Monergism, Synergism, and God’s Image, 2 of 2

This is post 2 of 2 concerning concepts related to being created in God’s Image and the debate of Monergism vs. Synergism. See the first post where I laid out the fundamental concept of humanity being agents of God’s authority precisely by being made in His Image.

How does this affect discussion concerning monergism and synergism? Are we saved or justified on account of faith alone? Is there any sense in which we are saved or justified on account of works? In moving forward I think there are a few conceptual links that can be made that close the gap in these disjunctions:

1)   Given the understanding of the fall outlined in the first post, “fearing God” is just simply another way of speaking about trusting him or having faith in him. Faith or trust is precisely an orientation of acknowledging God’s rulership or wisdom instead of assuming it for oneself. This side of the cross, that trust must be placed in Jesus’ person and work as he and his work are the ultimate manifestation of God’s rulership (I won’t even touch the inclusivism vs. exclusivism debate). Jesus enacts God’s rule from the cross. Death cannot contain him because he has enacted God’s rulership perfectly. Genesis 3.24 and the death threat of Genesis 2.17 cannot have any hold over him.

2)   As human beings, we cannot help but “work” to some degree. We have to function in this world. But there is functioning that is according to the orientation of God as ruler and functioning that ascribes no fear to God.

3)   There is also, it seems to me, subtle NT understanding of faith that is often missed in churches. Faith is not simply acknowledgment that e.g. Jesus is God or that he died and rose or that there is a God (James 2.19) or even that “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10.9). There is a functional imperative that lies behind NT faith: You must act according to what you believe! To claim “Jesus is Lord” is to make oneself servant to him and so act in a way that conforms to his example and standard. This may seem obvious or trite but is actually in sharp contrast to how many in the church evangelize: “You need to believe that you’re a sinner and Jesus died for you to be saved…” In much of my experience of the (Protestant) church, belief that certain things are true (e.g. Jesus died for you, Jesus is God, etc.) is what makes the Christian, and then the Christian develops in service to God. But NT faith isn’t so abstract; it’s a whole package, it’s being in a kingdom.

4)   When we get to Paul in the NT, he rejects any effort that a person can produce in and of himself that attempts to gain (or maintain) favor with God. Such effort is necessarily done not in the “fear of God”.  Thus one cannot be “justified” by works, since for God to do so would be for him to acknowledge that his creation can get by without acknowledging him as sole creator.

5)   In contrast James (Chapter 2) seems to be coming from the other side. Mere faith (belief in an abstract set of truths) is not sufficient but works are needed also. In context, these works are assumed to be from the point of those already acting “by faith” and what James has to say is towards those not living the life of faith (2.14-17). But then James says something in 2.24 that (most) Protestant exegetes from the time of Luther have squirmed at: “a man is justified by works and not only by faith.”

“Justified” is usually taken in the NT to mean “declared to be righteous” in the standard Reformed “judicial” sense of God considering us to be righteous even when we aren’t because we have believed that Jesus died for us – declared righteous because of faith. But when we get to James 2.21 and 24, “justified” can’t mean that without contradiction to Paul (and our nicely packaged Protestant theology) so it’s usually taken to mean “demonstrate to be declared righteous” where the works demonstrate that the justifying faith is indeed justifying and genuine. A few passages in the gospels are thought to provide parallels for this unusual meaning (see Mt. 11.19 (cf. Lk. 7.35), Lk. 10.29, Lk. 16.15). Even if that meaning is questionable in at least the last 2 Luke passages, the context is much different here: God is doing the justifying.

6)   So what does “justify” mean? It’s important here to recognize that much Protestant/Reformed exegesis has (often) assumed one definition of “justify” or ”justification” for our theological system and inserted the definition into whatever instance of the word. It’s important here to consider the OT perspective of God “justifying”. “Justify” is usually used in legal settings where one’s actual conduct forms the basis for being vindicated. And oftentimes vindication has in perspective the final judgment (1 Kings 8.31-32; Ps. 7.8-11**, 9.3-8, 11.7, 15.1-5, 18.20-24, 26.1-3ff., 106.1-5, 119.121-128; Isa. 43.9 & 26, 45.25, 50.8, 53.11; See also 4QMMT C Line 31 (=4Q398)) Note Psalm 7:8ff: “The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. The point is hardly that the Psalmist is perfect. But there is certainly an orientation that God will judge favorably on account of personal integrity. This can be compared with say Psalm 9.10 where the Lord is a favorable judge for those who trust and seek him. However, I don’t think this means the two passages stand in tension, as I’ll get to. (Note: this does not mean there is no sense of “justification” in the Reformed sense in the OT; see Ps. 32 and perhaps Isa. 53.11.)

