Jonah: The Runaway Prophet

Jonah: a paradox

Jonah is “a paradox: a prophet of God, and yet a runaway from God: a man drowned, and yet alive: a preacher of repentance, yet one that repines at repentance.”1

In the early part of Joash’s reign, Jonah prophesied the restoration of Israel’s northern borders lost in wars with Syria and a time of prosperity and safety that would follow to rival the nation’s former greatness.2 However, in her prosperity, Israel became complacent and arrogant thinking that they alone were the people under the divine favor and no other nation was so esteemed (Amos 9:7) by the Living God (Amos 6:1-8).

Exasperated with Israel’s unfaithfulness, God sent prophets to declare judgment against Israel warning them that He would use the Assyrians, whose capital city was Nineveh—a feared nation known for its cold-blooded barbarity—to punish and expel Israel from the land because of her sins (Hos. 9:3, 10:6, 11:5; Joel 1:6,7; Amos 9:11). In this setting God called Jonah to preach judgment against “Nineveh the great city for their wickedness” (NASB, Jon. 1:2). However, Jonah decided to make a run for it in the direction opposite Nineveh.

Jonah: his love for God and Israel

Some commentators attribute Jonah’s action to moral faults in his character but such accusations are unwarranted and implicitly denied within the narrative.3 In addition, there is the idea Jonah ran away because he was afraid for his own safety should he confront the powerful and evil people of Nineveh.

It is not expressly stated why Jonah “rose up to flee unto Tarshish4 from the presence of Jehovah.” However, the implication may be set forth on this premise: Jonah was a faithful Jew more in tune with Yahweh’s revelatory character than other Jews of his time. He correctly apprehended God’s gracious character and anticipated God’s compassion to extend beyond the borders of the nation of Israel, His chosen people.

As such, Jonah did not want to take the chance that God would forgive Nineveh. Nineveh’s existence remained an omen of God’s judgment against Israel, threatening Israel’s national existence. It was Jonah’s concern for the people of God, and not rebellion or fear, which prompted his flight.

Jonah was aware of the ways of God all too well: “I knew that you were a gracious God, merciful, slow to get angry, and full of kindness: I knew how easily you would cancel your plans for destroying these people” (LBP,5 Jon. 4:2). It was not in rebellion but rather in protest against God’s decision to destroy the nation of Israel for her sins. He was taking the same stance as Moses who confronted God in order to protect God, that is, His reputation before the heathen nations (Ex. 32:9-13, 30-32). It was not fear for his own life, but love for God’s people that prompted Jonah’s run away from God.

Torn between his love for Israel and his prophetic insight into God’s love for all men, Jonah ran away to escape his responsibility as God’s spokesman. He did not want to risk the chance that Nineveh would be spared if that would assure Israel’s divine punishment. Jonah “had shown himself prepared to forfeit his prophetic office, prepared to flee into exile, prepared even to resign life itself, rather than that Nineveh should be spared! Now such deliberate self-abandon…transforms his motive from apparent pettiness to something touchingly heroic.”6

Jonah found a ship on its way to Tarshish in order to make good his escape. However, while taking flight to the “remotest part of the sea” (NASB, Ps. 139:7-12), he was relentlessly pursued by the “Hound of Heaven.”7 While Jonah slept, and to the sailors’ terror, the Lord caused “a great storm on the sea so that the ship was about to break up.”

Having found out the reason for the storm, the crew finally took Jonah’s advice and reluctantly threw him overboard leaving him to drown. However, God “had arranged for a great fish to swallow Jonah,” preserving his life. At the end of three days’ confinement in the belly of the “great fish,” Jonah made his lamentation to God; being at the end of his rope, he repented, promising to obey God’s commands (Jon. 2:7-9).

