Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy

Robert M. Bowman Jr.

“Jonah prophesies that in forty days Nineveh shall be overthrown. But it didn’t happen because

God repented.”1

So states the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, an online commentary identifying supposed

errors, contradictions, and absurdities in the Bible. That Jonah’s message, “Forty days and

Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4), was an unfulfilled prophetic prediction is a common

understanding of the passage. It is not surprising that skeptics would seize on this passage as an

example of unfulfilled or false prophecy, though the reasoning represented in the quotation

above is superficial in the extreme. Even some scholars that view the book as presenting Jonah

as a true prophet argue that his prophecy was unfulfilled and therefore made him appear to be a

false prophet. David Noel Freedman is just one example of a scholar taking this view: “Jonah is a

true prophet, a real prophet, but he made an unfulfilled prophecy and says so himself. He

suspected from the very beginning that this would be the result, that Nineveh would be spared

and that he would look like a false prophet.”2 As shall be made clear, the book of Jonah never

reports Jonah saying that he had made an unfulfilled prophecy.

Arguments Treating Jonah’s Prophecy as Precedent for Modern Failed Predictions

Coming at the same issue from another perspective, some religions whose founders or

organizations delivered false predictions in the name of God have cited Jonah as an excusing

precedent. They have reasoned that if Jonah could make a prediction that turned out to be false or

unfulfilled and yet not be a false prophet, the same might be true for them. The argument has

been made notably by Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists. Mormons

use this argument frequently to blunt criticisms of Joseph Smith’s failed prophetic predictions,3

such as his prophecy that a temple would be built in Jackson County, Missouri, before his

generation had passed away.4 Jehovah’s Witnesses have appealed to Jonah’s failed prediction as

precedent5 for the history of failed predictions associated with the dates 1914, 1918, 1925, and

1 “Prophecies, Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible,” and “Jonah 3,” in Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (n.d.). 2 David Noel Freedman and Rebecca Frey, “False Prophecy Is True,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient

Near East: Essays in Honour of Herbert B. Huffmon, ed. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman (London: T&T Clark,

2004), 85. 3 For example, Jeff Lindsay, “Can Ezekiel Pass the Deuteronomy 18 Test?” Mormonity (blog), 15 May 2013;

“Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18” (FAIR, n.d.); Victor M. Paulsen,

“False Prophecy—False Prophet? Joseph Smith’s Temple Prophecy” (n.d.); Malin Jacobs, “Response to a Critique

of: Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy” (SHIELDS, n.d.). 4 On this failed prophecy, see Robert M. Bowman Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Missouri Temple Prophecy” (Grand Rapids:

Institute for Religious Research, 2009). 5 For a recent example, see Elijah (pseud.), “‘False Prophet’ Claim,” Defending Jehovah’s Witnesses (blog), 21 Nov.

2009. The Watchtower itself does not seem to have current publications making this comparison to Jonah, but it is a

familiar argument that has been used by Jehovah’s Witnesses for decades.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 2

1975 that appeared in the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.6 Some

Seventh-day Adventist writers have argued that just as Jonah’s prophecy was conditional, so was

Ellen G. White’s prediction that people living in 1856 would “see the coming of the Lord.”7

Others have also used the argument. For example, defenders of Kim Clement, the “singing

prophet” on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, have defended his failed prophetic predictions by

citing Jonah’s prophecy as precedent.8

The Conditional Prophecy Argument

The appeal to Jonah as biblical precedent for true prophets issuing failed prophetic

predictions has generally taken two forms. The stronger argument reasons that Jonah’s prophecy

was conditional and that the modern prophet’s predictions were conditional as well. According to

this line of reasoning, Jonah’s prophecy was not actually a false prediction but a warning of what

would happen unless the Ninevites repented; and likewise the modern prophet’s statements were

not false, absolute predictions but rather assertions of what would happen unless human choices

in the interim warranted God changing the timetable or canceling the expected event. Mormon

scholar John Tvedtnes articulates this argument as forcefully as anyone:

The conditional nature of prophecy explains why Jonah is not a false prophet. The Lord's

threat to destroy Nineveh within forty days (Jonah 3:4) was mitigated by the repentance

of the city's population (Jonah 3:4-9)…. Ironically, Jonah was upset by the fact that the

prophecy was not fulfilled, and the Lord had to explain to him that the resultant

repentance of “sixscore thousand persons” was more important than fulfilling the word

(Jonah 4:1-11). From this story, it is obvious that the free-will actions of men play a role

in the fulfillment of prophecy.9

Here Tvedtnes describes Jonah’s message as a “prophecy” that “was not fulfilled”

because of its “conditional nature.” Tvedtnes generalizes from this example the principle “that

the free-will actions of men play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy.”

