Theological Interpretation of Jonah 4: The Temple, the “Sign,” and

National Identity

Name for Program Guide:

Matt Rose
Institution for Program Guide:
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Abstract:
Solomon’s temple marked the zenith of Israelite prosperity, becoming the center for
worship as well as a national symbol. The return of Ezra from exile brought a renewed
focus on Torah and Temple, resurrecting Jewish nationalism. Ultimately, the person and
work of Christ Jesus upsets this temple-centric form of worship. The Book of Jonah, in
particular, acts as a polemic against this nationalistic, temple-centered mindset. In this
paper, the Book of Jonah and the Sign of Jonah (Mt. 12:28-45) will be discussed in light
of a theological interpretation that compares the “plant” in Jonah 4 to the Temple (center
for Israelite worship). A thorough analysis of the text should purport new significance:
God is concerned with reaching the nations, not sustaining the Temple.
 THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF JONAH 4:
THE TEMPLE, THE “SIGN,” AND NATIONAL IDENTITY

A Paper

Submitted to David Hogg

Of the

Evangelical Theological Society

In Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the

Southeastern Regional Meeting

On March 21-22, 2014

Matthew C. Rose

B.A. Ouachita Baptist University, 2010

February 1st, 2014

 CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... iv

INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1

THEOLOGY OF JONAH 4:1–11 .................................. 3

HERMENEUTICAL METHOD OF JONAH 4:1-11 ................... 4

EXEGESIS OF JONAH 4:1–11 .................................. 5

Dialogue I (4:1–4) ............................................ 6

Metaphor (4:5–8) ............................................ 10

Dialogue II (4:9–11) ....................................... 14

EXCURSUS I : HERMENEUTICAL METHOD ........................ 19

EXCURSUS II: HISTORICAL CONTEXT ......................... 24

EXCURSUS III: LITERARY CONTEXT .............................. 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 33

iii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2T Second Temple (Post-Exile)

4QXIIa Qumran Excerpt: Cave 4
ICC International Critical Commentary
Jonah Book of Jonah
LXX Greek Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
OT Old Testament
WBC Word Biblical Commentary

iv
 INTRODUCTION

The Hebrew Text of Jonah presents a quandary for the Biblical scholar. Issues regarding

the placement of the book both canonically and historically plague the discussion concerning its

classification and purpose. Though the theologian may try, simplifying the Book of Jonah to a

single generic classification proves unsuccessful due to the book‟s diverse style. Within the small

book poetry, narrative, satire, and metaphor collectively work to elicit the author‟s desired

response. In other words, every tool the author employs comes together expressing overall

purpose in the Book of Jonah. While Jonah 1 and 3 utilize what prevails in much of Hebrew

narrative, Jonah 2 and 4 embody poetry, metaphor, and irony.

Not only does the style provoke a greater study into the nature of the Book of Jonah, but

the content within. The name Jonah itself means “dove” and son of Ammitai means “son of

truth,” denoting the possibility for Allegory.1 In this case, Jonah is a representative for the larger

Israel, which houses God‟s truth.

Let it suffice to say that the Book of Jonah (not least in the realm of scholarship) has

become convoluted. Marked by the desire to make the text adhere to certain presuppositions, the

Book of Jonah has come under fire by both Liberals and Conservatives. As Sasson explains

well, “Elucidating Jonah is a goal that can never be permanently or fully realized.”2

Methodology will be discussed further due to the inherent problems incurred with each method,

1 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, ed. David W. Cotter and Jerome T. Walsh (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 2000), 304.

2 Jack M. Sasson, Jonah: a New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation (New
York: Anchor Bible (Doubleday), 1990), 352.

1
 2

but one need not be so perplexed by the multifaceted style within the text of Jonah that the

propensity arises to segment or disregard the book. In fact, the difficulties of Jonah should

intrigue scholars rather than concern them. Jonah does not fit the general standards for prophecy

or narrative. Jonah is both too narrative to fit prophecy, yet too didactic to fit narrative (as in

stories about Elijah and Elisha.)1

If classifications for the Book of Jonah are eliminated, then how should one go about

interpreting the text? According to Jones, the most effective way to correctly experience the

Book of Jonah is to adhere to historical classification. Here, Jones refers to the placement of the

Book of Jonah within different arrangements: The 4QXIIa, the LXX, and the MT. Thus, Jonah

was initially interpreted with a focus on Israelite prophecy, then prophetic literature, and last on

the man (Jonah) himself.2 Jones bases this on his view that the Qumran document predates the

Septuagint, conceivably a more proper arrangement.3 More importantly though, the task at hand

consists of rightly reading the text as it expresses itself didactically (What does the text teach?).

Numerous hermeneutical methods exist that can help inform the reader, but the reader must also

remember his own inability to truly come to understand authorial intent and true purpose or

meaning (in the historical and literary sense). This does not, however, reduce the need to employ

different hermeneutical methods that serve to shape understanding.

1 Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: a Study in Text and Canon (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1995), 145.

2 Ibid., 169.

3 Ibid., 138.
 3

THEOLOGY OF JONAH 4:1–11

As a large majority of the theology within Jonah 4:1–11 is discussed within the exegesis

section of this work, this section primarily covers the discussion on the author‟s use of metaphor

in the text and its relevance to both the author‟s contemporaries as well as a modern audience.

Jonah 4:4–9 contain the greatest portion of theology, arguably, within the Book of Jonah

as the author‟s employment of metaphor serves to heighten the sense of meaning and importance

regarding the central point of the text. Up to Jonah 4:4-9, the author has conveyed the prophet‟s

sense of hatred towards the Ninevites and towards God‟s mercy for anyone but himself (as

shown by Jonah‟s deliverance in Jonah 2). Pitted between two divine rhetorical questions is a

metaphor implying Jonah‟s selfishness and ethnocentrism. The author imposes irony, hyperbole

and personification to impose a satirical tone towards Jonah the prophet. The question asked by

the author‟s style is, “How crazy is it that Jonah cares more for a temporary, fragile, inanimate

object (Temple) than for the entire city of Nineveh?” More importantly, this style should elicit

(from the reader) a sense of ownership about God‟s “appointment” of the Israelites to carry an

extemporal truth to the World.

In the end, Jonah‟s impact should be felt by First and 2T Jews as well as modern

audiences. God‟s plan for the world is not temporal (as in the temple), nor is it ethnocentric (as

in the prophet), rather it is God‟s expression of himself through those whom he has appointed to

carry the message of repentance.

 4

HERMENEUTICAL METHOD AND JONAH 4: 1–11

The tragedy of the Book of Jonah is that a large portion of the interpretive work has been

lost due to a failure to rightly interact with the text. Reconstruction is not the goal.4 Analysis

unto understanding should be the desire for anyone who will interpret. No discussion exists on

whether portions of the text are literal or figurative because an understanding of the divine

illocution does not require it. Historical or legendary, literal or figurative exist as unnecessary

contrasts that readers elicit from the text to supply answers to their own presuppositions. Does

God speak through the text of Jonah? In this case, Jonah 4:1–11 presents what is often expressed

as “psychological probing” relating the characters (God, Jonah, Plant, Nineveh, Worm) to the

reader as a type rather than an actual individual.5 This same text taken literally, on the other

hand, (as I hope to show) arrives at the same conclusion, or divine illocution. A proper exegesis

of Jonah 4:1–11 makes issues of classification and hermeneutical methodology amount to

superfluous pursuits in the divine schema. All interpretations of Biblical texts and Jonah, for that

matter, must coincide with all other Biblical texts regarding the character of God and of man. In

short, we ought not to argue the Bible figuratively or literally, but, instead we should take it

seriously.

