should regain
provinces that had been lost
how he should win back for a short space the
glory of his empire. It is strange that one whose ministry began under such
bright auspices should end it under a cloud
and should be presented to us not
as a model but as a beacon. It is a warning to take heed lest we fall--an
illustration of the truth that even the saints of God are weak and brittle in
themselves
in constant danger of losing the crown
and needing always the
support of a higher hand. We can scarcely be surprised that legend should have
busied itself about Jonah
and should have tried to augment our scanty knowledge
of his earlier years. There is the old tradition
for example
that he was the
son of the widow of Zarephath
the boy whom Elijah brought back from death to
life. And indeed it would be pleasant to think that the first apostle of the
Gentiles
sent on a mission of mercy to a heathen people
was himself a Gentile
on the mother’s side; £ and that he stood in so interesting a relation to the
great prophet who fought single-handed the battle of God against Baal. But the
very pleasantness of the fancy is its condemnation. It fits in too neatly with
our preconceptions and desires. Whether
during the years when he lived at home
in the Northern Kingdom
Jonah had other announcements given him to publish to
his countrymen beside that happy announcement of victory and national
enlargement
we cannot say. The time was very evil
and the land was sick unto
death. What we do know is
that to the prophet
dwelling among his own people
there came one day a message from God which startled him
and for which he had
no liking. He was commanded to leave his kindred
and journey to Nineveh
the
capital of the Assyrian empire. There he was to proclaim the Lord’s judgments.
When God pointed in one way
he moved in exactly the opposite direction. What
made him so rebellious? Partly it may have been fear. He was appalled at the
greatness and the hazardous nature of the task allotted him. He forgot that
God’s servants
who do His will
are kept by Him safe in the hollow of His
hand. But there was another reason for his disobedience
as he tells us
himself. He could not help feeling that though he was sent to Nineveh with a
fearful woe on his lips
his mission was in reality one of love. He understood
well that often his God threatened in order that He might afterwards spare
and
that His terrors were meant to drive to Himself
for forgiveness and healing
those who would not be won by gentler methods. And Jonah had no desire to go on
an errand of compassion to Nineveh. A mistaken patriotism prompted him to
recoil from seeking the good of the metropolis of Assyria. He would rather a
thousand times that it should be left to its fate--that it should sink beneath
God’s hand to rise no more for ever. We can sympathise in some measure with
him. We know how the hearts of our own fathers were filled with a stern joy
when the tremendous power of the first Napoleon
which hung like a thundercloud
over Europe
was dispelled and dissipated. They thought it no shame to triumph
in his downfall. The instinct of self-preservation and the love of country
kindled these emotions within them. So it was with Jonah; and indeed he had
even better ground for the feelings he cherished. For Assyria was a heathen
empire
while Israel was the land which God had blessed
the home of His chosen
people. Why should an effort be made to save the foes of the true faith?
Therefore he disobeyed. He thought himself wiser than God. He imagined that he
had the interests of God’s peculiar people more truly at heart. But whither
shall a man go from the Spirit of the Lord? or whither shall he flee from His
presence? If he dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea
even there shall God’s
right hand hold him. The traveller who climbs a high mountain in the tropics
passes through many zones of temperature
leaving the luxuriant vegetation of
the plain to enter a land of pine forests and of colder skies
and finding
himself at length in a region where God giveth snow like wool and casteth forth
His ice like morsels. If we imagine the order reversed
we shall understand the
progress of Jonah’s prayer. It starts from the cold and gloomy wilderness
and
it ends in the bright and warm sunshine. “Salvation is of the Lord
” salvation
even for souls so unworthy as mine--that is the last triumphant note. “The Lord
spake unto the fish
and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” Thus the
first section of the book closes. And this is the truth which it teaches us
the comfortable message which it brings
that the goodness of our God passeth
knowledge. There can be no sin so grieving to Him as the sin of His chosen
servants--those whom He has brought into His kingdom and entrusted with its
high and honourable work. He expects much from them because they have received
much from Him; and
when they disappoint Him
He must be wounded to the very heart.
He must feel their disloyalty
as David felt the treachery of Ahithophel
his
own familiar friend
and the rebellion of Absalom
the son whom he loved most
fondly; as Christ felt the cruelty and faithlessness of Peter
the foremost of
His disciples. Yet He forgives these worst offenders; He restoreth their souls.