The Seventh-day Adventist Denton Rebok took the same approach. Regarding the failure

of White’s 1856 prophecy, Rebok comments, “I can explain this unfulfilled prediction only by

saying that it is a conditional prophecy. Man failed to do his part; therefore, the Lord has not

done as He promised He would do.” Jonah is then cited as precedent: “Implicit in Jonah’s

prophecy was the condition ‘if you do not repent.’ The Ninevites repented, and therefore God

changed His plan.10

6 On this subject, see especially Edmund C. Gruss, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and

Prophetic Speculation. What Does the Record Show? (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2001); Carl Olof Jonsson, The

Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology and Christ’s Return, 4th rev. ed. (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004). 7 T. Housel Jemison, A Prophet among You (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1955), 108; Denton E. Rebok, “Four Bible

Tests of the True Prophet,” in Believe His Prophets (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1956), 90. Though

somewhat dated, both of these books are still in use by Seventh-day Adventists. For a critical examination of

White’s prophecy and Adventist defenses, see D. Anderson, “Embarrassing Failed Prophecies,” Ellen G. White

Exposed (n.d.). 8 Comments following “Kim Clement Admits He Is a False Prophet,” Discerning the World (blog), 1 Aug. 2010. 9 John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy” (SHIELDS, n.d.), reprinted by FAIR. 10 Rebok, “Four Bible Tests of the True Prophet,” 90.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 3

The Unconditional Prophecy Argument

The weaker argument from Jonah as precedent insists that Jonah’s prophecy was

unconditional, not conditional, and that it proves that God has the freedom to change his mind

and decide otherwise than he had previously intended. Popular online Mormon apologist Jeff

Lindsey takes this approach. He states that in Jonah’s prophecy “no loopholes were offered, just

imminent doom.”

In spite of an “incorrect” prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he

was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet

if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of

the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph

Smith.11

Malin Jacobs, another LDS writer, is even more adamant: “There was no loophole in the

prophecy. No provision for repentance. The prophecy was crystal clear. The prophecy didn’t

come to pass.”12

Similarly, a Jehovah’s Witness calling himself “Elijah” insists that the prophecy was not

conditional because there is no conditional clause such as “if you don’t repent.” “If God told

Jonah that it was conditional, then Jonah sure didn’t proclaim it correctly: What he spoke in

Jehovah's name, in that case, would still have been wrong!” “Elijah” argues that the king’s

statement that if they repented “perhaps” God would spare them, and the text’s statement that

God “changed his mind,” taken together prove that the prophecy was unconditional and that their

repentance simply convinced God not to do what he had said he would. Finally, he argues that

Jonah “became angry because his prophecy did not come true,” which he would not have done

“if he thought the prophecy was conditional.”13

Seventh-day Adventist author T. Housel Jemison also favors the unconditional prophecy

argument. As do all of the other authors using this argument, Jemison points out that “no

mention is made of any conditions attached.” He also argues, as does the Jehovah’s Witness just

quoted, that “it seems obvious that no suggestion was made of a way of escape” because if such

a suggestion had been made the king would not have been unsure if repentance would do any

good. “Had a condition been offered he would have known that there was the possibility of

deliverance.”14

The advantage of this argument from the perspective of those who present it is obvious:

they do not need to defend the claim that their failed predictions were conditional. On the other

hand, the advantage of the conditional prophecy argument is that it is easier theologically to

explain how a true prophet of God could deliver such a prophecy. Yet it is striking that Mormons

and Seventh-day Adventists have used both arguments, even though they proceed from

diametrically opposed premises as to the meaning of Jonah’s prophecy. To the best of my

knowledge, no writer in these groups has ever defended one of these arguments against the other

argument or critiqued either argument as presented by their brethren. Clearly, at least one of the

11 Lindsay, “Can Ezekiel Pass the Deuteronomy 18 Test?”; see also FAIR, “Joseph Smith/Alleged false

prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18.” 12 Jacobs, “Response to a Critique of: Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy.” 13 Elijah (pseud.), “‘False Prophet’ Claim.” 14 Jemison, A Prophet among You, 108.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 4

two arguments must be flawed. Yet, could either of them be sound arguments in defense of

modern prophetic predictions that are not fulfilled?

