Christian Biblical Reflections. Completed. Old Testament.

Christian Biblical Reflections. Completed. Old Testament.

PDF, DOCX, RTF formats.

Some words concerning Christian Biblical Reflections: I am most grateful to the Lord for allowing me to finish this work. The Book is some 2,500 pages of a journey with the Bible in the Christian path. CBR.1-3.v1. c. 570 pages.   CBR.4.v2. c370 pages.   CBR.5.v3.p1.  c. 1020 pages. CBR.v3.p2. c. 550 pages.  It has been 10 years in labor & production, 7 years in typing, 3 years on the Prophets alone. It consists of the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi, it is organized in Five Chapters in Three Volumes or broken up into Five Volumes. Due to further health issues, I delay no longer to send out this rush edition. The last 2 Selections are not properly edited; the Chronology in the Period of Daniel to Christ is not yet finished; spelling & grammar is still to be done, along with the Table of Contents, Index, etc. It does not look like I will be able to do all these things, but I'll continue as best as I can. My original intentions is to have a 2 volume work on the entire Bible, Old & New Testaments, but as you see that did not happen. I make no apologies for my literary unconvential quirks. I never intended for the work to be for the market, but to be available in digital formats freely to all.  The Summary at the end of the Book, at the end of the Minor Prophets, is intended to make the work understandable to the Bible Reader. I have not tried to produce a Commentary, there are many good ones available, better than I could do; nor a translation, which I am not qualified to attempt; but only share what my exploration of biblical hermeneutics has encountered as a Cobbler examining & repairing worn shoes of doctrines & practices. I use the 1611 AKJV, 1910 ASV, NASB, NET Bible,  Bullinger's Companion Bible, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Hebrew Text, Greek Text, Latin Text, 1960 Spanish Reina-Valera, etc. The work itself is self-explanatory as it progresses; & the Text Analysis-Digest became more defined. If & when the work is properly finished, edited, & supplemented where necessary, at that time I will reissue the work again in the 3 formats of a rtf, docx, and pdf downloadable copies. Also links will soon be provided of where the work is publicly posted or archived. I pray the work might be of help to the readers, especially the Bible Students. -mjm, 2021.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhq8jQFYfit2rgxiYaA?e=GcuqeD (OneDrive)

Updates:

  1. 03-02-21: Selections 6-9 (Pusey to Briggs) are now completely edited, Selection 10 is still not finished.
  2. 03-15-21: Selection 10 (Smith) is completed. What is last edit to finish & add is the Chronology that commenced the Minor Prophets; and the final Reflections on the entire Prophetical Books with conclusion of the Twelve Minor Prophets.
  3. 03-24-2021: The Reflections on the Prophetic Books & particularly of Daniel & the 12 Minor Prophets is now finished, thus completing the Book CBR, Christian Biblical Reflections of Genesis-Malachi of the Hebrew Old Testament. After perusing the Selections & Reflections of the 4 Major Prophetic Books, its apparent that the several Tables of Chronology together complete the projected full Chronology or Timeline from David to Messiah, so that I need not add more to what has beeb presented. Any other revisions or changes will be automatically made & place here & all the formats made to match.
  4. As to the New Testament I cannot say, and little hope to complete it; but what I have started is the Text Analysis & Digest with Annotations from Matthew to Revelation, without any promises or commitments. The Colors of the Text Fonts of Black, Red, Blue, Purple are used in the original formats & preserved in the PDFs to distinguish the Author, Divine Direct Words, Quotes or Citations or References. This also will be available in this location with the other works.
  5. April 2021. Text of Matthew’s Gospel is now completed. I will work through the Gospels & Acts, then Paul’s Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, & the Apocalypse or Revelation. Reflections & Selections will not be attempted till the Text is completed. Revisions or Additions made without notifications.

Posted in Bible & Scripture, Bible Reflections, Book of Daniel, Christian Doctrine, Christian Poetry, Christian Reflections, Minor Prophets, Prophecy, Psalms Hymns Spiritual Songs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Biblical Reflections.48

Christian Biblical Reflections. Completed.

PDF, DOCX, RTF formats.

                Some words concerning Christian Biblical Reflections: I am most grateful to the Lord for allowing me to finish this work. The Book is some 2,500 pages of a journey with the Bible in the Christian path. CBR.1-3.v1. c570 pages.   CBR.4.v2. c370 pages.   CBR.5.v3.p1.  c1020 pages. CBR.v3.p2. c550 pages.  It has been 10 years in Labor & production, 7 years in typing, 3 years on the Prophets alone. It consists of the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi, it is organized in Five Chapters in Three Volumes or broken up into Five Volumes. Due to further health issues, I delay no longer to send out this rush edition. The last 2 Selections are not properly edited; the Chronology in the Period of Daniel to Christ is not yet finished; spelling & grammar is still to be done, along with the Table of Contents, Index, etc. It does not look like I will be able to do all these things, but I’ll continue as best as I can. My original intentions is to have a 2 volume work on the entire Bible, Old & New Testaments, but as you see that did not happen. I make no apologies for my literary unconvential quirks. I never intended for the work to be for the market, but to be available in digital formats freely to all.  The Summary at the end of the Book, at the end of the Minor Prophets, is intended to make the work understandable to the Bible Reader. I have not tried to produce a Commentary, there are many good ones available, better than I could do; nor a translation, which I am not qualified to attempt; but only share what my exploration of biblical hermeneutics has encountered as a Cobbler examining & repairing worn shoes of doctrines & practices. The work itself is self-explanatory as it progresses. If & when the work is properly finished, edited, & supplemented where necessary, at that time I will reissue the work again in the 3 formats of a rtf, docx, and pdf downloadable copies. Also links will soon be provided of where the work is publicly posted or archived. I pray the work might be of help to the readers, especially the Bible Students. -mjm, 2021.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhq8jQFYfit2rgxiYaA?e=GcuqeD

  

                              CBR: Summary Reflections of the Old Testament: Genesis – Malachi.

Bible: Introduction.

The Bible as God’s Word, as the Revelation to mankind, as the Holy Scriptures of the Jewish People, the ancient Hebrews to the modern Israelis, is a Holy Book and Divine Writings through inspiration, and historical transmission by the people. When I come to its pages in my rebellious teen years, very illiterate and ignorant of the world I lived in, it instructed me with spiritual truth that I was amazed by and attracted to in the simplest way. It’s been 52 years that I have travelled with this Book of Life. Now in my 68th year, after reflecting on this Text of God, writing from my hospital bed, approaching death, I am anxious to complete the Christian Biblical Reflections as my last will and testament to my Family, Friends, and all the others who might by chance encounter this work. Many ask, “Why do you believe, follow, and value this Book?” My testimony is this: the Holy Bible of both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament has been my salvation in God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. So, let us turn to the Book.

The Book has educated and guided me in countless ways and in a manner that I did not readily perceive. It nurtured me in the English tongue and in other languages. Th reading of its pages, book by book, introduced a world of knowledge that soon captured my heart and mind. As it taught me, molded my thinking, I discovered a world of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others that its doctrines taught. In order to understand this Book, we are led into a world of learning and literature. It causes us to learn our languages in a very clear and detailed way. We are made to attend to the letters, words, sentences, verses, chapters, and the books in a thorough manner. It makes us think and ask questions; it gives us answers in our quest. We are made to reflect on ancient things and discover new things in turn.

Outline:

Bible: Introduction.

Earliest Human Development, Evolution & Civilization in Genesis. (Gen 1-12).

World of Adam, Noah, Abram. (Gen. 1-50). Mankind & Gentiles. (2,000 Years)

World of Moses. Egyptians & Wilderness. Joshua. Gentiles. (200 Years)

World of Judges: Joshua – Samuel. Gentiles. (400 Years)

World of Monarchs & Kings: Saul – David – Solomon. Divided Monarchy. Gentiles. (600 Years)

Prophets: Isaiah to Malachi. Messiah. Gentiles. (400 Years)

World between Old & New Testaments: Messiah & Gentiles: Malachi – Messiah. (400 Years)

Genesis to Malachi and Mathew to Revelation tell a continuous historical story of a Land, People, and Book, comprising the story of Creation, Judgement, and Salvation. In Genesis, the origin of this story begins. God is declared existing as Creator of all things of Heaven and Earth and the world of man. It tells of the Creation Week, of the account of the creation of man, of the earliest civilization of mankind in the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia, of the Great Flood and the end of that world, of the new beginning of Noah and his three sons, and of the Tower of Babel in human unification and Divine intervention in the creation of languages, races, and nations. Then we have the chosen Shemites, the Hebrews, in the Call of Abram or Abraham, whose story continues in Isaac, then Jacob-Israel and the Twelve Sons of Israel. In this story of some 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, we have God (Elohim) whose Name is Jehovah (YHWH) as the Lord of all the earth and mankind. We see Him interacting with His creatures from time to time and in various ways as in dreams and visions or appearances. All that He does conforms to the rule of life and purpose, that is, what He makes He also maintains to judge or save. He allows man, the human race, to evolve, develop, grow, multiply, invent, and spread throughout the world. He never loses sight of His Words, Commands, Demands, Promises, and Prophecies.

When we come to Genesis, the first Book of the Old Testament or Covenant, we confront doctrines and claims that are opposed to many of our knowledge, teachings, and ideas or theories. Nature as we know it in all its physical, material, and substantial forms, visible or invisible, is declared to be the Work of His Hands. It’s a simple or simplified story that we read, but it is clearly the claim of a Personal God as Creator and Maker, the Almighty or Shaddai, who involves Himself with those He chooses and Who follow Him. His Image and Likeness in man is of the utmost concern to Him, and He seeks to form and develop the divine life and nature in His people. He covenants with them, He cultivates spiritual qualities like faith, hope, and love, like joy and gratitude, like obedience, faithfulness, and sympathy, etc., etc. He does not impose His Will and Way on mankind in a capricious way, or as a Tyrant controlling man as a robot. These things and many such things are found in the Book.

God makes a Land for the People where His Words are fulfilled and unfolded, and in that People to produce the Story in the Book, which once recorded, becomes the Divine Scrolls of the Sacred Scriptures. In the Book of God’s Words man is offered a divine way to live which will lead to blessings, salvation, and eternal life.  The Book will educate us in many ways which we will find surprising. We will discover that our English language is related to other languages as a class, that our Alphabet is derived from Latin, which got it from Greeks, which got it from the Phoenicians and Hebrews, which got it from earlier peoples: India’s Sanskrit and the early Sumerians. We learn from the Book the tongue expresses the thoughts of the mind. We learn that the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (Holy Writings in Pictures) were like the earliest Sumerians’, which indicate that man’s speech as a language is expressed in symbols and pictures. These symbols and pictures representing words and ideas are organized in syllables, sounds, and letters after the pattern of names and actions. The basic principle of symbolic representation of human thoughts would develop in time into more advanced grammar and syntax with fixed rules and distinction from other cognate tongues. We see this common history of languages everywhere, and in the tongues of the Canaanites with the Hebrews. In time, the written word became the means of communication among the nations and peoples in the trade and traditions. This development of language became very advanced in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and modern languages. Other nations also developed their writing from similar manners, until the modern world is filled with words and meanings far beyond the primitive origins.

In the Bible is found History, Religion, Science, Wisdom & such like; but it is not a History Book, Science Book, Medicine Book, Law Book, Philosophy Book, or the like; it records those things more or less, as part of the Divine Story of God’s participation in humanity. God’s interest is with His creative interest & design, His Will & Purpose. The Plan of God is a creative history, or story, a generational account of human life from its genesis to its completion. From Adam to Noah we find an ancient world, consisting of the simplest things of human life. We are given very little details, only seeds that will develop, evolve, & spread as civilization. It was a primitive world where God, as the Lord God, Jehovah, responds to man as he grows, moves & lives. We are not to think that God ordered the generations as a unrelated Participant, but seeks man’s response to Himself as Face to Face. Some say that “the chicken comes before the egg?” But in the Bible we have the Eternal Infinite Transcendent God creating all things, including the chicken & man from His own Being & Substance, His Spiritual Nature. This is the genesis, germ, grain, seed, kernel, the point of the creation of the universe & all in it, in the heavens or earth. What is determined is being, existence & life. The creative egg must produce or become the chicken, hence the chicken lays the eggs, the eggs become many chicken to this date. This is so with man. Adam was not formed out of nothing, but in Genesis he is created in God’s Word & Will. God’s Word is the Seed of Life by which he formed, molded, built man. Adam out of earth becomes a living soul, a life that lives, by the spirit, or divine breath. Always remember, “From nothing comes nothing,” zero is nothing by itself; it is no number. But God is One, & all must come from Him as a seed. It is the divine generation that Genesis of the Bible records & relates the earliest

Earliest Human Development, Evolution & Civilization in Genesis. (Gen 1-12). Scripture teaches me of God as Creator, a Personal God Who speaks, sees, moves, and exists in time & space. He does things in order & design, according to His Plan & Will or Desire. He is the Maker of all things: of the universe, nature, the world, life, reality, existence, being, substance, time, space, & whatever can be named of His Creation & Production. This is the Biblical Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Science, & Doctrine. It teaches me in simplicity & uniquely of truth, wisdom, & life. The world exists, nature is, man is, & Scripture testifies that this creation of things & beings is of God the Creator. Further it teaches you of created things that live, move, grow, reproduce, and such like. It teaches of man, humans, as the highest form of life on earth, above the vegetation, above the fishes of the sea & all aquatic life, above the birds of the air & all Aves creatures on land & in the air, above all animal life, above the mammals of the earth. Man is presented to us as the replica of the Divine, divine reproduction & representation, as superior to all other creatures, as the lord of the earth. Man as chief of creatures has meaning different than animals, has purpose, has place, responsibility, & accountability. Man, both male & female, is the Image & Likeness of God, God-like, divine. He is not God or Deity or the Divine One. Man’s formation is given, his 1st home & relations to animals, his purpose & role as a creature, as an earthling of nature in the world. He is the work of the Lord God, Jehovah, or Lord, & is placed in a Garden in Eden in lower Mesopotamia near the Persian Gulf. His original charge was very simple; but he failed, the failure or fall was judged & they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Their fall was the snare of a serpent, later called Satan & Devil, as man’s enemy. Man by the Woman would continue in the earth as a seed, the Seed of Woman, at war with the serpent’s seed. Man in Adam’s fall, is punished, exiled, sentenced to labor till death; hard labor & toil, struggle, & all that comes with survival. Man, as Male, is head, the woman, as Female, is subject to the husband as the male; she suffers giving life or birth; woman as female, as wife, submits to husband’s headship; she is a mother of life in her suffering as her punishment & her reward. Their nakedness & innocence is replaced with clothes & shame, guilt, suffering, & death.

                Adam’s children multiplied near Eden, near the Garden of Eden, within 100 miles North & South near the Great Rivers of Mesopotamia. The doctrines & the truth of what we have in chapters 1-3, must be enlarged & grow towards fulfillment in chapters 1-6, the old & earliest world. The commands of God, His worship, knowledge, wisdom, life & living, marriage, family, work or duty, & 100s of other doctrines of the 1st world. The generations from Adam to Noah consisting of some 1500 years of the ancient calendar of the pre-flood world, which is unknown to us, leading up to Moses. We see the continuation of Adam’s Fall, the Sin, & sin-nature, in his seed or progeny in the cosmic & human conflict of good & evil. Sins multiplied in countless forms, & multiplied in men or mankind, such as: hate, murder, lies, enmity, violence, rape, sexual promiscuity & perversions, excess, self-will, & countless other forms of man’s sinfulness. We must keep in mind that the Words of God must continue in man’s exile, in human development, & continues to this very day. God’s creation must continue, His judgment must be executed, & His salvation must operate & advance in adaptation or response to mankind. Man’s unique abilities begin to appear in his works, inventions, tools, instruments, food, clothing, trades, music, & much more. His knowledge of himself and His world, of nature & life, compounded according to his numbers. In time, men & women would compete with & against each other; they would fight & war; they would make & defend claims, revenge, enslave, etc. God’s judgment on the old world was a Great Flood that destroyed the Old World, sparing only a select few. But not only the evil is revealed but the good also, like: grace of God, His glory, wisdom, kindness, mercy, judgment, creating, preserving, saving, destroying, dividing, etc. Man also has virtues, blessings, goodness, rule, care, wisdom, knowledge, choice, will, feelings, discrimination, imagination, thinking, joy, protection, guardian-ship, faith, obedience, etc. Thus far for Adam’s Headship.

                After the Great Flood of Noah & Noah’s three sons, we have the Federal Headship  added in Noah with a New Covenant, a Testament & Will. Noah becomes the Patriarch of a New World, the Gentiles of the earth. Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, Japhet) become the Father of peoples, tongues, nations of all mankind in the world. Noah’s additional children, born after the Great Flood, also multiplied the people of the earth near & far. Also following the 2 Great Rivers, east & west; other generations would later follow other rivers & water places flowing & steaming in other directions. The story is told of 2 nations & peoples by the time of Abraham the Shemite “the River Crosser”.  With the Age of Adam, Noah, & his 3 sons, came the Age of Gentiles. Mankind evolved in various ways overcoming struggles, adaptations, and mutations (Survival of the Fittest).  The roots of unification quickly turned into an unhealthy fear, arrogance, and disbelief of humanity’s goodness.  Nimrod is introduced of the Hametic roots as well as the last Usurper of Divine Power through War and Subjugation of the Mesopotamian people.  The Sumerian Hamites became the 1st civilization developing thousands of diverse habits of living, encompassing both Good and Evil.

                From these roots all other generations of mankind learned, copied, traded, followed, & added additional practices & innovations of their own. They created their own customs, traditions, inventions, adding knowledge, wisdom, & government. Evolving from primitive wars and conflicts, tools, weapons, & techniques were perfected to subdue & overpower their enemies. During this age slavery evolved, as well as racism, prejudice of other nationalities, jealousy, pride & unspeakable evils.  Conversely, mankind with his depraved nature also developed the good,& better ways & things.  Mankind of all the nations & tongues, family units & tribes in every country & land with national pride. The Sumerian way, the Accadian way; others, likewise from far east to west, and slowly learning how to communicate with each other through Pictographs, Hieroglyphics, Cuneiforms  developing the Alphabet including every tongue everywhere. Through this constant intermarriage and intermingling of customs, languages, trading of commerce, slaves, captives of war, etc… laid the foundation for our modern world & civilizations. The major doctrines of human civilization was being birthed into education, customs, traditions, culture, etc… This gave way to the framework of theology, philosophy, religion, wisdom, governments, Kingships, Lordships, family, industry, trade, craftsmanship, schools, learning, writing, etc…

                These five centuries between the Great Flood & the call of Abraham, shows God’s interest in the Gentiles, of which the Noahic Covenant was formed, according to the prophecy of the Father & Patriarch Noah, determined each unique place in the dispensation & the occupation of land. Shem was prophetically chosen, blessed and favored by God. Shem’s progeny (his seed) were to preserve the knowledge of the Biblical God & the origins of all things & all mankind.  The divine truth, preserved in part, was often distorted, forgotten, altered, & displaced in various forms of idolatry & lies. Mankind fell into darkness & depravity: Wars waged, the Semites conquered the Hamites, and after 1,000 years Accadians, Babylonians, & Assyrians ruled over other the nations & peoples of other tongues.  The skill of writing became necessary in order to exchange information & interact with each other. The 100s of years the Gentiles were in power from the Tower of Babel to Abram (400) years, & from Abram to Moses, some (400) years; which lead us lead to Assyria & Egypt at odds in competition & wars in the Middle East, foremost in Canaan & Arabia. Abram the Hebrew of Padan-Aram or Chaldea-Aramea, was called and led by Divine Words to become Abraham the Believer, Friend of God, Prophet & Patriarch of a new race of followers of the One True Living God.  Abraham would witness of God in a world of Gentiles & testify of Divine Truth to mankind. His Testimony of God’s Covenant with man was of Faith & Obedience according to the Truth & Wisdom from Above. His purpose was to fulfill his dispensational call & prophetic responsibility & ministry, to become Father of many Nations, Spiritual Nations & of the Hebrews. In Isaac & Jacob, this was transferred & ratified by Word and Blood. In Jacob, who became Israel, who became the Patriarch of 12 Tribes of Israel, to whom the dispensational Covenant of God to Abraham was transferred to him as Jacob-Israel Israel still is not in possession of the Promised Land, nor has become a Nation from whom many Nations. He becomes a people in Aram, married to Arameans Semites & Hebrews.  Israel with his 12 sons & 12 tribes of Israel return to Canaan, & still not in possession of the any part of the Land,  except for a burial ground for his wives, Rachael and Leah. Meanwhile his other slave wives. In Egypt he becomes a great numerous people awaiting deliverance.   

World of Moses. Egyptians & Wilderness. Joshua. Gentiles. (200 Years)

From the birth of Moses to the death of Joshua was some 200 years. During those 2 centuries the Hebrews multiplied as the house of Israel, they suffered as foreigners & slaves; were delivered by the LORD through Moses, Aaron & 10 plagues of judgment on Egypt, crossed the Red Sea (Yam Sof), lived & wondered in the wilderness, or the Arabian Desert. In the wilderness at Mount Sinai, or Horeb. God delivered to Moses 10 Words or Commandments of His Law or Torah as the Covenant between God and Israel as a Nation. In Adam His dispensational covenant  was in His commandments, to Adam with Eve, was obedience to eternal life; a covenant which continued in man thence forward as a promise to Noah to Abraham, to Israel to David & to Messiah, Christ, in Whom it was a gift of God by the Holy Spirit, & in Christ offered to all men, Jews & Gentiles, continuing till Christ returns. Though the dispensations change, the covenants are not deleted but another placed above & beyond it, with better promises & properties, conditions, feature, etc. The world had become lawless, disorderly, vile, depraved & in endless such things, & only altered in the statistics of more in number, which invented more devices of a moral condition that was contagious, that made leprosy looked clean. God would fulfill His Promises, His Work would meet the need of this sickness & disease.

                The Law, 10 Words, would be the moral medicine to prescribe for the diagnosis. We read the 10 Commandments of God’s Law, His words, written on Tablets of stones by the Finger of God, then rewritten by Moses on New Tablets. In the 10 Plagues of Egypt’s judgment, we read of the 1st & 10th as related & corresponding. As with the human hands in anatomy, our body has a left & a right, with 5 fingers on each, just like 2 tablets. The 1st tablet started with the great commandment in the Law on Sinai, as a thumb the great finger; the 2nd tablet ended with the great commandment of the voice of God adding no more. 2 hands with 5 fingers, each with a thumb as the first & the Last when the hands are held out with palms visible. In between are 8 fingers in pairs matching, each different set of 2. These hands & fingers interact with each other to do anything & everything. When the palms are turned down & become hidden, then they connect at the thumbs, while the fingers moved opposite each other.

                These things are prophetic symbolism of a unique kind in the 10 Commandments, when explored & understood, they explain the Law, the Torah. In analogy, we see in the divine Word in 10 Books are to be understood the essential books to our picture of the Bible. Here are the 10 Books you must compare against your list: on the left is the Old Testament consisting of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah & Daniel; on the right is the New Testament consisting of the Gospel of John, Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews & Revelation (Apocalypse). In Genesis all is hidden as seeds; in the Apocalypse all is matured as to what they became. I have fully substantiated the 5 Old Testament books in Christian Biblical Reflections of the Old Testament of the Bible. So too, Exodus, is not one of the five O.T. essential Books, but supports Genesis & Deuteronomy (the 2nd Law). Deuteronomy as the 2nd Law replacing the 1st Law is the key book of the Torah, all the essentials of Exodus, Leviticus & Numbers are in Deuteronomy, the Words of Moses, the lawgiver, prophet & deliverer of Israel. All the rituals, ceremonies, sacrifices, offerings, anointings, the Aaron & Leviticus priesthood all displace by the Melchizedek priesthood symbolized in Genesis, revealed in Psalms, prophesized in in the prophets form Israel to Malachai. Israel as a Nation was expected to witness to the Gentiles of God & His kingdom. The temple hid the tabernacle; prophets prophesied of Messiah would fulfill & displace the law, priesthood & monarchy, the poetic Books of Job, David, Psalms, Proverbs, Solomon’s Song, are incorporated in the spiritual truth of the New Testament as useful to this new dispensation.

                Egypt has left remains of the great empire of Kings & Pharaohs who ruled for some 2500 years, more or less in various degrees of power & at times by foreigners. The Egyptian world is well documented in thousands of tests & artifacts, monuments, & testimonies of other nations. In Moses’ day it had a long rich culture, advanced far beyond the days of Joseph the son of Jacob, who like Moses, became a prince of Egypt. Polytheism, idolatry, was grotesquely weird & insane. Its holy language & script was means of perpetuating this falsification of God & His truth. It was the Emperial Power, along with a few other powers to the north, south, east, and west.  It was the envy of the world, & jealousy of the kingdoms of the north-west, & of the north-east. It became the teacher of many nations, peoples, & countries. Even in our age its glory is golden & strange. Moses, the Hebrew, was raised in all this, just as was Joseph Jacob’s son in his teen years, Moses treated as an Egyptian, raised in royalty, & power as a prince. Then he fled Egypt from Pharaoh, & settled among the ancient Arabs, the Midianites, in the land that covered what the Arabs now call “the Hegira’, where the sacred pilgrimage journey from Medina to Mecca in Saudi Arabia covers, & where many returns from Mecca to Medina to the sacred mosque of Mohammed the Prophet of the Quran of Allah. In Midia (“northwest Arabian Peninsula, on the east shore of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea”) he married Jethro’s, the Midian priests, daughter & worked as a shepherd of Jethro’s flock.  

                Thus, Moses the Hebrew, from birth, nursed by his mother an Israelite slave, from early childhood learned the way of Egypt till he was a grown man; then from manhood to senior years lived as a Midianite among the ancient Arabs, who were descendants of Abraham the Semitic Hebrew. In this world & age Moses was called of God to deliver Israel from Egyptian slavery, to become God’s people & servants. In this, God created a new dispensation with Moses, as lawgiver, & the Torah’s foundation of the new nation. The five Books of Moses speak of all these things, where God by Moses & Aaron established a national people of a divine theocracy to further his purpose with man. But this dispensation, as a Mosaic system, was doomed to fail, because of the natural man’s reluctance to faith & obedience to God. Though the were progeny seed of Abraham the Friend of God, they followed not Abraham as a nation from time to time. But God had his witness & testimony in the world among the nations in his own people.

                Though the Mosaic system failed, the Books of Moses, the Torah, would not fail, but continue to this hour. The Writings of Moses would lead to the Judges from Joshua to Samuel, thence the Monarchy from David to Messiah, Who according to Moses’ Law & Prophecy, foretold us of the Messiah-Prophet, Who would make the Law glorious in its fulfillment, & add a new dispensation, the new Testament & Covenant, established better things, promises, & purposes. In the Book He would form a Nation by the Book, beginning with Joshua or Jesus,then all the 20 Judges of Israel,the Monarchy of the 20 Kings of Judah, and the 20 Kings of Israel, with the 20 Prophets of the Divided Monarchy, that is, the 2 Kingdoms. The Gentiles would have a Sign & Wonder, Testimony and Example of the Divine Word, fulfilling the transformation of the natural man to the spiritual man. Then the Word Incarnate would appear, and with him a New Testament,to complete the Bible, the Book of God, the Word of God. This new dispensation would continue with the Jews or Hebrew or Israelites till the Second Advent of Christ-Messiah. The Hebrew Bible becomes the Third of the themes of God with His creation. He needs and wants a Land, a People, a Book; in order to create the people as the Lord’s so He may have a Home to Dwell in and with them as God. The Gentiles would enter relations with God by their treatment to Israel; Israel would be disciplined by God by using the Gentiles to punish Israel for disobedience to the Law of Moses, and their disregard for God, their unfaithfulness, unbelief, ingratitude and idolatry, till the Times of the Gentiles are come to full end. The Church of the New Testament is also subject to the power of the Gentiles till the End. Both Jews and Christians are to be a spiritual people subject to a higher power, living in a spiritual Kingdom with spiritual Laws. The Arabs too, in the Quran, where it substantiates the Bible, confirms scripture, supports Truth and the Doctrines of the Word of God, are blessed with the true believers as children of Abraham the Believer.

World of Judges: Joshua – Samuel. Gentiles. (400 Years)

                World of Judges, from Joshua to Samuel, some 400 years plus, was the period between Joshua to Samuel. The Book of the Law of Moses was to be read, studied, obeyed and fulfilled by the children of Israel of the 12 sons of Jacob, in covenant with the Lord their God. The Judges were not Kings but deliverers of Israel from the local Gentile powers in and around Canaan or Palestine. Joshua’s conquest of Canaan by eradicating or expelling the 7 Gentile nations of Canaan was incomplete at the time of his death. Israel was to complete the conquest and possess the land as the land of Israel, by doing so making Canaan or Palestine to be Israel. But they constantly failed in disobedience to God and the neglect of the Law of Moses, the Word of God, the Bible, the Book, that is Scripture. Instead Israel intermarried with the forbidden Gentiles of Canaan, & practiced the idolatries of the Gentiles; making the God of Israel like to one of the dumb vain idols, so-called gods? But often repentant in their affliction by the Gentiles, sought the Lord their God with tears, & He in mercy & compassion, remembering His promise to the Patriarchs, would deliver them repeatedly. This period of the Judges progressed increasingly worse from generation after generation; and they were delivered by Judges spectacular ways. Barack & Deborah, Gideon, Jepthah, Samson, & at last Samuel. Samuel was a Priest, Prophet or Seer, & Judge, who would anoint their first two kings, Saul and David, in the creating the Monarchy, subjugating the Theocracy of the Mosaic system to human Kingship and Lordship, thus rejecting God, the Lord, as their true King. The Gentiles continued to spread throughout the earth entering ever new countries and lands. Mankind continued to alienate themselves from the truth of God, the way of God and the knowledge of God. The Gentile powers and rule of governments increasingly became imperial, where a King became a Great King or King of Kings, as we read in Genesis, in the days of Abraham, against the Mesopotamian Great King Chedorlaomer of Elam, invading the southern nations and Canaan. By the time we reach Samuel the Land of Israel was dominated by the Lords & Kings of the Philistines or the ancient Palestanians, the Ishmaelites, Medianites, Moabites, Ammorites, desert Arabs and others; all were multiplying in numbers and power. Israel would often ally themselves with these nations, often fight with them, & intermarry with them, & fornicated with them in idolatry. Samson & Samuel shows how degraded the people had become not trusting in the Lord to defend and protect them, to bless and keep them. The Law of Moses was almost vanquished and nullified, its feasts rarely kept, & at Shiloh they looked for a King like those of the Gentiles. They demanded old Samuel to find and anoint for them a King to put their hope and trust in, to fight their battles, & to rule over them as a Lord over slaves. Samuel was reluctant to do so, but the Lord God granted their wish and gave to them Saul of Benjamin, in whom they delighted to their own harm and loss. King Saul proved to be useless against the Lords of the Philistines; he became cowardly & yielded to the Peoples’ lust; he was rejected by the Lord, & slowly became insane.

World of Monarchs & Kings: Saul – David – Solomon. Divided Monarchy. Gentiles. (600 Years)

                World of the Monarch & Kings of Israel and Judah; Saul, David, Solomon and their 2 kingdoms with their 20 Kings each. King Saul was helpless against the Philistine who defied the Lord God of Israel openly, challenging the army of Saul to battle, and even to offer one man to one man contest to decide the battle.The hero champion of the Philistines was the giant named Goliath, which terrified the warriors of Israel and Saul. Then came David, a shepherd boy, to bring food to his brothers in the battle, including his uncle Joab, a Captain in King Saul’s army. David defied the giant for defying God and Israel. He accepted the challenge from the giant Goliath; and with his slingshot and five smooth stones in his hand, met the giant Goliath in the battle field. With one fatal shot, the giant fell dead on the ground and David cut off his head with Goliath’s own sword, thus defeating the Philistines, who fled from the battlefield. This lad, David the shepherd boy, was the one Samuel had secretly anointed at the Word of the Lord. The transfer of the Throne & the Kingdom of the Monarchy was now of utmost necessity, but the insane King Saul would resist it in every way. When he knew the people rejoiced in David who slew 10,000 and Saul merely his 1,000, His insanity became openly displayed to kill David. Samuel was preparing to die; so, set in order the matter of the Kingdom to be transferred to David by the choice of God. Samuel died. Soon after, King Saul and his son Jonathan died in battle while fighting against the Philistines, thus David became King over Israel & Judah.

                The Philistines occupied the coastal borderland plains in South Canaan going towards Egypt. The Northern Coastland was possessed by the Phoenicians, above the Sea of Galilee, in upper Galilee. These nations were never dispossessed from the times of Joshua to David, their great cities still flourished, & their maritime commerce never ceased. They traded & interacted with many other Gentiles in the spread & dissemination of language, culture, & goods. The way of Gentiles could be seen everywhere in Israel. The idols of the Gentiles also were established in Israel north, south, east, and west. The world of the Gentile Nations continued to lead humanity to ever greater and newer civilizations, and Israel moved in it’s current direction. King David, with his mighty men and great army, led by his generals or chief captains, and marshalled by his uncle Joab, fought the Philistines & other Canaanites & conquered many local nearby countries, thus making them subservient to Israel. King David established the Kingdom, then he set his heart on the House of God: It’s construction, the Priesthood, the worship in rituals, ceremonies, & musical celebrations in conformity to the Law of Moses that had been given by the Lord. King David composed many Psalms and songs which became part of the book of Psalms of David, with contributions by many others from Solomon to Hezekiah, all the way to Josiah. He built a great Palace for the Monarch, like the great Houses of the Gentile Kings. He wanted to build a great Temple for the God of Israel, far exceeding all the Temples of the Gentiles, the greatest and magnificent House of Jehovah God, the God of Israel. He allied himself with the Gentiles to collect all the supplies and material for the Great House. However, the Lord would not permit him to construct the Temple of God because the blood of his hands. The Lord chose his son Solomon to build the House of God and to establish all things related to the House and it’s worship, Priesthood, & much more. So the Monarch of Israel reached its golden glory in the days of King Solomon, after the death of King David. King Solomon married the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt & built a great House in Judea outside Jerusalem, which took 20 years to build, & before he moved hi wife, & wives into it. He married 100s of daughters of the Kings & Lords of the Gentiles all around himself. These were his concubines and all this was to maintain peace and acquire help and wealth. Even so, peace was short lived.

                King Solomon had taxed the people heavily, burdened with labor greatly, in order to build the Temple and pay the Gentiles for their help. The 10 Tribes of Israel which resorted to the House of Saul, led by Jeroboam I in the rebellion & division of the Kingdom of the Kingdom in the South, as the Capitol, with the Priesthood of Levites. The Northern Kingdom of Israel of 10 Tribes made Samaria the Capitol & Jeroboam 1 its King. All this was allowed by the Lord through the mouth of the prophet Ahijah. But God intended to restore and reunite the kingdom to the House of David, but King Jeroboam resisted the will of God, to keep the Kingdom for himself. The 2 Kingdoms continued till their captivity, & exile by the Gentile powers; the north conquered by the Assyrian, in the days of its 20th King. Judah and Jerusalem continued longer, but were conquered by neo-Babylonia in the days of its 20th & last King, King Hoshea. This period from Jeroboam I to their captivity was above 250 years, & none of the Kings of Samaria were good. The Southern Kingdom of Jerusalem & Judah continued over 100 years (total sum of of less than 350 years) till there conquest, destruction, captivity, exile, deportation, and dispersion among the Gentiles. The Kings of Jerusalem had 10 bad Kings & 10 good Kings, & of the good kings the greatest were Hezekiah & Josiah. We must leave the age of the Monarchy of Israel & turn our focus to the Prophets.

Prophets: Isaiah to Malachi. Messiah. Gentiles. (400 Years)

                Prophets of the Divided Monarchy & their Captivity: Elijah to Isaiah to Malachi: (400 Years). Those who God has revealed Himself, & spoken to & sent to speak on His behalf are prophets. We are concerned with the line and School of Prophets from Samuel to Messiah. The prophets of the Monarchy were many; the Prophets of the Divided Monarchy into 2 Kingdoms were 20. The 20 Prophets were the Monarchal Prophets ministering during the days & the years of the Kings. Elijah is the first introduced to us in the reign of King Ahab & his wife Jezebel, in the Northern Kingdom of Samaria of the 10 Tribes of Israel. The idolatry had become so prevalent that God needed to intervene. Jezebel had 400 false prophets to her shame. The spectacular and miraculous ministry of Elijah & Elisha were recorded to develop the Scriptures in its prophetical testimony of the Word of God. In the Prophetical Books of Isaiah to Malachi, God revealed His dispensational relationship with His people by the federal headship of their Kings & Rulers. The Kings were God’s representatives to the Nation, & as such were responsible to God for the state of the Nation before Him. The continual need to send them Prophets, like He sent Judges in the period of the Judges, raising up deliverers & Judges, to recall them to the Law of Moses, to Himself as their God, to obedience unto righteousness & holiness, to faithfulness & usefulness, only confirmed the sinful nature of man. How is He to save the world if his chosen people were as bad as the Gentiles who knew Him not? & how could He treat the Gentiles with judgement & punishment if Israel was as guilty, if not more guilty than the Gentiles, because they had the Divine Word in the Law of Moses?

                The Lord must keep His Word & His Promise, Israel must be chastised by the hands of the Gentiles, till he send the salvation and blessing promised since the days of King David & King Solomon.  The Prophetic Spirit testifies of Messiah, Who from the beginning pf creation was the Model of our creation in God’s glory; Who was promised as the Seed of Woman to deal with the enmity between Satan & sin, & by the conflict of this enmity He would prevail in regaining what was lost, that is innocence, life, eternal life, and God’s presence. The law of Moses, that is the Mosaic system, was given to guide Israel till Messiah, Who would complete the work the Law in the transformation of man’s inner man, to make the natural into a spiritual man. In the internal guidance of the Law, God would use Israel as light & testimony & example to the Gentiles, that He might reclaim man &thus save the world. The Prophets who would review Israel’s behavior & state, would preview a coming King & Lord & Messiah, by this word the law of life & salvation. This distinct purpose was symbolically by signs & wonders, by poetry & parables, & by graphic examples in the life & ministry by the Prophets. Elijah & Elisha were the 1st to exhibit this typology; after them other prophets would be used in a lesser fashion. The 4 Major Prophets of Isaiah, Jeramiah, Ezekiel, & Daniel showed a fuller prophetic feature of this. Then all the 12 Minor Prophets from Hosea to Malachi completed the work in specific or targeted systems and conditions, supporting the witness of the Major Prophets. The emphasis & focus of the Major & Minor Prophets always brought judgement on Israel for their failure, though always giving hope to a Remnant. The Gentile powers in afflicting & destroying Israel, were by that, accountable to the Lord God for their actions, & God would deal with them accordingly. Israel as a people, nation, congregation, son, wife, and other such relations to God, as man, that is Adam, the 1st man, to prepare for the 2nd & Last Man, the Lord from heaven. So, the Prophetic Word concerning Messiah & His Kingdom & 100s of or related things, was given of the future for both Israel & Jews & all Gentiles. Malachi gives the promise of the coming Messiah.

            World between Old & New Testaments: Messiah & Gentiles. Malachi – Messiah. (400 Years)

            After Malachi, the last of the Prophets, came the period prophesied by Daniel, concerning the 4 Great Monarchies of the Gentiles: Neo-Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, & Romans. The Jews would be ruled by these Gentile Powers, dispersed & disintegrated as a People, no longer a Nation. The Mosaic system of the Law barely survived, the Hebrew language all but vanished. The Greeks would influence the Jews until they were Hellenist Jews, not Hebrews. They translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek (called the LXX, Septuagint, or 70).  Various Apocryphal Books came to be popular, as seen in the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholics & in most of the older versions up to the Protestant Reformation. These Apocryphal Books were modeled after the Bible Books in Poetry, History, & Wisdom literature. In them memory of the Hebrew Bible was kept alive, Mosaic system kept alive in parts and pieces. The Jewish Wars with Greeks is seen in the Books of the Maccabees. Longing for Messiah increased in many ways. The Samaritan Version was preserved the ancient Hebrew as the Sacred Scroll. Greek Philosophy was absorbed into Jewish mysticism, producing a Jewish Philosophy seen in various parts of the Apocrypha, & ultimately seen in the Philo of Alexandria. In Josephus, all these things may be learned, & all the details relevant to them. The Maccabean Dynasty in seeking to restore Judaism, resisted the Greeks & were destroyed. The Romans conquered the Greeks and ruled the Jews.

            Among the Jews who long for a restored Judaism of the Torah, the Essenes became the most prominent & influential. They are now known by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran. Their Jewish Asceticism & Mysticism were a rejection of Jerusalem’s Judaism as corrupt. Their community was male celibates in white linen gowns. In contrast to another form of Judaism before the New Testament developed into the Sadducees of the Temple, & the Pharisees of the Law. Other sects were like the Zealots wanting to overthrow the Romans. These & other forms of the Jews under the Great Gentile Powers prepared the way for the Messiah & His kingdom. The Messianic longing becomes great as they saw in the Book of Daniel & all the Prophets.

            Here ends the Summary of Christian Biblical Reflections of the Old Testament Bible. -mjm, 2021.      (This Summary was typed from the hand-written original by all my kids, a grandson. Thanks.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Biblical Reflections.47

                                10. Smith. (This Selection is still being edited.)

                The Book of the Twelve Prophets Commonly Called the Minor,  by George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D. Professor of Hebrew & Old Testament Exegesis.  Free Church College, Glasgow. In Two Volumes   Vol. I. –Amos, Hosea & Micah;  with an Introduction & a Sketch of Prophecy in Early Israel.   New York.   A. C. Armstrong And Son.  1902. as.  Expositor’s Bible, edited by W.R. Nicholl.  Vol. II. –Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, Malachi, Joel, Zechariah 9–14. And Jonah With Historical & Critical Introductions. London Hodder And Stoughton. 1908.   

                Preface: The Prophets, to whom this and a following volume are dedicated, have, to our loss, been haunted for centuries by a peddling and an ambiguous title. Their Twelve Books are in size smaller than those of the great Three which precede them, and doubtless none of their chapters soar so high as the brilliant summits to which we are swept by Isaiah and the Prophet of the Exile. But in every other respect they are undeserving of the niggardly name of “ Minor.” Two of them, Amos and Hosea, were the first of all prophecy –rising cliff-like, with a sheer and magnificent originality, to a height and a mass sufficient to set after them the trend and slope of the whole prophetic range. The Twelve together cover the extent of that range, and illustrate the development of prophecy at almost every stage from the eighth cen¬ tury to the fourth. Yet even more than in the case of Isaiah or Jeremiah, the Church has been content to use a passage here and a passage there, leaving the rest of the books to absolute neglect or the almost equal oblivion of routine-reading. Among the causes of this disuse have been the more than usually corrupt state of the text; the consequent disorder and in parts unintelligibleness of all the versions; the ignorance of the various historical circumstances out of which the books arose; the absence of successful efforts to determine the periods and strophes, the dramatic dialogues (with the names of the speakers), the lyric effusions and the passages of argument, of all of which the books are composed. The following exposition is an attempt to assist the bettering of all this. As the Twelve Prophets illustrate among them the whole history of written prophecy, I have thought it useful to prefix a historical sketch of the Prophet in early Israel, or as far as the appearance of Amos. The Twelve are then taken in chronological order. Under each of them a chapter is given of historical and critical introduction to his book; then some account of the prophet himself as a man and a seer; then a complete translation of the various prophecies handed down under his name, with textual footnotes, and an exposition and application to the present day in harmony with the aim of the series to which these volumes belong; finally, a discussion of the main doctrines the prophet has taught, if it has not been found possible to deal with these in the course of the exposition. An exact critical study of the Twelve Prophets is rendered necessary by the state of the entire text. The present volume is based on a thorough examination of this in the light of the ancient versions and of modern criticism. The emendations which I have proposed are few and insignificant, but I have examined and discussed in footnotes all that have been suggested, and in many cases my translation will be found to differ widely from that of the Revised Version. To questions of integrity and authenticity more space is devoted than may seem to many to be necessary. But it is certain that the criticism of the prophetic books has now entered on a period of the same analysis and discrimination which is almost exhausted in the case of the Pentateuch. Some hints were given of this in a previous volume on Isaiah, chapters xl.—lxvi., which are evidently a composite work. Among the books now before us, the same fact has long been clear in the case of Obadiah and Zechariah, and also since Ewald’s time with regard to Micah. But Duhm’s Theology of the Prophets, which appeared in 1875, suggested interpola¬ tions in Amos. Wellhausen (in 1873) and Stade (from 1883 onwards) carried the discussion further both on those, and others, of the Twelve; while a recent work by Andr£e on Haggai proves that many similar questions may still be raised and have to be debated. The general fact must be admitted that hardly one book has escaped later additions—additions of an entirely justifiable nature, which supplement the point of view of a single prophet with the richer experience or the riper hopes of a later day, and thus afford to ourselves a more catholic presentment of the doctrines of prophecy and the Divine purposes for mankind. This general fact, I say, must be admitted. But the questions of detail are still in process of solution. It is obvious that settled results can be reached (as to some extent they have been already reached in the criticism of the Pentateuch) only after years of re¬ search and debate by all schools of critics. Meantime it is the duty of each of us to offer his own conclusions, with regard to every separate passage, on the under¬ standing that, however final they may at present seem to him, the end is not yet. In previous criticism the defects, of which work in the same field has made me aware, are four: i. A too rigid belief in the exact parallelism and symmetry of the prophetic style, which I feel has led, for instance, Wellhausen, to whom we otherwise owe so much on the Twelve Prophets, into many unnecessary emendations of the text, or, where some amendment is necessary, to absolutely unprovable changes. 2. In passages be¬ tween which no connection exists, the forgetfulness of the principle that this fact may often be explained as justly by the hypothesis of the omission of some words, as by the favourite theory of the later intrusion of portions of the extant text. 3. Forgetfulness of the possibility, which in some cases amounts almost to certainty, of the incorporation, among the authentic words of a prophet, of passages of earlier as well as of later date. And, 4, depreciation of the spiritual insight and foresight of pre-exilic writers. These, I am persuaded, are defects in previous criticism of the prophets. Probably my own criticism will reveal many more. In the beginnings of such analysis as we are engaged on, we must be prepared for not a little arbitrariness and want of proportion ; these are often necessary for insight and fresh points of view, but they are as easily eliminated by the progress of dis¬ cussion. All criticism however, is preliminary to the real work which the immortal prophets demand from scholars and preachers in our age. In a review of a previous volume, I was blamed for applying a prophecy of Isaiah to a problem of our own day. This was called “ prostituting prophecy.” The prosti¬ tution of the prophets is their confinement to aca¬ demic uses. One cannot conceive an ending, at once more pathetic and more ridiculous, to those great streams of living water, than to allow them to run out in the sands of criticism and exegesis, however golden these sands may be. The prophets spoke for a practical purpose; they aimed at the hearts of men; and every¬ thing that scholarship can do for their writings has surely for its final aim the illustration of their witness to the ways of God with men, and its application to living questions and duties and hopes. Besides, there¬ fore, seeking to tell the story of that wonderful stage in the history of the human spirit—surely next in wonder to the story of Christ Himself—I have not feared at every suitable point to apply its truths to our lives to-day. The civilisation in which prophecy flourished was in its essentials marvellously like our own. To mark only one point, the rise of prophecy in Israel came fast upon the passage of the nation from an agricultural to a commercial basis of society, and upon the appearance of the very thing which gives its name to civilisation—city-life, with its unchanging sins, problems and ideals. A recent Dutch critic, whose exact scholarship is known to all readers of Stade’s Journal of Old Testament Science, has said of Amos and Hosea: “ These prophecies have a word of God, as for all times, so also especially for our own. Before all it is relevant to 1 the social question ’ of our day, to the relation of religion and morality. . . . Often it has been hard for me to refrain from expressly pointing out the agreement between Then and To-day.”1 This feeling will be shared by all students of prophecy whose minds and consciences are quick; and I welcome the liberal plan of the series in which this volume appears, because, while giving room for the adequate discussion of critical and historical questions, its chief design is to show the eternal validity of the Books of the Bible as the Word of God, and their meaning for ourselves to-day. Previous works on the Minor Prophets are almost innumerable. Those to which I owe most will be found indicated in the footnotes. The translation has bliteral meaning or exact emphasis of the original to the frequent possibility of greater elegance. It reproduces every word, with the occasional exception of a copula. With some hesitation I have retained the traditional spelling of the Divine Name, Jehovah, instead of the more correct Jahve or Yahweh; but where the rhythm of certain familiar passages was disturbed by it, I have followed the English versions and written Lord. The reader will keep in mind that a line may be destroyed by substituting our pronunciation of proper names for the more musical accents of the original. Thus, for instance, we obliterate the music of ” Isra’el ” by making it two syllables and putting the accent on the first: it has three syllables with the accent on the last. We crush Yerushalayim into Jerusalem; we shred off Asshflr into Assyria, and dub Misrairh Egypt. Hebrew has too few of the combinations which sound most musical to our ears, to afford the suppression of any one of them. 

                (Kai tōn ib’ prophētōn ta hosta:     Anathaloi ek tou topou autōn,

                Parekalesan de ton Iakōb:    Kai elutrōsanto autous en pistei elpidos.)

                (And of the Twelve Prophets may the bones:   Flourish again from their place,

                For they comforted Jacob:   And redeemed them by the assurance of hope.)

                (Ecclesiasticus 49:10.)

Contents of Vol. I.   Preface.  Chronological Table. Introduction. Chapters & Verses:

I. Book of Twelve.

II. Prophet in Early Israel.  1. Earliest Times till Samuel.  2. Samuel to Elisha.

III. Eighth Century in Israel.

IV. Influence of Assyria on Prophecy.

                AMOS:  (The Book of Amos consists of Three Groups of Oracles, under one title, which is evidently meant to cover them all….             

                First Section: Chaps. I, II. The Heathen’s Crimes and Israel’s. A series oi short oracles of the same form, directed impartially against the political crimes of all the states of Palestine, and culminating in a more detailed denunciation of the social evils of Israel, whose doom is foretold, beneath the same flood of war as shall overwhelm all her neighbours.                  Second Section: Chaps. III.—VI. Israel’s Crimes and Doom. A series of various oracles of denunciation, which have no further logical connection than is supplied by a general sameness of subject, and a perceptible increase of detail and articulateness from beginning to end of the section. They are usually grouped according to the recurrence of the formula Hearthis word, which stands at the head of our present chaps, iii., iv. and v.; and by the two cries of Woe at v. 18 and vi. I. But even more obvious than these commencements are the various climaxes to which they lead up. These are all threats of judgment, and each is more strenuous or explicit than the one that has preceded it. They close with iii. 15, iv. 3, iv. 12, v. 17, v. 27 and vi. 14; and according to them the oracles may be conveniently divided into six groups.  1. III. 1-15. After the main theme of judgment is stated in 1, 2, we have in 3-8 a parenthesis on the prophet’s right to threaten doom; after which 9-15, following directly on 2, emphasise the social disorder, threaten the land with invasion, the people with extinction and the overthrow of their civilisation.              2. IV. 1-3, beginning with the formula Hear this word, is directed against women and describes the siege of the capital and their captivity.              3. IV. 4-12, with no opening formula, contrasts the people’s vain propitiation of God by ritual with His treatment of them by various physical chastisements—drought, blight and locusts, pestilence, earthquake—and summons them to prepare for another, unnamed, visitation. Jehovah God of Hosts is His Name. 4. V. 1-17, beginning with the formula Hear this word, and a dirge over a vision of the nation’s defeat, attacks, like the previous group, the lavish ritual, sets in contrast to it Jehovah’s demands for justice and civic purity; and, offering a reprieve if Israel will repent, closes with the prospect of an universal mourning (w. 16, 17), which, though introduced by a therefore, has no logical connection with what precedes it.                 5. V. 18-26 is the first of the two groups that open with Woe. Affirming that the eagerly expected Day ofJehovah will be dark¬ ness and disaster on disaster inevitable (18-20), it again emphasises Jehovah’s desire for righteousness rather than worship (21-26), and closes with the threat of captivity beyond Damascus. Jehovah God of Hosts is His Name, as at the close of 3.          6. VI. 1-14. The second Woe, on them that are at ease in Zion (1, 2): a satire on the luxuries of the rich and their in¬ difference to the national suffering (3-6): captivity must come, with the desolation of the land (9, 10); and in a peroration the prophet reiterates a general downfall of the nation because of its perversity. A Nation—needless to name it!—will oppress Israel from Hamath to the River of the Arabah.

                Third Section : Chaps. VII.—IX. Visions with Interludes. The Visions betray traces of development; but they are inter¬ rupted by a piece of narrative and addresses on the same themes as chaps, iii.—vi. The First two Visions (vii. 1-6) are of disasters—locusts and drought—in the realm of nature ; they are averted by prayer from Amos. The Third (7-9) is in the sphere, not of nature, but history : Jehovah standing with a plumbline, as if to show the nation’s fabric to be utterly twisted, announces that it shall be overthrown, and that the dynasty of Jeroboam must be put to the sword. Upon this mention of the king, the first in the book, there starts the narrative (10-17) of how Amaziah, priest at Bethel—obviously upon hearing the prophets threat— sent word to Jeroboam; and then (whether before or after getting a reply) proceeded to silence Amos, who, however, reiterates his prediction of doom, again described as captivity in a foreign land, and adds a Fourth Vision (viii. 1-3), of the Kaits or Summer Fruit, which suggests Kets, or End of the Nation. Here it would seem Amos’ discourses at Bethel take end. Then comes viii. 4-6, another exposure of the sins of the rich ; followed by a triple pronouncement of doom (7), again in the terms of physical calamities—earthquake (8), eclipse (9, 10), and famine (11-14), in the last of which the public worship is again attacked. A Fifth Vision, of the Lord by the Altar commanding to smite (ix. 1), is followed by a powerful threat of the hopelessness of escape from God’s punishment (ix. 1^-4); the third of the great apostrophes to the might of Jehovah (5, 6); another statement of the equality in judgment of Israel with other peoples, and of their utter destruction (7-8a). Then (8£) we meet the first qualification of the hitherto unrelieved sentence of death. Captivity is de¬ scribed, not as doom, but as discipline (9): the sinners of the people, scoffers at doom, shall die (10). And this seems to leave room for two final oracles of restoration and glory, the only two in the book, which are couched in the exact terms of the promises of later prophecy (11-15) and are by many denied to Amos. Such is the course of the prophesying of Amos. To have traced it must have made clear to us the unity of his book, as well as the character of the period to which he belonged. But it also furnishes us with a good deal of evidence towards the answer of such necessary questions as these—whether we can fix an exact date for the whole or any part, and whether we can trace any logical or historical development through the chapters, either as these now stand, or in some such re-arrange¬ ment as we saw to be necessary for the authentic prophecies of Isaiah.)

V. Book of Amos. 

VI. Man & Prophet.

      1. Man & Discipline (1:1; 3:3-8; 7:14,15).  2. Word & Origins (1:2; 3:3-8; &c.).

      3. Prophet & Ministry (7; 8:1-4).

VII. Atrocities & Atrocities. (Amos 1:3-2).

VIII. Civilisation & Judgment.  (Amos 3:1-4:3).

IX. False Peace of Ritual.  (Amos 4:4-6:).

      1. For Worship, Chastisement (4:4-13). 2. For Worship, Justice (5:). 

      3. “At Ease In Zion” (6:).  4. Fragment from Plague (6:9,10).

X. Doom or Discipline? (Amos 8:4-9:).

      1. Earthquake, Eclipse & Famine (8:4-14).  2. Nemesis (9:1-6).

      3. Voices of Another Dawn (9:7-15).

XI.Common-sense & Reign of Law. (Amos 7:3-8; 4:6-13; 5:8,9; 6:12; 8:8; 9:5,6).

                HOSEA:  (The Book of Hosea consists of two unequal sec–L tions, chaps, i.—iii. and chaps, iv.—xiv., which differ in the dates of their standpoints, to a large extent also in the details of their common subjects, but still more largely in their form and style. The First Section v is in the main narrative; though the style rises to the pitch of passionate pleading and promise, it is fluent and equable. It one verse be omitted and three others transposed,1 the argument- is continuous. In the Second Section, on the contrary, we have a stream of addresses and reflections, appeals, upbraidings, sar¬ casms, recollections of earlier history, denunciations and promises, which, with little logical connection and almost no pauses or periods, start impulsively from each other, and for a large part are expressed in elliptic and ejaculatory phrases. In the present restlessness of Biblical Criticism it would have been surprising if this difference of style had not prompted some minds to a difference of authorship. Gratz 2 has distinguished two Hoseas, separated by a period of fifty years. But if, as we shall see, the First Section reflects the end of the reign of Jeroboam II., who died about 743, then the next few years, with their revolutionary. changes in Israel, are sufficient to account for the altered outlook of the Second Section ; while the altered style is fully explained by difference of occasion and motive. In both sections not only are the religious principles identical, and many of the characteristic expressions,1 but there breathes throughout the same urgent and jealous temper, which renders Hosea’s personality so distinctive among the prophets. Within this unity, of course, we must not be surprised to find, as in the Book of Amos, verses which cannot well be authentic. First Section: Hosea’s Prophetic Life. With the removal of some of the verses the argu¬ ment becomes clear and consecutive. After the story of the wife and children (i. 2-9), who are symbols of the land and people of Israel in their apostasy from God (2, 4, 6, 9), the Divine voice calls on the living generation to plead with their mother lest destruction come (ii. 2-5, Eng.; ii. 4-7, Heb.2), but then passes definite sentence of desolation on the land and of exile on the people (6-13, Eng.; 8-15, Heb.), which however is not final doom, but discipline,3 with the ultimate promise of the return of the nation’s youth, their renewed betrothal to Jehovah and the restoration of nature (14-23). Then follows the story of the pro¬ phet’s restoration of his wife, also with discipline (chap. iii.). Notice that, although the story of the wife’s full has preceded the declaration of Israel’s apostasy, it is Israel’s restoration which prceedes the wife’s. The ethical significance of this order we shall illustrate in the next chapter. In this section the disturbing verses are i. 7 and the group of three—i. 10, II, ii. 1 (Eng.; but ii. 1-3 Heb.). Chap. i. 7 introduces Judah as excepted from the curse passed upon Israel; it is so obviously intru¬ sive in a prophecy dealing only with Israel, and it so clearly reflects the deliverance of Judah from Senna¬ cherib in 70l^tliat we cannot hold it for anything but an insertion of a date subsequent to that deliverance, and introduced by a pious Jew to signalise Judah’s fate in contrast with Israel’s.1 The other three verses (i. 10, II, ii. I, Eng. ; ii. 1-3, Heb.) introduce a promise of restoration before the sentence of judgment is detailed, or any ethical con¬ ditions of restoration are stated. That is, they break and tangle an argument otherwise consistent and pro¬ gressive from beginning to end of the Section. Every careful reader must feel them out of place where they lie. Their awkwardness has been so much appre¬ ciated that, while in the Hebrew text they have been separated from chap, i., in the Greek they have been separated from chap. ii. That is to say, some have felt they have no connection with what precedes them, others none with what follows them; while our English version, by distributing them between the two chapters, only makes more sensible their superfluity* If they really belong to the prophecy, their proper place is after the last verse of chap, ii.1 This is actually the order in which part of it and part of them are quoted by St. Paul.2 At the same time, when so arranged, they repeat somewhat awkwardly the language of ii. 23, and scarcely form a climax to the chapter. There is nothing in their language to lead us to doubt that they are Hosea’s own; and ver. 11 shows that they must have been written at least before the cap¬ tivity of Northern Israel.3 The only other suspected clause in this section is that in iii. 5, and David their king;4 * but if it be struck out the verse is rendered awkward, if not impossible, by the immediate repetition of the Divine name, which would not have been required in the absence of the suspected clause.6 The text of the rest of the section is remarkably free from obscurities. The Greek version offers few variants, and most of these are due to mistranslation.* In iii. I for loved of a husband it reads loving evil. Evidently this section was written before the death of Jeroboam II. The house of Jehu still reigns; and as Hosea predicts its fall by war on the classic battle¬ ground of Jezreel, the prophecy must have been written before the actual fall, which took the form of an internal revolt against Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam. With this agrees the tone of the section. There are the same evils in Israel which Amos exposed in the prosperous years of the same reign ; but Hosea appears to realise the threatened exile from a nearer standpoint. It is probable also that part of the reason of his ability to see his way through the captivity to the people’s restoration is due to a longer familiarity with the approach of captivity than Amos experienced before he wrote. But, ofcourse, for Hosea’s promise of restoration there were, as we shall see, other and greater reasons of a religious kind.1 (1 In determining the date of the Book of Hosea the title in chap. i. is of no use to us : The Word ofJehovah which was io Hosea ben Be’erl in the days of JJzziah, Jotham, Ahas, Hesekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days ofJeroboam ben Joash, king of Israel. This title is trebly suspicious. First: the given reigns of Judah and Israel do not correspond; Jeroboam was dead before Uzziah. Second: there is no proof either in the First or Second Section of the book that Hosea prophesied after the reign of Jotham. Third : it is curious that in the case of a prophet of Northern Israel kings of Judah should be stated first, and four of them be given while only one king of his own country is placed beside them. On these grounds critics are probably correct who take the title as it stands to be the work of some later Judaean scribe who sought to make it correspond to the titles of the Books of Isaiah and Micah. He may have been the same who added chap. i. 7. The original form of the title probably was The Word of God which was to Hosea son of Be’eri in the days oj Jeroboam ben Joash, king of Israel, and designed only for the First Section of the book, chaps, i.—iii.) Second Section : Chaps, iv.—xiv. When we pass into these chapters we feel that the times are changed. The dynasty of Jehu has passed : kings are falling rapidly : Israel devours its rulers :2 there is no loyalty to the king ; he is suddenly cut off;* 1 all the princes are revolters.2 * Round so despised and so unstable a throne the nation tosses in disorder. Conspiracies are rife. It is not only, as in Amos, the the sins of the luxurious, of them that are at ease in Zion, which are exposed but also literal bloodshed : highway robbery with murder, abetted by the priests; * the thief breaketh in and the robber-troop maketh a raid.4 Amos looked out on foreign nations across a quiet Israel ; his views of the world are wide and clear; but in the Book of Hosea the dust is up, and into what is happening beyond the frontier we get only glimpses. There is enough, however, to make visible another great change since the days of Jeroboam. Israel’s selfreliance is gone. She is as fluttered as a startled bird : They call unto Egypt, they go unto Assyria.6 Their wealth is carried as a gift to King Jareb,6 and they evidently engage in intrigues with Egypt. But every¬ thing is hopeless : kings cannot save, for Ephraim is seized by the pangs of a fatal crisis.7 This broken description reflects—and all the more faithfully because of its brokenness—the ten years which followed on the death of Jeroboam II. about 743.® His son Zechariah, who succeeded him, was in six months assassinated by Shallum ben Jabesh, who within a month more was himself cut down by Menahem ben Gadi.* 1 Menahem held the throne for six or seven years, but only by sending to the King of Assyria an enormous tribute which he exacted from the wealthy magnates of Israel.2 Discontent must have followed these measures, such discontent with their rulers as Hosea describes. Pekahiah ben Menahem kept the throne for little over a year after his father’s death, and was assassinated by his captain,3 Pekah ben Remaliah, with fifty Gileadites, and Pekah took the throne about 736. This second and bloody usurpation may be one of those on which Hosea dwells; but if so it is the last historical allusion in his book. There is no reference to the war of Pekah and Rezin against Ahaz of Judah which Isaiah describes,4 * and to which Hosea must have alluded had he been still prophesying.6 There is no allusion to its consequence in Tiglath-Pileser’s conquest of Gilead and Galilee in 734—733. On the contrary, these provinces are still regarded as part of the body politic of Israel.1 Nor is there any sign that Israel have broken with Assyria; to the last the book represents them as fawning on the Northern Power.2 In all probability, then, the Book of Hosea was closed before 734 b.c. The Second Section dates from the years behind that and back to the death of Jeroboam II. about 743, while the First Section, as we saw, reflects the period immediately before the latter. We come now to the general style of chaps, iv.—xiv. The period, as we have seen, was one of the most broken of all the history of Israel; the political outlook, the temper of the people, were constantly changing. Hosea, who watched these kaleidoscopes, had himself an extraordinarily mobile and vibrant mind. There could be no greater contrast to that fixture of conscience which renders the Book of Amos so simple in argu¬ ment, so firm in style.3 It was a leaden plummet which Amos saw Jehovah setting to the structure of Israel’s life.4 But Hosea felt his own heart hanging at the end of the line ; and this was a heart that could never be still. Amos is the prophet of law; he sees the Divine processes work themselves out, irrespective of the moods and intrigues of the people, with which, after all, he was little familiar. So each of his paragraphs moves steadily forward to a climax, and every climax is Doom —the captivity of the people to Assyria. You can divide his book by these things; it has its periods, strophes and refrains. It marches like the hosts of the Lord of hosts. But Hosea had no such un¬ hampered vision of great laws. He was too familiar with the rapid changes of his fickle people ; and his affection for them was too anxious. His style has all the restlessness and irritableness of hunger about it—the hunger of love. Hosea’s eyes are never at rest. He seeks, he welcomes, for moments of extra¬ ordinary fondness he dwells upon every sign of his people’s repentance. But a Divine jealousy succeeds, and he questions the motives of the change. You feel that his love has been overtaken and surprised by his knowledge; and in fact his whole style, might be described as a race between the two—a race varying and uncertain up to almost the end. The transitions are very swift. You come upon a passage of exquisite tenderness : the prophet puts the people’s penitence in his own words with a sympathy and poetry that are sublime and seem final. But suddenly he remembers how false they are, and there is another light in his eyes. The lustre of their tears dies from his verses, like the dews of a midsummer morning in Ephraim ; and all is dry and hard again beneath the brazen sun of his amazement. WhatshallI do unto thee, Ephraim ? What shall I do unto thee, Judah ? Indeed, this figure of his own is insufficient to express the suddenness with which Hosea lights up some intrigue of the states¬ men of the day, or some evil habit of the priests, or some hidden orgy of the common people. Rather than the sun it is the lightning—the lightning in pursuit of a serpent. The elusiveness of the style is the greater that many passages do not seem to have been prepared for public delivery. They are more the play of the prophet’s mind than his set speech. They are not formally addressed to an audience, and there is no trace in them of oratorical art. Hence the language of this Second Section of the Book of Hosea is impulsive and abrupt beyond all comparison. There is little rhythm in it, and almost no argument. Few metaphors are elaborated. Even the brief parallelism of Hebrew poetry seems too long for the quick spasms of the writer’s heart. “Osee,” said Jerome,1 “ commaticus est, et quasi per sententias loquitur.” He speaks in little clauses, often broken off; he is impatient even of copulas. And withal he uses a vocabulary full of strange words, which the paucity of parallelism makes much the more difficult. To this original brokenness and obscurity of the language are due, first, the great corruption of the text; second, the difficulty of dividing it; third, the uncer¬ tainty of deciding its genuineness or authenticity. I. The Text of Hosea is one of the most dilapidated in the Old Testament, and in parts beyond possibility of repair. It is probable that glosses were found neces¬ sary at an earlier period and to a larger extent than in most other books: there are evident traces of some ; yet it is not always possible to disentangle them.2 The value of the Greek version is curiously mixed. The authors had before them much the same difficulties as we have, and they made many more for themselves. Some of their mistranslations are outrageous : they occur not only in obscure passages, where they may be pardoned ;1 but even where there are parallel terms with which the translators show themselves familiar.2 Sometimes they have translated word by word, without any attempt to give the general sense ; and as a whole their version is devoid both of beauty and compactness. Yet not infrequently they supply us with a better read¬ ing than the Massoretic text. Occasionally they divide words properly which the latter misdivides.3 They often give more correctly the easily confused pronominal suffixes;4 * and the copula.6 And they help us to the true readings of many other words.8 Here and there an additional clause in the Greek is plethoric, perhaps copied by mistake from a similar verse in the context.7 All of these will be noticed separately as we reach them. But, even after these and other aids, we shall find that the text not infrequently remains impracticable. 2. As great as the difficulty of reaching a true text in this Second Section of the book is the difficulty of Dividing it. Here and there, it is true, the Greek helps us to improve upon the division into chapters and verses of the Hebrew text, which is that of our own English version. Chap. vi. 1-4 ought to follow imme¬ diately on to the end of chap, v., with the connecting word saying. The last few words of chap. vi. go with the first two of chap, vii., but perhaps both are gloss. The openings of chaps, xi. and xii. are better arranged in the Hebrew than in the Greek. As regards verses we shall have to make several rearrangements.1 But beyond this more or less conventional division into chapters and verses our confidence ceases. It is im¬ possible to separate the section, long as it is, into sub¬ sections, or into oracles, strophes or periods. The reason of this we have already seen, in the turbulence ofthe period reflected, in the divided interests and abrupt and emotional style of the author, and in the probability that part at least of the book was not prepared for public speaking. The periods and climaxes, the refrains, the catchwords by which we are helped to divide even the confused Second Section ot the Book of Amos, are not found in Hosea. Only twice does the exordium of a spoken address occur : at the beginning of the section (chap. iv. 1), and at what is now the open¬ ing of the next chapter (v. 1). The phrase ’tis the oracle ofJehovah, which occurs so periodically in Amos, and thrice in the second chapter of Hosea, is found only once in chaps, iv.—xiv. Again, the obvious climaxes or perorations, of which we found so many in Amos, are very few,2 and even when they occur the next verses start impulsively from them, without a pause. In spite of these difficulties, since the section is so long, attempts at division have been made. Ewald distinguished three parts in three different tempers: First, iv.—vi. n a, God’s Plaint against His people; Second, vi. 11 b—ix. 9, Their Punishment; Third, ix. 10 —xiv. 10, Retrospect of the earlier history—warning and consolation. Driver also divides into three sub¬ sections, but differently : First’, iv.—viii., in which Israel’s Guilt predominates ; Second, ix.—xi. 11, in which the prevailing thought is their Punishment; Third, xi. 12—xiv. 10, in which both lines of thought are continued, but followed by a glance at the brighter future.1 What is common to both these arrangements is the recognition of a certain progress from feelings about Israel’s guilt which prevail in the earlier chap¬ ters, to a clear vision of the political destruction awaiting them ; and finally more hope of repentance in the people, with a vision of the blessed future that must follow upon it. It is, however, more accurate to say that the emphasis of Hosea’s prophesying, instead of changing from the Guilt to the Punishment of Israel, changes about the middle of chap. vij. from their Moral Decay to their Political Decay, and that the description of the latter is modified or interrupted by Two Visions of better things : one of Jehovah’s early guidance of the people, with a great outbreak of His Love upon them, in chap. xi.; and one of their future Return to Jehovah and restoration in chap. xiv. It is on these features that the division of the following Exposition is arranged. 3. It will be obvious that with a text so corrupt, with a style so broken and incapable of logical division, questions of Authenticity are raised to a pitch of the greatest difficulty. Allusion has been made to the number of glosses which must have been found neces¬ sary from even an early period, and of some of which we can discern the proofs.1 We will deal with these as they occur. But we may here discuss, as a whole, another class of suspected passages—suspected for the same reason that we saw a number in Amos to be, because of their reference to Judah. In the Book of Hosea (chaps, iv.—xiv.) they are twelve in number. Only one of them is favourable (iv. 15) : Though Israel play the harlot} let notJudah sin. Kuenen2 argues that this is genuine, on the ground that the peculiar verb to sin or take guilt to oneself is used several other times in the book,3 and that the wish expressed is in consonance with what he understands to be Hosea’s favourable feeling towards Judah. Yet Hosea nowhere else makes any distinction between Ephraim and Judah in the matter of sin, but condemns both equally; and as iv. 15 f. are to be suspected on other grounds as well, I cannot hold this reference to Judah to be beyond doubt. Nor is the reference in viii. 14 genuine : And Israel forgat her Maker and built temples} and Judah multiplied fenced citiest but I will send fire on his cities and it shall devour her palaces. Kuenen4 refuses to reject the reference to Judah, on the ground that without it the rhythm of the verse is spoiled; but the fact is the whole verse must go. Chap. v. 13 forms a climax, which v. 14 only weakens; the style is not like Hosea’s own, and indeed is but an echo of verses of Amos.1 Nor can we be quite sure about v. 5 : Israel and Ephraim shallstumble by their iniquities, and (LXX.) stumble also shall Judah with them; or vi. 10, 11 : In Bethel I have seen horrors : there playest thou the harlol} Ephraim; there Israel defiles himself; also Judah . . . (the rest of the text is impracticable). In both these passages Judah is the awkward third of a parallelism, and is introduced by an also, as if an afterthought. Yet the afterthought may be the prophet’s own ; for in other passages, to which no doubt attaches, he fully includes Judah in the sinfulness of Israel. Cornill rejects x. 11, Judah must plough, but I cannot see on what grounds ; as Kuenen says, it has no appearance of being an intrusion.2 In xii. 3 Wellhausen reads Israel forJudah, but the latter is justified if not rendered necessary by the reference to Judah in ver. 1, which Wellhausen admits. Against the other references —v. 10, The princes of Judah are as removers of boundaries’, v. 12, I shall be as the moth to Ephraim, and a worm to the house ofJudah ; v. 13, And Ephraim saw his disease, andJudah his sore ; v. 14, For I am as a roaring lion to Ephraim, and as a young lion to the house ofJudah ; vi. 4, What shall I do to thee, Ephraim ? what shall I do to thee, Judah ?—there are no apparent objections; and they are generally admitted by critics. As Kuenen says, it would have been surprising if Hosea had made no reference to the sister kingdom. His judgment of her is amply justified by that of her own citizens, Isaiah and Micah. Other short passages of doubtful authenticity will be treated as we come to them ; but again it may be emphasised that, in a book of such a style as this, certainty on the subject is impossible. Finally, there may be given here the only notable addition which the Septuagint makes to the Book of Hosea. It occurs in xiii. 4, after I am Jehovah thy God: u That made fast the heavens and founded the earth, whose hands founded all the host of the heaven, and I did not show them to thee that thou shouldest follow after them, and I led thee up ”—-from the land of Egypt. At first this recalls those apostrophes to Jehovah’s power which break forth in the Book of Amos; and the resemblance has been taken to prove that they also are late intrusions. But this both obtrudes itself as they do not, and is manifestly of much lower poetical value. See page 203. We have now our material clearly before us, and may proceed to the more welcome task of tracing our prophet’s life, and expounding his teaching.)

XII. Book of Hosea

XIII. Problem that Amos Left

XIV. The Story Of The Prodigal Wife .  Hosea I.—iii.

XV. The Thick Night Of Israel.  Hosea Iv.—xiv.

XVI. A People In Decay I I. Morally.  Hosea Iv.—vii. 7.

1. The Lord’s Quarrel With Israel (Iv.).

2. Priests And Princes Fail (V. 1-14).

3. Repentance Fails (V. 15—vii. 2).

4. Wickedness In High Places (Vii. 3-7).

Xvii. A People In Decay: Ii. Politically.  Hosea Vii. 8—x.

1. The Confusion Of The Nation (Vii. 8—viii. 3).

2. Artificial Kings And Artificial Gods (Viii. 4-13)-

3. The Effects Of Exile (Ix. 1-9).

4. “The Corruption That Is Through Lust” (Ix. 10-17).

5. Once More: Puppet-kings And Puppet-gods (X.)

Xviii. Fatherhood & Humanity Of God. Hosea Xi.

Xix. The Final Argument. Hosea Xii.—xiv. 1.

1. The People And Their Father Jacob (Xii.).

2. The Last Judgment (Xiii.—xiv. 1).

Xx. Mi Will Be As The Dew.  Hosea Xiv. 2-10.

Xxi. The Knowledge Of God.  Hosea Passim.

Xxii. Repentance.  Hosea Passim.

Xxiii. The Sin Against Love . Hosea I.—iii.; Iv. 11 Ff.; Ix. 10 Ff.; Xi. 8 L

                MICAH:  (The Book of Micah lies sixth of the Twelve Prophets-I in the Hebrew Canon, but in the order of the Septuagint third, following Amos and Hosea. The latter arrangement was doubtless directed by the size of the respective books;1 in the case of Micah it has coincided with the prophet’s proper chronological position. Though his exact date be not certain, he appears to have been a younger contemporary of Hosea, as Hosea was of Amos. The book is not two-thirds the size of that of Amos, and about half that of Hosea. It has been arranged in seven chapters, which follow, more or less, a natural method of division. They are usually grouped in three sections, distinguishable from each other by their subject-matter, by their temper and standpoint, and to a less degree by their literary form. They are A. Chaps, i.—iii.; B. Chaps, iv., v.; C. Chaps, vi., vii. There is no book of the Bible, as to the date of whose different parts there has been more discussion, especially within recent years. The history of this is shortly as follows :—

                Tradition and the criticism of the early years of this century accepted the statement of the title, that the book was composed in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah—that is, between 740 and 700 b.c. It was generally agreed that there were in it only traces of the first two reigns, but that the whole was put together before the fall of Samaria in 721.1 * Then Hitzig and Steiner dated chaps, iii.—vi. after 721; and Ewald denied that Micah could have given us chaps, vi., vii., and placed them under King Manasseh, circa 690—640. Next Wellhausen* sought to prove that vii. 7-20 must be post-exilic. Stade3 took a furtherstep, and, on the ground that Micah himself could not have blunted or annulled his sharp pronouncements of doom, by the promises which chaps, iv. and v. contain, he withdrew these from the prophet and assigned them to the time of the Exile.4 But the sufficiency of this argument was denied by Vatke.5 Also in opposition to Stade, Kuenen6 refused to believe that Micah could have been content with the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem as his last word, that therefore much of chaps, iv. and v. is probably from himself, but since their argument is obviously broken and confused, we must look in them for interpolations, and he decides that such are iv. 6-8, II-13, and the working up of v. 9-14. The famous passage in iv. 1-4 may have been Micah’s, but was probably added by another. Chaps, vi. and vii. were written under Manasseh by some of the persecuted adherents of Jehovah. We may next notice two critics who adopt an extremely conservative position. Von Ryssel,1 2 as the result of a very thorough examination, declared that all the chapters were Micah’s, even the much doubted ii. 12, 13, which have been placed by an editor of the book in the wrong position, and chap. vii. 7-20, which he agrees with Ewald can only date from the reign of Manasseh, Micah himself having lived long enough into that reign to write them himself. Another careful analysis by Elhorst* also reached the conclusion that the bulk of the book was authentic, but for his proof of this Elhorst requires a radical rearrangement of the verses, and that on grounds which do not always commend themselves. He holds chap, iv. 9-14 and v. 8 for post-exilic insertions. Driver3 contributes a thorough examination of the book, and reaches the conclusions that ii. 12, 13, though obviously in their wrong place, need not be denied to Micah ; that the difficulties of ascribing chaps, iv., v., to the prophet are not insuperable, nor is it even necessary to suppose in them interpolations. He agrees with Ewald as to the date of vi.—vii. 6, and, while holding that it is quite possible for Micah to have written them, thinks they are more probably due to another, though a confident conclusion is not to be achieved. As to vii. 7-20, he judges Wellhausen’s inferences to be unnecessary. A prophet in Micah’s or Manasseh’s time may have thought destruction nearer than it actually proved to be, and, imagining it as already arrived, have put into the mouth of the people a confession suited to its circumstance. Wildeboer4 goes further than Driver. He replies in detail to the arguments of Stade and Cornill, denies that the reasons for withdrawing so much from Micah are conclusive, and assigns to the prophet the whole book, with the exception of several interpolations. We see, then, that all critics are practically agreed as to the presence of interpolations in the text, as well as to the occurrence of certain verses of the prophet out of their proper order. This indeed must be ob¬ vious to every careful reader as he notes the somewhat frequent break in the logical sequence, especially of chaps, iv. and v. All critics, too, admit the authenticity of chaps, i.—iii., with the possible exception ofii. 12, 13 ; while a majority hold that chaps, vi. and vii., whether by Micah or not, must be assigned to the reign of Manasseh. On the authenticity of chaps, iv. and v.— minus interpolations—and of chaps, vi. and vii., opinion is divided ; but we ought not to overlook the remark¬ able fact that those who have recently written the fullest monographs on Micah1 incline to believe in the genuineness of the book as a whole.2 We may now enter for ourselves upon the discussion of the various sections, but before we do so let us note how much of the controversy turns upon the general question, whether after decisively predicting the overthrow of Jerusalem it was possible for Micah to add prophecies of her restoration. It will be remembered that we have had to discuss this same point with regard both to Amos and Hosea. In the case of the former we decided against the authenticity of visions of a blessed future which now close his book; in the case of the latter we decided for the authenticity. What were our reasons for this difference ? They were, that the closing vision of the Book of Amos is not at all in harmony with the exclusively ethical spirit of the authentic prophecies; while the closing vision of the Book of Hosea is not only in language and in ethical temper thoroughly in harmony with the chapters which precede it, but in certain details has been actually anticipated by these. Hosea, therefore, furnishes us with the case of a prophet who, though he predicted the ruin of his impenitent people (and that ruin was verified by events), also spoke of the possibility of their restoration upon conditions in harmony with his reasons for the inevitableness of their fall. And we saw, too, that the hopeful visions of the future, though placed last in the collection of his prophecies, need not necessarily have been spoken last by the prophet, but stand where they do because they have an eternal spiritual validity for the remnant of Israel.1 What was poss¬ ible for Hosea is surely possible for Micah. That promises come in his book, and closely after the conclusive threats which he gave of the fall of Jeru¬ salem, does not imply that originally he uttered them all in such close proximity. That indeed would have been impossible. But considering how often the political prospect in Israel changed during Micah’s time, and how far the city was in his day from her actual destruction—more than a century distant—it seems to be improbable that he should not (in what¬ ever order) have uttered both threat and promise. And naturally, when his prophecies were arranged in per¬ manent order, the promises would be placed after the threats.

                First Section : Chaps. I.—III. No critic doubts the authenticity of the bulk of these chapters. The sole question at issue is the date or (possibly) the dates of them. Only chap. ii. 12, 13, are generally regarded as out of place, where they now stand. Chap. i. trembles with the destruction of both Northern Israel and Judah—a destruction either very imminent or actually in the process of happening. The verses which deal with Samaria, 6ff., do not simply announce her inevitable ruin. They throb with the sense either that this is immediate, or that it is going on, or that it has just been accomplished. The verbs suit each of these alternatives : And Ishall set, or am setting, or have set, Samaria for a ruin of the field, and so on. We may assign them to any time between 725 b.c., the beginning of the siege of Samaria by Shalmaneser, and a year or two after its destruction by Sargon in 721. Their intense feeling seems to preclude the possibility of their having been written in the years to which some assign them, 705—700, or twenty years after Samaria was actually overthrown. In the next verses the prophet goes on to mourn the fact that the affliction of Samaria reaches even to the gate of Jerusalem, and he especially singles out as par¬ takers in the danger of Jerusalem a number of towns, most of which (so far as we can discern) lie not between Jerusalem and Samaria, but at the other corner of Judah, in the Shephelah or out upon the Philistine plain.1 This was the region which Sennacherib invaded in 701, simultaneously with his detachment of a corps to attack the capital; and accordingly we might be shut up to affirm that this end of chap. i. dates from that invasion, if no other explanation of the place-names were poss¬ ible. But another i: possible. Micah himself belonged to one of these Shephelah towns, Moresheth-Gath, and it is natural that, anticipating the invasion of all Judah, after the fall of Samaria (as Isaiah1 also did), he should single out for mourning his own district of the country. This appears to be the most probable solution of a very doubtful problem, and accordingly we may date the whole of chap. i. somewhere between 725 and 720 or 718. Let us remember that in 719 Sargon marched past this very district of the Shephelah in his campaign against Egypt, whom he defeated at Raphia.2 Our conclusion is supported by chap. ii. Judah, though Jehovah be planning evil against her, is in the full course of her’ordinary social activities. The rich are absorbing the lands of the poor (vv. i. ff.) : note the phrase upon their beds; it alone signifies a time of security. The enemies of Israel are internal (8). The public peace is broken by the lords of the land and men and women, disposed to live quietly, are robbed (8 ff.). The false prophets have sufficient signs of the times in their favour to regard Micah’s threats ot destruction as calumnies (6). And although he regards destruction as inevitable, it is not to be to-day; but in that day (4), viz. some still indefinite date in the future, the blow will fall and the nation’s elegy be sung. On this chapter, then, there is no shadow of a foreign invader. We might assign it to the years of Jotham and Ahaz (under whose reigns the title of the book places part of the prophesying of Micah), but since there is no sense of a double kingdom, no distinction between Judah and Israel, it belongs more probably to the years when all immediate danger from Assyria had passed away, between Sargon’s withdrawal from Raphia in 719 and his invasion of Ashdod in 710, or between the latter date and Sennacherib’s accession in 705. Chap. iii. contains three separate oracles, which exhibit a similar state of affairs : the abuse of the common people by their chiefs and rulers, who are implied to be in full sense of power and security. They have time to aggravate their doings (4); their doom is still future—then at that time (ib.). The bulk of the prophets determine their oracles by the amount men give them (5), another sign of security. Their doom is also future (6 f.). In the third of the oracles the authorities of the land are in the undisturbed exercise of their judicial offices (9 f.), and the priests and prophets of their oracles (10), though all these professions practise only for bribe and reward. Jerusalem is still being built and embellished (9). But the prophet, not because there are political omens pointing to this, but simply in the force of his indignation at the sins of the upper classes, prophesies the destruction of the capital (10). It is possible that these oracles of chap. iii. may be later than those of the previous chapters.

