======================================================================== WRITINGS OF RICHARD D PATTERSON by Richard D. Patterson ======================================================================== A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Richard D. Patterson, compiled for study and devotional reading. Chapters: 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 00.00. Patterson, Richard D. - Library 2. 01.00. An Exegetical Commentary: Hosea 3. 01.000. Introduction to Hosea: Historical Context 4. 01.0000. Introduction to Hosea: Literary and Theological Context 5. 01.01a. Unfaithful Israel 6. 01.01b. Unfaithful Israel 7. 01.01c. Unfaithful Israel 8. 01.02a. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel 9. 01.02b. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel 10. 01.02c. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel 11. 01.03a. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel 12. 01.03b. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel 13. 01.03c. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel 14. 01.04a. Concluding Coonsiderations RE Unfaithful Israel 15. 01.04b. Concluding Considerations RE Unfaithful Israel 16. 01.04c. Concluding Considerations RE Unfaithful Israel 17. 01.05. Hosea's Use of Reversal 18. 02.00. An Exegetical Commentary - Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah 19. 02.01. Preface to Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah 20. 02.02. Nahum 21. 02.03. Habakkuk 22. 02.04. Zephaniah 23. S. Lion and Lamb as Metaphors of Divine-Human Relationships 24. S. Special Christmas Visitors In Bethlehem ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 00.00. PATTERSON, RICHARD D. - LIBRARY ======================================================================== Patterson, Richard D. - Library Patterson, Richard D. - An Exegetical Commentary: Hosea Patterson, Richard D. - An Exegetical Commentary - Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah S. Lion and Lamb as Metaphors of Divine-Human Relationships S. Special Christmas Visitors In Bethlehem ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 01.00. AN EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY: HOSEA ======================================================================== An Exegetical Commentary: Hosea Study By: Richard D. Patterson CONTENTS Introduction to Hosea: Historical Context Introduction to Hosea: Literary and Theological Context 1a. Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 1:1-11, Hosea 2:1) 1b. Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 2:2-23) 1c. Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 3:1-5) 2a. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 4:1-19) 2b. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 5:1-15) 2c. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-16) 3a. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 8:1-14) 3b. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 9:1-17) 3c. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 10:1-15) 4a. Concluding Considerations RE Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 11:12, Hosea 12:1-14) 4b. Concluding Considerations RE Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 13:1-16) 4c. Concluding Considerations RE Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 14:1-10) Hosea’s Use of Reversal ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 01.000. INTRODUCTION TO HOSEA: HISTORICAL CONTEXT ======================================================================== Introduction to Hosea: Historical Context Abstract The Book of Hosea portrays the dangers of the observance of religious ceremony without genuine devotion and commitment to the Lord. When this is true it all too easily leads to compromise, selfish ambition, and lack of integrity in one’s personal activities and dealings. If this becomes characteristic of society at large, dishonesty and corruption become endemic. When these characterize an entire nation, that nation is in imminent danger of God’s judgment. Such was the situation in which God’s prophet Hosea ministered. Nevertheless, Hosea’s message was more than solemn warnings. It contained a note of hope: with sincere repentance and asking God’s forgiveness, accompanied by renewed commitment to the Lord, God’s people may find forgiveness and restoration to God’s favor and blessings. Introduction to Hosea Historical Context Setting The opening words of Hosea’s prophecy place his ministry in the context of the eighth century B.C. The recording of four eighth century kings of Judah provides information as to the length of Hosea’s prophetic ministry, while the mention of just one Northern Kingdom, Jeroboam II, indicates something of the prophet’s particular focus. This becomes apparent when we note that names for the Northern Kingdom such as Ephraim, Israel, and Jacob occur some seven dozen times, while that of Judah a mere fifteen times and that always in connection with one or more of the names for the Northern Kingdom. The mention of the Southern Kingdom kings from Uzziah to Hezekiah assures us that Hosea’s ministry lasted through a great portion of the period. For Uzziah reigned some 52 years (c. 792-740 B.C.), while the reigns of the three successors lasted throughout the rest of the eighth century B.C. Jeroboam II of the Northern Kingdom likewise enjoyed a long reign (c. 792-752 B.C.), but the six unmentioned kings who succeeded him often vied with each other for power throughout a period of growing political friction and weakness, which culminated in the fall of the Northern Kingdom to Assyria in 722 B.C.1 Since Hosea does not mention this event and because the prophet’s focus is on the reign of Jeroboam II, a date for Hosea’s prophecies from c. 760-725 B.C. (shortly after the beginning of the independent reign of Hezekiah in Judah in 729 B.C.) would appear to be reasonable.2 This was an era of dramatic change for the twin kingdoms of Israel and Judah as well as for the surrounding nations of the ancient Near East. Externally, after the death of the powerful Assyrian king Adad-nirai III (783 B.C.), who claimed to have extended Assyrian influence as far as the Mediterranean Sea, Assyria was ruled by a series of weak kings who were unable to do much more than preserve the Assyrian homeland (783-745 B.C.). Therefore, Assyrian domination in the west waned. For Israel and Judah it was an era of unparalleled prosperity for both kingdoms, economically and politically. Together they could claim much the same territorial dimensions as in the days of Solomon before them. As for Jeroboam, Kaiser remarks, “In less than twenty-five years Jeroboam II was able to take a nation that was just about ready to die and turn it into one of the great powers of his day.”3 This included Israelite thrusts into Transjordan and a possible joint Israelite-Judahite campaign into Syria (2 Kings 14:25, 2 Kings 14:28).4 During Uzziah’s long 52-year reign the Southern Kingdom enjoyed economic prosperity and political power. Uzziah (or Azariah) improved Judah’s military strength, which included the fortifying of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 26:11-15) and launching successful campaigns against his neighbors to the west, east, and south (2 Chronicles 26:6-8). Unfortunately, this high water mark of prosperity for the twin kingdoms would not long endure. In the north, with the death of Jeroboam II in 752 B.C. kings of lesser ability, who often vied with one another for local, if not national, supremacy, ruled the kingdom. Jeroboam’s son Zechariah reigned only six months before being assassinated by Shallum, who in turned reigned but one month before being killed by Menahem. The latter’s ten year reign (752-742 B.C.) was characterized by spiritual weakness and renewed subservience to the rising power of Assyria. In Assyria a usurper now occupied the throne as Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 16:6), also called Pulu (or Pul, 2 Kings 15:19).5 His reign (745-727 B.C.) marked the beginning of a new day in the ancient Near East, when Assyrian resurgence would blossom into the mighty Neo-Assyrian Empire (745-612 B.C.). Tiglath-pileser’s armies soon ravaged much of Syria, Menahem and Israel paid him a heavy tribute to keep him for engulfing the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 15:19-20).6 Internal squabbling compounded Israel’s difficulties in the face of Assyrian aggression. Although Menahem ruled from Tirzah, a strong rival named Pekah ruled in Gilead. Pekah’s strength was such that after Menahem’s death, he was able to overthrow Pekahiah, Menahem’s son and successor, and claim sole rulership of all Israel (740-732 B.C.). Pekah’s independent rule was faced with a growing Assyrian menace. For Tiglath-pileser III began a second western campaign in 734 B.C. to break-up a western anti-Assyrian coalition. Among the chief dissidents were the Aramean king Rezin and Pekah of Israel. By 732 B.C. the Assyrian thrusts not only brought about the surrender of Damascus but also reduced the entire west to vassalage.7 If Israel’s position was extremely tenuous by 732 B.C., Judah was scarcely in a stronger position. While prosperity had continued somewhat during the reign of Azariah’s son Jotham, so that he could turn his attention to the internal needs of the country, with the accession of Jotham’s son Ahaz Judah was also caught up in the swift current of Assyrian expansion. Although Ahaz wisely resisted joining a western anti-Assyrian coalition led by the Aramean king Rezin and Pekah of Israel, in order to gain relief from their attack against him (2 Chronicles 28:5-8; Isaiah 7:1-6), he stripped the temple of its gold and silver and petitioned Tiglath-pileser for help (2 Kings 16:7-9).8 Ahaz’s request was honored and Tiglath-pileser launched the aforementioned second western campaign, which eventually brought the surrender of Damascus. Ahaz and Judah were also brought under Assyrian vassalage.9 In the north, Israel remained under Assyrian vassalage. When Tiglath-pileser died in 727 B.C., however Hoshea found opportunity to forego sending tribute to Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.) and sought help from So, King of Egypt (2 Kings 17:3-4).10 The plan backfired and soon Samaria was attacked and after a three-year siege, the Israelite capital fell and its citizens were deported (2 Kings 17:5-6).11 Attempts to correlate Hosea’s prophecies with specific political events, however, have proven to be elusive at best.12 Some prophecies appear to be related to the earlier part of his ministry such as the predicted judgment of the line of Jehu (Hosea 1:4). Since Zechariah was assassinated in 752 B.C., six months into his reign, this prophecy must have been given during the later period of Jeroboam’s reign. Likewise the charges against Israel in the first section of the book (Hosea 1:1-11, Hosea 2:1-23, Hosea 3:1-5) seem best related to the reign of Jeroboam II. This was, as we have seen, a period marked by great economic and political success but growing spiritual apostasy. The subsequent chapters of Hosea’s prophecies tend to reflect the growing crises in the affairs of the Northern Kingdom both externally with Assyria and internally during the years of hostility between bitter political rivals vying for power in the Northern Kingdom. By the end of the book the demise of Israel appears to be imminent.13 Authorship The author identifies himself as “Hosea, son of Beeri” (Hosea 1:1). Unfortunately nothing else is known positively as to the identity of either man. A Jewish tradition suggested that Beeri is to be equated with a Reubenite leader who was taken captive by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III. Thus the genealogical record contained in 1 Chronicles 5:6 tells of a certain “Beerah, whom king Tiglath-pileser carried into exile. Beerah was the tribal leader of Reuben.” Another Jewish tradition held that Beeri was a prophet. Assumedly it is his prophecy that is preserved in Isaiah 8:19-22.14 According to Laetsch an ancient Christian tradition held that he belonged to the tribe of Issachar.15 As for Hosea himself Harrison observes that “from the reference in Hosea 7:4 ff. it has been assumed that he worked as a baker. From the various agricultural allusions in the book it could be maintained with equal seriousness that Hosea was a farmer. However, a peasant origin seems improbable in the light of his knowledge of history, his grasp of political affairs, and the eloquent, well-chosen imagery with which his style abounds.”16 Other than these hints all that we know of Hosea comes from his prophecy. There we learn that he was married to a woman named Gomer and had three children (Hosea 1:1-11). Hosea was God’s man for a difficult era spiritually. “Prosperity had brought an unprecedented degree of cultural corruption. The much-sought-after political power had opened Israel to foreign cultural influence, including the demoralizing influence of Canaanite Baal worship (Hosea 2:7, Hosea 2:17; Hosea 11:2) with its fertility cults and bacchanalian orgies (Hosea 4:10-13).”17 Hosea was a man of deep spiritual conviction who throughout his long ministry became progressively concerned both for the Lord’s person and testimony as well as his troubled people. Hosea’s heartfelt concern over Israel’s spiritual complacency, religious syncretism, and critical position in relation to the major powers of the ancient Near East may be felt in the advancing flow of his messages. As Pusey remarks, “Corruption had spread throughout the whole land; even the places once sacred through God’s revelation or other mercies to their forefathers, Bethel Gilgal, Gilead, Mizpah, Shechem were especial scenes of corruption or of sin. Every holy memory was effaced by present corruption. Could things be worse? “18 Nevertheless, he remained faithful to God and his calling through it all. The exact time of his death is unknown, although it seems likely that he did not live to see the fall of Samaria and the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. A Jewish legend states that Hosea died in Babylon and that his body was buried at Safed, northwest of the Sea of Galilee, on the highest point in that region. According to another tradition he was a native of Gilead and was buried there. To this day the grave of Nebi Osha is shown near es-Salt, Ramoth-Gilead, south of the Jabbok River.19 1 Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. (Interpreting the Minor Prophets, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 21) suggests that “the six Israelite rulers who followed Jeroboam II may have been omitted from this list because of their relative insignificance.” More probably Hosea viewed all six as somewhat illegitimate in that none of them had an unclouded claim to the throne. In that case rightful succession to the throne of Israel ended with Zechariah, the fifth and last king of the house of Jehu (Hosea 1:4). Furthermore, each king in a sense was a usurper who only further fragmented the Northern Kingdom. 2 Duane A. Garrett (Hosea, Joel, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997], 22) is probably correct in remarking that the length of Hosea’s ministry suggests, “that he became a prophet at a reasonably young age.” Garrett, however, concludes that his ministry may have lasted until about 710 B.C. 3 W. C. Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 352. See also W. T. Pitard, “Arameans,” Peoples of the Old Testament World, eds. A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Mattingly and E. M. Yamauchi; (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 222. Something of the Northern Kingdom’s reinvigorated economy may be attested in the well-known Samaria Ostraca. For details, see A. J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 329-30. For the texts, see ANET, 321. 4 For details, see M Haran, “The Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” VT 17 (1967): 296, J. A. Montgomery (The Books of Kings, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967], 446) suggests that in 2 Kings 14-28 Judah should be read as Yaudi, a city in northern Syria known in the Assyrian inscriptions as Samal. See further W. Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 260; C. H. Gordon, The Ancient Near East (New York: Norton, 1965), 219 5 Babylon was always an important administrative center, hence allowed to have its own Assyrian monarch. Here Tiglath-pileser was called Pulu. Shalmaneser V and Esarhaddon would later be known by special names in Babylon (see CAH, 3:32). 6 For the Assyrian text, see ANET, 283; COS, 2:287. T. R. Hobbs (2 Kings, WBC [Waco: Word Books, 1985], 198-200) suggests that Tiglath-pileser was coming to the aid of Menahem against a third party. Whether the 743 B.C. invasion is reflected in Hosea 8:7-10 or refers to Tiglath-pileser’s later invasion (734-732 B.C.) is uncertain. 7 Tiglath-pileser claims that with the overthrow of Pekah he placed Hoshea on the throne as his client king (see ANET, 284). 8 Ahaz also faced a threat from the Edomites on his eastern border (2 Chronicles 28:17) and the Philistines on the west (2 Chronicles 28:18) at this time. 9 Tiglath-pileser III records Ahaz’s submission (see ANET, 282). 10 Although several theories as to the identity of So have been proposed, he is probably to be equated with twenty-fifth Egyptian dynasty Pharaoh Piankhy. For details see Richard D. Patterson, “The Divided Monarchy,” in Giving the Sense, eds. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), 196-97. 11 The Babylonian chronicles credit Shalmaneser with the capture of Samaria. See A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, N.Y.: J. J. Augustine, 1975) 73. However, Shalmaneser’s successor Sargon II claims the capture of the city (see ARA, 2:26-27; COS, 2:298). 12 As Douglas Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, WBC [Waco: Wood Books, 1987], 9) observes there appears to be a basic (if not total) chronological arrangement of Hosea’s prophecies in the book. 13 See the discussion in Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam, ed. David W. Cotter (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 5-6. 14 See Midrash Rabbah, eds. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, trans. J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki (London: Soncino, 1939), 4:86. 15 See Theo. Laetsch, The Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 9. 16 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 859. 17 Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 106. 18 E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 1:12. 19 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, 10. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 01.0000. INTRODUCTION TO HOSEA: LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ======================================================================== Introduction to Hosea: Literary and Theological Context Literary Features Hosea was a master literary craftsman. His prophetic style is so elevated that it is often difficult to distinguish between his prose and poetry. Andersen and Freedman conclude that chapters 1-3 are basically written in prose narrative, while chapters 4-14 are typical of poetry.1 As a rule of thumb such an estimate is largely helpful, but it must be pointed out that “most of the prophets were poets and their oracles were delivered and have been preserved in poetic form.”2 Indeed, “one may expect that all of the major genres with the exception of some types of instructional accounts will take on the heightened speech, literary richness, and urgency of tone and message that so characterized poetry.”3 Nevertheless, it is true that Hosea 1:1-11, Hosea 2:1-23, Hosea 3:1-5 due bear marks much more characteristic of prose. For example, these chapters are distinctly more narrative in style and the oracles embedded in them are brought together as clusters within the narrative. The narrative itself is arranged in chiastic structure around the marriage theme (see Outline). Indeed, the marriage theme is a prominent one not only in chapters 1-3 but in various places in Hosea’s prophecy. For example, God is portrayed as a jealous husband (Hosea 2:2-13) due to the infidelity of his wife Israel (as symbolized by Gomer). Israel has played the harlot by flirting with pagan idolatry (e.g., Hosea 4:10-18; Hosea 5:3-4; Hosea 6:10; Hosea 7:4; Hosea 8:4-6, Hosea 8:9; Hosea 9:1, Hosea 9:10, Hosea 9:15; Hosea 10:5; Hosea 11:2, Hosea 11:7; Hosea 12:11) as well as in its unwise political alliances and unrighteous social immorality. Yet God is also portrayed as a faithful and loving husband who longs for and is willing to forgive Israel (Hosea 2:14-23, Hosea 3:1-5; Hosea 9:1; Hosea 14:4). The marriage theme is also closely allied to that of the covenant. Even though God had redeemed his people out of Egypt and brought them into covenant relationship with him (Hosea 11:4; Hosea 12:9; Hosea 13:4), they have violated that covenant repeatedly (e.g., Hosea 6:7; Hosea 8:11-14). Israel’s sole hope lay in the fact that God’s covenant loyalty and redemptive love for them remained (Hosea 2:18-23; Hosea 3:1-5; Hosea 8:1-14; Hosea 13:16). Due to Israel’s violation of her fidelity to God and his covenant with them, there was need of repentance. Repentance, therefore, becomes a prominent theme in Hosea (e.g., Hosea 2:14, Hosea 3:5; Hosea 5:6; Hosea 6:6-7; Hosea 7:8-10; Hosea 14:4) as well as the need for Israel to practice righteousness (Hosea 10:12; Hosea 12:6; Hosea 14:9). The themes of violation of covenant and need of repentance are closely associated with that of judgment. Judgment oracles make up a great deal of Hosea’s speeches. Thus Hosea condemns Israel’s practice of idolatry (e.g., Hosea 3:4; Hosea 4:7-13, Hosea 4:15-18; Hosea 5:11; Hosea 8:4-6; Hosea 9:1; Hosea 10:5, Hosea 10:8; Hosea 11:2, Hosea 11:7; Hosea 13:2; Hosea 14:8) and denounces the priests who have led the people astray (Hosea 4:4-9; Hosea 5:1; Hosea 6:9; Hosea 10:5). Likewise Israel’s prophets (Hosea 4:5; Hosea 6:5; Hosea 9:7-8; Hosea 12:10-13) and leaders from royal house to prominent members of society come in for their share of denunciation (Hosea 5:1, Hosea 5:10; Hosea 7:3-7, Hosea 7:16; Hosea 8:4; Hosea 9:15; Hosea 10:7; Hosea 12:7). Accordingly, all society is corrupt is in danger of God’s judgment (Hosea 4:1-6, Hosea 4:14; Hosea 5:4-5; Hosea 6:8-10; Hosea 7:1-14; Hosea 8:1; Hosea 9:1-3, Hosea 9:7, Hosea 9:15-17; Hosea 10:1-2, Hosea 9:7, Hosea 9:15-17; Hosea 10:1-2; Hosea 10:9, Hosea 10:13-14; Hosea 11:12; Hosea 12:8, Hosea 12:14; Hosea 13:1-3, Hosea 13:12-13, Hosea 13:12-13, Hosea 13:16; Hosea 14:1).4 Hosea also uses imagery drawn from the agrarian and animal worlds such as the procedures of sowing and reaping (Hosea 2:3; Hosea 8:7; Hosea 10:12-13), and threshing and harvest (Hosea 2:6, Hosea 2:8-9, Hosea 2:11, Hosea 2:22-23; Hosea 6:11; Hosea 9:2). Hosea also speaks of vine, vineyard, and wine (Hosea 2:9, Hosea 2:12; Hosea 9:2, Hosea 9:4, Hosea 9:10; Hosea 10:1; Hosea 14:7). Other images reflect the animal world. Israel is likened to a stubborn, trained heifer (Hosea 4:16; Hosea 10:11), a wild donkey in heat (Hosea 8:9-10), or a senseless dove (Hosea 7:11) in her political alliances. Such unions are sapping her strength and Israel is not realizing it. Indeed, her condition is like that of a person who is growing gray but does not recognize the fact (Hosea 7:9). Israel is therefore advised and warned that God will deal with them like a ravenous lion (Hosea 5:14-15) or a stalking leopard or angry bear robbed of its cubs (Hosea 13:7-8). In a dramatic turn of imagery with regard to a future day a forgiving and loving God is likened to a lion roaring for its young to come to him, while the Israelites are compared to doves or birds returning to their nests (Hosea 11:10-11). This underscores the fact that although Hosea’s prophecies display a rich mine of images and literary features (e.g., Hosea 6:4; Hosea 9:5; Hosea 11:8; Hosea 12:11; Hosea 13:10, Hosea 13:14; Hosea 14:9), his most characteristic trait is his frequent employment of metaphor and simile.5 As Johnson observes, “Indeed, a thorough treatment of all of these items would practically amount to a commentary on the whole book.”6 His use of metaphor is indeed striking.7 For example, God is portrayed both as a ferocious lion (Hosea 5:14) and a healing physician (Hosea 6:1). He was Israel’s provider during the period of their wilderness wanderings (Hosea 13:5). Although Israel was God’s heifer trained to do plowing, yet the yoke she must bear is her coming captivity (Hosea 10:11). God is the divine farmer who will reap a total harvest (= the coming judgment, Hosea 6:11). Hosea himself is God’s watchman over Israel, yet his way is made dangerous because of the traps along the pathway of his service laid for him by his adversaries (Hosea 9:8). Hosea’s similes are equally bold and well drawn. Thus because of Israel’s unfaithfulness and harlotry, she will be exposed like a newborn infant and her land will become like a desert (Hosea 2:3). Israel’s failure to heed God’s word is likened to the stubbornness of a heifer (Hosea 4:16). In her foreign policy she is like a silly dove flitting back and forth to Egypt and Assyria (Hosea 7:11). Such a policy has made Israel to resemble “a flat cake not turned over” (Hosea 7:8). Rather than trusting God, Israel has wandered over to Assyria like a wild and willful donkey (Hosea 8:9). How different her present status than when God first brought her into covenant relationship. Then she showed great promise, for it was like finding grapes in the wilderness or early fruit on a fig tree (Hosea 9:10). Alas, all that she now values will disappear like a bird flying away (Hosea 9:11). Israel is now not only spiritually but morally corrupt. Israelite society is so plagued by legal disputes that it resembles “poisonous weeds in the furrows of a plowed field” (Hosea 10:11). Spiritually and morally bankrupt, Israel will fall to the Assyrians and her king will be carried away like a twig caught in water’s current (Hosea 10:7). Israel is facing a swift and imminent judgment. Her sudden disaster is pictured in four similes: morning mist and early dew, which quickly disappears with the heat of the day, chaff blown away from the threshing floor by the wind, and smoke pouring out through a window (Hosea 13:3). At times Hosea also portrays Judah’s tenuous condition with picturesque similes. No less than Israel is Judah’s faithfulness to God—it is as short lived as the morning mist and the dew of the dawn (Hosea 6:4). Moreover, Judah’s land-grabbing leadership is compared to those who seize adjacent property by moving boundary stones (Hosea 5:10). Therefore, God will deal with both kingdoms by leaving them to their fate. Rather than preserving his people, his judgment will be like the destructive forces of moth and rotting wood (Hosea 5:12). As noted previously, God is pictured also in a more active sense. In his superintending judgment God is likened to ravenous and voracious animals (Hosea 5:14; Hosea 13:7-8). Yet in a future day his call to them to return from exile will be like that of a lion roaring for his pride (Hosea 11:10). Outline A man of such literary skill could be expected to write a well-structured product. And such indeed is the case. Two major divisions in the book are recognized by nearly all expositors (chs. 1-3, 4-14). The first division centers upon Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, itself symbolic of God’s relation to Israel. The second contains a collection of prophetic oracles dealing with the infidelity of God’s people and their need of repentance as well as the Lord’s faithfulness and love despite the need for his judgment against his people. An opening superscription (Hosea 1:1) and a closing subscription (Hosea 14:9) enclose the entire prophecy. Thematic and verbal associations are observable in both sections. Thus chapters 1-3 are structured chiastically with a rebuke of Israel’s infidelity forming the center of the chiasmus (Hosea 2:14-23 [HB Hosea 2:16-25]). Chapters 4-14 fall into three distinct subdivisions, each climaxed or concluding with the prophet’s advice to his people followed by statements regarding the Lord’s continuing burden for his people (Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-16; Hosea 10:12-15, Hosea 11:1-11; Hosea 11:12, Hosea 12:1-14, Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-8 [HB Hosea 12:1-14, Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-9]). The first two subdivisions are introduced by imperatives: “Hear the word of the LORD” (Hosea 4:1); “Sound the alarm” (Hosea 8:1), while the third subdivision is initiated by a statement of God’s charge against Israel (Hosea 11:12 [HB Hosea 12:1]).8 The resultant outline can be shown as follows: Superscription (Hosea 1:1) I. A portrayal of unfaithful Israel (Hosea 1:2-11, Hosea 2:1-23, Hosea 3:1-5) A. Rejection—Symbolized in Hosea’s marriage (Hosea 1:2-9) B. Restoration—On the basis of the covenant (Hosea 1:10-11, Hosea 2:1[HB Hosea 2:1-3]) C. Rebuke—Due to Israel’s infidelity (Hosea 2:2-13 [HB Hosea 2:4-15]) B’. Renewal—Based on the covenant (Hosea 2:14-23 [HB Hosea 2:16-25]) A’. Reconciliation—Symbolized by Hosea’s marriage (Hosea 3:1-5) II. Perspectives on unfaithful Israel (Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 5:1-15, Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-16, Hosea 8:1-14, Hosea 9:1-17, Hosea 10:1-15, Hosea 11:1-12, Hosea 12:1-14, Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-8) A. Opening complaints against Israel (Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 5:1-15, Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-16) 1. A threefold indictment (Hosea 4:1-19) 2. Three guilty parties (Hosea 5:1-7) 3. A threefold alarm (Hosea 5:8-15) 4. Prophetic advice (Hosea 6:1-3) 5. Divine concern for unfaithful Israel (Hosea 6:4-11, Hosea 7:1-16) B. Further charges against unfaithful Israel (Hosea 8:1-14, Hosea 9:1-17, Hosea 10:1-15, Hosea 11:1-11) 1. The lesson on the broken covenant (Hosea 8:1-14) 2. Prophetic reaction: Israel is doomed (Hosea 9:1-9) 3. The lesson on the unprofitable plants (Hosea 9:10-17) 4. Prophetic reaction: Israel is a wayward vine (Hosea 10:1-8) 5. Prophetic advice: Israel is a trained heifer (Hosea 10:9-15) 6. Divine and Prophetic compassion for Israel (Hosea 11:1-11) C. Concluding considerations re unfaithful Israel (Hosea 11:12, Hosea 12:1-14, Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-8 [HB Hosea 12:1-14, Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-9]) 1. Her deceitful politics (Hosea 11:12, Hosea 12:1 [HB Hosea 12:1-2]) 2. Prophetic reaction: Israel’s deceitful record (Hosea 12:2-6 [HB Hosea 12:3-7]) 3. Her deceitful practices (Hosea 12:7-11 [HB Hosea 12:8-12]) 4. Prophetic reaction God’s dealings with deceitful Israel (Hosea 12:12-14 [HB Hosea 12:13-15]) 5. Her deceitful pride (Hosea 13:1-16 [HB Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1]) 6. Prophetic advice (Hosea 14:1-3 [HB Hosea 14:2-4]) 7. Divine consolation (Hosea 14:4-8 [HB Hosea 14:5-9]) Subscription (Hosea 14:9 [HB 14:10]) Unity The unity of Hosea has often been questioned. Two matters are particularly prominent. (1) Because the majority of Hosea’s messages are largely condemnatory, some have argued that those prophecies that contain a note of hope (e.g., Hosea 1:10-11, Hosea 2:1; Hosea 2:14-23; Hosea 3:5; Hosea 11:8-11; Hosea 14:4-8) must be a secondary work of a later redactor.9 It should be noted, however, that the assumption that a given prophet cannot produce addresses both of judgment and hope is a mere a priori assumption. Moreover, it is patently false, as a glance at the other prophetic books makes clear. Such a blending of negative and positive prophecies is a common feature in many of the prophets. (2) Because Hosea wrote primarily to the Northern Kingdom, some have held that those passages that refer to Judah (e.g., Hosea 1:7, Hosea 1:11; Hosea 3:5; Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:5, Hosea 10:11; Hosea 6:4, Hosea 6:10-11; Hosea 8:14; Hosea 10:11; Hosea 11:12; Hosea 12:2) must be later interpolations.10 Thus Emmerson follows J. L. Mays in affirming that “the material in its final form has not been left unchanged by the process of its transmission in Judah.”11 It should be noted, however, that the passages referring to Judah cannot be excised without doing violence to the flow of the text. Furthermore there is little to suggest that the text of Hosea has undergone such a redactional history except the predisposition of scholars to find such a process. Indeed, as Stuart observes, “It makes sense to conclude that both Hosea and his audience would have keen interest in the fate of Judah precisely in contrast to and separate from the fate of Israel.”12 We may add that in addition to the literary skills of Hosea detailed above, it is apparent that the prophet has carefully linked each unit of the second division of his prophecy together by means of demonstrable literary hooks.13 These include both thematic and verbal elements. Thus in the first subdivision (Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 5:1-15; Hosea 6:11; Hosea 7:1-16) each of the individual portions is characterized by “threeness.” Moreover, the opening unit (Hosea 4:11-19) not only carries forward the themes of prostitution and adultery featured in Hosea 1:1-11, Hosea 2:1-23, Hosea 3:1-5, but these themes similarly link it with the following unit, Hosea 5:1-7 (cf. Hosea 4:10, Hosea 4:14-15, Hosea 4:18 with Hosea 5:3). Hosea 5:1-7 in turn is linked together with Hosea 5:8-15 by the subject of the need to seek the Lord (cf. Hosea 5:6 with Hosea 5:15). This in turn sets the scene for the prophet’s advice in Hosea 6:1-3 where the need to seek the Lord is furthered by the challenge to return to the Lord (cf. Hosea 5:1-15 with Hosea 6:1). The prophet’s advice in Hosea 6:1-3 prepares the way for the oracle featuring God’s concern for his people by means of the thought of the need to acknowledge Yahweh (cf. Hosea 6:3 with Hosea 6:6). The first subdivision (Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 5:1-15; Hosea 6:11; Hosea 7:1-16) is structured to the second (Hosea 8:14; Hosea 10:11; Hosea 11:11) by means of the thought of praying/crying out to God (cf. Hosea 7:14 with Hosea 8:2). The lesson concerning covenant breaking in Hosea 8:1-14 is then stitched to the prophet’s reaction that follows (Hosea 9:1-9) by the warning that God’s people could “return to Egypt” (cf. Hosea 8:13 with Hosea 9:3). This portion is then joined to the lesson on the unprofitable plants (Hosea 9:10-15) by means of the theme of evil deeds/wickedness (cf. Hosea 9:9 with Hosea 9:15). The emphasis on plants links both the lessons concerning them (Hosea 9:10-15) with the prophet’s reaction (Hosea 10:1-11) that follows by means of the keyword “fruit” (cf. Hosea 9:16 with Hosea 10:1).14 “Plowing” binds the prophet’s reaction (Hosea 10:1-11) to his admonition (Hosea 10:12-15) that follows (cf. Hosea 10:11 with Hosea 10:12-13). The second subdivision ends with a statement of the Lord’s compassion, which builds upon the topic of children in the prophet’s advice (cf. Hosea 10:14 with Hosea 11:1) as well as the thoughts of devastation and destruction due to the people’s wickedness (cf. Hosea 10:14-15 with Hosea 11:2, Hosea 11:6-7, Hosea 11:9). The mention of Egypt in the closing verse of the second subdivision (Hosea 11:11) prepares the way for the third subdivision (Hosea 11:12, Hosea 12:1-14; Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-8 [HB Hosea 12:1-14; Hosea 13:1-16, Hosea 14:1-9]). The first portion (Hosea 11:12, Hosea 12:1) centers on Israel’s deceitful politics. As such it prepares the reader for the prophet’s reaction (Hosea 12:2-6) that follows via by theme of treaty/covenant (cf. Hosea 12:1 with Hosea 12:2). The emphasis in the prophet’s reaction on the Lord God Almighty is taken up in the next portion (Hosea 12:7-11) detailing Israel’s deceitful practices (cf. Hosea 12:5-6 with Hosea 12:9). This in turn blends into the following prophetic reaction (Hosea 12:12-14) via the theme concerning prophets (cf. Hosea 12:10 with Hosea 12:13). The long discussion concerning Israel’s deceitful pride (Hosea 13:1-16) builds upon the prior mention of Ephraim in the preceding portion (cf. Hosea 12:14 with Hosea 13:1). The foolishness of the sin of idolatry emphasized in Hosea 13:1-16 serves as a springboard for the next portion (Hosea 14:1-3) recording Hosea’s closing advice (cf. Hosea 13:2 with Hosea 14:1, Hosea 14:3) as well as the impossibility of anyone but Yahweh to save Israel (cf. Hosea 13:10 with Hosea 14:3). Both prepare the way for the Lord’s closing consolation in which he urges his people to forsake idolatry (cf. Hosea 14:3 with Hosea 14:8). Demonstrably, then, Hosea’s prophecies demonstrate his literary skill, which extends even to their ordering so that each unit prepares the reader for the next. We may safely concur with the conclusion of Garrett: “In short, the Book of Hosea should be treated as a literary unity and not as a pastiche of short sayings and messages redacted by disciples. No text is demonstrably secondary and none should be treated as such.”15 Occasion And Purpose Because Hosea’s prophecies were delivered over so long a period of time, no one specific occasion may be cited as the controlling reason for the book. A number of events doubtless stimulated Hosea’s various prophetic oracles. For example, his opening proclamation of judgment against the dynasty of Jehu probably reflects some event late in the reign of Jeroboam II, whom he mentions in his opening ascription. For at his death his son Zechariah was assassinated shortly after taking the throne in 752 B.C. As well, in accordance with Jonah’s prophecy concerning Jeroboam’s regaining of territory lost to Assyrian advances (2 Kings 14:25), this too most likely occurred late in the reign of the weak Assyrian king Ashur-dan III (771-754 B.C.). Although it was a time of political strength for Israel, military success only engendered further spiritual apostasy. Amos, who also prophesied in this era, likewise deplored conditions in the Northern Kingdom and warned of imminent disaster to the house of Jeroboam (Amos 7:11). Although individual scholars have suggested other particular occasions, none can be ascertained with distinct certainty. Nevertheless, granted the progressive nature of Hosea’s prophecies suggested above, one can sense the increasing tension and political crises, which Israel faced, especially as the Neo-Assyrian Empire took root and expanded after the ascension of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.) to the throne of Assyria (e.g., Hosea 5:8-15; Hosea 7:11-12; Hosea 8:7-9; Hosea 9:1; Hosea 10:6-10, Hosea 10:14-15; Hosea 11:5-6; Hosea 12:1; cf. 2 Kings 15:19-31).16 Sweeney adds that Hosea’s position is “markedly anti-Assyrian as he portrays Israel’s relationship with Assyria as a rejection of YHWH (cf. Hosea 8:9; Hosea 10:6; Hosea 11:5, Hosea 11:11; Hosea 12:2 [NRSV Hosea 1:1; Hosea 14:4 [NRSV 14:3]).”17 Thus Garrett aptly remarks, “Probably most of Hosea’s extant messages come from the last three decades of Israel’s history.”18 Throughout this period Hosea appears to reflect well the growing moral and spiritual degeneracy in God’s people (e.g., Hosea 7:1-7; Hosea 10:1-4; Hosea 11:7; Hosea 12:7-14; Hosea 13:1-3). Hosea does not specifically mention the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C., yet the demise of the Northern Kingdom appears to be increasingly imminent in Hosea’s later prophecies.19 Throughout his long ministry Hosea endeavored to communicate God’s message to his wayward people. He warned them of their constant preoccupation with Baalism and growing coolness toward Yahweh. Moreover, their immoral socio-economic policies stemmed from their spiritual abandonment of the Lord. Accordingly, his judgment must surely come. No amount of self-reliance due to economic prosperity and expanded political power due to Jeroboam’s successes could spare them. Nor could reliance on foreign powers save them. Thus Hosea urged his people to realize that what was needed before it was too late was a genuine repentance and return to the Lord in full submission to him. If they would do so, a loving God was ready to forgive and restore them. Indeed, such is his ultimate goal. Unfortunately, without Israel’s drastic and immediate change of direction, such would be accomplished through God’s judgment. Text And Canonicity The textual problems in the book of Hosea are many and notoriously difficult. The present status of the problem is explained well in the footnote of the NET Bible, which forms the basis for our study. Stuart, however, notes array of hope: “Frequently the Masoretic consonantal text proves largely correct and must simply be revocalized on the evidence of the Septuagint with regard for the Mosaic covenant vocabulary.”20 Concurring with Stuart’s assurance, one must approach the idea of emending the MT with utmost caution, being careful not to press one’s own interpretation of the passage at hand onto the text itself. As elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament, the safest course of action is to prefer the MT, which is well attested in the Qumran texts and has been handed down faithfully in the major Hebrew codices for centuries.21 Thus Würthwein remarks, “Our main interest centers in m. In every instance it deserves special attention because it is based on direct transmission in the original language, and it has been handed down with great care… . Any deviation from it therefore requires justification.”22 In sum, despite the difficulties attendant to the text of Hosea, one may say with confidence that as with the textual criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament in general, “Although variant readings have become obvious through the publication of so many manuscripts, inadequate, inferior, and secondary readings have been largely eliminated. In relatively few places is conjectural emendation necessary.”23 We follow Garrett in concluding regarding the text of Hosea, difficult though it may be at times, “The best approach is to try to stay with the Masoretic text unless compelling reasons present themselves for emending.”24 The canonicity of Hosea has never been questioned. Thus the second century B.C. apocryphal book The Wisdom of Ben Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) notes that there were just twelve Minor Prophets (Sir. 49:10). This was also the decision of others Jewish authorities as Josephus (Contra Apion, 1:7-8) and Philo who “refers to or uses as authoritative all the books of the Jewish canon except Esther, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.”25 The Christian Bishop Melito of Sardis (second century A.D.) received Hosea as canonical, as does the tract Baba Bathra of the Babylonian Talmud (fourth century A.D.).26 Of special interest is the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Hosea is cited in ten different manuscripts, in seven of which the exact twelve accepted Minor Prophets are found and with Hosea as the first in the traditional Hebrew order. Moreover, the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint present the same order for the Minor Prophets with Hosea at the head, as does Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Among the New Testament writers and personalities, Hosea is cited or alluded to as authoritative by Jesus (cf. Hosea 6:6 with Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7; Hosea 10:8 with Luke 23:30), by Matthew (cf. Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:15), by Paul (cf. Hosea 13:4 with 1 Corinthians 15:55), by Paul and Peter (cf. Hosea 1:10; Hosea 2:3, 25 with Romans 9:25-27; 1 Peter 2:10) and in John’s Apocalypse (cf. Hosea 10:8 with Revelation 6:16)27. Thus there is uniform early witness as to the inspiration and authoritative place of Hosea in the biblical canon.28 Theological Context Hosea’s theological perspective begins with the opening verses. Israel’s spiritual harlotry will bring God’s certain judgment of exile to the nation (Hosea 1:1-9). Yet the overriding theological truth is that of God’s love. The Lord’s great unfathomable love will one day result in Israel’s forgiveness and restoration in a new exodus event that will bring his people back home (Hosea 1:10-11). These themes with deep significance resound throughout the book. Israel’s sin is termed harlotry and Israel is depicted as a harlot (cf. Hosea 1:2 with Hosea 1:1-13; Hosea 3:1; Hosea 4:10-18; Hosea 3:1; Hosea 4:10-18; Hosea 5:4; Hosea 6:10; Hosea 7:6, Hosea 7:6; Hosea 9:1; Hosea 4:10-18; Hosea 5:4; Hosea 6:10; Hosea 7:6; Hosea 7:6; Hosea 9:1). Her sinfulness is that of infidelity against Yahweh her Redeemer expressed in the worship of idols (Hosea 4:1, Hosea 4:17-18; Hosea 5:7; Hosea 8:5-6; Hosea 9:10) and the pursuit of sinful practices associated with them (Hosea 4:14; Hosea 9:15; Hosea 10:5-6; Hosea 12:11; Hosea 13:2; Hosea 14:8). Because Israel has broken its covenant with God (Hosea 6:7; Hosea 8:1, Hosea 8:11-14; Hosea 10:1-3; Hosea 12:14; Hosea 13:16), God’s judgment must come, for Yahweh is a God of justice (Hosea 4:19; Hosea 5:5, Hosea 5:8-12, Hosea 5:14; Hosea 6:4-5; Hosea 7:12-16; Hosea 8:12-14; Hosea 9:3-9, Hosea 9:17; Hosea 10:7-10, Hosea 10:14-15; Hosea 11:5-6; Hosea 13:5-9, Hosea 13:15-16). Moreover, Israel has repeatedly violated the terms of the law. Thus Stuart rightly points out, “Understanding the message of the book of Hosea depends upon understanding the Sinai covenant. The book contains a series of blessings and curses announced for Israel by God through Hosea. Each blessing or curse is based upon a corresponding type in the Mosaic law.”29 As noted under Themes, Hosea has much to say concerning genuine repentance and God’s forgiveness as well (e.g., Hosea 2:18-20; Hosea 6:1-3; Hosea 10:12; Hosea 12:6; Hosea 14:1-4). Such is based upon the fact that Yahweh is Israel’s only Redeemer. It is he who will one day return a repentant and forgiven people to the land (Hosea 11:1-4; Hosea 12:9; Hosea 13:4-6, Hosea 13:14) and initiate a new covenant with them (Hosea 2:18-23; Hosea 3:5). For despite Israel’s propensity to sin, Yahweh is a God of love. His undying faithfulness (Hosea 11:12) and love for his people will ultimately triumph to his glory and for their good (Hosea 11:6-11; Hosea 14:4-7). Tucked here and there within the book is a hint of God’s means of carrying all of this out—a new leader, a longed-for and needed Messiah (Hosea 1:10-11; Hosea 3:5). For his love is but an aspect of that basic quality among his attributes—his holiness (Hosea 11:9, Hosea 11:12). Ultimately Israel must realize that there is only one God and they belong to him (Hosea 2:23; Hosea 12:9). 1 Francis L. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea, AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 60-66. 2 David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 18. 3 Richard D. Patterson, “Old Testament Prophecy,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, eds., Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 305-306. 4 For the important theme of knowledge in Hosea, see the additional note on Hosea 13:5. 5 These and other figures of speech and images will be considered in the Exposition and Notes section. 6 Rick Johnson, “Hosea 4-10: Pictures at an Exhibition,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36 (1993): 20. 7 See further F. Landy, “In the Wilderness of Speech: Problems of Metaphor in Hosea,” Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995): 35-39 8 It should be noted that the first subdivision is also characterized by the frequent use of imperatives to introduce still smaller subdivisions (e.g., Hosea 4:1; Hosea 5:1, Hosea 5:8; Hosea 6:1). 9 See for example, W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), clix, clx; W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament (New York: McMillian, 1937), 349; Grace I. Emmerson, Hosea An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 1. 10 See for example, B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 377-78; H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), xxxi-xxxii. 11 Emmerson, Hosea, 2. 12 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 14. 13 For the practice of literary stitching see U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 1:1-6; H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” JBL 102 (1983): 540-41; Richard D. Patterson, “Of Bookends, Hinges, and Hooks: Literary Clues to the Arrangement of Jeremiah’s Prophecies,” JWT 51(1989): 109-31. 14 The prophet’s reaction is climaxed by citing God’s own words concerning “plowing and sowing” (10:9-11). 15 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 25. 16 A growing importance of Israelite relations with Egypt can also be seen (e.g., Hosea 7:11; Hosea 9:1-6; Hosea 11:5; Hosea 12:1; cf. 2 Kings 17:3-4). 17 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 5; see further Laetsch, Minor Prophets, 10-17. 18 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 24. 19 For the suggestion that Hosea may have ministered beyond the time of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, see Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Hosea,” in The Minor Prophets, ed., Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 1:3. 20 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 13. 21 For the translation of the existing Qumran manuscripts of Hosea see Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1999), 419-32.As for the Minor Prophets, they conclude, “The text is … in the main that of the Masoretic text” (p.418). For a concise history of the text of the Old Testament and the problems relative to the establishment of a pristine Hebrew text, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 155-197. 22 Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 113. Würthwein does not claim impeccable infallibility for the MT but simply goes on (p.114) to demonstrate that “if a reading of m is rejected, every possible interpretation of it must first have been fully examined.” 23 Mark R. Norton, “Texts and Manuscripts of the Old Testament,” in The Origin of the Bible, ed., Philip Wesley Comfort (Wheaton: Tyndale, 2003), 182. See further the incisive study by Martin Jan Mulder,, “The Transmission of the Biblical Text,” in Mikra, eds., Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 87-135. 24 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 27. Andersen and Freedman (Hosea, 67) add, “The knowledge of ancient Hebrew gained through epigraphic studies and related disciples has provided new ways of explaining the text without changing it… . As a result, there is less need to alter the text to remove a supposed difficulty.” 25 R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 185. Roger Beckwith (The Old Testament Canon of the New testament Church [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], 79) points out that Josephus in his Antiquities clearly recognized and accepted the traditional Minor Prophets. 26 For a list of early authorities with regard to the extent of the Old Testament canon, see Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 108-114. 27 Corroborative confirmation comes from Jesus’ and the Apostles’ use of the Old Testament in their debates with their detractors Thus F.F. Bruce (The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988], 41-42) observes, “When in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the apostles appealed to ‘the scriptures,’ they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents. This near-unanimity might suggest that some widely acknowledged authority had promulgated a decision on the matter… . as later with the New Testament, so with the Old Testament it is probable that, when the canon was ‘closed’ in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community.” 28 For the use of Hosea by the early church, see Alberto Ferreiro, ed., The Twelve Prophets, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 1-56 29 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 6-7. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 01.01A. UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 1a. Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 1:1-11, Hosea 2:1) Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 1:1-11, Hosea 2:1-23, Hosea 3:1-5) Superscription (Hosea 1:1) Translation Hosea 1:1 This is the word of the Lord which was revealed to Hosea son of Beeri during the time when Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah ruled Judah, and during the time when Jeroboam son of Joash ruled Israel. Exegesis and Exposition Hosea declares that his entire prophecy is that which he has received via direct divine revelation. Whatever religious and social conditions he may have observed are not the ultimate source of his prophecies. Rather, they reflect faithfully God’s viewpoint and message concerning his covenant people. Therefore, Hosea’s prophecy is in accordance with the rest of Scripture in reflecting God’s person, purposes, standards, and acts (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Although the primary focus is the situation in the Northern Kingdom, in Hosea’s list of ruling kings contemporaneous with his prophetic ministry he begins with four generations of Judahite kings. This tends to indicate that proper royal succession lay with the Davidic line in the Southern Kingdom. As Sweeney points out, “Hosea addresses both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah from a relatively pro-Judean perspective… . Judah thereby provides the means by which Israel will be restored insofar as Israel will return to YHWH and to David their king (Hosea 3:4-5); i.e., when Israel returns to YHWH in Jerusalem and to Davidic/Judean rule, Israel will be restored.”1 To be sure, God had graciously permitted the splintering of the United Kingdom (1 Kings 11:29-38). Yet although he would thereby humble Judah because of its adulterous idolatry, this would not last forever. Indeed, at the division of that kingdom God declared that he would “humiliate David’s descendents because of this, but not forever” (1 Kings 11:39). “Here is both a reaffirmation of the enduring nature of God’s promise to David and the clear statement to Jeroboam and his successors that the house of David will win in the end … there seems to be an implication … that in the future the tribes will all once again be under the leadership of Judah.”2 As indicated above, the fact that only Jeroboam II is specifically mentioned may reflect that any legitimate claim to the throne of the Northern Kingdom ended with his line. Such would be in accord with the details of Hosea’s prophecy in Hosea 1:4. Additional Notes Hosea 1:1 Joash The NET reflects the MT text here. In 2 Kings 13:10 this king’s name is given as Jehoash but in Hosea 13:12 as Joash. The names are thus interchangeable variants. The names are employed similarly in the case of the kings of both the northern and southern kingdoms. Likewise, Uzziah of Judah is a variant of Azariah (cf. 2 Kings 15:1 with 2 Kings 15:30). I. A Portrayal of Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 1:2-11, Hosea 2:1-23, Hosea 3:1-5) The opening three chapters of the book provide a foundation and orientation for Hosea’s prophecies that follow. Israel (the Northern Kingdom in particular) has strayed from its relationship with Yahweh, its covenant God. A. Rejection—symbolized in Hosea’s marriage (Hosea 1:2-9) Translation Hosea 1:2-9 When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, he said to him, “Go marry a prostitute who will bear illegitimate children conceived through prostitution, because the nation continually commits spiritual prostitution by turning away from the Lord.” 3 So Hosea married Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim. Then she conceived and gave birth to a son for him. 4 Then the Lord said to Hosea, “Name him ‘Jezreel,’ because in a little while I will punish the dynasty of Jehu on account of the bloodshed in the valley of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel. 5 At that time, I will destroy the military power of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.” 6 She conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the Lord said to him, “Name her ‘No Pity’ (Lo-Ruhamah) because I will no longer have pity on the nation of Israel. For I will certainly not forgive their guilt. 7 But I will have pity on the nation of Judah. I will deliver them by the Lord their God; I will not deliver them by the warrior’s bow, by sword, by military victory, by chariot horses, or by chariots.” 8 When she had weaned ‘No Pity’ (Lo-Ruhamah) she conceived again and gave birth to another son. 9 Then the Lord said: “Name him ‘Not My People’ (Lo-Ammi), because you are not my people and I am not your God.” Exegesis and Exposition Due to Israel’s infidelity Hosea is commissioned to pronounce many messages of condemnation and warning. Nevertheless he will convey messages affirming that God’s concern and love for his people remains through it all. Therefore, Hosea can also occasionally include words of hope for Israel’s eventual restoration to God’s favor. This will come, however, only after it has been properly chastised. Then a repentant people will once again enjoy the full benefits of its covenant relation with God. Something of this was to be portrayed visibly to God’s people through his prophet. Thus God’s covenant relation to Israel was to be symbolized in Hosea’s marriage to Gomer who will prove to be as unfaithful to her husband as Israel has been to Yahweh. Yet following her rebuke and chastisement, Gomer would find reconciliation with her husband. Interestingly enough, both the account of Gomer’s rejection (Hosea 1:2-9) and that of her reconciliation (Hosea 3:1-5) are told in narrative prose style, which serves to bookend the intervening poetic sections. Moreover, the structure of these two sections is in each case dominated by similarly presented elements: God’s command, followed by the prophet’s compliance, followed by additional details and God’s explanations. As the first of his commands (Hosea 1:2), God tells Hosea to find and “take to himself a wife of harlotries.” The NET note suggests that this person was very possibly and active prostitute and may have been serving in that capacity in a pagan temple. Such temples were mainly devoted to the Canaanite god Baal. Many expositors have suggested similar ideas (e.g., Andersen and Freedman, Craigie, Mays) including the thought that Gomer was already a woman of questionable character (Garrett, McComiskey). If the text is to be taken at face value and not dismissed as a mere literary device such as a parable or allegory (Calvin) or was a dream or visionary experience (Ibn Ezra, Maimonades), then some sensible reason for the command, which is true to the context, must be sought. One is immediately struck by the concern that God is somehow a partaker of evil by giving Hosea such a command, which appears to be in clear violation of his own standards (e.g., Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18). Indeed, adultery is repeatedly condemned in the Scriptures (e.g., 2 Samuel 11:1-5; Proverbs 2:16-19) and treated with severe penalty (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Some have attempted to soften the force of the command by suggesting that since Gomer was a woman without male support trapped in an ancient Semitic culture, prostitution was one way of supporting herself (Sweeney). To be sure prostitution was simply recognized as a fact of life (e.g., Genesis 38:1-30); yet this by no means would excuse Gomer’s actions as Hosea’s wife. Some argue that Gomer was merely guilty of spiritual adultery as a devotee of some form of paganism ( (Stuart). Because the full context demands that Hosea’s experience was designed to be symbolic of Yahweh’s relation with Israel, it would seem best that God tells Hosea to obtain a wife who like Israel would later prove to be unfaithful (cf. Hubbard, Wood).3 Such an understanding provides a clear parallel with God’s own relation to his covenant people as demonstrated throughout Hosea’s prophecies (see also Jeremiah 2:24-35). This position preserves both the integrity of God’s character and the standards of his word while allowing Hosea’s life situation to serve as a visible spiritual lesson for the people to whom he was called to minister. Experientially, however, this would be a source of further heartbreak for both the Lord and his people. As McComiskey points out, “The consonance of the marriage with the history of Israel is one of the strongest arguments for the proleptic view. If Israel was pure when God found her and took her as his bride, then the marriage of Hosea to Gomer should parallel that aspect of Israel’s history and Gomer could not have been a harlot at the time of her marriage.”4 The following phrase has likewise stimulated a great deal of discussion and occasioned a wide variation in translations. The Hebrew text simply reads, “and children of harlotry.” The NET takes this to mean that Hosea’s wife will have children born of her prostitution. Similarly, the NLT assumes the view that some, possibly all, of Gomer’s children were to be fathered by someone other than Hosea. The REB tends to support the thought that the children could come from the union of Hosea and Gomer. Actually the MT simply reports that embedded in God’s command to Hosea was the added message that he would have children tainted by the situation of their mother. The following verses clearly indicate that Hosea fathered their firstborn son. Though such is not distinctly stated with regard to the second and third children, there is no need to suggest that they were not Gomer’s through Hosea 5:1-15 The main stress of the context, however, is on the symbolic role that Gomer bears as a metaphor of Israel’s spiritual nature. As Stuart rightly points out, harlotry/prostitution is a well-known term in the ancient Near East for covenant disloyalty (cf. Exodus 34:15-16; Leviticus 17:9; Leviticus 20:6; Deuteronomy 31:16; 2 Chronicles 21:11, 2 Chronicles 21:13; Ezekiel 16:1-63; Ezekiel 23:1-49).6 Gomer’s promiscuity would result in the fact that her children would be born in an environment tainted and influenced by their mother’s vices. Similarly, Israel has long been spiritually unfaithful to its covenant Lord thus creating an adulterous atmosphere, which was perpetuated in Hosea’s present generation. As Gomer was Hosea’s unfaithful wife, so spiritually Israel was Yahweh’s adulterous “wife” (cf. Isaiah 54:1-17; Jeremiah 2:2-3). Just as Gomer had children, which bore the taint of their mother’s lifestyle, so individual Israelites were children of that covenant nation living in an atmosphere of spiritual infidelity. Would they profit by Hosea’s living example? Hosea proceeds to record the specific charges concerning the Northern Kingdom’s spiritual infidelity. For when the firstborn son would arrive, Hosea was to name him Jezreel (“God will sow/scatter”). The reason assigned to the name is that the name will serve as a reminder of the besetting sin of the present dynasty. Jehu had been commissioned to bring the evil Omride dynasty to an end together with the rule of Ahab and Jezebel because of their bloody purge of God’s prophets and faithful people (2 Kings 9:7-10). Jehu indeed carried out his commission but exceeded it by putting to death any and all rivals as well as many innocent people. Having killed the prophets of Baal (2 Kings 10:18-30), he proceeded to be just as unfaithful to God as Ahab by adopting the apostate religious practices of Jeroboam I, the founder of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 10:31). As Garrett observes, “God visited the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu because, in the final analysis, his dynasty’s rule was little better than that of Jeroboam I or of Ahab and Jezebel.”7 Jehu was ever the opportunist using every situation to further his own goals or to preserve himself. Thus the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III portrays Jehu’s “submission” to the Assyrian king together with a note as to the tribute that he received from him.8 Jehu’s successors were little better. Even though the present king Jeroboam II had many military victories to his credit, he perpetuated the existing spiritual infidelity (2 Kings 14:24). Therefore, the present dynasty stood condemned and due for God’s judgment; the final judgment of the Northern Kingdom would follow in the not too distant future (Hosea 1:4). Ironically, the death of Zechariah, the last king of Jehu’s dynasty, occurred in “Ible’am” close to where Jehu massacred the royal house of Judah (2 Kings 9:27; 2 Kings 10:12-14). As the Jehu dynasty had begun, so it would end in the Valley of Jezreel. Hosea goes on to record the birth of his daughter (Hosea 1:6) whom he dutifully named Lo-Ruhamah (“no pity/mercy”). The name reflected God’s certain judgment of the Northern Kingdom. Israel stood guilty and accordingly would not experience his forgiveness. Although Yahweh is a God of forgiveness, he is also a God of justice and therefore, judgment (cf. Exodus 34:6; Deuteronomy 4:31). Only contemporary Judah would experience God’s mercy, but that not because of any military prowess. Israel’s present king, Jeroboam II, had achieved great things militarily (2 Kings 14:25-27). Had the people come to glory in military strength? Political and military strength alone would not spare Israel from God’s judgment. Nor would Judah thus be spared. Judah’s salvation depended solely upon its covenant faithfulness to “the LORD their God” (Hosea 1:7). The third child was a second son. He was to be named Lo Ammi (“not my people”; Hosea 1:8-9). This last of the three children underscored Israel’s tragic situation. God would no longer call this generation his people. Rather, because they had violated the basis of their covenant relation with the Lord, they would suffer his alienation. This pointed to their many disastrous defeats, and the eventual capture and deportation of Israel (2 Kings 17:1-23). Just as in the case of Isaiah’s children (Isaiah 7:14-25, Isaiah 8:1-10), so Hosea’s children depicted the spiritual realities that would have an important bearing upon the people of Israel. As Sweeney suggests, the name of the third child is a virtual reversal of God’s statement at the founding of the nation (cf. Exodus 6:6-7; Leviticus 26:12) and signals “the disruption of the relationship between YHWH and Israel.”9 Additional Notes Hosea 1:2 The opening clause “When the LORD first spoke through Hosea” (NET) describes Hosea’s initial call to serve the Lord. From the very first his ministry and commission would involve great personal sacrifice. For his service would entail a life-changing experience that included the opposite of what any man could expect for a wife. He understood, however, that his life and his prophetic ministry would fulfill an even higher expectation—that of representing visibly in his personal experience the very experience that God had with his people Israel. As Israel once began her relationship in purity with her Lord (her spiritual husband) yet became unfaithful, so Hosea would have the duty and privilege of portraying graphically the theological alienation between God and his people through his life with Gomer. Hosea 1:2 The NET rightly understands the Hebrew “take yourself a woman” as indicative of marriage (e.g., Genesis 4:19). Contrary to McComiskey’s view that the phrase “illegitimate children” means “born out of wedlock,”10 so that in marrying Gomer Hosea would also assimilate her previously born illegitimate children, it need mean nothing more than that the children born to Hosea and Gomer would bear the taint of a now immoral mother. Hosea 1:3 The name Gomer is normally given to men (cf. Genesis 10:2-3; 1 Chronicles 1:5-6). Likewise, the name Diblaim is unusual since it is a dual rather than singular noun (but note also Ephraim). The nature of her name and patrilineage may point to the unusual nature of Hosea’s entire relationship with his wife. Hosea 1:4 The fertile Jezreel Valley served as an important agricultural center (e.g., 1 Kings 21:1-3) and was a key trade route connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Jordan River and inland commercial centers stretching from Egypt to Damascus. Therefore, it became the scene of many key military battles for fledgling Israel (e.g., Judges 4:5-6, Judges 4:7; 1 Samuel 29:1) as well as serving as the military highway for later Assyrian campaigning. Still later it would become the location of the battle between King Josiah of Judah and the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23:29-30). The city of Megiddo, which overlooks the west end of the Valley of Jezreel, is linked with the warfare in eschatological times (Revelation 16:14-16).11 Hosea 1:6 The verbal phrase kî na„sÃo„á àesÃa„ la„hem has occasioned a variety of suggestions as to its force. Garrett decides for a positive reading meaning “I will completely forgive them.”12 Thus God’s coming judgment upon Israel as well as his eventual forgiveness is placed side by side in balanced relationship. Others hold that the negative particle found in the preceding clause concerning Israel’s judgment is to be understood as likewise controlling this succeeding clause. Therefore, both Israel and Judah should expect neither God’s mercy nor his forgiveness.13 Most commentators support a balanced position, which sees Israel’s condemnation and Judah’s deliverance as reflected in the NET. Hosea 1:9 Some have considered the name of the third child “not my people” as signifying that this son is surely not Hosea’s. This is not at all certain on the basis of the text and need not be the case. Rather, the name signifies the rift between Yahweh and Israel that will ensue as a result of Israel’s infidelity as specified in the Mosaic Covenant (Leviticus 26:12-45; Deuteronomy 27:8-10). B. Restoration—on the basis of the covenant (Hosea 1:10-11, Hosea 2:1) Translation Hosea 1:10 [Hosea 2:1] However, in the future the number of the people of Israel will be like the sand of the sea which can be neither measured nor numbered. Although it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it will be said to them, “You are children of the living God!” 11 Then the people of Judah and the people of Israel will be gathered together. They will appoint for themselves one leader, and will flourish in the land. Certainly, the day of Jezreel will be great! Hosea 2:1 Then you will call your brother, “My People” (Ammi)! You will call your sister, “Pity” (Ruhamah)! Exegesis and Exposition The Lord next informs Hosea and his hearers of matters beyond the time of Israel’s coming punishment. With its judgment completed a repentant and restored Israel will flourish once again. The alienated “not my people” will become “children of the living God.” At that time of God’s blessing their numbers would increase to become as innumerable as “the sand on the sea.” The simile would not be lost to the perceptive Israelite. For he would understand that such a promise is in accordance with the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Genesis 22:17). Moreover, like Jacob of old returning to the land (Genesis 32:1-13), so in the future there will be a massive return to the land resulting in “descendants like the sand of the seashore, too numerous to count” (Genesis 32:13). In that day the divided kingdom shall exist no longer. For there will be one people under one leader (lit., “one head”). The reference is doubtless to the terms of the Davidic Covenant (cf. Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24; Hosea 3:5). Symbolic of that blessed future era he who was termed “not my people” will be changed into “my people” and she who was “no mercy” will be known as “mercy.” As well there is focus on the restoration of life—indeed, a more abundant life—in the land. For it will be the “day of Jezreel.” Here the prophecy builds upon the name of Hosea’s firstborn son. No longer is the emphasis on Israel’s scattering, however, but on the Lord’s sowing of new life in a restored land of Israel. In all of this Hosea provides a hint of the dominant covenant theme of the Old Testament. Much like the inviolable Royal Grant treaties of the ancient Near East, the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-7; Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:1-18; Genesis 17:1-8) was irrevocable. Yet it would be channeled through the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:11-16; 1 Chronicles 17:10-14; 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalms 89:28-39) and ultimately both would find their climax and completion in one grand New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-17; Jeremiah 33:25-26; Ezekiel 34:11-14, Ezekiel 34:22-30; Ezekiel 37:22-27). Crucial to this covenant theme is its emphasis on the concept of a messianic king/leader in whom all things will find their culmination (Isaiah 7:13-17; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-9; Psalms 2:7-12; Psalms 110:1-2; Ezekiel 34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24). The messianic force of this passage was not lost on the Apostle Paul. For in Romans 9:22-29 he draws upon Hosea’s prophecy together with others to emphasize that in addition to the Jewish people, gentile believers would likewise enjoy the blessings of the one Messiah Lord, even Christ Jesus. The inclusion of non-Jews is also envisioned as early as the Abrahamic Covenant of the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:4; Genesis 28:14) and becomes a prominent theme in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 3:25; Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:26-29; Ephesians 2:14-15). Indeed, in a far richer way all believers now stand in vital union with Christ (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 1:18-22, Colossians 1:27).14 No less than the Israel of Hosea’s day, New Testament believers look forward with great hope and anticipation of that future time when David’s heir, Jesus Christ, will reign in the midst of a regenerated and purified people composed of all tongues, tribes, and nations living on a refreshed, God-enriched, and blessed earth (cf. Daniel 7:13-14; Revelation 11:15; Revelation 21:1-27, Revelation 22:1-21). Additional Notes Hosea 1:10 [Hosea 2:1] The transition from a narrative prose style relative to Hosea’s marriage and family life to a poetic prediction concerning Israel’s future is marked by the twice occurring familiar prophetic marker we†ha„ya„h, “it shall come to pass”—rendered ad sensum in the NET (see notes). For the image of the sand of the sea as conveying vast uncountable numbers, see Joshua 11:4; 1 Samuel 13:5; Isaiah 10:22; cf. Romans 9:27. Hosea 2:1 [Hosea 2:3] The reading of the Hebrew text is in the plural: “your brother” and “your sister.” This appears to conflict with the singular nouns “my people” and “mercy” that follow. Accordingly, “brothers” and “sisters” are often rendered as singular nouns (e.g., LXX). The more difficult reading of the MT is to be preferred. In any case the MT nouns may be viewed collectively—each of the brothers and sisters being called by the appropriate title. In either case the result is the same, the translation ad sensum being properly reflected in the NET. 1 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:9. 