Theodicy and the Nature of God in
Nahum and Jonah
Sandy Haney
Department
of Theology and Religious Studies
Villanova University
Edited by Edward Pettit
Within the twelve minor prophets of the Hebrew Bible are
the books of Nahum and Jonah. The popularity of Jonah — the book from
which movies, books, songs, and more have been inspired— stands in contrast to
Nahum, a book rarely mentioned in churches, classrooms, or popular literature
and media. Each book discusses the city of Nineveh and its fall (whether
projected, past, or thwarted), and underlying each book is the question of
God’s nature. The issue of theodicy, which is “the attempt to defend divine
justice in the face of aberrant phenomena that appear to indicate the deity’s
indifference or hostility toward virtuous people,”[1]
becomes central to each book. For Nahum, the fall of Nineveh is vindication of
God’s righteousness and justice: though the wicked nation was once used to
carry out God’s punishment upon Judah, Assyria is now (finally) going to be
judged for her sins by the just God. For Jonah, the issue of theodicy is a bit
more complicated, since the book’s audience and the title character deal with
this topic in different ways. From Jonah’s point of view, God is so merciful
towards Nineveh that his[2]
justice appears overthrown, yet God’s dealings with his prophet seem cruel and
unkind. From the perspective of the audience, God’s mercy does not nullify his
justice because the audience knows that God eventually destroys Nineveh. The
nature of God in Jonah is, therefore, more complex than the nature of God in
Nahum.
Contemporary
theological critiques fail to take into account many of the questions and
issues the books address, particularly concerning their approaches to the issue
of theodicy; thus much of leading contemporary scholarship is misguided in its
theological analyses of these prophetic texts. A proper understanding is
possible only if scholars take into account the contexts and literary characteristics
of the texts and distinguish the issues of theodicy in each.
Preliminary issues
Both
Nahum and Jonah were written for an Israelite audience. Although little is
known about the prophet Nahum except his name, he was most likely a cult
prophet and certainly a resident of Judah, though no one has successfully
identified Nahum's hometown, Elkosh.[3]
Most scholars consider Nahum a seventh-century prophet and thus date the book
after the fall of Thebes in 663 B. C. and before the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E.[4]
Jonah, on the other hand, was written in the post-exilic period,[5]
though it does try to situate itself in the eighth century by referring to a
nationalistic prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25.[6]
Nahum
is an oracle against the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, and scholars debate the
structure of this book.[7]
Blenkinsopp provides one of the best analyses of Nahum’s structure: an
introductory acrostic (1:2-8),[8]
three short sayings (1:9-14), an oracle against Nineveh (1:15-2:12, plus a
prose statement in 2:13), and a woe oracle against Nineveh (3:1-19).[9]
Nevertheless, the compilation of Nahum is such that similar themes run through
all the parts. The entire book is an oracle against Nineveh, and this oracle
paints a picture of God. Thus, the book of Nahum will be treated as one
literary unit. Similarly, scholars often divide the book of Jonah into two
parts, chapters 1-2 and 3-4, divisions that could be labeled God’s call and
Jonah’s response (ch. 1-2) and God’s call and Nineveh’s response (ch. 3-4).[10]
Scholars often consider the psalm in 2:2-10 an interpolation. However, as with
Nahum, because each section contains similar themes and addresses the issue of
the nature of God, I will treat Jonah as a literary whole.[11]
An
analysis of each book as a distinct literary unit demonstrates that their
concern about Nineveh’s fate and the nature of God links these two little
books. Nevertheless, the books differ in theology and in their attitude toward
Nineveh and its destruction, thus offering different perspectives on the same
fundamental questions: why and will Nineveh fall, and — more significantly —
what is the nature of the God who will or will not destroy this city?
Nahum
Nahum [12]
uses the prophetic oracle to condemn the nation of Assyria and to proclaim the
justice and sovereignty of Israel’s God. It is “an oracle concerning Nineveh”
and “the vision of Nahum of Elkosh” (Nah 1:1).[13]
Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire.[14]
The Assyrians, known for their cruelty and violence, ruled the Ancient Near
East from approximately the ninth century until the death of Ashurbanipal in
626 B.C.E., when their power began to wane.[15]
Enemies of the Israelites, the Assyrians had reduced Judah to vassalage in 734,
destroyed Israel (Samaria) in 721, and demolished Judean cities, besieging
Jerusalem, in 701 B.C.E. The Assyrians were hated for their methods of
conquest, for they committed “atrocities against civilian populations and mass
deportations as deliberate instruments of policy.”[16]
They had no qualms about inflicting pain; in fact, archaeologists have
discovered Assyrian reliefs that portray their brutal practices.[17]
The Assyrians also did not limit their cruelty to the king’s court: women and
children were victims as well. Thus, there was ample reason for the animosity
Nahum and his audience felt for Assyria.[18]
By the time of Nahum, many Israelites must have
doubted the supremacy and goodness of their God: not only had God allowed them
to be conquered, but God had not acted to save his people or punish the
Assyrians for their wickedness. Thus, questions about the nature of God — his
righteousness and justice[19] —
were relevant to Nahum’s audience.[20]
Accordingly, Nahum addresses these issues in his oracle against Nineveh as he
declares to his audience that God does act against oppression and injustice.[21]
Nahum’s
message in 1:3 is particularly effective because the expression that God is
“slow to anger” is usually followed in the biblical tradition by an affirmation
of God’s love and mercy before any mention of God’s judgment (cf. Exod 34:6,
Num 14:8). Yet in Nahum, God’s power and judgment immediately follow God's
patience. Nevertheless, Nahum is not rejecting the biblical tradition regarding
God’s merciful and loving nature. The difference is one of emphasis. For Nahum,
God’s patience with the Assyrians has ended. God has shown mercy in his
patience through his slowness to anger, but nowGod’s justice requires that he
act. Nahum is not contradicting the affirmations about God found elsewhere
(like Exod 34:6-7). [25] Instead, Nahum is
stressing a particular aspect of God’s nature, his judgment. After years of Assyrian oppression and
cruelty, Nahum’s audience would be reassured that their God had not forgotten
them and that his patience with the wicked (which to the Israelites must have
seemed never-ending) did have an end.
