What Did He Do To Deserve This? (John 9:2-3)

In John 9, why was the man born blind? That the works of God might be made manifest in him.

In passing, the Gospel of John records that Jesus crosses paths with a “man blind from birth” (John 9:1). The unnamed man is evidently familiar to Jesus and his disciples as they are aware that his sightlessness is congenital (John 9:2). Intrigued, the disciples ask their teacher who is to blame for the man’s lack of vision.

And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9:2-3, NASB)

Jesus refuses to be encumbered by the disciples’ limited options and offers an alternative explanation (John 9:3-5) before repairing the man’s vision (John 9:6-7).

This incident is found only in John’s gospel. Its setting is vague with no mention of a concrete time or place. The passage maintains only a tenuous connection to the preceding material.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) notes:

There is no time note. John does not relate this incident to others in his story, and we are left to guess at its place in the sequence. Sir Edwyn Hoskyns [1884-1937] says that the incident took place on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, but this is pure assumption. It is likely that some time has elapsed since the attempt on Jesus’ life (John 8:59), but more than this we cannot say. John simply tells us that Jesus passed by (where?) and saw a man blind from birth. Nothing is said as to how Jesus knew that the man had been blind from birth, which argues that he was a well-known figure. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 424)

The story is rooted more in theological argumentation than in time and space (John 9:1-5). This conversation, with its emphasis on the blindness emanating at birth, prepares the reader for a more incredible miracle. Being blind from birth is, biblically speaking, highly unusual. Outside of the gospels only one blind person is healed in the Bible (Acts 9:1-19) and this is the only miracle in the gospels where the sufferer is said to be afflicted from birth (Acts 3:2, 14:8).

It will not be this chance encounter but rather the disciples’ question that triggers the story’s action. The disciples, reappearing in John’s narrative for the first time in two chapters (John 6:70), are fascinated by the blind man (John 9:2). Their instinct is not pity or compassion but curiosity. The blind man’s condition poses a theological dilemma and as such, the disciples do not see a human being but a theological case study, a strawman to be blown down. Like many who have followed, they are haunted by the question of why, a problem theologians label theodicy.

The disciples rightly seek the insight of their “rabbi” (John 9:2) but they attempt to set parameters on his response, choosing to explore the relationship between sin and tragedy. John Chrysostom (347-407) argues that their question is prompted by John 5:14 (Homily 56.1). Whatever their motivation, it is clear that the disciples are operating under a system characterized by a tight cause-and-effect relationship; they assume that there is a direct correlation between suffering and sin. Theirs is a basic and ancient mind set, exemplified in the Book of Job (Job 8, 15, 18). On this point, the disciples have not progressed beyond Job’s ineffective “comforters”. Later in the chapter, the Pharisees will employ the same argument, only more forcefully (John 9:34).

Daniel J. Harrington (b. 1940) explains their rationale:

As an explanation for suffering, the law of retribution focuses principally on the victims. Of course, one might attribute the suffering to the wrath of God against human sinfulness or to demonic forces having power over humans. But most religious people take for granted the omnipotence and the justice of God. It is these assumptions that are examined critically in what is the fullest biblical investigation of the mystery of suffering—the Book of Job. (Harrington, Why Do We Suffer?: A Scriptural Approach to the Human Condition, 28-29)

For the disciples, the man’s condition is indicative of sin. Gail R. O’ Day (b. 1954) and Susan E. Hylen (b. 1968) clarify:

In the Fourth Gospel, “sin” is not a moral category about behavior but a theological category about one’s response to the revelation of God in Jesus...Jesus’ subsequent actions are a response to the disciple’s perspective on sin as well as to the condition of the blind man himself. (O’Day and Hylen, John (Westminster Bible Companion), 98)

From their perspective, the disciples’ question is perfectly logical as they present Jesus with the only two plausible explanations: Either the man somehow sinned at or before birth or his parents did. There is some Old Testament basis for blindness being the direct result of sin (Genesis 19:11; Exodus 4:11; II Kings 6:18). The more general connection between sin and ailment is exemplified by Job’s counselors, especially epitomized in Eliphaz’s opening argument (Job 4:7).

Given this tradition, it has been posited that the disciples are echoing conventional wisdom. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) locates:

The disciples’ statement can be placed squarely within the context of contemporary rabbinic views. Underlying the disciples’ statement is the concern not to charge God with perpetrating evil on innocent people (cf. Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 281)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) expound:

The notion that sin caused suffering was common in the New Testament period...Stereotypical thinking at the time would have Israelites perceive that given the justice of God, suffering could only be the result of some sin, whether conscious or unconscious. As the later Pharisaic tradition [Rabbi Ammi (ca. 300)] put it, “There is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity” (b. Shabbath 55a). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 169-70)

Blindness in particular was often examined in this light. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) relays:

Blindness was often associated with sin; in many cultures it is natural to associate another’s affliction with a specific avoidable cause to prevent anxiety on the part of those who speculated about the causes (cf. Job 6:21). Thus one source suggests that a person was struck blind because he failed to perform sacrifices properly, though some thinkers did object that blindness could happen to anyone. Jewish literature provides many examples of the connection; one who saw a blind, lame, or otherwise seriously afflicted person should praise God as the righteous judge. (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 777)

Though some obviously held a close connection between sin and affliction, this belief was not universal. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) cautions:

One should not infer from the disciples’ question that blindness was automatically equated with sin in Second Temple Jewish societies. This story stands between evidence to the contrary. Tobit (ca. third century BC) is the tale of a man whose blindness is an accidental result of his righteous actions (Tobit 2:7-10). A review of later rabbinic literature reveals that the blind were categorized with the destitute and those incapable of being valid witnesses and not with sinners. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 153)

Regardless of how widespread this conviction was, the disciples take it for granted and the fact that the man’s condition existed at birth poses a unique theological dilemma. They presume that suffering is the direct result of sin and therefore if suffering is evident sin must be also. To justify this belief, the sin must be uncovered. So they offer Jesus the only two possibilities which they can see.

In doing so, the disciples provide overly facile answers to a complex question. Bruce Milne (b. 1940) reviews:

For the disciples...the answer is simple. Personal suffering of this nature is due to personal sin. The only uncertainty concerns who is directly responsible. Since the sin concerned must have been congenital, the options were either that this man committed it during his antenatal life in the womb, or his parents had committed it before his birth. While the Bible allows a general relationship between suffering and sin, due to the fall (cf. Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12ff), it refuses to permit the principle to be individualized in every case. Sin has produced a suffering world, but an individual’s personal suffering is not always attributable to his or her personal sin. Sometimes of course it may be...But Scripture refuses to universalize such instances. That was the issue between Job and his friends, and the lesson of the book of Job is God’s dismissal of that simplistic theology of suffering. It is here dismissed by Jesus...The simplistic view is met today however, in much ‘popular religion’ which lives in fear of breaking the rules lest some punishment be visited. Specifically it is expressed in Hinduism with its doctrine of karma, the notion that the immortal soul has to go on working out, in a whole series of lives, the consequences of its actions, so that good is rewarded by a ‘higher’ life in the next reincarnation, and evil punished by a ‘lower’. Hindu thought would therefore offer a further possible answer to the implied question in John 9:2: ‘Did he sin in a previous life?’ This eastern idea has permeated the West through the New Age movement, which in many of its popularizers embraces the idea of multiple lives, and links what happened in previous existences to problems faced in the here and now. The Bible fundamentally rejects such notions. (Milne, The Message of John (Bible Speaks Today), 137)

The disciples’ first suggestion is that the man himself sinned prenatally. There is later rabbinic reflection on prenatal sin (Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932], Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 2:527-29).

J. Ramsey Michaels (b. 1931) explicates:

Behind the disciples’ question is not only the biblical notion that children are sometimes held accountable for the sins of their parents (e.g., Exodus 20:5; discussed and countered in Ezekiel 18:1-32), but the view proposed by certain rabbis that a child in the womb was already involved in sin (see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 63, 6...based on Genesis 25:22 and Psalm 58:3). It is unlikely that Hellenistic ideas about the pre-existence of the soul contributed to the raising of the question. There is little evidence that such ideas were widely held in Judaism (cf., perhaps, Wisdom of Solomon 8:20) or that they were used to explain physical misfortune. (Michaels, (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 163)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) speculates:

How could the man himself have previously sinned if he was born blind? Some interpreters said that one could sin pre-natally in the womb. (Remember Jacob and Esau struggling with each other in the womb of their mother Rebekah, Genesis 25:22 and Genesis 25:26, and the womb-knowing Lord of Psalm 58:3 and Jeremiah 1:5). (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 564)

Though not prevalent, this belief still has advocates. Some contemporary Christian counseling training courses espouse that people may suffer because of sins committed in utero.

The disciples’ other alternative is that the parents are at fault for their child’s blindness. There are several rabbinic passages which speak to this possibility (Canticles Rabbah 1.6§3; Ruth Rabbah 6.4; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deuteronomy 21:20). For instance, if a pregnant woman worships in a pagan temple her unborn fetus was regarded as participating in the pagan rite (Canticles Rabbah, I.6,§3).

Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) investigates:

Like the disciples, the rabbis normally would have argued from their texts the basic thesis that an individual’s burden of sin (cf. Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Jeremiah 31:29-30) was the cause for illness. Such a view would relate personal distress to a person’s own acts of transgression, particularly if the person was an adult. In the case of children the issue was not totally clear, but the Palestinian Targum (on Deuteronomy 21:20) would seem to argue that it was the duty of parents to confess their transgressions for deviations of children. But that perspective was not fully determinative among the Jews. (Borchert, John 1-11 (The New American Commentary), 313)

A contemporary scientific example of a parent’s indiscretion resulting in the blindness of a child is the case of chlamydia conjunctivitis or trachoma, a leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. A mother having the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia can infect her child’s eyes as the baby traverses the birth canal resulting in congenital blindness. While there is no cure for this condition, if the mother is given antibiotics prior to giving birth, the occurrence is preventable.

While some Scriptures appear to support the belief that congenital illness is the result of parental transgression, other passages in both the Old Testament and Second Temple literature strongly challenge the notion that children suffer for their parents’ sin (Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:1-32; Tobit 3:3).

Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and Mark S. Krause (b. 1955) document:

While it is correct that Scripture draws a connection between sin and physical suffering (see Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 28:15; Ezekiel 18:4), it is incorrect to conclude that each and every instance of physical ailment or disability is the direct result of sin. We know from our own experience that sinful lifestyle choices may lead to disease...but that certainly not all disease may be traced to sinful behavior...We all suffer because of our own sins, and because of the general sinfulness of our culture, but this does not mean that degree of disability or illness is a measure of a person’s moral failure. To hold such a view is a way to justify a lack of mercy and compassion to those who are suffering, since it assumes they suffer justly because of God’s punishment of sin. Elsewhere, Jesus refuses to accept such a theology of sin and suffering (Luke 13:2-5). (Bryant and Krause, John (The College Press NIV Commentary), 214)

Craig Groeschel (b. 1967) distinguishes:

Just because God can use what happens doesn’t mean he causes everything. God does cause some pain (Hebrews 12:7-11 talks about God “disciplining” his children), but much pain—especially that caused by the sins of other people—is not caused by God. He may allow it, but he doesn’t cause it. That’s an important distinction. Recognizing this fact might still leave us angry with him (and I’m guessing he probably understands when it’s a person in pain). We learn to overcome this anger as we get to know God. And as we do, we learn how to trust that he is still good, loving, and wise in everything he does, even if we don’t know why things happen. (Groeschel, The Christian Atheist: Believing in God but Living As If He Doesn’t Exist, 106)

Both of the disciples’ solutions carry implicit problems which may be why they felt the need to consult the rabbi. Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) critiques:

Their reaction is a question of theodicy that assumes the dogma of direct relationship between sin and sickness (and misfortune in general). Naturally, in the case of a man born blind, that belief was problematic. For who then was the guilty party? Was there a way in which the man could be responsible? Just how that could be the disciples do not say. Perhaps that is precisely the subject on which they wanted Jesus’ opinion. Or were the parents guilty of sin and hence punished in their son? Apparently both possible assumptions produced problems in the minds of the disciples. Whether with these questions they intended to challenge the entire matter in which the rabbis made a direct connection between sin and sickness (and the like) is something we cannot say. But for the disciples of Jesus that would not be so strange. (Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, 332-33)

In asking this question, the stakes are high. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) unravels:

In this view such suffering appears to be a punishment, part of a process which seems implacable, even vindictive. What is at stake ultimately is the entire problem of evil, a problem which, insofar as it consists of sin, had just been attributed to the human will and then, even more fundamentally, to an underlying diabolical force (John 8:44). In that case Jesus had not denied the reality of sin and its diabolical roots, but he had gone on to set the evil in a positive context; he had moved from a negative emphasis to an emphasis on sinlessness and God (John 8:45-47), and so in a certain sense the image of evil was swallowed up in the image of a greater good...To a significant degree, that is what Jesus does here also. The issue now...is suffering rather than sin...He discounts the sin theory of the disciples, and he accepts the reality of the suffering in a positive context, a context wherein the virtually lifeless man is to reveal the works of God (John 9:3). (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 346)

Thankfully perspectives on illness have changed. Gerard Sloyan (b. 1919) cautions:

Great delicacy is required in preaching on this chapter effectively because the world of the first century was not alerted to the physically handicapped in the same way ours is. Using the blind and leprous as examples of the morally culpable or the spiritually insensitive may have been usual in those days. It is intolerable today. At the same time, the confusion over physical impairment and moral fault characteristic of that age still lingers. This means that this major theme of John 9 can be put to pulpit use with ease only by the exercise of consummate skill. (Sloyan, John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 113)

While attitudes toward the disabled have changed, many religious people today hold similar beliefs, albeit often tacitly. This often comes out as people attempt to make sense of the world around them and utter some variation of the question, “What did I do to deserve this?”

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) relates:

Thinking like this is a way of trying to hold on to a belief in God’s justice. If something in the world seems ‘unfair’, but if you believe in a God who is...all-powerful, all-loving and all-fair, one way of getting round the problem is to say that it only seems ‘unfair’, but actually isn’t. There was after all some secret sin being punished. This is a comfortable sort of thing to believe if you happen to be well-off, well fed and healthy in body and mind. (In other words, if nobody can accuse you of some secret previous sin.) (Wright, John For Everyone, Part 1: Chapters 1-10, 133)

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) augments:

The belief that illness or misfortune is the result of sin (John 9:2-3) is an ancient one (cf. Exodus 20:5; Luke 13:1-5), and dies hard: “What did I do to deserve this?” It is important to maintain the moral balance of one’s personal universe. Jesus, however, rejects the notion that the man’s blindness is the result of sin (John 9:3; Luke 13:1-5; but cf. John 5:15; Mark 2:5, 9). But Jesus’ explanation for its existence is scarcely more acceptable to modern sensibilities (cf. John 11:4). (Smith, John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 191)

The disciples view the blind man through old lenses and consequently their eyes are clouded by ancient religiosity. Their question about the man’s blindness reveals their own spiritual blindness. Lest we feel superior, we must remember that we are all blind to something and are in need of opening our eyes that we might see more clearly.

Is the disciples’ question unreasonable? Who is most blind in this passage? Which kind of “blindness” is harder to correct, physical or spiritual? When you see tragedy is your instinct to care or condemn? How are you blind; what notions do you have that could be incorrect? Why was the man born blind?

Jesus responds to the disciples but rejects their assumption and refuses to enter into such futile discussion. He evades generalities and instead speaks to the specific case at hand. After all, that is what they ask about (John 9:2).

The disciples, like many believers who have followed them, have framed their petition to Jesus poorly. Jesus refuses to confine his answer to their box. His response exposes the fallacy of their false dilemma. This is not an either/or proposition. They have neglected the tertium quid; there is another option. In bypassing their limitations, Jesus exonerates the man and his parents.

Instead, Jesus posits that through man’s condition, the “works of God” might be “displayed.” Stephen D. Renn defines “displayed”:

The verb phaneroō occurs about sixty times with the consistent meanings of “reveal” (i.e., cause to appear), “appear” throughout...The passive sense “to be revealed” is found in a number of places, occurring with reference to God’s work in the lives of human beings (cf. John 9:3); the righteousness of God (cf. Romans. 3:21); the love of God (cf. John 4:9); eternal life through God’s word (cf. Titus 1:3); the life of Jesus in the bodies, lives of believers (cf. II Corinthians 4:10ff; Colossians 3:4); and the mystery of Christ and the gospel, communicated to the saints (cf. Colossians 1:26; I Timothy 3:16; II Timothy 1:10; I Peter 1:20; I John 1:2). The revelation of Christ to Israel is indicated in John 1:31; and to the world at large at the end of the age in I Peter 5:4; I John 2:28, 3:2). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts, 47)

The translation of Jesus’ phrasing is highly problematic. The man’s blindness happened “but that” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV), “so that” (HCSB, NIV, NASB, NRSV) or “so the” (NLT) workings of God might be displayed (John 9:3). The nuance makes all the difference; from the causal “so that” to the more purposeful “but that”. “So that” could imply that God subjected a bystander to years of blindness for the sole purpose of producing later divine glory. The varying thoughts also shift the underlying focus from predestination to opportunity.

