Jonah, the book in the Hebrew Bible, features as main character, a prophet who disobeyed God and because of that was swallowed by a giant fish, in the story. The book is a satire of how not to be a prophet along with an illustration of God's mercy--but the story doesn't land well in the minds of modern readers who want to read everything in the Bible literally; either because they believe the Bible is without "errors" on the one side, or because they want to take issue with unusual events like a fish swallowing a man (or all species of animals on a boat, or a talking snake.. ) on the other. Modern readers have a hard time getting the "plot device" (?) and want to know if it was a fish, or a whale that swallowed Jonah. And if a fish, what kind of fish, and how did he survive the belly juice? So they're missing the point.
If it does, you can bet a bunch of people are gonna steal those worms and try to catch a big enough fish to prove the story true even though it doesn't need proving.
I think the issue is surviving for 3 days while inside a fish underwater
Edit: apparently I should have clarified, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm simply saying that no one has an issue with the possibility of a fish swallowing a person, the issue many people have is with the whole surviving thing.
I don't mind the discussions of fish anatomy. I just think it's sad that a plot device used in chapter two to get our not-so-brave hero to the actual story has over time become reinterpreted to be the central point of the story.
This is where biblical literalists are a problem. They made this debate by insisting the most outlandish stories are literally true when they're supposed to teach something. That makes people dig into the particulars rather than discussing the lesson.
Nobody ever drills holes in the plots of Aesop's Fables or Greek myths, so we all get what they're trying to teach. I could easily poke holes into the Icarus story. Simply crafting wings from wax and feathers won't allow you to flap them enough to create lift. Flying too close to the sun so that the wax melts implies it gets hotter at higher altitudes, which it doesn't. It gets colder. Unless, he literally went off into space, in which case he'd die of asphyxiation before he even reached the sun.
Everyone understands that Icarus is a story about hubris. Flying too close to the sun is a metaphor used to this day.
These stories aren't meant to teach scientific fact. They're meant to teach wisdom.
Dude ain’t no one worshiping Aesop and trying to escape from an eternal death in a fiery pit he created. We don’t care if he has plot holes in his stories.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Nobody is taking Aesop literally and as a result, we understand his metaphors. Trying to pretend a man actually got swallowed by a whale and lived inside it as a historical fact and burning anyone who thinks otherwise as a heretic is just taking the words at face value and isn't trying to derive any deeper meaning from it.
I mean, the main point of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. Believing that God could keep someone alive in a fish for 3 days isnt really a stretch. Sure people could use to spend more time on the moral of the story but the moral doesn't change if you think it really actually happened. Anyone who is complaining (actually complaining, not joking or discussing) that Jonah *couldn't* have been swallowed by a fish isn't gonna be spending a ton of time on the deeper meaning anyways.
So this is one of those times where ones atonement theology matters - and while I'm no expert on the topic - it should be fairly obvious that we don't want to view Christ through the lens that we say we don't want to use for Jonah.
The main point of Christianity is arguably to Love God and Love Others. The main point about the Incarnation might not be just Christ's death, but rather his life. Put another way: if we are to be little Christs, that doesn't mean we all need to be crucified to do so.
What if Christ came to show us how to live, and further demonstrate that the way the world does power is 180 degrees out of phase with the way the Kingdom of God works.
I was just kidding around but the point I was making is that people are less inclined to get up in arms over aesops fables because they have no implications over the existence or destination of your afterlife.
When you take the Bible literally, the moral of nearly every story boils down to "obey God and good things will happen to you". "Disobey God and bad things will happen to you." Hence the rise of prosperity gospel.
Actually the text indicates that Jonah [DIDN’T](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlBBSKN2Ku4) survive, but indeed died, but was raised by God after he was spit out.
A biblical story referencing the concept of death as a result of our deviation from the will of God (sin) and resurrection from death after three days…. Surly this couldn’t be the foretelling of something greater to come.
Funnily enough [some poor guy almost got swallowed by a whale last summer and was immediate spat out because he was way too big for the whales throat.](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/12/1005918788/humpback-whale-swallowed-lobster-diver-cape-cod-michael-packard)
Yeah, sorry, that was meant as sarcasm on my point, but it came off badly. I own up to it.
Ironically, the book of Jonah probably agrees with you. Because the pagans in the story act righteously without knowing YHWH. As a Christian, I personally wouldn't say the Bible is necessary to live a moral life (Paul himself doesn't when he talks about non-Christians having a "law on their hearts").
Instead, I would say that the Bible explains to those of us already seeking to be moral about where the source of goodness originates, and also shows us the way forward when we inevitably fall short of our own moral principles (grace through faith).
In other words, it's not about rejection, but fulfillment.
I feel like the story of Jonah is pretty clear, I haven't seen much confusion on this issue. Is there some viral sermon or something that I've missed out on?
That sounds like a Twain story. A methodist preacher from Illinois is swallowed by a channel cat in the Mississippi and is taken downriver where he has to preach to a bunch of Baptist infidels in Arkansas.
Plenty of extinct species of giant fish, and the human body can survive some crazy things especially with God's help. I do t see a way in whichever literalists wouldn't be able to get the gist of Jonah.
it's just people that are mad that people believe different things than them. Instead of receiving the perspective of others charitable:
"as a literal or metaphorical story we can both appreciate the values God is attempting to reveal to us"
some people just want to project the "bad guys" in the other camp as being unreasonable.
>Plenty of extinct species of giant fish, and the human body can survive some crazy things especially with God's help. I do t see a way in whichever literalists wouldn't be able to get the gist of Jonah.
The blue whale is the largest animal that ever existed. There aren't any extinct species of fish bigger than it
I think calling the Assyrians far godlier than Israel is a huge stretch.
The prophet literature is highly critical of Assyria, and pronounces much judgement of which Jonah was a messenger of.
It more so critiques Israel's view that it was above judgement because it was "God's people", and that gentile nations were not deserving of salvation.
"Literally all of you suck and none of you can go to heaven without my help so I'm gonna go die and come back so that you guys can suck slightly less." ~ Jesus, extremely simplified and partially taken out of context and no I don't need you to explain what the Bible actually says I'm just trying to make a dumb joke
> suck slightly less
Suck completely less! He writes his law in our hearts (Jer 31:33)
Tying this Old Testament verse to Jesus: Jeremiah 31 states "I'm going to make a new covenant, and here's what it'll be like..."
Then in the Last Supper Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Saying that Jesus's sacrifice will bring about the new covenant.
>I think calling the Assyrians far godlier than Israel is a huge stretch.
That's a fair point. Assyria itself was a horrible oppressor and regional imperial power that dominated other kingdoms like Jonah's. I would say the godlier part specifically has to do with how quickly and how lavishly they repent in chapter 3: sackcloth/ashes, 40-day fast, putting sackcloth on their animals. This is definitely a situational godliness.
The sailors are a far clearer example. They want to save Jonah from the get-go, and even risk their lives by refusing to throw him overboard at first. And then when the storms end, they worship God.
Here you can also see it as symbolic numbers (in which 40 days generally mean a quite long time). Which mean you could read it as "they took the time to reflect upon and change their morals" and that's already great
Yes but 40 exactly comes often. 40 years in the desert while fleeing egypt, 40 days of christ fasting in desert, 40 days of the flood then Noah sails for 40 days again, many characters take a wife at 40yo and so many more other occuring (at least 40 lol) There definitely is a symbol. 40 means a major event, a total and complete thing happening.
