Introduction

Many pastors and teachers through the years have taught that the book of Jonah, and specifically chapter 3, represents powerful preaching, incredible missionary prowess, and extraordinary evangelistic results. However, the question of the efficacy of Jonah’s mission, the extent of the Ninevites’ redemption, and the appropriateness of God’s response remain disputed. Without a proper understanding of Jonah 3, the interpreter risks not only preaching an incorrect message and possibly communicating an invalid method of evangelism but also incorrectly thinking about God and His attributes. The message of Jonah 3 emphasizes God’s mercy and compassion extended to the Ninevites within God’s ongoing mission to reclaim the disinherited nations. The analysis begins by examining Jonah’s second calling from God and is followed by an analysis of his message to the Ninevites. The research finishes by investigating the response of the Ninevites to Jonah’s message, the King of Nineveh’s proclamation to the people, and God’s decision to relent.

The Calling (3:1-2)

Jonah begins again or, more to the point, Yahweh provides Jonah a new start with the same three imperatives declared in Jonah 1:2: get up (קוּם), go (הָלַךְ), and proclaim (קָרָא). Although the similarities are palpable, upon close investigation, the commission in chapter 3 is distinct. First, in some ways, the entire context has changed because the reader has developed a deeper understanding of the character of both Jonah and Yahweh. The defiant Jonah appears to have been humbled, and the rebellious Jonah appears to have lost his swagger, at least for the moment. Additionally, Yahweh shows a penchant for second chances and a steadfastness that seems, at first, to defy logic, coupled with a profound sense of mercy that transcends Jonah’s prior escapade.

The second distinction is a significant modification in the prepositions used regarding Jonah’s proclamation. In Jonah 1:2 the prophet is to proclaim עַל Nineveh, and in Jonah 3:2 the prophet is to proclaim אֶל Nineveh. The NET Bible notes explain that the former is an adversative that often signifies a form of judgment (1 Kgs 13:4; Jer 49:29), and the latter is often more positive and denotes a form of deliverance (Deut 20:10; Isa 40:2).[1] The shift in prepositions may highlight the evil that deserves judgement in chapter 1 and the potential for deliverance in chapter 3.[2] Perhaps the shift to the more positive preposition clarifies its original usage, which may have had overtones of deliverance. Certainly, Jonah argues that he knew all along that God’s mercy would win (Jon 4:2).

The third distinction pertains to the purpose of God’s commission. In Jonah 1:2, Yahweh provides the reason for Jonah’s commission: the רָעָה of the Ninevites. F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs (BDB) provides three primary meanings for the term רָעָה: misery or distress, injury, and ethical evil.[3] The immediate context appears to suggest that Jonah is to preach a message of judgment due to the Ninevites’ evil ways. However, in light of the broader context, one cannot rule out the use of a double entendre to facilitate a touch of irony, whereby God mercifully desired Jonah to preach a message of deliverance to the Ninevites facing misery or distress.

Yahweh provides a second chance to a rebellious prophet, which is unique to Jonah. The question remains as to why Yahweh would make such an exception. Kevin Youngblood provides two explanations. First, Jonah purposefully rebelled with the intention of forcing Yahweh to extend swift judgment and remove him from his duties.[4] However, neither Yahweh’s judgment nor His mercy can be manipulated by man. Second, Yahweh provides the consummate model of mercy that He desires from His recalcitrant and judgmental prophet.[5] Yahweh models for Jonah the type of mercy He embodies for the pagan nations He promised Abraham that He would reclaim and bless (cf. Gen 12:1-3).