7)   Along with this it’s important to remember that everyone is indeed judged according to works according to the NT. See Mt. 12.36-37, 2 Cor. 5.10, and especially Rom. 2.6-10. The OT sense of “justify” is picked up in these passages.

8)   So then, in James it appears by context that “justification” is from the perspective of the end (like the passages mentioned in #7) when all people will stand before God and be judged according to what they’ve done – in James 2.22 Abraham’s faith is “made complete” by works and that his works “fulfilled” the Scripture that “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness”. Not that his faith was somehow incomplete before works, but rather, his faith was “filled out” so-to-speak or “brought to maturation”. It is part of a faith-works package where, as James would have it, faith and works are “working together” (v. 22, Grk. sunergeo).

To synthesize then, humans were created to be utterly dependent on God (faith or “fear of God”) and also to act (works) as agents of his authority and rule (kingdom), that is, act in God’s Image.  In the fall we lost the ability to do the latter when we failed to the former. It is only by trust that one is truly a part of God’s kingdom and so it is only by trust that one can personally act or work for God’s kingdom. However, when we stand at the judgment seat, we are shown God’s favor precisely by whether or not we have willingly acted (works) as God’s agents of his kingdom. That necessarily entails works, works that are produced only by faith. Paul is mostly concerned with addressing those lacking “fear of God” (Rom. 3.27) and James is wholly concerned with working for God’s kingdom (2.14-17). There is then some sense in which synergism holds true even though monergism is dominant. In the framework I’ve laid out, it seems synergism would simply be a subset of monergism rather than standing against it in any sense.

In the end, this is hardly ground for boasting or pride-of-self. As soon as we boast we assume autonomy with respect to God and, moreover, we deny that such works were prepared and given us by God in the first place (Eph. 2.10). Let’s work to have a kingdom orientation for we will ultimately be judged as to whether or not we were willing participants of it.

Monergism, Synergism, and God’s Image, 1 of 2

I was having a discussion on Facebook the other day about Monergism vs. Synergism and one of my friends astutely pointed out that the notion of God’s Image may have considerable bearing on the issue. I’m sure where I’m going with this isn’t quite where he was itching but I’m glad for opportunity to think more deeply on the issue. I think it’s important to clarify what the bible actually means by God’s Image and then explore ideas of “justification”. I’ll tackle the biblical idea of God’s Image in the first post, and then explore ideas of justification, faith, and works in the next.

What are we talking about when we speak of God’s Image? The problem is that there are a few different understandings (or preconceptions) of what God’s Image refers to in the passage of Genesis 1. 1) Some (not as many these days) would take it as referring to the idea of man’s tripartite division of body, soul, and spirit and mirroring the picture of Trinity in Genesis 1:1-3: God is present with his wind/spirit “hovering over the face of the deep” and his word is present when God speaks. This is used in conjunction with God’s apparent plurality in Gen. 1:26. However, I think it’s a stretch to see concept of Trinity here but even if there was, a link between that and God’s Image is tenuous. 2) Much more frequently, occurring very regularly among Christian apologists, philosophers, and some commentators in varying degrees, God’s Image is understood as referring to the mental and/or spiritual faculties that man shares with his creator, e.g. man’s reason, personality, free will, self-consciousness, and/or intelligence. However, these sorts of notions are decidedly absent from the thoughts of Genesis 1 and have to be pulled from somewhere else and inserted. Though such ideas may not be entirely absent from Genesis 1, a sensitive exegesis of Genesis 1 should be looking elsewhere for the conceptual framework for God’s Image.

I think a much better understanding of God’s Image is that held by a majority of commentators in varying degrees (of the ones I have access to: Walton, Wenham, Hamilton, Sarna, Waltke, Von Rad, Mathews, Westermann, and Brueggeman; Speiser is too brief to mention anything).