                Second Section : Chaps. IV., V. This section of the book opens with two passages, verses 1-5 and verses 6, 7, which there are serious objections against assigning to Micah. I. The first of these, 1-5, is the famous prophecy of the Mountain of the Lord’s House, which is repeated in Isaiah ii. 2-5. Probably the Book of Micah presents this to us in the more original form.1 The alternatives therefore are four: Micah was the author, and Isaiah borrowed from him; or both borrowed from an earlier source;2 or the oracle is authentic in Micah, and has been inserted by a later editor in Isaiah; or it has been inserted by later editors in both Micah and Isaiah. The last of these conclusions is required by’ the arguments first stated by Stade and Hackmann, and then elaborated, in a very strong piece of reasoning, by Cheyne. Hackmann, after marking the want of con¬ nection with the previous chapter, alleges the keynotes of the passage to be three : that it is not the arbitra¬ tion of Jehovah,3 but His sovereignty over foreign nations, and their adoption of His law, which the passage predicts ; that it is the Temple at Jerusalem whose future supremacy is affirmed ; and that there is a strong feeling against war. These, Cheyne contends, are the doctrines of a much later age than that of Micah; he holds the passage to be the work of a post-exilic imitator of the prophets, which was first intruded into the Book of Micah and afterwards bor¬ rowed from this by an editor of Isaiah’s prophecies. It is just here, however, that the theory of these critics loses its strength. Agreeing heartily as I do with recent critics that the genuine writings of the early prophets have received some, and perhaps considerable, additions from the Exile and later periods, it seems to me ex¬ tremely improbable that the same post-exilic insertion should find its way into two separate books. And I think that the undoubted bias towards the post-exilic period of all Canon Cheyne’s recent criticism, has in this case hurried him past due consideration of the possibility of a pre-exilic date. In fact the gentle temper shown by the passage towards foreign nations, the absence of hatred or of any ambition to subject the Gentiles to servitude to Israel, contrasts strongly with the temper of many exilic and post-exilic prophecies ;* 1 while the position which it demands for Jehovah and His religion is quite consistent with the fundamental principles of earlier prophecy. The passage really claims no more than a suzerainty of Jehovah over the heathen tribes, with the result only that their war with Israel and with one another shall cease, not that they shall become, as the great prophecy of the Exile demands, tributaries and servitors. Such a claim was no more than the natural deduction from the early prophets’ belief of Jehovah’s supremacy in righteous¬ ness. And although Amos had not driven the principle so far as to promise the absolute cessation of war, he also had recognised in the most unmistakable fashion the responsibility of the Gentiles to Jehovah, and His supreme arbitrament upon them.2 And Isaiah himself, in his prophecy on Tyre, promised a still more complete subjection of the life of the heathen to the service of Jehovah.1 Moreover the fifth verse of the passage in Micah (though it is true its connection with the previous four is not apparent) is much more in harmony with pre-exilic than with post-exilic prophecy : All the nations shall walk each in the name of his god, and we shall walk in the name ofJehovah our God for ever and aye. This is consistent with more than one prophetic utterance before the Exile,2 but it is not consistent with the beliefs of Judaism after the Exile. Finally, the great triumph achieved for Jeru¬ salem in 701 is quite sufficient to have prompted the feelings expressed by this passage for the mountain of the house of the Lord; though if we are to bring it down to a date subsequent to 701, we must rearrange our views with regard to the date and meaning of the second chapter of Isaiah. In Micah the passage is obviously devoid of all connection, not only with the previous chapter, but with the subsequent verses of chap. iv. The possibility of a date in the eighth or beginning of the seventh century is all that we can determine with regard to it; the other questions must remain in obscurity. 2. Verses 6, 7, may refer to the Captivity of Northern Israel, the prophet adding that when it shall be re¬ stored the united kingdom shall be governed from Mount Zion ; but a date during the Exile is, of course, equally probable. 3. Verses 8-13 contain a series of small pictures of Jerusalem in siege, from which, however, she issues triumphant.1 It is impossible to say whether such a siege is actually in course while the prophet writes, or is pictured by him as inevitable in the near future. The words thou shalt go to Babylon may be, but are not necessarily, a gloss. 4. Chap. iv. 14—v. 8 again pictures such a siege of Jerusalem, but promises a Deliverer out of Bethlehem, the city of David.2 Sufficient heroes will be raised up along with him to drive the Assyrians from the land, and what is left of Israel after all these disasters shall prove a powerful and sovereign influence upon the peoples. These verses were probably not all uttered at the same time. 5. Verses 9-14.—In prospect of such a deliverance the prophet returns to what chap. i. has already described and Isaiah frequently emphasises as the sin of Judah—her armaments and fortresses, her magic and idolatries, the things she trusted in instead of Jehovah. They will no more be necessary, and will disappear. The nations that serve not Jehovah will feel His wrath. In all these oracles there is nothing inconsistent with authorship in the eighth century : there is much that witnesses to this date. Everything that they threaten or promise is threatened or promised by Hosea and by Isaiah, with the exception of the destruc¬ tion (in ver. 12) of the Maggeboth, or sacred pillars, against which we find no sentence going forth from Jehovah before the Book of Deuteronomy, while Isaiah distinctly promises the erection of a Maggebah to Jehovah in the land of Egypt.1 But waiving for the present the possibility of a date for Deuteronomy, or for part of it, in the reign of Hezekiah, we must remember the destruction, which took place under this king, of idolatrous sanctuaries in Judah, and feel also that, in spite of such a reform, it was quite possible for Isaiah to introduce a Maggebah into his poetic vision of the worship of Jehovah in Egypt. For has he not also dared to say that the harlot’s hire of the Phoenician commerce shall one day be consecrated to Jehovah ?

                Third Section : Chaps. VI., VII. The style now changes. We have had hitherto a series of short oracles, as if delivered orally. These are succeeded by a series of conferences or arguments, by several speakers. Ewald accounts for the change by supposing that the latter date from a time of perse¬ cution, when the prophet, unable to speak in public, uttered himself in literature. But chap. i. is alsc dramatic.               1. Chap. vi. 1-8.—An argument in which the prophet as herald calls on the hills to listen to Jehovah’s case against the people (1, 2). Jehovah Himself appeals to the latter, and in a style similar to Hosea’s cites His deeds in their history, as evidence of what He seeks from them (3-5). The people, presumably penitent, ask how they shall come before Jehovah (6, 7). And the prophet tells them what Jehovah has declared in the matter (8). Opening very much like Micah’s first oracle (chap. i. i), this argument contains nothing strange either to Micah or the eighth century. Excep¬ tion has been taken to the reference in ver. 7 to the sacrifice of the first-born, which appears to have become more common from the gloomy age of Manasseh onwards, and which, therefore, led Ewald to date all chaps, vi. and vii. from that king’s reign. But childsacrifice is stated simply as a possibility, and—occurring as it does at the climax of the sentence—as an extreme possibility.1 * * I see no necessity, therefore, to deny the piece to Micah or the reign of Hezekiah. Of those who place it under Manasseh, some, like Driver, still reserve it to Micah himself, whom they suppose to have survived Hezekiah and seen the evil days which followed.      2. Verses 9-16.—Most expositors 8 take these verses along with the previous eight, as well as with the six which follow in chap. vii. But there is no connection between verses 8 and 9; and 9-16 are better taken by themselves. The prophet heralds, as before, the speech of Jehovah to tribe and city (9). Addressing Jerusalem, Jehovah asks how He can forgive such fraud and violence as those by which her wealth has been gathered (10-12). Then addressing the people (note the change from feminine to masculine in the second personal pro¬ nouns) He tells them He must smite ; they shall not enjoy the fruit of their labours (14, 15). They have sinned the sins of Omri and the house of Ahab (query— should it not be of Ahab and the house of Omri ?), so that they must be put to shame before the Gentiles (16). In this section three or four words have been marked as oflate Hebrew.1 But this is uncertain, and the infer¬ ence made from it precarious. The deeds of Omri and Ahab’s house have been understood as the persecution of the adherents of Jehovah, and the passage has, therefore, been assigned by Ewald and others to the reign of the tyrant Manasseh. But such habits of persecution could hardly be imputed to the City or People as a whole; and we may conclude that the passage means some other of that notorious dynasty’s sins. Among these, as is well known, it is possible to make a large selection—the favouring of idolatry, or the tyrannous absorption by the rich of the land of the poor (as in Naboth’s case), a sin which Micah has already marked as that of his age. The whole treat¬ ment of the subject, too, whether under the head of the sin or its punishment, strongly resembles the style and temper of Amos. It is, therefore, by no means imposs¬ ible for this passage also to have been Micah’s, and we must accordingly leave the question of its date undecided. Certainly we are not shut up, as the majority of modern critics suppose, to a date under Manasseh or Amon.            3. Chap. vii. 1-6.—These verses are spoken by the prophet in his own name or that of the people’s. The land is devastated ; the righteous have disappeared ; everybody is in ambush to commit deeds of violence and take his neighbour unawares. There is no justice : the great ones of the land are free to do what they like ; they have intrigued with and bribed the autho rities. Informers have crept in everywhere. Men must be silent, for the members of their own families are their foes. Some of these sins have already been marked by Micah as those of his age (chap, ii.), but the others point rather to a time of persecution such as that under Manasseh. Wellhausen remarks the similarity to the state of affairs described in Mai. iii. 24 and in some Psalms. We cannot fix the date.  4.Verses 7-20. This passage starts from a totally different temper of prophecy, and presumably, therefore, from very different circumstances. Israel, as a whole, speaks in penitence. She has sinned, and bows herself to the consequences, but in hope. A day shall come when her exiles shall return and the heathen acknow¬ ledge her God. The passage, and with it the Book of Micah, concludes by apostrophising Jehovah as the God of forgiveness and grace to His people. Ewald, and following him Driver, assign the passage, with those which precede it, to the times of Maryisseh, in which of course it is possible that Micah was still active, though Ewald supposes a younger and anony¬ mous prophet as the author. Wellhausen1 goes further, and, while recognising that the situation and temper of the passage resemble those of Isaiah xl. ffi, is inclined to bring it even further down to post-exilic times, because of the universal character of the Diaspora. Driver objects to these inferences, and maintains that a prophet in the time of Manasseh, thinking the destruc¬ tion of Jerusalem to be nearer than it actually was, may easily have pictured it as having taken place, and put an ideal confession in the mouth of the people. It seems to me that all these critics have failed to appre¬ ciate a piece of evidence even more remarkable than any they have insisted on in their argument for a late date. This is, that the passage speaks of a restoration of the people only to Bashan and Gilead, the pro¬ vinces overrun by Tiglath-Pileser III. in 734. It is not possible to explain such a limitation either by the circumstances of Manasseh’s time or by those of the Exile. In the former surely Samaria would have been included; in the latter Zion and Judah would have been emphasised before any other region. It would be easy for the defenders of a post-exilic date, and especially of a date much subsequent to the Exile, to account for a longing after Bashan and Gilead, though they also would have to meet the objection that Samaria or Ephraim is not mentioned. But how natural it would be for a prophet writing soon after the captivity of Tiglath-Pileser III. to make this pre¬ cise selection ! And although there remain difficulties (arising from the temper and language of the passage) in the w^y of assigning all of it to Micah or his con¬ temporaries, I feel that on the geographical allusions much can be said for the origin of this part of the passage in their age, or even in an age still earlier: that of the Syrian wars in the end of the ninth century, with which there is nothing inconsistent either in the spirit or the language of vv. 14-17. And I am sure that if the defenders of a late date had found a selection of districts as suitable to the post-exilic circumstances of Israel as the selection of Bashan and Gilead is to the circumstances of the eighth century, they would, instead of ignoring it, have emphasised it as a con¬ clusive confirmation of their theory. On the other hand, ver. 11 can date only from the Exile, or the fol¬ lowing years, before Jerusalem was rebuilt. Again, vv. 18-20 appear to stand by themselves. It seems likely, therefore, that chap. vii. 7-20 is a Psalm composed of little pieces from various dates, which, combined, give us a picture of the secular sor¬ rows of Israel, and of the conscience she ultimately felt in them, and conclude by a doxology to the everlasting mercies of her God.)

XXIV. The Book Of Micah

Xxv. Micah The Morasthite . Micah I,

Xxvi. The Prophet Of The Poor . . Micah Ii., Iii.

Xxvii. On Time’s Horizon • • • •Micah Iv. 1-7.

Xxviii. The King To Come • • • .Micah Iv. 8—v.

Xxix.The Reasonableness Of True Religion. Micah Vi. 1-8.

Xxx. The Sin Of The Scant Measure . .Micah Vi. 9—vii. 6.

Xxxi. Our Mother Of Sorrows • . •Micah Vii. 7-20.

                Preface (to Volume II):  The  first volume on the Twelve Prophets dealt with the three who belonged to the Eighth Century : Amos, Hosea and Micah . This second volume includes the other nine books arranged in chronological order : Zephaniah, Nahum and Habak kuk, of the Seventh Century ; Obadiah, of the Exile ; Haggai, Zechariah i. – viii., “ Malachi” and Joel, of the Persian Period, 538—331 ; “ Zechariah ” ix . — xiv . and the Book of Jonah, of the Greek Period, which began in 332, the date of Alexander’s Syrian campaign .

                The same plan has been followed as in Volume I. A historical introduction is offered to each period. To each prophet are given , first a chapter of critical introduction , and then one or more chapters of ex position . A complete translation has been furnished, with critical and explanatory notes. All questions of date and of text, and nearly all of interpretation , have been confined to the introductions and the notes, so that those who consult the volume only for expository purposes will find the exposition un encumbered by the discussion of technical points .

                The necessity of including within one volume so many prophets, scattered over than three centuries, and each of them requiring a separate introduction , has reduced the space available for the practical application of their teaching to modern life . But this is the less to be regretted, that the contents of the nine books before us are not so applicable to our own day, as we have found their greater predecessors to be. On the other hand , however, they form a more varied introduction to Old Testament Criticism , while, by the long range of time which they cover, and the many stages of religion to which they belong, they afford a wider view of the development of prophecy. Let us look for a little at these two points.

                1. To Old Testament Criticism these books furnish valuable introduction — some of them , like Obadiah, Joel . and “ Zechariah ” ix. — xiv., by the great variety of opinion that has prevailed as to their dates or their relation to other prophets with whom they have* pas sages in common ; some, like Zechariah and “ Malachi,” by their relation to the Law , in the light of modern theories of the origin of the latter ; and some, like Joel and Jonah , by the question whether we are to read them as history, or as allegories of history, or as apocalypse. That is to say, these nine books raise , besides the usual questions of genuineness and integrity, every other possible problem of Old PREFACE vii Testament Criticism . It has, therefore, been neces sary to make the critical introductions full and detailed. The enormous differences of opinion as to the dates of somemust start the suspicion of arbitrariness, unless there be included in each case a history of the develop ment of criticism , so as to exhibit to the English reader the principles and the evidence of fact upon which that criticism is based. I am convinced that what is chiefly required just now by the devout student of the Bible is the opportunity to judge for himself how far Old Testament Criticism is an adult science ; with what amount of reasonableness it has been prosecuted ; how gradually its conclusions have been reached, how jealously they have been contested ; and how far, amid the many varieties of opinion which must always exist with reference to facts so ancient and questions so obscure, there has been progress towards agreement upon the leading problems. But, besides the accounts of past criticism given in this volume, the reader will find in each case an independent attempt to arrive at a conclusion . This has not always been successful. A number of points have been left in doubt ; and even where results have been stated with some degree of positiveness, the reader need scarcely be warned (after what was said in the Pre face to Vol. I.) that many of these must necessarily be provisional. But, in looking back from the close of this work upon the discussions which it contains, viii PREFACE I am more than ever convinced of the extreme pro bability of most of the conclusions. Among these are the following : that the correct interpretation of Habakkuk is to be found in the direction of the posi tion to which Budde’s ingenious proposal has been carried on pages 123 ff. with reference to Egypt ; that the most of Obadiah is to be dated from the sixth century ; that “ Malachi” is an anonymous work from the eve of Ezra’s reforms ; that Joel follows “ Malachi” ; and that “ Zechariah ” ix . — xiv . has been rightly assigned by Stade to the early years of the Greek Period. I have ventured to contest Kosters’ theory that there was no return of Jewish exiles under Cyrus, and am the more disposed to believe his strong argument inconclusive, not only upon a review of the reasons I have stated in Chap. XVI., but on this ground also , that many of its chief adherents in this country and Germany have so modified it as virtually to give up its main contention. I think, too, there can be little doubt as to the substantial authenticity of Zephaniah ii. (except the verses on Moab and Ammon ) and iii. 1-13, of Habakkuk ii. 5 ff., and of the whole of Haggai; or as to the ungenuine character of the lyric piece in Zechariah ii. and the intrusion of “ Malachi” ii. II- 13a . On these and smaller points the reader will find full discussion at the proper places.

                [ I may here add a word or two upon some of the critical conclusions reached in Vol. I. , which have PREFACE ix on been recently contested. The student will find strong grounds offered by Canon Driver in his Joel and Amos for the authenticity of those passages in Amos which , following other critics , I regarded or suspected as not authentic . It makes one diffident in one’s opinions when Canon Driver supports Professors Kuenen and Robertson Smith the other side. But on a survey of the case I am unable to feel that even they have removed what they admit to be “ forcible ” objections to the authorship by Amos of the passages in question. They seem to me to have established not more than a possibility that the passages are authentic ; and on the whole I still feel that the probability is in the other direction . right, then I think that the date of the apostrophes to Jehovah’s creative power which occur in the Book of Amos, and the reference to astral deities in chap. v . 27, may be that which I have suggested on pages 8 and 9 of this volume. Some critics have charged me with inconsistency in denying the authen ticity of the epilogue to Amos while defending that of the epilogue to Hosea. The two cases, as my arguments proved, are entirely different. Nor do I see any reason to change the conclusions of Vol. I. upon the questions of the authenticity of various parts of Micah. ] The text of the nine prophets treated in this volume If I am | Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1897 X PREFACE has presented even more difficulties than that of the three treated in Vol. I. And these difficulties must be my apology for the delay of this volume. 2. But the critical and textual value of our nine books is far exceeded by the historical. Each exhibits a development of Hebrew prophecy of the greatest interest. From this point of view , indeed , the volume might be entitled “ The Passing of the Prophet.” For throughout our nine books we see the spirit and the style of the classic prophecy of Israel gradually dissolving into other forms of religious thought and feeling. The clear start from the facts of the prophet’s day, the ancient truths about Jehovah and Israel, and the direct appeal to the conscience of the prophet’s contemporaries, are not always given, or when given are mingled, coloured and warped by other religious interests, both present and future, which are even powerful enough to shake the ethical absolutism of the older prophets . With Nahum and Obadiah the ethical is entirely missed in the presence of the claims — and we cannot deny that they were natural claims— of the long-suffering nation’s hour of revenge upon her heathen tyrants . With Zephaniah prophecy, still austerely ethical, passes under the shadow of apocalypse ; and the future is solved , not upon purely historical lines, but by the intervention of ” supernatural” elements. With Habakkuk the ideals of the older prophets encounter PREFACE xi the shock of the facts of experience : we have the prophet as sceptic. Upon the other margin of the Exile, Haggai and Zechariah (i. — viii.), although they are as practical as any of their predecessors, exhibit the influence of the exilic developments of ritual, angelology and apocalypse. God appears further off from Zechariah than from the prophets of the eighth century, and in need of mediators, human and super human . With Zechariah the priest has displaced the prophet, and it is very remarkable that no place is found for the latter beside the two sons of oil, the political and priestly heads of the community, who, according to the Fifth Vision , stand in the presence of God and between them feed the religious life of Israel. Nearly sixty years later “ Malachi ” ex hibits the working of Prophecy within the Law , and begins to employ the didactic style of the later Rab binism . Joel starts, like any older prophet, from the facts of his own day, but these hurry him at once into apocalypse ; he calls , as thoroughly as any of his predecessors, to repentance, but under the immi nence of the Day of the Lord, with its ” supernatural” terrors, he mentions no special sin and enforces no single virtue. The civic and personal ethics of the earlier prophets are absent. In the Greek Period, the oracles now numbered from the ninth to the fourteenth chapters of the Book of Zechariah repeat to aggravation the exulting revenge of Nahum and xii PREF4CE Obadiah, without the strong style or the hold upon history which the former exhibits, and show us prophecy still further enwrapped in apocalypse. But in the Book of Jonah, though it is parable and not history, we see a great recovery and expansion of the best elements of prophecy. God’s character and Israel’s true mission to the world are revealed in the spirit of Hosea and of the Seer of the Exile , with much of the tenderness, the insight, the analysis of character and even the humour of classic prophecy. These qualities raise the Book of Jonah , though it is probably the latest of our Twelve, to the highest rank among them . No book is more worthy to stand by the side of Isaiah xl.—lv. ; none is nearer in spirit to the New Testament. All this gives unity to the study of prophets so far separate in time, and so very distinct in character, from each other. From Zephaniah to Jonah, or over a period of three centuries, they illustrate the dissolution of Prophecy and its passage into other forms of religion. · The scholars, to whom every worker in this field is indebted, are named throughout the volume. I regret that Nowack’s recent commentary on the Minor Prophets (Gצttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) reached me too late for use (except in footnotes) upon the earlier of the nine prophets . George Adam Smith.

                                Contents of Vol. II.

                Preface: Chronological Tables. Chapters & Verses.

                Introduction to Prophets of Seventh Century.

1. Seventh Century Before Christ.

      1. Reaction Under Manasseh & Amon (695 ? -639) .

      2. Early Years of Josiah (639-625): Jeremiah & Zephaniah.

      3. Rest of Century (625-586 ): Fall of Niniveh; Nahum & Habakkuk.

                ZEPHANIAH:  (The Book of Zephaniah is one of the most difficultin the prophetic canon . The title is very gener ally accepted ; the period from which chap. i. dates is recognised by practically all critics to be the reign of Josiah , or at least the last third of the seventh century. But after that doubts start, and we find present nearly every other problem of introduction.

                To begin with , the text is very damaged. In some passages we may be quite sure that we have not the true text ; 1 in others we cannot be sure that we have it, and there are several glosses. The bulk of the second chapter was written in the Qinah, or elegiac measure, but as it now stands the rhythm is very much broken . It is difficult to say whether this is due to the dilapidation of the original text or to wilful insertion of glosses and other later passages. The Greek version of Zephaniah possesses the same general features as that of other difficult prophets. Occasion ally it enables us to correct the text ; but by the time it was made the text must already have contained the same corruptions which we encounter, and the translators were ignorant besides of the meaning of some phrases which to us are plain .        The difficulties of textual criticism as well as of translation are aggravated by the large number ofwords, grammatical forms and phrases which either happen very seldom in the Old Testament, or nowhere else in it at all. Of the rare words and phrases , a very few (as will be seen from the appended notes) are found in earlier writings. Indeed all that are found are from the authentic prophecies of Isaiah, with whose style and doctrine Zephaniah’s own exhibit most affinity . All the other rarities of vocabulary and grammar are shared only by later writers ; and as a whole the language of Zephaniah exhibits symptoms which separate it by many years from the language of the prophets of the eighth century , and range it with that of Jeremiah , Ezekiel, the Second Isaiah and still later literature . It may be useful to the student to collect in a note the most striking of these symptoms of the comparative lateness of Zephaniah’s dialect.

                We now come to the question of date, and we take, to begin with,the First Chapter. It was said above that critics agree as to the general period — between 639, when Josiah began to reign, and 600. But this period was divided into three very different sections, and each of these has received considerable support from modern criticism . The great majority of critics place the chapter in the early years of Josiah, before the enforce ment of Deuteronomy and the great Reform in 621.2 Others have argued for the later years of Josiah , 621–608, on the ground that the chapter implies that the great Reform has already taken place , and other wise shows knowledge of Deuteronomy ; while some prefer the days of reaction under Jehoiakim , 608 ff.,4 and assume that the phrase in the title, in the days of Josiah, is a late and erroneous inference from i. 4 .

                The evidence for the argument consists of the title and the condition of Judah reflected in the body of the chapter. The latter is a definite piece of oratory. Under the alarm of an immediate and general war, Zephaniah proclaims a vast destruction upon the earth . Judah must fall beneath it : the worshippers of Baal, of the host of heaven and of Milcom , the apostates from Jehovah, the princes and house of the king, the imitators of foreign fashions, and the forceful and fraudulent, shall be cut off in a great slaughter . Those who have grown sceptical and indifferent to Jehovah shall be unsettled by invasion and war. This shall be the Day of Jehovah , near and immediate, a day of battle and disaster on the whole land.

                The conditions reflected are thus twofold — the idola trous and sceptical state of the people, and an impending invasion . But these suit, more or less exactly , each of the three sections of our period. For Jeremiah distinctly states that he had to attack idolatry in Judah for twenty -three years,627 to 604 ; 1 he inveighs against the falseness and impurity of the people alike before the great Reform , and after it while Josiah was still alive, and still more fiercely under Jehoiakim . And, while before 621 the great Scythian invasion was sweeping upon Palestine from the north , after 621, and especially after 604, the Babylonians from the same quarter were visibly threatening the land. But when looked at more closely , the chapter shows several features which suit the second section of our period less than they do the other two. The worship of thehost of heaven, probably introduced under Manasseh , was pu down by Josiah in 621 ; it revived under Jehoiakim , but during the latter years of Josiah it cannot possibly have been so public as Zephaniah describes.3 Other reasons which have been given for those years are inconclusive_the chapter, for instance , makes no indubitable reference to Deuteronomy or the Covenant of 621 — and on the whole we may leave the end of Josiah’s reign out of account. Turning to the third section, Jehoiakim’s reign, we find one feature of the prophecy which suits it admirably. The temper de scribed in ver . 12 — men who are settled on their lees, who say in their heart, Jehovah doeth neither good nor evil — is the kind of temper likely to have been produced among the less earnest adherents of Jehovah by the failure of the great Reform in 621 to effect either the purity or the prosperity of the nation . But this is more than counterbalanced by the significant exception of the king from the condemnation which ver . 8 passes on the princes and the sons of the king. Such an ex ception could not have been made when Jehoiakim was on the throne ; it points almost conclusively to the reign of the good Josiah . And with this agrees the title of the chapter — in the days of Josiah . We are, therefore, driven back to the years of Josiah before In these we find no discrepancy either with the chapter itself, or with its title. The southward march of the Scythians, between 630 and 625, accounts for Zephaniah’s alarm of a general war, including the invasion of Judah ; the idolatrous practices which he describes may well have been those surviving from the days of Manasseh , and not yet reached by the drastic measures of 621; the temper of scepticism and hopelessness condemned by ver. 12was possible among those adherents of Jehovah who had hoped greater things from the overthrow of Amon than the slow and small reforms of the first fifteen years of Josiah’s reign . Nor is a date before 621 made at all difficult by the genealogy of Zephaniah in the title. If, as is probable, the Hezekiah given as his great- great grandfather be Hezekiah the king, and if he died about 695, and Manasseh, his successor, who was then twelve, was his eldest son , then by 630 Zephaniah cannot have been much more than twenty years of age, and not more than twenty -five by the time the Scythian invasion had passed away.’ It is therefore by no means impossible to suppose that he prophesied before 625 ; and besides, the data of the genealogy in the title are too precarious to make them valid , as against an inference from the contents of the chapter itself.

                The date, therefore, of the first chapter of Zephaniah may be given as about 625 B.C., and probably rather before than after that year, as the tide of Scythian invasion has apparently not yet ebbed.            

                The other two chapters have within recent years been almost wholly denied to Zephaniah . Kuenen doubted chap. iii. 9-20. Stade makes all chap. iii. post-exilic, and suspects ii. 1-3, II. A very thorough examination of them has led Schwally ? to assign to exilic or post exilic times the whole of the little sections comprising them , with the possible exception of chap. iii. 1-7 , which ” may be ” Zephaniah’s. His essay has been subjected to a searching and generally hostile criticism by a number of leading scholars ; 3 and he has admitted the inconclusiveness of some of his reasons.

                Chap. ii. 1-4 is assigned by Schwally to a date later than Zephaniah’s, principally because of the term meek ness ( ver . 3), which is a favourite one with post-exilic writers. He has been sufficiently answered ; ‘ and the close connection of vv. 1-3 with chap. i. has been clearly proved. Chap. ii. 4-15 is the passage in elegiac measure but broken , an argument for the theory that insertions have been made in it. The subject is a series of foreign nations – Philistia (5-7 ), Moab and Ammon (8-10), Egypt ( 11) and Assyria ( 13-15). The passage has given rise to manydoubts ; every onemust admit the difficulty of coming to a conclusion as to its authenticity. On the one hand, the destruction just predicted is so universal that, as Professor Davidson says, we should expect Zephaniah to mention other nations than Judah.? The concluding oracle on Niniveh must have been published before 608, and even Schwally admits that it may be Zephaniah’s own. But if this be so , then we may infer that the first of the oracles on Philistia is also Zephaniah’s, for both it and the oracle on Assyria are in the elegiac measure, a fact which makes it probable that the whole passage, however broken and intruded upon, was originally a unity . Nor is there anything in the oracle on Philistia incompatible with Zephaniah’s date . Philistia lay on the path of the Scythian invasion ; the phrase in ver. 7 , shall turn their captivity , is not necessarily exilic. As Cornill, too, points out, the expression in ver. 13, Hewill stretch out His hand to the north, implies that the prophecy has already looked in other directions. There remains the passage between the oracles on Philistia and Assyria . This is not in the elegiac measure. Its subject is Moab and Ammon , who were not on the line of the Scythian invasion, and Wellhausen further objects to it , because the attitude to Israel of the two peoples whom it describes is that which is attributed to them only just before the Exile and surprises us in Josiah’s reign . Dr. Davidson meets this objection by pointing out that, just as in Deuteronomy, so here, Moab and Ammon are denounced, while Edom , which in Deuteronomy is spoken of with kindness, is here not denounced at all. A stronger objection to the passage is that ver. II predicts the conversion of the nations, while ver. 12 makes them the prey of Jehovah’s sword, and in this ver . 12 follows on naturally to ver. 7. On this ground as well as on the absence of the elegiac measure the oracle on Moab and Ammon is strongly to be suspected . On the whole, then , the most probable conclusion is that chap. ii. 4-15 was originally an authentic oracle of Zephaniah’s in the elegiac metre, uttered at the same date as chap. i.-ii. 3 , the period of the Scythian , invasion , though from a different standpoint; and that it has suffered considerable dilapidation (witness especially vv. 6 and 14), and probably one great intrusion , vv. 8-10 .

                There remains the Third Chapter. The authenticity has been denied by Schwally , who transfers the whole till after the Exile. But the chapter is not a unity.” In the first place, it falls into two sections, vv. 1-13 and 14-20. There is no reason to take away the bulk of the first section from Zephaniah. As Schwally admits, the argumenthere is parallel to that ofchap. i.-ii. 3. It could hardly have been applied to Jerusalem during or after the Exile, but suits her conditions before her fall. Schwally’s linguistic objections to a pre- exilic date have been answered by Budde. He holds ver. 6 to be out of place and puts it after ver. 8, and this may be. But as it stands it appeals to the impenitent Jews of ver. 5 with the picture of the judgment God has already completed upon the nations, and contrasts with ver. 7 , in which God says that He trusts Israelwill repent. Vv. 9 and 10 are, we shall see, obviously an intrusion , as Budde maintains and Davidson admits to be possible.”

                We reach more certainty when we come to the second section of the chapter, vv. 14-20. Since Kuenen it has been recognised by the majority of critics that we have here a prophecy from the end of the Exile or after the Return . The temper has changed . In stead of the austere and sombre outlook of chap. i.–ii. 3 and chap. iii. 1-13, in which the sinful Israel is to be saved indeed , but only as by fire , we have a triumphant prophecy of her recovery from all afflic tion (nothing is said of her sin ) and of her glory among the nations of the world . To put it otherwise, while the genuine prophecies of Zephaniah almost grudgingly allow a door of escape to a few righteous and humble Israelites from a judgment which is to fall alike on Israel and the Gentiles, chap. iii. 14-20 predicts Israel’s deliverance from her Gentile oppressors, her return from captivity and the establishment of her renown over the earth . The language, too, has many re semblances to that of Second Isaiah.’ Obviously there fore we have here, added to the severe prophecies of Zephaniah, such a more hopeful, peaceful epilogue as we saw was added , during the Exile or immediately after it, to the despairing prophecies of Amos.) 

Ii. The Book Of Zephaniah 35

Iii. The Prophet And The Reformers 46

Zephaniah I.—ii. 3 .

Iv . Ninive Delenda . 61

Zephaniah Ii . 4-15.

V. So As By Fire 67

Zephaniah Iii.

                NAHUM:  (The Book of Nahum consists of a double title and three odes. The title runs Oracle of Niniveh: Book of the Vision of Nahum the Elķoshite. The three odes, eager and passionate pieces, are all of them apparently vibrant to the impending fall of Assyria. The first, chap. i. with the possible inclusion of chap . ii. 2 , is general and theological, affirming God’s power of vengeance and the certainty of the overthrow of His enemies. The second, chap. ii. with the omission of ver. 2,” and the third , chap. iii., can hardly be disjoined ; they both present a vivid picture of the siege, the storm and the spoiling of Niniveh. The introductory questions, which title and contents start, are in the main three : 1. The position of Elķפsh , to which the title assigns the prophet ; 2. The authenticity of chap. i.; 3. The date of chaps. ii., iii. : to which siege of Niniveh do they refer?)

Vi. The Book Of Nahum

1. The Position Of Elkפsh .

2. The Authenticity Of Chap. I.

3. The Date Of Chaps. Ii. And Iii.

Vii. The Vengeance Of The Lord 90

Nahum I.

Viii. The Siege And Fall Of Niniveh 96

Nahum Ii. And Iii .

Habaķķuķ

                HABAKKUK: (As  it has reached us, the Book of Habakkuk , under the title The Oracle which Habakkuk the prophet received by vision , consists of three chapters, which fall into three sections. First: chap. i. 24ii. 4 ( or 8 ), a piece in dramatic form ; the prophet lifts his voice to God against the wrong and violence of which his whole horizon is full, and God sends him answer. Second : chap . ii. 5 (or 9 )-20 , a taunt- song in a series of Woes upon the wrong- doer. Third : chap. iii., part psalm , part prayer, descriptive of a Theophany and expressive of Israel’s faith in their God. Of these three sections no one doubts the authenticity of the first ; opinion is divided about the second ; about the third there is a growing agreement that it is not a genuine work of Habakkuk, but a poem from a period after the Exile .

                1. CHAP. I. 2- II. 4 ( OR 8) .

                Yet it is the first piece which raises the most difficult questions. All ‘ admit that it is to be dated somewhere along the line of Jeremiah’s long career, c. 627-586 . There is no doubt about the general trend of the argument : it is a plaint to God on the sufferings of the righteous under tyranny, with God’s answer. But the order and connection of the paragraphs of the argument are not clear. There is also difference of opinion as to who the tyrant is – native, Assyrian or Chaldee ; and this leads to a difference , of course , about the date, which ranges from the early years of Josiah to the end of Jehoiakim’s reign , or from about 630 to 597.

                As the verses lie, their argument is this. In chap. i. 2-4 Habakkuk asks the Lord how long the wicked are to oppress the righteous, to the paralysing of the Torah, or Revelation of His Law , and the making futile of judgment. For answer the Lord tells him , vv. 5-11, to look round among the heathen : He is about to raise up the Chaldees to do His work, a people swift, self-reliant, irresistible. Upon which Habakkuk resumes his question , vv. 12-17, how long will God suffer a tyrant who sweeps up the peoples into his net like fish ? Is he to go on with this for ever ? In ii . i Habakkuk prepares for an answer, which comes in ii. 2 , 3, 4 : let the prophet wait for the vision though it tarries ; the proud oppressor cannot last, but the righteous shall live by his constancy , or faithfulness.

                The difficulties are these. Who are the wicked oppressors in chap. i. 2-4 ? Are they Jews, or some heathen nation ? And what is the connection between vy. 1-4 and vv. 5-11 ? Are the Chaldees, who are described in the latter, raised up to punish the tyrant complained against in the former ? To these questions three different sets of answers have been given .   First: the great majority of critics take the wrong complained of in vv. 2-4 to be wrong done by unjust and cruel Jews to their countrymen , that is , civic disorder and violence, and believe that in vv. 5-1 Jehovah is represented as raising up the Chaldees to punish the sin of Judah – a message which is pretty much the same as Jeremiah’s . But Habakkuk goes further : the Chaldees themselves with their cruelties aggravate his problem , how God can suffer wrong, and he appeals again to God, vv. 12-17. Are the Chaldees to beallowed to devastate for ever ? The answer is given, as above, in chap . ii. 1-4. Such is practically the view of Pusey, Delitzsch, Kleinert, Kuenen, Sinker, Driver, Orelli, Kirkpatrick , Wildeboer and Davidson , a formidable league, and Davidson says ” this is the most natural sense of the verses and of the words used in them .” But these scholars differ as to the date . Pusey, Delitzsch and Volck take the whole passage from i. 5 as prediction, and date it from before the rise of the Chaldee power in 625, attributing the internal wrongs of Judah described in vv . 2-4 to Manasseh’s reign or the early years of Josiah.? But the rest, on the grounds that the prophet shows some experience of the Chaldean methods of warfare, and that the account ofthe internal disorder in Judah does not suit Josiah’s reign, bring the passage down to the reign of Jehoiakim , 608—598, or of Jehoiachin , 597. Kleinert and Von Oreili date it before the battle of Carchemish , 506 , in which the Chaldean Nebuchadrezzar wrested from Egypt the Empire of the Western Asia, on the ground that after that Habakkuk could not have called a Chal dean invasion of Judah incredible (i. 5 ). But Kuenen, Driver, Kirkpatrick , Wildeboer and Davidson date it after Carchemish. To Driver it inust be immediately after, and before Judah became alarmed at the conse quences to herself. To Davidson the description of the Chaldeans ” is scarcely conceivable before the battle,” ” hardly one would think before the deportation of the people under Jehoiachin .” 1 This also is Kuenen’s view , who thinks that Judah must have suffered at least the first Chaldean raids, and he explains the use of an undoubted future in chap. i. 5 , Lo , I am about to raise up the Chaldeans, as due to the prophet’s pre dilection for a dramatic style. “ He sets himself in the past, and represents the already experienced chastise ment [ of Judah ] as having been then announced by Jehovah . His contemporaries could not have mistaken his meaning.”

                Second: others, however, deny that chap. i. 2-4 refers to the internal disorder of Judah , except as the effect of foreign tyranny. The righteous mentioned there are Israel as a whole, the wicked their heathen oppres sors. So Hitzig, Ewald , Kצnig and practically Smend. Ewald is so clear that Habakkuk ascribes no sin to Judah , that he says we might be led by this to assign the prophecy to the reign of the righteous Josiah ; but he prefers, because of the vivid sense which the prophet betrays of actual experience of the Chaldees, to date the passage from the reign of Jehoiakim , and to explain Habakkuk’s silence about his people’s sinfulness as due to his overwhelming impression of Chaldean cruelty . Kצnig : takes vv . 2-4 as a general complaint of the violence that fills the prophet’s day, and vv. 5-11 as a detailed description of the Chaldeans, the instru ments of this violence. Vv. 5-11, therefore, give not the judgment upon the wrongs described in vv. 2-4 , but the explanation of them . Lebanon is already wasted by the Chaldeans (ii. 17 ) ; therefore the whole prophecy must be assigned to the days of Jehoiakim . Giesebrecht ? and Wellhausen adhere to the view that no sins of Judah are mentioned, but that the righteous and wicked of chap. i. 4 are the same as in ver. 13, viz . Israel and a heathen tyrant. But this leads them to dispute that the present order of the paragraphs of the prophecy is the right one. In chap. i. 5 the Chaldeans are represented as about to be raised up for the first time, although their violence has already been described in vv . 1-4, and in vv. 12-17 these are already in full career. Moreover ver. 12 follows on naturally to ver. 4. Accordingly these critics would remove the section vv. 5-11. Giesebrecht prefixes it to ver. I, and dates the whole passage from the Exile. Wellhausen calls 5-11 an older passage than the rest of the prophecy , and removes it altogether as not Habakkuk’s. To the latter he assigns what remains, i. 1-4 , 12-17, ii. 1-5 , and dates it from the reign of Jehoiakim.

                Third: from each of these groups of critics Budde of Strasburg borrows something, but so as to construct an arrangement of the verses, and to reach a date, for the whole, from which both differ.1 With Hitzig, Ewald , Kצnig, Smend, Giesebrecht and Wellhausen he agrees that the violence complained of in i. 2-4 is that in flicted by a heathen oppressor, the wicked , on the Jewish nation , the righteous. But with Kuenen and others he holds that the Chaldeans are raised up, according to i. 5-11, to punish the violence complained of in i. 2-4 and again in i. 12-17 . In these verses it is the ravages of another heathen power than the Chaldeans which Budde descries. The Chaldeans are still to come, and cannot be the same as the devastator whose long continued tyranny is described in i. 12-17. They are rather the power which is to punish him . He can only be the Assyrian . But if that be so, the proper place for the passage, i. 5-11, which describes the rise of the Chaldeans must be after the description of the Assyrian ravages in i. 12-17, and in the body of God’s answer to the prophet which we find in ii. 2 ff . Budde, therefore, places i. 5-11 after ii. 2-4. But if the Chaldeans are still to come, and Budde thinks that they are described vaguely and with a good deal of imagination , the prophecy thus arranged must fall somewhere between 625, when Nabopolassar the Chaldean made himself independent of Assyria and King of Babylon, and 607, when Assyria fell. That the prophet calls Judah righteous is proof that he wrote after the great Reform of 621 ; hence, too , his reference to Torah and Mishpat (i. 4 ), and his complaint of the obstacles which Assyrian supremacy presented to their free course . As the Assyrian yoke appears not to have been felt anywhere in Judah by 608, Budde would fix the exact date of Habakkuk’s prophecy about 615. To these conclusions of Budde Cornill, who in 1891 had very confidently assigned the prophecy of Habakkuk to the reign of Jehoiakim , gave his adherence in 1896.

                Budde’s very able and ingenious argument has been subjected to a searching criticism by Professor David son, who emphasises first the difficulty of accounting for the transposition of chap. i. 5-11 from what Budde alleges to have been its original place after ii. 4 to its present position in chap. i.? He points out that if chap. i. 2-4 and 12-17 and ii. 5 ff. refer to the Assyrian , it is strange the latter is not once mentioned. Again , by 615 we may infer (though we know little of Assyrian history at this time) that the Assyrian’s hold on Judah was already too relaxed for the prophet to impute to him power to hinder the Law , especially as Josiah had begun to carry his reforms into the northern kingdom ; and the knowledge of the Chaldeans dis played in i. 5-11 is too fresh and deta:led to suit so early a date : it was possible only after the battle of Carchemish . And again , it is improbable that we have two different nations, as Budde thinks, described by the very similar phrases in i. u , his own power becomes his god , and in i. 16 , he sacrifices to his net. Again , chap. i. 5-11 would not read quite naturally after chap. ii. 4. And in the woes pronounced on the oppressor it is not one nation, the Chaldeans, which are to spoil him , but all the remnant of the peoples (ii. 7 , 8 ).           These objections are not inconsiderable . But are they conclusive ? And if not, is any of the other theories of the prophecy less beset with difficulties ? The objections are scarcely conclusive. We have no proof that the power of Assyria was altogether removed from Judah by 615 ; on the contrary, even in 608 Assyria was still the power with which Egypt went forth to contend for the empire of the world . Seren years earlier her hand may well have been strong upon Palestine. Again , by 615 the Chaldeans, a people famous in Western Asia for a long time, had been ten years independent : men in Palestine may have been familiar with their methods of warfare ; at least it is impossible to say they were not. There is more weight in the objection drawn from the absence of the name of Assyria from all of the passages which Budde alleges describe it ; nor do we get over all difficulties of text by inserting i. 5-11 between ij. 4 and 5. Besides, how does Budde explain i. 12b on the theory that it means Assyria ? Is the clause not premature at that point ? Does he propose to elide it, like Wellhausen ? And in any case an erroneous transposition of the original is impossible to prove and difficult to account for.

                But have not the other theories of the Book of Habakkuk cqually great difficulties ? Surely, we can not say that the righteous and the wicked in i. 4 mean something different from what they do in i. 13 ? But if this is impossible the construction of the book supported by the great majority of critics ? falls to the ground. Professor Davidson justly says that it has ” something artificial in it ” and ” puts a strain on the natural sense.’ How can the Chaldeans be described in i. 5 as just about to be raised up, and in 14-17 as already for a long time the devastators of earth ? Ewald’s, Hitzig’s and Kצnig’s views t are equally beset by these difficulties ; Kצnig’s exposition also “ strains the natural sense.” Everything, in fact, points to i. 5-11 being out of its proper place ; it is no wonder that Giesebrecht, Wellhausen and Budde independently arrived at this conclusion . Whether Budde be right in inserting i. 5-11 after ii. 4 , there can be little doubt of the correctness of his views that i. 12-17 describe a heathen oppressor who is not the Chaldeans. Budde says this oppressor is Assyria . Can he be any one else ? From 608 to 605 Judah was sorely beset by Egypt, who had overrun all Syria up to the Euphrates. The Egyptians killed Josiah , deposed his successor, and put their own vassal under a very heavy tribute ; gold and silver were exacted of the people of the land : the picture of distress in i. 1-4 might easily be that of Judah in these three terrible years. And if we assigned the prophecy to them , we should certainly give it a date at which the knowledge of the Chaldeans ex pressed in i. 5-11 wasmore probable than at Budde’s date of 615. But then does the description in chap. i. 14-17 suit Egypt so well as it does Assyria ? We can hardly affirm this, until we know more of what Egypt did in those days, but it is very probable .

                Therefore, the theory supported by the majority of critics being unnatural, we are, with our present meagre knowledge of the time, flung back upon Budde’s interpretation that the prophet in i. 24ii. 4 appeals from oppression by a heathen power, which is not the Chaldean, but upon which the Chaldean shall bring the just vengeance of God. The tyrant is either Assyria up to about 615 or Egypt from 608 to 605, and there is not a little to be said for the latter date.

                In arriving at so uncertain a conclusion about i.-ii. 4 , we have but these consolations, that no other is possible in our present knowledge, and that the un certainty will not hamper us much in our appreciation of Habakkuk’s spiritual attitude and poetic gifts.?

                2. CHAP. II. 5-20 .

                The dramatic piece i. 2 — ii. 4 is succeeded by a series of fine taunt- songs, starting after an introduction from 6b, then 9, 11, 15 and (18) 19, and each opening with Woe ! Their subject is, if we take Budde’s interpreta tion of the dramatic piece, the Assyrian and not the Chaldean ‘ tyrant. The text, as we shall see when we come to it , is corrupt. Some words are manifestly wrong, and the rhythm must have suffered beyond restoration . In all probability these fine lyric Woes, or at least as many of them as are authentic – for there is doubt about one or two – were of equal length . Whether they all originally had the refrain now attached to two is more doubtful.

                Hitzig suspected the authenticity of some parts of this series of songs. Stade 2 and Kuenen have gone further and denied the genuineness of vv . 9-20 . But this is with little reason. As Budde says, a series of Woes was to be expected here by a prophet who follows so much the example of Isaiah . In spite of Kuenen’s objection , vv. 9-11 would not be strange of the Chaldean , but they suit the Assyrian better. Vv. 12-14 are doubtful: 12 recalls Micah iii . 10 ; 13 is a repetition of Jer. li . 58 ; 14 is a variant of Isa . xi. 9. Very likely Jer. li . 58, a late passage, is borrowed from this passage ; yet the addition used here, Are not these things from the Lord of Hosts ? looks as if it noted a citation . Vv. 15-17 are very suitable to the Assyrian ; there is no reason to take them from Habakkuk . The final song, vv. 18 and 19, has its Woe at the beginning of its second verse, and closely resembles the language of later prophets. Moreover the refrain forms a suitable close at the end of ver . 17. Ver. 20 is a quotation from Zephaniah, perhaps another sign of the composite character of the end of this chapter. Some take it to have been inserted as an introduction to the theophany in chap. iii.                 Smend has drawn up a defence of thewhole passage, ii. 9-20, which he deems not only to stand in a natural relation to vv. 4-8, but to be indispensable to them . That the passage quotes from other prophets, he holds to be no proof against its authenticity . If we break off with ver. 8 , he thinks thatwemust impute to Habakkuk the opinion that the wrongs of the world are chiefly avenged by human means — a conclusion which is not to be expected after chap. i.-ii. i ff .

                3. CHAP. III.

                The third chapter, an Ode or Rhapsody, is ascribed to Habakkuk by its title. This, however, does not prove its authenticity : the title is too like those assigned to the Psalms in the period of the Second Temple. On the contrary, the title itself, the occurrence of the musical sign Selah in the contents, and the colophon suggest for the chapter a liturgical origin after the Exile. (* 4 Cf. Kuenen, who conceives it to have been taken from a post- exilic collection of Psalms. See also Cheyne, The Origin of the Psalter : ” exilic or more probably post-exilic ” (p . 125). “ The most natural position for it is in the Persian period. It was doubtless appended to Habakkuk , for the same reason for which Isa . Ixiii. 7 – lxiv . was attached to the great prophecy of Restoration, viz . that the earlier national troubles seemed to the Jewish Church to be typical of its own sore troublesafter theReturn . … The lovely closing versesofHab. iii. are also in a tone congenial to the later religion ” ( p . 156). Much less certain is the assertion that the language is imitative and artificial ( ibid .) ; while the statement that in ver. 3 – cf. with Deut. xxxiii. 2– we have an instance of the effort to avoid the personalname of the Deity (p . 287) is disproved by the use of the latter in ver. 2 and other verses. *) That this is more probable than the alternative opinion , that, being a genuine work of Habakkuk , the chapter was afterwards arranged as a Psalm for public worship , is confirmed by the fact that no other work of the prophets has been treated in the same way. Nor do the contents support the authorship by Habakkuk. They reflect no definite historical situation like the pre ceding chapters . The style and temper are different. While in them the prophet speaks for himself, here it is the nation or congregation of Israel that addresses God. The language is not, as some have maintained, late ; ‘ but the designation of the people as Thineanointed , a term which before the Exile was applied to the king, undoubtedly points to a post-exilic date. The figures, the theophany itself, are not necessarily archaic, but are more probably moulded on archaic models. There are many affinities with Psalms of a late date .

                At the same time a number of critics ? maintain the genuineness of the chapter, and they have some grounds for this. Habakkuk was, as we can see from chaps. i. and ii., a real poet. There was no need why a man of his temper should be bound down to reflecting only his own day. If so practical a prophet as Hosea, and one who has so closely identified himself with his times, was wont to escape from them to a retrospect of the dealings of God with Israel from of old , why should not the same be natural for a prophet who was much less practical and more literary and artistic ? There are also many phrases in the Psalm which may be inter preted as reflecting the same situation as chaps. i., ii. All this, however , only proves possibility .

                The Psalm has been adapted in Psalm lxxvii. 17-20 .

                FURTHER NOTE ON CHAP. I. – II, 4 .          

                Since this chapter was in print Nowack’s Die Kleinen Fropheten in the “ Handkommentar z. A. T.” has been published . He recog nises emphatically that the disputed passage about the Chaldeans, chap . i. 5-11, is out of place where it lies (this against Kuenen and the other authorities cited above, p . 117), and admits that it follows on, with a natural connection, to chap. ii. 4, to which Budde pro poses to attach it. Nevertheless, for other reasons, which he does not state, he regards Budde’s proposal as untenable ; and reckons the disputed passage to be by another hand than Habakkuk’s, and in truded into the latter’s argument. Habakkuk’s argument he assigns to after 605 ; perhaps 590. The tyrant complained against would therefore be the Chaldean . – Driver in the 6th ed. of his Introduction ( 1897 ) deems Budde’s argument “ too ingenious,” and holds by the older and most numerously supported argument (above, pp. 116 ff.). On a review of the case in the light of these two discussions, the presentwriter holds to his opinion that Budde’s rearrangement, which he has adopted, offers the fewest difficulties.)

Ix . The Book Of Habakkuk · 115

1. Chap. I. 2 – Ii. 4 (Or 8 ).

2. Chap. Ii. 5-20 .

3. Chap . Iii.

X. The Prophet As Sceptic · 129

Habakkuk I.-ii. 4 .

Xi. Tyranny Is Suicide · 143

Habakkuk Ii . 5-20.

Xii, “ In The Midst Of The Years ” 149

Habakkuk Iii,

                OBADIAH:  (The Book of Obadiah is the smallest among theprophets, and the smallest in all the Old Testa ment. Yet there is none which better illustratęs many of the main problems of Old Testament criticism . It raises, indeed, no doctrinal issue nor any question of historical accuracy. All that it claims to be is The Vision of Obadiah ; ‘ and this vague name, with no date or dwelling -place to challenge comparison with the contents of the book, introduces us without preju dice to the criticism of the latter. Nor is the book involved in the central controversy of Old Testament scholarship , the date of the Law . It has no reference to the Law . Nor is it made use of in the New Testa ment. The more freely , therefore, may we study the literary and historical questions started by the twenty-one verses which compose the book. Their brief course is broken by differences of style, and by sudden changes of outlook from the past to the future. Some of them present a close parallel to another passage of prophecy, a feature which when present offers a difficult problem to the critic. Hardly any of the historical allusions are free from ambiguity, for although the book refers throughout to a single nation – and so vividly that even if Edom were not named wemight still discern the character and crimes of that bitter brother of Israel – yet the conflict of Israel and Edom was so prolonged and so monotonous in its cruelties, that there are few of its many centuries to which some scholar has not felt himself able to assign , in part or whole , Obadiah’s indignant oration. The little book has been tossed out of one century into another by successive critics, till there exists in their estimates of its date a difference of nearly six hundred years. Such a fact seems, at first sight, to convict criticism either of arbitrariness or helplessness ; yet a little consideration of details is enough to lead us to an appreciation of the reasonable methods of Old Testament criticism , and of its indubitable progress towards certainty, in spite of our ignorance of large stretches of the history of Israel. To the student of the Old Testament nothing could be more profitable than to master the historical and literary questions raised by the Book of Ohadiah , before following them out among the more complicated problems which are started by other prophetical books in their relation to the Law of Israel, or to their own titles, or to claims made for them in the New Testament.

                The Book of Obadiah contains a number of verbal parallels to another prophecy against Edom which appears in Jeremiah xlix . 7-22. Most critics have regarded this prophecy of Jeremiah as genuine, and have assigned it to the year 604 B.C. The question is whether Obadiah or Jeremiah is the earlier. Hitzig and Vatke answered in favour of Jeremiah ; and as the Book of Obadiah also contains a description of Edom’s conduct in the day of Jerusalem’s over throw by Nebuchadrezzar, in 586 , they brought the whole book down to post-exilic times. Very forcible arguments, however, have been offered for Obadiah’s priority. Upon this priority, as well as on the facts that Joel, whom they take to be early, quotes from Obadiah, and that Obadiah’s book occurs among the first six –presumably the pre -exilic members — of the Twelve, a number of scholars have assigned all of it to an early period in Israel’s history. Some fix upon the reign of Jehoshaphat, when Judah was invaded by Edom and his allies Moab and Ammon, but saved from disaster through Moab and Ammon turning upon the Edomites and slaughtering them .” To this they refer the phrase in Obadiah 9, the men of thy covenant have betrayed thee. Others place the whole book in the reign of Joram of Judah ( 849– 842 B.C.), when , according to the Chronicles, Judah was invaded and Jerusalem partly sacked by Philistines and Arabs. But in the story of this invasion there is no mention of Edomites, and the argument which is drawn from Joel’s quotation of Obadiah fails if Joel, as we shall see, be of late date. With greater prudence Pusey declines to fix a period .

                The supporters of a pre-exilic origin for the whole Book of Obadiah have to explain vv. 11-14, which appear to reflect Edom’s conduct at the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586, and they do so in two ways. Pusey takes the verses as predictive of Nebuchadrezzar’s siege. Orelli and others believe that they suit better the conquest and plunder of the city in the time of Jehoram . But, as Calvin has said , “ they seem to be mistaken who think that Obadiah lived before the time of Isaiah .”

                The question , however, very early arose, whether it was possible to take Obadiah as a unity. Vv. 1-9 are more vigorous and firm than vv . 10-21. In vv. 1-9 Edom is destroyed by nations who are its allies ; in vv. 10-21 it is still to fall along with other Gentiles in the general judgment of the Lord. Vv. 10-21 admittedly describe the conduct of the Edomites at the overthrow of Jerusalem in 586 ; but vv. 1-9 pro bably reflect earlier events ; and it is significant that in them alone occur the parallels to Jeremiah’s pro phecy against Edom in 604 . On some of these grounds Ewald regarded the little book as consisting of two pieces, both of which refer to Edom , but the first of which was written before Jeremiah, and the second is post-exilic. As Jeremiah’s prophecy has some features more original than Obadiah’s,” he traced both prophecies to an original oracle against Edom , of which Obadiah on the whole renders an exact version . He fixed the date of this oracle in the earlier days of Isaiah, when Rezin of Syria enabled Edom to assert again its independence of Judah , and Edom won back Elath , which Uzziah had taken. Driver, Wildeboer and Cornill ? adopt this theory, with the exception of the period to which Ewald refers the original oracle. According to them , the Book of Obadiah consists of two pieces, vv. 1-9 pre-exilic, and vv. 10-21 post exilic and descriptive in 11-14 of Nebuchadrezzar’s sack of Jerusalem .

                This latter point need not be contested. But is it clear that 1-9 are so different from 10-21 that they must be assigned to another period ? Are they necessarily pre- exilic ? Wellhausen thinks not, and has constructed still another theory of the origin of the book , which , like Vatke’s, brings it all down to the period after the Exile .

                There is no mention in the book either of Assyria or of Babylonia. The allies who have betrayed Edom (ver. 7) are therefore probably those Arabian tribes who surrounded it and were its frequent confederates.’ They are described as sending Edom to the border (ib .). Wellhausen thinks that this can only refer to the great northward movement of Arabs which began to press upon the fertile lands to the south -east of Israel during the time of the Captivity . Ezekiel : prophesies that Ammon and Moab will disappear before the Arabs, and we know that by the year 312 the latter were firmly settled in the territories of Edom . Shortly before this the Hagarenes appear in Chronicles, and Se’ir is called by the Arabic name Gebal,” while as early as the fifth century ” Malachi” 3 records the desolation of Edom’s territory by the jackals of the wilderness, and the expulsion of the Edomites, who will not return. The Edomites were pushed up into the Negeb of Israel, and occupied the territory round, and to the south of, Hebron till their conquest by John Hyrcanus about 130 ; even after that it was called Idumזa. Well hausen would assign Obadiah 1-7 to the same stage of this movement as is reflected in “ Malachi” i. 1-5 ; and, apart from certain parentheses, would therefore take the whole of Obadiah as a unity from the end of the fifth century before Christ. In that case Giesebrecht argues that the parallel prophecy, Jeremiah xlix. 7-22, must be reckoned as one of the passages of the Book of Jeremiah in which post- exilic additions have been inserted.5 Our criticism of this theory may start from the seventh verse of Obadiah : To the border they have sent thee, all the men of thy covenant have betrayed thee, they have overpowered thee, the men of thy peace. On our present knowledge of the history of Edom it is im possible to assign the first of these clauses to any period before the Exile. No doubt in earlier days Edom was more than once subjected to Arab razzias. But up to the Jewish Exile the Edomites were still in possession of their own land. So the Deuteronomist implies, and so Ezekiel? and perhaps the author of Lamentations. Wellhausen’s claim , therefore, that the seventh verse of Obadiah refers to the expulsion of Edomites by Arabs in the sixth or fifth century B.C. may be granted. But does this mean that verses 1-6 belong, as he maintains, to the same period ? A negative answer seems required by the following facts. To begin with , the seventh verse is not found in the parallel prophecy in Jeremiah. There is no reason why it should not have been used there, if that prophecy had been compiled at a time when the ex pulsion of the Edomites was already an accomplished fact. But both by this omission and by all its other features, that prophecy suits the time of Jeremiah , and we may leave it , therefore, where it was left till the appearance of Wellhausen’s theory – namely, with Jeremiah himself. Moreover Jeremiah xlix . 9 seems to have been adapted in Obadiah 5 in order to suit verse 6. But again , Obadiah 1-6 , which contains so many parallels to Jeremiah’s prophecy, also seems to imply that the Edomites are still in possession of their land. The nations (we may understand by this the Arab tribes) are risen against Edom , and Edom is already despicable in face of them (vv. I, 2 ) ; but he has not yet fallen, any more than , to the writer of Isaiah xlv . — xlvii., who uses analogous language, Babylon is already fallen . Edom is weak and cannot resist the Arab razsias. But he still makes his eyrie on high and says : Who will bring me down ? To which challenge Jehovah replies, not ‘ I have brought thee down,’ but I will bring thee down. The post-exilic portion of Obadiah , then , I take to begin with verse 7 ; and the author of this prophecy has begun by incorporating in vv. 1-6 a pre-exilic prophecy against Edom , which had been already, and with more freedom , used by Jeremiah . Verses 8-9 form a difficulty . They return to the future tense, as if the Edomites were still to be cut off from Mount Esau. But verse Io , as Wellhausen points out, follows on naturally to verse 7, and, with its successors, clearly points to a period sub sequent to Nebuchadrezzar’s overthrow of Jerusalem . The change from the past tense in vv . 10-11 to the imperatives of 12-14 need cause, in spite of what Pusey says, no difficulty, but may be accounted for by the excited feelings of the prophet. The suggestion has been made, and it is plausible, that Obadiah speaks as an eye-witness of that awful time. Certainly there is nothing in the rest of the prophecy ( vv . 15-21) to lead us to bring it further down than the years following the destruction of Jerusalem . Everything points to the Jews being still in exile. The verbs which describe the inviolateness of Jerusalem ( 17), and the reinstatement of Israel in their heritage (17, 19 ), and their conquest of Edom ( 18 ), are all in the future. The prophet himself appears to write in exile ( 20 ) . The captivity of Jerusalem is in Sepharad (ib.) and the saviours have to come up to Mount Zion ; that is to say, they are still beyond the Holy Land (21).

                The one difficulty in assigning this date to the pro phecy is that nothing is said in the Hebrew of ver. 19 about the re-occupation of the hill-country of Judזa itself, but here the Greek may help us.’ Certainly every other feature suits the early days of the Exile .

                The result of our inquiry is that the Book of Obadiah was written at that timeby a prophet in exile, who was filled by the same hatred of Edom as filled another exile, who in Babylon wrote Psalm cxxxvii.; and that, like so many of the exilic writers, he started from an earlier prophecy against Edom , already used by Jeremiah. [Nowack (Comm., 1897) takes vv. 1-14 (with additions in vv . 1, 5, 6 , 8 f. and 12) to be from a date not long after the Fall of Jerusalem , alluded to in vv. 11-14 ; and vv. 15-21 to belong to a later period, which it is impossible to fix exactly. ] There is nothing in the language of the book to disturb this conclusion . The Hebrew of Obadiah is pure ; unlike its neighbour, the Book of Jonah, it contains neither Aramaisms nor other symptoms of decadence. The text is very sound. The Septuagint Version enables us to correct vv. 7 and 17 , offers the true division between vv. 9 and 10, but makes an omission which leaves no sense in ver. 17.3 It will be best to give all the twenty-one verses together before commenting on their spirit……) 

XIII. Book of Obadiah.  Vision of Obadiah.

Xiv. Edom & Israel. Obadiah.

                Introduction to Prophets of Persian Period (539-331 B.C.).

Xv. Israel under Persians.

Xvi. Return from Babylon to Building of Temple (536-516 B.C.); with Discussion of Professor Kosters’ Theory.

                HAGGAI:  (The  Book of Haggai contains thirty – eight verses,which have been divided between two chapters. The text is, for the prophets, a comparatively sound The Greek version affords a number of correc tions, but has also the usual amount of misunderstand ings, and , as in the case of other prophets, a few additions to the Hebrew text. These and the variations in the other ancient versions will be noted in the translation below.3 The book consists of four sections, each recounting a message from Jehovah to the Jews in Jerusalem in 520 B.C., the second year of Darius (Hystaspis ), by the hand of the prophet Haggai. The first, chap. i., dated the first day of the sixth month, during our September, reproves the Jews for building their own cieled houses, while they say that the time for building Jehovah’s house has not yet come ; affirms that this is the reason of their poverty and of a great drought which has afflicted them . A piece of narrative is added recounting how Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the heads of the community, were stirred by this word to lead the people to begin work on the Temple, on the twenty-fourth day of the same month . The second section , chap. ii. 1-9, contains a message, dated the twenty-first day of the seventh month, during our October, in which the builders are encouraged for their work . Jehovah is about to shake all nations, these shall contribute of their wealth , and the latter glory of the Temple be greater than the former. The third section , chap. ii . 10-19, contains a word of Jehovah which came to Haggai on the twenty- fourth day of the ninth month , during our December. It is in the form of a parable based on certain ceremonial laws, according to which the touch of a holy thing does not sanctify so much as the touch of an unholy pollutes. Thus is the people polluted, and thus every work of their hands. Their sacrifices avail nought, and adver sity has persisted : small increase of fruits, blasting, mildew and hail. But from this day God will bless. The fourth section, chap. ii. 20-23, is a second word from the Lord to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month . It is for Zerubbabel, and declares that God will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the forces of many of the Gentiles by war. In that day Zerubbabel, the Lord’s elect servant, shall be as a signet to the Lord. The authenticity of all these four sections doubted by no one, till ten years ago W. Bצhme, besides pointing out some useless repetitions of single wordsand phrases, cast suspicion on chap. i. 13,and ques tioned the whole of the fourth section, chap. ii . 20-23. With regard to chap. i. 13, it is indeed curious that Haggai should be described as the messenger of Jehovah ; while the message itself, I am with you, seems super fluous here, and if the verse be omitted, ver. 14 runs on naturally to ver. 12.2 Bצhme’s reasons for disputing the authenticity of chap. ij. 20-23 are much less sufficient. He thinks he sees the hand of an editor in the phrase for a second time in ver . 20 ; notes the omission of the title ” prophet ” 3 after Haggai’s name, and the difference of the formula the word came to Haggai from that employed in the previous sections, by the hand of Haggai, and the repetition of ver. 6b in ver. 21 ; and otherwise concludes that the section is an insertion from a later hand . But the formula the word came to Haggai occurs also in ii . 10 : 4 the other points are trivial, and while it was most natural for Haggai the contemporary of Zerubbabel to entertain of the latter such hopes as the passage expresses, it is in conceivable that a later writer, who knew how they had not been fulfilled in Zerubbabel, should have invented them .” Recently M. Tony Andrיe, privat-docent in the Univer sity of Geneva, has issued a large work on Haggai, in which he has sought to prove that the third section of the book, chap. ii. ( 10 ) 11-19, is from the hand of another writer than the rest. He admits that in neither form , nor style, nor language is there anything to prove this distinction, and that the ideas of all the sections suit perfectly the condition of the Jews in the time soon after the Return . But he considers that chap. ii. ( 10) 11-19 interrupts the connection between the sections upon either side of it ; that the author is a legalist or casuist, while the author of the other sections is a man whose only ecclesiastical interest is the rebuilding of the Temple ; that there are obvious contradictions between chap. ii . (10) 11-19 and the rest ofthe book ; and that there is a difference of vocabulary. Let us consider each of these reasons. The first, that chap. ii. ( 10 ) 11-19 interrupts the con nection between the sections on either side of it , is true only in so far as it has a different subject from that which the latter have more or less in common. But the second of the latter, chap. ii. 20-23, treats only of a corollary of the first, chap. ii . 1-9 , and that corollary may well have formed the subject of a separate oracle. Besides, as we shall see, chap . ii. 10-19 is a natural development of chap. i.? The contradictions alleged by M. Andrיe are two. He points out that while chap. i. speaks only of a drought, chap. ii . ( 10 ) 11-19 mentions as the plagues on the crops shiddāphפn and yērākón, generally rendered blasting and mildew in our English Bible , and bārād, or hail ; and these he reckons to be plagues due not to drought but to excessive moisture. But shiddāphפn and yērākפn , which are always connected in the Old Testament and are words of doubtfulmeaning, are not referred to damp in any of the passages in which they occur, but, on the contrary, appear to be the consequences of drought. The other contradiction alleged refers to the ambiguous verse ii. 18, on which we have already seen it difficult to base any conclusion , and which will be treated when we come to it in the course of translation . Finally , the differences in language which M. Andrיe cites are largely imaginary, and it is hard to understand how a responsible critic has come to cite, far more to emphasise them , as he has done. We may relegate the discussion of them to a note, and need here only remark that there is among them but one of any significance : while the rest of the book calls the Temple the House or the House of Jehovah (or of Jehovah of Hosts), chap . ii. ( 10 ) 11-19 styles it palace, or temple, of Jehovah.’ On such a difference between two comparatively brief passages it would be unreasonable to decide for a distinction of authorship . There is , therefore, no reason to disagree with the consensus of all other critics in the integrity of the Book of Haggai. The four sections are either from himself or from a contemporary of his. They probably represent, not the full addresses given by him on the occasions stated, but abstracts or summaries of these. “ It is never an easy task to persuade a whole popula tion to make pecuniary sacrifices , or to postpone private to public interests ; and the probability is , that in these brief remains of the prophet Haggai we have but one or two specimens of a ceaseless diligence and persistent determination, which upheld and animated the whole people till the work was accomplished.” 3 At the same time it must be noticed that the style of the book is not wholly of the bare, jejune prose which it is sometimes described to be. The passages of Haggai’s own exhortation are in the well-known parallel rhythm of prophetic discourse : see especially chap . i., ver. 6 . The only other matter of Introduction to the prophet Haggai is his name. The precise form is not else where found in the Old Testament ; but one of the clans of the tribe of Gad is called Haggi, and the letters H GI occur as the consonants of a name on a Phoenician inscription. Some4 have taken Haggai to be a contraction of Haggiyah , the name of a Levitical family , but although the final yod of some proper names stands for Jehovah , we cannot certainly con clude that it is so in this case. Others see in Haggai a probable contraction for Hagariah, as Zaccai, the original of Zacchזus, is a contraction of Zechariah. A more general opinion takes the termination as adjectival,10 and the root to be “ hag ,” feast or festival.11 In that case Haggai would mean festal, and it has been supposed that the name would be given to him from his birth on the day of some feast. It is impossible to decide with certainty among these alternatives. M. Andrיe, who accepts the meaning festal, ventures the hypothesis that, like “ Malachi,” Haggai is a symbolic title given by a later hand to the anonymous writer of the book , because of the coincidence of his various prophecies with solemn festivals. But the name is too often and too naturally introduced into the book to present any analogy to that of “ Malachi” ; and the hypothesis may be dismissed as improbable and unnatural. Nothing more is known of Haggai than his name and the facts given in his book . But as with the other prophets whom we have treated , so with this one, Jewish and Christian legends have been very busy. Other functions have been ascribed to him ; a sketch of his biography has been invented . Accord ing to the Rabbis he was one of the men of the Great Synagogue, and with Zechariah and “ Malachi ” trans mitted to that mythical body the tradition of the older prophets. He was the author of several ceremonial regulations, and with Zechariah and ” Malachi ” intro duced into the alphabet the terminal forms of the five elongated letters. The Christian Fathers narrate that he was of the tribe of Levi,” that with Zechariah he prophesied in exile of the Return, and was still young when he arrived in Jerusalem , where he died and was buried. A strange legend, founded on the doubtful verse which styles him the messenger of Jehovah, gave out that Haggai, as well as for similar reasons “ Malachi” and John the Baptist, were not men, but angels in human shape. With Zechariah Haggai appears on the titles of Psalms cxxxvii., cxlv.– cxlviii. in the Septuagint ; cxi., cxlv., cxlvi. in the Vulgate ; and cxxv., cxxvi. and cxlv.cxlviii. in the Peshitto.2 the Temple at Jerusalem he was the first who chanted the Hallelujah, … wherefore we say : Hallelujah , which is the hymn of Haggai and Zechariah .” All these testimonies are, of course , devoid of value. Finally, the modern inference from chap. ii . 3, that Haggai in his youth had seen the former Temple , had gone into exile, and was now returned a very old man,’ may be probable, but is not certain . We are quite ignorant of his age at the time the word of Jehovah came to him .)

Xvii. The Book Of Haggai · 225

Xviii. Haggai And The Building Of The Temple . 234

Haggai I., Ii.

1. The Call To Build (Chap. I.).

2. Courage, Zerubbabel ! Courage, Jehoshua And

All The People ! (Chap. Ii. 1-9 ).

3. The Power Of The Unclean (Chap. Ii. 10-19).

4. The Reinvestment Of Israel’s Hope (Chap. Ii . 20-23) .

                ZECHARIAH (1-8):  (The Book of Zechariah, consisting of fourteenchapters , falls clearly into two divisions : First, chaps. i. — viii., ascribed to Zechariah himself and full of evidence for their authenticity ; Second , chaps. ix. — xiv., which are not ascribed to Zechariah, and deal with conditions different from those upon which he worked. The full discussion of the date and character of this second section we shall reserve till we reach the period at which we believe it to have been written . Here an introduction is necessary only to chaps. i. – viii.

                These chapters may be divided into five sections.

                I. Chap. i. 1.6 . – A Word of Jehovah which cameto Zechariah in the eighth month of the second year of Darius, that is in November 520 B.C., or between the second and the third oracles of Haggai. In this the prophet’s place is affirmed in the succession of the prophets of Israel. The ancient prophets are gone, but their predictions have been fulfilled in the calamities of the Exile, and God’s Word abides for ever.

                II. Chap. i. 7 – vi. 9.- A Word of Jehovah which came to Zechariah on the twenty -fourth of the eleventh month of the sameyear, that is January or February 519, and which he reproduces in the form of eight Visions by night. (1 ) The Vision of the Four Horsemen : God’s new mercies to Jerusalem (chap . i. 7-17). ( 2 ) The Vision of the Four Horns, or Powers of the World, and the Four Smiths, who smite them down (ii. 1-4 Heb., but in the Septuagint and in the English Version i. 18-21). (3 ) The Vision of the Man with the Measuring Rope : Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, no longer as a narrow fortress, but spread abroad for themultitude of her population (chap . ii . 5-9 Heb., ii. 1-5 LXX. and Eng.). To this Vision is appended a lyric piece of probably older date calling upon the Jews in Babylon to return , and celebrating the joining of many peoples to Jehovah, now that Hetakes up again His habitation in Jerusalem ( chap. ii . 10-17 Heb ., ii. 6-13 LXX. and Eng. ). (4 ) The Vision of Joshua, the High Priest, and the Satan or Accuser : the Satan is rebuked, and Joshua is cleansed from his foul garments and clothed with a new turban and festal apparel ; the land is purged and secure ( chap. iii.). (5 ) The Vision of the Seven -Branched Lamp and the Two Olive- Trees (chap. iv. 1-6a , 106-14 ) : into the centre of this has been inserted a Word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel (vv. 6b- 10a ), which interrupts the Vision and ought probably to come at the close of it. (6 ) The Vision of the Flying Book : it is the curse of the land, which is being removed, but after destroying the houses of the wicked (chap . v. 1-4 ). (7) The Vision of the Bushel and the Woman : that is the guilt of the land and its wickedness ; they are carried off and planted in the land of Shinar (v. 5-11). (8 ) The Vision of the Four Chariots : they go forth from the Lord of all the earth , to traverse the earth and bring His Spirit, or anger, to bear on the North country (chap. vi. 1-8).      III. Chap. vi. 9-15. – A Word of Jehovah, undated (unless it is to be taken as of the same date as the Visions to which it is attached ), giving directions as to the gifts sent to the community at Jerusalem from the Babylonian Jews. A crown is to bemade from the silver and gold , and, according to the text, placed upon the head of Joshua. But, as we shall see,’ the text gives evident signs of having been altered in the interest of the High Priest ; and probably the crown was meant for Zerubbabel, atwhose right hand the priest is to stand, and there shall be a counsel of peace between the two of them . The far- away shall come and assist at the building of the Temple. This section breaks off in the middle of a sentence.

                IV . Chap. vii. — The Word of Jehovah which came to Zechariah on the fourth of the ninth month of the fourth year of Darjus, that is nearly two years after the date of the Visions. The Temple was approaching completion ; and an inquiry was addressed to the priests who were in it and to the prophets concerning the Fasts, which had been maintained during the Exile ,while the Temple lay desolate (chap. vii. 1-3) . This inquiry drew from Zechariah a historical explanation of how the Fasts arose (chap. vii. 4-14 ).

                V. Chap. viii. — Ten short undated oracles, each introduced by the same formula, Thus saith Jehovah of Hosts, and summarising all Zechariah’s teaching since before the Temple began up to the ques tion of the cessation of the Fasts upon its completion — with promises for the future. (1) A Word affirming Jehovah’s new zeal for Jerusalem and His Return to her (vv. 1, 2). (2 ) Another of the same ( ver. 3 ). ( 3) A Word promising fulness of old folk and children in her streets ( vv. 4, 5 ). (4 ) A Word affirming that nothing is too wonderful for Jehovah ( ver. 6 ). (5 ) A Word promis ing the return of the people from east and west ( vv. 7, 8 ) . (6 and 7) Two Words contrasting, in terms similar to Haggai i., the poverty of the people before the foundation of the Temple with their new prosperity : from a curse Israel shall become a blessing. This is due to God’s anger having changed into a purpose of grace to Jerusalem . But the people themselves must do truth and justice, ceasing from perjury and thoughts of evil against each other (vv. 9-17) . (8 ) A Word which recurs to the question of Fasting, and commands that the four great Fasts, instituted to commemorate the siege and overthrow of Jerusalem , and the murder of Gedaliah , be changed to joy and gladness (vv. 18, 19 ). (9 ) A Word pre dicting the coming of the Gentiles to the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem (vv. 20-22). (10) Another of the same (ver. 23).

                There can be little doubt that, apart from the few interpolations noted, these eight chapters are genuine prophecies of Zechariah, who is mentioned in the Book of Ezra as the colleague of Haggai, and contemporary of Zerubbabel and Joshua at the time of the rebuild ing of the Temple. Like the oracles of Haggai, these prophecies are dated according to the years of Darius the king, from his second year to his fourth . Al though they may contain some of the exhortations to build the Temple, which the Book of Ezra informs us that Zechariah made along with Haggai, the most of them presuppose progress in the work , and seek to assist it by historical retrospect and by glowing hopes of the Messianic effects of its completion. Their allusions suit exactly the years to which they ar assigned . Darius is king. The Exile has lasted about seventy years. Numbers of Jews remain in Babylon, and are scattered over the rest of the world . The community at Jerusalem is small and weak : it is the mere colony of young men and men in middle life who came to it from Babylon ; there are few children and old folk . Joshua and Zerubbabel are the heads of the community, and the pledges for its future. The exact conditions are recalled as recent which Haggai spoke of a few years before. Moreover , there is a steady and orderly progress throughout the prophecies, in harmony with the successive dates at which they were delivered . In November 520 they begin with a cry to repentance and lessons drawn from the past of prophecy. In January 519 Temple and City are still to be built.8 Zerubbabel has laid the foundation ; the completion is yet future. The prophet’s duty is to quiet the people’s apprehensions about the state of the world,10 to provoke their zeal,” give them confidence in their great men,12 and, above all, assure them that God is returned to them 13 and their sin pardoned.14 But in December 518 the Temple is so far built that the priests are said to belong to it ; 15 there is no occasion for continuing the fasts of the Exile, the future has opened and the horizon is bright with the Messianic hopes.? Most of all, it is felt that the hard struggle with the forces of nature is over, and the people are exhorted to the virtues of the civic life . They have time to lift their eyes from their work and see the nations coming from afar to Jerusalem .

                These features leave no room for doubt that the great bulk of the first eight chapters of the Book of Zechariah are by the prophet himself, and from the years to which he assigns them , November 520 to December 518. The point requires no argument.

                There are, however, three passages which provoke further examination — two of them because of the signs they bear of an earlier date, and one because of the alteration it has suffered in the interests of a later day in Israel’s history .

                The lyric passage which is appended to the Second Vision (chap. ii. 10-17 Heb ., 6-13 LXX. and Eng.) suggests questions by its singularity : there is no other such among the Visions. But in addition to this it speaks not only of the Return from Babylon as still future 5_this might still be said after the First Return of the exiles in 536 6_but it differs from the language of all the Visions proper in describing the return of Jehovah Himself to Zion as still future. The whole, too , has the ring of the great odes in Isaiah xl.—lv., and seems to reflect the same situation , upon the eve of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon . There can be little doubt that we have here inserted in Zechariah’s Visions a song of twenty years earlier , but we must confess inability to decide whether it was adopted by Zechariah himself or added by a later hand.1 Again , there are the two passages called the Word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel, chap. iv. 6b- 10a ; and the Word of Jehovah concerning the gifts which came to Jerusalem from the Jews in Babylon , chap. vi. 9-15. The first, as Wellhausen has shown,” is clearly out of place ; it disturbs the narrative of the Vision, and is to be put at the end of the latter . The second is undated, and separate from the Visions. The second plainly affirms that the building of the Temple is still future, The man whose name is Branch or Shoot is designated : and he shall build the Temple of Jehovah. The first is in the same temper as the first two oracles of Haggai. It is possible then that these two passages are not, like the Visions with which they are taken , to be dated from 519 , but represent that still earlier pro phesying of Zechariah with which we are told he assisted Haggai in instigating the people to begin to build the Temple.

                The style of the prophet Zechariah betrays special features almost only in the narrative of the Visions. Outside these his language is simple , direct and pure, as it could not but be, considering how much of it is drawn from , or ‘modelled upon, the older prophets,3 and chiefly Hosea and Jeremiah . Only one or two lapses into a careless and degenerate dialect show us how the prophet might have written , had he not been sustained by the music of the classical periods of the language.

                This directness and pith is not shared by the language in which the Visions are narrated.? Here the style is involved and redundant. The syntax is loose ; there is a frequent omission of the copula, and of other means by which, in better Hebrew , connection and conciseness are sustained. The formulas, thus saith and saying, are repeated to weariness. At the same time it is fair to ask, how much of this redundancy was due to Zechariah himself ? Take the Septuagint version. The Hebrew text, which it followed, not only included a number of repetitions of the formulas, and of the designations of the personages introduced into the Visions, which do not occur in the Massoretic text,3 but omitted some which are found in the Massoretic text. These two sets of phenomena prove that from an early date the copiers of the original text of Zechariah must have been busy in increasing its redundancies. Further , there are still earlier intrusions and expan sions, for these are shared by both the Hebrew and the Greek texts : some of them very natural efforts to clear up the personages and conversations recorded in the dreams, some of them stupid mistakes in under standing the drift of the argument. There must of course have been a certain amount of redundancy in the original to provoke such aggravations of it , and of obscurity or tortuousness of style to cause them to be deemed necessary. But it would be very unjust to charge all the faults of our present text to Zechariah himself, especially when we find such force and sim plicity in the passages outside the Visions. Of course the involved and misty subjects of the latter naturally forced upon the description of them a laboriousness of art, to which there was no provocation in directly exhorting the people to a pure life , or in straight forward predictions of the Messianic era.

                Beyond the corruptions due to these causes, the text of Zechariah i.viii. has not suffered more than that of our other prophets. There are one or two clerical errors ; 4 an occasional preposition or person of a verb needs to be amended . Here and there the text has  been disarranged ; ‘ and as already noticed , there has been one serious alteration of the original.? From the foregoing paragraphs it must be apparent what help and hindrance in the reconstruction of the text is furnished by the Septuagint. A list of its variant readings and of its mistranslations is appended.?)

XIX. The Book Of Zechariah ( 1. – Viii .) · 255

Xx. Zechariah The Prophet . 264

Zechariah I. 1-6 , Etc.; Ezra V. I, Vi. 14 .

Xxi. The Visions Of Zechariah · 273

Zechariah I. 7 – Vi.

I. The Influences Which Moulded The Visions.

2. General Features Of The Visions.

3. Exposition Of The Several Visions :

The First : The Angel-horsemen (I. 7-17).

The Second : The Four Horns And The Four

Smiths ( I. 18-21 Eng . ).

The Third : The City Of Peace (Ii . 1-5 Eng.).

The Fourth : The High Priest And The Satan (Iii.).

The Fifth : The Temple Candlestick And The

Two Olive – Trees (Iv .).

The Sixth : The Winged Volume (V . 1-4 ) .

The Seventh : The Woman In The Barrel ( V . 5-11) .

The Eighth : The Chariots Of The Four Winds

(Vi. 1-8 ).

The Result Of The Visions ( Vi. 9-15) .

Xxii. The Angels Of The Visions 310

Zechariah I. 7 – Vi. 8 .

Xxiii.

66 The Seed Of Peace ” · 320

Zechariah Vii., Viji.

                MALACHI: (This book, the last in the arrangement of theprophetic canon, bears the title : Burden or Oracle of the Word of Jehovah to Israel by the hand of malč’akhi. Since at least the second century of our era the word has been understood as a proper name, Malachi or Malachias. But there are strong objections to this, as well as to the genuineness of the whole title, and critics now almost universally agree that the book was originally anonymous.                 It is true that neither in form nor in meaning is there any insuperable obstacle to our understanding “ male’akhi” as the name of a person . If so, however, it cannot have been , as some have suggested, an abbre viation of Malě’akhiyah , for, according to the analogy of other names of such formation , this could only express the impossible meaning Jehovah is Angel. But, as it stands, it might have meant My Angel or Messenger, or it may be taken as an adjective, Angelicus. Either of these meanings would form a natural name for a Jewish child , and a very suitable one for a prophet. There is evidence, however, that some of the earliest Jewish interpreters did not think of the title as containing the name of a person . The Septuagint read by the hand of His messenger,? ” malē’akho ” ; and the Targum of Jonathan , while re taining “ male’akhi,” rendered it My messenger, adding that it was Ezra the Scribe who was thus designated. This opinion was adopted by Calvin .

                Recent criticism has shown that, whether the word was originally intended as a personal name or not, it was a purely artificial one borrowed from chap. iii. 1, Behold , I send Mymessenger, “ malē ‘akhi,” for the title , which itself has been added by the editor of the Twelve Prophets in the form in which we now have them . The peculiar words of the title, Burden or Oracle of the Word of Jehovah, occur nowhere else than in the titles of the two prophecies which have been appended to the Book of Zechariah, chap. ix. I and chap. xii , 1, and immediately precede this Book of “ Malachi.” In chap. ix . I the Word of Jehovah belongs to the text ; Burden or Oracle has been inserted before it as a title ; then the whole phrase has been inserted as a title in chap. xii. 1. These two pieces are anonymous, and nothing is more likely than that another anonymous prophecy should have received, when attached to them , the same heading, The argument is not final, but it is the most probable explanation of the data , and agrees with the other facts. The cumulative force of all that we have stated — the improbability of mală’akhi being a personal name, the fact that the earliest versions do not treat it as such , the obvious suggestion for its invention in the male’akhi of chap. iii . 1, the absence of a father’s name and place of residence, and the character of the whole title – is enough for the opinion rapidly spreading among critics that our book was, like so much more in the Old Testament, originally anonymous. The author attacks the religious authorities of his day ; he belongs to a pious remnant of his people, who are overborne and perhaps oppressed by the majority . In these facts, which are all we know of his personality , he found sufficient reason for not attaching his name to his prophecy.