The Sermon (3:3-4)

This time Jonah followed Yahweh’s directives and got up and went to proclaim what is likely the shortest sermon ever recorded to the great city of Nineveh. The phrase לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה֙ is debated. Billy Smith and Franklin Page explain that some scholars express the phrase as a superlative, an exceedingly great city, while other scholars treat the phrase as a circumlocution for a large city.[6] Another possibility is to render the phrase literally, a great city to the gods (elohim). Some commentators discount a literal translation asserting the unlikelihood of a reference to Assyrian gods.[7] However, according to Michael Heiser, the biblical worldview from Babel onward is “about Israel versus the disinherited nations, and Yahweh versus the corrupt, rebel elohim of those nations.”[8] Furthermore, Genesis 10:11-12 not only refers to Assyria as one of the disinherited nations dispersed at Babel in the following chapter, but also may be referring to Nineveh as a great city, הַגְּדֹלָֽה הָעִ֥יר. The context of Jonah rests on God’s extravagant mercy extended to reclaim disinherited nations relinquished to the elohim. Accordingly, the literal translation seems appropriate; Jonah went according to the word of Yahweh, and Nineveh was a great city to the gods.

The literal translation of the phrase לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה֙ may be further supported with the alternating use of the terms Yahweh and elohim within the chapter. First, Youngblood explains that Israel would recognize their God as Yahweh, while the Gentiles would be more familiar with the language of elohim as a designation for a deity or deities.[9] For example, the word of Yahweh spoken to Jonah and referenced in verse 1 and 3 reflects Jonah’s Semitic background. However, when the context refers to the Ninevites’ perception of God in Jonah verses 8-10, the term Elohim is used. Second, the shift from Yahweh to elohim in a single verse in verse 3 supports the assignment of non-Israelite gods to the meaning of elohim, which provides further evidence of the possibility for a literal interpretation of לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה.

Jonah followed the word of Yahweh and went to the city of Nineveh, which was a journey of three days. The meaning of the three-day journey in verse 3 is also debated. Leslie Allen notes that the ancient Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus, asserts that the circumference of Nineveh was 480 stades, which is about 55 miles.[10] The idea is that Jonah could walk 55 miles in three days. Alternatively, Donald Wiseman suggests that the three-day journey refers to an “ancient oriental practice of hospitality.”[11] The practice involves a total of three days where the first day the visitor arrives at the location, the second day the visitor accomplishes the purpose of the trip, and the final day the visitor departs. However, Charles Halton is convinced that the literal interpretations defy modern-day archaeological reconstructions; thus the three-day journey is a figure of speech intended to evoke a visceral response at the enormity of the city.[12] More likely, Douglas Stuart is correct in avoiding measurements and simply asserting that it took three literal days to accomplish the tasks according to the word of Yahweh.[13] During the three-day visit, Jonah communicates a short five-word sermon to the Ninevites.

Jonah’s sermon is straightforward: “In another forty days Nineveh will be demolished” (Jon 1:4). Two issues arise from Jonah’s sermon. First, the symbolism of forty days may assist in the interpretation of the sermon. The original readers would likely have noticed two intertextual allusions. Moses’s intercession for Israel’s sin of idolatrous worship of the golden calf in Deuteronomy 9:18 lasted forty days. Additionally, in Genesis 7:4, the flood narrative describes rain lasting forty days and forty nights blotting out everything on the face of the earth. Youngblood notes that both passages symbolize potential judgment of large population groups as well as a reminder of the possibility of redemption.[14] Although forty days certainly has overtones of judgment and potential redemption, R. W. L. Moberly also recognizes that the idiom means an “indefinite long period of time.” [15] If forty days means a long period of time, then the question remains as to how the meaning reconciles with the urgency of Jonah’s message and the immediacy of the Ninevite’s response. Phyllis Trible goes so far to suggest that the idiom is “incongruous with the idiom of Jonah’s prediction.”[16] However, since the intertextual evidence supports both potential judgement and the possibility of redemption, it is not unreasonable for the literary intention of the forty days to represent both the possibility of imminent judgment and the long patience of Yahweh in His desire to reclaim the nation. Jonah and the original Jewish readers would likely have understood the connections between forty days and the concepts of judgement and redemption, and based on the remainder of the chapter, it appears the Ninevites also received the message.

