Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy

The Gospel According to Jonah

Bryan D. Estelle

• Publisher: P Publishing
• Year: 2005
• Print ISBN: 9780875526560
• eBook ISBN: 9781629955223
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Estelle presents the book of Jonah as part of the unfolding, unified story of redemption. Readers interested in how the Old Testament points toward Christ will appreciate this study.

CHAPTER ONE

ORIENTATION

Heaven have mercy on us all—Presbyterians and Pagans alike—for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending. (Herman Melville, Moby Dick)

The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai . . . (Jonah 1:1)

DATE AND COMPOSITION

Modern men and women often possess an arrogant attitude toward the people who have gone before them. This is especially the case with respect to antiquity. C. S. Lewis called this the chronological fallacy: a mode of thinking that is dismissive of ideas simply because they are not new. Ancient men and women, it is alleged, had no capacity for abstraction and metaphor and must have been simpletons accepting everything in a literalistic manner. Doubtless, it is assumed by many as well that the ancients had no facility for beauty, aesthetics, or superior taste. Such notions betray an arrogance that is pitiable in many modern minds.

We live in an age that often does not appreciate the past and the lessons to be learned there. That requires sitting still for long periods of reading, not something in which our culture is very proficient. Our hectic velocity of life drives us to search the Internet for information while gaining only a superficial knowledge about many things, but is this natural? Studying the past, let alone the art of writing about past events, requires slow and careful reading and is essential to a proper understanding of the Bible.

This very common modern neglect impoverishes our cultural lives, and when it spills over into our reading of the Bible, it will impoverish our appreciation of the riches of Scripture as well. Understanding the Bible correctly entails that we exert a little effort to understand the past, even a very ancient past.

For its mere forty-eight verses, the book of Jonah has attracted a stunning amount of attention from the scholarly community. Yet, despite all the discussion, very little consensus exists on introductory matters such as when Jonah was written. Dating a biblical book, if one is confidently able to do so, is important because dating could alter the interpretation of the book’s contents.

From the perspective of the book of Jonah as it comes to us, the events related are portrayed as occurring in the eighth century b.c. In other words, this is the historical context in which the author wished to portray the events he describes. The biblical narrative here is often very selective, artistically arranged, and didactic. In other words, it is not merely a journalistic reporting of events; on the contrary, the narrative is describing and interpreting the events that are being reported. It is typical in this day to pit historical narration over and against artistic literary arrangement. Consider, for example, the following questions asked by one recent commentator on Jonah: “Is it [i.e., Jonah] a prophetic story like those of Elijah, clearly intending to narrate actual facts? Or is it a fictional tale like that of Job, intended to express theological verities in artistic language?”¹ Many commentators recognize that Jonah has similarities with the records of Elijah and Elisha. Even so, this kind of statement is problematic at a number of levels that space limitations do not allow me to discuss at the present time. However, at least one thing this statement seems to be doing (among others) is placing the issues of historical narration and artistic representation on the horns of an unnecessary dilemma. This is wrong, as we will see later.

We know the author wished to portray the events as occurring in the eighth century b.c. because of the very first verse, which alludes to “Jonah ben Amittai” (Jonah the son of Amittai). According to 2 Kings 14:25, the prophetic words of Jonah son of Amittai were fulfilled during the reign of King Jeroboam II (786–746 b.c.). Of course this does not prove that the prophet and the king were immediate contemporaries. Nor does it prove that Jonah himself wrote the book of Jonah (contra E. J. Young). Nowhere does the book declare that Jonah wrote it. What can we say confidently, then, about the book’s composition?

While the book has been dated as early as the eighth century, it definitely cannot be dated any later than the third century b.c. because it is mentioned in an apocryphal work entitled Ben Sira, usually dated to approximately 180 b.c. Attempts at reaching a firm conclusion about both the date and the composition of this little prophetical book are made more difficult by many other complex issues: our present knowledge of ancient languages, the genre to which the book belongs, historical awareness of the ancient world, and pinpointing the book’s specific audience. If language alone were the sole criterion, then the book was probably composed during a late period, since the stage of Hebrew represented is most likely very late according to our current understanding of the development of Hebrew. However, dating books on linguistic criteria alone is a risky endeavor, and the results of such studies are often debatable for a number of other reasons. In short, beyond the portrayal by the author (i.e., the events described occur during the eighth century b.c.), the book of Jonah does not assign a specific date or author to its composition.