Again, God repeated His command to Jonah (3:1-2). This time Jonah complied and went “to Nineveh according to the word of the Lord” (LBP, 3:3). Once deep inside the city, Jonah proclaimed that God’s judgment would be executed in forty days because of their wickedness. But, in contrast to the obstinacy of the covenant people, the “people of Nineveh believed God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth.” Even the king of Nineveh “arose from his throne, laid his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and ashes” and proclaimed a decree for all the people of the city to express repentance in the hope that God would be inclined to “withdraw His burning anger.” Seeing their earnest repentance, God did not destroy Nineveh as He had intended (NASB, 3:5ff).

God’s change of mind “greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry.” Finding a place outside and in full view of the city, Jonah waited impatiently to see if God would destroy it. With ever increasing despondency, to the point of suicide, his hopes failed. Nineveh remained a threat to Israel because, unlike Nineveh, Israel refused to repent.

Jonah rested under the shelter of a plant provided by God to shield him from the scorching sun. As he slept, God then “appointed a worm…and it attacked the plant and it withered.” Consequently, the direct exposure to the sun made Jonah unbearably weak and he “begged with all his soul to die” adding to his sorrow over Nineveh’s repentance and God’s act of forgiveness (4:1-8).

God spoke tenderly to Jonah asking if it were proper for him to be angry that Nineveh was spared. Jonah answered that he had every right to be angry because, now that Nineveh was spared, he knew God would surely fulfill His intention to punish Israel—and why should Israel be punished and Nineveh be spared? Is not the nation of Israel God’s special people above all the nations? Are not Nineveh’s sins still deserving of, not pardon, but punishment? Though not surprised by God’s mercy towards the repentant people of Nineveh, nevertheless, Jonah implicitly accused God of having wronged His own people (4:9)!

God taught Jonah an important lesson (4:10-11). If Jonah could have compassion on that which concerns his own safety and comfort (and how limited in scope were his concerns!), did not God have the right to extend His compassion to those things that concern Him, especially to the helpless? Should compassion be limited to the people of Israel? Should mercy, on the one hand, be shown to those who persist in ignoring laws clearly presented and, on the other hand, judgment be exacted on those who are unaware of what they are doing? Should God punish the repentant in order to spare the unrepentant?

Jonah needed to learn that God’s special favor toward Israel did not mean a lessened love for others… The election of one nation did not mean the rejection of others!8

Israel’s election does not prevent God’s mercy to others.

[Jonah] confronts the reader with the serious…question whether his own response to human need is the same as that…exemplified by God.9

Observations

I glean the following observations from the book of Jonah:

  1. The favored status of a child of God does not exempt him from judgment; neither does another’s alienation from God exempt him from mercy. We should not take God’s mercy for granted just because one is His child. God who is quick to forgive is also certain to judge the unrepentant. No one sins with impunity. Neither should we resent the blessings God pours on those we judge to be less deserving (Matt 5:45b).
  2. Understanding is not a prerequisite for obeying God; neither is disobedience excusable even on noble grounds. When God’s command is clear, though seemingly unreasonable, our responsibility is not to take the time to understand, but to immediately obey. For example, we cannot shirk family responsibilities on grounds that we must spend time reading the Bible or going to church.
  3. Though God does not minimize the guilt of disobedience, He does bring His understanding of our reasons to bear in determining the proper discipline. At times our hearts may be right but our actions wrong as, for example, when Moses killed an Egyptian who was “beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren” (Ex. 2:11-12). Moses was cast off into the wilderness as a complete failure in his attempt to serve God, but for only a time, not permanently. In Jonah’s case, God appointed a “great fish” as his discipline, not to kill but to swallow him up alive. Jonah’s life was spared because of the hope that God had in him. He knows us and has pity on our strivings to do what is right (Ps. 103:14).
  4. Finally, and on a more personal note, human failure does not mean divine abandonment. Though Jonah ran away in disobedience to God’s command, God ran after Jonah, not to punish but to restore. A Christian may find that he is “on a shelf,” but this does not necessarily mean God is not at work in his life. God works to make the unwilling willing; the unprepared prepared; the not cared for, cared for.

