Jonah 3:7

and published This word is not a participle, though likely to be taken for one in the A.V. It is literally, " And he caused a proclamation to be made, and said, &c.

the decree The word here used is not properly a Hebrew word. It occurs frequently in the Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra to denote a mandate or decree of the Babylonish and Persian monarchs. Dr Pusey rightly sees in the employment of it here a proof of the "accuracy" of Jonah as a writer. He observes, "This is a Syriac word; and accordingly, since it has now been ascertained beyond all question that the language of Nineveh was a dialect of Syriac, it was, with a Hebrew pronunciation (the vowel points are different here from those in Daniel and Ezra), the very word used of this decree at Nineveh."

and his nobles Lit., his great men, or grandees, Proverbs 18:16. We have a similar association of his nobles with himself by Darius the Mede, when he caused the stone which was laid upon the mouth of the den, into which Daniel had been cast, to be sealed "with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel" (Daniel 6:17). In the present case, however, it would seem that it was not in the exercise of a constitutional right, but by a voluntary act on the part of the king, that the nobles were associated with him in the edict which he issued. Kalisch observes, "It would be unsafe to infer from this passage that the nobles were in some manner constitutionally connected with the government of the kingdom, and thus tempered its arbitrariness, as we know now from the monuments, no less than from the records of history, that -the Assyrian monarch was a thorough Eastern despot, unchecked by popular opinion, and having complete power over the lives and property of his subjects, rather adored as a god than feared as a man." " (Layard, Nin. and Babyl.p. 632). May not this association of his nobles with himself have been "fruit meet for repentance," an abdication, in some sort, of the haughty arbitrariness of his power, an humbling of himself "under the mighty hand of God"?

saying The decree, thus introduced, extends to the end of Jonah 3:9.

man nor beast, herd nor flock The Hebrew word for "beast" here means tame or domestic animals, and probably refers only to "beasts of burden," horses, mules, and the like. So Ahab says to Obadiah when the famine was in Samaria, "peradventure we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive, that we be not deprived of beasts" (1 Kings 18:5). "Herd and flock" will then be an additional clause, not amplifying, but distinct from "beast," and the covering with sackcloth, in Jonah 3:8, will thus be confined to those animals which were in man's more immediate use, and many of which, with their gay and costly trappings and harness, had been the ministers of his pomp and pride, or, as employed in war, had been the instruments of his "violence." The extension of the fast to all, and of the sackcloth to some at least, of the animals in Nineveh, is probably without exact parallel in extant history. The Speaker's Commentaryrightly points out that "the voluntaryfasting of animals, wild as well as tame, at the death of Daphnis, described by Virgil, Eclog.v. 24 28, which has often been referred to, is plainly a mere poetic fancy." But the description in the text is quite in keeping with the common instinct and practice of mankind. Men have always been wont to extend the outward signs of their joy or sorrow to everything under their control. Our dress, our food, our houses, our equipage, our horses, our servants, all wear the hue of the occasion for which they are employed. "Man, in his luxury and pride, would have everything reflect his glory and minister to pomp. Self-humiliation would have everything reflect its lowliness. Sorrow would have everything answer to its sorrow. Men think it strange that the horses at Nineveh were covered with sackcloth, and forget how, at the funerals of the rich, black horses are chosen, and are clothed with black velvet" (Pusey). In the extreme case of Nineveh, the instinct may well have been indulged to an extreme. Like all other common instincts of our nature, it had a true origin, for the destiny of man and of the lower creation is inseparably connected (Genesis 1:26; Genesis 1:28; Romans 8:19-23). The effect upon the Ninevites of seeing "their deserts set before them as in a mirror or a picture" (Calvin), all that belonged to them involved with them, through their guilt, in a common danger with themselves all creation, as it were, threatened and humbled for the sin of its lord may well have been to incite them powerfully to repentance. The appeal to the compassion of Almighty God, who "preserveth man and beast" (Psalms 36:6; comp. ch. Jonah 4:11), may well have been strengthened by the mute misery of the innocent beasts (Joel 1:20) But, apart from these considerations, the requirements of the history are fully satisfied by regarding the act of the king of Nineveh as instinctive, called for by the urgent circumstances of the case, and coloured by the demonstrativeness of oriental character.