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

[Proxy]

If God could forgive the Ninevites’ sins without a blood sacrifice, why can’t He forgive ours?

In the Book of Jonah, God pronounces judgment on the people of Nineveh, but through Jonah’s preaching they all repent and God forgives them. No blood sacrifice necessary. Just repentance.

So why can’t God do the same with those who turn from evil deeds today?

[jimwalton]

The Ninevites believed what Jonah said, but that doesn’t men they converted to his God. He never even told them the identity of his God, and there is no indication that they got rid of their idols or understood the law. They repented, but any Assyrian would have done so under these circumstances. If they had been convinced that some god was angry at them and about to destroy them, they would have sought to appease that god. That is how they took Jonah’s warning. In the ancient world people believed that there were all sorts of powerful gods, but they only worshiped the ones they believed had power over their lives. Jonah was informing them that a God they had not recognized had noticed them and was going to act against them, and they were grateful for this information. Likely they checked Jonah’s message against their omens and afterward were eager to respond.

Their action is more like appeasement rather than repentance, and God's action is more like mercy than forgiveness. God is responsive to their small step in the right direction. You'll notice that the words "repent" and "forgive" are never used.

[Wacko]

We usually think of Jonah's story as having a happy ending, but the book of Jonah is actually pretty depressing and doesn't even have a real conclusion. The book ends rather abruptly. However, we can make reasonable assumptions as to what happens.

[jimwalton]

Agreed. The purpose of the book focuses on the changes brought about by a new approach to prophecy. People's responses are proper and acceptable, and can even turn back the prophet's message (see Jer. 18.1-12).

The book itself is a satire. Jonah is portrayed as the anti-prophet—everything a prophet is not supposed to be. He is, as you say, depressing and misguided.

The point of the book is God's love, mercy, and grace. The last verse in the book sums it up fairly well: What right do we have to demand that God should favor us and not others?

[Proxy]

You’re right that those words aren’t used explicitly. But the book of Jonah is consistent with the overwhelming theme in the Prophets that God is calling his people to turn from wickedness and thereby receive forgiveness of sins. All throughout the Prophets, the people of Israel are in a foreign land and are not able to make sacrifices, yet God stills welcomes them to repent and be forgiven.

I mean, I could list numerous times in the OT when sacrifice was not needed for repentance. Can’t you?

[jimwalton]

The purpose of the book focuses on the changes brought about by a new approach to prophecy. People's responses are proper and acceptable, and can even turn back the prophet's message (see Jer. 18.1-12).

The book itself is a satire. Jonah is portrayed as the anti-prophet—everything a prophet is not supposed to be. He is, as you say, depressing and misguided.

The point of the book is God's love, mercy, and grace. The last verse in the book sums it up fairly well: What right do we have to demand that God should favor us and not others?

Repentance is not in the mix. Jonah's message is not one of repentance, and there is no call for repentance. The book never affirms that the people repented. Nor, as I said, is there any mention of forgiveness. God has mercy on them because of his compassion.

If you want to establish some kind of point of forgiveness without a blood sacrifice, you need to go somewhere other than Jonah.

[Alt Kon]

> Their action is more like appeasement rather than repentance, and God's action is more like mercy than forgiveness. God is responsive to their small step in the right direction. You'll notice that the words "repent" and "forgive" are never used.

Jonah 3:10 definitely describes a concept of repentance, niham. And how is the Christian concept of atonement not appeasement exactly?

[jimwalton]

The problem with your exegesis is that *nahem* in Jon. 3.10 refers to God, not to the Ninevites. The text says that the Ninevites "turned" (*shoob*) from their evil ways. From what we know of Assyrian religious practice, their action was one of appeasement, not repentance. There is no mention in the text of a religious renewal, but only of responding to a perceived omen to avoid the destructive consequence prophesied.

> And how is the Christian concept of atonement not appeasement exactly?

At least one significant (and game-changing) difference between Nineveh and Christianity is that the Ninevites were seeking appeasement for their own sins, whereas in Christianity God himself atones for our sins since it's impossible for us to atone for them ourselves. The action of the Ninevites was to reverse an omen of negative consequence to escape the destruction. In Christianity, atonement is primarily a substitution. Our sin has broken the relationship with God, and the substitution serves to restore that relationship. Christ's death is a sacrificial ransom for our sins to allow us to be restored in relationship to God. You're right that it appeases (propitiation) the wrath of God, but atonement is so much more. It is sacrifice, covering, penal substitution, propitiation, ransom, and reconciliation. To speak of it as solely appeasement is incomplete.

[Vishnu]

However the exact word repent is used in Matthew 12:41 in describing what Nineveh did, and it is spoken by Jesus Christ, GOD in the flesh, no less.

And then there is the issue of the king using the same name for GOD in Jonah 3:7 as God uses for Himself in 3:10.

Obviously these problems disappear if you do not consider the Bible to be true. But then the whole entire discussion is moot, isn't it?

[jimwalton]

> However the exact word repent is used in Matthew 12:41 in describing what Nineveh did, and it is spoken by Jesus Christ, GOD in the flesh, no less.

Of course he did. First of all, the Greek word carries more meaning in it than the Hebrew term שָׁבוּ (*shoob*), but the Greek word can still mean "express remorse; make a turn in a different direction" and not necessarily "repent." Secondly, Jesus wanted his contemporaries and attackers to repent. Jesus is greater than Jonah; He wants a greater response out of the people than Jonah got out of the Ninevites.

> And then there is the issue of the king using the same name for GOD in Jonah 3:7 as God uses for Himself in 3:10.

You've confused me with this comment. The king doesn't use a name for God in 3.7, and the king is not speaking in 3.10 (the narrator is). So I don't know what you're getting at. Maybe you could try again.

> Obviously these problems disappear if you do not consider the Bible to be true.

Well, since the Bible is true we don't need to chuck it to make the problems disappear.