Note:

1)   “Image” in the Ancient Near East (ANE) was used of idols that were representatives of a god in physical form (not a representative of physical appearance). Along similar lines, among people generally it was only the king who was the image and likeness of a god. As such, the king represented the patron deity of a city-state or nation and functioned as vice-regents, being the administrator of a god’s rule, administering justice on the god’s behalf and being the agent of it’s power and authority. This is seen in an Egyptian context in Amon-Re’s speech to Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1386-1349 BC): “Thou art my beloved son, come forth from my limbs, my very own image, which I have put upon the earth. I have permitted thee to rule upon the earth in peace.” (Cited in Westermann, p. 153). This is precisely the context of Genesis 1.26-27: “Let us make man in our image and likeness and let them have dominion…” And again in 1.28 the idea of procreative blessing is a function of having dominion – rulership is the dominant created function of mankind. (See also II Sam. 7.12-16, Ps. 2, Ps. 45, Ps. 89.19-29, Heb. 1.1-3, 2.5-10)

2)   “Image” and “likeness” is found again at Genesis 5.1, 3 with 5.3 being the only other verse in the bible where the two are combined. Genesis 5.1 repeats the thought of 1.26 with “likeness” being sufficient to convey “image and likeness”. But another nuance of “image and likeness” is seen in 5.3 where Seth is a son in the “likeness and image” of Adam. So the idea of sonship is carried in the expression: not in a lineage or physical trait sense, but as how one behaves or acts. (This is typical Semitic-speak: e.g. son of strength, son of death, son of righteousness, son of devil, son of 90 years (Gen. 17.1), son of light, etc.) Thus mankind is given the capacity to act like God in the ways necessary to enact his rulership. This is not merely the assertion of power but includes characteristics such as peace, justice, holiness, etc. Human faculties like reason, conscience, self-awareness, etc. may be a derivative part of human nature created for the given task, but do not denote “image” or “likeness”. (Some commentators allow for these concepts as additional denotation.)

3)   This sets up the ultimate tragedy of The Fall. In Genesis 2.16-17 man is commanded to not eat of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. In the bible “the knowledge of good and evil” (contrary to common thought) refers to the ability or attribute of judging or discerning (2 Sam. 14.17, 19.35; 1 Kings 3.9-12; Dt. 1.39; Isa. 7.15-16) and so refers to wisdom. Wisdom is possessed by God (Prov. 2.6-8, 8.15, 22-31) and is something that man is to seek and attain (Prov. 3.13, 8.10-11). However, to seek it apart from God is moral autonomy, seeking to understand independently or with respect to oneself rather than with respect to God. Thus in the garden God placed the ability for mankind to make judgments in and of himself and so place oneself over against God and his authority. This is precisely what happened in the fall. Man set his Creator-given rulership over against God’s rulership, thereby siding with the serpent’s kingdom (cf. Gen. 3.15). The point is that mankind is to learn to fear God, which is true wisdom according to Job 28.28, and fearing God is precisely what absolutely no one does (Ps 36.1, cf. Rom. 3.18). According to the flow of Genesis 5, it’s this “image” of rulership set against God that is passed along even the “righteous lineage” from Adam to Seth and on and on, cutting themselves off from life – “and he died” ad nauseam (cf. Gen. 2.17, 3.24).

4)   At the fall, this image/likeness is not lost per se - in Gen. 9.6 human dignity is accorded precisely because of our God-given function - but it is certainly corrupted (that is, not acting in accordance with created function, e.g. Gen. 6.11). Though man does not act according to created image after the fall, this does not mean that there is no sense in which fallen man acts as God’s image. God still uses even man’s evil actions towards his purpose and will (a major theme in Genesis culminating in Gen. 49…) despite the fact that man refuses to “fear God”, i.e. “esteem him in honor”. Besides this, I think it reasonable to suggest that there are many ways, even to the minutest levels, where humanity “carries out God’s rulership” (stewardship?) even if done very imperfectly. I suppose to some degree, if we were created to function a certain way, that’s the way we’ll function whether we like it or not. Nevertheless, what’s important is that we align our will with God’s, and that was compromised at the fall.

See part 2 of 2 here.