Is not this the very acme and climax of His mercy? Is not this what
distinguishes Him from the best of men? They are unwilling to permit a servant
who has failed them once to have an opportunity of retrieving himself; they
will hardly allow him a second chance. Even Paul
the very noblest and
tenderest of the apostles
refused to trust John Mark when he turned away from
the work
and looked askance on him for many a day.
II. So we come to
the second division of the narrative
that which concerns itself with Nineveh.
It is a brief and yet most graphic account which is given us of the grandeur of the
city. Its vast size is described; and the imagination is left to complete the
scene
to fill in the wide area with royal palaces and crowded markets and
vineyards and gardens
to summon up to view the most magnificent of all the
capitals of the ancient world. The city was great
great not only to man’s
thinking but to God’s
for that is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase. Looking
down from heaven upon it
the Lord of all things admired its extent and
stateliness and strength. But He sorrowed over its sin; and He bade His prophet
travel all the way from Israel to warn it of its danger. His injunction
deliberately
slighted at first
was graciously renewed; and
when it came the second time
Jonah made haste and delayed not to keep God’s commandment. It is like what
Josephus tells us of Jesus
the son of Anan
the unlettered rustic from the
wilderness
who shortly before Jerusalem was destroyed burst in upon the people
at the feast of tabernacles with the piercing and oft-repeated cry
“A voice
from the East
a voice from the West
a voice from the four winds
a voice on
the bridegroom and the bride
a voice on the whole people.” The magistrates and
the cold and cynical historian himself thought that there was something
preternatural here. But Jerusalem’s day of grace was past; happily Nineveh’s
was not altogether gone; it was the eleventh hour indeed
yet there was time
still for repentance. And the city knew the things which belonged to its peace.
Critics have sought to throw discredit on the Book of Jonah
because of the
physical miracle of the prophet’s preservation within the great fish which the
book narrates. But it recounts a more wonderful miracle still--the moral
miracle of the sudden and complete repentance of all Nineveh. In part
no
doubt
the reason may be found in the superstitious bent and tendency of their
minds. Like the ancient Athenians
they were very religious. They would listen
eagerly to any word which purported to come from the unseen world. Then
too
they had heard of the God of Israel. They knew something of the marvellous
deeds He had wrought on behalf of His people. They may have felt that
although
He ruled over an alien race
it would be dangerous to disregard a message which
reached them from Him. But Christ hints at a deeper cause for their penitence.
They had learned in one way or in another the miraculous history of Jonah’s mission.
He was “a sign” to them
our Lord affirms. They were aware that he had passed
through death to a new life
in order that he might publish God’s word in their
city; and his deliverance seemed to hold out a prospect of their deliverance
too
if like him they sought pardon and salvation ere it was too late. In this
second part of the tale we read of two repentances--that of Nineveh and that of
God; and the one is consequent on the other. God turns from the infliction of
threatened punishment
because Nineveh turns from its sin. It is always so.
Shallow minds have misunderstood these passages which tell us of God’s
repenting. They have said
“Then He cannot be immutable; He must be fickle and
unstedfast
of one mind to-day
of another mind to-morrow.” Why should there be
such a discrepancy
they have asked
between His words and His deeds--between
His announcement of a purpose of evil and His abstention from the execution of
that purpose? The matter is mysterious; but of this we may be certain
that
there is no caprice in our God. Nay
it is because He is unalterably the same
because His government is so uniformly righteous and just and true
that He
must change His procedure toward men when their relation toward Him is changed.
Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of His throne. If we abhor
ourselves and repent in dust and ashes--if we sorrow over our disobedience with
a godly sorrow--He will lose none of His consistency when He forgives us. He
will remain a just God while He is a Saviour; rather
He will prove Himself a
just God simply because He shows Himself a Saviour.
III. The third
section of the history takes us back to Jonah. We should have supposed that
after the experience through which he had gone
he would never again murmur
against God; but the old nature dies hard in all of us
even in the prophets
and ministers of the Lord. Jonah
with that proud Hebrew heart within him
was
utterly displeased at the result of his mission. He grew weary of life itself.