The second issue in Jonah’s sermon is the ambiguity of the meaning of the term הָפַךְ, which must have been quite alarming to the Ninevites. The word at the end of verse 4 is a Niphal participle feminine singular verb functioning as a predicative passive participle.[17] Allen, in line with Moberly, suggests the verb has overtones of a testing period, which may decrease the gravity of the situation.[18] However, according to Daniel Timmer, in the Niphal stem, the meaning of the term, הָפַךְ, is to overturn, which may connote destruction or a change of heart.[19] Similar to the meaning of forty days in Jonah’s sermon, the ambiguity of the term הָפַךְ likely implies the possibility of two different results: destruction and hope. Jonah’s three-day journey combined with the ambiguity of both the forty days and the term הָפַךְ in Jonah’s sermon highlight the mercy and compassion of a deity committed to reclaiming the people of Nineveh.

The Response (3:5-6)

The Ninevites’ response to Jonah’s sermon was compelling and swift. Three verbs communicate the response of the people: believed (אָמַן), declared (קָרָא), and put on (לָבֵשׁ). According to Smith and Page, the verbs describe three aspects of the Ninevites’ reaction: (1) a shift in belief, (2) a shift in speech, and (3) a shift in behavior.[20] Furthermore, from a literary perspective the phrase “from their greatest to their smallest” represents both a merism and a pleonasm, which emphasizes the breadth of response and reaction of the people.[21] However, the question remains as to whether the Ninevite response was an authentic religious conversion.

The literal translation of the phrase, בֵּֽאלֹהִ֑ים … וַֽיַּאֲמִ֛ינוּ, is “and they believed in Elohim” (Jon 3:4). Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor explain that the preposition ב is used a the direct object marker for a variety of verbs includes verbs of emotion such as believe and trust.[22] Accordingly, a reasonable translation of the phrase in verse 4 is simply “they believed Elohim,” as nothing in the grammar requires that the Ninevites experienced an authentic conversion. Supporting the grammar, the word Elohim, not Yahweh, is used to describe the Ninevites’ belief, which implies that Jonah was not specifically proclaiming Yahweh. Smith and Page assert that chapter 3 does not even hint at Jonah mentioning the God of Israel to the Ninevites. Further, nothing in the text indicates that the Ninevites relinquished their other gods, and as Douglas Stuart asserts, they remained the same “polytheistic, syncretistic, pantheists they had been all along.”[23] Finally, the book of Nahum affirms that the Ninevites soon return to violence, which undermines the reality of an authentic conversion.[24] In short, the Ninevites believed God would soon destroy them, but nothing within the context suggests a conversion to monotheism.

Soon after the positive response of the Ninevite people, the King of Nineveh hears of Jonah’s message and takes it seriously. The identity of the king has been a significant source of deliberation. Due to the powerful provincial governors who flanked Assyria and weakened its power, Paul Lawrence asserts that the king of Assyria’s reign was limited to Nineveh, thus he is identified as its Nineveh.[25] Jay Lemanski proposes that, during Jonah’s ministry, Nineveh was an autonomous state, which had its own ruler.[26] Additionally, Timmer suggests the king may have relinquished the throne due to the risks associated with Jonah’s message and placed a substitute king on the throne in accordance with the practices of the ancient Near East.[27] The substitute king would be killed as soon as the threat subsided. Finally, Paul Ferguson denies that Nineveh was an autonomous state and that the king ruled Assyria, and instead, he believes the king was a local governor ruling the province of Nineveh.[28] The identification of the king is inconclusive. However, in agreement with Stuart, the most straightforward conclusion is that the king of Nineveh was one of the weak eight-century Assyrian kings, such as Assur-dan III, who reigned during a time of omens, riots, and instability that may have opened the hearts of the Ninevites.[29]

The specific response of the king of Nineveh was the wearing of sackcloth and sitting in ashes. Tucker observes the appearance of “ashes” (אֵ֫פֶר) and “sackcloth” (שַׂק) in other contexts and suggests they symbolize mourning (cf. Esther 4:1; 2 Sam 13:19; Jer 6:26).[30] Ayelet Seidler clarifies the general concept of mourning by asserting that it included genuine remorse and a commitment to moral reform.[31] Finally, the replacement of the king’s robe with sackcloth and the sitting in ashes, according to Youngblood, represent an abdication of authority and a “dismantling of human power structures.”[32] Although no evidence exists to suggest that the Ninevites ultimately turned from their gods, that does not diminish the significance of Yahweh  extending mercy and compassion to the pagan Ninevites in an effort to reclaim them, which may have led to the conversion of some of the people.

