The assertion that Jonah declared
a fata denunciativa has little textual evidence. To appeal to the phrase
קרא על as a statement of declaratory destiny is not convincing. Gains further
observes that if God’s message was merely a prediction of Nineveh’s fall, Jonah
could have declared it from within the safe borders of Israel. Chisholm rightly
observes that the prophetic language is functional, intending to accuse the
listeners of their wickedness and to exhort them from change. Consequently, a
prophecy about the future is often contingent on the response of the listeners.
The message Jonah is sent to declare can have alternative outcomes, either disaster
or salvation, dependent on the reaction it evokes. The announcement serves as a
warning that Nineveh would turn over in repentance within forty days. The
conditional nature of a prophetic message finds a clear articulation in Jer.
18.17-10:
If at any time I declare
concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and
destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its
evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any
time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent
of the good that I had intended to do it. (ESV)
Finally, the primary emphasis of
Jonah’s words in 4.2 is not on prophetic contingency but on divine mercy, which
is further addressed in the remainder of the narrative. Therefore, it is improbable
that the legitimacy of prophecy or the prophet Jonah is the primary concern of
the book. Nevertheless, these scholars highlight the places of prophecy and the
prophet in the book. (Chanreiso
Lungleng, Jonah’s Motive in the Light of Exodus 32-34 [Hebrew Bible
Monographs 117; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2025], 20)
Further
Reading:
Richard L. Pratt,
“Historical
Contingencies and Biblical Predications,” November 23, 1993
