The Sign of Jonah

Sorry for the long radio silence. I’ve been busy.

So I was browsing around in Matthew today, partially because I have to for my gospels class, but also because Bill was discussing it today in his sermon, and I came upon another instance of the Sign of Jonah that Jesus mentions a couple of times.

 Now when the Pharisees and Sadducees came to test Jesus, they asked him to show them a sign from heaven.  He said, “When evening comes you say, ‘It will be fair weather, because the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, because the sky is red and darkening.’ You know how to judge correctly the appearance of the sky, but you cannot evaluate the signs of the times.  A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” Then he left them and went away.

And just previously in Matthew:

12:38 Then some of the experts in the law along with some Pharisees answered him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 12:39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 12:40 For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. 12:41 The people of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them – and now, something greater than Jonah is here!12:42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon – and now, something greater than Solomon is here!

In both instances there are Jews asking Jesus for a sign and in response Jesus calls them an adulterous nation and tells them about the sign of Jonah, and in chapter 12 Jesus talks about himself, calling himself the Son of Man. So I was looking at that today and kept reading in chapter 16 and thought this was pretty curious. It’s right after the quoted section above:

16:13 When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 16:14 They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

What I was interested in was that a sign of Jonah is brought up twice, and usually involving the Son of Man, and when Jesus asks the disciples who they think he is, Simon, son of Jonah, properly reveals who Jesus is, a fact not revealed by any person but from God. What do you guys think? Coincidence that both names happen to be Jonah? Seems pretty particular that the title son of Jonah is stated here. Could the author be trying to show us that the sign they are looking for doesn’t come from the sky, from a miraculous act, but from Simon, a fisherman, not a teacher of the Law.

Why a virgin birth?

So I was reading Matthew’s genealogy the other day–I know, exciting stuff right?–with some Dutch people and one of them asked, “How can Jesus be Joseph’s son, since he wasn’t physically his father?”  (As I think about it now, I wonder if that isn’t a very Western thinking sort of question, but that’s not what I’m here to write about).  Anyway, that got me to thinking.  I don’t think I’ve ever really heard a satisfying explanation of the virgin birth.  

As I recall, the dialogue generally goes something like this: “So why was Jesus born of a virgin?” “Because it was prophesied in Isaiah” “Oh.  Great…Why did God go through the trouble of prophesying that he would come in the flesh through a virgin birth?” “Cause it makes Jesus birth even more special…I guess…”  Yeah, I’m not satisfied either.  So here’s what I’m thinking: 

The early chapters of Genesis tell us that eating from the forbidden tree would result in death for God’s specially appointed vice-regent stewards of the earth, Mankind.  Through the story (and Paul’s restatement in Romans) it becomes pretty clear that in Adam, all died, because no one seems to display the marks of life within themselves, and so Man’s role as vice-regent/stewards of the earth is somewhat called in to question.  How will humanity fulfill the task and potential to which God has called them (in relation to both Creation and God)? 

As the story moves along, in the precarious story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38) there arises a provision called the Leverite Marriage, which served to continue the line of families who no longer had a fitting heir (Another great example is found in the book of Ruth).  As Judah’s sons deny their duty to their brother, the narrative pronounces them “evil” and God kills them–(which I’ve always found to be a bit of an overreaction–but then again, the Leverite marriage has never seemed that important or meaningful to me either).

I’m sure you’re already putting the puzzle together, but here’s how I see this shaking out: 

#1  The mother of the savior must be a virgin, because, without the intervention of the next of kin (in whose image we have been made), mankind is “dead” and cannot possibly produce a rightful heir.

#2  If God, in Christ, is providing a rightful heir for humanity through the Leverite  marriage, then it must also make beautiful sense of the family terminology which permeates the rest of the NT.  Why are we a family?  Why are we “brothers and sisters”?  Why is Paul so fond of adoption language?  Because Jesus was born of a virgin, thus reestablishing our true humanity.  

Not to belabor the point, do you guys have any more thoughts on this?