Instructions on Prayer, 1-12

11:1 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”

“…just as John taught his disciples” – It was usual for a Rabbi to teach his disciples a simple prayer that they could use regularly.  John had done so with his followers, and now Jesus’ disciples ask him to do the same.

Charles Simeon remarks on the common neglect of prayer among Christians:

‘Scarcely any thing can more strongly mark our defection from God, than our inability to pray. It might well be supposed, that, considering how many sins we have to be forgiven, how many wants to be supplied, and how many blessings to be acknowledged, that we should never be at a loss for matter in our addresses at the throne of grace, or for a suitable frame in drawing nigh to God. But the truth is, that there is no duty more difficult than that of prayer: for as, on the one hand, “we know not what to pray for as we ought;” so neither, on the other hand, are we able to plead with God as we ought, unless “the Holy Spirit help our infirmities, and assist us in relation to every part of this duty (Rom 8:26).” The Apostles themselves felt their need of instruction upon this head, and received from their Divine Master a form of prayer fitted for the use of the Church in all ages.’

11:2 So he said to them, “When you pray, say:
Father, may your name be honored;
may your kingdom come.
11:3 Give us each day our daily bread,
11:4 and forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And do not lead us into temptation.”
Lk 11:2–4 = Mt 6:9–13

“Hallowed by your name” – Garland discusses whether the sense here is that God would hallow his own name, or that we would hallow it.  The first is supported by texts such as Ez 36:22f and Jn 13:31.  Others, however speak of humans glorifying God’s name (e.g. Psa 34:3).  Gerhardsson explains that

‘the third person passive imperative is a reverential circumlocution that forestalls the impression that humans can dictate to God. But, more significantly, he concludes that had the requests regarding God’s name, reign, and will (in Matthew’s version) been expressed with active imperatives, it might have appeared “that God alone is to act.” The circumlocutions make it easier to draw a connection between God’s action and human reaction: “God’s mighty works in sanctifying his name, establishing his reign, and realizing his final redemptive purpose demand a suitable human response.”’

In making this petition, ‘we declare our hearty desire that God’s character, and attributes, and perfection, may be more known, and honored, and glorified by all His intelligent creatures.’ (Ryle)

“Give us each day our daily bread” – There is some uncertainty about the meaning of this petition.

Marshall comments that it:

‘may be a petition not just for ordinary food but also for the bread of life, the gift of God without which we cannot live. Daily (Gk. epiousios) is a word of uncertain meaning: ‘for tomorrow’ or ‘necessary’ are possible renderings. The former brings out the way in which the prayer asks for a foretaste of the blessings of the kingdom now.’

For the contributor to EDBT, this has eschatological connotations:

Epiousion is best translated “what is sufficient”- “Give us food sufficient for the day,”remembering that the setting of the Gospel of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord’s Prayer (in Luke as well) is one of eschatological urgency and preparation for mission in the new exodus inaugurated by Jesus, and of traveling light; it is not a general prayer for common grace. There was no ordinariness for Israel in the wilderness, nor is there for God’s people in the new mission. As with Israel, Jesus’ disciples are to acknowledge the honor of being called to represent God’s image in the world, to conquer enemy-held territory in his name, and to exhibit faith in the Lord that he will provide daily sustenance for their extraordinary eschatological journey.’

A political prayer

Belham points out that when Hugh Latimer and the other reformers preached on ‘daily bread’, they said, ‘When you pray for daily bread, pray first for the government’. This is sound teaching, ‘for upon our government, their policies, and God’s good hand upon them, will depend whether we have wealth or poverty, enough or too little bread.’ So,

(a) Pray for protection from subjection, for subject people are often hungry people.

(b) Pray for justice in our land, for if our goods are constantly being stolen or if we are defrauded then we shall soon become anxious about our daily bread.

(c) Pray for the fair distribution of wealth within our society, for a society in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is a society with increasing resentment and lawlessness.

(d) Pray for those voluntary organisations who seek to alert governments to the plight of the needy and who bring help to those whose basic needs are not being met.

See also Mt 6:11n

11:5 Then he said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 11:6 because a friend of mine has stopped here while on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him.’ 11:7 Then he will reply from inside, ‘Do not bother me. The door is already shut, and my children and I are in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything.’ 11:8 I tell you, even though the man inside will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of the first man’s sheer persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs.

