PEARSON-Making Go Know (2013)

SAVE OFFLINE

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT’S METHODOLOGY OF “MAKING GOD KNOWN” IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE BOOK OF JONAH

A Paper Submitted to Dr. Ken Taylor of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course MISS9402: History of Christian Missions in the Pastoral Ministries Division

David Robert Pearson BA, North Greenville University, 2005 MDiv, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008 ThM, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013 December 6, 2013

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

I. A Missional Hermeneutic of the Old Testament .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

6

II. The Historical Context of the Jonah Narrative

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

18

III. A Missional Hermeneutic of the Jonah Narrative .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

IV. The Theocentric Message of the Jonah Narrative

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

40

.

.

.

.

.

iii

INTRODUCTION Christopher J. H. Wright noted that hundreds of resources, varying in quality, exist that offer biblical foundations for Christian mission.1 Some of these resources are tracts seeking to justify tasks that both writers and readers have previously committed themselves to. Other sources vary to the extreme in either their support or disapproval of critical scholarship. 2 Nevertheless, what the varying sources commonly seek to do is find appropriate biblical justification and authority for the mission of the Christian church to the nations.3 This missional work of encouragement and motivation is called “biblical apologetic for mission.”4 Despite hearing opposition from liberal scholars that no clear missional apologetic for the church existed in Scripture, staunch conservatives argued for biblically historical cases that 1

The subject of biblical foundations within Christian mission is discussed in Christopher J. H. Wright, “Mission as a Matrix for Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 102–43. 2

See David J. Bosch, “Hermeneutical Principles in the Biblical Foundation for Mission,” Evangelical Review of Theology 17 (1993): 437–51; and Charles Van Engen, “The Relation of Bible and Mission in Mission Theology,” in The Good News of the Kingdom, ed. Charles Van Engen, Dean S. Gilliland and Paul Pierson (New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 34. 3

Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 2006), 34. 4

Ibid.

1

2 established such a missional purpose through examples such as William Carey.5 In fact, David Bosch stated6: Protestants have always prided themselves on the fact that they do what they do on the basis of what Scripture teaches. Still, in the case of the earliest Protestant missionaries, very little of a real biblical foundation for their missionary enterprises was in evidence. William Carey was one of the very first to have attempted to spell out such a foundation for the church’s missionary mandate. Christopher Wright believed that William Carey’s example, however, revealed a shortcoming that is inherent in many biblical mission projects: proof-texting. Carey, while being a great example of Christlikeness, seemed to build his entire biblical case on one single text: the Great Commission of Matthew 28. And unfortunately, when doing this, several questions emerged, including “What if one questions whether Jesus really ever uttered the words in Matthew 28?” Wright listed several defensive responses in his book, Mission of God, with the most common being the search for more texts to back up the primary one used in order to show Matthew as having captured the true element of the witness of Scripture as it was linked to Christ himself.7 Even still today, many Christians seem to relish those passages of encouragement that speak directly to them about their own salvation and security during times of distress. Yet, those Christians are shocked when they are confronted with other passages that confront them and their 5

William Carey used Matthew 28:18–20 as his key text in An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1972) as noted in Mission of God, Christopher Wright (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 34 n 3. See also William Estep, Whole Gospel, Whole World: The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention 1845–1995 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994). 6 7

Bosch, “Hermeneutical Principles,” 438.

See Wright’s Mission of God for complete list of these defensive responses, pg. 35. Also, see James LaGrand, The Earliest Christian Mission to “All Nations” in the Light of Matthew’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

3 traditional thoughts of God’s universal purpose for the world.8 Likewise, in the world of academia there appears many scholars and students alike whose understanding of theology is shaped by a traditional curriculum that teaches the Old Testament has not having a missional focus. For example, Anthony Billington questioned the validity of using missiology as a framework for interpreting the Old Testament during the Laing Lectures at the London Bible College in October, 1998. Bullington stated: Does this or that particular framework do justice to the thrust of the text in its biblical theological context? Or does it distort the text? In other words, it’s not that the bringing of a framework to a text is necessarily wrong in and of itself, nor even that the text may not be illuminated in significant ways when we do–for it frequently is. The question is more what sort of control the framework exercises over the text, and whether the text is ever allowed to critique the framework at any point. 9 It is true that the possibility of listing certain texts to make a specific argument about the Bible may lead to circularity. In fact, the danger is that one may come to the Bible with a massive commitment to the task of mission already in place. However, one must ask is this truly wrong? Marc Spindler stated that establishing a biblical grounding for mission is both legitimate and essential; to claim a biblical grounding for “all” missionary practice is much more questionable. Thus, according to Spindler, one should be submitting all his missionary strategies and plans to biblical critique and evaluation.10 The challenge of Billington’s words ultimately led Wright to reflect on what a missiological hermeneutic of Scripture, and if indeed, it does justice to the text. Christopher J.

8

Ibid., 36.

9

Ibid., 26 n 3.

10

Marc R. Spindler, “The Biblical Grounding and Orientation of Mission,” in Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction, ed. A. Camps, L. A. Hoedemaker, and M. R. Spindler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 124–25.

4 H. Wright believed that a missional hermeneutic of the Bible begins with the purpose of making YHWH distinctively known throughout the world, and this distinctiveness is fundamentally presented as a historical narrative within four features: 1) it begins with God purposefully being in creation, 2) it moves to the conflict and problem generated by human rebellion, 3) it spends adequate time focusing on God’s redemptive purpose being worked out on the stage of human history, and 4) it finishes with an eschatological hope of a new creation. Wright also noted that the unique kingship of YHWH was often set in the historical context of a major event. However, the Hebrew poetic imagery often drew upon mythic traditions of the ancient Near East. Specifically, such motifs as the defeat of the sea, command of the winds, crushing of sea dragons, being enthroned over the deep (or the flood) and reigning from the holy mountain are drawn from the world of Canaanite mythology. Yet, these same motifs are often found within the Old Testament as a way of expressing and celebrating the reign of YHWH as king. For example, as per Wright, echoes of Canaanite mythology can be found in Psalm 29:10; 74:12–14; 89:9–10; 93:3–4; 104:3–9; Habakkuk 3:3–15; and Isaiah 51:9–16. However, the use of Canaanite mythology does not mean that the Old Testament endorses the myths. On the contrary, Wright believes that the faith of Israel (or the individual representing Israel) subordinated any affirmations about these gods to the reign of YHWH. In short, the Old Testament took over the language of the gods’ kingship for the purpose of countering it by ascribing all rule to YHWH alone. Richard Bauckham, as quoted in Wright’s Mission of God, stated that the way of understanding the uniqueness of YHWH converges with the belief that there is no other god like Him. In other words, the reason there is no other god like Him is because there is no other god,

5 period; YHWH is “the God”–MihOlTaDh. According to Bauckham, the use of the definitive article is effectively putting YHWH into a class of his own. This research paper will investigate the Jonah narrative within the parameters set by both Wright and Bauckham to see if a truly theocentric mission of the uniqueness of YHWH is evident. First, this research paper will give an overview of Wright’s missional hermeneutic of the Old Testament. Second, the historical context of the Jonah narrative will be explored to see how it fits into the framework of the Old Testament. Third, this paper will explore the Jonah narrative to see if a missional hermeneutic exists paralleling Wright’s criteria. Fourth, the this research paper will analyze the narrative’s usage of MihOlEa to see if, and when, the definitive article is used, thus pointing to the possibility of a theocentric message of YHWH exists.

