Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Jonah. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Jonah 3:6-10
6 The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.”
10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.
_____________________________________
Jonah’s message is accepted by the people of Nineveh and also by their king. From Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(6) For word came.—Rather, And the matter reached. The Authorised Version treats the royal edict that follows as the same with the proclamation in Jonah 3:5. This is possible, but it is more probable that the writer intended to describe the effect produced on each district of the vast city in succession, and on all grades of people. The piercing cry uttered from street to street, from square to square, reaches at last the king on his throne of state.
And he laid . . .—Stripping off the state mantle (the Hebrew word implies amplitude. See 1 Kings 19:13.) It is interesting to find it used of the “Babylonish garment,” found in Achan’s tent. See Joshua 7:21), the monarch assumes a mourning dress. To form a conception of the change involved, the descriptions of Assyrian royal magnificence should be studied in Layard, or their representations in the Assyrian courts of the Crystal Palace. For the usual signs of Oriental mourning, comp. Genesis 37:34; 2 Samuel 3:31; Job 2:8; Psalms 35:13; Ezekiel 26:16, &c.
I mentioned in the previous post, but it is worth noting again here. The repentance of Nineveh was from the people upward, not the result of a top-down edict. We are not told here how sincere the actions of the king are (the behavior indicates sincerity) but if the people of the city were taking Jonah seriously, it may have been politically dangerous for the king not to do so also.
As the story of Jonah is typologically aligned with the Gospel and early Christianity, it seems that this is worth remembering today, also. Continuing on to verse 7, with The Pulpit Commentaries:
He caused it, etc.; literally, he caused proclamation to be made, and said, i.e. by the heralds. The decree. The word used here (taam) is an Accadian term, which had become naturalized in Assyria, Persia, and Babylonia, and was applied to a mandate issued with royal authority. It is found in Daniel 3:10, Daniel 3:29; Daniel 4:6; Ezra 4:8, etc. Jonah introduces it here as being the very word employed in describing the proclamation. And his nobles. The monarchs of Assyria were absolute; and if the king in the present case associated the magnates with himself, he did it in an humility occasioned by alarm, and because he saw that they were of the same mind as himself (comp. Daniel 6:17). Saying. The decree extends from here to the end of verse 9. Man nor beast; i.e. domestic animals, horses, mules, distinct from herd and flock. These great cities contained in their area immense open spaces, like our parks, where cattle were kept. The dumb animals were made to share in their masters’ fast and sorrow, as they shared their joy and feasting; their bleating and bellowing were so many appeals to Heaven for mercy; the punishment of these innocent creatures was a kind of atonement for the guilt of their lords (comp. Hosea 4:3; Joel 1:20; and note how the brute creation is said to sham in the happiness of paradise regained, Isaiah 11:1-16). The commentators quote Virgil, ‘Ecl.,’ 5:24, etc; where, however, the point is that the grief of the shepherds hinders them from attending to the wants of their flocks. Herodotus (9:24) mentions an instance of the Persians cutting the manes and tails of their horses and mules in a case of general mourning.
Ellicott’s Commentary adds to this:
(7) And he caused . . .—The fact that the word rendered “decree” in this verse was a technical name for the edicts of Assyrian and Babylonian kings (see Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:29) would alone vouch for the accurate acquaintance of the author with the customs he describes. But the very form of the royal edict is here preserved. The verse should probably run: And he caused to be proclaimed, and be published in Nineveh “According to the decree of the king and his magnates be it proclaimed that,” &c. The word “saying” is apparently formal like our “thus saith,” &c.
And his nobles.—For this association of the great men with the autocrat, comp. Daniel 6:17. Traces of the custom can also be discovered in Assyrian inscriptions, e.g., “I am Assurbanipal king of nations, king of Assyria, Nabu-damiq and Umbadara the great men,” &c. (G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, p. 413). Ewald thinks the formal “saying” in the edict marks the omission of the names, which in the original would be given.
Beast.—The Hebrew word is general, and might include all the domestic animals, but from the addition of “herd nor flock” we must doubtless here confine it to the horses and mules, &c., which even, according to our ideas, might have their usual gay housings changed to those suited to a time of mourning. “Men think it strange that the horses at Nineveh were covered with sackcloth, and forget how, at the funerals of the rich, black horses are chosen, and are clothed with black velvet” (Pusey). Herodotus (9:24) and Plutarch (Alexander), have both preserved instances in which horses and mules were associated with human beings in the signs of public mourning. The instinct which underlies the custom is a true one. Not only are the destinies of the animals which minister to man’s wants often identical with his own; but there is a bond of sympathy between them naturally; and one remarkable feature of this book is the prominence given to this truth. (See Jonah 4:11.)
