Jonah and the Whale

Q. Was Jonah swallowed by a whale or a fish?

A. Both. It is a whale (Matthew 12:40, κήτος) and a fish (Jonah 1:17, דָג). The Old Testament book says God prepared a fish to swallow Jonah and Jesus said that fish was a whale. Yet scientists say the whale is not a fish; it is a mammal, and the Bible is wrong. Who shall we believe? Believe God. We should look the scientist and skeptic in the eye and say, “God is sovereign.” God is the Sovereign of the universe and the Creator of all things. He is under no obligation to categorize fish and whales by some modern classifications or man-made distinction that some modern scientists have chosen. God is the creator of the whale. He can (and does) call it what he wants.

When puny humans can place a man inside a whale and bring him out alive after three days and three nights, maybe we will have earned some right to call him what we wish against what God says. Of course, we can’t, and won’t, and don’t! This issue might become a complicated debate for some, but let us reserve the debate over technicalities to within “the family.” There is no reason for Christians to run from this issue like a frightened schoolchild. We should and must stand for the Bible, truth against falsehood.

In modern English whale may mean (scientifically) any of various large marine mammals of the order Cetacea, or (popularly) any large sea creature or something that is impressive in size. The word comes from the Old English hwæl, Old Saxon hwal, apparently going back to the German hwal/wal, and Latin squalus (a kind of large sea fish).

• Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. (KJV, Jonah 1:17)

The Old Testament Hebrew is gadowl (גָּדֹ֔ול) dag (דָּ֣ג), meaning “great fish.”

• for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (KJV, Matthew 12:40)

The Greek used in the New Testament is ketos (κητος). Divry’s Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary (1974), is just a Greek/English dictionary. It has nothing directly to do with the Bible (i.e., it is a Greek language dictionary, not a Bible dictionary). If you look up the Greek word ketos, it has “whale.” If you look up the English word whale, it has “ketos.”

Notice also that the Greek LXX of the Old Testament translates (דָּג גָּדֹול) as κήτει μεγάλῳ and (הַדָּג) as κήτους – which Lancelot Brenton translates into English as great whale and whale (1:17 in the KJV, is 2:1 in LXX).

καὶ προσέταξεν κύριος κήτει μεγάλῳ καταπιεῖν τὸν Ιωναν καὶ ἦν Ιωνας ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας

Now the Lord had commanded a great whale to swallow up Jonas: and Jonas was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights.

As late as 1952, the new Revised Standard Version still used the word “whale.”

• For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (RSV, Matthew 12:40)

The modern pressure to be “scientific” has called forth a number of substitutes: great fish (ESV, NKJV, TLB), huge fish (CSB, LEB, NET, NIV), sea creature (ISV), sea monster (AMP, EXB, LSB, NASB, NRSV), and possibly others. I do not see these as wrong, in the sense that, in biblical terms the whale is a great or huge fish, and a sea creature. I see them as compromising, jellyfish translations (gelatinous members of the subphylum Medusozoa, a major part of the phylum Cnidaria), that bow to science when science should instead bow to God.

As if it matters, we notice that some people who attack the King James Bible in particular or the Bible in general claim that scientific terminology labeling whales as mammals predates the 1611 translation of the Bible. So the translators should have had their fingers in the wind, and not used the word “whale” (in their opinion). However, this assertion appears to be chronologically false. The information that I have found indicates that this system (re whales) dates to 1758 (of course, there were earlier folks developing taxonomic ideas, such as the Bauhin brothers, botanists). It was in the 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae that Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish biologist and taxonomist, classified cetaceans as mammals rather than fish. The taxonomic system of Linnaeus formed the basis of modern whale classification. That does not matter in terms of biblical truth, but the timing nevertheless seems to be a false claim that deserves debunking. Regardless, Bible translators are not beholden to modern classifications as sources for translation.

As far as a whale or fish swallowing Jonah, if we believe in a sovereign God who can do all things, and we believe that fish was “prepared by God” – that should remove all difficulties believing the story. God made a creature that, due to his preparation, was able to swallow an adult human. It was a miracle!

As far as a whale being a fish, if we believe God made all things, we allow him to call those things whatsoever he will – regardless of what anyone else decides to call them. God is the eternal sovereign Creator.

As William Jennings Bryan said to Clarence Darrow, “If the Bible said so…”

---

Note: I do not have a problem with the principle of scientific classifications. I myself have engaged in a good bit of religious taxonomy – working on how to classify Baptists within their denominational landscapes. It has a place in the field of knowledge, as long as it doesn’t overstep its bounds and start overriding what a biblical classification of a church is. I recognize it is man-made, but it can help make sense out of who we are as Baptists. So with scientific classifications of plants and animals. They are derived to help us understand the world around us. Let it do that, as long as it doesn’t overstep its bounds and start overriding what the Bible says. Search the scriptures, whether these things are so. Let God be true, but every man a liar.

