Re: [asa] On Job

If I may interject here -- and this may be slightly off-topic -- is
the tendency to read Jonah as literal bolstered by Jesus' mention of
the story? His analogy to the three days in the fish can be easily
read as allegorical, true, but what about 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[a]
greater than Jonah is here." This doesn't sound like Jesus treated
the story as allegory.

Chris

On 10/5/06, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think the message of Jonah was intended for Israel, not Nineveh. The
> purpose was to tell Israelites that God could easily be more successful with
> other nations than he was at the time with his own, so they'd better shape
> up. It was working the jealousy angle. Hence the book is allegory or
> parable.
>
> Also, the most far-fetched event IMO is the zealous repentance of king and
> citizens of what was probably the most dominant city of the time at the word
> of a probably unknown foreigner speaking on behalf of a probably unknown
> foreign God. The Bible tells us that God has rarely (if ever) had anything
> like that kind of success in dealing with human hearts; to expect it among
> foreigners who were dominating the world at the time would be a
> s-t-r-e-t-c-h.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Schneider
> To: Don Winterstein ; asa@calvin.edu ; Carol or John Burgeson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] On Job
>
>
> I would follow some OT scholars who say that the Book of Jonah is
> constructed in the literary form of a "mashal," an extended parable with
> theological purposes. The purpose of the book is to teach that the justice,
> mercy and forgiveness of God is universal. There is another purpose: once
> God gives you a call, you can try to run away, but you cannot escape his
> call. Now if anyone wants to believe that it is literally and historically a
> fact that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a great fish (not a whale),
> they are welcome to do so. But the truth of this story for God's purposes is
> not dependent upon their doing so.
>
> I suppose it is not easy always to discern what in the OT is to be taken as
> a bald historical account or as story teaching theology. It is best to keep
> an open mind. But there are elements of literary form and story construction
> that can help one to make one's own decisions about this. I don't doubt that
> God will forgive me if I err on any single interpretation.
>
> Bob Schneider
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Winterstein
> To: asa@calvin.edu ; Carol or John Burgeson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] On Job
>
>
>
> Would you assign Jonah similar status? Then, how about Elijah calling down
> fire on the captains of fifty? Once we get started, how do we know where to
> stop?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carol or John Burgeson
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:37 AM
> Subject: [asa] On Job
>
> Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
> and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their =
> account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual consequences?
> =
> And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events, what might we
> =
> usefully glean from them?"
>
> The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a morality play.
> To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort of like
> believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
>
> Burgy
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 5 10:49:33 2006