4 See Context Section.

5 Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis: the Biblical Saga and History (New York: Forgotten Books,
2007), 53–67. Cited from: Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of
Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 198.
 5

EXEGESIS JONAH 4:1–11

No connection need be made to the previous chapter (Jonah 3) as the wayyiqtol verb form

of ‫“ ָרעַע‬to be evil” expresses a leap, or progression, in the narrative. No longer is the focus on

the repentance of the Ninevites, but on Jonah (the “son of truth”). According to the WBC, Jonah

4 is a pericope that is separate from the Jonah narrative; verses 1–4 articulate Jonah‟s

frustration, whereas 5–11 “expose(s) Jonah‟s narrowness (towards the Ninevites).”6 Although

the idea of a pericope is appealing, the possibility also exists that Jonah 4 serves to complete the

structure of the book as a whole. Looking at the book from this perspective reveals several

things. Firstly, Jonah 4 presents a possible explanation for the psalm of Jonah 2 that has come

under much scrutiny. Obviously, Jonah 1 and 3 carry on the story, but Jonah 2 and 4 act

differently. Could Jonah 2 be a monologue as opposed to a psalm? If so, our understanding of

how God works ought to be reimagined. In chapter 2, Jonah gave God praise for his deliverance.

God acted positively, so Jonah responded with praise (monologue). In chapter 4, Jonah (as we

will see) responds negatively to God‟s acts. Jonah responded negatively, so God responds with

questioning (dialogue). Below is a chart that is helpful in seeing that (as opposed to being a

pericope) Jonah 4 acts to complete the author‟s message about the character of God.

God Commands  Obedience  God Acts

God Commands  Disobedience  God Acts
God Acts  Deliverance  Praise
God Acts  Deliverance  Anger  God Speaks

6 Ibid., 500.
 6

Though rudimentary, this chart enables us to understand the structure of Jonah. When God

commands, God will act according to the human response. When God acts, God will speak

regarding the negative human response. Thus Jonah 4 is not a pericope, but the encapsulation of

the entire book, centered around God‟s speech, “What right do you have to be angry?”

Jonah 4 embodies the didactic purpose of the book and has the greatest potential to imply

the directed audience. As distinct from Stuart and several other commentators, Jonah 4 is best

divided into three segments: 1–4, 5–8, and 9–11. Since the focal point of the argument for

audience and purpose is on God‟s divine rhetorical, the dialogue within the text must be

analyzed. Of first importance is the author‟s depiction of God‟s dialogue with Jonah. Secondly,

and unquestionably meaningful, is the author‟s use of metaphor in verses 5–8. Therefore, the

author states his point with Dialogue I, he proves his point through Metaphor, and he restates the

initial point with Dialogue II.

DIALOGUE I (4:1–4)

And it became evil unto Jonah and he burned with contempt. He prayed to the Lord and said, “I
beseech you, Lord, was this not what I said while I was still in my own land? That is exactly why
I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and
rich in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning disaster. Therefore now, O Lord, please
take my life from me, for death is more agreeable to me than life.” The Lord said, “Is good for
you to be angry?”

(4:1) One can only assume that the “evil” ‫ ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬that came upon Jonah sprouted from

Nineveh‟s repentance in Jonah 3. The use of ‫ ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬acts not as vain repetition, but as emphasis on

the judgment motif within the text. This term first referred to the Ninevites, yet is doubly

invested to describe Jonah‟s contempt towards divine mercy. The author of the Book of Jonah

articulates Jonah‟s anger as strongly as possible, as the adjectival and verbal use of ‫ ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬suggests
 7

intensified Hebrew language.7 The strong verbal usage in 4:1 stands out as a transitional

statement within the book itself, denoted by the wayyiqtol verb from of ‫ ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬. In addition, the

author‟s description of Jonah‟s anger as ‫ְדֹולה‬

ָ֑ ‫ג‬ ‫ ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬not only aids in the already intensified

statement, but also contrasts the author‟s regular assessment of Nineveh as ‫ל‬
ָ ‫גְדֹו‬. Even within

4:1, the author‟s focus can be described as satirical. God has delivered Jonah from the “belly of

Sheol” even though no sufficient evidence exists that Jonah actually repented of his sin. In fact,

providing the prayers lifted within the text of Jonah are consistent (Jonah 2 and 4:2), it can be

argued that Jonah‟s interaction with God is sarcastic. If Jonah is sarcastic in his prayers, the

satire is found in the author‟s characterization of Nineveh and Jonah using repetition, or similar

terms. As earlier expressed, certain words repeat regularly in the text, namely, “Great” ( ָ‫)גְדֹול‬,

“evil/failure” (‫) ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬, and “appoint” (‫מן‬

ָ֣ ַ ). Nineveh was a “great” city (1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11) and an

“evil” one, so God “appointed” Jonah to call the Ninevites unto repentance. Jonah was “evil” as

well in 1:3 and 4:1 (“Great” ‫ גְדֹול‬is also descriptive of Jonah‟s anger) so God appoints a fish

and a plant to bring Jonah to repentance. Thus, the irony of the Book of Jonah consists of the

fact that Jonah, the Israelite with the monopoly on YHWH knowledge and “truth” (symbolized

by the name Jonah), is unwilling to open His eyes to that truth, being blinded by a different type

of evil than that of Nineveh. Though questionable, this hypothesis relates well to the common

language description for both Jonah and Nineveh.

(4:2) At last, the author reveals the answer to Jonah‟s initial resistance to God‟s call to

Nineveh. Assuredly, the task of the author was to grab the reader‟s attention by withholding this

7 Stuart, 502.
 8

information until the last chapter, where all answers are supplied. Similarly to a folk tale or a

short story, Jonah 4 unravels the agenda of the author and the irony of the story of Jonah.