CHAPTER ONE A MISSIONAL HERMENEUTIC OF THE OLD TESTAMENT A missional hermeneutic of the Bible seems to begin with the Bible’s very existence. The writings themselves are both the product and witness to something very specific for the writers. Charles R. Taber stated: The very existence of the Bible is incontrovertible evidence of the God who refused to forsake his rebellious creation, who refused to give up, who was and is determined to redeem and restore fallen creation to his original design for it. The very existence of such a collection or writings testifies to a God who breaks through to human beings, who disclosed himself to them, who will not leave them un-illuminated in their darkness, who takes the initiative in re-establishing broken relationships. 11 Many of the texts that came to be written were often missional in nature as the writers seemed to emerge out of eventful struggles or crises where the subjects faced challenging tasks of living out their faith. Moreover, the struggles faced were often internal to the people of God as they competed with the religious claims and worldviews that made up their environment. As such, Wright stated that a missional reading of such biblical texts was not a matter of: 1) finding the “real” meaning by objective exegesis, and only then 2) cranking up some “missiological implications” as a homiletic supplement to the text itself. 12 Rather, it was to see how a text often had its origin in some issue, need, controversy, or threat that needed to be addressed in the context of the believers’ mission. In short, the text itself seemed to be a product of a purposeful mission. 11

Charles R. Taber, “Missiology and the Bible,” Missiology 11 (1983): 232.

12

Wright, Mission of God, 49.

6

7 Marion Soards demonstrated that this purposeful mission was a strong possibility as he surveyed four issues within New Testament studies: first-century Judaism, the life of Jesus, Pauline theology, and the character of the early church.13 Soards stated that mission studies should remind biblical scholars that many of the writers that are studied came to be because of the reality of mission. However, before one can clearly determine the reality of mission, whether in the Old Testament or, specifically in this example, the New Testament, a preliminary understanding of what constitutes mission is needed. Andreas Koestenberger stated that in contemporary usage, “missions” generally referred to cross-cultural ministry. Yet, in biblical terminology, it appeared that the cross-cultural aspect of Christian ministry was not a necessary part of mission. In fact, mission frequently involved the crossing of ethnic, cultural, and other boundaries, but was not necessarily an integral part of the concept of mission itself. Rather, mission usually centered around a person’s commissioning to a particular present task that focused on the proclamation of a specific message (e.g., the New Testament gospel).14 Additionally, determining the place of mission within the scope of a specific theology (e.g., Old or New Testaments) required an understanding of the nature of that theology. Adolf Schlatter stated that it was not the interpreter’s own theology or that of his church and times that is examined but rather the theology expressed by the specific testament itself.15 Thus, a biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments seemed to be a task that was both historical and 13

Marion L. Soards, “Key Issues in Biblical Studies and Their Bearing on Mission Studies,” Missiology 24 (1996): 107. 14 Andreas

Koestenberger, “The Place of Mission in New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Determine the Significance of Mission within the Scope of the New Testament’s Message as a Whole,” Missiology: An International Review 27 (1999): 347–61. 15 Adolf

Schlatter, The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology, translated by Andreas Koestenberger (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 18.

8 descriptive. Schlatter further stated that the historical objective should govern one’s conceptual work exclusively and completely. In other words, one should turn from himself and his time to what was found in the men through whom the church came into being.16 Lastly, it should be determined that one’s very conception of mission in both the Old and New Testaments is closely tied to his view of the nature of Scripture. In examining Paul’s New Testament letters, for example, one can see that letters were written in the heat of his missionary efforts as the apostle wrestled with the theological basis of the inclusion of the Gentiles. Additionally, Paul tackled a range of new problems that assailed young congregations as the gospel took root in a world filled with Greek polytheism. The Gospels are another example of select writings that sought to explain the significance of the good news about Jesus Christ. Specifically, confidence in the death and resurrection of Christ was essential to the missionary task of the church. Furthermore, Luke, arguably the author of the largest quantity of the New Testament, shaped his two-volume work in such a way that the missionary mandate given to the disciples to become Christ’s witnesses to the nations proved to be the climax to volume one, as well the introduction to volume two.17 Howard Marshall agreed that this missionary mandate was the focal point of New Testament theology. Specifically, Marshall stated the following about the documents making up the New Testament: It may, however, be more helpful to recognize them more specifically as the documents of a mission. The subject matter is not, as it were, Jesus in himself or God in himself but Jesus in his role as Savior and Lord. New Testament theology is essentially missionary theology. By this I mean that the documents came into being as the result of a two-part 16

Ibid.

17

Wright, Mission of God, 49.

9 mission, first the mission of Jesus sent by God to inaugurate his kingdom with the blessings it brings to people and to call people to respond to it, and then the mission of his followers called to continue his work by proclaiming him as Lord and Savior and calling people to faith and ongoing commitment to himself, as a result of which his church grows. The theology springs out of this movement and is shaped by it, and in turn the theology shapes the continuing mission of the church. The New Testament thus tells the story of the mission and lays special emphasis on expounding the message proclaimed by the missionaries. 18 Just as the New Testament seemingly centered on specific tasks and messages related to sociological issues, the same could be said of the Old Testament. Typically the Old Testament texts emerged out of the engagement of Israel with its surrounding world, in the light of the God they knew in their history through a covenantal relationship. 19 For example, the Torah recorded the exodus as an act of YHWH that confronted and defeated the Pharaoh and all his claims to deity. Moreover, the exodus account seemed to present a theology of creation that stood sharply against the polytheistic creation myths of Mesopotamia. Additionally, the historical narratives in the Old Testament revealed the long history of Israel’s struggles with the Canaanite religion and culture (e.g., the pre-exilic prophets). Next, both the exilic and post-exilic texts emerged out of 18

I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 34–35. 19

See the following texts regarding the subject of Old Testament Theology: Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985); Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology, 1st Paperback ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991); Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997); Ben C. Ollenburger, ed., Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004); Mark S. Gignilliat, A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012). For Old Testament surveys see: R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004); William Sanford Lasor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian History, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).

