Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Zephaniah’s Use of the OT

by

Zephaniah opens his book with strong allusions to the Flood judgment and the creation week.[1] These allusions identify the day of Yhwh as a de-creation event on a scale larger than that of the Flood. Though the Noahic covenant is not mentioned, Zephaniah implies that this eschatological day of Yhwh marks the end of the Noahic covenant. The wrath of God that that covenant held in abeyance until the plan of redemption was worked out now is given full rein. Positively, the salvation of the nations is in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant’s promise that all the nations will be blessed through Abraham’s seed.

Exodus 19:18-20 and Deuteronomy 4:11 describe Yhwh’s descent to mount Sinai as accompanied with fire, smoke, darkness, clouds, gloom, the sounding of a trumpet, and thunder, and many of these elements are part of Zephaniah’s description of the day of Yhwh (1:15-16, 18).

Zephaniah also draws on Deuteronomy’s list of covenant curses for disobedience to the Mosaic covenant. To disobedient Israel, Moses said, “you shall grope at noonday, as the blind grope in darkness” (Dt 28:29) and Zephaniah said of those caught in the eschatological day of Yhwh judgment, “so they shall walk as blind men” (1:17). Deuteronomy said, “You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not enjoy its fruit…. You shall plant vineyards and dress them, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes” (Dt 28:30, 39). And Zephaniah said that when the day of Yhwh came upon Judah, “Though they build houses, they shall not inhabit them; though they plant vineyards, they shall not drink wine from them” (1:13). On the other hand, Yhwh promised an obedient Israel, “that he will set you in praise and in fame and in honor high above all nations that he has made” (Dt 26:19), and Zephaniah closes his book by declaring of redeemed Israel, “I will change their shame into praise and renown in all the earth… for I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth” (3:19-20).[2] Deuteronomy predicted that Israel would disobey and come under the covenant curses (30:1), but it also promised to Israel that Yhwh would “gather you again” and “restore your fortunes” (30:3). Zephaniah’s closing words are, “‘at the time when I gather you together…, when I restore your fortune before your eyes,’ says Yhwh” (3:20).[3] Zephaniah also drew on the prophets who preceded him. The statement that beasts, birds, and fish will be swept away occurs first in Hosea 4:3.  His description of the day of Yhwh as “near,” “great,” dark, gloomy, and cloudy, as including a sounding  trumpet, and as coming upon all the inhabitants of the land/earth (1:14-18) is indebted to Joel’s description of the day of Yhwh in Joel 2:1-11.[4]

[1] Berlin, AB, 13-14; Schnittjer, OTUOT, 414.

[2] See Robertson, NICOT, 254-55; Schnittjer, OTUOT, 436.

[3] Schnittjer, OTUOT, 436.

[4] Patterson, WEC, 321; Schnittjer, OTUOT, 436.

Structure and Summary of Zephaniah

by

After the superscription (1:1), Zephaniah can be divided into three major sections (1:2-2:3; 2:4-3:8; 3:8-20).[1]

Zephaniah’s genealogy in the superscription (1:1) is lengthier than normal, reaching back four generations. It marks Zephaniah out as a descendant of King Hezekiah.[2] Thus the superscription links Zephaniah to both Hezekiah and Josiah, two great reforming kings in Israel. His father’s name is Cushi, which links him to the people of Cush, the African kingdom south of Egypt. Jason DeRouchie notes, “We know that Judah made a number of political alliances with the nation of Cush prior to Zephaniah’s ministry (Isa. 18:1–2; 20:5–6) and that Jerusalem’s leadership had strong ties with Cushites (2 Sam. 18:21; Jer. 38:7; 39:16).”[3]  The time of birth of Zephaniah’s father was also a time in which Cush was an important regional power with “diplomatic, commercial, and military activity in Judah.”[4] This points to the “likelihood that Zephaniah was a biracial Jew (probably through Cushi’s mother, Gedaliah’s wife).”[5] This background has theological significance because Zephaniah predicts a future day in which Yhwh will have worshippers “from beyond the rivers of Cush” (3:10). Zephaniah’s own family tree is an anticipation of the fulfillment of that prophecy.