It is important to note the biblical understanding of
this “jealous and avenging God” who “takes vengeance…and rages against his
adversaries” (1:2). As Heschel’s discussion makes clear, divine anger is
“conditioned by God’s will; it is aroused by man’s sins. It is an instrument
rather than a force.…It is a secondary emotion, never the ruling passion.”[26]
God’s anger is justifiable because it is not God’s disposition; rather, divine
anger is a “transient and reactive condition” in response to humanity’s
wickedness.[27] In fact, God chooses to
act in anger because he is merciful and loving toward his creation. God is not
indifferent, so he will act to save his creation from the evil the Assyrians
have wrought.[28] God in his justice will
deal with the guilty Assyrians, because “it is divine anger that gives strength
to God’s truth and justice.”[29]
Accordingly, as Nahum describes a God who is full of wrath, and as he proclaims
the destruction of God’s enemies, the reader must remember that God’s actions
mean freedom for the oppressed and just punishment for the wicked oppressor.
Nahum’s
audience have reason to celebrate because God will defeat their enemies. Nahum
instructs Judah to rejoice in the good news: “celebrate…for never again shall
the wicked invade you” (1:15).[30]
It is noticeable that Nahum, unlike the other prophets, does not prophesy
against Judah. Instead, Nahum is optimistic (1:15),[31]
prompting much speculation about why he neglects to rebuke his fellow Judeans,
since this was a typical role for an Israelite prophet. Scholars present many
possibilities for this oddity.[32]
Those scholars who criticize Nahum for his optimism, fail to take into account
the emphasis of Nahum’s book:[33]
the sovereign God who will demonstrate his justice and righteousness through
judgment against the wicked Assyrians. In short, other prophets will prophesy
about the fall of Judah (cf. Hab 1:6-11), but Nahum will rejoice in the God who
causes the fall of Nineveh.
As the book of Nahum progresses, chapter 2 uses an
oracle to further describe this fall of the Assyrians (2:1-12). In language
reminiscent of Day of the Lord imagery,[34]
Nahum describes God’s judgment against Nineveh. Nahum declares that “a
shatterer has come up against you” (2:1). While “shatterer” could be referring
to the nations who will defeat Nineveh, the “shatterer” also refers to the
Lord, because the ancients understood the events of history as controlled by
the gods or God.[35] What humans saw was not
the whole picture; rather, the real meaning of the events of history was found
in the relationship of God or gods to the world. Thus, ancient descriptions of
events sought to describe what was behind the human experience. Accordingly,
even though the “shatterer” is the nations who attack Nineveh, the one who is
behind the attack — the true “shatterer” — is Nahum’s God. Those who carry out
the attack are simply being used to fulfill God’s judgment, just as God used
Assyria to fulfill his plans for Judah.[36]
Therefore,
in chapter 2, one can also read Nahum’s description of Nineveh’s fall at the
hands of “the combined forces of Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians”[37]
as a description of God’s army conquering the city.[38]
Nahum reminds the Ninevites that they will fall because “it is decreed” by God
that the city will be destroyed (2:7; cf. 1:9). Nahum mocks the Ninevites in
their futile attempts to defend themselves against God’s army: for instance,
the Assyrian army may “collect all [their] strength” (2:1), but they will
nevertheless “stumble” (2:5) against their swift and invincible opposition
(2:3-4). The Ninevites will discover that they are powerless in the onslaught
of God’s judgment: “hearts faint and knees tremble, all loins quake, all faces
grow pale” because God has destroyed the lion (2:10, 11-13).[39]
These lions of Assyria are being destroyed because of their wickedness: the
lion “has filled his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh” (2:12).
Nahum reminds his audience that the Assyrians’ actions have caused the “Lord of
hosts”[40]
to seek to destroy them.