It is my understanding, in sympathy with the story of Jonah, that a believer can be disqualified for service. However, disqualification does not necessarily constitute total rejection. As in Jonah’s case, God may decide to shut one away in isolation because of disobedience, anticipating the proper time to again call him to repentance and back into service (1 Cor. 9:27).10

Ah my dear angry Lord,
Since thou dost love, yet strike;
Cast down, yet help afford;
Sure I will do the like.

I will complain, yet praise;
I will bewail, approve:
And all my sour-sweet days
I will lament, and love.
11

Notes

3 Contrast Armor D Piesker’s comments in the Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 161 with J. Sidlow Baxter’s one volume commentary, Explore the Book, Lesson 92.

4 Spain

5 Living Bible Paraphrased

6 Explore the Book, J. Sidlow Baxter, vol. 1, Lesson 92

7 Title of the poem by Francis Thompson (1859-1907). William Harmon, editor of the Top 500 Poems, notes that Thompson’s depiction of God as a “canine pursuer shocked some Victorian readers who were more accustomed to Frances Alexander’s” gentler version of God (848).

8 Explore the Book, J. Sidlow Baxter, vol. 1, Lesson 92.

9 Wesleyan Bible Commentary, vol. 3, p. 668.

10 The apostle Paul was aware that it would be tragic if “one who had instructed others as to the rules to be observed for winning the prize, should he himself be rejected for having transgressed them.” Robertson and Plummer quoted in the Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 403.

11 Bittersweet, George Herbert.

nbanuchi Bio

Nelson Banuchi has been a Christian for 38 years. Originally from New York City, he has served as a deacon in several churches as well as leading Bible Studies for children and adults, counseling, and preaching on occasion. He moved to Concord, NC in ‘08. His main study interests are biblical theology, Arminianism and revivalism. He is married and has two daughters and three grandchildren.

Discussion

sorry to take so long to get back to this thread. I was lopping off heads elsewhere!
[Aaron] JohnBrian doesn’t really bite… unless you say something Arminian.
Guilty, as charged, BUT it’s the rabid anti-Calvinists more than the Arminians that I want to bite!
[dcbii] John Brian is a strong Calvinist, and argues points related to that, sometimes forcefully.
Guilty as charged.
[drwayman] To me, it was obvious I meant the gentiles.

What were you thinking that I could have been possibly going with my statement?
[Chip] I think he was probing to see if you were talking about some group of non-elect people being saved somehow. At least, that’s what I thought when I first read your post.
Chip is correct, and that is why I asked for clarification.
[drwayman] Is this an anti-Arminian site?
[dcbii] I can assure you that no, this is not an anti-Arminian site.
SI is not an anti-Armenian site either!

Here are 2 threads about Arminians:

http://sharperiron.org/article/society-of-evangelical-arminians-what-ar…] Society of Evangelical Arminians: What is Arminianism?

http://sharperiron.org/article/wanted-more-arminians] Wanted: More Arminians

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

JohnBrian - Thanks for responding to me. I hope that your head lopping was successful :-)

You said that Chip is correct that you were looking for clarification because you wondered if I meant a group of non-elect people.

There is some kind of disconnect for me there in that statement. I never used the term “elect” or “non-elect.” I used the word “chosen” instead, in the context of Jonah and Jesus. How does one conflate “chosen” and “elect’? I must be missing something there. Outside of one reference in Luke 18:7 (and some versions don’t use the word “elect” in that reference) “elect” comes after the church is established. Does “chosen” have some connotation for which I am unaware? I believe that chosen clearly refers to God’s people, the Israelites. Hence, “other people, outside of God’s chosen people” how could it have any other connotation but gentiles, given the context of the discussion (Jonah and then i brought in Jesus’ statements)?

Are “elect” and “non-elect” buzz words or words that you filter thru a hermeneutic unnecessarily? Do you read “elect” and “non-elect” into passages that don’t mention such?

I have been reading SI for a while, so I did read the SEA writeup. Thanks for the “Wanted: More Arminians” thread. I didn’t know about that one.