                The book is also undated, but it reflects its period almost as clearly as do the dated Books of Haggai and Zechariah . The conquest of Edom by the Nabateans, which took place during the Exile, is already past. The Jews are under a Persian viceroy. They are in touch with a heathen power, which does not tyrannise over them , for this book is the first to predict no judgment upon the heathen , and the first, moreover, to acknowledge that among the heathen the true God is worshipped from the rising to the setting of the sun . The only judgment predicted is one upon the false and disobedient portion of Israel, whose arrogance and success have cast true Israelites into despair. All this reveals a time when the Jews were favourably treated by their Persian lords. The reign must be that of Artaxerxes Longhand, 464-424.

                The Temple has been finished , and years enough have elapsed to disappoint those fervid hopes with which about 518 Zechariah expected its completion . The congregation has grown worldly and careless. In particular the priests are corrupt and partial in the administration of the Law . There have been many marriages with the heathen women of the land ; and the laity have failed to pay the tithes and other dues to the Temple. These are the evils against which we find strenuous measures directed by Ezra, who returned from Babylon in 458, and by Nehemiah, who visited Jerusalem as its governor for the first time in 445 and for the second time in 433. Besides, “ the religious spirit of the book is that of the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah . A strong sense of the unique privileges of the children of Jacob, the objects of electing love,4 the children of the Divine Father,” is combined with an equally strong assurance of Jehovah’s righteousness amidst the many miseries that pressed on the unhappy inhabitants of Judזa. … Obedience to the Law is the sure path to blessedness.” 6 But the question still remains whether the Book of “ Malachi ” prepared for, assisted or followed up the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. An ancient tradition already alluded to ? assigned the authorship to Ezra himself.

                Recent criticism has been divided among the years immediately before Ezra’s arrival in 458, those imme diately before Nehemiah’s first visit in 445, those between his first government and his second, and those after Nehemiah’s disappearance from Jerusalem . But the years in which Nehemiah held office may be excluded, because the Jews are represented as bringing gifts to the governor, which Nehemiah tells us he did not allow to be brought to him . The whole question depends upon what Law was in practice in Israel when the book was written . In 445 Ezra and Nehemiah , by solemn covenant between the people and Jehovah , insti tuted the code which we now know as the Priestly Code of the Pentateuch . Before that year the ritual and social life of the Jews appear to have been directed by the Deuteronomic Code. Now the Book of ” Malachi ” enforces a practice with regard to the tithes, which agrees more closely with the Priestly Code than it does with Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy commands that every third year the whole tithe is to be given to the Levites and the poor who reside within the gates of the giver, and is there to be eaten by them . “ Malachi” commands that the whole tithe be brought into the storehouse of the Temple for the Levites in service there , and so does the Priestly Code. On this ground many date the Book of “ Malachi” after 445.? But ” Malachi’s ” divergence from Deuteronomy on this point may be explained by the fact that in his time there were practically no Levites outside Jerusalem ; and it is to be noticed that he joins the tithe with the tērnah or heave-offering exactly as Deuteronomy does. On other points of the Law he agrees rather with Deuteronomy than with the Priestly Code. He follows Deuteronomy in calling the priests sons of Levi,” while the Priestly Code limits the priesthood to the sons of Aaron . He seems to quote Deuteronomy when forbidding the oblation of blind, lame and sick beasts ;? appears to differ from the Priestly Code which allows the sacrificial beast to be male or female , when he assumes that it is a male ;’ follows the expres sions of Deuteronomy and not those of the Priestly Code in detailing the sins of the people ; 3 and uses the Deuteronomic phrases the Law of Moses, My servant Moses, statutes and judgments, and Horeb for the Mount of the Law . For the rest, he echoes or implies only Ezekiel and that part of the Priestly Code ף which is regarded as earlier than the rest, and probably from the first years of exile. Moreover he describes the Torah as not yet fully codified . The priests still deliver it in a way improbable after 445. The trouble of the heathen marriages with which he deals ( if indeed the verses on this subject be authentic and not a later intrusion ) was that which engaged Ezra’s attention on his arrival in 458, but Ezra found that it had already for some time been vexing the heads of the community. While, therefore, we are obliged to date the Book of “ Malachi” before 445 B.C., it is uncertain whether it preceded or followed Ezra’s attempts at reform in 458. Most critics now think that it preceded them .”

                The Book of “ Malachi” is an argument with the prophet’s contemporaries, not only with the wicked among them , who in forgetfulness of what Jehovah is corrupt the ritual, fail to give the Temple its dues, abuse justice, marry foreign wives,” divorce their own, and commit various other sins ; but also with the pious, who, equally forgetful of God’s character, are driven by the arrogance of the wicked to ask, whether He loves Israel, whether He is a God of justice, and to murmur that it is vain to serve Him . To these two classes of his contemporaries the prophet has the following answers. God does love Israel. He is wor shipped everywhere among the heathen. He is the Father of all Israel. He will bless His people when they put away all abuses from their midst and pay their religious dues ; and His Day of Judgment is coming, when the good shall be separated from the wicked. But before it come, Elijah the prophet will be sent to attempt the conversion of the wicked, or at least to call the nation to decide for Jehovah . This argument is pursued in seven or perhaps eight para graphs, which do not show much consecutiveness, but are addressed , some to the wicked, and some to the despairing adherents of Jehovah .

                1. Chap. i. 2-5 . — To those who ask how God loves Israel, the proof of Jehovah’s election of Israel is shown in the fall of the Edomites.

                2. Chap. i. 6-14 . — Charge against the people of dishonouring their God, whom even the heathen reverence.

                3. Chap. ii . 1-9. — Charge against the priests, who have broken the covenant God made of old with Levi, and debased their high office by not reverencing Jehovah, by misleading the people and by perverting justice. A curse is therefore fallen on them — they are contemptible in the people’s eyes.

                4. Chap. ii . 10-16. – A charge against the people for their treachery to each other ; instanced in the heathen marriages, if the two verses, II and 12, upon this beauthentic, and in their divorce of their wives.

                5. Chap. ii. 17 – iii. 5 or 6. – Against those who in the midst of such evils grow sceptical about Jehovah . His Angel, or Himself, will come first to purge the priesthood and ritual that there may be pure sacrifices, and second to rid the land of its criminals and sinners.

                6. Chap. jii. 6 or 7-12. — A charge against the people of neglecting tithes. Let these be paid , disasters shall cease and the land be blessed.

                7. Chap . iii. 13-21 Heb., Chap. iii. 13 – iv. 2 LXX. and Eng. Another charge against the pious for saying it is vain to serve God. God will rise to action and separate between the good and bad in the terrible Day of His coming .

                8. To this, Chap. iii. 22-24 Heb., Chap. iv. 3-5 Eng., adds a call to keep the Law , and a promise that Elijah will be sent to see whether he may not convert the people before the Day of the Lord comes upon them with its curse.

                The authenticity of no part of the book has been till now in serious question. Bצhme, indeed, took the last three verses for a later addition , on account of their Deuteronomic character, but, as Kuenen points out, this is in agreement with other parts of the book. Sufficient attention has not yetbeen paid to the question of the integrity of the text. The Septuagint offers a few emendations. There are other passages obviously or probably corrupt.3 The text of the title, as we have seen , is uncertain , and probably a later addition . Professor Robertson Smith has called attention to chap. ii. 16 , where the Massoretic punctuation seems to have been determined with the desire to support the rendering of the Targum “ if thou hatest her put her away,” and so pervert into a permission to divorce a passage which forbids divorce almost as clearly as Christ Himself did . But in truth the whole of this passage, chap. ii. 10-16 , is in such a curious state that we can hardly believe in its integrity . It opens with the statement that God is the Father of all us Israelites, and with the challenge, why then are we faithless to each other ? -ver. IO . But vv. II and 12 do not give an instance of this : they describe the marriages with the heathen women of the land, which is not a proof of faithlessness between Israelites. Such a proof is furnished only by vv. 13-16 , with their condemnation of those who divorce the wives of their youth. The verses, therefore, cannot lie in their proper order, and Vv. 13-16 ought to follow immediately upon ver . 10 . This raises the question of the authenticity of vv. II and 12, against the heathen marriages. If they bear such plain marks of having been intruded into their position, we can understand the possibility of such an intrusion in subsequent days, when the question of the heathen marriages came to the front with Ezra and Nehemiah . Besides, these verses II and 12 lack the characteristic mark of all the other oracles of the book : they do not state a general charge against the people, and then introduce the people’s question as to the particulars of the charge. On the whole , therefore, these verses are suspicious. If not a later intrusion, they are at least out of place where they now lie. The peculiar remark in ver. 13, and this secondly ye do, must have been added by the editor to whom we owe the present arrangement.)

Xxiv. The Book Of Malachi ” · 331

Xxv. From Zechariah To Malachi 341

Xxvi. Prophecy Within The Law 348

“ Malachi” I.-iv. (Eng .) .

I. God’s Love For Israel And Hatred Of Edom

(I. 2-5)

2. “ Honour Thy Father ” (I. 6-14).

3. The Priesthood Of Knowledge (Ii. 1-9).

4. The Cruelty Of Divorce (Ii . 10-16 ).

5. “ Where Is Thegod Of Judgment ? ” (Ii. 17 — Iii. 5 ) .

6. Repentance By Tithes (Iii. 6-12 ).

7. The Judgment To Come (Iii , 13 – Iv . 2 Eng.) .

8. The Return Of Elijah ( Iv . 3-5 Eng .).

                JOEL: (In the criticism of the Book of Joel there exist differences of opinion — upon its date, the exact reference of its statements and its relation to parallel passages in other prophets – as wide as even those by which the Book of Obadiah has been assigned to every century between the tenth and the fourth before Christ. As in the case of Obadiah, the problem is not entangled with any doctrinal issue or question of accuracy ; but while we saw that Obadiah was not involved in the central controversy of the Old Testament, the date of the Law, not a little in Joel turns upon the latter . And, besides, certain descriptions raise the large question between a literal and an allegorical interpretation . Thus the Book of Joel carries the student further into the problems of Old Testament Criticism , and forms an even more excellent introduction to the latter, than does the Book of Obadiah.)  (2. Interpretation of the Book : Is it Description, Allegory or Apocalypse? : Another question to which we must address our selves before we can pass to the exposition of Joel’s prophecies is of the attitude and intention of the prophet. Does he describe or predict ? Does he give history or allegory ? Joel starts from a great plague of locusts, which he describes not only in the ravages they commit upon the land, but in their ominous foreshadowing of the Day of the Lord. They are the heralds of God’s near judgment upon the nation. Let the latter repent instantly with a day of fasting and prayer . Per adventure Jehovah will relent, and spare His people. So far chap . i. 2 – ii. 17. Then comes a break. An uncertain interval appears to elapse ; and in chap. ii. 18 we are told that Jehovah’s zeal for Israel has been stirred , and He has had pity on His folk . Pro mises follow , first, of deliverance from the plague and of restoration of the harvests it has consumed, and second, of the outpouring of the Spirit on all classes of the community : chap. ii. 17-32 (Eng. ; ii. 17 – iii . Heb.). Chap. iii. (Eng. ; iv. Heb.) gives another picture of the Day of Jehovah, this time described as judgment upon the heathen enemies of Israel. They shall be brought together , condemned judicially by Him , and slain by His hosts, His ” supernatural” hosts . Jerusalem shall be freed from the feet of strangers, and the fertility of the land restored. These are the contents of the book . Do they describe an actual plague of locusts, already experi enced by the people ? Or do they predict this as still to come ? And again , are the locusts which they describe real locusts, or a symbol and allegory of the human foes of Israel ? To these two questions, which in a measure cross and involve each other, three kinds of answer have been given . A large and growing majority of critics of all schools ‘ hold that Joel starts, like other prophets, from the facts of experience . His locusts, though described with poetic hyperbole –for are they not the vanguard of the awfulDay of God’s judgment ? — are real locusts ; their plague has just been felt by his contemporaries, whom he summons to repent, and to whom , when they have repented, he brings promises of the restoration of their ruined harvests , the outpouring of the Spirit, and judgment upon their foes. Prediction is there fore found only in the second half of the book (ii. 18 onwards) : it rests upon a basis of narrative and exhorta tion which fills the first half. But a number of other critics have argued ( and with great force) that the prophet’s language about the locusts is too aggravated and too ominous to be limited to the natural plague which these insects periodically inflicted upon Palestine. Joel (they reason ) would hardly have connected so common an adversity with so singular and ultimate a crisis as the Day of the Lord . Under the figure of locusts he must be describing some more fateful agency of God’s wrath upon Israel. More than one trait of his description appears to imply a human army. It can only be one or other, or all, of those heathen powers whom at different periods God raised up to chastise His delinquent people ; and this opinion is held to be sup ported by the facts that chap. ii. 20 speaks of them as the Northern and chap. iii. (Eng. ; iv . Heb .) deals with the heathen. The locusts of chaps. i. and ii. are the same as the heathen of chap. iii . In chaps. i. and ii . they are described as threatening Israel, but on condition of Israel repenting (chap . ii . 18 ff.) the Day of the Lord which they herald shall be their destruction and not Israel’s ( chap. jii.). The supporters of this allegorical interpretation of Joel are, however, divided among themselves as to whether the heathen powers symbolised by the locusts are described as having already afflicted Israel or are predicted as still to come. Hilgenfeld ,’ for instance, says that the prophet in chaps. i. and ii. speaks of their ravages as already past. To him their fourfold plague described in chap. i. 4 symbolises four Persian assaults upon Palestine, after the last of which in 358 the prophecy must therefore have been written , Others read them as still to come. In our own country Pusey has been the strongest supporter of this theory. To him the whole book , written before Amos, is prediction . ” It extends from the prophet’s own day to the end of time.” Joel calls the scourge the Northern : he directs the priests to pray for its removal, that the heathen may not rule over God’s heritage ; 4 he describes the agent as a responsible one; ‘ his imagery goes far beyond the effects of locusts, and threatens drought, fire and plague,ק the assault of cities and the terrifying of peoples. The scourge is to be destroyed in a way physically in applicable to locusts; and the promises of its removal include the remedy of ravages which mere locusts could not inflict : the captivity of Judah is to be turned, and the land recovered from foreigners who are to be banished from it. Pusey thus reckons as future the relenting of God, consequent upon the people’s penitence : chap. ii. 18 ff. The past tenses in which it is related , he takes as instances of the well known prophetic perfect, according to which the: prophets express their assurance of things to come: by describing them as if they had already happened. This is undoubtedly a strong case for the predictive: and allegorical character of the Book of Joel; but au little consideration will show us that the facts on which it is grounded are capable of a different explanation than that which it assumes, and that Pusey has overlooked a number of other facts which force us to a literal interpretation of the locusts as a plague already past, even though we feel they are described in the language of poetical hyperbole. For, in the first place, Pusey’s theory implies that the prophecy is addressed to a future generation, who shall be alive when the predicted invasions of heathen come upon the land. Whereas Joel obviously ad dresses his own contemporaries. The prophet and his hearers are one. Before our eyes, he says , the food has been cut off ? As obviously, he speaks of the plague of locusts as of something that has just happened . His hearers can compare its effects with past disasters, which it has far exceeded ; and it is their duty to hand down the story of it to future generations. Again , his description is that of a physical, not of a political, plague. Fields and gardens, viņes and figs, are devastated by being stripped and gnawed. Drought accompanies the locusts , the seed shrivels beneath the clods, the trees languish, the cattle pant for want of water.” These are not thetrail which an invading army leave behind them . In support of his theory that human hosts are meant, Pusey points to the verses which bid the people pray that the heathen rule not over them , and which describe the invaders as attacking cities.’ But the former phrase may be rendered with equal propriety, that the heathen make not satirical songs about them ; and as to the latter, not only do locusts invade towns exactly as Joel describes, but his words that the invader steals into houses like a thief are far more applicable to the insidious entrance of locusts than to the bold and noisy assault of a storming party . Moreover Pusey and the other allegorical interpreters of the book overlook the fact that Joel never so much as hints at the invariable effects of a human invasion , massacre and plunder. He describes no slaying and no looting ; but when he comes to the promise that Jehovah will restore the losses which have been sustained by His people, he defines them as the years which His army has eaten .» But all this proof is clenched by the fact that Joel com pares the locusts to actual soldiers. They are like horsemen , the sound of them is like chariots, they run like horses, and like men of war they leap upon the wall. Joel could never have compared a real army to itself ! The allegorical interpretation is therefore untenable. But somecritics,while admitting this, areyet not disposed to take the first part of the book for narrative. They admit that the prophet means a plague of locusts, but they deny that he is speaking of a plague already past, and hold that his locusts are still to come, that they are as much a part of the future as the pouring out of the Spirit ‘ and the judgment of the heathen in the Valley of Jehoshaphat.” All alike, they are signs or accom paniments of the Day of Jehovah, and that Day has still to break. The prophet’s scenery is apocalyptic ; the locusts are ” eschatological locusts,” not historical This interpretation of Joel has been elaborated by Dr. Adalbert Mers, and the following is a summary of his opinions.” ones. none, After examining the book along all the lines of exposition which have been proposed, Merx finds himself unable to trace any plan or even sign of a plan ; and his only escape from perplexity is the belief that no plan can ever have been meant by the author. Joel weaves in one past, present and future, paints situations only to blot them out and put others in their place, starts many processes but develops His book shows no insight into God’s plan with Israel, but is purely external; the bearing and the end of it is the material prosperity of the little land of Judah . From this Merx concludes that the book is not an original work, but a mere summary of passages from previous prophets, that with a few reflections of the life of the Jews after the Return lead us to assign it to that period of literary culture which Nehemiah inaugurated by the collection of nationalwritings and which was favoured by the cessation of all politi cal disturbance, Joel gathered up the pictures of the Messianic age in the older prophets, and welded them together in one long prayer by the ferrid belief that that age was near. But while the older prophets spoke upon the ground of actual fact and rose from this to a majestic picture of the last punishment, the still life of Joel’s time had nothing such to offer him and he had to seek another basis for his prophetic flight. It is probable that he sought this in the relation or Type and Antitype. The Antitype he found in the liberation from Egypt, the darkness and the locusts of which he transferred to his canvas from Exodus x . 4-6 . The locusts, therefore, are neither real nor symbolic, but ideal. This is the method of the Midrash and Haggada in Jewish literature, which constantly placed over against each other the deliverance from Egypt and the last judgment. It is a method that is already found in such portions of the Old Testament as Ezekiel xxxvii. and Psalm lxxviji. Joel’s locusts are borrowed from the Egyptian plagues, but are presented as the signs of the Last Day. They will bring it near to Israel by famine, drought and the in terruption of worship described in chap. i. Chap . ii., which Merx keeps distinct from chap. i., is based on a study of Ezekiel, from whom Joel has borrowed, among other things, the expressions the garden of Eden and the Northerner. The two verses generally held to be historic, 18 and 19, Merx takes to be the continuation of the prayer of the priests, pointing the verbs so as to turn them from perfects into futures. The rest of the book, Merx strives to show , is pieced together from many prophets, chiefly Isaiah and Ezekiel, but without the tender spiritual feeling of the one, or the colossal magnificence of the other. Special nations are mentioned, but in this portion of the work wehave to do not with events already past, but with general views,and these not original, but conditioned by the expressions of earlier writers. There is no history in the book : it is all ideal, mystical, apocalyptic. That is to say, according to Merx, there is no real prophet or prophetic fire, only an old man warming his feeble hands over a few embers that he has scraped together from the ashes of ancient fires, now nearly wholly dead . Merx has traced Joel’s relations to other prophets, and reflection of a late date in Israel’s history, with care and ingenuity ; but his treatment of the text and exegesis of the prophet’s meaning are alike forced and fanciful. In face of the support which the Massoretic reading of the hinge of the book, chap . ii. 18 ff., receives from the ancient versions, and of its inherent probability and harmony with the context, Merx’s textual emendation is unnecessary, besides being in itself unnatural. While the very same objections which we have already found valid against the allegorical interpretation equally dispose of this mystical one. Merx outrages the evident features of the book almost as much as Hengstenberg and Pusey have done. He has lifted out of time altogether that which plainly purports to be historical. His literary criticism is as unsound as his textual. It is only by ignoring the beautiful poetry of chap. i. that he trans plants it to the future. Joel’s figures are too vivid , too actual, to be predictive or mystical. And the whole interpretation wrecks itself in the sameverse as the allegorical, the verse, viz., in which Joel plainly speaks of himself as having suffered with his hearers the plague he describes. We may, therefore, with confidence conclude that the allegorical and mystical interpretations of Joel are impossible ; and that the only reasonable view of our prophet is that which regards him as calling, in chap . i. 24ii. 17, upon his contemporaries to repent in face of a plague of locusts, so unusually severe that he has felt it to be ominous of even the Day of the Lord ; and in the rest of his book , as promising material, political and spiritual triumphs to Israel in consequence of their repentance , either already consummated , or anticipated by the prophet as certain . It is true that the account of the locusts appears to bear features which conflict with the literal interpreta tion . Some of these , however, vanish upon a fuller knowledge of the awful degree which such a plague has been testified to reach by competent observers within our own era. Those that remain may be attributed partly to the poetic hyperbole of Joel’s style, and partly to the fact that he sees in the plague far more than itself. The locusts are signs of the Day of Jehovah. Joel treats them as we found Zephaniah treating the Scythian hordes of his day. They are as real as the latter, but on them as on the latter the lurid glare of Apocalypse has fallen , magnifying them and investing them with that air of ominousness which is the sole justification of the allegorical and mystic interpretation of their appearance. To the same sense of their office as heralds of the last day, we owe the description of the locusts as the Northerner.’ The North is not the quarter from which locusts usually reach Palestine, nor is there any reason to suppose that by naming the North Joel meant only to emphasise the unusual character of these swarms. Rather he takes a name employed in Israel since Jeremiah’s time to express the instruments of Jehovah’s wrath in the day of His judgment of Israel. The name is typical of Doom , and therefore Joel applies it to his fateful locusts.)

Xxvii. The Book Of Joel · 375

1. The Date Of The Book

2. The Interpretation Of The Book .

3. State Of The Text And The Style Of The

Воок.

Xxviii. The Locusts And The Day Of The Lord 398

Joel I.-ii. 17.

Xxix . Prosperity And The Spirit . · 418

Joel Ii . 18-32 (Eng.) .

1. The Return Of Prosperity ( Ii. 19-27) .

2. The Outpouring Of The Spirit ( Ii . 28-32).

Xxx . The Judgment Of The Heathen 431

Joel Iii. (Eng .).

Introduction to Prophets of  Grecian Period (331- ? B.C.)

XXXI. Israel & Greeks.

                ZECHARIAH: XXXII. Zechariah 9-14.   (We saw that the first eight chapters of the Book of Zechariah were, with the exception of a few verses, from the prophet himself. No one has ever doubted this. No one could doubt it : they are obviously from the years of the building of the Temple, 520-516 B.C. They hang together with a consistency exhibited by few other groups of chapters in the Old Testament.

                But when we pass into chap. ix . we find ourselves in circumstances and an atmosphere altogether different. Israel is upon a new situation of history, and the words addressed to her breathe another spirit. There is not the faintest allusion to the building of the Temple the subject from which all the first eight chapters depend. There is not a single certain reflection of the Persian period, under the shadow of which the first eight chapters were all evidently written . We have names of heathen powers mentioned, which not only do not occur in the first eight chapters, but of which it is not possible to think that they had any interest whatever for Israel between 520 and 516 : Damascus, Hadrach , Hamath , Assyria , Egypt and Greece. The peace, and the love of peace, in which Zechariah wrote, has disappeared. Nearly everything breathes of war actual or imminent. The heathen are spoken of with a ferocity which finds few parallels in the Old Testament. There is a revelling in their blood, of which the student of the authentic prophecies of Zechariah will at once perceive that gentle lover of peace could not have been capable. And one passage figures the imminence of a thorough judgment upon Jerusalem , very different from Zechariah’s outlook upon his people’s future from the eve of the completion of the Temple. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the earliest efforts of Old Testament criticism should have been to prove another author than Zech ariah for chaps. ix. — xiv. of the book called by his name.

                The very first attempt of this kind was made so far back as 1632 by the Cambridge theologian Joseph Mede, who was moved thereto by the desire to vindicate the correctness of St. Matthew’s ascription ? of “ Zech.” xi. 13 to the prophet Jeremiah. Mede’s effort was developed by other English exegetes. Hammond assigned chaps. x.– xii., Bishop Kidder 3 and William Whiston , the translator of Josephus, chaps. ix . — xiv., to Jeremiah . Archbishop Newcome 4 divided them , and sought to prove that while chaps. ix.—xi. must have been written before 721, or a century earlier than Jeremiah, because of the heathen powers they name, and the divisions between Judah and Israel, chaps. xii. — xiv . reflect the imminence of the Fall of Jerusalem . In 1784 Flgge 5 offered independent proof that chaps. ix . – xiv . were by Jeremiah ; and in 1814 Bertholdt ? suggested that chaps. ix.—xi. might be by Zechariah the contemporary of Isaiah , and on that account attached to the prophecies of his younger namesake. These opinions gave the trend to the main volume of criticism , which , till fifteen years ago, deemed ” Zech.” ix . – xiv . to be pre-exilic . So Hitzig , who at first took the whole to be from one hand, but afterwards placed xii.— xiv. by a different author under Manasseh . So Ewald , Bleek, Kuenen (at first), Samuel Davidson , Schrader, Duhm (in 1875), andmore recently Kצnig and Orelli, who assign chaps. ix.—xi. to the reign of Ahaz, but xii. — xiv . to the eve of the Fall of Jerusalem , or even a little later.

                Some critics, however, remained unmoved by the evidence offered for a pre-exilic date . They pointed out in particular that the geographical references were equally suitable to the centuries after the Exile. Damascus, Hadrach and Hamath, though politically obsolete by 720, entered history again with the cam paigns of Alexander the Great in 332—331, and the establishment of the Seleucid kingdom in Northern Syria. Egypt and Assyria ף were names used after the Exile for the kingdom of the Ptolemies, and for those powers which still threatened Israel from the north , or Assyrian quarter. Judah and Joseph or Ephraim were names still used after the Exile to express the whole of God’s Israel; and in chaps. ix . — xiv . they are presented, not divided as before 721, but united . None of the chapters give a hint of any king in Jerusalem ; and all of them , while representing the great Exile of Judah as already begun, show a certain dependence in style and even in language upon Jeremiah , Ezekiel and Isaiah xl. – Ixvi. Moreover the language is post-exilic , sprinkled with Aramaisms and with other words and phrases used only, or mainly , by Hebrew writers from Jeremiah onwards.          But though many critics judged these grounds to be sufficient to prove the post-exilic origin of “ Zech .” ix . — xiv ., they differed as to the author and exact date of these chapters. Conservatives like Hengstenberg, 1 Delitzsch , Keil, Kצhler and Pusey used the evidence to prove the authorship of Zechariah himself after 516 , and interpreted the references to the Greek period as pure prediction . Pusey says that chaps. ix.—xi. extend from the completion of the Temple and its deliverance during the invasion of Alexander, and from the victories of the Maccabees, to the rejection of the true shepherd and the curse upon the false ; and chaps. xi. — xii. ” from a future repentance for the death of Christ to the final conversion of the Jews and Gentiles. ” 3

                But on the same grounds Eichhorn 4 saw in the chapters not a prediction but a reflection of the Greek period . He assigned chaps. ix . and x . to an author in the time of Alexander the Great ; xi. – xiii. 6 he placed a little later, and brought down xiii. 7 – xiv. to the Maccabean period . Bצttchers placed the whole in the wars of Ptolemy and Seleucus after Alexander’s death ; and Vatke, who had at first selected a date in the reign of Artaxerxes Longhand, 464-425, finally decided for the Maccabean period, 170 ff.$

                In recent times the most thorough examination of the chapters has been that by Stade,’ and the con clusion he comes to is that chaps. ix . — xiv . are all from one author, who must have written during the early wars between the Ptolemies and Seleucids about 280 B.C., but employed, especially in chaps. ix ., X., an earlier prophecy. A criticism and modification of Stade’s theory is given by Kuenen. He allows that the present form of chaps. ix. – xiv . must be of post exilic origin : this is obvious from the mention of the Greeks as a world -power ; the description of a siege of Jerusalem by all the heathen ; the way in which (chaps. ix . II f., but especially x . 6-9) the captivity is presupposed, if not of all Israel, yet of Ephraim ; the fact that the House of David are not represented as governing ; and the thoroughly priestly character of all the chapters. But Kuenen holds that an ancient prophecy of the eighth century underlies chaps. ix.—xi., xiii . 7-9 , in which several actual phrases of it survive ; 2 and that in their present form xii. — xiv. are older than ix.—xi., and probably by a contemporary of Joel, about 400 B.C.

                In the main Cheyne, Cornill,4 Wildeboer and Staerk 6 adhere to Stade’s conclusions. Cheyne proves the unity of the six chapters and their date before the Maccabean period. Staerk brings down xi. 4-17 and xiii. 7-9 to 171 B.C. Wellhausen argues for the unity, and assigns it to the Maccabean times . Driver judges ix.—xi., with its natural continuation xiii. 7-9, as not earlier than 333 ; and the rest of xii. – xiv . as certainly post-exilic, and probably from 432—300. Rubinkam ? places ix . I – 10 in Alexander’s time, the rest in that of the Maccabees, but Zeydner all of it to the latter. Kirkpatrick , after showing the post-exilic character of all the chapters , favours assigning ix.—xi. to a different author from xii. – xiv. Asserting that to the question of the exact date it is impossible to give a definite answer, he thinks that the whole may be with considerable probability assigned to the first sixty or seventy years of the Exile, and is therefore in its proper place between Zechariah and “ Malachi.” The reference to the sons of Javan he takes to be a gloss, probably added in Maccabean times.4

                It will be seen from this  of conclusions that the prevailing trend of recent criticism has been to assign “ Zech .” ix . — xiv. to post-exilic times, and to a different author from chaps. i. – viii.; and that while a few critics maintain a date soon after the Return , the bulk are divided between the years following Alexander’s campaigns and the time of the Maccabean struggles.

                There are, in fact, in recent years only two attempts to support the conservative position of Pusey and Hengstenberg that the whole book is a genuine work of Zechariah the son of Iddo. One of these is by C. H. H. Wright in his Bampton Lectures. The other is by George L. Robinson , now Professor at Toronto, in a reprint ( 1896 ) from the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, which offers a valuable history of the discussion of the whole question from the days of Mede, with a careful argument of all the evidence on both sides . The very original conclusion is reached that the chapters reflect the history of the years 518-516 B.C.

                In discussing the question, for which our treatment of other prophets has left us too little space, we need not open that part of it which lies between a pre exilic and a post-exilic date . Recent criticism of all schools and at both extremes has tended to establish the latter upon reasons which we have already stated, and for further details of which the student may be referred to Stade’s and Eckardt’s investiga tions in the Zeitschrift fr A. T. Wissenschaft and to Kirkpatrick’s impartial summary. There remain the questions of the unity of chaps. ix . — xiv . ; their exact date or dates after the Exile, and as a consequence of this their relation to the authentic prophecies of Zechariah in chaps, i. – viii.

                On the question of unity we take first chaps. ix.-xi., to which must be added (as by most critics since Ewald) xiii. 7-9, which has got out of its place as the natural continuation and conclusion of chap. xi.

                Chap. ix. 1-8 predicts the overthrow of heathen neighbours of Israel, their possession by Jehovah and His safeguard of Jerusalem . Vv. 9-12 follow with a prediction of the Messianic King as the Prince of Peace ; but then come vv. 13-17, with no mention of the King, but Jehovah appears alone as the hero of His people against the Greeks, and there is indeed sufficiency of war and blood . Chap . x .makes a new start : the people are warned to seek their blessings from Jehovah, and not from Teraphim and diviners, whom their false shepherds follow . Jehovah , visiting His flock , shall punish these , give proper rulers, make the people strong and gather in their exiles to fill Gilead and Lebanon . Chap. xi. opens with a burst of war on Lebanon and Bashan and the overthrow of the heathen (vv. 1-3 ), and follows with an allegory, in which the prophet first takes charge from Jehovah of the people as their shepherd , but is contemptuously treated by them (4-14 ), and then taking the guise of an evil shepherd represents what they must suffer from their next ruler ( 15-17). This tyrant, however , shall receive punishment, two-thirds of the nation shall be scattered, but the rest, further purified, shall be God’s own people (xiii. 7-9 ).

                In the course of this prophesying there is no conclu sive proof of a double authorship . The only passage which offers strong evidence for this is chap. ix . The verses predicting the peaceful coming of Messiah (9-12) do not accord in spirit with those which follow predicting the appearance of Jehovah with war and great shedding of blood . Nor is the difference altogether explained, as Stade thinks, by the similar order of events in chap. x., where Judah and Joseph are first represented as saved and brought back in ver. 6 , and then we have the process of their redemp tion and return described in vv. 7 ff. Why did the same writer give statements of such very different temper as chap. ix . 9-12 and 13-17 ? Or, if these be from different hands, why were they ever put together ? Otherwise there is no reason for breaking up chaps. ix.-xi., xiii. 7-9. Rubinkam , who separates ix . I- 10 by a hundred and fifty years from the rest ; Bleek , who divides ix . from x.; and Staerk , who separates ix.-xi. 3 from the rest, have been answered by Robinson and others. On the ground of language, grammar and syntax, Eckardt has fully proved that ix.—xi. are from the same author of a late date, who, however, may have occasionally followed earlier models and even introduced their very phrases.?

                More supporters have been found for a division of authorship between chaps. ix.—xi., xiii. 7-9, and chaps. xii. — xiv. (less xiii. 7-9). Chap. xii. opens with a title of its own. A strange element is introduced into the historical relation . Jerusalem is assaulted not by the heathen only, but by Judah , who, however, turns on finding that Jehovah fights for Jerusalem , and is saved by Jehovah before Jerusalem in order that the latter may not boast over it (xii. 1-9). A spirit of grace and supplication is poured upon the guilty city, a fountain opened for uncleanness, idols abolished , and the prophets, who are put on a level with them , abolished too, where they do not disown their profession ( xii. 10 –xiii . 6 ). Another assault of theheathen on Jerusalem is described, half of the people being taken captive. Jehovah appears , and by a great earthquake saves the rest. The land is transformed. And then the prophet goes back to the defeat of the heathen assault on the city , in which Judah is again described as taking part ; and the surviving heathen are converted, or, if they refuse to be, punished by the withholding of rain . Jerusalem is holy to the Lord (xiv.). In all this there is more that differs from chaps. ix.—xi., xiii. 7-9, than the strange opposition of Judah and Jerusalem . Ephraim , or Joseph , is not mentioned, nor any return of exiles, nor punishment of the shepherds, nor coming of the Messiah, the latter’s place being taken by Jehovah. But in answer to this we may remember that the Messiah, after being described in ix . 9-12, is immedi ately lost behind the warlike coming of Jehovah . Both sections speak of idolatry, and of the heathen , their punishment and conversion, and do so in the same apocalyptic style. Nor does the language of the two differ in any decisive fashion. On the contrary, as Eckardt ‘ and Kuiper have shown, the language is on the whole an argument for unity of authorship.3 There is, then, nothing conclusive against the position , which Stade so clearly laid down and strongly fortified , that chaps. ix. — xiv. are from the same hand, although , as he admits, this cannot be proved with absolute certainty . So also Cheyne : “ With perhaps one or two exceptions, chaps. ix.—xi. and xii. — xiv . are so closely welded together that even analysis is impossible.” +

                The next questions we have to decide are whether chaps, ix . — xiv. offer any evidence of being by Zechariah , the author of chaps. i. — viii., and if not to what other post-exilic date they may be assigned.

                It must be admitted that in language and in style the two parts of the Book of Zechariah have features in common. But that these have been exaggerated by defenders of the unity there can be no doubt. We cannot infer anything from the fact that both parts contain specimens of clumsy diction, of the repetition of the same word, of phrases (not the same phrases) unused by other writers ; or that each is lavish in vocatives ; or that each is variable in his spelling. Resemblances of that kind they share with other books : some of them are due to the fact that both sections are post-exilic. On the other hand, as Eckardt has clearly shown, there exists a still greater number of differ ences between the two sections, both in language and in style. Not only do characteristic words occur in each which are not found in the other , not only do chaps. ix . – xiv. contain many more Aramaisms than chaps. i. – viii., and therefore symptoms of a later date ; but both parts use the same words with more or less different meanings, and apply different terms to the same objects. There are also differences of grammar, of favourite formulas, and of other features of the phraseology, which, if there be any need, complete the proof of a distinction of dialect so great as to require to account for it distinction of authorship .

                The same impression is sustained by the contrast of the historical circumstances reflected in each of the two sections. Zech, i.viii. were written during the build ing of the Temple. There is no echo of the latter in “ Zech.” ix. — xiv . Zech . i.—viii. picture thewhole earth as at peace, which was true at least of all Syria : they portend no danger to Jerusalem from the heathen , but describe her peace and fruitful expansion in terms most suitable to the circumstances imposed upon her by the solid and clement policy of the earlier Persian kings. This is all changed in “ Zech.” ix . — xiv. The nations are restless ; a siege of Jerusalem is imminent, and her salvation is to be assured only by much war and a terrible shedding of blood. We know exactly how Israel fared and felt in the early sections of the Persian period : her interests in the politics of the world , her feelings towards her governors and her whole attitude to the heathen were not at that time those which are reflected in “ Zech .” ix . — xiv .                 Nor is there any such resemblance between the religious principles of the two sections of the Book of Zechariah as could prove identity of origin . That both are spiritual, or that they have a similar ex pectation of the ultimate position of Israel in the history of the world , proves only that both were late offshoots from the same religious development, and worked upon the same ancientmodels. Within these outlines, there are not a few divergences . Zech. i. — viii. were written before Ezra and Nehemiah had imposed the Levitical legislation upon Israel ; but Eckardt has shown the dependence on the latter of ” Zech.” ix . — xiv.

                We may, therefore, adhere to Canon Driver’s asser tion , that Zechariah in chaps. i. – viii. ” uses a different phraseology, evinces different interests and moves in a different circle of ideas from those which prevail in chaps. ix . – xiv.” 1 Criticism has indeed been justified in separating , by the vast and growing majority of its opinions, the two sections from each other. This was one of the earliest results which modern criticism achieved, and the latest researches have but established it on a firmer basis .

                If, then, chaps. ix . — xiv . be not Zechariah’s, to what date may we assign them ? We have already seen that they bear evidence of being upon the whole later than Zechariah, though they appear to contain fragments from an earlier period . Perhaps this is all we can with certainty affirm . Yet something more definite is at least probable. The mention of the Greeks, not as Joel mentions them about 400, the most distant nation to which Jewish slaves could be carried , but as the chief of the heathen powers, and a foe with whom the Jews are in touch and must soon cross swords, appears to imply that the Syrian campaign of Alexander is happening or has happened , or even that the Greek kingdoms of Syria and Egypt are already contending for the possession of Palestine. With this agrees the mention of Damascus, Hadrach and Hamath , the localities where the Seleucids had their chief seats. In that case Asshur would signify the Seleucids and Egypt the Ptolemies : 3 it is these, and not Greece itself, from whom the Jewish exiles have still to be redeemed. All this makes probable the date which Stade has proposed for the chapters , between 300 and 280 B.C. To bring them further down , to the time of the Maccabees, as some have tried to do, would not be impossible so far as the historical allusions are concerned ; but had they been of so late a date as that, viz . 170 or 160, we may assert that they could not have found a place in the prophetic canon , which was closed by 200 , but must have fallen along with Daniel into the Hagiographa.

                The appearance of these prophecies at the close of the Book of Zechariah has been explained , not quite satisfactorily, as follows. With the Book of “ Malachi” they formed originally three anonymous pieces, which because of their anonymity were set at the end of the Book of the Twelve. The first of them begins with the very peculiar construction ” Massa’ Děbar Jehovah,” oracle of the word of Jehovah , which , though partly be longing to the text, the editor read as a title, and attached as a title to each of the others. It occurs nowhere else . The Book of “ Malachi” was too distinct in character to be attached to another book, and soon came to have the supposed name of its author added to its title . But the other two pieces fell, like all anonymous works, to the nearest writing with an author’s name. Perhaps the attachmentwas hastened by the desire to make the round number of Twelve Prophets .)

XXXIII. Contents of Zechariah 9-14.

1. Coming Of The Greeks (Ix . 1-8) . Oracle.

2. Prince Of Peace (Ix . 9-12).

3. Slaughter Of The Greeks (Ix . 13-17) .

4. Against The Teraphim And Sorcerers ( X . 1, 2 ).

5. Against Evil Shepherds ( X . 3-12).

6. War Upon The Syrian Tyrants ( Xi. 1-3 ).

7. Rejection Murder Of The Good Shepherd (Xi. 4-17, Xiii. 7-9).

8. Judah Versus Jerusalem ( Xii . 1-7).

9. Four Results Of Jerusalem’s Deliverance (Xii. 8 – Xiii. 6 ).

10. Judgment Of The Heathen And Sanctification Of Jerusalem (Xiv.) .

                JONAH:  (The Book of Jonah is cast throughout in the formof narrative — the only one of our Twelve which is This fact, combined with the extraordinary events which thenarrative relates, starts questions not raised by any of the rest. Besides treating, therefore, of thebook’s origin , unity, division and other commonplaces of intro duction, we must further seek in this chapter reasons for theappearance of such a narrative among a collection of prophetic discourses. We have to ask whether the narrative be intended as one of fact ; and if not, why the author was directed to the choice of such a form to enforce the truth committed to him .

                The appearance of a narrative among the Twelve Prophets is not, in itself, so exceptional as it seemsto be. Parts of the Books of Amos and Hosea treat of the personal experience of their authors. The same is true ofthe Books of Isaiah , Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in which the prophet’s call and his attitude to it are regarded as elements of his message to men . No : the peculiarity of the Book of Jonah is not the presence of narrative, but the apparent absence of all prophetic discourse.

                Yet even this might be explained by reference to the first part of the prophetic canon – Joshua to Second Kings. These Former Prophets, as they are called, are wholly narrative – narrative in the prophetic spirit and written to enforce a moral. Many of them begin as the Book of Jonah does : they contain stories, for instance , of Elijah and Elisha, who flourished immediately before Jonah and like him were sent with commissions to foreign lands. It might therefore be argued that the Book of Jonah, though narrative, is as much a prophetic book as they are, and that the only reason why it has found a place, not with these histories, but among the Later Prophets, is the exceedingly late date of its composition .

                This is a plausible, but not the real, answer to our question . Suppose we were to find the latter by discovering that the Book of Jonah, though in narrative form , is not real history at all , nor pretends to be ; but, from beginning to end, is as much a prophetic sermon as any of the other Twelve Books, yet cast in the form of parable or allegory ? This would certainly explain the adoption of the book among the Twelve ; nor would its allegorical character appear without precedent to those (and they are among the most conservative of critics) who maintain (as the present writer does not) the allegorical character of the story of Hosea’s wife.4 It is, however, when we pass from the form to the substance of the book that we perceive the full justifi cation of its reception among the prophets. The truth which we find in the Book of Jonah is as full and fresh a revelation of God’s will as prophecy anywhere achieves. That God has granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life 1 is nowhere else in the Old Testa ment so vividly illustrated. It lifts the teaching of the Book of Jonah to equal rank with the second part of Isaiah , and nearest of all our Twelve to the New Testa ment. The very form in which this truth is insinuated into the prophet’s reluctant mind, by contrasting God’s pity for the dim population of Niniveh with Jonah’s own pity for his perished gourd, suggests themethods ofour Lord’s teaching, and invests the book with the morning air of that high day which shines upon the most evangelic of His parables.

                One other remark is necessary. In our effort to appreciate this lofty gospel we labour under a dis advantage. That is our sense of humour – our modern sense of humour. Some of the figures in which our author conveys his truth cannot but appear to us grotesque. How many have missed the sublime spirit of the book in amusement or offence at its curious details ! Even in circles in which the ac ceptance of its literal interpretation has been demanded as a condition of belief in its inspiration , the story has too often served as a subject for humorous remarks. This is almost inevitable if we take it as history. But we shall find that one advantage of the theory, which treats the book as parable , is that the features, which appear so grotesque to many, are traced to the popular poetry of the writer’s own time and shown to be natural. When we prove this, we shall be able to treat the scenery of the book as we do that of some early Christian fresco, in which , however rude it be or untrue to nature, we discover an earnestness and a success in expressing the moral essence of a situation that are not always present in works of art more skilful or more correct.)

Xxxiv . The Book Of Jonah • · 493

1. The Date Of The Book .

2. The Character Of The Book.

3. The Purpose Of The Book.

4. Our Lord’s Use Of The Book .

5. The Unity Of The Book .

Xxxv. The Great Refusal   Jonah I.

Xxxvi. The Great Fish And What It Means. The Psalm  Jonah Ii .

Xxxvii. The Repentance Of The City · Jonah Iii.

Xxxviii. Israel’s Jealousy Of Jehovah  Jonah Iv .

Scale of 2 Kilometers:  0_____._____1_____._____2

                    Plan of Nineveh.

      (From  the  Enc;clopaedia Biblica, iii .  3423,  by  permission of the  Publishers,  Messrs. A. and  C.  Blac k.)  Explanation of Symbols:  N = Nahum; A = Later Addition.

                                                                                Special Charts. -mjm.

                Bible Hands..10 Key Books

Bible Reflections Chart..Golden Lampstand.

                                CBR: Summary Reflections of the Old Testament: Genesis – Malachi.

Bible: Introduction.

The Bible as God’s Word, as the Revelation to mankind, as the Holy Scriptures of the Jewish People, the ancient Hebrews to the modern Israelis, is a Holy Book and Divine Writings through inspiration, and historical transmission by the people. When I come to its pages in my rebellious teen years, very illiterate and ignorant of the world I lived in, it instructed me with spiritual truth that I was amazed by and attracted to in the simplest way. It’s been 52 years that I have travelled with this Book of Life. Now in my 68th year, after reflecting on this Text of God, writing from my hospital bed, approaching death, I am anxious to complete the Christian Biblical Reflections as my last will and testament to my Family, Friends, and all the others who might by chance encounter this work. Many ask, “Why do you believe, follow, and value this Book?” My testimony is this: the Holy Bible of both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament has been my salvation in God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. So, let us turn to the Book.

The Book has educated and guided me in countless ways and in a manner that I did not readily perceive. It nurtured me in the English tongue and in other languages. Th reading of its pages, book by book, introduced a world of knowledge that soon captured my heart and mind. As it taught me, molded my thinking, I discovered a world of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others that its doctrines taught. In order to understand this Book, we are led into a world of learning and literature. It causes us to learn our languages in a very clear and detailed way. We are made to attend to the letters, words, sentences, verses, chapters, and the books in a thorough manner. It makes us think and ask questions; it gives us answers in our quest. We are made to reflect on ancient things and discover new things in turn.

Outline:

Bible: Introduction.

Earliest Human Development, Evolution & Civilization in Genesis. (Gen 1-12).

World of Adam, Noah, Abram. (Gen. 1-50). Mankind & Gentiles. (2,000 Years)

World of Moses. Egyptians & Wilderness. Joshua. Gentiles. (200 Years)

World of Judges: Joshua – Samuel. Gentiles. (400 Years)

World of Monarchs & Kings: Saul – David – Solomon. Divided Monarchy. Gentiles. (600 Years)

Prophets: Isaiah to Malachi. Messiah. Gentiles. (400 Years)

World between Old & New Testaments: Messiah & Gentiles: Malachi – Messiah. (400 Years)

Genesis to Malachi and Mathew to Revelation tell a continuous historical story of a Land, People, and Book, comprising the story of Creation, Judgement, and Salvation. In Genesis, the origin of this story begins. God is declared existing as Creator of all things of Heaven and Earth and the world of man. It tells of the Creation Week, of the account of the creation of man, of the earliest civilization of mankind in the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia, of the Great Flood and the end of that world, of the new beginning of Noah and his three sons, and of the Tower of Babel in human unification and Divine intervention in the creation of languages, races, and nations. Then we have the chosen Shemites, the Hebrews, in the Call of Abram or Abraham, whose story continues in Isaac, then Jacob-Israel and the Twelve Sons of Israel. In this story of some 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, we have God (Elohim) whose Name is Jehovah (YHWH) as the Lord of all the earth and mankind. We see Him interacting with His creatures from time to time and in various ways as in dreams and visions or appearances. All that He does conforms to the rule of life and purpose, that is, what He makes He also maintains to judge or save. He allows man, the human race, to evolve, develop, grow, multiply, invent, and spread throughout the world. He never loses sight of His Words, Commands, Demands, Promises, and Prophecies.

When we come to Genesis, the first Book of the Old Testament or Covenant, we confront doctrines and claims that are opposed to many of our knowledge, teachings, and ideas or theories. Nature as we know it in all its physical, material, and substantial forms, visible or invisible, is declared to be the Work of His Hands. It’s a simple or simplified story that we read, but it is clearly the claim of a Personal God as Creator and Maker, the Almighty or Shaddai, who involves Himself with those He chooses and Who follow Him. His Image and Likeness in man is of the utmost concern to Him, and He seeks to form and develop the divine life and nature in His people. He covenants with them, He cultivates spiritual qualities like faith, hope, and love, like joy and gratitude, like obedience, faithfulness, and sympathy, etc., etc. He does not impose His Will and Way on mankind in a capricious way, or as a Tyrant controlling man as a robot. These things and many such things are found in the Book.

God makes a Land for the People where His Words are fulfilled and unfolded, and in that People to produce the Story in the Book, which once recorded, becomes the Divine Scrolls of the Sacred Scriptures. In the Book of God’s Words man is offered a divine way to live which will lead to blessings, salvation, and eternal life.  The Book will educate us in many ways which we will find surprising. We will discover that our English language is related to other languages as a class, that our Alphabet is derived from Latin, which got it from Greeks, which got it from the Phoenicians and Hebrews, which got it from earlier peoples: India’s Sanskrit and the early Sumerians. We learn from the Book the tongue expresses the thoughts of the mind. We learn that the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (Holy Writings in Pictures) were like the earliest Sumerians’, which indicate that man’s speech as a language is expressed in symbols and pictures. These symbols and pictures representing words and ideas are organized in syllables, sounds, and letters after the pattern of names and actions. The basic principle of symbolic representation of human thoughts would develop in time into more advanced grammar and syntax with fixed rules and distinction from other cognate tongues. We see this common history of languages everywhere, and in the tongues of the Canaanites with the Hebrews. In time, the written word became the means of communication among the nations and peoples in the trade and traditions. This development of language became very advanced in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and modern languages. Other nations also developed their writing from similar manners, until the modern world is filled with words and meanings far beyond the primitive origins.

In the Bible is found History, Religion, Science, Wisdom & such like; but it is not a History Book, Science Book, Medicine Book, Law Book, Philosophy Book, or the like; it records those things more or less, as part of the Divine Story of God’s participation in humanity. God’s interest is with His creative interest & design, His Will & Purpose. The Plan of God is a creative history, or story, a generational account of human life from its genesis to its completion. From Adam to Noah we find an ancient world, consisting of the simplest things of human life. We are given very little details, only seeds that will develop, evolve, & spread as civilization. It was a primitive world where God, as the Lord God, Jehovah, responds to man as he grows, moves & lives. We are not to think that God ordered the generations as a unrelated Participant, but seeks man’s response to Himself as Face to Face. Some say that “the chicken comes before the egg?” But in the Bible we have the Eternal Infinite Transcendent God creating all things, including the chicken & man from His own Being & Substance, His Spiritual Nature. This is the genesis, germ, grain, seed, kernel, the point of the creation of the universe & all in it, in the heavens or earth. What is determined is being, existence & life. The creative egg must produce or become the chicken, hence the chicken lays the eggs, the eggs become many chicken to this date. This is so with man. Adam was not formed out of nothing, but in Genesis he is created in God’s Word & Will. God’s Word is the Seed of Life by which he formed, molded, built man. Adam out of earth becomes a living soul, a life that lives, by the spirit, or divine breath. Always remember, “From nothing comes nothing,” zero is nothing by itself; it is no number. But God is One, & all must come from Him as a seed. It is the divine generation that Genesis of the Bible records & relates the earliest

Earliest Human Development, Evolution & Civilization in Genesis. (Gen 1-12). Scripture teaches me of God as Creator, a Personal God Who speaks, sees, moves, and exists in time & space. He does things in order & design, according to His Plan & Will or Desire. He is the Maker of all things: of the universe, nature, the world, life, reality, existence, being, substance, time, space, & whatever can be named of His Creation & Production. This is the Biblical Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Science, & Doctrine. It teaches me in simplicity & uniquely of truth, wisdom, & life. The world exists, nature is, man is, & Scripture testifies that this creation of things & beings is of God the Creator. Further it teaches you of created things that live, move, grow, reproduce, and such like. It teaches of man, humans, as the highest form of life on earth, above the vegetation, above the fishes of the sea & all aquatic life, above the birds of the air & all Aves creatures on land & in the air, above all animal life, above the mammals of the earth. Man is presented to us as the replica of the Divine, divine reproduction & representation, as superior to all other creatures, as the lord of the earth. Man as chief of creatures has meaning different than animals, has purpose, has place, responsibility, & accountability. Man, both male & female, is the Image & Likeness of God, God-like, divine. He is not God or Deity or the Divine One. Man’s formation is given, his 1st home & relations to animals, his purpose & role as a creature, as an earthling of nature in the world. He is the work of the Lord God, Jehovah, or Lord, & is placed in a Garden in Eden in lower Mesopotamia near the Persian Gulf. His original charge was very simple; but he failed, the failure or fall was judged & they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Their fall was the snare of a serpent, later called Satan & Devil, as man’s enemy. Man by the Woman would continue in the earth as a seed, the Seed of Woman, at war with the serpent’s seed. Man in Adam’s fall, is punished, exiled, sentenced to labor till death; hard labor & toil, struggle, & all that comes with survival. Man, as Male, is head, the woman, as Female, is subject to the husband as the male; she suffers giving life or birth; woman as female, as wife, submits to husband’s headship; she is a mother of life in her suffering as her punishment & her reward. Their nakedness & innocence is replaced with clothes & shame, guilt, suffering, & death.

                Adam’s children multiplied near Eden, near the Garden of Eden, within 100 miles North & South near the Great Rivers of Mesopotamia. The doctrines & the truth of what we have in chapters 1-3, must be enlarged & grow towards fulfillment in chapters 1-6, the old & earliest world. The commands of God, His worship, knowledge, wisdom, life & living, marriage, family, work or duty, & 100s of other doctrines of the 1st world. The generations from Adam to Noah consisting of some 1500 years of the ancient calendar of the pre-flood world, which is unknown to us, leading up to Moses. We see the continuation of Adam’s Fall, the Sin, & sin-nature, in his seed or progeny in the cosmic & human conflict of good & evil. Sins multiplied in countless forms, & multiplied in men or mankind, such as: hate, murder, lies, enmity, violence, rape, sexual promiscuity & perversions, excess, self-will, & countless other forms of man’s sinfulness. We must keep in mind that the Words of God must continue in man’s exile, in human development, & continues to this very day. God’s creation must continue, His judgment must be executed, & His salvation must operate & advance in adaptation or response to mankind. Man’s unique abilities begin to appear in his works, inventions, tools, instruments, food, clothing, trades, music, & much more. His knowledge of himself and His world, of nature & life, compounded according to his numbers. In time, men & women would compete with & against each other; they would fight & war; they would make & defend claims, revenge, enslave, etc. God’s judgment on the old world was a Great Flood that destroyed the Old World, sparing only a select few. But not only the evil is revealed but the good also, like: grace of God, His glory, wisdom, kindness, mercy, judgment, creating, preserving, saving, destroying, dividing, etc. Man also has virtues, blessings, goodness, rule, care, wisdom, knowledge, choice, will, feelings, discrimination, imagination, thinking, joy, protection, guardian-ship, faith, obedience, etc. Thus far for Adam’s Headship.

                After the Great Flood of Noah & Noah’s three sons, we have the Federal Headship  added in Noah with a New Covenant, a Testament & Will. Noah becomes the Patriarch of a New World, the Gentiles of the earth. Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, Japhet) become the Father of peoples, tongues, nations of all mankind in the world. Noah’s additional children, born after the Great Flood, also multiplied the people of the earth near & far. Also following the 2 Great Rivers, east & west; other generations would later follow other rivers & water places flowing & steaming in other directions. The story is told of 2 nations & peoples by the time of Abraham the Shemite “the River Crosser”.  With the Age of Adam, Noah, & his 3 sons, came the Age of Gentiles. Mankind evolved in various ways overcoming struggles, adaptations, and mutations (Survival of the Fittest).  The roots of unification quickly turned into an unhealthy fear, arrogance, and disbelief of humanity’s goodness.  Nimrod is introduced of the Hametic roots as well as the last Usurper of Divine Power through War and Subjugation of the Mesopotamian people.  The Sumerian Hamites became the 1st civilization developing thousands of diverse habits of living, encompassing both Good and Evil.

                From these roots all other generations of mankind learned, copied, traded, followed, & added additional practices & innovations of their own. They created their own customs, traditions, inventions, adding knowledge, wisdom, & government. Evolving from primitive wars and conflicts, tools, weapons, & techniques were perfected to subdue & overpower their enemies. During this age slavery evolved, as well as racism, prejudice of other nationalities, jealousy, pride & unspeakable evils.  Conversely, mankind with his depraved nature also developed the good,& better ways & things.  Mankind of all the nations & tongues, family units & tribes in every country & land with national pride. The Sumerian way, the Accadian way; others, likewise from far east to west, and slowly learning how to communicate with each other through Pictographs, Hieroglyphics, Cuneiforms  developing the Alphabet including every tongue everywhere. Through this constant intermarriage and intermingling of customs, languages, trading of commerce, slaves, captives of war, etc… laid the foundation for our modern world & civilizations. The major doctrines of human civilization was being birthed into education, customs, traditions, culture, etc… This gave way to the framework of theology, philosophy, religion, wisdom, governments, Kingships, Lordships, family, industry, trade, craftsmanship, schools, learning, writing, etc…

                These five centuries between the Great Flood & the call of Abraham, shows God’s interest in the Gentiles, of which the Noahic Covenant was formed, according to the prophecy of the Father & Patriarch Noah, determined each unique place in the dispensation & the occupation of land. Shem was prophetically chosen, blessed and favored by God. Shem’s progeny (his seed) were to preserve the knowledge of the Biblical God & the origins of all things & all mankind.  The divine truth, preserved in part, was often distorted, forgotten, altered, & displaced in various forms of idolatry & lies. Mankind fell into darkness & depravity: Wars waged, the Semites conquered the Hamites, and after 1,000 years Accadians, Babylonians, & Assyrians ruled over other the nations & peoples of other tongues.  The skill of writing became necessary in order to exchange information & interact with each other. The 100s of years the Gentiles were in power from the Tower of Babel to Abram (400) years, & from Abram to Moses, some (400) years; which lead us lead to Assyria & Egypt at odds in competition & wars in the Middle East, foremost in Canaan & Arabia. Abram the Hebrew of Padan-Aram or Chaldea-Aramea, was called and led by Divine Words to become Abraham the Believer, Friend of God, Prophet & Patriarch of a new race of followers of the One True Living God.  Abraham would witness of God in a world of Gentiles & testify of Divine Truth to mankind. His Testimony of God’s Covenant with man was of Faith & Obedience according to the Truth & Wisdom from Above. His purpose was to fulfill his dispensational call & prophetic responsibility & ministry, to become Father of many Nations, Spiritual Nations & of the Hebrews. In Isaac & Jacob, this was transferred & ratified by Word and Blood. In Jacob, who became Israel, who became the Patriarch of 12 Tribes of Israel, to whom the dispensational Covenant of God to Abraham was transferred to him as Jacob-Israel Israel still is not in possession of the Promised Land, nor has become a Nation from whom many Nations. He becomes a people in Aram, married to Arameans Semites & Hebrews.  Israel with his 12 sons & 12 tribes of Israel return to Canaan, & still not in possession of the any part of the Land,  except for a burial ground for his wives, Rachael and Leah. Meanwhile his other slave wives. In Egypt he becomes a great numerous people awaiting deliverance.   

World of Moses. Egyptians & Wilderness. Joshua. Gentiles. (200 Years)

From the birth of Moses to the death of Joshua was some 200 years. During those 2 centuries the Hebrews multiplied as the house of Israel, they suffered as foreigners & slaves; were delivered by the LORD through Moses, Aaron & 10 plagues of judgment on Egypt, crossed the Red Sea (Yam Sof), lived & wondered in the wilderness, or the Arabian Desert. In the wilderness at Mount Sinai, or Horeb. God delivered to Moses 10 Words or Commandments of His Law or Torah as the Covenant between God and Israel as a Nation. In Adam His dispensational covenant  was in His commandments, to Adam with Eve, was obedience to eternal life; a covenant which continued in man thence forward as a promise to Noah to Abraham, to Israel to David & to Messiah, Christ, in Whom it was a gift of God by the Holy Spirit, & in Christ offered to all men, Jews & Gentiles, continuing till Christ returns. Though the dispensations change, the covenants are not deleted but another placed above & beyond it, with better promises & properties, conditions, feature, etc. The world had become lawless, disorderly, vile, depraved & in endless such things, & only altered in the statistics of more in number, which invented more devices of a moral condition that was contagious, that made leprosy looked clean. God would fulfill His Promises, His Work would meet the need of this sickness & disease.

                The Law, 10 Words, would be the moral medicine to prescribe for the diagnosis. We read the 10 Commandments of God’s Law, His words, written on Tablets of stones by the Finger of God, then rewritten by Moses on New Tablets. In the 10 Plagues of Egypt’s judgment, we read of the 1st & 10th as related & corresponding. As with the human hands in anatomy, our body has a left & a right, with 5 fingers on each, just like 2 tablets. The 1st tablet started with the great commandment in the Law on Sinai, as a thumb the great finger; the 2nd tablet ended with the great commandment of the voice of God adding no more. 2 hands with 5 fingers, each with a thumb as the first & the Last when the hands are held out with palms visible. In between are 8 fingers in pairs matching, each different set of 2. These hands & fingers interact with each other to do anything & everything. When the palms are turned down & become hidden, then they connect at the thumbs, while the fingers moved opposite each other.

                These things are prophetic symbolism of a unique kind in the 10 Commandments, when explored & understood, they explain the Law, the Torah. In analogy, we see in the divine Word in 10 Books are to be understood the essential books to our picture of the Bible. Here are the 10 Books you must compare against your list: on the left is the Old Testament consisting of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah & Daniel; on the right is the New Testament consisting of the Gospel of John, Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews & Revelation (Apocalypse). In Genesis all is hidden as seeds; in the Apocalypse all is matured as to what they became. I have fully substantiated the 5 Old Testament books in Christian Biblical Reflections of the Old Testament of the Bible. So too, Exodus, is not one of the five O.T. essential Books, but supports Genesis & Deuteronomy (the 2nd Law). Deuteronomy as the 2nd Law replacing the 1st Law is the key book of the Torah, all the essentials of Exodus, Leviticus & Numbers are in Deuteronomy, the Words of Moses, the lawgiver, prophet & deliverer of Israel. All the rituals, ceremonies, sacrifices, offerings, anointings, the Aaron & Leviticus priesthood all displace by the Melchizedek priesthood symbolized in Genesis, revealed in Psalms, prophesized in in the prophets form Israel to Malachai. Israel as a Nation was expected to witness to the Gentiles of God & His kingdom. The temple hid the tabernacle; prophets prophesied of Messiah would fulfill & displace the law, priesthood & monarchy, the poetic Books of Job, David, Psalms, Proverbs, Solomon’s Song, are incorporated in the spiritual truth of the New Testament as useful to this new dispensation.

                Egypt has left remains of the great empire of Kings & Pharaohs who ruled for some 2500 years, more or less in various degrees of power & at times by foreigners. The Egyptian world is well documented in thousands of tests & artifacts, monuments, & testimonies of other nations. In Moses’ day it had a long rich culture, advanced far beyond the days of Joseph the son of Jacob, who like Moses, became a prince of Egypt. Polytheism, idolatry, was grotesquely weird & insane. Its holy language & script was means of perpetuating this falsification of God & His truth. It was the Emperial Power, along with a few other powers to the north, south, east, and west.  It was the envy of the world, & jealousy of the kingdoms of the north-west, & of the north-east. It became the teacher of many nations, peoples, & countries. Even in our age its glory is golden & strange. Moses, the Hebrew, was raised in all this, just as was Joseph Jacob’s son in his teen years, Moses treated as an Egyptian, raised in royalty, & power as a prince. Then he fled Egypt from Pharaoh, & settled among the ancient Arabs, the Midianites, in the land that covered what the Arabs now call “the Hegira’, where the sacred pilgrimage journey from Medina to Mecca in Saudi Arabia covers, & where many returns from Mecca to Medina to the sacred mosque of Mohammed the Prophet of the Quran of Allah. In Midia (“northwest Arabian Peninsula, on the east shore of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea”) he married Jethro’s, the Midian priests, daughter & worked as a shepherd of Jethro’s flock.  

                Thus, Moses the Hebrew, from birth, nursed by his mother an Israelite slave, from early childhood learned the way of Egypt till he was a grown man; then from manhood to senior years lived as a Midianite among the ancient Arabs, who were descendants of Abraham the Semitic Hebrew. In this world & age Moses was called of God to deliver Israel from Egyptian slavery, to become God’s people & servants. In this, God created a new dispensation with Moses, as lawgiver, & the Torah’s foundation of the new nation. The five Books of Moses speak of all these things, where God by Moses & Aaron established a national people of a divine theocracy to further his purpose with man. But this dispensation, as a Mosaic system, was doomed to fail, because of the natural man’s reluctance to faith & obedience to God. Though the were progeny seed of Abraham the Friend of God, they followed not Abraham as a nation from time to time. But God had his witness & testimony in the world among the nations in his own people.

                Though the Mosaic system failed, the Books of Moses, the Torah, would not fail, but continue to this hour. The Writings of Moses would lead to the Judges from Joshua to Samuel, thence the Monarchy from David to Messiah, Who according to Moses’ Law & Prophecy, foretold us of the Messiah-Prophet, Who would make the Law glorious in its fulfillment, & add a new dispensation, the new Testament & Covenant, established better things, promises, & purposes. In the Book He would form a Nation by the Book, beginning with Joshua or Jesus,then all the 20 Judges of Israel,the Monarchy of the 20 Kings of Judah, and the 20 Kings of Israel, with the 20 Prophets of the Divided Monarchy, that is, the 2 Kingdoms. The Gentiles would have a Sign & Wonder, Testimony and Example of the Divine Word, fulfilling the transformation of the natural man to the spiritual man. Then the Word Incarnate would appear, and with him a New Testament,to complete the Bible, the Book of God, the Word of God. This new dispensation would continue with the Jews or Hebrew or Israelites till the Second Advent of Christ-Messiah. The Hebrew Bible becomes the Third of the themes of God with His creation. He needs and wants a Land, a People, a Book; in order to create the people as the Lord’s so He may have a Home to Dwell in and with them as God. The Gentiles would enter relations with God by their treatment to Israel; Israel would be disciplined by God by using the Gentiles to punish Israel for disobedience to the Law of Moses, and their disregard for God, their unfaithfulness, unbelief, ingratitude and idolatry, till the Times of the Gentiles are come to full end. The Church of the New Testament is also subject to the power of the Gentiles till the End. Both Jews and Christians are to be a spiritual people subject to a higher power, living in a spiritual Kingdom with spiritual Laws. The Arabs too, in the Quran, where it substantiates the Bible, confirms scripture, supports Truth and the Doctrines of the Word of God, are blessed with the true believers as children of Abraham the Believer.

World of Judges: Joshua – Samuel. Gentiles. (400 Years)

                World of Judges, from Joshua to Samuel, some 400 years plus, was the period between Joshua to Samuel. The Book of the Law of Moses was to be read, studied, obeyed and fulfilled by the children of Israel of the 12 sons of Jacob, in covenant with the Lord their God. The Judges were not Kings but deliverers of Israel from the local Gentile powers in and around Canaan or Palestine. Joshua’s conquest of Canaan by eradicating or expelling the 7 Gentile nations of Canaan was incomplete at the time of his death. Israel was to complete the conquest and possess the land as the land of Israel, by doing so making Canaan or Palestine to be Israel. But they constantly failed in disobedience to God and the neglect of the Law of Moses, the Word of God, the Bible, the Book, that is Scripture. Instead Israel intermarried with the forbidden Gentiles of Canaan, & practiced the idolatries of the Gentiles; making the God of Israel like to one of the dumb vain idols, so-called gods? But often repentant in their affliction by the Gentiles, sought the Lord their God with tears, & He in mercy & compassion, remembering His promise to the Patriarchs, would deliver them repeatedly. This period of the Judges progressed increasingly worse from generation after generation; and they were delivered by Judges spectacular ways. Barack & Deborah, Gideon, Jepthah, Samson, & at last Samuel. Samuel was a Priest, Prophet or Seer, & Judge, who would anoint their first two kings, Saul and David, in the creating the Monarchy, subjugating the Theocracy of the Mosaic system to human Kingship and Lordship, thus rejecting God, the Lord, as their true King. The Gentiles continued to spread throughout the earth entering ever new countries and lands. Mankind continued to alienate themselves from the truth of God, the way of God and the knowledge of God. The Gentile powers and rule of governments increasingly became imperial, where a King became a Great King or King of Kings, as we read in Genesis, in the days of Abraham, against the Mesopotamian Great King Chedorlaomer of Elam, invading the southern nations and Canaan. By the time we reach Samuel the Land of Israel was dominated by the Lords & Kings of the Philistines or the ancient Palestanians, the Ishmaelites, Medianites, Moabites, Ammorites, desert Arabs and others; all were multiplying in numbers and power. Israel would often ally themselves with these nations, often fight with them, & intermarry with them, & fornicated with them in idolatry. Samson & Samuel shows how degraded the people had become not trusting in the Lord to defend and protect them, to bless and keep them. The Law of Moses was almost vanquished and nullified, its feasts rarely kept, & at Shiloh they looked for a King like those of the Gentiles. They demanded old Samuel to find and anoint for them a King to put their hope and trust in, to fight their battles, & to rule over them as a Lord over slaves. Samuel was reluctant to do so, but the Lord God granted their wish and gave to them Saul of Benjamin, in whom they delighted to their own harm and loss. King Saul proved to be useless against the Lords of the Philistines; he became cowardly & yielded to the Peoples’ lust; he was rejected by the Lord, & slowly became insane.

World of Monarchs & Kings: Saul – David – Solomon. Divided Monarchy. Gentiles. (600 Years)

                World of the Monarch & Kings of Israel and Judah; Saul, David, Solomon and their 2 kingdoms with their 20 Kings each. King Saul was helpless against the Philistine who defied the Lord God of Israel openly, challenging the army of Saul to battle, and even to offer one man to one man contest to decide the battle.The hero champion of the Philistines was the giant named Goliath, which terrified the warriors of Israel and Saul. Then came David, a shepherd boy, to bring food to his brothers in the battle, including his uncle Joab, a Captain in King Saul’s army. David defied the giant for defying God and Israel. He accepted the challenge from the giant Goliath; and with his slingshot and five smooth stones in his hand, met the giant Goliath in the battle field. With one fatal shot, the giant fell dead on the ground and David cut off his head with Goliath’s own sword, thus defeating the Philistines, who fled from the battlefield. This lad, David the shepherd boy, was the one Samuel had secretly anointed at the Word of the Lord. The transfer of the Throne & the Kingdom of the Monarchy was now of utmost necessity, but the insane King Saul would resist it in every way. When he knew the people rejoiced in David who slew 10,000 and Saul merely his 1,000, His insanity became openly displayed to kill David. Samuel was preparing to die; so, set in order the matter of the Kingdom to be transferred to David by the choice of God. Samuel died. Soon after, King Saul and his son Jonathan died in battle while fighting against the Philistines, thus David became King over Israel & Judah.

                The Philistines occupied the coastal borderland plains in South Canaan going towards Egypt. The Northern Coastland was possessed by the Phoenicians, above the Sea of Galilee, in upper Galilee. These nations were never dispossessed from the times of Joshua to David, their great cities still flourished, & their maritime commerce never ceased. They traded & interacted with many other Gentiles in the spread & dissemination of language, culture, & goods. The way of Gentiles could be seen everywhere in Israel. The idols of the Gentiles also were established in Israel north, south, east, and west. The world of the Gentile Nations continued to lead humanity to ever greater and newer civilizations, and Israel moved in it’s current direction. King David, with his mighty men and great army, led by his generals or chief captains, and marshalled by his uncle Joab, fought the Philistines & other Canaanites & conquered many local nearby countries, thus making them subservient to Israel. King David established the Kingdom, then he set his heart on the House of God: It’s construction, the Priesthood, the worship in rituals, ceremonies, & musical celebrations in conformity to the Law of Moses that had been given by the Lord. King David composed many Psalms and songs which became part of the book of Psalms of David, with contributions by many others from Solomon to Hezekiah, all the way to Josiah. He built a great Palace for the Monarch, like the great Houses of the Gentile Kings. He wanted to build a great Temple for the God of Israel, far exceeding all the Temples of the Gentiles, the greatest and magnificent House of Jehovah God, the God of Israel. He allied himself with the Gentiles to collect all the supplies and material for the Great House. However, the Lord would not permit him to construct the Temple of God because the blood of his hands. The Lord chose his son Solomon to build the House of God and to establish all things related to the House and it’s worship, Priesthood, & much more. So the Monarch of Israel reached its golden glory in the days of King Solomon, after the death of King David. King Solomon married the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt & built a great House in Judea outside Jerusalem, which took 20 years to build, & before he moved hi wife, & wives into it. He married 100s of daughters of the Kings & Lords of the Gentiles all around himself. These were his concubines and all this was to maintain peace and acquire help and wealth. Even so, peace was short lived.

                King Solomon had taxed the people heavily, burdened with labor greatly, in order to build the Temple and pay the Gentiles for their help. The 10 Tribes of Israel which resorted to the House of Saul, led by Jeroboam I in the rebellion & division of the Kingdom of the Kingdom in the South, as the Capitol, with the Priesthood of Levites. The Northern Kingdom of Israel of 10 Tribes made Samaria the Capitol & Jeroboam 1 its King. All this was allowed by the Lord through the mouth of the prophet Ahijah. But God intended to restore and reunite the kingdom to the House of David, but King Jeroboam resisted the will of God, to keep the Kingdom for himself. The 2 Kingdoms continued till their captivity, & exile by the Gentile powers; the north conquered by the Assyrian, in the days of its 20th King. Judah and Jerusalem continued longer, but were conquered by neo-Babylonia in the days of its 20th & last King, King Hoshea. This period from Jeroboam I to their captivity was above 250 years, & none of the Kings of Samaria were good. The Southern Kingdom of Jerusalem & Judah continued over 100 years (total sum of of less than 350 years) till there conquest, destruction, captivity, exile, deportation, and dispersion among the Gentiles. The Kings of Jerusalem had 10 bad Kings & 10 good Kings, & of the good kings the greatest were Hezekiah & Josiah. We must leave the age of the Monarchy of Israel & turn our focus to the Prophets.

Prophets: Isaiah to Malachi. Messiah. Gentiles. (400 Years)

                Prophets of the Divided Monarchy & their Captivity: Elijah to Isaiah to Malachi: (400 Years). Those who God has revealed Himself, & spoken to & sent to speak on His behalf are prophets. We are concerned with the line and School of Prophets from Samuel to Messiah. The prophets of the Monarchy were many; the Prophets of the Divided Monarchy into 2 Kingdoms were 20. The 20 Prophets were the Monarchal Prophets ministering during the days & the years of the Kings. Elijah is the first introduced to us in the reign of King Ahab & his wife Jezebel, in the Northern Kingdom of Samaria of the 10 Tribes of Israel. The idolatry had become so prevalent that God needed to intervene. Jezebel had 400 false prophets to her shame. The spectacular and miraculous ministry of Elijah & Elisha were recorded to develop the Scriptures in its prophetical testimony of the Word of God. In the Prophetical Books of Isaiah to Malachi, God revealed His dispensational relationship with His people by the federal headship of their Kings & Rulers. The Kings were God’s representatives to the Nation, & as such were responsible to God for the state of the Nation before Him. The continual need to send them Prophets, like He sent Judges in the period of the Judges, raising up deliverers & Judges, to recall them to the Law of Moses, to Himself as their God, to obedience unto righteousness & holiness, to faithfulness & usefulness, only confirmed the sinful nature of man. How is He to save the world if his chosen people were as bad as the Gentiles who knew Him not? & how could He treat the Gentiles with judgement & punishment if Israel was as guilty, if not more guilty than the Gentiles, because they had the Divine Word in the Law of Moses?

                The Lord must keep His Word & His Promise, Israel must be chastised by the hands of the Gentiles, till he send the salvation and blessing promised since the days of King David & King Solomon.  The Prophetic Spirit testifies of Messiah, Who from the beginning pf creation was the Model of our creation in God’s glory; Who was promised as the Seed of Woman to deal with the enmity between Satan & sin, & by the conflict of this enmity He would prevail in regaining what was lost, that is innocence, life, eternal life, and God’s presence. The law of Moses, that is the Mosaic system, was given to guide Israel till Messiah, Who would complete the work the Law in the transformation of man’s inner man, to make the natural into a spiritual man. In the internal guidance of the Law, God would use Israel as light & testimony & example to the Gentiles, that He might reclaim man &thus save the world. The Prophets who would review Israel’s behavior & state, would preview a coming King & Lord & Messiah, by this word the law of life & salvation. This distinct purpose was symbolically by signs & wonders, by poetry & parables, & by graphic examples in the life & ministry by the Prophets. Elijah & Elisha were the 1st to exhibit this typology; after them other prophets would be used in a lesser fashion. The 4 Major Prophets of Isaiah, Jeramiah, Ezekiel, & Daniel showed a fuller prophetic feature of this. Then all the 12 Minor Prophets from Hosea to Malachi completed the work in specific or targeted systems and conditions, supporting the witness of the Major Prophets. The emphasis & focus of the Major & Minor Prophets always brought judgement on Israel for their failure, though always giving hope to a Remnant. The Gentile powers in afflicting & destroying Israel, were by that, accountable to the Lord God for their actions, & God would deal with them accordingly. Israel as a people, nation, congregation, son, wife, and other such relations to God, as man, that is Adam, the 1st man, to prepare for the 2nd & Last Man, the Lord from heaven. So, the Prophetic Word concerning Messiah & His Kingdom & 100s of or related things, was given of the future for both Israel & Jews & all Gentiles. Malachi gives the promise of the coming Messiah.

            World between Old & New Testaments: Messiah & Gentiles. Malachi – Messiah. (400 Years)

            After Malachi, the last of the Prophets, came the period prophesied by Daniel, concerning the 4 Great Monarchies of the Gentiles: Neo-Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, & Romans. The Jews would be ruled by these Gentile Powers, dispersed & disintegrated as a People, no longer a Nation. The Mosaic system of the Law barely survived, the Hebrew language all but vanished. The Greeks would influence the Jews until they were Hellenist Jews, not Hebrews. They translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek (called the LXX, Septuagint, or 70).  Various Apocryphal Books came to be popular, as seen in the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholics & in most of the older versions up to the Protestant Reformation. These Apocryphal Books were modeled after the Bible Books in Poetry, History, & Wisdom literature. In them memory of the Hebrew Bible was kept alive, Mosaic system kept alive in parts and pieces. The Jewish Wars with Greeks is seen in the Books of the Maccabees. Longing for Messiah increased in many ways. The Samaritan Version was preserved the ancient Hebrew as the Sacred Scroll. Greek Philosophy was absorbed into Jewish mysticism, producing a Jewish Philosophy seen in various parts of the Apocrypha, & ultimately seen in the Philo of Alexandria. In Josephus, all these things may be learned, & all the details relevant to them. The Maccabean Dynasty in seeking to restore Judaism, resisted the Greeks & were destroyed. The Romans conquered the Greeks and ruled the Jews.

            Among the Jews who long for a restored Judaism of the Torah, the Essenes became the most prominent & influential. They are now known by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran. Their Jewish Asceticism & Mysticism were a rejection of Jerusalem’s Judaism as corrupt. Their community was male celibates in white linen gowns. In contrast to another form of Judaism before the New Testament developed into the Sadducees of the Temple, & the Pharisees of the Law. Other sects were like the Zealots wanting to overthrow the Romans. These & other forms of the Jews under the Great Gentile Powers prepared the way for the Messiah & His kingdom. The Messianic longing becomes great as they saw in the Book of Daniel & all the Prophets.

            Here ends the Summary of Christian Biblical Reflections of the Old Testament Bible. -mjm, 2021.      (This Summary was typed from the hand-written original by all my kids, a grandson. Thanks.)

Posted in Bible & Scripture, Bible Reflections, Book of Daniel, Christian Doctrine, Christian Reflections, Minor Prophets, Prophecy, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Biblical Reflections.46

                9. Briggs-Driver-Plummer.  (This Selection is  still being edited. )

19..ICCHS.OT.Brg.Drv.Plm.CritExegCom.AmosHosea.Harper.NY.ChScrib.1905.

20..ICCHS.OT.Brg.Drv.Plm.CritExegCom.MicZephNahHabObadJoel.Smith.Ward.Bewer.NY.ChScrib.1911.

21.ICCHS.OT.Brg.Drv.Plm.CritExegCom.HagZechMalJonah.Mitchell.Smith.Bewer.NY.Scrib.1912.

Critical & Exegetical Commentary. v1. AmosHosea. WRHarper. ICCHS. v19.BrgDrvPlm.NY. 1905.gs

Critical & Exegetical Commentary. v2. MicZephNahHabObadJoel. SmithWardBewer. ICCHS. v20. NY. 1911.gs

Critical & Exegetical Commentary. v3. HagZechMalJonah. MitchellSmithBewer. ICCHS. v21. NY. 1912.gs

                CONTENTS

PREFACE iii-iv

ABBREVIATIONS v-xvii

INTRODUCTION TO MICAH 5-29

§ I. The Book of Micah 5-16

1. The Text 5H5

2. The Style 6

3. Poetic Form 6-8

4. Component Parts 8-16

5. The Formation of the Book of Micah . 16

§ 2. The Prophet Micah 17-19

1. His Name 17

2. His Home 17-18

3. His Character 18-19

§ 3. The Times of Micah 19-23

1. The Date of His Prophecies 19-21

2. The Background of Chs. 1-3 21-23

§ 4. The Message of Micah 23-26

§ 5. Recent Literature on the Book of Micah . . . 26-29

COMMENTARY ON MICAH 30-156

INTRODUCTION TO ZEPHANIAH 159-181

§ I. From the Fall of Thebes to the Fall of Nineveh 159-165

§ 2. Zephaniah and His Times 166-171

1. The Man 166-167

2. The Times 167-171

§ 3. The Book of Zephaniah 171-176

1. The Contents 171-172

2. Later Additions . 172-174

3. Poetic Form 174-176

§ 4. The Message of Zephaniah 177-180

§ 5. Literature on the Book of Zephaniah i8a-i8i

PAGE

COMMENTARY ON ZEPHANIAH 182-263

INTRODUCTION TO NAHUM 267-283

§ I. The Book of Nahum 267-274

Its Contents 267-268

Its Unity … 268-270

Its Poetic Form 270-274

§ 2. The Times of Nahum …. 274-279

§ 3. The Man and the Message 279-282

The Man 279-280

The Message 280-282

§ 4. Literature on the Book of Nahum 282-283

COMMENTARY ON NAHUM 284-360

INDEXES TO MICAH, ZEPHANIAH AND NAHUM . . 361-363

I. Index of Hebrew Words 361

II. Index of Subjects 362-363

INTRODUCTION TO HABAKKUK 3-7

Authorship and Date 3-7

Topical Analysis 7

COMMENTARY ON HABAKKUK 8-28

INTRODUCTION TO OBADIAH 3-18

§ I. The Composition of the Book 3-5

§ 2. The Date of the Book 6-9

§ 3. The Interpretation of the Book 10-13

§ 4. The Prophet and His Book 13-14

§ 5. The Text 15

§ 6. The Metre 15-17

§ 7. Modern Literature 17-18

COMMENTARY ON OBADIAH 19-46

INTRODUCTION TO JOEL

§1.  Composition of the Book.

§2.  Date of the Book.

§3.  Interpretation of Book.

§4.  Prophet.

§5.  Text and Metre.

§6.  Modern Literature.

COMMENTARY ON JOEL 73-144

INDEXES TO OBADIAH AND JOEL 145-146              

                A. FACTORS IN THE PRE-PROPHETIC MOVEMENT.

§ 1. The Pre-prophetic Movement in General . . . .

§ 2. Pre-prophetic Participation in the Revolt of Jeroboam I. .

$ 3. Pre-prophetic Manifestation under Elijah’s Leadership .

4. Pre-prophetic Influences in the Time of Elisha . . .

$ 5. The Pre-prophetic Societies . . . . . .

$ 6. The Older and Younger Decalogues . . .

$ 7. The Book of the Covenant (=CC). . .

$ 8. The Judaean (Pre-prophetic) Narrative (= J) . . .

    9. The Ephraimite (Pre-prophetic) Narrative (= E) . .

                IE BASIS AND CHARACTER OF THE PRE-PROPHETIC MOVEMENT.

§ 10. The Relation of Pre-prophetism to Mosaism

$11. The Essential Thought of Pre-prophetism .

                C. Amos.

$ 12. The Personal Life of Amos . . .

$ 13. The Message of Amos . . . .

$ 14. The Ministry of Amos . . . .

$ 15. The Literary Form of Amus . . .

                D. HOSEA.

$ 16. The Personal Life of Hosea . . .

$17. The Message of Hosea . . . .

§ 18. The Ministry of Hosea . . . .

$ 19. The Literary Form of Hosea . . .

                E. AMOS AND HOSEA.

§ 20. The Poetical Form of Amos and Hosea . .

$ 21. The Language and Style of Amos and Hosea .

$ 22. The Text and Versions of Amos and Hosea

$ 23. The Literature on Amos and Hosea . . .

                A. FACTORS IN THE PRE-PROPHETIC MOVEMENT.

                $ 1. THE PRE-PROPHETIC MOVEMENT IN GENERAL.