Jonah’s Message Was God’s Message

The first issue that needs to be settled is whether Jonah’s message faithfully

communicated the message God had given Jonah to preach to the Ninevites. Some interpreters

have thought otherwise. R. J. Lubeck, for example, writing in the evangelical periodical Trinity

Journal, argued that “Jonah distorted the message which Yahweh had entrusted to him to deliver

to the Ninevites.”15 However, the text of the book of Jonah very clearly indicates that Jonah

faithfully delivered the Lord’s message. Jonah had refused to go to Nineveh the first time God’s

word had come to him (1:1-3), but “now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time”

(3:1) and “Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD” (3:3).16 In the

context of the narrative that runs between these two passages, it is clear that Jonah has been duly

chastened and is going to Nineveh intent on doing what the Lord has commanded him to do,

albeit most reluctantly. The rest of the account definitely bears this out.

Jonah’s message is worded very simply: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be

overthrown!” (3:4). The narrator then comments, “And the people of Nineveh believed God”

(3:5a). Following immediately on the message that Jonah presented to the Ninevites, the

narrator’s report that the people there “believed God”17 can only mean that Jonah’s message was

God’s message. In accepting Jonah’s message, they were believing God. The point is confirmed

at the end of the chapter when the narrator states that “God relented of the disaster that he had

said he would do to them” (3:10, emphasis added). Here again, by referring to the threatened

disaster as what “he” (God) had said, the narrator equates Jonah’s message with what God had

said.18

Thus, we may set aside any interpretation or application of the passage that suggests,

implies, or presupposes that Jonah did not get the message right or that it was something other

15 R. J. Lubeck, “Prophetic Sabotage: A Look at Jonah 3:2-4,” TrinJ NS 9 (1988): 46. 16 Biblical quotations are taken from the ESV except as noted otherwise. 17 The translation “believed in God” (NASB, NET, NJB), though lexically possible, is not in keeping with the

immediate context of the Ninevites’ response to the message Jonah delivered from God. Hence most English

versions correctly have “believed God” (e.g., KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NAB, NIV, NRSV). The word “believed” (Heb.

’emîn or ’ămēn) in the context of believing something that has just been said is found also in Gen. 15:6; 45:26;

Exod. 4:1, 8, 30-31; 1 Kings 10:7; 2 Chron. 9:6; 32:15; Ps. 106:12, 24; Prov. 14:15; 26:25; Isa. 53:1; Hab. 1:5. Even

if one prefers “believed in God,” in context this statement would still mean that the Ninevites were rightly viewing

Jonah’s message as coming from God. 18 These points are not addressed at all in Lubeck’s article. The reference in Jonah 3:10 to the disaster that God had

said (through Jonah) he would do to Nineveh probably should eliminate the suggestion that “will be overthrown” in

Jonah 3:4 plays on an ambiguity in the word hāpak. Some commentators, noting that in other contexts the word can

mean to turn over, change, or transform, have suggested that Jonah 3:4 uses the word with deliberate ambiguity to

allow for the prophecy’s fulfillment either by Nineveh’s destruction or by its salvation. See, e.g., Douglas K. Stuart,

Hosea–Jonah, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 489-90; T. Desmond Alexander, “Jonah: An Introduction and

Commentary,” in Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, by David W. Baker, T. Desmond Alexander, and Bruce K. Waltke,

TOTC 26 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1988, reprint 2009), 134; Phyllis Trible, “The Book of Jonah:

Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 7 (Nashville: Abingdon Press,

1996), 512; Philip Cary, Jonah, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008),

109. While the word has different uses in different contexts, in reference to a city or nation the negative sense of “to

overthrow” always applies (Gen. 19:21, 25, 29; Deut. 29:23; 2 Sam. 10:3; 1 Chron. 19:3; Jer. 20:16; Lam. 4:6;

Amos 4:11; Hag. 2:22; cf. also 2 Kings 21:13).

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 5

than God’s word. In particular, Jonah’s prophecy may not be cited as precedent for true prophets

of God being fallible or making mistakes. The book is explicit that Jonah’s message was God’s

word.