These are earnest and honest questions. Thank you for the dialogue. I hope that you respond to me again :-)

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

[drwayman] There is some kind of disconnect for me there in that statement. I never used the term “elect” or “non-elect.” I used the word “chosen” instead, in the context of Jonah and Jesus. How does one conflate “chosen” and “elect’?
I would use the words interchangeably, so the “chosen ones” would also be the “elect ones,” and vice versa.

The elect have been so since before the foundation of the world, when their names were recorded in the Book of Life.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[drwayman] JohnBrian - Thanks for responding to me. I hope that your head lopping was successful :-)

You said that Chip is correct that you were looking for clarification because you wondered if I meant a group of non-elect people.

There is some kind of disconnect for me there in that statement. I never used the term “elect” or “non-elect.” I used the word “chosen” instead, in the context of Jonah and Jesus. How does one conflate “chosen” and “elect’? I must be missing something there. Outside of one reference in Luke 18:7 (and some versions don’t use the word “elect” in that reference) “elect” comes after the church is established. Does “chosen” have some connotation for which I am unaware? I believe that chosen clearly refers to God’s people, the Israelites. Hence, “other people, outside of God’s chosen people” how could it have any other connotation but gentiles, given the context of the discussion (Jonah and then i brought in Jesus’ statements)?

Are “elect” and “non-elect” buzz words or words that you filter thru a hermeneutic unnecessarily? Do you read “elect” and “non-elect” into passages that don’t mention such?
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer for myself. The reason I wondered about your meaning is based in passages where reference is made to NT saints as those God chose or the chosen ones of God. Such include Matthew 20:16 and 22:14, Mark 13:20, Ephesians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 17:14.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

I appreciate the time the two of you took to respond to me. I can see now that my writing wasn’t as clear as I thought it was. I was thinking racially, fairly unidimensionally, instead of considering that my comments may have drifted into some of dispensational rabbit trail.

Hence, my statement was proffered from an OT perspective. Ultimately, I recognize that the only people who ever will experience eschatological salvation are God’s people (those who put their faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile).

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will try to be clearer in the future. Again, thank you for asking for clarification rather than assuming :-)

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

Hi, Lee. Sorry my response has taken so long.
[Lee] One of my mentors would gently chide “Go as far as Scripture goes; but stop where Scripture stops.” This effort goes as far as Scripture goes, but doesn’t seem to stop where Scripture stops…
Respectfully, your mentor’s advice may lead preachers to present boring sermons. Every preacher I’ve come across, at one time or another, sooner or later, more or less, adds to the reading of the Scripture what is not there so the hearer can imagine it and, perhaps, understand it better and remember it long after the sermon is over.

As such, I believe there is a legitimate use of imagination to fill in the gaps when attempting to understand Scripture in a way that violates neither the text nor the revelatory truth.

In any case, the view that Jonah’s disobedience was without any ill intent is plausible, as noted by a couple of respondents on this thread, and even by you.

As such, while I don’t entirely discount your mentor’s advice, I don’t entirely agree with it, either. Even Jesus went against your mentor’s advice. Where does the book of Jonah read that the Ninevites would have condemned others under different circumstances (no less a hypothetical notion!) or that Jonah symbolizes the Messiah?

I don’t think my paper presented Jonah as imore noble than the Scriptures may imply; and what is so offensive about seeing the good in other believers despite their flaws? Like Louis C. Shimon wrote,

“Wouldn’t life be lots more happy

If the good that’s in us all

Were the only thing about us

That folks bothered to recall?”

In any event, no essential revelatory teaching from the Bible is overturned but, in my assessment, enhanced for edification as I showed in the section on “Observations”.

Lee, if I may be respectfully honest, although I do appreciate your input it seems your objection is based on an overly simplistic way of engaging the text.

If you could demonstrate how I may have, by neglecting your mentor’s advice, substantially altered the text to the point of violating a specific and clearly essential Scriptural truth, then it would give me more serious pause.

In addition, your suggestion that “we would serve ourselves much better by concentrating on what we know Scripture is communicating…and leave it simply at that” would prohibit much exposition or exegesis or, at least, render it all useless, permitting only a dry reading of the text.