The oracle against Nineveh in chapter 2 is followed by
another oracle in chapter 3.[41]
This oracle begins by describing the fall of Nineveh: the “city of bloodshed”
(3:1) is filled with chariots of war (3:2) and “heaps of corpses” (3:3). This
attack occurs because Nineveh, as a “prostitute” who “enslaves nations…and
peoples,” has brought upon herself God’s judgment and wrath.[42]
Because of her sins, the “Lord of hosts” is against the prostitute Nineveh
(3:5), and he will punish her in front of allthe nations (3:5-7). [43]
She will be humiliated and shamed as the Lord publicly exposes her nakedness,
treats her with contempt, and makes her a spectacle (3:5-6).[44]
She had treated others in such a manner; now it is Nineveh’s turn. Moreover,
all the nations — nations whom Assyria oppressed — will “shrink from” Nineveh’s
public humiliation, and she will find no friends to mourn her destruction
(3:7). Her desolation is complete.
As the
oracle continues, Nahum reminds Nineveh of the city of Thebes, [45]
which fell in 663 to the Assyrians. Nahum notes that just as Thebes had felt secure
(3:8-9), Nineveh thinks she is invincible — but just as Thebes had fallen
(3:10), Nineveh too will fall (3:11-13).[46]
Nahum mocks the strength of the Assyrians, who “will be drunken” and seek “a
refuge” (3:11) because their fortresses and soldiers are weak (3:12-13); though
Nineveh will prepare herself (3:14), she will be devoured by fire and cut off
by sword (3:15). In other words, just as Thebes fell under Assyria’s assault,
Nineveh will not be able to withstand God’s attack on her city. She will disappear
like locusts and grasshoppers (3:16-17), and her people will be “scattered on
the mountains with no one to gather them” (3:18). Nineveh’s “wound is mortal”
(3:19); her power is gone.[47]
Everyone will rejoice in her destruction: “all who hear the news about you clap
their hands over you” (3:19), affirming the justice of Judah’s God. The fall of
Nineveh means freedom for them and vindication for their God.
Hence, Nahum’s book presents the nature of God as
righteous, good, and just. As verse 1:3 so well summarizes, God is patient
(slow to anger), yet there is a time for him to judge the guilty. God does not
allow the oppressor to oppress his people forever; he is truly a God who is “a
stronghold in a day of trouble” (1:7). His anger, wrath, and vengeance do not
make him an evil, cruel God; rather, they demonstrate God’s justice as well as
his love for his people and creation because God punishes the (guilty) wicked
and thus brings freedom to the oppressed.
Many scholars agree with this analysis[48]
(and presumably so would Nahum’s audience, who with him are rejoicing in
Assyria’s fall). Other contemporary scholars have found this conclusion about
God’s nature inadequate. The two main objections, raised by scholars, like
Garcia-Treto, are these: the destruction of Nineveh occurs through the hands of
people who are also violent and oppressive (does that implicate God?), and
there is no distinction between the guilty and the innocent Ninevites (wherein
is the justice of God?).[49]
These objections need to be taken seriously, yet they do not necessarily
nullify the previous conclusion about the nature of the God of Nahum as good
and just.
Garcia-Treto gives voice to the first objection by
asking, “Can God’s punishment of violence and oppression partake of that same
violence and oppression?”[50]
On the one hand, biblical accounts seem to say yes. For instance, Amos
proclaims that God will send a nation (Assyria) to punish Israel for her sins
(cf. 3:11, 6:14), yet Amos does not question God’s use of such a cruel nation
to punish his people.[51]
In the holy wars of the Old Testament, Israel herself employs violence to carry
out God’s judgments on the nations. The biblical text does not appear to find
problematic the concept that a violent and/or wicked nation can serve as the
instrument of God’s divine judgment.
On the other hand, such a reading of the Old Testament
is not fair to the text. The theology behind holy wars is never so simply
explained, and other prophets do address God’s choice of the wicked to punish
the “less” wicked.[52]
Nevertheless, those biblical writers who question God’s actions at the same
time affirm God’s goodness (cf., e.g., Hab 3:2, 17-19). In other words, in the
biblical narrative, God remains just and righteous for those who proclaim his
judgment (like Nahum and Habakkuk), even if that judgment occurs through
another wicked nation and thus does not harmonize with human ideas of justice
and righteousness. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that except in cases like
the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hebrew Bible portrays God using people to
carry out his will concerning other people. That is, God works through people —
regardless of their sinfulness — to
punish or save others (cf. the story of Rahab in Joshua 2). If God chooses to
work through people in a sin-filled world, he must always work through sinful
people. The biblical writers do not seem to believe that God’s working through
sinful people makes God less than righteous, good, and just.