He prayed Chat he might die. He built a little booth on the hills to the east
of Nineveh
and sat under its shadow for forty days
still hoping for the
worst--sat there
pitiless and revengeful
“till he might see what would become
of the city.” And God was grieved that His child should be of such a mind
and
should foster so carefully a spirit the very opposite of His own. He would cure
him of this bitterness of soul. So He caused a wide-spreading plant--the Palma
Christi
botanists call it--to spring up and cover with its refreshing
shade the prophet’s booth
out there on the hot and parched hillside. But Jonah
had scarcely commenced to rejoice in the welcome shelter when God sent some
destructive insects against the tall and graceful Palmchrist
to strip it of
its leaves and to make it pine away. Now was God’s opportunity. He spoke to His
prophet
not angrily but yet most effectually. He asked him a significant
question. “Thou couldst have pity on a short-lived plant
” He said
which cost
thee nothing
which thou hadst not trained or watered; thou art displeased on
account of its loss; and shall not I
who am Maker and King of all
have
compassion on a great city full of souls that are ready to perish? “Are not
these much better than the gourd?” And Jonah adds not a word more. He drops his
pen when he has recorded God’s tender and pregnant reproof. It is a most
impressive contrast which this Divine question draws between man’s pity and
God’s. We think with kindliness of the objects of the natural world--of the
flowers so blue and golden which are the stars in the firmament of the lower
earth
of the trees which shelter us from the heat of the noonday sun. It is
true that these flowers and trees have but a short life at the longest. It is
true also that we did not call them into being of ourselves. We have not
laboured for them
neither made them to grow. Yet we are interested in them. We
love them after a true fashion. But God
while He forgets none of His works
is
most deeply concerned about His human creatures. Jonah might sorrow over the gourd;
Jonah’s Lord sorrowed over the souls of the Ninevites. It was but one; and they
were many
“a whole cityful” of men and women and children. It had been sent to
him without any thought or toil of his; but God had given them their being;
they were His sons and daughters. He was their Father. Still
it is chiefly for
souls like yours and mine
gifted with many great powers and with an undying
life
that God yearns. Their redemption He accounts precious. To bring about
their salvation He plans and pleads and strives. He has His richest joy when
His children who were dead live again
and when the lost are found. And shall
we not give Him this joy? Shall we not look unto Him and be saved? These
then
are the three parts of the Book of Jonah
The great difficulty in reference to
the book is this:
Is it historical? Is it a narrative of what actually happened? Or is it an
allegory
a fable fraught with important meaning? The strange events which it
describes--did they really occur
or had they an existence only in the mind of
him who wrote them down? To me there is one reason which is sufficient to prove
that these chapters are a true history. Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of them as
such. He declared that the imprisonment of the ancient prophet in the depths of
the sea typified His own death and burial and resurrection. “As Jonas was three
days and three nights in the whale’s belly
” He said
“so shall the Son of Man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The one event was
symbolic of the other. And once again
He affirmed that the men of Nineveh
condemned by their repentance the men of His own generation. But how could He
have instituted such a comparison if Jonah had never passed through the streets
and squares of the Assyrian city
startling its inhabitants from their lethargy
by his terrible cry? Christ must have reckoned this Old Testament prophecy a
reliable narrative of actual occurrences. The great lesson of the book is the
lesson that God loves all men--Greek and Jew
Barbarian and Scythian
bond and
free. The prophet did not think that it was so. With the spiritual pride--the
grudging narrow-mindedness--of his people strong in his breast
he imagined
that only the chosen race was dear to God. He did not dream that Nineveh could
be great in His sight. “He sought the honour of Israel
the son
” an old rabbi
said
“rather than the honour of Jehovah
the Father.” But he was taught the
truth by little and little through the vicissitudes of his history. Let us
believe it and rejoice in it. God would have all men to be saved. His love is
infinite
like Himself. “In every nation he that feareth Him and worketh
righteousness is accepted with Him.” Yes
and oar hearts will show likest His
when they despair of none
and hold aloof from none
and seek and save all.
That is the spirit inculcated upon us by the Gospel of the New Testament; but
the Old Testament
too
is full of the rich
free
evangelical Gospel. It rings
with the same music. (Original Secession Magazine.)
The Book of Jonah
One thing that strikes the careful reader of the Book of Jonah is
its difference from the other books in the canon of Scripture among which it is
classed
and in the midst of which it is placed. It does not consist of any
connected series of prophetic discourses bearing upon the future of God’s
kingdom and the nations of the earth
such as are found in the Books of Hosea
and Amos; neither does it consist of one distinct prophecy
such as that
contained in the Book of Obadiah
by which it is immediately preceded. It rather
bears the character of a history of a special mission to a heathen city
which
was laid upon one of the prophets. The biographical element in it is stronger
than in other prophetic books
and surrounds it with a peculiar interest and
attraction. This position in the canon of Scripture indicates the view taken of
it by those who arranged it; and this view has
with very few exceptions
been
adopted by both the Jewish and Christian Church. In discussing the book we may
first state this view
and then deal with the objections which have been urged
against it. In this old view there is embraced these four points--
1. That the facts it narrates possess a symbolico-typical meaning. If
it had been only the record of events that happened to the prophet in the fulfilment
of a divinely intrusted mission there could be no valid reason for its being
placed among the prophetic books. It would have found a more fitting place in
the historical books
where we have mention of one prophecy that was given
through Jonah. It is in this connection that we have the record of remarkable
incidents in the lives of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha. From its being
found where it is
the Book of Jonah must have been regarded as a practical
prophecy
and the facts which it narrates must have been viewed as invested
with a symbolical and typical meaning. This is the character it has sustained
in the opinion of the great majority of both Jewish and Christian interpreters.