If there are any questions I may have missed, please advise.

I think Nelson has a good pt.

That is, I don’t believe there is any harm in engaging the imagination in the act of preaching, even in reference to the text. It’s important though that we don’t present as certain what we have imagined as a possibility. But it’s good for listeners to be given possibilities to consider.

I would hesitate to make applications from what I’ve imagined, though… unless I support them with other passages.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[nbanuchi] Hi, Lee. Sorry my response has taken so long.
[Lee] One of my mentors would gently chide “Go as far as Scripture goes; but stop where Scripture stops.” This effort goes as far as Scripture goes, but doesn’t seem to stop where Scripture stops…
Respectfully, your mentor’s advice may lead preachers to present boring sermons. Every preacher I’ve come across, at one time or another, sooner or later, more or less, adds to the reading of the Scripture what is not there so the hearer can imagine it and, perhaps, understand it better and remember it long after the sermon is over.

As such, I believe there is a legitimate use of imagination to fill in the gaps when attempting to understand Scripture in a way that violates neither the text nor the revelatory truth.
What you’ve just described falls more under the job description of an illustration. What the article presented was an unsupported foundational presupposition for a particular passage. Though I consider Scripture its own best illustrator, I am not aghast with someone using a real, or even imagined, illustration that helps clarify the text. I’m not sure how the alternative rendering can possibly clarify the text, the purpose of the book, or whatever.
[nbanuchi] In any case, the view that Jonah’s disobedience was without any ill intent is plausible, as noted by a couple of respondents on this thread, and even by you.

As such, while I don’t entirely discount your mentor’s advice, I don’t entirely agree with it, either. Even Jesus went against your mentor’s advice. Where does the book of Jonah read that the Ninevites would have condemned others under different circumstances (no less a hypothetical notion!) or that Jonah symbolizes the Messiah?
I have a sneaking suspicion that on a more clear day you will want to re-think this statement, especially the part about Jesus, the embodied Word of God, extending His revelatory authority so as to circumvent the bounds of the Scripture.
[nbanuchi] I don’t think my paper presented Jonah as imore noble than the Scriptures may imply; and what is so offensive about seeing the good in other believers despite their flaws? Like Louis C. Shimon wrote,

“Wouldn’t life be lots more happy

If the good that’s in us all

Were the only thing about us

That folks bothered to recall?”
“…touchingly heroic” seems to me quite a bit more noble than the Scripture may imply. I would bet you my whole years’ paycheck for the year 2525 that if I had 50 people from any background read the Book of Jonah for the very first time not one would comment “wow, that was one heroic dude!” And the reason for that is—Scripture simply doesn’t communicate it. Not in the book, not elsewhere.
[nbanuchi] In any event, no essential revelatory teaching from the Bible is overturned but, in my assessment, enhanced for edification as I showed in the section on “Observations”.

Lee, if I may be respectfully honest, although I do appreciate your input it seems your objection is based on an overly simplistic way of engaging the text.

If you could demonstrate how I may have, by neglecting your mentor’s advice, substantially altered the text to the point of violating a specific and clearly essential Scriptural truth, then it would give me more serious pause.
The central theme of the Book of Jonah is not about Jonah. It is not about Israel, nor is it about Assyria/Nineveh. It is not about a boat full of unnamed pagan sailors, or even about a fish, a worm, or a gourd. The central theme of Jonah is about God. Anything that detracts from or diminishes this clearly communicated theme has to affect an “essential revelatory teaching from the Bible.” Your scenario, if presented authoritatively (and discussing what if scenarios when the fish aren’t biting is not authoritative) has changed that theme. Instead of communicating that which God wished to be communicated in regard to His dealing with individuals (Jonah), situations (chap 2), the Gentile heathen (chap 3), or His purposes in chastisement, mercy, compassion, etc. (chap 4), it is now about Jonah, a national hero, willing to “take one for the team,” to stand between God and national judgment in a Tiananmen Square moment pitting good against evil where God comes off, at least in regards to His plans for national Israel, as evil.

