Jonah 4:9

‘And God said to Jonah, “Do you do well to be angry for the gourd?” And he said, “I do well to be angry, even to death.”

God knew that the reason for Jonah's request was that he was angry that the gourd had been destroyed or because it had been removed from protecting him, and He therefore asked him whether that was so, and if so whether he thought that a reasonable thing. A disgruntled Jonah basically replied, ‘Yes, and I do well to be angry even if it means my death (or ‘even until I die').' In other words he saw the removal of the gourd as possibly leading to his own destruction because of the excessive heat.

Note the continued use of ‘God'. This time God was speaking to Jonah as the One Who alone has authority in natural affairs, and as still acting in severity, or as the One Who was responsible for whatever judgments came on all men. As we saw in the introduction, the usage of terminology in respect of God in Jonah 4:4; Jonah 4:9 is interesting. In Jonah 4:4 YHWH is speaking to Jonah as his covenant God in response to Jonah's grumble, and asks him, ‘Do you well to be angry?' about a matter that concerns God's mercy, and a desired removal of His protection from the Assyrians. It is a matter that is within the covenant relationship because Jonah is His prophet. In Jonah 4:9 God is speaking to Jonah after chastening him when He is speaking severely as God over all Who has just acted in relation to ‘natural events', possibly also illustrating His activity with regard to all mankind, including the Assyrians. So He again asks him, ‘Do you well to be angry?' But this time it is ‘for the gourd?'. This parallels what has happened to the gourd with what He was saying in Jonah 4:4 (‘do you well to be angry that I have not moved my protection and mercy from the Assyrians?'). He is speaking as God over all and as the One Who is responsible for all, when dealing with a matter that concerns ‘nature' and ‘the whole world', but which is not directly Jonah's sphere of responsibility. Why should he be angry over what is after all a natural event? And the point is undoubtedly being underlined that Jonah can get so het up about the fate of a gourd which was of such little significance to him (how easily we get upset about little things), and yet not get het up about the fate of the inhabitants of a large city for which as a prophet he should have shared responsibility with YHWH its Creator. It was an indication that Jonah was totally out of line with God's (and YHWH's) way of thinking. Once, however, matters turn back to the question of God's mercy in Jonah 4:10 it will once again be as YHWH.