If we take
seriously the biblical concept of God’s use of sinful people to carry out the
divine will, we might find that our objections about the nature of God in Nahum
do an injustice to the prophet. It appears that Nahum accepts that God works in
ways he could not understand, and Nahum does not question how the wicked can be
the instruments of judgment without affecting God’s goodness.[53]
Instead, Nahum follows in the prophetic tradition of proclaiming God’s
righteousness and justice above all else. In addition, particularly because
Nahum is addressing the question of whether God will — not how — fulfill
his promises to judge the wicked, Nahum does not ask if using violence to end
oppression makes God less righteous. Rather, Nahum celebrates the fact that God
is finally showing himself to be righteous and just through the judgment of
Assyria’s cruelty and violence.[54]
Perhaps, then, our question concerning how God’s means affect God’s nature
should not be forced upon Nahum, because Nahum cannot answer a question he
himself is not asking.[55]
The
second objection that Garcia-Treto raises is this: how can a righteous God
condemn the innocent?[56]
To counter this objection, we must first take into account the context in which
Nahum was written. As Holladay argues, there was a shift between the ninth and
eighth centuries in statecraft policies.[57]
This change involved a “dramatic shift of the primary object of the prophetic address away
from the ruling houses of the twin kingdoms and to the people of Israel as a whole.”[58]
Treaties (and royal letters) from the time of Nahum and his eighth-century
predecessors show that international agreements no longer concern only the
royal household. Instead, “the treaty is consummated between the great king and
the vassal king and all of his people.”[59]
Therefore, it is no longer just the house of the vassal king that must be
obedient to the superpower, but the people must also obey. Consequently, the
entire nation is now “held responsible for the action of its rulers.”[60]
When Assyria attacked Israel, the rulers and
the people were killed or deported, because “the whole terror psychology of the
Assyrian statecraft swung its focus of attention from master to slave, prince
to peasant, king to citizen.…Now whole countries went into exile.”[61]
Similarly, when Nahum prophesies against Nineveh, he includes the entire
population of the city and not just the royal household. [62]
The people were considered just as responsible for the nation’s actions as were
the rulers and the military. Hence, for Nahum, there are no “innocent” in
Nineveh.[63] When God — the true king
of Judah — judges Assyria for her sins, the whole nation is affected.[64]
Although
contemporary questions about the nature of God are serious issues for readers
of the Bible to address, Nahum does not necessarily answer the objections.[65]
Nahum does not ask all our contemporary questions; like any ancient text, the
book of Nahum must be read with regard to the time in it was written.[66]
Nahum is an Israelite celebrating the victory of his God over the evil
Assyrians. Nahum addresses whether or not God will ever punish the wicked —that
is, whether God is truly just — because he and his audience lived in a time
when the answer to that question was uncertain. Therefore, when Nahum rejoices
in the fall of Nineveh, he does so because it is through this event that God
proves himself to be faithful, just, righteous, and sovereign. As Nahum
announces the fall of the enemy, he divulges the nature of his God, a God who
is “slow to anger but great in power…[who] will by no means clear the
guilty.…[who] is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble;…[for] he will make a
full end of his adversaries” (1:3, 7-8). Accordingly, contemporary scholarly
critiques that do not distinguish between the theodicy-related questions Nahum
addresses and those with which he is not concerned fail to provide a fair and
thorough treatment of the nature of God in Nahum.
Jonah
The book of Jonah reveals the nature of God quite
differently from Nahum. For instance, since Jonah is a story while Nahum is an
extended oracle, the way in which Jonah “works” as a narrative text is
different. The unclear purpose of Jonah, moreover, makes it difficult to
determine what the author is trying to establish about God.[67]
Was the purpose to address the issue of unfulfilled prophecy, to counter Jewish
nationalism, [68] to widen views about
God’s mercy,[69] to elaborate on the
Jeremian concept of repentance.[70]
As Berger points out, the issue of God’s nature is complicated in Jonah due to
the many focalizations within the story. Because Jonah’s narrator is neutral
and detached, “the ideological focalization of the text might be focalized from
YHWH’s perspective, from Jonah’s stance, or it might be bifurcated between the
two.”[71]
In other words, the author does not make clear what (or whose) ideology he is
promoting because of his neutral stance. Accordingly, if we wish to formulate
some idea about the nature of the God of Jonah, then we must address the
complexity of the book from its various viewpoints (that is, through its
“embedded focalization[s]”[72]).
Because the complicated relationship between God and Jonah — the main
characters in the story — is central to the book, we must explore the book’s
theology from both God’s point of view and the prophet’s point of view. In
addition, because the author is addressing a post-exilic audience, we must also
consider how they might have interpreted the story.[73]
Though we may never distinguish a clear purpose in Jonah, we may use some of
the possible ideologies — which we learn from the various focalizations — to
formulate some idea about God’s nature in this book.