2 R. D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1 & 2 Kings,” EBC , ed., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4:111. 3 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (Hard Sayings of the Old Testament [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988], 217-219) perhaps misrepresents the situation in suggesting that not only was Hosea to marry Gomer who “was not a harlot at that time” but that Hosea was “unaware of what God discerned in the heart of Gomer, that she had an adulterous predisposition and a bent toward sexual promiscuity.” 4 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 13. Among those who have decided for an initially chaste Gomer who became an adulteress, see B. Hefling, “Hosea 1-3: Love Triumphant,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36 (1993): 9-19 and R. Vasholz, “Gomer—Chaste or Not?: A Philological Note,” Presbyterion 19 (1993): 48-49, who questions the legitimacy of Gomer’s children after the birth of Jezreel. 5 McComiskey (“Hosea,” 15-16) takes the unlikely view that two groups of children are in view—one that Gomer had before her marriage and were subsequently adopted by Hosea, and a second born to Hosea and Gomer after their marriage. 6 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 27. 7 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 57. H. Hailey (A Commentary on the Minor Prophets [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971], 137) observes, “One may do the command of the Lord and yet be in rebellion against Him, doing the thing commanded because it is what the individual desires and not because it is what God desires.” Likewise A. R. Fausset (A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948], 4:461) “If we do the will of God merely for the sake of our own ends, and not from the pure principle of obedience, we are not pleasing God, but pleasing ourselves; and however prosperous we be for a time, in the end must pay an awful penalty for disobedience.” 8 See Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Readings from the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 144. 9 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:21-22. 10 “Hosea,” 15 11 For a discussion of the importance of The Valley of Jezreel, see P. Wegner, “Jezreel Valley,” NIDOTTE, 4:777-779. 12 Hosea, Joel, 60-62. 13 See Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 188-94; David Allan Hubbard, Hosea TOTC (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1989), 64-65; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 20-21. 14 See the classic studies on union with Christ by A.T. Pierson, In Christ Jesus (Chatanooga: AMG Publishers [n.d.] and A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1954), 793-809. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 01.01B. UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 1b. Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 2:2-23) C. Rebuke—due to Israel’s infidelity (Hosea 2:2-13) The account of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer and the resultant condition of the children born to them is resumed in chapter three. The symbolism inherent in Hosea’s family relations prepares the reader for the present account dealing with the Lord’s relation to Israel. Translation Hosea 2:2-13 Plead earnestly with your mother (for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband), so that she might put an end to her adulterous lifestyle, and turn away from her sexually immoral behavior. 3 Otherwise, I will strip her naked, and expose her like she was when she was born. I will turn her land into a wilderness and make her country a parched land, so that I might kill her with thirst. 4 I will have no pity on her children, because they are children conceived in adultery. 5 For their mother has committed adultery; she who conceived them has acted shamefully. For she said, “I will seek out my lovers; they are the ones who give me my bread and my water, my wool, my flax, my olive oil, and my wine. 6 Therefore, I will soon fence her in with thorns; I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way. 7 Then she will pursue her lovers, but she will not catch them; she will seek them, but she will not find them. Then she will say, “I will go back to my husband, because I was better off then than I am now.” 8 Yet until now she has refused to acknowledge that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine, and the olive oil; and that it was I who lavished on her the silver and gold – which they used in worshiping Baal! 9 Therefore, I will take back my grain during the harvest time and my new wine when it ripens; I will take away my wool and my flax which I had provided in order to clothe her. 10 Soon I will expose her lewd nakedness in front of her lovers, and no one will be able to rescue her from me! 11 I will put an end to all her celebration: her annual religious festivals, monthly new moon celebrations, and weekly Sabbath festivities – all her appointed festivals. 12 I will destroy her vines and fig trees, about which she said, “These are my wages for prostitution that my lovers gave to me!” I will turn her cultivated vines and fig trees into an uncultivated thicket, so that wild animals will devour them. 13 “I will punish her for the festival days when she burned incense to the Baal idols; she adorned herself with earrings and jewelry, and went after her lovers, but she forgot me!” says the Lord. Exegesis and Exposition As Israel’s rejection was symbolized in Hosea’s marriage (Hosea 1:2-9) yet followed by a prophecy of God’s future restoration of his people (Hosea 1:10-11, Hosea 2:1), so in chapter two God’s rebuke yet future renewal of chastised Israel (Hosea 2:2-13; Hosea 2:14-23) is portrayed with many additional details. Hosea displays his literary skill throughout the second chapter by his use of rich imagery and literary figures. The account of God’s spiritual relation with Israel is built upon several distinctive metaphors, which are symbolized in Hosea’s situation with Gomer. Just as Hosea was married to Gomer, who became the mother of their three children, so Yahweh is presented metaphorically as a husband to Israel, who is the mother of the present day Israelites (i.e., the children—corporate Israel as typified especially in its leadership).1 These metaphors are extended and may portray an allegory, in which God’s on-going relation with his people is pictured.2 Although husband Yahweh has provided for his wife Israel through the ages the benefits of their covenant relations (Hosea 2:8-9; cf. Numbers 18:11-12; Deuteronomy 8:18; Deuteronomy 27:3-14; Deuteronomy 28:51), that provision was taken for granted, progressively more ignored, and capped by Israel’s spiritual adultery in serving Baal. Therefore, as Hosea was to separate himself from Gomer for awhile, so in accordance with the terms of the covenant (e.g., Deuteronomy 8:19-20; Deuteronomy 28:18, Deuteronomy 28:30-42, Deuteronomy 28:64-68), God will separate himself from Israel by sending his people into exile. In the future, however (Hosea 2:14-23), just as Hosea is to seek and return Gomer to full familial status (cf. Hosea 3:1-3; Deuteronomy 30:1-10), so Yahweh will one day restore a chastised and repentant people to full covenant privileges (cf. Hosea 1:10-11, Hosea 2:1; Hosea 2:16-23; Hosea 3:4-5). Indeed, Hosea builds upon the emphasis of the previous verse (Hosea 2:1) concerning the changed symbolic names attached to the future Israelites by advising the present day Israelites (the children) to “plead earnestly” with their mother (corporate Israel, especially its leadership). It is a strong call for a rebuke that hopefully will result in such conviction that Israel will change its ways. The Hebrew verb (rîbu‚) in the twice-pronounced command most commonly is used in the sense of “strive/contend.” As elsewhere in the prophetic writings, whether the root is used in its verbal or nominal forms, Hosea employs it in delivering the Lord’s complaint against his covenant people (cf. Jeremiah 2:9; Micah 6:1). God’s basic charge against Israel, which is duly noted in Hosea 2:5, reflects the opening statement against Israel’s “adulterous lifestyle” (Hosea 2:2). In what follows Hosea reiterates the Lord’s warnings by revealing what Israel may expect to experience in the face of God’s coming judgment of his people. Did Israel put its trust in Baal’s supposed provision of the basic necessities of life: food, water, and clothing as well as the fertility of the soil and economic prosperity (Hosea 2:3-5, Hosea 2:13)? She would soon learn that it was Yahweh, not Baal, who has provided these things (Hosea 2:8). What he had given he will take away (Hosea 2:3-4, Hosea 2:9-10, Hosea 2:12). God’s charges against Israel are not without foundation. By Hosea’s day Israel had already formed a strong attachment to the Canaanite god Baal. Indeed, as early as their wilderness journey some Israelites had become infatuated with Baal and even indulged in the heinous rituals associated with his worship (Numbers 25:3-5). As Cole points out, “Baal … would become the primary antagonist to Yahweh for the hearts of the people of Israel from this setting to the end of the two Israelite kingdoms.”3 Once in the land some of the people even built an altar to Baal (Judges 6:25-34) and by the era of the divided kingdom Baalism became the chief besetting sin of the people (e.g., 1 Kings 16:31-33; 1 Kings 18:16-40, etc.). Therefore, his worship is often condemned in the latter prophets (e.g., Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 7:9; Jeremiah 11:11-17; Jeremiah 32:26-35; Zephaniah 1:4). To be sure, contemporary Israel still followed the religious traditions of its forefathers; yet these had become largely meaningless rituals (Hosea 2:11). Such syncretistic practices would avail nothing and could not prevent Israel’s soon coming judgment (Hosea 2:13). God had a purpose in this. By taking away the blessings that he had bestowed upon Israel, it could be hoped that Israel would come to her senses and say, “I will go back to my husband, because I was better off then than I am now” (Hosea 2:6-7). Here Hosea employs an interesting play on words. For in worshiping Baal Israel regarded the Canaanite god as its providing husband rather than Yahweh. Because the noun baàal can mean husband as well as such other meaning as master and lord, by worshiping Baal they were acknowledging him as both lord and as husband. Such even is highlighted further in that God’s relation to Israel is described metaphorically under the figure of marriage with God as husband and Israel as his wife (Isaiah 54:1, Isaiah 54:5). Unfortunately, the Lord’s “wife” had proven to be unfaithful (Jeremiah 2:1-37, Jeremiah 3:1-10). Hosea avoids any confusion between God as husband and Baal by pointing out that chastised wife Israel will return to her husband (MT, áîsŒ; lit., “man”) some day. So distasteful had Israel’s capitulation to Baal been, that her return to her husband is designated by a term other than baàal (cf. Hosea 2:16-17). Only when Israel has realized just who is her natural spiritual husband, will it regain the blessings of its marriage relationship (cf. Isaiah 2:4-5; Hosea 3:5). Hosea’s warnings to Israel serve as precedent for the church. Just as Israel was spiritually speaking the wife of Yahweh, so the church is the bride (Revelation 9:7) of her heavenly bridegroom Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:22-27). As Israel and Old Testament believers were called and charged to be faithful to the Lord and his standards, so the church and New Testament believers are to be careful to avoid anything that may compromise either their faith or faithfulness to Christ (cf. 1 John 5:21). Additional Notes Hosea 2:2 The root rîb appears in contexts dealing with strife or quarrels. At times it is used of formal situations of adjudications before either civil or religious authorities (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:17; 2 Samuel 15:1-6). Therefore, some have suggested the existence in prophetic texts of a rîb pattern involving the thought of a lawsuit in which Yahweh brings formal charges against his people. Thus The New Jerusalem Bible translates the lines in question: “To court, take your mother to court!” Stuart proposes that in this passage Yahweh is not only the plaintiff but the prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury as well as “the police officer who will carry out the court’s judgment.”4 Israel is the defendant who must answer the charge of adultery with her lover, Baal. Such a position seems strained at best, however. Thus Garrett points out, “Not every accusation is a courtroom accusation, even metaphorically; people often accuse one another of misdeeds outside courts of law.”5 Rather than a lawsuit, God’s word against Israel is brought as a means of correction and a warning as to coming judgment should his people not change their ways. Thus the NET rightfully treats the verb in question in a manner reflecting God’s great concern for his people.6 Hosea 2:2 The NLT’s “adulterous lifestyle” and “sexually immoral behavior” are ad sensum translations of the Hebrew “adulteries from her face” and “adultery from between her breasts.” Sweeney7 suggests that the terms may refer to jewelry or ornaments worn by a bride (cf. Hosea 2:13 with Genesis 24:22, Genesis 24:30, Genesis 24:34) and may be deliberately sarcastic “to signify both the wife’s marriage state and the adultery with which the husband chargers her.” Hosea 2:2-3 The statement that Israel is “no longer my wife” has occasioned a great deal of discussion. In an earlier study C. H. Gordon proposed on the basis of supposed parallels from Nuzi that the statement reflects common ancient Near Eastern divorce language.8 To the contrary, after a thorough study of divorce formulae in ancient Mesopotamia and Israel as well as the Talmud, Maria Dass9 decides that Hosea and Gomer are to experience separation, not divorce. Still others propose a mediate position suggesting that although a divorce has been contemplated such has not been decided.10 Hosea 2:3-5 Although in ancient Mesopotamia the denuding of a wife appears to have played a role in the divorce proceedings, the stripping of Israel naked may be explained metaphorically as referring to the devastating of Israel’s land in order to destroy its food supply. Whether such was to occur through draught, plague, or by foreign invaders is not specified. Such a sentence would make good sense because Israel is guilty of wrongly attributing the produce that she enjoyed to the false deities, which she worshiped. Hosea 2:6-7 Israel’s being fenced in or walled would prohibit its further resorting to false idolatrous practices. Stuart finds in this metaphor an allusion to the confining of “a dumb animal who tends to wander off from its owner (cf. Hosea 4:16; Hosea 8:9)” and suggests that the threatened restraining will be realized in progressive foreign encroachment, which eventually will lead to Israel’s subjugation.11 Hosea 2:8-9 Grain, new wine, and olive oil were not only key products in ancient Israel but understood to come from God as blessings for covenant faithfulness (cf. Deuteronomy 7:12-13; Deuteronomy 11:13-14). Unfaithfulness, however, could occasion God’s withholding of such products as a means of punishment (e.g., Joel 1:10-18; Haggai 1:7-11) or they could be taken away by foreign invaders (cf. Deuteronomy 28:47-51). Hosea 2:10 By Israel’s “lewd nakedness” is meant its fascination and flirtation with pagan deities. As Andersen and Freedman observe, “There is a poignancy in this. Israelite society had strict taboos against public nakedness.”12 Indeed, nakedness was viewed as shameful (e.g., 2 Samuel 10:4; Micah 1:11). Israel was warned that such could be imposed upon them for covenant infidelity (Deuteronomy 28:48). Israel’s nakedness would consist in the devastation of its land as penalty for covenant violation (cf. Leviticus 26:33). God had provided wool and flax to “clothe her” but now with the land denuded Israel’s “nakedness” would be evident to all. The gods whom she supposed clothed her and provided her needs (Hosea 2:5, Hosea 2:12) will be shown to be powerless before Yahweh. Nakedness therefore serves as a metaphor for God’s coming judgment, as is often the case in the prophetic literature (e.g., Jeremiah 13:26-27; Ezekiel 16:39; cf. Nahum 3:5). Hosea 2:11 Because Israel’s worship practices had become syncretistic, they were mere ritual observances at best and a mockery of God’s exclusive standards.13 Agricultural commodities played an important part in Israel’s festivals and religious observances (e.g., Exodus 29:38-42; Leviticus 6:14-18; Numbers 28:3-8). With these products cut off, such services and celebrations would soon suffer and become impossible to observe. Indeed, Joel describes just such a situation (Joel 1:5-10). Hosea makes a clever play on words here. God would “put an end to” Israel’s worship observances, including the “weekly Sabbath festivities and all her appointed festivals.” The Hebrew root shābat underlies both the verbal phrase “put an end to” and the Sabbath (God’s appointed day of rest). Because the Sabbath was the basis of Israel’s entire worship calendar, by putting the Sabbath “to rest” the entire worship structure would collapse. Hosea 2:12 “The vine and the fig tree … were often used to symbolize the blessings of the relationship between God and Israel (see Psalms 80:8-15 [Psalms 80:9-16 MT]; Isaiah 5:2-6; Jeremiah 2:21; Micah 4:3-4; Zechariah 3:10; cf. Matthew 21:18-21, Matthew 21:28-46).”14 Isaiah (Isaiah 5:1-2) portrays Israel as God’s vineyard and Jeremiah calls Israel a “choice vine” (Jeremiah 2:21). Wine, the fruit of the vine, figured prominently in Israel’s drink offering, which symbolized the fruitfulness of a life willingly poured out for God (Leviticus 23:12-13; Numbers 6:17). Unfortunately, the vine and its fruit could also become corrupt (e.g., Isaiah 5:2-7), especially by becoming entangled in idolatry (Hosea 10:1). Therefore, God would be forced to destroy his vineyard (cf. Jeremiah 6:9; Micah 1:6; Zephaniah 1:13) as is the case that Hosea presents here. Together with the vine the fig tree often depicted God’s blessings upon an obedient people (e.g., 1 Kings 4:25). Thus the fruitful fig tree is what may be expected in that future era of God’s established reign on earth (Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10). Like the fruit of the vine, the fig tree could show promise of a tasteful experience. Israel had been like this; but alas, it had become distasteful before God because of its shameful idolatry (Hosea 9:10; Hosea 10:1-2). When God judges his fig tree and vine, they will produce fruit fit only for animals. A double meaning is possible here. Not only would Israel’s land become an “uncultivated thicket,” fit only for wild animals, but the land’s produce will be seized by foreign invaders. Hosea 2:13 God’s judgment upon Israel is because of his people’s spiritual flirtation with Baalism. The “Baal idols” (NET; lit., “Baals”) doubtless refer to the many places of cultic worship of the god Baal, especially at festival times. Israel is again portrayed as an immoral woman who adorns herself with jewelry aimed at attracting lovers. Faithless wife Israel has forgotten her husband Yahweh by chasing after pagan deities. B’. Restoration—based on the covenant (Hosea 2:14-23) The validation of Israel’s covenant status with the Lord continues. Following the enforcement of the penalties for covenant violation (Hosea 2:2-13), the Lord reveals Israel’s future rewards based upon Israel’s renewed commitment to him. Translation Hosea 2:14-23 However, in the future I will allure her; I will lead her back into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. 15 From there I will give back her vineyards to her, and turn the “Valley of Trouble” into an “Opportunity for Hope.” There she will sing as she did when she was young, when she came up from the land of Egypt. 16 “At that time,” declares the Lord, “you will call, ‘My husband’; you will never again call me, ‘My master.’ 17 For I will remove the names of the Baal idols from your lips, so that you will never again utter their names!” 18 “At that time I will make a covenant for them with the wild animals, the birds of the air, and the creatures that crawl on the ground. I will abolish the warrior’s bow and sword – that is, every weapon of warfare – from the land, and I will allow them to live securely.” 19 I will commit myself to you forever; I will commit myself to you in righteousness and justice, in steadfast love and tender compassion. 20 I will commit myself to you in faithfulness; then you will acknowledge the Lord.” 21 “At that time, I will willingly respond,” declares the Lord. “I will respond to the sky, and the sky will respond to the ground; 22 then the ground will respond to the grain, the new wine, and the olive oil; and they will respond to ‘God Plants’ (Jezreel)! 23 Then I will plant her as my own in the land. I will have pity on ‘No Pity’ (Lo-Ruhamah). I will say to ‘Not My People’ (Lo-Ammi), ‘You are my people!’ And he will say, ‘You are my God!’” Exegesis and Exposition Israel’s necessary chastisement will one day prove to accomplish its intended goal (cf. Hosea 2:7). God himself will then take the initiative to see to its restoration to covenant privileges. As in those early days after Israel’s exodus from Egypt when God led his people into the wilderness, so he would do once again. That earlier wilderness experience was designed for his people’s training and spiritual growth. They were to learn not only to trust the Lord completely for their provisions and every need, but to love him for who he was (Exodus 14:31; Exodus 15:13; Deuteronomy 2:7; Jeremiah 2:2). Unfortunately, Israel proved to be a disappointment. Far from being a grateful people, Israel turned into a band of perpetual whiners and complainers (Exodus 15:24; Exodus 16:1-3; Exodus 17:1-2). Even worse, Israel quickly became enamored with pagan Baalism (e.g., Numbers 25:1-3), a fascination that continued into Hosea’s time. Yet through it all God remained faithful despite Israel’s infidelity. Therefore, a patient Lord would one day lead Israel once again into a new wilderness experience. Thus the wilderness, which was used metaphorically of Israel’s punishment (Numbers 14:32-33; Deuteronomy 9:28), would be transformed to become a metaphor of renewed trust in God and fellowship with him (Jeremiah 31:2-3).15 In a future day God will return his people to the land. In places of Israel’s past failure, such as in the days of Achan’s sin (Joshua 7:1-26), there will be renewed “opportunity for hope.”16 Those very places that were denuded of vital agricultural produce due to Israel’s punishment will flourish once again. Once more the vineyards will grow bountifully. Those products that were to be taken away due to Israel’s sin will be restored as all nature responds to God’s blessings for Israel (Hosea 2:15, Hosea 2:21-22). As in the days of the exodus, Israel will sing praises of joy to the Lord (cf. Exodus 15:1-18; Psalms 96:7-13; Jeremiah 31:7-14). All hints of Baal will disappear and God’s relation with Israel will be represented by a new term for husband (cf. Hosea 2:6). God will no longer be known as “my master” (or husband in a legal sense, i.e., baàali) but “my husband” (in a dear familial relationship, i.e., áîsŒî).17 The “newness,” which Hosea describes (Hosea 2:18-20) is reflective of the prophetic teachings concerning the New Covenant. As a culmination of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:2-7; Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:17-19; Genesis 17:1-8), later channeled through the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16; 1 Chronicles 17:7-14), God promised to institute a future New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-37; Jeremiah 32:36-41; Jeremiah 33:14-26; Ezekiel 34:20-31; Ezekiel 36:24-32; Ezekiel 37:20-27). In that grand era God’s people will live in intimate communion with the Lord and enjoy his blessings forever. It will be a time of great joy and worldwide peace (cf. Isaiah 11:6-9), for the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) will be in their midst (Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24). Hosea points out that all nature will be changed and Israel will live in peace and security while enjoying God’s just and righteous rule among his people. Then to a degree never experienced before God’s people will come to enjoy the fullness of Yahweh’s “steadfast love,” “tender compassion,” and “faithfulness” (Hosea 2:19-20). There will be no more Baals, for they will “acknowledge the Lord” their true husband. Hosea closes this section of this prophecy as he did in the corresponding earlier portion (Hosea 2:21-23; cf. Hosea 1:10-11, Hosea 2:1) by noting the complete reversal of affairs relative to Israel’s relation to God during the time of Israel’s punishment. In that future time of God’s blessing the scattered people (Jezreel) will be replanted (sown) in the land. When as a sinful Israel would receive “no pity” (or mercy; cf. Hosea 1:8) and be set aside and treated as “not my people” (cf. Hosea 1:9), they would now once again receive God’s mercy and be called “my people” (cf. Hosea 2:1). Rather than Baal or any other so-called deity, only Yahweh would henceforth be Israel’s God. Additional Notes Hosea 2:15 As noted in the NET footnotes, the rendering, “Opportunity for Hope” is based upon the Hebrew, “entrance/door of hope.” Although the noun petah£ commonly is used of a literal entrance or door, it is at times employed metaphorically for an entrance for opportunity for a new situation or change of circumstance (e.g., Genesis 4:7; Acts 14:27; 1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12).18 The circumstances that God will initiate in the future will transform former scenes of trouble and defeat into places of renewed vitality and spiritual growth. The pristine relations between Yahweh and Israel in the days when his people first entered the Land of Promise will be relived again. 2:17 Because of the corrupting nature of the worship of Baal, the scribes who copied the Old Testament at times changed titles containing his name. Thus Baal Zebul (Prince Baal) became Baal Zebel (lord of dung) or Baal Zebub (lord of flies). The name Baal Zebub became associated with Satan (e.g., Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27). Scribes would even at times alter personal names to reflect the shame associated with Baal. Thus Saul’s son Eshbaal (1 Chr. 8:33; 9:39) is altered to Ishbosheth (e.g., 2 Sam. 2:8-11), Jonathan’s son Merib-baal (1 Chr. 8:34; 9:40) became Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 4:4) and Jerub-baal (Judg. 6:32) was altered to Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. 11:21). Baalism and other pagan idolatrous practices disappeared in the Inner Testamental Period.19 Hosea 2:18 As noted in the Introduction, the covenant theme figures prominently in Hosea. The context here makes it clear that it is referring to what Ezekiel calls a “covenant of peace” (Ezekiel 34:25-31; Ezekiel 37:26-28) and Jeremiah identifies as a “new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31-34). It is also to be an everlasting covenant (Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Jeremiah 50:5), which is enacted by the Lord himself (Isaiah 59:2) and centered in the long awaited Messiah (Jeremiah 33:15-16). This One will reign over a completely transformed earth (Isaiah 11:1-9). Hosea can rightly prophesy that in that great era of peace even nature and the creatures of earth will be included in its terms. Hosea 2:19-20 Hosea’s group of five divine characteristics is attested elsewhere (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:4; Jonah 4:2). Righteousness and justice appear often together (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 89:14 [Psalms 89:15]; Psalms 97:2), the former emphasizing God’s consistency in acting in accordance with his holiness while the latter underscores his honesty, integrity, and fairness toward all. Yahweh is also a God of love and compassion. The former emphasizes his loving grace in making provision for Israel as his very own possession and treating them as family (KJV, lovingkindness). The latter speaks of God’s tender mercies in dealing with mankind in general and Israel in particular (Deuteronomy 4:31; Psalms 78:38). Moreover, God is faithful in acting in accordance with his holy, divine nature and attributes as well as faithful to his revealed word.20 In that era when Israel will experience fully all of these great divine characteristics she will remember Yahweh whom she had forgotten (Hosea 2:13) and live in full acknowledgement and surrender to him.21 Hosea 2:22 That which Israel falsely attributed to Baal and was therefore cut off by Yahweh (Hosea 2:8-9) will be graciously restored to a repentant and forgiven Israel under the terms of the New Covenant. The prophet Joel likewise reports how these products were cut off because of Judah’s religious syncretism. With natural repentance, however, they could experience the restoration of these products (Joel 2:15-19) as well as rain in its proper season (Hosea 2:22-24). 1 For issues concerning the marriage as symbolic of the Lord’s covenant with Israel, see Irene Kerasote Rallis, “Nuptial Imagery in the Book of Hosea: Israel as the Bride of Yahweh,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 34 (1990): 197-219; Paul A. Kruger, “The marriage metaphor in Hosea 2:4-17 against its ancient Near Eastern background,” JNSL 14 (1988): 143-53. Ehud Ben Zbi (“Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel in its Ancient Israelite Context: General Considerations and Particular Images in Hosea 1:2,” JSOT 28 [2004]: 370) remarks, “The husband-wife metaphor belonged to a set of metaphors that were associated with fundamentally hierarchical relationships and served as metaphors for that of deity and people.” 2 For Hosea 2:1-23 as an allegory based upon the family metaphor to represent God’s relation to Israel, see John B. Gabel, Charles B. Wheeler, and Anthony D. York, The Bible as Literature, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 31. Normally allegories are formed in such a way that, “The basic metaphor or symbol is analyzed into component parts, and these parts are brought together in a series of one-to-one relationships,” (28). Nevertheless, as Leland Ryken (How to Read the Bible as Literature [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 201) points out such is not always exactly the case: “Great literary allegory is bifocal, engaging a reader’s interest at two levels (literal and allegorical) simultaneously. Literary allegory does not give us a simple one-for-one correspondence because surface details … are too connotative and multifaceted to be reduced to a single conceptual parallel.” He adds (200), “It is a very rare exception, not the rule, to find allegories in which every detail has a corresponding meaning.” Accordingly, one need not account for all of the surface background details of Hosea 2:1-23 in order to form an interpretative basis for Hosea’s allegories. Moreover, it is possible to see an underlying story line (as is so often is the case with allegories) in Hosea 2:1-23. Whether one views this chapter simply as an extended metaphor or an allegory the underlying metaphor of God’s relation to Israel as represented in Hosea’s marriage and family situation is certainly the intended symbolism. 3 R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 437. 4 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 45. 5 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 75. Charles H. Silva (“Literary Features in the Book of Hosea,” Bib Sac 164 [2007]: 40-44) decides that the pattern here reflects a covenant lawsuit not only in 2:2-13 but in 4:1, 4 and 12:2. Silva builds his discussion upon a supposed relation in form to an underlying suzerain-vassal treaty. This again appears to be a bit strained. As Andersen and Freedman (AB, 219) point out, “A legal note is certainly present but the juridical framework is neither rigid nor realistic.” 6 See also the KJV and NRSV. La Sainte Bible translate the verb as “plead” (cf. AB; La Sacra Bibbia, “contend with”; NLT, “call to account”; NIV, HCSB, “rebuke”). 7 The Twelve Prophets, 1:29 8 C. H. Gordon, “Hosea 2:4-5 in the Light of New Semitic Inscriptions ,” ZAW 54 (1936): 277-80. 9 “The Divorce (?) Formula in Hosea 2:4 a,” ITS 34 [1997]: 56-88. 10 See McComiskey, “Hosea,” 132; David Allan Hubbard, Hosea, TOTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 72. 11 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 49. 12 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 248-49. 13 Laetsch (The Minor Prophets, 30) remarks concerning the significance of ‘her festivals,” “God says ‘her feasts,’ not ‘My feasts.’ Israel retained the formal celebration of these festivals, but had stamped them with a character altogether foreign to their intention.” 14 Richard D. Patterson, “Joel,” EBC, ed., Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 7:241. 15 For an excellent discussion of the wilderness as a motif, see Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 88-91. For a thorough study of the desert motif, see S. Talson, “The ‘Desert Motif’ in the Bible and in the Qumran Literature,” in Biblical Motifs. ed., A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard, 1966), 31-64. 16 Literally, “I will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope”; see NET notes. 17 So painful did the name Baal become that Jewish scribes often substituted the element “shame” in names compounded with nouns associated with that deity: Saul’s son Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33; 1 Chronicles 9:39) became rendered Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 2:8-11); Jonathan’s son Merib-baal (1 Chronicles 8:34; 1 Chronicles 9:40) became Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 4:4), and Jerub-baal (Judges 6:32; Judges 8:35) was later rendered Jerubbesheth (2 Samuel 11:21). For Baal Zebul, see the discussion in Patterson and Austel, “1 & 2 Kings,” 4:172. 18 In 1878 settlers from Jerusalem wished to establish themselves in the original biblical location in the vicinity of Jericho in the Jordan plain. Unable to do so, they went westward toward the Mediterranean coast, where they established the oldest Jewish agricultural settlement in what would become the state of Israel. The modern Israel town of Petah Tikva (“gate of hope” is situated a short distance east of Tel Aviv. 19 A. Terian, (“Idolatry,” ISBE, Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 2:799) remarks, “Never again would Jews to take idolatry seriously. Rather, idol worship became for them a matter of semi-humorous satire and ridicule.” 20 For a discussion of this Hebrew word, see Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (Biblical Studies Press, 2001), 200-203. 21 See further J. T. Willis, “‘I Am Your God’ and ‘You Are My People’ in Hosea and Jeremiah,” Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 291-303. Something of the fullness of Israel’s experience may be reflected in the grand Christian hymn by Wade Robinson, “In a love, which cannot cease, I am His and He is mine.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 01.01C. UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 1c. Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 3:1-5) A’. Reconciliation—symbolized by Hosea’s marriage (Hosea 3:1-5) As the Lord had previously instructed Hosea to marry Gomer, a woman of promiscuous tendencies, so he now tells Hosea to show his love to her and bring her back into family relationship. The command assumes that the previous description of God’s dealing with Israel has been reproduced in Hosea’s relations with Gomer. Translation Hosea 3:1-5 The Lord said to me, “Go, show love to your wife again, even though she loves another man and continually commits adultery. Likewise, the Lord loves the Israelites although they turn to other gods and love to offer raisin cakes to idols.” 2 So I paid fifteen shekels of silver and about seven bushels of barley to purchase her. 3 Then I told her, “You must live with me many days; you must not commit adultery or have sexual intercourse with another man, and I also will wait for you.” 4 For the Israelites must live many days without a king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred fertility pillar, without ephod or idols. 5 Afterward, the Israelites will turn and seek the Lord their God and their Davidic king. Then they will submit to the Lord in fear and receive his blessings in the future. Exegesis and Exposition As he had done previously in taking Gomer as his wife, so Hosea again follows God’s command and secures Gomer—this time from another man. Since the last occasion when the reader was informed in a narrative concerning relations between Hosea and Gomer, he now learns that Gomer had gone off with another man in an adulterous relationship. Despite her sin, Hosea is to demonstrate his abiding love for her and take her back as his wife. In so doing Hosea will symbolize the Lord’s unending love and concern for Israel despite its flirtations with Baal and other pagan deities and despite his need to punish his people. Hosea was forced to pay her lover for Gomer’s release. Although he did so both in silver and grain, the total amount was quite inexpensive—so little did Gomer’s lover value her! Since thirty shekels constituted the worth of a slave (Exodus 21:32; Leviticus 27:4) as well as serving as a standard expression of something of very little value, Gomer’s price was even less substantial. By way of contrast, God’s ultimate restoration of Israel was later to come at the cost of the sacrifice of his Son the Messiah, Christ Jesus, even though he was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-15; Matthew 27:3-10). Having brought Gomer back to his house, Hosea instructs her that she must live in total sexual abstinence for a period of time before her full family status is restored. Thus Gomer will be cut off from normal relations with her husband until she fully recommits herself to him (cf. Hosea 2:6-7). Hosea, however, will remain faithful to her (cf. Hosea 2:19-20). After Gomer turns to him in loving commitment, she will again receive all the blessings of full family privileges. By observing the situation between Hosea and Gomer Israel was to understand that even so there is a soon approaching time when Israel will be separated from the Land of Promise for a prescribed period. Only when Israel recommits itself to the Lord in genuine love and surrender to the Lord will they experience full covenant status and its attendant divine blessings.1 Additional Notes Hosea 3:1-2 The NET rendering understands the Hebrew noun “woman” to mean “your wife” (i.e., Gomer; see NET note). Some (e.g., Stuart) suggest that the “woman” intended was not Gomer but a second wife for whom Hosea paid a bridal price (Hosea 3:2). Others hold that Gomer had become a prostitute (e.g., Sweeney). Wolff believes that although the woman is Gomer she had become someone’s slave as a temple prostitute.2 If the analogy between Hosea’s relation to Gomer and God’s relation to Israel is to be properly symbolic, however, then doubtless Gomer is intended. Apparently she has gone off to live with another. Nevertheless, Hosea is to love her “again.” Hosea 3:1 The precise meaning of the phrase, which the NET properly renders, “She loves another man,” is debated due to the meaning of the underlying Hebrew noun re„aà. See the NET note for details. The LXX, however, reads, “She loves wickedness,” probably pointing the underlying Hebrew noun as ro„aà. Hosea 3:1 Whether the Israelites loved to eat raisin cakes, so often enjoyed on special occasions (e.g., 2 Samuel 6:19) or offered them to Baal (as was done in ancient Mesopotamia) as part of a religious ceremony, is debated. The NET translation follows the latter course (cf. NLT). Hosea 3:2 As for the fifteen shekels of silver, The MT reads literally “fifteen of silver.” Since shekel was the standard weight, the word itself could be omitted and the amount readily understood.3 Hosea 3:3-4 The “many days” for Gomer most likely meant a period of abstinence from normal intimacy with Hosea for a prescribed period before family life between husband and wife would be experienced. Once again the action is symbolic of Israel’s coming separation from God before the full provisions promised for a covenant faithful people would be realized. Such began with the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom in 586 B.C. Since then Israel’s entire socio-religious situation (cf. Hosea 3:4) has been drastically changed. Even though Israel now lives again in its land, none of the items so common to its life in Hosea’s day are presently experienced. Israel’s full blessing lies still in the future when the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 6:9) and David’s royal heir (e.g., Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15) will rule in Israel’s midst (Ezekiel 34:11-24; Ezekiel 37:15-28). By analogy with the situation between Hosea and Gomer, “Unity and security can come to Israel only when they seek God and his Christ.”4 Hosea 3:4 By the “sacred fertility pillar” (Hebrew mas£s£e„ba‚) is meant a sacred stone set up in honor of or the worship of a pagan deity, such as the one erected by Ahab for Baal (2 Kings 3:2). Although the word is also used for the erection of memorial stones (Exodus 24:4), such as in the consummation of a covenant agreement (Genesis 31:45; Genesis 35:14), most commonly it is used in connection with pagan religious practices. Therefore, the Israelites were instructed to demolish them (Exodus 23:24; Deuteronomy 7:5). 3:4 Israelite priests wore a sacred garment known as an ephod as they served the Lord (1 Samuel 2:28). The high priest wore a distinctive ephod to which were attached two stones, each engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel (Exodus 28:9-12). A breastplate covering the ephod contained two objects used by the high priest in order to determine the will of God. Here the ephod, however, is associated with pagan idolatrous practices (cf. Judges 17:5) as the mention of the teraphim (or pagan idols) used in pagan divination practices indicates (cf. Genesis 31:19; Ezekiel 21:21). Hosea 3:5 The “Davidic King” doubtless refers not only to the historic David but also to his heir (see the NET notes and cf. Psalms 89:3-4 [Psalms 89:4-5]). If the prophecies concerning the New Covenant are to have their full realization, then the primary reference is to the Messiah, the heir par excellence of the Davidic Covenant and the mediator of the New Covenant (Ezekiel 37:24-28; cf. Hebrews 8:6). Hosea 3:5 The phrase translated “In the future” is literally “in the end of days” (or “in the last days”; see NET note). From an Old Testament perspective the reference is to a distant future; in the New Testament one encounters such terminology as the “last/latter days” (Hebrews 1:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-18), the “last/latter times” (1 Peter 1:5; Jude 1:18), or the “last hour” (1 John 2:18) to refer to a period that began with the New Testament era and stretches into the eschatological complex. 1 Hosea is not only to bring his wayward wife home but genuinely to love her. See the excellent discussion of love by P. Ells, “bha,” NIDOTTE, 1:277-299. 2 Wolff, Hosea, 61. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament [Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2000], 753) draw an analogy to Gomer’s status with Middle Assyrian law: “based on Middle Assyrian Law … he [Hosea] may be redeeming her from a legal situation from which she could not extricate herself (such as paying a debt she owed).” 3 See further, E. Reiner, “The Ox That Gored,” JAOS 88 (1968): 186-190. See also P. Boudreuil, F. Israel , and D. Pardee, “King’s Command and Widows Plea: Two New Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period,” Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (1998): 5. 4 Garrett. Hosea, Joel, 104. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 01.02A. PERSPECTIVES ON UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 2a. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 4:1-19) 2. Three Guilty Parties (Hosea 5:1-7) Translation Hosea 5:1-7 Hear this, you priests! Pay attention, you Israelites! Listen closely, O king! For judgment is about to overtake you! For you were like a trap to Mizpah, like a net spread out to catch Tabor. 2 Those who revolt are knee-deep in slaughter, but I will discipline them all. 3 I know Ephraim all too well; the evil of Israel is not hidden from me. For you have engaged in prostitution, O Ephraim; Israel has defiled itself. 4 Their wicked deeds do not allow them to return to their God; because a spirit of idolatry controls their heart, and they do not acknowledge the Lord. 5 The arrogance of Israel testifies against it; Israel and Ephraim will be overthrown because of their iniquity. Even Judah will be brought down with them. 6 Although they bring their flocks and herds to seek the favor of the Lord, They will not find him – he has withdrawn himself from them! 7 They have committed treason against the Lord, because they bore illegitimate children. Soon the new moon festival will devour them and their fields. Exegesis and Exposition Hosea issues another indictment of Israel’s leadership. As in Hosea 4:1 the indictment is introduced by a call to hear what the Lord has to say through his prophet Hosea. Once again the charges are directed at those most responsible for Israel’s plight—Israel’s leaders. The indictment is presented in Hosea’s familiar threefold style. Not only are the priests guilty of misleading the people and the people condemnable for willingly following the leaders of society, but even the king shares in the blame (cf. Jeremiah 2:26). For ultimately he had the authority and responsibility to see to it that the nation kept on a proper spiritual course. God’s judgment is thus particularly aimed at these individuals. To underscore their culpability, the Lord alludes to two traditional places where Israel’s leadership has failed. The first is Mizpah in Benjamin, which was an important administrative and religious site in the days of Samuel (1 Samuel 7:1-14). It was there that Samuel summoned Israel’s leadership for a religious service following the return of the ark from Philistine territory. In that service the leaders were asked to confess their sin in the mishandling of God’s sacred ark. The second place, Mount Tabor, which lay at the northeastern tip of the Jezreel Valley, was noted for its association with the famous battle in the days of the judges Deborah and Barak. It was there that some tribes failed to respond to the call to battle. Both places were thus scenes of God’s blessing that was tempered by a note of failed leadership. Even worse, both had become centers of false cult worship. The allusion to these two sites includes an implied simile. Just as these places of victory were tainted by some examples of failed leadership, so Israel’s present leaders have failed to dispel the spiritual corruption at contemporary Mizpah and Tabor. Rather than being a part of the rejoicing and an avenue of God’s blessing, Israel’s present leaders were like those who set out traps and nets to catch the prey -- in this case the Israelite populace. The result is that these revered placed in Israelite history have become scenes of spiritual degradation. So deeply stained with sin have these historic places become that they may be described as “knee deep in slaughter.” The reference may carry a double meaning and possibly refer to the heinous crime of child sacrifice as well as metaphorically to Israel’s people as “slaughtered” victims of their leaders. Because of this, Israel’s leadership is in a real sense responsible for Israel’s present condition and may expect God’s soon severe judgment (Hosea 5:1-2). God warns the nation that he knows full well its sins. The most despicable of these is that of idolatry and its accompanying prostitution (Hosea 5:3). Indeed, the Scriptures remind God’s people that he is an omniscient God—One who is fully aware of all that transpires on planet earth and even knows what people are thinking (e.g., 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 94:11; Psalms 139:15; Psalms 147:5; Jeremiah 16:17; cf. Isaiah 40:28; Isaiah 65:24; Isaiah 66:18; Ezekiel 11:5; etc.). The Lord singles out Ephraim particularly for its leading role in all of this. For the importance of Ephraim’s leadership role in the Northern Kingdom is longstanding. Its very first king Jeroboam I was from Ephraim and it was he who began the worship at rival religious centers. So politically important and strong was the tribe of Ephraim that its name frequently was used to designate all Israel. Accordingly, Garrett is doubtless correct in remarking, “‘Israel’ and ‘Ephraim’ … are the corporate body, institutions, and cultural ideals that make up the northern kingdom.”1 Because of Ephraim’s leading role in sponsoring spiritual and physical prostitution, all Israel has become infected with this spiritual disease. Due to this rampant sin, God’s people are left with no real knowledge of Yahweh. Certainly it cannot worship foreign pagan gods such as Baal and still acknowledge Yahweh as he deserves to be worshiped—the only true God (cf. Matthew 6:24). Quite the contrary, they have become arrogant, self-serving and entrenched in their harlotry as their activities clearly demonstrate. Therefore, Ephraim and all Israel with it must face the Lord’s judgment. Sadly, even Judah and the Southern Kingdom will be carried away along with them. Rather than learning the lesson that God will surely deal with sin even in his own people as demonstrated in his dealing with the Northern Kingdom, Judah will also ultimately come to ruin due to its infatuation with paganism (Hosea 5:4-5). Hosea concludes this short oracle (Hosea 5:6-7) by telling the people that mere religiosity will avail them nothing. Pure and undefiled spirituality cannot coexist in syncretistic worship with pagan rituals. For that which was practiced in false rituals demonstrates that there is no real knowledge, devotion, or commitment to Yahweh. Indeed, he will not brook any compromise of his essential being and glory (cf. Deuteronomy 5:7-10; Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:13-15; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:5-6; Matthew 4:10). Accordingly, to go on mechanistically observing the sacrificial system without real heartfelt devotion as though the Lord was to be placated by or satisfied with their observances is both meaningless and useless. Without real repentance God’s people cannot find God let alone achieve his favor. In a brilliant metaphor Hosea points out that Mother Israel’s religious heart has given birth to illegitimate spiritual children—those who worship Baal and other gods rather than Yahweh. God warns his people that their spiritual abuses will prove to be their undoing. This is symbolized in their misuse of the new moon festivals, which had because of Israel’s apostasy and debased religiosity become abominations to the Lord (cf. Isaiah 1:13; Hosea 2:11). The new moon festivals were meant to emphasize a new dedication to Yahweh. The sin offering together with the burnt, meal, and drink offerings were designed to speak directly of the people’s commitment to the Lord. The burnt offering was to symbolize their dedication to the Lord, while the meal offering reminded God’s people that heartfelt service to the Lord was the natural outflow of true dedication. The drink offering was to be the capstone of spiritual expression—a life poured out in a fruitful, joyous, and consecrated life before the Lord. It is no accident that the Apostle Paul could draw upon the imagery of these offerings to portray his consecration and commitment to God (Php 2:12-18). Were Paul to die in the Roman prison from which he is writing, his death would be merely a joyous drink offering to their dedicated sacrifice (= the burnt offering) and priestly service (= the meal offering), which the Philippians’ faith had evidenced. Accordingly, he could rejoice and urges them, too, to rejoice. Theirs had been a sacrificial faith and loving service. What would be more appropriate than for Paul to crown that consecration with the drink offering of his life? Such was not the case with Hosea’s Israel, however. Their sacrifices had become a sham, a mockery, and even pure hypocrisy. Therefore, their sin would prove to be their undoing via God’s judgment. Rather than achieving God’s blessing, they have committed themselves to his chastisement. Even their crops and fields would be affected. What would be “new” would not be the new moon festivals but the nation’s demise together with the devouring of their fields at the hands of foreign invaders.2 Additional Notes Hosea 5:1 The NET’s translations “you Israelites” and “O king” are ad sensum renderings of the MT’s “O house of Israel” and “O house of the king” respectively. The emphasis on the culpability of Israel’s leadership, however, suggests that Garrett is probably correct in holding that the term “house of Israel” more than likely refers especially to the leaders of Israelite society—“The landed middle and upper classes.”3 Thus construed, Hosea’s threefold call to hear involves priests, Israelite leadership, and the royal house including the king. Hosea 5:1 The words “trap” and “net” designate terms most commonly associated with devices designed to catch birds. As the NET note further emphasizes, both terms are at times used figuratively, especially to designate those who employed nefarious means to ensnare others so as to take advantage of them. Hosea 5:1-2 Hosea’s threefold call to Israel’s leadership is accompanied by a twofold reason for doing so introduced by the Hebrew particle kî: (1) judgment is coming (2) because of their failure to maintain vital religion, which has enmeshed all Israelite society in their spiritual rebellion (cf. Hosea 5:3-5). Hosea 5:2 The first line of Hosea 5:2 is a notorious crux (see NET note). In following the text of MT the NET translation underscores the depth of Israel’s spiritual rebellion (cf. NASB, NIV, NKJV). Some (e.g., Andersen and Freedman; Hubbard) have suggested that Hosea’s remarks point to the despicable practice of child sacrifice.4 Some translations (e.g., NRSV, REB) depend on minor emendations to the Hebrew text (see NET text note) so as to find in addition to Mizpah and Mount Tabor a third time honored location—Shittim (cf. NLT, “acacia grove”). Thus construed there are three locations of spiritual significance where Israel’s rebellion manifested itself. Thus Sweeney points out, “Each of these sites can be considered a snare or trap for Israel: … All of these sites were important to the formation of the Israelite nation, including its monarchy, its identity as a united people, and its priesthood. Hosea roundly criticizes all three throughout the balance of his oracles.”5 Although the proposed emendation yields good sense and would provide yet another example of Hosea’s literary style in presenting things in groups of three, one always hesitate to tamper with the existing MT.6 Commendable sense can certainly be made of the MT as demonstrated by the NET. Note also the decision of McComiskey who after a careful examination of the problem translates the line in question, “And through slaughter they sink ever deeper into acts of rebellion.” 7 Hosea 5:3 For Hosea’s use of the theme of Israelite infidelity/spiritual harlotry see (Hosea 4:10-18; Hosea 5:3-4; Hosea 6:10; Hosea 7:4; Hosea 8:4-6, Hosea 8:9; Hosea 9:1, Hosea 9:10, Hosea 9:15; Hosea 11:2, Hosea 11:7; Hosea 12:11; cf. Hosea 2:2-13). The term “defiled” to refer to idolatry, hence spiritual infidelity, is attested elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Jeremiah 2:7). Hosea 5:4 Due to Israel’s spiritual infidelity and social corruption, Hosea often speaks of the need of repentance (e.g., Hosea 2:14; Hosea 3:5; Hosea 6:6-7; Hosea 7:8-10; Hosea 14:4). Hosea 5:4-5 Some (e.g., Sweeney) have found in Hosea’s words a hint of the divorce procedure (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4), the thought being that Israel’s spiritual harlotry has caused God to divorce his “wife” Israel. Yet as Stuart notes, the situation appears to be that “Israel’s citizens are kept away from Yahweh by their own deeds.”8 Laetsch adds, “So deeply had the people become enmeshed in the toils of idolatry that they never gave a thought to returning to the true worship”9 and Achtemeier observes, “The Israelites had become enslaved to their sin and have no possibility of returning by their own power to a faithful and loving relationship with God.”10 The point is that Israel is deeply involved in its own spiritual harlotry and has become arrogantly proud of it.11 Thus Achtemeier remarks, “Though helpless in sin, Israel does not recognize its own corruption and takes great pride in its syncretistic and lavish worship (Hosea 5:5), flocking to the high places to offer multitudinous sacrifices (Hosea 5:6).”12 Hosea 5:6 God’s withdrawal has occasioned many suggestions. Thus Sweeney suggests that God has withdrawn himself from his apostate wife via divorce proceedings.13 Achtemeier, however, holds that God may simply be leaving them “to their fate, abandoning them to the death that is inevitable when the God of life is absent (v. 7).”14 God’s withdrawing of himself may be viewed as his absenting himself from Israel’s sacrifices because of their feigned attempts at worshiping him. Hosea 5:7 Sweeney holds that the reference to illegitimate children indicates that there is an allusion here to the situation with Gomer in Hosea 1:2-11, Hosea 2:1-2 : “Because she is described as a harlot, the posterity of the children is implicitly in question.”15 Chisholm suggests that the reference could also be to illegitimate children born as a result of religious prostitution.16 The reference is more than likely, however, to spiritual illegitimacy as practiced by the devotees of Baal. The Israelites had not only practiced spiritual harlotry but taught their children to do so likewise. Hosea 5:7 Although Andersen and Freedman, and Sweeney allow the possibility that the Hebrew noun h£o„desŒ may better be read as h£a„da„sŒ, hence a “new person” (or “someone else, i.e., a foreigner or strange god) will eat the sacrifices, the unemended text makes perfectly good sense as indicating the misuse of the new moon festivals will occasion Israel’s self-destruction. God’s judgment will soon be brought to bear upon those sinful activities. 3. A Threefold Alarm (Hosea 5:8-15) Translation Hosea 5:8-15 Blow the ram’s horn in Gibeah! Sound the trumpet in Ramah! Sound the alarm in Beth Aven! Tremble in fear, O Benjamin! 9 Ephraim will be ruined in the day of judgment! What I am declaring to the tribes of Israel will certainly take place! 10 The princes of Judah are like those who move boundary markers. I will pour out my rage on them like a torrential flood! 11 Ephraim will be oppressed, crushed under judgment, because he was determined to pursue worthless idols. 12 I will be like a moth to Ephraim, like wood rot to the house of Judah. 13 When Ephraim saw his sickness and Judah saw his wound, then Ephraim turned to Assyria, and begged its great king for help. But he will not be able to heal you! He cannot cure your wound! 14 I will be like a lion to Ephraim, like a young lion to the house of Judah. I myself will tear them to pieces, then I will carry them off, and no one will be able to rescue them! 15 Then I will return again to my lair until they have suffered their punishment. Then they will seek me; in their distress they will earnestly seek me. Exegesis and Exposition Hosea begins this section with another call to attention and action. His instruction to “blow the ram’s horn” (or shofar) is particularly a propos. The shofar could be sounded for many reasons. “It was used from earliest times as a signal to battle (e.g., Judges 3:27; Judges 6:34) or as a signal of imminent danger (e.g., Hosea 5:8; Hosea 8:1; Amos 3:6). The sŒo‚pa„r had both sacred and secular uses.”17 Hosea’s charge contains a calculated double entendre: not only is danger imminent but there is a play on the closing thought of the last section—the New Moon festival. For among the many religious days when the shofar was to be blown (e.g., the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 25:9; Pentecost, 2 Chronicles 15:4) was the New Moon festival (Psalms 81:3). Hosea has already condemned Israel’s hypocrisy on this latter occasion (Hosea 5:7) and warned the people that such degradation of the Lord’s service would ultimately destroy them. Now the sounding of the shofar was to be understood not only as a call to assembly but as a warning that the danger of God’s judgment lay close at hand. Hosea’s warning call most likely reflects the unsettled conditions that prevailed in the mid-eighth century B.C. and following. This period stands in stark contrast to the earlier part of that century, which under Jeroboam II of the Northern Kingdom and Uzziah in the south enjoyed an era of prosperity unparalleled since the days of Solomon both economically and politically. Together these kings claimed much the same territorial dimension as did the founder of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, this high water mark of prosperity for the twin kingdoms would not long endure. In the north, with the death of Jeroboam II in 752 B.C. kings of lesser ability, who often vied with one another for local, if not national, supremacy, ruled the kingdom. Jeroboam’s son Zechariah reigned only six months before being assassinated by Shallum, who in turned reigned but one month before being killed by Menahem. The latter’s ten year reign (751-742 B.C.) was characterized by spiritual weakness and subservience to the rising power of Assyria. Meanwhile in Assyria a usurper now occupied the throne as Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 16:6), also called Pulu (or Pul, 2 Kings 15:19). His reign (745-727 B.C.) marked the beginning of a new day in the ancient Near East, when Assyrian resurgence would blossom into the mighty Neo-Assyrian Empire (745-612 B.C.). When in 743 B.C. Tiglath-pileser’s armies ravaged much of Syria, Menahem and Israel paid him a heavy tribute to keep him from engulfing the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 15:19-20). Israel’s difficulties in the face of Assyrian aggression were compounded by its internal squabbling. Although Menahem ruled from Tirzah, a strong rival named Pekah ruled in Gilead. Pekah’s strength was such that after Menahem’s death, he was able to overthrow Pekahiah, Menahem’s son and successor, and claim sole rulership of all Israel (740-732 B.C.) Pekah’s independent rule was faced with a growing Assyrian menace. For Tiglath-pileser III began a second western campaign in 734 B.C. to break-up a western anti-Assyrian coalition. Among the chief dissidents were the Aramean king Rezin and Pekah of Israel. By 732 B.C. the Assyrian thrusts not only brought about the surrender of Damascus but also reduced the entire west to vassalage. When Tiglath-pileser died in 727 B.C., the next king of Israel Hoshea found opportunity to forego sending tribute to Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.) and sought help from a certain So, King of Egypt (2 Kings 17:3-4) 18. The plan backfired and soon Samaria was attacked and after a three-year siege, the Israelite capital fell and its citizens were deported (2 Kings 17:5-6). If Israel’s position was tenuous by 732 B.C., Judah’s was scarcely little better. After the death of Uzziah in 740 B.C., kings of lesser ability came to the throne. Particularly detrimental to Judah’s spiritual state was Ahaz (736-716 B.C.). Although he attempted to pursue Judah’s political independence by courting Assyria’s favor, as the Chronicler would later point out, the Assyrian king gave Ahaz “more trouble than support” (2 Chronicles 28:20). Sadly, Ahaz’s infatuation with Assyrian and foreign culture further advanced his already apostate heart and paved the way for the growing spiritual callousness that would one day necessitate God’s judgment upon the Southern Kingdom. It is to this latter period that most interpreters point as to the setting for this portion of Hosea’s prophecy. Particularly reference is often made to the Syro-Ephraimite war (735 B.C.; cf. 2 Kings 15:29-30; 2 Kings 16:5-9; Isaiah 7:1-16). In accordance with this theory when the Aramean king Rezin and the Israelite king Pekah attempted to take Jerusalem, Ahaz appealed to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III for help.19 When Tiglath-pileser defeated this coalition, Ahaz saw an opportunity to expand Judah’s territory northward. Yet, this explanation scarcely fits the context well. For although the text likens Judah to those “who move boundary markers” (Hosea 5:10), it is Ephraim/Israel that is condemned for turning to Assyria for help (Hosea 5:13). Furthermore, the Scriptures indicate that at the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war Judah was too weak to mount such an attack. Although the mid to late eighth century B.C. likely marks the setting for Hosea’s prophecy here, it is probably best not to look for any specific historical event. Rather, the reference in verse 13 may simply point to long-standing general Israelite foreign policy together with the prevailing spiritual and moral degeneracy in the Northern Kingdom. Nor was the situation in Judah much better. Accordingly, God warned his people of his impending judgment in the form of foreign invasion (Hosea 5:8-11). Hosea’s similes in Hosea 5:12 are again quite meaningful. In a strange if not grotesque simile Yahweh ‘s coming judgment is likened to two destructive forces: moth rust (or rot). Just as moths eat away clothing and dry rot causes gradual deterioration, so God’s slow but certain judgment of Israel is unnoticed by his unconcerned people. It is Israel’s sinful idolatry and moral deterioration that is the cause for its demise. Because these are eating away the spiritual fiber of Israel, they are ensuring God’s certain judgment. So intent are the Lord’s people on their own way that they do not notice the degradation of their sinful practices. Yet all the while they are under God’s scrutiny and condemnation—a condition that will eventuate in their destruction (Hosea 5:12). In their political weakness both kingdoms have submitted to the “great king” of Assyria (cf. Hosea 10:6) Thus Hoshea paid tribute to Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 17:3), as did Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 16:7-9). Hezekiah would later do the same thing to Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:13-16). Ephraim is more specifically in view here, for it was its idolatry that made it weak. The problem was thus an internal one—its spiritual relationship with Yahweh. Had they turned to Him rather than submitting to an external power, things could have been far different. Rather than being the means of their continued existence and well being, their misjudgment will prove to bring God’s judgment against His people (Hosea 5:13). Hosea’s use of similes continues in the graphic figure of a voracious lion, which will consume its prey (Hosea 5:14). Thus God will one day violently judge His people—both Northern and Southern Kingdoms—and carry their people into captivity and exile. “The imagery is particularly pertinent in the present context as the Assyrian kings frequently portrayed themselves in palaces’ reliefs as hunters of lions, all the better to demonstrate their courage, prowess, and strength. Instead, YHWH claims the role of lion which none can overcome.”20 Continuing the imagery of a lion, Yahweh represents Himself as withdrawing to His abode much as a lion to his lair after an attack (Hosea 5:15). The Lord had previously been shown to withdraw Himself from Israel’s polluted sacrifices and idolatrous worship festivals (Hosea 5:6). All the while the Israelites have been experiencing an advancing spiritual deterioration without realizing it (Hosea 5:12) that will bring God out of His abode to enact His judgment against them (Hosea 5:14). He will then withdraw Himself to await their repentance and return to Him (Hosea 5:15). When God’s people realize that turning in dependence on other powers, be they political (Hosea 5:13) or so-called gods (Hosea 5:11) for help is useless, and they have suffered the just consequences of their actions, they will seek earnestly the Lord’s sovereignty over them. As Keil observes, “As the lion withdraws into its cave, so will the Lord withdraw into His own place, viz. heaven, and deprive the Israelites of His gracious, helpful presence, until they repent, i.e. not only feel themselves guilty, but feel the guilt by bearing the punishment. Suffering punishment awakens the need of mercy, and impels them to seek the face of the Lord.”21 Additional Notes Hosea 5:8 Hosea once again employs his literary style of writing in groups of three. The three cities mentioned here were situated in the southern portion of Israel and are listed in a south to north orientation. Therefore, this together with Hosea’s reference to the moving of boundary stones (Hosea 5:10) has been interpreted as reflecting a Judahite invasion in connection with the Syro-Ephramite war. Unfortunately for this seemingly otherwise logical hypothesis, no evidence exists historically of such an aggressive move by Judah so that, “the standard interpretation of this text as incrimination of Judah for territorial aggrandizement is not a good fit with what we know of the history of the period or with this context.”22 The fourth line of Hosea 5:8 is beset with uncertainties both as to the reading of the text and the understanding of its words. The NET follows the LXX in translating. “Tremble in fear, O Benjamin,” while the MT reads the enigmatic “Behind/after you, O Benjamin,” (cf. HCSB, KJV). The Hebrew phrase contains most likely another allusion to the battle at the time of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5:14). In that battle “contingents from Benjamin, Ephraim and west bank Manasseh made up the rescue force that perhaps would follow a second assault.”23 Just as Ephraim followed after Benjamin in that early battle formation, so all the Northern Kingdom will be devastated from south to north: up through Benjamin via Giba, Ramah, and Bethel to the limits of the north. The south to north orientation could indicate a military threat from the south. Certainly this was the source of earlier conflicts between Israel and Judah (cf. 1 Kings 15:16-22). Yet, as we have noted above, Judah was scarcely in a position to launch an attack at the time of the Syro-Ephramite war. Therefore, the proximity of these cities may simply indicate that all Israel will suffer foreign invasion. Hosea 5:9 In accordance with the textual allusion to a past situation in the days of the Judges, the reference to the tribes of Israel in connection with Ephraim must mean that all Israel is intended. Moreover, what Hosea was declaring (see NET text note) was an established certainty. The root meaning of the verb employed here carries the sense of security and permanence, hence fidelity and even true faith. From this root comes the noun áe†mu‚na„h, which is often translated faith or faithfulness. Thus it is used of the faithfulness of God himself (Psalms 36:5; Psalms 40:10; Lamentations 3:23) and of the necessity of the believer to be faithful in his life and service to God (2 Chronicles 19:8-9). From the biblical standpoint, true faith means faithfulness in one’s life. The root has come down to believers in all ages in the sense of “Amen.” Hosea 5:10 Rather than indicating an act of military aggression, Hosea’s simile in which he likens the leaders of Judah to those “who move boundary markers,” probably indicates that corruption in Judah is also rampant. Judah’s leadership is little better than common thieves. Indeed, Ahaz’s moving of the time-honored altar in the Jerusalem Temple precincts and the substituting of a pagan one in its place was an act of robbery against God as well as one of impiety. Ahaz’s other acts of spiritual infidelity are well documented in 2 Chronicles 28:1-4, 2 Chronicles 28:22-25. Doubtless degradation in the royal house was reflected in various unethical acts among Judah’s elite. Hosea 5:10 In a further simile Hosea compares God’s coming judgment to a “torrential flood” (NET). Although the Hebrew word usually means simply water, the comparison with the pouring out of water to an overflowing judgment is both meaningful and in accordance with scriptural prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 8:6-7; Jeremiah 47:2). Hosea 5:11 Hosea 5:11 contains several problems. In parallel with the thought that in the coming judgment Ephraim will suffer oppression, the second line may be understood as “crushed under judgment” (NET), the word judgment being viewed as a genitive of cause (see NET text note). A more direct parallel would be simply to translate the two lines: “Ephraim is oppressed; justice is crushed.” In either case God’s people are being warned of the drastic results of God’s judgment upon them. The closing line is troubled with the problem of how to understand the enigmatic s£a„w. Most commonly the noun here is emended in some fashion to mean enemy or vanity (see BHS text note). Andersen and Freedman understand the word as filth.24 Either of the last two suggestions may point to Israel’s worship of idols. The noun could also be viewed as a biform of sŒa„wá meaning that which is worthless (cf. LXX), hence “worthless idols” (NET). 