The Prophets: Introducing Israel's Prophetic Writings (Introducing Israel's Scriptures) 9780800699512, 9781451465280, 0800699513

Citation preview

Praise for The Prophets “The genius of this book lies in its selectivity, readability, and theological sensitivity. Drawing upon wide-­ranging knowledge of the ancient Near East and the biblical canon and of theology and art from multiple periods and cultures, these immensely knowledgeable authors view each of the Latter Prophets from a unique angle so that their distinctive qualities emerge clearly. They have produced a study of the prophets for this generation that captures their spirit with the same freshness and urgency that made Heschel’s work invaluable for an earlier generation. Pick up and read.” —­Ellen Davis, Amos Ragan Kearns Distinguished Professor of Bible and Practical Theology, Duke Divinity School “For those looking for an accessible introduction with heft, Cook, Strong, and Tuell offer an engaging and lucid survey of the canonical prophetic books and explore the prophetic experience with admirable integrity and balance. This volume is a sensitive treatment of the key literary, historical, sociological, and theological issues that have occupied readers of the prophets for centuries.” —­Dexter E. Callender Jr., associate professor of religious studies, University of Miami “Cook, Strong, and Tuell have written a comprehensive introduction to the prophetic material in the Old Testament, from the prophetic narratives in the Deuteronomistic History to the prophetic literary texts. The authors present the material clearly and compellingly, but even more important, they model that the best biblical scholarship is inherently collaborative. Their blending of historical and theological concerns makes this book particularly suitable for seminary education.” —­Corrine Carvalho, University of Saint Thomas

“Three authors well-­versed in the changes that have occurred to the study of prophetic literature in recent decades pool their collective wisdom on the prophetic books to illuminate the contents, and to instruct students in how to understand the distinctive voice of each prophetic writing by traveling back in time using historical-­critical tools. The authors remind readers that these books reflect the words and worlds of individual prophets and later editors. They take readers on a journey to learn to hear these books in their ancient settings.” —­James Nogalski, professor of Hebrew Bible, Department of Religion, Baylor University

The Prophets

The Prophets Introducing Israel’s Prophetic Writings

Stephen L. Cook, John T. Strong, and Steven S. Tuell

Fortress Press Minneapolis

THE PROPHETS Introducing Israel’s Prophetic Writings Copyright © 2022 Fortress Press, an imprint of 1517 Media. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Email copyright​@1517​.media or write to Permissions, Fortress Press, PO Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440-­1209. Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Scripture quotations marked (BBE) are taken from the 1949/1964 BIBLE IN BASIC ENGLISH, public domain. Scripture quotations marked (CEB) are taken from the COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE. © Copyright 2011 COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE. All rights reserved. Used by permission. (www​.CommonEnglishBible​.com). Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are taken from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (GNT) are taken from the Good News Bible © 1994 published by the Bible Societies/HarperCollins Publishers Ltd UK, Good News Bible© American Bible Society 1966, 1971, 1976, 1992. Used with permission. Scripture quotations marked (ISV) are taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version® Release 2.0. Copyright © 1996–­2013 by the ISV Foundation. Used by permission of Davidson Press, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Scripture quotations marked (KJV) are taken from the King James Version. Scripture quotations marked (MSG) are taken from THE MESSAGE, copyright © 1993, 2002, 2018 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress, represented by Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NABR) are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, DC, and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are taken from the (NASB®) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. www​.lockman​.org Scripture quotations marked (NET) are taken from the NET Bible® copyright ©1996, 2019 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://​netbible​.com All rights reserved Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www​ .zondervan​.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™ Scripture quotations marked (NJB) are taken from The New Jerusalem Bible. Copyright © 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. Scripture quotations marked (NJPS) are taken from Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Copyright © 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society. Scripture quotations marked (NKJV) are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (REB) are taken from the Revised English Bible, copyright © Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press 1989. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (TEV) taken from Today’s English Version. Copyright © American Bible Society 1966, 1971, 1976, 1992. Scripture quotations marked (VOICE) are taken from The Voice™. Copyright © 2012 by Ecclesia Bible Society. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Cover image: Prisoners playing lyres, Assyrian, about 700-692 BCE, from the Lachish Relief, British Museum / Photograph by Mike Peel. Cover design: Joe Reinke Print ISBN: 978-­0-­8006-­9951-­2 eISBN: 978-­1-­4514-­6528-­0

To our mentors, Robert R. Wilson S. Dean McBride, Jr. “Appoint for yourself a teacher, and acquire for yourself a friend, and judge all with the scale weighted in their favor” (Pirkei Avot 1:6).

Contents List of Figures, Tables, and Maps

xiii

List of Sidebars

xvii

Preface xix Acknowledgments xxv Abbreviations xxvii Chart: Kings and Prophets in Israel and Judah

xxxiii

Part I. Approaching Ancient Israel’s Prophets 1. Introduction to the Prophetic Writings Prophecy’s Place within the Biblical Canon Prophets as Interpreters of Written Divine Revelation Tales and Legends of the Prophets Prophetic Legends as Hagiography The Writing Prophets as Literary Constructs 2. The Historical Setting of the Israelite Prophets Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East The Theologies and Roles of Israelite Prophets in the Eighth Century Prophecy against the Backdrop of Assyrian Imperial Development Prophecy during the Crisis of Assyrian Expansion The Decline of Assyria and the Reforms of King Josiah The Rise of Babylonia and the Rise of Written Scripture The Final Decades of Judah and Jerusalem’s Destruction The Exilic Era Israelite Prophecy in the Early Persian Period Prophecy in Mid-­Fifth-­Century Yehud

3 4 8 9 12 20 29 30 34 36 40 48 53 55 63 66 71

Part II. The Prophetic Literature 3. Isaiah Introduction First Isaiah (Isaiah 1–­39) Second Isaiah (40–­55) Third Isaiah (56–­66) The Isaianic Apocalypse (24–­27) Reading Isaiah as a Book 4. Jeremiah Preliminary Remarks on the Nature of the Materials within the Scroll The Prophet Jeremiah The Text of Jeremiah Themes and Theology of the Jeremiah Scroll Final Reflections: The Death and Life of Jeremiah 5. Ezekiel Introduction Social, Historical, and Ritual Background Literary Character Theological Issues The Prophecies of Ezekiel 6. Hosea Introduction Hosea: A Theological Portrait The Hosea Scroll Hosea 14:9: A Final Reflection 7. Joel Introduction Social, Historical, and Ritual Background Literary Character Theological Issues

81 81 84 102 114 120 125 135 136 139 156 171 183 191 191 193 198 201 208 245 245 247 255 275 281 281 284 291 297

8. Amos Opening Reflections The Prophet Amos The Scroll of Amos Closing Reflections 9. Obadiah

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

303 303 305 311 334 339

The Historical Setting of Obadiah The Text of Obadiah

339 342

Jonah

355

Introduction Jonah’s Setting Literary Issues Theological Issues

355 357 360 363

Micah

373

Micah of Moresheth The Scroll of Micah Conclusion

374 378 393

Nahum

395

Historical Setting Literary Issues Theological Issues

395 396 399

Habakkuk

411

Historical and Sociological Background Habakkuk’s Literary Structure and Character The Content of Habakkuk’s Prophecies

413 416 418

Zephaniah

433

Introduction Historical and Literary Issues The Scroll of Zephaniah In Summation

433 435 437 445

15.

16.

17.

18.

Haggai

449

Introduction Haggai’s Setting Theological Issues

449 451 455

Zechariah

469

Historical and Sociological Background Zechariah’s Structure and History of Composition The Content of Zechariah’s Prophecies

469 473 476

Malachi

495

Introduction Historical and Social Setting The Traditions and Texts behind Malachi’s Prophecies The Content of Malachi’s Prophecies

495 497 499 501

Daniel

511

Introduction Daniel as an Apocalypse Historical Setting Literary Features The Message of Daniel

511 514 516 523 526

Glossary 549 Image Credits

561

Author Index

567

Figures, Tables, and Maps

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Abimelech Rebukes Abraham Elijah Fed by the Raven Jonah and the Whale The Prophet Micah Exhorts the Israelites to Repent Detail from the Kurkh Stela Detail from the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Cast of Jeroboam seal Conquest of the city of Ashteroth-­Karnaim Hezekiah’s tunnel Map of Sennacherib invading Judah The Taylor Prism Map of the Neo-­Babylonian Empire Chart showing King Josiah and his sons Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem Al-­Yahudu tablet The Prophet Isaiah fresco The Great Isaiah Scroll The signet of King Ahaz Hezekiah clay bulla The Tell Dan stele The Cyrus Cylinder Babylonian Cylinder: Marduk slaying Tiamat The Destruction of Leviathan

xiii

FIGURES, TABLES, AND MAPS

4.1 The Prophet Jeremiah 4.2 Josiah hears the book of the law 4.3 Aerial view of Tel Megiddo 4.4 Clay bullae inscribed “Gedalyahu servant of the king” 4.5 Jeremiah prophesies wearing a yoke 4.6 Code of Hammurabi stele 5.1 Michelangelo’s Ezekiel 5.2 Map of the Babylonian settlement along the Chebar River 5.3 Wall relief depicting the god Ashur 5.4 Four elements of Ezekiel’s throne-­chariot 5.5 The Flammarion engraving 5.6 Babylonian map of the world 5.7 Stele from Bethsaida 5.8 Ta’anach terra-­cotta offering stand 5.9 Drawing of King Hezekiah’s seal impression 5.10 The Egyptian “ba” 5.11 The Dirty Bride 5.12 The Death of Ezekiel’s Wife 5.13 Ammit the Devourer 5.14 The Bones Come Alive 5.15 Rendering of Gudea of Lagash 6.1 The Prophet Hosea 6.2 Bull stele at et-­Tell 6.3 Baal stele found at Ugarit 6.4 Alabaster bas-­relief of Sargon II 7.1 Fresco of the prophet Joel 7.2 Swarming locusts illustration 7.3 Locust detail from the grave chamber of Horemhab 7.4 Gog and Magog 7.5 Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares (Isaiah 2:4) 8.1 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial 8.2 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 846 8.3 Script of the Yavne-­Yam ostracon 8.4 The judgment of the prophet Amos against Amaziah

xiv

FIGURES, TABLES, AND MAPS

9.1 Edomite worshipping warrior from Qitmit 9.2 Basalt stele of Babylonian king Nabonidus 9.3 The fortress of Sela in Edom 10.1 The Prophet Jonah and the Fish 10.2 Jonah’s Wrath over Nineveh woodcut 10.3 Jonah and the Whale 10.4 Jonah sarcophagus 11.1 Micah prophesies before three men 11.2 After the Fall of Lachish 11.3 The Prophet Micah Exhorts the Israelites to Repent 12.1 Siege of Lachish 12.2 Ishtar, Queen of the Night 12.3 Lachish siege engine 13.1 The Habakkuk Commentary 13.2 Map of Assyria, Babylon, and Armenia 13.3 Baal with a thunderbolt 14.1 The Prophet Zephaniah 14.2 Hezekiah’s “Broad Wall” 15.1 The Rebuilding of the Temple Is Begun 15.2 The Darius seal 15.3 Gudea Cylinders B and A 16.1 Elephantine papyri letter 16.2 Zechariah’s vision 16.3 The Brazen Sea 16.4 Gabriel Revelation stone 17.1 The Prophet Malachi 17.2 Darius the Great at Behistun 18.1 The Prophet Daniel 18.2 Map of the Greek Empire 18.3 Bust of Antiochus IV Epiphanes 18.4 The Accusation of Susanna by the Elders 18.5 Fiery Furnace 18.6 Nebuchadnezzar 18.7 Belshazzar’s Feast

xv

Sidebars

1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3

Elijah Fed by the Raven The Messenger Formula Major Female Prophets in Scripture Kings Cited in the Superscripts of the Prophets of the Book of the Four 2.4 Apocalyptic Prophecy 2.5 Jonah and Canonical Hermeneutics: A Test Probe 3.1 Hezekiah’s Tunnel 3.2 Immanuel in Isaiah’s Canonical Shape and in the New Testament 3.3 “The Destruction of Sennacherib” 4.1 Terms for Deuteronomistic Traditions 4.2 Jeremiah Chronology 4.3 The Family Tree of Scribe Shaphan 4.4 How MT and LXX Versions of Jeremiah Differ Structurally 4.5 The Masoretes 4.6 An Outline of the Jeremiah Scroll 4.7 The Stele of Hammurabi 5.1 The Structure of Ezekiel 6.1 Hosea and the Dynasties of Israel 6.2 Baal 6.3 Outline of the Hosea Scroll 7.1 The Structure of Joel

xvii

SIDEBARS

7.2 The Day of the Lord in Biblical Prophecy 7.3 The Phenomenon of Antitypes in Apocalypticism 8.1 Outline of the Scroll of Amos 8.2 Table Detailing Amos’s Oracles against the Nations 8.3 The Yavneh Yam Letter 9.1 The Structure of Obadiah 9.2 Edom in the Old Testament 10.1 The Structure of Jonah 10.2 Nineveh 10.3 The Structure of the Psalm in Jonah 2 11.1 Outline of Micah 11.2 The Fall of Lachish 11.3 Expansions to the Micah Text 12.1 Nineveh as Ishtar 12.2 The Structure of Nahum 12.3 The Acrostic Poem 13.1 The Structure of Habakkuk 13.2 Heschel and Niebuhr on the Prophet’s Understanding of Human History 14.1 Outline of the Scroll of Zephaniah 15.1 Social and Economic Conditions in Palestine in the Early Persian Period 15.2 The Structure of Haggai 16.1 Outline of Zechariah 17.1 The Structure of Malachi 18.1 Son of Man

xviii

Preface

In a very real sense, this book began on the banks of the River Chebar (see Ezek 1:1). This is because its three authors, Stephen Cook, John Strong, and Steven Tuell (hereafter we will refer to ourselves using a very “unroyal” first-­person plural pronoun), developed a very close professional and personal relationship, working together over the past couple of decades in the Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel seminar, a continuing section in the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. We are “Ezekiel people.” With the River Chebar as our meeting place and the Ezekiel seminar as our shared workplace, the three of us recognized and developed a common interest in two important qualities that appear throughout this volume on Israel’s prophets: ancient time and distant space. What brought us together as Ezekiel scholars is not that we agree about an ancient eccentric priest-­prophet (we don’t!), or about Israel’s prophets in general (perhaps, at times, and on certain points), but that we all care about hearing ancient, distant voices that are not our own. We are time travelers. We travel in order to hear the voices of ancient theologians—­Israel’s prophets. We strive to eavesdrop on their debates. We sit quietly at their feet as they explain how they construct their world and society. We lean in close as we try to understand their myths and mysteries. We grow silent at their brilliance. At times, we are shocked and saddened by the cruelty that they endured—­and sometimes perpetrated. The Hebrew Bible is our time machine. With

xix

PREFACE

this volume, we hope to open the hatch to our “TARDIS,” and we invite the reader to join us on a journey to the past, a journey that can be sometimes troubling, often fascinating, but always presents to our ears voices that are radically different from those that fill today’s airwaves. We are aware of important trends in the current study of the prophets, which view with skepticism the ability to travel back in time and the possibility of hearing the voices of Hosea, Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest of ancient Israel’s theologians. In his recent volume, Martti Nissinen has argued that the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible do not preserve the performances and pronouncements of Israel’s prophets but rather are the literary productions of scribes working in the Second Temple period.1 For Nissinen, the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible are the least reliable of the three prophetic heritages—­Greek, Near East, and Israelite—­since they were handled and developed centuries after the events they address. The prophets we meet in the texts, according to Nissinen, are literary characters. Our principal inquiry should be the Second Temple period scribal construct of prophecy. In their efforts to perpetuate the prophetic tradition, Nissinen says, these scribes became something akin to diviners, as they manipulated (i.e., interpreted) the texts they inherited, with their resulting product being scribal divination. While we acknowledge the caution expressed by Nissinen, we are far less skeptical than he and other colleagues who share his view. The engine that drives our time machine, to continue the metaphor, is the historical-­critical process and the results its practitioners have published in the past few centuries. We concede that the final form of the texts left to modern readers is the product of scribes and educated elites working in the Second Temple period. Yet while these later scribes have layered the texts, adding their theological insights to those they treasured, we contend that they did not bury the original prophetic voices but intentionally—­reverentially, even—­left the words of their prophetic ancestors intact and accessible. We remain confident, in the face of others’ skepticism, in the historical-­critical process that powers us back in time, allowing us to cock our ears in the direction of

xx

PREFACE

Hosea and Amos and all the rest. At the same time, we remain attentive to as many approaches and methods as we find illuminating of each prophet’s unique texts, including giving attention to literary artistry, to the holistic and canonical form of Scripture, and to the history of the interpretation and the contemporary impact of the prophets. We owe our interest in the voices of the historical prophets to Robert R. Wilson (mentor to Stephen Cook) and S. Dean McBride Jr. (mentor to John Strong and Steven Tuell). Our presentations in this volume reflect the foundational work of Wilson’s Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, which we hold to be a classic and mandatory reading for the serious study of the prophets. In this work, Wilson expresses his own appreciation for the contributions of McBride, who was also his teacher and colleague (see pp. x, xii, 17, 233, 245). Wilson brought modern readers to the audiences of the ancient prophets, who worked as spokespersons for support groups that held to and advocated for specific, identifiable theological traditions. The prophets moved into, out of, and around the power centers and social peripheries of Israelite and Judahite societies. For his part, McBride has modeled for us the vital connection between uncompromising critical scholarship and vibrantly authentic theological expression. In his own words, “If there is to be a genuine dialogue between the Word of God and the church, mediated through faithful, engaged interpretation of the Scriptures, they must be allowed to speak in their own voices and distinctive theological accents, especially since what they have to say to us is not always what we want or expect to hear.”2 Readers of the present volume will recognize the influence of these two scholars, and it is with deeply held gratitude that we dedicate this volume to our teachers, who first guided us back in time, allowing us to hear the voices of these ancient theologians. Our trust in the historical value of the texts has shaped the chapters in this volume, which, generally speaking, follow a common outline. Each begins with an initial presentation and examination of important issues regarding the prophetic book, including especially a discussion of the historical and sociological setting. A discussion of the text

xxi

PREFACE

follows, attentive to everything from literary and poetic considerations to canonical shaping and the history of the text’s effects on history, religion, and the arts. This discussion will highlight major features that serve to shape the text while also interpreting particular passages or sections. We have attempted to alert the reader to the breadth of the most important scholarly views on any given issue. Ultimately, though, our objective is to open the text to our readers so that they too can hear the voices of Israel’s ancient theologians across the span of time and space. This introduction is a collaboration, not a consensus view. Each of us was assigned certain prophetic texts or introductory matters and tasked with writing initial drafts. These drafts were passed around, and we all read and edited the initial versions and returned them for review and revision. As a result, a variety of styles and variations in character remain in the different chapters. Our individual interests remain emphasized, resulting in a distinctiveness in each chapter, which will be easily observable to our readers. In addition, beyond style and character and interests, the reader should not assume that the final versions represent a consensus unanimously held by all three of us. Perhaps better, the chapters in this book represent an agreed-­upon statement, the product of scholarly compromise. Compromise—­a profanity in some circles of our society today—­means that, although any one of us may be more or less excited about a particular conclusion or interpretation, each of us has agreed to sign his name to it and proudly support the final, published result. “You Ezekiel people . . .” So began the critique by an esteemed colleague of ours after having read an early version of one of the chapters of this book. This colleague, a widely published, important interpreter of prophetic texts, stands closer to the skepticism of Nissinen and is less confident than we are in the ability to hear the voices of the ancient prophets through the texts left to us. But we are “Ezekiel people.” We met and formed our collaboration on the banks of the River Chebar. To us, these texts are time machines, taking us back to listen to Ezekiel address his community of exiles and to hear his prophecies

xxii

PREFACE

continue to speak to exiles returned to their homeland. To listen to Isaiah at the Fuller’s Field, who asks Ahaz to request a sign. And to Jeremiah, taking his stance in the Temple Gate, who commands the priests to amend their ways. And indeed, to listen to much later Jews, Christians, artists, musicians, and hosts of others who wrestle with these ancient words. We are “Ezekiel people.” Here we stand. We can do no other. Stephen L. Cook John T. Strong Steven S. Tuell Notes 1 Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 2 From S. Dean McBride Jr., “The Charter of Christian Faith and Practice,” in Engaging Biblical Authority: Perspectives on the Bible as Scripture, ed. William P. Brown (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 112.

xxiii

Acknowledgments

The authors, as a group, must thank first and foremost our editor at Fortress Press, Scott Tunseth. Scott has been all the things that authors need from an editor: encouraging, clear, organized, and professional. In the case of this particular project, which, among other challenges, was interrupted by the pandemic, Scott has also been patient. Also, we each find that we cannot escape thanking our coauthors. This has been an adventure, one that began with an unexpected invitation from Stephen Cook, our intrepid leader. Best of all, our professional interactions have generated something much more important to us even than this book: three close friends. Individually, we each have been supported by family, friends, and colleagues, who add flavor to our lives both in and out of our studies. Each one of us would like to add our own words of gratitude. Stephen Cook: In addition to my coauthors, my close friends John and Steve, I thank my students for letting me test my ideas on them, and my faculty colleagues, especially Kate Sonderegger, John Yieh, Mark Jefferson, and Judy Fentress-­Williams, whose loyal care I depend on. The staff at our Virginia Theological Seminary library always deserve thanks for their tremendous help. Before Scott Tunseth began his intense, tireless work, Neil Elliott at Fortress Press got this project launched, and I thank him. I ardently wish my mentor, Robert R. Wilson, will feel honored through this volume, which leans so much on his research and ideas. Finally, my part of this dedication would be sorely awry without

xxv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

my celebrating my wife, Catherine, and teenage daughter, Rebecca, my priceless ones. Steven Tuell: In addition to my coauthors John and Steve, I thank my colleagues at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (especially my fellow Bible wonks Dale Allison, Jerome Creach, Tucker Ferda, Edith Humphrey, and Ron Tappy) and the members of Lemadim Olam for stimulating my thinking and challenging my fancies. My mentor and Doktorvater, S. Dean McBride Jr., continues to enliven and inspire everything I write: may light perpetual shine upon you, Dean! I thank my students, in the school and in the church, whose questions continue to take me to new insights into Scripture. Most of all, I thank my darling Wendy, who believes in me even when I do not. John Strong: Throughout my entire career, I have been challenged and encouraged by the scholars who have been a part of the Society of Biblical Literature seminar Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel. Their pushing and prodding show up on the pages of this volume, even in the books other than Ezekiel. I want to thank as well my colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies at Missouri State University who both create and protect the space to do scholarship, even if my scholarship deals with a culture and religions found on the other side of Asia. My coauthors came to be known to me as a collective, “Steve and Steve.” My wife, Elizabeth, asked me nearly every evening at dinner for the duration of this project, “So did you work on the Steve and Steve book today?” Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you most of all.

xxvi

Abbreviations

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

ABS

Archaeology and Biblical Studies

Alter

Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. 3 vols. New York: Norton, 2019.

ANEP

The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed., edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed., edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

AYB

Anchor Yale Bible

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BDB

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1939.

BHS

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

xxvii

ABBREVIATIONS

BibEnc

Biblical Encyclopedia

BN

Biblische Notizen

BRM

Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. Edited by Albert T. Clay. Privately printed in New York, 1912.

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

C. Ap. Josephus, Contra Apionem CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CHANE

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East

COS

The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997.

CTA

Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-­Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Edited by Andrée Herdner. Paris: Geuthner, 1963.

CW

Collected Works of C. G. (Carl Gustav) Jung. Edited by Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler. Bollingen series 20. 20 vols. New York: Pantheon, 1953.

DDD

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed., edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1995. 2nd rev. ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

EANEC

Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations

Ecl. proph. Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

HALOT

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J.

xxviii

ABBREVIATIONS

Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–­99. HBAI

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel

HBC

Harper’s Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. Edited by James L. Mays et al. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2000.

HCOT

Historical Commentary on the Old Testament

HDR

Harvard Dissertations in Religion

Hist. Herodotus, Historiae HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HTS

Harvard Theological Studies

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

IBC

Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

IDBSup

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

Int

Interpretation

IRT

Issues in Religion and Theology

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

KEH

Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T. (Alten Testament)

xxix

ABBREVIATIONS

KTU

Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Münster: Ugarit-­Verlag, 2013. 3rd enl. ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Münster: Ugarit-­Verlag, 1995 (= CTU).

KUB

Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Berlin: Akademie, 1921–­

LHBOTS

Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies

MT

Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible

NIBCOT

New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDB

New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–­2009.

NIVAC

New International Version Application Commentary Series

OTE

Old Testament Essays

OTL

Old Testament Library

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLRBS

Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study

SBLSS

Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SBLStBL

Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature

SO

Symbolae Osloenses

TDOT

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-­ Josef Fabry. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1974–­2006.

xxx

ABBREVIATIONS

ThStKr

Theologische Studien und Kritiken

VAB

Vorderasiatische Bibliothek

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WAW

Writings from the Ancient World

WO

Die Welt des Orients

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

* Additional journal abbreviations can be found in The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

Modern English Bible Translations BBE

Bible in Basic English (S. H. Hooke)

CEB

Common English Bible (Abingdon)

ESV

English Standard Version (Crossway)

GNT

Good News Translation (American Bible Society)

ISV

International Standard Version (Davidson)

KJV

King James Version (Queen’s Printer, Cambridge University Press)

MSG

The Message (Eugene Peterson)

NABR

New American Bible, Revised (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine)

NASB

New American Standard Bible (Lockman)

NET

New English Translation (Bible​.org)

NIV

New International Version (Zondervan)

NJB

New Jerusalem Bible (Darton, Longman & Todd; and Doubleday)

xxxi

ABBREVIATIONS

NJPS

Tanakh ( Jewish Publication Society)

NKJV

New Kings James Version (Thomas Nelson)

NLT

New Living Translation (Tyndale)

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version (National Council of the Churches of Christ)

REB

Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press)

TEV

Today’s English Version (American Bible Society)

VOICE

The Voice Bible (Thomas Nelson)

xxxii

Chart: Kings and Prophets in Israel and Judah

Many of the dates provided are approximations.

The Divided Kingdom Israel

Judah

Elijah early ninth century Elisha late ninth century Amos 750–­740 (730) Hosea 750–­720

Micah latter half eighth century Isaiah of Jerusalem 742–701 Zephaniah 650–­630 Nahum 640–­630 Jeremiah 627–­587/6 Habakkuk 609–­605 Ezekiel 595–­570 Obadiah 586–­580 Second Isaiah 540–­530

After the Return from Exile Haggai 522–­520 Zechariah 520–­518 Malachi c. 450 Joel after 445 Jonah (character lived in eighth century); book composed in fifth century Third Isaiah 500–­400 Daniel (character lived sixth century); book composed 170–­160

xxxiii

PART I

Approaching Ancient Israel’s Prophets

1

Introduction to the Prophetic Writings

Defining biblical “prophecy” is not as easy as consulting an English dictionary. Definitions of prophecies as “predictions of things to come” too often conjure images of fortune-­telling or clairvoyants’ oracles. Other definitions along the lines of “inspired revelations of God” are too broad, fitting the words of sages, lawgivers, and mystics as well as prophets. With some simple concordance work, however, we may begin to grasp the idea of prophecy in an ancient biblical context. Such work clarifies that Hebrew prophecy involves intermediation between God and the community and interacting about revelation with an audience.1 It entails messages of God conveyed to people by servant-­agents who strategically direct history. The eighth-­century intermediary Hosea, for one, had an elevated view of the role of prophets. For him, they steered history on God’s behalf, insisting on requisite course changes. In Hosea 12:12–­13 (in the Hebrew text, 12:13–­14),2 the prophet declares it insufficient for the people of God merely to cling to their identity as descendants of Jacob/Israel: Jacob fled to the land of Aram, there Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he guarded sheep.

3

THE PROPHETS

By a prophet the Lord brought Israel up from Egypt, and by a prophet he was guarded. Certainly, father Jacob was cunning and successful, making it big as a pastor of sheep (12:12). The ones to whom attention should be paid, however, are the prophets, more important kinds of “pastors.” God used the prophets to form the people’s real identity. The prophets pastored Israel, leading the people out of slavery in Egypt and steering them into a life as God’s “flock” (12:13 [14]). Alongside the historical existence of prophetic intermediation in Israel and in its broader milieu, there arose a literary phenomenon of prophecy. Prophetic literature is most familiar to us through its significant canonical deposits within Jewish and Christian Scripture. This biblical prophetic literature differs from the socioreligious phenomenon of prophecy in significant respects. Indeed, its connection to named prophetic figures of the Hebrew Bible and of history is often complex. So also, the prophetic books often include not only various types of mediatory speech but also headings, biographical narratives, prayers, “confessions,” and more. Isaiah’s book contains material stemming from the eighth-­century intermediary Isaiah, active in Jerusalem, but also from two succeeding centuries of prophecy. Jeremiah’s book includes three key categories of material, including biographical material, the historicity of which is a matter of debate. Prophecy’s Place within the Biblical Canon In Judaism, prophecy is the second member of three great biblical divisions. The divisions consist of the Torah (the “Pentateuch,” sometimes called the “Law”), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim; Job, Psalms, and many other great literary works). The acronym “TaNaK,” the Jewish name for the Hebrew Bible, is a one-­word combination of Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim. The category “Nevi’im” may initially be confusing to non-­Jews in that it encompasses what Christians think of as not only the prophetic

4

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

books but also the historical books—­that is, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. In Judaism, this subsection is known as the “Former Prophets,” and it contains the well-­known stories of the wonder-­working prophets Elijah and Elisha. Joshua through 2 Kings tells of other fascinating prophets as well, such as the powerful “man of God” (ʾîš ʾĕlōhîm) of 1 Kings 13 (see also 2 Kgs 23:16–­18), Micaiah ben Imlah (1 Kgs 22:7–­28), and women such as Deborah ( Judg 4:4) and Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14). In terms of overall genre, though, these books that are often about prophets are not themselves prophecy but narrative, theological “history.” As one may intuit, since there are “Former Prophets,” there are also “Latter Prophets.” The Latter Prophets subsection of the Nevi’im contains the books most Christian readers associate with prophecy: the fifteen books from Isaiah to Malachi. There are the three “Major Prophets” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) and twelve “Minor Prophets” (“minor” because their books are relatively brief and all fit on one ancient scroll).3 In Jewish and early Christian tradition, this scroll is named the “Book of the Twelve.” The Twelve include Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The order of presentation of the books is not fully obvious, although several of the Twelve do appear in rough chronological succession. Where possible, we will discuss issues of canonical placement of the individual prophetic books in our detailed treatments of each of them below. Notably, the Tanak places the book of Daniel among the Ketuvim/ Writings, not the Nevi’im/Prophets. This may be because Daniel seems to have emerged as a complete work relatively late in the process of the Bible’s formation (in the Greek era, after Alexander’s conquests). Modern scholars tend to see Daniel’s separation from the Nevi’im as a helpful reminder that the book is an apocalypse, not a work of classical prophecy. Did the ancient preservers and editors of the biblical corpus have a sense of this as well? Whatever the case, we include the treatment of Daniel’s book below, where we discuss its similarities and differences compared to classical prophetic intermediation.

5

THE PROPHETS

The Ketuvim/Writings contain prophetic figures and, indeed, prophetic literature. Beyond Daniel, who is called a “prophet” in Matthew 24:15, consider, for example, the prophetic oracle of rebuke in Psalm 50, the several prophets whom 2 Chronicles describes confronting Israelite kings (e.g., 2 Chr 12:5; 15:1–­2; 16:7; 19:2), and the appearance of expressions of Jeremiah at the beginning, middle, and end of Lamentations (Lam 1:18 [Jer 12:1]; 3:28 [Jer 15:17]; 3:31 [Jer 31:37]; 5:22 [Jer 14:19]). Just so, the Torah/Pentateuch contains important references to prophets and prophecy. Within the Torah/Pentateuch, the first figure to be identified as a “prophet” (nābîʾ ) is Abraham (Gen 20:7). He is the great founder and the ancestor (through his grandson Jacob/Israel) of God’s people. In context, God terms Abraham a prophet by virtue of his efficacy as an intermediary between God and the king of Gerar. That the specific intermediation gift at issue is Abraham’s power to invoke God’s healing is notable in light of the probable original meaning of nābîʾ as “one who

Figure 1.1 Abimelech Rebukes Abraham by Wencelaus Hollar (1607–­77 CE).

6

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

invokes a god.” Abraham earlier showed himself a feisty intermediary on behalf of all possibly innocent residents of Sodom, for whom Abraham vigorously interceded with God in Genesis 18. Moses and his sister, Miriam, are—­like Abraham—­key prophets within the Torah. One of the Bible’s main streams of tradition, that associated with Deuteronomy, specifically makes Moses the gold standard of all prophecy. Indeed, God promises Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18–­19 that for each new generation, “I will raise up . . . a prophet like you from among their kindred, and will put my words into the mouth of the prophet; the prophet shall tell them all that I command. Anyone who will not listen to my words which the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will hold accountable” (NABR). If one keeps alert for allusions, such Mosaic successors are not hard to spot (e.g., Josh 5:15; Judg 6:16; 1 Kgs 19:8–­9; 2 Kgs 2:8; Jer 1:9; Hag 1:13). Later, in Deuteronomy 34:10, God declares Moses unsurpassed among all prophets: “Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses—­whom the Lord singled out, face to face” (NJPS). And Moses’s unrivaled status as intermediary between God and Israel is known across the Scriptures, as is plain from texts such as Exodus 33:11 (E), Numbers 12:6–­8 (E), Psalm 106:23, Hosea 12:13, and Malachi 4:4.4 The “Song of Miriam” in Exodus 15:20–­21 speaks of Miriam as a prophet (v. 20; nĕbîʾâ, the feminine form of nābîʾ ). Scholars sometimes assume that the song, a celebration of the Red Sea crossing, is her prophecy, but this seems doubtful. Her poetry sung on this occasion fits squarely within Israel’s standard victory-­song tradition and has no obvious connection with prophetic intermediation. Miriam’s prophetic role (cited also in Mic 6:4) is clearest in the conflict that she and Aaron have with their brother, Moses, in Numbers 12. Here Miriam and Aaron claim that they, alongside Moses, are also intermediaries through whom God speaks. In intervening in the dispute, God explains that although revelation does come to prophets such as Miriam, unique perspicuity and authority characterize God’s communications with the Mosaic prophet (just discussed; see Deut 18:18–­19). Esther J. Hamori explains how Numbers 12 is thus much more affirming of Miriam as a prophet than readers generally conclude:

7

THE PROPHETS

It is not surprising that the tradition favors Moses; what is surprising, what is so unusual that we should sit up and take notice, is that in a story framed as prophetic conflict between these two, the tradition also acknowledges the legitimacy of Miriam’s role as a prophet of Yahweh, whose authority is diminished only in comparison to the unsurpassed authority of Moses. Where the biblical tradition would usually portray the one opposing the favored prophet as a false prophet (even in the case of a prophet of Yahweh, as in Jeremiah 28), Numbers 12 uses the very validity of Miriam’s claim to prophetic status as the way to establish that Moses’s claim to divine access lies even beyond prophecy.5

Prophets as Interpreters of Written Divine Revelation Ellen Davis defends a new approach to the biblical prophets that emphasizes their place in the rise of written Scripture.6 Davis outlines a modern view that takes the prophets as speakers of truth to power. A newer model goes in a different direction, shifting the focus to prophets as interpreters of God’s written word. Both models have weaknesses, but the newer one is suggestive for readers searching for ways to appropriate the prophetic witness today. In an unusual move, Davis begins her discussion of biblical prophecy with the figure of Huldah, a female intermediary who played a pivotal role in the reforms of King Josiah of Judah in the 620s BCE. When God’s covenant scroll is rediscovered in Jerusalem, the king is aghast at how far short of the book’s instructions Judah has fallen (2 Kgs 22:10–­11). At Josiah’s bidding, his advisors seek out prophetic advice, going straight to the key prophet of Mosaic standing at the time, Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14). Much of what Huldah does is notable. She follows the Mosaic example of being a model teacher of Torah’s meaning (see Exod 4:12; Deut 18:18; 31:19; 1 Sam 12:23). She deals with God’s written word, recognizing how it speaks here and now (Deut 31:9–­13; 2 Kgs 22:16–­20). For at least once, we have here a successful prophet whom a king believes. Huldah and Josiah are able to hear God’s word as spoken against their own people, against themselves. Contemporary readers of Scripture interested in what a modern prophetic role might look like can learn from Huldah’s example.

8

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

Huldah is neither the first nor the last Israelite prophet to function as a bearer and teacher of God’s Torah/covenant instruction. This is significant because a key assumption of modernist biblical study has been that the traditional view of prophets as tradents and enforcers of covenantal law is false. Since the founding work of Wellhausen, many critics have held that, contrary to the traditional biblical picture, prophecy preceded the biblical law codes, is not beholden to them, and is generally spiritually superior to them.7 Over a century before Huldah’s recognition of the authoritative status of Torah/law, a tradition of law was already of great import in the prophetic work of Hosea. For example, Hosea 8:12 describes the written Torah as something with which Israel should be familiar. Unfortunately, it is not. The VOICE paraphrase captures the prophet’s satirical tone aptly: “It wouldn’t matter how many copies of My law I wrote for him [Ephraim, the northern kingdom]; he’d treat them all as something strange and foreign.” In the decades after Josiah’s reform, Jeremiah, like Hosea and Huldah before him, performs the Levitical role of expositing fixed, authoritative Torah. In Jeremiah 34:14, for example, he recites Deuteronomy’s law of manumission (Deut 15:1–­18) to King Zedekiah. As Mark Leuchter writes, “Jeremiah overtly places himself in line with Levitical archetypes such as Samuel and Moses ( Jer. 15:1). . . . Additional connections may be seen between Jeremiah 11 and the Levitical ceremony in Deuteronomy 27 . . . and Jer[emiah] 7:2 situates the prophet ‘in the gate,’ precisely where Deuteronomy repeatedly locates Levites.”8 Tales and Legends of the Prophets It is not through the archived oracles and divine communications of the Latter Prophets that we come to encounter the earliest Hebrew intermediaries of Scripture. It is through engaging, wondrous tales that we meet the biblical prophets appearing prior to the great eighth-­century figures of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Isaiah (figures with their own prophetic books, sometimes called “the Writing Prophets”). Not through

9

THE PROPHETS

extended prophecies announced in the first person but through skillfully narrated prophetic stories do we learn about figures such as Nathan, Elijah, and Elisha. We encounter the so-­called Former Prophets through intriguing episodes about their missions and exploits. Prophets were called by various names or labels at different times in Israel, as we gather, for example, in reading 1 Samuel 9:9–­10. Those verses name the “seer” (rōʾê), the “prophet” (nābîʾ ), and the “man of God” (ʾîš ʾĕlōhîm). Different tradition streams and sections of the Hebrew Bible sometimes use these and other titles in differing ways. Also, sometimes the intermediary bearing a given role label is not even named, such as in the case of the “man of God” (ʾîš ʾĕlōhîm) of 1 Kings 13. “Man of God” is a role label common in the Former Prophets (but see also 1 Chr 23:14; 2 Chr 8:14; 11:2; 25:7, 9; Neh 12:24, 36). It designates an intermediary who wields divine power in astounding ways (e.g., 1 Sam 2:27; 1 Kgs 12:22; 13:1; 17:18; 20:28; 2 Kgs 4:7; 13:19).9 These figures are legendary “holy men,” a label that sometimes refers to Elijah or Elisha but more frequently designates anonymous figures. Scripture embeds most of its stories about Israel’s early prophets within the history collection: the historical books Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (Ruth is among the Writings/Ketuvim in the Tanak). The collection (termed the “Former Prophets” in Judaism, as noted) is known in modern scholarship as the “Deuteronomistic History” (see also pp. 50-53). Though set within Israel’s narrative, the prophetical stories are not a product of critical historiography as we know it today. Though they often probably have roots in actual persons and events, the narratives intend more to edify and inspire readers than to understand the past. Their form—­their genre (Gattung)—­is that of engaging legend. The prophetic “legends” are biographical stories about holy people, or “saints,” told with a relatively developed literary artistry and a definite theological or spiritual sensibility. The Bible also contains some nonprophetic legends, sometimes concerning holy places or sacred ceremonies. Thus the ancient shrine at Bethel has a founding legend, a hieros logos, in Genesis 28:10–­22, accounting for some of the site’s rituals.

10

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

The prophetic legends appearing in the Hebrew Bible may well have been carefully condensed from longer tales. The biographical concern of these legends with the lives and miracles of holy figures stands out in the biblical text. A. Rofé has defended a rather specific characterization of the prophetic legend, describing hagiographic legenda, in their simple form, as usually including a crisis that requires supernatural intervention, a plea to the prophet—­the holy man—­for help, a doubt that the miracle will occur, and a miraculous deliverance.10 Other generic features of the prophetic legend include minimal introductions and conclusions, minimal references to places and names, heavy use of speech and dialogue in propelling the plot, and a full and repetitive style. The miracles within prophetic legends often entail local happenings, not major events of political justice and salvation history. A starving widow is fed (1 Kgs 17:15) or a general cured of disease (2 Kgs 5:14). The legends preserve some historical coloring and biographical information, but rather than being primarily biographical in purpose, they instead reveal the difference between the holy (the numinous, the Other) and the profane (the ordinary). The insistence of prophetic legends on revealing transcendence has alienated more than a few modern readers. By the nineteenth century, people began to greet prophetic wonders with consternation. Doubting the credibility of Elijah’s miracles, never mind the edibility of Jonah (see Jonah 1–­2), they lost faith in a Bible of such improbable tales. Scholars sometimes even strained to rationalize and smooth things over. John Gray, for example, emended the report about God having ravens feed Elijah (1 Kgs 17:2–­6) to make it believable. He adjusted the Hebrew vowels, so that ʿôrĕbîm, “ravens,” instead became ʿarbîm, “Arabs.” Thus Arabs, not ravens, brought Elijah his meals.11 Gray’s conjecture is ingenious, but misguided. First, to rationalize the prophetic legends in this manner—­and Gray does this repeatedly—­is precisely to misapprehend their genre and rob them of their intention. Such stories are supposed to dismay and upset, to dismantle our assured categories for interpreting reality. They invite the reader into a larger,

11

THE PROPHETS

stranger, and holy world, where people bask in God’s grace and behave as God’s servants. Second, to excise the miracle of the ravens from 1 Kings 17 is to excise a key literary link to the Moses traditions. This is a real loss, for it short-­circuits the theological message of Scripture’s holistic shape. Without the links to Moses in place, one immediately loses sight of the great canonical theme of the Mosaic covenant arching through history toward an eschatological fulfillment in the reign of God. The literary cross-­referencing between the legends, Elijah and Elisha, and the earlier work of Moses are literarily and theologically crucial. They shape Moses’s covenantal work as something pushing forward through time toward God’s reign on earth, a reign proleptically anticipated in the wondrous era of Elijah’s and Elisha’s miracles. Interestingly, just as Elijah’s and Elisha’s wonders echo the mighty acts of Moses, the tales of Moses’s miracles in Egypt bear the influence of patterns of prophetic interactions with Israelite kings and their courtiers in the monarchic era. The Torah’s stories of Moses are often prophetic legends, similar to the legends of Elijah. In addition, the typical situation of Samuel and Saul, Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab, as well as of later prophets in relation to their kings, appears to have been extended to Moses and Pharaoh. In the scenes of Moses calling on Pharaoh to obey Yahweh, we can recognize the paradigm of the prophet facing Israel’s king. In the contest of serpents in Exodus 7:8–­13, we can see a mirror of Elijah’s contest with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. Prophetic Legends as Hagiography It may help modern readers in appreciating Rofé’s notion of prophetic legenda to consider the hagiography surrounding bygone holy figures. One such saint is Brigid of County Louth, Ireland, born in 451 CE. Just as Elijah was fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17:6 see fig. 1.2), a white cow with red ears sustained Saint Brigid, who, as a slave girl, always vomited the impure food of her druid master. Just as Elijah’s presence caused a widow’s oil jug to remain full (1 Kgs 17:16), Brigid’s prayers replenished her mother’s store of butter.

12

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

David of Wales, who lived in the mid-­sixth century CE, was likewise a legendary holy saint. David’s powerful deeds included killing and bringing cattle back to life (see 1 Kgs 17:20–­24) and making springs of water well up from nowhere (see 1 Kgs 18:41). Saint Brigid’s staff too was able to make streams burst forth from dry ground. Both Saint

Figure 1.2 Elijah Fed by the Raven by Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo.

13

THE PROPHETS

David and Saint Brigid were able to bless or curse with a gesture or a word (see 1 Kgs 17:1; 2 Kgs 1:10). An even better-­known holy figure is Saint Patrick. He once lost one of his teeth in a river, and no one could find it. As night fell, however, the tooth gave off a luminous glow, so it was visible. A similar phenomenon occurs with Elisha in 2 Kings 6:5–­7,

Sidebar 1.1: Elijah Fed by the Raven The painting (ca. 1510 CE) of Elijah Fed by the Raven is a favorite artwork of many visitors to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. It is by Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo, who lived ca. 1480–­1548 CE. In the upper right-­hand corner of the painting, you can see a raven feeding Elijah, the miracle of 1 Kings 17:4, 6 just noted. The huge black bird seems to have a chunk of bread or a roll in its beak for the prophet. In the background of the painting, on the horizon in the upper left, lie mountains that belong in the Sinai wilderness. It was in the Sinai wilderness that God’s servant Moses proclaimed to Israel God’s miraculous evening and morning provision of food. God’s sustaining of Elijah with food each evening and morning deliberately echoes Exodus 16:8, 12–­15, where God sustains Moses and the people in the Sinai wilderness morning and evening via miracle birds and bread. The legend cycle has just dropped its first clue that Elijah stands squarely in the tradition of “Mosaic prophets” (Deut 18:15–­19, discussed above); his exploits echo Mosaic patterns. Many further such echoes are yet to come. Walsh sees verbal references to the Exodus manna miracle in the story of the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 17:8–­16.12 The words for “cake” and “oil” used in the conversation between Elijah and the widow are the same words used to describe manna in Numbers 11:8: “The taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil” (emphasis ours). The term for “flask”

14

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

(ṣappaḥat; 1 Kgs 17:12, 14, 16) in the narrative echoes the description of manna as flat, round “wafers” (ṣappîḥīt) in Exodus 16:31. Elijah’s face in the Savoldo painting has a reflective intensity. His head is cocked and his right hand appears to cup his ear for listening. Is he merely receiving the divine command to move on to Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:8–­9), or is he already listening to God’s “soft whisper of a voice” (1 Kgs 19:12 TEV)? He does look to be intent on receiving the divine word, aware of the crucial role of God’s verbal, inspired revelation in the progress of salvation history. When Elijah flees to Mount Horeb in Sinai, he will come to “the cave” (the Hebrew has the article, 1 Kgs 19:9), the selfsame cave where Moses hid his face from the Lord and received God’s verbal revelation (Exod 33:21–­22). In the upper left of the Savoldo painting, we see God’s chariot of fire and Elijah’s translation alive into heaven. Below the flaming chariot, there is a group of people by the Jordan River belonging to the same translation scene (2 Kgs 2). Elijah’s successor, Elisha, has probably just taken up the mantle of Elijah that has fallen from the air (2 Kgs 2:13). He will strike the waters of the Jordan River with it, dividing them so that he may cross over (2 Kgs 2:14). Like his master Elijah, Elisha will have the role and power of Moses, the great divider of the Red Sea waters. In each generation, God has a servant who points people to God’s awesome, spine-­tingling reality. In each generation, God uses intermediaries to call people back to discipleship (see Deut 18:15–­19).

where the prophet makes a lost iron ax head float to the surface of the Jordan River. The energy-­laden endowment of the holy man (or woman) is sometimes nonrational, amoral, and unsafe. As in the case with Saint Patrick’s tooth, the holy man of the prophetic legend is endowed with

15

THE PROPHETS

powers that extend beyond personal control and conscious deliberation. Elijah’s cloak retains the power to divide a river independent of his presence (2 Kgs 2:13–­14). In 2 Kings 13:21, touching Elisha’s bones resurrects a corpse. Untethered, self-­propelled otherness may be dangerous, as in the story of Elijah and the bears (2 Kgs 2:23–­24). The story often offends modern readers, who do not realize that its genre does not address the morality (or immorality) of sending bears to maul boys. This genre is about holiness uncorked—­volatile and unstable when in contact with terrestrial life. The bear story has some remarkable dark humor. Readers are meant to grin and chuckle at the flashing forth of an impersonal karma in a bizarre episode of sheer brevity. No wonder the untamed holiness of the story is so volatile, given the wild, wooly conditions on the ground: a luminous shaman prophet is mocked for hairlessness; the choicest figure God can find for the role of holy shaman to Israel is an irritable curmudgeon. This is an unstable, enchanted, carnivalesque world where superbears might be expected to burst on the scene and take out forty-­three able-­bodied ruffians. The legends of Saint Patrick occupy this same symbolic world. His curse could also release the irrational. One time it saw forty-­nine royal soldiers go insane and begin bludgeoning one another to death. Similarly, when a crowd of poor people mocked Saint Brigid’s chastity, her angry curse caused the two eyes of the chief scoffer, a man named Bacene, to burst in his head. Rather than recoil from such tales, we are supposed to sigh and chuckle, as the audience does when water melts the wicked witch in The Wizard of Oz (1939) or when the old “witch” of the village of Tullymore, Lizzie Quinn, is knocked off the cliff in a phone booth in Waking Ned Divine (1998). Such comedic satisfaction, such spirit of carnival, is part of the genre and is never intended for emulation or ethical instruction. Again we ask, why employ this unusual (for us) genre? Accounts such as those of Brigid and Patrick relativize our usual categories and expose the awful wonder and terror of transcendence. They engage the only human sensibility that can perceive the reality of God: the imagination.

16

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

The term imagination as used here has nothing to do with daydreams or fantasies. Instead, it refers to a capacity to expand human perception, to glimpse that which is other, which is transcendent. This capacity places everyday existence into a larger framework, understanding observable and empirical reality as limited and parochial, a piano or cello that is only a part of what could be an orchestra. The prophets of the biblical legends are liminal figures, connecting the worlds of the seen and unseen. Thus, acting partly as a Near Eastern shaman, Elijah appears able to send his soul into the netherworld to track down and drag a boy back to the realm of the living (1 Kgs 17:21; see 2 Kgs 4:34). The holy man can also reveal the Beyond to others. On one occasion in Dothan, Elisha opens the eyes of his young servant, who is terrified when up against an advancing army of Aram. The young man receives a revelation: “And he saw; the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha” (2 Kgs 6:17). Here we have a case of “the illuminated soul gazing with open eyes at realities beyond the sphere of sense.”13 A commonplace notion of scholarship is that the tales of Elijah and Elisha circulated among their followers in order to raise the prestige of the central founding figure. Another common view takes the Elijah and Elisha stories as categorically comparable to various cultures’ tales of shamans and magicians. Neither view is entirely fair. First, form critics have long noted how the emphasis of the prophetic legends is on the power of transcendence, particularly of the divine word, not on the prophet’s prestige. Second, although various cultures do have comparable healers, magicians, and saints, the scriptural tales’ own self-­understanding is that the Israelite “man of God” is not your typical wonder-­working shaman. Something unique is at work in and through him. To illustrate the latter point, consider the encounters of Moses, Elisha, and the man of God from Judah with Pharaoh of Egypt, Naaman of Syria, and the prophet of King Jeroboam. Pharaoh’s personal wonder-­ workers, the magicians of Exodus 8, shrink back from Moses’s plague of gnats, where insects swarm in numinous proportions (Exod 8:19; for

17

THE PROPHETS

Moses as a “man of God,” see Deut 33:1). Encounters with real numinous events confound all human magical projects of mastering existence (see Job 3:8; 41:1). Leprous Naaman boils with anger when Elisha refuses to perform like all other human experts (2 Kgs 5:11). Precisely to show that Elisha’s special talents and training are not at issue, God cures Naaman with the holy man absent. Elisha’s refusal to accept an honorarium is yet more proof that he is not the sort of healer on someone’s payroll (see 2 Kgs 5:26). The biblical writers present Moses, Elijah, and Elisha as singularly unique mouthpieces and intermediaries of God in their respective generations. They understand Elisha’s healing a man of leprous skin disease as an impossible feat associated earlier only with Moses (Num 12:10–­15). Later rabbis considered that to heal a person of leprous skin disease was as hard as raising the dead. And indeed, actual resurrections occur among the wonders of the men of God. Both Elijah and Elisha raise dead corpses to life (1 Kgs 17:19–­24; 2 Kgs 4:32–­37). Even after Elisha’s death, his bones retain the power, by mere contact, to free the dead from Sheol’s imprisonment (2 Kgs 13:21). The tale of the anonymous man of God from Judah in 1 Kings 13 is particularly instructive. Here, the narrative specifically moves the focus off the prophetic figure and any misinterpretation that the story is about the figure’s personal skill and authority. Given the figure’s complete anonymity (see 1 Sam 2:27), we might have guessed that the story’s focus lay elsewhere, specifically on the power of God’s word to persevere. Fascinatingly, as of 1  Kings 13:20–­22, the narrative definitively relates that God’s word abandons “the man of God from Judah,” leaving him doomed and disgraced. Now the divine word comes out from the mouth of an old, previously deceitful northern prophet. In 1 Kings 13:18 we read, “The old prophet said to the man of God, ‘I’m also a prophet like you. A messenger spoke to me with the Lord’s word. . . .’ But the old prophet was lying” (CEB). Two verses later, in verse 20, as they were having a meal together, “the Lord’s word [actually] came to the [old, northern] prophet. . . . ‘The Lord says this: You rebelled against the Lord’s word!’” (13:20–­21 CEB). This strange story

18

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

insists on the freedom of God’s word, irrespective of a prophet’s personal character or his disciples’ concern for his legacy. The Lord’s word sides with neither northern nor southern kingdom, old nor young man, central nor peripheral social position, but can jump from prophet to prophet. Moving briefly to the Nevi’im section of the Tanak, we find a major holy wonder experienced by Jonah. As with Elijah’s stories, with the rise of modernism and modern biblical scholarship, the story of Jonah and his “whale” became a problem. Just as Elijah could not possibly have survived a drought with only the help of ravens, so the prophet Jonah is pretty hard to swallow. Again, however, the point here is not Jonah’s literal “edibility.” The book, rather, uses mythic archetypes and great storytelling to reflect on profound polarities and tensions in human experience and scriptural tradition. One may fight about the historicity of Jonah’s sea monster or pooh-­ pooh the beast as either a fable or a fairy tale. Neither literalism nor dismissal, however, is respectful of the tale. Rather, readers should look

Figure 1.3 Jonah and the Whale by Pieter Lastman (1621).

19

THE PROPHETS

beyond banal, quotidian experience to grasp Jonah’s monster and his aqueous “deep” (the abyss and its tentacles; tĕhôm, Jonah 2:5). An existential antithesis of deep seriousness actually lies behind the mythic images. A primal opposition, observable across cultures, undergirds Jonah’s language juxtaposing temple/Eden/life (2:4) and abyss/tehom/ death (tĕhôm; 2:5). Jonah’s story engages the threat of meaninglessness on one hand and the hope of glory on the other hand, a foundational tension embedded in Scripture’s deep structure. Other holy men across cultures interact with sea monsters. In this, Jonah is not unique. A Celtic saint named Brendan lived a wonderful part of his life on the back of a sea creature. In some tales, Brendan can even make his creature rise from the sea to become an island. A group of monks once celebrated Easter Sunday mass on the monster, even cooking a meal there. Jonah’s miracle of surviving three days in the belly of this sort of monster similarly evokes a holy imagination, but Jonah also has a unique place as an inner-­scriptural “countertradition.” That is, his story is set in dialogue with other Scriptures, thus expanding their meanings and flagging misreadings. Jonah’s book is actually a polished and comedic prophetic legend placed outside of the historical books and within the Book of the Twelve. In its canonical context, the story interacts with Nahum, who also prophesies against the Assyrian Empire. Thus both Jonah and Nahum quote Exodus 34:6–­7 ( Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3) but in quite different ways. The dialogue holds dual truths in tension: Nahum stressing justice and vindication and Jonah stressing God’s radical forgiveness and always surprising grace. Whereas God’s unique election of Israel is forefront in many prophetic books, Jonah juxtaposes the counter truth of God’s nurture of foreign, enemy nations ( Jonah 4:10; see Isa 19:25: “Assyria the work of [God’s] hands”). The Writing Prophets as Literary Constructs The genre of prophetic biography remained significant as written Scripture arose and developed within Israel through the Assyrian and

20

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

Babylonian eras. We have already seen the genre honed and expanded in the book of Jonah, no earlier than the sixth century BCE. In a different manner, Jeremiah, active in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, and other “writing prophets” likewise became literary protagonists within their books. To say that Jeremiah is a literary persona within his book need not mean that a search for his historical profile is futile. We need not conclude with Robert P. Carroll that he is the product of redactors who “created the words and story of Jeremiah ben Hilkiah of Anathoth!”14 In the present context, the point to be stressed is that, aside from all historical inquiries, Jeremiah—­like Jonah—­is a literary character whose story intends to transform readers morally, emotionally, and spiritually and to nourish communities of faith.15 In Jeremiah, the literary figure of the prophet becomes a key medium for the book’s theological message. The book is not primarily interested in this figure as an emotionally and psychologically compelling personality, though Jeremiah certainly is that. Rather, Jeremiah’s literary persona signifies and points to central claims and truths of the work. The prophetic character becomes a paradigm of an intensively God-­molded human being. Timothy Polk aptly describes how the literary persona’s confessional soliloquies (e.g., Jer 18:18–­23; 20:7–­13) reveal “the prophetic compulsion to speak and the anguish that is attendant upon that compulsion, indeed, that is attendant upon the whole complex and unique situation of one specifically commissioned to be God’s prophet, to stand between God and his people and to suffer with and speak for both.”16 The hand of God is heavy upon the character of Jeremiah in this book. Indeed, the literary portrayal of Jeremiah reveals an intense interconnection—­a veritable nexus—­with God. At Jeremiah 6:11, the prophet cries out, “The wrath of the Lord brims up within me, I am weary of holding it in” (NABR). Thus Abraham Heschel sees in Jeremiah a veritable “hypertrophy of sympathy” with God.17 This helps us understand the harsh imprecations of the prophet (e.g., Jer 20:12), in which he calls down divine curses. Jeremiah confronts readers as a literary

21

THE PROPHETS

character uncontrollably engaged with divine pathos. Sometimes we even find him bursting with holy anger, crying out for a divine reckoning that rejects God’s present patient forestalling of judgment (e.g., Jer 12:1–­5). The literary character Jeremiah is famous as “the weeping prophet” of the Scriptures due to his persecution and personal suffering; but what we often do not let sink in is the book’s portrait of the prophet as a mirror of God’s broken heart, a literary representation of God’s inner pain. Jeremiah’s tears embody the weeping of God. Thus in Jeremiah 4:19–­21, it is not Jeremiah’s human weeping that stands out but the burning tears of God: My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain! Oh, the walls of my heart! My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent; for I hear the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war. Disaster overtakes disaster, the whole land is laid waste. Suddenly my tents are destroyed, my curtains in a moment. How long must I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet? Hold on—­a weeping God, writhing in pain? Much older Christian thinking, entrenched in classical Greek thought, wants none of this. Tradition has affirmed the impassibility of God, the conviction that God is invulnerable, unmoved, and fully without emotion. Jeremiah, however, does not know the Greek philosophical tradition. Rather, he introduces us to the Hebrew Bible’s vulnerable God, who cries out over a people bent on doom: “My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain!” ( Jer 4:19). Jeremiah experiences viscerally—­within his own body, through his own heart’s throbbing constrictions—­God’s

22

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

genuine, intense pathos at the judgment descending upon Israel. His guts have him doubled up, tearing him up. With his intense poetry here, the prophet pushes the reader to empathize with God’s pain, to despise human rebellion’s shameful, wrenching effect on God’s throbbing heart. Jeremiah helps readers see how very much God must love them to experience such intense divine pathos in firmly chastising them. Since Jeremiah’s book is now Scripture, his prophetic identity is not merely a problem for historical critics to solve. An approach of historicism is not attuned to prophecy’s literary voice, which bears a theological witness intending to develop virtues and moral capacities in readers. Polk writes, “The text seems intent on showing a self-­in-­ progress, though it does not present the progress in a systematically chronological way. The text is concerned with rendering a unique identity, indeed a uniquely prophetic identity, and with depicting Jeremiah’s enactment of this identity by his self-­constituting language and the exercise of essential human faculties.”18 Elsewhere within the Latter Prophets, the literary character of prophetic figures is even more obvious than in Jeremiah’s case. The book of Zechariah, for example, supplies a straightforwardly literary prophetic persona. Modern scholars generally judge the second half of Zechariah (Deutero-­Zechariah) as a later set of texts than the sixth-­ century BCE Zechariah 1–­8, which arose in a milieu of international calm and Persian benefaction. Zechariah 9–­14 reflects increasing communal tensions and international turbulence at a time when the Greco-­ Persian wars were upturning the world. The authors of Zechariah 9–­14, who understood themselves to bear the true voice (ipsissima vox) of Zechariah, continued to work with the original prophet’s literary character/persona. Although the prophet is named only in the first half, one may argue that the literary protagonist “Zechariah” appears in both halves of the book. In each half, he performs a prophetic symbolic action (Zech 6:9–­15; 11:4–­17). Earlier prophets commonly performed such dramatizations of God’s message, as when Jeremiah wore a clinging loincloth symbolizing God’s clinging love for Israel ( Jer 13:1–­11). Ezekiel’s holding

23

THE PROPHETS

of a prone posture for weeks on end was another symbolic action (Ezek 5), but one more credible as imaginative, hagiographic “legend” than as straight historical recollection. Reports of these prophetic symbolic dramatizations typically begin with God commanding the sign-­act followed by a report of the prophet’s performance and/or an interpretation of the symbolism. Zechariah’s dramatic actions consistently speak to issues of leadership. In Zechariah 6:9–­15, God commands the prophet to collect offerings of silver and gold from three recent exilic returnees, probably priests (v. 14; see Ezra 8:24–­32). He must bring them for refashioning into two diadems (NJPS, NABR: “crowns”; R. Alter: “diadems”) to a fourth priest (see Ezra 8:33–­34), Josiah, at his building or wing (see bayit at Neh 13:8), likely the temple’s treasury and metal-­working area (see bayit in Deut 6:11; Neh 9:25). Josiah was likely the steward of this temple wing.19 He is the son of Zephaniah, a powerful Judean cleric before Jerusalem’s plundering and destruction ( Jer 29:24–­29; 2 Kgs 25:18). That Zechariah carried out God’s instructions is assumed, not reported. The pronouncement that God gives him for high priest Joshua, however, partly interprets the symbolism behind the dramatic public fashioning of two diadems (Zech 6:12–­13). The meaning is that the priests must vigilantly await a royal recipient of the second diadem. They cannot rest with putting on their own diadem and settling into power. They must guard a second diadem (Zech 6:14), signaling a coming Davidic ruler whose coronation will bring God’s reign. The imminence of his advent should keep them morally awake. Zechariah 11:4–­12, 13–­14, 15–­17 presents a parallel set of symbolic actions, composed at a time subsequent to Zechariah’s original career. Here, God again directs the performance of a symbolic action addressing a singular prophetic actor. Again, the props point to wakefulness and vigilance of leadership as the central concern. So too treasure and the temple treasury play a key role. As in Zechariah 6, the text consists mostly of God’s instruction, with no report of execution and little by way of explanation aside from verse 16. A holistic, literary

24

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

reading of the book naturally assumes that “Zechariah” is again the prophetic protagonist, acting again using similar props to convey a follow-­up message. God instructs the prophetic figure to take up shepherding tools (a rod and a staff) since such implements, like the diadems of Zechariah 6, were symbols of leadership at the time (see Ps 78:70–­72; Ezek 34). God’s concerns about leadership are now urgent, given that a profoundly evil leader is on the horizon (Zech 11:16–­17). Perhaps complacent temple priests have lapsed in properly guiding the people. If so, the promptings to wakefulness in Zechariah 6 have gone unheeded. The idea is buttressed by the reappearance from Zechariah 6 of the temple and its treasury hall (Zech 11:13). Zechariah’s casting of treasure into the temple is surely a rebuke of the prophet’s fellow priestly leaders. There is no doubt that the dramatization of verse 13 takes place at the temple, but the reading of “treasury” in the verse is not straightforward. The NRSV, NABR, NJPS, and CEB are following the lead of the Syriac version here. The Hebrew (MT) text probably refers to the temple’s metal-­working area (see the Septuagint; NJB). This translation, which legitimately fits the Hebrew (as in Isa 44:9, 10, 12; Hab 2:18), would present an equally fascinating connection with the smelting of treasure that we saw back in Zechariah 6. Note that the reading of “potter” in the NIV, NLT, and NET is a more common translation of the Hebrew word. A close reading of the use of Zechariah 11:13 in Matthew 27:5–­7 shows that the Gospel writer knew and referenced both translation traditions (Syriac and MT).20 Following the lead of Brevard S. Childs, some scholars argue that, just as Zechariah continues as a literary persona in Deutero-­Zechariah, so Isaiah continues as the prophetic voice in Deutero-­Isaiah. As chapter 3 on Isaiah below argues, Isaiah 1–­39 revolves around a core of eighth-­century prophecies of Isaiah of Jerusalem, whereas Isaiah 40–­55 revolves around the Judeans’ sixth-­century exile in Babylonia. A third division of the book, Isaiah 56–­66, looks to the restoration era after

25

THE PROPHETS

the exile. In a final section of our Isaiah chapter later in this volume, we outline how the present “canonical” form of Isaiah may be read as presenting both sets of prophecies holistically so that the sixty-­six-­ chapter book read as a whole presents a message greater than its individual parts. Isaiah 40 does not present a divine call of a new anonymous prophet of the exile; a “Second Isaiah,” according to Brevard Childs. Rather, a canonical reading sees here a recommissioning of the original literary protagonist “Isaiah” for speaking the “new things” of Isaiah 40–­66. “Isaiah . . . is understood as the proclaimer of both the ‘old things’ of judgment and the ‘new things’ of salvation. The message of the prologue is that, although the prophetic judgment has been fulfilled, Isaiah’s word of future salvation [see, e.g., Isa 12:1] is now about to be accomplished in the new things.”21 Historical critics are clear that Isaiah 12:1 is an addition to Isaiah’s text from a time later than that of the original prophet. Regardless of this finding about Isaiah 12:1 by diachronic analysis, “for the reader of the book as a whole, the reference in 40:1 resonates immediately with its earlier parallel in 12:1.”22 Isaiah’s word of promise in chapter 12, therefore, is precisely “the word of our God” that will “stand forever” that is referenced by Isaiah 40:8. As in the case of Deutero-­ Zechariah, the speaking voice of Deutero-­Isaiah, in a canonical reading, is the selfsame true voice (ipsissima vox) of the prophet that sounds in the book at first. Traditional Judaism rightly recognizes a single scroll of the prophet Isaiah, although (in diachronic, historical terms) modern critics are certainly not wrong to reconstruct two or three books within Isaiah 1–­66. Notes 1 Robert R. Wilson, “Early Israelite Prophecy,” in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 6–­7; originally published in Int 32, no. 1 (1978): 3–­16. 2 Where the versification in the Hebrew text and the Christian Bible differs, the Hebrew will be placed second.

26

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS

3 From the early Christian teacher Augustine (City of God, 18:29), who writes of “the book of the twelve prophets, who are called the minor from the brevity of their writings, as compared with those who are called the greater [maiores] prophets because they published larger volumes.” 4 Since the rise of modern historical criticism in the nineteenth century, scholars have identified source “documents” (strands) that underlie and make up the Pentateuch, currently designated with sigla such as E, J, PT, and HS. The E material is associated with Mosaic and Sinai covenant traditions and is akin to later theology appearing in Deuteronomy, Hosea, and Jeremiah. The methodology of source criticism and its results continue to be energetically researched and debated, of course, with much recent attention centered on a group of scholars referred to as “neodocumentarians.” 5 Esther J. Hamori, Women’s Divination in Biblical Literature: Prophecy, Necromancy, and Other Arts of Knowledge, AYB Reference Library (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), 180. 6 In the initial chapter of her recent book on prophecy. Ellen F. Davis, Biblical Prophecy: Perspectives for Christian Theology, Discipleship, and Ministry, Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014). 7 During a visit to Göttingen, Germany, in the summer of 1867, Julius Wellhausen learned from Albrecht Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf dated the Bible’s books of law later in time than the prophets, overturning all traditional assumptions. Wellhausen later wrote that almost without knowing Graf’s reasons for the hypothesis, he was ready to accept it. It was good news, for Wellhausen held biblical law and all things priestly in little esteem. 8 Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–­45 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 265–­66n19. 9 See Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History, Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 14; David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets, JSOTSup 17 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1981), 41–­43. Petersen additionally argues that in the Elijah and Elisha stories, the “man of God” is a peripheral prophet, operating outside social centers of political and economic power. Low social position does not always apply in the case of Elisha (2 Kgs 6:8–­23; 13:14–­19), but certainly by Amos’s time, the royal center viewed prophetic bands organized around a prophetic holy man as political threats. (See Amos’s defense of himself in Amos 7:14. He is no ben-­nābîʾ, neither one who belongs “to a company of prophets” [NABR] like Elijah’s disciples, nor a “prophet by profession” [NET], one on the Judean court payroll. On the later sense of the text, see William M. Schniedewind, The

27

THE PROPHETS

Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period, JSOTSup 197 [Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1995], 39–­40.) 10 Rofé, Prophetical Stories, 13. 11 John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 338–­39. 12 Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, ed. David W. Cotter, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996), 285. 13 From a sermon of Henry Parry Liddon in 1872, which is included in Ellen F. Davis, Imagination Shaped: Old Testament Preaching in the Anglican Tradition (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995), 219–­30. 14 Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 48. Later in our chapter on Jeremiah (ch. 4), we will interact with Carroll’s views, as well as those expressed in the 2015 collection of essays Jeremiah Invented: Constructions and Deconstructions of Jeremiah, ed. Else K. Holt and Carolyn J. Sharp, LHBOTS 595 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015). 15 It is no erroneous anthropomorphizing claim to say that biblical texts “intend” to bear witness to God and to create and nourish religious communities. Although scriptural texts are incapable of conscious intentions, their literary structure and features and their shaping as Scripture lend them a voice, a relative determinacy, and a critical edge capable of challenging readers. Thus one can legitimately argue about what point a biblical text is “trying” to make. Professors of the Bible can legitimately grade student exegesis papers. 16 Timothy Polk, The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of Self, JSOTSup 32 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1984), 32. 17 Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets, Perennial Classics Edition (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 125. 18 Polk, Prophetic Persona, 57. 19 Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 336; A. Demsky, “The Temple Steward Josiah ben Zephaniah,” IEJ 31 (1981): 100–­103. 20 See the discussion in Steven Shawn Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 210–­14. 21 Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 296–­97. 22 Childs, 297.

28

2

The Historical Setting of the Israelite Prophets

An extended and intricate history of composition for many of Scripture’s prophetic books complicates the task of placing Israel’s written prophecies in context. Some of the prophecies in Amos’s and Hosea’s books, for example, aim not at the prophets’ original audiences in the northern kingdom but at Judean society after the fall of the North (see Amos 2:4–­5; 9:11–­12; Hos 1:7; 3:5). In the case of Jonah’s book, there is a substantial gap between the context in which Scripture places the prophet’s escapades and the actual historical context in which the comedic book itself emerged. According to 2 Kings 14:25, Jonah, a figure of history, lived in the Assyrian era of the mid-­eighth century BCE. Modern scholarship, however, dates our book of tales about Jonah no earlier than the sixth century and perhaps as late as 430 BCE. This means that readers and interpreters must generally be prepared to reckon with biblical prophecy having several—­even multiple!—­ contexts of understanding. Usually, there is at least the narrative context in which the book sets the prophet’s words and deeds; there is the social and historical context of the prophetic word’s first hearers and the first readers of its written form as a scroll; and there is the modern,

29

THE PROPHETS

contemporary context in which readers today interact with a canonical book of Scripture. Prophecies often continued rich with meaning long after their first, original emergence and application. Communities of faith continued to hear God’s word through them. We will present a good example of this in discussing the “Book of the Four”—­an early edition of the Minor Prophets including Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah—­later in this chapter. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Another important context for understanding Israelite prophecy is the broader ancient Near Eastern cultural matrix out of which Israelite prophecy emerged and over against which the biblical prophets must be seen. In the following paragraphs, we will swiftly survey prophet-­ like phenomena in the major cultures surrounding ancient Israel. Egypt “The Report of Wenamon” (from 1060 BCE) records how the Egyptian god Amon “seized” a great seer in the court of the prince of Byblos, a city in Phoenicia. The god drew the seer into an ecstatic state, and he commanded that the prince treat the Egyptian envoy of the god, Wenamon, with respect.1 Biblical texts echo the idea of the spontaneous possession of intermediaries by a god (e.g., 1 Sam 10:5–­6, 9–­13; 1 Chr 12:18). Mesopotamia To the east, the gods were understood primarily to make their will known not through inspired intermediaries but through omens, which skilled interpreters could read: a practice called divination. The most favored mode of divination was the reading of the entrails of sacrificial animals, particularly the livers (for a description of this art as practiced by the Babylonians, see Ezek 21:21). In Scripture, while some traditions condemn divination (Deut 18:10, 14; Josh 13:22; 1 Sam 15:23; 2 Kgs

30

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

17:17), others regard the practice neutrally or even positively (Gen 44:5, 15; 2 Kgs 13:18–­19; Isa 2:6; 3:2). Certainly, Israel’s priests practiced divination—­one of their sacred responsibilities was the care, keeping, and use of the sacred lot, the Urim and Thummin (e.g., Exod 28:30; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41). Some of the closest parallels to biblical prophecy have been uncovered in the ruins of Mari, a city that fell nearly a thousand years before Israel’s classical prophets emerged. Excavations at Mari uncovered a cache of clay tablets, including letters sent to its last king, Zimri-­lim, from individuals, men and women alike, claiming to speak on behalf of a god or goddess. Just as the biblical prophets typically open their oracles with kōh ʾāmar YHWH (thus says the Lord) and proceed to speak in the Lord’s name, the Mari prophets deliver their oracles in the first person. For example, in a letter from Nûr-­sin to Zimri-­lim, “Write to your lord the following: ‘Am I not Adad, lord of Aleppo, who raised you in my lap and restored you to your ancestral throne?’”2 Just as royal messengers in the ancient world spoke the king’s words in the king’s name (see 2 Kgs 18:19–­25), the Mari prophets—­like the prophets of Israel—­claimed to speak the words of their god. That Zimri-­lim kept these letters shows that he took them seriously; however, the oracles were tested by divination to ensure their revelatory authenticity and proper interpretation.3 In the Neo-­Assyrian Empire (680–­627 BCE), prophetic figures operated in the setting of the royal court. The most common prophets of the Neo-­Assyrian period were officials of the Ishtar cult called raggimu/ raggintu (shouter), but all Neo-­Assyrian prophets evidently enjoyed a higher status than the Mari prophets.4 Syria-­Palestine We have some fascinating extrabiblical instances of prophecy in cultures neighboring Israel in the Levant, the land of Canaan/Palestine.5 An Aramaic inscription was found on the stela of Zakkur, king of

31

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 2.1: The Messenger Formula The prophetic expression “Thus says the Lord” (kōh ʾāmar YHWH) is commonly called the messenger formula because of its parallels with the language used by royal messengers in the ancient Near East. Such messengers would preface their speeches with the name of their sovereign and then deliver their message in the first person, as though the king were actually speaking (e.g., the speech of the Rabshakeh in 2 Kgs 18:19–­35 ǁ Isa 36:1–­20 ǁ 2 Chr 32:9–­15). By analogy, then, the prophet appears to function like a messenger sent to Israel from the divine court, speaking on God’s behalf.6 While we can describe the messenger formula as a typical feature of prophetic literature generally, it is not evenly distributed among the prophetic books. Taking the greatly differing lengths of these books into consideration, the messenger formula appears most often, and with a roughly comparable frequency, in Jeremiah (153 times), Ezekiel (125 times), Amos (14 times), and Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8 (24 times). Since these collections represent three distinct periods in Israel’s history (the eighth, sixth, and fifth centuries BCE) and two major theological traditions (Amos and Jeremiah alike could be described as “Sinai covenantal,” while Ezekiel and Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8 are both “Zion covenantal”), the messenger formula is plainly not restricted to any single period in history or stream of tradition.

Hamath and Luas, contemporary to and rival of Ben-­hadad of Damascus and Jehoash of Israel (see 2 Kgs 13:24–­25) in the eighth century BCE. In the inscription, Zakkur says that when his enemies threatened him, I lifted my hand to Baalshamayn [the Lord of heaven], and Baalshamay[n] answered me, [and]

32

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Baalshamayn [spoke] to me [thr]ough seers and visionaries, [and] Baalshamayn [said], “F[e]ar not . . .”7 Apart from this evidence, once again, for spokespersons of the gods consulted by kings, this inscription also has intriguing connections to biblical terminology concerning prophets and prophecy. The phrase “through seers and visionaries” is, in Aramaic, [b]yd ḥzyn wbyd ʿddn. The expression ḥzyn (seers) is clearly linked to the Hebrew terms ḥōzeh—­used for Gad (2 Sam 4:11), Amos (Amos 7:12), and others (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:3; Isa 29:10; Mic 3:7)—­and ḥăzōn (vision; see Isa 1:1; Nah 1:1; Obad 1:1). The expression ʿddn (visionaries) is likely related to the Hebrew proper name Iddo, found in the genealogy of the prophet Zechariah (Zech 1:1, 7) and in 2 Chronicles 9:29 and 12:15, where one of the sources for the history of Solomon and Rehoboam is “the seer (ḥōzeh) Iddo.” The Deir ʿAllā inscription from Moab, to the immediate south and east of Judah, also dating to the eighth century BCE, was written in ink on a plastered wall in a Northwest Semitic dialect related to Hebrew. The wall collapsed in ancient times in an earthquake. But those plaster fragments that could be recovered have been reassembled, and a large part of that text can now be read. The text concerns a Moabite prophet mentioned in Scripture: Balaam son of Beor (Num 22–­24), whom the Deir ʿAllā text calls a ḥzh (comparable to a Hebrew ḥōzeh).8 Balaam was given a night vision of destruction that was about to befall his people. The ending of the text is missing, but presumably, he was able to forestall that predicted disaster (hence the preservation of his message). The Deir ʿAllā text has intriguing parallels to the story of Balaam in Numbers 22: in each text, word comes to the prophet in the night. In Numbers, it is God (ʾelōhîm) who comes to Balaam (Num 22:9), and in the Deir ʿAllā text, it is the gods (ʾlhn) who come to him with “an oracle of ʾEl.”9

33

THE PROPHETS

The Theologies and Roles of Israelite Prophets in the Eighth Century The rise of four momentous prophetic figures in the eighth century makes this era of biblical prophecy noteworthy. Prophesying in the northern kingdom were Amos (759–­745) and Hosea (750–­725), bearing two different theological perspectives. Amos had connections with the Judean royal court and the temple atop Zion. His message aims largely to condemn economic and social injustice as well as the pious hypocrisy that justified it. Hosea was fixated on the covenant of Sinai and the Mosaic traditions. His message largely targets Israel’s idolatrous worship of the fertility gods of Canaan. Amos was an influential herdsman (“cattle breeder,” Amos 7:14 NJPS), probably a regional dealer in cattle who worked with Jerusalem’s officials. Hosea was a peripheral cleric, a Levitical priest.10 Note that contrary to a view common since the nineteenth century, Israelite priests could, and did, become prophets.11 Besides Hosea the Levite, other priest-­prophets include Samuel, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. To the south in Judah, there prophesied Micah (732–­701) and Isaiah of Jerusalem (742–­700). Here again, two different covenant theologies are at play, with Micah—­like Hosea in the north—­defending the vassal covenant of Sinai,12 and Isaiah bearing God’s promises to David’s royal line and to Zion, the temple and its icons and symbols of Mount Eden, from which fertility flows down and through the land and the earth.13 Micah and Isaiah, like Amos and Hosea in the northern kingdom, hailed from two very different sectors of society. Micah was a traditional elder from the countryside, the fertile Judean foothills (Shephelah). Isaiah was a city dweller of high social standing, probably a temple priest. In Isaiah 6:1–­13, we find him at work in the temple’s restricted Holy Place, and he celebrates the temple in texts such as Isaiah 2:1–­5, 4:2–­6, and 11:9. Elsewhere (e.g., Isaiah 9:6), he prophesies the fulfillment of temple liturgy (see Pss 2:6; 110:1). David Petersen has persuasively argued that role theory better accounts for Israelite prophecy than other models, which may

34

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

characterize prophecy as an office/institution, as a state of ecstasy/ possession, as an “ideal type” (opposed to the priest), or as a charismatic style of leadership.14 Prophecy is a social function and behavior pattern taken on by individuals of varying social locations. Individuals in Israel could wear two hats—­for example, elder and prophet. Israel’s kings and priests were born into their roles and were largely male. God commissioned prophets of both genders, however, and a woman so commissioned found it hard to bow to patriarchal and other social pressures and fight against the divine call (multiple texts attest to the near irresistibility of God’s spirit of prophecy; see 1 Sam 19:23–­24; Amos 3:8; Jer 20:7, 9; Jonah 3:2–­3).15 Names of female prophets greatly outnumber male prophets in Neo-­Assyrian texts, where female prophecy functions in much the same manner as male prophecy. In ancient

Figure 2.1 The Prophet Micah Exhorts the Israelites to Repent (Mic 7:1–­20). Engraving by Gustave Doré, 1866 CE.

35

THE PROPHETS

Mari, noted above, prophetic circles with higher social status appear to have included proportionally fewer women. Prophecy against the Backdrop of Assyrian Imperial Development The era when the first writing prophets appeared was one of a gradually increasing threat from the Assyrian empire, which lay on the eastern side of the Fertile Crescent. The threat did not appear overnight. Already back in the ninth century, there were early signs that Assyria would be of increasing concern in the west. Shalmaneser III (859–­824 BCE), according to his own annals, invaded the area and fought a collation of kings, including King Ahab of Israel, at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. His Kurkh Stela (see fig. 2.2) specifically mentions Ahab. Shalmaneser states that he “razed, destroyed, and burned the city of Qarqar” and defeated “2,000 chariots and 10,000 troops of Ahab, the Israelite” (COS 1.261–­62). Although in this era Assyria was uninterested in annexing western territory into its empire, it was keen on demanding tribute from western rulers in support of its ambitions. A record created between 841 and

Sidebar 2.2: Major Female Prophets in Scripture Significant female prophets in the Scriptures include Huldah, Deborah, and “the prophetess” of Isaiah 8:3. (Farther at the extremes of Israel’s story, we have the prophetesses Miriam, examined earlier, and Noadiah from Neh 6:14.) Let us first consider Huldah, mentioned in the preceding chapter as the Mosaic prophet of her times.16 Huldah, not Zephaniah or Jeremiah (a youngster at the time), takes center stage at the high point of the Deuteronomistic History. Jeremiah later quotes her words (see Jer 19:3; 2 Chr 34:24; 2 Kgs 22:16). Given her remarkable role in the Former Prophets, Huldah surely deserves wider recognition.

36

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Fascinatingly, Deborah is Huldah’s counterpart at the earlier end of the Deuteronomistic History. That is to say, Judges 4:4–­5 introduces Deborah with formulaic language that stands in dialogue with Huldah’s introduction in 2 Kings 22:14. As H. G. M. Williamson points out, Deborah and Huldah are the first and last prophets in the Deuteronomistic History identified by name.17 Huldah was a key prophetess within real history, and Deborah’s story was molded to fit her contours. “The prophetess (něbîʾâ)” of Isaiah 8:3 is surely a prophet in her own right and not simply Isaiah’s spouse (Israelite women were not titled after their husbands’ social roles). Far from a passive vessel for Isaiah’s seed, she delivers a “prophecy”—­not a verbal word but a sign-­act. (Recall our review of prophetic sign-­acts in connection with Zechariah’s dramatizations at the temple foundry.) Esther Hamori puts it wryly: “It is true that the něbîʾâ does not speak in this text. What she does in the story is perform a prophetic symbolic act: she bears a sign-­child. This woman literally delivers an oracle” (emphasis ours).18 The agency of the prophetess is unambiguous: she conceives and gives birth. She carries the sign-­child for nine months, undergoes labor, and gives birth to him. As with the different sign-­child of Isaiah 7:14, Hamori (p. 163) argues, “the sign is not only the infant himself, but the pregnancy and the birth of the baby.” As with Huldah, the něbîʾâ is a public figure whose prophecy will be preserved and recalled (see Williamson, “Prophetesses,” p. 75).

824 BCE known as the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III shows King Jehu of Israel paying tribute to Assyria around 841 BCE on its second panel/ register on its front side (see fig. 2.3). The epigraph for panel two reads, “I [Shalmaneser] received the tribute of Jehu . . . silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden goblet, golden cups, golden buckets, tin, a staff ‘of the king’s hand,’ and javelins” (COS 2.270). Similarly, a version of Shalmaneser’s

37

THE PROPHETS

Figure 2.2 Detail from the Kurkh Stela depicting Assyrian leader Shalmaneser III.

annals on a marble slab reads, “I crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. . . . I received tribute from Jehu, son of Omri” (COS 2.268). About a century of respite for Israel and Judah followed the western campaigning of Shalmaneser. To be sure, as late as 797 BCE, the Tell al-­Rimah stele speaks of the Assyrian king Adad-­Nirari III receiving tribute from the Israelites (“Jehoash the Samarian”) and the Arameans (“the land of Damascus”) (COS 2.114F; also see the Calah inscription of Adad-­Nirari). Yet this concluding application of Assyrian pressure actually helped Israel gain the upper hand over the Arameans, who were harder hit and also fighting among themselves.

38

Figure 2.3 Detail from the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III depicting King Jehu of Israel bowing before Shalmaneser III.

Figure 2.4 Cast of seal inscribed “Shema, servant of Jeroboam,” found in Megiddo. Possibly Jeroboam II, king of Israel, ninth century BCE.

THE PROPHETS

By the start of the reign of Jeroboam II in the first half of the eighth century, a temporary lull in active interventions by Assyria allowed the Israelites to reverse decades of oppression and territorial loss. They expanded the northern border of Israel to Lebo-­hamath and pushed south as far as the “Sea of the Arabah” (2 Kgs 14:25; see Amos 6:13–­14). Second Kings 14:28 says that Jeroboam II took Damascus. The kingdoms of both Israel and Judah now saw a welcome era of peace and prosperity lasting through the first half of the eighth century. Unfortunately for the average person, however, the boon of this era benefitted primarily the upper echelons of society (see Isa 3:16–­24). As state centralization proceeded and monarchic rule increasingly entrenched itself, Israel’s traditional networks of communal solidarity based on kinship and land vested in kinship units weakened. Evidence of the process comes from administrative notes known as the Samaria Ostraca, inscriptions from the era of Jeroboam II. The texts provide a window into royal oversight over largescale shipments of luxury products. At the same time, they attest to the survival of ancient Israelite kin group divisions, which were now under pressure and endangered. To this period belong the prophecies of Isaiah of Jerusalem and Amos. The prophet Amos traveled up to the northern kingdom before the major events of Isaiah’s career in Judah unfolded to confront it with God’s judgment. Prophesying at a time when the northern kingdom was at its zenith, Amos condemns the extravagance of the nation’s urban elite (Amos 4:1; 5:11–­12; 6:46). Isaiah is for his part well acquainted with the economic and judicial injustices perpetrated against Judah’s agrarian populace. His prophecies accuse Jerusalem’s royal officials of preying on smallholder farmers and ignoring both the orphan and widow (e.g., Isa 3:14–­15). Prophecy during the Crisis of Assyrian Expansion The milieu of international calm of Amos’s era quickly changed with the rise of a new Assyrian emperor, Tiglath-­pileser III, in 745 BCE. Assyria revived significantly under his rule (745–­727 BCE), exercising its

40

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

greatest imperial power. The era lasted until 681 BCE. Very quickly, the northern kingdom began to suffer under the heavy hand of the new menace. In 742 BCE, Tiglath-­pileser extracted a huge sum, one thousand talents of silver tribute, from King Menahem of Israel (2 Kgs 15:19; see COS 2.285 [the Calah Annals] and COS 2.287 [the Iran Stele]). It was in this era that the prophet Hosea began his powerful critique of the northern kingdom’s worship practices. Because Israel has “broken my covenant,” “one like a vulture” hovers over the land (Hos 8:1). The “vulture” is Assyria, newly bent on conquest under Tiglath-­ pileser’s rule. Hosea repeatedly points out that Assyrian destruction is looming because the northern kingdom behaved much more like Canaanite idolaters and Baal worshippers than covenant vassals of the true God of Mount Sinai. Instead of uniting behind a single dynasty in opposition to the growing Assyrian threat, the northern kingdom saw a series of political assassinations and dynastic turnovers. Between the reign of Jeroboam II and the time the northern kingdom fell to Assyria in 722 BCE, six different kings rose to the throne. Some lasted only a few months and most no more than a few years. Hosea’s poetry is colored by this bloody mess of succession chaos (e.g., Hos 1:4–­5; 8:4). Hosea 5:13 presents an example of the era’s political intrigue, probably either (1) King Menahem’s paying of tribute to gain Assyria’s backing after he assassinated King Shallum (2 Kgs 15:13–­15, 19) or (2) King Hoshea’s appeasement of Assyria after killing King Pekah and ending Israel’s rebellion against the empire (2 Kgs 15:30; see COS 2.288). The annals of Tiglath-­pileser III record both payments as well as the Assyrian king’s claim to have killed Pekah himself and installed Hoshea (see COS 2.285, 287–­88). In either case 1 or 2, God rejects tribute payments to Assyria, which violate the Sinai covenant and provide no real peace. As Hosea worked in the north, in the southern kingdom of Judah, the prophet Isaiah was experiencing his dramatic and celebrated vision of God enthroned in the Jerusalem temple (about 738 BCE). Ministering in the temple’s inner sanctum as an altar priest, Isaiah sees God (Isa 6:1; see 8:18; 12:6). Soon after this vision, a crisis known as the Syro-­Ephraimic

41

THE PROPHETS

war unfolded. Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel allied to fend off Assyria’s intervention in the region under Tiglath-­pileser III. The Syro-­Ephraimic alliance moved to force Judah to join them, but Isaiah advised Ahaz, the Judean king, to trust in God’s protection and steer clear of all alliances. According to 2 Kings 16:7–­8, Ahaz ignored the prophet and allied with Assyria. Tiglath-­pileser III’s Summary Inscription (COS 2.289) seems to refer to Ahaz’s tribute payment to him. An incursion of the Syro-­Ephraimite coalition into Judah in 734 BCE and a counterattack by Ahaz’s forces lie behind several of Hosea’s prophecies. In Hosea 5:8–­14, the prophet heaps scorn on both sides of the conflict. The passage pictures the Judean counterinvasion of Israel attempting to push the Syro-­Ephraimic forces back up into the north. Verse 8 names towns in Benjamin’s tribal territory along the path that

Figure 2.5 Detail of relief depicting the conquest of the city of Ashteroth-­Karnaim by the Assyrians. Soldiers of Tiglath-­pileser III lead inhabitants and cattle away. The wall relief from the palace of Tiglath-­pileser III dates from 744 to 724 BCE.

42

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Judah’s army took. Verse 11 then switches perspective, denouncing the northern kingdom’s alliance with Syria as “worthless” (CEB, REB). From 733 through 732 BCE, responding to King Ahaz’s call for aid, Assyria invaded and defeated Syria and Ephraim. The coalition proved as worthless as Hosea had prophesied. Much of the northern kingdom’s land was occupied in 733, and many citizens were deported. Israel lost the regions of Galilee and Gilead and was reduced to a small area around Samaria, the capital. An Assyrian relief shows the capture of the city of Ashteroth-­Karnaim in Gilead (see fig. 2.5). A brief calm followed the ascension of Hoshea, the last king of northern Israel, perhaps the historical backdrop for the words of salvation in Hosea 9–­11. History now moved quickly, however, toward the complete destruction of Hoshea’s kingdom. Although Egypt was weak at this point in history and had little to offer as a military ally, Hoshea withheld his annual tribute payment upon the death of Tiglath-­pileser III in 727 BCE. Assyria’s new king Shalmaneser V (726–­722 BCE) attacked in 724, captured more territory, and took Hoshea prisoner. Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria for three years, and it fell in 722/721 (2 Kgs 17:3–­6; 18:9–­11). Shalmaneser perhaps died during the siege of Samaria (see the Babylonian Chronicles, COS 1.467), leaving it to his successor Sargon II (722–­705 BCE) to complete the city’s capture. (Other reconstructions argue that Sargon took credit for a victory of Shalmaneser or that Samaria actually only fell to Sargon in 720 BCE.) Sargon recorded his triumph on the walls of his royal palace at Dur-­Sharrukin: “I besieged and conquered Samaria, taking 27,290 prisoners of war. . . . I rebuilt the city, repopulating it with people from other lands” (see 2 Kgs 17:24).19 Back in Judah, Ahaz’s son King Hezekiah (729 or 715–­687 BCE) began extending royal control over Judah and fortifying Jerusalem for what he understood to be an inevitable military confrontation with Assyria. Many within Judah and in surrounding nations agitated for casting off the yoke of the empire. Numerous storage jars (for taxes, military rations, and/or the collection of tithes) stamped with the royal seal (“lmlk”) attest to Hezekiah’s consolidation of power. The two-­winged

43

THE PROPHETS

emblems and four-­winged sun beetles on the seals are Egyptian solar images, attesting to Hezekiah’s alliance with Egypt against Assyria (Isa 30:1–­7; 31:1–­3; fig. 3.4, p. 87; fig. 5.9, p. 216). A major accomplishment of Hezekiah was the construction of a major new wall around an expanding Jerusalem, the “Broad Wall” (see Isa 22:9–­11; 2 Chr 32:5). It enclosed a new western area known as the “Mishneh” (Zeph 1:10 NJPS) or “Second Quarter” (NRSV), which appears to have been settled by refugees from the fallen northern kingdom who streamed south after 722. The prophetess Huldah lived here, which, we will argue below, may be a clue to her place in society (2 Kgs 22:14). Twenty feet thick and ten feet high in places, the wall bolstered Jerusalem’s defenses in preparation for the coming Assyrian siege. Isaiah took a dim view of the wall, both because the king was trusting military preparations instead of Zion’s blessing and because the wall’s construction required destroying people’s houses (Isa 22:9–­11). Another achievement of the king was Hezekiah’s Tunnel (see fig. 2.6), a new underground water system to keep the city supplied even during a siege (see 2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Isa 22:9 [NIV]). The system channeled water to the Pool of Siloam safely inside the city’s walls from a source at the Gihon Spring, low on a slope outside the city’s eastern wall (see COS 2.145–­46). Along with his program of militarization, and in support of it, King Hezekiah enacted major covenant reforms, purifying worship practices and centralizing the offering of sacrifices in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:22). The king removed “high places” of worship outside of Jerusalem, as archaeology confirms. Key cult sites at Arad, Lachish, Tel Halif, Megiddo, Tel Kedesh, Ta’anach, and Shechem were destroyed before or during the Assyrian Crisis of 701. Because of Hezekiah’s reforms, Micah, unlike Hosea, says little about aberrant worship practices in Judah. Hezekiah instituted significant worship reforms but did little to curb economic and social injustices. What is more, his militarization of Judah took a considerable toll on the rural, farming populace (see, e.g., Mic 3:10). As one of Israel’s elders and clan heads, the prophet Micah

44

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Figure 2.6 Hezekiah’s tunnel leading from Gihon Spring to Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem.

decried Jerusalem’s policies of militarization and socioeconomic “progress” as nothing short of state-­sanctioned cannibalism (see Mic 3:1–­4). Socioeconomic stratification had a concrete impact in Micah’s region, the Shephelah, seen in all its excavated Iron Age II sites. Hezekiah’s anticipated major clash between Judah and Assyria came at the rise to power of Sennacherib (704–­681 BCE). The confrontation is known as the Assyrian Crisis of 701. Hezekiah took advantage of the leadership transition in Assyria to withhold tribute and ally with Egypt and Ethiopia (against Isaiah’s prophetic objections; see Isa 18, 30, 31).20 Sennacherib solidified his reign by 701 and then sent his forces down

45

THE PROPHETS

the coast of the Levant, marching through Phoenicia and Samaria (see Isa 36:1; 2 Chr 32:1–­8). He secured the rebellious Philistine territories, determined to teach Ashkelon and Ekron a lesson. Moving inland, the Assyrian army besieged the major Judean fortress of Lachish (see fig. 2.7). Sennacherib personally oversaw the daunting effort, which included the building of siege ramps from fourteen thousand to sixteen thousand tons of rubble. A series of Assyrian reliefs (discovered in 1847 CE), now taking up their own room in the British Museum, dramatically illustrate the siege (e.g., see fig. 12.1, p. 396). Assyrians are seen deporting some Judeans and murdering others. Shortly we will see the prophet Nahum decrying Assyria’s “endless cruelty” (Nah 3:19). Sennacherib planned to conquer Jerusalem after finishing at Lachish but failed to do so. Isaiah’s prophecies that Jerusalem would not fall (e.g., Isa 37:33–­35; 38:6; 2 Kgs 19:32–­34) proved true, as attested by

5

Joppa

ED IT ER RA NE AN

Route of Sennacherib’s forces Route of Egyptian forces Some scholars believe that this itinerary in Isa 10:27-32 which comes from the direction of Samaria reflects actions by Sargon II against Judah in 720 BCE Battle

Aphek

15

Bene-barak

Azor Beth-dagan

Gezer

R. PLAIN OF ELTEKEH Sennacherib defeats Egyptians

Ekron Timnah

Kiriath-jearim Gibeah

Geba Anathoth Nob Jerusalem

Assyrians lift Rabshekah’s siege

Gath

P

H

I

L

I

Michmash

Ramah

Sennacherib captures S O Timnah and Ekron RE KV ALL EY

S

T

I A

M

Bethel Beth-horon

Sorek

Ashdod

S A M A R I A

10 10

SEA

0 5 Kilometers

Jordan R.

Miles 0

ELA

HV AL

Azekah LEY

Bethlehem Adullam

Libnah

Achzib Moresheth-gath

Mareshah Lachish

Sennacherib besieges Lachish and Libnah

H D A J U

Figure 2.7 Map of Sennacherib invading Judah.

46

Beth-zur Hebron

D EAD S EA

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Figure 2.8 The Taylor Prism from the Neo-­Assyrian Empire tells the story of King Sennacherib’s third campaign and includes descriptions of his conquests in Judah.

Sennacherib’s own account of the campaign of 701. The account is found in its earliest form on the Rassam Cylinder, which dates back to immediately after the events (700 BCE, COS 2.302). Significantly, there is mention neither of Hezekiah’s surrender nor of any breach of the city’s defenses. Besides the Rassam Cylinder, the annals of Sennacherib are presented on several “prisms,” including the Taylor Prism (fig. 2.8), a foundation record of his reign buried at a temple. Sennacherib left Jerusalem in 701 BCE and returned home, where his life later ended in assassination. Fascinatingly, the report of Isaiah 37:38

47

THE PROPHETS

about Sennacherib’s murder by his own children correlates nicely with an account in a Babylonian chronicle (COS 1.467). The tablets report that the monarch’s son killed him in a rebellion in 681. Jerusalem’s survival of the Assyrian assault of 701  BCE affirmed and boosted the tradition of Zion’s sacramental power as God’s cosmic mountain. Some scholars have even proposed that Zion theology first arose at this juncture, but that is wrong.21 For example, Psalm 29, dating from long before Isaiah, depicts a core tenet of Zion theology: God enthroned as cosmic king on the temple mount. The foundations of God’s chambers sunk deep in the carcass of the defeated chaos dragon, God occupies Zion and receives shouts of “Glory!” (Ps 29:9). The Decline of Assyria and the Reforms of King Josiah Isaiah is not the only prophet who dwells on the menace and cruelty of Assyria. The prophecies of Nahum (ca. 663–­612 BCE) focus entirely on Assyria’s capital Nineveh, announcing its coming fall as God’s judgment on its atrocious brutality. Nahum thus fits into society as a central intermediary, occupying the specialized role of court or temple prophet. His main prophetic genre, the oracle against a foreign nation, originated within official state worship and remained in use there (but elsewhere as well). Matching Nahum’s word, the Assyrian menace did soon pass from history. In a series of battles, the Babylonians, together with their Median allies, knocked the Neo-­Assyrian Empire out of power. It took just about two decades for Babylonia to fully wipe Assyria off the map and emerge as the Near East’s dominant superpower. Under Nabopolassar, they first drove the Assyrians from Babylon in 626. Then they gradually drove Assyria north and west (the Medes applied military pressure from the northeast). A decisive victory at Nineveh in 612 BCE assured Assyria’s downfall. After this date, a greatly weakened Assyrian army and king retreated to Haran in northern Syria. Assyria neared its end during the reign of King

48

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

S C I M M E R I AN

LYDI AN KI N GDO M

M

Assyrians defeated here by Nabopolassar 610 BCE

Tadmor

Eu

Damascus ARAM

R.

Sidon Tyre

Gablini

Megiddo

B A BYLO N I A N AMMON Rabbath-ammon Jerusalem Gaza A H AB MO KINGDOM UD EDOM

Ecbatana

Babylon

Akkad

IA ON Y LS U M B A ER B

Captured by Nabopolassar 626 BCE

Ur

J

LIBYA

M E DIA

tes ra ph

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

captured by Cyarxes 614 BCE

destroyed by Medes and Chaldeans 612 BCE

O M

A S S Y R I A Calah Asshur is R. Tigr

Hamath

CASPIAN SEA

D

Nineveh

Haran Aleppo

Byblos

N

G

Carchemish

I A

I N

Nebuchadnezzar defeats Egyptians under Necho II 605 BCE

CYPRUS

D

K

LYDIA

E

URART U

R. lys Ha

Susa ELAM

ALDEA CH

Memphis Nile R.

Ezion-geber ARAM

A R A B I A N

EGYPT S A H A R A D E S E R T

Thebes

D E S E R T

RED SEA

Miles 0

100

0 100 200 Kilometers

200 300

Mede forces Chaldean forces Egyptian forces Assyrian forces Battle

PERSIAN GULF

Figure 2.9 Map of the Neo-­Babylonian Empire.

Josiah, who, we will see below, died in battle in 609 BCE attempting to prevent Egyptian forces from aiding a dying Assyria. King Josiah, like King Hezekiah before him, launched a major reform of worship in Judah along the lines of the Sinai covenant. In this, he was promoting the Sinai covenantal theology promulgated by earlier prophets such as Hosea and Micah. Village gentry, the same societal force that backed up Micah, placed Josiah in power at age eight (2 Kgs 21:24). By age twenty-­six, in 622 BCE (2 Kgs 22:3; 23:1–­23; according to 2 Chr 34:3, he began his reforms earlier, at age twenty), he was initiating sweeping national reforms based in part on a law code that Scripture claims was discovered in the course of temple repairs. This text (clearly an early form of Deuteronomy) exercised influence throughout his reign (2 Kgs 22:11–­13). Deuteronomy’s goal of a single central

49

THE PROPHETS

sanctuary (Deut 12) was likely the easiest objective for him to achieve. The Jerusalem temple was already Judah’s de facto sole public shrine due to Hezekiah’s centralization program and Sennacherib’s invasion and destructions. Scholars sometimes question the historicity of Josiah’s program, but it was real.22 The best evidence comes from an analysis of the Bible’s history of composition. Here, we do not mean just taking the Bible at its word. We are talking about evidence excavated through exegesis.23 What redaction criticism shows is that the literary cores of Deuteronomy and of the Deuteronomistic History (DTR) emerged as authoritative writings during Josiah’s own lifetime. Judeans of the time were directly confronted by the proposal that Josiah, a living contemporary, was God’s ideal ruler and covenant enforcer (note how 2 Kgs 23:25 reflects Deut 6:5). We know that an early edition (redaction) of the Deuteronomistic History appeared before Josiah’s death because it would not have given Josiah an ideal, culminating role if its writers knew he would die unaccountably and tragically, making events look rather out of God’s control.24 The Deuteronomistic History would not have placed a prophecy of Josiah’s cleansing of Bethel three hundred years prior to the fulfillment (1 Kgs 13:2), marking Josiah’s reform as absolutely climactic in God’s plans (2 Kgs 23:15–­16). What is more, if the account of Josiah’s reform were a mere literary invention, concocted out of thin air to justify and elevate Deuteronomy, why would it narrate significant details extraneous to the book (see 2 Kgs 23:5, 6–­7, 8b, 10–­13)? Why would it depict Josiah implementing Deuteronomy in ways counter to the book’s spirit (e.g., by asserting royal prerogatives over temple worship; 2 Kgs 23:21)? Why does a bit of exegetical sleuthing uncover that Huldah’s husband, Shallum (2 Kgs 22:14), is likely the uncle of Jeremiah ( Jer 32:7), a Levite, who, we shall see, was propelled by the theological vision of Deuteronomy in the decades immediately following Josiah’s death? It is doubtful that a purely invented text would contain such hidden dots to connect.

50

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

The Deuteronomistic History took its present shape after the exile began. Second Kings describes Jerusalem’s destruction and the captivity of Judah’s leading citizens (2 Kgs 25). This post-­Josiah material represents an updating of the original history. The original assumes the present relevance, at the time of writing, of God’s covenant with David. It stresses the importance of the Davidic covenant in preserving sinful Judah until the coming of Josiah. There was no sacral Davidic kingship after the exile; the theme is only at home in preexilic times. What is more, unless we assume a preexilic edition of the history, it is impossible to account for the text’s innocent statements that various realia extant only in preexilic times can still be seen. If these realities remain “to this day,” then this day (i.e., the time of writing) must be preexilic. The Lachish Letters, a collection of correspondence between Judean military officials from the early sixth century, show that a Josianic goal of veneration of the Lord alone in Judah was realized to some extent. Written a generation after Josiah’s time, the letters begin with a greeting that mentions the Lord, and they contain Hebrew personal names formed using “YHWH” rather than using “Baal” or other deities. Archaeologists have also noted changes in the seals used by state officials after Josiah’s rule that reflect new enforcement of the Decalogue’s prohibition of icons/images of deities. Finally, some archaeological and textual evidence supports the Deuteronomistic History’s assertion that Josiah’s climactic rule included territorial expansion. For example, archaeologists have found Judean pottery in Tel Qasile, Philistia. This attests to Josiah’s exploitation of the temporary power vacuum to expand Judean rule west into Philistia and across the Jordan into Moab and Ammon. Incidental background details in some post-­586 BCE biblical texts ( Jer 41:5; Zech 7:17; 8:19) reveal that inhabitants of the former northern kingdom made pilgrimages to Jerusalem’s temple even after Babylonia razed it. The probable explanation is that Josiah’s efforts to reunite Israel and Judah actually had some traction. According to 2 Kings 22, upon finding a scroll in the temple (likely an early form of Deuteronomy), Josiah sent his officials to inquire of the

51

THE PROPHETS

Lord about it through a prophet. His officials, who were aligned with the reforming party of the era (supporters of a resurgent Sinai covenant), sought out Huldah, the female prophet whom we have already discussed in part. Huldah, we have seen, confirmed that, as the newly emergent scroll declared, the Lord was furious with Judah for breaking the covenant. As noted, the presentation of Huldah in 2 Kings suggests she was the Mosaic prophet of her time. She stood in the line of prophetic intermediaries of the covenant promised in Deuteronomy 18:15–­19 (see Num 12:6–­8; Hos 12:13). Tellingly, the prophet Huldah resided in Jerusalem’s new “Second Quarter” (2 Kgs 22:14). Enclosed by Hezekiah’s Broad Wall, this district was where many refugees from the former northern kingdom had settled. Among these refugees would have been disciples of the prophet Hosea as well as key Levites who had authored the northern Asaph psalms. The Asaph psalms, a major influence upon Hosea, had earlier issued a prophetic rebuke of Israel’s betrayal of the Sinai covenant. In Psalm 50, God actually brings a prophetic covenantal lawsuit against the northern kingdom: “Israel, I’m about ready to bring you to trial” (Ps 50:7 MSG). Northern covenantal traditions were strongly impacting Judah at King Josiah’s time, but so was the Deuteronomic proclamation of the southern prophet Zephaniah.25 Zephaniah, like Huldah, appears to have been a Sinai-­prophet working within the central circles of his society in the years leading up to Josiah’s reform. He worked within the establishment along with Chief Priest Hilkiah, Shaphan, and other Sinai-­oriented reformers (2 Kgs 22:14), denouncing the worship of other deities alongside the Lord. As King Josiah was conducting his reform around 626 BCE, a young Levitical priest named Jeremiah was beginning a lengthy prophetic career. Based on the book’s superscription, as well as references throughout the text ( Jer 11:21–­23; 12:6; 29:27; 32:7–­9), many scholars agree that Jeremiah came from an influential Levitical line of priests who were historically located in Anathoth. Jeremiah was disappointed to learn how short-­lived Josiah’s reforms were. Judah returned

52

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

to God not “with her whole heart” but “only in pretense” ( Jer 3:10). King Josiah “judged the cause of the poor and needy” but not his successors ( Jer 22:16). Jeremiah, in fact, may have been suspicious of the reform program all along, worrying that it involved too many compromises with Jerusalem’s players of power politics. Josiah, after all, was not the ideal hobbled king of Deuteronomy 17:14–­17. Rather, he commanded a standing army, asserted centralized power, and intruded on temple operations. Archaeological evidence shows he did little to suppress expanding worship of Asherah in small worship areas and domestic contexts (using pillared figurines to evoke support of motherhood). Since he did not view this form of image-­ based worship as a threat to his centralization of cultic authority, traffic, and revenue, he ignored it. Was Josiah motivated more by political goals than concern for the Lord? The authors of the Deuteronomistic History, which presents Josiah as David’s ideal successor, were likely unhappy with Jeremiah’s doubts and qualms. To them, he may have uttered one too many attacks on Zion’s temple and monarch (see Jer 26:6–­9, 11, 20–­21; 36:5; 38:3–­4). In this regard, it is striking that the Deuteronomistic History never once mentions Jeremiah (although according to the Talmud, he was the author of Kings; b. B. Bat. 15a). The Rise of Babylonia and the Rise of Written Scripture King Josiah’s Sinai-­oriented reforms proved transitory, and the king himself met an untimely demise. Egypt, fearing the rapidly growing power of Babylonia, began a policy of military support for Assyria by 618 BCE. Even an Egyptian-­Assyrian alliance, however, could not halt the advance of the Babylonians and Medes. Asshur fell in 614 and Nineveh fell, as noted above, in 612. In 609, Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt found himself marching his troops north through Judah to aid the last remnant of Assyria, which the Babylonians in 610 drove out of Haran and farther west across the Euphrates. With intense animosity toward Assyria, Josiah led the Judean army up to Megiddo to intercept Necho and prevent his aiding the enemy.

53

THE PROPHETS

In the battle with the pharaoh, an arrow struck Josiah and he quickly died, probably on his way back to Jerusalem (2 Chr 35:23–­25). He was buried, and Judah soon began backsliding on the king’s reforms. Jeremiah understood that this renewed treachery against the covenant and the teachings of Deuteronomy would lead to the exile of God’s people to Babylonia. Sometime prior to 605 BCE, the prophet Habakkuk, a contemporary of Jeremiah, received vivid divine revelations of the rise of Babylonia and its coming threat to Judah. Habakkuk, like Nahum before him, was likely a temple prophet working within establishment circles of Jerusalem. He likely originally summoned his visions in order to offer official answers to supplications and lamentations of the worshipping community. God’s responses to the prophet’s questions increasingly shock Habakkuk, who wrestles directly with reconciling God’s goodness and God’s people’s coming misery. How is it, he asks, that God intends to use such a cruel and horrific empire as Babylonia as an instrument of judgment on Judah? This era, from the seventh century on, was a time of increasing literacy in Judah and of the rising importance of writing. Within Jeremiah’s prophetic career, we see him dictating words from God to the scribe Baruch ben Neriah, which he inscribes in a scroll ( Jer 36:4; 45:1). At Jeremiah 36:2, God commands the textualization of all of Jeremiah’s oracles, “from the day I first spoke to you during the reign of Josiah down to the present.” The intricate, literarily complex prophecies of Ezekiel as well as the rhetorically supreme poems of Isaiah 40–­55 likely arose first in writing without any initial oral proclamation. They are simply too complex to be considered oral compositions. In subsequent prophetic books, such as Zechariah and Joel, prophecy increasingly appears as a scribal and intertextual phenomenon. That is, prophetic texts directly cite, interpret, anthologize, and meditate upon earlier, increasingly authoritative scrolls.

54

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

The Final Decades of Judah and Jerusalem’s Destruction After killing Josiah in 609 BCE, Pharaoh Necho marched north to help the Assyrians regain Haran, but the effort failed. After the battle, Necho removed King Jehoahaz/Shallum, who had succeeded his father, Josiah. Jehoahaz had reigned in Jerusalem only three months (2 Kgs 23:31). Necho brought him as a prisoner to Egypt and replaced him with his

EXCURSUS: THE BOOK OF THE FOUR Early on, the “Minor Prophets” began to come together as a collection, starting an editorial process that eventually gave us the Book of the Twelve. The first such core collection seems to have included Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, the so-­called Book of the Four. Nogalski and others have pointed to the superscripts of these four scrolls, which join to form a trajectory beginning with the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II, then moving to Hezekiah, and finally ending with Josiah.26 (See the sidebar below: “Kings Cited in the Superscripts of the Prophets of the Book of the Four.”) Of particular significance, the superscript to Zephaniah uses the prophet’s personal genealogy to span the gap from Hezekiah to Josiah, creating a theological contrast between the Kings Jeroboam II and Josiah.

Sidebar 2.3: Kings Cited in the Superscripts of the Prophets of the Book of the Four The chart below synthesizes the citation of kings in the superscripts of the four prophetic scrolls that make up the Book of the Four. The chart highlights the interests of the editors: to emphasize the prophetic message brought during the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah until the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah.