It is clear that the author wishes his audience to
understand this book as a story about a prophet (hence the reference to Jonah
son of Amittai in Jonah 1:1-2). Jonah, however, is anything but the model
prophet. From the beginning, Jonah does precisely what the readers would not
expect.[74]
When God calls Jonah, Jonah runs away: in fact, instead of setting off across
the land to Nineveh, he goes in the opposite direction over the sea (1:3).[75]
Though there are biblical precedents for a prophet protesting God’s call —
Moses, Jeremiah, and Elijah[76] —
Jonah transcends these other prophets in disobedience.[77]
For instance, Moses objects that he is not capable of fulfilling God’s call
(Exod 4:10), and Jeremiah tells God that he does “not know how to speak, for
[he is] only a boy” (Jer 1:6). Similarly, Elijah laments that it is better to
die than to live after running to the wilderness (1 Kgs 19:4). Nevertheless,
these prophets eventually fulfill God’s commands without further protest. In
contrast, Jonah does not articulate his objections but simply runs away [78]
and remains stubborn to the end (cf. 4:9). Because Jonah so blatantly refused
God’s call, the general attitude of modern scholars toward Jonah has been
negative.[79]
When
discussing these biblical precedents, most authors fail to mention the
difference in the role God plays in his relationship with Jonah as compared to
the other prophets.[80]
For instance, although God is upset with Moses, God provides him with help via
Aaron (Exod 4:14-17). Similarly, God gives strength to Jeremiah by putting his
hand to Jeremiah’s mouth and giving him the words of God (Jer 1:9), and God
feeds Elijah and appears to him (1 Kgs 19:4-18). In Jonah, God does not seem so
gracious. When Jonah flees to a ship bound for Tarshish, God sends a storm.
When the sailors throw Jonah overboard (at his request), God sends a big fish
to swallow him. This fish, often seen as Jonah’s salvation,[81]
can also be seen as God’s punishment.[82]
Although Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh, instead of kindly strengthening
his prophet as he did for the others, God sends a storm and casts Jonah into a
slimy fish whence he is vomited onto dry land (1:4-2:10). Once Jonah is back on
land, God again commands him to go to Nineveh but offers no further assistance
(3:1-2). While we must keep in mind that Jonah’s extreme reaction to God’s call
may help explain God’s strange treatment of him, we can conclude that the
nature of God — at least from Jonah’s focalization — is not necessarily
positive thus far in the story.
Jonah’s
own beliefs about God are confusing. Jonah tries to flee via ship “away from
the presence of the Lord” (1:3). The pre-exilic mindset would have considered
this a reasonable action, since God’s presence was associated with the land.[83]
However, for the post-exilic author and his audience, Jonah’s action was
clearly foolish — they had learned during exile that God is not confined to the
land (cf. Ezekiel). One cannot escape God’s presence: while Jonah is on the
ship, God sends a terrible storm (1:4). The sailors are afraid, while Jonah (a
Hebrew who should know nothing about the sea)[84]
sleeps soundly (1:5).[85]
Jonah cares little for his life[86]
and/or is content with his decision to flee; the captain has to wake Jonah so
that Jonah can call upon his god (1:6).
When the sailors discover by lot that Jonah is
responsible for this calamity, they question him (1:7-8). In an ironic
statement, Jonah professes: “I am a Hebrew…I worship the Lord, the God of
heaven, who made the sea and the dry land” (1:9). Jonah, the prophet who tried
to flee from God’s presence, acknowledges that the God he serves is creator of
the sea and the land. How then can Jonah flee from his presence? Not only do
Jonah’s actions in this episode appear strange, but God’s actions are also unusual.
Although God uses natural forces to rebuke or judge people in the biblical
tradition, usually those people are considered guilty (e.g., the flood for the
wicked in Gen 6-7; the sea for the Egyptians in Ex 14:26-28). Here, however,
the sailors who have not offended God are the ones tormented by the storm,
while the guilty Jonah sleeps peacefully (1:5). This seems to paint quite an
odd picture of God: he uses creation to make his point, but he does so almost
cruelly.[87] Hence, “issues of
theodicy flood these chapters.”[88]
As the story continues, Jonah instructs the other
sailors to throw him overboard to appease his god (1:11-13). The sailors are
reluctant. When they finally concede to Jonah’s wishes, they pray to the Lord
that they may not be “guilty of innocent blood” (1:14). The men then offer
sacrifices to the Lord, making vows and fearing God (1:15). This scene
contradicts typical Israelite theology. First, Jonah believes that God wants a
human sacrifice, and this appears to be what God requires, since God is
appeased once Jonah is thrown overboard. Yet not only does the idea of human
sacrifice go against biblical understandings of worship (e.g., Lev 18:21,
27:2-8),[89] but it is also something
that the Lord has explicitly declared abominable (Deut 12:34).[90]
In this scene, the Hebrew who believes in the God of heaven is not the one who
fears God. Instead, the Gentile sailors fear God and are scared to perform a
human sacrifice.[91] Since Gentiles were often
portrayed as practicing human sacrifice (cf. Deut 12:34), the sailors’
reluctance (especially as opposed to Jonah’s willingness) would certainly
surprise the Israelite audience. In addition, the Gentiles’ actions of worship,
particularly in light of Jonah’s apparent lack of obedience, would have also
contradicted the audience’s expectations. Perhaps the author, who just reminded
his audience that their God is “the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry
land” (1:9), is reminding his audience that their God is also Lord of all
people, not just the Israelites. Still, the text raises the question, does God,
whom Jonah and his audience serve, desire human sacrifice?
The
text answers this question by telling us that God saves his prophet. Thus the
sacrifice in the end is a narrative trick, since God prevents the sacrifice (in
the fullest sense of the word) from occurring.[92]
Jonah does not die: he enters into the belly of a fish. While the grotesque
elements of this episode make this part comical,[93] what
is most important is the “salvation” of traditional views of God — as a God
whose nature abhors human sacrifice — through the salvation of Jonah.[94]
While in the belly of the fish, Jonah prays to “the Lord his God” (2:1).