God had relented of the destruction promised by Jonah to the Ninevites and Jonah was

“exceedingly angry” about the outcome. His approach, or reproach for that matter includes his

reasoning for disobeying God, that he is gracious, slow to anger, rich in compassion and

lovingkindness, etc. What an odd complaint! The author‟s use of this complaint provides more

ammunition for the book‟s satirical slant. “Wasn‟t this what I said in my homeland?” he says

obviously referring to his place among the Israelites. Again, the reality is brought to the reader‟s

attention that Jonah has the capital on truth. More than the reference to Israel proper, the author

utilizes Jonah‟s speech about God on more than one occasion to compare him to the Ninevites by

the author‟s use of the verbal root ‫“ י ָדַ ע‬to know.” ‫ י ָדַ ע‬is used in 3:9 to express the Ninevites‟

lack of knowledge about God and in 4:11 to show their incapability to come to that knowledge

on their own. This should be contrasted with the author‟s use of the term ‫“ י ֵָרא‬to fear” in 1:9

and 1:16 to arrive at a fuller understanding of what the author intends for the contemporary

audience. With this parodied use of the Hebrew language, the author is most likely portraying,

as most scholars point out, the narrow-mindedness of many Israelite nationalists both before and

after the exile.8 Through the language of Jonah, could the author be enlightening the reader on

the paradigm with which God looks upon humanity? In short, fear and knowledge is what God

desires, not simply knowledge itself. This is shown by the continued expression of fear (both

afraid and reverent) by those outside of the nation of Israel, who did not know God until he

revealed himself, and also by the sheer irreverence Jonah has towards God, even though Jonah

8 Stuart, 502. (See Bibliography for all references that present this idea. Stuart provided the basic
framework and was thus used as primary reference. Note, however, that the suggested contrasts of the Hebrew
language are largely original to this work.)
 9

knows the truth. In 4:2, Jonah expresses this irreverence in sarcasm and disgust towards God‟s

unchangeable nature. Though Jonah may know Truth (YHWH), he does not fathom or embody

it as the seafarers and the Ninevites did in Jonah 1 and 3 respectively. God must respond to this

lack of fear as well as Jonah‟s refusal to act as a bearer of truth to others.

(4.3) One may finish this verse with the question, “Seriously?” The question is fitting

considering the absurdity of the statement Jonah has made to the Lord. However, more than

likely, this expression is hyperbole on the part of the author to convey the 1) depth of Jonah‟s

hatred towards Nineveh and 2) the counterfeit nature of the prophet. Both Wolff and Simon aid

much in this assessment. Moses, for example asks YHWH to take his life (Num. 11:15) as well

as Elijah in 1 Kings 19:4.9 Interestingly enough, Jonah‟s prayer for God to take his life surfaces

after a successful prophetic mission, unlike those of Moses and Elijah. Surely, the author uses

hyperbole in this case to show Jonah‟s hatred as unwarranted, for who would ask for death

simply because someone else was spared. Secondly, this exact phrase is most likely used to

present Jonah as a caricature of a real prophet like Moses or Elijah. God‟s response is comical in

the least.

(4:4) This verse presents the first example of the divine rhetorical. God‟s question to

Jonah, though demanding an action does not require a response as obviously the correct answer

to the question, ‫לָ ְָֽך‬ ‫ֵיטב ָ ָ֥ח ָרה‬

ֵ֖ ֵ ‫( ַהה‬Does it cause good that anger is to you?) is “No.” Judging by

his lack of response, it is easy to assume that Jonah knew the right answer, again, a play on the

concept of “knowledge” (‫)י ָדַ ע‬. Additionally, the Hebrew word ‫ֵיטב‬
ֵ֖ ֵ ‫( ַהה‬hiph’il infinitive with

interrogative; meaning “good” or “right”) enables better understanding of the text itself. Jonah‟s

refusal to share knowledge of God, or to fear God, “became evil” (‫ ) ָרעַע‬in 4:1, which is the

9 Simon, 38; Wolff, 168.

 10

opposite of the “good” that God speaks of in 4:4. A good comparison for God‟s discussion with

Jonah is God‟s conversation with Cain (Gen. 4:5–7). God asks Cain a similar question with a

different structure. Instead of, “Does it cause you good to be angry,” he asks Cain about his

countenance using the hiph’il construction of ‫טַב‬. Instead of the infinitive absolute, however, the

author in Genesis uses the yiqtol (imperfect) construction. This is relevant due to the fact that the

author in Genesis employs divine rhetorical to express purpose and identify thematic elements

within narrative. The author‟s use of the hiph’il (causative) in the divine rhetorical relates to the

protagonist in both cases (Cain and Jonah) in that the protagonist‟s response to the divine

rhetorical will determine the outcome of the story. For both Cain and Jonah, the outcome is

decisively negative (Jonah does not respond in a way that causes him to do well (‫ֵיטב‬
ֵ֖ ֵ ‫)) ַהה‬. This

comparison is also suggested by J.D. Magonet. Jonah has no right, in the eyes of God, to be

angry. In fact, God has employed the exact same grace with him (i.e. the great fish) as he has

with the Ninevites, yet Jonah is angry unto death. The author portrays the graciousness of

YHWH in that YHWH dignifies Jonah‟s outrageous comment in 4:3 with a response.

METAPHOR (4:5–8)

Then Jonah went out from the city and sat east of the city. And there he made a shelter for
himself and sat under it in the shade until he could see what would come to pass in the city. So
the Lord God appointed/assigned a castor-oil (cucumber) plant and it grew up over Jonah to be
a shade over his head to deliver him from himself/his injury/ his evil. And Jonah rejoiced with
great gladness about the plant. But when dawn came the next day God appointed a worm to
climb up and cause the plant to die and it withered. When the sun rose, God appointed a
scorching east wind that caused the sun to beat down on Jonah’s head so that he became faint
and begged with all his soul to die, saying, “Death is more agreeable to me than life.”

(4:5) Jonah‟s response to God‟s question is to go out and wait to see what the Lord would

do to the Ninevites. Though many view Jonah 4 as a pericope (formerly addressed) due to the
 11

fact that God relents of his destruction of Nineveh in 3:10, more than likely the author of Jonah

simply wrapped up that part of the story in order that the real didactic purpose of the text may be

fulfilled in Jonah 4. That being the case, no elaboration is necessary on the possible

inconsistency in 3:10. The assumption here is that Jonah 4 takes place before Jonah realizes God

has relented. 4:5 is quite self-explanatory, but serves the greater purpose of describing the hatred

Jonah has for the Ninevites. As compared to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.

19:17), Jonah‟s desire to look upon the disaster that may be incurred by the Ninevites proves

again a description of the character of Jonah, and possibly, the character of a larger group in

Israel. The wayyiqtol sequence carries the narrative until the next dialogue, but in this case,

metaphor is incorporated by the author in order to hone in on the major focus, “Does it cause you

good to be angry?”

(4:6) After Jonah has sat down outside the city to see whether God would destroy it, God

“appoints” ‫מנָה‬
ָ a plant to grow up over Jonah and his shelter to deliver him from ‫ ָרעָה‬. Many

translate this as “trouble” or “distress,” but it seems most prudent to allow terms to remain

consistent in meaning throughout the text.10 The best translation for the author‟s purpose seems

to be “evil.” The author utilizes the repetition of the verbal root ‫ ָרעָה‬for an express reason,

especially in Jonah 4. Though the term describes Nineveh, in 1:7, in 4:1 and 4:6 they describe

Jonah. Stylistically, the author portrays God as the one that “appoints” different aspects of

creation to redeem, or deliver, what “evil” has befallen. In Jonah 1 and 2, God “appoints” a

storm and a fish to deliver Jonah from “evil,” and in Jonah 4, God “appoints” a plant, worm, and

east wind to collectively deliver him from “evil.” The reason the author employs this style,

however, is not to show that God controls nature (as any Jew would have understood), but,

10 Stuart, 505; Simon, 43.

 12

rather, why God intercedes at all. In Jonah, God intercedes (“appoints”) to deliver from “evil.”

