Given that the Book of Jonah is a narrative that defies any easy categorization regarding genre (much like the rest of the OT), it is impossible and perhaps inadvisable to present “a theology” of the Book of Jonah in the sense of a systematic treatise of the nature of God. Instead, the following seeks to discern general theological principles—beliefs that the author seems to have held about God—that are at work in the narrative.
Theology “ad extra”
One possible way of approaching the theology of the Book of Jonah is to consider it as an expression of theology ad extra, a term referring to how God relates to the world. The Book of Jonah does not focus on the nature of God in himself, but on the way that God interacts with the world that he created.
- In general, the Book of Jonah depicts God as both directing nature and acting within the natural world in order to bring about his will. This divine interaction with the world is often referred to as providence, i.e., God’s governance of the world according to his good will (→CCC 302, 306–308).
- In addition, Jonah (esp. Jon 1–2) illustrates that the reach of God’s providential power is limitless; it is not circumscribed by borders, nor is it thwarted by human intransigence. God’s providential power is on full display in the course of this book in which he directs not only the actions of human beings, but also the weather and living creatures (Literary Devices Jon 1:17a; 4:6a,7a,8a).
- Similarly, the book (esp. Jon 3–4) expresses that God’s solicitude for and protection of his creation is limitless. This point is made in a particularly forceful way by using familiar articulations of God’s attributes—that God is gracious, compassionate, slow to anger, and forgiving (Jon 4:2; cf. Ex 34:6; Nm 14:18; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Jl 2:13; Mi 7:18–20)—and then applying them to the situation concerning the repentance of the Ninevites.
- This means that the unfolding of God’s providential plan is surprising at times: for example, God allows Jonah the freedom to reject his prophetic call, but then marshals the powers of the natural world and the great fish to nullify that choice; God sends the prophet to preach destruction, but then relents and pardons Nineveh; God comforts Jonah by arranging a plant for him, but then willingly destroys it for a pedagogical purpose.
Theological Anthropology
Another possible approach to the theology of Jonah is to think in terms of its anthropology, or what it says about human nature and the divine-human relationship, including how humans are supposed to respond to God (Cf. →, 17–27; →, 22–25, 40–42).
- One of the major elements within the book is Jonah’s prophetic mission; God sends Jonah to convey his message to the Ninevites, and as such, employs him as an instrument of his merciful plan for the Ninevites. To the degree that one is comfortable viewing Jonah as a type for humanity or as providing a moral lesson, this very fact can be adduced as a theological lesson that God desires human beings to participate in the unfolding of his providential plan for the world.
It is also important to observe that God does not “appoint” Jonah, as he does with the great fish, the plant, the worm, and the scorching wind (Literary Devices Jon 1:17a; 4:6a,7a,8a ; Comparison of Versions 1:17a,4:6a,7a,8a); rather, Jonah is commissioned when God’s word comes to him (Jon 1:1; 3:1). This application of the prophetic motif in the story indicates that, in contrast to other created works, Jonah must assent to his divine commission.
- Of course, God does not allow Jonah’s decision to stand, but instead prevents Jonah from making his escape by sending the storm and then the great fish. On the one hand, this fact significantly qualifies the preceding observation about Jonah’s freedom; it is not absolute, but is rather subordinated to God’s divine will. On the other hand, one can see how this part of the story operates as an apophatic moral exhortation that humans are meant to obey God.
- In summary, then, the preceding observations point to one important aspect of the theological anthropology of Jonah: humans can (and should) participate consciously and willingly in the unfolding of God’s providential plan.
Creation Theology & Divine Revelation
A third major theological theme in the book is the importance of the created world in God’s revelation (cf. →, 137–138 and 141–42; →, 37–39).
- The cosmology of the book, esp. Jon 2, has much in common with the rest of the OT. In its current place in Jonah, it serves to underscore the limited nature of human knowledge, especially in comparison to the omniscience of the one who constructed the universe (cf. Jb 38), as well as the boundless nature of God’s merciful forgiveness (Ancient Cultures Jon 2:1–9).
- One can also discern an important theological principle at work in the depiction of the sailors’ behavior during the storm: at least in some extreme circumstances, it is possible for people to come to know God through their experience of the created world. In fact, it is possible to characterize their experience as a theophany, at least in an extended sense, since they profess their belief in Yhwh not just God in a generic sense (cf. Jon 1:14–16).
- Finally, it is difficult to deny that the theme of God’s solicitude for and protection of the created world is present in the book. In addition to what has been said above, the events of Jon 3–4 clearly depict various animals as an important part of the story of Nineveh’s repentance. The inclusion of animals in Nineveh’s fasting and repentance could perhaps be a playful echo of the Psalms’ descriptions of praise that creatures offer to God (cf. Ps 19; 29; 96:11–13; 98:7–9; 148; 150; G-Dn 3:57–90). In any case, as the closing rhetorical question of the book makes clear, the well-being of the animals, not just the human inhabitants of Nineveh, is important to God.