Miracles in Acts

 

You should be able to click on the image to enlarge it

The Rod of God and Moses

Moses and the call of God

• Exodus 4:2-4, 17 There is a rod in Moses’s hand
• Exodus 4:20 Moses’s rod is also the rod of God

The rod is associated with Moses’s stretched out hand, and Moses’s stretched out hand is associated with the stretched out hand of God. (Cf. Exodus 7:19; 8:5, 17; 9:22; 10:12, 21; 14:16, 26)

God uses what we have, and what we have belongs to God.

Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh

• Exodus 7:9-13 The rod becomes a serpent
• Exodus 7:14-20 The rod and rivers to blood
• Exodus 8:5-6 The rod and frogs
• Exodus 8:16-17 The rod and lice
• Exodus 9:22-23 The rod and hail
• Exodus 10:12-13 The rod and locusts
• Exodus 10:21-22 The rod and darkness

God judges Egypt and its gods. He demonstrates his sovereignty and power, using Moses, Aaron, and the rod of God and Moses.

Moses and the journey into the wilderness

• Exodus 14:15-28  The rod, Moses, the Israelites, and the Red Sea
• Exodus 17:5-6 The rod, Moses, and the water from the rock in Horeb
• Exodus 17:8-13 The rod, Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Hur, and the Amalekites
• Numbers 20:7-11 The rod, Moses, and the water from the rock, the second time

God divides the Israelites from the Egyptians. The God who brings them out will bring them through (Hebrews 7:25). God quenches the thirst of his people, both physically and spiritually (John 7:37). The rod of God and Moses demonstrates the work of unity. We are laborers together with God (1 Corinthians 3:9). We can and do misuse what God has given us. With greater light comes great responsibility (Luke 12:48).

Concluding thoughts

In Moses’s hand, God used a dry stick. The rod was not a magic wand, but a demonstration of the power of God. God also answered prayer, instead of Moses using the stick. Compare Exodus 10:18-19, for example, where God answered Moses’s earnest prayer with a miracle. Put what we have in our hand in the hand of God. Shamgar had an ox goad (Judges 3:31). Ehud had a dagger in his left hand (Judges 3:15). Gideon and his army had only trumpets and lamps (Judges 7:19). Dorcas had a needle and thread (Acts 9:39). Ezekiel prophesied to dry bones and they lived (Ezekiel 37:1-14)

Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts. Zechariah 4:6

Doctors got it wrong...

...aren't God; shouldn't try to play God.

Amish girl who fled United States to escape forced chemotherapy is now cancer-free -- "Some might call it a “miracle,” but alternative and holistic medicine healers aren’t really surprised to learn that a 12-year old Amish girl is now cancer-free — after her doctors testified in court just six months ago that she would be dead by now if her family were permitted to refuse her chemotherapy."

Miracles and compassion

There is an interesting side discussion to the record of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead -- the Gospel of John, Chapter 11. Whether Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom, Paradise or Heaven (in whatever manner one interprets them, whether they are all the same or not) Lazarus must have been in a better, more peaceful, less painful place. 

We tend to interpret most of the miracles of Jesus as acts of compassion that made life better for the one who benefited from the miracle. And certainly the Bible suggests that in many places.

• Matthew 14:14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.
• Matthew 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
• Matthew 20:34 So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
• Mark 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
• Mark 9:22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
• Luke 7:13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.

In this case of Lazarus, though, it seems the beneficiary was not particularly Lazarus -- who came back from a better place to a worse place -- but his family and friends who mourned his loss, and especially those who believed on Jesus because of the miracle (Cf. John 12:10-11). What say ye?

5 Reasons for a Universal Flood

Was the flood of Noah's day universal? Is the Genesis flood account a myth or perhaps an exaggerated story of a local flood? Some scientists deny the possibility of a universal flood. The modernist scoffs at such an idea. The Bible-believing Christian must decide. What does the Bible say? Is there evidence?

Here are five biblical reasons that Noah's flood was universal:
1. God's intent was to destroy the entire human race from off the face of the earth (i.e., except Noah's family). See Genesis 6:12-17. A local flood would not have fulfilled God's purpose of judging the entire population for their sinfulness.
2. If the flood had been only local, the ark would have been unnecessary. God could have simply told Noah to leave the area before the flood and to return when the flood waters had abated.
3. The terminology used throughout the account indicates an event of universal proportions. In Genesis chapters 6-8, "the earth" is used 34 times; "every" 14 times; "everything" 11 times; "all flesh" 8 times; "all" 7 times; "filled" and "whole" twice. An expression such as "under the whole heaven" (Gen. 7:19) cannot be reduced to apply to a local area.
4. To cover the Ararat mountains (Gen. 7:20), whose highest peak is almost 17,000 feet, would require a universal flood. Water seeks its own level. The whole earth would have been covered at least to that depth.
5. God's promise to Noah after the flood -- Genesis 9:11 -- is a promise of universal rather than local application.

The preponderance of biblical evidence favors a universal flood. Will you believe it?

Lord, save me

When Peter was about to sink beneath the violent waves of old Galilee, he cried out, "Lord, save me." (Matthew 14:30) We could learn a lot from Peter's plea.