                For a proper understanding of the place of Amos and Hosea in connection with Hebrew prophecy it is necessary to consider briefly the principal manifestations, during the two preceding centuries, of what may be called “pre-prophetism”;* the basis of this movement and its chief characteristics; likewise its fundamental thought (concerning God, man, worship, life, and the future),t as wrought out in this period. In the same connection some attention must be given to Assyria, which in these times touches Israel so closely and exercises so marked an influence upon the development of Israelitish thought. I With some of the data relating to these subjects in our possession, we shall be better prepared to take up the subjects connected with Amos and Hosea, viz. in each case the personal life, the message, the public ministry ; likewise the literary form of the prophetic work,

(* The distinction between prophetism proper (i.e. written prophecy) and that out of which it sprang is important, and may be maintained by using for the latter the word “pre-prophetism.” For the same reason, we may use nabhi’ (pl. nebhi’im) in speaking of those (not seers) who preceded Amos. Cf. the use of the terms Nebiןsmus and Prophetismus by R. Kraetzschmar in Prophet und Seher im Alten Israel (1901). *)

(+ In other words, the theology of these times, as it has been preserved in contemporaneous writings and in tradition. *)

(I A striking characteristic of Israel, in comparison with its sister nations, was a readiness to receive, from the outside, contributions in the form of new institutions and new thought. Much of this was bad and in time was lost; but much of it, being good, was retained. The gradual accumulation and assimilation of this outside material, under the guidance of an all-wise Providence, ultimately lifted Israel to a position of influence in world-history.*)

the versions in which it has come down to us, and the more important literature.

                The spirit of pre-prophetism was always alert and aggressive. Its manifestations were frequent, strong, and of a unique character. These manifestations were factors in preparing the way for that “point in the history of prophecy at which this great religious phenomenon rises -apparently, but surely not really — on a sudden to a higher level” (Che. EB. 3855); in other words, the point at which Amos and Hosea appear upon the scene of action. Unless a better explanation of the forward step taken at this time by the so-called writing prophets can be furnished than that which Budde (Rel. 131) proposes (viz. their utter failure to impress the people by oral speech), the question is to be regarded as a problem still unsolved.

                § 2. PRE-PROPHETIC PARTICIPATION IN THE REVOLT OF JEROBOAM I.

                The participation of the nebhi’im in the revolt which resulted in the disruption of the united kingdom may be assumed,t notwithstanding the late date of those portions of the narrative { in which this participation is especially described.

(* Much is gained in thinking of Amos and Hosea as together presenting a single unit of thought; for, while each is in sharp contrast with the other in temperament and in message, neither, by himself, is complete. They must both be taken to secure the whole idea. *)

(+ Kue. (Rel. I. 198 f.) says, “The revolt of the ten tribes from the royal house of David was undoubtedly countenanced by the prophets, especially by those of Ephraim ” ; We. (Prol. 458), declares that they “ actually suggested and promoted it”; Kit. (Hist. II. 188) says, “Jeroboam was supported in his enterprise by a prophet, Ahijah of Shiloh”; Kent (Hist. II. 20) maintains that it was supported by prophets who selected the leader. So also Gu. (GVI. 130–132), Wade (0.7. Hist. 313), Paton (Hist. 191). Cf. Che. (EB. 2406), who, though treating the narratives as unhistorical, regards it as possible that Jeroboam had friendly relations with Ahijah who lived at Shiloh, and certain that the northern prophets were on Jeroboam’s side; and contra Winckler (GI. I. 159 f., II. 273) and H. P. Smith (0.T. Hist, 1903, pp. 177-80), who make no reference to prophetic influence; Sta. (GVI. I. 306 f.), who declares the narratives concerning the prophets to be without historical basis. *)

                There are four stories: (1) Ahijah, I K. 1129–40, of which vs.29-31 may be early (so Kit. and Skinner); but all is considered late by Wkl. (Untersuch. 8 f.), Kamphausen, Benz., and Sta. (SBOT.); (2) Shemaiah, 1 K. 1222-24, clearly late; (3) “the man of God out of Judah”and “the old prophet at Bethel,” I K. 131-32, all of which is late; (4) the visit of Jeroboam’s wife to Ahijah, 1 K. 141-18, which, if early, has been thoroughly worked over by a later editor, the Hebrew text seeming to be a late recension of 8, *)

                This assumption is based upon (1) the fact that the early prophets in their intense conservatism stand opposed to every advance of civilization; cf. the general policy of Elijah (p. xxxvi), the attitude of the Judean narrative toward the beginnings of civilization in Gn. 416-24, and the opposition of Isaiah (26f. 316-26) to everything that seemed to favor luxury in life; not to speak of the representation of this same idea by the Nazirites and Rechabites who were closely associated with nebhi’ism and prophetism (p. xxxi); (2) the probability that the spirit which later actuated Elijah (as well as Amos and especially Hosea) in reference to the acknowledgment of other gods existed, at least in germ, in the minds of these earlier nebhi’im (so e.g. WRS. Proph. 48 ff.; Bu. Rel. 102); (3) the consistency of this pre-prophetic action with that of Elijah and Elisha in the conspiracy against the dynasty of Omri, as well as with the alleged conspiracy of Amos himself (Am. 710-13) against Jeroboam II., at which time the prophetic temper was at all events regarded as revolutionary; and (4) the extreme likelihood that the prophetic stories, while late, represent in the main a true tradition, since they, at least, indicate one school of later opinion, the other school, led by Hosea (cf. Ho. 84 1311) regarding the revolt or schism as a great blunder.

                The effect of the disruption, in so far as the pre-prophetic movement is concerned, appears (1) in the fact that this movement takes place in the North, rather than under the Davidic dynasty in the South,* for until the last twenty years or so before the end of the Northern kingdom (721 B.C.) Judah produced little or nothing except the Judean narrative (p. lxix). This was true in part, because (2) a much greater liberty existed in the North, as a consequence of the failure of the Solomonic rיgime to ‘maintain in Israel the obligations which it succeeded in imposing upon Judah; and with this liberty, there was possible also (3) a far greater simplicity of life than in the South; there existed, in fact, a more democratic atmosphere, the extreme class distinctions being less emphasized ; † while (4) there was less interference from outside influence than would have been felt under a continuation of the Solomonic policy; likewise, (5) the disruption,

(* Che. (EB. 3863), after making the words “Gilgal,” “ Carmel,” “ Ephraim,” “Jordan,” ” Ramoth-gilead,” etc. (as they occur in the narrative), corruptions of the all-pervading Jerahmeel of North Arabia, and after assigning the homes of Elijah and Elisha, as well as of Amos, to this region, says, “We cannot therefore be certain that there were any settlements of prophets in Northern Israel.”*)

(* † Meinhold (p. 25) suggests that Yahweh was the champion of every Israelite against the despotism of Solomon, and that the nabhi’, therefore, as in later times the prophet, took the side of the deity against the despot. *)

in spite of the calves of Jeroboam, contributed very largely toward preparing the way for that ultimate separation of Yahweh from a place among the gods of the nations, and his elevation into the god of the heavens.* The revolt, in a word, was in some slight sense an anticipation of the later and more radical steps taken by Elijah and Elisha.

                § 3. THE PRE-PROPHETIC MANIFESTATION UNDER ELIJAH’S LEADERSHIP.

                1. Prophetic interference in the affairs of state took place under Elijah’s leadership in the days of Ahab (ca. 875-850 B.c.). In estimating the importance of this very notable and unique manifestation of the pre-prophetic spirit, account must first be taken of the different strata of material preserved. On this point students are practically agreed.

                Certain stories come from about 800 B.C., i.e. from within fifty years or so of Elijah’s own times, viz. (a) the early trouble with Ahab and the drought; the contest on Carmel; and the visit to Horeb (1 K. 172–183 a. 5-30 18326–199a. 11 6-21); (b) the story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 K. 211-20 a. 27); (c) Elijah’s encounter with Ahaziah’s messengers (2 K. 11-4.5-8). From a period twenty-five to fifty years later comes the account of Elijah’s last days with Elisha and his translation (2 K. 21-25). To a much later time belong the story of Elijah’s treatment of the companies sent out by Ahaziah (2 K. 19-18) and certain additions to the early stories (e.g. i K. 1836. 4. 31. 32 a 1996-11 a 219 b. 26. 28 f.; Benzinger makes 2 K. 13-8 also late, and Kamphausen the entire account, 2 K. 11-18). So substantially Kit., Benz., Kamphausen, Burney, and Skinner ; but Sta. (SBOT.) calls all the Elijah and Elisha material late except 1 K. 1831-32 a 1996. 10. 11 a. c. 2120 6. 21 f. 24 2 K. 21 a. 258 (cf. GVI. I 522, note); Meinhold (pp. 17-21) places the stories about 750 B.C. on the ground that such legends could not have developed in fifty years; and Todd (Politics and Religion in Ancient Isr. (1904), 195 ff.) minimizes Elijah’s significance and makes the entire Baal-story an allegory coming from Manasseh’s times.

                2. In the interpretation of these stories, the earlier, as well as the later, must be acknowledged to show two tendencies of a decided character. The narrator’s point of view is one strongly biassed by the attitude toward Baalism which prevailed in the times succeeding Jehu. The picture of Ahab and his relation to Baalism is greatly overdrawn, a very large legendary element having entered into it. * Besides this, Elijah, called nabhi’, or prophet, only once in the entire narrative (viz. 1 K. 1822 where no other designation could have been employed), is everywhere (especially in 1 K. 198-24 2 K. 1 212 28) represented as possessed of magical powers.f

                3. But after making full allowance for these elements, we may feel confident that Elijah represents a true historical character of a remarkable type, and that a proof of his greatness is this very “stupendous and superhuman” image of him here sketched. I We are not compelled to choose between the two extreme views, according to one of which, the prophet Elijah, while above the level of the nebhi’im of his time, is presented in greatly magnified form, the prophets of this period having had no such prominence as the narratives assign to them ; $ while the other treats him as a Titanic character creating a new epoch in Israel’s history, to be placed side by side with Moses himself. || His proper place may be determined by observing certain secondary points in connection with his contest with Ahab regarding Baalism, and with Ahab’s relations to Naboth, and all of this must be studied in the light of the issue of the whole matter as it appears in the case of Jehu under Elisha’s ministry.

Among other points, outside of the two main stories, the following should not be overlooked: (1) Elijah (v.s.) is not called nabhi’, because even at this time he is recognized as something different. He may not, however, be placed in the class of the writing prophets, because, unlike them, he has left         

nothing in written form; and unlike them, he is closely associated with man. ticism and magic. On the other hand, the facts seem make him both seer and nabhi’. Witness the point already suggested in reference to manticism and magic, and, in addition, the fact of his close relationship with the societies of nebhi’im, and his apparent leadership among them, his farewell visit to the various headquarters of these societies, their strong interest in the occasion and the manner of his final departure; and, still further, those great characteristics of sturdiness, strength, and courage which bespeak for him a place side by side with the seers of the past, viz. Moses, Joshua, Samuel. (2) The suddenness of his appearances and disappearances, so frequently a subject of comment (1 K. 172 187 ff. 2 K. 216), is to be attributed to the lacunae of the narrative, rather than to any effort upon the part of the writer to cultivate an atmosphere of mystery.

                                ( * This is the unanimous voice of critical opinion; cf. e.g. Kue. Einl. § 25; Kit. Hist. II. 267; Addis, art. ” Elijah,” EB.; We. Prol. 292 f.; Co. Proph. 29; Che. EB. 3859 f.; Meinhold; Sm. Rel.2 175 ff.; H. P. Smith, O. T. Hist. 188; K. DB. V. 655. *)

                († This is in accordance with the earlier conceptions of nebhi’ism which Israel held in common with other nations; cf. the power of Moses with his magician’s staff (Ex. 42 ff. 720 923, etc.), that of Joshua and his spear” (Jos. 18. 20), and the use of the arrow in divining referred to in 2 K. 1315 ff. See K. DB. V. 650 f.; Sm. Rel.2 154; Kit. Hist. II. 266 f.; Che, EB. 3856 f. *)

                (3) The impression of a magical personality (cf. the story of Samuel and the witch of Endor) is conveyed, not only in the miraculous power ascribed to him in general, but also in his special power over dew and rain (1 K. 172 181. 41-45), the deference paid to him by Obadiah (1 K. 187 ff.), the use of an extra quantity of water to prevent suspicion (1833 ff.), the physical performance in connection with his premonition of rain (1842-45), the ecstatic condition in which he ran five hours from Carmel to Jezreel (1846), the magical power ascribed to his mantle (1919, cf. 2 K. 28. 13 ff.), which Elisha may not resist, and with which the waters are divided ; and especially in the account of his marvellous translation by means of a chariot and horses of fire (2 K. 211.), a later expression of the feeling that his activity was enduring, and that his fellowship with God was “so close that its interruption seemed inconceivable” (K. DB. V. 655). In close connection with all this is (4) the strongly pronounced nomadic spirit, which, naturally, stands opposed to everything that indicates progress in civilization. This spirit appears in the simplicity of his food and dress (1 K. 196. 18 2 K. 18), in his isolation from his fellows, and in his opposition to the religious policy of Ahab (v.1.). Perhaps this furnishes the explanation, also, of the sudden character of his appearances and disappearances (v.s.): it is surely in accord with this that he is represented as living by the brook Cherith, which flows into the Jordan (1 K. 172-7); sojourning outside of his own country at Zarephath in Phoenicia (1 K. 178 ff.); paying a visit to Horeb, after a journey of forty days and forty nights (1 K. 195-8); and moving about from place to place (2 K. 1, 2); cf. the nomadic character of the Rechabites (p. lii), who arose about this time (v.2.). (5) Not a little light is thrown upon the story of pre-prophetism by the two incidents in Elijah’s life, in connection with which he left his native land and visited foreign countries. The earlier sojourn in Phoenicia, at Zarephath, together with the nature of the work performed, indicates, on his part, not only the nomadic tendency (in this case encouraged, doubtless, by fear of Ahab), but also an attitude toward non-Israelites which is broad and liberal, in spite of the narrow and intense zeal ordinarily attributed to him ; and besides, a leniency which meant that the hatred shown in connection with Baalism was not against that religion in itself, but only against its encroachment upon the realm of Yahweh (Sm. Rel? 178; Co. Proph, 31), who had now become recognized as, indeed, the god of the land of Israel, although not god also of Phoenicia. The visit to Horeb (1 K, 198 ff.), while illustrative of many elements in the prophet’s character (e.g. the longing for solitude characteristic of the nomad, and a deep spiritual nature, as well as a tendency to deep despondency), also calls attention to the prophet’s idea of Yahweh’s original home and dwelling-place, i.e. the place in which one can most easily secure his oracle ; and is better understood in the light of Ju. 56 (cf. also Dt. 332 Hb. 33 Ps. 688). This journey, although undertaken in a fit of discouragement, and because of Jezebel’s inimical attitude, cannot be easily explained on any other supposition than that the nabhi’, in accordance with the general conviction, makes this pilgrimage, in the fashion of all ages, to a place regarded as sacred from the oldest times, because there Yahweh had dwelt in the beginning (Bu. Rel. 18; K. DB. V. 626 f.; Barton, Semitic Origins, 277 ; Sta. GVI, I. 130 ff.).

                (6) The chief elements in certain situations described in the Elijah-stories had already been anticipated in earlier history, e.g. Solomon had erected sanctuaries for his foreign wives (1 K. 117f.) just as Aħab does for Jezebel (v.i.), and probably this constituted one of the charges in the prophetic indictment of that monarch. Even earlier, Nathan had taken precisely the same stand against the abuse of royal power (2 S. 121-15) as that taken by Elijah in the case of Ahab. Still further, the thought of Yahweh’s using Syria (1 K. 1915-17) in order to punish Israel for wrong-doing, does not, of itself, imply that Yahweh is other than a national god, as is clear from the presence of this same conception not only in earlier Israelitish times (Nu. 1440 ff. [J, E] Jos. 7 [J]), but also among other nations (cf. the part played by the gods in the fall of Babylon in the Cyrus Cylinder,* and the representations concerning Yahweh’s power at the time of the Exodus [J, E], and in the confusion of tongues at Babel (in J]; cf. Meinhold, 30 f.). On the further bearing of this, v.i. (7) Much turns upon the exact meaning assigned to the utterances concerning Yahweh and the Baalim in i K. 1824. 27. 37. 39 (Sm. Rel.? 178), v.i.

                (* * The words of Sennacherib’s general (2 K. 1825 = Is. 3610) might also be cited, were it not probable that they represent a later Israelitish view rather than the thought of the Assyrian (cf. Sta., Benz., Marti, Duhm, in loc.). It is hardly likely that the haughty Assyrian would represent himself as acting in obedience to the command of the god of a small, despised people. *)

                4. The uncertainty of the facts in the story of Elijah’s struggle with Ahab and the priests of Baal explains, if it does not justify, the varying interpretations which have been founded upon them. We may consider here those points which relate to the form of

the story, the actual facts as nearly as they can be determined, and the problems raised by these facts. But since Elijah’s contest is only part (or perhaps the beginning) of the great struggle which was closed, under the direction of Elisha, by Jehu, we shall state the problems and reserve a decision upon them until the additional help has been gained which is furnished by the events of Elisha’s career and a consideration of the actual denouement (pp. xlviii f.).

                (1) Reference has been made to the date of the material (v.s.), as well as to its prejudiced character. We cannot fail to note also its fragmentary form, e.g. its failure to furnish any introduction to the story of the challenge, from which an adequate knowledge of the events leading up to it may be obtained; the lack, also, of the end of the story, in which one might have expected to find out how Elijah executed the commission given him at Horeb, for surely 1 K. 1919. 20 cannot be accepted as a fitting conclusion; and, still further, the absence of anything that will throw light on the fulfilment of the prediction in 1 K. 1917. Perhaps the story of Naboth was intended, as Wellhausen suggests, to be the beginning of the judgment which overtook the worshippers of Baal. (2) The facts in the story itself are not always mutually consistent, and the statement throughout bears evidence of being too strongly colored against Ahab. The formal charge in 1 K, 1630-33 represents him as being actually the greatest sinner that has yet occupied Israel’s throne. But every accusation made, except that of building an altar in the house of Baal (v.32), comes from the Deuteronomic period, nearly two and a half centuries later, when the official spirit had altogether changed. Was the extension of this courtesy to his wife worse than the similar act of Solomon ? And then, we may not think that Ahab had altogether forsaken Yahweh, or that Yahwism was in so bad a state, when we learn that of Ahab’s children, three (1 K. 2240 2 K. 31 818. 26) were given names containing the word Yahweh as one element; that Ahab is able to find four hundred Yahweh prophets in one place, when there is occasion for their service (1 K. 226); and that the number of those who had not bowed the knee to Baal was seven thousand, while, on the other hand, all of the Bail adherents are able a little later to be accommodated in one house (2 K. 1921. 23). If, now, we add to this the statement of Jehu that Ahab served Baal only a little (2 K. 1018), and the evidence that Jezebel was, indeed, a malicious and vindictive woman, we may well suppose not only that the situation was less serious than it is represented, but also that Jezebel, rather than Ahab, was the chief sinner. Ahab, following the policy of David and Solomon, sought to strengthen his throne and benefit the nation by alliance with outside powers, and did not appreciate the full meaning of the struggle as it presented itself to Elijah. He regarded the question as one in which the royal authority was involved, and, encouraged doubtless by the Tyrian influence, acted accordingly (WRS. Proph. 76 ff.). But, on the other hand, Jezebel was zealous and persistent in her efforts to build up the Baal-party, for political as well as for religious purposes. The Tyrian Baal-worship threatened to a greater or less degree the Israelitish Yahweh-worship. (3) But these facts, even in this simpler and less sensational form, represent a contest. What was the point at issue ?

                The question, in general, is this : Does Elijah here draw the line between the spiritual Israel (i.e. the seven thousand), and Israel of the flesh, who, though of the nation, are not members of the elect, known later as “the remnant”?* Are the spiritual and the worldly here for the first time brought into conflict?t Does Elijah, then, give evidence of a conception of God higher than any that has yet been held? Or, on the other hand, shall we throw out this entire narrative of the Baal-struggle as absolutely unhistorical ; # and understanding that it had its origin a century or a century and a half later than was indicated above, regard it as consequently the expression of a time not earlier than that of Amos and Hosea ? In either case may we suppose that, after all, Elijah’s position is nothing more than Ahijah might have taken against Solomon, the fact being that the struggle is on behalf of the old idea, viz. an undefiled cultus, through a correct performance of which Yahweh’s demands are satisfied, § and not in behalf of the new idea, emphasized by the writing prophets, that Yahweh’s religion was something other than a cult? Does Elijah represent Yahweh as about to bring great punishment on Israel, through Syria, because of failure to observe a pure cult, or because of ethical shortcomings? This is the question at issue. The answer to it is of great concern in determining the value of the contribution of Amos and Hosea.

                5. The Naboth story is perhaps more significant than anything else connected with the life of Elijah, for here there is spoken the condemnation of governmental unrighteousness which receives so large a notice from later prophets.

                Some difficulties exist, likewise, in the form, as it is given us, of this story (1 K. 21). It is easy to see that it interrupts the connection of chaps. 20 and 22. If to this we add that in 6 it immediately follows chap. 19, and that it has many points of affinity with the narrative in chaps. 17, 19 (e.g. the

representation of Ahab as a weak man controlled by Jezebel; also the appar. ent dependence of 2120a upon 1817), sustaining no relation to chaps. 20, 22, we have a fairly strong case for the order given in 6 (v.s.). But now, if we put together the fact that Elijah is being introduced again by the same writer after his successor has been appointed (1 K. 1915-21); the fact that the murder of Naboth contributed more largely to the ruin of Ahab’s house than did his religious policy (Ew. Hist. IV.71, 107; Co. Proph. 31 ff.; Skinner, 255); and the better understanding gained of the Carmel episode if we suppose the murder of Naboth to have preceded it, and to have excited the feeling of the people against Ahab (Skinner, 255; WRS. EB. 2670), – we are compelled to assume either that chap. 21 originally stood between vs. 18 and 19 of chap. 19, or that it is an independent document (cf. its resemblance to 142-16, and the view of Burney that it belongs to the same source as 2 K. 9–1028).*

                Keeping in mind the difficulties which the form of the story presents, we may note in reference to its content: (a) that the main point, rebuke of the king for an outrageous act, is the same as that found in the Nathan-David story (v.s.), and forms one of the principal topics in the discourses of Amos and Hosea; (6) that, after all, Ahab’s act was not an unusual thing for an oriental monarch (v.s.) ; but, in this case, the ancient spirit of freedom is again aroused (as in the days of the disruption) against a personal despotism; (c) that it was this crime (v.s.), rather than Ahab’s defence of Baalism, that cost him his throne, a significant fact in the history of national ethics and of a true conception of religion. In this same connection we may observe further : (a) the thing which Yahweh is here represented as doing is something quite unusual; the threat that Ahab’s house is to be destroyed by a foreign power, viz. Syria, plainly makes Yahweh something other than a merely national god (v.1.); (b) the Naboth-story is to receive practically the same interpretation, whether we suppose it to have preceded the Carmel event, and to be closely connected therewith (furnishing, in fact, the basis of that popular uprising), or to have followed it and been entirely independent of it. In either case it is a cry for justice to those oppressed. Upon the whole, something tangible is gained if the two stories are joined together; (c) with both stories there may be connected logically the opening message of Elijah to Ahab (1 K. 171) containing the threat of drought; for, after all, this is the question at issue ; Who grants rain? Who is God? Yahweh or Baal? The chief purpose of this threat was to demonstrate that the God, whose servant is Elijah, is the sole ruler of nature, against whose will no power in heaven or earth can prevail” (Skinner). This, in brief, was Elijah’s great message (v.s.).

                (* * To this may still be added the lack of harmony between chap. 21 and 2 K. 9; cf. the position of Naboth’s “field” in 2 K. 916 tf., a little way from Jezreel, and Naboth’s “vineyard” close to Ahab’s palace (in Samaria ?), 1 K. 2118, and the variants of 6 in v.1; the visit of Ahab to his ill-gotten prize on the day after the murder in 2 K. 926, but apparently on the same day in 1 K. 21; also, the words of Jehu in 2 K. 926 tell us a fact not in 1 K. 2111-16, viz. that Naboth’s sons were killed. On the basis of these and other facts chap. 21 is assigned to an independent source, as an appendix to chaps. 17-1921, by Kue. Einl. III. 78; Meinhold, 12 ff.; Gunkel, Preussische Jahrb. XXVII. (1897), 18 ff.; Skinner; but cf. We. Hex. 283 ff.; WRS., art. “Kings,” EB. 2670; Kit, 159-162; Benz. in loc. *)

                § 4. PRE-PROPHETIC INFLUENCES IN THE TIME OF Elisha.

                1. Close coצperation of the prophet with the government, a conspiracy against the government and its overthrow by the instigation of the prophet, — all this took place in the days of Elisha (ca. 850-800 B.C.). In this we have the completion of the work initiated by Elijah.

                The portions of 2 K. concerned with the life of Elisha may be classified: (1) 22-25 42623 g1-15 1314-2), a series of early prophetic narratives of a personal or biographical character, loosely strung together and laying special emphasis on Elisha’s activity as a wonder-worker (to be designated by the symbol E”); (2) 34-27 624-7791-6. 11-28. 30_1027, a different collection of early prophetic narratives giving special attention to Elisha’s influence in affairs of state and in the campaigns against Syria and other nations (EP); (3) 31-3 718–20 g16-24. 26-29 97-10 10-31. 32-36, a series of later additions chiefly from the pen of the Deuteronomic compiler of Kings. Cf. the comm. of Kit., Benz., Burney, Skinner; and Kue. Einl. III. 80 ff.; We. Her. 286–90; Addis, art. “ Elisha,” EB.; Dr. LOT. 196 f.; WRS. and K., art. “Kings,” EB.

This material presents some of the characteristics named above, notably, eg. (a) the magical element (strikingly similar, and even stronger), but there is little or no basis for the opinion (H. P. Smith, 0, T. Hist., p. 194, and others; cf. contra, Addis, EB. 1276; Strachan, art. “ Elijah,” DB.; and the comm. of Kit., Benz., and Skinner) that the Elisha-memoirs are in large part a duplication of those of Elijah, and consequently unhistorical. (6) The lack of chronological order, as well as of chronological indication; and the result of this is to create a wrong impression of Elisha’s career (cf. Addis, EB. 1276;

Strachan, DB. I. 694; Benz. 129; Kit. 185); for who really gathers from the narrative that Elisha lived forty-five years after the revolt of Jehu? A true conception of the case is prevented by the placing of this story at the end, with all the anecdotes but one preceding.

                2. The following points, although of secondary interest, may not be ignored :

                (1) The first meeting, at which the call was extended (by Elijah, it would seem, rather than by Yahweh himself),* took place at the home of Elisha’s family (which must have possessed substance; and consequently Elisha, like Amos, was not an ordinary nabhi’), some time after Elijah’s visit to Horeb, t. perhaps six or seven years before Elijah’s final disappearance, I in all a dozen years or so before the great revolution which unseated the dynasty of Omri. Elisha differed greatly from Elijah in appearance (cf. the phrase hairy man, 2 K. 18 (unless with Kittel, Benzinger, and Skinner, we refer this to the hairy mantle], with the epithet bald-head, 2 K. 228) and in dress (cf. the mantle, i K. 1919, which Elisha does not seem to have worn in later life; note d’ua, 2 K. 429). He used a staff, which, with the mantle, served him in his work as a magician. In a true sense he was a successor, since he it was who gave political effect to Elijah’s teaching, $ or, in other words, faithfully and resolutely carried out the policy of annihilating Baal and all that belonged to Baal, which was Elijah’s great legacy to the nation. || In this case there is no exegetical nor historical sense in calling Elisha a “demagogue, conspirator, revolutionist, and agitator ” (Co. Proph. 33); the phrase “father and guide of the Northern kingdom” (Addis, EB. 1276) seems more appropriate (p. xliv). (2) The story of the separation is late, and exhibits some peculiarities, two or three of which deserve mention ; eg. how comes it that Elijah, who has always lived a solitary life, now sustains close personal relations with the pro. phetic societies? Perhaps he sees fit to change his habits now that the end is coming (Ew. Hist. IV. 80); or does this document present a different conception of Elijah (Skinner)? It is, rather, Elijah’s emphatic way of introducing his successor, to whom he intrusts a task so terrible in its seriousness. The passage, therefore, has closer connection with the “ Elisha-stories” than with the “ Elijah-stories.” The “double portion” (29) is not the portion of the first-born, Dt. 2117 (Thenius, Benz., Kit., Skinner, in loc.; and Addis, EB. 1277); nor may we follow the literalizing view of Sirach (that Elisha performed twice as many miracles as did Elijah); but rather it expresses Elisha’s desire that, having an even larger enduement of the divine spirit than his master, he may be able to carry the struggle of Yahweh begun by

Elijah to a successful issue (Maybaum, Proph. 76). On the purpose of the picture, as a whole, v.s., p. xxxvi. (3) The fact that Elisha’s habits were those of an agriculturalist at first, and later of a city dweller (in Jericho, 2 K, 218, Samaria, 682, Dothan, 613, Shunem, 410, Damascus, 87), plays an important part in contrast with Elijah’s nomadic manner of life (p. xxxvi). It is not enough to observe simply that here, as frequently, those are associated who differ greatly from each other (e.g. Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Micah); or that one kind of mind is needed for initiation, another for final execution. The case is incomplete, unless we realize the full significance, in this long ministry of, perhaps, fifty years, of Elisha’s “easy familiarity” and gentle manners, not only when he is sought out by kings (2 K. 621 1314), but also when he is visited on new moon or Sabbath (2 K. 422 ff.) by the people who trust him implicitly. Was this demagoguery? Then Jesus also must have been a demagogue. Elijah’s whole career was a protest against civilization. Not so Elisha’s; but rather an example of wise and effective adjustment, in spite of his strict religious views, to the new environment created by Ahab. This suggests (4) other points of character which come out in connection with some of the smaller events, such as the remarkable spirit of toleration (cf. Elijah during his residence in Zarephath) in the advice given Naaman the Syrian (Strachan, DB. I. 694); of humaneness, in his attitude toward the Syrian captives (622); of intense love for Israel, in his reply to Hazael’s question, Why does my lord weep? (811-13); * of widely recognized sympathy, as shown by the coming to him of widows and orphans (41); of the tremendous energy and fruitfulness of his work, if we may accept the estimate placed in the mouth of king Joash (1314), for had he not been more to Israel than its chariots and horsemen?t It will be noted that the data suggestive of these elements in Elisha’s character lie, for the most part, outside of the field of his political activity, and the circumstances connected with the revolution, on which v.i.

                3. Nothing in prophecy, or indeed in the entire Old Testament scripture, is more suggestive of wonderland than the stories which recount Elisha’s miracles. This idealization finds explanation in more than a single way; e.g. the writer thus makes expression of the profound feeling of love and esteem entertained by the people for Elisha, as well as of an equally profound belief in the love of Yahweh for his people, a love exhibited in the beneficent activity of the great representative, Elisha. Whether emphasis is to be placed upon the first or the second of these ideas will be determined by one’s final estimate of Elisha’s work as a whole.

We cannot fail to make three comparisons: (1) Of these miracles with those of Elijah (v.s. p. xxxvi); but here we should regard Elisha’s miracles neither, on the one hand, as grotesque and vulgar in so far as they are not pure imitation, and as altogether lacking in sanctification and grandeur,* nor, on the other, as something altogether ideal and above criticism of any sort.f (2) Of Elisha’s relation to Samaria during the Syrian wars, with Isaiah’s relation to Jerusalem in 701 B.C. during Sennacherib’s invasion; but in making this comparison, we must remember that a century and a half full of good teaching for Israel has elapsed, and that while Elisha, as a matter of course, appears to less advantage than does Isaiah, it may well be questioned whether, upon the whole, the latter event was more critical than the former, and whether, likewise, the doctrine of Zion’s inviolability established in connection with Isaiah’s preaching in 701 B.C. was not far more injurious to the Israel of the future, both ethically and politically, than the severe and, indeed, terrible measures apparently sanctioned by Elisha in the uprooting of Baalism, (3) Of Elisha’s miracles with those of Jesus Christ; were they not of the same general character? Omitting the treatment of the children slain by bears, do they not represent the single idea of beneficence, that is, love ? From no other source does prophecy receive a contribution which so definitely represents or anticipates the Christlike element (Addis, EB. 1277). Surely this thought of love is a new idea in Israel’s religion. But is it just to attribute it to Elisha ? His life and work furnished the conception. Even if the stories are very late, and even if little historical fact may be found in them, they, at all events, reproduced Elisha’s character as it appeared to the people of his own times and of those that followed.

                Much in these miracles relates to the pre-prophetic societies (8 5). Elisha was strengthening and developing these societies for purposes of propaganda (Che. EB. 3863). These societies were capable of exercising great influence on Israel. This method of warfare was more diplomatic than that of Elijah. It does not mean, however, that Elisha lacked courage (2 K. 3134.). It is probable that in view of his feeling toward Joram, he did not use his house in Samaria to any great extent until after Jehu’s accession, but lived much of the time with the societies. This work was to have great significance in the further development of prophecy.

                4. The political activity of Elisha is full of interesting problems. (1) Pre-prophetism, acting through him, now controlled the state. He was not merely an adviser like Isaiah. He was himself an active participant in the affairs of administration, “a decisive power in court and camp” (Addis, EB. 1277). In this he followed the example of all his predecessors. The time had not yet quite come for the introduction of a new policy, viz. that of non-interference except in so far as moral suasion might exert an influence. (2) His relations with foreign kings and potentates are of a remarkable nature. They seek him out. His reputation must have been widespread. Meinhold is right in pointing out that Wellhausen underestimates the influence of the prophets in these times. It is quite inconceivable how certain writers * count Elisha as of so small a value to Israelitish thought. Greater justice is shown him by others.f

                (3) The account of the Moabite campaign of the king of Israel (2 K. 34-27) with his vassal kings of Judah and Edom possesses for us a larger interest even than that which its relation to the well-known Mesha inscription (a voucher for the historicity of this story) occasions, I because, being evidently from the series of political stories (p. xli), it assigns to Elisha an important rפle as political adviser, and, besides, refers to certain facts in connection with the prophet which aid us in formulating our estimate of him. We observe (a) the custom of making inquiry of the nebhi’im concerning war (cf. i K. 226 ff.), and when we recall the times of Saul and the beginning of the work of the nebhi’im, we find ground for the supposition that the primary aim of these dervishes was to awaken the spirit of the nation for purposes of war (Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertmer, I. (1901), 103 ff.; K. DB. V. 653); but (6) Elisha being discovered in the camp, the mere mention of his relation to Elijah (as the pourer of water on the hands = servitor) gives him standing in the eyes of the king of Judah, who in i K. 22 seems not to have known the Northern prophets. There is to be noted next (c) the statement of the king of Israel (v.13) which implies that the kings, in this case as in i K. 22, have undertaken this expedition by prophetic advice for which Yahweh was responsible; but (d) Elisha, following Elijah’s policy, will have no dealings with the king of Israel (whichever king it was) $; for the sake, however, of Judah’s king he will speak. But he cannot speak except in trance, and so (c) as was his custom (7971, and it used to be, is frequentative), he asks for a musician (v.15) in order by the influence of music to excite himself into the ecstatic condition. This act, attested by I S. 106, alluded to frequently in Arabian literature (WRS. Proph. 392), and recognized to-day as a powerful incentive to religious emotion (cf. the influence of music on Saul’s evil spirit, 1 S. 1616), seems to bear witness to three things : that Elisha (contra Elijah) is in close companionship with the nebhi’im; that, while the spirit of Yahweh takes hold of Elijah spontaneously, artificial means are resorted to in Elisha’s case; and that consequently he belongs rather with those that preceded him in the prophetic work (i.e. a lower order) than with those who followed (i.e. Amos and Hosea). The first of these all will accept; but are the other inferences strictly legitimate ? May not this act in his case have been merely the conventional way of announcing the oracle? Is it really any more derogatory to his standing as a prophet than the ecstatic visions of Amos or Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel (v.2.)? The method adopted to secure water (vs. 16–19) was adapted to the possibilities of the locality (known for its sand-pits); cf. the plagues of Egypt. (8) The evident recognition (326. 27) of the efficacy of the sacrifice of the king’s own son to Chemosh is of interest in fixing the theological point of view of the writer.

                (4) Evidence of Elisha’s political activity is seen, still further, in the stories of the healing of Naaman (51-19), of the entrapping of the Syrians in Samaria (68-23), of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad (624-72)), with each of which important difficulties are connected ; * but, in general, they show the high esteem in which Elisha was held by all classes of men, his international as well as national reputation, his almost unlimited influence at home and abroad, and, at the same time, the great breadth of his mind, and his entire devotion to the nation’s God, Yahweh. We may not go so far as to infer that Elisha’s international greatness and his international relations furnished the basis for the idea of an international god, which, in turn, prepared the way for Amcs’s position taken in chaps. I and 2; yet the high character of his work must be recognized.

                5. The great revolution instigated by Elisha and executed by Jehu, described in 2 K. 9, 10, is one of the most important events in Israel’s history; this importance relates to the political situation, but also, and especially, to the history of the pre-prophetic movement, the relation, in that movement, of both Elijah and Elisha to the history of Israel’s religion. This revolution placed on the throne the dynasty under which Amos and Hosea (in part) did their work. That Omri’s dynasty had greatly strengthened Israel at home and abroad is universally acknowledged.† That seed was sown in this revolution, which in the end proved Israel’s ruin, has not been denied since Hosea (14) first announced it. We may call Jehu ambitious and bloodthirsty, and, since he undoubtedly believed himself to be acting for and in the name of Yahweh, a fanatic.* Sacred history fails to furnish a more ghastly series of official murders, beginning with the shooting of Jehoram in his chariot, and closing with the horrible blood-bath of the Baal-worshippers in the temple. But there was prophetic precedent for the revolution, and the total destruction of the royal house, when dethroned, has been the regular routine in all Oriental revolutions.t Although by the revolution there was gained a destruction of the Baal cult, and although it was strictly in accord with Oriental policy, from the political point of view it was a blunder. $

                It is more difficult to reach a decision as to the meaning of this event in connection with the pre-prophetic movement, and of the rפle played by the individual prophets. Apparently no great fault has ever been found with Elijah because of his share in it, and yet it was he who conceived and initiated the movement, indicated the exact lines of its execution, and selected specifically the agents who were to complete its execution. On whom, then, rests the responsibility? If one may judge Elijah’s character by the impression which it produced upon his contemporaries and upon those immediately following him, he himself would have done, in detail, just what Jehu did; for did he not (1 K. 1840) actually slay the prophets of Baal (four hundred and fifty)? Did he not foretell the awful events which were to rid Israel of Baalism (1916-18) ? $

                On the other hand, severe criticism has been meted out to

Bu. (Rel. 122), concerning the reason for the prophets’ support of Jehu, says: “There can be no doubt that the reason why Jehu was made the candidate of the prophets for succession to the throne was that he was known as a zealot for the pure worship of Yahweh. For this reason alone we might be sure that he and his successors were unremitting in their zealous endeavor to maintain the worship of Yahweh in Israel pure and uncontaminated. This inference is fully confirmed if we may trust the popular tales of the Second Book of Kings — by the fact that for full two generations the prophet is found firmly established alongside the king, as the bulwark of the throne.” Cf. also K. DB. V. 653.

Elisha, who, it is maintained, is scarcely to be justified for his participation in the deeds of Jehu, even from the point of view of his own times.* It is suggested that he was entirely deceived as to Jehu’s character; † or, in any event, though meaning well, lived on that lower plane of religious life which, as in the case of the patriarchs, did not forbid intrigue and bloodshed. I Now, in making our estimate of Elisha, let us recall (a) the lack of any word of disapproval from the pen of the narrators; (6) the wonderfully beautiful character portrayed by these writers, in which the features especially emphasized are humaneness, tenderness, compassion, and love, – the very opposite of those ascribed to Elijah (who can imagine Elisha as suggesting or favoring the policy of Jehu, except under the constraint of a controlling religious conviction?); (c) the strangely solemn circumstances of his appointment to office, and of his reception of Elijah’s legacy; (d) the opinion of Joash, when Elisha’s life is just

closing, a strong testimony in favor of its magnificent value, while the estimate of Hosea is to be treated as we treat the anachronistםc utterances of other prophets whose judgments concerning earlier events are determined by the sympathies and antipathies of a later age.

                With these points in mind, the question briefly stated is this: Was the religious crisis one of sufficient magnitude to justify the revolution? We do not wish, in any sense, to justify the intrigue and bloodshed connected with the revolution.

                6. It remains to present, in the form of propositions, the answers to the questions that have thus far been raised (cf. pp. xxxviii ff. and xliv f.), all of which pei tain to the significance of the revolution in connection with the progress of Israel’s religion.

(1) The contest, initiated by Elijah and completed by Jehu under Elisha’s direction, was one for which the higher prophetism of the period (860 to 800 B.C.) was responsible. It signified for pre-prophetism a great victory, and lifted it higher than it had before reached.

(2) The contest was a struggle, not so much with the old Canaanitish Baalism, which had largely disappeared, but with Phoenician Baalism, a new form of syncretism which, in view of all the circumstances, involved far greater danger to the interests of the Yahweh-religion (v.s.).*

(3) The point at issue was nothing more nor less than that of Yahweh’s existence; it was not simply that of giving him a lower place, but rather of his complete rejection; † for if Baalism had conquered, Yahwism would sooner or later have disappeared, just as Baalism disappeared after the victory of Yahwism.

(4) The conception of Yahweh which the prophets represent is higher than that of the past. For them he is, to be sure, a national God, but he sustains relations also to other nations, and exercises over them a large controlling influence. This is moving in the direction of an international God, although it has not reached that point.

(5) The religion for which they contend is something other than a cult such as had existed in the past, but with its corruption eliminated. It may be elected or rejected. It is one which makes ethical demands. Its ideal life for men is that of sympathy and love.

(6) The distinction is now for the first time drawn (though very vaguely) between the spiritual and the worldly, in other words between a true spiritual religion and nature-worship.

                The content of these propositions prepares the way for an examination of other pre-prophetic influences which antedated the work of Anios and Hosea; but before it receives a final formulation it requires a consideration of the other influences.

                § 5. THE PRE-PROPHETIC SOCIETIES.

                Jehu etism d for : had

                1. The pre-prophetic societies constitute a phase in the development of pre-prophetism which bears closely on later prophecy. Omitting many points which do not stand in close relationship with the later development, the following may be regarded as the essential

features for our immediate purpose, viz. (1) the numbers of the nebhi’im, including the closely related sects of the Nazirites and Rechabites ; (2) the general purpose, character, and

habits of these associations; and (3) the question of their origin, their external and internal relations, and their place in history and prophecy.*

                2. That these societies represented a large movement (whether patriotic, or religious, or both) is clear from the great numbers of nebhi’im referred to (viz. the one hundred hidden by Obadiah, 1 K. 183; the four hundred in conference with Ahab, i K. 22® ; the fifty or more residing at Jericho, 2 K. 27.16), as well as the citation of some by name,f among whom we must select Micaiah ben Imlah for special mention, since a true estimate will place him side by side with Elijah and Elisha, and, in some respects, above both. These numbers signify not only deep interest in Yahweh-worship, but also an intense excitement because this worship was in danger from the Baalism of Tyre.

                The failure of EP, which describes the public activity of the nebhi’im, to make any definite reference to the societies (but cf. 2 K. 91= EP, and 1 K. 2035, probably late), as well as the silence of Eb concerning any public activity on their part, is not to be interpreted either as destroying the value of the representations made in each (for the narratives need not be taken as mutually exclusive ), nor as giving special weight to the opinion that the life of the societies was exclusively retired and devoted to worship and meditation, or, on the other hand, that it was largely public. As a matter of fact, it was both, the two narratives presenting different phases of the life of the nebhi’im.

                From the lack of any mention of the societies between the days of Samuel and those of Elijah and Elisha, a period of more than one hundred and fifty years, we may not assume that with the passing of the Philistine struggle they had died out and were later revived by Elijah. Against this may be urged, not only the numbers just mentioned, but also the standing which they had in Ahab’s time as an order that must be consulted (1 K. 226 f.).

This silence may be accidental, or it may be due to the fragmentary and incomplete character of the narratives as they have come down. So few are the names of preכxilic writing prophets preserved in the historical narratives (Isaiah alone, and in Je. 26186, Micah) * that, but for the preservation of their utterances, one might deny their very existence.

                In addition to the many nebhi’im, named and unnamed, and the societies which are so marked a feature of the times, cognizance must be taken of two sects, perhaps orders, viz. the Nazirites and Rechabites, the members of which, while not reckoned as nebhi’im, share to some extent their ideas and their work as servants of Yahweh.

                The Nazirites (pp. 56 f.), rarely mentioned, were individuals especially consecrated to Yahweh, the consecration taking the form of a vow or dedi. cation in which some restriction was assumed (e.g. in the case of Samson, his unshorn hair, the possession of which secured to him Yahweh’s spirit; note also the obligation placed upon his mother, during pregnancy, in reference to wine and unclean food). We are not here interested in the later codification (Nu. 62-8. 13. 21), but two things seem very suggestive : (a) the fact that Samson’s Nazirate involved exhibitions of great strength against Israel’s enemies, and was, in fact, a vow of abstinence solely for warlike purposes. t Was this perhaps the motive that led also to the organization of the bands of nebhiim (v.i.)? (6) The reference of Amos (211 f.) to Nazirites, in parallelism with prophets, who had been caused to drink wine, a sin as great as that which was committed in forbidding the prophets to prophesy. From this we must infer that the prohibition of wine (which was regarded by all nomadic tribes as a luxury belonging to agricultural life, and was, like sensuality, a part of the routine of Baal-worship $), as well as that of cutting the hair was, at one time or another, the restriction assumed in the consecration; but further, that this service was one which, like the prophetic service, received Yahweh’s approbation and was worthy of being cited along with it. Whether, now, this abstinence represented merely a service in war, uninterrupted by periods in which one yields himself to pleasure, that is, an absolutely unbroken service, || or rather (as with the Rechabites, v.i.) a sworn protest against Baalism (wine being a special product of Baal’s land), the general meaning is the same ; for in both cases the purpose is protest, that is, consecration to war.

Another society or sect which seems to have been prominent in these times was that of the Rechabites, who appear and disappear in Israelitish history almost mysteriously. Assuming * that the Jehonadab whom Jehu took up into his chariot and thus joined with himself in his bloody work for Yahweh (2 K. 1015f.) was the Jonadab cited in Jeremiah, chap. 35, as the ancestor of the Rechabites, who prohibited to his descendants the drinking of wine, we may make three assertions : (a) in Elisha’s times a sect or family or perhaps order existed, pledged not to drink wine (the symbol of a corrupted civilization), not to engage in agriculture or in the building of homes (that is, pledged to the primitive nomadic life); (6) this pledge was made in the service of Yahweh (cf. the names of those whom Jeremiah brought into a chamber of the temple, all of which end with Yah, and also Jeremiah’s closing words, viz. that for Yahweh’s service there shall always be sons of Jonadab); (c) the life of this society was a protest against luxury, intemperance, and idolatry, and against the Canaanitish civilization of the times; and was a reaction toward the primitive simplicity of Israel. We may leave unsettled the question whether this order was founded on the model of the Kenites + (cf. i Ch. 255, Ju. 116, 1 S. 156), or was really a family descended from them. “They represented in either case a type of anchorםtism” (Kautzsch) which was closely related in form, and especially in spirit, to that of the nebhi’im and the Nazirites, the three together constituting a comparatively new and extraordinary propaganda for the old-fashioned idea of Yahweh as the god of the desert, and of storm and battle, an idea which carried with it simplicity both of life and of cult.

                3. A few points relating to the general character and the habits of these prophetic associations deserve consideration.

                (1) While in Samuel’s time these societies were bands of men. roving from place to place (probably in order to draw others into their association by the contagion of their enthusiasm), in Elisha’s time, they had adopted, more or less fully, a settled mode of life, their residences being at great sanctuaries like Gilgal (2 K. 438), Bethel (2 K. 29), or at political centres like Samaria, bands of fifty or more living together (2 K. 2?), and sometimes at a common table (2 K. 438), while some among them were married (2 K. 42).

                (2) Samuel, although a prominent adviser, was probably never really a head (notwithstanding 1 S. 1929), and surely never lived with them (1 S. 1918), unless Naioth means “dwellings”;* while it was a common custom for them to sit before (2 K.4%, cf. 61) Elisha, as disciples before a master.

                (3) These associations have been improperly termed “schools” | since the members are already engaged in public work, and some of them are married, while no phrase occurs which would justify the use of the word. Moreover, the idiom of the title, sons of the nebhi’im, together with Semitic usage, requires the conception of guilds or corporations. Nevertheless,  we are warranted in supposing that instruction was imparted (cf. 2 K. 438 64); and probably the prophetic technique and nomenclature which Amos found in existence had its origin among them. I

                (4) The members of the association did not prophesy as individuals, but jointly in a body, and in their processions (1 S. 10″) they were, in fact, conducting a kind of public worship at the various high places or sanctuaries (cf. Is. 3029).

                (5) The ecstasy (1 S. 1918-24) was the physical and psychological condition & in which they performed their service, “the hand of Yahweh” (1 K. 1844 2 K. 315) being upon them; and this “holy frenzy,” which was frequently induced by music (cf. especially the case of Elisha), passed, according to E (Nu. 1117. 25 f.), in part, from Moses to the seventy elders, and lifted them into the condition of ecstasy. Still further, it may be inferred from i K. 2041 that the nebhi’im bore a peculiar mark, which distinguished their service.

                (6) In Samuel’s time this uprising had its occasion in the Philistine crisis, when Israel’s existence was threatened, and the result was “a national religious enthusiasm,” which again came forward, perhaps more strongly, in the crisis of the Tyrian Baalism in the times of Elijah and Elisha. These national disasters are the expression of Yahweh’s anger; hence the reaction in the form of patriotic spirit, in other words, the spirit of battle.

                (7) That Saul is thought to be insane, Elisha’s messenger “mad” (2 K. 91); that the word 947, to prophesy, means literally to drop (sc. foam), i.e. to foam at the mouth; and that the insane were looked upon in all Semitic antiquity with respect and awe as being controlled by demons (cf., 6.g., David at the court of Achish, I S. 212 f), — all point to the presence of a large element of superstition upon the subject of prophecy, and also show its emotional and ecstatic character. With these facts before us, we may conclude in general that the spirit of these associations, while intense and upon the whole correct, was nevertheless as narrow as it was intense, as crude as it was correct; and that it partook largely of the spirit of the four hundred and fifty Baal-prophets, an association of very similar nature (v.1.).

                4. The questions of their origin, their external and internal relations, are of great interest. (1) Concerning the origin we actually know little, but certain points may be grouped for consideration: The character of ancient Semitic life (v. e.g. WRS. Sem.; We. SV. III.; Barton, Sketch of Semitic Origins; Lagrange, ֹtudes sur les religions sיmitiques), especially as seen in its purest form in Arabia,* was but slightly changed in these early days of Israel; and Palestine, like Arabia, with its desert life, its compulsory fasts “ in which the soul easily detaches itself and hunger lends the mind a curious passion, mixed of resignation and hot anger” [GAS. HG. 29; cf. Schultz, Theol. I. 102 ff.]), its habit of continuous war, its uniformity of religious life (growing out of the exclusive attention to a tribal god), was well fitted to produce and develop fanaticism, as is shown by every century of past history, and by the presence to-day in the Mohammedan world of the dancing and howling dervishes, who, by a peculiar life and in strange ecstatic cries, seek to secure and to express their religious exaltation. Amid such surroundings the religious feeling, if at all awakened, becomes intense, and tends to an “entire self-surrender,” which finds concrete expression in a frenzied state, that sometimes involves self-mutilation, human sacrifice, and the tribute of maidens (Schultz, Theol. I. 104).

                (2) The presence of Baal-prophets among the Tyrians, together with the facts that most of the growth Israel’s ritual (and especially that of mantic and sorcery) came from the Canaanites, and that the idea of prophets or nebhi’im first appeared at this time, leads us to suppose that the pre-prophetic societies also were originally Canaanitish.* The occurrence of the word nabhi’ in Phoenician, as well as in the Assyrian Nebo (= Hermes), points in the same direction. The Israelites, observing the prophesying (that is, the transport and frenzy) of the Canaanitish worshippers, adopted it, as they adopted many other rites (cf. the view that Yahweh himself was a Canaanitish god adopted by Israel ; so Land, Th T. II. 160 ff.; Wkl. Babel-Bibel und BibelBabel; but v. Kue. Rel. I. 398 ff.; Kצ. Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift, XIII. 828– 883). This, of course, implies merely that the external form, as in the case of circumcision, was taken by the Israelites, for within a short time it was spirit. ualized. The connection of all this with the spirit of war developed by the Philistine oppression has already been noted. Cf. 1 S. 105, in which Saul is represented as entering into the state of frenzy at the very place in which the garrison (so AV., RV.), or pillar (so G, Thenius, Dr., Kit.; K. DB. V. 653), or administration (so H. P. Smith, BDB.) of the Philistines was placed.

                (3) While in the earliest times, priest, seer, and nabhi’ were one, they now begin to differentiate. But, until later, the relation of priest and prophet was very close, as, in these early days, was that of priest and seer (cf. Samuel, and the Arabic kגhin, denoting seer, or soothsayer, probably, in early times, one in charge of a shrine). In later days, when there seems to have been antagonism between priest and prophet, this difference existed, not so much between the two orders, as between the priestly order and individual prophets who had risen above their fellows, and represented the prophetic order in general as being on the same low level with the priests (cf. WRS. Proph. 85, 105 ff.). In Isaiah’s time a priest (82) was selected to witness concerning a prophecy, while Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets of later times were themselves priests. It is probable, therefore, that in the early times the nebhi’im were closely associated with the priests (McCurdy, HPM. § 488, note), as was true of the priests and prophets of Baal, and in Judah ; cf. Je. 201. 2 with 2926 Lam. 22) (v.i.). The bearing of this upon the attitude of Amos and Hosea is significant ; cf. Am. 710-17 Ho. 44-9 51 69.

                (4) The unity, or joint action, of the nebhi’im has been mentioned (v.s.). This was an essential element in their strength. Elijah and especially Elisha seem to have worked harmoniously with the various societies, although they stood far above them. In Elisha’s own days, however, there lived a man who stood above and against his fellow-nebhi’im, and to whom the word prophet in its later and higher usage might well be given. This was Micaiah ben Imlah, whose story is told in 1 K. 228 ff. (EP). The essential point for us in this story is neither (a) the large number of prophets living at the time,* nor (6) the fact that the word of Yahweh is called for through the body of prophets as if it were a matter of regular routine; nor (c) the fact that their advice is asked in reference to a matter of war, and that they return a unanimous.   These things are interesting, but they do not constitute the essential element, which is (d) that Micaiah (who not infrequently prophesied in opposition to the king’s wishes, and was for that reason obnoxious to him), when sent for, delivers a message which is remarkable in the history of preprophetism. The position taken by Micaiah in opposition to the others deserves notice, since he is the first to break the unity which had thus far existed, ” a cleavage in the ranks of the prophetic body, which runs through the whole subsequent history of the movement” (Skinner, in loc.). The significance of this cleavage is enhanced by certain features in the narrative, viz. the attitude of the king (already mentioned) (v.8); the earnest effort made by the messenger to bring Micaiah into harmony with those who have already spoken (v.13); the symbolical action of Zedekiah to corroborate and support the prediction of the four hundred (v.11); the statement of Micaiah that he will speak what Yahweh has sent to him (v.14); and his first utterance, which, after all, is identical with that already given, and promises success (v.15). This was probably a piece of irony, and was so recognized by Ahab. When adjured to speak the whole truth, and with the background thus indicated, he

announces two visions, the first, a prediction of Ahab’s death, and without special interest; the second, a vision in which (a) he distinguishes between Yahweh on the one hand, and on the other a spirit, evidently recognized as a superhuman power, which produces the prophetic ecstasy; (B) he clearly recognizes the independence of this agent, but this spirit, we are told, becomes a lying spirit in the mouths of the nebhi’im, and thus deceives them; () he thus makes two strange reprיsentations, viz, that he, Micaiah, rather than the spirit, knows the will of Yahweh; and further, that the falsehood which the four hundred have just spoken is to be charged, not “to the imperfection of its human medium,” but to the superhuman agent acting with Yahweh’s approval (K. DB. V. 656; Che. EB. 3859). In all this, however, it is to be understood that (8) he takes a position far above the ordinary nebhi’im, that knowledge comes to him which they do not share; in other words, that there are grades, or ranks, in the order, some higher and others lower. These “lower” or “false” prophets are thus pointed out even at this early time, although they are still understood to be made use of by Yahweh (Volz, EB. 3874 f.). They have been called “ prophets of a narrow range of vision” (Volz), “the belated representatives of an earlier stage of

prophetic development,” who “had closed their minds against the deepening of the idea of God to an unconditionally ethical conception, and were thus no longer able to penetrate into the depths of his counsel ” (Bu. Rel. 131). We are immediately concerned with the bearing of this on the actual condition of the nebhi’im in the days of Elisha, and on Elisha himself (for if he occupies a high place, one, for example, side by side with Micaiah, how can he, nevertheless, work harmoniously with the rest ?), and on the nebhi’im of Amos’s day. It is not quite fair to say that “under the protection of Jehu’s dynasty prophecy so-called sank to depths of hypocrisy and formalism” (WRS.). A better statement would be that at this time pre-prophetism continued to occupy the low place which it had always occupied, save when some great personality like Elijah, or Elisha, or Micaiah was raised up; or, better still, let us distinguish between prophecy, for which these great souls stood, and manticism (i.e. the nebhi’ismus), which is all that the others yet knew or cared for (Davidson, 0. T. Proph. 111 ff.; Kue. Rel. I. 196–7). Amos plainly shows his estimate of this crowd of nebhi’im, when he maintains very forcibly that he is not one of them, and his words perhaps imply that it is no great honor to be regarded as cne of their number (but v.i.).

                5. It remains only to note the stages of this development and to indicate its place in the history of the pre-Amos time. Starting on the Israelitish side with seers (who are closely akin to priests), and on the Canaanitish side with nebhi’im (or dervishes), we see the two classes gradually growing together. From among them, or in close association with them, there arise from time to time certain great characters who share their peculiarities and adopt their methods, but at the same time reach far above them in their knowledge of the divine will. These men, not yet prophets in the technical sense, are the forerunners of the prophets, the connecting link between the old and the new, which begins with the writing prophets. This is their place in the development. What did these societies of nebhi’im do for the people among whom they lived? What influence did they exercise upon them?

                It is certainly unjust to characterize them as “hotbeds of sedition” and to limit their activity almost entirely to the sphere of politics (HPS. O. T. Hist. 193), or to consider them “a species of begging friars,” with but little influence among the people (Co. Proph. 13). It is with a truer appreciation of their services that Cheyne (EB. 3857 f.) declares them to have been “a recognized sacred element in society, the tendency of which was to bind classes together by a regard for the highest moral and religious traditions.” Compare also the view of Kittel (Hist. II, 266), that their chief interest was the “fostering of religious thought,” and that, as compared with the priests, they were “the soul, the latter the hand and arm, of religion”; the opinion of Marti (Rel. 81 f.), that in times of peace they had little influence, but in national crises were invaluable in kindling a spirit of patriotism and devotion to Yahweh; the estimate of Wellhausen (Prol. 461; similarly, WRS. Proph. 85 ff.), that they were not of “first-rate importance,” historical influence having been exercised only by exceptional individuals among them, who rose above their level and sometimes opposed them, though always using them as a base of operations.

They constituted one of Israel’s greatest institutions, which, like many others, came by adoption from the outside. But in its coming it was purified and spiritualized, and itself gave rise directly to an influence perhaps the most distinctive and the most elevating ever exerted on Israelitish life and thought.

                $ 6. THE OLDER AND YOUNGER DECALOGUES. Two important documents known as decalogues were formulated, and probably promulgated, in the pre-prophetic period. These decalogues now form a part of the Judaean and Ephraimitic narratives, and might be considered in connection with those documents ; but they were originally independent of them, and their especial importance warrants a separate treatment. It is essential to ask : What was their origin? What was their message to the times in which they were published? What prophetic element do they contain? What is their relation to prophecy in general? We may not suppose that these, with the Book of the Covenant ($ 7), are the only laws of this early period that have been handed down; others are probably to be found in Deuteronomy and in the Holiness Code ; but these will be sufficient for the purpose we have in mind.

                1. The older decalogue,* found in Ex. 3412-26, consists, as reconstructed, of ten regulations. These deal with the worship of other gods, the making of molten images, the observance of three feasts and the sabbath, the offering of firstlings and first-fruits, and the avoidance of certain rites commonly practised in non-Israelitish religions.

                This code, as well as the chapter of which it is a part, belongs to the Judaean narrative, but fits in badly with what precedes and follows it. It would seem to follow logically J’s introduction to the Sinaitic Covenant (Ex. 1920-22. 25), for one would scarcely expect new legislation to be given after orders had been received (cf. Ex. 3234 331-3) to leave Horeb. In Ex. 3428 it is called the ten words, and so naturally constitutes J’s decalogue, corresponding to that of E in Ex. 20 and Dt. 5. (The discovery of this decalogue was made by Goethe in Zwei wichtige bisher unerצrterte Fragen, 1773 A.D.) While there may be some doubt whether this decalogue was a part of J from the beginning or found its present place in J at the hand of the editor who much later joined J and E, no one disputes its very primitive character, and, consequently, its early age. Arising in connection with some Judaean sanctuary (GFM. EB. 1446), it represents a ritual of worship which is not only of an early age, but also indicative of a national religion. The very fact that it is so strongly ritualistic shows the preprophetic age ; and this is further attested by the pains taken to forbid certain rites (e.g. seething of a kid in its mother’s milk) which were common in non-Israelitish religions. It is, as Moore (EB. 1446) says, the earliest attempt with which we are acquainted to embody in a series of brief injunctions, formulated as divine commands, the essential observances of the religion of Yahweh.” But, on the other hand, it had its origin after the conquest of Palestine, because the background is agricultural throughout.

                The message of the Judaean decalogue might thus be expressed : “Worship Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, without images (such as Northern Israel uses); let the worship be simple and in accord with the old usage; forbear to introduce the practices of your Canaanitish neighbors.”

                This message, notwithstanding its extremely ritualistic content, shows a perfect consistency with the pre-prophetic thought of 775-50 B.C.; for in three of the ten injunctions (viz. “Thou shalt worship no other gods,” “Thou shalt make thee no molten gods,” “Thou shalt not seethe a kid,” etc.) we have representations exactly in accord with the prevailing thought of the pre-prophetic reformers, while the other injunctions emphasize the simplicity of Yahweh’s requirements in contrast with the elaborate and sensuous ritual of Baalism.

                The earlier decalogue thus connects itself with the pre-prophetic movement as it has thus far found expression, and prepares the way for a higher expression later on. At the same time it was not instituted as a measure of reform, but rather as the codification of existing practice. The publication, however, was not simply for the sake of providing a law-book; it was rather an expression of the general prophetic (sometimes called historical) spirit illustrated by J (cf. Gray, EB. 2732).

                2. The younger decalogue, found in two forms, viz., Ex. 20 (E) and Dt. 5 (D), presents a much larger field for conjecture and consideration.* This code consisted originally of ten injunctions, positive and negative, covering the relation of man to God and to his fellow-men.

                In Ex. 1934. 9-19 we find, in a passage ascribed to E, the preparations leading up to the giving of the laws, and in 243-8 occurs the ratification of the same. The intervening chapters contain two important pieces of legislation, the decalogue (chap. 20) and the Book of the Covenant (chaps. 21-23).* In spite of the appropriateness of the present order (i.e. a body of general and fundamental principles, followed by a series of detailed laws dealing with the life of Israel in all its aspects), we are compelled to believe that the two codes have no direct relationship to each other, because (1) no such relationship is recognized in the historical part of the material ; (2) chap. 2018–26 contains no reference to CC; (3) chap. 24 shows no evidence for connecting the two ; (4) chaps. 32–34 make no mention of CC; (5) Dt., while it adopts the decalogue as the basis of its code, shows no acquaintance with any other law given at Horeb; (6) Jos. 24 makes no reference to any other law. In view of these facts, it may be concluded that E’s original Horeb legislation was not CC, but the (later) decalogue.

                But we are confronted with two or three important questions : (1) Is there other E material which could possibly have been connected with the Horeb legislation? (2) Is the decalogue in its present form (either Ex. 20 or Dt. 5) the original? (3) How?

                That this decalogue was not an original constituent of the E narrative is held by Sta., Co., Carpenter and Battersby, who assign it to a Judaean recension of E; by Stהrk (Deuteronomium), who finds the original decalogue of E scattered through the Book of the Covenant; by Kue., We. (SV. I. 68), Meissner (Der Dekalog). Bהntsch, Sm. (Rel.2 273), Marti (Rel. 174), Addis (EB. 1050), and Matthes (ZAW. XXIV. 17-41), who assign it to the seventh century. Holzinger (Exod., in loc.) places it in the latter half of the eighth century.

                (1) It is probably true * that there was an earlier legislation (E”) of which only fragments now exist, viz. the account of the tent of meeting (337-11), with, perhaps, an account of the construction of the tent (for which P’s elaborate description was substituted), and of the ark for which the tent was made, together with the ritual found in 2024-26. It will be noted that this earlier legislation of E, according to this hypothesis, was supplanted, partly by P’s material concerning the ark and the tent, partly by the decalogue (and the story of the golden calf, Ex. 32, which may be called E2), leaving certain fragments only (v.s.).

                (2) The present form of the decalogue gives evidence of considerable expansion from the original ten words, e.g. the very striking differences in the two versions as given in Ex. and Dt., the great difference in the length of the injunctions, and the internal character of the material itself. The original ten words, stripped of all these later additions, were probably as follows:

islation,

3). In eral and rith the o codes nship is ains no e two;

  1. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.

 2. Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image.

 3. Thou shalt not utter the name of thy God for an evil purpose.

 4. Remember the sabbath day to sanctify it.

 5. Honor thy father and thy mother.

 6. Thou shalt do no murder.

 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 8. Thou shalt not steal.

 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.

                (3) How early, then, is the younger decalogue ? (a) It cannot † come from the times of Moses, for tradition regards Ex. 34 as “the ten words “; it is known to CC; it is in a measure inconsistent with the ritualistic religion of the pre-prophetic time. (6) Is it then as late as the days of Manasseh (cf. Mi. 66-8), † and if so, is it the product of the ripest prophetic thought? The answer turns upon the fulness of interpretation given to the several commandments, the turning-point in the whole matter being the specific prohibition of the use of images in the second commandment, and the alleged highly developed ethical system underlying the whole. The former, it is claimed, cannot be earlier than the eighth century, for until this time there seems to have been no knowledge of such a prohibition. The latter must, it is thought, represent the result of the prophetic teaching at least down to and including Isaiah. The question, therefore, of the prophetic character of the decalogue and of its relation to prophecy depends wholly on the date, and this on the degree of ethical development which it is found to contain.

                (c) We may not accept Eerdmans’s suggestion (Th7. XXXVII. 18 ff., made with a view to placing the original as early as Moses) that some other commandment originally stood in the place of what is now the second (the present second belonging to the seventh century), or that in the original form there were seven instead of ten; but the principle underlying this suggestion, which has been accepted by Kautzsch (DB. V. 633″), is sound and is to be allowed a controlling place in our decision; viz. that the commands and prohibitions of the decalogue “ have not an absolute, but a relative scope” (K.). This means that the ethical conceptions which are connected with the decalogue in our modern times have been read into it, and were not originally so understood. The earlier thought was one not of morals but of rights. Eerdmans goes still further and limits the application of the commandments, e.g. the killing to one’s countrymen, and the coveting to the appropriation of property that was ownerless. Nor is Wildeboer’s criticism (Th St., 1903, 109– 118) of this valid when he says that thus the deeper moral sense of the decalogue is degraded.

                (d) Concerning the second commandment in particular, it may be said in passing : Its close association with the chapter on the Northern calves (Ex. 32) has some significance. The fact that the central sanctuary in the times of Eli, David, and Solomon seems to have had no image indicates the presence of a strong sentiment opposed to image-worship, if not an actual prohibition. The non-observance of such a prohibition in Northern Israel is no evidence of the non-existence of the law. Account must also be taken of the sentiment in the South (as represented by Isaiah in his early ministry), which must have existed some time before Isaiah. The presence of a similar law in the older decalogue of J supports the early origin of the prohibition.

Upon the whole we shall be justified in assigning the formulation of the younger decalogue in its original form, even with the second commandment, to a period not much later than 750 B.C., the arguments for a still later date * not being convincing.f

                The message of this younger decalogue to its times was threefold: (1) Acknowledge (cf. in the older, worship) no other god, and follow not other religions in making images, or in using the divine name for purposes of sorcery; but observe the sabbath (as representing Yahweh’s ordinances), and pay respect to Yahweh’s representatives. These are Yahweh’s rights ; do not do violence to them. (2) Do not do violence to the rights of your neighbor, as they relate to his person, his wife, his property, or his reputation. Still further, (3) do not even think of doing violence to any of your neighbor’s rights.

                The younger decalogue thus harmonizes completely with the growth of the prophetic thought as thus far ( 760 B.C.) developed. With the higher conception of God (v.i.) a more rigid adherence to him is demanded, and a more concrete separation from the ritual customs which had been in vogue.

                Still further, sorcery must be banished. While as a corollary it follows that the institutions of Yahweh in their simplicity must be observed; and respect will be shown Yahweh by honoring those who, in his place, have power of life and death.* The prophetic element, in the first table, is clearly seen in the first, second, and third commandments ; but did the prophets really advocate the observance of institutions? Yes; for (1) they could not do away with all institutions, and in the very act of rooting out the Baal ritual, they must fall back on something, and besides (2) their connection with ritual is seen in J’s including the earlier decalogue, in E’s including another decalogue, in D’s including an enlarged code of ritual. As to the fifth commandment, while we are unable to distinguish the extent to which the spirit of ancestor-worship still influences opinion, it can hardly be supposed that all trace of it has yet disappeared.

                The original obligation in the fourth commandment was not that which P or D later inserted) to treat the Sabbath as Yahweh’s property, and therefore not put it to the profane uses which had formerly been customary in connection with the heathen cult † (cf. Am. 85 Ho. 211).

(* † The need of such a law and the prophetic character of it at once become apparent, if the supposition be correct that the sabbath was taken over’ from the Canaanites, who had themselves gotten it from Babylonia (so Reu. Gesch.d. Alt. Test. $71, Anm.; Sm. Rel.2 160; Now. Arch. I. 144; Benz. Arch, 202, 465; Holzinger, Exodus, 73). The task of prophecy was to purify it from its Canaanitish associa *)

                In the commandments of the second table the case is even clearer. With the examples of David and Solomon and Ahab, in connection with whom the prophets have actually said the same things that are found in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments, it is easy to see that a prophetic redaction after Elijah must contain just these points (v.s. as to meaning of each). The important step forward which the tenth commandment contains, viz. not to think of violating one’s neighbor’s rights, is noticeable, but, after all, in harmony with the active intellectual effort of the times which produced the philosophical work of J and E (v.1.).

                (6) With this understanding of the message, and of the prophetic element in it, we can discover its close connection with the pre-prophetic movement. Its formulation can be ascribed to the intense religious feeling which is just beginning to recognize the rights of Yahweh and of men; it is in a sense the product of prophetic thought, but, more strictly, that of pre-prophetic thought.

                § 7. THE BỌOK OF THE COVENANT.

                The Book of the Covenant (=CC), to which reference has already been made, was promulgated, substantially in its present form, with prophetic sanction, as early as 800 B.C., or half a century before Amos and Hosea. We may ask, as before, as to its origin and marks of date, its message, the prophetic element in the message, and its relation to the pre-prophetic movement.

                This book (Ex. 21-23) contains two kinds of material. The first part (212-221) is a series of “hypothetical instructions, based presumably on precedent” (Gray, EB. 2734); in a single word, judgments (cf. Ex. 211, 24*, Nu. 3524), or judicial decisions ; regulations, seemingly intended for the use of judges, and dealing with questions of civil and criminal law.* The second part (2218–2319) is a series (with some interruptions, e.g. 2222-27 234 f. 98. 13. 156. 17. 199) of precepts relating to life and worship,* evidently other than legal in character; regulations of a moral and religious character, having especially to do with the deity and worship.

                (* The following subjects are treated in this portion : (I) Regulations regarding slaves, 212-11; (2) personal injuries, 2112-27; (3) injuries and damages in connection with cattle, 2128–36 ; (4) theft, 221-4; (5) damages to crops, 225-6; (6) breaches of trust, 227-15; (7) seduction, 2216 f. *)

                2. An examination of the material scon discloses that (a) the original form of this material has suffered both in the way of mutilation and in actual loss, 1 for all of which full allowance must be made; while (6) a considerable amount of new material, joined with the original text, must be set aside (v.s.) if we are to reconstruct the original document or documents; still further, (c) the laws on ritual (2314-19) are practically identical, even verbally, with 3418-26 (the earlier decalogue), and belonged originally in chap. 34, whence they have been transferred by an editor; § (d) the second part (2218–2319) is more diverse in character than the first, and is itself plainly a compilation of different elements, || some of which betoken a Deuteronomic origin; (c) the narrative (2320-33), which in its present form is late, contains old material that originally stood in close connection with CC, viz. vs.21-22. 25. 26, and especially vs.28-31; 1 (1) the regulations in 2023-26 have no connection with the preceding decalogue (vs.1-17), and should be taken ** with the “words” (cf. 2228-31).

                (* The chief subjects of this portion are: (1) three precepts on sorcery, bestiality, and worship of foreign gods, 2218-20; (2) humanitarian laws, 2221; (3) reverence and offerings, 2228-31; (4) testimony, 231-3; (5) impartial administration of justice, 236-9; (6) Sabbath and sabbatical year, 2310-13; (7) feasts and offerings, 2314-19. . *)

3. CC, with such modifications as are involved in the preceding (cf. 2), now suggests two series of questions : (1) Did the author of the judgments also collect the precepts? or is CC, as we have it, a growth? Various schemes of reconstruction have been proposed,ft of which G. F. Moore’s is,

                # Sta. (GVI. I. 636) recognizes two divisions, viz. “words ” and “judgments,” questions whether they originally had any connection with each other, and suggests that the words originally all stood together under their own superscription; and that when the latter was dropped the present confusion arose. Rothstein (Bundesbuch, 1888) regards CC as an expansion of the decalogue and attempts by a series of violent transpositions, resulting in  worse confusion than that which now exists, to rearrange its contents in an order corresponding to that of the subject matter in the decalogue. Stהrk (Deuteronomium, 1894, 32 ff.) finds three strata of laws: (1) six laws, somewhat later than the J decalogue, viz. 2112. 15–19; (2) the “judgments” of

perhaps, the simplest, viz. there existed originally (a) a book of judgments; to this was added (6) the “main stock” of 2218–2313, i.e. the Horeb legislation of E; then (c) the ritual 2314-19 (taken from J, 3424 ff.) was attached, probably by the editor who (d) wrote the closing story (2320-33). In this case the substance of CC is as early as E (v.s.).

                (2) Some suppose that CC formed a part of the original E; * in this case CC would be: (a) the law given at Horeb as the basis of the Sinaitic Covenant (but we have both what may fairly be regarded as the original basis (El), as well as the decalogue substituted (v.s.) for the original); or (6) a continuation of the decalogue (Ex. 201-17) and so a part of the Sinaitic Covenant (v.s.); or (c) the document which led up to the renewal of the covenant and so was connected with Moses’ parting words in the plains of Moabt; or (d) the “statute and ordinance” of Jos. 2425-27, thus representing the law given as the basis of the covenant made at that time, whence it was removed by RD to its present position. I But no one of these suggestions is free from difficulties, although the consideration in favor of the proposition is important, viz. the general similarity of CC to E.

                It seems upon the whole easier to believe that CC was a separate book from E, $ inserted in E by the editor who was himself the compiler of CC. 212-2216, from a later date than the preceding; and    (3) a group of ethical and religious laws, a sort of programme of the prophetic activity, viz. 2024 ff. 2217. 20. 24 f. 27 f. 231-3. 6f. 10-12. 14. Bertheau (Sieben Gruppen Mosaischer Gesetze, 1840) first arranged CC in decades, viz. (1) 203–17; (2) 212-11, (3) 2112-27, (4) 2128_2216, (5) 2217-30, (6) 231-8, (7) 2314-19; this involved the treatment of 2022-26 as four introductory commands, 239–13 as an interpolation, and 2326–33 as a closing decalogue of promises. Briggs (Hex. 211-232) includes in the original CC only four pentades and one decalogue of “words,” viz. 2023-26 2227-29 231-3 236-9 2310–19. This was enlarged by the addition of two pentades, three decalogues, and a triplet of “judgments,” viz. 212-11 2118-25 2126-36 2137–223 224 f. 226-16. The remaining laws are later insertions showing traces of Deuteronomic redaction. Paton (JBL. XII. 79-93), by supposing Ex. 34 to contain another recension of CC, from which he supplements defective decalogues in CC, by considering 2122-25 221 f. 11 234 f. 9. 13. 14. 15c as later additions, and by restoring two pentades from Dt. 22, obtains an original CC consisting of ten decalogues, each being symmetrically divided into two pentades.

The material in this case may have had its origin as follows (v.s.)*: (a) Ex. 2314 ff. = = 34 (I); (6) the judgments may have been a part of E standing after chap. 18, which itself originally stood later in the narrative; (c) the precepts, now somewhat obscured in 2218 ff. 23, were probably that part of the Horeb legislation (El) for which the decalogue (v.s.) was substituted.

                It is to be observed that all of these various hypotheses agree in assigning to the substance of CC and in large measure to the form which we now have, an age contemporaneous with or preceding that of E (v.i.). CC embodies “the consuetudinary law of the early monarchy.” †

                4. The presence of CC in E (or JE) is due to a religious purpose on the part of the author or editor ; this purpose, however, partakes of the historical spirit rather than of the legal or reformatory spirit. In other words, no effort was being made, as later in the case of the Deuteronomic code or the Levitical code, to gain recognition from the people for a new legislation. This appears, not only from the small proportion of the whole of E which CC constitutes, but also from the fact that its laws are based on longestablished usage, or codify moral precepts which had already been taught; the presence of CC indicates also, from the point of view of E (or the editor), a complete harmony of thought between the content of CC and the material of E; the message of CC, therefore, becomes a part of the larger message of E, and receives interpretation from the latter.

                The regulations (“judgments” and “precepts “) are entirely consistent (1) in treating the deity as the direct and exclusive source of judgment and authority ; (2) in recognizing that a time has now come in the affairs of the nation when the rights of the community are to be considered, with a view to restricting the action of individuals in so far as they are injurious to the community (cf. the decalogue); (3) in continuing to accept certain principles which have long prevailed in Semitic life, e.g. (a) that of retaliation, which included the lex talionis, (6) that of blood revenge, and money compensation for injuries committed, there  being no punishment by way of degradation ; (4) in having as a basis on which everything rests the agricultural form of life.

                The regulations, as already indicated, (a) when studied from the point of view of worship, represent the customs of the past * in their cornparative purity and simplicity, but at the same time emphasize the restriction of such worship to Yahweh (monolatry); nothing new is here presented; (b) when considered from the point of view of ethics, emphasize two or three important points, viz. the setting apart of the sabbath as a day of rest, the giving to the poor of the produce of the land during one year in seven, the distinction between murder and manslaughter, the securing of justice to the foreigner, the restoration of ox or ass to one’s enemy, the urgency against oppression and maladministration of office.

                In general, then, the message was one of an elevating character in its moral attitude, advocating, as it does, absolute “rectitude and impartiality” in methods of administration; mildness, protection and relief from severe life for the poor, the foreigner, and the slave; a generous attitude even toward one’s enemy (2346).

                5. The prophetic element is manifest; so manifest, indeed, that many have regarded CC as the result of the later prophetic work. It is more correct, however, after making proper allowances for the Deuteronomic additions, to regard this as the expression of that religious and ethical development which had its source and strength in the movement of the times of Elijah and Elisha, and of J and E, and, therefore, as preparatory to the period of prophecy beginning with Amos and Hosea. $ This view is to be accepted because of (1) the marked

linguistic and phraseological affinity of CC to E; (2) the large proportion of the code given to the treatment of secular matters (cf. the similar nature of the Code of Hammurabi), a sign of a comparatively early date; * (3) the primitive character of many of the regulations and ideas, e.g. “the conception of God as the immediate source of judgment ” (Driver); the principle of retaliation and the law of blood revenge, ideas still dominant among the Bedouin; the more primitive tone of 22% as compared with 340; and the conception of woman which appears in the provision for the estimate of a daughter’s dishonor, as so much damage to property, to be made good in cash (cf. the higher ideal of Hosea).

                $ 8. THE JUDAEAN NARRATIVE (J).

                This narrative of world- and nation-history had its origin within the century 850–750 B.C., and, with the closely related Ephraimitic narrative, is at once an expression of the pre-prophetic thought and the basis for a still higher development of that thought. What may be gathered from this most wonderful narrative, throughout prophetic in its character, for a better understanding of the preAmos period ?

                1. Four propositions relating to the Hexateuch are now all but universally acknowledged and may be stated without discussion :

                (1) The Hexateuch is made up in general of three distinct elements, viz. the prophetic (JE), the prophetico-priestly, found mostly in Deuteronomy (D), and the priestly (P), these elements being joined together, first JE with D, and later JED with P. It is still a question whether the relationship of CC to the Code of Hammurabi is (a) one of direct dependence (as close, indeed, as the relation of the early stories in Genesis to the Babylonian legends), since, in a number of cases, the laws are practically identical (so Johnston, Johns Hopkins University Circular, June, 1903); or (2) one of racial affinity, i.e. of common tradition, without any direct influence, much less, borrowing (so Cook, D. H. Mller, Kohler); or, perhaps, (3) one of entire independence, with CC, however, greatly influenced by a Babylonian envi. ronment (so Johns, DB. V. 610 ff.). While the existence of such a code as that of Hammurabi, at the early date of 2250 B.C., strengthens the arguments for an early date of CC, it does not furnish any proof that CC could have existed in its present form earlier than the stage of civilization (viz. the agricultural) in which it is plainly imbedded.

                (2) The prophetic element, with which alone we are now concerned, is itself the result of a union of two distinct documents; and while these two documents may not be clearly distinguished from each other in certain phases, they nevertheless stand apart, in the greater portion of the material, to an extent which is no longer seriously questioned.*

                (3) J is a Judaean narrative, having its origin in the kingdom of Judah, while E (v.i.) arose in Northern Israel. The evidence of J’s Southern origin is not so clear as is that of E’s Northern origin, but with the practical certainty of the latter, the probability of the former follows. This, moreover, is strengthened when we observe (a) the prominence attached to certain distinctively Southern sanctuaries in the patriarchal narratives; (b) the conspicuous place assigned to Judah among Jacob’s sons (Gn. 372 438 4426. 18 49′), cf. the corresponding place assigned to Reuben and Joseph in E, and the absence in J of any very sure allusion to Joshua; (c) the improbability that two such similar narratives as ) and E circulated side by side in the Northern kingdom, and (d) the presence in Gn. 38 of traditions concerning families of Judah, which would have little interest for a non-Judahite.t

                (4) J, although for the sake of convenience spoken of as a narrative, or indeed as a narrator, represents a school of writers covering a period of perhaps a century or more. It is necessary, therefore, in the use of J to distinguish with care the different strata. For practical purposes, however, we may speak of Jl as the original J, and of the material assigned to Jor J as additions.

                The time relations of Ji seem to be those of 850 to 750 B.C., or possibly a, little later. Only a few would assign a later date.* This unanimity of opinion rests upon (a) the fact that the prophetic character of J is less definite than that of Amos and Hosea, seeming, therefore, to belong to a more primitive stage in the development of the spirit of prophecy; (b) the probability that Am. Ho. 910 123 f. 12 f. are based upon the written narrative of J; (c) the literary style and the religious development found in Amos and his immediate successors imply the existence of religious writings with which they and their listeners were familiar ; (d) the fact that the narrative of J continues into the days of Joshua implies its post-Mosaic origin; (e) the national spirit everywhere characteristic of it did not exist until the age of the monarchy, when Israel for the first time realized its unity; (f) the probability that the same school of writers has contributed to the Books of Samuel and Kings; (8) the friendly attitude toward the Philistines appearing in the narratives concerning the dealings of Abraham and Isaac with them could not have arisen until a long time after the hostilities of the reign of David; (h) the reign of Solomon is evidently looked back upon as a sort of golden age (cf. Gn. 1518 and 1 K. 421; Gn. 925 and 1 K. 920); (i) such names as Zaphenath-paneah and Poti-phera are unknown in Egyptian writings until the post-Solomonic period; (1) Jos. 626 points back to the reign of Ahab; cf. I K. 1634,

                2. The scope of J includes the history of the world from the creation of Adam down to Abraham, the history of Israel’s patriarchal ancestors from the selection of Abraham down to the residence in Egypt, the history of the nation under the leadership of Moses and Joshua (?) down to the conquest of Canaan. It is altogether probable that the same school (v.s.) of writers continued the work down through the times of the monarchy, giving us the earlier portions of Samuel and Kings.†

                The general framework of the narrative from the story of Eden

with the union of J and E, e.g. Gn. 2215–18 Ex. 329–14; (5) Deuteronomic additions to the legislation of J, e.g. Ex. 1936-6  to the settlement in Canaan discloses a definite purpose in the  mind of the author of this literary creation.* The purpose is  twofold, relating on the one hand to the origin of Israel as a   nation and Israel’s relation to the neighboring nations, and, on the other, to the close connection of Yahweh with this origin and

 development. Nearly every story in the long series finds its true  interpretation from this point of view.f This is in perfect harmony with the national motive which underlies the work of Elijah,  Elisha, and other nebhi’im (S$ 3-5), with the higher place which  Israel is just at this period taking among the nations, and, likewise, with the new ideas of Yahweh which were appealing with such force to those who breathed the prophetic inspiration  (p. xlix). This religio-political motive includes also the desire to give expression to new and larger conceptions of God and man  and life (7.1.). This historical interest does not concern itself  with matters of an institutional character (this was P’s great responsibility). It is the heroes of ancient history and the scenes  of the olden times that the Judaean narrative delights in. For this reason practically no care is given to providing chronological  indications, and hardly more to the chronological arrangement of the material. I It is the spirit that controls throughout, nowhere  the letter. It is not difficult to connect this expression of a true religious spirit with the reformation in Judah, almost contemporaneous (six years later) with that of Elisha and Jehu in Israel,  which was, after all, only the conclusion of the former, resulting,  as it did, in the overthrow of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and

Jezebel.