1 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 144. 2 See the note on Hosea 2:11. 3 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 141. 4 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 380; Hubbard, Hosea, 114. 5 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:55. See further, Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 42-43; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 88-89. 6 For an approach respecting the primacy of the MT, see Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 111-119. 7 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 74, 75-76. 8 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 93. 9 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, 51. 10 Elizabeth Achtemeier, Minor Prophets , NIBC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 1:45. 11 Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 93) finds in the reference to Israel’s arrogance testifying against it a further note of a legal nature. See also Hubbard, Hosea, 115; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 392. 12 Achtemeier, Minor Prophets, 1:45-46. It is of interest to note that the LXX renders the line here, “The pride/insolence of Israel shall be humbled to his face.” 13 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:57-58. 14 Achtemeier, Minor Prophets, 1:46. 15 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:58. 16 Chisholm, Minor Prophets, 31, 32. 17 Patterson, “Joel,” 7:246. 18 For the problem of the identification of So, see my remarks in Giving The Sense, 196-197 19 The theory of the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war as the background for Hosea 5:8-15, Hosea 6:1-6 (for some, even to Hosea 7:16) is attributable to the suggestion of Albrecht Alt, “Hosea 5:8-15, Hosea 6:1-6. Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (München: Beck, 1953), 163-187. Sweeney (Twelve Prophets, 1:62) follows a better path in suggesting that “Hosea 5:8-15, Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-16 must be read in relation to the debate concerning Israel’s foreign relations that must have taken place in Israel late in the reign of Jeroboam and during the reign of Zechariah.” 20 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 68. 21 Carl Friedrich Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, Trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 1:93-94. Theo. Laetsch (The Minor Prophets [St. Louis: Concordia, 1956], 55) adds, “To effect such a return was the very purpose He had in mind when He wounded and tore them to such an extent that human aid was of no avail.” 22 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 151-52. 23 Richard D. Patterson, “The Song of Deborah,” in Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, eds., John S. and Paul D. Feinberg (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 144. 24 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 410. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 01.02B. PERSPECTIVES ON UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 2b. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 5:1-15) 4. Prophetic Advice (Hosea 6:1-3) Translation Hosea 6:1-3 “Come on! Let’s return to the Lord! He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us! He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds! 2 He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence. 3 So let us acknowledge him! Let us seek to acknowledge the Lord! He will come to our rescue as certainly as the appearance of the dawn, as certainly as the winter rain comes, as certainly as the spring rain that waters the land.” Exegesis and Exposition After his prophecy of Israel’s realization of its spiritual failure with the result that the Israelites once again seek the Lord (Hosea 5:15), Hosea urgently exhorts his people to return to the Lord. To be sure, Israel’s punishment was deserved, but the God of all mercy stood ready to welcome and restore His people. As Sweeney points out, Hosea’s plea builds upon the language of the preceding section. Thus the “use of the verbs t£rp, ‘to tear,’ and rpá, ‘to heal,’ certainly takes up terminology from the preceding statements that present YHWH as a lion ‘tearing’ its prey (Hosea 5:14) and the Assyrian monarch as unable to ‘heal’ the people (Hosea 5:13).”1 The deliberate employment of such literary hooks not only emphasizes the severity of God’s coming punishment but the certainty of His forgiveness for His repentant people. Moreover, the language clearly provides a contrasting metaphorical image. Yahweh, the voracious lion (5:14), is also the great physician (cf. Psalms 30:2-3; Psalms 103:3; Psalms 107:18-20). With repentance, therefore, can come full restoration (cf. Isaiah 54:1-8). The prophet’s assurance of God’s forgiveness and restoration of His people is presented under the motif of the third day. Although the NET properly calls attention to the numerical sequence 2—3, nonetheless the third day motif is one of the more significant scriptural themes. Thus God appeared to Israel on Mount Sinai on the third day (Exodus 19:10-16). The third day was also a day of crucial decision (1 Kings 12:12; Esther 4:16; Esther 5:1), and of healing and sacrifice (Leviticus 7:17-18; Leviticus 19:6-7; Numbers 19:12, Numbers 19:19-20). It is of interest to note that the third day was the day for Hezekiah’s recovery (2 Kings 20:8). Jesus often told his disciples of a coming third day when, after his death, he would rise again (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19; Luke 9:22), and so it comes as no surprise that Christ was gloriously raised on the third day (Luke 24:21; 1 Corinthians 15:4). In the light of its Old Testament precedents, Hosea’s use of this motif would fall upon ears that were familiar with its significance. The Lord’s healing and restoration was not only certain, but when it happened, it would be a very special day of victory for God’s people. Hosea continues his prayerful plea to his people by urging them sincerely to know and acknowledge Yahweh as Lord. Hosea has repeatedly emphasized that Israel’s syncretistic and resultant immoral conduct demonstrated that they did not really know the Lord (e.g., Hosea 4:1, Hosea 4:6; Hosea 5:4). If they would truly return to the One who alone can heal their spiritual sickness (Hosea 6:1-2), they will come to know Him intimately and experience His manifold blessings (Hosea 6:3). The prophet’s assurances are as certain as the regularity of God-supervised nature itself. Hosea points out that the future threefold nature of God’s blessing upon a repentant and accepted people is as certain as (1) the coming of the dawn of each new day and (2) the winter and (3) spring rains. Yet there is more. As Garrett observes, “Yahweh’s advent is portrayed as a time of joy, like the dawn after a dark night. The language is not accidental. Rather it is a reversal of the punishment in the second oracle, the devouring of the land by the new moon (Hosea 5:7).”2 Hosea’s exhortation and assurances are reminiscent of Joel’s similar advice to his hearers (Joel 2:12-17) in as much as he also pleads with his people to return to the Lord with all their heart (Hosea 5:12). Because Yahweh was a compassionate God, they might expect that with genuine repentance there would come not only forgiveness, but God’s restored blessings (Hosea 5:13-14). Properly understood, in Joel’s words there is the reminder that it is the Lord who sends the early and latter rains (cf. Joel 2:23). For both prophets, then, the imagery and message are the same. God’s people stood in need of genuine repentance. Should they genuinely repent, it may be confidently expected that their loving covenant Lord would again rain down His blessings upon them. Additional Notes Hosea 6:1 Hosea’s exhortation is followed by a double reason for returning to the Lord. Although the Lord will tear His people apart, He will give healing; although He will smite them, He will bind up their wounds. Stuart may be correct in holding that the double imperative, “Come, come let us return” may better be understood as a hendiadys.3 If so, it will underscore the urgency of Hosea’s plea: “O do let us return to the Lord!” Hosea 6:2 Hosea’s threefold literary style can once again be felt. The Lord’s reviving and restoration of His people will bring a new life situation in His presence.4 5. Divine Concern for Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 6:4-11, Hosea 7:1-16) Translation Hosea 6:4-11, Hosea 7:1-16 What am I going to do with you, O Ephraim? What am I going to do with you, O Judah? For your faithfulness is as fleeting as the morning mist; it disappears as quickly as dawn’s dew! 5 Therefore, I will certainly cut you into pieces at the hands of the prophets; I will certainly kill you in fulfillment of my oracles of judgment; for my judgment will come forth like the light of the dawn. 6 For I delight in faithfulness, not simply in sacrifice; I delight in acknowledging God, not simply in whole burnt offerings. 7 At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me! 8 Gilead is a city full of evildoers; its streets are stained with bloody footprints! 9 The company of priests is like a gang of robbers, lying in ambush to pounce on a victim. They commit murder on the road to Shechem; they have done heinous crimes! 10 I have seen a disgusting thing in the temple of Israel: there Ephraim practices temple prostitution and Judah defiles itself. 11 I have appointed a time to reap judgment for you also, O Judah! Whenever I want to restore the fortunes of my people, 7:1 whenever I want to heal Israel, the sin of Ephraim is revealed, and the evil deeds of Samaria are exposed. For they do what is wrong; thieves break into houses, and gangs rob people out in the streets. 2 They do not realize that I remember all of their wicked deeds. Their evil deeds have now surrounded them; their sinful deeds are always before me. 3 The royal advisers delight the king with their evil schemes, the princes make him glad with their lies. 4 They are all like bakers, they are like a smoldering oven; they are like a baker who does not stoke the fire until the kneaded dough is ready for baking. 5 At the celebration of their king, his princes become inflamed with wine; they conspire with evildoers. 6 They approach him, all the while plotting against him. Their hearts are like an oven; their anger smolders all night long, but in the morning it bursts into a flaming fire. 7 All of them are blazing like an oven; they devour their rulers. All of their kings fall – and none of them call on me! 8 Ephraim has mixed itself like flour among the nations; Ephraim is like a ruined cake of bread that is scorched on one side. 9 Foreigners are consuming what his strenuous labor produced, but he does not recognize it! His head is filled with gray hair, but he does not realize it! 10 The arrogance of Israel testifies against him, yet they refuse to return to the Lord their God! In spite of all this they refuse to seek him! 11 Ephraim has been like a dove, easily deceived and lacking discernment. They called to Egypt for help; they turned to Assyria for protection. 12 I will throw my bird net over them while they are flying, I will bring them down like birds in the sky; I will discipline them when I hear them flocking together. 13 Woe to them! For they have fled from me! Destruction to them! For they have rebelled against me! I want to deliver them, but they have lied to me. 14 They do not pray to me, but howl in distress on their beds; They slash themselves for grain and new wine, but turn away from me. 15 Although I trained and strengthened them, they plot evil against me! 16 They turn to Baal; they are like an unreliable bow. Their leaders will fall by the sword because their prayers to Baal have made me angry. So people will disdain them in the land of Egypt. Exegesis and Exposition Hosea continues his complaints concerning Israel’s infidelity by posing the Lord’s rhetorical question concerning His people: just what was the Lord to do with such an inconsistently faithful people as His Israel and Judah? (Hosea 6:4). Indeed, their fidelity to God’s person and standards was as fleeting as the quickly disappearing morning mist or dew. As these appear briefly only to vanish with the rising sun, so God’s people have shown brief flashes of spiritual progress and then have shortly afterwards resorted to their own selfish ways. Even worse now, they attempt to blend the worship of Yahweh with respect for foreign deities. The Lord expects no answer to His question, nor is He looking for information from His hearers. The rhetorical question is couched in human phraseology in order to make the Lord’s people understand His great concern for them. Much as a parent is so disappointed with his child’s conduct that he almost throws up his hands in despair, so a loving God warns His people that His seeming tardiness in withholding their deserved punishment is nearing an end. Through His prophets God has repeatedly warned His people of the dangers of apostasy, compromise, and infidelity. They have often enough conveyed messages of judgment (e.g., Joel 1:1-20). Hosea has previously represented Israel as a stubborn heifer (Hosea 4:16). Now as an animal destined to be sacrificed is slain and cut into pieces, so the words spoken through the Lord’s prophets will surely be fulfilled. The imagery, though extreme (but cf. Hosea 5:14), is reminiscent of the psalmist’s complaint in Psalms 44:11, “You handed us over like sheep to be eaten.” Yet as Stuart points out, “These words reflect the curses of the Mosaic Covenant through catchword connections with Deuteronomy 33:1-29 and Deuteronomy 32:1-52… . The punishment of being ‘killed’ (grh) is a covenant judgment (Amos 4:10; Amos 9:1, Amos 9:4), though the notion of killing is expressed via other vocabulary in Deuteronomy 28:1-68 and Deuteronomy 32:1-52.”5 Indeed, covenant Israel stands in the line of long covenant breakers and thus God’s people should expect the penalties associated with covenant violation to be imposed upon them. Moreover, the word of threatened prophetic judgment stands imminently near fulfillment. Much as Israel’s fidelity quickly fled like mist or dew before the morning light so the light of prophesied judgment is fast approaching and will justly expose their decreed severe chastisement (Hosea 6:5). The Lord reinforces His righteous decision concerning His people by revealing His true heart’s condition (Hosea 6:6). He never considered their sacrifices as ends in themselves but as expressions of genuine contrition, concern, and commitment of life to the Lord and His holy ways. The offering of a sacrifice without sincere faithfulness to the Lord and true acknowledgement to Him as the only true God was meaningless ritual. What the Lord desired was His people’s heart and devotion, not outward ritual (cf. Isaiah 1:11). Worse still, as Hosea has already pointed out, these times of sacrificial offerings have been occasions of cultic prostitution, drunkenness, and the honoring of pagan gods (Hosea 4:18-19; Hosea 5:3-5). Hosea concludes his lesson on covenant faithfulness (Hosea 6:7) by pointing out the seriousness of his people’s situation. Humanity’s progenitor Adam violated God’s pure covenant with him and plunged the whole human race into alienation from God (Genesis 3:1-19). Contemporary Israel betrays its roots in Adam. No less than he, this people of God has violated God’s subsequent covenant with them, especially in the observances at the places of pagan worship. The implication is clear: much as Adam was cast out of the garden, so Israel must be sent into exile. Building upon the previous transitional material in (Hosea 6:7), Hosea goes on to point out the effects of the covenant violations, which permeate current Israelite society (Hosea 6:8-11 a). All Israel is spiritually and morally corrupt, including God’s people living on the east side of the Jordan River (Hosea 6:8). Viewing Gilead as a synecdoche for all Trans-Jordanian Israel, the entire district is described under the metaphor of a “city full of evildoers.” Thus the “city” is filled with iniquity and bloody deeds. Later, Hosea will point out that all of this stems from their idolatrous practices. Returning to a consideration of west bank Israel (Hosea 6:9-10), Hosea declares that even the religious leaders are corrupt. Under the simile of an ambush, Hosea depicts Israel’s priests as nothing better than a gang of murderous thieves who waylay their traveling victims.6 In mentioning Shechem Hosea may well be not only condemning current conditions but doing so as a recreation of past atrocities there. Shechem was a traditional Levitical city and place of refuge (Joshua 21:20-21) and played a major role in the days of the division of the United Kingdom (1 Kings 12:1). Yet it had also been the scene of the rape of Dinah and the subsequent treachery employed by Levi and Simon in avenging their sister’s violation (Genesis 34:1-31). As in that early time, the priests of Hosea’s day are not only acting deceitfully in sponsoring the current worship practices at places of pagan worship, but the crimes of society can in large measure be attributed to the priests who by their lax spirituality and lack of moral fiber encourage loose conduct to be normative. The reference to Shechem may also involve specific crimes perpetrated nearby, for the road to Bethel, a site for pagan worship, ran through Shechem. Hosea’s threefold use of allusion to events, people, and places (Adam, Gilead, and Shechem) in Israel’s history to depict the corruption of current Israelite society is thus quite graphic. Indeed, the people of Israel continue the practice of covenant violation. Therefore, just as in the case of Adam, Israel should expect divine judgment. Much as Jacob wrestled with the angel of God in Gilead, so Trans-Jordanian Israel will face the Lord—but this time not with a blessing but with an imposing of the curses for covenant breaking.7 Much as Shechem was a scene for deceit and murder, so current conditions in the Northern Kingdom are little better. Hosea goes on once again to point to the most disgusting aspect of Israel’s apostasy: its cultic worship involving ritual prostitution (Hosea 6:10). The theme is already a familiar one in Hosea’s prophecy. Yet it must be repeatedly brought up because it symbolized the root of Israel’s problem. Such practices reveal Israel’s deceit in feigning total allegiance to Yahweh, while engaging in the rites of the worship of pagan gods. Lest Judah believe itself to be spiritually superior to Israel, Hosea warns them that spiritual defilement has led to moral corruption there as well (Hosea 6:11 a). Accordingly, God has appointed a “harvest” time for them also. Like his contemporaries Joel (Joel 3:13) and Amos (Amos 8:2), Hosea speaks of Judah’s coming judgment under the imagery of a harvest.8 Hosea has already singled out Judah’s spiritual and moral problems (e.g., Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:5, Hosea 5:10, Hosea 5:12-14; Hosea 6:4) and Judah will occupy Hosea’s attention again (cf. Hosea 10:11; Hosea 11:12; Hosea 12:2). Indeed, Wood is correct in observing that “Judah seems never to have been far from Hosea’s mind.”9 Hosea proceeds to yet another problem with his people. As Sweeney notes, “YHWH’s charges against Israel take on a somewhat new dimension in Hosea 6:11, Hosea 7:1-2 when the Deity argues that Israel turns away from YHWH even when they are restored and healed.”10 Indeed, despite God’s many times of wooing of His people, especially through His prophets, their deeply engrained sin keeps them from a positive response so as to accomplish their healing and restoration. The entire country, including the capital city of Samaria, is beset with great spiritual and moral wickedness. Throughout the land from top to bottom villainous deeds, reprehensible conduct, and immoral conditions such as deceit, burglary, and thieving are rampant. Yet God’s people scarcely take notice of it and seem not to realize that Yahweh is aware of it all. Surely they should understand that God would one day hold them accountable for such atrocities—yet they do not!11 The condemnation of Samaria (Hosea 7:1) provides the background for Hosea 7:3. For it can be shown that corruption is found at the highest levels of Israelite society. Even the king is pleased by the “evil schemes” of his advisors. As McComiskey observes, “The kings who should have been faithful guardians of the purity of the nation’s Yahwistic heritage nor only failed to punish its wrongdoing but took delight in it.”12 Alas, the king has responded positively to that which he wanted to hear (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3) without realizing that meanwhile the same advisors are plotting against him (Hosea 7:6). The Hebrew text of Hosea 7:4 is difficult and therefore has often been emended resulting in various interpretations. The unemended text reads: “They are all adulterers”—that is, king, advisors, and people alike. Hosea’s simile likens their passion to an oven kept hot while the dough rises (cf. NIV, NLT). The picture is one of degradation in all forms. The identity of the baker in Hosea 7:4 has occasioned many suggestions. Garrett is doubtless on the right track by suggesting that it refers to the king himself. This “baker” rather than keeping watch over the fire in the oven and awakens to find that the fire in the oven is a “raging inferno … we thus find that this baker is … the king who, by his inattentiveness due to his debauchery with wine and ‘sleep’ (which may allude to the adulteries of Hosea 7:4) allows evil and conspiracy to flourish.”13 The fire in the oven thus may be a metaphor for the secret plotting of the king’s trusted advisors. Thus Johnson suggests, “Hosea compared the secret plotting to the fire in the oven, which was left alone until the right moment. They humored the king until they were ready to strike. Then the heat of the conspiracy would burst forth.”14 Completing the imagery, the king’s advisors must be metaphorically identified as the hot oven (Hosea 7:6-7). Although the king and his advisors make merry together at special events (Hosea 7:5), eventually the plotting of the advisors comes to fruition in the disposing of the king. This extended simile portrays well current conditions in Hosea’s day. Political deceit, including plots and counterplots, marked the closing years of the Northern Kingdom. After the death of Jeroboam II in 752 BC, six kings occupied the throne in the space of 30 years. Of these, only Menahem escaped a violent end and he himself was an assassin (2 Kings 15:13-14, 2 Kings 15:16-22) Israel’s vacillating foreign policy was partly to blame for some of the intrigue. Kings were often deposed and killed in accordance with the prevailing Assyrian or anti-Assyrian sentiment (2 Kings 15:19-20, 2 Kings 15:29-30; 2 Kings 17:3-6).15 What a travesty! As Stuart observes, “The lament of Israel’s only true sovereign is both plaintive and bitter: ‘Not one of them calls on me.’ If they had only sought Yahweh, he would have gladly helped them; but so arrogant and egotistical were they that they paid no attention.”16 Hosea next records God’s evaluation of the political mess in which the Northern Kingdom finds itself (Hosea 7:8-10). Instead of relying on God, Israel has played the international game. Rather than achieving a satisfactory experience, however, Israel’s attempts have failed to achieve its desired goals. Indeed, Israel’s condition can be described as a cake that has been baked only on one side. Although Israel’s leaders have done their part in courting foreign favor through alliances and other means, their efforts have proven to be one-sided. The result therefore is unpalatable, for the foreign nations exercise their will against them. Such attempts only continue to sap Israel’s vitality so that it continues in progressive weakness along the road to extinction as a nation. The pity is that Israel’s leaders are so blinded by their own unwise efforts that they do not realize that they are putting the nation into an increasingly dangerous position. To reinforce this, Hosea employs a picturesque simile in which he likens Israel’s condition to a man who has not taken notice of his gradually graying hair. In like manner, the Northern Kingdom has “aged” and is near passing on to its final end. Hosea concludes this sub-unit by once again pointing to Israel’s basic problem (Hosea 7:10). In their arrogance they have refused to seek the Lord. God’s perspective has been seen already in this chapter in Hosea 7:2, where the Lord reminds his people that he is fully aware of their sins and in Hosea 7:7, in which the Lord points out that the political intrigue that beset the Northern Kingdom’s later years could be attributed to their failure to call on God for direction. He now condemns Israel’s leadership for not realizing that they have erred in carrying on their foreign policy, which was only draining Israel’s strength and hastening its demise. Worse still, in spite of that weakness due to their sin, they fail to seek the Lord! Hosea brings this chapter to a close by reminding Israel of God’s warning concerning the consequences of its policies (Hosea 7:11-16). He begins with yet another simile. As Oestreich points out, the imagery here is strikingly strange, for traditionally the dove was “perceived as a clever and intelligent bird, which is able to find the right way, the way home… . The explicitness of the image, therefore, could indicate that Hosea willingly contradicts the conventional knowledge about doves… . Like a dove that is the opposite of normal thus Israel is doing what can only be called madness.”17 Thus unlike the normal activities of a dove, Ephraim is like a foolish bird, not knowing where to turn or return. The picture points to Israel’s calling first to one traditional power in the ancient Near East and then another. Therefore, in yet another image God presents Himself under the metaphor of a fowler. As a fowler traps flying birds in his net, so Yahweh will bring down His people. In His divine administration of the affairs of human nations, the Lord will bring about the Northern Kingdom’s defeat by means of one of the foreign powers that Israel foolishly sought for help (Hosea 7:11-12). Too late, Israel will receive word of its futile foreign policy (see additional note). The divinely sent message reaches a climax (Hosea 7:13-16) with a severe warning of God’s impending judgment upon Israel. It is cast in the form of a woe oracle.18 This oracle contains the usual elements of invective (“Woe to them!” Hosea 7:13), threat (“Destruction to them!” Hosea 7:13; and “People will disdain them in the land of Egypt” Hosea 7:16), and the reasons for the threatened punishment (the remaining material in Hosea 7:13-16). Israel’s judgment must surely come because the people have strayed away from God and rebelled against Him. The Israelites may cry and complain concerning their distress but they do not turn to pray to the Lord. Despite the Lord’s desire and efforts to reclaim and redeem them, God’s people have lied to the Lord. This was particularly true in their worship practices. While carrying out their meaningless, merely routine observances of the Lord’s sacrifices, the people looked more to Baal and the so-called gods of the nations than to Yahweh. What hypocrisy! What deceit! And how foolish for it was Yahweh, not Baal or any other supposed deity who could redeem and protect the Lord’s people. By lacerating themselves in worshiping Baal in a vain attempt to assure the fertility of the land, they have turned away from God (Hosea 7:13-14). Hosea closes the entire section (Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 5:1-15, Hosea 6:1-11; Hosea 7:1-16) with the Lord’s strong words concerning Israel’s sin (Hosea 7:15-16). Despite the fact that God brought both instruction and sustenance to his people they turn anywhere but to Him. Therefore, it could only be concluded that in turning to other gods and human powers rather than to the Lord, they actually had plotted against Yahweh. Even what passed military prowess Israel has enjoyed has been due to the Lord’s direction and provision. Contemporary Israel is much like a bow that has lost its tension so that an archer cannot hit his intended target. Even so Israel’s slack attitude toward God will cause it to fail to achieve its desire goals. Rather than gaining the respect and help of the foreign powers that they have courted so vigorously, they will die by the sword (i.e., at the hands of an army’s might). Such will be the outcome of Israel’s infidelity and trust in powers other than Yahweh. Additional Notes Hosea 6:4 The word translated “faithfulness” (NET) is the well-known Hebrew noun h£esed, which often speaks of covenant loyalty. Although it is rendered by such English equivalents as mercy, lovingkindness, and loyal love, Hosea has already used it in connection with God’s great love for Israel in terms of His established covenant with them (Hosea 4:1). In a sense the translation “lovingkindness” in the older KJV remains quite appropriate, for the concept includes the thought of the Lord’s love for His people as kin. Yahweh does so by means of His covenant with Israel (i.e., He treats His people “kindly”). Hosea 6:5 Some have struggled with the concept of the Lord’s drastic treatment of His people by killing them through His prophets (e.g., McComiskey, Sweeney). It seems best to view the language as hyperbolic and presented under the imagery of a sacrifice. Israelites had sought to placate God through routinely observing the sacrificial system, but without true acknowledgement of God. Now the nation itself will be “sacrificed” as a penalty for its covenant disloyalty. Hosea 6:6 For the expression of God’s desire for covenant loyalty and genuine acknowledgement of Himself as the only true God rather than the sacrificial system being an end in itself, see 1 Samuel 15:22-23; Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Amos 4:4-5; Amos 5:21-27; Micah 6:6-8. Hosea 6:7 The reference to Adam’s violation of the covenant and Israel’s unfaithfulness “there” (MT) has occasioned wide variations of interpretation. (1) Quite commonly modern translations (e.g., NET, NRSV, NJB) have followed the lead of many scholars by emending the text to read “at Adam” (e.g., Andersen and Freedman, Chisholm, Garrett, Hubbard). Thus by Adam is meant the place known in connection with the Hebrews crossing of the Jordan River (Joshua 3:16). Similarly the REB regards the noun as Adamah, the city that was destroyed in God’s judgment upon the cities of the plain (Genesis 19:29; cf. Deuteronomy 29:23). (2) Some have understood Adam in the sense of mankind/men (e.g., LXX, KJV). (3) Many still follow the literal Hebrew and translate, “like Adam” (e.g., ESV, HCSB, NIV). Although some systematic theologians have found in this understanding an under-girding for their covenant theology, such need not be the case.19 The literal Hebrew favors the thought that Hosea’s Israel was as guilty as Adam, hence deserving of penalty. So understood, the adverb “there” need not refer to any specific city or location, but to the sacrifices offered at scenes of cultic worship. Moreover, such an interpretation flows naturally from Hosea 6:4-6, which center on the covenant theme. So viewed, Hosea 6:7 also constitutes a hinge verse, which both builds on the concept of covenant violation and prepares the reader for further examples of Israel’s spiritual defection (Hosea 6:8-10).20 Hosea 6:8 The word translated “footprints” (NET) is commonly used for the heel. Here it serves as a synecdoche for the foot and by metonymy, that which is associated with the foot’s activities, hence a footprint—in this case a bloody one at that! Garrett calls attention to the association of the idea of a “heel” (àa„qa„b) and Jacob’s deceitful character.21 Hosea 6:10 The Hebrew root underlying the translation “disgusting” (NET) or “horrible” (NIV) is a rare one. Jeremiah uses it in describing the wickedness of Judah’s spiritual leaders (Jeremiah 5:30; Jeremiah 23:14) and of Judah’s penchant for idolatry (Jeremiah 18:13-15). He employs a kindred form of the root for spoiled figs (Jeremiah 29:17). The total image may suggest that the spiritual condition of God’s people is like rotten figs, a veritable stench in the nostrils of God. The NET and NIV translations underscore the noxious nature of Israel’s sin. Hosea 6:11 The relation of the final temporal clause of Hosea 6:11 can be understood in different ways. The NET agrees with many translations (e.g., HCSB, NIV, NRSV, REB) in taking Hosea 6:11 b as the initial clause of the sentence beginning in Hosea 7:1. A great many commentators take the same approach (e.g., Achtemeier, Andersen and Freedman, Chisholm, Garrett, Hubbard, McComiskey, Sweeney, Wood). Other translations (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NJB, NLT, ESV) and commentators (e.g., Keil, Laetsch) view the clause with Hosea 6:11. The former position would understand the Lord to be saying that His attempts to turn His people back to Himself and to restore them to full fellowship only succeed in revealing the deeply entrenched sin of the Northern Kingdom. The latter view understands that not only Israel but Judah will not escape judgment during the time of God’s restoring of His people.22 Hosea 6:11 Another problem in this verse is the proper translation of the final temporal clause. It has commonly been rendered either as a restoring of the fortunes of God’s people (e.g., ESV, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV, REB) or as the turning/returning of captivity/captives (e.g., KJV, NKJV, HCSB). Either understanding can be harmonized with the various views regarding the grammatical relations and meaning of the context. Hosea 7:1-2 Hosea’s literary style of presenting items in groups of three can be noted in these two verses. Thus he speaks of matters in the total Northern Kingdom in terms of Israel, Ephraim, and Samaria. Israel’s crimes are presented as deceit, housebreaking, and forcible robbery (Hosea 7:1). As well, God (1) remembers their wicked deeds, which (2) surround/engulf them, for (3) God sees them all (lit. “are before my face”—see NET text note). Hosea 7:4-7 Hosea’s extended simile is a complex one. The careless king is likened to a sleepy baker, his deceitful officials to an oven, and their treacherous scheming to the flaming fire in the oven. Thus the king appears to be blissfully unaware of the treachery of these trusted leaders whose deceitful hearts only await the proper moment for a coup d’état. Hosea 7:9 Andersen and Freedman reject the idea that the text refers to gray hair, pointing out that “grey hair was worn with pride and satisfaction in Israel; old age was respected, and the evening of life was a time of prestige and usefulness.”23 They suggest that a better association would be with mold.24 This interpretation, though contextually appropriate to the bread imagery, seems unlikely, however, since mold would certainly be noticeable.25 Hosea 7:12 The understanding of the final clause of Hosea 7:12 is difficult. The MT reads, “According to the report to the assembly.” The seeming incongruity of the phrase with the preceding imagery of the birds has caused many different translators and commentators to emend the text (e.g., NET, NIV, NLT).26 McComiskey, however, cautions against so ready and abandonment of the MT and suggests that “the chastisement in the third line … associates the calamity with an event, that is, a report that will come to their community.”27 It may perhaps indicate a report that (too late) comes to the assembly of failed diplomatic correspondence. Hosea 7:14 Most modern translations (e.g., NET, NIV, NLT, ESV, HCSB) struggle with the MT here and attempt to bring clarity to its “assembled they” (or “excite themselves”). The NET’s “They slash themselves” is certainly contextually appropriate. Such ritual lacerations were common in Canaanite worship as in the case of the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:28). Hosea 7:16 Oestreich finds the comparing of Israel’s trusting in Baal to a slack bow to be an absurd simile according to purpose. Such a bow “is useless to get the arrow to hit the target. A slack bow a tool not fitting for the purpose it is originally designed for. It might even be dangerous.” 28 Hosea 7:16 The understanding of the Hebrew ya„sŒu‚bu‚ lo„á àa„l is a notorious crux interpretum, which has occasioned many emendations and interpretations (see NET text note). The simplest understanding is that of the NASB: “They turn, but not Upward” (cf. HCSB). In a similar vein the NIV renders the words as, “They do not turn to the Most High” (cf. NLT). Andersen and Freedman propose that the meaning of the last two words is “No god,” hence a derogatory epithet of Baal (cf. NET).29 Idolatry is often condemned as worshiping that which is not a god (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:21; Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 16:20). Hosea 7:16 The meaning of the concluding line referring to Egypt has occasioned various understandings. Thus S. M. Paul suggests that the Israelite ambassadors who were carrying on negotiations with the Egyptian officials will be mocked because of their crude attempts to speak Egyptian.30 Garrett views Egypt as a metonymy representing “all gentile powers that will mock Israel when catastrophe befell them.”31 The suggestion of McComiskey is likely closer to the true understanding: “The use of Egypt to depict the impending Assyrian captivity is part of the larger philosophy that permeates the thought of many Old Testament writers. To them history could and would be repeated … . God declared if the people did not obey his law, they would be taken back to Egypt (Deuteronomy 28:68)… . It is not literal Egypt … History is about to repeat itself as the people again become captives in a foreign land.”32 If literal Egypt is meant, it could indicate Egypt’s failure to help Israel when King Hoshea sent to Egypt for assistance in his rebellion against the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 17:3-4). 1 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:69 2 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 159. 3 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 107, 4 For the importance of the life-giving rain, see Mark Futato, “gesŒem,” NIDOTTE, 1:900-902. See also John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, & Mark W. Chavalas, Bible Background Commentary, 755-756; S. Wagner, “ya„ra‚ II,” TDOT, 6:336-339. 5 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 109-110. 6 Laetsch (Minor Prophets, 61) suggests that the charge is literally true. “The road from Samaria to Bethel, the chief seat of the calf worship, led through Shechem, and pilgrims coming from or going to Bethel were murdered, raped, outraged by gangs of priests.” 7 For Jacob as the biblical example par excellence of trickery and deceit, see Patterson, “The Trickster,” 385-394. Garrett (Hosea, Joel, 163) portrays Hosea’s reference to Jacob as taking on “the worst characteristics of Jacob—selfishness and cunning—without having his redeeming experiences—encounters with God… . His descendants, instead of being transformed into Israel, into people of God, remained Jacob, a name that Hosea has transformed into the grim phrase, ‘stained with footprints of blood.’” 8 To the contrary, Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 112) views the harvest here as a positive feature, including a coming restoration of God’s people accompanied by “divinely effectuated righteousness.” 9 Wood, “Hosea,” 195. 10 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:77. 11 The sub-units in chapter 7 are in each case closed by a specific reference to God (Hosea 7:2, Hosea 7:7, Hosea 7:10, Hosea 7:13-15). 12 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 102. 13 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 169. 14 Rick Johnson, “Hosea 4-10: Pictures at an Exhibition,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36 (1993): 24. 15 Attempts to pinpoint which king Hosea is referring to (e.g., Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:78-79) are unnecessary. 16 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 120. 17 Oestreich, “Absurd Similes,” 111, 112. 18 For light on the form and use of woe oracles and their employment in the taunt songs of the second chapter of Habakkuk, see Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 169-191. 19 See, for example, L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 214-15. 20 As Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 111) properly points out, “v 7 is as closely connected to the thought expressed in vv 4-6 as it is as to what follows, and especially relates to v 4b as a general statement of Israel’s infidelity.” One need not follow Stuart, however, in translating the Hebrew phrase “like Adam” in novel fashion as “like dust.” (!) 21 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 163. 22 Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 112) suggests still another possibility in viewing Hosea 6:11 as a favorable action. In keeping with this, he understands Hosea 6:11, Hosea 7:1 as one continuous sentence and concludes that both Judah and Israel will experience God’s healing and restoration to prosperity and righteous standing before the Lord. 23 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 467. 24 Ibid., 469. 25 For details relative to the preparation of foodstuffs, see A. Ross, “Baking, Broiling, Cooking, and Roasting” NIDOTTE, 4:34. 26 See Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 471; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 115-16; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:81. 27 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 112. 28 Oestreich, “Absurd Similes,” 102. 29 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 477-78. 30 S. M. Paul, “Gibberish Jabber,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 707-12. 31 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 175. 32 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 117. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 01.02C. PERSPECTIVES ON UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 2c. Perspectives on Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-19) 4. Prophetic Advice (Hosea 6:1-3) Translation Hosea 6:1-3 “Come on! Let’s return to the Lord! He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us! He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds! 2 He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence. 3 So let us acknowledge him! Let us seek to acknowledge the Lord! He will come to our rescue as certainly as the appearance of the dawn, as certainly as the winter rain comes, as certainly as the spring rain that waters the land.” Exegesis and Exposition After his prophecy of Israel’s realization of its spiritual failure with the result that the Israelites once again seek the Lord (Hosea 5:15), Hosea urgently exhorts his people to return to the Lord. To be sure, Israel’s punishment was deserved, but the God of all mercy stood ready to welcome and restore His people. As Sweeney points out, Hosea’s plea builds upon the language of the preceding section. Thus the “use of the verbs t£rp, ‘to tear,’ and rpá, ‘to heal,’ certainly takes up terminology from the preceding statements that present YHWH as a lion ‘tearing’ its prey (Hosea 5:14) and the Assyrian monarch as unable to ‘heal’ the people (Hosea 5:13).”1 The deliberate employment of such literary hooks not only emphasizes the severity of God’s coming punishment but the certainty of His forgiveness for His repentant people. Moreover, the language clearly provides a contrasting metaphorical image. Yahweh, the voracious lion (5:14), is also the great physician (cf. Psalms 30:1-2; Psalms 103:3; Psalms 107:18-20). With repentance, therefore, can come full restoration (cf. Isaiah 54:1-8). The prophet’s assurance of God’s forgiveness and restoration of His people is presented under the motif of the third day. Although the NET properly calls attention to the numerical sequence 2—3, nonetheless the third day motif is one of the more significant scriptural themes. Thus God appeared to Israel on Mount Sinai on the third day (Exodus 19:10-16). The third day was also a day of crucial decision (1 Kings 12:12; Esther 4:16; Esther 5:1), and of healing and sacrifice (Leviticus 7:17-18; Leviticus 19:6-7; Numbers 19:12, Numbers 19:19-20). It is of interest to note that the third day was the day for Hezekiah’s recovery (2 Kings 20:8). Jesus often told his disciples of a coming third day when, after his death, he would rise again (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19; Luke 9:22), and so it comes as no surprise that Christ was gloriously raised on the third day (Luke 24:21; 1 Corinthians 15:4). In the light of its Old Testament precedents, Hosea’s use of this motif would fall upon ears that were familiar with its significance. The Lord’s healing and restoration was not only certain, but when it happened, it would be a very special day of victory for God’s people. Hosea continues his prayerful plea to his people by urging them sincerely to know and acknowledge Yahweh as Lord. Hosea has repeatedly emphasized that Israel’s syncretistic and resultant immoral conduct demonstrated that they did not really know the Lord (e.g., Hosea 4:1, Hosea 4:6; Hosea 5:4). If they would truly return to the One who alone can heal their spiritual sickness (Hosea 6:1-2), they will come to know Him intimately and experience His manifold blessings (Hosea 6:3). The prophet’s assurances are as certain as the regularity of God-supervised nature itself. Hosea points out that the future threefold nature of God’s blessing upon a repentant and accepted people is as certain as (1) the coming of the dawn of each new day and (2) the winter and (3) spring rains. Yet there is more. As Garrett observes, “Yahweh’s advent is portrayed as a time of joy, like the dawn after a dark night. The language is not accidental. Rather it is a reversal of the punishment in the second oracle, the devouring of the land by the new moon (Hosea 5:7).”2 Hosea’s exhortation and assurances are reminiscent of Joel’s similar advice to his hearers (Joel 2:12-17) in as much as he also pleads with his people to return to the Lord with all their heart (Joel 2:12). Because Yahweh was a compassionate God, they might expect that with genuine repentance there would come not only forgiveness, but God’s restored blessings (Joel 2:13-14). Properly understood, in Joel’s words there is the reminder that it is the Lord who sends the early and latter rains (cf. Joel 2:23). For both prophets, then, the imagery and message are the same. God’s people stood in need of genuine repentance. Should they genuinely repent, it may be confidently expected that their loving covenant Lord would again rain down His blessings upon them. Additional Notes Hosea 6:1 Hosea’s exhortation is followed by a double reason for returning to the Lord. Although the Lord will tear His people apart, He will give healing; although He will smite them, He will bind up their wounds. Stuart may be correct in holding that the double imperative, “Come, come let us return” may better be understood as a hendiadys.3 If so, it will underscore the urgency of Hosea’s plea: “O do let us return to the Lord!” Hosea 6:2 Hosea’s threefold literary style can once again be felt. The Lord’s reviving and restoration of His people will bring a new life situation in His presence.4 5. Divine Concern for Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 6:4-11, Hosea 7:1-16) Translation Hosea 6:4-11, Hosea 7:1-16 What am I going to do with you, O Ephraim? What am I going to do with you, O Judah? For your faithfulness is as fleeting as the morning mist; it disappears as quickly as dawn’s dew! 5 Therefore, I will certainly cut you into pieces at the hands of the prophets; I will certainly kill you in fulfillment of my oracles of judgment; for my judgment will come forth like the light of the dawn. 6 For I delight in faithfulness, not simply in sacrifice; I delight in acknowledging God, not simply in whole burnt offerings. 7 At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me! 8 Gilead is a city full of evildoers; its streets are stained with bloody footprints! 9 The company of priests is like a gang of robbers, lying in ambush to pounce on a victim. They commit murder on the road to Shechem; they have done heinous crimes! 10 I have seen a disgusting thing in the temple of Israel: there Ephraim practices temple prostitution and Judah defiles itself. 11 I have appointed a time to reap judgment for you also, O Judah! Whenever I want to restore the fortunes of my people, 7:1 whenever I want to heal Israel, the sin of Ephraim is revealed, and the evil deeds of Samaria are exposed. For they do what is wrong; thieves break into houses, and gangs rob people out in the streets. 2 They do not realize that I remember all of their wicked deeds. Their evil deeds have now surrounded them; their sinful deeds are always before me. 3 The royal advisers delight the king with their evil schemes, the princes make him glad with their lies. 4 They are all like bakers, they are like a smoldering oven; they are like a baker who does not stoke the fire until the kneaded dough is ready for baking. 5 At the celebration of their king, his princes become inflamed with wine; they conspire with evildoers. 6 They approach him, all the while plotting against him. Their hearts are like an oven; their anger smolders all night long, but in the morning it bursts into a flaming fire. 7 All of them are blazing like an oven; they devour their rulers. All of their kings fall – and none of them call on me! 8 Ephraim has mixed itself like flour among the nations; Ephraim is like a ruined cake of bread that is scorched on one side. 9 Foreigners are consuming what his strenuous labor produced, but he does not recognize it! His head is filled with gray hair, but he does not realize it! 10 The arrogance of Israel testifies against him, yet they refuse to return to the Lord their God! In spite of all this they refuse to seek him! 11 Ephraim has been like a dove, easily deceived and lacking discernment. They called to Egypt for help; they turned to Assyria for protection. 12 I will throw my bird net over them while they are flying, I will bring them down like birds in the sky; I will discipline them when I hear them flocking together. 13 Woe to them! For they have fled from me! Destruction to them! For they have rebelled against me! I want to deliver them, but they have lied to me. 14 They do not pray to me, but howl in distress on their beds; They slash themselves for grain and new wine, but turn away from me. 15 Although I trained and strengthened them, they plot evil against me! 16 They turn to Baal; they are like an unreliable bow. Their leaders will fall by the sword because their prayers to Baal have made me angry. So people will disdain them in the land of Egypt. Exegesis and Exposition Hosea continues his complaints concerning Israel’s infidelity by posing the Lord’s rhetorical question concerning His people: just what was the Lord to do with such an inconsistently faithful people as His Israel and Judah? (Hosea 6:4). Indeed, their fidelity to God’s person and standards was as fleeting as the quickly disappearing morning mist or dew. As these appear briefly only to vanish with the rising sun, so God’s people have shown brief flashes of spiritual progress and then have shortly afterwards resorted to their own selfish ways. Even worse now, they attempt to blend the worship of Yahweh with respect for foreign deities. The Lord expects no answer to His question, nor is He looking for information from His hearers. The rhetorical question is couched in human phraseology in order to make the Lord’s people understand His great concern for them. Much as a parent is so disappointed with his child’s conduct that he almost throws up his hands in despair, so a loving God warns His people that His seeming tardiness in withholding their deserved punishment is nearing an end. Through His prophets God has repeatedly warned His people of the dangers of apostasy, compromise, and infidelity. They have often enough conveyed messages of judgment (e.g., Joel 1:1-20). Hosea has previously represented Israel as a stubborn heifer (Hosea 4:16). Now as an animal destined to be sacrificed is slain and cut into pieces, so the words spoken through the Lord’s prophets will surely be fulfilled. The imagery, though extreme (but cf. Hosea 5:14), is reminiscent of the psalmist’s complaint in Psalms 44:11, “You handed us over like sheep to be eaten.” Yet as Stuart points out, “These words reflect the curses of the Mosaic Covenant through catchword connections with Deuteronomy 33:1-29 and Deuteronomy 32:1-52… . The punishment of being ‘killed’ (grh) is a covenant judgment (Amos 4:10; Amos 9:1, Amos 9:4), though the notion of killing is expressed via other vocabulary in Deuteronomy 28:1-68 and Deuteronomy 32:1-52.”5 Indeed, covenant Israel stands in the line of long covenant breakers and thus God’s people should expect the penalties associated with covenant violation to be imposed upon them. Moreover, the word of threatened prophetic judgment stands imminently near fulfillment. Much as Israel’s fidelity quickly fled like mist or dew before the morning light so the light of prophesied judgment is fast approaching and will justly expose their decreed severe chastisement (Hosea 6:5). The Lord reinforces His righteous decision concerning His people by revealing His true heart’s condition (Hosea 6:6). He never considered their sacrifices as ends in themselves but as expressions of genuine contrition, concern, and commitment of life to the Lord and His holy ways. The offering of a sacrifice without sincere faithfulness to the Lord and true acknowledgement to Him as the only true God was meaningless ritual. What the Lord desired was His people’s heart and devotion, not outward ritual (cf. Isaiah 1:11). Worse still, as Hosea has already pointed out, these times of sacrificial offerings have been occasions of cultic prostitution, drunkenness, and the honoring of pagan gods (Hosea 4:18-19; Hosea 5:3-5). Hosea concludes his lesson on covenant faithfulness (Hosea 6:7) by pointing out the seriousness of his people’s situation. Humanity’s progenitor Adam violated God’s pure covenant with him and plunged the whole human race into alienation from God (Genesis 3:1-19). Contemporary Israel betrays its roots in Adam. No less than he, this people of God has violated God’s subsequent covenant with them, especially in the observances at the places of pagan worship. The implication is clear: much as Adam was cast out of the garden, so Israel must be sent into exile. Building upon the previous transitional material in (Hosea 6:7), Hosea goes on to point out the effects of the covenant violations, which permeate current Israelite society (Hosea 6:8-11 a). All Israel is spiritually and morally corrupt, including God’s people living on the east side of the Jordan River (Hosea 6:8). Viewing Gilead as a synecdoche for all Trans-Jordanian Israel, the entire district is described under the metaphor of a “city full of evildoers.” Thus the “city” is filled with iniquity and bloody deeds. Later, Hosea will point out that all of this stems from their idolatrous practices. Returning to a consideration of west bank Israel (Hosea 6:9-10), Hosea declares that even the religious leaders are corrupt. Under the simile of an ambush, Hosea depicts Israel’s priests as nothing better than a gang of murderous thieves who waylay their traveling victims.6 In mentioning Shechem Hosea may well be not only condemning current conditions but doing so as a recreation of past atrocities there. Shechem was a traditional Levitical city and place of refuge (Joshua 21:20-21) and played a major role in the days of the division of the United Kingdom (1 Kings 12:1). Yet it had also been the scene of the rape of Dinah and the subsequent treachery employed by Levi and Simon in avenging their sister’s violation (Genesis 34:1-31). As in that early time, the priests of Hosea’s day are not only acting deceitfully in sponsoring the current worship practices at places of pagan worship, but the crimes of society can in large measure be attributed to the priests who by their lax spirituality and lack of moral fiber encourage loose conduct to be normative. The reference to Shechem may also involve specific crimes perpetrated nearby, for the road to Bethel, a site for pagan worship, ran through Shechem. Hosea’s threefold use of allusion to events, people, and places (Adam, Gilead, and Shechem) in Israel’s history to depict the corruption of current Israelite society is thus quite graphic. Indeed, the people of Israel continue the practice of covenant violation. Therefore, just as in the case of Adam, Israel should expect divine judgment. Much as Jacob wrestled with the angel of God in Gilead, so Trans-Jordanian Israel will face the Lord—but this time not with a blessing but with an imposing of the curses for covenant breaking.7 Much as Shechem was a scene for deceit and murder, so current conditions in the Northern Kingdom are little better. Hosea goes on once again to point to the most disgusting aspect of Israel’s apostasy: its cultic worship involving ritual prostitution (Hosea 6:10). The theme is already a familiar one in Hosea’s prophecy. Yet it must be repeatedly brought up because it symbolized the root of Israel’s problem. Such practices reveal Israel’s deceit in feigning total allegiance to Yahweh, while engaging in the rites of the worship of pagan gods. Lest Judah believe itself to be spiritually superior to Israel, Hosea warns them that spiritual defilement has led to moral corruption there as well (Hosea 6:11 a). Accordingly, God has appointed a “harvest” time for them also. Like his contemporaries Joel (Joel 3:13) and Amos (Amos 8:2), Hosea speaks of Judah’s coming judgment under the imagery of a harvest.8 Hosea has already singled out Judah’s spiritual and moral problems (e.g., Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:5, Hosea 5:10, Hosea 5:12-14; Hosea 6:4) and Judah will occupy Hosea’s attention again (cf. Hosea 10:11; Hosea 11:12; Hosea 12:2). Indeed, Wood is correct in observing that “Judah seems never to have been far from Hosea’s mind.”9 Hosea proceeds to yet another problem with his people. As Sweeney notes, “YHWH’s charges against Israel take on a somewhat new dimension in Hosea 6:11, Hosea 7:1-2 when the Deity argues that Israel turns away from YHWH even when they are restored and healed.”10 Indeed, despite God’s many times of wooing of His people, especially through His prophets, their deeply engrained sin keeps them from a positive response so as to accomplish their healing and restoration. The entire country, including the capital city of Samaria, is beset with great spiritual and moral wickedness. Throughout the land from top to bottom villainous deeds, reprehensible conduct, and immoral conditions such as deceit, burglary, and thieving are rampant. Yet God’s people scarcely take notice of it and seem not to realize that Yahweh is aware of it all. Surely they should understand that God would one day hold them accountable for such atrocities—yet they do not!11 The condemnation of Samaria (Hosea 7:1) provides the background for Hosea 7:3. For it can be shown that corruption is found at the highest levels of Israelite society. Even the king is pleased by the “evil schemes” of his advisors. As McComiskey observes, “The kings who should have been faithful guardians of the purity of the nation’s Yahwistic heritage nor only failed to punish its wrongdoing but took delight in it.”12 Alas, the king has responded positively to that which he wanted to hear (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3) without realizing that meanwhile the same advisors are plotting against him (Hosea 7:6). The Hebrew text of Hosea 7:4 is difficult and therefore has often been emended resulting in various interpretations. The unemended text reads: “They are all adulterers”—that is, king, advisors, and people alike. Hosea’s simile likens their passion to an oven kept hot while the dough rises (cf. NIV, NLT). The picture is one of degradation in all forms. The identity of the baker in verse 4 has occasioned many suggestions. Garrett is doubtless on the right track by suggesting that it refers to the king himself. This “baker” rather than keeping watch over the fire in the oven and awakens to find that the fire in the oven is a “raging inferno … we thus find that this baker is … the king who, by his inattentiveness due to his debauchery with wine and ‘sleep’ (which may allude to the adulteries of Hosea 7:4) allows evil and conspiracy to flourish.”13 The fire in the oven thus may be a metaphor for the secret plotting of the king’s trusted advisors. Thus Johnson suggests, “Hosea compared the secret plotting to the fire in the oven, which was left alone until the right moment. They humored the king until they were ready to strike. Then the heat of the conspiracy would burst forth.”14 Completing the imagery, the king’s advisors must be metaphorically identified as the hot oven (vv. 6-7). Although the king and his advisors make merry together at special events (Hosea 7:5), eventually the plotting of the advisors comes to fruition in the disposing of the king. This extended simile portrays well current conditions in Hosea’s day. Political deceit, including plots and counterplots, marked the closing years of the Northern Kingdom. After the death of Jeroboam II in 752 BC, six kings occupied the throne in the space of 30 years. Of these, only Menahem escaped a violent end and he himself was an assassin (2 Kings 15:13-14, 2 Kings 15:16-22) Israel’s vacillating foreign policy was partly to blame for some of the intrigue. Kings were often deposed and killed in accordance with the prevailing Assyrian or anti-Assyrian sentiment (2 Kings 15:19-20, 2 Kings 15:29-30; 2 Kings 17:3-6).15 What a travesty! As Stuart observes, “The lament of Israel’s only true sovereign is both plaintive and bitter: ‘Not one of them calls on me.’ If they had only sought Yahweh, he would have gladly helped them; but so arrogant and egotistical were they that they paid no attention.”16 Hosea next records God’s evaluation of the political mess in which the Northern Kingdom finds itself (Hosea 7:8-10). Instead of relying on God, Israel has played the international game. Rather than achieving a satisfactory experience, however, Israel’s attempts have failed to achieve its desired goals. Indeed, Israel’s condition can be described as a cake that has been baked only on one side. Although Israel’s leaders have done their part in courting foreign favor through alliances and other means, their efforts have proven to be one-sided. The result therefore is unpalatable, for the foreign nations exercise their will against them. Such attempts only continue to sap Israel’s vitality so that it continues in progressive weakness along the road to extinction as a nation. The pity is that Israel’s leaders are so blinded by their own unwise efforts that they do not realize that they are putting the nation into an increasingly dangerous position. To reinforce this, Hosea employs a picturesque simile in which he likens Israel’s condition to a man who has not taken notice of his gradually graying hair. In like manner, the Northern Kingdom has “aged” and is near passing on to its final end. Hosea concludes this sub-unit by once again pointing to Israel’s basic problem (Hosea 7:10). In their arrogance they have refused to seek the Lord. God’s perspective has been seen already in this chapter in Hosea 7:2, where the Lord reminds his people that he is fully aware of their sins and in Hosea 7:7, in which the Lord points out that the political intrigue that beset the Northern Kingdom’s later years could be attributed to their failure to call on God for direction. He now condemns Israel’s leadership for not realizing that they have erred in carrying on their foreign policy, which was only draining Israel’s strength and hastening its demise. Worse still, in spite of that weakness due to their sin, they fail to seek the Lord! Hosea brings this chapter to a close by reminding Israel of God’s warning concerning the consequences of its policies (Hosea 7:11-16). He begins with yet another simile. As Oestreich points out, the imagery here is strikingly strange, for traditionally the dove was “perceived as a clever and intelligent bird, which is able to find the right way, the way home… . The explicitness of the image, therefore, could indicate that Hosea willingly contradicts the conventional knowledge about doves… . Like a dove that is the opposite of normal thus Israel is doing what can only be called madness.”17 Thus unlike the normal activities of a dove, Ephraim is like a foolish bird, not knowing where to turn or return. The picture points to Israel’s calling first to one traditional power in the ancient Near East and then another. Therefore, in yet another image God presents Himself under the metaphor of a fowler. As a fowler traps flying birds in his net, so Yahweh will bring down His people. In His divine administration of the affairs of human nations, the Lord will bring about the Northern Kingdom’s defeat by means of one of the foreign powers that Israel foolishly sought for help (Hosea 7:11-12). Too late, Israel will receive word of its futile foreign policy (see additional note). The divinely sent message reaches a climax (Hosea 7:13-16) with a severe warning of God’s impending judgment upon Israel. It is cast in the form of a woe oracle.18 This oracle contains the usual elements of invective (“Woe to them!” Hosea 7:13), threat (“Destruction to them!” Hosea 7:13; and “People will disdain them in the land of Egypt” Hosea 7:16), and the reasons for the threatened punishment (the remaining material in Hosea 7:13-16). Israel’s judgment must surely come because the people have strayed away from God and rebelled against Him. The Israelites may cry and complain concerning their distress but they do not turn to pray to the Lord. Despite the Lord’s desire and efforts to reclaim and redeem them, God’s people have lied to the Lord. This was particularly true in their worship practices. While carrying out their meaningless, merely routine observances of the Lord’s sacrifices, the people looked more to Baal and the so-called gods of the nations than to Yahweh. What hypocrisy! What deceit! And how foolish for it was Yahweh, not Baal or any other supposed deity who could redeem and protect the Lord’s people. By lacerating themselves in worshiping Baal in a vain attempt to assure the fertility of the land, they have turned away from God (Hosea 7:13-14). Hosea closes the entire section (Hosea 4:1-19, Hosea 5:1-15, Hosea 6:1-11, Hosea 7:1-16) with the Lord’s strong words concerning Israel’s sin (Hosea 7:15-16). Despite the fact that God brought both instruction and sustenance to his people they turn anywhere but to Him. Therefore, it could only be concluded that in turning to other gods and human powers rather than to the Lord, they actually had plotted against Yahweh. Even what passed military prowess Israel has enjoyed has been due to the Lord’s direction and provision. Contemporary Israel is much like a bow that has lost its tension so that an archer cannot hit his intended target. Even so Israel’s slack attitude toward God will cause it to fail to achieve its desire goals. Rather than gaining the respect and help of the foreign powers that they have courted so vigorously, they will die by the sword (i.e., at the hands of an army’s might). Such will be the outcome of Israel’s infidelity and trust in powers other than Yahweh. Additional Notes Hosea 6:4 The word translated “faithfulness” (NET) is the well-known Hebrew noun h£esed, which often speaks of covenant loyalty. Although it is rendered by such English equivalents as mercy, lovingkindness, and loyal love, Hosea has already used it in connection with God’s great love for Israel in terms of His established covenant with them (Hosea 4:1). In a sense the translation “lovingkindness” in the older KJV remains quite appropriate, for the concept includes the thought of the Lord’s love for His people as kin. Yahweh does so by means of His covenant with Israel (i.e., He treats His people “kindly”). Hosea 6:5 Some have struggled with the concept of the Lord’s drastic treatment of His people by killing them through His prophets (e.g., McComiskey, Sweeney). It seems best to view the language as hyperbolic and presented under the imagery of a sacrifice. Israelites had sought to placate God through routinely observing the sacrificial system, but without true acknowledgement of God. Now the nation itself will be “sacrificed” as a penalty for its covenant disloyalty. Hosea 6:6 For the expression of God’s desire for covenant loyalty and genuine acknowledgement of Himself as the only true God rather than the sacrificial system being an end in itself, see 1 Samuel 15:22-23; Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Amos 4:4-5; Amos 5:21-27; Micah 6:6-8. Hosea 6:7 The reference to Adam’s violation of the covenant and Israel’s unfaithfulness “there” (MT) has occasioned wide variations of interpretation. (1) Quite commonly modern translations (e.g., NET, NRSV, NJB) have followed the lead of many scholars by emending the text to read “at Adam” (e.g., Andersen and Freedman, Chisholm, Garrett, Hubbard). Thus by Adam is meant the place known in connection with the Hebrews crossing of the Jordan River (Joshua 3:16). Similarly the REB regards the noun as Adamah, the city that was destroyed in God’s judgment upon the cities of the plain (Genesis 19:29; cf. Deuteronomy 29:23). (2) Some have understood Adam in the sense of mankind/men (e.g., LXX, KJV). (3) Many still follow the literal Hebrew and translate, “like Adam” (e.g., ESV, HCSB, NIV). Although some systematic theologians have found in this understanding an under-girding for their covenant theology, such need not be the case.19 The literal Hebrew favors the thought that Hosea’s Israel was as guilty as Adam, hence deserving of penalty. So understood, the adverb “there” need not refer to any specific city or location, but to the sacrifices offered at scenes of cultic worship. Moreover, such an interpretation flows naturally from Hosea 6:4-6, which center on the covenant theme. So viewed, Hosea 6:7 also constitutes a hinge verse, which both builds on the concept of covenant violation and prepares the reader for further examples of Israel’s spiritual defection (Hosea 6:8-10).20 Hosea 6:8 The word translated “footprints” (NET) is commonly used for the heel. Here it serves as a synecdoche for the foot and by metonymy, that which is associated with the foot’s activities, hence a footprint—in this case a bloody one at that! Garrett calls attention to the association of the idea of a “heel” (àa„qa„b) and Jacob’s deceitful character.21 Hosea 6:10 The Hebrew root underlying the translation “disgusting” (NET) or “horrible” (NIV) is a rare one. Jeremiah uses it in describing the wickedness of Judah’s spiritual leaders (Jeremiah 5:30; Jeremiah 23:14) and of Judah’s penchant for idolatry (Jeremiah 18:13-15). He employs a kindred form of the root for spoiled figs (Jeremiah 29:17). The total image may suggest that the spiritual condition of God’s people is like rotten figs, a veritable stench in the nostrils of God. The NET and NIV translations underscore the noxious nature of Israel’s sin. Hosea 6:11 The relation of the final temporal clause of Hosea 6:11 can be understood in different ways. The NET agrees with many translations (e.g., HCSB, NIV, NRSV, REB) in taking Hosea 6:11 b as the initial clause of the sentence beginning in Hosea 7:1. A great many commentators take the same approach (e.g., Achtemeier, Andersen and Freedman, Chisholm, Garrett, Hubbard, McComiskey, Sweeney, Wood). Other translations (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NJB, NLT, ESV) and commentators (e.g., Keil, Laetsch) view the clause with Hosea 6:11. The former position would understand the Lord to be saying that His attempts to turn His people back to Himself and to restore them to full fellowship only succeed in revealing the deeply entrenched sin of the Northern Kingdom. The latter view understands that not only Israel but Judah will not escape judgment during the time of God’s restoring of His people.22 Hosea 6:11 Another problem in this verse is the proper translation of the final temporal clause. It has commonly been rendered either as a restoring of the fortunes of God’s people (e.g., ESV, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV, REB) or as the turning/returning of captivity/captives (e.g., KJV, NKJV, HCSB). Either understanding can be harmonized with the various views regarding the grammatical relations and meaning of the context. Hosea 7:1-2 Hosea’s literary style of presenting items in groups of three can be noted in these two verses. Thus he speaks of matters in the total Northern Kingdom in terms of Israel, Ephraim, and Samaria. Israel’s crimes are presented as deceit, housebreaking, and forcible robbery (Hosea 7:1). As well, God (1) remembers their wicked deeds, which (2) surround/engulf them, for (3) God sees them all (lit. “are before my face”—see NET text note). Hosea 7:4-7 Hosea’s extended simile is a complex one. The careless king is likened to a sleepy baker, his deceitful officials to an oven, and their treacherous scheming to the flaming fire in the oven. Thus the king appears to be blissfully unaware of the treachery of these trusted leaders whose deceitful hearts only await the proper moment for a coup d’état. Hosea 7:9 Andersen and Freedman reject the idea that the text refers to gray hair, pointing out that “grey hair was worn with pride and satisfaction in Israel; old age was respected, and the evening of life was a time of prestige and usefulness.”23 They suggest that a better association would be with mold.24 This interpretation, though contextually appropriate to the bread imagery, seems unlikely, however, since mold would certainly be noticeable.25 Hosea 7:12 The understanding of the final clause of Hosea 7:12 is difficult. The MT reads, “According to the report to the assembly.” The seeming incongruity of the phrase with the preceding imagery of the birds has caused many different translators and commentators to emend the text (e.g., NET, NIV, NLT).26 McComiskey, however, cautions against so ready and abandonment of the MT and suggests that “the chastisement in the third line … associates the calamity with an event, that is, a report that will come to their community.”27 It may perhaps indicate a report that (too late) comes to the assembly of failed diplomatic correspondence. Hosea 7:14 Most modern translations (e.g., NET, NIV, NLT, ESV, HCSB) struggle with the MT here and attempt to bring clarity to its “assembled they” (or “excite themselves”). The NET’s “They slash themselves” is certainly contextually appropriate. Such ritual lacerations were common in Canaanite worship as in the case of the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:28). Hosea 7:16 Oestreich finds the comparing of Israel’s trusting in Baal to a slack bow to be an absurd simile according to purpose. Such a bow “is useless to get the arrow to hit the target. A slack bow a tool not fitting for the purpose it is originally designed for. It might even be dangerous.” 