‘Travellers often journeyed late in the evening to avoid the heat of the midday sun. In Jesus’ story just such a traveller had arrived towards midnight at this friend’s house. In the east hospitality is a sacred duty; it was not enough to set before a man a bare sufficiency; the guest had to be confronted with an ample abundance. In the villages bread was baked at home. Only enough for the day’s needs was baked because, if it was kept and became stale, no one would wish to eat it.’ (DSB)

‘The poorer Palestinian house consisted of one room with only one little window. The floor was simply of beaten earth covered with dried reeds and rushes. The room was divided into two parts, not by a partition but by a low platform. Two-thirds of it were on ground level. The other third was slightly raised. On the raised part the charcoal stove burned all night, and round it the whole family slept, not on raised beds but on sleeping mats. Families were large and they slept close together for warmth. For one to rise was inevitably to disturb the whole family. Further, in the villages it was the custom to bring the livestock, the hens and the cocks and the goats, into the house at night. Is there any wonder that the man who was in bed did not want to rise?’ (DSB)

11:9 “So I tell you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 11:10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Lk 11:9–13 = Mt 7:7–11

“Ask, and it will be given to you” – See Mt 7:7; 21:22; Jn 15:7; Jas 1:5; Jn 3:22.

As with the teaching of Jesus on prayer in Lk 18, the point of the parable is not so much one of similarity, but of contrast. It is as if Jesus is saying, ‘If such a man, under such circumstances will drag himself out of bed and fetch his friend what he needs, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those he loves.’ See, esp. v13.

11:11 What father among you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead of a fish? 11:12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 11:13 If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Green describes v13 as ‘a promise that carries Luke’s audience forward into his second volume.’

“Give the Holy Spirit” – See Mt 7:11; Jn 4:10; 7:37-39.

Noting the absence of the definite article (although many English translations supply it), F.F. Bruce (Answers to Questions, p53) suggests that what is in view here is not the Holy Spirit in person, but his gifts.  This would be supported by the parallel in Mt 7:11, “good things”:

‘The good things are the gifts of the Spirit, and the command to ask for them applies today as much as when the words were spoken (cf. 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1; James 1:5f).’

However,

‘there seems no reason for understanding this in terms of the “charismatic” gifts. The reference is rather to the Spirit’s work in the Christian’s life generally, as in Rom 8′ (Morris).

Marshall (NBC) concurs, saying,

‘Jesus is speaking in broad terms of the spiritual blessings which the Father gives his children; he is not saying that people who ask, say, for specific charismatic gifts will necessarily receive them.’

Comparing this verse with Mt 7:11, Geldenhuys says:

‘In this Luke and Matthew by no means contradict each other, for the Holy Ghost is the good Gift par excellence – the Gift which is indispensable and which brings about all true life and true happiness to the believer and is the Source of all good things.’

The fullness of the Holy Spirit is both a free gift, 1 Thess 4:8, and a solemn responsibility. There are certain attitudes which open the way to the blessing of the Spirit. We are to ask, Lk 11:13, to thirst and drink, Jn 7:37, to repent, Acts 2:38, to obey, Acts 5:32, to have faith, Jn 7:39; Gal 3:1-5,14. On the other hand, certain negative attitudes can oppose the work of the Spirit. He can be lied to, Acts 5:3, resisted, Acts 7:51, grieved, Eph 4:30, and quenched, 1 Thess 5:19.

Thomas Watson, on going cheerfully to the throne of grace:

‘If God be our Father, we may go with cheerfulness to the throne of grace. Were a man to petition his enemy, there were little hope; but when a child petitions his father, he may hope with confidence to succeed. The word ‘Father’ works upon God; it toucheth his very bowels. What can a father deny his child? ‘If his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?’ Mt 7:9. This may embolden us to go to God for pardon of sin, and further degrees of sanctity. We pray to a Father of mercy sitting upon a throne of grace. ‘If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’ Lk 11:13. This quickens the church, and adds wing to prayer. ‘Look down from heaven.’ Isa 63:15. ‘Doubtless thou art our Father’; ver 16. For whom does God keep his mercies but for his children? Three things may give boldness in prayer. We have a Father to pray to, and the Spirit to help us to pray, and an Advocate to present our prayers…Surely God, who hears the cry of ravens, will hear the cry of his children!’

Jesus and Beelzebul, 14-23

11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the man who had been mute began to speak, and the crowds were amazed. 11:15 But some of them said, “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, he casts out demons.” 11:16 Others, to test him, began asking for a sign from heaven.
Lk 11:14,15,17–22,24–26 = Mt 12:22,24–29,43–45

‘Beelzebul, ‘Lord of flies’, was originally the name of a Canaanite God (2 Kings 1:2). By Jesus’ time it had come to be used, in the form Beelzebub, as a name for the chief of demons, or Satan.’ (NBC)

11:17 But Jesus, realizing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and a divided household falls. 11:18 So if Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? I ask you this because you claim that I cast out demons by Beelzebul.