55

THE PROPHETS

Hosea

Amos

Uzziah ( Judah, 783–­742)

Uzziah

Jeroboam II (Israel, 786–­746)

Micah

Jeroboam II

Jotham ( Judah, 742–­735)

Jotham

Ahaz ( Judah, 735–­715)

Ahaz

Hezekiah ( Judah, 715–­687/6)

Zephaniah

Hezekiah

Son of Hezekiah Josiah ( Judah, 640–­609)

For Nogalski and others, the editorial work that joined these four books together dates to the exile, and the message of the Four was intended as an explanation for the fall of Jerusalem. Hosea was a warning to Samaria, but when that went unheeded, Amos announced its eschaton. Micah warned Jerusalem, but it too rejected the prophetic admonition, and so it fell to Zephaniah to announce Jerusalem’s demise.27 We propose another possibility. In 609 BCE, Josiah had been killed in battle, and Jehoiakim and the nation were faced with a critical decision that the Book of the Four addresses. Does Josiah’s death signify the Lord’s displeasure and rejection of his reforms and therefore God’s rejection of the theological and political agenda of the Deuteronomists? Or does his death mean that the reforms pleased God but did not go far enough? How ancient Judah decided to interpret Josiah’s death would determine the direction of the nation. Jeremiah’s “temple sermon” ( Jer 7:1–­15) reflects the dilemma. Jeremiah invokes the Deuteronomists’ understanding of a conditional covenant. The people’s security in the land is based on obedience to covenantal stipulations: “Amend your ways. . . . I will have you dwell in this place in the land.”28 The opposing theological position is expressed in what Jeremiah calls “deceptive words”: “This is the temple of the Lord,” and “We are safe!” ( Jer 7:4, 10).29 The prophet is clearly advocating the

56

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

pursuit of Josiah’s Deuteronomic reforms, perhaps with even more vigor than the king had exhibited. In our view, the Book of the Four presented the same message at about the same time. Upon stating his case in the temple sermon, Jeremiah was arrested and put on trial by the Jerusalem priesthood for treason, a capital offense ( Jer 26:7–­9). Micah 3:12 was a core piece of evidence that spared his life ( Jer 26:18). Here, in the use of Micah to defend Jeremiah, we see a hint that the Four was extant at Jeremiah’s time, studied and applied. After 609, after Josiah’s death, Jeremiah and his fellow proponents of Deuteronomy needed support from authoritative prophetic texts.30 It seems entirely plausible, then, that the Book of the Four supplied this support. In this setting, Hosea provided not just a warning to Samaria but a warning for Judah to maintain exclusive fealty to the Lord, a foundational tenet of Deuteronomy. Amos’s scroll, for its part, implicitly defended Jerusalem (see our discussion of Amos), a distinguishing pillar of Josiah’s reform. Micah’s scroll defended the people’s ongoing tenure on ancestral lands, a contentious issue for the elders and People of the Land, for the pro-­Deuteronomy party of Jeremiah’s day. Zephaniah, the final book of the Four, passed the prophetic baton to Jeremiah, who forwarded Zephaniah’s call for repentance and reform beyond the reign of Josiah to Jehoiakim in the period after 609. Whether our alternative proposal about dating is found to be convincing or not, it should not detract from the broader thesis. The recognition that Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah were at one time united in order to make a theological point cannot be ignored. It sharpens our understanding of the history of ancient Israel’s religion and theological discourse. Reading the Book of the Four as a collective whole adds precision to our understanding of how scrolls developed over time, as their later handlers called upon them to address theological concerns emerging in their own time.

older brother Jehoiakim/Eliakim as a puppet ruler (2 Kgs 23:35). Judah remained under Egyptian control from 609 to 605 BCE. During Jehoiakim’s reign, just as Habakkuk prophesied, Babylonian power and ambition continued to grow, threatening Egypt’s presence in both northern Syria and lower down in the Levant. In 605 BCE, at

57

THE PROPHETS

the decisive battle of Carchemish near Haran on the upper Euphrates (see map on p. 49), the Babylonians under General Nebuchadnezzar dislodged the Egyptians and drove them south. It was a watershed moment in ancient Near Eastern history. Babylonia was the new superpower dominating the Near East. The Babylonian Chronicles state, “Nebuchadrezzar, . . . the crown prince, . . . crossed the river [Euphrates to face the army of Egypt] which was camped at Carchemish. . . . He defeated them utterly. . . . At that time, Nebuchadrezzar conquered the whole of Hamath” (COS 1.467–­68). King Jehoiakim did not prove a loyal vassal and puppet of Necho. After the battle of Carchemish, the Babylonian threat hit too close to home for his liking. Babylonia pushed south to Philistia, destroying Ashkelon in 604. With the Babylonian army literally on his doorstep, Jehoiakim switched allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, who now reigned as king after the death of his father, Nabopolasser: “Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon and on 1st Elul he ascended the throne in Babylon” (COS 1.468). Egypt was now looking vulnerable indeed. The oracle in Jeremiah 46:19–­20 proclaims, “Pack for the coming exile, you citizens of Egypt, for Memphis will be a wasteland, a city destroyed and empty of life. Egypt is like a heifer—­beautiful, but helpless—­because a biting horsefly from the north [Babylonia] is coming” (VOICE). Around 600 BCE, Babylonia and Egypt clashed near Egypt’s border. Nebuchadnezzar launched a fierce assault but was unable to overcome Necho’s forces. Both sides suffered heavy losses, and Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to recover and regroup. King Jehoiakim seriously misjudged the situation. Thinking Babylonia to be in full retreat, he withdrew his allegiance from Nebuchadnezzar. His decision would prove disastrous. Babylon could not attack him immediately but attack him it would. Meanwhile, Nebuchadnezzar sent mercenary raiders to trouble Judah (2 Kgs 24:2). By late 598 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar was able to return with an army and reestablish military control over Judah. He surrounded Jerusalem, demanding the capital’s surrender. During the siege, King Jehoiakim

58

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

died. Historians are unclear about the exact circumstances, although some suspect assassination. It is unknown whether Jeremiah’s threat was literally realized: “They will give him a donkey’s burial, dragging him outside the gates of Jerusalem and dumping him there” ( Jer 22:19 CEB). Jehoiachin ( Jeconiah/Coniah) succeeded his father, Jehoiakim, at age eighteen and within three months surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BCE. The cuneiform account tells how Nebuchadnezzar “set his camp against the city of Judah . . . he took the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin]. He appointed a king of his choosing there [Zedekiah], took heavy tribute, and returned to Babylon” (COS 1.468) The capital was spared destruction at this juncture, but the Babylonians deported King Jehoiachin along with several thousand elite citizens, including officials, scribes, and priests. Ezekiel, a central-­temple priest soon to be called as a prophet, was deported at this time. Others, such as Jeremiah, remained in Judah. Babylonian policy entailed holding captured leading citizens under foreign “house arrest.” They became a surety guaranteeing the good behavior of the people back in the homeland. The Unger Prism lists other royal figures held in Babylon, from places such as Tyre, Gaza, and Arpad. Although Nebuchadnezzar appointed Jehoiachin’s uncle Zedekiah/Mattaniah to Judah’s throne, many Judeans continued to regard Jehoiachin as their true ruler and hoped for his speedy return (see fig. 2.10).31 This was likely fine with Babylonia, for it provided them additional leverage on Judah. A speedy return of the exiles of 597 was not in the cards, but administrative ration lists from Babylon confirm that Jehoiachin of Judah and five of his sons were given some freedoms and provisions in the Babylonian capital. The cuneiform mentions a regular allowance of olive oil.32 According to 2 Kings 25:27–­30, after thirty-­seven years (in 560 BCE) under arrest, King Awil-­Marduk of Babylon, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, elevated the status of Jehoiachin, allowing him to reside in the Babylonian palace and eat at the royal table. If Nebuchadnezzar was expecting Zedekiah to remain loyal, he was mistaken. From the very start of his reign (see Jer 27:1–­11), Judah’s

59

THE PROPHETS

Figure 2.10 Chart showing King Josiah and his sons.

last king was plotting a revolt with neighboring states. Zedekiah eventually withheld tribute from Babylonia, trusting in the assistance of Egypt under Necho’s successors Psammetichus II and Apries (see Jer 37:1–­10). Nebuchadnezzar responded in 588–­586 BCE by invading Judah, attacking the fortified cities of Azekah and Lachish ( Jer 34:6–­7). Twenty-­two inscribed pottery fragments (ostraca) known as the Lachish Letters bring us firsthand into the experience of the Babylonian assault. Ostracon 4 (COS 3.42C; ANEP, 86) is a report back to Lachish that a small outpost has been evacuated and that Azekah has fallen. Ostracon 6 (COS 3.42E) attests to challenges of troop morale and disagreements between Judean officers. It is reminiscent of official fighting during Jerusalem’s siege about Jeremiah’s words and their discouraging effects ( Jer 37–­38). After a two-­ year siege of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar’s army destroyed the royal city and the sacred temple in 586 BCE. Ezekiel received the devastating news in exile (Ezek 33:21), and it launched a new phase of his prophetic career. A magnificent painting by Rembrandt depicts Jeremiah mourning while Jerusalem burns in the distance.

60

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Figure 2.11 Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem by Rembrandt, 1630 CE. In the distance at the far mid-­to-­lower left of the painting, King Zedekiah can be seen clutching his eyes, having been blinded by the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25.7).

The prophet Obadiah, whose book dates sometime prior to 533 BCE, provides a window into the blistering emotions surrounding Jerusalem’s fall in 586. Obadiah was likely a surviving temple prophet—­a “Nahum,” “Habakkuk,” or “Joel”—­but one whose shrine is destroyed. As will be the case with Ezekiel, no working sanctuary supported the cult officer. Behind Obadiah’s prophecies and much of the anti-­Edom Scriptures of the exilic period lies a loving defense of the destroyed Zion and an intense grappling with the unbearable tension created by the survival and thriving state of Edom’s Mount Seir. One plausible and even likely reconstruction of Obadiah’s setting sees his oracles originating within Judah after the Babylonian conquest,

61

THE PROPHETS

specifically within communal commemorations of the temple’s burning. Zechariah 7:1–­7 and 8:19 refer to regular ritual events of mourning, including one every fourth month (when Jerusalem’s walls were breached) and one every fifth month (when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple). Other texts—­such as Isaiah 58:3, 5; Jeremiah 41:5; Lamentations; and Zechariah 7:1–7—provide further evidence of public fasting and lamentation in postconquest Judah. Groups of pilgrims, even from the former northern kingdom, apparently still brought grain offerings and incense to the ruined temple. According to Jeremiah 41:5, some make the pilgrimage in a state of obvious mourning, with shaved beards, torn clothes, and bloody, gashed bodies. Biblical scholarship in recent decades has wrestled with the extent of Babylonia’s deportations of Judeans. So too critics have questioned the biblical identifications of the exiles as the true heirs of God’s promises (e.g., Jer 24:1–­10; Ezek 36:24–­32). Was Judah now merely “waste places” (Ezek 33:24), “deserted towns” (Ezek 36:4)? Were the exiles alone to make up God’s new remnant? Are we to understand the penitent mourners left on God’s land (the pilgrims of Jer 41:5) as forsaken by God? Scholars agree that it is a false impression to assume that the Babylonians fully decimated and depopulated the homeland. Despite serious enemy destruction in Jerusalem (see Neh 1:3; 7:4) and in southern Judah (see Isa 44:26), there was less damage to the north (the tribal area of Benjamin) and in Transjordan. Archaeology shows that towns such as Mizpah, Bethel, Anathoth, Gibeon, Gibeah, and Mozah were not destroyed. Even biblical texts placing God’s favor with the exiles recognize that a population of Judeans remained behind. Ezekiel 33:24 quotes them saying “We are many!” The exiles abandoned productive landholdings, which were appropriated and tended by those not taken to Babylonia (see Ezek 11:14–­17; 33:23–­25). This naturally set up a potential conflict to be faced at the former landholders’ return: Who belongs on God’s land? We know the reality of this conflict from the Ezekiel texts just cited, and we know that Haggai and Zechariah encountered resistance and conflict

62

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

in pushing an agenda of temple reconstruction mostly associated with the returning exiles. Some interpreters find evidence of efforts by the prophets to have the exiles and the homelanders live together on God’s land (see Hag 2:2–­4; Zech 7:5; 8:18–­19). Zechariah even includes what is left of the northern kingdom in God’s plans (Zech 8:13; see 1:19; Ezek 37:15–­28) and envisions God’s embrace of foreigners (Zech 2:11; 8:23; 9:1; 14:9, 16). Ezra 6:19–­22 makes clear that six weeks after the temple was dedicated and Zechariah’s and Haggai’s dreams were realized, Judeans who remained in the land (and perhaps new proselytes as well) join the returned exiles in taking part in Passover observances at the new shrine.33 The Exilic Era Scholars have had a harder time illuminating the exilic era than other periods in the history of Israelite prophecy. The start and end of the era are fluid since the Babylonians exiled the people in stages with major forced migrations in 597 and 586. Prophets such as Ezekiel were in exile while Jeremiah was still struggling in Judah. When returns to the land began in 538 (the Persian era), returnees were relatively few, and progress in rebuilding was slow. Nothing like a promised reign of God materialized, so many considered an ongoing state of exile to continue. This conviction long persisted. Several centuries after the initial return of exiles, Daniel 9:24 (ca. 164 BCE) reinterprets Jeremiah’s prophecy of a seventy-­year exile ( Jer 25:11–­12; 29:10) as an exile of “seventy weeks of years” (i.e., 490  years). Five centuries after the first return to the homeland, many Jews still awaited the promised “comfort” of Isaiah 40:1; 49:13; and 51:3. Thus in Luke 2:25, Simeon is waiting patiently for Israel’s “comfort” (ISV)—­that is, its “restoration” (CEB). Biblical texts in Jeremiah and Ezekiel provide some overt evidence about the exile, but other Scriptural evidence subsists as editorial layers and additions to prophetic books. Since this literature is presented as the acts and speeches of preceding prophets, it naturally offers

63

THE PROPHETS

only oblique evidence about its exilic era of composition. Babylonian sources, until very recently, have been largely mute about the fate of the exiles, at least about their specific situation in the years soon after 586. The Murashu tablet archive (ANET, 221–­22), discovered in Nippur in 1893 CE, shows that some exiles eventually prospered in agriculture, trade, and banking. The tablets date to the Persian period, after the exiles could, if they desired, return home to what had become the Persian province of Yehud. They show that life was prosperous enough in exile that many Jews stayed put. More can now be said about the exile due to advances in trauma theory, the social-­scientific study of forced migration, and the newly available Al-­Yahudu tablets.34 The Al-­Yahudu tablets are a collection of about two hundred legal and administrative cuneiform texts revealing much about the lives of average exiles during the period from Nebuchadnezzar II to Xerxes of Persia (i.e., from about 572 to 484 BCE). Thanks to the tablets, we can be more confident about the historicity and contours of the exile.35 The tablets even mention the Chebar River, where Ezekiel was exiled (as a locale of document signing, see Ezek 1:3). The Al-­Yahudu tablets show that deportees could keep their Hebrew names and ethnic identity. Hebrew names continued to be given to at least some children for at least four generations, some with theological resonances. (Biblical evidence shows other exiles had foreign [Akkadian] names, including such prominent figures as Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Mordecai.) The tablets provide indirect evidence for respecting the Sabbath and biblical holy days (documents were not drawn up on these days). At the same time, there were certain pressures to integrate into Babylonian life, something that Jeremiah, at least in part, anticipated ( Jer 29:5–­7). Many exiles enjoyed an income and freedoms, although semiforced labor (including digging irrigation channels; see Ps 137:1–­6) was required for some, at least as part of their leasehold-­land arrangements. The Babylonians settled most of the deportees in various rural towns, many of the settlements near ruined cities (a program to develop and farm unused land). The tablets reveal that one town near Nippur

64

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Figure 2.12 One of over two hundred Al-­Yahudu tablets describing the exiled community in Babylon.

and Babylon was called Al-­Yahudu, “Judah-­town.” Judean exiles there built houses, farmed barley and date palms, and paid taxes to the empire. In return for military service, they settled and farmed state land. The tablets describe marriage alliances, the sale of servants, and transactions involving house rentals, silver loans, and cattle exchanges. There is a dispute over one person cultivating another’s field. One individual (Nadab-­Yama) makes an oath, sworn with a curse, that he did not steal another’s date harvest. Irapa trades a five-­year-­old ox for a female donkey. Exilic Judean settlements were the setting for the production of a variety of documents, including the editing and composition of biblical writings. A new edition of the Deuteronomistic History, now ending with 2 Kings 23:26–­25:21, appeared in Babylonia soon after Jerusalem’s destruction. Ezekiel’s prophetic writings began to emerge by the Chebar

65

THE PROPHETS

River a decade prior. At the same time, some texts and text units also likely originated back in the homeland in this era (e.g., Jer 40:7–­41:18; Lamentations; Ps 74; Obadiah). As our chapter on Isaiah will argue, the Babylonian exile was the setting for a marked growth of Isaiah’s book. Isaiah 40–­55 arose late in this era, as did numerous expansions within Isaiah 1–­39. The new material specifically anticipates the coming of the Persian ruler Cyrus the Great (558–­530 BCE) to conquer Babylon and liberate the exiles, fingering Cyrus by name in both Isaiah 44:28 and Isaiah 45:1. The emphasis on deportees returning joyfully to Judah (e.g., Isa 48:20) points to the exilic Judean settlements in Babylonia as the locale of composition, not the homeland. A Babylonian, diaspora setting of composition is also indicated by the attacks on Babylonian deities and ritual practices (e.g., Isa 44:25; 46:1; 47:13). Indeed, there are many verses of Isaiah 40–­55 that celebrate the Lord as the great cosmic creator instead of Babylonian Marduk. Instead of Marduk and Nabu being carried to their sanctuary at the Babylonian New Year’s festival (Isa 46:6–­7), the Lord carries Israel home (Isa 46:4), all the way back to a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple (Isa 44:28; 46:13). If only to reach a widely scattered audience and to avoid Babylonian reprisals against sedition, the Second Isaiah materials were likely intended from the first for primarily written circulation. Certainly, this is true for the many Second Isaiah influences in First Isaiah. Given the polemics against Babylonian culture, it is improbable that the Isaiah scribes worked for either government or temples, although they likely hoped to work in a temple context upon their return to Judah. They were probably associated with scribal schools and with the production of mundane economic and legal transactions like those attested by the Al-­Yahudu tablets.36 Israelite Prophecy in the Early Persian Period Israelite prophets continued to arise well beyond the exile, first appearing among small waves of expatriates returning from Babylonia to

66

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Judah, now the Persian province of Yehud. Certainly, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi first emerged in Yehud after the exile. Other prophetic books were edited and expanded at this time, including Isaiah’s book, which grew through the addition of Third Isaiah (chs. 56–­66) and other new texts. We should, however, resist the temptation to squeeze the lengthy editorial history of books such as Isaiah and the Twelve into this historical window. These texts’ redaction histories were much too complex to fit into the Persian era. What is more, Jerusalem did not at first have the population necessary for the varying schools of tradents represented in the prophetic literature to thrive, compete, and grow their theologies (e.g., the priestly schools of Zadokites, Levites, and Aaronides). Their streams of theology must have developed earlier so that only small groups were needed to sustain and propound them during the restoration period. Cyrus the Great of Persia (558–­ 530 BCE) conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The Cyrus Cylinder from this time (discovered in 1879 CE and now in the British Museum) describes Cyrus’s policy of toleration and repatriation toward at least some of the peoples exiled by the Babylonians. The Cyrus Cylinder itself does not mention the Judean exiles, but the book of Ezra records edicts of Cyrus in Hebrew (Ezra 1:2–­4) and in Aramaic (6:3–­5) that probably build upon historical documents permitting the Judeans to return and rebuild. It is also likely, however, that these texts also partially reflect the concerns and perspectives of a later time. A first return took place under the leadership of Sheshbazzar, Yehud’s first governor (Aramaic peḥâ). It proved beyond the resources of this group, however, to rebuild the temple. They probably managed to rebuild the Temple altar, reset the Temple foundations (Ezra 3:10–­13; 5:16), and revive sacrificial worship by 538 or 537 BCE. At this early stage of the restoration (the Persian I period), Yehud’s extent was small, consisting basically of the central hills from Bethel in the north to Tekoa in the south. The population was small (ca. 10,850, one third that of the preexilic Judean hill country), Jerusalem was tiny (ca. 700, one-­fifth of its preexilic size of 6,500), and

67

THE PROPHETS

the community struggled with the reduced territory, insufficient resources, and poor economic conditions (see Hag 1:9–­11; 2:17; Zech 7:7, 14). The situation changed when Darius I took over the empire. According to the biblical accounts in Ezra, Darius granted imperial support to the rebuilding of the temple. Such actions are consistent with the policies of his predecessor, Cambyses (530–­522 BCE), Cyrus’s son and heir, who supported some Egyptian temples as well as a Jewish temple at Elephantine.37 Darius’s assumption of rule, which involved a coup that overthrew another claimant to the throne (Bardiya), elicited rebellions within the empire that had to be put down. It was after Darius’s reestablishment of order that Haggai prophesied in support of temple rebuilding from 520 to 515 BCE. At this time, Joshua and Zerubbabel were Yehud’s head priest and governor, respectively. Zerubbabel, like Sheshbazzar, was a descendant of David through Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE. Haggai’s esteem for both figures, his support of the latter as a royal Davidic leader, and his concern to rebuild a central temple suggest he was a central intermediary within Yehud, probably a returnee from among Judah’s former aristocracy. Haggai’s prophetic agenda of rebuilding the temple was pursued simultaneously by Zechariah. Like Haggai, Zechariah was a central intermediary in Yehud but differed in that he belonged to the traditional priestly lineage of Zadok. In many respects, Zechariah represents the same theological stream of tradition as that of the better known Zadokite priest, Ezekiel. Zechariah’s vision of Jerusalem without walls in Zechariah 2:4 (MT 2:8) draws directly on Ezekiel 38:11. Both prophets envision God’s supernatural fire protecting his cosmic highlands (Zech 2:5; Ezek 39:6). Both uphold the ideal expectation of God’s Presence indwelling Israel (Zech 2:5; Ezek 44:4). This is not to say that the two prophets think exactly alike. The sorts of expectations in Zechariah, which emerged already in Ezekiel’s prophecies, mark a new departure. Whereas classical prophecy typically concerned God’s work in moving and shaping history, these new visions looked to history’s final end and to the broader

68

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

transcendent backdrop in which it will occur. Scholars argue over the right terminology for this new eschatology, and no firm consensus has emerged. See the embedded excursus for a brief introduction to what we refer to as “apocalyptic prophecy.” At roughly the same time as Zechariah and Haggai (ca. 520–­500 BCE), or perhaps earlier, the final section of Isaiah—­that is, Isaiah 56–­66—­ began coming together in Persian Yehud. Serious scholarly disagreement remains about the authorship and provenance of Third Isaiah. It seems unlikely that any consensus will arise soon. Some scholars such as Paul Hanson have argued that these prophecies first arose among

EXCURSUS: THE RISE OF APOCALYPTIC PROPHECY IN ISRAEL The last book in the New Testament is called “Revelation” by Protestant Christians and the “Apocalypse of John” in Roman Catholic circles. The latter term reflects the Greek word apocalupsis standing behind the English word “revelation” in Revelation 1:1. Beyond the Apocalypse of John, scholars commonly apply the noun apocalypse and the adjective apocalyptic to a number of related texts that bear a family resemblance to Revelation. “Family resemblance” is, of course, subjective and imprecise; therefore, most scholars agree on the definition of the fully developed literary genre “apocalypse” developed by the Apocalypse Group of the Society of Biblical Literature: “‘Apocalypse’ is 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.”38 Isaiah 24–­27, for example, is more like Daniel and Revelation than it is like the rest of Isaiah 1–­39, and thus it fits the rubric of “apocalyptic prophecy.” It is sometimes even designated the “Isaianic Apocalypse.” Classical prophetic texts revolve around God’s purposes of affecting actions within human history. Apocalyptic texts, in contrast, assume a gulf between the ideal world of the seer’s vision and the quotidian world of human experience and history. Humans can neither bring in nor prevent God’s otherworldly future, which must be won by the Divine Warrior’s battle with chaos.

69

THE PROPHETS

In Isaiah 24–­27, Ezekiel 38–­39, Zechariah 12–­14, and other apocalyptic prophecy, mythic themes such as the cosmic conflict myth get projected as a historically realistic part of the advent of God’s reign on earth. The term realistic is meant to exclude metaphorical readings that domesticate the transcendent purview of the visions. The advent of God’s reign is expected imminently, demanding vigilant wakefulness. Cataclysmic events, sometimes described as “birth pangs” or “tribulations,” mark its nearness and separate the present and ideal ages. Already here with this binary or dialectic opposition of the ages, we perceive what scholars often call the “dualism” of apocalyptic prophecy. There is no neutral ground at the Divine Warrior’s advent. All shades of gray evaporate as reality splits between old and new, darkness and light, punishment and reward, evil and good.

Sidebar 2.4: Apocalyptic Prophecy Researchers continue to disagree over the social settings and conditions in which apocalyptic prophecy arises. Many biblical scholars, however, are finding helpful illumination in comparative work with “apocalyptic” groups and texts across various cultures and historical eras. In the social sciences, such groups or movements are termed millennial (or millenarian), and their worldview and its religious expression is called millennialism. In their social scientific use, these terms no longer refer to the “millennium” or thousand years of Revelation 20:1–­6 but rather to belief systems and their adherents oriented on an imminent arrival of an ideal world, which emerges through a cataclysmic break with banal, workaday experience. Millennial groups exhibit considerable variety in membership and social location. They arise both among the alienated and the powerful, the colonizing and the colonized, the poor and the rich. Whatever the group membership, millennialism fires the imagination, toughens the resolve, orients the planning, and elicits the passionate determination of its adherents.

70

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Levitical priests, such as Jeremiah, who had remained in the homeland after Babylonia destroyed the temple. Other scholars perceive significant differences between Third Isaiah and Levitical thinking, differences marked enough to posit a third major branch of the Israelite priesthood with a theology distinct from both the Levites and the Zadokites. One such scholar is Robert R. Wilson, who identifies the third priesthood as “Aaronide.” What seems clear is that a priestly community generated these texts, a community addressed in their plurality in Isaiah 62:10 in diction resonating with Isaiah 40:3. Prophecy in Mid-­Fifth-­Century Yehud Jerusalem’s population grew in the decades following the temple’s rededication in 515 BCE. By the Persian II period (450–­332 BCE), the city’s population was around thirteen hundred and Yehud’s size was about nineteen thousand. The farmers in surrounding villages were able to support a growing elite of temple specialists. Professionals staffing the temple complex included scribes, prophets, and priests representing Aaronide, Levitical, and Zadokite lineages. At this time, the demographics of Yehud supported new prophetic editing and composition, including a significant expansion of Zechariah and Third Isaiah, and the composition of Joel, Malachi, and perhaps Jonah.39 Scholars wish that more information was available about later decades of the Persian I period. We do know that about five years after the new temple was dedicated, Zerubbabel retired or died. The archaeological record (Elephantine papyri, Judean seals, bullae, and coins) reveals that governors continued to lead through Nehemiah’s time until at least 407 BCE.40 However, the Davidic line did not source these governors after about 490 BCE. Persia’s tolerant patronage continued to be appreciated in Yehud in this period, but international politics became turbulent. Persia under Darius attempted to extend its empire into Greece and met fierce resistance. Persia lost the battle of Marathon in 490  BCE, and Egypt rose up in rebellion against Persia in 486. Like Darius,

71

THE PROPHETS

his son Xerxes I (486–­465) struggled to make gains against Greece. His troops suffered defeats at Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale. Two close officials killed Xerxes in 465, and his son Artaxerxes I (465–­424) took over control of the empire. During the reign of Xerxes and the early part of Artaxerxes’s reign, Yehud struggled with poor leadership, internal conflict, and external opposition. We know from texts such as Isaiah 66:5 and Malachi 2:3 that temple leadership sometimes became compromised. From early on, the Zecharian tradition issued stern warnings about this, especially in Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12. We saw in chapter 1 that Zechariah 11:13 echoes Zechariah 6:12 and that the casting of treasure into the temple in Zechariah 11 is a rebuke of the prophet’s fellow priestly leaders. Conditions improved with the arrival of a priestly scribe named Ezra (perhaps around 458) and with the commissioning of Nehemiah as governor in 445. In the face of leadership failures and with Persia and Greece shaking the world stage, messianic and apocalyptic expectations grew fervent in the Zechariah circle. Persia was fortifying Yehud as a “stronghold” (Zech 9:12), warring against “Greece” (9:13). But Yehud’s role in this clash was but a harbinger of its place in the imminent cosmic combat of the divine warrior. In the great cosmic battle, “the Lord will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord God will . . . march forth in the whirlwinds” (Zech 9:14). Like Zechariah, the prophet Joel was a learned temple-­based intermediary with strong interests in interpreting earlier prophetic writings. Much of Joel’s exhortation to Yehud revolves around penitential rites in the temple, considered God’s dwelling ( Joel 3:21). References to the “house of the Lord” and to “Zion” are frequent ( Joel 1:9, 13, 14, 16; 2:1, 15, 17, 23, 32; 3:16, 17, 21). As for echoes of Scripture, Joel’s references to the “day of the Lord” use the diction of Isaiah 13:6, 9; Joel 2:28–­29 echoes Ezekiel 36:26 and 39:29; Joel 2:32 echoes Obadiah 1:17; Joel 3:10 echoes Isaiah 2:4; and Joel 3:16 echoes Amos 1:2. More examples could be cited, but clearly, Joel evinces the central role of scriptural reference and interpretation in postexilic prophecy.

72

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

Malachi is the last member of the Book of the Twelve. We will argue in our chapter on this figure that his prophecies stem from the mid-­ fifth century, probably from the reign of Artaxerxes I (465–­424 BCE). He was likely one of the Levites serving as minor clergy on the temple staff of Yehud—­that is, an officiant permitted to perform tasks related to worship but barred from sacrifice and denied the title of “priest” (kōhēn). Malachi took on the malaise and unfaithfulness to the covenant that seems to have set in when non-­Davidic governors took charge in Jerusalem. In a clear inner-­priestly dispute, he charges the altar priests of his day with rank negligence, and he presses the people at large to revive the Sinai covenant. He declares in Malachi 3:3–­4 that an apocalyptic purging of the temple priesthood is imminent that will purify all descendants of Levi, the eponymous ancestor of all clerical lines in Israel. In Deuteronomic and Levitical thinking, the category “Levites” is inclusive of the sons of Aaron and Zadok. We conclude our historical survey with the book of Jonah. Daniel receives separate treatment later in its own chapter. As noted above, it is very difficult to date Jonah precisely, but there is general agreement that it is late and may represent a Persian period retrospective on prophecy. With Jonah, we hold before us an ancient novella featuring a prophet as its main character. Jonah is not, however, the protagonist of the story; that would be God. Jonah is actually the antagonist. When called by God and given his commission, Jonah runs in the opposite direction, literally turning toward chaos and making a beeline for the sea (1:3, 7–­10). Quite the opposite of Noah, who willingly followed God’s directions to save humankind, Jonah was content to die in the flood (1:5–­6, 11–­15), and he would have succeeded if it were not for God, who forced him into the “ark” that was the belly of the fish (1:17). Seeing that he was defeated, Jonah relented and accepted his commission (3:2–­3). Then when the Assyrians repented and turned humbly to God (3:6–­9) and God forgave them (3:10), Jonah was angry—angry enough to die (4:1–­4, 9) for the very reason that God’s will was accomplished (4:10–­11).

73

THE PROPHETS

This was, however, not the final understanding of the Jonah novella. At some point, this little tale was inserted smack-­dab into the middle of the Book of the Twelve, at which time it exerted new influences upon ancient Israel’s prophetic legacy. Jonah’s canonical placement should not be dismissed as incidental in any discussion of the history of Israelite prophecy. A sidebar discussion probes Jonah’s canonical shape. As Jonah’s authors reflected upon the prophetic collection, it would seem they had conflicted feelings or at least a sense that more needed to be said. Should not Israel’s prophetic collection have more to say

Sidebar 2.5: Jonah and Canonical Hermeneutics: A Test Probe Speaking from within the Book of the Twelve and following Obadiah, Jonah broadens the context in which Obadiah’s trenchant judgment on Edom is heard. Much as the expanded ending of Amos broadens that book’s unrelenting judgments, so Jonah follows Obadiah to insist that God’s final aim for all nations is constructive. Micah follows Jonah, seconding its theme of God’s character as fundamentally gracious and merciful at its final, emphatic ending (7:18–­20). Next comes Nahum, which stands in emphatic dialogue with Jonah, since both texts revolve around Assyria. Again, in Nahum, Moses’s abiding proclamation of God’s essence as gracious (Exod 34:6–­7) is seconded (Nah 1:3), but Nahum now insists on the seriousness of Moses’s qualification that God’s grace and mercy in no way clear the guilty. Rather, as Exodus 34:6–­7 specifies, God must squelch evil, especially an evil that surfaces perniciously generation after generation, as Assyria showcases as we move from Jonah to Nahum: “The Lord, a God merciful and gracious . . . but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” Part of God’s mercy is to check the propensity of evil to resurface again and again in a given family, people, or system.

74

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

about God’s investment in nations outside the covenant people (see Jonah 4:10; cf. Isa 19:24–­25)? Should it not make clearer God’s love of animals and nature ( Jonah 4:11)? Should it not better acknowledge God’s undergirding, anonymous, and inscrutable roles in human history ( Jonah 1:6; 3:9; cf. Esth 4:14)? Jonah cautions the reader that the prophetic word does not tie God’s hands, that God is always free to change God’s mind ( Jonah 3:10). Notes 1 “Report of Wenamon,” trans. Robert K. Ritner, in Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, ed. Martti Nissinen, C. L. Seow, and Robert K. Ritner, WAW 12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 220. 2 Nissinen, Seow, and Ritner, 19. 3 Nissinen, Seow, and Ritner, 16. 4 Nissinen, Seow, and Ritner, e.g., 124, 126, 151–­53, 164. 5 Choon-­Leong Seow, “West Semitic Sources,” in Nissinen, Seow, and Ritner, Prophets and Prophecy, 201–­18. 6 See John S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” HTR 634 (1970): 31–­33. 7 Seow, trans., “Zakkur inscription,” lines 11–­13 in Nissinen, Seow, and Ritner, Prophets and Prophecy, 206. 8 Seow, 209–­10. 9 Seow, 209–­10. 10 For sample arguments, see Mark Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 145, 147, 244. 11 E.g., Bernhard Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage fiir die innere Entwicklungsgeschichte der israelitischen Religion (Bonn, Germany: Marcus, 1875); Max Weber, “The Prophet,” in Prophecy in Israel, ed. David Petersen, IRT 10 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 99–­111. 12 See Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, SBLStBL 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 231–­44. 13 For a valuable study of Sinai and Zion as thematic rubrics opening a rich entrée into the Hebrew Bible, see Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1985). For Zion as Eden, consult Steven S. Tuell, “The Rivers of Paradise: Ezek 47:1–­12 and Gen 2:10–­14,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. S. Dean McBride Jr. and William Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 171–­89. 14 David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets, JSOTSup 17 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1981).

75

THE PROPHETS

15 Note that Ezekiel’s critique of the prophets of Jerusalem addresses women (13:17–­23) as well as men (13:1–­16), and that he criticizes both groups for the same reason: they have lied in the Lord’s name, and so led Jerusalem to destruction (see Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–­20, AYB 22 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 242). Significantly, Ezekiel does not object to these women as women. 16 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 222; Mark Leuchter, “The Temple Sermon and the Term Māqôm in the Jeremianic Corpus,” JSOT 30 (2005): 93–­109; H. G. M. Williamson, “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible,” in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 531 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 72. 17 Williamson, “Prophetesses,” 70. 18 Esther J. Hamori, Women’s Divination in Biblical Literature: Prophecy, Necromancy, and Other Arts of Knowledge, AYB Reference Library (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), 161. 19 See COS 2.293, but a fuller reconstruction of the damaged cuneiform is available in Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2 (New York: Greenwood, 1968), par. 4 (see ANET, 284). 20 At this time, Ethiopia was stronger than Egypt, and Egypt was ruled by an Ethiopian pharaoh. It is possible that Hezekiah married an Ethiopian princess, and Zephaniah, the son of Hezekiah and Cushi (Zeph 1:1), was a descendent of this union. 21 See the work of J. J. M. Roberts: “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 (1973): 329–­44; “Zion Tradition,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 985–­87; and “Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition,” in Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology, ed. Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, SBLSS 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 163–­70. 22 For one accessible example, see Philip R. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 148 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015). 23 For discussion of this distinction, see Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exodus (New York: HarperOne, 2017), 31. 24 Frank Moore Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 274–­89. 25 See the chapter on Zephaniah (ch. 14) later in this volume, where we date Zephaniah to the earlier years of Josiah’s reign, when the Deuteronomists and the People of the Land were wrestling to establish Josiah and the Deuteronomistic traditions in power. 26 See James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–­Jonah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 5. Nogalski states

76

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE ISRAELITE PROPHETS

(Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217 [New York: Walter de  Gruyter, 1993], 278), “The Deuteronomistic superscriptions of these four writings function literarily as a chronological bracket linking YHWH’s prophetic message from the reign of Uzziah forward to Hezekiah and from the reign of Josiah backward to Hezekiah.” 27 Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 176–­77 and 279–­80; Nogalski, Book of the Twelve, 6. Similarly, Rainer Albertz argued for a late exilic date but found the message of disaster upon Jerusalem to be too dispiriting (“Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four,’” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325 [New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003], 232–­51, 236). He proposed instead an intended message of the editor to be the purification of the people by the experience of the exile. 28 We are mixing the translations of the NRSV (“Amend your ways”) and Robert Alter (“I will have you dwell”; Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: The Prophets, vol. 2 [New York: W. W. Norton, 2019]) to better reflect the syntax of the Hebrew verb in this passage. See our discussion in the chapter on Jeremiah (ch. 4). 29 Jon Levenson argues cogently that Jeremiah preaches not against the temple in and of itself but only against those whose complacency makes a parody of its cosmic and sacramental dimensions (Sinai and Zion, 168). 30 Jonathan Stökl has demonstrated that Neo-­Assyrian prophecies were also used in eighth-­and seventh-­century documents to provide authoritative support for the arguments being made by the authors. See Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison, CHANE 56 (Boston: Brill, 2012), 131–­41. 31 According to 2 Kgs 24:17, Zedekiah was Jehoiachin’s “uncle,” thus a son of Josiah (see Jer 37:1). Second Chronicles 36:10, however, speaks of Zedekiah as Jehoiachin’s “brother” (see NRSV), although perhaps the Hebrew term simply means a “kinsman” here (see NJPS, NET, NASB). So too 1 Chr 3:16 may also state that Zedekiah was a son of Jehoiakim but the term “son” in the verse may mean that Zedekiah was a “successor” of Jehoiachin, who was a “successor” of Jehoiakim (see NET). After all, the preceding v. 15 identifies Zedekiah as the third son of Josiah. 32 ANET, 286. 33 Other interpreters see more signs of conflict between returnees and homelanders—­particularly in Malachi and Third Isaiah. For the widely accepted view that this conflict was particularly strong between at least some of the priestly hierocrats and the leaders of the people who had remained in the land, see, e.g., S. Dean McBride Jr.’s succinct summary, “Biblical Literature in Its Historical Context: The Old Testament,” in HBC, 35–­36; and consult Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40–­66, IBC (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1995), 185–­93; and Steven S. Tuell, “The Priesthood of the ‘Foreigner’: Evidence of Competing Polities in Ezekiel 44:1–­14 and Isaiah

77

THE PROPHETS

56:1–­8,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr., ed. John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 183–­204. On the struggles at the time over who constituted God’s chosen remnant, see now Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–­5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013). 34 Laurie E. Pearce and Cornelia Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, vol. 28 (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2014). 35 In the late 1990s, minimalist scholars raised significant doubts about the mainstream scholarly understanding of the Babylonian exile in several studies, including Hans M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period, SO Suppl. 28 (Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press, 1996); Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books, 1999); Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, Library of Ancient Israel (London: SPCK, 1998); and Philip R. Davies, “Exile? What Exile? Whose Exile?,” in Leading Captivity Captive: “The Exile” as History and Ideology, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, JSOTSup 278, European Seminar in Historical Methodology 2 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 128–­38. 36 See Robert R. Wilson, “Scribal Culture and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 105. 37 Steven S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–­48, HSM 49 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992). 38 John Collins, “Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 9. 39 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study, JSOTSup 294 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 287. 40 Carter, Emergence, 172–­248; Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, JSOTSup 304 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 32–­33; Jeremiah W. Cataldo, A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Period Province, T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 114–­17.

78

PART II

The Prophetic Literature

3

Isaiah

Introduction It is no accident that among the biblical texts preserved at Qumran, one of the best-­represented books is Isaiah—­twenty-­one copies were found, including one of the first discovered, largely intact documents, the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa).1 Similarly, apart from the Psalms, Isaiah is the most frequently quoted and referenced book in the New Testament (about ninety-­six times).2 It is not difficult to understand the tremendous popularity of this book. Declarations of divine love (ʾāhab) for Israel are generally rare in the prophets (used in Jeremiah only in Jer 31:3 and implicitly in 11:15; no use of ʾāhab in Ezekiel; in the Twelve, only used in Hos 3:1; 11:1; 14:4 [5]; Mal 1:2; 2:11; and implicitly in Zeph 3:17). By contrast, in Isaiah, God’s love for the people is explicitly affirmed (41:8; 43:4; 48:14; and implicitly in 5:1 and 63:9). Isaiah contains some of the most beautiful and evocative poetic passages in Scripture, and its message overall is extraordinarily positive, indeed ebullient—so much so that, in his book God: A Biography, Jack Miles refers to Isaiah as “the manic . . . articulation of the prophetic message”!3

81

THE PROPHETS

Figure 3.1 The Prophet Isaiah fresco, painted by Michelangelo and his assistants for the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican between 1508 and 1512 CE.

All prophetic books are collections, edited, revised, and reedited, often multiple times, by the communities that preserved them. But Isaiah, in particular, is famously an anthology—­a prophetic library spanning nearly three hundred years of Israel’s history, from the rise of Assyria in the mid-­eighth century into the Persian period. At least since the work of J. C. Döderlein (1775 CE) and J. G. Eichorn (1780–­83), scholars have recognized that Isaiah can be divided, on stylistic grounds as well as on the basis of historical referents in the text, into

82

ISAIAH

Figure 3.2 A photographic reproduction of a portion (Isa 53) of the Great Isaiah Scroll, the best preserved of the biblical scrolls found at Qumran. The Great Isaiah Scroll contains the entire book of Isaiah in Hebrew, apart from some small damaged parts.

First Isaiah (chs. 1–­39), set in the mid-­eighth century, and Second Isaiah (chs. 40–­66), set at the end of the Babylonian exile.4 Others have argued, largely on stylistic grounds, that a further subdivision demarcates Isaiah 56–­66 (commonly called “Third Isaiah”), set in Judah after the return from exile, and Isaiah 24–­27 (the “Isaianic apocalypse”), which is perhaps the latest-­dated portion of the book. Isaiah begins, however, with a superscription setting the whole book in the mid to late eighth century BCE: “In the days of Uzziah [783–­742 BCE], Jotham [742–­735 BCE], Ahaz [735–­715 BCE], and Hezekiah [715–­687 BCE], kings of Judah” (Isa 1:1). Intriguingly, the book appears to begin again in

83

THE PROPHETS

Isaiah 2:1 with a second superscription, without these dates; indeed, J. J. M. Roberts proposes that the superscription at 1:1 may be based on 2:1.5 This suggests not only that First Isaiah has been supplemented by the additions of Second Isaiah, Third Isaiah, and the Isaianic apocalypse but that the entire scroll has been reworked again and again, from its beginning to its end. Perhaps Isaiah 1 is the editorial introduction to this book, as Isaiah 66 is its conclusion. First Isaiah (Isaiah 1–­39) In Isaiah 1:1, this book is identified as “the vision [ḥăzōn] of Isaiah son of Amoz” (see 2:1: “the word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw [ḥazâ]”). Only the books of Nahum and Obadiah are also called “visions” (likewise, ḥăzōn in Nah 1:1 and Obad 1:1; but see Hab 1:1, which also uses the verb ḥazâ, and Hab 2:2, where ḥăzōn appears), but broadly speaking, the concept of vision characterizes Judean prophecy: Ezekiel sees “visions of God” (marʾôt ʾĕlohîm; Ezek 1:1); Habakkuk curiously “sees” the oracle (Hab 1:1); and Micah and Amos likewise “see” (ḥazâ) the word of the Lord (Amos 1:1; Mic 1:1). In contrast, revelation comes to the Israelite Hosea through the ear, not the eye: “the word of the Lord” comes to him (Hos 1:1) rather than a vision.6 The same is true of Jeremiah (1:1–­2, 9–­10) and Zephaniah (1:1), who are, like Hosea, related theologically and ideologically to the northern, Levitical ideals expressed in the book of Deuteronomy. In time, the idea of revelation by the word prevailed over revelation through visions, as the title nabîʾ (prophet) prevailed over the title ḥozĕh (visionary); so, the postexilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all receive the word of the Lord (see Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1; Mal 1:1), as do Jonah (1:1) and Joel (1:1).7 Yet it is intriguing to note that the title nabîʾ, although appearing ninety-­five times in Jeremiah and seventeen times in Ezekiel, is found only seven times in Isaiah and refers to Isaiah himself only in Isaiah 36:1–­39:8, a narrative taken from 2 Kings 18:13–­20:19 (see Isa 3:2; 9:15; 28:7; 29:10; 37:2; 38:1; 39:3). As his call (see Isa 6:1–­13) confirms, First Isaiah was a visionary.

84

ISAIAH

Historical Setting of First Isaiah The point of the king list in the superscription, which is also found in the superscriptions of Hosea (Hos 1:1) and Micah (Mic 1:1), is to place Isaiah’s mission in the context of Assyria’s rise and Israel’s fall, as well as to place him alongside his rough contemporaries: Hosea in the north and Micah in the south. That it is a list of the “kings of Judah” during Isaiah’s tenure also clarifies Isaiah’s audience. Unlike the Israelite Hosea, in whose superscription northern kings as well are listed, or Isaiah’s Judean colleague Micah, whose message concerns both “Samaria and Jerusalem” (Mic 1:1), Isaiah’s vision concerns “Judah and Jerusalem.” He is a southerner, speaking to southerners: hence, this First Isaiah is sometimes called “Isaiah of Jerusalem.” During the reigns of Uzziah (called Azariah in 2 Kgs; 783–­742 BCE) and his northern ally Jeroboam II (786–­746 BCE), both Judah and Israel experienced peace and prosperity (see Amos 8:4–­7)—­in no small part because the early to mid-­eighth century was a period of Assyrian weakness. That changed with the accession of Tiglath-­pileser III (745–­727 BCE), who once more expanded Assyria’s power westward to the Mediterranean coast. By 738 BCE, he was receiving tribute from Rezin of Damascus, ruler of Syria, and Menahem (745–­733 BCE), then king of Israel in Samaria.8 In Judah, Jotham (742–­735 BCE) had succeeded his father, Uzziah (see the chronology chart on p. 60). Jotham resisted joining Syria’s king Rezin (750–­732 BCE) and Israel’s king Pekah (736–­732 BCE) in an alliance against Assyria (2 Kgs 15:37). Pekah and Rezin responded by moving against Judah militarily (see 2 Kgs 15:37), hoping an invasion would either force Judah into their alliance or allow them to seize by force the resources to fuel their resistance, launching the Syro-­Ephraimite War (735–­732 BCE). But it fell to Jotham’s successor, Ahaz (735–­715 BCE), to deal with Pekah and Rezin’s imminent siege of Jerusalem. Isaiah 7:1–­9:7 (9:6) presents Isaiah of Jerusalem as a prophetic counselor with access to the king, confronting him directly about the looming invasion at Jerusalem’s water system (in 735 BCE).

85

THE PROPHETS

In his anthropological study of prophecy, Robert R. Wilson describes such figures, working closely with the central religious and political authorities of their cultures, as “central intermediaries” who are “primarily responsible for maintaining their societies and for promoting community welfare.”9 Rejecting Isaiah’s theologically grounded advice (on Jerusalemite Zion theology, see Isa 2:1–­4; Ps 46), Ahaz resolved his difficulties pragmatically, by becoming himself an Assyrian vassal (2 Kgs 16:5–­9; Isa 7:1–­9:7 [9:6]). Tiglath-­pileser proceeded to do what he was already in the process of doing: violently suppressing Pekah and Rezin’s revolt. But Judah and Jerusalem were now in Assyrian hands. Pekah’s successor in the north, Hoshea (732–­724 BCE), remained a loyal Assyrian vassal as long as Tiglath-­pileser lived. But when he died, Hoshea joined a general rebellion against the Assyrians in the west. Unfortunately, Shalmaneser V (727–­722 BCE) lost no time in suppressing this revolt mercilessly. By 722 BCE, Samaria had fallen. Assyria’s new king, Sargon II (722–­705 BCE), enacted the brutal policies of

Figure 3.3 The signet of King Ahaz (735–­715 BCE), impressed into a clay document seal, or bulla. The inscription reads, “Belonging to Ahaz [son of] Jothan, King of Judah.”

86

ISAIAH

Figure 3.4 Clay bulla inscribed in ancient Hebrew: “Belonging to Hezekiah (son of) Ahaz king of Judah,” decorated with a two-­winged scarab representing the royal emblem.

slaughter, rape, and exile that Assyrian treaties threatened to bring against rebels, resettling the land with refugees and exiles from elsewhere in his empire and bringing an end to the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 17).10 In the south, Ahaz remained to the end of his reign a loyal Assyrian vassal. However, his son Hezekiah (715–­687 BCE) thought differently. Hezekiah is depicted in all the sources as a good, reforming king, but Chronicles, in particular, draws on old Judean sources to depict his preparations to resist the Assyrians (2 Chr 32:1–­8).11 His overtures to the northern survivors, welcoming those refugees into his kingdom (2 Chr 30:1–­27), made it possible for Hezekiah to present a strong, unified front at home once he was ready to launch his own rebellion. He fortified Jerusalem with an additional outer wall, strengthened the Millo (an earth-­filled, stepped terrace structure, part of Jerusalem’s

87

THE PROPHETS

defenses), organized and armed his citizens, and appointed officers to lead them. The description of Hezekiah’s economic buildup in preparation for Sennacherib’s invasion is supported by archaeological investigation, particularly by the distribution of clay jars impressed with Hezekiah’s royal seal that show “that Hezekiah established storehouses throughout the kingdom of Judah.”12 Finally, Hezekiah established alliances with other powers in the region, particularly with Egypt (2 Kgs 18:21 ǁ Isa 36:6; Isa 30:1–­17). Hezekiah timed his rebellion carefully, striking upon the death of Sargon II (2 Kgs 18:7–­8), counting on Sargon’s successor being preoccupied for some time after his accession with internal affairs and revolts closer to home. However, despite Hezekiah’s careful preparations, his revolt failed. The new king of Assyria, Sennacherib (705–­681 BCE), responded swiftly and decisively. From Assyrian annals, as well as from 2 Kings 18:13, we learn of Sennacherib’s victories throughout the region, which decimated Judah (see the map on p. 46).13 At last, like his father, Ahaz, Hezekiah was shut up in Jerusalem by siege. Sennacherib sent messengers to Hezekiah from his siege headquarters at Lachish, a major Judean stronghold, calling for his surrender (2 Chr 32:9–­15 ǁ 2 Kgs 18:19–­35 ǁ Isa 36:1–­20).14 At this point, Isaiah once more enters the picture, as a prophetic counselor to kings. His message to Hezekiah is very like what had been his message to Ahaz: don’t be afraid—­the Lord will deliver Jerusalem (Isa 37:5–­7; see 7:10–­16). This time, the prophet was heeded, but whether he is heard (Hezekiah) or not (Ahaz), the result is the same: Jerusalem is preserved. Isaiah’s faith in the cosmic prerogative of the God of Zion stands firmly vindicated: “[God’s] sanctuary is firmly established and beautiful” (Ps 96:6 NET). According to both the biblical witness and the Assyrian annals, the siege was withdrawn, and the city did not fall. The explanation for this extraordinary occurrence is convoluted. In 2 Kings 18:13–­16, Hezekiah meekly surrenders to save his city, emptying his treasury and stripping the gold from the temple doors to pay the tribute demanded by Sennacherib. The annals of Sennacherib likewise claim that Hezekiah,

88

ISAIAH

Sidebar 3.1: Hezekiah’s Tunnel (see fig. 2.6, p. 45) Hezekiah’s actions with regard to Jerusalem’s water supply, documented in Chronicles, are also confirmed archaeologically. The primary water source for Jerusalem was the Gihon Spring, which fed a small stream called Shiloah, in the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 32:30; 33:14; Isa 8:5–­ 8). To conceal this spring from the Assyrians and to make its water accessible from within Jerusalem, Hezekiah stopped up the spring and built an “outlet of the waters of Gihon” (2 Chr 32:30). His tunnel, 1,550 feet long, is still accessible today. An inscription found in this tunnel, the famous Siloam Inscription, can be reliably dated to the eighth century, supporting the Chronicler’s ascription of the tunnel to Hezekiah.15

shut up in his city “like a bird in a cage,” had been forced to pay tribute, but never claim that Sennacherib took the city.16 In 2 Kings 19:6–­7 ǁ Isaiah 37:6–­7, a distraught Hezekiah is assured by Isaiah that Sennacherib “shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.” The fulfillment of this prediction is recorded in 2 Kings 19:36–­37 ǁ Isaiah 37:37–­38, and in Assyrian sources: Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons, but not until 681 BCE, long after Jerusalem’s siege. Finally, 2 Kings 19:35 ǁ Isaiah 37:36 declares that “the angel of the Lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-­five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians”—­referring, perhaps, to a plague in the Assyrian siege camp that forced them to withdraw. Perhaps the simplest objective and historical explanation of why the siege was not pressed to its conclusion is that it did not need to be: with the revolt effectively suppressed and Hezekiah paying tribute, there was no need for Sennacherib to take Jerusalem—­particularly as Hezekiah’s preparations made the city’s defenses formidable. But the fact that the greatest military power of the day had withdrawn without conquering

89

THE PROPHETS

Jerusalem was remembered as a testimony to God’s miraculous preservation of God’s own city (see Pss 46; 48) and as confirmation of Isaiah’s credentials as God’s messenger. Literary Features of First Isaiah Although Isaiah 1–­39 is set in the mid to late eighth century, at the height of Assyria’s power, it clearly was not all written at that time. As has already been observed, the double beginning of the book suggests that the first chapter is an editorial prefix. Further, while most of the material in these chapters is poetry, there are also extensive prose narratives. Isaiah 6:1–­9:7 (9:6) is an alternately third-­ and first-­ person narrative that appears to be “a collection of Isaiah’s memoirs” set during the Syro-­Ephraimite War (735–­732), which may have circulated independently prior to its incorporation into this book.17 Other originally independent collections incorporated into First Isaiah are the oracles against the nations in 13–­23, the Isaianic apocalypse in 24–­27 (likely one of the latest portions of this scroll; discussed separately below); and Isaiah 34–­35, “which has points of contact with both chaps. 40–­55 and 24–­27” and “also appears to be later than Isaiah of Jerusalem.”18 Isaiah 36–­39 is a historical narrative included by Isaiah’s editors, largely drawn from 2 Kings 18:13–­20:19. The Message of First Isaiah Although the editorial superscription to the book says that Isaiah of Jerusalem began his career during the reign of Uzziah, his call vision is dated “in the year that King Uzziah died” (742/3 BCE; Isa 6:1).19 The death of a king is always a time of uncertainty, but Uzziah’s death coincided with the renewed Assyrian military presence in the region—­the beginning of the end for the northern kingdom of Israel and the threatened end of Judah and Jerusalem as well. In that baleful and auspicious year, Isaiah says, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty” (6:1). Details of his vision (6:1, 4, 6) suggest that Isaiah was in

90

ISAIAH

the temple in Jerusalem when this vision occurred, which suggests that he was a priest—­certainly, he shares a priestly view concerning Zion and its temple as the place of God’s throne. However, it is plain that for this prophet-­priest, the temple cannot contain God: just “the hem of his robe filled the temple” (6:1). The Lord is surrounded by terrifying six-­ winged guardian beings, cobra-­ like creatures called “seraphim” (for the Hebrew śārāp̱ for “snake,” see Num 21:6, 8; Deut 8:5; Isa 14:29; 30:6).20 But rather than protecting the Lord, they are protecting themselves from the divine presence, covering their faces and their bodies with four of their wings and flying with the remaining two. Completing this portrayal of awesome and unearthly splendor is the song sung by the seraphim: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts [Yhwh ṣĕbāʾôṯ, an ancient divine title associated with the ark of the covenant and with Zion; typical of Isa, where it appears 62 times (e.g., Isa 18:7; 24:23; 25:6; 31:4–­5)]; the whole earth is full of his glory [the Hebrew kāḇôḏ is the preferred priestly term for ‘divine presence in sacred space’; see Exod 24:16, 17; 29:43; 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10, 21, 22; 16:19, 42; 20:6].”21 Isaiah is overwhelmed by the vision and by his own unworthiness (6:5), but one of the seraphim touches his lips with a burning coal from the altar hearth to purge his “unclean lips” (6:7), so that when the enthroned Lord asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?,” Isaiah can respond, “Here am I; send me!” (6:8). Isaiah’s call vision contains the major themes of the prophet’s message. First Isaiah is dominated by an overwhelming sense of divine holiness. Another of Isaiah’s favorite divine titles is “the Holy One of Israel” (used twelve times in Isa 1–­39). It is in terms of the Lord’s holiness that Isaiah’s message of ethical judgment is worked out: O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord! For you have forsaken the ways of your people, O house of Jacob. . . .

91

THE PROPHETS

The haughty eyes of people shall be brought low, and the pride of everyone shall be humbled; and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. (2:5–­6, 11) Isaiah’s message of social justice sounds at times very like his near contemporaries, Amos and Hosea (see Isa 3:13–­15 and Amos 2:6–­16; Isa 3:16–­4:1 and Hos 2:2–­13); indeed, this book incorporates a Zion song that Micah also uses, although to a different end (see Isa 2:1–­4 and Mic 4:1–­3). However, for those prophets, the message of judgment is unyielding: for Amos, the northern kingdom is doomed (Amos 8:1–­14), as is Jerusalem for Micah (Mic 3:9–­12). Even for Hosea, who hopes for restoration, that hope will only be realized after Israel’s destruction (Hos 2:14–­23). For Isaiah, however, the Holy One is always the Holy One of Israel. So even in the grim message of judgment Isaiah is given to bear following his call (6:9–­13), there is a note of hope: Even if a tenth part remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains standing when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump. (6:13) Isaiah 11 seems to be set after the depredations of the Syro-­ Ephraimite War in Judah and the fall of Israel and deportation of its people. Again, Isaiah describes his people as a tree cut down and burned to a stump—­but again, there is life in the stump: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots” (11:1; see 53:2). Isaiah’s vision of Judah’s resuscitation is perforce a vision of the renewal of kingship: Jesse was the father of David, ancestor of Judah’s kings (see Ruth 4:17–­22; 1 Sam 16). Isaiah idealistically sets forth his vision of what the king should be, and one day will be (11:2–­5; see 9:2-6

92

ISAIAH

[1-7]). Just government in the social realm reflects divine order in the natural realm (see Ps 19), and so Isaiah dreams of a world in which nature reflects God’s intent for creation perfectly (Isa 11:6–­9; see Gen 1:29–­30). For Isaiah, then, despair at God’s punishment yields to hope, for God’s judgment is always tempered by mercy. Isaiah’s Memoirs (6:1–­9:7 [9:6]) Like his contemporaries, who view Assyria as the means by which the Lord will punish a rebellious people, Isaiah refers to Assyria as a weapon in God’s hand, wielded against Judah (see Isa 7:20; 10:5–­6). However, Isaiah also offers assurance that that judgment will be limited in scope—­specifically, that Jerusalem will not fall (Isa 7–­8; see Isa 2:2–­4 ǁ Mic 4:1–­3). In Isaiah’s memoirs of the Syro-­Ephraimite War, this message of judgment tempered by mercy is communicated through the symbolic names of three children. First, Isaiah presents to King Ahaz

Figure 3.5 The Tell Dan stele, ninth century BCE, the earliest extrabiblical mention of the house of David.

93

THE PROPHETS

his son Shear-­jashub (i.e., “a remnant shall return”; 7:1–­9). The point is clear: no matter what Pekah and Rezin do, they cannot utterly annihilate God’s people—­the Lord will preserve a remnant. When the king is (perhaps understandably) not reassured, Isaiah invites him, on the Lord’s behalf, to ask for any sign of God’s deliverance he likes. When the king smugly refuses to “test” God in this way, Isaiah declares that a sign has already been given: “Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel” (7:14). Since elsewhere in this memoir, Isaiah gives his own children symbolic names, a number of scholars believe that this too may refer to Isaiah’s own child. Immanuel, however, is mentioned later (see Isa 8:8) in a way that sounds as though this is a royal name—­perhaps referring to Ahaz’s own son, Hezekiah. But the significance of the sign lies originally not in who the child is but in the meaning of his symbolic name and in the timing of his birth. In Hebrew, ʿimmānû ʾĒl means “God is with us.” The child Immanuel, whose birth is either imminent or recent, will, by the time that he is weaned (early toddlerhood, when he begins to be able to “reject evil and choose good”), be able to eat “curds and honey,” products of the countryside not available in a city under siege. In other words, the siege will not last much more than a year or two, “for before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted” (7:16). The sign children do not sway Ahaz; he has already committed himself to his own political solution to the siege of Jerusalem, appealing to Tiglath-­pileser for aid. So Isaiah brings a third sign child: Maher-­shalal-­hash-­baz (“Hurry, spoil; hasten, prey”; 8:1–­4). This child is a double-­edged sign. First, Damascus and Samaria have become spoil and prey to the Assyrians—­as the prophet promised, the Lord has broken the power of Judah’s enemies. However, Judah as well has, by Ahaz’s rash action, become spoil and prey—­and without lifting a sword in its own defense. In Isaiah 8:5–­8, Isaiah declares that Ahaz has forsaken God’s commitment to Zion, compared to “the waters of Shiloah that flow gently,” for “the mighty flood waters of the River [Euphrates],

94

ISAIAH

the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel (8:7–­8).” Isaiah, now desperately unpopular in the court, goes into hiding, entrusting his words to his followers: “Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him” (8:16–­17). Whether referring to these memoirs alone or to an early version of the collected oracles in Isaiah 1–­39, these words mark the beginning of the written composition that will become the scroll of Isaiah. Oracles against the Nations (13–­23) Collections of oracles against foreign nations often appear in prophetic books (see Jer 46–­51; Ezek 25–­32; Amos 1–­2; Obad 1; Zeph 2:4–­15; Zech 9:1–­8). It is unlikely that any foreigner ever actually heard these oracles; their intended audience was the people of Israel—­much as, in our own day, political pronouncements on international affairs may actually be meant for domestic consumption. In their final form, Isaiah’s oracles against the nations have been edited in light of the Babylonian exile (see the prose inserts at 14:1–­3, 22–­23, which relate the oracles against Babylon in chapters 13 and 14 specifically to that later context). But a great deal that is here may go back to Isaiah of Jerusalem. First Isaiah is particularly committed to condemning foreign alliances, especially with Egypt (30:1–­17) and Babylon: Jerusalem ought to trust for its deliverance in God alone. J. J. M. Roberts aptly proposes that the taunt song to the fallen king of Babylon in 14:4–­21 was directed initially against the brutal Assyrian monarch Sargon II, who was called the king of Babylon.22 The fallen king is compared to hêlēl ben-­sā̆ ḥar, “Day Star, son of Dawn” (14:12), an allusion to the Canaanite myth of Athtar, an astral deity who in his hubris claimed the throne of Baal before being cast down.23 In later Jewish and

95

THE PROPHETS

Christian reading, this passage is interpreted as referring to a war in heaven and to Satan as a fallen angel (the name “Lucifer,” Latin for “light-­bearer,” comes from the Vulgate translation of Isa 14:12). By way of comparison, Amos’s oracles against the nations lead into a scathing judgment against Israel as being no better than its enemies and rivals (Amos 2:6–­16), while Zephaniah’s are introduced by an oracle addressing Judah (Zeph 2:1–­3) and end with a judgment oracle against Jerusalem (Zeph 3:1–­13). In contrast, Isaiah’s oracles against the nations are introduced by a song of thanksgiving for Zion (Isa 12:1–­6). Similarly, at least in their final form, in many of Isaiah’s oracles, salvation is offered to the nations as well (see 19:18–­25, regarding Egypt and even Assyria; and 23:17–­18, regarding Tyre). This theme of hope and deliverance carries over into Second Isaiah. Isaiah and Hezekiah (Isaiah 36–­39) The final four chapters of First Isaiah narrate three tales involving chiefly Hezekiah but also Isaiah, who is in service as God’s messenger and who divulges to the king his fate and the fate of Jerusalem. These chapters are curious because they reproduce significant portions of 2 Kings 18:13, 18:17–­20:19, in many places word-­for-­word. Just as fascinating as the textual history of this material itself, however, is its role in the final canonical shape of Isaiah. The first of the three episodes, found in Isaiah 36:1–­37:38 (ǁ 2 Kgs 18:13; 18:17–­19:37), provides a theologically tendentious narrative of the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib. Scholars have argued that this narrative has been composed out of three sources, though dissenting views approach the material synchronically.24 Source A (2 Kgs 18:14–­16) does not mention Isaiah and is not found in Isaiah 36–­39. It reports that Hezekiah capitulated to the Assyrian king and paid tribute in order to sue for peace. Source B1, Isaiah 36:2–­37:9a, 37–­38 (ǁ 2 Kgs 18:17–­19:9a, 36–­37), ignores Hezekiah’s capitulation and narrates a long speech by the Rabshakeh, an Assyrian official, who speaks for his king, Sennacherib. In

96

ISAIAH

a clever move, his speech clearly echoes Deuteronomic themes: “But if you say to me, ‘We rely on the Lord our God,’ is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar’?” (Isa 36:7; see also v. 15, 18). In this source, Hezekiah went into mourning, turned to the temple, and sent his associates to seek out a word from Isaiah (37:1–­2). Isaiah offered an assurance from the Lord: “Do not be afraid. . . . I myself will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor, and return to his own land; I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land” (37:6–­7). Sure enough, as a true prophet, the words of Isaiah come to pass. Sennacherib returns to Nineveh but is murdered by his two sons as he was worshipping his god, Nisroch.25 So according to Source B1, the Lord delivered Hezekiah and Jerusalem out of the hand of Sennacherib, but the Assyrian god could not deliver Sennacherib from his own sons. It is important to note that Isaiah is mentioned only once, though in the theologically significant role of foretelling God’s deliverance. Hezekiah is the main character, the model of a pious king who seeks God in the Lord’s temple, relies on the Lord despite the Rabshakeh’s threats, and in the end, is rewarded for his piety. Another source, Source B2 (Isa 37:9b–­36 ǁ 2 Kgs 19:9b–­35), repeats many of the themes of B1. The Rabshakeh’s speech is abbreviated and placed into a letter, though the content is the same: “Do not let your God on whom you rely deceive you” (37:10). Hezekiah takes the letter to the Lord and asks for deliverance, “so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord” (37:20), an echo of Deuteronomy 6:4–­5. Isaiah plays a larger role in Source B2, offering an extended prophecy of salvation (37:22b–­29) and a sign (v. 30–­32) and concluding that God will defend Jerusalem (33–­35). Isaiah’s prophecy comes true in verse 36 when an angel of the Lord strikes down 185,000 Assyrian troops, a scene embellished and celebrated centuries later by Lord Byron (see sidebar 3.3 below). Scene two of these final chapters of First Isaiah is found in chapter 38. In this vignette, Hezekiah becomes ill and prays for healing. Isaiah is directed by God to assure Hezekiah with a sign that fifteen years

97

THE PROPHETS

will be added to his life. The Isaiah version of the scene diverges from the parallel in 2 Kings 20:1–­11 by expanding the text with a prayer by the king (38:10–­20). With the third scene, Isaiah 39:1–­8 (ǁ 2 Kgs 20:12–­19), the narrative sours on Hezekiah. Whereas in scenes one (the siege of Jerusalem) and two (Hezekiah’s illness) Hezekiah entreats the Lord in the temple, in this third scene we read of Hezekiah opening the temple treasury to the Babylonians. Even when Isaiah delivers a message of eventual

Sidebar 3.2: Immanuel in Isaiah’s Canonical Shape and in the New Testament In Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth, he cites Isaiah 7:14 with reference to the Christ Child: “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us’” (Matt 1:22–­23). Reading the Scriptures alert for passages that prefigured Jesus’s coming, Matthew would of course have hit upon this passage in Isaiah. Believing Jesus to be God in our midst, he would have been certain that Jesus was Immanuel, “God is with us.” We need also to remember that Matthew was probably reading Isaiah, not in Hebrew, but in the Greek of the Septuagint. Isaiah says, “The young woman is with child” (Isa 7:14); in Hebrew, the word used for “young woman” is ʿalmâ: a young woman of marriageable age. In the Septuagint, ʿalmâ is translated to the Greek parthenos, which in the second century BCE when the Septuagint translators did their work may have had the same connotations as the Hebrew ʿalmâ. But it could also mean—­and certainly by Matthew’s time primarily meant—­ “virgin” (the famous temple in Athens to Athena, the virgin goddess, was called the Parthenon). Matthew’s tradition told him (as Luke’s told him;

98

ISAIAH

see Luke 1:26–­38) that Jesus’s birth was a miracle, as his mother was a virgin. This detail would, in his mind, have clinched the identification: Jesus was Immanuel! Yet the identification of Immanuel and Jesus was more than a mechanical operation. Expansive qualities of the prophecy, recognized by repeated new actualizations within Isaiah itself, rendered it forward-­pointing and messianic. It remains beyond demonstration, but the LXX translators, like the Peshitta (which reads “virgin,” not “young woman”), may have been influenced in their choice of the term parthenos by a perception that Immanuel was no ordinary child (see Isa 8:10). Canonical shaping of the Immanuel prophecy certainly moved in this direction. Beyond its meaning in the context of the Syro-­Ephraimite War, the prophecy found new fulfillment three decades later after Ahaz’s son Hezekiah became king. As of Isaiah 8:8, Immanuel has a “land” (viz Judah) to rule, and there is a new Assyrian king invading: Sennacherib (701 BCE). Childs states, “Immanuel has not remained just a sign name, but now receives a definite profile . . . as the Lord of the land of Judah.”26 The valence of the prophecy then reaches in a messianic direction, as Isaiah 8:10 applies it to the eschatological assault of many nations on God’s anointed (see Ps 2; note the Hebrew ʿimmānû ʾĒl in 8:10). As Childs puts it, “Once more the profile of Immanuel has grown.”27

doom, Hezekiah feels reassured by the fact that the Lord’s judgment is for the future, not for him. The Deuteronomistic nature of this material and its emphasis on Hezekiah and not Isaiah all point to the fact that it had its origins in Deuteronomistic circles and not among Isaiah’s disciples.28 Scholars have suggested that perhaps the various sources were written and eventually compiled together in the seventh century, sometime after

99

THE PROPHETS

Sennacherib’s assassination in 681 (see Isa 37:37–­38).29 At this time, Judah’s theologians reflected upon Jerusalem’s survival of the Assyrian threat, especially in light of the fact that Samaria had fallen to this same imperial threat just two decades before. For our purposes, however, we must call attention to the fact that a Judahite prophet, Isaiah, was incorporated into a Deuteronomic narrative. These were two quite different theological traditions. Jeremiah’s temple sermon ( Jer 7:1–­15; 26:1–­19) makes it clear that two diametrically opposed views of Jerusalem’s safety were debated in Jerusalem. Jeremiah and the Deuteronomists found God’s security in covenant obedience ( Jer 7:3, 5–­7). The temple cult and its priesthood, the authentic value of which Isaiah had earlier given voice (Isa 6:1–­3; 7:7–­9), looked to God’s Presence

Sidebar 3.3: “The Destruction of Sennacherib” by Lord George Byron (1815 CE) The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold; And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea, When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen: Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed; And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and forever grew still.

100

ISAIAH

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide, But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride: And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf, And cold as the spray of the rock-­beating surf. And there lay the rider distorted and pale, With the dew on his brow and the rust on his mail; And the tents were all silent, the banners alone, The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown. And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail, And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal; And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword, Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!

in the temple as the reason that “we are safe!” ( Jer 7:10; see also 7:4, 8–­11, 12–­15). Robert R. Wilson has explained this as the Deuteronomists recasting Isaiah according to their own prophetic ideal.30 As fascinating as the compositional history of Isaiah 36–­39 is and given all it entails for understanding the early message of these chapters and their contribution to our understanding of the theological climate of the seventh century, they play now an important role in the scroll of Isaiah as it has been canonically shaped. These chapters transition the reader from the doomed, preexilic, monarchical world of Judah, found in First Isaiah, to the hopeful announcement of Second Isaiah. Hezekiah, in these chapters, serves as an anti-­Ahaz, counterbalancing the Isaianic memoir’s dim characterization of the Ahaz era (Isa 6:1–­9:7 [MT 9:6]).31 In Isaiah 36–­37, Hezekiah turns to the temple and relies on the Lord; Ahaz turns to Assyria, to the flood (8:7). Hezekiah sees and

101

THE PROPHETS

understands signs given by God through Isaiah; Ahaz refused to ask for a sign (7:11–­12), even when the Lord commanded him to, and did not recognize the meaning of the signs of the children (8:18) when they were placed before him. And yet, despite Hezekiah’s piety, he failed in the end, exposing the temple to the eyes of the Babylonians and prompting God’s judgment in the form of exile to Babylon (Isa 39:5–­7 ǁ 2 Kgs 20:16–­18). At this pivot in the Isaiah scroll, the text leaves Hezekiah behind and looks forward to a voice that will speak tenderly to Jerusalem and will cry out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord” (40:2–­3). Hezekiah’s comfort at his own era’s “calm before the storm” (39:5–­8) appears self-­serving at first blush. Isaiah’s book’s recurring theology, however, somewhat redeems his attitude. In Isaiah’s book, God’s promises to David and Zion always ensure Israel weathers all storms and floods. Hezekiah should rest assured the coming flood of exile can rise no higher than the neck (see 8:8). He can take comfort in that his own era of peace presages a greater comfort, on which chapters 40–­55 will elaborate. Unlike in our modern politics, ancient Hebrew monarchs could look beyond a shameful personal legacy with faith in God’s redemption of Zion’s final destiny. Second Isaiah (40–­55) In Isaiah 39:1–­8, we learn of a visit paid to King Hezekiah of Judah (727–­ 697 BCE) by envoys from Merodach-­ baladan of Babylon (see 2 Kgs 20:12–­19, from which this account is taken, and the cryptic account in 2 Chr 32:25–­26, 31, which is likewise dependent on 2 Kgs32). Merodach-­baladan led a rebellion in Babylon against Sargon II of Assyria (722–­705 BCE) and ruled Babylon independently for twelve years (721–­709 BCE) until Sargon at last retook Babylon, forcing him to flee to Elam. When Sargon died in 705  BCE, Merodach-­baladan rebelled again, but by 703, he was defeated by the new Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (704–­681 BCE) and died in exile. If envoys from the Babylonian rebellion actually did come to Jerusalem, then their visit would

102

ISAIAH

have had to take place prior to Hezekiah’s own failed revolt and its consequences (see 2 Kgs 18–­19 ǁ Isa 36–­37). But the editors of Isaiah and 2 Chronicles both follow 2 Kings in placing the visit of Merodach-­ baladan’s envoys late in Hezekiah’s reign so that it foreshadows the Babylonian conquest of Assyria in 612 BCE and the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon with the subsequent exile of Judah in 587 BCE. Hezekiah, who plainly does not recognize Babylon as a potential threat, not only welcomes the Babylonian envoys but takes them on a tour of his treasury, showing off all the riches of his kingdom. The prophet Isaiah, learning of this act of hubris, declares that Babylon would one day return, loot the treasuries of the king and the temple, and carry the people into exile (2 Kgs 20:16–­18 ǁ Isa 39:5–­7). Hezekiah responds, “‘The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.’ For he thought, ‘There will be peace and security in my days’” (2 Kgs 20:19 ǁ Isa 39:8). Abruptly, in Isaiah 40, the scene changes: Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins. (Isa 40:1–­2) What has become of Hezekiah’s “peace and security”? Why does Jerusalem need comforting? What does it mean that Jerusalem has already “served her term”? Historical Setting of Second Isaiah The following chapters clarify these questions and so also confirm the historical setting of this material. Isaiah 40–­55 is addressed to exiles (45:11–­13), who now anticipate a return home—­specifically, from Babylon (see 43:14; 44:24–­26; 48:20). Reference is made to specific

103

THE PROPHETS

Figure 3.6 The Cyrus Cylinder, dating from the year 536 BCE, tells of the decree recorded in the book of Ezra permitting the Jews transferred to Babylon to return to Judah and rebuild the temple.

Babylonian rites: the cult processional of Bel Marduk, patron god of Babylon,33 and his son Nabû/Nebo, scribe of the gods34 (46:1–­2); and the magical practice of astrological divination (47:12–­13). Most significant for fixing the date, however, is the mention by name of the Persian ruler Cyrus (558–­530 BCE; see 44:28; 45:1), who conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and (according to an inscription on a clay barrel called the Cyrus Cylinder, fig. 3.6) permitted some populations exiled by the Babylonians to return home: “(As to the region) from . . . as far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshunna, the towns of Zamban, Me-­Turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been in ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”35 Second Isaiah promises that the Judean exiles would be among those whose fortunes would be restored by Cyrus: [The Lord] says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose”;

104

ISAIAH

and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.” (Isa 44:28) Indeed, Second Isaiah refers to Cyrus as mĕs̆îḥō: the Lord’s “anointed,” or messiah (45:1)! Clearly, then, as to its era of composition, Second Isaiah can be dated to the mid-­sixth century, shortly before the fall of Babylon—­ and about 150 years after Isaiah of Jerusalem. The question of the literary and theological setting of the material, however, is more complex. We elaborate on this complexity in a final section of the present chapter. Traditional readers of Isaiah, understanding the dates in Isaiah 1:1 to refer to the entire book, saw these references to Babylon and Cyrus as remarkably accurate instances of future prophecy. However, Isaiah 40–­55 is certainly not structured as a prediction. Nowhere does Second Isaiah say that Jerusalem will fall; instead, the fall of the city—­and its ruined state—­is everywhere presupposed. For example, the Lord “says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They shall be rebuilt, and I will raise up their ruins’” (44:26). This is particularly remarkable as in First Isaiah, God’s preservation of the city is asserted, first in the face of the Syro-­Ephraimite War (Isa 7:1–­16), later in the face of the Assyrian Sennacherib’s siege (Isa 37:33–­35). So too Second Isaiah never says that the people will go into exile but instead offers comfort and assurance to people who are already in exile, and indeed promises them that their exile is on the point of ending: Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, “Give them up,” and to the south, “Do not withhold; bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the end of the earth—­ everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” (Isa 43:5–­7)

105

THE PROPHETS

Literary Features of Second Isaiah Isaiah 40–­55 is the most unified section of Isaiah’s book, both stylistically and theologically. In contrast to First Isaiah, which has extended narratives about the prophet (6:1–­9:7 [9:6]; 36–­39 ǁ 2 Kgs 18:13–­20:19), in Second Isaiah, there is no narrative at all. Instead, Isaiah 40–­55 is characterized by long poetic passages (such as the Servant Songs: 42:1–­9; 49:1–­7; 50:4–­11; 52:13–­53:12). The marked stylistic and thematic unity of these sixteen chapters (apart, perhaps, from the prose material in 44:9–­20 and 52:3–­6) has led a majority of modern scholars to see them as largely the work of a single, anonymous prophet who saw himself as the successor to Isaiah of Jerusalem. Without denying the impressive and compelling unity of Isaiah 40–­55, other scholars hesitate to reconstruct a hypothetical individual “Second Isaiah” whom the texts never directly profile.36 Like First Isaiah, Second Isaiah describes God as “the holy one of Israel” (twelve times: e.g., 41:14–­20; 43:14; 45:11) and stresses divine transcendence (see 6:1–­3; 40:21–­23). But the anonymous prophet of the exile whom many modern scholars envision also has a distinctive message for a new day. The Message of Second Isaiah The message of Second Isaiah is organized around three primary themes: the new exodus, the creation, and a highly exalted, transcendent view of God. Drawing on the ancient idea of the gōʾēl (redeemer), the kinsman charged with buying family members out of slavery and restoring them to their homes (Lev 25:47–­49), Second Isaiah describes the Lord as Israel’s Redeemer (e.g., 43:14; 44:24; 48:17). Just as in the first exodus God delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt, so in this new exodus, God delivers the people from the bondage of exile in Babylon. Indeed, recollection of Israel’s deliverance through the Red Sea in the first exodus (43:15–­17) is supplanted by the new thing that God will now do: Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old.

106

ISAIAH

I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert. (43:18–­19) Just as in the first exodus, God had led God’s people through the wilderness (see Exod 13:21–­22), so now the prophet promises that God will make a way through the wilderness back home (42:15–­16; 49:8–­12; 55:12–­13). In one of the most famous and familiar passages from Isaiah (quoted in the NT, in all four gospels, with reference to John the Baptist; see Matt 3:3; Luke 3:4–­6; Mark 1:3; John 1:23), the prophet declares that God will build a highway for the exiles’ return: In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all people shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (40:3–­5) While in the first exodus God had miraculously provided food and water in the wilderness (e.g., Exod 16:1–­36; Num 20:1–­13), in this new exodus, the wilderness itself will be transformed (43:19–­21; 44:3–­4). This portion of Isaiah concludes in a joyous song celebrating that transformation: For you shall go out in joy, and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle;

107

THE PROPHETS

and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. (55:12–­13) God can work this transformation, of course, because it is God who created the world. Of the forty-­eight times the verb bārāʾ (create; used only with God as the subject) appears in the Hebrew Bible, fourteen are in Isaiah 40–­55: more than in any other biblical book, including Genesis (used eleven times). Indeed, not only is God the world’s creator, but quite specifically and personally, God is Israel’s creator (see 43:1, 15; 45:11). For Second Isaiah, God’s authority as the world’s creator renders moot any question of God’s justice: Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands? I made the earth, and created humankind upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. (45:11–­12) Creation itself both demonstrates and confirms God’s wisdom and justice (40:12–­17). Further, as the creator, God is fully capable of keeping God’s promises—­specifically the promise to return the exiles home and rebuild Judah’s cities through God’s agent, Cyrus (44:24–­28). As sole creator of the world, God is absolutely incomparable—­hence, Second Isaiah’s confession of God as exalted and transcendent: Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. (40:21–­22)

108

ISAIAH

Idols—­ themselves made things—­ are laughable by comparison (40:18–­20). Indeed, Isaiah 44:9–­20 (one of only two prose passages in Isa 40–­55; the other is a brief note in 52:3–­6) is a satirical essay describing the manufacture of an idol whose carver warms himself and bakes his bread over a fire made from the same wood as the image he crafts and worships: “No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, ‘Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals, I roasted meat and have eaten. Now shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?’” (44:19). Elsewhere, the prophet explicitly contrasts the Lord with Marduk, Babylon’s patron god and the hero of Babylon’s creation epic, the Enuma elish (fig. 3.7). In that epic, Marduk battles and defeats Tiamat (“salt water” in Akkadian, the language of Babylon), the dragon of the sea who mothered the gods, and fashions the world from her watery corpse: Then the lord paused to view her dead body, That he might divide the form and do artful works.

Figure 3.7 Babylonian cylinder impression, which may depict the Babylonian god Marduk slaying Tiamat, the seas from Babylon’s creation epic, the Enuma elish.

109

THE PROPHETS

He split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up as a covering for heaven, Pulled down the bar and posted guards. He bade them to allow not her waters to escape.37 But Second Isaiah declares (conflating this ancient creation story with the story of Israel’s own creation at the dividing of the Red Sea [Exod 14:21–­22]), Was it not [the Lord] who cut Rahab [another name for the dragon38] in pieces, who pierced the dragon? Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over? (Isa 51:9–­11) Further, while Marduk’s myth involves parents, siblings, and children, the Lord declares, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (43:10). Earlier confessions had stressed Israel’s absolute commitment to and exclusive worship of the Lord without explicitly denying the existence of other gods (e.g., Deut 5:6–­10; 6:4; 13:6–­11, 12–­18; 17:2–­7).39 Second Isaiah’s emphasis on the transcendence of the Lord moves beyond these confessions to speak with utter clarity of a single, incomparable God of radical otherness: I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. . . . I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things. (45:5, 7) It is for this reason that the prophet can assert, with absolute conviction, that the Lord has elected and empowered the Persian Cyrus to

110

ISAIAH

deliver God’s people “though you [Cyrus] do not know me” (45:4–­5): the Lord alone is God, of the whole world! This is also why the prophet is persuaded that Jerusalem’s fall and restoration and Judah’s exile and return are alike due to the Lord, who is not the greatest among the gods but the only God. Second Isaiah does not pretend to understand why Jerusalem’s sins, vile as they were, should have resulted in such utter devastation (“She has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins,” Isa 40:2) or why God has chosen now, after a generation of exile, to lead God’s people home again. The divine plan is unsearchable, but sure: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (55:8–­11) Servant Songs Perhaps the most famous passages in Second Isaiah are four poems (42:1–­9; 49:1–­7; 50:4–­11; 52:13–­53:12) concerning the Servant of the Lord: a mysterious figure who not only delivers Israel but also transforms the world.40 Outside of the songs, Second Isaiah uses this title “servant” for the people of Israel as a whole (e.g., 41:8–­9; 42:19; 43:10; 44:1–­2; 44:21; 45:4), and traditional Jewish interpretation and much modern Christian scholarship understand the Servant of the songs to be Israel personified.41 This identification would seem to be confirmed

111

THE PROPHETS

by the second song: “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified’” (49:3). However, that identification has its problems. Later in that same song, the Servant, although called “Israel,” is given a mission “to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel” (49:6), suggesting that perhaps the Servant is an ideal representative of Israel—­Israel in small.42 Further, this prophet describes servant Israel as stiff-necked and rebellious (48:4), while the Servant in the songs is responsive and obedient (42:3–­4; 50:5). Servant Israel cannot see God at work or hear God’s good news of deliverance (42:19); however, the Servant of the Lord says, Morning by morning he wakens—­ wakens my ear to listen as those who are taught. (50:4) The most remarkable distinction, however, is that while Israel’s exile is a deserved (if extreme) punishment for Israel’s sin (40:1–­2), the Servant suffers innocently on behalf of others (53:4–­5). But if the Servant in the songs is not Israel, who could this person be? Prophetic elements in the songs have prompted the proposal that the Servant is a prophet—­perhaps even the (putative) prophetic author of Isaiah 40–­55.43 The second song begins, “The Lord called me before I was born” (49:1)—­a clear parallel to the call of Jeremiah (see Jer 1:5)—­ and goes on to say that God “made my mouth like a sharp sword” (49:2), emphasizing a prophet-­like connection to the power of the word (see also 50:4). But the Servant also at times sounds like a king or even an emperor, called and empowered to carry divine justice to the ends of the earth (42:1–­4; 52:13; see 53:2 with 11:1)—­a figure like Cyrus, or more humbly, like the exiled king Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:10–­12; 25:27–­30). But in a very unkinglike fashion, the Servant is also described as humble and obedient (50:4–­5), even gentle: He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street;

112

ISAIAH

a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench. (42:2–­3) Perhaps most remarkable, however, is the Servant identifying with the outcast and afflicted, to the point of sharing their suffering (50:6). This is the central point of the fourth Servant Song, Isaiah 52:13–­53:12. Here, while the kings of the nations look on in horrified fascination (52:13–­15), the Servant, whom they had dismissed as “stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted” (53:4), is revealed as suffering innocently for others: But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (53:5) Jewish philosopher Martin Buber suggested that the songs do not describe one particular person but rather set forth the way of the Servant, a way transcending traditional roles such as prophet and king to create a new ideal for Israel, an ideal particularly revealed through suffering.44 The Servant’s way is “the work born out of affliction,” culminating in “the liberation of the subject peoples, laid upon the servant, the divine order of the expiated world of the nations, which the purified servant as its ‘light’ has to bring in, the covenant of the people of the human beings with God, the human center of which is the servant.”45 Christian readers have long seen the Servant of the Lord as a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 15:3; Acts 8:32–­35; 1 Pet 2:22–­25), an understanding that may well go back to Jesus himself: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45, echoing the idiom of Isa 53:11). Second Isaiah set forth the way of the Servant: the path of redemptive suffering, deliberately chosen, which would render the tangled history of God’s people meaningful. Perhaps Jesus deliberately set out to follow that way, stepping into the shoes of the Servant of the Lord.

113

THE PROPHETS

Third Isaiah (56–­66) In Isaiah 56–­66, the setting changes yet again: from exile in Babylon to Jerusalem after the return from exile (see Isa 60–­62). Still, the last eleven chapters of Isaiah are in many ways in clear verbal continuity with the preceding chapters (see, e.g., Isa 55:13; 56:5), prompting some scholars to argue that most of Isaiah 40–­66 shares a common author or community of authors, writing in two different settings.46 Contrasts in content and usage evident within Isaiah 56–­66, however, make it unlikely that any single writer is responsible for Third Isaiah—­certainly not the hypothetical author of the more unified Isaiah 40–­55. For example, in Isaiah 56:3, 6, the “foreigner” (ben hannēkār) is welcomed, even promised a place in Israel’s worship, while in 60:10; 61:5; and 62:8, the “foreigners” (bĕnê-­nēkār) are put to service, perhaps condemned as former enemies. The mainstream of scholarship rightly holds for a distinct Third Isaiah.47 Historical Setting and Literary Features of Third Isaiah As Second Isaiah had promised, Babylon fell in 539 BCE to Cyrus the Great of Persia (558–­530 BCE), and the exiles were given permission to return. Although the Cyrus Cylinder does not mention the Judean exiles, the book of Ezra records edicts of Cyrus in Hebrew (Ezra 1:2–­4) and in Aramaic (6:3–­5) that permitted the Judeans as well to return home and rebuild their temple. The gold and silver vessels Nebuchadnezzar took from the Jerusalem temple were entrusted to Sheshbazzar—­the “prince of Judah,” leader of the returnees (Ezra 1:5–­11)—­to be restored to the rebuilt temple. Sheshbazzar became the first governor (Aramaic peḥâ; the same title given to Zerubbabel in Hag 1:1) of Yehud: Persian-­ period Judah (Ezra 5:14). The temple was not rebuilt, however. After a generation in exile, few were willing to leave Babylon for an uncertain life in Judah. Further, Cyrus had provided no funding for the project, and the returnees refused to accept the help that was offered by people in the land who

114

ISAIAH

had not gone into exile, rejecting their claim that “we worship your God as you do” (Ezra 4:1–­3). In some cases, there were conflicts over establishing land-­inheritance rights (see Neh 7:61), while in others, hope for future inclusion and joy for the homelanders was expressed (Zech 8:18–­19). Tensions between the returnees and the people left in the land likely provide one key backdrop for Third Isaiah.48 Postexilic society was divided, socially and religiously, along several different lines.49 In one corner were the returnees from exile, including the descendants of the exiled nobility and the temple priests: Zadokites such as Ezekiel (see Ezek 1:2; for Zadok, see 2 Sam 15:24–­29) who had gone into exile along with their royal patron. These Zadokite priests wrote a program for the restoration of Judah based on parts of the temple vision in Ezekiel 40–­48; the concluding nine chapters of Ezekiel contain helpful evidence about this Zadokite polity.50 In another corner were ethnic foreigners, some of whom wished to join in with worship at the new postexilic temple and some of whom did not. Isaiah 56:3–­8 may look to allow some of the former group access to the temple. In yet another corner were Judeans who had not been taken into exile in Babylon but had remained in the land (see 2 Kgs 24:14). Some homelanders practiced syncretistic forms of Yahwism, which texts such as Ezra 6:21 and Nehemiah 13:24, 26 hold should be abandoned. They persisted in practicing rites based on fertility, religion, necromancy, and the like that had earlier vexed many preexilic prophets. Other homelanders, despite the loss of their temple, continued to worship the Lord alone as best they could. Zechariah 7:1–­3 describes ritual acts of mourning honoring the Lord that had taken place in the homeland since the destruction of the temple. The book of Lamentations presupposes worship on the site of the ruined temple itself, while Jeremiah 41:4–­5 describes eighty men “from Shechem and Shiloh and Samaria” coming to the temple site with “grain offerings and incense.” Their worship did not involve animal sacrifice, as the altar had been destroyed and the most important sacrificial priests (many Zadokites) had gone into exile along with their royal patron. But Levitical priests (such as Jeremiah; see Jer 1:1–­3), who would not have been taken to

115

THE PROPHETS

Babylonia in as large numbers as altar priests, remained to teach and lead worship (see Mal 1:11). Some scholars believe these Levites in the land composed Isaiah 60–­62, the oldest portion of Third Isaiah,51 as their own visionary program for restoration, in the spirit of Second Isaiah.52 Others believe that the continuing community of Second Isaiah made up of Aaronide priests composed these chapters.53 Meanwhile, Cyrus was followed by his son and heir Cambyses (530–­522 BCE). Preoccupied as he was with the conquest of Egypt, Cambyses had little or nothing to do with Palestine; he is not mentioned in Scripture. Still, Cambyses’s conduct of affairs in Egypt followed the pattern—­evidently set by his father, Cyrus—­of selective intervention into the religious lives of subject peoples.54 While Cambyses destroyed or defunded some Egyptian temples, he supported the temple of Neith and the House of Life at Sais,55 as well as the temple of the Hebrew community at Elephantine.56 This pattern lends credence to the biblical witness regarding the interest Cyrus and Darius in particular show in Jerusalem and its temple. With the death of Cambyses, the succession was thrown into question. First someone claiming to be Bardiya, the brother of Cambyses, took the Persian throne. Then Darius, a popular general in the field, ousted “Bardiya” in a military coup, claiming that the real Bardiya was dead, and the new king was an impostor. Darius carved his justification for usurping the throne into a cliff face at Mount Behistun, near the city of Kermanshah in modern Iran, where it can still be seen and read today.57 Whether his claim was legitimate or not, Darius I became the greatest of Persia’s kings after Cyrus: indeed, one could say that it was Darius who unified the empire and made it work. According to Ezra 5–­6, Darius was also responsible for ensuring that the Jerusalem temple was at last rebuilt. In response to inquiries from the regional governors of the province of Abar-­Nahara, of which Yehud was a part (Ezra 5:6–­17), Darius initiated a search of the archives to determine whether Cyrus had indeed empowered the Judeans to build their shrine. When Cyrus’s decree was uncovered (Ezra 6:3–­5), Darius added his own provisions to it (6:6–­12), making the Jerusalem

116

ISAIAH

temple a state-­supported enterprise, to be rebuilt with money from the royal treasury and maintained from the tribute paid by the province. To give teeth to his edict, Darius declared that if anyone resisted this command, “a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill” (Ezra 6:11)! From what we can learn from Darius’s own royal inscriptions, this concern for ensuring that an edict of Cyrus was indeed carried out is entirely consistent with Darius’s character and policies. For example, Darius’s “Restoration of Order” inscription reads, Says Darius the king: Much evil that had been done, that I made (into) good. Provinces, seething, which smote one another, I made that they not smite: (that) these, as they were previously, so they should be, as many as were provinces. Says Darius the king: that I did by the will of Ahuramazda, that one man the other not smite: I in his place each one put; the law which was mine, of that they had respect; so that the strong the weak neither smite nor harm.58

The completion of the temple and the restoration of its ancient sacrificial liturgy is related positively in Ezra 1–­6 and in Haggai–­ Zechariah 8. Isaiah 56–­59 and 63:1–­66:16 presuppose the completed temple and its restored cult. However, like Malachi, these chapters are sharply critical of key ritual practices—­especially syncretistic ones— ­and, at certain points, even of certain groups of priests. The returnees, with the support of the Persian state, initially privileged the Zadokite priests (such as Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, Hag 1:14; Zech 3:1–­7; see Ezek 44:1–­14). This line of priests emphasized their special association with fiery holiness (thus, in Isa 65:5, they seem to boast of their dangerously contagious sanctity: “Keep clear! . . . Do not touch me, for my holiness will infect you” [REB; see also NABR]; see Ezek 42:14; 44:19).59 The priests in charge at the new temple sometimes even excluded their priestly “brothers” (Isa 66:5). These disfavored priestly parties are responsible for the later, critical portions of Third Isaiah.

117

THE PROPHETS

The Message of Third Isaiah In Isaiah 60–­62, a series of songs celebrating Zion’s restoration carry on Second Isaiah’s optimistic message of hope and promise. In Isaiah 60:1–­7, much as in 2:2–­4, the nations flow to Zion, drawn by the revelation of God’s light (this passage may stand behind Matthew’s account of the Magi and their gifts; see 60:6 and Matt 2:11). Isaiah 61:1–­4 seems to pick up themes from the Servant Songs (indeed, some consider it a fifth Servant Song): The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God. (Isa 61:1–­3; see Luke 4:18–­19; 7:22; Matt 11:5) The later portions of Isaiah 56–­66, however, are darker, more pessimistic—­even cynical about Jerusalem’s restoration. Here, Third Isaiah is harshly critical of syncretistic worship practices (such as worship in Asherah groves, 65:3; 66:17, and communing with the dead in tombs, 65:4).60 The duplicitous and contradictory practice of some temple priests also comes in for critique (66:3). Still, the Third Isaiah authors do not give up on the Jerusalem temple and God’s association with it (see Isa 65:11; 66:6, 21). A new concern emerges for legal rectitude as the marker of the truly faithful community, who are sometimes ostracized from the worshipping congregation but whose righteousness is demonstrated by Sabbath-­keeping (56:2, 4, 6) and observing the dietary laws (65:4).61 In contrast to preceding biblical law (see Deut 23:1), Isaiah 56:3–­5 incorporates eunuchs into the congregation. Some of the returnees

118

ISAIAH

would have been high-­level bureaucrats who had been castrated to ensure the king’s bloodline and to restrict their temptation to rebel (see 2 Kgs 20:18 ǁ Isa 39:7); their mutilation would have excluded them from the worshipping congregation (Deut 23:1–­8 [23:2–­9]). But Third Isaiah declares that in God’s reign, loving what God loves, honoring God’s sabbath, and being loyal to the covenant are more important than ritual purity (56:4) and assures these men that, despite being childless, their names—­and thus their connection with the worshipping community—­would be maintained in Israel. (Verse 56:5 quotes Second Isaiah [55:13] in a shocking and effective pun: the eunuchs are given “an everlasting name that shall not be cut off”!) So too 56:6–­8 promises “foreigners who join themselves to the Lord” (56:6) not only inclusion in the congregation but status as priests: “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar” (56:7). Most interpreters regard this as parallel to the ascription of priesthood to “the nations” in 66:21 and view the beginning (56:1–­8) and ending (66:17–­24) of Third Isaiah as the work of the editors who brought this material into its final form.62 However, close parallels between Isaiah 56:1–­8 and Ezekiel 44:1–­14 (particularly the phrase bĕnê-­nēkār in Ezek 44:7–­9) suggest that the so-­called foreigners in both contexts may have been Levitical priests.63 In any case, Third Isaiah envisions an inclusive priesthood unprecedented in the biblical tradition, as well as a more open congregation than traditional Torah allowed. In contrast to the continuity with Second Isaiah evident in 60–­62, these later passages transform the themes in Isaiah 40–­55. So Second Isaiah’s emphasis on creation becomes, in the pessimistic view this community has of this world, a call for re-creation: For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating;

119

THE PROPHETS

for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. (65:17–­18; see 66:22–­23) The Servant, deliberately unidentified in Second Isaiah, is here explicitly identified with the prophet’s community (65:8–­16).64 Rather than suffering vicariously for others, these servants await their coming vindication, which will bring on their enemies the shame, want, and exclusion that their own community has endured (65:13–­14). Perhaps most striking is the transformation of the idea of divine transcendence. The Isaian title “Holy One of Israel” always held in tension the notion of divine glory and divine accessibility: the exalted, holy Lord, though “high and lofty” (Isa 6:1; see 55:8–­9), remained always Israel’s God—­present, attentive, and responsive (Isa 55:6–­7). But Third Isaiah appeals to a distant, absent deity: “O that you would tear open the heavens and come down, so that the mountains would quake at your presence” (64:1 [63:19]; see 63:15–­19)! Although the communities represented in Third Isaiah see themselves in continuity with Second Isaiah (especially in 60–­62), they grow increasingly frustrated when that prophet’s glorious promises of restoration remain unfulfilled. Blame for this failure is laid firmly at the feet of those in Jerusalem’s new political and particularly priestly leadership who have excluded them, making Third Isaiah, like Malachi and Zechariah 9–­14, part of the loyal opposition to the postexilic Judean establishment. The Isaianic Apocalypse (24–­27) Although tucked into Isaiah 1–­39, these four chapters are clearly not from the same author, or the same historical setting, as the material that surrounds them. The distinction is immediately apparent: from an oracle concerning Tyre (23:1–­18; the last of Isaiah’s oracles against the nations, Isa 13–­23), we are abruptly taken into a prediction of global devastation: “Now the Lord is about to lay waste the earth and make it desolate, and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants”

120

ISAIAH

(24:1). Not only is natural order undone, but social order as well is thrown into chaos as people and priest, master and slave, buyer and seller alike, without distinction, experience the full force of God’s devastating wrath (24:2–­3). Indeed, all powers, on earth and in the heavens, will be laid low: On that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven, and on earth the kings of the earth. They will be gathered together like prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be abashed, and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his elders he will manifest his glory. (24:21–­23) Literary Features of Isaiah 24–­27 This does not sound like Isaiah of Jerusalem, whose message of judgment is always measured, associated with a specific historical event, and balanced by promises of preservation. Nor does it sound like the reassuring message of Second Isaiah. However, it is certainly in keeping with Third Isaiah’s call for the replacement of an unjust, disappointing reality with a new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem (see 65:17–­18; 66:22–­23). It also sounds very like Joel 2:28–­32 (3:1–­5); Zechariah 14; the book of Daniel (see 2:44–­45; 7:23–­27; 12:1–­4); and in the New Testament, Mark 13:14–­27 and the book of Revelation (21:1–­22:7; see 6:1–­17; 8:6–­9:21). These texts and others like them are called “apocalyptic literature,” “apocalyptic prophecy,” and “apocalypses” (see the excursus “The Rise of Apocalyptic Prophecy in Israel” in chapter 2, p. 69).

121

THE PROPHETS

The essential features of an apocalypse are the revelation of another world to a human seer by a heavenly being.65 This “other world” may be the supernatural sphere, or our own world in the future, or both in turn. We may wonder then how apocalypse differs from prophecy, as prophets too have visions of the divine world (see Isa 6) and sometimes predict future events (see Isa 45). Prophetic visions and predictions, however, are aimed at affecting actions within human history. Apocalypses assume a great gulf between the world of the revelation and the human world. The supernatural worlds of apocalypses are inaccessible from our world, and the future envisioned in apocalypses is infinitely removed from anything our own efforts can accomplish. Humans can neither bring in nor prevent God’s future. Looking to the social roots of apocalyptic thought, Paul Hanson observes that Daniel, like Third Isaiah, emerges from a context of conflict and uncertainty: “the visionaries stem from the disenfranchised, especially those having fallen from positions of power.”66 This “deficit theory” has been questioned particularly by Stephen L. Cook.67 Cook rightly observes that throughout history, and indeed still today, apocalyptic ideas and themes frequently emerge among people of power and privilege. While it is certainly clear that apocalypse cannot accurately be described as the literature of oppressed communities, one might nonetheless observe that apocalyptists are characterized as having pessimism about this world and about the capabilities of human action to bring real change. Again, quoting Hanson, “This world-­weariness has been the mark of every apocalyptic movement.”68 Whether resulting from an experience of exclusion (Third Isaiah), from self-­exile (the Qumran community), from persecution (Daniel) or the threat of persecution (the community of John in Revelation), or from merely the perception of exclusion (as is the case with contemporary American apocalyptists), “world-­weariness” is a common feature of the apocalyptic mindset.69

122

ISAIAH

Historical Setting of the Isaianic Apocalypse J. J. M. Roberts observes that while Babylon is not mentioned in Isaiah 24–­27, Assyria is (27:13); indeed, when this writer “speaks of a return from exile in 27:12–­13, it is a return of those who were lost in the land of Assyria, and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt.”70 He concludes, therefore, that while these chapters date later than the eighth-­century prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem, they are not very much later—­only about a century on, in the late seventh to early sixth century. However, the shared worldview of the Isaianic apocalypse and 56–­66 suggests at least a shared date. Babylon is never mentioned in Third Isaiah either, and the specific mention of Assyrian and Egyptian exiles in 27:12–13 may speak not to the date but to the social location of this material—­indicating a concern for the old northern traditions preserved in Levitical circles. Likely, Isaiah 24–­27 originated from the same (or similar) circles as Third Isaiah but circulated separately and independently. The editors of the book have placed it here following their own insertion into the Tyre oracle (23:17–­18): an insert describing the conversion of Tyre, reflecting the universalism found in the editorial conclusion to Isaiah (66:18–­24) as well as in the final form of the Twelve (e.g., Zech 14:16–­21; Jonah). This connection may have been suggested by the final form of Joel, where the apocalyptically themed 2:28–­32 (3:1–­5) is followed by an oracle against Tyre and Sidon (3:4–­8 [4:4–­8]). The Message of the Isaianic Apocalypse As has already been seen, Isaiah 24–­27 begins with a radical statement of divine judgment on the whole of reality, resulting in the end of all things (24:21–­23). Only when every authority in heaven and on earth has been laid low will the Lord take God’s throne on Zion (24:23) and God’s mercy (particularly to the poor) be revealed (25:4). In this new reality, not only will Judah be reborn victorious (26:1–­21), but the lost tribes of Israel will be restored (27:2–­13; see Isa 5:1–­771).

123

THE PROPHETS

Figure 3.8 The Destruction of Leviathan (Isa 27:1–­13) by Gustav Doré (1832–­83 CE). In Doré’s English Bible, 1866.

The world’s destruction and re-­ creation are expressed in an extraordinarily potent image from an ancient creation myth: “On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa 27:1). Leviathan (liwyātān) is a very old name for the monster of chaos, called Rahab in Isaiah 51:9.72 The use of creation imagery in association with the end-­time is a common motif of apocalypses (see Zech 14:6–­8; Rev 22:1–­7).73 Indeed, in a manner typical of apocalypse, the present age is not after all a time of order, imposed by the creator’s defeat of chaos—­instead, the dragon is alive and well! Only at the end of time will Leviathan be slain and chaos at last be undone (see Rev 20:1–­15) so that a new world can be ushered in, where “the sea [is] no more” (Rev 21:1). The extraordinary

124

ISAIAH

consequence of the Lord’s destruction and re-­creation of reality will be the end of death itself (Isa 25:7–­8; see Dan 12:1–­3; 1 Cor 15:23–­28): “Then the Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth” (25:8; see Rev 7:17). Reading Isaiah as a Book While the various collections that make up the Isaian anthology each have their own setting and history, it is evident that each part has been composed and assembled with the earlier parts in mind, and that the whole as a result manifests its own distinctive unity. Some, or much, of the expansion of earlier sections of the book may well have taken place as Second and then Third Isaiah were added, as we have suggested earlier. Some scholars are convinced, for example, that Second Isaiah never had an existence independent of Isaiah 1–­39. At some point, the book of Isaiah may have been specially shaped by the same circles also responsible for the final form of the Book of the Twelve, which also in its final form evidences hope for salvation, not only for Israel, but also for the nations (see Jonah; Zech 14:16–­21).74 One especially notable feature of the present holistic shape of Isaiah entails cross-­referencing “trajectories” linking promise and fulfillment across the entire sixty-­six chapters of the book. Thus “comfort” is promised in Isaiah 12:1, fulfilled in Isaiah 40:1, and repeated at the book’s end at Isaiah 66:13. So too, in both Isaiah 6:4 and 40:3, voices within God’s heavenly divine council call back and forth to each other (qôl qôrēʾ ). First Isaiah’s grand highway leading out of Babylon (Isa 35:8) reappears at the start of Second Isaiah (Isa 40:3, 10) and then emerges again in Third Isaiah (Isa 57:14; 62:10). In the context of a holistic, canonical reading of the book, it is immaterial whether or not Isaiah 35 was actually composed at the time of Second Isaiah or later. The book is shaped so that First Isaiah’s promise of a transformed desert allowing the homecoming of Babylonian exiles finds clear fulfillment almost two centuries later as described in Second Isaiah.

125

THE PROPHETS

The joyous return to Zion, to God’s self, of God’s ransomed people in Second Isaiah is also first announced in particularly joyful poetic expressions in Isaiah 35:10 within First Isaiah (ǁ Isa 51:11). Again, Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant” is specifically the tender shoot (Isa 53:2) that is prophesied long before in Isaiah 11:1. So too the messianic root of Jesse in Isaiah 11:1 becomes an international “signal” (nēs) for all earth’s peoples in Isaiah 11:10, 12 and Isaiah 49:22. What is more, the peaceable kingdom of Isaiah 11:6–­9 finds realization in Isaiah 65:25. The two parallel texts describe predators and herbivores feeding together in harmony and a reign of nonviolence taking hold on God’s holy mountain. These intertextual and interlocking “trajectories” and “dialogs” involve specific, compelling quotations, creating a holistic book that is more than the sum of its three main parts. They create a particular literary and theological message that transcends any trenchant historicism that moors Isaiah’s meaning in original historical contexts. These trajectories extending for hundreds of years convey a theology in which God’s promises have arcing, wide-­screen purposes in human history. In light of these prophetic purposes, the message of Second Isaiah transcends political goals of repatriation of Babylonian exiles. The Gospel of Luke instinctively recognizes this quality of Isaiah when at its start it references Isaiah’s promised “comfort”/“consolation” of Israel as something awaited by Simeon (Luke 2:25). So too does Mark when it cites Isaiah 40:3 at its start (Mark 1:3). Characteristic of the whole of Isaiah’s book, as we have seen, is the title “the Holy One of Israel”—­which is found twenty-­five times in this book (twelve times in 1–­39, eleven times in 40–­55, twice [60:9, 14] in 56–­66), and elsewhere, only six (2 Kgs 19:22; Jer 50:29; 51:5; Pss 71:22; 78:41; 89:18)—­which expresses the essential message of this entire scroll.75 God is transcendent, majestic, and glorious; holy and wholly other—­but God is also committed to God’s people, and ultimately, to God’s creation. In the final form of Isaiah, the whole is now introduced in 1:2–­31 with a judgment on Jerusalem, accounting for its destruction, exile, and the disappointments inherent in its restoration. Yet hope remains:

126

ISAIAH

Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness. But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together, and those who forsake the Lord shall be consumed. (1:27–­28) The conclusion to the scroll of Isaiah extends that hope outward to incorporate the nations (66:14–­24; see 19:18–­25; 23:17–­18). Although the final verse of Isaiah is a grim reminder of the Lord’s justice (6:24), Isaiah’s message of hope and inclusion is undimmed: For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, says the Lord; so shall your descendants and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the Lord. (66:22–­23) Notes 1 Emanuel Tov, “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, 2 vols., ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2:491. 2 J. J. M. Roberts, “Introduction and Annotations to Isaiah,” in HarperCollins Study Bible: Revised Edition, ed. Harold W. Attridge (New York: HarperOne, 2006), 2118–­19. This tabulation is based on the appendix to Robert G. Bracher, ed., Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, 3rd ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1987). 3 Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New York: Knopf, 1995), 197. The Talmud calls Isaiah a “book of comfort” (b. B. Bat., 14b–­15a). 4 Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 316. 5 J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 11. 6 See Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 260–­61.

127

THE PROPHETS

7 Regarding the triumph of the (increasingly written) word, Carol and Eric Meyers observe in the later prophets “an increasingly greater awareness of and dependence on sacred literature” and propose that “the availability of written, sacred tradition as revelation from God must have been one critical factor” in prophecy’s decline (Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AYB 25b [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987], 201; see Benjamin Sommer, “Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation,” JBL 115 [1996]: 46–­47). 8 ANET, 283; Siegfried Horn and P. Kyle McCarter Jr., “The Divided Monarchy: The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel,” in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, ed. Hershel Shanks, rev. and expanded ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999), 165. 9 Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 83–­84. 10 Consult John S. Holladay Jr., “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” HTR 63 (1970): 38–­40. 11 Steven S. Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, IBC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 6–­7, 225–­28. 12 Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah, ABS 4 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 172. 13 Horn and McCarter, “Divided Monarchy,” 178–­80. 14 An impressively detailed relief from the walls of Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh depicts the conquest of Lachish, from the mounting of the siege to the parade of the captives: see David Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, 1982); ANEP, 129–­31, figs. 371–­73. See also the British Museum, “Seige of Lachish in 3D,” CyArk, November 3, 2014, YouTube video, 1:37, https://​youtu​.be/​ CcLwoa19kLw. 15 See Ronald S. Hendel, “The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies,” BA 59, no.  4 [1996]: 233–­37; see also Horn and McCar­ter, “Divided Monarchy,” 182; and, for a full biography up through 2017, Stephen C. Russell, The King and the Land: A Geography of Royal Power in the Biblical World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 201n99. 16 ANET, 287–­88; Horn and McCarter, “Divided Monarchy,” 183. 17 Roberts, First Isaiah, 88. 18 Roberts, 4. 19 Typically, vision reports are dated and written in the first person; see Adela Yarbro Collins, “Vision,” in Harper’s Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul Achtemeier (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1115. 20 See the description in Roberts, First Isaiah, 95–­97. 21 Trygve Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH—­The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 136. 22 Roberts, First Isaiah, 207–­9; see also Stephen L. Cook, “Isaiah 14: The Birth of a Zombie Apocalypse?,” Int 73 (2019): 130–­42.

128

ISAIAH

23 KTU 1.6 i. See W. G. E. Watson, “Helel,” in DDD, 393; and Stephen L. Cook, “Cosmos, Kabod, and Cherub: Ontological and Epistemological Hierarchy in Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, SBLSS 31 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 192–­93. 24 See, e.g., the discussions of Brevard Childs, Isaiah, 260–­66; and Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–­39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 19 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 458–­61. In contrast, Marvin Sweeney (I & II Kings, OTL [Louisville. KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007], 404–­19) reads the divergences in content not as indications of sources but rather as “the development of dramatic tension” within the narrative, which he identifies as a typical example of the genre Prophetic Confrontation (411–­12). 25 As the Assyrian pantheon included no such god, this name may represent a textual corruption, most likely of Ninurta (C. Uehlinger, DDD, 630–­32) or Nusku ( J. Gray, IDB, 554). Joann Scurlock, citing Steven Holloway, suggests the term is a punning reference to the Assyrian word for “deified weapon” (NIDB, 4:277). 26 Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 73. 27 Childs, 74. 28 See Childs, Isaiah, 262–­63; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–­39, 458–­61. 29 J. J. M. Roberts dates the formulation of these stories to the midseventh century—­after 681 BCE but well before 609—­based on Jer 7:4–­10 and 26:16–­19, which reflect a firm confidence in the Presence of the Lord in the temple (First Isaiah, 443–­44). Concerning the scholarly discussion, Roberts makes the following entertaining comment: “The question of the date of this material is hotly debated and unlikely to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction until the eschaton” (443). 30 Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 214–­19. 31 See, e.g., the discussion of Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–­39, 459–­61. 32 Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, 228–­29. 33 T. Abusch, “Marduk,” DDD, 543. 34 A. R. Millard, “Nabû,” DDD, 609. 35 ANET, 316, trans. A. Leo Oppenheim. 36 On the impressive coherence of Isa 40–­55, see, e.g., John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AYB 20 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), xxxi. The unity of the section is disputed, however—­notably by James D. Nogalski, Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets (Nashville: Abingdon, 2018), 19–­27; but also see Brevard Childs’s review of fresh studies of the redaction of the Second Isaiah material (Isaiah, 291). For arguments that a “community,” not a lone voice, generated Isa 40–­55 as a scribal process, see Robert R. Wilson, “The Community of the Second Isaiah,” in Reading and Preaching the

129

THE PROPHETS

37 38 39

40

41 42

130

Book of Isaiah, ed. Christopher Seitz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 53–­70; Stephen L. Cook, Conversations with Scripture: 2 Isaiah, Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars Study Series (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 2008). For arguments that “no new prophet is called in [Isaiah] chapter 40,” that the (literary/theological) voice of Isaiah in chapters 1–­39 continues in chapters 40–­55 “like a spirit without visible form,” see Childs, Isaiah, 302–­3. We return to a discussion of what Childs means in the final section of this chapter, “Reading Isaiah as a Book.” Tablet IV, lines 135–­40, ANET, 67, trans. E. A. Speiser. K. Spronk, “RAHAB,” DDD, 684–­86. For the idea that Second Isaiah is the Bible’s first monotheistic voice, see especially the various works of Mark S. Smith, including The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 181. Specifying exactly what is new in Second Isaiah, however, can be tricky. Texts such as 1 Kgs 18:27 satirize polytheism at an extreme close to what we see in Isa 43:10–­12; 44:6; 45:5, 21–­22; and 46:9. So too, R. E. Friedman has recently argued that texts such as 2 Sam 7:22; 22:32; and Ps 18:32 (written long before the Babylonian exile) in their very wording contain the same articulate monotheism as Second Isaiah does (also see Deut 4:35, 39; 32:39; 1 Kgs 8:60). See Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exodus (New York: HarperOne, 2017), ch. 5. According to N. H. Snaith (“The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-­Isaiah,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1946; repr., 1957], 187; citations refer to the 1957 edition), these poems were first called “Servant Songs” by Bernhard Duhm in Die Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage fiir die innere Entwicklungsgeschichte der israelitischen Religion (Bonn, Germany: Marcus, 1875). The term song should not be taken too literarily, nor has Duhm’s idea held up that the poems are at tension with the larger Second Isaiah context. More recent scholarship views them as fitting in with the literary and canonical shape and flow of Second Isaiah as a holistic entity. Beyond the agreed-upon four songs, some include Isa 61:1–­4 as an additional Servant Song (one with which Jesus later self-­identifies). Childs also reminds us of several key verses that reference the Servant and help integrate him into the flow of development of the larger text: Isa 48:16; 51:16; and 59:21 (Childs, Isaiah, 377–­78, 404–­5). E.g., J. J. M. Roberts, “Introduction and Annotations,” 965. The pronoun you in 49:3 is deictic; that is, its meaning cannot be separated from its context here, a context in which “you” points to the Servant and assigns him the role of “Israel,” at least temporarily: “You [second person singular] are my servant, [you are now] Israel. . . .” The Servant here is being addressed as “Israel” because the Servant represents and fulfills what Israel as a nation was meant to be (Childs, Isaiah, 385). As Childs puts

ISAIAH

it, “The task that the nation Israel had been given and failed to accomplish (42:1–­9) had been transferred, not away from Israel, but rather to one who would incarnate Israel” (Isaiah, 394). 43 E.g., Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, vol. 2 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1960; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 259–­62. 44 Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith, trans. Carlyle Witton-­Davies (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 228–­30. See also Mark McEntire (A Chorus of Prophetic Voices: Introducing the Prophetic Literature of Ancient Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015], 81), who suggests that “we take the lack of identity seriously, as a deliberate choice of the book. . . . The value of such imprecision is that it keeps the task of the Servant open to be fulfilled by many different persons at later moments in the reading and interpretation of the book.” A similar position is argued by Clines, who clarifies how poetic language is not always referential but sometimes, as in the Servant Songs, creative/formative of a new reality and thus radically open to the future. See David J. A. Clines, I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53, JSOTSup 1 (Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 1976). 45 Buber, Prophetic Faith, 229. 46 See Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–­66 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 187–­99; William L. Holladay, “Was Trito-­Isaiah Deutero-­Isaiah After All?,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, 2 vols., ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, VTSup 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:193–­218. 47 E.g., Jon L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 74–­79; Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration, JSOTS 193 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 50–­52; McEntire, Prophetic Voices, 150–­51. 48 See S. Dean McBride Jr., “Biblical Literature in Its Historical Context: The Old Testament,” in HBC, 35–­36; and Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–­5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013), esp. 33–­136. 49 One position that has attracted interest since the 1980s is that of Paul Hanson, whose work proposed a central conflict between two main parties. See his The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975); The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); and Isaiah 40–­66, IBC (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1995), 185–­93. Hanson’s work has not gone without challenge. 50 Hanson, Dawn, 71; and People Called, 261; Steven S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–­48, HSM 49 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), esp. 13–­14, 175–­78;

131

THE PROPHETS

and Tuell, Ezekiel, Understanding the Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 276–­81. 51 Odil Steck, “Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch,” in Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage, ed. J. Vermeylen, BETL 81 (Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1989), 368; and Nogalski, Hebrew Prophets, 31. 52 Hanson, Dawn, 44–­45; and People Called, 254–­57. 53 In this model, ancient Israelite religion had at least three main priestly lineages: the Zadokites, the Aaronides, and the Levites (note that R. R. Wilson and S. D. McBride have labored hard to specify these lines). On shared Aaronide tradents behind Third Isaiah and PT, see Cook, Conversations. Brooks Schramm reminds us that B. Duhm isolated Third Isaiah and deemed it inferior to Second Isaiah because of the material’s priestly esteem for temple, sacrificial rites, sabbath observance, and law (Opponents, 113). Duhm placed Third Isaiah in the same tradition stream as PT! 54 Tuell, Law of the Temple, 84–­87. 55 See the Udjahoresne inscription, Miriam Lichtheim, trans., Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley: University of California, 1980), 38–­39. 56 The Elephantine Papyri, AP 30, in Arthur Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923). 57 Franz Heinrich Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achëmeniden, VAB 3 (Leipzig, Germany: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 17. 58 Translated by Roland Kent, “More Old Persian Inscriptions,” JAOS 54 (1934): 44. 59 Expulsion from the congregation would have had economic as well as religious consequences, “including loss of civic status and title to land” ( Joseph Blenkinsopp, “A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period,” CBQ 52 [1990]: 9). 60 Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 162. 61 Blenkinsopp suggests that the identification of the righteous as humble and lowly in texts such as Isa 57:15, 66:1–­2, and Pss 25 and 69 derives from their ostracism from the temple congregation (Blenkinsopp, “Jewish Sect,” 9n16). 62 Steck, “Tritojesaja,” 389; Hanson, Dawn, 162, 384–­85; Hanson, Isaiah 40–­66, 195; Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 197; Erich Bosshard, “Beobachtungen zum Zwölfprofetenbuch,” BN 40 (1987): 60. 63 Steven S. Tuell, “The Priesthood of the ‘Foreigner’: Evidence of Competing Polities in Ezekiel 44:1–­14 and Isaiah 56:1–­8,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr., ed. John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 183–­204. Michael Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985], esp. 138 and 142) and Walther Zimmerli (Ezekiel, 2 vols., trans.

