My cat starts talking incessantly about ten minutes before
breakfast, which is probably about how long it takes me to pry the pillow out
of my ears and give in to her pestering. My dog doesn’t bark much, but he too will let you know if dinner is taking an unreasonable time to hit
the bowl.
Hungry,
stressed-out cattle also make noises. They do not suffer in silence. Underfed
lambs bleat and cry. So do goats when they are hungry or thirsty, and their
bleating gets louder and more obnoxious over time. (They will also butt you when they are hungry, but that only
makes a sound if they happen to connect when you’re not expecting it.)
A Racket Ascending to Heaven
Wild animals are different. They are generally quiet when
hungry. An unnecessary howl might frighten away the prey. But domestic animals
are used to a routine. If they are not fed, they have no options. They will
make their discontent known and keep making it known until they get a response
from somebody. Penned up and stressed by proximity, the noise will only get worse.
So then,
suppose you are the king of an ancient city, and you are absolutely convinced
that a foreign god is about to wipe your home from the face of the earth. You
want to get God’s attention and signal your humble repentance and willingness
to do anything he says. In short, you want to make a big scene accompanied by a racket that will ascend to
heaven.
What’s the easiest way to do that? Well, you can stop feeding your livestock. If they
number in the tens of thousands, that ought to do the trick in short order. Nobody will be able to miss the sound of thousands upon thousands of bitterly complaining animals.
Jonah 3:6-9 — Hue and Cry
“The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, ‘By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.’ ”
The writer of Jonah has previously noted that there was a
groundswell of chastened and obedient response among the citizens of Nineveh to
Jonah’s warning of imminent judgment. He says they believed God, called for a
fast and put on sackcloth, and that this was characteristic across the board,
whether those who heard the message were rich or poor.
Reaching the King
The word translated “reached” or “came to” in verse 6
is in a Hebrew tense called the sequential imperfect, which in this case means it may be translated either “reached”
or “had reached”. It is possible the writer of Jonah is stopping to explain the
cause of the fast-spreading spirit of repentance moving through Nineveh by
pointing out after the fact that the king had decreed it, and people were
acting in response to his decree. But the verb tense on its own is inconclusive
about that. What seems most likely is that as Jonah traveled through the city
preaching, men and women responded individually by repenting, fasting and
humbling themselves until the word of this movement eventually came to the
king, who issued his decree, which had the effect of confirming and further
spreading what was already going on. The grassroots movement among the people
thus became official.
This is not always how things go between rulers and those
they rule. Some leaders are trendsetters; others put a finger in the wind and
go with the zeitgeist. The king of Nineveh might have been a proud man like
Rehoboam of Israel, refusing to listen to the word of God through Jonah and
ignoring the mood among his people. Thankfully for Nineveh, he was not.
On the Wearing of Sackcloth
Egyptologist A.K. Eyma has done some interesting work on the
subject of Egyptian
loan-words in English. (A loan-word is a transliteration, or a word that
moves from one alphabet to another while retaining some semblance of its
original pronunciation.) English words like “barge”, “sash” and “endive”
originated in Egypt, says Eyma, and were transliterated first into some other
language (often Greek, later Latin), then eventually transliterated for a
second or third time into English as our language developed.
One of the alleged Egyptian loan-words Eyma lists as
debatable is “sack”, which other linguists say derives from the Egyptian saqqa. Eyma says not so; the true origin
of “sack” is actually Hebrew, not Egyptian. Now, considering Jacob’s family
sojourned in Egypt for close to 400 years, it should not be a surprise to
find that a few Hebrew words had made their way into the ancient Egyptian vernacular, and
indeed this appears to be the case. Eyma says saqqa is a transliteration of the Hebrew saq, which is probably in turn a transliteration of the Akkadian sakku. Both these ancient words denote
sackcloth, a course garment made from goat hair.