28 Hosea 7:16 The understanding of the Hebrew ya„sŒu‚bu‚ lo„á àa„l is a notorious crux interpretum, which has occasioned many emendations and interpretations (see NET text note). The simplest understanding is that of the NASB: “They turn, but not Upward” (cf. HCSB). In a similar vein the NIV renders the words as, “They do not turn to the Most High” (cf. NLT). Andersen and Freedman propose that the meaning of the last two words is “No god,” hence a derogatory epithet of Baal (cf. NET).29 Idolatry is often condemned as worshiping that which is not a god (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:21; Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 16:20). Hosea 7:16 The meaning of the concluding line referring to Egypt has occasioned various understandings. Thus S. M. Paul suggests that the Israelite ambassadors who were carrying on negotiations with the Egyptian officials will be mocked because of their crude attempts to speak Egyptian.30 Garrett views Egypt as a metonymy representing “all gentile powers that will mock Israel when catastrophe befell them.”31 The suggestion of McComiskey is likely closer to the true understanding: “The use of Egypt to depict the impending Assyrian captivity is part of the larger philosophy that permeates the thought of many Old Testament writers. To them history could and would be repeated … . God declared if the people did not obey his law, they would be taken back to Egypt (Deuteronomy 28:68)… . It is not literal Egypt … History is about to repeat itself as the people again become captives in a foreign land.”32 If literal Egypt is meant, it could indicate Egypt’s failure to help Israel when King Hoshea sent to Egypt for assistance in his rebellion against the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 17:3-4). 1 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:69 2 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 159. 3 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 107, 4 For the importance of the life-giving rain, see Mark Futato, “gesŒem,” NIDOTTE, 1:900-902. See also John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, & Mark W. Chavalas, Bible Background Commentary, 755-756; S. Wagner, “ya„ra‚ II,” TDOT, 6:336-339. 5 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 109-110. 6 Laetsch (Minor Prophets, 61) suggests that the charge is literally true. “The road from Samaria to Bethel, the chief seat of the calf worship, led through Shechem, and pilgrims coming from or going to Bethel were murdered, raped, outraged by gangs of priests.” 7 For Jacob as the biblical example par excellence of trickery and deceit, see Patterson, “The Trickster,” 385-394. Garrett (Hosea, Joel, 163) portrays Hosea’s reference to Jacob as taking on “the worst characteristics of Jacob—selfishness and cunning—without having his redeeming experiences—encounters with God… . His descendants, instead of being transformed into Israel, into people of God, remained Jacob, a name that Hosea has transformed into the grim phrase, ‘stained with footprints of blood.’” 8 To the contrary, Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 112) views the harvest here as a positive feature, including a coming restoration of God’s people accompanied by “divinely effectuated righteousness.” 9 Wood, “Hosea,” 195. 10 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:77. 11 The sub-units in chapter 7 are in each case closed by a specific reference to God (vv. 2, 7, 10, 13-15). 12 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 102. 13 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 169. 14 Rick Johnson, “Hosea 4-10: Pictures at an Exhibition,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36 (1993): 24. 15 Attempts to pinpoint which king Hosea is referring to (e.g., Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:78-79) are unnecessary. 16 Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 120. 17 Oestreich, “Absurd Similes,” 111, 112. 18 For light on the form and use of woe oracles and their employment in the taunt songs of the second chapter of Habakkuk, see Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 169-191. 19 See, for example, L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 214-15. 20 As Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 111) properly points out, “v 7 is as closely connected to the thought expressed in vv 4-6 as it is as to what follows, and especially relates to v 4b as a general statement of Israel’s infidelity.” One need not follow Stuart, however, in translating the Hebrew phrase “like Adam” in novel fashion as “like dust.” (!) 21 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 163. 22 Stuart (Hosea-Jonah, 112) suggests still another possibility in viewing 6:11 as a favorable action. In keeping with this, he understands 6:11-7:1 as one continuous sentence and concludes that both Judah and Israel will experience God’s healing and restoration to prosperity and righteous standing before the Lord. 23 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 467. 24 Ibid., 469. 25 For details relative to the preparation of foodstuffs, see A. Ross, “Baking, Broiling, Cooking, and Roasting” NIDOTTE, 4:34. 26 See Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 471; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 115-16; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 1:81. 27 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 112. 28 Oestreich, “Absurd Similes,” 102. 29 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 477-78. 30 S. M. Paul, “Gibberish Jabber,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 707-12. 31 Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 175. 32 McComiskey, “Hosea,” 117. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 01.03A. FURTHER CHARGES AGAINST UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL ======================================================================== 3a. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 8:1-14) B. Further Charges against Unfaithful Israel (Hosea 8:1-14, Hosea 9:1-17, Hosea 10:1-15, Hosea 11:1-11) Having delivered God’s opening complaints against His people, Hosea goes on to record some specific charges that the Lord has against them. It can be readily seen that Israel’s rampant infidelity is on a collision course with the reality of judgment, even though the Lord has an unending compassion for Israel. 1. The Lesson on The Broken Covenant (Hosea 8:1-14) Translation Hosea 8:1-14 Sound the alarm! An eagle looms over the temple of the Lord! For they have broken their covenant with me, and have rebelled against my law. 2 Israel cries out to me, “My God, we acknowledge you!” 3 But Israel has rejected what is morally good; so an enemy will pursue him. 4 They enthroned kings without my consent! They appointed princes without my approval! They made idols out of their silver and gold, but they will be destroyed! 5 O Samaria, he has rejected your calf idol! My anger burns against them! They will not survive much longer without being punished, even though they are Israelites! 6 That idol was made by a workman – it is not God! The calf idol of Samaria will be broken to bits. 7 They sow the wind, and so they will reap the whirlwind! The stalk does not have any standing grain; it will not produce any flour. Even if it were to yield grain, foreigners would swallow it all up. 8 Israel will be swallowed up among the nations; they will be like a worthless piece of pottery. 9 They have gone up to Assyria, like a wild donkey that wanders off. Ephraim has hired prostitutes as lovers. 10 Even though they have hired lovers among the nations, I will soon gather them together for judgment. Then they will begin to waste away under the oppression of a mighty king. 11 Although Ephraim has built many altars for sin offerings, these have become altars for sinning! 12 I spelled out my law for him in great detail, but they regard it as something totally unknown to them! 13 They offer up sacrificial gifts to me, and eat the meat, but the Lord does not accept their sacrifices. Soon he will remember their wrongdoing, he will punish their sins, and they will return to Egypt. 14 Israel has forgotten his Maker and built royal palaces, and Judah has built many fortified cities. But I will send fire on their cities; it will consume their royal citadels. Exegesis and Exposition Hosea conveys the Lord’s warning of imminent danger by employing the image of a watchman whose duty it was to sound an alarm at the first hint of approaching danger. The command to sound the trumpet (NET: “Blow the ram’s horn,” i.e., Hebrew sŒo„pa„r) has been issued previously (Hosea 5:8). Here as on that previous occasion a double meaning may be observed. Not only is it a call to assembly in the face of imminent danger but that danger is to be seen as both internal and external. The basic problem resides in the leadership, which has failed to serve as good watchmen for the spiritual and moral well being of the populace (cf. Hosea 5:1, Hosea 5:10). This problem is emphasized under the imagery of a bird of prey. On the one hand, the priests are like vultures in their taking advantage of the people and gobbling up their vitality via their sponsorship of the debased syncretistic practices in the worship services (cf. Hosea 4:4-10). On the other hand, the king has failed in his duty to oversee and lead in the affairs of state in proper fashion. Accordingly, God has called for an enemy, which like as an eagle swoops down on its prey, so Assyria is swiftly coming in judgment against Israel. As Sweeney points out, “The imagery of the eagle frequently symbolizes the Assyrian kings or the god Assur, who is portrayed in a winged sun disk much like an eagle about to swoop down on prey.”1 The mention of a bird of prey is therefore doubly applicable. For the Hebrew noun nesŒer can refer both to a vulture and an eagle. The basic reason for all of this lies in the fact that God’s people, especially their leaders, have violated the covenant between them and Yahweh, a fact that was established in the last section (Hosea 6:7). In keeping with their defection the people have failed to follow the Lord’s instruction (MT, Torah; NET, law; cf. Hosea 4:6) to them. Indeed, all the time that they claimed to acknowledge Yahweh, they were breaking God’s covenant with them and its standards. This has caused Israelite society to become completely morally corrupt, for the people choose to follow that which is degraded and coarse rather than that which is good and beneficial. Therefore, the Lord has no further recourse than to bring judgment upon them in the form of an enemy army (Hosea 8:2-3). Hosea goes on in reporting the Lord’s words of condemnation against Israel by cataloguing some of the people’s chief sins. He begins with the political arena. Here Israel’s sin is all too obvious. Rather than seeking men of God’s choosing, the Israelites have installed their own kings and royal officials. The implication is that, even worse, they have appointed men who make no pretense of knowing the Lord or following His law. The charge reflects well the chaotic conditions of revolutions and royal assassinations that marked the closing years of the Northern Kingdom (Hosea 8:4 a). The second charge is aimed at the religious leaders (Hosea 8:4 b). Here the Israelite’s idolatrous worship is condemned. Could they not see, not realize, that it is their own hands that have made the idols representing their so-called gods and then worshiped them? What folly it is to worship their own creations, which like the deities they stood for were no gods at all. Rest assured, these manmade idols will be destroyed and smashed to bits. The Lord has rejected even the calf idols first created by Jeroboam I and installed at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:28-29). Although these idols may first have been intended to represent an invisible god on the back of the animal, rather than being gods themselves, apparently matters had degenerated over the years so that the idols themselves became objects of worship. As well, because such idolatrous practices with regard to the Canaanite god Baal-hadad are well established in the literature and art of ancient Canaan, it would seem only natural that his worship would become associated with these cult centers.2 Apparently Jehu’s purging of Baalism had not completely eradicated the established court religion, which Jeroboam had instituted (cf. 2 Kings 10:28-29). Hosea 8:5 appears at first glance to be something of a problem since there is no evidence for a calf idol at Samaria. Samaria may have a double reference here, however. As the capital city of the Northern Kingdom, it may be a synecdoche for the entire nation of Israel. It may also refer to the royal household and citizens of Samaria in their particular reverence for the idol at Bethel. Thus Hosea will later point out that the calf idol of Bethel will be carried away by the Assyrians to the accompaniment of much lamentation and sorrow by the people of Samaria. When that happens, Samaria’s shame in trusting in a god that could not deliver them will be put on public display. The prophecy may also carry further double significance. The sponsorship of this idolatrous worship at the highest leadership levels, the royal house and the priesthood, and therefore followed by the people from the capital and throughout the entire kingdom, is an abomination to the Lord. Rather than guaranteeing the prosperity of Israel and the fertility of the land, the calf idol at Bethel will be carried into captivity, while other objects of idolatry elsewhere will be broken to bits (Hosea 8:4-6; cf. Hosea 10:5-6). Israel’s foolish foreign policy is condemned in a series of striking images and figures of speech (Hosea 8:7-10). Hosea begins by employing what appears to be a traditional proverb comparing the foolishness of people’s actions to sowing under the wrong type of conditions (Hosea 8:7). Stuart suggests that the words reflect the fertility curse of Deuteronomy 28:38 and goes on to point out that “in ancient times sowers would throw their seed with a gentle wind, which help scatter it evenly on a tiled field… . The disaster which brings to naught the planning and effect of the sower is seen in the storm disintegrating and scattering the heads of grain before they can be harvested.”3 Thus Israel’s foreign policy, like unwise farming procedures, will ultimately fail. Whatever temporary gain might appear to have been made will ultimately be violently overturned by the mighty “whirlwind” of foreign invasion, which will bring a disastrous end to the nation. Building on the theme of Israel’s defeat, Hosea goes on to declare that Israel will be swallowed up like liquid from a cup. The cup is then discarded as a “worthless piece of pottery.” The simile is an apt one. For the nation, which Israel trusted, will simply drain what it can from Israel and then break off relations with it. When Israel has been drained of its resources through various forms of tribute payment, Assyria will turn on them and destroy them (Hosea 8:8). In another simile Israel is likened to a wild donkey lusting after its mate. In much the same way Israel sought the favor of Assyria rather than trusting in Yahweh. It had wandered away from Him and sought its security and satisfaction from a human nation. Decisions made under the strong influence of emotions or passion are seldom wise. And so it would prove to be for God’s people (Hosea 8:9 a). As Fausset remarks, “Whenever professing believers, instead of making God their confidence, have recourse to the godless world and its unhallowed powers, at the cost of religious principle, to save them from anticipated evils, God, in just retribution, makes those very world-powers the instruments of executing His judgments on them.”4 The following simile only strengthens the imagery further (Hosea 8:9 b). Here Hosea compares Israel’s vacillating foreign policy of seeking the good will of the nations to the business of prostitution. Garrett suggests that the simile deals with a man who “tries to gain love by giving money to prostitutes, only to discover that he has both squandered his money and gained no love in return.”5 Oestreich, however, proposes an interesting twist. He finds in verse 9 two absurd similes. In the first, the wild ass, rather than staying with the herd, has wandered off by itself and thus become exposed to great danger: “Like the animal that normally belongs to a herd but has separated himself, thus Israel has isolated himself and acted against his very nature. Normally, no wild ass or other gregarious animal would do so. When it loses contact with the herd it is in great danger to become the victim of beasts of prey.”6 Then, with a play on the sounds and consonants of a wild ass arp and Ephraim ( Pronouncements On the Earth (Zephaniah 1:2-3) On the Nations (Zephaniah 2:4-15) “cut off” “woe” On Judah/ Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:4-6) On Judah/Jerusalem (Zephaniah 3:1-7) יהוה “nations” Exhortation (Zephaniah 1:7-13) (near is) <--B--> Exhortation (Zephaniah 3:8) nation/peoples The Day Teachings <--C--> Teachings of Information (Zephaniah 1:14-18) the Information (Zephaniah 3:9-13) “scattered/ afraid” Instruction (Zephaniah 2:1-3) Lord Instruction (Zephaniah 3:14-20) oracles), whether to individuals (Zephaniah 3:1-7), Judah and Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:4-13), or the nations of the world (Zephaniah 1:2-4; Zephaniah 2:4-15). Zephaniah makes use of exhortations (Zephaniah 1:7-13; Zephaniah 3:8), two instructional admonitions (Zephaniah 2:1-3; Zephaniah 3:14-20, the latter of which is almost hymnic in nature), lament (Zephaniah 1:10-11), woes (Zephaniah 2:4-7; Zephaniah 3:1-7), and pronouncements (Zephaniah 1:2-3-6; Zephaniah 2:4-15). Two narrative discourses giving detailed information are also present (Zephaniah 1:14-18; Zephaniah 3:9-13). In addition, Zephaniah utilizes metaphor and simile (Zephaniah 1:7, Zephaniah 1:11-12; Zephaniah 2:1-2, Zephaniah 2:4-7, Zephaniah 2:9; Zephaniah 3:3, Zephaniah 3:8, Zephaniah 3:13, Zephaniah 3:16), literary/historical allusions (Zephaniah 1:3; Zephaniah 2:4, Zephaniah 2:9; Zephaniah 3:9-10, Zephaniah 3:18), personification (Zephaniah 1:14; Zephaniah 3:14-16), anthropopocia (Zephaniah 1:4, Zephaniah 1:12-13; Zephaniah 3:7-8, Zephaniah 3:15), irony (Zephaniah 1:11; Zephaniah 2:12), merismus (Zephaniah 1:12), synecdoche (Zephaniah 1:16; Zephaniah 2:11, Zephaniah 2:13-14; Zephaniah 3:66), enallage (Zephaniah 3:7), hendiadys (Zephaniah 3:7, Zephaniah 3:19), chiasmus (Zephaniah 3:19), alliteration and paronomasia (Zephaniah 1:2, Zephaniah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:17; Zephaniah 2:1, Zephaniah 2:4, Zephaniah 2:7, Zephaniah 2:12(?); Zephaniah 3:10(?), Zephaniah 3:20), enjambment (Zephaniah 1:9-12; Zephaniah 2:2-3, Zephaniah 2:14; Zephaniah 3:3, Zephaniah 3:7-9, Zephaniah 3:11-12, Zephaniah 3:18-20), and repetition and refrain (Zephaniah 1:2-3, Zephaniah 1:14-16, Zephaniah 1:18; Zephaniah 2:2-3; Zephaniah 3:14-15). Several key words punctuate the prophetic material: יוֹם ( yo‚m, “day”), 21 times; קָרוֹב ( qa„ro‚b, “near”), 10 times; אָסַף ( áa„sap, “gather”), אֶרֶץ ( áeres£, “earth”), and שֵׁם ( sŒe„m, “name”), 5 times each; שָׁפַט ( sŒa„pat£, “judge”), 4 times; פָּקַד( pa„qad, “punish/visit”) and קָבַץ ( qa„bas£, “gather/assemble”), 3 times each. Some have suggested that Zephaniah made use of apocalyptic genre in his teachings concerning the Day of the Lord (e.g., Freeman, R. Smith). Thus G. A. Smith remarks: From this flash upon the concrete, he returns to a vague terror, in which earthly armies merge in heavenly; battle, siege, storm, and darkness are mingled, and destruction is spread upon the whole earth. The shades of Apocalypse are upon us.676 Distinguishing between apocalyptic literature and prophetic eschatology is sometimes difficult, however. Thus P. D. Hanson emphasizes that though differences exist between prophetic eschatology and the eschatological material of apocalypse, there is also a strong element of continuity: Definitions attempt to specify the essential difference between prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology: the prophets, affirming the historical realm as a suitable context for divine activity, understood it as their task to translate the vision of divine activity from the cosmic level to the level of the politico-historical realm of everyday life. The visionaries, disillusioned with the historical realm, disclosed their vision in a manner of growing indifference to and independence from the contingencies of the politico-historical realm, thereby leaving the language increasingly in the idiom of the cosmic realm of the divine warrior and his council. Despite this difference in the form of prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology, it must be emphasized that the essential vision of restoration persists in both, the vision of Yahweh’s people restored as a holy community in a glorified Zion. It is this basic continuity which compels us to speak of one unbroken strand extending throughout the history of prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology.677 Despite the overlap and continuity between prophetic eschatology and the eschatology of apocalypse, as Hanson acknowledges, some differences do exist. Most scholars add to the above distinction by noting in the apocalyptic writers attention to such matters as details of cataclysmic changes in the physical world, cosmic settings and events, and the universal resolution of all things—particularly good and evil—in the distant future. Moreover, all such details are usually related in a series of episodic happenings. Leon Morris follows A. S. Peake in adding further that “speaking generally, the prophets foretold the future that should arise out of the present, while the apocalyptists foretold the future that should break into the present.”678 Restraint is called for in affirming that Zephaniah 1:14-18 is an apocalypse, even though some characteristics of apocalyptic language are present. It does not suit the definition of apocalypse given by John J. Collins: A genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world (italics his).679 Thus while Zephaniah 1:14-18 contains material of a sort that would one day become prominent in apocalyptic literature, it is not an apocalypse as such. Rather, it displays themes that are found in prophetic eschatology. In harmony with other OT prophets who spoke of the Day of the Lord, Zephaniah sees that time as one of fearful darkness and gloominess (Zephaniah 1:15; cf. Isaiah 13:6-16; Joel 1:15; Joel 2:2, Joel 2:10), awesome earthly and celestial phenomena (Zephaniah 1:15; cf. Isaiah 13:9-10, Isaiah 13:13; Joel 2:30-31; Joel 3:14-15 [HB Joel 3:3-4; 4:14, 15]; Amos 5:20; Zechariah 14:1-7; 2 Peter 3:10), and a divine wrath that brings destruction, devastation, and death (Zephaniah 1:14-18; cf. Isaiah 13:15-16; Obadiah 1:15-16; Zechariah 14:1-3). Zephaniah’s closing messages of hope (Zephaniah 3:9-20) are likewise in keeping with other prophecies concerning the Day of the Lord as a time of salvation and righteousness (Joel 2:32; Joel 3:17 [HB Joel 3:5; 4:17]; Zechariah 14:2-3) and the return of the Messiah (Zechariah 14:4-7) to effect a worldwide climate of peace, prosperity, and everlasting joy (Joel 3:18, Joel 3:20 [HB 4:18, 20]; Zechariah 14:4-10). Zephaniah’s prediction of warfare (Zephaniah 1:16-18) is likewise mirrored in the other prophets (e.g., Isaiah 27:1-13; Ezekiel 38:1-23, Ezekiel 39:1-29; Joel 3:9-17 [HB 4:9-17]; Zechariah 14:1-3; cf. Revelation 19:11-21).680 To the extent that Zephaniah utilizes cosmic themes and extreme language he thereby anticipates later apocalyptic thought. With Zephaniah, however, we are removed from the fervor characteristic of later Jewish apocalyptic literature such as 2 Enoch, 3 Baruch, and the fragmentary apocalyptic pieces attributed to Zephaniah.681 Indeed, Zephaniah is not so much concerned with a future that breaks into the present as he is with the unfolding of God’s sovereign and ordered arrangement of history so as to bring it to its intended culmination. As Craigie observes, The apocalyptic aspects of the prophet’s message are not so much predictions of what must happen in a future world as they are projections into the future of the potential that lies always within the human race. Insofar as Zephaniah is one of the pioneers of apocalyptic thought, we can learn from his writings. He was not, as are some modern representatives of the apocalyptic tradition, one who sat back waiting for the divine pattern of the future to unroll in a pre-ordained fashion. He perceived that the future was shaped in the present, that the horrors of apocalyptic dimensions that seem always to hover on the horizon of human history lay within the ever-present human capacity for evil, pursued to its ultimate climax. Zephaniah balanced this bleak view of human nature with a faith in God’s love (Zephaniah 3:17), by which he was able to affirm a future of hope beyond the cataclysm.682 Perhaps it is most appropriate to speak of Zephaniah 1:14-18 as “emergent apocalyptic.”683 As for Zephaniah’s poetic style and skill, although some have attempted to discern in the book qinah meter or the like, all such attempts are less than convincing. The most distinctive trait in Zephaniah’s style is his penchant for repetition and wordplay, both of which are utilized extensively throughout. Accordingly Zephaniah’s style is at times monotonously predictable. Nevertheless, his straightforward manner and forceful delivery capture the attention of his readers, so that J. M. P. Smith can affirm that Zephaniah can hardly be considered great as a poet. He does not rank with Isaiah, nor even with Hosea in this particular.... He had an imperative message to deliver and proceeded in the most direct and forceful way to discharge his responsibility. What he lacked in grace and charm, he in some measure atoned for by the vigour and clarity of his speech. He realised the approaching terror so keenly that he was able to present it vividly and convincingly to his hearers. No prophet has made the picture of the day of Yahweh more real.684 Great poet or not, Zephaniah is nonetheless to be commended for his powerful pronouncements, carefully contrived puns (e.g., Zephaniah 2:4-7) and striking imagery. Concerning the last point, Crenshaw calls attention to Zephaniah’s “especially vivid description of the Deity wandering through the streets of Jerusalem, lamp in hand, searching for those who are overcome by a false sense of security” (Zephaniah 1:12).685 Zephaniah will be best remembered for his teaching concerning the Day of the Lord. The awful effects of that message are reflected in the medieval hymn Dies irae, dies illa, which has been widely translated. E. P. Mackrell observes that “there are not less than 160 English and 90 German translations of this ancient Latin hymn.”686 Perhaps the most famous is the version in the Sarum Hymnal: Day of Wrath! O Day of mourning! See the Son’s dread Sign returning; Heaven and earth in ashes burning. Oh! what fear the sinner rendeth, When from heaven the Judge descendeth On Whose sentence all dependeth.687 H. Hummel laments concerning the almost total abandonment of Zephaniah’s timeless message that its neglect parallels the neglect of not only end of the church year themes, but much of the Old Testament (especially the prophets) as well, and ultimately neglect of themes of Law, judgment, retribution, etc., in general. Thus our “Gospel” readily becomes “another Gospel.”688 Outline Superscription (Zephaniah 1:1) I. The Announcement of the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:2-18, Zephaniah 2:1-3) A. Pronouncements of Judgment (Zephaniah 1:2-6) 1. On all the earth (Zephaniah 1:2-3) 2. On Judah and Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:4-6) B. Exhortations Based on Judgment (Zephaniah 1:7-13) C. Teachings Concerning the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-18, Zephaniah 2:1-3) 1. Information concerning that day (Zephaniah 1:14-18) 2. Instructions in the light of that day (Zephaniah 2:1-3) II. Additional Details Concerning the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 2:4-15, Zephaniah 3:1-20) A. Further Pronouncements of Judgment (Zephaniah 2:4-15, Zephaniah 3:1-7) 1. On the nations (Zephaniah 2:4-15) a. Philistia (Zephaniah 2:4-7) b. Moab and Ammon (Zephaniah 2:8-11) c. Cush (Zephaniah 2:12) d. Assyria (Zephaniah 2:13-15) 2. On Jerusalem (Zephaniah 3:1-7) B. An Exhortation Based on Judgment (Zephaniah 3:8) C. Additional Teachings Concerning the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 3:9-20) 1. Information concerning that day (Zephaniah 3:9-13) 2. Instructions in the light of that day (Zephaniah 3:14-20) Unity Although the first half of Zephaniah has generally been acknowledged as genuine, critical scholarship has largely impugned the authenticity and unity of the latter half. The results of critical inquiry, however, have often been diverse, so that “literary criticism of Zephaniah has been quite checkered and is not easy to summarize.”689 Those who deny the authorial integrity of the book do so largely on stylistic and thematic grounds. Given portions are said to be contrary to the spirit of the Zephaniah who prophesied dire punishment or reflective of the viewpoint of a subsequent generation. Few critics are as extreme in their denial of the unity of Zephaniah as L. P. Smith and E. R. Lacheman, who consider the book to be a third-century B.C. pseudepigraphic production.690 Most commonly it is the third chapter that has come under fire, largely due to its subject matter. Although past scholars often tended to deny the entire third chapter to the prophet (e.g., Beer, Duhm, Marti, Schwally, Stade), recent scholarship has been moderate, fixing its concerns on Zephaniah 3:9-20. Thus Larue remarks: Attempts to include oracles of restoration and healing in the collection of authentic pronouncements of Zephaniah are not convincing, for not only do these additions remove the force of the prophetic promise of destruction, but they reflect the mood, setting and hopes of the late Exilic period.691 Indeed these verses have come under almost universal attack, with Zephaniah 3:9-10 and Zephaniah 3:14-20 being consigned to exilic or postexilic times.692 Even Eissfeldt, who holds largely to the unity and authenticity of the book, has serious doubts as to these verses: “Perhaps we should therefore deny to Zephaniah not only the oracle of salvation which begins afresh in Zephaniah 3:18-20, but also Zephaniah 3:14-17, and regard the latter as an exilic or post-exilic addition.”693 If Zephaniah 3:1-20 has suffered at the hands of its critics, the second has fared little better. Every verse has been rejected by one scholar or another, although critical focus has centered on Zephaniah 2:4-15. The conclusions reached have often been confusing and contradictory. Although most have admitted the authenticity of Zephaniah 2:1-3, Beer questions even this, and Zephaniah’s writing of parts or all of Zephaniah 2:3 is impugned by Duhm, Marti, Nowach, and Stade.694 Other verses and their critics include Zephaniah 2:4-15 (Budde), Zephaniah 2:5-12 (Schwally, Sellin and Forher), Zephaniah 2:6 b-c (Duhm), Zephaniah 2:7 a, e (Nowach), Zephaniah 2:7-100 (Beer), Zephaniah 2:7-11 (S. R. Driver), Zephaniah 2:8-10 (G. A. Smith), Zephaniah 2:8-11 (Duhm, Marti, J. M. P. Smith), Zephaniah 2:8-12 (Nowach), Zephaniah 2:11 (Stade), Zephaniah 2:13-15 (Eichhorn), and Zephaniah 2:15 (Beer, Duhm, Marti, Sellin, and Fohrer). Such a catalog of opinion illustrates D. A. Schneider’s contention that “although many scholars have judged that Zephaniah underwent later editing, there has been no convincing convergence of their views on any large number of verses.”695 Probably because of the great divergence in the end product of such research recent critics have been more cautious, and usually prefer to think of mere amplifications of a genuine core. They point out, rightly, that the “remnant” theme was at least as early as Amos, and the frequent use of the “prophetic perfect” in Zephaniah’s eschatological oracles is no more problematic than elsewhere.696 Indeed, the supposed exilic or postexilic point of view in chap. 3, where hope for Israel’s restoration and blessing is expressed, existed side by side with pronouncements of judgment throughout the prophets. Thus R. K. Harrison has shown that “other prophecies of woe commonly concluded with an expectation of restoration and final felicity, such as are found in Amos, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.”697 Moreover, as B. K. Waltke points out, the view that the themes of judgment and hope cannot come from the same era is inconsistent with the form of parallel prophecies in the ancient Near E. H. Gressmann wrote: “The numerous old Egyptian oracles attest to the formal unity of threat and promise as the original form.... Now that we are acquainted with the Egyptian oracle, it is no longer doubtful that the literary-critical school was on the wrong path” (“Prophetische Gattungen,” Der Messias, Book II [1929], 73). The same phenomenon is attested in the Mari letters.698 As for the disputed portions in Zephaniah 2:1-15, while individual details may at present render these verses difficult to reconcile with a pre-621 B.C. date, one needs to keep in mind not only the general nature of the prophecies involved (most suggested specific applications are hazardous at best) but also that the limited sources for the recovery of precise data relative to the historical situation in any given period in the ancient Near East make dismissal of the accuracy of Zephaniah 2:4-15 premature.699 The basic problem with the critical position on Zephaniah 2:1-15 and Zephaniah 3:1-20 may come down, as Bullock suggests, to a presuppositional point of view: What we are dealing with here is a whole set of presuppositions espoused by critical scholarship, which not only disavows a strongly predictive element in the prophets, but also confidently sorts the material on the basis of vocabulary that is thought to be confined to specific periods.700 In light of the diversity of critical views and the demonstrated literary integrity of the book, I suggest that the case for the unity of Zephaniah is strong. Accordingly “there is no sufficient reason for denying to Zephaniah any portion of his prophecy.”701 Occasion And Purpose Granted the conclusions reached above, the occasion for Zephaniah’s prophecy lies in the deplorable spiritual and moral condition of Judahite society in the early days of Josiah’s reign. Despite Manasseh’s repentance and attempts at spiritual renewal in his latter years (2 Chronicles 33:10-20), things took a turn for the worse during the short reign of his wicked son Amon (2 Kings 21:19-26). Accordingly, after the assassination of his father Amon, eight-year-old Josiah found himself the head of an apostate and immoral society. The religious indifference and eclecticism on the one hand, and the materialistic selfishness and injustice on the other, were a natural reaction from the exalted ideas and ideals of the previous generation. The expectations and high hopes of Isaiah and his contemporaries had failed to materialize. Yahweh’s people were still under the heel of the oppressor. The yoke of Assyria was as heavy and as galling as ever. In despair of deliverance through Yahweh, his followers were seeking to supplement his weakness by having recourse to other gods in conjunction with him, or were abandoning him altogether.702Fortunately for Judah, Josiah was not like his father and would soon establish an unblemished record of faithfulness to God and His law (2 Kings 23:25). Even as a young man he was sensitive to spiritual matters, and the Chronicler reports that a definite spiritual commitment at age twelve was followed by introducing thoroughgoing reform throughout the land a scant four years later (2 Chronicles 34:3-7). Zephaniah may have had a part in this; his prophecies concerning the great Day of the Lord perhaps were even instrumental in the king’s spiritual activities. According to this understanding, Zephaniah’s prophesying came during those early years of spiritual and social wickedness that attended the onset of Josiah’s reign. The Book of Zeph, the early discourses of Jer, and 2 Kings 21:1-26, 2 Kings 22:1-20, 2 Kings 23:1-37 furnish a vivid picture of the social, moral, and religious conditions in Judah at the time Zephaniah prophesied. Social injustice and moral corruption were widespread (Zephaniah 3:1, Zephaniah 3:3, Zephaniah 3:7). Luxury and extravagance might be seen on every hand; fortunes were heaped up by oppressing the poor (Zephaniah 1:8-9). The religious situation was equally bad.703 Cognizant of the loss of the spiritual gains that had been made before Amon’s rule and faced with conditions that would surely spell the end of Judah itself (2 Kings 23:26-27), Zephaniah speaks out for God and against wickedness. He writes to inform and warn his people of God’s coming judgment not only against all the world (Zephaniah 1:2-3), especially the nations that had oppressed God’s people (Zephaniah 2:4-15), but also against Judah and Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:4-6; Zephaniah 3:1-7). In so doing he exposes (1) the false worship practices that included the veneration of Baal and the astral deities and the syncretistic rites that emerged from attempting to blend their worship with that of Yahweh (Zephaniah 1:4-6, Zephaniah 1:9; Zephaniah 3:2, Zephaniah 3:4) and (2) the corruption of Judahite society (Zephaniah 3:1, Zephaniah 3:3, Zephaniah 3:5), especially its leaders and merchants (Zephaniah 1:8, Zephaniah 1:10-13, Zephaniah 1:18; Zephaniah 3:5).704 Zephaniah also writes to give the people details of God’s future program. On the one hand, he tells of the fearsome events of the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-16) that must come because of men’s sins (Zephaniah 1:17-18) and, on the other, of the Lord’s undying concern (Zephaniah 3:5, Zephaniah 3:7) for His people, especially those who are of a humble and contrite heart (Zephaniah 2:3; Zephaniah 3:12). He predicts that in a future day Jerusalem will be avenged (Zephaniah 3:19) and purified (Zephaniah 3:11-13), its scattered people will be restored to the land (Zephaniah 3:9-10, Zephaniah 3:19), and God’s faithful ones will rejoice in the everlasting felicity that He alone provides (Zephaniah 3:14-20). In consideration of all that must happen in the future, Zephaniah writes to exhort and admonish the people to surrender to God (Zephaniah 1:7) and to repent and seek Him (Zephaniah 1:10; Zephaniah 2:1-3), not only to avoid the force of the Lord’s fiery blast but also in anticipation of that glorious time when a redeemed and purified people will rejoice in the salvation and delights of God’s love (Zephaniah 3:14-17). Text And Canonicity Although critical concern has been expressed as to the authenticity of Zephaniah, its canonicity has never been called into question.705 It was known to the author of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (Frag. B7), accepted by Philo and Josephus, and included in the early church canonical lists. Our Lord appears to have drawn upon Zephaniah 1:3 in His parable concerning the end of the age (Matthew 13:41), as did John (cf. Revelation 6:17 with Zephaniah 1:14-18; Revelation 14:5 with Zephaniah 3:13; Revelation 16:1 with Zephaniah 3:8). In addition, the Talmud (T. B. Sanhedrin 98a) and early Christian Fathers (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Augustine) cited Zephaniah as authoritative in their condemnation of man’s pride and idolatry. As for the text of Zephaniah, R. K. Harrison observes: “The Hebrew text of the prophecy has been quite well preserved, and it is only on fairly rare occasions, as for example in Zephaniah 2:2, Zephaniah 2:14; Zephaniah 3:7, that the LXX version is able to throw some light on the text.”706 This does not minimize the fact that the received text will be difficult to understand in places (e.g., Zephaniah 1:2, Zephaniah 1:14; Zephaniah 2:14). Nevertheless, it may be safely affirmed that “the MT is the best form of the text available, and it is probably the basis of all the versions.”707 Theological Context Zephaniah is best remembered for his presentation of God as the sovereign judge of all (Zephaniah 1:2-3, Zephaniah 1:7, Zephaniah 1:14-18; Zephaniah 3:8). It is He who punishes the wickedness of men (Zephaniah 1:8-9, Zephaniah 1:17; Zephaniah 3:7, Zephaniah 3:11) and nations (Zephaniah 2:4-15; Zephaniah 3:6), particularly those who have opposed His people (Zephaniah 2:8, Zephaniah 2:10). Thus G. von Rad remarks that “Zephaniah ... is chiefly concerned with the imminent advent of Yahweh and a universal battle against the nations on this day: but with him very much more emphasis is laid upon the resulting judgment of Jerusalem and threats against the complacent.”708 Zephaniah also shows that God is not only righteous (Zephaniah 3:5) but also a God of love (Zephaniah 3:17) and concern who deals justly with all (Zephaniah 3:5 b). D. A. Schneider points out that the book persistently portrays the holiness and grace of God. God’s holiness appears in the contrasts between Him and the proud sinners: they pretend to rule, but God judges with inexorable power; they hold office, but the Lord gives unfailing justice (Zephaniah 3:1-5). God’s grace appears chiefly in the two passages (Zephaniah 2:1-3; Zephaniah 3:11-20) that offer hope and salvation to a nation (and possibly even Gentiles) that has just been rightly condemned to complete desolation.709 Zephaniah also reveals a great deal concerning man’s condition: He saw that God cannot brook haughtiness and that people’s only hope lay in recognizing their own frailty. Pride is a problem rooted in human nature, and neither Judah (Zephaniah 2:3), Ammon, Moab (Zephaniah 2:10), nor Nineveh is exempt. Nineveh is made to epitomize insolence, boasting “I am and there is none else” (Zephaniah 2:15). Such rebellion, the declaration of spiritual independence from God, is the most heinous of sins.710 Zephaniah focuses on the spirit of wickedness in people (Zephaniah 1:3-6, Zephaniah 1:17; Zephaniah 3:1, Zephaniah 3:4). Such individuals reason that God does not intervene in human affairs (Zephaniah 1:12) and so go on in their violence and deceit (Zephaniah 1:9). Further, their greed occasions the oppression of those around them (Zephaniah 1:10-11, Zephaniah 1:13, Zephaniah 1:13). C. Lehman observes that “this book has gone to greatest depths in its exposure of sin and man’s sinfulness.”711 Nevertheless, Zephaniah holds out the hope that God will be receptive to everyone who repentantly surrenders to Him (Zephaniah 2:1-2). Such spiritual virtues as righteousness, humility, faith, and truth receive commendation and reward from Zephaniah (Zephaniah 2:3; Zephaniah 3:12-13). The Lord has a plan for the humble and faithful remnant of His people (Zephaniah 2:2-3, Zephaniah 2:9; Zephaniah 3:11-13).712 He will purify them (Zephaniah 3:9-10), regather and restore them (Zephaniah 3:10) to their land (Zephaniah 3:20), and give them victory over their enemies (Zephaniah 2:7, Zephaniah 2:9). Jerusalem will be a blissful place (Zephaniah 3:11, Zephaniah 3:18), for Israel’s saving God (Zephaniah 3:17) will bless His people (Zephaniah 3:14-17) and in turn make them a channel of blessing to all (Zephaniah 3:19-20). 1 The Announcement of the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:1-18, Zephaniah 2:1-3) Zephaniah begins his prophecy with notices of his reception of the word of the Lord, his patrilineage, and the time of his ministry (Zephaniah 1:1). He then announces the coming of God’s worldwide judgment (Zephaniah 1:2-6) and exhorts his hearers to humble themselves before that day overtakes them (Zephaniah 1:7-13). He closes the first major portion of his prophecy by supplying important details concerning the devastation of that coming Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-18) and admonishes those who hear him to seek the Lord (Zephaniah 2:1-3). From a literary standpoint this section is marked by prophetic pronouncements (Zephaniah 1:2-6), a narrative with vivid descriptive detail (Zephaniah 1:14-18), and warnings and admonitions (Zephaniah 1:7-13d; Zephaniah 2:1-3). It displays such literary features as alliteration and paronomasia (Zephaniah 1:2), chiasmus and hyperbole (Zephaniah 1:2-3), literary allusions (Zephaniah 1:3), anthropopoeia (Zephaniah 1:4, Zephaniah 1:12-13), metaphor and simile (Zephaniah 1:7, Zephaniah 1:12; Zephaniah 2:1), lament (Zephaniah 1:10-11), irony (Zephaniah 1:11), merismus (Zephaniah 1:12), personification (Zephaniah 1:14), synecdoche (Zephaniah 1:16), and especially a widespread use of repetition (Zephaniah 1:2-3, Zephaniah 1:14-16, Zephaniah 1:18; Zephaniah 2:2-3). Superscription (Zephaniah 1:1) Translation The word of the Lord that came to Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, in the days of Josiah, the son of Amon the king of Judah. Exegesis and Exposition The implications of the unusual recording of four generations of Zephaniah’s patrilineage were discussed in the introduction (see under Setting). If Zephaniah descended from King Hezekiah, he would have had access to the royal court accorded few other prophets, an entree that might account for Josiah’s early attention to Judah’s spiritual condition. Zephaniah had, however, an even higher relationship. He declares that what he is about to deliver is not the message of man but the word of the Lord (cf. Hosea 1:1; Joel 1:1; Micah 1:1; Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1). Therefore, what he had to say was of supreme significance and ought to be heeded all the more earnestly. Additional Notes Zephaniah 1:1 G. Gerleman suggests that in the prophetic books “the Word of the Lord” becomes a “technical term for the prophetic word of revelation.”713 He notes this usage in 225 of the 242 occurrences of the phrase in the OT. It not only identifies the source and authority of Zephaniah’s prophecy but also authenticates him as God’s spokesman. Because of the nature of God’s Word (cf. Psalms 119:1-176) it is to be received and believed and in turn is to be mastered and allowed to master the hearts of those who receive it. צְפַנְיָה (“Zephaniah”): The meaning of the prophet’s name is usually traced to either of the two senses of the root צפן: (1) “hide,” hence “he whom the Lord hides,” “the Lord hides,” or “hidden of the Lord” (e.g., Feinberg, Keil) or (2) “treasure,” hence “Yahweh has treasured” (e.g., Opperwall-Galluch). Building on the former meaning, J. M. P. Smith proposes “Yahweh is protector.” Smith suggests further that the frequent use of צפן in biblical (Exodus 6:22; Leviticus 10:4; Numbers 34:25; 2 Kings 25:18; 1 Chronicles 6:21; Jeremiah 21:1; Jeremiah 29:24-25, Jeremiah 29:29; Jeremiah 37:3; Jeremiah 52:24; Zechariah 6:10, Zechariah 6:14) and extrabiblical names (e.g., in the Elephantine Papyri, on a Hebrew gem in the British Museum, and in Carthaginian and Assyrian inscriptions) points to the idea that it was the name of a Semitic god.714 The form of the name Zephaniah, however, makes this proposal unlikely. Nor is there any demonstrable designed correspondence between the prophet’s name and the message of the book (against Pusey). Whichever of the senses of the root is intended in the name (I am inclined to the first), the truth contained in the name is sufficient reason for its frequent appearance. A. Pronouncements Of Judgment (Zephaniah 1:2-6) In language and figures drawn from the creation and Flood accounts God’s prophet warns of a universal judgment that will one day descend upon the earth and all that is on it (Zephaniah 1:2-3). He amplifies the announcement of that judgment by applying it to God’s covenant people. Because of their idolatry and apostasy, Judah and Jerusalem will find God’s hand of chastisement stretched out against them (Zephaniah 1:4-6). 1. On All The Earth (Zephaniah 1:2-3) Translation “I will utterly sweep away* everything from the face of the earth” —the declaration of the LORD. 3”I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the air, (and) the fish of the sea, and the things that cause the wicked to stumble*; and I will cut off man from the face of the earth —the declaration of the LORD. Exegesis and Exposition Zephaniah begins his messages with God’s doubly reinforced declaration: God will destroy everything upon the face of the earth, sweeping away all life before Him whether on land, in the air, or in the water, including especially mankind and all that pertains to him. The pronouncement is solemn, its phraseology reminiscent of the Noahic flood (cf. Genesis 6:17; Genesis 7:21-23). The disaster envisioned here, however, is more cataclysmic, for although every living thing that dwelled on the land or inhabited the air died at that time the fish remained. Zephaniah alludes also to the creation. His catalog of death is arranged in inverse order to God’s creative work: man, beast, the creatures of the air, those of the sea (cf. Genesis 1:20-27). The order of creation found its climax in man, who was made in God’s image and appointed as His representative. The coming destruction will begin with man, who has denied his Creator (Zephaniah 1:6) and involved in his sin all that is under his domain. Man’s sin is thus weighty, involving not only himself but his total environment (Zephaniah 1:2-3 b). The judgment that begins with man also concludes with man. All that alienates him from his Creator and Lord will be swept away, and he will be left alone to face his God. Last of all, man himself will be cut off from the land that has given him sustenance. The chiastic arrangement of the paronomasia is striking: The אֲדָמָה ( áa„da„ma„, “ground”) had given אָדָם ( áa„da„m, “man”) life; now the man is cut off from the life-giving ground. This wordplay, combined with the alliteration of the letters aleph and mem (both employed 12 times), makes the literary allusion all the more effective. Though the language is hyperbolic, it emphasizes the seriousness of man’s sin and the universal extent of God’s judgment. Additional Notes Zephaniah 1:2 † אָסֹף אָסֵף (“I will utterly sweep away”): The MT puts together two verbs from different roots, אָסֹף being an infinitive absolute from אָסַף (“gather/remove”) and אָסֵף a hiphil prefix conjugation verb from סוֹף (“come to an end,” hence here = “sweep away”). All suggested repointings of the MT are attempts to smooth out this seeming incongruity. Thus the majority of scholars tend to read two words from the root אסף (i.e., אָסֹף אֹסֵף—e.g. BHS, Gesenius, G. A. Smith; cf. NJB).715 Kapelrud suggests אָסֹף אֶאֱסֹף (“completely/fully gather/assemble”; cf. Vg congregans congregabo), whereas Sabottka prefers to emend the first form to a hiphil from יָסַף (“add/do again”): אֹסִיף אֶסוֹף (“I will again sweep away”).716 Two arguments in defense of the MT are as follows: (1) the use of mixed roots is attested elsewhere (e.g., Isaiah 28:28; Jeremiah 8:13 717); and (2) the skilled Masoretic scribes would hardly make such a “blunder” if it were unintelligible. Not only does the difficulty of the MT argue for its retention,718 but the LXX already recognized the incongruity, rendering the phrase ἐκλείψει ἐκλιπέτω (lit. “It will give out, let it fail”—hence, “Let there be a complete failure”). Moreover, as Keil points out, the two verbs have a “kindred meaning,” the compatibility of the ideas of “gathering up things” so as to “put an end to them” being obvious.719 The translation given above follows the MT, translating ad sensum and giving primary force to סוּף, which is repeated twice in Zephaniah 1:3 (cf. NIV). As noted in the Exegesis and Exposition, these verses allude to the Flood and creation accounts. The relation to the first is underscored by Zephaniah’s utilization of “from the face of the earth” (cf. Genesis 6:7; Genesis 7:4; Genesis 8:8), כֹּל (“all,” “every[thing]”; cf. Genesis 6:17; Genesis 7:4; Genesis 8:19), and אֲדָמָה (“ground/land”; cf. Genesis 6:7, Genesis 6:20; Genesis 7:4, Genesis 7:8, Genesis 7:23; Genesis 8:8, Genesis 8:13, Genesis 8:21). Thus he may be giving a divine qualification of the promise to Noah that God would never again “curse the ground because of man” or “destroy all living creatures” (Genesis 8:21, NIV). Of course the Noahic Covenant has to do with a universal flood (cf. Genesis 9:11-16) and so may not preclude another type of universal destruction (cf. 2 Peter 3:10). Further, the promise itself contains a qualification. Thus G. Vos remarks concerning Genesis 8:20-22 : “The regularity of nature in its great fundamental processes will henceforth continue. There is, however, added to this a qualification: ‘while the earth remaineth.’ This pertains to the eschatological background of the deluge (cp. 1 Peter 3:20-21; 2 Peter 2:5).”720 Still further, numerous passages seem to refer to the passing away or transforming of the present earth (e.g., Job 14:12; Psalms 102:26 [HB Psalms 102:27]; Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 34:6; Isaiah 51:6; Isaiah 54:10; Haggai 2:6, Haggai 2:21; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Hebrews 1:10-12; Hebrews 12:26-27; Revelation 21:1). Zephaniah, however, does not appear to intend replacing the promise of Genesis 8:21 721 but rather to qualify it by demonstrating its limitations. He uses the fact and limitations of the promise as an argument a fortiori. If God intends to judge the whole world, how much more should Judah and Jerusalem expect to be judged (cf. Zephaniah 1:4-6)? God’s people ought not to misunderstand (cf. Zephaniah 1:122) the old promise as indicating that God cannot again intervene to judge mankind.722 Zephaniah’s dependence on the creation account may be seen in his list of the objects of divine judgment in inverse order to their creation (Genesis 1:20-26) and the literary allusions to man and ground ( אָדָם and אֲדָמָה). It seems unlikely, however, that either reversing the creative order to pre-creation conditions or canceling man’s dominion over the lower creatures is being announced.723 Indeed, the order of creation with man at its head is fixed by God and guaranteed in perpetuity (cf. Psalms 8:5-9 [HB Psalms 8:6-10]), a reality ultimately realized in Christ (Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 2:5-9). Rather, the creation account is employed by Zephaniah to remind his hearers of the continued importance of mankind. Zephaniah draws upon both biblical sources, then, as literary precedents to underscore not only the fact of the universality of God’s judgment as a principle to be applied in Judah’s case but also the central place of man as a moral agent in great measure responsible for world conditions. This conclusion is reinforced by the syntax of Zephaniah 1:2-6, the prefix-conjugation verbs of Zephaniah 1:2-3 c declaring God’s resolve being continued by the suffix-conjugation verbs of Zephaniah 1:3-6 detailing the consequences of the divine purpose. Cutting off sinful man in general is thus declared along with judging God’s covenant nation in particular. Indeed, the judgment of God’s people is the focus of the pronouncement. Zephaniah 1:3 † הַמַּכְשֵׁלוֹת (“the things that cause to stumble”): The consonantal text has traditionally been understood as a noun: “ruins” (NASB), “heaps of rubble” (NIV), “stumbling blocks” (Pesh.; cf. KJV, NKJV). The following particle אֶת must then be viewed not as the marker of the definite direct object but as the preposition “with,” hence “with the wicked” (NASB). As Sabottka remarks, the word in question has been “for translators a true stone of stumbling.”724 The translation suggested here takes the MT consonantal text as a hiphil fem. pl. participle, the thought being that in God’s judicial “clean sweep” not only man and his physical environment but every false religious practice that has occasioned his falling will be destroyed.725 The idea is parallel to Jeremiah’s complaint (where the hiphil participle of כָּשַׁל also occurs) that God’s people “burn incense to worthless idols, which made them stumble in their ways” (Jeremiah 18:15, NIV). The line thus anticipates the condemnation of Judah’s false religion recorded in Zephaniah 1:4-6. Since man’s religious practices inevitably affect his total life situation, the word may imply even more. Laetsch suggests that the term describes the ruined state of every social and political institution, whether of divine or human origin.... Every divine institution for man’s welfare, matrimony (Genesis 2:18-25), government (Romans 13:1-7), has been defiled and crippled by human sin and wickedness. Every human civilization, the product of sinful man, for that very reason carries within itself the germ of decay and death. When it has run its tragic downward course (cp. Romans 1:18-32), it will collapse and bury beneath its ruins all that in proud self-exaltation had relied on it as the salvation of the nation and the world.726 2. On Judah And Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:4-6) Translation “And I will stretch out My hand against Judah and against all who dwell in Jerusalem. And I will cut off from this place the remnant of Baal —the (very) names* of the pagan priests* together with the priests 5and those who bow down* upon the roofs to the hosts of heaven and those who bow down and swear to the LORD and swear by their king* 6and those who turn back from following the LORD who neither seek the LORD nor inquire of Him.” Exegesis and Exposition God’s announced purpose to sweep away everything so that man may receive his just judgment is continued with an indication of God’s ultimate intentions. He will stretch out His hand of chastisement against Judah and Jerusalem. The motif of the outstretched hand of God emphasizes God’s omnipotence (Jeremiah 32:17) and is also used in connection with His creative power and sovereign disposition of the course of history (Isaiah 14:26-27; Jeremiah 27:5). It is specially used of God’s relations with Israel, whether in deliverance (Exodus 6:6; Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 7:19; Deuteronomy 9:29; Deuteronomy 26:8; 2 Kings 17:36; Jeremiah 32:21; Ezekiel 20:33-34) or in judgment (Isaiah 5:25; Isaiah 9:12, Isaiah 9:17, Isaiah 9:21 [HB Isaiah 9:11, Isaiah 9:16, Isaiah 9:20]; Isaiah 10:4; Jeremiah 21:5). It is the last of these that is in view here. God’s people needed to be reminded that the God of the universe and of all individuals and nations is Israel’s God in particular. To Him she owed her allegiance. When such was not forthcoming, when sin and apostasy set in, Israel could expect God’s outstretched hand of judgment. The cause and course for Israel’s judgment are detailed next. Zephaniah declares that God will cut off the remnant of Baalism that plagued Judah. The activities of Baal, the chief deity of ancient Canaan, are well documented in the literature of Ugarit.727 Baal was a god associated with the storm and fertility; his veneration together with its licentious worship rites was a constant source of temptation to Israel (cf. Numbers 25:1-5; Judges 2:13; 1 Kings 16:30-32; 1 Kings 18:19, 1 Kings 19:21; Hosea 13:1). Fascination with Baal had been a prime reason for the fall of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 17:16-18; Hosea 2:8 [HB Hosea 2:10]) and would prove to be so for Judah as well (2 Kings 17:18-20; Jeremiah 11:13, Jeremiah 11:17; Jeremiah 19:5-9).728 Although Zephaniah’s denunciation of those who worship the hosts of heaven on the rooftops is a further indication of the turn that the worship of Baal often took, the adoration of Baal and the stars was a besetting sin in Judah when Josiah came to the throne (cf. 2 Kings 21:2-3 with 2 Kings 23:4-5, 2 Kings 23:10-14; Jeremiah 19:3-13). Because Baal was called Baal Shamem (Baal/Lord of [the] Heaven[s]) in ancient Canaan,729 it was inevitable that features of stellar worship would be fused with practices associated with Baal. Although Israel’s preoccupation with Baal was denounced by her prophets (1 Kings 18:20-21; Jeremiah 2:8, Jeremiah 2:23; Jeremiah 11:13, Jeremiah 11:17; Jeremiah 32:35; Hosea 2:13 [HB Hosea 2:15]; Hosea 11:2), the people continued in his worship, developing a dual worship of Yahweh and Baal that was compromising and syncretistic (Jeremiah 7:9; Jeremiah 23:25-29). Zephaniah’s mentioning of pagan priests and regular priests shows that such worship practices were also characteristic of the religious scene of Josiah’s early reign. But the day of reckoning was near, and Judah’s punishment would be severe. The last vestige of Baalism will be eradicated. Indeed, the very names of the various types of priests will be erased forever. The priests of Judah and the devotees of compromise would be punished. Zephaniah goes on to condemn those who feign allegiance to the Lord while swearing by the name of Baal their king. The prophet also singles out still a third group—those who have drawn back* from any pretense of worshiping the Lord. They seek* God neither in personal prayer nor in formal worship. They have no interest or concern for the Lord who redeemed His people (cf. Jeremiah 2:13, Jeremiah 2:32-35; Jeremiah 3:6-10; Jeremiah 5:2-13; etc.). Additional Notes Zephaniah 1:4 † הַכְּמָרִים (“the pagan priests”): The Vg renders the term “temple guardians,” but the Pesh. transliterates the word and the LXX omits it altogether. The English versions have handled it variously: “idolatrous priests” (NASB, NKJV, RSV), “the pagan ... priests” (NIV), “priests” (NJB), “Chemarims” (KJV). The term occurs only twice elsewhere in the OT: (1) in Hosea 10:5 of priests who officiated in the calf worship at Bethel730; and (2) in 2 Kings 22:5 of priests who led in rites associated with Baal and stellar worship, priests who had been appointed by the past kings of Judah but whose offices were done away with in the reforms of Josiah. In all three cases, then, the term refers to priests outside the established priesthood of Israel and has special connection with Baalism.731 Despite the widespread occurrence of the word in other Semitic languages, its etymology is uncertain.732 † עִם הַכֹּהֲנִים . . . אֶת־שֵׁם (“the names ... with the priests”): Because the deletion of a waw coordinator in such a compound would be unusual, the phrase should probably be construed as apposition for emphatic amplification—even the names of the officiating priests connected with Baalism and the other false religions will be cut off.733 Zephaniah 1:5 † הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוִים (“those who bow down”): The existence of this root in Ugaritic makes certain that the form is a hishtaphel participle from חָוָה (“bow down”) and not, as formerly thought, from the later Hebrew root שָׁחָה (“bend/bow”; hithpael = “prostrate oneself”).734 The action connected with the word may be performed before persons as a greeting or as a token of respect or submission, before Yahweh in the context of prayer or sacrifice, i.e., as a cultic action, or even (usually in the context of accusation, prohibition,or ridicule) before other gods, in which case it simply stands for (cultic) “worship.”735 The twice occurring הַנִּשְׁבָּעִים is differently constructed in each instance, the first with ל and the second with ב. Keil explains the distinction as follows: “The difference between the two expressions answers exactly to the religious attitude of the men in question, who pretended to be worshippers of Jehovah, and yet with every asseveration took the name of Baal into their mouth.”736 † מַלְכָּם (“their king”): The MT has been repointed to read Milcom (the detested Ammonite deity; cf. 1 Kings 11:5, 1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13) by the Vg, Pesh., NASB, RSV, NKJV, and NJB and the familiar Molech by the NIV. The commentators are divided, with scholars attested for each suggestion.737 The NIV’s proposal has the advantage of isolating one of the sins of Judah, whose rites were combatted by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10) along with the other practices that Zephaniah mentions here (cf. Zephaniah 1:4-5 with 2 Kings 23:4-5, 2 Kings 23:12).738 Despite the widespread endorsement of Milcom here, a reference to his worship in the Judah of Josiah’s day seems unlikely. Although he was one of many gods who held a fascination for the early Israelites (Judges 10:6), his popularity does not seem to have continued after the days of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5, 1 Kings 11:33), possibly due to the hostility between Ammonites and Israelites (cf. 2 Chronicles 20:1-26; 2 Chronicles 27:5; Isaiah 11:14; Jeremiah 49:1-6; Amos 1:13-15) and the overshadowing presence of Baalism and the fertility religion of Canaan (cf. 2 Kings 17:16-17). The reading of the MT has much to commend it. It is followed in Rahlf’s edition of the LXX and favored by the fact that the term “king” was applied to Baal.739 Further, the context pits the worship of Yahweh against Baal and the false rites associated with him, including the syncretistic blending of Baalism with the worship of Israel’s God. Zephaniah 1:6 הַנְּסוֹגִים (“those who turn back”): Although this root is used of natural movement (cf. Arabic sa„ája, “go and come”), the Hebrew verb is commonly employed of vacillating or faithless behavior toward people (Jeremiah 38:22) or God (Psalms 53:3 [HB Psalms 53:4]). When it occurs in the niphal, it denotes a willful turning of oneself away or back from someone or something. When that someone is God (cf. Isaiah 59:12-13), it is a deadly condition. וְלֹא־דְרָשֻׁהוּ . . . לֹא־בִקְשׁוּ (“they do not seek ... they do not inquire of him”): The first verb lays stress on personal emotion in seeking or asking someone; the latter emphasizes the person’s concern in the inquiry and hence is often used in prophetic encouragements to repentance (cf. Amos 5:4-6). דָּרַשׁ is also used of inquiring of God or consulting an oracle. The two verbs occur in parallel elsewhere in contexts dealing with seeking the Lord (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:29; 2 Chronicles 20:3-4; Psalms 105:4).740 B. Exhortations Based On Judgment (Zephaniah 1:7-13) In the light of the pronouncements of judgment, Zephaniah issued exhortations to Judah. Since the coming of judgment was certain, it was time for them to examine their spiritual condition. Judah’s spiritual leaders and Jerusalem’s leading citizens, those most responsible for the direction of God’s people, ought to take particular note. In their pride and avarice they have ignored and blasphemed God. It was a time for solemn silence and sincere repentance. The unit is made up of two strophes, each introduced by an imperative (Zephaniah 1:7, Zephaniah 1:11) followed by a motive clause begun by כִּי( kî, for/because/indeed,” Zephaniah 1:7 b-d, Zephaniah 1:11 b-c), and continued by an introductory phrase (“and it shall come to pass”) giving additional details (Zephaniah 1:8-9 and Zephaniah 1:12-13).741 Because the second imperative (Zephaniah 1:11) is expressed in irony concerning the grief of Judah’s merchants in the future time of judgment rather than intended for the contemporary populace, Zephaniah 1:11-13 continue the details of Jerusalem’s punishment for which she is to “be silent” (Zephaniah 1:7). Accordingly Zephaniah 1:10 is a hinge verse that proceeds on the basis of the time framework of Zephaniah 1:8-9 and predicts the lamentation of the merchants upon which the following call for wailing (Zephaniah 1:11) is issued. Since Zephaniah 1:10 partakes of the portions that precede and follow it, the section may be schematized structurally as follows: A A call for silence (Zephaniah 1:7-9) A.B A report of lamentation (Zephaniah 1:10) B A call for sorrow (Zephaniah 1:11-13). Translation Be silent* in the presence of the sovereign LORD, for the Day of the LORD is near; yes, the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has consecrated His guests. 8”And it shall come to pass on the day of Yahweh’s sacrifice* that I will punish* the nobles*, and the king’s sons, and all those clothed in foreign clothing. 9And in that day I will punish all those who leap over the threshold*, those who fill the houses of their masters by violence and deceit.” 10”And on that day”—the declaration of the LORD— “a cry will go out from the Fish Gate, and a wailing from the Second Quarter*, and a great crash from the hills.” 