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) delineates:

Jesus’ answer is different depending upon the punctuation preferred. (a) “It was neither this man nor his parents who sinned, but that the works of God might be manifested in him. It is necessary for us to work the works of the one who sent while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.” Here the blindness is not due to human sin, but it exists to heighten the glory of God’s acts (e.g., Exodus 7:3-5; John 11:4). Given this purpose, Jesus needs to do the works of God. (b) “It was neither this man nor his parents who sinned. But in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him, it is necessary for us to work the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.” Here blindness is not due to human sin, but no other explanation for it is given. Since the problem exists (for whatever reason), there is a divine necessity for Jesus to do God’s work so that it may be manifest in the man...Either way, the text does not function as Jesus’ exclusion of sin as a cause of suffering in all cases...Only in this particular case is sin as a cause excluded. The major difference is that the first option gives an alternative explanation for the cause of the blindness, while the second does not. (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epistles, 164)

Linguistically, both are viable possibilities. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

The question to be raised about John 9:3 is whether we are being told that the man was born blind for the purpose of revealing God’s work in his life, or that he was born blind and the result of this is that God has chosen to reveal his work in this man’s life. I suspect the latter, which is grammatically quite possible, is meant here, in which case we are not being told that God caused a person to be born blind just to use him as an illustration of divine power later in life. The man’s blindness will be made to serve God’s larger purposes; it will be the occasion for God to reveal his works. One should compare what is said of the case of Lazarus in John 11:4. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 182-83)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) determines:

Most English translations invite gross confusion with Jesus’ answer. The NIV reads: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” It hardly takes a careful reader to see the theological implications following this line of thought: God brought suffering to this man so that he might glorify himself in his healing. While a sound theology cannot doubt God’s sovereignty to do as he pleases, thoughtful Christians may see this as a cruel fate in which God inflicts pain on people simply to glorify himself...However, the “purpose clause” of John 9:3b (“so that the work of God...”) can just as well be applied to John 9:4, and no doubt it should. Such clauses (introduced by Greek hina) may begin the main sentence rather than follow it. Of eleven uses of the Greek all’ hina (“but so that,” John 9:3b) in John, four of them precede their main sentence (John 1:31, 13:18, 14:31, 15:25). If John 9:2-4 follows this pattern, we may translate it as follows: “‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus. ‘But so that the work of God might be displayed in his life, we must do the work of him who sent me while it is still day.’”...The purpose clause now explains that Jesus must work so that God’s work may be displayed in this man’s life. God had not made the man blind in order to show his glory; rather God has sent Jesus to do works of healing in order to show his glory. The theological nuance of the two translations cannot be more different. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 272-73)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) concurs:

The clause ‘that he should be born blind’ has in Greek the form of a purpose clause (hina with the subjunctive) but the sense requires us to take it as a clause of result. On the other hand, the clause in Jesus’ reply, ‘that the works of God might be manifested...’ (again hina with the subjunctive) is a clause of purpose in meaning as well as in form...The purpose of his blindness was that a divine work should be wrought in him and the divine glory be revealed (as it is revealed in all the ‘signs’ of this Gospel). This does not mean that God deliberately caused the child to be born blind in order that, after many years, his glory should be displayed in the removal of the blindness; to think so would again be an aspersion on the character of God. It does mean that God overruled the disaster of the child’s blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ, and others, seeing this work of God, might turn to the true Light of the World. (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 209)

Theologically, the differing translations transition from what Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) classified as the “intentional will of God” to the “circumstantial will of God”: God uses a negative situation for God’s purposes but did not originally plan for the situation to exist.

Regardless of one’s interpretation of the purpose clause, Jesus’ retort disconnects the man’s blindness from sin. Jesus, however, does not claim the man is without sin or that there is never a connection between sin and suffering.

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) clarifies:

Although Jesus does not disavow the generalizing connection between sin and suffering, he completely disavows a universalizing of particular connections. In this instance, he insists that neither this man nor his parents sinned. Rather, this happened so that the work [literally ‘works’] of God might be displayed in his life. Formally, the concluding clause could be taken as a result clause (‘with the result that’) or a purpose clause (‘in order that’); either way, John certainly does not think that the occurrence of blindness from birth was outside the sweep of God’s control, and therefore of his purpose. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 362)

Jesus’ response turns the disciples’ attention from the blame game to God’s creative work, from the blind to the One who gives sight.

Gail R. O’ Day (b. 1954) observes:

Jesus’ answer indicates that the disciples’ question is not the right way to see what is before them. The disciples ask about the cause of the blindness; Jesus answers about the purpose. (O’Day, The Word Disclosed: Preaching the Gospel of John, 67)

Anthony J. Kelly (b. 1938) and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) appraise:

Jesus refuses to accept their theological judgment of the situation, with its easy imputation of guilt to the sufferer and of vindictive justice to God. He brings his disciples back to the fundamental truth of what the Father is doing. The true God does not legitimate negative judgment on a suffering human being. The God of salvation is at work within the darkness and blindness shrouding the human condition. In what Jesus will do, God is revealing himself (John 9:3). God’s works are not aimed at judgment, but to bring healing, enlightenment, and new birth into the otherwise hopeless situation of the sufferer. Despite the darkness gathering around him, and the obscurity that will inevitably affect all human beings, Jesus, “the light of the world,” associates his disciples with him in his light-giving mission to the world: “We must work the works of him who sent me.” (John 9:4). (Kelly and Moloney, Experiencing God in the Gospel of John, 206)

Rodney A. Whitacre (b. 1949) applies:

We should not be concerned with assigning blame. Trying to figure out the source of suffering in an individual’s life is futile given our limited understanding, as the book of Job should teach us. (Whitacre, John (IVP New Testament Commentary), 236)

As usual, Jesus serves as a model. Max Lucado (b. 1955) applauds:

What a perspective! The man wasn’t a victim of fate; he was a miracle waiting to happen. Jesus didn’t label him. He helped him. Jesus was more concerned about the future than the past. (Lucado, A Gentle Thunder: Hearing God Through the Storm, 160)

In doing so, Jesus removes all dichotomic categories by which the disciples attempt to understand their world (e.g. righteous/sinner, insider/outsider, etc.). Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) discloses:

Blindness is connected in the minds of the citizens of this community with sinfulness. Blindness is a manifestation of sin, so the blind man is more than just a “blind man”; he is the community’s “designated sinner.”...Even Jesus’ disciples accepted this moral world...What Jesus said points not just to a different attitude but to a different moral world, and what happened next is astonishing. Like God in Genesis, Jesus bent down and took mud and created a new world and a new humanity. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], Preaching John's Gospel: The World It Imagines, 55)

The disciples see only a blind man and wonder why he is blind. Jesus sees the same man and envisions ministry and a way to glorify God.

David Rensberger (b. 1948) concludes:

Theodicy here is the disciples’ interest, and Jesus’ answer says that it is the wrong one. Grammatically, he changes the man’s blindness from a result to a cause. The disciples’ question, and the viewpoint behind it, are rejected altogether. They see suffering as an occasion for moralizing about the victim. Jesus sees it as an occasion for doing the works of God, that is, for relieving the suffering. John refuses the question of technical theodicy and points instead to the need that the works of God should be “made manifest,” that they should appear, and therefore that what they are should also appear. The “work of God,” it turns out, is not punishing sinners with suffering but overcoming suffering. (Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, 44)

Jesus gives sight to the blind and ensures that darkness and blindness do not get the last word (John 9:6-7). As the light of the world (Matthew 5:14) and Jesus’ representatives on earth, it is the job of Christians to similarly counter suffering in the world. A good way to start is to view everyone we encounter as nothing less than a miracle waiting to happen.

How do you explain prenatal maladies? When something horrible happens, do you try to assign blame? Is their always a connection between sin and suffering? When have you asked a misguided question? When have you been so blinded by your religious understanding and traditions that you missed a ministry opportunity? Are you cooperating with God so that his works might be displayed in you?

“Judgments prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.” - Wayne W. Dyer (b. 1940)

The Original Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-14)

Who was a great grandson of Noah, “the first on earth to be a mighty man”? Nimrod (Genesis 10:8)

The tenth chapter of Genesis is comprised of a genealogy commonly referred to as the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:1-32). This passage immediately succeeds the account of the Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-9:28) and traces the lineage of Noah’s three surviving sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 10:1).

The Table of Nations follows a standard formula and much like Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) in the Bible’s previous genealogy (Genesis 5:1-32), one character breaks the pattern, a descendant of Ham named Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-14). Nimrod is the son of Cush and great-grandson of Noah.

Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. Mizraim became the father of Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim and Pathrusim and Casluhim (from which came the Philistines) and Caphtorim. (Genesis 10:8-14, NASB)

Nimrod is a true outlier. He stands out from his contemporariess as the only character in the genealogy provided with biographical details. The deviation recounting Nimrod’s enterprises is especially striking in context as the chapter is meticulously structured and the information concerning Nimrod disrupts the arrangement.

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) observes:

The only major departure from the stylized narrative is the treatment of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-9). In a structural way, the peculiar digression on Nimrod is parallel to that of Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24. The difference is that Enoch is assessed theologically whereas Nimrod is celebrated politically. This is what might be expected as the narrative moves closer to identifiable historical reality. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 92)

Laurence A. Turner notes:

The reference to Nimrod has all the indications of being a parenthetical note in the genealogy. Interestingly there are six genealogical lists in Genesis 10:2-7 (Japheth, Gomer, Javan, Ham, Cush and Raamah). Genesis 10:8 begins the seventh list. However, it reverts to Cush, who has already been mentioned (Genesis 10:7a), and concerns the exploits of Nimrod, son of Cush who was omitted from the previous list. The deletion of Nimrod, highlighted and distinguished in this way from the other genealogical elements, would reduce the actual total to 70. (Turner, Genesis (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), 51-52)

Despite relaying several facts about Nimrod, most of the information provided in the table is ambiguous. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) speculates:

The statements are so general, and connected to one another so loosely, that one senses how remote and legendary the information about Nimrod was even in the ancient Israelite period; only particular recollections have been preserved. Our list considers Nimrod as the first wielder of power of earth, the first ruler of historical significance, the first in the series of those great men whose will become determinative for the fate of entire nations. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 146)

Even Nimrod’s name is enigmatic. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) researches:

The etymology of Nimrod is...uncertain. Most writers have connected it with the Hebrew verb mārad, “to rebel.” In the Haggadah (T.B. Hag. 13a; Pes. 94b) Nimrod is pictured as the prototype of rebellion, the builder of the Tower of Babel, and the one who led the people in rebellion against God. Mitchell J. Dahood [1922-1982] has noted that at both Ebla and Ugarit some proper names combine an animal and a deity. He notes particularly Ugar. ni-mi-ri-ya (which translates “panther of Yah”), which leads him to suggest that Nimrod means “panther of Hadd” (i.e., Baal), analogous to nqmd (“victory of Hadd”). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 338)

Nimrod is so lauded that it might be assumed that he would be featured prominently throughout the Bible as well as extra-biblical sources. This is simply not the case. The potentate’s name appears only four times in the Biblical text: twice in the Table of Nations, in another genealogy in I Chronicles and in Micah which refers to northern Mesopotamia/Assyria as the “land of Nimrod” (Genesis 10:8, 9; I Chronicles 1:10; Micah 5:6).