10 the task that the small remnant community of Israel faced to define their continuing identity as a community of faith within successive empires of varying hostility. Furthermore, the wisdom texts interacted with surrounding wisdom traditions, but did so with a staunch monotheistic disinfectant. And finally, in the worship and prophecy texts, the Israelites reflected on their relationship with YHWH, the rest of the nations, and their roles as YHWH’s elect priesthood. While each genre within the Old Testament deals with specific issues, what is generally reflected are the struggles of being a people with a mission in a world of competing cultural and religious claims.20 Moreover, the Canon eventually consolidates the recognition that it is through these texts that the people whom God called to be his own, in both Testaments, was shaped as a community of memory and hope, as well as a community of mission, failure, and striving. David Filbeck observed that this missiological thrust provided a theological coherence to the entire Bible: Indeed, it is this missionary dimension, so often neglected in modern theological interpretation, that unifies both the Old and New Testaments and coordinates their various themes into a single motif. It is the logical connection between the Testaments that many modern theologians unfortunately seem to despair of ever finding. In short, the dimension of missions in the interpretation of the Scriptures, therefore, must be formulated with the view of maintaining this structure. The missionary dimension to the interpretation of the Old Testament as displayed in the New Testament accomplishes this in a way that no other theological them can hope to match.21 20 21

Wright, Mission of God, 51.

David Filbeck, Yes, God of the Gentiles Too: The Missionary Message of the Old Testament (Wheaton: Billy Graham Center, 1994), 10.

11 In short, a missional hermeneutic seems to proceed from the assumption that the whole Bible renders the story of God’s mission through God’s people in their engagement with God’s world for the sake of the whole of God’s creation.22 When examining the Great Commission of the New Testament, one discovers an imperative mandate. As such, the imperative itself seems to presuppose an authority behind that imperative. Therefore, at one level, a matter of the reader’s obedience to the authority of Scripture is seen. In short, a biblical basis of mission seeks out those biblical texts that express or describe the missionary imperative, on the assumption that the Bible is authoritative. After all, for what other reason would an imperative mandate be made than to express the idea that a reader should obey the imperative given? Biblical Authority A missional hermeneutic of the Bible, on the other hand, explores the nature of biblical authority itself in relation to mission.23 For many people the concept of authority is a military one. Authority is what gives an officer the right to issue commands, and those commands are to be obeyed. In fact, within military circles, the Great Commission is frequently surrounded with military metaphors.24 However, if one accepts and affirms biblical authority, the association of 22

Charles Van Engen, “The Relation of Bible and Mission in Mission Theology,” in The Good News of the Kingdom, eds. Charles Van Engen, Dean S. Gilliland, and Paul Pierson (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993), 27–36. 23

Wright, Mission of God, 51.

24

Ibid., 52.

12 that authority with military style commands does not seem to correlate comfortably with the actual material of the Bible. 25 Oliver O’Donovan argued that authority is a dimension of reality that constitutes sufficient and meaningful grounds for action. For example, the created order itself seems to provide an authoritative structure within which one finds freedom to act.26 In short, authority is not just a list of positive commands, but the source that authorizes permission to freely act within boundaries. Authority predicates of reality: the source and boundary of freedom. And when applied to the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, authority is that which brings one into contact with the reality of God whose authority stands behind even creation itself. Therefore, when one reads the Old Testament he or she is engaged with a reality that manifests itself in three areas: 1) the reality of YHWH, 2) the reality of the Old Testament story itself, and 3) the reality of the Israelites. 27 Ultimately, these realities are believed to carry both an ethical authority of gratitude in view of God’s past actions for Israel, and an authority for current believers’ intentional mission in view of God’s future purposes. 25

For example, Ps. 19; 119 seem to celebrate biblical authority as a mark of God’s goodness and grace. 26

Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1986). Christopher J. H. Wright discusses O’Donovan’s insights further in his book Walking in the Ways of the Lord: The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), chp. 2, and in Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove: InverVarsity Press, 2004). 27

Wright, Mission of God, 55–56.

13 Biblical Indicatives and Imperatives Biblical imperatives are characteristically linked to biblical indicatives. An indicative is simply an affirmative statement, declaration, or claim of reality.28 For example, in Exodus 19:3– 6 reveals how the Old Testament law is set within a narrative context. The narrative expresses the indicative, then the law expresses the responsive imperative. “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”29 Another example is found in Exodus 20:2: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Here, the indicative of God’s grace seems to be the very foundation and authority for both the imperative of the law and the reader’s responsive obedience.30 In short, it is the reality of YHWH that constitutes the authority for these commandments. As such, a missional hermeneutic is not content to simply call believers to obedience (e.g., to the Great Commission), for behind that call one discovers the revelation of the identity of YHWH and his action in the world.31 Biblical Theocentric Worldview and the Mission of God Even if one were to accept that Jesus offers a Messiah-focused and mission-generating hermeneutic of Scripture, that individual may still question the claim that somehow there is a 28

Ibid., 59.

29

Unless otherwise noted, all quoted passages will come from the NASB (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) version. 30

Other examples implying the indicative of YHWH’s uniqueness include: Dt 4: 35, 39; 6:4–5; Lev 19:2, 18. This uniqueness is also played out in the person of Christ: Mt 28:18; Lk 24:46. 31

Wright, Mission of God, 60.

14 small missional hermeneutic of the entire Bible. Typically, this uneasiness stems from the idea that mission is a task performed by the individual or the church, often correlated with evangelism.32 Christopher Wright stated that in order to shift the paradigm of mission from being seen entirely as an evangelistic task to being the very basis of the Bible, one should: 1) move the focus from himself to the ultimate purposes of God, 2) move the idea of “missions” from being that which one undertakes to that which God has purposed for eternity, 3) move the focus from being centered on humans to being centered on God.33 Andrew Kirk noted that this type of paradigm shift is really seeking to answer the question, “Whose mission is it anyway?” In short, mission does not belong to man, but to God.34 Thus, if this is true, then a missional hermeneutic of the Bible begins at that point–with God–and then flows throughout human history affecting all societies. A God of Mission The term “missio Dei” has a long history that is linked to German missiologist Karl Hartenstein.35 It was he who used the term to summarize the teaching of Karl Barth, who previously connected mission with the doctrine of the trinity. Both Barth and Hartenstein believed that mission was grounded in the trinitarian movement as it expressed God’s power over 32

Ibid., 61.

33

Ibid., 62.

34

J. Andrew Kirk, What is Mission? Theological Explorations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 23–37. 35

For a brief history on the term “missio Dei” see David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991), 389–93.

