INTRODUCTION TO

Nahum

NAHUM’S PROPHECY presents a graphic prophetic description of the fall of wicked Nineveh. Rather than continuing in the attitude of repentance displayed about a century earlier (see Jonah 3:6-10), the Ninevites resumed their godless oppression of others. Therefore, God’s sure judgment would fall upon them. All nations, no matter how successful, will experience God’s judgment if they are continually godless.

AUTHOR

Little is known of Nahum, the author of this short prophecy, beyond that which can be gleaned from his writings and the statement in the superscription that he was an “Elkoshite.” This identifier has been understood to refer to a geographical location. A number of sites have been suggested, one on the left bank of the Tigris River, two in Galilee, and at least three in Judah. None of these views is conclusive, however. The author was acquainted with the people and places of Nineveh, but not in such a way that would necessitate more than good general knowledge. Thus the suggestion that Nahum’s family may have been deported to Assyria after the fall of the northern kingdom, and that there Nahum gained firsthand knowledge of the area before returning to Judah, is speculative at best.

What is certain, however, is that the author had a high view of God and his word (1:2-10; cf. 1:12, 14; 2:2, 13; 3:5), preached against idolatry (1:14), immorality (3:4), injustice (2:11-12; 3:16, 19), and believed strongly in the eventual restoration of all God’s people (1:12-13, 15; 2:2).[84]

DATE AND OCCASION OF WRITING

Because 3:8 mentions the fall of Thebes (663 BC) and predicts the fall of Nineveh (612 BC), the setting for Nahum’s prophecy, if predictive, lies between these two events. The era largely parallels the reign of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC), a time when Assyrian imperialism was at its height and marked by a cultural flowering and a socio-political system that spanned the length and breadth of the Fertile Crescent (thus it has been termed the Pax Assyriaca). The book of Nahum is intimately bound up with this period. But to what portion of the period from the fall of Thebes to that of Nineveh does it belong? Those who place more weight on God’s prophets as keen critics and observers of the times or who discount the plausibility of predictive prophecy tend to date the book late, either close to the time of Nineveh’s fall or around the time of its capture (J. M. P. Smith 1911; Haupt [1907] places it as late as the Maccabbean era).

Conservative scholars usually assign a date to the book that antedates the fall of Nineveh but differ as to how long before 612 BC it was written. The position taken here assumes a time shortly after the fall of Thebes, whose collapse was a fresh lesson in the minds of Nahum’s readers. Moreover, a civil war between the Assyrian ruler Ashurbanipal and his brother Shamash-shum-ukin was settled in 648 BC only after a bitter struggle and a gruesome massacre at the latter’s power base in Babylon. From that time on, Nahum might well be expected to hold up the example of age-old Babylon, not Thebes, to the Assyrians. Further, the closer that one dates Nahum’s prophecy to 612 BC, the more one would expect some mention of the forces that were to spell Assyria’s doom, such as the Chaldeans, Medes, and Scythians. The failure to mention them could imply a time well before these peoples came to international prominence. All things considered, a date between 660 and 645 BC would appear to be most likely for the setting of the book.

AUDIENCE

Given the matters of authorship and the circumstances of writing mentioned above, I conclude that Nahum wrote to the people of Judah during the reign of Manasseh (698/697–642 BC). Judah’s was a humbled and disillusioned populace, which had suffered not only the wickedness of its own king but also the reduction of the nation to Assyrian vassalage during the campaigning of Ashurbanipal (648 BC). Under such conditions, could Israel’s God be viewed as still faithful to the promises to Abraham and David? Was he truly sovereign over the nations of this world?

Nahum’s answer was a resounding yes! Despite all that had come to pass, God was in control of earth’s history. All that had happened was but a prelude and a means to the judgment of both Judah and Nineveh and was, in turn, part of the process that would accomplish the restoration of God’s people. Accordingly, Nahum wrote his short prophecy (1) to announce the doom of Nineveh and the demise of the mighty Assyrian empire and (2) to bring a message of consolation to a sin-weary and oppressed Judah.

CANONICITY AND TEXTUAL HISTORY

The canonicity of the book has never been seriously questioned. Its prevalence among biblical manuscripts from the intertestamental period, its use by the sectarians at Qumran as a source for application to certain events in their own day, and its employment in the New Testament (Rom 10:15 cf. 1:15; Isa 52:7) and by the early church Fathers (Tertullian, Lucian) give witness to its acceptance. The text is especially well preserved, with possible corruptions being noted in few places (e.g. 1:4b; 3:18). The discoveries of the text of Nahum at Qumran (mostly from 4QpNah, a commentary on Nahum), a Hebrew scroll of the Minor Prophets at Wadi Murabba‘at, and fragments of a Greek text of the Minor Prophets at Nahal Hever demonstrate that the consonantal text of Nahum “has been handed down with incredible accuracy for nearly two thousand years at least” (Cathcart 1973a:13).

LITERARY STYLE

Nahum’s message of God’s judgment against Nineveh and protection for his own people finds corroboration in the bifid structure of the book, which breaks between chapter 1 and chapters 2–3 (see “Outline”). Moreover, the author has developed his work in accordance with principles of compilation and composition known to writers of the Old Testament and the Semitic world at large, such as bookending or inclusio, and the hooking or stitching of distinctive thought units at various levels.[85]

Nahum was a master literary craftsman (Patterson 1990). An abundance of literary features can be found, such as metaphor (Nineveh’s troops are called women, 3:13), simile (Nineveh’s guards are said to be like locusts, 3:17), hypocatastasis (implied comparison; e.g., Nineveh’s leaders are called slumbering shepherds, 3:18), synecdoche (Nineveh’s gates are represented by its door bars, 3:13, MT), rhetorical question (“Are you any better than the city of Thebes?” 3:8), irony (Nineveh is instructed to prepare for a siege but is told it will be to no avail, 2:1; 3:14-15), satire/taunt song (2:11-13; 3:8-13, 14-19), woe oracle (3:1-7), various types of parallelism (e.g., 3:15b), and numerous instances of alliteration and assonance (e.g., buqah umebuqah umebullaqah, 2:10 [11]).

Nahum was also a master of imagery.[86] His observations on life and the world around him were most colorful. Thus, he spoke of the fig tree and its fruit (3:12), the lion and its pride (or family, 2:11-12), locusts or grasshoppers (3:15-17), and also of shepherds (3:18), harlots (3:4-7), and building operations (3:14). In the social sphere, Nineveh’s leadership and its merchants are likened to locusts that stripped the land of its foliage (3:16). Nineveh and its leadership could be compared to harlots who had willfully misled and misused mankind by their immoral behavior (3:4-6); they had filled the world with their constant cruelty.

Nahum is best remembered for his prophecies in the political realm. Thus, he speaks of political alliances (1:12; 3:9), vassalage (1:13), and military invasion (2:3-4). His depictions of warfare and the siege of a city are particularly graphic (2:1-10; 3:1-3, 7-8, 10-17) and are filled with descriptive details told with picturesque brevity (2:3-10; 3:1-3).

MAJOR THEMES

Nahum’s basic theme is the judgment of Nineveh, which is first declared in the opening half of the book (1:2-15) and then described in the latter half of the book (2:1–3:19).[87] In keeping with his basic purpose, Nahum used several oracles of judgment (e.g., 2:1, 3-10), including a woe oracle (3:1-7). Nahum’s warnings of judgment, however, were not his sole message. For not only was Nineveh’s doom good news for all (3:19), but coupled with these declarations are some distinct salvation oracles bringing hope to God’s beleaguered people (1:7, 12b, 15; 2:2). Contrary to the prevailing critical assumption that when “hopeful sayings” appear in collections of judgment oracles they are likely to be interpolations, the two quite commonly occur together as twin revelations of the Lord. Indeed, rejecting the genuineness of the “hopeful sayings” in Nahum would necessitate doing so in virtually every prophetic book, for the prophets uniformly combine condemnation and comfort in their messages.[88]

Nahum also employed several well-known motifs in his portrayal of Nineveh’s sure demise, such as that of the shepherd and the sheep (Nineveh’s leaders and populace, 3:18) and that of the message or messenger, with which each major unit or subunit concludes (1:15; 2:13; 3:19). Felt throughout the whole work is the motif of the Divine Warrior who subdues both the natural world and all his earthly enemies while protecting his own people (1:2-15; 2:2; 3:5-7).

THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Perhaps the most basic theological perspective of Nahum is that of God’s sovereignty. God is seen as supreme over nature (1:4-6, 8), nations (1:15; 2:1, 3-7)—including Nineveh/Assyria (1:11-12a, 14; 2:8-13; 3:5-7, 11-19), Judah (1:12b-13; 2:2), Thebes/Egypt (3:8-10)—and all people (1:3, 6-10). As a sovereign God, he is also the controller of earth’s history (1:12; 2:13; 3:5-7) who moves in just judgment against his foes (1:2-3a, 8-10, 14; 2:13; 3:5-7, 11-19) but with saving concern for those who put their trust in him (1:7-8a, 12b-13, 15; 2:2). God is shown also to be a God of revelation (1:1) who, although he is a jealous (1:2) and omnipotent God (1:3) who abhors sin (3:4-6, 19), is also long-suffering (1:3) and good (1:7) and has distinct purposes for his redeemed people.

Tremper Longman (1993:776) points out that a key element in Nahum’s theological perspective is his employment of the Divine Warrior motif. He notes that already in the opening portion (1:2-8) the reader is presented with the “Divine Warrior whose appearance causes the cosmos to quake. This Warrior destroys his enemies and effects the salvation of his people.” Concomitant with this presentation is the theme of God’s wrath against his enemies who have provoked him to action (Becking 1995:277-296).[89]

Many have suggested that when Nahum adapted Isaiah’s messianic promise (Isa 52:7) to his message concerning Nineveh’s downfall (1:15), Nahum must have understood that God’s dealings with Judah and Assyria were part of his purposes with respect to the coming of the Messiah.[90] In any case, it is certain that the messianic import of Nahum’s words was utilized by the early church and has brought comfort to the saints throughout the succeeding ages, who look forward with confidence to the coming of that One who will reign in righteousness and execute perfect peace.

OUTLINE

Superscription (1:1)

I.   The Doom of Nineveh Declared (1:2-15)

A.   First Rhetorical Question (1:2-6)

B.   Second Rhetorical Question (1:7-10)

C.   The Consequences (1:11-15)

II.   The Doom of Nineveh Described (2:1–3:19)

A.   God, the Just Governor of the Nations (2:1-2)

B.   First Description of Nineveh’s Demise (2:3-10)

C.   The Discredited City (2:11-13)

D.   Second Description of Nineveh’s Demise (3:1-7)

E.   The Defenseless Citadel (3:8-19)

1.   A comparison of Nineveh and Thebes (3:8-13)

2.   A concluding condemnation of Nineveh (3:14-19)