“The book is
” in the language of one who has well expressed this view
” in a
great measure historical
but in such a manner that
in the history itself
there is hidden
the mystery of the greatest prophecy
and that Jonah proves himself to be a
true prophet by the events that happened to him not less than by his utterances.”
It is easy to understand how those facts connected with Jonah’s mission to
Nineveh bore against the exclusiveness and bigoted isolation in which the Jews
shut themselves up. That there was mercy for the Gentile world was taught from
the very first
for the promise to Abraham ran in these terms: “In thee and in thy
seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” But Jonah was the first
to teach it plainly and directly to the Jews
and it was taught himself by the
wonderful incidents connected with his mission to Nineveh. But this is not all
the teaching of the book according to common Christian interpretation. There
was in this mission not only a prefiguring or foreshadowing of the time when
mercy would be extended to the Gentile world
but also a prefiguring of the way in which this was to
be brought about. When Jonah rebels against the communal to go to Nineveh
and
seeks by flight to escape from the duties of his prophetic office
he is
overtaken by a terrific storm. It is only allayed by his being thrown into the
angry waves
and he remained entombed within a living grave beneath the waters
for three days. After his resurrection from this living grave he goes to
Nineveh
the inhabitants of which repent at his preaching and escape the threatened
and impending judgment of God. In this there was a type of Christ’s burial and
resurrection
the subsequent preaching of the Gospel among the nations
and the
conversion of the Gentiles. According to this view
then
there is embodied in
the facts narrated in the book a hidden prophecy of Christ’s work
the meaning
of which was not made plain until He came.
2. Regarded in this light
the book has been received as historically
true. It is in marvellous events which actually took place in the prophet’s own
experience--and not in vision only--that the prophecy lies. Just as in the
birth of Isaac
Samson and Samuel we have a foreshadowing of the miraculous
birth of Christ:
in the death of Abel
and the substitute for Isaac
there was prefigured
Christ’s death. These typical events are all regarded as historical--as having
transpired in the region of actual life
and not in the region of vision.
3. The position of this book in the canon indicates that it belongs
to the earliest or Assyrian period of Scripture prophecy. In the collection of
the minor prophets it is placed among those who prophesied during this period.
Some have even thought that it was placed immediately after Obadiah
because
Jonah was regarded as “the ambassador to the heathen” mentioned in his
prophecy.
4. This assignation of the book to an early period was connected with
the belief that Jonah himself was its author. Objection has been taken to its
historical truthfulness
first
on the ground of the miraculous element
contained in it. As might have been anticipated
it became a special object of
attack on the part of those who sought to explain Scripture narratives on
rationalistic principles and to eliminate from them the element of the
supernatural Some at first were disposed to regard it as a Jewish adaptation of
heathen legends about the deliverance of heroes from sea monsters. But it was
soon perceived that this account of the story was an absurd one
and that there
was not the slightest probability of its being derived either mediately or immediately
from heathen fables. The likelihood is all the other way
if there is any
connection at all between them. The fact that Jerome states that near Joppa lay
rocks which were pointed out to him as those to which Andromache was bound when
exposed to the sea monster gives some maintenance to the thought that the story
of Jonah may have passed through Phoenicia in corrupted form to Greece. Modern
rationalists incline to the view that it is simply a parable or tale designed
to teach an important lesson. It is not regarded by them as a record of actual
events
but simply as a parable or myth attached to a historical name by which
are inculcated truths important for the age in which it was written. All
miracles
either in actual event or in prophetical intimation
are taken out of
it. The design of the book
which on this view must have been written long
after the time of Jonah
was simply to teach Israel lessons that were being too
much forgotten
and not to foreshadow or foretell any coming event. Ewald thinks
that it was designed to show how the true fear of God and repentance bring
salvation
first in the case of the heathen sailors
then in the case of Jonah
and lastly in the case of the Ninevites. Block conceives it to have been
written by an intelligent liberal-minded Jew for the purpose of exposing the
narrow religious particularism which prevailed among his countrymen. It was
as
we have mentioned
the miraculous element in the book that
in the first instance
led to the
adoption of this theory Not only does it record miracles
but
without an
understanding of the prophet’s design
miracles of the most strange and
startling description. It is a true principle that God never wastes His
power--never works any miracles except for purposes worthy of Himself. But in
this circumscribed view of the book there appears to be a useless expenditure
of miraculous power. These lessons could surely have been taught without the