15 history; a history to which the only appropriate response was obedience.36 So, to some extent, the phrase seemed to imply a “sending of God.” And from this perspective, all human mission can be seen as a participation in and an extension of a divine sending. Georg Vicedom helped to bring the term “missio Dei” to the forefront in ecumenical circles during the Willingen world mission conference in 1952.37 Again, the connection of mission flowing from the inner movement of God was presented through the means of a personal relationship. Despite this presentation, however, within some circles the idea of “missio Dei” was so linked to God’s involvement with the historical process that some questioned whether it related to the work of the church or not. In short, the affirmation that mission belonged to God came to mean that it did not belong to humanity; and therefore, it seemed to exclude evangelism. Neverthless, despite the misuse of going from extreme to the other (i.e., completely evangelistic or not evangelistic at all), the expression “missio Dei” does express the biblical truth that God is personal, purposeful, and goal-oriented.38 In fact, Arthur Aigner summed up the mission of God as “God working his purpose out” from year to year, and generation to generation.39 Wright stated that God works out his mission through the biblical narrative at one level, as well as through a grand meta-narrative at another. 40 First, the narrative begins with God in 36

L. A. Hoedemaker, “The People of God and the Ends of the Earth,” in Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction, ed., A. Camps, L. A. Hoedemaker, and M. R. Spindler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 163. 37

Georg Vicedom, The Mission of God: An Introduction to a Theology of Mission, ed. Gilbert A. Thiele, and Dennis Hilgendorf (reprint, St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1965). 38

Wright, Mission of God, 63.

39 Arthur

Campbell Aigner, “God is Working His Purpose Out” (1894) as quoted in Wright’s Mission of God, 63. 40

Ibid.

16 creation. Second, the narrative moves on to a conflict and problem generated by human rebellion against God’s purpose. Third, the narrative spends most of its time focused on God’s redemptive purpose being worked out on the stage of human history. Finally, fourth, the narrative finishes beyond its own history with an eschatological hope of a new creation. This four-point narrative is not a single narrative, but often times a complex mixture of smaller narratives. Nevertheless, there is a clear direction that can be followed. Richard Bauckham stated: The Bible does in some sense, tell an overall story that encompasses all its other contents, but this story is not a sort of straightjacket that reduces all else to a narrowly defined uniformity. It is a story that is hospitable to diversity and tensions, challenges and even some contradictions.41 Therefore, to read the entire Bible in light of the overarching perspective of mission is to read with the grain of this whole collection constituting the canon of Scripture. To put it another way, to accept the biblical worldview places the reader in the midst of a narrative founded on the theocentric starting point–God with a mission. From this starting point, one discovers in the opening chapters of Genesis a humanity with a mission (i.e., the mandate to fill, subdue, and rule over the earth).42 Next, against the backdrop of sin and rebellion, one discovers Israel with a mission that begins with the call of Abraham.43 In other words, Israel seemingly came into existence as a people with a mission entrusted to them by God for the sake of God’s purpose of blessing the nations. Then, it was into these people that Jesus stepped in with a mission from his Father. His mission was to restore Israel to YHWH, as well as be the agent of God’s salvation to 41

Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Mission: Christian Mission in a Postmodern World (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003), 92–94. 42

Gen 1:28.

43

Gen 12.

17 the ends of the earth.44 Finally, the biblical narrative introduces the church as having a mission. In fact, it was Jesus who entrusted to the church a mission that was directly rooted in his own identity and passion as the crucified and risen Messiah.45 44

Is 49:6.

45 Acts

1:8; Is 43:10–12.

CHAPTER TWO THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE JONAH NARRATIVE Background of the Narrative No indication as to who may have written the story of Jonah exists. Anything one claims to know about the author must be deduced from the work itself.46 Jonah is, however, mentioned as the “son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.”47 This reference almost certainly identifies the Jonah who was sent to Nineveh.48 While Jonah is not referred to as a prophet within the narrative bearing his name, he did receive a prophet’s divine commission which was eventually carried out. The reference in 2 Kings adds the information that Jonah ministered God’s word to King Jeroboam II of Israel (782/781–753 B.C.). During the reigns of his immediate predecessors the Aramean states headed by Damascus had made savage attacks on Israel, inflicting much suffering on the population.49 Gordon Franz also noted that the Assyrians of Jonah’s day were known for their pervasive cruelty toward their enemies. 50

46

Joyce Baldwin, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, Single Volume, ed., Thomas McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 544. 47

2 Kngs 14:25.

48

Jon 1:1.

49

2 Kngs 13:5; Amos 1:3. These attacks seem to contrast Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush who say that the Assyrian empire did not impact Israel between 800–730 B.C. 50

Gordon Franz, “Nahum, Nineveh, and Those Nasty Assyrians,” Bible and Spade (Fall 2003); accessed 3 December 2013 from http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/05/28/ Nahum2c-Nineveh-and-Those-Nasty-Assyrians.aspx. Internet.

18

19 While Jehoash (798–782/781 B.C.) succeeded in recovering the cities of Israel, it was Jonah who predicted that Jeroboam would restore Israel’s borders to their Davidic lines. This prediction was fulfilled and Israel prospered once again.51 Meanwhile, both Hosea and Amos prophesied at approximately the same time and rebuked the northern kingdom as early as Jeroboam’s reign.52 Nineveh, already occupied in prehistoric times53, was one of the principal cities of Assyria and, together with Calah and Assur, was a royal residence by the time of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 B.C.). By the middle of the ninth century Shalmaneser III (858–824 B.C.) had forced the coastal cities of Lebanon and Philistia to pay tribute. As a result, Israel became involved when Ahab joined a coalition of ten kings to fight the Assyrians at Qarqar in 853 B.C.54 Shalmaneser’s inscriptions from Kurkh claimed an Assyrian victory as Ahab supposedly lost two thousand chariots and ten thousand men.55 Afterwards, Jehu (841–814/813 B.C.) became a vassal of Assyria, and for the first time Israel had to pay tribute to an alien power. Adad-nerari III (810–783 B.C.), king of Assyria, left a firsthand description of his expedition to Palestine in the fifth year of his reign, when “according to the Rimah stela, he exacted recognition from Joash of Samaria. 56 This was the reign prior to that of Jeroboam II. 51

2 Kngs 14:25–27.

52

Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1.

53

Gen 10:11–12.

54

Baldwin, Minor Prophets, 545.

55

D. Winton Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (London: Nelson, 1958), 47. See also, James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 278–279. 56

Donald J. Wiseman, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979): 50.