11Wail, you who live in the market district, for all the people of Canaan will be silent, all who weigh out the silver will be cut off. 12”And it shall come to pass at that time that I will search Jerusalem with lamps. and I will punish the men who are indifferent*, those who say in their hearts, ‘The LORD will do neither good nor evil.’ 13And their wealth shall become a plunder, and their houses a desolation. They shall build houses but not live in them; they shall plant vineyards but not drink their wine.” Exegesis and Exposition Having delivered God’s pronouncement of judgment against all mankind and especially His covenant people, Zephaniah turns to exhortations. In view of the certainty and severity of coming judgment, God’s prophet has some advice: “Be silent!” “Hush!” It is a call for submission, fear, and consecration. While Yahweh is Judah’s God, He is also the master of her destiny. Judah has perpetuated Israel’s sin (2 Kings 17:18-20) in following Baal and other pagan practices. Accordingly the worship of Baal must have seemed a contradiction to Zephaniah. Certainly it would appear to be so to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 3:14), who finds in Judah’s pursuit of Baal a denial of her relation to Yahweh. Thus Jeremiah condemns Judah’s syncretism by playing on the word בַּעַל ( baàal) itself. As a verb, ba„àal means basically to “possess.” It can also be translated “rule over” (1 Chronicles 4:22) or “marry” (Deuteronomy 24:1; Proverbs 30:23; Isaiah 62:4). As a noun, ba’al may refer to an owner (Exodus 22:7; Job 31:39), master (Isaiah 13:1-22), ruler (Isaiah 16:8), or husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). Theologically the root is used of God as Israel’s redeemer and husband (Isaiah 54:5). The covenant between God and Israel is described as a marriage in which Israel had become unfaithful (Jeremiah 31:32). Building on these ideas, having pictured the covenant between God and Israel under the figure of a marriage relationship that Judah, as a wicked wife, had broken (Jeremiah 2:1-37, Jeremiah 3:1-10), Jeremiah pleads with Judah to repent (Jeremiah 3:12-14) in order to receive God’s blessing (Jeremiah 3:15-18). In so doing, he uses a wordplay (Jeremiah 3:14): “Turn ( שׁוּבוּ, sŒu‚bu‚), O backsliding ( שׁוֹבָבִים, sŒo‚ba„bîm) children, says the Lord; for I am married to you.” Did Judah chase after Baal? Her real “Baal”— that is, her divine owner and Lord—is the only true God, her husband. Why should she seek a false master? Zephaniah probably intends a similar wordplay in juxtaposing the denunciation of Baal with אֲדֹנָי יהוה ( áaŒdo„na„y YHWH, “sovereign LORD”). Judah had forsaken her rightful master ( áa„do‚n) to follow another master (Baal). The folly of such conduct was now apparent. Judah’s true master was about to demonstrate the powerlessness of him who was no master at all. The last remnants of Baalism would be cut off. Therefore Judah and Jerusalem should “be silent.” Laetsch puts it well: Jehovah is the Covenant God. As such He is Lord, the supreme God, who has the right to demand what He will, and the power to enforce His will. Hush! Silence before Him! This is a call to the people of Judah to cease every manner of opposition to God’s word and will, to bow down in submissive obedience, in unconditional surrender, in loving service, to their Covenant God.742 A further cause for fear lay in the realization that God’s people stood “in the presence of” the living God whose all-seeing eye (Jeremiah 32:19) observes all their evil deeds and rewards them (Job 24:22-24; Job 34:21-22; Psalms 66:7; Amos 9:8). Judah’s idolatry was loathsome in His eyes (Jeremiah 16:17). They had strayed far from the truth that, because Israel’s God was the unseen observer not only on occasions of religious ceremony but also in every activity of life, their lives were to reflect His holy character (cf. Leviticus 19:1; Leviticus 20:7, Leviticus 20:22-24).743 Contrary to their foolish thinking that God either does not see their wickedness or will not intervene, His day of judgment was at hand. The motive for Zephaniah’s call for silence follows (Zephaniah 1:7 b): the “Day of the Lord.” As employed by the prophets, the Day of the Lord is that time when for His glory and in accordance with His purposes God intervenes in human affairs in judgment against sin or for the deliverance of His own.744 That time could be in the present (Joel 1:15), lie in the near future (Isaiah 2:12-22; Jeremiah 46:10; Ezekiel 13:5; Joel 2:1, Joel 2:11; Amos 5:18-20), be future-eschatological (Isaiah 13:6, Isaiah 13:9; Ezekiel 30:2-3; Malachi 4:1-6 [HB Joel 3:19-24]),745 or be primarily eschatological (Joel 3:14-15 [HB 4:14-15]; Zechariah 14:1-21; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10-13). Zephaniah’s urgent warning here is in view of imminent judgment. Although Zephaniah delays his description of the terrors of the Day of the Lord until the next section (Zephaniah 1:14-18), the seriousness of that time is underscored in a dramatic metaphor that adds a further motive for Judah’s silence: The coming day of judgment is a sacrifice. Although the specific sacrifice is not mentioned, it was probably a type of fellowship offering (Leviticus 7:11-21).746 Instances of such sacrificial feasts to which guests were invited are 1 Samuel 9:22; 2 Samuel 15:11; 1 Kings 1:9-10, 1 Kings 1:24-25; cf. Deuteronomy 12:18; Deuteronomy 33:19. The stipulations for such sacrificial meals are significant for Zephaniah 1:7 : The cultic celebration takes place liphne‚ yhvh: the worshippers sacrifice (zabhach, 1 Samuel 11:15), eat (Deuteronomy 12:7), and rejoice (Deuteronomy 12:12) “before Yahweh,” i.e., within the temple precincts and in the presence of the deity. “Eating in the presence of Yahweh “ means being Yahweh’s guest (semantic parallels: 2 Samuel 11:13; 1 Kings 1:25): God is the hestiaÃto„r, “Host.” Fellowship with Yahweh presupposes the removal of uncleanness (Leviticus 7:20; 2 Chronicles 30:17; Jub. 49:9), continence (1 Samuel 16:5; 1 Samuel 21:5 f.[1 Samuel 21:4 f.]), and if necessary fasting (cf. Judges 20:26), moral uprightness (Proverbs 15:8; Hosea 8:13), and careful observance of the ritual (Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 22:31 f.). Only so will the sacrifice and the worshipper be acceptable to Yahweh (Ezekiel 20:41; Ezekiel 43:27).747 As in the case of Zephaniah 1:2-3, so here one ought not to push the identification of the various parts of the figure too far. The verse announces the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem under the metaphor of the sacrificial banquet. The sacrifice itself is Judah and Jerusalem. But who are the guests? If one sees in the metaphor a second reason for the call for silence, the guests could have been the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem. Thus the call for silence (= submission to the Lord) is issued (1) because of the awesome day of the Lord’s judgment and (2) because that day can be survived only by genuine believers in Yahweh. The metaphor of the banquet (Zephaniah 1:7 c-d) also strengthens the previous two lines while giving unity to the whole verse. The sacrifice was to be held in the presence of Yahweh (Zephaniah 1:7 a), was at hand (Zephaniah 1:7 b), was hosted by Yahweh himself (Zephaniah 1:7 c), and was to be attended by His guests (Zephaniah 1:7 d). So construed, the metaphor of the sacrificial banquet reinforces the announcement of the Day of the Lord and provides a ray of hope in the clouds of doom. As guests called to a sacrificial feast were to come with their uncleanness removed, so the Judahites are urged to respond to the invitation of Yahweh their host. Although judgment was coming, there was still time. By acknowledging God as their master and by responding in fear to the prospect of judgment in repentance from sin and repudiation of idolatry, God’s people could join a believing remnant in coming to the feast as guests acceptable to Him. There was yet hope. The figure of the sacrificial banquet, however, also entailed a further word of caution. The alternative of being unfit for attendance carried with it an ironic twist. Guests who remained unrepentant, and hence unclean, would be disqualified and would, like those in Jehu’s day (2 Kings 10:18-28), discover that they were not only invited guests* but also victims. God had summoned others (the Chaldeans) who would destroy both Judah and Jerusalem and the unrepentant people who inhabited them (Zephaniah 1:8-13). Zephaniah gives a further message with regard to that coming day (Zephaniah 1:8). In connection with its being a time of sacrifice hosted by Yahweh, He will visit Judah and Jerusalem, a visitation designed for chastisement. Thus the disqualified guests will be punished. Indeed, in their self-centeredness and preoccupation with the gods and goods of other nations, Israel’s leadership had adopted a foreign lifestyle, including its dress. There may be a veiled threat here. Did they prefer foreign attire? They would soon see the specter of foreign uniforms throughout the land. The threat was literally carried out (2 Kings 23:31-35; 2 Kings 24:10-16; 2 Kings 25:1-21; Jeremiah 39:1-10; Jeremiah 52:4-30; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:2-4, 2 Chronicles 36:9-10, 2 Chronicles 36:15-21). The verse is a vivid reminder of the responsibilities of leadership (cf. Jeremiah 22:1-30, Jeremiah 23:1-39; Luke 12:47-48). Additional charges follow (Jeremiah 1:9), this time leveled against all the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem. They perpetuated the custom of avoiding contact with the threshold of a temple by leaping over it. The practice had originated among the priests of Dagon during the incident of the collapse of his statue before the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 5:1-4). Because of the contact of Dagon’s statue with the threshold, “to this day neither the priests of Dagon nor any others who enter Dagon’s temple at Ashdod step on the threshold” (1 Samuel 5:5, NIV).748 Since many superstitious beliefs revolve around thresholds, customs similar to this may have been practiced in connection with pagan worship elsewhere in Canaan, even in Judah and Jerusalem. An alternative view suggests that the leaping over the threshold has to do with a violent and sudden rushing into houses to steal the property of strangers ... so that the allusion is to ‘dishonourable servants of the king, who thought that they best serve their master by extorting treasures from their dependents by violence and fraud’ (Ewald).749 This position, however, is forced to view the culprits as the leaders of Zephaniah 1:8 and to take the word “masters” (Zephaniah 1:9) as a plural of majesty to be translated as the singular “master” (i.e., the king). Not only is this understanding a less natural interpretation of the form, but it proposes that the vicious behavior of Judah’s leadership is tied to the righteous king Josiah—an unlikely suggestion. Further, it must be demonstrated that a purely religious custom gave rise to a proverbial saying that could be applied to other situations. But the syntax favors the thought that Zephaniah 1:9 is an additional charge to that of Zephaniah 1:8.750 The view adopted here thus understands that the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem have been influenced to follow their leaders, adopting pagan customs in their worship.751 The verse goes on to report that in the socio-economic sphere the desire to please their leaders has caused the citizenry to perpetrate deeds of violence* and deceit against the less fortunate in order to achieve their ambitions. Further information concerning the day of the Lord’s sacrifice is in Zephaniah 1:10. Although lamentation will come from all parts of the city, Jerusalem’s greedy merchants will particularly be affected. From the Fish Gate in Jerusalem’s northern wall,752 down through the Tyropoeon Valley and the Second Quarter, areas of commercial activity, will come a great cry. Jerusalem’s hills also will reverberate, filled with the horrifying clamor of havoc and destruction: The entire city will be filled with the noise of cries, of pitiful howling and shrieking, intermingled with the triumphant shouts of slaying, plundering enemies; while from all the hills on which Jerusalem was built will resound the crash of houses and walls and palaces and the Temple, as they are being ruthlessly smashed.753 Therefore Zephaniah tells the merchants to wail (Zephaniah 1:11). Their wealth will be taken away. Though one could hope for the lamenting that leads to repentance, such was unlikely. Rather, these people will lament their lost wealth. In irony Zephaniah tells them to go ahead and wail, for such will suit their lot. The money-loving merchants are also labeled for what they are: Canaanites* and money-grubbers. The metaphor is an apt one, for like their Canaanite precursors they worshiped pagan gods and spent their lives trafficking in commercial pursuits. The merchants of Judah were no better than those of Israel (cf. Ezekiel 16:29; Hosea 12:7), and both betrayed their Canaanite ancestry (Ezekiel 16:3). Jesus would also warn of the perils of the pursuit of wealth (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:19-31), and Paul would caution the church’s leadership against being lovers of money (1 Timothy 3:3). Lamentably, the temptation to make merchandise of the ministry must be mastered in every generation (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17). Whereas money and wealth can be a useful resource for the advancement of the Lord’s work and the rightful enjoyment of life, it must never become an end in itself (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:16) lest a grasping Canaartite bent become a snare (James 5:1-6). Zephaniah concludes the subunit that begins in Zephaniah 1:11 with details concerning the coming time of wailing for Jerusalem’s merchants and leaders (Zephaniah 1:12-13). He reports that God’s judgment will be thorough. In a brilliant figure that combines anthropopoeia and simile, the Lord is likened to a man who takes a lamp to make a diligent search* (cf. Isaiah 45:3; Luke 15:8). In like manner God’s instruments of invasion will seek out every corner of Jerusalem in carrying away its treasures. The prophecy of the destruction and looting of the city would come to pass in the days of Josiah’s son Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:13-17; 2 Chronicles 36:17-19; Jeremiah 52:17-23; cf. Josephus Ant. 10.9.5). The main target of God’s searching judgment is now revealed. God will punish those whose greed and self-satisfaction had grown into a settled indifference toward God and His standards.754 The MT says literally that those who were complacent had “thickened upon their lees.” Like wine left on its dregs too long and that has thus become sickeningly sweet and then spoiled,755 so many of Jerusalem’s citizens had remained in their apostate lifestyle so long that they had become satisfied with it and then grown indifferent to genuine piety. In their callous unconcern for anything but themselves, Judah had become “a nation hardened in iniquity equaling and surpassing the Gentiles in moral impurities, shameless vices, and self-satisfied lip service. It had become unpalatable to God, unfit for its purpose, ready to be poured away.”756 If not in theory, at least in practice, the people of Judah behaved like full-fledged pagans. They proclaimed that God does neither good nor harm to individuals or society (cf. Isaiah 41:23; Jeremiah 10:5).757 To their surprise, God will demonstrate His intervention into the affairs of men. No absentee God, He will send an invading force that will search out and plunder Jerusalem. The implementation of the Lord’s proclamation will come so quickly that all who have lived in pursuit of ill-gotten gain will not survive to enjoy their wealth. All that for which they have labored so hard and long will fall into the hands of others. In their preoccupation with self and riches they will lose them both (cf. Luke 12:16-21). Thus God’s righteous standards will be upheld (Leviticus 26:27-33; Deuteronomy 28:30, Deuteronomy 28:39). As they had been applied to Israel (cf. Amos 5:11; Micah 6:15), so they will be applied to Judah and Jerusalem. Whereas today’s believer may applaud Zephaniah’s warning to his fellow countrymen as well taken due to the apostasy, immorality, and injustice of that time, it is perhaps another matter for him to apply them to himself. But such conduct is no less culpable now than it was then. Indeed, a far more insidious danger lurks today. Apathy and inactivity abound, and these will ultimately take their toll. Craigie’s warning is timeless and to the point: “Sometimes it is the apathetic and indifferent who are more responsible for a nation’s moral collapse than those who are actively engaged in evil, or those who have failed in the responsibilities of leadership.”758 Additional Notes Zephaniah 1:7 †For הַס (“be silent”), see the additional note on Habakkuk 2:20. קְרֻאָיו (“his guests”): Though the explanation adopted in the Exegesis and Exposition differs from the usual understanding of the guests as solely the Babylonians who are bidden to the sacrificial meal (Judah),759 it has the advantage of supplying an implied plea for repentance and consecration to God. Moreover, the presence of Chaldeans alone as consecrated guests at a Judahite feast would be strange. Indeed, like Jehu’s soldiers they might be there as executioners. The frequent reference (e.g., Keil, Walker) to Isaiah 13:3, where the Lord’s destroyers of Babylon are called “holy ones,” probably has reference not to a sacrificial feast but to a consecration for holy warfare and thus has no bearing here. Zephaniah 1:8 בְּיוֹם זֶבַת יהוה (“on the day of Yahweh’s sacrifice”): Since the Lord Himself serves as the divine host, the Tetragrammaton has been rendered by the more personal “Yahweh” rather than translating it as the customary “LORD.” † וּפָקַדְתִּי (“I will punish”): Though often translated “visit,” the verb must be contextually nuanced.760 In many cases it is employed where a superior takes action for or against his subordinates, in hostile contexts connoting “punish” (Jeremiah 11:22; Hosea 1:4; Amos 3:2, Amos 3:14). † שָׂרִים (“nobles”): The word refers to officials at various levels, frequently coming from leading tribal families and forming powerful advisory groups throughout Israel’s history (cf. Exodus 18:13-26; 1 Kings 4:2-6; 2 Kings 24:12; 2 Chronicles 35:8). The term may designate the chieftains of Israel (Numbers 21:18), court officials (1 Chronicles 22:17), district supervisors (1 Kings 20:14-15), city officials (Judges 8:6), military leaders (1 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 1:9-14; 2 Kings 5:1; 2 Kings 25:23, 2 Kings 25:26), or even religious leaders (Ezra 8:24). The importance of the nobles in Zephaniah’s day is underscored not only in their mention before the members of the royal family here but also in their prominence in the enumeration of the levels of Judahite society during the reign of Josiah (Jeremiah 1:18; Jeremiah 2:26; Jeremiah 4:9). Jeremiah emphasizes their importance and responsibility, using the term more than three dozen times. As for the princes mentioned in the parallel passage, if the date for Zephaniah adopted in the introduction is correct, the reference must be principally to the sons of the deceased King Amon.761 Zephaniah 1:9 † הַמִּפְתָּן (“the threshold”): Something akin to this traditional meaning is demanded by its use elsewhere (1 Samuel 5:4-5; Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:4, Ezekiel 10:18; Ezekiel 46:2; Ezekiel 47:1).762 For הָמָס (“violence”), see the additional note on Habakkuk 1:2-3. Zephaniah 1:10 † הַמִּשְׁנֶה (“the second quarter”) has been translated by some (NIV, NJB) in accordance with its being understood as a second or newer district of the city, perhaps as an addition to the upper Tyropoeon Valley. John Gray observes that it probably developed as a residential area for palace and Temple personnel after the building of the Temple. At the time of Josiah it would be located west of the palace and Temple over the depression of the upper Tyropoeon Valley.763 The translation “second quarter” is also given by the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and RSV (cf. LXX, Vg). Zephaniah 1:11 †Like הַמִּשְׁנֶה, הַמַּכְתֵּשׁ (“the market district”) has been variously understood. Among the ancient versions, the LXX tradition renders it in three different ways, the Vg translates it “pillars,” the Pesh. transliterates it as a proper noun, and the Tg. Neb. identifies it as the Brook Kidron. Among modern versions, one may find “mortar” (NASB, RSV, La Sacra Bibbia), “hollow” (NJB), “market district” (NIV), “mill” (Die Heilige Schrift), or simple transliteration (KJV, Soncino, La Sainte Bible). Due to its derivation from כָּתַשׁ (“pound”), it has been understood as a hollow or a place pounded out and related to a commercial district, probably in “the hollow ... between the western and eastern hills, or the upper part of the Tyropoeon.”764 Keil suggests that the name may have been coined by Zephaniah “to point to the fate of the merchants and men of money who lived there.”765 The translation adopted here follows the NIV in giving the word a functional rendering rather than attempting a geographical or etymological identification. כְּנַעַן (“Canaan”): BDB (pp. 488-89) points out that this Hebrew noun, like כְנַעֲנִי (“Canaanite”), may often be translated “merchant,” due to the Canaanites’ (especially the Phoenicians’) established reputation as traders. Zephaniah 1:12 † הַקֹּפְאִים עַל־שִׁמְרֵיהֶם (“the men who are indifferent”): Because קפא denotes “thicken/condense/congeal” and שְׁמָרִים is used of the dregs of wine (cf. Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 48:11), the phrase can be translated literally as “settled on their lees” (KJV). Most modern translations, however, have rendered it according to the image it portrays. Thus the NIV reads “those who are complacent,” the NASB “who are stagnant in spirit,” and the NJB “the men stagnating over the remains of their wine.” The translation adopted here views the sin involved as one of indifference that goes beyond the smug self-satisfaction suggested by the word “complacency” to an attitude that has hardened into deliberate disregard for the Lord and His standards.766 J. M. P. Smith likens God’s diligent searching of Jerusalem to that of Diogenes equipped with a lantern in his quest for truth. This is not a search for truth, however. Smith is on target when he goes on to observe that the figure expresses the thought of the impossibility of escape from the avenging eye of Yahweh.... The figure is probably borrowed from the custom of the night-watchman carrying his lamp and may involve also the thought of the diligent search of Jerusalem that will be made by her conquerors in their quest for spoil.767 Zephaniah 1:13 John T. Willis calls attention to Zephaniah’s use of ABA’B’ parallelism here in emphasizing that “divine punishment is able to thwart the apparent prevalence of human achievements (cf. Ezekiel 27:33; Ezekiel 28:9; Amos 5:11).”768 C. Teachings Concerning The Day Of The Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-18, Zephaniah 2:1-3) Zephaniah’s exhortations based on the surety of the coming day of judgment are amplified with further information concerning the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-18). In language bordering on the later apocalyptic genre (see introduction), he tells of the coming of frightful conditions in the natural world and terrible destruction throughout the whole earth. In light of the further revelations concerning that time, Zephaniah issues instructions designed to achieve the safety and deliverance of those who repent and put their trust in the Lord (Zephaniah 2:1-3). 1. Information Concerning That Day (Zephaniah 1:14-18) Translation The great Day of the LORD is near— near and coming quickly*. Listen! The Day of the LORD! Bitter* is the cry of the warrior. 15A day of wrath is that day— a day of distress and anguish, a day of devastation and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness, 16a day of trumpet and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the corner towers. 17”And I will bring distress to mankind so that they will proceed like blind men, for they have sinned against the LORD. Their blood will be poured out* like dust and their flesh* like dung.” 18Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them in the day of the LORD’S wrath. In the fire of His jealousy the whole earth shall be consumed; yea, He shall make a terrifying end* of all the inhabitants of the earth. Exegesis and Exposition Once more (cf. Zephaniah 1:7) Zephaniah declares that the Day of the Lord is near. He previously used that fact to provide grounds for submission to the Lord. Now he supplies added details to provide a further reason for the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem to repent and submit to God. The day is near and coming quickly. In the description that follows Zephaniah describes conditions that will exist primarily in the final stages of the Day of the Lord. But the prophecy must be viewed as one vast event. Some matters that he mentions would soon take place at Jerusalem’s fall in 586 B.C.; others would be repeated in various historical epochs (e.g., A.D. 70) until the whole prophecy finds its ultimate fulfillment eschatologically. Such prophecies (cf. Joel 2:28-32 [HB Joel 3:1-5] with Acts 2:17-36) are progressively fulfilled, their individual segments termed fulfillment without consummation.”769 Keeping such distinctions in mind enables one to keep a clear perspective as to both the meaning of the text and the effect the prophecy must have had upon Zephaniah’s hearers. However much the events detailed here may have full reference only to the final phase of the Day of the Lord, they were an integral part of the prophecy and could occur anywhere along the series. For the people of Zephaniah’s time the Day of the Lord was near—very near*—and the catastrophic conditions were capable of being soon applied with tragic consequences. In describing that time Zephaniah uses apocalypticlike themes and subject matter that occur elsewhere in prophetic passages and also utilizes a vocabulary frequently associated with them: Zephaniah 1:14 קָרוֹב ( qa„ro‚b, “near”; cf. Isaiah 13:6, Isaiah 13:22; Ezekiel 7:7; Ezekiel 30:7; Joel 1:15; Joel 2:1; Joel 3:14 [HB 4:14]; Obadiah 1:15), יוֹם גָּדוֹל ( yo‚m ga„do‚l, “great day”; cf. Joel 2:11, Joel 2:31 [HB Joel 3:4]), מַר (mar, “bitter”; cf. Amos 8:10) Zephaniah 1:15 עֶבְרָה ( àebra‚, “wrath”; cf. Isaiah 13:9, Isaiah 13:13; Ezekiel 7:19; Ezekiel 38:19), צָרָה ( s£a„ra‚, “distress”; cf. Isaiah 30:6; Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 12:1), שֹׁאָה ( sŒo„áa‚, “destruction”; cf. Ezekiel 38:9), חשֶׁךְ ( h£o„sŒek, “darkness”; cf. Joel 2:2, Joel 2:31 [HB Joel 3:4]; Amos 5:18, Amos 5:20), אֲפֵלָה ( áa†pe„la‚, “gloom”; cf. Joel 2:2), עָנָן ( àa„na„n, “clouds”; cf. Ezekiel 30:3, Ezekiel 30:18; Ezekiel 38:9-10; Joel 2:2), עֲרָפֶל ( àaŒra„pel, “blackness”; cf. Ezekiel 34:12; Joel 2:2) Zephaniah 1:16 שׁוֹפָר ( sŒo‚pa„r, “trumpet”; cf. Isaiah 27:13; Jeremiah 4:5, Jeremiah 4:9, Jeremiah 4:21; Joel 2:1, Joel 2:15; Zechariah 9:14), תְּרוּעָה ( te†ru‚àa‚, “battle cry/blast”; cf. Jeremiah 4:19) Zephaniah 1:18 בְּאֵשׁ קִנְאָתוֹ ( be†áe„sŒ qináa„to‚, “in the fire of his jealousy”; cf. Ezekiel 36:5-6; Ezekiel 38:19), כָּלָה ( ka„la‚, “end/complete”; cf. Jeremiah 4:27), ישְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ ( yo„sŒeŒbe‚ ha„áa„res£, “the inhabitants of the earth”; cf. Jeremiah 24:6; Jeremiah 26:9, Jeremiah 26:18; Joel 2:1; see also Revelation 3:10) In composing his catalog of conditions that will characterize the Day of the Lord Zephaniah has drawn upon themes and vocabulary employed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Joel, but he is particularly indebted to Joel 2:1-11 : Subject Matter Zephaniah 1:14-18 Joel 2:1-11 The Day of the Lord is near Zephaniah 1:14 1 It is a great day Zephaniah 1:14 11h A day of darkness and gloom Zephaniah 1:15 2 A day of clouds and blackness Zephaniah 1:15 2 A day of sounding trumpet Zephaniah 1:16 1 All the inhabitants of the earth Zephaniah 1:18 1 770 Nevertheless, Zephaniah’s list of characteristic features of the Day of the Lord is no mere gathering from others. It is augmented by additions such as מְצוּקָה ( meŒs£u‚qa‚, “anguish,” Zephaniah 1:15) and מְשׁוֹאָה ( meŒsŒo‚áa‚, “desolation,” Zephaniah 1:15) and filled out with new material in the latter half.771 In sum, although Zephaniah is led by God to reiterate and recombine many thoughts concerning that day of judgment, he is also led to add fresh features. He does so with consummate literary artistry, and the effect is staggering. What a day the Day of the Lord will be!772 So horrifying will be the conditions (Zephaniah 1:14-15) that the bravest hero will shriek bitterly.773 This is understandable, because it is the time of God’s great wrath. The term for “wrath” here is suggestive of the overwhelming nature of the divine anger against sin: The term àebra‚, when used in relation to God ... adds the nuance of the fierceness of God’s wrath (Psalms 78:49) expressed in an overwhelming and complete demonstration (Isaiah 13:9). God’s wrath burns, overflows, sweeps away everything before it (Ezekiel 22:21, Ezekiel 22:31). Thus on the day of the Lord’s àebra‚, nothing stands before it. When the day of judgment is spoken of, the reference is to God’s wrath overflowing, burning, consuming all that has displeased or opposed him.774 Because of wrath against sin, the earth will experience great distress and anguish. Other prophets report that so severe will be the testing of the eschatological day that it will be called the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7; cf. Daniel 12:1). Zephaniah makes a similar prediction and adds that the day will bring great anguish to all who experience it. This picture of the terror that will come upon people who have defied God may have been drawn from Job 15:23-25, where terms and themes relative to the day of darkness and the sinner’s defiance of God appear together.775 Particularly instructive are the words “distress” and “anguish” common to both passages. Ironically, Eliphaz’s misdirected words against Job perhaps find a better home in criticism of the willful citizens of Zephaniah’s day. Their following of paganism (Zephaniah 1:4-6) and a self-indulgent lifestyle (Zephaniah 1:8-13) were in open defiance of God and His standards so that they might well expect that a time of “distress and anguish” would fill them “with terror.” The realization that their sin had occasioned the outpouring of God’s wrath would doubtless bring anguish of soul to God’s people. Zephaniah goes on to describe conditions in the land and in nature (Zephaniah 1:15). Destruction will dot the landscape; everything will be a desolate waste. Once again Zephaniah draws upon phraseology employed by Job in describing a wasteland (Job 38:27) in which none can find sustenance (Job 30:3).776 Adding to the scene of misery are conditions in the natural world. All nature is covered with clouds that form an impenetrable darkness. Although such darkness had not gripped the world of God’s covenant people since early days, it will come with heavy hand upon the objects of divine wrath in the great Day of the Lord (cf. Joel 2:2).777 It is a bleak picture at best: “No star of hope is to be seen; only ‘clouds and thick darkness,’ the black thunderclouds, from which flash forth the lightning bolts of the Lord’s fierce wrath.”778 From the physical world, Zephaniah turns once again to the socio-political realm (Zephaniah 1:16). That day will be a time of great warfare. Von Rad remarks concerning this aspect of the Day of the Lord that “the prophets expect the day of Yahweh to bring war in its train. Now the widespread employment of this concept in the prophets suggests that we are dealing with a well-established component part of eschatological tradition.”779 Out of the distance comes the sound of the trumpet and the shout of battle cry (cf. Joshua 6:5; Jeremiah 4:5). Then follows the charge of the enemy army pushing into the towns of Judah (cf. Deuteronomy 28:49-52). Not even the most stoutly fortified city will be able to withstand the advance of these agents of the Lord’s judgment.780 Zephaniah concludes by observing the tragic cost in human life and experience that all this will effect (Zephaniah 1:17-18). In accordance with His judicial purposes God will bring distress not only to Judah but also to all mankind.781 There is a play here on words and ideas in Zephaniah 1:15. Because it is a day of distress and anguish, God will cause distress to man. So intense will be the conditions that people will grope like blind men. How appropriate the punishment! Because they are blind ethically and spiritually (cf. Exodus 23:8; Matthew 15:14; Romans 2:19; Romans 11:25; Ephesians 4:18; 1 John 2:11) and have sinned against God and His commandments, God’s people will incur the just penalties of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:28-29).782 As Keil remarks, “This distress God sends, because they have sinned against Him, by falling away from Him through idolatry and the transgression of His commandments, as already shown in Zephaniah 1:4-12. But the punishment will be terrible.”783 The effect of these tragic conditions is further heightened in similes that liken the carnage of that day to blood poured out like worthless dust (cf. 1 Kings 20:10; 2 Kings 13:7; 2 Kings 23:12) and flesh treated like dung (cf. 1 Kings 14:10; 2 Kings 9:37; Jeremiah 8:1-3; Lamentations 4:5). Human life (flesh and blood) is thus reduced to a thing of no value, with even corpses being treated as despicable refuse (cf. Jeremiah 9:20-22; Jeremiah 16:1-4; Jeremiah 25:32-33). The warfare* connected with the Day of the Lord will thus be both extensive and bloody. The chapter closes (Zephaniah 1:18) with a reiteration of two prominent themes: (1) the self-indulgent greed of the godless wealthy and (2) the certain judgment of all men and nations. As for the former, the wealthy have heaped up their riches at the expense of their fellow citizens in pursuit of material gain. However, it will all soon come to an end; no amount of silver or gold will be able to buy off their despoilers. Their attempt to achieve deliverance will fail (cf. 2 Kings 15:16-20; 2 Kings 16:17-19; 2 Kings 18:13-16). With regard to the latter theme, the judgment that always hangs over mankind will one day descend with sudden swiftness, and the world and all who dwell in it will experience the wrath of God. Time is running out. “The world, which had begun with such promise in creation, had gone too far; God would make an end of it all. Such was Zephaniah’s vision of the dies irae.”784 Though the full weight of Zephaniah’s prophecy bears ultimately on the eschaton, because the punishment of Judah and Jerusalem was an integral part of the process, God’s people might expect judgment at any time. If a godless world and its inhabitants will ultimately perish, could God’s faithless nation expect any less? Hardly. No one and nothing will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath. “The destruction had been determined by Jehovah and there would be no escaping the judgment against their sins.”785 Additional Notes Zephaniah 1:14 † קָרוֹב וּמַהֵר מְאֹד (“near and coming very quickly”): The traditional understanding of the MT of the approach of the Day of the Lord, perhaps personified as a swift messenger or fierce soldier rushing into battle, is improved upon little by recent attempts to relate the phrase to an Egypto-Semitic term for soldier.786 The repetition of the idea of nearness is not redundant; rather, the intentional emphasis underscores both the fact and the impending arrival of the Day of the Lord.787 The hermeneutical problem of multiple versus single fulfillment and the related identification of prophecies that are deemed to be telescoped, generic, or progressively fulfilled is complex.788 From a NT perspective the Greek verb πληρόω may at times refer to a literal, real, and necessary relationship between an OT context and the NT so that the NT text fulfills completely the OT meaning. More commonly, however, the NT writer cites an OT passage to establish an analogy or comparison between the OT and NT contexts, thus filling out more fully the OT context. † קוֹל (“listen!”) is taken here as an interjection (cf. Soncino). Keil calls attention to a similar employment of קוֹל in Isaiah 13:4, likewise a “Day of the Lord” passage.789 † גִּבּוֹר . . . מַר (“bitter ... warrior”): מַר has been taken by some with the previous clause, “the Day of the Lord is bitter” (LXX, Vg, NIV, NJB, NKJV, RSV), and by others with the last clause of the verse (KJV, NASB).790 In the latter case it is usually taken as an adverb “bitterly” (so Soncino)791 but can also be viewed in its normal adjectival function (lit. “bitter is he who cries, the hero”). The translation suggested here follows the MT accent in taking מַר with the last clause but points the next word as a substantive צֶרַה (“shriek/cry/battle cry”).792 In addition I view the following שָׁם not as the adverbial particle “there” but as the relative particle שׁ and assign the final mem to the following גִּבּוֹר as the prefixed preposition, thus yielding “from/of the warrior.”793 A proposal by C. F. Whitley is also attractive.794 Noting the unsuitability of the normal use of שָׁם here, he suggests treating it as an emphatic particle (“yea/indeed”), while taking מַר with the previous clause (but relating it to Ugaritic mrr, “be strong”). He paraphrases the whole: “The sound of the day of Yahweh is overwhelming, even the strong man cries aloud with fear.” Although Whitley and I have handled matters differently, the resultant perspective is the same. Zephaniah 1:17-18 Von Rad suggests that the concept of the warfare of the eschatological Day of the Lord is an outgrowth of earlier Yahwistic traditions related to holy warfare, now extended to a universalistic perspective: The concepts connected with the Day of Yahweh are, therefore, in no way eschatological per se, but were familiar to the prophets in all their details from the old Yahwistic tradition. The prophets ... believed that Yahweh’s final uprising against his foes would take the same form as it had done in the days of old. It is beyond question that the prophetic vision of the concept of Yahweh’s intervention in war became greatly intensified; for the war was now to affect all nations, even the fixed orders of creation, and even Israel herself. The event has been expanded into a phenomenon of cosmic significance.795 Zephaniah 1:17 † שֻׁפַּךְ (“poured out”): Although Sabottka insists that the lack of examples of this verb in the piel necessitates viewing the form here as a qal passive, the presence of a hithpael elsewhere (Job 30:16; Lamentations 2:12; Lamentations 4:1), attesting the use of the D-stem in classical Hebrew, makes his pronouncement tenuous.796 † לְחֻמָם (“their flesh”): I take the form not as “their intestines” (Soncino; cf. NIV “entrails”) but according to the Arabic lah£m (“meat/flesh”; cf. Job 20:23).797 Zephaniah 1:18 † כָּלָה (“end”) is commonly employed of divinely initiated destruction (cf. Nehemiah 9:31; Jeremiah 4:27). It is construed here as in Nahum 1:8 (q.v.) as part of a double accusative. The syntax of this verse is like that of Isaiah 10:23, in each case the object noun being modified by affixing a niphal participle: Isaiah 10:23 Zephaniah 1:18 כִּי כָלָה וְנֶהֱרָצָה כִּי־כָלָה אַךְ־נִבְהָלָה “for a complete end, “for a complete end, and that decreed” yea a terrifying one” (= “a determined end”) (= “a determined end”) For the blending of the ideas of wrath, jealousy, and fire, see Ezekiel 38:19 and the Exegesis and Exposition and Additional Notes on Nahum 1:2, Nahum 1:6. 2. Instructions in The Light Of that Day (Zephaniah 2:1-3) Translation Gather together and assemble yourselves, O wayward* nation, 2before the decree takes effect* or the day passes like chaff, before there comes upon you the burning anger of the LORD, before there comes upon you the day of the LORD’s anger. 3Seek the LORD, all you humble of the earth, who do His commandments; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be delivered* in the day of the LORD’s anger. Exegesis and Exposition In light of the horrifying spectacle of the judgment of the Day of the Lord, Zephaniah presses his fellow countrymen to gather together in repentance and humility before God. Utilizing images drawn from the process of separating straw from chaff, Zephaniah gives them a spiritual setting. He uses straw and its collection (Zephaniah 2:1 a) to symbolize the assembling of people for the purpose of collectively repenting and thus escaping the coming destruction (i.e., to be straw, not chaff). He employs the concept of threshing (Zephaniah 2:1 b) to point to the necessity of being broken before God rather than going on in self-indulgent waywardness. He uses the idea of chaff in connection with the speed and ease with which it is blown away: like chaff, the day of judgment was rapidly approaching (Zephaniah 2:2 b); like chaff, wayward sinners would be destroyed in the Day of the Lord. The word for “assemble” is related to the word for straw and its gathering. Zephaniah’s hearers are told to be straw gatherers—those who are “whole grain,” being of humble heart before God. Up to now they have been a wayward people (cf. Zephaniah 1:7-13, Zephaniah 1:18). They were not threshed;* their hearts were unbroken and had no longing for God. Thus they could not survive the coming judgment, but like chaff they would soon be swept away in the winds of God’s winnowing judgment. The threat of exile was before them.798 Gathering together meant coming together in genuine repentance and submission to the will of God. Zephaniah’s advice is akin to that of Joel 2:1-11, noted in the previous section dealing with the Day of the Lord. Joel also follows his description with a call for national repentance (Joel 2:12-14) in the fond hope (as here) that destruction may be averted.799 Zephaniah’s plea is urgent, for God’s decree was settled and would soon be put into effect. Moreover, as Zephaniah had already indicated (Zephaniah 1:7-18), its implementation would bring with it the “burning anger of the Lord”*. Yet even here Zephaniah retains the hope that complete destruction (Zephaniah 1:18) could be avoided. The construction “before there comes upon you the burning anger of the Lord” is unique: לאֹ ( lo„á, “not”) is inserted before the verb and after the temporal particle בְּטֶרֶם ( beŒt£erem, “not yet”). Though the double negative construction is best rendered in English “before,” the intended effect may have been to add a note of hope to the certainty of the coming judgment. Although the judgment is even now descending, a proper response on the people’s part could perhaps ameliorate or even avert the threatened disaster—and that while the burning anger of the Lord “not yet had not come” upon them (i.e., before it could arrive).800 Building on this glimmer of hope, Zephaniah urges his hearers to seek the Lord.801 He calls primarily upon those most likely to respond—the poor, those victimized by the wealthy leaders and merchants of Judah and Jerusalem. In addition, they have kept God’s commandments. Doubtless, however, Zephaniah intends all who will respond with poverty of soul in humility and submission to God.802 He urges them to react to his pleas with the two qualities necessary for spiritual productivity: righteousness and humility*. By the first is meant those spiritual and ethical standards that reflect the nature and will of God, by the second submission to and dependence on God.803 To all such, then, Zephaniah holds out a ray of hope: The word אוּלַי “perhaps” speaks volumes. The prophet would not presume on the prerogative of Yahweh to determine who would or would not be hidden. Zephaniah, like Amos (cf. Amos 5:15), knew that not even righteousness nor humility could guarantee a person’s safety. That was all in the hand of Yahweh.804 Whereas Zephaniah would not presume on the divine prerogative, he brings the thought of deliverance into a lively hope. Probably this reflected his confidence that He who helps the needy will hear the prayer of the repentant and submissive (Ps. 10:12-17). “Perhaps” God will graciously deliver them as His wrath descends in judgment. Additional Notes Zephaniah 2:1 הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ (“gather together and assemble yourselves”): The translation suggested here is ad sensum. Some attempt to read the MT as is; others seek to emend it. Thus J. M. P. Smith observes: “Various renderings have been proposed.... But none of these finds adequate support either in the Hebrew usage of this root, or in the related dialects, or in the Vrss. Several scholars abandon as hopeless the attempt to interpret.”805 Because the ancient versions uniformly support the MT, it seems advisable to deal with the text as it stands. Zephaniah has utilized these denominative verbs to produce a play on ideas, their apparent derivation from קַשׁ (“straw/stubble”) accounting for their selection. They anticipate the reference to chaff blown away in line two of Zephaniah 2:2 (as well as the figure of threshing) and provide an image that can be adapted to the socio-political and religious needs of the community. The metaphor is of judgment likened to winnowing. As one gathers the straw left from the threshing sledge and separates the grain from the chaff in the winnowing process, so the people of God will be divided into believers (straw) and unbelievers (chaff) in the coming winds of divine judgment. It was a time of spiritual harvest, and Zephaniah’s countrymen needed to assemble and “gather straw.”806 In genuine repentance they needed to entreat God to save them. † לֹא נִכְסָף (“wayward”): Two etymologies have been suggested: (1) Akkadian kasa„pu(“break off”) and (2) Arabic kasafa (“cut out,” thence in derived stems “disappoint,” “put to shame”; cf. the Aramaic כְּסַף, “lose color,” “be ashamed”). The second etymology has usually been assumed to lie behind the occurrences in Genesis 31:30; Job 14:15; Psalms 17:12; Psalms 84:2 (HB Psalms 84:3), where, however, the meaning uniformly is “long for/desire.”807 Whether two or more different roots lie behind the verb or whether one root has taken on dialectal and contextual variation, its normal OT significance is difficult to apply here (although the Vg translates it “not lovable”). The proposed translation (“threshed”) relies on the Akkadian cognate and relates the phrase to the agricultural symbolism of the context. As grain must be broken off (threshed) into small pieces in preparation for winnowing, so a man must be broken spiritually (cf. Psalms 34:18) [HB Psalms 34:19]; Psalms 51:18 [HB Psalms 51:19]; Psalms 147:3)808 in submission to God if he is to be delivered. The people of Zephaniah’s day, however, were “not broken.” Rather, as the LXX and Pesh. suggest, they were “undisciplined/uninstructed.” They displayed a willful disregard for God and his standards and sought their own path. Because a wayward person has no longing for the things of God, “wayward” seems to fit the needs of etymology and context.809 It is also not incompatible with the use of the root elsewhere in the OT. If the agricultural orientation is the proper one for these verses, Zephaniah has furnished an excellent example of a case where the figure itself carries the meaning for the context.810 Zephaniah means that “get straw for yourself, get straw, O unbroken nation, before the decree is born or the day sweeps by like chaff (before the wind)” is to be understood as “gather yourselves in an assembly of repentance, O wayward nation, before the decree concerning the Day of the Lord takes effect, before that speedily approaching day overtakes you and like chaff you are carried away before the winds of God’s judgment.” Zephaniah 2:2 † בְּטֶרֶם לֶדֶת חֹק (“before the birth of the decree,” i.e., “before the decree takes effect”): For suggested emendations, see the Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 5:374-75. The metaphor here likens the time for the inception of divine judgment to that of pregnancy. Thus M. O’Connor translates “Before the womb comes to term” and explains: “The line refers to a natural term for the prophet’s threat.”811 For the phrase “the burning anger of the Lord,” found some thirty-three times in the OT, see the additional note on Nahum 1:6. J. T. Willis notes Zephaniah’s use of ABA’B’ parallelism in the closing lines of the verse to emphasize the imminence of divine punishment that urgently called for repentance. Zephaniah 2:3 עֲנָוָה (“humility”) occurs elsewhere only in 2 Samuel 22:36 where it is used of God’s condescension on behalf of His people and in Proverbs 15:33; Proverbs 18:12; Proverbs 22:4, which emphasize the importance of the fear of the Lord and lowliness of spirit as preconditions to greatness. Its derivation from עָנָה (“be afflicted/bowed down”) and association with other words derived from this root reveal that inward affliction of soul and outward circumstances of affliction play a vital part in developing true humility (cf. Deuteronomy 8:2-3; Psalms 34:6 [HB Psalms 34:7]; Proverbs 16:19).812 † תִּסָּתְרוּ (“you will be delivered”): I take the verb as an infixed-tform from סוּר (“turn aside”) in the sense of “turn oneself aside,” hence “escape,” “be delivered.” Many examples of infixed-t forms have been suggested elsewhere (e.g., Proverbs 22:3; Proverbs 27:12).813 The traditional association of the word with סָתַר (“hide”) is reflected in the English versions: “be sheltered” (NIV), “find shelter” (NJB), “be hidden” (NASB). 2 Additional Details Concerning the Day of the Lord, Part One (Zephaniah 2:4-15, Zephaniah 3:1-7) The second portion of Zephaniah’s prophecies (Zephaniah 2:4-15, Zephaniah 3:1-20) likewise is made up of pronouncements (Zephaniah 2:4-15, Zephaniah 3:1-7), an exhortation (Zephaniah 3:8), and teachings (Zephaniah 3:9-20). After his preoccupation primarily with the fate of his people in the first part of the book, Zephaniah turns his attention to the foreign nations (Zephaniah 2:14-15). He had begun the first major portion of his prophecy by similarly considering all nations (Zephaniah 1:2-3). Here he deals with specific nations that were mostly tied to Judah’s situation geographically and politically as representatives of God’s relations with the world. When he has completed his oracles against these nations, as in the first portion (Zephaniah 1:4-6), he turns to a consideration of Judah and Jerusalem (Zephaniah 3:1-7). The messages against the nations are made up of the usual elements contained in such prophetic material: invective (Zephaniah 2:5 a; Zephaniah 3:1), threat (Zephaniah 2:4-7, Zephaniah 2:9, Zephaniah 2:12), pronouncement (Zephaniah 2:11, Zephaniah 2:13), taunt (Zephaniah 2:15 b), and reasons for the threatened punishment (Zephaniah 2:8, Zephaniah 2:10, Zephaniah 2:15 a; Zephaniah 3:2-7).814 This portion also contains such literary features as metaphor and simile (Zephaniah 2:4-7, Zephaniah 2:9; Zephaniah 3:3), irony (Zephaniah 2:12), synecdoche (Zephaniah 2:13; Zephaniah 3:6), thematic repetition (Zephaniah 3:1), and the use of paronomasia (Zephaniah 2:4, Zephaniah 2:7, Zephaniah 2:12[?]), hendiadys (Zephaniah 3:7), enallage (Zephaniah 3:7), and literary allusions (Zephaniah 2:4, Zephaniah 2:9). A. Further Pronouncements Of Judgment (Zephaniah 2:4-15, Zephaniah 3:1-7) 1. On The Nations (Zephaniah 2:14-15) Zephaniah begins his pronouncements against the nations by turning to the people on Judah’s west, the Philistines (Zephaniah 2:4-7), then going to those on the east, Moab and Ammon (Zephaniah 2:8-11), and finally considering those on the south and north, singling out Cush (Zephaniah 2:12) and Assyria (Zephaniah 2:13-15). Zephaniah’s prophecy against the nations is four dimensional, a convention that is, as Ronald Youngblood points out (in private communication), “in the same grand tradition of oracles against foreign nations as are Amos 1:1-15, Amos 2:1-16, Isaiah 13:1-22, Isaiah 14:1-32, Isaiah 15:1-9, Isaiah 16:1-14, Isaiah 17:1-14, Isaiah 18:1-7, Isaiah 19:1-25, Isaiah 20:1-6, Isaiah 21:1-17, Isaiah 22:1-25, Isaiah 23:1-18; Jeremiah 46:1-28, Jeremiah 47:7, Jeremiah 48:1-47, Jeremiah 49:1-39, Jeremiah 50:1-46, Jeremiah 51:1-64, and Ezekiel 25:1-17, Ezekiel 26:1-21, Ezekiel 27:1-36, Ezekiel 28:1-26, Ezekiel 29:1-21, Ezekiel 30:1-26, Ezekiel 31:1-18, Ezekiel 32:1-32.” Certainly Youngblood’s point is well taken. Not only is divine judgment often presented in a fourfold manner (see the additional note at Zephaniah 2:4), but the objects of Zephaniah’s condemnation are commonly met in the other texts: Philistia (Isaiah 14:28-32; Jeremiah 47:1-23; Ezekiel 25:15-17; Amos 1:6-8), Transjordan (Moab, Ammon, Edom—Isaiah 15:1-9, Isaiah 16:1-14; Jeremiah 48:1-47, Jeremiah 49:1-22; Ezekiel 25:1-14; Ezekiel 35:1-15; Amos 1:11-15, Amos 2:1-3), Cush and/or Egypt (Isaiah 18:1-7, Isaiah 19:1-25, Isaiah 20:1-6; Jeremiah 46:1-28; Ezekiel 29:1-21, Ezekiel 30:1-26, Ezekiel 31:1-18, Ezekiel 32:1-32), and Assyria and/or Babylonia (Isaiah 13:1-22, Isaiah 14:1-27; Isaiah 21:1-10; Jeremiah 50:1-46, Jeremiah 51:1-64). Interesting, too, is the fact that some of the prophets, as does Zephaniah, utilize a four-directional arrangement for their prophecies. Jeremiah’s geographic arrangement falls into two main sections: (1) The nations adjacent to Israel (south: Egypt, Jeremiah 46:1-28; west: Philistia, Jeremiah 47:1-7; east: Transjordan, Jeremiah 48:1-47, Jeremiah 49:1-22; north: Damascus/Aram, Jeremiah 49:23-27) and (2) the nations around Babylon (southwest: Kedar and Hazor, Jeremiah 49:28-33; east: Elam, Jeremiah 49:34-39; and Babylon itself, Jeremiah 50:1-46, Jeremiah 51:1-64). Ezekiel inverts Zephaniah’s geographic order, considering Israel’s neighbors in crisscross fashion moving from east (Transjordan, Jeremiah 25:1-14), west (Philistia, Jeremiah 25:15-17), and north (Phoenicia, Jeremiah 26:1-24, Jeremiah 27:1-28, Jeremiah 28:1-17) to south (Egypt, Jeremiah 29:1-32, Jeremiah 30:1-24, Jeremiah 31:1-40, Jeremiah 32:1-44). Though other principles are at work in the case of Isaiah and Amos, Amos’s prophecies do move in a geographic fashion, crisscrossing the twin kingdoms diagonally from north/northeast (Aram, Amos 1:3-5) to southwest (Philistia, Amos 1:6-8), and northwest (Phoenicia, Amos 1:9-10) to east/southeast (Transjordan, Amos 1:11-15, Amos 2:1-3) before turning to Judah and Israel themselves.815 Daniel’s use of the number four to depict the fate of the coming kingdoms of the world (Daniel 2:1-49, Daniel 7:1-28) also is instructive and reflects a known literary schema that is widely attested in the ancient Mediterranean cultures since the early part of the first millennium B.C. a. Philistia (Zephaniah 2:4-7) Translation For Gaza will be forsaken/abandoned, and Ashkelon will become a desolation; Ashdod, they will drive her out at midday, and Ekron will be uprooted. 5Woe, you who inhabit the seacoast, the nations of the Kerethites; the word of the LORD is against you, Canaan, land of the Philistines: “I will destroy you to the last inhabitant.” 6And the seacoast will be a pasture land, shepherds’ caves and sheepfolds. 7And the coastlands will belong to the remnant of the house of Judah; they will find pasture on them; among the houses of Ashkelon they will lie down in the evening. For the LORD their God will care for them and restore their fortunes. Exegesis and Exposition Zephaniah begins his messages concerning the foreign nations with words for Judah’s perennial enemy to the west—the Philistines. Philistine presence in Canaan had been reported since the days of the patriarchs (Genesis 21:32) and the era of the Exodus and Conquest (Exodus 13:17; Joshua 13:2-3). The Philistines were a constant threat during the time of the judges (Judges 3:3-4; Judges 13:1-25, Judges 14:1-20, Judges 15:1-20, Judges 16:1-31) and the early monarchy (cf. 1 Samuel 4:1-11; 1 Samuel 7:1-14). Although they were defeated by David in the tenth century B.C. (2 Samuel 5:17-25; 1 Chronicles 20:4-5), they remained a constant thorn in the side of the Israelites throughout the days of Solomon and the period of the divided monarchy (cf. 1 Kings 15:27-28; 1 Kings 16:15-19; 2 Chronicles 21:16-17; Isaiah 14:28-32; Isaiah 28:16-21; Amos 1:6-8). Though they had become vassals of Assyria in the eighth century B.C., they nonetheless enjoyed a measure of independence so that they continued to be a source of danger and irritation to the people of God (cf. 2 Kings 18:5-8; 2 Chronicles 26:6-8). Even as late as the closing days of the Southern Kingdom, the Philistines were being condemned by Judah’s prophets (Jeremiah 47:1-7; Ezekiel 25:15-17).816 Accordingly Zephaniah’s words of condemnation and judgment were neither unprecedented nor unexpected and doubtless would have been well received by the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem. Adopting the literary style of Micah before him (Micah 1:10-15), Zephaniah uses wordplay to begin his prophetic threats against the Philistine cities.817 In the case of the first and last cities, a pun between the name of the city and the fact of its judgment is intended: Gaza ( àazza‚) will be abandoned ( àaŒzu‚ba‚) and Ekron ( àeqro‚n) will be uprooted ( te„àa„qe„r); in the other two instances, a play on the s sounds in the names of the cities adds a harsh note that heightens the fact of their coming destruction and desolation: áasŒqe†lo‚‚n lisŒma„ma‚ and áasŒdo‚d bas£s£a„ho†rayim ye†ga„re†sŒu‚ha„. These four noteworthy cities are doubtless also representative of the total destruction of Philistine territory. Likewise, the mention of their specific fate may be characteristic of the various forms that the judgment of the Philistines would take: defeat, destruction, deportation, and abandonment of cities. The reference to Ashdod’s invasion at noon,* a time for rest from the midday sun, may indicate a surprise attack: “In hot countries, work is suspended during the hottest hours of the day; therefore for anything to happen then is unexpected. The prophet means that Ashdod will fall by a surprise attack (cf. Jeremiah 15:8).”818 Each of the cities experienced the horrors of invasion. Gaza was taken by Nebuchadnezzar and became a deserted city.819 Ashkelon was also taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 604 B.C., but it recovered and eventually became famous as a Hellenistic city and as the birthplace of Herod the Great. Ashdod and Ekron820 likewise fell to the same Neo-Babylonian conqueror, but both are mentioned in the literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, which reflects Ashdod’s changing fortunes and Ekron’s persistence into the time of Eusebius in the fourth century A.D. As for the main fact of Zephaniah’s prophecy, the capture and destruction of the cities and territory of the Philistines, there can be little doubt. Thus Nebuchadnezzar boasts: In the first year of Nebuchadrezzar in the month of Sivan he mustered his army and went to the H¬atti-territory, ... All the kings of the H¬atti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute. He marched to the city of Askelon and captured it in the month of Kislev. He captured its king and plundered it and carried off [spoil from it.....] He turned the city into a mound and heaps of ruins and then in the month of Sebat he marched back to Babylon.821 Kitchen concludes: Ashkelon sought to resist the Neo-Babylonian advance in 604 B.C.; Nebuchadrezzar II subdued it and exiled its king in Babylon, where his sons appear in the ration-tablets along with Jehoiachin of Judah and his relations. These, with mentions of kings of Gaza and Ashdod at the Babylonian court, are the last traces of Philistia as an entity, before her final disappearance as a political unit.822 There may also be a clever literary play at work here. Robert Gordis,823 building upon a suggestion of Lawrence Zalcman,824 detects the metaphor of a deserted woman. Both scholars propose that the reason for the absence of paronomasia and the presence of, at best, weak assonance in the pronouncements against Ashkelon and Ashdod is because no verb could be found that was suitable for the needed assonance and paronomasia and that carried with it the double entendre of a woman and a city. Faced with a choice of proceeding with the metaphor or the constraints of assonance, Zephaniah chose the former. Thus the verse contains four stitches that “present an ascending scale of suffering, thus heightening the pathos of the passage” and are “to be understood as follows: Indeed, Gaza shall be deserted (like a betrothed woman), And Ashkelon will be desolate (like a deserted wife); Ashdod will be driven out in broad daylight (like a divorced woman), And Ekron will be uprooted (like a barren woman).”825 Although there may be some hesitation in adopting the suggestion of a metaphor in which the cities of the hated Philistines are compared to a woman, this solution to understanding the literary problems of the middle lines and the flow of thought in the whole verse is brilliant. Certainly it is in keeping with not only scriptural precedent (cf. Isaiah 54:6; Isaiah 60:15; Isaiah 62:4; Jeremiah 4:29; etc.) but also Zephaniah’s penchant for the use of literary allusions (cf. Zephaniah 1:2-3). Zephaniah’s announcement of judgment turns to invective as he pronounces a woe against those who live along the seacoast.826 Though the term may suggest the more densely occupied portions of Philistia, J. M. P. Smith is probably correct in pointing out that it is “a fitting designation of Philistia, which lay along the Maritime Plain.”827 In making his denunciations Zephaniah calls these Philistine settlers Kerethites,* a term that reflects their Cretan origins, and their territory Canaan,* a name that indicates not only a geographic location but implies their land’s similar fate of depopulation and disenfranchisement. Philistia will be judged “till there are no inhabitants left” (NJB), never again to be a threat: Time and again these cities were destroyed during the many wars that ravaged Palestine in the centuries following this prophecy. Pharaoh Necho devastated Philistia (Jeremiah 47:1-7); Alexander the Great depopulated Gaza and repeopled it from the neighborhood (Arrian, Anabasis II, 27). Later, Philistia became a Syrian province and in the Maccabean wars was raided and ravaged repeatedly by the Jews (1Ma 5:68; 1Ma 10:67-89; 1Ma 11:60 ff.; 1Ma 13:43 ff.).828 Whatever future hope the region had lay in its relation to the Philistines’ perennial enemies, the Israelites. The prosperous seacoast district will become pastureland dotted with caves for Israelite shepherds and folds for their flocks. It will belong to the remnant* of Judah, “the object of the love and providential concern of the Lord their God who cares for and restores His people.”829 Additional Notes Zephaniah 2:4 Although the mention of only four Philistine cities has been taken by some830 as merely a suitable vehicle to represent the judgment of all of Philistia, since the prophets customarily employ groups of four to indicate totality of judgment (e.g., Jeremiah 15:3; Ezekiel 14:21; Joel 1:2-4),831 a technique that Zephaniah utilizes here in the wider context (Zephaniah 2:4-15), such may not be the case. The fact that the prophets often proclaim judgment in groups of more than four cities or countries (e.g., Isaiah 13:1-22, Isaiah 14:1-32, Isaiah 15:1-9, Isaiah 16:1-14, Isaiah 17:1-14, Isaiah 18:1-7, Isaiah 19:1-25, Isaiah 20:1-6, Isaiah 21:1-17, Isaiah 22:1-25, Isaiah 23:1-18; Jeremiah 46:1-28, Jeremiah 47:1-7, Jeremiah 48:1-47, Jeremiah 49:1-39, Jeremiah 50:1-46, Jeremiah 51:1-64; Ezekiel 25:1-17, Ezekiel 26:1-21, Ezekiel 27:1-36, Ezekiel 28:1-26, Ezekiel 29:1-21, Ezekiel 30:1-26, Ezekiel 31:1-18, Ezekiel 32:1-32; Amos 1:3-15, Amos 2:1-5), as well as the disappearance of Gath from both biblical and nonbiblical accounts by this period, may indicate its unavailability for Zephaniah. The prophecy against the four Philistine cities may thus be intended to be understood both individually and representatively. Several commentators have noted the occurrence elsewhere in the OT of the root sŒdd (which can be isolated in the sound of the name Ashdod) with the name Ashdod (e.g., Jeremiah 15:8; Psalms 91:6). Thus Lawrence Zalcman cites the comments of the Jewish scholars Rashi and Kimchi: “Ashdod is her name, and at noon when destruction devastates they will drive her [inhabitants] out and she will be devastated”. Here the reference to Psalms 91:6 is unmistakable. Qimh£i is even more explicit: ... Ashdod means “devastation” [ sŒo„d], and thus it is, as it were, paronomasia.832 Zephaniah 2:5 † הַיָם תֶבֶל (“the seacoast,” or “the line of the sea”): תֶבֶל means basically “rope/cord” and is related to an Akkadian word (eblu) with the same meaning. It also was utilized in contexts dealing with the use of a measuring line (2 Samuel 8:2) and to indicate a unit of measured area, “district/region” (Deuteronomy 3:4, Deuteronomy 3:13-14; Joshua 19:9). Although its employment with יָם is unique to Zephaniah (the usual term for ”seacoast” is הַיָּם חוֹף; cf. Jeremiah 47:7), the resultant term is clear. The association of the Philistines with coastal areas is mentioned also by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 25:16).833 כְּרֵתִים (“Kerethites”): Apparently related to the name Crete, with which Philistine origins are partially linked,834 its precise significance is unclear. Kerethites were included in David’s bodyguard (2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 15:18; 2 Samuel 20:7, 2 Samuel 20:20; 1 Kings 1:38, 1 Kings 1:44; 1 Chronicles 18:17). The Kerethites have been considered by some to be a tribe of the Philistines,835 by others as Cretans who first settled in Canaan during the Davidic era.836 In any case, their close association with the Philistines is assumed both here and in Ezekiel 25:16, where they are also linked with the seacoast.837 The term “Canaan,” which designates geographically the land west of the Jordan (including Philistia) northward through Syria to Lebo Hamath (modern Lebweh), is probably used with the further implication of indicating “that Philistia is to share the lot of Canaan, and lose its inhabitants by extermination.”838 Canaan is thus not conterminous with Philistia, nor is Philistia identical with the modern term Palestine (except etymologically). Zephaniah 2:6 † כְּדֹת (“caves”): The word is variously rendered in the versions as “Crete” (LXX), “Kerethites” (NIV), “Kereth” (NEB), “resting place” (Vg), “shelters” (NKJV), “cottages” (KJV), “meadows” (RSV; cf. Soncino), “caves” (NASB). The last suggestion has been followed here, taking the root to be כָּרָה (“dig”). This seems to make the best sense in context. Whether the caves in view are “natural, dug by nature, or artificial, man-made,” they are “used by shepherds and their flocks as a shelter at night or in stormy weather.”839 Zephaniah 2:7 שְׁאֵרִית (“remnant”): Zephaniah had spoken earlier of destroying the “remnant of Baal” (Zephaniah 1:4), and Amos predicted that the “remnant of the Philistines” would perish (Amos 1:8). Here God leaves a remnant of His people, which He, the Good Shepherd, will care for (Heb. פָּקַד840) and restore to prosperity.841 Elsewhere the prophets predict that God will preserve a remnant of His people, which He will regather to the land, and that they will turn to their Messiah and be blessed with everlasting felicity (Isaiah 10:20-23; Isaiah 11:11-16; Jeremiah 23:1-8; Jeremiah 31:11-14, Jeremiah 31:27-37; Ezekiel 11:13-20; Ezekiel 34:20-31; Ezekiel 37:15-28; Amos 5:15; Micah 2:12-13; Micah 4:1-8; Micah 5:7-8 [HB Micah 5:6-7]; Micah 7:18-20; Zechariah 8:6-8; cf. Zephaniah 3:9-20).842 Because the pronoun on עֲלֵיהֶם is masc. pl., BHS suggests a transposition of consonants so as to read הַיָּם עַל (“on the sea[coast]”), thus paralleling חֶבֶל in the previous line. The effect is to propose that the full territory mentioned in Zephaniah 2:6 is here being treated in its component parts. The masc. plurals in יִרְעוּן and יִרְבָּצוּן are construed ad sensum, the subject being viewed either as the shepherds of Zephaniah 2:6 or the individual members of the remnant presented metaphorically here as sheep (cf. Jeremiah 23:1-4; Ezekiel 34:11-16, Ezekiel 34:20-31; Ezekiel 37:24-28; etc.). Thus J. M. P. Smith remarks: “The closing scene shows the former marts of trade and busy hives of men given over to the undisturbed possession of well-fed sheep, going in and out of the vacant houses at will, ‘with none to make them afraid.’“843 b. Moab and Ammon (Zephaniah 2:8-11) Translation “I have heard the insults* of Moab and the revilings of the Ammonites, who insulted My people and violated* their borders. 9Therefore, as I live,” declares the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, “surely Moab will be like Sodom and the Ammonites like Gomorrah— overrun* with weeds and salt pits, and a perpetual desolation. The remnant of My people will despoil them, and the remainder of My nation will inherit them.” 10This will happen to them in return for their pride, for they have been insulting and arrogant against the people of the LORD of Hosts. 11The LORD will be terrifying among them, because He will make lean* all the gods of the earth, and the nations on every shore* will bow down to Him, each from his own place*. Exegesis and Exposition Zephaniah’s pronouncements of judgment turn to Judah’s eastern neighbors, the Transjordanian nations of Moab and Ammon. Like the Philistines, these nations were numbered among Israel’s traditional foes. Both were descended through Lot (Genesis 19:30-38) and eventually settled east of the Jordan River (Numbers 21:11, Numbers 21:13-15, Numbers 21:24; Deuteronomy 1:15; Deuteronomy 2:8-9, Deuteronomy 2:18, Deuteronomy 2:21, Deuteronomy 2:37; Deuteronomy 3:11, Deuteronomy 3:16; Deuteronomy 29:1; Deuteronomy 32:49). Although the Lord commanded Israel to leave the Ammonites alone during the days of the wilderness wanderings (Deuteronomy 2:19) and Israel did its best to avoid conflict with the Moabites, Israel was often forced to campaign in the area (cf. Numbers 21:21-35). The Ammonites joined the Moabites in hiring Baalam to curse the Israelites (Numbers 22:1-41, Numbers 23:1-30, Numbers 24:1-25, Numbers 25:1-18), and the incident was remembered down into NT times (cf. 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11; Revelation 2:14). Both nations harassed the Israelites in the days of the judges (Judges 3:12-30; Judges 11:1-40), and Saul and David fought against them (1 Samuel 11:1-11; 1 Samuel 14:47; 2 Samuel 8:2, 2 Samuel 8:11-12, 2 Samuel 10:1-19; 2 Samuel 12:26-31; 1 Chronicles 20:1-3). Although relations were better during Solomon’s reign so that Solomon even had Moabite and Ammonite women in his harem (1 Kings 11:1), a situation that contributed to his spiritual decline and Israel’s apostasy (1 Kings 11:5, 1 Kings 11:7, 1 Kings 11:33), both nations remained antagonists of God’s people. Accordingly the Israelites fought them frequently (2 Kings 1:1; 2 Kings 3:1-27; 2 Chronicles 20:1-30; 2 Chronicles 24:26; 2 Chronicles 26:8; 2 Chronicles 27:5). Indeed, they would remain Israel’s enemies to the very end (2 Kings 25:25; Jeremiah 40:11-14). Both nations had been denounced by God’s prophets before Zephaniah’s day (Isaiah 15:1-9, Isaiah 16:1-14; Isaiah 25:10-12; Amos 1:13-15; Amos 2:1-5) and would be again soon afterward (Jeremiah 48:1-47; Jeremiah 49:1-6; Ezekiel 21:20; Ezekiel 25:1-11). Therefore, no particular incident of provocation needs to be sought as the occasion for Zephaniah’s prophecy, even though the activities of these nations are now known to be commensurate with the charges brought against them by Zephaniah.844 Rather, as Keil points out, “the charge refers to the hostile attitude assumed by both tribes at all times towards the nation of God, which they manifested both in word and deed, as often as the latter was brought into trouble and distress.”845 Zephaniah condemns both nations for their pride (cf. Isaiah 16:6; Isaiah 25:10-11; Jeremiah 48:29; Jeremiah 49:4), their blasphemous insults against God and His people (cf. Jeremiah 48:26-27; Jeremiah 49:1), and their atrocities and incursions against Israelite territory (Amos 1:13-15, Amos 2:1-5).846 Not only for their vicious actions but also for gloating over their seeming successes against the Israelites, Zephaniah predicts that both nations, who often have worked together, will be treated like another well-known pair: Sodom and Gomorrah. The fertile Transjordanian steppe lands will be devastated so as to resemble the fate of the notorious ancient cities along the southeastern coast of the Dead Sea.847 When God’s judgment has been accomplished, the whole area will be turned into a perpetual wasteland, overrun with weeds and pocked by salt pits, whereas its inhabitants will be taken into captivity. The reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God’s severe judgment of sin was familiar already by Zephaniah’s day (cf. Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 13:19; Amos 4:11) and would persist (cf. Jeremiah 23:14; Jeremiah 49:14; Jeremiah 50:40; Lamentations 4:6) into NT times (Mark 10:15; Luke 10:12; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6). Doubtless the story was well known to the Moabites and the Ammonites, who were also familiar with the wasteland that encompassed those once thriving cities. Indeed, the effect upon visitors to the area in modern times is still an awesome one.848 The very thought of weeds and salt* pits brings up visions of worthlessness and desolation. Yet Ammon and Moab, who took such pride in themselves and their land and who had insulted the people of God and violated their lands, would find the source of their pride cut off and turned into just such a devastation. They who had so often taken advantage of Israel and mistreated her people would have the tables turned as the principle of appropriate divine justice was applied to their case (cf. Jeremiah 50:29; Obadiah 1:15-16). Beyond the specific judgment of Moab and Ammon lies the application of their punishment to all nations who similarly mistreat God’s people and vaunt themselves against the God of the universe (cf. Genesis 12:1-3; 1 Samuel 17:26, 1 Samuel 17:36, 1 Samuel 17:45; 2 Kings 19:21-28; Psalms 2:1-12; Jeremiah 48:26; Joel 3:1-3 [HB 4:1-3]; Matthew 25:40). To such as oppose Him will come a final time of reckoning when the sovereign and omnipotent God (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalms 47:7-8 [HB Psalms 47:8-9]), whose awesomeness (Psalms 47:2 [HB Psalms 47:3]) is beyond measure (Psalms 89:7 [HB Psalms 89:8]) and whose strength (Psalms 89:8-13 [HB Psalms 89:9-14]) makes Him mighty in battle (Psalms 24:8), will show Himself fearsome (Psalms 76:12 [HB 76:13]) to all (Isaiah 66:14-16; Ezekiel 39:17-22; Joel 3:9-16 [HB 4:9-16]). Then men will learn that Israel’s God alone is the one and only true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 46:9). The false gods, who are no gods (Isaiah 41:24), like the nations, cities, and people with whom they are identified, shall be subdued (cf. Isaiah 43:11-13; Isaiah 44:17-20; Isaiah 46:1-2; Jeremiah 50:2-3; Zechariah 14:9), and God alone shall be worshiped everywhere and by all (Psalms 66:1-4 [HB Psalms 66:2-5]; Isaiah 2:1-5; Isaiah 66:19-21; Micah 4:1-5; Zechariah 14:16-21). Additional Notes Zephaniah 2:8 † חֶרְפָּה (“insult/reproach”) is used of slanderous speech (Micah 6:16) that one person uses against another (2 Chronicles 32:17) or especially the disgrace that one party gives to another (Genesis 30:23; Isaiah 4:1). It is often used of reproach placed upon a nation (e.g., 1 Samuel 17:26; Isaiah 25:8; Jeremiah 31:19; Lamentations 5:1; Ezekiel 36:30). The etymology of the parallel term in the second line, גִּדּוּפִים (“revilings”), denotes the act of throwing, hence idiomatically of hurling insults at one another. The two nouns are in parallel in Isaiah 51:7, whereas the fem. noun גִּדּוּפָה occurs with חֶרְפָּה in Ezekiel 5:15 and the two verbal roots are juxtaposed in 2 Kings 19:22; Isaiah 37:23. Taken together, these two word groups form a picture of slanderous taunting that has as its object a hurtful vilifying of another. † וַיַּגְדִּילוּ (“and [they] violated”): In the hiphil stem גָּדַל customarily is transitive, “i.e., the subject of the action and the subject of the process being brought about, viz., bringing the greatness into operation and effectiveness, are the same.... The intriniscally transitive hiphil of gdl always means ‘to set oneself forth as great illegally, presumptuously, and arrogantly, to boast, to triumph over ( àal) others.’