Special Issues of Jonah’s Theological Interpretation
Typology in the Christian Tradition
Perhaps the most ubiquitous theological reading of the Book of Jonah in the Christian tradition has been a typological one. Such a reading treats the Old and New Testaments as a wisely arranged unity in which the Book of Jonah serves as a typological protoevangelium (prefiguration of the Gospel).
- Jesus Christ’s reference to the sign of Jonah in the Gospels has, no doubt, served as a great impetus for such a reading (Christian Tradition 1:17–2:1,10).
→DV 16 describes the theological understanding undergirding such an approach: “God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.” See also → Quaest. Hept. 2.73.
The “Miracle” of Jonah in Christian Theology
At various points in the history of biblical interpretation, the concept of divine intervention in the world became a point of serious contention. For some, it was a source of embarrassment to be explained away or subjected to the rigors of a rationalist worldview. For others, it was something to be defended in the name of orthodox, faithful Christianity.
Of all of the material in the Book of Jonah, these theological concerns have affected the interpretation of Jon 1:17–2:10 (M-Jon 2:1–11) most acutely. The fantastic story of a prophet being swallowed by a great fish, taken to the depths of the sea, and then vomited forth three days later was deemed—first by pagans and later by rationalists—far too absurd for anyone to believe (Theology Jon 1:17b).
- Reactions to such challenges were common through the centuries. In addition to focusing on the same details of the story (the size of the fish, the heat within the stomach of the fish, the ability to breath within the fish, etc.), these reactions are all founded on the assumption that the book of Jonah is meant to be a historical account, as opposed to a didactic story or any other type of account (cf. §1.5 supra ; Theology Jon 1:17b).
There is, however, one important point that distinguishes ancient responses from those of the modern period. Whereas some modern authors attempted to rationalize the miracle by explaining how a human being could be swallowed by a whale and survive, the responses of the ancient and patristic eras never deviate from the conviction that only God’s divine intervention made such an incredible event believable. Thus, their belief in the miracle of Jonah was ultimately an expression of their belief in God’s power (and will).
Modern Views on Jonah
Julius Bewer’s introduction to the 1912 International Critical Commentary on Jonah would seem to summarize modernstudies of Jonah when he calls the book “an occasion for jest to the mocker, a cause of bewilderment to the literalist believer, but a reason for joy to the critic.” He continues, “It is sad that men have so often missed the spirit by fastening their attention on the form of the story” (→ 1912, 3). Looking at the scholarship of the 19th and 20th centuries, it is apparent that several different trends emerged as intellectual concerns progressed (for a longer overview of Jonah scholarship going back to the Church Fathers, seee →, 1–8).
In 19th century scholarship on Jonah, one frequently sees an emphasis on the question of historicity with regard to the great fish. Thanks to the whaling industry, which hunted tens of thousands of whales in the early modern period, a great deal was learned about cetological anatomy. Because it seemed very clear that no whale could accord with Jonah’s great fish, the book was often viewed as thus debunked. “Jonah Historically Regarded,” Melville’s survey of commentaries in Moby Dick, gives us an impression of the scholarly approach of the time. One possibility is that the prophet was not actually in the whale’s belly, but in its mouth, which is not improbable, “For truly, the Right Whale’s mouth would accommodate a couple of whist-tables, and comfortably seat all the players” ( 1851, 406). Another suggestion from “a German exegetist” is that it was not a live whale, but rather a carcass in which Jonah took refuge and floated (ibid., 407). Finally, a suggestion is made that there was another ship nearby, “some vessel with a whale for a figurehead; and, I would add, possibly called ‘The Whale,’” which rescued Jonah “from a watery doom” (ibid.). Hence we get a glimpse of the naturalistic tendencies in 19th c. exegesis of Jonah.
At the very end of the century, one can find examples of attempts to describe Jonah as ahistorical, while approaching the text from the perspective of faith. Though “assailed by the infidels,” Jonah stands up to these critics and emerges as an example of great literature. At greater fault than those who attack its qualities are those who affirm its historicity, asserting that if Jonah is not historical then the whole Bible must be disregarded. They “affirm that if Jonah goes, [then] the Bible goes and Jesus goes” (→ 1899, 211). Such exegetes make the question of Jonah’s historicity equal to that of Christ’s divinity. See also Trumbull’s remarks in Theology 1:17.