20 Assur-dan III, Assyria’s next king, had a calamitous reign as he faced a famine from 765–759 B.C., as well as a solar eclipse in 763 B.C. These natural phenomena gave rise to serious rebellions in various cities through 758 B.C. 57 All of this chaos could have possibly served as the background to Jonah’s narrative. Purpose of the Narrative The question of date is connected with the purpose of the narrative.58 Additionally, it may be significant, whereas Hosea, Amos, and Micah opened with an indication of date, the Jonah narrative does not begin the same way. Although a prima facie case for assuming that it belongs in the earlier half of the eighth century exists, presumably it is not necessary to know when it was written in order to understand the main message.59 In fact, a number of factors could have prompted the writing. Israel’s nationalistic outlook may have needed correcting, hence the emphasis on God’s concern for the people of Nineveh.60 The overall hopeful outcome would be a greater missionary vision instead of a narrow, particularistic emphasis.61 Rowley considered that such a message might have been most appropriate in the fifth century B.C., when Ezra and Nehemiah endeavored to keep Jerusalem and Judah from accepting the religious and moral presuppositions of their pagan neighbors. Unfortunately, one of the major arguements against this view is that

69.

57

Ibid.

58

Baldwin, Minor Prophets, 546.

59

Ibid.

60

Jon 4:11.

61

Harold H. Rowley, Missionary Message of the Old Testament (London: Carey, 1945),

21 Jonah seemed to be the main focus of the narrative, not the Ninevites, and the problems dealt with by Ezra and Nehemiah are not even mentioned.62 In examining the historical context within the Assyrian kingdom, it does not appear that a greater missionary vision could only apply to the fifth century B.C. For example, if Adad-nerari III had built up Nineveh at his enemies’ expense, this would have provided a background leading up to the prophesies of both Hosea and Amos, as well as Jonah’s preaching to Nineveh. Furthermore, if Assur-dan III indeed faced the calamitous reign as history tells, then it could have been quite possible that the superstitous polytheists of Assyria would have been chaotic and blamed the king. And lastly, perhaps the Ninevites were extremely cruel towards their enemies. Would it be so exteme to think that the inhabitants did not learn their wickedness from their leaders who had then become their enemies because of the famine, solar eclipse, etc.? This backdrop for would surely serve to cause any prophet hesitation in proclaiming the truth face to face with his enemies. Interpretations of the Narrative History or story? That is the initial question most readers pose when examining the Jonah narrative. Former generations tend to understand the story in a literal or historical sense. Modern scholars, seem to be more inclined to treat the story as some form of fiction. However, the teaching value of the story does not necessarily depend on its historicity.63 For example, the historical truthfulness of the parable of the Good Samaritan does not bound the story from 62

Ronald E. Clements, “Purpose of the Book of Jonah,” in Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 19. 63

William Sanford Lasor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 382.

22 making its point.64 Likewise, the story of Jonah could have possibly been told to illustrate a lesson.65 Dillard and Longman agreed that “the question of the intention of historicity is totally without effect on the interpretation of the book’s theological message or even the exegesis of individual passages.”66 Therefore, other factors must be examined to determine whether or not the Jonah narrative was intended as a historical account. Historical Interpretation When examining the Jonah narrative the surface indications of the story seem to lead to a historical interpretation. Jonah, the son of Amittai, actually lived in the days of Jeroboam II. The story is introduced with the standard message reception formula: “Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah.”67 The presentation is not in a dream or vision, but in a situation that requires the main character, Jonah, to physically go to Nineveh. Furthermore, the account of the storm, the sailors’ reactions, the pagan practices, and even the cries and sacrifices made throughout the story appear to be historical events. The specific incident of the “large fish” brings an exceptional feature into the narrative. Of course, many conservatives look to Christ’s reference to Jonah being in the belly of the fish for three days and nights as a sign of his own burial and resurrection.68 Those who hold to the historical interpretation of Jonah have argued that 1) Jesus placed the narrative on the same 64

Lk 10:30–35.

65

Ibid., 384.

66

R. B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 293. 67

Jon 1:1.

68

Mat 12:39f.

23 historical level as his own resurrection and 2) if the Jonah narrative is fiction, then the resurrection of Jesus cannot be defended or must be fiction as well. Additionally, Jonah’s visit to Nineveh seems to be related to the words of Jesus: “The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here.”69 Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush pointed out the possibility of the queen Sheba’s visit to Solomon paralleling the preaching of Jonah in Nineveh as providing some historical footing as well.70 Despite the above interpretation, those who question the historicity of Jonah do so on several bases. First, exception has been taken with the incident regarding the “large fish.” It has been debated whether a whale can swallow a human being or not. Even if Jonah were swallowed by a whale, how could he have survived three days in the fish’s belly without oxygen? And furthermore, how did Jonah compose a psalm in the fish’s belly? Sadly, it appears that many scholars “have been looking so hard at the great fish that they have failed to see the great God.”71 Second, Nineveh was described as a large city that was approximately sixty miles in diameter.72 R. K. Harrison stated that “three days’ journey” did not refer to the breadth of the city itself, but to the entire administrative district of Nineveh, which was between thirty and sixty miles across.73 D. J. Wiseman noted that the first day in Jonah 3:4 may allude to the distance 69

Mat 12:41.

70

Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament, 384. See Mat 12:41f.; cf. Lk 11:29–32.

71

G. Campbell Morgan, The Minor Prophets (Westwood: Revell, 1960), 69.

72

“Three days’ journey in breadth” seems to refer to the distance across the city. According to Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, a day’s journey can be calculated at about twenty miles. 73

R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 909.

24 from the southern suburbs to the northern part of the city, since the term hwnyn was not distinguished between the metropolis proper and the district. 74 Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush pointed out that while some expositors have interpreted the passage as referring to “greater Nineveh,” the city was not made the capital of Assyria until 700 B.C. by Sennacherib. Furthermore, since the narrative presupposes the Assyrian empire, which hardly impacted Israel between 800 B.C. and the 730s, the main focus should be on the past tense verb “was” in the text.75 In short, the authors believe that if Jonah lived in the days of Jeroboam II (786–746), then it is highly unlikely that he was still living to tell the narrative after the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C. Third, it has been argued that the details of Nineveh’s repentance has no historical verification. For example, did he learn Akkadian or Aramaic? What language did his audience understand? Outside of the Bible there is no evidence that Nineveh ever underwent such a religious conversion. Additionally, the king of Assyria was never called “king of Nineveh.”76 R. K. Harrison stated that no exception needed to be taken with the above title because the writer was merely making a common passing reference to the ruler.77 This practice was also used in referencing the both the kings of Edom and Damascus. 78 For such reasons, the historical nature of the account is challenged.

74

I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (InterVarsity, 1996), 889. 75

Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament, 384.

76

Jon 3:6.

77

Harrison, Introduction, 909.

