John Mark Hicks

One of the more difficult texts in Micah, the prophet struggles with the resistance of leaders to his message. Nevertheless, Micah presses the consequences of their rejection of God’s word.

Bobby Valentine, a guest presenter, discusses the meaning and significance of Micah 4:6-5:1.

Psalm 38: A Penitential Psalm.

As the Psalmist approaches Yahweh with a memorial offering, the petitioner confesses sin and laments the suffering. “There is no shalom in my bones, and family, friends, and neighbors have distanced themselves from me.” The memorial offering seeks God’s forgiveness, healing, and communal reconciliation.

One of the Penitential Psalms, the Psalmist owns the sin; there is no claim of innocence. But also the Psalmist is one who seeks God and seeks to do good despite.

The Psalm does not make a general claim that all personal suffering is due to personal sin. Other Psalms contest that claim as does the book of Job. Rather, the Psalmist in this specific instance recognizes the sin has created chaos in both soul and body. Thus, the Psalmist confesses sin and seeks the renewal of shalom in both body and soul.

We may pray this Psalm at a personal level, and we may pray it at a communal level as we confess the sins of the community and seek its healing.

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning and significance of Psalm 38.

This article was first published as “Philip Slater Fall: Educator, Reformer, Pastor,” Tennessee Baptist History 18.1 (2016): 59-72. Click here for a PDF version.

On July 15, 1857, the Nashville Union and American announced Philip Slater Fall as the preacher for an evening service at the Third Presbyterian Church, which at that time the First Christian Church rented.[1] Interestingly, in 1821 the recently-founded Baptist congregation had built that building. Some thirty years prior, Fall led that congregation into the Reformation guided by Alexander Campbell. After an absence of twenty-six years (1831-1857), Fall returned to Nashville as the Pastor of the First Christian Church (1858). Later the congregation repurchased their original building. Fall found himself once again pastoring the same congregation in the same building where he began pastoring the “Baptist Church of Jesus Christ” in May 1826.

That same issue announced the return of R. B. C. Howell to the pastorate of the First Baptist Church in Nashville. Howell had earlier led the First Baptist Church to a period of stable growth from 1835-1850. Ironically, both Fall and Howell returned to Nashville within several months of each other, and both congregations welcomed the return of their most celebrated and beloved pastors.

P. S. Fall in Kentucky (1817-1826): Embracing Reform

Philip Slater Fall was born on September 7, 1798 near Brighton in Sussex, England. Colonel James Fall, a former military officer, moved the family to the United States, landing in New Jersey on May 10, 1817. They travelled down the Ohio River from Pittsburg to Louisville and renewed family relationships in Adair County, Kentucky, where Philip’s mother died.  The family settled in Logan County near Russellville on a four hundred acre farm Philip’s father had purchased before he died on Christmas Eve, 1817. Philip, at nineteen, was the oldest of ten, including an eight-month old infant, and he was tasked with caring for the orphaned family.

Though raised Episcopalian by his mother, Philip’s great grandfather, James Fall, was a British Baptist minister, and some suggest his father was Baptist.[2] Isaac Hodgen (1779-1826), an eminent and successful Baptist minister who had officiated the funeral of Fall’s mother,[3] pastored the Mt. Gilead Church and preached throughout country between Russellville and Hopkinsville, KY. Fall, baptized on October 25, 1818, became a member of the Mt. Gilead congregation. Soon he regularly offered a “word of exhortation” to the church.[4]

Given his classical education, he began teaching at the Forks Elkhorn Academy in Franklin County, KY, in the Fall of 1819.[5]  Shortly after his arrival the Church of the Folks of Elkhorn licensed him to preach on December 11, 1819. The next summer a presbytery of Baptist pastors examined his “call to the Ministry” and theology.[6] His views were “satisfactory,” though there was significant discussion about Fall’s dubious Calvinism.[7]

Accompanying Jeremiah Vardeman, a leading Kentucky Baptist minister who organized the Baptist church in Nashville, Fall preached for the Nashville Baptist church in July 1821 as well as in June 1822. Though invited to serve as their Pastor, he declined and remained in Franklin County as co-pastor with Jacob Creath, Sr. of the Frankfort Baptist Church from 1821-1822.[8] Throughout 1822 Fall preached monthly for the Louisville Baptist church. Accepting their invitation, he moved to Louisville as its pastor in January 1823 where he also taught in an academy. Here he began to pay attention to the rumblings of Alexander Campbell. 

Fall first heard about Campbell from William Vaughan shortly after Campbell’s debate with the Presbyterian Walker.[9] Vaughn praised Campbell’s performance as well as his biblical knowledge. He next heard about Campbell from Jeremiah Vardeman during his tour of Tennessee, but Fall did not read from him until 1823 when he read Campbell’s controversial “Sermon on the Law,” delivered to the Redstone Baptist Association in 1816. Next, he began reading Campbell’s new publication, begun July 4, 1823, entitled The Christian Baptist. Fall received his first copy from Moses Norvell, a member of the Baptist church in Nashville. Fall remembers his first reaction was “repugnance” though he was “prepossessed in favor of its editor.”[10]

Fall “became personally acquainted” with Campbell in November 1824 when the Reformer visited Louisville by which time he had read Campbell’s debates with Walker and McCalla. After hearing him several times and visiting with Campbell in his home, Fall became one of the first resident pastors among Kentucky Baptists to fully embrace Campbell’s reform movement.[11] Campbell remembers, for example, a time when “only brethren P. S. Fall, of Kentucky, and Adamson Bentley, of Ohio, cordially espoused the cause” in their respective states.[12]

At the same time Fall was appointed clerk for the Long Run Baptist Association in 1824. Fulfilling his function, he preached the opening sermon of the association on September 2, 1825 and authored a circular letter. This is regarded as the “first movement among the Baptists of Kentucky in the direction of the principles of the Reformation.”[13] The letter affirmed the Bible as “the only sufficient and perfect rule of our faith and practice.”[14] The circular was defeated by one vote.[15]

The Louisville Baptist Church aligned itself with Campbell’s reform movement that year. The church unanimously adopted the following statement on September 1, 1825, the day before the Long Run Association meeting began.[16]

We, the Church of Jesus Christ, meeting together in Louisville, do hereby declare and agree that we do renounce all human instruments of union, such as Creeds, Confessions of faith and formulas of doctrine and practice; and that we receive the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as our only Creed, and the only rule of our faith and practice.[17]

P. S. Fall in Tennessee (1826-1831): Reforming a Church

On September 3, 1825—the date Fall spoke at Long Run—the Nashville Baptist church “unanimously agree[d] to call Bro. Philip S. Fall to act as [its] pastor.” This latest invitation started a momentous chain of events, which resulted in P. S. Fall, according to Wrather, becoming the “Father of the Christian Church in the South.”[18]

Selling the Logan County farm, Fall moved to Nashville in January 1826. He did not come simply as a pastor. Rather, the prestigious Nashville Female Academy, begun in 1816, invited him to teach. Rev. William Hume, the head of the academy, introduced Fall to the public as a “distinguished” teacher who possessed “energy, intelligence and experience.”[19] He was paid six hundred dollars per annum.[20]

Apparently, some in Nashville feared Fall’s relationship to Campbell’s reform movement. However, John C. Ewing, the clerk of the church, assured Fall in an August 28, 1825 letter:  “You need have no apprehensions on this ground, and you will find enough here to support you who are tied to no doctrines but those that are indubitably scriptural.”[21] While some thought Fall came under false pretenses, he insisted otherwise: “Letters now in my possession must satisfy every candid mind that whatever my convictions may have been they were well known before my removal to Nashville.”[22]

Fall became the pastor of the Baptist church in May, though he assumed the ministerial duties when he arrived in January.[23] He served without remuneration.[24] Over the next three months, Fall introduced—with majority support—significant changes.