If that is what is being communicated in Scripture, so be it . But if not, we do a grave disservice to Scripture.
[nbanuchi] In addition, your suggestion that “we would serve ourselves much better by concentrating on what we know Scripture is communicating…and leave it simply at that” would prohibit much exposition or exegesis or, at least, render it all useless, permitting only a dry reading of the text.

If there are any questions I may have missed, please advise.
Not sure where coming up with a completely unsupported scenario is good exegesis or exposition. But in regards to your viewpoint, it seems to me that a book that is “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…” will rarely have to suffer from a “dry reading of the text” if the communicator has any gifting at all for the position they are filling in preaching/teaching the Word.

But even a “dry reading of the text” has a leg up on presenting a likely fallacious viewpoint on a Scripture narrative which could conceivably result in communicating a wrong opinion about God.

Lee

[nbanuchi]

Do you think I have brought sufficient and proper texts to bear to support the view expressed in my paper?
Well, you can only say so much in one essay. There’s definitely enough there to get the mental wheels turning and send readers off digging…. which is enough. Sometimes it’s better to provide “less than enough,” so to speak, because it works better as a curiosity prompt, know what I mean?

On “touchingly heroic”… I do think Sidow Baxter is overstating his point a bit there. But I think I get his point. But sinners are capable of being wicked and—in a way—noble at the same time. (This is partly the ethical problem that Fletcher—if I’m remember the name right—aimed to solve in Situation Ethics. But his solution was to argue that when a person acts with the intention of love, that erases every other moral/ethical consideration. I would say that people can and do engage in sinful deeds all the time with at least partly beautiful motives. But the beautiful part doesn’t alter the nature of the whole. If you dress a toad up in fine jewelry he’s still a toad….but his jewelry is still fine.)
[Lee] The central theme of the Book of Jonah is not about Jonah. It is not about Israel, nor is it about Assyria/Nineveh…. The central theme of Jonah is about God.
I think you’re getting close to doing what you’re faulting Nelson for doing here. The book does not say it is “about God.” You’re getting that by reconstructing the historical setting…. which is also what folks are doing who make a case that it is about Israel.

Also, you seem to have an underlying assumption that the book cannot be about more than one thing. Why would that have to be? Seems to me that it’s about everything that gets significant attention in it, which would certainly have to include Jonah, his conduct and his heart. We can certainly argue for one primary theme and it’s certainly likely that God’s character is that theme. But even that conclusion requires making a case from other passages.

So the debate should really move away from “Do we allow external evidence to shape our interpretation beyond what the individual book says?” to “Who is making the best case from external evidence?”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]…

I think you’re getting close to doing what you’re faulting Nelson for doing here. The book does not say it is “about God.” You’re getting that by reconstructing the historical setting…. which is also what folks are doing who make a case that it is about Israel.
You don’t think that Joe Average, as he reads through and realizes that better than 2 of every 3 verses reference some aspect of God by name or pronoun, action or word, and also recognizes that Israel gets no mentioning at all (though Jonah does identify himself as a Hebrew) that he might conclude without external evidence that the Book is about God and not Israel?
[Aaron Blumer] Also, you seem to have an underlying assumption that the book cannot be about more than one thing. Why would that have to be? Seems to me that it’s about everything that gets significant attention in it, which would certainly have to include Jonah, his conduct and his heart. We can certainly argue for one primary theme and it’s certainly likely that God’s character is that theme. But even that conclusion requires making a case from other passages. So the debate should really move away from “Do we allow external evidence to shape our interpretation beyond what the individual book says?” to “Who is making the best case from external evidence?”
Not tracking you here. Why would I need to go to other passages to determine that the theme of the Book of Jonah is certain aspect(s) of God? I don’t go to other passages to determine the theme of Acts, or Revelation, or Joshua, or Judges, or Ruth, or…………………………………………………. Either it is what is being communicated, or it isn’t.