78

2 Kngs 3:9, 12; 2 Chron 24:23.

25 Mythological, Allegorical, and Parabolic Interpretations It should be noted that grouping these three interpretations together does not suggest that they are the same, but rather they view the general intent of the narrative as being something other than historical. A myth seeks to present truth about human experience or natural origins in a form that conveys a historical idea. In ancient myths, the struggle of humanity against nature, or even of nature iself with its varying seasons, may be portrayed as a contest between gods. For example, in Canaanite texts, Yamm (the Sea) was a hostile sea monster god, but elsewhere he was Leviathan in Hebrew or Litan in Ugaritic. The cuneiform name Nina for “Nineveh” has also been compared with the word for “fish.” However, Jonah’s fish was a rescuer, not an enemy. Nevertheless, while the elements in the story might be associated with mythic language, this view has seemingly fallen out of favor.79 In allegory, a story is told to convey a message and most details contribute to the whole. Thus, in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares, all have symbolic meaning. Within the Jonah narrative, the name Jonah means “dove,” which some passages link as a metaphor for Israel. 80 Israel was a disobedient nation that did not preach the truth to the Gentiles. Within this view, this disobedience was symobolized by the attempt to sail to Tarshish. Then, YHWH punished Israel with exile, which was illustrated by the swallowing up of Jonah. A parable is a lifelike short story which embodies a moral or spiritual truth. Unlike the allegory it does not have meaning attached to every part. G. A. Aldears stated that “all parables resemble a record of historical events.” Thus, it is impossible to argue from the form of the 79

Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament, 385.

80

Hos 11:11; Ps 74:19.

26 Jonah narrative that it must have been meant as a record of historical events. 81 A parable sometimes includes extraordinary features to encourage the audience to listen to a message. A parable may also refer to a historical person, such as the nobleman in the parable of the pounds.82 Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush perfer to take the parabolic approach with the Jonah narrative.83 81

G. A. Aalders, The Problem with the Book of Jonah (London, 1948), 12.

82 Archelaus 83

in Lk 19:11–27.

Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament, 386.

CHAPTER THREE A MISSIONAL HERMENEUTIC OF THE JONAH NARRATIVE As mentioned in chapter one, the exilic and post-exilic biblical texts emerged from tasks facing the small remnant of Israel as they sought to define their identity as a community of faith within successive empires of varying hostility. Thus, it is quite possible that the authors of opposing messages would have drawn upon the imagery from ancient Near Eastern mythic traditions to help particular audiences to more readily accept a contrasting message. Some examples may have included the Canaanite sea motifs, one’s command of nature, the crushing of opposing monsters just to name a few. In fact, Christopher Wright noted that such examples served as echoes of Canaanite mythology within the Old Testament as a way of revealing the uniqueness of YHWH as king. However, as noted in the first chapter, the use of Canaanite mythology does not mean that the Old Testament endorsed the myths. On the contrary, Wright believed that the Israelites contextualized any affirmations about polytheistic gods to YHWH himself. In other words, the Old Testament took over the ancient Near Eastern imagery and language and ascribed all rule to YHWH alone. Now, this chapter will investigate the Jonah narrative specifically to see if indeed the parameters set by Wright point to a missional hermeneutic. Christopher Wright stated that God works out his mission through the biblical narrative in four steps. First, the narrative begins with God in creation. Second, the narrative moves on to a conflict generated by human rebellion against God. Third, the narrative spends the majority of

27

28 its time focused on God’s redemptive purposes.84 Fourth, the narrative finishes with an eschatological hope of a new creation. When examining the Jonah narrative one quickly sees a connection between YHWH and creation as He “hurled a great wind upon the sea.”85 hDwhyAw (but the Lord) is in the emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence, and lyIfEh (hurled), a hiphil perfect, interrupts the narrative sequence to call special attention to the Lord’s intervention. Although the root lwf (to hurl) is not common, it occurs four times in chapter one alone to stress the idea that what YHWH sets in motion others are obliged to do. 86 One also discovers YHWH being linked with creation as He “appointed a great fish.”87

NAmVyAw (had appointed) is the piel perfect of hDnDm. Whereas the qal means “to number,” the piel means “to appoint” good gifts, “to appoint” someone to office, or even “to appoint” suffering.88 Here, with YHWH as the subject, the verb stresses God’s sovereign rule over events for the accomplishments of His purpose. In short, the “great fish” is in exactly the right place at the right time by God’s command, to swallow Jonah and enclose him safely like a womb. Wright’s second step of a missional hermeneutic centers on conflict generated by human rebellion. Of course, it is easy to see this particular step within the Jonah narrative as the main character’s own disobedience is what leads him to end up in the chaotic seas and almost drown. 84

These steps will be applied to only two examples within this chapter because of the constraints imposed upon this paper: the saving of the sailors & Jonah himself. However, God’s redemption can also be seen in the saving of the Ninevites. 85

Jon 1:4.

86

Baldwin, Minor Prophets, 556.

87

Jon 1:17.

88

Ps 61:7; Isa 53:12; Dan 1:10; Dan 1:11; Job 7:3.

29 In response to YHWH’s initial command to go to Nineveh, Jonah rose “to flee to Tarshish.”89 In short, with all of Nineveh’s calamitous environment, the city comes to the notice of YHWH; and furthermore, He chooses Jonah to be His messenger for the inhabitants. The structure of this verse seems to make its own contribution to the message, with the key to the structure being the repetition of the words “Tarshish” and “from the Lord’s presence.” The chiastic structure below seems to form an artistic pattern that conveys the deliberate purpose with which Jonah reacts.90 a b c c` b` a

to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord he went down to Joppa found a ship going to Tarshish paid the fare and went aboard to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord

Wright’s third step of a missional hermeneutic focused on God’s redemptive purposes. Again, as mentioned in chapter one, it was determined that God works out his missional hermeneutic not only through the biblical narrative, but specifically through a “meta narrative.” A meta narrative is essentially a big story within which many smaller stories find their place and meaning. Essentially, what will be explored here is the grand meta narrative of redemption within the Jonah narrative. For the sake of time, only three examples will be discussed: the salvation of the pagan sailors, the salvation of Jonah, and the salvation of the Ninevites. In Jonah 1:14 one discovers that the pagan sailors “called out to the Lord.” Polytheists though they were, they still tried to appease the wrath of Jonah’s God, who, they believed, could 89 90

Jon 1:3.

Baldwin, Minor Prophets, 553. While David A. Dorsey does not acknowledge this particular chiastic structure of Jon 1:3, he does adhere to a chiastic structure for the entire narrative in The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 290–95. Dorsey also acknowledges that Jon 1:1–3 parallels Jon 3:1–3 to show YHWH’s determination to reach the Ninevites with his message, 290.