Jonah’s Message Carried Meaning beyond the Explicit Wording Quoted

As discussed above, some readers of the book of Jonah have objected to any notion of

conditionality or contingency in Jonah’s message on the grounds that the quotation of Jonah’s

message (3:4) contains no explicit conditional clause. Since Jonah is not reported as having said

anything to indicate that the judgment was avoidable, it is inferred that the threat was

unconditional.19 Adding some apparent weight to this inference, one can find scholarly

commentators such as John H. Walton who argue that Jonah 3:4 “does, after all, represent the

full content of his message.” According to Walton, Jonah said nothing to the Ninevites about

repenting or even about God.20 In addition to the lack of any mention in the text of these things

being part of Jonah’s preaching—which Walton acknowledges could be deemed a mere

argument from silence—Walton argues that Jonah would not have wanted the Ninevites to be

spared and so would have refrained from suggesting they repent. Such an argument, however,

implies that Jonah did not deliver the full message God intended, which as has been shown is

incorrect. In addition, Walton argues that the Ninevites might not have asked Jonah to expand on

his cryptic message because seers in Assyrian culture could deliver warnings without

elaboration.21 At most this consideration shows that Jonah might not have said anything more

than what is quoted in Jonah 3:4. Other considerations reveal that the Ninevites either received

some explanation of the message or that they understood from some contextual information its

implications to go beyond the mere surface meaning of the short sentence quoted.

One such consideration is the narrator’s comment that the Ninevites “believed God”

(3:5a), already mentioned above, which entails that they understood Jonah’s message to be a

prophetic revelation from God. Yet the brief statement attributed to Jonah contains no explicit

reference to God by any name or title. The Ninevite king referred to God explicitly twice in his

edict commanding all of his citizens to humble themselves in the hopes of a reprieve (3:8-9).

Evidently the king understood Jonah’s message to come from God, not from a foreign military

power, despite the fact that the words in Jonah 3:4 apart from some context might be taken in the

latter sense. How much Jonah told the king about God is unknown—the king’s statement does

not use the divine name Yahweh or show any overt knowledge of Israel—but somehow the king

knew that the message was from a God who could hear prayer and who might respond favorably

to repentance.

Hence it is simply a mistake to treat the five Hebrew words attributed to Jonah in 3:4 as

conveying the full meaning of everything Jonah said. Either Jonah said more that is not recorded

or his words carried meaning in context not explicit at the surface level of the words themselves.

Biblical reports of the speeches of prophets, kings, and other historical figures are nearly always

summaries, not complete transcripts of everything that was said—a fact commonly

19 Lubeck’s comment that “the phrasing offers no grammatical or syntactical warrant” (“Prophetic Sabotage,” 40)

for a conditional or contingent understanding is beside the point, as no one appeals to grammar or syntax in the verse

as somehow conveying such an idea. 20 John H. Walton, “Jonah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed., edited by Tremper Longman III and

David E. Garland, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 481. 21 Ibid., 481-82.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 6

acknowledged by even the most conservative commentators and transparently obvious from the

fact that few speeches in the Bible would take more than a few minutes to read aloud. Thus, it is

a mistake to interpret the passage on the supposition that Jonah’s message was limited to the

explicit, surface meaning of the words attributed to him in Jonah 3:4.

Jonah’s Message Was an Invitation to Repentance

Although Jonah 3:4 does not attribute any overt reference to repentance in its quotation of

Jonah, it turns out that Jonah’s message did include or imply an invitation or summons to repent

with the possibility of being spared from the threatened judgment. Several lines of evidence from

the text of Jonah support this conclusion.

A Grace Period Extended

One piece of evidence actually comes from the wording of Jonah’s message as presented

in Jonah 3:4. The time period specified, “yet forty days,” is typically overlooked in debates about

whether Jonah’s message was an unfulfilled prophecy. Why should there be any warning or

advance notice of the judgment prior to its occurrence, and why are the Ninevites told about it

nearly six weeks in advance? Surely the purpose of the advance notice is not to make the

Ninevites sweat! Nor does the advance notice seem to be given for the purpose of providing time

for the people to evacuate the city. The judgment was not coming on the buildings, walls, or

other inanimate properties of the city, but on the people, whom God was judging to be wicked.