This psalm initially appears to present a more
positive view of the prophet than the rest of the book.[95]
Jonah is explicitly addressing God and rejoicing in God’s mercy (cf. 2:1, 7,
9), whereas in the rest of the book Jonah rails against God’s mercy. Also,
Jonah portrays himself as the righteous one — praying (2:7), making vows (2:8),
and worshipping God even though God has cast him into the deep (2:3). Jonah
delights in God’s deliverance, saying, “you brought up my life from the Pit”
(2:7) and “Deliverance belongs to the Lord” (2:9). However, Jonah never
repents, and, as Bewer points out, nowhere in the rest of the narrative does
the author suggest that Jonah thought the fish was his savior.[96]
This raises the questions of whether God really is a deliverer and whether
Jonah is being serious or sarcastic in this psalm. Henceforth, the psalm’s
characterizations of God and Jonah are not clear: God is both gracious
(delivers) and cruel (casts into sea) and Jonah is both pious (vows, prays) and
stubborn (does not repent). The psalm only adds to the confusion and complexity
of the nature of God in this book; it does not resolve any theodicy issues.
After the psalm, the fish “spewed Jonah out upon the
dry land” (2:10),[97]
and God calls Jonah a second time (3:1-2). Jonah responds by traveling to Nineveh.
As the author describes this “great city” of Nineveh (3:1-2), it becomes clear
that he is using the Hellenistic picture of Nineveh, not the traditional
biblical image.[98] In other biblical books,
Nineveh is a despised, evil city wherein heinous crimes are committed.[99]
The author here, however, does not emphasize the wickedness of the city.[100]
Instead, he uses the Hellenistic model of Nineveh as a city known for its
opulence and excess as well as its destruction (3:2-3).[101]
When Jonah comes to the city, he proclaims, “Forty
days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (3:4). Jonah appears to be the
typical Israelite delighting in the fact that Nineveh will be destroyed (as did
Nahum). However, Jonah’s words belie such a simple reading. As Brown discusses,
the meaning of the word “overthrow” in Hebrew is quite nuanced: “it can mean to
destroy…yet it can also mean to turn or change something.”[102]
Thus, though Jonah appears to be predicting Nineveh’s fall, his language allows
room for other events — such as repentance or “turning” from evil — to occur
without falsifying his prophecy.[103]
When the people hear Jonah’s message, their response
is immediate: “And the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast,
and everyone, great and small, put on sackcloth” (3:5). As with the sailors,
the Gentile Ninevites’ response to God contrasts with that of Jonah, the
Hebrew. While God had to call Jonah twice (and resort to the fish), the
Ninevites hear the message once and act immediately. The king of Nineveh tears
his robe, covers himself with sackcloth, and sits in ashes (3:6) — all typical
Israelite methods of mourning and repentance (cf. Esth 4:1, I Kgs 21:27). The
king also calls all the people and animals of the city to repent (3:7-8).
Though the inclusion of even the animals makes this scene ridiculous,[104]
the author makes his point quite clear: the Ninevites repent so thoroughly that
even the animals join in![105]
Once again, the Gentiles are acting like followers of the Israelite God and are
portrayed in a positive light. They not only know how to repent (by following
Israelite customs), but they also do it wholeheartedly.
After
the king’s edict is proclaimed, the motivation behind the Ninevites’ repentance
is revealed: “Who knows? God may relent and change his mind; he may turn from
his fierce anger, so that we do not perish” (3:9). Clearly, there was a belief
that God (or a god) could turn from his plans. [106]
This idea certainly had biblical precedents. For instance, Jeremiah proclaims
that a nation’s repentance may lead to God’s repentance (18:8). Similarly, at
the intercession of a prophet, God sometimes changes his mind (cf. Gen
32:9-14). Biblical examples of God’s willingness to be merciful abound, perhaps
most explicitly in the story of Sodom: God promises Abraham that for the sake
of ten righteous men, the city will not perish (Gen 18:32). In the case of
Sodom, no righteous men are found (though Lot is saved), and God destroys the
city (19:24). In the story of Jonah, however, the city is saved, for “when God saw what they did, how they turned from
their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he
would bring upon them; and he did not do it” (3:10). In this passage, prophetic
intercession does not persuade God, for Jonah does not intercede for the people
of Nineveh.[107] Instead, God changes his
mind due to the Gentiles’ intercession on their own behalf.[108]
At one level, therefore, the mercy and forgiveness of
God are apparent in this story, because God does not destroy Nineveh after the
people repent. On another level, since the audience knows that the city of
Nineveh is eventually demolished, the Ninevites only appear to be saved. God’s
mercy may have prolonged their fate, but ultimately, they cannot avoid his
judgment. Hence, by using the city known for its destruction, the author
suggests that ultimately, God does not “change his mind” if justice must be
served against the wicked.[109]
The author is not reversing the Israelite view that God will judge the wicked.