The first major section of the book (1:2-2:3) concerns the day of Yhwh. It consists of two cycles, the first (1:2-6) begins with the universal day of Yhwh (1:2-3) and then shifts to a historical judgment against Judah (1:4-6). The second (1:7-18) begins with a historical day of Yhwh against Judah (1:7-13) before shifting to the universal and eschatological great day of Yhwh (1:14-18). This has the effect of sandwiching, or contextualizing, the judgment on Judah within the framework of God’s eschatological judgment. The historical judgments are anticipations of the final judgment.[6]

“‘I will utterly sweep away from the face of the earth [אֲדָמָה],’ declares Yhwh” (1:2). This opening declaration recalls the Flood narrative, in which Yhwh said to Noah, “every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground [אֲדָמָה]” (Gen 7:4; cf. Gen 6:7).[7] This is the de-creation of creation: “I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked” (1:3, ESV mg.). O. Palmer Robertson observes, “The order in which items are listed for destruction is precisely the reverse of the order in which they appear in the creation narrative.… Originally it was fish, birds, beasts, and man that God created.”[8] Further, by including fish, this judgment is seen to exceed that of the Flood in scope.[9] In the Noahic covenant God promised “I will never again destroy every living thing” (Gen 8:20), which indicates that this judgment must be the eschatological judgment that brings the present age to its conclusion to make way for the new creation. If all of this is not evidence enough that the universal eschatological judgment is in view, Jesus settled the matter by alluding to Zechariah’s statement, “I will sweep away … the stumbling blocks with the wicked” (1:3, ESV mg.) in his explanation of the parables of the tares: at the end of the age “the Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (Mt 13:41, NASB).[10]

This eschatological judgment seamlessly transitions to a historical judgment on Judah (1:4-6).[11] Just as Yhwh will sweep away the idolatrous stumbling blocks from the whole earth in the last day, so he would “cut off from [Judah] the remnant of Baal” (1:4) and those who worshipped other gods or blended the worship Yhwh with false worship (1:5-6).

The second cycle (1:7-18) begins with a command “Be silent before the Lord Yhwh!” And a reason for the command: “For the day of Yhwh is near” (1:7). This day is described as a sacrificial feast—in which the guests are the ones consecrated to be sacrificed! The sins that lead to this judgment are briefly mentioned. Some are clear: “violence and fraud” (1:9). Others hardly seem to be sins at all: the wearing of foreign clothes and taking care not to step on a threshold. The latter action is explained in 1 Samuel 5:4-5. When the ark of the covenant had been captured and placed in the temple of Dagon, Dagon was found fallen before the ark, with his head and hands broken off and lying on the threshold. This led to a custom in which priests of Dagon would not step on the threshold of their temple. Isarel had now, inexplicably, added this practice to their worship. Likewise, the wearing of foreign clothes was a sign that Israel’s leaders were leading the people to follow in the ways of the surrounding, idolatrous nations. There was nothing inherently wrong with stepping over a threshold or wearing foreign clothes. But those actions communicated something. Alec Motyer sums up the situation well: “Did the leaders of Zephaniah’s day say, ‘How I dress is my business. It is part of my private life and has nothing to do with my position or work’? But by their dress . . . they were eroding the distinction between the Lord’s people and the world around.”[12] Despite these warnings, there were those who said, “Yhwh will not do good, nor will he do ill.” (1:12). They dismissed the idea of coming judgment. But they would come under the curses of the Mosaic covenant (1:13; cf. Dt 28:30, 39).[13]

With verse 17, the focus turns back to the eschatological day of Yhwh. From God’s perspective, that day was near over two-and-a-half millennia ago, for “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8). How much nearer is that day now! Zephaniah draws on language from Joel 2:1-11 to describe this day of Yhwh: it is “near,” “great, dark, gloomy, full of clouds, a “day of trumpet blast.” Zephaniah adds that in this day “all the earth shall be consumed” by the “fire of [Yhwh’s] jealousy” (1:18). While one could read the reference to fire metaphorically, the New Testament writers understood Zephaniah to predict a physical, fiery judgment that will come upon the whole earth.