Let them not feed. . . .—Poetically, the beasts are said by Virgil to fast at the death of Daphnis (Eclog., v. 24-28), and in Joel 1:20 their mute appeal against suffering is represented as audible to God. In the horror of the impending ruin of Nineveh, superstition exaggerated the true feeling underlying such representations, and to the belief in the sympathy of the lower animals with man was added the hope that their sufferings would help to appease the wrath of God.
Let them turn.—Notice the insistence on a moral change, and the implied contrast, again showing itself, with the formality of Judaism. Even in this repentance the edict does not stop to distinguish beast from man, but includes all, as all were involved in the threatened destruction.
Violence.—This is the characteristic of Assyrian manners most frequently noticed in the prophets. (See Nahum 2:11-12; Nahum 3:1; Isaiah 10:13-14.) The cuneiform inscriptions abundantly illustrate this point. Take this for example from an inscription of Tiglath Pileser II.: “Tiglath Pileser, the great king, the powerful king, king of nations, &c, the powerful warrior who in the service of Assur his lord the whole of his haters has trampled on like clay, swept like a flood, and reduced to shadows” (G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, p. 254).
In their hands.—Comp. Psalms 7:3.
Who can tell . . .?—This sudden recognition of one God by a king of Nineveh appears far more striking if contrasted with the long lists of deities usually mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, e.g., “By command of Assur, Sin, Shamas, Vul, Bel, Nebo, Ishtar of Nineveh, Sarrat-Kitmuri, Ishtar of Arbela, Ninip, Nergal, and Nusku, into Minni I entered and marched victoriously” (from the Cylinder of Assurbanipal, Smith, p. 333).
The fast of Nineveh, decreed by the king, was such that the animals were required to participate as well. The note suggests some potential reasons for that. I would guess that the livestock because quite vocal in their bleating. The Ninevites wanted to leave no stone unturned in their efforts to seek God’s mercy.
Continuing on with The Pulpit Commentaries:
Let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. As we put trappings on horses in funerals. The LXX. wrongly makes this verse give an account of the execution of the edict instead of being part of the edict itself; thus: “And men and beasts were clothed with sackcloth,” etc. Cry mightily; i.e. let man cry mightily; Septuagint, ἐκτενῶς, “with intensity;” Vulgate, in fortitudine. Let them turn every one from his evil way (Jeremiah 25:5; Jeremiah 36:3, Jeremiah 36:7). The edict recognizes the truth that outward acts of penitence are worthless without moral reformation—a truth which the Jews themselves had been very loth to admit (see Isaiah 58:1-14). And from the violence that is in their hands. The acts of violence that their hands have committed (Job 16:17; Psalms 7:3). This is the special sin of the Assyrians, always grasping after empire, oppressing other nations, and guilty of rapine and avarice at home (see Isaiah 10:13, Isaiah 10:14; Isaiah 37:24, etc.; Nahum 2:11, Nahum 2:12; Nahum 3:1).
The animals joined the people in the fast, and in wearing sackcloth. This makes some sense. The goal is to make a vocal and complete repentance. Clothing even the animals this way was a sign of humility. A modern version of this might be a wealthy person choosing not to display the Porsche when seeking help or mercy… as that might send mixed signals. It is difficult to be humble while flaunting your possessions. Continuing on in TPC:
Who can tell? (2 Samuel 12:22). An expression of hope that the Divine, wrath may be averted by the timely repentance. It is the same form of words as in Joel 2:14, “Perhaps God would thereby indicate that he had himself put it into their mouths” (Pusey; comp. Jeremiah 18:11). If God; i.e. the one God, whom the king and his people now acknowledge as supreme, like the idol worshippers at Carmel, when they fell on their faces, crying, “Jehovah, he is the God” (1 Kings 18:39).
The collective attitude of Nineveh is whole-hearted repentance, with some optimism that God might take notice and spare them. This is of course the thing that Jonah feared initially. He believed that Nineveh would do exactly what they are doing, that they might avoid God’s wrath, AND that this would make the comparatively stiff-necked Israelites look bad by comparison. We’ll get to that in chapter 4, though.
Finishing chapter 3, in Ellicott:
(10) And God repented.—See Note, Genesis 6:6.
And he did it not.—As we are entirely ignorant of the nature of the threatened destruction, so are we also of the mode in which it was averted. Possibly some inscription throwing light on the book of Jonah may yet be discovered.
As the commentary points out, we do not know how God communicated this message to the Ninevites, though it seems likely that Jonah himself was the delivery mechanism.
Jonah is not pleased after all of this, as we will see. Rather than celebrate God’s mercy, or that Israel now has a better-behaved neighbor, Jonah becomes depressed. We shall see why in the next chapter.