132

ISAIAH

Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 2:453–­54) also observe the connection but draw no conclusions. 64 W. A. M. Beuken, followed by Brevard Childs and others, identifies a shift within Third Isaiah away from a single ideal servant to a plurality of servants of the Lord (e.g., Isa 53:10; 54:17; 56:6; 59:21; 65:9, 13–­15; 66:14), who represent the germination of the Servant’s new way of life and its potential to spread widely on earth. See W. A. M. Beuken, “The Main Theme of Trito-­Isaiah: ‘The Servants of Yhwh,’” JSOT 47 (1990): 67–­87; Beuken, “Does Trito-­Isaiah Reject the Temple? An Intertextual Inquiry into Isa. 66:1–­6,” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, ed. S. Draisma (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok, 1989), 57; Childs, Isaiah, 419, 430–­31, 448, 536. 65 Paul Hanson, “Apocalypticism,” in IDBSup, 29. 66 Paul Hanson, “Old Testament Apocalyptic Reexamined,” Int 25 (1971): 474. 67 Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). 68 Hanson, “Old Testament Apocalyptic,” 479. 69 A poll about discrimination in American society found that “white evangelicals are the only major religious group in which a majority say Christians face a lot of discrimination.” Daniel Cox and Robert P. Jones, “Majority of Americans Oppose Transgender Bathroom Restrictions,” Public Religion Research Institute, March 10, 2017, https://​www​.prri​.org/​research/​lgbt​ -transgender​-bathroom​-discrimination​-religious​-liberty/. 70 Roberts, First Isaiah, 306. 71 Roberts rightly calls this “A reversal of Isaiah’s earlier song of the vineyard” (Roberts, “Introduction and Annotations,” 945); Roberts, First Isaiah, 338. 72 C. Uehlinger, “Leviathan,” DDD, 511–­15; Robert D. Miller II, The Dragon, the Mountain, and the Nations: An Old Testament Myth, Its Origins, and Its Afterlives, EANEC 6 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2018). 73 Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895). 74 Odil Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, Biblisch-­ Theologjsche Studien 17 (Neukirchen-­Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991). 75 J. J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology,” Int 36 (1982): 130–­43.

133

4

Jeremiah

[A letter from Shemaiah of Nehelam to Zephaniah, the priest in Jerusalem:] “The Lord himself has made you priest instead of the priest Jehoiada, so that there may be officers in the house of the Lord to control any madman who plays the prophet, to put him in the stocks and the collar. So now why have you not rebuked Jeremiah of Anathoth who plays the prophet for you?” ( Jer 29:26–­27; emphasis ours) [The Lord to Jeremiah:] “For even your kinsfolk and your own family, even they have dealt treacherously with you; they are in full cry after you.” ( Jer 12:6) “Woe is me, my mother, that you ever bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land! I have not lent, nor have I borrowed, yet all of them curse me.” ( Jer 15:10)

Sealed within the columns of the Jeremiah scroll are the hopes and disappointments, rages and fears, and the courage and defeats of an ancient soul, a tortured soul. Admirably, this soul soared after the highest ideals, unshakably committed to the seriousness of his people’s covenantal obligation to his nation’s deity. Though the kings, priests, prophets, scribes, and officials to whom he spoke may have wavered

135

THE PROPHETS

Figure 4.1 The Prophet Jeremiah by Martín Bernat and Miguel Ximénez, ca. 1481 CE.

in their ideology, strategy, and foreign policy, this soul held steadfast in his message, eyes wide open to whatever fate might deliver to him. This tortured soul was Jeremiah. Preliminary Remarks on the Nature of the Materials within the Scroll In the introduction to his commentary on the book of Jeremiah, John Bright said, “It cannot be denied that the Book of Jeremiah makes, at least on first trial, extremely difficult reading. . . . The reader who meets [the difficulties within the book] for the first time is likely to be quite at a loss. All seems confusion. . . . The impression [the reader] gains is one of extreme disarray; one can scarcely blame him for concluding that he is reading a hopeless hodgepodge thrown together without any discernible principle of arrangement at all.”1 This is, to be sure, dismaying.

136

JEREMIAH

The goal of this chapter is to lessen the dismay of the serious reader of Jeremiah by describing the various elements of the text, even if in disarray, and to perhaps help the reader hold some of the confusion in the text in abeyance. In 1914 CE, Sigmund Mowinckel identified three written “sources” from which the present scroll of Jeremiah was composed.2 The first, which he called “Source A,” contained poetic oracles. These materials are now found for the most part in chapters 1–­25. These prophetic proclamations are attributed to the prophet Jeremiah, though there certainly was further redaction of this material over time. Two other sources took the form of prose and are mostly (but not all) found in chapters 26–­52. Source B, using Mowinckel’s sigla, was comprised of biographical sketches of Jeremiah, narratives portraying Jeremiah at work as a prophet in ancient Judah. Under Source C, also comprising prose materials, are categorized narrated speeches of Jeremiah, such as the temple sermon in Jeremiah 7:1–­15. Source B and Source C are understood to be later interpretations of Jeremiah and to have received a very heavy Deuteronomistic stamp. To put it differently, the narrative material in Jeremiah looks a lot like the Deuteronomistic History, which contains prophetic legends and whose ideology is largely defined by long, narrated prophetic speeches. Although scholarship has discussed and debated Mowinckel’s three sources, scholars nevertheless find these three types of materials useful in describing the nature of the texts found in the scroll of Jeremiah. In this chapter introducing the book and the prophet, we too will reference these three categories of texts, using the term materials instead of Mowinckel’s “sources,”3 and in our description of the shape of the book, we will divide the materials into two broad categories: one containing Jeremian oracles (generally A Material) and another containing prose materials, under which we will discuss both prose discourses (C Material) and biographies of the prophet (B Material). As perhaps a means to keep in abeyance serious confusion and a sense of dismay, the serious reader of Jeremiah who comes to the text for the first time needs to understand that the three types of materials

137

THE PROPHETS

within the text have demanded that scholars ask very serious and difficult questions of the text: 1. What can be known of the prophet Jeremiah? Much of what we think we know about Jeremiah is found in the prose sections, the B and C materials. If they are late, and the product of the Deuteronomistic School, then what we may have is their portrait of Jeremiah, according to their ideals. 2. What can be said about the development of the text, and hence, the historical context of particular texts, as well as the arrangement and shape of the scroll in its final form? While these questions and others may be left open for the serious reader to ponder, one thing is clear: in its current form, the scroll of Jeremiah speaks on behalf of the Deuteronomistic traditions and theological positions. Still, if Jeremiah authentically aligned himself with the rhetoric and theology of Deuteronomy, which we consider to be

Sidebar 4.1: Terms for Deuteronomistic Traditions When discussing the development of the ideology, traditions, and literature characterized as Deuteronomistic, the terminology can become tricky. Here is a quick listing of how we are using various terms. Deuteronomic: The narrowest of terms, it specifies the traditions and ideology of Josiah’s reform, so roughly 640–­609 BCE. Deuteronomistic: This term is temporally broader in scope. Most properly, it refers to the shaping of Deuteronomic ideology and literature after the late-seventh-century reforms and so the exilic and postexilic periods. At times, however, it is necessary to use “Deuteronomistic” to refer broadly to the movement

138

JEREMIAH

as a whole and may, in context, encompass the shaping of the ideology in all periods, both before and after the latter half of the seventh century. Proto-­Deuteronomistic: The traditions and ideology as they were being handled prior to the reforms in the latter half of the seventh century BCE (e.g., Hosea, Micah). Deuteronomistic School: The collection of officials, prophets, priests, scribes, and rural elders who advocated for and defined Deuteronomistic ideology throughout the course of Israel’s and Judah’s history. Deuteronomistic Traditions: Important theological and political concerns of the Deuteronomistic School, such as monolatry, the concept of a conditional covenant, ancestral landholdings, and the figure of Moses.

likely, the strong Deuteronomistic lens of the scroll may not warp its historical witness but instead focus it.4 With these preliminary remarks providing some background, we proceed with this introduction, in pursuit of our goal. The Prophet Jeremiah Let us begin our exploration of Jeremiah by looking at the inventions of scholars and portraits of the prophet. Jeremiah, the Vanishing Man In response to the nature of the materials found in the Jeremiah scroll, some scholars in the latter part of the twentieth century gave up the ghost in search of a historical Jeremiah, for indeed, what they felt they

139

THE PROPHETS

had found in the text was merely that: a ghost. Robert Carroll’s 1986 commentary in the Old Testament Library series made a strong and influential case for this approach, though his was not a lone voice crying in the wilderness.5 Carroll’s skepticism grew out of the recognition that the figure of Jeremiah is only found in the prose portions of the book (i.e., B and C Materials), which he ascribes to the work of redactors. Carroll notes that scholars generally attribute the poetic units (A Material) found for the most part in chapters 1–­25 as authentic speeches of the prophet and so as windows into his prophetic message and theological traditions. Carroll critiques this attribution as an “unwarranted assumption which should be questioned” (p. 47). Scholars who make this identification, he points out, do so on the basis of the third-­person framework of these speeches. For example, 1:1–­3, “The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, . . . to whom the word of the Lord came,” allow for the identification with Jeremiah of the first-­person speech in 1:4 and 2:1. Without this third-­person attribution, the first-­person of the oracles remains anonymous. Carroll argues further that this framework should be removed, for it is the product of redactors who “created the words and story of Jeremiah ben Hilkiah of Anathoth!” (p. 48). Baruch, of whom we learn only in the prose narratives in the book, also became a literary character for Carroll. Sure enough, Carroll holds out, the figures of Jeremiah and Baruch may have at some time been “real people,” but as we now meet them, they are no more to be relied on than, say, Richard the Third as portrayed by Shakespeare, or Alexander Selkirk in Robinson Crusoe, or Eleanor Rigby, made famous by the Beatles.6 If, for Carroll, Jeremiah the historical person vanished, those following this line of scholarship find great value by inventing his literary persona. One example of this line of scholarship is the 2015 collection of essays, Jeremiah Invented: Constructions and Deconstructions of Jeremiah, edited by Else K. Holt and Carolyn J. Sharp.7 The editors of Jeremiah Invented continue and build upon Carroll’s skepticism about encountering a historical Jeremiah in the leaves of the book. They write in the introduction, “Today, we are not confident that we will ever be able to identify the author of these moving poems [i.e., Jeremiah’s

140

JEREMIAH

‘confessions’]; nevertheless, they invite the reader to personalize the voice of the implied author. These features have led scholars in every time to invent the Jeremiah of their time” (emphasis ours).8 History, for Holt and Sharp, is abandoned as an achievable goal, with even its value doubted: “History has become one of the great sources of popular entertainment. From a cognitive perspective, then, are biography and ‘history’ . . . part of our inherent proclivity as social beings? Does something in our approach to reality demand access to ‘history’? Moreover, do we need, cognitively, to ‘know’ the source of the message and does ‘knowing’ the ‘person behind’ add to the credibility and significance of the message?”9 The editors legitimize efforts by modern readers of Jeremiah both in their attempts to read the text in its ancient context (as constructed by the modern reader) and also to engage with the “reader’s own convictions, norms, perceptual limitations, and artistic sensibilities,” for “inventions of the prophet will inevitably mirror, directly or obliquely, the cultural concerns of readers’ own times and places.”10 Painting Portraits of the Prophet Not all, of course, are so skeptical about the biographical reports about Jeremiah. Terence Fretheim has stated, “We note the considerable amount of narrative material that speaks of the prophet and his work. . . . There has been a recent tendency to decenter Jeremiah and emphasize the word that he speaks. But the pendulum has now swung too far in the other direction. The existence of so many narratives calls us back to the prophet as agent of the word of God.”11 Again, we call attention to the difference in how these two approaches evaluate the prose materials in the book. Carroll was a skeptic; Fretheim, much less so. Scholars who paint portraits of the prophet have greater confidence that there existed a shorter temporal and ideological distance between Jeremiah the man and the narratives that revere him. These prose discourses and portraits, many scholars argue, even though they were produced after the prophet’s life, represent

141

THE PROPHETS

Jeremiah’s “message as his followers understood it.”12 Of course, in the spirit of “be careful what you ask for,” when the prose sections of the book are opened up, a plethora of data tumbles out. Hence despite—­ or perhaps because of—­the large amount of data about the prophet in the prose materials, we should not surmise that scholars in search of the historical Jeremiah agree upon the Jeremiah that they find. By way of illustration, Jack Lundbom finds a prophet whose career follows closely the rise of Judah under Josiah and then the fall under his successors.13 Lundbom argues that Jeremiah was called at the age of twelve or thirteen in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign ( Jer 1:2), so around 627 BCE, the time of Ashurbanipal’s death and the beginning of the precipitous decline of the Neo-­Assyrian Empire.14 After a period of study, sitting at the feet of Shaphan the scribe, Jeremiah began his career in 622, the year of the discovery of the book of the law.15 Jeremiah supported Josiah’s reforms, but according to Lundbom, he remained isolated from the superficial merriment of the reform. With the ascension to the throne by Jehoiakim in 609, Jeremiah came into direct conflict with the king. During Zedekiah’s reign, Lundbom finds two periods of activity: 597–­594 and 588–­586. Zedekiah did not “dislike Jeremiah personally,” as Lundbom describes the relationship, but Jeremiah experienced another difficult period on account of Zedekiah’s “unprincipled behavior.”16 Then while imprisoned in the court of the guard in these final days of the nation, Jeremiah composed words of hope and a future on the other side of punishment. The final chapters of Jeremiah and Baruch’s lives were spent in Egypt, as recorded in Jeremiah 43–­44. What should be clear in this brief summary is Lundbom’s confidence in the reliability of the dates and reports in the narrative portions of Jeremiah. His outline of Jeremiah generally follows the presentation of the text itself: “Dated prose in the book indicates that Jeremiah was active during the first four years of Zedekiah’s reign” (p. 118). Far from dismissing these texts as being so thoroughly theological in character as to be of no use historically, Lundbom trusts them to contain significant data points by which he can find the once-­living prophet.

142

Sidebar 4.2: Jeremiah Chronology THE PROPHET’S MINISTRY 640 BCE 630 BCE

620 BCE

HISTORIC EVENTS 640 BCE Josiah becomes king

627 BCE Jeremiah begins ministry

Ch 1—20 Early oracles

610 BCE

622 BCE Discovery of the Book of Law Josiah reforms worship

609 BCE Pharaoh Neco Kills Josiah in battle; Necho puts Jehoiakim on the throne

605 BCE

Ch 7 and 26 The Temple Sermon

605 BCE Nebuchadnezzar invades Judah and takes exiles to Babylon

Jeremiah’s life threatened

600 BCE Ch 27 The Yoke Parable

590 BCE

588 BCE Nebuchadnezzar begins final siege of Jerusalem Ch 43 Taken to Egypt

580 BCE

597 BCE Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem and takes Johoiachin prisoner; installs Zedekiah as king of Judah

586 BCE Fall of Jerusalem and beginning of Babylonian exile

THE PROPHETS

Figure 4.2 Josiah hears the book of the law.

With Lundbom, William Holladay too rejects Carroll’s skepticism, feeling confident that the data of the text reveals a “highly distinct and innovative person,” adding, “it is not the kind of figure that later generations would be likely to create.”17 Still, though sharing Lundbom’s confidence that he can find the historical Jeremiah in the text, the plethora of information allows Holladay to paint a different portrait of the prophet than Lundbom. In the first place, Holladay suggests a “lower chronology” for Jeremiah, meaning that Jeremiah was born in Josiah’s thirteenth year (i.e., 627 BCE) but began his prophetic activity around 615 BCE.18 Second, for Holladay, the septennial reading of Deuteronomy (Deut 31:9–­13) was “carried out seriously,” and a form of Deuteronomy was read at the Feast of Booths celebrated in the fall. Thus Holladay argues that

144

JEREMIAH

septennial readings took place in the autumn of 615, 608, 601, 594, and 587 and that these readings “offer a chronological structure” for Jeremiah’s career.19 We could multiply the many portraits of Jeremiah painted by scholars, and if so desired, we could curate quite an exhibition. It is sufficient, however, to highlight certain key points that will influence our discussion of the Jeremiah scroll. First, based on the superscript as well as references throughout the text (11:21–­23; 12:6; 29:27; 32:7–­9), many scholars feel confident that Jeremiah came from an influential line of Levitical priests who were historically located in Anathoth. This places him and his family in opposition to the Zadokites, the traditional line of priests in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:26–­27), and associates him with the Deuteronomistic traditions.20 Second, 609 BCE, the date of Jehoiakim’s ascension to the throne, forms something of a pivot for the text and perhaps too the life of the prophet, for the narrative discourses and actions of the prophet are set after 609. By 605, the time of the Battle of Carchemish and Babylon’s control over Judah, it is clear that Jeremiah had emerged as an outspoken, harsh, and (consequentially) beleaguered critic of Jehoiakim. After the first exile in 597, Jeremiah may have offered his conditional support to Zedekiah (see Jer 22:1–­7), though that support was eventually revoked (34:8–­22). What remains especially enigmatic is Jeremiah’s relationship to Josiah and his reforms. According to the superscription in Jeremiah 1:1–­2 and other evidence (e.g., Jer 3:6; 25:3; 36:2), Jeremiah was active throughout much of Josiah’s reign, most importantly in the period after the discovery of the book of the law (622 BCE). Yet Josiah is not addressed in the text (but see Jer 3:6 and 22:15), a silence that stands in sharp contrast to Jeremiah’s addresses to both King Jehoiakim and King Zedekiah. As Holladay has stated, “Jrm’s silence is surprising.”21 Earlier, we quoted Terence Fretheim, from the introduction to his commentary on Jeremiah, and we will conclude with another quote of his: “As is true to a greater or lesser degree with the presentation of any historical figure, the portrayal of Jeremiah reflects both the speech

145

THE PROPHETS

and action of an actual individual and a literary construction by editors or authors informed by varying perspectives. The book presents us with both a powerful personality and an interpretation of his role and significance. Because the editors are inevitably selective and have been shaped by their perspective on the past and the pressing issues they seek to address, Jeremiah emerges as both more than and less than the actual historical prophet.”22 We concur with Fretheim’s attempt to forge a middle path, one that recognizes the biases and theological agendas of the prose portions of the Jeremiah scroll yet one that recognizes as well that these sources may contain the accurate memory of Jeremiah’s disciples, followers who sought to keep alive the prophet’s message, which, in fact, they revered. It makes sense that Deuteronomists would be the ones to preserve, redact, and expand upon Jeremiah’s prophecies, for Jeremiah’s supporters were the children and grandchildren of the pro-­ Deuteronomy reformers of Josiah’s time.23 Throughout this introduction, we have followed Robert R. Wilson’s foundational work on the prophets’ role in ancient Israel, a role that included their service as spokespersons for a support group. However the modern reader may judge the value of the prose portions of the text of Jeremiah for painting a portrait of the prophet, we will emphasize that the scroll itself has, in the end, taken on the role of spokesperson for the ancient School of Deuteronomists. The Best of Times, the Worst of Times, and the Turbulent Career of Jeremiah Ancient editors, while compiling collections of Jeremiah’s prophecies, situated the prophet first in the reign of Josiah, beginning in his thirteenth year (1:2)—­so from 627 (if the more traditional dating of Lundbom is followed) to 609 BCE. This collection of Jeremian material was expanded many times, implied by verse 3: “It came also in the days of King Jehoiakim . . . , and until the end of the eleventh year of King Zedekiah . . . , until the captivity of Jerusalem” (1:3). Verse 3, then,

146

JEREMIAH

stretches Jeremiah’s activity beyond the death of Josiah to the reign of Jehoiakim and until the end of the reign of Zedekiah (so from 609 to 587/6). If the biographical material in Jeremiah 37–­44 can be trusted, Jeremiah also mediated God’s word to the Judahites who survived the fall of Jerusalem until after the assassination of Gedaliah, which may extend his service in the land until the mid to late 580s.24 Jeremiah’s recorded ministry, then, extended over four very turbulent decades, a span of time that pivoted with Josiah’s death. During Josiah’s reign, Judah’s hopes swelled to grand heights, at least for those supporting his reforms. With his death at Megiddo, however, these hopes were dashed, and Judah spun into a death spiral. Jeremiah’s life and career followed this roller coaster of highs and lows. In many ways, his shift in geographical location from the central city of Jerusalem to Egypt, a land to which no Israelite should ever return (Deut 17:16; 28:68; Hos 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:5), reflects his shift in social location from a central prophet to one reviled and ignored (37:2; 43:2; 44:16–­19).25 Josiah’s reign, the reign in which Jeremiah was born, was a hopeful time for the Deuteronomistic School—­the group that placed Josiah on the throne, as well as the group that supported Jeremiah, and the group for whom Jeremiah spoke. This period of hope was fueled by the tinder box that was centuries of Judahite humiliation, weakness, and submission to its northern sister state, Israel. Heaped upon these dry logs was the Neo-­Assyrian dominance over Judah in the last part of the eighth and the first half of the seventh centuries BCE. Josiah came to the throne at age eight by means of the political will of the People of the Land (2 Kgs 21:24; 22:1–­2). The People of the Land have been described by Cook as free landholders, the wealthy and influential landed gentry of the Judahite countryside. More important for our purposes, they were adherents of Deuteronomistic traditions.26 In the seventh century BCE, the Deuteronomistic ideology gained in influence, for it provided a theological explanation of the fall of Samaria (see our discussions of the prophets Hosea and Micah) and the survival of Jerusalem in 701 (see 2 Kgs 18:13–­19:37). As Josiah grew into the throne, Zephaniah prophesied of a Day of the Lord and called for repentance based on

147

THE PROPHETS

Deuteronomistic ideals (see our discussion of Zephaniah). While the School of the Deuteronomists—­especially its prophets—­fanned the flame of hope, it was sparked by the precipitous decline of the Neo-­Assyrian Empire after the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 and its ultimate, final collapse in 609. Suddenly, Judah hoped for an era of autonomy and territorial expansion unimaginable since the days of David. The hopes of the Deuteronomists crystalized in the form of the book of the law, discovered in the temple in 622 (2 Kgs 22:1–­20), a codification of Deuteronomistic ideology that became the law of the land and is now found in the core of Deuteronomy. This Deuteronomic law shaped much of the reform of Judah’s system of governance and secured for the Deuteronomists a number of significant political victories. After a history of polytheistic worship, exclusive covenantal fealty to the Lord alone, Judah’s God, became official law (Deut 5:6–­7; 6:4–­5; 17:2–­7). Long-­held suspicions about the monarchy and the centralization of power and authority in Jerusalem forced an agreement to limit the king’s power (17:14–­20), in addition to other central authorities. Jerusalem became the exclusive sacred locus at which to turn and worship the Lord. During Josiah’s reign, the Deuteronomic theology advocated for by prophets such as Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah and reflected in the scroll of Jeremiah became the essential ideology of the theocracy. During Josiah’s reign, the reform that was shaped by Deuteronomic ideology promised a new hope for Judah, one that its adherents believed would bring God’s blessings to the land of the heretofore beleaguered nation of Judah. Then in 609, Josiah was killed in a battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (see fig. 4.3). His death formed a pivot in the fortunes of the tiny theocracy that was Judah and raised significant theological questions for its intellectuals and officials. For the ancient theologian, did Josiah’s death represent God’s repudiation of the reforms fought for and gained during his reign? Or did his death mean that the reforms fell short of God’s standards, and his death was God’s punishment not for the Deuteronomic reforms but rather for his failure to fully achieve

148

JEREMIAH

idealistic goals? This question seems to be the theological issue at play at the time Jeremiah delivered his temple sermon ( Jer 7:1–­15; 26:1–­19). With Josiah’s death in battle, Judah became a vassal to Egypt. Jehoahaz, Josiah’s son, was set upon the throne by the People of the Land (2 Kgs 23:30–­31) instead of the elder son, Jehoiakim. Egypt did not stand for this selection and so forcibly removed Jehoahaz to Egypt. Now Jehoiakim, Josiah’s eldest son, ascended to the throne with Egypt’s aid, and from 609 to 605, Judah remained under the thumb of Egypt. In 605, however, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish, at which time control over Judah’s fate and its wealth fell to Babylon. This situation held until 598 when Jehoiakim decided to rebel. Upon his death and shortly before Jerusalem’s capitulation in 597, his son, Jehoiachin, took the throne but held it only for about three months when, with the fall of the city, he was removed to Babylon. Zedekiah (597–­586),27 a son of Josiah and uncle to Jehoiachin, was named the new vassal, loyal to Nebuchadnezzar by treaty; but he was left to rule a state that vacillated between submission to Babylon

Figure 4.3 Aerial view of Tel Megiddo. This site of an ancient city in northern Israel’s Jezreel Valley is believed to be the place where the battle of Armageddon will be fought.

149

THE PROPHETS

and rebellion, perhaps at the prodding of Egypt, whose faint promises of aid proved to be nothing more than a chimera. Judah’s loss of autonomy in 587/6, which lasted until the formation of the Hasmonean state in 164, was inevitable. Hence in the span of a little over two decades after Josiah’s death, Judah went from having expectations of a grand future for its land, one filled by God’s blessings, to having a land that mythically came to be known as empty.28 For Jeremiah, the nation’s reversal trickled down to him, bringing about a reversal for his own fortunes as well. Taking the details contained in the biographies of the prophet as credible, after 609, we can observe how Jeremiah was increasingly pushed out of the centers of power, being derided, imprisoned, and eventually forcibly removed from the land altogether. With his so-­called Temple Speech ( Jer 7), dated to 609 ( Jer 26:1), we see Jeremiah speaking freely in the court of the temple (26:2). Only four years later, in 605, Jeremiah’s privileges had been curtailed, and he was prohibited from entering the temple gates (36:1–­8). After Jeremiah’s prophecies from Josiah’s reign up to 605 were read before Jehoiakim, Jeremiah’s situation grew worse still, for now both Jeremiah and Baruch had to hide in order to avoid arrest (36:19, 27). Under Zedekiah, Jeremiah’s status may have been rehabilitated to some degree, for we see him given access to the delegations at the international summit in 594 ( Jer 27:1–­8) and then given access to Zedekiah himself (27:12–­15) and the priests (27:16–­22).29 Jeremiah is allowed to send a letter to the exiles by the hand of some of the delegates who traveled to Babylon ( Jer 29:1–­3), further indicating a restoration of his status and access to the seat of power. Yet by the time of the siege of Jerusalem in 588, Jeremiah had again been imprisoned in the court of the guard, being accused of desertion (37:13–­16). After the siege, with the support of the Babylonians, Jeremiah enjoyed a role among Gedaliah’s court (40:5). Yet in one final, cruel turn, our final glimpse of Jeremiah comes after Ishmael ben Nethaniah assassinated Gedaliah, when Jeremiah was forced to join the surviving officials who fled to Egypt (43:4–­7). This brief survey reveals the vicissitudes of Jeremiah’s life and career, which paralleled the chaotic times of Judah’s

150

JEREMIAH

Figure 4.4 Clay bullae inscribed in Hebrew: “Gedalyahu servant of the king”

final years. His status was determined, it would seem, by the status of his support group, one allied with the Deuteronomists, which itself moved into and out of power. Jeremiah’s Friends and Foes A distinguishing feature of the Jeremiah scroll is the numerous personal names that are littered throughout the text. To the passing of time we have lost a precise knowledge of who these individuals mentioned in the text were. Still, even a cursory examination of the names provides a glimpse into Jeremiah’s theological and political affiliations as well as the character of his support group, who shared with him these beliefs. On the flipside, moreover, the names of his foes

151

THE PROPHETS

outline the theological and political circles Jeremiah opposed and sharpen the boundary between ancient ideologies. In the superscript to the book, Jeremiah is said to be the “son of Hilkiah, of Anathoth.” The high priest during Josiah’s reign was also named Hilkiah (2 Kgs 22:4, 8), and though the matter is far from certain, some have speculated that Jeremiah’s father was Josiah’s high priest.30 We move to firmer ground when we observe that a certain Gemariah, a member of the Hilkiah family, carried—­along with Elasah ben Shaphan—­a letter from Jeremiah to the exiles during the reign of Zedekiah ( Jer 29:3). This evidence suggests that members of Jeremiah’s family held significant roles during the reigns of both Josiah and his son, Zedekiah. In regard to the mention of Elasah ben Shaphan in Jeremiah 29:3, five different individuals belonging to the Shaphan family are mentioned eleven times in the book.31 Each of these figures either supported Jeremiah at strategic points in his life or were supported by him. Ancient editors of the text had reasons to identify these individuals as descendants of Shaphan (see sidebar 4.3), and it seems likely that they descended from Shaphan, the secretary to the temple during Josiah’s reign who played an instrumental role in the discovery of the book of the law (2 Kgs 22:3–­20).32 Again, scholars evaluate critically the sources where these names are found, namely, the prose materials. However, for those who trust evidence found in the prose elements of Jeremiah, they draw on these names and affiliations to paint a picture of Jeremiah’s theological colleagues and prophetic supporters.33 As Bright states cautiously, “The behavior of these men does not, to be sure, tell us anything directly regarding Jeremiah’s attitude toward the reform; but it does tell us something of the reformers’ attitude toward Jeremiah!” No one is without their detractors, least of all Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s foes, therefore, provide us with information about the prophet, telling us who he was not! During the reign of Jehoiakim, one group to which Jeremiah did not belong was the priests and prophets of the Jerusalem temple. We learn this from chapter 26, which narrates the capture of Jeremiah and his court trial. At the time of his sermon, he is captured

152

JEREMIAH

Sidebar 4.3: The Family Tree of Scribe Shaphan The following chart shows the relationship of several scribal names mentioned in Jeremiah.

AZALIAH

SHAPHAN ( Josiah’s scribe) 623 BCE / 2 Chronicles 34:14

GEMARIAH

AHNIKAM

ELASAH

“Son of Shapah” ( Jehoiakim’s scribe)

( Josiah’s scribe) Jeremiah 26:24

(Zedekiah’s scribe) 594 BCE / Jeremiah 29:3

605BCE / Jeremiah 36:10–27

MICAIAH

GEDELIAH

( Jehoiakim’s official)

Royal steward,

605 BCE / Jeremiah 36:11

First governor of Judea 587 BCE / 2 Kings 25:22

by “the priests and the prophets and all the people” (26:8). In the end, however, after hearing arguments advocating for Jeremiah’s legitimacy as a prophet—­based on Micah 3:12 (26:16–­20)—­only the “priests and the prophets” remained as his accusers, with “all the people” now

153

THE PROPHETS

defending Jeremiah (26:16). These particular priests and prophets were associated with the temple in Jerusalem since the accusation leveled against Jeremiah was that he claimed that the temple would become like Shiloh (26:7–­9; Ps 78:60–­61), which was tantamount to a direct attack on the Jerusalem temple and its associated cult and priesthood. The fate of Uriah ben Shemaiah (26:20–­23) suggests that these priests and prophets of the temple were allied with and had been placed by Jehoiakim. With the shift in kings came a shift in the priesthood and a shift in the ideology that directed Judah’s theocracy. Jeremiah 20:1–­6 expands upon the picture given in Jeremiah 26. Here, the text records a certain Pashhur ben Immer “who was chief officer in the house of the Lord,” who upon hearing Jeremiah pronounce disaster upon Jerusalem and Judah in the temple court ( Jer 19:14–­15) placed Jeremiah in stocks in the upper Benjamin Gate of the temple (20:2). Jeremiah came to the temple court from denouncing child sacrifice in the valley of Hinnom (19:14 and vv. 1–­13). It is very curious that Pashhur, at least as presented in the text, was unconcerned about the worship of Baal or child sacrifice. Be that as it may, by synthesizing these elements, Pashhur ben Immer represented the temple hierarchy, controlled temple territory, and defended the security of Jerusalem and Judah. Again, Jeremiah is found in opposition to the authorities over the Jerusalem temple. As Wilson argued, prophets served as spokespersons for particular theological traditions—­in essence, ancient political parties or perhaps political action committees. Prophets were also supported by these groups. A glance at Jeremiah’s friends and foes paints, albeit with a broad brush, a picture of Jeremiah supporting the Deuteronomic reforms, as well as he himself being supported by the Deuteronomists. However, when the Deuteronomic reforms fell out of favor, especially during Jehoiakim’s reign, tables turned on Jeremiah, and his life and career became quite turbulent. Scholars often remark on a deafening silence regarding Josiah and the Deuteronomic reforms in the scroll of Jeremiah. Even though numerous citations date much of Jeremiah’s prophetic activity to the

154

JEREMIAH

reign of Josiah, as described above, no single prophecy speaks explicitly and directly in support of the reforms. This is surprising since Jeremiah’s heritage as a Levitical priest from Anathoth would lead the reader to expect Jeremiah’s support. Moreover, the volume of Jeremiah’s silence concerning Josiah stands in sharp contrast to his verbosity in regard to Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (e.g., 21:1–­23:8). Part of the silence we hear, as modern readers, may be due to the fact that we do not know what we should be listening for; that is to say, Jeremiah’s prophecies may fall outside of our audible range. Jeremiah’s oracles (the A Material) are filled with threats of calamity on which is based calls to repent (variations of the root šûḇ; e.g., 3:1, 12, 14, 22; 4:1; 22:1–­7; and see 25:5; 36:3). Most interesting, the tension between calamity and repentance formed Jeremiah’s defense in Jeremiah 26:16–­19. There, the officials cited Micah 3:12—­a text that promised ruin upon Zion—­as characteristic of true prophecy, for it led to Hezekiah’s repentance; this brought about the Lord “changing his mind,” and in its turn, disaster was averted (v. 19). Zephaniah, who was active in Josiah’s early years as king, threatened the coming Day of the Lord (1:7–­13; 3:8), and for this reason, called upon the nation to seek the Lord (2:1–­3). Still, Jeremiah 3:6–­11 condemns adulterous Judah for being even more wanton than her sister, Israel. This narrated discourse may indicate that Jeremiah was in the end dissatisfied with the extent of Josiah’s reforms. The reforms may have fallen short in his judgment. Still, the oracles that follow hold out the plea for repentance (3:12). This plea for repentance was carried into Jehoiakim’s reign, and only at the time of the drought did the Lord close off the possibility of return (14:11; 15:1–­9). In sum, the nature of the materials in Jeremiah raises questions of what can be known about the historical prophet Jeremiah. Recognizing that the narrative materials, in particular, must be used with caution, the text of Jeremiah nevertheless presents a prophet whose message placed him in the center of the theological debates in the last decades of the tiny theocracy that was Judah. His message, while consistent, was received quite differently by the various regimes, which faced ever-­shifting historical challenges. The obstinance of Jeremiah

155

THE PROPHETS

did not fit well with such a turbulent time. It’s little wonder, then, that Jeremiah’s soul was so tortured. The Text of Jeremiah Text Critical Issues Modern scholarship has been blessed by receiving from antiquity, not one, but two versions or recensions of the Jeremiah scroll. One version of the scroll is found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (hereafter MT). This is the version that is translated into almost all English versions, such as the NRSV and NJPS, and is authoritative for Judaism. The other version is found in the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint (hereafter LXX). Simply stated, the MT version is longer than that of the LXX, and the two versions organize the materials differently. While the MT and LXX versions of every book in the Hebrew Bible differ from one another, none diverge so radically as the two different editions of Jeremiah. This is a gift, for through its exaggerated differences, it narrates to us both the process of transmission and attitude ancient communities of faith took toward their treasured, sacred texts. To begin, the MT and LXX recensions of Jeremiah differ in the order and arrangement of the prophecies (see sidebar 4.4). Whether written or oral (or both), prophecies began as discrete units, each with their own message, delivered at a particular point in time and crafted for a specific audience. Only later, when tradents of these texts or disciples of the prophet or some authority with sufficient will and means determined that a particular prophet’s collected works should be preserved, would they be gathered together and organized into a scroll.34 The order in which the various prophetic units were set was a reflection of the sensibilities and aesthetic tastes of these later editors or redactors. Two different redactors arranged Jeremiah’s prophetic output, as evidenced by the two very different arrangements of his prophecies now found in the LXX and the MT. Most obvious is the placement of the oracles against the nations. In the MT, this block of texts has been

156

Sidebar 4.4: How MT and LXX Versions of Jeremiah Differ Structurally The two versions of the Jeremiah scroll are arranged as follows:

MT

LXX

Jeremiah 1–20

Jeremiah 1–20

Jer 21:1–25:13a

Jer 21:1–25:13a

Book of Comfort Narratives about Jeremiah

Oracles against the Nations

Jer 25:13b–45:5

Oracles against the Nations 46:1–51:64

Jer 25:14–31:44 [LXX] (= Jer 46:1–51:64, MT)

Book of Comfort Narratives about Jeremiah Jer 32:1–51:35 [LXX] (= Jer 25:13b–46:5, MT)

Jeremiah 52

Jeremiah 52

Broadly viewed, the editors of the two scrolls switched the position of the narratives and oracles in Jeremiah 25:13b–­45:5 and the oracles against the nations. While the oracles against the nations traveled as a block for both the MT and the LXX, the arrangement of the oracles within the respective collections differed, as follows:

THE PROPHETS

MT

LXX

Egypt

Elam

Philistines

Egypt

Moab

Babylon

Ammon

Philistines

Edom

Edom

Damascus

Ammon

Kedar

Kedar

Elam

Damascus

Babylonia

Moab

placed at the end of the scroll, in chapters 46–­51. In the LXX, they were set in the middle of the book, immediately after 25:13a. Indeed, a careful reading of Jeremiah 25:13–­16 and 46:1 reveals the seam left by the removal of the oracles against the nations. Intriguingly, the “Cup of Wrath” oracle (25:15–­38 in the MT) makes a great deal of sense if it follows immediately after the oracles against the nations. These observations indicate that the placement of the oracles against the nations once followed 25:13a, as they do in the LXX and as is found in the arrangements of Isaiah and Ezekiel. For some reason, the redactors of the MT preferred to move them to the end of their recension. The other difference between the LXX and the MT is the length of the texts, the LXX being one-­sixth shorter than the MT. This difference raises the question regarding the Vorlage read by the translators responsible for the LXX version of Jeremiah. What exactly did they see in front of them? Copyist error cannot account for all of the difference in length, for some of the lacuna (i.e., the missing parts) in the Greek text/additions in the MT are significant. David Petersen has offered an example from Jeremiah 10:1–­11 that illustrates this point well.35

158

MT (and English Versions)

LXX

Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: Do not learn the way of the nations, or be dismayed at the signs of the heavens; For the nations are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are false: A tree from the forest is cut down, And worked with an ax by the hands of an artisan; People deck it with silver and gold; They fasten it with hammer and nails So that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; They have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor is it in them to do good.

Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: Do not learn the way of the nations, or be dismayed at the signs of the heavens; For the nations are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are false: A tree from the forest is cut down, And worked with an ax by the hands of an artisan; People deck it with silver and gold; They fasten it with hammer and nails So that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; They have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor is it in them to do good.

There is none like you, O Lord; You are great, and your name is great in might. Who would not fear you, O King of the nations? For that is your due. Among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is no one like you. They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction given by idols is no better than wood! Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. They are the work of the artisan and of the hands of the goldsmith; Their clothing is blue and purple; They are all the product of skilled workers.

Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. They are the work of the artisan and of the hands of the goldsmith; Their clothing is blue and purple; They are all the product of skilled workers.

But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. Verse 11 is in both versions, but written in Aramaic: Thus shall you say to them: the gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.

THE PROPHETS

If the text of the LXX is read in isolation from the MT, it becomes clear that this is a parody on idolatry, similar in content and tone to the satirical verses of Jeremiah 2:26–­28. Similar parodies of idolatry appear in other texts, such as Psalm 115:3–­8; Isaiah 40:18–­20; and 44:9–­20. The MT additions bury the mockery of idolatry in favor of an emphasis upon the universal majesty of Israel’s God over all nations. The additions in the MT intimate a theological evolution, beginning in a period when idolatry was a threat, then moving forward to a time when a later copyist assumed the prohibition against idolatry but wanted to praise the universal majesty of God. The differences between the two recensions of Jeremiah, scholars have argued, are the product of two different provenances. First, since the LXX dates to the Hellenistic period, the Hebrew Vorlage of Jeremiah that was translated into the LXX recension must date at least to the third century BCE. Additionally, scholars generally identify Alexandria as the provenance of this translation. In contrast, the oldest copy of the Hebrew Bible in the Masoretic tradition is the Aleppo Codex, which dates to the tenth century CE. Thus the evidence of the LXX recension predates by over a thousand years the evidence provided by the MT. This does not mean, however, that the Masoretic tradition of the Hebrew Bible or of Jeremiah dates to the tenth century CE. The Masoretic scribes were very conservative, protecting and faithfully copying a textual tradition of Jeremiah that stretched centuries back in time, back before the turn of the eras. This is the evidence granted to us by the Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q Jera, from before 200 BCE, and 2Q Jer, which on the basis of paleography dates roughly to the first century CE, place the oracles against the nations at the end of the book and generally preserve the textual tradition now witnessed to by the MT. However, in Cave 4, portions of Jeremiah 9:21–­10:21, written in Hebrew, were found in a fragment—­4Q Jerb—­that reflects the Vorlage of the LXX.36 The fact that both the LXX and MT recensions of Jeremiah were found at Qumran reveals that ancient communities of faith—­the Qumran sect was a conservative community of faith—­treasured and studied both recensions of Jeremiah.

160

JEREMIAH

The Shape of the Jeremiah Scroll The scroll of Jeremiah tantalizes the modern critic in ways no other book in the Hebrew Bible does. On one hand, it is the most self-­ referential book in the Hebrew Bible, dropping copious clues about its own composition. Despite this fact, a satisfactory solution to its development and arrangement remains elusive. Bright stated that the disarray of the Jeremiah scroll, which we spoke of above, is the product of “the utter complexity of the process by which the Jeremiah book was formed.”37 Allen has offered an apt metaphor: “The book of Jeremiah is like an old English country house, originally built and then added to in the Regency period, augmented with Victorian wings, and generally refurbished throughout the Edwardian years.”38 To explain the characterization “self-­referential,” we turn to Jeremiah 36, where the prophet not once but twice commissions the scribe Baruch to write down his prophecies in a scroll (36:28–­31), one revised and expanded by “many similar words” (36:32). Jeremiah 36, set in Jehoiakim’s fourth year, is connected with Jeremiah 25, also set in Jehoiakim’s fourth year (25:1). In something of a summation, verse 3 states, “For twenty-­three years, from the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon of Judah, to this day” (see Jer 36:2), indicating that the purpose is repentance (25:5; see, 36:3; perhaps revoked in the second edition, 25:8–­11; 36:30–­31). If Jeremiah 25 concludes an early anthology of Jeremiah’s prophecies, the beginning may be found all the way back in the first part of the superscript, 1:1–­3a. It seems likely as well that Jeremiah 45 served as a scribal colophon of this early Jeremiah scroll ( Jer 45:1). These considerations lead many scholars to read the core of chapters 1–­25 of Jeremiah as comprising an initial collection, dating to 605 BCE, the time of the Battle of Carchemish, and in our discussion below, we will separate out chapters 1–­25 as an initial collection of prophecies to which much had been added. Although chapters 1–­25 may have been one scroll of prophecies, it was not the only one. Two other collections of oracles appear in the Jeremiah scroll: Jeremiah 30–­31, the so-­called Book of Consolation, and

161

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 4.5: The Masoretes The Masoretes were a guild of Jewish scribes dedicated to the preservation of the texts of the Hebrew Bible. This guild not only copied the Hebrew texts now found in the Hebrew Bible; it also developed a strict system of checks in order to conserve the integrity of these texts. Their grandest achievements are now found in the Aleppo Codex (ca. 920 CE) and the Leningrad Codex (1108 CE), the latter being reproduced in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Although the Aleppo and Leningrad codices date to the late first millennium CE, the consonantal text that the Masoretes preserved and copied dates to the first century CE and earlier and was considered sacred. To preserve the integrity of this sacred text, the Masoretes used a strict system of rules and procedures known as the Masorah. Their procedures permitted them to add vowel and accent marks around the consonantal text in order to preserve how the Hebrew was to be read aloud, but they never changed the consonants themselves. Likewise, the Masoretes added marginal notes around the edges of the text to check the quality of the copied text, but they never altered the fixed consonantal text on the page.

Jeremiah 46–­51, the oracles against the nations. Hence we will approach the scroll of Jeremiah first by viewing chapters 1–­25, 30–­31, and 46–­51 as three distinct anthologies of Jeremian oracles, all the while acknowledging that each of these three compilations had their own complex development. Beyond these collections of Jeremian prophecies, the scroll of Jeremiah is filled with prose material that, as explained above, contains both scenes from Jeremiah’s life (B Material) and prose sermons (C Material). These prose materials are now found largely in chapters 26–­44

162

JEREMIAH

and 52, though some of the material in Jeremiah 1–­25 also fits into the category of prose accounts. These prose materials in Jeremiah are theologically loaded, reflecting the agenda of the Deuteronomists and for the most part declaring Jeremiah to be a true prophet. In our description of the shape of the Jeremiah scroll, we will collect the biographical sketches of Jeremiah and the narrated discourses together under the broad rubric of prose materials. Jeremian Oracles Jeremiah 1:4–­20:18. As explained above, we have separated chapter 1:4–­25:13a as a discrete collection of texts, linked by the date (the fourth year in Jehoiakim’s reign; Jer 1:2–­3; 25:3; 36:1–­2) to Jeremiah and Baruch’s activities narrated in Jeremiah 36, although many texts were added on by later editors. Lundbom has noted that the final verses of Jeremiah 20, a first person-­text in which Jeremiah laments his own birth, close out and bracket off a collection of prophecies that began in Jeremiah 1:4–­10 with the Lord’s commissioning of Jeremiah from birth: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”39 The brackets formed by 1:4–­10 and 20:14–­18 permit further limiting the oracular materials to chapters 1–­20. Jeremiah 1–­20 is organized to some degree by introductory formulae. First-­person announcements—­“The word of the Lord came to me, saying” (wayhî deḇar yhwh ʾēlay lēʾmōr)—­play a role in organizing the text, appearing in 1:4; 2:1; and 16:1. Additionally, third-­person announcements—­“This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord” (haddāḇar ʾăšer hāyāh ʾel-­yiremeyāhû mēʾēṯ yhwh lēʾmōr)—­appear four times ( Jer 7:1; 11:1; 18:1), introducing prose sermons (C Material) that most likely represent later additions to the text. Interspersed through the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah are Jeremiah’s complaints ( Jer 11:18–­20; 12:1–­4; 15:10–­18; 17:14–­18; 18:19–­23; 20:7–­18), to which we will return at the end of our discussion of Jeremiah. To the modern eye, Jeremiah 1–­20 does indeed appear to be in a state of disarray, as

163

THE PROPHETS

Bright has underscored. The organization, however, was produced by ancient scribes who applied a different sense of arrangement—­one at home in ancient, predominantly oral, scholarly circles.40 The Book of Consolation: Jeremiah 30:1–­31:37. In Jeremiah 30:2, God directs the prophet with a new imperative: “Write in a book [sep̱ er; literally, ‘scroll’] all the words that I have spoken to you.” These words, however, are words of salvation, looking forward to a time when the Lord “will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, . . . and I will bring them back to the land” (30:3). This collection, therefore, is commonly referred to as the “Book of Consolation.” There is nothing in the text that connects this scroll directly with the scrolls referenced in Jeremiah 36. Nevertheless, the Book of Consolation repeats many of the same themes found elsewhere in Jeremiah, providing at times counterpoints to that material. For example,

Sidebar 4.6: An Outline of the Jeremiah Scroll With caution, we will discuss in what follows the shape of the Jeremiah scroll, using this suggested outline as a heuristic approach:

I. 1:1–­3: Superscript to the scroll



II. 1:4–­25:14: Oracles from the days of Josiah and Jehoiakim

A. 1:4–­20:18: An anthology of Jeremiah’s oracles



B. 21–­24: Prophecies to the kings and prophets of Judah



C. 25:1–­14: Summation



III. 25:15–­38 and 26–­29: Prose accounts defending Jeremiah as a true prophet

A. 25:15–­38: God’s cup of wrath for the nations



B. 26: The fallout from the temple sermon (609; Jer 7)



C. 27, 28, and 29: Events surrounding a setback for Babylon (593)

164

JEREMIAH



IV. 30:1–­31:40: Scroll of consolation



V. 32–­36: Prose accounts of Jeremiah’s prophetic activities

A. 32:1–­44: A word of promise (at the time of the siege)



B. 33:1–­26: A second word of promise (at the time of the siege)





C. 34:1–­7: A word of blessing upon Zedekiah



D. 34:8–­22: A word of judgment upon Zedekiah



E. 35: Jehoiakim: A lesson from the Rechabites



F. 36: Jeremiah, Baruch, and the two scrolls

VI. 37–­44: A prose novella about Jeremiah in the closing days of Judah

VII. 45: A blessing upon Baruch VIII. 46–­51: Oracles against the foreign nations

IX. 52: Description of the fall of Jerusalem

the verb šûḇ, a catchword in chapters 3–­4 that both calls the people to “turn around” or “repent” and also underscores their obduracy (3:2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 19, 22; 4:1, 8, 28), is used in the Book of Consolation to announce that God is going to turn around the fate of the nation (often translated “restore” in the NRSV; see Jer 30:3, 10, 18; 31:18, 23). We will discuss these thematic connections further in our discussion of themes in Jeremiah below. The oracles against the nations: Jeremiah 46:1–­51:64. Jeremiah 46:1 opens with “The word of the Lord that came to the prophet Jeremiah concerning the nations,” which functions in a similar way to the introduction to the Book of Consolation, something like a title for the collection. Following this heading, Jeremiah 46–­51 contains oracles against ten nations. On account of this title and the fact that these oracles against other nations traveled together, whether in the MT order or that of the LXX (see sidebar 4.4), these texts have

165

THE PROPHETS

the appearance of being a discrete prophetic anthology. The collection itself divides into two groups. The first group, Jeremiah 46–­49, includes oracles against nine nations, each being demarcated by a title that can be translated “Concerning PN” (following the NRSV; 46:2; 47:1; 48:1; 49:1, 7, 23, and in an altered form, 49:34). The second group of oracles against Babylon appears in Jeremiah 50–­51, introduced somewhat differently by the phrase, “The word that the Lord spoke concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans, by the prophet Jeremiah.” There is value in recalling that at his commission God tells Jeremiah that even before his birth, God had appointed him to be “a prophet to the nations” (1:5), appointed “over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (1:10; see 18:5–­11). Within the scroll, Jeremiah is often depicted performing these very roles ( Jer 3:17; 16:19; 25:15–­38; 27:1–­22). For Jeremiah, Judah lived in the midst of nations. Their interests affected Judah’s ambitions. As did Zephaniah before him, therefore, Jeremiah pronounced the fate of Judah’s neighbors because their destiny shaped Judah’s destiny. The Prose Materials of Jeremiah Jeremiah 21:1–­25:14. This material is dominated by prose discourses, classically categorized as C Material, though as the translations reflect, oracles in poetic verse also appear in these passages as well. The initial narrative (21:1–­10) brings with it an expanded heading—­“This is the word that came to Jeremiah” (7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 30:1)—­and the date ties it to about 588 BCE, long after the scroll of 605, the initial core of the preceding material in Jeremiah 1–­20. Jeremiah 21:1–­23:8 deals with the royal house in Jerusalem, at times offering hope and longevity (23:5–­6) while in other places pronouncing condemnation (22:11–­17, 18–­23, 24–­30; 23:1–­4). As we noted above, Jeremiah seems to have had an especially contentious relationship with Jehoiakim, who sat upon the throne during this period, 609–­597.

166

JEREMIAH

After addressing the house of David, the editors of the text placed an oracle “concerning the prophets” (23:9–­22). This is followed by a narrative discourse in 23:23–­40 ridiculing Jeremiah’s prophetic opponents. According to the ideology of the Deuteronomists, the prophets played a critical role in the theocracy, and the kings should listen to them. These two passages spread the blame for the fall of the nation to the prophets who spoke lies in the name of the Lord (23:25) and, adapting the words of Deuteronomy 18:20–­22, a word that he had not commanded to be spoken. Jeremiah 25:15–­38; and Jeremiah 26:1–­29:32. Between the narrative discourses of Jeremiah 21:1–­25:14, which now bring chapters 1–­25 to a close, and the Book of Consolation, beginning in Jeremiah 30:1, a collection of narratives has been set. An initial section, Jeremiah 25:15–­38 in the MT, records a sign-­act in which Jeremiah makes the nations drink the cup of the Lord’s wrath (vv. 15–­29), followed by the Lord’s announcement of his indictment of the nations recorded in verses 30–­38. As was discussed above, this section conceptually belongs more with the oracles against the nations than with what follows in Jeremiah 26–­29. The third person heading—­“This word came [to Jeremiah] from the Lord” (26:1; 27:1)—­sets off the material in chapters 26–­29 into two blocks: Jeremiah 26 and Jeremiah 27–­29. Both blocks of material are predominantly biographies about Jeremiah (B Material), interspersed with some discourse material (C Material), included for the purpose of identifying him as a true prophet of God. A time stamp dates Jeremiah 26 to the beginning of King Jehoiakim’s reign, so 609 BCE. Parallels between the narrative in Jeremiah 26 and the temple sermon ( Jer 7), especially the mention of Shiloh ( Jer 7:12–­15; 26:6), link these two texts, suggesting that Jeremiah 26 describes the events of Jeremiah’s life surrounding his delivery of the temple sermon. Here we learn that Jeremiah was seized and threatened with execution, rescued only by officials and the people who defended him by citing the precedent of Micah, quoting Micah 3:12 (26:12, 16). Although

167

THE PROPHETS

Jeremiah 7 and 26 are apparently related to each other, Jeremiah 26 has another purpose altogether: to defend Jeremiah as a true prophet of the Lord. Jeremiah 27 and 28 also contain biographical narratives from the prophet’s life, and the witness of the LXX suggests that this material was introduced simply by the messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord.”41 Immediately following this heading, Jeremiah is commanded to perform a sign-­act in which he would wear an oxen’s yoke (27:2), declaring submission to Babylon to an international summit of delegations from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon (27:3), who were gathered in Jerusalem for the possibility of rebellion (27:5–­7). “In that same year” (28:1), a certain Hananiah, who spoke in the Lord’s name, challenged Jeremiah. The narrative clearly references the Deuteronomic law over the prophets (Deut 18:15–­22), with God himself condemning Hananiah and executing punishment according to Deuteronomy 18:21. Again,

Figure 4.5 Jeremiah prophesies before the people wearing a yoke, which symbolizes that the nations must submit to Babylon.

168

JEREMIAH

the goal of these scenes is to defend Jeremiah before the reader as a true prophet. The prose accounts of the circumstances surrounding two letters exchanged between the exiles in Babylon and those remaining in Jerusalem have been placed into chapter 29. The first, 29:4–­22, is a letter from Jeremiah to elders and officials taken into exile.42 The time frame is commonly understood to be the same as chapters 27–­28, so it was composed about 593. Perhaps this first letter traveled with a delegation sent to reassure Nebuchadnezzar of Zedekiah’s loyalty after the summit. The second letter was written by Shemaiah, who was among the exiles and was sent, perhaps upon the delegation’s return trip, to Zephaniah ben Maaseiah, the priest in Jerusalem, demanding the condemnation and public humiliation of Jeremiah. As with Hananiah, Shemaiah is condemned by God as a lying prophet (29:31). Each narrative in Jeremiah 26–­29, then, defends Jeremiah as a true prophet of the Lord, a defense that in part is bolstered by setting his opponents up as foils, sharpening the truth of Jeremiah’s prophecies by contrasting his words with the lying words of his opponents. Jeremiah 32:1–­36:32: Biographies of the Prophet. Following the Book of Consolation, a succession of six narratives paint vignettes of the prophet’s life and message. These narratives are set apart by similar introductory formulae, which announce the coming of the word of the Lord to Jeremiah, associated with a particular date or event in Judah’s history (32:1; 33:1; 34:1; 34:8; 35:1; 36:1, 4). Jeremiah 36 has been discussed (see p. 161) and will not be taken up again here. The first three of these narratives appear at one time to have been clumped together, indicated by the brackets of Jeremiah 32:1–­5 and 34:6–­7, which locate these narratives during Nebuchadnezzar’s second and decisive siege of Jerusalem, so 588 BCE. During this time, Jeremiah is arrested for desertion and locked away in the court of the guard (33:1; 37:12–­16). In the first of three narratives set in this dark hour ( Jer 32:1–­44), Jeremiah assures his audience through a sign-­act that the people will in years to come again possess their family’s ancestral land. The formula in 33:1 (“The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah a

169

THE PROPHETS

second time”) introduces a second scene that is connected with the biographical tableau from chapter 32 by means of Jeremiah’s confinement in the court of the guard. The messenger formulae in 33:4, 10, and 12 introduce proclamations regarding the restoration of the city and land after an initial period of destruction. The third tableau, introduced by the formula in 34:1, assures Zedekiah that he will die in peace and with honor, a promise that did not come true ( Jer 39:7; 52:8–­11; 2 Kgs 25:5–­7). Despite Babylon’s siege machines and despite being imprisoned by Zedekiah, the three enclosed narratives proclaim hope and salvation to the city, the land, the people, and even—­in a qualified fashion—­Zedekiah himself. In a reversal to Jeremiah 34:1–­5, a fourth narrative—­Jeremiah 34:8–­22—­judges Zedekiah for breaking a covenant. In its current placement, this narrative explains Zedekiah’s actual fate and updates the prophetic promise. A fifth scene, Jeremiah 35:1–­19, underscores God’s punishment for Zedekiah’s abrogation of his covenantal commitments by narrating an instance when God, through Jeremiah, attempted to entrap the Rechabites with wine. The Rechabites refused the wine on the grounds of covenantal obedience first established by their ancestor Jonadab (v. 6, 8). This failed attempt at entrapment, then, became a sign-­act for the kind of fealty required by God (vv. 12–­14; see 1 Kgs 13:11–­25). As a reward for their unwavering obedience, God assures the Rechabites of a continuing line of descendants (vv. 18–­19), granting to a socially peripheral group something now denied King Jehoiakim, a scion of David. Jeremiah 37:1–­44:30. The final section, 37:1–­44:30, preserves a novella of Jeremiah’s life as a prophet. After introducing Zedekiah as the successor of Jehoiachin (Coniah), it states the thesis of this novella: “But neither [Zedekiah] nor his servants nor the people of the land listened to the words of the Lord that he spoke through the prophet Jeremiah” (37:2; see 43:2; 44:16, 25). The drama of these chapters plays itself out in six scenes (37:3–­ 16; 37:17–­ 38:13; 38:14–­ 28; 39:1–­ 41:17; 42:1–­43:13; 44:1–­29). The drama begins in Jerusalem, in the final days of Judah, before it falls to the Babylonians. It moves to Mizpah and the

170

JEREMIAH

assassination of Gedaliah, which may date to roughly 583–­581 BCE. After the bloody insurrection led by Ishmael, the narrative hauls Jeremiah and Baruch to Egypt, where again Jeremiah’s prophetic word from God is ignored. Interestingly, the focus of the text is not upon the fall of Jerusalem, nor even the fate of Zedekiah or Gedaliah, but rather the treatment of Jeremiah (37:16, 21; 38:4–­6, 7–­13, 29; 43:1–­7). Only Nebuchadnezzar, the besieging king, extends to Jeremiah any grace (39:12; 40:4). In true Deuteronomistic fashion, this prophetic novella provides a morality tale about the people’s failure to recognize and appreciate a true “prophet like Moses,” who like Elijah (1 Kgs 17; 19) suffers for speaking only what the Lord has spoken to him (Deut 18:15–­22). Summation: An Old English Manor House On account of ancient scribal techniques, new additions were added over the years to the Jeremiah scroll. Other sections were remodeled, and layers of paint were slathered on over other, older layers of paint. All of these efforts reflect care and a love for the prophet’s message, one worthy of preservation and thoughtful study. Still, these efforts have also left us with a complex, composite text. It may feel messy to a modern reader of books, but in the ancient world, it reflects the work of scribes. As Allen stated above, the scroll of Jeremiah is like an English country manor that has grown over time, with strange angles, uneven floors, mismatched windows, and an occasional outbuilding. Even if a little drafty at places, such manors are among the most intriguing of houses! Themes and Theology of the Jeremiah Scroll The preceding survey has quickly and roughly sketched a drawing of a scroll with a complex past. Even so, its oracles, narratives, and discourses parallel closely the language and theology of the Deuteronomistic School, which gained prominence in the last half of the seventh

171

THE PROPHETS

century BCE and stretched further into and past the exile. As was presented in the first section of this chapter, scholars debate the extent to which the message of the scroll reflects the ideology of the prophet Jeremiah himself or is rather the language and ideas of those who later handled and developed the texts. In light of this debate, the discussion that follows will attempt to synthesize major themes that appear in the current shape of the text. These themes trumpet the theological agenda of the Deuteronomists, blaring forth a clarion call so clear that, with time, the scroll itself replaced the prophet as the spokesperson for this ancient school. The Exclusive Worship of the Lord, Israel’s National Deity Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deut 6:4–­5)

Deuteronomy 6:4–­5, known as the Shema, is the classic statement of Israel’s exclusive covenantal fealty to the Lord. These verses, along with verses 6–­9, are recited twice daily by pious Jews and are found in mezuzahs on Jewish doorways around the world. The Shema, however, is not a statement of monotheism, the belief that only one God exists, but rather the exclusive allegiance to and worship of one particular deity—­that is to say, monolatry.43 Hence in Deuteronomy 17:2–­7, the problem with fellow citizens worshipping another god is not that they are misguided fools, wasting their time and energy and livestock, but that they are being disloyal to Israel’s national deity, the Lord (see Deut 13:1–­18). They are imperiling the nation itself. For this position too the Jeremiah scroll advocated. As the voice of the Deuteronomists, the scroll of Jeremiah spoke for a reform movement, a tradition that was for much of its history peripheral in its ancient Israelite social context and only in the latter decades of the eighth and seventh centuries had moved into a central role. Monolatry is the concept that motivated the metaphor of a wife’s fidelity to her husband, so common in Jeremiah (2:2–­3, 20–­25; 3:1–­5;

172

JEREMIAH

5:7–­9). In the context of reform, monolatry was expressed as the condemnation of the people and the nation for having abandoned the Lord (ʿzb; 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7, 19; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:4). Abandonment is identified in the scroll with the worship of “other gods” (ʾělōhîm ʾǎḥērîm; 1:16; 7:6, 9, 18; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11, 13; 19:4, 13; 22:9; 25:6; 35:15; 44:3, 5, 8, 15) and “all the host of heaven” (kōl ṣeḇāʾ has̆āmayim; 8:2; 19:13). In places within the scroll, various gods are named, such as the Queen of Heaven (7:18; 44:17, 18, 19, 25) and Molech, worshipped by child sacrifice at Topheth (7:31–­8:3; 19:1–­15). Of course, the prominent Canaanite deity, Baal, roundly condemned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as a threat to true fealty to the Lord, also receives extensive condemnation in Jeremiah (2:8, 23; 7:9; 9:14; 11:14, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 17; 32:29, 35). In this regard, it is interesting to lift up Jeremiah 3:14: “Return, O faithless children, says the Lord, for I am your master.” The Hebrew word translated “master” in this verse is actually a verbal form of the word Baal, and the text literally states that the Lord will become Israel’s husband, and in so doing, he will claim the seat of Baal (similarly, see 31:32). The God to whom Israel should be exclusively loyal is, according to the Jeremiah scroll, transcendent. In the Deuteronomic literature, this is expressed primarily in the placement of the name in the temple, a hypostasis of the Lord, as opposed to God’s full, invisible presence.44 Solomon, for example, in his prayer at the dedication of the temple, expresses this concept: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built! Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea, O Lord my God, heeding the cry and the prayer that your servant prays to you today; that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may heed the prayer that your servant prays toward this place. . . . O hear in heaven your dwelling place; heed and forgive” (1 Kgs 8:27–­30). This theological tradition understood God’s full presence to reside solely in the heavens while his hypostasized name dwelt in the temple. Concerning the immanence of God, the people could turn in prayer

173

THE PROPHETS

toward the Lord’s name that dwelt in the temple, which would mediate their petition to the Lord in heaven (1 Kgs 8:31–­53).45 The scroll of Jeremiah shares this doctrine of God’s name, expressed prominently in the prophet’s temple sermon ( Jer 7:10–­11). Concomitant with the doctrine of the Lord’s name, Jeremiah presents the Lord as the creator, who protects the created order against the threats of chaos:46 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings (sic) for the rain, And he brings out the wind from his storehouses. ( Jer 10:12–­13; see 5:22–­24) These verses argue that the Lord, as creator, should be feared by Israel and worshipped as the God who brings fertility. This same attribute, however, also serves as the basis for the Lord’s ability to redeem Israel, articulated in the Book of Consolation (31:35–­37). As the creator, the Lord has as well the freedom to choose Nebuchadnezzar as his tool by which to mete out punishment upon the nation-­states of the southern Levant (27:5–­7). As the specially chosen prophet of the creator, Jeremiah serves as a prophet to the nations (1:5, 10; 25:14–­38; Jer 46–­51). Conditional Covenant The Deuteronomistic tradition understood the relationship between God and Israel as a suzerainty treaty, in which Israel pledged its allegiance exclusively to the Lord, who in turn promised protection and prosperity to Israel: “Moses convened all Israel, and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the statues and ordinances that I am addressing to you today;

174

JEREMIAH

you shall learn them and observe them diligently. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today” (Deut 5:1–­3). The Jeremiah scroll too understands Israel’s exclusive relationship with God in terms of a covenant: The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. You shall say to them, Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Cursed be anyone who does not heed the words of this covenant, which I commanded your ancestors when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron-­smelter, saying, Listen to my voice, and do all that I command you. So shall you be my people, and I will be your God, that I may perform the oath that I swore to your ancestors, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as at this day. Then I answered, “So be it, Lord.” ( Jer 11:1–­5)

The temple sermon makes Israel’s possession of the land conditioned upon their obedience to the covenantal stipulations: “Make your ways and your acts good, and I will have you dwell in this place” (7:3 and vv. 5–­7).47 Although the conditional quality of Jeremiah’s concept of covenant involved curses and punishments, it also held out the possibility of forgiveness as God’s response to the people’s repentance. In Jeremiah 3, after condemning Israel for being an unfaithful wife, Israel is called to return (šûḇ) to the Lord (3:12, 14; 4:1; 22). Upon punishing Israel, God promises forgiveness and restoration (12:14–­17; 18:1–­11). Reconciliation was so much a part of Jeremiah’s message that an entire scroll, the Book of Consolation, was dedicated to such prophecies (see 30:1–­2). The Jeremian concept of covenant is clear in his promise of a new contract, as defined in the Book of Consolation (31:31–­34). In these verses, a new treaty must be established between God and Israel (31:31), one that will replace the former, broken covenant made with Israel’s ancestors (31:32). It is the conditional nature of the covenant,

175

THE PROPHETS

as conceived by the tradents of the Jeremiah scroll, that required a new compact to replace the older broken covenant. This understanding of covenant contrasts with that of an eternal covenant (Gen 9:8–­17; 17:1–­8; Ezek 16:59–­63), a concept in which God’s covenant endured, even if the obedience of the people removed them from its blessings.48 Ancestral Landholdings The Deuteronomistic traditions held ancestral landholdings as primary. In the context of discussing Hosea, Stephen Cook has stated, “God has given the territory to the people of Israel. God remains the liege lord of the territory, but the Israelites hold the land as a fiefdom.”49 Deuteronomy 32:7–­9 articulates the theological assertion of this claim: Remember the days of old, consider the years of long past; Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; The Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. The prioritization of ancestral and tribal lands guided the pen that narrated the allotment of the land in Joshua 13:1–­19:48. The narrative makes it clear that the Lord allotted the land to the various tribes either through Moses, “the servant of the Lord” (the tribes of Manasseh, Reuben, and Gad), or made his allotments of land known by lot, as mediated by the priest Eleazar, Joshua, and the heads of the families of the tribes ( Josh 14:1–­2). This theology of the land differs from that of Zion theology, which prioritizes Zion, locating it as the source of blessings in the center of the land, from which fertility flows down and through

176

JEREMIAH

the land. Certainly, the Deuteronomists centralized worship exclusively at the temple in Jerusalem, but they did not give up their ancestral claims. The ancestral landholdings reflect the interests of the political assemblies that powerfully lobbied for the Deuteronomists’ concerns, the People of the Land, and the Elders of the Land. As was discussed (p. 147), these groups should be viewed not as uneducated, underresourced peasants but rather as wealthy landed gentry with interests of their own, who at times had the political capital to impose their will. This attention to the land plays an important role in the text of Jeremiah. In the temple sermon, Jeremiah states in the protasis, “For if you truly amend your ways and your doings” and then concludes in the apodosis, “I will have you dwell in this place in the land that I gave to your fathers for all time.”50 In Jeremiah 27, when it is Jeremiah’s turn to prophesy before the summit of nations, he states, “But any nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will leave on its own land, says the Lord, to till it and live there” (v. 11). Jeremiah warns Zedekiah that if he does not heed his prophecies but instead follows those of Jeremiah’s rivals, “I will drive you out and you will perish” (v. 15). Chapter 32 involves an elaborate sign-­ act, one that cost Jeremiah both financially and personally, in terms of his freedom (33:1; 37:11–­21). In this sign-­act, Jeremiah redeems from his cousin Hanamel a field in Anathoth and so a portion of his family’s ancestral landholding (32:6–­15). The text emphasizes that Jeremiah’s deed to the land must be protected for a long time because, despite a time of punishment, ancestral landholdings will in the future again be of value. After the fall of the city, Jeremiah remained true to the Deuteronomists’ theological convictions, remaining in the land (39:14; 40:4–­6) even though the Babylonians promised to “take good care” of him if he would like to come to Babylon (40:4). After the assassination of Gedaliah, the commanders of the forces asked Jeremiah for a prophetic answer to their quandary whether to flee the land or to remain (42:1–­6). After ten days, Jeremiah responded, “If you will only remain in this land, then I

177

THE PROPHETS

will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up” (42:10). Throughout the book and despite the punishment necessitated by Israel’s failure to obey the stipulations of the covenant, the ancestral land was always where the text of Jeremiah believed the people of the Lord should live. In the ultimate irony, the commanders of the forces kidnapped Jeremiah and Baruch anyway and forced them into exile in Egypt (43:1–­7). According to the Jeremiah scroll, though his prophecy proved to be true, the prophet himself never returned to his family’s ancestral field at Anathoth in Benjamin. Moses as a Legendary Authority For the Deuteronomists, Moses held a critical place of authority. Moses was the figure who spoke with God face-­to-­face and mediated God’s covenantal ordinances to the Israelites: When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you approached me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders; and you said, “Look, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the fire. Today we have seen that God may speak to someone and the person may still live. So now why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer, we shall die. For who is there of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and remained alive? Go near, you yourself, and hear all that the Lord our God will say. Then tell us everything that the Lord our God tells you, and we will listen and do it.” (Deut 5:23–­27)

This theological construct of an ancient authority delivering the laws of God created a new model of governance. The Hammurabi stele reflects the standard ancient Near Eastern model. In the image at the top of the monument (fig. 4.6), Shamash, the god of justice, delivers the law to the pious king, Hammurabi, who then disperses justice throughout his land by means of monumental stelae. In this model, King Hammurabi is both the recipient and deliverer of the law, which places him above the law relative to the people. In the Deuteronomic model,

178

JEREMIAH

an unassailable ancient authority, Moses, received the law, and the Deuteronomistic Torah now stands as a surrogate for Moses. The law over the king (Deut 17:14–­20), therefore, stipulates that the king must study the Torah under the direction of Levitical priests (vv. 18–­20). With this restructuring, S. Dean McBride has argued that the Torah has become “something else and genuinely new, the charter for a constitutional theocracy.”51 The Deuteronomists’ new model of governance provided for a continuation of Mosaic intermediation, stated in the law over the prophets (Deut 18:15–­22): “This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: ‘If I hear the voice of the Lord my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.’ The Lord replied to me: ‘They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command’” (Deut 18:16–­19).

Figure 4.6 The stele on which the Code of Hammurabi is inscribed. The top of the stele depicts Shamash handing the symbol of justice (circle and stick) to Hammurabi.

179

THE PROPHETS

This provision, then, allowed for an office, the prophet like Moses, and rested a tremendous amount of authority upon that figure, although there were too limitations (vv. 20–­22). According to the scroll of Jeremiah, Jeremiah was this figure, the prophet like Moses for his generation.52 In Jeremiah’s call (1:4–­10), the Lord touched Jeremiah’s mouth and said, “Now I have put my words in your mouth,” an adaptation of Deuteronomy 18:18. Jeremiah is commanded, “You shall speak whatever I command you” (v. 7), another reference to Deuteronomy 18:18. Jeremiah’s role as Mosaic prophet is further developed by the characterization of his prophetic opponents as “lying prophets,” prophets whom the law in Deuteronomy describes as speaking presumptuously “a word that the Lord has not spoken” (18:22). In Jeremiah’s temple sermon, he says of his rivals that they are deceiving the people with lying words (diḇrê-haššāqer; 7:4, 8).

Sidebar 4.7: The Stele of Hammurabi Hammurabi’s famous stele was capped with a depiction of the god of justice, Shamash, handing the circle and stick, the symbol of royal authority, to the king. The prologue to the laws articulates in writing what is illustrated in the relief: “Anum and Illil for the prosperity of the people called me by name Hammurabi, the reverent God-­fearing prince, to make justice to appear in the land, to destroy the evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise indeed like Shamash over the dark-haired folk to give light to the land.” This prologue illustrates the ancient Near Eastern model, which results in Hammurabi being set over the law in relation to the people. Deuteronomy presents a different model. No longer is the king the recipient of the law from God, nor is it he who delivers it to the people.

180

JEREMIAH

Rather Moses—­who at the time of Josiah’s reign and the discovery of the book of the law was an ancient, unassailable authority—­received the law from God and delivered it directly to the people, without royal intermediation (Deut 5:1–­5). In this model, the king must study the law, as instructed by a Levitical priest (Deut 17:18–19), and is, in relationship to the law, on the same plane as all other citizens of the theocracy (17:20). The difference can be depicted in this way: Hammurabi stele

Deuteronomic reform

Deity

Deity

Law

Law

King

Moses

Law

Law-­Surrogate for Moses

People

People and King

In Jeremiah 14:13–­16, the Lord reassures Jeremiah that his rival prophets are “prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them” (v. 14). In denouncing Jerusalemite prophets who prophesied in the name of the Lord, but who promised security, God states derisively, “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’ How long? Will the hearts of the prophets ever turn back—­those who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart?” (23:25–­27). At the international summit ( Jer 27–­28), those prophets who advocated rebellion against Babylon were said to be “prophesying a lie” (27:10, 14, 15, 16). When Hananiah, a prophet of the Lord, opposed Jeremiah by breaking to pieces Jeremiah’s symbolic yoke, Jeremiah accused him of lying (28:15) and

181

THE PROPHETS

further levied a death sentence upon the prophet, per the Deuteronomic legislation (18:20). An important role that was a part of the Mosaic prophet’s portfolio was to intercede for the people before God, serving as their advocate. In much of Jeremiah’s prophecies, the possibility of repentance was held out for the people ( Jer 3:12, 15, 22; 4:1; 7:5–­7). However, with Jeremiah 14, a set of prophecies dealing with a drought, the Lord commands Jeremiah, “Do not pray for the welfare of this people” (14:11–­12; and see v. 10). The people plead yet again for mercy, but the Lord states that his heart would not turn toward the people “though Moses and Samuel stood before me” (15:1), these being the two archetypal prophetic figures for the Deuteronomists. Jeremiah versus Ezekiel Jeremiah and Ezekiel were roughly contemporaries, with Jeremiah being perhaps eighteen years or so older than Ezekiel. Both were scions of prominent priestly families and benefitted from powerful, influential political connections. Both prophets viewed Nebuchadnezzar as God’s instrument of punishment and announced the fall of Jerusalem as God’s justice. Both, then, proved to be true prophets. Yet these two great prophets of the final days of Judah and Jerusalem and the early exile never mentioned each other, something that Dalit Rom-­Shiloni has appropriately dubbed a “loud silence.”53 In order to understand this loud silence, scholars have explored literary connections between the two prophetic books, suggested lines of dependence, and in the past, have generally read these literary allusions as evidence of agreement.54 Rom-­Shiloni has more recently argued that far from being allies, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were actually prophetic spokespersons for rival parties at the time of the exile. She concludes that Jeremiah was the prophet for those remaining in the land while Ezekiel was the prophet of the exiles.55 The questions “Who now will inherit the land?” and relatedly, “Who now are the elect of the Lord?” were the burning questions of the exile (see Jer 29:1–­14;

182

JEREMIAH

Ezek 11:1–­21; 33:23–­29), with Jeremiah and Ezekiel offering differing views. As important as it is to observe these differences, it is equally as important to recognize that later communities of faith valued and preserved both prophetic books. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke in the name of the Lord (Deut 18:19). Both prophets passed the test; their prophecies came true (Deut 18:22). Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. To punctuate the matter, the prophecies of peace and survival of Hananiah, also a prophet of the Lord, did not. However, their prophecies were based on different theological schools: Jeremiah’s theological heritage was Deuteronomistic; Ezekiel’s was central pro-­temple/Zadokite. Treasuring both traditions, latter communities of faith believed they could and must learn about the nature of God from both of these two true prophets. Final Reflections: The Death and Life of Jeremiah Jeremiah illustrates well that prophecy in ancient Israel was a blood sport, one fought to the death. The modern reader is shocked to read that in 609 BCE, upon delivering his temple sermon—­where he pleaded with the authorities of Jerusalem to “amend your ways”—­ Jeremiah was charged with treason, punishable by execution ( Jer 26:8–­9). Only by appeal to the prophecies of Micah, which by that time had apparently been accepted as true, was Jeremiah spared lynching (26:16–­20), though we read elsewhere (36:5) that four years later, he was banned from the temple precinct. To the modern ear that has been indoctrinated in the freedom of speech as a core value, these events sound bizarre. In 609, however, ancient Israel was faced with a national crisis—­the death of their king, Josiah—­and the ensuing question of how to proceed with the blessing and protection of their national deity, the Lord. Nothing less than the fate of the people hung in the balance, and to certain authorities, Jeremiah was pushing that balance in the wrong direction. It’s little wonder that in their eyes, Jeremiah must die. This was not the last time Jeremiah was to be threatened. At a later date (most probably), Jeremiah condemned the practice of child sacrifice

183

THE PROPHETS

in the valley of Hinnom ( Jer 19) only to be publicly humiliated at the upper Benjamin Gate—­that is, the gate that would have been normally used by Jeremiah’s fellow clansmen from Anathoth—­administered by the chief officer of the temple, Pashhur ben Immer. In the wake of the international summit of 593 BCE, in which rebellion against Babylon was considered, a letter was sent to the priest Zephaniah by Shemaiah of Nehelam, asking the priest why he had not taken harsher action against Jeremiah (29:26–­27). During the final siege of Jerusalem, even when Jeremiah sought to perform a sign-­act reaffirming Israel’s long-­ term possession of the land ( Jer 32), the prophet was arrested, accused of desertion, beaten, and then imprisoned (37:11–­21). Only by the efforts of Jeremiah’s support group and the special plea to Zedekiah by Ebed-­Melech, a eunuch in the king’s court, was he raised out of the muck of his abyss of a prison (38:7–­13). Such was the plight of a prophet, and not just Jeremiah. In the same passage where we learn that Jeremiah narrowly escaped the death sentence, we learn of Uriah ben Shemaiah who did not fare so well. He “prophesied . . . in words exactly like those of Jeremiah,” but King Jehoiakim pursued him into Egypt in order to execute him (26:20–­24). Hananiah, Jeremiah’s opponent in chapter 28, was himself executed by God, having broken the law of Deuteronomy 18:20. Ezekiel, a rival prophet, as we just described, also felt isolated and alone (Ezek 2:3–­7). While Ezekiel could apparently attract an audience, for he was “like a singer of love songs, one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument” (Ezek 33:32), he was nevertheless rejected by his listeners (33:30–­33). Ezekiel hoped someday to be accepted as a prophet, but that status had not been, it would seem, afforded him at the time that he prophesied (33:33; see 2:5), no matter how beautiful his words sounded. Unique to Jeremiah, however, the scroll gives the modern reader firsthand, emotion-­drenched reports of Jeremiah’s experiences as a prophet, a man who felt in his heart the hatred of his rivals. These reports are found in his confessions (11:18–­23; 12:1–­6; 15:10–­21; 17:14–­18; 18:18–­23;

184

JEREMIAH

20:7–­18). Within these confessions, we read of Jeremiah’s fear and injury on account of conspiracies against him (18:18) and, given the number of times that Jeremiah was cast into a prison cell or publicly shamed or put on trial for his life, Jeremiah’s fears were not mere paranoia. Jeremiah’s words expressed a legitimate response to his public shame and isolation (20:7–­8). Counted among his persecutors were even members of his family and erstwhile colleagues from Anathoth (11:21; 12:6). Against these injuries, Jeremiah at times lashed out, seeking God’s retribution upon his enemies (11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21–­22; 20:11–­12). At points, Jeremiah expressed his isolation in terms of being alone because of God’s commission upon his life (15:17; 20:8–­9). Jeremiah presented his faithfulness to his mission as a basis for his request for vindication from God (17:16–­18). In the first of his confessions, Jeremiah complains: But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. And I did not know it was against me that they devised schemes, saying, ‘Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, so that his name will no longer be remembered!’ (11:19) What Jeremiah contemplates here—­his complaint—­is his own complete extinction. In ancient Israelite tradition, a person would live on when their name was remembered and invoked by their offspring and descendants. As long as a person’s name was remembered, their life continued (1 Sam 28:14; 2 Sam 18:18; Job 19:23–­27; Isa 63:16; Jer 31:15).56 In Jeremiah 16:1, we learn that Jeremiah would have no offspring. His product, the pillar by which he might be remembered, were his words. Yet in 11:19, Jeremiah despaired even of that hope. According to Jeremiah’s logic, if God brought him into this world only to extinguish his life and name, it was cruel of God if it was just for the purpose of contending with his fellow Israelites:

185

THE PROPHETS

Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, saying, ‘A child is born to you, a son,’ making him very glad. Let that man be like the cities that the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb forever great. Why did I come forth from the womb to see toil and sorrow, and spend my days in shame? (20:14–­18; see 15:10) Jeremiah, a tortured soul in his lifetime, never lived to hear God’s answer. But Jeremiah’s name was not forgotten. Roughly two hundred years after the death of Jeremiah, his prophecies were remembered as being the true word of God, one that explained God’s punishment but also comforted his people with the promise that they would be restored in time (2 Chr 36:21, 22; Ezra 1:1; see Dan 9:2). That the memory of Jeremiah lived on is placed in even sharper relief by the fact that Ezekiel, his contemporary and rival, was never again mentioned overtly by name. Jeremiah, though perhaps not leaving offspring to carry on his name, lived on through his prophecies that later communities of faith collected and preserved and studied. As William Holladay stated in the summation of his biography of the prophet, “It is ironic that some of the wealth of detail which we have of Jrm’s career may thus be due to Yahweh’s command that he not marry and have children. Though a

186

JEREMIAH

book may be a poor substitute for sons to carry on one’s name, Jrm’s sacrifice is our gain.”57 Notes 1 John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 21 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), LVI. 2 Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Oslo, Norway: Dybwad, 1914), cited in William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, ed. Paul D. Hanson, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 11–­12. 3 See the comments of Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 15–­16. Robert R. Wilson uses the phrase “types of material” (Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980], 231–­32). 4 Mark Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 196. 5 Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1986). 6 Carroll, 47. 7 Else K. Holt and Carolyn J. Sharp, Jeremiah Invented, LHBOTS 595 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015). This volume is a collection of presentations organized by the “Writing/Reading Jeremiah” section of the Society of Biblical Literature and delivered at annual meetings dating from 2009 to 2013 (xiv). 8 Holt and Sharp, xv. 9 Holt and Sharp, xv. 10 Holt and Sharp, xix. 11 Terrance E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 10. Similarly, see Walter Brueggemann, “The Book of Jeremiah: Portrait of the Prophet,” Int 37 (1983): 130–­45. 12 Bright, Jeremiah, LXX–­LXXIII. 13 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–­20, AYB (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999). 14 Lundbom, 107, and esp. 233. Lundbom notes as well that Jeremiah’s age at the time of his call corresponded to that of Samuel’s (1 Sam 2:11, 18, 21, 26; 3:1, 8). 15 Lundbom, 109. 16 Lundbom, 118. 17 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 25. 18 Holladay, 25–­27. 19 Holladay, 27. 20 See Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 233–­34; and see S. Dean McBride, “Jeremiah and the Levitical Priests of Anathoth,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays

187

THE PROPHETS

on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. Stephen L. Cook and John J. Ahn, LHBOTS 502 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 179–­96. See also the discussion under “Jeremiah’s Friends and Foes,” p. 151. 21 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 26. 22 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 12. 23 See Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 233–­35, 241–­48; and R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987), 125–­27. 24 For the possible date, see the discussion of J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 486. 25 Wilson (Prophecy and Society, 241–­51) chronicles well the vicissitudes of Jeremiah’s career and his relationship to the central authorities in Jerusalem. 26 Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, SBLStBL 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 203–­4. 27 According to 1 Chr 3:16 and 2 Chr 36:10, Zedekiah was the son of Jehoiakim. 28 See Hans M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah During the “Exilic” Period, SO Suppl. 28 (Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press, 1996). On the “empty land” ideology, see Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2005): 1–­46. 29 Following the date given in 28:1. 30 Wilson “suggests” this possibility (Prophecy and Society, 222–­ 23, 234); McBride contends the identification is “plausible” (“Levitical Priests,” 183); Bright is dubious ( Jeremiah, LXXXVII). 31 Ben Shaphan is named as the family of Ahikam (26:24), Elasah (29:3), Gemariah (36:10, a secretary in the temple), Micaiah (36:11, 12), and the last governor of the region, Gedaliah ben Ahikam (39:14; 40:5, 9, 11; 41:2; 43:6). 32 Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 234–­35. 33 See the discussions of McBride, “Levitical Priests,” 182–­89; and Leuchter, Levites, 196. 34 See Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), esp. 14–­23; Philip R. Davies, “‘Pen of Iron, Point of Diamond’ ( Jer 17:1): Prophecy as Writing,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, SBLSS 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 65–­81. 35 David Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 100–­101. For a similar illustration, comparing the MT and LXX of Jer 27, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 322–­24. 36 See Tov, Textual Criticism, table 2, pp. 325–­26. 37 Bright, Jeremiah, LX and LXXIII. Bright goes on to describe Jeremiah as “collections of collections—­anthologies if you wish—­which were brought

188

JEREMIAH

together by many hands over a considerable period of time” (p. LXI), contrasting it (and other prophetic books) with the coherence that is characteristic of modern books. 38 Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 11. 39 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–­20, 93–­94. 40 Lundbom, 87–­91. 41 There is a textual problem with the dates in 27:1 and 28:1. The MT reads, “In the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim” in 27:1, and “In that same year, at the beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, in the fifth month of the fourth year,” in 28:1. The LXX does not identify a date in 27:1 but reads, “In the fourth year of Zedekiah” in 28:1. Miller and Hayes have argued for the first year of Zedekiah (History of Ancient Israel, 469–­72), but with Bright, Lundbom, and others, we follow the date of 28:1, the fourth year of Zedekiah, so 593. 42 Note that Jer 29:16–­20, which promises punishment on the people who remain in the land, are not found in the LXX. 43 S. Dean McBride, “The Yoke of the Kingdom,” Int 27 (1974): 291–­97. For a discussion of monolatry and monotheism, see Baruch Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,” From Gods to God, FAT 63 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 13–­56. 44 We follow the definition of hypostasis provided by McBride: “An aspect or an attribute of a person or deity that has obtained the status of an independent person in its own right through a process of differentiation. While becoming an independent entity, it nevertheless continues to be connected to and thus to represent the person or deity.” See his dissertation, “The Deuteronomic Name Theology” (PhD diss., Harvard University Press, 1969), 5. 45 McBride, “Deuteronomic Name Theology”; Trygvve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, trans. Frederick H. Cryer (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1982), 38–­79. For an appraisal of these works and a new synthesis, see Stephen L. Cook, “God’s Real Absence and Real Presence in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomism,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-­exilic Judaism, ed. I. J. de Hulster and N. MacDonald, FAT II (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck), 122–­50. 46 Fretheim, Jeremiah, 30. 47 This translation is from Robert Alter, The Prophets, vol. 2, The Hebrew Bible (New York: W. W. Norton, 2019). See also Jack Lundbom’s discussion of the translation of the D-stem of Hebrew škn, Jeremiah 1–­20, 464. 48 See Paavo N. Tucker, The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus, FAT 2/98 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 47–­58. 49 Cook, Social Roots, 78. 50 See endnote 47 in this chapter.

189

THE PROPHETS

51 S. Dean McBride, “Polity of the Covenant People,” Int 41 (1987): 235–­36, and 236–­38. 52 Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 237–­40. 53 Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand behind the Silence?,” HBAI 2, no. 1 (2012): 203. 54 See Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah” 212–­13. 55 Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah”; and Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–­5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013). 56 See Brian B. Schmidt, “Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded ‘Death after Death’ in Ancient Israelite Society,” in Death, Life-­after-­Death, Resurrection and the World-­to-­Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity, ed. A. J. Avery-­ Peck and J. Neusner, vol. 4, Judaism in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 87–­100; and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Land of Our Fathers: The Roles of Ancestor Venerations in Biblical Land Claims, LHBOTS 473 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 68. 57 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 35. See also Stanley Brice Frost, “The Memorial of the Childless Man: A Study in Hebrew Thought on Immortality,” Int 26 (1972): 446–­47.

190

5

Ezekiel

Introduction Ezekiel has not been hugely popular in the modern world. Those familiar with him at all will probably think first of his fantastic vision of spinning wheels “way up in the middle of the air” (as recorded by artists such as the Fisk Jubilee Singers, the Dixie Hummingbirds, and Alberta Hunter). In early Judaism, the vision of wheels (which propel God’s chariot-­throne) spawned Merkabah mysticism, the roots of which lie in early Jewish speculation on Ezekiel’s fantastic inaugural vision recorded in chapter 1. Ezekiel’s compelling vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (ch. 37) has also found its way into the popular imagination and forms the basis for another spiritual, “Dem Bones,” whose melody is usually credited to James Weldon Johnson (1871–1938). A third vision of Ezekiel, describing God’s end-time defeat of Gog of Magog (chs. 38–39), has fueled apocalyptic interests and imagination in many eras of history (e.g., Rev 20:7–­10). The basic scenario of God’s defeat of chaos in this vision establishes a basic pattern for the unfolding of earth’s final conflict

191

THE PROPHETS

Figure 5.1 Michelangelo’s Ezekiel on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, painted between 1508 and 1512, fresco, restored.

that continually reappears in apocalyptic literature (see the excursus “The Rise of Apocalyptic Prophecy in Israel,” p. 69). Still, few people today are familiar with how these visions relate to Ezekiel’s overall theology and message, nor do they understand the place of the prophet and his followers within Israelite society and history. When modern readers do mount forays into the book’s prophetic content, they often hit a wall at the prophet’s unrelenting, abrasive tone or at his imagery that is frequently offensive to modern (and ancient!) sensibilities. Ezekiel’s framing religious categories of holy/ profane and pure/impure have few points of contact with the Global North’s secular patterns of culture. So too our modern psychologizing propensities too quickly jump to “diagnose” as psychopathology

192

EZEKIEL

such prophetic behaviors as Ezekiel’s speechlessness (3:26; 24:27; 33:21–­22), immobility (3:25; 4:4–­6), lewdness (16:26, 34; 23:3, 20), and outward impassivity (24:15–­18).1 Ezekiel’s overall literary structure is agreeably straightforward, despite the complexity of his book’s culturally foreign, sometimes bizarre, contents. Chapters 1–­24 are set before the fall of Jerusalem and are largely prophecies of doom against the city and Judah. An extended body of material on Ezekiel’s call to prophesy begins this section in chapters 1–­3. Chapters 25–­32 are prophecies against foreign nations, forming a bridge between Ezekiel’s initial message of doom and his ultimate message of hope. The hope promised by Ezekiel’s book comes in the prophecies of restoration, chapters 33–­48, dating mostly from the era of exile extending after Jerusalem’s fall. The destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE was the critical moment in Ezekiel’s prophetic career. The prophecies of restoration include an end-­time, apocalyptic passage (chs. 38–­39) and an extended utopian vision of a restored temple and holy land (chs. 40–­48). Social, Historical, and Ritual Background Ezekiel and the prophetic circle that compiled this book were displaced victims of forced migration. They were captive Judeans living and working in Babylonia amid the exilic community (Ezek 1:1), at the far extreme of their known world. Since Ezekiel was one of the priests who went into captivity with King Jehoiachin in 597 BCE, he had already been in exile for a decade before Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonian army in 586. Thus the initial section of his book (Ezek 1–­24) still looks forward to the city’s downfall as a coming judgment of God. The prophecies of this section emphasize divine judgment, challenging all prideful confidence in Zion’s invulnerability. Ezekiel was among the first wave of exiles from Jerusalem in 597, forcibly resettled in a township “by the Chebar Canal” (Ezek 1:1 NJPS). Those exiled in the deportation were rulers, army officers, artisans, and others of high social status (2 Kgs 24:14–­16). As a member of Jerusalem’s

193

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 5.1: The Structure of Ezekiel

I. 1:1–­3:27: Ezekiel’s inaugural vision and commissioning



II. 4:1–­24:27: Ezekiel’s prophecies of judgment

A. 4:1–­5:17: Symbolic actions



B. 6:1–­7:27: Descriptions of coming destruction



C. 8:1–­11:25: A vision of the temple’s judgment



D. 12:1–­24:27: Prophecies of judgment: Messages, sign-­ actions, allegories, and metaphors



III. 25:1–­32:32: Ezekiel’s prophecies against the nations



IV. 33:1–­39:29: Ezekiel’s prophecies of Israel’s restoration





A. 33:1–­33: Ezekiel the sentinel



B. 34:1–­31: Israel’s shepherds



C. 35:1–­37:28: The rebirth of God’s people and land



D. 38:1–­39:29: The end-­time destruction of Gog of Magog V. 40:1–­48:35: Visions of a utopian temple and holy land

aristocracy, Ezekiel belonged to the upper ranks of the priesthood, a member of the central priestly lineage of Zadok (see, e.g., Ezek 40:46). Such priests served as custodians of sacral teachings, rules, and narratives preserved in Scripture as the Holiness School (HS or H) texts. The Zadokites were among the first educated Judeans to reconceive prophecy for a new situation in their Babylonian diaspora. Alongside Jeremiah and Baruch, who were producing prophetic scrolls in Jerusalem at around this same time (e.g., see Jer 36), Ezekiel appears to have been among the first to conceive of prophecy in the form of a scroll (to our modern way of thinking, a prophetic “book” that could communicate across both distance and time).2 Such written revelations of God could travel to the far ends of the scattered community of Judeans, or “Yehudim” (proto-­Jews).

194

EZEKIEL

Ezekiel’s prophecies recall Judah’s history leading up to the initial exile of the upper class in 597 BCE. The dirge in chapter 19 refers to King Jehoahaz (Shallum, vv. 3–­4), who was dethroned and imprisoned by Pharaoh Necho during a short interval of Egyptian supremacy in 609 BCE (2 Kgs 23:30–­34; Jer 22:10–­12). Judah’s next king, Jehoiakim, received the throne as a vassal of Egypt on the condition of paying annual tribute. After Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at the battle of Carchemish, however, Jehoiakim transferred his allegiance to Babylonia. After three years of service, he switched sides again, infuriating Nebuchadnezzar, who then orchestrated incursions of marauding alien bands until he was able to lead a Babylonian army to the western part of his empire. Nebuchadnezzar arrived west and besieged Jerusalem in 597 BCE. King Jehoiakim apparently died during the siege, for Jerusalem’s gates were surrendered to the Babylonians by his son Jehoiachin. As noted, Ezekiel went into exile along with Jehoiachin and other Judean captives at that time. He received his inaugural vision in 593 BCE on the banks of the Chebar canal outside the exilic settlement at Tel-­Abib (see the map below). Life continued in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel’s prophecies address both the communities of expatriates in exile and those back at home in Judah. Active correspondence between the exiles and their countryfolk kept each group well informed of the other’s circumstances (see Jer 29; 51:59–­64). Since early 2015 CE, new details about life in Babylonian exile have emerged from the study of the Al-­Yahudu tablets (see fig. 2.12, p. 65), two hundred clay tablets from the sixth and fifth centuries BCE associated with the Babylonian refuge community of Al-­Yahudu (“the city of Judah”). The tablets show that the exiles settled in remote areas of southern Babylonia due to the empire’s need to restore and repopulate areas that had gone to ruin during decades of war with Assyria. In return for land provided for their use by the empire, the exiles owed services as soldiers or corvée workers as well as owing taxes from each harvest. Jerusalem’s elite, who went into exile with Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:12–­17), fell immediately to the position of dirt farmers at the bottom of Babylon’s social ladder. Their loss of status would certainly have

195

THE PROPHETS

Figure 5.2 Map of the Babylonian settlement along the Chebar River.

demoralized them. An educated and talented urban group of clerics and administrators does not normally transition well to the strain of sweaty physical work, including such tasks as plowing and vine growing. Also, they endured the social and emotional degradation associated with manual labor (see Ps 137).

196

EZEKIEL

At the time Ezekiel was starting to prophesy at Tel-­Abib, Jeremiah was back in Jerusalem approaching the end of his impassioned thirty-­five-­ year career. For the next ten years, the prophetic missions of the two figures were contemporaneous, and since Jeremiah was quite a prominent figure in the homeland, it is noteworthy that the two prophets never overtly refer to each other in their writings. Thoughts of Jeremiah do not even occur to Ezekiel when he considers how the homeland lacks even a single proper prophetic intercessor (Ezek 22:30). Part of the explanation is that the two prophets hail from entirely different priestly lineages whose theologies are in significant tension.3 As noted, Ezekiel belonged to the central priestly lineage of Zadok. His theological traditions appear in sections of the Pentateuch associated with the priestly materials termed Holiness or “Holiness School” texts, particularly from Leviticus (especially Lev 17–­26). Jeremiah, as we have seen, rooted himself in the traditions of Sinai and Moses that blossomed in Deuteronomy. He hailed from the ranks of Levites, an alternate clerical lineage with an ideal of decentralized sacral authority. Ezekiel and Jeremiah represent two antithetical intuitions about holiness. Jeremiah and the Levites oriented themselves on the covenantal teaching delivered through Moses and his successors and its focus on the divine word as God’s agent for directing and transforming human life and history. Ezekiel and the Zadokites greatly respected God’s revelatory word, but beyond this, they envisioned a more tangible, bodily presence of God dwelling amid and transforming God’s people. They advocated an anthropomorphic God whose indwelling presence sanctifies all strata of society. Ezekiel’s book along with other Zadokite texts emphasize an ideal sacral and interactive wholeness of God, God’s people, and God’s land. They understand this wholeness to depend on a hierarchically organized, supple, and vulnerable matrix of holiness centered in a bodily divine indwelling of Judah’s central temple.4

197

THE PROPHETS

Literary Character Unlike much preexilic prophecy, Ezekiel’s texts are fundamentally literary.5 There seems to be little oral material in the book. This shift to prophecy delivered in writing, a development of Ezekiel’s era (see also Jer 29:1; 36:1–­4, 10, 27–­28), reached a notable aesthetic and spiritual pinnacle in Isaiah 40–­55 (“Second Isaiah”). There were major repercussions. Prophets now became aware of the possibility of archiving their messages with the hope that subsequent generations might recognize their divine origins (see Isa 8:16). Ezekiel and his supporters meticulously dated their texts (see, e.g., Ezek 24:1–­2) in this light. Thus later readers could recognize the words’ authority as their relevance unfolded. Leaders such as Ezekiel also now became aware that written prophecies proving awkward could not conveniently be “buried” or simply “pulled” or “recalled.” Thus Ezekiel seems compelled to admit when the outworking of earlier prophecy has not materialized as expected (Ezek 29:17–­20). God has had to issue a new word. Such developments as these prefigure emerging concepts of “Scripture” and “canon consciousness” within Israel.6 Ezekiel as a Literary Protagonist Taking Ezekiel seriously as written prophecy has key ramifications for interpretation. First, in this book, the prophet is primarily a literary protagonist, not a historical personage. His prophetic voice is that of a narrative and dramatic persona speaking in the first person. When the prophet appears in his book, especially when performing symbolic actions but also when talking with fellow exiles (e.g., Ezek 20:1–­3), the text may be presenting metaphor and symbolism rather than an objective report. We should not expect the figure of the prophet to generally fit normal, quotidian physical and temporal constraints (thus, we get the interactive visionary encounters, abnormal muteness, immobility, and other “experiences” noted already).

198

EZEKIEL

Intertextual Echoes in Ezekiel’s Book Second, Ezekiel’s written prophecy brims with sophisticated intertextual echoes. That is, the book is full of cross-­references to preceding authoritative texts. There is dialogue with many types of texts, including earlier prophetic literature. The priestly Holiness School Scriptures, however, appear to have had the most influence on Ezekiel and his school. This fact belies a common misguided assumption in biblical scholarship that sees visionary prophecy in tension with priestly instruction. No such antithesis of priest and prophet fits Ezekiel’s book. Rather, Ezekiel’s prophecies often startle the reader with their seamless interweaving of priestly and visionary features. Ezekiel’s frequent representation and inner-­biblical interpretation of texts can be demanding for the modern reader. Often, fully grasping his texts requires recognizing key scriptural allusions. Sometimes readers may scratch their heads about what “reality” the prophet may be envisioning until we realize that his reference lies primarily within the “inner world” of Scripture, of Israel’s story. His texts can alternate quickly between reference to external, observable reality and reference to this internal narrative world. One wonders, for example, whether Ezekiel’s tunneling into the temple in 8:7–­13 might actually be a symbolic “tunneling” back to the beginnings of Israel’s story. What Ezekiel witnesses looks to be an antithetical parallel—­a profound reversal—­reimagining a story in Exodus 24 (itself reworked by the Zadokites). In both Ezekiel and Exodus, seventy elders representing all Israel (Exod 24:1, 9; Ezek 8:11) dare approach near God’s cosmic throne room of sapphire (Exod 24:10; Ezek 10:1). In Exodus, they behold God’s self (Exod 24:11), whereas in Ezekiel, they lose God in the dark (Ezek 8:12). Ezekiel 8:11–­12 twice refers to these storied Exodus elders, driving home a prophetic message that the leadership has forfeited its Exodus roots, its interconnection with the bodily Presence.

199

THE PROPHETS

Uniquely Theological Literary Formulation Third, the unique literary character of Ezekiel molds the book as exceptionally theological. The symbolic language, the perspectives from transcendence, the effortless movement between plain history and biblical story, the orientation on archived texts—­all this makes for a theocentric orientation, a lasting relevance, and a divine witness that helped Ezekiel emerge as sacred Scripture even from its very origins. Brevard Childs thus refers to how the original texts move “in an atemporal dimension of divine decision,” how they require “no canonical reformulation.” Rather, “the original theological formulation serves each [new] generation [of readers] equally well.”7 Literary Theme of Speechlessness Particular literary themes and topics help structure Ezekiel’s book and guide the reader through its logical progression. One such theme is the prophet’s divinely orchestrated incapacity to speak, noted above (Ezek 3:26; 24:27; 29:21; 33:21–­22). The speechlessness, primarily a literary-­ theological trope, lasts through Ezekiel’s “judgment phase” leading up to Jerusalem’s fall. After the collapse of the city and temple, the prophet’s tongue frees up, and he utters messages of renewed promise and hope. Literary Theme of the Movement of the Presence Another key organizing theme revolves around the movements of the Lord’s bodily Presence, the kābôd. The book’s central crisis is the temporary absence of the bodily Presence from the temple. Its travel itinerary then forms the literary backbone of the book, structuring the entire work. Scholars have long noted the key role that descriptions of the Presence, of the kābôd, play in Ezekiel’s structure. An extraordinary description of the Presence enthroned atop a cosmic throne-­chariot

200

EZEKIEL

begins the book, introducing key Zadokite themes of divine embodiment and tiered, hierarchically organized holiness. The kābôd, which appears in the book’s main vision accounts (chs. 1–­3, 8–­11, and 40–­48), moves between Judah and Babylonia in sync with the course of the book’s message. The return of the Presence (43:1–­12; 44:4–­5) marks a major juncture in Ezekiel’s book. The true home of the Presence is the Judean temple—­as Ezekiel 35:10 states, “the Lord was there.” Because of the collapse of the holiness matrix centered in it, however, the Presence departed the temple, passing over its east gatehouse and disappearing to the east (10:19; 11:23). In the utopian vision of chapters 40–­48, the bodily Presence returns using the exact same route by which it left, and the final verse of the text punctuates the return of God’s Presence: “The Lord is There” (48:35).8 Theological Issues Many modern readers have difficulty appreciating Ezekiel’s theological traditions and his overall stance toward God. They can often relate to Jeremiah’s passion, sorrow, and general subjectivity. Ezekiel’s spiritual disposition, however, appears opposite to all this. He appears wholly on the side of divine sovereignty. There is little sign of any human sympathy for his audience, who stand under his fearful prophetic indictments (with notable exceptions: i.e., 9:8 and 11:13.) Why is Ezekiel so captive to the divine word? Part of the explanation is the insanely stubborn pride of Ezekiel’s audience. God must toughen the prophet to confront a group hardened and defiant in their rebellion. According to Ezekiel 2:6, prophesying to them will be walking on thorns and sleeping with scorpions. Corresponding to Ezekiel’s opaque emotional self-­presentation is God’s emotional distance from God’s people in the book. The contrast with the powerful portrayals of God’s suffering attachment to Israel in Jeremiah’s and Hosea’s prophecies could hardly be more striking. What

201

THE PROPHETS

a contrast between the “not for your sake” rhetoric of Ezekiel (see Ezek 36:22) and the “healing care” and “cords of love” of which Hosea speaks (Hos 11:3, 4), the yearning attachment and love that binds YHWH to Israel. Again, the book’s theology revolves around the power of God’s stubborn grace to overcome all hardened human obstinacy. Because Ezekiel finds that Israel is trapped in rebellion and will not repent, his emphasis must now fall on God’s prerogative and the irresistible effects of fiery divine holiness, “knowledge” of which God now orchestrates. Ezekiel’s prophecies address Judeans both in exile and back home. He considered both groups to have betrayed and broken the covenant of the Holiness School and thus to be facing the devastating curses of that covenant. Far from acknowledging these dire circumstances, however, these audiences, both at home and in exile, cling to the idea that God cannot abandon Mount Zion, an unassailable protective bulwark (Ezek 11:7, 11, 15; 13:10, 16; see Jer 14:13; 23:17). God can be trusted, they and their false prophets insist, to save God’s sanctuary from desecration. The temple, Ezekiel says, was “the excellency of [their] strength, the desire of [their] eyes, and that which [their] soul pitieth” (Ezek 24:21 KJV). While many of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles dreamed of a speedy return to their own land, his God-­enforced speechlessness (Ezek 3:22–­27; 24:27; 33:22) pointed trenchantly to a different future. The scroll he has swallowed (3:1–­3), with all its covenant curses and prophecies of judgment, must speak through him until the unavoidable fall of Judah. Israel had stretched the covenant beyond its breaking point. The standard Israelite prophetic role of intermediary on behalf of the people was now forbidden to Ezekiel. Now the calamity of the first exile of 597  BCE emerged as merely a prelude to the inevitable collapse of their entire world: “An end! The end has come!” (7:2). It was not until Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians in 586  BCE and the final downfall of the state of Judah that God released Ezekiel from his speechlessness (3:24–­27; 33:22) and allowed him to proclaim a coming new covenant, a new heart, and

202

EZEKIEL

a new era of holiness. Here lies another central emphasis of the book fitly accounting for the lack of subjectivity. The covenant of holiness against which Judah has rebelled intended to nurture the unique sacredness of the people and land of Israel, in the midst of which dwells the kābôd, God’s embodied Presence. This covenant includes not only transformative sacral rites but also morality and justice structures. Both ceremonial and ethical holiness should accrue to Israel as it practices covenantal discipline and basks in the tangible dwelling of God’s kābôd in the temple, bringing sanctity to all people and groups arrayed around it. It should mean the realization of God’s commands in Leviticus 20:8 (HS): “Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you” and Leviticus 20:26 (HS): “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine.” The Zadokite theology of Ezekiel’s prophecies and the HS texts of the Pentateuch have a conspicuously anthropomorphic understanding of God’s Presence indwelling Israel. In both HS texts and Ezekiel, for example, God refers to sacrifices as “my food” (Num 28:2; Ezek 44:7). The Zadokite deity is a God whose feet are planted on the same earth as the feet of the prophet Ezekiel and the people of Israel (see Ezek 43:7). This deity is also impassioned. Note, for example, the anthropopathic “hot jealousy” God has for “my land” (Ezek 36:5). The Zadokites’ anthropomorphic language extends beyond mere metaphor to describe God embodied in a real sense. Settling within a unique dwelling, the Presence commits itself to dwell amid Israel alone (Exod 25:8; 29:45, 46; Num 5:3; 35:34; Ezek 37:27; 43:7, 9). Ezekiel’s visions of God’s throne-­chariot even dare to describe God’s kābôd as possessing a “likeness” not unlike the Mesopotamian god Ashur’s glowing upper torso and flaming lower body (see fig. 5.3). What an offense! Isaiah 40–­66 and the Priestly Torah would be aghast at an association of God with any such sort of likeness (see Isa 40:18, 25; 46:5). Ezekiel holds that the people must constantly grow in personal and collective holiness through their interaction with God’s embodied indwelling (Ezek 20:12; 37:28; Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:8, 26 [all HS]). God’s

203

THE PROPHETS

Figure 5.3 A close-­up view of a wall relief depicting the god Ashur (Assur) inside a winged disc. The hands of Ashurnasirpal II (who makes a gesture of worship to the god Ashur) partially appear. From the Northwest Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud (Biblical Calah; ancient Kalhu).

people, in Ezekiel’s ideal world, emulate the holiness of God in their midst (Ezek 43:7, 9; see Exod 25:8; 29:45–­46; 40:34; Lev 26:11; Num 5:3; 35:34 [all HS]). From Israel’s center, God radiates holiness out to the entire land and to every sector of society (37:28; see Exod 31:13; Lev 21:15; 22:32 [all HS]). In this Zadokite theology, holiness has a quasi-­physical quality, as if it were a sort of plasma that is communicable (or, in its negative manifestation, “contagious”; see Exod 29:37; 30:29; Lev 6:18 [11], 27 [20]). This plasma has two dimensions, one highly beneficial and one highly dangerous. Optimally, holiness brings health, growth, and fecundity (see Ezek 36:38; 37:26; 47:9, 12). For the Zadokites, this plasma makes life sprout, put forth buds, produce blossoms, and bear ripe fruit (see Num 17:8 [HS]). Safety, however, is a real concern. Holiness is volatile, at least in contact with mundane existence, and in its manifestation as the tremendum, it bears the potential to annihilate each and every terrestrial reality as we know and experience them (Ezek 1:4, 13–­14).

204

EZEKIEL

Due to human frailty, Israel’s emulation and absorption of divine holiness must only occur deliberately and gradually. The temple-­based center must release holiness with careful modulation and temperance since the alien otherness of God is unbearable to the unacclimated (see Exod 34:33–­35; Lev 10:1–­3; Num 11:3; 17:13 [MT v. 28]; 18:3). They require graded tiers or “firewalls” between their vulnerable, mortal reality and God’s transcendent otherness, as Ezekiel’s inaugural vision in chapters 1–­3 shows. The description of God’s throne-­chariot in Ezekiel 1–­3 is unusually extended, with various sections describing the cherubim (fig. 5.4), the lower wheel structures connected with them, the celestial platform

Figure 5.4 Four cherubim and four base elements from D. Stolcius von Stolcenberg, Viridarium chymicum (1624 CE). The four elements from left to right are earth, water, air, and fire. Among the possible significations of the inner workings of Ezekiel’s throne-­chariot lies the idea of life force flowing down into creation through the cherubim and into the chariot’s four wheels, its contact points with terrestrial reality (see Ezek 1:20–­21).

