AChristianGuy

What really happened to Jonah in the belly of the great fish? The story of Jonah is one of the most popular tales found within the pages of the Bible. If you’re like me, you probably had an image of Jonah doing his thing by candlelight within the belly of the fish. Many people have wrestled with what happened to Jonah during his time inside great creature of the sea. You may or may not know, though, that Jesus offered some commentary on Jonah’s famous episode, and even used it to parallel what would happen to Him. In Matthew 12:39-40, we read: “But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’” The context of this passage is that Jesus is answering some Pharisees who have come to Him seeking a sign to validate the claims He’d been making about Himself. He goes on to say that, “no sign will be given,” to them, “but the sign of Jonah.” At this point though, we must look closely at what Jesus says. Jesus then quotes Jonah 1:17 – “as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER…” He then equivocates Jonah’s time in the fish with a prophecy about His coming death and resurrection; “so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” For ancient Jews, the place where dead people went was thought to be inside of the earth. Ancient people didn’t share our modern understanding of the Earth’s geological composition; if you were ask them if they believed dead people were in the Earth’s core, they would not understand what you were talking about. That’s not what they were trying to communicate. References to, “inside of,” or, “underneath,” the earth are simply to be understood as underground – the place where the disembodied dead were. The Hebrew word for this place of the dead is שְׁאוֹל (Sheol). The equivalent word in Greek used by the translators of the Septuagint and the authors of the New Testament is ᾍδης (Hades). Other portions of the ancient world conceived of this place variously as the underworld (under the earth) or netherworld (below the earth). Sheol/Hades is not to be confused with Hell, the place of final judgment. Both righteous and unrighteous people were described as inhabiting Sheol/Hades. Their presence there was reflective of their being dead, not under judgment. This is further substantiated by Revelation 20:14, where Hades is thrown into the lake of fire, otherwise known as γέεννα (Gehenna) – Hell. (The Bible does depict a place of temporal judgment for the wicked apart from God’s grace in Sheol/Hades, but it is not for everyone and it is not final.) Returning to Matthew 12, Jesus is prophesying that He will spend three days and three nights in Sheol/Hades. In other words, the, “sign of Jonah,” that Jesus is going to give to the Pharisees is His death and resurrection. But…if the, “sign of Jonah,” is death and resurrection, what does that mean happened to Jonah? Look at what Jesus says – “…as Jonah…so will the Son of Man…” Jesus is drawing a parallel between His legitimate death and what happened to Jonah in the belly of the fish. For clarity, let’s go back to Jonah chapter 2 and examine a few interesting passages: “Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the stomach of the fish, and he said, ‘I called out of my distress to the LORD, And He answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; You heard my voice.” (Jonah 2:1-2) “Water encompassed me to the point of death. The great deep engulfed me, Weeds were wrapped around my head. I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever, But You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.” (Jonah 2:5-6) “But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the LORD.” (Jonah 2:9) Jonah’s prayer is that he cried to God for help from Sheol, also alluded to poetically in these verses as, “the great deep,” “the roots of the mountains,” “the earth with its bars,” and, “the pit,” at which he was at, “the point of death.” He concludes his prayer acknowledging that salvation belongs to YHWH. Upon the conclusion of his prayer, God makes the fish spit up Jonah on land (v.10) While it is not a unanimous interpretation among theologians and biblical scholars, it is my opinion, as well as that of many others, that Jonah was fish food – He was dead. And, that God resurrected him as the fish vomited him up on land. The native language of Jonah 2, as well as Jesus’ equivocation with Jonah to His coming death and resurrection, leads me to conclude that Jonah’s encounter with the fish was a type for the death and resurrection of Christ.