prophet’s being required to pass through such wonderful experiences. Even to
those who have no philosophical objections to miracles in themselves
the
working of such miracles for this end can hardly but appear uncalled for and
unnecessary. But when we view the book as essentially a practical prophecy
designed to prefigure by typical events the burial and resurrection of Christ
and through this the opening of the gates of mercy to the Gentile world
there
can be no difficulty on the part of any who believe miracles possible to accept
those recorded here as true. No one will venture to say that Jonah’s
preservation in the belly of the great fish
and his remarkable deliverance
viewed as charged with typical and prophetical meaning
was an unnecessary
exhibition of Divine power. No one will venture to say either that the
miraculous growth and miraculous destruction of the gourd was needless--if by
it God’s mercy to the heathen world was vindicated
and its truth placed in the
very forefront of the prophetic writings. Many have thought
not without
reason
that in this book we have the oldest written prophecy
and that it is
because this truth is so prominent here that it is so conspicuously exhibited
in all subsequent prophetic writings. It gives the keynote to them all
and
as
serving this purpose
the miracles recorded in it cannot be regarded as useless
manifestations of supernatural power. The miracles themselves too have
oftentimes been so presented as to make faith as difficult as possible. It is
not everyone that can say that though it had been recorded that Jonah had
swallowed the whale it would not have affected or shaken their faith in the
story. Faith
though it may soar high above reason
cannot accept what plainly
contradicts its teachings and exceeds the utmost bounds of possibility.
Attempts have been made to show that it is altogether impossible for the
whale--which is the fish spoken of by our Lord when referring to the sign of
Jonas--to have accomplished the feat here ascribed to it unless some remarkable
change had been affected upon its structure. Some have allowed these attempts
to weigh so much with them that they have intensified the miracle by insisting
either that this change was affected or that a special fish was created by God
for the emergency. The miracle proper seems to have consisted in the
preservation of Jonah in his living grave for three days
and then being
vomited unhurt upon the land. The sudden growth and destruction of the gourd
becomes
on closer examination
merely a supernatural quickening of the power
of nature. But objections have been taken to the old view of the book
not only
on the ground of its miraculous element
but also on the ground of its literary
construction and features. It bears a resemblance to the myths or parables that
spring up in the course of a nation’s literature and become attached to
historical names. An example of this may be found in the tales which have
gathered around our Saxon King Arthur
in the last development of which by
Tennyson there is believed to be embodied moral and spiritual truth. Because of
this resemblance this book is assigned to this class of literary production. On
this view it must have been written as a parable with the design of rebuking
the narrowness and exclusiveness of the Jewish people. The cause of its being
connected with Jonah may have been some tradition of his having beau sent to
Nineveh on an errand of mercy. In regard to this view of the book we may note
that were it thoroughly established it would not destroy its prophetic value.
The parable
instead of the actual miraculous events
as in the old view
would
become prophetic. It would teach the boundless mercy of God
by prefiguring the
burial and resurrection of Christ
the subsequent calling of the Gentiles
and
their reception into the kingdom of God. “It would be
” as has been said
“an
epitome of prophecy
of the mediatorial work of Christ.” The difficulties in
the way of accepting this new critical view seem to us many and insurmountable.
I. We cannot
regard the argument from the literary construction of the books of the Bible
and their resemblance to the literary works of other nations as very safe or
conclusive. It may be quite valid and conclusive for those who accept the Bible
simply as the growth of Hebrew literature--simply as the product of the
national mind and consciousness in the various stages of its growth and decay;
but not for those who accept it as a supernatural revelation of the God of the Hebrews. The
supernatural element not only in narrative
experience
and prophecy
but also
in the very composition itself
must be taken into account. This puts a vast
difference between the literature of the nation of Israel
along the whole line
of its history
and the literature of any other nation. It is a growth
but it
is not the product of genius or mere piety. It is the result of a continued
revelation and inspiration. To refer again to King Arthur
the growth of
legends around his name has led many to question if he was a historical person
at all
and we cannot believe that God would give countenance to anything that
would tend to lead to this confusion. The employment of parables in itself is
not wrong
for Christ Himself frequently took advantage of this mode of
instruction. But it was always done by Him openly
and so that His hearers
understood that His statements were parabolical. There was no difficulty in
distinguishing between the parts of His teaching that were parabolical and
those parts which were historical. He never attached any of His parables to
historical names.