205

THE PROPHETS

above the creatures, and then the throne and the deity upon it. The Byzantine literary structure erects a complex, hierarchal set of zones between human and divine reality. The cherubim are prominent in the hierarchy, and they take on increasingly clear roles in the book as the designated guardians of the sacred center (Ezek 28:14, 16 NJPS, CEB) and as the mediators of its fiery holiness (see Ezek 1:13; 10:2). How can modern readers begin to empathize, or at least understand and respect, Ezekiel’s vision of transcendent holiness? Creative fiction such as the science fiction of C. S. Lewis may be helpful. In a memorable scene in his novel That Hideous Strength, Lewis describes a lead character’s encounter with the holy during a meeting in the bedroom of a prophetic figure known as the Director. At a certain point, Lewis writes, she feels herself “shrinking, suffocated, emptied of all power and virtue.” She darts a glance at the Director, really a cry for help, and that glance “revealed him as being, like herself, a very small object.” In fact, “The whole room was a tiny place, a mouse’s hole, and it seemed to her to be tilted aslant—­as though the insupportable mass and splendour of this formless hugeness, in approaching, had knocked it askew. She heard the Director’s voice: ‘Quick,’ he said gently, ‘you must leave me now.’ ‘This is no place for us small ones, but I am inured. Go!’”9 Instead of honoring the covenant’s discipline and living interactively with the bodily Presence in their midst, Israel erected alternative, idolatrous “centers” in its common life (e.g., see Ezek 23:37; Lev 20:3 [HS]). This degraded the sensitive web of mutuality constituting the holiness matrix. The result was the exposure of God’s Presence to the threat of murky impurity and defilement, risking the matrix’s collapse (see, e.g., Ezek 5:11; 8:6; 23:38; 43:7; Lev 15:31; 20:3; 21:12, 23; Num 5:3; 19:13, 20 [all HS]). According to Zadokite theology, Israel’s degradation of God’s holy latticework inevitably leads to two disastrous effects. First, to the shock and consternation of those relying on Zion’s ironclad invulnerability, God’s Presence—­the divine kābôd—­vacates the temple, exposing Jerusalem to devastation (Ezek 9:3; 10:4; 11:22–­23). Second, the holy land of God, no longer able to “stomach” the people’s impurity, “disgorges”

206

EZEKIEL

them into exile (Ezek 11:5–­12; 36:17; Lev 18:25, 28). The metaphor in Leviticus of vomiting is not God’s skirting of responsibility for Israel’s scattering but effective rhetoric about the interactivity and sensitivity of the stepped latticework of holiness zones in the land. As noted, God’s abandonment of Jerusalem would have shocked some in Ezekiel’s audience. His observations about the throne-­chariot, however, push back brilliantly against all objections. Its foursquare configuration points to all compass points as God’s scope. The disposition of the wheels and cherubim—­which is such that there is no before or behind, but the same front presented to each of the four quarters of the globe—­indicate that all parts of the universe are alike accessible to the bodily Presence of God. Although Jerusalem’s sanctuary should have served as an iconographic and sacramental center, God’s prerogatives and cosmic sway by no means depend on it. Although of transcendent pedigree, the Presence intends a positive interaction with profane reality. As noted, however, Israel has allowed the failure of all hierarchical shielding of God’s holiness. They thus now come up against negative, destructive holiness symbolized by the live coals of 10:2, which emerge from the heart of the Presence. Lest even worse exposure ensues, the Presence departs, thus allowing a Babylonian victory over the city. This summary of Zadokite thinking goes a long way toward accounting for the stern, uncompromising stance of Ezekiel. He faced a terminal breakdown of the covenant, a breakdown of all firewalls preventing an explosive contact of holiness and defilement. From the appearance of the throne-­chariot, the prophet experiences divine holiness in its full antithesis with sinister filth. Contact with the fiery Holy cannot help but submerge Ezekiel’s subjectivity, almost completely impairing readers from apprehending his inner thinking and processing of his experiences. Instead, his rhetoric expresses awe at the perilous interaction of living Presence and deathly Murk. Earlier prophets could have prevented the covenantal crisis that confronts Ezekiel from coming to a head, but they did not. They failed to rebuild the covenant, to go up into its “breaches” (risking contact

207

THE PROPHETS

with the Holy) to face God and intercede for the people (see Ezek 13:5; 22:30). They did not live up to Moses’s example in Numbers 11:3 (HS), where he steps in harm’s way amid a volatile eruption of holy fire to intercede for Israel. The Prophecies of Ezekiel Ezekiel’s Commissioning (1:1–­3:27) Ezekiel’s call brings him up against the bodily Presence, the kābôd YHWH, and the encounter floors him (1:28). A single, otherworldly wheel soon appears in Ezekiel 1:15. The prophet states, “I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures” (see CEB, KJV). The focus is on a single wheel and a single creature. The end of verse 15 speaks of “its face” (pānāyw) and verses 20, 21, and 22 also isolate an individual being. Ezekiel is leading the reader to encounter a singularity of sorts—­that is, a unique point—­a nexus-­point in time and space where a new, unfathomable reality opens up to view (see 8:7; 40:3). The wheel, along with its living being, is a focal contact point between worlds. Janus (double facing) in nature, it is an opening into two realms. It bears properties defying all terrestrial norms but also contacts solid ground, our earthly reality. The single, towering east gatehouse of Ezekiel 40 is likewise a liminal, Janus threshold point. In the case of the huge gatehouse, it is even more clear that Ezekiel encounters a portal into an overwhelming reality. Here in chapter 1 as well, a window opens into God’s holy, transcendent world. From the start of the book, we realize that Ezekiel reveals to us a powerfully transcendent reality of otherness, of holiness. Up above the wheels of God’s throne-­chariot and up past the gate tower of Ezekiel 40 lies God’s most sacred and holy Presence, the kābôd. The enthronement of the Presence amid the flying cherubim and the residence of the kābôd amid the gatehouses of the temple complex both reveal a central Zadokite ideal and longing: the fervent hope for a focal hub of holiness

208

EZEKIEL

within earthly, terrestrial reality generating a tiered latticework of sanctification for God’s entire people and land. Eventually, Ezekiel peers up above the wheels and above the creatures that make up the lower level of the theophany. Now he begins to catch glimpses of God’s near presence, as he observes the underside of the throne chariot bearing the kābôd (1:22). Startlingly, this platform supporting God’s throne is nothing other than the gleaming heavenly expanse commonly known as the “firmament” (see Gen 1:6–­8, 14; rāqîaʿ ). The Hebrew term rāqîaʿ occurs infrequently (see Pss 19:1; 150:1;

Figure 5.5 The Flammarion engraving is a drawing by an unknown artist that first appeared in Camille Flammarion’s L’atmosphère: Météorologie populaire (1888 CE). The image depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption underneath the engraving (not shown here) translates to “A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet.”

209

THE PROPHETS

Ezek 10:1; Dan 12:3) but clearly refers to the ancient poetic image of a vast, mirror-­like barrier holding back flooding chaos to make space for creation, for creatures (see Gen 7:11). The rāqîaʿ is the blue stone pavement under God’s feet known from Exodus 24:10 (HS). What is shocking here at the start of Ezekiel is that these stones for God’s feet do not belong by a Babylonian canal. Rather, they belong planted atop Mount Zion back in Jerusalem (see Pss 99:5; 132:7; Isa 60:13; Ezek 43:7). It is in Jerusalem’s temple that cherubim creatures guard and support the bodily Presence (Ps 99:1; Isa 37:16; Ezek 9:3; 28:14). It is in the temple that heaven and earth connect (Ps 150:1; Isa 6:1–­5; Zech 4:10b). There, at the center of the matrix of holiness, properly dwells the Presence, the kābôd YHWH (Ezek 35:10; 37:28; 43:5, 9; see Exod 25:8; 40:34 [both HS]; 1 Kgs 8:11). A not-­so-­subtle critique of Jerusalem’s royal and priestly theology arises here. The critique forms a central theme of Ezekiel’s vision. It was likely during the earlier crisis of the Assyrian invasions of the eighth century BCE that a popular persuasion about the temple’s peculiar status morphed into a blind faith in its inherent, unconditional inviolability. Indifferent to the cosmic, transcendent power that made faith in Zion’s status valid, the people developed a crass confidence in the ceremonial precincts and sculpted art that symbolized and expressed it. Arrogantly and mindlessly, they held that the temple and city could never fall into the hands of an enemy. But Ezekiel’s inaugural vision does nothing if not dispel such superstition. The “real estate” and decorative art had no intrinsic power. Only the cosmic reality behind Jerusalem’s locale and iconography was substantial and inviolable. This reality can absent itself, leaving Jerusalem vulnerable to attack. Indeed, God’s throne-­chariot is now speeding the bodily Presence away from Jerusalem with preternatural torque and “four-­wheel drive.”

210

EZEKIEL

Prophecies of Judgment (4:1–­24:27) Symbolic Actions (4:1–­5:17) Ezekiel’s prophecies of judgment in 4:1–­24:27 align with the first four and a half years of his prophetic vocation. The prophet spent these early years anticipating Jerusalem’s destruction at the collapse of God’s latticework of sanctification. The section begins with a series of physically implausible symbolic actions (4:1–­5:17). Like Ezekiel’s muteness, these dramatic actions appear to be literary metaphors rather than observable events. They represent a piercing literary and theological perception, the fantastic actions of a dramatic protagonist. In these sign-­acts, the reader peers beyond any simple symbolic signification into profoundly multilayered manifestations of guilt.

Figure 5.6 A close-­up view of the Babylonian map of the world. This partially broken clay tablet contains both cuneiform inscriptions and a unique map of the Mesopotamian world. Probably from Sippar, Mesopotamia, Iraq, 700–­500 BCE. British Museum, London.

211

THE PROPHETS

Maps inscribed in clay (fig. 5.6) before baking were common in Ezekiel’s Babylonian milieu. In inscribing a picture of Jerusalem on a clay brick, the prophet creates a dramatic enactment of the city under siege in Ezekiel 4. Lying on his side for an impossible stretch, he plays the traditional role of an Israelite priest bearing the weight of Israel’s iniquity (see Num 18:1 [HS]). His postures are of multilayered symbolic significance. They illustrate both Jerusalem’s prolonged siege and the long exile after the city’s fall. At a deeper level, they depict God’s presiege punishments of Israel long before either siege or exile, punishments that the Holiness School anticipated (see Lev 26:14–­32 [HS]). Descriptions of Coming Destruction, 6:1–­7:27 Ezekiel’s descriptions of destruction in 6:1–­7:27 begin with an oracle of judgment against “the mountains of Israel” (6:2, 3), a phrase unique to Ezekiel’s book. The phrasing is significant, indicating that the entire land, represented by its central highland ridge, signifies God’s holy home atop Mount Eden. Mountains symbolize the intersection of earth and heaven, so Israel’s topography points to its unique status as God’s holy highland (38:12; see Lev 26:11–­12; Zech 2:12). All God’s territory, not just Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, is “the holy [qōdeš] mountain” (Ezek 28:14). Degrading this holy status, Israel now uses its mountains for illegitimate worship (v. 9). See fig. 5.7, p. 213. A Vision of the Temple’s Judgment (8:1–­11:25) In Ezekiel 8:1–­11:25, the prophet experiences a remarkable visionary translation across the Fertile Crescent back to Jerusalem to witness horrible abominations in God’s temple. The prophet’s tour of the desecrated shrine begins with an image of the goddess Asherah— ­the “infuriating image” (8:5 NJPS; 2 Chr 33:7, 15 links a parallel use of the rare term sēmel, “image,” with Asherah). Ezekiel 8:3 plays on the similarity of the Hebrew roots for “infuriate” (qānāʾ ) and “create” (qānâ). Alluding to Asherah’s epithet “creatrix of the gods” (found in

212

EZEKIEL

Figure 5.7 Stele from Bethsaida. Basalt stele dating from ca. ninth to eighth century BCE, found near the gate of the ancient city of Bethsaida near the Sea of Galilee. The image of the deity in the relief has a bull’s head and a pair of horns and wears a sword; these symbols usually represent the storm god Haddad or the Canaanite moon god.

Ugaritic mythological texts), the text calls her statue “the infuriating image, the creatrix [image].”10 It provokes God, who demands exclusive allegiance according to the Zadokites (Num 25:11 HS). Some Israelites paired Asherah with YHWH as his consort, understanding her as God’s partner in creation and fertility. See fig. 5.8, p. 214, tiers 1 and 3. The prophet sees the Asherah image at the north gate of the temple complex. North-oriented altars and chambers were a special

213

THE PROPHETS

Figure 5.8 Ta’anach terra-­cotta offering stand, tenth century BCE.

Zadokite concern (see Exod 40.22 [HS]; Ezek 40:38–­43, 46). It is likely in the altar courtyard. If so, Ezekiel apprehends it framed by the court’s northern gateway. King Manasseh had set it up years before (2 Kgs 21:7) and, though removed by Ezekiel’s time (2 Kgs 23:6), the image stood out starkly in his transhistorical visionary perception.11 God’s land may spew out any resident nation that exempts itself from purity and sanctification (Ezek 36:17; Lev 18:25, 28 HS). One sense of Ezekiel 36:20 will be that the holy land—­arrayed about the shrine of God’s dwelling, thus rippling with the influence of God’s immanent Presence—­ should inculcate moral purity and human ennoblement (Num 35:34 HS). The sin and uncleanness of the exiles undermine any belief in a miracle-­land of God on the part of the nations (see Ezek 36:20). What sort of Eden-­land would spawn such miscreants as the

214

EZEKIEL

exiles? Later in the current vision, God specifically links the murderous depravity of the Jerusalemites with their coming removal from the city into exile (11:5–­12): “You shall be taken out of it [i.e., out of Jerusalem]!” (11:7). Even God’s bodily Presence, the kābôd, gets restive as Judah’s ritual and moral impurities increase. God is able to indwell Israel only if the people do not defile the land (37:23, 27; 43:9). Thus a central implication of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision is that the Presence is vacating a defiled, compromised land. An unclean Jerusalem cannot function as a sanctuary, and those fantastic wheels of the throne-­chariot mean God can leave at any time.12 God informs the exiles of this very intention: “I will be a sanctuary to you during your time in exile” (11:16 NLT). Astoundingly, no one in Jerusalem seems worried that the kābôd is flighty (see 11:15), that Jerusalem will soon become vulnerable (see 11:3, 7)—­this despite the destabilizing presence in Jerusalem of at least three competing deities: Asherah (8:3), Tammuz (8:14), and Shamash (the sun, 8:16). Notably, the elders of Ezekiel 8:12 do at least appear to sense that relational links with God are weakening. They appear aware that God’s interactive matrix or latticework of holiness has been deadened (see 9:9). Incredibly, however, they spin this fact to justify themselves. They imagine that God has “settled” for something less than fidelity, has embraced an “open marriage” in lieu of the covenant. God has relinquished (ʾāzab) God’s claims to exclusive worship (8:12 VOICE; see the meaning of ʾāzab in Lev 19:10 [HS]). The Israelite Ta’anach cult stand (fig. 5.8), tenth century BCE, has four tiers, each featuring a deity. Asherah, represented both anthropomorphically and by the tree of life, appears on the stand’s first and third levels. The top level depicts a winged sun disk that is riding a horse, which worshippers might understand either as Shamash, the sun god (see 2 Kgs 23:5, 11) or as YHWH (for the latter possibility, see Ps 84:11 and King Hezekiah’s seal impression found in the Ophel excavations, Jerusalem; fig. 5.9, p. 216). As the visit to Jerusalem proceeds, Ezekiel observes the bodily Presence, the kābôd, leaving the temple and, eventually, the holy land of

215

THE PROPHETS

God. Ezekiel must have been reminded of the story of Shiloh’s destruction, similarly associated with the departure of the kābôd. Did he recall the haunting name “Ichabod,” ʾî–­kābôd? (1 Sam 4:21). The kābôd first rests outside the temple on its support platform (the miptān; 9:3; 10:4 NJPS; NRSV: “threshold”).13 As Ezekiel 47:1 later reveals, this is a known egress position from which preternatural presences depart the sacral precincts. The sacred river of Ezekiel 47 (see fig. 5.15, p. 238) flows out from the south side of the temple, the launching point of the departing throne chariot (10:3). Both river and chariot depart the shrine and head eastward. Fascinatingly, in 1 Samuel 5:4–­5, the decapitation of the Philistine god Dagon occurs precisely on his shrine’s miptān. The Judeans are losing their deity upon the same liminal locale on which the Philistines

Figure 5.9 Drawing of King Hezekiah’s seal impression found in the Ophel excavations, Jerusalem. Drawing by Stephen Cook.

216

EZEKIEL

lost theirs. Like the Jerusalemites of Ezekiel’s day, the Philistines thought they had placed YHWH at their disposal. They had captured his cherubim throne, the sacred ark, and gave it to Dagon as a trophy (1 Sam 5:2). But cherubim images and temple precincts put no chains on the kābôd. The kābôd is far more awesome and holy than either Philistine or Jerusalemite religious conceptions envisioned. As Ezekiel’s vision continues, the bodily Presence mounts its four-­ wheeled throne (Ezek 10:18), which has been waiting to the temple’s south (see Ezek 8:4; 10:3). Receiving the kābôd, the wheeled throne rises from the earth (10:15, 19a). After a brief pause at the temple compound’s east gate (10:19b), it departs toward Babylonia by way of the hill east of the city (11:23; see Zech 14:4–­5). Thus the divine Presence makes its way to Babylonia, where the prophet had first envisioned it. The hierarchical latticework of holiness emanating from the temple has proved unable to tolerate aberrant, competing focal centers. The Asherah and the other abominations that Ezekiel witnesses in Jerusalem constitute competing focal nodes that degrade God’s matrix, robbing it of its power to sanctify (37:27–­28). Ezekiel learns that the leaders and people of Judah have destabilized the holy cosmic center where the bodily Presence dwells in vulnerability (5:5; 38:12; 43:7, 9; see Exod 40:35 [HS]; Ps 26:8). Messages, Sign-­Actions, Allegories, and Metaphors (12:1–­24:27) Ezekiel 12:1–­24:27 constitutes a large collection of Ezekiel’s prophecies of judgment in the era before the Babylonian army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. These texts take the form of messages, sign-­actions, allegories, and metaphors. An Exile’s Bag, 12:1–­16. In an initial symbolic action (12:1–­16), Ezekiel portrays Judah’s coming captivity by packing a typical exile’s bag. He dramatizes Jerusalemites leaving the city with the standard sacks of deportees ( Jer 10:17; 46:19). Digging through a wall of his house (v. 5), he simultaneously depicts fugitives frantically digging out of Jerusalem through partially breached walls, perhaps making a furtive attempt to

217

THE PROPHETS

circumvent capture. Babylonian houses were typically made of mud brick, allowing for such burrowing. The prophecy proved particularly astounding when King Zedekiah eventually attempted escape from Jerusalem in a manner fitting the details of the sign-­act (2 Kgs 25:4–­7). The prophet then lightly revised the text in verses 1–­13 to bring out its remarkable fit with actual events. Ezekiel at first likely understood the covering of his head (v. 6) to suggest an attempt by King Zedekiah to disguise his identity. The Septuagint of 12:12 understands that the king “shall veil his face so that he shall not be seen” (NETS). This likely represents verse 12’s original reading. Ezekiel later saw a deeper meaning in his sign-­act: an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar’s blinding of the king (2 Kgs 25:7; Jer 39:7; 52:11). He then subtly altered the end of verse 12 to expand the meaning of his symbolic act (a change of vowels made the passive verb into an active one): The king “shall cover his face, because he himself shall not see the land [of Babylon] with his eyes” (NJPS). Verse 13 adds the same gloss about blindness. God now overtly declares, “I will bring him [Zedekiah] to Babylon, the land of the Babylonians, though he will never see it” (NLT). Prophecy against Female Diviners, 13:17–­23. Ezekiel blasts some who, for a meager fee (v. 19), hunt down the spirits of the dead in ritual acts of necromancy, conjuring dead souls. Linguistic evidence from ancient Emar suggests that the feminine plural participle “women prophesying” in verse 17 refers to invoking the living dead. The reference in verse 20 to hunting birds recalls comparisons of dead spirits to birds in both Ugaritic and Akkadian literature, as in Isaiah 8:19 and 29:4. Texts such as “The Descent of Ishtar” and “Nergal and Ereshkigal” speak of dead spirits as clad in feathers like birds (see fig. 5.10). The necromancers of Ezekiel 13 used paraphernalia including bands, perhaps wrist fetters, and veils, perhaps long shawls. Fascinatingly, wrist binding was common in Mesopotamian magic. The women whom Ezekiel condemns thus make undead souls “live,” raising them up for the sake of necromantic communication aimed at revealing the future

218

EZEKIEL

Figure 5.10 The Egyptian “ba,” depicted as a human-­headed falcon. Third century BCE.

and influencing the world of the living. At the same time, they drag their living clients into Sheol’s grasp: “You bring about the death of those who shouldn’t die” (13:19 CEB; see v. 22: “You have encouraged the wicked not to turn . . . and save their lives”). Esther Hamori pinpoints the problem for Ezekiel in all this. To make live and to make die should be God’s prerogative alone (Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6). The claim of the necromancers to be God’s effective instruments is categorically false, an act of profaning YHWH, a heap of “lies” (v. 19). The women have no business conjuring dead Judeans’ souls, and they and the spirits they manipulate often get the future wrong. God’s authority ultimately will triumph when God destroys the necromancers’ instruments and snatches the souls they have ensnared from their hands (v. 21). Their visions and divination will cease (v. 23) and the spirits that are presently under their control will go free (v. 20). As Hamori puts it, “Yahweh will shoo them away and snatch the birds from their hand.”14 The Foundling, 16:1–­63. Ezekiel’s allegory of the unfaithful wife in chapter 16 is at once both powerfully gripping and grotesquely disturbing (note that it also has a counterpart in ch. 23). The passage

219

THE PROPHETS

portrays Jerusalem’s story as a woman’s life cycle proceeding from birth through discovery as a foundling child to a broken marriage destroyed by unfaithfulness. Finally, Jerusalem experiences a dismal fate as an abandoned prostitute. Ezekiel hardly innovates his portrayal of Jerusalem as an unfaithful wife, but he elaborates the theme far beyond anything that preceded. Modern readers may react with aversion and hostility to his wild, offensive images and thoughts. Certainly, we can all agree that this macabre and violent imagery does not work in today’s world.15 Ancient vassal treaties spoke of the covenant relationship as “love,” and biblical texts preceding Ezekiel’s book depict God’s covenant with Israel as a marriage (Hos 1–­3; Jer 2:2; 31:32). Ezekiel picks up and expands this imagery and content but goes beyond it in borrowing themes of excess and lewdness from within the Babylonian milieu. In particular, he draws on the carnival of the goddess Ishtar and the way several of its key elements mirrored his people’s shocking and obscene ways.16 Until the work of Daniel Bodi, this source material has gone unappreciated. Yet the discovery of the influence of the Ishtar carnival greatly helps us appreciate the sexual focus, the perverse dynamics, and the genius of the passage. Ezekiel expands Hosea’s and Jeremiah’s metaphor of the promiscuous wife with images and themes from the Ishtar carnival, an extraordinarily upside-­down world. The insight helps the modern reader, ensconced within a rationalist milieu, better appreciate Ezekiel’s purpose. As “disenchanted” secular readers, we are far removed from the various historical eras in which Carnival played a key role. As Charles Taylor has shown, the phenomenon of Carnival and its shocking excesses may often function to depressurize and remix life’s religious complexity and heavy spiritual gravity.17 Ezekiel’s language of perversion run amok, we argue, fits the standard absurdity of Carnival. Just as Jerusalem replaced a husband with strangers (v. 32), in Uruk, a center of her worship, the goddess Ishtar held sway over “prostitutes” and “courtesans” whom she “deprived of husbands.” Jerusalem’s lewdness is so completely over the top that she actually perverts prostitution

220

EZEKIEL

itself (vv. 31–­34)—­now, her clients are the ones to receive payment for sex! Though thoroughly shocking to modern readers, Carnival has had a constructive role across premodern cultures, grappling with archetypal, transcendental forces at work in the world, collecting and containing negative forces, and opening up new cosmic possibilities.18 Woman Jerusalem, in Ezekiel’s allegory, is analogous to the dirty bride of premodern European carnivals (see the artwork by Pieter Bruegel below). Despite her bedraggled state, the bride is reclaimed as a permanent wife as in Ezekiel 16:60. The model of the dirty bride helped the exiles wrestle with the shocking disorder of the Babylonian invasion and find hope amid unleashed chaos. Just as the bride (the metaphor, the “vehicle”) is killed (16:40), so the exiles (Ezekiel’s audience, the “tenor”) find themselves “dry bones,” cut off from life (see Ezek

Figure 5.11 The Dirty Bride or The Marriage of Mopsus and Nisa by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1570 CE.

221

THE PROPHETS

37:11).19 But Ezekiel’s God can resurrect even dead, dry bones. In Ezekiel 16, it is thus hinted that out of the present disorder will emerge a new unexpected relationship with God (see Ezek 16:60; 34:25). Genesis 49 Reinterpreted, 21:25–­27. As Judah crumbles at the Babylonian army’s approach, Ezekiel proclaims in 21:25–­27 (MT vv. 30–­32) that “turban” and “crown” will vanish from the land: “Remove the [royal] turban, take off the crown” (v. 26). This simple imperative prophecy expanded in a multivalent manner over time. The immediate message is the doom of King Zedekiah (reigned 597–­586  BCE), Judah’s final king, the profane and evil reigning monarch of the moment. His day has come, Ezekiel prophesies; he can take his royal crown off his head. There can be no more “business as usual” (Ezek 21:26 MSG) with Jerusalem’s breach and fall at hand. One infers from the text that the prophet’s sympathies are with the exiled captives and with Jehoiachin, the king exiled along with Ezekiel in 597 BCE, or at least with that branch of the royal line that Jehoiachin represents. But on a more profound level, the oracle is intensely eschatological. Ezekiel announces that Judah’s entire world is about to stand on its head. Only later, after all is overturned, will a radical recapitulation and renewal come about. The prophet’s message here is the same as the one in Ezekiel 17:24. “Nothing shall be as it was!” (Ezek 21:31 NABR). Judah will see an inversion of life as everyone had known it. Just as with the carnivalesque background we saw in Ezekiel 16, here is the onslaught of pulverizing disorder. Ezekiel announces the overthrow of the central Judean institutions supporting societal stability. But radical chaos will provide the raw conditions needed for a sweeping restoration, a hope of messianic proportions. To fund this hope, Ezekiel references an ancient poetic vision, one found in Genesis 49:10. He speaks in verse 27 (MT v. 32) of the collapse of royal rule persisting “until he comes whose right it is,” or, as in the NJPS, “until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs.” The Genesis text referenced here is notoriously difficult. Following the NIV, REB, NLT, and RSV, however, one plausible meaning is that Judah’s scepter

222

EZEKIEL

will subsist in readiness until the coming of one “to whom [šellōh] it [the scepter] belongs” (see the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Vulgate; cf. LXX). The NET translation aptly reads, “The scepter will not depart . . . until he comes to whom it belongs.”20 Ezekiel understood it thus. The poetry of Genesis 49:11 goes on to describe this one who comes with rights to rule. He is a peaceable, unassuming Davidide who shares little or nothing with Zedekiah, the descendant of David familiar to the prophet Ezekiel and his audience. That which is now high (Zedekiah, the reigning king) shall be abased. That which is currently low and unassuming (the exiled branch of the Davidic line) will be raised. Again, as God puts it in Ezekiel 21:26, “Exalt that which is low, abase that which is high” (see also Ezek 17:24). Fascinatingly, Ezekiel’s language of “turban” and “crown” reappears after the exile in the prophecies of Zechariah. Zechariah cites Ezekiel’s language of turban and crown, interpreting the former as the priestly turban (see Exod 28:4 HS) and the latter as the royal crown. In twin passages, Zechariah 3 (“turban,” v. 5) and Zechariah 6:9–­15 (“crown,” v. 14), the prophet depicts an apocalyptic movement through death and chaos to new life. Zechariah 3 reverses the pollution of exile. High priest Joshua sheds his filth-­covered clothes and dons a clean turban. In Zechariah 6:9–­15, a crown is prepared to sit in the rebuilt temple, where it will remain until claimed by a coming ideal royal figure. Zechariah 3 and Zechariah 6:9–­15 are a paired set of texts. Each of the two passages elevates Priest Joshua while simultaneously announcing the advent of a Davidic leader termed the “Branch” (Zech 3:8; 6:12). The use of the branch image rather than the name of a contemporary civic leader (such as Zerubbabel) points ahead to an anticipated, ideal ruler—­one who fulfills the arboreal imagery of Ezekiel 17:22–­24, language about a young “twig” or shoot, a tender “sprig” (see Ezek 29:21; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Ps 132:17). Ezekiel employs the archetype of a “tender twig” to insist on a messiah who will invert all expectations. His ideal Davidide is no egoistic Machiavellian prince but a humble ruler (rak [tender, frail]; 17:22). Zechariah adopts this model.

223

THE PROPHETS

As noted, Ezekiel 21:25–­27, where Judah loses both turban and crown, alludes directly to Genesis 49:10–­12. Ezekiel redeploys the language in Genesis 49 about waiting a full measure of time until God sets things right (Ezek 21:27). When Zechariah 3 and Zechariah 6 envision turban and crown restored, Genesis 49:10–­12 is likely again in mind. The lush vine and pastoral repose of Zechariah 3:10 reflect Genesis 49:11. The priest’s cleansed garments in Zechariah 3 reflect the same verse. The tribute and obedience from afar emphasized in Zechariah 6:10, 15 reflect Genesis 49:10. So does the firm retention of royal symbols (Zech 6:14) until a climactic reign. As in Ezekiel 21 and so in Zechariah, the reuse of Genesis 49 supports the ideal of a reposed, pastoral, peaceable Davidide—­a fresh sprig. Zechariah’s messianic “Branch” is the archetypal instance of Genesis 49’s humble king who rides a foal (see Zech 9:9). He is a fulfillment of Ezekiel 17:24’s and Ezekiel 21:26’s exaltation of the low and abasement of the high. The Dead Sea Scroll text 4Q252 connects the same dots, finding Genesis 49:10 to refer to “the Messiah . . . the Branch.” The Death of Ezekiel’s Wife, 24:15–­27. At the close of the first phase of Ezekiel’s career, Ezekiel 24:15–­27—­an eerie and disturbing passage—­describes a symbolic prophetic action surrounding the death of Ezekiel’s wife. On the evening of the very day that the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem commenced, Ezekiel’s wife suddenly died as God had foretold and the prophet had announced that morning. God had further instructed that Ezekiel must stifle all traditional Israelite expressions of mourning, such as the unbinding of the hair, the removal of the shoes, the covering of the upper lip, and the eating of the bread of mourners (vv. 16–­17). Indeed, as Margaret Odell notes, Ezekiel dresses in festival clothes!21 As anticipated, Ezekiel’s unusual behavior under bereavement caused a sensation, which the prophet used as an announcement and teaching tool. Just as Ezekiel was neither uttering lamentations nor tearing his clothing, the exiles will lose their vigor and passion. Disenchanted of all their illusions about Zion’s ironclad security, they will pine away in their iniquities. This is precisely the dire penalty prescribed for

224

EZEKIEL

Figure 5.12 The Death of Ezekiel’s Wife by William Blake, 1794 CE.

covenantal disobedience by the Holiness School. Outward expressions of torment and protest will disappear as their interior selves dwindle and experience submergence (v. 23; see Lev 26:39 HS). Though sometimes interpreted as evidence of psychopathology or of a cold, indifferent personality, Ezekiel is neither psychologically ill nor inwardly numb as a result of his wife’s death. Verse 17 does not say, “Be deathly still” (CEB). Neither does it mean anything like “Groan in silence” (NJB, NET). This is a case where translators have missed that Hebrew has two separate homonym verbs. One means “be silent” and the other means “moan softly.” Here in Ezekiel 24:17, the prophet employs the second homonym. He groans and moans softly. In describing the soft moaning using a rare verb, the text shows that he is reenacting Aaron’s awe-­filled pining and dwindling following the release of holy fire in Leviticus 10:1–­7, when fiery holiness took two of Aaron’s sons in one strike.

225

THE PROPHETS

In a clear instance of inner-­biblical, “dialogic” reappropriation, Ezekiel 24:17 uses the same Hebrew verb found in Leviticus 10:3. Aaron’s irrepressible groaning sounds form the exemplar for Ezekiel’s symbolic action. In Leviticus 10:1–­7, the Holiness School stresses that Aaron’s self-­suppression at God’s epiphany must include shunning all participation in mourning rituals. Holiness and death are antithetical realities for Zadokites, and those in contact with God’s holiness must avoid the realm of death and mourning (see Ezek 44:25). In acting out Aaron’s avoidance of mourning, Ezekiel conveys to the people that the fall of Jerusalem will be a major epiphany of divine holiness on earth. The people’s deep, silent grief (Ezek 24:22–­24) will signify recognition of God’s holy otherness (v. 24), which will afford the exiles the gracious opportunity for submerging and subordinating the self (self-­transcendence). God’s otherness makes its great epiphany in connection with the fall of Jerusalem to Babylonian forces (see chs. 8–­11). In Ezekiel 10:3–­4, God’s transcendent chariot descends to Jerusalem to collect the Presence from upon the temple’s cherub statues. At this time, according to Ezekiel 10:7, one of the cherubim beneath the chariot will stretch out his hand to the fire that is among the cherubim and release it into Jerusalem (see 10:2). As the text continues in verses 25–­27, we realize that the prophet’s muted response to the death of his wife has been a continuation of his speechlessness (see Ezek 3:22–­27). When word of Jerusalem’s fall reaches Ezekiel at some near-­future point (see 33:21–­22), his tongue will be loosed (3:27) and his persistent speechlessness transferred to the people (v. 23). That is, they will fully accept God’s insistence from the start of the book on radically prioritizing the divine intention and its sure performance. They will drop a false reliance on the pride of their power (v. 21) and their stronghold (v. 25).

226

EZEKIEL

Ezekiel 25:1–­32:32: Oracles against the Nations Ezekiel’s prophecies against the nations (25:1–­32:32) form a substantial discursive interlude in the book. They separate the book’s treatment of God’s judgment of Judah from its treatment of Judah’s deliverance. From early on, interpreters found that this block of material partakes of both the former theme of judgment and the latter theme of promise, thus forming a fitting transition section. Oracles of judgment on nations hostile to Judah both confirm God’s rightness in judgment and sound an indirect but distinct note of hope for God’s people. God’s purposes in history will triumph, these prophecies affirm. Israel’s God must necessarily emerge incontestably as the incomparable center of all terrestrial reality. Ample precedent for this section of Ezekiel’s book appears in prophetic collections associated with preceding prophets, including Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (Amos 1–­2; Isa 13–­23; Jer 46–­51; see also Obad; Nah 2–­3; Zeph 2:4–­15; Zech 9:1–­8). In each case, the main audience for the oracles was not their named addressees. Rather, as noted in treating Amos, oracles about foreign nations were ultimately addressed to the prophet’s people, carrying implications for the prophet’s own nation (see Ezek 28:25–­26). Foreign peoples are not bound by YHWH’s covenant with Israel. A covenant’s stipulations, including those of the HS covenant, are binding only on those vassals who have sworn allegiance to it. Ezekiel thus needed to indict non-­Israelite foreigners on another basis than betrayal, and he does in fact do so. The oracles in Ezekiel 25:1–­32:32 have a logic that fits foreigners, a logic based on universally shared insights and wisdom. More than once Ezekiel draws on internationally acknowledged follies and vices, particularly the folly of hubris. He slams enemy nations for their high-­risk violations of the natural order and the hierarchies of creation. He condemns foreign nations based on ingenious elaborations of differing cultures’ own characteristic metaphors and mythologies. He is fond of pointing out blind spots, vulnerabilities, and “timebombs”

227

THE PROPHETS

inherent in an enemy’s own prized paradigms, revered symbols, and cherished emblems. As an example, consider Ezekiel’s dirge over Pharaoh in 32:1–­16: Mortal, raise a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him: You consider yourself a lion among the nations, but you are like a dragon in the seas; you thrash about in your streams, trouble the water with your feet, and foul your streams. Ezekiel taps into an authentic self-­understanding of Egyptian royalty here. Pharaohs such as Seti I and Ramesses III boasted that they were fierce or enraged lions. But, Ezekiel counters, Egypt is better known as the Nile’s gift. Pharaoh is better viewed as a chaos-­crocodile, an aqua-­ dragon. In Ezekiel 29:1–­12, he had already seen pharaoh as a crocodile sprawling in the Nile’s channels, saying, “My Nile is my own.” Ezekiel knows the shift in metaphor would engage and stir his audience since Mesopotamian mythology saw lions and dragon-­monsters as parallel; the creature Labbu was a lion-­serpent. In Egyptian mythology, the demon Ammit, “Swallower of the Dead,” was part lion, part crocodile, and part hippo (see fig. 5.13). Aspiring to be dragon-­like is problematic in several obvious ways. It is hubris. Pharaoh believes that he can rock the cosmos, but verses 2, 13–­14 show that he can only stir up some local trouble, muddying the Nile. Even this is foolish since mucking up the Nile endangers Egypt’s links with its source of life. God will not long suffer this disturbance, but reversing verse 2 will restore the Nile’s natural state (see Lev 26:34–­35 HS). Driving home the natural dependence of Egypt on the Nile, God destroys the dragon by fishing it out of the water and flinging it on the “open field” (Ezek 32:4), where wild animals gorge themselves on the corpse. Ezekiel drives home here the power of his

228

EZEKIEL

Figure 5.13 Detail showing Ammit the Devourer from Egyptian papyrus art called The Judgment of the Dead in the Presence of Osiris, ca. 1275 BCE.

metaphor to critique Egyptian hubris, but his language is more suggestive still. Fulsome life as God intends requires orientation on natural sources of life, such as the Nile, but also orientation on holiness and the shunning of defilement. To desecrate life, as Pharaoh does, is to side with murky chaos. It is thus fitting that Pharaoh dies precisely in the “open field,” just like Gog’s murderous, unclean hordes (see Ezek 38:1–­17) who die outside all territorial zones of life and purity, strewn on the open field, “out in the wild” (Ezek 39:5). The Zadokites understand the “wild” as unorganized territory, not integrated into any matrix of holiness (see Lev 17:5). Ezekiel 32 thus reflects a deep Zadokite intuition assigning chaos/impurity to life’s periphery. All crazed monsters that thrash about in streams, fouling life’s waters, end up as flesh rotting out at life’s edges.

229

THE PROPHETS

Ezekiel’s Prophecies of Israel’s Restoration (33:1–­39:29) This next major section begins with several texts reflecting a radical new beginning in Ezekiel’s mission (33:1–­33). According to Ezekiel 33:21, the first refugees from Jerusalem arrive in Babylonia on January 19, 585 BCE (about half a year after Jerusalem’s destruction). Their devastating report consists of two haunting Hebrew words, a decidedly downbeat three-­plus-­two syllable pairing: hukkĕtâ hāʿîr—­“City’s Fallen.” The sounds of each word begin in the throat and then move forward to the teeth or lips. Paradoxically, the downbeat report activates a new upbeat role for Ezekiel. His muteness gone, words of renewal can roll off his loosed tongue. Ezekiel the Sentinel (33:1–­33) Ezekiel’s prior work of watchkeeping (see 3:17–­21) is reviewed in 33:1–­ 9. This reminds readers that the book’s preceding doom prophecies were constructive in intent. Ezekiel had done what he could to encourage the people to choose life amid the coming devastation. Even now, an audience remains to receive his word of life. They should heed his call to live. While readers might expect that Ezekiel’s new positive message would now receive ready and grateful attention, such is not at all the case. What was previously unthinkable is now a reality, and it deadens God’s people. Jerusalem is struck down and, as verse 10 evidences, unanticipated paralyzing hopelessness arises. The people say, “Our crimes and our sins weigh us down; we are rotting away because of them; how can we survive?” (NABR; see Lev 26:39 HS). Ezekiel’s response relies on a core principle of Zadokite theology: Holiness spawns life—­it spews out life. By God’s life, Israel must now choose life. Verses 11–­20 reemphasize chapter 18 and its stress on how moral autonomy trumps fatalism. Earlier, this material aimed to convict the exiles of their culpability. Here, Ezekiel repeats himself to insist that no one is fated to die in sin: “Why die, House of Israel?” (Ezek 33:11 NJB).

230

EZEKIEL

Israel’s Shepherds (34:1–­31) Ezekiel’s restoration prophecies continue with a text about Israel’s “shepherds,” a widespread ancient metaphor for kings (34:1–­31).22 Across millennia, Near Eastern monarchs bore symbolic shepherd implements as trappings of their royal office. Ezekiel reminds readers of the serious negligence of Israel’s monarchic-­era “shepherds.” As quickly becomes his pattern, Ezekiel rehearses Israel’s past failures in keeping the covenant in order to portray the restoration as a reversal of all that has gone wrong and resulted in Babylonian exile. The coming salvation of God, he insists, entails locking in correctives of all past evils. Using biting sarcasm, Ezekiel castigates Israel’s past kings, such as Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (see Jer 23:1–­4). Such shepherds have been worse than useless. Aren’t shepherds supposed to feed the flock, not stuff their own mouths? Aren’t they supposed to chase after lost strays, not slaughter and eat the sheep that remain with the flock? God is the livestock owner (Ezek 34:6), and his contracted herders have grossly failed him (see John 10:12–­13). As a result of their ineptitude and greed, God’s flock lies scattered across hill and vale. A complete reversal is now in order, starting with a mass firing. No more human herders; God is now the shepherd: “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord God” (Ezek 34:15). Verses 25–­31 make an announcement of future blessedness using language and themes from the Holiness School. God will banish wild animals (v. 25; see Lev 26:6 HS), bless the people from the holy mountain (“my hill,” v. 26; see 40:2), and break the bars of their yoke (v. 27; see Lev 26:13 HS). Thus the people will live in safety (v. 28; see Lev 26:5–­6 HS). This does not mean that Ezekiel was opposed to wildlife or phobic about the untamed, natural world. The biblical world differs from ours in that Israelites did not hunt carnivores, but carnivores did endanger humans. Ezekiel’s sources in the Holiness School thus naturally focus on wild predators along with enemy armies as the major twin threats

231

THE PROPHETS

to a peaceable land. Ezekiel 34:28 traces directly back to the blessing of God’s removal of carnivores along with enemy swords in Leviticus 26:6 (HS). This does not mean that God leaves no place for wild animals. In the Holiness Code, God assures the life of wild animals along with livestock. Both are to eat what the land produces (Lev 25:7). God well cares for wildlife and a lively land. The Rebirth of God’s People and Land (35:1–­36:38) Ezekiel prophesies directly about the rebirth of God’s people and land, again beginning with a past wrong that God must reverse: Edomite encroachment. He had already prophesied the destruction of Edom (referenced here with the moniker “Mount Seir”) in the book’s middle section, where it would naturally be expected (see Ezek 25:12–­14). Edom’s renewed judgment here thus stands out as unusual. Ezekiel must be circling back to this content as a rhetorical move. Edom’s infiltration of Judah’s territory served as an excellent foil for the current restoration message. Enemy Edom’s claims on Judahite lands were utterly hubristic. Despite the indwelling of the Presence (kābôd) at the time, Edom dared to assert, “These two nations and these two countries [Judah and Israel] shall be mine, and we will take possession of them” (35:10). God responds emotionally, “You’ve strutted around, talking so big, insolently pitting yourselves against me. And I’ve heard it all” (35:13 MSG). As chapter 36 begins, God turns to address the Holy Land using the moniker “mountains of Israel,” which associates the territory with Eden, God’s sacred cosmic highland (28:13–­14; 36:35). Because Edom (and other nations) desolated the land and exposed it to derision, God will now release the land’s native fructifying holiness (36:8). The land should brim with the fecundity of God’s life force, by which God swears (35:6, 11). It is, after all, God’s personal land (36:5; Lev 25:23 HS). “I’ll make this place teem with life—­human and animal. The country will burst into life, life, and more life” (36:11 MSG). As in Numbers 17:8 (HS) and Ezekiel 47:1–­12, holiness and life go hand in hand.

232

EZEKIEL

Ezekiel 36: 37–­38 firmly conjoins fecundity and sanctification. The text conjures the thought of sanctified multitudes burgeoning and teeming across the land of God’s indwelling. The NRSV’s phrase “flock for sacrifices” in verse 38 might better be rendered “consecrated flock” or even “sacred flock.” The LXX translates the phrase as “holy sheep”; the CEB speaks of a “holy flock”; and the REB declares the flock to be “holy gifts.” These sheep—­the restored and blessed people of Israel and Judah—­are both brimming with life and newly sanctified (see Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:7–­8, 26, all HS). Verses 23c–­38 of chapter 36 are absent in key Greek papyrus, P967, calling the antiquity of this section into question. The verses, nonetheless, exhibit organic continuity with the thinking and theology of the rest of the book and, in fact, drive some of its major themes and concerns to an ultimate resolution. Going beyond earlier language in Jeremiah 31:33 and Deuteronomy 30:1–­6 and in keeping with Ezekiel’s convictions about God’s sovereignty in saving God’s people (20:33–­34), verse 26 prophesies God’s excising the people’s old incorrigible heart of stone (see Ezek 2:4; 3:7–­9; Zech 7:12). In its place, God engrafts a completely new heart. Verse 27 then goes on to describe God infusing the people with God’s spirit (as in Ezek 37:14; 39:29; see also Joel 2:29; Zech 12:10). God’s spirit regenerates the people, making their covenantal obedience natural and their restoration permanent. Perhaps Ezekiel’s best-­known prophecy is his vision of the valley of dry bones, found in Ezekiel 37:1–­14 (fig. 5.15, p. 235). Certainly, it is one of the few Ezekiel texts read publicly as part of the lectionary cycles of many churches and synagogues. The vision addresses the emotional and spiritual paralysis of the exiles, who find themselves rotting away in hopelessness. Verse 11 gives voice to their self-­descriptive metaphors: they have dry bones and feel cut off. “Dry bones” means misery, a crushed spirit (Ps 31:10; Prov 17:22); being “cut off” means abandonment, sensing a tomb sealed around you (Ps 88:5; Lam 3:53–­54). The coming restoration will permanently reverse this paralysis and acedia. In Ezekiel 37, the dry bones come alive! Translated by God’s power to the valley where the Presence first appeared to him, Ezekiel

233

THE PROPHETS

confronts heaps of bones. “There were piles of bones everywhere in the valley—­dry bones” (37:2 VOICE). Zadokite priests must have no contact with skeletons. Death’s gloom is the antithesis of God’s holiness and life. What was God thinking in compromising and defiling a priest? Ezekiel had complained about exposure to impurity before and won concessions (Ezek 4:14–­15). As we saw in both Ezekiel 16 and 21, however, sometimes the precondition for a sweeping restoration is a reversion to raw chaos. The appearance here in chapter 37 of deathly dissolution suggests that the reader may soon engage in a key event of restoration. This is precisely the case. Ezekiel 37 bears witness to the creative prerogative of God to summon life out of deathly Murk! Conveying multiple sense experiences with powerful rhetoric, the prophet leads readers through a hair-­raising miracle of new creation. We are there as a host of bones undergo reconstitution and resurrection. Through the power of rhetoric and revelatory word, Ezekiel 37 infuses readers with lively, lavish new hope. Here is the antidote to the exiles’ gloom. At the very least, Ezekiel’s vision means God’s exiled, demoralized people will live again, collectively experiencing new social and political existence on their “own soil” (v. 14).23 But readers may rightly wonder whether that is really the core message of this text. Is Israel’s political repatriation the basic meaning here? From early on, many readers saw much more. Thus a text of the Qumran community, Pseudo-­Ezekiel (4Q385, second century BCE), reworks Ezekiel 37 as a prophecy of individual resurrection. It sees the bones’ raising not as a corporate revitalization but as a reward given to pious individuals for their righteousness.24 Some centuries later, the shaking of earth and the raising of bodies at Jesus’s release of breath/spirit in Matthew 27:50–­52 echoes Ezekiel 37 and understands it as dead individuals’ literal resurrections. Later still, in a baraita (tannaitic source) in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 92b), a certain Rabbi Eliezer describes the resurrected dead of Ezekiel 37 as traveling to Israel, marrying, and having children.25

234

EZEKIEL

Figure 5.14 The Bones Come Alive by Peggy Parker.

The original subject matter of Ezekiel 37 was not individuals’ literal resurrections. Matthew 27 and 4Q385 are extrapolating beyond Ezekiel here. Even in its plain sense, however, Ezekiel 37 pushes beyond ideas of repatriation. It attests to literal resurrection as a live, credible concept in Ezekiel’s milieu since the prophet could not have employed resurrection as a metaphor unless, as Levenson argues, it already “carried considerable credibility” among the exiles.26 Indirectly, our text attests to a live idea of resurrection.27 What is more, within his vision, Ezekiel clearly grapples with literal resurrection, at least at first. Note especially his disorientation and perplexity in verse 3 and his faulty assumptions in verses 9–­10 that the

235

THE PROPHETS

dead have been “slain,” that the bones belong to a defeated army (see NABR, NIV, ESV). More significantly, the fourfold breath/spirit (rûaḥ) of verse 9 must do far more than repatriate exiles. It brings sanctification and ennoblement. Thus in the Hebrew of Ezekiel 42:15–­20, the four walls of the utopian temple, indwelt by the Presence, are described as breath/spirit/rûaḥ since they distribute holiness and fecundity. So too within Ezekiel 37, the rûaḥ is not merely life-­breath but God’s own spirit (see vv. 1, 14), which makes a new creation of God’s people (Ezek 36:27; 39:29). The Endtime Destruction of Gog of Magog (38:1–­39:29) Several trajectories in Ezekiel’s book unite and culminate in Ezekiel 38:1–­39:29, the prophecy of God’s defeat of Gog of Magog, the prince of chaos. To this point, the book has presented key reversals of past wrongs, past offenses against God’s nature and work on earth. Till now, however, there has been no reversal of Israel’s invasion in 586 BCE by a massive, impure military force. The Gog texts of Ezekiel 38–­39 give us this reversal. In felling and dispatching Gog quickly and effortlessly (39:3), God supplies a vision of the final, eschatological overthrow of all Babylonia-­ like imperial aggressors. The thorough ritual inspection and careful ceremonial cleansing of the holy land in 39:11–­16 reverse the polluting hold on it of murky chaos. In the mop-up, Israel completely cleanses the land of all remnants of Gog’s hordes, the incarnation of Murk. Gog and his hordes constitute far more than merely a symbol or cipher for Babylonia or any other terrestrial force. Ezekiel 38–­ 39 describes earthly reality being invaded by the chaos monster, with whom God grapples with hooks in the jaws (Ezek 38:4; see 29:4). Across mythologies, half-­imagined denizens of darkness wriggle away their lives in such crevasses as Gog’s cavern, deep in the roots of Mount Zaphon (Ezek 38:15 NABR). We have already seen Ezekiel’s skillful use of powerful metaphors and mythic images. In the dirge of Ezekiel 32:1–­16, we saw him portray

236

EZEKIEL

pharaoh partaking of the nature of a chaos-­crocodile. Earlier in Ezekiel 28:11–­19, he pictured Tyre’s king instantiating the spirit of a rebellious cherub of Eden. Here in Ezekiel 38–­39, he goes further. Far from a mere reflection on earth of a celestial reality, Gog is himself a transcendent archetype. He has invaded history from above and ushered in its climax. This dynamic is the advent of an apocalyptic perspective. Ezekiel’s visionary perception, his priestly familiarity with iconographic representations of transcendence, his cosmopolitan grasp of world mythologies, his realization that wild, shocking disorder may usher in new cosmic possibilities—­all this thrust him to the threshold of apocalyptic religion’s rise. Visions of a Utopian Temple and Holy Land (40:1–­48:35) In its final major section, Ezekiel’s book presents visions of a utopian temple and land (40:1–­48:35). Do not let the word utopia mislead you. The vision does not present a coming (eschatological) reign of God. In its technical, literary sense, a utopia is not a coming perfect world but a “teaching picture.” Through a detailed tour of a model, literary temple (40:1–­42:20), Ezekiel offers readers a transformative encounter with a fictive nonplace where past abuses are reversed and real-world challenges are confronted and met. The literary tour challenges the status quo since Ezekiel’s profoundly ingenious fictive world powerfully details the purity and holiness that befit God’s people. Once Ezekiel completes his initial tour of the utopian temple, a new phase of the vision cycle begins (43:1–­47:12). Here, God outlines prescriptions for life in this model literary world.28 Ezekiel 43:12 forms a central literary hinge in the cycle. It joins the vision’s texts about the layout of temple zones and its texts about filling in and regulating the zones. Ezekiel 43:1–­11, immediately prior, dramatically recounts the return to the temple of the bodily Presence, the kābôd. The kābôd, appearing from the east, moves majestically along the temple’s sacred east-­west axis, containing its two east-­looking gates (reflecting Eden, see Gen 3:24), the central altar, and the inner sanctum of the temple

237

THE PROPHETS

building. Settling within this single, unique sanctum, the Presence commits itself to dwell permanently amid the tribes of Israel (see Exod 25:8; 29:45, 46; Num 5:3; 35:34, all HS; Ezek 37:27; 43:7, 9). Ezekiel 47:1–­12 presents the influential vision of a sacred river flowing from the temple to fructify and sanctify the land. This river of life

Figure 5.15 An artistic rendering of the Neo-­Sumerian statue of Gudea of Lagash (ca. 2160 BCE) was created by Margaret Wohler (2016 CE). The statue, which resides at the Louvre in Paris, shows a sacred fountain.

238

EZEKIEL

will reappear in texts such as Joel 3:18; Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8; and Revelation 22:1–­2, 17. It grows broader and deeper as it flows out of the temple complex and southeast toward the Dead Sea. At first, it is only a trickle, gurgling out of the south side of the temple’s east gatehouse (47:2). By verses 8–­9, we learn that it is a “double river” or “paired rivers” (in the Hebrew), turning the Dead Sea fresh. In the Hebrew, the “gurgling” of verse 2 is onomatopoeic and sounds like the term for a flask or small jug. Fascinatingly, such a jug gurgling out living waters appears commonly in the art of Near Eastern temples. It represents the river of paradise, the waters of Eden (see Gen 2:10). Gudea of Lagash holds the jug in the image inset above (fig. 5.15), and the twin rivers seen in Ezekiel 47:8–­9, replete with fish, flow down right and left. Verse 12 concludes our passage with a surprise. The tree of life, which belongs in the center of Eden (Gen 2:9) and deep within the temple, appears outside of the temple in the Holy Land. This fact reminds readers that the temple not only guards God’s life and holiness but also distributes it. The vision cycle about the utopian temple and land concludes in 47:13–­48:35. This final passage delineates the outer boundaries and inner divisions of the land. The plan reinstates old Israel’s tribal emphases, reversing economic abuses of the monarchic era. A concluding paragraph briefly describes the land’s new central city, which is now home to neither the temple nor a royal palace. The hubris and injustice of Jerusalem is gone. In its place, twelve city gates welcome pilgrims from all the tribes to come and bask in the holiness of the Presence dwelling close by in the temple complex north of the city. The name of the city is gone, but the last clause of the scroll gives a new name and a renewed significance to the city and the temple above it: Yahweh is There. Notes 1 A. Klostermann, “Ezekiel. Ein Beitrag zu besserer Würdigung seiner Person und seiner Schrift,” ThStKr 50 (1877): 391–­439; Edwin C. Broome Jr., “Ezekiel’s Abnormal Personality,” JBL 65 (1946): 291. Broome states,

239

THE PROPHETS

2

3

4

5

6

7 8

9

240

“There can be no doubt that we are dealing with a true psychotic”; David J. Halperin, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993); contra Steven S. Tuell, “Should Ezekiel Go to Rehab? The Method to Ezekiel’s ‘Madness,’” Perspectives in Religious Studies 36 (2009): 293–­301. Even earlier than these sixth-­century writings, we have Isaiah’s memoir collection (see the section on “Literary Features of First Isaiah” in our chapter on Isaiah [ch. 3]) and the early “Bible-­building” process implicated in Isa 8:16–­18. We return to this topic of written, archived prophecy in the “Intertextual Echoes in Ezekiel’s Book” section. Theological tensions may relate to social and economic tensions on the ground, such as disagreements over who is in charge when restoration occurs, who gets what positions in the temple to be rebuilt, and who gets rights to disputed farmland. For some fascinating discussion, see Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–­5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013). For a summary of the thinking and theology of Ezekiel’s line of priests, see Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38–­48: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 22B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 18–­25, and the scholarship referenced there. See Rudolf Smend, Der Prophet Ezechiel, KEH (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1880), xxi; Robert R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” in Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 657; Ellen Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy, JSOT 78 (Sheffield, UK: Almond, 1989), 51. See Steven S. Tuell, “Divine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 116: “Ezekiel, it seems, was very deliberately setting out to write Scripture.” Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 362. Steven S. Tuell proposes that the temple envisioned in 40–­42 is the heavenly shrine; e.g., “Ezekiel 40–­42 as Verbal Icon,” CBQ 58 (1996): 649–­64; Tuell, Ezekiel, Understanding the Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 295; and see Paul M. Joyce, “Ezekiel 40–­42: The Earliest ‘Heavenly Ascent’ Narrative?,” in The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence, ed. Henk Jan De Jonge and Johannes Tromp (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 17–­42. C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy-­Tale for Grown-­Ups, Space Trilogy, bk. 3 (New York: Scribner, 1996), 147.

EZEKIEL

10 Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 556n150. 11 See Steven S. Tuell: “The temple of Ezekiel’s vision is not the actual temple as it existed in Ezekiel’s day. It is, instead, a temple out of a nightmare, with all of the abominations committed through 390 years of corrupt worship collapsed into a single series of bizarre images” (Ezekiel, 45). 12 Because God abandons the temple (9:3), the temple can even be used as a morgue (9:7). Note how ironic the statement by the people is—­“The Lord has forsaken the land, the Lord does not see” (8:12; 9:9)—­given how it is their abominations that have actually removed them from the Presence of the Lord (the Hebrew of 8:6 may be translated “to distance themselves from my sanctuary”). 13 William A. Tooman argues that 9:3 and 10:4 are two accounts of the same action. The Presence does not move to the temple’s platform twice. See his “Ezekiel’s Radical Challenge to Inviolability,” ZAW 121, no. 4 (2009): 504. Tooman makes the interesting argument that the Presence has already abandoned the temple by the time of Ezek 8–­11. What Ezekiel sees is the Presence returning to Jerusalem in 586 BCE to destroy the city. The interpretation here differs in understanding that the Presence was still in the city up until its destruction, but that at the decisive juncture, God exposed the divine self in an epiphany like the one that killed Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1–­2). That appearance had left Aaron groaning softly (Lev 10:3), just as happened to the Babylonian exiles when God “came” in 586—­“came” in the sense of an expansive self-­exposure (Ezek 24:17, 23–­24). 14 Esther J. Hamori, Women’s Divination in Biblical Literature: Prophecy, Necromancy, and Other Arts of Knowledge, AYB Reference Library (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), 181. Alternatively, some interpreters, noting the parallels between the men and women condemned in this passage, propose that both groups are lying prophets and diviners and that the women are here condemned for their falsehood, not for necromancy; see Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–­20, AYB 22 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 242; Nancy E. Bowen, “The Daughters of Your People: Female Prophets in Ezekiel 13:17–­23,” JBL 118 (1999): 417–­33. 15 For some feminist responses to and readings of this imagery in Ezekiel, see Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel 23,” in On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Athalaya Brenner and Fokkelien van Dijk-­Hemmes, Biblical Interpretation Series 1 (New York: Brill, 1993), 169–­70; Julia Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992); and Corrine L. Patton [Carvalho], “‘Should Our Sister Be Treated like a Whore?’ A Response to Feminist Critiques of Ezekiel 23,” in Odell and Strong, Book of Ezekiel, 221–­38.

241

THE PROPHETS

16 For an introductory discussion, see Daniel Bodi, “Ezekiel,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 403, 436. Philip M. Hibbert has pointed out that the Ishtar festival was celebrated as late as Hellenistic times. One text (BRM I, 99:37–­39) mentions several members of Ishtar’s cultic personnel—­the kurgarrû, the assinnu, and the singers—who play a significant role in the festival and are paid six sheqels of silver on its first day. See Hibbert, “Liebeslyrik in der arsakidischen Zeit,” WO 15 (1984): 93–­95. This text is important for Ezekiel studies as it confirms the presence of the Ishtar festival at the time of the Judean golâ in Babylon. Ezekiel, an exilic prophet who lived and exercised his activity near Nippur, likely drew inspiration from such public ceremonies in the elaboration of his vivid sexual descriptions in Ezek 16 and 23. The Ishtar festival’s orgiastic components and explicit songs, including the praise of Ishtar’s sexual parts, find striking echoes in Ezekiel’s graphic descriptions of Woman Jerusalem. 17 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, Gifford Lectures, 1999 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 45–­46, 50, 87. 18 For Mikhail Bakhtin, Carnival’s upending of life made room for new voices, interactions, and meanings so that people could hear new ideas and explore new personas and identities. See his Rabelais and His World, trans. Helene Iswolsky (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968); and Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, trans. Caryl Emerson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984). 19 Lest readers receive the wrong impression, a great deal of modern interpretation of Ezek 16 places much heavier weight than the present treatment on the horrific and offensive aspects of Ezekiel’s metaphor, his “vehicle” for delivering his message (see endnote 15 in this chapter). Would that it were unnecessary to say it, but readers of Ezek 16 must be warned never to ignore the tenor, emulate the vehicle, and use the text to justify human violence against women. 20 This is not to deny other plausible readings of the difficult Hebrew, including the one that the NRSV provides, “until tribute comes.” We concentrate here on the reading that influenced Ezek 21:27 and later texts such as Zech 9:9. 21 Margaret Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 319. 22 The metaphor of the king as shepherd is very old, going back to the ancient Sumerian king lists (ANET, 265–­66). Hammurabi, founder of the first great Babylonian empire in the eighteenth century BCE, had written, “Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil am I; the one who makes affluence and plenty abound” (ANET, 164). In Assyria, Adad-­nirari III (810–­723 BCE) is described as “(a king) whose shepherding they [i.e., the gods] made as agreeable to the people of Assyria as (is the smell of) the Plant of Life”

242

EZEKIEL

23

24 25 26 27

28

(ANET, 281), and Esarhaddon (680–­669 BCE) is called “the true shepherd, favorite of the gods” (ANET, 289). In the Neo-­Babylonian Empire, both Nabopolassar (626–­605 BCE) and Nebuchadnezzar (605–­562 BCE) were called “shepherds” (Odell, Ezekiel, 432). Normally, when all that remains of the deceased is bones, a second “burial” that places the bones in a family bone repository “gathers” the deceased to the ancestors, where family is reunited. But the exiles are fully “cut off” from their homeland, their ancestral tombs, and their family ancestors. Their deaths are “double” deaths since they will not be gathered to their ancestors. See Devorah Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, Xxi, Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-­ prophetic Texts, DJD XXX (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 7–­88. Cited in Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 161. Levenson, 162. Despite the explicitly metaphorical character of this vision, early Jewish and Christian readers alike did find personal resurrection here. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century CE) quotes Ezek 37:12 as scriptural proof for the resurrection of the dead. In a treatise written after the death of his beloved brother Satyrus, Saint Ambrose (340–­97 CE) writes, “We notice here how the operations of the Spirit of life are again resumed; we know after what manner the dead are raised from the opening tombs” (The Two Books of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, on the Decease of His Brother Satyrus, trans. H. DeRomestin, 2.75–­76). Although in his commentary on b. Sanh. 93b, medieval Jewish exegete Rashi agreed that Ezekiel had offered to the exiles a metaphor for their circumstance, in his commentary on Ezekiel, he nonetheless held that Ezek 37:12–­13 referred to a literal resurrection to come. So too Kimchi allowed for the possibility that this vision could be read in support of bodily resurrection (cited in Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, AYB 22A [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997], 750). In their final form, these chapters form a law code: the only biblical legislation not ascribed to Moses. Tuell (Ezekiel, 276–­81) proposes that the original vision report, centered on the divine promise of eternal presence, is transformed into a law code by Ezekiel’s priestly editors through three major legislative insertions (43:7b–­27, 44:3–­46:24, and 47:13–­48:29).

243

6

Hosea

Introduction The Hosea scroll is a scroll of beginnings. With the Lord’s “initial word” to the prophet (1:2), it begins the story of a radical shift in ancient Israel’s religious history. Of course, today we know it to be the first set of prophetic texts in the Book of the Twelve, or the Minor Prophets. In the Talmud, b. Bava Batra 14b affirms that the Book of the Twelve opens with Hosea and closes with Malachi. In modern times, John D. W. Watts proposes that Hosea 1–­3 and Malachi form a literary frame around the Twelve, stressing the theme of the Lord’s love for Israel.1 The Hosea scroll also once introduced a prophetic work known as the Book of the Four (i.e., Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah; see the excursus, p. 55), a work now obscured by its absorption into the Book of the Twelve. Serving as the “beginning” of that which followed demonstrates a simple but easily overlooked fact: namely, later communities of faith treasured the Hosea scroll and studied the prophet’s message to learn knowledge of God. In this chapter, however, we will study and value Hosea for what he began.

245

THE PROPHETS

Figure 6.1 The Prophet Hosea by Moretto da Brescia, ca. 1524 CE.

Prior to Hosea, we know that Israel benefitted from a long string of prophets, such as Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Elijah, and Elisha. Hosea and his contemporary Amos, who date to the first half of the eighth century BCE, are distinguished from these only by the fact that to our knowledge they were the first prophets to have their prophetic words preserved in discrete written collections, stamped with their names. Scholars have had fun with this fact. One view, found in past scholarship, was that Hosea and Amos inaugurated a new era of classical prophecy.2 Such a lofty title elevates a select few prophets known from the Bible to a status perhaps unwarranted, a skewed vision resulting from historical circumstance and the accidental (or, perhaps in some cases, convenient) burial of now forgotten prophetic voices in the sands of time. More recently, some have suggested from Hosea’s and Amos’s appearance that Israelite society shifted in the eighth century from being a largely oral society to one in which literacy increased and

246

HOSEA

became more widespread.3 We prefer the view that scribalism was from the time of the earliest formation of the centralized state practiced by elite classes of specialists within Israel’s otherwise oral society.4 Whatever the case may have been, God’s “initial word to Hosea” became in fact one of God’s first prophetic words left to modern students today because it was treasured in the past by communities of faith who followed Hosea, communities who mined his words well beyond Israel’s sunset. With Hosea, we hold in our hands some of the earliest theological witnesses of an ancient people’s experience with the Divine. Yet while later tradents revered Hosea as a true prophet of God, to understand him, we must remember that in his day, he was a dissident. According to Hosea’s prophetic witness, the prophet denounced Israel’s polytheistic worship at a time when that was the normal practice in Israel, as well as being royally sanctioned. On this basis, Hosea judged as doomed his beloved Israel at a time when it was at the very zenith of its history. Looking back now, we know that the northern kingdom fell in 722 and that this course of events strongly influenced the later decisions in the seventh century by the surviving Yahwistic theocracy, Israel’s sister state to the south, Judah. In the end, this course of history recommended “Hosea the Dissident” to later audiences as a true prophet of the Lord, perhaps even suggesting a test to discern a true prophet from a false one, a test later codified into a law over the prophets (Deut 18:21–­22). As a result, Hosea’s prophecies were collected, studied, and initially joined together with those of Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah to make up the Book of the Four, a selection that was eventually expanded to make up the Book of the Twelve. Hosea: A Theological Portrait The Man and His Theology At first blush, the Hosea scroll impresses upon the reader the sense that the prophet’s message will be found in the prophet’s prosopography (the description of his person and family connections). Deceptive

247

THE PROPHETS

and disappointing, however, is this impression, for we never learn very much about the man. In Hosea 1:1, we read that he was the son of Beeri, of whom or about whom we know nothing.5 Of the locations named in the text, Ephraim, an appellation for the northern kingdom, appears twenty-­nine times in Hosea’s prophecies (4:17; 5:3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14; 6:4; 7:1, 8, 11; 8:9, 11; 9:3, 8, 13, 16; 10:6, 11; 11:3, 8, 9, 12; 12:1, 8, 14; 13:1; 14:8). Samaria, the royal city of the northern kingdom, is named five times (7:1; 8:5, 6; 10:5; 13:16). Bethel, one of the northern kingdom’s national shrines, is mentioned twice (10:15; 12:4) but mocked as Beth Aven (“House of Wickedness”) three more times (4:15; 5:8; 10:5). Jezreel, a major royal fortress in the northern kingdom, may only have been mentioned four times (1:4, 5, 11; 2:22), yet it played a significant role in Hosea’s rhetoric, one that matches the role it played in Israel’s history. By comparison, Jerusalem is not named in the book, nor is any other southern kingdom town. Although Judah is mentioned fifteen times (1:1, 7, 11; 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 14; 6:4, 11; 8:14; 10:11; 11:12; 12:2), these are held generally to be the product of seventh-­century BCE additions to an original eighth-­century BCE collection (see below). This evidence leads to the conclusion that the eighth-­century prophet Hosea hailed from the northern kingdom and was concerned primarily with that kingdom’s worship and fate.6 Despite revealing little about the person Hosea, his prophetic declarations show an obsession with a very particular understanding of Israel’s worship and cultic life, fundamentally linking him with the Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions later codified in the Deuteronomic laws, a linkage that perhaps even identifies him as a Levitical priest.7 Central to Hosea is the exclusive worship of the God of Israel (2:13; 3:1; 4:12; 9:1–­2; 11:2; 13:1–­8), the Lord, a doctrine that also served as the central organizing principle of the laws in Deuteronomy, seen foremost in the Shema—­“Hear O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone” (Deut 6:4; see 5:6–­7; 7:5–­6; 12:2–­4; 13:1–­5; 17:2–­7). Hosea shares with Deuteronomy as well the concept of covenant as the means by which Israel is bound to the Lord (Hos 2:16–­20; 6:6–­7; 8:1–­3; e.g., Deut 4:1–­40; 5:1–­5; 29:1–­29). For both Hosea and the laws codified in Deuteronomy, the

248

HOSEA

exclusive covenant relationship with the Lord carries with it certain ethical demands (e.g., Hos 4:1–­3; Deut 4:1; 5:6–­21; 6:1–­9; 11:1; 12–­26; 30:11–­20). Undergirding this theological program—­common to both Hosea and Deuteronomy—­is the traditional retelling of the people’s exodus out of Egypt (Hos 2:15; 11:1; 12:9; 12:13; 13:4; e.g., Deut 4:20; 5:6, 15; 6:20–­25; 8:11–­20; 13:10; 15:15; 16:1–­8; 24:17–­18, 21–­22; 26:5, 8). Since the Deuteronomic laws date to the latter half of the seventh century BCE, the eighth-­century prophet Hosea provides an early witness to this theological complex.8 Another important set of texts sharing the Sinai/Deuteronomic tradition with Hosea is the Psalms of Asaph.9 For example, Psalm 50:16–­18 places the statutes of God and God’s covenant in synonymous parallelism, just as Hosea 4:1–­3 and 6:6–­7 (see the discussion below). This Psalm of Asaph characterizes Israel’s transgressions as adultery (50:18), the prevailing metaphor in Hosea’s prophecies. Another Asaph Psalm calls to the nation: Hear, O my people, while I admonish you; O Israel, if you would but listen to me! There shall be no strange god among you; you shall not bow down to a foreign god. I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide and I will fill it. (Ps 81:8–­10) These verses call the Israelites to “hear” (šemaʿ ) God’s word (see Hos 4:1; 5:1; 9:17), demand exclusive allegiance to the Lord, and reference the exodus tradition, all elements of critical importance to both Hosea and the Deuteronomic traditions. The upshot of these relationships is that they bind Hosea together not only with the Deuteronomic law code and its accompanying system of thought but also with the Psalms of Asaph. The Chronicler records Asaph as a Levite (1 Chr 6:39–­43; 9:14–­16); hence his interest in the proper conduct of Israel’s cult suggests that Hosea too was a Levite.10 More clearly than his own biography

249

THE PROPHETS

as a man living in Ephraim in the eighth century BCE, Hosea left behind a particular theological thumbprint, the singular aspect of his own self that this prophet wanted posterity to know best. Indeed, the communities of faith following Hosea studied his prophecies carefully (see Hos 14:9 and the concluding reflections of this chapter), included them in their canons, and transformed Hosea into a tradent of their version of orthodoxy that eventually won the day. Yet in his own day, Hosea was a dissident. Mercilessly, Hosea critiqued the national shrines that supported the power centers of the northern kingdom. Bethel, Hosea derisively mocked with the double entendre Beth Aven, which can be translated both as “House of Destruction” and as “House of Iniquity” (4:15; 5:8; 10:5, 15; 12:4). Samaria, the royal capital, he targeted for crafting golden calves (7:1; 8:4–­6; 10:5; 13:16). In his own day, as a priest, Hosea was a marginal figure; as a prophet, a peripheral one.11 Never did Hosea defend the central institutions of the northern kingdom. Often did he confront the authorities of the kingdom.12 Hosea sought a revolution. Hosea in History The career of this priestly gadfly dates to the middle decades of the eighth century BCE. The earliest texts predicted the demise of the Jehu dynasty, with reference to the progenitor’s bloody coup at Jezreel, by which he gained power (1:4, 5). These texts would hardly have any force if they were delivered after the fall of the dynasty and were almost certainly delivered during Jeroboam II’s reign. A date of not much later than 750 BCE, therefore, seems to serve as a terminus ante quem. In several passages in chapters 4–­11, Hosea speaks of Egypt and Assyria in the same breath (7:11; 9:3; 11:5) and alludes to foreign alliances (8:8), which seem to fit well with the circumstances surrounding the Syro-­ Ephraimite War, dating around 733. Chapters 12–­14 envision the final destruction of the nation, which was brought about by Shalmaneser V (727–­722) and his successor, Sargon I (722–­705). These events provide a terminus post quem. Hosea’s prophetic ministry seems to have spanned

250

HOSEA

perhaps a thirty-­or forty-­year period. Several verses and a few passages refer to Judah as well as Israel, carrying the message that without repentance, Judah will suffer the fate of fallen Israel. Reason places these concerns and this message within the milieu of the late seventh century, to a time when Judah continued on but sought to apply the theological insights of Hosea to those circumstances (see Hos 1:7; 3:5). Even more important than the history of the eighth century for understanding Hosea is the history of the ninth century, the period leading up to the point when Hosea stepped onto the stage. In the late ninth and early eighth centuries BCE, Israel enjoyed halcyon days of prosperity and security, a time that would have encouraged hope for even greater things in the future. Jeroboam II (788–­748), a scion of Jehu, sat for an extended tenure upon the throne in Samaria and had restored Israel’s northern boundary, reclaiming territory taken by Aram in the ninth century (2 Kgs 14:25). Assyria had withdrawn from the area, struggling with unrest among its vassals and within its own royal administration. In contrast, the southern kingdom of Judah was weak and dominated during this period by its northern sister state.13 The health of the two kingdoms would have made an impression upon the educated and influential elites of that time. In the theopolitical ideologies of the ancient Near East, a nation succeeded or languished according to the pleasure or displeasure of its national deity and the divine realm in general. A nation’s cultic institutions had as their mission to please the gods and so to win divine favor for the nation. At the beginning of the eighth century BCE, it was clear enough to the intellectuals and theologians of Hosea’s day that the northern kingdom was the more faithful nation. Confidence in the national shrines at Dan and Bethel would certainly have been high, but so too would the power holders in Samaria have believed that blessings had flowed to them on account of the many shrines serving not only the Lord but Baal, Asherah, and other gods as well, which were scattered about the land and in the city gates.14 Studies of theophoric names and ostraca from Samaria indicate that 1 Kings 16–­18’s report of Baalism running roughshod over the worship

251

THE PROPHETS

of the Lord was exaggerated by the Biblical writers, a product of prophetic hyperbole.15 That fact being granted, the biblical texts nevertheless provide solid historical evidence that both Judah and Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE were polytheistic (1 Kgs 16:31–­32; 17:19, 20, 22; 2 Kgs 17:7–­12, 16; Jer 7:16–­20; 19:1–­13; 44:1–­20); exclusive covenantal fealty to the Lord was a minority tradition. Polytheism was official monarchic “orthodoxy” at this stage in Israel’s history. To the intellectual elites, the monarchy’s state priests and official scribes and prophets, it would have appeared that the northern kingdom had

Sidebar 6.1: Hosea and the Dynasties of Israel Throughout the ninth and into the eighth centuries BCE, Israel enjoyed relative stability, being led by two dynasties, that of the Omrides and of Jehu. The Omride dynasty (879–­840)16 •

Omri (879–­869)

•

Ahab (868–­854)

•

Ahaziah (853–­852)

•

Jehoram (851–­840)

The Jehu dynasty (839–­748) •

Jehu (839–­822)

•

Jehoahaz (821–­805)

•

Joash (804–­789)

• Jeroboam II (788–­748) • Zechariah (748) With the death of Zechariah at the hands of Shallum, the throne of the northern kingdom was destabilized, being passed along from one usurper to the next, none of whom ever again established a stable theocracy over

252

HOSEA

the land. This succession of ineffectual rule was due in part to the power and interference of the Assyrians: • Shallum (748) • Menahem (746–­737) and his son, Pekahiah (736–­735) •

Pekah (734–­731)

•

Hoshea (730–­722)

• Fall of Samaria (722–­720) Hosea’s prophetic ministry appears precisely at the fulcrum in Israel’s history. He began his ministry promising doom at the end of Jeroboam II’s reign, despite it being a golden age for the northern kingdom. When Israel’s fortunes shifted and the nation slid into destruction and exile, Hosea was proved to be a true prophet in the eyes of his audience, and his theology was reconsidered with new esteem.

discovered a better concoction of cultic service to the various gods than Judah and had secured for itself divine blessings. What dissident would want to upset Israel’s applecart? Hosea the revolutionary, although he did not wish Israel’s applecart to be upset (see 2:7, 14–­15; 11:8–­12:1), believed that calamity was coming, for the dominant theological orthodoxy was an illusion. To the surprise and dismay of his detractors, and perhaps Hosea himself, history proved his message of judgment and doom to be correct. In the following century, Deuteronomy’s law over the prophets would call for a prophet’s message to be tested in order to discern whether the Lord had truly spoken to the prophet (Deut 18:21–­22). By this test, Hosea was proved to have been a true prophet. Indeed, it may have actually been the realization of the truth of the revolutionary messages of Hosea and Amos in the eighth century that wrote this prophetic test into law in the seventh (see Deut 18:15–­22).

253

THE PROPHETS

Figure 6.2 Bull stele at et-­Tell. Photograph by John T. Strong.

In his day, Hosea was a dissident and a revolutionary. His words confronted the confidence of king and cult in the northern kingdom, yet he launched a movement treasured by subsequent communities of faith, so that Hosea’s “initial word” came to introduce a prophetic assemblage we know today as the Book of the Twelve.

254

HOSEA

The Hosea Scroll The final shape of the Hosea scroll is structured into three sections, which may reflect its process of growth over time, headed by the superscription in 1:1. The first section, chapters 1–­3, is introduced by the temporal adverbial phrase “When the Lord first spoke through Hosea” (1:2) and is dominated by the elaborate metaphor involving Hosea’s wife, Gomer, and their three children—­Jezreel, Lo-­Ruhamah, and Lo-­Ammi (1:3–­8)—­and his relations with the adulteress (3:1–­5). The prophet calls the people to hear yet another word of the Lord in 4:1, a legal indictment against Israel, which introduces the second

Sidebar 6.2: Baal In the Hebrew Bible, the role of chief antagonist to the Lord is played by the god Baal. And this role appears most prominently in the prophecies of Hosea. Heading into the early part of the twentieth century, our knowledge of Baal was limited to what we read in, for example, prophetic legends such as that of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18) and the many prophetic excoriations of Hosea, Zephaniah, and others. Then in 1926 CE, a farmer kicked over a stone and opened up a tomb and suddenly the ancient city of Ugarit was discovered, and with it, six tablets recounting the Baal myth, a temple dedicated to Baal, a few Baal stelae, and even a grand view of Mount Zaphon, Baal’s heavenly residence. This cycle of stories narrates Baal being granted a heavenly palace, his control of the chaotic sea (Yamm) and river (Nahar), and his initial death yet final resurrection and defeat of death (Mot). With these stories, we learn that Baal was a god who controlled chaos and brought the fructifying spring rains that watered the soil, bringing fecundity and prosperity to the people so dependent upon the land. Who would not worship such a god?

255

THE PROPHETS

Baal, as was generally true of gods of the ancient Near East—­including the Lord—­could manifest himself in multiple places, such as Melqart in Tyre. Baal was also referred to as Baal Hadad, the Storm God, the Rider on the Clouds. Baal was a god from the north and the national deity of the northern collection of city-­states in Phoenicia. Baal was a young, upstart god who was more prominent and accessible to the people than the older, powerful El, though he belonged to the same pantheon. Baal was foreign to the Lord, whose veneration originated in the southern desert regions (Deut 33; Judg 6). For the common farmer living in the ancient Near East, the issue was trying to please the divine realm in toto in order to avoid any offense, which might very well manifest itself in the form of a drought or a plague of locusts. If all of the various gods were pleased and properly honored, hopefully they would respond by blessing the land, experienced as a successful harvest, protection from one’s enemy, and safe travel upon the sea. In the northern kingdom of Israel, whose border smacked up against that of Phoenicia and whose political survival required interaction and alliances, the Baal cult encroached southward. And what could be the harm in that? According to Hosea, everything.

section, chapters 4–­11. This section is closed out by a word of the Lord’s devotion to Israel and a promise of return to the land (11:8–­11). This set of prophetic speeches, several of which date to the time of the Syro-­Ephraimite War, seems to have been collected subsequent to the material in chapters 1–­3. The final section, chapters 12–­14, opens with another indictment, this time brought against Judah, and closes, as did the previous section, with words of assurance (14:4–­9). These texts seem later still, addressing the final days of Israel, when imperial

256

HOSEA

Figure 6.3 Stele depicting Baal found at Ugarit dates from the fifteenth to thirteenth century BCE.

Assyria cast a long shadow across Israel. Scattered throughout, a selection of texts addresses Judah, mostly dating to the seventh century BCE, perhaps reflecting a theological reappraisal and application to Israel’s surviving sister state to the south.

257

THE PROPHETS

Hosea 1–­3 In the first section of Hosea’s prophecies, the reader encounters three different voices. First, Hosea 1 presents a third-­person narrative about Hosea’s peculiar family. Another prose section appears at the end of this section, in Hosea 3, in which Hosea in a first-­person report describes another bizarre liaison (or, perhaps, a reconciliation with Hosea’s estranged wife). Between these two texts, an ornate legal complaint, uttered by the Lord through the mouth of the prophet, accuses the wife to her children. These shifts in voice imply that around the prophet’s speech in chapter 2, a person other than the prophet wrote down the introductory description of the prophet, his wife, and his three children as a means of setting the scene. For this reason, many scholars read these two sections together and understand them as sharing the same message. The first-­person narration in Hosea 3 suggests that the prophet himself recounted a second sign-­act. The allegorical sign-­act narrated in Hosea 1 and the Lord’s accompanying indictment in chapter 2 are founded upon the covenant between Israel and the Lord, which stands at the heart of Hosea’s theology and which was later codified in the laws of Deuteronomy. Hosea played the role of the Lord, Gomer that of Israel, and their union produced children, whose names, one by one, reflected the product of a broken covenant. At times, one reads in the secondary literature that the point of the metaphor is to express God’s emotions in regard to Israel’s cultic two-­timing with the Baal cult.17 The renowned Jewish scholar Abraham Heschel even argued that God’s primary purpose in enforcing the metaphor was to make the prophet feel for himself, deep in his bones, the divine pathos at Israel’s betrayal.18 Such an anthropomorphism, however, may distract the modern reader from the central theological concept standing behind his metaphor—­that of covenant fidelity. Aware that the standard diction of ancient covenants included “love” vocabulary (e.g., see Judg 5:31), Hosea actually went a step further by appropriating the sexualized language of Baalism’s fertility

258

HOSEA

cult. In order to emphasize the exclusive and binding (covenantal) quality of God’s intimacy with Israel, Hosea added passionate intimacy (e.g., Hos 2:20) to his rhetoric.19 A critical aspect of the allegory of a broken covenant is the inheritance of the land, which was intended to provide for the people. The people’s possession of and connection to the land was foundational to Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions.20 Israel was claimed by the Lord (Deut 32:8–­9) and the land awarded to the tribes of Israel after driving out the Canaanite peoples (narrated in an idealized form in Josh 13–­19). The land grant was further divvied up and passed down to the Israelites along patrilineal lines, thus requiring clear paternity in order for the society to know who had the right of inheritance and possession. Jephthah, for example, was an outlaw and had to support himself by marauding because he was the son of a prostitute, and his half brothers drove him into the wilderness. No ancient reader missed the irony of the story when the landed gentry had to ask for protection from someone whose claim to the ancestral land had been seized and who ultimately had no stake in the matter ( Judg 11:1–­11). In regard to Hosea 1–­2, Gomer’s dalliances opened up the possibility for another man to make a legal claim on the land through her offspring. Or, to move from the vehicle of the allegory to its tenor, could Baal claim territory rightfully given by the Lord?21 Very little is said of Gomer, except that she was a woman who fit the category of zenûnîm, a Hebrew abstract noun often translated as “prostitution” or “whoredom.” The verbal form of the term, zanah, is used twice (infinitive absolute + imperfect) in the following interpretive line: “The land commits great whoredom” (Hos 1:2). However, the Hebrew root znh simply indicates a woman who had sex outside the control of her husband or father or the male in charge of her household;22 this may include prostitution, but not necessarily so (e.g., Deut 22:20–­21; Judg 19:2).23 Another consideration in this regard is the fact that Gomer’s father, Diblaim, was known, and in ancient Israel, Hosea would have had to negotiate the marriage through him. The

259

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 6.3: Outline of the Hosea Scroll

I. 1:1: Superscription



II. 1:2–­3:5: First word: Israel is called to court for its infidelities



III. 4:1–­12:1: Another word: Israel on trial for breach of covenant





A. 4:1–­10:15: Various indictments



B. 11:1–­12:1: Mercy is extended due to God’s love

IV. 12:2–­14:3: Further indictments against Israel

A. 12:2–­14:3: Various indictments



B. 14:4–­9: Clemency for God’s people

involvement of Diblaim strengthens the likelihood that Gomer was not a socially unattached, unsupported woman who survived by prostituting herself in the city gate. Another possibility is that Gomer was engaged in cult prostitution. By itself, zanah does not denote sacred prostitution; qōdešāh appears to be the preferred technical term in biblical Hebrew for such a female religious functionary (e.g., Gen 38:21–­22). In Deuteronomy 23:17–­18, however, zānâ stands parallel to qōdešāh, signaling that a woman’s fornication could be construed broadly enough to encompass temple prostitution (and see also Hos 4:13–­14). Some scholars have raised the question, then, whether Gomer may have been a priestess in service to the Baal cult,24 or if not that, perhaps she had taken part in a Canaanite fertility rite.25 A connection to non-­Yahwistic cultic rituals certainly would have sharpened Hosea’s sign-­act. The evidence is scant, however. We do not actually have any direct evidence of sacred prostitution dating from the Iron Age; our earliest extrabiblical source is Herodotus.26 Although these questions affect our ability to understand

260

HOSEA

the marriage allegory with the same precision as Hosea’s historical audience, its basic message nevertheless remains clear to this day: as Gomer was unfaithful to Hosea, so Israel was unfaithful to the Lord. As stated above, the metaphor of chapter 1, narrated in the third person, sets the scene for the Lord’s speech in chapter 2, which in its earliest form is a bill of divorce. The name of Hosea and Gomer’s third child, Lo-­Ammi (“not my people”), reverses in abbreviated form the covenantal formula “You shall be my people, and I will be your God” (see Exod 6:7; Lev 12–­13; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18).27 This covenantal language is also found in ancient Israelite marriage vows. At Elephantine, a fifth-­century BCE Jewish settlement in Egypt, for example, a marriage contract was found, stating, “She is my wife and I am her husband from this day forth and forever.” A bill of divorce (see Deut 24:1; Jer 3:8) merely reverses this language, as also recorded in the Elephantine texts: “I hate my wife Yehoyishma; she shall not be my wife.”28 The clearest statement of divorce in the Hebrew Bible—­ not surprisingly—­is the Lord’s indictment of his wife, Israel, found in Hosea 2:4: Accuse your mother. Accuse her! Now she is not my wife, and I am not her husband! The address in Hosea 2 is the Lord’s opening accusation in his public divorce trial of debauched Israel, using language that is common in the prophetic rhetoric of Sinai/Deuteronomic traditions. The opening verb, rîḇû (translated “Plead” in the NRSV) is the standard term used in public trials in Israel and carries the meaning here of “accuse!” Most intriguing, the children, not Hosea / the Lord, are called upon to accuse the mother. This is a function of the children, being the ones who will actually suffer on account of Israel’s / the land’s infidelity. The scene being depicted in the speech is that of a public trial, in which the husband divorces his wife, resulting in her children being outcast, socially isolated, without a home, and without any claim to ancestral property.29 A public accusation appropriating the ancient

261

THE PROPHETS

court setting serves as a leitmotiv throughout the Hosea scroll, opening up the second section of the book (4:1–­3) as well as the third (12:2; see the discussions of these passages). The ultimate purpose of this particular court proceeding, however, is the Lord’s reconciliation with Israel, not a divorce. The imperiled children implore their mother to return to her first husband (v. 7b).30 Ultimately, the Lord seeks his wife in the wilderness (v. 14–­15), using language that recalls to his audience’s mind Israel’s authoritative exodus-­wilderness wandering traditions. There in the wilderness, the imperiled children’s gambit will succeed, and their fate will be reversed. God will take pity, Israel will be his covenanted people, and Jezreel will be for them an agriculturally rich valley transecting the land (vv. 21–­23). The small, initial collection closes with Hosea’s first-­person narration of a second sign-­act involving another woman who is a known adulteress (3:1–­5). This sign-­act differs from the first.31 Here, when “the Lord spoke to me again” (authors’ translation), Hosea’s second sign-­act required that this woman’s sexuality be publicly known, specifically that she be loved by another man (using a passive participial form) and actively committing adultery (menāʾāp̱eṯ; a D-stem participle). Her infidelity was a prerequisite for the public to recognize that now, being in Hosea’s house, she will no longer be sexually active—­at least for a while—­not even with Hosea. This public display of the woman’s forced abstinence symbolized Israel’s loss of the benefits of royal, cultic, and prophetic institutions. Ultimately, however, this sign-­act has in view not the nation’s punishment, but rather, with the passing of this time of abstinence, Israel will return and seek the Lord their God, to whom they are covenantally bound (v. 5). This first small collection, then, ends with a note of promise, a structure that is repeated at the book level in chapters 4–­11 and 12–­14. Hosea’s two metaphors were produced within and directed toward a patriarchal society, a social structure he never challenged. Quite to the contrary, he assumes it and incorporates it into his prophetic sign-­acts and speeches. Within ancient Israel’s systemic patriarchal

262

HOSEA

biases are a number of societal norms perpetrated by men upon women, included among them that women are possessed by the household of a man, that a man’s honor is related to his control over “his” women’s sexuality, and that physical and psychological violence is justified in order to maintain that control or, if necessary, to restore a man’s honor and reestablish his control over his household.32 These societal norms have been written into the text of Hosea 1–­3. It never occurred to Hosea and his audience to be offended by a male head of the household controlling the women living with him in his home, but it has indeed rightly offended many modern readers, both male and female. Yet if the biases of the metaphor offend, is there anything left to read in Hosea 1–­3? Yes: the theology that stands behind the metaphor. Hosea, while failing to challenge Israel’s patrilineality, engaged his fellow citizens, the “sons of Israel,” in a theological conflict not all that dissimilar from that of Elijah in 2 Kings 18. He summoned Israel to a monolatrous fealty to the Lord, the God of Israel. With Israel’s plummet from the world’s stage a mere three decades or so after Hosea’s prophecies, a failure that certified Hosea’s predictions as “true,” monolatry found its place in Israel’s religion in the following century and in no small measure due to this “initial word” that God spoke to him. Today, we hold in our hands a canon in which Hosea’s statement of monolatry has been given the place of primacy by its ancient editors, first as the head of the Book of the Four but eventually as the first prophetic word to introduce the Book of the Twelve. The phrase that we translate as “The initial word of the Lord through Hosea” (1:2a) served as a superscript for this nascent collection of God’s words to Hosea. The grammar elicits much comment, but whatever the precise details, scholars generally agree that the phrase operates as a title for 1:2–­9 that temporally locates the command as God’s initial statement to Hosea.33 Since such a superscript would be unnecessary if 1:1 were already in place, it seems that 1:2a points to the earliest stage in the process of compiling Hosea’s prophecies. One can imagine Hosea’s own first-­person narrative describing his relationship with

263

THE PROPHETS

an adulteress (Hos 3) and the Lord’s prosecution of his profligate wife (Hos 2), although initially separate prophetic addresses, being collected together by a disciple who, perhaps under the tutelage of Hosea himself, added Hosea 1:2–­9 in order to set the scene. The naming of Hosea’s first child as Jezreel, with reference to Jehu’s bloody coup (843  BCE; see 2 Kgs 9–­10), only makes sense if a scion of Jehu was seated on the Samarian throne. Yet that dynasty came to an end with the assassination of Jeroboam II’s son, Zechariah, in 745 BCE, after only a six-­month reign. Allowing for the birth of the other children, we can perhaps date Hosea’s activity to the final years of Jeroboam II, and this initial collection of the Lord’s initial word through Hosea would perhaps have come together upon the dynasty’s demise, or at least when its end and the fulfillment of Hosea’s prophecies became a certainty.34 Hosea 4–­11 The next section, Hosea 4–­11, is initiated by an announcement of a new word from the Lord—­a second word—­and a second lawsuit (rîḇ; 4:1). The first three verses command the Israelites (benê yiśrāʾēl) to hear the word of the Lord (ḏeḇar-­yhwh; 4:1a). Following 1:2a, this is the next time that the Hebrew term dāḇar, “word,” appears in the book, the next and final instance being in 14:3. This strategic use of dāḇar indicates that the editors of Hosea’s work wanted to convey that these prophecies introduced by 4:1–­3 were in some sense a second, subsequent revelation of the Lord to their beloved prophet. With this “next” word of the Lord, Hosea brings yet another lawsuit (using the noun form, rîḇ) against the inhabitants of the land (yôšḇê hāʾāreṣ; 4:1b—­a variation on the benê îśrāʾēl of 4:1a). In the Lord’s legal argument, guilt falls upon the “house of Israel” (5:1) and ultimately upon the leadership class of royal official, prophet, priest, and king (4:4, 5, 6, 9; 5:1; 6:9; 7:3, 5, 7; 8:4; 10:6–­7, 15). The formula “a saying of the Lord” (neʾûm yhwh) closes off this collection of prophecies (11:11). Chapter 12 then begins a third lawsuit (rîḇ; 12:2).

264

HOSEA

Certain clues hint at the work of a collector. The command to “hear” (šîmʿû) the word of the Lord (4:1) that is directed to the people of Israel (benê yišrāʾēl) is reprised in 5:1, this time directed toward priests, the “house of Israel” (bêṯ yišrāʾēl), and the house of the king. Hosea 9:17 next uses this root in verbal form, stating that Hosea’s audiences did not listen (šāmaʿ ) to the Lord, so that “my God will reject them.” A word of hope concludes this material (11:8–­11), a pattern found also at the end of Hosea 12–­14. Within Hosea 4–­11, few structural clues or keywords signal to the reader where one oracle ends and another begins or how the units relate to one another.35 Chapters 4–­11, therefore, have the appearance of a loose collection of Hosean prophecies, which were subsequently added to the “initial word” of the Lord, chapters 1–­3. Multiple references to Egypt (7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:1, 5, 11) and Assyria (5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 9:3; 10:6; 11:5, 11) generally date these chapters to the Assyrian threat and the Syro-­Ephraimite War, so around 733 BCE. Not to be discounted, though, other texts may date to the final years of the Jehu dynasty, perhaps utterances by Hosea that did not fit the narrow focus of the metaphor in the initial collection, Hosea 1–­3. Hence Hosea 4–­11 records Hosea’s theologically driven interpretation of the tumultuous years that ensued after the fall of Jehu’s dynasty and leading up to the campaign by the Neo-­Assyrian king Tiglath-­pileser III, who conquered Aram and threatened the existence of Israel and Judah. The strategy employed by the revolving door of serial dynasties of the northern kingdom was to form alliances in an attempt to create a military force strong enough to withstand the onslaught from Mesopotamia. Such political alliances brought with them cultic alliances as well, a price far too expensive for a Levitical priest pledged to the Lord alone. Not only were the covenantal loyalties of the nation diffused, but the specific instructions that taught the people the singular nature of their God, which taught them how to know the Lord, were obscured by foreign ties. In chapters 4–­11, Hosea’s prophecies intertwine the themes of cultic and covenantal fidelity with knowledge of the Lord’s instructions and ancient traditions endemic to Israel.

265

THE PROPHETS

During this period, Hosea’s theological conviction of exclusive covenantal loyalty to the Lord drove his critique of the northern kingdom. Immediately in Hosea 4, grounded in his doctrine of monolatry, Hosea charges, “There is no faithfulness (ʾemeṯ), or loyalty (ḥeseḏ)” (4:1). The noun ḥeseḏ is at home in the home. Outside of the context of the household, it extends to social relationships the qualities of kindness and commitment assumed as the norm among members of a family.36 The term ʾemeṯ is the nominal form of the root ʾāman, which conveys a sense of stability, durability, permanence, faithfulness, and truth and so contributes the sense of reliability.37 These Hebrew terms ʾemeṯ and ḥeseḏ often form a hendiadys in the Hebrew Bible and probably here too should be read as such. We suggest heuristically, “there is no enduring (covenantal) love,” as a dynamic equivalent. In addition, ḥeseḏ is commonly coupled with ḇĕrîṯ, “covenant,” because a covenant is made with someone outside of the household—­for example, another tribe, another nation, or God—­and so the relationship must be defined by the quality of ḥeseḏ. In his lawsuit, Hosea may only have explicitly mentioned “covenant” twice (6:7; 8:1); nevertheless, the theme of adultery permeating his diatribe keeps the concept front and center. The other charge brought against the inhabitants of the land in 4:1, standing parallel to the lack of covenantal fidelity, is that there is no knowledge of God (daʿaṯ ʾĕlōhîm). Hosea set the blame for the people’s ignorance of the Lord at the feet of the priests (4:6), and we learn from his charge that Hosea considered the duty of a priest to be the instruction of the law, an understanding of a priest’s duties typical of the Levites (see Deut 17:9–­12, 18; 31:9; 33:10; 2 Kgs 17:27–­28; Jer 2:8; 18:18).38 Later, a lack of knowledge of the Lord is repeated in a parallel construction with ḥeseḏ (6:6). The two are inseparable, one flowing from the other. Hosea’s logic, which held ḥeseḏ and daʿaṯ together, is that the exclusive devotion to the Lord alone leads naturally to an experiential and relational knowledge of the Lord as a particular deity, an intimate knowledge of his unique nature (see Deut 2:7; 9:24; 11:28; 13:2, 6, 13; 34:10). Note Hosea 4:11b–­12a in this regard:

266

HOSEA

Wine and new wine take away the understanding. My people consult a piece of wood, and their divining rod gives them oracles. A divine word from an idol or by a practice of divination unacceptable to the Sinai traditions to which Hosea adhered (Deut 13:1–­5; 18:9–­14, 20) did not lead to knowledge of the Lord. The prosperity of the land, enjoyed by Israel in the first third of the eighth century BCE, only confused matters, giving the illusion that the polytheistic worship of Hosea’s day led to the land’s bounty, a theme already encountered in the first rîḇ presented in Hosea 2 (vv. 8, 12). “How do we know,” Hosea would ask, “if we worship many gods, who brings to the land a blessing? And how can we then know,” Hosea would press further, “what is the nature of this god and what this god requires of us?” Polytheism leads to theologically fuzzy thinking. As a Levitical priest who worships the Lord exclusively, Hosea never suffers from a blurring of his theological vision. Quite to the contrary. When Hosea states to its inhabitants that there is no knowledge of the Lord in the land, he summarizes as evidence five crimes: (false) swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and adultery (4:2). Unavoidably, this list calls to mind the Decalogue, inscribed in Exodus 20:1–­17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–­21. Hosea, prophesying in the mid-­eighth century BCE, provides among the earliest pieces of concrete evidence of a set of ethical principles by which the Israelites had bound themselves together as a society. The five commands listed here repeat in a slightly different order five of the commandments now found in the Decalogue. Interestingly, several commands are missing from Hosea’s list, such as the command to worship the Lord alone (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:6) and the prohibition against images (Exod 20:4–­5; Deut 5:8), tenets with which he elsewhere was clearly sympathetic. This quick comparison indicates that in the mid-­eighth century BCE, the Decalogue was still taking shape.39 Yet still more, Hosea appears to have been rehearsing a certain set of community standards that he believed defined an Israelite community as

267

THE PROPHETS

specifically Israelite—­that is to say, one covenanted exclusively to the Lord. The exclusive devotion to the Lord as a particular deity, distinct from any other god, led to a precise knowledge of the Lord in all of his particularities, who in turn required of his covenanted people specific ethical demands so stipulated in this “Pentalogue” (see Ps 50:18–­20). Around 735 BCE, Hosea turned his particular theological perspective of exclusive covenantal fidelity to the Lord upon a specific problem—­the bellicosity of Tiglath-­pileser III and the threat posed by the renewed aggression of the Neo-­Assyrian Empire. Six of Hosea’s prophetic utterances preserved in these chapters (6:11b–­7:9; 7:11–­16; 8:1–­14; 9:1–­16; 10:1–­15; 11:1–­7) castigate Israel for making alliances with foreign powers. Hosea often juxtaposed the nations of Egypt and Assyria next to each other (7:11; 8:9, 13; 11:5), setting them together in a symbiotic relationship that reflects both Hosea’s theological interpretation of these two theocracies and their historical role during Israel’s final gasps of life. In regard to the Assyrians, Israel’s fate at their hands, on account of his nation’s covenant infidelity, was no mystery to Hosea. Out of their own land and into exile in Assyria Israel would go (7:11; 8:7–­9; 9:3; 10:6; 11:5). Hosea, however, uses Egypt in a deeper, more theologically rich fashion. Egypt, as Israel’s ancient exodus traditions define it, was the land of oppression from which the Lord rescued Israel (11:1). In these traditions, the quintessential act of God’s salvation was the exodus out of Egypt (e.g., Deut 5:6, 15; 7:8). The Israelites are commanded to remember the Lord’s salvation and never to forget these theologically laden traditions (e.g., 11:2–­5; 6:12; 8:14). Obversely, the traditions treasured by Hosea held Egypt to be, if necessary, the tool of the Lord’s punishment (Deut 28:27, 60, 68). And so these traditions held as well that Israel should never return to Egypt (e.g., Deut 17:16). During this period of Neo-­Assyrian aggression, Ethiopia (Cush) and Egypt postured, advertising themselves as sanctuaries for asylum or possible allies.40 Hosea, on theological grounds and using rhetoric that employs the very same curses of Deuteronomy 28 (8:13; 11:5), warns against the temptation offered by these erstwhile slave masters.

268

HOSEA

Assyria and Egypt were not the only nations to which Israel turned in hopes of an alliance. Indeed, in the face of the threat from Tiglath-­ pileser III, Samaria turned to the Arameans and the nation-­state of Tyre and had hopes of bringing tiny Judah into the mix as well (see Isa 7:1–­ 8).41 Hosea objected to these alliances, describing Israel as being “half-­ baked” (7:8–­10). These alliances offended Hosea because they ultimately led Israel into religious syncretism. International treaties were attested to by all of the participating theocracies’ deities, and the oath taken by the vassal kings obligated them to the suzerain deities.42 Moreover, once the Israelite kings entered into an alliance, a shrine would be set up in Samaria as a means of maintaining the alliance, as well as for use by the emissaries of the allied nations living in Samaria (see the discussion of Zeph 1:10–­13). And when the joint armies marched out to battle, each state would carry the banner or appropriate symbol of their god with them.43 Each step offended Hosea’s religious sensitivities. For Hosea and those sharing his allegiance to the Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions, foreign military alliances were proscribed because of the religious syncretism that they brought to the land of Israel. This same circumscription will be observed in the works of other prophets who followed the same theological traditions as Hosea (see Mic 1:7; Zeph 1:10–­13; and see our discussion of these books). The collectors who treasured and preserved Hosea’s words from the Lord did not allow the condemnation of Israel and the concomitant covenantal curses to form Hosea’s last word in this section. In Hosea 11:8–­11, in a heart-­wrenching address, the Lord proclaims his faithfulness and love for Israel. In our discussion of the previous section, we observed that God’s bill of divorce proffered in Hosea was not intended to be God’s final statement to Israel, but ultimately, it was intended to persuade Israel to return to covenantal fidelity to the Lord. So too the placement of this statement of God’s grace in Hosea 11:8–­11 serves to turn the collection of prophecies in Hosea 4–­11 away from final, bleak condemnations toward hope and trust in God’s grace. This transformation was not an alien theology injected into Hosea but another aspect of his understanding of a covenant with the Lord. In this instance, Hosea

269

THE PROPHETS

speaks not of Israel’s faithlessness, as in 4:1b–­3, but quite the contrary, of the Lord’s covenantal loyalty. For Hosea, the covenant was conditional, which in times of regression resulted in judgment but in times of true repentance promised new hope for mercy and a reversal. Hosea 11:8–­11 walks in the theological tradition found in the laws of Deuteronomy (Deut 4:29–­31; 28:1–­68; 30:1–­10) as well as in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kgs 8:33–­40). By way of presaging what is yet to come in the Hosea scroll, the next section (11:12–­14:9) too will end with a prophecy proclaiming God’s grace. This quality of mercy in Israel’s covenant with the Lord, as understood by Hosea, played an important role for future communities of faith, such as Judah in the seventh century BCE, who looked back at their fallen sister state in order to learn better how to serve the Lord (see our previous discussion of Jer 26:18–­20, which interpreted Mic 3:12). Hosea 12–­14 The final chapters of the Hosea scroll begin with a new indictment (v. 2), again using the nominal form, rîḇ. The northern kingdom, whether identified as Ephraim or Israel, once again is promised destruction (12:8–­9; 13:1, 9, 12, 16), an abrupt turn from the Lord’s emotive wail in 11:8–­11, which closed out the last section. Despite these promises of judgment in chapters 12 and 13, however, Hosea 14 again closes with a hopeful promise of salvation in 14:4–­9. These considerations have led most scholars to understand Hosea 12–­14 to be a third collection of Hosean prophetic materials added to an earlier collection of Hosea 1–­11.44 This insight into the work of the collators of the Hosea scroll reveals that, as with the Amos scroll, a word of promise was chosen to conclude the prophet’s word, a word that calls the future student of the text to turn and repent (see 14:1), no matter what breach of covenant has been committed in the past. Hosea’s prophetic call ends with a word of hope, then, echoing what was said in chapter 2, “Plead with your mother, plead . . . that she put away her whoring from her face” (2:2).

270

HOSEA

Already, we have observed that Hosea was steeped in Israel’s history and traditions, and he played again with these traditions when he brought this third lawsuit against Israel in this phase of his prophetic career. First, Hosea presents a negative picture of Jacob, promising punishment to the eponymous patriarch, bolstering his judgment by mixing together several different episodes from the Jacob tradition.45 From before birth, Jacob connived against his brother (12:3), according to Hosea’s spin on the story of Jacob’s birth (Gen 25:22–­26; 27:1–­40). Jacob was the patriarch who wrestled with God at Peniel, at which time he received the name Israel (Gen 32:22–­32), a narrative Hosea referenced in 12:4a. In the context in which Hosea presents them, both episodes illustrate Israel’s contentious nature. These episodes form part of the Lord’s legal case against Jacob.46 The redemptive news in Hosea’s retelling of the Jacob story is his promise of allegiance to the Lord at Bethel (Hos 12:4b–­6; Gen 28:10–­22). In a separate prophetic text (12:10–­14), Hosea contrasts Jacob’s travel outside of the land to Aram in pursuit of a wife (12:12) with the work of the prophets, to whom God has spoken. In this prophecy, Jacob provides the negative example, set over against the positive example of the prophet who led the nation into the land from Egypt (12:10, 13). Again, Jacob is at best an ambiguous figure for Hosea. The mention of the prophet who led the people up from Egypt cannot refer to anyone other than Moses. Hosea 12:13 stands as one of the earliest and therefore significant witnesses remaining to us of a stream of tradition that venerated Moses as an ancient authority for the nation, a prophet who led the nation out of Egypt.47 The texts in the P and D materials in the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History as well as in postexilic works, such as Chronicles and Ezra–­Nehemiah, all date later than Hosea by at least a century or more. In this material, Moses is named over seven hundred times. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, however, Moses is only mentioned fifteen times (Pss 70:20; 90:1; 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32; Isa 63:11, 12; Jer 15:1; Dan 9:11, 13; Mic 6:4; Mal 4:4). Of these texts, only Jeremiah 15:1, which dates over a century later than Hosea, stands as a preexilic reference to Moses

271

THE PROPHETS

(later in this volume, we will date Mic 6:4 to the exile). Around the same time as Jeremiah, the Deuteronomistic theological stream of tradition refers, as did Hosea, to Moses as a prophet of God (Deut 18:15). The upshot of this brief survey suggests that the Moses traditions may have been authoritative only for a marginalized circle of theologians to which Hosea belonged and that was for centuries overshadowed by the central authorities in Samaria and Jerusalem. Yet for this tradition, it is both Moses and his law that stand authoritatively over both people and the king.48 Moses, in his role as the prophet who led the people out of Egypt and handed the laws of God to the king and people, owes his status to Hosea and his fellow Deuteronomists, who preserved and treasured his memory, obtained the ear of Josiah in seventh century BCE, and presented Moses to the reformers of that time as an ancient authority. The final chapter turns yet again to the steadfastness of God’s commitment to Israel, promising the Lord’s forgiveness. In Hosea 14:1–­3, the prophet calls for Israel’s repentance, using the Hebrew word šûḇ, “Return!” (14:1), after which the Lord speaks directly, using first-­ person speech: “I will heal their disloyalty” (14:4). With apparent intentionality, the passage pulls together elements from the three segments of the Hosea scroll. Verse 14:2 urges Israel to take “words” (debbārîm), referencing the Lord’s first (1:2) and second words (4:1) to Hosea and, by doing so, urging Israel to take to heart the entirety of Hosea’s prophetic pronouncements. When the Lord heals Israel (14:4), the land will become verdant (14:6–­7), making Baal worship otiose and the final defeat of the enemy with whom Hosea wrestled his entire career. As with the first two major portions of the book, the third also ends with a promise of salvation, one that engulfs the first two. Temporally, these last passages of Hosea very likely addressed the situation at the end of the reign of Hoshea, in the waning days of the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V was on the move, setting his sights on the destruction of Samaria, the exile of the population, and the establishment of Assyrian administration of the land’s resources, all of which the Assyrian Empire achieved, even if the task finally fell

272

HOSEA

Figure 6.4 Alabaster bas-­ relief of Sargon II from the royal palace at Khorsabad, ca. 722–­705  BCE.

to Shalmaneser’s successor, Sargon II. These chapters of Hosea’s prophetic ministry seem to represent Hosea’s final words to his failing state. Geographically, Hans Walter Wolff suggests that Hosea may have delivered these final prophecies in the southern province of Benjamin, within earshot of Jerusalem and Judah.49 It is impossible to confirm Wolff’s proposition; still, heuristically, his suggestion provides us an opportunity to reflect on how Hosea may have envisioned a future beyond the northern kingdom. Judah, Hosea seems to have understood, would become the heir of the covenant and the nation to carry forward the knowledge of the Lord. And how prescient, for with the fall of the northern kingdom, refugees from the north fled to the south, carrying with them the theological traditions eventually codified in the laws of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic Literature. Hosea’s prophecies

273

THE PROPHETS

were among these materials, for according to the standard of this tradition (Deut 18:15–­22) by the time of the seventh century, the erstwhile dissident had proved himself to be a true prophet. Judah and the Growth of the Hosea Scroll Throughout this chapter, we have emphasized the continual reuse of Hosea’s prophecies by later communities of faith. The word to Hosea was the Lord’s “first word” (Hos 1–­3) to Ephraim, Hosea’s sobriquet for the northern kingdom, and the “next” too (Hos 4–­11), but Hosea’s prophetic words were later turned toward Judah as well. As just mentioned, Wolff argues that Hosea 12–­14 was delivered in the southern part of the kingdom, at the end of the kingdom, already addressing his theological interpretations toward Judah. As evidence of a further development along these lines, scholars generally ascribe many of the mentions of Judah in the book to later redactions of Hosea’s prophecies, reapplying his prophetic utterances to Judah’s situation in the seventh century BCE. By way of illustration, Hosea 5:5 reads, The guilt of Israel testifies against it Ephraim stumbles in his guilt, Judah also stumbles with them. The first two lines parallel each other, as is standard in Hebrew poetry, with Ephraim standing synonymously for Israel. The same two-­ part parallelism is found in the following four lines (vv. 6–­7), which makes the third line of verse 5, the one mentioning Judah, look to be an outlier, added to the text at a later time.50 Stephen L. Cook cautions against excising from the eighth-­century prophet’s hand every mention of Judah;51 still, many references to Judah, such as Hosea 5:5, surprise their contexts. We would miss an important aspect of the development and reception of Hosea’s theological program to treat all references synchronically. As later tradents turned Hosea’s words southward, they joined the scroll containing the collection of his prophecies with the collections

274

HOSEA

of the words from the prophets Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, forming the Book of the Four, as it is referred to in modern scholarly parlance. Together, the four books open with a warning to the northern kingdom of impending doom unless a new path is found—­so the message of Hosea. Amos presumes the Lord’s judgment of Israel to be a fait accompli. Micah and Zephaniah use the destruction of Israel as a warning to Judah and Jerusalem. The works are connected through an assortment of catchphrases and cross-­references, the four superscriptions carrying much of the load.52 As a prophetic collection, they were addressed to the southern kingdom of Judah in the latter part of the seventh century BCE as a part of the Deuteronomic School’s attempt to convince Josiah and the final kings to follow its laws and traditions. Hosea 14:9: A Final Reflection The final verse of the book, Hosea 14:9, stands apart from all that went before. Suddenly, “whoever is wise” is implored to understand all of these utterances of Hosea. It is generally agreed that this verse belongs to late sapiential traditions.53 As a wisdom text, Hosea 14:9 provides an excellent recap of the prophetic book, as well as of Hosea 14, for it calls upon future readers, those wishing to become righteous, to walk in the ways of the Lord. It does so in a teacher’s voice, speaking to readers about their personal appropriation of Hosea’s book. Beginning with the Lord’s initial word to the prophet and beyond the fall of Israel and the fall of Judah and Jerusalem, the communities of faith engaged with Hosea’s prophetic legacy as an expression of their covenantal loyalty to the Lord and a means by which they would discover knowledge of God’s ways. This, all because history proved an ancient dissident to be a true prophet. Notes 1 John D. W. Watts, “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–­3 and Malachi,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski

275

THE PROPHETS

and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSS 15 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 212. 2 David L. Petersen, in his 2009 encyclopedia article in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (“Prophet, Prophecy,” in NIDB, 4:629), states, “The history of prophecy in Israel changes somewhat in the 8th cent. For many years, it was customary to characterize this change as the shift from pre-­classical to classical prophecy. This way of formulating the change is unfortunate, since it suggests that Gad and Isaiah are fundamentally different. . . . The transformations are more complicated.” By way of contrast, compare the distinction between “Pre-­Amos Prophetism” and “The Content of Faith of Classical Prophetism” made by B. D. Napier in his 1962 article in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (“Prophet, Prophetism,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, K–­Q [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962], 910–­12). 3 William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 48–­89. 4 Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age, ABS 11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 127–­35; David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 131, 165. 5 Esau married Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite (Gen 26:34), but the two texts seem to envision two different individuals. 6 Although the political realities of his day confined his prophetic activity to the northern kingdom and a northern audience, Hosea nevertheless shows evidence of having conceived of the people of the two states being united by their pre-­state heritage. See Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, SBLStBL 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 262–­66. 7 For the nomenclature and connection between the early Sinai traditions and the later Deuteronomic traditions, see Cook, Social Roots, 1n1, 15–­20; and Jon Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Row, 1985), 15–­86. 8 Cook, Social Roots, 67–­122. 9 Cook, 53–­57 and the literature cited there, 236–­39; Beat Weber, “‘Asaph Meets Hosea’: Verbindungen zwischen Hosea-­Schrift und Asaph-­Psalmen, ausgehend von ‘Kriegsbogen’-­Formulierungen,” OTE 32 (2019): 578–­605. 10 Although Chronicles withholds the designation “priest” from Levites, other biblical traditions do not. Deut 18:1 makes no distinction between Levites and priests. Ps 99:6 includes Moses (a Levite) as a “priest.” Jer 1:1 identifies Jeremiah (a Levite) as a “priest.” 11 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 229.