• Weekly communion was adopted (May 1826).
• Candidates for baptism were received upon a simple confession of faith (June 1826).
• They renounced all creeds as rules of faith and practice, and affirmed the Bible alone as the sole authority (August 1826).

When Alexander Campbell visited Nashville in February/March 1827, he “preached frequently, to the great delight of the Church and the community.” This reception was due to the fact that the church was already “fully engaged in the reformatory movement.”[25] This exacerbated current tensions within the Concord Association from which the church withdrew on August 12, 1827. An earlier communication with the Association stated its intent to never unite with any body requiring subscription “to any human instrument of union, as the test of our obedience or practice.”[26]  On May 28, 1828, the church—at a Saturday conference—resolved:

That all forms, rules, decisions, and regulations, in relation to the government, practice, worship, and ordinances of the church (including the Constitution and Rules of Order) be considered null and void; that we take the New Testament as the rule of our faith, and practice; and will form such rules from it, for our worship, and government, as may consist with the spirit and meaning, and the peace, and good order of the church.[27] 

There is no mistaking the Nashville church’s reorientation and its explicit association with Campbell’s reform movement. Campbell published a letter (January 10, 1828) from the church where she confirms its “departure from Baptist customs.”[28] The congregation numbered one hundred and fifty. After his visit to Nashville in 1830, Campbell described the church, numbering two hundred and fifty, as “advanced in the reformation” because it practiced the apostolic ancient order in its weekly meetings.[29] In 1834, the church numbered five hundred.[30] By 1841, Campbell identified the congregations in Cincinnati, Louisville, and Nashville as “golden candlesticks” which “illuminate and sanctify the whole world.”[31] Two of these were led into the Reformation by Fall.

Though relations with the Female Academy were congenial, Fall started a new one with the help of his sisters. He opened a “private SEMINARY, for the instruction of Young Ladies” on January 7, 1828. Named the Female Institute, it operated out of his home and included “religious instruction.”[32] The school was a tremendous success, but between an “ever-enlarging school and a growing church at a center of influence” the load was too much.  His health declined.[33] He closed the school, resigned his pastorate, and removed to Kentucky.[34] Though the church was disappointed, the “Baptist Church of Jesus Christ in Nashville Tennessee” lavished him with praise and affection in a parting letter.[35] He left a three hundred member strong church in July 1831, and he remained “strongly attached” to the Nashville church, visiting frequently throughout the years.[36] In a letter to his wife, for example, he recounts his July 1833 visit when he baptized fifteen people.[37]

When the school closed, a letter to the editor from a “Lover of Science,” commented: “The loss of such an institution is to be deplored.”[38] However, his sisters—Kitty, Mary, and Charlotte—stayed in Nashville and established “Miss Fall’s Academy.” Charlotte, who later married Tolbert Fanning, became a leading educator in Middle Tennessee for the next fifty years.

P. S. Fall in Kentucky (1831-1858):  Church Planter and Educator

Fall moved to Popular Hill, outside of Frankfort, KY, to a “large home on [a] farm.”[39] Country living suited Philip, and his health improved. He “was a most enthusiastic and intelligent gardener” with a greenhouse “celebrated” for its “many scientific experiments in floriculture.”[40]

With improved health, Fall’s passions re-emerged. Initially, Fall planted and nurtured a congregation in Shelbyville, KY, which grew to sixty-six members in a few months.[41] At the request of five people in Frankfort, who were unaffiliated with any other religious body, he and his wife planted a new congregation on December 2, 1832, which became the Frankfort Christian Church. He was its only “regular preacher” for twenty five years, and he served it “without any compensation.”[42] The new congregation, however, drew fire from others, and the church struggled “against much opposition.”[43]

The Christian Church erected it own building in February 1842, and Fall gave the inaugural sermon, which Campbell published. He characterized Fall as “a well-cultivated and discriminating mind” who was “the oldest ‘reformer’ in Kentucky.” His educational and reforming work is “both known and highly appreciated throughout the Valley of the Mississippi.”[44]

How does the church lead the world to Christ? Fall’s answer: “BY ITS OWN UNITY.” This includes common thought and practices. This unity—same acts, truths, and spirit—is embodied through love for another. But such unity is worthless if the “members of the church do not love one another,” including loving across denominational boundaries. Consequently, church bodies must not “separate themselves” and “work themselves up to the highest possible degree of difference and animosity.” At the center of this conviction is the confession “God is love.” “If divisions, hatred, strife, emulation, injustice, falsehood, unmercifulness, instead of their opposites, distinguish the church, how can the church exhibit the [love] of God to mankind?”[45]

To this end Fall was deeply involved at regional, state, and national levels of the Christian Church, particularly promoting cooperation and education.  He was a founding trustee of the Kentucky Christian Education Society, established in 1854.[46] He was also one of the “foreign managers” of the American Christian Missionary Society at its founding in 1849.[47] Fall was a life-long supporter of society movements within the Christian Church, although David Lipscomb—based on personal conversations with Fall—insisted Fall never advocated for nor participated in societies after his return to Nashville in 1858.[48] In fact, the Nashville Christian Church did not support the society until 1881, several years after Fall returned to Kentucky. [49] He was also a trustee of both Bacon College and Bethany College, and he served as vice president of the Western Literary and College of Professional Teachers.[50]

Fall established the Female Eclectic Institute in 1832. A visitor to the school in 1846 described his home as “one of the most beautiful and romantic spots in the state.” Its educational system was “thorough, developing the powers of thinking, as well as those of acquiring knowledge.”  Indeed, by 1846, “owing to the great celebrity of this school, the Principal has to reject many applications for admission.”[51]

In 1842 Fall described the substance of the school.  Every morning began with song, prayer, and the oral reading of Scripture (several chapters and the Psalms). The following daily schedule reflects Fall’s motto:  “Study is the business and pleasure of all.”[52]

Day	Morning	Afternoon
Monday	Natural Philosophy, Arithmetic, and Writing	Drawing
Tuesday	English Grammar, Arithmetic, and Writing	Geography
Wednesday	History, Arithmetic and Writing	Reading
Thursday	French	Drawing
Friday	Astronomy, Arithmetic, and Writing	Reading
Saturday	Preparation for Monday	Preparation for Monday
Sunday	Worship and Rest	Worship and Rest

Once again, however, Fall’s incessant activity in both church and school affected his health. The educational enterprise grew more wearisome. Fall’s wife wrote to her daughter: “we will not have a school much longer. Your Father seems more wearied than I ever saw him. He would not mind having a few day pupils, but he does not expect to have boarders but very little longer.”[53] Providently, in 1857 the Nashville church invited him to return.

P. S. Fall in Tennessee (1858-1876):  Pastoring a Church

The Nashville Christian Church from 1831-1861

When Fall left the Nashville church in 1831 it numbered three hundred members, and within a few years it grew to six hundred. In the early 1850s a thousand would gather to listen to its preacher. However, in 1857 the church numbered only fifty-six members.  So, what happened? [54]

After Fall’s departure, the elders decided to care for the flock themselves but employed two “Evangelists” for Middle Tennessee. The evangelist “was not regarded as the ‘pastor’ of the congregation, but was subject to the brethren.”[55] Tolbert Fanning and Absalom Adams planted and nurtured new churches throughout the region, and the Nashville church grew to “about six hundred members.”[56]

Tolbert Fanning married Charlotte Fall, Philip’s sister, on December 25, 1836, and they started a female seminary in Franklin, TN in 1837. Later they moved to Elm Crag about five miles east of Nashville and renamed it “Electic Institute for Young Ladies.”[57] Fanning planted a new church in Elm Crag and later founded Franklin College (1846).