Why was the New Testament originally written in Greek? The revelation of the Hebrew Bible was completed by about the year 400 B.C. (before Christ). By this time, Israel had been scattered by the Assyrian empire a few centuries earlier. In addition, many Jewish people were also still living in Babylon (Judah having been exiled to Babylon about 100 years after the Assyrians destroyed the kingdom of Israel). At the time the canon of the Hebrew Bible was completed, the Persian empire was at its largest and many Jews never returned to the land of Israel. Almost a century after the Hebrew Bible was completed, the Persian empire was conquered by Alexander the Great. Alexander was from Macedonia, a province to the north of the Greek city-states. His native language was Greek. As he expanded his empire into Persian territory, he brought Greek language & culture along with him. Alexander died in the year 323 B.C. when he was 33 years old. At the time of his death, his empire stretched from Greece in the west, Egypt in the south, to Assyria in the north, and India in the east. In most of the territory that he conquered, people began to speak Greek instead of/in addition to their native language. (This process is known by historians as “hellenization”, deriving from the Greek word for a Greek person, Ἕλλην.) As a result, many Jews who lived outside of Jerusalem spoke Greek instead of Hebrew. They weren’t able to read their scriptures anymore because their Bible was written in Hebrew. With many Greek-speaking Jews unable to read their Bible, the Hebrew scriptures were eventually translated into Greek. Around the year 250 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt, a collection of scribes came together and translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. We know this translation today as the Septuagint, often referred to as the LXX (70). Jews who didn’t understand Hebrew used the Septuagint version of the Bible instead. During New Testament times, when Gentiles were joining the church, many of them also didn’t understand Hebrew. With that in mind, these Gentile believers would use the Septuagint translation during their church gatherings. It was because of the prevalence of both Gentiles & Greek-speaking Jews in the church that the New Testament was originally written down in Greek – so that everyone would be able to understand it.

A Response to Emanuel Cleaver’s Prayer Pt.2 – praying to other gods? In my previous video, I discussed my concerns regarding Congressman Emanuel Cleaver’s statement of, “amen…and a-woman,” to conclude his invocation for the 117th United States Congress. I would now like to review what is an even more dangerous issue that was raised by Cleaver’s prayer – his appeal to other gods. I realize that we live in a day and age where many people assume an equality of faith. That it’s less important which God or gods you believe in, rather that you possess a reverence for a being beyond yourself and you do your best to live in good standing with others around you. I realize also that Representative Cleaver has made public remarks to the effect that he intended his prayer to be a, “…faithful (request) for community healing and reversion from tribal tendencies.” I think it’s amiable to push for reconciliation among people with differing points of view, especially when those differences lead to hostilities and violence toward one another. However, in so doing, Cleaver has abandoned the only sure foundation upon which mankind can be reconciled in peace – the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ. Only in Christ is found the forgiveness of men from every tribe, tongue and nation. Only in Christ is found peace between men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile. All who would proclaim that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead will be saved and will find new communion with God and with those individuals they once regarded as enemies. Some may be asking, “How did Representative Cleaver’s invocation abandon faith in Christ?” To be sure, the Congressman maintains a profession as a Methodist minister. Still, this is the reason why myself and many other faithful men and women in Christ have found his invocation to be so disturbing. In concluding his prayer, Cleaver appealed to, “…the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names in many faiths.” I don’t know if the Congressman, in saying this, was equivocating the, “monotheistic God,” with Brahma, or if he was listing Brahma alongside the, “monotheistic God.” Regardless, my concerns persist, as either statement is in violation of the Biblical witness of God and Christ. Scripture is clear – only YHWH, the God of the Bible and of Israel, revealed in flesh through the person of Jesus Christ, is to be worshipped. To equivocate with or acknowledge any other god alongside YHWH is blasphemy. For the ordained minister, it is cause for disqualification from ministry. With that being said, who or what is Brahma? Briefly, Brahma is a Hindu god. Brahma has a goddess wife and has many demi-god children. Rather than being eternal, he is self-created in a golden egg. He is one god among many within Hindu beliefs. This god is radically different from YHWH, the true God. To either equivocate Brahma with YHWH or to acknowledge Brahma alongside YHWH is a complete disregard of everything YHWH has