When God is Silent

There are, it seems, three basic categories of human experience with a silent God. First, there are those who experience God's silence and find evidence that there is really no God (or god, or gods) at all. In an interview, when Richard Dawkins was asked what he would tell God if he met him at judgment in the afterlife, he quoted Bertrand Russell (I believe) who, when asked the same question, said, "Sir, why did you work so hard to hide yourself?" (close paraphrase). God's silence is proof he doesn't exist.


Second there are those who simply don't see a need to care about whether God exists. They are content with his silence and see no need to question it or make inference. God's silence just means he doesn't talk.


Third, there are those who see God as alive, who have experienced something that can only be categorized as a God who, as when he spoke and light shined forth in the darkness in explosive creation, also spoke to their entire being an explosive life-giving light. There is created then a dependence, to one degree or another, on this life-creating God. As a child with a parent learns to be dependent on them for every step of life. Then at some point, they cry out ... and no one answers. And then day after day there is no answer and the weeks turn into months. God is silent. Why?


We have recently come out of a long stretch of time (almost 3 years) where it felt like God was just silent. We look for direction one way or the other and there is no answer. We know and hold onto some certainties about direction in life that God had brought us to 5 years ago or so, and yet nothing happens; no progress ... just ... waiting. Sometimes prayer and reading his word almost seem too much because such faithfulness doesn't seem to get anywhere and results in more frustration just from the resulting silence. Then one day, a glimmer of light shone through the clouds and not only did God act, but life became a whirlwind. God showed up in such a decisive way that it seemed like he had his arms around our shoulders. (Though, not like life just turned hunky-dory.)


In reflection, there are a few decisive shifts in our perspective; life-lessons if you will. First, it is very easy to get attached to the notion that such suffering should somehow be alleviated by our faithfulness to God. But he promises no such thing. All such things are according to his will and timing. We are to simply be faithful.


On the flip-side, it's easy for the idea to be embedded somewhere that some sin of ours caused such silence. That we are somehow responsible to some degree. While this may always be true on some broad level, it is dangerous to attach some tit-for-tat notion to God's dealings with man. Sometimes you can be a generally righteous person and you get the short end of the stick (read Job); and vice-a-versa. But God doesn't owe us a thing. And while we may know that in our own personal theology, living it daily isn't easy.


With this in mind, it is imperative during such times to eschew self-deprecation as if God isn't helping you because there is some insidious sin that is rearing it's head that makes God turn away from meeting your petitions. Sometimes God's accomplishing his purposes for your life has nothing to do with you (so to speak) so stop trivializing him and putting him in a box. He's bigger than that!


I think more often we simply need to be taught. God is silent because he is making and shaping us into new people. And turning our thoughts to this we should praise his silence, knowing that he has made and considered us worthy to suffer for his glory and our transformation, that he should work with us to change us and use us rather than simply abandon us.

How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?

How long will you hide your face from me?

 How long must I take counsel in my soul

and have sorrow in my heart all the day?

How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

Consider and answer me, O Lord my God;

light up my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,

 lest my enemy say, “I have prevailed over him,”

lest my foes rejoice because I am shaken.

But I have trusted in your steadfast love;

my heart shall rejoice in your salvation.

I will sing to the Lord,

because he has dealt bountifully with me. (Psalm 13)

"All Israel" and Paul's Mission

I recently got the brand new commentary on 1 Corinthians by Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner.  It is an excellent commentary for both layperson and scholar alike and I have found every page refreshing and enjoyable thus far.  Almost (but not quite) worth the price of the book is the excellent section in the introduction that sketches Paul’s socio-cultural and theological framework.  In it the authors note the ubiquitous OT theme of God’s glory and worship: “To glorify someone is to recognize their intrinsic worth and beauty, and to speak of that feature in a public way. To glorify God is to praise or to speak of Him openly and truthfully.” Parallel to this is the theme of the Gentiles turning from idolatry and drawn to come alongside Israel and worship God.  This reaches clearest expression in Isaiah and strikingly so at the end of the book, 66:18-24:

      ¹⁸ “And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory.  ¹⁹ I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations – to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. ²⁰ And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD – on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the LORD. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temples of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. ²¹ And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the LORD.

      ²² “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure.  ²³ From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all people will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD.