                3. One of the principal problems of the Judaean narrative requires at least a passing glance, viz. that of the world-stories with which the narrative of J opens. § What was their origin? What was their place in the narrative as a whole? We cannot longer deny the close formal connection of these traditions with the similar traditions of other peoples. * Nor can we suppose that the various forms which these same stories take on among other nations are derived from an original Israelitish form. Israel received this material from the same sources as those from which other nations received their stories. It is a heritage common to many nations. At the same time it is quite certain that Israel came into peculiar relations with the older Babylonian tradition, not so much in a direct way through the earliest ancestor Abraham, as in a more indirect manner, viz. through the Canaanitish element, which itself contained much that was Babylonian. The transformation which these stories have undergone is strictly in accordance with the spirit of the narrative as a whole, and might well be taken to represent the whole, since it shows the prophetic motive, not only in general, but in detail, and illustrates practically every phase of that spirit. Moreover, these stories (found in Gn. 2-11) furnish not only the starting-point, but the basis, for the Judaean narrative, establishing at the very beginning the essential view-point of the narrative. This is seen especially (1) in the place assigned Yahweh in reference to the outside nations; (2) in the importance attached to the conception of sin, and likewise that of deliverance; (3) in the attitude shown toward the progress of civilization; (4) in the preparation already made for giving Israel her place among the nations; and (5) in the details of prophetic method and procedure.

                4. This prophetic factor appears in several of the most important characteristics of the narrative. § Only a few of these may be mentioned :

                (1) The purpose and spirit (v.i.) are distinctly prophetic, since the writer assumes to be acquainted with the plans of the deity, and in fact to speak for that deity under all circumstances; e.g. he declares the divine purpose in the creation of woman (Gn. 218-24); he assigns the cause and motive of Yahweh’s act in sending the Deluge (Gn. 61-1); he knows the exact effect of Noah’s sacrifice upon the divine mind (Gn. 82 f.); he sees the divine purpose in the confusion of tongues (Gn. 11°f) and in the selection of Abram (Gn. 121-3); he also describes the scene between Moses and Yahweh on the top of Pisgah (Dt. 342 d. 4).

                (2) The national element, so prophetic in its character, displays itself (a) in the great prominence given to stories in which the principal heroes are reputed national ancestors, such as those concerning Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, Moses; (6) in the recital of events which had to do with the national progress, such as the journey into Egypt, the Exodus, the covenant at Sinai, the conquest, the settlement, — these being the very foundations of the national history; (c) in the evident desire to represent Israel as unique among the nations, since she, a direct descendant (through Noah, Abraham, and others) of the first man Adam, had been definitely chosen by Yahweh as his own peculiar people; and to represent the affairs of the world as arranged in such a way as to secure the best interest of a single people, Israel ; * (a) in the naןve and primitive method adopted to show Israel’s superiority to their more closely related neighbors, viz. by connecting some form of reproach with the origin of the nation concerned, e.g. Canaan in the story of Noah (Gn. 925 f.) as a slave to other peoples; Moab and Ammon (Gn. 1930-38) as the offspring of Lot by incest; † Ishmael (Gn. 1611 ff.) as the son of a handmaid ; Edom as inferior in ability and character from the beginning ; various Arabian tribes as being descended from Keturah, Abraham’s second wife, and as not receiving a share in Abraham’s property (Gn. 251-6).

                (3) The predictive element is, of course, prophetic; “the patriarchal history is, in his (J’s) hands, instinct with the consciousness of a great future” (Driver). (a) The history of sin is pictured (Gn. 314) with unerring accuracy, as a long and painful struggle; in which 2 as those S; (b) i progress t at Sinali undations represent :scendant dam, bad ple; and between humanity and the influences which tempt man to evil, a struggle which in the very nature of the case must mean victory for humanity ; * (6) Israel’s relations to other peoples are prophetically interpreted in Gn. 925-29; † (c) glimpses of Israel’s future numbers and power are given to the patriarchs, Isaac (Gn. 27 27 A), Jacob (Gn. 4815-19 491-27); while (d) a forecast of Israel’s future relations to the world at large is placed in the mouth of a foreign prophet (Nu. 2417-19).

These predictions represent the very thought of the prophet concerning the Israel of his own day, the position already gained, or that which, with the encouragement thus given (i.e. by the rhetorical and homiletical use of prediction), may be expected. They are, in other words, “prophetical interpretations of history” (Driver).

                (4) The prophetic element is seen also in the idealism which permeates the narrative throughout. The writer makes wordpictures of events and characters in life, in order that his contemporaries, observing the ideal life thus represented (whether it is an ideal of good or an ideal of bad), may lift their life from the lower plane to a higher.

                The story of Abraham is a pen-portrait presenting the ideal of intimate acquaintance and communion with Yahweh, and consequent faithfulness and obedience (cf. Che. EB. 24). In the story of Joseph, he pictures the final victory of purity and integrity in spite of evil machinations on the part of those who are rich and powerful (cf. Dr. DB. II. 770). In the picture given us of Israel’s oppression in Egypt, and deliverance from the same by the outstretched hand of Yahweh, we see Israel as a nation brought face to face with the mightiest power on earth, and triumphing over that power with all its gods. explaining the perpetual hostility of man and the serpent family, as a punishment for their league against Yahweh.

Stories of this kind, and there were many such, were intended to lead men into a higher life, and to give the nation a confidence in its destiny.*

                (5) A true prophetic conception expresses itself in the attitude of the Judaean narrative toward the progress of civilization. Here J follows in the footsteps of those who preceded him, and joins hands with the Nazirite and the Rechabite (v.s.).

                This antagonism, a corollary of the views entertained concerning sin (v.i.), shows itself in connection with (a) the story of the murder which accompanied the building of the first city (Gn. 43-16); (6) the beginnings of the arts, all of which led to the further spread of sin (Gn. 420-24 111-9); (c) the evident reproach joined to the beginning of the culture of the vine (Gn. 920 ff.); and (d) the beautiful representation everywhere made of the charm and simplicity of the pastoral life.

                (6) The Judaean narrative clearly presents the prophetic idea of the covenant relation entered into between Yahweh and the people of Israel, with the circumstances leading up to the making of the covenant, the basis on which it was to rest, and its formal ratification (Ex. 1920-25 242-9 341-28). We do not see the proof of the non-existence of this idea at this time in the assertion that the narratives (including that of E, cf. Ex. 20 and Dt. 5, and Ex. 2420-24) are legendary and self-contradictory, that the early writing prophets make no use of the conception, and that, consequently, we are to understand the entire covenant idea to be the result of prophetic teaching,† rather than one of its fundamental positions from the very beginning.

                This question will come up again, but it is well at this point to observe with Giesebrecht (Die Geschichtlichkeit d. Sinaibundes): (a) that while references to the fact of a Sinaitic covenant outside of JE are few and doubtful (e.g. 1 K. 1910. 14, in which mina is probably a later insertion, cf. G; on Ho. 67 and 81 v. commentary in loc.) until Jeremiah’s time, this is not conclusive that such a covenant was unknown; since (a) Hosea in chap. 1-3 plainly presents the fact of a covenant, although no name is used; (B) the primary meaning of nina (cf. Val. ZAW. XII. 1 ff., 224 ff., XIII. 245 ff.; Krהtzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im 4. 7.; K. DB. V. 630 ; contra Schmidt, EB. 928 ff.) is covenant, agreement, the only way of putting a law into force being that of mutual agreement; (v) the lack of more frequent reference to the existence of the covenant is explained in part on the ground that no writ, ings from the older prophets have come down to us ; in part, because few particular occasions  called for such mention, and, besides, after the expiration of so long a period it was unnecessary to make allusion to the initial act, especially when, as history shows, every great change in the national situation was accompanied by a new pledge of Yahweh’s loyalty and love. Further the leaders, in their continuous effort to use the cultus as an example of the demands growing out of the covenant-relation, and at the same time to adapt the instruction to the changing needs of the people, emphasized the new relations, rather than the old covenant made by Moses. And if it is asked why should such emphasis have been placed on it in the days of Jeremiah, the answer is close at hand : Israel’s religion is preכminently an historical religion; the time had come when the covenant was to be broken; this fact necessarily brings the old covenant into great prominence. Concern. ing the relation of Amos and Hosea to this covenant-idea v.i.

                (7) The prophetic element is seen still more strongly in the controlling place occupied in the narrative by the characteristic prophetic conception of sin and deliverance.* This factor seems to underlie everything else, beginning, as it does, with the story of the origin of sin in Eden and the forecast of its struggle with humanity (p. lxxv), and continuing with each forward step in the progress of civilization, until because of its terrible growth the race itself (except a single family) must perish. Starting again in the new world, it reappears in the account of Noah’s vine-culture and in the scattering of the nations; while the stories of the patriarchs, one after another, illustrate, for the most part, their deliverance by God’s grace from evil situations consequent upon sin; and the national stories seem to be chronicles only of sin and deliverance from sin, –in other words, of disgraceful acts of rebellion and backsliding, and rescue from enemies who, because of such sin on Israel’s part, had temporarily become Israel’s masters.

                5. The message of the Judaean narrative was a rich and varied one, lifting the minds of the Israelites (of pre-Amos times) to the contemplation of:-

(1) Yahweh, as a God who had controlled the affairs of humanity, since he first brought humanity into existence; a God also who is celebrated for mercifulness and long-suffering, and for faithfulness (cf. Gn. 68 821f. 1823 ff32″ etc.); a God, not only all-powerful, but ever-present with his people (Gn, 2684 2815 39* Nu. 149′).

(2) The origin of sin, and with it of human suffering; the power of temptation and the terrible results which follow its victory over man; the awful picture of the growth of evil in civilization; and, likewise, the possibility of deliverance from evil and distress through the kindness and love of Yahweh.

(3) Great characters, who, while not without fault, “on the whole maintained a lofty standard of faith, constancy, and uprightness of life, both among the heathen in whose land they dwelt, and also amid examples of worldly self-indulgence, duplicity,

and jealousy, afforded sometimes by members of their own family” (Driver, op. cit.). This life is intended to bring about the establishment of a holy people in the world (Gn. 1818f.).

(4) A future mission in the world (perhaps not yet to the world), where Israel is to be conspicuous by reason of the special privileges accorded. These blessings will take the form of material prosperity (cf. the spiritual gifts so great as to attract the envy of all nations, suggested later in Gn. 2278 264 [R.]).

                6. The place of the Judaean narrative in prophecy and its relation to the later prophets may receive only a brief statement. (1) The ideas of Yahweh as just and hating sin, as merciful, and as faithful, are the very ideas afterward emphasized, respectively by Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah ; the representation of him as all-powerful, and ever-present with his people, precedes Amos’s representation in chaps. 1, 2, and that of Isaiah’s Immanuel. (2) The conception of

sin, and the statement of its evil effects, contain the very substance of all subsequent prophetic utterance. (3) The germ of the Messianic hope, here appearing, in later years is to occupy a large place in religious thought. (4) The conception of Israel’s mission in the world ultimately develops into the doctrine of the servant of Yahweh.

                Besides this, the more specific allusions to J which are found in Amos and Hosea may be noted, e.g. : Am. z’, cf. Gn. 1899;

                § 9. THE EPHRAIMITE NARRATIVE (E).

                 This narrative of Israel’s early history took form as early as 800 B.C., and, with the Judaean narrative already discussed, furnishes us a remarkable picture of the life and thought of the period.

                1. Certain preliminary points concerning E require brief consideration : (1) The evidence of E’s Northern origin is found * in its interest in the sanctuaries of Northern Israel ; its assignment of the leadership in the Joseph story to Reuben (cf. J’s assignment of it to Judah); its giving of a conspicu. ous place to Joseph in Dt. 33, the account of his covenant with the tribes at Shechem, and the interment of his bones at Shechem; the mention of the tombs of many prominent persons, especially those located in the North; some points of contact with Aramaic in its language; the prophetic spirit which breathes through it and is characteristic of the North, the home of prophecy. +

                (2) The date of E is 800 B.C. to 750 B.C. $ The general historical situation of the writers seems to be the same as in the case of J, namely, the period of the monarchy. But the general theological standpoint of E is unanimously conceded to be more advanced than that of J; e.g. the conception of the deity is less anthropomorphic (cf. especially, Ex. 314); the idea of progress in revelation appears ; the whole representation of the method

                1 That E was prior to J was the prevailing opinion until the appearance of We.’s Gesch. Isr. (1. 370 ff.) in which the opposite view was adopted, which is now generally accepted. For the old view, v. Di. Num.-Dt.-Jos. 620 ff., 630 ff.; Kit. Hist. 1.76 ff. Kue. (Hex. 248-52) dates El about 750 and E2 about 650 B.C.; so Co. Einl. 51. Sta. (GVI. I. 58 f.) places E about 750 B.C., and maintains the possibility of additions to it after 722 B.C. (p. 582, note 1). Holzinger (Einl. 225 f.) puts El in the latter half of the eighth century and E2 early in the seventh century. Carpenter and Battersby assign El to the first half of the eighth century, and “affirm that E, like ). contains elements of various date, some of which may have been contributed to it after it had been adopted into the record of history and law preserved in Judah”; similarly Steuernagel, Deuteronomium, etc., 282 f. Wildeboer puts El about 750 B.C. and E% somewhere before 621. of the divine activity in the world is in the realm of the supernatural and superrational; the transcendent God makes known his will to men in dreams and visions and through angels, not by direct, personal speech as in J. Furthermore, in the case of stories common to J and E, not infrequently, the earlier form of the tradition is evidently that in J; eg. in Gn. 2626–33 (J) and 2122-31 (E), according to E the covenant is binding upon posterity, the oath becomes one of exculpation, and seven lambs are introduced in an attempt to explain the origin of the name Beer-sheba (cf. also Gn. 3014-16 [J] with 3017f. [E], and 3024 [J] with 3023 [E]). For a terminus ad quem 722 B.C. is the lowest possible date, since nowhere in E is there any allusion to the overthrow of the state, which a Northern writer must have mentioned had he been through that experience. The same may safely be said of the events of 734 B.C. The whole character of E’s narrative reflects a period of prosperity such as the reign of Jeroboam II.; the tone is one of confidence and hope, with no consciousness of recent disasters nor premonitions of approaching misfortunes. The points of contact between Hosea and E (v.1.) also seem to point to the priority of the latter, and so confirm the assignment of E to the date 800–750 B.C.

                (3) In comparing the scope of E with that of J, we observe (a) that in E the relation of Israel’s tradition to the outside world is altogether ignored, the barest allusion (e.g. Gn. 2013 Jos. 24%) being made to the Mesopotamian antecedents of Abraham’s family; but (6) the history of the family, and later of the nation, proceeds on lines quite parallel to those of. J. The more interesting variations are (c) the story of the intended sacrifice of Isaac (Gn. 22), the fuller statement of Jacob’s intercourse with Laban, the special attention given to the Joseph-episode, the very independent account of Moses and his times, as well as of the ceremony at Horeb where the “ten words” are proclaimed and the covenant instituted, after which (Ex. 249-8) follow the reception of the tables of stone in the mountain and the apostasy of the golden calf. Out of this came the establishment of the tent of meeting (Ex. 337-11),* in connection with which certain events of important prophetic significance occur (the prophetic inspiration of the seventy elders, Nu. 11248-50, the vindication of Moses’ peculiar prophetic office, 121-13). Thence the narrative passes on to the conquest and the distribution of the land and Joshua’s final

leave-taking at Shechem (Jos. 24). The narrative unquestionably continues through Judges and Samuel,* thus reaching down at least into the early history of the monarchy, perhaps even to the Elisha stories in 2 Kings.f

                (4) The purpose of this narrative is evidently to magnify the office of the leaders, and these leaders are prophets, e.g. Abraham (Gn. 20′), Isaac (Gn. 2739 f.), Jacob (4820 k.), Joseph (5025), and Moses (Nu. 127-15), to all of whom visions are granted of the future prosperity of the nation. Israel’s government is a theocracy, in which the prophets speak for God. When Israel has obeyed the theocratic representatives, she has always been the recipient of divine favor, which signified peace and plenty. When Israel disobeyed, the divine anger was visited upon her in the form of disaster. It is not the secular rulers upon whom her success depends, but the theocratic guides. This teaching, which the narrative throughout was intended to convey, is admirably summed up in Joshua’s farewell address (chap. 24).

                2. The prophetic element in E, as has been said, is most conspicuous ; $ and the narrative, for this reason, is of especial interest to us. We may recall the representation of Abraham as a prophet (Gn. 20?), the ascription to Joseph of the spirit of Elohim (Gn. 413), the unique place in pre-prophetism assigned to Moses (Nu. 122-14 ; cf. Dt. 3410-12), the treatment of Miriam as a prophetess (Ex. 15%), the recognition of the non-Israelitish Balaam as a prophet (Nu. 235-24), the prophetic inspiration and authority accorded to the seventy elders (Nu. 11 16 f. 24 6-30), the characterization of Joshua as the minister of Moses and the servant of Yahweh, the forecasts of Israel’s greatness made in the visions ascribed to dying patriarchs (Gn. 2739 f. 463 4820), the hero-stories which were pictures intended to serve as the ideals of the times in which the narratives were written, and, in fact, as anticipations or predictions of Israel’s future glory, and the general representation of theocratic guidance and control which is always present. In all this the prophetic element is pronounced. Furthermore, the emphasis of E upon ethical matters and everything pertaining to the impartial administration of justice is in keeping with its prophetic character; cf. the large amount of legislation concerning the rights of individuals and their mutual responsibilities incorporated in E, and especially the ethical character of E’s decalogue (p. lxi ff.) as compared with that of J, and the evident effort to remove from the old traditions everything detrimental to the reputation of the prophetic heroes. This ethical interest is in the direct line of the development of thought which culminates in Amos and the writing prophets. E possesses also a larger interest in priestly matters than J, but this is wholly subordinate in comparison with his prophetic tendency.

                3. The message of E* is after all quite distinct from that of J, although it contains very much, indeed, that is the same :

                (1) The teaching concerning God is characterized by (a) a recognition of three different stages of growth through which the conception has passed, viz. that of Israel’s early ancestors, polytheism (Jos. 24), that of Abraham and Jacob, cf. the reformation instituted by the latter after seeing Elohim’s angels at Bethel (Gn. 3524), and that connected with the revelation of Yahweh (Ex. 315); (6) the important place assigned to representatives (viz. prophetic spokesmen or angelic messengers Ex. 141′), as agents of the deity in his intercourse with the people, and to dreams as a method of communication, and the consequent absence of the crude, though picturesque, anthropomorphisms found in J; (c) the treatment of important events as the result, not of human effort in a natural way, but of the direct action of the deity (Ex. 178-11 Jos. 620), and in this same connection, the employment by the deity of men to accomplish his plans in spite of their ignorance or hostility (Gn. 50*9 455); (d) the use in connection with the deity of certain peculiar forms and phrasיs, e.g. the plural of the verbal form (Gn. 2013 31*3 35′ Ex. 22° Jos. 24”), the phrase “ fear of Isaac ” (Gn. 3142.63), the reference to the sacred stone (Gn. 28%), the pillar at the door of the tent speaking (Ex. 33°), the stone of witness (Jos. 24%), the “trying” of the people by the deity (Gn. 22′).

The whole idea of God is more theological and abstract (cf. the

than is (אהיה אשר אהיה .viz ,יהוה new interpretation given the word

the case in J. E’s God is an exalted personality far removed from his people, and working almost entirely in the realm of the supernatural. He is a God of transcendent power and majesty and of unchanging purpose.

                (2) Other characteristic elements in E’s message, already mentioned, may be briefly summarized as follows: (a) A keener ethical sense than J’s, as seen particularly in the evident desire to shield the reputation of the patriarchs by relieving them of the responsibility for certain transactions (e.g. Abraham expels Hagar only when commanded so to do (Gn. 2112), Jacob in his shrewd dealing with Laban is acting under the direct guidance of God (Gn. 3124. 29. 42). (6) A very definite recognition of the patriarchal cultus, with its tent of meeting (Ex. 337-11), placed under the charge of Joshua, rather than of Aaron and his sons (Nu. 1116-90), together with altars and pillars (Gn. 2818. 22 Ex. 244), but no priests. (c) An utter lack of interest in the outside world, or in the connection of Israel’s history with the outside world.

                (3) E’s message, briefly stated, was this : Israel’s God is a being of wonderful majesty and exalted personality, with unlimited power. His purpose concerning the nation is unchanging. He is not close at hand to communicate with you in person, but makes known to you his will through definite agents, prophets, and messengers; there is no occasion to be ignorant of his wishes, which have been declared so clearly by these agents raised up to represent him. History has shown conclusively that when the voice of these agents has been heeded, the nation has had peace and prosperity ; but when there has been rebellion against their injunctions, there have come ruin and disaster. In every important crisis of national history, Israel’s God has shown his interest by direct action on Israel’s behalf; but he has never hesitated to send punishment when Israel deserved the same. Israel may learn how Yahweh would have the nation act, if attention is given to the lives

of the old patriarchal ancestors and to the great events of early national history. These experiences of honor and glory will again be enjoyed, if only Israel will give heed to the lessons of the past, improve the standards of conduct, and worship Yahweh as did their ancestors.

                4. The relation of E to other prophets is quite clear. It is more advanced and higher than J. In many points it is on a level with Amos and Hosea. It is like Hosea, rather than J and Amos, in showing little or no interest in the larger world-view. It is interesting to note that the broader conception is confined to the two documents of Judaean origin. E sees no such danger in the cult as is evidenced by Amos and Hosea. E’s thought of sin is that of J. While E’s ethical standards (cf. p. Ixxxiii) are higher than those of J, they do not reach the level on which those of Amos and Hosea rest.

                In E we have the close of the pre-prophetic movement, for with Amos, as all agree, real prophecy has begun. We may now ask, what was the basis and character of this movement, taken as a whole?

                B. THE BASIS AND CHARACTER OF THE PRE-PROPHETIC

                MOVEMENT. § 10. THE RELATION OF PRE-PROPHETISM TO MOSAISM.

                The question of the connection of pre-prophetism with Mosaism is as interesting as it is difficult. Such connection is taken for granted in J and E (likewise in D).* But does this assumption stand the historical test ? t The answer to this question bears most directly  upon the estimate which we shall finally place upon the work of Amos; for, in the fewest words, the case may thus be stated : Did the ethical idea which formed the essence of prophetic teaching have its origin in Amos? or is there clear trace of its existence before the days of Amos? Is it seen in the transforming work of J and E in their stories dealing with world-history and nationhistory (v.s.)? Is evidence of its presence to be seen farther back, in the legal formulations found incorporated in J and E (v.s.)? Is it seen still earlier, in the motives and methods of Elijah, Elisha, and the nebhi’im, whose work began in the days of the seer Samuel? And is the germ of it all to be discovered in Mosaism?

                If we are to reach a safe conclusion concerning Moses and his relation to the subsequent history of Israel and Israel’s religion, more, perhaps, is to be stated in the form of negation than in the form of affirmation. This is true, partly because so much that is unfounded has been affirmed, partly also because it is practically impossible to draw a sharp line between Mosaism and the preprophetic religion, or to trace with perfect satisfaction the relations between the two.

                1. It may safely be said that the pre-prophetic religion, even if this includes Mosaism as its basis, has little to do with Egypt or Egyptism ; * while, on the other hand, its relation to the desert of Sinai (or Horeb), and to the tribe of which Jethro was priest is very close. This locality, according to all tradition, was the scene and source not only of Moses’ education, but also of the call from the deity, as well as of the work of Jethro, who became the guide (religious and secular) of Moses (and likewise his father-in-law); † and this, also, was the place, according to all tradition, in which Israel later entered into covenant with Yahweh (v.s.).

                2. We must relinquish the conception (old and widely accepted as it may be) that Mosaism and the developments from it are identical, † an idea which has been the occasion of much error and confusion ; but we may regard it as established that Moses represents historically (a) the deliverance of Israel from Egypt,* (6) the union of several clans into one community (perhaps not yet a nation),t and (c) a new conception of deity expressed in, or in connection with, the word “Yahweh.” I

                3. We are no longer to argue, a priori, that the Moses of tradi. tion must have been just what the tradition represented him as being, for, on this basis, we cannot explain “the ethical impulse and tendency, which, at any rate from the time of the prophet Amos (and Amos, be it remembered, presupposes that this impulse is no novelty), is conspicuous in the history of the Israelitish religion” (Cheyne); but we are entirely justified in believing that Moses was the founder of a religion, and “brought to his people a new creative idea (viz. the worship of Yahweh as a national God), which moulded their national life” (Stade, GVI. I. 130 ; cf. Akad. Reden., 105 ff.). S

                4. We may safely deny the ascription to Moses of literary work of any kind, even the songs with which his name is connected (e.g. Ex. 151-18 Dt. 322-45 332-29), or the “judgments and precepts” of CC ($ 7), and the decalogues of E (Ex. 20), and of J (Ex. 34); || but, without much question, we may hold him responsible for the institution of the tent of meeting as the dwelling-place of the deity, together with the ark, and the beginning of a priesthood, and this is the germ of much of the institutional element that follows in later years.

                5. We may find greater or less difficulty in discovering the basis of an ethical development in Mosaism, either (a) in the essentially ethical character of the claim upon Israel, which grew out of the great act of mercy performed by Yahweh at the crossing of the Red Sea, Israel’s religion taking on gradually thereafter a moral character, because she is constantly impelled to pay due regard to the claim ; * or (6) in the new conception of God, viz. that he controls nature and history, involving the truth that Yahweh was not the God of a country but of a people, the relation of a deity to a people being more spiritual than that of a deity to a country ; † or (c) in the mutual loyalty of the tribes to one another and their common loyalty to one God, in contrast with the individual henotheism of Moab, Ammon, etc.

                It is probable, on the other hand, that a more reasonable hypothesis will be found in the view that this development has its roots in the fact that Israel’s relation to Yahweh was not that of blood-kindred, as in the case of nature religions, nor that simply of long observance which had become something inevitable ; but, rather, a relation entered into by choice, one which, unlike that of a nature religion, could be broken, but also one which Israel was led to preserve, because Yahweh had wrought great works in her behalf. Budde’s summary (p. 38) expresses this thought most exactly : “Israel’s religion became ethical because it was a religion of choice and not of nature, because it rested on a voluntary decision, which established an ethical relation between the people and its God for all time.”

                6. We may acknowledge quite freely the insufficiency and uncertainty of the materials at our command, and, as well, the difficulty of giving proper credit to the various agents and movements concerned with the development of the great ethical ideas concerning righteousness, which had before been unknown; but, at the same time, we cannot fail to recognize that certain facts  have been established which fit into hypotheses more or less satisfactory, the fundamental factor in which is the close logical and historical connection between pre-prophetism and Mosaism. Indeed, it may be asserted that Mosaism is as fundamental to preprophetism as is pre-prophetism to prophetism itself.

                § 11. THE ESSENTIAL THOUGHT OF PRE-PROPHETISM. Is it possible now to think of this movement in its unity, and, in spite of the many difficulties which exist, to separate and distinguish its thought from that which precedes and follows it? In making the effort to draw historical lines, we may observe :(1) That the case before us is, in some sense, a definite one, since we are concerned with Israel’s religious thought during the period in which Yahwism is in contact with Baalism as a rival religion. This contact began when Israel entered Canaan; it ended in the century in which Jehu, under the influence of the nebhi’im, uprooted it.* We might go farther and say that we are dealing with Yahwism itself; for, pure Yahwism, at the end of this period, passes into prophetism, which, still later, becomes Judaism. (2) Consequently, our question is a threefold one: What was Yahwism at the time of the entrance into Canaan? With what did Yahwism have to contend in the centuries from 1100 to 800 B.C.? What had Yahwism become at the close of the contest? Two or three subsidiary questions will arise, viz. : How was it that, in the end, Yahwism became supreme? Is the difference between the Yahwism of 1100 B.C. and that of 800 B.C. the sum contributed by the nebhi’im ? or did Yahwism draw from Baalism itself much that was of vital significance? And further, were the institutions of Baalism made use of by Yahwism in securing this position of superiority?

1. It is natural to consider first the idea of God. (1) When Yahwism, whatever may have been its origin, t came

into Canaan, it was, so far as the conception of God was concerned, simple and primitive, very crude and naןve, monotonous and severe.

                This appears in (a) the conception of Yahweh as the god of the mountain (Sinai), a conception which continued in one form or another until late in Israel’s history (Dt. 332 f. 1 K. 198 Ps. 688 Hb. 38). (6) The more widely prevailing conception of Yahweh as the god of war, an idea which found strong justification in the issue of the contest with Egypt (cf. also, the war. song with which camp was broken, Nu. 1036), as well as that with the Canaanites (cf. the fear of the Philistines, 1 S. 4?t., on account of Yahweh’s presence in the ark). This is seen also in the allusion to Israel’s armies as Yahweh’s armies (1 S. 1726 2528), and in the very name, Yahweh Sabaoth (cf. 2 S. 510). * (c) The conception of him also as the God of the desert (i.c. of the nomad), and especially in connection with storms, eg. at the giving of the law (Ex. 19), in the battle of Deborah (Ju. 546), in the storm exhibited to Elijah at Horeb (1 K. 1911 ff.), and in later times, v.s. It is here that the nomadic temperament of pre-prophetism (v.s.) finds its basis.t (d) The conception of the ark, a materialistic symbol of Yahweh’s presence, which plays a great rפle in this early period, I actually representing Yahweh, and not merely containing some image or symbolic stone. The history of its presence or absence in Israel’s armies, its transportation hither and thither until at last it is deposited in the Temple (1 K. 84.6 ff.), is full of significance in showing the crude and crass conceptions of deity entertained, not only by the people, but also by the leaders.

                (e) The use of images, involving family and clan conceptions of deity, distinct from that of Yahweh. S Some of these images, unquestionably, were employed to represent Yahweh, e.g. the , originally of wood or stone, and probably of human form (Ju. 173 r.), || likewise, the TDN (p. 221), perhaps originally the garment used to clothe the image, and later, the image itself, and used in obtaining oracles. But the teraphim (p. 222), used very frequently of Yahweh, are also images of ancestors, of the tribal or family gods, as in the case of Rachel (Gn. 31 19. 34 f. cf. 30.32), and of the king of Babylon (Ez. 2126). It is understood that all of these usages existed in the earliest times of the preprophetic period.

                (2) What, now, did Israel find in Canaan that required to be either assimilated or destroyed ? To what extent, and through what means, in the course of the struggle was Yahwism itself modified?

(a) The distribution of the clans among the Canaanites involved a serious risk, for they now acted more or less independently of each other, and much that had been gained by their union was lost. With Canaanites on every side of them, they were compelled to give a certain recognition to the gods of the people, who were, likewise, the gods of the land; and especially was this true in view of the fact that they were unable to drive out the Canaanites, but lived with them side by side (Ju. 1′ 181 ff.). How could they do other than express gratitude to the Baalim, i.e. the gods of the land, for the fruits which they gave?

(6) The new life, moreover, was an agricultural rather than a nomadic life, and demanded many modifications. The Israelites were the pupils of the Canaanites in all “the finer arts of field and vine culture,” and the association needed for this could not fail to exert a great influence on Israel’s life and thought. *

(c) The nation for the first time came into touch with real civilization, and civilization was for them identical with Baalism. This explains why the nebhi’im tended toward an isolated life, and seem in most cases to have opposed all progress toward civilization. The emblems of civilization, corn and oil, silver and gold, Israel believed, came from the Baalim (Ho. 28).

(d) The nature of Baalism itself t was something peculiarly attractive to people of a sensuous type. The great emphasis placed on reproduction and everything connected with it, whether in the realm of vegetable or animal or human life, gave it a pervasive influence, for all life in the narrower, if not in the broader, sense was involved. The strength of the ideas thus included is evident from the hold they took upon many nations of ancient times. There was a stimulus in all this, a warmth which, although greatly abused, produced also some good results.

(3) What actually occurred in the process of this long struggle was as follows: (a) Yahweh’s residence is changed; he gradually takes up his dwelling in the new territory. This means that the Baalim whom men worshipped at many different points, under various names, Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, etc. (cf. also Baal-Berith, Baal-Zebub), were displaced by Yahweh, who was worshipped at all the sacred places and bore different names according to the place (e.g. obuv 5x, the eternal God, Gn. 21*3 ; 5xana 5x, the God of Bethel, 3113 35%; 01bv “, Yahweh Shalom, Ju. 644, etc.). All this change has taken place before the times of J and E, for, as Kautzsch points out (DB. V. 646), the patriarchal narratives do not know of any Baal-worship in the land. Yahweh has taken Baal’s place, but in so doing the Yahweh ritual has absorbed so much of Baalism as to become, practically, a Baal ritual. (6) The idea grows that Yahweh “is enthroned as God in heaven.” This means much, for it implies that he is superior to all other gods. It is from heaven that he performs all those acts which indicate his power over the elements (e.g. rain, dew, fire, Gn. 1924) and over the fruits of the soil. He is called the God of heaven (Gn. 24′). Messengers must now be employed to represent him, and these angels call from heaven (21″ 22″), and, indeed, go up and down on ladders which unite heaven and earth (28!?), the “house of God” being identical with the “gate of heaven.” (c) His nature as the God of the desert is changed; he is no longer hostile to civilization. Yahwism could never have become without change the religion of a civilized people, still less of humanity. “He takes under his protection every new advance in civilization.”* (d) His nature as destroyer (war-god) is changed, for he is no longer the deity of desolation and silence. He is in continual touch with man’s activity, and everything is subordinated to secure his influence and blessing. The idea of beneficence and love has come. Warmth and color now exist, where all before was cold and stern. (e) Baalism, acting as a “decomposing reagent,” brings unity, solidarity, in so far as like conditions exist, and thereby all cult and family images must disappear. Hence arises the opposition to image-worship which forms so large an element in prophetism beginning with Hosea. Attempts are made to spiritualize the old physical conception of Yahweh. Among these are to be counted (a) the expression, “angel of Yahweh” (), which was at first used when Yahweh was represented as coming into contact with man (Gn. 167ff. cf. “); in other words, a method of Yahweh’s manifestation ;* (B) the face of Yahweh (J), i.e. the person (Ex. 3320-%), but not the full being,f and (y) the name of Yahweh (Ex. 2024 23^), in which “name” is a “personified power, placed side by side with the proper person of Yahweh.” | The use of these phrases § is an attempt to substitute something more spiritual for the thought of the human form, and marks great progress in the conception of God.

                (4) The agencies which bring about this change are in part : (a) Those of the old Yahwism, the strength of which continues to be felt in spite of the additions that have been taken on ; (6) those also of Baalism, among the chief of which was prophetism, adopted and adapted by Israel (v.s.); but (c) the immediate occasion of the acute attack which enabled Yahwism to throw off the gradually increasing burden that had almost proved its ruin, was the attempt to force upon Israel a new form of this same Baalism, that of Tyre. The situation was now essentially different from that which existed in the early days of the conquest; for at this time Yahweh had actually taken possession of the land, and the question was: Shall a foreign god, the deity of Tyre, who has already shown great power, come in and overpower the god of the land, who is now Yahweh? || On the nature of this struggle in detail, v.i. The old Baalism had become so intimate a part of Yahwism that at this time it is lost sight of in the new Baalism which threatens Israel. This distinction makes clear what at first seems contradictory, viz. the idea that Baalism was actually uprooted by Jehu, and the idea, which also existed, that Baalism was still a corrupting element in Israel’s religion.

                (5) At the close of the struggle, Yahwism is victorious ; f the conception of God which has now developed being as follows:

                (a) Yahweh is a god irresistible in nature and among nations, the idea of a merely national god having been outgrown. This is seen in the power attributed to Yahweh over other nations, e.g. Egypt, and Canaan, as well as in the extra-national existence involved in his residence at Sinai, and likewise in the later conception of a heavenly residence (v.s.). The narrower idea of Yahweh as the god of a land has never existed. He has been and is a national god, i.e. Israel’s God; but he is also something more than this, a god who controls nations and nature in Israel’s favor. It is not in this same sense that we may speak of Chemosh or Ashur.

                (6) He is, moreover, a god who is the moral ruler of his people ; this has not gone so far as to affect individuals, being still limited to families and nations. The interests of the individual are indeed conceived of as under the protection of Yahweh, but they are wholly subordinate to those of the nation, being in themselves of too slight importance to merit the especial and continuous consideration of the deity, except in so far as they contribute to the national life and progress.* Yahweh’s rule is characterized by justice, and his power to judge extends to heaven and to Sheol. Here we must estimate the true character of judgment in ancient times, for, although it came from Yahweh, it signified, not a “moral investigation and instruction,” but “an oracular response obtained by means of a sacred lot” (Ex. 226 4. Jos. 716 ff. 38 ff. 1 S. 14). This, as Budde says, is not moral, but intellectual knowledge. But this primitive judgment has nevertheless given place to the verdict against kings pronounced by Nathan and Elijah (v.s.).

                He is known for his personal interest and love, since he has shown himself to be, not only a helper and a friend, but, indeed, a father. $ This signifies something very great, for he is no longer simply a natural or even national god, and therefore compelled to render such service. If deliverances have been wrought, they have come through his affection. There is a sense, likewise, in which he is a holy god, and disobedience of his regulations is sin. This is implied in the claim of Elijah, who treats allegiance to any other god as sin ; in representations of J and E, that disregard of Yahweh’s will (cf. especially the story of the origin and progress of sin given by J in Gn. 3-11) is deserving of severe punishment and inevitably followed by judgment; in the decalogues, which present the ethical and the ritualistic demands of a god, himself holy, and therefore demanding an elevated character in those who serve him; and in CC, the regulations of which are everywhere regarded as the expression of the divine will.

                (c) Yahweh alone is the God of Israel, and he only may be worshipped, – this was the truth for which Elijah had contended, and his contest had been won. The significance of this victory can scarcely be overestimated. The fact that Yahweh had made and enforced such a demand in itself challenged attention. It emphasized the fundamental and far-reaching difference between Yahweh and the nature gods of Canaan and the surrounding peoples.* This difference consisted chiefly in the essentially ethical and spiritual nature of Yahweh, which must of necessity find expression in demands upon his people for a worship arising from the heart and a life devoted to ideals of justice and purity.

                2. In what has already been said, there is much that refers to the conceptions concerning man’s duty to God, as expressed in worship. We may add the following brief statement:

                (1) The priest, hardly known before the entrance into Canaan, has attained an important place. The story of the priest-work of Micah (Ju. 17, 18), and that of Eli and his sons (1 S. 1-4%), shed much light upon the early history of the priesthood. He was at first occupied with the care of the Ark (1 S. 44 2 S. 1524. 29), and with carrying or consulting the ephod (for no positive evidence exists that the priests participated in sacrificet). Out of this function grew later the giving of directions, i.e. tפrפth, in matters relating to law or ritual. But with the erection of the Temple, the priests took on larger service and rose to a higher place in society and in governmental affairs. Strong societies were organized, at first in Jerusalem, and later in Northern Israel (cf. Dt. 3386. [E], in which the priesthood is recognized as organized and as possessing high dignity and power). At the same time CC contains no reference to a priest; the whole matter is custom, not law.

                (2) The high places taken over from Baalism are still employed

without objection as the seats of popular worship. These represent the ancient holy places, and have now become thoroughly identified with Yahweh-worship, as distinguished from Baal-worship. The thought has not yet been suggested that worship shall be restricted to one place, Jerusalem. The impossibility of securing a pure worship at these high places has not yet been realized.

                (3) Sacrifice is, after all, the chief feature of worship. It appears in the meal of communion (1 S. 14 ff. 912 ff.); the offerer may kill the victim, the fat is reserved for Yahweh, and a portion is given to the priest (1 S. 213 f.); the flesh may not be eaten with the blood (1 S. 1432 f.). All sacrifices are gifts to the deity; the offerings of Gideon (Ju. 618 fr. and Manoah (Ju. 1319) represent the usage of the times.*

                (4) The passover, Israel’s only festival in pre-Canaanitish times, has now grown into several, among which are (a) the Sabbath (Ex. 3491 2312 Dt. 512), observed, however, with a humanitarian rather than a religious motive (v.s.); this same thing holds good also of (6) the seventh year, which is beginning to be observed. There are also (c) the new moon (1 S. 203 ff. 24 ff.), with festivities lasting for two days, and (d) the three festivals at which all males were to appear with gifts (Ex. 2314 ff. 3418 ff.); these were occasions of great joy and feasting, reaching even to excess, for sacred women at the high places prostituted themselves as a part of the religious ritual. Cf. Amos and Hosea passim.t

                (5) Custom has now in many cases been codified into law, for CC is clearly in existence (v.s.). These precedents are now recognized as having divine sanction; and while their scope is not broad, the essential content includes reference to many of the more important of the religious institutions.

                (6) The use of images continues, and oracles are consulted in order to ascertain the divine will. This was the use made of Urim and Thummim, which, in some way not quite clear, represented the sacred lot. Cf. 1 S. 1441 (G), and 143. 18. 36. I This usage, hardly consistent with a later and higher prophetism, was still a part of the system in vogue, and entirely consistent with that system.

                3. It is not easy to formulate, as the expression of this Canaanitish-Israelitish age, the opinion which prevailed concerning the relation of man to his fellow-man, his obligations, or, in other  words, the ethical standards which were in vogue. But certain things may be said, partly in the way of explanation, partly, also, in the way of interpretation :

                (1) It is unfair to the age, and to the subject, to base one’s conclusions on the extreme cases of immorality. Such cases occur in our own day. The record of such cases (e.g. that of Judah and Tamar (Gn. 38), and that of David and Bathsheba (1 Sam. 11, 12)) is evidence, not of their common occurrence, but of their heinousness in the sight of the prophet who makes the record.

                (2) While we may still hesitate concerning the actual basis of this ethical movement in Israel’s history, and its origin, it is comparatively easy to point out, not only the elements in the remarkable growth which has taken place in this period, but also the occasion of the growth, viz. the advance in a true conception of Yahweh (pp. xc ff.).

                (3) The conception of higher ideals is still restricted to the community (i.e. the family or clan), and has not received application to the individual.

                (4) This higher conception has influenced the attitude of Israel neither toward outside nations, nor, indeed, toward the stranger inside Israel’s gates. This is not to be regarded as strange in view of the definitely hostile relations which existed for the most part between every ancient nation and its neighboring nations. International comity and law must follow national law at a long distance.

                (5) Custom is still, in great measure, the standard of action, but this is more and more influenced by religious thought. And, as already suggested, custom has now been formulated into law. Crime is regarded as affecting Yahweh himself (2 S. 12%, following the reading of Lucian), and the enactments of CC, aside from its ritual content, take cognizance of the most common and important of the human relationships.

                (6) The later decalogue, properly interpreted (v.s.), marks the stage of advancement now reached. This is splendidly sup-. ported and, indeed, developed in CC (pp. lxiv ff.).

                (7) But, after all, the stories of the patriarchs give us the truest idea of the morals of the period.* They represent the highest ideals  of the teachers of Israel at the time they assumed literary form (cf. pp. lxxi, lxxix f.). Abraham is the type of the truly pious Israelite, exhibiting the qualities of faith and obedience under the most trying circumstances; while Jacob is the successful man of affairs, whose prosperity is due, not alone to his own shrewdness, but also to his faithful adherence to his God. The moral delinquencies of the patriarchs must be estimated in view of (a) the fact that in large part the questionable transactions are in relations with foreigners, toward whom ethical requirements did not hold to such a high degree (v.s.); (b) the effort of E to minimize the faults of the patriarchs (v.s.), which shows an ethical advance toward the close of the pre-prophetic period; (c) the indirect condemnation sometimes found within the stories themselves (cf. Gn. 209f. 26° F. 2712).

                (8) The stories of the kings enforce similar truths upon the attention. The special position of the king as “the anointed of Yahweh” and the most powerful personage in the nation added emphasis to the use of his life-story for purposes of moral and religious instruction. If David and his successors could achieve success only in so far as they obeyed Yahweh and refrained from evil, how much less could the nation at large disregard Yahweh’s will and prosper? The direct teaching of these stories is evident.

                4. Aside from the conceptions already considered, viz. those of God, of man in relation to God, and of man in relation to man, there are certain others with which the religious and ethical ideas are closely associated. These possess more of the speculative character and deal with the origins of things and the future.*

                (1) Ideas concerning the origin and nature of man had taken on quite definite form, e.g. (a) the body of man (Gn. 2?) is of earth and at death returns to the earth (Gn. 3”) ; while the breath (v.1.) is re-absorbed in the great Spirit of the universe; this body or flesh is transitory in its nature (cf. Is. 31°) and always subject to decay and destruction; it is, moreover, the occasion of moral weakness; but it is never represented as in itself sinful (i.e. as equivalent to oבpל) and unclean.

                (6) The blood is the life only in the sense that it is the source, or vehicle, or seat, of life; consequently it must not be eaten (1 S. 1432 ff. ; cf. Dt. 1223 Lv. 17′), for in so doing another life might be absorbed. The desire to bring about just such an identification of different lives was the basis of the earlier sacrificial meals, of which, however, no instance occurs in 0. T. literature. The significance of this conception of blood upon the later development of sacrifice is very evident.

                (c) The breath or spirit (7717) occupied a still larger place in the older thought. This breath represented life, and had its origin in the breath of Yahweh himself, which he breathed into the first man (Gn. 2″). When this divine breath (the spirit of life) is called back by Yahweh to himself (i.e. re-absorbed), death ensues. Nor was this spirit restricted to human beings, for animal life (Gn. 21 had the same origin (Nu. 16% 2716; cf. Ps. 10429 . Jb. 3414f.), although it was reckoned inferior, as is shown by the fact that man was treated more directly and individually in the act of creation, animals being animated, so to speak, as a species; and further, although animals are represented as created for man’s use, none of them is fit to be his “help.” But now, this spirit, breathed into humanity once for all in the case of the first man (= traducianism, rather than creationism), and including life of every kind, viz. thought, will, and action, is everywhere a manifestation of the divine spirit (cf. Acts 1728). *

                (2) The origin and purpose of the universe does not occupy a large place in Hebrew pre-prophetic thought, and yet certain definite ideas are contained in J’s statement in Gn. 24 ff. Perhaps something also is to be learned from what this passage does not contain (e.g. the lack of any mythical element). (a) This narrative, of which a portion (dealing with the creation of heaven and earth) doubtless has been lost, clearly points to Yahweh as the former of man and of man’s home (but this is only what other religious cosmogonies have done, each in its own way, and does not contradict the position that the doctrine of Yahweh as Creator is exilic or post-exilic, i.e. subsequent to the acceptance of monotheism).

                (6) The interest is centred in man, for whose benefit alone the animals are formed; and when no suitable companion is found for him among them, woman is created by another and different process; while (c) the climax is found in the representation concerning marriage.*

                (3) The origin and nature of sin is pictured in the story of the fall, for no other interpretation than that of a fall † will satisfy the demands. Concerning all this, it was believed (a) that man, at one time, lived in close association and communion with the deity ; but (6) pride led him to overstep certain bounds that had been set ; (c) this act of disobedience was followed by trouble, misery, and suffering. I

                (4) The state after death is a subject concerning which neither pre-prophecy nor prophecy had much to say, partly because the saying of anything would give encouragement to the superstitious survivals of animism, and partly, also, because no adequate teaching had as yet been worked out. That the ideas which prevailed in early Israel concerning Sheol came from the Canaanites (and perhaps farther back from Babylon) is probable; in any case, the popular belief was closely associated with necromancy, and consequently opposed to Yahwism. This belief (Gn. 3725 42:38 4429. 31 Nu. 16.30. 23, for which we are indebted to J) included, at least, the following points : (a) Sheol is a space to which one goes down; (6) no one ever returns; yet (c) by the influence of necromancers a “form” may be brought up, as in the case of Samuel (1 S. 2811 ff.); while (d) only thick darkness prevails. (e) It is a place of assembly for the departed; but there is no such thing as fellowship (Gn. 3735). (8) That which goes down is not the body (which decays in the grave), nor the spirit (which is absorbed by the spirit of God); but“ an indefinable something of the personality” which(= shade, or manes) is invisible and does not live, but merely exists. How far this popular belief was a survival of animism, and the extent to which it was really antagonized by Yahwism, cannot here be discussed.

                5. The general character of the pre-prophetic movement may now be briefly summarized in view of its history up to this point, and, likewise, in view of the real prophetic activity which is to grow out of it and, at the same time, to follow close upon its heels :

                (1) This movement is not exclusively or essentially Israelitish, but is of Canaanitish origin, † although itself at a later time hostile to Canaanitism and directly responsible for its destruction ; and in the long process of its growth it incorporates many Canaanitish ideas.

                (2) The struggle between pre-prophetism and Baalism is between the later idea of a relation with the deity, based upon a pact or covenant, and the earlier idea of a relation based upon the natural tie. In this case, the covenant idea lives and works several centuries with the nature idea, and, in the end, shakes it off, but only after absorbing all that was good in it.

                (3) The result of the movement, in so far as it concerns worship, is the endurance, if not the acceptance, of an elaborated cult, through which the religious sentiment has been enlarged and enriched, but in which Israel is soon to find that which will prove her ruin (cf. Judah and the doctrine of the inviolable Jerusalem).

                (4) The influence of the movement on conduct has been to raise the standard in a marked degree, and to define more closely the relations of man to man, without, however, going outside of Israel, or developing anything higher than that which pertains to the tribe or family.

                (5) The movement, in so far as it concerns the idea of God, is still henotheistic, not monotheistic.

                C. AMOS. § 12. THE PERSONAL LIFE OF AMOS.

                § 13. THE MESSAGE OF Amos.

                § 14. THE MINISTRY OF Amos.

`               § 15. THE LITERARY FORM OF Amos’s WRITINGS.

                The present form of the book of Amos suggests several problems. How much of the book did Amos himself leave? What portions are of later origin, and what motive suggested their insertion ?* Through what stages has the book gone? What contact has it had with other literature ? And still further, what is the form of composition employed, and what special features of that form deserve attention ?

                1. The table on p. cxxxii presents the contents of the book, showing (1) the larger divisions, viz. oracles, sermons, etc., (2) the smaller sections, and (3) the original and secondary elements within each section.

                2. The secondary material indicated in the table on p. cxxxii includes the passages (with the exception of a few words or phrases, v.i.) which have been treated as interpolations in the commentary. An examination of these passages shows that they fall into five groups :

                (1) The Judaistic insertion, made after the promulgation of Deuteronomy, and referring to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, viz, the judgment on Judah, 24%..

                (2) Historical insertions, from a post-exilic date, (a) adding judgments upon Tyre (13f.) and Edom (1116.), thus bringing the whole number (with Judah) to seven; † (6) adding reference to the fall of Calneh, Hamath, and Gath, 62 (cf. Is. 109-“).

                (3) Theological insertions, from a post-exilic time, similar in tone and spirit to certain passages in Job § and Deutero-Isaiah. ||

                Men in later days of prophecy seem to have regarded it as a pious duty to illustrate older utterances by making application to their own times. If the older form of utterance appeared too harsh for the later age, it was modified; if too obscure, it was explained. The intention was not to preserve and transmit what the prophet had actually said, but rather to indicate what, in the opinion of the later editor, he would have had to say in order “to fulfil the religious purpose which he once meant to serve” (cf. K. DB. V. 671; Carpenter and Battersby, Hex. I. 110).

                $ E.g. 384 fr. 25 ff. 31 fr. 34-38.     | Ez.4021 ff. 4512 18 4812 f.,

19–10. 11-12 2+5 | Judgments upon Neighboring Nations, viz. Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah.

       Judgment upon the Nation Israel.      26-11. 13-16       212

                The Roar of the Lion: Destruction is coming.

    The Doom of Samaria.

           Israel’s Failure to understand the Divine Judgment.

   A Dirge, Israel’s Coming Destruction.

                                                         Transgressors shall come to Grief.

                The Doom of Captivity.

                Three Visions of Destruction.

  An Accusation and a Reply.

  A Fourth Vision, with Explanatory Discourse.

   A Fifth Vision, with a Passionate Description of the Ruin.

                Here belong (a) the heading of the book, 1′ (pp. 9 f.); (6) the well-known doxologies, 413 * 588 99%.t

                (4) Technical or archaeological insertions, which take the form of expansion, thus adding details to the more simple statement of the original. Here belong, (a) “each woman straight before her,” in 43; (6) “while yet there remained three months to the harvest,” in 4?“ (p. 97), also, “ together with the captivity of your horses,” in 40 (p. 100); (c) “one field being rained upon,” etc.,… “two or three cities staggering,” etc., in 47 b. 82 (pp. 97 f.); (d) “and unto wailing those skilled in lamentation,” in 576 (p. 127); “and the peace-offerings of your fatlings I will not regard,” in 52 (p. 135); (e) the detail of the inner part of the house, in 69-11 a. (p. 151); (f) “and lo! there were full-grown locusts after the king’s mowings,” in 778; (g) the extra technique, involving the question of Yahweh to Amos, in 78 a 824; (h) “buying the poor for silver,” etc., in 86; (i)“ your images, the star of,” in 55, “and it devour,” in 56, “and the oppressions within her,” in 39, “O children of Israel,” in 3?,, “with a storm in the day of tempest,” in 24, “plumb-,” in 7?, “ for thirst,” in 813.

                (5) The Messianic additions found in “Behold the days are coming,” in gila, and the long closing passage 92-15 connected with what precedes by 98c, in which the interpolator announces that the original message of destruction was intended only for Northern Israel.

                (6) Certain phrases, “ The Lord,” “God of Hosts,” “ It is the oracle of Yahweh,” “Has Yahweh said,” which have been inserted arbitrarily to emphasize some favorite thought of a reader, e.g. 10.8 216 313. 15 4 516 76 89. Cf. also, “in that day,” 83.

                                3. The internal history of the book (i.e. the various steps in the process of its growth) was probably as follows :

                (1) Amos himself left, not a book, but certain addresses or groups of addresses in writing.

                (2) These became a book, in all probability through the work of his disciples, before the times of Isaiah (v.i.), who, says Cheyne, “steeped himself in the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly original genius.” * Since Amos probably issued his addresses in Judah, it is questionable whether Hosea ever saw them (v..). +

                (3) A Deuteronomic insertion consisting of 24f. was probably made in Jeremiah’s time. This address would fit in just before the fall of Jerusalem, almost as appropriately as before the fall of Samaria. It is perhaps too much to call this a Deuteronomic redaction.

                (4) During the exilic experience (or a little after) important changes were introduced, viz. (a) those of an historical character (v.s.) in accord with the same spirit which gave rise to Obadiah 10-14 (cf. Is. 34 Ez. 251 359 Ps. 1377) Jo. 3 26. 19 ; and (b) those of a theological character (v.s.) in accord with the same spirit which found expression in the descriptions of the deity that occur in Job and Deutero-Isaiah (v.s.).

                (5) In a later post-exilic period there was added the large number of technical and archaeological explanations and expansions indicated above. At this time the superscription (14) probably had its origin. Many of these are glosses which found their way into the text without motive of any kind. Some, however, are the work of an editor who delighted to repeat in minute detail some point or description which had been passed over quite summarily. No definite line perhaps can be drawn between these two classes of additions.

                (6) Finally, in the spirit of the days of Zechariah and Zerubbabel, when men were thinking of the restoration of the throne of David, or perhaps still later, there was added the Messianic promise of 986-15 (v.s.). This closed the internal history of the book.

                4. The general structure of the book as understood by the present writer is indicated in the table (v.s.). Its character is extremely simple: A series of judgment oracles; a series of judgment sermons; a series of judgment visions. These various series have each its own unity of thought and its own unity of purpose. These have already been fully discussed.

                It remains, however, to notice some of the more important hypotheses put forward in recent times which offer different explanations of Amos’s structure.

                (1) Elhorst (1900) on the supposition that the text was originally written in parallel columns, the strophes being arranged so that 1, 3, 5, etc., fell in Column I. and 2, 4, 6, etc., in Column II, and that some copyist transferred the columns consecutively instead of alternating between the two, proposes the following order: 11. 2. 11. 12. 3. 5. 13-15. 6-8 21-3 19. 10 24. 5. 6 568.7 27.8 58.9 28-12 510-12 213-16 513-15 31. 2 516. 17 338 518-20 32-14 521-25 41-3 526. 27 4711 61-6 412 67 418 68 $-3 69-11 54.5 612. 13 56 614 71-9. 10-17 81-6 91-6 87-14 97-15. With this rearrangement, the prophecy falls into four divisions : (a) 11-26; (6) 26–614; (c) 71-17; (d) 814915.

                (2) Lצhr (1901) finds five main divisions; the first one consists of the introductory address, threatening Israel and her neighbors with punishment, and includes 11-8. 13-15 21-3. 6-14. 16. The second one contains two addresses, announcing destruction because of the exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful; the first address consists of 316. 2-4 a. 5 a. 6. 8-15 41-3 8+-14 9114a, the second address comprises 51-6 a. 7. 10-12. 16-186. 20-27 61. 3-8. 11-14. The third division contains the mere fragment of a sermon against the sanctuaries and the ritual, viz. 4+-12 a. 314 6. 91a.7. The fourth division includes the four visions in 71-9 81-3; and the fifth division consists of the historical episode in 710-17.

                (3) Riedel (1902), regarding the book as an anthology of the most significant utterances of Amos, collected and arranged by a later editor, and treating 710-17 as a later addition, makes the following analysis : I. A poem announcing Yahweh’s judgment on the nations in general, and Israel in particular, chaps. I and 2. II. The central division (31-83), falling into three sections: (a) three addresses beginning with “Hear this word,” 31-5 41-13 51-17; (b) two addresses beginning with “Alas,” 518–27 61-14; (c) the four visions, 71-9 81-3. III. The closing address (84-915), likewise consisting of three sections: (a) 81-14, which again begins with “ Hear”; (6) 91-10, again narrating a vision; (c) 911-15, a word of promise, in part looking back to the first address (cf. 912 with 1 11 ff.).

                (4) Baumann* (1903) finds five addresses, all of similar structure. Each of the last four addresses has three main divisions, the last division in each case summing up the entire speech, and the second division, with one exception, consisting of four sections. First address : 12-8. 13-15 21-3. 6-11 a. 12. 116. 13. 14 a. 16 a. 148. 13 ao 15 8. 166 (with an appendix, 38-15). Second address : I. 31-66. 6 a. 8; II. (a) 41-3, (6) 84. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 1140, Third address : I. 44.5; II. (a) 46. 9–11, (6) 412 a 521-27; III. 546. Fourth address : I. 51. 2. 3. 16. 176; II. (a) 518-20, (6) 61, (C) 63-7, (d) 613. 12 a. 8; III. 614. 11. 12 8. 9. 10. Fifth address : I. 710–17; II. (a) 71-3, (6) 746, (c) 77-9, (d) 81-3; III. gla. 314 6. 918-4.7. Baumann summarizes the thought in the form of a dialogue as follows: First division (Amos): Yahweh will bring destruction upon Israel’s foes and also upon Israel; for every crime demands punishment. (Israel) : How unheard of, to maintain that Yahweh would destroy his own people! Who would listen to such folly? Second division (Amos): What I speak is not folly, but the decree of God. Hear, therefore, especially you leaders in iniquity, of impending disaster.

                (Israel) Our cultus at the sanctuaries will turn aside every sort of disaster. Third division (Amos): Vain labor of love! Have not past calamities taught you that Yahweh demands a better service? Seek him through the practice of morality and justice! But no, all warning is useless. Because you will not listen, you cannot be helped. Fourth division (Amos): It remains only to raise the funeral dirge and to wail over the blind. Destruction is inevitable. Fifth division (Amos’s justification of his message in response to the protests of Amaziah and the people): God, whom I have seen, has revealed to me what must come, and in spite of my earnest entreaties, has held fast to his decision.

                (5) Marti (1903) finds in the original book (a) an announcement of judgment upon Damascus, Ammon, Moab, and Israel herself: 13-5. 13-15 21-3. 6-9. 11. 13-16; (6) a series of fragments of fourteen sermons: 31a.: 34-6. 8 32-11 312 314 8. 1541-3 4+7 ao 8-12 a 51-3 54. 5 a. 6. 14. 15 57. 10–12. 16. 17 – 18. 20 b. 19. 21-25. 27 61. 3-6 a. 7 68-10 611. 12. 13 a. 68. 136. 14; (c) the five visions and the historical episode: 71-9 81-391-4.7 910-17, and some fragments within 8+-14, viz. 84. 5. 7. 11 a. 12. 136. 14.

                5. The external history of the book of Amos may be traced briefly through four periods :

                (1) Direct evidence of an external acquaintance with it by other prophets is perhaps slight. The similarity of expression found in certain passages in Hosea,* as compared with Amos, proves nothing; the two were dealing with the same historical traditions and were working in the same environment. The same thing may be said of the two or three passages in which Isaiah and Amos use similar expressions. In Jeremiah, on the other hand, because the situation is a similar (although not the same) one, more definite trace is found of Amos’s influence. I In Ezekiel, likewise, some points of external resemblance may be noted, especially in the passages directed against foreign nations.* In the other prophets, few cases of direct external influence may be discovered.

But it is not in such external manifestations that we should expect to find traces of Amos’s influence upon later prophets. That his ministry and message were known to them appears from several points in which they follow closely in his steps, e.g. in standing aloof from the great body of so-called prophets in their respective periods; in adopting the method of writing down their utterances; in the continued development of the sermonic discourse introduced by him ; in following the fashion of directing a certain portion of their attention to the foreign nations; † in basing their work on the fundamental doctrine of national judgment as presented by Amos; in holding up and completing the new ideas propounded by Amos concerning God and his ethical demands upon humanity.

                (2) The external relation of the book of Amos to the wisdom literature is not indicated by anything that has come down to us. That its influence was felt can scarcely be doubted, since in it we have the first definite formulation of Yahweh’s relation to the outside world, the idea which lay at the basis of all Hebrew wisdom; the assignment of Israel to a place upon a level with other nations (cf. the absence of any reference to Israel in the book of Proverbs); an example of Oriental learning in history, geography, social customs; the very essence of wisdom, in the emphasis placed upon honesty, purity, etc. ; together with an almost total absence of the religious sentiment (v.s.).

                (3) In later times reference is made to the Amos-book in Ecclus. 4910, where “the twelve prophets” are mentioned, showing that at  that time there was a book of Amos; in Tobit 20, where the book of Amos is first mentioned by name and a citation is made from 81°; in Acts 742 , where Am. 525 €. is quoted and assigned to “ the book of the prophets”; and in Acts 1516 f., a quotation of 911 in connection with other” words of the prophets.”

(4) The place of the book in the Canon is naturally with “ the twelve.” Its position in the Hebrew Canon, viz., third (following Joel), is different from that in G, where it is second (Joel being placed after Micah).

6. Partly on a priori grounds (it being thought impossible to conceive of a herdsman as a man of letters),* and partly on the ground of certain words which were wrongly spelled (these have more recently been discovered to be textual errors), † many explanations of the uncultivated and, indeed, rude speech of Amos have been deemed necessary. The fact has long been recognized, however, that these estimates were wrong. Recent writers, especially since W. Robertson Smith in 1882, have vied with each other in appreciation of the simplicity and refinement, as well as of the vigor of Amos’s literary style. $ The latest critics go even so far as to deny that the figures which he employs are prevailingly those of the shepherd-life.

                (1) The regular and simple structure of the book (p. cxxxii) exhibits at once Amos’s style of thought. What could be more natural and easy than the series of oracles, the series of sermons, and the series of visions? It is unfortunate that some recent critics seem as blind to the simplicity of Amos’s style of expression as were the older critics to its refined nature.

                (2) This regularity, or orderliness, exhibits itself in detail in the repetition of the same formulas for three transgressions, yea for four, etc., in the opening chapters (or, to put it otherwise, in the orderly arrangement of the nations); in the use of the refrain, but ye did not return, etc., in the poem describing Israel’s past chastisements (4+-13 I); in the entire form of the first three visions (71.9); in the almost artificial symmetry of form seen in the accusation (720-14) and the reply (714-17); in the series of illustrations employed with such effect in 33 ff. ; in the structure, in general, of the several pieces (v.i.). Moreover, these various series, “while not so long as to become tiresome, are long enough to impress upon the mind of the reader the truths that they are intended to illustrate and justify the use of them by the prophet.” There is here the skill, not only of the poet and the speaker, but also of the teacher. Every poem in the book is a notable example of this same direct, straightforward orderliness of thought.

                (3) The imagery of Amos, like that of Isaiah, is worthy of special study. Tradition has probably been wrong in emphasizing too strongly the prevailingly shepherd-characteristics (v.s.) which mark the figures employed by Amos. But no one will deny that he is especially fond of drawing his language from nature, and what, after all, is this but the field of rural life? He not only cites certain facts of agricultural significance, e.g. the recent drought, blasting and mildew (474.), the oppressive taxation of crops (5″), and the cheating of the grain merchants (8′), but he finds picturesque illustrations and comparisons in “ threshing instruments.” (1“), the loaded wagon on the threshing-floor (213), the height of the cedars and the strength of the oaks (2′), the roar of the lion in the forest (34 5), the shepherd rescuing remnants from the lion (3″), the snaring of birds (3″), the “kine of_Bashan” (4″), wormwood (5′ 619), the lion, bear, and serpent (5′), the perennial stream (54), horses stumbling upon rocks and ploughing the sea with oxen (61), swarms of locusts devouring the aftermath (77′.), and the “ basket of summer fruit” (81). — –

                (4) Other features of Amos’s style, which may only be mentioned, are (a) its originality (sometimes called unconventionality or individuality),* as seen in a certain kind of independence, probably due to the fact that he was a pioneer in the application of writing to prophetic discourse ; (6) its maturity, for nothing is more clear than that he had predecessors in this work who had developed, in no small degree, a technical nomenclature of prophecy (v.s.); (c) its artistic character, which is seen not only

                D. HOSEA.

                § 16. THE PERSONAL LIFE OF HOSEA.

                § 17. THE MESSAGE OF HOSEA.

                § 18. THE MINISTRY OF HOSEA.

                $ 19. THE LITERARY FORM OF HOSEA.

                The corrupt state of the text of Hosea makes the study of its literary problems both difficult and unsatisfactory.

                1. The table on p. clx exhibits a view of the book as we now have it, with (a) the larger divisions,* and (6) a separation of the original and secondary elements.

                2. The secondary passages f in the following table fall into four groups: (1) References in Hosea to Judah are for the most part the work of a Judaistic editor. The basis for this decision is found in the fact that in the great majority of cases no sufficient motive can be discovered to explain their Hoseanic origin, while the motive of the later editor is clearly evident; besides, these passages in nearly every case contain phrases which are late, or interfere with the rhythmic structure. The principal cases are the following: 1′, exempting Judah from the coming destruction (p. 213), the change of “Israel” to Judah in 5 10. 12. 13. 14 6* 10110 1 23 (2) ; 6114, threatening Judah with judgment (p. 291); 814, coupling Judah with Israel in transgression (p. 324); 1216 (11125), contrasting Judah’s faithfulness with Israel’s treachery (pp. 376 f.). While Kuenen is certainly too conservative in his treatment of the Judaistic passages, we cannot agree with Marti (p. 8) that Hosea never in a single case referred to Judah; one can scarcely conceive the possibility of such a thing. In 415 and 56 there is nothing which demands a later origin.

                (2) It is impossible to reconcile with Hosea’s situation and declarations certain passages referring to Israel’s future, the socalled Messianic allusions. The prophet plainly represents Israel’s ruin as close at hand (v.i.). Moreover, it is apparently an irretrievable disaster (13) which is threatened. In any case death and Sheol are first to do their work (13/4), nor is Yahweh a man to repent (11° 1324). These passages, therefore, are entirely inconsistent with Hosea’s point of view, and directly contradict the representations which are fundamental in his preaching ; nor can it be shown that they are spoken, either, to a different audience (viz. the faithful for their encouragement), or at a later time in Hosea’s ministry.* Besides, they interrupt the logical development of the thought in particular passages (v. in loc.), and show a definite connection with the thought of later prophecy. This material is unquestionably from exilic times.

                 The Superscription. Harlotry of Hosea’s Wife. Purchase of Gomer as a Slave, and her Retention “many days.”  Israel’s Harlotry and her Punishment therefor.  Later Voices describing Israel’s Return to Yahweh.  (246. 6. 12. 18 28-9. 16-17. 20-25. 1-3)

                Yahweh’s Contention with Israel on Account of Sins encouraged by the Priests. Guilt of Priests and Princes.  Fitful Repentance Insufficient to remove Guilt.  Confusion of the Nations.  Israel’s Kings and Idols Displeasing and Destructive.  Israel’s Exile.  Israel’s Corruption.  Israel’s Wickedness as Great as her Prosperity.  Israel’s Past History one of Sin.   Israel loved by Yahweh as his Son.    Israel’s Falsity and Faithlessness from the Beginning.   Israel’s Destruction Absolute.  Ephraim condemned to Sheol.   Later Words of Hope.  The Lesson to be learned.

                (1010. 148   1186. 9 a. 108. 11       1216. 46-7. 13. 14)

                The more important pieces are the following: 21-3 (110-22), promising restoration to Yahweh’s favor, great increase of population, and the reunion of Israel and Judah under one king (pp. 245 f.); 28. 9 (6. 7.) describing the disciplinary measures adopted by Yahweh to restore Israel to her senses (p. 236); 216–18 (14-16), setting forth Yahweh’s purpose to restore Israel to the purity and joy of her first love (p. 238); 220-25 (18-23), picturing the universal harmony and prosperity that will prevail when Yahweh again betroths Israel to himself (pp. 241, 244); 3), announcing Israel’s return to Yahweh and the Messianic King in the days to come (pp. 216, 223); 1186. 9 a. 106. 11, giving the assurance that Yahweh’s anger is appeased and that he will recall the exiles from Egypt and Assyria (p. 372); 142-9 (1-8), containing a call to repentance followed by a description of the great prosperity and peace consequent upon the restoration to Yahweh’s favor (pp. 408 f.).

                (3) A third group includes, as in the case of Amos (p. cxxxiv), phrases and sentences of a technical, archaeological, or historical character, inserted by way of expansion and explanation.

                Here belong, e.g. 413d, ” for good is its shade”; 59, “ with their flocks and their herds”; 74, the comparison of the princes to an oven and a baker kindling the fire ; 716c, “this their scorn”; 88b, “as a vessel wherein none delighteth”; 916, “corn”; 99a, “as in the days of Gibeah”; 910, “in its first season “; 105, “ on account of his glory because it has gone into exile from him “; 1014b, “as Shalman spoiled Betharbel in the day of battle”; 1214 (13), magnifying the prophetic phase of Moses’s work; 1348-7, presenting Jacob in a favorable light.

                (4) The fourth group will include miscellaneous glosses and interpolations for which, perhaps, no special motive may be discovered. As examples of the kind may be cited: 84, “ that they may be cut off”; 85, “ how long will they be incapable of punishment”; 810.14 91«; 989, “ with my God”; 988, “ enmity.” (5) Ch. 1410 stands by itself, and is a product of the later wisdom period (pp. 416 f.).*

3. The internal history of the Book of Hosea was perhaps as follows: —

                (1) Hosea himself prepared the collection of sermons (v.s.), together with the introduction explaining his call to preach. In this case the explanation of the call comes at the beginning (rather than, as in Amos, after the sermons of chaps. 3-6, or in Isaiah, after the sermons of chaps. 2-5) either because it was only a part of the book and had never been preached or made public, or because it was thought necessary to a proper understanding of what followed. (2) The fulfilment of Hosea’s threats in the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.) must have given great prominence to the book in Judah; in any case it was known to Isaiah, who follows Hosea † in using the words Serra 789 (Ho. 5″ = Is. 52), the thought of Ho. 10$ in the refrain of his terrible prophecy on the day of judgment (Is. 210. 21), and the phrase ’70 2.7 kg (Ho. 91, Is. 1%). (3) At some time, the book was worked over in a kind of Judaistic revision. This was not preכxilic, occurring in the days of Josiah, # but post-exilic ;  because (a) 1′ is apparently inserted with reference to the deliverance from Sennacherib, and its point of view presupposes the lapse of considerable time since that event, (6) the inclusion of Judah in 814 reflects the disaster of the exile. (4) At a later time, following Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah, the Messianic insertions (v.s.) were made which entirely changed the character and function of the book. (5) From time to time during all these periods modifications of a less important character were incorporated ; and the book did not take its present form until the Greek period, since 1410 was probably not a part of it until that time.

                4. The general structure || of the book as understood by the present writer has been presented essentially above. It includes three or four propositions :

                (1) 129 314 is a story, briefly and simply told, of the prophet’s own family experience, narrated in part to make known how he came to see the message which he was to deliver to his people.

                (2) 2+7. 10–14. 18. 19 is the prophet’s suggestion of the meaning, obtained in the light of his own experience, in its explanation of Israel’s situation.

                (3) Discourses uttered from time to time, put together without chronological or logical relationship,* — a group of thirteen, presenting, under varying circumstances, the double thought of guilt and inevitable punishment (4-14′).

                5. The external history of the Book of Hosea may be briefly traced. (1) On its connection with other prophetic books, v. pp. cxlvii f.; and on its more direct influence on prophetic thought, v. p. cxlvi. (2) In the apocryphal literature, Ecclus. 49′ mentions the “twelve prophets,” and it is quite certain that Hosea constituted one of the twelve. (3) Philo quotes Ho. 148 and 14″”, while Josephus † speaks of Isaiah and “the others which were twelve in number,” undoubtedly referring to the existing book of the twelve prophets. (4) In the New Testament: Ho. 225 is quoted in Rom. 925 f. (where the prophet is mentioned by name); 68 in Mat. 913 12?; 108 in Luke 23″, Rev. 616 ; 1′ in Mat. 215 ; and 1394 in 1 Cor. 1555. (5) Its place in the Canon at the head of the Book of the Twelve is probably due to its comparatively large volume. I Its right to a place in the Canon has never been questioned.

                E. AMOS AND HOSEA.

                § 20. The Poetical Form of Amos and Hosea . .

                $ 21. The Language and Style of Amos and Hosea .

                $ 22. The Text and Versions of Amos and Hosea

                $ 23. The Literature on Amos and Hosea . . .

Critical & Exegetical Commentary on Micah Zephaniah Nahum Habakkuk Obadiah & Joel.v2.

                CONTENTS

PACE

PREFACE iii-iv

ABBREVIATIONS v-xvii

INTRODUCTION TO MICAH 5-29

§ I. The Book of Micah 5-16

1. The Text 5H5

2. The Style 6

3. Poetic Form 6-8

4. Component Parts 8-16

5. The Formation of the Book of Micah . 16

§ 2. The Prophet Micah 17-19

1. His Name 17

2. His Home 17-18

3. His Character 18-19

§ 3. The Times of Micah 19-23

1. The Date of His Prophecies 19-21

2. The Background of Chs. 1-3 21-23

§ 4. The Message of Micah 23-26

§ 5. Recent Literature on the Book of Micah . . . 26-29

COMMENTARY ON MICAH 30-156

INTRODUCTION TO ZEPIL\NIAH 159-181

§ I. From the Fall of Thebes to the Fall of Nineveh 159-165

§ 2. Zephaniah and His Times 166-171

1. The Man 166-167

2. The Times 167-171

§ 3. The Book of Zephaniah 171-176

1. The Contents 171-172

2. Later Additions . 172-174

3. Poetic Form 174-176

§ 4. The Message of Zephaniah 177-180

§ 5. Literature on the Book of Zephaniah i8a-i8i

COMMENTARY ON ZEPHANIAH 182-263

INTRODUCTION TO NAHUM 267-283

§ I. The Book of Nahum 267-274

Its Contents 267-268

Its Unity … 268-270

Its Poetic Form 270-274

§ 2. The Times of Nahum …. 274-279

§ 3. The Man and the Message 279-282

The Man 279-280

The Message 280-282

§ 4. Literature on the Book of Nahum 282-283

COMMENTARY ON NAHUM 284-360

INDEXES TO MICAH, ZEPHANIAH AND NAHUM . . 361-363

I. Index of Hebrew Words 361

II. Index of Subjects 362-363

INTRODUCTION TO HABAKKUK 3-7

Authorship and Date 3-7

Topical Analysis 7

COMMENTARY ON HABAKKUK 8-28

INTRODUCTION TO OBADIAH 3-18

§ I. The Composition of the Book 3-5

§ 2. The Date of the Book 6-9

§ 3. The Interpretation of the Book 10-13

§ 4. The Prophet and His Book 13-14

§ 5. The Text 15

§ 6. The Metre 15-17

§ 7. Modern Literature 17-18

COMMENTARY ON OBADIAH 19-46

INTRODUCTION TO JOEL 49-72

§1

§2

§3

§4

§5

§6

The Composition of the Book 49-56

The Date of the Book 56-62

The Interpretation of the Book 62-67

The Prophet 67-68

The Text and Metre 68-71

Modern Literature 71-72

COMMENTARY ON JOEL 73-144

INDEXES TO OBADIAH AND JOEL 145-146

                MICAH.

                4. Component Parts.

                The book of Micah falls naturally into three parts, the existenceof which has long been recognised. They are chs. 1-3, chs. 4 and 5 and chs. 6 and 7. They are differentiated from each other by their contents, tone and point of view and to some extent by their poetic form (y. s.). Chs. 1-3 contain almost exclusively denunciations of sin and proclamations of approaching punishment; chs. 4 and 5 are devoted almost as exclusively to words of hope and cheer; while chs. ^ and’jS’ combine these two elements. But within these three main divisions the point of view and background change frequently; consequently many scholars have denied the unity of the book. Chs. 1-3, with the exception of i’- ” and 2″- ^ (q. v.), constitute the nucleus of the book and furnish a touchstone by which the genuineness of the remaining chapters may be tested. Stade and others have sought to athetize i”^, but, as it seems, without sufficient reason; see in loc.         The situation with reference to chs. 4-7 is quite different. The general condition here may be suggested by the following words from Hal(^vy, an ardent supporter of the unity of the book; his statement is particularly applicable to chs. 4-6: “The book of Micah has reached us in a critical state even worse than that of the books of Hosea and Amos. To say nothing of internal corruptions of words, many verses, and even groups of verses, have been torn from their context and inserted haphazard in passages which have no sort of suitable connection with their subject-matter.” * This hypothesis of Halevy’s, however, does not solve the problem. A bird’s-eye view of the history of the criticism of these chapters will place the difficulty squarely before us. For the sake of clearness and convenience, the two groups, chs. ^^==4 and 5-6, will be treated separately.

                The criticism of chs. 4-5.—Chs. 4 and 5 were first brought into prominence by Ew. who, on the basis of differences of style between them and ‘chs. 1-3, for a time regarded them as belonging to some prophet contemporary with Micah. Later, however, Ew. returned to the defence of Micah’s authorship, urging similarities of form, thought and diction, and especially the fact that the denial of chs. 4 and 5 to Micah (as well as chs. 6 and 7) would remove all the Messianic element from Micah’s utterance. Casp. followed with a detailed defence of the unity. In 1871, Oort {ThT., V, 501-512) characterised 4’-‘- “-” as an insertion by some pious reader who considered Micah a false prophet and tried to correct his errors. The ground for this was the fact that with the removal of these verses the connection becomes smooth and the improbability that Micah would have inserted a message of hope in the midst of an unfinished call to repentance and a threat of punishment. To this Kue. replied {ThT., VI, 45-66), defending the connection of 4’-‘, on the ground that the prophet here transports himself in imagination to the last days, and acknowledging that 4″” describes existing conditions and cannot therefore stand where it does, notwithstanding that it belongs to Micah. De Goeje {ThT., VI, 279-284) then proffered a weak defence of the connection of 4>’-‘». Kue., in a second article {ThT., VI, 285-302), suggested that some of the differences between chs. 1-3 and chs. 4-5 were due to the fact that the former deal with the godless leaders while the latter are addressed to the people as a whole who have some claim to pardon. He also emphasised the mobility and vivacity of Micah’s style, to which De Goeje had referred, as exempting him from submission to strict logical requirements. We., also, called attention (Bleek’s Einl., 4th ed., p. 425) to the contradiction between 4’ ‘° and 4″.      In 1881 appeared Sta.’s epoch-making article {ZAW., I, 161-172), in which he denied Micah’s authorship of chs. 4-5 in toto. The following considerations are urged in support of this view. It is improbable that Micah would have weakened the effect of his utterances in chs. 1-3 by introducing a message of directly opposite import in chs. 4-5. The content of this section departs widely from the ideas of Isaiah, while chs. 1-3 show close affinity to them; chs. 4-5 are, indeed, in full accord with Joel, Deutero-Isaiah and Zechariah, chs. 12-14. The section is full of postexilic conditions; e. g., 4’- ‘” presupposes the Exile as having occurred; s’-^ gives an indefinite, apocalyptic vision of the Messianic age, while pre-exilic ideas of the Messiah spring immediately out of the existing historical situation. The inconsistency and lack of connection within the chapters point to composite origin; e. g., 4″-5^ is wholly inconsistent with 4^-‘°, but it connects well with 4’-‘ and is continued in 58-x. These three passages constitute the contribution of a later writer who desired to brighten the dark picture left by Micah; into this addition a later writer, thinking it to be a part of Micah’s prophecy, inserted 4^-^’^ 5^- 5 in order to harmonise it with the actual course of events and with the development of prophecy.          Sta.’s discussion has greatly influenced all later scholarship. Giesebrecht {ThLZ., 1881, p. 443) followed him in rejecting ch. 4, but held to the genuineness of ch. 5 on the ground that without it Micah’s prophecy would be too one-sided. W. R. Smith, in 1882 [Proph., 2d ed., pp. 430/.), followed Oort in rejecting 4″”, but refused to go further. In 1883, Sta. {ZAW., Ill, 1-16) gave further arguments in support of his view, e. g., that Bethlehem and Ephratha (5′) are never identified except in postexilic literature. Cor., in 1884 {ZAW., IV., 89), was the first to place himself unreservedly on Sta.’s side. Now., in the same year {ZAW., IV, 277-290), yielded 4^-^- “-” to the interpolator, but rejected Sta.’s claim that chs. 4-5 as a whole were inconsistent with pre-exilic prophecy, citing Is. 18′ 19″ ii’o a. as parallels to the description of the coming of “many peoples ” to Jerusalem, and Is. ii< *• 9′- ^ as parallels to the picture of idyllic peace in 4”’. As parallel to the fact that these chapters oppose masseboth and asherim, to which Isaiah made no objection, Now. cites 3 ‘2 and the well-known attitude of Isaiah toward Jerusalem. Wildeboer, in 1884 {De Profeet Micha; so also in Letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds, 3d ed., 1903, 145/.), grants that Sta.’s objections might apply to the spoken word, but declares them inapplicable to the written word. Che., in his commentary (1885), rejects 45-‘” 5′-* on g:rounds of logic. Ry. discussed these chapters fully in his commentary (1887), gathering up and reinforcing the arguments of his predecessors in favour of unity. He explained the difficulties of the section as due to a redactor who arranged scattered utterances of Micah in an order of his own which is to us no order at ail. He also urged the general considerations that our knowledge of Hebrew history is too defective to enable us to determine whether a given thought was or was not possible at a certain time, and that the mere fact that a thought is much emphasised in some particular period does not preclude the possibility of its having been uttered previously. In 1889, Pont {Theol. Sludien, VII, 439-453) reaffirmed the unity, reiterating the old arguments. In the same year, Kue. again {Einl., II, 360-3) expressed himself upon these chapters, declaring it improbable that 3’= was Micah’s last word. Hence the authenticity of the following promises was probable. But inconcistencies, the lack of logical sequence and the presence of undoubtedly pre-exilic utterances alongside of others presupposing Judah’s captivity made it probable that 46-s- ” ” were postexilic, while s”* had undergone a thorough working over at a late day.     In 1891, Elh. put forth an ingenious but fanciful theory in defence of the unity of the entire book. In accordance with this, chs. 4-5 should follow chs. 6-7 and should be rearranged thus: 4′-8 5’-‘ 4«’« 5”^ However, even thus, 4″ is treated as a gloss and 4’-‘« 58 as postexilic additions. We., in his commentary (1892; 3d ed., 1898), finds possible remnants of genuine utterances of Micah in 49- lo- » s’-‘s. He emphasises the use of FT’-‘N-i’ (4′) as a technical eschatological term, the mutually exclusive conceptions of 49- ‘” and 4″”, and the allusion in 5′.’ to Is. 7″ which has apparently become a classic. In 1893, Kosters {ThT., XXVII, 249-274) aligned himself with Sta., making the two chapters postexilic. He regarded 5′-8 as the continuation of 46-8. He suggested also that the present book of Micah was a result of two independent recensions of the original. The one consisted of chs. 1-3 + chs. 4-5; the other contained chs. 1-3 + 6-7; later these two were combined. In the same year, We. {Kleine Propheten, 2d ed.) surrendered all but 4=- ‘”• ” 5′”. In 1896, GASm. rejected only s^^- 7-9 as inconsistent with Micah’s times. In 1897, Volz {Die vorexilische Jahweprophetic, 63-67), following We., granted to Micah 4^-^oa. u 59-14^ and 5^6 as a badly distorted fragment. 212 1. 46 f. lob- 13 56-8 are assigned to a later editor, while 4^ 5’- ‘ “” belong to another hand and are probably later than 4’-‘, which may be from the time of Deutero-Isaiah. Now.’s commentary (1897 ; 2d ed., 1903) agrees with We. and Volz and adds little. Dr., in his well-known Introduction, with characteristic caution declines to commit himself to an opinion on this question. Che. {EB., art. Micah; cf. in Introd. to WRS., Proph., 2d ed.) follows Sta., Cor. and Kosters in assigning these chapters to a postexilic date. Marti’s commentary (1904) arrives at the same result, but assigns the chapters to a larger number of sources than any of its predecessors had employed. Bu. {Gesch., 1906, p. 89) and Du. {Zwolf Propheten, 1910) also agree with Sta.

                Reference may be made to the following commentary for detailed statements of the position assumed here with reference to chs. 4-5. It suffices to say in this connection that the arguments of Stade against Micah’s authorship seem irrefutable, except possibly in the case of 4″ 5′”^^. Nothing short of a complete reversal of current views concerning Hebrew eschatology, such as that proposed by Gressmann,* could make these chapters intelligible for the age of Micah. Furthermore, as the foregoing history of criticism shows, it is impossible to regard the chapters as a unit in themselves; the attitude toward the heathen world, e. g., is wholly different in 4″- ^^ from that in 4^”^ nor is the view of the Messianic age in 5^- ^ consistent with that in ^^’^. But Stade’s division of the material between two sources cannot stand. Glosses are represented by 4*- ^ 5^- ^^- “; 4^-* stands alone; 4”-‘^ and 5^^ reflect the same background and breathe the same spirit; the remaining sections have no close affinity with any of the preceding or with one another. The chapters thus seem to contain a miscellaneous collection of fragments gathered up from various sources, and having little in common other than a hopeful outlook for the future.