276

HOSEA

12 Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 76, 96, 109, 151, 183. 13 J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 352–­57. 14 Archaeological excavations at Dan and et-­Tell (fig. 6.2, p. 254) have revealed that shrines in city gates were commonplace (see Tina Haettner Blomquist, Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine, ConBOT 46 [Lund, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999]), and it is most probable that the Lord would have been one of the gods worshipped there, though certainly not the only god. The shrine to the Lord in Arad, while located in the South, nevertheless indicates that external shrines of the Lord outside of the central national shrines of the royal house were standard in the ninth and eighth centuries. While 2 Kgs 18 states that the shrine of the Lord on Mount Carmel was in disrepair, the assumption standing behind the condemnation is that it should have been well maintained and that, therefore, in the ninth century, there should have been shrines dedicated to the Lord scattered around the countryside. 15 Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 17–­20, 36–­41; Ivan T. Kaufman, “Samaria (Ostraca),” in ABD, 5:925. 16 Dates for the reigns were taken from Miller and Hayes, 287, 337, 365. 17 James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–­Jonah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 38–­39; Terence E. Fretheim, Reading Hosea–­Micah: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2013), 12–­13. 18 Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 56. 19 While the marriage metaphor is central to Hos 1–­3, the prophet did not invent it. In the ancient Near East, a city or nation was often personified as a woman (or identified with a goddess) and understood to be the wife of its people’s patron god. See Aloysius Fitzgerald, “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT,” CBQ 34 (1972): 406–­15, and Mark E. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV, ed. K. Lawson Younger Jr., William W. Hallo, and Bernard F. Batto, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11 (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1991), 175–­79. 20 Cook, Social Roots, 78–­86. 21 The vehicle of an allegory refers to the representation, the figurative language, which carries the meaning. The tenor is the underlying reality that the allegory seeks to expound, the idea that is being carried by the image. See the discussion of Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 4–­5, who bases

277

THE PROPHETS

her work on the terminology developed by I. A. Richards, “The Philosophy of Rhetoric,” in Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, ed. M. Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936). 22 See Julia O’Brien, who relates the term zōnah to “any woman who does not meet societal expectations of sexual conduct” (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries [Nashville: Abingdon, 2004], 51). 23 James E. Miller, “A Critical Response to Karin Adams’s Reinterpretation of Hosea 4:13–­14,” JBL 128, no. 3 (2009): 503–­4; T. Drorah Setel, “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea,” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 86–­95. 24 James Luther Mays, Hosea, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 26. 25 Wolff, Hosea, 13–­15. 26 Gale A. Yee, “Hosea,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 196–­99; Miller, “Hosea 4:13–­14,” 506. 27 Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 42–­43. 28 Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 59–­62, 68. 29 Mays, Hosea, 35; Wolff, Hosea, 32; Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 51. 30 Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 51; Fretheim, Hosea–­Micah, 28. 31 Nogalski (Hosea–­Jonah, 65–­66) holds that this is an act distinct from Hosea’s marriage to Gomer in ch. 1. However, Wolff (Hosea, 59–­60) and Mays (Hosea, 55–­66) suggest that the two may be connected. 32 See Yee, “Hosea,” 198. 33 Mays, Hosea, 24; Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 37. 34 Mays, Hosea, 24. 35 Mays, 15–­16; Wolff, Hosea, xxx. 36 H.-­J. Zobel, “Ḥeseḏ,” TDOT 5:50–­54. 37 A. Jepsen, “ʾāman,” TDOT 1:310–­11. 38 S. Dean McBride Jr., “Jeremiah and the Levitical Priests of Anathoth,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. Stephen L. Cook and John J. Ahn, LHBOTS 502 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 184; Cook, Social Roots, 272–­74. Although the obligation to teach the law appears in the texts as a defining responsibility of the Levites, teaching the Torah was incumbent of priests in general (Lev 10:10–­11; 2 Chr 15:3; Ezek 44:23–­24). 39 See, however, Nogalski (Hosea–­Jonah, 74), who finds in Hosea a wider reference to the Decalogue. For surveys of the development of the Decalogue, see Brevard Childs, Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 391–­401; and Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 210–­16.

278

HOSEA

40 Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel, 380–­83. 41 Miller and Hayes, 378–­80. 42 Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, Analecta Biblica 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978), 66, 137–­40. 43 Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East, WAW 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 234–­35. 44 Wolff, Hosea, xxx–­xxxi; Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 27. 45 See Albert de Pury, “The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist?, SBLSS 34 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 59–­62. 46 Wolff, Hosea, 212–­13. 47 For early evidence of “Moses” legal traditions, see Frank Moore Cross, “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 195–­215. Evidence of the continuation of these traditions may appear in the E Source in the Torah (see Num 12:8) and the Asaphite Psalms (Ps 77:20). 48 McBride, “The Polity of the Covenant People,” Int 41 (1987): 231–­36. 49 Wolff, Hosea, 209, 224, and 234. 50 See the note in BHS; and Wolff, Hosea, 95 and 100; Mays, Hosea, 84. 51 Cook, Social Roots, 81. 52 Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 5, 31; and Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 278–­80. See also the discussion of Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 114–­16. 53 See Gerald Sheppard, “The Last Words of Hosea,” Review and Expositor 90 (1993): 191–­204; and among the commentaries, e.g., Wolff, Hosea, 239; Mays, Hosea, 190; Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 193; and Fretheim, Hosea–­Micah, 81.

279

7

Joel

Introduction If modern readers, when asked, can say anything about the book of Joel, it is likely to relate to the prophecy’s vivid descriptions of locusts. Who knew of such variety: chewing locusts, gobbling locusts, munching locusts, chomping locusts? Who imagined this degree of ferocity: teeth as sharp as a lion’s, fangs like a lioness? The infamy of the catastrophe would live on for generations. For some Christians, the book of Joel is also memorable for its use in Ash Wednesday services. The day’s liturgy recites Joel’s bidding of the congregation to return to the Lord “with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning” ( Joel 2:12). It is noteworthy that Joel pushes beyond external rites to demand genuine transformation: “Rip the wickedness out of your hearts, don’t just tear your clothing” ( Joel 2:13 VOICE). Still, few people today are acquainted with Joel’s thinking and theology. Being unfamiliar with ancient agriculturally based cultures, modern readers of the Global North understandably feel distant from Joel’s book. Natural disasters, by themselves, do not generally cripple industrial economies like our own. In any case, most of us do

281

THE PROPHETS

Figure 7.1 Fresco of the prophet Joel (seventeenth century) by Cristóbal Vela and Juan Luis Zambrano in Iglesia de San Agustín.

not associate such calamities with direct divine activity, nor do we take natural disasters as signs of a final doomsday. Yet Joel’s society did experience catastrophic failure in locust and sirocco crises. The prophet indeed did see God at work in the crises ( Joel 1:15; 2:11), which also seemed to presage end-­time woes and wonders ( Joel 2:28–­32 [MT 3:1–­5]). Joel’s visions allow us to consider his book as early biblical “apocalyptic” literature (see the excursus “The Rise of Apocalyptic Prophecy in Israel,” p. 69). He and his colleagues at the temple expected the end-­times to come imminently, but they did not. Their millennial agitation was premature. Nevertheless, Joel’s book became canonical for the same reasons that texts such as Isaiah 24–­27 and Ezekiel 38–­39 have continued to speak as Scripture. Joel’s book itself never specified the exact date of the end. The plagues of the book remain to this day an

282

JOEL

instructive prefigurement or microcosm of the end of days, a preliminary “eruption” into world history of what will appear full-­blown at the ultimate inbreaking of God’s reign. Joel may be of particular interest to today’s readers due to his attunement to nature’s significance for human survival. The effects of global warming, for example, are pushing many people to recognize our environment’s fragility, just as Joel’s community experienced it. Many today share Joel’s assumption of human dependence upon the well-­being of our arable land. Some key premodern interpreters of Joel were sympathetic to this sensibility. Gregory of Nazianzus (b. 329/330 CE) envisions farmers reacting to their dead crops as if attending a beloved’s funeral ( Joel 2:3). He speaks of them sitting beside “the grave of their crops.”1 Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 393–­466 CE) notes how the LXX of 1:11 markedly personifies nature.2 The LXX reads, “Wail, O farms, over the wheat and barley!” Joel’s overall literary structure takes the form of a pattern of doubled descriptions. The book contains two descriptions of catastrophe (1:2–­12; 2:1–­11), two summonses to action (1:13–­14; 2:12–­17), and two descriptions of deliverance (2:18–­27; 2:28–­3:21 [MT 3:1–­4:21]) answering the double catastrophe. These unusual parallel doublets relate to Joel’s belief that awesome portents will presage the end-­times. He held that harbingers of doomsday would appear before the Day of the Lord and that the present divine deliverance would be just a foretaste of the salvation at God’s reign. The symmetry of Joel’s book has its midpoint at 2:18, where cries of lament abruptly transition into oracles of divine intervention. The sections of Joel preceding 2:18 describe a double crisis as well as the rites at the temple constituting the requisite response to the threat of doom. The succeeding texts describe a double salvation, both a natural restoration (2:18–­27) answering the natural desolation of 1:2–­12 and a radical, world-­inverting intervention (2:28–­3:21 [MT 3:1–­4:21]) resolving the future crisis of 2:1–­11. In this manner, Joel pairs natural and apocalyptic realities typologically so that each half of the book shifts from immediate, proleptic conditions to otherworldly, apocalyptic

283

THE PROPHETS

Figure 7.2 Swarming locusts. Images from a set of eight extraillustrated volumes of A Tour in Wales by Thomas Pennant (1726–­98 CE).

ones. Following both of the pictures of catastrophe, environmental and eschatological, are Joel’s calls to the community to respond (1:13–­14; 2:12–­17). In the middle of the section on desolations (1:2–­2:17) stands Joel’s temple liturgy of lamentation (1:15–­20). Social, Historical, and Ritual Background Joel is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and his book’s superscription tells us nothing other than his father’s name, Pethuel. Despite the lack of data, scholars plausibly infer that Joel was a temple prophet. Joel’s book is unusual in that, rather than beginning with a commissioning narrative or with prophetic indictments, it begins with a liturgical summons to a fast day in the face of a crisis. As the book proceeds, Joel continues to give instructions for actions within a functioning Jerusalem temple.

284

JOEL

Joel’s temple-­centered response to catastrophe and his cultic language suggest that he likely held an official intermediary role within the Jerusalem temple complex, a role comparable to that of Obadiah and Habakkuk. Like Obadiah, Joel was not only a temple prophet but also a scribal prophet, a “learned” one. He studied, referenced, and interpreted preceding Scripture, some corpus of which had become authoritative by his era. Thus, for example, Joel’s first reference to the eschatological “day of the Lord” ( Joel 1:15) uses the diction of Isaiah 13:6. Joel 2:28 echoes Ezekiel 39:29, Joel 3:10 (MT 4:10) echoes Isaiah 2:4, and Joel 3:16 (MT 4:16) echoes Amos 1:2. Just as Joel’s book supplies little direct information about the prophet, it provides no explicit time frame for the prophecy. It seems probable, however, that the book comes from the Persian period, the era of restoration after the exile. Scripture-­anthologizing prophets, anchored in an authoritative biblical corpus, best fit a postexilic time frame. Confirming this, Joel 3:2 (MT 4:2) references Israel’s collapse and the exile to Babylonia, and Joel 3:1 (MT 4:1) presupposes Israel’s captivity and Diaspora in looking forward to a full restoration (see CEB, NET, VOICE; also see Joel 3:7 [MT 4:7]). The portrait of Edom in 3:19 (MT 4:19), which references Edomite atrocities committed at Jerusalem’s fall, similarly presupposes postexilic times (see Ps 137 and Obadiah). Further evidence narrows the setting of Joel to the mid-­fifth century BCE. The small temple-­oriented community arrayed about Jerusalem pictured in 1:14 and 2:16–­17 fits the social reality of Persian-­era Yehud after the time of Haggai and Zechariah. If the rhetoric of 2:7 is not a mere imaginative metaphor but correlates with real-­world conditions, then Jerusalem has an intact city wall (ḥômâ) that would-­be invaders need to scale. This was only true for Yehud after 445 BCE. An infamous ecological crisis in Persian-­era Yehud occasioned Joel’s prophetic response. Attesting to their age-­old significance, locust plagues are known from the oldest specimens of Near Eastern writing. A Sumerian pictographic tablet from 4000 BCE records a curse used for driving out a locust infestation. Akkadian, the language of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, has over twenty terms for locusts. The Assyrian

285

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 7.1: The Structure of Joel

I. 1:1: Superscription



II. 1:2–­2:17: Catastrophes and summonses

A. 1:2–­12: Environmental catastrophe



B. 1:13–­14: Call to respond



C. 1:15–­20: Temple liturgy of lamentation

A′. 2:1–­11: Eschatological catastrophe B′. 2:12–­17: Call to respond

III. 2:18–­3:21: Double deliverances

D. 2:18–­27: God’s immediate deliverance

D′. 2:28–­3:21 (MT 3:1–­4:21): Eschatological promise

“Hymn to Nanaya,” dating to the reign of Sargon II (722–­705 BCE), speaks of crops and orchards withered by “the evil locust” and “the malignant grasshopper” (COS 1.473, text 1.141). As in Joel, these insects (the erebu and the zirziru) cut off temple offerings. Treaties such as one by Ashur-­nirari V (Assyria; 755–­746 BCE) end with threats of locusts appearing and devouring the vassal’s land (ANET, 532). Later, Esarhaddon’s treaties (Assyria; 670 BCE) contain this curse: “May locusts . . . [devour] your crops!” (ANET, 533). Especially the imagery of Joel 1:19–­20 and 2:1–­11 suggests that Joel’s locust plague was preceded by and combined with a sirocco—­that is, a strong, scorching east wind from the Arabian desert. Aloysius Fitzgerald, Kathleen Nash, and others have noted the features of a hot, dusty sirocco windstorm causing a drought in these verses.3 Nash reconstructs a sirocco’s interference with the Levant’s seasonal rains of the fall interchange period. The resulting drought was severely aggravated by a locust plague. Locust migrations are known to follow the prevailing winds and likely did so in the case of Joel’s crisis. Note that the

286

JOEL

Figure 7.3 Locust detail from a hunt mural in the grave chamber of Horemheb, ancient Egypt, ca. 1422–­1411 BCE.

eighth plague of the exodus, like Joel’s crisis, included a sirocco that inflicted both burning heat and locusts on the land (Exod 10:13). As one of the exodus plagues in Egypt (Exod 10:1–­20), locusts “covered the surface of the whole land, so that it became black. . . . Nothing green was left on any tree or plant” (10:15 NABR). The Book of the Twelve knows of these Egyptian plagues and their divine orchestration. Joel 1:3 speaks of sharing God’s wonders with posterity, as does Exodus 10:2. Joel 1:5 describes houses penetrated by locusts as in Exodus 10:6. Earlier, Amos 4:6–­11 recalls God attempting to capture Israel’s attention by sending a warning “like one of the Egyptian plagues” (v. 10 NET). The warning was missed. Sometimes, as in Exodus 10:1–­20 and Amos 4:6–­11, an ecological disaster signaled divine anger and judgment. Israel, however, did not always get the message. In the case of Amos 4, the people seem to have consoled themselves by considering their present adversities to be random misfortunes, not divine warnings. Unlike in Joel, the current

287

THE PROPHETS

hardships provoked neither communal lamentation nor a humbling of hearts. Doubling down, God increasingly removed ambiguity. Amos 4:7 reports God ordering fixed, preternatural patterns of adversity, resistant to cavalier dismissal.4 Orchestrated, augural judgments should have occasioned Israel’s collective turning to God. They did not. One may fault Israel’s moral insensitivity and apathy but not the people’s logic. For Israel, natural crises did not inevitably signal divine displeasure. No hint that God was sending a supernatural warning or punishment is present in texts such as Genesis 12:10 and 41:30 and 2 Kings 4:38. The famines of these texts were morally random. Such haphazard occasioning of adversity is a logical corollary of the persistence of forces of chaos from before creation (see, e.g., Pss 44:25; 107:29; 119:25, 28; Jer 5:22; see Luke 13:2–­5).5 Psalm 89:25 (MT 89:26) shows God installing a viceroy, the Davidic king, vested with the power to help contain this residual, amoral chaos. Sacral kinship may promote cosmic stability, but only at God’s reign will famine and death end for good (Isa 25:6–­8). At the eschaton, “[God] will swallow up death” (Isa 25:8). It is this final, end-­time victory of God over irrational, deathful sterility to which Joel 3:18 (MT 4:18) looks forward. Natural crises recur randomly, but thankfully, God is available for supplication when they do. At times of catastrophe, God wants to side with the devastated, to intervene, and to deliver. On God’s general concern for the victimized, see, for example, Genesis 8:1; Psalms 23:4; 27:5; 46:1–­3; Isaiah 54:10. Note in particular the confidence in God’s commitment to Israel on display in Psalm 33:18–­19. Here, innocent suffering due to famine is certainly a matter to which God wants to attend. Likewise, Psalm 37:18–­19 provokes confidence at times when the innocent faithful face famine’s devastating effects. In Psalm 126:4–­5, the community prays for renewed restoration at just such a time. Israel had central intermediaries, especially prophets at the Jerusalem temple such as Joel, to help at crises. These experts led communal supplications when disasters struck. Sargon II’s “Hymn to Nanaya,” cited above, attests to how ancient lamentations in cultic

288

JOEL

worship might supplicate heaven to destroy a plague of “malignant,” “evil” locusts. The ecological disaster faced by Joel, in itself, was not unparalleled. Just as today certain horrific hurricanes batter the US Gulf or East Coasts and are not soon forgotten, so infamous locust infestations were long remembered in the Levant. It was the current locust crisis’s apocalyptic interpretation by Joel’s circle, however, that gave Joel’s book its tenure as Scripture. For the temple staff of the time, the locust invasion presaged the “day of the Lord” ( Joel 1:15), a day of the Lord’s dramatic intervention to alter the order of things. As an end-­time event, the “day” in Joel’s book entailed cosmic upheaval. The jump in Joel from a locust plague to the invasion of a doomsday army is not as odd of an interpretation as might first appear. Multiple Near Eastern cultures compare locust swarms to armies, just as we find in Joel 1:6 (“many soldiers,” NCV; “countless troops,” CEV). In the Ugaritic Kirta legend, the king’s forces are as numerous as locusts (CTA, 14, 103–­11). Thirteenth-­century BCE Egyptian records of Ramesses II and Merneptah compare troops to locusts. Eighth-­and seventh-­century BCE royal Assyrian annals do likewise. Moreover, ancient troops, such as Assyria’s forces, devastated fields and orchards just like locusts. Ecological devastation was a particularly effective military strategy in regions such as the Levant with dry, fragile ecologies. Across cultures, groups predisposed by their sacred traditions to fear doomsday’s advent, as Joel’s circle was, may experience natural crises as portents or omens of the end-­times. Such crises may become eye-­openers and harbingers of history’s climax. They may presage the coming of God’s reign on earth. Thus the apocalyptic message of the first flagellant movements in Italy caught hold in society in the wake of a famine in 1258 CE and the outbreak of the plague in 1259 CE. New members from all strata of French and Belgian society, including the upper echelons, joined apocalyptic movements at the outbreak of plague in Antwerp in 1530 CE. Deadly plagues killing millions of natives in the 1570s and 1590s CE provoked serious apocalyptic fears among Spanish colonizers of the New World.6

289

THE PROPHETS

On the basis of the drought and insect plague, an apocalyptic scenario seems to have taken hold within the Joel group. As Hugo Gressmann aptly put it, “Just as screeching seagulls forewarn of a nearing violent storm at sea, locusts announced to Joel the Endkatastrophe.”7 Lorenz Dürr aptly perceived that Ezekiel’s Gog oracles were so familiar in Joel’s time that all it took was a locust swarm to arouse in Joel the expectation of Ezekiel’s northern army.8 Disposed by shocking natural upheavals, Joel drew on preceding eschatological Scriptures, such as the Gog texts of Ezekiel, in synthesizing an apocalyptic vision. Because of his immediate crisis, he cloaked the vision of God’s end-­time defeat of chaos and evil in the form of swarming insectile hordes. As a learned student of Ezekiel, he was on guard for signs of the end-­times, and the locust plague convinced him that it was upon him. In fact, he now envisioned it in insectile terms.

Sidebar 7.2: The Day of the Lord in Biblical Prophecy The initial historical reference to the Day of the Lord in the biblical prophetic collection occurs in Amos 5:18, but the phrase occurs before Amos in the canonical sequencing of the prophetic books (see, e.g., Isa 13:6, 9; Jer 46:10; Ezek 13:5). Joel’s short book, drawing on Isaiah 13:6, uses the phrase a remarkable five times (1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14), each time in a mode of radical (i.e., “apocalyptic”) eschatology. Amos speaks of Israel’s habitual (overoptimistic) misuse of the concept, thus attesting to it having a key place in Israelite tradition and worship prior to his prophecies, but at this stage, the concept did not point to the end-­times, to “Kingdom Come.” Rather, it pointed to moments in tradition, in liturgy, and in future expectation of God’s decisive intervention to set things right. Amos related the concept to how God would bring divine justice down on Israel’s corruption.

290

JOEL

In both Israel’s conquest traditions of divine warfare (e.g., Josh 10:10–­11) and its liturgies of the Lord’s enthronement (e.g., Ps 93:1–­5), the Day of the Lord was the celebration of God, in the role of Divine Warrior, defeating chaos and establishing order and justice. The pervasive ancient Near Eastern “combat” mythology funded Day of the Lord images. In combat poetry, the Divine Warrior roared in like a thunderstorm (see Pss 29; 97), rode to battle on storm clouds to defeat chaos (the “sea,” Hab 3:8, or the “flood,” Ps 29:10). The warrior’s appearance shakes the cosmos (see Hab 3:10) and the nations (see Hab 3:12). One key theological purpose of the cosmic poetry is to drive home how events in Israel’s historical experience fit in with larger, transcendent purposes of God to set creation right. What is new in Persian-­ era apocalyptic prophecy, such as that in Joel, is how the poetic and mythic images of cosmic combat incarnate themselves in terrestrial reality and propel history’s climax. The details of cosmic poetry materialize incontestably in history, causing its fulfillment and ushering in God’s reign.

Literary Character Joel’s literary artistry is on display in his book’s patterned, interlocking structure. Its structure revolves around the double crisis represented by the invading locusts (1:4) on one hand and the eschatological “day of the Lord” (1:15) on the other. The second, still-­future crisis differs significantly from the current locust plague. While the locust crisis, on one hand, is at most a divine portent, the Day of the Lord, on the other hand, is cosmic, not localized. Heaven itself shakes and the sun, moon, and stars black out (2:10). A void of darkness envelopes the world. Things turn topsy-­turvy as a prelude to cosmic rebirth.

291

THE PROPHETS

Figure 7.4 Gog and Magog eating people. Illumination on parchment by an anonymous artist, ca. 1312 CE.

Associated with Joel’s double crisis is a double role played by God. On one hand, God is fundamentally devoted to “his people” and “his land” ( Joel 2:18). God’s ultimate commitment is to defend them against the enemy ( Joel 3:16–­17 [MT 4:16–­17]). On the other hand, to reveal God’s power and judge chaos and evil, God, in God’s mysterious sovereignty, orchestrates the coming of the end-­time enemy (a.k.a. “Gog and his horde”; Joel 3:2 [MT 4:2]). Indeed, God actually musters the foe (3:9–­11 [MT 4:9–­11]); it is “his army” (2:11). The pattern replicates God’s double role in Ezekiel’s Gog prophecies (fig. 7.4). There, Ezekiel 38:16 has God commit to “my people Israel” and “my land” while simultaneously bringing Gog upon them. Ezekiel 39:2–­3 has God bring Gog down to Israel only to instantly defeat him there. A similar poetic dialectic appears in Joel around the theme of self-­ magnification. Ezekiel 38:11–­12 quotes Gog’s hubristic self-­exaltation. Joel, in turn, condemns the archfiend for “what he made bold to do” ( Joel 2:20 NJB). Ezekiel describes how God too intends to “exalt and magnify myself” (Ezek 38:23 NET), to “display my greatness, show my holiness” (CEB; see Ezek 39:13, 21). Using the identical Hebrew verb, Joel describes the same divine goal of self-­magnification (gādal; Ezek 38:23; Joel 2:21). As the foul stink of the defeated enemy ascends, God’s

292

JOEL

power even over self-­magnified evil sinks in. As the MSG translation puts it, “The bigger the enemy, the stronger the stench!” ( Joel 2:20). Joel’s initial section on environmental catastrophe (1:2–­12) offers a fine entrée into the powerful poetry of the book. The compelling personification of nature here evokes empathy with the land and stirs readers’ feelings about the unfolding ecological crisis. Consider more closely the two poetic lines of Joel 1:10, the first a two-­part line (bicolon), the second a three-­part line (tricolon). The lines parallel and reinforce each other, with the second introducing details about the specific crops lost: The fields are devastated the ground mourns; for the grain is destroyed, the wine dries up, the oil fails. ( Joel 1:10) In the initial two-­part line, alliteration catches the reader’s ear. The first colon has two similar-­sounding words, šuddad śādeh, “devastated (šuddad)—­the fields (śādeh).” The repeated s and d consonants emphasize and extend sounds linked to devastation by the colon’s verb. Further, their similar sounds link “fields” and “devastated,” suggesting the inevitability of the present conjunction. That is, to speak the word “fields” in the present context is already to hear sounds suggestive of the devastation soon coming upon them. Intentionally alliterative language continues in the second colon of verse 10a. In Hebrew, the colon reads, “ʾābĕlâ ʾădāmâ” (she mourns, [that is,] the ground). Mourning in ancient Canaan and Israel was public and dramatic—­both audible and visible. Here, the phonetics mimics a rhythmic, repetitive cry, which signals hunger in human babies. At the same time, there are labial sounds entailing lip movements, also associated with hunger. The ground thus cries rhythmically in hunger as it enacts mourning for its dead crops. Joel’s reaction to the crisis begins in 1:13–­14 with his first call for response. The shocking devastation requires temple officials to spring

293

THE PROPHETS

to action. Three terse cola of three quick beats each issue them five commands (v. 13a). The successive cola identify them as (1) priests, (2) altar officiants, and (3) God’s personal attendants. These tiered identifications position the crisis as (1) a deeply sacred affair (2) directly implicating the shrine’s prime sacral apparatus and, indeed, (3) requiring God’s full attention. Joel 1:15–­20 is a liturgy of lamentation following up Joel’s call for action. Verse 15 begins the rite with a mournful wail expressed in striking poetic and anthological style. Reusing Isaiah 13:6, Joel alludes to a horrific “day of the Lord” when the sun rises as a black disc, the moon as a black hole. Joel repeats Isaiah’s wordplay on “destruction” (šōd) and “the Almighty” / “Shaddai” (šadday): God’s “day” entails “a mighty blow from the Almighty” ( J. B. Phillips), “destruction from the Divine Destroyer” (NET).9 Then in Joel 2:1–­11, the prophecy takes a new turn. Inspired by Isaiah 13, it leads readers’ imaginations away from literal locusts to fears of a vastly more profound crisis. Here is an enemy that dares attack Eden (v. 3), that mounts up against “the center of the earth” in the manner of Gog in Ezekiel 38:12. To threaten the cosmic center is to trigger thoughts of seismic change, of movement through disorder to a totalizing recapitulation. Joel 2:12–­17 renews the call to act. Yehud must address all pressing perils by surrendering itself to God. No human can withstand the Day of YHWH, but a window of deliverance currently lies open. In verse 12, God says, “Turn to me now, while there is time. Give me your hearts” (NLT). In verse 13’s powerful metaphor, the people must “tear” their hearts. Ripping out egoism, they must open up the mind and will to God’s sovereignty. In Joel 2:18–­27, the book transitions away from desolation to prophecies of deliverance. Importantly, the salvation announced using language of precipitation entails much more than simple agricultural restoration. One may compare the language of Hosea 10:12: “It is time to seek the Lord, that he may come and rain righteousness upon you” (emphasis ours). Bound up with nature’s refreshment in Joel is the

294

JOEL

hope of true knowledge of God (2:27). The poetry of 2:23 playfully refers to both ideas. The Hebrew word môre(h) can mean both “early rain” and “teacher,” both autumn rains and teaching with a view to righteousness. The Targum and Vulgate specifically speak of a “teacher” in verse 23, and the verse gave the Qumran community the idea of a messianic “teacher of righteousness.” A final, substantial section of Joel in 2:28–­3:21 (MT 3:1–­4:21) moves from God’s removal of drought and plague from Yehud to God’s future

Figure 7.5 Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares (based on Isa 2:4). Sculpture by Yevgeny Vuchetich, a 1959 CE gift of the Soviet Union to the United Nations, garden of the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

295

THE PROPHETS

deliverance described in singularly climactic terms. The Hebrew adverbial phrase “afterward” in 2:28 (MT 3:1) separates the second, radically eschatological salvation in 2:28–­3:21 (MT 3:1–­4:21) from the preceding vision in 2:18–­27. There are three subsections, the first of which in 2:28–­32 (MT 3:1–­5) entails massive astral and terrestrial disruptions heralding an emergent new reality. Characterizing the newly initiated reality, as Joel twice stresses (vv. 28a, 29), is the outpouring of God’s spirit. Intensely all-­embracing, this downpour of Spirit appears to surpass Joel’s reference source in Ezekiel 39:29. In Joel 2:28–­32, the Spirit’s ennobling empowerment spreads individual by individual, rendering all humanity a new creation. In the next subsection in 3:1–­17 (MT 4:1–­17), the Divine Warrior wins victory over amassing forces of evil. Here are the vicious end-­time hordes of chaos heralded and presaged by the original locust invasion.

Sidebar 7.3: The Phenomenon of Antitypes in Apocalypticism Close study of archetypal and apocalyptic images reveals their compelling, persuasive power. For good cause, Isaiah 2:4 is engraved in stone at the United Nations complex (fig. 7.5). Such a vision captures the imagination and persuades us about the character of the ideally real. Sometimes archetypes like this exude such power that they generate a dark “shadow” image, a separate but popular antitype that flourishes in the popular imagination alongside the “parent” image. For example, alongside the expectation of a messiah, there emerged the shadow image of a false (or anti) messiah (Dan 7:8; Matt 24:24; 1 John 2:18). So too alongside Christ’s death by a spear through his heart on the cross, there emerged the belief that vampires are staked through the heart to wipe away evil from the earth. In both cases, impaling saves humanity from sin, yet the two images are in tension. The same is true of the tensive dialogue between Joel 3:10 and Isaiah 2:4.

296

JOEL

Verse 10 is fascinating in its jarring reversal of a quote from earlier prophets, Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3. Based on Isaiah and Micah, Joel’s audience would certainly have expected that as God’s reign takes hold, humanity would repurpose all weaponry as farming tools. Instead, as is frequent in apocalyptic literature, an inversion (antitype) of the peaceable expectation emerges. We address this in an excursus. Joel’s book ends in 3:18–­21 (MT 4:18–­21), a subsection of wonder filled with Edenic images of lush fertility and bounty. The image of a river flowing from a gushing temple fountain echoes the utopian vision of Ezekiel 47:1–­13 (see Zech 14:8). As in Ezekiel, the living waters transform the arid Judean wilderness. They likely flow down a wadi channel leading from the Kidron Valley to the Dead Sea. They certainly extend to the very arid places southwest of Jerusalem where shittah (acacia) trees grow (v. 18). Genesis 2:6 places the outlet of earth’s sweet water in Eden, where “a stream [ʾēd] was welling up out of the earth and watering all the surface of the ground” (NABR; see CEB). The LXX, Aquila, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta all understand ʾēd as “spring” or “fountain.” The fountain is huge, irrigating “all the surface of the soil” (NJB). Ezekiel 31’s great tree of “Eden,” in the “garden of God” (v. 9), tapped this fountain: “Deep raised it up. . . . From there, water trickled down to all the other trees” (v. 4 CEB). Joel’s temple of Jerusalem at God’s reign is thus configured as Eden on earth, the fountain’s locale. Theological Issues Collective expressions of mourning and dependence on God were always appropriate at times of calamity in Israel (e.g., Pss 44; 123; 126). God expects people’s hearts to be penetrated by disasters and their arms thrown out toward the temple. Thus in 2 Chronicles 20:3–­13, all Judah fasts at the temple and prays for God’s deliverance. In Psalm 126, the postexilic community prays for fruitfulness in a time of suffering. The language of irrigation, sowing, and reaping makes the prayer very appropriate for times of drought and hunger. According to Solomon’s

297

THE PROPHETS

temple-­dedication prayer (1 Kgs 8:37–­40), God should intervene on behalf of suppliants to end such hardships as pestilence and plague, solidify relationships, and begin to “treat each person as he should be treated” (1 Kgs 8:39 NCV). The stress in 1 Kings 8:39 on God knowing every heart, each life from the inside (see Pss 44:21; 90:8; Jer 5:24; 16:17; 17:10), fits its context. Attentive souls experience calamities as blows upon the heart (8:38; see NIV), provoking self-­examination. They know that sin is a nocuous threat, ever crouching, often expressed inadvertently or unconsciously (Gen 4:7; Lev 4:2; Ps 19:12; Ezek 45:20). But calamity may also strike in the absence of sin (conscious or unconscious), so that the innocent suffer injustice. The NJB translates Joel 2:23 as suggesting that justice demands the removal of the locusts: “He [God] has given you autumn rain as justice demands.” Although this is but one of several possible meanings, the communal laments of Scripture generally direct Israel to exhort God to act as is profitable to each disposition so that innocent or truly repentant sufferers are restored to faith and wholeness. Joel 2:23, as the NRSV understands it, shows God acting in this manner to vindicate and bless an innocent, suffering Yehud: “He has given the early rain for your vindication.” In Israelite culture, periods of collective lament were genuine occasions of amendment of life and restoration of communal interdependence. This will be clear in the treatment of Zechariah 12:10–­14 later in this volume, and it is equally true in Joel. Group mourning functions to externalize and publicly affirm loyalty in a variety of texts, such as 2 Samuel 3:31–­37; 15:14–­16:13; and Ezekiel 26:16–­18. In these passages, shared ritual mourning confesses and confirms collective loyalty to social relationships, treaties, and covenants. In other biblical texts, public mourning actually creates new, mutually supportive community (Ezra 9–­10; Jer 41:6).10 Thus in Zechariah, the communal mourning of an unnamed “pierced” figure (Zech 12:10) creates group mutuality. Key to Joel’s fascination for the reader is the book’s rich theological imagination around the locust invasion. First, Joel renders the present

298

JOEL

devastating calamity using extraordinarily vibrant, impactful artistry. The alliterative poetry of Joel 1:10 has already impressed us. Second, Joel’s interpretation of the locust invasion as an apocalyptic portent is remarkable. The function of the plague as presaging the end-­times becomes clear as early as 1:15. The communal lament in the temple begins with a theme of doomsday. The locusts are here now, but worse lies in the near future: “Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is near, and as destruction from the Almighty it comes” (1:15). As we move into the prophecy of chapter 2, the insects have become a foretaste of an end-­time army, preternatural and chaotic in character. Joel creates this eschatological signification by imaginatively superimposing the vivid imagery of the current insect crisis on a sketch of an army invasion. He uses his locust imagery to cloak his description of an attack on Zion of a coalition of enemy hordes, a poetic and mythic motif long associated in psalms and prophetic texts with the understanding of Zion as the archetypal cosmic mountain. Here, the mythic Völkersturm scenario (e.g., see Pss 2:1–­6; 46; Isa 8:9–­10; Mic 4:11–­13) comes alive. Centuries later, Revelation 9:3–­11 took up from Joel the notion of an invasion of preternatural locusts. Revelation’s sketch of mythic-­ realistic monsters, however, greatly heightens the locusts’ resignification as a transcendent evil. The locusts now emerge from a hellish bottomless pit in billowing smoke (v. 2; see Joel 2:30–­31). Ready for battle, they charge into the fray as warhorses (v. 7; see Joel 2:4). They rush headlong with the rattling noise of chariots (v. 9; see Joel 2:5). They have human faces (v. 7), lions’ teeth (v. 8), iron scales (v. 9), and tales with the torturous sting of a scorpion (vv. 5, 10). That the people they attack seek to die but cannot drives home the horror of the plague. Joel’s book is a fine example of the intertextual origins of biblical apocalyptic prophecy. Scholars are now aware that quotations, allusions, and reinterpretations of earlier Scriptures play key roles in end-­ time visions such as those of Joel and Revelation. Scribal visionaries, such as our temple prophet, approached earlier Scriptures as knotty

299

THE PROPHETS

puzzles awaiting solutions. Joel and his support group tried to unravel the mystery of an imminent Kingdom Come by connecting the current locust attack and the textual cues of Ezekiel, an earlier temple-­ oriented leader. The tribulations and chaos of their doomsday locust plague made sense as early signs of “the day of which I [God] have spoken” (Ezek 39:8). They illumined the mystery of Ezekiel 38–­39 as they penned Joel’s poetry. The translators of the Septuagint attest to the connection between Joel’s locusts and Gog’s attack depicted in Ezekiel 38–­39. In their reworking of Amos’s vision of locusts, they reveal how they have connected the dots. The LXX of Amos 7:1 reads, “Behold a brood of locusts was coming in early morning, and behold, there was a locust, the one King Gog.”11 As in Revelation 9:11, the locusts now have a leader. Based on Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:1, he is Commander Gog, ruler of Magog land, coalition leader of a horde of storm troopers. Joel’s doomsday description of the storming of Zion echoes the Gog prophecy in multiple ways. Most clearly, his reference to the locusts as a northern army in 2:20 derives from Ezekiel. Joel’s appellation “northerner” fits neither locusts nor siroccos. Since locusts and siroccos generally come from the east, out of the desert, Joel must have understood his present crisis as a harbinger of Gog’s attack, and he pinned an eschatological motif from Ezekiel (“northerner”) to it (Ezek 38:6, 15; 39:2). Other resonances of Joel with the Gog texts of Ezekiel are noteworthy. The thick gloom of the eschatological “day of the Lord” in Joel 2:1–­2 resonates with Ezekiel 38:9. Joel 2:28–­29 (MT 3:1–­2) reuses Ezekiel 39:29’s rare diction about a pouring out of God’s spirit on earth. Later, God’s promise to restore Judah’s fortunes in Joel 3:1 (MT 4:1) echoes Ezekiel 39:25, reusing the clause “I [God] restore the fortunes” (ʾāšîb ʾet–­šĕbût). Joel appears to have coined the name “Valley of Jehoshaphat”—­that is, “Valley where the Lord Judges” ( Joel 3:2, 12 [MT 4:2, 12])—­based on Ezekiel’s “Ge’ Hamon Gog,” “Valley of Gog’s Horde” (Ezek 39:11), where God judges the enemy (Ezek 38:22; 39:21). In this vein, Joel’s double use of the term hāmôn (horde) in 3:14 (MT 4:14) is particularly striking.

300

JOEL

The verse reads, “Mass confusion, mob uproar—­in Decision Valley! God’s Judgment Day has arrived in Decision Valley” (MSG). Ezekiel’s Gog texts repeatedly apply the term horde to Gog’s armies (see Ezek 39:11, 15, 16), which are buried in “the valley of judgment” ( Joel 3:14 CEB [MT 4:14]). Notes 1 Gregory of Nazianzus, On His Father’s Silence, Oration 16.6, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-­Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, 2nd ser. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 7:249. 2 J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca (Paris: Migne, 1988), 81:1632–­40. 3 Kathleen S. Nash, “The Palestinian Agricultural Year and the Book of Joel” (PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1989), 144, also see 11, 20, 139, 144, 152, 156; Eliyahu Assis, The Book of Joel: A Prophet between Calamity and Hope, LHBOTS 581 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 114; Ronald Simkins, Yahweh’s Activity in History and Nature in the Book of Joel, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 10 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 149–­50; Aloysius Fitzgerald, The Lord of the East Wind, CBQ Monograph Series 34 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2002). 4 “But in order to show the people more clearly that the sending and withholding of rain belonged to Him, God caused it to rain here and there, upon one town and one field, and not upon others” (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, The Twelve Minor Prophets, vol.  1 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871], 273). Compare the language of Exod 10:6, 14. 5 Such partial emissions of chaos are amoral—­not immoral—­“evils.” Jon D. Levenson’s classic treatment of the persistence of evil in reality is a valuable resource on this topic. Natural crises return “unpredictably and fiercely” for now, he notes, but at God’s unqualified final victory, “the life-­ sapping forces will at last be eliminated” (Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], 30, see 50). Note that, as in modern parlance, the biblical writers saw no inconsistency in speaking of morally random outbursts of chaos as breathtaking acts of God (see, e.g., Pss 107:24; 135:5–­7; 148:7–­8). In Joel 2:25, God speaks of invading forces of chaos as “my army” even though in 1:6 God shows a clear investment in protecting “my land.” Discussion of these tensions in language resumes under “Literary Character.” 6 For discussion and full bibliography, see Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 201–­6.

301

THE PROPHETS

7 Hugo Gressmann, Der Messias, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 43 (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1929), 135. 8 Lorenz Dürr, Die Stellung des Propheten Ezechiel in der israelitisch-­jüdischen Apokalyptik, Archäologischer Anzeiger 9/1 (Münster, Germany: Aschendorff, 1923), 99; also see John Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture and Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, Biblical Interpretation Series 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 3. On the influence on Joel of Ezekiel’s Gog of Magog texts, see Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38–­48: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 22B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 8–­10. 9 J. B. Phillips, Four Prophets: Amos, Hosea, First Isaiah, Micah: A Modern Translation from the Hebrew (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 89. 10 See Saul M. Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 149–­51. 11 For the details of the clever midrashic interpretation, see Strazicich, Joel’s Use of Scripture, 355–­56.

302

8

Amos

No, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. (Martin Luther King Jr., August 28, 1963; emphasis ours)1

Opening Reflections It was a hot August day, worsened by the humidity that rose from the former marshland upon which Washington, DC, was built, worsened too by the high summer sun that bore down on the heads of the two hundred thousand men and women who had gathered before the Lincoln Memorial. But the spirit of the throng, Blacks and whites together, would not melt, for they all shared a dream. Then up to the podium strode a Baptist minister, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who gave voice to their dream. On that August day, King dreamed of a future . . . when “all of God’s people, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.’” That event was the March on Washington, and it marked the centennial of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, a milestone,

303

THE PROPHETS

Figure 8.1 Stone of Hope, Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, 2011, Washington, DC.

to be sure, but after one hundred years, Blacks still were not free—­a “shameful condition,” as King said. And he condemned America further for defaulting on the promissory notes that are the nation’s Constitution and Declaration of Independence, notes to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of its citizens; “yes, black men as well as white men.” When declaring the nation’s failure to make good on these promissory notes, King invoked the words of the prophet Amos (Amos 5:24), quoted above. Over a year later, in a review not only of the March on Washington but also of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, King again quoted from Amos as he demanded further progress: “The contest is not tranquil and relaxed. The search for a consensus will tend to become a quest for the least common denominator of change. In an atmosphere devoid of urgency, the American people can easily be stupefied into accepting

304

AMOS

slow reform, which in practice would be inadequate reform. ‘Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream,’ said the Prophet Amos. He was seeking not consensus but the cleansing action of revolutionary change. America has made progress toward freedom, but measured against the goal the road ahead is still long and hard.”2 Not only as echoed by King but also today, Amos’s words ring out over and over in the perorations of modern prophets who demand social justice, for more than any other of ancient Israel’s and Judah’s prophets, Amos was the prophet of social justice. King’s use of Amos to fill out his rhetoric is just one example, for Jewish and Christian leaders have long recognized in Amos a distinct, defining call for social justice. However, a look at Amos’s message in his historical context, as we will do here, will reveal that Amos did not hold out hope for revolutionary change, as King held out for his nation. The injustice of which Amos accused Israel could not be cleansed, and he did not call for a revolution. Instead, more like the Philip Sloan song made famous by Barry McGuire, Amos roared forth that Israel was on the “eve of destruction.” It would take centuries, long after Amos’s ministry had become enshrined as a memory, for later theologians to add a final, solitary note of hope to Amos’s eschatological vision. The Prophet Amos In the superscript to his book, we learn that Amos was a shepherd from the area around Tekoa, a Judahite city, about half a day’s hike south from Jerusalem. The confrontation with Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (7:12–­15), further confirms Judah as Amos’s home when he banishes the prophet: “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there.” At the same time, this very text locates Amos’s activity in the northern kingdom, most likely in the southern shrine at Bethel, one of the two national shrines of the kingdom. In fact, the earliest prophecies in the scroll deal exclusively with the northern kingdom, being directed toward its land, its cities, and its people.3 In other words, Amos targeted a foreign nation, for in fact, that

305

THE PROPHETS

is exactly what Israel was to him. It was Judah’s neighboring state that lay immediately to its north. Moreover, just as Israel and its leaders in Samaria and priests at Bethel were strangers to Amos, to Israel and its leaders, Amos was an interloper. This observation means that with the prophet Amos, we encounter something rare in prophetic literature: oracles against a foreign nation uttered directly to that foreign nation. Oracles concerning foreign nations—­that is to say, prophecies that deal with nations other than the prophet’s own—­were a part of ancient prophets’ standard rhetorical arsenal, and hence we find them collected together in almost every prophetic book in the Hebrew Bible.4 They certainly had a long history. In Egypt, archaeologists excavating in the nineteenth century recovered a set of broken clay sherds dating to the Middle Kingdom period. Upon these, known today as the Execration texts, were written the names of Egypt’s enemies. On the other end of the Fertile Crescent, at Mari, the capital city of an eighteenth-­century Mesopotamian nation, prophecies about and against other nations have also been found. The Judahite and Israelite Sitz im Leben of this prophetic form has been a matter of much discussion, but a clear picture remains obscured by time. Some have suggested that they had their place in the royal court, where they ceremonially cursed neighboring treaty partners.5 No matter the origin of the form, oracles against other nations had a long tradition because, quite simply, the actions of other nations, particularly neighboring nations, affected the fate of the king’s and prophet’s own nation. Hence prophets used oracles against foreign nations subtly, as powerful vehicles to pronounce either weal or woe. This means as well that the intended audience was not in the first place the foreign nation named in the oracle but rather the prophet’s own people. Ronald Clements has stated the obvious: “It is hard to see that the function of these prophecies [i.e., prophecies concerning foreign nations] can be the same as to those proclaimed to Israel for the simple reason that these latter were heard by representatives of the people to whom they were addressed, whereas it is difficult to see how this could have been

306

AMOS

true of the prophecies against foreign nations and cities. These were apparently preached so as to be heard by Israelites, and hardly, if at all, by the people whose downfall they proclaimed.”6 In other words, as an important part of prophetic rhetoric, oracles concerning foreign nations were ultimately addressed to the prophet’s own people and ultimately carried a message about the prophet’s own nation (see Ezek 28:25–­26). For example, in Balaam’s prophecies in Numbers (Num 23–­24), Balak was Balaam’s audience, not Israel. But with Amos, the setting was quite different. When studying the prophets, so often we come to feel as though we know them personally, and yet when the data are actually reviewed carefully, they remain shadowy figures, far removed from us, revealing only tantalizing glimpses whenever it seems to serve their purposes. So is the case with Amos. Two passages in the Amos scroll refer to Amos’s profession: the superscript (1:1), which was added by redactors long after Amos had died, and the third-­person narrative of Amaziah’s confrontation with Amos (7:10–­17), which may have been penned during Amos’s life. In the superscript to the book, beyond learning Amos’s hometown, Amos is said to have been “among the shepherds” (bannoqēd). While translated “shepherd” in the NRSV, a nōqēd was a broad term for someone who could have herded livestock, both sheep and cattle, and so a stockman.7 Scholarship has come to realize that a nōqēd was a wealthy rancher, someone who may have had significant holdings (see 2 Kgs 3:4). The colophon to tablet 6 of the Baal Cycle associates nqdm with priests, and an Akkadian text mentions a nqd associated with the temple at Uruk.8 Some have suggested, therefore, that Amos may have even supplied the Jerusalem temple with unblemished animals for the sacrificial system, though this thesis cannot be confirmed.9 In his retort to Amaziah’s charge in 7:14–­15, Amos confirms his profession as a herdsman, using the term ḇôqēr, a term for a cattleman and so a narrower term yet one not contradictory to nōqēd. Amos adds as well that he is a dresser of sycamore trees (bôlēs ŝiqmîm; 7:14; likely Ficus sycomorus, a type of fig tree that grows in the area

307

THE PROPHETS

of the Dead Sea). Richard Steiner has drawn a very clever portrait of Amos as a stockman who followed his flocks to the lower oases in the Judean desert region, where he would buy and harvest the ripe fruit of the sycamore trees while his flock would graze on the fruit that fell to the ground and rotted.10 Curiously, the one profession that Amos repudiates in his confrontation with Amaziah is that of a prophet, using the term nāḇîʾ. We will discuss Amos 7:10–­17 again, but here we want to maintain our focus on the person of Amos. A near consensus has emerged that Amos was not a simple farmer who stepped out from the poorer classes of Judahite society. Quite to the contrary, he was a wealthy businessman with significant holdings, a man who wielded some power and influence in Judah—­though we must not lose sight of the fact that we only read of his interactions in Israel. For this reason, Steiner, in the conclusion to his work, honors Amos with the label “class traitor” because Amos spoke so forcefully to the wealthy class of their excesses.11 The superscription to the scroll, Amos 1:1, contains two time stamps, the first dating the prophet’s activity to the reigns of Uzziah of Judah (785–­760 BCE) and Jeroboam II (788–­748 BCE), the second situating his prophetic message “two years before the earthquake.” The reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II fell in the first half of the eighth century. In Amos’s prophecies generally, we hear no traces of an Assyrian threat, which emerged later that century with Tiglath-­pileser III, or of dynastic instability in Samaria, both of which we hear about in Hosea, who was roughly contemporary with Amos. Most students of Amos, then, conclude that his ministry must have been brought to a halt well short of the demise of the Jehu dynasty in 747 BCE, though the scroll itself certainly contains prophecies that come from the seventh century as well as the exilic/postexilic periods. Many read the other time signature of the superscription, referring to “the earthquake,” as an early indicator that Amos’s work was very brief. Nothing challenges this thesis, and it very well may be that Amos’s ministry was truncated by his expulsion from Israel by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (7:12–­13).

308

AMOS

We have already reviewed the climate of the times in the first half of the eighth century BCE when we introduced Hosea, and we need not repeat those details here. We must, however, emphasize the Zeitgeist that would have pervaded Judah’s ruling elite, priestly and prophetic circles, and wealthy merchant class during that period. Despite being independent states, the theocracies of both Israel and Judah had inherited a long tradition of being ruled by the same Divine King, the Lord. First Saul and then David created a united monarchy that enveloped the various tribes, albeit one that was always tenuous and was soon enough blasted apart by the abuse of royal power on the part of Solomon and the arrogance of his successor, Rehoboam (1 Kgs 11–­12). These monarchies carried forward the traditions that had become authoritative in the tribal league that went before them, traditions that had bound its members together by the common worship of the Divine Warrior, the Lord, at a mobile shrine located at times in Gilgal and then later in Shiloh. Being the children of the same “Divine Parent,” as it were, Judah and Israel engaged in something akin to a sibling rivalry, which always meant that their ruling elites constantly monitored with which earthly dynasty the Divine King was most pleased, as evidence by external blessings. At that time, any priest or priestess worth their allotment of sacred salt would have understood God’s blessings to have been given most abundantly to Samaria.12 And in regard to Amos, who lived with and moved among Judah’s elites, he would have found himself on the losing side of the border. These circumstances merely underscore both what is already obvious and what is hidden in the shadows to the modern reader. Still obvious to us is the reason Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, and Jeroboam II and his royal court in Samaria opposed Amos to his face, purged him from their land, and extradited him back to his home state. More opaque today is the fact that the ruling authorities and cultic functionaries of Jerusalem would have welcomed Amos’s prophecies as a promise that God was turning his face and his blessings toward the south. This reception by Jerusalem’s central authorities explains in

309

THE PROPHETS

part the endurance of Amos’s legacy through the ages—­that is to say, why his prophecies were preserved and remained for later tradents to collect and pass on to future communities of faith. Much has been made about Amos’s rhetorical skills and the caliber of his language. The formulaic quality of his oracles against the foreign nations—­that is, “For three transgressions, indeed for four” (authors’ translation)—­has suggested to some the Sitz im Leben of clan instruction and hence Amos’s application of sapiential traditions. His rhetorical strategy of drawing in the people with four oracles promising the destruction of four neighboring states before then, suddenly, turning upon Israel itself continues to impress readers of the text. Amos commonly incorporates the prophetic messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord” into his speech (1:3, 6, 13; 2:1, 6; 3:11, 12; 5:3, 4, 16; 7:17). Otherwise, scholars have noted the strange absence of important standard prophetic forms typically found in the literature, specifically the bipartite proof saying. Neither does the covenantal lawsuit, the superstructure upon which is built Hosea’s scroll of prophecies (Hos 2:1; 4:1; 9:1; see our discussion above), appear in Amos, which is notable given the fact that Hosea was roughly contemporary with Amos. Amos’s rhetoric, at once singular and effective, has prompted many to accept at face value Amos’s own statements about himself: his remonstrations against any connection with prophetic circles and his insistence instead that he was but a mere herdsman, positioned behind the flock (7:14), who once having heard God’s voice could do nothing other but prophesy (3:8). Scholars accepting of his own rhetoric interpret the peculiarities of Amos’s language as the product of a fiercely individual mind and deeply inspired spirit, speaking truth to power.13 Robert R. Wilson’s seminal 1980 study on the social role of prophets, however, nuances this older view of a prophet as a solitary, isolated individual. Prophets always had a context, Wilson argued, a role to play in society, a group for whom he or she spoke—­one that in turn supported the intermediary emotionally, theologically, and even financially. Such would have been true of Amos, and his defenses before Amaziah begin to take on a Shakespearean quality, looking more

310

AMOS

like hyperbolic protestations, a smoke screen attempting to mask the fact that Amaziah understood Amos better than the herdsman would have liked.14 Even if Amos was not a lone voice crying in the wilderness, we are still left to account for the nature of his language. One factor shaping the prophet’s rhetoric may be his relationship to his audience. As we noted, Amos was a foreigner, working in a foreign land and speaking about but not to the central authorities of Israel. He spoke, rather, to the broader audience of the crowds populated by common villagers. Social injustice within Israelite society made up the content of his speech, which by its nature was universalistic and bypassed the domain of the ruling elites of the northern kingdom. His message of social justice was aimed at the common person because, at least initially, the masses were the ones listening. Wisdom too, a product of natural as opposed to revelatory theology, was universalistic, grounded in the life of the city square. In our detailed discussion of Amos’s speech, we will observe again the brilliance of his tongue, the power of his rhetoric. But at least in part the brilliance of Amos’s speech stemmed from his strategy to empower and engage the common citizen, circumventing the central authorities. With his rhetoric, then, Amos left a legacy, first to a few disciples—­ who were very likely fellow stockmen from Judah—­and then to those handling the Book of the Four and that of the Twelve. Eventually, his legacy reached out through the millennia to prophets of the twentieth century CE. Amos’s legacy was delivered to Martin Luther King Jr., who wove Amos’s singular rhetoric into the cloth of his own powerful oratory, which he delivered to the masses. In ancient Israel, Amos’s oracles to the masses threatened the authorities of Bethel and Samaria. Likewise, in our modern world, King’s orations inspired the throngs to demand from Washington that justice roll down like waters. The Scroll of Amos Dominating the Amos scroll, in various forms, are oracles delivered either explicitly or implicitly as first-­person speeches. Amos 1:3–­2:16

311

THE PROPHETS

Figure 8.2 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 846: Amos 2:6–­12 (LXX). University of Pennsylvania Museum, E3074.

contains a collection of oracles against eight nations, the last two being Judah and Israel, and each one is announced by means of the messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord” (kōh ʾāmar yhwh; 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6). By implication, the prophet is acting as God’s messenger, delivering verbatim the words of his commander. Beginning with chapter 3, Amos commands his audience by means of three imperatives to “Hear!” (šimʿû; second-­masculine plural) a word (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). Again, the text implies the first-­person speech of the prophet. First-­person speech appears again in five visions in 7:1–­9:4. In the first four visions, the prophet reports what the Lord caused him to see: “Thus the Lord God showed me . . .” (kōh hirʾanî ʾădōnāy yhwh; H-stem of rāʾâ; 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1). The culminating vision, 9:1, we hear directly from Amos, “I saw the Lord standing upon the altar” (rāʾîṯî ʾet-­ʾădōnāy niṣṣāḇ ʿal-­ hammizbēaḥ). Only twice does third-­person speech appear in the text: in the superscript (1:1) and in the important biographical report in 7:10–­17. The Lord breaks through and speaks for himself in several places, most notably in the final and only oracle of promise, 9:11–­15.

312

AMOS

Sidebar 8.1: Outline of the Scroll of Amos

I. 1:1–­2: Two superscripts



II. 1:3–­2:16: Oracles against the nations



III. 3:1–­6:14: Three sayings of Amos



IV. 7:1–­9:10: Five visions of Amos



V. 9:11–­15: One final promise

These observations float to the surface three foundational collections of oracles that the text claims for the prophet: the oracles against the nations, 1:3–­2:16; the sayings of Amos, 3:1–­6:14; and the five visions, 7:1–­ 9:10. Certainly, other texts have been interjected into these collections (e.g., 7:10–­17; 8:4–­14; 9:11–­15), but these three provide a framework for the Amos scroll. At different times in the development of the text, the superscriptions of 1:1 and 1:2 introduced one or more of these collections, and the promise of restoration, 9:11–­15, was placed at the end. Over a span of more than two centuries, at least, accruals to the scroll of Amos rendered the final form of the text. Amos 1:3–­2:16: Oracles against the Nations It seems somehow appropriate that a scroll filled with the oracles of a prophet called to deliver the word of his God in a foreign land to a foreign nation begins with a set of oracles against the nations. These oracles are highly stylized and structured with common catchphrases and a set linguistic framework that knits them together, distinguishing them from the rest of the scroll (see sidebar 8.2). Each oracle is introduced with the common prophetic messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord.” This formula is followed in each case by the phrase “For three transgressions of [nation name], and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,” which seems to have its Sitz im Leben in Wisdom literature

313

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 8.2: Table Detailing Amos’s Oracles against the Nations

Group A

Group A

Group B

Group B

Damascus 1:3–­5

Gaza 1:6–­8

Tyre 1:9–­10

Edom 1:11–­12

“For three transgressions and for four”

“For three transgressions and for four”

“For three transgressions and for four”

“For three transgressions and for four”

Short accusation

Short accusation

Longer accusation

Longer accusation

Long judgment

Long judgment

Short judgment

Short judgment

“says the Lord”

“says the Lord”

Group A

Group A

Group B

Group A

Ammon 1:13–­15

Moab 2:1–­3

Judah 2:4–­5

Israel 2:6–­16

“For three transgressions and for four”

“For three transgressions and for four”

“For three transgressions and for four”

“For three transgressions and for four”

Short accusation

Short accusation

Longer accusation

Expansive accusation

Long judgment

Long judgment

Short judgment

Expansive judgment

“says the Lord”

“says the Lord”

“says the Lord”

This chart provides a comparison of the various elements found in the oracles against the nations in Amos 1–­2.

(Prov 6:16–­19; 30:21–­23). Next in each oracle is the accusation, introduced by “because” (ʿal-­), and then the consequential punishment, again headed by a formula: “So I will send a fire” (wešillaḥtî ʾ iľ). Less consistent (and this is significant), a concluding formula, “says the

314

AMOS

They all share common formulae that knit them together. They all have an introductory formula, an accusation, and a judgment. Most noticeably, they are all introduced by the same statement: “For three transgressions and for four.” Despite their similarities, variations appear to have been intentionally set within this common structure and distinguish one group of oracles from another. Thus although they each have an accusation and a judgment, these vary in length and complexity. Only the five oracles against Damascus, Gaza, Ammon, Moab, and Israel are closed with some form of “says the Lord.” What emerge are two groups of oracles. Group A, which includes the oracles against Damascus/Aram, Gaza/Philistia, Ammon, and Moab, is generally attributed to Amos, and these served as precursors to Amos’s real target, Israel. Group B, the oracles against Tyre, Edom, and Judah, were added later, either in the exile or perhaps in the final days of the southern kingdom

Lord” (ʾāmar yhwh; but see ʾāmar ʾăḏōnāy yhwh in 1:8), closes out the oracles against Aram, Philistia, Ammon, and Moab. Despite the common structural features binding this collection together, other subtle yet significant differences in the text separate out two distinct sets of oracles within this unit (see sidebar 8.2). In one group (group A in sidebar 8.2), the four oracles against Damascus, Gaza, Ammon, and Moab all have a short accusation, consisting of the introductory “because,” followed by a statement of a single sin. The punishment, however, is longer. Beginning with the introductory formula “I will send a fire,” each of these four oracles goes on to list towns that will be destroyed, name kings to be exiled, and pronounce death to the people. And as alluded to above, the formula “says the Lord” closes out each of these oracles. A second group of oracles (group B in sidebar 8.2), those against Tyre, Edom, and Judah, reverses these features.

315

THE PROPHETS

These three oracles have longer, quite specific accusations. Tyre did not remember an international alliance (a “covenant of brotherhood”; 1:9). Edom pursued his brother with the sword (1:11). Judah rejected the law of the Lord, just as the people’s ancestors did (2:4). In contrast, the punishment is perfunctory. God will send a fire, and it will devour the strongholds of Tyre (1:10), or Bozrah (1:12), or Jerusalem (2:5). Moreover, each oracle lacks the concluding formula “says the Lord” found in the set of four oracles already mentioned. Stylistically, then, there are two sets of oracles against the nations, one set against the four nations Damascus, Gaza, Ammon, and Moab and another against Tyre, Edom, and Judah. The ancient reader would never have missed seeing these differences or that there were two subcollections of oracles within the collection. In terms of explaining this phenomenon, scholars generally understand the group of four (group A)—­that is, the oracles against Damascus, Gaza, Ammon, and Moab—­to be the earliest layer, attributable to Amos in the first half of the eighth century BCE. The second group of three (group B), scholars date on the basis of content to the exile, or perhaps the final years of the nation of Judah, as the Deuteronomistic Tradition’s explanation for the fall of Jerusalem. Only Shalom Paul has mounted a case for attributing the entire lot to the eighth-­ century prophet.15 In the earliest collection of oracles, the eighth-­century prophet Amos selected traditional enemies of Israel—­specifically the nations Aram, Philistia, Ammon, and Moab, which sat on Israel’s circumference—­to lead up to his case against Israel. Yet not only are the enemies traditional; their crimes seem to be dated—­even in Amos’s day, and with the passing of time, they had become generic, yesterday’s news, so to speak.16 The accusations dealt with atrocities committed on the international stage, and only two of the outrages named were committed against Israel (1:3, 13). No specific law code was broken, but rather it was the common laws of decency that were abrogated. These observations are quite telling, for while Amos’s Israelite audience, to whom he addressed these oracles, would have been happy to hear of the Lord’s ire against these neighbors

316

AMOS

and their impending demise, the accusations would have sounded a bit distant and Amos himself somewhat out of touch. When Amos turns his attention to the fifth and final nation of his peroration—­that is, the northern kingdom, Israel—­he abandons international affairs and turns to domestic concerns, for he has now hit his target. In 2:6, when Amos states the cause for which the Lord will not revoke his punishment, the malefactors he names commit their crimes within the boundaries of Israel and against their fellow citizens. Amos names the powerful of Israel’s society as the ones who assault and abuse those weaker than they (vv. 6b–­7a). In his oracle against Israel, he appeals to Israel’s salvation history, in which the Lord elected Israel over the Amorites and brought them into the land by means of the exodus and the wilderness wanderings (2:9–­11). Nowhere here does Amos accuse Israel of mistreating an international neighbor or committing an atrocity against another nation, not even against Judah. When Amos aimed his accusations at Israel, the personal nature of his attack could not have been misconstrued by his audience. They felt immediately the arrows that he shot at the heart of their nobility. This

Sidebar 8.3: The Yavneh Yam Letter In 2:8, Amos accuses the callous, wealthy class of the northern kingdom as follows: “They lay themselves down beside every altar, on garments taken in pledge.” It may be easy for the modern reader to gloss over the significance of this practice and the injustice it signaled. The practice that Amos cites is forbidden by specific laws now found in Exodus 22:26–­27 and Deuteronomy 24:12–­13. Behind Amos 2:8 and the laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy was a very well-­established practice of how the poor would provide collateral when they must take out a loan or handle in trust someone else’s asset, such as gathering in a harvest. A letter dating to the end

317

THE PROPHETS

of the seventh century BCE, known as the Yavneh Yam letter, provides a sad example of how this practice was at the time abused by the wealthy: Let my lord the governor pay heed to the words of your servant. Several days ago, your servant was harvesting in Ḥaṣar-­Asam. The work went as usual and your servant completed harvesting and stored his quota of grain prior to the beginning of the Sabbath. . . . Despite the fact that your servant had completed harvesting and storing his quota, Hoshaiahu, son of Shobai, kept your servant’s cloak. He has held my cloak for several days. All my fellow workers will testify—­all those who work in the heat of the day will surely certify—­that I am not guilty of any breach of covenant. Please instruct my supervisor to return my cloak either in fulfillment of the law or as an act of mercy. Please do not remain silent, and leave your servant without his cloak.17

The complaint found in this letter, whether it appealed directly to the regulation now found in Exodus and Deuteronomy, reflects a social ethic commonly held and accepted by Israelite society. Amos amplifies his accusation of cultic violations by layering on a second element. Not only do the wealthy worship at unsanctioned shrines; they do so (almost literally) on the backs of the poor.

contrast between his treatment of the nations and Israel sets in high relief the rhetorical savvy of this particular shepherd of Tekoa. Even though his accusations took on a domestic focus, Amos’s indictments against Israel were emblematic of ethical failures that breached standards of justice shared generally by both the northern and the southern kingdoms—­indeed, issues of justice that were (and still are) shared by all civilizations. In his oracle against Israel, Amos does not bring a lawsuit (rîb) against Israel based on the breaking of a certain law code or a covenant as Hosea did.18 Amos’s charge was that of the oppression of the poor by the powerful. Who in the world would approve of selling the righteous for silver or trampling the poor into the dust of the earth (2:6–­7)? No society, ancient or modern, condones a father and son engaging in sex with the same woman.19 The violations

318

AMOS

Amos cites may be reflected in some of the laws (e.g., holding on to a garment taken in pledge; see Exod 22:26; Deut 24:12; and see sidebar 8.3 on the Yavneh Yam letter), but Amos’s emphasis in verses 6b–­8 is neither on lying down beside every altar nor on drinking in the house of their God but rather on the ethical violation of wresting a garment away from the poor and purchasing wine with funds unjustly acquired from those at a legal disadvantage. Yes, laws were broken, but these were laws only because they stated an ethical standard to which Israelite society should adhere—­indeed, to which all societies should adhere. Hence even though Amos addressed accusations against his sister nation, he still painted with a broad brush, decrying all of Israel as an unjust society. Amos’s accusations reflect a level of opacity that we might expect from an outsider, someone such as a southerner from Tekoa. The text does not give a setting for Amos’s deliverance of his oracles against the four nations and Israel (i.e., group A). Nevertheless, we may be able to propose a few logical deductions and discern certain parameters for their deliverance. For Amos’s oration to achieve its end, it needed to be heard by a crowd. Amos needed the emotion of the masses. Hence a festival setting or at the very least a congested open market or square seems probable, for here would be a setting in which Amos could leverage the emotions of the common citizens and put pressure upon Israel’s authorities. Some have suggested a festival during which the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18–­20) was celebrated, but this should probably be left unsettled (see the discussion below). Amos 7:12–­13 places Amos in Bethel, the “king’s sanctuary,” and we have little evidence of the prophet traveling beyond this border shrine. Travel was difficult in Amos’s day, especially for a wealthy landowner who could not spare many days away from his business interests. We remain vague on the specifics, and these reflections are admittedly speculative. Still within limits, perhaps these thoughts, even though broad, lend coloring and texture to these oracles. As noted above (p. 315), most all scholars agree that the three oracles against Tyre, Edom, and Judah date to the late monarchy or exile

319

THE PROPHETS

Figure 8.3 A script tracing of the Yavne-­Yam ostracon, also known as the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon.

and present a theological reflection upon Judah’s final days. The addition of these three pronouncements, then, likely reflects the editorial work of the Deuteronomistic School at the time of the exile (or perhaps in the waning days of the southern kingdom20), which worked to include Amos in the Book of the Four. The message at this point in the redaction process seeks to explain why Judah, like Israel, had come to a complete and utter end.

320

AMOS

Amos 3:1–­6:14: Three Sayings of Amos The second major section of the Amos scroll collects prophetic units varying in length, style, and content. They nevertheless continue on the major theme observed in his oracles against the nations and Israel: the social injustice carried out by the northern kingdom has irretrievably doomed the nation. The command “Hear this word!” (šimʿû [ʾeṯ-­]haddāḇār hazzeh; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1) heads up three groups of sayings (Amos 3:1–­15; 4:1–­13; 5:1–­ 6:14). The first subsection (3:1–­15) is directed to the people of Israel (benê yiśrāʾēl) and contains within it several different rhetorical units (3:2, 3–­8, 9–­15). Amos 4:1–­13, the second subsection, addresses the citizens of Samaria, derisively portrayed as a herd of cattle lounging blissfully in the lush pastures of Bashan (pārôṯ habbāšan). Although the text initially mocks the women of Samaria, their husbands (ʾădōnêhen, following the textual emendation recommended by BHS)—­that is to say, the men of Samaria’s noble class—­are soon enough included among the herd, for they are ordered to bring to their wives drink (4:1). Verse 4:5, the final verse of the introduction to this saying, closes with “O people of Israel!” (benê yiśrāʾēl), making it clear that this saying was addressed to all the citizens of Israel, even the very last one (ʾaḥărîṯken; v. 2)! The final grouping (5:1–­6:14) announces a lament (qînāh) to be raised over the house of Israel (bêt yiśrāʾēl). Twice Amos utters the exclamatory “Alas!” (hôy; 5:18; 6:1), the first time for those who mistake the Day of the Lord for a day of victory, the second time for those who mistake wealth and social status for salvation. No identifiable setting emerges from these sayings, though perhaps the second set (4:1–­13) was delivered at Samaria. Nothing prevents these words from having been uttered by Amos himself, and they are to be included along with his oracles against the nations and five visions in his oeuvre. The first word of the Lord that Amos delivered to the people of Israel (benê yiśrāʾēl; Amos 3:1–­15) may contain elements that were originally independent oracles, yet in its final form, be it the product of Amos or later editors, the arrangement of the text permits us now to read it as

321

THE PROPHETS

a cohesive unit. Verses 3:1–­2 begin by describing Israel as an extended family, a clan (mišpāḥ; v. 1), known exclusively by the Lord from all of the extended families of the soil (mišpeḥôṯ hāʾădāmāh; v. 2). As the nation known by the Lord, he will visit upon the people of Israel (ʾep̱ qōd ʿălêkem) their iniquities. Verses 3:3–­8 present another chance to admire Amos’s rhetorical skills. In a series of questions, he announces a string of inevitabilities—­and all of them dire! Equally inevitable, he is compelled to prophesy the Lord’s dreadful roar (v. 8), this roar being the word Amos brings to the people of Israel (3:1). It seems most natural to read verses 3–­8 as an elaborate introduction to the announcement of “disaster that will befall” the strongholds of Samaria and Bethel. This saying of Amos concludes with the theme of being known by God and so is similar to how it began. While the Lord knows the family of Israel (yādaʿtî; 3:2), the people of Israel do not know (yādʿû) how “to do what is right” (3:10). In 3:1, Amos acknowledges the Lord’s special relationship to Israel that is grounded in the exodus out of Egypt (and see 2:10; 4:10). Covenant is not stated explicitly in Amos as it is in Hosea, but it is nevertheless assumed (e.g., the “futility curses,” Amos 5:11). Already we have seen in the oracles against the nations that Amos lumped Israel together with other nations, leveling out any sense of superiority Israel may have felt over its neighbors.21 In 9:7, in an amazing statement, Amos takes on the voice of God and states that the Lord equates Israel with the Ethiopians and their exodus out of Egypt with similar salvation events of the Philistines and Arameans. Yet in all of these passages, the exodus serves as the reason God has noticed Israel and its sin. Much to the contrary of being a protection against God’s wrath, Israel’s special relationship with God carried with it an ethical mandate, the abrogation of which necessitated the nation’s end (3:2; 9:8). Amos—­while cognizant of the exodus tradition, the covenant, and Israel’s election—­nevertheless felt compelled to announce the annulment of its elected status, the reversal of God’s salvation and Israel’s ultimate end (8:1–­3; 9:1–­5). The second of Amos’s sayings (Amos 4:1–­13) is addressed to Samaria, as explained above, but so all-­encompassing is Amos’s condemnation

322

AMOS

that he knits into his oracle as well the national shrine at Bethel and the ancient sacred space of Gilgal (v. 4). In essence, the text excoriates the political capital, Samaria; the national shrine (closest to Amos), Bethel; and the ancient, traditional cultic center, Gilgal. The subtlety of the rhetoric only barely peeks through the translation to the modern reader, but once observed, it is sublime. If read in the Hebrew, this second saying beckons to its audience by use of assonance: “Pārôṯ habbāšān ʾăšer behar šōmrôn.” Additionally, the body of this saying, found in verses 6–­13, presents a fivefold accusation built upon covenantal curses, punctuated by the closing “yet you did not return to me, says the Lord” (welōʾ-­šaḇtem ʿāḏay neʾûm yhwh; vv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11). This fivefold structure appears also in the oracles against the four foreign nations plus Israel (Amos 1–­2) and the five visions (7:1–­9; 8:1–­3; 9:1–­10). Yet beyond a stylistic connection with Amos’s visions, the sayings also contain an irony. In the collection of visions, the Lord relented twice from punishing Israel (7:3, 6), but here in the sayings, the people of Israel, quite to the contrary, never once turned, and Israel therefore must prepare to meet its God (v. 12). The third saying of Amos is a lament over the northern kingdom (“house of Israel,” 5:1; bêṯ yiśrāʾēl). After this heading, 5:2 introduces what follows, stating the reason for the call to lament: “Fallen, no more to rise, is maiden Israel.” Two large complexes of text follow: 5:4–­17, characterized by the refrain “Seek . . . live!” (5:4, 6, 14), and 5:18–­6:14, characterized by the exclamation “Alas!” (hôy; 5:18; 6:1, 4). The redaction history of this section is complex and remains vague, and we refer readers to the commentaries for detailed arguments. Within this section, Amos wails first for those who desired the Day of the Lord (5:18). This announcement has attracted a lot of scholarly attention, for it is the earliest mention of the Day of the Lord in the literature, our earliest evidence of this festival and its significance for Israel. In the early part of the twentieth century, scholars saw in the Day of the Lord a one-­time eschatological event, bringing universal salvation. This conclusion was influenced by other references, such as Joel 1:15–­16 and 2:1–­17, but such passages most likely date to the postexilic

323

THE PROPHETS

period, reflecting a later reception of the Day of the Lord in the tradition. In the 1980s, Yair Hoffmann and A. Joseph Everson, working independently, both demonstrated that in the preexilic period, so in Amos’s time, the Day of the Lord was not a one-­time event but rather individual events celebrated as moments when the Lord, in the role of Divine Warrior, brought victory to Israel. In the preexilic period, it did not carry with it any notion of universal salvation.22 Similarly, roughly a century later than Amos and in the royal city of Jerusalem, Zephaniah also utilized the Day of the Lord (Zeph 1:7–­14; 2:1–­3), drawing upon the same preexilic tradition as Amos for the purposes of his message to his audience (see our discussion, p. 437–39). Returning to Amos, the prophet characterizes his audience as desiring the Day of the Lord, for in their traditions, it meant the Lord’s victory over his and presumably Israel’s enemies. To Amos it fell to expose the scandal that was the people’s confidence in the Day and to lament the end of the house of Israel, for alas! they had become the enemy of the Lord, “fallen, no more to rise” (5:2). Amos’s characterization and castigation of his northern audience are based in this sayings section, as it was in the oracle against Israel, upon social injustices. Of the house of Israel, Amos says that it turns justice to wormwood (5:7). “Establish justice in the gate” (5:15), Amos demands, equating this with seeking good and not evil. At the conclusion of the disturbing description of the Day of the Lord, Amos urges his audience to “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-­flowing stream” (5:24), the words so famously restated by Martin Luther King Jr. at the great civil rights rally of August 1963, with which we opened this chapter. As presented in the previous section, Amos’s accusations were general, not specific to the laws or legal precedents of the northern kingdom, reflecting the fact that Amos was a foreigner. No matter the cause of Amos’s calls for justice, his words remain canonical for the communities of faith that still treasure them, a call to the wealthy and powerful to treat the poor and powerless justly. For the oracles against the four foreign nations and Israel (Amos 1:3–­8; 1:13–­2:3; 2:6–­16), we could not identify a specific setting,

324

AMOS

though the oracles demanded a public setting, such as a festival or a busy plaza, one in which Amos could incite the masses as a means to reach the authorities. Similarly, we cannot specify a setting for Amos’s three sayings, other than to one that would alert the citizens of Israel (the “people of Israel” [benê yiśrāʾēl]; 3:1) to the injustices of the nobility and ruling classes (4:1; 5:1). The content of these sayings agrees with that found in the earliest layers of Amos 1–­2: the Lord will turn his wrath upon Israel for the people’s failure to secure justice for the marginalized of their society. Nothing argues against Amos having delivered these sayings along with his oracles against the four nations and Israel, for they announced merely in another form the same message found in the earliest layer of Amos 1–­2. Again, Amos’s mission to the northern kingdom seems to have been very brief, perhaps cut short by Bethel’s central authorities (Amos 7:12). To his oracles against the four nations and Israel, then, we add these three sayings from Amos 3–­6, and we now turn to yet another of the prophet’s collections, Amos’s five visions. Amos 7:1–­9:10: Five Visions of Amos The third large set of texts in the Amos scroll is characterized by the fourfold heading “This is what the Lord God showed me” (kōh hirʾanîy ʾădōnāy yhwh wehinnēh; 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1). An alternate heading introduces Amos’s final vision: “I saw the Lord standing beside the altar” (rāʾîtî ʾeṯ-­ʾădōnāy niṣṣāb ʿal-­hammizbēaḥ; 9:1). With the first two visions, Amos protests and calls upon the Lord’s compassion: “How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (7:2, 5), and in each case, the Lord relents (the perfect form of the N-stem of nḥm; 7:3, 6). Beginning with the third vision, however, the formulaic structure changes. A new element in the form of a question—­“Amos, what do you see?”—­is inserted into the vision reports (7:8; 8:2). Moreover, Amos does not petition the Lord, nor does the Lord relent. Instead, the refrain “I will never again pass [Israel / my people] by” is spoken by the Lord in both the third and the fourth visions (7:8; 8:2).

325

THE PROPHETS

With the fifth vision, instead of reporting out on a vision, Amos draws the reader in by addressing his audience directly, switching from the H-stem of rʾh (to see) to the G-stem. With this little maneuver, Amos signals that the vision cycle has come to its culmination with this fifth vision, just as the oracles against the nations found their target with the fifth and final oracle against Israel. And so devastating to Amos is this culminating sight, for beside the altar is the Lord commanding that the temple crumble upon the heads of the people, and of any survivors, the Lord himself will dispatch so that “not one of them shall flee away; not one of them shall escape” (9:1). It is incredible to consider that what Amos saw came to pass. If the note in the superscription can be trusted, Amos spoke two years prior to “the earthquake” (note the definite article, 1:1). The vision of the threshold of a stone temple collapsing upon the officiants accurately describes what would have taken place during an earthquake. Then, for the surviving elite, just a few decades later, they would have been slain by the sword of the Assyrian kings who conquered the land. As we noted in regard to Hosea, Amos prophesied at a time when the northern kingdom was at its zenith. For Amos to have prophesied its demise at this very time—­and then for the nation to have been destroyed just a few decades later, punctuated by the human carnage that would have entailed and the fact that Amos’s vision presaged so accurately what would come—­such a combination of factors would have identified him as a true prophet in the eyes of the people. Hosea and Amos both may have served as the archetypes for the test of a true prophet, now found in the law over the prophets (Deut 18:21–­22). As already observed with the oracles against the nations, the visions move toward a crescendo as they progress. The first vision observes a plague of locusts falling upon the produce of the land. In the second vision, fire destroys both the chaotic waters (tehôm rabbāh) and Israel’s assigned space (haḥēleq), hence a merism is formed, stretching from the most chaotic to the most ordered space. With the third vision, it is the Lord’s people, Israel (ʿammî yiśrāʾēl), who will suffer. The image of “plumb line” (so the NRSV) does not quite replicate the sense

326

AMOS

of the Hebrew phrase ḥômaṯ ʾănāk, translated literally as “a wall of tin.” The problem is that the word ʾănāk only appears here, and while increasingly scholars are in agreement upon the translation “tin,” it remains unclear what a “wall of tin” means, or why the Lord is holding tin, or what is the significance of tin being in the midst of the Lord’s people in Israel. More recent suggestions include a bronze weapon, perhaps a sword ( Jörg Jeremias); a metaphor for the fixed quality of Amos’s prophetic message (Göran Eidevall); the vulnerability of the people, since tin is a soft, perishable metal (Shalom Paul); and grief, based on a wordplay with groaning.23 However enigmatic ʾănāk may be, the context makes it clear that God is dangling an ominous, threatening fate over the heads of his people. The fourth vision incorporates a play on the word qāyiṣ, “summer fruit,” which is used to announce the coming of Israel’s end, qēṣ. The songs of the temple (hêkāl) will be wailed on account of all the dead bodies (see Ezek 9:5–­6). This vision recalls Amos’s third saying (5:1–­6:14), which he labeled a lament. But with the fifth vision, the series reaches its crescendo. Amos is not asked what he sees; he reports it—­a vision of the Lord destroying the shrine. It is important for a proper understanding of Amos that his final three visions conflate the destruction of the northern kingdom’s sacred spaces (7:9: “high places of Isaac . . . sanctuaries of Israel” [bāmôṯ yiśḥāq ûmiqdeśê yiśrāʾēl]; 8:3; 9:1) with the death of the king (7:9) and the people (7:8; 8:2–­3; 9:1). The end, for Amos, was comprehensive. The earthly regent and the citizens of Israel will all be brought to their end with the withdrawal of the Divine King from the northern kingdom effected by the destruction of their sacred spaces. With his five visions, Amos reiterated his previously repeated announcement of Israel’s eschaton (see 4:12; 5:2). Within the records that remain to us, Amos was the first to announce what would happen in the end to Israel, and as it turned out, Amos was right. Preexilic eschatology has a much different quality than that which we know from apocalyptic eschatology. Apocalyptic eschatology is cosmic in scope, bringing universal salvation and final vindication to the righteous and death to the wicked. It restores paradise. Stephen Cook has

327

THE PROPHETS

pointed out that in the preexilic period, an eschaton is not merely an end but rather the closure of a period that allowed for a new beginning.24 In the eighth century, Israel’s and Judah’s intellectuals understood history to be divided into periods, each with a beginning and an end, concatenated one after another. Hence when God opens the gates of the dome, allowing the waters of the flood to invade created space, Noah was six hundred years old (i.e., 12 × 50; Gen 7:11). The time that the Israelites lived in Egypt spanned 430 years (Exod 12:41). From the exodus to the building of the temple was 480 years (1 Kgs 6:1). The periodization may vary, according to tradition, and no one time frame seems to have survived and dominated the final text of the Hebrew Bible.25 Ezekiel seems to have thought in terms of a 430-­year period (= 390 + 40; Ezek 4:4–­8). Similarly, the Damascus Document references a period of 390 years.26 We have no evidence to know how Amos may have divided up history, but he nevertheless foretold the end of the era of Israel, of Israel’s eschaton. Therefore, while Amos’s announcement of the end of Israel was disastrous for Jeroboam, Amaziah, and the priesthood of the northern kingdom, there lay hidden in Amos’s message of Israel’s end a latent message of a new beginning. In the eighth century BCE, as previously outlined, the northern kingdom dominated the southern tribe of Judah, and any theologian of the day would have attributed their success to the efficacy of the shrines and high places and national sanctuaries of Israel. The northern cultus is the very institution that Amos attacked in his prophecies, specifically the subject of his last three visions (7:9; 8:3; 9:1). By implication, then, the institution to gain from the fall of the northern sanctuaries would be their rival, the temple in Jerusalem!27 Recall from the introduction to this chapter that oracles against the nations were typically addressed to the prophet’s own people and could carry a very sophisticated, very subtle theological message. Amos was unique in that his oracles were addressed first to a foreign audience, that of the people of Israel. Yet even then, his oracles communicated a message to the sanctuary of his home state, the Jerusalem temple. Throughout our discussion of Amos, we have noted the power

328

AMOS

of his rhetoric, carried often by the structure of his words, which, in the cases of the oracles against the four nations and Israel and his five visions, grew into a crescendo against Israel. The complex structure of his oracles, then, implies writing, which allowed them to be heard, studied, and treasured ultimately by the priests in Jerusalem, who, we may recall as well, may have been his customers who purchased his livestock for their sacrifices. Long after his death, an early collection of Amos’s words were incorporated into the Book of the Four, which we date to the late monarchic period and argue carried a Deuteronomistic message. To arrive at this time, Amos’s message passed through the hands of scribes and priests and officials who lived, worked, thought, and argued during the time of the Deuteronomic reform. At the heart of this reform, and therefore central to these discussions, was the centralization of worship in Jerusalem. Perhaps more needs to be made of the role that Amos’s prophecies played in this argument among these intellectual elites who would have had Amos’s words at their disposal, for not only did he address the theodical question raised by the fall of the north; tacitly, his message also announced God’s preference for Jerusalem. Later Additions to the Amos Scroll Amos’s prophetic ministry has every appearance of being short and his prophetic product being limited to roughly the three collections we have just discussed. Additions to this basic layer were made over time, and we mention some of the most significant below, for careful attention to the material reveals to us, even if only inadequately, something about the history of the religion of the ancient Israelites. Amos 1:2 Verse 1:2 of the Amos scroll is often referred to as the motto or leitmotif or overture for the scroll of Amos’s prophecies.28 The language is poetic and reflects the theophanic traditions of the Jerusalem temple

329

THE PROPHETS

cult (see Pss 29:3–­9; 50:1–­3). The attachment to Zion and Jerusalem is precisely what scholars find to be so odd about this heading, for among Amos’s prophecies, neither toponym plays a role in the early layer of the text. Consequently, many scholars deem Amos 1:2 to have been an exilic or postexilic reflection upon the fall of Jerusalem. The language of Amos 1:2, however, may not be so far out of character. First, in our discussion above of Amos’s announcement of the eschaton for the northern kingdom, we noted that Amos’s prophecies implied future blessings upon Jerusalem’s temple on Mount Zion. This is precisely what 1:2 announces. Second, peppered throughout Amos’s prophecies is the royal title for the Lord—­“Lord, God of Hosts” (3:13; 4:13; 5:14, 15, 16; 5:27; 6:8, 14; 9:5)—­which had its home in the Jerusalem temple. Amos’s use of this royal title and its home within the Zion traditions may have served for Amaziah as potent evidence of Amos’s position within Judahite society (7:12–­13). Moreover, 1:2 echoes 3:8: “The lion has roared; who will not fear?” If, with the majority of scholar­ship, this motto is attributed to the tradents of Amos’s words, the content of 1:2 continues to be true to the message of the prophet. Amos 1:1 The present superscript heading up the scroll of Amos was added at a time when the three collections were combined onto a single scroll, perhaps at the time that Amos was folded into the Book of the Four. In contrast to the first-­person speech of the three earliest layers of text, this superscript is third-­person speech: “The words of Amos” (diḇrê ʿāmôs). This brief title may have originally headed the sayings section of Amos, chapters 3–­6, and may go back to the hand of Amos and his band of followers. The present superscript contains two relative clauses, marked by the relative pronoun ʾăšer. The first ʾăšer clause further modifies Amos, identifying him with the herdsmen from the Tekoa area. The second ʾăšer clause modifies “The words” (diḇrê), its verb now describing these words as a vision, “which he saw” (ʾăšer ḥāzāh). These two relative clauses may provide a clue to the growth of the Amos

330

AMOS

scroll. Taking the second relative clause into consideration, a certain disconnect exists between the initial title, “The words of Amos,” and the action of the verb, “which he saw.”29 This relative clause may have been added at a time when the five visions were included in the Amos scroll that also included the oracles against the foreign nations into this collection. Now considering the first ʾăšer clause, it includes biographical information about Amos, connecting it with 7:10–­17 (see our discussion immediately below). Additionally, two time stamps are found in the superscript, one setting Amos broadly in the years of the overlapping reigns of Uzziah (787–­736 BCE) and Jeroboam II (787–­747 BCE), the second narrowly dating his prophecies two years prior to an event that apparently every reader of the scroll knew, a momentous earthquake. This second date certified Amos as a true prophet, and most scholars view this as the earlier of the two dates. Moreover, that Amos prophesied two years prior to an earthquake might imply that his prophetic activity was very brief, perhaps a few months or a year (see 3:8; 7:14). Setting Amos within the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II reflects Deuteronomistic traditions, placing this addition in the exilic period. Amos 7:10–­17 This brief narrative interrupts the first-­person report by Amos of his visions with a third-­person report about a confrontation between Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, and Amos. This passage, then, appears to be a later insertion, placed after the third vision, immediately at the point when the Lord announced to Amos his decision never to pass by his people again and to make the high places and sanctuaries desolate. Although these verses present a break in the cycle of visions, nothing indicates that it was not an authentic report of an actual event. What can be learned from the scene of an ancient confrontation? First, while addressing a public audience, it was the authorities of the northern kingdom, voiced by the priest of Bethel, who found offense. Second, the royal and priestly authorities of Israel understood Amos clearly; he prophesied Israel’s eschaton (v. 11). Third, Amaziah accused Amos of

331

THE PROPHETS

Figure 8.4 The judgment of the prophet Amos against Amaziah, the priest of Bethel (Amos 7:17). Wood engraving published in 1886 CE.

being in the service of Judah, perhaps even acting in an official capacity (“earn your bread there,” v. 12). In this regard, Robert R. Wilson has suggested that a seer (ḥōzeh) was a central prophet, a paid counselor to the royal and priestly authorities in Jerusalem.30 Amaziah was in essence revoking Amos’s diplomatic papers and expelling him from the country, as still happens today. The fourth point to be made is that Amos’s defense before Amaziah is strange yet perhaps for that very reason quite revealing. Amos does not deny being a “seer” (ḥōzeh), but rather he denies being a “prophet” (nāḇîʾ; v. 14) or even a member of a prophetic fraternity (“a prophet’s son,” v. 14; ḇen-­nāḇîʾ ). A nāḇîʾ became in the Hebrew Bible a general term for all sorts of intermediaries from across the spectrum of ancient

332

AMOS

Israelite society. However, in the ninth to eighth centuries, it could also have a very specific meaning, being associated with a particular band of prophets who are referred to in the text as “the sons of the prophets” (ḇenê-­hanneḇîʾîm; 1 Kgs 20:35). In these texts, this company served as a support group to Elijah and Elisha and was revered by the later Deuteronomistic Historians. They are portrayed as always playing the role of gadfly to the authorities in Samaria and were, it would seem, a peripheral group in the northern kingdom. By distancing himself from this group, is Amos attempting to disassociate himself from a political opponent or even a particular political position, known by Amaziah, Jeroboam II, and the politicos of the northern kingdom? Or is he trying to sidestep Amaziah’s accusation altogether? Whatever the case, Amos separates himself from any identifiable party and instead rests his message of doom solely upon the authority of the Lord (vv. 14b–­15). Amos 9:11–­15: One Final Promise In a scroll that declared nothing but the eschaton of Israel, 9:11–­15 startle the reader with one final twist. Quite surprisingly, these verses declare the sole statement of salvation in the entire scroll. Salvation will take the form of the reparation to the throne of a scion of David (v. 11) and the conquest of Edom (v. 12). These are themes of the postexilic community, which gave hope to the literati of Jerusalem at a time when it was a forgettable capital of a provincial temple-­state that existed under the aegis of Persia. We can observe that at the conclusion of each prophetic scroll of the Book of the Four, in which doom upon God’s people predominates, a salvation oracle was added (Hos 14:4–­8; Mic 7:14, 18, 20; Zeph 3:7–­20). All has not already been lost to the people of the Lord by their ancestors. This layer of redaction affirms that the proverb “the parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” was indeed false, as propounded by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel ( Jer 31:27–­30; Ezek 18:1–­4). This generation of the community of faith will be held responsible for its own actions and is called anew to choose obedience and life (see Deut 30:15–­22). Amos 9:11–­15 urged

333

THE PROPHETS

the community of faith that inherited the Amos scroll to obey the Lord, which meant justice for the poor, weak, and marginalized in society. Closing Reflections Too far away in time and space for us to fully grasp, a prosperous rancher from the village of Tekoa traveled north, to a foreign nation, to another king and a strange priesthood—­the leaders of a theocracy—­with whom he had no relationship and to whom he did not owe any allegiance. There, he told them of their end. This end would be brought first by a natural disaster, an earthquake, but eventually and more fully through the violence of rape, warfare, exile, and death—­all on account of the social injustice rife within their land, exhibited by their treatment of the impoverished citizens oppressed by the wealthy nobility. And Amos was right. Israel’s end came to pass. Too far away in time and space for Amos to have imagined, an educated Black man from the middle-­class neighborhood of Sweet Auburn in Atlanta marched north to announce to the president and the leaders of a democracy the social injustices being perpetrated upon the Black citizens of the land by the Jim Crow laws that institutionalized the segregation of society into whites and Blacks. During the in-­between times and spanning the geographical distance, Amos’s disciples were the first to pass on his words. Then the redactors of the Book of the Four reapplied and embellished his words further, followed soon enough by the Book of the Twelve. They handed Amos’s work on further to new schools of scribes and Masoretes and monks of various communities of faith. Then again in 1963, to the centers of power in Washington, DC, King vocalized Amos’s now authoritative proclamation once more: No, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

334

AMOS

Notes 1 All quotes from “I Have a Dream” were taken from Martin Luther King Jr., “I Have a Dream,” in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World, ed. James M. Washington (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 101–­6. 2 Martin Luther King Jr., “Let Justice Roll Down,” Nation, March 15, 1965, https://​www​.thenation​.com/​article/​society/​let​-justice​-roll​-down​-2/. 3 The text specifies the entire land or nation/house of Israel in 1:2; 2:6–­16; 5:1–­2, 4; the people of Israel in 3:1, 12; 7:14; Samaria in 3:9; 4:1; 6:1; Bethel in 3:14; 4:4; 5:4–5, 6; sanctuaries of Israel in 7:9; Dan in 8:14; and Carmel in 1:2 and 9:3. By contrast, an oracle directed against Judah is found only in 2:4–­5, and Zion is mentioned once in the imprecation in 6:1. Amos 9:11–­15, a passage generally agreed to be a late addition, promises salvation to the booth of David. Although Amos’s ire fell most heavily upon the northern kingdom, to the extent that Amos understood the people as a single theological entity, his social critique applied equally as well to Judah, which was how later readers read Amos’s words. 4 In addition to Amos 1–­2, collections of oracles against foreign nations appear in the following prophetic passages: Isa 13–­23, Jer 46–­51, Ezek 25–32, Obadiah, Nah 2–3, Zeph 2:4–15, and Zech 9:1–8. Individual oracles concerning foreign nations are also scattered throughout prophetic texts and narratives (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:1–­28). Books that do not contain collections are Hosea, Micah, and the postexilic works, Haggai and Malachi. 5 By way of example, see Christensen’s survey of the literature on pp. 1–­15 (Duane L. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy, HDR 3 [Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975], 17–­57). 6 R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 61–­62. 7 Richard C. Steiner, Stockmen from Tekoa, Sycomores from Sheba: A Study of Amos’ Occupations, CBQMS 36 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2003), 74. 8 See rb khnm rb nqdm (“chief of priests, chief of ‘nqdm’”), CTA, 6:54–­55, and footnote 283 in COS 1.86, p. 273. CTA, 82:B12 references the long term leased land of nqdm. See the discussion in Steiner, Stockmen, 70–­87. 9 See the hypothesis of Arvid Kapelrud, Central Ideas in Amos (Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1971), 5–­7, 68–­69; and the caution by Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 270. 10 Steiner, Stockmen, 109–­15. 11 Steiner, 116–­19: “Thus, in pursuing the call to prophesy, Amos was not only neglecting his livelihood, he was undermining it as well” (p. 119). Steiner adopts the label “class traitor” from Marx on p. 118. At the same time, Wilson suggests that Amos’s social background helps explain why

335

THE PROPHETS

key elements of Jerusalemite “Zion” theology appear in the prophet’s oracles (e.g., Amos 1:2; 3:8; 6:5). 12 Through the ninth and into the eighth centuries (the dynasties of Omri and Jehu), the northern kingdom of Israel dominated its southern sister, Judah. See the discussion of J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 256–­59. 13 Hans Walter Wolff stated, “Absolutely individual encounters with God moved Amos initially to become a bearer of the word. . . . The irreducible force, which inspirationally overwhelmed Amos, enabled him to reshape received forms with a view toward his directly threatened audience. The characteristic structures of Amos’s oracles can be found in no older cultic curse, in no form of the older proclamation of law, in no sapiential instruction. The new forms of his speech can be explained only by the new content of his message” ( Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, ed. S. Dean McBride Jr., trans. Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], 100). James Luther Mays stated, “There is no question about what was the most crucial fact of his [Amos’s] life. It was the experience of Yahweh’s call (7:14) and the visions which revealed Yahweh’s decision to change his way with Israel from forbearance to action (7:1–­8; 8:1–­3). That call and revelation wrenched him out of his normal life and put him in another country crying ‘woe’ to its society, religion, and government in the name of God” (Amos: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 4). 14 Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 279–­80. 15 Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11–­30. 16 Jörg Jeremias, The Book of Amos (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 25: “The oracles against the nations . . . do not mention any specific historical background, but rather war crimes of a completely general nature whose typical feature is cruelty perpetrated against the defenseless.” Wolff argued in a circular fashion that Amos was speaking of events of his own day and that these oracles reveal to us new historical information of the opening third of the eighth century BCE (Wolff, Joel and Amos, 149–­51). Few are convinced by Wolff’s argument on this point. 17 Victor Harold Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, 4th ed. (New York: Paulist, 2016), xx. 18 See Jeremias’s comments: “One cannot fail to notice how very different is Amos’s justification of ‘Israel’s end’ from that of his slightly younger contemporary Hosea, who also was active in the Northern Kingdom and precited Israel’s fall with comparable severity. The themes of central importance for Amos, namely, those of social and legal criticism, play only a marginal role in Hosea” (Book of Amos, 4).

336

AMOS

19 If v. 7 is read in the context of the altar mentioned in v. 8, then perhaps sacred sex is in view. In any case, sexual relations between a father and a daughter-­in-­law were forbidden in Lev 18:15, 20:12, and intercourse between a son and his father’s wife (who was not his mother) was likewise prohibited (Lev 18:8, 20:11). Göran Eidevall has argued that the prophet has in mind the oppression of a vulnerable girl (naʿărāh) of society at the hands of a powerful male, continuing the theme of oppression of the poor (Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 24G [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017], 115). 20 John T. Strong, “Tyre’s Isolationist Policies in the Early Sixth Century BCE: Evidence from the Prophets,” VT XLVII 2 (1997): 207–­19. 21 See James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–­Jonah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 285: “YHWH reminds Israel that God has replaced powerful nations in the past, implying God can do so in the future. YHWH subtly reminds Israel that while they had once suffered oppression as slaves, their leaders have since become the oppressors. In short, Israel’s status as God’s chosen people is not a license to mistreat others. God’s election of Israel was for service, especially to those who are powerless to act for themselves.” 22 Yair Hoffmann, “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature,” ZAW 93, no. 1 ( January 1, 1981): 39–­45; A. Joseph Everson, “The Days of Yahweh,” JBL 93 (1974): 329–­37. 23 This argument considers the word play created by the homonyms ănāk, “tin,” and ʾănāḥâh, “groaning, mourning” (see HALOT, 71). In the same way that the fourth vision plays with the homonyms qāyiṣ, “summer fruit,” and qēṣ, “end” (8:1) scholars holding this view argue that in this third vision Amos observes the Lord placing grief in the midst of the people. See Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 339–­40. For the suggestion of sword, see Jeremias, Book of Amos, 130–­33; for the fixed quality of Amos’s messages, see Eidevall, Amos, 198–­200; and for the vulnerability of the people, see Paul, Amos, 234–­35. 24 Stephen L. Cook, “Eschatology of the OT,” in NIDB, 2:299–­308. 25 David Miano, Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel, SBLRBS 64 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 49–­62. 26 CD-­A, col. i:5–­6; see Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1992), 33. 27 Condemnation of and judgment against Judah and Jerusalem, of course, are present in Amos 2:4–­5 and 6:1–­7. However, both of these passages are considered later, secondary expansions, which applied to Judah the eschatological fate of Israel. See Eidevall, Amos, 175–­82; and Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 328–­30, both of whom attribute 6:1–­7 to disciples and date the text to the latter half of the eighth century.

337

THE PROPHETS

28 See the various designations by Wolff, Joel and Amos, 119; Nogalski, Hosea–­Jonah, 275; Jeremias, Book of Amos, 11; and Eidevall, Amos, 92. 29 Wilson established that different prophetic traditions recognized differing behaviors as indicators of intermediation. Words were heard by prophets of the North; visions were seen by prophets of the South (Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 260–­61). For this reason, we prefer to associate the second relative clause with the addition of the visions to the text and read the initial title and the first clause with Amos’s pronouncements. 30 Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 255–­56, 269–­70; Mark Leuchter, Samuel and the Shaping of Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 46.

338

9

Obadiah

The Historical Setting of Obadiah Obadiah is perhaps the least known and most neglected of the biblical prophets. His book is the Bible’s shortest (21 verses), and its bitter, difficult content is often off-­putting. Indeed, the book’s damning language, aimed at the nation of Edom, reverberates with the end of Psalm 137, one of the Bible’s most problematic, seemingly vengeful texts: “Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall, how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down! Down to its foundations!’” (Ps 137:7). Likely because of its jarring theme of retribution, nothing from Obadiah appears in church lectionary cycles. In his major scholarly commentary on Obadiah, John Barton gives the book an unabashedly negative value judgment. He finds Obadiah to be obviously “vindictive,” “xenophobic,” and incompatible with peace among nations. Barton states, To say that the prophet [Obadiah] or the psalmist [in Ps 137:7–­9] is being “vindictive” is to make an obvious, and obviously true, point, but it does not much help the modern believer cope with finding such material in the Bible. If one assumes that everything in scripture is intended (by God?)

339

THE PROPHETS

Figure 9.1 Edomite worshipping warrior from Qitmit (seventh to sixth century BCE). Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

to act as an example and an inspiration to us, then there is a problem in reconciling what is said here either with New Testament teaching about forgiveness or with the Old Testament’s frequent acknowledgement that not only foreigners but also God’s chosen people have a past littered with atrocities (see Amos!).1

Yet not all readers have judged Obadiah to be ethnocentric and xenophobic. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 CE) interpreted the book as affirming equitable justice, not human vengeance. Jerome, who wrote two commentaries on Obadiah (in 374 and 396 CE), dismissed the notion that Christ was purely nonviolent and affirmed the book’s Christian relevance. The Talmud portrays Obadiah as himself an Edomite, a convert to Israel’s faith (b. Sanh. 39b)! Just as David—­a descendent of Ruth, a Moabite—­directed divine judgment against Moab (2 Sam 8:2), so

340

OBADIAH

Obadiah directs God’s judgment against his own people. Although the idea is fanciful, it ingeniously insists that biblical wrath is separable from tribalism and that Edom’s coming judgment has fully internal roots—­a message inherent in Obadiah’s images of self-­deception (v. 3), poetic justice (v. 15b), and the cup of wrath (v. 16). R. Johanan articulates an authentic insight of Obadiah when he says, “From the very forest itself comes the [handle of the] axe [that fells it].” And when R. Dimi joins the conversation, he aptly affirms that “the joint putrefies from within” (b. Sanh. 39b; brackets in the Soncino English translation). At least eleven people with the name “Obadiah” appear in Scripture,2 but the prophet Obadiah is not mentioned anywhere else.3 Nor does his book itself say anything about his family, his life, or his times. Is this a hint not to read the book as vengeful desires, only comprehensible within a specific traumatic context (“With what horrific events must Obadiah and his audience be coping!”)? Despite the dearth of data, scholars plausibly infer that Obadiah, like Joel, was a scribal, “learned” prophet who treasured and studied earlier Scriptures (especially Jer 49). He was also a temple prophet, with a role like that of Habakkuk and Joel. Certainly, his message, at points, echoes theirs (Cyril of Alexandria cites Joel 3:19 as pertinent; Jerome cites Hab 2:15 as parallel to Obad 1:16). Since the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem’s temple, however, no working sanctuary supported Obadiah. Rather, his oracles likely originated within communal commemorations of the temple’s burning. Zechariah 7:3, 5 and 8:19 refer to regular ritual events of mourning, including one every fourth month (when Jerusalem’s walls were breached) and one every fifth month (when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple). As noted in the section in chapter 2 on Judah’s final decades, other texts—­such as Isaiah 58:3, 5; Jeremiah 41:5; and Lamentations—­provide further evidence of public fasting and lamentation in postconquest Judah. Pilgrims, even from the former northern kingdom, apparently still brought offerings to the ruined temple. Just as Obadiah’s book says nothing directly about the prophet, it does not provide us with any explicit time frame for the prophecy. It seems probable, however, that the book comes from shortly after the

341

THE PROPHETS

Babylonians—­under the leadership of King Nebuchadnezzar—­attacked Judah and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BCE. That is, it was probably written sometime around 585–­575 BCE. That date is disputed, with some scholars suggesting a date as late as 450 BCE. A date prior to 553 BCE is preferable, however, because at that time, King Nabonidus of Babylonia subjugated Edom and “fulfilled” Obadiah’s vision, which the prophet envisioned only as an upcoming event (see fig. 9.2). At the time of Jerusalem’s fall, Edom apparently took frightful advantage of the situation and turned against Judah (see Ps 137:7; Ezek 25:12; 35:5; 1 Esd 4:45). The treachery came as a shock but was not out of the blue. Edomite territorial expansion into southern Judah and parts of the Negev desert down to Timna predated Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Judah was weakened at the time, and Edom’s encroachment entailed both military incursions and peaceful settlement.4 The Text of Obadiah This short prophetic book contains powerful Hebrew poetry. From the start, vivid metaphors cut to the heart of Edom’s predicament. As of verse 3, readers are picturing Edom as an arrogant eagle, nesting on regional heights, haunting crags in a famously rocky terrain (vv. 3–­4). Then in verses 5–­6, gripping scenarios of robbery by night and vineyards picked clean drive home the totality of Edom’s coming demise. The kingdom built so high and proud faces an extraordinary fall. As the artistry does its work, readers’ heads nod at Edom’s delusion, and their jaws drop at the gross, uncanny consequences. As an example of Obadiah’s poetry, consider verse 5’s two poetic lines, the first a three-­part line (tricolon), the second a two-­part line (bicolon). Sharing much similar syntax, the lines parallel and reinforce each other. Typically, thefts and harvests are not exhaustively thorough. A totalizing extraction, however, awaits Edom. Shock at Edom’s denudation rings out loud and clear as an abrupt interjection interrupts the poetry’s flow:

342

OBADIAH

Figure 9.2 Basalt stele of Babylonian king Nabonidus.

If thieves came to you, if robbers in the night —­Oh, what a disaster awaits you!—­ would they not steal only as much as they wanted? If grape pickers came to you, would they not leave a few grapes? (Obad 1:5 NIV) Intensity builds in the first partial line (the first of five cola in v. 5) as a thought of thieves gives way to language of violent nighttime “marauders” (NJPS). Having heard an “if” clause, we expect a correlative clause to follow about the nature of a normal theft, but instead, an involuntary exclamation appears. Before he can utter the expected

343

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 9.1: The Structure of Obadiah

I. 1:1a: Superscription



II. 1:1b–­4: Edom’s coming judgment



III. 1:5–­7: A kingdom stripped bare



IV. 1:8–­9: The Day of the Lord



V. 1:10–­11: The invective against Edom



VI. 1:12–­14, 15b: Negative commands

VII. 1:15a, 16–­18: Zion’s deliverance VIII. 1:19–­21: Homecoming

apodosis clause, Obadiah’s thought jumps ahead from ideas of thievery and marauding to a dark vision of Edom’s inevitably far worse fate: “Oh, what a disaster awaits you!” Oh, would that Edom was going to suffer only a normal, limited robbery. Alas, it will suffer more. The verb of disaster here, dāmâ, has a homonym that means “be alike.” Thus verse 5’s abrupt interjection also means “Oh, how like [plunderers] you are [O Edom]!”5 Poetic ambiguity here hints at Edom’s villainous behavior described in verses 13–­14. The same Hebrew root, dāmâ, simultaneously sounds like ʾĕdôm, “Edom.” In all this paronomasia, the book seems to affirm that existence is not amoral and meaningless but knows a poetic justice at its heart (see v. 15b). Villains cannot trust in impunity. What goes around comes around; “You reap whatever you sow” (Gal 6:7; see Job 4:8; Prov 1:31). After the opening title in verse 1a, Obadiah immediately launches a devastating prophecy of coming doom for Edom (vv. 1b–­7). Similar texts in Jeremiah 49:7, 9–­10, 14–­16 have specifically influenced the writing here. Verses 1–­4 call Edom an eagle, perched high among the stars, that will soon crash down to earth.6 God’s instruments of judgment and destruction are earth’s nations, whom an envoy from

344

OBADIAH

God has mustered for battle. God and the nations will attack in concert: “Rise up! Let us rise against it [Edom]!” (v. 1; emphasis ours). Judah is notably absent from the coming action against Edom, though the people hear God’s report of it (v. 1). The rhetoric here is not inflammatory; it does not call Judah to arms. There is no incitement to violence, no brandishing of swords, between the lines. Edom’s topography—­its towering rocks, its narrow land passages, and its “nest” on a plateau as high as 5,500 feet at points—­has given the nation a sense of impregnability. Tucked securely in mountain clefts, it considers itself safely out of everyone’s reach. Obadiah says this self-­esteem has mushroomed out of proportion. It has mounted into hubris and self-­deception. No nation is untouchable, even one secure atop mountains. Certainly, the creator, God, can always bring a creature down, even down from the stars of heaven. Jerome cites the example of Isaiah 14:13–­14, where God casts down into Sheol’s depths a prideful protagonist who has ascended above the clouds and the stars. Edom’s lofty nest parallels not only Isaiah 14’s “heights of Zaphon” but also the towering height of Assyria as a cosmic tree, “its top among the clouds,” in Ezekiel 31:3. Such cosmic descriptions befit God’s holy shrine alone.7 At the level of the canon, we perceive a recurring theological theme transcending the historical particularities surrounding Edom’s shameless conduct in 586 BCE. All human beings, like Edom, are susceptible to hubristic tendencies, which bear the seeds of downfall. These tendencies isolate and estrange, foster recklessness and contempt for others, and even impair the mind. The end of verse 7, according to the NJB, states that Edom “has quite lost his wits.” Henry Adams aptly described power as “a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim’s sympathies.”8 Continuing Obadiah’s prophecy of doom, verses 5–­7 offer vivid metaphors about the completeness of Edom’s coming devastation. They speak of the totality of Edom’s ruin. The hasty picking of grape harvesters usually leaves some fruit in the field for the poor to glean, but the nation of Esau will be picked clean, robbed blind: “How ransacked

345

THE PROPHETS

his hoards!” (v. 6 NJPS). Edom had a degree of treasure—­wealth gained through trade along the King’s Highway and through access to Red Sea trade at its southern border. Even should Edom hide this wealth in the clefts of its rocks (see v. 3), its attackers will dig it out: “Every last treasure you had carefully hidden will be taken” (v. 6 VOICE). It will be not traditional rivals and foes but Edom’s supposed allies, including especially the Babylonians, who will soon turn against it and conquer it (v. 7). Again, a claim of poetic justice, enforced within creation, suggests itself (see v. 15b). In benefiting from Jerusalem’s destruction, Edom was injuring not “strangers” and “foreigners” (v. 11) but his “brother Jacob” (v. 10; also see v. 12; Amos 1:11–­12). Deservedly, then, Edom’s “brothers”—­its covenantal allies—­will now turn against it. Brotherhood was a key ancient metaphor for covenantal alliances (see 1 Kgs 9:13; 20:32, 33). Pharaoh Ramesses II said of his Hittite ally Hattusili III, “He is my brother, I am his brother.” By the same token, a Hittite king wrote to a new Babylonian ruler, “[When your father] and I established friendly relations and became brothers, [we] spoke [as follows:] ‘We are brothers.’”9 Just as Edom’s shameless unbrotherliness utterly shocked Judah, catching the people completely off guard, so now Edom lies “deceived” and unprepared for disaster: “You don’t see it coming” (v. 7 CEB). One may also translate the final line of verse 7 as declaring that there is no understanding “in him” (Esau; NASB) or “in it” (Edom). With this translation, verse 7 anticipates verse 8, where Edom suffers the loss of its famed wisdom. The REB captures this sense of verse 7 well: “Where is his wisdom now?” (cf. the GNT). Verses 8–­9 of Obadiah begin a likely supplement to the book focused on eschatology. Here, the perspective shifts to God’s coming climactic intervention in world history termed the “Day of the Lord” (see v. 15a). Thus this section of Obadiah (vv. 8–­11) anticipates the eschatological perspective of the book’s second half (vv. 15a, 16–­21). Verse 8 announces that “on that day,” the Day of the Lord, Edom’s present downfall will find eschatological confirmation. The apt observation, suggested by verse 7, that hubris impairs judgment is now

346

OBADIAH

Figure 9.3 The steps to the ancient fortress of Sela in Edom.

ratified. God will act directly to remove Edom’s wisdom: “I will destroy the wise out of Edom, / and understanding out of Mount Esau.” The judgment is particularly tragic, given Edom’s associations with wisdom (see Bar 3:22–­23; note that wise Job appears to come from Edom—­see Job 1:11; Lam 4:21). The reference in verse 9 to Teman, a southern region of Edom and a poetic term for the entire kingdom, also speaks to wisdom vanishing from Esau’s land. Job’s “wise” friend Eliphaz was a Temanite ( Job

347

THE PROPHETS

2:11). Obadiah’s parallel text, Jeremiah 49, inquires in verse 7 whether there is any wisdom left in Teman. The heroes of Teman, whom verse 9 foresees as soon shattered, are not simply military “warriors.” Rather, the Hebrew term probably refers here to wise, discerning leaders (see Job 12:13; Prov 8:14; see Ruth 2:1; 2 Kgs 15:20; Ps 112:2). Pride can rob the wise leader of blessing (see Ps 40:4). Thus in Obadiah 1:9, as in Jeremiah 8:9, it is, in fact, the prideful wise who are soon “shattered.” Verses 10–­14, 15b of Obadiah finally reveal the external reasons for the doomful judgment that is coming upon Edom. Verse 10 sums up the invective. Edom is charged with the violent slaughter of his brother, Jacob (see Joel 3:19). Using the name “Jacob” instead of referring to “Judah,” the nation, highlights the traditional fraternal relationship of the two peoples (see Gen 25:25–­26; Deut 2:4; 23:7; Num 20:14: “your brother Israel”). Edom’s punishment of shame is paradoxical. Certainly, a focus on shame stresses Edom’s warped violation of self-­evident ideals. Having betrayed its own close relations, Edom must incontrovertibly bear international dishonor. At the same time, to be judged capable of shame constitutes an affirmation of the Edomites’ humanity. For this people to bear shame is for them to acknowledge and respect moral standards greater than themselves. It is for them to deflate the ego, regain perspective, and rediscover wisdom. Verse 11 rings with dismay, piling up poetic cola recalling the traumatic injuries of 586  BCE and then sounding a final “Et tu, Brute?” ( Julius Caesar, 3.1.77). The last colon, three beats and verbless in Hebrew, dramatically points at Edom, declaring, “Gam-­ʾattâ,” “Even you!”: “You just stood there, doing nothing” (VOICE). The charge here is aloof complicity, but verse 11 is only just beginning the complaint against Esau’s people. Verses 12–­14 address Edom directly. An unusual style draws in the reader—­a series of immediate negative commands. Eight times the section effectively yells, “Stop it! Don’t do that!” Perhaps Obadiah imaginatively moves back in time to 586 BCE, shouting at Edom as horrors

348

OBADIAH

Sidebar 9.2: Edom in the Old Testament Edom was a minor kingdom located south of Judah and southwest of Moab. Some texts regard this kingdom positively: Edom was respected as a place of ancient wisdom ( Job 1:1; 2:11; Jer 49:7; Obad 8), and Deuteronomy 23:8 even permits Edomites to be included in the worshipping congregation after living among the people of Israel for three generations. According to archaeologist Ephraim Stern, the Kedarite Arabs decimated Edom by the Babylonian period, forcing its people into the Negeb and the highlands of southern Judea.10 Ezekiel 35:1–­ 15, an oracle against Mount Seir (another name for Edom), ascribes Edom’s hostility toward Judah to “an ancient enmity” (ʾêbat ʿôlām). In Genesis, that “ancient enmity” between Edom and Israel begins in the womb shared by their eponymous ancestors, the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca (Gen 25:22–­23), and continues through their childhood and youth. Although Genesis 33:1–­17 describes the reconciliation of the two brothers, Ezekiel declares that Edom’s pursuit of vengeance had turned it from a blood relation of Israel to a blood enemy (Ezek 35:6), doomed to total destruction: “Yours was hateful bloodshed, and blood shall pursue you” (authors’ translation). Indeed, Malachi 1:2–­3 declares, “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau” (see Gen 25:19–­26). The disturbing language of “hate” constitutes an ancient idiom of covenant negation (as in Deut 24:1 and the Elephantine papyrus TAD B2.6). In Romans 9:13, the apostle Paul uses this ancient idiom as part of a larger argument concerning the salvation of Israel (Rom 9–­11).

unfold. Or perhaps these are timeless imperatives, addressed at us all: “Never gloat! Never ambush!” The NJB is close to the Hebrew: “do not feast your eyes,” “do not gloat,” “do not play the braggart” (v. 12), “do

349

THE PROPHETS

not enter my people’s gate,” “do not, you especially, feast your eyes,” “do not touch their possessions” (v. 13), “do not wait at the crossroads to annihilate,” “do not hand over their survivors” (v. 14). All these negative imperatives aim to indict Edom, as captured by the NRSV’s repeated “You should not have . . .” and the NJPS’s repeated “How could you . . .” In these charges, Obadiah reveals that Edom’s treachery went beyond silent, passive participation and Schadenfreude (joy and pleasure at Judah’s humiliation). Certainly, complicity by omission, by inaction—­a controversial concept—­is here condemned. Standing by and doing nothing during wrongdoing is morally reprehensible. A modern Episcopal confession reads, “We repent of the evil that enslaves us, the evil we have done, and the evil done on our behalf.”11 The Edomites, however, did more. They entered Judah’s city gates, took advantage of the chaos, and looted the people’s goods (v. 13). Waiting at the outskirts of towns, at the crossroads, they cut off Judah’s refugees. They handed over to Babylonian captivity helpless victims who had lost everything (v. 14). Such Edomite atrocities bespeak active and intense ill will, recalling what Ezekiel 35:5 judges to be an “ancient enmity.” Long-­held ethnic rivalries and grudges were part of the dynamic. Thus Genesis 27:41 remembers how “Esau hated Jacob because of the [stolen] blessing.” A specifically theological rivalry, however, also seems at play. It is implicit in what we noted above about Edom’s misappropriation of the cosmic attributes of God’s temple (Obad 1:3). Obadiah (and Ezekiel) assumes Edomite enmity at God’s migration from Seir/Edom to Zion (see Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4; Ps 68; Hab 3:3). Most scholars recognize a literary seam in Obadiah at verse 15, after which eschatological promises take center stage and a new global perspective dominates. Some commentators, such as John Barton, ascribe the second half of the book to a “Deutero-­Obadiah” who manifests a late Persian and Hellenistic tendency to tack on eschatological supplements to earlier prophecies. It is better, however, to read Obadiah holistically and see its two halves as interconnected.12 To bifurcate Obadiah is to override the book’s interlocking literary features and style

350

OBADIAH

of progression. Both parts of Obadiah prophesy Edom’s destruction, eschatological judgment figures in each, and each relies on Jeremiah 49 as a source. Further, the two halves of Obadiah are knit together by the hinging poetic function of verse 15—­a verse that scholars wanting to fragment the book must emend. The two poetic lines of verse 15 are flipped as a literary technique of transition within the book. (For the “expected” sequence of the lines, see the NJPS, which emends the text.) The second line (v. 15b) forms the conclusion of the preceding section indicting Edom; the first line (v. 15a) fits the succeeding verses focusing on international, eschatological justice. The inversion of verses 15a and 15b is purposeful, interlocking the two major sections of Obadiah. Thus the book, in its holistic form, understands that the justice coming to Edom is significant but also representative of a larger justice that will envelop all earth’s nations. In this regard, it is interesting that “Edom” and “humanity” share the same Hebrew consonants (ʾdm).13 Verses 15a, 16–­18 prophesy eschatological justice drawing near, soon to be dispensed on, and from, Mount Zion, God’s “holy mountain” (see Ps 43:3; Ezek 20:40). This mountain is to become a sanctuary, both a refuge and a shrine (“holy place,” NET; see TEV), and a remnant of God’s people will ride out the eschaton there. They will revive in this sanctuary, eventually morphing into fiery divine instruments. The inclusion of the long-­lost northern kingdom, “Joseph,” means that an eschatologically reunited people of Israel is in view. God’s fiery instruments are an ideal, miracle people, not the historical Judah contemporary with Obadiah, motivated by tribalism and vengeance. Verse 16 turns from Edom, which has been addressed consistently as a singular “you,” to address the Israelites as a plural “you” (REB: “you, my people”; GNT: “My people have drunk a bitter cup of punishment”). At the same time, the focus now shifts away from Mount Esau (vv. 8, 9), Edom’s mountain homeland, to what will happen on Mount Zion as God intervenes in history. New and powerful metaphorical language now appears, as earth’s nations now drink God’s cup of wrath that Israel drank in 586 BCE.