Lk 11:17–22 = Mk 3:23–27

When the Evangelist says that Jesus knew their thoughts, ‘he may be ascribing supernatural knowledge to the Lord or he may mean that Jesus had the normal human capacity for penetrating to some extent into what others have in mind (people sometimes say, “I know what you’re thinking!”).’ (Morris on Matthew, Pillar)

The first part of Jesus’ response is to say what a silly idea this is: a general does not attack his own troops! (NBC)

11:19 Now if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 11:20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.

Not surprisingly, Christ did not permit demons to witness to him, partly because he did not wish to give any credence to the notion that he ever co-operated with them in any way, Mt 12:27; Lk 11:19.

According to N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God), the exorcisms of Jesus (Mk. 1:23–7/Lk. 4:33–5; Mt. 4:24/Mk. 1:39; Mt. 8:28–33/Mk. 5:1–14/Lk. 8:26–34; Mt. 9:32–4; Lk. 8:1–3; Lk. 11:14–15; Mt. 12:22–32/Mk. 3:20–30/Lk. 11:14–23, cf. Mt. 10:25; Mt. 15:21–8/Mk. 7:24–30; Mt. 17:14–18/Mk. 9:14–27/Lk. 9:37–43; Lk. 13:10–17 (cf. v. 16):

‘signalled something far deeper that was going on, namely, the real battle of the ministry, which was not a round of fierce debates with the keepers of orthodoxy, but head-on war with the satan…The exorcisms are especially interesting, in that they formed a part neither of the regular Old Testament predictions, nor of first-century Jewish expectations, concerning healing and deliverance associated with the coming of the kingdom; nor were they a major focus of the life and work of the early church. They therefore stand out, by the criterion of dissimilarity, as being part of a battle in which Jesus alone was engaged. He seems to have seen himself as fighting a battle with the real enemy, and to have regarded the exorcisms—or healings of those whose condition was attributed to the work of the satan—as a sign that he was winning the battle, though it had not yet reached its height. ‘If I by the finger of god cast out demons, then the kingdom of god has come upon you.’

Has the kingdom already 'come'?

Matthew 12:28 – “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.’

Luke 11:20 – “If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.”

This saying has featured prominently in scholarly discussion about the kingdom of God.  If ephthasen is correctly translated as ‘has come’, as most scholars think, then the kingdom was to be regarded, in at least some important senses, as present.  The miracles of Jesus, and especially his power over demons, speaks of the arrival of God’s kingdom, even if its consummation is yet future.

Mounce says that ‘it is best to take it to mean that the kingdom has arrived but not necessarily in its fullness.’

C.C. Caragouinis (DJG), however, observes that this (and its parallel) is the only text in the Gospels where the kingdom is said to have already come.  It is more usual for the kingdom to be said to be ‘at hand’ (e.g. Mt 3:2).  There is a well-attested usage of the aorist tense to emphasise the certainty of an event that had not yet occurred (something similar crops up in modern colloquial English).  If this applies here, then the sense is that the kingdom of God, already close, has been brought even closer by Jesus’ miracles.  The expression eph˒ hymas (‘upon you’) then takes on the force of a warning: the miracles of Jesus show that the forces of the kingdom of God are at this very moment beginning to be arrayed against those of the kingdom of Satan.

11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe. 11:22 But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder.

‘The “strong man” is Satan, and Jesus had bound him, probably at the time of his triumph over him in the temptation in the wilderness, Mt 4:1-11. During his earthly ministry, Jesus had entered the strong man’s “house” (the world of unbelievers who are under the bondage of Satan), and he was plundering his house, that is, freeing people from satanic bondage and bringing them into the joy of the kingdom of God. It was “by the Spirit of God” that Jesus did this; the new power of the Holy Spirit working to triumph over demons was evidence that in the ministry of Jesus “the kingdom of God has come upon you.”’ (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 418)

11:23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Cf. Mk 9:40 – ‘Whoever is not against us is for us.’

Finding contradictions where there are none

Matthew 12:30 – “Whoever is not with me is against me.” (Also Luke 11:23)

Mark 9:40 – “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

Bart Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted) asks:

‘Did [Jesus] say both things? Could he mean both things? How can both be true at once? Or is it possible that one of the Gospel writers got things switched around?’

Ehrman has failed to notice that these are not two versions of the same saying, but rather two distinct sayings uttered in different circumstances and for different purposes.  As Mounce comments:

‘The saying does not contradict Mark 9:40 (“For whoever is not against us is for us”), which was Jesus’ response to his disciples concerning a man casting out demons in Jesus’ name. In that case, it can be properly said that those who do mighty works in Jesus’ name are not able afterwards to speak evil against him (Mark 9:39). In the situation referred to in Matthew the religious opponents of Jesus are guilty of blasphemy (Mt 12:30–32).’