                Criticism of chs. 6-7.—The story of the critical study of chs. 6-7 also begins with Ew. (1867). His argument in brief was: (i) chs. 1-5 are so complete in themselves that nothing additional is needed. (2) The style is quite different; there is nothing of the elevated force still met with in chs. 1-5; the tone is more like that of Jeremiah; and the peculiarities of language characteristic of chs. 1-5 are lacking here. (3) The artistic form is quite different; this section has a purely dramatic plan and execution; it is not the utterance of a speaker but that of an artist. “The entire piece proceeds amid changing voices; and there are not fewer than ten voices that are heard one after the other. But since the prophet still retains the ancient artistic form of the str., the whole falls into five strs., which are also five acts, thus completing all that has to be said and giving it a perfectly rounded form.” (Ew.’s strs. or “acts ” are 6′-* 6^-^^ 7′-8 -77-13 7U-20). (4) The historical background is wholly different. There is no trace of the stirring and elevated times of Isaiah’s activity. The nation seems to be very small and faint-hearted (6^ ‘• 7″ ‘•); the selfishness and faithlessness of individuals is greater (6’° ‘ 7’-‘); the idolatrous tendencies encouraged by Manasseh had long prevailed (6’«); and the more religious hardly ventured to name the king openly. The reign of Manasseh best complies with these conditions.     The next important contribution to the discussion was made by We. (Bleek’s Einl., 4th ed., 1878, pp. 425/.). He follows Ew. in assigning 6′-7^ to the reign of Manasseh, but concludes that 7′-” was added during the E.xile. He summarises his argument as follows: “Thus the situation in 7′-” is quite different from that in 7’-«. What was present there, viz., moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish state, is here past; what is there future, viz., the retribution of v. *^, has here come to pass and has been continuing for some time. What in w. ” was still unthought of, viz., the consolation of the people, tempted in their trouble to mistrust Yahweh, is in w. ^•° the main theme. Between v. ” and v. ‘ there yawns a century. On the other hand, there prevails a remarkable similarity between vv. ‘–o and Isaiah, chs. 40-66.” (Quoted from Dr.^””-, p. 2S3-) Ew.’s view, as modified by We., has been accepted fully, or with but slight variations, by Sta. {ZAW., I, 1881, 161/.), WRS. {Enc. Brit., art. Micah), Che., Kue. {Einl, II, 363 /.), Cor. {Einl, 1891, 183-6), Pont {Tkeol. Studien, 1892, p. 340.), Ko. {Einl., 1893, pp.329/.), Dr. {Intr., pp. ^Zif-) ^nd Du. {Zwolf Propheten, 1910). Cor., however, for a time maintained the authenticity of these chapters {ZAW., IV, 1884, 89 /.; so also Kirk., Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892, pp. 229/.; and van H., 1908), urging (i) that ever}’thing which may be brought forward in support of their origin in Manasseh’s day applies equally well to the time of Ahaz (2 K. 16^; cf. Mi. 60- (2) That the origin of the book would be inexplicable if ISIicah’s work ceased with ch. 3, for chs. 4-5 are enough to offset the gloomy tone of chs. 1-3—why then should there be added a section from the time of Manasseh having no inner connection with chs. 4-5 ? On the hypothesis of the late origin of chs. 6-7, they should immediately follow chs. 1-3, since they give reasons for the drastic punishment there threatened. (3) That 6’-7” shows traces of the author of chs. 1-3, having perfect parallels in them {e. g., i^- >3 = 6’«) as well as in the addresses of Isaiah from the reign of Ahaz. (4) That a late working over of j^–” must be granted.                 Now. at once replied {ZAW., IV, 288/.) to Cor. (i) that chs. 6-7 contain no thought not expressed in chs. 1-3 which could serve as a reason for the threat in 3 ‘2; reasons enough are stated in chs. 1-3; anything further would be superfluous; (2) that ch. 6 cannot be regarded as a continuation of 3’^ since the representation in 6′ “• is wholly different from that in i^ «• and scarcely consistent wath it; (3) that the judgment in 31- comes because of the sins of the leaders, priests and prophets, whereas in 6-7 the charge is quite general (72) and against no special classes; (4) that if chs. 6-7 come from the time of .\haz, as Cor. declares, *hey can hardly state the grounds for the judgment in chs. 1-3, uttered in the time of Hezekiah (Je. 26’^); (5) that the prophet who so sharply antagonises the wicked leaders in the time of the comparatively good king, Hezekiah, would not be likely to let them pass almost unnoticed in the reign of Ahaz, an exceedingly wicked king; (6) that “my people ” is the object of the prophet’s compassion in chs. 1-3, but in chs. 6-7 it is the object of his wrath. Wildeboer, in 1884 {De Profeet Micha, p. 57), adheres to Micah’s authorship, stating (i) that differences in artistic structure and manner of presentation do not necessarily involve different authorship; (2) that as there was human sacrifice under Ahaz and also under Manasseh, it is quite probable that there were some who practised it, at least in secret, in the time of Hezekiah; (3) that in 7’ the words “prince,” “judge,” “great one” are used collectively and thus disprove the charge that the leaders are not denounced in these chapters. In 1887, Ry. defended the authenticity of this material on the following grounds. The chapters were written in the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign when conditions were essentially the same as under Ahaz. The religious formalism alluded to in 6^- ‘• ‘”-‘2 is wholly out of keeping with the reign of Manasseh. 7’-‘ is an independent section and the immorality there described was possible in Hezekiah’s day; but if it must be interpreted literally, it is intelligible neither as coming from Hezekiah’s reign nor from that of Manasseh. The hope of return from Assyria and Egypt is indicative of pre-exilic origin; in Deutero-Isaiah the place of exile is always Babylon and Chaldaea. But if the chapters must be assigned to Manasseh’s reign, it is still reasonable to assign them to Micah, who may have been still living.                 In 1887 also, Sta. {Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, I, 634), expressed his conviction of the postexilic origin of ch. 6. In 1890, Gie. {Beitrdge zur Jesaiakritik, 216/.) declared himself with Ew. as to 6′-7% but assigned 77-20 to postexilic times. Elh. (1891), on the other hand, endorses the arguments of Cor. and Ry. in behalf of authenticity and attempts to ease all difficulties of connection by placing chs. 6-7 immediately after chs. 1-3 and by rearranging the text in this order: 6’-^ 71-6 6«-‘8 7″ 7’-‘^ -jn-ia^ In 1892, We. again puts himself on record {Kleine Proph., 2d ed.), stih maintaining the possibility of Micah’s authorship, even in the age of Manasseh, for 6′-8, declaring 6^-^^ independent of its context and without indications of definite date, assigning 7′-6 to the period of Malachi, and following Gie. with reference to 77-20. j^ 1893, Rosters, in connection with a searching review of Elh.’s commentary {ThT., XXVII, 249-274), suggested the postexilic origin of these chapters, citing many words and phrases as characteristic of postexilic language and thought. These chapters were written to explain the fall of Jerusalem as due to the corruption of the generation contemporary with that disaster, it being no longer believed that the children are punished for the sins of the father. The position of GASm. (1896) is near to that of We., for he holds to Micah’s authorship of 6′-*, is undecided as to 6’-‘^ and 7′-^ and regards y’-‘o as a psalm composed of fragments from various dates, of which •ju-\7 points to the eighth century B.C. by its geographical references, and 7″ to the period between the fall of Jerusalem and its rebuilding. Now., in his commentary (1897; 2d ed., 1905), considers the reign of Manasseh a possible date for 6’-7«, but denies Micah’s authorship even were he then alive. He would locate 7 ‘-2″ in the period between the decree of Cyrus and the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Dr.'”””- is inclined to agree with Ew. and to deny the necessity of separating 77-20 and assigning it to a later age. Che. (EB., art. Micah), makes both chapters postexilic and finds them concerned with the ubiquitous Jerahmeelites. Sta. gives a long list {ZAW., XXIII, 1903, 164-171), of poste.xilic parallels to 7’-‘” and assigns the whole of 6-7 to the postexilic age (in Bibl. Theol. d. Alt. Test., 1905, p. 230). Marti (1904) calls chs. 6-7 “a conglomerate, held together by the conviction that deliverance must finally come, though the sins of the present demand the continuance of God’s wrath.” Of this conglomerate 6’-‘ is editorial expansion; 6^-^ belongs probably to the fifth century, possibly to the sixth; and ch. 7 to the second century B.C. Bu. also resolves the two chapters into fragments and places them all in the postexilic age (Gesch., 1906). The last commentator, van H. (1908), insists upon the unity of the chapters and upon Micah’s authorship, basing it all upon the hypothesis that the two chapters are concerned with Samaria, not Jerusalem, and finding it necessary to transpose 7″”>-i3 to follow 7^ (see ad loc). Hpt. (1910) allows Micah only t,2,\ lines of text in chs. 1-3. Chs. 4-7 are assigned to the Maccabaean period (170-100 B.C.), while i’-‘ is a poem written in celebration of the destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus in 107 B.C. This represents a step beyond the conclusions of the foregoing critics, in that Hpt. leaves Micah less than any previous scholar and is confident in his assignment of the non-Micah material to the Maccabaean period and even to the specific years to which the several poems belong. Unfortunately, this confidence cannot be shared by scholars at large until more definite and convincing considerations are forthcoming.

                The conclusions arrived at in the following commentary may be briefly summarised. There is no logical unity within chs. 6 and 7; they resolve themselves into seven sections, no one of which connects closely with either its preceding or its following sections. The possibility of Micah’s authorship remains open for 6®”‘” and 7^-°, but is wholly excluded for the remainder. These two sections, together with 6′”^, might be placed in any period of Hebrew history subsequent to the appearance of the great prophets. 6°’* seems to reflect the wisdom of the sages and to belong in the earlier half of the postexilic age. f’^° and 7″”^” come apparently both out of the same conditions; Israel is suffering but hoping, looking back with longing upon the good old days and praying for vengeance; they are best located in the later postexilic period, after the work of Nehemiah and Ezra. 7″”^, however, is wholly detached from its context and is to be explained as coming from the period after the fall of Jerusalem, but before the rebuilding of the city walls. The two chapters thus seem to be a collection of miscellaneous fragments, coming from widely scattered periods and from at least four different authors.

                Outline.

                § I. The Superscription (1:1). This states the authority of the utterance and the author’s name

and clan, together with the period of his activity and the subjectmatter

of his writings.

                § 2 The Doom of Israel (1:2-9).  This oracle resolves itself into six strophes of four lines each,(i) The announcement of Yahweh’s appearance in judgment (v. ^). (2) The convulsions of nature attendant upon his coming (vv. ^• *^’ ^)’ (3) The occasion of this punitive manifestation is the sin of Israel, especially as represented in the capital cities (v. ^) . (4) Yahweh states that Samaria is to be razed to the ground because of her sins (v. “). (5) Therefore does the prophet break forth into inconsolable lamentation (v. ^). (6) For the destruction is irremediable and will extend even to Jerusalem (v. ®)

                § 3- Lamentation Over Israel’s Doom (1:10-16).

                In four strs. of four lines each, the prophet pictures desolationas it sweeps across the countryside with the march of an invading army. Wherever the blow falls, the piercing note of the dirge arises, (i) A call to some of the more northern to<\\Tis to give themselves to mourning>. (2) Disaster sent by Yahweh will smite the cities of Judah. (3) Let the inhabitants of Lachish and its environs flee in hot haste before the impending judgment. (4) Israel’s territory will be in the hands of the foe, and her inhabitants will be carried into exile.

                § 4. The Oppression of the Poor (2*-“).

                In six strs. in which the elegiac strain is predominant, Micah denouncesthe tyranny of the rich and warns them of coming judgment. Str. I, the prophet speaks: Woe to those who plot night and day to despoil their neighbours of houses and lands. Str. II, Yahweh speaks: For this reason I am about to bring upon this people a humihating and unbearable yoke. Str. Ill, Yahweh continues: Then the wail of the mourner will arise among you, ‘ Our land is allotted to others; we are wholly undone!’ Str. IV, the rich oppressors speak: Cease prating of such things. We are immime from calamity. Is Yahweh impotent, or can he mean anything but good to his own people? Str. V, Yahweh retorts: But ye are destroyers of my people, robbing and plundering them and driving the women and children into slavery. Str. VI, Yahweh pronoimces sentence: Rise and begone! Because of your sins, ye shall be hopelessly destroyed.

                § 5. The Return of the Exiles (2^2- ^^).

                A later editor, in a single eight-line str., prevailingly trimeter in

movement, offsets the announcement of exile made in § 4 by a

promise of Israel’s return from exile under the protection and

leadership of Yahweh.

                § 6. Denunciation of the Leaders and Prophets (3^”*).

                Of the seven four-line strs. constituting this poem, three are

devoted to the secular leaders, three to the rehgious, and the last

to Micah himself.

                § 7. The Doom of Israel (3®”^^).

                This is the climax of Micah’s utterances. He here groups together

the three leading classes in Judah, the princes, priests and

prophets, and lays upon them the full responsibility for the approaching

downfall of the capital city which he foretells.

                B. CHAPTERS 4 AND 5.

                Chs. 4 and 5 have given much trouble to interpreters, great varietyof opinion existing as to what portions, if any, may be attributed to Micah and as to the origin and date of the portions not thus assigned. All agree, however, that the chapters as they now stand are wholly lacking in logical continuity within themselves and must be regarded as composed of a series of more or less imrelated fragments. By some, this lack of logical unity is urged, with other considerations, as warrant for denying these chapters to Micah, in whole or in part. By others, it is held to be consistent with Micah’s authorship, either on the ground of the vivacity and mobility of his style, which is not to be confined within logical limits;* or because the spoken word permits of greater freedom from logical restraint than does the written word ;t or on the hypothesis that the present order is due to the work of a redactor who arranged fragments of Micah’s addresses in an order which is for us no order.|

                § 8. An Ideal of Yahweh^s World-Dominion (4:1-5).

                Three six-line strs. in trimeter movement, with a later expansion(vv. *• ^), annoimcing the coming world-wide supremacy of Yahweh and the beneficent results involved therein. Str. I states the fact that the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem is to become the religious rallying-point of the nations. Str. II indicates their motive in coming as the desire to learn of Yahweh’s ways at the only source of instruction. Str. Ill declares that Yahweh will be the world’s arbiter, and that the weapons and art of war will perish. The appendices add details to the picture of idyllic peace.

                § 9. The Doom of Exile and a Promise of Restoration (4:6-10)-

                This section reflects a period when Jerusalem was in imminentdanger from an invader. It foretells capture and exile as the inevitable outcome of the situation, but hastens to assuage the grief by the declaration that Yahweh will intervene, bringing deliverance from captivity and restoration to the home-land. It can be treated as a imit only by transposing vv. ^- ^^ to precede vv. *'”*; V. i.. Str. I pictures Israel’s bitter suffering and gently satirises the futility of human leaders. Str. II declares that even greater calamity is coming, but that Yahweh will thereupon deliver Israel from its foes. Str. Ill annovmces that Yahweh will then gather together the exiles. Str. IV promises their re-establishment as a mighty nation under Yahweh as their eternal king. Str. V reaches the climax with the assurance that Jerusalem will be restored as the nation’s capital.

                § 10. The Triumph of Israel (4:11-13).

In two strs. of six lines each and in trimeter measure, the prophet

describes the scene of Israel’s final vindication at Yahweh’s hands.

                § 11. A Call to Mourning (4:14).

                A fragment of an oracle dealing with some siege of Jerusalem,perhaps that of Sennacherib, or that of Nebuchadrezzar, or some one unknown. It seems to reflect an actual historical situation, rather than a prophet’s vision of the last days. But the material is too scant to furnish a basis for assignment to any specific date. Its closest connection is with w. ®- ^^ and it may have belonged originally after v. ^ or as a marginal note on v. *° (so Marti). It has been generally recognised that no connection exists with what precedes, as is shown by the absence of T from before nny and by the totally different thought conveyed. Halevy places it after 6′”, but no real connection is thereby attained.

                § 12. The Messianic King (5:1-3).               This eight-line str., secured by omitting v. ^ as a gloss, announces the coming of the Messiah, sprung from an ancient line, who shall rule as Yahweh’s representative and in his might over the entire world.      § 13. Israel’s Protection against Invasion (5:4,5).                 A ten-line str., the three closing lines of which are almost identical with its three opening lines. When the invader sets foot upon Israelitish soil there will be no lack of valiant leaders to repel him and to carry the war into his own territory. In contrast with the present defenceless, helpless condition, the Israel of the coming golden age will be adequately equipped to defend her own interests.                § 14. TJie Divine Emergence and Irresistible Might of the Remnant (5:6-8).        Two strs. of six lines each, in trimeter movement, set forth the glory of the remnant, as exhibited in its marvellous rise to power and in its victorious career, V. Ms a marginal note on v. ^ {v. i.). Str. I likens the emergence of the renmant, from among the nations whither Israel has been scattered, to the silently falling dew and to the showers which enable the grass to grow independently of human aid. Str. II presents the remnant vmder the figure of a roaring lion, ravaging defenceless flocks of sheep with none to say him nay.       § 15. IsraeVs Purification through Chastisement (5:9-14).               This piece consists of two four-line strs., with an introductory prose line (v. ^^) and two additional verses from the hands of editors (w. ^^- “). The original piece probably dates from some time in the Deuteronomic period. Str. I foretells the destruction of the munitions of war in which Israel places confidence instead of trusting in Yahweh. Str. II denoimces idolatrous practices which likewise lead Israel away from Yahweh.

                C. CHAPTERS 6 AND 7.

                That these two chapters as they stand could not belong to theeighth century B.C. has been generally recognised since the days of Ewald. Opinion has been divided however as to the time to which they do belong. Ew., followed by many interpreters, assigned them to the reign of Manasseh as a product of IMicah’s old age. Recent scholarship has been more inclined to place them in the postexilic period. In any case they do not constitute a logical unit, but must be interpreted as representing diflferent points of view and reflecting varying backgroimds. For detailed discussion of these questions reference is made to the Introduction, § 2, and to the introductory statements at the opening of the various sections into which the chapters are here analysed.          § 16. Yahweh’s Controversy with Israel (6:1-5).   Four strs. of four trimeter lines each, seek to bring home to the conscience of Israel the obligation resting upon her to be loyal to Yahweh in return for his great goodness to her. Str. I. Let Israel in the presence of the mountains present her case. Str. II. Let these mountains “full of memories and associations with both parties to the trial” be witnesses in the controversy between Yahweh and his people. Str. III. Yahweh has given Israel cause not for complaint but for thanksgiving; witness, the deliverance from Egypt. Str. IV. Let Israel only recall the period of the wanderings in the desert, in order to be reminded of the mighty interpositions of Yahweh in her behalf. § 17. The Character of True Religion (6:6-8). A discussion of the nature of Yahweh’s requirements which yields the finest summary of the content of practical religion to be found in the OT. The material readily resolves itself into three four-line strs. in trimeter movement; the opening of Str. II is marked by the introduction of a new subject, while the beginning of Str. Ill is indicated by the change from question to answer. Str. I represents an individual inquiring what type of ser\-ice Yahweh desires. Will gifts satisfy him? Str. II continues the inquiry in such a way as to show that even the most elaborate and costly gifts cannot secure Yahweh’s favour. Str. Ill answers the inquiry with a positive definition of “pure religion and undefiled.”    § 18. The Sin of the City atid the Punishment to Come (6:9-16).              This section gives a vivid poetical description of Israel’s wicked life and of the disasters which Yahweh must bring upon the nation as punishment. Yahweh himself is represented as speaking, and his utterance falls into five four-line strs. of prevailingly trimeter movement. Str. I addresses the city in Yahweh’s name and characterises it as an abode of violence and deceit. Str. II asserts that the riches of the town have been acquired by cheating and fraud in ordinary commercial transactions. Str. Ill announces that Yahweh’s hand will soon begin the task of chastisement and that all attempts at escape will be futile. Str. IV details the various forms which the chastisement will assume, all of them involving famine. Str. V states that all this terrible wickedness is due to persistence in the sins of the past and that the inevitable result is destruction. The first two strs., thus, denounce the city’s sins, the second two announce the consequent doom, while the last str. summarises both sin and punishment.                 § 19. Israel’s Lamentation Over the Faithlessness Among Her People (7:1-6).         This section is a group of six four-line strs. which bewail the general depravity in Israel. Str. I laments the state of general weakness into which Israel has fallen. Str. II accounts for this weakness by describing the wickedness universal in Israel. Str. Ill exposes the covetousness and bribery prevalent among the ruling classes. Str. IV declares their condition to be hopeless and their day of punishment to be close at hand. Strs. V and VI rise to a climax in the denunciation of sin, by shovnng that no man dare trust even his most intimate friends and nearest relatives. § 20. The Discomfiture of the Foe (7:7-10).           In four strs. of four lines each, the prophet expresses his conviction that Yahweh will vindicate his people by overthrowing their enemies. The poem sounds somewhat like an imprecatory psalm. Str. I warns the enemy not to rejoice too prematurely, for Israel’s distress is only temporary. Str. II expresses the resolution to bear Yahweh’s chastisement uncomplainingly, since it is due to sin and will end in Israel’s vindication. Str. Ill declares that the tables are to be turned upon Israel’s enemies ; those who have reviled her will themselves be put to shame.— Str. IV annoimces a time when those who scoffed at Israel’s God because of Israel’s calamities will in their turn be grotmd down by oppression. § 21. The Restoration of Jerusalem and the Return of Exiles (7:11-13).                 A single eight-line str. tells of the time when the city’s walls will be rebuilt, her borders extended and her citizens brought back from every quarter of the earth; while the heathen world will receive drastic punishment for the sin of its mhabitants. § 22. A Prayer for Yahwelt’s Intervention (7:14-20).   Three strs. of four lines each, in qtna rhythm, call for Yahweh’s manifestation as the deliverer of his people and base the appeal for deliverance upon his mercy. Str. I is a prayer to Yahweh for the resumption of his former attitude of favour toward his people. Str . II prays for the utter humiliation of the heathen nations and their complete subjection to Yahweh. Str. Ill recalls the wellknown character of Yahweh and reminds him of his oath to the patriarchs concerning the glory of Israel.

                ZEPHANIAH. Introduction.

                § I. From the Fall of Thebes to the Fall of Nineveh 159-165

                § 2. Zephaniah and His Times 166-171

1. The Man 166-167

2. The Times 167-171

                § 3. The Book of Zephaniah 171-176

1. The Contents 171-172

2. Later Additions . 172-174

3. Poetic Form 174-176

                § 4. The Message of Zephaniah 177-180

                § 5. Literature on the Book of Zephaniah i8a-i8i

                § 3. THE BOOK OF ZEPHANIAH.

                I. The Contents.

                The thought of the book is centred upon one great theme, thecoming of the day of Yahweh. As the book now stands, this theme is presented under four successive phases. Ch. i sets forth the first of these, viz., the announcement of the near approach of the great day with its overwhelming terrors which are to involve the world in general and Judah in particular. The prophet’s primary interest naturally is in the fate of his own people; hence his message is addressed to them. Ch. 2, the second phase of the subject, announces the coming of this same great day upon the neighbouring peoples, viz., the PhiHstines, Moabites, Ammonites, Ethiopians or Egyptians, and Assyrians. In the third division, ch. 3*”^, the prophet returns to his own people and contrasts their sinfulness with the righteousness of Yahweh. In this contrast lies the cause of the disaster coming upon Jerusalem. In the fourth and final stage of the presentation, ch. 3^”^*^, the thought leaps forward to the future, and declares that after the process of the purification of the people of Yahweh is completed, the nation will enjoy world-wide fame as the redeemed of Yahweh, the mighty God.            2. Later Additions. Critical study of the contents of the book during the last half century has resulted in the setting apart of certain portions of the text as belonging neither to Zephaniah nor to his times, but as due to accretion in later days. A presentation of the considerations which have produced this change of opinion may be found in the following commentary in connection with the various passages involved. Here we may present only a sketch of the history of this critical movement and a summary of the conclusions reached in this commentary.            The process of criticism began with Eichhorn (1824), Einl.\ and Theiner (1828), who decided against 2″-” as alien to the thought of Zephaniah. Forty years later, Oort, in Godgeleerde Bijdragen for 1865, pp. 812 ff., set aside 2′-” and 3″-2o as secondary matter. His view of the latter passage has now won general recognition. Sta.^^’^ (1887), 644, followed by denying the whole of ch. 3 to Zephaniah and questioning 2i-3- n. Kue., Onderzoek (1889), responded by denying the force of the arguments against all but 3H-20. in 1890, Schw. made an elaborate investigation of chs. 2 and 3, coming to the conclusion that Zephaniah wrote only 2i3-‘5 and possibly 2’-‘, while an exilic hand contributed 25’2 and a postexilic, 3’-2o. We. endorsed the views of Sta. and Schw. on ch. 3, athetized also 28-” and expressed doubt as to 2^- ‘. Bu. {SK., 1893, pp. 393 ff.; so also in Gesch., 1906) separated 2<-‘5 ^9. 10. 14-20 from the genuine material. Dav. made a careful examination of the arguments of all his predecessors and was content to give Zephaniah credit for all except 3″‘- ‘^-^o. Now. eliminated only 2^- ‘»«• s-” 3″-2o (similarly also Baudissin, Einl., 553 f. and Selbie, art. Zephaniah, DB.). GASm. accepted Bu.’s view of ch. 3, but dissented as to ch. 2, regarding ail but 2 s-” as genuine. Dr. [EB., IV (1903), 5406 /.; so also in his commentary (1906); in Intr. (1910) he adds 3’8-2<‘ to the passages that are “very probably later additions”], with customary caution, conceded the probability of the late origin of 2″‘- » 3’- ‘” and refused to decide as to 3X-20, the latter part of which, viz., 3’8-2o^ he considered “more open to suspicion than 3’*-“.” Marti, with enviable certainty as to the exact dates of the various additions, agreed with Sta. in taking away from Zephaniah the whole of ch. 3, but in ch. 2 deprived him only of 23. 8-11. 15^ aside from numerous glosses. Cor. accepted the view of Now. for the most part, setting aside 2″‘- =• s-” 3″-2”. Van H., a scholarly Catholic, contended for the unity of the book as the product of Zephaniah’s preaching, with the exception of a few glosses (e. g., 27-io- ‘i).     In the same year (1908), Beer gave essential adherence to Sta.’s position, rejecting 2’=’-i”- ^^, with the whole of ch. 3, and questioning 2′-3. The conclusions of Fag. are practically the same. Lippl, with Catholic caution and sound learning, concedes the later origin of only 2’»- ” “” 3′ 9- 20, though granting a reasonable doubt as to the originality of 28-n in its present form. Du., the most recent writer, follows closely after We,, dropping 2’^=– ^- ^^- ” s-“- ” and the whole of ch. 3. In this commentary, the following materials, in addition to minor glosses, are treated as of secondary origin. The oracle against Moab and Ammon (2^- ^) is relegated to later times since its phraseology presupposes the conditions of the exile as actually existing. An expansion of this oracle is found in 2**’- “. The fall of Nineveh is taken for granted in 2*^, which is therefore placed after that event. In the third chapter the only original matter is found in w. ^”^. Vv. ^’ ^ may possibly be old material; but in that case they are out of place in their present context. Vv. ^^^ are a postexihc addition, in which is now included a gloss (w. ^*^°) revealing a different attitude toward the heathen and interrupting the continuity of thought between w, ^ and “. Vv. ^^-^ are another addition from postexilic times, which has likewise imdergone some inner expansion.        The allowance of time necessary for the various additions to the book, together with the still later glosses upon those additions, necessitates placing the completion of the prophecy in its present form well along in the postexilic period. The final touches may have been given as late as the Greek period. The history of the growth of OT. books shows that they were all subject to this kind of treatment, at least until they were recognised as canonical. Indeed, it is by no means certain that canonicity in its early stages guaranteed immunity from such modifications. The Book of the Twelve was, in all probability, the last candidate to secure admission to the prophetic canon.

                Outline.

                § I. THE SUPERSCRIPTION (1:1). This introduces the author, traces his lineage, declares the source and authority of his message and states the period of his public activity.             § 2. THE DAY OF DOOM UPON JUDAH AND JERUSALEM (1:2-6). A single str. of eight lines announcing with prophetic finality the approaching day of judgment upon the world in general and Judah in particular.            § 3. THE TERRORS OF THE DAY OF YAHWEH (1:7-18).        A vivid picture of the terrible judgment now so near at hand. The poem falls into eleven short strs. of two lines each, as though the burden of the message were too heavy to be borne by strs. of greater length. Str. I announces the near approach of the dread day (i^); H pronounces judgment upon the king’s counsellors (j8a. 9b). jjj deals with those who practise social and religious customs of foreign origin (i^b. 9a). jy describes the woe to come upon every quarter of the city (i^**- “^) ; V vividly represents the impossibility of the escape of any guilty man (i^^^- ^); VI shows how such men will realise their mistake in disregarding Yahweh (ii2c. 13a). Yii reiterates the announcement that Yahweh’s day is near (i”); VHI and IX characterise that day with its terrors (i^^- ^^) ; X describes the pitiful condition of mankind on that day (i^^) ; and XI closes the poem with the threat of a most complete destruction (i^^^- “).              §4. A DAY OF DOOM UPON PHILISTIA (2:1-7). In a poem that has suffered many things at the hands of editors, the prophet foretells woe upon the Philistines. The reasons for the divine anger against Israel’s ancient foe were apparently so well knowTi to the prophet’s audience that they did not need to be rehearsed here. The poem is composed of four strs. of two lines each. Str. I sounds the note of warning to Philistia in view of the near approach of her day of judgment (2*- ^^). Str. II specifies four of the five great PhiUstine towns as doomed to destruction (2^). Str. Ill announces the complete depopulation of the whole Philistine coast (2’^). Str. IV represents this former abode of men as given over to the pasturage of flocks (2″- ”^).                 § 5- THE DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON MOAB AND AMMON (2:8-11).            In a single str. of six lines, the attitude of Moab and Ammon toward Judah in her calamity is recalled and the dire destruction of both people is foretold (v\. ^- ®). Later hands have expanded the oracle and made it foretell the world-wide dominion of Yahweh (vv. ^°””). The entire section belongs to the postexilic age.      § 6. THE DOOM OF ETHIOPIA AND ASSYRIA (2:12-15).      In another single str. of six lines, Zephaniah marks the southern limit of the Scythian invasion; then, returning to the opposite extreme of the world-empire of his day, annoimces the downfall of Assyria and describes in detail the desolation of Nineveh.                      § 7. THE SIN OF JERUSALEM AND THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF YAHWEH (3:1-7).          An incomplete prophecy of which only two full strs. and part of a third remain. Str. I charges Jerusalem with disobedience and faithlessness to Yahweh (vv. *• ^). Str. II arraigns the officials responsible for the political, judicial and religious welfare of the city (vv. ^- ^). Str. Ill sets in contrast with the foregoing the justice and faithfuhiess of Yahweh (v. ^). To this fragment are loosely attached two other fragments (vv. *• ‘), having no intimate connection with that which precedes them. § 8. JERUSALEM DELIVERED (3:8-13).               In three strs. of four lines each, Jerusalem is assured that the nations will perish, while she herself after her purification will be restored to the favour of Yahweh. Str. I bids Jerusalem look forward to the day when Yahweh’s judgment will overtake the nations of the earth (v. ^). Str. II informs her that a work of cleansing and elimination must take place among her own people (vv. “• ^^). Str. Ill states the characteristics of the remnant and predicts for it a happy and peaceful life.                 §9- THE WORLD-WIDE RENOWN OF REDEEMED ISRAEL (3:14-20).                 In two strs. of unequal length, a late writer contrasts the Israel of the coming Golden Age with the Israel as known in his own time. Str. I bids the people of Yahweh rejoice because Yahweh is about to repulse all their foes and to favour his own people with his gracious presence henceforth (w. “• ^^- “). Str. II declares that Yahweh is to destroy all Israel’s oppressors, rescue her afflicted ones and make his people the object of the world’s praise (w. ” ”).

                NAHUM. Introduction.

                § I. The Book of Nahum 267-274

Its Contents 267-268

Its Unity … 268-270

Its Poetic Form 270-274

                § 2. The Times of Nahum …. 274-279

                § 3. The Man and the Message 279-282

The Man 279-280

The Message 280-282

                § 4. Literature on the Book of Nahum 282-283

                § I. THE BOOK OF NAHUM.

                Its Contents.

                The first section of the book of Nahum as it now stands setsforth the avenging wrath of Yahweh (i^”^”). Though manifested with reluctance, yet its exhibition against the ungodly is inevitable. Its outpouring throws the physical universe into convulsions, but Yahweh furnishes shelter from his wrath to those that trust in him. Those that oppose him are irrevocably destroyed. The second section (i”-2^) alternates between words of reproach or threatening against some unnamed foe (supposedly Nineveh) and promises of comfort and deliverance to Judah.       The remainder of the book deals with one subject, viz. the approaching destruction of Nineveh. The material, however, divides itself into two sections, viz. 2*”” and 3^’^^. The former of these begins so abruptly as to suggest that the original beginning of the section is either lost or else embodied in i”-2^. The section as a whole gives a vivid picture of the attack upon Nineveh, the capture, the weeping of the women, the flight of the defenders and the plunder of the city’s treasures and closes with a taunt-song contrasting Nineveh’s past tyranny and robbery with the waste and desolate state which awaits her. The closing section (3*’^), addressed directly to the doomed city, first of all presents concretely the awful state in store for her. The reason for this is then assigned as lying in her treacherous treatment of other nations. Hence she is to be made the butt of the scorn of these nations. If she flatters herself that she is impregnable, let her recall the overthrow of the invincible Thebes. Panic will seize her defenders and she will fall an easy prey. No matter how zealous she be in Strengthening her defences, fire and sword will destroy her, and her population will scatter like a brood of locusts, leaving behind no clue. Her destruction will be total and final and will call forth the plaudits of all peoples.

                Outline.

                § I. THE SUPERSCRIPTIONS (1:1).               These inform us as to the name of the author, his clan, the nature of his book, and the subject of his preaching. In common with the superscriptions to Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Habakkuk and Malachi among the prophetic books, it refrains from any statement regarding the time of this prophet’s activity. Nahum is the only book in the OT. carrying two superscriptions at its head and is also the only prophecy entitling itself a ‘book.’                               § 2. THE AVENGING WRATH OF YAHWEH (1:2-10).             A fragment of an acrostic poem, the fifteen lines of which begin with the successive letters of the Heb. alphabet in their natural order. Owing to the formal character of the poem, there is no clearly marked logical progress, nor organisation into strs.. The general thought concerns itself with the terrors of Yahweh’s anger against his foes. In an ever-changing series of bold and striking metaphors, the poet seeks to create a vivid impression of this divine wrath and thus to quicken the faith and hope of those who have trusted in and obeyed Yahweh. § 3. WORDS OF COMFORT TO JUDAH (1:12,13-2:1, 3).     An eight-line str. declaring that the yoke of Israel’s oppressor is broken and the period of her affliction is complete. Deliverance and restoration now await the people of God. This section constitutes a later addition to the prophecy of Nahum.    § 4. THE FALL OF NINEVEH (1:11, 14-2:2, 4-14).         A series of five strs. portraying the destruction of Assyria’s capital. Str. I announces Yahweh’s punitive purpose and ironically urges Nineveh to her own defence (i”- ” 2′). Str. H presents a vivid picture of the attack upon Nineveh (2^-*’). Str. IH describes the distress within the city (2^-‘”). Str. IV sets forth the helplessness of Assyria (2″””). Str. V in Yahweh’s own words declares that the destruction will be thorough and complete (2″). This is the first of the genuine oracles of Nahum.             § 5. THE IMMINENT AND INEVITABLE END (3:1-19).           In six strophes addressed to Nineveh, Nahum once more exults over her approaching ruin. Str. I characterises the city, gives a glimpse of the coming attack upon her and states the reason for her fall; w. ^”\ Str. II represents the fallen city as exposed to the taunts of the nations; vv. ^^. Str. Ill reminds Nineveh of the fate of her ancient rival—Thebes, the queen of the Nile; vv. ^”‘*^. Str. IV declares that a similar fate awaits Nineveh, notwithstanding her strength; vv. “”‘^ Str. V ironically urges the city to put forth every effort on her own behalf, assuring her, however, that her forces will fail her in her time of need ; vv. “””. Str. VI, in dirge measure, states the hopelessness of Nineveh’s case and the universal joy that will greet the tidings of her fall; vv. ‘^-‘^

                HABAKKUK. Introduction.

                Authorship and Date 3-7

                Topical Analysis 7

                The Oracle begins with the complaint of Israel personated bythe prophet, occupying i^”*; followed by the response of Yahweh, embracing vv. ^”. In these eleven verses the wrong-doer is to be punished by the invasion of the Chaldeans, and therefore he is the wicked Jewish court and princes. This puts the date about 600 B.C., in the reign of Jehoiakim. With v. ^^ begins a second complaint against the foreign heathen oppressor, here necessarily the Babylonians themselves, concluding with 2^. This must be later than the time of Jehoiakim, as the Babylonians have now made their invasion. Yahweh’s response begins with V. ^; and this and v. ^ announce the vision to be fulfilled at a later period. It is to be preserved legibly written on clay tablets of the Babylonian style, and consists of two parts, one about the preservation of the righteous, and the other the overthrow of the wicked oppressor. The prophet has not made it quite clear where the inscribed vision ends. Indeed he seems to have continued the last part, that about the wrong-doer, into the first malediction. The second and third maledictions are too closely connected together to be separated; but the third contains three quotations from as many other prophets, and must therefore be later than the first malediction; and the fourth and fifth also seem to belong to a period considerably later than the Babylonian Captivity. The third chapter is intended for musical recitation in the temple worship, and may well be of the period of the last part of the second chapter. Being assigned to Habakkuk, we may presume that Habakkuk was the last compiler and editor of the first two chapters, and may have been the author of the last part of the second chapter. It is impossible in translation to reproduce the abounding alliterations of the original, or the prevailing poetic measure, consisting of three principal words in a line.

                Outline.

                ORACLE. (1:1)  The Oracle which Habakkuk the propliet did see. Thisverse is probably a later editorial title.                   1st COMPLAINT. (1:2-4)                 2-4. The conditions in these verses are plainly not those of war, but of domestic oppression. The law in v. * is not the Torah, but the religious institutions, corresponding to justice in the next line. When coupled with ^DJJ, pX means trouble. The latter part of V. * is not rhythmic, and is a marginal gloss. It is meant to elucidate the second member of the couplet, but it is a weak statement that the perversion of justice consists in circumventing the righteous.      RESPONSE. (1:5-11)         2nd COMPLAINT. (1:12-17)          WATCH FOR YAHWEH’S ANSWER. (2:1)   The response to the prophet’s second complaint is more elaborate than that to the first complaint, and is more formally introduced. The first complaint was against native oppression, and the response threatened their punishment by the Chaldean conquest. The second complaint is against these Chaldean conquerors, and so is later, unless we may regard i^'” as a dramatic retrospect, explaining the subject condition of the Jewish people. One may prefer the reading rock to tower, following the Vrss., but the longer m^D is probably genuine and more musically matches ‘»n”lDC’D by the latent paronomasia which the prophet much affects.   YAHWEH’S DIRECTION. (2:2,3)                 ORACLE. (2:4-5)                 Maledictions. (2:6-20)   Ist Malediction. (2:6 b-8    2nd Malediction. (2:9-11)  3rd Malediction. (2:12-14) 4th Malediction. (2:15-17)    5th Malediction. (2:18-20)      PSALM—CHAPTER 3.      Ch. 3 is not a recounting of past triumphs, contains only is 3 Hebrew simply considers the covert allusions early history. to It and and theophany a present seeks receives of deliver distress, Yahweh armed comes an with the guise of warrior, ance. in bow and and and storm horses quiver, in lightning, to chariot, overthrow the enemy. He starts from his Olympus in Mount Paran, moves northward to Palestine, and aflFrights land and sea with his thunder and tempest. It is to Palestine that Yahweh comes with help, but there is nothing by which we can decide what particular exigency required his aid. We are told of the possible or actual failure of the fruits of the earth, but whether by drought or by the ravages of war we are not told, but the aid of Yahweh implies the latter. Very likely this psalm belongs to the Maccabean period. 

                The Prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet. On the Stringed Instruments. (3:1)  Introductory Prayer for a Theophany. (3:2   Theophany in the Storm. (3:3-13)  3:12-15: It is evident that v. 15 is out of place after vv. 12-14.

PROPHET’S MEDITATION ON THEOPHANY. (3:16-19.)

                INTRODUCTION TO OBADIAH

                § I. The Composition of the Book

                § 2. The Date of the Book 

                § 3. The Interpretation of the Book 

                § 4. The Prophet and His Book 

                § 5. The Text 

                § 6. The Metre 

                § 7. Modern Literature 

                § I. THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.     The first literary problem in Ob. is the relation of w. ^”^ to Je. 49′ ^•, These passages are so much alike that they cannot be independent of one another. Either Ob. quoted from Je., or Je. quoted from Ob., or both quoted from an older oracle. Every one of these positions has been taken by scholars. At present, as a result of Caspari’s investigation, almost all writers beHeve that Je. 49 quoted from Ob. But a renewed comparison of both texts shows that the more original text is contained in Je. 49; that Ob. quoted w. ^-* ahnost, though not quite, literally; that he commented on this older oracle in w. ^”^ partly in the words of the older prophet, partly in his own words, in order to show that it had been fulfilled in his own day; and that in w. ^- ^ he quoted once more from the older oracle without any show of literahess. These conclusions involve the originality of w. ^- ^- ^ See the detailed discussion on pp. ss ff.   In w. ^°- ” Ob. proceeds to state the reasons for Edom’s calamity, continues with a vivid description of her cruel beha\’iour toward Judah at the fall of Jerusalem, thrown into the form of impassioned warnings (w. ^^”) and ends by declaring that her present punishment is in just requital for her own deeds (v. ^^^).—On an attempt to athetize w. ^” as secondary, cf. text. n. ad loc.                With V. ^'”^ we enter upon a different range of thought. The writer does not describe a present calamity but hopes for the punishment of Edom on the day when Yahweh will judge all nations. These verses have therefore grown out of a different situation. Ob. interpreted events that had just transpired, when Edom had been dispossessed by her former allies. This writer expects the day of Yahweh in the near future and confidently believes that Edom will be utterly destroyed by Israel. Evidently some time had passed since Ob, had written, Edom had, after all, not been completely destroyed but was living on, a menace and vexation to Judah. No redress seemed possible at present, and so the writer looks forward to the future, to the day when Yahweh will hold his judgment on all the nations. Then Edom’s turn will also come and its terrible pimishment will be administered by Israel. It is not likely that Ob. was the writer of these verses, and Wellhausen was right m regarding w. ^^^- ^””-^ as an appendix. There is also, if the text is correct, such a sudden change of address in v. ^^ from the Edomites to the Jews that the same author can hardly be credited with it.         There are two sections in this appendix, w. ^^^’ *^”^^ and vv. ^^^, and we may question whether they are by the same author. Vv. ^^’^^ are in the nature of a commentary on w. ^”^- ^^, and it seems that V. ^^ with its list of territories understood v. ^^^ as saying that the house of Jacob would regain its possessions. Originally v. “^ spoke of Judah’s conquest over her dispossessors (see text. n). That there existed this difiference of interpretation of v. “^ is clear from M and (i respectively. If this point is pressed we must probably conclude that vv. ^””‘^ are by a different author who understood V. “”^ not as its writer had meant it but of the reconquest of Israel’s territories, and who connected his list of such territories very ingeniously with his comment on v. ^*, by explaining that this prophecy will be fulfilled by what is still left of the house of Jacob and of the house of Joseph, i. e., the Israelitish and the Judean exiles. They will regain the land, the Israelites as far north as Sarephath, the Judeans including all the cities of the Southland. But the thoughts of the driving out of the dispossessors and of the regaining of the territories are closely enough related that the same writer may naturally pass from the one to the other, esp. when it is possible to express both by the same Heb. word. And we need not wonder that v. *^ thinks not only of the Edomites as to be driven out as in v. ” but of others also, when the setting which the writer gives to the punishment of Edom is the day of Yahweh’s judgment on all the nations.               That V. ‘^ looks like a conclusion is due to the final formula for Yahweh hath spoken. But this is really a quotation-formula. For contents and metre alike show that v. ^^ is an older prophecy which our author incorporated in order to establish the hope which he entertained concerning the future victory of Israel over Edom.

                Outline:                The title, the Vision of Obadiah, does not give time, home or father’s name of the prophet. Vision is a technical name for prophecy, referring to the divine communication received in the ecstatic state. Later it referred esp. to the eschatological drama which formed its contents. Here, as in Is. i\ Na. i\ it is used as the title of a book. The introd., thus saith the Lord Yahweh concerning Edoni, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of Yahweh (cf. Am. f 8^) may be intended either for the whole oracle or, better, only for the older oracle which is quoted in w. ^ ^•.                 Vv. 1-4. An older oracle had declared when certain nations were allying themselves for war against Edom that the outcome would be Edom’s downfall. Nothing would save her; even if her impregnable fortresses were still stronger, they would be of no avail, because Yahweh Himself would bring Edom down.       5-7. This older oracle has beenfulfilled. Thefallfrom the height has come. Ha! how completely Edom has just been cleaned out! How thoroughly her rich treasure-stores have just been rifled! And she herself has been driven from her impregnable seats to the border of her country. Former allies have done it by treachery which Edom was too stupid to see through!                       Vv. 8-9. Is not this in fulfilment of the prophecy which had declared that Yahweh would take away Edom’s wisdom in order to destroy her utterly ?       10-11. They have richly deserved this terrible punishment, because of their brutal behaviour toward their brother nation Judah (v. ^°) at the time when Jeriisalem was taken by the barbarians (v. “). 12-14. 15b. How malicious atid cruel Edom was at that time toward his brother! Ah, but now vengeance has come, he has received his due recompense!            Vv. 15a 16-18. The day of Yahweh is at hand when all the nations must drink the cup of his fury. The Jews indeed need not be afraid, for they have already received their punishment, and those of them that have escaped shall dwell on Mt. Zion without fear of ever again being driven out by foreign invaders. On the contrary, they will drive out those nations that had dispossessed them and more esp. Edom, which Jacob and Joseph, ace. to Yahweh’s decree, will completely destroy.                19-21. The second section of the appendix gives a historical explanation of w. “• ^*. V. *^ had said that the house of Jacob would dispossess all its dispossessors. This means, so these verses explain, that all the old territory in its ideal boimdary lines will again come back to Israel. The Negeb, now in the hands of the Edomites, the Shephelah, now occupied by the Philistines, Mt. Ephraim, now the territory of the Samaritans, and Gilead which is now Ammonitish, all shall belong once more to Israel (v. ^^). For the exiles will come back and reconquer the land. The Israelitish exiles will occupy their territory as far north as Sar^phath and the Judean exiles theirs in the south including the cities of the Negeb (v. ^°). They will come and march to Mt. Zion to help their brethren punish Edom. Then the golden time of Yahweh’s reign will begin (v. ^^)

                INTRODUCTION TO JOEL

                §1.  Composition of the Book.

                §2.  Date of the Book.

                §3.  Interpretation of Book.

                §4.  Prophet.

                §5.  Text and Metre.

                §6.  Modern Literature.

                § I. THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.

                                The book of Joel has usually been regarded as the work of oneauthor and is still treated as such by all recent commentators. And this in spite of the fact that M. Vemes as early as 1872 maintained that chs. 3, 4 were not written by the author of chs. i, 2.* He restated his position in 1874 and in a less dogmatic form in 1880, when he did not insist on difference of authorship, though he still maintained the difference and irreconcilability of the two sections. Vemes’ thesis remained imnoticed imtil, independently of him, J. W. Rothstein in 1896 argued for difference of authorship for chs. I, 2 and chs. 3, 4. Then Nowack called attention to Vemes and interpreted in his counter-arguments Vemes’ non-insistence on duality of authorship as a practical abandonment of his position. G. A. Smith and Marti followed Nowack’s lead in opposing Rothstein’s position, G. A. Smith not without reserve. But more recently Ryssel, Sievers, Duhm and P. Haupt have agreed that the book is no unity. Ryssel adopted Rothstein’s literary position, regarding chs. I, 2 from one author, chs. 3, 4 from another. Sievers considers 2^^”- ””” 3′-” 4′-‘- “””, Duhm 2^’-4” as later and both point out insertions in chs. i, 2.   It is clear that there is a decided difference of interest and subject-matter in both sections. Chs. i, 2 treat of a locust plague and a drought as disciplinary punishment of the Jews; chs. 3, 4 treat of the final judgment of the nations and of the protection and glory of the Jews, without mentioning the locust plague. But though the day of Yahweh dominates chs. 3, 4 the locust plague in chs. I, 2 is also brought into connection with it in a number of passages. And it is due to this fact, more than to any other, that the unity of authorship has oeen maintained so strongly even by critics like Nowack and Marti. But these references to the day of Yahweh in chs. i, 2 turn out to be interpolations.   1″. Nothing whatever in the context indicates that the prophet had in mind the day of Yahweh, on the contrary vv. * ^ exclude it. So does the fact that we have here a quotation from Is. 13^, when all through the address we have the words of an original poet and writer, i’* is a foreign element in the context. So also Siev., Du.              2″>- *. Again the phrases are taken aXmosi verbatim from other prophets, Zp. i’5 I’- ‘^ Mai. 3^- 2’. Moreover, the day of Yahweh and the day of the locusts are connected here in such a manner that it is not clear whether they are the same, or whether the locusts are merely the precursors of the day of Yahweh. The alarm is to be sounded, we are told, first because of the approach of the day of Yahweh and then, all of a sudden, because a huge locust swarm is coming. Then the description of the locust swarm is continued until we come to vv. ‘” ” where we again meet most unexpectedly a description of an eschatological army. Duhm also believes that 2″> ^ is an interpolation. 210. ii_ While the locusts in 2’ ^- might perhaps be interpreted as precursors of the day of Yahweh this is not possible in a'”- “. “In ch. ii. 10,” says Davidson, “the plague and the day of the Lord seem brought immediately together . . . this darkening of the sun and moon is not to be rationalised into the effects upon daylight produced by swarms of locusts in the sky, it is a sign of the near approach of the day of the Lord, though not identical with that day (ii. 31, Engl.) . . . these hosts of locusts were the army of the Lord . . . (ii. 25) and He was at the head of the army giving it command; and thus there was virtually that presence and manifestation of the Lord, at least in its beginnings, in which the day of the Lord was verified ” (pp. 202/.). These verses do not describe an actual locust flight, as the preceding had done, but the day of Yahweh ; and the locusts are the agents of His judgment. And yet in spite of this much more terrible danger of the day of Yahweh the appeal to repentance in vv. ‘*-” contains as little reference to it as do the prayer of the priests and Yahweh’s answer in 2’8 ff-. It is the locust plague and the drought that constitute the whole of these passages, the day of Yahweh is not mentioned at all. Rothstein already attributed 210. u to the editor who combined chs. x, 2 with chs. 3, 4. Siev. and Du. retain them, strangely enough.            2^. There are two further traces of this interpolator of the day of Yahweh who tried to connect chs. i, 2 with chs. 3, 4. The first of these is in 2^. This verse, though not absolutely incompatible with the context, interrupts the description of the advance of the locust swarm. It has more than once been pointed out that D^ay, nations or peoples, is rather        peculiar in this connection. Hi.’s transl. Leute, people, and his reference to I K. 22-‘ in justification of this do not hold good, because U’CB’ D’d;’, hear ye peoples, in i K. 22^8 is a gloss by a reader who wrote the beginning of the book of the prophet Micah, with whom he identified Micaiah, in the margin.               Why should the nations be introduced at this point, when Joel concentrates his attention upon his own people? It is significant that this verse shows contact with Is. 13 (v. *), i. e. with the same chapter from which the interpolator of the day of Yahweh had drawn his material in lis (= Is. i;^’), 2′” also is similar to Is. 13′”‘- “. The inference is therefore natural that 2« belongs also to the day of Yahweh interpolations. —On 2″ see com.          2*”. Another trace is in the name my northerner in 2′”. This is such an unusual and improbable term for a real locust swarm that we must interpret it as an eschatological term for the enemy from the north that had so long been prophesied. The whole context here again shows that Joel had in mind a real locust swarm, for he describes its destruction in terms which are not applicable to human forces. The expression is therefore due to the interpolator of the day of Yahweh. Rothstein attributed 2»« as a whole to the editor, W. R. Smith also regarded 2*» as a gloss.               After the removal of these interpolations the diflference of interest and subject-matter between chs. i, 2 and chs. 3, 4 becomes even clearer. Chs. i, 2 treat of a locust plague and drought, and contained originally no reference to the day of Yahweh. Chs. 3, 4 treat of the day of Yahweh, and contain no reference to the locust plague and the drought. The series of interpolations has been deliberately inserted in order to connect chs. i, 2 with chs. 3, 4. Originally they were distinct and not connected.   But does this conclusion necessarily involve difference of authorship for the two sections? May not Joel be the author of both, different though they are? Surely, the same writer may write on two different subjects at different times ! Yet even if we assume this, we cannot hold him responsible for the day of Yahweh interpolations in chs. 1,2. For it is most improbable that a man of such fine literary style, who knows so well how to express his thoughts in a manner all his own, should in every instance have inserted common, well-known phrases from other prophets into poems of such high literary beauty and finish. For it should be noticed that the literary parallels in chs. 1,2, which have been pointed     out so frequently, are all found in these interpolations. The genuine Joel is original in his expressions.      This is our difficulty with chs. 3, 4 also. As a whole they cannot be said to be stylistically on a level with chs. 1,2. Their style is so inferior that it argues against unity of authorship. From this must, however, be excepted 4^”^*, which are equal in strength and originality of expression as well as rhythmic beauty and effectiveness to chs. 1,2. Indeed, as soon as it is admitted that a single author may write on two such diverse themes as the locust plague with its accompanying drought and the judgment of the nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat there is every reason for believing that Joel wrote ^9-i4a That striking description of the march and attack of the locust army in ch. 2 has its counterpart in this description of the summoning of the nations to war. The same style and rhythm, the staccato movement, are used in both passages with equal effectiveness. There is thus no cogent reason for denying the authorship of 4®””^ to Joel.            In regard to the remainder of the chapter the matter is different. The author of 4^””^ has such an original manner in describing the preparations for the final attack of heathendom on Jerusalem that it is most improbable that he should have fallen back upon common prophetic phraseology for the description of the battle itself in vv. ^^- ^®. Indeed, even his dependence on Ezekiel for the general idea, for which see below, makes the originality in which he expresses this idea all the more impressive. From a writer of such force we should have expected a very vivid and striking portrayal of Yahweh’s judgment of the nations and we can hardly believe that he should have quoted verbatim from other prophets and have produced a passage so general and so lacking in definiteness that commentators have not been certain whether it was a description of the battle or not. Now it is to be noticed that these sentences correspond almost literally to the insertions of the interpolator of the day of Yahweh in 2^”- ” and we may therefore reasonably conclude that this interpolator who depended so much on other prophets for his thoughts and phrases worked over the second part of Joel also. And with this clue we may undertake to determine the extent of his work. 4Kb, if correctly presented, shows characteristic traces of the interpolator’s language, cf. i’* 2’. And 3″‘ bears his stamp also, cf. 2″ and Mai. 3″ from which 3^” is taken, just as he had taken the phrase in 2″ from Mai. 3^         4″ is also by the editor, for the first half of the verse is composed of phrases which are characteristic of Ezekiel and the Ploliness Code and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God. And in the second half Ob. ‘” is quoted and an interpretation is added which is correct enough as an interpretation of Obadiah’s phrase but out of accord here with the situation of the preceding. The author of 4’-“”, even if he had written vv. “• “, could not have continued as 4″ does, and barbarians shall not pass through her again; he would have insisted that at that time, when all the heathen stood before Jerusalem, the Holy City would be safe because of Yahweh’s presence. Our editor, however, had the capture of 586 B.C. in mind, cf. vv. ‘• ‘, and explained the phrase of Obadiah accordingly. The sudden change of address in v. ” also would be strange in Joel, but is in line with 2″ which is very similar to 4″, It exhibits the editor’s quoting style and is therefore by him.             In 4’ 8″ we have evidences of the editor’s hand in v. ‘8»n which is quoted from Am. 9″. In 4’6 he had quoted from Am. i^ In v. ”b a significant phrase of Ob.'” is used and commented on. 4″ » belongs indissolubly with v. ‘^b; and v. 21 1 is very much like 4″ and 2″ which are both by the editor. 4-” may have been suggested by Am. g’^ cf. also the editor’s hope in 2″” and Am. 9″, though the terms used in v. ‘S” are favourite terms of Ezekiel. 4’8b is based on Ez. 47’ «f-. 4’8»^ seems to look back to i^o. The difference between Joel’s poetic but accurate statement of natural fertility in 2″ “• and the hyperbolic description of the fertility of the golden age in 4’8 is instructive.—All this indicates that the whole conclusion (4” -‘) comes from the editor whose fondness for quotations from other prophets we have already noted. We have also observed that the editor is not over-particular in his style, and that he changes occasionally from one person to the other in an abrupt way, cf. 2″ 4″, so that the sudden appearance of the first person in v. 2i», which should stand directly after v. “, need not surprise us since it is in line with his other work. But even so it is not impossible that v. ‘”‘^- ^’^ are still later insertions.     Thus far we have seen that ^ub-n are by the editor. We must now investigate for how much more he is responsible.                4’» is so closely connected in thought and expression with vv. •-‘<• that it appears to have belonged with it from the outset, although the thought is repeated in slightly different phraseology in v. ‘2. That v. ‘”^ forms an appropriate introduction to vv. »•’*’» cannot be denied. The metre is different, but we expect that, for the trimeter or hexameter is more appropriate for v. 2” than the staccato rhythm of w. « » •.     It is, however, not so evident that v. ^b (from on account of my people Israel on) and v. ‘ belong to Joel. They are only apparently inseparable from v. 2a^ in reality they are not in harmony with it. For according to V. 2a the judgment is universal, on all the nations, and is described as such also in vv. ^ ^ . But in vv. ^b. 3 the scope is narrower. Not all the nations were guilty of the cruel treatment of the Jews here charged against them. As a reason for the punishment of all, this would therefore hardly do. It is true that in later literature the cruel treatment of Israel is given as a reason for the punishment of the nations, but then not merely the conquerors and destroyers of Jerusalem are meant but all those nations among whom the Jews were scattered and by whom they had been treated with scorn and hatred. And those who had not known Israel are excepted from destruction. Here the reference, however, is definitely to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 586 B.C. Moreover, the rarely used phrase they cast lots in v. ‘ reminds us of Ob. “. And we remember that the editor had used phrases from Obadiah in 4″ 2o_ All this makes it very probable that vv. ^b. 3 are also part of the editor’s work.             The observation that the editor used Obadiah suggests that 3^ with its direct quotation from Ob. ‘^ (to authenticate the statement that every true Yahweh-worshipper would be safe on that great day) is also from him. This is made probable also by a comparison with 4” where the editor’s interest is also centred in the protection of Israel.        The difference of 3′-^* where Yahweh Himself speaks and 2)*^- ^ which are by the editor suggests that 3′-<» are not by the editor but by Joel. And this impression is strengthened by the originality of the thought and the effective manner in which it introduces the final judgment, for which see the commentary. Taking this into account there is no adequate reason for doubting the genuineness of 3””.—The insertion of 3«b. s necessitated a new introduction (4′) by the editor, who is probably also responsible for the editorial link in 3′, and it shall come to pass afterwards, and possibly also for in those days in 3′, cf. the same phrase in 4″.   We have come to the conclusion that 3’-<» 42a- 9-i<» are by Joel. There remains the examination of the digression in 4*-^. Though these verses are at once recognised as a digression they are not unconnected with 4^- 3. The sale of Jewish captives by the victorious Babylonian soldiers had been referred to in v. ‘. The slave-traders to whom they sold them, so we may supply, were the Phoenicians and the Philistines who had carried on slave-trade for centuries, cf. Am. i^- ‘ Ez. 27″, also later i Mac. 3″ 2 Mac. 8″. So this announcement of retribution seemed to the writer very appropriate in this place. It seemed to carry on the thought quite naturally, for these verses do not charge the Phoenicians and Philistines with an actual attack upon the Jews but with taking away their treasures and valuables and with selling Jews into slavery to the Greeks. They came as merchants and slave-traders to whom the soldiers sold their captives and for whose wares they exchanged their booty. That they profited immensely by these transactions was a matter of course. Thus we must interpret, if this section is the direct continuation of vv.            But there is no reference elsewhere to such activity of the Phoenicians and Philistines in 586 B.C. and it is most improbable in the light of Ezekiel’s silence on this point in his oracle against Tyre, although he speaks of its slave-trade with Greece (27″). We should doubtless have had a mention of it in 26-, where Tyre’s joy over Jerusalem’s fall, and in 28’^ where Sidon’s relation to Israel are spoken of, if the Phoenicians had made themselves so obnoxious to the Jews at that time. The same holds true of Phoenicia in 25″.—It has sometimes been supposed that the Phoenicians and Philistines were meant in vv. 2- 3^ but there is no reference anywhere in all the history of Israel and Judah to a conquest of Israel by the combined forces of Phoenicia and Philistia and of a dispersing of Israel by them among the nations or of a parcelling out of the land of Israel among themselves. The identification of vv. 2. 3 ^rj^j^ the plundering of Jerusalem by the Philistines and Arabians in 2 Ch. 21^^ < under Jehoram does not do justice to the words of these verses, even if the objection that the Phoenicians did not participate in that raid were not conclusive. The direct address, moreover, in 4’ mentioning the Phoenicians and Philistines in addition (dji) and singling them out especially indicates that they are not meant in vv. 2 • 3. Their wrong is defined in vv. 5. 6 and according to the whole tenor of the passage they are not the conquerors of w. ” ‘. Since they did not get the treasures and valuables of the Jews and the captives from the Babylonian soldiers who are quite clearly referred to in vv. ^- ‘, we must conclude that vv. •* refer to some other time than 586 B.C., and that they were not originally the continuation of v. ‘ but a later insertion. And the literary fact that w.*-^ interrupt the connection between w. ‘-‘and vv. ‘s- most awkwardly, points in the same direction. The context has a much wider horizon, and vv. <‘ are not easily harmonised with it. The universal judgment in the valley of Jehoshaphat, executed by Yahweh Himself, must embrace the Phoenicians and Philistines also. But here in vv. ‘•^ they are to receive a special punishment. And it is not that they are to be exterminated but that they are to be sold into slavery by Israel! 4*-^ give no indication of being aware that the judgment on all the nations is coming so soon, that it is already announced. In other words, vv. *-^ are out of line with their context.—It is true, of course, that apocalyptics are not always consistent and that a reference to their own historical situation frequently comes in where we do not expect it. But even with this clearly in mind it does not seem to me likely that the author of w. ”• » “• was responsible for vv. *-^. They have grown out of a situation when the Phoenicians and Philistines had but recently done to the Jews the things charged against them. And it is perhaps possible to suggest this situation more definitely. See com.            We must turn once more to the composition of ch. 2. Sievers regards 2 ‘2-14 as belonging to the secondary material because he finds in them a mixture of external and religio-ethical views of repentance which he cannot attribute to Joel but only to a wholly inferior intellect. But Sievers sees here contradictions which in religious practice need not exist at all. Outward form may well be filled with spirit. The verses are really quite important for the true understanding of i’^- ». According to Duhm the appendix begins at 2’8, and Sievers also regards 2″-” as secondary. This seems to me unjustifiable. Why should the prophet not have added the outcome of the intercession ? Compare the similar case of Haggai. Who else but Joel should have added this promise which fitted only that particular time ? What reason could another have had for doing this? And why should this other have given it in the form of a divine oracle ? Are we to suppose that a later writer who knew nothing of the peculiar circumstances of Joel’s time sat down and wrote a promise, which he put into Yahweh’s mouth, simply because he knew that the plague had passed away, since the people were still in existence? Moreover, the song in vv. “‘-si bears the stamp of originality. Not only its rhythmic beauty but also its phraseology are Joel’s own. And its origin can be explained by the reversal of the circumstances of chs. I, 2 as by nothing else. We would be glad if we knew the circumstances out of which the Psalms arose as well as we know those that gave rise to this song.      Our conclusion is (i) that Joel wrote chs. i, .2 (except i^^ 2ib. 2. 6. 10. 11. 27) ^^^ ^igQ 2i-4a 42a. 9-i4a. ^2) that an editor wrote the remainder, connecting chs. i, 2 with chs. 3, 4 by a series of interpolations which are characterised, as all his work is, by dependence on other prophecies; and (3) that 4*’^ are a still later insertion

                Outline.

                1. The title states merely that a divine communication had come to Joel. No date, not even of the period, no home from which Joel came, no hint to whom the oracle was directed, are given. Nor is the mode described in which Yahweh’s revelation came to him. Simply the common superscription, The word of Yahweh

which came to Joel the son of Pethuel, or Bethuel, cf. Ho. i* Mi. i* Zp. i^ Its simplicity appears to vouch for its genuineness. There is no reason to suppose that the names are not genuine names of historical persons.

                awful locust plague and drought (1:1).

                unprecented character of the plague and its extent (1:2-4)

                poetic picture of the distress of the winedrinkers (1:5-7)

                distress of the priests (1:8-10).

                distress of the husbandmen and of the vine dressers (1:11-12).

                call for a penitential assembly (1:13,14).

                insertion concerning the day of yahweh (1:15).

                prayer voicing  need of all creatures in view of famine & drought (1:16-20).

                invasion of the locust army (2:1-14).

                warning of an unparalleled locust invasion & its ravages (2:1-3).

                advance and attack of the locust army (2:4-9).

                insertion concerning the day of yahweh (2:10-11).

                call to heartfelt repentance (2:12-14).

                great penitential assembly and its prayer for mercy (2:15-17).

                yahweh’s answer & promise of relief & restoration (2:18-20, 25, 26a).

                song of joy over  beginnings of restoration (2:21-24, 26ab).

                editorial link (2:26b, 27).

                signs of the day of yahweh, (3:1-5) (engl. 2:28-32).

                announcement & reason of judgment on all  nations, (4:1-3) (engl. 3:1-3).

                special oracle against  phcenicians & philistines,(4:4-8 (engl. 3:4-8).

                preparations of  nations for  final conflict or judgment, (4:9-12) (engl. 3:9-12).

                signal for attack, (4:13) (engl. 3:13).

                battle, (4:14-17) (engl. 3:14-17).

                wonderful fertility & permanent happiness of judah in  glorious future, 4:18-21) (engl. 3:18-21).

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH MALACHI AND JONAH BY

HINCKLEY G . MITCHELL, D .D . JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH , Ph . D .  Julius A. Bewer, Phd. NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER ‘ S SONS 1912

                CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . v 

ABBREVIATIONS xi 

I. A COMMENTARY ON HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH i 

INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF 

THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 3-24 

§ 1. Cyrus 3-14 

§ 2. Cambyses 14-17 

§ 3. Darius I, Hystaspes 17-24 

HAGGAI AND HIS PROPHECIES 25-38 

§ 1. Personal History of the Prophet 25-27 

§ 2. The Book of Haggai 27-30 

§ 3. The Text of Haggai 30-35 

§ 4. The Thoughts and Style of Haggai 36-39 

COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI . . 40-79 

§ 1. The Movement to Rebuild the Sanctuary . . 40-57 

§ 2. The Resources of the Builders 58-65 

§ 3. The New Era of the Restored Temple . . . 66-76 

§ 4. The Future of the Leader Zerubbabel . . . 76-79 

ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES 81-106 

§ 1. The Personal History of the Prophet . . . 81-84 

§ 2. The Structure of Chapters 1-8 84 

§ 3. The Text of Chapters 1-8 84-97 

§ 4. The Style of Zechariah 98-102 

§ 5. The Teaching of Zechariah 102-106 

COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ZECHARIAH 107-217 

1. The Introduction 108-115 

2. A Sertes of Visions with Their Interpretation . 1 15-194 

a. The Return from Captivity 115-147 

(1) The Hollow of the Myrtles . . . 1 15-130 

(2) The Horns and Their Destroyers . 130-136 

(3) The Man with the Measuring Line . 136-140 

(4) An Appeal to the Exiles …. 140-147 

b. The Anointed of Yahweh 147-168 

(1) The Accused High Priest …. 147-161 

(2) The Symbolic Candelabrum . . . 161-168 

c. The Seat of Wickedness 168-182 

(1) The Flying Roll 168-171 

(2) The Woman in the Ephah …. 1 71-177 

(3) The Four Chariots 177-182 

d. The Prince of Judah 183-194 

(1) A Symbolic Crown 183-190 

(2) Zerubbabel and the Temple . . . 190-194  3. A New Era 194-217 

a. An Inquiry from Bethel 194-198 

b. A Series of Oracles 198-217 

(1) The Teaching of the Past …. 199-205 

(2) The Promise of the Future . . . 206-209 

(3) The Past and Future in Contrast 209-215 

(4) The Reign of Joy and Gladness . . 215-217 

THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE SECOND PART  OF ZECHARIAH 218-259 

§ 1. The Structure of Chapters 9-14 218-220 

§ 2. The Text of Chapters 9-14 220-231 

§ 3. The Authorship of Chapters 9-14 232-259 

COMMENTARY ON CHAPTERS 9-14 260-357 

1. The Revival of the Hebrew Nation 260-320 

a. The New Kingdom 260-277 

b. A Promise of Freedom and Prosperity . 277-285 

c. The Plan of Restoration 286-302 

d. The Two Shepherds 302-320 

2. The Future of Judah and Jerusalem 320-357 

a. The Jews in Their Internal Relations . 320-340 

b. The Jews and the Nations 341-3 5 7 

INDEX 359-362 

II. A COMMENTARY ON MALACHI …. 1-88 

INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 3-17 

§ 1. The Book of Malachi 3-5 

1. Its Contents 3 

2. Its Unity 3 

3. Its Style 4-5 

§ 2. The Times 5-9 

§ 3. The Prophet 9-11 

§ 4. The Message of Malachi n-15 

§ 5. Literature on the Book of Malachi …. 15-17 

COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF MALACHI . . . 18-85 

§ 1. The Superscription 18-19 

§ 2. Proof of Yahweh’s Love 19-24 

§ 3. Yahweh Honours Them That Honour Him . . 25-46  § 4. Yahweh’s Protest against Divorce and Remar-  riage with Idolatrous Women 47-60 

§ 5. The Near Approach of the Day of Judgment . 60-69 

§ 6. The Payment of Tithes Wins the Blessing of God 69-75 

§ 7. The Final Triumph of the Righteous …. 76-85 

INDEX 87-88 

III. A COMMENTARY ON JONAH 1-65 

INTRODUCTION TO JONAH 3-27 

§ 1. The Character of the Story of Jonah … s~5 

§ 2. Origin and Purpose of the Story 6-1 1 

§ 3. Insertion of the Book in the Prophetic Canon ii 

§ 4. The Date of the Book n-13 

§ 5. The Unity of the Book 13-21 

§ 6. The Psalm in Chapter 2 21-24. 

§ 7. The Text of the Book 25 

§ 8. Modern Literature 25-27 

COMMENTARY ON JONAH 28-65 

Jonah’s Disobedience and Flight 28-32 

The Storm on the Sea 32-34 

The Discovery of Jonah as the Guilty One . . . 34-38 

The Stilling of the Storm 38-40 

Jonah’s Deliverance 41-43 

A Prayer of Thanksgiving 43-49 

Yahweh’s Renewed Command and Jonah’s Preaching 

in Nineveh 50-53 

The Result of Jonah’s Preaching 53-56 

Jonah’s Displeasure 56-59 

Yahweh’s Rebuke of Jonah 59-62 

Application of the Object LESSdN 62-64 

NOTE ON THE USE OF mm AND O’nVn IN THE BOOK  OF JONAH 64-65 

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROPHECIES OF HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH.

                § 1. CYRUS.    § 2. CAMBYSES.  § 3. DARIUS I, HYSTASPES. 

HAGGAI AND HIS PROPHECIES.

§ 1. THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE PROPHET.

§ 2. THE BOOK OF HAGGAI.

                The book of Haggai consists largely of a series of four comparatively brief prophecies, all dated, the last two on the same day. It is evidently not, in its entirety, from the prophet’s own hand; for, both in the statements by which the several prophecies are introduced (1′ 24. 10. 20) and in the body of the third (212 f.), he is referred to only in the third person. Moreover, the first prophecy is followed by a description of its effect upon those to whom it was addressed (112-15) throughout which he is treated in the same objective manner. There are similar passages in Zechariah; a fact which has led Klostermann to conclude that the book of Haggai and Zc. 1-8 originally belonged to an account of the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius, chronologically arranged and probably edited by Zechariah. This thesis, however, cannot be maintained; for, in the first place, as will be shown in the comments on 15, the point on which Klostermann bases his supposition, that the combined works of the two prophets once had a chronological arrangement, is mistaken, and, second, Budde has made it pretty clear that the narrative portions of Zc. 1-8, in their present form, were not written by the author of the prophecies.* In fact, it is possible to go still farther and say that, if Budde is correct in his analysis, Rothstein’s less definite form of this hypothesist also becomes untenable, the difference between the narrative portions of the books of Haggai and Zechariah being so marked that they cannot all be attributed to any single author. While, therefore, it is necessary to admit that the book of Haggai is his only in the sense that it contains his extant prophecies, it is equally necessary to insist that it is, and was intended to be, a separate literary production.

                The book is so brief that it seems almost ridiculous to suspect its unity. Yet some have not only raised the question, whether all the prophecies it contains are correctly attributed to Haggai, but actually found reasons for answering it in the negative. The most ambitious of these critics is Andrי, who claims (24.f.) to have shown that 210-19 is an interpolation, being, in fact, a prophecy delivered by an unknown person on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, not of the second, but of the first, year of the reign of Darius. The following is an outline of his argument for this contention: 1. The passage interrupts the development of the preceding discourse, the conclusion of which is found in vv. 21-23. 2. The point of view in this passage is different from that of the rest of the book. 3. This message is addressed to Haggai, not, like the others, to the leaders and the people through him. 4. There are palpable contradictions between it and other portions of the book. 5. The vocabulary of these verses is different from that of the rest of the book. These statements, if they were all correct and relevant, would be conclusive against the genuineness of the passage in question. This, however, is not the case. In fact, in every instance either the allegation or the inference from it is mistaken. Thus, although 221 repeats a clause from v. 9, the fact that vv. 21 ff. are addressed to Zerubbabel alone makes it a distinct prophecy, which, moreover, could not have been attached immediately to * ZAW., 1906, 1 ft.

v.° without producing confusion.* The second statement is based on an exaggerated notion of the subtlety of the illustration used in , 212 ff.; which, according to Andrי, betrays the priestly legalist. It is really, as will be shown in the comments, a figure that might have occurred to any Jew zealous for his religion in the days of the prophet. The third point touches the style, not of Haggai, but of the editor by whom his prophecies were collected. Moreover, as will be shown, the original reading in 2′ was to, not by Haggai, and, when this correction is made, the alleged discrepancy has disappeared. The contradictions to which Andrי refers under his fourth head he finds in 217, 18, on the one hand, compared with 110 f. 15 on the other. For the solution of these difficulties, see the comments on the passages cited. There are, as Andrי, fifthly, asserts, differences of phraseology between 210-19 and the rest of the book, but there is not a case having any significance in which the word or phrase employed cannot be better explained than by calling it a mark of difference in authorship.

There is really no necessity for discussing the thirteen specifications under this head, but perhaps it should be done for the sake of showing how little science is sometimes mixed with criticism. The following are the words and phrases cited, with the reason, when there is one, for the use of each of them in the given connection:

                0. The use of 5997, temple, in 215. 18 for the more general term nia, kouse, of 13. 14 has no critical significance. It is used in a precisely similar connection, and exclusively, four times in Zc. 69-15, and with nya in Zc. 89. b. In 214 you, which means wearisome loil, and, when the instrument is to be expressed, is always followed by 12, palm, as in 1″, would not have been general enough; hence the use of 0717) nayo, work of their hands. c. In 712 oil is called ipe, and not, as in 1″, 1989, because it is regarded as a commodity rather than a product of the soil. d. The same explanation applies to the use of ?”, wine, for einn, must. e. The use of oun, granary, for the va, house, home, in 219 is explained by the fact that the author is here thinking of grain in storage, and not, as in 1′, on its way from the field or the threshing-floor. f. The word wa is the proper one for a single garment. Hence it, and not was, which generally means clothing, is used in 212, and often elsewhere, even in connection with the verb wah, clothe, of 16. Cf. Zc. 32. g. In 214 12, nation, is used of Israel, because a synonym is needed for 0%, people. Cf. Ex. 333. This is not the case anywhere else in the book. Cf. 18. 12. 13. 14 24. h. If in 214 the writer had had a verb denoting fear, he would

probably have used “DO instead of 35 for before, just as he does in 112, 1. The omission of 094377-50 in 215. 18 is due to the fact that here the verb has another object. Cf. 15.7. k. The use of 1979 without nias in 214.17 would have more significance if the last clause of v. 17 were undoubtedly genuine and Haggai did not employ the simple name three times (24(bls). 23) outside the passage under consideration. See also 113, an interpolation. 1. The omission of his title after the name of the prophet in 213 1. is just what one would expect in a passing reference. Cf. Bצhme, ZAW., 1887, 215. Elsewhere the title is used; except in 220, and there, on the testimony of 6, it should be. Cf. 11. 3. 12 21. m. The priests appear in 211 8., because the question is one that not only the high priest, but any of his associates, ought to be able to answer. In all cases where the high priest is introduced, he, like Zerubbabel, is a representative figure. Cf. 11. 12. 14 22. 1. The case of, 5x, to, for t’a, by, has already been discussed under point 3, p. 28.

He mentions incidentally the omission of the title after the name of the prophet in v. 20, laying the stress of objection upon (1) the use of the construction to (5x) for by (743; lit. by the hand of) in the same verse, and (2) the unnecessary repetition in v. 2 of a prophecy found in 26b. 7a, which, according to 22. 4, Zerubbabel had already heard. These objections, however, are easily answered. The missing title is found in 6; the construction with to is the one that was originally used in v. 1. 19; and the repetition of v. 6b, or rather, v. 6ba, -v.7a is not so literally reproduced,-is simply a device for connecting the fortunes of Zerubbabel with the same events for which the prophet had sought to prepare the people. The weakness of Bצhme’s argument is apparent. This, however, is not all. He has overlooked the fact that Zerubbabel was removed soon after Haggai ceased to prophesy, and that, therefore, his theory, as Marti remarks, implies that this final prophecy was added by a writer who knew that it could not be fulfilled.

                $ 3. THE TEXT OF HAGGAI.

                § 4. THE THOUGHT AND STYLE OF HAGGAI.

                Outline.

                § 1. THE MOVEMENT TO REBUILD THE SANCTUARY (1:1-15a).

                This topic occupies the whole of the first chapter, in its original

extent, but the prophet is the speaker only in vv .2-11, the rest of

the passage being an account of the effect of his message on those

to whom it was delivered . Hence it will be advisable to discuss

the chapter under two heads, the first being

                a. THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHET (1:1-11).

                It begins abruptly with the citation of the adverse opinion among

the Jews with reference to the question of rebuilding the sanctuary

(v. 2). Haggai argues for the contrary , presenting two reasons

( vv. 1-6) calculated to appeal strongly to those to whom they were

addressed . Taking the validity of these arguments for granted ,

he proceeds to exhort his people to act in the matter (vv . ? ?.) ; but, instead of resting his case at this point, to make sure that his exhortation will be heeded he repeats the second of his arguments

(vv. 8-12), giving it a form so direct and positive that it cannot be

misunderstood , and so forcible that he who ignores it must take

the attitude of defying the Almighty.

                b . THE RESPONSE OF THE PEOPLE (1:12-15b).

                The leaders , Zerubbabel and Joshua , and all the people, being

impressed by Haggai’s message and especially assured of Yahweh ‘s

assistance in any effort they may make, are encouraged to begin

work ; which they do within a few days of the date of the prophet’s

first recorded appearance.

                $ 2 . THE RESOURCES OF THE BUILDERS (1:15b-2:9 ) .

                This prophecy was designed to meet an emergency arising from

the despondency that overtook the builders as soon as they

realised the magnitude of their task and the slenderness of their

resources. The prophet admits that they cannot hope to pro

duce anything like the splendid temple some of them can remem

ber, but he bids them one and all take courage, since Yahweh ,

whose are all the treasures of the earth , is with them and has

decreed the new sanctuary a glorious future.

                § 3. THE NEW ERA OF THE RESTORED Temple (2:10-19)

                A few weeks after Haggai’s second discourse there was occasion

for a third . The people were disappointed that Yahweh did not

at once testify his appreciation of their zeal in the restoration of

his sanctuary . The prophet, after an illustration calculated to

show them the unreasonableness of the complaint, promises that

henceforth they shall see a difference.

                4. THE FUTURE OF THE LEADER ZERUBBABEL (2:20-23)

                This prophecy is addressed to Zerubbabel alone. In it Haggai

foretells a great catastrophe by which kings will be overthrown

and kingdoms destroyed , but after which the prince, unharmed ,

will receive new honours from Yahweh .

                ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES.

                The book of Zechariah consists of fourteen chapters. The first

eight are universally recognised as thework of the prophet to whom

they are attributed . The authorship of the last six has long been

in dispute, butmost recent authorities on the question refer them

to some other author or authors. This opinion , the reasons for

which will in due time be given , is here taken for granted . The

subject of this chapter, therefore, more exactly stated , would be,

Zechariah as he reveals himself in the first eight chapters of the

book called by his name.

                $ 1. THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE PROPHET.

                § 2 . THE STRUCTURE OF CHAPTERS 1 – 8 .

                The genuine prophecies of Zechariah form a tolerably consistent

and intelligiblewhole. There is, first, a hortatory introduction ( 11 -6),

originally , to judge from the date prefixed to it , an independent

prophecy . Themain body of the collection (1?_ 623) naturally falls

into two parts, the first of which consists of a series of eight visions,

each with its interpretation , followed by a supplementary descrip

tion of a symbolical act which the prophet is commanded to per

form . The second part, chs. 7 f., contains only an account of the

mission of the men of Bethel and the oracle that the prophet was in

structed to deliver in response to their inquiry, the last paragraph

of which furnishes a suitable conclusion for the entire collection .

                § 3. THE TEXT OF CHAPTERS 1 – 8 . ADDITIONS. OMISSIONS . ERRORS .

                § 4 . THE STYLE OF ZECHARIAH .

                5 . THE TEACHING OF ZECHARIAH .

                Outline. Chapters 1-8.

                The contents of these eight chapters, as already intimated , nat

urally fall into three parts. 1. The introduction (1:1-6). 2 . A series

of visions, with their interpretations (1:7-6:15). 3. A new era (7 -8 ).

                1. THE INTRODUCTION (1:1-6) .

                It consists of an exhortation backed by a reminder of the past

experience of the Jews, the result of their disregard for the warn

ings of former prophets

                2. A SERIES OF VISIONS, WITH THEIR INTERPRETATIONS (1:7-6:15).

                There are eight of these visions. Some of them are described very briefly, others with considerable detail. They are not all equally distinct from one another, but fall into three groups, as follows: the first three, depicting The return from captivity (1?217/13); the fourth and fifth, of which the theme is The anointed of Yahweh (chs. 3 f., exc. 46ab-104); and the last three, which may be grouped under the general heading, The seat of wickedness (5–68). They are supplemented by a section on The prince of Judah (68-15 4625-102).

                a. The Return from Captivity (1?-217/13).

                The visions of the first group, three in number, present successive stages in the history of the Restoration and prepare the way for an appeal with which the section closes. In the first vision the scene is laid in

                (1) THE HOLLOW OF THE MYRTLES (1:7-17).

                In this vision the prophet sees a person to whom a troop of divinely commissioned messengers report, thus furnishing an occasion for an appeal to Yahweh in behalf of his people and a response assuring them of speedy deliverance.

                (2) THE HORNS AND THEIR DESTROYERS (21-4/118-21).

                The second vision attaches itself naturally and closely to the first. In it the prophet sees four horns, and, when their significance has been explained, as many workmen commissioned to destroy them; the whole being a picture of the process by which Yahweh intends to fulfil the promise of the first vision.

                (3) THE MAN WITH THE MEASURING LINE (25/1-975).

                In this his third vision the prophet sees a man on his way to measure the site of Jerusalem, to whom he afterward hears the interpreter send a message foretelling the limitless growth and prosperity of the city under the protection of Yahweh.

                (4) AN APPEAL TO THE EXILES (210/6-17/13).

                The rest of the chapter has usually been treated as a part of the preceding vision, but this arrangement must be abandoned. The reasons are as follows: (1) The speaker is not the same as in v. ‘, but the prophet now takes the place of the interpreter. This appears from his references to himself in vv. 12 f.; also from the fact, itself another reason for making these verses a separate paragraph, that (2) the persons addressed are no longer any of those who have appeared in the visions, but the Jews who still remain in Babylonia. Finally, (3) these verses are not an enlargement upon the third vision, but an appeal based upon the whole trio, in which the prophet exhorts his people to separate themselves from the nations destined to perish and return to Palestine, there to enjoy in a restored community the presence and protection of Yahweh.

                b. The anointed of Yahweh (34–482 4106-14). The second group consists of two visions. They have to do with the persons and fortunes of the two leaders who represented the Jewish community in the time of Haggai and Zechariah.

                (1) THE ACCUSED HIGH PRIEST (CH. 3). In this vision the high priest Joshua, haled before the angel of Yahweh by the Adversary, is acquitted (vv. 1-5), and endowed anew with high functions and privileges (vv. 8-10).

                (a) The acquittal (vv.1-5).—The prophet first sees the high priest, as a culprit, before the angel of Yahweh. The latter rebukes the Adversary for his complaint, and then, having released the accused, has him stripped of his soiled garments and clothed in becoming apparel.

                (b) The charge (vv. 6-10). The angel of Yahweh, addressing Joshua, promises him personally, on condition of loyalty, an exalted position, and his people forgiveness and prosperity.

                (2) THE SYMBOLICAL CANDELABRUM (41-6aa, 106-14).

                The fourth chapter, in its present arrangement, does not admit of analysis, but, if vv. Ba-10. 12 be removed, there remains a simple and coherent account of the fifth of Zechariah’s visions. In it he sees a lamp with seven lights, flanked by two olive trees, and receives from his attendant an interpretation of the things thus presented.