Like any other book, the Book of Jonah can communicate many truths about many things, but it will only have one overarching theme. Likely as not, those other communicated truths (themes if you please) will, of necessity, stem from the main theme.

Lee

As a general rule, it’s a good idea to read every book of the Bible in light of every other book of the Bible. That is, we can’t fully develop a particular book’s message without the context of teaching that is external to it.

As for “about God and not about Israel.” I’ve already argued that there is no reason why it cannot be “about God” and also about Jonah, and Nineveh and Israel.

And I argued as well, a few posts before that, that the entire OT is “about Israel” as well as “about God.” The two cannot really be separated, because God is revealing Himself through His dealings with the covenant people. Furthermore, the first audience for the book of Jonah would have been the people of Israel/Judah. It was written with a message for them mainly in view and its message to us, much later, is derived from that.

But the statement “It’s about God” and the statement “It’s about Israel” are not mutually exclusive.

I really don’t know where the idea that a book of the Bible must have a single dominant theme comes from either, frankly. It’s kind of conventional wisdom, but nobody says why.

I grew up hearing “The theme of Ephesians is…” etc. talk pretty often. A funny thing happened: different teachers and commentators would claim different things as “the theme.”

As I acquired the skills to form my own convictions about themes, I found that the case for one or another as “the” was frequently not persuasive.

In any case, it would be interesting to see a thorough argument for the whole “singularity of theme” idea. I’m not personally convinced of it… even less convinced that it’s very important to distinguish the dominance of theme #1 from theme #2 in a book’s overall message.

I.e., if we’ve got the top three themes, we’ve got what we need. Which is #1 seems both unimportant and impossible to determine for certain. (But I’ll grant that there are probably a few books that are pretty clear on a singular theme… I just can’t think of any off hand. I don’t look at them that way.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I was researching more the instance in Matt 16 where Jesus called Simon the son Jonah. Maybe there is some external evidence that Jesus is referring to that is relevant to the Jonah story.

Simon Bar-jonah probably should in fact be translated “Simon son of Jonah,” rather than “Simon son of John.” The two names are similar, but may not be equivalent. Matthew’s Jesus may have wanted us to make some sort of connection between Simon and Jonah the prophet: “Blessed are you Simon—who may be compared with Jonah the prophet, for flesh and blood did not reveal this….”

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

[Lee] …What the article presented was an unsupported foundational presupposition for a particular passage… I’m not sure how the alternative rendering can possibly clarify the text, the purpose of the book, or whatever.
Your objection is appreciated but I do not believe my “illustration” (as you suggest) violates either the text or revelatory truth; furthermore, the polyvalent nature of Jonah would exclude any dogmatism on my part (as it should on your part). I’ve clarified the text, albeit from my standpoint, and have proposed some practical observations to add to its meaning and purpose.

If the only reason you are opposed to my view Jonah is because it goes beyond the reading of the text, I must remind you that such an objection is trivial unless you can demonstrate how it clearly violates the text, the nature of God as revealed in the whole of Scripture, and/or the theology of the gospel message.

That it has not helped you in particular does not nullify a hopeful profit for others. I can only apologize that I have failed to provide a word for your edification in the Lord.
[Lee] I have a sneaking suspicion that on a more clear day you will want to re-think this statement…
Where I am at today, it is a clear day. Who said anything about Jesus circumventing Scripture? I am only saying that Jesus did what you oppose doing, that is, to show a perspective of the Scriptures that goes beyond its reading. That he circumvents it is your impression, not mine.
[Lee] …I would bet you my whole years’ paycheck for the year 2525 that if I had 50…not one would comment “wow, that was one heroic dude!”…
Now I’m wondering if that’s the year of your retirement; then you won’t be receiving any more paychecks (since you’re not betting against your SS check). Not very heroic of you, is it?

In any case, let me just say that, (a) 50 people is not many; (b) the “Scripture simply doesn’t communicate” that Jonah’s disobedience was with any evil intent, cowardice, or prejudice on Jonah’s part either; either of these interpretations would be, as you say, “unsupported foundational presupposition(s)” because nothing is clearly.

