[This is reposted as part of our Best-Of Revelife Week. It was originally posted on January 24, 2010.] 
Recently, Revelife featured a post discussing just how literally Christians ought to take all parts of scripture. If Christians take the gospels as literal but the opening verses of Genesis as metaphorical, is that a problem? Will it eventually lead to the undoing of faith? A specific example the author drew on was the story of Jonah, which features the unlikely event of a man being swallowed by a giant fish and living in the fish's digestive tract for three days before being vomited up on land.
(There is actually a well-known complication with this fish. The Hebrew term used when the fish swallowed Jonah was masculine, but the term used for the fish that threw him up is female. Hence, Rabbinic literature is full of the suggestion that Jonah actually went on a much longer journey than is made explicit.)
Some of the commentators on the post observed that if God can create the world and raise the dead, the miracles of Jonah are easy enough to believe. I grant that this is true, but I don't believe Jonah asks to be believed or rejected as literal history. I think the more familiar we become with the Hebrew Bible the more apparent it will become that Jonah presents itself as a satirical morality play, rather than a typical prophetic diatribe or historical narrative. As Walter Brueggemann observes, the book is a "dryly humorous and larger-than-life" portrayal of Jonah's complaint, "What is going on here?" He also draws attention to one of the central features of the Hebrew text, the repetitive use of the term gādôl - "Big!"
The best test of an interpretive framework is to read the text through its eyes and see if it accounts for illumines more than it passes over. When Jonah is read as a satire, with intentionally crafted elements of irony, mockery and dry humor. The point of Jonah as a satire is a mockery directly of those Jews of the time who reduced God to being a merely tribal deity and indirectly of all who would try to reject God's acceptance of those who do not deserve it.
When read this way, several elements of the story jump out. Jonah is a racist, of course, but he's a foolish and inconsistent racist. He will not go preach to the Ninevites on the off-chance they would repent and be saved, but on a merchant vessel filled with pagans "each praying to his own deity," he is willing to be killed so the storm will abate and they will not die. "Pick me up and throw me into the sea and it will become calm." Not only do they throw him in the sea, and thus live, but they offer a sacrifice to Yahweh and make vows to him! Jonah bought tickets to Tarsus to avoid preaching to pagans, and in the process made a shipload of converts! He is the best and worst anti-prophet ever. (And how did they manage to make a burnt offering on a ship at sail in the first place?) It is ridiculous and ironic, but that is exactly the point.
Something similar happens when Jonah arrives at Nineveh for his prophetic task. Nineveh is a massive city, the capital of the idolatrous pagan world, akin to Las Vegas. The text tells us that "a visit took required three days." How much longer would a prophetic ministry take? But "on the first day," Jonah delivered an eight-word sermon, which made no reference to God or repentance, and "the Ninevites believed God." They declared a fast and put on sackcloth (a common symbol of repentance). When the king heard, he exchanged his robes for sackcloth and covered himself in dust. He decreed that every man and animal would fast and be covered in sackcloth.
Yes, the cattle were dressed in sackcloth to show their repentance.
The city repented more thoroughly and effectively than the Jewish nation ever did. That is ridiculous and ironic, which is exactly the point. And all this from an eight-word sermon: "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overturned." That's some anointed preaching. Even so, God's final words in the book (to his ironically unrepentant prophet) make it clear that the Ninevites are not especially insightful: "Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?"
The reader is left to draw his own conclusions.
To my reading, nothing is lost and much perspective is gained when we view Jonah as an inspired, satirical morality play, written to counteract a particularly tribalistic strain within Israel's tradition.
Is Jonah meant to be taken literally? Is it important that we read Jonah as narrative history? If you read Jonah as history, how do you take the over-the-top images and the heavily loaded irony?
True
Comments (28)
Why is it so hard to believe? If God created everything from nothing sending a fish large enough to swallow Jonah without killing him is not that big a deal. Christ raised Lazuras from the dead after many days , he even smelled of death, witnessed by 1000's of people. Jonah is nothing to God. M aybe instead of asking "Is there a God?" we should ask ourselves "Do we believe God?" or "Do you believe God?" This is the real question to ask.