“849 Accordingly it is used in contexts of judgment against the nations for mocking Israel (e.g., Jeremiah 48:26, Jeremiah 48:42; Ezekiel 35:13). The sense here probably also carries with it not only the repeated arrogant thrusts of the Transjordanian nations into Israelite territory but also their gloating over their successes (cf. Amos 1:13).850 Some suggest that the verb signifies the enlarging of Transjordanian borders at Israel’s expense (e.g., R. Smith), while others (cf. NJB) propose that these nations boasted about their own territories. Zephaniah 2:9 † חָרוּל מִמְּשַׁק: The first word is a hapax legomenon usually taken as coming from the root משׁק and assumed to mean something like “possess,” due to the contextual understanding assigned to the derived noun מֶשֶׁק (“possession”) in Genesis 15:2.851 Nevertheless, that meaning is somewhat difficult here, so that J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, pp. 226-27) laments concerning the whole phrase: “These two Hebrew words are obscure in meaning. The first one is found nowhere else in Hebrew, nor is any light thrown upon it by the Vrss. or the cognate languages.” The usual proposal may prove to be correct, but it is also possible to view the form as an instance of enclitic mem, the first mem being attached to the previous word and the resultant form being understood as a hiphil participle from שׁוּק, meaning “overflowing,” hence “overrun.”852 “Overrun” certainly provides good sense here and may not be an impossible understanding of the posited root משׁק. Although Keil (Minor Prophets, 2:143) affirms that the noun הָרוּל means “stinging nettle,” J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 227) is probably correct in observing that from its use in the OT the most likely meaning is “weeds.” Salt sometimes symbolized ruinous waste (Deuteronomy 29:29; Job 39:6; Psalms 107:34; Jeremiah 17:6). Sowing the earth with salt was a mark of permanent judgment (cf. Judges 9:45), a practice that continued into Roman times, as witnessed in the Roman sack of Carthage.853 For the term “LORD (Yahweh) of Hosts,” see the exposition of Nahum 2:13 and my note on 1 Kings 18:15.854 Zephaniah 2:11 †Suggestions for the sense of רָזָה (“grow lean”) here include “destroy” (LXX, Pesh., OL, NIV, Luther, Le Sainte Bible, La Sacra Biblia), “attend to” (Vg), “starve/famish” (NASB, RSV, KJV, Soncino), “reduce to nothing” (NKJV) and “scatter” (NJB). The commentators are likewise divided, usually following one of the suggested meanings. Sabottka, however, breaks new ground in postulating a relation to a late Jewish-Aramaic root meaning “be strong/hard,” and hence the personal name Raziel means “God Rules.” He thus translates Zephaniah 2:11 “he (Yahweh) will rule over the gods of the earth.” The same verb in derived stems also means “throw/come against with force,” a meaning that might fit the context here by taking רָזָה as a piel. A homomorphic verb (known also in Syriac) means “take secret action against,” perhaps as good a conjecture as some of those proposed above. My translation follows the use of the root elsewhere in the OT. This meaning, however, masks an allusion that now eludes us, perhaps that of impotence or death due to starvation, the idea of either being a serious affront to the nature gods of Canaan.855 The form itself should probably be read with BHS as an imperfect piel. If the י of the previous כִּי is a double-duty letter, no change in the consonantal text is required.856 †The translation of הַגּוֹיִם אִיֵּי as “the nations on every shore” follows the NIV. מִמְּקוֹמוּ (“from his place”) has been understood as each nation serving God in/from the standpoint of his own land/place (e.g., J. M. P. Smith, Laetsch) or going from his place to Jerusalem (e.g., Keil). c. Cush (Zephaniah 2:12) Translation “So also you, Cushites, are* pierced through by My sword.” Exegesis and Exposition Zephaniah’s news for the southern regions is an addendum to his message for the eastern nations represented by Moab and Ammon, whose judgment (Zephaniah 2:8-10) anticipated that of all the nations (Zephaniah 2:11). Building on the concept of universal judgment in the preceding verse, Zephaniah tacks on the notice that the judgment of Cush, too, is part of the punishment that will overtake all peoples. Although according to Ezekiel 29:10 Egypt’s southern boundary bordered on Cush, the term could have wider implications. Therefore, as Laetsch correctly points out, by Cush is meant “what is now known as the Eastern, or Egyptian, Sudan, together with Ethiopia, Somaliland, and Eritrea. Zephaniah speaks of rivers of Cush (Zephaniah 3:10, cf. Isaiah 18:1), referring to the White and the Blue Nile and their many tributaries.”857 A touch of irony probably is intended, because doubtless Egypt is uppermost in Zephaniah’s thinking here. Egypt had been defeated by its southern neighbors, and a Cushite royal house (Egypt’s twenty-fifth dynasty) reigned over Egypt for more than half a century (c. 715-655 B.C.).858 At least four of its kings ruled over all Egypt (Shabako [716-701 B.C.], Shebitku [701-690 B.C.], Taharqa [690-664 B.C.], and Tanwetamani [663 B.C.]), and their stranglehold on Egypt was broken only by the victories of Esarhaddon at Memphis in 671 B.C. and Ashurbanipal at Thebes in 663 B.C. Following the permanent withdrawal of the Cushite (or Nubian) forces, under the protection of Assyria, Egypt gradually was able to form a new dynasty (the twenty-sixth or Saite dynasty), which was to last for more than a century (c. 663-525 B.C.) and be Egypt’s last flourishing kingdom. By the time of Josiah and Zephaniah this dynasty was already in power with Pharaoh Psamtik I (c. 663-609 B.C.) at its head. Accordingly Zephaniah’s use of the term “Cushites” probably served several functions: (1) that Zephaniah does not use a finite verb in denouncing the Cushites may point to the reality of their defeat—they are already slain by the sword; (2) the “sword” is actually “My sword,” the Lord’s own sword (cf. Joshua 5:13; Judges 7:20; Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 34:5; Isaiah 66:16; Jeremiah 25:33; Ezekiel 21:9, Ezekiel 21:13-17, Ezekiel 21:28-32; Ezekiel 30:24-25) moving through the earth in divine judgment;859 (3) the term may also be a veiled reminder to the proud Egyptians of their own earlier defeat at the hands of their southern neighbors, a fact that therefore could signal the possibility of a future reversal of their present fortunes; (4) the use of “Cushites” may also have avoided providing an occasion of direct antagonism with the Egyptians, with whom the political affairs of Israel (2 Kings 21:3-5) and Judah (2 Kings 23:29-35) were traditionally bound, at a time when Judah was relatively weak and its suzerain state, Assyria, was already in decline. By Cushites, then, probably is meant the better-known Egypt (cf. Ezekiel 30:1-9). As the Cushite dynasty had passed, so also would Egypt (cf. Jeremiah 46:1-28; Ezekiel 29:1-21, Ezekiel 30:1-26, Ezekiel 31:1-18, Ezekiel 32:1-32) and, one day, all earthly powers that stand in opposition to the Lord (cf. Ezekiel 32:17-32). Additional Notes Zephaniah 2:12 † הֵמָּה (“are”) has been much discussed. Although it is true that change of persons (enallage) is characteristic of Hebrew style,860 so that one could translate the verse “You, too, Cushites, they are (the) slain of my sword,” it seems simplest to take the pronoun in its later Hebrew employment as a copula, a use that, though rare, is not unknown (cf. 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalms 44:4 [HB Psalms 44:5]; Isaiah 37:16[?]).861 The choice of “Cushites” here (as well as in Zephaniah 3:10) may also reflect a conscious literary touch, constituting paronomasia on the name of Zephaniah’s father (Zephaniah 1:1). Whether “Cushite” reflects an African element in Zephaniah’s patrilineage (note the similar problem in Jeremiah 36:14), as several have suggested, remains uncertain. d. Assyria (Zephaniah 2:13-15) Translation And He will stretch out His hand against the north and destroy Assyria; and He will make Nineveh a desolation*, dry* as the wilderness. 14And flocks will lie down in her midst, creatures of every kind*. The desert owl* and the screech owl* will lodge in the tops of her columns. Listen!* (There is) singing in the window (but) rubble* on the threshold, for He will lay bare the cedar work. 15This was the exultant city that dwelled in safety, that said to herself, “I am and there is no one else*.” What* a desolation she has become, a resting place for beasts! Everyone who passes by will hiss and wave his hand*. Exegesis and Exposition Zephaniah’s fourth message against the foreign powers swings around to the north. The order of his prophecies is doubtless climactic. He had delivered his messages against Judah’s perennial enemies to the west and east; then he inserted a word against a traditional foe to the south. He now brings the series to a head by turning to the nation that had so long been the dominant power in the ancient Near East. Like Nahum before him, Zephaniah announces Assyria’s soon demise. God will stretch out His hand and destroy her.862 Her capital city, Nineveh, will be rendered desolate, fit only for animals. Zephaniah urges his readers to visualize the scene with him. Inside the once impregnable walls one encounters no longer the broad streets, impressive gateways, magnificent temples and palaces, or lovely parks and gardens that once adorned the well-planned city. Only ruins and rubble remain. Signs of destruction and devastation lie all around. Where is Sennacherib’s mighty palace, “which has no equal”? Where is the water that once flowed from Nineveh’s aqueduct and many canals, providing the city with an ample supply and making it luxurious? Both have disappeared, leaving behind only a mound of debris and a desertlike dryness.863 The proud royal city, once so busy and bustling with people, now houses only a creaturely kingdom. Casting his eye upward, one can see on the tops of Nineveh’s many pillars not stately structures but owls—owls of every sort screeching through the lonely nights. With the morning light one is confronted with the strangest of paradoxes: from the windows of razed and gutted buildings comes the song of birds, while below them lies only the rubble of collapsed walls, fallen timbers, and broken bits of once-treasured possessions and strips of cedar paneling. It is an eerie spectacle. The deceased metropolis is populated only by creatures and ghosts of departed grandeur. Here is the once proud and festive city whose power and wealth were beyond measure, she who was once approached with eager anticipation, respect, and fear. Now she is devoid of citizenry or visitors, and those who pass by viewing the devastation give only a sneering hiss (cf. Jeremiah 19:8; Micah 6:16) or scornful wave.864 Like Nahum, then, Zephaniah sees no future either for Assyria or its capital. Their doom is certain and irreversible (Nahum 1:14; Nahum 2:13; Nahum 3:19). What a contrast both prophecies form with that of Jonah! If the traditional mid-eighth century B.C. date for Jonah is correct, things were vastly different in Nineveh at that time. Not only was it a weak and superstitious Ashur-Dan III who likely received Jonah’s message, but a series of natural occurrences (plagues in 763 and 759 B.C. and a total eclipse in 763 B.C.) probably played a great part in securing the religious attention of the people. Their repentance at Jonah’s preaching (Matthew 12:41) only confirmed God’s proper concern for them. However, conditions had changed radically. Assyria’s rapacity, pride, and cruelty (Nahum 2:11-13; Nahum 3:8-19) demanded her destruction (Zephaniah 2:13-15). Assyria had forfeited her place of divine service and turned against the Lord (Nahum 1:11-14). Although Jonah may have missed the Lord’s intention for the Nineveh of his day (Jonah 4:1-3), Nahum and Zephaniah would not do so as they announced her certain and total demise. This latter fact may reinforce the suggestion of Branson Woodard865 that from a literary standpoint Jonah was in many ways a tragic figure. Woodard’s proposal to treat Jonah from the perspective of tragedy rather than the more traditional stance of satire may be viewed all the more poignantly if one extends the tragic note to the verdict of history. Rather than being a city/nation for whom God is greatly concerned, Nineveh/Assyria is now viewed as one of the Lord’s enemies (Nahum 1:2, Nahum 1:14; Nahum 3:5; Zephaniah 2:13) whose hostility toward God has earned for her the forfeiture of divine privilege. Accordingly, whereas the situation in Jonah’s day was not particularly appropriate for the vehicle of satire, Nahum can with due propriety apply satire to Nineveh’s case (Nahum 2:11-13; Nahum 3:8-19). In contrast to Nahum, Zephaniah does not use satire but like Jonah announces Assyria’s doom. Unlike the situation in Jonah’s day, however, there is little hope of repentance at this message of judgment. Zephaniah’s prophetic pronouncement of Ninevah’s doom is characteristically picturesque. He had compared the judgment of the cities of Philistia to the misery of the rejected woman and the destruction of Moab and Ammon to that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once again his message is delivered in highly descriptive language. None who heard or read it could miss its force. God was about to bring down the loftiest empire the world had yet known and reduce its grand capital to rubble. Something of the reason for the demise of Assyria in general and of Nineveh in particular is given in v. 15. Nineveh has been a carefree city; unrivaled in power and unmatched in beauty, it rejoiced in its vast wealth and basked in its assurance of safety. How haughty she was! “I am—that is all there is.” She needed no one and nothing else.866 Nevertheless, Nineveh would learn, as had one of her mightiest monarchs, that blasphemy and pride will be reprimanded by one who is mightier than she (cf. 2 Kings 19:22). Like that earlier king, when judgment has come full term she herself will be rewarded with the wages of her iniquity (cf. 2 Kings 19:37; Nahum 1:14 b). Nineveh was once the gem of the Tigris, the crown jewel of the world’s mightiest empire. So magnificent and beautiful were its buildings and grounds that “Nineveh’s rivals were few in the ancient world.”867 Writers of another day, however, were unable to ascertain its location: About 200 years after its devastation, Xenophon passed by its site without realizing that the ruins were the remains of haughty Nineveh (Anabasis III, 4, 10-12). He calls the territory Mespila. Lucian (Charon, c. 23)declares: “Nineveh has perished, and there is no trace left where it once was.”868 Sic transit gloria mundi! Additional Notes Zephaniah 2:13 † מִּדְבָּר ... שְׁמָמָה (“desolation” ... “wilderness”): Although considerable difference of opinion exists as to the meaning of the latter term, its use in the OT indicates a wide semantic range. “Wilderness,” “wasteland,” “desert,” and “steppeland” can each describe the author’s intent in a given context. E. S. Kalland proposes three basic understandings for the type of topography involved: “Pastureland (Joshua 2:22; Psalms 65:12 [H 13]; Jeremiah 23:10), uninhabited land (Deuteronomy 32:10; Job 38:26; Proverbs 21:19; Jeremiah 9:1), and large areas of land in which oases or cities and towns exist here and there.”869 In the present case Nineveh’s destruction will leave it uninhabited except as a refuge for animals and birds, and hence “wilderness” seems most appropriate. The former term is one of several words drawn from the root שׁמם (“be desolate”). Zephaniah employs another of this word group in Zephaniah 2:15 : שַׁמָּה (“desolation”). H. J. Austel observes that “in shÿma„ma‚ the stress is usually on the desolation itself, while in shamma‚ the emphasis is on the spectacle of the desolation, the reaction it causes.”870 Both מִדְבָּר and שְׁמָמָה appear to be drawn from Joel 2:3 where they are used in describing conditions after a severe locust invasion, צִיָּה (“dry”) adds dramatically to Zephaniah’s picture of desolation. It occurs elsewhere with מִדְבָּר and/or שַׁמָּה to describe a waterless waste (e.g., Isaiah 35:1), especially after divine judgment by means of an enemy invasion (e.g., Jeremiah 50:12-13; Jeremiah 51:43; Hosea 2:3 [HB Hosea 2:5]; Joel 2:20).871 Zephaniah 2:14 † כָּל־חַיְתוֹ־גוֹי (“creatures of every kind”): The phrase has been greatly debated.872 While it means something like “every creature of the nation,” Zephaniah’s point appears to be that in contrast to the mighty Assyrian nation that once lived in Nineveh, the nation that will inhabit the fallen city will be made up of every sort of creature. The word גּוֹי (“nation”) is used in Joel 1:6 of a great army of locusts. † קָאַת is included in the list of forbidden unclean birds (Leviticus 11:18; Deuteronomy 14:17). It occurs in Psalms 102:6 (HB Psalms 102:7) in parallel with כּוֹס (“owl”) and in Isaiah 34:11 where, as here, it is employed in combination with קִפּוֹד as well as with the raven and the יַנְשׁוֹף, also considered to be a type of owl. In addition to Isaiah 34:11, קִפּוֹד is found in Isaiah 14:23, where it forms part of the divine sentence in turning Babylon into a swampland. Suggested cognates in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic all tend to indicate a porcupine (hedgehog) as the animal named here (cf. LXX), but such an identification is difficult on the basis of the words associated with swampland in Isaiah 14:23 and with the list of birds in Isaiah 34:11. The proposed translation “bittern” (Hitzig, G. A. Smith, Soncino) lacks support in either the ancient versions or the cognate languages. Contemporary scholarship tends to favor a type of owl for both words.873 The translation tentatively followed here is that of the NIV. † יְשׁוֹרֵר קוֹל: The phrase is variously translated in the English versions that follow the MT: “their calls will echo” (NIV), “birds will sing” (NASB), “their voice shall sing” (KJV, NKJV). Keil insists that the phrase cannot be rendered “a voice sings,” for sho„re„r, to sing, is not used for tuning or resounding; but yÿsho„re„r is to be taken relatively, and as subordinate to קוֹל, the voice of him that sings will be heard in the window. Jerome gives it correctly: vox canentis in fenestra.874 My translation takes קוֹל as an interjection (cf. Zephaniah 1:14) and understands the writer to be calling attention to the strange contrast between the sound of birds singing in the windows and the ruin encountered in the rubble along the threshold. If Keil’s dictum is to be followed, it may be translated, “Listen! (There is) one who is singing.” On the whole, however, the proposed translation appears simplest. † חֹרֶב (“rubble”): In addition to the alternative reading עֹרֵב (“raven”) noted above, other suggestions include חֶרֶב (“sword”—Aquila, Symmachus, Pesh.; “axe”—Sabottka) and חָרָב (“bustard”—NEB). The final line of the verse has fared little better. Indeed, at first sight the statement does not seem to fit the previous lines well. J. M. P. Smith declares that it “has no relation to the immediate context.”875 The MT, however, makes tolerable sense as it stands; the action of stripping bare the cedar work helps to account for the previously mentioned accumulation of debris. כִּי is best understood causally, although it could be taken as an asseverative particle;876 אַרְזָה (“cedar work”) may be understood as a collective noun;877 and עֵרָה (“he will lay bare”) is to be viewed as a verb in the piel stem employed as a prophetic perfect in the sense of “stripping off.”878 Zephaniah 2:15 † עוֹד וְאַפְסִי (“and there is no one else”): The final י in וְאַפְסִי is probably not a 1st com. sing. suffix, hence “besides me” as has often been proposed (NASB, KJV, NKJV), a meaning the form bears nowhere else, but is an example of hiriq compaginis or paragogic yodh.879 אֶפֶס is frequently found in negative sentences; it also occurs elsewhere with עוֹד (e.g., 2 Samuel 9:3). אֵיךְ (“what!”): H. Wolf reports that this word is usually used in rhetorical questions to indicate either reproach (Judges 16:15), despair (1 Samuel 1:19), amazement (Isaiah 14:4), horror (Psalms 73:19), or desire (Jer. 3:19).880 Several of these senses could fit here. † יָדוֹ יִִָניעַ (“he will wave his hand”): The gesture is one of contempt, but the translation “shake his fist” (NKJV; cf. NIV, R. Smith, J. M. P. Smith) may be too explicit. 2. On Jerusalem (Zephaniah 3:1-7) Zephaniah concludes his messages on judgment by turning to his own nation and to the holy city in particular.chitra Translation Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled, the oppressive city! 2She is not obedient; she does not receive correction*; she does not trust in the LORD; she does not draw near to her God. 3Her officials* in her midst are roaring lions; her judges* are wolves in the evening who leave nothing for the morning. 4Her prophets are arrogant, (they are) treacherous men*; her priests profane the sanctuary, they violate the law. 5The LORD is righteous in her midst; He does no injustice. Morning by morning He brings His justice to light, He/it does not fail; yet the unrighteous know no shame. 6”I have cut off nations; their strongholds* are destroyed. I have made their streets desolate, with no one passing through; their cities are devastated, with no one left—not a single inhabitant. 7I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, you will receive correction’; therefore her dwelling* will not be cut off with all that I have appointed for her. However,* they eagerly remained corrupt* in all their deeds.” Exegesis and Exposition In delivering his pronouncement against Jerusalem, Zephaniah utilizes the form of the woe oracle, including invective (Zephaniah 3:1), reason (criticism) for Judah’s punishment (Zephaniah 3:2-4), and implied threat (Zephaniah 3:5-7). The invective begins with a woe* in which Zephaniah calls Judah’s capital a “rebellious” and “defiled” city where “oppression” is the order of the day. The three terms describe a lifestyle and social structure at variance with the character and laws of God. Each is amplified in the criticism that follows. Invective (Zephaniah 3:1) Criticism (Zephaniah 3:2-4) Woe to Jerusalem: 1. The rebellious city It accepts neither God’s law nor His Person (Zephaniah 3:2) 2. The defiled city Its religious leaders profane God’s standards (Zephaniah 3:4) 3. The tyrannical city Its civic leaders oppress the people (Zephaniah 3:3) (1) Jerusalem is rebellious.* The Hebrew word is employed by the prophets of the rebellion of God’s people against Him and His commandments (cf. Isaiah 3:8; Isaiah 63:10; Lamentations 1:18). Thus Jeremiah charges that the people are stubborn and rebellious (Jeremiah 4:17) and that their leaders have kept them from fearing God, thereby causing them to turn away from God so as to miss His good purpose for them (Jeremiah 5:23-25). The nation has neither obeyed God nor responded to His correction (Jeremiah 7:21-28; cf. Jeremiah 11:6-8; Jeremiah 22:21). Ezekiel reminds his hearers of Israel’s penchant for impiety (Ezekiel 20:8, Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:20). Because that sin was perpetuated in their day, it would bring God’s outstretched arm and outpoured wrath against them (Ezekiel 20:30-38). Zephaniah’s point is much the same. He charges God’s people with refusing to obey God’s commandments and with unwillingness to learn from chastisement (Zephaniah 3:2). Zephaniah goes to the heart of the problem by noting the cause of Jerusalem’s willfulness. She has neither concern nor time for God and His standards. As J. M. P. Smith points out, “The implication is that Jerusalem has had recourse to everything and everybody but Yahweh.”881 P. C. Craigie adds: “The city’s arrogance was such that it would listen to no advice and accept no words of correction.... It had abandoned trust in the very God that gave the city its raison dá e‚tre.”882 The seriousness of Jerusalem’s spiritual condition is underscored by Zephaniah’s choice of word order (MT): “In the Lord she does not trust; unto her God she does not draw near.” Jerusalem needed to get her priorities in order, for misplaced trust in self is no trust at all. She needed to trust in God and let Him be the focus of her life (cf. Deuteronomy 4:5-7; Psalms 84:12 [HB 84:13]; Psalms 119:169; Psalms 125:1; Proverbs 3:5-6; Isaiah 26:3-4). (2) Jerusalem is a defiled city. Zephaniah points an accusing finger at Jerusalem’s religious leadership, those most responsible for the spiritual and moral fiber of the populace (Zephaniah 3:4). Her prophets, who should be God’s spokesmen, are nonprophets (cf. Jeremiah 23:9-39). Their arrogance knows no bounds. Carried away by selfish conceit and personal ambition, they produce pompous pronouncements filled with idle boasting, platitudes, and lies. Craigie observes that such men abandon “the sanctity of their task ... prostrating it to their personal ends.”883 The priests are no better (cf. Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 5:31; Jeremiah 6:13; Jeremiah 23:11). They who were charged with the purity of God’s house and the sanctity of His law (1 Chronicles 23:28; Deuteronomy 31:9-13) have violated both. Ezekiel (Ezekiel 22:26) will repeat the same charges, pointing out that conditions in his day have only worsened, for the priests willfully profane all that is sacred. As Feinberg remarks, Instead of teaching and upholding the law of God, they made it their business to blot out every God-given distinction between profane and holy. They belied their calling in particular after particular with the result that, instead of being magnified in His holy requirements, the Lord was profaned among them.884 (3) Jerusalem is a city filled with oppression.* Its source is the civic and social leadership (Zephaniah 3:3). With bold metaphors Zephaniah exposes Jerusalem’s leaders for what they are. The nobles who serve as her officials and judges have betrayed their privileged positions. They who should be fair and impartial have become like ravenous beasts—roaring lions (cf. Proverbs 28:15; Ezekiel 22:25; Nahum 2:12) who take as their prey the possessions of the poor and the lives of the citizens, and wolves that prowl about in the evening gobbling up their unsuspecting prey and crushing them so thoroughly that none of their bones is left in the morning.885 Thus justice is perverted in the insatiable greed of Jerusalem’s leadership. Concerning these two groups of officials Craigie points out: The officials ... used the power of their positions to gain their own ends, wielding their government office to satisfy their perpetual craving for wealth and power.... The only interest the judges had in the law was in the profit it could be made to bring them.886 In those dire days when Josiah was yet too young to deal effectively with a corrupt officialdom, the situation looked bleak indeed. With the passing of that king, who knew no peer in his concern for the law of God (2 Kings 23:25), an entrenched leadership would prevail and hasten the demise of the nation (cf. Jeremiah 23:1-4, Jeremiah 23:11-12; Ezekiel 22:23-29). Everything rises or falls with leadership. When a nation is governed by godly individuals, their leadership provides benefits that are as welcome as a warming sun that rises at the start of a new day or comes out after a refreshing shower (cf. 2 Samuel 23:3-4). But the ship of state that is piloted by a corrupt captain is a danger to itself and all those aboard it. Zephaniah reminds his hearers of Him who is ultimately Judah’s leader (Zephaniah 3:5-7; cf. Jeremiah 23:1-8). In contrast to Jerusalem’s corrupt leadership, the Lord is righteous* altogether. Unlike the wicked who know no shame, He does no iniquity. With the light of each new day He brings evidence of His unfailing justice, not only in His kindly acts of providence but, as Keil suggests, “by causing His law and justice to be proclaimed to the nation daily by prophets,” who serve Him faithfully and call the nation to repentance.887 Something of God’s righteousness may also be seen in His merciful dealings with His people in attempting to woo them back to Himself (Zephaniah 3:6-7). If Judah were but to look about her, she would see the evidence. God has cut off nation after nation, not only for their sins but also on behalf of the needs of His own people. Nations and cities with their massive defenses have been destroyed and left destitute. Doubtless Zephaniah could have pointed to many such examples (cf. Nahum 3:8). Even the Northern Kingdom of Israel had suffered such a judgment. Surely it could be expected that Judah would observe all of this and learn a lesson (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:15-16). But such had not proved to be the case (cf. 2 Kings 17:6-20; Jeremiah 3:6-10; Ezekiel 23:1-49). Rather than demonstrating a desire for repentance, Judah and Jerusalem displayed only an increased bent for shameless corruption. The word translated “eagerly” reveals something of the degradation of late-seventh-century B.C. Judahite society. The Hebrew verb שָׁכַם ( sŒa„kam, always appearing in the hiphil) is generally conceded to be a denominative from a noun meaning “shoulder.” Although older translators rendered the verb “start, rise early” (e.g., BDB), more recent translators tend to favor a derived nuance such as “eagerness,” “diligence,” “continuity.” Doubtless this is the basic idea of the verb. Nevertheless, the more traditional understanding remains helpful. Jeremiah employs the verb 11 times to picture God’s eagerness to meet with His people. He rose, as it were, to be on hand at the beginning of each day, longing to meet with them—but to no avail. Zephaniah reports that the people were eager, “rose early,” only to corrupt their ways further. It is small wonder that Judah’s end would not be long in coming. Perhaps those who claim God as king in our generation would be well advised to “make an early start” in meeting with Him who “rises early” to meet with His people.888 Although this section of the book, with its attention to the judgment of the nations and the pronouncement of woe upon Jerusalem, has not been encouraging, Zephaniah’s prophesying is not yet complete. Before the final word has been said, his readers will come to understand that the day of the Lord’s judgment, dark though it will be, is but the path to a brighter day. Additional Notes Zephaniah 3:1 As the pronouncement against Assyria centered on Nineveh, so the message against Judah has its focus on Jerusalem. “City” (Zephaniah 2:15; Zephaniah 3:1) thus serves as the stitch-word between the foreign nations prophecies (Zephaniah 2:4-15) and the prophecy against God’s people (Zephaniah 3:1-7). For the use of woe oracles, see the additional note on Nahum 3:1. Victor Hamilton demonstrates that the Hebrew root for “rebellious” ( מָרָה) is used in all but five cases of Israel’s rebellion against God or His commandments, whether in word or deed. Since a word is often known by the company it keeps, Hamilton’s list of Hebrew words that are used in conjunction with מרה is instructive: so‚re„r, “stubborn”; àa„s£ab, “to hurt/grieve”; ma„áe„n, “to refuse”; pa„sŒaà, “to rebel/transgress”; na„áas£, “to scorn”; h£a„ta„, “to sin”; na„sa‚, “to test”; ma„rad, “to rebel”; ma„áas, “to reject”; h£a„lal, “to profane.”889 As for Judah’s second unsavory quality, that of being defiled, though the Hebrew root may be employed of defilement in general (Isaiah 63:3), it is used often of religious defilement or disqualification (Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64; Malachi 1:7), particularly of the misdeeds of Israel’s priesthood (Nehemiah 13:29). The third charge against Judah is that of oppression. The Hebrew word יָנָה (“oppress”) is utilized in a variety of ways but most frequently of intolerance toward or the suppression of the rights and privileges of others. It especially characterizes the rich and influential members of society who take advantage of the less fortunate (cf. Exodus 22:21 [HB Exodus 22:20]; Leviticus 19:23; Deuteronomy 23:16 [HB Deuteronomy 23:17]). Zephaniah 3:2 †By מוּסָר (“chastisement”) is meant the several instances of affliction and rebuke that God sends into the lives of His own to accomplish their correction and spiritual growth (Proverbs 1:7-8; Proverbs 3:11-12). Like Zephaniah, Jeremiah laments the people’s failure to profit from God’s chastening (Jeremiah 5:3; Jeremiah 7:28). Zephaniah 3:3 †For שָׂרִים (“officials/nobles”), see the additional note on Zephaniah 1:8. The term שֹׁפֵט (“judge”) was used of those leaders of Israel to whom were entrusted civic as well as judicial responsibilities. In time the latter sense became the dominant one, especially from Samuel onward (cf. 1 Samuel 7:15-17; 1 Samuel 8:1-2).890 These two terms, along with the mentioning of prophets and priests in Zephaniah 3:4, served as the focal point for Ezekiel’s adaptation of Zephaniah 3:3-4 for his denunciation of God’s people and land (Ezekiel 22:25-28).891 Zephaniah 3:4 † פֹּחֲזִים (“arrogant”): Conrad von Orelli observes that the Hebrew root means “to overcook”; hence, the prophets are those who boil over with personal desire.892 Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:32) uses the root to describe the prophets’ deceit. He charges them with falsehood of every kind (Jeremiah 23:30-32). † בֹּגְדוֹת (“treacherous”): The word carries with it not only an indication of the lying deceit of Jerusalem’s prophets (cf. Jeremiah 28:1-17; Jeremiah 29:21-23) but the implication that such activity stems from a wanton disregard for God and His truth. As Keil points out, the root itself is “the classical word for faithless adultery or apostasy from God.”893 Zephaniah 3:5 For the concept “righteous” (or “just”), see the Excursus on Habakkuk 2:4. The term מִשְׁפָּט (“justice”) used in a following line is a wordplay on שֹׁפְטֶיהָ (“her judges”) in Zephaniah 3:3. Keil observes that the term involves more than rendering a righteous verdict; it includes “a righteous state of things.”894 For עַוְלָה (“injustice”), see the additional note on Habakkuk 2:12. Zephaniah 3:6 † פִּנּוֹת (“strongholds”) was rendered “corner towers” in Zephaniah 1:16 and, as the key point in the defensive wall, may be the best understanding here also. The translation above takes the term as a synecdoche and follows the NIV. Zephaniah 3:7 † מְעוֹנָהּ (“her dwelling”): Another case of enallage occurs here, the shift being from 2d fem. sing. to 3d fem. sing. as the sentence moves from direct to indirect address. The LXX and Pesh. apparently repointed to מֵעֵינֶיהָ (“from her eyes/sight”), a reading followed by G. A. Smith and J. M. P. Smith (cf. BHS; NJB; RSV). Such an understanding forces one to take the following פָּקַד in the sense of “visit” or “instruct/charge.”895 The MT, however, makes good sense as it stands. God’s concern was for Jerusalem’s repentance so that in the coming judgment total destruction could be avoided. † אָכֵן (“however”): This strong asseverative particle sometimes is employed to indicate emphatic contrast, “but indeed, but in fact, esp. after אָמַרְתִּי I said or thought, expressing the reality, in opp. to what had been wrongly imagined.”896 Although God had made no mistake in His evaluation, looking at things from a human perspective one could have hoped that all of God’s actions would have occasioned Jerusalem’s repentance. The opposite had proved to be the case. The following two verbs should be taken as hendiadys: “They (all the more) eagerly corrupted (remained corrupt in) all their deeds.” 3 Additional Details Concerning the Day of the Lord, Part Two (Zephaniah 3:8-20) Based on the long series of pronouncements concerning the foreign nations (Zephaniah 2:4-15) and the city of Jerusalem (Zephaniah 3:1-7), Zephaniah again has a strong exhortation for his people. They should wait patiently and trustingly for God to effect His worldwide judgment (Zephaniah 3:8). The prophet goes on to give further teachings concerning the Day of the Lord, whose coming he had so vividly portrayed (Zephaniah 1:14-18). The judgment was but part of God’s plan to secure an obedient and purified people for Himself (Zephaniah 3:9-13) who can rejoice in their divine Redeemer and sing His praises to the ends of the earth (Zephaniah 3:14-20). Structurally, Zephaniah 3:8-13 could be viewed as forming one unit, the imperative of Zephaniah 3:8 being continued by two motive clauses introduced by the particle כִּי ( kî, “for/because,” Zephaniah 3:8-9). The first would provide a negative reason for waiting for the Lord, the second a positive one. But the close correspondence between Zephaniah 3:9-13 and Zephaniah 3:14-18 with relation to future matters, signaled by the phrase “in that day” (Zephaniah 3:11, Zephaniah 3:16), argues for the transitional nature of Zephaniah 3:8 as a hinge verse that picks up the theme of judgment of the previous section (note מִשְׁפָּט, misŒpa„t£, in Zephaniah 3:5, Zephaniah 3:8) and provides the basis for the encouraging teaching in Zephaniah 3:9-13 (note the stitching effect of the particle כִּי, kî, “for” in Zephaniah 3:8-9). The closing verses of the book are accomplished with striking examples of the prophet’s use of repetition and refrain (Zephaniah 3:14-15) and personification (Zephaniah 3:14-16) designed to magnify the glad conditions associated with Zion’s regathering and revivication (Zephaniah 3:14-20). B. An Exhortation Based On Judgment (Zephaniah 3:8) Translation “Therefore wait for Me,” declares the LORD, “for the day when I rise up as a witness*. For My decision* is to gather the nations, to assemble the kingdoms, (and) to pour out My indignation* upon them—all My burning anger*. Yes, in the fire of My jealousy* all the earth will be consumed.” Exegesis and Exposition In light of the waves of certain judgment that will flow over the nations and wash away Jerusalem in their wake, God exhorts His people: “Wait for me.” In a vivid and varied metaphor the prophet portrays a courtroom scene in which God rises first as witness (cf. Deuteronomy 8:19; 1 Samuel 12:5; Job 16:19; Psalms 50:7; Jeremiah 29:23; Micah 1:2; Malachi 3:5; Hebrews 6:13) on His own behalf and before the assemblage, and then presides as judge (cf. Genesis 18:25; Judges 11:27; 1 Samuel 2:10; 1 Chronicles 16:33; Job 9:15; Psalms 7:11 [HB Psalms 7:12]; Psalms 50:6; Psalms 75:7 [HB Psalms 75:8]; Isaiah 33:2) to deliver His righteous sentence (cf. Psalms 72:2; Psalms 75:2 [HB Psalms 75:3]). The motif of God as judge is a familiar one in the OT. Indeed, God’s coming to judge the earth is often declared (e.g., 1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalms 9:8 [HB Psalms 9:9]; Psalms 50:4; Psalms 96:13; Psalms 98:9; Psalms 110:6; cf. Isaiah 2:4; 11:34; Micah 4:3). The language in Zephaniah is reminiscent of Psalms 82:8; Psalms 94:2. Here God confirms His decision to assemble all nations and peoples for judgment (cf. Isaiah 13:9-11; Isaiah 66:16; Jeremiah 25:31-33; Ezekiel 36:5; Ezekiel 38:1-23, Ezekiel 39:1-24; Joel 3:9-16 [HB 4:9-16]; Zechariah 14:2-20). God’s intentions are here called His “indignation,” His “burning anger,” and “the fire of [His] jealousy,” terms describing His righteous hatred of sin and concern for His holy name and reputation and for His people (cf. Isaiah 66:13-16). And herein lay a message of hope. Because God’s judgment of the nations was so often linked with His concern for the salvation of His people, the righteous citizens of Jerusalem could take comfort. God’s justice would avenge them; could it not also mean the possibility of intervention on their behalf? In light of God’s great promises (cf. Isaiah 30:18-33; Isaiah 33:22; Isaiah 64:4 [HB Isaiah 64:3]), even the exhortation “wait for me” carried a note of hope. It was “only used for waiting in a believing attitude for the Lord and His help (Psalms 33:20; Isaiah 8:17; Isaiah 30:18; Isaiah 64:3).”897 It was just such a hope that Zephaniah would deliver in the sections that follow. Additional Notes Zephaniah 3:8 According to the Masora, this is the only verse in the OT that contains all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, including the final forms. However, שׂ is not considered a separate grapheme from שׁ. † לְעַד (“as a witness,” lit. “for a prey/booty”; so NASB, KJV; cf. NKJV): The translation adopted here follows the LXX, the Pesh., and many scholars and versions (e.g., RSV, NEB; cf. BHS) in repointing the MT to read לְעֵד. In a similar vein the NIV suggests “to testify” and the NJB translates “as accuser.”898 Sabottka also repoints the MT, rendering it לְעָד and translating “from my throne.”899 In this he has followed M. Dahood and others who compare Ugaritic àd “throne-(room).”900 This proposal necessitates understanding the preposition ל as “from,” a meaning often found in Ugaritic.901 At first blush this latter suggestion seems attractive. Nevertheless, however good a case may be made for the meaning “throne” for Hebrew, עד none of the examples proposed by Dahood contains the required phrase לְעָד. Further, the meaning “from” for ל must depend on more than supposed examples of the free interchange between ל and other prepositions with the same semantic range or evidence based upon proposed contextual solutions.902 The word for “throne” in the OT is כִּסֵּא, and the act of rising from or going down from the throne is expressed by the preposition מִן (e.g., Isaiah 14:9; Jeremiah 3:6) or מִן in combination with עַל (e.g., Judges 3:20; Ezekiel 26:16). In sum, however tolerable a sense “rise from the throne” may yield here, it does not find support either in normal OT usage or in the employment of the throne motif. An interesting theological translation is reflected in the Vg, which, while retaining the MT, goes off in still another direction: “in my resurrection in the future.” † מִשְׁפָּטִי (“my decision,” lit. “my judgment”) serves as a stitch-word with the previous section. For זַעַם (“indignation”), see the additional note on Habakkuk 3:12; for חֲרוֹן (“burning anger”), see the additional note on 22. The phrase “the fire of My jealousy” occurs in Zephaniah 1:18. “Jealousy” often expresses God’s being moved to action on behalf of His own (cf. Joel 2:18), and hence the LXX and Vg translate “My zeal” here. See also the additional note on Nahum 1:2. C. Additional Teachings Concerning The Day Of The Lord (Zephaniah 3:9-20) Zephaniah 3:9-20 have been traditionally considered as a distinctive unit. So construed, this section falls into two portions (Zephaniah 3:9-13, Zephaniah 3:14-20) linked together by the phrase “in that day” (Zephaniah 3:11, Zephaniah 3:16) and the ideas of scattering (Zephaniah 3:10, Zephaniah 3:19) and being afraid/fearing (Zephaniah 3:13, Zephaniah 3:16). Such a view likewise finds support from the first half of the book, which is also closed by information concerning the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-18) and instructions based upon it (Zephaniah 2:1-3). 1. Information Concerning That Day (Zephaniah 3:9-13) Translation “For then will I give* to the people pure lips, in order that all of them may call on the name of the LORD (and) serve Him shoulder to shoulder*. 10From beyond the rivers of Cush* My worshipers* shall bring My scattered ones* as My tribute*. 11In that day you will not be put to shame* by all your wrongdoings that you have done to Me. For then I will remove from your midst your proud boasters*, and you will never again be haughty on My holy mountain. 12But I will leave within you a humble and lowly people, and they will trust in the name of the LORD. 13The remnant of Israel will do no injustice; neither will they speak a lie, nor will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouths. Yes,* they will feed and lie down, and no one will make them afraid.” Exegesis and Exposition Structurally, Zephaniah 3:9-13 provide a further reason for the exhortation to wait for the Lord (Zephaniah 3:8). The first reason (found in Zephaniah 3:8) had to do with God’s determination to gather the nations for the long-awaited judgment. The second now deals with the promises of God to a humble and purified future remnant. Both reasons are introduced by the particle כִּי ( kî, “because/for”), the one in Zephaniah 3:9 being supplemented by the temporal particle אָז ( áa„z, “then”).903 This section thus carries the author’s thoughts to information concerning a future day that will provide the grounds for the closing admonitions of the book (Zephaniah 3:14-20). Zephaniah’s goal in Zephaniah 3:9-13 is didactic. He will provide additional information concerning the fate of God’s people in the coming Day of the Lord. It is a message of hope. As indicated previously, critical scholarship has at times denied the authenticity of these verses (and all of Zephaniah 3:9-20) due to their strong emphasis on hope. Zephaniah 3:9-10 have seemed particularly troublesome. Thus J. M. P. Smith remarks: Zephaniah 3:9-10 constitute a disturbing element within this oracle. They seem to be foreign to, if not also later than, their present context; ... they manifest a totally different attitude toward the nations from that of Zephaniah 3:8. In the latter, the nations are destined to be destroyed; here they are to be converted.... Still further, the elimination of Zephaniah 3:9-10 leaves a good connection between Zephaniah 3:9 and Zephaniah 3:11.904 Despite the critical objections, judgment and hope are often twin themes. Certainly such is the case in our seventh-century B.C. minor prophets. All three have strong words of judgment (Nahum 1:1-6, Nahum 1:8-10; Nahum 2:1-13; Nahum 3:1-19; Habakkuk 1:5-11; Habakkuk 2:6-20; Habakkuk 3:3-15; Zephaniah 1:2-18; Zephaniah 2:3-15; Zephaniah 3:17-18) but also of hope and reassurance (Nahum 1:7; Habakkuk 2:4-5, Habakkuk 3:16-19; Zephaniah 2:1-3; Zephaniah 3:9-20). Even more significantly, all three prophets demonstrate that because judgment is an integral part of God’s teleological program designed to bless His people and His world, it is in a sense a veiled hope. Thus Nahum’s predictions against Nineveh indicated that her judgment was a means of deliverance for Judah (Nahum 1:11-15); the news of Nineveh’s fall was an indication of better things to come for all people (Nahum 1:15; Nahum 2:13; Nahum 3:7, Nahum 3:19). Habakkuk’s prophecies of the judgment upon both Judah (Habakkuk 1:5-11) and Babylon (Habakkuk 2:6-20) were part of God’s process of allowing the character of all people to be fully displayed (Habakkuk 2:4-5), while God Himself was declared in control of the disposition of the ages and every individual (Habakkuk 2:20; Habakkuk 3:3-15). Indeed, it is He who works out the salvation and blessing of His people (Habakkuk 3:12-13) and all who know Him (Habakkuk 2:14) through the drama of earth’s history. Likewise, Zephaniah points out that judgment can bring hope and assurance to God’s people (Zephaniah 2:6-7, Zephaniah 2:9-11). The double emphasis on judgment and hope is prominent in Zephaniah 3:9-20. Judgment and hope, then, rather than being irreconcilable themes, are two aspects of one divine perspective. Both are designed and intertwined to accomplish God’s purposes. Zephaniah’s concluding verses, far from being out of place, are neither unexpected nor contextually inappropriate. As. P. C. Craigie observes, the prophet Zephaniah thus gives us a view of the future which is part despair, part hope.... The source of the prophet’s despair was to be found in his understanding of human nature and human states; the source of his hope was to be found in God.905 In these verses Zephaniah turns from judgment to its outcome—God’s blessing of the people of the world. God’s goal is to effect change in the hearts and lives of all. Such indeed will take place—but not just for Israel; rather, all people shall be transformed so as to call on the Lord (cf. Isaiah 55:5) and serve Him as one (cf. 2 Chron. 14:16-17; Isaiah 59:19-21).906 To “call on the name of the Lord” means to invoke his name in belief, submission, and supplication (cf. Genesis 4:26; Genesis 12:8; 2 Kings 5:11).907 All of this God’s worshipers will do, and that with “pure lips.” Their desire will be to serve Him in sincere devotion as one—”shoulder to shoulder.” T. Laetsch observes: As the lips of Isaiah, the sinful member of a sinful people, had been purified by the fiery coal from the altar typifying the Cross of Calvary, so the Lord will change the impure lips of Gentile nations by the preaching of this Cross.... All will put their shoulder to His service in joyful gratitude for His salvation.908 As proof of their new love for God, the Gentiles will bring to Him His covenant people (Isaiah 66:20). From the farthest reaches of the world, wherever they have been scattered in judgment (Deuteronomy 28:64-68), God’s people will be returned to the land of promise (Deuteronomy 4:27-31; Isaiah 11:11-16) and enjoy God’s richest blessings (Isaiah 66:7-14). Further, all people shall know God (Habakkuk 2:14) and enjoy His everlasting beneficence (Isaiah 2:1-4; Isaiah 11:1-10; Micah 4:1-5). Here again Zephaniah has called on earlier Canaanite literature, drawing from a context set in the contest between Yamm and Baal. In this instance, Baal was to be handed over to Yamm and sent to him as tribute: “Thy slave is Baal, O Yamm, Thy slave is Baal [for eve]r, Dagon’s Son is thy captive; He shall be brought as thy tribute. For the gods bring [thy gift], The holy ones are thy tributaries.”909 The literary allusion here is rendered certain by the concatenation of words taken from that text: עֶבֶד ( àebed, “servant/slave”); יָבַל ( ya„bal, “bring”); מִנְחָה ( minh£a‚, “tribute/offering”). The awareness of this literary setting provides the clue to solving the debate as to whether the words בַּת־פּוּצַי עֲתָרַי ( àaŒta„ray bat-pu‚s£ay, “my worshipers, my scattered ones”) should be taken as referring to the same group and what is the proper subject of “bring.” According to one commonly held view, God’s dispersed people are represented here as bringing an offering to God. Such is the verdict of the English versions, and it has the support of some expositors.910 Other scholars (e.g., Fausset, Feinberg, Keil, Laetsch) suggest, however, that what is in view is an embassy of converted Gentiles bringing the Jews to God as an offering or tribute. In both views “my scattered ones” is taken to be in apposition to “my worshipers.” Based on the literary parallel, the scriptural indications concerning the conversion of the Gentiles, and the context, I propose that “my worshipers” is the subject of the verb “bring,” “my scattered ones” is its object, and “my tribute” is a second accusative to be translated “as my tribute.”911 Thus, just as Baal was to be Yamm’s servant and sent as tribute to him, so converted Gentiles who “call upon the name of the Lord” and “serve Him shoulder to shoulder” will be “My worshipers” who will “bring My scattered ones” (the Jews) as “My tribute.” Zephaniah elaborates on all this by reporting that in that day* Jerusalem’s shameful acts against God in the past will not be repeated. By then those who have done such things will have been removed, and with their departure the spirit of haughtiness will disappear. In their place God will leave* those who in true humility trust in Him912 and will remove injustice and deception. With the godly remnant God will doubtless be well pleased, for He, as their good shepherd, will give them sustenance, serenity, and security (Zephaniah 3:11-13). Additional Notes Zephaniah 3:9 † אֶהְפֹּךְ (“I will give,” lit. “I will [over]turn”): Known throughout the Semitic family,913 this verb is used in the OT transitively of turning someone or something (2 Kings 21:13), overthrowing a city (Genesis 19:21, Genesis 19:25, Genesis 19:29), or transforming/changing a thing/person (Psalms 105:25). Intransitively it is employed of turning back or into something (Leviticus 13:3-4; 2 Kings 5:26). Here used transitively, it takes its place in a series of statements relative to God’s transforming work with regard to people (1 Samuel 10:6, 1 Samuel 10:9; Psalms 105:25; Jeremiah 31:13; Hosea 11:8). The sentence is elliptical, the point being that the impure lips of the people will be changed to pure lips. As Keil points out, the syntax is not unlike that of 1 Samuel 10:9.914 The translation above is ad sensum. The Living Bible’s “I will change the speech of my returning people to pure Hebrew” misses the point of the passage. The stress here is on spiritual purity, not singleness of language. †The phrase אֶחָד שְׁכֶם (lit. “[with] one shoulder”) is best taken as a figurative expression for unanimity of action or purpose (cf. RSV, NKJV, KJV: “with one accord/consent”), hence the thought “shoulder to shoulder” (NASB, NIV, NJB).915 Zephaniah 3:10 †By the “rivers of Cush” is meant the distant headwaters of the Nile and its tributaries. Thus J. M. P. Smith points out that “the rivers referred to are the branches of the Nile that traverse the most southern portion of the region; viz. the Atbara, the Astasobas, the Astapus or Blue Nile, and the Bahr-el-Abjadh or White Nile; cf. Isaiah 18:1-7.”916 The phrase is a synecdoche, those of that distant region representing the farthest people of the earth.917 † בַּת־פּוּצַי עֲתָרַי (“my worshipers,” “my scattered ones”): These words are omitted in the LXX* and the Pesh., and accordingly some suggest that they are a gloss here. However, their inclusion by the Vg and the difficulty in understanding them argue against their omission or the conjecture of a gloss. Although J. M. P. Smith declares the MT “quite ... unintelligible,”918 the English versions have made tolerable sense of the text: “my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed (ones)” (RSV, KJV; cf. NKJV; so also the Vg); “my worshipers, my dispersed ones/scattered people” (NASB, NIV). Although עָתָר (“worshiper”) is a hapax legomenon, the verb עָתַר (“pray/supplicate”) is attested. The form could also be construed as a participle: “those who worship me.”919 Adding to the difficulty is the fact that the phrase בַּת־פּוּצַי is without precedent. The usual sense of “daughter” in such cases is as a stereotyped title with a nationalistic emphasis such as “(virgin) daughter of X” (Jerusalem, Zion, etc.),920 whereas the passive participle of פּוּץ occurs nowhere else. Nevertheless, the phrase is not totally unintelligible as an extension of its usual understanding. It can be taken to mean “the crowd or congregation consisting of the dispersed of the Lord, the members of the Israelitish congregation of God scattered about in all the world.”921 It is also possible to read the consonantal text of the first word of the phrase as בֵּית (“house of”), hence “my scattered house”—that is, the dispersed Israelites viewed as God’s covenantal remnant (cf. 2 Samuel 7:11).922 Most probably the phrase is elliptical for הַפּוּץ עַמִּי בַּת (“my scattered people”), the sense being supplied from the עַמִּים of v. 9. The phrase עַמִּי בַּת occurs often in Jeremiah. † מִנְחָתִי (“my tribute”): מִנְחָה has been understood here as “sacrifices” (LXX; cf. Vg), “an offering made to God of any kind” (BDB), or the meal offering (Keil). The meaning “tribute” (cf. NJB, O’Connor, Sabottka) comes from the Ugaritic cognate, which is parallel to argmn (“tribute”).923 Although the suffix has been taken as a dative, “to me” (LXX, Vg, Sabottka), such is not necessary. The tribute will be considered to be God’s proper due. Zephaniah 3:11 Phrases such as הַהוּא בַּיּוֹם (“in that day”) can be used as formulae to introduce strophes or stanzas (cf. Joel 3:1 [HB. 4:1]; Amos 8:13; Amos 9:11; Micah 4:6; Micah 5:9 [HB. Micah 5:10]; Micah 7:11-12; Haggai 2:23; Zechariah 3:10; Zechariah 8:23; etc.). The changed emphasis and subject matter, as well as the literary hook אָז כִּי, render it certain that the phrase introduces a subunit in this section. It also forms a linking device with the following section (cf. Zephaniah 3:16). † תֵבוֹשִׁי לֹא (“you will not be put to shame”): Since the verb form is fem. sing., doubtless Jerusalem is being addressed. The verb can be taken in a subjective sense with the meaning “feel shame” (NASB) or in an objective sense meaning “be put to shame” (NIV, NKJV). The former emphasizes the forgetting of past shameful deeds against the Lord; the latter lays stress on the unlikely prospect of feeling shame ever again since its cause is removed. The latter course has been followed here because the context underscores the fact that in that future day the shameful acts perpetrated against God will no longer be practiced, for those who did such things have been removed. Although O’Connor takes לא as an emphatic particle (“you shall be ashamed”),924 the force of the context and the presence of לֹא in its normal negative usage in the same verse ( וְלֹא־תוֹסִפִי) make the suggestion of a rare miswriting for לוּ tenuous.925 † גַּאֲוָתֵךְ עַלִּיזֵי (“your proud boasters,” lit. “the exultations of/in your pride”): The phrase is composed of a genitive of attribute and a 2d fem. sing. possessive suffix.926 Keil observes that the phrase “is taken from Isaiah 13:3, where it denotes the heroes called by Jehovah, who exult with pride caused by the intoxication of victory; whereas here the reference is to the haughty judges, priests, and prophets (Isaiah 13:3-4), who exult in their sinful ways.”927 M. Dahood calls attention to the occurrence of פָּשַׁע and גַּאֲוָה in close proximity as reflecting Ugaritic usage also.928 Zephaniah 3:12 וְהִשְׁאַרְתִּי (“and I will leave”): Invaders customarily deported the leaders and skilled craftsmen of the lands they had conquered, leaving only the poor (2 Kings 24:14; 2 Kings 25:12). So God’s invasion of Jerusalem leaves the וָדָל עָנִי (“humble and lowly,” lit. “afflicted and poor”; cf. Job 34:28; Isaiah 26:6). With regard to the first word, L. Coppes remarks: “The àa„ni‚, although frequently in synonymous parallelism with áebyo‚n and dal, differs from both in that it connotes some kind of disability or distress.”929 Concerning the latter he observes: “This root occurs most frequently in the adjectival form. Unlike àa„ni‚, dal does not emphasize pain or oppression; unlike áebyo‚n, it does not primarily emphasize need, and unlike ra„sh, it represents those who lack rather than the destitute.”930 Together they emphasize those who made up the lower stratum of society and who were plagued by physical difficulties and social and mental torment (cf. Proverbs 22:22). Here, however, these words are qualified by the statement that “they trust in the name of the Lord.” Zephaniah intends the remnant left in Jerusalem to be understood as made up of more than just the materially and socially needy. Rather, they are those who, unlike the arrogant boasters who trusted only in themselves, their accomplishments, and their possessions for which God had removed them from the midst of Jerusalem (Zephaniah 3:1), “recognize Yahweh as their only but all-sufficient source of strength.”931 Keil adds: “The leading characteristic of those who are bowed down will be trust in the Lord, the spiritual stamp of genuine piety.”932 Thus the terms used here take on a theological importance that recognizes that the saved of the world are those whose qualities of heart and mind enable them to submit to God. More than just being poor in this world’s goods, they are poor in spirit (Isaiah 66:2; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:3). It is a godly remnant unencumbered by pride and committed to the Savior. Concerning the force of these words in Zephaniah 3:11-13 G. W. Anderson remarks: Here there are drawn together some of the themes mentioned above as linking Zephaniah with his great predecessor, Isaiah: hybris as the sin which particularly calls down divine judgment, humble faith as its antithesis, the creation by Yahweh of a righteous remnant which will be the recipient of Yahweh’s blessing, and Zion, glorified and protected by Yahweh when he has purified and renewed her.933 Zephaniah 3:13 The ethical qualities predicated for the godly remnant of Israel would be those that characterize the Messiah Himself (Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 53:3, Isaiah 53:7-9; Zechariah 9:9; cf. Matthew 11:28-30; Matthew 12:15-21; Php 2:1-8). † מַחֲרִיד וְאֵין ... כִּי (“Yes, ... and none shall make them afraid”): The כִּי is asseverative, as in the closing statement of Zephaniah 3:8. The blessings promised here are assured to those who faithfully keep God’s commandments (Psalms 1:1-3; Ezekiel 34:25-31; Micah 4:4-5; Micah 7:14). See also the additional note on Zephaniah 3:20. 2. Instructions In The Light Of That Day (Zephaniah 3:14-20) Translation Sing for joy, O daughter of Zion, shout aloud, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15The LORD has turned aside* your judgment, He has turned away* your enemy. The LORD, the King of Israel, is in your midst; you will not fear* evil* anymore. 16In that day it will be said to Jerusalem, “Fear not, O Zion, let not your hands hang limp; 17the LORD your God is in your midst, a warrior who saves*. He will exult over you with gladness, He will renew* you in his love, He will rejoice over you with singing.” 18”I will gather* those who have been driven* from your appointed feasts; (although) they were a tribute* from you, (they were) a reproach upon her (Jerusalem). 19Behold I will deal* at that time with all who oppress you; I will rescue the lame and gather the outcast. I will turn their shame* to praise and honor in all the earth. 20At that time I will lead you, even at the time I gather you; I will surely* give you honor and praise among all the peoples of the earth when I restore your fortunes before your eyes,” says the LORD. Exegesis and Exposition Zephaniah 3:14-20 form a closing unit of instructions concerning the Day of the Lord. The section falls into two subunits, the first constituting joyous imperatives of encouragement (Zephaniah 3:14-17) based on the predictive assurances He has just given (Zephaniah 3:9-13), the second providing further reasons for rejoicing given in God’s own words (Zephaniah 3:18-20).934 For Jerusalem, faced with the divine sentence against her, Zephaniah has words of instruction that will doubtless be carried out: sing for joy*; shout aloud*; be glad and rejoice*. The commands are happy ones, heaped up to underscore the great expectation of the joyous times that lay beyond the immediate punishment. As Laetsch remarks, “Jerusalem is to be glad and rejoice ‘with all the heart,’ with joy flowing from the very seat of life, true, sincere, living joy.”935 In that coming day there will be singing and shouting, together with joy and rejoicing such as had never been known before. Although the command is aimed at the future Jerusalem, no doubt the message would not be lost on the godly worshipers of Zephaniah’s own day. The immediate reason for that renewed felicity is revealed. It is twofold: (1) externally, God will have ended the period of Jerusalem’s judgment by defeating all her enemies; (2) internally, God Himself will be in her midst as the everlasting King.936 The Lord, Israel’s righteous judge, deems her punishment completed and Jerusalem’s correction accomplished. Accordingly, the judicial sentence may be commuted and God can now deal with His agents of chastisement. He will turn them away from His city and people and will judge them for their sins. Moreover, Yahweh, Israel’s King (Isaiah 44:6), will dwell in His royal city. Cleansed by long ages of corrective judgment, Jerusalem will now be made permanently holy by the presence of the Holy One of Israel (cf. Isaiah 54:4-8; Isaiah 57:14-19; Isaiah 62:10-12; Ezekiel 48:35; Joel 3:17, Joel 3:21 [HB 4:17, 21]).937 The promise of release from fear is accompanied by words of encouragement not to let either fright or anxiety grip their hearts (Zephaniah 3:16-17). Zion’s citizens will at last be free of the all-too-common fear that left their hands hanging limp* in despondency, paralyzed from terror. Each will remind the other of God’s abiding presence. He, the sovereign Lord of the universe and Israel’s heavenly warrior*, has delivered them from their enemies, effected their redemption, and now lives among them in glory. Such assurances form a striking contrast with Zephaniah’s earlier prophecy that the Day of the Lord would be filled with such horror that even the bravest of warriors would cry out bitterly (Zephaniah 1:14). Unlike those whose limit of strength and courage will be reached, Israel’s champion and Redeemer will prove to be a “victorious warrior” (NASB) who shows Himself “mighty to save” (NIV). Such a one is Israel’s defender in her midst—hers alone. Such a thought is so awe-inspiring that it bears repeating (cf. Zephaniah 3:15). What inexpressible happiness and rejoicing (cf. Zephaniah 3:14) that will bring! Adding to the scene of jubilation is the fact that God will exult over His redeemed people with hymns of gladness (cf. Isaiah 54:7-17). Therefore, His people will bask in the glow of His love (cf. Isaiah 54:1-6). It is a grand prospect for Israel and one that should be a source of encouragement for all people: “Though the promise belongs to the literal Israel, it also belongs to the spiritual. And it should cause the fearful believer to take courage, and ‘lift up the hands that hang down.’