                C. The seat of wickedness (59–68).

                The third and final group, like the first, consists of three visions. They have to do with the subject of sin and the purpose of Yahweh concerning it. The first is that of

                (1) THE FLYING ROLL (51-4).

                In this vision the prophet sees a flying roll of which he asks the significance. Whereupon the interpreter explains to him that it is a curse sent forth by Yahweh to exterminate the thief and the perjurer from the land.

                (2) Woman in Ephah (5:5-11).

                In this, the seventh vision, the prophet sees an ephah which, when the cover is lifted, is found to contain a woman symbolising wickedness. She is thrust back into the measure and two other women with wings bear her away to deposit her in Babylonia.

                (3) THE FOUR CHARIOTS (61-8).

                In this, the eighth and last, vision the prophet sees four chariots, each with horses of a peculiar colour, equipped for the cardinal points, whither they are finally despatched. Especial attention is called to those that have gone northward, as having assuaged the spirit of Yahweh in that region.

                (1) A SYMBOLIC CROWN (69-14).

                The prophet is instructed to take with him certain persons to the house of Josiah, the son of Sephaniah, and there fashion a crown and predict the appearance of the Messiah.

                (2) ZERUBBABEL AND THE TEMPLE (48-10a, 6a-7 615).

                Zechariah receives a second message, in which the governor is assured of the divine assistance and promised ultimate success in the difficult task of rebuilding the ruined temple. The prophet is so confident of his inspiration that he stakes his reputation on the fulfilment of this prediction.

                3. A NEW ERA (chs. 78).

                This part of the book consists of the recital of an incident that gave Zechariah an occasion for resuming his prophetical activity, and a series of oracles setting forth what Yahweh requires of his people and what he purposes to do for them in the given circumstances.

                a. An inquiry from Bethel (71-3).

                The people of Bethel send to Jerusalem to inquire of the priests and the prophets whether they shall continue to observe the fast of the fifth month.

                b. A series of oracles (74-823).

                They are four in number. All of them but the third are introduced by the characteristic formula, “Then came the word of Yahweh of Hosts to me.” The general subject is the restoration of Judah to the favour of Yahweh. The first deals with (1) THE TEACHING OF THE PAST (74-14). The prophet holds that fasting is valueless as compared with the social virtues, and that the neglect of these latter was the cause of the banishment of his people from their country.   (2)THE PROMISE OF THE FUTURE .  The prophet announces that Yahweh will presently return to Jerusalem to bless it with wonderful prosperity, and that thenceforth there will be an unbroken covenant between him and its inhabitants. The paragraph consists of five declarations, each of which is introduced by a Thus saith Yahweh of Hosts.

                (3) THE PAST AND FUTURE IN CONTRAST (89-17).

                The prophet recalls the want and suffering through which his people have passed, assuring them that henceforth Yahweh will bless them with abundance and happiness, yet only on condition that they contribute to this end, not by observing fasts and other formalities, but by obeying faithfully the demands of righteousness.

                (4) THE REIGN OF JOY AND GLADNESS (818-23).

                The fasts will all be transformed into seasons of rejoicing, and the nations, seeing the blissful change in the condition of the Jews, will come to worship their God, that they may share his favour.

                THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE  SECOND PART OF ZECHARIAH.

                The book of Zechariah, so called, contains, besides the eight

chapters universally attributed to the prophet of that name, six the

origin and authorship of which have long been in dispute. The

questions when and by whom they were written must therefore be

discussed and, if possible, settled; but first it seems necessary to

take a preliminary survey of the content of the chapters as a whole,

and especially to inquire into the condition of the text as it has been

transmitted by the Massoretes.

                § I. THE STRUCTURE OF CHS. 9-14.

                The ninth chapter begins with a word, sva, sometimes rendered burden, but more correctly utterance, which frequently appears in titles, especially in the book of Isaiah. Cf. 13° 15′, etc. It has generally been regarded as so used in this case, and, since another occurs in 12′, as the title, or a part of it, of chs. 9-11. Thus it has been customary to divide Second Zechariah, as it is called, into two parts, each of which has three chapters, and, probably by accident rather than design, the same number (46) of verses. The genuineness of 12°, however, is now pretty generally questioned. In its present form it is quite indefensible. Moreover, since the time of Ewald there have been those who have claimed that 137-9 is the conclusion of 1148. One cannot, therefore, take for granted the correctness of the Massoretic arrangement, but must reopen the case and make one’s own analysis.

                It must be remembered that the question concerns the arrangement, and not the authorship, of these chapters. If this distinction is kept in mind, there will not be much difficulty in deciding

that, whatever may be the case with the others, or any part of them, the first three chapters form a group with noticeable points of contact and connection. Thus the “also ” of 91 clearly indicates that, whoever may have written the preceding verses, the author of this one intended to connect them with what follows. The connection between 911 ff. and 104-11 is unmistakable; for, besides the references to Israel in both passages, there is the peculiar metrical form in which they are cast to mark them as parts of one composition. The rest of ch. It has not the same form,-in fact, most of it is plain prose,—and there is room for doubt whether it is the work of the same author as the first verses; but it evidently owes its present position in the book of Zechariah to the fact that, like 10°, it has for its subject worthless shepherds, and 137-8 should be, and no doubt originally was, attached to it for the same reason.

                Thus far there has been a traceable unity. Here, however, there comes a break, and from this point onward the marks that have been noted are conspicuously absent. The author of 12, therefore, whoever he was, was justified in introducing a new title. It suggests several questions. The only one germane to the present discussion is whether this title covers the rest of the book, 137-9 excepted, or, rather, whether there is a connection between the parts of this latter half similar to that which has been traced through the first three chapters. There seems to be such a connection. At any rate, Jerusalem is prominent throughout as a centre of interest and anticipation. In 132-8 this central point is for the time being lost sight of, but the passage can hardly be explained except as suggested by 12′, where “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” are expressly mentioned. This being the case, one may still separate Second Zechariah into two divisions, the first consisting of chs. 9-11 and 137-9, and the second of 12-139 and 14.

                In the first division the first break naturally comes after 910. The place for the second is not so easy to determine. There are those who find none before the end of ch. 10. It is usual, however, to make one at the end of ch. 9 or after 10%. Hitzig makes one at each of these two points. So also We., Now., Marti, et al. The matter is well put by Keil: “The close connection between v. 2b and v.: shows that with v. there commences a new line of thought, for which, however, 917 prepares the way.” The third section, then, begins with 10′. It includes 111-, for (I) these last verses have the same metrical form as the preceding, and (2) they lose all significance unless they are so connected. The same may be said of 137-9 in relation to 114-17. In this case the fact that, as v. Ortenberg points out,* 111° is a parallel to Ez. 34* and 13′ to Ez. 34o confirms the inference from form and subject. It is suggested that the transfer of 13?t. to its present position in the Massoretic text was occasioned by a fancied relation between it and ch. 14.1 Perhaps the reviser thought that the capture and destruction of Jerusalem foretold in 141 was the fiery trial of 13°. Whatever may have been the reason for it, the opinion that such a change has been made is widely held among biblical scholars. The remainder, after the removal of 137ff., naturally divides itself into two sections, 12-13 and 14.

                § 2. THE TEXT OF CHS. 9-I4.  ADDITIONS.  OMISSIONS.  ERRORS.

                § 3. THE AUTHORSHIP OF CHS. 9-14.

                Outline. Chapters 9-14.

                The last six chapters of the book called after Zechariah natu-

rally fall into two divisions, separated by the title at the beginning

of ch. 12, or more exactly, as has already been explained, consist-

ing of chs. 9-1 1, with the addition of 13 7 ‘ 9 and chs. 12-14 without

the verses specified. The general subject of the first division is

                1. The revival of the Hebrew nation (o^-ii 17 13 7 ” 9 ).

                This division contains three sections, the contents of which come

from as many authors, writing at different dates and representing

more or less divergent lines of thought and expectation. The first

deals with

                a. THE NEW KINGDOM (9:1-10 ).

                This section must be viewed from two stand-points. Origi-

nally, as has been explained, it was probably a separate prophecy,

written soon after the battle of Issus by some one who saw in Alex-

ander the divinely appointed and directed instrument for the de-

liverance of his people and the restoration of the Hebrew state.

The author who gave it its present setting meant that it should be

taken differently, viewed as a picture, not of the time of Alexander,

but of a period still future when the highest hopes of his people

would be realised. Two thoughts may be distinguished, the first

being

                (1) The recovery of the Promised Land (9 1 ” 8 ). — When the Hebrews

invaded Palestine they were not able to obtain possession of the

whole country. Nor did their kings, the greatest of them, succeed

in bringing it entirely under their dominion. They believed, how-

ever, that the conquest would one day be completed. This prophecy is a picture of the final occupation of those parts of the country that the Hebrews had not been able to subjugate. The general

movement is from north to south, that is, from “the River” Eu-

phrates toward “the ends of the earth” (v. 10 ); but the writer does

not follow the precise order in which the points mentioned would

naturally be reached by an invader traversing the country in that

direction. Thus, Damascus precedes Hamath, and the cities of

Philistia follow one another apparently without reference to their

relative location. Compare Isaiah’s spirited sketch of the advance

of the Assyrians in io 27 ff \ The paragraph closes with a promise

not in the original prophecy, that Yahweh will protect his people

in the enjoyment of their increased possessions.

                2) The future ruler (go f.).—The coming king is announced, and his character and mission described; also the extent of his kingdom.

                b. A promise of freedom and prosperity (9 11 ” 17 ).

                Yahweh promises to restore the exiled Jews, inspire them with

courage to meet their oppressors, assist them in the conflict and

thenceforward bestow upon them his favour and protection.

                c. The plan of restoration (io 1 -!! 3 ).

                The prophet in a word points out the cause of past misfortunes,

then describes the means by which Yahweh purposes to restore his

people to their country. He will give them strength and courage

to resist and overcome their oppressors, and finally gather them

from the remotest regions to which they have been banished. The

prophecy closes with a lament for the powers that must perish in

the conflict.

                d. The two shepherds (114-17 137-9). The section naturally divides itself into two paragraphs, the first of which deals with

                (1) The careless shepherd (114-14).—The prophet represents himself as directed by Yahweh to take charge of a flock of sheep that are being reared for the market. He does so, but finally tires of his duties and asks to be dismissed; breaking one of the symbolic staves with which he has provided himself when he leaves the sheep, and the other when he receives his wages and deposits them in the temple treasury. The story is more complete in its details than that of 68 f., but the absence of definite persons and places and the neglect of the author to keep his narrative throughout distinct from the ideas symbolised indicate that, whatever one may think of the other case, one has here to do with a parable. Cf. Ez. 41 ff. 51 f. 1212 ff.

                (2) A foolish shepherd (1115-17 137-9).—The prophet is here directed to assume the part of a foolish shepherd, whose treatment of his flock is briefly described. Then Yahweh breaks into a denunciation of the shepherd, followed by intimations concerning the process of purification by which his people must be prepared for final deliverance.

                2. The future of Judah and Jerusalem (12′-139 14).

                This division of the book of Zechariah has a title of its own. In the Massoretic text it reads, An oracle of the word of Yahweh concerning Israel. The subject, however, is not Israel, nor is the name so much as mentioned from this point to the end of the book. For this reason it is necessary to substitute for Israel the more suitable name Jerusalem, or better, for concerning, to read to, as in Mal. 1′, thus making the title introduce a message to the Jewish world. There are two well-marked sections. The first deals with

                a. THE JEWS IN THEIR INTERNAL RELATIONS (12′-13).

                This in turn may be subdivided into three paragraphs, the topic of the first being

                (1) A power in Palestine (124-8).—The Jews in the strength of Yahweh triumph over their enemies, and dwell safely under his protection.

                (2) A great lamentation (128-14).—The people of Jerusalem, protected by Yahweh and transformed by his Spirit, will be smitten with remorse for their misdeeds, and especially for their cruelty toward a nameless sufferer for whom they will observe a period of poignant and universal mourning.

                (3) A great purification (131-0).-A general announcement is followed by a more detailed prediction concerning the suppression of idolatry and false prophecy.

                b. THE JEWS AND THE NATIONS (CH. 14).

                The thought of the chapter is one, but it takes four phases in the course of its development. The first has to do with       (1) The recovery of the Holy City (142-5).—The city is destined to be taken and plundered, but Yahweh will appear and by a stupendous miracle throw the nations into confusion and rescue the remaining inhabitants.       (2) The transformation of Judah (148-11).—The author interrupts himself at this point to describe another miracle by which the country about Jerusalem will become a Paradise.        (3) The fate of the nations (1412-15).- In this paragraph the prophet resumes his description of the relief of Jerusalem. The nations and their cattle will be smitten by a swift and deadly plague, and when, in their desperation, they turn their arms against one another, Judah will take advantage of the opportunity to attack and destroy them.

                CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF MALACHI BY JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH, Ph.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI.   

                § 1. THE BOOK OF MALACHI.

                1. Its Contents. The theme of the prophecy is stated clearly in the opening section of the book (12-5), viz. that Yahweh still loves Israel, notwithstanding the fact that appearances seem to tell against a belief in such love. The second and main section (19-312) points out in detail some of the obstacles that stand in the way of the full and free exercise of Yahweh’s love toward his people. These obstacles are found in the failure of the people in general and the priests in particular to manifest that respect and reverence toward Yahweh that are due from a people to its God (18–2); in the fact that native Jewish wives have been divorced in order that the way might be cleared for new marriages with foreign women-a proceeding exhibiting both inhumanity and apostacy (210-16); in the general materialism and faithlessness of the times, which call in question the value of faith and righteousness and will make necessary the coming of a day of judgment (217–30); and in the failure to render to Yahweh generously and willingly the tithes and offerings that are his due (37-12). The last section (318-4°) takes up again the note with which the prophecy opens, and it assures the pious that their labours have not been in vain; for in the day of Yahweh which is near at hand Israel’s saints will experience the protection of Yahweh’s fatherly love, whereas the wicked will perish. The book is evidently well planned, being knit together into a well-developed and harmonious whole.

                § 2. THE TIMES.

                § 3. THE PROPHET.

                $ 4. THE MESSAGE OF MALACHI.

                $ 5. LITERATURE ON THE BOOK OF MALACHI.

                Outline.

                $ 1. THE SUPERSCRIPTION (1³).

                The superscription states the ultimate source of the prophecy, the people to whom it is addressed, and the agent of its transmission. The superscription of no prophetic book offers less of genuine information; those of Obadiah and Habakkuk are its only rivals in this respect.

                The editorial origin of this superscription is now quite generally conceded. This opinion is supported by the close resemblance in form between this superscription and those in Zc. 9′ 12′, which are likewise of editorial origin. It is probable that all three were written by the same hand; or, at least, that two of them were modelled after the third one. The structure is too unusual to make it likely that they were of independent origin (v. i.).

                1. Oracle of the word of Yahweh to Israel] For the use of the word “oracle,” v. note on Na. I’ in ICC.. This and Zc. 91 121 are the only passages in which “oracle” is followed by “word,” though “oracle of Yahweh” and “word of Yahweh” are common phrases. “Israel” here represents the Jewish community as the people of God for whom all the ancient promises and expectations are to be realised.—Through Malachi] The source of this statement is evidently 3′, where “Malachi” is not a proper name, but the equivalent of “my messenger” or “my angel.” 6 renders here “through his messenger.” T likewise treats it as a common noun, rather than as a proper name.For the personality and character of the prophet, v. Introduction, $ 3; and for the time of his activity, v. Introduction, $ 2.

                § 2. A PROOF OF YAHWEH’S LOVE (12-5).

                In this opening section the prophet meets the lament of his people that Yahweh has ceased to love Judah, by reminding them of the recent overthrow of Edom, their hated foe, as an evidence of the love that they are calling in question. This reference to the fate of Edom would seem to fix the date of this prophecy; but unfortunately the information here is too vague and our knowledge of the later history of Edom too incomplete to render any degree of certainty as to this question possible; v. Introduction, $ 2. These verses really state the theme of the whole book; for the writer’s task is that of showing Israel, on the one hand, that Yahweh loves her and, on the other, that her own sinful conduct prevents her from enjoying the full fruitage of that love.

                $ 3. YAHWEH HONOURS THEM THAT HONOUR HIM (18–29).

                Having shown in § 2 that there was no warrant for continuing to doubt the love of Yahweh toward his people, the prophet now proceeds to indicate the causes that make it impossible for Yahweh to let this love have full sway. Starting with the general principle that a people must show honour toward its God, he charges Israel with heaping dishonour upon Yahweh by indifference, carelessness, and deception in the bringing of its sacrificial gifts (16-9). No sacrifice at all were better than this (110). In the heathen world, due reverence is shown to Yahweh; but in his own city and temple he is treated with contempt. For blemished animals are substituted for sound and healthy ones which alone are suitable for sacrifice. Hence curses rather than blessings must be the lot of such worshippers (111-14). It is especially incumbent upon the priests, the ministers of Yahweh, to see to it that he is fitly honoured in the proper conduct of the ritual. Failure to secure this will bring upon them a terrible curse for their unfaithfulness to the covenant between them and Yahweh. In days gone by, the priesthood lived up to the full measure of its responsibility; but now, they are leaders in wickedness rather than in righteousness. Consequently, the low esteem in which they are now generally held is the due reward of their conduct as perverters of the law (21-9).

                § 4. YAHWEH’S PROTEST AGAINST DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE WITH IDOLATROUS WOMEN (210-18).

                This has been rightly called the most difficult section of the Book of Malachi. Its difficulties do not, however, obscure the general course of the thought. The prophet brings to light another obstacle in the way of the full manifestation of Yahweh’s love for Judah. He reminds the people of their common origin, and charges them with disloyalty to one another and to Yahweh in the fact that they have divorced their faithful Jewish wives and contracted new marriages with foreign women. In view of this sin, they need not wonder that Yahweh refuses to hear their prayers. He desires the propagation of a pure and godly race. Therefore his people must be loyal to their marriage relationships; for divorce is a deadly evil.

                § 5. THE NEAR APPROACH OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT (217–39).

                The prophet cites another cause for Yahweh’s failure to bless Israel, viz. his people have lost all faith in their God. Therefore, he will send his messenger to prepare for the coming of the day of judgment. Then will there be a purification of the priestly order and a full exposure and condemnation of sinners of every kind. For Yahweh is unalterably opposed to sin, and the sinners in Israel must perish.

                § 6. THE PAYMENT OF TITHES WINS THE BLESSING OF GOD (37-12).

                The prophet takes up still another obstacle in the way of the free outpouring of Yahweh’s grace toward Israel. Israel has been unwilling to pay the price of his favour. Let the tithes and offerings be brought in to the full and showers of blessings will fall upon the land. The crops will be abundant and the land of Israel will become the envy of all the peoples.

                § 7. THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE RIGHTEOUS  (318–49).

                The prophet first sets forth the doubts that have troubled the pious regarding the value of their piety in Yahweh’s eyes. The facts of experience seem to tell against the profitableness of godliness (313-15). He then assures the pious that Yahweh has not forgotten them, but intends to treat them with a father’s love in the great day of judgment that is coming. They will then realise fully the distinction that Yahweh makes between the godly and the ungodly (316-18). For, in that day, the wicked will be wholly consumed, like stubble in the flames, whereas the pious will rejoice exceedingly and will triumph gloriously over their enemies (41-3). The book closes with a note of warning regarding the Law and an explanatory gloss concerning the day of Yahweh (44-6).

                INTRODUCTION TO JONAH.

                $ 1. THE CHARACTER OF THE STORY OF JONAH.

                The story of the wilful prophet is one of the best known and most misunderstood in the Old Testament: an occasion for jest to the mocker, a cause of bewilderment to the literalist believer but a reason for joy to the critic. The Old Testament reaches here one of its highest points, for the doctrine of God receives in it one of its clearest and most beautiful expressions and the spirit of prophetic religion is revealed at its truest and best. It is sad that men have so often missed the spirit by fastening their attention on the form of the story. The form is indeed fantastic enough and, unless rightly understood, it is likely to create difficulties.

                At almost every step the reader who takes the story as a record of actual happenings must ask questions. How was it possible that a true prophet should disobey a direct divine command? Is it likely that God should send a storm simply in order to pursue a single person and thus cause many others to suffer too? Do such things happen in a world like ours? Is it not curious that the lot should fall upon Jonah at once, and evidently without manipulation on the part of the sailors, and that the sea should become calm directly after he had been thrown overboard? That the great fish was at once ready to swallow Jonah may be passed, but that Jonah should have remained in the fish for three days and three nights and should have prayed a beautiful psalm of thanksgiving inside, exceeds the limits of credibility, not to mention the point that the fish did not simply eject him but threw him up on the shore. What an exaggerated idea of the greatness of Nineveh the author had! What language did Jonah speak in Nineveh? How could the people understand him? And what a wonderful result followed his preaching! The greatest prophets in Israel had not been able to accomplish anything like it. It is so unprecedented that Jesus regarded it as the most astounding wonder of the story (Lk. 1149). Is it not strange that absolutely no trace has been left of the universal, whole-hearted repentance of the Ninevites and that the later prophets who prophesied against Assyria knew nothing of it? And what shall we say of the extraordinarily speedy growth of the plant?

                It is all passing strange. We are in wonderland! Surely this is not the record of actual historical events nor was it ever intended as such. It is a sin against the author to treat as literal prose what he intended as poetry. This story is poetry not prose. It is a prose poem not history. That is the reason why it is so vague at many points where it should have been precise, if it had been intended as a historical record. The author is not interested in things which a historian would not have omitted. So he says nothing about the place where Jonah was ejected or about his journey to Nineveh. He gives no name of the king, but he calls him simply “King of Nineveh,” a designation which was never used as long as the Assyrian empire stood. He does not speak of the time of his reign or of the later fate of Nineveh nor does he specify the sins which were responsible for Jonah’s mission. He is so little interested in the personal history of Jonah that he does not tell us what became of him after he had received his wellmerited rebuke. As soon as he has finished his story and driven home the truth he intended to teach he stops, for he is interested only in that. His story is thus a story with a moral, a parable, a prose poem like the story of the Good Samaritan, or Lessing’s Ring story in Nathan the Wise, or Oscar Wilde’s poem in prose, The Teacher of Truth. The very style of it with its repetition and stereotyped forms of speech shows its character, for these stylistic characteristics are not due to the author’s limited store of phrases but to his intention of giving a uniform character to the story.

                All its strangeness disappears as soon as we put the story into the category in which it belongs. Then we can give ourselves to the enjoyment of its beauty and submit to its teaching of a truth which is as vital and as much needed to-day as it was when it was first told.

                It is useless to collect similar instances to prove the possibility of the swallowing of Jonah by the huge fish. Nobody denies that a shark or a sperm-whale can swallow a man whole and alive. But none of the stories usually adduced prove that a man can live three days and three nights in the stomach of a large fish, even if the stories could be relied on as truthful. An illustration of what happens when the facts of such a story are really investigated is given by Luke A. Williams in the Expos. T., XVIII, Feb., 1907, p. 239, where he proves by documentary evidence that Kצnig’s story of the whale-hunter James Bartley who had been swallowed by a whale and taken out of its stomach alive on the following day (Kצnig, DB., II, p. 750 b., Expos. T., XVII, Aug., 1906, pp. 521 s.) is nothing but a sea yarn. A similar story adduced by v. Orelli would, I doubt not, have the same fate, if it were investigated.

                Another more interesting and at first sight more promising attempt to make the historicity of the miracle probable was made by Trumbull. He contended that it was most reasonable that Jonah should have been swallowed and later ejected by a fish in order that the Ninevites might regard him as an incarnation of their god Dagan, called Oannes by Berosus, who is represented on the monuments as a fish-man, and that they might believe his word more readily and repent. (Ferd. Chr. Baur, in 1837, had already connected Jonah with Oannes, but in a different manner.)

                Trumbull has to assume that there were witnesses who saw how Jonah came out of the fish, “say on the coast of Phזnicia, where the fish-god was a favourite object of worship,” and that “a multitude would be ready to follow the seemingly new avatar of the fish-god, proclaiming the story of his uprising from the sea, as he went on his mission to the city where the fish-god had its very centre of worship.”

                But these assumptions have not only no basis in the narrative, but are opposed to its spirit. Nothing is farther removed from the mind of the author than to say that Jonah, the prophet of Yahweh, who had proclaimed to the sailors that Yahweh was the God of heaven who had made the sea and the dry land, and who had been sent by Yahweh to proclaim Yahweh’s message, should have made upon the Ninevites the impression of being an incarnation of their fish-god, and that Yahweh should have desired “to impress upon all the people of Nineveh the authenticity of a message from himself” in this manner. Doubtless the Ninevites would have thought that the message Jonah was giving was from Dagan and not from Yahweh. It is most improbable that a Jewish author should have thought that Yahweh would accommodate himself so much to the capacity of these heathen as to minister to their superstitions and to strengthen their faith in another god (cf. Kצnig, DB., II, 752).

                § 2. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE STORY.

                § 3. INSERTION OF THE BOOK IN THE PROPHETIC CANON.

                § 4. THE DATE OF THE BOOK.

                § 5. THE UNITY OF THE BOOK.

                § 6. THE PSALM IN CHAPTER 2.

                It is a psalm of thanksgiving for help received in great danger, not a prayer for help in the midst of danger. The danger is past, the psalmist is safe. So this cannot be the prayer which Jonah prayed, or which the author of the story would have put into Jonah’s mouth, while he was inside the fish, for it does not fit into the situation. Even though the fish was from the very first Yahweh’s instrument of deliverance to the narrator, so that from his point of view Jonah was safe as soon as he had been swallowed, he nowhere indicates that his hero thought so too, and this is certainly not self-evident. To be swallowed by a fish is usually not the same as to be saved! Our author is too good a narrator to omit a point like this.

                The psalm would fit better if it followed 2″. There a prayer of thanksgiving and praise is in place. In view of the many transpositions, accidental or otherwise, which have occurred in the OT. text, it is not improbable that the psalm has been displaced. And indeed v. ? and v. ” go well together, and the psalm follows naturally, And Jonah prayed to Yahweh his God out of the belly of the fish. And Yahweh spoke to the fish and it threw up Jonah on the dry land. Then Jonah (Jonah must be supplied) said, Out of my anguish I called to Yahweh, etc.

                Such a transposition is not difficult, and the displacement may be simply accidental. But even then it cannot be maintained that the psalm was composed by the author of the story. If it had been composed by him, he would have fitted it more closely into the situation. As it is, it does not fit very well. It does not mention the fish, nor speak of Jonah’s penitence, but quite generally of the experiences of a drowning man, who seemed doomed to death and was yet wonderfully saved by Yahweh upon whom he had called for help. One might try to explain the non-mention of the fish by the singer’s ignoring of the instrument in his thanks to the author of his deliverance. And one might say that the fish did not seem so important to the writer as it does to us. But why does he describe so minutely the sinking down to the roots of the mountains and the wrapping of sea-weeds around the singer’s head, and say nothing at all of the miraculous deliverance by the fish? Did the latter experience impress him so little? Was it not most extraordinary? One might also, especially if the psalm is placed after v. ” (Engl. v. 10), try to explain the lack of reference to Jonah’s repentance by assuming that his penitence was voiced in the prayer which he made according to v. 8 and as a result of which Yahweh saved him, and that his promise to obey Yahweh’s command, if saved, was expressed in v. 40. But after all is said that can be said for the fitness of the psalm, it still does not seem to be the kind of psalm which our author would have composed for this particular situation.

                Two possibilities present themselves at this point. Either the author selected this psalm, which seemed to him the most appropriate he could find, and inserted it after v. 1 (sic!) or a reader inserted it. If the latter view is adopted, we may either assume that the interpolator missed the prayer referred to in v. 2 and put it purposely after v.? To him the fish was the agent of deliverance from the very beginning, and he believed that Jonah could pray this psalm of thanksgiving even in the belly of the fish.* Or we may assume that a reader missed an expression of gratitude on the part of Jonah after he had been so miraculously delivered and thrown up on the shore (v. “), and so he inserted this psalm in the margin. Thence it was put after v. ? instead of after v. “, as he had intended. This latter view appears to me on the whole the more probable.

                In any case there can be no doubt that he who placed the psalm here interpreted the phrases connected with drowning literally. But in view of the frequent use in poetry, cf., e. g., Ps. 691. 2. 15, of figures of drowning for mortal danger and illness it is not certain that the original poet intended them to be taken literally. He may have used them figuratively

                The literary connection with various postexilic psalms argues for a postexilic date of the psalm. But how early or how late in the postexilic period it belongs we cannot tell. The Heb. is pure and no Aram. influence is apparent.

                It has long been noticed that the psalm contains a number of parallels to other psalms. Ps. 187 1201 use the same phraseology as v. 3a; Ps. 428b reads exactly like v. 46 (all thy breakers and thy billows have passed over me), but in Ps. 42 this is figurative. Ps. 3123 is almost the same (except one synonym) as v. 5 (I said, I am driven out of the sight of Thy eyes). The connection of Ps. 185 692 with v. 6a is slight. Ps. 304 (Yahweh, Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol) is quite similar to v.7. With v. 8 cp. Ps. 1424 143* (when my spirit (Jonah: soul] fainted within me); 187 (may He hear my voice from His holy temple and may my prayer come before Him to His ears); 58 (into Thy holy temple); Ps. 883 (may my prayer come before Thee). Ps. 317 has the same phrase (they who care for idols) as v. ‘ V.10 – Ps. 425 (with loud singing and thanksgiving).

                These literary connections, with the exception of v. *b = Ps. 423b, are not striking enough to prove more than that the author was steeped in the religious language of the postexilic community. That he should have worked these “quotations” together into a psalm, taking them from these various other psalms, does not seem likely, for the psalm has unity and a certain amount of originality (cf. vv. 6. 7). The phrases it has in common with other psalms were the common property of the religious language of the author’s day.

                Interpretation of the Psalm.—The main lines that have been followed in the course of the history of interpretation are these:

                According to the literal interpretation Jonah is regarded as actually praying this psalm while inside of the fish. Others who do not believe that the story was intended as actual history, believe that the author of the story (not Jonah himself) composed the psalm and meant it to be taken literally as the expression of gratitude on the part of his hero for his deliverance from drowning. Still others believe that it was inserted (not composed) by the author of the story who interpreted it literally in accordance with the story, or by a later reader, who missed the prayer referred to in v. ? and supplied it from some collection as the one most suitable for Jonah’s condition.

                According to the figurative inter pretation the expressions for drowning are all metaphors for deliverance from disaster or mortal illness.

                According to the allegorical inter pretation the psalm refers to the Babylonian exile. Jonah is the symbol of Israel, the fish of the Babylonian world power. Israel is singing in exile this psalm of thanksgiving, which is really “a national liturgy.” Hpt. varies the allegorical interpretation somewhat by taking the psalm as a “song of thanks by Israel for deliverance from the Syrian persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes.”

                In regard to the composition of the psalm, Bצhme, who considers the entire psalm as a later addition, takes vv. 6. 7. 8 and the phrases in the heart of the sea (v.) and into Thy holy temple (v. 8) as interpolations. Ries. regards vv. 6. 7 as the original prayer of Jonah, the rest as later additions. He singles out the most striking and original lines of the psalm. But even then they do not fit the situation and cannot be by the author of the story, even if v. 7b is translated with 6 as a prayer, O mayest Thou bring up, etc. Ries. has perceived this and tries to account for it by the theory that the description of v. 6 was suggested by another form of the Jonah story which was similar to that of Paul’s shipwreck and to the Buddhist story of Mittavindaka (see com. on 17). But this is pure assumption.

                § 7. THE TEXT OF THE BOOK.

                $ 8. MODERN LITERATURE.

                Outline.

                JONAH’S DISOBEDIENCE AND FLIGHT (11-3).

                Jonah is commanded by Yahweh to go on a prophetic mission to Nineveh but refuses, and tries to escape from this obligation by fleeing on a ship to Tarshish.

                THE STORM ON THE SEA (14-6).

                Yahweh pursues Jonah in a terrible storn. The sailors try to save the ship first by prayer then by lightening it as much as possible. Jonah, who had fallen asleep in a corner of the lower deck, is also ordered by the captain to pray to his God.

                THE DISCOVERY OF JONAH AS THE GUILTY  ONE (17-10).

                Believing that the storm was sent by a deity in pursuit of a guilty offender on board their own vessel, the sailors throw lots to discover him. The lot falls on Jonah. The men ask him for particulars about himself and he confesses to their horror that he is a Hebrew who is fleeing from Yahweh, the God of heaven, the creator of the dry land and of the sea.

                THE STILLING OF THE STORM BY THROWING JONAH INTO THE SEA (111-19).

                Anxiously the sailors ask Jonah what they should do with him in order that the storm may cease. And he tells them to cast him into the sea, for he was sure that the storm had come on his account and that it would cease, if he were thrown overboard to placate the angry deity. The men follow his advice, but not before vainly trying once more to reach the shore and addressing a passionate prayer to Yahweh not to hold them guilty of murder, since He Himself had so plainly indicated His will. As soon as Jonah is cast into the sea, the storm ceases and the sea grows calm. Overawed by Yahweh’s might, and full of gratitude for His deliverance, the sailors offer sacrifices and make vows to Yahweh.

                JONAH’S DELIVERANCE, 21. 3. 11 (ENGL. 11? 21. 10).

                By Yahweh’s command Jonah was at once swallowed alive by a huge fish and remained in its stomach three days and three nights. Then he prayed to Yahweh, who commanded the fish to throw him up on the shore.

                YAHWEH’S RENEWED COMMAND AND JONAH’S PREACHING IN NINEVEH (31-4).

                Jonah promptly obeyed the renewed command, went to Nineveh and delivered Yahweh’s message that Nineveh would be destroyed in three days.

                THE RESULT OF JONAH’S PREACHING (35-10). The Ninevites repent, Yahweh relents and spares Nineveh.

                JONAH’S DISPLEASURE (41-5).

                Jonah, much vexed at the sparing of Nineveh, remonstrates with Yahweh. Had he not anticipated just this, when he was still at home? And had he not fled when the divine summons came to him the first time, simply in order to prevent just this? Did he not know that Nineveh was to be spared after all? Ah, if he were only dead! Quietly Yahweh asks him whether he thinks that his anger is justified, but he makes no reply. He leaves the city and sits down in sullen silence to the east of it.

                YAHWEH’S REBUKE OF JONAH (48-). Yahweh undertakes to cure Jonah of his refractoriness by an object lesson and so causes a ricinus tree to spring up very rapidly in order to provide shade for Jonah, who is much delighted over it. But his joy was doomed to be brief. For Yahweh orders a worm to attack and kill the tree on the next morning. At dawn the tree had already withered away. When now by God’s special ordering a

sirocco springs up at sunrise and later the sun beats down on Jonah’s head, which is no longer protected by the shade of the tree, he is so full of physical and mental misery that he wishes again to die, and passionately asserts in response to Yahweh’s question that he is quite justified in being so exceedingly angry over the death of the tree.

                APPLICATION OF THE OBJECT LESSON (410.11).

                Yahweh draws the unanswerable lesson for Jonah. If Jonah has taken such a deep interest in a wild, ephemeral plant, which had cost him no labour or thought, and thinks himself justified in it, how much more is Yahweh justified in taking a deep and compassionate interest in the great city of Nineveh with its thousands of inhabitants and tens of thousands of innocent children and animals!

                IN THE אלהים AND יהוה NOTE ON THE USE OF IN THE BOOK OF JONAH.

                 In chs. 1-3 the divine name used by the heathen is vahe or 0968.7, by the Hebrew it is niny. Only in 310 we might perhaps have expected 017, but diabeo is in line with the preceding. The real difficulty is in ch. 4, for here 179 and opbx or outhon are used promiscuously, without any reason for the variation. E. g., the same question is introduced —Now in v. ? GX* reads wv (= 117), L dominus; BAQ. 28. 36. 68. 62. 106. (147. 233 Kתpos d oeףs, GB Luc., Hes. • Debs. In v.: BAQ. 26. 153 Kתplos, dominus. In v. ‘ 6BQ. 18. 05. 186 Debs, 6 153. 233 Kתplos, L D dominus, CY Luc. Hes. GH Kתplos ף Deos. reads all through vv. 6-9 grabs 17174. These variants are significant. They show in regard to the reading Dwabx 77, in 48 that it is a conflation pure and simple. Note, e. 8., the similar process in 4’ where some Gk. mss. have kתpros, others ן טוע, still others ך‎סיןע ן ָוע. The process was the same in ַeb. mss. In view of this, it is remarkable that the view that our author is dependent on Gn. 2 for the combination base 117should still be entertained. Our author did not write that combination, he wrote simply 117. A copyist, or reader, under the influence of ch. 3 wrote 0175x probably all through ch. 4, but in some instances the orig. readings reasserted themselves. There can be no doubt that the author wrote oni all through ch. 4, for here there was no reason for Diabs, as in chs, 1, 3.

Posted in Bible & Scripture, Bible Reflections, Book of Daniel, Christian Doctrine, Christian Reflections, Minor Prophets, Prophecy, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Biblical Reflections.45

                                8. Lange-Schaff.

A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, & Homiletical, with Special Reference to Ministers & Students by John Peter Lange, D.D.,  Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Bonn,  in Connection with a Number of Eminent European Divines. Translated, Enlarged, & Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D.,  Professor of Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York,  Connection with American Scholars of Various Evangelical Denomination. Volume 14  of the Old Testament: containing the Minor Prophets. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons,  1893. 2014, google scan.

The Minor Prophets, Exegetically, Theologically, & Homiletically Expounded by Paul Kleinert, Otto Schmoller,  George R. Bliss, Talbot W. Chambers, Charles Elliott, John Forsyth, J. Frederick McCurdy, & Joseph Packard. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D.

Jonah.   Preface by the General Editor:

The volume accordingly contains the following parts, each one being paged separately

1. General Introduction to the Prophets, especially the Minor Prophets, Rev. Charles Elliott, D.D., Professor of Biblical Exegesis in Chicago, Illinois. General Introductions of Kleinert and Schmoller are too brief and incomplete for our purpose, and therefore I requested Dr. Elliott to prepare an independent essay on the subject.

2. HOSEA.  Rev. Dr. Otto Schmoller. Translated from German & enlarged by James Frederick McCurdy, M.A., of Princeton, N. J.

3. JOEL. Otto Schmoller.  Translated & enlarged by Rev. John Forsyth, D.D., LL.D., Chaplain & Professor of Ethics & Law in the United States Military Academy, West Point, N. Y.

4. AMOS. Otto Schmoller.  Translated and enlarged by Rev. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., Pastor of Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, New York.

5. OBADIAH. Rev. Paul Kleinert, Professor of Old Testament Theology in University of Berlin. Translated & enlarged by Rev. George  R. Bliss, D.D., Professor in University of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

6. JONAH. Prof. Paul Kleinert, of University of Berlin. Translated & enlarged by Rev.  Charles Elliott, Professor of Biblical Exegesis in Chicago.

7. MICAH. Prof. Paul Kleinert,  of Berlin, & Prof. George  R. Bliss, of Lewigburg.

8. NAHUM. Prof. Paul Kleinert, of Berlin, & Prof.  Charles Elliott, of Chicago.

9. HABAKKUK. Professors Kleinert & Elliott.

10. ZEPHANIAH. Professors Kleinert & Elliott.

11. HAGGAI. James Frederick McCurdy, M.A., Princeton, N. J.

12. ZECHARIAH. Rev. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., New York. (See special preface.)

13. MALACHI. Rev. Joseph Packard, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in Theological Seminary at Alexandria, Virginia.

                 Philip Schaff. Union Theological Seminary, New York, January, 1874.

                General Introduction to Prophetic Writings of Old Testament, especially  Minor Prophets. Rev. Charles Elliott, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature & Exegesis in Chicago, Illinois. In Presbyterian  Theological Seminary of Northwest, Chicago, Illinois. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1874.

                General Introduction to  Minor Prophets.

                I. Meaning of Words Prophet & Prophecy.

                II. Prophetical Institution & Order.

                III.Contents & Sphere of Prophetical Writings.

                IV. Doctrinal Prophecy. Doctrine of  God.

                V. Predictive Prophecy. Its Structure.

                VI. Prophetic Style.

                VII. Schools of Prophetical Interpretation.

                VIII. Canon of Prophetical Predictive Books.

                Chronological Arrangement of Prophetical Books:

                The following table is copied, with some changes, from that of Otto Schmoller, the author  of the Commentaries upon Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Other dates, in some cases, are assigned by different Commentators, whose arguments, in support of them can be found in the special Introductions to the several books. They are all briefly exhibited in O.R. Hertwig’s tables for an Introduction to the Canonical  and Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament: 

                                1. Pre-Assyrian Period

                Prophets: B.C. (dates) [dates].

Obadiah:  (c. 890-880 ?) [585]. 

Joel: (c. 850).

Jonah: (c. 825-790).

Amos: (c. 810-783).

Hosea: (c. 790-725 ?). [called Uzziah 2nd Kings 15:13 & 2nd Chron. 26:1]. 

                Kings of Judah: B.C. (dates) [dates]. 

5. Joram: (889).

6. Ahazjah: (884).

7. (Athaliah: 883).

8. Jehoash: (877).

9. Amaziah: (838).

10. Azariah: (810).

                Kings of Israel: B.C. (dates) [dates]. 

9. Joram: (896).

10. Jehu: (883).

11. Jehoahaz: (856).

12. Jehoash: (840).

13. Jeroboam II: (824).

? (Anarchy. 783).

14. Zachariah: (772).

15. Shallum: (771).

                                2. Assyrian Period.

                Prophets: B.C. (dates) [dates].

Isaiah: (c. 760-690).

Micah: (c. 768-710).

Nahum: (680).

Zephaniah: (c. 639-609).

Jeremiah: (c. 628-583).

Habakkuk: (c. 608-590).

Ezekiel: (c. 594-535).

       Destruction of Kingdom of Judah by Chaldaeans (588).    

                Kings of Judah: B.C. (dates) [dates]. 

11. Jotham: (758).

12. Ahaz: (742).

13. Hezekiah: (727).

14. Manasseh: (696).

15. Amon: (641).

                Kings of Israel: B.C. (dates) [dates]. 

16. Menahem: (762).

17. Pekahiah: (760).

18. Pekah: (759).

19. Hoshea: (730).

(Overthrow of Kingdom of Israel by Assyrians. 722.)

                                3. Chaldaean Period.

                Prophets: B.C. (dates) [dates].

Zephaniah: (c. 639-609).

Jeremiah: (c. 628–583).

Habakkuk: (c. 608-590).

Ezekiel: (c. 594-535).

               Kings of Judah: B.C. (dates) [dates]. 

16. Josiah: (639).

17. Jehoahaz: (609).

18. Jehoiakim: (608).

19. Jehoiachin: (599).

20. Zedekiah: (598).

                Destruction of Kingdom of Judah by Chaldaeans (588). 

                                4. Captivity & Exile Period.

                Prophets: B.C. (dates) [dates].

                (588 – c . 536).

Jeremiah: (c. 628-583).

Ezekiel: (c. 594-535).

Daniel: (c. 605-536).

                                5. Post-Exile Period.

                Prophets: B.C. (dates) [dates].

Haggai: c. 520-525.

Zechariah: c. 520-510.

Malachi: c. 433-424. 

                Kings of Persia: B.C. (dates) [dates].

Cyrus: 529.

Darius Hystaspis: 521-486.

Artaxerxes Longimanus: 433–424.

                                                Minor Prophets: Order & Dates: B.C. (?)

                                                [O.R. Hertwig’s Tables, Page 50.]

1. Hebrew Text: 1-12: 1-7: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum; 8-9: Habakkuk, Zephaniah; 10-12: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 

2. Greek LXX: 1-12: 1-7: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum; 8-9: Habakkuk, Zephaniah; 10-12:  Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

3. General Chronological Periods: 1-7 = Assyrian.  8-9 = Chaldaean. 10-12 = Post-Exile.

4. De Wette: 1-12: 1-7: Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah; 8-9 = Habakkuk, Obadiah; 10-12:  Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

5. Special Chronological Periods: 1-7: 800, ?, 790, c. 785, 725, 710, 640; 8-9: 605, 570; 10-12: 520, ?, 440.

6. Keil: 1-12: 1-7: Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum; 8-9: Habakkuk, Zephaniah; 10-12: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 

7. Special Chronological Periods:

                Assyrian 1-7:

(889-84) Joram.

(887-888) Joash.

(824-788) Jeroboam II.

(810-788) Jeroboam II & Uzziah.

(790-725) Jeroboam II & Uzziah to Hezekiah.

(758-700) Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah.

(710-699) 2nd half of Hezekiah’s reign.

                Chaldaean 8-9:

(650-627) Manasseh or Josiah.

(640-625) Josiah.

                Post-Exile 10-12:

(519) In 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis.  

(519 -?) Darius Hystaspis.  

(483-423) Artaxerx .Longim.

8. Their Relations to 2 Kingdoms:

                Kingdom of Israel: Jonah, Hosea, Amos.

                Kingdom of Judah till (722): Joel, Obadiah, Micah.

                Kingdom of Judah (722-688): Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah.

                Judah after Exile: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 

                HOSEA. Introduction.

                § 1. Person of Prophet.

                § 2. Book of Prophet.

                We have in the Canon under the name of Hosea one (1) book in fourteen (14) chapters.

                With regard to its contents. We have seen above that it is mainly occupied with the more northerly of the two (2) kingdoms, although the kingdom of Judah is not therefore kept out of sight, being alluded to repeatedly, especially in chaps. 5 and 6, in conjunction with Israel. What then has it to say with reference to that kingdom? A single glance into our book is sufficient to inform us. It is chiefly occupied with a most severe testimony against the national apostasy from Jehovah, and the deep and prevailing moral and civil corruption which appears throughout as the fruit of that apostasy, and in immediate connection therewith, an announcement of divine judgments, which increases in severity until the utter destruction of the kingdom itself is foretold. But this does not exhaust the purport of the book; for, like the other prophetic writings, it contains too an abundant storehouse of promise. By the side of the severe threatenings, though these occupy by far the larger space in the book, there are found words of promise most richly unfolded, not merely as a hope of future conversion and thus of the return of better days, but as a definite announcement that the time was coming when the people, purified by chastisement and returning in grief and penitence to their God, should again find acceptance with Him, and that thereby their kingdom should be restored, not in its then abnormal and divided condition, but as one (1) united body, under a King of the line of David.

                But this view only presents the meaning of the book externally, and exhibits only the germs of that which it was the special province of the prophetic writings chiefly to unfold.

                It is just with our Prophet that this exhibition cannot satisfy. He presents these general truths in a form peculiar to himself; he would at least, beside the one, the threatening place the other, the promise, but he labors to regard from a single (1) point of view the position which Jehovah bears to Israel and so specially to the kingdom of the ten tribes, and from this to explain both the threatening and the promise; to view them, namely, in the light of Jehorah’s love to Israel as his people.

                In this love of God (and not simply in his righteousness) are rooted, according to Hosea, even the threatening and announcement of punishment, with which he is chiefly occupied. For it was because Jehovah’s love embraced his people from the beginning that He could not suffer any apostasy from him, but must become angry at it, must chastise it, must even slay and destroy it utterly, that is, in its corporate existence. All threatening and chastisement is really the indignation and zeal of love, born of sorrow anıd therefore all the more intense. Hence the announcement of punislıment sounds forth in tones of terrific severity. But they also have their end in themselves. Love is indeed angry and most deeply so, but it is and remains nothing but love, for it is pained that it must be angry, and with all its wrath it can only aim to remove that which interrupts and prevents the display of itself to the object beloved, and must ever aim to secure salvation, reconciliation, and restoration, else it would itself stand in the way of realizing its object, and would thus contribute most surely to its own failure. From this stand-point, promise is seen to be as necessary as threatening, and in proportion to the severity of the latter must be the richness of the former, as flowing from the love of God, and not simply from a certain compassion coexisting with his punitive righteousness, or froin his faithfulness, by which the covenant is maintained, as though his truthfulness alone were to be kept unimpeachable. If, therefore, we do not wish to rest content with a superficial view of the book, we must regard its meaning from this stand-point as expressed in the following estimate: “The prophetic exhibition of the love of God, wounded sorely and in numberless ways by Israel’s guilt, and therefore necessarily a chastening love, though ever remaining unchanged in its inner nature, which being so deeply grounded would not destroy, but heal and recall to itself.” Such are the words of Ewald, who has so correctly perceived and so beautifully expressed the fundamental thought of our book, but who views it too subjectively, too much as the inere outflow of the author’s own personal feelings, instead of something flowing from a deep insight into the nature of God himself. Yet he makes these admirable observations: “To this prophet the love of Jehovah is the deepest ground of his relation to Israel; that love was always active in forming the Church; it was injured and disturbed by Israel; it chastens now in deep pain, but can never deny itself or be extinguished; it would still deliver and will at length save all. All this is exhibited with the most glowing sympathy, and in a great variety of ways. But no image is here more expressive than that of marriage. As the wife is united to her busband by indissoluble and sacred bonds, and the faithful Husband justly feels angry at the unfaithful wife, punishes her or even casts her off for a time, but never can really cease to love her, so has the ancient Church, the mother of the churches now living, borne children, during her unfaithfulness to Jehovah, who resist Him unworthily, and yet the love of Jehovah never departs from them, although he is angry and punishes them.”

                This last sentence may indicate also why we regard this relation of love between Jehovah and Israel not merely as the doctrinal background of the contents of our book, but an expression of those contents themselves. For Hosea, from the very opening, presents expressly this relation of Jehovah and Israel under this figure of the husband, who just because he is united to his wife by the bond of love, must as surely be indignant with her and punish her, as he must also be unable to let her go, but must hold out to her the prospect of a cordial reinstatement in her former relations.

                The figure becomes indeed less prominent as the book advances, but appears through the whole sometimes more obscurely, sometimes more clearly, and even emerges again into the foreground in several passages. The conception of Israel’s conduct is based upon this image, partly as it is designated infidelity, whoredom, which applies not merely to idolatry itself, but sets forth the principle that underlies the false, untheocratic policy of the kingdom of the Ten (10) Tribes in its alliances with the world-powers; and partly and still more as every thing that is said of Jehovah’s conduct towards Israel, of warning, of threatening, of punishing, of promising, is rooted wholly in this fundamental idea of Jehovah’s love to Israel as his spouse drawn from the analogy of wedded love, except that this image of wedded love is interchanged with the figure of paternal love, equally strong in another direction, as especially in chap. 11 in accordance with the fact that the subject of that chapter is Jehovah’s conduct towards Israel in his childhood. This latter relation is thus placed parallel to a relation of personal love based upon a moral course of life. This view explains why our book, in a way so peculiar to itself, refers so much to Israel’s earlier history. For it is natural that love should remind the one beloved, who had become unfaithful and refused to reciprocate affection, of the beginning of their attachment; that the husband should recall to the wife, when such a rupture of the marriage tie has taken place, the first love with which he met the bride (as the father also reminds the backsliding son of the love displayed toward him in childhood). On the other hand when the course of infidelity is complete, he is led to remember the beginnings and foretokens of such behavior in earlier days, and he explains the present in the light of the past, justifies his anger and chastening in the present and his bitter complaints over the unfaithfulness of his wife, by adducing the complaints made and the punishments which had to be inflicted in former times. If the recollection of the past thus intensifies the bitterness of injured love, it is equally potent, on the other side, in preventing the extinction of love; for to the wounded and deeply injured one it again presents the attachment in its whole extent, and forces the thought upon him irresistibly and imperceptibly: “This is the one upon whom thou hast bestowed thy love, with whom thou hast been and art united in love, and whom, therefore, thou canst not let go from thee utterly and forever.

                If we now consider the contents of the particular divisions of the book, we find this much to be clear at the outset; first (1st), that chaps. 1 and 2, and next that chaps. 4-14 are closely connected. With regard to the first (1st) and smaller division, chaps. 1 and 2, the fact is more incontestable than with regard to the second (2nd) and longer one, which, in any case demands itself a subordinate division. The question is now, how we are to reckon chap. 3. It has been attached by some to chaps. 4-14, as their introduction. But the correct view will be found to be given in the words of Hävernick, that “the symbolical method of representation unites the first three (3) chapters into one (1) whole.” And if we are reminded of the somewhat abrupt introduction of chap. 3, we must observe that an explanation of the symbol is given in vers. 4, 5,  –an explanation in plain words, in fact the first one which occurs, of the discourse in chap. 2, which from ver. 4 onwards is figurative throughout, representing Israel as an adulterous wife, so that we here arrive at a conclusion which clearly expresses the sense of what precedes.

                It will more clearly appear that the view which regards chap. 3 as belonging with chaps. 1 and 2 is the correct one, if we remember that the contents of chap. 1 (and therefore also of chap. 2) certainly fall in an earlier period than the discourse in chaps. 4-14 (as chaps. 1-2 relate expressly to the “beginning of the word of Jehovah to Hosea”), namely, in the period preceding the fall of the house of Jehu (chap. 1:4), while chaps. 4-14 belong to the second (2nd) period defined above, after its fall; for it is in that portion that Assyria first (1st) appears, which is decisive.  If now the symbolical narrative in chap. 1 must have appeared earlier than chaps. 4-14, it is only proper to suppose that chap. 3, so analogous to it, falls in the same period, that we have here generally fragments drawn from the earlier part of the Prophet’s ministry, and that therefore chaps. 1-3 form a connected whole. It is thus natural to assume that the symbolical mode of presentation, in general, characterizes the earlier period of the Prophet’s labors.

                We thus assume two (2) main divisions: chaps. 1-3 and chaps. 4-14, and in favor of such partition have not only internal grounds but also an external argument, namely, that each part is the product of a distinct period. The one of earlier origin is, however, comparatively small, and the opinion is plausible that the Prophet, in committing the whole to writing, prefixed the former part as a kind of introduction to the greater prophetic discourse which constituted the main division, like a vestibule inviting an entrance. The contents, also, are appropriate to this purpose with their symbolical actions and figurative discourses. It has something enigmatic, surprising, straining the attention, and so preparing the way for reaching and hearing what is expressed in a simple, literal form.

                The first introductory portion (chaps1-3) which contains “the beginning” of the divine revelation to Hosea, describes the (spiritual) adultery of the kingdom of the ten (10) tribes in its apostasy from Jehovah to idolatry, and the conduct of Jehovah towards this unfaithful spouse.  The most severe punishment even to rejection is threatened against it, but, as the end and aim of such punishinent, new and higher blessedness is held out in prospect.

                This is set forth in three (3) sections, each of which contains both threatening and promise, with the aim of showing clearly how little these are to be separated, how, rather, both (2) have a common source in the love which Jehovah has to Israel, since He stands united with it in (spiritual) marriage.

                1. Chap. 1:2-2:3. The Prophet must symbolically, by a marriage with a wife of whoredom, hold up to Israel its sin, and, by the names of the children born of this marriage, announce its rejection (1:2-9). Yet its future acceptance and reunion are immediately pictured with a few outlines (2:1-3).

                2. In copious, extraordinarily vivid, and, especially in the latter portion, most sublime language, Jehovah unbosoms Himself to his unfaithful spouse, Israel. He utters a severe accusation against her, and proclaims that she shall be punished by falling into a condition of extreme want, that she shall be laid waste (vers. 4-15). But with this new “leading into the desert” a change occurs; Jehovah concludes a new alliance, rich in blessing, with the spouse returning in penitence to Him (vers. 16-25).

                3. Chap. 3. The Prophet must again show symbolically by his conduct towards the wife of whoredom, whom he was commanded to marry, that God still loves his adulterous wife, Israel, and would only in his love humble her, that she might return to Him.

                The second (2nd) division, the main portion of the book (chaps. 4-14), the product of a later period, as we saw above, is in form distinguished from the earlier part by the entire absence of symbolical acts, the discourse being literal throughout. The purport is, however, similar in its essential features, inasmuch as here also punishment and even destruction (on account of its apostasy) are announced to the kingdom of Israel. But at the same time also it is predicted that it shall be received back on the ground of its expected conversion; indeed a time of richest blessing is at last held out to it in prospect. Jehovah appears here also as one who loves Israel, and must therefore punish it for infidelity, though as unable to give it up, and as being forced to be again merciful and to bless according to the law of love. The object is accordingly essentially the same; this inability to give up Israel, this ultimate favor and blessing form here also the picture of the future. But it costs labor, as it were, to realize this aim; the threatening is so severe. This constitutes by far the largest portion of the whole, and only after it has disclosed its full severity, does promise break through, when Jehovah seems as it were to call to mind his former love for his people, thus showing that from the beginning love did not fail, but that even his accusings and threatenings arose from deeply wounded love. This suggests already that the ground upon which the prophecy proceeds, is changed. Idolatry, as unfaithfulness to Jehovah is, it is true, always the fundamental offense on account of which judgment is declared, but to this is added not only moral pollution, but also dissolution of the state, and especially the pursuance of a false policy altogether opposed to the character of a people of God, which sought help in external aid against the distresses which invaded them, partly in Assyria and partly in Egypt. It is the unfaithfulness of Ephraim towards Jehovah, mainly in this form of a political attitude entirely untheocratical, against which the prophet appears, and on account of which he announces judgment, the punishment threatened being destruction by those very world-powers, Egypt, and especially Assyria.

                This second (2nd) main division, of such large extent, calls itself for a division. But this is a matter of great difficulty. It is, however, certain that the attempt to assign the several chapters to different periods of time, and thus to view the succession of the chapters as determined by the order of their composition (Maurer and Hitzig among others), must be unsuccessful, even if it be conceded that these chapters did proceed originally from different occasions. It is remarkable, for example, that in chaps. 4, 5, 6 Judah is mentioned frequently along with Ephraim, while afterwards it retreats more into the background, so that it is natural to infer different situations as their occasions. But as the whole lies before us at present, there is a certain unity apparent, though it is difficult to follow difinitely the course of thought. We must abandon the supposition of a strictly logical arrangement of the parts in view of the nature of the language, marked, as it is, by excitement and constantly surprising abruptness. Different expositors adopt most widely differing divisions, while others abandon the attempt altogether.

                It is clear, at the outset, that from chap. 4 onwards accusation of Israel occupies the chief place, as describing its degradation and guilt; and Ewald has rightly perceived that chap. 4 is to be separated as containing a general charge, relating to the apostasy generally of the people from Jehovah, and the moral deterioration thereby induced. Then in chap 5 the denunciation is more specially directed against those of exalted position (comp. vers 1), and as its subject, in addition to the general unfaithfulness to Jehovah, something special enters, namely the false, untheocratic policy of “going after Egypt and after Assyria.” This is, at all events, the new element here, and in attempting to exhibit the progress of thought, this point must so far be made prominent. In chap. 6 this does not appear, but the chapter is so closely connected with chap. 5, that no partition is supposable. On the other hand the denunciation of the untheocratic policy becomes still more marked in chap. 7, being there directed chiefly against the court itself, while chaps. 5 and 6 seem to be aimed more particularly at the priests. Hence chap. 7 also is to be combined with these chapters. So in all these chapters the threat of punishment is uniformly united with the accusations. But actual announcement of judgment appears first (1st) in chap. 8, accusations however being still uttered. Compare the beginning, chap. 8:1, and it seems to show more especially that the punishment, namely, the transportation into Egypt and Assyria, and therefore, the destruction of the state, the carrying away into captivity, is presented as the reverse side of the calling upon Egypt and going to Assyria. For the same reason chaps. 9 and 10 are to be added with chap. 7. Chap. 10:15 forms a fitting close to this section. But the contrast to the transportation to Egypt and Assyria appears again only in chap. 11:11, so that we stand first upon new ground in that passage.

                Thus with chap. 11 begins a new section, and with it enters promise. Jehovah’s love to Israel, which seemed to be utterly swallowed up in the announcement of judgment, here breaks forth. At first (1st), indeed, only in the form of a reminder of its manifestations in early times, how it was vouchsafed to Israel in childhood. This is naturally expressed in a sorrowful complaint against that Israel, who now in his manhocd requites that love so ill, displaying in his apostasy the basest ingratitude. Hence we have again in chap. 11:5, the most severe threatening. But Jehovah has again brought his love to remembrance; it is He that loves Israel, as had been already shown in the beginning; this love is his essential disposition towards Israel, and thus cannot in the present belie itself; it oversteps wrath and appears as mercy, and promise breaks forth on its shining way, like the sun after dark and long distressing clouds. The brief recollections of former times in chaps. 9 and 10 only served to give point to the keen accusings. But in chap. 11 the sun breaks forth brightly. It is promise that now prevails.

                But the storm is not yet past. In chaps. 12 and 13 denunciation and announcement of punishment reappear. Yet, if they are still severe, they are much less protracted. But, chiefly, there seems to be a new standpoint gained. It is the past that is dwelt upon, namely, what had transpired between Jehovah and Israel in former days. But this is a great step gained. Hence the weighty words are twice uttered: “I am Jehovah, thy God, from the land of Egypt” (chaps. 12:10; 13:4). This thought does, it is true, serve to sharpen the complaint, and with it to sharpen the threatening; but that people cannot be given up who have, from the beginning, Jehovah as their God. Hence in chap. 14:2-4, the exhortation to return, which shows clearly his determination not to give them up; and now, upon the ground of their expected conversion, love at last flows forth in the fullest promise, which is no longer merely a cessation of punishment, as in chap. 11:9 ff., but, positively, holds out in prospect a glorious state of blessedness.

                The course of thought is accordingly not perfectly undeviating, but, especially towards the close after the highest point has been reached, rather deflected, as it tends towards the conclusion through the wrestling of love and justice, which it thus expresses. Ewald assumes after chap. 11, a sort of preliminary conclusion, marking an interruption in writing. It is, at all events, correct to assume that the train of thought has then reached a certain completion, after which the former order of the discourse is again taken up.

                The following scheme will exhibit our attempt to divide the section:

Jehovah pleads with Israel, his beloved but unfaithful spouse (comp. chap. 4:1).

                I. First (1st) Discourse (chaps. 4-11).

       1. Chaps. 4-7. The complaint, addressed:

a.) (Chap. 4) against the people as a whole, on account of their idolatry and deep depravation of morals promoted by the priests.

b.) (Chaps. 5-7): against the rulers (priests, chaps. 5-6), court (chap. 7), espeially on account of their ungodly and calamitous alliance with the powers of the world.

      2. Chaps. 8-10. The judgment, extending even to the carrying away of the people to bondage under Assyria.

                3. Chap. 11. Mercy; God cannot utterly destroy Israel, whom He has always loved, but will again have compassion upon them even though they have most vilely requited his love.

                II. Second (2nd) Discourse (chaps. 12-14.).

       1. Chap. 12. Complaint is once more resumed, and —

       2. Chap. 13. Judgment is most emphatically declared; but

       3. Chap. 14. Hope of Conversion, love finally flows forth in the promise of richest blessing.

                [Those who may wish to become acquainted with the various methods of dividing the book which have been proposed, will find them exhibited and discussed in the Biblical Repertory, Jan. 1859, art. “Book of Hosea,” by Prof. Green, of Princeton. A division having much to recommend it is that adopted by him from Keil, according to which each of the two (2) main sections (chaps. 1-3, 4-14) is divisible into three (3) smaller ones (1:2-2:1, 2:2–23, 3; 4:1-6:3, 6:4-11:11, 11:12-14:9). Each of these smaller sections in both of the main divisions is marked by its beginning with denunciation and ending with promise. –M.]

                In harmony with the fundamental thought of our book, as above presented, according to which it describes the sorrow and indignation of Jehovah’s love, so sorely wounded by Israel’s infidelity, the language is of a peculiarly emotional and impassioned character, reflecting unmistakably the rush and swell of the feelings. “This anguish of love at the faithlessness of Israel so completely fills the mind of the Prophet, that his rich and lively imagination seeks perpetually by variety of imagery and fresh turns of thought, to open the eyes of the sinful nation to the abyss of destruction beside which it is standing. His profound sympathy gives to his language the character of excitement, so that for the most part he merely hints briefly at the thoughts instead of studiously elaborating them, passes with abrupt changes from one figure or simile to another, and moves forward in short sentences and oracular utterances, rather than in gently rounded discourse.” (Keil.) Jerome (Præf. in XIT Proph. Min.) says of him : “Commaticus (literally, cut up = short) est et quasi per sertentias loquens.” Eichhorn (Introduction, $ 555, p. 286) says not unaptly: “The style of the Prophet is like a garland woven of various kinds of flowers, comparisons intertwined with comparisons. He breaks off one flower and throws it away, only to break off another inmediately. He flies like a bee from one bed of flowers to another, bringing the honey of his varied sentences.” With these features are connected manifold anomalies in the structure of his clauses, rugged transitions, ellipses, asyndetical constructions, inversions, and anacolutha. Add to this that his diction is marked by rare words and forms and unusual combinations , and it may be conceived how difficult is the exposition of the book. “One must often read between the lines if he would establish the connection between the several thoughts and sentences. We will not be charged with overstatement, if we assert that the Prophet is in this respect one of the most difficult of the prophets of the Old Covenant, and indeed of all the Biblical writers.” (Wünsche.)

                The abruptness of the language, reaching often to obscurity, does not merit any censure, for this peculiarity is to be explained from the contents and the subject of which the Prophet was full. “His heart,” remarks Wünsche, “full of the deepest anguish, on account of the destruction and the inevitably approaching dissolution of the State, makes him neglect all artistic and harmonious treatment and exhibition of his theme.” And Ewald says with perfect correctness : “In Hosea there is a rich and lively imagination, a pregnant fullness of language, and, in spite of many strong figures, great tenderness and warmth of expression. His poetry is throughout purely original, replete with vigor of thought and purity of presentation. Yet at one time we find the gentle and flowing predominate in his style, while at another it is violently strained and abrupt, and his irresistible pain causes him often to give a hint of his meaning without allowing him to complete it. There is also thrown over the whole language the burden of the times and of the heart so oppressed by them.”

                If, finally, we inquire into the composition of our book, we find no ground whatever for maintaining that the author was any other than the Prophet himself, or for the assumption that although the several discourses came from Hosea, they were yet first compiled by an other and later editor. It has been thought that their aphoristic character justifies such a hypothesis, but we are convinced that this is not so marked as one would certainly suppose at first (1st) sight, and that the several portions are not only governed by one (1) fundamental idea, which would probably have become still more obscured in the hands of a later redactor of such fragments, but that the several parts are brought into a definite order and connection. There can therefore be scarcely a doubt that our book came from the hands of the Prophet precisely in that form in which we possess it to-day. “On closer examination the book is seen to form a complete whole executed according to a fixed artistic plan, and with corresponding beauty. This artistic plan and execution only need to be rightly understood in order to show us that it was finally published as a whole, and in its present form, by the Prophet himself.” (Ewald.) But as to the relation in which this book stands to the numerous prophetic utterances of Hosea, we are compelled to assume that we have not in this book those discourses presented in their original form. If this had been the intention of the Prophet, we should have had a greater number. Moreover the book is framed too decidedly according to a certain plan, making it clear that it was designed to form a continuous and regular composition. We have therefore to regard it as a selection from his discourses, or more correctly, as a free and independent working-up of the substance of them by the Prophet himself. His several utterances are combined by him into one (1) complete picture. He would employ not only his lips but also his pen, and by his writings would testify concerning the holy anger of the love of God, and thus appeal to the consciences of the people.

                But here the question may be asked, whether our book is the first (1st) product of Hosea’s pen, whether, more particularly, earlier writings are not embodied in it. At the outset it is certainly to be assumed that Hosea was in the habit of writing down his several discourses But keeping this in view, the difference between the first part of the book (chaps. 1-3) and the second (chaps. 4 ff.) is so significant, the contents of the first (1st) part, moreover, falling in an earlier period, that Ewald’s conjecture has much to support it: that chaps. 1-3 contain the substance of an earlier composition of Hosea, which he embodied in the present one when he executed it. Even if we hesitate to go so far as this, we must probably assume that the separate sections of chaps. 1-3 had been published already by the Prophet, since we have in the narratives of the symbolical actions merely the drapery in which they were to be presented to the world and not actual occurrences (see below). For in those chapters punishments were announced which were inflicted at a time earlier than the completion of the whole book. The Prophet could incorporate into his book only at a later period earlier actual events; but these symbolical transactions existed only in the mind of the prophet, and in publishing them he must have come forth at a time when these parabolic narratives could address themselves to the conscience of the people, and therefore a considerable period before the composition of the whole book, which, as we now have it, contains, in its second (2nd) part, discourses of a much later time. Such publication of the symbolical transactions might indeed have been at first (1st) only oral; but the contents of these sections seem less appropriate to that mode of announcement.

                The preservation of the whole book in the destruction of the kingdom of the Ten (10) Tribes may be readily explained. Through the intercourse which was kept up between the prophets of the Lord in the two (2) kingdoms, it was carried soon aster its composition into Judah, and became widely diffused in the circle of the prophets, and was thus preserved, as Jeremiah especially has made frequent use of it in his predictions. Comp. Aug. Küper, Jeremias, Librorum SS. Interpres atque Vindex. Berlin, 1837, p. 67 ff.” (Keil.)

                After what has been said it will scarcely be necessary to add anything special in the way of exhibiting the importance of our prophetic book in Old Testament history and doctrine. Into the internal relations of the kingdom of the ten (10) tribes, against which he, like his older contemporary, Amos, directs his words of rebuke and threatening (by which these two (2) prophets mark a new step in prophecy, in distinction from Joel and Obadiah, regarding the heathen not merely as the objects but also as the instruments of the divine judgment, which is inflicted with the greatest severity against the people of God themselves), –into the internal relations of this kingdom Hosea gives us the deepest insight, and affords a most essential addition to the knowledge which we have thereon from his older contemporary. As to its doctrinal teaching, however, there can be no doubt as to the significance of a book, which regards the relation of Jehovah to Israel so profoundly and specially from the standpoint of holy love, of a holy wrath of love, and looks so far into the depths, into the intensity as well as into the sincerity, of such love as, in the examination of the contents and fundamental thought of the prophecy, we have shown that it does. In this he stands above his nearest predecessor, Amos. That prophet also discerns the favor of God shining again as last upon his people after the tempests of his wrath. But he grounds it upon the consciousness that this judgment is and shall be only one of trial and not of destruction, and hat room is thus prepared for mercy through the revelation of wrath, while Hosea traces back this duality in the divine revelation to the nature of God Himself, by his more profound conception of the divine love.

                Our book is therefore truly a classic for the right understanding of the Old Testament conception of God with its interaction of love and wrath, and of the nature of the Old Testament revelation concerning God. Only such a God who can so be angry and so love, who in all His love so displays anger and in all His anger so displays love, could give by his Only-begotten Son to the accursed death for the deliverance of rebellious man.

                § 3. Symbolical Transactions in Chaps. I & III.

                What is recounted in these chapters is so peculiar, and has always been regarded under such different views, that a more intimate discussion cannot here be foreborne: and to it we shall therefore devote a separate section in the Introduction. In this the results of the exegesis of the passages in question are of course to be anticipated, and must therefore be referred to here. This much is however certain that, according to the narrative, mention is made of a marriage of the Prophet with an urchaste woman at the command of God himself. Here we have a stone of stumbling. It is true that the ground of moral offense contained herein does not exist according to some interpreters, inasmuch as the “wife of whoredom” whom the Prophet is to marry, is regarded as being such in the spiritual sense in which a “whoring” of Israel is spoken of = serving idols; that Hosea had scruples about marrying a whorish, that is an idolatrous woman; and that it is commanded him not to stand aloof from her but to exhibit symbolically in his own domestic fortunes, that is, by his union with such a woman, Jehovah’s relation to his people. But this view is quite untenable. For idolatry cannot be a symbol of idolatry, a marriage with an idolatress cannot be a symbol of a like marriage, namely, the marriage of Jehovah with an idolatrous people. This, altogether apart from the consideration that such a command of God to the prophet is not conceivable, that such marriage would have produced upon the people an effect exactly opposite to the one intended, namely, the presentation of idolatry to the consciousness as something sinful, if we can suppose that any effect was produced. Umbreit also seeks to establish more firmly the interpretation of the woman’s whoredom as spiritual whoredom, by maintaining that Hosea, in order to represent God’s marriage with Israel, was commanded to enter into marriage with Israel; but, since all Israel had become adulterous towards God, that he was obliged in order to enter the marriage relation with Israel, to unite himself to a whore in the spiritual sense =  idolatress. Such a wife thus represents, as an individual, the whole people. And this outward marriage of the Prophet is the symbol of his spiritual marriage with his people. But Kurtz remarks rightly against this hypothesis, that the notion that the Prophet himself was to enter into a spiritual marriage with Israel is quite unfounded, that such a conception is not once found in the Old Testament, which knows only of a marriage of Jehovah with Israel; that the Prophet by his external marriage could symbolize only that spiritual marriage of Jehovah, and not his own spiritual marriage with Israel. For this reason his marriage, in order to represent the marriage of Jehovah with adulterous Israel, must be a marriage with a whorish woman in the outward sense.

                Thus it is beyond question that it is such a marriage of the prophet that is here described, but the question is now: Must we assume an actual outward event in the life of the Prophet or not?

                It is clear that we have before us a transaction which has a symbolical significance and is therefore in so far a symbolical transaction; but the question is just this, Is this an actual event intended as a symbol of a higher truth, or do we move outside the sphere of objective reality? The latter supposition does certainly seem, on the first view, to be excluded by the language employed, which does not give us the slightest hint that we have presented to as anything else than outward reality, but rather creates the impression that it is a record of actual events. And it is not to be maintained that the narrative has to do with somehing physically impossible, that it bears directly upon itself the stamp of unreality in the external sense. But it appears all the more probable that something morally impossible is described; for would it not be in the highest degree incredible that a prophet should marry an anchaste woman, and that at the express command of God? Hence the literal interpretation has been rejected already by the Chaldee Paraphrase and by the Jewish Commentators. But this plea is itself not altogether without difficulties. The reference to Lev. 21:7-14, at all events, prove’s nothing: for what is there forbidden to a priest cannot be directly transferred to a prophet (comp. Kurtz: “That prohibition is based upon the consideration that the priests were to represent the ideal holiness of the people, and is rooted in the same ground as is the law that a priest must be free from physical blemishes. The latter injunction is as far as possible from implying that physical defect is sin in an Israelite, and the same holds with regard to the former”). And then it is one thing to have intercourse with an unchaste woman, in order to practice fornication with her, and quite another to marry such a woman. The one is as assuredly sinful as the other is in itself not so, any more than it was for Jesus to be a friend of publicans and sinners. For the prophet would not have entered into such an alliance that he might be assimilated to the woman, but in order to raise her up to his own level, to rescue her from her sinful habits: “Non propheta perdidit pudicitiam furnicariæ copulatus, sed fornicaria assumsit pudicitiam, quam antea non habebat” (Jerome) [‘but no prophet loss chastity as a smelter united to a harlot, accept purity which he did not have before’. ?].

                Such an alliance in the Prophet would have been in the very highest degree surprising. But it may be asked, Was it not intended to be so, in order that the people, in their astonishment at such an anomaly, should ask what it meant, and might then learn to their shame, that it held up to them a mirror in which they could perceive their own relations with God? The Prophet would reinforce his oral preaching by a preaching of outward action; this marriage would have been a lasting actual proclamation of punishment to the people, not impeding the influence of the Prophet, but furthering it.

                But on a closer examination of this view, which understands actual events to be described, most serious objections to it are immediately suggested. A beautiful picture could have been drawn exhibiting the morally reforming influence of this alliance upon the light-minded wife and the neglected children of the first marriage, and how worthy of God it would have been, answering to his compassionate love seeking that which was lost! But of this there is not a syllable –not a syllable could be said. Rather, this idea, which alone could neutralize the moral objections against this alliance with an unchaste woman, is completely excluded by the whole spirit and aim of the command which the Prophet received. It is just the present “whorish” conduct of Israel, the still existing and continual and persistent infidelity towards Jehovah, that is represented by this marriage of the Prophet, and punishiment and rejection are then exhibited as the necessary fruit and conseqence of such conduct. Thus the “wife of whoredom,” whom the Prophet is to and does marry, is necessarily to be regarded as one who does not amend her ways, or is withdrawn from her life of sin by her alliance with the Prophet, but who even now in this alliance with him is conceived as practicing unchastity, who shows and proves herself to be unfaithful to her husband. Otherwise she would not be at all an image of Israel as thus situated, nor would this marriage be at all an image of the present conduct of Israel towards their husband, Jehovah. Strictly speaking, this wife of whoredom would have been bound, so long at least as her marriage with the Prophet was to testify to Israel of its sin, not to forsake her sinful life (until special corrective measures, related in chap. 3 should be taken with her, so that she might become a testimony of that which God, still retaining his love for Israel, would do to them).

                There is no need to prove that the assumption of an actual occurrence would lead to an ethical monstrosity. With the design of this marriage to exhibit the conduct of Israel towards Jehovah, is most clearly connected a circumstance, which shows more plainly than ever the non-reality of the related transaction, namely, that the Prophet is expressly enjoined to take a wife of whoredom and children of whoredom. This is at first sight surprising, but becomes quite intelligible if we think of the design, of that which was to be exemplified, the conduct of Israel and all its individual members. Israel in the concrete is represented only by the latter; but this separation of a part from the whole is very frequently found in relation to Israel. Israel as the whole then appears as the mother, the individual members as the children (comp. chap. 2:4 ff.). Now both Israel as a whole and all the members of the people are unfaithful to Jehovah, they “commit whoredom.” If therefore the actual condition of affairs in its whole extent is to be represented by a marriage of the Prophet, he must take to wife a woman still practicing unchastity, and, at the same time gave children, who are children of whoredom, that is, naturally (see also below in the exegesis) not those who were the fruit of the illicit commerce of the mother (a woman characterized as a woman of whoredoin could, in fact, have no other, and the remark would be quite superfluous), but children who stand in the same relation to whoredom as the mother does, that is, who practice whoredom as she did, and bear therefore a faithful resemblance to her. How then is the Prophet to “take” these children of whoredom? Naturally the notion of such “taking,” which in the case of a woman means marrying, must be modified in the case of children. Two senses are supposable. One is that he obtains them by marriage as children already born to his wife. In that case he is obliged to find out an unchaste woman, who has children that already commit whoredom; and not only so, but they must actually continue that habit; for otherwise the symbol no longer meets the conditions of the case, the sign no longer agrees with the thing signified. In short, under the assumption of an objective reality in this transaction, we come again to an ethical monstrosity. But the case is still worse, if we understand “taking” the children in the sense of begetting them with the wife (and this view is the more probable one; see the exegesis below). For Jehovah is married to Israel, and they are unfaithful to Him; and Jehovah has begotten children by this marriage the individual members of the people –and they also are unfaithful to Him, they “commit whoredom.” So the Prophet, in order to manifest this, must not only take a wife of the above description, but also beget children by her who are of the same character as she, are unchaste like her. It might be known antecedently that they would be so; they are, so to speak, predestined to such a character; if it were otherwise, they would fail to perform their part, they would not represent what it was intended they should. To speak of actual reality in such a case is now a sheer impossibility. The thing signified, that which is to be represented, is revealed too clearly through the sign, that which is to set forth the relation; only one thing could make it plainer, namely, that the Prophet should add: of course this was not really done –but one must be almost blind to suppose, even for a moment, that it could be. The symbol is arranged simply in accordance with the thing to be symbolized, without reference to the consideration that in concrete reality it would encounter invincible obstacles: naturally such reference does not need to be had, because the transaction was not realized in concreto and in facto, but was only a plastic symbolizing of a certain condition of affairs which was to be denounced.

                We must now go a step backwards. That which morally excites such objections lies not merely in the fact of this marriage with an unchaste woman, of whom again unchaste children were to be born, but also in its design. It is to be observed that the alliance spoken of has its aim purely out of itself, terminates in nowise upon itself, but is merely a mean to an end. This end is not the begetting of children. They are certainly to be begotten, but they are themselves only means to an end, with their significant names, which they receive in order to announce to the people their rejection. This marriage was thus to be contracted purely for the purpose of symbolizing another fact which lay altogether without the sphere of marriage. Such a conclusion cannot be disputed unless there is imported into the words something foreign to them. Let the words be followed closely, let not separate expressions: he went and took, etc., be emphasized, but the whole be accepted and understood as it reads, with no interlarding of all sorts of notions, about the use and plausibility of this alliance, of which nothing is indicated, and the narrative will be seen to relate to a marriage and procreation of children which are purely symbolical and described solely as serving the purposes of an emblematic representation. And that this transaction, considered as an occurrence of outward reality, is something inconceivable, opposed to the spirit and significance of marriage, is so clear, that the Prophet did not need to give the least hint of its unliteral character (if, indeed, that had been the custom of the Prophets). No; an actual marriage is not concluded simply in order to symbolize something different; the marriage is a symbol of a higher covenant. But its design is not realized in such symbolizing. That would be a trifling with the idea of marriage, agreeing but little with the profound conception of that state, which the Prophet brings to light in this very act of conceiving the relation between Jehovah and Israel as a marriage. I can give a name to a child born of a marriage, for the porpose of indicating something by it symbolically; but it would be something quite different if I were to enter into the married state simply for this purpose. And hence the reference to Is. 7:14; 8:3,4, where, however, an outward act is narrated, is altogether unsuitable. If recourse is had to the words of the text, it may be replied that many prophetic passages, e.g., Jer. 25:15 ff., Zech. 11, show clearly that the simple words of the narrative are not decisive. In such passages the words, taken literally, even when relating to symbolical transactions, seem to record an occurrence entirely objective, though no one supposes that they really do so. In other passages this inference is more patent, while here it is obscured,  though only apparently so; for that which it is ethically inadmissible to suppose should be done by the command of God, is just as incredible as the occurrence of that which is plıysically impossible.

                We have now to consider, finally, in what a brief period the action is performed, the rapidity with which the several acts are, and are intended to be, presented. It is the rapidity which, if the word may be allowed, is well suited to a dramatic conception, but not to concrete reality. By literalists the fact is entirely ignored that this symbolical course of teaching would have required three (3) years at least for its complete unfolding. And in connection with the other considerations the remark of Simson (in spite of the strictures of Kurtz) is perfectly just: “After each of the four (4) principal scenes which make up the symbolical narrative (vers. 2, 4, 6, 9), the explanation and occasion of the symbol follows, connected with ‘for’ in such a peculiar way, that it may be gathered indubitably, simply from this connection and the whole manner of expression, that the figure is not presented in its actuality, but is only devised for the sake of making evident to the senses the lessons it unfolds.” Thus the view which regards the actions described as real occurrences is seen to be untenable if we do not even go beyond the first section; nor do we need to add to the other arguments the relation of chap. 3 to our section. On the contrary, we think that arguments have been too much drawn from that portion of the book, and therefore too largely based upon external grounds, and for this reason less convincing than they should be.

                Now after this negative result, that the narrative is not to be regarded as relating actual occurrences, the question first arises: What then does it relate? A vision? So the Jewish commentators, and in recent times especially Hengstenberg. This view does indeed surrender the externality of the transaction, but it holds to its actuality, only assuming that it was not experienced outwardly but inwardly. With regard to this hypothesis of a vision, it is admitted that a beholding” lies at the foundation of all prophetic announcement, that is, a vision in the wider sense (comp, the remarks on Amos, chap. 7). But we are not justified on this account in assuming at once that the Prophet was in an ecstatic state. There is not the least hint of such a thing given in our passage; for nothing is said of a vision in the narrower sense, and hence we are unwarranted in adopting such an assumption here. He certainly “beheld,” as all the prophets did, that which he here relates in parabolic discourse. It is thus that the narrative is most properly designated.

                But it may be asked: If, according to the above reasoning, it leads to a series of monstrosities to regard the (symbolical) transaction as an actual occurrence, was it allowable for the Prophet even to present it in a parabolic dress? This objection, which it seems to be, is possible only under a misapprehension of the whole aim of the exhibition. The action represented is certainly bold, is surprising, is, we say directly, exorbitant. But it was just intended to be so. It was intended, as we remarked above, to rouse the hearer into uttering the question: What? do I hear aright? What do you say the prophet must do? The thing to be set forth, the thing signified, is something abnormal, contradictory, something which it seems could never occur, that Israel should “commit whoredom, departing from their God”; and not this merely, but also (which, to be sure, is the necessary consequence of the former) that God should reject this His people, His spouse, to whom He had always been faithful, to whom He had been so beneficent. Since this condition of affairs to be represented, the “thing signified,” was of such a character, it must be set forth by the description of an occurrence of a like kind, that is, one which is just as abnormal, contradictory, and unprecedented, thus necessarily rousing the attention to consider how a prophet could marry a whore at the bidding of God, and by her beget children, who should receive, also at God’s command, names indicative of punishinent, from their resemblance to their mother. There is therefore intentionally something monstrous, something ethically impossible, held up to the people as though it had happened, in order that it might be forced upon their consciousness, how utterly abnormal, how monstrous, how opposed to the right order of things, is that which they had done to God, and which He must do to them. That, therefore, which the prophet relates to the people is related to them, because it is something monstrous, but being so, it was just as certainly not a statement of actual fact for this very reason. If we were to maintain the opposite, we should mistake the design of the prophet. He would say: As Israel has acted towards God, and as He must treat his people in return so would I, the prophet, act if I were to marry a whorish woman. As impossible as the water is, so impossible should the former be; and yet alas it is a reality !

                But it may be objected: The prophet’s marriage would indeed represent to the people their apostasy from Jehovah, and the names of the prophet’s children would bring perpetually to their consciousness the judgment which they must expect in return; but if that marriage did not take place, and the children never existed, how could such a design be carried out? Now, this objection is based simply upon an unwarranted supposition, and the inference drawn therefrom must be false. It is taken for granted that such an argumentatio ad oculos by outward action must have been made by the Prophet, that the Prophet intended to do so, judging from the statements of the book, and that therefore we have a narrative of actual occurrences, while it is never said that the prophet had any such intention. The Prophet may just as well have intended to appeal to the people, not by means of outward action, but by a discourse in which certain actions were the drapery of those truths which were to be proclaimed. Whether this discourse was originally oral or not, as other prophetical discourses usually were, or whether it existed from the beginning in a written form, we do not know. If the former supposition is correct, we are not obliged to assume, any more than in other prophetical discourses, that it possessed precisely the same form as that which we now have, since it would have the form appropriate to oral discourse. It is quite wrong, however, to insist that such a mere recital, –heard to-day and forgotten, perhaps, to-morrow,– could have but little influence, and make but little impression, for at least its fixed written form followed with its words speaking perpetualiy to the conscience. And it has been said already above in § 2, that such a fixed form was probably given to it before the composition of the whole book, as at present constituted, and during the period in which the discourses of the first (1st) part were pronounced.