More surprisingly, Nimrod is evidently unknown elsewhere in ancient literature. To bridge the gap between Scripture and history, many have conjectured as to which known luminary could correspond to Nimrod. Ironically, commentators have spent a great deal of time trying to identify the most famous man of his time. Humans, deities, demigods, an archetypical ideal (as opposed to real person) and a composite character have all been suggested.

Claus Westermann (1909-2000) surveys the usual suspects:

Benno Jacob [1862-1945] gives a detailed account of the explanations offered for the name Nimrod and concludes: “But there is no sign at all of a Nimrod or similar name.” Likewise John Skinner [1851-1925] and others, and the situation has not changed despite more recent attempts. The name is linked with Marduk, the tutelary god of Babylon (A.H. Sayce [1846-1938], Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918]); with Nuzi-Maruttash, a king of the Kassite dynasty (Paul Haupt [1858-1926], H.V. Hilprecht [1859-1925]); as nu-marad (man from Marad) with the middle Babylonian city Marad (Franz Delitzsch [1830-1890]); with the constellation Orion, who appears as a mighty hunter in Greece and later as a hunter translated to the sky; in Syriac the constellation is known as gabbār; with Amen-Hotep III (1411-1375) who is called neb-ma-re, in the Amarna letters Nimmuri (Kurt Sethe [1869-1934]); with Gilgamesh, who is described as gibbōr in the epic, and presented as a hunter in sculpture (so many interpreters); with the Babylonian god of war and hunt Ninurta (Heinrich Zimmern [1862-1931], KBL); more recently (E.A. Speiser [1902-1965], Eretz-Israel V[1958] 32-45) with Yukulti-Ninurta I, of the 13th century, the first Assyrian master of Babylon; as Ninos a figure of Greek story. (Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, 515)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) updates:

The list of candidates includes Sargon, founder of the dynasty of Akkad in the late third millennium BC (Yigal Levin [b. 1963] 2002); Tikulti-Ninurta I (ca. 1244-1208 BC), a great builder who was the first Assyrian ruler to conquer Babylon (E.A. Speiser [1902-1965] 1958; 1964: 72-73), Ashurnasirpal II (878-707 BC), who made Calah (Kalhu, now Nimrud, on the east bank of the Tigris south-east of Mosul) his capital; and Sargon II (721-705 BC), whose new capital at Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad) was abandoned after his death (Christoph Uehlinger [b. 1958] 2003; Arie van der Kooij [b. 1945] 2006). To these we may add Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC), last significant ruler in the long succession of Assyrian kings, in spite of the fact that “the beginning of his kingdom’ was Assyria not Babylon. (Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, 161-162)

Each suggestion has its limitations and there is no consensus among scholars.

Whoever Nimrod was, he was impressive. Three times the text uses the word “mighty” (Hebrew: gibbôr) to describe him (Genesis 10:8-9). The only other time this word occurs in Genesis is in relation to the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4). In Genesis 10:8, in addition to “mighty” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), the word is also translated “great” (MSG) “heroic” (NLT) and “powerful” (HCSB). The word means “strong, mighty” and can be equated with “champion” though the context is clearly does not fit sports or games.

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) defines:

The association of “mighty warrior” (Genesis 10:8) with the prowess of the hunt (“mighty hunter,” Genesis 10:9) reflects the early traditions of Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings famous for this practice. In both expressions gibbor (“mighty”) refers to the strength of Nimrod as a champion warrior. It is reminiscent of Genesis 6:4, which describes the infamous heroes of the past. Usually the term occurs in the context of military achievement (e.g., Joshua 10:2; Amos 2:14, 16). (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (The New American Commentary), 450)

Nimrod is characterized as a mighty hunter (Genesis 10:9); Esau is the only other hunter mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 25:27). Robert Alter (b. 1935) analyzes:

The Hebrew, which says literally, “he began to be a mighty man,” uses the same idiom that is invoked for Noah’s planting a vineyard. The implication, is that Nimrod, too, was the founder of an archetypical human occupation. The next verse suggests that this occupation is that of hunter, with his founding of a great Mesopotamian empire then introduced in Genesis 10:10-12 as an ancillary fact. Perhaps his prowess as a hunter is put forth as evidence of the martial prowess that enabled him to conquer kingdoms, since the two skills are often associated in the ruling classes of older civilizations. Numerous Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs depict royal lion hunts or royal bull hunts. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 43)

Some have supposed that his fellow humans are the game that Nimrod hunts. Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) interpret:

The cultural innovation was no cause for rejoicing. Anyone who knows the Assyrian hunting reliefs in the British Museum in London understands that Nimrod was not a prince on a safari. The king was the “lord of animals,” a caricature of the (exemplary) man of the stripe of Noah who dominates the animals as a human in God’s image. A man like Nimrod hunted predators of the semi-chaotic field that adjoined the cultivated land. He was superhuman in his power, “a hero in hunting before the face of YHWH.” A greater superlative cannot be imagined. Or does the author intend to express a limitation of his power? (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 89-90)

Yael Shemesh documents:

The midrash views Nimrod, of whom the Bible reports that “he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8-9), with extreme disfavor. According to Midrash Aggadah...on Genesis 10:8, Nimrod was the first person to eat meat: “Before Nimrod human beings did not eat meat, until Nimrod came and hunted and ate them. This is why it says that ‘he began to be a [that is, was the first] mighty hunter.’” The midrash’s disapproval of the hunter is evident from what comes next: “‘He was a mighty hunter’: This means that he hunted men [beriyot] and killed them. ‘Before the Lord’: This means that he knew his Master and intended to rebel against him: “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord’: This refers to Esau, who is called ‘a skillful hunter’ (Genesis 25:27).” The midrash evidently draws a link between harming animals and harming human beings: someone who overcame the basic human revulsion at shedding the blood of animals is a villain who also hunts and kills human beings. As for “before the Lord,” which might be interpreted as favorable, the midrash reads it negatively: even though he knows the Lord, Nimrod intends to rebel against Him. (Athalya Brenner [b. 1943], Archie Chi Chung Lee, Gale A. Yee [b. 1949], Genesis (Texts @ Contexts), 117)

Unlike the shepherd kings from the Ancient Near East applauded in the Bible, Nimrod is able to exert his will and parlay his unique skills into becoming the world’s first potentate. He builds an empire. Before Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE), Genghis Khan (1162-1227) and Adolph Hitler (1889-1945), there was Nimrod.

John Goldingay (b. 1942) portrays:

Nimrod is the Bible’s first individual “champion” or outstanding warrior, following on the Fallen of Genesis 6 who were also “champions” or warriors; there will be no more “champions” in the Torah (except God). Further, Nimrod is the only hunter in the Old Testament except Esau. And he is this “before Yahweh”: even by God’s standards, Nimrod is impressive. Yet further, he is the first person in Scripture with whom words such as king or reign are associated, the first person in the Bible with a kingdom. The comments about him suggest an anticipatory judgment on earthly kingship and kingdom. The existence of powerful states and powerful rulers is at best an ambiguous development in the world’s unfolding story. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part One: Chapters 1-16 123)

Nimrod vastly expands his territory. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) traces:

Four (or three?) cities are connected with Nimrod. Three of them are well known: Babylon, the ancient capital city of Mesopotamia, situated on a branch of the Euphrates, southwest of Baghdad; Erech (ancient Uruk, modern Warka), an important Sumerian city (especially 4th-3rd millennium B.C.), located about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad; Accad (also spelled Akkad or Agade), the capital city of the dynasty of Sargon of Akkad, situated on the Euphrates in northern Babylonia, though its site has never been discovered...The city about which there is uncertainty is Calneh. Amos 6:2 mentions a city by this name, along with Carchemish, Hamathm and Arpad, as cities conquered by the Assyrians, and hence pointing to northern Syria. It is difficult, however, to identify this northern Calneh with the one in Genesis 10, which is specifically designated as being in the land of Shinar, that is Sumer, which is in the south, unless the northern Calneh (Amos 6:2), is to be seen as a commercial colony named after the mother city in the south (Genesis 10:10). Furthermore, the extant cuneiform literature has no references to a southern (i.e., Babylonian) Calneh. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 339)

Nimrod became so celebrated that a proverbial saying developed around his name, the way a great basketball move today might be described as “Jordanesque” in deference to Michael Jordan (Genesis 10:9).