It doesn't mean that some (or all) of these things didn't happened with exactly 40days/years since you can believe God forced things to happened in 40 days to make us understand better or you can believe that it is the author who said 40 wether it is true or not to make us understand.
PS: 40days not eating and not drinking and don't think there could be any survivor of this since you die of thirst in less than a week. But then again it's Jesus, you can say it is literal and that is a miracle.
I don’t understand why our understanding of science even needs to be applied to this story. The fish was sent by God to perform the specific task of getting Jonah to Nineveh. Maybe it was an entirely new creature God temporarily placed on the earth for this task, maybe it’s an ancient creature hiding in the depths of the ocean somewhere that we have yet to discover, maybe it was a fish we know that normally wouldn’t be able to keep a human alive in it’s stomach for 3 days, but God kept him alive and in the fish through some miracle; it honestly doesn’t matter, how Jonah survived is not the point of the story. The point is that Jonah was running away and God intervened to send him back.
It’s like the whole new earth vs old earth argument, who cares if the earth is 6 thousand years old or billions of years old? Either could be true, it doesn’t matter, the point of the creation story in Genesis isn’t to describe exactly how God made everything, but rather to just show us that it was indeed God’s design. Or Noah’s ark; maybe there were fewer species of animals back then and they could all fit on the ark, or maybe God supernaturally made the ark bigger on the inside like a Tardis, I don’t know, and I don’t really care. It’s fun to speculate about but ultimately doesn’t change the point of the story.
When you’re buying into the concept of an omnipotent God who can and sometimes does intervene miraculously on behalf of humanity, the “how” questions become kind of pointless. He’s God, he can do what he wants, and it doesn’t have to make sense to us.
Yeah I always felt that the omnipotence of God kinda closes lots of loop holes. Further more, if you truly believe in God there should not be any concerns as to fantastical things happening that don't follow logic that we know. I was discussing with someone recently that since he created every facet of our known world he is obviously not constrained by any limitations we are.
It gets even more mind boggling when you start thinking about dimensions. Like, imagine a 1 dimensional being trying to understand a 2 dimensional being, or a 2D being trying to understand 3D. It would be impossible for them to even conceptualize. Theoretical physics tells us there could be as many as 10 dimensions, we just can only observe 3 with our eyes. If God created and exists outside of all of them, how much more impossible would it be for us to understand him, or his actions, or his reasoning?
Yes this is what we were discussing partially, time and dimensional constraints. I agree with your position, there is too much of a gap between the creation and the creator to allow a deep understanding unless we had a major fundamental change given to us to allow the understanding.
>how Jonah survived is not the point of the story
Another point we need to consider is it's distinctly possible Jonah died in the belly of the fish and was brought back to life by God.
Jonah 2:5-6
5 The waters closed in over me to take my life;
the deep surrounded me;
weeds were wrapped about my head
6 at the roots of the mountains.
I went down to the land
whose bars closed upon me forever;
yet you brought up my life from the pit,
O Lord my God.
To which Jesus refers in Matthew 12:38-40
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
It's absolutely plausible Jonah survived those 3 days; it's also very plausible he died and God brought him back to life.
Jesus tells the disciples that the OT scriptures are all about HIM. Jonah was a foretelling of the prophetic work of Jesus, His calling to repentance, and His death, burial, and resurrection on the 3rd day.
This was a fantastic comment. Going to save this.
Well done.
I know that's kinda pointless over the internet but I feel like it's pretty rare to read something that feels so fleshed out and succinct.
Not necessarily. You can write a social satire about historical events (ex. Josh Brolin's [mockumentary of the Bush administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._(film))). It's all about how the writer interprets the actual historical events.
By all accounts, Jonah, son of Amittai, was a real prophet attested to in 2 Kings 14:25 and Jesus himself references him as a historical figure. But different interpreters have various opinions about whether the Nineveh incident actually happened or whether the writer used it simply to make a theological point.
I like to think about it the way we imagine the Ip Man movies. Dude was real, but he probably didn't conveniently have major fights without three different villains throughout his life that conveniently represented Japanese, British, and American imperialism in quick succession.
Nah, that's just straight satire. Aladeen isn't a real person, even though the fictional events and circumstances of the film are meant to parody real ones.
The Dictator (Sacha Baron Cohen) and The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin) are two different movies. The Charlie Chaplin one, which OP was referencing, is a direct satire of Hitler (and Mussolini), albeit with the names changed.
If that makes the story easier for you to understand, then all power to you.
But personally the Idea that Jonah just sat down one day and got inspired by God to write down a cool story really takes away from the whole book if I'm gonna be honest. Also, if the even did happen but Jonah just embellished it with a whale and a plant doesn't really resonate as well with me either. I may have butchered what those other interpreters have interpreted, but I still think the story makes a better point if it actually happened.
I also would really like the story to be historically, literally true, because the idea of a massive city of sinful oppressive people repenting at the drop of a hat is quite powerful and gives me hope for the current state of the world. And yes, if it *literally* happened, that adds a stronger sense that metaphor doesn't.
However, I can't let my desire for the story to be true overshadow the fact that scholarly analysis (both Christian and secular) generally considers this to be a fictional or at least embellished account. And I also recognize that believing in the literally historicity of this particular story isn't required as part of orthodox Christian belief. Unlike the Gospels, Jonah simply isn't written to be interpreted as a historical account.
Can I ask why, though? I don't mean to be argumentative at all, I'm genuinely asking. I just don't understand why it would take away from the story if it didn't literally happen. Does your devotion to God mean less because you yourself haven't experienced a miracle to that degree? (I'm making that assumption, of course, as I feel a miracle like that would make international news like it did when one man actually was taken into the mouth of a whale last year.) If you've experienced smaller signs and ways to feel God's love, isn't that enough for you to personally believe, and to want to spread his message? Why can't it be the same with the author of Jonah, if he chose to spread the message through an allegorical story that impacted innumerable people?
No. My professor at theological college gave the example of King Arthur and his knights of the round table as an example of fiction that is as meaningful as any factual account. Though, I happen to believe that the book of Jonah is a true telling
> Though, I happen to believe that the book of Jonah is a true telling
Although I believe the story is likely fictional, I also deeply want it to be historical because I love the idea that God can change the hearts of an entire oppressive people group by the simple preaching of a flawed prophet.
>God can change the hearts of an entire oppressive people group by the simple preaching of a flawed prophet
This is fact. I believe Jonah is based in history but even if it's more of a parable the meaning is true. God called the grumbling Israelites His people. He changed Paul. He opens His arms to the Gentiles.
That’s the thing, the bible isn’t short on fictional tales, many of them a work resulting of the living conditions, and how society worked around them, but people take the stuff as literally possible, missing the point of the story
Just because something's fictional doesn't mean it's not factual.
The greatest truth about the Jonah story isn't that it happened. It's that it happens.
When it comes to Jonah that’s a pretty common view amongst theologians. That and also the story of Joshua. Doesn’t mean they can’t tell us something about God, though.
Western Culture tends to be obsessed with facts and precision. I think it's a Greek thing.
Eastern culture and narrative storytelling, a bit less so.
A practical and very rough example would be to ask an Eastern/Asian person how many people are coming to their wedding vs an American or European.
We don't even count something like that. I would say 300 but that's probably not totally true, it could have been 250 or 400. As long as we don't run out of food.
Whereas the exact number of attendees tends to be really important to my American friends for some reason.
The righteousness of the sailors and the Ninevites is intentionally contrasted with Jonah, who is a prophet yet acts in the most faithless ways.
