JOPPA IN THE BIBLE

I am indebted to my friend Dave Moore for starting me on my investigation of this interesting city through a recent “Moore Engaging” podcast.

Sometimes the geography involved in a Bible passage tells us a lot about what is happening. Take the seaport town of Joppa for example. “Called Japho (Jos. xix.46), the Heb. word is yapo..., the Arab. yafa (whence our 'Jaffa”). It was not in Israelite hands in the early centuries of the history of Israel, but it certainly served as the seaport for Jerusalem 35 miles away.” (D. Payne)

Pfeiffer adds, “Joppa was an old city with a history dating to the Egyptian conqueror Thutmos III (fifteenth century B.C.)...There are few harbors along the Palestinian coast of the Mediterranean, with the result that Israel made little use of the sea. Joppa (modern Jaffa) served as a port during Old Testament times, and Caesarea became the main Palestinian port under Roman rule.”

The name Joppa appears thirteen times in the Scriptures, ten in the New Testament. And as we shall see below, they all witness to the way Joppa functioned as a sort of borderland between Jews and Gentiles where there were interactions, political and spiritual, in both directions. Thus, Phillip Cary states that “we must imagine a city claimed by Israel but inhabited by Gentiles, important for what little contact Israel has with the sea, busy with commerce and occupied by many peoples, languages, and gods.”

Joshua 19:46

This verse is part of a long listing of towns which were designated as the territory of the twelve tribes after they entered the Promised Land. Joppa was assigned to the tribe of Dan, but they could not drive out the people there and ended up settling north of that area instead.

Ezra 3:7 // II Chronicles 2:16

We learn from these parallel passages the involvement of Hiram with both David and Solomon. Wiseman says, “Hiram [was] the king of Tyre, contemporary with David and Solomon; reigned 979/8-945/4 BC...Hiram was a great admirer of David (1 Ki. v.1) and sent materials [by way of the seaport of Joppa] and craftsmen to aid the building of his palace at Jerusalem (2 Sa. v.11; 1 Ch. xiv.1). On Solomon's accession Hiram sent ambassadors to make fresh contracts which led to a trade-treaty whereby he supplied wood from Lebanon and skilled craftsmen for the construction of the new Temple at Jerusalem...”

So we have the unusual picture of two kings of Israel relying on the help of a friendly pagan ruler in order to build the very center of Jewish worship, the temple in Jerusalem. But we will see that the people of God eventually reciprocated that favor by bringing God's message to pagan lands in turn.

Jonah 1:3

Things begin to get really interesting when we get to the book of that reluctant prophet, Jonah. As most of you probably know, he was told to go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach the message of imminent destruction on them unless they repented. But Jonah decides to travel in the opposite direction instead, taking a boat from Joppa.

Allen explains: “The Hebrews were landsmen with little experience of the sea. That Jonah was prepared to entrust himself to an ocean-going boat rather than face up to God's call must have struck the hearers as proof positive of his mad determination.”

And Stuart perceptively adds, “Jonah chose a port where the people he might meet, and the ships he could hire, were not likely to be Israelite. Once in Joppa he was already partly 'away from Yahweh' as he apparently conceived it.”

At this point, it is probably necessary to bring up the question of the literary structure of verse 3 since there is a lot of controversy concerning that point.

To begin with, there is the negative comment of Stuart, who gives his opinion that the order of the words here, “contrary to several recent attempts to see significance in the (accidentally) chiastic structure of the verse, is not really important. The repetition of the motive of Jonah is. He does not want to preach against Nineveh to give them any chance of repentance, and he thinks he has a chance to avoid a restatement of the divine call by fleeing.”

As to what Stuart means by a “chiastic structure,” Figure 1 below illustrates that proposed by Allen:

                                     Figure 1: Allen's Structure for Jonah 1:3

  Jonah rose to run away to Tarshish from Yahweh's presence

     and he went down to Joppa

          and he found a ship

            going to Tarshish

        and he paid its fare

    and he went down into it

  to go with them to Tarshish from Yahweh's presence

As an aside, from a Jewish viewpoint, any movement away from Jerusalem was indicated as “going down.” Thus, Jonah goes down in two parallel movements, as seen above.

While Figure 1 looks very persuasive, another scholar casts this verse in two different parallel scenes instead.