As will be noted below, the Ninevites certainly did not understand the point of the advance

notice to be giving them time to evacuate. The most plausible reason for giving the Ninevites

such a sizable advance notice was to give them time to repent.22

The specific time period of the advance notice, forty days, confirms this interpretation. In

the Bible, periods of forty are commonly associated with times of testing, fasting, and

purification. The Flood rains lasted forty days (Gen. 7:4, 12, 17). Moses was up in the mountain

with God for two periods of forty days each, which were also periods of testing for the people

waiting below (Exod. 24:18; 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 11, 18, 25; 10:10). During the second period of

forty days, Moses “neither ate bread nor drank water” (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 18), lying

prostrate before the Lord (Deut. 9:25) and interceding for the Israelites, so that the Lord did not

destroy them as he had threatened (Deut. 10:10). The Israelites wandered in the wilderness forty

years, a fact mentioned repeatedly throughout the rest of the Bible (Num. 14:33-34; 32:13; Deut.

2:7; 8:2, 4; 29:5; Josh. 5:6; Neh. 9:21; Ps. 95:10; Amos 2:10; 5:25; Acts 7:36, 42; 13:18; Heb.

3:9, 17). Elijah, like Moses, spent forty days and forty nights on the mountain with God, neither

eating nor drinking during that entire time (1 Kings 19:8). Centuries later, Jesus would be tested

by spending forty days in the wilderness (Matt. 4:2; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2), fasting during that

period (Matt. 4:2; Luke 4:3). Several scholars have commented on the likely association between

Jonah’s specification of forty days and some of these biblical references to periods of forty days

and years of testing or waiting.23

The connection between Nineveh’s forty days and other references to periods of forty as

a period of testing not only has such wide, general support, but there are very specific, definite

22 Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Berit Olam: Studies in

Hebrew Narrative and Poetry, ed. David W. Cotter (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 325. 23 E.g., Allen, Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 222; Cary, Jonah, 108.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 7

connections to the forty days of Moses’ fast. Moses had gone forty days without eating food or

drinking water (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 18); likewise, the king of Nineveh decreed that the forty

days given to them would be used in fasting, with the people and animals neither eating food nor

drinking water (Jonah 3:7). Moses had interceded for Israel in prayer asking the Lord to refrain

from destroying the Israelites in his burning anger as he had threatened (Exod. 32:11-12; Deut.

9:8, 18-19, 25; 10:10). Likewise, during their forty days the Ninevites prayed to God, asking him

to withdraw his burning anger against them and not to destroy them as he had threatened (Jonah

3:8-9).

Thus, reading the book of Jonah in light of its clear allusions to the accounts in the

Pentateuch of Moses’ forty days of fasting and intercession for the Israelites, it is clear that the

purpose of the forty days in Jonah’s message was not simply to give them advance warning of

judgment. Rather, the purpose was to give them opportunity to fast and pray in the hope that God

would spare them just as he had spared the Israelites.

The People Repented

As just noted, the Ninevites responded to Jonah’s message by fasting and praying to God.

The narrative informs the readers that the people and king of Nineveh humbled themselves in

repentance as demonstrated by wearing sackcloth and ashes, fasting, praying, and turning away

from wicked, violent behavior (Jonah 3:5b-8). This is a peculiar response if they had understood

Jonah’s message as one of unconditional, unavoidable overthrow of their city. Had they

understood it that way, given that they believed what God had told them through Jonah (3:5a), a

more likely response would have been to abandon or evacuate the city. Instead they stayed and

repented in the hope of being spared from God’s judgment.

Against this argument some interpreters have objected, as mentioned earlier, that the

king’s uncertainty counts against the view that the threatened judgment was conditional. That is,

the king did not say, “If we do all these things, we know that God will relent and turn from his

fierce anger, so that we will not perish.” Instead, he said, “Who knows? God may turn and relent

and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish” (3:9, italics for emphasis added).

Lubeck insists that “the king’s words in 3:9 indicate that he did not in fact recognize or assume

any conditionality.”24

This objection does expose a weakness of the “conditional” interpretation as it is

sometimes expressed. Sometimes the passage is understood to mean that the Ninevites had a

simple choice: repent and be spared, or fail to repent and be overthrown. If they refused to

repent, God would be justified in bringing the judgment on them; if, on the other hand, they

repented, God would be obligated to spare them from the judgment. Either way, their fate was

entirely in their hands. Contrary to this perhaps unwitting assumption by some readers, the book

of Jonah is consistent with the rest of the Bible in denying that human beings are fully or

ultimately determinative of how God treats them. Divine mercy is not something that can be

appropriated by human beings through following some formula or by some combination of the

right actions and correct words. Rather, God shows mercy on people at his discretion, as he

pleases, and is never under any obligation to extend mercy to those who have been wicked. As

the Lord told Moses in the incident already discussed above, “I will be gracious to whom I will

be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod. 33:19). This is a Hebraic

24 Lubeck, “Prophetic Sabotage,” 39.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 8

way of saying that God will be gracious to whomever he wishes and be merciful to whomever he

wishes (cf. Paul’s quotation of Exodus 33:19 and explanation of its meaning in Rom. 9:15-18).