So then, dating the composition of the book should not be an orthodox litmus test for a preacher or teacher of this masterful short story. The didactic message of this sacred history—a history which is also selective, artistic, and covenantal—communicates effectively and accurately despite the differences of opinion with respect to dating, authorship, and composition. Even so, a bird’s-eye perspective of Israel’s situation in the unfolding developments of God’s plan for his people at the time represented in the biblical story may provide a very important interpretative grid through which a reader may understand the book of Jonah.

Although the author situates the book against a broad historical backdrop, some scholars have attempted to suggest a more precise date for the composition of the book of Jonah based on the probable presence of questions of theodicy.² Theodicy is literally the “justification of God.” Often the term arises in theological and philosophical discussions when the problem of evil and suffering is under consideration. Specifically, some scholars suggest possible dates for Jonah as sometime following the fall of the capital of the Northern Kingdom (i.e., 722 b.c.) when questions of theodicy probably surfaced. The remaining Israelites may have asked themselves if all this suffering could really be part of God’s sovereign plan. Could Israel’s own covenant God allow Assyria (Israel’s enemy) to do this to God’s chosen people?

While this is a possible scenario, the fact of the matter is that God’s people have dealt with, and will have to wrestle with, questions of theodicy in every age. Suffering is part and parcel of the existence of God’s pilgrim people in this life. Furthermore, a precise date of composition is not crucial for our understanding of the book, nor does predicating an “early” date give further weight to the historical veracity of the material reported in the book. In the final analysis, the date of composition, although possibly enhancing our understanding of the book, does not matter a great deal to the ultimate theological message or the issue of the historicity of the book of Jonah. If that were the case, then “much of that which we read in our history books would rest on shaky ground indeed.”³

Although these and other issues could be discussed in great detail, it is quite outside the aims of this series to do so (see the foreword by Tremper Longman and Alan Groves). Instead, broader features of the setting as portrayed by the author of the book of Jonah can and should be discussed.

First, the way in which Jonah is introduced in the Hebrew text indicates that the prophet was a figure who was already known to the audience or at least had been mentioned previously. In other words, Jonah is an established figure given the manner in which he is introduced in Hebrew idiom. This is an insuperable fact with which commentators wrestle in various ways.

Second, an appreciation of what Assyria (and hence Nineveh, the great city of the Assyrians) meant to Israel may help the reader understand the book of Jonah better. If we assume that the perspective of the book is the eighth century b.c., then Assyria probably had been, or currently was, and more than likely soon would be a threat against Israel. Since the book is portrayed from the perspective of the time when Jonah the son of Amittai mentioned in 2 Kings was probably active (in the reign of Jeroboam II, i.e., 786–746 b.c.), it is important to note that Assyria had already exacted tribute from another earlier Israelite king named Jehu (842–815 b.c.). In fact, Jeroboam II was the fourth king in Jehu’s dynasty.

Jehu, a king of Israel, eradicated (at least outwardly) Baal worship from Israel (see especially 2 Kings 9 and 10). Because of this work, God said he would reward Jehu’s dynasty for four generations (i.e., down to Jeroboam II; 2 Kings 10:30). King Jehu is represented on the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.) from Kalhu. This Assyrian obelisk is well preserved and may be seen at the British Museum in London (copies may be seen in some American universities as well). The obelisk serves as a symbol of Assyrian expansionistic policies shortly before the time in which Jonah prophesied. At one place on the obelisk the subjugation of Jehu is depicted. The obelisk reads in the Akkadian language, “I [Shalmaneser] received the tribute of the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, and of Jehu, son of Omri.”⁴ The crucial point is this: Assyria as a threatening neighboring superpower during the eighth century b.c. was probably still a recent and ominous memory in the collective conscience of the Israelites.