I don't see the problem here - Christians are constantly having to change their viewpoints on the "word of God" as they adjust to science and discovery. For example --- the theory of germ disease - so now we know that disease is not caused by sin but things we cannot see with the naked eye. The theory of evolution - the theory of gravity - the theory that we are not the center of the universe- etc. Besides there is a "new and improved" version of the English Bible out --- a rewriting that I am SURE adjusts the wording to conform with modern American Society.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - It is not hard to believe. As I said in the post, "If God can create the world and raise the dead, the miracles of Jonah are easy enough to believe. I grant that this is true, but I don't believe Jonah asks to be believed or rejected as literal history." In other words, if I thought Jonah was meant to be taken literally, I would have no difficulty believing those miracles occurred. For the reasons I mentioned in the post, I think the book of Jonah wants us to read it as a piece of satire, and if we center our discussion on whether God can make a fish swallow a man live, we've utterly missed the point of the book.
@Captric@xanga - Christians generally don't believe that germ theory poses any problem to the belief that God afflicts some with disease to chastise them. Christians generally believe that God works through germs to accomplish this. Ancient Christians did not know about germs, but did believe in the scientific theories of the day - the humors, the tempers, or whatever was contemporary - and always believed God worked through these mechanisms. Same for weather patterns or gravity or what have you. From almost the beginning Christians subscribed to Aristotle's account of both biology and cosmology, and understood the Bible in that basic framework.
We can see this particularly in the way that the Bible describes wars. When Assyria conquered Israel, the Israelites understood that it was caused by their faithlessness to the covenant. Of course they knew that soldiers did the actual conquering, but their theology overlaid the historical-physical situation. Just so, Christians today know (or we think we know) that germs and viruses cause diseases, but (some) still overlay a theological interpretation. But Christians aren't changing their interpretation of scripture based on science, or at least not necessarily. (Some do, and I would dispute with them.) The writer of scripture recorded theological truth in the science available to them at the time. Our understanding of science changes, but that doesn't change the theology.
@SirNickDon@xanga -A can of worms---once you say one thing is satire ...
Maybe instead of asking "Is there a God?" we should ask ourselves "Do we believe God?" or "Do you believe God?" This is the real question to ask.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - I think it's a can of worms worth opening. The Bible is comprised of parts from a variety of genres--poetry, prophecy, history, law, parable, etc. I don't think it takes away from God's word to approach it according to the genre each part is from. It gets confusing when someone reads a prophecy as though it's history, or a poem as though it's law.
When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, does it affect the truth of the parable's meaning at all if the parable was a work of fiction (instead of an actual event that really happened)? What about the parable of the Trees in Judges 9? My answer is: of course not. Those stories are in the genre of parable, and parables are fictional stories told to make a point. I don't see it any danger to consider that Jonah may be in a nonliteral genre as well.
Sometimes, in order to catch fish, you've got to open that can of worms and tip out a few nightcrawlers.
@SirNickDon@xanga - So you DO believe your God causes people to be diseased in order to Chastise them. Thats incredible!!! This is NOT 300AD! You know --- this is why no one takes your beliefs seriously.
@Captric@xanga - I don't believe that actually, but it's not for scientific reasons. It's for theological reasons that we don't need to get into. My point was just that understanding the natural causes that underlie reality isn't an obstacle for regarding a divine purpose behind that reality.
@OutOfTheAshes@xanga
-
You cannot pick and choose which stories from God you believe and which
you do not---a can of worms. Either you believe God or not. The reason you
cannot say it is satire is God didn't say Jonah was satire and if God didn't say
it you possible might be in violation of Revelation 22:18-19. Also if Jonah was
satire that is funny because Christ spoke of Jonah as a real person, Matthew
12:39-41, Luke 11:29-32. that is why you cannot call it satire.
God Bless,
Brother RobertLeeRE
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - A fair point--but Jesus could have referenced Jonah as an archetype or symbol rather than literal fact. The way that I might say, "That cop was acting like Javert!" even though Les Mis wasn't literal fact.
Revelation 22:18-19 refers to the book of Revelation ("...the words of this book..."), especially when you consider that Revelation may not have been the last book written, chronologically.
I'm not saying that I can pick and choose what to believe. I'm saying that I take Scripture on its own terms, rather than imposing my own narrative framework onto it.