What the reader should see here is that the author uses this repetition to draw the audience in

once more to the irony of Jonah‟s position. God is using the Jews to reach the nations, to

reconcile them to God, but he does not need the Jews to do so. This is heavily proven by God‟s

use of nature to restore Jonah.

The plant, in fact, serves its purpose by delivering Jonah from “evil.” Jonah goes from

exceedingly angry to exceedingly joyful, possibly symbolizing the fickle and “dove-like” nature

of Jonah and Israel. Jonah is not fully delivered by the plant, however as a simple change in

mood does not solve Jonah‟s problem.

(4:7–8) The second part of Jonah‟s deliverance from evil is the worm and the east wind.11

The worm killed the plant, and the east wind brought hot and non-precipitating weather causing

Jonah pain and frustration, so much that he desires death. This scene, though, is confusing

considering the fact that Jonah had previously built a “booth” or “shelter” for the purpose of

obtaining shade. What did the small plant add that would have been so joy giving? The most

likely answer is that of the joy that must have been received by temperate weather and an

unsolicited gift (plant). Jonah thought highly of the plant though it represented nature running its

course. The likelihood exists that the 2T Jewish audience would have recognized the plant, the

worm and the east wind as natural occurrences in the near east.12 Stuart also suggests that

Jonah‟s faintness and desire to die alludes to a common psychological condition, though this is

11 (Though great significance may be rendered by the metaphor in 4:5–8, here, the text will be treated only
as forward narrative. See Theology of Jonah 4:1–11 for further explanation of the metaphor.)

12 Stuart, 505–6.
 13

arguably irrelevant to the point of the story, it serves as a reminder of the region and climate of

Assryia.13

Important to note is the repeated phrase at the end of 4:8, ‫ח ָי ָֽי‬

ַ ‫ֵמ‬ ‫מֹותי‬
ֵ֖ ‫ל ָ֔מות ו ַֹּ֕י ֹאמֶ ר ָ֥טֹוב‬

“Death is better to me than life.” Here, of the many possible reasons this repetition could have

been used, two warrant discussion. 1) The author of Jonah has repeated this phrase in order to

suggest a comical rebuttal to Jonah‟s earlier sarcasm and 2) the author utilized this metaphor and

repetition to ask the question, “Is death really better than life?” Jonah has moved from a self-

inflicted situation to a situational infliction; from issues of preference to issues of life and death.

The goal of this metaphor was to aid the transition. Jews had the monopoly on the knowledge of

God, but instead of sharing it, they desired to isolate themselves. God‟s plan, however, was

always meant for the nations, not only for the Jews. When this expansion occurs, the Jews and

(in the case of the story) Jonah get angry. The theme of the Book of Jonah and of Jonah 4

centers around the question, “Do you do well to be angry?” To elaborate, another question may

be formulated, “Did you deserve what I (God) gave you?” God specially chose the Jews. The

rest of the world followed the natural pattern, sin and evil. In the same way, God‟s destruction

of the plant by the worm and the destruction of Jonah by the hot sun serve as types that the

reader should identify with the nations. Plants die and nations are destroyed, but if God decides

to intervene or give opportunity for redemption, what is that to the vessel of deliverance? (i.e.

Jonah, fish, storm, worm, plant, sun, etc.). Might Jonah be classified in Wisdom literature based

on the content of the text?

13 Ibid., 506.
 14

DIALOGUE II (4:9–11)

Then God said to Jonah, “Is it good for you to be angry about the plant?” And he said, “Yes, it
is good to be angry, even to death.” Then the Lord said, “You had compassion on the plant for
which you did NO labor or cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight.
Should I not look with compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than
120,000 persons who do not know the distance between their right hand and their left, as well as
many animals?”

(4:9) As a fitting start to the next segment of dialogue, God asks Jonah the same question

(essentially) that he had asked him in (4:4), ‫לָ ְָֽך‬ ‫ֵיטב ָח ָָ֥רה‬
ֵ֖ ֵ ‫“ ַהה‬Is it good for you to be angry?”

Surely repeated for emphasis, the divine rhetorical is used for the purpose of engaging the

audience with an aspect of reiteration; “Are you listening now?” If Jonah‟s complaint was just in

(4:2), the use of metaphor in verses 4–8 would have been unnecessary, but God and the author of

the text deem a further escalation of Jonah‟s situation imperative to prove the point to both Jonah

and the audience. The character of Job was faced with a similar situation (Job 38–41; 42:1–6)

wherein God questioned him with humble response. For Jonah, the obvious response to God‟s

question is “no,” which provocation to the point of death should have elicited, but Jonah, being

stubborn, responds “yes” with utter sarcasm ‫עַד־מָ ָֽוֶת‬ ‫ֵיטב ָח ָָֽרה־לֵ֖י‬
ָ֥ ֵ ‫ה‬. In the same way as (4:4),

the hiph’il infinitive absolute is used here, which does not say much except that Jonah‟s anger

caused him evil. Jonah‟s response is almost paradoxical in nature due to the fact that he calls his

anger “good,” yet ending in “death.” Sin leads to death, so this statement works with the satirical

tone of the work. In essence, Jonah, who has knowledge of God, purposefully seeks out death

and destruction for himself, whereas the Ninevites ignorantly follow their natural pattern, ending

in death. Comically, the Ninevites respond positively to God‟s message and Jonah does not.

Important to note, as well, Jonah‟s sarcasm towards God further expels the disdain that Jonah,

and Israel, have for God‟s mercy for the nations. One can see, at this point, that the author‟s
 15

focus does not merely consist of a pericope or a story of a plant, but on God‟s pursuit of a person

that is unwilling to submit, ‫“( עַד־מָ ָֽוֶת‬even unto death”). What a sad picture the author portrays

of the man Jonah and, possibly, the greater nation of Israel!

(4:10) Even more revealing about the stark contrast between the metaphor in (4: 5–8) is

God‟s discussion with Jonah in (4:10). The author of the text seems to provide transition

between the story of Jonah and the plant and the greater story of Jonah and the Ninevites by

utilizing personification. The plant was neither “great,” nor did it give birth to or kill itself. The

author, here, employs the metaphor (4:5–8) to express the plant‟s, and Jonah‟s, lack of control in

regard to livelihood. The text of verse 10, however, should not be taken literally or as a serious

statement for the following reasons. 1) Jonah clearly did not have concerns for the plant itself (a

normal occurrence in the region), but, rather, was concerned about his own comfort. Many read

the text as if Jonah loved the tree and the destruction of it was appalling. In fact, God‟s use of

the term ‫ חוס‬acts as God‟s sarcastic rebuttal to Jonah‟s absurdity, “You are having compassion

on a plant?” This is fitting with Jonah‟s answer of “yes” to the divine rhetorical in (4:9). A

further description of the scene is helpful in arguing for the divine sarcasm in the text as utilized

by the author of Jonah. 2) God (as stated earlier) personifies the plant with ‫שבן־לַ ָ֥יְלָה‬
ֶ ‫גדַ לְּתֹו‬

‫ ָה ָיֵ֖ה ובן־לַ ָ֥יְלָה ָאבָ ָֽד‬. The term “great” to describe the plant can be compared to the author‟s

continued use of ‫ גָדַ ל‬to describe the city of Nineveh. Surely the plant was not great as it was a

“son” of two nights, becoming and perishing quickly. This plant was simply an addition to

Jonah‟s comfort and was subsequently taken away. The comparison, then, as will be seen, is

between a single plant that is most likely common in the region and seen by many as a weed and
 16

a nation with many people and animals.14 The author‟s use of personification for the plant is no

accident. Instead, this use serves to embody God‟s sarcasm towards Jonah. Plants are not great

and deserving of compassion nor do they take on human characteristics.