30 hold them guilty of murder; hence their prayer to YHWH. hDnDa (please!) is a term of terrified dismay that implies belief that YHWH will judge human actions by retribution or wrong doing, and that he can be appealed to for justice.91 Joyce Baldwin noted that there is evidence here for an awareness of God in the pagan world, which the words of the text have reinforced. The second phrase, “and lay not on us innocent blood,” seems to imply an ethical code that prohibits murder. To throw a man overboard without a fair trial in which he had been proven guilty would incur the wrath of a supreme being and bring about death for the crew.92 In Jonah 1:16, the immediate transformation of the raging seas to calmness not only shows the strength of YHWH, but also the drastic change in the sailors. Previously, in v. 5, the sailors had cried out to his own god, but now they called out to YHWH. Furthermore, where they had previously jettisoned the cargo, now they offered sacrifices and made vows. The Hebrew verb waVryIy (feared) has YHWH as the direct object, which has caused some concern for some scholars. However, the ary is repeated in the verb and in the accusative noun, thus forming a cognate accusative construction which is used for emphasis. The idea is that the sailors greatly feared YHWH, yet they made a life-changing discovery because they had come into contact with the monotheistic God of Jonah. As a result, they made such offerings as they could then and there, but apparently planned to do more, as implied by their “vows.” Another example of YHWH’s redemption in the narrative is linked to Jonah himself. In Jon 2, the main character lElApVtIy (prayed) to YHWH. The verb is a hithpael imperfect form which means “to intercede, judge, pray.” Jonah, in trouble, prayed to wyDhOlTa (his God) who was hDwhVy. 91

Ibid., 562. The Masoretic Hebrew phrase is hDdaOn aDn_lAa hDwhVy hDnDa (“Please, Lord, do not let us perish”). !

92

Ibid.

31 Jonah’s poetic prayer seems to be borrowed, according to some scholars, from the Psalms.93 As such, those same scholars have then argued whether the hymn originally existed in the narrative or not. Honestly, if Jonah was seen as a historiographical apologetic told by a later narrator, then this would not pose a problem. The implementation of the hymn would simply be a device used to direct the reader toward the main idea of the narrative. 94 The structure of the psalm has led some to disagree as to whether the same Jonah of the poetic psalm is the same person who wrote the narrative prose. Despite the difference in vocabulary, Jonathan Magonet pointed to literary devices indicating that one mind has produced both the poetry and the prose. Indeed he argued that the poem is a carefully constructed work of art, fulfilling a specific purpose.95 However, one could still argue as to whether it was Jonah himself who knew both prose and poetry, or was it a secondary narrator; the option is still open. Essentially what Magonet’s work simply reveals is that a consistency in the narrative does exist. Wright’s fourth criteria for a missional hermeneutic is an eschatological hope of a new creation. The Jonah narrative ends with YHWH teaching the prophet a lesson on selfishness and mercy. In Jonah 4:11, the emphatic pronoun yInSaAw (as for me) picks up the contrast between Jonah and YHWH who, by implication, has toiled over the whole of his creation and who, incidentally, had done much for Jonah despite his selfishness. 93

Ibid., 566.

94

Rather than committing to the idea that the narrative is most concerned with the character of Jonah, this author submits that the main focus of the narrative is on the uniqueness of YHWH in opposition to other polytheistic gods. 95

Jonathan Magonet, Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah, 2nd ed., Bible and Literature Series 8 (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 39–63.

32 Regarding the phrase swjDa aOl (may I not have pity), the interrogative prounoun can be omitted in rhetorical speech, which leaves the reader contemplating the meaning of the verb swj. Within the Hebrew language, MAjDn is used when pity has changed some previous plan. However,

swj is used to record YHWH’s compassion in a particular case. One would do well to ask whether YHWH was obliged to ask Jonah’s permission in order to exercise His mercy? The ironic question is intended to bring Jonah to a repentant frame of mind. 96 Finally, the great city of Nineveh was important to YHWH. Although, detested by Jonah, Nineveh was the object of God’s compassion. In keeping with the normal usage, the verb swj refers to people, in this case to more than 120,000. Some scholars, like D. J. Wiseman, put the population number lower because of a stela of King Assurbanipal II being found.97 Nevertheless, the exactness of the figure should not detract one from the impact of this closing verse. YHWH, who had cared for the undeserving individual, Jonah, was moved to also care for the underserving city that repents. 96

Baldwin, Minor Prophets, 589.

97

D. J. Wiseman, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” 41–42.

CHAPTER FOUR THE THEOCENTRIC MESSAGE OF THE JONAH NARRATIVE Richard Bauckham, as quoted in Wright’s Mission of God, stated that the way of understanding the uniqueness of YHWH converges with the belief that there is no other god like Him. In other words, the reason there is no other god like Him is because there is no other god, period; YHWH is “the God”–MihOlTaDh. According to Bauckham, the use of the definitive article is effectively putting YHWH into a class of his own. This chapter will analyze the usage of MIhOlEa in the Hebrew Masoretic Jonah narrative to see when, and how, the definitive article is used in the overall flow of the narrative. 98 The first use of MyhOlEa is used in Jonah 1:6 where the boat captain uses the noun twice:

DKyRjOlTa and MyIhOlTaVh. In the first instance, DKyRhOlTa, the captain, who does not know Jonah’s God, exhorts him to pray. While the form is simply a masculine plural construct with a second person, masculine suffix, the linguistic plural form seems to imply the captain’s continued understanding of polytheism. In short, from the text, he seems to be using the plural form of “gods” as if to include any possible god that exists. However, with the second usage, MyIhOlTaVh, the captain implies that perhaps Jonah’s God “might give thought” to their dilemma. In other words, the definitive article appears to be used as if to bring a uniqueness to Jonah’s God. In Jonah 1:9 the Hebrew text uses the phrase ary yna MymvAh yhla jwjy_haVw ykna (and I myself fear the Lord God of heaven). Up to this point in the narrative Jonah has said nothing at all. Now, in answer to the questions put on him, he declares his allegiance to the monotheistic 98

It is this writer’s view that the overall usage of MIhOlEa in the narrative could be a useful device in pointing to the uniqueness of YHWH. !