      ²⁴ “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to the whole human race.”

Verses 18-21 in particular stand behind Romans 15:16-24 (especially v. 16) where we glean particular insight into the aims of Paul’s missionary activities, making these verses of particular importance to Paul.  I was amazed by some exegetically important features of this passage.

Note:

Vs. 18 – God declares that he himself will gather the multitudes of the nations to come a see his glory.

Vs. 19 – “them” and “those who survive” of the first and second clause respectively are formally ambiguous.  While the antecedent of “them” would naturally be the nations, “those who survive” makes no sense speaking of the nations but rather, in context of the book refers to the Jews.  So, God will send out some of the Jews who survive to the nations; even to “distant islands”.

Vv. 20, 21 – Now the next pronoun you’d think also refers to the Jews.  But it most certainly refers to Gentiles because 1) that “they will bring all your people (Heb. brothers)” when it is God speaking to the Jews suggests otherwise. If “they” are Jews, then we have “some of those who survive” who are sent by God to the nations and yet end up bringing fellow Israelites back as if that’s the focus and weight of the text. 2) V. 21 has God then choosing “some of them” to be “priests and Levites”.  If “them” at begin of v. 20 are Jews then likewise at v. 21 making v. 21 trite and of little significance or sense.  Priests and Levites were of an established lineage and would hardly require God’s choosing.

Rather, it seems best that the ingathering of the nations brings with them the “remaining” of the exiles of Israel who have been scattered to the nations by God’s judgment and these Gentiles will offer the returned exiles of Israel to God.  The offering of God’s exiled people to God by the Gentiles is likened to offering grain offerings, the fruit of labor, in ceremonially clean vessels – shocking category for Gentiles!  These Jews-returned-from-exile-by-Gentiles are a pleasing offering to God precisely by “ceremonially clean” Gentiles.

Vv. 22-24 – Moreover, God promises that the enduring of the “name and descendants” of Israel will be as that of the new creation itself; and no less this than that the endurance of their “name and descendants” is realized in all people worshipping the God of Israel.  The book ends (v. 24) on a note of perpetual judgment on those who rebel – who, elsewhere, did not listen to his word.  To affirm promise of enduring life of those who worship entails affirming enduring death for those who don’t.  Thank goodness for God’s active grace (v. 18).

*****

After all this, I was struck by how much sense Romans 11 makes after reading this text, purported by Ciampa and Rosner as a central text for Paul, and the idea of “all Israel” being saved through the “fullness of the Gentiles”.  This wasn’t some special vision of the end times given to Paul.  Paul just read his bible and understood this oracle given more than 700 years prior; and he sees himself as one of “those who survive” (Isa. 66.19) sent out by God to the nations, saving Gentiles in order to save his fellow Jews.

Along other lines, the importance of this theme makes Romans chps 1, 11, and 15 have much more of a central place in the letter than traditionally understood.

Thiselton on Human Spirit

The other day I was reading in Thiselton’s magisterial commentary his thoughts on 1 Corinthians 2:11 which reads:

For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts  of God except the Spirit of God. (ESV)

Before addressing what the verse does say, Thiselton cautions against what it does not say by distancing Paul from a dichotomous view of man (sum parts of man = body + soul (= spirit)) and a trichotomous view of man (sum parts of man = body + soul + spirit (soul does not equal spirit)).  He comments:

A superficial reading out of context would suggest that Paul adopts two uncharacteristic standpoints: (i) that he accepts a dualist-Platonic view of human nature as spirit within a human body … and (ii) that he argues on the basis of a natural correspondence between human spirit/human person, and divine Spirit/God, as if spirit, pneuma, embodied a natural continuity between the two instantiations of the terms….

But Paul uses spatial language of the human person to indicate modes or aspects of being.  The spirit is within not in the sense of location, but in the sense of partly hidden stances  of which an outsider or another human person may be unaware unless the person concerned chooses to reveal them by word, gesture, or action.  The point of analogy does  not turn on human spirit within/divine spirit within, but on the possession of an exclusive initiative to reveal one’s thoughts, counsels, stance, attitudes, intentions, or whatever else is “within” in the sense of hidden from the public domain, not in the sense of location.