“938 When I was in Israel shortly after the Six-Day War of 1967, I was told repeatedly by those I met that their watchword was “No fear.” In a far greater way, Zephaniah prophesies of a coming day when, with God in her midst, Israel will never again fear any harm. In a climactic finish to all that he has prophesied, Zephaniah reveals the personal promises of Israel’s Redeemer. Though from a literary standpoint Zephaniah 3:18-20 provide a further reason for the commands concerning rejoicing in Zephaniah 3:14, their force must not be missed: God Himself is speaking. What an encouragement these words must have been to the beleaguered remnant of Zephaniah’s day! “He wanted to place a strong hope before the believing remnant ... since His judgment was imminent and His restoration mercies remote. The prophet, in spite of dark days, wanted the repentant to grasp firmly God’s promises for comfort and strength.”939 The Lord’s opening assurance (Zephaniah 3:18) stands in stark contrast to His pronouncements at the beginning of the book. Unlike that earlier announcement of God’s gathering of the nations together so as to sweep them from the face of the earth (Zephaniah 1:2-4), the Lord will gather up those who have been driven away from Jerusalem and therefore from the opportunity to partake of Israel’s periods of festivity. In God’s providence His sinning people had been punished by being carried away into exile as booty to their conquerors. This had been a shameful reproach to God’s name and to that of the holy city. Now, however, judgment has given way to hope. God will regather His chastised and cleansed people in order to lead them home. Herbert Marks appropriately calls attention to the effective use of wordplay here: The Hebrew stem ásf has two nearly antithetical senses, on the one hand “ingathering,” on the other “removal” or “destruction,” and the prophet’s message, like the fate of Judah, is suspended between them. The promises of salvation culminate in the “ingathering” in Zephaniah 3:18 ... but this is only the merciful counterpart of the threatened decreation with which the opening doom on Judah began.940 A threefold promise follows in Zephaniah 3:19 : (1) God will now deal with Israel’s enemies, for their time of judgment has come (cf. Isaiah 54:17-21; Isaiah 66:15-16); (2) He will rescue and gather up His helpless and dispersed people; (3) He will turn Israel’s former shame into praise and honor that will fill the whole earth (cf. Deuteronomy 26:19; Isaiah 62:7; Micah 4:6-8). So great are these latter two thoughts that Zephaniah repeats them in Zephaniah 3:20, at the same time emphasizing Israel’s own festive future: “Zephaniah 3:20 is generally regarded as a repetitious gloss, but perhaps Zephaniah, like other preachers, found the repetition of a particularly exciting truth too tempting to avoid!”941 The certainty of Israel’s newly acquired felicity is assured: the Lord gathers up His scattered people and brings them home. The metaphor is that of the good shepherd. It is a familiar figure in the OT, one that Zephaniah had utilized previously (cf. Zephaniah 2:6-7; Zephaniah 3:13). Indeed, God revealed himself to be Israel’s shepherd (Genesis 48:15; Psalms 23:1; Psalms 80:1 [HB Psalms 80:2]) who sees to her daily provision (Psalms 23:3; Amos 3:11) and rescues her in time of need (Ezekiel 34:11-16; Zechariah 9:15-16). He guides His sheep in the way they should go (Isaiah 40:11). Likewise, Israel’s Messiah will shepherd Israel as His flock (Ezekiel 34:22-24). Though He must suffer for the sheep (Zechariah 13:7; cf. Isaiah 52:13-15, Isaiah 53:1-12), He will ultimately triumph (Zechariah 14:1-8) and reign over His regathered people in fulfillment of all the covenant promises made to them (cf. Genesis 12:1-7; Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:7-21; Genesis 17:1-8; 2 Samuel 7:16-19; Psalms 2:6-9; Psalms 89:3-4, Psalms 89:20-37 [HB Psalms 89:4-5, Psalms 89:21-38]; Psalms 110:1-6; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-16, Isaiah 12:1-6; Isaiah 54:10; Jeremiah 23:5-8; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 33:14-26; Ezekiel 37:22-28; etc.). It is no surprise, then, that Christ would later affirm that He was the Good Shepherd who would lay down His life for the sheep (John 10:11-18). Subsequently the NT writers would teach that Jesus is the Great Shepherd, who both sees to the maturity and well-being of His sheep (Hebrews 13:20-21; 1 Peter 2:25) and, as the Chief Shepherd, will come again for His flock (1 Peter 5:4).942 Zephaniah closes his prophecy on the highest of notes. Not only is that which he has just recorded (Zephaniah 3:18-20) “the word of the Lord” but the whole prophecy is as well (Zephaniah 1:1; cf. Zephaniah 1:2-3, Zephaniah 1:10; Zephaniah 2:9; Zephaniah 3:8). God himself has spoken. The hymn writer’s response reflects what is in the heart of every believer: How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word! What more can He say than to you He hath said, To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?943 Additional Notes Zephaniah 3:14 וְעָלְזִי . . . שִׂמְחי . . . הָרִיעוּ . . . רָנִּי(“Sing for joy ... shout aloud . . . be glad and rejoice”): L. Walker calls attention to the piling up of verbs of similar meaning here as an expression of strong emphasis.944 The future scene of God’s blessing will be one of boundless joy. הָרִיעוּ is in the masc. pl. because Israel is being considered with regard to its individual citizens; the city and state, personified as a woman, is appropriately addressed with the fem. sing. imperative. The term “daughter of Zion/Jerusalem,” familiar as a stereotyped phrase with nationalistic emphasis,945 probably gives the idea of representing Zion and Jerusalem as the author of the community of the faithful. The use of personification, anthropopoeia, and metaphor in Zephaniah 3:14-16 is striking. Zephaniah 3:15 † פִּנָּה . . . הֵסִיר (“turned aside ... turned away”) constitutes a play on ideas.946 While the first verb indicates the removal of the source of stress, the second emphasizes their being sent away. Since the objects of the verbs are “judgment” and “enemy” respectively, the scene may be that of a courtroom where God the judge has overturned the sentence against His people and sent away their enemies. Such an understanding does away with critical conjecture that since the parallelism of the passage demands a word for a person to balance the noun “enemy,” one should probably read מְשֹׁפְטַיִךְ (“your judges/rulers”).947 Zephaniah has previously brought up the themes of judgment and justice (Zephaniah 2:3; Zephaniah 3:5, Zephaniah 3:8), so their presence here is not without precedent. God has served as witness against all the world and also as its judge (Zephaniah 3:8). He is Jerusalem’s righteous judge (Zephaniah 3:5) who will deliver those who humbly practice His judgments and statutes (Zephaniah 2:3). Now that there is a purified and humble remnant in the city, He may freely terminate her sentence and remove those He had sent to execute her punishment. In keeping with the forensic tone of the context, Israel’s many enemies are viewed collectively as one adversary. Therefore, אֹיְבֵךְ is acceptable as it stands in the MT without resorting to the widely suggested change to אֹיְבָיִךְ.948 † לֹא־תִירְאִי (“you will not fear”): Some Hebrew MSS, followed by the LXX and Pesh. (cf. BHS, KJV, NKJV), read תִרְאִי לֹא (“you will not see”). But the weight of Hebrew manuscripts favors the MT, a reading reflected in the Vg. Accordingly most newer translations follow the MT (cf. NIV, NASB, NJB).949 “Fear” also provides a play on the notion of Israel’s failure to demonstrate proper fear in the midst of God’s chastisement (cf. Zephaniah 3:7). The message concerning fear also anticipates the emphases of the next two verses. † רַע (“evil”): Any disaster, injury, or adverse circumstance—even God’s judicial punishment—could be considered as evil by those who experienced it. The word also has been translated in the English versions as “disaster” (NASB, NKJV) and “harm” (NIV). Zephaniah 3:16 אַל־יִרְפּוּ (“let not [your hands] hang limp”): Although the Hebrew root means basically “be slack,” it is used in a wide variety of situations and contexts. As a verb it is employed idiomatically with “hands” several times. Twice it appears with the idea of the alleviation or cessation of divine judgment (2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15), once of failing to help (or abandoning) another (Joshua 10:6), and several times of losing one’s courage or of being discouraged (e.g., 2 Samuel 4:1; 2 Chronicles 15:7; Jeremiah 38:4). In some cases discouragement turns to fear (Nehemiah 6:9; Ezekiel 21:7 [HB Ezekiel 21:12]) with the result that the prophets often speak of hands hanging limp in fear (Isaiah 13:7-8; Jeremiah 6:24-25; Jeremiah 50:43; Ezekiel 7:17-18). That is the understanding here, as the parallel with the vetitive “do not be afraid” (“fear not”) makes clear. Zephaniah 3:17 גִּבּוֹר (“warrior”): In the OT גִּבּוֹר is employed most frequently “in connection with military activities, especially as a designation for a warrior, either a man who is eligible for military service or is able to bear arms, or one who has actually fought in combat, who has already distinguished himself by performing heroic deeds.”950 God is called El Gibbor, “The Mighty God” (Isaiah 10:21),951 and, as Israel’s hero and warrior par excellence, He gains the victory (Psalms 24:8-10; Isaiah 42:13; Habakkuk 3:8-15) and delivers His people (Exodus 15:2; Psalms 68:17-20 [HB Psalms 68:18-21]). Although Israel was saved by the Lord (Deuteronomy 33:29), their physical deliverance was an outward sign of God’s spiritual relation to them (Ezekiel 37:20-28). †Although I have rendered the hiphil prefix-conjugation form יוֹשִׁיעַ according to its normal imperfect usage (here functioning after “warrior” in an elliptical construction to form a relative clause with adjectival force952), it could be construed as an unusual transitive so that the whole phrase is translated “a hero/warrior, he saves.”953 †The MT יַהֲרִישׁ (“he will quiet [you]”) has been explained variously as (1) keeping silent about or covering up people’s sins (Henderson, Maurer, Rashi), (2) God’s silence due to the overwhelming depths of His love (A. B. Davidson, Fausset, Feinberg, Keil, von Orelli), (3) God’s preoccupation with planning Israel’s good (Graetz, Nowack), (4) God’s resting in His love (Laetsch, R. Smith), (5) a means for the believer to cultivate in his heart peace and silence (Luther, L. Walker), and (6) God’s singing out of the joy of His loving concern (O’Connor). In addition, a relation to the Akkadian ere„sŒu (“to desire/crave”) might be suggested.954 Though one is always hesitant to abandon the MT reading,955 the incompatibility of the thought of the clause thus formed by יַתֲרִישׁ with the two parallel clauses that surround it makes attractive the search for alternative possibilities. Among the many proposed alternative readings,956 perhaps the best is that of BHS to read יְתַדֵּשׁ (“he will renew [you]”). This involves a simple consonantal change of ר to ד. In accepting a change from r to d it would also be possible to redivide the words in the clause to read: אַהֲבָתוֹ ישֵׁב יִתַד (“let the one who inhabits his love rejoice,” i.e., “let him whom God loves rejoice”).957 The verb חָדָה (“rejoice”) would then be parallel to the other clauses of the verse. Moreover, Zephaniah has employed the participial form of יָשַׁב in a similar genitive relationship previously (Zephaniah 2:15).958 So construed the phrase would constitute Zephaniah’s parenthetical remark, a prophetic technique attested elsewhere (e.g., Joel 3:11 [HB 4:11]).959 Final certainty is wanting here. I have followed the lead of several ancient (LXX, Pesh.) and modern (NJB, RSV) versions and many scholars (e.g., Buhl, S. R. Driver, Duhm, Hitzig, G. A. Smith) in reading יְחַדֵּשׁ J. M. P. Smith, who also adopts this reading, observes that there are many different interpretations of what this means, such as he will do new things (cf. Isaiah 43:19) the like of which have not heretofore been known; or, he renews his love; or, he renews himself in his love; or, ... through the manifestations of favour inspired by his love for thee, he will restore thee to pristine vigour and glory, giving thee newness of life.960 Although the renewing of God’s love toward His people appears to be more harmonious with the ideas of God’s delighting in and rejoicing over Israel, found in the parallel lines of Zephaniah 3:17, it must be admitted that the MT reading is not altogether inappropriate, the thought of quieting being perhaps related to Israel’s fear in Zephaniah 3:16. בְּרִנָּה (“with singing”) is positioned last in the clause and in the verse so as to form an inclusio with רָנִּי in Zephaniah 3:14. Zephaniah 3:14-17 thus compose a strophe within the final stanza. The second strophe to follow is marked by a shift to first-person address and the presence of the temporal marker הַהִיא בָּעֵת (“at that time,” Zephaniah 3:19-20) rather than the הַהוּא בַּיּוֹם (“in that day,” Zephaniah 3:16) of the first strophe. Zephaniah 3:18 † מִמּוֹעֵד נוּגֵי: נוּגֵי has generally been taken to be a niphal participle from יָגָה (“to suffer,” “be grieved”) with attenuation of וֹ to וּ, here meaning “sorrows.”961 However, J. M. P. Smith follows a widely suggested emendation in reading כְּיוֹם and joining the full phrase to Zephaniah 3:17 : “He will exult over thee with shouting as in the days of a festival.”962 Those who accept the MT propose something like “the sorrows of the appointed feasts” (“I will remove from you”).963 This makes tolerable sense, but the phrase and whole clause must also be related to the full verse. This has proved to be no easy task, with some declaring the rest of the verse “unintelligible.”964 Even so conservative a scholar as Keil admits, “Every clause of Zephaniah 3:18 is difficult.”965 Small wonder, then, that the verse has received widely differing textual, lexical, and syntactical treatment from the ancient and modern versions and the commentators. The solution proposed here is built around two pivotal points: (1) the verb under consideration must be understood in the sense of “depart” or “drive out/take away”; (2) the noun מַשְׂאֵת in the succeeding clause should be rendered “tribute/payment.” Validation of the former point comes from one of two lines of evidence. (1) If the verb is from the root יָגָה, its meaning should be related to one found in the hiphil stem, “drive/thrust out,” and hence here in the niphal participle, “those driven out.”966 (2) The verb in question may really be נוּג (“depart”), a verb attested in the Ugaritic Keret Epic: wng mlk lbty And depart, O king, from my house; rh£q krt lh£z£ry withdraw, O Keret, from my court.967 Evidence for the latter point also falls along two lines: (1) the meaning “tribute/payment” is well known in other examples in Northwest Semitic literature;968 (2) such a meaning is also found in the OT: Therefore, because you have imposed a tax969 upon the poor (man) עַל־דָּל בוֹשַׁסְכֶם יַעַן לָכֵן and taken a tribute of grain from him מִמֶּנּוּ תִּקְחוּ וּמַשְׂאַת־בַּר (Amos 5:11) Utilizing these data it is possible to make good sense of the MT, as it stands, as constituting a further divine promise. God will regather those who, due to Jerusalem’s sin, were carried away as booty for the Chaldean army, a fact that stands as a reproach upon the holy city. As for מוֹעֵד (“appointed feasts”), Jack Lewis remarks: . . . mo‚àe„d must be thought of in a wide usage for all religious assemblies. Jerusalem became the city of assemblies (Isaiah 33:20; cf. Ezekiel 36:38) which were characterized by great rejoicing and were deeply missed during times of exile (Zephaniah 3:18; Lamentations 1:4).970 Zephaniah 3:19 † עֹשֶׂה הִנְנִי (“behold I will deal”): The construction הִנֵּה with the participle in future contexts lays stress on the certainty and immediacy of the action.971 At that future time envisioned here, God will deal vigorously and swiftly with those who afflict His people. The verb עָשָׂה (“do/make”) followed by the particle אֶח־ is often used in the sense of “deal with” (e.g., Jeremiah 21:2; Ezekiel 22:14; Ezekiel 23:25, Ezekiel 23:29). Zephaniah used this verb previously in proclaiming the speedy end of the world in the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:18). God’s effective power is underscored both there and here. † בָּשְׁתָּם (“their shame”): The syntactical relation of the form is disputed.972 Because the preceding prepositional phrase “in all the earth” contains a definite article, it would be grammatically anomalous as part of that construction (i.e., “In all the land of their shame”; but cf. the Vg). Some (e.g., NASB, RSV) have solved the difficulty by seeing a case of enjambment and relating בָּשְׁתָּם to the controlling verb of the clause: “I will turn their shame (into praise and renown).”973 Others have viewed the form relatively: “Whose shame hath been in all the earth” (Soncino; cf. Ewald) or “In every land where they were put to shame” (NKJV; cf. KJV, von Orelli). Among other proposals have been (1) that of Keil to treat בָּשְׁתָּם as epexegetical, “i.e. of their shame,”974 (2) that of the LXX to view the form as a verb, a procedure that involves a restructuring of the text that relates the material involved to Zephaniah 3:20, “And they shall be ashamed at the time when I deal kindly with you,” and (3) that of M. Dahood to take the form as the object of the verb but to view the final mem on the verbal form as a type of dativus commodi, “And for them I shall transform their humiliation.”975 Because of the grammatical difficulties here, some simply omit the form (Pesh.) or treat it as a corrupt dittography occasioned by the אֶת־שְׁבוּתֵיבֶם בְּשׁוּבִי of Zephaniah 3:20 (BHS, NJB). On the whole, the difficulty seems best solved by relating the phrase to the controlling verb, “I will turn their shame to praise and honor.” This view has the advantage of recognizing the presence of the phrase in some ancient texts. It also finds further support in the juxtaposition of the ideas of “name” and “shame” in the same Ugaritic epic material noted in the problem at Zephaniah 3:10-11 : bsŒm tgàrm à ttrt tg’rm ‘ttrt Athirat rebuked him by name, b t laliyn b[àl] “Be ashamed, O Aliyan Ba’al, b t lrkb àrpt Be ashamed, O Rider on the Clouds.”976 The primary thrust, then, appears to be that the Lord will change His people’s shame to a name (i.e., honor) and praise. By separating the twin objects of the verb so widely, the author emphasizes the inclusive nature of the Lord’s action: Both they and their shame will be transformed to objects of honor and praise. Zephaniah 3:20 For אָבִיא הַהִיא בָּעֵת (“at that time I will lead”), J. M. P. Smith follows Buhl in suggesting an emendation to הֵיטִיבִי בָּעֵת (“in the time when I do good [to you]”; cf. LXX, Duhm).977 The LXX reading, however, may depend on its own handling of the relationship of Zephaniah 3:19-20 (see previous note). In any case, other textual data do not support it, nor does the context necessitate it. †The translation of אֶתְכֶם קַבְּצִי וּבָעֵת as “even at the time I gather you” takes the waw as explicative.978 The use of בָּעֵת with the infinitive construct (here followed by an accusative complement) rather than a verb to express a temporal clause may be explained on the analogy of similarly formed nominal clauses used as a genitive (cf. Genesis 2:17; Jeremiah 2:7; Nehemiah 9:27). Thus, “at the time of my gathering you” becomes ”at the time (when) I gather you.” The clause could also be an instance in which בָּעֵת functions as a compound preposition followed by an infinitive construct with a pronominal suffix to express a temporal clause: “at the time (when) I shall gather you” (cf. NASB, NJB, RSV).979 Thus, there is no need to view the construction here as a case of ellipsis, the eliding of the הַהִיא after וּבָעֵת occasioning the change of the imperfect אֲקַבֵּץ to the infinitive קַבְּצי (cf. BHS). As J. M. P. Smith remarks, “It is difficult to see how so easy and natural a reading as this ... one could have given way to the rarer idiom suggested by the MT, which bears the stamp of originality.”980 † כִּי (“surely”): The Hebrew particle is emphatic here as in Zephaniah 3:8 and 13.981 For the phrase “when I restore your fortunes,” see the note at Zephaniah 2:7. The singular שְׁבוּתְכֶם, read by the LXX, Pesh., Vg and fourteen Hebrew MSS for the MT plural, is widely accepted by OT scholars (cf. BHS). 648 See, e.g., L. P. Smith and E. R. Lacheman, “The Authorship of the Book of Zephaniah,” JNES 9 (1950): 137-42. The authors see Zephaniah as the work of an apocalyptist and opt for a date of c. 200 B.C. Donald L. Williams (“The Date of Zephaniah,” JBL 82 [1963]: 83-85) decides for a setting during the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597 B.C.), as does J. P. Hyatt, Zephaniah, PCB (London: Nelson, 1962), p. 642. 649 Many have suggested that individual sayings and sections may have been composed later and inserted into the final edition. 650 A good discussion of the setting of the book is given by F. C. Fensham, “Book of Zephaniah,” IDBSup, pp. 983-84. Fensham also favors a date for Zephaniah early in Josiah’s reign. 651 D. A. Schneider, “Book of Zephaniah,” ISBE 4:1189. 652 If M. de Roche (“Contra Creation, Covenant and Conquest: Jer viii 13,” VT 30 [1980]: 280-90) is correct in finding an allusion to Zephaniah 1:2-3 in the Jeremianic passage, the case for a Josianic date is further strengthened. 653 According to Herodotus (1.41.103-6) the Scythians had plundered Ashkelon during a raid against Egypt (which ended when Psamtik I bought them off). Herodotus does not mention any invasion against Judah. 654 See, e.g., E. A. Leslie, “Book of Zephaniah,” IDB 4:951-53; G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, rev. ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1929), p. 40. 655 Fensham, “Zephaniah,” p. 983. For a defense of the Scythian hypothesis, see CAH 3:295 where the somewhat fantastic elements of Herodotus’s account are duly recognized as well as the probability that the supposed Scythian sack of Ashdod was as much an Egyptian enterprise as Scythian. See also R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 940. 656 E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 2:226. For the reform measures of Josiah, see R. D. Patterson and H. J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in EBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 4:281-88. Other scholars who decide for a date early in the reign of Josiah include C. H. Bullock, P. C. Craigie, F. C. Fensham, and C. von Orelli. Duane L. Christensen (“Zephaniah 2:4-15 : A Theological Basis for Josiah’s Program of Political Expansion,” CBQ 46 [1984]: 678) affixes a precise date of 628 B.C. for Zephaniah 2:4-15 and declares: “In its original form Zephaniah 2:4-15 presents a theological basis for Josiah’s program of political expansion at the expense of Assyria, particularly in Philistia and Transjordan.” 657 W. W. Hallo and W. K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 141. 658 H. W. F. Saggs, The Might That Was Assyria (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1984), p. 116. 659 One must not assume, however, that Ashurbanipal’s interests were not much more diverse. Indeed, his famed library probably held texts representative of every type of Akkadian literature, as well as business and administrative documents and correspondence. Ashurbanipal also gave attention to great building projects and the beaux arts. See further A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1968), pp. 489-503. 660 Some ancient sources indicate that Ashurbanipal himself grew increasingly degenerate; see W. Maier, The Book of Nahum (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p. 129. 661 Olmstead, History of Assyria, p. 488. 662 For the general historical situation in the latter half of the seventh century B.C., see the Introduction to Nahum. 663 John Gray, I and II Kings, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), p. 720. 664 Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), p. 366. 665 Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 441. 666 T. Laetsch, The Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia: 1956), p. 254. 667 L. Walker, “Zephaniah,” in EBC, 7:537. 668 Leon Wood, The Prophets of Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 321. 669 See R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 53-54. 670 S. M. Lehrman (“Zephaniah,” in The Twelve Prophets, Soncino Books of the Bible, 12th ed., ed. A. Cohen [New York: Soncino, 1985], p. 231) points out that the name Hezekiah was given to several persons in the later period, doubtless due to the fame of the godly king. 671 C. H. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books (Chicago: Moody, 1986), p. 166. 672 T. H. Robinson, Prophecy and the Prophets, 2d ed. (London: Duckworth, 1953), p. 111. 673 See the helpful remarks of H. E. Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1968), p. 232. 674 For details as to bifid structure, see R. D. Patterson and M. E. Travers, “Literary Analysis and the Unity of Nahum,” GTJ 9 (1988): 48-50. For bifid structure in Jeremiah, see R. D. Patterson, “Of Bookends, Hinges, and Hooks: Literary Clues to the Arrangement of Jeremiah’s Prophecies,” WTJ 51 (1989): 109-31. The suggestion of bifid structure here stands in contrast with the interesting discussion of B. Renaud, “Le Livre de Sophonie. La Theme de YHWH structurant de la Synthese redactionelle,” RevScRel 60 (1986): 1-33. Renaud finds a doublet at Zephaniah 1:18 and Zephaniah 3:8 and theorizes that these are seams that indicate a threefold division of the book in which the theme of the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:2-18) moves to a consideration of the remnant (Zephaniah 2:1-15, Zephaniah 3:1-8) and on to a picture of the day of Israel’s purification, conversion, and happiness (Zephaniah 3:9-20). 675 Zephaniah’s use of structural techniques extends to smaller units. Thus the two strophes of the final stanza of the book (Zephaniah 3:9-20) are themselves composed of subunits, each formed according to known compositional methods. In the first strophe (Zephaniah 3:9-13) the subunits (Zephaniah 3:9-10, Zephaniah 3:11-13) are linked by אָז כִּי, whereas in the second strophe (Zephaniah 3:14-20) they (Zephaniah 3:14-17, Zephaniah 3:18-20) are delineated by such distinctive devices as bookending (“sing/singing,” Zephaniah 3:14, Zephaniah 3:17) and threading via first-person address (Zephaniah 3:18-20). 676 G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, p. 54. 677 P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), p. 12. The aspect of continuity is also underscored by Ronald Youngblood, “A Holistic Typology of Prophecy and Apocalyptic,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, ed. Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), pp. 213-21. 678 Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 62. A similar dichotomy between teleological process and eschatological redemption versus pessimism as to the course of historical events and hence the need for esoteric knowledge and sudden sovereign interposition is emphasized by John H. Hayes, An Introduction to Old Testament Study (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979), pp. 383-89. 679 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), p. 4. P. D. Hanson (Old Testament Apocalyptic [Nashville: Abingdon, 1987], p. 32) likewise stresses that in an apocalypse “(1) a revelation is given by God, (2) through a mediator ... (3) to a seer concerning (4) future events” (italics his). 680 For a similar concentration of apocalyptic themes in Isaiah 24-27, see Youngblood, “A Holistic Typology,” pp. 216-18. See also the discussion concerning the Day of the Lord by Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” in EBC, 7:690-92. 681 For details, see M. Rist, “Apocalypse of Zephaniah,” IDB 4:951; N. J. Opperwall-Galluch, “Apocalypse of Zephaniah,” ISBE 4:1189; and O. S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Zephaniah,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:499-507. 682 P. C. Craigie, The Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), pp. 200-201. 683 Christensen (“Zephaniah 2:4-15,” p. 682) likewise sees the beginning of later apocalyptic in Zephaniah: “For Zephaniah ... the day of Yhwh is trans-historical.... The focus of attention in Zephaniah is not the judgment of Israel per se, but the vindication of Yhwh and the restoration of a righteous remnant as the true people of Yhwh (Zephaniah 3:12-13). Zephaniah has moved beyond the events of history, in the sense of the here and now, to eschatology.... A number of the themes of subsequent apocalyptic literature have already begun to emerge as early as the time of Josiah, having their origin within so-called holy war traditions associated with the ‘day of Yhwh,’ which may well have been a rather specific setting within the cultic and political life of preexilic Israel.” D. S. Russell (The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964], pp. 90-91) also speaks of a growing apocalyptic tendency from the time of Ezekiel onward, noting Zephaniah as one such case. 684 J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Zephaniah and Nahum, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1911), p. 176. 685 James L. Crenshaw, Story and Faith (New York: Macmillan, 1986), p. 277. 686 E. P. Mackrell, ed., Hymns of the Christian Centuries (New York: Longmans, Green, 1903), p. 67. 687 Ibid., p. 66. 688 H. D. Hummel, The Word Becoming Flesh (St. Louis: Concordia, 1979), p. 354. 689 Ibid., p. 353. For details as to the critical view of the unity of Zephaniah, see Harrison, Introduction, pp. 941-43; J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, pp. 172-74; G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, pp. 40-44. 690 L. P. Smith and E. R. Lacheman, “The Authorship,” pp. 137-42. 691 Gerald A. Larue, Old Testament Life and Literature (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968), p. 238. 692 Such was the earlier verdict of Budde, S. R. Driver, and J. M. P. Smith, and it has been perpetuated in recent times by Leslie, “Zephaniah,” pp. 952-53; J. A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament, 3d ed. (New York: Columbia U., 1962), pp. 146-47. Manfred Oeming (“Gericht Gottes und Geschichte der Völker nach Zef 3, 1-13,” TQ 167 [1987]: 289-300) has isolated what he considers to be revisions in 3:8 and 3:10 that betray a pro-Jewish nationalistic outlook reflecting later times. 693 Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. R. Ackroyd (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 425. 694 Recently Klaus Seybold (“Text und Auslegung in Zef 2, 1-3,” Biblische Notizen 25 [1984]: 49-54) has decided against the authenticity of 2:2b-3 while maintaining that 2:1-2a has the true ring of the prophet’s concern for the poor. 695 Schneider, “Zephaniah,” p. 1189. 696 Hummel, The Word, p. 353. 697 Harrison, Introduction, p. 942. 698 B. Waltke, “Book of Zephaniah,” ZPEB 5:1051. 699 For the general (as opposed to specific) nature of Zephaniah’s prophecies, see C. F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, COT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 2:123-24. 700 Bullock, Old Testament Prophetic Books, p. 170. 701 E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 266. 702 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 177. 703 F. C. Eiselen, “Book of Zephaniah,” ISBE-1 5:3145. 704 Many have seen in Zephaniah’s condemnation of the rich a special concern for the poor. Not only are some materially poor, according to this theory, but also poor in spirit and hence shut up by faith to the provision of God, whereas the proud rich have cut themselves off from Israel’s covenantal benefits. See, e.g., S. M. Gozzo, “Il profeta Sofonia e la dottrina teologica del suo libro,” Antonianum 52 (1977): 3-37; C. Stuhlmueller, “Justice toward the Poor,” TBT 24 (1986): 385-90; Bewer, Literature of the Old Testament, p. 146. N. Lohfink (“Zefanja und das Israel der Armen,” BK 39 [1984]: 100-108), however, separates Zephaniah’s concern for the poor from any spiritual equation of them with the Lord’s redeemed. 705 See Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 71-80; R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), pp. 180-91. 706 Harrison, Introduction, p. 943. 707 Schneider, “Zephaniah,” p. 1190. 708 G. von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), p. 160. 709 Schneider, “Zephaniah,” pp. 1190-91. 710 W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 437. 711 C. K. Lehman, Biblical Theology: Old Testament (Scottdale: Herald, 1971), p. 346. 712 G. W. Anderson (“The Idea of the Remnant in the Book of Zephaniah,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 [1977-78]: 11-14) points out that the remnant motif can logically exist only in a context of judgment so that doom and hope are not incompatible prophetic elements. He stresses the fact that the idea of a remnant means more than mere existence; it is a “promise that those who by the mercy of God survive the judgment will by their very existence be a pledge of restoration and of God’s continuing purpose of good for his people.” 713 G. Gerleman, “ דָּבָר,” THAT 1:439. 714 J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Zephaniah and Nahum, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1911), p. 184. 715 For details, see ibid., p. 191. 716 See A. S. Kapelrud, The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah (Oslo-Bergen-Troms: Universitetsforlaget, 1975), pp. 21-22; L. Sabottka, Zephanja (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), pp. 5-7. Sabottka’s proposal has the advantage of similarity to Genesis 8:21 ( הָאֲדָמָה ... אֹסִף לֹא, “I will not again” curse “the ground”). 717 GKC, par. 113w n. 3, however, lists both cases, as well as Zephaniah 1:2, as textual errors. 718 See E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 113-19; C. E. Armerding, The Old Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 126. 719 C. F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, COT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 2:126-27. 720 Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 63. 721 See J. D. Watts, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, CNEB (Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1975), p. 156, for a dissenting opinion. 722 Some biblical scholars, however, relate Zephaniah’s prophecy to a nearer historical fulfillment in 586 B.C. See, e.g., J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 440-41. 723 See M. De Roche, “Zephaniah I 2-3: The ‘Sweeping’ of Creation,” VT 30 (1980): 104-9; John D. Hannah, “Zephaniah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press, 1985), 1:1525. 724 Sabottka, Zephanja, p. 8. Sabottka’s own suggestion of a compound form of mkk/ mu‚k (“be low,” “sink,” “give way”) and ksŒl (“fall/stumble”), hence “I will plunge the world into ruins,” is less than convincing. The LXX omits the whole phrase. 725 See also the Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 5:372. 726 Theodore Laetsch, The Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), p. 355. 727 See P. C. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 61-66; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U., 1973), 145-215. 728 The biblical evidence for the persistent problem of paganism in general and Baalism in particular in ancient Israel is strong. Nor is extrabiblical evidence wanting, as demonstrated in the Samaria ostraca, although some now minimize the evidence of pagan influence in such cases. See, e.g., Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). For Baal and the OT, see K. G. Jung, “Baal,” ISBE 1:377-79. 729 See Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 7-8; Laetsch, Minor Prophets, pp. 356-57; Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:128-29. 730 For the equation of Bethaven with Bethel in Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:8; Hosea 10:5, see Grace I. Emmerson, Hosea an Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective, JSOTSup 28 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 124-38. 731 Kimchi and Ibn Ezra identify the term as referring to “ancillary priests who ministered to Baal.” See S. M. Lehrman, “Zephaniah,” in The Twelve Prophets, Soncino Books of the Bible, ed. A. Cohen, 12th ed. (London: Soncino, 1985), p. 235. W. F. Albright (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2d ed. [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957], p. 234) suggests that the word designates eunuch priests whose condition, according to the Mosaic law, disqualified them from service in the regular cultus. See further R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), p. 345. 732 See KB-3 2:459; J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 192. For an older proposal, see A. R. Fausset, “Zephaniah,” in R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 4:638-39. 733 See GKC, par. 154 n. 1(a). 734 Cyrus Gordon (UT, p. 395) suggests that the root is Egypto-Semitic. 735 H. D. Preuss, “ חוה,” TDOT 4:249. 736 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:129. 737 See Alan Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” RSP, 3:450. 738 For the identity and nature of Molech worship, see my note on 2 Kings 16:3 in R. D. Patterson and H. J. Austel, “ 1, 2 Kings,” in EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4:245-46. 739 See Sabbottka, Zephanja, p. 24; Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:129; A. R. Hulst, Old Testament Translation Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1960), p. 253. See also M. Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background,” UF 4 (1972): 133-54. 740 For details, see G. Gerleman and E. Ruprecht, “ דרש,” THAT 1:459-67; S. Wagner, “ בִּקֵּשׁ,” TDOT 2:229-41, and “ דָּרַשׁ” TDOT 3:293-307. See also the note on Nahum 3:7. 741 For a similar employment of this structure in the prophetic literature, see R. D. Patterson, “Joel,” in EBC, 7:233-34. 742 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 358. 743 For a discussion of Israel’s life viewed as being in the presence of God, see the excellent discussion of G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 16-18. The challenge to “do that which is right/good in the eyes of the Lord” is an often recurring theme in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:18; Deuteronomy 12:25, Deuteronomy 12:28; Deuteronomy 13:18; Deuteronomy 21:9). 744 See further Patterson, “Joel,” in EBC, 7:256-57; K. Barker, “Zechariah,” in EBC, 7:619-20. 745 Some prophecies that seem to have a primary orientation in the future blend almost imperceptibly into the eschatological complex. They often telescope disconnected but related future events into one prophetic perspective. For details, see J. B. Payne, Biblical Prophecy, pp. 134-40. Prophecies often have an unfolding fulfillment that covers wide expanses of time so that their fulfillments are only progressively realized. The term progressive fulfillment may be used for such cases. Thus Kenneth Barker (“Progressive Fulfillment of Prophecy,” paper presented at the spring meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society eastern section, April 7, 1989) demonstrates the applicability of the idea of progressive fulfillment to Joel 2:28-32 (Hebrews 3:1-5) in its NT and future fulfillments. This paper is part of Barker’s chapter, “The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope,” in the forthcoming Israel and the Church: Essays in Contemporary Dispensational Thought, ed. C. Blaising and D. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). 746 For details, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 427-28; R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, TOTC (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1980), pp. 78-80. C. R. Erdman (The Book of Leviticus [New York: Revell, 1951], p. 29) observes that the eating of the sacrificial feast by the offerer and his family and friends “seems to have been the supreme significance of this sacrifice.” W. Eichrodt (“Prophet and Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah,” in Proclamation and Presence, ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter [Macon, Ga.: Mercer U., 1983], pp. 181-82) connects this verse with Isaiah 30:33, which he identifies as the covenant sacrifice at the Feast of Tabernacles. 747 B. Lang, “ זָבַח,” TDOT 4:25-26. The imagery of the sacrificial feast is also utilized by other prophets in predicting the fall of nations. Isaiah (Isaiah 34:6) had already depicted the judgment of Edom in similar language, while Jeremiah (Jeremiah 46:10) will draw upon Isaiah and Zephaniah in relating the coming day of the Lord’s judgments of Egypt through the Chaldeans as the Lord’s sacrifice. Ezekiel (Ezekiel 39:17-20) will mention the bidding of guests (birds, beasts) to the sacrificial slaughter in the Valley of Hamon Gog. 748 The LXX adds, “Instead they leap over it.” P. K. McCarter, Jr. (I Samuel, AB, p. 122) remarks: “The Philistine custom seems to have survived, at least in Gaza, into the first centuries A.D.” 749 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:132. See also the discussion in H. Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), p. 231. 750 If the people involved in the details of v. 9 were the same as those in v. 8, a simpler and more certain identification could have been given by writing הַמְּמַלְאִים ... הַמִּפְתָּן עַל הַדֹּלְגִים “who leap over the threshold ... and fill (etc.).” 751 For support of the view adopted here, see Laetsch, Minor Prophets, pp. 360-61. P. C. Craigie (Twelve Prophets [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], 2:113) adds the caution that “when the path of paganism is pursued by government officials, the people may be expected to follow.” 752 See W. Harold Mare, The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 126. 753 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 361. The merismus consists of mentioning selected parts of Jerusalem to represent the clamor and lamenting that will occur throughout Judah and Jerusalem by all who complain about their lost wealth. Accordingly, Zephaniah in irony tells them to go ahead and wail, for such would be their lot. Verse 10 draws the earlier charges against Judah’s leadership to a close and shifts attention to its merchant class. 754 Irresponsibility not only has a damaging effect on men and nations but also ultimately takes its toll in divine judgment. G. Adam Smith (The Book of the Twelve Prophets, rev. ed. [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1929], 2:53) well remarks: “None of us shall escape because we have said, ‘I will go with the crowd,’ or ‘I am a common man and have no right to thrust myself forward.’ We shall be followed and judged, each of us for his and her personal attitude to the movements of our time.” 755 See further David J. Clark, “Wine on the Lees (Zephaniah 1:12 and Jeremiah 48:11),” BT 32 (1981): 241-43. 756 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 362. 757 J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 202) observes: “Just as wine left too long in such a condition thickens and loses strength, so these men have sunk into weak self-indulgence, having lost all interest in and concern for the higher things of life and being solicitous only for their own bodily comfort and slothful ease.” 758 Craigie, Twelve Prophets, 2:114. He concludes: “Zephaniah’s words on indifference touch the conscience of multitudes, those who are not guilty of unbelief, but are equally never overwhelmed by belief.... The way things are is partly because that is the way we have allowed them to become. We can sit back, smug and somnolent in a desperate world, but we cannot at the same time absolve ourselves from all responsibility, and we shall eventually be caught in the very chaos we permit.” 759 See, e.g., the comments by Hannah, “Zephaniah,” p. 1526; Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:130; Laetsch, Minor Prophets, pp. 358-59; L. Walker, “Zephaniah,” in EBC, 7:546-47. For alternative viewpoints as to the guests intended, see J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 195. Smith believes that “the only essential feature of the figure is the picture of Judah as a sacrificial victim about to experience the punitive wrath of Yahweh. The remaining features are but accessory circumstances, necessary to the rounding out of the view, but never intended to be taken literally.” The view adopted here was suggested earlier by H. Gressmann and has been put forward recently by Victor A. S. Reid, “Zephaniah,” in The International Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), p. 953. The view that the guests are likewise the victims is also held by T. H. Gaster (Thespis [New York: Harper, 1966], pp. 232-34) who, however, connects the incident with cultic themes of annual renewal that have been adopted and recast in an eschatological setting. 760 See W. Schottroff, “ פקד,” THAT 2:466-86; J. Scharbert, “Das Verbum PQD in der Theologie des Alten Testaments,” BZ 4 (1960): 207-27; and the informative dissertation by J. B. van Hooser, “The Meaning of the Hebrew Root פקד in the Old Testament” (Harvard U., 1962). 761 For the distinction between the officials and the royal sons given here, see André Lemaire, “Note sur le titre BN HMLK dans l’ancien Israel,” Sem 29 (1979): 62. According to BDB (p. 978), the sons of the king “are never called שׂ” ( שָׂרִים). J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 196) rightly points out that “the reference here cannot be to the sons of Josiah, the eldest of whom was not born until six years after Josiah assumed the crown (2 K. 2336 221) and was not old enough to have wielded any influence until well toward the close of Josiah’s long reign. 762 מִפְתָּן is defined by KB-3 as a “podium of an idol.” Compounding the problem is that the more common word for threshold is סַף; see R. D. Patterson, “ ספף,” TWOT 2:631-32. The LXX apparently did not know what to do with the whole phrase: “And I will punish publicly before the gates.” For additional details on the various views, see H. Donner, “Die Schwellenhüpfer: Beobachtungen zu Zephanja 1, 8f.,” JSS 15 (1970): 42-55; J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, pp. 197-98; Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 41-42; M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980), p. 244. 763 John Gray, I and II Kings, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), pp. 726-27. See also the note on Nehemiah 11:9 in The NIV Study Bible. 764 G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, 2:56; see also Gray, Kings, p. 727. Note, however, that Barry Beitzel (The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands [Chicago: Moody, 1985], p. 159) locates the maktesh in the lower Tyropoeon Valley. 765 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:133. 766 M. Rose (“‘Atheismus’ als Wohlstandserscheinung? [Zephaniah 1:12],” TZ 37 [1981]: 193-208) proposes that the affluent class had become so entrenched in its wealth that it assumed God must be supportive of its lifestyle. Thus wealth was a sign of divine favor. 767 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 201. 768 John T. Willis, “Alternating (ABA’B’) Parallelism in the Old Testament Psalms and Prophetic Literature,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, JSOTSup 40, ed. Elaine R. Follis (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), p. 74. 769 See further R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), pp. 160-62; see also nn. 33 and 76 in this chapter. For a brief introduction to the problems of author-centered, text-centered, and reader-centered theories of rhetorical criticism as applied to biblical studies, see Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), pp. 19-41. 770 The date of Joel is a matter of dispute. The tendency for most lists to be comprehensive and drawn from many sources, combined with the close correspondence in order and point of view, tends to favor the idea of Zephaniah’s adapting of material from Joel rather than vice versa. (See R. D. Patterson, “Joel,” in EBC, 7:231-33. For more details concerning the dating dispute and a different conclusion, see Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC, ed. Kenneth Barker [Chicago: Moody, 1990], pp. 2-9.) Conversely the demonstrably later date of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as well as their utilization of Zephaniah’s list in different settings relative to the Day of the Lord, show their dependence upon Zephaniah. C. von Orelli (The Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. J. S. Banks [Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1977 reprint], p. 267) remarks concerning the relation of this passage and Joel: “The close of the chapter (vv. 14-18) also depicts, with plain allusion to Joel, this day of retribution as one coming on all the children of men.” For Zephaniah’s apparent dependence on Joel elsewhere, see the note on Zephaniah 2:13. 771 Both additions are apparently adapted from Job, the first from 15:2, 24 and the second from 30:3; 38:27. 772 Although cataclysmic events are common in apocalypses, one must not assume that such details are always constituent parts of all apocalyptists’ literary artistry, as some suggest. See, e.g., M. S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics (reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), pp. 11-23. In the case of biblical prophecies that contain apocalyptic elements, it seems certain that the prophet was attempting to portray desperate changes that would take place in the physical and socio-political realms so that however much he may have utilized literary figures, one must affirm that something remarkable was going to take place. Indeed, the presence of such matters in biblical prophecy may provide a point of reference for their later application in apocalyptic. 773 Some (e.g., Sabottka, Zephania, pp. 52-54) have suggested that the hero here is God Himself. For warriors in the eschatological Day of the Lord, see Joel 3:9-11 (HB 4:9-11) and Finley’s (Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC, pp. 95-96) comments. 774 G. van Groningen, “ עָבַר”, TWOT 2:643. For the employment of this term with other words for divine wrath and for its prophetic application, see G. Sauer, “ עֶבְרָה,” THAT 2:205-6; for the utilization of the underlying verbal root in divine holy warfare, see G. von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Reprecht, 1965), pp. 68-75. 775 See further É. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 218-19. 776 The paronomasia is obvious here, the second term for devastation reinforcing the first so as to depict total desolation (cf. Isaiah 6:11). For the Hebrew phrase וּמְשׁוֹאָה שֹׁאָה used here and in Job, see John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 396 n. 3. 777 All four pairs occur in the same order in Joel 2:2 (see, e.g., Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC, pp. 43-44). The first, third, and fourth were used in the scene depicting the children of Israel’s encampment at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:11), the second in the portrayal of the ninth plague against Egypt (Exodus 10:21-22). 778 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 364. 779 G. von Rad, The Message of the Prophets, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), p. 98. 780 The synecdoche of citing towns and towers for the devastation of all cities and lands is an effective one. If the strongest defenses will collapse, everything will be laid waste. 781 Although some have doubted the authenticity of such universalistic pronouncements by Zephaniah, the passage is properly defended by A. S. Kapelrud, Prophet Zephaniah, p. 31. Von. Rad (Message of the Prophets, p. 99) observes that “the war was now to affect all nations, even the fixed orders of creation, and even Israel herself. The event has been expanded into a phenomenon of cosmic significance.” 782 For other examples of divine judicial blinding, see Genesis 19:11; 2 Kings 6:18. O. P. Robertson (The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], pp. 254-56) rightly points out Zephaniah’s abundant use of phraseology drawn from Deuteronomy. 783 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:136. 784 Craigie, Twelve Prophets, 2:116. 785 Hailey, Minor Prophets, p. 233. 786 For good discussions, see Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 50-52; R. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), p. 129. For details as to the term itself, see B. Couroyer, “Trois épithètes de Ramsès II,” Or 33 (1964): 443-53; A. F. Rainey, “The Soldier Scribe in Papyrus Anastasi I,” JNES 26 (1967): 58-60; A. R. Schulman, “Mhr and Mskb. Two Egyptian Military Titles of Semitic Origin,” Zeitschrift für die Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 93 (1966): 123-32; Gordon, UT, p. 431. Sabottka calls attention to the Phoenician/Punic personal names mhrbàl and bàlmhr, which he understands as “(soldier) hero of Baal” and “Baal is the hero” respectively. 787 See W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, JSOTSup 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 278-79. 788 Among important contributions in the vast literature on the subject may be cited Payne, Biblical Prophecy, pp. 121-40; M. S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2d ed. (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), pp. 493-99; Patrick Fairbairn, Hermeneutical Manual (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1858), pp. 129-36; Prophecy (reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp. 177-96; The Typology of Scripture (reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 1:368-95; C. von Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God’s Kingdom, trans. J. S. Banks (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1889), pp. 31-62; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985), pp. 61-76. 789 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:135. Such a use of this word is common in the OT; see KB-3, p. 1015; S. Amsler, “ קוֹל,” THAT 2:631. 790 See further the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:350. The NEB follows an emended text and translates “No runner fast as (that day), or raiding band so swift” (cf. BHS). מַר is clearly read by the MT, however, and is supported by the ancient versions and the use of the word in other Day of the Lord passages (e.g., Amos 8:10). 791 See Hulst, Translation Problems, p. 253. 792 The existence of this noun has been postulated as well for Jeremiah 4:31 and Ezekiel 21:27; see at KB-3, p. 987. Similarly the NJB translates צֹרֵתַ here as “cry of war.” 793 For a parallel case where שׁ occurs before a preposition, see Judges 7:12. This relative particle, which was common in Akkadian, Amorite, and Phoenician, is attested in older (particularly northern) Hebrew. Although it was not often employed in standard classical Hebrew, it reappeared in later Hebrew (possibly through the influence of Phoenician), where it has remained with some modification until modern times. See E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language, ed. Raphael Kutscher (Leiden: Brill, 1982), p. 32; S. Moscati, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), pp. 113-14; Z. S. Harris, Development of the Canaanite Dialects (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1939), pp. 69-70. 794 C. F. Whitley, “Has the Particle שׁם an Asseverative Force?” Bib 55 (1974): 394-98. Whitley points out other possible instances of such a use of שׁם in Isaiah 48:16; Hosea 6:10; Sir 3:17. 795 Von Rad, Message of the Prophets, p. 99; see also Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 2:122-25. 796 See Sabottka, Zephanja, p. 55; see also R. J. Williams, “The Passive Qal Theme in Hebrew,” in Essays on the Ancient Semitic World, ed. J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford (Toronto: University Press, 1970), p. 47. 797 See also Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:136. The MT form may be related to the Arabic plural luh£u‚m. The LXX and the Pesh. also read “their flesh” (cf. NASB), while the Vg suggests “their bodies” (cf. NJB “their corpses”). 798 J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 213) correctly points out that “everywhere that reference is made to chaff, except possibly in Is. 4I15, it is as a simile of scattering (e.g., Is. 1713 Hos. 133 Jb. 2I18 PS. I4).” If Zephaniah’s point is the same, the primary force of the judgment is on the coming exile and dispersion of God’s people (cf. Deuteronomy 28:64-68). 799 Cf. Finley’s comments in Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC, pp. 51-55. The note of hope suggested in the Exegesis and Exposition of Zephaniah 2:1-3 stands in contrast to many who see in the context primarily doom with little hope of deliverance. Thus G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, p. 58) remarks: “Upon this vision of absolute doom there follows a qualification for the meek and righteous. They may be hidden on the day of the Lord’s anger; but even for them escape is only a possibility. Note the absence of mention of the Divine mercy. Zephaniah has no gospel of that kind.” 800 Although לֹא could be viewed as written for the asseverative particle לוּ (“indeed”; see GKC par. 23i), it is best taken as the usual negative. Laetsch (Minor Prophets, p. 365) explains: “To the second and third בְּטֶרֶם, לֹא is added; an example of mingling of two constructions. A, before it bring forth; B, that it may not bring forth; C, before it may not bring forth.” 801 For בִּקֵּשׁ (“seek”), see the additional note on Nahum 3:7 802 For “poor” as a theological term for those dependent on God, see Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Justice toward the Poor,” The Bible Today 24 (1986): 385-90. Stuhlmueller notes its primary socio-economic reference here but sees a shift in perspective in Zephaniah 3:12. 803 For righteousness, see the Excursus on Habakkuk 2:4; for humility, see R. Martin Achard, “ ענה,” THAT 2:346-50; Leonard J. Coppes, “ עָנָה,” TWOT 2:682-84. 804 R. Smith, Micah-Malachi, p. 132. 805 In an extensive note J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, pp. 221-222) provides a detailed discussion of these proposals and concludes that “none of these is more than a barren conjecture, providing no suitable meaning.” 806 Laetsch (Minor Prophets, p. 365) calls attention to such English denominative verbs as “to berry” or “to nut.” 807 See KB-3, pp. 467-68. 808 The Hebrew root in all three cases is שָׁבַר (“break [in pieces]”). 809 The NASB marginal reading is “without longing.” An interesting twist for understanding the negative here is supplied by Sabottka (Zephanja, pp. 62-63) who considers it a title for Baal and translates “O people that long for the Nothing.” 810 For the statement that metaphor, as an example of a trope, constitutes meaning, see Paul Ricoeur, “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling,” in On Metaphor, ed. Sheldon Sacks (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1979), pp. 141-57. Ricoeur’s thesis is that metaphor creates meaning rather than embellishing it. 811 O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, p. 248. 812 W. Bauder (“ πρανς,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 2:257) points out that àa„ni‚ and particularly àa„na„w change their meaning from those who are materially poor to what becomes the self-chosen religious title of those who in deep need and difficulty humbly seek help from Yahweh alone, or have found it there. See also F. Hauck and S. Schulz, “ πραν`ς, πραυν`της,” TDNT 6:645-49, who emphasize that the humble man is “one who feels that he is a servant in relation to God and who subjects himself to Him quietly and without resistance.” See further the additional note on Zephaniah 3:12. 813 See M. Baldacci, “Alcuni nuovi esempi di taw infisso nell’ebraico biblico,” Biblia e Oriente 24 (1982): 107-14; M. Dahood, Psalms, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), 3:388-89. For סוּר, see R. D. Patterson, “ סוּר,” TWOT 2:620-21. 814 R. Smith (Micah-Malachi, WBC [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984], p. 135) follows C. Westermann in suggesting that the oracles concerning the foreign nations are a disguised salvation speech in that they imply salvation for Israel in contrast to or as a result of the judgment of the other peoples. 815 For a detailed discussion of Amos’s prophetic arrangement, see Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC, ed. Kenneth Barker (Chicago: Moody, 1990), pp. 133-36. 816 See further K. A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), pp. 53-78; E. E. Hindson, The Philistines and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971); W. S. LaSor, “Philistines, Philistia,” ISBE 3:841-46; T. Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (New Haven: Yale U., 1982); “What We Know About the Philistines,” Biblical Archaeology Review 8 (1982): 20-44. 817 Only four Philistine cities are mentioned here. In the eighth century B.C. Gath was defeated by Uzziah, who destroyed its walls (2 Chronicles 11:8; 2 Chronicles 26:6). It may have lain in ruins as early as Amos’s day (cf. Amos 62) and perhaps experienced final destruction as a result of an Assyrian invasion (cf. Micah 1:10). 818 S. M. Lehrman, “Zephaniah,” in The Twelve Prophets, Soncino Books of the Bible, ed. A. Cohen, 12th ed. (London: Soncino, 1985), pp. 241-42. Some (e.g., Davidson, G. A. Smith) have seen in Esarhaddon’s capture of Memphis “in half a day” (AR 2:227) a reflection of a victory at midday; the expression may have relevance here. Conversely H. E. Freeman (Nahum Zephaniah Habakkuk, Everyman’s Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1973], p. 72) proposes: “The stronghold of the Philistines, a fortress in strength, would become so defenseless that there will be no need for a surprise attack after dark by the enemy forces, but she can be overthrown at noon, in broad daylight. An attack at noon implies contempt for Ashdod’s reputation as a formidable city.” For biblical parallels, see 1 Kings 20:16; Jeremiah 6:4. 819 Although there was a Gaza in NT times (cf. Acts 8:26), it appears to have been located on a different site nearer the coast. 820 For Ashdod, see M. Dothan, “Ashdod of the Philistines,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 17-27; J. E. Jennings, “Ashdod,” in The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 73-74. For Ekron, see S. Gitin and T. Dothan, “The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines: Recent Excavations at an Urban Border Site,” BA 50 (1987): 197-222. 821 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), p. 69. 822 Kitchen, “Philistines,” p. 67. 823 . Robert Gordis, “A Rising Tide of Misery: A Note on Zephaniah II 4,” VT 37 (1987): 487-90. 824 L. Zalcman, “Ambiguity and Assonance at Zephaniah II 4,” VT 36 (1986): 365-71. 825 Gordis, “Rising Tide,” p. 489. 826 For הוֹי (“woe”), see the additional note on Nahum 3:1; for its use in invective in Habakkuk’s extended section of taunt songs, see the exposition of Habakkuk 2:6-20. 827 J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Zephaniah and Nahum, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1911), p. 216. 828 Theo. Laetsch, The Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), p. 368. 829 J. D. Hannah, “Zephaniah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1985), 1:1530. 830 See, e.g., C. F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, COT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 2:139-40; L. Walker, “Zephaniah,” in EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 7:552. 831 Cf. also Amos’s use of the number four in 3/4 ladder parallelism (Amos 1:3, Amos 1:6, Amos 1:9, Amos 1:11, Amos 1:13; Amos 2:1, Amos 2:4, Amos 2:6). 832 Zalcman, “Ambiguity and Assonance,” p. 366. 833 See further H.-J. Fabry, “ חבל,” TDOT 4:172-79. 834 Amos links the Philistines with Caphtor, traditionally associated with Crete. Some evidence, however, suggests a possible relationship with southern Asia Minor; see A. Wainwright, “Caphtor-Cappodicia,” VT 6 (1956): 199-210; “Early Philistine History,” VT 9 (1959): 73-84. 835 See, e.g., A. van Selms, “Cherethites,” ISBE 1:641. 836 M. Delcor, “Les kerethim et les cretois,” VT 28 (1978): 409-22. See also C. Gordon, Before the Bible (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 171. 837 The problematic “Negev of the Cherethites” (1 Samuel 30:14), as N. K. Sandars (The Sea Peoples [London: Thames and Hudson, 1978], p. 166) suggests, “may have lain in the hinterland of Gaza.” 838 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:141. 839 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 367n. So construed, there is a paronomasia involving the root krt. Thus, the land of the Kerethites ( כְּרֵתִים v. 5) will become a place marked by shepherds’ caves ( כְּרֹת, v. 6). A similar case of paronomasia occurs in Ezekiel 25:16 where the root krt is used of “cutting off the Kerethites” ( וְהִכְרַתִּי אֶת־כְּדֵתים). Among those who prefer a reference to a proper name here, C. Gordon (Ugarit and Minoan Crete [New York: Norton, 1966], p. 28) proposes a reference to the Ugaritic hero “Kret ... the eponymous ancestor of the Cretans or the Philistines in Zephaniah 2:6.” The root כָּרָה apparently lies behind the decision of the Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 5:375-76, to translate the form as “wells.” J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 218) omits the word as a “corrupt dittograph of the immediately preceding word.” 840 See the additional note on Nahum 1:8. 841 For the phrase “restore their fortunes,” see R. D. Patterson, “Joel,” in EBC, 7:259. 842 For the remnant theme, see R. de Vaux, “The ‘Remnant of Israel’ According to the Prophets,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, trans. Damian McHugh (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), p. 28; G. F. Hasel, The Remnant (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews U., 1974). 843 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 219. 844 See Duane L. Christensen, “Zephaniah 2:4-15 : A Theological Basis for Josiah’s Program of Political Expansion,” CBQ 46 (1984): 681. 845 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:143. 846 Moab’s hostility toward Israel is illustrated in the well-known Mesha Stele (or Moabite Stone); see D. Winton Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), pp. 195-99. For the text itself, see H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966), 1:33. 847 For light on the possible locations of Sodom and Gomorrah, see E. B. Smick, Archaeology of the Jordan Valley (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), pp. 47-51; W. C. van Hatten, “Once Again: Sodom and Gomorrah,” BA 44 (1981): 87-92; James E. Jennings, “Bab Edh-dhra,” The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, pp. 84-85. 848 Despite a recent resurgence, the area is still marked by its austere surroundings. See Denis Baly, The Geography of the Bible, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), pp. 204-6. 849 J. Bergman, H. Ringgren, and R. Mosis, “ גָּדַל” TDOT 2:404-5. 850 The idea of arrogant boasting is ably defended by J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 226; L. Sabottka, Zephanja (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1972), pp. 84-85. 851 For details, see E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), pp. 111-12. 852 J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 227) suggests similarly “overgrown.” For enclitic mem, see H. D. Hummel, “Enclitic MEM in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew,” JBL 76 (1957): 85-107; M. Pope, “Ugaritic Enclitic -m,” JCS 5 (1951): 123-28; M. Dahood, Psalms, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), 3:408-9. The use of enclitic mem with proper nouns is attested elsewhere and may have been employed here for metrical reasons. 853 See B. H. Warmington, Carthage (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 255. 854 See R. D. Patterson and H. J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in EBC, 4:142-43. 855 J. M. P. Smith (Zephaniah, p. 229) reasons that “if the text is correct, the point of the figure lies either in the thought that by destroying the nations Yahweh will enfeeble their gods, whose existence is bound up with that of the nations worshipping them; or in the fact that in earlier times, sacrificial offerings were looked upon as the ‘food of the gods’ (cf. Ez. 447); hence, by causing the offerings to cease, Yahweh will deprive the gods of their means of support.” 856 For double-duty consonants, see I. O. Lehman, “A Forgotten Principle of Biblical Textual Tradition Rediscovered,” JNES 26 (1967): 93-101; M. Dahood, Psalms, 2:81; 3:371-72. 857 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 371. See further the helpful discussions of W. LaSor, “Cush,” ISBE 1:839, and R. F. Youngblood, “Ethiopia,” ISBE 2:193-94. 858 For details on Egypt’s twenty-fifth (or Nubian) dynasty, see A. H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), pp. 340-52; K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1973), pp. 148-73. 859 Some suggest that the י in חַרְבִּי is an abbreviation for יהוה and hence understand here “the sword of Yahweh.” See G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, rev. ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1929), 2:63 n. 7; see also BHS; J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 236n; M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), p. 253. 860 See M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 303-4. Keil (Minor Prophets, 2:146) calls attention to similar instances in Ezekiel 28:22; Zephaniah 3:18; Zechariah 3:8. 861 Such use is common in Aramaic/Syriac; see A. F. Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, rev. ed. (Berrien Springs: Andrews U. 1972), p. 12; T. H. Robinson, Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar, 4th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), p. 15. An alternative possibility would be to view this as an instance in which the pronoun has been attracted to כּוּשִׁים: “The Cushites ... they are the slain of my sword.” The הֵמָּה would thus be a resumptive pronoun. 862 For the motif of the outstretched hand of God, see the exposition of 1:4-6. For Zephaniah’s perspective on the political crises that marked the latter half of the seventh century B.C., see Christensen, “Zephaniah 2:4-15,” pp. 669-82; P. C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 2:121-22. 863 Nahum predicts that Nineveh’s shortage of water would be felt already at the time of its siege; see the exposition of Nahum 3:14. 864 Nahum prophesies that those who learn of Nineveh’s demise will not lament her passing (Nahum 3:7) but will rejoice and clap their hands (Nahum 3:19). 865 See his article “Death in Life: The Book of Jonah and OT Tragedy,” GTJ 11 (1990). 866 Note Isaiah’s similar condemnation of Babylon (Isaiah 47:8-10). See also the exposition of Nahum 2:8-13. 867 M. R. Wilson, “Nineveh,” in Major Cities of the Biblical World, ed. R. K. Harrison (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), p. 186. See also CAH 3:76-79; A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1951), pp. 326-36; H. W. F. Saggs, The Might That Was Assyria (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1984), pp. 98-99, 187-93; W. A. Maier, The Book of Nahum (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), pp. 93-98. 868 Maier, Nahum, p. 135. For similar prophetic messages of total judgment, see Isaiah 13:19-22; Isaiah 14:22-23; Isaiah 34:10-15; Jeremiah 49:18, Jeremiah 49:33; Jeremiah 51:29, Jeremiah 51:36-37, Jeremiah 51:43. 869 E. S. Kalland, “ דָּבַר,” TWOT 1:181. 870 H. J. Austel, “ שָׁמֵם,” TWOT 2:937. 871 For Zephaniah’s indebtedness to Joel elsewhere, see the additional note on Zephaniah 1:18. J. P. J. Olivier (“A Possible Interpretation of the Word s£iyya‚ in Zephaniah 2:13,” JNSL 8 [1980]: 96) suggests on the basis of ancient Near Eastern malediction formulae that צִיָּה may be a technical term for “a ruined city inhabited only by wild beasts.” 872 For details, see J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 233; Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:378. The construct chain here retains its old case marker (cf. Numbers 23:18; Numbers 24:3, Numbers 24:15), apparently as a frozen form often occurring with חַיָּה (cf. Genesis 1:24; Psalms 50:10; Psalms 79:2; Psalms 104:11; Isaiah 56:9). 873 See the helpful discussion by Sabottka (Zephanja, pp. 96-97), who terms them “screech owl” and “owl” respectively. See also David Clark, “Of Beasts and Birds: Zephaniah 2:14,” BT 34 (1982): 243-46. 874 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:148. 875 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 234; G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, 2:64) omits the words altogether (cf. BHS). 876 So Sabottka (Zephanja, pp. 97-98) who, however, finds in the words בַּסַּף עֵרָה אַרְזָה כִּי an idiomatic expression of the extent of the destruction: “from the threshold right up to the cedar beams.” 877 Some suggest reading אַרְזָהּ here, thus “her cedar work” (RSV; G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, 2:64n.2). 878 The form עֹרָה apparently lies behind the translation “will be laid bare” (RSV; cf. NJB). 879 See GKC, par. 90 1; 152s; cf. Isaiah 47:8, Isaiah 47:10. 880 See H. Wolf, “ אַי,” TWOT 1:35 under the discussion of áe‚k. 881 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 238. 882 P. C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets, 2:123. 883 Ibid., 2:125. Craigie goes on to remark: “In Zephaniah’s time, just as in our own, there were those persons engaged in the ‘ministry of the Word’ who had seen and exploited its possibilities for personal gain.” 884 C. L. Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 129. 885 For a discussion of the term “wolves of the evening,” see K. Elliger, “Das ende der ‘Abendwolfe’ Zephaniah 3:3; Habakkuk 1:8,” in Festschrift A. Bertholet, ed. W. Baumgartner (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950), pp. 158-74; Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 104-5. 886 Craigie, Twelve Prophets, p. 174. 887 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:151. 888 The morning hour is often commended as an ideal time for meeting with God to find direction and strength for the day (e.g., Psalms 5:3 [HB Isaiah 5:4]; Psalms 88:13 [HB Psalms 88:14]; Psalms 92:1-2 [HB Psalms 92:2-3]; Psalms 143:8; Mark 1:35). 889 See Victor Hamilton, “ מָרָה,” TWOT 1:526; see further R. Knierim, “ מרה,” THAT 1:928-30. 890 For a discussion of the West Semitic root behind the term, see A. Marzal, “The Provincial Governor at Mari: His Title and Appointment,” JNES 30 (1971): 186-94; see also P. Fronzaroli, “ SŒa„pit£u ‘una autorità tribale, con funzioni di giudice ma non esclusivamente,’“ Archivo Glottologico Italiano 45 (1960): 51-54. For excellent discussions of the root שׁפט and the judicial system in earliest Israel, see R. D. Culver, Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government (Chicago: Moody, 1974), pp. 138-50. See also G. Liedke, “ שׁפט,” THAT 2:999-1009; L. J. Wood, Distressing Days of the Judges (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), pp. 4-6. 891 Michael Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985], p. 463) singles out Ezekiel’s use of Zephaniah as a classic case of inner biblical exegesis: “For in this case reacting to the iniquity of his time, the inspired prophet drew upon a fixed form and phraseology—learned and studied in the schools—and added to them older and idiosyncratic verbal elements which seemed to suit the situation and more exactly specify the general imagery used. By this exegetical traditio and older traditum derived from Zephaniah’s prophecies came a new traditum in Ezekiel’s hands. And by virtue of this traditio which wove into Zephaniah 3:3-4 various authoritative phrases from legal and prophetic sources, the denunciations in Ezekiel 22:25-28 acquire a double force.” 892 Conrad von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. J. S. Banks (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1977), p. 274. 893 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:150. See further M. A. Klopfenstein, “ בגד,” THAT 1:262-63; S. Erlandsson, “ בָּגַד,” TDOT 1:470-73. 894 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:57. 895 See A. R. Hulst, Old Testament Translation Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1960), p. 255. 896 BDB, p. 38. 897 C. F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, COT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 2:153; cf. Habakkuk 2:3; Habakkuk 3:16-18. 898 My colleague Brent Sandy reports to me that this is one of 196 times that the LXX reading is taken over the MT by the NIV. 899 L. Sabottka, Zephanja (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1972), pp. 113-14. 900 M. Dahood, Psalms, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), 2:81-82; 3:113; see also “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography VII,” Bib 50 (1969): 347. For Ugaritic àd, C. Gordon (UT, p. 453) proposes the meaning “throne room.” 901 See Dahood, Psalms, 3:394-95; C. F. Whitley, “Some Functions of the Hebrew Particles Beth and Lamedh,” JQR 62 (1972): 205-6. 902 For a cautious appraisal of the relation of the Hebrew prepositions, see M. D. Futato, “The Preposition ‘Beth’ in the Hebrew Psalter,” WTJ 41 (1978): 68-81. 903 The close relation of vv. 8 and 9 is also indicated by the words קָנָא (v. 8) and קָרָא (v. 9) that often occur in juxtaposition. See M. Dahood, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” RSP 1:326. 904 J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Zephaniah and Nahum, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1911), p. 252n. See also the discussion in the introduction under Unity. 905 P. C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 2:129-30. Although W. Eichrodt (Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 1:379n.2) rightly cautions that the reality of Israel’s hope in no way minimized the seriousness and severity of her imminent judgment, it is hope through judgment that gives full force to Zephaniah’s instructions to his people. From a literary standpoint, 3:9-20 forms the necessary corollary to the book’s opening announcement of judgment, and taken together both passages illustrate Zephaniah’s penchant for the employment of reversal as a literary technique. 906 For the Pauline perspective on the completion of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles, see the remarks of C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1979), 2:572-88. For the universal hope of salvation for all people as a basic tenet of OT teaching, see P. E. Hughes, Interpreting Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 61-62; J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), pp. 188-94. 907 See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, COT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 1:119-20. 908 Theo. Laetsch, The Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), p. 377. 909 ANET, p. 130. For the Ugaritic text itself, see UT, pp. 197-98, Text 137, lines 36-38. See further Dahood, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” RSP 3:119-20; Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 121-22. 910 See, e.g., C. von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. J. S. Banks (reprint, Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1977), p. 277; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 2:284-85. 911 See GKC par. 117cc, ff. 912 G. A. Smith (The Book of the Twelve Prophets, rev. ed. [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1929], 2:71) wisely points out: “Where Churches have large ambitions for themselves, how necessary to hear that the future is destined for a poor folk, the meek and the honest. Where men boast that their religion—Bible, Creed or Church—has undertaken to save them, vaunting themselves on the Mount of My Holiness, how needful to hear salvation placed upon character and trust in God.” 913 See K. Seybold, “ הָפַךְ,” TDOT 3:423-27. 914 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:156. 915 The LXX translates the line picturesquely “under one yoke.” 916 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 249. 917 C. L. Feinberg (The Minor Prophets [Chicago: Moody, 1976], p. 234), however, suggests that the literal Ethiopia is meant. He goes on to observe that “there are some who suggest that the ones meant by the suppliants are Jews dispersed in Ethiopia. They point to the west of Abyssinia where the well-known Falashas (the word is from the same Semitic root as Philistine, meaning emigrant) live. They are said to trace their origin to Palestine and the Jewish religion. It is thought that the Abyssinian Christians were originally in part Hebrew believers. We prefer with others to understand the words ‘my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed’ as the object of the verb and not the subject. In other words, the Lord’s people dispersed in Ethiopia will be brought by the Gentiles to their homeland as an offering to the Lord.” (See also the additional note on 2:12.) 918 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 249. Smith emends the text to read “The princes(?) of the daughter of Put(?).” Sabottka (Zephanja, pp. 119-21) adopts a suggestion of Dahood to understand בַּת as “woven garment,” emends פּוּצִי to בּוּצִי, and translates the phrase “garments of byssos” (i.e., fine linen garments). 919 Note the suggested translation in the Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 5:382-83: “those who pray to me.” 920 See the additional note on Zephaniah 3:14. See further my note on 2 Kings 19:21 in R. D. Patterson and H. J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4:269. 921 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:156. 922 Thus Jeremiah speaks often of “the house of Israel,” or “the house of Judah,” and reports that God calls His people “my house” (Jeremiah 12:7). 923 See UT, p. 198, Text 137, lines 37-38. 924 M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980), p. 259. 925 For proposed examples of לא written for לוּ, see D. Rudolf Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969), 2:173, par. 86.4; see also the comments of B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 211-12. 