351

THE PROPHETS

The “cup of wrath” appears several times in Scripture. In Jeremiah 25:15–­17, for example, Jeremiah travels the globe in a vision, serving God’s chalice to the nations. Overindulgence makes earth stagger in delirium, even though many nations seemingly partake willingly. They recklessly drain God’s cup down to the dregs! There is a firm truth conveyed by the image, a truth already apparent in Obadiah—­bad behavior circles around like a boomerang (see Hab 2:16)! In Mark 14:36, Jesus, unlike the nations of Obadiah 1:16, recoils from the cup and its bitter dregs. He shuns chaos; he holds life precious. While other nations drink themselves sick and disappear from history, verse 17 promises that some of Jacob’s children will regroup on Mount Zion. As God’s transformed people, they will reclaim their covenant-­based inheritance. Joel 2:32 will later quote Obadiah: “In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape.” The fantastic imagery of verse 18 reaffirms the eschatological, supernatural frame of reference here. The images push readers to think in absolutizing, dualistic terms, rather than in any flat, “political” manner. Here is a visionary ideal of a reunited, eschatological Israel, blazing with God’s fiery, numinous holiness. In a primal, archetypal conflagration, ultimate reality envelopes all fleeting, transient opposition. Jerome here speaks about God becoming “all in all,” about earth’s “Edoms” being “absorbed into his salvation.”14 Verses 19–­21 turn from poetry to prose and conclude Obadiah with a vision of Israel’s geographical expansion. The writing style is different here, much less artistic than what precedes. The section may thus represent a late stage in the book’s composition. Israel’s exiles return home from quite far-­flung regions (Halah and Sepharad, v. 20), indicating again that we are dealing with a supramundane eschatological vision. As the homegoing proceeds, the land mushrooms with returnees. Israel expands to fill its ideal territorial expanse. In keeping with the book’s theme of reversing Edom’s aggression, Edom is the one territory to be taken by Israel that is not included in God’s original land grant to the covenant people (on Edom,

352

OBADIAH

see Deut 2:4–­5; on the other lands, see, e.g., Exod 23:31; Num 34:6; Josh 13:1–­13; 15:45–­47; 19:28; Judg 1:31). Verse 21 rounds off the book of Obadiah by returning to the theme of two contrasting “mountains,” Mount Zion and Mount Esau (see vv. 8–­9, 16–­17, 19). “Deliverers” (môšiʿîm; see NABR, CEB, NIV) ascend Mount Zion to administer justice but not rule as monarchs in the reign of God. As in Nehemiah 9:27, the term deliverer is reminiscent of the judges of the settlement period. The judges delivered Israel and then functioned in leadership roles but never claimed to be kings. Only God reigned over Israel. Despite what a literalistic reading of verses 9, 10, 18 might suggest, Obadiah ends with Edom still in existence. In fact, the book ends with Edom as a vassal state within the eschatological kingdom of God, which is ruled from atop Zion. Jerome’s reading, noted earlier, fits Obadiah’s last word. Edom is indeed absorbed into God’s salvation. Notes 1 John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 150. 2 Marc Zvi Brettler, “Obadiah,” in HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 770. 3 Although the Obadiah of 1 Kgs 18:1–­16 is assigned a much earlier historical context, links between our prophet and this celebrated steward and official of King Ahab have been drawn in the history of exegesis. Thus the discussion in the Talmud (in Tractate Sanhedrin 39), just described, makes this link: “R. Isaac said: Why did Obadiah attain the gift of prophecy?—­ Because he hid a hundred prophets in caves, as it is written, For it was so when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord that Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them.” 4 Excavations at Qitmit (see fig. 9.1, p. 340) under the direction of I. Beit-­Arieh have greatly illumined Edom during this era. See Itzhaq Beit-­Arieh et al., Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 11 (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1995); and John T. Strong, “The Conquest of the Land and Yahweh’s Honor before the Nations in Ezekiel,” in

353

THE PROPHETS

Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 285–­322. 5 David W. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 170. See the use of the verb in Ezek 32:2. 6 The nest set up high in Obad 3–­4 calls to mind the eagle’s nest as a metaphor for security ( Job 39:27). Indeed, the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–­43) compares God’s providential care and protection of Israel in the wilderness to the eagle nurturing its young in their nest (Deut 32:11). But elsewhere, the metaphor of the nest set up high depicts a vain quest for safety and security: those who seek, like the eagle, to set their nest high in the rocks will be brought down (Num 24:21; Jer 49:16; Hab 2:9–­11). 7 See fig. 9.2, p. 343, where the royal staff symbolizes the cosmic tree, the Weltbaum. Obadiah sounds like Ezekiel here, citing hubristic quotes of enemy nations in order to indict them (Ezek 25:3, 8; 26:2; 28:2; 29:3; also consult Jer 49:4). Most notably, Ezek 35:10 attributes such a quote to Mount Seir—­Edom. In Obad 1:3, a claim of towering height defines Edom’s blameworthy utterance, a claim befitting only God’s temple (see Isa 2:2; Ezek 17:22–­24; 40:2; Dan 2:35). In Ezek 27:1, a claim of perfect beauty forms a parallel boast; Tyre appropriates the sublime fairness of Zion (see Lam 2:15; Ps 50:2; Ezek 16:14). These foreign appropriations of the temple’s character, its archetypal perfections, stung the festering wounds of Judeans mourning the sanctuary’s destruction. 8 Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918), 147. 9 Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd ed. WAW 7 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 97, 141; ANET, 199, 202; Alan R. Millard, “Obadiah,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. John H. Walton, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 95. 10 Ephraim Stern, Material Culture in the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–­332 (Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips, 1982), 253. Later, as noted above (“The Historical Setting of Obadiah”), Nabonidus of Babylonia subjugated Edom in 553 BCE. 11 Episcopal Church, Enriching Our Worship: Supplemental Liturgical Materials (New York: Church Publishing, 1998), 1:56. 12 For a compelling approach to Obadiah that treats the text holistically, as having literary and structural coherence, see Paul R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 24D (New York: Doubleday, 1996). 13 See Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 183. 14 Jerome, Commentarii in Prophetas Minores, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1969), 76:368–­69.

354

10

Jonah

Introduction Jonah is a prophetic novella. While this short book stands apart from other prophetic books in a number of ways, this is the clearest and most compelling difference. Many other prophetic books contain narratives (e.g., Amos 7:10–­17 and the prophetic biography in Jer 26–­45). But apart from the psalm in Jonah 2:2–­9 (Heb 2:3–­10), Jonah is all narrative, harking back to the wonder tales of the preclassical prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17–­19; 2 Kgs 1–­8; 13:14–­21). The narrative this novella unfolds is fantastic but initially straightforward. The prophet Jonah, called by the Lord to go to the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, instead takes a boat to exotic Tarshish ( Jonah 1:1–­3; see Isa 2:16). When the Lord intervenes with a terrible storm ( Jonah 1:4), the sailors on board survive God’s wrath by reluctantly throwing the rebellious prophet overboard ( Jonah 1:15–­16). Jonah is saved from drowning when he is swallowed by a fish, specially prepared by God ( Jonah 1:17 [2:1]). The fish delivers Jonah back to dry ground ( Jonah 2:10 [11]), and the prophet fulfills his mission, proclaiming God’s judgment against the wicked city.

355

THE PROPHETS

Figure 10.1 The Prophet Jonah and the Fish from Hortus deliciarum, ca. 1180 CE.

At this point, the story takes an unexpected turn: the people of Nineveh, from the greatest to the least, repent ( Jonah 3:1–­9), so that “God changed his mind [wayyinnāḥem, ‘regretted’ or ‘was sorry’] about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it” ( Jonah 3:10)! Jonah nonetheless stations himself on a hillside to await the destruction God had called him to proclaim ( Jonah 4:1–­5). But just as God had prepared (wayĕman) the fish to rescue Jonah ( Jonah 1:17 [2:1]), so God now appoints (again, wayĕman) a qîqāyôn bush (the word qîqāyôn appears only here, but from Greek and Akkadian parallels, it is likely that the broad-­leaved castor-­oil plant, Ricinus communis, is intended) to give him shade from the hot sun ( Jonah 4:6). Next, God appoints (once more, wayĕman) a worm to kill the bush in a single night. When Jonah reacts to the loss of his shade plant with over-­the-­ top anger and despair (“It is better for me to die than to live”; Jonah 3:8), God responds with the last word in this book: “You are concerned

356

JONAH

Figure 10.2 Jonah’s Wrath over Nineveh in the Shade of Plant ( Jonah 4). Woodcut engraving after a drawing by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (German painter, 1794–­1872 CE), published in 1877.

about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?” ( Jonah 4:10–­11). Jonah’s Setting Literary Setting The canonical placement of Jonah in the Tanak and the Old Testament— ­just before the eighth-­century prophet Micah—­reflects the book’s literary setting. Outside of this book, a prophet named Jonah son of Amittai is referenced in 2 Kings 14:25: “He [that is, Jeroboam II, 786–­745 BCE]

357

THE PROPHETS

restored the border of Israel from Lebo-­hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-­hepher.” An eighth-­century setting (though somewhat later than the 2 Kgs passage) is also presumed by Jonah’s audience in this book: the people of Nineveh, “that great city” ( Jonah 1:2), capital of the Assyrian Empire from the reign of Sennacherib (704–­681 BCE) until its destruction by the alliance of Nabopolassar of Babylon and Cyaxares of Media in 612 BCE. Historical Setting But while Jonah is set in the eighth century, there are good reasons for thinking that it was written far later. The book of Jonah uses language typical of a later period, such as the abbreviated form ʾanî for “I” ( Jonah 1:9, 12; 2:5, 19; 4:11) and the identification of the Lord as “the God of heaven” ( Jonah 1:9; ʾĕlōhê has̆sā̆ mayim), a divine designation from the Persian period (see Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4–­5).1 Further, there is no evidence of Nineveh ever turning to the Lord as Jonah 3 describes.

Sidebar 10.1: The Structure of Jonah

I. 1:1–­3: God’s call, Jonah’s response



II. 1:4–­16: God intervenes to halt Jonah’s flight



III. 1:17–­2:10 (2:1–­11): God’s deliverance, Jonah’s thanksgiving



IV. 3:1–­10: Nineveh repents



V. 4:1–­5: Jonah’s response to Nineveh’s deliverance



VI. 4:6–­11: God intervenes to challenge Jonah’s lack of compassion

358

JONAH

In sharp contrast to Jonah, which presents Nineveh as a model for the repentance of the nations, Nahum 2–­3, likely composed near the time of Nineveh’s fall, presents the Assyrian capital as irredeemably evil and destined for destruction: Ah! City of bloodshed, utterly deceitful, full of booty—­ No end to the plunder! (Nah 3:1) The striking contrast between Jonah and Nahum is emphasized even more in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, where Jonah is placed right before Nahum. The way the book of Jonah uses Assyria presumes that the horror and fury directed toward Israel’s ancient enemy, bitterly evident in Nahum, had cooled. The most likely historical context for such a composition would be a period much later than its literary setting suggests—­perhaps as late as the third century, when Jonah was incorporated into the Book of the Twelve.2 The fact of a relatively late, postexilic date for Jonah’s composition may be why 4QXIIa from Cave 4 at Qumran, one of the oldest fragmentary Hebrew texts of the Twelve, apparently places Jonah at the end of the scroll.3 Elsewhere, wherever the fragments of the Twelve from Cave 4 preserve the end of one book followed by the beginning of another, they generally support the order in the Hebrew Bible, which is also reflected in the Christian Old Testament. So although Jonah comes after Malachi in 4QXIIa, this fragment apparently has Malachi following Zechariah, just as the standard order does. Likewise, 4QXIIb has Haggai following Zephaniah, as expected, and 4QXIIg has Obadiah following Amos, as well as Habakkuk following Nahum. Thus among the 4QXII fragments, only Jonah appears to be out of place according to the MT sequence—­placed perhaps in accordance with its late composition rather than its eighth-­century literary setting. Here, then, is a fascinating bit of text-­critical evidence that joins with evidence internal to the book to indicate that Jonah appeared in writing much later than Jeroboam’s era (2 Kgs 14:25)—­in fact, even later than Nahum’s era

359

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 10.2: Nineveh The ancient city of Nineveh (the site was occupied from the late Neolithic era, ca. 5000 BCE) became part of the kingdom of Assyria early in the second millennium BCE. Nineveh became the sole capital of the Assyrian Empire in the reign of Sennacherib (704–­681 BCE) and grew quickly from a town that was only two miles in circumference to a city eight miles around: not a “three days walk across” ( Jonah 3:3) but still a city of appreciable size.4 Nineveh reached its pinnacle under Ashurbanipal (668–­ 631 BCE), grandson of Sennacherib. But scarcely a generation later, the city lay in ruins. The allied armies of Nabopolassar of Babylon and Cyaxares of Media shattered the Assyrian Empire; by 612 BCE, Nineveh had fallen, and by 610 BCE, the remnants of Assyria’s leadership had been rousted out of their last refuge in Haran. By the mid-­fourth century, Nineveh was an unmarked, insignificant ruin.

(ca. 630–­612 BCE). Perhaps it appeared late enough after the exile that scribes at Qumran judged that it most properly belonged at the end of the Minor Prophets scroll, not toward the scroll’s middle. Literary Issues Rather than trying somehow to wedge Jonah into eighth-­century history, we should regard this book, with Brevard Childs, as “parable-­like”5 or, with Elizabeth Achtemeier, as a “didactic story.”6 As we have proposed, the book of Jonah is a novella. Further, it is a comic novella.7 No other reading takes fully into account the persistent, certainly deliberate exaggerations—­beginning in the book’s opening verses—­that make Jonah so much fun to read.

360

JONAH

Jonah as a Comedy While a common element in prophetic call narratives is the prophet’s protest, based on a sense of unworthiness or inability or on anxiety about what the call implies (e.g., Exod 4:13; Isa 6:5; Jer 1:6), Jonah alone votes with his feet, fleeing his call to Nineveh by taking a boat in the opposite direction toward Tarshish, “away from the presence of the Lord” ( Jonah 1:3; the only other person said to go out from God’s Presence in all of Scripture is Cain; see Gen 4:16). As Millar Burrows observes, the audience of the book of Jonah, knowing full well that flight from God is impossible, would have understood right away that this is a comedy: “They would exchange knowing looks and settle down to enjoy what was coming, thinking, ‘This is going to be good!’”8 In striking contrast to the comically clueless character of Jonah, the foreign sailors on Jonah’s boat are portrayed sympathetically, even heroically. Jonah’s flight from God has endangered their lives and their ship, and rather than working with them to save the ship from the storm, Jonah is asleep in the hold (1:5). In spite of this, the sailors risk their lives for him. Even after their lottery has revealed Jonah as the man responsible for the storm (1:7; for casting lots to determine the divine will, see Josh 7:16–­18; 1 Sam 14:40–­42; Acts 1:15–­26), and Jonah himself advises them, “Pick me up and throw me in the sea” (1:12), the sailors strive to reach a safe harbor instead (1:13). Only as a last resort, following fervent prayers for forgiveness (1:14), do they throw the prophet overboard. Then when the sea calms, the sailors respond to their deliverance by becoming faithful worshippers of the Lord ( Jonah 1:16)—­despite Jonah’s poor example! At this point, the most famous example of this book’s comedic, larger-­than-­life character comes to the fore—­Jonah’s “large fish” (1:17 [Heb 2:1]), referred to in popular culture as a whale. Scripture has no more extreme example of divine deliverance from death than Jonah, rescued from drowning by a giant fish, which swallows him whole (not what we would normally call a rescue). Three days later ( Jonah 1:17

361

THE PROPHETS

[2:1]), the fish obediently vomits the prophet out again so that he can hear the Lord’s call to go to Nineveh “a second time” ( Jonah 3:1). The conversion and deliverance of the sailors on Jonah’s boat ( Jonah 1:16) foreshadow the repentance of the people of Nineveh, who upon hearing Jonah’s terse prophecy (“Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!,” Jonah 3:4) not only repent in sackcloth and ashes but cover their animals in sackcloth and ashes as well ( Jonah 3:7–­9). In their case, as in the case of the sailors, God responds with deliverance ( Jonah 3:10). The sailors and the Ninevites alike stand in strong contrast to the extravagant pique of Jonah himself, who in his bitter­ ness over God’s preservation of the city, and his hysteric disappointment over the death of his convenient little shade plant, is “angry enough to die” ( Jonah 4:9). Jonah as a Satire We can readily understand why readers have often described the book of Jonah as a satire.9 Literary critic Northrop Frye pithily defines satire as “militant irony”10—­that is, pointedly targeted humor. This reading of Jonah goes back at least to Thomas Paine (1802 CE), who writes that Jonah “has been written as a fable, to expose the nonsense and satirize the vicious and malignant character of a Bible-­prophet.”11 Others suggest that it is not Jonah or prophecy that the book satirizes but the insular, exclusivist orientation of some in Jonah’s audience. For example, James Smart writes, “In the years after the Exile there grew up in Israel a spirit of bitterness and vengefulness toward other lands”; in response, the book of Jonah seeks “to reawaken in the nation a sense of missionary destiny to which, as God’s people, it had been called.”12 To some ears, Smart’s wording has an anti-Judaic ring, an issue to which we shall return below.

362

JONAH

Figure 10.3 Jonah and the Whale. Folio from Jami’ al-­tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles), ca. 1400 CE.

Theological Issues Jonah’s Early Readers But early Jewish and Christian readers found the book of Jonah to be, not a satiric assault on the prophet or on postexilic exclusivists, but a celebration of God’s grace and extravagant willingness to deliver. So in 3 Maccabees 6:8, the priest Eleazar recalls Jonah in his own prayer for deliverance: “And Jonah, wasting away in the belly of a huge, sea-­born monster, you, Father, watched over and restored unharmed to all his family.” The New Testament In the New Testament, Matthew refers twice to the “sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:39–­41; 16:4) as the only sign of the in-­breaking kingdom his “adulterous and sinful generation” would receive (the first of these references is

363

THE PROPHETS

paralleled in Luke 11:29–­32). Jonah’s three days in the fish’s belly ( Jonah 1:17 [2:1]) become a sign of Jesus’s resurrection, paralleling his “three days and three nights . . . in the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40). Although Jonah is not mentioned there, clear parallels can also be seen between Jonah’s interrupted voyage in Jonah 1 and the Gospel story of Jesus calming the storm (Matt 8:18–­27 ǁ Mark 4:35–­41 ǁ Luke 8:22–­25).13 In each case, there is a “[great] storm” ( Jonah 1:4; Matt 8:24; Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23). Jesus, like Jonah, is asleep in the boat (while the NRSV of Jonah 1:5 puts the prophet in “the hold of the ship,” the Hebrew reads yarkĕtê hassĕpînâ—­that is, the bottom or the back of the ship; Mark 4:38 specifies that Jesus was asleep en te prumne: in the stern or the back of the boat). In each account, the sailors are delivered (although in Jonah, after they have, at his own insistence, thrown the rebellious prophet overboard; Jonah 1:14–­16), and there is a calm after the storm ( Jonah 1:15; Matt 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24). Indeed, the many parallels among these accounts emphasize the contrast between the faithful sailors in Jonah, who after their deliverance “feared the Lord exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows” ( Jonah 1:16 RSV), and the faithless disciples in the Gospels, who ask, “Who then is this?” (Mark 4:41; see Matt 18:27; Luke 8:25). How ironic that Jonah’s sailors, though pagan outsiders—­not even Hebrews!—­are so quick to worship the Lord in earnest. The text humorously drives home their enthusiasm with an image of fiery sacrifices on a wooden boat (an image that lasts until the final clause of v. 16, which reveals that a sense such as that of the NET is possible: “The men . . . earnestly vowed to offer lavish sacrifices [upon return to land]”). Christian Readers In keeping with the New Testament usage of the book of Jonah, many early and premodern Christian interpreters read Jonah as a type for Christ. Tertullian writes that Jonah “would have been lost, were it not for the fact that what he endured was a type of the Lord’s suffering, by which pagan penitents also would be redeemed.”14 The reformer John Calvin concludes that Jonah was “a type of Christ . . . because he

364

JONAH

returned to life again, after having for some time exercised his office as a Prophet among the people of Israel.”15 Jewish Readers In the authoritative compendium of rabbinic tradition called the Mishnah (b. Taan. 16a), the story of Nineveh’s repentance and deliverance in Jonah is lifted up as an example, calling all Israel to sincere repentance (see Matt 12:41 ǁ Luke 11:32). Little wonder, then, that Jonah is read in the synagogue on Yom Kippur: the day of fasting, self-­examination, and repentance concluding the ten Days of Awe, which open the Jewish year. Again, the emphasis is not on divine judgment but on forgiveness and deliverance. The Theology of Jonah Jonah and Exodus 34:6–­7 Though a harsh, judgmental reading requires identifying Jonah as anti-­Judaic satire, the history of the interpretation of Jonah suggests a more gracious reading that the book of Jonah itself supports. So in response to God’s deliverance of Nineveh, Jonah explains his earlier unexplained flight from God’s Presence: “O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing” ( Jonah 4:2). Jonah did not want to deliver God’s message of judgment against Nineveh—­but not because of xenophobic “bitterness and vengefulness” against foreigners (as in the quote above from James Smart). Rather, knowing God’s character, he also knew that God was likely to “relent from punishing,” leaving Jonah with the stamp of the false prophet, whose predictions do not come true (Deut 18:21–­22).16 Jonah quotes here from the divine self-­declaration in Exodus 34:6–­7, a passage cited throughout Scripture (e.g., Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh 9:17; Joel 2:13), specifically in Nahum 1:3. Nahum and Jonah recall the

365

THE PROPHETS

Exodus text in different ways, however.17 In Exodus, a statement of God’s grace follows the statement of God’s patience (“slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,” Exod 34:6; emphasis ours), while in Nahum, an assertion of God’s might takes its place (“slow to anger but great in power,” Nah 1:3; emphasis ours). Nahum not only alters the reference to God’s grace in Exodus but also quotes the line in Exodus 34:7 referring to punishment: “The Lord will by no means clear the guilty” (wĕnaqqēh lōʾ yĕnaqqēh; see Num 14:18; Jer 30:11 ǁ 46:28). Jonah does the opposite in 4:2. Here, quoting the citation of Exodus 34:6–­7 in Joel 2:13, the prophet not only recalls God’s “steadfast love” but also describes God as “ready to relent from punishing” (wĕnīḥām ʿal-­hārāʿâ)! It is likely that the writer of Jonah has chosen to quote Joel here, using wĕnīḥām (relent) to pun with wĕnaqqēh (declare innocent; clear) in Exodus and in Nahum, in order to underline God’s gracious choice to preserve Nineveh. The Psalm in Jonah 2:2–­9 The theme of God’s grace and deliverance is also the message of the prophet’s prayer in Jonah 2:2–­9 (Heb 2:3–­10). In form, this poem is a thanksgiving psalm (like Pss 30; 34; 107; 116) celebrating God’s deliverance of the psalmist from death:18 I called to the Lord out of my distress, And he answered me; Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, And you heard my voice. ( Jonah 2:2 [3]) That Jonah’s prayer “from the belly of the fish” ( Jonah 2:1 [2]) is a prayer of thanksgiving rather than a prayer for help and deliverance may seem odd. However, the Hebrew prayers for help typically move directly from petition to expressions of confidence and praise for deliverance (e.g., Ps 22:21 [22]), so a case could be made for Jonah’s proleptic thanksgiving in the midst of his trouble, as though the deliverance he

366

JONAH

Figure 10.4 Sarcophagus depicting Jonah being swallowed by a fish and some Christian symbols. Konya, Turkey.

seeks had already been granted (and Jonah has, after all, been saved from death by drowning).19 However, apart from its abundant water imagery, the psalm lacks explicit parallels to its immediate context. It makes no mention of Jonah’s rejected call; indeed, it does not reference Jonah 1 at all, as we would expect, to show how the prophet came to be in this circumstance. Nor does this prayer foreshadow in any way Jonah’s obedient response in Jonah 3. While the prose introduction ( Jonah 1:17–­2:1 [2:1–­2]) and conclusion ( Jonah 2:10 [2:11]) to the psalm mention Jonah’s fish, nothing is said about this creature in the poem itself. Indeed, the psalmist writes, The waters closed over me; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped around my head at the roots of the mountains. ( Jonah 2:5–­6a [6–­7a])

367

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 10.3: The Structure of the Psalm in Jonah 2

I. 2:2–­8 (3–­9): Praise for God’s deliverance from death

A. 2:2 (3): Opening praise



B. 2:3–­6a (4–­7a): Rehearsal of the trouble, now past



C. 2:6b–­7 (7b–­8): God’s saving response to the poet’s prayer



II. 2:7b–­8 (8b–­9), 9b (10b): Summons to the community to join in praise (implicit in the mention of the temple, in the caution about false worship, and in the final summons to praise: “Deliverance belongs to the Lord!”)



III. 2:9 (10): Sacrifice in fulfillment of the poet’s vow

—­as though he is sinking to the bottom alone and unprotected. What is more, the phrase “at the roots of the mountains” (lĕqiṣbê hārîm) makes very clear that a subterranean rather than a terrestrial ocean is in view here. While Jonah 2:2–­9 (3–­10) lacks explicit links to its context, it has clear parallels to poetry elsewhere in Scripture dealing with death as a descent into Sheol, the place of the dead, and its underworld ocean (e.g., 2 Sam 22:17 ǁ Ps 18:16; Ezek 26:19–­31; Pss 42:7; 71:20; Song 8:6–­7). Sheol (s̆ĕʾôl; Jonah 2:2 [3]) is the major term used in the Hebrew Bible for the place of the dead, appearing sixty-­six times. But that it appears only sixty-­six times in such a large collection of texts suggests that the interests of the biblical writers are focused on life, not on death or what comes after. In keeping with ancient Near Eastern notions of cosmology, Sheol is cold and damp—­since beneath the disk of the earth are the chaotic waters of the underworld, held in check by the power of the Lord. So Sheol appears with the Hebrew expressions s̆aḥat, “the Pit” ( Jonah 2:6 [7]; see Pss 16:10; 30:9 [10]); tĕhôm, “the deep”

368

JONAH

or “the abyss” ( Jonah 2:5 [6]; see Gen 1:2; 7:11; Ezek 26:11; 31:4); mĕṣûlâ, “the depths” ( Jonah 2:3 [4]; see Ps 69:2 [3]); mayim, “waters” ( Jonah 2:5 [6]); and mayim rabbîm, “mighty waters” (e.g., Ps 29:3; Song 8:7; Ezek 27:26; 31:5). All of this suggests that the psalm in Jonah 2 was not composed for its current location.20 There are numerous biblical examples of poems secondarily incorporated into their context (e.g., 2 Sam 1:19–­27; Isa 2:1–­4 ǁ Mic 4:1–­3; Nah 1:2–­11; and in the NT, Luke 1:46–­55; Phil 2:6–­11). In a similar way, the psalm in Jonah 2 was selected for its current context: in this case, by the scribes responsible for incorporating Jonah into its canonical context in the Book of the Twelve. Its inclusion, then, speaks to the way that Jonah’s editors read this book. They found this song giving thanks for God’s gracious deliverance to be an apt expression of the message of the book of Jonah.21 The Ending of Jonah The comedy of Jonah ends on a curiously unresolved note. Jonah has retreated to a hillside vantage point to see whether, after all, God might yet carry out the grim intent in the message Jonah had borne: “Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” ( Jonah 3:4). Jack Sasson proposes, however, that Jonah’s prophecy had always been double intentional: the verb hāpak in 3:4 could mean “be overthrown,” but it could also mean “be changed, turned around” (see Hos 11:8).22 Whether this ambiguity is intended or not, it does point toward Jonah’s denouement. As we have seen, in the book of Jonah, God has the last word ( Jonah 4:10–­11). Intriguingly, in the Hebrew, the same verb, ḥûs, is used for Jonah’s concern for his shade plant ( Jonah 4:10) and God’s care for Nineveh ( Jonah 4:11); to preserve this parallel, the NRSV translates ḥûs in both places as “be concerned about.” Jonah’s concern about the plant revolves only around his own personal comfort: he is “anxious” about the plant (see Gen 45:20), as he was anxious about his reputation as a true prophet. But God’s ḥûs would better be rendered as “have compassion for” (see Joel 2:17; Ps 72:13). What is more, the language of

369

THE PROPHETS

Jonah 4:10 about “labor” strongly implies that the God of compassion has actively nurtured the growth of Assyria, a foreign, enemy nation (see Isa 19:25: “Assyria, the work of my [God’s] hands”). The last word in this book, then, affirms that it is God’s way to show compassion. Regarding the mysteriously open-­ended conclusion to this comedy, Jewish theologian Abraham Heschel writes, “God’s answer to Jonah, stressing the supremacy of compassion, upsets the possibility of looking for a rational coherence of God’s ways with the world. . . . Yet, beyond justice and anger lies the mystery of compassion.”23 The point of the comedy in Jonah is the joyful, mysterious, always surprising grace of God. Notes 1 William M. Schneidewind, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 162. 2 James D. Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 218 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 272. 3 Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1980), 298–­99. 4 Although Mika S. Pajunen and Hanne von Weissenberg (“The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 [4QXII], and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve,’” JBL 134 [2015]: 731–­51) argue that Jonah did not come immediately after Malachi on this scroll. 5 Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 421–­22, 426. 6 Elizabeth Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I, NIBCOT 17 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 258. 7 E.g., Timothy B. Cargal, “Jonah 3:10–­4:11: Homiletical Perspective,” in Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, ed. David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 75; and Steven S. Tuell, “You Can’t Say That! Preaching Jonah as a Comedy,” in Parental Discretion Advised: Adult Preaching from the Old Testament, ed. Alyce McKenzie and Charles L. Aaron (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2013), 5–­16. 8 Millar Burrows, “The Literary Category of the Book of Jonah,” in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, ed. Harry Thomas Frank and William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 92.

370

JONAH

9 John C. Holbert, “‘Deliverance Belongs to Yahweh’: Satire in the Book of Jonah,” JSOT 21 (1981): 60. 10 Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), 224. 11 Thomas Paine, Age of Reason (1807; Feedbooks), pt. 2, sec. 13, p. 116, http://​ klymkowskylab​.colorado​.edu/​Readings/​Thomas​%20Paine​%20​-​%20The​ %20Age​%20of​%20Reason​.pdf. 12 James Smart, “Jonah: Introduction and Exegesis,” in The Interpreters Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick et al., vol. 6 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1956), 872. 13 See Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses XIV.17; English translation at “Catechetical Lecture 14,” New Advent, 2020, https://​www​.newadvent​.org/​fathers/​ 310114​.htm. 14 Tertullian, On Purity, 10, cited in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament XIV: The Twelve Prophets, ed. Albert Ferreiro (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 134. 15 Commentary on Jonah, lecture 72, in Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. John Owen (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847; Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005), https://​ccel​.org/​ ccel/​calvin/​calcom28/​calcom28​.iii​.1​.ii​.html. 16 See Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat II:106. 17 Daniel C. Timmer, “God and Nineveh, Jonah and Nahum: Odd Pairs and Coherence in the Twelve” (presentation, annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA, November 22, 2010). 18 James Luther Mays, Psalms, IBC (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994), 24. 19 Mays, 21. 20 With, e.g., Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 265; and Phyllis Trible, “The Book of Jonah: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander Keck, vol. 7 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 464–­65. 21 Childs, Introduction, 422–­25. 22 Jack Sasson, Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation, AYB 24b (New York: Doubleday, 1990). 23 Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 67.

371

11

Micah

To the prophet Micah we owe thanks for drawing back the curtain on the concerns and theological foundations of ancient Judah’s village elders. At a day’s hike from Jerusalem, Micah and his fellow leaders did not live in Judah’s royal center, nor did they commute daily through the gates of Jerusalem’s temple. Indeed, as elders of the Judahite hinterland, they may have found Jerusalem, although laughably modest if compared to the capital of the Neo-­Assyrian Empire or other major ancient cities, large and imposing. Jerusalem’s high walls were likely off-putting and its twisting, narrow streets confusing. The luxury of the royal palace, garnished with gold and ornamented with bright colors and beautiful reliefs, would have looked rococo to a rural elder such as Micah, who would have been much more accustomed to the earth tones and the flat surfaces of the grimy, plastered mud brick of peasant homes. The rhythmic sounds and aroma of burning flesh emanating from beyond the temple walls and its altar, perhaps alluring and mesmerizing to a degree, would have equally signaled to a rural elder such as Micah that he was in a setting not his own, a visitor to a place he did not belong.

373

THE PROPHETS

Figure 11.1 Micah prophesies before three men, miniature from the Bible of the Monastery of Santa Maria de Alcobaça, ca. 1220s CE.

Micah’s world was that of dusty roads tamped down by the bare feet of filthy children, who were led out by sweaty men and smelly laborers to work at planting, tending, and harvesting crops or shepherding, breeding, and slaughtering the flock. The concerns of these elders were that of service to the elderly patriarchs and matrons, the wives and sisters and aunts, and the passel of younger children—­their future—­running to and fro and in and out of the village streets and family courtyards. If Isaiah sought to influence the machinations of royalty, who spoke for these People of the Land? Elder Micah did. Micah of Moresheth We can read today of two external witnesses of Micah, both of which are insightful. The first is the superscript to the book itself: “The word of the Lord, which was to Micah, the Moreshethite, in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem” (Mic 1:1). This superscript, whose terminus post quem must be located with Hezekiah’s reign—­but probably

374

MICAH

later—­says something about how later caretakers of Micah’s prophecies read this village elder/prophet, how they initially contextualized and approached his prophetic declarations. They grounded Micah in a place, Moresheth, not with a family (e.g., Isaiah ben Amoz, Isa 1:1; Ezekiel ben Buzi, Ezek 1:3; but see, e.g., Amos from Tekoa, Amos 1:1; Nahum from Elkosh, Nah 1:1). They also reported that the initial phases of his prophetic work date to the reigns of Jotham (742–­735 BCE), Ahaz (735–­715 BCE), and Hezekiah (715–­687/6 BCE). Also, the tradents who inherited, preserved, and passed on as an heirloom Micah’s prophecies understood them to concern the two capital cities of the sister nations Samaria and Jerusalem. Already the flavor of Micah’s prophecies can be tasted in this superscription; Micah, from the village of Moresheth, spoke out against the religious and political urban centers of the two theocracies. Even more tantalizing is testimony about Micah preserved by an ancient Judahite political confrontation, reported in Jeremiah 26:16–­20. This narrative records the controversy that ensued after Jeremiah’s famous temple sermon, in which he called for obedience to the conditional covenant with the Lord ( Jer 7:5–­7; 26:3) and in the same breath challenged the temple theology that trusted in the Lord’s presence in the temple ( Jer 7:4, 10). This court case exposes a religious and political schism that split the leadership class of late seventh-­century Judah. Against Jeremiah stood the priests and prophets of Jerusalem’s temple ( Jer 26:16), who sought the prophet’s very life. To Jeremiah’s defense came several of the elders of the Land (26:17), who cited as precedent the prophecy of Micah the Moreshethite, quoting Micah 3:12 (“Zion shall be plowed as a field, Jerusalem shall become ruins, and the temple mount—­forested heights!”), a prophecy that they credit with rescuing Hezekiah and Judah from destruction. For our purposes here, suffice it to point out that Jeremiah 26 locates Micah within the stream of Deuteronomic traditions advocated by Jeremiah, centralized by Josiah’s reforms, and advocated as well by Hosea in the first half of the eighth century, though it should be recognized that they originated at an even earlier date.

375

THE PROPHETS

These witnesses help usher us through a portal in time and space and introduce us to the ancient prophet Micah. In Micah, we meet a village elder who lived in Judah in the last half of the eighth century BCE, a man whose loyalties place him outside of, and hostile to, the power centers of the states of Israel and Judah at an important point in their history. They report that Micah’s theological allegiances understood the Lord’s protection to be conditioned upon the people’s fealty to the Lord alone and to their careful attention to the ethical demands of their covenant with the Lord. We look back, therefore, to the eighth century in order to recall which particular events Micah addressed and what prompted his excoriations of Samaria and Jerusalem (1:1, 6; 3:1). At this period in their history, Israel and Judah both faced the Neo-­Assyrian threat, which, when viewed from a distance, played itself out in three acts: (1) the western campaign by Tiglath-­pileser III, 734–­732 BCE; (2) the fall of Israel and Samaria, 722–­720 BCE; and (3) Hezekiah’s revolt and Sennacherib’s response, 701 BCE. We must keep in mind, however, that Micah’s conversation partners are not the Neo-­Assyrians but the authorities and power brokers of Jerusalem, for how they responded to these threats and events impacted the small towns of the Shephelah, Micah’s home region, and thus his fellow villagers, his people. In defense of these, he spoke to power, and for their fate he mourned. The term people (ʿām) is a special term in the book of Micah, appearing twenty times. These occurrences, however, are not homogenous. Most often people references not the nation at large but, much more narrowly, Micah’s specific constituency (see 1:9; 2:8, 9; 3:3). In later texts (see the discussion of the literary development of the scroll), other uses of people stand for the nation of Israel as a whole (Mic 6:2, 3, 5, 16; 7:14). With the plural, peoples (ʿammîm; 1:2; 4:1, 3, 5, 13; 5:6, 7), the text addresses the nations. Micah’s use of people is not generic language, written casually, but rather a reference to his constituency, identified elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as the “People of the Land.”1 Although, as we have noted in the foregoing, the People of the Land were from the rural countryside,

376

MICAH

living outside of the urban power center that was Jerusalem, this group was neither weak nor poor. As Stephen Cook argues, Micah’s support group consisted of the landed gentry of Judah’s Shephelah, and they were not without a voice!2 In the mid-­ninth century, the People of the Land joined a coalition who forcibly removed the Omride queen Athaliah from Judah’s throne, in preference for a Davidic ruler, Jehoash (2 Kgs 11:14, 18, 19, 20). Again in 640 BCE, the People of the Land played a decisive role in installing Josiah as the successor to the assassinated Amon (2 Kgs 21:24). These episodes, which add information to what we learn from the People of the Land’s involvement in the defense of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 26, place before us on center stage not a ragtag collection of peasants but rather a well-­defined, well-­organized political party with a clear platform. Cook summarizes the evidence, describing the People of the Land as “landed aristocracy,” “a bloc of rural squires” who operated at the periphery of the royal state.3 Micah served as an elder, an officer, in this ancient political body—­indeed, one of their most effective voices who spoke their particular brand of truth to power. Still today, Micah’s prophecies give voice to the issues that seared the hearts of his support group, and they exhibit publicly the theological assumptions and political presuppositions that formed the basis of his advocacy. We will refer to these traditions as Proto-­Deuteronomistic in an attempt to identify a set of traditions that were eventually incorporated into Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reigns, being published in the laws of Deuteronomy and the literature shaped by these laws and traditions. Even more, Micah’s exilic and postexilic successors who cherished and advanced his oracles remained faithful to these theological traditions, interpreting them anew as their communities wrestled with changing circumstances and social settings. At this juncture, however, it must suffice simply to list several prominent social, political, and theological concerns that we will elaborate on in the ensuing stroll through the prophecies, now secured in the vault that is the scroll of Micah:

377

THE PROPHETS

• the exclusive, aniconic worship of the Lord (see the discussion of 1:6–­7) • the prioritization of ancestral lands and family inheritances (see the discussion of 2:1–­5, 8–­9) • an aversion to the military buildup by the Judahite state (see the discussion of 2:6–­11; 3:1–­12) • a decentralized view of religious, political, and social governance, organized around a kin-­based social structure (see the discussion of 2:1–­2; 3:1–­12; 4:4, 7).4 Another very important aspect of the prophecies preserved in the Micah scroll is an attempt by Micah’s support group at specific and important times to compromise and reconcile with the adherents of Zion theology, the Jerusalem authorities (see the discussion of 4:1–­3, 6–­13; 5:1–­5a [4:14–­5:4a MT]). Texts expressing this intent, however, reflect a practice and a strategy at particular junctures in history and did not per se belong to the dogma of Micah’s disciples. To ignore Micah, then, is to close one’s eyes to the richness of ancient Judah’s theological discourse and social complexity. Micah hands to us the product of a lively theological mind who lived neither in the royal court nor the temple’s temenos. His hand reaches to us from the distant past to unshutter a window to the rural hinterland of Judah’s Shephelah. His now moldered quill has left us eloquent literary works belying a fiery passion fueled by a theological tradition that demands exclusive loyalty to the Lord and privileges the outlying families and their most precious asset, the land that they till. The Scroll of Micah But what can be said of the literary heirloom itself, carefully handed down to us through the ages? The scroll of Micah evinces all of the signs of a document that was expanded by new prophetic declarations as the nation and the people faced subsequent crises. At the end of the nineteenth century, Bernhard Stade argued that the words of the

378

MICAH

eighth-­century prophet Micah can be found in chapters 1–­3, an argument still finding adherents today.5 The scene reported in Jeremiah 26:16–­20, referenced above, indicates that even after 125 years, Micah’s prophecies remained living documents, being treasured, studied, and quoted by a circle of his loyal disciples, the descendants of the People of the Land, and village elders. Later tradents such as these, perhaps dating to the time of the exile, may have authored the oracles now found in Micah 4 and 5 (“In days to come . . .”), chapters that continue to promulgate the Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions. Then in the postexilic period, Micah 6:1–­7:7 was added (“Hear what the Lord says”), extending Micah’s theological imagination to the new beginning that was the early restored society. Micah 7:8–­20, as the traditional view poses it, closes out the scroll with four liturgical hymns, ultimately in praise of God’s loving grace. This very traditional understanding of the stepped growth of the scroll will be followed here, but not without acknowledging the legitimate concerns and well-­studied objections of many. Delbert Hillers writes off this depiction of tiered, stepped growth as too fanciful, unable to be confirmed, and posits instead that the whole scroll of Micah is the product of a millenarian group.6 In order to complete his picture, he also suggests that some of the choppiness of the text should be attributed to portions of it that have been lost from the scroll in the process of transmission. Ehud Ben Zvi presents another approach, which states that we have today received only the final form of the text to read, and with Hillers, he agrees that we cannot safely speculate about what might stand behind this final form.7 He realizes that this final form of the text had its own context, however, one postdating by centuries the prophet himself, and as such, he interprets the text within the context of a group of literati living in Jerusalem during the Persian period. These readers, he argues, would have read and reread the text, making connections and references both forward and backward, which should also be how we open up the book today. This annotated list could be extended, but the point is to recognize that there is validity to reading the text of Micah as a coherent whole.

379

THE PROPHETS

Nevertheless, in our view, the superscript of the scroll of Micah, which mentions the kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, though added by redactors at a later date, directs the reader initially to the eighth-­ century BCE context and to the land of Judah. This directive—­along with the recognition of how ancient scribes added materials to scrolls over time in order to preserve them, almost like a safe-­deposit box in a bank—­turns us back to the traditional view of the incremental growth of the text over time.8 All the while encouraging readers to study further the prophecies in the book of Micah, the traditional approach

Sidebar 11.1: Outline of Micah

I. 1:1: Superscript



II. 1:2–­3:12: Imperatives to hear

A. 1:2–­2:11: Hear! All of the peoples

1. 1:2–­7: The Lord as witness



2. 1:8–­16: A lament over the Shephelah on account of idolatry



3. 2:1–­11: In response to the Assyrian threat B. 3:1–­12: Hear! Heads of Jacob, rulers of house of Israel (twice)



1. 3:1–­8: Hear, a first time!



2. 3:9–­12: Hear, a second time!

III. 4:1–­5:16: In days to come

A. 4:1–­5: A pilgrimage to the temple



B. 4:6–­5:9: In that day



380





1. 4:6–­7: Assembling those cast off



2. 4:8–­5:1: A dominion for Zion



3. 5:2–­9: A ruler from Bethlehem C. 5:10–­15: Purification of the land

MICAH



IV. 6:1–­7:7: A court case over breach of covenant

A. 6:1–­8: Hear ye! Convening of the lawsuit against the people

1. 6:2–­5: Hear! God’s defense



2. 6:6–­8: Worshipper’s contrition and admission of guilt



B. 6:9–­7:7: Hear ye! Convening of the lawsuit against the authorities

1. 6:10–­16: Injustice in the city



2. 7:1–­7: Isolation of the worshipper



V. 7:8–­17: Penitence and restoration



VI. 7:18–­20: A final song of praise

presents itself as a well-­established platform on which we will introduce the individual pericopae of the text. Micah 1–­3 In their current form, the first three chapters of Micah are divided by three imperatives, the first being “Hear, O peoples, all of you!” (1:2; authors’ translation). The second and third imperatives are nearly identical to each other: “And I said: Hear, O heads of Jacob and leaders of the House of Israel” (3:1; authors’ translation) and “Hear this, O heads of the House of Jacob and leaders of the House of Israel” (3:9; authors’ translation). This twining of imperatives in chapter 3 creates a twofold condemnation of the leadership of Micah’s own nation. The text indicates, then, two initial collections of Micah’s words: “part one,” found in 1:2–­2:11, and “part two,” in 3:1–­12. The imperative of part one is directed expansively, to all peoples on the one hand and the fullness of the earth on the other (1:2). Verse 2b identifies the Lord as the witness to the nations, then rushes ahead to its main point in verse 5, which clearly enough identifies the destination

381

THE PROPHETS

for the Lord’s departure from his sanctuary to be Samaria and Jerusalem. Here, Micah displays his antagonism toward the authorities of the northern kingdom as well as those of the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. The transgression for which Micah convicts Samaria (but this time without mention of Jerusalem!) is idolatry (vv. 6–­7), which is described pejoratively as the wages of a prostitute. Samaria forged political alliances, which were witnessed to by the allied nations’ deities, who were embodied in idols. The allies’ insistence on divine witnesses was the ancient version of “trust but verify.” (Recall in this regard that Micah insisted the Lord alone serves as the witness to the peoples and the earth; 1:2.) In the eyes of a prophet or priest loyal solely to the Lord, and insistent on the aniconic worship of God, this would appear as Israel prostituting itself with other gods (see Hos 1–­3; Ezek 16; 23; Jer 8:19; 10:3–­5). Israel’s “prostitution” yielded “wages,” which the golden idols received as payment (v. 7). These verses, then, preserve Micah’s theological explanation for the fall of Samaria. Having said that, it is critical to understand that Micah was a Judahite from the Shephelah. His interpretation of Samaria’s demise, then, ultimately served as a warning directed toward Jerusalem. Micah 1:8–­16 showcases the prophet’s lament over the destruction of the Shephelah villages and cities. The relationship of the lament to the verses above have been debated, but in our view, this dirge is tightly bound to the previous material on account of the initial “Because of this” (ʿal-­zōʾṯ) in verse 8, which recalls “all of this” (kol-­zōʾṯ; v. 5) and which in turn sums up the destruction to be brought by the Lord (v. 6). In such a case, Micah complains bitterly that it is ultimately the people of the towns and the villages in the countryside who, through no fault of their own, suffer for sins committed by the royal capitals of Samaria and Jerusalem. This is not, then, a taunting lament but rather a true expression of sadness.9 It is also in keeping with traditional village funerary practices (Amos 5:16–­17). The lament in 1:8–­16 is a fascinating piece of literature in its own right. True, it mourns for towns and villages located in Micah’s home

382

MICAH

region in the Shephelah; all of them were quite likely villages Micah knew and visited, perhaps on a regular circuit, whose elders would have made up his support group and for whom he would have spoken. Beyond historical geography, however, the lament places on display Micah’s rhetorical skills as an orator—­for the numerous alliterations and clever wordplays make the most sense if this text was originally performed before an audience. Micah’s command “Tell it not in Gath” (begaṯ ʾal-­taggîdû; 1:10) plays with the g-t sounds of Gath, which are reversed in the Hebrew imperative “tell it not,” t-g. The very next line states that in Beth-­leaphrah, a transliteration of the Hebrew (beḇêṯ leʿap̱ rāh), the citizens should roll in the dust (ʿāp̱ār), creating an assonance with the last part of Beth-­leaphrah’s name. Then in verse 11, the “inhabitants” (yōšebeṯ) of Shaphir will pass by in bōšeṯ (shame). The houses of Achzib (bāttêy ʾaḵzîḇ; v. 14) will become a “deception,” leʾaḵzāḇ. Explanations here, in English, cannot do justice to the cleverness of the Hebrew. The alliterations and wordplays of the Hebrew text, as well as their dense clustering, are far from incidental, suggesting instead that Micah wrote his oracles with considerable skill, though he delivered them publicly per the custom of his time, but not as a ritual lament, rather to an assembly of the village elders from the Shephelah. In his annals, Sennacherib boasts that he destroyed forty-­six of Judah’s villages, proving Micah’s lament to be prescient. By the end of the eighth century BCE, Judah was beginning to preserve the words of prophets, such as Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and Micah, whose pronouncements passed the test stated in the law governing the prophets, which was eventually written down in Deuteronomy 18:15–­22. With Micah 2:1–­5, the prophet critiques the creation of plantations or estates by powerful, wealthy nobles and authorities through the confiscation of the traditional, ancestral landholdings of Judahite families and clans (vv. 1–­2).10 In turn, invoking lex talionis (see Exod 21:24), the Lord conspires evil as well, removing from the perpetrators a representative within the assembly of the Lord certified to mark off and claim their own ancestral territory (v. 5). A precise setting for this and,

383

THE PROPHETS

indeed, all of Micah’s prophecies remains opaque. We suggest, however, that in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom, refugees fled south to Judah in search of a safe haven. The biblical text speaks of Hezekiah’s construction of a wall that encompassed the western hill of Jerusalem, wherein new residents found housing (2 Chr 32:5; 2 Kgs 18:17; 20:20; 22:14; Zeph 1:10–­11). The size of the city expanded to ten times the earlier size of the City of David.11 Such evidence indicates the scope of Hezekiah’s problem: How was he to settle these new refugees from the north? They needed family inheritances of their own. Judah was at that time an agrarian society, as were all the societies of ancient Palestine, which necessitated that families had land to cultivate. This situation required that Hezekiah reallot and redistribute ancestral inheritances. Micah’s voice calls out one side’s cry for justice: don’t take away our families’ land! Hezekiah, on the other side, had the problem of supplying arable land to a massive new population, which in itself is equally a social justice issue. Micah 2:6–­ 11 recounts a dispute between Micah and several unnamed opponents who were apparently rallying Micah’s people for war. In principle, Micah’s opponents seek to stifle him, as reflected in his quotation of their objection to his own prophetic work: “Do not

Sidebar 11.2: The Fall of Lachish In several stone reliefs adorning his palace walls, Assyrian leader Sennacherib boasts of his conquest by the display of the stripped bodies of Lachish’s citizens, strung out and prostrated as booty and presented to him in procession as he was seated on a makeshift throne on the hill overlooking the captured city (see fig. 11.2). Although Micah 2:6–­11 seems to date before these events, Micah knew the practices of the Assyrians; everyone did. It did not require a vision from God to know how Assyria treated its vanquished.

384

MICAH

Figure 11.2 “After the Fall of Lachish.” Lachish surrendered, and the Assyrian army entered the city. The king reviews Judaean prisoners. The cuneiform inscriptions read, “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria sat on a throne and the booty of Lachish passed before him.” Wall relief from the Southwest Palace at Nineveh (modern-­ day Ninawa Governorate, Iraq), Mesopotamia. Neo-­Assyrian period, 700–­692 BCE.

preach.” The issue at hand is found in Micah’s complaint, in verses 8–­9. On account of warfare, Micah’s people, who only seek peace, will be stripped naked, and the women and children among the victims will be driven from their homes. This speech of Micah seems to reflect the situation surrounding Sennacherib’s campaign at the end of the eighth century. Micah spoke what he knew to be true to the powerful of Judah. Their decision to provoke Assyria would result in the humiliation of his people, the People of the Land. As noted above, Micah 3:1–­12 demarcates a second collection of Micah’s words with two new introductory imperatives: “And I said: Hear, O heads of Jacob and leaders of the House of Israel” (3:1) and

385

THE PROPHETS

“Hear this, O heads of the House of Jacob and leaders of the House of Israel” (3:9). The first subsection, verses 1–­8, announces the horrendous fate awaiting Micah’s people (vv. 2b–­3), reflecting treatment commonly suffered by the victims of Assyrian sieges. Consistent with his diatribe in 2:6–­11, Micah does not blame Assyria or its barbaric hordes for such atrocities, but instead he impugns the leaders of Jerusalem whose plans to rebel imperiled Micah’s fellow villagers living in the Shephelah. The image of cooking meat in a pot (v. 3b) is horrendous yet perhaps deceptively clever in its subtlety. The verbs seem to reference the preparation of a sacrificial meal (see Ezek 24:3–­5), by which Jerusalem’s priesthood would hope to gain the Lord’s favor and protection. Micah twists this act of piety around, however, accusing them instead of actually sacrificing the people rather than the sheep. In a summary statement, verses 9–­12, Micah binds together all of the leaders into one final pronouncement of judgment. Micah’s opponents, Jerusalem’s noblest, trust in the Presence of the Lord in the temple. Micah’s opponents, it seems clear, were the advocates of Zion theology. His opponents presumed Jerusalem to be inviolable as long as the Lord of Hosts was enthroned in the temple, and they had faith that the Divine King had established an unconditional eternal covenant with the house of David and would protect the succession of Davidic scions (2 Sam 7:11b–­16; Pss 2; 46; 48:3–­8; 89:1–­37). Micah the elder from Moresheth had no confidence in such eternal guarantees. His hope was founded in justice for his people, the People of the Land, a justice that formed the core of a conditional covenant. The abrogation of this covenant would render Jerusalem, as it rendered Samaria before it (1:6), a heap of ruins. Micah 4–­5 Chapters 4 and 5 of Micah are structured by a threefold mention of a coming day (“In days to come,” 4:1; “In that day,” 4:6 and 5:10). Scholarly opinion regarding the dating and authorship of chapters 4 and 5 is multifarious. We have chosen here to present, as a working hypothesis,

386

MICAH

the more traditional view that these chapters generally preserve the voice of later disciples of Micah, who remained in the land after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and the second deportation of Judah’s nobility in 587 BCE. This structuring device of a coming day allows the exilic or early postexilic tradents of Micah to place soothing, hopeful words in the mouth of their long-­revered village elder yet direct this message toward an audience who, having suffered the torment of exile, now has a chance at a new beginning. These later theologians bring something new to the Micah tradition: a word of hope to those who remained in the land, their traditional audience, yet also a statement of (qualified) confidence in the central authorities ruling from Mount Zion. Such is the language of a new day and a time of reconciliation with former opponents. Micah 4:1 begins with an adverbial phrase that structures this expansion of the text and directs the reader’s attention to the “days to come.” Much has been made of the fact that Micah 4:1–­3 repeats, with only slight variations in word choice, Isaiah 2:2–­4. Yet of all texts, why did the later disciples of Micah choose Isaiah 2:2–­4 to introduce their vision of the future? With J. J. M. Roberts, we understand a core of Isaiah 2:2–­4 to have originated from the eighth-­century Jerusalem prophet Isaiah.12 According to this view, Isaiah 2:2–­4 expresses an important tenet of Zion theology, one stating that the nations would stream to Zion to receive instruction from the Lord. Hence in Isaiah’s mouth, Isaiah 2:2–­4 was a statement of imperial domination, a theological conviction comfortably held by Isaiah, who received his call in the Jerusalem temple, at the command of the enthroned Divine King (Isa 6:1–­2), and who served as a central prophet of the royal court of the Davidides and the Jerusalem temple. Such was the text that Micah’s later followers inherited. Yet in their mouth, Micah’s tradents seem to have purposefully appropriated this promise, but with a decided twist. Micah 4:4 states their contribution. Each one, and we take this to mean the households still living in the land, will dwell under its own vines and fig trees, a metaphor of their ancestral inheritance. These later bearers of the Deuteronomistic traditions gladly promise peace to Jerusalem’s temple and

387

THE PROPHETS

the leadership coalescing around it in their hope for reconstruction. In the same breath, however, they continue to claim for themselves, as would have their eponymous progenitor Micah, their right to live in peace upon their land. The next section of the exilic expansion of Micah is controlled by another adverbial modifier, “in that day” (4:6), linking this text back to that of 4:1–­5. Here, the appropriation of Zion traditions by the Deuteronomistic followers of Micah moves into full view with new prophetic words promising to return Zion to her preeminent position over the land: “The Lord will reign over them on Mount Zion from now until eternity” (4:7). At the time of composition, Zion is a woman in labor, tortured with pain, a metaphor for her present state of agony, yet one who will soon experience great joy (4:10), a future in which Zion will arise and “thresh” the “many peoples” (4:13), analogous to the introductory vision of Micah 4:1–­3 ǁ Isaiah 2:2–­4. Micah 5:1–­6 (here and elsewhere, we follow the English versification) couples this promise to Zion with a promise to a future ruler from Bethlehem of Ephrathah, which was, of course, the ancestral home of the Davidides. The acceptance of the Jerusalem temple cult (in service to the Divine King) alongside the authority of the Davidic dynasty (the Lord’s earthly regent) by Micah’s tradents, however, was the acknowledgment of historical reality, of realpolitik. Interestingly, while the priests of the second temple in Jerusalem ascended to a leadership role, the Davidic royal line’s reemergence mostly remained an eschatological hope (e.g., postexilic texts such as Zech 3:8; 6:12 expect the coming of a Davidic ruler called “Branch”; note too the application of the passage in Matt 2:5–­6). Although their program for the future restored nation hoped to welcome back the returning exiles, they defended the traditional rural citizens who remained in the hills of the Shephelah. These are the remnant of Jacob (4:4; 5:7).13 Those who later treasured Micah’s text use two metaphors to uplift this community: that of dew on grass (5:7), an image signaling the remnant’s miraculous presence throughout the land (“the wondrous origin of [the remnant’s] future existence”14), and that of a lion (5:8), signifying their dominance and strength. Both

388

MICAH

metaphors recognize the changed nature of the land. It will have been invaded and occupied by many peoples in the midst of the villagers of the Shephelah who remain on the land. Still, the remnant of Jacob will live independently of these squatters, waiting and hoping on no mortal (5:7). Nor will they live in fear of the nations all about, a promise that 5:10–­15 forms into an exclamation point. Micah 5:10–­15 promises a purge of religious expressions denounced with special vehemence by the Deuteronomistic traditions as being foreign, and as such, it may have served along with 1:2–­4 to bracket together an exilic Micah scroll. Nevertheless, the repetition of the verb “cut off” at the end of verse 9 and at the beginning of verse 10 catenates this section with what came before. Micah’s theological descendants sympathize with the advice of Jeremiah, who after the murder of Gedeliah counseled Johanan, Azariah, and all of the commanders of Judah’s forces not to flee to Egypt but to remain in the land ( Jer 42), even though it had been infiltrated by religiously foreign elements. Once again, it seems that Micah’s prophetic tradition traveled closely with that of Jeremiah.

Figure 11.3 The Prophet Micah Exhorts the Israelites to Repent by Gustave Doré, 1866 CE.

389

THE PROPHETS

Micah 6–­7 As stated above, we are following the hypothesis that the prophetic passages of Micah 6 and 7 were added to the scroll of Micah’s prophecies at a still later time, at points during the period of restoration. Looking at it broadly, we can divide this material into two sections, 6:1–­7:7 and 7:8–­20. The first section of material, Micah 6:1–­7:7, is distinguished by the repetition of the verb “to hear,” first as a command to the people (6:1, 2, 9) and then, in 7:7, as a concluding confession of confidence that God will hear the sufferer. This section limns out a court proceeding that God is bringing against the people. The second section, 7:8–­20, is a collection of prophecies that in the end celebrate God’s compassion for his people. In the court proceeding, Micah 6:1–­7:7, the Lord brings two contentions into the public square. The first is the “controversy of the Lord”

Sidebar 11.3: Expansions to the Micah Text Micah provides an outstanding opportunity to reflect upon the redaction and expansion of a prophetic text. A tendency exists in historical criticism to discount later redactional comments and expansions of the text. Such later material was not, so the reasoning goes, the prophet’s original inspired voice but rather additions or interpretations and is therefore of lesser value. These assumptions spring from modern prejudices about the authoritative voice of the original author and blossom in the context of legal strictures surrounding copyright, plagiarism, and an individualized view of intellectual property. These assumptions, however, were not shared by the ancient communities of faith. The earliest statements by prophets such as Hosea, Amos, and Micah were delivered orally, recorded on potsherds. They were preserved because they proved to be true prophecies, and later disciples,

390

MICAH

priests, scribes, prophets, or other officials found them valuable for study, and so they were preserved. But of course, the discussions of these old prophecies would have also been carried out orally. The value, however, of an older, true prophecy—­from, for example, Micah—­was not that it once was true but that later recipients of this prophecy might learn something about how God works that was valuable for their time. By way of illustration, see how Micah 3:12 was discussed around 609 BCE, as having something to say about whether Jeremiah should live or die ( Jer 26:16–­20). Eventually, later theological reflections and discussions by communities of faith revealed further evidence of the nature of God and as such were preserved in “theological vaults” that were ancient scrolls. This process has led Martti Nissinen to speak of “literary prophecy” and “scribal divination.”15 For modern communities of faith, mining these texts for theological insight, the identification and study of these additional prophetic words in their later contexts prove to be just as rewarding theologically as listening for the first prophetic voice.

directed to the mountains and concerning his people (v. 2, 3, 5). This is language based in the sphere of ancient Near Eastern covenants.16 In Deuteronomy, heaven and earth are called upon as witnesses (4:26; 30:19; 31:28). The inheritors of Micah’s prophetic voice, then, call upon the permanent foundations of the earth (6:2) to hear the Lord’s charge against his people, Israel, who have covenanted with him their fealty. The Lord follows this call of witness with an apologia grounded in not only the exodus event (led, significantly, by “Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” [Mic 6:4]!) but also his further guidance through the wilderness, culminating in the prophecies of Balaam son of Beor before King Balak of Moab, and still further, all the way to their settlement in Gilgal (6:3–­5), recounting Israel’s salvation history now found expounded in Exodus through Numbers and the early chapters of Joshua. This

391

THE PROPHETS

apologia also has its context in ancient Near Eastern covenants, in which a principle of reciprocity held suzerains accountable to their vassals.17 In essence, Micah 6:3–­5 asserts that the Lord held up his end of the covenant. Verses 6–­8, as they are currently positioned in the final form of the text, reflect Israel’s contrition and attempt at appeasement of the Lord’s wrath, achieved not through cultic sacrifice—­not even of one’s firstborn—­but rather by humbly implementing justice and kindness. The second contention, 6:9–­16, concerns the “tribe and assembly of the city” (so the NRSV, based on the witness of the LXX). Here, only wickedness reigns, found in its treasures and unbalanced scales and deceitful tongues. The land is made desolate because of the sins, using language that echoes Haggai: “You shall eat, but not be satisfied. . . . You shall put away, but not save, and what you save, I will hand over to the sword. You shall sow, but not reap” (see Hag 1:6). In the Micah scroll, this situation is evidence of the wickedness of the authorities in Jerusalem. In Haggai, by contrast, the incessant suffering is a result of the temple not being rebuilt (Hag 1:9–­11). No appeasement concludes this contention. The worshipper who speaks in 7:1–­7 is left in a desolate land, feeling isolated and alone, surrounded by those whose hands “are skilled to do evil” (7:3). Nevertheless, the final affirmation of the petitioner in 7:7 is to wait faithfully upon the Lord (see Pss 130:5, 7; 131:3; 147:11). At this point, the Mican tradents handed their scroll over into the trust of the postexilic community of the Persian period for study and worship. This community responded to the final word of patient and expectant hope in 7:7 with perhaps four songs of the Lord’s salvation and vindication (vv. 8–­10; 11–­13; 14–­17; 18–­20). The concluding song of Micah’s scroll, Micah 7:18–­20, extolls the incomparability of the Lord—­ “What god is like you?”18 And the quality that the text specifically singles out is the Lord’s forgiveness once waited upon in 7:7. Hence Micah and his successors leave God’s mercy as their final word.

392

MICAH

Conclusion The scroll of Micah reveals an eighth-­century prophet and rural elder who walked dusty paths and defended his fellow villagers before the urban authorities ruling from distant Jerusalem. The Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions gave him a perspective from which he could explain the fall of Samaria and a theological base from which he could foresee the brutality that Sennacherib would bring to his region. History proved Micah to be a true prophet. Hence his words were carried along the dusty byways of Judah’s history, through the exile, into the restoration of the area as a province of the Persian Empire. This pilgrimage rendered a scroll that in its final form both defended the rights of villagers and extolled the praise of the Lord in Jerusalem’s temple for modern students of the text. Notes 1 Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, SBLStBL 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 98. 2 Cook, 200–­204. 3 Cook, 47. 4 Under this bullet point, we will place the defense of villagers and the average citizens living in the rural communities outside of Jerusalem and at society’s margins in the view of power elites. 5 See the discussions of James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 21, 33; Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, trans. Gary Stansell (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 12, 14; and William McKane, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 7, 17, 19. 6 Delbert R. Hillers, Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 3–­4. 7 Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah, FOTL XXIB (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 4–­8. 8 See Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 20–­23, 173–­78. 9 Daniel Smith-­Christopher, Micah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 63, 67. 10 See Cook, Social Roots, 149–­51.

393

THE PROPHETS

11 J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 412. 12 J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 39–­43. 13 Sara Japhet, “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Period: On the Vocabulary of Self-­Definition,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 432–­49; Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–­5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013), 86–­87. 14 Wolff, Micah, 156. 15 Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 144–­62. 16 See Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, Analectica Biblica 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978), 101, 192–­93; and see “Treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-­Tessub of Amurru,” sec. 19, ANET, 205; and “God List, Blessings and Curses of the Treaty between Suppiluliumas and Kurtiwaza,” ANET, 206. 17 See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 184; and see Deut 26:17–­19. 18 Several commentators have pointed out that this last question may be a play on the name Micah (Wolff, Micah, 228; Smith-­Christopher, Micah, 45–­46).

394

12

Nahum

Historical Setting The first verse of Nahum establishes both its content (“An oracle concerning Nineveh”; for more about this Assyrian capital, see sidebar 10.2, p. 360) and its literary character (“The book [sēper] of the vision of Nahum of Elkosh”). Although sēper is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to identify literary units (e.g., Deut 17:18; 31:24–­26; Isa 30:8; Jer 25:13; 30:2; 36:2, 32; Ezek 2:9), only Nahum identifies itself as a book in its title. Neither Nahum nor his city, Elkosh, is mentioned anywhere else. Nor does the book of Nahum provide us with any explicit dates. Nahum’s detailed depiction of the fall of Thebes to the Assyrians in 663 BCE (Nah 3:8–­10) shows that the book was written after that event yet soon enough after for it to serve as a vivid example: what the Assyrians had done to Thebes would be done to their own great city, Nineveh. The prophet’s palpable anger and hatred toward Nineveh surely reflect the fresh memory of Assyrian oppression. But the scorn and mockery in Nahum 3:1–­7 or 3:18–­19 would have been impossible in a time of Assyrian strength. It makes the best sense, then, to date the poetic oracles in Nahum 1:15

395

THE PROPHETS

Figure 12.1 Siege of Lachish. Panels illustrating the beginning of the attack on Lachish. Assyrian, about 700–­692 BCE. From Nineveh, Southwest Palace, room XXXVI, panels 5–­6. These panels, with others to the right, show an important incident during Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE, the capture of Lachish in the kingdom of Judah. Here, at the back, long-­range artillery are slinging stones and shooting arrows. In front, storm troopers prepare for the assault.

(2:1)—3:19 to the period of Assyria’s decline and fall—­just before, or more likely shortly after, Nineveh’s destruction in 612 BCE.1 Literary Issues This short prophetic book contains some of the most powerfully effective poetry in the Hebrew Bible. Even in English translation, the rhythm and force of Nahum’s lines come through: The crack of whip and rumble of wheel, galloping horses and bounding chariot! Horsemen charging, flashing sword and glittering spear. (Nah 3:2–­3a)

396

NAHUM

But the subject of this poetry is, to say the least, unsettling. The prophet exults over the collapse of Assyria’s capital, Nineveh 1:15—2:13 [2:1-14], gloatingly describing the fall of the city in a mock dirge (3:1–­19). Still more disturbing, however, Nahum imagines the city of Nineveh as a woman, so that the fall of the city becomes a rape: I am against you, says the Lord of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will let nations look on your nakedness and kingdoms on your shame. (Nah 3:5) Nahum did not invent this metaphor. Portraying a city or a nation in feminine terms—­as a mother to its inhabitants, as a consort to its patron god, or even as a goddess—­was a fairly common poetic device in the ancient Near East. In the Bible, Hosea was the first prophet to imagine Israel poetically as the Lord’s wife (see Hos 1–­3). Later prophets followed suit, using adultery as a metaphor for idolatry and other forms of faithlessness to Israel’s God (e.g., Hos 2:4–­14; Jer 3:1–­10; 31:32; Ezek 16; 23). Of course, Nineveh was a foreign city, was the capital of the hated empire of Assyria, and could scarcely be accused of being an unfaithful spouse to the Lord!2 Yet Nahum describes Nineveh as the prostitute, gracefully alluring, mistress of sorcery, who enslaves nations through her debaucheries, and peoples through her sorcery. (3:4) It seems likely that this combination of blatant sexuality and supernatural power identifies Nineveh with the goddess Ishtar, the embodiment of female sexuality in Mesopotamia (fig. 12.2).

397

Figure 12.2 Ishtar, Queen of the Night. Rectangular, baked clay relief panel; modeled in relief on the front depicting a nude female figure with tapering feathered wings and talons, standing with her legs together; shown full-­frontal, wearing a headdress consisting of four pairs of horns topped by a disc; wearing an elaborate necklace and bracelets on each wrist; holding her hands to the level of her shoulders with a rod and ring in each; figure supported by a pair of addorsed lions above a scale pattern representing mountains or hilly ground and flanked by a pair of standing owls. Known as the Burney Relief or the Queen of the Night.

NAHUM

Sidebar 12.1: Nineveh as Ishtar In Canaan and Phoenicia, a city could be personified as a goddess, the consort of the city’s patron god. In Mesopotamia, the patron goddess of a city could be identified with the city itself. Nahum imagines Nineveh as the goddess Ishtar, who embodied both the wifely virtues of “safe” sex and fertility and the dangerous passions associated with prostitution and warfare. Nineveh’s association with Ishtar is ancient: the preface to the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1754  BCE) identifies Nineveh as the site of a temple to Inanna (the ancient Sumerian name for this goddess). In the fourteenth century BCE, King Tushratta twice sent the image of the “Ishtar of Nineveh” to Egypt to heal his in-­law Pharaoh Amenophis III—­confirming not only the antiquity of Ishtar’s connection to Nineveh but also the association of the goddess with magic (see Nah 3:4).

Theological Issues It is little wonder that many readers have found Nahum offensive. Indeed, some feminist critics refer to Nahum and texts like it as pornography,3 in which “objectified female sexuality” becomes “a symbol of evil.”4 One could respond that Nahum is deliberately offensive, written in an anger not hard to understand. After all, Assyria was a cruel and rapacious empire. So John Goldingay observes, “Nahum is divinely-­ inspired resistance literature.”5 Wilhelm Wessels, comparing Nahum to literature emerging from the South African struggle against apartheid, suggests that Nahum’s violent and offensive imagery is not “a call to violence or a legitimation of violence” but rather “served as an outlet for suppressed or cropped-­up emotions” of an oppressed people by imagining “a world free from the domination of the cruel Assyrians, stripped of their power.”6 But while knowledge of Nahum’s context may explain the book’s violent content, it surely does not excuse it. Many

399

THE PROPHETS

readers will find it reflective of vengeful hate and deeply troubling. Other readers, however, have interpreted Nahum as an argument of theodicy (“the Lord is good,” 1:7) directed at contemporary doubts that God can and will remove from earth a human evil as gross and cruel as that of Assyria. In this reading, Nahum rejoices in Nineveh’s fall not due to hatred but because God proves in this eventuality to be faithful, just, and sovereign, “slow to anger but great in power . . . [who] will by no means clear the guilty” (1:3). The canonical shaping of Nahum moves decisively in this direction. In the final form of this book, Nahum’s two poetic oracles against Nineveh are given an extended introduction. The book now opens with a poem (1:2–­11) depicting the Lord as the Divine Warrior, a God of justice who punishes the wicked and the oppressor. Nineveh’s destruction, then, is a measured divine response to Assyria’s wickedness, not the capricious act of a violent deity. Next, Nahum’s oracles are given an introduction (1:12–­14) ascribing Judah’s oppression at Nineveh’s hands to God: “Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more” (1:12). Implicitly, God had formerly used Assyria to punish Judah for its own faithlessness and injustice. The editors who incorporated Nahum into the Twelve have also paired this book with Habakkuk. Both books are “oracles” (maśśāʾ; Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1) and involve visions (the word saw in Hab 1:1 is ḥāzâ, closely related to the noun ḥăzôn [vision] in Nah 1:1). Further, while Nahum opens with a psalm depicting the Lord as the Divine Warrior victorious over chaos (Nah 1:2–­11), Habakkuk ends with just such a psalm (Hab 3:1–­19), framing the two books and inviting the reader to consider them together.7 This pairing is important, as Habakkuk poignantly describes the ambiguity of God’s will manifest in history (Hab 1:12–­17) and also addresses Judah’s own acts of injustice and oppression (Hab 1:2–­4). The canonical context of Nahum in the Twelve thus prevents the careful and caring reader from any simplistic inference that divine judgment may occur apart from the contingencies and ambiguities of history or that it primarily targets “enemy” peoples.

400

NAHUM

Sidebar 12.2: The Structure of Nahum

I. 1:1: Superscription



II. 1:2–­11: The opening psalm



III. 1:12–­14: Introduction to the oracles



IV. Two poetic oracles against Nineveh

A. 1:15—2:13 (2:1-14): Nineveh is targeted for destruction



B. 3:1–­19: Mock dirge over Nineveh and its king

The Opening Psalm After the title in 1:1, Nahum begins with a psalm praising God the Divine Warrior for God’s justice (Nah 1:2–­11). The acrostic features of this poem were first noted in the nineteenth century by Pastor Frohnmeyer of Württemberg.8 But the acrostic is incomplete. Further, Nineveh is not named in this poem, but rather, like many poems in the Psalter, the opening psalm identifies the enemy from whom deliverance is sought in broad, stereotypical terms. This suggests that an original psalm has been edited and reshaped to serve as an introduction to Nahum and a frame for Nahum and Habakkuk. While Nahum or his editors could have composed the poem as an incomplete acrostic, that would be without biblical precedent. It is more likely that Nahum 1:2–­11 represents an original acrostic psalm reshaped for use as the introduction to Nahum. The form of the poetry changes in verses 9–­11, where the acrostic pattern leaves off, but these verses explicitly continue the thought expressed in the acrostic, to the point of continuing the vocabulary and imagery of that poem (e.g., the reference back to the fire imagery of 1:6 in 1:10b). In the text as it now stands, these verses complete the poem and lead into the introduction to Nahum’s oracles that follows (Nah 1:12–­14).

401

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 12.3: The Acrostic Poem In English acrostics, the first letters of successive lines spell out words or phrases. For example, the third stanza of William Blake’s poem “London” reads, How the Chimney-­sweeper’s cry Every blackning Church appalls; And the hapless Soldier’s sigh Runs in blood down Palace walls. But Hebrew acrostics use all twenty-­two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in successive lines (Pss 9–­10; 25; 34; 111; 112; 145; Prov 31:10–­31) or stanzas (Pss 37; 119; Lam 1; 2; 3; 4). The acrostic in Nahum 1 is incomplete. The sequence ʿālep (v. 2a), bêt (v. 3b; although vv. 2b–­3a come between the ʿālep and bêt lines), and gîmel (v. 4a) is clear, but there is no dālet line. The hê and wāw lines follow in sequence (vv. 5a and 5b), but the zayin line requires one to read not the first but the second word in the line (v. 6a). The ḥêt (v. 6b) and ṭêt (v. 7a) lines again are clear, as is the yôd line (v. 7b, after the word “and”), but then the sequence ends in verse 8 with kāp, only halfway through the Hebrew alphabet.

Nahum 1:2–­11 provides a theological base for the prophet’s assertions regarding Nineveh. While the opening verse of the psalm identifies the Lord as a “jealous and avenging God,” who “is avenging and wrathful” (1:2), a quote from Exodus 34:6–­7 inserted at 1:2b–­3 qualifies this portrayal: The Lord is slow to anger but great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. (Nah 1:3)

402

NAHUM

God acts against Nineveh deliberately, then, for justice, not in a fit of rage. Still, the Lord appears in Nahum 1:2–­11, as in some of the oldest texts in Scripture (see Exod 15:1–­18; Judg 5:1–­31; Ps 29), as the Divine Warrior manifest in the storm, wielding wind, thunder, and lightning as weapons. Apart from a brief word of reassurance to God’s faithful (“The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble,” 1:7), the psalm stays with divine wrath and judgment: God “will make a full end of his adversaries” (1:8). In the final movement of the poem (1:9–­11), the Lord addresses the enemy directly: Why do you plot against the Lord? . . .  From you one has gone out who plots evil against the Lord, one who counsels wickedness. (Nah 1:9, 11) In the context of the book as a whole, the one addressed is Nineveh, and the plotters are Assyria’s kings (see Nah 1:13–­14), but in the poem itself, the enemy remains unidentified. The schemes of this unnamed enemy, however, are doomed to failure. After the poetic introit comes an introduction to Nahum’s original oracles (1:12–­14), beginning with the messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord” (1:12a). The Lord announces that the days of Assyrian oppression are now ended: “And now I will break off his yoke from you” (Nah 1:13; see Isa 9:3 [4]; Jer 27–­28). But first, the Lord declares, “Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more” (1:12)! Before turning to judge and condemn Assyria, then, the Lord declares that Assyria’s oppression had been God’s own doing—­a judgment on Israel’s sin. While this is a persistent theme in the works of other prophets concerned with Assyria’s rule (e.g., Isa 10:5; Hos 11:5–­7; Amos 7:10–­17; Mic 3:9–­12), it is not mentioned in Nahum’s original oracles. Most likely, then, this transitional unit, like the opening psalm, derives from the final editing of the book and its incorporation into the Twelve.

403

THE PROPHETS

Oracle: Nineveh Is Targeted for Destruction 1:15—2:13 (2:1-14) As the differing chapter divisions in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament indicate, the tradition is a bit uncertain as to where Nahum’s first oracle begins. However, Nahum 1:15 (2:1) describes the approach of a herald, signaling a new proclamation: Look! On the mountains the feet of one who brings good tidings, who proclaims peace. (1:15 [2:1]; see Isa 52:7) The announcement of peace may seem inappropriate to us, given the violence and devastation the following verses depict. For Nahum, however, the peace of oppressed Judah is only possible with the fall of Nineveh and the end of the Assyrian Empire. The messenger promises Judah, “Never again shall the wicked invade you; they are utterly cut off” (1:15 [2:1]), as though the fall of Nineveh means freedom from oppression. In Habakkuk, this naïve hope is dashed by the rise of Babylon (see Hab 1:5–­17). In the broader context of the Twelve, the messenger’s words become an end-­time promise of Judah’s final liberation. In 2:1 (2), the addressee shifts abruptly from Judah to Nineveh: “A shatterer has come up against you.” While Nineveh is assailed by human troops, Nahum has no doubt that God is the power behind the attack! In the lines that follow, the assault on Nineveh is described in vigorous and realistic imagery. The red shields and clothing of the attacking troops may mean that their shields are stained and their garments soaked with blood (see Isa 63:1–­6; Rev 19:13), but Ezekiel 23:14 describes Babylonian troops as “portrayed in vermilion” on Assyrian reliefs, so this may simply be a reference to the Babylonians’ red uniforms.9 The foot soldiers attack, supported by the cavalry (2:4-5 [5-6]) and siege engines: most likely, the Hebrew sōkēk in 2:5 (6; translated “mantelet” in the NRSV) describes a wheeled shelter affixed to a battering ram, used to breach Nineveh’s walls (fig. 12.3).10 Once its walls are breached and its gates are forced open, the city is overwhelmed: “It is decreed that the city [literally, ‘she’] be exiled”

404

NAHUM

(2:7 [8]; see 3:10). The fate the Assyrians had imposed upon the Israelites is now imposed upon them. Nahum 2:8 (9) is, apart from the superscription, the first mention of Nineveh in this book: Nineveh is like a pool whose waters run away. Nineveh was famous for its channels and well-­watered gardens, so imagining the city as a placid pool of water is easy to understand. After long years of resting cool and undisturbed, Nineveh has at

Figure 12.3 A siege engine (sōkēk) in action at the assault on Lachish. Assyrian, about 700–­692 BCE. From Nineveh, Southwest Palace, room XXXVI, panel 7. Siege engines lead the way up artificial ramps; inside, men with ladles pour water to prevent them from being set alight by torches thrown from the walls. British Museum, London.

405

THE PROPHETS

last experienced the turmoil it had inflicted upon other cities of the ancient world. In 2:11–­12 (12–­13), the oracle shifts again from the straightforward description of the city’s fall to metaphor. The days when Nineveh was a lion’s den, from which the lion went forth to hunt, are ended: The lion has torn enough for his whelps and strangled prey for his lionesses. (2:12 [13]) In this metaphor, the lion is Assyria’s royal line. From the reign of Shalmaneser III (859–­824 BCE) to the last days of Ashur-­etel-­ilani (627–­612 BCE), the last king of Assyria before Nineveh fell, the Assyrian royal seal featured the king battling with a rampant lion.11 The lion was also associated with kings in Israel (e.g., Gen 49:9; 1 Kgs 10:18–­20; 2 Chr 9:17–­19; Ezek 19:1–­9). The end of Nineveh means the end of Assyria and its royal line. Oracle: Mock Dirge over Nineveh and Its King (3:1–­19) Nahum’s second oracle (3:1–­19) opens with a mocking call to mourn the city whose fall the first oracle described: “Ah! City of bloodshed, utterly deceitful” (3:1). As in the first oracle, the opening verses present a realistic and vigorous depiction of the sacking of Nineveh by enemy troops. But after describing the heaps of corpses in Nineveh’s streets, the poet shifts to a metaphorical depiction of this disaster as the rape of Nineveh (3:4–­7). The Lord of Hosts pronounces judgment upon Nineveh and then enacts that judgment by pulling Nineveh’s skirts up over her head. The Hebrew Bible uses the verb galâ (strip, uncover), which in the Leviticus Holiness Code (see Lev 18:6–­19; 20:11, 17–­21) is used for shameful, defiling sexual intercourse (see Ezek 16:37–­41; 22:10, 18; and perhaps Gen 9:20–­27). But elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the expression “uncover (someone’s) nakedness” refers to the metaphorical rape of cities personified as women: Samaria (Ezek 23:10; Hos 2:9-10 [11-12]), Jerusalem (Ezek 16:36–­37; 23:29; Lam 1:8), and Babylon (Isa 47:3). Likely this is the intent in Nahum 3:4–­7 as well. Still, Nineveh’s metaphorical fate would

406

NAHUM

have been the actual experience of the women of Nineveh, once the soldiers poured in. Numerous ancient Near Eastern inscriptions and reliefs show male prisoners of war marching into captivity, stripped naked and bound so that they cannot cover themselves (Isa 20:4; 1 Sam 10:4; Ezek 5:1–­17). Indeed, the verb galâ, used in Nahum 3:5 for the Lord stripping Nineveh, can also mean “exile” (see Nah 2:7 [8]; 3:10). Daniel Smith-­Christopher proposes that “the Neo-­Assyrian and Neo-­ Babylonian practice of stripping and humiliating captive males” led to this meaning of the verb.12 Nahum 3:8–­10 describes the fall of Thebes, one of the great cities of ancient Egypt, to Assyria in 663 BCE. But despite its strength, Thebes could not stand and experienced all the atrocities that befall a conquered city (3:10; note that, like Nineveh, Thebes is portrayed as a woman). Nahum declares that Nineveh will fall just as Thebes had fallen (3:11–­15a). The fortresses defending Nineveh will fall like ripe figs into the mouths of their attackers (3:12). No resistance will be possible: Nineveh’s troops “are women,” its gates will not hold (3:13), and the sword “will devour you like the locust” (3:15a). Like Nahum’s first oracle (see 2:11-13 [12-14]), the second oracle ends with a royal metaphor common in the ancient Near East: this time, the image of the king as shepherd (3:17–­18). Assyria’s kings were called shepherds from ancient times, a metaphor used in Israel (see 2 Sam 5:2; Jer 3:15; Ezek 34:1–­10; Mic 5:1–­5a; Zech 10:2–­3; for the Lord as shepherd, see Ps 23; Ezek 34:11–­16) and familiar from the New Testament as well ( John 10; Matt 9:36; 18:12–­14; Mark 6:34; Luke 15:1–­7).13 The point of the metaphor was that the king cares for his people as a shepherd cares for the flock. But in Nineveh’s case, Your shepherds are asleep, O king of Assyria; your nobles slumber. Your people are scattered on the mountains with no one to gather them. (3:18)

407

THE PROPHETS

Just as the northern tribes of Israel had been scattered by the Assyrian exile and so disappeared from history, so Nineveh is doomed to dissolution. Assyria’s royal line has been mortally wounded and will never recover (3:19). The clapping of “all who hear the news about you” (3:19) is a sign of joy, as if the nations were applauding Nineveh’s fall. The caution about Nahum’s violent language expressed by its editors, both in the extended introduction to Nahum’s oracles and in the pairing of this book with Habakkuk, should be taken seriously by modern interpreters as well. Our world still needs to hear that God’s wrath is directed against evil and oppression, and inasmuch as Nahum communicates this message, its words remain relevant. But just as Nineveh is not literally Ishtar, “the prostitute, gracefully alluring, mistress of sorcery” (3:4), so God is not literally the male Lord of Hosts, who assaults and humiliates Nineveh in Nahum’s oracles. The challenge for modern readers is to hear Nahum’s language not only in its ancient context as resistance literature but also in its canonical context within the Book of the Twelve and within Scripture as a whole. The pairing of Nahum with Habakkuk calls into question a too-­literal interpretation of historical circumstances as acts of God. So too the contrast between Nahum and Jonah, also addressed to Nineveh, calls into question exclusivistic readings of Nahum, affirming that God ultimately intends salvation for the nations as well as for Israel. Even Nahum’s depiction of the Lord of Hosts as male may be called into question by Hosea, where the Lord, depicted as Israel’s mother (Hos 11:1–­4), declares, “I am God, and not man” (Hos 11:9 KJV; the Hebrew has the masculine ʾîs̆ [man], not the generic ʾādām [human, mortal]). It would be the height of arrogance for us to expel Nahum from the canon on the purported grounds of our moral or religious superiority. But we must also be careful, as Julia O’Brien warns, to reject “any response to evil—­including the reader’s own—­that perpetuates the very ideology of brutality that it seeks to oppose.”14

408

NAHUM

Notes 1 Marvin Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 422; Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the Old Testament (Macon, GA: Smith-­Helwys, 2016), 13–­14. 2 Julia O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 53. 3 T. Drorah Setel, “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea,” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 86–­95; Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel 23,” in On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Athalaya Brenner and Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 167–­76. See also Corrine L. Patton [Carvalho], “‘Should Our Sister Be Treated like a Whore?’ A Response to Feminist Critiques of Ezekiel 23,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSS (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 222–­26; and O’Brien, Nahum, 53. 4 Setel, “Prophets and Pornography,” 86. 5 John Goldingay and Pamela J. Scalise, Minor Prophets II, NIBCOT 18 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 18. 6 Wilhelm J. Wessels, “Nahum, an Uneasy Expression of Yahweh’s Power,” OTE 11 (1998): 625. 7 Aaron Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeietungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse, BZAW 260 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 244; Heinz-­Josef Fabry, Nahum, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 2006), 100. 8 Cited in Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, trans. Francis Bolton, vol. 1, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, fourth series, 29 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873), 11. 9 Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum–­Malachi, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 20; Klaas Spronk, Nahum, HCOT (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1997), 89. 10 J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 59. 11 Michael B. Dick, “The Neo-­Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Yahweh’s Answer to Job,” JBL 125 (2006): 246. 12 Daniel Smith-­ Christopher, “Ezekiel in Abu Ghraib: Rereading Ezekiel 16:37–­39 in the Context of Imperial Conquest,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton, SBLSS 20 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 154. 13 A. Leo Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” ANET, 281, 289. 14 O’Brien, Nahum, 57.

409

13

Habakkuk

Sometime in the period prior to 605 BCE, the prophet Habakkuk, a contemporary of Jeremiah, received vivid revelations of the rise of Babylonia and a coming threat it posed to Judah. These were the last decades of Judean national independence. It was too early, from a human perspective, to see that the kingdom’s end was near. The visions offering God’s perspective, however, raised questions about Judah’s long-­term survival and about God’s role in international affairs. Habakkuk is, at first, at a total loss about this role, about God using a wicked people to punish Judah. He sees God’s power and goodness at issue, a problem of theodicy, of divine justice (Greek theos [God] + dikē [justice]). The prophet asks God, Why do You countenance treachery, And stand by idle, While the one in the wrong devours The one in the right? (1:13 NJPS) Habakkuk, enmeshed in intense dialogue with God over justice in international affairs, received this message: “Look long and hard. Brace

411

THE PROPHETS

Figure 13.1 The Habakkuk Commentary, the Dead Sea Scrolls—­an early type of Jewish biblical commentary explaining the philosophy of the prophet Habakkuk.

yourself for a shock. . . . I’m about to raise up Babylonians to punish you, Babylonians, fierce and ferocious—­World-­conquering Babylon, grabbing up nations right and left, A dreadful and terrible people, making up its own rules as it goes” (Hab 1:5–­7 MSG). What could a God of justice and mercy be thinking in taking up this bewildering role in managing history? The vision of Babylonia’s rise seemed too much! God’s methods and instruments appeared beyond all reason and decency. Habakkuk did desire a powerful intervention in Judah (1:2), but this? Babylonia? That God should rise up for justice was, Habakkuk insisted, needed (1:4). But how can this particular course be moral and just?

412

HABAKKUK

Historical and Sociological Background Judah suffered internally with injustice in this era. The stipulations of the covenant were ignored in Jerusalem, with people refusing to heed either God’s instruction or God’s prophets ( Jer 26:1–­4). Royal leadership was helter-­skelter. Jehoiakim (609–­598 BCE) was focused not on justice but on beautifying his palace. Where was any compassion about the country’s downtrodden? Jeremiah confronted the king: “Woe to the one who builds his palace on the proceeds of unrighteousness, who adds upper rooms on the gains of injustice, who forces his own people to labor for nothing. . . . Your eyes are focused and your heart is set on one goal: deceitful personal gain. You make the innocent pay with their blood; you violently oppress them and take what is not yours” ( Jer 22:13, 17 VOICE). Such prophetic indictments and judgments proved useless. From the start of his reign, King Jehoiakim had no reverence for prophecy. In an infamous fit, he deliberately burned Jeremiah’s scroll of prophecies in a winter firepot ( Jer 36:23). Earlier, Jeremiah 26:20–­23 reports, the king had the Judean prophet Uriah kidnapped in Egypt and lugged back for execution. The king struck him down and disposed of the body without proper mourning rituals. He “dumped his body unceremoniously” (v. 23 MSG). During Jehoiakim’s reign, Habakkuk foresaw, Babylonian power and ambition would vastly expand. And indeed, no sooner was the vision recorded than Babylonia was threatening Egypt. Pharaoh’s hold on northern lands was in trouble both in Syria and lower down in the Levant. In 605 BCE, at the decisive battle of Carchemish (near Haran on the upper Euphrates), the Babylonians under General Nebuchadnezzar dislodged the Egyptians and drove them south (see fig. 2.9, p. 49). It was a watershed moment in ancient Near Eastern history. Babylonia was now the world superpower. Habakkuk’s book is a compelling theology of human suffering and a powerful prophetic wrestling with God’s goodness set against the backdrop of the Babylonian onslaught of the sixth century BCE. It is

413

THE PROPHETS

nothing less than a theological tour de force, grappling impressively with theodicy. It squarely faces a key question: If God is Judah’s rock-­ safe protector and also unable to tolerate evil, how can God let loose the Babylonians on the people? Habakkuk’s response to this problem did not emerge from scratch, whipped up in one sitting. Rather, the book arose through an extended history of composition. Clues within the present form of the text betray its complex background. Most overtly, there occur worship directions in Habakkuk 3:1 and 3:19, including liturgical references to stringed instruments and perhaps a tune name. These prose rubrics indicate that Habakkuk’s poetic praise within the book is no simple component of a private dialogue with God. The praise befits an entire worshipping congregation’s hymnic response to God’s revelation. The language of the book’s praise stems directly from temple worship. The prophet, or later editors, recycled it for use in its present context. The poetry remains suitable for use in worship even now, long after the immediate crisis of Habakkuk’s experience has passed. In the context of the book, however, chapter 3 is not liturgy per se (like the psalms) but an instance of the use of worship on a particular occasion (as with the community lament at the temple in the book of Joel). Other clues about the origins of Habakkuk’s prophecies are more subtle, embedded in the book’s Hebrew. The prophet’s title nābîʾ is given by both Habakkuk 1:1 and 3:1, and the Targum stresses the title even more: “The prophecy the prophet Habakkuk prophesied.” This emphasis may reflect the word’s original definition: a specialist trained in invoking God. Invocation of God’s Presence, at least in early prophecy, could require training, learning special rites, such as sacrifices at a shrine (1 Kgs 18:24; see also 1 Kgs 3:4–­5). Alternatively, Steven Tuell notes that Habakkuk’s term prophet here resonates exclusively with the same diction in the titles of Haggai and Zechariah—­two other “central intermediaries,” to use Robert R. Wilson’s terminology.1 Either way, from the start, the book drops hints about Habakkuk’s professional training, befitting a temple specialist.

414

HABAKKUK

A second indication of a professional temple role may occur at Habakkuk 2:1 and 3:16. These texts hint at Habakkuk’s expertise in summoning (incubating) nocturnal contact with God (see Ps 63:1–­2, 6). They reflect ancient Near Eastern ritual techniques of sleep incubation, inviting dialogue with God through a dream at a shrine. The procedure might include sacrifices, weeping, and donning mourning garments before lying, awaiting a dream. The Ugaritic tablets tell how Danil received Baal’s help through sleeping for a dream vision. A Hittite text (KUB 1.15) describes a nocturnal incubation rite that cures male impotence better than Viagra. Significantly, revelatory dreams in the Hebrew Bible often include the sort of dialogue with God that occurs in Habakkuk. Such dialogue appears in the dreams of Genesis 20:3–­7; 26:24; 28:12–­16; 1 Samuel 3:10–­15; 28:6. Performing an incubation rite did not automatically cause God’s appearance. In Isaiah 21:11–­12, for example, the prophetic “night watchman” has nothing yet to share. He says he has no “burden”—­no weighty divine judgment—­yet to relate. Despite great interest in a revelation, the “watchman” can only declare, “For now it’s still night. If you ask me again, I’ll give the same answer” (v. 12 MSG). Still, he hopes and trusts that “morning’s coming.” Inquirers can and should “check back later” (VOICE). We do not know how long Habakkuk had to “keep watch” before he received his “vision” (Hab 2:1–­2). Eventually, however, “dawn” did arrive. Compelling language of sunrise appears at Habakkuk 2:20 (parallel to Ps 46:5, 10) and 3:3–­4. Given such language, the reader imagines that after some nights of expectant, vigilant sleep (Hab 2:1; see Isa 21:11–­12), God appeared and responded to Habakkuk’s questions. Habakkuk’s book terms his oracles a maśśāʾ—­that is, a “burden” (Hab 1:1 Orthodox Study Bible, VOICE; “oracle” in the NRSV). After the Babylonian exile, the term is associated with temple prophets (Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1). Perhaps more relevant, the word maśśāʾ was earlier a term at home in the temple, an association it still appears to have in Habakkuk. Prophetic burdens were originally weighty oracles

415

THE PROPHETS

answering worshippers’ questions at a shrine, usually questions about God appearing. Often, such burdens were heavy threats of divine intervention against foreign enemies (see Nah 1:1; Isa 13:1; 14:28; 15:1, etc.). Thus Habakkuk first delivered his “burdens” in the manner of a shrine prophet—­that is, in response to the questionings of worshippers. In this regard, it is intriguing to note that the divine commands and revelations in Habakkuk 1:5 direct themselves to a plural audience in the Hebrew. An entire group, or congregation, should “look,” “see,” “be astonished,” and “be astounded!” The Hebrew verbs and pronominal suffixes strongly suggest that Habakkuk first delivered some divine revelations of the book to a worshipping community. Only later were the prophecies embedded in their present carefully organized rhetorical sequence. Here again, the language and themes of Habakkuk’s book fit the world of a Judean temple seer. Habakkuk’s Literary Structure and Character Dialogue with God is a component of dream revelations, but it also recalls a second genre: the psalm of lament and supplication. Like nocturnal incubations, such psalms belong to the sphere of temple ritual. Thus Psalm 94:2–­3, a community lament, cries out “how long?” just as Habakkuk 1:2 does. It complains to the “judge of the earth” about economic and social oppression among the Israelites. Like Habakkuk, the psalm takes seriously the challenge posed by wickedness to faith in God’s power and care. And by verses 16 and 23 of the psalm, God appears, answering the prophet’s complaint, rising up against the wicked. From a time later than Habakkuk, Psalm 74 likewise cries out to God over divine justice. Verse 10, like Habakkuk 1:2 and Psalm 94:3, cries out, “How long, O God?” Amid national catastrophe, the community demands a divine appearance and accounting. The authenticity and power of lament psalms made them the backbone of the Psalter and also gave them resonance outside of temple precincts in the prayers of figures such as Jeremiah and Job, whose lives entailed deeply

416

HABAKKUK

profound struggles with theodicy. Job 19:7 echoes the complaint of Habakkuk 1:2: “Even when I cry out ‘Violence!’ I am not answered.” A bit later, Job 19:25 employs the lament genre’s characteristic motif of confidence: “I know that my Redeemer lives.” The scroll of Habakkuk, it now appears, is built up out of rites, hymnody, and oracles stemming from the work of a temple prophet within a worshipping community. But this is just the raw material of Habakkuk’s composition. In the book’s present form, such building blocks join to relate a personal dialogue of a deeply troubled soul and God. No longer a community lament, the dialogue is now a personal struggle over divine justice, with which all deep and serious readers can identify, even after the temple has passed from history. Habakkuk represents a sophisticated exchange indeed, one that progresses to weighty disclosures and insights. We hope to explore some of this in what follows. In its present canonical shape, Habakkuk’s book consists of a superscription, three main sections, and a concluding subscription/colophon.

Sidebar 13.1: The Structure of Habakkuk

I. 1:1: Superscription



II. 1:2–­11: First dialogue cycle

A. 1:2–­4: Habakkuk’s first lament



B. 1:5–­11: God’s response





III. 1:12–­2:20: Second dialogue cycle

A. 1:12–­2:1: Habakkuk’s second lament



B. 2:2–­20: God’s response

1. 2:2–­5: The vision



2. 2:6–­20: The woes

IV. 3:1–­19: Habakkuk’s prayer

417

THE PROPHETS

Sections one and two represent two dialogue cycles, in which a lamenting prophet confronts God over pressing issues of divine justice (theodicy) and God responds in a variety of manners. Section three consists of a prayer, a hymn praising God through powerful mythic images and expressing the birth of a new form of human life. The Content of Habakkuk’s Prophecies The prophet’s first dialogue cycle, in 1:2–­11, begins with the complaint that society is sick. Wickedness and violence appear to be trumping justice in Judah (1:2–­4). The “strife and contention” of verse 3 are between the Judean people themselves; no foreign enemy is at issue. The problem must be within the nation, just as is the case in the national lament of Psalm 94:3–­6 referenced above. Habakkuk 1:4 refers to the paralysis of the covenant and its stipulations, an agreement specifically between God and the Israelites. Later, Habakkuk is precise about God’s own people being the party deserving national judgment (1:12). God’s answer to the prophet’s initial complaint of injustice comes in 1:5–­11. Justice will soon triumph decisively; God is calling forth a powerful third-­party nation to punish Judah’s transgression. A “dread and fearsome” people will soon come against the land—­the army of the Babylonians (v. 6: “Chaldeans”).2 The idea of God carrying out judgment indirectly through an enemy nation is far from an uncommon motif (see Isa 5:26–­30). It appears to be a necessary corollary of the prophets’ commitment to a God who prefers to work within the contingent structures of actual history. Prophecy itself acknowledges the many problems that using such “blunt instruments” of judgment as enemy nations entails, including problems of severe “collateral damage” and extreme “overreaching of mandate” (Isa 10:12–­19; 40:2; 47:6; 51:22–­23; Hab 1:13; Jer 12:12–­14). In Zechariah 1:15, God directs extreme anger at the attacking nations of 586 BCE who “overdid the punishment” (NJPS), who went “far beyond my intentions” (NLT).3 The judgment is severe; the Babylonians are a wicked and ruthless power. Their hubris is obvious; they arrogate divine roles to themselves

418

HABAKKUK

Figure 13.2 Map showing Assyria, Babylon, and Armenia, with Babylon in the center, ca. sixth century BCE.

(1:7). In fact, they will take the violence about which Habakkuk complains (1:2) to an entirely new level (1:9). The conversation between prophet and God is not over, just pushed to a new extreme. A second dialogue cycle between Habakkuk and God now takes place in 1:12–­2:20. The prophet’s new complaint, 1:12–­2:1, expresses outright shock about God’s intentions. Will God really make such a cruel and horrific empire as Babylonia into an instrument of judgment on Judah?

419

THE PROPHETS

The prophet vehemently protests against such an envisioned future. If this happens, God has surely “made people like the fish of the sea, like creeping creatures with no ruler over them. The wicked haul them up with hooks or catch them in their nets or drag them in their trawls” (Hab 1:14–­17 REB). The poetry is powerful and must have had a significant impact on Habakkuk’s first readers. For centuries, the fishing or hunting net provided an unnerving symbol of military domination. Surely, Habakkuk complains, Babylonian hunters and fishers are not fitting judges of “those more righteous than they” (Hab 1:13). Surely, God’s chief concern should be punishing the Babylonians’ own dark wickedness, not unleashing this foreign empire’s violent madness on God’s own covenant people. A few thorny text issues in Habakkuk 2:1 raise some questions about whether God is indeed about to answer Habakkuk’s new complaint. As Steven Tuell argues, however, Habakkuk surely is waiting to see how God “counters my argument” (tôkaḥat; 2:1 NET) in just the manner that Job waits for God to answer his “arguments” (tôkaḥat; Job 23:4 NET). Indeed, what follows in Habakkuk 2:2–­20 sounds for all the world like the Lord’s defense of the coming attack in response to the prophet’s complaint (see Ezek 9:9).4 God’s answer (Hab 2:2–­20) to Habakkuk’s new complaint is complex and multifaceted. Biblical prophecy here encompasses multiple literary and theological perspectives, including eschatology and wisdom. In chapters 2 and 3, the book reveals how intractably challenging the broken course of human history is. God is at work to overcome this troubled history, but only in God’s own time. As is God’s way, God can use human injustice and suffering as occasions to promote ultimate human betterment. Habakkuk sees that God will intervene, and he discovers patience while awaiting the longed-­for judgment: “Now I wait quietly for the day of distress; I sit and wait for the time when disaster strikes those who attacked my people” (Hab 3:16 VOICE). Habakkuk also sees, however, a demand of God that transcends patience while waiting for justice. The

420

HABAKKUK

Lord, he finds, is urgently summoning the emergence, amid history’s brokenness, of a transformed, God-­ennobled form of life on earth. Habakkuk does not find relief from the horror of the coming Babylonian calamity. It is coming. Further, as Tuell observes, even chapter 3’s breathtaking paean of divine power is less a source of comfort than a source of trembling (Hab 3:16).5 God’s overpowering “otherness” will someday make its epiphany, and the mere anticipation of it makes Habakkuk’s “steps tremble” beneath him. The prophet in the book’s present holistic shape, however, does find an amazingly counterintuitive inner joy amid the unrelenting outer disaster. Habakkuk will find relief not from the calamity of history but precisely in the calamity. Habakkuk 3:17–­19, part of hymn 667 in the Episcopal Hymnal, reveals this inside-­out way of life, this paradoxical lifestyle of joy: Though the fig tree does not bud And no yield is on the vine, Though the olive crop has failed And the fields produce no grain, Though sheep have vanished from the fold And no cattle are in the pen, Yet will I rejoice in the Lord, Exult in the God who delivers me. (NJPS) What the poetry of Habakkuk 3:17–­19 begins to kindle in the reader is a quality of jubilant, triumphant living that is practically impervious to calamity and agony. Habakkuk knows the agony of history: empires plunder nation after nation (Hab 2:8); dark lords become kings of mountains (2:9). Military policy looks increasingly like “date rape” (2:15); idolaters enjoy god making, summoning wooden sticks to “wake!” (2:19). History does not often reflect God’s will, and awful events do occur. The Scriptures do not claim otherwise. But this is no sign that God is dead (Hab 1:12 NRSV, NJPS, NIV). Habakkuk discovers exultant living, empowered by God, in the midst of the troubled human experience of history. He reveals a grounded lifestyle that rests content

421

THE PROPHETS

in God’s greatness and sovereignty. Readers are to imagine a new ennobled form of life. God’s answer to Habakkuk’s second lament has two parts. The first comes in Habakkuk 2:2–­5, an oracle revolving around God’s provision of a prophetic “vision” (v. 2). The exact content of the vision is not specified, but some readers believe the theophanic images of the Divine Warrior in chapter 3 reflect something of its nature. The Hebrew text of Habakkuk 3:16 has problems (i.e., textual “corruptions”), but it likely prophesies that disaster will eventually zero in on the Babylonians (NRSV, NABR, CEB). As Tuell notes, however, Babylon’s fall is a lifetime off; Habakkuk himself will never see it, although Babylon certainly will fall.6 God will, in God’s time, end Babylonia’s viciousness and prevent its cruelty from having free rein (Hab 1:17). In Habakkuk 2:2, God commands, “Write my answer plainly on tablets, so that a runner can carry the correct message to others” (NLT). The metaphor is that of a messenger of the king racing down the way bearing timely, even urgent news (see 2 Sam 18:19; Jer 51:31). Prophets are those who run to deliver a revelation ( Jer 23:21)—­in this case, a vision of a watershed divine intervention ending the Babylonian crisis. The vision “describes the end, and it will be fulfilled” (Hab 2:3 NLT). Though the end may seem slow in coming, people urgently need to know it is on its way and will come in God’s sure timing. In fact, “it aches for the coming—­it can hardly wait!” (Hab 2:3 MSG). An initial observation here is that Habakkuk’s approach to theodicy is going to differ greatly from a typical modern discussion of unjust suffering. He does not jump to inductive logic and abstract thought. His approach is not “Greek” but “Hebrew.” It sharply contrasts with the Greek philosophical tradition. As Abraham Heschel observes, his is “an answer, not in terms of thought, but in terms of events. God’s answer will happen.”7 Habakkuk announces an event to happen at a particular time in a specific place. He is thus scandalously oriented on history in all its particularity. We have seen above God’s strong preference in the Nevi’im to work within history’s constraints.

422

HABAKKUK

It is worth dwelling on the implications of this observation. As Heschel discerns, human history, in its entirety, is neither God’s self (pantheism) nor even largely reflective of God’s will: “The prophets never taught that God and history are one, or that whatever happens below reflects the will of God above. Their vision is of man [sic] defying God, and God seeking man to reconcile with Him.”8 God’s purpose amid the fray is revealed only in moments, at extraordinary events within human history. If we find history vicious and cruel, then, this reflects what humanity has done with the world. It is not automatically an indictment of God. We should never assume that the cruelty around us reflects God’s direct will. Again, Heschel puts it well indeed: History is where God is defied, where justice suffers defeats. God’s purpose is neither clearly apparent nor translatable into rational categories of order and design. There are only moments in which it is revealed. God’s power in history does not endure as a process; it occurs at extraordinary events. There is a divine involvement and concern, involvement in what is done, for that which is. Even where His power is absent, His concern is present. There was a moment when God looked at the universe made by Him and said: “It is good.” But there was no moment in which God could have looked at history made by man and said: “It is good.”9

The saving event of Habakkuk’s vision (2:3), powerfully significant though it is, may seem to tarry. It may not appear until the Day of the Lord, and thus God commands prophet and reader to “wait.” But hold on! Does not this command to endure an agonizing era of waiting spoil life in the interim? Does it not continue to raise a challenge to God’s goodness? Habakkuk 2:4 appears to answer no. In the interim, while waiting for God’s event, the person who is right with God will thrive on loyal trust. Here there appears a second key dimension within Habakkuk’s answer to theodicy. Heschel again deftly cuts to the heart of the dynamic at issue: “It is an answer, again not in terms of thought, but in terms of existence.”10 Habakkuk’s book proffers a new form of existence, an ennobled lifestyle arising amid the agony entailed in theodicy.