To insist upon this, as indeed we do, is not to impose modern psychology onto Paul.  Indeed, it is the very reverse.  It rescues our understanding of Paul from an uncritical embeddedness in a Graeco-Roman tradition which was alien to Paul’s OT roots and worldview … The human spirit is not a “God-related principle of self-consciousness within man which could be directed by the divine spirit to moral activity in opposition to the flesh” (Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 167). Jewett comments: “This conception so dominated exegesis in the latter part of the last century that even scholars who stood in opposition to the liberal theology accepted it…. ‘Spirit’ was not a philosophic category providing continuity between God and man.”

This has obvious implications for reading Genesis 1:27 and being made Imago Dei, Romans 7, Hebrews 4:12,  and resurrection theology texts like Philippians 1:23.  Paul will get into this again in 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-9.

Jonah and Jesus

I thought I’d take a break from the Borg series and insert some thoughts that developed while reading the book of Jonah, Chapter 2.  Verses 2 through 9, per English bible versification (3 to 10 in Hebrew), are as follows:

2) I cried out to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice. 3) For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me. 4) Then I said, “I am driven away from your sight; yet I shall again look upon your holy temple.” 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. 7) When my life was fainting away, I remembered the LORD, and my prayer came to you, into your holy temple. 8) Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love. 9) But I with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to you; what I have vowed I will pay.  Salvation belongs to the LORD! (ESV translation)

In Chapter 1 God calls Jonah to go to the pagan city of Nineveh, at that time a major city of the Assyrian Empire, and prophecy judgment on the city.  Shockingly, to the narrative, Jonah actually flees from God, which no prophet did.  This is the only recording in the OT canon of a prophet fleeing Yahweh.  God, being God, pursues Jonah in wrath so that he is eventually thrown off the boat into a watery grave.  Judgment is meted out to Jonah the rebel.  But then, in 1:17 God graciously sends a “large fish” to swallow Jonah thereby saving him from death.  2:2 to 2:9 is Jonah’s prayer to Yahweh.

In sharp contrast to Jonah the rebel are all the pagans in the book.  To an unprecedented extent in narrative (that it is narrative is anomalous in the prophetic books) the pagans are portrayed as more righteous than (even) the Hebrew prophet.  In 1:6 the pagan sailors prompt Jonah to call to his god, in 1:14 they call out to Yahweh in their distress, and in 1:16 they fear Yahweh and offer a sacrifice and vows to Yahweh.  In 3:5-9 the wicked Ninevites immediately repent, from the least of them to the king, and call out to God in hopes of averting his wrath (already pre-displayed in dealings with Jonah).

In shocking display in 3:10, God actually “relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”  When, in Chapter 4, Jonah became exceedingly angry at this, God gives Jonah a living parable and the whole narrative abruptly ends with Yahweh explaining,

You pity the plant, for which you did not labor nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night.  And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?

Now, I read Jonah 2 shortly after I had read the flood account in Genesis Chapters 6-8 in Hebrew.  There is a word that caught my memory in Jonah 2:5 translated “the deep” or “the depth” in many translations, tehom, which shows up in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 where “the deep” is the source of “the flood”, mabul.  Mabul is a rarer word than tehom, appearing only 13 times in the Hebrew OT compared to 36 times for tehom.  Moreover, 12 of the 13 appearances of mabul occur in Genesis 7 – 11 in direct reference to the flood of Noah.  The only other occurrence is in Psalm 29:10, which possibly refers to the same thing.  The mabul in Genesis is the instrument of God’s wrath and judgment on mankind (though, God provides a vessel of grace).  Where mabul leaves off in Genesis, tehom picks up later on at times.  I think an important link is made in Genesis where the tehom is opened thereby causing the mabul/flood of Noah. 