Furthermore, even though Assyria’s former power and glory had receded temporarily at the time of Jeroboam II’s reign, the time at which some of Jonah’s prophecies were fulfilled, the Assyrian superpower was soon to return to and even exceed its former position of power and expansion. The prophecies of Hosea and Amos, for example, predicted imminent disaster at the hands of the Assyrians. In fact, in 743 b.c. and the following years, when Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 b.c.) and his sons Shalmaneser V (726–722) and Sargon II (721–705) reigned, there would be a reassertion of Assyrian power against neighbors to the west (e.g., Israel). As is well known, the Northern Kingdom of Israel and its capital Samaria were destined to fall to the mighty Assyrians in 722 b.c. It is well nigh impossible, therefore, to imagine that any Israelite during or after this time—including a period when Assyria receded from expansionistic policies to shore up her strongholds—would have had a neutral emotional reaction when the name of Assyria was mentioned.

THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF ISRAEL AND COVENANT INFIDELITY

Although a specific date of composition cannot be assigned to the book of Jonah, we can determine a broader historical view from the perspective of the book as we have received it. The little book of Jonah forces the reader right at the beginning to ask the question, “Why is Jonah, a prophet of God, called to go to a Gentile nation, when the mission of most of the prophets of Israel and Judah (though not exclusively) is to prophesy to or against God’s chosen people, that is, Israel and Judah?” In other words, “Why is Jonah commissioned to go to a foreign nation rather than to his own people?” Furthermore, “What is the relationship between Israel and the nations at this time in history?”

Many have tried to respond to these questions by asserting a kind of universalism (defined as communicating God’s compassion for the nations outside of Israel) that pervades the book of Jonah. This answer, however, as pointed out many years ago by Edmund Clowney, is only superficially satisfying.⁵

We need to stand back and distinguish the forest from the trees before we begin looking at the details of the book. We need to ask what the big picture was with respect to God’s interactions with the people of Israel at that time in history. By doing so, we are not in danger of reading a message into Jonah that is not there; on the contrary, we are recognizing that discerning a broad context can help us understand the particulars and details of the book. Also, we are sensitizing ourselves to the particular period of redemptive history in which the contents of this book are portrayed. This is one of the first and necessary important steps in the process of interpretation.

Let the reader understand that this is a different issue than determining exactly who the intended audience is. Since the exact date of composition is unknown, the answer to that question is that the intended audience is simply God’s people in each successive generation. The book of Jonah was intended for God’s people in ancient Israel, and it was intended for God’s people after Christ came. Even so, we are about to embark on another important preliminary task: we are going to determine in broad strokes what God’s relationships with his people and with the Gentiles were during the period in which the author has placed the events described.

God’s relationship with his chosen people is the lens through which one may understand the history of Israel correctly. To state it simply, the essence of God’s relationship with his people can be summed up in a word: covenant. A covenant may be broadly defined as a commitment with divine sanctions.⁶ Biblical covenants often have solemn oaths attached to them. God promises to be the God of Israel, and the Israelites promise to be exclusively his people.

Jonah’s commission in chapter 1 must be understood against the backdrop of the Mosaic covenant. However, the Mosaic covenant must in turn be understood against the backdrop of the patriarchs, particularly the covenant with Abraham. In what is often alluded to by theologians as the covenant of grace, God promised that all the peoples on the earth would be blessed through Abraham’s seed (Gen. 12:1–3; 18:18; 22:18). Here is eschatology already present in God’s dealings with his people. That is, it is forward-looking. Clowney states this felicitously:

Even in the Abrahamic period of revelation there comes, along with the development of particularism of grace, a revelation that in Abraham’s seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed. The setting up of the seed of Abraham is a particularistic means to a universal end of blessing. Even in this period it is to be noted that this blessing has an eschatological position. It is connected with the seed (Gen. 17:7), which, as Paul reminds us, is not the many, but the one, that coming One whose day Abraham saw and was glad (Gal. 3:16).⁷

Some recent commentators on the book of Jonah have stated that “expl...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. Orientation
• 2. The Runaway Prophet (1:1–3)
• 3. Pandemonium aboard the Ship (1:4–6)
• 4. Prophet Overboard (1:7–16)
• 5. Into the Fish’s Belly (1:17)
• 6. Prayer from the Depths: Part 1 (2:1–6a)
• 7. Prayer from the Depths: Part 2 (2:6b–9)
• 8. Lessons on Repentance (2:10–3:10)
• 9. The Final Debate (4:1–11)
• Postscript
• Notes
• For Further Reading
• Index of Scripture