Without their evangelists and with the size of the congregation hovering around six hundred (including over two hundred and fifty African slaves), the church appointed Dr. W. H. Wharton its Pastor, and he served part-time from 1842-1847. His congregational duties and medial practice created significant pressures. Eventually, the charismatic, young preacher Jesse B. Ferguson caught their eye during his 1842 and 1844 revivals.

In 1846 Ferguson became the only full-time resident minister among the Christian Churches in Tennessee.[58] Wildly popular, he attracted large crowds. To accommodate them, the congregation sold the Spring Street building and erected a new one on Cherry Street, which seated twelve hundred people. However, controversy soon erupted. Ferguson sparked it with an article entitled “Spirits in Prison” (1 Peter 3:19) where he argued for a “second chance” after death.[59] Ultimately, Ferguson embraced Spiritualism, Universalism, and Unitarianism.

In November 1853 twenty-five members signed a formal protest. They objected to Ferguson’s theology, the lack of growth in membership (despite larger attendance), and his worldly leadership. Wharton resigned as associate Pastor, and fifty withdrew and began meeting at the old Spring Street building. After years of controversy, Ferguson resigned in June 1856. The ownership of the Cherry Street building was then contested. After the anti-Ferguson faction took possession of the Cherry Street building, it burned (“the general and confidential opinion [is] that it was set on fire”).[60] Consequently, the Nashville Christian Church returned to where it started—it rented and then purchased the Spring Street building. But now it was only fifty-six members (including fourteen African slaves).

Some believed the church should return to its pre-Ferguson days and encourage elders to nourish the flock.  Tolbert Fanning, who worshipped with the Franklin College congregation on his farm, offered this warning:  “Should the members determine to hire another pastor to come to Nashville to take charge of the worship of God for them, no better results can be anticipated than those already experienced.”[61]

Yet, the church decided their best opportunity for revival was the return of Philip Slater Fall. “While we know it to be wrong to trust to an arm of flesh,” they wrote Fall, “we believe that, as far as human means go, you are the one person who can save the church.”[62] Fall returned as Pastor of the Nashville Christian Church in January 1858, and the congregation was encouraged by a visit from Alexander Campbell that year.[63]

In the summer of 1861 Fall reported the church’s progress to the Christian Pioneer.  “I am happy to say that the cause of Christ is in a measure restored to its former status in the city.” With the immersion of sixty persons in the recent past membership now totals “as many as in the best days of the congregation,” two hundred and sixty-five “white members.”  The “colored members were organized into a separate church [1858]; and there are possibly more than two hundred of them together now; but some twenty prefer to remain with us.” Consequently, the Christian Church in Nashville was nearly as large as when Ferguson arrived in 1847. “The greater number of the old members have returned to their places,” Fall said, “and now value their privileges more highly than ever. Peace and love abound amongst us…The unpleasant past is forgotten; and the author of the evil is rarely ever mentioned.”[64]

The Civil War

Darkness soon descended upon all the churches of Nashville with the outbreak of the war and Tennessee’s July 1861 succession from the Union. The two leading Protestant Pastors of the city, R. B. C. Howell and P. S. Fall, were avid supporters of the Confederate cause. Both encouraged their members to join the Army of Tennessee.[65] In fact, Fall’s son, Albert, enlisted and was killed at Fort Donelson on February 14, 1862.

When Union forces occupied Nashville, church buildings were converted to hospitals, public schools were closed, and ministers were required to swear loyalty to the Union. Every minister in Nashville, who refused the oath, including Howell,[66] served time in the penitentiary except for Fall. He escaped by appealing to his British citizenship:  “If the oath I have taken (in order to become a voter) is not sufficient, I prefer to remain a British subject.”[67]

Fall served the city throughout the occupation. When public schools closed in occupied Nashville, Fall began one in his home, which continued until 1871.  He ministered to the sick, helped needy prisoners, and comforted the dying, significant because other ministers were languishing in prison.[68] After the battle of Stone’s River (December 1862), Brigadier General Smiley restored Fall’s building to the Pastor, and said: “I believe that Mr. Fall’s teaching in that church will do more than all the bayonets to subdue, regulate and control this community.”[69] Despite his rather benevolent treatment, Fall refused to support the Union war effort and, in particular, refused Andrew Johnson’s order to offer a thanksgiving prayer for the death of the Confederate General John Morgan. He retorted:  “I will ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,’ but no man shall dictate to me what I say in my pulpit.”[70]

Christian Church in Nashville After the Civil War

The postwar years were difficult in Nashville as the destitute, widows, and orphans were numerous in Middle Tennessee and the South.  Fall joined David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning in raising funds for the poor throughout the Christian Church “brotherhood.”[71] Fall encouraged this national request for benevolence in the newly revived Gospel Advocate (1866), asserting, “Nothing we possess is our own.”[72] Ultimately, they raised $100,000 for the southern poor.

The relationship between David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning with P. S. Fall was cordial and brotherly. For a time, Fall was an associate editor of the Gospel Advocate with Lipscomb and Fanning.[73] Lipscomb enjoyed Fall’s preaching, and he sometimes published his sermons in the Gospel Advocate.[74] But differences between them existed, and they were pronounced at points.  Three points are particularly important.

1. Pastor System.  Fanning and Lipscomb advocated a “mutual edification” approach to Christian assemblies and believed the church was most effectively nurtured by a plurality of leaders.  Fall, however, thought this was dangerous. In a letter to his sister, Charlotte Fanning, he warned she whould “never be edified by the crudities of those who do not know how even to read the scriptures &, much less, to interpret them…And the notion…that everyone is ‘able to teach”…is too absurd for anyone of sense to hold.”[75] Fall thought an educated Pastor should lead the church.

• The War Question. Both David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning opposed participation in the Civil War. They were long-time advocates for peace and peacemaking, and they opposed any kind of violence.[76] Fall supported the Confederate cause in the war.

• Scripture and the Holy Spirit. During the 1850s controversy erupted between Tolbert Fanning and Robert Richardson. Fanning located the work of the Spirit in the written word of God while Richardson affirmed a sacramental work of the Spirit within the believer.[77] Fanning feared a renewal of Ferguson’s spiritualism. Fall sided with Richardson.[78] In a letter to Fall, dated July 30, 1857, Richardson wrote: “It gives me great satisfaction to know that this view I have given of faith is acceptable to one of such excellent judgment as yourself.”[79]

Despite these differences, they shared a common vision of the practice the Christian Faith as a New Testament church, including the exclusion of instrumental music from the worship of the body.[80]  Following the “pattern” of the New Testament, it is “perfectly practicable to reconstruct an apostolic congregation.”[81] This ecclesial unity was sufficient for the time, though a day would come when the theological trajectories of Fanning and Fall would result in two distinct bodies:  the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ.