Having a long history of wickedness, Nineveh deserved judgment; any suspension or

reprieve from that judgment would depend on God’s free, gracious mercy. Without repentance,

judgment was inevitable; with repentance, forgiveness was possible but not inevitable. This

perspective on the sovereign freedom of God in the exercise of mercy has already been

articulated in the book of Jonah through the foreigners with whom Jonah had sailed. The captain

of the ship had urged Jonah to pray for them to his God, saying, “Perhaps the god will give a

thought to us, that we may not perish” (1:6). Then when the men asked the Lord not to punish

them for throwing Jonah overboard, they confessed, “for you, O LORD, have done as it pleased

you” (1:14). Both in that earlier incident on the sea and in the situation in Nineveh, the pagans

exhibited true humility and piety in acknowledging God’s absolute right to do with them as he

pleased while appealing to him for mercy. God cannot be manipulated or obligated to grant

forgiveness or deliverance.25

Once this aspect of divine sovereignty and mercy is taken into proper consideration, the

evidence of the Ninevites’ response to Jonah’s proclamation strongly supports the interpretation

that they understood it as an invitation to repentance.

God Relented

Following the Ninevites’ repentance and petitions to God for mercy in response to

Jonah’s message, the narrative informs us of God’s response to the Ninevites. “When God saw

what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented [wayyināhem] of the disaster

[‘al-hārā‘āh] that he had said he would do [’asher dibber la‘asôt] to them, and he did not do it”

(Jonah 3:10). This statement clearly alludes to the statement in Exodus regarding God’s response

to Moses’ intercession for the Israelites: “And the LORD relented [wayyināhem] from the disaster

[‘al-hārā‘āh] that he had spoken of bringing [’asher dibber la‘asôt] on his people” (Exod. 32:14,

cf. 32:12). The allusion adds even further confirmation that the account in Jonah 3 is deliberately

comparing the sparing of Nineveh from judgment to the sparing of Israel from judgment in the

wilderness.

The verb for “relent” used in both passages, nāham, is sometimes translated “repent” or

“be sorry.” In these and other passages God is the subject of this verb (Gen. 6:6-7; Judg. 2:18; 1

Sam. 15:11, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chron. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; Jer. 15:6; 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:3, 13,

19; 42:10; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Zech. 8:14; on the other hand, see Num. 23:19; 1 Sam.

15:29; Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; Ezek. 24:14). From these texts arises the disputed question as to

whether God can literally regret or be sorry for doing something, or can “repent” of doing or of

intending to do something. The dispute results from confusing words with concepts. God can be

the subject of the verb nāham, but that verb has varying connotations depending on context. In

most of the texts in which God is the subject of the verb, the point is that God can and does,

when he sees fit, do otherwise than what he had previously stated. Such statements do not mean

that God “changed his mind” (an inaccurate translation used in some versions) or that he was

caught by surprise by people’s actions and so forced to abandon or change his plans. Rather, they

25 Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 193,

225; Phyllis Trible, “The Book of Jonah: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection,” in The New Interpreter’s

Bible, vol. 7 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 514; Alexander, “Jonah: An Introduction and Commentary,” 136.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 9

mean that God can and does take into consideration what his creatures do and responds to them

appropriately and as he sees fit. If God could not do this, he would not be personal.

God’s action of sparing the Ninevites clearly shows that he understood his message to

them through Jonah as giving them an opportunity to repent. But what was Jonah’s own

understanding of his message?