II. We may say that
this new view of the book tends to shake our faith in other historical parts of
Scripture. It bears a resemblance
both in its form and contents
to the
narratives of remarkable incidents in the lives of Elijah and Elisha. If this
be a parable
why may we not regard the others as possessing the same mythical
character?
III. This book bears
many marks of being authentic history. It is
indeed
fragmentary
and does not
furnish us with full information on all points about which our curiosity is
aroused. It does not tell us anything about Jonah’s life and labours previous
to his call to go to Nineveh. It does not tell us anything about the spot where
he was vomited by the fish upon the dry land
nor describe his journey to
Nineveh; and some have seen in this evidence that it is not true history
but fable.
“But
” as Keil has remarked
“the assertion that completeness in all external
circumstances which would serve to gratify curiosity rather than help to an
understanding of the true facts of the case
is indispensable to the truth of
any historical narrative
is one which might expose the whole of the historical
writings of antiquity to criticism
but can never shake their truths. There is
not a single one of the ancient historians in whose works such completeness as
this can be found; and still less do the Biblical historians aim at
communicating such things as have no close connection with the main object of
the narrative
or with the religious significance of the facts themselves.”
This lack of detail in the narrative may also be accounted for by its prophetic
character. It is not the
design of the writer simply to give a historical account of Jonah’s mission to
Nineveh
but to present those incidents in connection with it which have a
typical and prophetical signification. But while the narrative is by no means
complete
there seems to us to be an unmistakable touch of reality in the
experience of Jonah as here described. In the description of his feelings and
conduct
when the call came to him to go to Nineveh; in his prayer in his
wonderful grave; and in the record of his feelings and conduct under the
unwished for and disappointing success of his mission
there is something so
strange and yet so natural as to place them outside the domain of fiction. And
when the narrative touches upon points on which any light can be thrown by the
researches into antiquity
these researches have confirmed its truthfulness.
The attempt to show from the statement in the third verse of the third chapter
“and
Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey
” that the
greatness of Nineveh was a thing of the past when the book was written
has
been perfectly futile. The plain meaning of the words is
as granted even by the
rationalistic critics themselves
that Nineveh was a city of vast dimensions
when Jonah reached it
in the prosecution of his heaven-given mission. Its
dimensions as thus indicated have been found to correspond with the description
of ancient profane historians
and with recent examination of the ruins of this
city. The command too
issued by the King of Assyria
in proclaiming a national
fast to put sackcloth on the beasts and flocks and make them fast
is quite in
accordance with the customs which are known to have prevailed in the ancient
Persian Empire. The book thus bears traces of having been written by one who
had seen Nineveh in its greatness and glory
and who had gained some
acquaintance with its customs.
IV. We would simply
mention that the book was received as historical by the Jews. The fact is
indisputable
whatever weight may be attached to it in determining its literary
character.
V. The book was
regarded as historical by our Lord Himself. In this reference there is also
established the reality of the marvellous circumstances attending the mission.
He Speaks to us of Jonah’s being in the belly of the great fish as a sign
σημεῖον
a term which is often applied to His own miraculous deeds
in
which
through deliverance from bodily diseases
was typified His great work of
spiritual salvation. It was thus spoken of by Him as a real miracle
and
designed by God to be a type of the still greater miracle of His own
resurrection. And receiving the book as historical
the most likely author is
Jonah himself. The objection against assigning it to so early a period because
of the Aramaic colouring of its language has been so admirably dealt with by
Dr. Payne Smith that we will conclude by quoting his answer to it. “This
argument proves nothing; for scholars are not by any means agreed whether these
Aramaisms belong or not to the declining age of Jewish literature
or whether
they may not have been the patois or vernacular dialect of the country people.