Throughout his ministry in Nashville Fall was fully engaged with the city, particularly in education and city development. At various times, he was President of the Agricultural Society,[82] President of the Chamber of Commerce,[83] President of the State Association of Teachers,[84] a member of the Public Education Board (sometimes President),[85] and an “examiner” for several schools (e.g., Columbia).[86]

Conclusion

Fall returned to Frankfort in 1877. His Frankfort friends supplied him with a modest home as a token of their loving appreciation.[87] Retiring from the pastorate, he continued to preach.  He regularly spoke, for example, for the Presbyterian Church in Frankfort as well as the First Christian Church.[88] In 1887, Fall returned to Nashville to preach the last sermon in the original Spring Street building before the congregation moved to Vine Street.[89] On his 92^nd birthday “his faculties were unimpaired,” and he “preached a powerful sermon in his old church [Frankfort], from the text, ‘And the books were opened.’ A most impressive occasion to all.”[90]  He died a few days later on December 3, 1890. His obituary remembered, “No man was ever more beloved by his Church, his friends, and the community generally than was Mr. Fall.”[91]

The legacy of Philip Slater Fall is an important one.

• As Reformer, he was one of the earliest and most ardent supporters of the Reformation inaugurated by Alexander Campbell.

• As Educator, he provided education for young people wherever he lived and advocated for public education even as he supported private institutions among the Christian Church.

• As Pastor, whether reforming congregations, planting others, or reviving the one in Nashville, he was regarded as an eminent preacher and compassionate presence by his peers.

---

[1] Nashville Union and American, July 15, 1857, 3.

[2] Pattie Burnley, “Philip Slater Fall,” Register of Kentucky State Historical Society 7.21 (September 1999) 63.

[3] John H. Spencer, History of Kentucky Baptists (Cincinnati: J. R. Baumes, 1886), I:241.

[4] Philip S. Fall, “Reminiscences of Philip S. Fall,” MS in the Philip S. Fall Memorial Library, Christian Church, Frankfort, KY.

[5] “Reminiscences.”

[6]  James A. Cox, “Incidents in the Life of Philip Slater Fall” (B. D. Thesis, Lexington Theological Seminary, 1951), 26-27.

[7] “Reminiscences.”

[8] “Reminiscences.”

[9] Alexander Campbell and John Walker, A Debate on Baptism (Pittsburgh: Eichbaum and Johnson, 1822).

[10] “Reminiscences.”

[11] P. S. Fall, “Interesting Reminiscences,” Christian Standard 14 (3 May 1879) 138.

[12] Alexander Campbell, “History of the Reformation,” Millennial Harbinger 4.2 (February 1833) 94.

[13] Cox, 52.

[14] Alexander Campbell, “The Casting Vote, or the Creed triumphant over the Bible,” Christian Baptist 3.7 (February 1826) 138.

[15] Campbell, “The Baptist Recorder,” Christian Baptist 3.10 (May 1826), 207.

[16] Fall, “Interesting Reminiscences,” 138.

[17] Cox, 53.

[18] Eva Jean Wrather, “History of the Vine Street Christian Church,” unpublished MSS, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Wrather 120 II/7 Vine Str. Chapter 1 Revised, p. 50, and also so named by Cox, 74.

[19] Republican Banner, January 7, 1826, 3.

[20] Fall, “Interesting Reminicences,” 138.

[21] As quoted by Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1870), II:142.

[22] “Reminicencies.”

[23] R. B. C. Howell, A Memorial of the First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee (Nashville: Historical Commission, Southern Baptist Convention, 1942), 42.

[24] Cox, 74.

[25] Richardson, II:168.

[26] Alexander Campbell, “Deferred Articles,” Christian Baptist 4.10 (May 1827), 194.

[27] Howell, 62.

[28] Campbell, “Extract of a Letter to the Editor,” Christian Baptist 5.9 (April 1828), 154.

[29] Campbell, “The Church in Nashville,” Millennial Harbinger 2.3 (March 1831) 123.

[30] Campbell, “Summary of News,” Millennial Harbinger 5.7 (July 1834) 334.

[31] Campbell, “Excursions—No. I,” Millennial Harbinger 2^nd series, 5.5 (May 1841) 225.

[32] National Banner and Nashville Whig, December 8, 1827, 3.

[33] Wrather, 49.

[34] Elizabeth Fall Taylor, “Fall,” Register of Kentucky State Historical Society 1 (May 1903), 55.

[35] Cox, 92.

[36] Pattie Burnley, “Philip Slater Fall,” Register of Kentucky State Historical Society 7.21 (September 1999) 67.

[37] Cox, 164.

[38] Nashville Banner (July 1831), 3.

[39] “Philip Fall Sr.,” http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fall-145 (accessed January 12, 2015).

[40] Burnley, 65.

[41] G. W. Nuckols, “Progress of Reform,” Millennial Harbinger 3.12 (December 1832) 608.

[42] L. F. Johnson, The History of Franklin County, Ky (Franklin, KY: Roberts Printing Co., 1912), 256.

[43] F. W. Emmons, “Progress of Reform: Extracts from Letters,” Millennial Harbinger 5.5 (May 1834) 233.

[44] Campbell, “A Discourse,” Millennial Harbinger, 2^nd series, 6.11 (November 1842) 515.

[45] Ibid., 515, 517-8.

[46] S. Arnes, “Independency’s Legitimate Offspring,” Millennial Harbinger 4^th series, 6.8 (August 1856) 443.

[47] “The Convention of Christian Churches,” Millennial Harbinger 3^rd series, 6.12 (December 1849) 691.

[48] Herman Norton, The Life of Philip Slater Fall (M. A. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1951) 70-72 and David Lipscomb, “Consistency,” Gospel Advocate29 (6 April 1887) 215.

[49] Wayne H. Bell, “A History of Vine Street Christian Church,” in Seven Early Churches in Nashville (Waynesboro, TN: Elder’s Bookstore Publisher, 1972), 85.

[50] Sarah Harwell, “Fall, Philip Slater (1798-1890),” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 330.

[51] Extracted from the Protestant Unionist, “Educational Institutions,” Millennial Harbinger, 3^rd series, 3.9 (September 1846) 429-430,

[52] “Bishop P. S. Fall’s School Near Frankfort, Kentucky,” Millennial Harbinger, 2^nd series, 6.6 (June 1842) 284-85.

[53] “Philip Fall Sr.,” http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fall-145 (accessed January 12, 2015).

[54] Johnny Tucker, Like a Meteor Across the Horizon: the Jesse B. Ferguson Story (Fayetteville, TN: Tucker Publications, 1978), James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1969), and Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: The Life & Influence of David Lipscomb (Nashville: Lipscomb University, 2011) narrate the history of the Nashville church in the 1830s-1850s.

[55] Tolbert  Fanning, “The Church in Nashville,” Gospel Advocate 3 (March 1857) 71.

[56] Alexander Campbell, “Sketch of a Tour of 75 Days,” Millennial Harbinger 6.6 (June 1835) 280.

[57] Alexander Campbell, “Female Seminaries,” Millennial Harbinger 2^nd series 4.8(August 1840) 384.

[58] Bell, 87.

[59] Jesse B. Ferguson, “Spirits in Prison,” Christian Magazine 5 (April 1852) 115.

[60] Nashville Republican Banner, April 9, 1857, 3.

[61] Fanning, “Church in Nashville,” 74.

[62] “Philip Fall Sr.,” http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fall-145 (accessed January 12, 2015).

[63] Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1870), 2:638.

[64] Philip S. Fall, “Letter from Elder Philip Fall,” Millennial Harbinger 5^th series, 4.9 (September 1861) 530.  See also Fall Papers, ““Discourse on the Reconstruction of the Congregation, No. 1,” 1-5.

[65] Joe Early, Jr., “Tennessee Baptists and the Civil War,” Tennessee Baptist History 8 (Fall 2006) 12; Taylor, p. 56.

[66] Early, 12.

[67] Taylor, 56.

[68] Taylor, 56-57.