Why does this matter? Well, when you research the origin of
the expression “sackcloth and ashes” online, you find next to nothing but
biblical references. One can immediately see the problem: How is it that
Assyrians are depicted in the book of Jonah as adopting what many writers refer
to as a peculiarly Hebrew sign of mourning? Did Jonah tell the Ninevites this
was the appropriate way to signal their repentance?
We cannot entirely rule out that possibility (though Jonah seems
singularly unlikely to have helped the people of Nineveh any more than was
strictly required). However, Eyma’s language study renders any search for
further explanation unnecessary. The Akkadians controlled
Nineveh prior to the Assyrian occupation of the city. If the Akkadians
coined a word for sackcloth, it is
evident the custom of wearing sacks to express an attitude of mourning (probably
by cutting neck and arm holes in bags used for corn feed, as historians have
suggested) was not a uniquely Hebrew custom, but considerably more widespread
in the Ancient East.
In any case, the expression “sackcloth and ashes” predates
the existence of Israel as a nation. The wearing of sackcloth as a public
display of mourning occurs very early in our Bibles. Jacob
mourned Joseph in sackcloth for many days. Job, who lived even earlier (and
probably a fair bit closer to the city that would eventually become Nineveh as
well) sewed
sackcloth upon his skin in mourning and sat in the dust. The practice is
found all through the Old Testament, from David to Daniel and beyond.
Absurd Comic Incongruity
When the king of Nineveh left his throne, stripped off his
robe and dressed in sackcloth, then sat in a pile of ashes, he was humbling
himself in a remarkable way, and setting an example for his people that could
not be ignored. His instructions to the people included covering the herd
animals of the Ninevites with sackcloth as well as the human beings, and
imposing on the livestock the same dietary restrictions as the citizens of
Nineveh were imposing on themselves. Bear in mind that unless God could be
persuaded to “turn and relent from his fierce anger”, all those animals would
shortly have been as dead as their owners. The king’s edict was brutal but
quite logical.
The subject of intentional humor in the book of Jonah is
probably worthy of a post of its own, so I will mention the writings of
Mark Biddle, William Whedbee, Yvonne Sherwood and others who allege the book of
Jonah is full of intentional humor only briefly for the time being. One example
will suffice for now. In A Time to Laugh, Biddle writes:
“The image of cows fasting, clad in sackcloth, sitting on the ash heap, repenting, and praying to God is the very best definition of absurd comic incongruity.”
That pull quote can only be characterized as a cartoonish
misrepresentation of the text.
Fasting vs. Starving
Fasting is defined as “the willful refrainment from
eating”. It is certainly an activity that requires a measure of willpower,
but if you have compelling reasons to do so, you can end a fast at a moment’s
notice. An animal who has not been fed is not fasting, it is being starved. Nowhere in the book of Jonah do cows fast, repent or pray. The
sackcloth and food and water deprivation in Jonah are imposed on the animals by
their owners, following the royal edict. The animals are crying out in their
hunger and misery.
Moreover, strange, silly, outlandish, or whatever else you
may call them, the writer of Jonah gives us a record of the instructions of a pagan monarch in a desperate
situation, not a description of what God either ordered or desired. There is nothing
absurd, comic or incongruous about unhappy animals voicing their unhappiness,
and even voicing it to God. It is not even a particularly unusual thought; a
similar description of hungry animals, both wild and domesticated, is found in
the first
chapter of Joel:
“How the beasts groan! The herds of cattle are perplexed because there is no pasture for them; even the flocks of sheep suffer ... Even the beasts of the field pant for [you, O Lord] because the water brooks are dried up, and fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness.”
It is certainly couched in poetic language, but here we have
animals doing exactly what the king of Nineveh was trying to produce in his city: a loud cry of distress to God.
The only people who could possibly view such a scene as
intentionally humorous are people for whom hunger has never been a reality, people who do not
read very carefully, and people who take the book of Jonah to be a work of
sanctified fiction.
No comments :
Post a Comment