33

34 YHWH. Linguistically, the masculine plural noun, yhla, is now coupled with both the title hwhy and the definite article hRa. The flow from 1:6 to 1:9 seems to reveal a progression toward the general, pluralistic term “gods” to a specific “the Lord God.”99 Likewise, in Jonah 2:2, the phrase wyThOlEa hDwhVy_lRa (to the Lord his God) is used as Jonah prayed from the stomach of the fish. Jonah breaks out into poetic verse as he calls on YHWH in the midst of his trouble. Linguistically, Jonah is linking wyhla with hwhy as if to say there is something unique about YHWH, which is why he is calling on Him for deliverance. Jonah 2:7 seems to mark the extremity of the prophet’s descent, which started with his “decent” to Joppa in order to escape his prophetic task.100 Now, in the underwater world Jonah seemingly touched the very roots of the mountains. In fact, Jonah was so far down that he likened his descent as going to Sheol, the land of the dead. However, it was at this point when all hope was lost that YHWH intervened: the impossible happened as the yDhOlTa hDwhVy (Lord my God) brought him up from the depths of despair. Yet again, the title YHWH is linked with a form of MyhOlEa, but in this instance the acknowledgement is personal and possessive. Jonah 3:5 seems to revert back to using the simple form of MyhOlEaEb (in God) which would appears to debunk Bauckham’s theory. However, in the context of the passage, the verb wnyImSaAyAw (believed) refers to the Ninevites response to hearing the message of Jonah. The root of “believed” is NImDa, which connotes a “confirmation. Yet, in this verse the hiphil is used, which 99

It is interesting to note that for the remainder of chapter one, the noun hwhy (YHWH) is

used. 100

Jon 1:3.

35 implies a “standing firm in belief.”101 So, while linguistically, the simple term for God is used in relation to the Ninevites, one should not omit the complete context that reveals the one whom the inhabitants of Nineveh were believing in: Jonah’s God. In Jonah 3:8–9 the “king of Nineveh” references God twice as the Ninevites are to called to earnestly pray for deliverance from death. In the first reference, the king uses MiIhlEa, while in the second he uses MihOlTaDh. The inhabitants are to turn from their evil practices and violence. In addressing the people initially the king uses the general term for god, perhaps meeting his own people at their point of understanding (i.e., contextualization). However, in the second usage, the definite article is used as the king seems to acknowledge the possibility that it is Jonah’s God who is in control and may change His mind and relent. In short, from a linguistic standpoint, it appears that Bauckham’s theory still holds true as the king himself seemed to learn that there is something unique about MyIhlEaDh (the God). Next, in 3:10, the term MyIhlEaDh is continued as now “the God” is the one who has the sole power to remove judgment and destruction. It is noteworthy that the verb bwv is used to describe the Ninevites’ repentance, thus connoting a changed direction. However, the verb Mjn is used to describe God’s relent toward the inhabitants of the city. The idea behind Mhn is that one is “moved to pity.” In short, this terminology opens the door through which one can catch a glimpse of the mystery of God’s suffering.102 Jacques Ellul describes this mystery by stating that “the just and perfectly holy God condemns, and can do no other, but when man repents, when

101

Baldwin, Minor Prophets, 579.

102

Ibid., 581.

36 man changes, God suffers for having condemned him...He takes upon Himself the evil which was the wages of man’s sin.”103 In Jonah 4:6–10, YHWH is referenced four times in somewhat of a digression. In verse six the text uses MyIhlTa_jDwhVy (Lord God). In verse seven the name MyIhOlTaDh (the God) is used. Then, in 4:8, 9 simply MyIhOlTa is used. Despite the apparent downward linguistic flow in God’s name, one must remember the context. Jonah himself is in a discussion with his God. As a believer, Jonah already knows that YHWH is MyIhOlTa. Additionally, for the reader(s), after examining the linguistic flow of the text and the subsequent contexts, there should be no question at this point about the two titles referencing one true God. 103

Jacques Ellul, The Judgment of Jonah, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 99.

SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION It was the purpose of this research paper was to investigate the possible correlation between Christopher Wright’s methodology of a missional hermeneutic for “making God known” and the Jonah narrative. In chapter one, Wright’s foundation for an Old Testament missional hermeneutic was established. This foundation was established by utilizing various scholarly views, as well as brief examinations of each Old Testament genre. It was stated that each genre dealt with specific issues that generally reflected the struggles of being a “missionminded” people who competed in a polytheistic culture. Wright revealed that both Testaments were shaped by a people whom God called to be his own: a community of memory and hope, as well as a community of mission. In chapter two, the historical context of the Jonah narrative was explored to see how it fits into the framework of the Old Testament. If indeed one believes the Old Testament to be as Wright described, a testament shaped by God’s own people, then an underlying presupposition of there being a purpose to that shaping must exist. The ancient Near Eastern contexts, with all of its kings and cities, was analyzed to see if a possible background could be established for the Jonah narrative. Both archeological finds and historical documents were utilized in helping propose the idea that demands of monetary tribute, natural disasters (e.g., famines), and even a solar eclipse were all possibilities filtering into the chaotic violence of a superstitious Assyrian empire. This violence in itself would be reason enough for YHWH to want one of His messengers to intervene and speak on His behalf.

37

38 In chapter three, Wright’s criteria for a missional hermeneutic was specifically applied to the Jonah narrative to see if a possible correlation exists. The criteria for this hermeneutic consisted of four steps: 1) God in creation, 2) conflict generated by human rebellion against God, 3) a focus on God’s redemptive purposes, and 4) an eschatological hope of a new creation. The results of this research disclosed that, based on linguistic terminology, archaeological data, and even chiastic structures, that the Jonah narrative met Wright’s criteria for a missional hermeneutic. Lastly, in chapter four, this paper analyzed Richard Bauckham’s presupposition on the usage of MyIhOlTaDh being used to distinguish God from any other polytheistic god with the Jonah narrative. A total of fourteen variations of the term MyIhOlEa exist in the narrative alone. Each one was explored to see if, by Bauckham’s standards, a textual flow might illustrate YHWH being the one true God. First of all, it was discovered that both MyIhOlTaDh and MyIhOlTa hDwhVy were both used to reference Jonah’s God. Any other time where a general usage of MyIhOlEa was used it was somehow tied directly to the Ninevites, thus implying a tie to polytheism, except within the sole closing discussion between Jonah and his God. Furthermore, the textual flow of the various usages of

MyIhOlEa shows a gradual progression that ultimately links MyIhOlTa hDwhVy together, thus possibly implying that the two are really one. In conclusion, through the research performed in this paper, it is this writer’s opinion that a missional hermeneutic does exist within the Jonah narrative. Moreover, when placed against the contextual backdrop of a chaotic, violent Assyrian empire, a just reason for YHWH wanting to intervene is clearly seen. Then, the linguistic pattern of chiastic structures, coupled with archaeological data, and linguistic terminology, seem to strongly enhance this hypothesis.

39 Lastly, when analyzing the linguistic flow of the usage of MyIhOlEa within the Jonah narrative, it clearly appears that a missional hermeneutic of focusing on the uniqueness of YHWH is a strong possibility.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

40