The Proclamation (3:7-8)

In partnership with the nobles, the king of Nineveh decrees that humans and animals be covered in sackcloth, fast, call out to God, and turn from evil and violence. The identification of the nobles and the reason for the decree present a challenge. Lawrence is likely correct when concluding that the nobles were the provincial governors surrounding Nineveh that needed acknowledged.[33] However, the question remains as to why the king would need to issue a decree to a people who had already repented. Youngblood reasonably concludes that the initial repentance highlights that repentance was God’s initiative, but the king’s decree adds impact and provides a collective movement of the people.[34]

Another unique feature of verse 7-8 is the inclusion of animals in the process of repentance. Hennie Viviers explains that the inclusion of animals in ancient mourning rites is not uncommon.[35] Timmer suggests the possibility that the people of Nineveh involved animals because, based on Neo-Assyrian astrological cycles, their involvement brought good luck.[36] Furthermore, in verse 7, Trible identifies a merism in the phrase “the humans and the animals” and a synecdoche in the phrase “the herds and the flocks.”[37] The merism divides the entire population into two parts, and the synecdoche provides animals that represent the whole, while both highlight the important role of creation. Finally, Youngblood also underscores the literary irony whereby God’s animal creation appears to trump the obedience and servitude of humanity.[38] In light of the involvement of both animal and plant creation in the service of Yahweh throughout the book of Jonah, Youngblood’s conclusion is likely most relevant.

Urban Legends of the Old Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions

The breadth of the repentance conveyed in verses 7-8 seems remarkable for such a pagan empire. Accordingly, some have questioned the historical veracity of the Ninevite repentance. Lemanski explains that, during the time of Jonah, Assyria experienced significant political instability, economic hardship, and plagues.[39] Accordingly, it is possible that the Assyrians may have been open to Jonah’s message, as difficult circumstances can soften the hardest of hearts. Finally, the lexical nuances and literary wordplay of various forms of the terms “turn back” (שׁוב) and “evil” (רעע) accentuates God’s role in Nineveh’s repentance. The lemma רעע can mean both evil and calamity, and the lemma שׁוב can mean both turn away from evil and change one’s mind.[40] Accordingly, David Croteau and Gary Yates point out that if the Ninevites turn (שׁוב) from their evil (רעע), then God will turn (שׁוב) from His destruction (רעע).[41] It is God’s mercy and compassion for all the nations that prompts God to change His mind and turn from His destruction.

The Reversal (3:9-10)

The people of Nineveh were convinced that the possibility existed that God may change His mind, and, in fact, when God saw that the Ninevites turned from their evil ways, He did relent. God changing His mind raises questions regarding the relationship between divine sovereignty and contingency. If God is completely sovereign, then God would never change His mind, which calls God’s relationality and man’s responsibility into question. Alternatively, if God is not completely sovereign, then His omniscience comes into question.

The term in question for God changing His mind, the lemma נחם, occurs in the Niphal stem both times in verses 9-10. BDB provides four options for the meaning of נחם in the Niphal, which include (1) being sorry or moved to compassion, (2) repenting or grieving, (3) being comforted, and (4) being relieved.[42] Although BDB suggests that the term in Jonah 3:9-10 reflects the meaning of repenting or grieving, the more appropriate definition, as expanded on below, might be relationally “moved to compassion.” One attempt at justifying God changing His mind is to limit the scope of change. Robert Chisolm explains that God does not change His mind if He has decreed a certain outcome, but if the outcome is not decreed, then God waits for human response before deciding the course of action.[43] Although Chisolm’s observation explains when God changes His mind, it does not reconcile divine sovereignty and contingency because, when God does not decree an action, the tension remains.