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) compares:

Just as biblical names have come down to us embedded in proverbial sayings – we speak, for example of someone having ‘the patience of Job’ –so the Hebrews knew of a proverbial saying in which the name of an ancient non-Hebrew hero Nimrod appeared. (Davidson, Genesis 1-11 (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 102)

Like most of the material involving Nimrod, the aphorism is cryptic. Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) explains:

The proverb “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD” is unclear about how the author interprets the expression. “Before the LORD” has been taken as God’s favor toward Nimrod, or conversely, suggesting sinful rebellion as in the thought of Psalm 66:7: “He [God] rules forever by his power, his eyes watch the nations—let not the rebellious rise up against him.” Some conclude alternatively that the phrase is neutral, only expressing a superlative, thereby indicating that Nimrod’s activities stood out especially. Lexical connections between the Nimrod narrative and the tower event (Genesis 11:1-9), however, encourage the reader to interpret Nimrod’s activities, as the founder of Babel, in the same negative light the Lord “saw” the efforts of the tower builders. (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (The New American Commentary), 450)

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) views Nimrod’s exploits as indicative of far reaching ramifications:

This note also gives the etiological understanding of an early aphorism in ancient Israel (Genesis 10:9): “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh.” This presumably hints that post-flood humanity has already reverted to pre-flood despotism. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 116)

The name Nimrod persists today with two widely disparate meanings, a hunter and a person deemed silly or foolish. The prevalence of the latter has trumped the former. Amazingly, the second meaning likely derived from the cartoon character Bugs Bunny. The wily rabbit used the term in its original sense to refer to his nemesis, the asinine hunter Elmer Fudd, whom he called a “poor little Nimrod.” Eventually, the name became more associated with the characteristics of the inept animated hunter than the great biblical warrior.

The original Nimrod, however, was the most influential person of his and the surrounding generations. Nimrod utilized his entrepreneurial spirit to become a world changer.

Who are today’s “mighty men”? What historical figures are comparable to Nimrod? Who will stand out in your generation? How is the world different because of Nimrod; what impact did he have? How did the original readers view Nimrod, as a hero or a villain? How should Nimrod be remembered?

Nimrod is remembered for personal prowess and political power, traits loved by the world. Yet the Bible is not so clear as to whether Nimrod should be as revered as he was in his own lifetime.

Donald E. Gowan (b. 1929) remarks:

The note is neutral in tone, like Genesis 4:17-22 and Genesis 9:20. It does not follow the pattern of the stories of Cain and Abel or the tower of Babel, which express negative judgments about what has gone wrong in human culture. This is somewhat remarkable in that the list of cities includes Israel’s deadly enemies, Babel and Nineveh. (Gowan, Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary), 113)

Miguel A. De La Torre (b. 1958) expounds:

Not much is said about Nimrod, except that he is reckoned as the world’s first potentate. Although we are not told anything about his relationship with God except that he was a mighty hunter in Yahweh’s eyes, his name might betray his character. The Hebrew word “to rebel” (marad) may be the root of the Hebrew word Nimrod. But what was it about Nimrod that was rebellious? Nimrod is credited with building an empire that included Babel (Babylon), Erech, and Achad. From there he continued to Assyria and built Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian Empire. If there is any connection with the word “rebellion” and Nimrod’s name, Walter Brueggemann [b. 1933] suggests it might be that empire building is a rebellion against Yahweh. (De La Torre, Genesis: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 132)

Traditionally, Nimrod is typically depicted negatively. Later Jewish traditions portray the potentate as the builder of the infamous Tower of Babel and the originator of idolatry. Josephus (37-100) envisions Nimrod (called Nebrodes following the Septuagint) as a tyrant who is actively hostile towards God and builds the Tower of Babel in preparation for another Flood (Jewish Antiquities I.113-199). Philo (20 BCE-50 CE) stretches by translating his epithet as the condemning “a mighty hunter against the Lord” (Questions and Answers on Genesis II.82).

Though tradition links Nimrod as the impetus behind the Tower of Babel, he is not included in the biblical account (Genesis 11:1-9). Even so, Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) sees a linguistic connection:

The narrator foreshadows the Tower of Babel narrative by key words in the biographical note about Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-12). Both Nimrod and the tower builders “build,” bānâ, “cities,” ‘îr (Genesis 10:11-12, 11:4-5), in “Babylon” and “Shinar” (Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 9). Moreover, in both of these narratives the narrator inserts the only two references to “the LORD” in the book. Both pertain to God’s sovereignty over the godless humans and their cities. Nimrod’s deeds were “before the LORD” (Genesis 10:9), and the “LORD came down to the city [Babylon]” (Genesis 11:5; cf. Genesis 11:6, 8-9). (Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 163)

Interpretations of Nimrod hinge on the enigmatic expression “before the LORD” featured in the proverb (Genesis 10:9). It can mean either in the Lord’s presence or in the Lord’s estimation.

John E. Hartley (b. 1940) examines:

The text states twice that Nimrod achieved fame as a hunter “before Yahweh.” This phrase elevates Nimrod’s achievement to a superior level. It also shows that Yahweh was involved in the course of the development of the nations. (Hartley, New International Biblical Commentary, 121)

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) and Stephen J. Bramer (b. 1953) posit:

The relevance of this expression is not clear. Nimrod was in the line of Ham, not Shem, through whom Abram would descend. Perhaps this statement about the Lord was included to signify that not all of Ham’s descendants would be under the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:25), or it could signify that this was done in God’s presence, as Genesis 11:5 points out. (Gangel and Bramer, Genesis (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 105)

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) deduces:

The interesting thing about him here is that the narrator offers a proverbial saying, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Genesis 10:8-9). Whoever Nimrod was, he was not outside the interests of Yahweh. In the view of the Priestly genealogist, he lived out his life of greatness by the grace of the creator of all peoples. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 104)

Despite many traditions to the contrary, Nimrod has found supporters. He has been seen as a reminder that God can use those outside of the chosen people, like Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1), to accomplish the divine will.

John Rogerson (b. 1935) presents:

A possible key verse for the understanding of the chapter is Genesis 10:9, where Nimrod is described as a ‘mighty hunter before the LORD’...If, as seems most likely, the verse is taken to be a compliment to Nimrod, then we have a non-Israelite described both as a founder of civilization in Babylon and Assyria, and as standing in some sort of relationship to God. From this we could conclude that the chapter is saying not only did the nations consist of men and women created by the God worshipped by Israel, but that among these nations were individuals who enjoyed the favour of the God worshipped by Israel. We must not overlook the fact that the Old Testament has a strong sense that foreign nations can be used of God (cf. Isaiah 10:5, 45:1), and that God’s purpose in calling Abraham is to bring blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:3). (Rogerson, Genesis 1-11 (T and T Clark Study Guides), 74)

Joseph Coleson (b. 1947) adds:

The significant prepositional phrase, lipnê yhwh, occurs twice in Genesis 10:9. Most often it is translated, “before the Lord/Yahweh,” but that does not reflect its full significance in this context. It was not just in Yahweh’s presence, or estimation, that Nimrod was a master of the hunt. It was by God’s will, even by God’s grace (E.A. Speiser 1902-1965] 1964, 51, 64; Victor P. Hamilton [b. 1952] 1990, 335, see, e.g. Numbers 32:20-22). This insight militates against understanding the name Nimrod as meaning “rebel.” Taken seriously, it also has the potential to revise our (usually negative) opinions of Nimrod. (Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 273-74)

Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) justifies the potentate by noting that Nimrod’s actions are understandable:

He was...the founder, presumably by conquest, of an empire of cities in the plain of Shinar, and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel (Genesis 10:8-10). By means of a large kingdom, Nimrod attempts to overcome by force the division of mankind. We should not be too quick to blame him: if what lies behind the human world is only chaos and instability, man must make his own order. Human ordering is the theme fo the story of Babel. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis , 222)

In spite of this praise, the context is flooded with negative associations. The term “mighty” connects Nimrod with the cause fo the “flood’ (Genesis 6:4). In the preceding chapter, Nimrod’s grandfather, Ham, and his descendants are cursed (Genesis 9:20-27). On top of this, as a son of Cush, he appears to be a Hamite, yet his entire kingdom is in Shemite territory.

Paul J. Kissling (b. 1957) connects:

That Nimrod became a mighty warrior...(gibbōr) probably alludes to the “heroes”...(hěggibbōrîm) of Genesis 6:4. Nimrod’s violence is thus linked to the violence that brought on the divine judgment of the Flood. That Nimrod is later associated with the founding of the great kingdoms of Israel’s experience leads the audience to be reminded of the violence of kingdoms with their secular views of authority (whether it be Egypt who enslaved them or Babylon who exiled them matters little.) They start from a man whose name means “we will rebel” and who became a warrior like the warriors destroyed in the Flood. (Kissling, Genesis, Volume 1 (The College Press NIV Commentary), 365)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) contextualizes:

Like Cain, Nimrod built a city (Genesis 4:17), and like the Nephilim destroyed in the deluge, he was one of the gibbōrîm, the ‘mighty men’ of old, though clearly a different type of gibbôr. While the brief narrative about Nimrod is not explicitly prejudicial and negative, in the broader context of Genesis 1-11 these associations suggest a negative verdict on his political and military accomplishments and a further stage of deterioration according to the Yahwist’s realistic and disenchanted view of human affairs. (Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11, 161)

Mark G. Brett (b. 1958) sees empire building in general as problematic:

A unifying principle among the Hamites is urbanism, and this feature is reflected especially in...Nimrod...who somehow founds the urban centres both of Babylon and of Assyria. Nimrod is an empire builder, indeed the prototype of empire builders. And the implicit suggestion from the editors of Genesis is that empire builders...are guilty of crimes of dominance...More than that, empire builders are guilty of improper ambition. (Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity, 46)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) concludes:

He should have been a terrifying figure—the personification or incarnation of overwhelming power. But the story demystifies him. In the figure of his ancestor Ham, the weakness of his foundations have already been seen; ultimately his fate is not mightiness but servitude. The description of him as “mighty...mighty...mighty” recalls the mighty men who were washed away by the mightier flood (Genesis 6:4, 7:18-20). To emphasize God’s presence, Nimrod’s hunting is placed “before Yhwh,” in other words, subject to Yhwh (Genesis 10:9). (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 194)

The final verdict on Nimrod’s virtue is left to the reader. Perhaps he is like most people, possessing both good and bad traits. From the Biblical perspective, a person’s greatness should not be assessed based upon worldly accomplishments but rather relationship to God. By this standard, Enoch who leaves no political legacy (Genesis 5:21-24) is far greater than Nimrod who shaped the ancient world (Genesis 10:8-14).