There is very much to make it probable that pure Hebrew was the language only
of people of the highest caste
the kings and princes
the priests and prophets of
Jerusalem
or at most of Judah; and that the mass of the people spoke Aramaic
or a debased Hebrew full of Aramaic words. Even with us many phrases which
strike us as Americanisms are thoroughly good English forms
which
however
have not been used in literature
but belong to certain country districts
where
if some poet had arisen
or writer of repute
they would
from his
pages
have won their way into the language of scholars. Now
Jonah was of
Gath-hepher
a village far away to the North in the tribe of Zabulon. If he had
used no words except such as were employed by Isaiah
critics might with good
reason have disputed the authenticity of the book. They might fairly have said
‘This book was not written by a man brought up in the provinces
but by one of
the literati of Jerusalem; some practised hand there has employed the
legend of Jonah as a vehicle for much pleasing instruction
and has constructed
out of it a very admirable allegory.’“ (R. Morton.)
Is the Book of Jonah true history?
Let us examine the question critically
but fairly: Was there ever such a
man as Jonah? I answer
there is just as good evidence of his being a real
personality as is found in the case of any other of the prophets; and if we
assume him to be a mythical character we may as well make a like assumption
respecting almost any other personality brought before us in the Old Testament.
He is distinctly mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25. Here he is mentioned
in an incidental way (which is the most convincing); his father’s name is also
given
and he is designated as “the prophet.” The identification is complete.
He is also spoken of in Tobit
one of the apocryphal books
dating about 200
b.c. But far overtopping all other evidence
and in itself of sufficient force
to settle any question whatever with those who accept the New Testament history
and Christ’s commission as the Son of God
is what is recorded in Matthew 12:38-41
and also in Luke 11:29-32. Let the reader please
notice that Christ does not say
“as Jonah was represented as
” etc.
as
if this book were a fictitious story. Neither does He refer to any moral lesson
that this book might be intended to teach; but He simply refers to the facts
recorded in the book. That Christ believed and accepted the genuineness and
truthfulness of this history is too plain for argument. And was He mistaken in
regard to it? If He did not know
what becomes of His Messiahship? Did Christ
refer to some Munchausen fiction when He gave Jonah’s history to the generation
in which He lived as an infallible sign of His Messiahship; and that He should
rise from the dead on the third day? Are we to compare the whole teaching of
the Gospel respecting Christ’s resurrection to Gulliver’s travels? That is just
what Christ Himself did if there be only a wild piece of fiction in the Book of
Jonah. As it was with Jonah
so shall it be with the Son of Man
says Christ.
Whoever makes Jonah to be a dream makes the resurrection of Christ to be also a
dream. I call attention to the form of introducing the book as being the same which is found in
other books of the prophecies. For example
“the word of the Lord that came
unto Hosea
the son of Beeri”; “the word of the Lord that came unto Joel
the
son of Pethuel”; “the word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah
the son of
Cushi”; “the word of the Lord unto Zechariah
the son of Berechiah”; and so
“the word of the Lord that came unto Jonah
the son of Amittai.” The writer of
this book evidently intended that the reader should accept it as genuine
history; and he is justly chargeable with intentional deception if it is not
so. I may state further that the Jews always regarded this book as true history
(Josephus
9:11.
sec. 2). And so the Christian Church has esteemed it such with great unanimity.
One who spends hours and days in the catacombs of Rome sees the representation
of this history on the walls many times repeated. I come in the next place to
argue for the truth of this history from what it says about Nineveh. And this
Book of Jonah has been illuminated and illustrated and substantiated by the
discoveries of the nineteenth century
so that what sceptics used to say about
it no one would think of saying now. They argued up to 1841 that there could
not possibly have been such a city as is described in this book
because the
historians and geographers (Strabo
Diodorus Siculus
and Ptolemy) made no
mention of it
and certainly they would have spoken of it if there had been a
city of three days’ journey around it; and one containing one hundred and
twenty thousand infants who did not know their right hand from their left. So
they said
Alexander would have found it and fought it. But what now? This
city
after having been buried up for more than twenty-five hundred years
was
discovered in 1841; and every competent judge knows now that it was as large as
this book represents it. It might easily have contained more than one hundred
and twenty thousand infants. Marvellous are the testimonies of these uncovered
monuments at Nineveh; and only a small part
probably
of the whole is yet in
our hands. But already Hiram
king of Tyre
1000 b.c.
is recognised in these
records at Nineveh. Benhadad and Jehu
900 b.c.
Hezekiah
king of Judah
Sennacherib and Lachish reappear. Demonstrations of high civilisation but
monumental wickedness abound. We understand now why the Greek historians and the
Roman say nothing about great Nineveh. Simply because they knew nothing about
it. For although it was spared more than one hundred and fifty years after
Jonah’s day
it had been blotted out more than three hundred years before
Alexander was born; more than two hundred years before Herodotus was born;
nearly three hundred years before Xenophon was born; more than five hundred
years before Ptolemy
Diodorus Siculus
or Strabo had learned their alphabet.