France notes that the two sayings are ‘superficially similar’.  He adds that

‘in Mark 9:40 the subject is an exorcist who honored Jesus by using his name, even though not a recognized disciple, but here it is his most bitter opponents, who have questioned his God-given authority. The two sayings are not incompatible (Luke includes both); it is their different contexts which demand the sharply different tone.’

According to Edwards,

‘one possible resolution rests on the difference between the plural pronoun in Mark (i.e., Jesus and the disciples) and the singular pronoun in Matthew and Luke (i.e., Jesus alone). Thus, whereas there can be no neutrality with regard to the person of Jesus, the disciples must be tolerant of those who differ from them.’

Jonathan McLatchie writes:

‘An examination of the contexts of these two texts (Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40), however, reveals that these refer to two completely different episodes. In Matthew, the preceding context is that Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan. This is paralleled in Mark 3:22-30, so Mark 9:40 cannot possibly be describing the same circumstance. In Mark 9:40, the context of the saying is that John the son of Zebedee has said to Jesus, Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us,” (Mark 9:38). Given that two statements appear in completely different episodes, it is not at all apparent that the two accounts contradict one another. Furthermore, the two statements (that “whoever is not with me is against me” and “whoever is not against us is for us”) are perfectly compatible. Where, then, is the problem?’

But perhaps the simplest way of looking at this is the observe that these two sayings both partake of the nature of proverbs.  And we should ask of any proverb, not so much, ‘Is it true?’ but, ‘When is it true?’

Take the following everyday examples:

(a) ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth.’
(b) ‘Many hands make light work.’

There are times when the first of these is true, and other times when the second applies.

Or consider the following:

(a) ‘You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.’
(b) ‘It’s never too late to learn.’

Again, we do not accept one and reject the other, but rather we apply them to different situations and circumstances.

It is just so with the two sayings of the Lord Jesus that we have been considering.

Response to Jesus’ Work, 24-28

11:24 “When an unclean spirit goes out of a person, it passes through waterless places looking for rest but not finding any. Then it says, ‘I will return to the home I left.’ 11:25 When it returns, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 11:26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there, so the last state of that person is worse than the first.”
11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd spoke out to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed!” 11:28 But he replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”

“Blessed rather…” – Stein explains that the Gk term translated ‘rather’ here is unclear in meaning.  It could mean, (a) ‘on the contrary’; (b) ‘indeed’; or (c) ‘Yes, but’.  Stein favours the third meaning.

Fitzmyer favours, ‘yes, but even more’.  If this is the correct reading,

‘This passage must be read in the light of Elizabeth’s declaration that Mary is blessed not simply because she has physically given birth to Jesus, but because she has believed.’ (Koperski, ‘Mary, Mother of Jesus’ in DJG, 2nd ed.)

‘Jesus admits that she was happy—that it was an honour to be his mother, but he says that the chief happiness, the highest honour, was to obey the word of God. Compared with this, all earthly distinctions and honours are as nothing. Man’s greatest dignity is in keeping the holy commandments of God, and in being prepared for heaven.’ (Barnes)

Aída Besançon Spencer (Discovering Biblical Equality) cites v27f in support of her view that ‘Jesus…does not treat women primarily as homemakers.’   She adds:

‘What Jesus states here explicitly, he models earlier in his actions. Thus when Mary sits as a pupil in rabbinic fashion before Jesus (Lk 10:38–42) while Martha follows the cultural mandate to serve as homemaker, Jesus declares that Mary is the one who has selected the good share—to sit at a rabbi’s feet in learning. She has made the right choice, and he will not allow anyone to take learning away from those who sit at his feet.’

Spencer’s logic seems rather strained.

The Sign of Jonah, 29-32

11:29 As the crowds were increasing, Jesus began to say, “This generation is a wicked generation; it looks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 11:30 For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation.  11:31 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon—and now, something greater than Solomon is here! 11:32 The people of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them—and now, something greater than Jonah is here!
Lk 11:29–32 = Mt 12:39–42

“This generation…looks for a sign” – Matthew 12:38 clarifies that Jesus was responding to the demand of some of the teachers of the law and Pharisees, who wanted to see a sign from him.  See 1 Cor 1:22.  Considering the miracles that have just been recorded, this was evidently an insincere request, designed to test Jesus.