Rather, the author is emphasizing the merciful side of God by demonstrating
God’s mercy and love toward all his creation, even those whom the Israelites
thought God’s mercy could not encompass. Although the audience would not have
expected Nineveh to repent, they would realize that this repentance only
extended God’s mercy; it did not eliminate his judgment and justice because one
day the city is overthrown. God’s mercy does notcompletely override his
justice,[110] even though his mercy is
more evident.
Jonah,however,
as a character confined to the text, does not know that God will eventually
destroy the city. He sees only that God has changed his mind and decided notto
“overthrow” the city.[111]
Thus, Jonah becomes angry with God (4:1): God’s justice appears to have been
silenced by his mercy. Jonah is angry that God is being true to his nature, for
in one of the most significant passages of the book,[112]
Jonah attests, “That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew
that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in
steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing” (4:2). Other biblical
passages must be analyzed to try to unravel the complexities of Jonah’s
statement. In Deuteronomy 18:21-22, for example, the standard for recognizing a
false from a true prophet depends on whether his words are fulfilled. Perhaps,
it is because Jonah knows his prophecy to Nineveh will not come true that he
runs away from his commission. After all, if Jonah goes to the city and
predicts that it will fall — only to have God save the city — Jonah is nothing
more than a false prophet whose career is ruined.[113]
In this case, his reluctance is understandable. Alternatively, this passage
could be understood in light of the entire Exodus 34:6-7 tradition, where God’s
mercy and justice gohand-in-hand, though at different times one aspect is
stressed more than the other.[114]
In this case, Jonah, like Nahum, affirms both God’s slowness to anger and his
justice, yet, unlike Nahum, Jonah’s emphasis is not clear. From the
focalization of the audience and author, God’s justice appears most evident,
for he destroys the wicked city. From the focalization of Jonah, however, God’s
gracious mercy overwhelms his justice, since Nineveh is spared, for God is
“ready to relent from punishing” (4:2).[115]
Jonah
himself does not want to accept this view of God’s nature. As the story
continues, Jonah asks to die (4:3). When God rebukes Jonah (4:4), Jonah goes
out of the city, makes a booth, and sits under it, “waiting to see what would
become of the city” (4:5).[116]
The picture of Jonah painted here is that of a stubborn, miserable prophet who
fears that his career is ruined and is angry[117]
that God has extended his mercy to Jonah's enemies.[118]
Instead of fulfilling his prophet’s hopes to see the city destroyed,[119]
God uses nature to teach Jonah a lesson. God sends a bush to grow over Jonah
“to give shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort” (4:6). Jonah is
extremely happy about this shade, but the next day, his happiness is crushed
because “God appointed a worm that attacked the bush, so that it withered”
(4:7). Furthermore, God sends a “sultry east wind” that, combined with the sun,
makes Jonah faint (4:8). Uncomfortable, Jonah again asks if he could die,
because “it is better for me to die than to live” (4:8). Ironically, the Jonah
who seemed to care little for the sailors in the storm or the Ninevites who
were sentenced to destruction cares greatly for this little bush (4:8-9). Not
surprisingly, God informs Jonah that his priorities are wrong.[120]
God, whom Jonah has professed as Creator (1:9),
reminds Jonah that he cares for all of his creation.[121]
Jonah cares deeply about “the bush, for which you did not labor and which you
did not grow” (4:10). Would not the creator of Nineveh rightly be concerned
about “that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty
thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also
many animals” (4:11)? [122] The answer should be
“yes,” but the book ends with no answer. It remains a mystery whether or not
Jonah concedes God’s point, or if he ever changes his attitude. What is clear
is that God cares for all of his creation, including the rebellious prophet and
the people and animals of Nineveh.[123]
God’s mercy — at least from his focalization and, perhaps, from that of the
audience — is obvious.
In
Jonah, then, the Exodus 34 theology (cf. Jonah 4:2) is evident as the author
stresses the mercy of God, God’s patience, and his forgiveness without
neglecting the concept of God’s justice. However, because the narrator uses
various embedded focalizations to tell his story, the nature of God is complex.
Jonah’s point of view brings to light the frustration of Israel with God’s
seemingly never-ending patience and mercy toward their enemies. The audience’s
perspective reveals that God does act in justice, since they know the city
eventually is destroyed. From God’s point of view, his care for creation is
expressed, andthus even though many of his actions appear cruel (particularly
to Jonah), God’s nature is never without mercy and love. Hence, a picture of
God as a merciful, just, all-loving God of creation does appear in the book of
Jonah, particularly when read from the point of view of God or the post-exilic
audience. However, because of the neutral focalization of the narrator, it is also
possible to read the story through Jonah’s eyes, where God’s mercy is confusing
and God's actions often harsh. Issues of theodicy remain unsettled in the book
of Jonah. Since contemporary scholarship often does not recognizethe different
focalizations, Jonah’s questions of theodicy are mistreated or go unnoticed.
Both Nahum and Jonah, therefore, seek to answer
questions about the nature of God. The fall of Nineveh is used as context, and
in each, the concept that God is a God who is merciful and just is evident.