Please understand, I am not so much defending the position I have taken with regard to Jonah as I am defending the idea that it is polyvalent and opposing your objection as trivial and unnecessarily rigid.

As I stated before, I can only take your objection seriously if you demonstrate any violation of the text or essential doctrine.
[Lee] The central theme of the Book of Jonah is not about Jonah. It is not about Israel, nor is it about Assyria/Nineveh…
That I have changed what you deem to be the central theme, true or not, does not demonstrate a serious violation of the text; you reflect a mere opinion. There are those (as Aaron suggests) who would disagree with your rigid suggestion. Regarding its meaning and purpose, have you not read my “Observations”?

Also, we have Moses (on two occasions where one was misdirected) and Paul the apostle “willing to take one for the team” and “stand between God and national judgment”, which although may not be the “central theme” of their respective books, is nevertheless significant.

I repeat, I don’t deny your position of a “central theme”; I do deny that (1) there necessarily is a central theme, and (2) you exclude other avenues of engaging the Scriptural texts.

In any case, the “central theme”, as you claim, being God is so ambiguous it leaves much room for various interpretations – sub-themes, if you wish - of the texts including my observations regarding God’s nature and interactions with men (see “Observations”).

My intent was not to be authoritative and I don’t believe my essay reads as such.

Are you not also proposing something beyond what Scripture states? Where does it explicitly read that the book of Jonah is centrally about God? It is an unsupported assumption you are making beyond what the texts actually states?
[Lee] Not sure where coming up with a completely unsupported scenario is good exegesis or exposition.
Respectfully, your objection seems trivial. You have yet to demonstrate wherein my view is detrimental to a proper understanding of Scripture and God. You are making, as Shakespeare says, “Much ado about nothing.”

What I perceive here is a minor disagreement citing no serious breach of the Scriptural text.

I would like to comment on something you stated to Aaron:
[Lee] Why would I need to go to other passages to determine that the theme of the Book of Jonah is certain aspect(s) of God? I don’t go to other passages to determine the theme of Acts, or Revelation, or Joshua, or Judges, or Ruth, or… Either it is what is being communicated, or it isn’t. Like any other book, the Book of Jonah can communicate many truths about many things, but it will only have one overarching theme. Likely as not, those other communicated truths (themes if you please) will, of necessity, stem from the main theme.
I’m not sure this is good advice for the study of Scripture. Sometimes what is being communicated is not as clear as you, I must respectfully suggest, naively think it is. That would render the books of the Bible to be unrelated, independent, and unnecessary in order gain the necessary proper and full revelation of God, especially as it concerns his nature and ways with mankind. What may be communicated in one book may not be so properly and fully understood if not seen in relation to other books in the Bible.

For just a simple illustration, just imagine if the Bible started with Exodus. How would one understand how or why Israel is depicted as God’s people? Or, is that not important to know? Or, how would one understand the harshness of divine judgments against Moab in the prophetical writings if we did not have the historical setting? Granted, we may not have everything in all the book necessary to get a full understanding of what is actually happening but we can obtain enough necessary information and explanation between books to assist us in obtaining a proper understanding of God, as to who he is and our relationship to him.

As Paul asserts, the history in the Hebrew texts “happened as examples for us” and “All Scripture…is profitable for training…that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

From my perspective, the books of Scripture are necessarily interrelated and provide, if one takes into consideration their relationships with each other, the adequate, proper, and requisite knowledge to inform faith. Of course, that is not what the Bible may clearlt communicate as its central theme, but it is the view I hold.

Since this is a likely scenario, how about posting a link to a sermon, written or audio, where someone has preached this message from Jonah. 2000 years of church history and hundreds of thousands of sermons on the internet, it shouldn’t be too hard of a search. Honestly, I’m not seeing it yet, but there are a lot of people out there smarter than me. A good, practical sermon or two from a reputable preacher making sensible, normal application could go a long way in making a believer out of me.

Lee