“A wicked generation” – ‘It’s wicked to demand a sign because it implies that what God has already provided is not enough. And it’s wicked to demand a sign because you’re telling God what to do. You’re demanding that the Lord of all should act as your personal servant.’  (Chester, Tim. Do Miracles Happen Today? Page 39)

“The sign of the prophet Jonah” – Jonah himself was the sign, not simply the bringer of the sign.  This implies (Carson explains) that the Ninevites knew what had happened to Jonah and how he reached their city:

‘As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man will be buried three days and three nights in the earth. That is to say, Jesus’ preaching will be attested by a deliverance like Jonah’s, only greater; therefore, there will be greater condemnation for those who reject the significance of Jesus’ deliverance. Note that this explanation rightly assumes that Jesus knew long in advance about his death, burial, and resurrection, and saw his life moving toward that climax (see Mt 16:21).’

‘Christ himself deliberately staked his whole claim to the credit of men upon his resurrection. When asked for a sign he pointed to this sign as his single and sufficient credential.’ (Warfield)

Jonah: history or fiction?

Is the book of Jonah historical narrative or fictional narrative?  Are we really expected to believe that a man was swallowed by a large fish, survived for three days, and was then spewed out alive?

Does it matter?

For some, the historicity of Jonah is closely tied in to the doctrine of inspiration.  Allen quotes F.A. Maloney:

If the book of Jonah is history, it is part of the evidence for the most important truth imaginable, namely that the Almighty God seeks to bring men to repentance and will pardon those who truly repent.  But if the book is not historical, then it is only the opinion of some singularly broadminded Jew that God ought to pardon even Gentiles if they truly repent.

But this polarisation between ‘historical = the infallible word of God’ and ‘fictional = the fallible opinion of man’ is simplistic and misleading.  It is patently true that God can and does inspire fiction as well as historiography as the case of the parables demonstrates.

Stuart (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets) suggests that the book would effectively convey its message regardless of whether it was regarded as historical or fictional.  After all, the parables of Jesus convey their truths without asking the hears and readers to ask, ‘Did this really happen?’.  Nevertheless, says Stuart, the historicity of the story of Jonah does have implications: people’s response is heightened when a story is regarded as true in practice and not merely true in theory.

‘Study of Jonah has been skewed because discussion of it as a story has commonly focused on whether it is historical or fictional/parabolic. But God likes both history and parable, as the Gospels show, and Jonah is inspired and authoritative either way. Telling the difference is actually really hard.  I do think that the prominence of irony and humor and hyperbole suggests that the Jonah scroll is an imaginative short story. But fortunately it’s not important whether Jonah is history or parable. The insight, importance, truthfulness, and reliability of Jonah are the same either way.’

(John Goldingay)

The real questions have to do with genre of the book, and the internal and evidence pertaining to historical or fictional character.

Widder (Lexham Research Commentary) summarises the dilemma:

The main character is known from one of the historical books of the Bible (2 Kgs 14:25), and the locations mentioned in the story are all real places, suggesting the writer intended to ground the story in reality and was not fabricating a fantastic tale. On the other hand, the story is filled with absurdities, hyperbole, and irony that suggest the writer may not have intended the story to be taken fully at face value.

The conservative approach

According to Allen, most of the Church Fathers admitted the historicity of Jonah, even though they tended to use it symbolically.  Gregory of Nazianzus (4th century) and Theophylact (11th century) were among the minority who doubted the historicity of the book.

In 1927 Ambrose John Wilson published a paper in the Princeton Theological Review entitled ‘The Sign of the Prophet Jonah and its Modern Confirmations’.  He mentions the case of a sailor who had been lost overboard, and was later found – alive- in the stomach of a large sperm whale.  This case was mentioned much earlier by R.A. Torrey in  his 1907 book, Difficulties in the Bible, and passed on, without critical comment, in Hard Sayings of the Bible.  But I have to say that the physiological claims made by Wilson (on behalf both of the whale and its dinner) are implausible.  (For example, he says that a sperm whale must have air in its stomach in order for it to achieve buoyancy, but any gas in its stomach would be methane, not air).  For more on this fishy tale, see here.

The historicity of Jonah continues to be maintained by a number of scholars.  Positively, such scholars point to Jon 1:1, where the author appears to be identified as an historical figure (cf. 2 Kings 14:25).  Negatively, it is suggested that nothing within the book is inconsistent with an historical understanding of the narrative.  Decisive for most conservatives is the teaching of Jesus:

‘It is clear from Mt 12:40-41 that Jesus himself regard the story of Jonah as historical; therefore it is denial of his authority for us to claim otherwise. ‘If one denies the facts of the story of Jonah, he (or she) must then assume ignorance or deception on the part of Jesus, who believed its authenticity. This would, in effect, destroy his claim to being God.’