[69] Burnley, 68.

[70] Ibid.

[71] W. K. Pinkerton, “A Big Proposition,” Millennial Harbinger 37.12 (December 1866) 561. Cf. P. S. Fall, “Letter from a Committee Composed of Fall, V. M. Metcalfe, and David Lipscomb, Nashville, Tenn., Dec. 16, 1866, Concerning Relief for the South,” The Evangelist 7 (5 January 1867) 8.

[72] P. S. Fall, “The Responsibility of the Disciples of Christ as Stewards of God,” Gospel Advocate 6 (23 October 1866) 673-688, quote from p. 679.

[73] P. S. Fall, “To the Readers of the Advocate,” Gospel Advocate (3 January 1867) 2.

[74] For example, P. S. Fall, “’What Must I Do to be Saved?’ Acts xvi.30,” Gospel Advocate 18.21 (25 May 1874) 483-504.

[75] Philip S. Fall, “Letter to Charlotte Fall Fanning” (November 21, 1885), Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Fall Papers, II/16.

[76] Fanning published thirteen articles in the Gospel Advocate throughout 1861 as he attempted to dissuade his readers from participating in the war effort.

[77] This controversy is explained in C. Leonard Allen and Danny Gray Swick, Participating in God’s Life: Two Crossroads for Churches of Christ (Orange, CA: New Leaf Books, 2001).

[78] Norton, 84.

[79] Cox, 162.

[80] David Lipscomb, “An Explanation,” Gospel Advocate 53.16 (20 April 1911) 465. Fall’s congregation did not introduce the instrument until 1891 (Bell, 85).

[81] P. S. Fall, “How Old is your Church?,” Gospel Advocate (3 January 1867) 3.

[82] The Pulaski Citizen, December 20, 1867, 2

[83] Nashville Union and Dispatch, February 9, 1868, 3

[84] Daily Union and American, November 16, 1866, 3.

[85] Nashville Union and Dispatch, May 14, 1868, 3. 

[86] The Columbia Herald, August 22, 1873, 2.

[87] Taylor, 57.

[88] Burnley, 68.

[89] Wayne H. Bell, “A History of Vine Street Christian Church,” in Seven Early Churches in Nashville (Waynesboro, TN: Elder’s Bookstore Publisher, 1972), 85.

[90] Burnley, 68.

[91] Frankfort Roundabout, December 6, 1890, 4.

When the wicked prosper, what do the righteous do? When people oppress the poor and needy to enrich themselves, what does wisdom say to community of God when they gather to praise God?

“Depart from evil, trust God, and do good.” The way of the wicked leads to destruction, but the meek shall inherit the earth.

This was also the message of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount.

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning and significance of Psalm 37.

Psalm 35 is a passionate lament that contains a strong contrast between human injustice and divine righteousness. Though the Psalmist empathetically prayed and fasted for those who seek to do the Psalmist harm when they were weak and needy, now they devise evil and hate him without cause.

The Psalmist prays for justice according to God’s righteousness. Those who live in comfort are uncomfortable with such prayers (imprecations), but the oppressed understand them, and the righteous stand with the oppression in prayer with them.

Jesus knew this Psalm, quoted it about himself in John 15:26. Jesus saw himself as the Psalmist who suffered at the hands of the powerful and sought God’s vindication. It is the story of his cross and resurrection.

It is the story of Israel in which Jesus participates and brings to fulfillment. Those oppressed by the powers are delivered by the righteousness of God.

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning and significance of the Psalm for Israel, Jesus, and us.

“The Lord is near the brokenhearted, and saves the crushed in spirit.”

Psalm 34 reminds us that when we cry out to God in the midst of our suffering, the Lord hears and acts because God is good and gives good things.

The righteous sufferer is protected and endures by pursuing peace, doing good, and eschewing evil.

1 Peter 3 quotes Psalm 34:12-16 as Peter appropriates its instruction for how to live in the context of hostility and opposition.

The Gospel of John (19:36, quoting Psalm 34:20) appropriates the Psalm as the voice of Jesus on the cross. Though he suffers, he cries out and God delivers him.

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning and significance of Psalm 34.

The worshipping assembly of Israel proclaims that they do not trust in military power or national agendas. Instead, it lives by faith in the steadfast love of the Lord.

The praise of God on the lips and instruments of God’s people is lovely, fitting, and awesome. Not because of who we are but because of who God is and what God does.

Yahweh is righteousness and fills the earth with steadfast love. God created the world, frustrates the plans of the nations, chose Israel as God’s own possession, and fashions the hearts of people. God is no passive agent but is involved in human history.

Therefore, we wait on the Lord, and pray, “Let your steadfast love, O LORD, be upon us, even as we hope in you.”

God covers our sin when we don’t cover it up. God takes away our sin even when we are burdened with its guilt. God does not count our sin against us when we confess it.

Psalm 32 is the testimony of one who left the path of God and was overwhelmed by the torrents of evil and rebellion but remembered that God is merciful and submitted again to God’s guidance.

Israel experienced God’s forgiveness. It rejoiced in God’s deliverance. And the Psalmist invites all God’s hasid–the ones who have received mercy and practice mercy–to rejoice in God’s mercy (hesed).

English Version Here

Jonás consideró que la misericordia de Yahvé hacia Nínive era injusta y «mala». En consecuencia, Jonás oró: se lamentó, se quejó y, en esencia, suplicó a Yahvé que revirtiera su decisión, que desistiera de mostrar misericordia y, en su lugar, aplicara su ira.

La respuesta de Yahvé no rechazó ni desestimó la oración. La oración fue escuchada. De hecho, Yahvé respondió: «¿Acaso está bien (es bueno) que te enojes?». Dios no abofeteó a Jonás por su petición, sino que, con gentileza, cuestionó si Jonás había reflexionado lo suficiente al respecto. Dios escuchó la queja y respondió. Dios no abandonó a Jonás, sino que salió en su búsqueda.

No hay nada de malo en abrir nuestro corazón ante Dios y expresar nuestros sentimientos más honestos. Dios ya sabe lo que pensamos y sentimos; así que bien podemos dar voz a ello. De hecho, esta constituye una invitación divina a la intimidad con Dios; y es precisamente a través de esta intimidad que hallamos sanación y reorientación. Creo que esto es, precisamente, lo que Yahvé tenía planeado para Jonás.

Jonás abandona la ciudad

La pregunta de Yahveh: «¿Tienes razón (es bueno) para enojarte?», constituía una invitación al diálogo; sin embargo, como respuesta, Jonás huyó de nuevo. En esta ocasión, huyó hacia el «oriente», dirección que posee importantes resonancias bíblicas. Lot se dirigió hacia el oriente, rumbo a Sodoma (Génesis 13:11), y Caín se estableció «al oriente del Edén» (Génesis 4:16). Es probable que el «oriente» funcione aquí más como un comentario teológico sobre la huida de Jonás del diálogo con Dios, que como una simple referencia geográfica. Jonás huyó hacia el oriente, apartándose de la presencia de Dios (del diálogo), tal como, al comienzo del libro, había huido hacia el occidente, alejándose de la presencia del Señor (Jonás 1:2).