Chapter 2 opens with a call to seek Yhwh (2:1-3). In light of these predictions of the coming day of Yhwh, Judah is called to gather together and seek Yhwh that they might be “hidden on the day of the anger of Yhwh” (2:3). If the phrase in verse 3 is translated “humble of the earth” (NASB, LSB, CSB; cf. KJV, NKJV), then this call is expanded out to include all people. However, if the phrase is translated, “humble of the land” (ESV, NIV, NRSV), it remains focused on Judah. Since the following oracles against the nations are linked to this call with a “for,” the more universal reading is probably correct.

The second major section of the book (2:4-3:8) consists of oracles against the nations. These nations are arranged at the four points of the compass: Philistia to Judah’s west, Moab and Ammon to Judah’s east, Cush to Judah’s south, and Assyria to Judah’s north.[14] Though there are hints of salvation in these oracles (verse 7 speaks of the restoration of the remnant of Judah, and verse 11 speaks of the nations worshipping Yhwh from their own lands), the emphasis is on the judgment of the nations. The oracles culminate with Assyria, the greatest threat to Judah at that time. Assyria will be judged with the reversal of the blessing of Genesis 1:28. God blessed mankind with dominion over the earth. He specifically indicated that mankind was given dominion over the animal world. But in Zephaniah 2:14–15, Assyria was to be judged by the animals taking over its greatest city. The animals would take dominion over Nineveh.

The opening verses of chapter 3 seem to continue the judgment oracle on Nineveh: “Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled, the oppressing city!” But when Zephaniah says, “she does not draw near to her God,” which the previous line identified as Yhwh, it becomes clear that Jerusalem is the city under condemnation. Thus, Judah, like all the nations, is in danger of God’s wrath. In verses 6-8 Jerusalem and the nations are brought together in a final statement of God’s universal judgment.

Verse 8 is a hinge verse. It brings to a culmination the prediction of judgment. This again is a prediction of universal judgment by fire: “in the fire of my jealousy all the earth shall be consumed.” However, verse 9 indicates that following this comprehensive judgment is a comprehensive redemption (3:9-20).

It is “at that time” that the speech of the people will be changed to “pure speech” (3:9). That is, the speech of the peoples will be the speech of true worship. It is the reversal of Babel not in the sense that all peoples are speaking the same languages but in the sense that all are speaking the same worship. As a representative instance, Zephaniah draws on his own family background: Yhwh will have worshippers from beyond the rivers of Cush, which is all of Africa south of Egypt. [Joy parents and grandparents have participated in the fulfillment of this prophecy. The people they led to the Lord in Africa will be resurrected and among those worshipping the Lord in that day.] Verses 11-13 describe the extent of the transformation in that day. Daniel Timmer notes:

These statements depict more than a sanctified life—they are evidence of a heart purified of all sin, not only justified but fully sanctified and perfected. It is for this reason that they can graze and “lie down” (v. 13), with no fear of an enemy. Not only have their external enemies been removed, but sin as their longtime internal enemy no longer exists. This passage depicts the full and final stage of salvation for God’s people, whom He shepherds forever in green pastures without sin, danger, or interruption.[15]

The timing of this transformation is “in that day.” The day of Yhwh begins in judgment, but following the judgment, the day of Yhwh is characterized by restoration and salvation for God’s people. Verses 14-18 then call upon Israel to rejoice. Yhwh has removed the judgments against them as well as their enemies. But the King of Israel, who is Yhwh himself, is in their midst. Israel is then called on to “Fear not” because Yhwh their God is in their midst. He will save, rejoice over, and love them. Verses 18-20 teach that at this time Yhwh will deal with all the oppressors of his people and will reverse the shame his people experienced and gather them back to the land, so that they are honored by all the peoples of the earth.

[1] Note that 3:8 is a transitional verse between sections 2 and 3.

[2] Robertson, NICOT, 34; Motyer, “Zephaniah,” in Minor Prophets, 3:898; Berlin, AB, 65; Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 342; Hoffmeier, The Prophets of Israel, 240-41.

[3] DeRouchie, ESVEC, 571.