(McDowell, Answers to Tough Questions)

For Dan Story (Defending Your Faith), the matter is quite simple:

‘In Jesus’ mind, Jonah was a real person who really spent three days in the belly of a “great fish” (the Hebrew word used here can be applied to any large creature, including an animal specifically created by God for the purpose it served). It is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded the experience of Jonah as a historical parallel to His own forthcoming experience between His death and resurrection. If these events in Jesus’ life are factual, so too must Jonah’s experience, or the comparison would be meaningless. A myth cannot be used to validate a fact. The historicity of this event is further reinforced in Matthew 12:41, where Jesus claims that the people of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. They would not have done so if Jonah never lived. Thus Jesus aligned the historical events surrounding His resurrection with the historical events in Nineveh and the historical person of Jonah.’

Robert L. Plummer (40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible) puts the conservative case even more simply:

‘Not only does the book of Jonah report persons and places without any fictional artifice, but also Jesus refers to Jonah as a historical figure who was literally and historically inside the belly of a large fish (Matt. 12:40–41).’

Frank Page (NAC) argues for the historicity of the narrative on the following grounds:

  1. ancient tradition regarded the book as historical
  2. its historicity has been regularly questioned by biblical scholars only since the 19th century.
  3. the opening verses are just what we would expect from a historical narrative
  4. Jesus appears to assume and affirm the historicity of the narrative in Mt 12:40f.

Geisler and Howe (When Critics Ask) suspect that the tendency to deny the historicity of Jonah arises from an anti-supernatural stance.

Geisler (Christian Apologetics) adds:

‘It seems highly improbable that Jesus would contrast something so essential as the historicity of his own death and resurrection with a mythology of Jewish belief. It is much more reasonable to conclude that Jesus is affirming the historicity of Jonah, as indeed the Old Testament itself does (see 2 Kings 14:25).’

Writing in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, Doug Powell is unduly dismissive of those who see the story as allegory, parable, or suchlike:

‘The reason these people reject Jonah as real history isn’t because the book appears to be allegory, parable, or commentary. The reason is that they don’t believe miracles can happen. They reject all supernatural claims. So when they note the fact that surviving three days after being swallowed by a fish isn’t something that can naturally happen, they feel justified in thinking Jonah is a made up story.’

Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) defends the historicity of the Jonah story on the basis of Jesus’ teaching:

In speaking of His approaching death and resurrection, Jesus affirmed in Matthew 12:40: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (NIV). Apart from a theory-protecting bias, it is impossible to draw from this statement any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded the experience of Jonah as a type (or at the very least, a clear analogy) pointing to His own approaching experience between the hour of His death on the cross and His bodily resurrection from the tomb on Easter morning.

If the Resurrection was to be historically factual, and if it was to be antitypical of Jonah’s three-day sojourn in the stomach of the huge fish, then it follows that the type itself must have been historically factual — regardless of modern skepticism on this point.

The facticity of the Jonah narrative is further confirmed by Matthew 12:41: “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here” (NIV) — namely, Jesus Himself. Jesus implies that the inhabitants of Nineveh actually did respond to Jonah’s stern warning and denunciation with self-abasing humility and fear — precisely as recorded in Jonah 3. Jesus declares that those raw, untaught pagans were less guilty before God than the Christ-rejecting Jews of His own generation. Such a judgment clearly presupposes that the Ninevites did precisely what Jonah says they did.

This means that Jesus did not take that book to be a mere piece of fiction or allegory, as some would-be Evangelicals have suggested. Adherence to such a view is tantamount to a rejection of Christ’s inerrancy and therefore of His deity.

Alexander (TOTC) puts the case for historicity in a more nuanced way.  He emphasises the didactic nature of the text, but maintains that the message ‘derives from actual historical events and that these form the basis of his account’.

Nick Cady underscores the ‘key literary device’ used in the Book of Jonah – satire:

The story of Jonah is a fantastical story about a rebellious prophet who runs away from his calling, then tries to kill himself and gets swallowed by a giant fish who transports him back to where he started and barfs him up on the beach. Then he walks into a large city, preaches the worst sermon ever, and the whole city repents – much to Jonah’s dismay.

If, for this reason, Jonah were to be understood as allegorical, then

Jonah represents Israel: a nation who has not shared the heart of God for lost people and has run away from their calling to be God’s light to the nations. The fish would represent Israel’s (at that present time: current) captivity, which would mean that the calling to go to Nineveh represents the implied proper behavior or response that Israel should have once their captivity is over.