It is here that a more elaborate discussion on the (4:5–8) metaphor becomes relevant. In

the personification of the plant, the author may be explicating a greater comparison than what is

generally suggested concerning the plant and the Ninevites. In fact, this was almost necessary if

the author planned on speaking directly to a certain audience. I propose that the terminology

regarding the plant in (4:5–9) refer explicitly to the temple, possibly even 2T. This is suggested

by what the plant does in, shielding Jonah from “evil” (‫) ָרעָה‬, giving Jonah “great joy” (‫מחָה‬
ְ ‫)ש‬,

being susceptible and extremely fragile (4:7; being destroyed by a small worm), and its temporal

presence on Earth (4:10). The Book of Jonah is consistent with this considering the fact that the

use of the idiom ‫י ְהוָ ה‬ ‫“ מלפ ְֵנֵ֖י‬from the presence of the Lord” (1:3a, 3b, 10) is assuredly a

reference to the temple in Jerusalem.15 Though the author‟s use of the preceding phrase is

inconclusive, chances are (considering the satirical tone of the book) that Jonah remained loyal

to Israel while fleeing from the presence of God. Jonah clearly seeks to depart from God‟s

presence even though he “look(s) toward His temple” (2:4). As expressed in the context section

of this paper, the prayer in chapter 2 could have been a prayer of obligation rather than genuine

willingness, thus making the reference in (2:4) a double entendre. Jonah looked towards the

physical temple, yet he still did not seek the Lord‟s presence. This view of the plant is also

supplemented by the seafarers‟ and Ninevites‟ repentance (i.e. turning to the Lord). This view is

nearly unheard of in scholarship, yet based on the aforementioned reasons, it makes much sense.

14 Stuart, 505.

15 Sweeney, 311.
 17

If this assumption is taken, the plant becomes a type for the temple of God in Jerusalem, which

most assuredly had become an idol for the Israelites since the Ezra reform and the emphasis on

the Law (justice) of God rather than the mercy of God. The author could be using the plant as an

example to show the temporal aspect of the temple as compared to the larger purpose God has

called the Jews to. In short, one can turn towards YHWH without seeing Him through the

temple. This is opposite the view of Jonah and many Israelite nationalists.

(4:11) New information regarding the metaphor in (4:5–8) sheds light on the final verse.

The question may move from a comparison of the plant to a comparison to the temple (the

representation of Israel), “If you have compassion for the temple that is only temporary, shall I

not have compassion on Nineveh?” Though no response is detailed in the text, the assumed

response is that God should have compassion on Nineveh. Though there seems to be no hope for

Jonah, the goal of the author is only determined by the reader‟s response. The reader (most

likely Israelite) will either flee the presence of God in lieu of temple worship, or he will enter

into the presence of God by sensing compassion for what God truly cares for, “Nineveh…as well

as many animals.” Obviously Magonet‟s “growing phrase” is embodied in this text for the

author describes Nineveh in great detail (different from previous descriptions in Jonah).16

Indubitably, the phrase ‫ֹאלו‬

֔ ‫שמ‬
ְ ‫ל‬ ‫“( ָאדָָ֗ ם ֲא ֶ ֶׁ֤שר לָֽא־י ָדַ ע֙ בֵין־י ְמ ָ֣ינ ֹו‬not knowing the distance

between their right and left hands”) propagates the “knowledge” motif within the text. Though

Jonah has knowledge of God and His temple in Israel, he is far from the true God and although

the Ninevites have no knowledge at all (denoted by the Hebrew phrase), God still has

compassion on them. Ignorance, in this sense, shows innocence. This innocence, however, does

not shield from punishment, increasing the urgency with which Jonah (and Israelites) must act in

16 Wolff, xxxi.
 18

regards to the nations. The tag “and many animals” serves no little purpose. In fact, this

insertion is most likely due to the action of the king in (3:8) to “cover both man and beast in

sack-cloth.” According to Yael Shemesh, this “indicate(s) that divine mercy transcends human

beings” to include animals.17 Though this is a possibility, more than likely the author‟s

inclusion, instead of showing divine mercy, further broadens the contrast between the plant and

the city of Nineveh in two ways. 1) God used an animal in both Jonah 2 and 4 to deliver Jonah

from his “evil.” Though animals are not as important as man, God utilizes every aspect of His

creation for his purposes. Animals, then, are necessary, not simply for the commerce and

livelihood of Nineveh, but also for its turning to God, offering even their livestock to Him. 2)

Animals provide much more than shade for a people, but economy. As contrasted with the

transitory plant, animals provide much more sustenance and are deserving of more compassion.

This text works towards the main theme of the Book of Jonah. People and animals are

more important than comfort and personal preference. If articulated towards 2T Jews, this

concept elicits a drastic response from the reader, either to turn towards the true presence of the

Lord or to flee from it.

17 Yael Shemesh, “‟And Many Beasts:‟ The Function and Status of Animals on the Book of Jonah, The
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. 10, Article 6 (2010), accessed November 15, 2013,
http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_134.pdf.
 19

EXCURSUS I

HERMENEUTICAL METHOD

Considering the lack of information (historically and literarily) on the Book of Jonah, the

hermeneutical method selected must include more than what can be obtained by will power. For

the purposes of an exegesis of Jonah 4:1–11, the Historical-Biblical (Grammatical) Method

should be selected over the Historical-Critical as the major didactic elements within the book

denote a divine illocution that cannot be determined on the basis of secular science. The two

methods, however, should be incorporated together regarding procedures in order to formulate

better hypotheses about the Book of Jonah. For simplicity, these procedures will be divided into

five critical categories: Literary, Form, Socio-Cultural, Thematic (Traditional), and Canonical.