Abandonó la ciudad y se adentró en el desierto, dirigiéndose a un lugar desde el cual pudiera observar qué sucedería con la urbe. Jonás no se retira al desierto por temor a regresar a casa; por el contrario, elige un refugio provisional —una cabaña— que, cabe suponer, constituye no solo un cobijo físico, sino también un acto de índole religiosa. Durante la Fiesta de los Tabernáculos (o de las Cabañas), el pueblo de Israel solía levantar cabañas como moradas temporales con el fin de celebrar dicha festividad (Levítico 23:42). Del mismo modo, Jonás levanta una cabaña en la zona desértica (fuera de los muros de la ciudad). Quizás sea su intención aguardar allí durante siete días, tal como Israel habitaba en cabañas a lo largo de una semana. Cualquiera que fuese su propósito, no se trataba de una morada permanente; Jonás permanecía a la espera para ver qué determinación tomaría Dios respecto a Nínive.

Cabe preguntarse por qué Jonás aguarda para ver qué acontecerá. Él ya sabe que Dios tiene la intención de perdonar a la ciudad… ¿o acaso no lo sabe? Su oración había sido concebida con el propósito de persuadir a Dios para que desistiera de su castigo; Jonás deseaba que Dios volviera a «cambiar de parecer» (*nacham*). Confiaba en que su plegaria resultara tan eficaz como la que Moisés elevó en el capítulo 32 del libro del Éxodo. En consecuencia, aguarda la respuesta a su oración.

La lección de Dios para Jonás

Aunque Jonás había construido su propio refugio para protegerse del sol, al parecer no era suficiente. Dios, en su misericordia, le proporcionó más sombra mediante el crecimiento de una planta. [No sabemos qué tipo de planta era, ya que esta palabra solo se usa aquí en la Biblia hebrea.]

Al igual que el “gran pez” (Jonás 2:1), “Yahvé Dios” (la única vez que aparecen juntas estas dos palabras en Jonás, Jonás 4:6) dispuso una gran planta para dar sombra a Jonás. Como el “gran pez”, este fue un acto de misericordia. El “gran pez” rescató a Jonás de las aguas turbulentas y lo salvó de ahogarse. Ahora la planta rescata a Jonás del calor y el sol abrasador del desierto.

La respuesta de Jonás es de gozo, de gran gozo. De hecho, el narrador usa la misma estructura gramatical que en Jonás 4:1. De la misma manera que la misericordia de Dios hacia Nínive fue «sumamente mala» (fue mala, una gran maldad), así también la misericordia de Dios hacia Jonás fue «sumamente gozosa» (Jonás se regocijó, experimentó una gran alegría). Jonás tuvo dos reacciones distintas ante la misericordia de Dios: lo que Dios hizo por Nínive fue malo, pero lo que Dios hizo por Jonás fue bueno. Jonás odió lo primero, pero agradeció lo segundo.

Pero Dios «cambió de parecer». Dios se apiadó. Dios envió (el mismo verbo que antes) un gusano (una figura asociada con la muerte en la Biblia hebrea) para atacar la planta y destruir la sombra de Jonás, y Dios envió (el mismo verbo que antes) un fuerte viento del este para causarle incomodidad bajo el sol abrasador. La incomodidad de Jonás fue tan grande que deseó morir. Prefería morir antes que sufrir el calor intenso; prefería morir antes que experimentar la retirada de la misericordia de Dios.

En efecto, Dios hizo con Jonás lo que Jonás le pidió que hiciera con Nínive. Dios mostró misericordia con una planta de sombra y luego se la retiró, derramando su «juicio» sobre Jonás mediante el gusano y el viento del este. Dios le dio a Jonás una probada de su propia medicina. Jonás quería que Dios retirara su misericordia de Nínive, y ahora sabe lo que se siente.

Pero, ¿entendió Jonás el mensaje?

Diálogo reanudado

Yahvé retoma el diálogo planteando la misma pregunta que en Jonás 4:4, pero con un matiz: «¿Es justo (bueno) que te enojes por la zarza?».

Aparentemente, el deseo de muerte de Jonás refleja su resentimiento hacia la retirada de la misericordia que la zarza representaba por parte de Dios. Jonás está tan enojado que podría morir, lo cual probablemente sea una metáfora de la intensidad de su ira. Jonás está molesto con Dios por haberle brindado misericordia y luego haberla retirado.

Ahora viene la conclusión, que tiene múltiples significados. De hecho, es la premisa de toda la narración de Jonás. La misericordia surge del carácter de Dios, de su naturaleza divina. Dios siente compasión por lo que ha creado, incluyendo Nínive.

Jonás no creó la planta, y esta ni siquiera existió por mucho tiempo. Sin embargo, se enoja por su desaparición.

¡El pueblo de Nínive, en cambio, es creación de Dios! Esto incluye a un gran número de personas. [120.000 es probablemente una metáfora de una gran cantidad; este número aparece con frecuencia en la Biblia hebrea, cf. Jueces 8:10; 1 Reyes 8:63, etc.] La preocupación de Dios también se extiende a los “muchos animales” (que también formaron parte del arrepentimiento de Nínive en Jonás 3:8).

De hecho, la compasión de Dios es, en cierto sentido, mayor para Nínive porque son errantes sin rumbo. No distinguen entre la derecha y la izquierda, lo que evidencia su desorientación. No poseen la Torá, como Israel, y la Torá es lo que permite a las personas discernir entre la derecha y la izquierda, el bien y el mal. Dios reconoce la falta de guía y conocimiento de un pueblo y se adapta a ella al distribuir su misericordia entre las naciones.

Si Jonás tuvo compasión de una sola planta —que no creó y que no existió más de un día—, ¿acaso Dios no podría tener compasión de Nínive, ciudad que sí creó y donde habitan numerosas personas y animales? «¿No debería yo tener compasión de Nínive?», resuena en los oídos de los lectores al final del libro.

¡Dios deja caer el micrófono y se retira del escenario!

Conclusión

Así termina la narración. Dios responde a Jonás, entabla un diálogo con él y busca reorientarlo. Dios tiene la intención de enseñar a Jonás. La historia, sin embargo, concluye sin sugerir en absoluto cómo respondió Jonás a la enseñanza de Dios. La narración queda abierta: ¿acogerá Jonás la dirección de Dios o se resistirá a ella, tal como lo ha hecho hasta este punto de la historia?

Ahí es donde termina el relato. Yahveh tiene la última palabra, pero no recibimos respuesta alguna por parte de Jonás. No sabemos qué hace Jonás a continuación.

Es como el hermano mayor en la historia de los dos hijos (a menudo llamada la Parábola del Hijo Pródigo) en Lucas 15. Del mismo modo que no sabemos cómo respondió el hijo mayor a la súplica de su padre para que se uniera a la fiesta, tampoco sabemos cómo respondió Jonás a las últimas palabras de Yahveh en este libro.

El final del libro es una invitación. Queda abierto. Podríamos decir que es un llamado al altar. Cada uno de nosotros es Jonás. ¿Hemos aprendido lo que Yahveh intentaba enseñar a través de esta breve narración?

•           ¿Hemos acogido la misericordia de Dios hacia los demás?

•           ¿Hemos escuchado el llamado misional de Dios y hemos obedecido?

•           ¿Nos hemos sometido a la soberanía de Dios?

•           ¿Hemos dejado la justicia en manos de Dios?

•           ¿Hemos sentido resentimiento ante la misericordia de Dios hacia otros «menos merecedores»?

•           ¿Hemos dado por sentada la elección bondadosa de Dios?

•           ¿Hemos amado a los demás —incluida la creación de Dios— tal como lo hace Él?

No sabemos qué hizo Jonás, y nunca lo sabremos. Pero ese no es nuestro verdadero problema. La pregunta pertinente tiene que ver más bien con nosotros mismos.

Todos somos Jonás. ¿Hemos aprendido la lección que Dios enseñó a Jonás?

English Version Here

Este es el momento culminante en la historia de Jonás.