Nevertheless, Cady adduces the following reasons why ‘most scholars’ consider Jonah to be historical and not allegorical:

  1. Jonah is a historical figure, 2 Kings 14:25
  2. There are specific historical and geographical details within the book that we would not expect to find in an allegorical story.  See Jonah 1:1-3; 3:2-10; 4:11.
  3. There is no strong evidence against its historical nature, providing we accept the possibility of miracles.  Given the nature of historical record-keeping, there is no reason for insisting that any secular account should have been retained of Nineveh’s repentance.
  4. Jesus spoke of the story as being historical, Mt 12:40f.

Blomberg (The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures) concludes:

‘It is theoretically possible that Jesus is simply likening his death and resurrection to Jonah’s being swallowed and vomited up, as the story was recounted in the prophetic work that bore Jonah’s name. Jesus, nevertheless, could not have expected the Ninevites to condemn unbelieving Israel unless they really had repented at Jonah’s preaching—in some ways, a greater “miracle” than surviving inside the fish! Most likely, Jesus saw the whole book as historical.’

Ramm (The Christian View of Science and Scripture) adds two thoughts:

(a) The creature is described as a ‘prepared fish’, and this could mean that is was specially created by God for the purpose.  If so, then further scientific or historical investigation is beside the point.

(b) Fish-gods were worshipped in the ancient world.  If Jonah’s experience was known by the Ninevites, he could have been received as a messenger of the gods, and their mass repentance would be more explainable.

The case for non-historicity

As has been noted, a minority of early Christian writers doubted the historicity of Jonah.  According to Allen, Luther also view the story as non-historical.

Fretheim (Harper’s Bible Commentary), while noting that Jon 1:1 roots the book in history, suggests that the literary features (irony, satire, hyperbole, repetition, humour, and so on) indicate a nonhistorical purpose.  Others, finding a late Hebrew style and many Aramaisms in the text, postulate a post-exilic date for Jonah.

According to Douglas A. Knight and Amy-Jill Levine (The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us):

‘The fictional nature of the story of Jonah is indicated not only by the “great fish” that swallows the prophet and after three days vomits him up on dry land or by the exaggerated rhetoric (the word “great” occurs fourteen times), but also by the city’s surprising repentance: the entire population, and the cattle, repent after hearing a five-word (in Hebrew) sermon.’

Achtemeier writes:

Arguments over the historicity of Jonah, especially as they center on the probability of the big fish swallowing Jonah, are…misguided. Like the parables of Jesus, the book of Jonah conveys its revelation of God in the form of a story. Brevard Childs has even described the story as “parable-like” (Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, p. 421) while pointing out its differences from prophetic legend, midrash, and allegory (p. 422). I think it is quite sufficient, however, to term the book a “didactic story” as many commentators have done.

For many conservative writers, our Lord’s teaching Mt 12:39-41 is decisive: it shows that an historical understanding of Jonah is essential to an historical understanding of his resurrection.  The question is discussed in the 1st edition of ISBE:

G.A. Smith..necessity that, if the resurrection of Jesus was a physical fact, Jonah’s abode in the fish’s belly must also be just as historical. On this point also the saying, A greater than Jonah is here, holds good. But, on the other hand, how arbitrary it is to assert, with Reuss, that Jesus regarded Jonah’s history as a parable! On the contrary, Jesus saw in it a sign, a powerful evidence of the same Divine power which showed itself also in his dying in order to live again and triumph in the world. Whoever, therefore, feels the religious greatness of the book, and accepts as authoritative the attitude taken to its historical import by the Son of God himself, will be led to accept a great act of the God who brings down to Hades and brings up again, as an actual experience of Jonah in his flight from his Lord” (The Twelve Minor Prophets, 172, 3).

A number of recent scholars, including Allen, continue to support the point of view articulated by Smith.

This approach assumes that Jesus was accommodating his teaching to the Jewish beliefs of his day.

Referring to the naming of Jonah in Jon 1:1 (cf. 2 Kings 14:25), some scholars think that this suggests an historical kernal to a story which has then been elaborated.  Others think that the link to an historical prophet is consistent with a non-historical understanding of the book as a whole.  Allen, for example, suggests that behind the parables of the Good Samaritan, of the pounds, and of Dives and Lazarus lie real historical events and persons: but the original hearers would nevertheless understood the parables themselves to be non-historical.

Douglas Mangum (Faithlife Study Bible) adopts the view that Jonah has a historical core with satirical embelishments.

What was the ‘sign of Jonah’?

Two possibilities can be considered:

(a) It was Jonah and his message of repentance.  So (according to Bruner on Matthew): Barclay, Green, Sand and Taylor.  Also Sproul.

(b) It was Jonah’s deliverance from the belly of the great fish, anticipating the resurrection of Jesus.  So Jeremias.

