Thursday, 07 August 2008
-
The Practical Jonah 1:1-3
Edit. (And thanks to Elessar_Telemnar for his translation and commentary).
Okay. First of all, let's set a couple of things straight. As Elessar mentions in his commentary below, the book of Jonah may or may not be a literal historical record. We can debate about that, but the messages of Jonah remain the same whether it's allegorical or hisorical. I do believe that Jonah is a historical person because he is mentioned in 2 Kings, which is a historical book, but he wouldn't have been the only spiritual leader to use a parable or two in his prophecy.
Disclaimer number two: Let's get it straight here and now that it doesn't matter if it was a whale or a "great fish God created for this purpose." Correct me if I'm wrong, but, 1) I don't think the Hebrews had a complex taxonomical system for giant sea creatures, and 2) I don't think Jonah would have been an expert on that system if it did exist.
Okay. Here we go. It turns out that Jonah 1:1-10 is a pretty long study. I'm going to shorten it to 1-3. Next time, I'll do 4-9. This is in the attempt to stick to more of a "digest" format to accomodate busy lives (and, hopefully, not turn off A.D.D. readers like myself). Anyway, here it is.
1 And it happened that the word of the Lord came to Jonah[1], son of Amittai[2] saying:
2 Arise(!)[3], go(!)and speak (!) against it because their wickedness has ascended before me.[4] 3 And Jonah rose to flee from the face of the Lord towards a distant port[5]and went down to Joffa[6] and found a ship bound for a distant port and paid for his passage and went down in it in order to go to a distant port from the face of the Lord.[7]
[1] Name means “dove”. There is a large amount of debate on whether or not these events occurred or not. I think that it is more meaningful as a story than as a historical event, but everyone has their own opinion. Making it a historical event robs the story of it’s fantastic-ness, because if it is a historical event then everything must be plausible. Seems better to me to find the truths conveyed by the story rather than make it conform to “fact”.
[2] Name means “my truth”. It is possible that “son of my truth” is an indication of status or position rather than parentage.
[3] The parenthetical exclamation point indicates emphatic imperative.
[4] Or “has risen up to my face”.
[5] This word is commonly translated as a proper noun – Tarshish – but the word literally means “a distant port”. It is possible, as some have suggested, that it refers to a port in Spain (Tyrian sailors are known to have traveled as far as Britian), but I prefer to leave it open.
[6] Near modern Tel Aviv.
[7] The idea here is based on the belief that deities are local. If Jonah wants to flee from the face of the Lord (i.e. the Lord’s presence), the best thing to do is get as far from the land of Israel as possible. Important things to note: (1) Jonah is not fleeing the assignment per se but God’s presence, (2) Jonah’s choice to flee by sea indicates complete disobedience as Nineveh is in the east and the sea is to the west, and (3) the choice of boat indicates desperation because the sea was generally feared by the Hebrew people. The slower but safer choice would have been to join a caravan, but Jonah needed to escape fast.
We know the basic story here, and the commentary reenforces it. God emphatically ordered Jonah to go to Nineveh to prophecy (speak against it) because of their wickedness, and Jonah went quickly in the other direction.
There are a couple of things to point out here.
For one thing, as Elessar indicates, the sea was generally feared by the Hebrews. However, not only did Jonah choose the sea over a land route; he chose to sail a very long way. This was both more dangerous and more expensive. In addition to showing the depth of Jonah's disobedience, it shows him using his money (which was considerable enough to buy passage on a long voyage) in active disobedience of God.
The main point I wanted to make, however, is that this passage shows the depth and breadth of God's compassion for, and willingness to commune with, all of humanity. Nineveh was the most important city in Assyria and would soon be the capital of the Assyrian empire (which would eventually conquer and enslave Israel, the northern kingdom). The Assyrians, to paraphrase the prophet Nahum, were lecherous and cruel. They were hated by the Israelites. In every way, they were the enemy. Yet this is where God told Jonah to go and prophecy. None that this was not to be a condemnation. This was to be a warning. That implies a willingness to forgive. As we find out later, that's one of the main reasons Jonah didn't go. Like much of Israel, he didn't want Gentiles, and especially enemies of God, to receive God's blessing and forgiveness. It's very easy under the current conditions of American society to forget that God loves everyone and has tried on several occasions to save those who have cursed and insulted him - most frequently his own people.
1. Think of a person or group of people who, for whatever reason, you just can't stand. What if God ordered you to act on his love for him/her/them? Guess what? He has.