What is Nimrod’s relationship to God? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with building empires? What is the barometer for greatness? Who do you consider to be great?

“Greatness lies, not in being strong, but in the right using of strength; and strength is not used rightly when it serves only to carry a man above his fellows for his own solitary glory. He is the greatest whose strength carries up the most hearts by the attraction of his own.” - Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887), Life Thoughts: Gathered from the Extemporaneous Discourses of Henry Ward Beecher, 1858

Jesus: Late Bloomer? (Luke 3:23)

How old was Jesus when he began His public ministry? Thirty years old (Luke 3:23)

Though the first four books of the New Testament are devoted to his biography, Jesus’ age is seldom mentioned in Scripture. With the gospel’s customary interest in chronology (Luke 1:5, 2:1-2, 3:1-2), Luke alone specifies Jesus’ age (Luke 2:42, 3:23). In a preface to Jesus’ genealogy, Luke records that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry (Luke 3:23).

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, (Luke 3:23 NASB)

This passage marks one of only two gospel allusions to Jesus’ age as an adult (Luke 3:23; John 8:57). Harold W. Hoehner (1935-2009) compares:

In John 8:57 the Jews said to Jesus, “You are not yet fifty years old.” Irenaeus [130-202] held that Jesus was in His forties, for if Jesus were in His thirties they would have said, “You are not yet forty years old.” George Ogg [b. 1890] takes this chronological note in John 8:57 and doubts that Luke 3:23 can serve any chronological purpose. But certainly the opposite is more likely. Luke 3:23 indicates a precise statement whereas John 8:57 indicates that the Jews were emphasizing Jesus’ youth in contrast to His claim that He existed before Abraham. Therefore, John 8:57 is not helpful in trying to establish the commencement of Christ’s ministry. (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 43)

The last time that Luke mentions Jesus’ age, he is twelve years old consulting with teachers in the temple (Luke 2:42). Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) notes:

Since we were told Jesus’ age when we last heard about him (twelve years old), we now find out how much time has passed. Jesus is a thirty-year-old man, more or less at mid-life, given the life expectancy of that place and time. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 56)

Like a movie that moves from depicting a child to the same adult years later, Luke leaves eighteen “missing” years in Jesus’ life. Not surprisingly this gap has generated curiosity. (How many wish that their awkward teen years went undocumented?) It has been assumed that these years are relatively uneventful.

Beth Moore (b. 1957) observes:

Luke 2:42 tells us Jesus was twelve at the recorded visit to the temple. Luke 3:23 says He was thirty at the beginning of His ministry. The Gospel writer supplies only two verses spanning the eighteen years in between. During these years, Christ Jesus went from boy to mature man. Luke 2:52 appears brief and to the point but actually broadens dramatically our concept of Christ. It tells us our Lord “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” (Moore, Jesus, the One and Only, 51)

Little can be said with any certainty regarding Jesus’ formative years. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) imagines:

For thirty years the Son had lived in humble circumstances in the seclusion of Nazareth...For thirty years his inner devotional life transcended the understanding and imagination of men...During these silent years the shaping of the second Adam was accomplished. (Hughes, Luke, Volume One: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 127)

Though the gospel writers evidently knew nothing worth documenting from these years in Jesus’ life, they were formative and presumably laid the foundation for his later ministry.

Luke is clear that his calculation is an approximation (Luke 3:23). All modern translations include that Jesus is “about” (Greek: hōseí) thirty (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). He may have been several years younger or older (e.g., The Testament of Levi 2:2, 12:5).

Approximation is customary in Luke. Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) recognizes:

Luke often cites numbers less precisely, with an approximating modifier: Jesus was “about thirty years old” when he began his public ministry (Luke 3:23); there were “about five thousand men” present at the feeding in the desert near Bethsaida (Luke 9:14); the number present at the election of Matthias to the circle of Twelve was “about one hundred twenty persons” (Acts 1:15); the number of converts baptized on the day of Pentecost was “about three thousand” (Acts 2:41); the number of John’s disciples encountered by Paul in Acts “altogether...were about twelve” (Acts 19:7). (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 90)

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) explains:

Like a good Greek historian, Luke says “about thirty” (Luke 3:23 rather than stating an estimate as a definite number, as was more common in traditional Jewish historiography. (Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 197-98)

Many have used this time stamp to construct a chronology of Jesus. Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) determines:

If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1-19) who died in 4 B.C., and if Jesus was born ca. 6 B.C. and began his ministry ca. 28...Jesus would indeed have been in his early thirties...Luke may simply not have been able to be more specific about Jesus’ age. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 142)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) cautions:

The use of the adverb hōsei indicates that the figure is to be taken as a round number; in the context of chapter 3 it means that Jesus’ thirtieth birthday was not far removed from Tiberius’ fifteen regnal year [Luke 3:1]. But despite Luke’s desire to anchor “events” by reference to Roman and Palestinian history, this indication of Jesus’ age should not be pressed too much in conjunction with Luke 1:5, 2:2 or 3:1, since it is clearly an approximation. Dionysius Exiguus [470-544] pressed it and miscalculated the beginning of the Christian era and we have had to live with it ever since. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 499)

John Nolland (b. 1947) concurs:

Luke uses the language of approximation for Jesus’ age. The most that can be suggested is that such an age denotes an adequate measure of maturity (cf. Numbers 4:3). Since we do not know at what stage of John’s ministry Jesus was baptized and began his own independent career, and because the information itself here is imprecise, no firm birth year can be established for Jesus by the juxtaposition of Luke 3:23 and Luke 3:1. (Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary), 171)

Much has been made of Jesus inaugurating his public ministry at the age of thirty. Perhaps not coincidentally, thirty was as the age which priests and Levites began their service (Numbers 4:3, 35, 39, 43, 47; I Chronicles 23:3).

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) suggests:

Such a detail is not added without meaning, and, when reviewing the Mosaic Law, it is discovered that the male child who would enter the priesthood was not eligible to so until he was thirty years of age (cf. Numbers 4:3), and from the added fact that there was no other public ministry to be entered which prescribed its age limits it is reasonable to conclude that the baptism of Christ had to do with His consecration to the priestly office. (Chafer, Systematic Theology: Vols. 5 & 6, 62)

Jesus begins his public ministry at an age that would have been deemed seemly. Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) surveys:

Thirty was viewed in both Jewish and Greco-Roman society as an appropriate age to enter public service. At thirty priests began their duties (Numbers 4:3), Joseph entered Pharaoh’s service (Genesis 41:26), and Ezekiel was called to his prophetic ministry (Ezekiel 1:1). Most significantly, David’s reign as king began at the age of thirty (II Samuel 5:4). Jesus, the Davidic Messiah, follows in the steps of his father David. (Strauss, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 42)

As Strauss alludes, many prominent biblical figures also experience milestones at the age of thirty. David E. Garland (b. 1947) interprets:

Thirty years old marks a “threshold age” in the ancient sources. Joseph was thirty when he entered the service of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:46), and David was thirty years old when he began to reign (II Samuel 5:4). The age signals to the reader that Jesus is now a mature, responsible man ready for his public career. After the extraordinary events surrounding his conception and birth, Jesus had apparently lived for thirty years as an ordinary, anonymous man. Luke has no interest in fantasies of Jesus’ youth that appear in some apocryphal gospels. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 170)

The recurrence of the age of thirty is also prevalent at Qumran. Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) documents:

According to one of the sectarian scrolls from Qumran, when a man “is thirty years old, he may begin to take part in legal disputes” (1QSa 1:13). According to another Scroll, those who may hold the responsibility of preparing the provisions for war “shall be from twenty-five to thirty years old,” in contrast to youths and women, who are not permitted to “enter their encampments” (1QM 7:3). But Qumran’s strictures hardly go beyond the principles of the law itself (cf. Numbers 4:3: “from thirty years and upward, even to fifty years old, who all enter the service to do the work in the tent of meeting”). Luke’s reference to age may therefore mean no more than that Jesus began his age as a mature adult, ready to assume important social and religious responsibilities. (Evans, Matthew-Luke (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 45)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

That Jesus was thirty years old at the time of his baptism is not without a natural significance since it is the normative Mediterranean age of majority. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 61)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) finds it fitting that Jesus begins his public ministry at the age of thirty:

When he began his ministry Jesus was the ‘right’ age for his work, just as he could lay claim to the ‘right’ descent...The age of thirty...corresponds with that of David when he began to reign (II Samuel 5:4; cf. Joseph, Genesis 41:46; the sons of Kohath, Numbers 4:3; Ezekiel, Ezekiel 1:1), and hence may suggest that David is here seen as a type of Jesus...Rabbinic tradition gave Jesus an age of 33-34 years (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 106b). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 162)

William Barclay (1907-1978) identifies three practical advantages to Jesus delaying his public ministry:

(1) It was essential that Jesus should carry out with the utmost fidelity the more limited tasks of family duty before he could take up the universal task of saving the world...(2) It gave him the opportunity to live out his own teaching...(3) If Jesus was to help people he had to know how they lived. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible), 47-48)

In addition to Jesus acquiring the requisite life experience to be the Messiah, Jesus is at a respectable age of maturity when he begins his ministry. He is in the prime of his life. Thirty is an optimum age to begin an important task.