This view accords well with Matthew 12:40, where Jesus appears quite clearly to be predicting his resurrection:

“For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.”

Note that in Mk 8:11 there is an absolute refusal to give a sign.

The Queen of the South = The Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1–13).

Muslim apologists often appeal to ‘the sign of Jonah’ as proof that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Mike Licona’s response

https://www.risenjesus.com/sign-of-jonah

Internal Light, 33-36

11:33 “No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a hidden place or under a basket, but on a lampstand, so that those who come in can see the light. 11:34 Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is diseased, your body is full of darkness. 11:35 Therefore see to it that the light in you is not darkness. 11:36 If then your whole body is full of light, with no part in the dark, it will be as full of light as when the light of a lamp shines on you.”

Lk 11:34,35 = Mt 6:22,23

‘Gurus from the East often urge their devotees to look within themselves for the divine spark that pervades the universe. This goal is accomplished through such disciplines as yoga, meditation, and the chanting of mantras. Jesus warned, however, that evil or non-Christian people who see an inward light are actually encountering darkness. Paul added that Satan appears as “an angel of light” (2 Co 11:14). We experience the true light through the preaching of the gospel (2 Co 4:4).’ (Apologetics Study Bible)

Rebuking the Pharisees and Experts in the Law, 37-54

11:37 As he spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him, so he went in and took his place at the table. 11:38 The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal. 11:39 But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 11:40 You fools! Didn’t the one who made the outside make the inside as well? 11:41 But give from your heart to those in need, and then everything will be clean for you.

The Pharisees washed before meals, not for reasons of personal hygiene, but to cleanse themselves of any defilement through contact with Gentiles and other ‘unclean’ persons.  Jesus opposes this idea of ritual defilement.

In fact, Jesus focuses on some of the key sins associated with religiosity: hypocrisy (vv.39–41), imbalance (v.42), ostentation (v.43), impossible demands (v.46), intolerance (vv.47–51), and exclusiveness (v.52). (EBC)

“You Pharisees” – Stein remarks that ‘condemnation of hypocritical Pharisees can be found even within the Talmudic literature. In Ṣota 22b seven types of Pharisees are described. The first five are hypocritical: (1) the “shoulder” Pharisee, who wears his good actions on his shoulder for all to see; (2) the “wait-a-little” Pharisee, who finds excuses for putting off a good deed; (3) the “bruised” Pharisee, who to avoid looking at a woman runs into walls; (4) the “pestle” or hunched-over Pharisee, who walks bent over in pretended humility; and (5) the “ever-reckoning” Pharisee, who is always weighing his good deeds against his bad. But also mentioned are (6) the   p 341  “God-fearing” Pharisee, who lives in holy awe and the fear of God, and (7) the “God-loving” Pharisee, who loves God from his heart. The kind of commitment that leads to the finest piety is also frequently accompanied by hypocrisy. Neither Pharisaism nor Christianity is exempt from this unfortunate tendency.’ (NAC)

11:42 “But woe to you Pharisees! You give a tenth of your mint, rue, and every herb, yet you neglect justice and love for God! But you should have done these things without neglecting the others. 11:43 Woe to you Pharisees! You love the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces! 11:44 Woe to you! You are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it!”
11:45 One of the experts in religious law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things you insult us too.” 11:46 But Jesus replied, “Woe to you experts in religious law as well! You load people down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch the burdens with even one of your fingers!
11:47 Woe to you! You build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. 11:48 So you testify that you approve of the deeds of your ancestors, because they killed the prophets and you build their tombs! 11:49 For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ 11:50 so that this generation may be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation..

Elaborate tombs had been built for the prophets; but their builders had been of the same heart and mind as those who killed the prophets.

“God in his wisdom” – lit. ‘The wisdom of God’.  The origin of this quotation is unclear.  Stein suggests that since an apostle was a Christian ministry, Jesus is also referring to Christian prophets (rather than OT prophets).

“From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” – The ‘A to Z’ does not work in either Hebrew or Greek.

11:52 Woe to you experts in religious law! You have taken away the key to knowledge! You did not go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were going in.”

“You have taken away the key to knowledge” – A particularly wounding accusation, since it was precisely knowledge that the scribes claimed to possess and impart.

11:53 When he went out from there, the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to oppose him bitterly, and to ask him hostile questions about many things, 11:54 plotting against him, to catch him in something he might say.

Concluding reflections

Do we prefer the ‘outside’ to the ‘inside’ of our faith?

What are the chances that we have got our interpretation of God’s word quite wrong, in some practically important ways?

Do we put our reputation before our responsibility to help and guide others?