Jonah
Review of Previous Posts
The posts in this Jonah Series of the Prophets Section explore meanings for the story of Jonah. The previous post, Number 2 of 14, presented some commonly accepted interpretations of the story.
Preview of this Post
This is post, post 3 of 14, presents several additional interpretations of the story of Jonah.
- Other interpretations
- Introduction
A case can be made that the story of Jonah does not fall neatly into any one of these interpretations; however, that does not mean that there is no interpretation for this story. A story that has attained the importance that the story of Jonah has is many-faceted and has many layers. Therefore, trying to interpret the story through a single lens will fall short. An interpretation which has many layers must be used.
- The story illustrated monotheism
The story of Jonah can be read as illustrating that the God of Israel is the only God (monotheism) and has total power over all, including the non-believers of Nineveh and the non-believer sailors of Jonah’s sea voyage from Joppa. Further, the story shows that the God of Israel cares about everyone, including non-believers who may worship other gods.
- The story debunks many reasons for not following God’s call and illustrates that when God calls, there is no good human reason for not answering the call (Jonah – the reluctant prophet)
(1) There may be several reasons why Jonah did not want to deliver God’s message to Nineveh.
(a) He may have felt that not destroying the city was changing the consequences associated with the pagan ways of Nineveh. Jonah may have felt that pagans should be destroyed for their beliefs in pagan gods if for no other reason[1].
(b) Jonah may have felt that Nineveh would revert back to its pagan ways as soon as it was convenient thereby making a mockery of God’s act of not destroying the city.
(c) Jonah may have considered that the non-believers would never accept God and thus the act of sparing the city was futile.
(d) Jonah simply may not have cared for non-believers and felt that his time could be better spent elsewhere in Israel. His going into the hold of the ship and going to sleep during the storm seems to indicate that Jonah did not care about the fate of the sailors (Jonah, himself, wanted to die, so he would not care about the fate of the ship as far as he was concerned) and thus would not care what happened to the city of Nineveh.
(e) Since Nineveh was the capital of the neo-Assyrian Empire, perhaps Jonah did not want to be any part in saving such a city which may later be the center of the country which might destroy Jonah’s country. In this view, Jonah chooses to martyr himself rather than participate in a plan which ultimately will harm his people.
(2) Strict Justice versus mercy
Simon in the JPS Commentary notes that Jonah may be an adherent of strict justice versus mercy. Simon notes that Jonah believed that exercising mercy means commuting punishment or changing consequences associated with an action is an act of mercy and “Punishment of sinners in accordance with their wickedness is demanded by strict justice and essential to deter transgressors, but allowing the judge to stand above the law undermines the authority of the law and dims the clarity of the doctrine of reward and punishment.” The concept of consequences being associated with actions and God’s interference in this association causing chaos was discussed in the series on prayer and will also be discussed below.
Later, when discussing Jonah’s second rebellion outside Nineveh, Simon states “Devine compassion is perceived not only as unnecessary but as actually harmful, because mercy undermines the force of justice by detracting from the certainty of punishment and obscures the clarity of judgment by adding a factor that cannot be calculated in advance.” Chaos will result if Devine mercy can so easily cancel out Devine justice as was perceived by Jonah. In this case, Jonah’s problem with Devine actions is the reverse of Job’s. Job felt that God was capricious because an innocent was suffering; whereas, Jonah felt that God was capricious because no suffering was visited upon the guilty. Both Job and Jonah found inconsistency in God’s actions, and both felt that such inconsistency leads to chaos. Thus, both Job and Jonah challenged God’s actions because they felt that doing so protected the integrity of God’s actions. In fact, Jonah was willing to die rather than live in a universe where he could not rely on consistent actions from God.
(3) Jonah may have feared for his life
An additional interpretation could be that, simply, Jonah was afraid for his life. He was asked to go to a city that was pagan as far as he was concerned, and possibly hostile to his country and tell them to repent their ways or his god would destroy them. The reader should picture himself in this situation. Would the reader go to a foreign city that was probably hostile to him and tell them that your god will destroy them unless they repent? Ridicule would be the least you might expect, and death would be a distinct possibility (especially in Biblical times). Would the reader go under such circumstances, or would the reader try to avoid it? God rejected this argument and, like He did with Sarai in the harm in Egypt, would have protected Jonah and not allowed the Ninevites to harm him.
Preview of the next post
The next post, post Number 4 of 14, is the first of four posts discussing implications of the story of Jonah.
[1] After all, during the time of Judges, as well as other times, weren’t the Israelites repeatedly punished when they practiced idolatry? Perhaps, Jonah viewed all idolaters the same and balked at giving the idolaters of Nineveh special treatment.