Jonah Vented

Immediately following the report that God relented and did not bring the calamity on

Nineveh that he had threatened through Jonah, the narrative informs us that “it displeased Jonah

exceedingly, and he was angry” (Jonah 4:1). A common explanation for Jonah’s anger is that it

was motivated by displeasure at having his prophetic prediction falsified, making him “look like

a false prophet.”26 “Jonah was upset by the fact that the prophecy was not fulfilled,” according to

LDS scholar John Tvedtnes.27 Victor M. Paulsen, another Mormon writer, also asserts that

“Jonah is furious with the Lord for making false his prophesy.”28 The Jehovah’s Witness calling

himself Elijah likewise claims that Jonah “became angry because his prophecy did not come

true.”29 A 2009 article on Jonah in the official Jehovah’s Witness magazine The Watchtower

tentatively proposes the same explanation: “What was troubling Jonah? We cannot know all that

went through his mind, but we do know that Jonah had proclaimed doom to Nineveh before all

those people. They had believed him. And now, no doom was coming. Did he fear being

ridiculed or being labeled a false prophet?”30

That Jonah was angry about his prophecy being unfulfilled is a natural supposition if one

assumes that Jonah’s message was an unconditional prediction of judgment. However, there is

not a shred of evidence in the book that Jonah was angry about his prophecy being falsified. Nor

is there any reason to think that the sparing of Nineveh would have made Jonah look bad. To the

contrary, the Ninevites, who had been spared from a disastrous judgment, would have regarded

Jonah with gratitude for having given them the opportunity to seek God’s mercy. To see what

was really bothering Jonah, all one needs to do is to continue reading the next two verses:

And he prayed to the LORD and said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in

my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a

gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting

from disaster. Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for it is better for me

to die than to live” (Jonah 4:2-3).

Jonah was angry and upset, not because what he thought would be the result of his

proclamation did not happen, but because what he thought would be its result did happen. The

result of God sparing the Ninevites was, Jonah says, the very thing he had said would happen

when he was still in Israel prior to his flight to Tarshish. He knew that it was characteristic of

God to be merciful and therefore that God’s intention was to relent from bringing judgment on

Nineveh, and Jonah had not wanted to be a part of it. That, he says, is why he had fled west

26 Freedman and Frey, “False Prophecy Is True,” 85. 27 Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy”; see above, n. 9, for the statement in context. 28 Victor M. Paulsen, “False Prophecy—False Prophet? Joseph Smith’s Temple Prophecy” (n.d.). 29 Elijah (pseud.), “‘False Prophet’ Claim”; see above, n. 13. 30 “He Learned a Lesson in Mercy,” Watchtower, 1 April 2009.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 10

toward Tarshish, in the opposite direction from Nineveh to the east of Israel: he understood that

God was sending him to Nineveh in order to give them an opportunity to be the beneficiaries of

his mercy.

Some Mormon scholars (who have not cited Jonah as precedent for Joseph Smith’s failed

prophetic predictions) have made the same point. For example, LDS scholar David Rolph Seely

comments on Jonah 4:2, “At last Jonah offered his excuse for not wanting to go to Nineveh in

the first place…. The problem is now finally clear. Jonah didn’t like Assyrians, a not uncommon

position held by many of the Northern Kingdom in the time of Jonah, for they were his

enemies…. Jonah would rather have died than live to see his enemies receive the mercy of the

Lord.”31 A Mormon scholar from a generation earlier, Sidney B. Sperry, understood the text

along the same lines.32

Jonah expresses his understanding of God’s intentions toward Nineveh in language that

once again clearly alludes to the passage in Exodus concerning Moses’ intercession on behalf of

rebellious Israel. In that passage, the Lord revealed himself to Moses saying, “The LORD, the

LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and

faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6). The Hebrew for “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and

abounding in steadfast love” (’ēl rahûm wəhannûn ’erek ’appayim wəreb-hesed) is verbally

identical in both texts, the only difference being that the adjectives “merciful” (rahûm) and

“gracious” (hannûn) are reversed. Jonah’s use of this language is ironic since he is unhappy that

the mercy God had shown to Israel was now being given to Israel’s hated enemy of Nineveh.

Jonah’s omission of the word “faithfulness” from his description of God is probably purposeful:

from Jonah’s perspective the Lord’s faithfulness was supposed to be loyalty or dependability for

his people Israel, not for their enemies.

Moses and Israel (Exodus 32-34) Jonah and Nineveh (Jonah 3-4)

God’s anger burned toward Israel (32:10-12). God’s anger burned toward Nineveh (3:9).

Moses was with the Lord forty days (34:28). Nineveh was given a grace period of forty days

(3:4).

Moses neither ate bread nor drank water during

the forty days (34:28).