Why does Jesus wait until he is thirty to begin his public ministry? Why now; why is the timing right? Should contemporary pastors wait until the age of thirty to begin their ministries? (John the Baptist evidently begins his ministry at an earlier age.) When do you feel that a person reaches maturity? At what age did you start your career? How do you think Jesus occupied his first thirty years? Is Jesus’ public ministry more important than these “missing” years?

John W. Miller (b. 1926) summarizes:

At the beginning of the fourth decade of his life (Luke 3:23), soon after his baptism and temptations, the Gospels tell us, he became a prophet-evangelist with an intense concern for the welfare of a certain group of people: “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” as they are referred to in Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24. It was at this time, in the midst of this specific evangelistic mission, that he “came into his own,” so to speak. (Miller, Jesus at Thirty: A Psychological and Historical Portrait, 78)

In an age where adults transition frequently, get later starts and struggle to “find themselves”, it is worth remembering that this is another way in which Jesus can relate (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus too might have been considered a “late bloomer”.

What were you doing at age 30? If you have not yet reached this milestone, what do you hope to be doing? Would Jesus’ friends have perceived him as having a mid-life crisis when his public ministry began? (Mid-life Christ-is?) Is it fair to call Jesus a late bloomer? Is it ever too late to begin anew?

“It is never too late to be what you might have been.” - attributed to George Eliot (1819-1880)

Jonah’s Fish Story (Jonah 1:17)

Who was swallowed by a big fish? Jonah

One of the best known of all Bible stories is that of Jonah’s sojourn inside a large fish, commonly presumed to be a whale (Jonah 1:17). The tale has captured the imagination of children and adults alike for centuries. The reluctant prophet ignores God’s call to Nineveh and sets sail in the opposite direction for Tarshish (Jonah 1:2-3). When the vessel carrying Jonah encounters a devastating storm, it is determined that Jonah’s disobedience is the cause and he is thrown overboard, presumably left for dead (Jonah 1:4-16).

God has other plans for Jonah. In the last verse of the book’s first chapter the notorious fish engulfs the would be prophet (Jonah 1:17).

And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. (Jonah 1:17 NASB)

Harold Shank (b. 1950) summarizes:

Jonah’s means of transport changes from a ship to a fish. One protected him from the storm and the other from the sea. One led him away from God, and the other brought him back to God. Inside the fish Jonah has a change of heart. (Shank, Minor Prophets, Volume 1: Hosea-Micah (The College Press NIV Commentary), 345)

The Hebrew text has slightly different chapter divisions than do English translations. John D.W. Watts (b. 1921) affirms:

This verse is at the beginning of chapter 2 in the Hebrew Bible. That chapter division recognizes that it belongs more to what follows than to what has passed. (Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 82)

The large fish is the best known and most debated facet of the book that bears the prophet’s name. The creature is described alternatively as a “great fish” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, RSV), “huge fish” (HCSB, MSG, NIV), “big fish” (CEV) and “large fish” (NRSV). The common denominator is “fish”. Though not an impossibility, the text makes no reference to a whale. This common identification likely stems from the King James Version’s translation of Matthew 12:40.

The Hebrew word “fish” (dâg) is as broad as its English counterpart and can reference any aquatic creature (e.g., Genesis 9:2; Numbers 11:22; I Kings 4:33; Psalms 8:8).

James Limburg (b. 1935) elucidates:

What sort of “big fish” did the author have in mind here? The Greek translations have kētei megalō (kētous in Matthew 12:40) which may be translated “great sea monster,” while the Vulgate piscern grandem, “big fish.” The Hebrew “big fish” (the seventh of fourteen occurrences of gādôl, “big,” in the story) does not denote a specific species but leaves room for the imagination of the hearer or reader. (Limburg, Jonah: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 61)

Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) expounds:

Some of the versions try to be more precise on the identity of this “large fish.” The LXX uses to to kētos, and it is recalled as such in Matthew 12:40, in Josephus [37-100], and in the Arabic version’s hût. In Greek literature, however, the kētos is an aquatic animal that, as we follow its attestations chronologically, exhibits a progressively larger size, changing from Homer [800-701 BCE]’s “seal” to Pliny [23-79]’s “whale.” It is a fact, moreover, that Scripture has preserved no specific names for the many types of salt- or sweet-water fish known to the eastern Mediterranean. This does not mean, of course, that the ancient Hebrews were not able to distinguish among the area’s wide varieties of fish; it simply suggests that no biblical context seems to require a specific vocabulary for fish. This observation holds true even in the listing of animals deemed suitable for sacrifice or consumption; Scripture merely distinguishes between fish with scales and gills (acceptable) or those without (unacceptable), making no judgment on any aquatic animal with no vertebrae (Leviticus 11:9; Deuteronomy 14:9). (Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 149)

The text is concerned with the creature’s size, not species. Sasson continues:

The text merely states that the fish was “large”...The adjective gādôl permits a play on the consonants it shares with dāg...but it also maintains an interest in aggrandizing objects (Nineveh and its evil, the wind, the storm, the sailors’ fear). For those who read Jonah on its most realistic level, the adjective “great” no doubt makes Jonah’s sojourn within the fish more plausible. It has to be said, however, that the miraculous in Jonah’s experience is also basic to the story...and a guppy would have perfectly suited (if not sharpened) this element. In fact, in another Jewish tale that features a “big fish” (and that, interestingly enough, has Nineveh among its settings), the size of the fish turns out not to be all that significant a feature. When a “huge fish...leaped out of the water and tried to swallow [Tobias’s] foot,’ only its internal organs proved useful: to ward off the attacks of evil demons and to cure blindness (Tobit 6:2). (Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 149-50)

There is even ambiguity regarding the fish’s gender. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) relay:

Rashi [1040-1105] tells us that the fish is male. However, since Jonah is comfortable within, he does not think of praying while inside it, and God orders the fish to vomit him out. Subsequently, a pregnant female fish swallows Jonah. At this point, Jonah, crowded by all the fish eggs, is forced to pray. Rashi comes to this conclusion based on the word for “the fish” (hadag). In this verse, the word is masculine, so he reads it as “the male fish.” However, in the following verse, the author uses hagadah, a feminine form. Rashi thus reasons that there must be a second, female fish. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Jonah; A Modern Commentary, 23)

W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. (b. 1967) investigates further:

The feminine form of fish, הדגה, has elicited considerable discussion, particularly given that the masculine form appears in Jonah 2:1 and Jonah 2:11. Although there are several Hebrew words that may be either masculine or feminine דג is not one of them. Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842] suggests that Jonah 2:2 is example of a nomen unitatis, or a singulative, in which one gender expresses the collective unit, while the other appears to indicate a single component within the unit...Although such a phenomenon appears in Jonah 1:3 with the use of אניה...it does not explain the irregularity in Jonah 2:2. Jack M. Sasson [b. 1941 suggests an alternative explanation. Sasson notes that in the Hebrew the singular form of a word can be used instead of its plural form, providing that the number (singular vs. plural) is not the main point of the text...A similar phenomenon occurs with masculine words supplanting feminine words. (Tucker, Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, 49)

The great fish may hold meaning to the sailors who throw Jonah overboard (Jonah 1:15-16). John H. Walton (b. 1952) speculates:

In Canaanite beliefs there were various sea monsters who were associates of the sea god, Yamm, and sometimes even identified with him. If the sailors saw the fish, it is possible that they would have viewed it as a personification of the sea god. (Walton, The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 109)

For Jonah, the fish may be the embodiment of his worst fears. Phillip Cary (b. 1958) internalizes:

The great fish is a cosmic version of an ancient nightmare, the great monster of the deep that represents chaos and destruction, the flooding and undoing of the world. I saw the origins of this nightmare once when I stood with a small child at the seashore and watched the waves roll in, and he was frightened because he did not see what could keep them from rolling on and on and swallowing him up. For all who can feel the roots of that child’s fear, the LORD God brings assurance and order to the world, saying to the sea: “Thus far you may come and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:11). The same setting of the boundaries to the sea is pictured on the third day of creation, when God separates land from water, making a place where human beings can dwell. After this, the first of the creatures that God makes to live and move under heaven are “the great sea monsters” (Genesis 1:21). This is a reversal of the view of ancient Near Eastern mythology, which bases the ordering of the world on a primal battle between a god like Baal and the monsters of the watery chaos. God does not first slay the monster of the deep and then order the inhabited world, but first orders the world in peace, then creates great and marvelous things even in the deep. (Cary, Jonah (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 79)

The text moves from tragedy to comedy as the nightmarish creature proves to be Jonah’s salvation. The great fish will serve as Jonah’s home for three days and nights (Jonah 1:17).