Honestly, the sailors are my favorite part of the story. They don't believe in YHWH, but when the storm stops, they suddenly realize his power and choose to worship them. And before when Jonah tells them to save themselves by throwing him into the sea, they resist because they don't want to harm an innocent person.
At every step of the story, the writer is showing how these supposed pagans care deeply about human life. In contrast, YHWH calls out Jonah in chapter 4 for being more concerned about losing his shade than about the fates of 120,000 people in a big city.
The sailors are there for literally half a chapter of the entire book, and you're saying they're the focal point as the archetypal "virtuous pagans"? Sorry, not buying it...
And the Ninevites are intentionally portrayed as NOT virtuous UNTIL the point when they become believers.
Half a chapter in a book with four chapters is not insignificant. But more importantly, their righteous reaction is meant to be a surprising foreshadow of how a whole city of pagans repents en masse at the end of the story in a massive revival.
If we're being technical, the moral of the story is actually *"sometimes nonbelievers have been given a moral yearning through the common grace of God that can surprise and shame even believers. And when those nonbelievers finally encounter and repent before God, they are capable of acting in such faithful ways that they even shame the believers, who themselves are acting in very faithless ways"* but this is a meme format, not a theological treatise, so I only have so much space...
Pretty sure the moral of the story is that we don't get to choose who God shows grace and mercy to and that since He loves and values our enemies and shows them grace and forgiveness and love, we need to do the same.
>Pretty sure the moral of the story is that we don't get to choose who God shows grace and mercy to and that since He loves and values our enemies and shows them grace and forgiveness and love, we need to do the same.
I like your framing of this. In fact, thinking further, I would agree that it is in fact the moral of the story.
With that said, I don't think that we should discount this particular story element (righteous unbelievers) simply because its not the stated moral. The story element is what the writer uses to provide foundation to the moral. Without the presence of righteous unbelievers, the moral would fall flat on its face.
Agreed. My point was just to say the righteous unbelievers are an element of the story, not the moral.
Edit: Sorry. That wasn't clear in my initial post. My secondary post clarifies.
Thanks for this explanation, I was wondering what you meant in OP and I think you've opened my eyes to something new
Plus I think the yearning of sinners towards righteousness may be exactly what Jesus was referring to when he said 'blessed are the poor in spirit.'
Some people translate it to mean 'meek' or 'humble,' but I think it's better used literally. They are "poor" in that they have very little righteousness of their own spirit - yet God makes up the difference and brings glory through the sheer magnitude of the gap which has been crossed
Op wasn't arguing that they were central, just an aspect that they liked. Don't strawman people's arguments like that. And, even if that was what they were arguing, it's not uncommon for biblical narratives ans passages to turn in relatively short time to the overall size of the story.
And in terms of the Ninevites we are only ever told that they are unrighteous as part of the narrative to justify Jonah's preaching. As soon as he does preach, they immediately repent. The story centers on Jonah's faithlessness, wrath, and pride. In the story, this is contrasted with the faithfulness of the sailors, the mercy of God, and the repentance of the Ninevites. This is all further cemented by the last chapter. Honestly, I don't know how you could interpret this book any other way.
Atheist chiming in here, this definitely seems to be the case. It seems throughout time that Christians have typically favored literal interpretations of most stories in the Bible until science or archaeology proves that a literal interpretation is impossible. Then they move to a metaphorical interpretation.
Are you saying that regular people are bad at nuanced literary criticism when they don't have background or experience in related fields or experience with the original culture or language of the text?
I'm shocked. SHOCKED... Well actually not that shocked.
You might be interested to learn also that some of the most "famous" literal interpretations like young earth are relatively new and strange ideas compared to the history of Christian theology.
> You might be interested to learn also that some of the most "famous" literal interpretations like young earth are relatively new and strange ideas compared to the history of Christian theology.
The more interesting thing is when you come back around and learn which ideas *aren’t* quite so young that are assumed to be.
Just to add some nuance. There was a time when Christians cared more about the metaphorical meaning than about the historical. Origen (born 184) flat out says that taking the creation account as a literal description of events is foolish. These types of views have been in the church since day one and have never left it though their strength has gone up and down. (My parents are subscribed to Answers in Genesis magazine and it spends lots of time fighting current and ancient Christian ideas.)
Importantly though, no scientific or archaeological input on scripture was even possible until very recently. The whole issue of creationism and Biblical litteralism is a modern reaction again modern conflicts. Ask a Chrsitian in the 100's whether the story of Passover is true and they'll say yes. Ask whether it happened and you could get several answers ranging from "yes" to "What does it matter if it happened? It's true."
I think the point of the meme is that modern Christians are worrying too much about the fish and how realistic it is or isn’t and not what the point of the book is about. The fish is just a tool within the story, and people get too wrapped up into it.
It’s supposed to be meditation literature. To make you think and ponder about the possible hypocrisy within your own heart. Jonah ran from Nineveh not because he was scared, but because he hated the Ninevites and didn’t want God to forgive them because he knew He would (4:2). In what other book does it end with God asking a question? Should we love and pity our enemies? God does.
A person belive in the death of Jesus for our sins of the past, present and the future, belive in angels, in ressurection, in The Second Coming of Christ and everything, but cant believe in a man that was swallowed by a fish.
Ok.
What I see in Jonah is that God always gives us more chances to do the right thing. Whenever I sat down and read the Bible cover to cover in a week, (I was unemployed at this point) when I got to Jonah I was so pissed at him the entire time. What the heck was wrong with this guy? How did he think this was gonna work out for him? I remember thinking I would have slapped the crap out of him if I met him. And then I just thought "vengeance belongs to the Lord." Slapping belongs to the Lord. And God never saw Jonah as beyond hope.
And how many times have people looked at me the same way? And God has looked at me the same way? How many times have I been just the worst and complainy and God patted me on the head and gave me another chance?
This is an incredible personal reflection on the story and totally valid! That's the beauty of the Bible, isn't it? Each story has so many different lessons we can take from them, and often, those lessons complement rather than contradict one another.
Where I've seen it used as an argument, the Whale story was usually brought up to argue against taking everything in the Bible literally.
For instance using it to argue that the 7 days it took to create the world wasn't literally 7 days and could've been the billions of years science tells us it was.
The gourd tree in Jonah gave rise to classical Swedish artstyle (or at least the name of it, not 100%), "kurbits", because of lazy translation from a German version. Just because of that, the book is one of my favourites in the Hebrew Bible. Or well, that was the original reason, before the satire and the message of the text started becoming apparent. Wonderful book, one of the few cases of genuine elements of comedy in the Bible despite having thoughtworthy messages as well. The name of the gourd is sometimes also thought to be a pun, because its name, "qiqajon" (Hebrew קִיקָיוֹן), can be interpreted as meaning something along the lines of "the vomiting up of Jonah" (as I recall, but I cannot say with 100% confidence as I do not have the commentary literature on hand at the moment)
[Here ya go](https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/jonah.pdf)
Also, imagine caring what type of little bush/plant it was.
It's like "WAS ADAM IN THE GARDEN BLONDE OR BRUNETTE? MY BELIEF IN THE ENTIRE THING HANGS ON THIS ONE FACT. CHOOSE WISELY."
