Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Jonah

[Newbie]

So Jonah really did spend three days in the belly of a whale and live to tell the tale?!!?

[jimwalton]

The word used in Jonah 1.17 is "large fish" and could be used of any sea creature. The great white shark is common in the Mediterranean, and has a very large throat. If that were the "great fish," it would be unusual, though possible, that Jonah didn't get chewed. Case studies from historical writings about men being swallowed by fish and surviving are less than convincing. There is no other fish, other than the Great White, natively known to the Mediterranean with a gullet size large enough to accommodate a human.

The event is clearly portrayed in the text as a special act of God, and so there is nothing about the story that makes us expect there is anything regular or ordinary about the fish. It could have been a miraculous creation for Jonah. God often uses normal things in other-than-normal ways, however, and so many options are possible. Since the Mediterranean is salt water, the same as the ocean, it could easily have been another sea creature, as it is well known that sometimes creatures veer far away from their normal courses.

[The King]

"There is no other fish, other than the Great White, natively known to the Mediterranean with a gullet size large enough to accommodate a human."

For three days?!?!? You have an incredibly charitable interpretation of scripture.

"Since the Mediterranean is salt water, the same as the ocean, it could easily have been another sear creature, as it is well known that sometimes creatures veer far away from their normal courses."

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to be consistent rather than explaining this "fish tale" away as a metaphor (which is the usual Christian knee jerk response to any challenge).

[jimwalton]

The 3 days and 3 nights has been interpreted as being figurative, and it may be, but there is no other example in the OT where 3 days can be shown to be figurative.

We do know, however, that numbers are often treated numerologically in the Bible and not always necessarily literally. It's hard to know what is the case here.

[The King]

Doesn't that mean that Jesus may have been in the grave for 15 minutes?

[jimwalton]

Nice try, but no prize. In Jesus' case, we are specifically told he was buried on Friday afternoon before the Sabbath began (Mt. 27.57-60) and was discovered missing on Sunday morning, after the Sabbath had ended. The women had watched him be buried on Friday (Mt. 27.61). Matthew continues that the next day (Saturday) the tomb was made secure, meaning the stone was still in place. A cadre of guards were placed at the site on Saturday. Then Matthews 28.1 specifically tells us that the women went to the tomb early on Sunday morning, after the Sabbath was over. So it couldn't have been for "15 minutes." All of the gospel accounts have Jesus in the grave from late Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning.

As far as Jesus' comment in Mt. 12.40 (“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”), "three days and three nights" simply means 3 days in popular speech (Robertson, Matthew, Vol. 1, p. 98). Keener (Bible Background Commentary, p. 81) says, " 'Three days and three nights' (cf. Jonah 2.1) need not imply complete days; parts of a 24-hour day counted as representing the whole day. In early Jewish law, only after 3 days was the witness to a person’s death accepted."

[The King]

"In Jesus' case, we are specifically told he was buried on Friday afternoon before the Sabbath began (Mt. 27.57-60) and was discovered missing on Sunday morning,..."

My point is this: If Jesus wanted to make a prophecy about being inside a grave for three days he would not do so by referring to a story about a man who was inside of a fish for an indeterminate amount time.

'Three days and three nights' (cf. Jonah 2.1) need not imply complete days;

When I expressed incredulity at the idea of Jonah being in the whale for three days you responded with this:

"The 3 days and 3 nights has been interpreted as being figurative"

You obviously did not want me to think of Jonah being in the whale for any significant length of time.

But because you are stuck with the claim that Jesus did spend three days and three nights in the tomb, you are also stuck with the claim that Jonah spent three days and three nights in the whale. "Three days and three nights" can be an idiom. But both Jonah and Jesus had to spend a miraculous amount of time in the whale/tomb or Jesus would not have referred to Jonah in order to prophecy that he was going to spend three days and three nights in the tomb.

I remain incredulous about the amount of time Jonah spent in the digestive tract of a whale. Yes your claim that 3 days and 3 nights is figurative renders Jonah's time in the whale as believable because the length of time he spent there is no longer miraculous. But your claim also paints Jesus' time in the tomb with the same brush. If Jonah spent a non-miraculous amount of time in the whale then Jesus spent a non-miraculous amount of time in the grave.

IOW, you can't have it both ways. Either they both spent a miraculous amount of time in their weekend retreats or they both did not.

So argue for one or the other. I am not going to buy your implication that Jonah spent a non-miraculous amount of time in the whale while Jesus spent a miraculous amount of time in the grave.