423

THE PROPHETS

The new lifestyle at issue—­the new existence from God—­is opposite to the life pattern of the Babylonians, whose violent and greedy spurt is presently ruining history. As verses 4 and 5 make clear, God’s new life contrasts with the bent life of the proud. Its antithesis is a life of selfishness, greed, and arrogance. The key Hebrew term describing the new existence in Habakkuk 2:4 is ʾemûnâ, which means “firmness,” “loyalty,” “loyal trust.” The awful unjust sufferings of life—­the travails of theodicy—­put the sufferer, metaphorically, out over a vast ocean. In the book’s poetic laments over an onslaught of bloodthirsty wolves, we hear a sinking soul gasping for air. In the prophetic voice shrinking before a stampede from nowhere, we see a soul fighting for life

Sidebar 13.2: Heschel and Niebuhr on the Prophet’s Understanding of Human History Heschel’s observations dovetail with those of Christian theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–­1971 CE), his contemporary. Niebuhr also taught in the tumultuous 1960s in the academic acropolis around Columbia University in New York City. Niebuhr notes how the biblical texts see great ambiguity and perplexity in history. At points, the Scriptures are so aware of human recalcitrance that they come to view history overall as a veritable rebellion against God. “Biblical faith,” Niebuhr writes, “ends by seeing human history perpetually, and on every level of its achievements, in contradiction to the divine. It sees the possibilities of new beginnings in history only upon the basis of the contrite recognition of this contradiction.”11 As a Christian theologian, Niebuhr parts ways with Heschel to focus on Jesus’s crucifixion as the defining moment in history’s contradiction of God. The love of God shown down in the world in Christ and the world’s reaction was to crucify that embodiment of love. The wondrous

424

HABAKKUK

theological paradox, however, is that the atrocity of the crucifixion has a double meaning. The crucifixion, for Niebuhr, is, itself, one of Heschel’s “extraordinary events.” In fact, it is history’s quintessential extraordinary event, God’s saving intervention par excellence. This death is the event where God acts decisively to resolve all issues of theodicy. In his death, Christ takes up the cause of our sin, suffering, and misery and brings this weighty cause to ultimate resolution. In pairing Niebuhr and Habakkuk, our reflections on the prophets in Hebrew Scripture have moved beyond anything about which the original prophet could have been conscious. Nevertheless, to explore an eschatological and messianic sense of Habakkuk is far from unprecedented. The Septuagint translation of Habakkuk 2:3 appears messianic, as reflected in this text’s use in the NT book of Hebrews (Heb 10:37–­38). And Habakkuk’s broad insights into the nature of history and salvation have proved profoundly illuminating for Jesus’s followers, starting as early as Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11.

atop, as Søren Kierkegaard would put it, seventy thousand fathoms of water.12 To survive and not drown, he must not flail and panic but relax and float. This theological conclusion of a Jerusalemite central intermediary is foreign to much modern thinking (think national security doctrines, arms races, smart bombs, border walls), but it also occurs, as expected, in other Zion/temple-­related texts, such as Isaiah 7:4; 8:6; and Psalm 46:10: “Be still [rāpâ, ‘be calm,’ VOICE; ‘calm down,’ CEV; ‘let be,’ REB], and know that I am God!” Habakkuk’s laments over unjust suffering are precisely the contexts to illustrate the nature of God’s ideal life stance of ʾemûnâ. To live amid such agony, people (and peoples) must put aside self-­centric orientations—­grasping efforts to fix and control and master—­and allow the sea (God) to buoy them. Habakkuk’s predicament provokes an existential crisis that can push aside all such self-­centrical flailing. It

425

THE PROPHETS

provokes a solution of ʾemûnâ, in which a confident resting in God overcomes the abyss’s terror. The NRSV translation of ʾemûnâ as “faith” in Habakkuk 2:4 is misleading, if one jumps to identify faith with either right belief or blind belief. The Hebrew term ʾemûnâ is first not about right thought but about right existence and right relationships. Both faith as trust and faithfulness as fidelity are at issue. God’s servant, who was (quite naturally) lamenting and arguing that history is not right, is now told that the clue to a solution lies precisely in the contradiction between God’s prerogative and God’s time on one hand and all human fearful, stubborn grasping for mastery of history on the other hand. In Habakkuk 2:4, God announces that the prophet’s flailing “fear-­confidence” must die upon the very contradiction that is agonizing him! The way of self-­ justification, verse 4 reveals, soon generates a person who is “bloated by self-­importance—­full of himself but soul-­empty.” The one who abandons mastery efforts, in contrast, is “fully alive, really alive.” The path to life, then, lies not in “mastering” but in “loyal and steady believing” (v. 4 MSG). Part two of God’s second answer to the complaints of Habakkuk comes in 2:6–­20, a series of “woes”—­depictions of doom to befall the hubristic. The switch of the genre to proverbial wisdom allows the prophet to come at theodicy from a new angle. Instead of speaking of direct divine intervention in history (the event of 2:3), he now speaks of history as subtly wired in God’s favor. True, on the surface (to the casual or skeptical observer), history often frustrates God’s will. Still, however, history is ultimately subject to God. In the end, it works to frustrate selfishness and violence. Reflection on creation, and humanity’s place within it, was part of life in the temple where Habakkuk worked. Woman Wisdom, personified in Sirach 24:10, pointedly states, “In the holy tent I ministered before [God], and so I was established in Zion.” She claims authority in Jerusalem. In at least two ways, Israelites found wisdom at the temple. First, the temple was an ideal place to encounter God (as in a dream theophany; see above, 1 Sam 3:10–­15; Isa 21:11–­12; Hab 2:1). But to

426

HABAKKUK

behold God on Zion was itself an entrée into wisdom. It evoked realization of God’s cosmic prerogative, a loss of self-­centeredness, and a lifting of blindness to the reality of God’s justice in the world.13 Mocking God and plaguing humanity, the wicked seemingly triumph in Psalm 73. The psalmist is in angst about this, finding that “my feet had almost stumbled; my steps had nearly slipped” (Ps 73:2). Fortunately, the psalmist “went into the sanctuary” (v. 17) and learned wisdom. In the temple, in an encounter with God, the psalmist “perceived their end” (vv. 18–­20). They actually walk in “slippery places” (v. 18); their reality is a phantom, “like a dream” (v. 20), compared to the solidity of God’s cosmic prerogative. Second, temple instruction specifically included wise teaching about life’s God-­given “deep structure.” Psalm 104, for example, teaches creation’s undergirding logic, its deep-­lying harmony. God used wisdom to create a wondrous world, says verse 24. Earth’s marvelousness demands that wickedness disappear. Thus the psalm concludes, “May sinners be banished” (v. 35 REB). Psalm 37 is confident that bad eggs have no future: “I saw Wicked bloated like a toad, croaking pretentious nonsense. The next time I looked there was nothing—­a punctured bladder, vapid and limp” (vv. 35–­36 MSG). Wisdom thought within the temple, Berlin explains, is grounded “in the context of trust in God to do justice, punish the wicked.”14 Differing from some other brands of wisdom, temple-­taught wisdom was theocentric. It emphasized faith in God—­walking God strong, in step with God. Like filling one’s sails with wind, one can align life with God’s salvation. Learning the ropes of life in the temple, one can secure justice. As Psalm 128:1 states, “Happy is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in his ways.” The five woes of Habakkuk 2:6–­20 say nothing overt about Babylonia and probably did not originally prophesy against that empire specifically. Rather, they were temple revelations assuring worshippers that justice would eventually triumph within Judah. The woes are multipurpose. Their force has multiple applications, since the words are aimed obliquely. Observations about the futility of evil are able to find

427

THE PROPHETS

applicable targets on their own. As the wise saying goes, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” If someone’s life matches the description in a woe, he or she can expect to experience the consequences named. In the present holistic and canonical context of Habakkuk, however, the woes do point to Babylonia. They explain the futility of the empire’s prideful aggression. Habakkuk 2:6 now acts as the woes’ introduction. It explains that they aim their doom at “the proud” of verse 4—­that is, the arrogant Babylonian enemy of Judah. The speaker of the woes is no longer a voice within the Zion temple. The victims of verse 5 are speaking, whom the proud swallow up “nation after nation” (GNT). The GNT hits the new sense of verse 6 spot on: “The conquered people will taunt their conquerors. . . . They will say . . . ‘You are doomed!’” A look at some sample woes reveals their wisdom-­oriented theodicy. The initial woe in Habakkuk 2:6–­8 shows the doom that lies in store for those who load up on plunder and tribute, those who make ever heavier their “load of indebtedness” (v. 6 NJPS). A keen wordplay drives home the idea of “poetic justice.” Justice will arrive with a vengeance when the two-­sided ambiguity of the Hebrew term for charging interest (nāšak) becomes clear to all (v. 7). The Hebrew term nāšak also means “bite.” Thus the text is saying that plundered peoples inevitably wake up, fed up with “financing” their oppressors’ bloat. They demand their lost wealth back with interest, a harsh bite (nāšak) indeed for Babylonia! The third woe in Habakkuk 2:12–­14 shows how tyrants inevitably doom themselves. Citing this woe, Heschel captures the underlying theodicy beautifully: The prophets, questioning man’s infatuation with might, insisted not only on the immorality but also on the futility and absurdity of war. In a later era, Napoleon, we are told, solemnly declared to his minister of education: “Do you know, Fontanes, what astonishes me most in this world? The inability of force to create anything. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the Spirit.” Yet, the most astonishing thing in the world is the perennial disregard of the impotence of force. What is the ultimate profit of all the arms, alliances, and victories? Destruction, agony, death.15

428

HABAKKUK

Woes number four (2:15–­17) and five (2:18–­20) do particularly well at showing existence to be “hardwired” by God to make sin and injustice self-­defeating. The figure of a drinking contest in the fourth woe shines rhetorically because those who indulge in such recklessness bring a pounding hangover on themselves. The satirical treatment of idolatry in the fifth woe works equally well: “You are doomed! You say to a piece of wood, ‘Wake up!’ or to a block of stone, ‘Get up!” (2:19 GNT). What kind of gullible fools are these people? “Are inanimate objects your teachers?” (v. 19 VOICE). (The satire does not build a “straw man” but is based in the ancient milieu, where rites of “mouth opening,” done by putting tasty and fragrant substances on a sculpted god, sought to enliven and sensitize the image, enabling it to eat food and smell incense.) Habakkuk’s book concludes in chapter 3 with a lengthy psalm of praise, expressing peace with God’s ways and plans, and genuine rejoicing in the Lord. Using powerful mythic and poetic language, Habakkuk praises God’s power and holiness and ends on a note of victory. Habakkuk 3:18–­19 is exuberant, turning cartwheels of joy to the saving God. Taking heart and gaining strength, the prophet exclaims, “He will set my feet like the deer. He will let me walk upon the heights” (CEB). Habakkuk’s psalm relies on Israel’s traditions of God’s ancient saving deeds. Remembrance of salvation history should ground present confidence in what God will do in answer to Habakkuk’s fears and in answer to history’s fundamental contradiction of God’s ways and goals. The ancient mighty divine acts of the rebuke of the Red Sea and the Jordan River ( Josh 4:23; Ps 114:3b, 5b) and, especially, the revelatory divine theophany at Sinai should provoke a new vision of God’s firm prerogative in reality. A new theological vocabulary and imagination arise out of the mythological images in Habakkuk 3, which we have briefly referenced in our excursus “The Rise of Apocalyptic Prophecy in Israel” in chapter 2. The psalm is filled with ancient Canaanite mythology, which here not only sources superb poetry, metaphors, and allusions but also pushes the

429

THE PROPHETS

Figure 13.3 Baal with a thunderbolt. Sculptured stele from Ugarit, fifteenth to thirteenth century BCE.

reader to think beyond the constraints of quotidian history and international politics as usual to imagine a broader transcendent context in which one can trust and rest. God’s theophany in the thunderstorm (vv. 2–­3; see Ps 29) figures significantly in the mythological stories of ancient Ugarit, where “Rider of the Clouds” is a favorite epithet of Baal, the god of the thunderstorm (fig. 13.3). Ugarit pitted Baal against Judge River and Prince Sea, epithets of the god of chaos now reflected in Habakkuk 3:8, 15. Our psalm’s repurposing of these epithets is wondrously executed and of powerful rhetorical force in furthering the book’s work.

430

HABAKKUK

Notes 1 Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the Old Testament (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 64. 2 Originally tribes of southern Babylonia, the Chaldeans assimilated into Babylonian culture, and the terms Chaldean and Babylonian became synonyms (as in Isa 47:1). 3 See Stephen L. Cook, “The Fecundity of Fair Zion: Beauty and Fruitfulness as Spiritual Fulfillment,” in Daughter Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response, ed. M. J. Boda, C. J. Dempsey, and L. S. Flesher, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 13 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 79–­80; and Terence E. Fretheim, “‘I Was Only a Little Angry’: Divine Violence in the Prophets,” Int 58 (2004): 365–­75. Other helpful treatments include Fretheim, “Theological Reflections on the Wrath of God in the Old Testament,” HBT 24 (2002): 1–­26; Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996); and Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 177–­78, 279–­306. 4 Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 77, citing observations by Vanderhooft. Tuell aptly cites Sweeney’s correct judgment that tôkaḥat in Hab 2:1 refers back directly to the arguments Habakkuk presents to God in 1:12–­17. 5 Tuell writes, “The prophet’s response to this poem is not exaltation and awe, but shame and terror. Indeed, Habakkuk’s description of his own reaction—­shaky, weak, lips numb and trembling—­sounds as though the prophet is in shock!” (Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 105). 6 Tuell, 80. Tuell thinks it likely that in Habakkuk’s original prophecy, the “end” to which Hab 2:3 refers is the end of Jerusalem (as in Amos 8:2 and Ezek 7:1–­9). Canonical shaping adjusts this harsh view so that both 2:3 and the woes that follow now relate not to Jerusalem and Judeans but to Babylonia. 7 Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets, Perennial Classics Edition (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 182. 8 Heschel, 242. 9 Heschel, 214. 10 Heschel, 182. 11 Reinhold Niebuhr, Faith and History: A Comparison of Christian and Modern Views of History (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1949), 144. 12 Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 1:232–­33. 13 Consult John Kartje, Wisdom Epistemology in the Psalter (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014).

431

THE PROPHETS

14 Adele Berlin, “The Wisdom of Creation in Psalm 104,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-­Fifth Birthday, ed. R. Troxel, K. Friebel, and D. Magary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 71. 15 Heschel, Prophets, 204.

432

14

Zephaniah

Introduction In the seventh century, the form of ancient Judah’s religion practiced under the authority of the royal house in Jerusalem pivoted away from polytheism and toward monolatry (see 2 Kgs 22:17; 23:4–­8)—­that is to say, toward an exclusive fealty to the nation’s deity, the Lord. The existence of other gods may have been acknowledged, but they were not to be pursued (Deut 6:4–­6; 17:2–­7; Ps 82). Certainly, other segments of Judah’s society may have practiced other religious expressions, but the fate of the nation was in the hands of the earthly regent of the theocracy’s God, the Davidides. This was the segment that the prophet Zephaniah sought to influence. Zephaniah’s prophecies responded to the fall of the northern kingdom and the “flood” that was the military incursion into Judah of the Neo-­Assyrian Empire (Isa 8:5–­10). He spoke for previously marginalized couriers of the Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions, who had been scattered across the rural countryside but who in the seventh century began to coalesce in Jerusalem and grow in influence among Judah’s ruling classes.1 These tradents believed that their ears had heard the

433

THE PROPHETS

Figure 14.1 The Prophet Zephaniah, Monastery of the Cross, Jerusalem.

Word of the Lord, which explained past failures and gave direction to Jerusalem’s central powers during their own ambiguous present. When the Assyrian Empire began to implode, their voice promised once more a valiant future for the Davidic court. For these tradents, it was a heady time. Survivals of Zephaniah’s prophetic words were preserved by his colleagues and have been delivered through time to us in a little

434

ZEPHANIAH

book that bears his name—­an abridgment of his prophetic words, no doubt, yet even so, a testament to an important pivot in ancient Israel’s pilgrimage. Historical and Literary Issues Some scholars read Zephaniah’s scroll as stemming substantially from the seventh-­century prophet.2 Given the brevity of the book—­just three chapters, a mere fifty-­three verses total—­such an approach certainly tempts the reader. As with so much of the prophetic literature, however, Zephaniah’s utterances were not left alone but repurposed over time, perhaps over a period spanning nearly two centuries.3 The historical development of Zephaniah’s scroll is complicated by its brevity, yet for just that reason it leads us in a short, quick hike through time and space, showcasing Israel’s ancient theologians as they wrestled with Judah’s challenges and confessed its hopes both before and long after the destruction of the nation, its capital, and the temple. Zephaniah ben Cushi . . . ben Hezekiah How do the editors introduce us to Zephaniah, and in what context do they invite us to read his prophecies? He was, so they say, “son of Cushi son of Gedaliah son of Amariah son of Hezekiah” (Zeph 1:1). The mention of Hezekiah immediately raises questions for today’s reader but almost certainly for ancient ones as well. On the one hand, so the argument goes, if the editors meant Hezekiah, Judah’s king, would they not have said so? On the other hand, Zephaniah’s genealogy is long, uniquely so, extending intentionally, it would seem, to the fourth generation. Hence with Zephaniah’s superscript, the editors appear to be sending the reader a message, one linking him to King Hezekiah and the royal line of the Davidic dynasty. We raise the possibility here, recognizing that the matter must finally be left undecided, because such a lineage would indicate that we are dealing with a very well-­placed central intermediary.4

435

THE PROPHETS

Equally tantalizing, albeit equally uncertain, is Zephaniah’s father, Cushi (ben-­kūšiy). This form could be read as a proper name or a gentilic—­“son of a Cushite,” an ancient people group located around modern Ethiopia. A gentilic commonly takes a definite article, “the Cushite” (hakkūšiy; e.g., Num 12:1; 2 Sam 18:22; Jer 38:7), but the context here in Zephaniah 1:1 indicates that we should read a proper name. Walter Dietrich has suggested that the proper name could nevertheless point to an Ethiopian ancestry for Zephaniah, which seems entirely plausible given the political alliances—­likely sealed by marriage—­the house of David established with Cush during the reign of Hezekiah (Isa 30; 31).5 In the Days of King Josiah Beyond the man, the editors of the Zephaniah scroll direct the reader to contextualize this prophet’s words within the reign of Josiah (640–­609 BCE). The Deuteronomistic History celebrates Josiah as the culmination of Judah’s history, the most obedient of the Davidic kings (2 Kgs 23:24–­25). Josiah, however, is remembered as such only in the latter half of his reign, in the period after his eighteenth regnal year (2 Kgs 22:3; 622 BCE, but see 2 Chr 34:3–­18, which records the beginning of the reform in Josiah’s twelfth year, so 628 BCE). Prior to that, the People of the Land, whom we know to have advocated Deuteronomistic ideology, set up Josiah as a boy king, probably under the tutelage of a vizier (2 Kgs 21:24). In these first years, when the Deuteronomists were wrestling for a power base from which to effect their reforms, the syncretistic practices of Manasseh lingered (2 Kgs 21:2–­9 ǁ 2 Chr 33:2–­9). It seems probable that it was during this wrestling match that Zephaniah was active, fighting on the side of the Deuteronomists and the People of the Land, calling the nation of Judah to exclusive worship of the Lord, Judah’s Divine Suzerain, by promising the Lord’s day of reckoning.6

436

ZEPHANIAH

The Scroll of Zephaniah In the Seventh Century BCE In the days of Josiah’s youth, Zephaniah announced God’s judgment against any and all disloyal expressions of worship practiced in Jerusalem specifically but also in broader Judah. According to Zephaniah and others sharing his views, the Day of the Lord will bring punishment upon such practices, unless, the prophet implies, Judah repents (2:1–­3; and see the discussion below). The modern reader may not understand the Day of the Lord as Zephaniah and his audience did, for today, we are influenced by the extensive use of this motif in later texts, texts that developed this day into an eschatological day of universal judgment. For Zephaniah and his circles in the early days of Josiah’s reign, the Day of the Lord was a moment in time—­and there could be many such moments and, so, many Days of the Lord—­when the Lord appeared in order to defend his people against their enemies. Traditionally, the Day of the Lord was a day of salvation localized to the people covenanted to the Lord, not

Sidebar 14.1: Outline of the Scroll of Zephaniah

I. 1:1: Superscript



II. 1:2–­18: Day of the Lord



III. 2:1–­3:8: Judgment upon the nations





A. 2:1–­3: Call for the humble to assemble



B. 2:4–­15: Judgment upon the nations



C. 3:1–­7: Jerusalem too will be judged



D. 3:8: Wait for the Day



E. 3:9–­13: Two elaborations upon the Day

IV. 3:14–­20: Zion’s song of salvation

437

THE PROPHETS

a universal, eschatological day of judgment.7 Almost certainly Zephaniah knew how Amos put a new twist on the traditional Day of the Lord motif when he stated shockingly that the Day would be a day of darkness, not light, for Samaria and the northern kingdom of Israel. Roughly 130 years later, Zephaniah again took up the Day of the Lord motif, this time announcing it to the southern kingdom, turning it against those syncretists living in Jerusalem and Judah who in his time had placed themselves as the enemies of the Lord. In light of these considerations, we must look at whom precisely Zephaniah targeted in his announcement of the Day in 1:4–­13:8 the remnants of Baal and idolatrous priests (1:4), worshippers of the Host of Heavens (deified astral objects; 1:5), loyalists to Milcom (the god of the Ammonites; 1:5), and Zephaniah’s colleagues in Jerusalem’s royal court who were infatuated with the fashions of foreign nations (1:8).

Figure 14.2 Hezekiah’s “Broad Wall,” built in the late eighth century BCE to defend against the advancing Assyrian army.

438

ZEPHANIAH

Interestingly, the “Fish Gate,” “Second Quarter,” and “Mortar” seem to place these heretical practices on the western hill of Jerusalem, a suburb of Jerusalem walled in by Hezekiah (Isa 22:10; 2 Chr 32:5; fig. 14.2). This expansion seems to have held foreign officials, who would have carried on the veneration of their nations’ gods. Bluntly, Zephaniah took aim at anyone who held on to non-­Yahwistic proclivities.9 True enough, his judgments would come to Jerusalem and Judah (v. 4). In 2:1–­3, the prophet pivots away from the foreign elements within his own territory and toward Judah’s neighboring nations and the bane of its existence, Assyria. This pivot is critical to any interpretation of Zephaniah.10 In this section, the Day of the Lord continues to hover ominously (vv. 2, 3). The “shameless nation” (v. 1; haggôy lôʾ–­niḵsāp̄) pulls Judah forward into this material, riveting to it the syncretism that was practiced within Jerusalem’s city walls during Manasseh’s reign and continuing on into Josiah’s. The imperative verbs (hiṯqôššû ûqôššû, v. 1; baqqĕšû, v. 3) are denominated from a noun meaning “stubble” or “chaff” (qaš; BDB, 905). Consequently, many read the action pejoratively in the sense that God is gathering the nation together, and it will be the fuel for the sacrifice. Such a dark and ominous reading of this beginning, however, cuts against the grain of the closing verse (v. 3), when the prophet states that “perhaps you may be hidden in the day of the Lord’s wrath,” a slim ray of hope in the passage—­albeit an airy one. The text permits a more nuanced reading of this crux, however, one that is more consistent from top to bottom. In the first place, “the nation” of 2:1 is the subject of a niphal verb that may be translated passively—­as the nation “not being desired or appreciated.” In regard to chaff, it is most often scattered by the wind (e.g., Isa 40:24; 41:2; Jer 13:24), and when gathered, it was gathered in order to make bricks (Exod 5:7, 12). While stubble is susceptible to fire (e.g., Isa 5:24; 47:14), its usefulness to start a fire for a sacrifice is negligible. But chaff is humble ( Job 13:25), as well also are those righteous who will seek the Lord (2:3). Zephaniah called this humble and righteous chaff (2:3), disrespected by Jerusalem’s elite so enamored of all things foreign (1:7–­13), to gather,

439

THE PROPHETS

and so he chose a verb that rhetorically matched his portrayal of his subjects. Given Zephaniah’s connections with the nascent Deuteronomic ideology of Josiah’s early years, the gathering of the humble (2:1) recalls the assemblies of Judah’s village elders, who gathered in order to covenant together for the commitment to and application of the “norms and penalties of the covenant.”11 Zephaniah 2:1–­3 announces upheaval in the form of the Lord’s judgment upon the syncretists in the land, and it looks forward as well to the coming divine warfare against those outside Judah’s borders. But as for the humble of the land (ʿanwê hāʾāreṣ; 2:3; see Mic 6:8), who gather and seek exclusive worship and covenantal obedience, will they be swept up like chaff with the syncretists in the wrath of the Lord? To Josiah and his court, Zephaniah suggested that perhaps (ʾûlay; see Gen 18:24, 28, 29, 30, 31) they may be hidden from the Lord’s wrath when his Day comes.12 With this glimmer of hope held out, Zephaniah sought to persuade Josiah and his administration to repent. The following verses—­2:4–­11, 13–­15—­present a series of oracles against other cities and nations. They are introduced by kî, “for” or “because.” Marvin Sweeney argues that kî in 2:4 should be read as a conjunction with a causative force, yielding a rendering like “Judah should gather and seek because the Lord is going to strike all of these nations.”13 Zephaniah 2:4–­7 presents the first people group to face the destruction, the Philistines. Verses 8–­11 move east, to Judah’s Transjordanian neighbors, Moab and Ammon. Interestingly, Zephaniah appears to be unconcerned with Edom, who is railed against in later prophetic texts. These foreign-­nation oracles promise to Judah peace from its glowering, threatening neighbors. In this, Zephaniah spoke to the interests of his day. With the Assyrian defeat of the northern kingdom in 722–­720 BCE, followed by its devastation of the Shephelah in 701, Judah was transformed into a rump state. As a consequence, Jerusalem had become a primate city (the dominant city in the region) and was called upon to welcome refugees who poured into it looking for sanctuary and in need of homesteads.

440

ZEPHANIAH

Josiah’s political agenda sought peace from Judah’s neighbors, which would have necessitated securing the “traditional” boundaries of the land and would have brought comfort to these new families flooding the city. Zephaniah announced a possible day of light, not darkness, an offer of potential salvation and hope to the royal court in Jerusalem, perhaps an opportunity to secure the land, but first, they must gather and seek the Lord. So that Josiah can carve out space for the people of Judah to live peacefully upon the land, Zephaniah promises relief from Assyria, who for the last one hundred years had been the bane of Judah’s existence (2:13–­15). Here, he depicts the land of Assyria in its postpunishment period as uncivilized and a “lair for wild animals” (2:15). This is salvation of a slightly different sort than the oracles against Judah’s neighbors to the east and the west. There, Zephaniah pushed back against encroaching neighbors. With Assyria, he promised relief from the threat of violence by a superior, outside, invading force. Security, however, will only be seized if Judah assembles to covenant itself to the Lord. The concluding verse of this layer of prophecy, Zephaniah 3:8, calls upon the assembled nation to wait for its salvation, in this instance rolled out in the form of the defeat of its enemies. The Book of the Four At some point very early on, the basic layers of Hosea, Amos, and Micah were collected in an early prophetic collection, to which was joined the basic layer of Zephaniah’s prophecies, built around his two pronouncements of the Day of the Lord. This collection, referred to in the secondary literature as the Book of the Four, formed the kernel from which grew the Book of the Twelve, or the Minor Prophets, as we now know it.14 The works of Hosea and Amos had both announced the fall of Israel in the 760s BCE, a time when that nation was at its zenith. Forty years later, it had been destroyed by the Neo-­Assyrian Empire, and Hosea and Amos had been proven to have been true prophets (see Deut 18:15–­22). Micah prophesied against Jerusalem in the later third of the eighth

441

THE PROPHETS

century, and judging from the quotation of Micah 3:12 by Jeremiah 26:18, at least some circles credited Micah with averting disaster during Hezekiah’s reign. In Zephaniah’s day, or perhaps just a little later, in the last quarter of the seventh century, Judah and the Davidides faced another crisis. These four prophetic scrolls urged exclusive covenantal fealty to the Lord as defined by traditions that would appear in writing in Deuteronomy during Josiah’s reign. Hosea espoused exclusive covenantal love (ḥeseḏ) to the Lord. Amos declared that the Day of the Lord would be one of darkness for Israel, that nation’s eschaton, which as we noted above may have communicated an implicit message of blessing upon Jerusalem’s temple cult. Micah positioned the fall of Samaria and Israel as a warning hanging over Jerusalem and Judah, denouncing those authorities in Jerusalem whose policies privileged the aristocratic classes in the royal capital to the detriment of the traditional ancestral claims of the families living in the hinterland. With Zephaniah, the collection concluded that the Day of the Lord was coming to clean out non-­Yahwistic elements from the land, with the proviso that it was time for the humble to repent, to assemble and commit anew to the Lord’s covenant. Prophetic collections of this kind were not an invention of the ancient Israelites; the Neo-­Assyrian kings had them too.15 It is hard from our vantage point to speak with certainty, but this particular collection of four may have come together already during Josiah’s reign, or perhaps it was collected after his death, at a time of crisis when it looked as though the reforms he effected had actually, in the end, been his demise. In either setting, it carried the Deuteronomic School’s message of warning, calling Israel to amend its ways so that the Lord could allow the people to live and prosper in the land (see Jer 7:1–­15; Deut 30:15–­30). In the Sixth Century BCE In 587, Judah fell—­and fell hard. To the rubble of brick and stone, peppered with charred wood, and to the shattered bones and ruined lives of the people, Zephaniah’s powerful rhetoric may have seemed

442

ZEPHANIAH

antiquated, otiose, hurtful even, for those who survived into the chaos that was the exile. Within the Book of the Four, however, remained powerful rhetoric, remembered by many, studied by some, and treasured by the few who plucked it from the ash heap, just before it entered oblivion. These hands wrote new rhetoric in service to a tenacious theology in an attempt to explain the exile to their audience, the remnant in the land (see Mic 4:6–­7; 5:7–­8; 7:18; and the discussion, p. 388). Zephaniah 3:1–­7 addresses the problem of God’s justice (theodicy) raised by the destroyed city and temple and vacated throne. While Zephaniah’s pronouncement of the Lord’s Day sought to evoke the humble to quest for God through covenant obedience (2:1–­3), Zephaniah 3:1–­7 lamented the failure of that enterprise. The text lays all blame squarely at the feet of the city and its leadership: “It has listened to no voice; it has accepted no correction” (3:2a). Here, the redactors recalled Zephaniah’s warning of the coming Day of the Lord, which would be visited upon foreign influences in Jerusalem’s royal courts (1:4–­13). The exilic redactors underscored Jerusalem’s guilt, noting that it had not learned the lesson embedded in the Lord’s treatment of the other lands: “I have cut off nations. . . . I said, ‘Surely the city will fear me, it will accept correction.’ . . . But they were the more eager to make all their deeds corrupt” (3:6–­7; see 2:4–­11, 13–­15). The fault, so say these exilic theologians, lay not with the Lord (“The Lord within it is righteous; he does no wrong”; 3:5a) but rather with the leadership: the officials (śārîm), the judges (šōp̱ĕtǐm), the prophets (nĕḇîʾîm), and the priests (kōhănîm; vv. 3–­4). Such a list of obdurate leaders links back to a similar list of Jerusalem’s leaders found in the earlier version of the Book of the Four, the list targeted by Micah in the late eighth century (Mic 3:9–­11). Micah’s eighth-­century warning, it seems, was heeded by those authorities but not by those of the seventh century, according to the view of Zephaniah’s redactors in the exilic period.

443

THE PROPHETS

Postexilic Addenda Later, in the postexilic period, perhaps two phases of additions were made to the Zephaniah scroll. First came 1:2–­3, 14–­18 along with 3:9–­13, and then at an even later date, 3:14–­20 added a final conclusion. Each had its own distinct message. Sometime early in the restoration period, the motif of the Day of the Lord is again taken up in Zephaniah 1:2–­3, 14–­18 and 3:9–­13, calling for a broad sweeping, universal judgment upon the earth (1:2, 18). Quite distinct to this redaction, as opposed to Zephaniah’s initial Day of the Lord pronouncement, is the emphasis placed upon the coming punishment, the depth of its devastation and the quality of the pending disaster (1:14–­16). Moreover, absent from these verses is a specific target. “Humans and animals” will be swept away (1:3). The Lord will bring distress upon people in general (1:17), not merely on the “remnant of Baal” (1:4) or royal officials swept up by an unseemly attraction to foreign fashions (1:8), who lived in the western expansion of Jerusalem (1:10–­11). This is rather the punishment of the “whole earth” (1:18)—­period. Verse 3:8, which by our reading originally closed off oracles against Judah’s immediate neighbors and Assyria, was in the exile transformed by the addition of 3:1–­7 to include Jerusalem. To Zephaniah 3:8 postexilic theologians added yet another conclusion found in 3:9–­13 to this edition of the Zephaniah scroll, which like their additions in chapter 1, have a universal quality, yet this time they offer hope, at least for “the remnant of Israel” (3:13). These are the humble and lowly (3:12), the same descriptors used for the faithful in 2:1–­3. In contrast, the impending doom of God’s punishment will come upon the proudly exultant ones on the Lord’s holy mountain (3:11), which is code for the priestly leadership of postexilic Jerusalem (see Isa 65:1–­7; 66:1–­4; Mal 1:12–­14). Again, it intrigues us how Zephaniah echoes Micah, for Micah 5:7–­9 speaks of a remnant of Jacob who, though surrounded by many peoples, shall be like a lion. This connection suggests that both Micah and Zephaniah, having earlier been joined together into the Book of the Four, were rehandled, rethought,

444

ZEPHANIAH

and reworked by redactors who shared a particular view of the restoration, one that came into conflict with that of the priestly leadership in Jerusalem. It takes the reader by surprise that the book ends with a jubilant song to be sung by Mount Zion (3:14) and to be sung because the Lord has removed his judgment from the city and its sacred shrine. He has seated himself now upon his throne (3:15). New hands have now taken up the scroll of Zephaniah, and with pen in hand, these theologians promise that the Lord will repristinate Zion (3:16–­20). True enough, this was their confession, but even more was it these priests’ song of praise, their song of Zion. In Summation In the introduction to this chapter, we stated that the book of Zephaniah is something like an abridgment of ancient Israel’s religious history, and perhaps there is some value in reviewing what the scroll of Zephaniah says about ancient Israel’s religion. We have sided with those who place Zephaniah as a member of the royal house of David in Jerusalem. He was active, according to the superscript, during the reign of Josiah. Of his words that have been preserved, we can read of his announcement of the Day of the Lord (1:4–­6, 7–­13), which promised the Lord’s judgment upon syncretists living in Jerusalem. This judgment was extended to Judah’s neighbors and Assyria (2:4–­11, 13–­15; 3:8). Although the bulk of his words left to us sound harsh and full of holy wrath, 2:1–­3 calls upon the humble to assemble and seek righteousness and offers a glimpse of the possibility of salvation. Joined with Hosea, Amos, and Micah in the Book of the Four, Zephaniah’s message spotlights him as having been a spokesperson for the Deuteronomistic traditions that were gaining acceptance during Josiah’s reign. This was a time of theological change, something of a theological pivot when the authorities of the nation turned from their polytheism to an exclusive covenantal loyalty to the Lord, and Zephaniah was among those effecting this change.

445

THE PROPHETS

Zephaniah’s lesson on the history of ancient Israelite religion continues, as Zephaniah 3:1–­7 provides a glimpse of how the later Deuteronomists interpreted the fall of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. This theological expansion of Zephaniah’s prophecies updated his message that once held out a glimmer of hope for a people who lived in a time when all hope had passed. And so Zephaniah’s words and those of the Book of the Four were copied and handed down. The next step in this march through the history of ancient Israel’s religion, as led by the Zephaniah scroll, brings the reader to the postexilic period. In this layer of the scroll, the Day of the Lord has emerged as a time of universal judgment of the wicked. Moreover, with the final song of Zion, what had become a pointed critique of Jerusalem (3:1–­7) and a call for Judah’s authorities to repent (2:3) was now put into the service of some of the priestly leadership ruling the land. Zephaniah and the Book of the Four had become in the postexilic period authoritative, yet the earlier message of God’s judgment of Zion was recognized as incomplete. After judgment comes restoration. On that day, it was sung, “Do not fear, O Zion. . . . The Lord, your God, is in your midst” (3:16–­17; emphasis ours). Notes 1 For the term Proto-­Deuteronomistic, see sidebar 4.1, “Terms for Deuteronomistic Traditions” (p. 138) and the glossary. 2 See J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 163; and Marvin Sweeney, Zephaniah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 14. 3 See Adele Berlin, Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 25A (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 42; Walter Dietrich, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: W. Kohlhammer, 2016), 188–­92; James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 697–­99; and Johannes Vlaardingerboek, Zephaniah, HCOT (Lueven, Belgium: Peeters, 1999), 9–­10. 4 See Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 279–­80; and see the reference there to his Genealogy and

446

ZEPHANIAH

History in the Biblical World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977), 37–­48; and the counterargument by Roberts, Nahum, 165–­66. 5 See Dietrich, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 194. 6 See Ralph L. Smith, Micah–­Malachi, vol. 32, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 125; Roberts, Nahum, 163; Sweeney, Zephaniah, 14–­18; Dietrich, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 188–­89. 7 See Yair Hoffman, “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature,” ZAW 93, no. 1 ( January 1, 1981): 41–­47; and A. Joseph Everson, “The Days of Yahweh,” JBL 93, no. 3 (1974): 329–­37. 8 The prophecy of the Day of the Lord in vv. 14–­18 appears to be a later expansion, probably dating to the postexilic period. Signaled by a new introduction of the Day, the judgment envisioned suddenly encompasses the entire earth (v. 18) and all people (v. 17). 9 See Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 118–­20. 10 Sweeney calls 2:1–­3 “the rhetorical center of the book” (Zephaniah, 50; see also his discussion on pages 112–­13). 11 Stephen L. Cook, The Social Roots of Biblical Yahwism, SBLStBL 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 222–­23. 12 See Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 701, 723–­25; Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 126. 13 See Sweeney, Zephaniah, 121; and also Berlin, Zephaniah, 99. 14 Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 278–­ 80; Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–­Jonah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 5–­6. 15 Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, WAW (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 97–­132; Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 95–­104; ANET, 49–­51.

447

15

Haggai

Introduction The prophet Haggai is mentioned not only in the short book named for him (nine times; in Hag 1:1, 3, 12, 13; 2:1, 10, 13, 14, 20) but also in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14. There, Haggai and Zechariah together urge that the Jerusalem temple that had been destroyed by the Babylonians be rebuilt. The rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple is the theme of the book of Haggai. In seven of the references above, Haggai is further identified as “the prophet” (my emphasis; Hebrew hannābîʾ in Haggai; Aramaic nĕbiyyāʾ in Ezra); only Habakkuk, Haggai, and Zechariah are also identified by this official title in their books. Likely, these prophets were what Robert R. Wilson calls “central intermediaries,” who were “primarily responsible for maintaining their societies and for promoting community welfare.”1 The identity of Haggai’s audience confirms this impression. Although he sometimes also spoke to the community (1:13; 2:2, 4), he mainly addressed his message to its leaders: “Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest” (1:1; 2:2; in 2:10, he addresses the priests generally, and in 2:21,

449

THE PROPHETS

Figure 15.1 The Rebuilding of the Temple Is Begun by Gustave Doré, 1866 CE. From Doré’s English Bible.

Zerubbabel alone). The book of Haggai is set in the time of the Persian emperor Darius I (522–­486 BCE) and dated by the years of his rule (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:10). In the entire prophetic corpus, only Haggai and Zechariah are dated by the reign of a foreign king.2

450

HAGGAI

Unlike those prophets who courageously opposed the powers that be, then, Haggai was closely tied to the central institutions of government and religion in his day. Perhaps this is why, as Hans Walter Wolff writes, Haggai is “one of the most minor of the minor prophets, indeed one of the most despised.”3 We are far more interested in the rebel standing alone against the system, like Amos or Jeremiah, than in a loyal company man like Haggai! As John Goldingay wryly observes, “We are more comfortable with Amos than with Haggai, even if in the end we take no notice of Amos.”4 But such cavalier dismissals of the prophet mistake his message. For rebuilding the temple—­Haggai’s central message and theme—­is more than a brick-­and-­mortar project to bolster Jerusalem’s central institutions. Haggai envisions nothing less than a sacred program of action realigning the center of the cosmos! Haggai’s Setting Historical Setting Haggai (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18, 20) and Zechariah (Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1) are the only prophets who date their oracles by the reign of a foreign king: the Persian emperor Darius I (522–­486 BCE; see the discussion under “Third Isaiah [56–­66]” in chapter 3; see fig. 15.2), a popular general who took the throne in a military coup. Despite his eventual success at restoring order, Darius’s coup threw the empire into disarray. The Egyptians and Babylonians, taking advantage of the confusion, rebelled against the Persians. It was two years before Darius finally subdued these rebellions and consolidated his own claim to the throne. The prophecies of Haggai, set in Darius’s second year, must be read in this context of confusion and disillusionment (see Hag 2:10, 20–­22). Joshua and Zerubbabel, Haggai’s primary audience, were the religious and secular leaders, respectively, of the Judean community during the reign of the Persian emperor Darius. Zerubbabel, like his predecessor, Sheshbazzar, was a descendant of David through King Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE. According to the royal genealogy

451

THE PROPHETS

Figure 15.2 The Darius seal. Darius stands in a royal chariot below Ahuramazda and shoots arrows at a rampant lion. From Thebes, Egypt. Sixth to fifth century BCE. British Museum, London.

in 1 Chronicles 3:17–­19, Zerubbabel was Jehoiachin’s grandson through his third son, Pedaiah (Ezra 3:8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1; 2:1–­4, 21–­32; Zech 4:6–­10). Haggai, Ezra, and Nehemiah call Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel rather than the son of Pedaiah. An ancient custom called levirate marriage (Gen 38:8–­11; Deut 25:5–­10), however, stipulates that if a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow and the first son born from their union be considered for purposes of inheritance the child of the deceased man. So Zerubbabel could have been the biological son of Pedaiah, as Chronicles states, and still legally the son of his uncle, Shealtiel. Joshua the high priest was the son of Jehozadak (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech 3:1, 3, 6, 8; 6:11), the last name in the high priestly genealogy in 1 Chronicles 6:4–­15. Nehemiah 12:10–­11 picks up where this list leaves off, with Joshua (there called Jeshua, but see Ezra 3:8; 4:3; Neh 12:1), who would have been born in exile.

452

HAGGAI

Literary Setting A series of nine date formulae precise to the day not only place Haggai in Darius’s second year, between August and December of 520 BCE, but also link Haggai to Zechariah 1–­8 (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18, 20; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1). All but four of these specify the year, the month, and the day (Hag 2:1 gives the month and day, 2:18 gives the day and month, and 2:20 gives only the day, but all three refer explicitly to the date in 2:10; Zech 1:1 gives only the year and month). This precise dating calls to mind the book of Ezekiel, the only other biblical text that features dating precise to the day. Usually, as in Ezekiel, each date introduces a unit (although in 1:15b the phrase “in the second year of King Darius” refers both to the preceding date in 1:15a, concluding that unit, and to the following date in 2:1, which is missing a year). Also as in Ezekiel, the dates are mainly in sequence; the sole exception is Zechariah

Sidebar 15.1: Social and Economic Conditions in Palestine in the Early Persian Period In this era (the early Persian period), Yehud’s population was small (ca. 10,900–­13,500), Jerusalem’s was tiny (ca. 500), and the community struggled with a reduced territory, insufficient resources, and poor economic conditions (see Hag 1:9–­11; 2:17; Zech 7:7, 14). Temple rebuilding likely seemed an ill-­advised luxury. Some sources understand that the first returnee group under Sheshbazzar managed to rebuild the temple altar, celebrate a resetting of the temple foundations (Ezra 3:10–­13; 5:16), and revive Jerusalem’s sacrificial worship by 538 or 537 BCE. Haggai 2:18 may refer to 538 or, perhaps better, to 520 (Hag 1:1). Soon after 538, progress at rebuilding ground to a halt, however, and the temple project stood on hold for sixteen to eighteen years.

453

THE PROPHETS

1:1. Three of Haggai’s dates (Hag 2:10, 18, 20) refer to the same day: “the twenty-­fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius” (Hag 2:10). Carol and Eric Meyers propose that this may have been the date for the refoundation ceremony of the temple.5 This date stands at the center of Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8, with three dates before it and three after. Zechariah 1:1 predates Haggai 2:10, 18, 20; these overlapping dates, according to Seth Sykes, “reinforce a thematic connection between the two prophetic texts,” making Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8 a “unified, whole utterance.”6 In addition to their shared dating schema, Haggai and Zechariah 1–­8 both prefer the ancient divine title Lord of Hosts (Yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt). God was worshipped as Lord of Hosts particularly in association with the ark (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2 ǁ 1 Chr 13:6; Isa 37:16) and so with Zion and the Jerusalem temple (Isa 18:7; 24:23; 25:6; 31:4–­5). Yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt appears fourteen times in Haggai and fifty-­three times in Zechariah (though only nine times in Zech 9–­14); by comparison, Yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt is found only sixty-­two times in the sixty-­six chapters of Isaiah and does not appear in Ezekiel at all. As Meyers and Meyers demonstrate, while Haggai constitutes only 0.2 percent of the Hebrew Bible, 5 percent of the references to Yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt in Scripture occur in this book. Similarly, Zechariah 1–­8, at 0.6 percent of the Hebrew Bible, accounts for 14 percent of its references to this divine title.7 Despite being dated by the regnal years of Darius, then, the focus of Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8 is not Persian rule but the rule of the Lord of Hosts! As Sykes observes, this edited unit “subverts the historical reality of Persian imperial rule by depicting the universal and eternal rule of Yahweh.”8 Another characteristic feature of Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8 is a preference for the messenger formula kōh ʾāmar Yhwh (thus says the Lord): five times in Haggai (Hag 1:2, 5, 7; 2:6, 11) and nineteen times in Zechariah 1–­8. The Book of the Twelve as a whole, by comparison, uses the messenger formula only forty-­four times: outside of Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8, kōh ʾāmar Yhwh appears not at all in Hosea or Joel, fourteen times in Amos, once in Obadiah (Obad 1), not at all in Jonah, twice in Micah (Mic 2:3; 3:5), once in Nahum (1:12), not at all in Habakkuk or Zephaniah,

454

HAGGAI

once in Zechariah 9–­14 (Zech 11:4), and once in Malachi (Mal 1:4). In the Major Prophets, the formula occurs 43 times in Isaiah but 154 times in Jeremiah and 126 times in Ezekiel—­so likely, the messenger formula became particularly important shortly before the exile. Certainly Ezekiel understood this expression to be normative for prophetic speech: “I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God’” (Ezek 2:4; see 13:6–­7). The frequency of the messenger formula in Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8, particularly when compared to its scarcity in or absence from the postexilic compositions Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Malachi, again reflects the use of Ezekiel in the editing of this work. For these reasons and many more, a broad scholarly consensus holds that Haggai and Zechariah 1–­8 were edited together.9 Still, they remain distinct works. For example, vision reports play no role at all in Haggai, while Zechariah’s prophecy is characterized by visions (1:7–­17; 1:18–­21 [2:1–­4]; 2:1–­5 [5–­9]; 3:1–­10; 4:1–­5, 10b–­14; 5:1–­4; 5:5–­11; 6:1–­8). The angel who serves as Zechariah’s guide and interpreter in these visions (Zech 1:9; 1:19 [2:2]; 2:3–­5 [7–­9]; 4:10–­14; 5:3, 6–­8, 10–­11; 6:5–­6) has no role at all in Haggai. Indeed, in Haggai 1:13, Haggai is the malʾak Yhwh (the messenger of the Lord; see Zech 1:11–­12; 3:1, 5, 6; 12:8, where malʾak Yhwh is a supernatural being). Both of these features of Zechariah reflect the influence of the book of Ezekiel, a visionary (see Ezek 1–­3; 8–­11; 37:1–­14; 40–­48) who in his last great vision is guided by an angel (Ezek 40:3–­4). Another feature that Zechariah 1–­8 shares with Ezekiel is the use of the first person: indeed, in the entire canon of the Hebrew Bible, only these two books are written entirely in the first person.10 Likely, Zechariah and his disciples edited Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8 into a single work.11 Theological Issues The brief statement of the prophet’s message in Haggai 1:2 neatly expresses the circumstance that he confronted: “These people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the Lord’s house” (Hag 1:2). Haggai, however, says that the time has come to build the temple and put

455

THE PROPHETS

Sidebar 15.2: The Structure of Haggai

I. 1:1–­2: Introduction to the book



II. 1:3–­11: Haggai’s first oracle



III. 1:12–­15: The people respond



IV. 1:15b–­2:9: Discouragement and hope



V. 2:10–­19: A Priestly Torah



VI. 2:20–­23: An oracle to Zerubbabel

worship first. The opening section of the book (Hag 1:3–­11) links fertility and material prosperity to the divine presence enshrined and celebrated in the right temple with the right cult, themes also found, notably, in Ezekiel 47:1–­12. But in Haggai, the failure of the postexilic community to rebuild the temple has meant the loss of these benefits: the absence of God’s temple has brought infertility, drought, and death (Hag 1:10–­11). In a series of vivid images, Haggai describes their circumstances: “You have sown much, and harvested little; you eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill; you clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; and you that earn wages earn wages to put them into a bag with holes” (1:6). Stephen Cook relates this depiction of the postexilic community to “futility curses” for covenant breaking found in the Holiness Code (Lev 17–­26; see 26:14–­33), specifically Leviticus 26:20 (“Your strength shall be spent to no purpose: your land shall not yield its produce, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit”) and 26:26 (“Though you eat, you shall not be satisfied”).12 Not only the people but also the land itself have suffered from the temple’s absence. Haggai declares, “Therefore, the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce” (Hag 1:10). As Cook observes, Haggai makes a clear connection between the temple

456

HAGGAI

lying “in ruins” (ḥārēb; Hag 1:9) and the “drought [ḥōreb] on the land” (Hag 1:11). Temple Ideology in Haggai and the Ancient Near East For Haggai, the temple was the source of life and fertility in all the land. The failure to rebuild the temple meant God’s absence from the land and so infertility and drought. Jubilees 8:19, which also reflects this assumption, places Zion “in the midst of the navel of the earth.” Scholar of comparative religion Mircea Eliade described the myth of the center, or “navel,” of the earth as a common theme in the history of religions.13 Since the cosmic center, identified with the temple, was the source of life and meaning for all creation, the Presence of the Divine in the temple meant both fertility and material prosperity. This belief regarding the temple occurs elsewhere throughout the ancient Near East.14 The Gudea Cylinders (fig. 15.3), an ancient Mesopotamian text dealing with the building of a temple to Ningirsu at Lagash, describe the preparation of a royal bedchamber in the temple for the god and his consort, resulting in fertility as well as material prosperity (Cylinder B, 14.19–­24). Similarly, in old Canaanite mythology, temple building results in both natural and economic abundance. When El decrees that a house is to be built for Baal, god of wind and storm, Lady Asherah jubilantly sings, Now, indeed, his rainy season Baʾl will appoint; the season of ships upon the waves. Now he will give his voice in the clouds; He will loose lightnings upon the earth. The house of cedar, he may build it; Even the house of brick, he may raise it! (CTA, 4.5.68–­73; translation by Steven Tuell)15 The temple of Baʾl in Ugarit was a blessing to sea merchants as well as to farmers, bringing material prosperity as well as natural abundance.

457

THE PROPHETS

The building of the temples at Lagash and Ugarit called for precious woods, stones, and metals (see the list of materials in Gudea Cylinder A and in CTA, 4.5.74–­81; 91–­97 [98–­102]). The descriptions of the tabernacle in Exodus 25–­27 and of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6–­7 also emphasize gold, cedar, and other precious materials. Haggai 1:2–­11, then, echoes a common theme of prosperity linked to the divine presence, enshrined and celebrated in the right temple with the right cult. Haggai as a Prophet like Moses In sharp contrast to many of the prophets (particularly Jeremiah; see ch. 36), Haggai’s words “elicit a positive response.”16 Haggai’s success is the subject of the brief narrative unit in 1:12–­15. In these few verses, the description of the response of the people and their leadership (1:12, 14) brackets a word of assurance from the prophet: “Then Haggai, the messenger of the Lord [malʾak Yhwh], spoke to the people with the Lord’s

Figure 15.3 Gudea Cylinders B and A. Two terra-­cotta cylinders telling of the construction of the temple of Ninurta (Ningirsu). Girsu, 2125 BCE.

458

HAGGAI

message [malʾăkût; this word appears only here in the Hebrew Bible]” (Hag 1:13). The expression malʾak Yhwh is commonly used for the angel (or avatar) of God’s Presence (e.g., Gen 22:11; Exod 3:20; Num 22:22–­27; Zech 1:11–­12; 3:1, 5, 6; 12:8); it refers to a human messenger only here and in Malachi 2:7. This emphasis on Haggai as God’s messenger suggests that, like Jeremiah, he is being cast as the prophet like Moses (see Deut 18:15).17 This connection is made more likely by the word of the Lord Haggai proclaims, a promise also given to Moses: “I am with you, says the Lord” (Hag 1:13; see Exod 3:12). Just as Moses was given a vision of the tabernacle his people were to build (Exod 25:9), so Haggai calls his community in his day to rebuild a temple for the Lord. Inspired by Haggai’s challenge, the leadership and the community set about rebuilding the Jerusalem temple. The book of Haggai describes that community as “all the remnant of the people” (kōl s̆ĕʾērît hāʿām; Hag 1:12, 14; see Hag 2:2). Most commonly, the word remnant (s̆ĕʾār) refers to the survivors of Jerusalem’s destruction (twenty-­four times in Jeremiah alone) and hence to the restored community after the exile (as in Zeph 3:13 and in Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8). As successful as Haggai’s initial proclamation was, in less than a month (assuming that the year in 1:15b and 2:1 is the same), the community became discouraged (2:1–­9). The returnees from the exile had heard grand stories of Solomon’s temple from their parents and grandparents, and in its surviving foundation lines and ruined walls, they could doubtless sense at firsthand something of its majesty. Now as their own far more modest structure began to take shape, the contrast between what was now and what once had been became, for some, overwhelming. Haggai responded with straightforward honesty: “Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Is it not in your sight as nothing?” (Hag 2:3). Haggai does not deny either the glories of the past or the apparent insignificance of the present. But rather than yielding to despair, Haggai again calls the leaders of the community and the people themselves to “take courage” and “work, for I am with you, says the Lord of hosts” (Hag 2:4). Like

459

THE PROPHETS

Second Isaiah (Isa 40:3–­4; 43:16–­17, 19–­20; 53:13), Haggai relates God’s promise of imminent divine advent and renewal to “the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt” (2:5; see Exod 29:45–­46).18 Haggai’s words also recall God’s command to Joshua, Moses’s successor: “Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go” ( Josh 1:9; see 1:6–­7, 18). God’s promise in those days of Israel’s beginnings had proven true. Now God assures the returnees that the promise remains sure. The Day of the Lord But Judah’s renewal would require a cosmic upheaval: “For thus said the Lord of Hosts: In just a little while longer, I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land” (Hag 2:6 JPSV; see 2:21). The language is reminiscent of ancient storm theophanies (e.g., Judg 5:4; 2 Sam 22:8; Nah 1:5; Pss 18:8 [7]; 68:9 [8]), as well as depictions of the Day of the Lord (e.g., Joel 2:10; 3:16). Haggai declares that the nations will be shaken so that their riches might flow into Jerusalem (Hag 2:7–­8), to the end that “the latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former” (2:9). In the chaos surrounding Darius’s reestablishment of order in the empire following his usurpation, Haggai hoped that God would act to restore Judah’s prosperity and independence under Zerubbabel (see 2:20–­23). Haggai 2:6–­7 and the Messiah While reading these verses, some may hear in the back of their heads the Christmas section of Handel’s magnificent oratorio Messiah. Charles Jennens’s libretto for this section reads Haggai 2:6–­7 in continuity with Malachi 3:1–­3, as a prediction of the coming Messiah. This messianic reading of Haggai depends in large measure on the translation of 2:7. While the NRSV reads “the treasure of all nations shall come,” the KJV, following the Latin Vulgate, has “the desire of all nations shall come.”

460

HAGGAI

Jennens was far from the first Christian reader to make this move. Augustine (City of God 18.35) understood Haggai 2:6 to relate to Jesus’s first coming (the shaking of the heavens relating to the angelic host [Luke 2:8–­14] and the star [Matt 2:1–­10], the shaking of earth and sea to the spread of the gospel) and 2:7 to his second coming: Jesus, of course, being the “desire of all nations.” Similarly, the Latin “O Antiphons” of Advent, dating certainly from the eleventh century and possibly from as early as the time of Charlemagne, have “O Rex gentium et desideratus” (O King and desire of the nations). At issue in the translation and interpretation of Haggai 2:7 is the word ḥemdâ, which means something “precious” or “desirable” (see the NIV, which reads “what is desired by all nations”). The LXX, however, reads eklekta—­“the elect of all nations”—­apparently understanding the one desired by the nations to be God’s elect ruler. The “O Antiphon” likely conflates this reading with the Vulgate “et veniet desideratus cunctis gentibus” (and the desired of all nations shall come). In context, ḥemdâ seems rather to refer to the silver and gold in 2:8, brought into Jerusalem from the nations to glorify the rebuilt temple. The Aramaic Targum Nevi’im clarifies this by construing the word as plural (“the desired things” rather than the MT “desired thing or one”; note the NJPS translation: “the precious things”). The wealth of the nations does not in truth belong to them: “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord of hosts” (2:8). We should note, by the way, that the vocabulary used here (specifically, the combination “fill,” “house,” “glory”) is rare, occurring elsewhere only with regard to God’s actual presence filling the temple: Exodus 40:34–­35 (substituting “tabernacle” for “house”); 1 Kings 8:11 (2 Chr 5:14; 7:1–­2); Ezekiel 10:4; 43:5; 44:4. This “pregnant” language is significant, since it shows that the interest here is in personal interaction with God, not merely in material wealth. Haggai is sometimes misread as an advocate of the so-­called prosperity gospel, which promises health, wealth, and success to those who believe the right things and pray in the right way.19 But Haggai does not tell his community what

461

THE PROPHETS

they must do in order to prosper—­indeed, it was seeking their own prosperity that had brought them to the desperate circumstances with which this book opens. Haggai 1:4 asks, “Is it a time for you yourselves to live in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?” The reference to paneling (śi ̱pūnîm) calls to mind the royal palaces of Solomon (1 Kgs 7:3, 7) and Jehoiakim ( Jer 22:13–­15). Aspiring to that former wealth and prosperity, Haggai’s community had placed themselves first and God last. But this way of living had not brought them the satisfaction and fulfillment they sought; indeed, it left them empty (Hag 1:4–­6). Haggai Requests a Priestly Tôrâ Haggai 2:10–­19 records a request from Haggai for the priests to issue a tôrâ—­that is, an authoritative ruling (see Lev 10:10–­11; Jer 18:18)—­ on “the twenty-­fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius” (Hag 2:10), likely the day of the temple refoundation ceremony (see Ezra 3:8–­13). The requested tôrâ concerns holiness and defilement. In the priestly worldview, the holy, the common, the clean, and the unclean marked the borders of life lived in relationship to God and to one another. The story of Uzzah, who touched the holy ark of the covenant and immediately died (2 Sam 6:7 ǁ 1 Chr 13:10), provides a grim reminder that the holy and the common must remain separate! The clean and unclean relate to the spheres of the permissible and impermissible not in moral but in ritual terms: what the people Israel can and cannot eat, drink, plant, use, wear, or even touch. Contact with unclean things—­in Haggai’s example (2:13), with a corpse (see Num 19:1–­21)—­makes a person and anything she or he touches unclean, unless the defilement is purged by right ritual and sacrifice. First, Haggai asks the priests to rule on what would happen if “consecrated meat” from the sacrifices was taken out of the temple in the fold of a garment and ordinary, common food was touched by the garment (2:12). This thought experiment would have horrified the priests. Consecrated meat was to be consumed within the bounds of sacred space; any leftovers were to be burned, and anything that came into

462

HAGGAI

contact with the consecrated meat had to be either thoroughly cleaned within the temple walls or, if that was not possible, destroyed (see Exod 29:34; Lev 6:26-30 [19-23]). Certainly, then, food and drink touched by such meat would not become themselves holy. Conversely, the priests also rule that a person contaminated by corpse contagion would make any food he touched unclean. Haggai’s questions were not controversial, and the ruling of the priests is perfectly in line with the teaching in Torah.20 So why did the prophet ask for this ruling, and what were its implications? In view of the date of this oracle, one could propose that Haggai was calling the whole community to spiritual discipline, but in that case, in what way is his audience “like” someone with corpse contagion, and what is the point of the question about consecrated meat? Perhaps Haggai is referring to the ceremonial impurity, deathly miasma, and chaotic murk that clung to the community in the wake of the temple’s loss and the exile. It would be no simple task for holiness to spread in that situation. Some translations of Haggai 2:14, such as the NET, NLT, CEV, VOICE, and ISV, adopt this view. (NET: “‘The people of this nation are unclean in my sight,’ decrees the Lord. ‘And so is all their effort’”; MSG: “This people is contaminated.”) Alternatively, David Petersen proposes that Haggai’s analogy is about sacrifice, specifically the need to purify the altar.21 But if the priests are indeed aware of the importance of observing the holy, common, clean, and unclean, as they appear to be from their tôrâ, surely those rites had been performed as a part of that ceremony. Indeed, Ezra 3:10 states that everything was done “according to the directions of King David of Israel,” the founder of the temple’s liturgy (see 1 Chr 28:11–­19). Another possibility is that the audience of this oracle is the priests themselves, whom Haggai had asked for a tôrâ. If we ask what about the priests might result in unacceptable and unclean sacrifices, the legitimacy of the priesthood itself comes to mind. Biblical texts dating to the early Persian period—­not only Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi but also Ezra–­Nehemiah, Isaiah 56–­66 (Third Isaiah), and Ezekiel 40–­48—­indicate that the years after the Babylonian exile were a time

463

THE PROPHETS

of intense conflict between those returning from the exile and those people in the land who had never left.22 A major issue in this conflict was right priesthood and right worship. The religious leaders of the homelanders were Levites left behind when the Zadokite priests of the Jerusalem temple were taken away into exile, while the returnees were led by Zadokites such as Joshua, the high priest in Haggai. Both sides in this conflict are represented in Scripture. On the one hand, Zechariah 3:6–­10 affirms that priestly access to the Lord is given to Joshua and the other Zadokite priests who had returned from exile, while Ezekiel 44:1–­14 restricts priestly altar rights to this group, the Zadokites, alone. On the other hand, Third Isaiah (e.g., Isa 65:5; 66:3) sharply critiques at least some priestly leaders of the restored temple, while Malachi advocates for God’s covenant with the whole tribe of Levi (Mal 2:1–­9; see also Deut 18:1; Jer 33:19–­22), not just the single Levitical family of Zadok or even the larger Levitical circle of the sons of Aaron. The strong connection between Haggai and the leaders of his community makes it plain where Haggai would have stood in this conflict. Now that the right temple was finally under construction, Haggai reminds the priests that right worship requires not only the right shrine and the right liturgy but also the right priesthood. Contact with holy things would not sanctify illegitimate priests. Instead, unclean cult personnel would defile the offerings of the people (see Ezek 44:9–­14). To underline this message, Haggai recapitulates his earlier oracle linking the temple to fertility in the land and fulfillment in the human community (2:15–­19). The founding of the temple would prove a turning point. Repeated calls in these verses to “consider” (śîmû–­nāʾ lĕbabkem—­that is, “put your heart [to]”; 2:15, 18; see 1:5, 7) that day emphasize the significance of the beginning that has been made. The Lord declares, “From this day on I will bless you” (Hag 2:19).

464

HAGGAI

Zerubbabel as the Lord’s Signet While the narrative in 2:10–­19 addresses the religious leadership of Judah, Haggai’s final oracle (Hag 2:20–­23) addresses the political leader, the governor Zerubbabel. The exalted view of Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:20–­23 (or in 1 Esd 3–­4) is difficult to square with Ezra–­Nehemiah, which largely ignores him.23 Indeed, even Haggai’s contemporary Zechariah had to defend Zerubbabel against his detractors (see Zech 4:6, 10). In contrast, Haggai compares Zerubbabel to the Lord’s “signet ring” (ḥôtām) and declares, “I have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts” (2:23). Although the word ḥôtām (seal) is not common, the uses of the term in Genesis 38:18 and 1 Kings 21:8, together with archaeological evidence (numerous clay document seals and jar handles bearing seal impressions have survived), suffice to demonstrate the importance and use of the signet: its impression indicated that the item so sealed came from, belonged to, or bore the authority of the seal’s owner. Particularly significant for understanding Haggai 2:23 is Jeremiah 22:24, where the signet is an image of royalty: “As I live, says the Lord, even if King Coniah son of Jehoiakim of Judah were the signet ring on my right hand, even from there I would tear you off.” Haggai’s use of this image is tremendously significant and potentially dangerous. Zerubbabel may have been a descendant of David, but he is explicitly called peḥâ: that is, a governor, not a king. For him openly to claim the title “king” would be to reignite the rebellion by the leaders of Babylon and Egypt that Darius had put down only a year and a half prior to Haggai 2:20–­23. Haggai did not call for a rebellion. He was confident that through the chaotic political events of his day, God would bring about Zerubbabel’s rise. Just as Second Isaiah had seen Cyrus of Persia as God’s tool to break the power of Babylon (Isa 45:1–­19), so Haggai was convinced God was about “to overthrow the throne of kingdoms” (kissēʾ mamlākôt; 2:22). A single throne over multiple kingdoms must surely refer to imperial power: in context, to Persia.24 Of course, Darius did not fall—­thankfully,

465

THE PROPHETS

since according to Ezra it was largely through his intervention that the temple was at last completed. Zerubbabel did not rise to kingship; instead, he faded into obscurity. In the final form of the Twelve, Haggai’s message relates to the Day of the Lord and God’s final victory over all oppression. But in its historical context, Haggai’s last oracle is a cautionary tale about the dangers of identifying faith too closely with any political figure or movement. Notes 1 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 83–­84. 2 Carol Meyers and Eric Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–­8, AYB 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 5. 3 Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 11. 4 John Goldingay and Pamela J. Scalise, Minor Prophets II, NIBCOT 18 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 147. 5 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, xlvii. 6 Seth Sykes, Time and Space in Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8: A Bakhtinian Analysis of a Prophetic Chronicle, Studies in Biblical Literature 24 (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 27. 7 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, 18. 8 Sykes, Time and Space, 149–­50. 9 E.g., Peter Ackroyd, “The Book of Haggai and Zechariah I–­VIII,” JJS 3 (1952): 155–­56; W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai–­Sacharia 1–­8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1967), 331; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, xliv–­xlix; Paul Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 37, 42–­43; Sykes, Time and Space, 25–­46; Martin Hallaschka, Haggai und Sacharja 1–­8: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, BZAW 411 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 13–­14; and James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Micah–­Malachi, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentaries (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 763. 10 Steven S. Tuell, “Haggai–­Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Aaron Schart and Paul L. Redditt, BZAW 325 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 287. 11 August Klostermann, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis zur Restauration unter Esra und Nehemia (München: C. H. Beck, 1896), 213; Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, 268.

466

HAGGAI

12 Stephen L. Cook, “Haggai,” “Zechariah,” and “Malachi,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible One-­Volume Commentary, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and David Peterson (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010), 529–­39. 13 Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, or Cosmos and History, trans. Williard Trask (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), 12–­17. 14 Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East, WAW 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 81–­82, and 136. 15 Steven S. Tuell, “A Riddle Resolved by an Enigma: Hebrew gls̆ and Ugaritic glt,” JBL 112 (1993): 100–­102. 16 David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–­8, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 34. 17 S. Dean McBride Jr., “Jeremiah and the Levitical Priests of Anathoth,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. Stephen L. Cook and John J. Ahn, LHBOTS 502 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 181. 18 God’s exodus promise to come and “abide in the people’s midst” (Exod 29:45–­46) will be fulfilled in full measure when the postexilic temple is built and dedicated. This is a driving motivation of Haggai’s prophetic summonses to construct the temple. 19 Paul Gifford, “Expecting Miracles: The Prosperity Gospel in Africa,” Christian Century, July 10, 2007, http://​www​.christiancentury​.org/​article/​2007​ -07/​expecting​-miracles​-0. 20 Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 152. 21 Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 85; see also O’Brien, Nahum, 151. 22 Paul Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 209–­11; S. Dean McBride Jr., “Biblical Literature in Its Historical Context: The Old Testament,” in HBC, 35; Steven S. Tuell, “The Priesthood of the ‘Foreigner’: Evidence of Competing Polities in Ezekiel 44:1–­14 and Isaiah 56:1–­8,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr., ed. John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 183–­87; Dalit Rom-­Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–­5th Centuries BCE), LHBOTS 543 (New York: T&T Clark, 2013), 61–­81. 23 Frank Moore Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” Int 29 (1975): 194–­98; Steven S. Tuell, 1 and 2 Chronicles, IBC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 11–12. 24 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, 67; Marvin Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 553–­54; contra Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 96, 98–­100.

467

16

Zechariah

In the early restoration era (520–­518 BCE), the prophet Zechariah urged returning exiles from Babylonia and those who had never left Judea to rebuild God’s house, purify their community, and await the dawning of God’s reign. He shared the zeal of Haggai for getting the temple ready for God’s tangible presence (1:16; 4:9–­10; see Hag 2:7, 9). The long-­awaited indwelling of God, he proclaimed, was about to transform God’s people and lay claim to God’s world. As the new temple rose on its foundations, the people of the Persian province of Yehud (formerly called Judah) might expect an apocalyptic encounter with God’s transcendent reality, even Kingdom Come. In his theology, it was to this reality that the shrine’s symbols and icons had always pointed. It was a remarkable era for the returnees from exile, one of joy and hope but also uncertainty and uneasiness. Historical and Sociological Background In 539 BCE, Babylon had fallen to Cyrus the Great, who was expanding the Persian Empire across the Near East. Cyrus’s decree the following year allowed the Judean exiles to return home. A limited, initial

469

THE PROPHETS

return occurred under Sheshbazzar, who was a descendent of David (Ezra 1:8; 5:14–­16) and became governor of Yehud. Upon their return, the exile group encountered those who had remained in the homeland, no doubt necessitating some difficult negotiations (see Ezek 33:24). Within two years, Sheshbazzar set the temple’s altar up again so that offerings could resume, and he reset some of the destroyed temple’s foundations (Ezra 3:1–­12; 5:16) but made little additional progress in rebuilding the shrine. By 536 BCE, temple work halted completely. The population of Yehud was considerably smaller at this time than at the end of the preexilic era. Several waves of returnees eventually brought four or five thousand persons back from exile, but even as the Persian I period progressed, Yehud never grew much larger than perhaps 13,500. The province was small in territory as well as population, restricted mostly to the central hills, and there were severely challenging agricultural and economic conditions to contend with (Hag 1:9–­11; 2:17; Zech 7:7, 14). As the restoration began, Jerusalem was tiny (perhaps five hundred), and it probably grew to a maximum of only a thousand persons. Given all these handicaps, temple rebuilding likely seemed an ill-­advised luxury. In 525 BCE, a second return from exile occurred under Zerubbabel, a Davidic heir and grandson of King Jehoiachin, and Joshua, a Zadokite central priest. Zerubbabel assumed the governorship of Yehud. A few years later in 522 BCE, Darius I, the Great, rose to power and governed the Persian Empire at its peak (ruling 522–­486 BCE). Zechariah’s apocalypticism arose out of the stability brought by Darius. His end-­time imagination is no reaction to oppression or deprivation; Persia was supportive. Interested in maximizing revenues from Yehud, Darius had slated the province for demographic and economic development. His policies allowed Zechariah to implement his temple-­oriented preparations for God’s reign (see Ezra 1:2). This was an opportunity to get sacral structures in place that could prefigure and launch God’s radical epiphany on earth. Zechariah was a Zadokite priest aligned with the prophecies of Ezekiel and the Holiness School (HS).1 He was eventually priest-­in-­charge

470

ZECHARIAH

of a clerical lineage, the clan of his grandfather, Iddo (Neh 12:16; see Zech 1:1, 7; Ezra 5:1; 6:14; 1 Esd 6:1), which he accompanied home from Babylonian exile (see Neh 12:4). The Zadokite literature prioritizes a sacral wholeness of people and land centered on God’s indwelling, anthropomorphically conceived. The reference to the “pupil” (NET) of God’s eye in Zechariah 2:8 (MT 2:12) is one familiar example of the book’s anthropomorphic deity. The same verse refers to God’s Presence (kābôd; NRSV: “glory”) as a substantive reality that propels Zechariah’s mission (also see NABR, CEB). One possible translation of Zechariah 2:8 is this: “After His glory [‘Presence,’ kābôd] has arrived in the city, He will send me to the nations” (VOICE). The Presence aims to occupy the rebuilt temple, fulfilling the vision in Ezekiel 43:1–­5. Zechariah 2:5 is one key text about God’s bodily presence. God will come amid the people: “he will live there” in the temple (GNT; see Exod 25:8 HS; Ezek 11:23). So too in Zechariah 2:10, God declares, “Now I am coming to live among you” (NJB; see Exod 29:45 HS; Ezek 43:7, 9). More promises of the Presence occupying the temple occur in Zechariah 1:16 and 8:3, 23. God’s indwelling aims at blessing and sanctifying not only Jerusalem but also its surroundings and, indeed, the entire Holy Land (Zech 2:12). Urgency about God’s imminent indwelling characterizes priestly thinking in Zechariah, not any conservative caution or “realized eschatology” that aimed to entrench a Zadokite high priest and priestly establishment. One must not stereotype temple circles and their priestly officiants in this manner. Such circles do not always and everywhere focus on correct rituals, the status quo, and maintaining a community’s social stability. So too scholars must rethink earlier theories about Yehud as a community focused on Jerusalem and its priests. It is no longer safe to assume that Persian-­period Judea experienced ever-­ increasing urbanization and centralization of power in the temple. Far from increasing urbanization, “ruralization” in small farmsteads was more likely the rule in Yehud. So too Governor Zerubbabel did not mysteriously vanish from Yehud, ceding power to Joshua, as some scholars have surmised. G. Garbini is surely wrong that Zerubbabel was

471

THE PROPHETS

“removed from the throne by the priestly class led by Joshua.”2 Far from developing increasingly as a priest-­controlled theocracy, Yehud long remained under the leadership of civil governors. The Elephantine papyri along with Judean seals, bullae, and coins attest that governors remained in office until at least 407 BCE (see fig. 16.1).3 A cycle of priestly, temple-­oriented visions (Zech 1:7–­6:15) forms the bulk of First Zechariah (Zech 1–­8). On February 15, 519 BCE, apocalyptic revelation illumined the night (Zech 1:8), probing God’s hidden mystery. Zechariah received no fewer than eight visions, each with a touchstone in the structures, symbols, and rites of the as-­yet-­unrebuilt Jerusalem temple. Normally, the temple’s iconography and ritual

Figure 16.1 Elephantine temple reconstruction request. A letter from the Elephantine papyri, a collection of fifth-­century BCE writings of the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt. The authors are Yedoniah and his colleagues the priests, and it is addressed to Bagoas, governor of Judah. The letter is a request for the rebuilding of a Jewish temple at Elephantine, which had been destroyed by Egyptian pagans. The letter is dated year seventeen of King Darius II under the rule of the satrap of Egypt Arsames, which corresponds to 407 BCE.

472

ZECHARIAH

merely point to transcendent reality. In Zechariah’s priestly apocalypticism, transcendent reality actually enters history as furnishings and icons undergo veritable transfigurations.4 Encountering transcendence, Zechariah sees things come alive. Colors appear crisp, even in the dark. What he beholds so disorients him in its otherworldliness, an interpreting angel has to assist him (see Dan 8:16; 9:22; Rev 1:1; 22:6). The cycle dates from the early restoration era (520–­518 BCE), the second regnal year of Darius I (Zech 1:1, 7). Its visions motivate temple reconstruction work, looking to the apocalyptic return of God’s Presence, the fostering of a holy land and people, and the dawn of a new age. Zechariah’s Structure and History of Composition Modern scholarship has long noted that Zechariah’s book has two or three sections stemming from disparate historical situations. Whereas the initial eight of the book’s chapters largely reflect Zechariah’s original work supporting temple rebuilding, chapters 9–­11 and 12–­14 appear to date somewhat later. Here, the cycle of visions received by the original prophet is a thing of the past. There are no further references to the reign of Darius or to the early Jerusalem community of returnees from Babylonia. After chapter 8, it is clear that God’s reign is delayed; it did not appear at the temple’s reconstruction. Instead, sin and conflict in the community have intensified. The book’s eschatological fervor has grown both stronger in intensity and darker in mood. In mid-­fifth-­century times, when Zechariah 9–­14 most likely emerged, Persia’s tolerant patronage continued to be appreciated in Yehud, but the earth no longer remained “at peace” (see Zech 1:11). Greece was pursuing a course of military expansion that forced Persia to fortify its western front and turn Yehud into a “stronghold” (Zech 9:12). Zechariah’s group found it natural to take Persia’s side against Greece as the two superpowers clashed (Zech 9:13), but group members viewed the present warring as a mere harbinger of a greater,

473

THE PROPHETS

transcendent conflict. Persia gave Jerusalem a role as part of its stone-­ built fortress system, but God would soon transform the city into “a rock too heavy for any people to remove” (Zech 12:3 REB). The Divine Warrior was about to appear over Zion and defeat all powers kicking back against the new age (Zech 9:14). Although the composition history of Zechariah is complex, the book’s present literary and canonical shape encourages a holistic reading. Recurring commonalities contribute to its impression of relative unity. Throughout the text, for example, the apocalyptic Day of the Lord is a central concern.5 The eschatological formula “on that day” is shared multiple times in Zechariah’s two halves—­twenty times. So too the expression “Lord of hosts,” recalling God as the Divine Warrior who renews the cosmos, occurs across the book—­fifty-­three times in forty-­six verses. Multiple symbols known from Ezekiel appear in First Zechariah, including Ezekiel’s measuring line (Ezek 47:3; Zech 1:16; 2:1), his turban and crown (Ezek 21:26; Zech 3:5; 6:11), and the scroll with writing on the front and back (Ezek 2:9–­10; Zech 5:1–­4). Just so, in Second Zechariah, Ezekiel’s worthless shepherds (Ezek 34:2–­3) reemerge (Zech 11:5), and so does his river of life (Ezek 47:1–­12; Zech 14:8). So too Second Zechariah redeploys the unique staff of Ezekiel 37:15–­19. In Zechariah 11:14, the prophet reuses the prop to reverse Ezekiel’s portrayal of Israel’s reunification. The original inspiration of the symbolism is a Zadokite (HS) text about inscribed staffs in Numbers 17:1–­13. In Second Zechariah’s prophecies, God accomplishes the earlier promises of First Zechariah to dwell in the temple (e.g., Zech 2:10–­11; 8:3). “I will encamp in My House against armies,” God declares (Zech 9:8 NJPS). Far from benignant, the divine indwelling entails serious obligations. It necessitates a people and land rid of impurity. Thus Zechariah 3:3–­5, 9; 5:5–­11; 13:1, 2; 14:21 all stress divine acts of cleansing (see Num 19:20 HS; Ezek 36:25). God’s Presence in the shrine is neither insular nor chauvinist. Bypassing monarchs and lords, God preferentially empowers country commoners (Zech 12:7). Certainly, the global draw of the temple in Zechariah 14:16 is by no means insular.

474

ZECHARIAH

Restoration and purification lead to renewal of the HS bilateral covenant. God and people reclaim each other in both halves of the book (Zech 8:8; 13:9). The formulaic language of covenant renewal reverberates here (see Lev 26:12 HS; Ezek 37:27). Throughout the book, the HS covenant becomes inclusive. Many nations join God’s people (Zech 2:11; 8:22–­23). Archenemy Philistia undergoes Judean adoption (9:7). Earth’s nations, even Egypt, make annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem (14:16–­19). The endings of First and Second Zechariah both stress Jerusalem’s new holiness (8:3; 14:20–­21). Both depict global worship at the temple (8:20–­23; 14:16). An outflow of fecundity is a third shared concluding theme (8:4–­6, 12; 14:8, 16–­19). Running through Zechariah is also a preoccupation with the leadership of God’s people. An initial focus on the early leaders of Yehud—­Zerubbabel and Joshua—­recedes to reveal an ideal pair of leaders, the messianic “Branch” and an assisting priest. In the book’s second half, the sprouting, tender branch (see 3:8; 4:14; 6:12) morphs into a humble messiah (9:9), opposed by a sinister nemesis, a wicked “shepherd” (11:15–­17). The editors and expanders of Zechariah’s book saw themselves as instruments for the very voice (ipsissima vox) of Zechariah. They have allowed the prophet’s literary “persona” to reappear in the second half of the book, in chapter 11. The reappearance of the prophet as a literary figure helps bind the book together, and it reinforces the reader’s impression of a continuity of themes arcing through both halves of the Zechariah corpus. Zechariah’s editors strove to continue the original prophet’s work, presenting him anew as a literary-­theological construct, no longer a figure of history. By extending his mission in this literary manner, they insisted that Zechariah’s message did not end with the temple’s rebuilding. It pushed forward, relevant beyond Darius’s era. It unveiled more and more about the apocalyptic future of Israel’s age-­old symbols and traditions. In both halves of the book, the literary character “Zechariah” performs a major, memorable symbolic action (Zech 6:9–­15; 11:4–­17; see

475

THE PROPHETS

our treatment of this in chapter 1). Rising up from the text as a vibrant persona, the prophet describes himself in Zechariah 11:4–­14, 15–­17 carrying out dramatic prophetic signs. He acts the part of various “shepherd” rulers of Israel, royal leaders succeeding King David. In verses 15–­17 he goes further, dramatizing the rule of a messianic antitype, a profoundly evil “new breed of shepherd” (VOICE). The first-­century BCE inscribers of the Gabriel Revelation stone identify this dark shepherd of Zechariah 11 as a “wicked Branch” (lines 21–­22)—­that is, the evil shadow of the messianic branch of David’s line in Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12 (see fig. 16.4, p. 490). Zechariah enters his own vision in the scene of Joshua’s cleansing in 3:5. In a jarring outburst, he exclaims, “Let them put a clean turban on his [Joshua’s] head!” The prophet is God’s own mouthpiece here, voicing God’s own concern. In the book’s second part, in Zechariah 11, the prophet reveals the same total investment. In 11:8, he confesses he has run out of patience. In verse 9, he cries, “I’ve had it with you—­no more shepherding from me!” (MSG). Here, as very often in the first part of the book, Zechariah’s focused behavior transparently reflects heaven’s perspective. Zechariah is a veritable stand-­in for God in 11:4–­14, his actions directly dramatizing God’s past dealings with Israel. The holistic shape of Zechariah just described beckons us to read the book as a collection of prophecies in continuity with one another, all issuing from the mouth of a single literary figure, the prophetic persona Zechariah. In this figure, old and new traditions join, oracles configure with one another in meaningful patterns. They interact both reciprocally and with older authoritative texts in fascinating and intricate ways. The Content of Zechariah’s Prophecies A vision cycle dominates First Zechariah. The dynamic at the cycle’s heart is clear at its start, where the temple’s floral decor (see 1 Kgs 6:18, 29) and molten “sea” (see 1 Kgs 7:23) transmute into the transcendent realities to which they point. The cycle will be about transfigurations that

476

ZECHARIAH

Figure 16.2 A rendering of Zechariah’s vision of the four horns and four craftsmen, symbolizing the scattering of the nations, from Christoph Weigel, Biblia ectypa: Bildnussen auss Heiliger Schrifft Alt und Neuen Testaments, 1695 CE.

herald the incursion of the heavenly realm. Zechariah finds himself in God’s Eden garden, decked with “myrtle trees,” trees of dense foliage associated with the Festival of Booths (see Lev 23:40, an HS text of the Zadokites). The allusion to the Festival of Booths is significant due to the festival’s central theme of God’s cosmic reign (see Zech 14:16–­19).

477

THE PROPHETS

This reign will come in power, as shown in the second vision (Zech 1:18–­21) by the destruction of the four “horns” (earthly powers of violence; see Ps 75:10; Dan 7:7-8; fig 16.2). The garden and its trees offer a vista of the cosmic deep (Zech 1:8; NRSV: “the glen”; see Ezek 28:2). As the NJPS puts it, Zechariah sees an angelic messenger “standing among the myrtles in the Deep.” The deep—­the cosmic abyss—­was represented in the temple by the “sea,” an immense basin fifteen feet across holding twelve thousand gallons of water symbolizing chaos (1 Kgs 7:23–­26; see fig. 16.3). Securely

Sidebar 16.1: Outline of Zechariah

I. 1–­8: First Zechariah

A. 1:1–­6: A call to repentance



B. 1:7–­6:15: The eight visions of Zechariah

1. 1:7–­17: First vision: Horses and riders



2. 1:18–­21: Second vision: Four horns and four workers



3. 2:1–­5: Third vision: A surveyor’s work aborted



4. 2:6–­13: A summons to the exiles



5. 3:1–­10: Fourth vision: The cleansing of high priest Joshua



6. 4:1–­14: Fifth vision: A lampstand and two olive trees



7. 5:1–­4: Sixth vision: A flying scroll



8. 5:5–­11: Seventh vision: A woman in an ephah



9. 6:1–­8: Eighth vision: Four chariots



478

10. 6:9–­15: The two crowns

ZECHARIAH



C. 7:1–­8:23: An inquiry about fasting and some prophetic responses





1. 7:1–­6: An inquiry about fasting



2. 7:7–­14: The causes of the exile



3. 8:1–­17: Envisioning Jerusalem’s future



4. 8:18–­23: Fasts will give way to feasts

II. 9–­14: Second Zechariah

A. 9:1–­11:17: The first burden

1. 9:1–­8: The Lord takes control from north to south



2. 9:9–­10: A humble messiah



3. 9:11–­17: God’s victory of abundant life



4. 10:1–­12: Reviving lost Israel



5. 11:1–­3: Toppling all proud “trees”



6. 11:4–­17: Playing the part of Israel’s shepherds



B. 12:1–­14:21: The second burden

1. 12:1–­9: The end-­time assault on Jerusalem



2. 12:10–­13:1: The sacrifice of the pierced one



3. 13:2–­6: Holiness spreads through the land



4. 13:7–­9: The good shepherd stricken



5. 14:1–­21: The Divine Warrior’s triumph at Jerusalem

contained within the basin, aqueous chaos lies visibly subdued and controlled. The temple’s primal stone, the “first stone” of Zechariah 4:7 (NABR), also restrains the waters of chaos by corking them. In Zechariah 4:7, Zerubbabel restores the cork to its place, advancing the cause of cosmic repair and renewal. The first, primordial stone has seven “facets” (Zech 3:9 NRSV; MT: ʿênāyim), which may actually mean fountains, “fountains

479

THE PROPHETS

Figure 16.3 The Brazen Sea, also known as the Molten Sea, was a large basin in the temple in Jerusalem made by Solomon for ablution (ritual washing) of priests. The basin was placed on top of twelve oxen, standing with their faces outward.

of the deep” (Prov 8:28; MT: ʿ înôt). In the great flood, the fountains were agents of chaos (Gen 7:11), though they remained under God’s control (Gen 8:1–­2). Psalm 29:10 speaks to this control, making the subdued deluge of Noah a platform for God’s throne. Cylinder seals, some from Zechariah’s era, show groupings of seven dots, sometimes located in the upper quadrants of the seals’ scenes. These dots, like the primordial fountains of the deep, represent forces of destruction and chaos. Under the control of the gods, however, these potent facet forces offer protection to humans.6 In the Hebrew of Zechariah 3:9, the seven “fountains”/dots are unexpectedly masculine. Perhaps this reflects the unusual masculine gender of the “facets” / wheel

480

ZECHARIAH

studs in Ezekiel 1:18 and 10:12. Perhaps it purposely signals their preternatural otherness, distinct from anything human. Ancient Near Eastern temple realms corked chaos but also released streams of life (see Ps 46:4; Isa 33:21; Ezek 47:1–­12). Temples were cosmic realms where living waters and the primal deep converged. In the Ugaritic tablets, fountains of the “double deep” surround the abode of El/God (see Ezek 28:2). The “double deep” may represent chaos split in two, like the monster Tiamat’s dead body (see Gen 1:6), or it may refer to paired primordial waters: seawater (chaos) and sweet water (life). Either way, El puts a lid on all primeval water and ladles out life-­giving rivers. In Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8, the temple directs the sweet rivers into the land (see Joel 3:18). The LXX of Zechariah 3:9 may allude to God hewing channels in the primal rock, tapping into sweet water. Several translations (see NJPS, NIV, NJB) see “eyes” on the stone of Zechariah 3:9 rather than “fountains.” And seven eyes would fit, representing God’s direct presence. They would signify how God indwells Zion (Ps 11:4), eyeing the depths. A plurality of living eyes of God appears both on the lampstand of Zechariah 4 and on the wheels of Ezekiel 1:18 and 10:12. As the NET renders Zechariah 4:10, “These seven eyes will joyfully look. . . . These are the eyes of the Lord.” In Zechariah 4, the divine eyes morph out of the seven lights atop the temple’s menorah. In Ezekiel, they rise out of the studs on cult stand wheels—­wheels that we know about from bronze wheeled vessel stands from Cyprus and from bronze miniatures from Iron Age Ekron. Zechariah 3, the fourth of the prophet’s visions, proceeds out of a different set of temple realia than Zechariah 1. The reader perceives a temple ritual at play. Chief Priest Joshua is standing before the heavenly council. He takes up the role of “the priest” in Ezekiel’s utopian temple (Ezek 45:18–­20), the figure in Ezekiel most closely approximating a chief priest. Like this figure, who officiates over national atonement each spring, Joshua stands alone before God to expiate the uncleanness and sin of Israel. Zechariah 3 may hint that some priestly sects of the restoration era doubted the Zadokites’ worthiness to officiate. Seeing as they had

481

THE PROPHETS

emerged out of the profanity of exile, were they really fit to resume their temple offices? The filthy garments of verse 4 represent all the exiles’ uncleanness (see Ezek 4:13–­14) but also signify the Zadokites’ particular guilt (see Ezek 8; Hag 2:10–­19). Some decades later, the prophet Malachi will complain bitterly about the altar priests, imaging them smeared with dung (Mal 2:3). His image diametrically opposes that of Zechariah 3, which relieves Joshua of his excrement-­covered clothes (vv. 3–­4). Joshua’s reclothing symbolizes God’s end-­time cleansing of both the Zadokite priesthood and the entire community, but it does more. In dialogue with Ezekiel 21:25–­27, Zechariah 3 signals the advent of the messianic age. As Judah crumbled at Babylonia’s approach, Ezekiel had proclaimed in 21:25–­27 that “turban” and “crown” would now vanish from the land. Judah would see an inversion of life as everyone had known it: “Nothing shall be as it was!” (NABR). Moving us through and beyond this scenario of inversion, Zechariah brings back both priestly turban and royal crown in twin passages: Zechariah 3 (“turban,” v. 5) and 6:9–­15 (“crown,” v. 14). The prophet depicts an apocalyptic movement through chaos to new, resurrected life. Realizing the paired status of Zechariah 3 and 6:9–­15 reinforces a second shared parallelism of the texts. Each of the two passages elevates Priest Joshua while simultaneously announcing the advent of a saving Davidic leader termed the “Branch” (Zech 3:8; 6:12). The term “Branch” is highly suggestive. It turns the reader’s attention away from any contemporary leader (such as Zerubbabel) and points ahead to an anticipated, ideal (messianic) ruler. The commonplace view that Haggai and Zechariah placed all their messianic hopes in a contemporary, Governor Zerubbabel, is unfounded. Further, the thought of a young sprig suggests the germination of an unknown but fresh and possibly momentous reality. Zechariah 6:12 notes that sprigs tend to “sprout up” (NET), “flourish” (GNT), exude “fertile growth” (BBE). Huge pine trees come from frail shoots. Erhard Gerstenberger argues that the “Branch” represents a “presentiment” of radical developments; he speaks of Zechariah’s “tense future

482

ZECHARIAH

expectation”: “Clearly, Yahweh’s rule is to commence soon, and the Judean community will be completely restored.”7 During the exile, Ezekiel had used the image of a “tender twig” (17:22) to insist on a messiah who will invert expectations. His ideal ruler is no egoistic despot but a humble, sensitive ruler (rak; 17:22), a servant of God like the ideal figure in Isaiah 42:1–­9. Zechariah adopts this expectation of a modest messiah—­one who fulfills Ezekiel 17:22–­24 (see also Ezek 29:21; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Ps 132:17). Ezekiel 21:25–­27, where turban and crown are lost, alludes directly to Genesis 49:10–­12. Ezekiel redeploys the language in Genesis 49 about waiting a full measure of time until God sets things right (Ezek 21:27). When Zechariah 3 and 6 envision turban and crown restored, Genesis 49:10–­12 again makes a showing. This time it supports the ideal of a reposed, peaceable Davidide—­a fresh sprig. Zechariah’s messianic “Branch” is the archetypal instance of Genesis 49’s humble king, who rides a foal. He is a fulfillment of Ezekiel 21:26’s exaltation of the low and abasement of the high. The Dead Sea Scroll text 4Q252 connects the same dots, also understanding Genesis 49:10 to point to a Davidic messiah who rides a foal. It even refers to “the Messiah . . . the Branch.” The Qumran writers of 4Q252 also quote Jeremiah 33:15–­17, understanding it also to speak of a coming messianic branch, as does the Jeremiah Targum. Qumran scrolls 4Q161, 4Q285, and 4Q174 similarly call the Messiah the “Branch.” Later, the Jewish Amida prayer and Eusebius (Ecl. proph. 3:36) follow suit. Like other editorial additions to the vision cycle (Zech 1:14–­17; 2:6–­13; 4:6–­10a; 6:9–­15), Zechariah 3:8–­10 puts the emphasis on messianic vigilance. Priest Joshua and the temple’s inner priestly cabinet must keep focused on the leader to come, the Branch. They must act as “men of portent,” perhaps meaning their apocalyptic fervor must be a sign to others (see Ezek 12:3–­15; 24:15–­27). Alternatively, the portents at issue may be such symbols as God’s hand-­engraved endorsement of the Branch within the temple’s foundation stone (Zech 3:9) and the Branch’s as-­yet unclaimed crown (Zech 6:14).

483

THE PROPHETS

The stone of Zechariah 3:9 appears to be the same object that Zechariah 4:7, 9 envisions used in the temple’s construction. As Marko Jauhiainen writes, “The emphasis on the temple-­building project in Zechariah and the important antecedent ‘single stone’ texts (e.g., Gen 28:22; Ps 118:22; Isa 8:14; 28:16) probably tip the balance in favour of associating the stone with the future temple that the Branch will build (6:12–­13).”8 God sets the stone as a portent before Chief Priest Joshua (Zech 3:9). The stone’s inscription, according to ancient Near Eastern custom, names the building’s royal patron, the messianic “Branch.” It is likely written on a tinplate for placement in the stone as a dedication. Zechariah 4:10 may thus declare that the Lord’s seven eyes “will joyfully look on the tin tablet in Zerubbabel’s hand” when he sets the foundation deposit (NET). Zechariah 3:8–­9 cautions Joshua and his priestly colleagues against any aspirations of Zadokite domination of the restoration community. God’s ideal polity in Zechariah is the rule of the Davidide/Branch with the chief priest beside him. This is the pattern of the atonement rite in Ezekiel 45, where “the priest” works in concert with a Davidic head, the nāśîʾ (ruling chieftain), who furnishes the needed offerings for the atonement. Chapter 4 of Zechariah, with its vision of paired olive trees (4:3, 11–­14) representing the Davidide and priest, epitomizes the book’s standard of leadership. Zechariah 6:9–­15, with its crowning scene, drives the standard home. God’s command here speaks of two crowns of authority (ʿ ăṭārôt; v. 11; see NABR, NJPS), the second of which is reserved for the “Branch.” It is not worn by Zerubbabel, though he is still on the scene (contrary to a widely held view noted above). Rather, it is kept in the temple as a messianic portent (6:14). To crown Zerubbabel as king would have incurred the wrath of Persia.9 Beyond that, it would have been entirely inappropriate given the book’s orientation on apocalyptic messianism, not on “realized eschatology” (the thought that present, banal reality already reflects the full achievement of God’s will). Joshua is crowned as the high priest but is cautioned to hold vigil for

484

ZECHARIAH

the coming royal “Branch” (v. 12; see 3:8) and to sit as “a priest by his throne” (v. 13) when he arrives. Dispelling any doubt that Zechariah 6 sustains an ideal of shared leadership, verse 13 proclaims peace between two figures (šěnêhem). The NJPS is close to the Hebrew: “Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place one on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak, and say to him, ‘Thus said the Lord of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the Lord. . . . He shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them’” (see also NET, NABR, NJB).10 Nearly always the apocalyptic imagination reveals good and evil as transcendent powers locked in a struggle to the death. It envisions an imminent showdown between right and wrong. This quasi-­moral dualism appears in Zechariah most clearly in the seventh vision of a tiny female in a container (Zech 5:5–­11). What here morphs into “Wickedness” incarnate (v. 8) begins as a figurine, a female idol. Scholars have spilled much ink wrestling with the figurine’s “ephah” container. If the figurine is riding in an actual ephah, a container for grain (BBE, NLT), she may represent a usurping idol that was polluting Jerusalem, receiving the grain/cereal offerings of misguided temple worshippers (Ezek 16:19). If her transport is merely ephah-­sized, she may herself be an offering at the temple, an idol housed in a miniature “jar” shrine. Or she may be the sort of figurine that was buried next to a foundation deposit under a temple facade. If the latter is the case, then her container was a Mesopotamian quppu, a wicker basket or wooden chest holding a foundation deposit. Although the last-­named suggestion attractively fits Zechariah’s focus on temple building, unfortunately the surviving figurine evidence dates long before the book’s Persian-­period era. As Zechariah’s idolatrous figurine transfigures into a mythic-­ realistic entity, the prophet discovers he is witnessing the land wholly rid of all demonic, counterfeit worship. He is watching “Wickedness” return to roost in idolatrous Babylon, occupying its own

485

THE PROPHETS

“antitemple” there. The container—­whether ephah, clay shrine, or old quppu—­serves as an ark for Wickedness. Weird storks serve as its cherubim. If it is a quppu that is in mind, then a cult object buried at an earlier restoration of Jerusalem’s temple has been dug up and now serves as a basis upon which a new antitemple rises in Babylonia. Zechariah’s vision of the flying figurine nicely epitomizes the moral dualism that characterizes the apocalyptic imagination. The vision sees the world set right with piercing, twenty-­twenty vision. Such vision represents heaven’s perspective, not a power of perception that humans should ever claim for themselves. In Zechariah, God “ferrets out” evil and dispenses of it by expelling Woman Wickedness from the Holy Land. Modern readers often recoil from this type of black-­and-­white depiction of the forces of good and evil in conflict. Contemporary people understand the real world they inhabit as lived in shades of gray. They take offense at identifying any individual person, people, or nation, even a small female figurine in a jar, as categorically evil. But the apocalyptic imagination is specifically not about the moral shades of gray that we all must acknowledge characterize the workaday experience. Twenty-­twenty apocalyptic vision pierces the veil of mundane perception to reveal transcendent powers and paradigms.11 After First Zechariah concludes in chapter 8, two new sections of the book follow, having separate but parallel introductions (Zech 9:1; 12:1). Their twin superscriptions characterize the contents as prophetic “burdens” (see VOICE translation)—­that is, weighty divine judgments—­often issued by temple prophets (such as Zechariah). Often such burdens, issuing forth from the central temple and its sacral staff, were heavy threats of divine intervention against foreign enemies (see Nah 1:1; Isa 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; and so on; the MSG translates the heading as “War Bulletin”). This idea fits the repeated appearance in Second Zechariah of God in the guise of Divine Warrior, subduing all foreign threats. The first “burden” contains a startling messianic prophecy in Zechariah 9:9–­10. Following the Divine Warrior’s victory and God’s

486

ZECHARIAH

subsequent bodily indwelling of the temple (9:1–­8), there emerges a human king riding a foal, the sacred donkey of yore: Daughter of Zion, rejoice with all your heart; shout in triumph, daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king is coming to you, his cause won, his victory gained [by God], humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zech 9:9 REB) The allusion is to the ideal ruler of Genesis 49:10–­12, a text we have already identified as provoking and propelling Zechariah’s messianism. Later texts, such as Dead Sea Scroll text 4Q252, following Zechariah, also take a messianic approach to Genesis 49. The interpretation was suggested by the cryptic Hebrew in Genesis 49:10, which may easily be read as referring to the “coming” of “one to whom [sovereignty] belongs” (NLT; see NIV, NET). The MSG paraphrases Genesis 49:10 as “The scepter shall not leave Judah . . . Until the ultimate ruler comes.” Early on, both Ezekiel 21:27 and the Syriac version read Genesis in this very manner. Genesis 49:10’s authors likely spoke of the coming of “tribute” (see NRSV), but authors cannot control their texts once they release them into readers’ hands! Already in Genesis 49 the mounted ruler soaks in a superabundance already given by God. He ties his donkey to the choicest of vines, and he feasts. He finds his land’s vintage so copious that it stains his clothes (Gen 49:11). So intensely does he indulge that “his eyes will be dark from wine, and his teeth white from milk” (Gen 49:12 NET). Similarly, in Zechariah 9, salvation is already won by the Divine Warrior before the new ruler arrives on his mount. The human king need exercise no force at all. He is not “triumphant and victorious” (v. 9) according to the Hebrew but merely “legitimate and saved.” The figure is not a military “savior” (LXX) but one saved through God’s deliverance.12 The Divine Warrior’s victory is inevitably about joyful banqueting and brilliant life (see Ps 68:7–­10; Deut 33:26–­29). Under God’s reign,

487

THE PROPHETS

Israel may now indulge just as the ruler does. The people drink wine till they are “brimful as a bowl, drenched [with wine] like the corners of the altar [during a festival offering]” (Zech 9:15b REB; see also CEB). Some versions (LXX, NRSV, NLT) are bloody and violent in 9:15, but this is unwarranted. The ideal ruler’s “humble” nature (v. 9) has long impressed interpreters, both Christian and Jewish. The Hebrew adjective here specifically means “poor”/“lowly” (NIV) or “humble” (NRSV). Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak; 1160–­1235 CE) insists the word must mean “humble,” since it would not befit the Messiah’s dignity to be poor. But the idea of an impoverished messiah must not be excluded; both Rabbi Moses (in the Talmud, b. Sanh., fol. 98, col. 1) and Ibn Ezra (1089–­1164 CE) imagine that the figure may be too poor to buy a horse. An ideal ruler who comes in humility comports with Ezekiel 17:22–­24, which speaks of a tender messiah. It fits, as well, the biblical virtue of selflessness (Num 12:3; Prov 3:34; 16:19). Ezekiel’s messiah has the tenderness of King Josiah, an utter responsiveness before God (2 Kgs 22:19). He relies on God’s spirit, just as Zechariah 4:6 and 7:12 advocate. As in Psalm 33:16–­17, his mount is no warhorse. Salvation comes to earth only through deflating the self, not through horse power (see Zech 9:10; 10:5; 1 Kgs 1:5). Isaac Abarbanel (1437–­1508 CE) writes, “His salvation shall not be by the strength of the horse. . . . For he shall be at his commencement lowly and riding upon an ass.”13 This commitment to withdraw the ego climaxes later in the book, in Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7. In Zechariah 11:15–­17, something remarkable happens within the dynamic, messianic fervor of the Zechariah group. As their messianism intensifies, the group comes to speak not only of a coming ideal ruler but also of the figure’s evil counterpart, a coming useless ruler who feasts on the flock in his care, who “devours flesh” and “tears off hoofs.” They anticipate the Messiah’s archetypal shadow, the “worthless shepherd.” The notion of an “archetypal shadow” comes from the psychoanalytic work of Carl Jung. According to Jung’s principle of “enantiodromia,”

488

ZECHARIAH

the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. With increasing mental and emotional investment (cathexis), the object of investment reveals a shadow opposite.14 Put metaphorically, the coming of a bright light is certain to generate stark shadows. If something as sublime as a messiah should appear, earth would soon observe an evermore menacing awareness of that which opposes the messianic age. As an example, Jung cites the gnostic teaching that Christ “cast off his shadow from himself.”15 He emphasizes that an antichrist figure develops as an imitating spirit of evil who follows in Christ’s footsteps. An unambiguous messianic “shadow” based on Zechariah’s prophecies appears in the first century BCE in the Gabriel Revelation, the three-­foot-­tall “Dead Sea Scroll in stone” (see fig. 16.4). In lines 21–­22, there appears a “Wicked Branch [ṣemaḥ],” an archetypal shadow of the “Branch” of Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12. Since the language of ṣemaḥ is exclusively from First Zechariah, the inscription’s authors apparently had a keen sense of the unity and logic of the book. They put two and two together and designated the “worthless shepherd” of 11:15–­17 the “Evil Branch,” a term not specifically used in Zechariah. Finally, let us briefly probe two cryptic texts in Zechariah 12:10–­13:1 and 13:7–­9, both of which relate to Zechariah’s fervent expectation of a lowly messiah. Both passages concern the death of a mysterious but highly significant figure. Whether or not originally both passages had the identical figure in mind, now the texts are paired. They reverberate together within a chiastic literary structure, offering two snapshots of one person. Indeed, the scene in Zechariah 9:9 may count as a third snapshot, since the adjective ʿānî in the text may mean not only “lowly” but also “afflicted” (Deut 16:3; Ps 22:24; Isa 41:17; 49:13). Numerous scholars have investigated and interpreted Zechariah’s afflicted and dying figure, but no consensus on the twin passages has emerged in the modern era. Earlier premodern Christian and Jewish readings, however, are fascinatingly messianic. In Mark 14:27, Jesus quotes Zechariah 13:7 to prepare the disciples for his death. The quote accounts for both Jesus’s imminent suffering and the displacement it will provoke. Targum Tosefta to Zechariah 12:10, like Jesus and like

489

THE PROPHETS

Figure 16.4 Gabriel Revelation stone, a three-­foot slab of granite that relates an apocalyptic vision addressed in part to the angel Gabriel.

John’s Gospel (19:37), understands Zechariah to prophesy a dying messiah (see also Tg. Ps.-­J. to Exod 40:11). Here, the forces of chaos (“Gog”) kill Messiah “bar Ephraim.” The figure dies in a great apocalyptic battle before the gates of Jerusalem. Additional Jewish messianic discussion of Zechariah 12 appears in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Sukkah 52a. The passage assumes two messiahs, one Davidic and the other a “son of Joseph,” a descendent of the tribe of Ephraim. The Talmud concludes its discussion of Zechariah 12 by deciding that the dying figure of Zechariah is the “Joseph” messiah of Ephraim. What can be said by today’s scholar by way of interpreting Zechariah’s pierced figure? We offer three basic, suggestive observations

490

ZECHARIAH

that may stimulate new understanding. First, the figure is killed by his own people, whom he wants to help. Zechariah 12:10 names Jerusalem’s inhabitants and its royal house as those who pierce him. Their hands are guilty (v. 10 BBE). The thought is echoed obliquely a few verses later, when Zechariah 13:3 speaks of a son’s own parents piercing him. The view (see NJPS) that Israel mourns the enemy dead in verse 10 is simply wrong. Jerusalem cannot be mourning God’s victory over chaos (12:9), which is emphatically a cause for celebration, not sadness. Second, the keywords of Zechariah 12:10 suggest that the “pierced one” mirrors a holy Israel. Similar to the olive trees—­to the “sons of oil” (BBE)—­in Zechariah 4, he constitutes an ideal Israel with whom all God’s people interconnect. He is a “firstborn” one, who represents God’s claim on all Israelites’ life (e.g., Exod 12:12; Num 3:12–­13; 8:17—­all HS). He is the “favorite son” (NJPS; LXX: the “beloved one”), the one sometimes singled out to die (Gen 22:2, 12, 16; Judg 11:34; Ps 22:20). In Amos 8:10 and Jeremiah 6:26, the term beloved one most emphatically points to Israel as a whole. Thus one can legitimately understand Israel to be weeping for its “ideal self” in Zechariah. Through mourning rites identifying with the departed, Israel reaches out to its lost, model identity. Israelite funerary rituals aimed to bond and identify with the deceased. Third, shared mourning rites functioned in Israel to affirm togetherness not only with the deceased soul but also within the living community with which the departed remained bonded. In biblical texts such as 2 Samuel 3:31–­37; 15:14–­16:13; and Ezekiel 26:16–­18, shared mourning confesses and confirms collective loyalty to social relationships, treaties, and covenants. In other biblical texts, shared public mourning reinforces and generates mutually supportive community (Ezra 9–­10; Jer 41:6). It is thus no stretch to understand the pierced one’s death in Zechariah as a momentous act engendering loyal covenantal mutuality within Israel. The widespread mourning of the figure affirms and builds loyalty to community and to the spirit’s leading (Zech 12:10). Because the text uses the term family/clan nine times, its rhetoric supports the idea that the text’s mourning theme is about renewing

491

THE PROPHETS

ideal Israel’s lineage-­based mutuality. The language tries to uphold the identity and unique significance of each level and segment of Israel’s genealogical tree. This is clear from the organizing of mourners into distinct families (12:12) and from the emphasis on the variety of “high” and “low” lineages, family lines both prominent (royal and priestly) and ordinary. Togetherness in tribal Israel was no mystical absorption of all souls into some undifferentiated unity. Rather, it was inherently genealogical, umbilical. Zechariah’s text is here supporting a renewed, eschatological branching and individuation of Israel’s great genealogical tree. Notes 1 Zechariah’s temple-­centered world of sacral fixtures, icons, and rites fits in well with Neh 12’s indication of his priestly identity. For more on Zechariah’s relationship with Ezekiel, see Steven S. Tuell, “Haggai–­Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Aaron Schart and Paul L. Redditt, BZAW 325 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 273–­91. 2 G. Garbini, “Hebrew Literature in the Persian Period,” in Second Temple Studies II: Temple Community in the Persian Period, ed. T. C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards, JSOTSup 175 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1994), 182. See Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, JSOTSup 304 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 34n68. 3 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study, JSOTSup 294 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 172–­248; Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 32–­33, 83; Jeremiah W. Cataldo, A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Period Province, T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 114–­17. 4 To begin to relate to Zechariah’s experience, recall the children’s encounter with the painting of a Narnian ship at the beginning of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis (C. S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Chronicles of Narnia [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952]). Lucy has just been admiring how the vessel seems really to be moving, how the water looks wet, and how the waves look like they are going up and down. Suddenly, the painting’s colors become vibrant, sea wind whips around Lucy’s face, and a wild, briny smell fills her nose. A great cold salt splash then breaks out of the frame. Soon the children are underwater and struggling to swim in another world’s ocean.

492

ZECHARIAH

5 See sidebar 7.2 on the Day of the Lord in Biblical Prophecy in our chapter on Joel (ch. 7). 6 See Jonathan Yogev, “One Stone, Seven Eyes: What Did Zechariah Mean?” (paper presented in Section 7–­42 at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Vienna, Austria, July 7, 2014). 7 Erhard Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann, BibEnc 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 199. 8 Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation, WUNT 2:199 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 45n46. 9 See Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the Old Testament (Macon, GA: Smith-­Helwys, 2016), 192. 10 The literary motif of an unclaimed crown conveys an alluring and wistful messianic hope. Fascinatingly, J. R. R. Tolkien’s Return of the King uses a similar trope to convey a deep-seated “messianic” yearning, the longlived hope in Gondor for the future coming of a true king. A high throne in Gondor, in the Hall of Kings, remains empty until the future king arrives. Meanwhile, Denethor, the steward, sits upon a black stone chair at the foot of the steps to the throne. Stephen L. Cook, “The Unclaimed Crown of Zechariah 6:9–­15,” Biblische Ausbildung (blog), Blogspot, July 1, 2008, http://​bit​.ly/​16SuNlK. 11 Contemporary readers comfortable in our global North’s liberal culture have their best chance of appreciating the moral dualism of apocalyptic literature through reflecting on episodes in beloved works of fiction and fantasy. An example is C. S. Lewis’s narrative about a woman of wickedness in ch. 12 of his novel The Silver Chair (C. S. Lewis, The Silver Chair, Chronicles of Narnia [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1953]), entitled “The Queen of Underground.” After killing the woman, Prince Rilian confesses he was fortunate she had revealed herself as a killer serpent before he helped destroy her. Pushed to extremes, the reality buried under the human facade had revealed itself in apocalyptic clarity as the witch’s green train melded with her legs to form a writhing green pillar. Or consider the transmutation of the master demon Screwtape, another of Lewis’s celebrated fictional characters. While writing letter 22 in The Screwtape Letters (C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1942]), the demon becomes increasingly worked up and suddenly takes the form of a large centipede. Unable, as a centipede, to hold a pen, Screwtape explains through an amanuensis that Milton was wrong to believe that such changes of shape are a “punishment” (see John Milton, Paradise Lost, bk. 10, lines 494–­585, esp. 516 and 575). His new form has not been imposed

493

THE PROPHETS

upon him but reflects his darkening inner spirit. These things “proceed from within.” 12 Carol Meyers and Eric Meyers, Zechariah 9–­14, AYB 25C (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 127. 13 Cited in A. M’Caul, Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary on Zechariah: Translated from the Hebrew, with Notes and Observations on the Passages Relating to the Messiah (London: Duncan, 1837), 95. 14 Jung, CW 6, § 150; 9ii, §77. 15 Jung, CW 9ii, § 75, citing Valentinus in Irenaeas, Adv. Haer, I, 11, 1.

494

17

Malachi

Introduction Malachi presents a rich, Persian-­era prophecy, which confronts the spiritual malaise of his times with a vivid “apocalyptic” challenge. Like some other prophecies of late exilic and postexilic times (e.g., Ezek 38–­39; Isa 24–­27), Malachi’s eschatological message presages a worldview and a literature that will blossom in Hellenistic apocalypses, such as those in Daniel, Enoch, and 4 Ezra. God’s coming reign, he urges, will unmask the audacity of the current lackadaisical worship in Persian-­ era Judah (Yehud). “The great and terrible day of the Lord comes,” he announces (Mal 4:5), and an earnest return to God is requisite. Malachi forms a concluding bookend to the Book of the Twelve, rounding off the collection with echoes of initial themes sounded in Hosea 1–­3 at its beginning. Thus Malachi joins Hosea in stressing God’s radical, covenantal love, which should provoke gratitude and wonder.1 Also, both books stress the intimacy of this love with images from domestic relations. For both prophets, the divine arms are open to receive Israel back. By “framing” the Twelve Prophets with this

495

THE PROPHETS

Figure 17.1 The Prophet Malachi from “Prophets and Sibyls” (1480–­90 CE), anonymous author, Florentine, fifteenth century.

message, Hosea and Malachi bear joint witness that along the entire journey of Israel with God, the covenant remains open to renewal. Malachi 4:4–­6, which concludes the book and the entirety of the biblical prophetic collection (the Nevi’im), plays the key role of drawing the Bible’s corpus of prophecy to a close. These verses, with their references to both Moses (mediator of the Sinai experience) and Elijah (the prophetic harbinger of God’s coming reign), remind readers to keep oriented on both past and future. The ancient Sinai experience will remain forever foundational, but the covenant has a prophetic future. In Elijah’s miracles, the covenant points forward to its realization. Elijah’s life, which continued Moses’s work, formed a whirlwind anticipation of the reign of God that is to come (see 2 Kgs 2:1–­11).

496

MALACHI

Sirach 48:10 quotes Malachi on Elijah’s reappearance heralding God’s coming reign. Revealing the Messiah is the purpose of Elijah’s return in many rabbinic passages (e.g., Mek. to Exod 16:33) and in a statement of Trypho the Jew in Justin’s Dialogue. To this day, a cup of wine for Elijah at Passover meals signals the possibility of the sudden arrival of the messianic age. In the two-­testament Christian Bible, Malachi’s reference to Elijah closes the First Testament and figures significantly in New Testament eschatology, where it appears as a popular expectation in Jesus’s wider milieu (see Mark 6:15; 8:28). Jesus identified John the Baptizer as Elijah come back from heaven (Matt 11:14; 17:12–­13; see Mark 1:2; 9:13), and the transfiguration scene (a prefiguration of the messianic age) features Elijah’s role at Jesus’s second coming (Mark 9:4). In Revelation 11:6, the pair of Moses and Elijah reappears, exercising their traditional powers in the end-­times. Historical and Social Setting What is Malachi’s setting? His prophecies stem from the fifth-­century restoration era, after temple sacrifices have resumed (Mal 1:10), probably from the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes I (465–­424 BCE). Several clues support this conclusion, including the mention of a “governor” in 1:8 and the image of a winged sun disk in 4:2, which corresponds to a Persian artistic trope (visible in the Behistun Relief, fig. 17.2). The dating is corroborated by the postexilic style of prophetic language, including the shift to prose, the many rhetorical questions, and the diatribe-­like, disputational form. Malachi’s type of Hebrew further narrows down the book’s dating within Persian times to about 450 BCE. Malachi’s era was one of “trouble and shame” (Neh 1:3), of apathy resulting from Persian-­era pluralism, faded dreams, and a revival of the syncretistic, polytheistic, and occult practices of preexilic times. The prophet’s chief concern was unfaithfulness at the rebuilt Jerusalem temple, rededicated in 515 BCE. Although Haggai and Zechariah

497

THE PROPHETS

had revived commitment to the Lord and rebuilt the temple, barely a generation later communal faithfulness had plummeted and a crisis of leadership was escalating. Malachi, a Levite as well as a prophet, likely served as a minor cleric in the rebuilt temple—­that is, a worship official who was not allowed to perform sacrifices or be called a “priest.” From within the Levitical ranks of the temple staff of Yehud, Malachi took on the contemporary outbreak of unfaithfulness to the covenant, challenging both the priests in charge and God’s people at large. At points, his vitriol rings with sarcasm and crude, off-­color humor. Thus Malachi 2:3 threatens to “splatter” errant priests with “the dung of the animals you sacrifice” (GNT), with “manure from your festival sacrifices” (NLT). His rhetoric sounds for all the world like that of a religious and liturgical specialist enmeshed in acrimonious, “insider” clerical conflict. He is aghast at how fellow clerics (brothers; Mal 2:10) allow sacrifices consisting of stolen, crippled, and sick animals (see Mal 1:13). Perhaps the priests in charge were using funds collected from Yehud by order of Persia (i.e., tax rebates) to buy substandard animals for sacrifice, pocketing the money they saved. Perhaps changes in the Persian rebate system under Xerxes had lowered temple income, pressuring the priests to cut costs.2 Perhaps the populace was having trouble supplying good animal sacrifices due to a poor economy and heavy Persian taxation. Malachi demands that all clerical personnel behave like sons of “one father” (Mal 2:10), Levi (see below). If they do not, they will be purged in

Figure 17.2 Monument and inscription to Darius the Great at Behistun.