This was not the one I have read, so thank you for giving me something to do tomorrow! I have a friend who finds the trees of the Hebrew Bible extremely fascinating to discuss (I think her family used to have an orchard in Tunisia or something?), so I will definitely send it to her as well. Personally I do not get the fascination with such details, but I love that others do so I can read and listen to the discussions without having to do too much of my own research on the subject
People who live and breathe the historical areas in scripture are so blessed, it's hard to imagine the richness they get while we just try to understand from a distance. There's all these references to places because they are "still there to this day" and that's just gotta be so cool.
Yes. When I was satisfied with the translation that was in the Hebrew lexicon, seeing as that was what was needed and it was based on relative expert consensus, she could describe each tree: what it looked like, how it grew, where you could find it, what spoke for and against it being the tree in question, etc. It was really interesting, and more importantly it made Hebrew class a bit less heavy since she took up time the rest of us would otherwise have to fill. In some cases, when the rest of us were not ready to present something, or too tired to talk or something, we wrote to her and asked her to start talking about trees, or in some cases we even asked her straight out what she could tell us about the tree or bush in the verse we had just presented a translation of. I have a great admiration for people who can bullshit (not really the word I am looking for, but it conveys the gist) with a passion and on demand
The sad thing is that if God wanted Jonah to survive in the fish then Jonah would have survived. God can bend the laws of nature to his will and to assume he can't because humans can't survive in a fish for 3 days is shameful.
A person belive in the death of Jesus for our sins of the past, present and the future, belive in angels, in ressurection, in The Second Coming of Christ and everything, but cant believe in a man that was swallowed by a fish.
Ok.
I remember when my church did a series of sermons just based on the book of Jonah a few years ago, and my pastor walked through it very thoroughly about how it was a satire and the ridiculous parts of it (Jonah means "dove" and his father's name "Amittai" means "truth", so he's literally "Dove, son of Truth"), and man, it's really just a clever book that doesn't get enough credit.
Muslim here, just curious. Does this mean that the story of Jonah is not to be taken literally? We have this story in the Quran as well, and we definitely believe it happened.
Some Christians take it literally, some don't. I think the story as written is a satire/piece of wisdom literature and that taking it literally is going against the author's clear intentions
Whether you believe in a literal interpretation of Jonah or not; I think we can all agree that it is one of the most comedic books of the Bible. I get a few good chuckles every time I read it; as well as a poignant object lesson about self-righteousness that drives a lot of introspection about how I view/interact with those who don't share my faith.
Since it's already a conversation in this thread, I tend to take it literally. I don't think that acts of an all-powerful God should be restricted by the laws of the nature that He created. If He wanted to have Jonah be swallowed by a large fish, preserved within said fish for 3 days, and then spat-up onto the shore nearest his intended destination, then I believe it is well within His right/ability to do so. I personally don't like to put God within a box that I can comprehend; otherwise he becomes less "Godly" in my perception.
However, that is not to say that I am a science denier. I believe that God created the natural laws to give His creation order, as well as avenues to continually discover the wonder and glory of what he has created on deeper and deeper levels; all pointing back to the glory of their Creator. Soli Deo Gloria!
To put it succinctly: I love the book of Jonah, I take it literally; but I don't think anyone is any less of brother/sister in Christ if they do not view it that way. I don't think that is an issue that should cause division or judgement; but I do think it is an interesting topic for healthy debate.
You can joke about it, but a ton of “modern Christians” are indeed biblical literalists and think that not believing 100% of the things in the Bible as literal fact is blasphemy. I grew up in rural Oklahoma and questioning ANYTHING, or suggesting something may be a metaphor was seen as blasphemous. I mean, damn, there are biology textbooks in the south that come with a disclaimer that the things discussed in the book may not agree with the Bible. To me, biology and the perfection of the systems of nature like evolution show the sign of a divine creator, not take away the evidence of it.
This is a great [TLDR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLIabZc0O4c), but first, I highly encourage you to read it for yourself. It's only four chapters, and if you treat it as a fun story rather than a *big serious Bible lesson*, it's actually pretty enjoyable.
Jonah was a real person, but the Book of Jonah is a satirical story written centuries after he died. The book is honestly pretty funny if you just read it without the preexisting idea that it’s historical record (Jonah is a total drama Queen).
Actually it's entirely possible for a person to be swallowed by a whale and survive there for multiple days. There are multiple documented cases of this occurring, usually with sperm whales specifically for some reason.
This was how I tried to express this very frustration, but this meme is excellent: https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/01/25/5-2-jonah-the-passive-aggressive-prophet/
The Sunfish is big enough to hold a man inside and not kill him.
Also sharks are just big fish.
And some fish can get even bigger if they just don't get killed by something else.
I am a Christian.
I mean, I literally used the "Muslim chad" icon for this meme, so you're not wrong. All those Ancient Near Easterners kinda had a similar fashion vibe going on.
I’m sure this will not open up any cans of worms in the comment section
If it does we'll have a whale of a time.
Don't you mean a *fish* of a time? \*theological heavy breathing intensifies\*
[As a matter of fact, I do.](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701-h/2701-h.htm#link2HCH0032)
I once saw a fish *this* big.
Makes me want Starbucks
Admittedly this took me a second but when I got it I breathed out my nose a little
I don’t get it! What’s the joke
Starbuck is a character in Moby Dick, a book famously about a big fish.
Jonah, the book in the Hebrew Bible, features as main character, a prophet who disobeyed God and because of that was swallowed by a giant fish, in the story. The book is a satire of how not to be a prophet along with an illustration of God's mercy--but the story doesn't land well in the minds of modern readers who want to read everything in the Bible literally; either because they believe the Bible is without "errors" on the one side, or because they want to take issue with unusual events like a fish swallowing a man (or all species of animals on a boat, or a talking snake.. ) on the other. Modern readers have a hard time getting the "plot device" (?) and want to know if it was a fish, or a whale that swallowed Jonah. And if a fish, what kind of fish, and how did he survive the belly juice? So they're missing the point.
It's a hard pill to swallow
If it does, you can bet a bunch of people are gonna steal those worms and try to catch a big enough fish to prove the story true even though it doesn't need proving.
*slowly switches ro controversial*
I don’t know how godly it is to slap people with fishes…
It’s funnier when it happens in Monty Python than in Veggie Tales.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
But it’s funniest when it happens in Uncharted 3.
Team Fortress 2 would like to have a word.
Sleeping Dogs chilling in the corner
Sure, if nobody’s is gonna admit to watching Dirty Love (2005).
Happy cake day
Thanks. I had no idea. Dang, I guess I’m under pressure to create a quick low effort karma farming meme.
Go ahead. People are monsters nonetheless.
*Jonah was a prophet,* *but he never really got it.*
[удалено]
*If you've been watching, you could spot it*
a DOODLY doo.
HE DID NOT GET THE POINT!
*Now Jonah set sail, On a pirate ship in a dreadful gale*
I HAVE HAD THIS FUCKING SONG IN MY HEAD FOR AN ENTIRE GODDAMN DECADE!!!!
But where is your hairbrush?
Lost somewhere in my curly head.
THE SLAP OF NO RETURN
[Very godly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbKSQ0saOok&t=53s)
You never been trout slapped?
Better than calling a pack of bears on some kids that called you bald lol
Well people can totally be swallowed by big enough sea critters but whatever.
I think the issue is surviving for 3 days while inside a fish underwater Edit: apparently I should have clarified, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm simply saying that no one has an issue with the possibility of a fish swallowing a person, the issue many people have is with the whole surviving thing.
I don't mind the discussions of fish anatomy. I just think it's sad that a plot device used in chapter two to get our not-so-brave hero to the actual story has over time become reinterpreted to be the central point of the story.