[4] Hays, From Every People and Nation, NSBT, 122-23. Hays determined the period of Cushi’s birth as follows: “If we estimate the beginning of Zephaniah’s ministry in 630 BC, assume that he is at least 30 at the beginning of his ministry, and assign a 25-year span between father and son, then his father would have been born around 685 BC.” Ibid, 123. This is about a decade earlier the beginning of Zephaniah’s ministry which I proposed above.

[5] DeRouchie, ESVEC, 571.

[6] Timmer, Judah among the Empires, 79.

[7] Robertson, NICOT; 258; Walker, EBC, 544; Patterson, WEC, 299, 301; Berlin, AB, 81.

[8] Robetson, NICOT; 258; cf. Motyer, 3:911-12; Walker, EBC, 544; Berlin, AB, 13, 81; Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, Timmer, Judah among the Empires, 78.

[9] Motyer, 3:911.

[10] Robertson, NICOT, 259-60.

[11] Robertson, NICOT, 260; Walker, EBC, 546.

[12] Motyer, 3:919.

[13] Berlin, AB, 88-89; Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 346.

[14] Motyer, 3:902.

[15] Timmer, Judah among the Empires, 100.

Thoughts on Israel’s Request for a King in 1 Samuel 8

by

  • It’s important to note that the existence of an Israelite king was not a problem.
    • It was part of God’s covenant promise to Abraham: Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11.
    • This promise was elaborated in Jacob’s blessing of Judah: Gen 49:10
    • It was prophesied: Num 24:7, 17
    • It was provided for in the Mosaic covenant: Dt 17:14-20
    • The book of Judges closed by noting that Israel needed a king: Jdgs 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25
    • Hannah sang of the coming king: 1 Sam. 2:10
  • Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides the divine legislation for Israel’s institution of a king:
    • They may establish a king when they have conquered and are dwelling in the land.
    • At this point they will say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me.”  This could be read in a neutral sense: “like all the nations that are around me [have].” Or it could mean, “[so that may be] like all the nations that are around me.” See Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, 417.
    • Yhwh permits a king, but he immediately sets up requirements of the king to foreclose the second possibility: having a king so that they will be like all the nations around them.
    • Requirements of selection:
      • Must be chosen by Yhwh
      • Must be Israelite (“from among your brothers”)
      • Must be male (“from among your brothers”)
    • Prohibitions:
      • Must not acquire many horses, especially not from Egypt.
      • Must not acquire many wives.
      • Must not acquire excessive silver and gold.
    • Duties
      • Write for himself a copy of this Law under the oversight of the Levitical priests
      • Keep that book of the Law with him
      • Read the Law all the days of his life so that he learns to fear Yhwh his God
      • Keep the Law
      • Not have his heart lifted up above his brothers.
  • Evaluation of Israel’s demand for a king
    • The people saw a real failure in Samuel’s sons when he tried to set up a dynasty of judges.
    • The elders used the language of Deuteronomy in their request for a king: “Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” The question is whether they are using it in a neutral sense or to mean that they want to be like the nations.
    • Yhwh interprets the request: they are rejecting him as king in their request for a king. This means that the king they are asking for is not a Dt 17 kind of king, since that king ruled in submission to God’s law. Verse 7.
    • Yhwh interprets this in line with their rebellion since they came up from Egypt. Verse 8.
    • Samuel is to do what they ask, but he is to warn solemnly warn them about the “justice” of the king who will rule over them. Verse 9.
    • Verses 11-17 describe this king’s conception of justice:
      • Take sons and daughters to serve him in the court, military, fields, and household.
      • Take the best of the fields, vineyards, and orchards to himself.
      • Take male and female servants
      • Take livestock and flocks
      • They will become his slaves
      • When they cry out against this “justice” Yhwh won’t hear them.
    • Conclusion: this does not mean that kingship itself would be characterized by these kinds of things or that kingship itself is bad. What is bad are kings who do not rule in submission to God.
  • Further evidence that the people were looking for a king that would enable them to continue to live like the nations:
    • They insist they will have this king even after they are warned. Verse 19.
    • They specifically want the king to fight their battles. But we know from Judges that they are needing to fight these battles because they are living like the Canaanites and God is bringing enemies against them. Their request for a king is thus a request to be able to continue in their sin while mitigating the consequences.
    • This is reinforced in 10:17-19 where Samuel recalls how Yhwh has had repeatedly delivered them. But they have rejected God and wanted a king to displace God for that role.
    • After Saul is chosen by Yhwh, Samuel told the people of God’s expectations for just rule by the king. 10:25.
    • In his farewell address, Samuel attests to Yhwh’s continued deliverance of Israel when they repented of the sins that led them to come under attack (12:6-11). Thus their request for a king to fight their battles was a rejection of God (12:12). God have them a king of the kind they requested. (12:13). But both they and the king still have a chance to fear, serve, and obey God (12:14). If they don’t they will continue to fall under the curses of Mosaic covenant (12:15).
    • Samuel identifies their request for Saul to have been evil. (But this does not mean that the request for a God-fearing king from God-fearing motives would have been evil.) His solution is not to get rid of the king but to fear and to serve Yhwh wholeheartedly.

