Tag Archives: Journal for the study of the old testament

Have You Missed the Point of the Book of Jonah?

Jonah

As has been noted by many,  the book of Jonah stands out among the other writings in the Book of the Twelve. The narrative flow of the book, as well as the historical questions, if any, addressed, have staged interpretive difficulties in the study of the Twelve as a whole. Yet, commentators have traditionally shared broad thematic consensus on the overarching message of the book, highlighting the character of Yahweh as gracious and compassionate.

But one finds a challenge to the traditional interpretation of Jonah in the latest volume of the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (“Meaning More than They Say: The Conflict between YHWH and Jonah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [December 2012 37], 237-257). Rob Barrett, professor of theology at Georg-August University of Göttingen, argues that the focus of the book does not lie in the narrative aspect of the composition, but rather in  the speeches present in the book. Through an analysis of the speeches, Barrett exposes, what he terms, a conflict between Yahweh and the prophet. In each instance, as Barrett states, the direct speeches recorded betray a deeper meaning than intended by the speaker, resulting in the central focus of the book resting not on the Gentile sailors or the people of Nineveh, but on the relationship between Yahweh and Jonah.

While many have looked to chapter four as explanation for Jonah’s flight in disobedience from Yahweh, Barrett claims that this is an inadequate conclusion. The function of the concluding chapter is not to elucidate Jonah’s motivation for fleeing from the call to Nineveh, but rather to evince Yahweh’s commitment to his mercy on Jonah, as representative of Israel. Rather than Jonah’s conflict with Nineveh taking a central role, the conflict “only provides the stage upon which the drama between YHWH and Jonah plays out” (246). Instead of being about Yahweh’s compassion on the nations, the book of Jonah is said to be about Yahweh’s compassion on Israel.

While there is much that could be said about this article, it must suffice to make only cursory comments. Barrett is indeed to be commended for a fresh approach to the study of the book of Jonah. The speeches in the book have largely been subordinated the other aspects, in many cases to their own neglect. Yet, the focus on the direct discourse present yields some fruitful exegetical considerations, particularly in grasping the literary structure of the book.

Another feature of the article that is worthy of note is Barrett’s presentation of Jonah as a representative of Israel. On a popular level, it has been common to identity wayward individuals, running from “the will of God,” with Jonah, without properly understanding his role in the plot of the book. But as part of the Hebrew Bible, the book of Jonah contained a message that was originally given to the people of Israel, and as such, functioned to instruct, rebuke, and shape God’s people first under the old covenant. Viewing Jonah as representative of Israel opens new vistas of understanding for interpreters.

Yet with these features noted, there is one primary objection I have with Barrett’s thesis. In concluding that the locus of authorial intent is in Yahweh’s conflict with Jonah, Barrett downplays, if not almost entirely, the role of Gentiles in the composition. Regarding this Barrett states:

“When the conflicts with the Ninevites (and sailors) are granted priority, the interpretation of the book leads inexorably toward the radical idea that YHWH enters into meaningful relationship with non-Israelite peoples, which results in an overwhelmingly weighty theological burden for such a difficult and brief book” (241).

Yet the trajectory of the Hebrew Bible is directed towards this very burden (Gen 12:3; Isa 2:2-4; Zech 14:16). When read in the larger canonical context, Gentile inclusion does not appear an unexpected feature, especially in the commentary of the latter prophets. And this need not, as Barrett asserts, lead to some form of replacement theology (the church instead of national Israel), but can be seen in the historical-redemptive plan of God to create one man in Christ (Eph 2:11-22).

Barrett’s article certainly provides some deep reflection on the text of Jonah, and for that I am thankful. But the primary thrust of his conclusion may indicate that you may have be reading Jonah just fine all along.

3 Comments

Filed under Jonah