Literary

Within the Book of Jonah, several different literary techniques are utilized to promulgate

the great purpose of the work. This fact creates difficulty in determining meaning as well as

questions concerning textual development. The choice persists whether to take the text of Jonah

at its face value or to seek out social or community features that may have affected its

construction or compilation. Neither analyzing the surface nor reconstructing the meaning based

on possible historical or social developments expresses rightly the text. The reader must ask,

rather, “What does the text say?” Then, the question regarding the difference in literary elements

becomes relevant. For example, the author of Jonah uses brute narrative to tell the story, yet

utilizes psalm-like poetry and extended metaphor to convey the didactic tone within. The

chance, however, exists that the text‟s diversity is shaped by compilation instead of a single

creative author. The reader should respond to the text in its entirety, engaging the text genuinely,
 20

reserving the search for historical shaping until the text has had its effect. That is not to say that

literary (source) criticism is unnecessary, simply that literary analysis precedes it.18

Form

Examining the form of the Book of Jonah becomes quite the task considering the fact that

it includes narrative, poetry, extended metaphor, allegorical components, Midrashim elements,

and aspects of legendary literature.19 While it is widely recognized that Biblical literature has an

extended oral history, oral history concerning the Book of Jonah is hard to determine. Through

dating and source criticism, one can find what might be called a disparity between the written

text and the beginning of oral tradition, but this does not help us in regards to classification or

genre decisions, especially with the aforementioned topic. Jonah is either a piece of literature

totally unto itself, being classified as such, or it is a compilation of different oral traditions that

should be classified respectively. The contrast may seem strange, but unless the discussion on

the form prevails as more of an analysis, this is the proper alternative. What should be proposed

is something quite different and must be covered with more care and length than can be provided

in the current work. Rather than waste time classifying books in the Canon that speak-forth

regardless of the classification given, we should reassess the ways different scriptures are

classified. As mentioned earlier, the Qumran, LXX, and MT all include Jonah in the Book of the

Twelve (though in different order). Clearly, to the Israelites, classification was not an issue. The

elements within the Book of Jonah, then, did not determine Jewish classification. This can be

extended to all prophecy. Instead of asking about oral tradition or how a text should be

18 Ernst R. Wendland, “Text Analysis and the Genre of Jonah (Part 1).” The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 39/2 (June 1996): 199, accessed November 15, 2013, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-
PDFs/39/39-2/39-2-pp191-206_JETS.pdf.

19 Jones, 143.
 21

classified, we should ask, “What does Jonah have in common with the rest of Jewish prophecy?”

This view will permeate the rest of the discussion about hermeneutical procedures.

Socio-Cultural (Redaction)

The author of the Book of Jonah is unknown. What is known is that this is a story about

a prophet, mostly assumed to be the Jonah that “predicted victory to Jeroboam II in the ninth

century B.C.E.”20 The social setting is extremely relevant to the Book of Jonah. Clearly the

book was not written at the time of Jeroboam II as the language suggests a later date, possibly

even post-exilic.21 Of course, many best guesses exist for the social setting of the Book of Jonah.

In the end, the Book of Jonah presents a story about a prophet, but more than that a story about

how God interacts with regard to repentance and disobedience; grace and mercy. This motif

works pre and post-exile.

Thematic (Traditional)

Thematically, the character of God and His interaction with Creation in the Book of

Jonah remain consistent with the rest of Scripture. In fact, assuming the final text of the Book of

Jonah post-dates the exile, the corpus of Jonah succeeds in the task (assuming author‟s

illocution) of progressive revelation. God effectively reveals himself post-exile, not just as a god

of justice and mercy (as presented in the rest of the prophets), but as a God who cares greatly for

the nations, even outside of Israel.

Before, however, we stray too far; a post-exilic interpretation is not necessarily warranted

by the Book of Jonah. The message remains consistent both pre and post-exile dating. Let us

assume for the sanctity of the text and the purpose of this work, that the Book of Jonah is God‟s

20 Hinckley G., John Merlin Powis Smith, Julius A. Bewer Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and
Jonah a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (icc) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Publishers Limited, 1980), 8.

21 Ibid., 12–13.
 22

progressive revelation to the Jews (pre-exile) that Israel is not the epitome of God‟s plan, but that

Israel‟s obedience is desired for God‟s greater purpose of reconciling the nations to Himself.

(This statement, by no means, presents the thesis of Jonah 4:1–11, but merely serves to provide a

basic framework in which to allow the text to speak.)

Canonical

According to Stuart, Jonah was lumped into the Book of the Twelve because of its short

length, late date, and subject. He says this in relation to a somewhat common assumption by

scholars that Jonah acts similarly to the stories of Elijah or Elisha, “stripped of its context.”22

This makes sense if one is to take the “Jonah ben-Ammitai” of 2 Kings 14:25 assumption. If this

view is taken, however, then it is hard to understand why the compilers for the books of the

Kings and Chronicles would not have included the story as they have with Elijah and Elisha.

In addition to the questionable placement in the Book of the Twelve, there also exists a

differentiation in order among the Qumran, LXX and the MT.23 Jones takes the view that the

Qumran‟s placement of Jonah after Malachi is most likely due to its post-exilic date, whereas the

LXX places it between Obadiah and Nahum and the MT between Obadiah and Micah.24 The

Latter placements by the LXX and MT seem odd, however, due to the messages of Obadiah,

Nahum and Micah. Obadiah portrays judgment and restoration to Judah (Ob. 1:2, 17), Nahum

destruction for Nineveh (Nahum 2–3), and Micah judgment and restoration to Israel (Mic. 1:1;

5:1). With the exception of the Qumran document, the order seems thematic and inconsistent.

Jones‟ proposition may be correct in that 4QXIIa‟s placement of Jonah at the end of the Book of

22 Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 31, Hosea-Jonah (Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1987),
433–34.

23 Jones, 138–9.

24 Sweeney, 303.
 23

the Twelve makes the most sense. Thematic elements aside, the confusion among compilations

concerning Jonah‟s placement should cause us to err on the side of a later addition to the Book of

the Twelve.

Canonical placement discussions about the Book of Jonah have been largely inconclusive

due to the lack of external evidence. Our most reliable texts (LXX and MT) placed Jonah based

on thematic elements. Even though some external evidence (Jones‟ hypothesis) presents the

possibility of a late inclusion, this work will assume a thematic rather than chronological

placement within the Canon.25

25 Utilized for pages 3–7… Richard M. Davidson, Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:
Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics (Biblical Research Institute General Conference
of Seventh-day Adventists, 2003) 10–11, accessed December 2, 2013,
https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf.
 24

EXCURSUS II

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Briefly discussed previously were the issues regarding the historical context for the Book

of Jonah. The discussion can move from potential hermeneutical dilemmas to the integral aspect

of historical accuracy, or capacity as it concerns Jonah. Immediately, the reader faces two

historical settings to engage: That of the prophet Jonah as well as the final editor of the text.

Clearly many facts lend to a post-exilic interpretation of the final text, but, though the final

product is necessary, Jesus‟ utility of the “sign of Jonah” deems further investigation into the

prophet himself.26 In order to adequately gain footing in the conversation on Jonah 4, the

following historical elements will be momentarily deliberated: Jonah the prophet, authorship,

date and setting, canonization, and historicity.