Translation Note on 1 Samuel 8:9

by

I recently read Jerry Hwang’s article, “Yahweh’s Poetic Mishpat in Israel’s Kingship: A Reassessment of 1 Samuel 8-12,” Westminster Theological Journal 73, no. 2 (Winter 2011): 341-61.

Hwang has some helpful individual exegetical comments, while other exegetical claims seem unlikely. I think if he argued that Saul was given to Israel as judgment because they were rejecting God as king, he would have a good case. However, he wanted too much to maintain a dialectic between so-called pro-monarchical passages and anti-monarchical passages, which led him to be too negative toward kingship as a whole (even while granting that God would use it for a redemptive purpose).

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article was his treatment of 1 Samuel 8:9. The NASB adjusted for Hwang’s interpretation would read:

1 Samuel 8:7–9—The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. “Now then, listen to their voice; surely, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the judgment of the king who will reign over them.”

Here are other translations:

AV 1873Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

NKJVNow therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

ESVNow then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

NIVNow listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

NASB95“Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

LSB“So now, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly testify to them and tell them of the custom of the king who will reign over them.”

HCSBListen to them, but you must solemnly warn them and tell them about the rights of the king who will rule over them.”

CSBListen to them, but solemnly warn them and tell them about the customary rights of the king who will reign over them.”

Steinmann: Now listen to them. Yet be sure to warn them and tell them the rights of the king who will reign over them.”

Hoffner: Now then, obey their voice; but make sure to give them solemn warning and inform them of the prerogatives of the king who will reign over them.”

Firth: But now, listen to their voice. However, you shall surely testify against them, and declare to them the ‘justice‘ of the king who will reign over them.”

I think Hwang may be correct that אַ֗ךְ should be translated “surely” and that what follows is a statement of judgment. However, I don’t think that translating מִשְׁפַּ֣ט as judgment works because it won’t work in the parallel in 1 Samuel 10:25.

I prefer Firth’s translation. In 1 Sam 8:9, 11 Samuel was warning Israel about the kind of “justice” they would receive from the kind of king they were asking for (not a king under Yhwh, but a king in place of Yhwh).

The wording of 1 Sam 10:25 intentionally links back to 8:9. There Israel was warned about the way the kind of king they were asking for would think of “justice.” Here Samuel set out before the people Yhwh’s conception of justice that the king should adhere to. Since the idea of a king is not the problem, the people (and Saul) could still change course and fear and submit to God with a king. This is what Samuel in chapter 10 and 12 (see esp. vv. 14-15, 20-25) is seeking to encourage the people to do.

Tom Hicks and Garrett Walden on Doug Wilson’s View of Justification

by

A couple weeks ago I commended Kevin DeYoung’s critique of Doug Wilson’s sinful and worldly speech (a post I later updated with some thoughts on Joe Rigney’s response). I had one reservation about DeYoung’s article which I did not mention in the post. DeYoung concludes:

“One can only conclude that he prefers to write in a different way. Wilson could keep all the good stuff on classical Christian education, all the helpful material on family formation, all the countercultural advice on being old school men and women. He could explain the Bible. He could highlight heroes from church history. He could blog about the Great Books…. He could use the eighth decade of his life to devote his considerable writing talents to persuading unbelievers to consider Christianity, to passing on the Reformed faith, and to offering a deep, penetrating cultural analysis. I believe he could do all this if he wanted to.”