2. Jonah was so wrapped up in his own hypocrisy that he disobeyed God rather than give God's warning to the enemies of Israel. This is a practical example of how hatred and prejudice can actively lead one into sin and hinder the breadth of the Gospel's impact. Don't let it happen to you.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to Mr_Booth's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in Mr_Booth's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (4)
The general rule of biblical interpretation is to interpret each document as a whole, and each portion of text within the document, as it most naturally demands to be interpreted. The book of Jonah nowhere indicates that it should be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically, and reads most naturally as historical narrative. Elessar's comment that everything must be "plausible" in historical narrative and thus it is "more meaningful" if we interpret it allegorically is troubling to me. 1) We don't get to decide what the Bible means based on how we think it would be most appealing. 2) There's no reason to assume that the seemingly fantastical elements of the account are allegorical simply because they're unusual. Rather than seeing the big fish event as a metaphor, its most natural reading assumes it was a real, and miraculous, event.
Furthermore, Jesus speaks of Jonah as though the events actually took place. In Luke 11:29-32, Jesus refers to Jonah's fish-dwelling experience as a "miraculous sign," and speaks of the Ninevites' repentance at Jonah's preaching. If the book is an allegory, someone should have told Jesus that he had mistakenly read it as historical narrative.
I did not intend to imply that Jonah should be read as an allegorical text as opposed to a historical narrative. I am of the opinion that both aproaches are wrong – Jonah should be approached as a mythical narative. Now, before you balk, let me clarify. Myths are stories that convey meaning and truth. The content is almost always culture specific and every culture that has ever existed had a collection of myths which transmited the core beliefs and values of the culture to new generations. Myth, in this context, does not mean false and myths (as in mythology) can’t be because mythology isn’t concerned with fact. Jonah is a fantastic story, filled with supernatural events which guide this wayward man to do God’s will, whether he wants to or not. To make it allegory, robs it of the narative power. To make it historical, robs is of the mythical magic and beauty. While reading Jonah, you assume the fish is a fish but you recognize that there are otherworldly powers guiding this fish. It isn’t historical or something that we encounter in our own reality but it is important to the story that you treat the fish as a fish. Myths have their own worlds with their own rules. The important part of it is to recognize the purpose of the story, what it tells you about God, humantiy, and the culture that valued this story. Do I believe that there was an actual man named Jonah who was swollowed by a fish? No. Do I find meanining and truth in the story of a man who was swollowed by a monstrous creature of the sea in his attempt to twart God? Yes.
Second, Jesus’ discussion of Jonah in Luke in no way necessitates its historical factuality. Myths are a common reference point for a culture, as they would have been for Jesus and his contemporaries. Frequently, when we make reference to a myth, we speak about it in manner similar to the way Jesus speaks of the sign of Jonah (which is an interesting issue for debate as well, because Jonah performed no sign). “There is has never been a love like that of Romeo and Juliet, Paris and Helen of Troy, Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley, or (for the Twilight fans out there) Edward Cullen and Bella Swan.” None of these are historical fact (well, I must admit that there might be some historical fact to the events surrounding the Trojan war, but the love of Paris and Helen is rememberd from the myths rather than the history), but we often make reference to them as if they happened even though we know they didn’t. It seems more likely to me that Jesus reference to the Jonah story was an appeal to a communal myth rather than a historical fact.
All I was really trying to say was if we try to make Jonah historical (and I’ll add alegorical to this as well), we destroy the true power behind the story. It is better, in my opinion, to look to the story and not get caught up in trying to prove the events, demonstrate how it happened, or arguing that the general principles by which our reality opperates were momentaraly suspended. If it needs to be historical for you, that’s fine, good luck with that. To me, it make Jonah less powerful and meaningful.
I'm arguing less specifically for the book of Jonah (though I believe it is historical) and more generally for the way in which we handle the Bible. If the documents contained there are indeed revelation of God (which I believe they are), then they are to be treated incredibly cautiously, read carefully, and interpreted in the way they most naturally demand to be interpreted.
Elessar, when you say "if we try to make Jonah historical," you neglect the reality that the book most naturally reads as historical narrative, and thus there is no need at all to "try to make" it historical. It seems to me that the burden of evidence lies with the one who interprets it as a parable, - or a mythical narrative, as you suggest - rather than with the one who interprets it literally. In your comments above, I simply see no compelling reason to believe Jonah should not be read and understood in its most natural sense.
The facts that 1) 2 Kings 14:25 identifies Jonah as an individual who actually lived, placing him within a real historical context (the rule of Jeroboam II in the northern kingdom), and 2) Jesus speaks of Jonah as a seemingly historical figure in Luke 11 (and its paraellel account in Matthew 12:38-41), coupled with the most natural reading of the book of Jonah, in my view demand that we read and interpret it historically. Even if you think it "make[s] Jonah less powerful and meaningful," you must read it as it demands to be read. (I would argue that it indeed does not make it less pwerful and meaningful, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)
Brian, sorry we've veered off the course of your original post. I like your application questions at the end.
@ElessarTelemnar - I am very sorry for not asking before I posted your comments and commentary. In the future, this will not happen again. Please don't let it dissuade you from sending me more of the same.