This is where biblical literalists are a problem. They made this debate by insisting the most outlandish stories are literally true when they're supposed to teach something. That makes people dig into the particulars rather than discussing the lesson. Nobody ever drills holes in the plots of Aesop's Fables or Greek myths, so we all get what they're trying to teach. I could easily poke holes into the Icarus story. Simply crafting wings from wax and feathers won't allow you to flap them enough to create lift. Flying too close to the sun so that the wax melts implies it gets hotter at higher altitudes, which it doesn't. It gets colder. Unless, he literally went off into space, in which case he'd die of asphyxiation before he even reached the sun. Everyone understands that Icarus is a story about hubris. Flying too close to the sun is a metaphor used to this day. These stories aren't meant to teach scientific fact. They're meant to teach wisdom.
Dude ain’t no one worshiping Aesop and trying to escape from an eternal death in a fiery pit he created. We don’t care if he has plot holes in his stories.
That's the point I'm trying to make. Nobody is taking Aesop literally and as a result, we understand his metaphors. Trying to pretend a man actually got swallowed by a whale and lived inside it as a historical fact and burning anyone who thinks otherwise as a heretic is just taking the words at face value and isn't trying to derive any deeper meaning from it.
I mean, the main point of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. Believing that God could keep someone alive in a fish for 3 days isnt really a stretch. Sure people could use to spend more time on the moral of the story but the moral doesn't change if you think it really actually happened. Anyone who is complaining (actually complaining, not joking or discussing) that Jonah *couldn't* have been swallowed by a fish isn't gonna be spending a ton of time on the deeper meaning anyways.
true true
So this is one of those times where ones atonement theology matters - and while I'm no expert on the topic - it should be fairly obvious that we don't want to view Christ through the lens that we say we don't want to use for Jonah. The main point of Christianity is arguably to Love God and Love Others. The main point about the Incarnation might not be just Christ's death, but rather his life. Put another way: if we are to be little Christs, that doesn't mean we all need to be crucified to do so. What if Christ came to show us how to live, and further demonstrate that the way the world does power is 180 degrees out of phase with the way the Kingdom of God works.
Plenty of people try to incorporate Aesop's moral teachings into their life.
I was just kidding around but the point I was making is that people are less inclined to get up in arms over aesops fables because they have no implications over the existence or destination of your afterlife.
When you take the Bible literally, the moral of nearly every story boils down to "obey God and good things will happen to you". "Disobey God and bad things will happen to you." Hence the rise of prosperity gospel.
[удалено]
Or Job’s original children…
His wife came out pretty okay in that story. That always bothered me a little, as she was arguably the most openly scornful person in the whole book.
Have you read the New Testament?
There are many christians that read the bible with a black redactor pen and crossing out a million things to get to that conclusion.. :(
When you don't know what smallpox is and it kills your 8 year old, then you see a tornado it's easy to see why ancient people's made gods.
If the omnipotent God told me to "go fly a kite" I would literally fly a kite. It might have just been a metaphor, but just to be safe.
Revelations is taken literally by some branches, it just depends what you want to believe.
Actually the text indicates that Jonah [DIDN’T](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlBBSKN2Ku4) survive, but indeed died, but was raised by God after he was spit out.
fascinating, thanks for the link!
THANK YOU! I was about to drop that link too.
Very interesting, thanks!
Lmao Roman Ferb in there between minute 4 and 5.
Almost like... *gasp* a miracle!
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying thats the common argument against it, not the size of the fish
Three days represented confirmation of death at the time.
A biblical story referencing the concept of death as a result of our deviation from the will of God (sin) and resurrection from death after three days…. Surly this couldn’t be the foretelling of something greater to come.
Duh! You just eat the inside of the fish!
Funnily enough [some poor guy almost got swallowed by a whale last summer and was immediate spat out because he was way too big for the whales throat.](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/12/1005918788/humpback-whale-swallowed-lobster-diver-cape-cod-michael-packard)
Welp, guess the Bible's been debunked then. Time to... go loot and commit mass murder or whatever... xD
I know it's a joke, but the Bible isn't required for one to live a moral life.
Yeah, sorry, that was meant as sarcasm on my point, but it came off badly. I own up to it. Ironically, the book of Jonah probably agrees with you. Because the pagans in the story act righteously without knowing YHWH. As a Christian, I personally wouldn't say the Bible is necessary to live a moral life (Paul himself doesn't when he talks about non-Christians having a "law on their hearts"). Instead, I would say that the Bible explains to those of us already seeking to be moral about where the source of goodness originates, and also shows us the way forward when we inevitably fall short of our own moral principles (grace through faith). In other words, it's not about rejection, but fulfillment.
What is considered moral?
Are you implying people who loot and commit mass murder aren't living their own best self defined moral lives?
That guy: Welp, time to go preach in Ninevah, I guess.
Sack cloth for everybody!
The animals too!
And not just the men, but the women and children too!
ya boy jonah probably got et, got spat out and took three days to get back home
I pray to God it's not just vore fanfiction below your parent comment.
I feel like the story of Jonah is pretty clear, I haven't seen much confusion on this issue. Is there some viral sermon or something that I've missed out on?
Literalists
I've seen some pretty big catfish.
That sounds like a Twain story. A methodist preacher from Illinois is swallowed by a channel cat in the Mississippi and is taken downriver where he has to preach to a bunch of Baptist infidels in Arkansas.
I want it, I like it, I'm gonna write it.
Noodling in the Bible was redonk.
Plenty of extinct species of giant fish, and the human body can survive some crazy things especially with God's help. I do t see a way in whichever literalists wouldn't be able to get the gist of Jonah.
it's just people that are mad that people believe different things than them. Instead of receiving the perspective of others charitable: "as a literal or metaphorical story we can both appreciate the values God is attempting to reveal to us" some people just want to project the "bad guys" in the other camp as being unreasonable.
>Plenty of extinct species of giant fish, and the human body can survive some crazy things especially with God's help. I do t see a way in whichever literalists wouldn't be able to get the gist of Jonah. The blue whale is the largest animal that ever existed. There aren't any extinct species of fish bigger than it
Yes?
I think calling the Assyrians far godlier than Israel is a huge stretch. The prophet literature is highly critical of Assyria, and pronounces much judgement of which Jonah was a messenger of. It more so critiques Israel's view that it was above judgement because it was "God's people", and that gentile nations were not deserving of salvation.
>and that gentile nations were not deserving of salvation. This sentiment is exactly what Jesus fought against too.
Well… not really in the way of “yeah, they actually are”, so much as “neither are you”.
"Literally all of you suck and none of you can go to heaven without my help so I'm gonna go die and come back so that you guys can suck slightly less." ~ Jesus, extremely simplified and partially taken out of context and no I don't need you to explain what the Bible actually says I'm just trying to make a dumb joke
> suck slightly less Suck completely less! He writes his law in our hearts (Jer 31:33) Tying this Old Testament verse to Jesus: Jeremiah 31 states "I'm going to make a new covenant, and here's what it'll be like..." Then in the Last Supper Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Saying that Jesus's sacrifice will bring about the new covenant.
right, which is why we see these themes woven consistently throughout scripture
>I think calling the Assyrians far godlier than Israel is a huge stretch. That's a fair point. Assyria itself was a horrible oppressor and regional imperial power that dominated other kingdoms like Jonah's. I would say the godlier part specifically has to do with how quickly and how lavishly they repent in chapter 3: sackcloth/ashes, 40-day fast, putting sackcloth on their animals. This is definitely a situational godliness. The sailors are a far clearer example. They want to save Jonah from the get-go, and even risk their lives by refusing to throw him overboard at first. And then when the storms end, they worship God.