@OutOfTheAshes@xanga
- Did you read the scriptures I gave you?? Christ did not speak in generalities
like in the parable of the farmer with no name, Matthew chapter 13. he actually
spoke of Jonah using the name Jonah as if He had personal knowledge in Matthew
12:39-41. Did you read that? Did you actually read Luke 11:29-32? What type of
bible are you reading?
As far as Revelation 22:18-19---Why would you assume that God did not
know that later on all holy books would eventually be combined into one book? It
sounds to me, no offense, you are reading too many commentaries. What
commentaries are you reading?
In theology school the first thing they do is force all students to get
rid of their commentaries for they are words of men. You need to think this out
on your own between you and God's Teacher, the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Brother RobertLeeRE
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - That would be a King James Version and an English Standard Version, alternately.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out
of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." (Emphasis mine.)
The operative words there are βίβλου τῆς προφητείας, prophecies in this scroll. Since the Revelation of John is a book of prophecy, and at the time of its writing it was not connected with or associated with any larger framework, it's not a stretch to say that the original intent of this passage was to refer to the entirety of Revelation, and not to the entire canon of Scripture. Compare it also to the passage at the beginning of Revelation, in chapter 1:
"Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time
[is] at hand." (Emphasis mine.)
These two statements form bookends to the body of Revelation, like the opening and closing to a pair of parentheses: one contains a promise of blessing, the other a warning of cursing. Thus, my conclusion that this particular warning is Revelation-specific. Yes, God knew that eventually this book would be collected with the others, but this book (and its warning) were in circulation among the churches for many years before that, and I think that to assume this warning was meant for the entire canon is to impose a man-made thought framework onto Scripture. Let's stick with the original intent of the passage, and avoid putting warnings in God's mouth.
This is a moot point, however, because I do believe that it is wrong to add to or take away from things that God has said, not just in Revelation. (Galatians 1:8, Deuteronomy 18) And the Bible is the sufficient (though not exhaustive) record of things that God has said. However, I do not believe it is taking away from God's word to understand it as the writers originally meant it, rather than placing a contemporary man-made understanding onto it.
Now, as regards Matthew 12, I have to admit that I am given pause by part of it--but not that Jesus referenced Jonah specifically. After all, when he references Jonah, he uses the term "as," and "as" is used in similies, in comparisons. So Jesus is not saying "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days," but "In the same way that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days..." And that is a world of difference. But the part that gives me pause is verse 41. Jesus says that the people of Ninevah will rise up in condemnation of Jesus's unbelieving generation "because they repented at the preaching of Jonas." And that IS a statement of fact, with no comparison or symbolic terms. So I grant that this is an argument against a nonliteral reading of Jonah, in that Jesus seems to say (and he would know) that Jonah really did preach to Ninevah. I grant also, that I missed out by checking the passages you referenced from my memory instead of looking them up.
However, this still does not eliminate the need of looking at the genre of the book of Jonah (or any book of the Bible) when analyzing it. If the book of Jonah is a satire, as I think Nick made a very good argument for, then it still may have been a satire about actual events. This does not rule out that metaphor and exaggeration may have been used in its telling.
I'll give you a fresh example. The prophet Nathan went before King David and told him a story about a poor man who loved his only sheep, and a rich man who had that sheep butchered for his friend's guest. When King David reacted to that story in anger, Nathan said, "You are that man!", referring to David's affair with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. Now, this story that Nathan told David was a true story. However, it was not literally true. If it was literally true, David would have been guilty of bestiality. But Bathsheba was not actually a sheep. The story was metaphorically true, symbolically true--and as a parable, this is understood as part of the genre of parables.
@OutOfTheAshes@xanga
- Once again Nathan uses general terms without quoting the names of the
person which to me indicates a huge difference just like when Jesus would use
parables in the same way as I already quoted when telling the parable of the
farmer and taxpayer, 2 Samuel 12:1-7.
I am sorry we just are so far apart on
this. To me it is obvious it cannot be interpreted as a satire and I think it is
bad theology to say so. And like I already said and you agreed, Christ Himself quoted it as
having really happened which gives credence. Also, we know the Jews accepted the
books history as being accurate, known by Josephus, Antiquities 9, 10:2
translated by Whiston.