                                       Figure 2: Sasson's Structure for Jonah 1:3

                Intent: he sought to escape

                                Activity: he went down to Joppa

                                        Goal: he found a ship

                Intent: he paid its fare

                                Activity: he boarded the ship

                                        Goal: to accompany them

My personal opinion is that (1) Allen is much closer to the intended reading of this verse than Sasson and (2) Stuart is incorrect in calling the verse order accidental. My reason for the former is that Sasson's breakdown is highly flawed since (a) it ignores the obvious repetition in the last clause of the first clause in the verse, (b) fails to take into account the repetition of the key word “down,” and utilizes a totally arbitrary division of the verse into intent, activity, and goal. After all, almost all of the elements in this verse could be described as an activity. As to Stuart's denial of a chiastic structure in this verse, it should be pointed out that (a) chiastic structures appear throughout this short book and (b) that opinion ignores the obvious verbal repetitions in 1:3.

Scholars point out that Jonah's very presence in Joppa, a pagan city, already symbolizes his desire to escape from God's domain. Stuart states, “As far as can be ascertained from historical records, Jaffa always remained outside Hebrew control...The narrator of Jonah, therefore, must have chosen it knowing well its status, very likely intending to have the prophet seek escape from God's control even before boarding the Tarshish-bound ship.” One need not ascribe to Stuart's rather liberal bias against the historical nature of the book of Jonah in order to agree with his conclusion.

Acts 9:36-43 and Acts 10:11

We need to go to the New Testament for the final mentions of the city of Joppa. And since these episodes are somewhat related, it is helpful first to consider another chiastic literary structure:

                                                      Figure 3: Structure of Acts

        A. Peter and miracles (9:32-43)

                        B. Angel's appearance to Cornelius (10:1-8)

                                        C. Peter's vision (10:9-16)

                                                        D. Peter is brought to Cornelius (10:17-26)

                                        C'. Peter describes his vision (10:27-29)

                        B'. Cornelius describes the angel's visit (10:30-33)

        A'. Peter and miracles (10:34-48)

The bringing of Dorcas back to life by Peter in 9:36-43 (Unit A) is paralleled by rebirth of Cornelius and other Gentiles through Peter's initiative (Unit A'). And both events involved Joppa.

Conclusion

But the truly interesting comparison is between Jonah's and Peter's activities centered around this city.

In many ways, as Dave Moore points out, Jonah is the exact opposite of Peter. But in some other matters, there is a parallel relationship between the two. Just consider the following pairings, listed in no particular order:

As Wiseman says, “Just as Peter was psychologically prepared for expanding the scope of the Gospel by staying with a tanner (9:43), Jonah began his flight from God by traveling with some pagan sailors.” To explain that statement, it is necessary to know that tanners were considered ritually unclean by Jews due to their close association with dead animals.

Peter argues with God three times on the roof of the tanner's house before he finally gets the point whereas Jonah's actions speak loudly for him as he purposely disobeys God after the first call and only obeys the second command after having been swallowed by a large fish and living in its stomach for three days.

Eventually both of them speak to the Gentiles, Jonah reluctantly and Peter willingly, and receive a favorable response to their words.

Seaport towns, Joppa and Caesarea, are the scenes of these stories

Just as the Acts story ends with the believers being immersed in water, Jonah also symbolically died when he descended into the water, but all were raised up again.

The Holy Spirit tells Peter in Acts 10:20, “Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation. God tells Jonah in 1:1, “Go at once to Nineveh” but he goes down to Joppa instead and goes with the sailors.

Both stories feature animals associated with Gentiles (Acts 10:12; Jonah 3:8). While the Acts narrative begins with the animals, the book of Jonah ends with them.

Preaching to the Gentiles in both stories is effective in bringing them into a right relationship with God.

Jonah says he worships Yahweh but doesn't show it by his actions. Cornelius tries in vain and appropriately to worship Peter instead of God.

The believers who accompanied were pleasantly surprised that the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles (10:45), but Jonah becomes angry when the Ninevites turn to God (4:1).

Lastly, Cary's words on the subject are worth quoting in conclusion: “We could think of it [i.e. Joppa] as the place on the borders of the Holy Land where the mercy of the Lord Jesus begins to overflow beyond Israel, pouring out to the whole world. In doing so it follows in Jonah's footsteps...Of course Jonah has no intention of preaching good news to the Gentiles when he goes to Joppa, heading for Tarshish. But neither did Peter when he went to Joppa...The prophet is precursor to the apostle precisely in the intensely ironic relation between his intentions and God's sending.”