The solution to the conundrum is wrapped in what might be called God’s sovereign relationality. Sovereignty without relationality undermines love, but relationality without sovereignty undermines power. God is both love and power and any bifurcation undermines God’s character. Timmer summarizes the concept in a reference to Jeremiah 18:1-12 by stating that God’s “sovereignty is not exercised arbitrarily, but responsibly and responsively, interacting with the moral, or immoral, actions of human beings.”[44] To be clear, God’s sovereign relationality does not undermine omniscience because foreknowledge does not require predestination.[45] Furthermore, God’s sovereign relationality does not undermine love because God remains responsive to His creation.[46] God deploys His sovereign relationality to extend mercy and compassion not only to pursue the reclamation of Nineveh, but eventually to reclaim all the disinherited nations through Christ Jesus.

Theological Reflection

The first timeless theological principle is that God is ethically free. God has the freedom to judge evil, rebellious people and forgive them when they repent. However, God also has complete freedom to not judge evil, rebellious people and forgive them when they repent. Scripture appears to clearly communicate that when God creates a unilateral covenant, He does not change His mind. However, even this voluntary limitation of freedom is founded in God’s ethical freedom to limit Himself. Jonah desired to limit God’s freedom by manipulating and controlling God. However, when the Ninevites turned from their evil ways in response to a short, five-word sermon from a rebellious prophet, God, in His freedom, changed His mind and relented. The reason that God requires ethical freedom is that He must have the capability to modify His response in order to extend His essence of love. For example, God allowed Jonah to experience the pain, suffering, and judgment of being eaten by a fish because God loved Jonah; God desired that Jonah would learn to love his enemies. Accordingly, in love, God extended Jonah a second chance. Alternatively, God withheld judgment from the Ninevites because God loved the people of Assyria. In short, God’s extension and withholding of judgment changes, but God’s love does not.

The second timeless theological principle is that God is conciliatory; He desires all nations to be reconciled to Him. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 explains that Yahweh disinherited the nations at Babel (Gen 11:1-9) and placed the nations under the authority of Yahweh’s divine council, the sons of God.[47] The kingdom of Assyria and, more specifically, the city of Nineveh is listed in the table of nations in Genesis 10:11-12. Yahweh decided to begin anew with Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel chosen by God to reclaim the disinherited nations. God promised Abraham that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through him (Gen 12:1-3). The entire Old Testament revolves around God’s plan to reclaim the disinherited nations through Israel, the genealogical line of Abraham. The book of Jonah is a clear example of God’s desire for all nations, including the people of Nineveh, to be reconciled to Him. Unfortunately, Nineveh did not turn from their gods, and Nahum records that judgement was on the horizon. The Assyrians would have to wait for the ultimate reclamation event in Christ, where the disciples in Acts 2 are commissioned to carry on God’s initiative to reconcile all the nations to Himself.

The third timeless theological principle is that one of God’s primary attributes is compassion. Paradoxically, it is God’s changeable attributes, because of God’s ethical freedom, that keep God’s unchangeable attributes, such as compassion, in the spotlight. God’s compassion shines on Israelites and non-Israelites alike, to the consternation of Jonah. God’s compassion even moves beyond humans and extends to all of creation including animals and plants. The breadth of God’s compassion toward humans is shown in the intertextual connections between Jonah 3:10 and Exodus 32:14. In Jonah, God relents regarding the impending doom about to face the non-Israelites, and in Exodus, Yahweh relents regarding the impending doom about to face the Israelites. The breadth of God’s compassion toward the rest of creation is also evident throughout the Old Testament. Joel 2:22 records Yahweh compassionately assuring the wild animals not to be afraid for there would be plenty of food. It is difficult to miss the same relational compassion for all creation in Jonah represented by the fish and the plant. Although not comprehensive, three theological principles pervade the book of Jonah: God is ethically free, an attribute that propels His love; God is conciliatory, an attribute that reconciles all the nations to Himself; God is compassionate, an attribute that extends to all creation.