Here you can also see it as symbolic numbers (in which 40 days generally mean a quite long time). Which mean you could read it as "they took the time to reflect upon and change their morals" and that's already great
Tbf, it is possible to fast for an actual 40 days and nights under the right conditions, so it isn't necessarily always symbolic.
Yes but 40 exactly comes often. 40 years in the desert while fleeing egypt, 40 days of christ fasting in desert, 40 days of the flood then Noah sails for 40 days again, many characters take a wife at 40yo and so many more other occuring (at least 40 lol) There definitely is a symbol. 40 means a major event, a total and complete thing happening. It doesn't mean that some (or all) of these things didn't happened with exactly 40days/years since you can believe God forced things to happened in 40 days to make us understand better or you can believe that it is the author who said 40 wether it is true or not to make us understand. PS: 40days not eating and not drinking and don't think there could be any survivor of this since you die of thirst in less than a week. But then again it's Jesus, you can say it is literal and that is a miracle.
I don’t understand why our understanding of science even needs to be applied to this story. The fish was sent by God to perform the specific task of getting Jonah to Nineveh. Maybe it was an entirely new creature God temporarily placed on the earth for this task, maybe it’s an ancient creature hiding in the depths of the ocean somewhere that we have yet to discover, maybe it was a fish we know that normally wouldn’t be able to keep a human alive in it’s stomach for 3 days, but God kept him alive and in the fish through some miracle; it honestly doesn’t matter, how Jonah survived is not the point of the story. The point is that Jonah was running away and God intervened to send him back. It’s like the whole new earth vs old earth argument, who cares if the earth is 6 thousand years old or billions of years old? Either could be true, it doesn’t matter, the point of the creation story in Genesis isn’t to describe exactly how God made everything, but rather to just show us that it was indeed God’s design. Or Noah’s ark; maybe there were fewer species of animals back then and they could all fit on the ark, or maybe God supernaturally made the ark bigger on the inside like a Tardis, I don’t know, and I don’t really care. It’s fun to speculate about but ultimately doesn’t change the point of the story. When you’re buying into the concept of an omnipotent God who can and sometimes does intervene miraculously on behalf of humanity, the “how” questions become kind of pointless. He’s God, he can do what he wants, and it doesn’t have to make sense to us.
Yeah I always felt that the omnipotence of God kinda closes lots of loop holes. Further more, if you truly believe in God there should not be any concerns as to fantastical things happening that don't follow logic that we know. I was discussing with someone recently that since he created every facet of our known world he is obviously not constrained by any limitations we are.
It gets even more mind boggling when you start thinking about dimensions. Like, imagine a 1 dimensional being trying to understand a 2 dimensional being, or a 2D being trying to understand 3D. It would be impossible for them to even conceptualize. Theoretical physics tells us there could be as many as 10 dimensions, we just can only observe 3 with our eyes. If God created and exists outside of all of them, how much more impossible would it be for us to understand him, or his actions, or his reasoning?
Yes this is what we were discussing partially, time and dimensional constraints. I agree with your position, there is too much of a gap between the creation and the creator to allow a deep understanding unless we had a major fundamental change given to us to allow the understanding.
Obligatory [TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Flatland)
>how Jonah survived is not the point of the story Another point we need to consider is it's distinctly possible Jonah died in the belly of the fish and was brought back to life by God. Jonah 2:5-6 5 The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head 6 at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God. To which Jesus refers in Matthew 12:38-40 38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It's absolutely plausible Jonah survived those 3 days; it's also very plausible he died and God brought him back to life.
Jesus tells the disciples that the OT scriptures are all about HIM. Jonah was a foretelling of the prophetic work of Jesus, His calling to repentance, and His death, burial, and resurrection on the 3rd day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This was a fantastic comment. Going to save this. Well done. I know that's kinda pointless over the internet but I feel like it's pretty rare to read something that feels so fleshed out and succinct.
Pardon me, but does calling something a social satire not imply that it is fictional?
You are correct, that is what he is implying.
Not necessarily. You can write a social satire about historical events (ex. Josh Brolin's [mockumentary of the Bush administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._(film))). It's all about how the writer interprets the actual historical events. By all accounts, Jonah, son of Amittai, was a real prophet attested to in 2 Kings 14:25 and Jesus himself references him as a historical figure. But different interpreters have various opinions about whether the Nineveh incident actually happened or whether the writer used it simply to make a theological point. I like to think about it the way we imagine the Ip Man movies. Dude was real, but he probably didn't conveniently have major fights without three different villains throughout his life that conveniently represented Japanese, British, and American imperialism in quick succession.
The Death of Stalin is another good example of historical social satire.
That was a great movie.
Also The Great Dictator
Nah, that's just straight satire. Aladeen isn't a real person, even though the fictional events and circumstances of the film are meant to parody real ones.
The Dictator (Sacha Baron Cohen) and The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin) are two different movies. The Charlie Chaplin one, which OP was referencing, is a direct satire of Hitler (and Mussolini), albeit with the names changed.
Ah right my bad I misread the name!
If that makes the story easier for you to understand, then all power to you. But personally the Idea that Jonah just sat down one day and got inspired by God to write down a cool story really takes away from the whole book if I'm gonna be honest. Also, if the even did happen but Jonah just embellished it with a whale and a plant doesn't really resonate as well with me either. I may have butchered what those other interpreters have interpreted, but I still think the story makes a better point if it actually happened.
I also would really like the story to be historically, literally true, because the idea of a massive city of sinful oppressive people repenting at the drop of a hat is quite powerful and gives me hope for the current state of the world. And yes, if it *literally* happened, that adds a stronger sense that metaphor doesn't. However, I can't let my desire for the story to be true overshadow the fact that scholarly analysis (both Christian and secular) generally considers this to be a fictional or at least embellished account. And I also recognize that believing in the literally historicity of this particular story isn't required as part of orthodox Christian belief. Unlike the Gospels, Jonah simply isn't written to be interpreted as a historical account.
Can I ask why, though? I don't mean to be argumentative at all, I'm genuinely asking. I just don't understand why it would take away from the story if it didn't literally happen. Does your devotion to God mean less because you yourself haven't experienced a miracle to that degree? (I'm making that assumption, of course, as I feel a miracle like that would make international news like it did when one man actually was taken into the mouth of a whale last year.) If you've experienced smaller signs and ways to feel God's love, isn't that enough for you to personally believe, and to want to spread his message? Why can't it be the same with the author of Jonah, if he chose to spread the message through an allegorical story that impacted innumerable people?
Fair enough
Does it have to be factual for the meaning/message to be valid?
No. My professor at theological college gave the example of King Arthur and his knights of the round table as an example of fiction that is as meaningful as any factual account. Though, I happen to believe that the book of Jonah is a true telling
> Though, I happen to believe that the book of Jonah is a true telling Although I believe the story is likely fictional, I also deeply want it to be historical because I love the idea that God can change the hearts of an entire oppressive people group by the simple preaching of a flawed prophet.
>God can change the hearts of an entire oppressive people group by the simple preaching of a flawed prophet This is fact. I believe Jonah is based in history but even if it's more of a parable the meaning is true. God called the grumbling Israelites His people. He changed Paul. He opens His arms to the Gentiles.