I commented to a friend about this paragraph:

I think this underplays two things: (1) Wilson’s bad doctrine seeps through into these other areas of writing. Not that he never says anything helpful. But having appropriately bracketed doctrinal concerns about Wilson, I don’t think DeYoung can suggest that a simple change in tone will fix Wilson’s problems. (2) The more I read Wilson the more I realized that he’s a popularizer who was out over his skis on too many issues.

DeYoung mentioned several doctrinal areas that he was going to bracket in his article: “I won’t be touching on Federal Vision, or paedocommunion, or his views on the antebellum South, or his arguments for Christian Nationalism, or his particular brand of postmillennialism.”

Tom Hicks and Garrett Walden have now addressed the first of these, Wilson’s view of Federal Vision. Here is their conclusion:

But the theological issues can’t be so flippantly dismissed because of a commitment to “own the libs.” More is at stake than that. And regardless of how effective his opposition to wokeness is, Wilson isn’t the hero we need to follow into battle. A significant error on the doctrine of justification isn’t merely a distraction.

Whereas some might (mistakenly, in our view) dismiss DeYoung’s critique as BigEva pearl-clutching because of Moscow’s “serrated edge,” our concern is anything but that. It’s not a disagreement about tone, emphasis, or “knowing what time it is.” It’s a fundamental disagreement about the heart of the gospel, about the doctrine Luther called “the article by which the church stands or falls.” For whatever “visceral” appeal “the Moscow mood” might present, we implore you to flee from the very real spiritual danger embedded in “the Moscow doctrine.”

UPDATE 12/12/2023: In response to a question regarding Wilson’s reply to Hicks and Walden:

I read it, and I’m glad that Wilson is affirming what he is affirming in that post. And yet, Wilson won’t repudiate the Federal Vision (though he has explained why he no longer uses the label). I followed the Federal Vision controversy closely while in seminary, reading a fair bit from the FV’s, especially Wilson, as well as the responses. It was that reading then that convinced me that Wilson (1) wasn’t entirely orthodox and/or (2) was out beyond his knowledge base. Because he won’t repudiate his earlier teaching, it’s hard to know what to make of his current professions of orthodoxy. It would really help if he paired his affirmations with denials. This morning I read back through the Hicks and Walden piece. They were interacting with statements that Wilson had made which were either erroneous or made with a misunderstanding of the theological terminology being used. Further, there is a history of him affirming justification by faith alone when challenged—and then also still affirming the statements that are in problematic tension with those affirmations (see, for example, here: Re: Sumpter, White, & Wilson on “Federal Vision Baptists?” – Contrast (wordpress.com)). This is why I’m saying some denials of past errors and/or a track record getting things right going forward is necessary. In other words, I don’t think it accurate to say that the charge made against him was untrue. At best, the charge made against him may no longer be true. I hope that is the case. 

I view Wilson similarly to N. T. Wright. Both have a way with words, and when either of them are fighting on the side of truth, I’m happy for the way they are using their powers of communication. But neither of them are faithful teachers, and I think that faithful shepherds need to warn the flock about them.

“Replenish,” a false friend in KJV Genesis 1:28

by

My friend Mark Ward often points out “false friends” in the KJV—words and phrases in the KJV that contemporary readers are likely to think they understand but in fact misunderstand due to changes in language.

The KJV of Genesis 1:28 begins, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” In contemporary English, “replenish” means to fill again (and, according to the OED, it had this sense in the 1600s as well). But the OED also indicates that at the time the KJV was translated, “replenish” could bear a different meaning: “fill abundantly” (again, see the OED). This is certainly the meaning intended in this context.

Interestingly, the Wycliffe, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles all use the word “fill” here.

Best Commentaries on Nahum

by

Renz, Thomas. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021.