Dios encomendó una misión a Jonás, pero Jonás huyó. Dios persiguió a Jonás, y Jonás cedió y aceptó el encargo (tras casi ahogarse). Jonás proclamó un mensaje de esperanza —y de advertencia— a Nínive, y Nínive se arrepintió. Dios se «arrepintió», y Jonás…

Cabría esperar que Jonás se regocijara, pero eso no es lo que hace. En cambio, Jonás arde de resentimiento. ¡Jonás está molesto con Dios porque Dios mostró misericordia a Nínive! Jonás, al igual que tantos otros en Israel antes que él, ahora contiende con Dios en oración.

Contraste entre Jonás y Yahveh

Yahveh respondió a Nínive, y Jonás hace lo mismo. Pero sus respuestas son diametralmente opuestas.

Jonás 3:10 dice:

•           Dios vio lo que Nínive hizo (*‘ashah*).

•           Nínive se apartó de sus malos (*ra’ah*) caminos.

•           Dios se arrepintió (*nacham*) del «mal» (*ra’ah*) que tenía planeado para Nínive.

•           Dios «no lo hizo» (*‘ashah*).

Jonás 4:1-3 contiene:

•           Le pareció sumamente malo (*ra’ah*) a Jonás

•           Que Yahveh se arrepintiera (*nacham*) de castigar.

Cuando Nínive se apartó de su «mal», Dios se apartó del «mal» que Él mismo tenía la intención de infligir a Nínive; sin embargo, para Jonás, esto resultó ser «sumamente malo» (nota de la versión ESV). La traducción «sumamente malo» es expresiva, pero aun así no logra capturar la carga emocional del texto hebreo. Literalmente, el texto dice: «fue malo, grandemente malo, para Jonás». La raíz *ra* (mal) se utiliza en hebreo tanto como sustantivo como verbo.

Lo que Dios consideró un acto de misericordia hacia Nínive, Jonás lo vio como un gran mal. Mientras que Dios se regocijaba por el arrepentimiento de Nínive y derramaba misericordia con compasión, Jonás considera que la respuesta de Dios constituye una gran injusticia («un mal»). A juicio de Jonás, los ninivitas no merecían la misericordia de Dios, y Dios actuó de manera injusta o inequitativa al concedérsela. En la mente de Jonás, siglos de violencia no pueden ser simplemente borrados con tan solo cuarenta días de arrepentimiento. Tal como observa perspicazmente Youngblood en *Jonah: God’s Scandalous Mercy* (p. 152): «Irónicamente, justo cuando YHWH aplacaba su ira, Jonás encendía la suya. Se le recuerda al lector cuán desfasado se encuentra Jonás. El acontecimiento que calmó la ira de Dios es el mismo que ha provocado la ira de Jonás». Jonás y Yahvé no están en la misma sintonía.

Jonás tiene un problema teológico, si no es que un problema de corazón. No siente misericordia alguna por la Nínive arrepentida y cree que Dios ha actuado injustamente, o de manera incongruente con su nombre divino —Yahvé—, el cual constituye el nombre de la alianza de Dios. ¿Cómo es posible que el Dios de Israel —que es Yahvé— muestre misericordia hacia Nínive? Para Jonás, esto carece de todo sentido. De hecho, a Jonás le pareció «un mal».

En consecuencia, Jonás está airado. La raíz del verbo significa «arder». En otras palabras: Jonás está echando humo de furia a causa de la misericordia que Dios ha mostrado hacia Nínive.

La oración de Jonás

Cuando el autor de Jonás describía la relación entre Nínive y el Dios de Israel, utilizaba únicamente el término «Dios». «Dios vio lo que hicieron» y «Dios cambió de parecer». Pero cuando Jonás se dispone a orar, se dirige a Dios llamándolo «Yahveh». Este nombre representa la relación de pacto que Israel mantiene con el Creador del cielo y de la tierra. Jonás se dirige al Creador como uno de los miembros del pueblo del pacto de Dios. Este es un cambio significativo, pues el término «Dios» describe la relación entre el Creador y las naciones, mientras que el nombre «Yahveh» presupone la relación de pacto entre el Creador e Israel. Por consiguiente, Jonás invoca el nombre de aquel con quien mantiene una relación de pacto. La importancia de este punto quedará más clara en un momento.

El verbo hebreo para «orar» aparece dos veces en el libro de Jonás: aquí (4:2) y en Jonás 2:2. En este último pasaje, Jonás se encuentra en el vientre del gran pez y eleva una oración de acción de gracias. Sin embargo, en el pasaje que nos ocupa, su oración es una queja. Mientras que en la primera oración Jonás se muestra agradecido por el amor inquebrantable de Dios (*hesed*, término que aparece en 2:8), aquí Jonás se queja de la misericordia de Dios (*hesed*, que aparece en 4:3).

La ​​oración de lamento de Jonás incluye componentes bastante típicos. Jonás: (1) invoca el nombre de Yahveh; (2) se queja (casi como diciendo: «¡Ya te lo advertí!»); (3) confiesa el «Credo de Dios» de Israel, arraigado en Éxodo 34:6-7; y, finalmente, (4) le hace una petición a Yahveh para que actúe.

Jonás temía que Yahveh pudiera mostrarse misericordioso —quizás Yahveh le había revelado a Jonás que ese era el propósito de su misión—, por lo que huyó hacia el oeste (a Tarsis). «Sabía que esto sucedería, y te dije que sucedería»: tal es el efecto de la queja de Jonás. Se trata, de hecho, de una acusación implícita de injusticia divina («¡esto no es lo que debería ocurrir!»), o al menos de una expresión de la ira de Jonás («¡no puedo creer que me hayas involucrado en esta injusticia!»). Jonás sabía cuál sería el resultado, porque Jonás sabe quién es Yahveh.

Él conoce la confesión suprema de Israel: el «Credo de Dios» (como algunos lo denominan). Se encuentra en Éxodo 34:6-7, y Jonás cita el núcleo del mismo.

Éxodo 34:6-7	Jonás 4:2
Dios bondadoso	Dios bondadoso
Dios misericordioso y compasivo	Dios misericordioso y compasivo
Lento para la ira (‘af)	Lento para la ira (‘af)
Abundante en amor inquebrantable (hesed)	Abundante en amor inquebrantable (hesed)

Cuando Moisés pidió ver a Dios y, de este modo, saber quién es Dios verdaderamente, Yahveh pasó ante él, proclamando:

Yahveh, Yahveh, un Dios misericordioso y clemente, lento para la ira y abundante en amor inquebrantable y fidelidad; que mantiene su amor inquebrantable hasta la milésima generación, perdonando la iniquidad, la transgresión y el pecado.

Yahveh es el Dios de Israel, y este Dios está comprometido a mantener una disposición clemente y misericordiosa hacia Israel. Tal como afirma el resto del «Credo de Dios», Yahveh sigue disciplinando al pueblo —incluso a lo largo de generaciones—; sin embargo, aunque dicha disciplina se extiende hasta la tercera y cuarta generación (un periodo breve), el amor inquebrantable de Yahveh se extiende por mil generaciones (para siempre). Así es Yahveh; este credo describe el carácter de Yahveh. En consecuencia, esta confesión se halla presente con frecuencia en la vida litúrgica de Israel, tanto en formas ampliadas como abreviadas (cf. Salmos 86:15; 99:8; 111:4; 112:4; 103:8; 145:8; Nehemías 9:17, 31; 2 Crónicas 30:9).