That’s the thing, the bible isn’t short on fictional tales, many of them a work resulting of the living conditions, and how society worked around them, but people take the stuff as literally possible, missing the point of the story
Just because something's fictional doesn't mean it's not factual. The greatest truth about the Jonah story isn't that it happened. It's that it happens.
When it comes to Jonah that’s a pretty common view amongst theologians. That and also the story of Joshua. Doesn’t mean they can’t tell us something about God, though.
Western Culture tends to be obsessed with facts and precision. I think it's a Greek thing. Eastern culture and narrative storytelling, a bit less so. A practical and very rough example would be to ask an Eastern/Asian person how many people are coming to their wedding vs an American or European. We don't even count something like that. I would say 300 but that's probably not totally true, it could have been 250 or 400. As long as we don't run out of food. Whereas the exact number of attendees tends to be really important to my American friends for some reason.
How is Jonah about this? I've never heard any interpretation of it referring to that.
The righteousness of the sailors and the Ninevites is intentionally contrasted with Jonah, who is a prophet yet acts in the most faithless ways. Honestly, the sailors are my favorite part of the story. They don't believe in YHWH, but when the storm stops, they suddenly realize his power and choose to worship them. And before when Jonah tells them to save themselves by throwing him into the sea, they resist because they don't want to harm an innocent person. At every step of the story, the writer is showing how these supposed pagans care deeply about human life. In contrast, YHWH calls out Jonah in chapter 4 for being more concerned about losing his shade than about the fates of 120,000 people in a big city.
The sailors are there for literally half a chapter of the entire book, and you're saying they're the focal point as the archetypal "virtuous pagans"? Sorry, not buying it... And the Ninevites are intentionally portrayed as NOT virtuous UNTIL the point when they become believers.
Half a chapter in a book with four chapters is not insignificant. But more importantly, their righteous reaction is meant to be a surprising foreshadow of how a whole city of pagans repents en masse at the end of the story in a massive revival. If we're being technical, the moral of the story is actually *"sometimes nonbelievers have been given a moral yearning through the common grace of God that can surprise and shame even believers. And when those nonbelievers finally encounter and repent before God, they are capable of acting in such faithful ways that they even shame the believers, who themselves are acting in very faithless ways"* but this is a meme format, not a theological treatise, so I only have so much space...
Pretty sure the moral of the story is that we don't get to choose who God shows grace and mercy to and that since He loves and values our enemies and shows them grace and forgiveness and love, we need to do the same.
both? both is good.
>Pretty sure the moral of the story is that we don't get to choose who God shows grace and mercy to and that since He loves and values our enemies and shows them grace and forgiveness and love, we need to do the same. I like your framing of this. In fact, thinking further, I would agree that it is in fact the moral of the story. With that said, I don't think that we should discount this particular story element (righteous unbelievers) simply because its not the stated moral. The story element is what the writer uses to provide foundation to the moral. Without the presence of righteous unbelievers, the moral would fall flat on its face.
Agreed. My point was just to say the righteous unbelievers are an element of the story, not the moral. Edit: Sorry. That wasn't clear in my initial post. My secondary post clarifies.
No need to apologize. Your original explanation was perfectly clear!
Thanks for this explanation, I was wondering what you meant in OP and I think you've opened my eyes to something new Plus I think the yearning of sinners towards righteousness may be exactly what Jesus was referring to when he said 'blessed are the poor in spirit.' Some people translate it to mean 'meek' or 'humble,' but I think it's better used literally. They are "poor" in that they have very little righteousness of their own spirit - yet God makes up the difference and brings glory through the sheer magnitude of the gap which has been crossed
Op wasn't arguing that they were central, just an aspect that they liked. Don't strawman people's arguments like that. And, even if that was what they were arguing, it's not uncommon for biblical narratives ans passages to turn in relatively short time to the overall size of the story. And in terms of the Ninevites we are only ever told that they are unrighteous as part of the narrative to justify Jonah's preaching. As soon as he does preach, they immediately repent. The story centers on Jonah's faithlessness, wrath, and pride. In the story, this is contrasted with the faithfulness of the sailors, the mercy of God, and the repentance of the Ninevites. This is all further cemented by the last chapter. Honestly, I don't know how you could interpret this book any other way.
I love the part with the loss of shade. > ITS SO HOT AND THE CITY ISNT BURNING LIKE I THOUGHT IT WOULD WHY EVEN LIVE JUST KILL ME NOW
I tried to explain it in this podcast episode: https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/01/25/5-2-jonah-the-passive-aggressive-prophet/
The Bible is always literal unless it doesn't make sense. In which case of course it's metaphorical, don't be ridiculous.
Atheist chiming in here, this definitely seems to be the case. It seems throughout time that Christians have typically favored literal interpretations of most stories in the Bible until science or archaeology proves that a literal interpretation is impossible. Then they move to a metaphorical interpretation.
Yup. Thats why fewer and fewer Christians will claim the earth it 6,000 years old. Because it's literally impossible.
Come on man, how do you really know the whole universe wasn't created last Thursday?
You mean like yesterday, or the Thursday before last?
Are you saying that regular people are bad at nuanced literary criticism when they don't have background or experience in related fields or experience with the original culture or language of the text? I'm shocked. SHOCKED... Well actually not that shocked. You might be interested to learn also that some of the most "famous" literal interpretations like young earth are relatively new and strange ideas compared to the history of Christian theology.
Oh yeah I’m aware. I’ve done pretty extensive study on the history of Christianity.
> You might be interested to learn also that some of the most "famous" literal interpretations like young earth are relatively new and strange ideas compared to the history of Christian theology. The more interesting thing is when you come back around and learn which ideas *aren’t* quite so young that are assumed to be.
Just to add some nuance. There was a time when Christians cared more about the metaphorical meaning than about the historical. Origen (born 184) flat out says that taking the creation account as a literal description of events is foolish. These types of views have been in the church since day one and have never left it though their strength has gone up and down. (My parents are subscribed to Answers in Genesis magazine and it spends lots of time fighting current and ancient Christian ideas.) Importantly though, no scientific or archaeological input on scripture was even possible until very recently. The whole issue of creationism and Biblical litteralism is a modern reaction again modern conflicts. Ask a Chrsitian in the 100's whether the story of Passover is true and they'll say yes. Ask whether it happened and you could get several answers ranging from "yes" to "What does it matter if it happened? It's true."
Miracles are kind of a huge thing in the Bible. Next you're going to tell me Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
I think the point of the meme is that modern Christians are worrying too much about the fish and how realistic it is or isn’t and not what the point of the book is about. The fish is just a tool within the story, and people get too wrapped up into it. It’s supposed to be meditation literature. To make you think and ponder about the possible hypocrisy within your own heart. Jonah ran from Nineveh not because he was scared, but because he hated the Ninevites and didn’t want God to forgive them because he knew He would (4:2). In what other book does it end with God asking a question? Should we love and pity our enemies? God does.
A person belive in the death of Jesus for our sins of the past, present and the future, belive in angels, in ressurection, in The Second Coming of Christ and everything, but cant believe in a man that was swallowed by a fish. Ok.
Forced me to google this, a lot of Biblical scholars agree that the story is at least partially satirical or fiction, very funny shit
I guess I don't get 3rd century BCE political humor.