It had been founded more than 2000 b.c. In Genesis 10:11 we read
“Out of that land
went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh.” It was standing in the day of its
greatest glory in Jonah’s time. It was finally destroyed about 713 b.c.
in
accordance with the terrible words of prophecy uttered by Nahum. For two years
it was besieged by the Medes and Babylonians
and at that time was completely
devastated. Herodotus passed over the site two hundred and fifty years later
but makes no mention of even any visible ruins. Neither does Xenophon. Is it
incredible that Jonah should have been sent to such a city on such an errand of
mercy? Is it incredible that he should have hesitated to undertake the mission?
Is it incredible that he should have taken a ship for Joppa? He was born only
sixty miles from that city
at Gath-hepher. Is it incredible that a storm
should have overtaken him? It was in those same waters that Paul went through
the trying experiences narrated in the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth
chapters of Acts. Is there anything incredible in the account of the sailors
praying to their respective gods? Is there anything incredible in a sea monster
following a ship
ready to swallow a man if he should be thrown overboard? This
story is often spoken of as the story of “Jonah and the whale
” but the Hebrew
word “dagh” is one of wide import. Our translation in the Old Testament calls
it “a great fish”; in the New Testament it is called a “whale.” Just five years
ago in the Chicago Inter-Ocean
vouched for by the editors
was a
communication from a sea captain
saying that it was a mistake to maintain that
the “great fish” could not have been a whale; and he went on to say that he had
no interest in defending Jonah
or in defending our New Testament translation;
but in the interest of natural science and of simple truth he stated that
having been for some years the captain of a whaling vessel
he knew that the
sperm-whale could easily swallow a man whole; that one member of his crew
weighing one hundred and seventy pounds
had repeatedly crawled through a
whale’s throat (different whales at different times) as the throat lay on the
deck of the ship. And then he proceeded to narrate a particular case of
personal experience in which a man weighing one hundred and sixty-five pounds
was one of his helpers; and one day they were in an exciting chase after some
whales
when one of the boats was struck by one of the whales and the men were
thrown out. All of them were successful in getting back into the boat save one
whom they missed on calling the roll after they had captured the monster they
were pursuing. They gave him up for lost; but on cutting up the whale the next
day they found him inside--unconscious
but alive. He was restored
and was
still living
and was following his vocation at the time the captain wrote.
Courbet
in Cosmos
of March 7
1895
writes (and let the reader observe
that this is not “a fish story” by a romancer
nor “a sailor’s yarn
” but the
report of a scientific expedition; and such substantially are all the
testimonies which I quote):
“The discoveries of the Prince of Monaco were such as to relieve me of all
difficulty in believing the Bible story that a whale swallowed Jonah.” A writer
in the Academy of Sciences--M. Joubin--says: “A sperm whale can easily swallow an animal
taller and heavier than a man.” And he adds: “The animals when swallowed can keep alive
some time in the whale’s stomach.” Lyman Abbott is reported as stirring up the
mirth of his congregation a while ago by alluding to the “half-digested man
Jonah.” But if Lyman Abbott will study physiology a little he will learn that
although the gastric fluid is a remarkably powerful solvent
capable of
dissolving many solid substances
yet it has no power whatever over living
substances. And if he used a very little logic
superadded to his physiology
he would see that unless this were true the gastric fluid would at once assail
the coats of the stomach itself
and render all animal life impossible. This is
one of those wonderful proofs of the Divine wisdom in the working of living
organisms. Jonah must first die before digestion could even begin. If we deny
all miracles
then we must away with all revelation and all the supernatural.
“But
” says one
“I am prepared to admit miracles wherever there is a
justifying reason; but what reason is there here?” Think a moment; think a
moment. Here was a wicked city going to destruction. God so loved them that He
bade His servant give them warning; and when he obeyed the Divine voice the
whole city was moved to turn away from their sins
and as a matter of history
prolonged their existence for the space of more than a hundred years. And no
doubt Jonah’s wonderful experience proved to be as the mighty power of God in
bringing about the result. What a preacher Jonah must have been after that
living burial! The Lord knows when it is worth while to work a miracle; and a
more satisfactory mason for one than is found in this history no man ought to
ask. Jonah was worth saving; the Ninevites were worth saving; the one hundred
and twenty thousand infants especially were worth saving. (E. B. Fairfield
D.D.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》