The Ninevites neither ate nor drank water

during the forty days (3:7).

Moses prayed for God to spare the Israelites

(32:11-13, 31-32; 33:12-16; 34:9).

The Ninevites prayed for God to spare them

(3:8).

The Lord said that he would show mercy

toward whomever he chose (33:19).

The Ninevites repented in the hope that God

might choose to show mercy to them (3:9).

The Lord “relented of the disaster that he had

said he would do” to Israel (32:14).

God “relented of the disaster that he had said

he would do” to Nineveh (3:10).

The Lord is “a God merciful and gracious,

slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love

and faithfulness” (34:6).

The Lord is “a God gracious and merciful,

slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love”

(4:2).

31 David Rolph Seely, “The Book of Jonah,” in Studies in Scripture, Volume 4: 1 Kings to Malachi, ed. Kent P.

Jackson (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1993), 49. 32 Sidney B. Sperry, The Voice of Israel’s Prophets: A Latter-day Saint Interpretation of the Major and Minor

Prophets of the Old Testament (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1952), 329, 332-33.

Bowman/Jonah’s Alleged False Prophecy—page 11

God’s message through Jonah, the description of the Ninevites’ repentance, the report of

God’s response to the Ninevites’ repentance, and Jonah’s comment on the sparing of Nineveh,

all clearly allude to the account in Exodus 32-34 of Moses interceding on Israel’s behalf in the

wilderness.

When Jonah’s message to Nineveh is read in light of the pervasive use in Jonah 3-4 of

allusions to Exodus 32-34, it becomes even clearer that the forty days were specified as a grace

period during which Nineveh had an opportunity to seek God’s mercy, just as Moses had sought

God’s mercy for Israel. The account of Jonah’s angry complaint in Jonah 4:2-3 reveals that this

is precisely how Jonah had understood the proclamation and why he had not wanted to deliver

the message in the first place. Read in this way, Jonah’s proclamation is not an unfulfilled

predictive prophecy but a gracious divine warning the purpose of which was dramatically and

completely fulfilled. According to the account in Jonah 3-4, this is how Jonah, God, and the

Ninevites—all of the “parties” involved—understood the proclamation.

It is interesting to find that the 2009 Watchtower article on Jonah, despite suggesting that

Jonah might have been unhappy that he had been made to look like a false prophet, ends up

concluding that Jonah’s proclamation did precisely what it was supposed to accomplish. “So was

Jonah’s prophecy a false one? No; it fulfilled its purpose as a warning.”33 That being the case,

those Jehovah’s Witnesses who cite Jonah 3:4 as precedent for failed or mistaken predictions in

Watchtower literature are really disagreeing with their organization’s current understanding of

the book of Jonah.

Conclusion

In no sense of the term was Jonah’s prophecy a false, inaccurate, or unfulfilled prophecy.

It was a prophetic warning that gave the hearers an opportunity to appeal to God for a reprieve

from the threatened judgment. This is how all of the parties to the proclamation—the prophet

Jonah, the people of Nineveh, and the Lord God—understood its meaning and purpose.

Describing the proclamation as a “conditional prophecy” may not be the best way of wording the

point, as this description can be taken to mean that Jonah was making a prediction that might or

might not come true depending on whether the Ninevites sufficiently changed their behavior.

Such a way of explaining the proclamation overlooks the element of divine freedom and

sovereignty in granting mercy confessed, in an ironic twist, by both the pagan ship captain in

Jonah 1:6 and the Ninevite king in Jonah 3:9. Rather, Jonah’s proclamation was a warning of a

genuine threat but one that implicitly offered the Ninevites an opportunity to petition God for

mercy. The pervasive intertextual allusions between Jonah 3-4 and Exodus 32-34 reveal that

God’s intention, scandalous as it was to Jonah himself, was to show to the pagan Ninevites the

same mercy that the Lord had graciously shown to Israel through Moses. Jonah looks like a fool,

not because he uttered a prophecy that did not come to pass, but because he objected to God’s

purpose of blessing all the families of the earth, even those who were Israel’s enemies, with his

mercy (cf. Gen. 12:3).

33 “He Learned a Lesson in Mercy,” Watchtower, 1 April 2009. It is perhaps worth noting that articles in the

Watchtower are anonymous and are produced and reviewed by a team or committee, which may explain the

presence of somewhat different perspectives in the same article.