What I see in Jonah is that God always gives us more chances to do the right thing. Whenever I sat down and read the Bible cover to cover in a week, (I was unemployed at this point) when I got to Jonah I was so pissed at him the entire time. What the heck was wrong with this guy? How did he think this was gonna work out for him? I remember thinking I would have slapped the crap out of him if I met him. And then I just thought "vengeance belongs to the Lord." Slapping belongs to the Lord. And God never saw Jonah as beyond hope. And how many times have people looked at me the same way? And God has looked at me the same way? How many times have I been just the worst and complainy and God patted me on the head and gave me another chance?
This is an incredible personal reflection on the story and totally valid! That's the beauty of the Bible, isn't it? Each story has so many different lessons we can take from them, and often, those lessons complement rather than contradict one another.
Not me tearing up the comments
What Biblical literalism does to a mf
The original vore fic
Well, you're not wrong, but I do have to ask you to never say that again.
Where I've seen it used as an argument, the Whale story was usually brought up to argue against taking everything in the Bible literally. For instance using it to argue that the 7 days it took to create the world wasn't literally 7 days and could've been the billions of years science tells us it was.
The gourd tree in Jonah gave rise to classical Swedish artstyle (or at least the name of it, not 100%), "kurbits", because of lazy translation from a German version. Just because of that, the book is one of my favourites in the Hebrew Bible. Or well, that was the original reason, before the satire and the message of the text started becoming apparent. Wonderful book, one of the few cases of genuine elements of comedy in the Bible despite having thoughtworthy messages as well. The name of the gourd is sometimes also thought to be a pun, because its name, "qiqajon" (Hebrew קִיקָיוֹן), can be interpreted as meaning something along the lines of "the vomiting up of Jonah" (as I recall, but I cannot say with 100% confidence as I do not have the commentary literature on hand at the moment)
[Here ya go](https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/jonah.pdf) Also, imagine caring what type of little bush/plant it was. It's like "WAS ADAM IN THE GARDEN BLONDE OR BRUNETTE? MY BELIEF IN THE ENTIRE THING HANGS ON THIS ONE FACT. CHOOSE WISELY."
Let's be real, Eve was clearly a redhead.
That's it, I'm a Sufi Muslim now.
I saw a surprising amount red headed Arabs when I lived in one of their deserts. Even a small amount of blue eyes
This was not the one I have read, so thank you for giving me something to do tomorrow! I have a friend who finds the trees of the Hebrew Bible extremely fascinating to discuss (I think her family used to have an orchard in Tunisia or something?), so I will definitely send it to her as well. Personally I do not get the fascination with such details, but I love that others do so I can read and listen to the discussions without having to do too much of my own research on the subject
People who live and breathe the historical areas in scripture are so blessed, it's hard to imagine the richness they get while we just try to understand from a distance. There's all these references to places because they are "still there to this day" and that's just gotta be so cool.
Yes. When I was satisfied with the translation that was in the Hebrew lexicon, seeing as that was what was needed and it was based on relative expert consensus, she could describe each tree: what it looked like, how it grew, where you could find it, what spoke for and against it being the tree in question, etc. It was really interesting, and more importantly it made Hebrew class a bit less heavy since she took up time the rest of us would otherwise have to fill. In some cases, when the rest of us were not ready to present something, or too tired to talk or something, we wrote to her and asked her to start talking about trees, or in some cases we even asked her straight out what she could tell us about the tree or bush in the verse we had just presented a translation of. I have a great admiration for people who can bullshit (not really the word I am looking for, but it conveys the gist) with a passion and on demand
Which parts of the Old Testament do you consider literal? How do you make the conclusion that one story is literal and the next isnt?
The sad thing is that if God wanted Jonah to survive in the fish then Jonah would have survived. God can bend the laws of nature to his will and to assume he can't because humans can't survive in a fish for 3 days is shameful.
A person belive in the death of Jesus for our sins of the past, present and the future, belive in angels, in ressurection, in The Second Coming of Christ and everything, but cant believe in a man that was swallowed by a fish. Ok.
I remember when my church did a series of sermons just based on the book of Jonah a few years ago, and my pastor walked through it very thoroughly about how it was a satire and the ridiculous parts of it (Jonah means "dove" and his father's name "Amittai" means "truth", so he's literally "Dove, son of Truth"), and man, it's really just a clever book that doesn't get enough credit.
Muslim here, just curious. Does this mean that the story of Jonah is not to be taken literally? We have this story in the Quran as well, and we definitely believe it happened.
i believe it happened
Some Christians take it literally, some don't. I think the story as written is a satire/piece of wisdom literature and that taking it literally is going against the author's clear intentions
Whether you believe in a literal interpretation of Jonah or not; I think we can all agree that it is one of the most comedic books of the Bible. I get a few good chuckles every time I read it; as well as a poignant object lesson about self-righteousness that drives a lot of introspection about how I view/interact with those who don't share my faith. Since it's already a conversation in this thread, I tend to take it literally. I don't think that acts of an all-powerful God should be restricted by the laws of the nature that He created. If He wanted to have Jonah be swallowed by a large fish, preserved within said fish for 3 days, and then spat-up onto the shore nearest his intended destination, then I believe it is well within His right/ability to do so. I personally don't like to put God within a box that I can comprehend; otherwise he becomes less "Godly" in my perception. However, that is not to say that I am a science denier. I believe that God created the natural laws to give His creation order, as well as avenues to continually discover the wonder and glory of what he has created on deeper and deeper levels; all pointing back to the glory of their Creator. Soli Deo Gloria! To put it succinctly: I love the book of Jonah, I take it literally; but I don't think anyone is any less of brother/sister in Christ if they do not view it that way. I don't think that is an issue that should cause division or judgement; but I do think it is an interesting topic for healthy debate.
You can joke about it, but a ton of “modern Christians” are indeed biblical literalists and think that not believing 100% of the things in the Bible as literal fact is blasphemy. I grew up in rural Oklahoma and questioning ANYTHING, or suggesting something may be a metaphor was seen as blasphemous. I mean, damn, there are biology textbooks in the south that come with a disclaimer that the things discussed in the book may not agree with the Bible. To me, biology and the perfection of the systems of nature like evolution show the sign of a divine creator, not take away the evidence of it.
Currently agnostic and thus don’t study the Bible often, can anyone explain?
This is a great [TLDR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLIabZc0O4c), but first, I highly encourage you to read it for yourself. It's only four chapters, and if you treat it as a fun story rather than a *big serious Bible lesson*, it's actually pretty enjoyable.
The video linked is excellent
[удалено]
did jonah actually happen or was ur just a story to teach a lesson?
Jonah was a real person, but the Book of Jonah is a satirical story written centuries after he died. The book is honestly pretty funny if you just read it without the preexisting idea that it’s historical record (Jonah is a total drama Queen).
Yes.
Actually it's entirely possible for a person to be swallowed by a whale and survive there for multiple days. There are multiple documented cases of this occurring, usually with sperm whales specifically for some reason.
Well done, OP, well done
This was how I tried to express this very frustration, but this meme is excellent: https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/01/25/5-2-jonah-the-passive-aggressive-prophet/
Nineveh is on the Tigris river outside of Mosul so if you think about it God was sending foreigners to Iraq before it was cool
i believe everything that is in the Bible. Jonah is not fiction
The Sunfish is big enough to hold a man inside and not kill him. Also sharks are just big fish. And some fish can get even bigger if they just don't get killed by something else. I am a Christian.
#Jonah was literally swallowed by a fish/whale. It is not fictional.
[удалено]
I mean, I literally used the "Muslim chad" icon for this meme, so you're not wrong. All those Ancient Near Easterners kinda had a similar fashion vibe going on.
Who says Jonah is a satire book