Jonah the prophet

Jonah happens to be one of the most prolific characters in the entire Bible. The prophet

himself, according to many, should not be considered as important as the story itself. The

question, nonetheless, arises as to whether Jonah‟s personal experience is what is relevant or the

message he preached to the Ninevites. In fact, Jonah exists as the only prophetic book that is

biographical in nature.27 Other than the work itself, Jonah is only mentioned one other time in

the OT in 2 Kgs 14:25, which tells of his prophecies about the “re-expansion of Israel under

King Jeroboam II (793–753).”28 Second Kings also refers to his citizenship in Gath-Hepler,

three miles northeast of Nazareth. The story of Jonah remains consistent with the occupation of

26 G CH. Aalders, The Problem of the Book of Jonah, (The Tyndale Press, 1958), 29.

27 Stuart, 431.

28 Ibid., 431.
 25

the prophet under Jeroboam II. In addition, a prophet that prophesied about the expansion of the

Kingdom of Israel into parts of Assyria would most likely be disingenuous in his apology toward

the Ninevites.

On the other hand, not all scholars hold to a literal interpretation of the Book of Jonah.

The name Jonah actually means “dove,” denoting a fickle being with a lack of direction.

Considering his father‟s name is Ammitai, meaning “truth,” it is easy to see why many people

interpret the mysterious prophet allegorically, or satirically. Sadly, not much else is known

about the prophet and his life. Positively, an understanding of the prophet is quite unnecessary in

receiving the illocution of the story.29

Authorship

Although the proclivity to posit that the final edition of the Book of Jonah is more of a

compilation is externally appealing and (as previously addressed) not of express concern to

theological conclusions about the text, those proponing this view have historically been

unconvincing.30 All we can truly gather from the final edition is his use of ‫עיר־‬ ‫וְנ ָֽינְ ָ֗ ֵוה ָהי ָ ְֶׁ֤תה‬

‫“ גְדֹולָה‬And Nineveh was a great city.” The mention of such a small grammatical cue relates to

the destruction of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E. If the argument holds weight, the author would have

edited the book of Jonah well after Jonah‟s lifetime, most likely post-exile. This, however, limits

the authorial search to grasping at straws since many Hebrew short stories, parables, or folk tales

29 Ibid., 431.

30 Ibid., 432.
 26

use ‫ הָיה‬in order to denote any happenstance. Unconvincing in any sense, this fact does

elucidate the greatness of Nineveh at the time that Jonah prophesied.31

Date and Setting

While we must assume that Jonah the prophet was most likely the man mentioned in 2

Kings (around ninth century B.C.E), the date of the final edition does not necessarily follow the

same assumption. In fact, the WBC widens the chronological boundaries for the date or the Book

of Jonah between 750–250 B.C.E. Stuart employs such a gap due to the lack of verifiable

indicators of the date.32 The ICC does little more than sully the waters with more inconclusive

options of the date.33 Wolff, equally unhelpful in regards to dating, actually suggests that, due to

the seafaring motif, the Book of Jonah could have been finalized by the late Persian period or

early Hellenistic period.34 In regards to the date, it seems prudent to defer to a similar response

to that of Stuart (earlier discussed). Most likely, the story-like tone within the Book of Jonah, the

use of ‫ הָיה‬to refer to Nineveh, slight indicators within the language of Jonah itself, and its

presence in Tobit 14 and 3 Maccabees 6 collectively suggest a date subsequent the fall of

Nineveh (612 B.C.E) yet earlier than the Third Century.35 In the end, dating the Book of Jonah

comes not without difficulty. For simplicity‟s sake, this work moves forward with the notion

that Jonah prophesied during the ninth century, becoming a household story (especially for Jews

of northern Israel) by the time of the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.E). By this time, the oral form of

31 Ibid., 432.

32 Ibid., 432–33.

33 Hinkley, 11–13.

34 Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: a Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers,
1986), 77–78.

35 Hinkley, 13.
 27

the story would have shifted in regard to changes in setting. Thus, once Nineveh was destroyed

and post-exilic language (written and oral) originated, the story of Jonah moved from an oral

tradition to a written didactic treatise, appealing to some audience about something. Problems

concerning the audience and main purpose of the book rival the date and authorship analytically

and serve the major purpose in an exegesis on the Book of Jonah, in particular, 4:1–11.

Canonization

Though briefly discussed earlier, the topic of canonization in the Book of Jonah requires

elaboration, as a 2T Jewish interpretation and subsequent compilation of the books of the OT

provides much needed advocacy for understanding the purpose and intended audience for the

Book of Jonah.

To be candid, no one scholar has presented a fully conclusive argument for why Jonah

was included in the Book of the Twelve, or as a prophecy at all for that matter. On the same

note, since the varying placements of Jonah in different compilations have been formerly

presented, finding no adequate solution, little time will be donated here. In short, Jonah was

most likely placed based on the suggested date of the actual prophet, the length, and the

similarity of the message to that of Micah, Nahum, and Obadiah.36

Historicity

According to Stuart (WBC), “One can appreciate the story of Jonah whether or not it

represents actual historical events.”37 To many, the historicity of the Book of Jonah is irrelevant,

even hindering, to the story. What matter is it whether Jonah was swallowed by a fish or not?

God rescued him. To a modern audience, however, historicity matters much, as it is easier to

relate to someone who actually existed. Aalders might argue that whether the purpose prevails

36 Stuart, 433.

37 Ibid., 440.
 28

or not, the text surely asserts that a real human being prophesied in a real place in history.

According to him, the Jewish audience truly believed in a literal translation.38 One is hard

pressed to conclude the exact hermeneutical standard of the 2T Jewish interpretation of Jonah,

but clarity exists in regards to the fact that they believed the text to be of God. Might an

alternative to the coin toss between literal and figurative exist? Although a better developed

study into 2T Jewish hermeneutics might be in order, suffice it for the purpose of this work to

conclude adequate historicity sans precise detail. In other words, the Book of Jonah presents a

real situation regardless of whether the story of Jonah phased with precision. Israel was

disobedient; God delivered her. Israel was reticent towards the nations; God delivers them, and

provokes Israel to participate in the same deliverance. Far from a literal reading, this

understanding of the book of Jonah engages both depth and reality. That is not to say that the

story of Jonah could not have happened, or even that it did not occur, but that the story of Jonah

is not inseparable from the divine illocution. Could the 2T Jews have looked beyond historicity

for the divine illocution, the revealed character of God in the text of Jonah?

38 Aalders, 29.
 29

EXCURSUS III

LITERARY CONTEXT

The text of Jonah appeals to a large possible audience, not in the least inhibited by the

various literary techniques the author uses to convey his message. The book concerns a prophet

named Jonah and his call to preach repentance to the city of Nineveh. Within the context of the

story, God, Jonah, seafaring peoples, a giant fish, the Ninevites, a plant, and a worm are all

called into question. Is the story about God, Jonah or the nations? Hopefully, a brief exploration

into different aspects of the author‟s literary technique will shed some light in the following

categories: Style, structure, message, and purpose.