498

MALACHI

God’s smelting of all of Levi’s descendants (Mal 3:2–­3). Malachi insists that all priests—­even his opponents, the upper-­echelon altar priests (the Zadokites)—­are Levites (for this view, see Deut 18:1; 33:10b; Jer 33:18, 21, 22). He knew, however, that the hierarchy of his day would not accept that the reverse was true. They did not share his affinity for Deuteronomy 18:1–­8, which applies the same language to all Levites that Ezekiel 44:15 confines to altar priests. The Zadokites insisted that “run-­of-­the-­mill” Levites serve only as worship assistants (a clerus minor). Ezekiel’s temple vision makes them mere generic “ministers” (Ezek 44:11). Clerus-­minor Levites were never barred from Jerusalem, though most ministered in the Judean countryside (Deut 18:6). They avoided the fate of their leader Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26–­27) and of some Levites in the north (1 Kgs 12:31, 33; 13:33; 2 Chr 11:14–­15; 13:9). Late in Judah’s history, some country Levites were welcomed into temple service. Second Kings 23:9 allows that those who celebrated King Josiah’s Festival of Unleavened Bread could minister at Jerusalem’s altar.3 Steven Tuell believes that some Levites, those who remained in the homeland, continued Jerusalemite ministry during the Babylonian exile (see Jer 41:4–­5).4 Malachi may have come from their ranks, or he may have been among the small number of Levites who returned from exile. Persian-­era Levites struggled against the Zadokite hierarchy (e.g., Mal 1:6–­10; 2:1–­3), despite their employment within the temple’s gates. As Tuell notes, unlike Haggai–­Zechariah 1–­8, Malachi and his support group were “opposed to the temple hierarchy.”5 Malachi’s texts do not fit the proposals of scholars such as David Carr and Douglas Knight that Scripture basically reflects the ideology and interests of upper-­ echelon elites.6 The Traditions and Texts behind Malachi’s Prophecies As a Levite, Malachi mapped out the course of his contemporary conflict based on Scriptures that derive from like-­minded Levites, such as Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and the E Source of the Pentateuch (a source

499

THE PROPHETS

or “strand” of the Torah). These source texts align with Sinai covenantal traditions (note the reference to Horeb in Mal 4:4 [MT 3:22]). The Levites are the heroes of the E Source, as texts such as Exodus 32:26–­29 (E) show; Deuteronomy robustly advocates for the Levites (e.g., Deut 12:12, 19; 14:27; 17:18; 18:6–­8; 26:12); and Jeremiah, whose book connects with Deuteronomy, was a Levitical priest ( Jer 1:1). An example of the dependence on E occurs in Malachi 3:1, which reintroduces E’s guiding angel, who led Israel’s camp after the exodus from Egypt (Exod 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16; see also Josh 5:14). This messenger reappears to clear the way for God and God’s radical scrubbing and refining of priests and temple (Mal 3:3). Malachi’s affinities with Levitical traditions contravene the common scholarly idea that his texts tightly interlink with Zechariah 9–­14. The parallel use of maśśāʾ (oracle) at Zechariah 9:1; 12:1; and Malachi 1:1 is commonly seen to indicate that Malachi’s book was originally an appendix of Zechariah 9–­14.7 It was only separated at a later date to create a complete twelve-­book Minor Prophets collection. Malachi’s style of disputation, however, differs greatly from Zechariah 9–­14. Further, the way that his disputations center on Deuteronomy’s Sinai-­ based covenant departs significantly from Haggai and Zechariah. The disputations of Malachi assume the legal framework of the Sinai covenant. Indeed, the term covenant appears seven times in Malachi but is absent from Haggai. The term does appear twice in Zechariah, in 9:11 and 11:10 (echoing Ezek 16:8–­9 and 37:15–­28, respectively), but there it refers to the differing covenantal tradition of the Holiness School. Drawing on James Nogalski’s work, Tuell turns the commonplace scholarly thinking about the maśśāʾ superscription on its head. He surmises it was applied to Zechariah 9–­11 and 12–­14 only under the influence of Malachi 1:1, which was written earlier.8 Of particular import in grasping Malachi’s Levitical provenance is his orientation on 1 Samuel 2:35, a Deuteronomistic text conveying God’s promise of “a faithful priest” who will perform what God desires and accomplish the purposes of God’s heart and mind. Malachi likely considered himself to be a model of such a Levite but also held that

500

MALACHI

a greater Levitical figure was waiting in the wings of history. Thus at Malachi 3:1, he announces, “The messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come!” (NIV). In fact, according to another parsing of the Hebrew, he is “here, here already” (REB). The Content of Malachi’s Prophecies Following a superscription in verse 1, the book of Malachi launches the first of a series of six back-­and-­forth disputations. These interchanges, which counter the people’s faithlessness, address charges made by the people against God or against the prophet. They typically begin with a statement of God’s perspective (here 1:2a), turn to quote the audience’s retorts or calls for proof (here 1:2b), and then lay out a prophetic response to the objections (here 1:2c–­5), sometimes including a final affirmation of the initially stated thesis (here 1:5). Renewing the Mosaic, Sinai-­based covenant is central to each dispute. Although now part of Malachi’s careful literary structure, the disputations likely reflect actual arguments between the prophet and his restoration-­era audience. A surprising “universalism,” not always at the fore in Deuteronomistic writings, emerges at the conclusion of Malachi’s first disputation.

Sidebar 17.1: The Structure of Malachi

I. 1:1–­5: The Lord’s covenant love for Israel



II. 1:6–­2:9: Rebuking faithless temple priests



III. 2:10–­16: Three examples of covenantal infidelity



IV. 2:17–­3:5: God’s coming day: Countering disillusionment and cynicism



V. 3:6–­12: A call to repentance



VI. 3:13–­4:3: Judgment and vindication

VII. 4:4–­6: Moses and Elijah, the famed covenant mediators

501

THE PROPHETS

According to Malachi 1:5, at God’s reign, people far and wide will worship God. The covenant’s expansive goal will burst “beyond the borders of Israel!” As Malachi proceeds, readers learn that God’s imminent reign gives the prophet an ultimate reference point for parsing the current struggles. Though contested at present (see 1:4; 2:17), God’s reign is a doxological and eschatological truth unmasking the audacity of the lackadaisical worship of Yehud. How can Yehud’s pathetic, impoverished worship be tolerated, given how God will inspire universal reverence (1:14b; see Ps 76:12)? God will be Lord from east to west (see Ps 50:1). Sacrifice and pure oblation are “about to be offered” to God worldwide (1:11). Malachi’s fifth dispute, in 3:6–­12, urges a return to God, precisely the hope of any true messenger of the covenant (Malachi’s name—­if it is, in fact, a proper name—­means “my [God’s] messenger”). To repent/return (šûb; v. 7) means nothing other than renewing allegiance to the Sinai covenant. Thankfully, God is open to receiving the people back. Why? As in Malachi 1:2–­3, it is all a matter of covenantal election (God’s “love”; see Hos 11:1; Deut 10:15) versus covenantal privation (God’s “hate”; see Hos 9:15). Without altering the Hebrew text, we can translate Malachi 3:6 as “I, YHWH, have not hated [you]; and you, children of Jacob, have not been destroyed.”9 This is not language about a divine emotion (literal “hate”) but a Hebrew expression about not disowning or divorcing someone. So too Malachi’s language of “love” is a tensive, dialectical Hebrew idiom for expressing God’s mysterious commitment to God’s chosen people, a constancy that is downright eerie (see Hos 11:9). Malachi 3:7 moves to the standard quotation of the audience. The people ask how to repent, and Malachi confronts them with the embarrassing dearth of tithes and offerings (vv. 8–­9). Since Israelite tithes especially benefited the Levites, Tuell is correct in sensing here another confirmation of Malachi’s Levitical provenance. Beyond bald economics, Deuteronomy holds the purpose of tithes and offerings to be honoring God’s singular claim on the people and the integrity of their life under covenant (Deut 12:5–­7). If they would only start embracing God’s

502

MALACHI

claim in a wholehearted and materially tangible way, Malachi argues, they could resurrect the covenant both economically and spiritually. In calling for a “test” of God’s will to bless (v. 10; see Ps 34:8), Malachi is far from encouraging a selfish spirit (as in the arrogant question of 3:14: “What do we profit?”). Rather, he maintains that the covenant makes a positive difference in the real world over the long haul. His emphasis on successful agriculture (vv. 10–­12) is no “prosperity gospel” but a stress on how human faithfulness and a flourishing soil interconnect. Human reverence and mutuality set the stage for the good earth’s recovery. Malachi’s longest disputation (1:6–­2:9) confronts the laxity of sacrificial worship at Yehud’s rebuilt temple. Not only does the populace bring defective animals to sacrifice, directly violating the Torah, but the temple priests offer no objection (1:6–­8). Malachi sarcastically observes that ceasing temple worship altogether would be far preferable to allowing things to continue as they are (1:10). Deuteronomy is clear that upholding covenantal instruction is precisely what Levites do (Deut 17:9–­12, 18; 31:9, 25–­26; 33:10; see Jer 2:8; 2 Kgs 17:27–­28). The sons of Aaron and Zadok serving at the altar, Malachi charges, would reverse their gross irreverence if they would simply fulfill their Levitical vocation to “guard knowledge” and propound “instruction” (Mal 2:7). Malachi 2:10–­16, the prophet’s most complex disputation, appears to present three examples of covenantal infidelity. Verse 10 gives the initial example, the betrayal of a certain covenant of Levi (see 2:4, 8). The second example, in verses 11–­12, apparently offers a critique of spiritually mixed marriages, which threaten covenantal allegiance to the Lord alone (note how the phrase “one God” in 2:10 echoes Deut 6:4). Neither parochial thinking nor ethnic bias propels the concern (see 1:5, 11, 14), since marrying foreigners is fine (see Num 12:1), just not devotees of a “foreign god” (v. 11; see Deut 31:16; 32:12; Ps 81:9). Tuell offers an alternative, metaphorical interpretation of verses 11–­12, in which worship of idols, such as the goddess Asherah, is the concern (see the NET translation).10

503

THE PROPHETS

In verses 13–­16, a third example cites the affront of letting enmity break up a legitimate covenant of marriage. The text is uncertain. The “one” in verse 15 is likely father Abraham (see the NET’s and the NIV’s alternate readings), not “one God” (NRSV). Even though he desperately wanted a son, Abraham maintained covenant loyalty with Sarah, “the wife of his youth,” as long as “flesh and spirit” were his. Verse 16 likely reads, “If one hates one’s wife and divorces her, . . . then one covers one’s garment with violence” (see the ESV, LXX, Vulg.). The language of hating and divorcing echoes Deuteronomy 24:3. Here again, we have the use of “hate” as an idiom for deprivation or collapse of covenant. Malachi 2:10 is an excellent textual resource for digging deeper into Malachi’s critique of altar priests. The prophet holds both sons of Aaron and sons of Levi, including himself (note the pronoun “we”), accountable to a single covenant, which God calls “my covenant with Levi” (Mal 2:4) and, then, “the covenant of Levi” (Mal 2:8). The prophet finds this covenant relevant to the present struggle, since, as noted, in Deuteronomistic thinking, the category “Levites” is inclusive of the sons of Aaron and Zadok. According to Malachi’s sources, the altar priests whom he indicts share a common vocation with their Levite brothers (Mal 3:3; see Deut 18:1; 33:10b; Josh 21:4; see also Deut 17:9, 18; 21:5). The temple priesthood of Malachi’s time is slated for apocalyptic purging (Mal 3:3–­4) but not utter termination. Although Malachi is aghast at the altar priests’ profanation of the Levi covenant (Mal 2:10), he stops short of declaring that covenant void. According to Malachi 2:4, the Lord desires the Levi covenant to “endure” (NJPS, NABR). God firmly intends “to maintain my covenant with Levi” (NJB). Where in Scripture do we find the “covenant with Levi” that Malachi stresses? One prominent witness is Jeremiah 33:17–­22, which guarantees Levi’s priestly role for “all days.” Jeremiah 33:18 speaks of Levitical priests, understanding all Levi’s descendants to be priests, all enfranchised. In contrast, texts such as Isaiah 66:21 use the terms priests and Levites found in Jeremiah 33:21 in a very different manner.

504

MALACHI

“Priests” is an individual subject in Isaiah 66:21, a clerical group distinct from Levites. A key text related to Jeremiah 33:17–­22 is 1 Samuel 2:35 and its promise of God’s continual furnishing of Israel with a “faithful priest.” Just like Jeremiah 33:18, 1 Samuel 2:35 describes faithful priestly service established for “all days.” The vocabulary strongly impacted Jeremiah 33:18, which speaks not merely of an individual’s lifetime of priestly service but of an expansive line of sacerdotal succession extending into the future.11 Some modern English translations phrase 1 Samuel 2:35 and Jeremiah 33:18 in similar terms. The NLT (see also NIV) of 1 Samuel 2:35 reads, “They [the faithful one’s successors] will be priests to my anointed kings forever.” Both Jeremiah 33:17–­22 and 1 Samuel 2:35 address not simply the promise of a faithful priesthood but, in fact, a divine assurance that encompasses two great institutions, one sacerdotal, the other monarchic. Both clerics and monarchs will endure “all days.” This double assurance interconnects the two texts. Malachi projects the covenant with Levi down through history to the fiery, eschatological appearance of God’s covenantal “messenger.” In Malachi, God’s priest is God’s messenger (Mal 2:7), who must confront each new generation, preserving knowledge of God, instructing the people in God’s covenant. The Israel of every era must have such a priest, with the ultimate such cleric slated by God to appear on the last day. Malachi 3:1 NABR reads, “The messenger of the covenant whom you desire—­see, he is coming! says the Lord of hosts.” Is not this priestly messenger the ideal instantiation of the archetypal faithful priest of 1 Samuel 2:35? The fact that Malachi draws on the Jeremiah 33 covenant with Levi, its sure promise of Israel always having a priest of God’s Presence, suggests that he is. The Levi covenant itself draws on and interprets 1 Samuel 2:35. The striking appellation “messenger of the covenant” suggests that, for Malachi, God’s “faithful priest” is a Mosaic covenant intermediary.

505

THE PROPHETS

As Mark Leuchter astutely observes, the use of Mosaic rhetoric in 1 Samuel 2 means the faithful priest replacing the Elides is “Mosaic in typology, a quality that is nowhere . . . applied to Zadok, the Zadokites, or the Aaronides more generally.”12 Deuteronomy 18:15–­19 lays out a plan for a series of Mosaic messengers, one for each new generation. Malachi’s faithful priest, when he appears, takes his place within this line of Mosaic covenant enforcers. The diction of “raising up” a successor is the same in Deuteronomy 18:18 and in 1 Samuel 2:35. So too is the application of language about a single ideal figure to an entire coterie and the emphasis on the successor’s pure alignment with God. It is God, not hereditary succession, who “raises up” (1 Sam 2:35) the faithful priest of each new generation. God has sole prerogative over which clerics to raise up to altar ministry. King Jeroboam, despite receiving the same assurance as that in 1 Samuel 2 of an “enduring house” (1 Kgs 11:38), has his succession yanked away (1 Kgs 14:10–­11; 15:29). So too God revealed God’s self in Egypt, electing Eli’s lineage (1 Sam 2:27), only to later reveal the divine self elsewhere and elect Samuel at Shiloh (3:21). God’s fresh self-­revelation signals that Samuel has superseded the Elides despite God’s previous word. God expressly admits as much: “I promised that your family . . . should go in and out before me forever” (1 Sam 2:30). But now the Lord says, “May it never be!” Despite its divine establishment, Eli’s house perishes (1 Sam 2:31). Jeroboam’s son dies as a harbinger of the end of his father’s royal line (1 Kgs 14:12–­13, 17–­18). Eli’s sons likewise die, thereby presaging God’s ending of the Elides’s line (1 Sam 2:34; 4:11, 17). Knowing this history, Malachi assumes that God can always appoint a successor “faithful priest” of God’s own choosing. The Lord may terminate the ministry of Yehud’s contemporary altar priests just as easily as God ended the lines of Eli and Jeroboam. Robert Polzin rightly speaks of the “instability of the ‘sure house’ of Eli’s successor.” Clerics should never rely blithely on their “established” priestly houses.13 The links between Malachi’s disputations and 1 Samuel 2:27–­4:1, God’s expulsion of the Elides, may be even more direct than suggested

506

MALACHI

thus far. Beyond envisioning an enduring “covenant with Levi” and an eschatological “faithful priest,” Malachi may draw on the Samuel narrative in a brilliant intertextual coup threatening his priestly opponents with an unexpected and sudden disenfranchisement. The key phrase suggesting a conscious recapitulation of 1 Samuel 2 is the reference to “one father” in Malachi 2:10. Credit accrues to Carol Bechtel for deciphering Malachi’s code language here in her Yale dissertation under Robert R. Wilson. Bechtel argues that the “one father” (Mal 2:10), whose paternity renders all clerics brothers, is certainly Levi.14 First Samuel 2:27 speaks specifically of the identical figure using the same rare cipher about a founding priestly patriarch. Verse 28 then identifies him as the progenitor of the entire Levite tribe—­that is, as the eponymous ancestor Levi. Exodus 3:6 speaks of the selfsame “father,” for Moses, like Eli, was a Levite. Given the likelihood of an intertextual coup here, what specifically would be Malachi’s argument? It must be this. In Egypt, God revealed (gālâ) God’s self to Eli’s ancestor, Levi, electing the Elide line (1 Sam 2:27). Later, however, God had no problem abandoning the Elides to judgment. Replacing them, God revealed (gālâ) God’s self to Samuel (1 Sam 3:21), placing him at the helm as chief Levite (1 Sam 2:35). Yehud’s contemporary altar priests of Malachi’s time should wake up and reverse course. The lackadaisical priests of Yehud, including Zadokite priests, have no safe refuge in a sure house (bayit neʾĕmān). Even if they insist that God’s “faithful priest” must be their ancestor Zadok, they have no basis for ease. The promise of a sure house may be yanked away through the dishonorable behavior of the priest’s descendants. From a perspective of power politics, the Levites of the temple of Yehud would absolutely benefit from their downfall. They would become the wielders of power in this major postexilic institution, rising to a position from which they could mandate the reforms they longed for. More shockingly, however, God’s “faithful priest” is actually not their ancestor Zadok but someone completely lacking Zadokite heredity, Zadokite pedigree. In the first instance, he is Samuel, a descendent of

507

THE PROPHETS

old father Levi by adoption. God is full of surprises and can make a son of Levi even out of a Zuphite from Ephraim (1 Sam 1:1). A sea change is coming! Priests must be on guard. Just as in the days of Samuel’s youth, so now in the Persian era, God is about to startle everyone. The Lord again says, “See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make both ears of anyone who hears of it tingle” (1 Sam 3:11). Notes 1 John D. W. Watts, “A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–­3 and Malachi,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin Sweeney, SBLSS 15 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 209–­17. 2 On the former suggestion, see Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the Old Testament (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 240–­41. On the latter, see J. L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 94–­95. 3 See the translation in Stephen L. Cook, “Those Stubborn Levites: Overcoming Levitical Disenfranchisement,” in Levites and Priests in History and Tradition, ed. M. A. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton, SBL Ancient Israel and its Literature 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 164. 4 Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 235–­36. Also see “Historical Setting and Literary Features of Third Isaiah” in our chapter on Isaiah above (ch. 3). 5 Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 234. 6 David McLain Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Douglas A. Knight, Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011). 7 E.g., see David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–­14 and Malachi, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 1–­3. 8 Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 234. 9 Ryan E. Stokes, “I, Yhwh, Have Not Changed? Reconsidering the Translation of Malachi 3:6; Lamentations 4:1; and Proverbs 24:21–­22,” CBQ 70 (April 2008): 270. Marriage contracts among the Elephantine papyri attest to the Hebrew idiom of “hatred” as technical language of divorce. See Samuel L. Adams, Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 36. 10 Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi, 244.

508

MALACHI

11 Consult Richard A. Taylor and Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, New American Commentary, 21A (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2004), 304; Stephen L. Cook, “The Faithful Priest of 1 Samuel 2 and Priestly Lineage Relationships,” in With the Loyal You Show Yourself Loyal: Essays on Relationships in the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Saul M. Olyan, ed. T. M. Lemos, Jordan D. Rosenblum, Karen B. Stern, Debra Scoggins Ballentine (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2021), 167–­81. 12 Mark Leuchter, “Samuel: A Prophet like Moses or a Priest like Moses,” in Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History, ed. Mignon R. Jacobs and Raymond F. Person Jr., Ancient Israel and Its Literature 14 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 157. 13 Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two: 1 Samuel, Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Pt. 2 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 48. 14 Carol B. Reynolds, “Malachi and the Priesthood” (PhD diss., Yale University Press, 1993), 37, 83–­84, 150–­52.

509

18

Daniel

Introduction In the Christian Old Testament, Daniel is the fourth of the Major Prophets, coming right after the book of Ezekiel. This is in keeping with the sequence in the Greek Septuagint, except that there, Daniel is supplemented by the Greek additions “Susanna” (Theodotion places this before Daniel, but other Greek versions place it after), “The Prayer of Azariah,” “The Song of the Three Young Men” (both inserted between Dan 3:23 and 24), and “Bel and the Dragon” (at the end of Daniel, often preceded by “Susanna”). In the Hebrew Bible, however, Daniel is not found among the prophets at all but consigned to the Ketuvim (or Writings), typically between Esther and Ezra–­Nehemiah. This discrepancy raises a key question: Is Daniel a prophetic book? Here, the evidence is mixed. First-­century CE Jewish historian Josephus writes of twenty-­two authoritative books in Scripture (C. Ap. 1.38–­40). Of these, thirteen were written by “hoi meta Mousen prophetai” (the prophets after Moses) and tell of events “apo de tes Mouseos teleutes mechri tes Artaxerxou” (from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes). Presumably, by this, Josephus intended the Former

511

THE PROPHETS

Figure 18.1 The Prophet Daniel by Michelangelo and assistants for the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, ca. 1510 CE.

Prophets ( Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) plus the other “historical” books (Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, and Ezra–­Nehemiah) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve)—­but that leaves us still a book short. Evidently, Josephus counted Daniel among the Prophets. The Talmud, on the other hand (b. B. Bat. 13b), speaks only of “eight prophets”: clearly Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (the Former Prophets), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (the Latter Prophets). Similarly, the Christian scholar and translator of Scripture Saint Jerome (Incip. Prol. Lib. Reg.) counted eight prophetic books. Yet the Christian canon not only includes Daniel among the Prophets but also (in accordance with the Septuagint) places the prophetic books at the end of the Old Testament (not, as the Jewish canon does, in

512

DANIEL

the middle, sandwiched between the Torah and Ketuvim). In this placement, the Prophets look forward to the Christian New Testament, specifically to Jesus, and Daniel is accordingly prized as predicting Jesus’s coming. In the New Testament, Jesus’s favorite self-­designation is “the son of man” (Greek ʿoʿouios tou ʾanthrōpou; e.g., Matt 8:20; Mark 10:45; Luke 7:34; John 3:14), which was from early on heard in parallel with and in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13–­14: As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being [Aramaic bar ʾĕnos̆, mechanistically, “son of man”; translated ʿouios ʾanthrōpou in the Septuagint] coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. Consider too the clear influence of Daniel on the visions of John in the book of Revelation (e.g., the title “Son of Man” [ʿoion ʾanthrōpou] in Rev 1:13; 14:14; the beasts in Dan 7 and Rev 13; and the three and a half years of distress before the end in Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11–­12; and Rev 11:3; 12:6). Since Revelation calls itself a prophecy (Rev 1:3), the same might be claimed for Daniel. However, as we have seen (see the discussion of the “Isaianic apocalypse” in Isa 24–­27), that particular relationship argues for separating Daniel from the Prophets: like Revelation, Daniel is an apocalypse, not a book of prophecy. The insight of the Jewish scribes in separating Daniel from the prophetic books was well founded.

513

THE PROPHETS

Daniel as an Apocalypse In biblical studies, the most widely accepted definition of apocalypse is “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.”1 The book of Daniel demonstrably conforms to this definition, as the seer Daniel, through angelic intermediaries, is given access both to the heavenly and to the future world.2 Further, Daniel’s clear resemblance to other apocalypses (see the discussion of Isa 24–­27) shows that this genre is the best fit for the book. We may speak specifically of two features of Daniel that clearly set it apart from prophetic books, however. First, the prophets were commanded to proclaim the word of the Lord (see Amos 7:14–­15; Jer 1:7–­8; Ezek 3:17–­21). Indeed, Jeremiah laments, If I say, “I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,” then within me there is something like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot. ( Jer 20:9) In sharp contrast, Daniel is told to “keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end” (Dan 12:4; see Dan 8:26; Rev 10:4). Since Daniel is set in the time of the exile and its immediate aftermath, the “future” it describes is indeed distant (although for the community addressed by this book, that time has come). There is no reason for Daniel to announce his revelation of the future to the world, as “the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand” (Dan 12:10). Intriguingly, Revelation reverses this instruction: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” However, like Daniel,

514

DANIEL

Revelation holds that the fate it describes is unalterable: “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy” (Rev 22:10–­11). This notion of a fixed and unchangeable future is the other distinctly “unprophetic”—­and plainly apocalyptic—­characteristic of Daniel. For the prophets, God is in an active, responsive relationship with the world. So the prophetic word concerning the future is conditional: “For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors forever and ever” ( Jer 7:5–­7). Further, God remains sovereign and free and so can always change God’s mind regarding any word concerning the future (e.g., Exod 32:7–­14; Jer 26:19; Jonah 3:10–­4:2). Deuteronomy 18:22 famously asserts, “If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken.” Yet the prophets sometimes seem unconcerned when their predictions concerning the future are unfulfilled. For example, in Ezekiel 26:7, Ezekiel predicts the destruction of Tyre by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar.3 However, in the latest-­dated prophecy in Ezekiel (29:17–­21), the prophet declares that “neither he [Nebuchadnezzar] nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had expended against it” and promises that Nebuchadnezzar would be given Egypt instead—­a prophecy that, had Ezekiel had time later to report, was likewise never fulfilled. Such examples of “failed” prophecy are not difficult to find (e.g., in addition to those examples already mentioned, see 2 Kgs 22:20 ǁ 2 Chr 34:28)—­and prophets like Ezekiel seem entirely untroubled by them.4 In Daniel, however, the future is as unchangeable as the past. So in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2:1–­45) and in Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (Dan 7), all of future history is unalterably set forth. God has already determined what will be; nothing we do, for good or ill, can either hurry or hinder God’s timetable. It remains only for the faithful

515

THE PROPHETS

to await the unfolding of God’s design. Daniel’s apocalypse functions here, much as apocalypses do elsewhere, to offer comfort, encouragement, and strength to its audience, reassuring them of their ultimate vindication (Dan 12:3). André LaCocque finds the most extreme expression of Daniel’s determinism in Daniel 4:13–­17, where heaven decrees insanity for Nebuchadnezzar for seven seasons. Since the symbolic tree of the vision is the “cosmic tree,” an archetype of the entire created realm, there can be no doubt that “the Most High is sovereign over the realm of man” (Dan 4:17 NJPS). God can fell each and every giant tree and does so cyclically across the ages (see Ezek 31). Yet LaCocque notes that the call to redemption in Daniel 4:27 mitigates the text’s determinism. Alienated from God, the king is increasingly enslaved to the hubristic spirit of the cosmic tree, which cyclically recurs. But God’s liberating transcendence over the cosmos is coming upon history, in which Nebuchadnezzar can participate.5 Determinism does not after all have the final say in Daniel’s book; liberation does. Historical Setting Perhaps another reason that Daniel has been assigned to the Writings rather than the Prophets in Jewish Scripture is its late date. Daniel is the youngest book in the Hebrew Bible. Most scholars agree that, at least in its final form, the book must have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. Although set literarily in the time of the Babylonian exile and soon thereafter, Daniel could not have been written then. For example, the writer of Daniel does not know the name of the Judean king under whom the first exile took place—­it was Jehoiachin (see 2 Kgs 24:8–­17; Ezek 1:1–­3), not Jehoiakim, as Daniel 1:1–­4 claims. We know from Babylonian sources as well as biblical texts that the first exile took place not in 606 BCE, the third year of King Jehoiakim (Dan 1:1), but some ten years later in 597 BCE, following Jehoiakim’s death. Daniel’s claim that the exile began under Jehoiakim is likely based on 2 Chronicles 36:6, which does say that Jehoiakim was taken into exile.

516

DANIEL

But even if that claim is historically reliable, Jehoiakim’s exile would have been a temporary imprisonment, like that the Chronicler claims Manasseh suffered under the Assyrians (2 Chr 33:10–­13);6 in any case, nothing is said in Chronicles of anyone accompanying Jehoiakim in his exile. It is reported in 2 Kings 24:6 that Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege. He was succeeded by his son, Jehoiachin, who surrendered Jerusalem to the Babylonians in order to save the city from destruction and went, together with ten thousand other captives, into the first exile (2 Kgs 24:8–­17; see also Ezek 1:1–­3). The most likely reason for Daniel’s early dating of the Babylonian exile can be found in the prophecies of Jeremiah, who said that the exile would last seventy years ( Jer 25:11–­12; 29:10). Jeremiah’s point was that those going away into exile would never come home again: over a generation would pass before anyone returned to Jerusalem (see Jeremiah’s advice to the exiles in Jer 29:1–­14). But postexilic writers remained intrigued by Jeremiah’s seventy years (see Zech 1:12; 2 Chr 36:21). In Daniel 1:1–­2, backdating the beginning of the exile to “the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim” in 606 BCE results in Jeremiah’s seventy-­year prediction being literally fulfilled, since the exile ended ca. 537 BCE (for another use of Jeremiah’s seventy years in Daniel, see Dan 9:20–­27). Just as Daniel’s seventy years come from Jeremiah, its use of the term “Shinar” for Babylon (Dan 1:2) is derived from Zechariah. Shinar usually refers to all of Mesopotamia7 (see Gen 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21; Isa 11:11), but in Zechariah 5:11, as in Daniel 1:2, Shinar is Babylon.8 This sort of textual borrowing, common in apocalypses, is further evidence of Daniel’s late date. As Daniel properly records, the exile ended with the conquest of Babylon. However, the last king of Babylon was not Belshazzar (Dan 5) but his father, Nabonidus (556–­539 BCE); although Belshazzar ruled as regent during his father’s frequent absences, he was never king. Further, the city of Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian (see 2 Chr 36:22–­23; Ezra 1:1–­4; Isa 45:1–­4), not the otherwise unknown Darius the Mede credited with that conquest in Daniel 5:31. Although it isn’t historically correct, the official-­sounding royal name “Darius the Mede” makes for

517

THE PROPHETS

good storytelling. The book of Daniel likely combines Cyrus and Darius into one larger-­than-­life character (see also Dan 6:1; 9:1; 11:1). The Aramaic of 6:28 may even be meant to explain that in this book, Darius the Mede is the same as King Cyrus (see NIV text note; NET text note). As in Daniel 1:1, playfulness with the historical record may be the authors’ signal to the reader that this is sacred fiction rather than secular history. Unfortunately, we cannot get inside the authors’ heads to know for sure. On one hand, historical errors and the use of texts that are themselves postexilic demonstrate that Daniel could not have been written at the time in which it is set. But on the other hand, Daniel accurately describes events of the Greek period—­four hundred years after its exilic (and early postexilic) setting. The Persian Empire lasted until around 332 BCE, when Alexander the Great of Macedonia defeated the Persian Darius II (as symbolically depicted in Dan 8:1–­7; see the interpretation

Figure 18.2 Map of the Greek Empire following Alexander’s death.

518

DANIEL

in 8:18–­20). Ten years later, Alexander unexpectedly died, leaving behind no heir. Alexander’s four leading generals divided the empire among them (see Dan 8:8). Cassander, who claimed Macedonia, and Lysimachus, who claimed Thrace (i.e., Greece and Asia Minor), play no role in Israel’s story. However, the heirs of Ptolemy, who ruled in Egypt, and Seleucus, who ruled in Syria, figure prominently. Through the following generations, the descendants of these two Greek generals, called the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, squabbled for control of Palestine. As long as the Ptolemies of Egypt were in control, the Jews of Palestine were left alone. However, in 200 BCE, Antiochus III, the reigning Seleucid, conquered Palestine. At first, little changed. But when Antiochus IV, who declared himself “god manifest” (Epiphanes) on coins, came to power in 175 BCE, he began to intervene drastically in Jewish life. Perhaps in order to get his hands on the temple treasury, or perhaps in the attempt to unify his kingdom under Greek culture and religion, Antiochus IV appointed a high priest of his own choosing and gave his support to those in the Jerusalem aristocracy who favored the new Greek ways. When pious Jews resisted, he used cruder methods. In 167 BCE, an altar to Zeus, chief god of the Greeks, was set up in the Jerusalem temple (the “abomination that makes desolate” of Dan 8:11–­13; 9:27; 11:31; 1 Macc 1:54–­61; 2 Macc 4:11–­6:11; see also Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14 for later applications of this concept). Antiochus IV ordered sacrifices, probably to Zeus, in the Jerusalem temple on the twenty-­fifth of each month in celebration of his own birthday (see 2 Macc 6:5; 10:7). The account in 2 Maccabees 6:5 speaks of “abominable offerings” (probably pigs), forbidden by Jewish law, covering the altar. Similar altars, and similar sacrifices, were ordered established throughout the land. Antiochus’s troops tore up and burned scrolls of Holy Scripture (1 Macc 1:56). It became illegal to circumcise male children, to observe the Sabbath or any of the other festivals, to teach or even to read the law (see Dan 7:25; 10:11–­12; 1 Macc 1:41–­64; 2 Macc 6:1–­11).

519

THE PROPHETS

Figure 18.3 Bust of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from Altes Museum in Berlin, Germany.

All of this is accurately related in Daniel 10:1–­11:39. But at this point, historical events and the course of the vision no longer coincide. Daniel 11:40–­43 predicts steadily greater victories for Antiochus—­until suddenly “reports from the east and north will alarm him,” causing him to strike out in savagery, bringing “ruin and complete destruction to many” (Dan 11:44; see 9:26). Then preparing to return to Syria, Antiochus would camp in Palestine, where the archangel Michael would fall upon him with the heavenly armies and destroy him (Dan 12:1). Of course, none of this happened. Antiochus IV actually died in the course of his campaign against Persia, in 164 BCE. Earlier that same year, Jerusalem was liberated by an army of Jewish guerrillas led by Judas Maccabeus (see 1 Macc 4:36–­61; 2 Macc 10:1–­8)—­an event not described in Daniel but recalled annually in the Jewish festival of Hanukkah (the story of the founding of Hanukkah is told in the Talmud, b. Šabb. 21b). Therefore, Daniel can be dated between 167 (when the “abomination that desolates” was set up) and 164 BCE.

520

DANIEL

We are pointed toward the Greek period in a variety of ways throughout this book. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2:36–­45) envisions the future as a succession of four world ages, marked by four kingdoms: evidently (in the original writers’ expectations) Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Similarly, the vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7 sees the period from Babylon to the end of history as a sequence of four kingdoms. For the original writers, the hope would have been that the last and most terrible beast was Greece and its ten horns the kings in the Seleucid dynasty (culminating in Antiochus IV, the arrogant “little” horn; Dan 7:8, 23–­28).9 In Daniel 9:24–­27, Jeremiah’s seventy years become a code, revealed by the archangel Gabriel, for understanding all of “future” history as seventy weeks of years. Here, the first seven weeks (or forty-­nine years, which is actually about right) are “from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [ca. 587 BCE, when the city was destroyed by the Babylonians] until the time of an anointed prince” (Dan 9:25). This may have been Cyrus I (558–­530 BCE), the Persian ruler who conquered Babylon and ended the exile—­ called the Lord’s anointed one in Isaiah 45:1–­17. The next sixty-­two weeks / 434 years (taking us up to the late second century—­approximately in line with the time when the book of Daniel was written) are the uneasy period of the rebuilt city and temple (Dan 9:25–­26), culminating in the rise of another wicked prince who will again destroy “the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed” (Dan 7:26). To this wicked prince (in the mind of the original writers, Antiochus IV) is given the final week of world history. For the latter half of that week, “he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator” (Dan 9:27). In Daniel’s original context, this time—­the climax and culmination of history—­is the time of Daniel’s community. These final, devastating three and a half years are addressed in multiple (sometimes conflicting) ways: as “a time, two times, and half a time” (7:25; 12:7); as “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” (8:14); as “one thousand

521

THE PROPHETS

two hundred ninety days” (12:11); and as “the thousand three hundred thirty-­five days” (12:12). Still, the message is clear: the deliverance of Daniel’s community, and the end of history, is at hand. Alternatively, as Stephen Cook observes, later readers of Daniel identified the “word” in 9:25 with the “word” of verse 23, in which case Gabriel’s “weeks” start from a point such as King Artaxerxes’s decree in 445 BCE, and the “anointed prince” of verse 25 would be Ezra or Nehemiah. Seven weeks (of years) from the Persian decree to restore Jerusalem (v. 25) brings us to Ezra’s mission, and the full seventy weeks, the wait until the end-­times, would reach far beyond the time of Daniel’s first writers. Read in this way, the vision becomes future prediction, not mere history reportage.10 What can be said about the place in society of Daniel’s community? Throughout Daniel, we find hints that the authors are wise men, “mantic sages.” Daniel 1:4 celebrates the heroes of court tales as “young men . . . versed in every branch of wisdom.” Daniel 11:33, 35 and 12:3, 10 likewise celebrate “wise men.”11 In the Mesopotamian tradition of royal advisors and wise “mantic” sages, the Daniel community likely operated within royal and bureaucratic circles in the eastern Diaspora. Cook proposes that when the Seleucids captured Palestine from the Ptolemies, the Daniel group returned to Judea, where they recorded the apocalyptic visions of Daniel 7–­12.12 They likely made every effort to continue to practice their scribal and mantic skills in Jerusalem, but as the Seleucids began their outrageous sacrileges and persecutions, the Daniel group increasingly came into conflict with their foreign overlords. Rather than take up arms, their apocalyptic action plan modeled itself on the nonviolent resistance of the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 40–­55.

522

DANIEL

Literary Features Language Daniel is written in two languages: Hebrew, the ancient language of the people Israel, and Aramaic, the language that for four hundred years (from the time of the Assyrians through the time of the Persians) was the international language of trade and diplomacy in the Near East. The change from Hebrew to Aramaic comes abruptly, in the middle of Daniel 2:4, after the word ʾărāmîṯ, “in Aramaic”; the change back to Hebrew comes just as abruptly, at Daniel 8:1. While it is perhaps possible that the book was written originally in one language and then incompletely translated into the other, it seems more probable that the stories of Daniel and his friends in Daniel 1–­6, with the addition of the vision report in Daniel 7, were originally written in Aramaic.13 The visions in Daniel 8–­12, which most explicitly reflect the events of the mid-­second century BCE, would have been written in Hebrew and added later. Daniel 1:1–­2:4a was then either composed in Hebrew as an introduction to the stories or translated into Hebrew from Aramaic “to form an inclusio (a repetition signaling the beginning and end of a unit) with the Hebrew chapters at the end of the book.”14 It should not be concluded, however, that the two primary parts of this book are each unified in authorship or setting. The existence of the larger corpus of Danielic traditions witnessed by the Greek additions suggests that, like those other legends found in Daniel 1–­6, each has its own history of composition and application. Amy Merrill Willis traces a development in the canonical order of the visions in Daniel, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, through which God’s continued absence and increasing distance from history become more and more problematic for Daniel’s community.15 Finally, tensions within the book regarding the application of Jeremiah’s seventy years and the dating of the end (see especially the multiple epilogues in 12:11–­13) indicate a more complex history than may at first be evident.

523

THE PROPHETS

Other Traditions Related to Daniel The canonical book of Daniel is not the only place in which traditions relating to this character and his friends can be found. In the Septuagint, there are four Greek additions to the book of Daniel. “The Prayer of Azariah” and “The Song of the Three Young Men” are inserted into the narrative between Daniel 3:23 and 24. The first of these is a corporate prayer of confession, rather like Daniel 9:4–­19 (see also Ezra 9:6–­15; Neh 9:6–­37), attributed to Azariah, the third of Daniel’s three friends (called Abednego by the Babylonians; see Dan 1:6–­7). The second is a beautiful creation hymn not unlike Psalm 104 in theme, which may remind some readers of Saint Francis of Assisi’s hymn “All Creatures of Our God and King.” This song of praise is introduced by an extended description of the fiery furnace into which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were cast in Daniel 3, although here the three are identified as “Azariah and his companions” (Sg Three 26).

Figure 18.4 The Accusation of Susanna by the Elders by George Romney (1734–­1802 CE).

524

DANIEL

The other two, “Susanna” and “Bel and the Dragon,” are stories in which Daniel appears as a paragon of wisdom. In both “Susanna” and “Bel,” Daniel is also the prototype of the detective in modern fiction. “Susanna” is a courtroom story, in which two elders, to cover for their failed attempt to rape Susanna, falsely claim to have caught her in the act of adultery. By questioning Susanna’s lecherous accusers separately, Daniel is able to demonstrate that their false stories conflict, so that the virtuous Susanna is restored to her home, and her accusers are executed. In “Bel,” Daniel debunks the “miraculous” disappearance of food offered to the idol. He scatters ashes on the temple floor, and the footprints discovered the next day reveal the secret door through which the priests of Bel and their families enter the temple to consume the feasts left for the god. Similarly, Daniel proves that “the Dragon” is only a big snake, not a living god, by feeding it cakes of “pitch, fat, and hair” (Bel 27) that kill the beast. When the enraged worshippers hurl Daniel into a den of hungry lions for a week (Bel 31–­42; see Dan 6), God not only prevents the lions from eating Daniel but miraculously provides food for him by means of the Judean prophet Habakkuk (Bel 33–­39)! Clearly, then, the legends about Daniel and his friends in Daniel 1–­6 are far from the only traditions relating to this figure. Someone called Daniel/Dan’el is also mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3. Traditional readers identify this figure with the hero of the book of Daniel, who according to Daniel 1:1–­6 had gone into exile in Babylon ten years before Ezekiel.16 However, the two figures should be kept distinct. In Ezekiel 14, Daniel/Dan’el is mentioned together with Noah and Job as a trio of conspicuously and famously righteous persons, whose righteousness all together would not counterbalance Jerusalem’s wickedness.17 As Noah and Job alike were figures from Israel’s prehistory, it seems likely that Daniel/Dan’el too should be so regarded. Similarly, the sarcastic statement in Ezekiel 28:3 that the self-­important king of Tyre must be “wiser than Daniel” assumes that Daniel/Dan’el is not a contemporary but a proverbial figure famous for his wisdom. The most likely referent for this figure in Ezekiel is a character from

525

THE PROPHETS

the Canaanite “Tale of Aqhat” named Dan’el (i.e., “[the god] ʾEl is judge”). In this story, Dan’el is Aqhat’s father, a pious and wise chieftain who “judged the cases of widows, presided over orphans’ hearings.”18 Although the “Tale of Aqhat” may be the source of his name, the Daniel of our apocalypse is not the Daniel/Dan’el of Ezekiel. The Message of Daniel The book of Daniel falls broadly into two parts. The first six chapters are a collection of legends about Daniel and his friends—­similar to Esther or the Joseph novella (Gen 37–­50) in the Hebrew Bible and of course to “Susanna” and “Bel and the Dragon” in the Greek additions to Daniel. However, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar that Daniel interprets (Dan 2:31–­45) foreshadows the vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7, which serves as the keystone for interpreting the visions in Daniel 8–­12. As both the dream interpretation narrative and the vision of the beasts are written in Aramaic, these likely formed a connected pair in the earlier material. Formally, however, if not linguistically, Daniel 7 fits with and introduces the visions that follow. Daniel 1–­6 As we have seen, no part of Daniel could have been written during the Babylonian exile. However, setting this book literarily in the time of the exile gave an important message to Daniel’s persecuted community.19 Foreign kings and alien cultures had threatened Israel before, and yet God’s people had prevailed. The legends in the first six chapters of this book, detailing the refusal of Daniel and his friends to compromise their Jewishness, would have been particularly meaningful to those in Daniel’s community who likewise resisted being absorbed into Antiochus’s version of Hellenistic culture. Indeed, these opening chapters may preserve authentic memories of passive resistance from the era of the Babylonian exile. We know from Babylonian records that exiles from Judah did become part of the

526

DANIEL

imperial bureaucracy, so Daniel and his friends—­Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah—­being singled out for special training as palace officials in chapter 1 may reflect a memory of Babylon. Daniel and his friends were given Babylonian names: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. While their Hebrew names all refer to the God of Israel (either ʾEl in Daniel and Mishael or YHWH shortened as “Yah” in Hananiah and Azariah), at least two of these new names contain the names of Babylonian gods, Bel and Nebo (garbled in the book of Daniel’s Hebrew rendering as “Nego”). The theft of their names is an old tactic for robbing an oppressed population of their identity (see Philemon in the NT, where an escaped slave is called Onesimus [“useful” in Greek]—­surely not the man’s given name). In the evil days of American slavery, African slaves would be stripped of their own names and given the names of their white masters. It is sobering to realize that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, the two first governors after the return from the exile, had Babylonian rather than Hebrew names. The provision of “a daily portion of the royal rations of food and wine” (Dan 1:5) is reminiscent of 2 Kings 25:27–­30, where Jehoiachin, after thirty-­seven years as a prisoner, was released and permitted to live in the palace, receiving “a regular allowance” from the king, “a portion every day” (2 Kgs 25:30). However, the term used for this portion in Daniel is pat-­bag (found only here and in Dan 11:26), a loanword from the Persian patibaga, meaning “delicacy”20—­showing that while this passage may recall experiences in the Babylonian exile, it was written (or translated) much later. Daniel rejected the pat-­bag, eating only fruits and vegetables (zēroʿîm/zērʿonîm, found only in Dan 1:12, 16) and drinking only water, which enabled him and his friends to hold to their culture by keeping kosher (Dan 1:5–­16). Daniel, like Joseph (see Gen 40–­41), had the God-­given gift to interpret dreams (Dan 1:17; see the dream visions in Dan 7–­12); in Daniel 2, he is called to use this gift to interpret a dream of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. However, as Nebuchadnezzar refused to reveal any details of the dream troubling him (Dan 2:5–­11), the element of the miraculous is greatly heightened. Daniel first describes the king’s dream (2:31–­35):

527

THE PROPHETS

Nebuchadnezzar had seen an enormous image, having a head of gold, upper body of silver, belly of bronze, and legs of iron—­with the feet, significantly, having clay intermingled with the iron. Then as he watched, “a stone was cut out, not by human hands” (Dan 2:34) and struck the weakened feet of the image, shattering the entire statue utterly: “But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the earth” (Dan 2:35). Daniel’s interpretation presents the successive materials in the image as a sequence of world ages. Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold, but his kingdom of Babylon will be followed by three kingdoms of progressively lesser worth: silver (Media), bronze (Persia), and finally iron (Greece). Just as Alexander’s kingdom was divided after his death, so the legs of iron are divided, and just as the line of the Seleucids peters out in the unworthy Antiochus IV, so the legs of iron stand on feet of clay (the origin of that folkloric image). As will be shown, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream parallels Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (Dan 7) quite closely. We still today speak of a vanished and treasured past as a golden age, just as we may speak of a later, derivative time as a silver age. The notion of successive gold, silver, bronze, and iron ages was deeply embedded in the classical world. It goes back at least to the Greek poet Hesiod’s Works and Days (1.109–­201; ca. 700 BCE), although a closer parallel to Daniel 2 may be the Zoroastrian Bahman Yasht: a vision of the prophet Zoroaster that could originally date to the Persian period.21 Clearly evident in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is the radical pessimism about human ingenuity and achievement typical of apocalypses. The stone, which represents God’s kingdom “that shall never be destroyed” (Dan 2:44), is explicitly not a work of human energy and intention. It not only destroys the last corrupt kingdom (iron mingled with clay) but demolishes and displaces the entire image: all of history is set aside by the future God ushers in. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar invites officials from throughout his empire to the dedication of a golden image reminiscent, perhaps, of the king’s dream.22 The image is gigantic: six cubits broad by sixty cubits

528

DANIEL

high, or about 9 by 87½ feet. In the list of seven types of officials invited (Dan 3:2–­3), the first three, “the satraps, the prefects, and the governors,” were after the emperor the highest officials in the Persian imperial government. The satraps were responsible for governing large sections of the empire ( Judah, for instance, was in the satrapy Abar-­ Naharah, or Beyond the River), the prefects were directly responsible to the satraps, and the governors were in charge of divisions within the satrapies (as Zerubbabel was governor of Judah). In short, the list reflects a memory of Persia, not Babylon. Similarly, in the band whose music signals the assembled crowd to bow and worship the image, the

Figure 18.5 Fiery Furnace by Toros Roslin, from Daniel 3, Mashtots, 1266 CE (MS no. 2027, fol. 14 V.).

529

THE PROPHETS

names of four of the six musical instruments are Greek loanwords. As with the Persian list of officials, this Greek-­influenced list of musical instruments indicates that the story reached its final form long after the Babylonian period. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (intriguingly, Daniel is not mentioned in this account) refuse to worship the image and are condemned to be hurled into a furnace and burned alive (Dan 3:19–­30). Their treatment reflects actions taken by Antiochus’s minions against the pious Judean community this book addresses (see 2 Macc 7:1–­42). While the three Hebrews in this story are miraculously delivered from the flames, their refusal to obey Nebuchadnezzar is not, as the KJV and RSV translations of their testimony suggest, rooted in their certainty that God would keep them from harm: “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us” (Dan 3:17). Far better is the NRSV: “If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up” (Dan 3:17–­18). Like the martyrs in 2 Maccabees, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego act in accordance with the absolute demand of their faith. Whether God delivers them or not, their testimony declares, they will not worship other gods.23 The story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (Dan 4:1–­37) reverberates strongly with an ancient tradition (implied in the Nabonidus Chronicle from Babylon and in the Haran inscriptions) that Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, was insane. Among the Dead Sea fragments is a prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab) much like the prayer attributed to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:34–­37, which also speaks of seven years of madness (see Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32 [4:13, 20, 22, 29]). Certainly, Nabonidus was not popular in Babylon, as he had tried to reduce the significance of Marduk, Babylon’s patron god, in favor of the moon god Sin, worshipped by Nabonidus’s mother. For this reason, many accounts of the conquest of Babylon tell us that the city fell without a fight, the Marduk priests having opened the gates and welcomed Cyrus as a liberator.24 Since both kings’ names begin with forms of the divine name “Nebo,”

530

DANIEL

the tradition in Daniel has perhaps confused Nebuchadnezzar for Nabonidus. Alternatively, to make for good storytelling, the writers may have intentionally merged the two kings into one larger-­than-­ life character (as they may have done with their fictional “Darius the Mede” character). This account begins, like Daniel 2, with a dream of Nebuchadnezzar interpreted by Daniel (Dan 4:1–­27 [3:31–­4:24]). The dream sounds a great deal like Ezekiel’s metaphor of Pharaoh / the king of Assyria as the World Tree (Ezek 31:1–­18). There, as here, the description of the greatness and grandeur of the tree is followed by word of its felling. Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, like Ezekiel’s application of his allegory, communicates the message that pride goes before a fall—­although in Pharaoh’s case, this meant conquest, and in Nebuchadnezzar’s case, a humbling period of madness. Despite this warning, Nebuchadnezzar persisted in his pride, and so for seven years, “he was driven away from human society, ate grass like oxen, and his body was bathed with the

Figure 18.6 Nebuchadnezzar by William Blake (1795 / ca. 1805 CE).

531

THE PROPHETS

dew of heaven, until his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers and his nails became like birds’ claws” (Dan 4:33 [30]).25 This humiliating experience shook Nebuchadnezzar’s haughty pride and brought him to a confession of faith: I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored the one who lives forever. For his sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation. (Dan 4:34 [31]) The story of Belshazzar’s feast (Dan 5:1–­ 31), like the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, has become one of the best-­known and most-­loved stories in Scripture; indeed, it has given the English language the folkloric expressions “the writing on the wall” and “weighed in the balances and found wanting.” Its

Figure 18.7 Belshazzar’s Feast by Rembrandt van Rijn (1636–­38 CE).

532

DANIEL

historical problems notwithstanding (Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon; he was the son of Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar; Babylon fell to Cyrus, not Darius the Mede), it is an effective and artful narrative. Belshazzar’s use of the gold and silver vessels from Jerusalem’s temple for his drunken party takes us back to Daniel 1:2, which details the theft of those vessels by Nebuchadnezzar. Compounding the sacrilege, Belshazzar, together with his lords, their wives, and their concubines, “drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (Dan 5:4). By this act, which profaned all that remained of the holy temple, Belshazzar destroyed the temple all over again and sealed his own fate, as well as the fate of his kingdom. Now at last judgment would come upon Babylon for the destruction of Jerusalem. The judgment is announced via an unusual inscription: “The fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the royal palace, next to the lampstand” (Dan 5:5). None of the sages and magicians in Belshazzar’s court is able to interpret the strange writing. But then the queen steps forward (Dan 5:10; given her influence over the king and her clear knowledge of events from Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, she is evidently the queen mother or even grandmother) to tell Belshazzar of Daniel’s great wisdom, derived from “a spirit of the holy gods” (5:11, 14; see also 4:8). Summoned to the scene, Daniel rejects the king’s rewards and reminds Belshazzar of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (Dan 4:1–­37), the humbling experience that had brought him to a confession of faith. But Belshazzar, hard-­hearted and proud, had learned nothing from this and rather than honoring God had committed sacrilege with the sacred vessels from God’s temple. The message, we now learn, reads, “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN” (Dan 5:25): familiar Aramaic units of weight and money (equivalent to the Hebrew units minah, shekel, and paras, or half-­minah). The problem, evidently, had been not what this message said but rather what it meant. In Daniel’s interpretation, these three Aramaic nouns are read as similar-­sounding or related verbs and so understood to mean “numbered,” “weighed,” and “divided.”

533

THE PROPHETS

The application of this message to Belshazzar is now painfully clear. “MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end” (Dan 5:26). The repetition intensifies this judgment—­and indeed, according to Daniel 5:31, Babylon fell that very night. “TEKEL, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Dan 5:27). Belshazzar had been personally judged and condemned; he was killed on the same night that his kingdom fell (Dan 5:31). “PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (Dan 5:28). The familiar story of Daniel in the lions’ den (Dan 6:1–­28; see Bel 31–­42) is set in the reign of “Darius.” The positive depiction of the monarch in this chapter and the mention of his division of his empire into satrapies (Dan 6:1) suggest that the writers of Daniel are thinking of the Persian Darius I (522–­486 BCE; see the discussion above of the historical setting of Third Isaiah).26 Historically, Darius I was the third ruler of the Persian Empire. The actual conqueror of Babylon, and founder of the empire, was Cyrus (558–­530 BCE; see Isa 44:28; 45:1). There are no stories about Cyrus in Daniel, but he is mentioned three times: in Daniel 1:21, where the first year of Cyrus marks the end of Daniel’s service in the court; in Daniel 6:28, where Cyrus is presented as the successor of Darius; and in Daniel 10:1, where Daniel’s great apocalyptic vision (Dan 10–­12) is dated to the third year of Cyrus. In form, this story is reminiscent of the book of Esther. There as here, a good and just counselor (Mordecai in Esther, Daniel here) is victimized by jealous enemies in the court (Haman in Esther; in Daniel, either all the other counselors with the Aramaic text or, with the Greek text, the other two presidents over the satraps). In Esther as in Daniel, the king is tricked into signing an irrevocable edict (Esth 3:9–­15; see Dan 6:8, 12, 15). We should note, by the way, that “the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked” (Dan 6:12) is a folkloric trope, not a genuine feature of Persian law—­although the monumental inscriptions of Darius do show a very high view of kingly authority as established by and reflecting the cosmic order of the creator god Ahuramazda.27 But while Ahasuerus’s “irrevocable edict” that the Jews were

534

DANIEL

to be slain is matched by a new edict arming the Jews and empowering them to resist (Esth 8:8–­13), Darius is forced to carry out his edict. Daniel, who had continued his practice of daily prayer in defiance of the law, is hurled into the lions’ den—­and miraculously delivered when God closes the mouths of the lions. Lions were understandably feared and respected in the ancient world and indeed were regarded as symbols of royalty in Israel (e.g., Gen 49:9; 1 Kgs 10:18–­20//2 Chr 9:17–­19; Ezek 19:1–­9) and in Mesopotamia.28 Yet for all its vividness, Daniel’s story of the lion as a mode of execution lacks any clear historical referent (but see Heb 11:33–­38 for the Roman period). Daniel Smith-­Christopher proposes that the lions’ den serves as “a symbol of the exile itself”29 and of God’s promise of deliverance. Intriguingly, Mahatma Gandhi, who calls Daniel “one of the greatest passive resisters that ever lived,”30 says this specifically of the lion’s den story: “When Daniel disregarded the laws of the Medes and Persians which offended his conscience, and meekly suffered the punishment for his disobedience, he offered satyagraha [nonviolent resistance; the term was coined by Gandhi] in its purest form.”31 In this last legend of Daniel as in the first (Dan 1), Daniel models the passive resistance to an oppressive government practiced by the community this book addresses, rather than the path of violent revolution followed by the Maccabees. Daniel 7–­12 The final six chapters of Daniel consist of a series of visions of the heavenly and “future” worlds. The visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are dated respectively to the first and third years of the reign of Belshazzar and are couched in animal symbolism. In Daniel 9, dated in the first year of Darius, Daniel’s prayer of repentance on behalf of his people is answered by the angelic messenger Gabriel, who reveals the secret meaning of Jeremiah’s seventy years. Finally, dated in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel 10–­12 presents a direct revelation of “future” history.

535

THE PROPHETS

Daniel 8–­12, like Daniel 1:1–­2:4a, is written in Hebrew, in contrast to the Aramaic of Daniel 2:4b—­7:28. Still, the apocalyptic heart of this book is the vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7. In a night vision, Daniel sees four chimerical beasts rising out of the sea—­an ancient symbol of chaos (see Isa 27:1; 51:9).32 The first three at least resemble actual animals: a lion, a bear, and a leopard. But the fourth is unlike anything on earth: “terrifying, dreadful, and exceedingly strong,” it has ten horns and iron teeth (Dan 7:12)—­recalling the iron legs and ten toes of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In the Hebrew Bible, horns can represent kings (e.g., Ezek 29:21; Ps 132:17) and the power to deliver a people from their enemies (e.g., Num 23:22; Deut 33:17; 2 Sam 22:3). The use of horns in Daniel 7:24 for the kings of nations opposed to God’s people (see Rev 17:9–­11) derives most likely from Zechariah 1:18-21 (2:1-4), where four horns represent the powers “that have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” (1:19 [2:2]; perhaps Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia). In Daniel 2:31–­45 and 7:1–­8, as in Zechariah, four is the number of Israel’s oppressors, although a different four. This reinterpretation of images is common in apocalypses. The scene abruptly shifts in Daniel 7:9, and Daniel finds himself in heavenly reality, in the throne room of the Ancient One (Aramaic ʿatîq yômîn; rendered “Ancient of Days” in the KJV). The description of the Ancient One’s throne as “fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire” (Dan 7:9) alludes to Ezekiel’s visions of the glory of the Lord (see Ezek 1; 10) and makes the divine identity of the Ancient One explicit. All four beasts are put on trial and condemned (Dan 12:9–­10), but the fourth beast is killed and its body burned (Dan 12:11). Now a new figure enters the throne room. In clear distinction from the four beasts, this one is “like a human being” (Dan 7:13; Aramaic kĕbar ʾĕnos̆)—­mechanistically, “like a son of man” (see the discussion of this expression in the sidebar below). The human one is given dominion over all the earth: “His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed” (Dan 7:14). In Daniel 7:15–­28, the vision is interpreted for Daniel by “one of the attendants” of the Ancient One (Dan 7:16; recall that in an apocalypse,

536

DANIEL

“a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient”33). Like the four parts of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2), the four beasts represent four world kingdoms. The fourth kingdom is more terrible and cruel than any of the others. The original writers probably expected that the kingdoms were Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Apocalypses, however, are resistant to approaches of literalism that attempt to reify their symbols too quickly as nothing more than ancient empires or political struggles (see Dan 7:28; 8:27). Far from mere code, the image-­rich landscape of apocalyptic literature is full of realistic, supernatural entities inhabiting a heavenly plane of existence. Among the ten horns of this fourth beast, which in the original context likely represented the Greek kings, is a little horn “speaking

Sidebar 18.1: Son of Man In Hebrew and Aramaic, the expression “son of” (Hebrew ben; Aramaic bar) can indicate membership in a group or class. So bĕnê Yisraʾel (mechanistically, “sons of Israel”) generally means “Israelites,” and bĕnê nĕbîʾîm (“sons of the prophets”) is better rendered, with the NRSV, “company of prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3). So the Hebrew expressions ben–­ʾadam and ben–­ʾis̆ and the Aramaic bar ʾĕnos̆, while often translated “son of man” (e.g., KJV, NIV, RSV), likely mean “human” or “person.” The point of the bar ʾĕnos̆ in Daniel 7 is that, unlike the beasts representing the nations in this vision (Dan 7:1–­8), this heavenly figure is “like a human being” (Dan 7:13). The Hebrew expression ben–­ʾadam occurs ninety-­four times in the book of Ezekiel, where the Lord never addresses the prophet by name, instead calling him “Human” (the NRSV uses “Mortal”). Likely, this title is meant to humble the prophet in comparison to the Divine (see Pss 49:2 and 62:9, where ben–­ʾadam refers to a person of low status, as contrasted

537

THE PROPHETS

with ben–­ʾis̆, which refers to a hero or a person of high status). Often in the mouth of Jesus, ʿoʿouios tou ʾanthropou (mechanistically, “the son of man”) was likewise an expression of Jesus’s humility and humanity (e.g., Matt 8:20; Mark 10:45; Luke 7:34; John 3:14; see also Eph 3:5, where this Greek expression means “humankind”).34 Researchers hotly debate whether Jesus also used the expression with reference to the apocalyptic Son of Man “coming with the clouds of heaven” in Daniel 7 and also associated with the start of God’s reign in the Similitudes of Enoch, part of the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., Mark 13:26–­27; Rev 1:7). Various scholars have argued the case for the historical authenticity of at least some of Jesus’s radical sayings about the Son of Man, pointing to the following texts: (1) Matthew 24:42–­44, Q Source, paralleled in 1 Thessalonians 5:2–­4; (2) Mark 8:38; (3) Mark 14:62; (4) 1 Thessalonians 4:15–­17.35 No consensus has emerged, but however one decides about Jesus’s apocalyptic self-­conception, certainly the early church was quick to see in Jesus’s use of this title parallels to Daniel’s (and Enoch’s) Son of Man. One key implication here is that the early Christians saw Daniel’s vision culminating not in the Greek era but in their own much later times.

arrogantly” (Dan 7:8; the Aramaic is milallil rabrĕbān, or “talking big”). The book’s original readers would have jumped to identify this horn as Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see Dan 8:23–­25).36 This one, Daniel is told, “shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law” (Dan 7:25)—­all of which Antiochus did. But not much time remained to this arrogant ruler: only “a time, two times, and half a time,” or three and a half years (Dan 7:25; in Aramaic, see Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32 [4:13, 20, 22, 29]; in the Hebrew portion of this book, see Dan 8:14; 9:27; 12:7, 11–­12). Then “the kingship and dominion and the greatness

538

DANIEL

of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the holy ones of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). But who are “the holy ones of the Most High”? John Collins argues that they are the heavenly host: the angelic armies led by the archangel Michael (meaning “one like God”; see Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1), who is “the one like a human being” in Daniel 7:13. After all, while the beasts represent kings and kingdoms, the Ancient One is God. Just so, Collins proposes, bar ʾĕnos̆ does not represent something else but is a heavenly being.37 In support of his reading, Collins notes, “The earliest interpretations and adaptations of the ‘one like a human being,’ Jewish and Christian alike, assume that the phrase refers to an individual and is not a symbol for a collective entity.”38 So in the Similitudes of Enoch (45:3; 62:3, 5), a Jewish apocalypse from the middle of the first century CE, the Son of Man is a future figure of glory, associated with the Day of the Lord. The term “Son of Man” is used this way in the Gospels (e.g., Mark 13:26–­27; 14:62) and in Revelation (1:13; 14:14), and of course Jesus frequently used this title to refer to himself. At Matthew 26:65, Jesus’s self-­identification with this future individual of glory evokes the charge of blasphemy. One thinks of the charge against Jesus in John 10:33: “You, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” But then readers in later contexts have reinterpreted other aspects of this vision in new ways; indeed, 4 Ezra reads, “The fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel . . . was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it” (2 Esd 12:11–­12). The first-­century CE Jewish apocalypse 4 Ezra (see 2 Esd 12:10–­12) and the book of Revelation (Rev 17:9) alike understood Daniel’s fourth beast to be, not Greece, but Rome. Perhaps Daniel’s interpreters have similarly shifted the role and identity of Daniel’s “one like a human being.” In Daniel 2 and 7, the triumph of God’s kingdom is certainly in view; however, Daniel’s people are surely meant to be the inheritors of that kingdom (see Dan 12:3). The meaning of Daniel 7:27 is that bar ʾĕnos̆ in Daniel 7:13 represents “the holy ones of the Most High”—­namely, Daniel’s faithful, pious community. Scholars

539

THE PROPHETS

continue to debate the merits of a collective interpretation of the bar ʾĕnos̆ over against its interpretation as a real individual, Israel’s transcendent representative.39 Like Daniel 7, Daniel 8 is a symbolic vision using animals to represent kingdoms and their horns to represent kings. Once more, the vision is interpreted for Daniel by an angel, but this time, the interpreter is the archangel Gabriel (“God is a hero”; Dan 8:16; see 9:20–­23; Luke 1:19, 26). In the vision, Daniel sees a fight between a ram and a he-­goat; in Gabriel’s interpretation, the ram is the kingdoms of Media and Persia, overwhelmed by Greece, represented by the he-­goat. The goat initially has one horn in the middle of its forehead (clearly, Alexander the Great), which is broken off and replaced by four horns (Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus). From one of these horns (Seleucus) comes “a little one, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the beautiful land” (Dan 8:9; see the “little horn” in Dan 7:8; this again is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ruler over the territory including “the beautiful land”—­that is, Israel). This time, the period of this arrogant and wicked ruler’s power is given as “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” (8:14)—­again, about three and a half years. The first two visions in Daniel 7–­12 were set in the reign of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1, 27), before the events of Daniel 5 and 6. Now the text returns to the time soon after the fall of Babylon, in the first year of Darius. Reading Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years of exile (see Jer 29:10; 25:11–­12), Daniel cannot understand why God’s promise has been delayed. Daniel’s second-­century BCE community was still surrounded by enemies; many were seduced away from the traditions of Israel, while those who held firmly to the old ways were violently persecuted. So in “prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes” (Dan 9:3), Daniel offers a corporate confession for all Israel, recognizing that as an Israelite, he shares responsibility for the sins of his people (Dan 9:4–­6). Daniel’s prayer sounds important themes from elsewhere in Scripture. The expression “great and awesome God” (haʾēl haggādôl

540

DANIEL

wĕhannôrāʾ; Dan 9:4) is found in Jeremiah 32:18 (“O great and mighty God”; haʾēl haggādôl haggibôr) and in Nehemiah 1:5 (nearly word for word the same as the prayer opening in Dan 9:4) and 9:32 (which addresses the Lord as “the great and mighty and awesome God”; haʾēl haggādôl haggibôr wĕhannôrāʾ ). The list of those Daniel says did not listen to the prophets (Dan 9:6) is very similar to the list of those for whom Nehemiah prays (Neh 9:32; note that the word śar, “official” in Neh 9:32, is translated “prince” in Dan 9:6). In Deuteronomy 5:10, the Lord promises to show “steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments” (see Exod 20:6; Jer 32:18), just as in Daniel 9:4. The closest parallel, however, is with Deuteronomy 7:9. The phrase translated “who maintains covenant loyalty” in the NRSV of Deuteronomy 7:9 is in Hebrew nearly identical to the phrase translated “keeping covenant and steadfast love” in Daniel 9:4. In fact, one could argue that the same translation should be used in Daniel 9:4, as the word usually translated “steadfast love” (ḥeseḏ) has the sense of commitment and loyalty. In short, the language of Daniel’s prayer uses the covenant commitment language of Deuteronomy and related texts (such as Jeremiah and Nehemiah). While Daniel is still praying, his answer comes by means of the messenger angel Gabriel (Dan 9:20–­23). The true, hidden meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy is that the seventy years were actually seventy weeks of years: seventy seven-­year periods, or 490 years (Dan 9:24–­27). Daniel’s second-­century BCE community, then, is living in the last days of Israel’s shame, after which God will act in power to redeem God’s people. The final movement of this book is the report of a grand apocalyptic vision in Daniel 10–­12. The report opens with the overwhelming vision that came to Daniel after three weeks of mourning and fasting (Dan 10:1–­3). The vision (Dan 10:4–­9) is reminiscent in form and content of Ezekiel’s first vision (see Ezek 1). The human figure Daniel sees is not identified: although the parallels with Ezekiel suggest it may be the Lord, in the conversation that follows, an unnamed angel (perhaps Gabriel) offers comfort and reassurance, so perhaps that is whom

541

THE PROPHETS

Daniel has seen (see Dan 12:5–­7). The intermediary assures Daniel that at the very beginning of his three-­week fast, an answer to his prayers had been sent, but the messenger was delayed by a conflict in heaven: Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-­one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and have come to help you understand what is to happen to your people at the end of days. For there is a further vision for those days. (Dan 10:12–­14)

Clearly, “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” is no earthly power but the spiritual representative of Israel’s adversaries, as Michael is the spiritual representative of Israel. Earthly conflict is in some significant measure the reflection of this ontologically separate, heavenly reality—­a plane of existence that is separate from history and from autonomous human agency. Again, there arise provocative interpretive questions about the extent to which Daniel embraces the determinism and pessimism that many modern scholars attribute to it. Where some see a worrisome devaluation of human history and agency in Daniel, others find revelations about transpersonal evil and crucial grounds for the social critique of such present “powers” as blind consumerism, the Pax Americana, and embedded racism. In the chapters that follow, the history of Persia’s decline and fall, Greece’s rise, and the sorry history of Antiochus IV is retold (see the discussion in “Historical Setting” above). While no names are used, this vision of “future” history is otherwise quite straightforward, lacking the reliance on metaphor and symbol in Daniel, chapters 2, 7, and 8. But in the concluding unit, Daniel 11:36–­45, the course of the vision no longer fits the history of Antiochus. The vision predicts steadily greater victories for “the king of the north” until his defeat at the hands of the archangel Michael and until the heavenly armies (Dan 12:1) usher in the kingdom of God, in which death itself would be overcome: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting

542

DANIEL

life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:2–­3; see Isa 25:7–­8). Stephen Cook proposes that the Daniel authors were not reporting the history of Antiochus here but peering into the future, drawing perhaps on the apocalyptic prophecy about Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38–­39.40 If, as seems likely, they expected to see God’s reign come to earth in their lives, then the Daniel group was wrong. Although Jerusalem was liberated and Antiochus IV’s oppression came to an end, these victories came about within history, not beyond it. The angelic armies of Michael did not appear, and the dead were not raised to life. But since the meaning of a biblical text does not hinge on its authors’ expectations, the faithful treasured the vision as awaiting future fulfillment. The book’s concluding verses wrestle with the stubborn failure of the world to end, as “one thousand two hundred ninety days” (12:11) give way to “the thousand three hundred thirty-­five days” (12:12), which in turn give way to the indefinite assurance “But you, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days” (Dan 12:13). The world did not end in three and a half years, nor has it ended in the 2,200 years since Daniel was written. Should the passage of centuries allow readers of Daniel to relax about any imminent epiphany of the eschaton? One notable Jewish prophet, preaching about two hundred years after Daniel’s composition, did not believe so. He told the Jewish high priest of the time that he—­namely, Caiaphas—­would personally see Daniel’s Son of Man “coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64). Certainly, in the eyes of later communities of faith, Jewish and Christian, Daniel’s visions and legends continued to speak hope into confusing or desperate circumstances. In the confession that God is in control of history and that God is opposed to evil and oppression in the world, Daniel speaks powerfully to our time and to all times.

543

THE PROPHETS

Notes 1 John Collins, “Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 9. 2 More accurately, Dan 7–­12 fits this description; Dan 1–­6 may be better described as court tales. Still, we should note that Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams (Dan 2; 4) also contain apocalyptic elements. 3 The name used in Ezek 26:7; 29:18–­19; 30:10 and twenty-­nine times in Jeremiah is “Nebuchadrezzar.” In Scripture, “Nebuchadnezzar” is used elsewhere: not only in Daniel but also in in Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Apocrypha, as well as in Jer 27:6, 8, 20; 28:3, 11, 14; 29:1, 3. The form preferred in Ezekiel and Jeremiah is closer to the Akkadian Nabu-­kudurri-­ utsur (Nabu, protect my offspring); outside of Scripture, the form “Nebuchadnezzar” is attested only once. 4 J. J. M. Roberts, “A Christian Perspective on Prophetic Prediction,” Int 33 (1979): 240–­53. 5 André LaCocque, The Book of Daniel, trans. David Pellauer (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 80–­81. 6 Steven S. Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, IBC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 231–­33, 243. 7 See HALOT, 4:1608. 8 Steven S. Tuell, Reading Nahum–­Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the Old Testament (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 188–­89. 9 Historical criticism sees Daniel’s sequence of kingdoms culminating in the Seleucids, but the texts of Dan 2 and Dan 7 never specify the exact name of the empire of the last days. Josephus, Jesus, and many others understood the visions not as culminating in Greece but as pointing ahead to the future. This is a place where a historical-critical approach and a canonical approach will move in different directions. For an introduction to a canonical interpretation of Daniel’s sequence of kingdoms, see Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003). 10 Stephen L. Cook, “Introduction and Annotations to Daniel,” in The CEB Study Bible with Apocrypha, ed. J. B. Green (Nashville: Common English Bible, 2013), 1395–­423 (OT section). 11 See Robert R. Wilson, “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of Israelite Religion,” Semeia 21 (1981): 81–­83, 88. 12 Cook, Apocalyptic Literature, 145–­47. 13 E.g., Alexander Di Lella, who proposed that while the book was written in Aramaic, the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew “to ensure that the book would receive canonical recognition” (Louis F. Hartman and

544

DANIEL

14 15 16 17

18 19

20

21 22

23

24 25

Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AYB 23 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978], 14). W. Sibley Towner, “Introduction and Footnotes to Daniel,” in HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV), ed. Harold Attridge (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2006), 1169. Amy Merrill Willis, Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the Book of Daniel, LHBOTS (New York: T&T Clark, 2010). Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 1–­24, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 447–­50. In Hebrew, the names are spelled differently: Dnʾl (perhaps Danʾēl [?]) in Ezek, Dnyʾl (with the vowel markers, Danîyēʾl) in Daniel. Still, the latter is provided by the scribes in the margins of Ezekiel as the form to be read, despite the consonantal text. Michael Coogan, ed. and trans., Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1978), 35. Some propose that Dan 1–­6 dates to relatively calm Ptolemaic times, whereas Dan 7–­14 comes out of the darker Seleucid era. Initially, Dan 1–­6 would have helped Diaspora bureaucrats deal with court intrigue and inanity, but not with real persecution. Of course, by the time the book as a whole emerged, active hostility was at issue. HALOT, 3:985; Koehler and Baumgartner observe that the hyphenation (inserted by the scribes) suggests that the first element in this unique expression was thought to be the Hebrew word pat, meaning “morsel” (mentioned fifteen times, e.g., in Gen 18:5; Lev 2:6; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam 2:36). John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 163. The Aramaic word used here, ṣĕlēm, is found in an ancient inscription (perhaps ninth or tenth century BCE) on a memorial statue from Tell Fekhariyeh in Syria, where it describes the statue as a portrait, the “image” of Adad-­it’i, governor of Guzan, Sikan, and Azran (see A. R. Millard and P. Bordreuil, “A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscriptions,” BA 45 [1982]: 135–­42). This term is closely related to the Hebrew ṣelem (image), used in Gen 1:26–­27 for the creation of human beings “in the image of God.” The NRSV rendering “statue” is appropriate. For a differing view, see Roy L. Heller, “‘But If Not’ What? The Speech of the Youths in Daniel 3 and a (Theo)Logical Problem,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. Stephen L. Cook and John J. Ahn, LHBOTS 502 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 244–­55. ANET, 306. See Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 172. The Aramaic is ʿidānîn, “times,” in Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32 (4:13, 20, 22, 29); but see 7:25, where ʿidān means “year.”

545

THE PROPHETS

26 According to Herodotus (Hist. 3.89–­94), Darius divided the empire into twenty satrapies, not 120, as in Dan 6:1. See Esth 1:1, where Ahasuerus is said to rule “over one hundred twenty-­seven provinces from India to Ethiopia”; note that the Greek text of Dan 6:1 as well counts 127 satrapies. 27 Steven S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–­48, HSM 49 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 87–­89. 28 Michael B. Dick, “The Neo-­Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Yahweh’s Answer to Job,” JBL 125 (2006): 243–­70. 29 Daniel Smith-­Christopher, “The Book of Daniel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander Keck, vol. 7 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 91. 30 Cited in Smith-­Christopher, 94. 31 Smith-­Christopher, 94. 32 Collins, Daniel, 289. 33 Collins, “Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” 9. 34 Walter Wink, The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 30–­34. 35 See Stephen L. Cook, “Apocalypticism and the Jesus Group,” in The Apocalyptic Literature, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 148–­67. 36 Some have argued that the “little horn,” and so the application of the vision specifically to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is a later insertion: e.g., Merrill Willis, Dissonance, 80–­89, 183. Be that as it may, Daniel nowhere speaks of Antiochus by name and the reign of God demonstrably did not commence after his downfall. Although the spirit of the little horn surfaced during Maccabean times in the deeds of Antiochus, he did not exhaust the application of Daniel’s vision. The first readers of Mark 13 experienced the same apocalyptic spirit in Caligula and Titus, and Rev 13, written later still, looked to a still-­future little horn to fulfill Daniel’s words (see also 2 Thess 2:3–­5). 37 Collins, Daniel, 304–­10. Collins’s arguments for an individual being may be strong, but his identification of that being as an angel (Michael) is fragile. In ancient Near Eastern imagery, the rider of the Divine Warrior’s cloud-­ chariot is fully divine, not a mere angel (e.g., Ps 68:4; Nah 1:3; ANET, 134; see John 10:33). 38 Collins, Daniel, 306. 39 W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 105–­6; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 218–­20. Smith-­Christopher (“Daniel,” 104–­5) observes that Michael is Israel’s heavenly representative and that the war of the “holy ones” here involves both the heavenly host and the earthly community as well. Later in the book, Dan 12:3 may present a collective, communal interpretation of Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord (Isa 53): See Harold L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,”

546

DANIEL

VT 3 (1953): 400–­404; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, HTS 26 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 24; Stephen L. Cook, “An Interpretation of the Death of Isaiah’s Servant,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 123–­24. 40 S. Cook, Ezekiel 38–­48: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 22B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 78–­79. Certainly, Daniel and the Gog apocalypse share a common perspective on the end of history (see Steven S. Tuell, Ezekiel, Understanding the Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012], 266–­67; and Rev 20:7–­10).

547

Glossary

acrostic: A text that is arranged according to the order of the alphabet (or portions of it) or perhaps spelling out a word or phrase. In an acrostic, the first letter or sound of a line of the poem corresponds to a particular letter of the alphabet. (See also sidebar 12.3, “The Acrostic Poem,” p. 402.) anthropomorphic: Having human form and characteristics. This term is often applied to certain presentations of God in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., God walking about in the garden, Gen 3:8). apocalyptic/apocalypse: Apocalyptic refers to a dualistic theological perspective, with an emphasis upon the end and renewal of the physical, earthly realm and a universal judgment. An apocalypse, meaning “revelation,” is a genre of literature emerging full blown in the Hellenistic age (e.g., Dan 7–­12; the New Testament book of Revelation) in which an otherworldly being discloses a transcendent reality on a collision course with earthly history. The genre has antecedents in earlier apocalyptic prophecy (e.g., Isa 24–­27; Ezek 38–­39; Zech 14), which is characterized by the reutilization of earlier mythic imagery and themes in service of a highly radical eschatology. (See also the excursus “The Rise of Apocalyptic Prophecy in Israel,” p. 69.)

549

GLOSSARY

Babylon: The Mesopotamian empire that replaced Assyria in the region and overthrew Jerusalem in a series of conquests and deportations. Babylonian exile: The forced migrations and captivity of major populations from Jerusalem and its environs in the early sixth century BCE, spanning roughly the years from 597 BCE to 538 BCE. Book of the Four: An early version of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah that was edited together as a cohesive collection of texts, perhaps in the late seventh or early sixth century. (See also the excursus “The Book of the Four,” p. 55, and sidebar 2.3, “Kings Cited in the Superscripts of the Prophets of the Book of the Four,” p. 55.) Book of the Twelve: A term applied to the prophetic books Hosea through Malachi, carrying with it the connotation that these books were edited together and should in some sense be read as a unit. Canaanites: Residents of the land of Canaan, occupying the territory during the Late Bronze Age (1550–­1200 BCE) before Israel’s settlement and then coming into conflict with the emerging Hebrew smallholders in the highlands. The city-­state of Ugarit was north of Canaan proper, but its polytheistic religion and culture were like those of the Canaanites. canonical shape/shaping: Refers to the influence of other biblical texts and traditions upon specific passages, once these passages are included within the canon—­that is to say, the authoritative texts of a faith community. Canonical shaping considers the transformational effect other biblical passages have upon an interpretation of a text, once that text is read within the literary setting of the Bible as a defined collection, outside of its original historical setting. Day of the Lord: In the liturgy of the temple and traditions of the Divine Warrior, the appearance within history of the Lord and his

550

GLOSSARY

hosts to defeat his enemies. In later biblical texts, the Lord’s “day” is an eschatological event of universal divine judgment. Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Manuscripts of the Bible and documents of the apocalyptic community at Khirbet Qumran found near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between 1946 and 1956. The collection contains the earliest copies of many sections of the Hebrew Bible. Deuteronomic reform: The reform carried out during the reign of Josiah (640–­609), based on the laws now collected in the foundational layer of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomistic History: A scholarly designation for the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, since their language, style, and theology are akin to that of Deuteronomy. (See also the glossary entry “Former Prophets” and sidebar 4.1, “Terms for Deuteronomistic Traditions,” p. 138.) Deuteronomists: Authors and redactors (editors) working with the diction and valuing the theological tenets codified in the book of Deuteronomy. disputation: A genre of prophetic literature presenting an interchange between people and prophet, in which the prophet counters charges made by the people against God or against the prophet. Divine Warrior: A concept of the divine in the ancient world where a deity is envisioned engaging in battle against cosmic enemies, especially the cosmic chaos dragon. In ancient Israel, this way of envisioning the Lord is prominent in conquest narratives, enthronement psalms, prophecies, and other genres. ecstasy: In some traditions, prophets experience trance-­like states, entering an altered state of consciousness that they associate with

551

GLOSSARY

possession by a preternatural spirit or other contact and communication from the divine realm. Such prophets are sometimes referred to as ecstatic prophets in the secondary literature. elders: Traditional tribal leaders of agrarian social groups holding juridical and administrative authority. Elephantine papyri: Aramaic documents and fragments from the postexile Jewish colony at Elephantine, an Egyptian island in the Nile River opposite Aswan. eschatology: Traditions, beliefs, and prophecies about a future culmination of the present course of history, a future significantly discontinuous from the present. Whereas prophetic eschatology looks to a culmination of divine purposes within history, apocalyptic eschatology looks to the interruption of historical existence in the earthly realm. exegesis: Disciplined, close textual analysis that seeks to draw out legitimate meaning from a biblical passage. Some scholars limit exegesis to a grammatical-­historical reading, but others understand it may utilize a broader range of disciplines. Exegesis aims at discovering meaning authentic to the text, as opposed to a message that a (modern) audience might read into the text (i.e., eisegesis). Because of its interest in the ancient meaning of the text, exegesis is often understood as a historical tool used by scholars to investigate ancient Israel’s past. exile/exilic: The major deportation and forced migration of many Judeans, who were led captive to Babylonia in two major stages (597 and 586 BCE). Various biblical texts conceptualize the exilic era differently, but modern scholars typically date it from roughly 597 (or 586) to 538 (or 515). See also the glossary entry “postexilic era.”

552

GLOSSARY

Former Prophets: The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, according to the Hebrew divisions and ordering of books in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible / Tanak. The Former Prophets constitute the first part of the division of the Tanak known as the Nevi’im (Prophets). (See also “Latter Prophets.”) Holiness School (HS): A compositional source in the Pentateuch deriving from a priestly group (probably the “Zadokites”; see below) concerned with the holiness of the community beyond the confines of the sanctuary and its rites. Kābôd (Presence): The NJPS translation for God’s kābôd, followed here (“glory” in the NRSV). In some biblical traditions, God’s kābôd is envisioned as the visible aura or effulgence identified with God’s power and presence and is therefore associated with theophany. In other biblical traditions, God’s kābôd appears as an embodiment of the deity. Latter Prophets: The second part of the Nevi’im (Prophets) division of the Tanak. The collection includes the so-­called Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) and the Book/Scroll of the Twelve (sometimes called the Minor Prophets). Levant / southern Levant: Most broadly, the Levant designates the eastern Mediterranean region of southwest Asia and so the area stretching roughly from the northern border of modern Syria to the southern boundary of the Sinai Peninsula. The geographic region occupied by ancient Israel, Judah, and their neighbors is often referred to as the southern Levant. Levites / Levitical priesthood: A priestly line that according to the biblical texts descended from Levi and so included Moses and Aaron as the people’s ancestral relatives and was associated with Deuteronomistic traditions. They did not possess a tribal territorial holding.

553

GLOSSARY

Lord of Hosts (Yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt): A royal title for Israel’s national deity and Divine King, associated with the ark of the covenant and with Zion. It is often associated with Divine Warrior language and imagery. LXX / Septuagint: The Greek translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible, dating roughly to the third century BCE. Marduk: The patron god of Babylon, celebrated for his primordial victory over the chaos dragon Tiamat. massah / maśśāʾ: A Hebrew word literally meaning “burden,” often used in the literature to identify a prophetic oracle. messenger formula: The expression “Thus says the Lord,” setting the speaker or prophet in the role of a messenger from God. (See also sidebar 2.1, “The Messenger Formula,” p. 32.) monolatry: The practice of exclusive fealty to a nation’s deity, even if the existence of other gods is recognized. In Israel’s case, monolatry refers to Israel’s allegiance to the Lord, forsaking other gods. Mosaic prophet: A defined administrative office held by a prophet who was understood to have inherited the role and authority of Moses. See Deuteronomy 18:15–­19. MT / Masoretic Text: The scribal tradition of a particular Jewish family of scribes located in Tiberias. They preserved and copied certain Hebrew texts of the biblical books. The extant exemplars of their scribal activity date to the tenth century CE. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is based on the Leningrad Codex and is the Masoretic Text used in modern translations. (See also sidebar 4.5, “The Masoretes,” p. 162.) nabi / nābîʾ: The Hebrew word typically translated “prophet.”

554

GLOSSARY

Nevi’im (Prophets): In Judaism, the second of three major divisions of the Tanak (the Hebrew Bible). It includes the Former Prophets followed immediately by the Latter Prophets. novella: A brief narrative or story with a cohesive theme (e.g., Jonah). oracles against the nations: A set of oracles that on their surface were directed to nations other than the prophet’s own nation (e.g., oracles against Moab, Edom) but whose message is intended for the prophet’s immediate audience. P967: A Greek-­language codex dating to the late second or early third century CE, which contains portions of Ezekiel, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, and Esther. The contents were in places arranged differently from the order found in the Masoretic Text, and the texts contained as well noticeable omissions. People of the Land: In the monarchic period, a moniker for influential agrarian stakeholders supportive of Deuteronomistic reforms. In the Persian period, the phrase relates to nonelite agrarian communities judged by some as unfit for full inclusion in temple-­based worship. postexilic era: The era of return and restoration of the Judean exiles in the homeland following their Babylonian captivity. Repatriation took place in waves starting with the permission of Persian king Cyrus in 538 BCE to return and rebuild. In this era, which begins the Second Temple period, Judah reemerged as a political entity, the Persian province of Yehud. preexilic era: The (largely Iron Age) period from the settlement of Canaan to the Babylonian exile, consisting (in broad terms) of the village era (beginning in the late thirteenth century BCE), the united monarchy, the divided monarchy, and the persistence of Judah alone before its defeat by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE.

555

GLOSSARY

Priestly Torah (PT): A compositional source in the Pentateuch deriving from a priestly group (probably the Aaronides) concerned with God’s otherness over against all that is human and terrestrial and stressing reverence as the appropriate human response to God’s self-­revelation. primate city: The dominant city in a geographical region. After Sennacherib’s campaign at the end of the eighth century, Jerusalem was the primate city for Judah. Proto-­Deuteronomistic: Incipient or nascent Deuteronomistic think­­ ing, theology, and literary activity predating the appearance in writing of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. Proto-­Deuteronomistic traditions tend to be oriented on the bilateral covenant of Mount Sinai and on Moses’s roles of covenant intermediary and ideal prophet. recension: An editorial revision of a literary work based on the critical examination of the text and the sources used; or a version of a text resulting from such revision. redaction: An editorial process where sources (sometimes multiple) are spliced together or expanded to create a layered, usually enriched, final document. Many scholars believe the books of Joshua–­Kings underwent a process of redaction by Deuteronomistic editors. Sitz im Leben: A German term identifying the social location (e.g., royal court, temple, instruction within the clan, etc.) of stock phrases or forms of literature (genres). Suzerain: The superior party, usually a triumphant king, in ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties, to whom a subordinate political power (see “Vassal”) swears fealty. The two-­party covenant between God and Israel said to have been negotiated on Mount Sinai parallels the suzerainty treaty.

556

GLOSSARY

syncretism: In Israelite religion, the combining of covenantal allegiance to the Lord with beliefs and practices associated with competing deities, such as Baal and Milcom. Talmud: The foundational work of rabbinic Judaism, understood as the authoritative transmission of the Jewish oral tradition associated with the Hebrew Bible. The Babylonian Talmud came together in the third through sixth centuries CE built upon the structure of the Mishnah, an organized collection of rabbinic tradition edited around 200 CE. Tanak: The common Jewish name for the Hebrew Bible, derived from the acronym for Torah, “T”; Nevi’im, “N”; and Ketuvim, “K.” Targum: A designation for Aramaic translations of biblical texts composed in early rabbinic times. Targum Onkelos to the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets are official rabbinic Targumim composed in Babylonia. tenor: With regard to a metaphor, the “tenor” is the meaning, message, or reality standing behind the surface image (i.e., the vehicle; see below) and that is intended to be illuminated by the metaphorical image. terminus ante quem: The latest point in time when a text or artifact would most plausibly have been created. terminus post quem: The earliest point in time when a text or artifact would most plausibly have been created. This term and terminus ante quem are often used in tandem to describe a historical window for the composition of a text.

557

GLOSSARY

theocentric: A text or tradition that focuses singularly and noticeably upon God and God’s perspective and prerogative. theocracy: As applied to ancient Near Eastern nation-­states, theocracy refers to the understanding that the state was led by a national deity (e.g., the Lord of Hosts was the Divine King over Israel and Judah), with the nation’s king (e.g., the Davidic dynasty) serving as the deity’s earthly regent or viceroy. theodicy: The problem of reconciling God’s power and goodness with the existence of evil and unjust suffering in the world. tradent: A bearer of tradition; a member of a circle, school, or other segment of society who preserves and passes on traditions of value to group members. Urim and Thummin: Sacred lots used by Israel’s priests in divinatory rituals (e.g., Exod 28:30; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41). vassal: The subservient, inferior party, usually a defeated king, in ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties, who swears fealty to a superior Suzerain (see above). In exchange for loyalty, the vassal may receive certain benefits, such as protection, along with the promise of peace and the cessation of hostilities. vehicle: With regard to a metaphor, the “vehicle” is the surface image of the metaphor, which is intended to illuminate a particular meaning, message, or reality (i.e., the tenor; see above) standing behind the image. Vorlage: This German term refers to a prior version or manifestation of a text under consideration. It may refer to such a version of a text itself, a particular manuscript of a text, or a more complex manifestation of a text.

558

GLOSSARY

Yehud: In Israel’s postexilic period, the Persian province located in the former territories of Israel and Judah, whose administrative center was Jerusalem. Zadokites: A priestly line tracing back in the biblical texts to Zadok, one of King David’s chief priests. They were closely aligned with the temple in Jerusalem and the Holiness School (see above). Zion theology: Traditions and theology preserved and transmitted by the Jerusalem priesthood and associated prophets, asserting that the Lord was enthroned as the Divine King in the holy of holies of the temple, which rested on the peak of Mount Zion, and that the Davidic king was God’s earthly regent. Also referred to as ( Jerusalemite or Davidic) royal theology in the scholarly literature.

559

Image Credits

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 3.1 3.2

Wikimedia Commons / Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, Toronto University Wencelaus Hollar Digital Collection / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / National Gallery of Art, Samuel Kress Collection. Wikimedia Commons / Google Art Project. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / photograph by David Castor of the artifact kept at the British Museum, London. Wikimedia Commons / photograph by Steven G. Johnson / British Museum Collection, London. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Wikimedia Commons / Tamar Hayadeni / CC BY 3.0. Copyright © Fortress Press. Wikimedia Commons / David Castor, photographer. Copyright © Fortress Press. Copyright © Fortress Press. Wikimedia Commons / Google Art Project / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0 International license. Wikimedia Commons / Vatican Museums / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / Ardon Bar Hama, photographer / public domain.

561

IMAGE CREDITS

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13

562

Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Wikimedia Commons / Oren Rozen / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0 International license. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Wikimedia Commons / GNU Free Documentation License / Ben Pirard at ni.wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / the Saragossa Museum. Wikimedia Commons / public domain / from The Story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: Told in Simple Language, 1873. Wikimedia Commons / IsraelTourism / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Courtesy of the Richard C. Kessler Reformation Collection, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Reprinted by permission. Courtesy of the Richard C. Kessler Reformation Collection, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Copyright © Fortress Press. Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons license 4.0 / Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP (Glasgow). Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. The British Museum, London / Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons license 4.0 / Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP (Glasgow). Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Drawing by Stephen Cook. Used by permission. Wikimedia Commons / public domain / Walters Art Museum. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / British Museum, London / public domain.

IMAGE CREDITS

5.14 5.15 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2

The Bones Come Alive / Copyright © Peggy Parker. Used with permission. Used by permission of the artist, Margaret Wohler. Wikimedia Commons / RobytBS89 / public domain. Photograph by John T. Strong. Used by permission. Wikimedia Commons / public domain / Jastrow. Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons License 4.0 / Osama Shukit Muhammed Amin FRCP (Glasgow). IStock Photos / sedmak. Wikimedia Commons / public domain / National Library of Wales. Wikimedia Commons / public domain / Yorck Project / GNU Free Documentation License. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / CC Attribution-­Share Alike 3.0 / Neptuul. Courtesy US National Park Service. Wikimedia Commons / U Penn Library E3074. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. IStock Photos / ZU_09. Israel Museum, Jerusalem / photo by Chamberi in black and white / Wikimedia / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Wikimedia Commons / BabelStone / British Museum, London. Wikimedia Commons / photograph by ‫ יעקב‬/ Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0 International license / modified to b/w. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. IStock Photos / ZU_09. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Photograph by Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​ .com. Wikimedia Commons / National Library of Portugal ALC.455, fl.298v / public domain. The British Museum, London / Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0 / International / Osama Shukir Amin FRCP (Glasgow).

563

IMAGE CREDITS

11.3 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 17.1 17.2 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4

564

Wikimedia Commons / public domain. British Museum, London. Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0 / International / photograph by Michael Peel (www​.mikepeel​.net). British Museum, London / Wikimedia Commons 1.0 / BabelStone. British Museum, London / Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0 / International / photograph by Michael Peel (www​.mikepeel​.net). Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Wikimedia Commons / Courtesy Museum of London. Wikimedia Commons / Jastrow / Department of Near Eastern Antiquities, the Louvre. Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International / Bukvoed. Photo © Ian Scott. Rights reserved under Creative Commons License 2.0. / modified to black and white. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / British Museum, London / photograph by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP (Glasgow) / Creative Commons Attribution-­Share Alike 4.0. Wikimedia Commons / Louvre Museum. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Chronicle / Alamy Stock Photo. Copyright © Zev Radovan, Jerusalem / BibleLandPictures​.com. Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art / public domain. Wikimedia Commons 2.0 / photo by Patrick C, known as dynamomosquito on Flikr. Wikimedia Commons / public domain. Copyright © Fortress Press. Image © José Luiz Bernardes Ribeiro / CC BY-­SA 4.0 / Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons / KwHrZKhuTM_6rA at Google Cultural Institute.

IMAGE CREDITS

18.5 18.6 18.7

Wikimedia Commons / public domain / scanned from L’Art Armenien, Sirarpie Der Nersessian, Flammarion, 1989, p. 130. Wikimedia Commons / Blake Archive. “Belshazzar’s Feast” by Rembrandt van Rijn (1636–­38) / Wikimedia Commons / www​.nationalgallery​.org/​uk.

565

Author Index

Page numbers followed by f refer to figures.

Aaron, Charles L., 370n7

Beit-­Arieh, Itzhaq, 353n4

Abusch, Tzvi, 129n33

Benjamin, Don C., 336n17

Achtemeier, Elizabeth, 360, 370n6,

Berlin, Adele, 427, 432n14, 446n3,

409n9

447n13

Ackroyd, Peter, 466n9

Berquist, Jon L., 131n47, 508n2

Adams, Henry, 345, 354n8

Beuken, W. A. M., 133n64, 466n9

Adams, Samuel L., 508n9

Biddle, Mark E., 277n19

Albertz, Rainer, 77n27, 278n39

Blake, William, 225f, 402, 531f

Allen, Leslie C., 161, 171, 189n38

Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 129n24, 129n28,

Alter, Robert, 24, 77n28, 189n47 Assis, Eliyahu, 301n3

129n31, 132n59, 132n61 Block, Daniel I., 545n16 Blomquist, Tina Haettner, 277n14 Boda, Mark J., 28n19

Baker, David W., 354n5, 354n13

Bodi, Daniel, 220, 242n16

Bakhtin, Mikhail, 242n18

Bolton, Francis, 409n8

Barstad, Hans M., 78n35, 188n28

Bordreuil, P., 545n22

Barton, John, 339, 350, 353n1

Bosshard, Erich, 132n62

Baumgartner, Walter, 545n20

Bowen, Nancy E., 241n14

Bechtel, Carol B. (Reynolds), 507

Bracher, Robert G., 127n2

Beckman, Gary, 354n9

Brettler, Marc Zvi, 353n2

567

AUTHOR INDEX

Bright, John, 136, 152, 161, 163, 186n1, 187n12, 188n30, 188n37, 189n41

277n20, 278n38, 279n51, 301n6, 302n8, 327–­28, 337n24, 377,

Broome, Edwin C., Jr., 239n1

393nn1–­3, 393n10, 409n12, 431n3,

Buber, Martin, 113, 131nn44–­45

447n11, 456, 467n12, 467n17,

Burrows, Millar, 361, 370n8

493n10, 508n3, 509n11, 522, 543,

Byron, Lord George, 97, 100

544nn9–­10, 544n12, 545n23, 546n35, 547nn39–­40 Cowley, Arthur, 132n56

Calvin, John, 364

Cox, Daniel, 133n69

Cargal, Timothy B., 370n7

Crim, Keith, 76n21

Carr, David McLain, 276n4, 499, 508n6

Cross, Frank Moore, 76n24, 279n47,

Carroll, Robert P., 21, 28n14, 140, 141,

467n23

144, 187nn5–­6 Carter, Charles E., 78nn39–­40, 492n3 Carvalho, Corrine L. (Patton), 241n15, 409n3

Davies, Philip R., 78n22, 78n35, 188n34

Cataldo, Jeremiah W., 78n40, 492n3

Davis, Ellen F., 8, 27n6, 28n13, 240n5

Childs, Brevard, 25–­26, 28nn21–­22, 99,

De Jonge, Henk Jan, 240n8

127n4, 129n24, 129nn26–­28, 129n36,

Delitzsch, Franz, 301n4, 409n8

130n40, 130n42, 133n64, 200, 240n7,

Demsky, A., 28n19

278n39, 360, 370n5, 371n21

Dick, Michael B., 409n11, 546n28

Christensen, Duane L., 335n5

Dietrich, Walter, 436, 446n3, 447nn5–­6

Clements, Ronald E., 133n63, 306,

Di Lella, Alexander A., 544n13,

335n6

545n25, 546n39

Clendenen, Ray, 509n11

Dimant, Devorah, 243n24

Clines, David J. A., 131n44

Döderlein, J. C., 82

Collins, Adela Yarbro, 128n19

Duhm, Bernhard, 75n11, 130n40,

Collins, John J., 78n38, 539, 544n1, 545n21, 546nn32–­33, 546nn37–­38

132n53 Dürr, Lorenz, 290, 302n8

Coogan, Michael, 545n18 Cook Stephen L., 75n12, 122, 128n22, 129n23, 130n36, 132n53, 132n67,

Eichorn, J. G., 82

147, 176, 188n26, 189n45, 189n49,

Eidevall, Göran, 327, 337n19, 337n23,

216f, 240n4, 274, 276nn6–­9,

568

337n27, 338n28

AUTHOR INDEX

Eliade, Mircea, 457, 467n13

Halpern, Baruch, 189n43

Everson, A. Joseph, 324, 337n22, 447n7

Hamori, Esther J., 7–­8, 27n5, 37, 76n18, 219, 241n14 Hanson, Paul D., 69, 77, 122,

Fabry, Heinz-­Josef, 409n7

131nn49–­50, 132n52, 132n62,

Fishbane, Michael, 132n63

133nn65–­66, 133n68, 187n2,

Fitzgerald, Aloysius, 277n19, 286,

467n22

301n3 Fretheim, Terrence E., 141–­42, 145–­46, 187n11, 188n22, 189n46, 277n17, 278n30, 279n53, 431n3 Friedman, Richard Elliott (R. E.), 78n23, 130n39, 188n23

Hartman, Louis F., 544n13, 545n25, 546n39 Hayes, John H., 188n24, 189n41, 277n13, 277n16, 279nn40–­41, 336n12, 394n11 Heller, Roy L., 545n23

Frost, Stanley Brice, 190n57

Hendel, Ronald S., 128n15

Frye, Northrop, 362, 371n10

Heschel, Abraham J., 258, 277n18, 370, 371n23, 422–­23, 424–­25, 428, 431n3, 431nn7–­10, 432n15

Galambush, Julie, 241n15, 277n21

Hibbert, Philip M., 242n16

Gandhi, Mohandas K. (Mahatma), 535

Hillers, Delbert R., 379, 393n6

Garbini, G., 371, 492n2

Hoffmann, Yair, 324, 337n22

Gerstenberger, Erhard, 482, 493n7

Holbert, John C., 371n9

Gifford, Paul, 467n19

Holladay, John S., Jr., 75n6, 128n10

Ginsberg, Harold L., 546n39

Holladay, William L., 131n46, 144–­45,

Goldingay, John, 399, 409n5, 451, 466n4

186, 187nn2–­3, 187nn17–­19,

Graf, Karl Heinrich, 27n7

188n21, 190n57

Gray, John, 11–­12, 26n11, 27n11, 129n25

Hollar, Wencelaus, 6f

Greenberg, Moshe, 76n15, 241n14,

Holloway, Steven, 129n25

243n27

Holt, Else K., 140–­41, 187nn7–­10

Gressmann, Hugo, 290, 302n7

Horn, Siegfried, 128n8

Gunkel, Hermann, 133n73

Hundley, Michael B., 279n43, 467n14

Hallaschka, Martin, 466n9

Iersel, Bas van, 133n64

Halperin, David J., 240n1

Irwin, Brian, 78n36

569

AUTHOR INDEX

Ishida, Tomoo, 547n39

Lemche, Niels Peter, 78n35

Iswolsky, Helene, 242n18

Lemos, T. M., 509n11 Leuchter, Mark, 9, 27n8, 75n10, 76n16, 187n4, 188n33, 338n30, 506,

Jacobs, Mignon R., 509n12 Japhet, Sara, 394n13 Jauhiainen, Marko, 484, 493n8

508n3, 509n12 Levenson, Jon D., 75n13, 77n29, 235, 243nn25–­26, 276n7, 301n5

Jennens, Charles, 460, 461

Lewis, C. S., 206, 240n9, 492n4, 493n11

Jepsen, A., 278n37

Lichtheim, Miriam, 132n55

Jeremias, Jörg, 327, 336n16, 336n18,

Liddon, Henry Parry, 28n13

337n23, 338n28 Jones, Robert P., 133n69 Joyce, Paul M., 240n8

Luckenbill, Daniel David, 76n19 Lundbom, Jack, 142, 144, 146, 163, 187nn13–­16, 189nn39–­41, 189n47

Jung, Carl, xxviii, 488, 489, 494nn14–­15 Magary, D., 432n14 Maloney, Linda M., 431n3 Kapelrud, Arvid, 335n9

Matthews, Victor Harold, 336n17

Kartje, John, 431n13

Mays, James Luther, 26n1, 240n5,

Kaufman, Ivan T., 277n15

278n24, 278n29, 278n31,

Keck, Leander, 371n20, 546n29

278nn33–­35, 279n50, 279n53,

Keil, Carl Friedrich, 301n4

336n13, 371nn18–­19, 393n5

Kent, Roland, 132n58

M’Caul, A., 494n13

Kierkegaard, Søren, 425, 431n12

McBride, S. Dean, Jr., xxi, xxiiin2,

Killebrew, Ann E., 76n21

xxvi, 75n13, 77n33, 131n48,

King, Martin Luther, Jr., 303–­5, 311,

132n53, 132n63, 179, 187n20,

324, 334, 335nn1–­2

188n30, 188n33, 189nn43–­45,

Klostermann, August, 239n1, 466n11

190n51, 278n38, 279n48, 336n13,

Knight, Douglas A., 499, 508n6

467n17, 467n22

Koehler, Ludwig, 545n20

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr., 128n8, 128n13, 128nn15–­16 McCarthy, Dennis J., 279n42,

LaCocque, André, 516, 544n5 Lastman, Pieter, 19f

570

394nn16–­17 McEntire, Mark, 131n44, 131n47

AUTHOR INDEX

McKane, William, 393n5

337n27, 338n28, 370n2, 371n20,

McKenzie, Alyce, 370n7

446n3, 447n12, 447n14, 466n9, 500,

McKenzie, John L., 129n36

508n1

Mettinger, Trygvve N. D., 128n21, 189n45 Meyers, Carol, 128n7, 454, 466n2, 466n5, 466n7, 466n9, 466n11, 467n24, 494n12 Meyers, Eric, 128n7, 454, 466n2,

O’Brien, Julia, 278n22, 408, 409nn2–­3, 409n14, 467nn20–­21 Odell, Margaret S., 224, 240n6, 241n15, 242n21, 243n22, 409n3

466n5, 466n7, 466n9, 466n11,

Olyan, Saul M., 302n10, 509n11

467n24, 494n12

Oppenheim, A. Leo, 129n35, 409n13

Miano, David, 337n25

Owen, John, 371n15

Miles, Jack, 81, 127n3 Millard, Alan R., 129n34, 354n9, 545n22

Paine, Thomas, 362, 371n11

Miller, James E., 278n23, 278n26

Pajunen, Mika S., 370n4

Miller, J. Maxwell, 188n24, 189n41,

Pearce, Laurie E., 78n34

277n13, 277n16, 279nn40–­41,

Pellauer, David, 544n5

336n12, 394n11

Person, Raymond F., Jr., 509n12

Miller, Robert D., 133n72 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 137, 187n2

Petersen, David L., 27n9, 34, 75n11, 75n14, 158, 188n35, 276n2, 463, 467n16, 467n21, 467n24, 508n7 Phillips, J. B., 294, 302n9

Napier, B. D., 276n2

Polk, Timothy, 21, 23, 28n16, 28n18

Nash, Kathleen, 286, 301n3

Polzin, Robert, 506, 509n13

Nickelsburg, George W. E., 547n39

Pritchard, James B., xxvii

Niebuhr, Reinhold, 424–­25, 431n11

Pury, Albert de, 279n45

Nissinen, Martti, xx, xxii, xxiiin1, 75nn1–­5, 75n7 Nogalski, James D., 55, 56, 76n26,

Raabe, Paul R., 354n12

77n27, 129n36, 132n51, 275n1,

Rad, Gerhard von, 131n43

277n17, 278n27, 278nn29–­31,

Redditt, Paul L., 77n27, 466nn9–­10,

278n33, 278n39, 279n44, 279nn52–­53, 337n21, 337n23,

492n1 Reed, William L., 370n8

571

AUTHOR INDEX

Rendtorff, Rolf, 132n62

Seitz, Christopher, 130n36

Richards, I. A., 278n21

Seow, Choon-­Leong, 75nn1–­5, 75nn7–­9

Richards, Kent H., 492n2

Setel, T. Drorah, 278n23, 409n3, 409n4

Ritner, Robert K., 75nn1–­5, 75n7

Shanks, Hershel, 128n8

Ritschl, Albrecht, 27n7

Sharp, Carolyn J., 28n14, 140–­141,

Roberts, J. J. M., 76n21, 84, 95, 123,

187nn7–­10

127n2, 127n5, 128nn17–­18,

Sheppard, Gerald, 279n53

128n20, 128n22, 129n29, 130n41,

Simkins, Ronald, 301n3

133nn70–­71, 133n75, 387, 394n12,

Smart, James, 362, 365, 371n12

409n10, 446n2, 447n4, 447n6,

Smend, Rudolf, 240n5

544n4

Smith, Mark S., 130n39

Rofé, Alexander, 11, 12, 27n9, 28n10

Smith, Ralph L., 447n6

Rollston, Christopher A., 276n4

Smith-­Christopher, Daniel, 393n9,

Rom-­Shiloni, Dalit, 78n33, 131n48, 182, 188n28, 190nn53–­55, 240n3, 394n13, 467n22

394n18, 407, 409n12, 535, 546nn29–­31, 546n39 Snaith, N. H., 130n40

Rose, Wolter H., 78n40, 492nn2–­3

Sommer, Benjamin D., 128n7, 131n46

Rosenblum, Jordan D., 509n11

Speiser, E. A., 130n37

Roux, Georges, 370n3

Spronk, Klaas, 130n38, 409n9

Rowley, H. H., 130n40

Stade, Bernhard, 378–­379

Russell, Letty M., 278n23, 409n3

Stalker, D. M. G., 131n43

Russell, Stephen C., 128n15

Stavrakopoulou, Francesca, 190n56 Steck, Odil Hannes, 132n51, 132n62, 133n74

Sasson, Jack, 369, 371n22 Scalise, Pamela J., 409n5, 466n4 Schart, Aaron, 77n27, 409n7, 466n10, 492n1

Steiner, Richard, 308, 335nn7–­8, 335nn10–­11 Stern, Ephraim, 349, 354n10 Stern, Karen B., 509n11

Schatzmann, Siegfried S., 493n7

Stokes, Ryan E., 508n9

Schmidt, Brian B., 190n56

Stökl, Jonathan, 77n30

Schniedewind, William M., 27n9,

Strazicich, John, 302n8, 302n11

276n3

Strong, John T., 78n33, 132n63, 240n6,

Schramm, Brooks, 131n47, 132n53

241n15, 254f, 337n20, 353n4,

Scurlock, Joann, 129n25

409n3, 467n22

572

AUTHOR INDEX

Sweeney, Marvin, 129n24, 276n1, 409n1, 431n4, 440, 446n2, 447n6,

Uehlinger, Christoph, 129n25, 133n72 Ussishkin, David, 128n14

447n10, 447n13, 467n24, 508n1 Sykes, Seth, 454, 466n6, 466n8, 466n9 Vanderhooft, David S., 431n4 van der Toorn, Karel, xxviii, 188n34, Taylor, Barbara Brown, 370n7 Taylor, Charles, 220, 242n17 Taylor, Richard A., 509n11

393n8 van Dijk-­Hemmes, Fokkelien, 241n15, 409n3

Thompson, Thomas L., 78n35

Vaughn, Andrew G., 76n21, 128n12

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 277n15

Vermeylen, J., 132n51

Timmer, Daniel C., 371n17

Vlaardingerboek, Johannes, 446n3

Tolkien, J. R. R., 493n10

von Stolcenberg, D. Stolcius, 205f

Tooman, William A., 241n13

von Weissenberg, Hanne, 370n4

Tov, Emanuel, 127n1, 188n35, 188n36 Towner, W. Sibley, 75n13, 545n14, 546n39

Walsh, Jerome, 14, 28n12 Walton, John H., 242n16, 354n9

Trask, Willard, 467n13

Watson, Wilfrid G. E., 129n23, 337n26

Trible, Phyllis, 371n20

Watts, John D. W., 245, 275n1, 508n1

Tromp, Johannes, 240n8

Weber, Beat, 276n9

Troxel, R., 432n14

Weber, Max, 75n11

Tucker, Paavo, 189n48

Weissbach, Franz Heinrich, 132n57

Tuell, Steven S., 28n20, 75n13, 77n33,

Wellhausen, Julius, 9, 27n7

78n37, 128n11, 129n32, 131n50,

Wells, Bruce, 278n28

132n50, 132n54, 132n63, 240n1,

Wessels, Wilhelm J., 399, 409n6

240n6, 240n8, 241n11, 243n28,

Westbrook, Raymond, 278n28

279n52, 370n7, 409n1, 414, 420,

Williamson, H. G. M., 37, 76n16, 76n17

421, 422, 431n1, 431nn4–­6, 447n9,

Willis, Amy Merrill, 523, 545n15,

447n12, 457, 466n10, 467n15,

546n36

467n22, 467n23, 492n1, 493n9, 499,

Wilson, Robert R., xxi, 26n1, 71,

500, 502, 503, 508n2, 508n4, 508n5,

76n16, 78n36, 86, 101, 127n6,

508n8, 508n10, 544n6, 544n8,

128n9, 129n30, 129n36, 132n53,

546n27, 547n40

146, 154, 187n3, 187n20, 188n23,

573

AUTHOR INDEX

Wilson, Robert R. (continued) 188n25, 188n30, 188n32, 190n52,

Yee, Gale A., 278n26, 278n32 Yogev, Jonathan, 493n6

240n5, 276n11, 278n38, 310, 332, 335n9, 335n11, 336n14, 338n29, 338n30, 414, 446n4, 449, 466n1,

Zenger, Erich, 431n3

467n17, 507, 544n11, 545n23

Zevit, Ziony, 132n60, 241n10

Wink, Walter, 546n34

Zimmerli, Walther, 132n63

Witton-­Davies, Carlyle, 131n44

Zobel, H. J., 278n36

Wunsch, Cornelia, 78n34

Zvi, Ehud Ben, 188n34, 379, 393n7

574