Marvin Alan Sweeney (b. 1953) investigates:

The notice that Jonah was in the “belly” (literally, “intestines”) of the fish for three days and three nights has prompted some discussion. It has been taken as a typical reference to a long period of time (cf. I Samuel 30:11-15), simply as an expression of the Hebrew fondness for the number three, or a mythological reference to the time it takes to descend to the netherworld. The span of time corresponds roughly to the “three days” it takes to walk across the city of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3), which would support the notion that it expresses a long period of time. It should be noted that a three-day journey expresses the length of time it takes to travel to YHWH’s presence for worship in the Exodus tradition (cf. Exodus 3:18, 5:3, 8, 23, 15:22). Insofar as Jonah expresses a desire to return to the presence of YHWH in the Temple, the reference to three days and nights in the belly of the fish also conveys the sense of separation from YHWH. (Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets; Volume 1 (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 316-17)

Frank S. Page (b. 1952) wonders:

Why did God use this specific means of returning Jonah to his appropriate place of service? For some the purpose of the fish was solely allegorical. A.J. Glaze, Jr. states: “The literary apparatus rich in metaphors and poetic imagery indicates the broader purpose of the author, and the allusions are evident to the intended audience. The relationship to one of Jeremiah’s prophecies was clear: Israel, swallowed by Babylon, would be delivered.” In other words, the story had to present elements commensurate with the intended teaching lesson...More fitting of the context is the view that the fish provided time for instruction from the Lord. R.T. Kendall [b. 1935] says it well: “The belly of the fish is not a happy place to live, but it is a good place to learn.” (Billy K. Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (The New American Commentary), 240-41)

The incredible aspects of the text have led many to believe that Jonah is an allegory at best or at worst, a fish story. This mode of thought has led to much inquiry as to the species that could sustain a human being for three days. There is an off cited urban legend of a James Bartley surviving fifteen hours inside of a whale off of the Falklands Islands in 1891. The vessel most commonly cited in connection to the incident, The Star of the East, did exist but was not a whaling ship. No ship’s log or testimony exists from the era.

Remarkably, Jonah emerges unscathed and resumes his mission (Jonah 2:10). Regardless of the species or size of the creature, divine intervention would be needed to endure gastric juices, the intestinal tract, etc. In short, Jonah experiences a miracle.

How would knowing the species of fish affect your interpretation of Jonah? Do you read Jonah literally or allegorically? Why? Would an allegorical reading diminish the text in any way? What are other incidences of God transforming tragedy into a comedy?

William P. Brown (b. 1958) asserts:

Whether a large fish—a whale is most likely what the author had in mind despite modern scientific distinction between marine mammals and fish—can actually swallow and sustain a person for three days is not an issue the author sets out to prove. Indeed, the incident itself is reported matter-of-factly. (Brown, Obadiah through Malachi (Westminster Bible Companion), 23)

Excessive interest in the sea creature developed as science became more prevalent in the nineteenth century. James Bruckner (b. 1957) traces:

Popularized by Rev. Edward B. Pusey [1800-1882]’s 1860 commentary, this relatively recent tradition focuses on the size and species of the fish/whale, the size of the fish’s larynx and stomach, the availability of breathable air, and so on. In this view Jonah is a litmus test of one’s belief in science as a means of proving the veracity of the Bible. This approach limits the message of Jonah to two verses [Jonah 1:17, 2:10] and a specific nineteenth-century view of reality...Preoccupation with the big fish...has had both a positive and negative effect on the interpretation of Jonah in communities of faith. Positively, the great fish has kindled imagination and interest in Jonah as a book. Negatively, however, the great fish has so dominated this interpretation that the discussion of the book has been limited to this question: “Was Jonah really swallowed bu the whale?” This question has served as a distraction from God’s Word. (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 21)

Thomas John Carlisle (1913-1992) fell into the trap of focusing on the fish. He confesses, “I was so obsessed with what was going on inside the whale that I missed seeing the drama inside Jonah (Carlisle, You! Jonah!, 21).”

Chasing the “whale” defeats the purpose of the text. T. Desmond Alexander (b. 1955) reminds:

The story of Jonah being swallowed by a ‘whale’ has undoubtedly fascinated generations of children. Recounted by narrators eager to capture youthful imaginations, it provides all the elements necessary for a truly gripping story. Unfortunately, however, childhood memories can colour call too easily our perception of the book. The original narrative says practically nothing about the great fish; its existence is noted in only three verses [Jonah 1:17, 2:1, 2:10]. (David W. Baker [b. 1950], Alexander & Bruce Waltke [b. 1930], Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 47)

Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) concurs:

Certainly it is futile to argue over whether such a thing would be possible. The author is telling us a story in order to say some very important things about God, and all arguments over the fish tend to divert our attention from the main points being made. The important fact is that Jonah, despite his disobedience, inability to pray and acceptance of his just sentence of death, has been saved from a watery grave by the totally undeserved grace of God. (Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I (New International Biblical Commentary), 268)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) refocuses:

The subject of the first sentence is not the great fish, but the Lord. The point the author wants to make is that God provided a way of delivering Jonah. The salient thing is God’s intervention to save Jonah and reconscript him with the original call to go to Nineveh. This point is often lost in the volumes of scholarship on the Book of Jonah. (Ogilvie, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Communicator’s Commentary: Mastering the Old Testament), 410)

The verb connected with God in this verse is mânâh, translated variously as “appointed” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, RSV), “prepared” (ASV, KJV, NKJV), “provided” (NIV, NRSV), “arranged” (NLT), “assigned” (MSG) and “sent” (CEV).

Frank S. Page (b. 1952) interprets:

This gives the perception that God created a special creature for the specific purpose of rescuing Jonah and providing a place for his training in humility and submission. But an accurate translation would be “ordained” or “appointed.” The word is used four times in the Book of Jonah and always points to the Lord’s power to accomplish his will. Here it shows his sovereignty over the creatures of the sea; in Jonah 4:6 it shows his power over plants; in Jonah 4:7 it shows his power over crawling creatures; and in Jonah 4:8 it shows his power over the wind. While God may have prepared a special “fish” for Jonah, the text only indicates that God summoned the fish, common or special, to be at that place at the exact moment of need. (Billy K. Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (The New American Commentary), 239-40)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) adds:

The wording of the first sentence is precise. Yahweh is in control; the fish simply does what it is told...The verb נהמ piel “designate; specify; appoint” does not imply that God had long in advance created a special type of fish or modified an existing one so that it could keep a person alive for seventy-two hours (cf. Robert Dick Wilson [1856-1930], Princeton Theological Review 16 [1918] 645-54). The story does not specify what kind of fish it was, how Jonah could have lived inside it, or the answers to any other such queries. Yahweh can easily toss the wind around to make a storm when he wants to. Miraculously rescuing someone from drowning via a fish is no great feat, either. But it is not, also a feat to be described analytically. The numerous attempts made in the past to identify the sort of fish the could have kept Jonah alive in it are misguided. How would even Jonah himself have known? Can we assume that he caught a glimpse of it as it turned back to sea after vomiting to shore?...How could he have understood what had happened to him when he was swallowed? These questions have no answer. To ask them is to ignore the way the story is told. What sorts of fish people can live inside is not an interest of the scripture. (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Word Biblical Commentary), 474)

The use of the word “appoint” not only underscores God’s role in the scene but, in context, downplays the fish’s. John H. Walton (b. 1952) laments:

In a way, it is a shame that this most familiar part of the book has attracted so much attention, for such attention detracts from the purpose and message of the book. The use of the verb “provided” suggests the role of the fish should be viewed no differently from that of the sprouting vine (Jonah 4:6), the action of the parasite that devours the vine (Jonah 4:7), and the east wind that torments Jonah (Jonah 4:8)—for they are all similarly “provided” by God. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Daniel-Malachi (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 474)

The fish serves as a plot device. It is arguably not even most important animal in the book (Jonah 4:7). To focus on the fish and not the God who sent it is to major on the minor.

In the belly of the creature, Jonah hits rock bottom. And yet God retains the ability to rescue the prophet. This is the text’s emphasis.

Symbolically, Jonah is raised from the dead. This is how Jesus uses the story (Matthew 12:38-40). Later Christians followed suit.

Edmund Leach (1910-1989) documents:

This was a very early and very common Christian “type” for Christ’s resurrection and for the promise of future resurrection for mankind. It was frequently used as a decoration for elaborate Roman Christian sarcophagi (see Matthew 12:40). (Robert Alter [b. 1935] and Frank Kermode [1919-2010], The Literary Guide to the Bible, 597)

Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) encapsulates:

The gracious gift of God is life. He does not abandon his servant to death, but snatches from its clutches the drowning man. To the thrill of the hearers the key figure is saved at the last moment from a seemingly inescapable plight. Yahweh mounts a special rescue operation: an enormous fish plays the astounding part of a submarine to pick up Jonah from the murky seaweed at the bottom of the ocean and transport him safely to the mainland. The fish stands for the amazing grace of Yahweh, which came down to where he was and lifted him to new life. (Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 213)

Jonah’s descent in the great fish is a reminder that we can hit no bottom so low, not even death, from which God cannot raise us. The Christian always has hope.

Does the fish serve primarily as shelter or punishment? When else have Christians majored on the minor? When have you hit bottom? When you did, what sustained you?

“The test of success is not what you do when you are on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom. You’re never beaten until you admit it.” - General George S. Patton (1885-1945)