Contemporary Application

The three theological principles can be applied and practiced in a contemporary setting. First, the principle that God is ethically free can be applied directly to everyday life. An ethically free God means that He is in control. One cannot control God because He is free, yet individuals are still responsible for their thoughts, emotions, and actions. Unfortunately, the worldview of much of contemporary society reacts against the application of the principle. Many Christians believe that if they pray enough, attend church enough, or behave well enough, they can manipulate God and appropriate blessings. Furthermore, much of society has been convinced by modern psychology that people are pre-conditioned by external forces, which undermine personal responsibility. Alternatively, relinquishing ultimate control to an ethically free God and taking responsibility for each choice is the only path to experience the love of God.

Second, God is conciliatory and desires to reconcile all nations to Himself. Matthew 28:19-20 clearly exhorts believers to join God in the reclamation of the nations. Whether it is the pagan across the street or the pagan living in a land far away, every believer is called to take the message of the gospel to all the nations.

Third, God is compassionate, an attribute that extends to all creation. America may be more divided now than at any other time since the Civil War. Now, more than ever, Christendom needs to extend a heavy dose of God’s compassion to all creation: Republican and Democrat, left and right, gay and straight, black and white, believers and nonbelievers, rich and poor, and moral and immoral. If God can extend compassion to one of the evilest kingdoms in history, surely, we can extend an olive branch to individuals who do not agree with our political or religious views. Finally, and more poignantly, if the Creator of the universe can extend compassion to such a flawed man as me, I ought to be able to extend compassion to the rest of God’s creation.

___________________________________

[1] The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Nashville: Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Translator’s Note 4.

[2] W. Dennis Tucker, Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, rev. and expanded ed. (Waco: Baylor University, 2018), 65. According to Tucker, it is alternatively possible that אֶל possesses a dative of disadvantage mirroring Jonah 1:2 (cf. Num 32:14), but not when אֶל is paired with קָרָא.

[3] F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2012), 949.

[4] Kevin J. Youngblood, Jonah: God’s Scandalous Mercy, ed. Daniel I. Block, 2nd ed., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 125.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Billy K. Smith and Franklin S. Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, vol. 19B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 256–57.

[7] See Tucker, Jonah, 68. Tucker asserts that a literal translation is counterproductive to the plot. See a similar argument by Daniel C. Timmer, A Gracious and Compassionate God: Mission, Salvation and Spirituality in the Book of Jonah, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 26, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011), 95.

[8] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015), 115. Note that the construction לאלהים with the preposition occurs 79 times in the Old Testament. It contextually refers to a god or gods 18 times and exists in the plural 17 times. Although similar idioms exist, no other time in the Old Testament is the construction contextually rendered as a superlative.

[9] Youngblood, Jonah, 144.

[10] Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976), 221.

[11] D. J. Wiseman., “Jonah’s Nineveh,” Journal of Biblical Literature 30 (1979): 38.

[12] Charles Halton, “How Big Was Nineveh?: Literal Versus Figurative Interpretation of City Size,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18, no. 2 (2008): 194, 206.

[13] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, vol 31 of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1987), 487.

[14] Youngblood, Jonah, 133–34.

[15] R. W. L. Moberly, “Preaching for a Response?: Jonah’s Message to the Ninevites Reconsidered,” Vetus Testamentum 53, no. 2 (2003): 159.

[16] Phyllis Trible, “The Book of Jonah,” in New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 7:512.

[17] See Robert B. Chisolm, From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 67.

[18] Allen, The Books of Joel, 222.

[19] Daniel C. Timmer, A Gracious and Compassionate God: Mission, Salvation and Spirituality in the Book of Jonah, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 26, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011), 97. See also Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew, 245–46.

[20] Smith and Page, Amos, 260.

[21] Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah, ed. Gene M. Tucker, Old Testament Series (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), 181.

[22] Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 198–99. See parallel constructions using the preposition to mark the object of verbs of trust in Psalm 78:22 and Exodus 19:9. 

[23] Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 497.

[24] See Gary E. Yates, “The Problem of Repentance and Relapse as a Unifying Theme in the Book of the Twelve,” Themelios 41, no. 2 (2016): 259.