In light of advances in the study of anthropology, folklore, and myth, some critics held that Jonah ought to be read as a piece of ancient literature in dialogue with ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman mythology. → 1910, for example, compares Jonah with the myth of Hercules’ rescue of Hesione from a sea monster. Hercules defeats the monster by leaping inside of it and fighting the monster from within for three days. Likewise Jonah’s story is similar to that of Arion, who was thrown overboard and saved by a propitious dolphin. Finally, Jonah and similar myths are traced back to a primitive solar myth wherein the sun is swallowed by night: Jonah personifies the sun, while the fish personifies the night or the storm (76–80).
In the 20th century, text-critical commentaries came into greater production, such as → 1912 mentioned above. With a critical focus on the text itself, as well as a concern for the language, the ICC provides the best text-critical information available at the time. This growth in scholarship, however, took place before many 20th century extra-textual discoveries. In light of the data, → 1912 holds that Jonah simply does not belong to the genre of history: “Surely this is not the record of actual historical events nor was it ever intended as such. It is a sin against the author to treat as literal prose what he intended as poetry. This story is poetry not prose. It is a prose poem not history. That is the reason why it is so vague at many points where it should have been precise, if it had been intended as a historical record” (4).
Some 20th century scholars have defended the veracity of the biblical account by appealing to further scientific observations and developments. Whalers, for example, report finding men—sometimes alive, sometimes dead—inside of whales; this is supported by the observations of marine biologists. Other scholars employed other strategies to defend Jonah’s veracity. → contends that disbelief in miracles and the supernatural is a metaphysical position; by definition, inquiry into natural causes cannot determine the nature of causality or whether the supernatural exists, since these both supervene any aggregate of observed natural phenomena. Finally, scholars like John Bergsma and Brant Pitre argue that Jonah was historical, but he dies in the fish and is miraculously resurrected (see Theology 1:17b).
Recent Commentaries and Translations of Jonah
→ Div. Aff. Sp. opened the doors to modern Catholic biblical scholarship, stimulating the production of commentaries and translations. In the Jerusalem Bible, the translation and commentary produced by the EBAF in the 1950s, the Book of Jonah was translated by the renowned scholar and author J.R.R. Tolkien. Although the published translation was edited to have stylistic uniformity with the rest of the Jerusalem Bible, Tolkien’s unedited translation has now been published separately (→ 2014). See his comments upon the book of Jonah below.
Today, dozens of excellent commentaries are on the market. Because of its short length, Jonah is often included with commentaries on other minor prophets or even the whole Book of the Twelve. An excellent example is →, which devotes about 60 pages to Jonah—about the same size as the ICC’s from a century prior. While most commentaries pair Jonah with the other minor prophets, some juxtapose Jonah with books that have thematic or stylistic links. For example, → 2002 pairs Jonah with two other short narratives; → 1994 juxtaposes two books that focus on preaching repentance; and → 1967 assembles four books that might strike us as bizarre.
Perhaps the most significant commentary available now is →. This hefty volume spends most of its pages (85% or so) on analysis of the text. Given its length, the introduction is surprisingly short. In it he discusses Jonah’s place in the Book of the Twelve, its composition, date, and ancient versions. The meat of Sasson’s commentary isa verse by verse explanation of translation issues, historical interpretations, and so forth. There are frequent contextual excurses, such as a couple of pages on casting lots. Comments on the interpretation of the text have been left to the end. It is here that one finds an examination of genre and characters, such as the question as to whether Jonah is a “dupe” or a “hero.” Overall, this commentary is extremely impressive for its comprehensiveness.
Also of note is →, which focuses solely on the Book of Jonah. It likewise has a brief introduction, detailing Jonah’s genre as a didactic story and its theological themes (control over nature, care for all humans, forgiveness). Of particular note is Limburg’s appendix, which describes Jonah’s reception and use in Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism. His treatment of Islam exceeds that of most commentaries.
For those who want help reading the original Hebrew, the translations in the preceding commentaries (especially Sasson’s) are too idiosyncratic; instead, → 1999 is far more helpful, since it is primarily concerned with providing a readable yet accurate translation. Even more so, one can use → 2006, which provides extensive notes that focus on syntax shaped by discourse analysis.
Three further books deserve mention since, although they are not commentaries, they apply certain critical methods to the interpretation of Jonah that may interest the reader. → 1999 highlights the narrator’s depiction of Jonah’s emotions and thoughts. Drawing profound images of Jonah’s personal weaknesses, the narrator elicits sympathy from the reader. → outlines a critical method and uses Jonah as a case study. She emphasizes structure, language, and literary devices. She is quite focused on concentric structures—even the introduction to her method is in the form of a chiasm! Of particular help is her “Guidelines for Beginning,” in which she outlines which elements one must attend to in Jonah—as well as in any other text. Finally, → approaches Jonah using postmodern and poststructuralist methods. Her writing, full of playful language, long-ranging metaphors, and textual indeterminacy, shows, rather than tells, her foundation in writers such as Derrida, Foucault, and Bakhtin.