I found Renz especially insightful regarding the structure of the book and intertextual references, especially within the minor prophets.

Timmer, Daniel C. Nahum. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017.

Timmer was also helpful on the structure of the book. Though his other work, Judah among the Empires, I a obtained a sense of his understanding of the role of the book as a whole, and I found his comments valuable.

Armerding, Carl. “Nahum.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

Armerding’s observations of the links between Nahum and Isaiah was especially helpful.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. 1990.

O. Palmer Robertson, as always, was theologically insightful.

Baker, David W. Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

In the brief time I had for this study, I found Baker useful even as I used the above resources more.

Major Themes of Nahum

by

The major theme of Nahum is the judgment of God. God is a just God who will judge the guilty. His wrath will not be resisted and those who think they will not fall before it deceive themselves.

Linked to this overriding theme are the themes of sin and restoration for God’s people. The judgment is occasioned by the sin of Nineveh, most notably its vicious treatment of other nations. God’s judgment of Assyria, which Isaiah identified as a rod of God’s chastening, marked the hope that God would restore his people (1:2, 12-3, 15; 2:2; 3:19).

O. Palmer Robertson observes “the absence of virtually a trace of messianism” in this book.[1] But while the hope of the messianic Davidic king is not a theme of this book, Jesus is Yhwh, and he will come in the last day to judge the nations as Nahum foretold.

[1] Robertson, NICOT, 17.

NT Use of Nahum

by

Paul, in Romans 10:15, quotes from the same Isaiah passage that Nahum quotes in 1:15 to demonstrate the need for preachers of the gospel. More significant is the book of Revelation. Timmer writes, “The message of Revelation is essentially the message of Nahum restated in light of God’s redemptive actions fully revealed in Christ.”[1] John concludes the sixth seal judgment, which draws on Joel 2:10-11, 31, by alluding to Nahum 1:6. Nahum asked, “Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger?” In context Nahum was probably speaking directly of the eschatological day of Yhwh of which the fall of Nineveh was a type. Of that day, John wrote, “for the great day of their wrath [that is the wrath of the one seated on the throne and of the Lamb] is come, and who can stand?” (Rev. 6:17). The enemy of Yhwh characterized as a prostitute (Nah 3:4) is also picked up in Revelation (17:2).

[1] Timmer, ESVEC, 509.

Nahum’s Use of the OT

by

Yhwh’s declaration of his own name and character in Exodus 34:6-7 is the cornerstone biblical text for Nahum. The fact that Yhwh is both “slow to anger” and “will by no means clear the guilty” explains why the judgment of Assyria is certain, though not immediate. The fact that Yhwh is described as “jealous” in 1:2 is also rooted in the Pentateuch (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9; cf. Jos 24:19).

In drawing on Exodus 34, Nahum is following in the footsteps of earlier prophets. Joel roots his hope of Israel’s restoration in Exodus 34:6-7 and Jonah provides the same passage as the reason he did not wish to preach to Nineveh.[1] There may be some additional allusions to Joel with the references to heaven and earth shaking (Joel 3:16 with Nahum 1:5-7) and God serving as an avenger (Joel 3:21 with Nahum 1:3). In both Joel and Nahum, God’s judgment on the nations is linked with restoration for God’s people.[2] Amos1:2 mentions the withering of Carmel, which is an image that Nahum also uses (1:4). Within the Book of the Twelve the strongest contrast is between Jonah and Nahum. In Jonah Nineveh is shown mercy. God’s slowness to anger is on display. But Nineveh’s repentance did not last, and Nahum predicts the justice of God taking effect.

Isaiah had already predicted the destruction of Assyria (10:1-19). Nahum quotes directly from Isaiah 52:7, which prophesied that despite Assyria’s oppression, Yhwh’s people would come to know him and receive salvation and peace (Nah 1:15). It appears that in addition to this quotation a great deal of imagery from Isaiah, especially from chapters 51-52, is worked by Nahum into his prophecy.[3]

[1] Renz, NICOT, 50.

[2] Renz, NICOT, 52.

[3] Armerding, REBC, 560-63; Bailey, NAC, 146-47.