[jimwalton]

In response, I would refer you to another prophecy. Since you are familiar with Scripture, and we have talked about the cryptic nature of prophecy, hopefully this will resonate with you.

In Isa. 7.14 a prophecy was made about a young girl, whom King Ahaz knew, giving birth to a son, whose name would be Immanuel. When we ask three questions about the sign: (1) Was it miraculous, (2) what was the sign, and (3) what was the function of the sign, we find that the sign was not meant to be miraculous, and the function of the sign was not to provide a supernatural display. Rather, it was an indicator that what Isaiah was talking about would commence. The sign itself was the birth of the child. Neither the prophecy nor the birth required a miracle, but it was still historical and meaningful.

Fast-forward to Jesus. This text, which was not a messianic prophecy, is used by Matthew (1.22) to speak of a new birth that would be both historical and meaningful. Matthew believes that the OT passage, though it didn't refer to Jesus, and was something totally different, is being "filled up" by Jesus. He is taking the pattern and applying it to a new situation, like a coffee cup having further meaning "poured" into it. It's not the the story in Isaiah had a hidden meaning that Matthew is discerning; instead, Matthew is adding new meaning to the OT concept.

I believe the same is true here. The story of Jonah is historical and meaningful, but in its own right. Jonah was in the digestive tract of the sea creature for a non-miraculous amount of time. Jesus then takes this story and pours new meaning into it, now speaking of the (possibly) figurative amount of time in literal days, taking a non-miraculous event and planting it into a miracle that was to take place in his death and resurrection. So what I argue for is the biblical model: Non-miraculous OT historical occurrences are brought into the NT as prophetic historical miracles of time and matter.

[The King]

> Jonah was in the digestive tract of the sea creature for a non-miraculous amount of time. Jesus then takes this story and pours new meaning into it

...by claiming that Jonah had been in the whale for a miraculous amount of time.

> now speaking of the (possibly) figurative

...but non-miraculous...

>amount of time in literal days,

taking a non-miraculous event and planting it into a miracle

Then Jesus could have just as well said, "See how I put my hand under my cloak and pull it out? My resurrection will be just like that. In the grave and out. Except I will be in the grave three days."

Citations please for ancient Jews believing Jonah in the whale was a non-miraculous event.

> So what I argue for is the biblical model: Non-miraculous OT historical occurrences are brought into the NT as prophetic historical miracles of time and matter.

> Citations please for your claim that...Non-miraculous OT historical occurrences are brought into the NT as prophetic historical

...is the Biblical model.

[jimwalton]

> The prophecy, when read in context, pertains to the time of Isaiah, not Jesus.

That's what I said.

> Maybe there was a garbled transmission from God and Isaiah mistook "Assyria" for "Rome"

Not at all. The prophecy was for Ahaz about Assyria.

> If the author of Matthew did not believe Isaiah 7:14 was a messianic prophecy then the author of Matthew did not believe Jesus was the messiah.

You sure have a way of twisting things. In Mt. 1.22 Matthew says it was to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet. Very carefully notice the wording. Matthew didn't say the Isaiah text was a messianic prophecy, but it was a prophecy of Isaiah that Jesus fulfilled. Matthew understands the Isaianic passage as a pattern that is being filled up with more meaning in the birth of Christ. this is not to say that the OT passages were prophesying Jesus, since they can be completely understood within their OT contexts. Matthew takes the patterns presented in the OT, and applies them to the new situation. Matthew uses the Greek word πληρόω (*pleroo*), the broader meaning of which is "to make full." Matthew understood the virginal conception as "making full" the sign of Emmanuel in ways others than a direct fulfillment of a predictive prophecy.

> Citations please for ancient Jews believing Jonah in the whale was a non-miraculous event.

Hm. Another interesting warping of what I said. I never said the ancient Jews believed Jonah in the whale was a non-miraculous event. I said he may have been in the fish's digestive tract for a non-miraculous amount of time, and in that sense a non-miraculous event; I never claimed that ancient Jews believed it was a non-miraculous event. Even if the fish was not a miraculous creation by God (which is not necessary), possibly it was that place at the right time to meet the need, as an act of God.

> Citations please for your claim that...
"Non-miraculous OT historical occurrences are brought into the NT as prophetic historical miracles of time and matter"
...is the Biblical model.

Thank you for the correction. Other than Isa. 7.14, as already stated, and the sign of Jonah, as we are discussing, I don't think there are any.