Jonah 3:3

"So Jonah arose and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of Jehovah. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days journey."

"So Jonah arose and went ..." As we detected in the psalm-prayer, Jonah still entertained a deep prejudice against the pagan worshippers of idols; and Smith may be correct in his remark that, "He obeyed, but with his prejudice as strong as though it had never been humbled, nor met by Gentile nobleness."[5]

"Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city ..." "The past tense shows that the writing belongs to a period after the destruction of Nineveh in 612 B.C."[6] We consider it a duty to warn young students of God's Word against observations like this comment from Interpreter's Bible. It is a curious example of pedantic sophistry which pretends a discernment which is actually blindness, and which falsely alleges an intellectuality which is nowhere to be found in it. To begin with, "The Hebrew has no true past tense, indeed has no tenses in its verb system.[7] An argument from "tense" in this place is therefore worthless. "All that is intended here is, that, `Nineveh existed in Jonah's day as a great city.'"[8] The greatest scholars on earth have been pointing this out now for a hundred years, but the so-called "liberal" scholars go right on parroting the same old worn-out arguments that have been exploded for a century! Dozens of writers have pointed out that the tense in this passage is synchronistic, that is, it corresponds with the whole narrative which is cast in the past tense. "The statement that, `Nineveh was an exceeding great city,' need imply no more than that this is how it was when Jonah went there."[9]

If the false allegation that Jonah was written after 612 B.C. is accepted, the entire Book of Jonah would be pointless; "Should not I pity Nineveh?" would then be, "not only a hypothetical consideration, but a particularly one."[10] A number of similar usages of the past tense (in our translations) in both Old Testament and New Testament refute the critical allegations against this verse. For example:

"Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off (John 11:18). Who would stress the verb `was' to the point of denying that the town of Bethany existed in Jesus' day, or even when Luke wrote?"[11]

Or take 1 Kings 18:2:

"Elijah went to show himself unto Ahab. And the famine was sore in Samaria."

Could this verse possibly mean that the famine, on account of which Elijah went to see Ahab, was a thing of the remote past, some two or three hundred years earlier? Indeed no!

There is no need to multiply instances of this well known and frequent use of the past tense in the Bible. As a matter of fact, such arguments as that concocted from "was" in this verse are not even believed by those using them, but they are for the purpose of deceiving people who are not supposed to know any better. Robinson wrote:

"The chief reason why some scholars hold the book to be a product of postexilic times is that ... the general thought and tenor of the book ... presupposes the teaching of the great prophets, including Jeremiah (and Isaiah)."[12]

It should be noted that the actual reason has nothing to do with the type of insinuation used against this verse. The chief reason, as Robinson went on to point out is "highly subjective,"[13] having nothing at all to do with any factual or substantive evidence.

Now, with regard to the "chief reason," Jeremiah and Isaiah both were doubtless influenced by Jonah, especially Isaiah who, in full harmony with the inevitable deductions that appear mandatory in the Book of Jonah, prophesied again and again the rejection of Israel and the acceptance of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. Romans 9-11 is fully devoted to this.

"Great city of three day's journey ..." The unanimous voice of the ancients attests the accuracy of this statement. The subjective objections of some who would like to have it otherwise are not sustained by either fact or substance. Excavations of the ancient fortifications of Nineveh are considerably smaller than the area indicated here; but the citadel should not be confused with the whole city. All ancient, walled cities, were actually composed of a vast inhabited area outside the walls, and frequently at considerable distances beyond them, in addition to the comparatively small area encompassed by the walls proper. Keil, quoting Niebuhr (p. 277), wrote:

"The circumference of the great city of Nineveh, or the length of the boundaries of the city in the broadest sense was nearly ninety English miles, not reckoning the smaller windings of the boundary; and this would be just three day's traveling for a good walker on a long journey."[14]