But even with all that I think it is a bad idea to
It was fun!
translate anything as satire just because some critic did; I mean are we
incapable of reading and comprehending? Also, the miracle itself was a shadow of
the resurrection, so why may I ask would God use a real persons name with real
Jewish history and real town and city names but use as a satire? That also reeks
real bad of critical attack against scriptural integrity, but that is just me.
God Bless
Brother RobertLeeRE
@OutOfTheAshes@xanga - and also much cattle.
@Captric@xanga - read the books of law in the Old Testament, and it gets pretty clear that the word "unclean" more or less means "unsanitary." Certain sins- such as failing to wash your hands after handling a corpse, relieving yourself in the middle of the campsite, or neglecting to quarantine folks with infectious diseases- quite obviously cause disease, germ theory or no.
So what is your point? The old testament also says that god commands you to kill your neighbors if they do not believe. Maybe you can enlighten me about where the "book of laws" is at in the old testament and which of the hundreds of variations of the bible I could find it. Coptic.... King James, which one?
The proposed Jonah question begs discussion of the notion of an inerrant Bible. If it is a living Bible then the truth it brings is of a personal nature. How can we do anything but agree to disagree?
The proposed Jonah question is a microcosm of a bigger question and each should resolve similarly within our own point of view. Which statement is more in keeping with your Christian tradition?
A) The Bible provides a lens by which you learn to view your relationship with Christ.
B) The Bible provides set of chains by which you are bound to your relationship with Christ.
Luke 8:50 - "...Don't be afraid; just believe..."
@Captric@xanga - the 'books of law,' or the books of Moses, are the first five books of the Old Testament. You'll find laws in all of them, but the most bang for your buck will be Deuteronomy. You were speaking specifically of germ theory, of how we now know that germs (not sin) cause disease. My response is that many of the laws about avoiding disease are specific commands to abstain from unsanitary practices. Germ theory or no, the sin of drinking polluted water *is* likely to cause disease.
@Captric@xanga - and any translation will do just fine for you.
@Kurasini@xanga - I am glad you mentioned Deuteronomy. Mark Twain's quote. "It's not the parts of The Bible that I don't understand that scare me, it's the parts that I DO understand.".
.DEUTERONOMY 2:33-34 Under God’s leadership, the Israelites utterly destroyed the men, women and children of Sihon. "…we left no survivors."
DEUTERONOMY 3:6 Under God’s leadership, the Israelites destroyed the men, women and children of Og. They plundered the livestock and possessions.
DEUTERONOMY 7:2 God told the Israelites, regarding their enemies, to "destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."
DEUTERONOMY 20:13-14 God laid down the rules for battle, instructing the slaughter of all of the men. Women, children, livestock and possessions could be taken as "plunder for yourselves."
DEUTERONOMY 20:16 "…in the cities of the nations the LORD your god is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13 According to God’s law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman that he found attractive, he could capture her to be his wife. She must then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing when captured. She could mourn her father and mother for a month. If the soldier wasn’t pleased with her for any reason, he could "let her go wherever she wishes."
DEUTERONOMY 28:53 God’s punishment for disobedience included eating "the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."
So you do not get to pick and choose the the parts of the bible that suit your particular tastes.
@Kurasini@xanga - Oooh, well played.
@Captric@xanga - You were directed to the ritual/hygiene laws, but instead went to the laws of governance. They are, of course, rules of governance for a nation-state that is no longer in existence. If your claim is that we are bound to follow these laws as Christians, then your claim is that all Christians are the same as ancient Israelites--and I, for one, am not.
If you read what I said above about genre, this is equally applicable here. The laws of ancient Israel are written in a particular genre, and this effects their immediate applicability. Or in other words, a good question to ask when reading a portion of the Tanakh is to ask, "Who was this originally written to?"
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - It was fun!
We must do this again some time!
For certain individuals of small mind and overwhelming ambition there is no greater insult than to be proven wrong!
@Captric@xanga - Ah, but for individuals of short wallets and tall shoes, to be named truly is a triumph.
@Captric@xanga - sorry, what exactly do these passages have to do with germ theory?