Al mismo tiempo, Jonás añade un elemento al «Credo de Dios», tal como lo hace Joel 2:13. Esta adición pone de relieve el problema que Jonás tiene con la actuación de Dios. Jonás confiesa que Dios está «dispuesto a arrepentirse (*nacham*) de castigar»; es decir, que Dios está dispuesto a «cambiar de parecer» y perdonar el pecado. Esto es, por supuesto, exactamente lo que Dios hizo en Jonás 3:10. Dios «cambió de parecer» y perdonó a Nínive su «maldad». Jonás, sin embargo, considera esta misericordia como una «maldad».

Youngblood cree que esta adición deriva de Éxodo 32:12, pasaje en el que Moisés está forcejeando (discutiendo) con Dios. Moisés suplica: «Apártate de tu ardiente ira (*‘af*); cambia de parecer (*nacham*) y no traigas desastre (*ra’*) sobre tu pueblo». El lenguaje de Éxodo 32:12 cobra gran relevancia en Jonás 3:9–4:3.

Lo que Jonás temía ha sucedido. Temía que Dios «cambiara de parecer», apartara su ira contra Nínive y no trajera el desastre sobre la ciudad. Si bien esta fue la gran «misericordia» que Moisés imploró en el monte Sinaí en favor de Israel, Jonás la considera un gran «mal» cuando se aplica a Nínive. Es posible que Jonás dé gracias por la misericordia de Dios hacia Israel, pero no tiene cabida en su corazón para la misericordia hacia Nínive.

La oración de Jonás no concluye en este punto. Como ocurre con todas las oraciones de lamento, esta incluye una petición. Jonás le pide a Dios que ponga fin a su vida.

Se trata de una petición bastante extraña. Podríamos compararla con las peticiones de Job, quien rogaba a Dios que lo dejara en paz y le permitiera morir (Job 7:16). Quizás Jonás no pueda convivir con esta realidad; preferiría morir antes que ser testigo de la renovación de la vida de Nínive. Tal vez tema por su propia vida al regresar a Israel, dado que muchos se opondrían a su misión y a los resultados de la misma.

Sin embargo, creo que las pistas presentes en la oración sugieren algo más profundo. Jonás está discutiendo con Dios y está planteando un argumento teológico. Jonás utiliza la súplica de muerte como una forma de decir: «¿Qué va a ser, Dios? ¿Yo o Nínive?». Youngblood (p. 156) lo expresa de manera sucinta: «El verdadero objetivo de Jonás no es la muerte, sino la revocación de la decisión de YHWH de perdonar a Nínive». Aquí Jonás está ejerciendo cierta presión basada en la Alianza, asumiendo —quizás— que su vida —como miembro del pueblo de la Alianza— es más importante para Yahveh que la de los ninivitas. Creo que esto se vuelve más claro una vez que reconocemos cuál es el verdadero problema teológico; cuestión que abordaremos dentro de un momento.

La respuesta inicial de Yahvé a Jonás es una breve pregunta: «¿Tienes razón para enojarte?». Utilizando la misma palabra para «ira» que en el versículo 4:1, Yahvé cuestiona el resentimiento de Jonás. ¿Por qué debería Jonás estar resentido? ¿Por qué está enojado Jonás? Cuando Jonás cuestiona la justicia de Yahvé —calificando la misericordia de Dios como «malvada»—, Yahvé cuestiona si la ira misma de Jonás es buena (*yatab*) o justa/correcta/legítima.

Cabe notar que Yahvé no ejecuta a Jonás ni lo fulmina con un rayo a causa de su oración de queja. Por el contrario, Yahvé guía suavemente a Jonás hacia una introspección contemplativa. Yahvé le plantea a Jonás una pregunta sencilla (de tres palabras en hebreo).

Yahvé aún no se ha dado por vencido con Jonás. En lugar de concederle su petición, Yahvé va en busca de Jonás entablando un diálogo y, como veremos en Jonás 4:4-11, continúa instruyendo a Jonás en lugar de castigarlo.

¿Cuál es el problema?

Jonás está enojado. Cree que Dios ha obrado el «mal». Le pide a Dios que le quite la vida.

Se trata de una situación desesperada. ¿Qué es lo que tiene a Jonás tan perturbado?

Quizás Jonás sienta amargura por el «mal» que Nínive ha cometido contra Israel; le parece algo imperdonable. Quizás Jonás guarde algún tipo de rencor personal (por ejemplo, ¿acaso algún asirio mató al padre de Jonás?). Quizás Jonás albergue prejuicios raciales contra los no judíos. Supongo que cualquiera de estas hipótesis podría ser cierta, pero no tendríamos forma de saberlo. En cambio, debemos buscar las pistas dentro del propio texto.

Jonás, a mi parecer, tiene un problema teológico con la misericordia de Dios hacia Nínive. El análisis de Youngblood resulta esclarecedor (págs. 156-158). El problema de Jonás es el mismo que surge en el Israel renovado dentro de las páginas del Nuevo Testamento. Es la cuestión que Pablo aborda en Romanos 9-11: ¿Cómo puede el Dios del pacto de Israel mostrar misericordia a un pueblo ajeno al pacto? ¿Qué implica esto respecto a la fidelidad de Dios hacia Israel si Israel no posee ninguna ventaja sobre las demás naciones?

El «Credo de Dios» gira en torno a Yahvé, y Yahvé es el Dios de Israel, con quien Israel vive en pacto. La fidelidad de Dios conlleva el compromiso de Dios con Israel. Este es el pueblo al que Dios muestra misericordia. Al parecer, Jonás pensaba que este era un pacto exclusivo. Una vez que Dios estableció un pacto con Israel, todos los demás quedaban fuera de dicho pacto y, por consiguiente, más allá de la misericordia de Dios, dado que la misericordia y el amor inquebrantable de Dios poseen un carácter fundamentalmente pactual. Éxodo 34, por ejemplo, constituye el compromiso de Dios con Israel dentro de un marco pactual.

Pero Jonás —al igual que los judaizantes que infectaron las iglesias de Galacia— estaba equivocado. La misericordia de Dios no emana únicamente del pacto, sino del carácter mismo de Dios. Dios es bondadoso, compasivo y misericordioso; o, como lo expresó Juan: «Dios es amor» (1 Juan 4:8, 16). Este es el carácter de Dios, la naturaleza misma de Dios. Los pactos son la libre expresión de la misericordia y el amor de Dios; sin embargo, la misericordia divina no se limita a dichos pactos.

Si bien Yahveh vive en pacto con Israel, esto no excluye la misericordia de Dios hacia las naciones. De hecho, Dios eligió a Israel en beneficio de las naciones. Dios tratará a las naciones exactamente igual que trata a Israel, pues este no posee ningún derecho exclusivo sobre la misericordia divina. Han sido elegidos para servir a las naciones, y no por ser los únicos destinatarios de la misericordia de Dios.

Dios —el Creador del mar y de la tierra firme (Jonás 1:9)— no es solo el Dios del pacto con Israel, sino también el Dios de toda la tierra, cuya misericordia fluye no solo hacia Israel, sino también hacia las naciones.

Existe, pues, lo que podríamos denominar las misericordias de Dios «fuera del pacto». Yahveh puede mostrar misericordia a quien Él desee mostrarla, ya sea dentro o fuera del pacto.

El pueblo del pacto corre siempre el riesgo de creer que son los únicos a quienes Dios muestra misericordia. Su «elección» se convierte en presunción y, en consecuencia, tachan a Dios de injusto cuando Él muestra misericordia a aquellos que se encuentran fuera del pacto… ya sea que estén fuera de él por no estar circuncidados o por no haber sido bautizados.

¡Que Dios tenga misericordia!