The next occurrence of God’s destructive action by water is in Exodus 14 and 15.  God has just led the Israelites out of Egypt.  With the Egyptians in hot pursuit, God “pushes back” or “piles up” the tehom of the Red Sea in a major action of the total saving event by God.  When the Egyptians pursue, God in judgment releases the tehom killing the Egyptians.  Moses sings of this great redemptive act in Exodus 15.  As tehom enjoys quite a spread across the OT, the word is picked up again and again in memory and celebration of God’s action with the tehom to save the Israelites and destroy the Egyptians – see Psalm 77:16, 106:9; Isaiah 51:10, 63:13.  This theme of judgment plays out in evocative imagery elsewhere like Psalm 36:6 and a connected association with distress/anguish in Psalm 42.7, 107:24, 26; Ezekiel 31:15.  Note especially Psalm 42:7 (and Psalm 88:6 -7) which is no doubt echoed in Jonah 2:3 in his distress and experience of God’s wrath/judgment.  This matrix can be expanded if the Greek words used in the Septuagint translation are explored. 

Thus, as those condemned during the days of Noah and during the Exodus experienced God’s wrath through waters of destruction, so Jonah in some significant sense experiences God’s wrath even, metaphorically, to the point of death (2:2, 5a, 6a).  Yet, by God’s grace, Jonah experiences life out of death (2:6b).  Jonah then goes on, despite his own will, to proclaim this same power of God’s judgment upon wicked pagans.  Yet they are not destroyed, but repent and are spared God’s wrath and become an amazing display of God’s mercy (4:11).

*****

Hundreds of years later, Jesus is prompted by some Jewish leaders for a sign (Matthew 12:38), a sign to prove his authority (12:28).  Jesus replies:

An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.  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.  The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:39-41)

The “sign of Jonah” is repeated in 16:4.

There is sufficient reason to understand the “sign of Jonah” in Matthew as referring to more than just the period of time Jesus will be dead.  We first “meet” Jesus in chapter 3.  John has been proclaiming the coming wrath and judgment of God and baptizing for repentance in light of such wrath.  Jesus comes to be baptized with such a baptism but John protests, recognizing Jesus’ righteousness exceeds his own.  Yet Jesus insists that it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness, that is, to fulfill God’s will (3:14-15).  In light of the end of the book, this is a subtle hint of his death to come.  This theme is hit again in 10:38: “Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”  The immediate point is the extent to which loyalty to Jesus is required transcends our deepest and most cherished relationships.  That’s all well and good, but those who haven’t read the end of Matthew yet ask, “Huh? Isn’t that a little much? Sure we’re supposed to follow him to whatever end and cost but why would the Messiah go to the cross, the place of God’s condemnation?” (See Deut. 21:23, Gal. 3:13.)   This theme hits the ground running in 16:21 right after the first time Jesus is explicitly acknowledged to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  10:38 is then repeated in 16:24.  This culminates in chapter 27 when, in verse 43 Jesus the Christ really is on a cross and mocked, in stark irony for Matthew, “He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him.”  Soon after, the one who did trust in God from first to last cries out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”  The ultimate curse; forsaken by God, his wrath poured out.

Yet on the third day, by Jewish reckoning, the Messiah finds life after death and one of the last things Matthew leaves us with, echoing with the end is “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations.”  (28:18 – 19a)  The authority given Jesus in life after death leads to a repentance of the Gentiles far surpassing anytime before.  Two of the most major themes (if not the major) now merge as throughout the book Matthew has been preparing for this role of Jesus.  Note the centurion in 8:5-13 with faith far surpassing any in Israel, the faith of a Canaanite woman in 15:21-28 and Jesus’ activity in Gentile country right afterwards in 15:29-39 (immediately followed by the second “sign of Jonah text”).  Note the parable in 21:33-44 where the vineyard is taken from the Pharisees and given to a people (or “nation”, Greek: ethne, i.e. not the Jews). Lastly, note a passage right before the “sign of Jonah” text we started with (12:39-41) where Matthew says:

This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom I am well pleased.  I will put my Spirit upon him and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.  He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope. (12:17-21)

In Matthew’s narrative, this is followed by the authority of Jesus in setting up God’s kingdom; the reality and coming of a just judgment in which every word, whether good or bad, will be accounted for; and the “sign of Jonah” to a wicked generation as proof of his authority.

As Matthew says Jesus says, one “greater than Jonah is here.”  As Jonah passed through “death” to life and brought grace and repentance to the Gentiles, so Jesus passed through death to life and didn’t just bring grace and repentance, but is the source of it by suffering God’s condemnation for many so that God could still be just while justifying the many (Rom. 3:26).  In God’s story, Jonah points beyond to Jesus.  Jesus is greater.