Peter's prayer was brief and to the point. "Lord, save me." Only three words. Some people believe they will be heard because of much speaking, and for a pretense make long prayers. Yet, the model prayer can be recited in about thirty seconds. Jesus's prayer in John 17 can be read in about four minutes. Solomon's prayer of dedication of the temple in I Kings 8 can be read in six minutes, and is probably the longest prayer recorded in the Bible. This is not to say long prayer is never desirable. On one occasion Jesus asked his disciples, "Could ye not pray with me one hour?" But the length itself does not tune a prayer to God's ears.

Peter's prayer was directed to The One who could help. "Lord." LORD, save me. He didn't cry out "Lord, save me" in hopes that James and John would throw him a life preserver. Some who don't really believe in God nevertheless speak highly of prayer, whether hypocritically or ignorantly. But prayer for prayer's sake is of no benefit. Prayer is "to God". He that cometh to God must believe that He is.

Peter's prayer was urgent. "He cried." With the hymn writer, we and Peter might agree, "Do not turn away thy face, Mine's an URGENT pressing case!" All formality was left off and Peter got right to what he wanted. When prayers are urgent, we pray right where we are. It's good and right to come to the house of prayer, and to meet God in our prayer "closets". But if we ought to pray without ceasing, pray always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and so forth, then any place we ought to be ought to be a place of prayer. "Where’er they seek Thee Thou art found, And every place is hallowed ground."

Peter's prayer was personal. "Lord, save ME." We should pray for others. Give US this day OUR daily bread, etc. But sometimes we perhaps think we are pious by asking for others and not ourselves. But our personal prayers for our personal needs actually acknowledge our dependence on God. Lord, save me, I can't save myself! ("Every prayer is an acknowledgement of our weakness and dependence . Who would ask that of another which he thinketh to be in his own power?" -- Thomas Manton)

Peter's prayer was answered. "...immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him." The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. No doubt it was fervent. "Near-death" experiences create fervency. But all our prayers should be fervent. If any man ask anything according to His will God hears. Peter's need was heard. He was saved.

This is not to say that we should apply this all as some kind of cold formula for answered prayer. We Americans like our "12-steps", methods and formulas. But, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (And be thankful the Holy Spirit helps our infirmities in prayer.)

Jesu, my Savior, Brother, Friend,
On Whom I cast my every care,
On Whom for all things I depend,
Inspire, and then accept, my prayer.

Kelly Smith on the pool of Bethesda

John 5:7 - "The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me."

Q. Why do you suppose the pool is available to the less firm rather than the more weak?

Answer by Kelly Smith. There were five porches to this pool, and on each of them waited all those watching for the first sign of trouble in the waters, so they could rush in and hopefully be the one to be healed.

I make several observations in this. Their faith was in the pool. Their faith was in the water. Their hope was in their ability to get into the pool first. They were selfish, and caring not for each other. I believe if they had been more caring of those less able to reach the pool, perhaps the water might have been troubled more often (but that's beside this point).

This impotent man, his faith was in the water and pool as well, yet he had no hope in his own ability to get him there. He had no hope in anyone else helping his ability to receive this healing either. Christ gave him that was without hope, hope -- and made him whole. He showed him that his faith was misplaced. Showed him that Salvation... is of the Lord. Showed them all that the healing contained within the water, was not water at all, but the Grace and Power of Almighty God, in whom our faith and hope should be.

I wonder that of all that were healed in the pool, how many gave proper tribute to the true source of it? This man went on to proclaim this miracle, and Glory was given to God because of it.

[By permission. Kelly Smith, elder, Harmony Primitive Baptist Church, Calhoun, GA]

Jonah, a great fish and a whale

A common modern complaint about the book of Jonah is “a whale is not a fish”. Jonah 1:17 speaks of “a great fish” and “whale” is used in Matthew 12:40. This can become a complicated debate for some, but let us reserve the debate over technicalities to within “the family”. There is no reason to run from this issue like a frightened schoolchild. Let us stand firm, look the scientist and skeptic in the eye and say, “God is sovereign.” God is the Sovereign of the universe and the Creator of all things. He is under no obligation to categorize fish and mammals by the classifications some modern scientist has chosen. He is the creator of the whale. He can call it what He wants. When you or I can place a man inside a big fish or whale and keep him alive for three days and three nights, maybe we will have earned some right to call him what we wish.

Why Jonah?

Any thoughts on why God chose Jonah to preach to the Ninevites? Some people seem to be of the impression that he was all God had or the best God could locate at the time. I don't believe that. Jonah was not the only prophet of God in this period (he prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II; II Kings 14:25). Other prophets of the roughly the same period include Isaiah, in Judah the latter part of Jeroboam’s reign (Isaiah 1:1; 6:8; II Kings 15:1); Hosea, mostly to Israel, about the same time as Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 1:1 with Hosea 1:1); and Amos, from Judah, who prophesied in Israel (Amos 1:1; 7:14-15). Seeing we find some prophets and might find more on closer inspection, might we assume God wasn't hard put to find a prophet and just "settled" on Jonah? If so, why Jonah?