Style and Structure

Structurally, the Book of Jonah tends to be segmented into two scenes: Jonah 1–2 and 3–

4.39 However, this seems unlikely considering the literary escalation of the story. Magonet has

effectively coined the term “growing phrase” in order to explain this escalation. Essentially he

examines the repetition of certain terms and phrases to determine their growth throughout the

Book of Jonah. For example, the discussion of Nineveh in Jonah 1 (‫ְדֹולֵ֖ה‬

ָ ‫ַהג‬ ‫“ )הָעָ֥יר‬the great

city” grows in Jonah 3 to “the great city to God” (‫ָֽאלהים‬

֔ ֵ‫ל‬ ֙‫)עיר־גְדֹולָה‬, until “the great city in

which there are more than 140,000 people who do not know their right hand from their left”

( ‫שּתֵ ים־עֶשְ ֵֵ֨רה ר ּ֜בֹו ָאדָָ֗ ם ֲא ֶ ֶׁ֤שר לָֽא־י ָדַ ע֙ בֵין־י ְמ ָ֣ינ ֹו‬
ְ ָֽ‫ֲשר י ֶש־ ָָּ֡בה ה ְַרבֵה֩ מ‬
ָ֣ ֶ ‫ה ָָ֣עיר ַהגְדֹולָ ה א‬

‫ֹאלו‬
֔ ‫שמ‬
ְ ‫)ל‬. Though progressions similar to this do not necessarily determine order, emphases of

this sort are certainly helpful in signifying main themes. With that in mind, there seem to be

39 Trible, 110.
 30

three scenes within the Book of Jonah: Jonah 1–2, 3, and 4. Within each of these scenes, there

exists a protagonist, an antagonist, and then supporting characters. The seafarers, Ninevites, and

the worm are to be considered supporting characters.40

Thus, in the first scene, Jonah disobeys God, God sends a storm (neutral) to antagonize

Jonah unto repentance, Jonah repents, and God sends a fish (neutral). Within this, the supporting

characters (seafarers) are affected also acting as tools towards Jonah‟s repentance (by inflicting

pain upon Jonah.)

In the second scene, Jonah obeys God, and God delivers the Ninevites, using Jonah. In

Riccourian style conveyance, the author of Jonah uses metaphor in the last scene to elaborate on

the point of contention. God, for the third time antagonizes Jonah for his disgust, not simply

towards the people of Nineveh, but towards God Himself. God caused a plant to grow over

Jonah to shield him from “evil,” but God then appoints a worm to destroy this same object of

protection. What is the worm? What about the tree? The author‟s style presents a conundrum

for the reader that is not easily solved.

The dissection of these scenes also makes for a more effective determination of the

author‟s method of expression. The most common form of writing within Jonah is that of

narrative. In Jonah narrative carries the plot (Jonah 1, 3–4), whereas other methods (i.e. poetry,

metaphor, repetition, symmetry) present the message.41 Key words also appear within the text to

denote contrast. For example, the author juxtaposes Jonah‟s “confident” use of the Hebrew word

‫( י ָדַָ֗ ְע‬to know) with its use by both the seafarers and the king of the Ninevites.42 Words of note

40 Uriel Simon, Jonah: the Traditional Hebrew Text with the New Jps Translation (Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society, 1999), xxxii.

41 Ibid., xvi–xxxii.
42 Ibid., xxxi.
 31

within the Book of Jonah are: “Great” ( ָ‫)גְדֹול‬, “evil/failure” (‫) ָר ָ ָ֣עה‬, and “appoint” (‫מן‬
ָ֣ ַ ).43 These

all occur with repetition also alluding to potential, loss thereof, and God‟s intervention. Taking

notice of this reveals little, however, to identify the main purpose or audience and can be lumped

into the category stylistic repetition and irony.

With less literary protrusion than most prophetic literature, yet more than the standard

narrative, Jonah has been difficult to place for many scholars. The heightened language and

story-like qualities of the Book of Jonah should not perplex the reader; rather, they should

engage the reader more deeply. The language is simple enough, the repetition presents itself

clearly, and themes are prevalent throughout the text. The perpetual issue throughout studies on

Jonah is the assessment of the audience and of the purpose.

Message and Purpose

As Stuart well articulates, the author‟s repetition of God‟s question in Jonah 4:4 and 4:9

(‫לָ ְָֽך׃‬ ‫ֵיטב ָ ָ֥ח ָרה‬

ֵ֖ ֵ ‫“ ) ַהה‬What right do you have to be angry” most likely represents what the author

intends to convey through the story. As in many narratives, the Hebrew author presents a

situation with God as the antagonist and the main character as the protagonist, reserving dialogue

between God and the protagonist until a necessary point in the growth of the theme. Examples

of this include Job 40:2 and Gen. 4:6, though neither of these allow for direct comparison. If

nothing else, these two examples provide evidence of the divine rhetorical. What I hope to

prove through exegesis is that the divine rhetorical acts as a representative for the main purpose

within any Biblical literature. Lastly, in Jonah 4:11 Gods asks another rhetorical question to

Jonah: “Should I not spare Nineveh?” This offers a possible main or sub-point to Jonah. If this

acts as a sub-point in the text, then the major message of Jonah works within the canon

43 Stuart, 437–38.
 32

consistently as the following divine rhetorical questions: Do you have a right to be angry about

what I am doing? Subsequently, Shall I not spare those I care about? Essentially this amounts

to the formulaic “Love God, love others” understanding of God‟s covenant with Israel. 44

44 Ibid., 435.
 33

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalders, G CH. The Problem of the Book of Jonah. The Tyndale Press, 1958.

German Bible Society. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (hebrew Edition). 5th ed. Chicago:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.

Handy, Lowell K. Jonah's World: Social Science and the Reading of Prophetic Story. Oakville,
CT: Equinox Publishing, 2008.

Holladay, William Lee. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based
Upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. 1988 ed. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Pub Co, 1972.

Jenson, Philip Peter. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: a Theological Commentary. New York: T&T
Clark, 2008.

Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: a Study in Text and Canon.
Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995.

Mitchell, Hinckley G., John Merlin Powis Smith, Julius A. Bewer. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
and Jonah a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC). Edinburgh: T & T Clark
Publishers Limited, 1980.

Perry, T. A. The Honeymoon Is Over--Jonah's Argument with God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Pub, 2006.

Shemesh, Yael, “„And Many Beasts‟ (Jonah 4:11): The Function and Status of Animals in the
Book of Jonah,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10, no. 6 (2010), Accessed November
15, 2013, http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_134.pdf.

Simon, Uriel. Jonah: the Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society, 1999.

Sweeney, Marvin A. The Twelve Prophets. Edited by David W. Cotter and Jerome T. Walsh.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.

Stuart, Douglas. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 31, Hosea-Jonah. Waco, TX: Thomas Nelson,
1987.

Teixidor, Javier. The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977.

Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1994.
 34

Wendland, Ernst R. “Text Analysis and the Genre of Jonah (Part 1).” The Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 39/2 (June 1996): 191-206, accessed November 15,
2013, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/39/39-2/39-2-pp191-206_JETS.pdf.

Wendland, Ernst R. “Text Analysis and the Genre of Jonah (Part 2).” The Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 39/3 (June 1996): 373-395, accessed November 15,
2013, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/39/39-3/39-3-pp373-395_JETS.pdf.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Obadiah and Jonah: a Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress
Publishers, 1986.

Zondervan Publishing and Edward W. Goodrick. Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance. 2 ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1999.

Zvi, Ehud Ben. Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud. London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003