[25] Paul Lawrence, “Assyrian Nobles and the Book of Jonah,” Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986): 130–31.

[26] Jay Lemanski, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” Concordia Journal 18, no. 1 (January 1992): 46.

[27] Timmer, A Gracious and Compassionate, 109–10.

[28] Paul Ferguson, “Who Was the ‘King of Nineveh’ in Jonah 3:6,” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (November 1996): 313.

[29] Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 486.

[30] Tucker, Jonah, 74. See also Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew, 68, 974.

[31] Ayelet Seidler, “Fasting, ‘Sackcloth,’ and ‘Ashes’: From Nineveh to Shushan,” Vetus Testamentum 69, no. 1 (2019): 134.

[32] Youngblood, Jonah, 137.

[33] Lawrence, “Assyrian Nobles,” 131.

[34] Youngblood, Jonah, 138.

[35] Hendrik Viviers, “The Psychology of Animal Companionship: Some Ancient and Modern Views,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70, no. 1 (2014): 2.

[36] Timmer, A Gracious and Compassionate, 105.

[37] Trible, Rhetorical Criticism, 185.

[38] Youngblood, Jonah, 139.

[39] Lemanski, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” 47.

[40] See Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew, 948-50 and 996-1000.

[41] David A. Croteau and Gary E. Yates, Urban Legends of the Old Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), 237.

[42] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew, 636–37.

[43] Robert B. Chisolm, “Does God ‘Change His Mind,’” Bibliotheca Sacra 152, no. 608 (October 1995): 399.

[44] Timmer, A Gracious and Compassionate, 112.

[45] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 65.

[46] See Smith and Page, Amos, 269 for further treatment.

[47] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 112–14. For a discussion of the Hebrew text and manuscript support for “sons of God,” see Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January-March 2001): 52–74.

Bibliography

• Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976.
• Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2012.
• Chisolm, Robert B. “Does God ‘Change His Mind.’” Bibliotheca Sacra 152, no. 608 (October 1995): 389–99.
• ________. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
• Croteau, David A., and Gary E. Yates. Urban Legends of the Old Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019.
• Ferguson, Paul. “Who Was the ‘King of Nineveh’ in Jonah 3:6.” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (November 1996): 304–14.
• Halton, Charles. “How Big Was Nineveh?: Literal Versus Figurative Interpretation of City Size.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18, no. 2 (2008): 193–207.
• Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January-March 2001): 52–74.
• ________. The Unseen Realm. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015.
• Lawrence, Paul. “Assyrian Nobles and the Book of Jonah.” Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986): 121–32.
• Lemanski, Jay. “Jonah’s Nineveh.” Concordia Journal 18, no. 1 (January 1992): 40–49.
• Moberly, R. W. L. “Preaching for a Response?: Jonah’s Message to the Ninevites Reconsidered.” Vetus Testamentum 53, no. 2 (2003): 156–68.
• Seidler, Ayelet. “Fasting, ‘Sackcloth,’ and ‘Ashes’: From Nineveh to Shushan.” Vetus Testamentum 69, no. 1 (2019): 117–34.
• Smith, Billy K., and Franklin S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 19B in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.
• Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Vol. 31 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1987.
• Timmer, Daniel C. A Gracious and Compassionate God: Mission, Salvation and Spirituality in the Book of Jonah. Vol. 26 of New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011.
• Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Old Testament Series. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994.
• ———. “The Book of Jonah.” In New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 7, 461–529. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
• Tucker, W. Dennis. Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Rev. and Expanded ed. Waco: Baylor University, 2018.
• Viviers, Hendrik. “The Psychology of Animal Companionship: Some Ancient and Modern Views.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70, no. 1 (2014): 1–8.
• Waltke, Bruce, and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
• Wiseman, D. J. “Jonah’s Nineveh.” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979): 29–51.
• Yates, Gary E. “The Problem of Repentance and Relapse as a Unifying Theme in the Book of the Twelve.” Themelios 41, no. 2 (2016): 248–62.
• Youngblood, Kevin J. Jonah: God’s Scandalous Mercy. Edited by Daniel I. Block. 2nd ed. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.