revealed about Himself in the Bible. If Cleaver was attempting to acknowledge Brahma alongside YHWH, both dieties claim to be the Creator of all things. Thus, they are mutually exclusive; both can’t be right. If he was equivocating Brahma with YHWH, this is a false equivocation, as each one’s attributes are distinct. Moreover, YHWH is The Monotheistic God, while Brahma is one of the many polytheistic false gods of Hinduism. Calling Brahma a monotheistic god or equivocating him with one is inaccurate both towards Christianity and Hinduism. In making his appeal to the, “monotheistic God,” the Congressman quotes from the priestly benediction of Numbers 6. To then follow up the appeals of scripture with the acknowledgement of another god or to equivocate the promises of scripture with the work of another god is incredibly blasphemous. It is not a mere nicety to acknowledge all gods to make people feel comfortable; it is a sin of the highest order against the true God, one in which His judgment is provoked. Again, I appreciate that Cleaver is attempting to help reconcile people to each other, but doing so in this way is predicated upon fundamental misunderstandings of the people he is attempting to reconcile and an embrace of what he, as a Methodist minister, knows is sin against the God he professes to worship. For the professing Christian, praying to another god is blasphemy. It is an abandonment of the promises in Christ, as doing so denies His authority. Again, my prayer is that the Congressman will realize the error of his remarks and will attempt, to the best of his ability, to make restitution for them. God’s grace is more powerful than our sin and all who turn to Him in repentance and faith will find times of refreshing from His presence.

A Response to Emanuel Cleaver’s Prayer On January 3, 2021, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, Representative of the 5th District of Missouri, concluded his invocation for the 117th United States Congress with the following remarks… "...We ask (this) in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many different names and many different faiths. Amen...and a–woman.” This will be the first of a two-part response in which my concerns, as a Christian living in the United States, will be shared. Congressman Cleaver, a master of the Methodist seminary St. Paul’s School of Theology, oddly chose to finish his prayer with, “amen…and a woman.” I realize that the Congressman has issued a statement following the initial criticism of his invocation in which he says he was, “misconstrued…to fit a narrative,” and that his statement of, “a-woman,” was a, “pun.” I will do my best to be gracious and respectful in my comments, but I felt that this issue needed to be specifically addressed. This is not merely an issue of political narratives; it is one of the proper understanding of language and culture and not misleading people with regards to such connotations – whether intentionally or unintentionally. The word, "amen," comes from the Hebrew אָמֵן, transliterated into Greek as ἀμὴν. It means, "let it be," but is also often translated as, "truly," or "verily." For example, the phrase, ”Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν..." translates as "Truly, truly, I say to you…” a phrase used often by Jesus Himself throughout His ministry. The important thing to point out with regards to the Congressman’s remarks is that this word has nothing to do with gender association. Hebrew and Greek possess multiple words for man or men. The predominant words in Hebrew are אָדָם or אִישׁ, while in Greek they are ἄνθρωπος and ανήρ. The predominant words for woman or women are in אִשָׁה Hebrew and γυνή in Greek. As you can see, these words have pretty much nothing in common in form with the English words they correspond to. To say, "a woman," as if, "amen," was a masculine gender reference is incredibly ignorant of not only the Bible, but also the Hebrew & Greek languages as a whole. Such an understanding would demand that one assign the modern meaning of the English word, “men,” back through time to the Hebrew word, “אָמֵן.” Doing this with even the most remote amount of frequency would fail you out of any basic language class. Being that he possesses a master’s degree from a Methodist seminary, Congressman Cleaver should know better than this. To make this kind of a remark on such a public stage as the floor of the United States House of Representatives is not only anachronistic, it is also misleading to those who are not familiar with the original languages of the Bible, as it presents a stumbling block in the form of a false bias towards men over women. Moreover, this remark also completely disregards every Hebrew or Greek–speaking person that has ever lived or that currently lives today, in that it does not allow for Hebrew or Greek, as languages, to be self-defining. Instead, it forces languages that we, in the United States, don’t natively speak to be subject to our cultural assumptions. My prayer is that Congressman Cleaver will realize the error of his remarks and will make a meaningful attempt at restitution towards his fellow Representatives. Until then, we, in the Church, must guard against these kinds of baseless attacks on the Biblical witness and continue to call our nation to repentance and true faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ.