NOTES

[1] Generally, one may simply use the original four-digit Strong’s number to identify words in tools using Strong’s system. If a Tyndale-Strong’s number is followed by a capital letter (e.g., TG1692A), it generally indicates an added subdivision of meaning for the given term. Whenever a Tyndale-Strong’s number has a number following a decimal point (e.g., TG2013.1), it reflects an instance where new research has yielded a separate, new classification of use for a biblical word. Forthcoming tools from Tyndale House Publishers will include these entries, which were not part of the original Strong’s system.

[2] The mention of Hosea’s activity during the reign of Hezekiah has caused many to push the date of the book to 715 BC. Because Hezekiah served as co-regent with his father, Ahaz, from about 729/728 BC, however, and because no context in the book can be positively linked with Samaria’s fall, it is not necessary to postulate so late a date. For details as to the chronology and events of Hezekiah’s reign, see my remarks in Patterson and Austel 1988:253-277.

[3] It is refreshing to see commentaries that defend the MT as the best available text (e.g., Garrett, McComiskey), while examining seriously its specific problems.

[4] Garrett (1997:177) suggests that this feature is distinctive to chapters 8–11, where “Yahweh and Hosea antiphonally speak in lamentation over Israel’s sin,” while the accounts of Hosea’s three children given in chs 1–2 provide shaping for 4:1–7:16, which is dominated by a pattern of repeated threes. Damaging to this thesis, however, is the obvious weaving together of divine speeches and prophetic oracles throughout the whole book and the attested series of threes, which often appear in chapters 8–14 (e.g., 9:16; 10:11, 12).

[5] See, for example, R. Johnson, “Hosea 4–10: Pictures at an Exhibition,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36 (1993):20-26; P. Kruger, “Prophetic Imagery: On Metaphor and Similes in the Book of Hosea,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 14 (1988):143-151.

[6] Garrett (1997:63-69) finds in this evidence for Hosea’s unresolved tension between divine judgment and covenant faithfulness the necessity for the proper recognition of an element of paradox both hermeneutically and theologically.

[7] For examples of Hosea’s use of the agrarian and animal worlds, see Patterson 1998.

[8] Because of the loathsome nature of Baal and his religious rites, the faithful scribes who copied the OT often deliberately changed the royal name Baal-zebul (“Prince Baal”) to Baal-zebel (“lord of dung”) and Baal-zebub (“lord of flies”; e.g., 2 Kgs 1:2; cf. Beelzebub, Matt 10:25; 12:24, 27). For the problem of Zebub, see my note in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4.172. For helpful information on Baal, see P. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 61-66. For a succinct summary of the origin and growth of the Baals, see Hubbard (1989:81-82). For discussion and translation of the myths concerning Baal, see M. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 75-115.

[9] This noun is feminine in gender; the Hebrew feminine gender often marks abstract nouns. See Waltke and O’Connor 1990:104-105, 6.4.2b. Note the translation by M. Dahood, Psalms in The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 187, 196 (who, however, wrongly relegates the words to the future state): “The nearness of God will be my happiness.” Note also the rendering “Being united with God is my highest good” (Ps 73:28, GW). Thus understood, the emphasis falls on God’s continuous nearness to the psalmist rather than the psalmist’s drawing near to God.

[10] See A. Alt, “Hosea 5:8–6:6. Ein Krieg und Seine Folgen in Prophetischer Beleuchtung,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (München: Beck, 1953), 2.163-187. For the Syro-Ephraimite War see my remarks in Patterson and Austel 1988; see also E. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 393-395, 405-407.

[11] Tiglath-pileser claims to have installed Hoshea as his client king (cf. Luckenbill 1927:1.293). The Bible indicates that Hoshea seized the throne in a coup d’etat (2 Kgs 15:29-30). According to 2 Kgs 17:4-6, Hoshea was later involved in an anti- Assyrian plot which brought the northern kingdom to an end.

[12] See, for example, H. G. Reventlow, “Zeitgeschichtliche Exegese prophetischer Texte? Uber die Grenzen eines methodischen Zuganges zum Alten Testament (am Beispiel von Hos 5,8-14),” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65 Geburststag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), 155-164. Note also Garrett 1997:148-149 and McComiskey 1992:81.

[13] J. B. Payne (Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], 404), however, suggests Tiglath-pileser’s second western campaign. The NLT rendering illustrates Garrett’s proposal (1997:186) that Israel is behaving like a man “who tries to gain love by giving money to prostitutes, only to discover that he has both squandered his money and gained no love in return.” Israel’s flirtation with Assyria is well documented not only in the OT but in the Assyrian Annals. See, for example, Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser III: “Tribute of Iawa [Jehu], son of Omri” (Luckenbill 1927:211).

[14] Fausset (1948:488) remarks, “Whenever professing believers, instead of making God their confidence, have recourse to the godless world and its unhallowed powers, at the cost of religious principle, to save them from anticipated evils, God, in just retribution, makes those very world powers the instruments of executing His judgments on them.”

[15] Thus M. Erickson (Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987], 580) rightly points out, “Anyone who truly believes God to be what he says he is will accord to him his rightful status. Failure to do so is sin. Setting one’s own ideas above God’s revealed Word entails refusal to believe it to be true. Seeking one’s own will involves believing that one’s own values are actually higher than those of God. In short, it is failing to acknowledge God as God.”

[16] The need to retain dietary purity figures prominently in the biblical account of Daniel and his three friends (Dan 1:8-16) and in the intertestamental story of Judith (Jdt 11:11-15; 12:1-4).

[17] W. A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 276. See further E. Merrill, “Pilgrimage and Procession: Motifs of Israel’s Return,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 61-72. F. F. Bruce (The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 49) points out that “The presentation of the redemptive work of Christ in terms of the Exodus motif in so many strands of New Testament teaching shows how primitive was the Christian use of this motif—going back, quite probably, to the period of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ contemporaries freely identified Him as a second Moses—the expectation of a second Moses played an important part in popular eschatology at the time—and with the expectation of a second Moses went very naturally the expectation of a second Exodus.” Although VanGemeren and Bruce use different terminology, their basic point is the same.

[18] See J. White, Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt (New York: Capricorn, 1967), 104; D. B. Sandy, The Production and Use of Vegetable Oils in Ptolemaic Egypt, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists: Supplements (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).

[19] See H. W. F. Saggs, Everyday Life in Babylonia and Assyria (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1965), 35, 68; “Samnu,” in The Assyrian Dictionary, “S,” Part I, ed. E. Reiner, et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 321-330.

[20] R. Nicole, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 36. For a discussion of the textual relations between Hos 13:14 and 1 Cor 15:55, see G. Archer & G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1983), 146-147. For the suggestion that Paul’s citation of Hos 13:14 stands as “a free use on the Apostle’s part of the words of the prophet, as they appropriately rise in his memory” rather than being a direct citation, see J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: James Family, reprint edition [n.d.]), 327.

[21] That Sheol is not, as commonly taught, the common receptacle of all disembodied spirits or that there is a double compartment in Hades with a gulf standing between good and evil spirits, can be demonstrated by the many OT texts which assert that the OT believer expected to go to be with God at death (e.g., Pss 49:15; 73:23-26). See the incisive studies of A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 173-223; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [n.d.]), 2.591-640; J. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint 1979), 3.167-172; contra C. von Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God’s Kingdom, trans. J. S. Banks (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1889), 240-241.

[22] For details, see V. A. Hurowitz, “Joel’s Locust Plague in Light of Sargon II’s Hymn to Nanaya,” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993):597-603. Although Hurowitz rightly makes no decision as to the relationship between the two texts, he demonstrates that in the Nanaya Hymn (rev. II 24:1–28:1), “nearly every detail . . . has either general or quite specific parallels in Joel’s description of the locusts afflicting Judah” (599). Hurowitz also mentions that three letters from the archives of Sargon II (721–705 BC) referring to locust infestations are also known, although one cannot be sure that they refer to the same event. Whether the presence of pestilence in Syria from the time of Ashur-dan III (771–754 BC), which forced his troops to abandon their campaign, is to be linked to Joel’s locust plague is at best problematic.

[23] Crenshaw (1986:53) calls attention to an unpublished manuscript from Qumran, Cave four (4QXIIg = 4Q82), which contains portions of Joel and several other Minor Prophets. Likewise, he cites 4QXIIc [4Q78], which “has tiny segments of 1:11–2:1; 2:8-23; and 4:6-21[3:6-21].”

[24] On the subject of apocalyptic, see P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975); John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984); D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964); Sandy and Abegg 1995:177-196. For OT prophecy, see Patterson 1993:296-309.

[25] See further, Patterson 1985:233-234.

[26] For the motif of the Divine Warrior, see F. M. Cross Jr., “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” in Biblical Motifs, ed. Alexander Altman, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 11-30; Tremper Longman III, “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984):267-274; Tremper Longman III, “The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif,” The Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982): 297-302; Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

[27] For a fine discussion of Zion theology, see W. A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 5.354-357.

[28] On the genre and types of Old Testament prophecy, see Patterson 1993:296-309.

[29] Fausset (1948:514) remarks, “The judgments of God are mutually united as the links of a chain, each link drawing on the other; and yet so arranged that at each successive stage time and space are allowed for the averting of the succeeding judgment by repentance.”

[30] A. Richardson (A Theological Word Book of the Bible [New York: MacMillan, 1962], 80) rightly remarks, “Fasting, like all personal discipline, is but a means to an end; if it loses sight of the end, ‘for the Gospel’s sake,’ it becomes merely a ‘work of law’, an attempt to earn merit, and then it ceases to have any Christian value or sanction.” Fausset (1948:515) adds, “‘Fasting’ . . . must be a sanctified fast, in which we seek not to glory in self-mortification, but to cultivate a humble, chastened, and loving spirit.”

[31] See further, Patterson 1985:256-257.

[32] Pusey (1953:161) points out the impossibility of remedying their situation without divine help: “All sin stupefies the sinner. All intoxicate the mind, bribe and pervert the judgment, dull the conscience, blind the soul and make it insensible to its own ills.”

[33] Allen (1976:64) remarks, “Joel yearns for the people to take their cue from the rest of animate creation, and to engage themselves in earnest prayer to God in the sanctuary.”

[34] Thus Craigie (1985:94-95) comments, “It is appropriate for a nation to pause and take stock when disaster has overtaken it, or looms on the horizon. But it is important, when engaging in national contrition, to see things correctly.”

[35] Feinberg (1976:74) cautions that God “does not willingly afflict the children of men, but by chastisements, often severe but always purposeful, He would bring them back from their evil ways and from the pit of destruction.”

[36] For an example of another simile of equivalence, see Ezek 26:10 (MT). Note also the scorpion-like locusts, which symbolized Satan’s demonic hosts in Rev 9:1-11, whose appearance and description are reminiscent of Joel. As is typical of poetry, Joel mixes his figures, the description at times being more applicable to locusts and at other times to a human army.

[37] For details, see Thompson 1955:52-55 and Andinach 1992:438-439; cf. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary “E”, Oppenheim, (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1958), 257-258.

[38] See 2:30-31; 3:14-16; Isa 2:12-22; 13:9-13; Jer 4:23-31; 46:10; Ezek 30:2-3; Amos 5:18-20; 8:8-10; Obad 1:15-16; Zeph 1:14-18; Zech 14:1-7; Mal 4:1-3; cf. Matt 24:29-31; Rev 6:12-17. And see texts containing the Divine Warrior theme: Judg 5:4-5; Pss 18:7-15; 68:7-8; 77:16-18; 114:1-7; 144:5-6; Nah 1:3-6; Hab 3:3-15; Zeph 1:14-18; 3:8; cf. Rev 19:11-21.

[39] Pusey (1953:180) points out that “the Prophet is speaking of the whole aggregate of God’s judgments unto the Day of Judgment.” So also Fausset (1948:521) remarks, “Each successive day of visitation for sin has had its own distinctive character, so that no former visitation has been altogether like it . . . And all this shall be the introduction to ‘the great and very terrible day of the Lord.’”

[40] Craigie (1985:100) observes, “The point of the prophet was not so much to predict some future event, as it was to see the possibility of such a future in the present.”

[41] Allen (1976:105) appropriately observes, “The Church’s birthday marked the coming of age of God’s people. The Lord who is the object of faith is also the hope of the Church, the guarantee of a full and final salvation.” For a careful discussion of the relation of Joel’s prophecy to Pentecost, see Garrett 1997:370-374.

[42] See the comparative chronological chart in Hill and Walton 2000:480.

[43] According to Jones (1995:3-5, 54-55), the overlapping chronological information in the superscriptions, the size of the books, and the literary parallels between the three books may be seen as evidence that Hosea–Amos–Micah formed a unified literary corpus.

[44] Sellin and Fohrer (1968:436-437) are representative of such scholarship, as they confidently list passages that “surely do not derive from Amos” (e.g., 4:13; 5:8-9; 8:8; 9:5-6, 8-15). On the redaction of Amos, see further the discussions in Hayes 1988:37-38 and Hubbard 1989:98-102.

[45] See Dorsey 1999:277-286 for more on the literary structure of Amos, including a discussion of Limburg’s “sevenfold” organization of Amos.

[46] Ancient Near Eastern tradition characteristically had clauses stipulating the conditions and importance of treaty obligations. The Assyrian Annals often mention the punishment of treaty violators. Niehaus (1993:522) gives several examples.

[47] Thus Fausset (1948:570) remarks, “Pride goes before a fall; and the proud often pass suddenly from the height of self-confidence to the depth of despair. Overweening self-reliance passes into unreasoning and unreasonable fear. No human sagacity for which Edom was famed can be relied on in an exigency, if men ignore God.”

[48] For helpful observations on the principle of lex talionis, see Hill 1989:642. Hill goes on to point out that “even Paul acknowledges that a man reaps what he sows.”

[49] Laetsch (1956:204) declares, “This term comprises not only this one day, but also all its manifold heralds and forerunners and the eternities following upon the Last Day. . . . Therefore every judgment of God upon the wicked world is in a certain sense and to a certain extent a Day of the Lord.”

[50] Thus D. Stuart (1987:420) remarks, “In effect all of Jerusalem, not just the temple area, will become a holy place where only righteous people, by reason of God’s regulations of purity, are entitled to dwell (cf. Lev 21:11-23; Num 19:20).”

[51] See the helpful summary in Armerding 1985:354-355. See also J. R. Bartlett, “The Moabites and Edomites,” People of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 229-258.

[52] W. A. VanGemeren (“Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991], 356) points out that “the Zion theology correlates in a magnificent vision of what God has done, does, and will do . . . The glory of Zion is nothing less than the adoration of God-with-us (Immanuel).”

[53] See A. Parrot, Nineveh and the Old Testament (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955), 85-88. Other scholars have suggested that Jonah simply spent three days preaching from corner to corner (e.g., Archer 1974:310-311), or that ancient Near Eastern customs of hospitality would have dictated a three-day period with specific practical arrangements (Wiseman 1979:38), or that three days may be symbolic of a large, illustrious city (Wolff 1976:148).

[54] See M. R. Wilson, “Nineveh,” in Major Cities of the Biblical World (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), 186.

[55] The NLT takes the Hebrew “who do not know their right from their left” as indicative of “spiritual darkness.” It can also be taken as indicative of physical/mental immaturity, hence the understanding of some that these 120,000 are children.

[56] See P. J. N. Lawrence, “Assyrian Nobles and the Book of Jonah,” Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986):121-132. J. Lemanski (1992:46) proposes that “it is quite possible that Nineveh at the time of Jonah’s ministry was an independent or semi-independent city-state with its own ruler.” Although he makes his case for the preceding two reigns of Adad-nirari III and Shalmaneser IV, there is little to suggest that conditions changed with Ashur-dan III and Ashur-nirari IV. It was the decisive role of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC) that brought about change in the royal prestige.

[57] See, for example, the clothing of animals in sackcloth recorded in Jdt 4:9-10.

[58] See G. Loretz, “Herkunft und Sinn der Jonaerzahlung,” Biblische Zeitschrift 5 (1961):19-22; G. M. Landes, “Linguistic Criteria and the Date of the Book of Jonah,” Eretz Israel 16 (1982):147-170.

[59] Cf. comments on Jonah 3:5 and Joel 2:31. As for further arguments that Jonah is dependent on Jeremiah or Joel (cf. Jonah 3:9-10 with Jer 18:7-8; 26:3; Jonah 3:9 with Joel 2:14; Jonah 4:2 with Joel 2:13)—hence a late book—Stuart (1987:433) aptly remarks, “There simply is not enough evidence either to prove or to disprove such speculations.”

[60] Such a free city is known to have existed in the reigns of kings preceding the accession of Tiglath-pileser III in 747 BC. See D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: University Press, 1926), 1.295-296.

[61] C. J. Collins (1995:37) reminds us that God’s final question (4:11) “still hangs in front of each new reader: ‘You are Jonah—what is your answer?’”

[62] See Limburg (1993:99-123) for Jonah’s lively reception through the ages. Jonah is still read annually in the Jewish community on Yom Kippur as a solemn reminder that Israel’s God is concerned to receive repentant Gentiles.

[63] R. Baxter (The Reformed Pastor [London: Epworth Press, 1950], 119-120) said of the pastoral office, “God hath determined by His word that there shall be such an office . . . and what sort of men, as to their qualifications shall receive it. . . . God also giveth men the qualifications which he requireth.” C. U. Wagner (The Pastor [Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1976], 1) remarks, “One of the most vital areas of pastoral theology is that of the call to the ministry; the awareness of such a call is imperative.”

[64] Thus Stuart (1987:449) observes, “God’s compassion had been aroused by the misfortune. Instead of simply destroying the city for its evil, he would give it a chance to repent so as to remove the misfortune. Jonah would announce the chance.”

[65] Ellison (1985:369) astutely notes that “the Christian worker anxious to avoid the full impact of modern problems should have no difficulty in understanding Jonah’s action.”

[66] Pyrrhus (318–272 BC) was a Greek ruler of Epirus who was caught up in the internecine conflicts of the wars of Alexander the Great‘s successors. Desirous of conquests to the west, he invaded Italy. Although he won some battles, his losses were so heavy (especially at Heraclea) that victories involving staggering losses have come to be called “Pyrrhic.”

[67] Yet, lest we overly sympathize with the sailors, Craigie’s sober caution (1985:224) needs to be heeded: “But for all their decency and positive human qualities, they were on the verge of drowning in the depths; they needed to be rescued. And again we perceive the way in which the sailors portray the pathos of the human condition.”

[68] Craigie (1985:224) observes: “Those simple sailors, no doubt having their share of human decency, simply needed one to save them from their plight. They found that deliverance in God, and such is the path of all true conversion.”

[69] L. Berkhof (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 71) remarks, “This benevolent interest of God is revealed in His care for the creature’s welfare, and is suited to the nature and the circumstances of the creature. . . . And while it is not restricted to believers, they only manifest a proper appreciation of its blessings, desire to use them in the service of their God, and thus enjoy them in a richer and fuller measure.”

[70] Stuart (1987:477) points out that “the deep-sea drowning metaphor is expanded to depict the physical sensation of being trapped, down in the ocean, unable to breathe, water everywhere. This is a vivid, powerful metaphor for the sensation of dying, and it happens also to be the sort of thing that literally did happen to Jonah.”

[71] “Loving-kindness,” though archaic, seems to be the best understanding of the Hebrew noun khesed [TH2617, ZH2876], and also seems most appropriate in several NT passages which speak about God’s chrēstotēs [TG5544, ZG5983] (kindness). This is true despite the fact that the LXX does not translate khesed by chrēstotēs. Interestingly, in his Hebrew translation of the New Testament, Franz Delitzsch appreciates the theological significance of the Ephesians and Titus passages cited here, translating chrēstotēs by khesed (cf. 2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22).

[72] The five appearances are recorded as follows: (1) Matt 28:1-10; (2) Mark 16:1-9; cf. John 20:11-18; (3) Luke 24:34; cf. 1 Cor 15:5; (4) Luke 24:13-35; cf. Mark 16:12-13; and (5) John 20:19-23; cf. Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:36-43; 1 Cor 15:5.

[73] These five occasions are recorded as follows: (1) John 20:26-28; (2) John 21:1-23; (3) Matt 28:16-20; cf. 1 Cor 15:6; (4) 1 Cor 15:7; and (5) Acts 1:3-8; cf. Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52.

[74] Laetsch (1956:239) observes that “at Nineveh the speaker was not a sensationalistic broadcaster. He was a prophet of Jehovah!”

[75] That no record of Jonah’s visit to Nineveh or change of lifestyle by the Ninevites in this period has been preserved in the Assyrian literature is understandable since Assyrian Royal Annals reported the king’s victories and accomplishments. It would be unlikely for an Assyrian king to describe humbling himself in response to the words of a foreign prophet. Regarding the animals, Ellison (1985:383) points out from several examples of public mourning in which animals were involved, so there is nothing alien to the ancient Near Eastern mind in the practices that Jonah mentions.

[76] Fausset (1948:582) correctly observes: “When God repents of the evil (3:10) that He said He would do unto men, the change is not really in Him, but in them. Were He not to change His mode of dealing with them, when they have changed their dealings towards Him, He would be really changing from His own immutable righteousness. His threats are expressed absolutely, without the condition being expressed, in order to mark the absolute inviolability of His principle that sin unpardoned brings inevitable punishment, and that the sinner may be the more roused to flee from the wrath to come.”

[77] P. Hughes (Christian Ethics in Secular Society [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983], 118) suggests that “the return to God starts with man’s recognition of himself as a guilty sinner under divine condemnation and with his thankful and trusting reception of the grace of God freely offered him in and through Christ Jesus, who made full atonement for the sinner by His substitutionary death, Man for man.”

[78] What exactly was the lesson of the plant? D. N. Freedman (“Did God Play a Dirty Trick on Jonah at the End?” Bible Review 6/4 1990:26-31) suggests that Jonah’s readers were to understand that whereas in earlier days, Hebrew doctrine held that wrongdoers were punished, now repentance was to be held as equivalent to retributive punishment. In Nineveh’s case, however, “God is telling Jonah that that is what’s behind the whole—pity, compassion for his children. This whole repentance business was just a charade. . . . God is now saying that regardless of the repentance, he would have saved them” (31).

Freedman’s proposed “new view” is, of course, not new. For the ideas of confession and forgiveness were already propounded by David (Ps 32:1-2) and Solomon (1 Kgs 8:46-53) and were implicit in the earlier regulations of the Levitical offerings (e.g., Lev 5:5-6). As Freedman admits, confession and forgiveness were part of the classic code concerning God’s attributes and activities, and, in any case, Jonah was not tricked, for before he ever left home (4:2), he understood that with repentance and sincere change of lifestyle, God could relent the intended punishment (cf. Joel 2:12-14).

[79] One might hope for a similar recommissioning in the case of Elisha’s servant Gehazi (2 Kgs 8:4-6).

[80] For details, see R. D. Patterson and H. J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary 4:223-224; E. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 374-375.

[81] B. Woodward (1993) treats the book of Jonah as tragedy. Under such a scenario, Jonah is likely to have forfeited any further opportunity to serve God as a prophet. Laetsch (1956:243) remarks, adding the words of Huxtable, “Jonah would not have written so sincerely repentant . . . ‘By the very act of penning it [his confession], Jonah at once emerges out of his former character and appears in our view not merely as a prophet, but as a remarkable humble and noble-spirited saint.’”

[82] Allen (1976:235) warns Jonah’s modern-day readers that “a Jonah lurks in every Christian heart, whimpering his insidious message of smug prejudice, empty traditionalism, and exclusive solidarity.”

[83] A. J. Brown (The Foreign Missionary [New York: Revell, 1950], 27-28) remarks, “No changes that have taken place or that can possibly take place can set aside the great central facts that Jesus Christ means the temporal and eternal salvation of men; that it is the duty of those who know Him; that no matter how distant the ignorant may be, no matter how different in race, we must get to them.”

[84] All biblical references are to the English text unless otherwise noted. In such cases the reference to the Hebrew versification will be included in brackets (e.g., 1:15[2:1]).

[85] Though differing in specific details of presentation, M. Sweeney’s article, “Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (1992):364-377, also argues for the unity of Nahum, rightly observing that “the book of Nahum has a coherent structure.” Nahum’s literary artistry points to the removal of critical doubt as to the unity of the book. See further H. Peels, Voed het old vertrouwen weder. De Godsopenvaring bij Nahum (Kampen: Kok, 1993).

Although I previously attempted to defend a partial or broken acrostic in verses 2-10 (see Patterson and Travers 1988:56-57), I have now largely abandoned the effort. The most that can be said for a proposed acrostic is that (1) three pairs of alphabetic sequence in directly following lines may be observed: beth–gimel (1:3b-4a), he–waw (1:5), and heth–teth (1:6b-7); (2) several other letters in the sequence of aleph–kaph (except daleth; 1:4) are present, though not always at the beginning of a line or in immediately following lines as in standard acrostics; and (3) a general pattern of progression may be seen in the Hebrew letters from aleph to kaph.

The analysis of Floyd (1994:437) yields a similar result: “One can nevertheless conclude with regard to this unit itself that the hypothesis of an alphabetical acrostic here should now be laid to rest. This is partly because the evidence for the acrostic is itself so dubious, but also because the claim that the existence of an acrostic is supposed to support, namely that Nah 1:2-10 is basically a hymn, is also not viable.”

It is better, then, to conclude that the two-part poem detailing the Lord’s revealed character and activities contains a high degree of repetition of letters, sounds, and ideas.

[86] See Longman 1993:771-775; Patterson and Travers 1990:437-444.

[87] See Patterson 1991:8-11; Patterson and Travers 1988:21-43.

[88] See R. D. Patterson, “Old Testament Prophecy,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, eds. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 302.

[89] B. Becking (1995) relates the theme of divine wrath to covenantal theology, the Assyrian being viewed as a disobedient vassal to Yahweh. Becking also argues for the unity of Nahum, as well as a date in the seventh century BC. For the Divine Warrior theme, see the discussion of major themes in the introduction to Joel, the commentary on Habakkuk 3:8-15, and T. Longman III and D. G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

[90] In this regard Craigie (1976:67) remarks: “Nahum . . . here anticipates the Gospel. . . . In the same way, the message of the glad tidings of the Gospel comes to those who are oppressed and in despair. The message is one of peace, a peace from external oppression and a new kind of peace with the God who is the giver of all life.”

[91] The term “name” also has important connotations for understanding God, for it calls attention to his revealed character and reputation. It eventually became a technical term for God (cf. Dan 9:18-19; Amos 2:7; 9:12) and hence was applied by the writers of the New Testament and the early church fathers to Christ (e.g., Acts 4:12; 5:41; 3 John 1:7; Ignatius To the Ephesians 3:1; 7:1; To the Philippians 10:1; 2 Clement 13:1, 4; and often in the Shepherd of Hermas). It is still used to this day and may be frequently heard in the Hebrew equivalent of the phrase “God willing” (’im yirtseh hashem), literally, “if the Name is willing.”

[92] See Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 2.26.8; the text and its translation are given in the Loeb Classical Library, edited by E. H. Warmington, translated by G. H. Oldfather (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 1.439. See also D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), 61.

[93] Thus Vasholz (1992:50-52), for example, opts for a date before the accession of Nabopolassar in 626 BC.

[94] R. K. Harrison (1969:271) includes the words of the pronouncement of the second-century BC baraita contained in the Talmudic tractate Bava Batra: “The order of the prophets is Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve (Minor Prophets).” For full discussion of the early canonicity of all of the prophets, see Beckwith (1985:138-180).

[95] See Albright 1950:1-18. Although the list of authors who have worked on this portion of Scripture is filled with the names of many prestigious scholars, a critical consensus as to its reading and interpretation is far from being reached. The difficulties of the text have challenged the efforts of exegetes of all theological persuasions.

[96] See Wurthwein 1979:146. W. Brownlee (1959:146) lists 19 of these as major variants.

[97] Sweeney (1991:80) points out that “it is clear that Hab. iii functions as a corroborating conclusion that responds to the issues raised in Hab. i-ii,” and therefore concludes that “the book has a coherent structural unity.” It may be added that distinct opening formulae and careful stitching can be seen in the first two chapters. For details, see Patterson 1990:18-20.

[98] For a consideration of Habakkuk’s literary features, see Patterson 1987:163-194; 1991:119-126; see further Thompson 1993:33-53.

[99] Merling (1988:138-151) stresses that as a messenger of judgment, justice, and salvation, Habakkuk was unique in his role of communicating the message of the righteousness that comes by faith.

[100] Regarding the Divine Warrior, see the commentary on Habakkuk 3:8-15. It may be added that in Habakkuk 3, Herman (1988:199-203) sees Yahweh portrayed not only as the Divine Warrior but also as the Lord of nature whose victories imply his coming as Divine King.

[101] Crucial among the many discussions of this motif are F. M. Cross, Jr., “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” Biblical Motifs, A. Altmann, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 11-30; T. Longman III, “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984):267-274; “The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif,” Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982):297-302.

[102] For a discussion of Exodus 15:1-18 and the Exodus motif, see R. Patterson, “The Song of Redemption,” Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995):453-461.

[103] See the excellent discussion by M. A. Sweeney (1991). An occasional voice of protest has been heard regarding the Josianic setting of the book, however, from some authors (e.g., Smith and Lacheman 1950:137-142) who see Zephaniah as the work of an apocalyptist and opt for a date of c. 200 BC.

[104] W. W. Hallo and W. K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), 141.

[105] One must not assume, however, that Ashurbanipal’s interests were not much more diverse. Indeed, his famed library probably held texts representative of every type of Akkadian literature, as well as business and administrative documents and correspondence. Ashurbanipal also gave attention to great building projects and the beaux arts. See further A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1968), 489-503.

[106] Some ancient sources indicate that Ashurbanipal himself grew increasingly degenerate; see W. Maier, The Book of Nahum (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959), 129.

[107] Many have seen in Zephaniah’s condemnation of the rich a special concern for the poor. Not only are some materially poor, according to this theory, but also poor in spirit and hence shut up by faith to the provision of God, whereas the proud rich have cut themselves off from Israel’s covenantal benefits. See, for example, S. M. Gozzo, “Il profeta Sofonia e la dottrina teologica del suo libro,” Antonianum 52 (1977):3-37; C. Stuhlmueller 1986:385-390; J. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 146.

[108] Klaus-Dietrich Schunck (“Juda in der Verkundigung des Propheten Zefanja,” Alttestamentliche Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift für Horst Dietrich Preuss zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. J. Hausmann and Hans-Jurgen Zobel [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992], 174-179) identifies several passages where Zephaniah addresses his message specifically to Judah, so that the prophet’s ministry included not only Jerusalem but a wider Judean perspective.

[109] For details, see Patterson 1990:20-22.

[110] For details, see Patterson 1991:281-289.

[111] See the Introduction to Joel.

[112] C. K. Lehman, Biblical Theology: Old Testament (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1971), 346.

[113] Anderson (1977–1978:11-14) points out that the remnant motif can logically exist only in a context of judgment; thus, doom and hope are not incompatible prophetic elements. He stresses the fact that the idea of a remnant means more than mere existence; it is a “promise that those who, by the mercy of God, survive the judgment will by their very existence be a pledge of restoration and of God’s continuing purpose of good for his people.”

[114] See further R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), 160-162. From a NT perspective, the Greek verb plēroō [TG4137, ZG4444] may at times refer to a literal, real, and necessary relationship between an OT context and the NT so that the NT text fulfills completely the OT meaning. More commonly, however, the NT writer cites an OT passage to establish an analogy or comparison between the OT and the NT contexts, thus filling out more fully the OT context. See commentary on Hosea 11:1.

[115] For other examples of divine judicial blinding, see Gen 19:11; 2 Kgs 6:18. Robertson (1990:254-256) rightly points out Zephaniah’s abundant use of phraseology drawn from Deuteronomy.

[116] J. M. P. Smith (1911:213) correctly points out that wherever reference is made to chaff, it is employed as a simile of scattering, the lone possible exception being Isa 41:15.

[117] For “poor” as a theological term for those dependent on God, see Stuhlmueller (1986:385-390). Stuhlmueller notes its primary socioeconomic reference here but sees a shift in perspective in Zeph 3:12. N. Lohfink (“Zefanja und das Israel der Armen,” Bibel und Kirche 39 [1984]:100-108) separates Zephaniah’s concern for the poor from any spiritual equation of them with the Lord’s redeemed.

[118] Craigie (1985:117) remarks, “But Zephaniah, like the other prophets, did not perceive the Day of the Lord to be merely a cosmic event, beyond human control. Its roots lay in human lives and human actions. In the last resort it is human beings who precipitate the dreadful Day of the Lord by working out in the world the corruption that festers within them.”

[119] Moab’s hostility toward Israel is illustrated in the well-known Mesha Stele (or Moabite Stone); see D. Winton Thomas, Documents from Old Testament Times (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 195-199. For the text itself, see H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966), 1:33.

[120] VanGemeren (1989:677) suggests that “the nations are symbolic of all kingdoms which oppose the rule of God. God’s purpose is to establish out of the remnant of Judah and the nations a people who will submit themselves to him and worship him wherever they may be found.” Baker (1988:105-106) adds, “The motif of the remnant is common in the prophets (cf. Jer 23:3; Amos 5:15; Mic 2:12; 5:7-8), exemplifying both the severity of God’s punishment and also the graciousness of his mercy. Destruction will come, but not annihilation.” For the remnant theme, see Hasel 1974; Anderson 1977–78:11-14; King 1994:414-427.

[121] See King 1995:29-31; see further R. D. Patterson, “Old Testament Prophecy,” A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, eds., L. Ryken and T. Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 302-303.

[122] The morning hour is often commended as an ideal time for meeting with God to find direction and strength for the day (e.g., Pss 5:3; 88:13, NIV; 92:1-2; 143:8; cf. Mark 1:35).

[123] As Craigie (1985:125) notes, “In Zephaniah’s time, just as in our own, there were those persons engaged in the ‘ministry of the Word’ who had seen and exploited its possibilities for personal gain.”

[124] As King (1994:427) points out, all three emphases of the remnant theme are resident in Zephaniah’s prophecy: historic (2:3, 7), faithful (3:12), and eschatological (3:15).

[125] VanGemeren (1989:681) appropriately remarks, “Faithfulness is not only an attitude but also an expression of what one says and does. The essence of Old Testament piety is found here (cf. Pss 15:2-5; 24:3-6; Mic 6:8). The requirement is no different since the coming of Christ.”

[126] See B. A. Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon, SBL Dissertation Series 149 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 43-54.

[127] For example, see D. A. Schneider, “The Unity of the Book of the Twelve.” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1979), 144-149.

[128] See Clark H. Pinnock, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994); Greg A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).

[129] See Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000).