The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 497

more oleo.rly than the present would have attribute Ter. 40 to Christ, and consicler that done the final relntion in which Christ should as he was mentioning the reception or Jonah otand to his contemporaries. Godet, indeed, by the Ninevites, the thought occurred to urges that the future exolndes any present him that in Jonah's history lay as it were a referenoe to Christ's work as preaching, and prefigurement of what he himself would be. that the demand for a sign from heaf!en Just as on another occasion be illustrated (Luke xi. 16) cnn only be fu]ly satisfied by his death and resurrection by the figure of Christ's resurrection, "in which no human destroying and building the temple (John agenoy intervenes, and in which Divine ii 18, 19), so now he uses the figure of power appears alone." He, therefore, makes Jonah in the whale's belly. Luke's meaning identical with that of our (8) This is not the place to enter upon ver. 40, and po.rapbraees thus: "lt wa.s as a discussion of the question whether the one who had miraoulonsly eecnped from event here referred to litera.l!y happened death that Jonas presented himself before or not, much less to examine the deep and tho Ninevites, summoning them to anticipate mysterious subject of the Lord's kenosis the danger which threatened them; it is as (Phil. ii. 7). But it should be observed the Risen One that I (by my messengers) that some at leaat of those critics who do shall proclaim salvation to the men of this not believe that the narrative of Jonah generation." But this would almost assume being in the whale's belly is to be under- that Jonah told the Ninevites of his miracu- stood literally, consider that hie preaching lous eecnpe, though there is not a hint of to the Ninevites at all is equally meta- his having done so. On the contrary, Jonah phoricnl (cf. C. H. H. Wright, 'Introduclion iii. 4, ,qq., implies that the call to repent- to Old Testament,' p. 207, sqq.), so that not ance on the basis of punishment threatened only ver. 40 but vcr. 41 and Luke xi 32 was the sole and only means employed by are affected, and tLat indeed more seriously, the prophet to acoomplieh his mission. since the Lord snys that the Ninevites will Jonah the preaoher becnme, by virtue of hie stand up as witnesses. The reasons for preaching, a sign to the Ninevitee (for, qnite taking the narrative as only meto.phoriclll ape.rt from hie mira.oulous preservation, hie are fur from convincing, yet even if they appearance in Nineveh and hie preaohing were overwhelmiug, the illustration in ver. there were no small portent and sign of 40 (though not ver. 41) would still remnin Divine interest in the Ninevites' affairs), valid, just as (with all reverence be it spoken) and they accepted him. Matthew's addition, any one to-day might illustrate his action "the prophet," emphasizes this thought, from that of one of SLakespeare's characters even though he passes on to give what whose historical existence is more than appears to have been the Lord's secondary doubtful. While, however, the frequency interpretation of the sign of Jonah. of the allegoricnl and pictorial in Hebrew Christ's primary object, then, in his reply poetry and prophecy must be fully nllowed was to show to his opponents that heathen for, there seems to be no strong reason Ninevites and a heathen queen aooepted the (apart from the miracle) to doubt the his- trnth without any such sign as that which torical character of the narrative. Further, they were now demanding, and, if possible, as to the miracle, Jonah L 17 ; ii. 10 o.re so to shame them into doing so. Thus ver. 40 closely connected with Jonah L, iii., and iv., is to be considered as parenthetical rather that it is best to understllnd the writer as than as the mnin subject. intending to represent it (marvellous though It has, indeed, been suggested thnt ver. 40 it is) e.s literal history. was in fa.et not spoken at all by the Lord Vere. 38-45.-Some of our Lord's op- himself, but is only the result of a very early ponents try to defend themselves by asking interpretation by the Hebrew Ohristians of for a sign of Lis authority to claim so much; our Lord's phrase, added before the forma- e.g. ver. 30 (ver. 38). In his reply be refem tion of our Gospel. The explanation is them to their own histories for proof that tempting, but, in the entire absence of corro- such a demand is inexcusable. The Nine- bor11tion, co.nnot be a.ccepted (cf. note there). vites did not require one when Jonah So far 1111 our preseut evidence goes, we must be011me a sign to them-and in mentioning  494 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [on. xn. 1-60.