926 For the genitive of attribute or quality, see A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1901), par. 24c, Rem. 2. 927 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:158. 928 Dahood, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” RSP 1:317-18. 929 L. Coppes, “ עָנָה,” TWOT 2:683. 930 L. Coppes, “ דַּל,” TWOT 1:190. 931 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, pp. 251-52; see also Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Justice Toward the Poor,” The Bible Today 24 (1986): 387. 932 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:159. 933 G. W. Anderson, “The Idea of the Remnant in the Book of Zephaniah,” ASTI 11 (1977-78): 387; see also the additional note on 2:7. R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi, WBC [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984], p. 142) points out that, “although the idea of God saying only the humble is magnified in the post OT era, the concept is an old one.” Smith provides several examples from the Psalms and prophets that antedate Zephaniah. 934 For literary keys to the structure of vv. 14-20, see the additional note on 3:17. 935 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 380. 936 For the universal and local aspects of the divine title “King,” see Daniel Block, The Gods of the Nations, Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series No. 2 (Jackson: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), pp. 47-52. 937 Subsequent revelation makes clear that this will be realized when the Messiah reigns in His everlasting glory (Jeremiah 23:5-8; Jeremiah 33:14-26; Ezekiel 34:21-31; Ezekiel 36:22-28; Ezekiel 37:21-28; Zechariah 2:10-13 [HB 2:14-17]; Zechariah 14:1-11; cf. Php 2:9-11; Revelation 11:15; Revelation 19:6-16; Revelation 21:2-3). 938 A. R. Fausset, “Zephaniah,” in R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 4:650. 939 J. D. Hannah, “Zephaniah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1985), 1:1534. 940 Herbert Marks, “The Twelve Prophets,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge: Harvard U., 1987), p. 216. 941 Victor A. S. Reid, “Zephaniah,” in The International Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), p. 957. 942 For a standard premillennial interpretation of Zephaniah 3:20, see H. E. Freeman, Nahum Zephaniah Habakkuk, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1973), pp. 89-90. For poetic sentiment concerning Christ’s triumphant return, one may note the words of Thomas Kelly (“Look, Ye Saints, the Sight Is Glorious!” in Immanuel Hymnal [New York: Macmillan, 1939], No. 188): Look, ye saints, the sight is glorious! See the Man of Sorrows now, From the fight returned victorious! Every knee to Him shall bow: Crown Him! Crowns become the Victor’s brow! 943 The text of this hymn is listed as “K” in Rippon’s Section of Hymns, 1787. For a contemporary hymn setting, see The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration, ed. Tom Fettke and Ken Barker (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), No. 275. 944 L. Walker, “Zephaniah,” in EBC, 7:564n. See also the interesting study of Ihromi, “Die Häufung der Verben des Jubelns in Zephanja iii 14f., 16-18: mn, rwà, sÃmh£, àlz, sÃwsà und gi‚l,” VT 33 (1983): 106-10. 945 See H. Haag, “ בַּק” TDOT 2:334-35. 946 For the verb סוּר, see R. D. Patterson, “ סוּר,” TWOT 2:620-21. The verb פָּנָה may have been chosen as a deliberate echo of the earlier פִּנּוֹח (“strongholds”) in Zephaniah 1:16; Zephaniah 3:6; for the verb itself, cf. Arabic fani‚ (“pass away”) and Geez fännäwä (“send away”). 947 See the Tg. Neb.; cf. BHS. For a full discussion, see J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, pp. 256, 261n. 948 See the LXX, Vg, Pesh., Tg. Neb., BHS. For אֹיֵב as an adversary at law, see Job 9:15; Job 13:24; Job 33:10; cf. 1 Kings 21:20. For the term itself, see E. Jenni, “ אֹיֵב,” THAT 1:118-22; H. Ringgren, “ אָיַב,” TDOT 1:212-18. It remains to be asked only whether the adversary here could be God Himself (cf. Isaiah 63:10; Lamentations 2:4-5). 949 Among modern foreign-language Bibles taking a similar position may be cited Die Heilige Schrift and La Sacra Biblia. 950 H. Kosmala, “ גָּבַר,” TDOT 2:374; see also J. Kuhlewein, “ גבר,” THAT 1:400. 951 For this title applied to Israel’s Messiah, see Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrews 9:5). 952 See Davidson, Syntax, par. 44b, Rem. 3. 953 For such hiphil transitives, see GKC, par. 53d, e, f. 954 Still other ideas have been proposed. Thus, Sabottka (Zephania, pp. 132-34) follows Dahood in taking חָרַשׁ in the sense of “devise artfully,” “improvise,” “compose”; see further R. Smith, Micah—Malachi, p. 143n.17a. 955 See E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 4th ed., trans. E. F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 111-19. 956 See the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:384. Note that some suggest dropping the phrase entirely (e.g., Buhl, Marti). 957 Confusion between ד and ר is a source of frequent textual corruption; see Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, p. 106. For the jussive of חָדָה, see Job 3:6; GKC, par. 75r. 958 ישֵׁב is used elsewhere in the OT with similar emphases, e.g., “(You are) the one who inhabits the praises of Israel” (Psalms 22:3 [HB Psalms 22:4]; cf. NIV, however, which follows BHS in construing the participle with the first colon). 959 See my comments on Joel 3:11 (HB 4:11) in R. D. Patterson, “Joel,” in EBC, 7:262. 960 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 257. For still other suggestions among those who adopt this reading, see Walker, “Zephaniah,” in EBC, 7:563. 961 See GKC, par. 69t; cf. Lamentations 1:4. 962 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 257; see also pp. 258, 262. See further the LXX, Pesh. and Tg. Neb.; cf. NJB, RSV. 963 NIV; cf. NASB, NKJV, KJV. 964 So J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 258. 965 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:162. For full details, see the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:384-86; J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, pp. 262-63. 966 This possibility is acknowledged by G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, p. 73n.4. 967 UT, 251, KRT, lines 131-33. 968 For details see KAI, 2:84; 3:15. 969 The verb here may be שָׁבַס; see H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 49, 95-96nn265-68. 970 Jack Lewis, “ יָעַד,” TWOT 1:389. A verb נוּג with the meaning “drive out/depart” also fits well the case of Lamentations 1:4 where the MT נוּגוֹת בְּתוּלֹתֶהָ is rendered by the LXX αἱ παρθένοι αὐτῆς ἀγόμεναι (“her virgins are led away”). For the use of מוֹעֵד as either “appointed time” or “place,” see G. Sauer, “ יעד,” THAT 1:743-44. 971 See GKC, par. 116m, p. 972 For details, see the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:386. 973 Such a procedure involves taking the final mem on the verb as an enclitic. For details, see Sabottka, Zephanja, p. 139. For שִׂים with the meaning “turn/change/transform,” see M. Dahood, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography X,” Bib 53 (1972): 399-400. 974 Keil, Minor Prophets, 2:163. 975 Dahood, “Lexicography X,” 399-400; for this employment of the pronominal suffix with verbs, see GKC, par. 117x; Davidson, Syntax, par. 73, Rem. 4. 976 UT, p. 180, Text 68, lines 28-29. For the term “rider on the clouds,” see R. D. Patterson, “A Multiplex Approach to Psalms 45:1-17,” GTJ 6 (1985): 37n.35. See also Dahood, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” RSP 3:308-9; Dahood draws attention to a similar problem in Ezekiel 34:29. 977 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 263. 978 For waw explicative, see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 2d ed. (Toronto: U. of Toronto, 1976), p. 71, par. 434; D. W. Baker, “Further Examples of the WAW EXPLICATIVUM,” VT 30 (1980): 129-36; Dahood, Psalms, 3:402. 979 Note the similar function of מִדֵּי with the infinitive construct to mean “as often as” (lit. “out of the abundance of”); see BDB, p. 191. 980 J. M. P. Smith, Zephaniah, p. 263. 981 For emphatic כִּי see R. Gordis, “The Asseverative Kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” JAOS 63 (1943): 176-78; Dahood, Psalms, 3:402-6; Williams, Syntax, par. 261, 449; Waltke and O’Connor, Hebrew Syntax, p. 670. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: S. LION AND LAMB AS METAPHORS OF DIVINE-HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS ======================================================================== Lion and Lamb as Metaphors of Divine-Human Relationships Study By: Richard D. Patterson The characteristics of the lion and the lamb form a vivid contrast of expectations when used metaphorically. While the lion is known for its strength and ferocity, the lamb is regarded as a gentle and dependent creature. Nevertheless, both are at times associated with the person and work of God. This study entails a study of pertinent biblical texts, which portray the Lord in these two metaphors, with special attention to their culmination in the person and work of Christ. THE LION In the Ancient Near East. Because of the well-known characteristics of lions, they were of special interest to a broad spectrum of people across the ancient Near East and Africa.1 Due to the lion’s power and boldness, lions were often hunted for sport, especially by the Assyrian kings.2 Some captured lions were even kept in captivity (cf. e.g., Daniel 6:7).3 Indeed, The “ keeping of lions in captivity in ancient Mesopotamia is well attested in in the inscriptions and stone reliefs of the Assyrian kings, who used to let them out of their cages to hunt them down”4 and, “The Assyrian king Ashurnasipal II (ca. 883-859 B.C.) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud, while in Egypt Ramses II (ca. 1290-1224 B.C.) supposedly had a pet lion that he took into battle.5 Representations and carved statues of lions could be found at important public places.6 City gates were especially suitable for such displays. Particularly noteworthy were the lion figures at Nebuchadnezzar II’s famed Ishtar Gate in Babylon,7 before which lay a processional way, “decorated with figures of lions in enameled brick.”8 Noteworthy also were the “two mighty lions of basalt, inscribed with a record of warfare,” which Shalmaneser III placed at the south gate of Til Barsip following his conquest of the city.9 Temples, palaces and thrones could also be adorned with lion figures and statues.10 A fine example is Tiglath Pileser III’s palace at Kalhu where, “Lions and bull colossi, whose figures were wrought with extreme cunning, clothed with power, were set up in the entrance for a wonder.” 11 Kings apparently were fascinated with the prowess of the lion. Accordingly, they often depicted themselves as possessing lion-like qualities. Thus Adad Nirari II of Assyria (911-891 B.C.) declared, “I am powerful, I am all powerful, I am brilliant, I am lion-brave, I am manly, I am supreme, I am noble.”12 Similarly Assur-nasir-pal II (883-859 B.C.) boldly proclaims, “I am lion-brave, and I am heroic! Assur-n™sir-pal, the mighty king, the king of Assyria, chosen of Sin, favorite Anu, beloved of Adad, mighty one among the gods, I am the merciless weapon that strikes down the land of his enemies.”13 The Hittite king Hattusilis I likewise says of his son and successor Muršiliš “You must enthrone him. […] In place of the lion, [the god will set up only] (another) lion.”14 Even the gods were at times compared to lions. Thus the Egyptian god Amun-Re is portrayed as a lion who “loves his possessions!”15 The Canaanite death god Mot is described metaphorically as a voracious beast with a “throat of a lion.”16 In the Old Testament. With this brief survey of the ubiquity of the lion imagery in the ancient Near East in view, it may be expected that the lion would also appear in the literature of the Old Testament. Such an expectation is amply rewarded. Indeed, the same images of ferocity and strength evoked in association with the use of the lion in the literature of the ancient Near East may be seen in the Old Testament. Many different Hebrew words for lion were used, often to depict lion-like qualities in human beings, especially warriors and kings, but even whole nations. Lion-like qualities in human beings could be presented both negatively and positively. Thus wicked individuals were at times compared to lions roaring after their prey and tearing them apart. Accordingly, David prays to the Lord for deliverance from wicked men saying, “ Deliver me from all who chase me! Rescue me! Otherwise they will rip me to shreds like a lion; they will tear me to bits and no one will be able to rescue me”(Psalms 7:1-2; cf. Psalms 17:9-12).17 One of the most poignant instances of David’s concern may be found in Psalms 22:1-31. Here David compares his adversaries to a “roaring lion that rips its prey” Psalms 22:13) and therefore prays to the Lord for rescue from “the moth of lions” (Psalms 22:21). Within the context of the second movement of the psalm, which expresses the psalmist’s suffering at the hands of his enemies (Psalms 22:11-21), the imagery of the lion also occurs in a well known crux. In Psalms 22:16 (HB v. 17) traditional translations read something like, “They have pierced my hands and feet, ” a reading found not only in the LXX and Latin Vulgate, but in the ancient Psalms Scroll discovered at Nahal Hever.18 The MT, however, reads: Like a lion, my hands and feet.” 19 If the Hebrew text is allowed to stand, the imagery adds to the effect present in Psalms 22:13 and Psalms 22:21. Thus the psalmist feels strongly as though he were surrounded by a pack of voracious lions with their mouths wide open, ready to devour him. Wicked leaders could also be likened to lions. The kings of Babylon and Assyria as well as the pharaoh of Egypt are depicted as vicious and voracious lions, which are bent on tearing other people and nations apart (Jeremiah 50:17; Ezekiel 32:2). Even the leaders of God’s people could be said to be lion-like in their despoiling of the citizenry: “Her princes within her are like a lion tearing its prey; they have destroyed lives. They take away riches and valuable things; they have made many women widows within it” (Ezekiel 22:25). Leaders and people together could make a city to display lion-like qualities. Nahum declares that such was true of Nineveh (Nahum 2:11-12). Indeed, whole nations were pictured as lions roaring after their prey (Isaiah 5:26-30; Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 5:6; Jeremiah 50:17). 20 The lion metaphor was also employed in a more positive setting. Thus the righteous person is said to be as “confident as a lion,” even while “the wicked person flees when there is no one pursuing” (Proverbs 28:1). The lion’s strength and boldness are exemplified in courageous people. The brave Gadites who defected to David were said to be “fierce as lions” (1 Chronicles 12:8). Courageous David reported that even as a youth he had-lion like courage, for he faced and killed a lion (1 Samuel 17:36).21 A bit of a strange tour de force occurs in Hushai’s reminder to Absalom that his father David possessed unusual strength and ferocity. Therefore if David and his warriors were to attack Absalom’s men first, he would effect such a slaughter that Absalom’s bravest soldier, “one who is lion-hearted-- will virtually melt away” (2 Samuel 17:10). In all of these, then, the quality of bravery is likened to the boldness of a lion. In yet another setting, much as in the palaces on ancient Near Eastern kings Solomon’s power and royal status were further emphasized in that lion statues surrounded his throne (1 Kings 10:19-20). Likewise, Solomon’s temple featured engraved lions Perhaps these were symbolic of the majesty and power of God whose earthly home was understood to be the temple (1 Kings 7:12, 1 Kings 7:29, 1 Kings 7:51; cf. Ezekiel 8:16). The following study, however, is concerned with texts in which the lion is used metaphorically for the person and work of God. The imagery depicting deity as a lion was also utilized by the authors of the Old Testament to portray the person and activities of Yahweh. The metaphor was also very familiar to the Israelite people. The metaphor of God as a lion was particularly present in the context of judgment. Thus Job, who at times felt that the Lord was persecuting him mercilessly, at one point complained, “If I lift myself up, you hunt me as a fierce lion, and again you display your power against me” (Job 10:16). Therefore, he pleads with God to exercise compassion and give him relief in order that he might enjoy his brief remaining time on earth (vv. 20-22). During his illness Hezekiah likewise complained that God was relentlessly battering his sick body. Oswalt describes his pain in graphic terms: “The writer says he groaned for help through the night, but in the morning ‘the lion’ was still cracking his bones between his powerful jaws (cf. Job 3:23-26). By nightfall there seemed no hope at all.”22 Nevertheless, Hezekiah comes to realize that his sickness was designed for his own good: “Look, the grief I experienced was for my benefit. You delivered me from the pit of oblivion. For you removed all my sins from your sight” (Isaiah 38:17). In yet another case, the author of Lamentations, while speaking for the citizenry at large in fallen Jerusalem, expressed his sorrow and pain saying with regard to God, “To me he is like a bear lying in ambush, like a hidden lion staking its prey” (Lamentations 3:10). On the one hand, Jeremiah expresses his own personal deep feelings relative to God’s judgment and the trials, which he himself experienced at the hands of his countrymen (cf. v. 14). On the other hand, as God’s anointed prophet he wishes his hearers to understand that God was yet faithful to his people: The LORD’s loyal kindness never ceases; his compassions never end. They are fresh every morning; your faithfulness is abundant! “My portion is the LORD, “ I have said to myself, so I will put my hope in him (Lamentations 3:20-22). Jeremiah’s representative position as a citizen of Jerusalem who laments God’s judgment against the city is indicative of the fact that not only individuals, but also cities and whole nations could merit God’s lion-like judgment. In extended discourse (Jeremiah 25:1-38) Jeremiah prophesies that God was about to judge his people beginning with Jerusalem (Jeremiah 25:29) and spreading out to the whole nation, “Like a lion about to attack, the LORD will roar from the heights of heaven; from his holy dwelling on high he will roar loudly” (Jeremiah 25:30). That judgment will then extend “on one nation after another” (Jeremiah 25:32) and so to “all those who live on the earth” (Jeremiah 25:30). For, “The LORD is like a lion who has left his lair. So the lands will certainly be laid waste by the warfare of the oppressive nation and by the fierce anger of the LORD” (Jeremiah 25:38). Jeremiah employed the lion imagery elsewhere as well in announcing the judgment of foreign nations and cities such as Edom (Jeremiah 49:19) and Babylon (Jeremiah 50:44). Earlier, Amos also declared that Yahweh was a lion roaring from Jerusalem who would bring judgment not only against his sinful people in Judah (Amos 2:4-5) and Israel (Amos 2:6-16), but upon the surrounding nations as well (1:3-2:3). Especially to be noted is Joel’s prediction concerning the eschatological future (the day of the Lord): “The LORD roars from Zion; from Jerusalem his voice bellows out. The heavens and the earth shake. But the LORD is a refuge for his people; he is a stronghold for the citizens of Israel” (Joel 3:16). In that day, “Because the nations have roared insolently against God’s people (Isaiah 5:25-30), the Lord will be as a lion roaring after its prey but in behalf of the return remnant.”23 Joel’s prophecy demonstrates that the metaphor of God as a roaring lion is not exclusively one of judgment. Multiple uses of the lion metaphor also occur in John’s Apocalypse. Although the lion figure does not appear extensively in the book of Revelation, its uses are important. In Revelation 4:7 one of the four living creatures associated with the heavenly throne is said to be “like a lion.” These heavenly creatures are beings much like the seraphim and cherubim (Isaiah 6:1-3; Ezekiel 10:14). The imagery of the lion, however, is associated with the divine judgment prophesied in connection with the sounding of the fifth trumpet. With its sounding came a plague of locusts with “teeth like lions’ teeth” (Revelation 9:8) and after the sounding of the sixth trumpet, another plague is unleashed by four angels upon horses whose heads “looked like lions’ heads, and fire, smoke, and sulphur came after of their mouths” killing a third of humanity (Revelation 9:17-18). In Revelation 10:3 another angelic being is said to shout “in a loud voice like a roaring lion,” a simile doubtless emphasizing the volume and power of the angelic voice. The sounding of “seven thunders” served to provide an awesome effect to the angelic voice foreshadowing still further judgment. Another fine example of multiple uses is found in the prophetic oracles of Hosea. To be sure, Hosea warns Israel and Judah of their coming judgment due to their infidelity and fascination with foreign deities (e.g., Hosea 13:7-8). Thus the Lord proclaims through Hosea, “I will be like a lion to Ephraim, like a young lion to the house of Judah. I myself will tear them to pieces, then I will carry them off, and no one will be able to rescue them!” (Hosea 5:14). Both kingdoms will thus suffer defeat and their people carried off as captives into exile. Nevertheless, in another oracle Hosea reveals the compassionate heart, which the Lord has for his people. In a future day he will forgive and restore his repentant people. “He will roar like a lion, and they will follow the LORD; when he roars, his children will come trembling from the west” (Hosea 11:10). “As Gomer/Israel would respond in renewed fidelity to her husband (Hosea 2:19-20), so the future Israelites will come in reverential trust and love to the Lord. As Gomer/Israel would experience renewed blessings based upon fidelity and a lasting relationship with Hosea/Yahweh, so God’s people will experience the long missing covenant blessings in the Promised Land.”24 In Israel’s distant historical past in the days of its exodus and movement to the land of promise the hireling prophet Balaam declared that the forces of the Lord’s people were as irresistible as a mighty lion or lioness (Numbers 23:24; cf. Numbers 24:19). Similarly and yet in a far greater way Isaiah foresees a time when Israel’s lion-like God will come to fight for his people and Jerusalem in particular and his people will prevail over their enemies (Isaiah 31:4-5). Micah also foresees a time when “survivors from Jacob will live among the nations, in the midst of many peoples. They will be like a lion among the animals of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which attacks when it passes through; it rips its prey and there is no one to stop it. Lift your hand triumphantly against your adversaries; may all your enemies be destroyed!” (Micah 5:8-9). As Barker points out, “Just as a lion mauls and mangles sheep and other animals, so Israel will overcome all her foes… . No one will be able to withstand her. The Messiah’s kingdom must triumph over all opposition.”25 In all of this one sees the imagery associated with divine authority, power, and judgment. Ultimately Israel will enjoy a period of great peace and prosperity when its redeemed remnant returns to the Promised Land. In that era of prosperity and peaceful conditions there will be a highway named the “Way of Holiness … reserved for those authorized to use it … no lions will be there, no ferocious wild animals will be on it; they will not be found there … those whom the LORD has ransomed will return that way. They will enter Zion with a shout. Unending joy will crown them” (Isaiah 35:8-10). In that millennial era even the mighty lion all be tamed: “An ox and a young lion will graze together, and a small child leads them along … a lion, like an ox, will eat straw” (Isaiah 11:6-7; cr. Isaiah 65:25).26 All of this will be accomplished through the Lord’s anointed One, the Messiah, Christ Jesus We shall return to this point later. But there is yet another image connected with the animal world that also finds its ultimate application to Christ. To that metaphor we turn our attention before a final consideration of the significance of both images as summed up in him. THE LAMB In the Ancient Near East. Sheep are often mentioned in the records of the ancient Near East. They were valued for a great many things such as being a source of milk, meat, and wool for clothing. As well sheep were used to tread grain into the soil and as sacrificial animals. In some cases they served as symbols for certain gods such as Ea, the god of magic, in Mesopotamia and Amon, the patron god of Thebes.27 As for lambs, they too were a source of wool and for sacrifices, but also were often utilized as gifts to someone.28 In addition, they were mentioned in connection with the Sumerian land of paradise—Dilmum. Of that promised land of peace and purity it was said, “The land of Dilmum is pure, the land of Dilmum is clean … the lion kills not, the wolf snatches not the lamb.”29 In the mythology of ancient Ugarit, the death god Mot boasted that he had taken the life of the god Baal: “I approached Baal the Conqueror; I put him in my mouth like a lamb, he was crushed like a kid in my jaws.”30 Accordingly, the goddess Anat sacrificed seventy sheep “as oblation for Baal the Conqueror,” and subsequently she seized and killed death itself and Baal revived.31 In the Scriptures. As in the ancient Near East, so in the Bible the lamb was valued for its wool (Proverbs 27:26) and as a sacrificial animal. Lambs were used in connection with the daily, weekly, monthly, and special times of sacrifice. Of particular note was the practice of sacrificing seven lambs on each of the days of Passover (Numbers 28:16-25). The image of gentleness associated with lambs also appears in the Bible. Thus Jeremiah likens himself to a docile lamb ready to be led to the slaughter in the hands of his enemies (Jeremiah 11:19). That image is also present in Jesus’ sending out the seventy ahead of him, who would be “like lambs surrounded by wolves” (Luke 10:3). God’s people could also be described as gentle, obedient and dependent lambs in the arms of Yahweh, their great deliverer and shepherd. Thus in a future day, “Like a shepherd he sends his flock; he gathers up the lambs with his arms; he carries them close to his heart; he leads the ewes along” (Isaiah 40:11). In a dramatic contrast, however, the lamb can at times appear in contexts associated with judgment. For example, Isaiah prophesies that after God will judge his people, renewed peace will come to the land; “Lambs will graze as if in their pastures; amid the ruins the rich sojourners will graze” (Isaiah 5:17). It is not the Israelites who will enjoy their land, however, but the foreign invaders, here pictured as tending their flocks in former Israelite fields or (if the parallelism is to be strictly observed) metaphorically as lambs. In Jeremiah’s prophecy against Babylon, however, it is the Babylonians who will be led “to be slaughtered like lambs, rams, and male goats” (Jeremiah 51:40). The imagery of the lamb, however, is most significant with regard to the promised Messiah, David’s heir, Jesus Christ. Indeed, at the onset of Jesus’ ministry John the Baptist declared him to be “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29; cf. John 1:36).32 Jeremias relates John the Baptist’s words to the prophecy concerning the suffering servant foretold by Isaiah: “He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7).33 Westcott declares, “There can be no doubt that the image is directly derived from Isaiah liii 7 (comp. Acts 8:32).”34 It is of interest to note that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading this very passage when Philip came and explained the meaning of this passage in “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Young relates John the Baptist’s words to other texts as well as Isaiah 53:7 and remarks, “One cannot read the prophecy without thinking of the fulfillment when before the judgment seat of Pilate the true Servant answered not a word.”35 Yet there is more, for the imagery in Isaiah also builds upon elements in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Accordingly, Westcott points out that, “It is impossible to exclude the thought of the Paschal Lamb, with which the Lord was also afterwards identified.”36 If John the Baptist here is merely reflecting current Jewish opinion that the coming Messiah would suffer as a substitute for the peoples’ sin, yet without dying, “He speaks better than he knows.”37 For the New Testament writers would go on to demonstrate that Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of the meaning of the Passover. Thus Paul confidently states, “For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Peter points out that the believer was redeemed “not by perishable things like silver or gold, but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19).38 It is this Jesus in whom the metaphor and imagery of the lamb finds his grandest expression. This is brought out forcefully in John’s Apocalypse, the New Testament book of Revelation. Here he is described as a lamb, which was victorious over death and is setting on his throne (Revelation 5:6-14), hence the One (Revelation 5:5) worthy to open the seals on the scroll (Revelation 6:1, Revelation 6:3, Revelation 6:5, Revelation 6:7, Revelation 6:9, Revelation 6:12; Revelation 8:1). The lamb also is seen as The Ruler on his throne (Revelation 7:9-17) who will shepherd those who “have come out of great tribulation” (Revelation 7:14). Subsequently the Lamb stands on Mount Zion giving comfort and assurance to them concerning their final victory because of their fidelity to the Lamb (Revelation 14:1-4). In a striking contrast, the Lamb is also portrayed as a royal judge who inflicts judgment upon those who are hostile to the Lamb (Revelation 14:10; Revelation 17:12-14). In one of the most poignant similes in the Scriptures the wicked of earth are pictured as crying out to the mountains and the rock, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Revelation 6:16), for it was the great day of their judgment. The normally gentle lamb is here presented in the most unlikely roles, that of a wrathful creature.39 This Christ can and will do, for as the great Victor over evil (Revelation 19:11-21) and Ruler of the universe (Revelation 5:1-3) as well as this world (Revelation 11:15-18), all nations will one day “come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed” (Revelation 15:4). It is the redeemed who are singled out as particularly enjoying the final triumph of the Lord and the fulfillment of their union with Christ. Such is done under the metaphor of the “wedding celebration of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7-9). The significance of these metaphors is that “God’s people are finally entering into the intimate relationship with him that he has initiated.”40 It is “a metaphorical way of alluding to the final redemptive fact when ‘the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them’ (Revelation 21:3). This is why John can apply the same metaphor of the bride prepared for her husband to the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven to dwell among men (Revelation 21:2), and why the angel can refer to the new Jerusalem as ‘the bride, the wife of the Lamb’ (Revelation 21:9).”41 And around that grand new Jerusalem, “The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14). The Lamb’s earthly throne will be there (Revelation 22:1-3) and the earth’s intended paradise will at last be reached. It will be a city that has no need of a Temple because “the Lord God—the All-Powerful—and the Lamb are its Temple” (Revelation 21:22). As Walvoord observes, “Here the shadows are dispelled and, as the Scripture indicates the Lord God Himself and the Lamb are the temple of the new city. No longer is the structure necessary, for the saints are in the immediate presence of the Lord with no need for an earthly mediator or for shadows of things eternal.”42 Nor will the city need sun or moon to shine on it, “Because the glory of the Lord lights it up, and its lamp is the Lamb” (Revelation 21:23). Moreover it is a city reserved for believers --for “only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:27). CHRIST, THE LION AND THE LAMB Common idioms are often formed from the lion or lamb. Thus one may “beard the lion in his den” or “take the lion share” of something, and people can be described as being “gentle as a lamb.” Seldom, however, would one find the two metaphors together. A notable exception is the familiar saying that the month of March “comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb.” Lion and lamb are not often brought together in the Scriptures either. Yet in a few key texts both are found together in connection with some aspect of the Messiah. As we noted earlier, Isaiah speaks of conditions in the future era of safety and peace during Messiah’s reign as being just and having a stable serenity in which, A wolf will reside with the lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together, and a small child leads them along. A cow and a bear will graze together, their young will lie down together. A lion, like an ox, will eat straw (Isaiah 11:6-7 In this edenic scenario, “The herbivoral nature of all the creatures points to Eden restored (Genesis 1:29-30).”43 Indeed, “All enmity will disappear, not only from among men, but even among beasts, and even between men and beasts all will be in harmony.”44 In another context Isaiah foresees a similar scene in connection with the Messianic era, “A wolf and a lamb will graze together; a lion, like an ox will eat straw” (Isaiah 65:25). This era is commonly known as the millennium, a period between the second coming of Christ to put down the forces of evil and the final blessed state in the new Jerusalem. “There will be worldwide peace… . The universal harmony will not be restricted to humans. Nature, which has been ‘groaning in travail,’ awaiting its redemption, will be freed from the curse of the fall (Romans 8:19-23). Even animals will live in harmony with one another (Isaiah 11:6-7; Isaiah 65:25), and the destructive forces of nature will be calmed.”45 While it is significant to note that the appearance of lion and lamb occur in connection with future blessed conditions relative to the Messiah and his just rule, there is yet another important linkage of lion and lamb to Christ. Revelation 5:5-6 is an extremely important passage for the metaphors of the lion and the lamb as referring to Christ. Although elsewhere in the book of Revelation Christ is portrayed with the imagery of the lamb more than two dozen times,46 in Revelation 5:5 Christ, ”The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David,” is first acknowledged as the only one who is capable of opening the seven-sealed scroll. Then in the next verse he is identified as a “Lamb that appeared to have been killed’ (i.e., “he had been slain, yet he still lives””.47 The twin metaphors of a lion and a lamb with regard to Christ point to central themes in the Scriptures and find their climax in connection with events in the consummation of earth’s history. Already in the Patriarchal Period in Jacob’s prophetic blessing of Judah he proclaimed: You are a lion’s cub, Judah, from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He crouches and lies down like a lion; like a lioness who will rouse him? The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; the nations will obey him (Genesis 49:9-10). Thus Mathews rightly observes, “The intimation of an idealized permanent, universal reign must also look to the perfect eschatological figure, David’s Greater Son. The Christian interpreter who identifies the king of our passage explicitly as Jesus of Nazareth, therefore can agree with the historian that the Davidic monarchy must be initially in view and also can agree with ancient Jewish interpretation that our text requires a messianic fulfillment.”48 The appellation of Christ as “the Root of David” is also significant. Thus Beale observes, “The two descriptions of Christ as ‘the lion from the tribe of Judah’ and as ‘the Root of David’ are from Genesis 49:9 and Isaiah 11:1, Isaiah 11:10 (cf. also Jeremiah 11:19; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8) … both concern the prophecy of a messianic figure who will overcome his enemy through judgment. Jesus fulfills these two prophecies.”49 It is important to note that as the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10), to whom the rights of ruling rightly belong, the Messiah is also descended from Judah as David’s heir (2 Samuel 7:18-29; 1 Chronicles 17:16-27; Psalms 89:19-37; Ezekiel 34:24-31; cf. Isaiah 11:1-9; Revelation 11:15). Indeed, these passages point to a vital, unifying theme, which is woven into the fabric of Scripture. For it is in this “Lion,” who is also the Root of David, David’s heir, that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants find their fulfillment (cf. Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 33:14-18; Ezekiel 37:24-28). In Christ the provisions in the progressively unfolding promised plan of God will ultimately be realized. “50 Truly, in the risen Christ resides the culmination of the imagery relative to God’s lion-like qualities. As noted above, Christ, the Lamb, is also conquering, victorious Lamb. Although he fulfills completely the purpose in the Passover as a subsitionary sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that sacrifice would be incomplete without his resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, 1 Corinthians 15:56-57). As mankind’s Redeemer, who is victorious over sin, death, and all evil forces, the living Lamb now sits on his throne as the unrivaled, respected, ruler of all; as the Lion he occupies full authority reserved for the Lion of Judah, David’s heir. Ultimately all of earth’s history will find its consummation in this Lion and Lamb of whom it is said, “The kingdoms of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15). The lion and lamb metaphors thus point to the fact that Christ is both the Ruler of all and man’s Redeemer. These metaphors and the attendant imagery give hope and confidence to the believer. As taken into union with Christ (Colossians 1:27) the believer may through the power of the Holy Spirit exhibit lion-like courage together with lamb-like following and dependence upon the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, “When the Chief Shepherd appears” the faithful believer “will receive the crown of glory that never fades away” (1 Peter 5:4). Until then, even as we exclaim, “Come, Lord Jesus!” may the benediction of the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 13:20-21) rest upon us: “May the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, equip you with every good thing to do his will, working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” 1 Although it is beyond the scope of this study, it should be noted that lions were also known in earlier times in Greece as represented abundantly in Greek art. T.L.B. Webster (From Mycenae To Homer [London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1977], 27) maintains that in the realm of art the lion theme was “foreign to the Minoan-Mycenaen world.” Nevertheless, lion representations were common enough in subsequent Greek art. As an example even from the earlier Mycenaean era, mention should be made of the famed Lion Gate at Mycenae, which served as the principal entrance to the citadel. Here the lions were “perhaps a heraldic symbol of the royal family,” (Carl Roebuck, The World of Ancient times [New York :Scribner’s Sons, 1966], 114). 2 See the illustrations of Assyrian lion hunts in A. Parrot, Nineveh and the Old Testament (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955), 73; James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton: University Press, 1965), illustration #40; and A.T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (Chicago: University Press, 1951), frontal piece and figure # 154, opposite p. 495. R. K. Harrison (“Lion,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986] 3:141) remarks, “Assyrian palaces were not infrequently decorated with bas-reliefs showing the king and his courtiers engaged in a lion hunt.” 3 See further, “Nēšu,” in The Assyrian Dictionary, N II, eds. Erica Reiner and Robert D. Biggs (Chicago The: Oriental Institute, 1980), 195. 4 Lois E. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1978), 199. 5 R. K. Harrison, “Lion, “ 3:141. See also, G. S. Cansdale, “Lion,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, eds. M.C. Tenney and Steven Barabbas (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1975), 3:940); and Reiner and Biggs, 193-97. 6 See H. W. F. Saggs, The Might That W as Assyria (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1984), 182 and plate 19b; and J.B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Bear East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton: University Press, 1975), illustration # 88. 7 See Pritchard, Ancient Near East, 1965), illustration # 193. 8 A. Parrot, Babylon and the Old Testament (NewYork: Philosophical Library, 1956), 27. See further, the interesting illustrations of lions on pp. 28 and 29. 9 Olmstead, History of Assyria, 119. 10 See Robert C. Stallman, “’árî,” in New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1:516. See further the representation of Gilgamesh and a lion in the palace of King Sargon of Assyria in Olmstead, History, figure #112, opposite p. 275. 11 Olmstead, History, 202. Note also the lion statue set up in Sarugi as “a provincial imitation of the lions from Kalhu,,” illustration #67, opposite p. 120. 12 Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: University Press, 1926-27), 1:110. 13 Ibid, 110. 14 Gary Beckman, “Bilingual Edict of xattušili I,” in The Context of Scripture, eds. W. W. Hallo, and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 1997, 2000, 2002), 2:80. 15 M. Lichtheim, “The Report of Wenamun, “ in Context, 1:91. 16 Dennis Pardee, “The Bavlu Myth,” in Context, 1:264. Note that Michael David Coogan (Stories from Ancient Canaan [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 107) translates the Ugaritic line as “My appetite is like that of a lioness,” a reading supported by the original Ugaritic text. See Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1965), 178 (text #67:1, line 14). 17 Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural citations are taken from the NET. See also Psalms 10:2-11). 18 See Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, & Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1999), 519. 19 This disputed text has received abundant discussion in commentaries and critical studies. See, for example, J.J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2 vols. in one, 1976), 242, 247-48. The chief problem face by the usual English translations centers on understanding the Hebrew consonantal text k’ry as being a form of the verb kārāh, “to dig,” which entails taking the final consonant yodh as an archaic remnant and the aleph as being intrusive, both of which uses, though not too common, are attested elsewhere. The MT faces the difficulty of structural imbalance in the parallelism due to the lack of a verb in the parallel member. Yet such ellipses are also not without examples, especially where the balance in parallelism is achieved via a ballast variant. For details, see Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26 (Sheffield, England: The University of Sheffield, 1986), 343-48. 20 In the New Testament the Apostle Peter adds to this picture by depicting Satan as a roaring lion, which seeks its prey “1 Peter 5:8), while Paul testifies as to his deliverance “from the lion’s mouth” 2 Timothy 4:17). The phrase doubtless indicates his being found not guilty by the Roman authorities at his initial trial. Many Christians did, however, come to face the lions in the Roman arena. 21 Much later the courage of Benaiah, David’s warrior, was lauded for killing a lion ”in a cistern on a snowy day” (2 Samuel 23:20). 22 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 684-85. 23 Richard D. Patterson, “Joel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Rev. ed., eds. Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 343. 24 Richard D. Patterson, Hosea (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 108. 25 Kenneth L. Barker, “Micah,” in Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 104. 26 Interestingly, God had pointed out to Job that in the strictest sense it was the sovereign Lord himself who made provision for the mighty lion (Job 38:39; cf. Psalms 104:21). 27 See C. Dohmen, “kebeš,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 7:43-48; J. C. Moyer, “Lamb,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., 3:61-62. 28 See The Assyrian Dictionary, K, eds. A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner, and Robert D. Biggs (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1971), 166-67. 29 S. N. Kramer, “Sumerian Myths and Epic Tales,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 38. See also S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 147-49. 30 Michael David Coogan, ed. and trans., Stories From Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 112. 31 Ibid., 110. 32 For various interpretations of this metaphor concerning Jesus, C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 452-54. 33 J. Jeremias, “‡mnçv,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:339. 34 B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 1:39). 35 E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 3:351. John N. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 392) adds: “If the author did not intend his readers to think in terms of sacrifice, he certainly made a major blunder in his choice of metaphors. Many commentators … agree that this verse is a primary source of John’s ejaculation.” 36 Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:39. 37 Andreas J. Köstenerger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 66. Köstenberger goes on to add: “The evangelist, however, places the Baptist’s declaration into the wider context of his passion narrative, where Jesus is shown to be the ultimate fulfillment of the yearly Passover lamb (see Exodus 12:1-51), whose bones must not be broken (John 19:36; cf. John 19:14). 38 As an interesting aside, one may note that believers themselves are at times likened to lambs. After his resurrection, Jesus recommissions Peter to his service. He instructs Peter as an “under-shepherd” to Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) and Great Shepherd who sees to the maturing and well-being of his believing flock (Hebrews 13:20-21; 1 Peter 2:25) to “feed my lambs” (John 21:15). Peter did not miss the Lord’s point nor neglect his commission, for he later points out that Christ is the Chief Shepherd who has entrusted his work to other “under-shepherds” until he himself will come again (1 Peter 5:4). Viewed in the light of the shepherd imagery associated with Christ, it is perhaps not so strange, as sometimes maintained, that at Jesus’ birth the angels appeared to shepherds (Luke 2:8-14). Indeed, the promised Messiah and shepherd of Israel (Ezekiel 34:22-24) lay nestled in a feeding trough in Bethlehem. 39 The simile here might well be termed what G. Oestreich (“Absurd Similes in the Book of Hosea,” in Creation, Life and Hope, ed. J. Moskalal [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2000], 101-126) terms an “absurd simile” in that the lamb is acting contrary to its natural existence. 40 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 940. 41 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 248. 42 John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 326. 43 J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 124. 44 Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1:388. To the contrary, note Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, 283. 45 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 1211. 46 It is of interest to note that both the first beast and second beast (the Anti-Christ and the false prophet) are portrayed with imagery associated with these two metaphors of Christ. For the first beast had a mouth “like a lion’s mouth” and the second, had “two horns like a lamb” (Revelation 13:11). False causes and religions often come disguised as “Christian” in nature! For Old Testament precedence to the first beast of Revelation, see Daniel 7:7-8, Daniel 7:19-25. 47 Ladd, The Revelation of John, 87. 48 Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27-32; Genesis 12:1-20; Genesis 13:1-18; Genesis 14:1-24; Genesis 15:1-21; Genesis 16:1-16; Genesis 17:1-27; Genesis 18:1-33; Genesis 19:1-38; Genesis 20:1-18; Genesis 21:1-34; Genesis 22:1-24; Genesis 23:1-20; Genesis 24:1-67; Genesis 25:1-34; Genesis 26:1-35; Genesis 27:1-46; Genesis 28:1-22; Genesis 29:1-35; Genesis 30:1-43; Genesis 31:1-55; Genesis 32:1-32; Genesis 33:1-20; Genesis 34:1-31; Genesis 35:1-29; Genesis 36:1-43; Genesis 37:1-36; Genesis 38:1-30; Genesis 39:1-23; Genesis 40:1-23; Genesis 41:1-57; Genesis 42:1-38; Genesis 43:1-34; Genesis 44:1-34; Genesis 45:1-28; Genesis 46:1-34; Genesis 47:1-31; Genesis 48:1-22; Genesis 49:1-33; Genesis 50:1-26, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 896. For an extended discussion of many suggested interpretations in addition to Mathews’ fine treatment of Genesis 49:9-10 (pp. 892-96), see Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 658-61. See also Ezekiel 21:25, which contains a strong allusion to Genesis 49:10. 49 G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation , The Nnew International Greek testament Commentary (Grand Rapuds: Eerdmans, 1999), 349. 50 W. C. Kaiser, Jr. (The Promise-Plan of God [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009], 383) calls particular attention to the throne scene in Revelation 4:1-11; Revelation 5:1-14 with its various titles ascribed to Christ. He concludes, “Almost all of these royal and conquering themes resonate with the presentation of the Messiah and the promise-plan, especially in the Prophets.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: S. SPECIAL CHRISTMAS VISITORS IN BETHLEHEM ======================================================================== Special Christmas Visitors In Bethlehem Study By: Richard D. Patterson Amid the whirl of the Christmas rush, the shopping, the parades, the parties, and the last minute details, it is all too easy to lose sight of the central meaning and message of Christmas. Many traditional things have grown up around Christmas, which were originally designed to call attention to spiritual things, such as holly and mistletoe, candles and caroling, manger scenes and Christmas trees, and the exchanging of Christmas cards and gifts. All of this too often, however, becomes mere tradition or caught up in the commercialism of the secular scene. C. S. Lewis in his well-known satire entitled “Xmas and Christmas” caricatures some of the futility as pictured in the island of Niatirb where citizens exchange “Xmas cards” and gifts. Having bought what they consider sufficient cards and sent them, they are thankful that “this labor is at least over for another year.”1 Sometimes, however, they find cards from someone to whom they have not sent one, and so grudgingly and with some malice they “put on their boots again and go out in the fog and rain and buy a card for him also.”2 Lewis describes the Niatirbians as having a similar, if not worse, dilemma with regard to the exchange of gifts. “For every citizen has to guess the value of the gift which every friend will send to him so that he may send one of equal value, whether he can afford it or not. And they buy as gifts for one another such things as no man ever bought for himself.”3 Many families and churches, of course, do have special traditions centered on the real meaning of Christmas. Many Old Testament scriptures foretold the coming of the Messiah.4 Some predicted his birth (e.g., Isaiah 7:14; cf. Matthew 1:23; Micah 5:2; cf. Matthew 2:6); some give details concerning his life and ministry (e.g., Psalms 22:1; cf. Matthew 27:46-5 Psalms 40:6-8; cf. Hebrews 10:5-7; Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53:1-12; cf., e.g., Matthew 8:16-17; Matthew 27:57-60); and some deal with his resurrection and ascension (e.g., Psalms 16:9-11; cf. Acts 2:25-27; Psalms 110:1, Psalms 110:4; cf. Matthew 22:44-45; Hebrews 7:21-22). This study, however, entails an examination of two New Testament passages relating to the birth and subsequent details commonly featured in the celebration of Christmas. The Shepherds The first passage is Luke 2:1-20, which narrates the story of Jesus’ birth. Luke 2:1-7 relate details relative to the historical background of Jesus’ birth. The narrator tells of a royal decree relating to all the Roman Empire for the purpose of taxation.6 The historicity of Luke’s account has often been questioned due to the fact that the only existing records of such a decree during Quirinius’ governorship of Syria is dated to about A.D. 6—much too late for the biblical setting. Nevertheless, the accuracy of Luke’s historical research, both here and elsewhere, has been defended ably by several scholars. The NET presents the simplest solution, suggesting that Quirinius had previously served as a Roman administrator in Syria, so that he could have occupied an official capacity at the time relative to a decree slightly before the time of Jesus’ birth (i.e., c. 5-4 B.C.). Some evidence does exist demonstrating such a possibility.7 In any case, the precision and care with which Luke did his research in writing Luke and Acts, as well as the place of Luke in the New Testament canon, assure his readers that regardless of the present day lack of all the facts, these were well-known and available to Luke 8:1-56 For our purposes it is sufficient to note that in accordance with propriety Joseph and Mary journeyed to Bethlehem.9 Since Matthew reports that when Joseph learned that Mary’s pregnancy was divinely accomplished, he followed instructions and married her (Matthew 1:18-25), Mary was already his wife (but without consummation, Matthew 1:25) when they went to Bethlehem (see NET text note). More than likely their journey was made during her last trimester of pregnancy and in accordance with Micah’s prophecy (Micah 5:2) they were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Because the word translated “inn” is not the most usual word for places of public accommodation, “They may have stayed in a crowded room in the home of some poor relative till the birth of their baby necessitated their vacating it for privacy and more space.”10 Early church tradition preserves the suggestion that at the time of Jesus’ birth his parents were staying in a cave.11 After giving the account of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, Luke called attention to a nearby field where shepherds were keeping their lonely vigil watching over their flock. It was night and, “An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were absolutely terrified” (Luke 2:9). The angel quickly calmed the shepherds’ fears. They were to stop being afraid because the angel had a message of comfort and cheer, and of joy and good news. Although addressed to citizens of Israel, it was a message, which was universal in scope and designed to meet the needs of all people everywhere. For Israel’s Messiah and the Savior of all mankind had been born that very day in Bethlehem of Judah (Luke 2:10-11).12 The message concerning the Savior is ever one designed for a response—and so it was with the shepherds. They were to go to Bethlehem and verify the event for themselves and all concerned (Luke 2:12). At that instant, “A vast heavenly army appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, ‘ Glory to god in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is well pleased!’” (Luke 2:13-14). It was indeed a wondrous message. To God’s glory there would be peace on earth among people, who are the objects of the Lord’s good favor. Luke went on to record how the astonished shepherds hastened to Bethlehem, found the baby and his parents, and “related what they had been told about this child” (Luke 2:15-17). It was then the turn of those who heard their testimony to be astonished (Luke 2:18). Leaving behind a somewhat perplexed mother (Luke 2:19), the shepherds returned to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for what they had been privileged to witness (Luke 2:20). It was to be a never to be forgotten night! But why shepherds? Why would God reveal such amazing and momentous news to mere shepherds? Perhaps the choice is not as strange as it might seem at first sight. Truly, the plans of a gracious and all-wise God for mankind are never without purpose or propriety. Thus although shepherding was considered a lowly profession in ancient Israel, it was a common one. Indeed, shepherds performed an essential and responsible task13 With courage and concern the shepherd was to see to the well-being and growth of the sheep to a point of usefulness for man. This involved finding grass and water for them (Psalms 23:2), protecting them (Amos 3:1; John 10:11-13), and retrieving those who strayed (Ezekiel 34:8). God himself assumed the figure of the shepherd. He had led Israel all along the way. Thus the psalmist addresses God as the “shepherd of Israel … who lead Joseph like a flock of sheep!” (Psalms 80:1; cf. Genesis 48:13). It was he who saw to their needs (Psalms 23:1-2), protected and guided them in accordance with his good purposes for them (cf. Isaiah 40:9-20 with Ezekiel 34:12; Zechariah 9:15-16). Likewise, Israel’s leaders were charged with the care of God’s people much as a shepherd would watch over his flock (Numbers 27:17). But, alas, too often they proved to be false shepherds. Thus Jeremiah complains, “The leaders of my people are sure to be judged. They were supposed to watch over my people like shepherds watch over their sheep. But they are causing my people to be destroyed and scattered” (Jeremiah 23:1; cf. Jeremiah 25:32-35; Ezekiel 34:2-10). Accordingly, God announced through his prophets that he would send his own true shepherd, the Messiah, who would save and care for the flock (Ezekiel 37:22-28). Christ affirmed that he was that good shepherd who as a smitten shepherd (cf. Zechariah 13:7) would lay down his life for the sheep: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep … I am the good shepherd. I know my sheep and my own know me” (John 10:11, John 10:14). The writer of Hebrews points out that Christ is also that great shepherd who sees to the maturing and well being of his believing flock (Hebrews 13:20-21; cf. 1 Peter 2:25). Peter declares that Christ is the Chief Shepherd who has entrusted his work to other “under shepherds” until he himself shall come again for his flock. The Lord promises these shepherds that, unlike the false shepherds of Israel’s past, if they are faithful, “When the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that never fades away” (1 Peter 5:4). It is no accident, therefore, that one of the terms for pastor in the New Testament means shepherd and that Paul could instruct the Ephesians elders in their task of “shepherding” (Acts 20:17-38). Yes, shepherds! And why not? Who better could understand and symbolize the significance of all that was transpiring that night. More than a common baby lay nestled in an obscure and lowly feeding trough in Bethlehem. It was no less than the promised Messiah, the shepherd of Israel! The Wise Men The choice of the wise men likewise seems at first a strange one. Yet, their visit was to be full of meaning. In turning to Matthew 2:1-12 it should be pointed out that the events described in connection with the visit of the wise men took place some days after the time of the shepherds visit. Thus the NET correctly translates, “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem” (Matthew 2:10. Moreover, a comparison between Matthew 2:11, Luke 2:22-24, and Leviticus 12:1-8 makes it plain that such was the case. For had the wise men arrived before the fortieth day of the birth of the child, the ceremonial offering of ritual purification specified in the law of Moses would not have been the poorest possible one, which Jesus’ parents offered. Furthermore, Matthew 2:11 clearly indicates that the family was now quartered in a house after the birth. Possibly, then, some six weeks had elapsed since the birth of Jesus. It should also be admitted freely that it is not known whether these wise men were kings, even though the common Christmas carol speaks of “We three kings of Orient” or, for that matter that their were exactly three, even though they are identified in Ben Hur as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar. Of course, Isaiah’s prophecy that, “Nations shall come to your light, kings to your bright light” (Isaiah 60:3) and the fact that there were three gifts made both inferences likely to the early church. Current scholarship tends to identify these visitors as magi or a class of wise men/statesmen of priestly origin in the ancient Near East, whose astrological skills had in this case been superintended by God so as to bring them to Bethlehem to witness the birth of Israel’s promised king. Thus Keener points out that the magi were “pagan astrologers whose divinatory skills were widely respected in the Greco-Roman world; astrology had become popular through the ‘science’ of the East, and everyone agreed that the best astrologers lived in the East.”14 Bypassing the earlier narrative in Matthew’s account (Matthew 2:1-10) our focus will be on the gifts of the magi and the significance of their presence and presents.15 In 2:11 Matthew reports, “As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” The first of the gifts was gold, a symbol of royalty. That Messiah would be of kingly descent is the consistent Old Testament teaching (e.g., Isaiah 9:6-7). God revealed explicitly that the Abrahamic blessing would be channeled through the royal line of David (e.g., 2 Samuel 7:16-19). The psalmist adds: “I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have made a promise on oath to David, my servant: ‘I will give you an eternal dynasty and establish your throne throughout future generations’” (Psalms 89:3-4; cf. Psalms 89:34-37). Other portions of the Psalms reverberate with the same truth (e.g., Psalms 2:7-9; Psalms 45:6; Psalms 110:1-2). Further, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, prophesied of the imminent initiation of the royal provisions in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants (Luke 1:67-75), while Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17) clearly points to Jesus’ royal descent through the line of David (as well as David’s descent from Abraham). And such a king! Though he would come to his own world, his very own people would largely reject him (John 1:11). Although many would welcome him as king upon his entrance into Jerusalem on what is known as Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:5-9), he would be crucified only a few days later. Even then, however, as he hung on Calvary’s cross he was never more king. For on the third day he rose as victor over sin and death (1 Corinthians 15:55-57). Paul declares that to this crucified and risen Savior every knee will bow one day and confess that he is Lord (Php 2:10-11). John (Revelation 19:11-21) portrays Christ’s descent out of heaven to vanquish the assembled forces of ungodliness and establish the promised kingdom, taking his seat on the throne of David (cf. Ezekiel 34:20-24; Ezekiel 37:24-28). Yes, gold; it was surely a fitting gift for a king. Although Jesus was yet a baby, one day he will be proclaimed as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:16). The very presence of the magi is a reminder that all people shall pay homage to Christ (cf. Psalms 2:10-12), whether simplest shepherd or richest royalty. The second gift, frankincense, was also a precious commodity. Among its many uses in the Levitical ritual was its employment in the meal offering, where its presence provided tangible evidence of God’s favor toward the service of the dedicated believer. It was a “gift of soothing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2; cf. 2 Corinthians 2:14-16). Even so, Christ’s ministry would be that which the meal offering symbolized—one of unselfish, dedicated service (cf. Matthew 20:28). Jesus was always about the Father’s business (cf. Luke 2:49), doing the Father’s work (John 5:19-30), and proclaiming his words (e.g., John 14:10). In so doing, he functioned as the promised prophet of old (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), the prophet par excellence, and God’s unique Son (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:1-2). The frankincense is a reminder that Christ was not only a king, but also a prophet. The third gift, myrrh, like frankincense, was a valuable product. Both of these gum resins were highly prized in ancient times and in great demand for many usages throughout the eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. Together they made the south Arabian traders, who enjoyed a monopoly on their transport, exceedingly wealthy.16 Both substances were used for medicinal purposes. Both were noted for their fragrances, the frankincense often being employed as incense and myrrh being particularly prized as an ingredient for cosmetics and perfume. One of the most important uses of myrrh was in its employment for preparing a dead body for burial. Thus it is mentioned in connection with the burial of Jesus (John 19:39-40). For the believer, myrrh serves as a reminder that Jesus came to die. As the believer’s great high priest Jesus was both the offerer and the offering, for he laid down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of a lost mankind (cf. Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53:1-12 with John 10:15-18; Romans 5:6-8; Hebrews 7:26-28; Hebrews 8:1-2; Hebrews 9:11-12; Hebrews 10:4-14). The visit of the magi to the Christ child could be likened to that of ambassadors of a king to a king. Their gifts were distinctively appropriate and easily worthy of a king. The particular uses of these gifts symbolize even more than their economic value. This greater David, who had come as a baby, was no less than the promised Messiah. He was the One who combined in himself three offices: king, prophet and priest. The gold is a reminder that Christ is the Great King, the frankincense that he is the greatest of all prophets, and the myrrh that he is the believer’s high priest who gave himself as man’s Redeemer. John Newton expresses something of Jesus’ threefold titles in writing: Jesus, my Shepherd, Brother, Friend, My Prophet, Priest, and King, My Lord, my life, my way, my end, Accept the praise I bring.17 It may be significant that the magi left by another way (Matthew 2:12). Not only did they wish to avoid further contact with Herod or his officials (as they had been instructed), but it may be the case that their journey to see the Christ child had been so sacred that its very path had been rendered holy or, more likely, in accordance with ancient precedence the need to take an alternate route indicated their error in communicating earlier with Herod (cf. 1 Kings 13:9-10). 18 Application As believers who observe in various ways the traditions of Christmas this year, may we not neglect the spiritual riches attendant to the season. May we contemplate the best of all gifts—God’s free gift of an abundant life in Jesus Christ, the Savior and living Lord. As the shepherds of old, may we not only praise him with our lips but, as did they, go eagerly in response to God’s direction in our lives. May God grant that we as the Lord’s sheep and under-shepherds be found faithfully at our tasks (cf. 1 Timothy 4:7-8),when once again the heavens shall be pierced, but this time with the second coming of David’s son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Revelation 19:11-16). May believers also be reminded that they, no less than the magi, serve as ambassadors of a king (2 Corinthians 5:20). As believers, may we offer the Lord a gift—the gift of our lives poured out in a holy walk, and in humble and faithful service to Christ “As good stewards of the varied grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10). As William Dix expressed it: As they offered gifts most rare At that manger rude and bare, So may we with holy joy, Pure and free from sin’s alloy, All our costliest treasures bring, Christ, to Thee our heave’nly King.19 Shepherds and wise men; how appropriate after all. May the spiritual insight gained from their observance of that first Christmas season teach us how we may better honor Christ in ours. 1 C. S. Lewis, “Xmas and Christmas,” in God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 302. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Joseph P. Free (Archaeology and Bible History [Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1962], 283-84) cites Canon Liddon of England as declaring that there are 232 distinct prophecies fulfilled in Christ’s first coming. Many of these are listed in J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 665-68. 5 For details as to Psalms 22:1-31 and the fourth, fifth, and sixth words on the cross, see Richard D. Patterson, “Psalms 22:1-31: From Trial to Triumph,” JETS 47 (2004), 213-33. 6 See the NET text note. Unless otherwise noted , all citations are taken from the NET. 7 See E. M. Blaiklock, “Quirinius,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 5:5-6. For other suggestions see the standard commentaries as well as Mark Strauss, “Luke,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 1:339-40; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1993), 193; Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 365-66; and Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 63-65. 8 See the helpful comments regarding the reliability of Luke as an historian by David W. Pao, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, eds Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 10:75-76. 9 For details, see Poa, “Luke,” 76. See also Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 194. 10 Pao, “Luke,” 76. Pao goes on to admit that this is “merely speculation.” 11 For example, the Protevangelium relates that Joseph “found a cave there and brought her into it, and set his sons by her; and he went forth and sought for a midwife of the Hebrews in the country of Bethlehem.” M. R. James, “Book of James, or Protevangelium,” in The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953), 46. The tradition regarding Jesus’ birth in a cave is also preserved by the church fathers Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 78:4 and Origin, Against Celsus, 1:15. 12 Interestingly enough, many years ago in a city in which I lived at that time, in covering the “Christmas story” as though it were breaking news the account in local paper included a map showing the location of Bethlehem. Unfortunately, the site indicated was Bethlehem of Zebulun rather than the proper location in Judah! 13 See F. L. Garber, “Sheep,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, rev ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 4:463-65. 14 Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 48. David L. Turner (“The Gospel of Matthew,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary [Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2005] 11: 46) adds, “They may have come from Arabia, Babylon, or Persia. Perhaps there are historical connections between them and the ‘Chaldeans’ mentioned in Daniel 1:20; Deuteronomy 2:2; Deuteronomy 4:7; Deuteronomy 5:7, or adept in the interpretation of dreams.” 15 Keener (Ibid, 46) points out that the arrival of the magi must indeed have caused quite a stir among the people, for “the Magi must have come with quite an entourage for the whole city to notice them.” 16 See the enlightening and informative study by Gus W. Van Beek, “Frankincense and Myrrh,” in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 2, eds. David Noel Freedman and Edward F. Campbell, Jr. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 99-126; Michael J. Wilkens, “Matthew,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, 1:16-17. 17 John Newton, “How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds,” in Hymns for the Living Church (Carol Stream: Hope Publishing Co., 1978), 68-69. 18 Paul R. House (1,2 Kings, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995], 188-89) suggests the latter understanding of 1 Kings 13:9-10, citing U. Simon (“1 Kings 13:1-34: A Prophetic Sign-Denial and Persistence,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 47 [1976], 90-91) who “demonstrates that ‘not to return by the way you came’ is a fairly common Old Testament way of saying, ‘be different’ or ‘avoid past mistakes.’” Understood in this fashion for the case of the magi, it may indicate that the magi had made a technical error in going to Herod. 19 William C. Dix, “As With Gladness Men of Old,” in Hymns for the Living Church, 114. Editors note: (corrected typos in the sentence "for the wise men.... quartered in a house" ) changed not to now; added "after the birth; ... ML 12/12/09 ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-richard-d-patterson/ ========================================================================