Nahum emphasizes God’s justice as God acts against his enemies, whereas in
Jonah, God’s mercy appears to be the focus. Though the two books appear
similar, they differ, particularly due to the position of the narrator. In
Nahum, the narrator portrays the prophet’s message as cause for rejoicing, and
thus the narrator affirms the nature of God portrayed in the book. Jonah’s
narrator is neutral, and thus a more complex picture of God emerges: God’s
nature is disclosed differently according to the different possible
focalizations of the book. Hence, Nahum and Jonah both address the same basic
question — the nature of God as it relates to the fall of Nineveh — but their
answers are not the same. Though they do not contradict one another, since both
Nahum and Jonah portray the mercy, justice, patience, and anger of God, their
different emphases on the nature of God suggest that a proper vision of the God
of the Bible requires a reading of the entire biblical narrative.
Bibliography
Achtemeier,
Elizabeth. “Jonah.” Pages 255-284 in Minor
Prophets I. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
_______.
Nahum—Malachi. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1986.
Allen,
Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah,
Jonah and Micah. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmanns, 1976.
Berger,
Benjamin Lyle. “Picturing the Prophet: Focalization in the Book of Jonah.” Studies in
Religion 29:1 (2000): 55-66.
Bewer,
Julius A. “Jonah,” pp. 3-65 in Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and
Charles Augustus
Briggs, eds. The
International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1980).
Blenkinsopp,
Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel.
Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1996.
Bolin,
Thomas M. Freedom Beyond Forgiveness: The
Book of Jonah Re-examined. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Brockington,
Leonard H. “Jonah.” Pages 627-629 in Peake’s
Commentary on the Bible. Edited by
Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley. Routledge: London,
1990.
Brown,
William P. Obadiah through Malachi.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Cathcart,
Kevin J. “Nahum, Book of.” Pages 998-1000 in vol. 4 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday,
1992.
Ceresko,
Anthony R. “Jonah.” Pages 580-584 in The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Chisholm,
Robert B., Jr. Interpreting the Minor
Prophets. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1990.
Christensen,
Duane L. Transformations of the War Oracle
in Old Testament Prophecy. Montana:
Scholars Press, 1975.
Clements,
R. E. Prophecy and Tradition.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975.
Coggins,
Richard J. and S. Paul Re’emi. Israel
Among the Nations: Nahum, Obadiah, and Esther.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.
Coogan,
Michael D., Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, eds. The New Oxford
Annotated Bible. 3rd ed. New
Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Craig,
Kenneth M., Jr. A Poetics of Jonah: Art
in the Service of Ideology. Columbia: South Carolina
University Press, 1993.
Craigie,
Peter C. Twelve Prophets.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.
Crenshaw,
James L. “Theodicy.” Pages 144-47 in vol. 6 of of The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Doorslaer,
J. Van. “No Amon” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 11 (Jl 1949): 280-95.
Eaton,
J. H. Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Zephaniah. London: SCM Press, 1961.
Elwell,
Walter A., ed., “Nahum, Book of.” Pages 1519-22 in vol. 2 of Baker Encyclopedia of the
Bible. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Floyd,
Michael H. “The Chimerical Acrostic of Nahum 1:2-10.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113
(Fall 1994): 421-37.
_______.
“Nahum.” Pages 1-78 in Minor Prophets:
Part 2. Vol. XXII of The Forms of the Old
Testament Literature. Edited by Rolf P. Knierim, Gene M.
Tucker, and Marvin A. Sweeney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000
Frolov,
Serge. “Returning the Ticket: God and His Prophet in the Book of Jonah.” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 86 (1999): 85-105.
Garcia-Treto,
Francisco O. “The Book of Nahum.” Pages 593-619 in vol. 7 of The New Interpreter’s
Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Hadley,
Judith. Class notes. 2 Oct 2002.
Heaton,
E. W. The Old Testament Prophets.
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977.
Heschel,
Abraham Joseph. Prophets II. HarperCollins: New York, 1971.
Holladay,
John S. “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel.” Pages 122-139 in Prophecy in
Israel. Edited by David L. Peterson.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Hyatt,
J. Philip. “Nahum.” Pages 635-636 in Peake’s
Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Matthew
Black and H. H. Rowley. London: Routledge, 1990.
Lacocque,
Andre and Pierre-Emmanuel Lacocque. Jonah:
A Psycho-Religious Approach to the
Prophet. Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press, 1990.
Leslie,
E. A. “Nahum, Book of.” Pages 498-9 in The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by
George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1962.
Limburg,
James. Jonah. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1993.
Mitchell,
Hinckley G., John Merlin Powis Smith, and Julius A. Bewer. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
and Jonah. International Critical
Commentary. Edited by Samuel Rolles Drives, Alfred Plummer, and Charles
Augustus Briggs. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912.
Newsome,
James D., Jr. The Hebrew Prophets. Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1984.
Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1991.
Sanderson, Judith E. “Nahum.” Pages 232-239 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by
Carol
A. Newsom and Sharon
H. Ringe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.