QUESTIONS IN NAHUM AND JONAH

NAHUM

Rhetorical questions play an important role in the overall structure of both these minor prophets. The Book of Nahum contains 6-10 questions depending on how translators read the sometimes difficult Hebrew text. Most of these are satirical and mocking, such as:

    “What became of the lions den?” (2:11)

    “Who will we get to mourn for you, Nineveh?” (3:7)

    “Are you any better than Thebes?” (3:8)

    “Are your shepherds asleep?” (3:18)

But the first and last rhetorical questions are in deadly earnest and form a matched pair:

    “Who can stand before his [God's] indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger?” (1:6)

    “Who has ever escaped your [Nineveh's] endless cruelty?” (3:19)

Thus, the first two related rhetorical questions assert the impossibility of anyone escaping from the righteous judgment of God while the last question shows that this wrath directed against Nineveh is in exact retribution for the inescapable cruelty she demonstrated towards other nations.

JONAH

The rhetorical role of questions in the final major section of Jonah is even more obvious. This book can be outlined as a two-part composition with chapters 1-2 paralleled by 3-4. The last unit is structured as follows:

The Structure of Jonah 4

1. Jonah's Attitude: Anger (4:1)

2. Jonah's rhetorical question to the LORD (4:2)

3. Dialogue (4:3-5a)

a. Jonah asks to die (4:3)

                                                    b. LORD's question: “Do you do well to be angry?” (4:4)

                                                        c. Jonah's reply: He leaves the city (4:5a)

4. Jonah in the shade (4:5b)

5. LORD grows the plant (4:6a)

6. Jonah's Attitude: Gladness (4:6b)

5'. LORD withers the plant (4:7)

4'. Jonah in the sun (4:8a)

3'. Dialogue (4:8b-9b)

a. Jonah asks to die (4:8b)

                                                    b. LORD's question: “Do you do well to be angry?” (4:9a)

                                                        c. Jonah's reply: “Yes” (4:9b)

2'. LORD's rhetorical question to Jonah (4:10-11)

1'. Jonah's Attitude: ?

One small but confirming point regarding this structure is that it explains why the suspected dislocation of verse 4:5a is in its present position. More importantly, the literary pattern reinforces the emphasis of this section on Jonah's attitude and invites the readers to fill in their own ending. The form of the rhetorical question that closes the book leaves no doubt that the correct answer to the LORD's question is “no.” His love and mercy extend to all of his creation, not just the Jewish nation. This message is more subtly stated by the progression of divine names accompanying the four occurrences of the verb “ordain/appoint,” three appearing in the last section of the book. In order, they are: Yahweh, Yahweh-elohim, ha elohim, and elohim – “a move from the most to the least personal of God's names.” (Sasson) The movement is thus one that starts with Jonah's (and Israel's) personal deity and ends with a universal God over all mankind.

By purposely stopping the book before we hear Jonah's answer to God, the author causes us to dwell on the message longer than we would have otherwise and to ponder how the fickle “hero” will respond this time.

JONAH AND PARABLES

The parable is a literary genre with close similarities to the book of Jonah. Three major characteristics of the parabolic story according to Hunter are that they (a) use popular story-telling techniques such as the rule of contrast, the rule of three, and the rule of end stress; (b) “confront men with the clear and inescapable will and purpose of God,” especially “the wideness of God's mercy;” and (c) are “meant to evoke a response and to strike a verdict.” It does not take a detailed belaboring of these three points in relation to the literary devices shown above to recognize that this description of Jesus' parables applies point by point to the book of Jonah. The whole book, in fact, has a striking parallel in Jesus' Parable of the Ungrateful Servant right down to the final rhetorical question in each:

    “You pity the plant...and should not I             “I forgave you all that debt...and should

    pity Nineveh, that great city..?”                      not you have had mercy on your fellow

    (Jonah 4:10-11)                                              servant...?” (Matthew 18:32-33)

Just as telling is the similarity between Jonah and the Story of the Prodigal Son recorded in Luke 15:11-32, which has the same theme as the present book, also comprises two parallel sub-sections and ends on an expectant note emphasized by a purposeful void in the last unit of its literary structure (see below). Ryken even labels Jonah “the archetypical refuser of feasts,” which should certainly remind us of the older brother's attitude. Phillip Cary draws the same comparison between these two stories in the epilogue of his fine commentary. In addition, John Dominic Crossan classifies the Book of Jonah and that parable together as “challenge parables” that, in Snodgrass' words, cause us “to think, to discuss, to argue, and to decide about meaning and present application.”

Is there a hint imbedded in the literary structure to indicate how Jonah will react? Possibly so.

In each of the first three sections, a major reversal of a situation occurs: in Section A the sailors are converted; Section B is bracketed by Jonah entering and exiting the fish; and in Section C Nineveh is converted. There is no such movement in the last section, but one is led to expect that Jonah will also experience a major attitude adjustment.

Even more telling is a study of the conclusions to each of the four chapters of the book. Section A ends with the Gentiles offering sacrifices to the LORD while B concludes with Jonah vowing to offer such sacrifices. Since Section C ends with “repentance” on the part of both Nineveh and the LORD, the inescapable logic of the literary structure demands that Section D should conclude with Jonah making at least a profession of repentance. Whether this repentance will be sincere and lasting remains an open question. And ultimately, as Jacques Ellul aptly puts it, “the final question of the book has no answer, except from the one who realizes the fulness of the mercy of God and who factually and not just mythically accomplishes the salvation of the world.”

The Structure of Luke 15:12-32

I. The Prodigal Son (15:12-22)

    A. Father gives the son his inheritance (v. 12)

        B. Son leaves home and squanders his money (vv. 13-16)

            C. He shares his thoughts about his situation (vv. 17-19)

        B'. Son returns home repentant (v. 20a)

    A'. Father reassures him regarding his place in the family (vv. 20b-22)

Conclusion (vv. 23-24)

-------------------

II. The Righteous Son (15:25-32)

    A. Son hears about the feast when coming home (vv. 25-27)

        B. Son becomes angry and refuses to go in (v. 28)

            C. He shares his thoughts about his situation (vv. 29-30)

        (B'. He repents and goes to the feast)

    A'. Father reassures him regarding his place in the family (v. 31)

Conclusion (v. 32)

The missing element leaves the story open-ended. The same point is made in the concluding words of each half of the parable:

Prodigal Son: Conclusion (vv. 23-24)

        1. “let us eat and celebrate” (v. 23)

            2. “my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (v. 24a)

                3. “and they began to celebrate” (v. 24b)

Righteous Son: Conclusion (v. 32)

        1. “we had to celebrate and rejoice” (v. 32a)

             2. “your brother was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (v. 32b)

    (3. “and they all began to celebrate”)

The literary form is designed to draw the readers into the story, get them to examine their own attitudes, and call them to appropriate action. The question remaining is: What would your response have been?