                But another argument still is adduced against the supposition of a parabolic recital, which is seen to be so necessary from all that has been said. It is urged that this would derogate from the character of the prophetic word; that the Prophet speaks expressly and repeatedly of a command of the Lord which he had received; that, if the whole were only a feigned transaction, the words, “the Lord said,” would be degraded into a meaningless, rhetorical phrase, which would be opposed to the divinely objective character of Prophecy. Certainly our whole position would be viewed with distrust, if this drapery of narrative in which the Prophet clothes his message of instruction and rebuke, which he records, and in which he makes mention of an express command of God, were to be regarded by him as only in arbitrary device (rhetorical or as being appropriate to the plan of the book). But what is there to support such an assumption? In this, as throughout his prophetic ministry, the Prophet rather acted and spoke from a divine impulse. He had beheld what he had to say to the people, reproach of their sinfulness and threatening of punishment, and how he had to say it, that is, he had received from God in spirit an authorization and an impulse to adopt this form of rebuke, to present his divine commission in the form of feigned events. It has been further remarked (e.g., by Kurtz), that we have the words: go, take, etc., and not: go, tell the people that thou hast taken a wife, etc. But this objection is without force. For the expression : “ The Lord said to Hosea, go, take to thyself,” etc., is itself included already in the parabolical discourse as well as vers. 4, 6, 9; and to insist that the Prophet must have given some hint that he was not intending to record an actual occurrence, argues a somewhat crude notion of the obligations of a writer. A parabolic discourse must not bear the appearance of being so; on the contrary it must present itself as describing actual events (comp. e.g., Judges 9:8 ; 2nd Sam. 12), though it does not really do so. It bears in itself a sapienti sat [self explantory] which shows that it does not, and thus our narrative is really two (2) fold. In general the fact is evidently always overlooked, that we have before us in these seemingly historical portions, not a statement concerning the Prophet, but the written discourse of the Prophet himself; that, therefore, behind the words there stands, so to speak, the prophet writing. It is not his duty to record events as an historian; and the inference is unwarranted, that he must do so because what he says has the form of an historical record. Hence, according to correct conceptions as to what different kinds of composition require, no objection based upon the form of representation can be made to the parabolic view. And the circumstance that the Prophet is spoken of in the third (3rd) person, cannot be aduced as a proof that he does not here speak and narrate (figuratively), and that a statement is made concerning him. It cannot, at least, by any one who regards the whole book to be he composition of the Prophet and not a mere compilation by another. Moreover, in chap. 2 the Prophet introduces himself as speaking of himself in the first (1st) person. And, finally it proves nothing that the name and origin of the woman are given. Even if the names are not applied appellatively (see in the exegesis), nothing would be more natural than to invent names for the occasion, which would be a device appropriate in a symbolical discourse

                If we now turn to chap. 3 and hold the identity of the woman named there with the one in chap. 1, the question is decided of itself. For if the marriage, mentioned in chap. 1 of the Prophet with this woman, was not an actual occurrence, it is self evident that his dealings towards her in chap. 3 are not more historical. If he did not in reality marry this woman, then he did not actually perform what, in chap. 3, he is commanded to do, love her. The woman is, in chap. 1, only a feigned person, and if the same person is meant in chap. 3 she cannot be a real person. But if we regard the woman of chap. 3 as not identical with that of chap. 1, we have, in the fact that the Prophet becomes connected with another woman, disregarding his marriage with the one mentioned in chap. 1, we have here, I say, 3 clear indication, applying to the whole narrative from the beginning, that these descriptions do not relate to actual events in the Prophet’s life. For it is plain that the assumption of his separation from the first (1st) wife, or of her death in the interval, is only a device to escape from a dilemma. Such circumstances must bave been stated, if actual events had been related; but not a syllable is found to this effect, simply because it was assumed that no one would think of real occurrences.

                But, leaving the consideration of the circumstances connected with the woman inentioned in chap. 1, and regarding simply by itself the command given to the Prophet in chap. 3 according to his own representation of it, we find the matter here to be somewhat different.

                The fact is to be set forth that Jehovah preserves his faithfulness to Israel in spite of their unfaithfulness, and therefore does not utterly cast them off, but only adopts, for their good, corrective measures springing from such abiding faithfulness. Thus something is to be exemplified which would not be expected, since rejection would be the more natural course, but nothing which should not be, nothing which could be found fault with or would invite censure. And accordingly the symbol, or that which the Prophet was commanded to do, was not something ethically inadmissible or monstrous, but only something difficult, unusual, because involving great self-denial, namely, that he should remain faithful to an unfaithful wife. And what is declared to have been done by him is in the same way not something inadmissible, but only something unusual; for by a series of corrective measures the unfaithfulness of the wife is to be brought home to her heart, while, at the same time, it was to be shown that she would not be rejected. Now though it might appear as if very little could be urged in disproof of the actual occurrence of the event described (that is, if it be viewed as an isolated account), yet here also grave objections arise upon a closer examination. Even if the woman of chap. 3 is not to be identified with that of chap. 1, the former is hardly conceived of as being of another character than the latter. The woman is not one who was previously chaste and afterwards became unchaste, but one whose adultery is only the manifestation of her former disposition, and a continuation of her previous mode of life, and the Prophet would thus be represented as entering into such intimate relations with her –whether he married her or not would not be certain– which again would border closely upon the morally offensive and become for the Prophet an impossibility. Here the canon is again to be applied, that acts, which are of an essentially immoral nature and fall under moral criticism, cannot be regarded upon external grounds as having been actually performed by divine command. Thus a husband might, it is true, be so controlled by the thought of God’s faithfulness, as even to remain faithful to an unfaithful wife, that is, from moral and religious considerations, whether suggested by himself or by another. But this is not the case presented here: the narrative speaks not of an act undertaken or a course of conduct discontinued upon any such ground, but simply of a positive command of God, which was not intended to remind the husband of a duty demanded of him, but which was issued with the design of a manifestation of God’s attitude towards the people of Israel, a design altogether foreign to the nature of marriage or the injunction of fidelity.

                The Prophet is represented as doing what he here does purely for this external purpose; not from the recognition of a duty, and not to call attention to such duty: he does it plainly in order to symbolize something different. This is perfectly agreeable to the parabolic mode of presentation; but as soon as we come to hold the notion of an actual transaction, I the moral sense revolts against it as against a trifling with things which belong essentially to the sphere of the moral and religious life, and therefore cannot be employed as means to serve another purpose. Finally, if we had real transactions presented to us and not a symbolical form, it could not be very well supposed that the woman, accepting the gift of the Prophet would be inclined to obey his cominand. The possibility of the opposite would rather have to be assumed, which was manifestly not the case. But in the parabolic narrative this happens naturally just as the purposes of instruction require.

                On the question treated in this section compare the thorough discussion by John Marck, Diatribe de Muliere Fornicationum, Leyden, 1696, reprinted in his Comment. in 12 Proph. Min., ed. Pfaff, 1734; and in more recent times especially Hengstenberg, Christologie, i. 205 ff., who denies the actual occurrence of the events described, and the minute investigation of Kurtz, Die Ehe des Propheten Hosea (The Marriage of the Prophet Hosea], 1859, reprinted from the Dorpat Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, who holds as strongly to the literal interpretation.

                [The question so fully discussed above is encumbered with difficulties so great as to seem almost insuperable, and it is probable that it will never be satisfactorily settled. Instances might even be quoted of the same interpreter holding directly opposite opinions within a very short period of time. If the history of interpretation were to be thoroughly surveyed, it might perhaps be found that the majority of distinguished names have been arrayed on the side of the literal view. It may be remarked, however, that among modern interpreters, the more reverent and cautious of those of Germany seem, as a general rule, to favor the theory that the prophet was not to fulfill the commands actually and outwardly. Among the Anglo-American Commentators, on the other hand, the preponderance of opinion still is, as it always has been, in favor of the literal interpretation. So among the recent writers, Pusey and Cowles. The opinion that the Prophet beheld the events in vision has been maintained by Pococke and lately by Fausset. This theory is discussed at length by Cowles in a dissertation appended to his Commentary, to which the reader is referred. It may be remarked, generally, that the main support upon which the defenders of the literal interpretation rely, is the nature of the language employed, bearing, as it does, not the slightest indication that the commands were to be fulfilled in any other than a literal inanner, and that the opponents of this theory take their stand chiefly upon the supposed moral impossibility of the literal fulfillment. The conclusion which each reader will arrive at for himself will depend mainly upon the relative force which these considerations may have upon his mind. –M.]

                Outline:

                Hosea.  Superscription.

                Chapter 1:1.  The Word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah,  Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.

                Part First.  Chapters 1:2-3:5.  Chapters 1:2-2:3.

                A. Rejection of Kingdom of Israel, & especially of the House of Jehu, on account of their “whoredom,” is symbolically announced. –Chap. 1:2-9.

                B. And yet Israel will be again accepted by God. Chapter 2:1-3

       Fuller Discourse of Jehovah Concerning His Adulterous Spouse, Israel.  Chapter 2:4-25. 

                A. Complaint & Threatening of Punishment. Verses 4-15.

                B. Punishment Leads to Conversion, &  Glorious Renewal of  Marriage Contract between Jehovah & Israel. Verses 16-25.

      Love which Jehovah Preserves towards “Adulterous” People, & Chastening in Love which He Undertakes for their Conversion , again Symbolically Represented.  Chapter 3:1-5.

                Part SecondJehovah Pleads with Israel His Beloved & Unfaithful Spouse.  Chapters 4-14.

                First Discourse.  Chapters 4-11.

                I. Accusation.  Chapters 4-7.

                A. Against People as a Whole on account of their Idolatry and the Corruption of their Morals (Promoted by Priests). Chapter 4:1-19.

                B. Accusation especially against Priests & Royal House. Untheocratic Policy of Kingdom of Israel in Seeking for Help to Assyria & Egypt is Denounced. Chapters 5-11.

1. Mainly Against Priests. Chapters 5:1-15.

2. Chiefly Against Court. Chapter 7:1-16.

                II. Judgment.

A. “Sowing the Wind brings forth the Whirlwind as a Harvest.” Galling Dependaence upon Assyria. Chapter  8:1-14.

B. Carrying Away into Assyria. Decrease of People. Chapter 9:1-17.

C. Devastation of Seats of Worship. Destruction Kingdom. Chapter 10:1-15.

                III. Mercy. Chapter 11.

                God Cannot Utterly Destroy Israel, whom He has Always Loved, though they have so Basely Requited Him, but will again Show Mercy to them. Chapter 11:1-11.

                Second Discourse. Chapters 12-14.

                I. Accusation. Chapter 12.

                II. Judgment of God’s Anger. Chapter 13.

                III. Exhortation to Return: Promise of Complete Redemption. Chapter 14.

                JOEL. Introduction.

                1. Person & Time of Prophet.

                II. Book of Joel.

                There can be no question that the book bearing the name of Joel was written by himself. Not only is there no ground for doubt on this head, but all the positive evidence in the case is strongly on the same side; as, for example, the perfect unity that marks the book , one (1) chapter fitting into another with the most complete exactness . Even if we admit, what some assert, that ch. 2:10, etc., belongs to a later date than the other parts of the book, our remark holds good, for it is most closely connected with what precedes and follows it. Whether we have the discourses of the prophet precisely as they were delivered (supposing it to have been orally), or only the substance of them, is a point which cannot be determined, and is really one of no practical importance. Most probably we have them in the latter form, as the high finish and poetical diction of the book, specially in the (1st) first two (2) chapters, suggest the idea of literary elaboration, rather than that of a simple reporting of oral discourses.

                [“Of the Style of the Prophet, the chief characteristic,” says Dr. Pusey, “is perhaps its simple vividness. Everything is set before us, as though we ourselves saw it. This is alike the character of the description of the desolation in the first (1st) chapter, the advance of the locusts in the second (2nd), or that more awful gathering in the valley of Jehoshaphat described in the third (3rd). The prophet adds detail to detail; each clear, brief, distinct, a picture in itself, yet adding to the effect of the whole. We can without an effort bring the whole of each picture before our eyes. Sometimes he uses the very briefest form of words, two (2) words, in his own language, sufficing for each feature in his picture. One (1) verse consists of five (5) such pairs of worls, 1:10. Then again the discourse flows on in a soft and gentle cadence, like one of those longer sweeps of an AEolian harp. This blending of energy and softness is perhaps one (1) secret why the diction also of this prophet has been at all times so winning and so touching. Deep and full, he pours out the tide of his words with an unbroken smoothness carries all along with him, yea, like those rivers of the new world, bears back the bitter restless billows which oppose him, a pure strong stream amid the endless heavings and tossings of the world. Poetic as Joel’s language is, he does not much use distinct imagery. For his whole picture is one (1) image. They are God’s chastenings through inanimate nature, picturing the worse chastenings through man. Full of sorrow himself, he summons all with him to repentance, priests and people, old and young, bride and bridegroom. The tenderness of his soul is evinced by his lingering over the desolation which he foresees. It is like one counting over, one (1) by (1) one, the losses he endures in the privations of others. Nature to him seemed to mourn; he had a fellow feeling of sympathy with the brute cattle which, in his ears, mourn so grievously; and if none else would mourn for their own sins, he would himself mourn to Him who is full of compassion and mercy. Amid a wonderful beauty of language he employs words not found elsewhere in the Holy Scripture. In one (1) verse (1:16), he has three (3) such words. The extent to which the prophecies of Joel reappear in the later prophets has been exaggerated. The subjects of the prophecy recur; not, for the most part, in the form in which they were delivered. The great imagery of Joel is much more adopted and enforced in the New Testament than the Old, –of the locust, the outpouring of the Spirit, the harvest, the wine-treading, the wine-press. To this unknown Prophet, whom in his writings we cannot but love, but of whose history, condition, rank, parentage, birthplace, nothing is known, nothing beyond his name, save the name of an unknown father, of whom, moreover, God has allowed nothing to remain save these few chapters, to him God reserved the prerogative, first to declare the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon all flesh, the perpetual abiding of the Church, the final struggle of good and evil, the last rebellion against God, and the Day of Judgment.”

                “The tone of Joel’s writings,” says Wünsche, “indicates deep religious feelings, heartfelt experience, and warm sympathy. His moral ideas are lofty and pure, and testify to the religious knowledge and the holy life of the prophet. His poetry is distinguished by the soaring flight of his imagination, the originality, beauty, and variety of his images and similes. The conceptions are simple enough, but they are at the same time bold and grand. The perfect order in which they are arranged, the even flow and well compacted structure of the discourse, are quite remarkable. In his energy, power, and dignity, Joel reminds us of Micah; in his vivacity and lifelike freshness he resembles Nahum; in his originality and directness, in the bold range, and sublime strain of his ideas, he falls but a little below Isaiah: in his enthusiastic zeal for true religion, and his clear, earnest, penetrating insight into the moral disorders of his times, he resembles Amos. Joel threatens and warns; he descends into the innermost recesses of human nature, and he drags into the light of day, corruption, falsehood, and lukewarmness in the worship of Jehovah.”     Of our Prophet, Umbreit finely says: “The Prophetic mantle which enrobed his lofty form, was worthy of his majestic spirit; its color is indeed dark and solemn, like the day of the Lord which he predicts, yet we see sparkling upon it the stars of the eternal lights of love and grace.” –F.]

                The Occasion of this book was a terrible visitation of Judah by locusts and drought. The prophet describes the devastation produced, and viewing it as the beginning of a great judgment day of the Lord, he calls upon the priests to appoint a day for national humiliation and prayer.

                This must have been done, since he, by divine authority, promises the people the richest blessings for the present and the future, as well as complete deliverance from all their enemies.

                The book consists of two Parts, which must be carefully distinguished. They are as follows:

                Part I. includes chaps. 1-2:17; Part II, extends from 2:19 to the end of ch. 3. They are connected together by the historical statement (2:18,19).

                Part I. The plagues already named, are described as a divine judgment. The call to repentance.

                Ch. 1. The unprecedented plague of locusts and drought is described, and those on whom it fell are called upon to lament over the desolation of the land caused by it; one of the worst results of it being the necessity for suspending the daily sacrifices.

                For this reason the priests are required to mourn themselves, and to summon all the inhabitants of the land to join with them in their lamentation.

                Ch. 2. This visitation is simply a token that a great judgment day of the Lord is coming. The army of locusts, of which a graphic picture is given, is the host of the Lord, sent to do his will (vers. 1-11). Still the threatened judgment may be averted by timely repentance (vers. 12–14). Hence the priests should appoint a day of humiliation and prayer and should beseech the Lord to have merey upon the nation as being his own people (vers 14-17).

                Part II. Contains promises: (1) For the present (2:18-27). God will deliver His people from the plague and amply repair the evil done by it, by new blessings, and so prove that Israel is His people. (2.) For the future still greater things are promised. The day of the Lord is surely coming, but to Israel it shall be a day of salvation, and a day of terror only to Israel’s foes. This day shall be introduced by the outpouring of God’s Spirit upon the whole people. There shall be at the same time terrible signs in the heavens and the earth, from which there is safety only in Zion. But there, all will be perfectly secure (ch. 3:1-8). The day itself is described as one of deliverance for Israel, and of destruction for their enemies, i.e., “the nations.” These nations are reproached for their crimes against Israel, and shall be punished on account of them (vers. 9–16). Infliction of the punishment. The Lord assembles Israel and the nations, in the valley of Jehoshaphat. At first it seems as if the nations were on the point of storming the holy city, but then and there, amid terrible signs, they are annihilated by the Lord at one (1) blow. The dawning of Israel’s salvation described (vers. 17-20). Uninjured by their enemies, protected by their God, who dwells forever in the midst of them, his people enjoy the richest blessings.

                What Joel says of the locusts is not to be taken simply as an allegory, nor as a merely figurative description of the hosts of war. Nor is the first chapter a prediction; on the contrary it describes his own experience.

                Importance of this Book. We find that it was held in high consideration by the later prophets. We have already mentioned the use made of it by Amos. It is also quite plain that Isaiah used it (comp. Is. 13:3, 6, 8, 10, 13, and Joel, 2:1-11; 2:15,16). That other later prophets had the book before them will be obvious to any one who examines a Bible with parallel references. Delitzsch, therefore, justly says, “Among the prophets who flourished from the time of Uzziah to that of Jeroboam, Joel unquestionably holds the position of a type or model, and after Amos, there is not one (1) whose writings do not remind us of him.” We may even claim for Joel (and Obadiah also if we regard him as one of the earlier prophets), a sort of fundamental significance for the whole series of later prophets, not only on account of his clear and precise prediction of the coming of the day of the Lord, but also because of the way in which he connects Israel with it. Even God’s covenant people must look well to see how they stand, for in that day, repentance alone can help them. If this is wanting, if Israel departs from God, escape from the coming judgment will be impossible, –a truth which the later prophets exhibit with an ever-growing emphasis and distinctness. The prophecies of Joel are, it seems to me, fundamental in another sense, namely, in the promises they give respecting Israel’s future. Though Israel must first suffer on account of their sins, yet the prophet anticipates with confidence the time when they shall return in penitence to God, and predicts that they shall win a glorious triumph, while all their enemies, i.e., the world, shall be utterly destroyed. Thus Joel (uniting himself, as it were, with Obadiah in unfolding and confirming the prophetic promises on this head), fixes with an assured faith the position of Israel, as God’s own people, and foretells their glorious victory over all their foes, though the latter may, for the present, bring upon them much shame and sorrow. What the eye sees cannot be an object of faith, which has to do with things for the time being invisible. Accordingly Joel has given a key-note (much more full than that of Obadiah’s), which was repeated by the later prophets; he unfurled a standard, so to speak, which shall never cease to wave on high. The later prophets would witness the deep humiliation of God’s people by the nations, i.e., the world power; they would have to announce the total overthrow of the commonwealth of Israel, the annihilation of its political existence, as a well-deserved punishment for their sins. But notwithstanding this, all that Joel had promised would be realized; the day of the Lord was surely coming for the heathen, –a day of fearful recompense to them, but to his own people a day of deliverance and eternal salvation. So we find that in spite of the denunciations against the chosen people on account of their apostasy, in spite of the judgments to be inflicted upon them through the agency of the heathen, the faith and hope of the prophets in regard o the future of Israel are never shaken. They perpetually recur to the promise that the word will not cast off his people. A remnant shall survive. In this remnant Jehovah will be glorified, and will show that his ultimate design was not to destroy his people, but to bestow upon them fresh favors, yea far higher ones than their fathers enjoyed. This promise becomes more and more closely allied to the hope of a Messiah, and gives to it a more and more positive shape. This hope of a Messiah is the solid basis of all other hopes of Israel’s future and glorious destiny. Joel, indeed, does not in express terms describe this Messianic foundation, as it may be called, but he has a general conception of it, and for this  reason we have said that his prophecy may properly be called a fundamental one, i.e., with reference to those on the same subject, in later times.

                Outline. Prophet JOEL.

                Part First. Judgment & Call to Repentance. Chapters 1:1-2:17.

Section I. Complaint of Desolation of Judah by Locusts & Droughts.

                Part  Second. Promise. Chapters 2:18-3:21.

Section I. Annihilation of Locust Army. Reparation of  Damage done by it, by  Rich Blessing.

Section II. Hereafter, or “the Day of the Lord,”  Enemies of Israel shall be Destroyed, while the Lord reigns in Zion guarding & blessing it.

Section III. Day of the Lord brings Full Salvation to Israel & Destruction of his Enemies.

                AMOS. Introduction.     

                § 1. Personal Relations of Amos.

                § 2. Age of the Prophet.

                § 3. Book of Prophet.

                Under the name of this prophet we have a prophetic writing in nine (9) chapters, containing chiefly threatenings against the kingdom of Israel, to which, on account of its prevailing grievous sins, it announces a grievous infliction, even overthrow by a hostile nation. Still the book is not limited to threatenings against Israel, but at least begins with threats upon the surrounding heathen, and then, like a genuine prophetic book, concludes with che promise of a new deliverance for Israel and a splendid prosperity under the house of David.

                Entering more into detail, we are to consider:

                1. The first  (1st) and second (2nd) chapters as a sort of introduction to the particular subject.

                The second (2nd) verse of chap. 1 repeats a menace contained in Joel  4:16, and then the nations around Israel are taken up in order, first (1st) the heathen, Damascus (1:3-5), Philistia (6-8), Tyre (9-10), Edom (11,12), Ammon (13-15), Moab (2:1-3), and then Judah (4-5), against each of which the divine wrath is announced in short, similar sentences, even “for three (3) transgressions and for four (4),” and is executed by “kindling a fire” in their capitals. Then the threatening turns to Israel, at first  (1st) in the same phrase as before, but soon at greater length. There is a fuller detail of the prevailing sins, oppression of the poor, and lascivious luxury, together with a gross contempt for God’s favors toward them as his people (6-12); and a fuller announcement of punishment, namely, complete subjugation under an invading foe (13–16). It is thus evident that the previous denunciations were intended only to pave the way for this one, and that Israel was especially aimed at, for which reason the prophet dwells on their case. Still the threatening is here only introduced, and the judgment is declared merely in general terms; the form of its fulfillinent can only be conjectured.

                2. The special charges and threats follow in chaps. 3-6. This division contains four (4) discourses, –the first (1st) three (3) of which begin with a “Hear this word” –in which the kingdom of Israel, especially the great men, on account of the prevailing sins, are threatened with a divine judgment in the shape of the destruction of palaces and sanctuaries, the overthrow of the kingdom, and the carrying away of the people, unless by seeking the Lord they seize the only hope of deliverance.

(a.) In chap. 3 the chief thought is manifestly that there should be no doubt about the coming of the judgment, since the prophet who bore Jehovah’s commission could not speak in vain.

(b.) Chap. 4 bases the assurance of punishment on the fact that all previous visitations of God had been to no purpose, since repentance had not ensued. The judgment therefore must come.

(c.) In chap. 5 we hear the outcry at approaching calamity, intermingled with calls to seek the Lord and love the good, as the only means of escape. It concludes with a woe pronounced upon those who desire the day of the Lord, which yet for them must be a day of terror, since all idolatry is an abomination to him. Then is added in

(d.) Chap. 6, a woe upon those who on the contrary fancy the day of the Lord to be far off and therefore persevere in their frivolity until the judgment overtakes them by means of a people whom the Lord will raise up.

                After these discourses about punishment comes a new division,

                3. Chaps. 7-9, in which the prophet recounts certain visions in which he has seen the fate of Israel, interspersed with historical details and threats of punishment, but at last passing into the promise of a new deliverance and prosperity for Israel.

                (a). Chap. 7. First (1st), the prophet has two (2) visions of punishment by Locusts and by Fire, which, however, are averted at his intercession. So much the more does the third (3rd) vision, of the Plumb-line, show the downfall of the kingdom, and especially of the house of Jeroboam to be irreversible (1-9). The result of this announcement is that the priest Amaziah complains of Amos to the king and proposes his banishment. But Amos boldly meets him, affirms the divine call under which he was acting, and utters a still sharper threat, aimed especially at the priest.

                (b.) Chap. 8. A fourth (4th) vision represents the ripeness of the people for judgment under the image of a basket of ripe fruit. Then the prophet commences with “Hear this’ (as in chaps.  3, 4, 5), a denunciation of the sins of the higher classes, who are threatned with the sore grief of a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.

                (c.) In a fifth (5th) vision the prophet sees under the image of an overthrow of the temple (at Bethel) which buries all in its ruins, the utter ruin of the kingdom by a divine judgment which none can escape; since God is almighty and Israel is not a whit better than the heathen (1:7). Yet God will not destroy it entirely, but sift it by destroying all the sinners at ease, and then raise again David’s fallen tent to a new glory. Thus the book concludes with the promise of a new deliverance under the house of David, when Israel will be richly blessed, and made as great and powerful as ever before, and never again be driven out of the land.

                That the book whose contents are thus outlined forms one complete whole, can scarcely be disputed. But to press the inquiry closer, it is at once evident that chaps. 1 and 2 are intimately connected, and in like manner chaps. 3-6 belong together. But that the latter division concurs with the former to make one (1) whole is equally clear. A menace of judg. ment upon Israel could not possibly be satisfied with what is said in 2:13-16, for in that case there would be no definiteness and certainty as to what Israel was to expect. The further statements in the following discourses are a matter of necessity. Moreover, a comparison of 2:6-8 with 3:9,10, 5:7, 11, 6:4, shows a striking similarity between the sins censured in both cases. The unity of the first six (6) chapters is then established. As to chaps. 7-9, no argument is needed to show their mutual coherence. But the question arises, whether they did not originally form an independent whole which a subsequent editor appended to the foregoing, or conversely made the foregoing a preface to it. There is much to favor its independent character. It differs from what precedes, both in matter as containing visions, and in form, as the prophet speaks in the first (1st) person. Notwithstanding, its close connection –at least in the state in which we now have it with chaps. 1-6, is unquestionable. The chief evidence of this seems to me to lie in chap. 8:4 seq.; which bears an unmistakable relation to what is already found in chaps. 3-6. The reproof is the same in both. Compare the introductory words “Hear ye; ” the censure of sins in 8:4, etc., with ch. 2:6, etc., and ch. 5:11,12; and also, the announcement of judgment in 8:10 with ch. 5:15. So close is the correspondence that one might be tempted to think that the latter passages were a subsequent insertion, which of course would destroy the argument for the original coherence of the whole. But we can hardly assume this theory of insertion by an editor, simply because the words, 8:4, etc., are somewhat abrupt and do not seem to be exactly in their place. If an alteration were made, we should suppose they would have been taken away from their present place and joined to the foregoing passages, to which they seem more suited. Here applies the critical canon that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. But then it is to be observed that the conclusion, (9:11, etc.,) undeniably reechoes the conclusion of Joel, and still more does ch. 1:2 connect itself with Joel. This fact shows beyond mistake that our book in its present state originated from one hand, and farther, since its beginning and its end are original, integral elements proceeding from the author himself, that we must consider the book as a complete whole, as certainly so prepared by its author.

                If this be so, it follows that the prophet Amos, who in chap. 7 speaks of himself in the first person, is necessarily the composer not merely of the account of these visions, but also of the whole book. If at first (1st) we understood from the superscription that the substance of these utterances proceeded from Amos, much more must we suppose that they were reduced to writing and united with the foregoing books by him; and we must consider the superscription as prefixed to this, as it undoubtedly will, and of right ought to be, considered. That he who in ch. 7 says “I” is no other than Amos, is plain from verse 10, etc., where he is so called, but that he is here spoken of in the third person is no evidence that he is not the author. Of the portions marked with the “I,” both preceding and following, he is certainly such, but we need not for that reason consider the intervening passage 7:10-17 as inserted by another; for Hosea, in the beginning of his prophecy, in the portion (chap. 1:2) which undoubtedly is his own, also speaks of himself in the third (3rd) person. Besides, the transition to the third (3rd) person here is altogether simple and natural, since he was repeating what Amaziah charged against him. And having thus spoken, he continues in the same manner in the 12th and 13th verses. Moreover, since the subject relates to the personal experiences of the prophet, there is the less reason for considering it another’s interpolation in a writing the rest of which was composed by Amos. No, it is Amos alone who relates what befell bim in his prophesying, and then speaks of his origin and his mission, and after wards utters a new menace against Amaziah. And this is not added as a mere matter of history, but the account of the occurrence with Amaziah bears so directly upon this speech to him that it is perfectly plain that the author of the one is the author of the other, i.e. that the prophet himself, and no one else, has produced the whole. In favor of Amos’s authorship is the style, in which are manifold reminiscences of a pastoral life. (See below.) In the first (1st) instance, this proves only that the separate discourses came from Amos, but not that he composed the whole. But since after what has been said the theory of its compilation by a third (3rd) person is inadmissible, the argument for Amos as the author is greatly strengthened by these peculiarities of language. Besides, we could not properly speak of “Discourses of Amos” which another person has collected together, but the book in its present form is to be considered as an original composition of its author, based upon the “discourses” he had delivered orally.

                Outline:

                Chapters I, II.

                Superscription (ch. 1:1). 1. The words of Amos (who was among the shepherds of Tekoa), which he saw concerning Israel, in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. And he said:…

                I. Divine Judgment is Announced 1st Against the Countries Lying Around Israel, then Against Kingdom of Judah, but at Last Remains Standing over Kingdom of Israel (chaps. 1:2-2:16).  (( (a) Damascus (1:3–5 ). (b) Gaza (1:6-8 ).  (c) Tyre (1:9,10) .  (d) Edom (1:11,12)   (e) Ammon (1:13-15).  (f) Moab (2:1-3). (g) Judah (1:4,5) .  (h) Israel (1:6-16)  ))

                Chapters III-VI.

                II. To Kingdom of Israel, Especially to its Great Men, Divine Judgment is Announced upon Prevailing Sins, unless Men seek the Lord. (Chapters  3-6.)

                1. As surely as Prophet bears Divine Commission, will God punish Israel. (Chapter 3)

                2. Punishment must Come, since Despite all Chastisements People will Not Amend. (Chapter 4)

                3. Lament for Israel. Only Safety is in seeking the Lord. Woe to Fools who Desire Day of the Lord.  (Chapter 5)

                4. Woe to the Secure who think that the Day of the Lord is far off. (Chapter 6)

                III. Threatening Discourses Against  Kingdom of Israel in Shape of Visions.  Promise in Conclusion.  (Chapters  7-9)

                1. Three (3) Visions. Two (2) of National Calamities are Averted at Request of  Prophet  Third (3rd), of a Plumb-Line, indicates certain Downfall of  Kingdom. Attempt of Priest Amaziah to banish Amosfrom Bethel: thereupon a sharper Threat, especially Against Amaziah. (Chapter 7)

                2. Fourth (4th) Vision: Israel ripe for Destruction. Days of Mourning Threatened Against Ungodly. Afterwards a Famine of Word. (Chapter 8)

                3. Fifth (5th) Vision. Downfall. Not even a little Grain Perishes. After Overthrow of All Careless Sinners God will Raise Fallen Tent of David to New Glory. (Chapter 9)

                OBADIAH. Introduction. Book of Obadiah.

                Of the author of the brief prophecy concerning the doom of Edom, which those who arranged the Canon have inserted between Amos and Jonah, we really know, with certainty, nothing except the name. This is read by the Masorah as Obadiah (`obadeyah), i.e., Servant of Jehovah, a proper name frequently met with, and which was borne also by a respectable Zebulonite of the time of Saul (1st Chr. 28:19), a major-domo of Ahab (1st K. 18:3), a Levite under Josiah (2nd Chr. 34:12), and several heads of post-exilian houses. There is, therefore, no ground for holding it, with Augusti and Küper, as a symbolic pseudonym that, however, the pronunciation of the name offered by the Masoretes was not universal in the earliest times, is evident from the fact that the LXX (70) give for it, in different places, not only Obdias, but Abdias, Audias, etc. What Jewish traditions report concerning the man bears the stamp of conjecture, or of fanciful invention. The oldest of these traditions identifies him with the chief courtier of Ahab, referred to above, probably because he is mentioned 1st K. 18:3 as a very pious man, but in so doing overlooks the fact that our prophecy grows not out of the circumstances of the ten (10) tribes, but entirely out of Jerusalem. The others are still more capricious.

                To determine the time of the prophecy, we are left, therefore, simply to its contents, to its relations with the other prophets, and to the historical accounts of the Old Testament.

                The situation in which the prophet stands is shown principally in ver. 10 ff., since vers. 1-9 contain mere prophecy (“in that day,” ver. 8). Jerusalem is distressed by a hostile invasion, strangers have entered into her gates (ver. 11c), have plundered and ravaged, so that the population have betaken themselves to a wild flight (ver. 14b,c), have carried off many treasures (ver. 11b), and divided the inhabitants among them by lot (ver. 11d), to sell them as slaves to distant peoples (ver. 20c). The Edomites have not only exhibited an unbrotherly and malignant delight in these transactions (vers. 12; 10a; 13b), but have actively taken part in them (ver. 11e), have shared in the invasion of the city (ver. 13a), in the plundering (ver. 13c), and the mad revelry which followed (ver. 16a), have lain in wait for the fugitives when they escaped from the city, and slain them in part, in part delivered them up to slavery (ver. 14). The catastrophe which the prophet threatens in vers. 1-9, is the punishment of Edom for these deeds (ver. 10), and with this is linked the restitution of Israel (vers. 17-21).

                From this description it is obvious that the circumstances were such as presented themselves after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. That the conduct of Edom in relation to that catastrophe was thoroughly hostile, and closely similar to what is here depicted (ver. 11 ff.), is proved by the prophecies occasioned by that conduct (Ezek. 35 and Is. 63). We might, therefore, regard the prophet as a contemporary of this event (Aben Ezra, Luther, Calovius, Tarnovius, Ch.V. and J.D. Michaelis, De Wette, Knobel, Maurer, Winer, Hendewerk), or as one of the later Epigoni of prophecy (Hitzig, an Egyptian Jew, cir. 312 B.C.). And undoubtedly we must prefer this reference of our prophecy to every other, if it were true, as Hitzig maintains, that in the first ten (10) verses of his discourse, Obadiah makes use of, nay, simply paraphrases the strikingly similar language of Jeremiah (chap.  49:7 ff.) against Edom. It is easy, in this view, to regard precisely those peculiar features in which Obadiah excels Jeremiah (ver. 11 ff.), as called forth by the immediate impression of the catastrophe, which Jeremiah had not yet before his eyes: for he  spoke his prophecy in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, and therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Caspari, p. 15 ff.).

                Nevertheless, concerning this use of Jeremiah by Obadiah, precisely the contrary is to be believed. Against it speaks at once the circumstance, that this very series of announcements in Jeremiah concerning foreign lands to which the passage 49:7 ff. belongs, shows not merely a constant use of earlier prophecies, but that Jeremiah repeatedly applies earlier prophecies, with free reproduction and expansion, to present occasions. So the prophecy against Moab, Is. 15, 16, in chap. 48; the prophecies in Am. 1:13 ff., 8 ff., in chap. 49:1 ff., 23 ff. Thus he has, in some sense out of his own (exousia), on the principle that prophecy is spoken for all time and therefore must be applicable also to the ever-recurring present, compiled, in this series of chapters, a canon of ancient prophecy for his own time. And if, in all these passages, it is undeniable that Jeremiah has availed himself of older prophecies should be in just the one before us be the original, and Obadiah have borrowed from him?

                This presumption against Hitzig’s view rises to certainty when we more carefully compare the two (2) predictions. “On comparing the two (2) common sections with each other, we find that in Obadiah partly shorter and more rapid, partly heavier and more abrupt, partly more clear and lively than in Jeremiah” (Caspari). It cannot be denied that the cruces interpretum offered by Obadiah, especially in vers. 3, 5, appear in Jeremiah smoothed down, and that the solitary difficulty which Jeremiah has beyond Obadiah in the word om (chap. 49:16), as against the numerous obscurities peculiar to the latter, is of no account. But it is contrary to all hermeneutical procedure to suppose that a later writer, in regard to a situation meanwhile explained, should have still darkened the clear language of the earlier one, while, on the contrary, it is a common and explainable occurrence, that the obscure prophecy of antiquity should, in the hands of the subsequent seer, who is at the same time highly skilled in discourse, become more flowing and more clear. Some, to escape this argument, feign that the obscurities of Obadiah are indications of an atomistic compilation, from a point of view arbitrarily chosen, without force and without definiteness; but the exegesis of the book will have to show that his discourse is one which bears a single burden, is animated by one independent soul.

                The comparison with Jeremiah is, therefore, of no value toward the more accurate determination of the age of our prophet. On the other hand, we have the positive circumstance that the inner relationship places his prophecy entirely within the circle of view of those prophets among whom the collectors of the Canon have placed it, that is, the oldest. Of the great monarchies of the world Obadiah knows nothing. The enemies who have invaded Jerusalem are to him simply foreigners and strangers (ver. 11), and besides the Edomites he names none except the Philistines (ver. 19), and the Phoenicians (ver. 20), both of whom appear in Joel (4:4), as enemies of the kingdom. Aram is not so much as once mentioned, so that his horizon is still narrower than that of Amos. The two (2) kingdoms are in existence standing firmly side by side. The southern one consists of the tribes of Judah (which inhabits the Negeb and the lowland) and Benjamin (ver. 19); the northern (Ephraim and Gilead) must yet be possessed, that a united kingdom may arise, one (1) army of the children of Israel (vers. 19,20, cf. Hos. 2:2). The captives of Jerusalem are not carried away to the east, but are sold as slaves into the west, precisely as in Joel; to the Javan (Ionia) of Joel corresponds the Sepharad (Sparta) of Obadiah (ver. 20). The middlemen, who have made traffic of these slaves, are doubtless the same as those named in Am. 1:9; Joel 4:6, the Poenicians, whom Obadiah also (ver. 20) expressly mentions. Of a destruction of Jerusalem, moreover, not a word is said, but only of capture and ravage. And it is to be observed that the hostile attitude of Edom is by no means a state of things first produced by the Babylonian destruction, and before unheard of. In Joel also (4:19), and Amos (1:11 ff.; 9:12), precisely as here, Edom appears as an enemy of Judah, deserving double chastisement on account of his originally fraternal relation to Israel. It would be plainly incongruous to refer all these predictions just cited, and which, for the most part, wear a very distinctly historical aspect, to the incidental position which Edom occupied two centuries later in the Chaldæan catastrophe; the more incongruous because, from the time of Moses onward (Num. 20:14 ff.), the attitude of this neighbor nation toward Israel was, according to the historical Books also, hostile up to the full measure of their strength (1st Sam. 14:47; 2nd Sam. 8:14; 1st K. 11:14 ff.; 2nd K. 8:20, etc.).

                The same is to be said of Obadiah also. As he belongs to the first (1st) period of written

prophecy, not only from the correspondences above noticed, but also from the fact that the later prophets presuppose him as having gone before (cf. under the head of Theological and Ethical), day, even expressly quote him (Joel  3:5; 2:32, cf. Obad. 17), he cannot have had the Chaldaean destruction for his point of view, for what he says of devastation is not prophecy, but palpable, detailed description, which is plainly distinguished from the prophetic verses, and therefore relates to the past. And even if we give up the hermeneutical rule that every prophetic utterance must rise from a given historical situation, be called forth by some manifestation of God’s rule in the history of the kingdom; if we concede that, irrespective of any historical occasion, and purely by the force of inspiration, Joel may have foreseen the participation of the Edomites in the destruction of Jerusalem, with all its particular features; still, it is certainly inconceivable that he should have placed this incidental circumstance so conspicuously in the foreground, while the main fact which should have naturally cast down him and his people to the ground, in the prospect of it, namely, the destruction itself, and the chief enemy, the Babylonians, were treated as such obviously familiar circumstances, mere scenery and a starting point for the threatening against Edom. Thus fall also the opinions which place Obadiah in the early times indeed (under Uzziah), but still will not give up the reference of his prophecy to the catastrophe of 588 B.C. (Hengstenberg, Havernick, Caspari.) The event which by its iniquity has called for the judgment announced by Obadiah is, rather, one contemporary with himself, one, therefore, accomplished in the earlier times by the Edomites against Jerusalem, which he has personally witnessed, and on which the other prophets of that-age also look back in the apposite passages of their writings.

                When we inquire more specifically into the nature of this transaction, it is not that recorded in 2nd Chr. 25:23 f. (Vitringa, Carpzov, Kuper), nor in 2nd Chr. 28:5 ff. (Jäger). In both of these instances it was not foreigners who desolated Jerusalem, as Obadiah assumes to have been the case (ver. 11), but principally the Ephraimites. It is rather the capture of Jerusalem under Joram, mentioned 2nd Chr. 21:16 f., cf. 2nd K. 8:20 ff. (Hoffmann, Delitzsch, Nagelsbach). Here we are told that the Philistines and Arabians (a collective name with the later historical writers, for the peoples living east and south of Judah), came up and carried away great treasures, and even took among the captives the princes of the royal family. This event, which harmonizes far better than the Chaldaean invasion with our prophecy, inasmuch as it, like Obadiah, intimates nothing of a destruction of Jerusalem and annihilation of the national existence, but only plunder and rapine, this event alone can have been in the thoughts of Joel and Amos when they reproach the Philistines (Joel, 3 [4]:6; Am. 1:6 ff.) with having delivered over the captives of Judah and sold them into a foreign land. On account of this transaction the Edomites are, in the view of these prophets also, national foes.

                If now, on the one hand, Obadiah coincides with them, especially with Joel, precisely in these connections, in several passages (vers. 10, 11, 15, cf. Joel 3 [4]:19, 3, 7, 14), and that not at all as a borrower, but as leading the way (ver. 17, cf. Joel 2:32; 3:5), and, on the other, Joel is to be regarded as a contemporary of Joash (877 ff.), we may, without danger of essential mistake, ascribe our prophecy to the preceding decade (890-880), falling mostly under the reign of Joram. That his position in the Canon is subsequent to that of the later Joel affords no argument against this. In fact we are obliged, from the start, by Hosea’s leading place in the series, to abandon the untenable hypothesis that an accurately observed chronological principle can be discovered in the succession of the minor prophets; and the exact adaptation of our prophet to Amos, ch. 11:12, gave sufficient occasion (as Schnurrer had already perceived), for assigning to him just this place.

                From this settlement of the date a beautiful and self-consistent structure of the prophecy offers itself. According to the peculiar custom of the prophets to begin with the threatening (or the consolation), and afterwards adduce the explanation of it, the discourse before us falls, first (1st), into the announcement of the judgment (vers. 1-9), and the reasons for it (vers. 10-16); to which then the conclusion demanded by the nature of prophecy, (2nd) the announcement of salvation to Israel, is appended. The language is the same throughout, and the plan rounded and complete. Thus the suppositions of Ewald and Graf (Jeremiah) fall to the ground. According to them vers. 1-9 should be regarded as the old prophetic kernel which a prophet of the exile has rewrought, completed, and adapted to the destruction of Jerusalem.         (* In harmony with this conclusion, we may venture the conjecture, that our prophet is identical with that pious Obadiah whom, with others, Joram’s father Jehoshaphat had sent out to revive the spirit of true worship in the land by the explanation of the law (2nd Chr. 17:7). *)

                Luther: “Obadiah gives no sign of the time in which he lived, but his prophecy relates to the time of the captivity, for he comforts the people of Israel with the promise that they shall come again to Zion. Especially does his prophecy issue against Edom and Esau, who cherished a special, everlasting envy against the people of Israel and Judah, as is wont to be the case when friends fall out with each other, and especially when brothers come into hatred and hostility toward each other; there the hostility knows no bounds. Therefore were the Edomites beyond all bounds hostile to the people of Judah, and had no greater joy than to look on the captivity of the Jews, and gloried over them, and mocked them in their grief and misery. How the prophets almost all upbraid the Edomites for such hateful malice, see on Psalms, 137:7. Now since such conduct is exceedingly distressing when one, instead of comforting as one reasonably should, rather mocks the sorrowful and afflicted in their grief, laughs at them, scorns them, glories over thein, so that their faith in God suffers a powerful assault, and is strongly tempted to doubt and unbelief, God sets up a special prophet against such vexatious mockers and assailants, and comforts the afflicted, and strengthens their faith with threatening and rebuke against such hostile Edomites, and with promises and assurance of future help and deliverance. That is truly a needed comfort and a profitable Obadiah. At the close he prophecies of Christ’s kingdom, which shall be not in Jerusalem only but everywhere. For he mingles all peoples together, as Ephraim, Benjamin, Gilead, Philistines, Canaanites, Zarpath, which cannot be understood of the earthly kingdom of Israel, since such people and tribes must be separated in the land, according to the law of Moses. But that the Jews make Zarpath mean France, and Sepharad Spain, I let pass and hold nothing of it; yet let every one hold what he will.”

                JONAH. Introduction. Book of Jonah.

                I. Contents.

                The prophet Jonah, the son of Amittai, receives a divine command to announce judgment against the great city, Nineveh, whose wickedness had come up before Jehovah. He attempts to evade the command by flight, and embarks in a ship to go to Tarshish. A storm rises on the sea. While the crew are praying, Jonah sleeps. But he is awakened; and the sailors perceiving in the fury [Unbill] of the storm a token of the divine wrath, cast lots, by which he is designated as the guilty person. On being interrogated by the crew, he acknowledges to them his guilt, and advises them to cast him into the sea, for the purpose of appeasing the divine anger. They put forth ineffectual efforts to escape from danger, without having recourse to this extreme measure, but finally follow his advice. (Chap. 1)

                A large fish swallows Jonah. He thanks God that he is preserved in life; and is, on the third (3rd) day, vomited out by the fish on the land. (Chap. 2)

                He now obeys the command of God, which comes to him the second (2nd) time, and goes to proclaim to Nineveh, that within forty (40) days, it shall be destroyed on account of its sins. But the Ninevites, with the king at their head, observe a great public fast, and Jehovah determines to withdraw his threatening. (Chap. 3)

                Jonah having waited for the issue in a booth over against the city, must have felt that the effect [of the divine purpose to remit the calamity. –C.E.] would be to make his proclamation appear false. His displeasure, on this account, is heightened by an incident. A plant [a palmchrist], which had rapidly shot up, had refreshed him with its shade. But during the night it is destroyed by a worm; and when, on the day following, a scorching wind augments the burning heat of the sun, Jonah despairs of life [“meint Jonah am Leben verzweifeln zu mussen,” thinks that he must despair of life]. But God had appointed this incident for the purpose of showing him the unreasonableness of his displeasure.      “Dost thou have pity on an insignificant plant, and shall not I have pity on the great city?” (Chap. 4)

                II. Historical Character of Book.

                III. Symbolical Character of the Book. The main question is that which relates to the understanding of this book, not that concerning its historical contents [Gehalt], which will be answered differently, according to the degree in which the reader considers his conscience bound by the fides historica of the Holy Scriptures. Whether the events are taken from actual life or not, this much is evident, that the record of them is not the proper aim (nicht Selbstzweck ist] of the book: it is intended to communicate a deeper instruction in historical form.

                That the book was written for the purpose of communicating such instruction is proved:

                1. From its position among the prophetical writings. The direct object of these writings is, without exception, to convey instruction in divine truth. If it be said, that the book was placed among the twelve (12) Minor Prophets, because Jonah was its author, it may be replied, first, that of its authorship by Jonah we have nowhere any mention; and that, according to this rule, the Lamentations ought also to be placed among the prophetical books. Just with as little propriety can an argument be founded upon the fact that the book treats of the fortunes of a prophet, for according to this rule, Micah and Malachi would have no place among the prophetical writings; while on the other hand the books of Moses, from Exodus to Deuteronomy, and a whole series of chapters in the books of Kings, would be entitled to a place among these writings. If in the prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, historical passages, or notices, are inserted, it is done that they may form the frame-work of the prophecy, serve to make it intelligible, and place it in organic connection with the facts; but throughout these prophets the prophetical element is the main part, on which the whole hinges. In the book of Jonah, on the other hand, this could still less be the object, as his prophecy is revoked, and thus forms, in the totality of the book, only a thing of passing moment (vorubergehendes Moment]. Moreover, that historical additions should be found in a long series of prophetical discourses is one thing, but that an entire independent book should be placed under this point of view, is quite another thing. Evidently the compilers of the Canon considered the book a purely prophetical one [Rede], whose historical manner of representation has the object of bringing its instruction within reach and of making it easily retained.

                2. We find confirmation of this by inspection of the book itself, in which certain instructive truths –of which more hereafter– force themselves on the notice of the reader, and stand out so prominently that the interest of the narrator evidently does not attach to the person of whom he speaks, but manifestly to the events of his life [Ergehen dieser Person]. Precisely that, which, historically viewed, must appear the chief particular of the book, namely, the sparing of Nineveh, is marked with proportionally the least emphasis.

                3. In addition to these considerations, and in harmony with them, is the style of the book. This is anything but the historical style. The author neglects a multitude of things, which he would have been obliged to mention had history been his principal aim. He says nothing of the sins of which Nineveh was guilty, and which might have formed the motive for its destruction; nothing of the long and difficult journey of the prophet to Nineveh; he is silent about the early dwelling-place of Jonah, about the place where he was vomited out upon the land; he does not mention whether and when Jonah offered and performed the offering and vow, which he promised and made (2:10); neither does he mention the name of the Assyrian king, nor take any notice of the subsequent fortunes of the prophet. In any case the narrative, if it were intended to be historical, would be incomplete by the frequent recurrence that circumstances, which are necessary for the connection of events, are mentioned later than they occurred, and only where attention is directed to them as leaving already happened. Should the observations mostly presented by Goldhorn and Hitzig be urged for the purpose of denying altogether that the Book of Jonah relates historical events, they must be deemed inadequate; but they certainly prove what Hengstenberg has fully done, that the author communicates historical events only so far as the object requires, to furnish an intelligible basis for the representation of a doctrinal object lying outside of the narrative; that the author, if he avails himself of the facts of history for his purpose, has still employed historical data with discrimination, in the light of, and according to the idea, which he intended to represent.

                4. Circumstances are found so recorded, that without the supposition of a definite design and bearing of the narrative, this form of narration would be incomprehensible. If Jonah utters thanks in the belly of the fish, and not after he is safe on shore, then there is, unless this arrangement of events is required by a definite design, a want of physical truth, which cannot be concealed by any exegetical subtilty.

                But the questions now arise, what are the design and teaching of the book? and how are they made available in the narrative? Is it a single moral lesson, of which the entire narrative is the foundation, after the manner of a didactic fable? Or is the whole representation symbolical, exhibiting a complete system [Zusammenhang] of doctrines and ideas, a delineation of an entire development in the Kingdom of God?

                In answer to the first (1st) of these suppositions it can be said, that a single (1) tenet of revelation, or of morality, is incongruous with the contents of the whole book. Each of the individual tendencies advanced by Exegetes neglects one (1) or the other part of the book, and can, therefore, not sufficiently explain the peculiar literary character of the whole.  “There is no didactic unity in the book.” (Sack.) In the manifold applications made of the book, the doctrine has been discovered in it, that God cares for other nations also (Semler); that He is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the heathen (D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bohme, Pareau, Gesenius, De Wette, Winer, Knobel, and many others); and the view of Gramberg and Friedrichsen amounts to essentially the same thing, according to which the conduct of the heathen and their treatment should serve as an example of repentance to Israel. But according to these views the second chapter is entirely superfluous, and Friedrichsen, with great difficulty, accommodates the first to them. The matter is not improved by discovering in the book, in addition to instruction for the Jews, an admonition to toleration for the heathen. (Griesinger). Still less satisfactory are general truths, such as those that Niemeyer, Hezel, Moller, Meyer, Paulus, and others have found in the book: namely, “God’s ways are not as our ways.” “The office of prophet is arduous, but of great worth” [Kostlich]. “Jehovah is kind and readily forgives.” “God is ready to avenge and to forgive,” etc. And, if converting the doctrine into a special aim [Tendenz], Hitzig has developed the suggestions of Köster and Jager to the view, that the book was written to remove the doubts which might attach themselves to the non-fulfillment of prophecy (here, according to Hitzig, with special reference to the alleged non-fulfillment of the prophecy of Obadiah), then the great preparations which were devoted to so insignificant an object, are not in keeping with it. Then chapters 3 and 4 would be amply sufficient. In the homiletical and catechetical use of the book, one must not leave unnoticed all those truths and definite purposes; and he will also determine, on account of their multitude, to bestow increased esteem and consideration upon the opulence of this little book, which, in four short chapters, discloses new contents to each inquirer; but even the multiplicity of the constructions put upon it [Bestimmungen [provisions]] proves that none exhausts the contents of the book to the degree that one can attribute to it the character of a didactic fable, or moral narrative.

                There is a still more cogent argument. The book is, as we have seen, a prophetical one. But in all prophecy, this kind of narrative is nowhere to be met with. No narrative is found there, which should solely have the object that the hearer, or reader, may draw from it an individual truth as a moral. On the other hand, it is quite a frequent kind of prophetical composition to symbolize the past, present, or future destinies of a great community in a single concrete form, so that this representative concrete appears in a whole series of relations as a symbol of that community. Of this, the Vineyard, Isaiah, chap. 5, is a familiar example. Ezekiel, particularly, is full of such symbols, among wh’ch the figurative representation of the fate of Jerusalem, chap. 16, and the allegorizing of Judah and Ephraim by the two (2) sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, are characteristic of this species of prophetic style. And still nearer to our purpose stands the most profound symbolical discourse of the Old Testament, Isaiah 40-66, in which everything, deserts, water, bread, light, Zion, are symbols, and under all these symbols the comprehension of the Israelitish national community, under the individual designation of the servant of God, occupies the highest place, since it is explained by the spirit of prophecy as the type of the true Israel manifested in Christ.

                That the book of Jonah is to be counted among these symbolical prophecies has by no means escaped the notice of interpreters. The anticipation of it gleams through the words of old Marck: “Scriptum est magna parte historicum, sed ita ut in historia ipsa lateat marimi aticinii mysterium, atque ipse fatis suis non minus quam effatis vatem se verum demonstret.” It form is also the minimum of an originally right starting-point in the peculiar conceits, whimsically embellished by the theological mythus, of Von der Hardt, that Nineveh represents Samaria, but that Jonah is an enigmatical name for the kings Manasseh and Josiah. Here belong also Herder’s attempt to represent Jonah as a symbol of the order of the prophets, and Krahmer’s view that Jonah was a warning example for his contemporaries.

                On the same line, and equally removed from the purely parabolical and purely historical view, lies the attempt made by several modern divines and commentators, after the example of Sack (in harmony with the common effort to guide the exegesis of the Old Testament into the profound meaning of Scripture, and into the deep questions of the close connection between the Old and New Testaments), to represent Jonah as a type of Christ. Here particularly, we may mention Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and Keil. (See below). This typical view of the book has a strong claim to be received, if we consider the declaration of our Saviour (Matth. 12:40). But notwithstanding it may be said, first, that this view does not embrace the whole book, but must, along with our Saviour’s declaration, be restricted to chapter 2; and again, that it shares the defects of every exposition of the Old Testament given entirely from the point of view of the New Testament; and that it is not suited to the peculiarity of the Old Testament standpoint, and to the independent significance of the book in the collection of the Canon. It is in part not enough, namely, the mere New Testament element; in part too much, to wit, the discovery of the fulfillment already in that which is preliminary. It is certainly true that the whole Old Testament revelation receives light from the New Testament from first to last, which enables us to perceive its teleological connection tending onward till it reaches the goal; and yet each statement and each book of the Old Testament, as a member of the organism of the Holy Scriptures, has an aim peculiar to itself. And the full authority of the typical interpretation will then first come into the true light, when one places the genuine sense already drawn from the contents of the book, under the light of the end, namely, the fulfillment. Let us attempt an interpretation of the symbol, an interpretation standing upon its own, and that an Old Testament foundation.

                Jonah is a prophet; his special mission in the book is a prophetic one. There is in the Old Testament only one community to which the prophetic vocation belongs, namely, the people of Israel. For the purpose that in him all the tribes of the earth should be blessed, Israel was founded as a nation in his ancestor, Abraham (Gen. 12), and God chose him as his servant, to disseminate the light, the knowledge of God’s law among the heathen. (Is. 42:1). Jonah is Israel. Nineveh – in the view of the author of the book the type of a great heathen city–  is, in a similar relation, the representative of the heathen world, as are moreover Babylon (Is. 13 f.), and Edom (Is. 63). It is selected here, because the contact with Nineveh marks the decisive turning-point between the old time, when Israel, joyful in his strength, subjected the neighboring nations, and the new time, in which prophecy, through contact with the Mesopotamian powers, became of a universal character; because their captivity among these nations, though at first a penal calamity determined upon them, had the ultimate purpose of freeing the kingdom of God from the narrow limits of its national foundation, and of preparing its dissemination over the whole earth.

                Israel has the mission of preaching God’s doctrine and law to the heathen world. But he has a greater desire for gain and its pursuits. He shuns his calling and goes on board a merchantman. He abandons his intimate relation to Zion and hastens far away, where no mission is assigned to him, where he thinks that the arm of God cannot reach him. For it also belongs to his ungodly prejudices to believe that God’s arm and work are limited to the boly land a prejudice which already in Jacob, the ancestor whose character represents typically the national faults, was to his shame rebuked (Gen. 28:16 f.).

                But God reproves the fugitive. In the terrors, which must fall upon him, according to the divine decree, Jonah does not seek God, but sleeps, while the heathen pray. All heathen nations the individual members of the crew represent nations, for they pray each to his God (1:5) – might, by their sincere idol-worship, administer a rebuke [zur Beschämung dienen [serve as a shame]] to the godlessness of God’s people, in their extreme distress. They cast the lot, which brings death to him; this they do not of their own choice, but by the appointment of God, which they unconsciously follow. The lot falls for a war of extermination against Israel. Jonah must announce his own fate. Israel has the law, which carries the curse in itself, and, like a sword suspended by a horse-hair, hangs over the head of the nation (comp. on Micah 6:16); he has prophecy, which, confined to him, prophecies a calamitous end ta the whole nation (Micah  3:12, 1:8). Jonah is thrown into the sea and swallowed by a monster. The sea-monster is, by no means, an unusual phenomenon in prophetic typology. It is the secular power appointed by God for the scourge of Israel and of the earth. (Is. 27:1; comp. on 2:1.) Israel is abandoned to the night and gloom of exile, after the catastrophe of the national overthrow, because he neglected his vocation. Hence the fact that Jonah prays and turns to God, before his deliverance from the fish’s belly, receives an illustration. In adversity Israel shall again seek God. In that which properly belongs to penal sufferings, he shall nevertheless, at the same time, acknowledge the gracious hand of God (Hos. 2:16). He shall, also, in his miserable existence in a foreign land, not forget his holy calling. He shall not forget that his preservation as a nation, though as outcast, is a saving act of God. This becomes still clearer through the close relation, in which this prayer of Jonah stands to the longing and lamentations in exile, of the people of God, e.g. Psalms 42 and 88 in which also the deeps of the sea symbolize the misery of Israel.

                There [in the deep] Jonah remains three (3) days and three (3) nights, a definite, but an ideal time (comp. on 2:1); a similar time is allotted by Hosea, also, for the punishment of Israel (Hos. 6:2). Then the fish vomits him out; the exile must have an end, for God has appointed the fish; not of its own power and will did it swallow Jonah.

                But with the hoped for restoration, the vocation of Israel is not revoked. Jonah is sent the second time to Nineveh; and he must preach that the heathen world shall perish; for that is the will of God concerning the nations that do not obey Him (Micah 5:14). But Israel says, What shall I preach? It is truly cause for despair, that so much has already been prophesied concerning the destruction of the heathen, and that it has come to nothing. They remain peaceful and quiet. If my preaching accomplishes its object, they will be saved, for God is merciful and gracious. (Comp. Zech. 1:11.) This instance [Moment] [of doubt and irresolution on the part of Israel. –C.E.) is also portrayed in the history of Jonah. Indeed, Jonah’s preaching works repentance, and, consequently, forbearance; and reproach proceeds from his mouth. God corrects him by the incident of the palmchrist. Thereby Israel, too, is instructed. There lies in the sparing of Nineveh, before the correction of Jonah, the type of the future ingathering of the multitude of the heathen before the Jewish people, which must first (1st) be humbled and broken. (Comp. Micah 4) And the prophet who wrote the history of Jonah, has exhibited the ground of this future, momentous to his people, as one lying within the Old Testament knowledge of God and his kingdom; in the mercy of God in view of repentance, and in the obduracy of Israel against the divine goodness, which quarrels with God instead of repenting. So must it truly come to pass, what Isaiah says (65:1), that God is found of those who sought Him not, and who were not called by his name. (Comp. Rom. 10:20.)

                Upon this teleological prophecy nothing more can follow; the book naturally closes with this according to our view. It becomes evident, according to this view, that the book is one of universal tendency, and raises the idea of Israel to a height similar to that described, Isaiah xl. ff.; only that there the bright side fulfilled in Christ develops itself from the mission of the servant. Though here the dignity of the mission is not less marked than there, yet the natural obstacles in the character of the people are brought into the foreground, by which it came to pass that the true Israel, at last, was not received by his own, and was crucified by contemporary Israel. Further, the reciprocal relation is hence clearly exhibited, which the symbolical character has had upon the treatment of the historical narrative ; and the listorical substratum upon the symbolical representation. There is no doubt that the truth to be exhibited could have been more briefly and more directly explained in another way (as this holds good generally in the case of parables); but the author found, in a history ready to his band,’ the profound idea, which the Spirit moved him to teach, and in order to do justice to the historical, he made casual mention in the narrative, of much which, at the first glance, might appear, from the point of view of a didactic object, as unimportant.

                But on the other hand, it could not fail that his design to write symbolic history made him indifferent to the pragmatic connection of the historical substratum in itself; hence the chasms and the incompleteness of statement noted by Hengstenberg, as soon as the rule of the historical style is applied to it.

                Hence, finally, we learn from the book itself, its typical significance in relation to the New Testament. That Israel, as he lives a unity in the complex of God’s ideas [in der Ideenwell Gottes], is the type of Christ, is indubitable to every one who has once earnestly reflected upon the wonderful harmony between the image of the servant of God (Is. 49. ff.) and Christ, and who has sought to explore the concealed vein of Old Testament history, according to the clear exposition of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 3:16). If Jonah is a type of Israel, and Israel a type of Christ, then the typical relation already traced out in Sack (see below), is suggested between Jonah and Christ; and the reference to this type, prominently presented in Matt. 12: 40, comp. 16:4; Mk. viii. 8:11 f.; Luke 11:29 ff.; John 12:23 f., is only a single, though the most important instance [Moment]. Indeed it is according to the intimation of these passages, that as the sparing of Jonah in the belly of the fish and his subsequent preaching of repentance (Luke 11:32), were a sign to the Ninevites, which must bring to them faith or judgment, so the preservation of Jesus in the grave, and the continued proclamation of the Risen One, are a sign to the world of judgment and of faith, by which the separation of mankind proceeds continually with inexorable power. Other relations can still be discovered without forced interpretation. It seeins to me particularly worth considering how the voluntary labors of the ship’s crew (1:13) did not gain the shore; there was no peace until the sin-offering consecrated by God was offered.

                [The mission and vocation of Israel are set forth in Is. 42:6: “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” “ This description is entirely appropriate, not only to the Head, but to the Body also, in subordination to him. Not only the Messiah, but the Israel of God was sent to be a mediator or connecting link between Jehovah and the nations.” Israel was “a covenant race or middle people between God and the apostate nations.” (Alexander on Isaiah, chap. 42:6) Jonah commissioned by God to preach against the great heathen city, Nineveh, is a type of Israel in his mission and vocation.                The book of Jonah contains no prediction of a direct Christian import. But he is, in his own person, a type, a prophetic sign of Christ. The miracle of his deliverance from his three (3) days of death in the body of the whale, is the expressive image of the resurrection of Christ. Our Saviour has fixed the truth and certainty of this type. Matt. 12:40.                      Further, the whole import of Jonah’s mission partakes of the Christian character. For when we see that he is sent not only to carry the tidings of the divine judgment, but also to exemplify the grant of the divine mercy to a great heathen city; that is, to be a preacher of repentance; and that the repentance of the Ninevites through his mission, brings them to know “a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness, and repenting Him of the evil (Jonah 4:2); – without staying to discuss whether all this be a formal type of the genius of the Christian religion, it is plainly a real example of some of its chief properties, in the manifested efficacy of repentance, the grant of pardon, and the communication of God’s mercy to the heathen world.” (Davison on Prophecy, pp. 200, 201.) – C.E.]

                [O.R. Hertwig’s Tables: Without prejudice to its historical sense, the following authors admit a symbolico-typical character of the Book:

(1.) Keil, Del., Baumg., Hengst.: Jonah is a type of Christ. (Also the Church Fathers, Marck and others, on account of Matt. 12:40.)

(2.) Kleinert: Jonah is the representative of Israel in his [Israel’s] prophetic vocation to the heathen world. – C.E.]

                IV. Date.

                Outline.

                [Prophet’s Commission to Preach Against Nineveh, & his Attempt to Evade it (vers. 1-3). Violent Storm Arises; Alarm of Sailors: Means Adopted for their Safety; Detection of Jonah; he is Thrown into the Sea, and is Swallowed by Fish (vers. 4-16). –C.E.] (Chapter 1)

                [Jonah’s Hymn of Thanksgiving & Praise for his Deliverance from Bowels of Fish. C.E.] (Chapter 2)

                [Renewal of Jonah’s Commission (vers. 1,2). His Preaching to Ninevites (vers. 3–4). Humiliation & Reformation of Ninevites (vers. 5-9.) Reversal of the Divine Sentence (ver. 10). –C.E.] (Chapter 3)

                [Jonah Repines at God’s Mercy to the Ninevites. God Employs a Palmchrist as a means to Reprove & Instruct him. –C.E.] (Chapter 4)

                MICAH. Introduction.

                1. Historical Situation and Date.

                2. The Person of the Prophet.

                3. Contents & Form of the Book:

                As Micah, compared with Isaiah, embraces a shorter space of time, so his horizon is locally more restricted. The breadth of view, sweeping over all history, with which the latter surreys the greatness and recognizes the importance of his time, and sheds the light of prophecy on all sides, over all nations over the distant islands of the Mediterranean, where, at that very time, Rome, the great city of the future, was building, and over the young Aryan peoples in the East, – indicating to them their place in the history of the world all this is foreign to our prophet. His gaze is fixed imperturbably on his own people, but within this field he moves with the greatest intensity.”

                [With this Dr. Pusey substantially agrees. After arguing plausibly that some portions of the book were spoken earlier, –ch. 4:1 ff. as early as the reign of Jotham,– he concludes: “At the commencement, then, of Hezekiah’s reign, he collected the substance of what God had taught by him, recasting it, so to speak, and retained of his spoken prophecy so much as God willed to remain for us. As it stands, it belongs to that early time of Hezekiah’s reign, in which the sins of Ahaz still lived on. Corruption of manners had been hereditary. In Jotham’s reign too, it is said expressly, in contrast with himself, the people wire still doing corruptly. Idolatry had, under Ahaz, received a fanatic impulse from the king, who at last set himself to close the worship of God. The strength of Jotham’s reign was gone, the longing for its restoration led to the wrong and destructive policy, against which Isaiah had to contend. such should not be the strength of the future kingdom of God. Idolatry and oppression lived on; against these, the inheritance of those former reigns, the sole residuum of Jotham’s might or Ahaz’ policy, the breach of the law of love of God and man, Micah concentrated his written prophecy” Introd. 10 Micha, p. 291.–TR.].

                [“Helingers, in his prophecy, among the towns of the maritime plain (the Shephēlah) where his birth-place lay. Among the few places in that neighborhood, which be selects for warning and for example of the universal captivity, is his native village, “the home he loved.” But the chief scene of his ministry was Jerusalem. He names it, in the be ginning of his prophecy, as the place where the idolatries, and with the idolatries, all the other sins of Judah were concentrated. The two capitals, Samaria and Jerusalem, were the chief objects of the word of God to him, because the corruption of each kingdom streamed forth from them. The sins which he rebukes are chiefly those of the capital. Extreme oppression, violence among the rich, bribing among judges, priests, prophets; building up the capital even by cost of life, or actual bloodshed; spoliation; expulsion of the powerless, women and children from their homes; coveteousness; cheating in dealings; pride. These, of course, may be manifoldly repeated in lesser places of resort and of judgment. But it is Zion and Jerusalem which are so built up with blood; Zion and Jerusalem which are, on that ground, to be ploughed as a field; it is the city to which the Lord’s voice crieth; whose rich men are full of violence; it is the daughter of Zion which is to go forth out of the city and go to Babylon. Especially they are the heads and princes of the people, whom he upbraids for perversion of justice and for oppression. Even the good kings of Judah seem to have been powerless to restrain the general oppression.” Dr. Pusey, Com. on Min. Prophets, p. 289 – TR.j

                If now we distribute his book, as is generally granted, into two obvious divisions: the prophetico-political, chaps. 1-4, and the ideal contemplative, chaps. 6, 7, then in the First division, discourse first, ch. 1, we see that he finds in the judgment immediately impending over Samaria the text for his threat, that the judgment will reach even to the gates of Jerusalem (1:9). Following immediately then, in ascending succession, the second discourse, chaps 2, 3, called forth by the sin, whicn can no longer be restrained, and security of the people, especially of the leaders among them, now breaking out openly everywhere, that Jerusalem herself shall become a stone-heap (3:12). Not until then can the Messiah come, amid great distress and necessity, from Bethlehem, as Micah proclaims at the culminating point of this division and of the whole book, namely, in the third discourse, chaps. 4, 5 To this external representation of guilt, penalty, and salvation, the Second division, chaps. 6, 7, adds the inner one. Here, in the form of a suit-at-law between God and his people, which ends first in painful certainty of the suffering soon to be experienced, but finally in the assured confidence of salvation at last, the whole depth of Israel’s mission, and his tangled ways woven out of grace and election, out of sin and forgiveness, are considered and exhibited in an evangelical light.” 

                [Dr. Pusey finds three main divisions in the book, chaps. 1-2; 3-5; 6-7. Further, he agrees in general with our author. This book has a remarkable symmetry. Each of its divisions is a whole, beginning with upbraiding for sin, threatening God’s judgments, and ending with promises of future mercy in Christ. The two later divisions begin again with that same characteristic Hear ye, with which Micah had opened the whole. The three divisions are also connected, as well by lessor references of the later to the former, as also by the advance of the prophecy.” “There is also a sort of progress in the promises of the three parts. In the first, it is of deliverance generally, in language taken from that first deliverance from Egypt. The second is objective, the birth of the Redeemer, the conversion of the Gentiles, the restoration of the Jews, the nature and extent of his kingdom. The third is mainly subjective, man’s repentance waiting upon God, and God’s forgiveness of his sins. Minor Prophets, p. 291. –TR.]

                As regards the form of the representation, Micah stands next to Isaiah in the force, pathos, freshness, and continuity of expression, and in the plastic choice of his words. In the arrangement of his thoughts, however, abrupt and fond of sharp contrasts, he reminds us more of his older contemporary, Hosea. The beautiful plan of his discourse is admirable. In the first division each of the three addresses falls into two symmetrical halves, whose subdivisions, again (cf. especially chaps. 4, 5), are for the most part regularly constructed. And in the second division also the structure of his thought is grounded on a beautiful and well defined numerical proportion.”  [Dr. Pusey’s characterization of Micah’s style is faithful and interesting. He has very elaborately investigated the Farieties and a laptations of his poetic rhythm, and compared them with other of the Minor Prophets, p. 232. –TR.]

                4. Position in the Organic System of Holy Scripture.

                 In the organic order of the Bible, and specially in the prophetic development of the Messianic theology, this book takes a fundamental position. Micah stands immovably within the inner sphere of the history of the Kingdom of Israel: Israel is the people chosen by God, with whom he has established a covenant from of old, and ratified it with an oath (7:20); in whom, from Egypt and the wilderness, he has glorified himself (6:4 ff.); to whom he gave a law which is altogether of a moral and spiritual character (6:6 ff.). This people have become alienated, not in part merely, but Judah also has followed the apostate northern kingdom (6:16), and a corruption of all divine institutions, offices, and orders has broken in (chaps. 2, 3), which has thoroughly devoured everything (7:1 ff.). On this historical ground grow the constituent elements of his proclamation: (1). The necessity of the judgment. God hardens himself against their cry of distress (3, 4), for idolatry must be rooted out (3:10 ff.), the false prophets must be put to shame (3:6 f.). From Zion he issues the judgment (1, 2), and unto Zion, in the centre of the kingdom, reaches the desolation by the enemy (1:9, 12; 2, 4; 3:12); the people are even swept away into captivity, and become a prey to the world-power, which is here designated by a name, typical from the earliest times, the name of Babylon (Babel), 4:10. But (2), the certainty of salvation is not thereby abrogated; it will come notwithstanding, and that through the Messiah, whose person, office, and name are described more directly and plainly than we often find them (5:1 ff.). Thus becomes established in Zion (3) the glorious kingdom of the future (iv. 4:1 f.), a kingdom of peace and blessing (4:3 f.; 5:4, 9; 7:14 ff.), founded in God’s pity and readiness to forgive sin (7:18 f.), on the ruins of the world-power (5:5 f.). Its members are the “dispersed of Israel,” the wretched, “the remnant (4:6 f.; 5:2, 6 ff.). But the heathen nations also, overcome by God’s glory and might (7:16; 4:3), will seek, instead of their oracles, the living God (4:2), for the separating barrier of the statute is far removed (7:11).

                Luther: The prophet Micah lived in the days of Isaiah, whose words he also quotes, as in the second chapter. Thus one may discern how the prophets who lived at the same time preached almost the same words concerning Christ, as if they had taken counsel with each other thereof. He is, however, one of the excellent prophets, who vehemently chastise the people for their idolatry, and brings forward always the future Christ and his kingdom. And he is for all a peculiar prophet in this, that he so plainly points out and names Bethlehem as the city where Christ should be born. Hence he was also in the O.T. highly celebrated, as Matt. 2:6 well shows. In brief, he rebukes, prophesies, preaches, etc. But in the end this is his meaning, that although everything must go to ruin, Israel and Judah, still the Christ will come who will restore all, etc.

                [Dr. Pusey: The light and shadows of the prophetic life fell deeply on the soul of Micah. The captivity of Judah, too, had been foretold before him. Moses had foretold the end from the beginning, had set before them the captivity and the dispersion, as a punishment which the sins of the people would certainly bring upon them. Hosea presupposed it; Amos foretold that Jerusalem, like the cities of its heathen enemies, should be burned with fire. Micah had to declare its lasting desolation. Even when God wrought repentance through him, he knew that it was but for a time; for he foresaw and foretold that the deliverance would be, not in Jerusalem, but at Babylon, in captivity. His prophecy sank so deep that, above a century afterwards, just when it was about to have its fulfillment, it was the prophecy which was remembered. But the sufferings of time disappeared in the light of eternal truth. Above seven centuries rolled by, and Micah reappears as the herald, not now of sorrow, but of salvation. Wise men from afar, in the nobility of their simple belief, asked, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? A king, jealous for his temporal empire, gathered all those learned in Holy Scripture, and echoed the question. The answer was given, unhesitatingly, as a well-known truth of God, in the words of Micah, For that it is written in the prophet. Glorious peerage of the two contemporary prophets of Judah! Ere Jesus was born, the Angel announced the birth of the Virgin’s Son, God with us, in the words of Isaiah. When He was born, he was pointed out as the Object of worship to the first converts from the heathen, on the authority of God, through Micah. –TR.]

                Outline:

                First Division. First Discourse. Chapter 1.

                Second Discourse. Chapters 2:1-3:12.

                Third Discourse.  Chapters 4 & 5.

                Second Division.  Fourth Discourse.  Chapters 6-7.

                NAHUM. Introduction.

                I. Contents and Form.

                The prophecy of Nahum announces the destruction of Nineveh, beheld in vision (chazon), in strains of a lofty, impetuous epinicion. This triumphal song is addressed partly, so far as it is consolatory and animating, to his countrymen; but chiefly, in its menacing character, to the powerful enemy. That Nineveh is the enemy is expressly declared in the course of the prophecy, chap. 2:9 (8) compared with chap. 3:18. In chap. 1:8, where it is first referred to, the allusion is intelligible, only as a retrospect to the statement in the title, 1:1, which, consequently, must be considered as an integrant part of the whole.

                Nineveh was to be destroyed, plundered, and entirely laid waste by a hostile army, and by the unfettering of the elements; and all those that were oppressed by her were to have rest from that time forth.

                The whole book is one connected prophecy. The transitions from one train of thought to another are interwoven into one another; they are often so joined by close antithesis, or verbal correspondence, that the conclusion of that which precedes is inseparably connected with the beginning of that which follows. The prophetic effusion flows on continually from beginning to end, without distinct sections, pauses, or divisions into strophes. Yet there is . no defect in the internal arrangement. In the exordium (i. 1-6), the prophet sets out, not from a present historical event, nor even from the event seen by him in vision; but with a lemma borrowed from the Torah: “God is a jealous God and an avenger; ” which he works into a grand description of God’s glory as a judge (comp. 1:4). Connected with this by the immediately annexed intermediate thought (ver. 7), that the avenging Jehovah is good to them that trust in Him, is the announcement, by way of inference, of the destruction of Nineveh, (1:8-16), which finally ends in a sentence of judgment, delivered prophetically in the stricter sense (vers. 12–14). With this is connected, passing over another intermediate thought (2:1), relating to Israel, the description of the catastrophe (2:2-11); differing from the announcement by the fact that while the latter is expressed throughout in the future (‘syk, ‘shbr, y`sch), now the whole scene, viewed as real and present before the eyes of the prophet, is described by preterits and participles (lbtzu, nsym, `lh). He sees the besieging army before the city, the armor glittering in the light of the sun (vers. 2-4); in the city he beholds wild confusion (vers. 5, 6); he sees the flood break in with its overflowing waters (7-9 a), the city abandoned and laid waste (9 b-11).

                To the description is directly added, as it were, an elegy over the ruins, lamenting, of course, less in sympathy with Nineveh, than over the wickedness which caused such ruin. An alternating surge of motives, and of further descriptions of the catastrophe and its con sequences follows from 2:12-3:19. 2:12-14 gives mainly the fundamental thoughts of this epilogue: (a.) Nineveh was a robber; (b.) She is destroyed by God from the earth. Both these thoughts are thereupon farther carried out: (a.) in 3:1-4; (b.) in 3:5-7; (c.) 3:8–12 presents a new motive; its destruction is certain, and resistance hopeless; even the powerful No Amon fell. And as it is hopeless, so also (d.), it is helpless, 12,13. This thought is carried out in a two-fold form, vers. 14,15, a,b; let Nineveh arm herself as she may, still she must be destroyed, 15c-17; however unnumbered her troops may be, yet they must vanish away. To this is joined the epilogue, vers. 18,19, which comprises the fundamental thoughts of the whole: Nineveh, the orpressor, is irrecoverably destroyed; and the oppressed do not mourn, but are comforted.

                Even from the summary of the contents we might arrive at the conclusion that the diction would be stirring and vivacious. Indeed, Nahum of all the prophets has the most impassioned style; and in none is found the change of numbers, of persons addressed, and of suffix-relations, with such frequency and immediateness as in him. At the same time his language has wonderful energy and picturesque beauty. The painting does not embrace merely single rhythms (2:5) and groups of words (2:11), but whole series (3:2, 3; 2:10, and a number of other places); and in connecting his thoughts he shows, with all his vehemence, great and varied skill. Consider the beautiful double parallelisms (comp. 3:4); the rhythmical prominence of a single definitive word, or of a quite small group of words, 1:10 (‘ukelu),14 (ki qalloha), 2:1; 3:17 (‘ayyam); the fuller statement of two fundamental thoughts briefly premised (1:7,8; (shtph, tzrh), carried out, vers. 9,10; 1:12–14: (hnny, trph), carried out, 3:1 ff., 5 ff., etc.) Lowth says with propriety: “Ex omnibus minoribus prophetis nemo videtur זquare sublimitater ardorum et audaces spiritus Nahumi. Adde quod ejus vaticinium integrum ac justum est poכma. Exordium magnificum est et plane augustum ; apparatus ad excidium Ninivז ejusque excidit descriptio et amplificatio ardentissimis coloribus exprimitur et mirabilem habet evidentiam et pondus.” It has been here and there the custom, from a somewhat docetic view of the Scriptures, to esteem lightly the attention bestowed upon the form adopted by the sacred writers as something superfluous, relatively useless. We are not to reason about an opinion that is based upon a natural defect, and whoever has in general a sense of method, will not allow himself to be robbed of the enjoyment he finds in contemplating the forms of God’s Word. (Comp. Prov. 25:11.) However, he who would like to copy after a good exemplar, can refer, not merely to the beauty of Luther’s translation of the Bible, but also to the express model of the Reformer, whom certainly no one will accuse of humanizing the Scriptures. Compare, for example, his remark on Hab. 1:8: “Here we see how elegantly and accurately the prophets can speak, how briefly and yet amply they express a thing. For what another would have said in bare words, thus: The Babylonians will come and destroy Jerusalem: Habakkuk says with many words, and beautifies everything, and adorns it with similes,” etc.

                2. Author and Date.

                3. Position in the Organism of Scripture.

                4. Fall of Nineveh. Fulfillment.

                Over 500 years, Nineveh, the great city of God (comp. Jonah 1:3; 3:2), was, under its powerful rulers, the terror of Western Asia. Through successive generations it had been built into an immense city: dynasty after dynasty had transmitted its dreaded name, by magnificent colossal edifices, to after ages. Upon an artificial terrace by the Tigris towered, not far from the tower of Ninus, the great northwest palace founded by Sardanapalus, (Assur-idanni-pal ; according to Rawlinson, Assur-izir-pal); in the southwest corner, in still fresh magnificence, stood the residence, which Assarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib, had built from the ruins of the central palace formerly erected by Salmanassar I, son of Sardanapalus and conqueror of Benhadad and Jehu. Farther to the northeast, on the KhosrSu, which flows with a swift current from the Maklub mountains into the Tigris, and frequently with sudden floods overflows the plains, were the great structures of Khorsabad, the monuments of Sargon, who, during the conquest of Samaria, succeeded Salmanassar IV; finally, near the mouth of the Khosr-Su stood the edifices of Sennacherib and Assurbanipalus, the son of Assarhaddon, at Kouyunjik. The wide plain of the city, covered with masses of houses, streets, and pasture-grounds, was strongly fortified. On the west and south the Tigris and the Zab (Lycus) inclosed it: on the east and north moats were dug, which almost equaled the rivers in width. A surrounding wall protected the main part of he city; the sluices of the canals were defended by well-guarded gates and citadels. Within surged an immense traffic; Nineveh’s reputation as a commercial city rivaled that of Tyre Ez. 27:23), and immense riches were hoarded up in it, acquired, to be sure, not by commerce alone, but also by the system of predatory war and contributions [levied in time of war] carried to the highest degree (comp. 2:13).

                But even this height of human grandeur must be brought low by the will of God. In the midst of it and during its full bloom, the threatening of Nahum was denounced against [war Nahums Wort der Stadt in, s Angesicht geschleudert] the city, and it did not wait long for its fulfillment. East of Assyria, at the same time that the Aryan Romans were laying the foundation of their city and of universal dominion, on the banks of the Tiber, in the extreme west, the Aryan tribes, the Medes and Persians, who were about to wrest the reins of Asiatic dominion from the hands of the enervated Semites of the east, aspired to power.

                After these nations had served the Assyrians a long time, –and still in the time of Salmanassar they were the vassals of that power (2nd Kings 17:6)– occurred, as it appears, the catastrophe of Sennacherib before Jerusalem, which furnished the final occasion for Deioces (Ajis-dahaka = Astyages, devouring serpent), the King of the Medes, one year after that catastrophe, to shake off the oppressive yoke. Sennacherib may nevertheless, as the monuments (against Tob. 1:21) prove, have reigned after that disaster seventeen years, and undertaken numerous expeditions; and even after him Assarhaddon, who maintained the city in a highly flourishing condition, may still have been a powerful king. The statement of Josephus, according to which the decline of the Assyrian power dates from the annihilation of its army before Jerusalem, still maintains its accuracy; for the “disperser” had become free; and though Assarhaddon continued to call himself the King of Media, it was an empty pretension. The Assyrians were no longer successful in subjecting the Medes. Already Deioces, the successor of Phraortes (Frawartish), began to tear away large fragments from the kingdom, and he ventured even an attack upon the central province, which was, however, repelled. In the south the Egyptians, whose country the Assyrian kings, since the time of Sargon, were fond of designating as their province, asserted with energy their independence under Tirhaka, and Assurbanipal, son of Assarhaddon, had only trifling success against them. Yea, under Psammetichus they began to enter Asia victoriously. Savage bands of entirely foreign hordes (the Scythians), passed through burning and laying waste the hither Asiatic countries (comp. Introd. to Zeph. 4); and although their invasion was at first productive of advantage to Assyria, inasmuch as Phraortes, the successor of Cyaxares, was obliged to turn away his forces from Nineveh against them, yea to enter into a kind of alliance with the chief Khan of the Scythians for twenty-eight years, still the country of Assyria suffered harm from them, and its power was more and more weakened. A still more dangerous enemy, in their own land and of their own race, arose under the encouragement of Media. Babylon, which before Nineveh, had maintained the ascendency in Hither Asia, made efforts from time to time to regain its ancient glory; but it had always again (and a short time before by Sennacherib and Assarhaddon) been defeated.

                Now the time for independence appeared to have arrived. Whilst Cyaxares, by the wars which he prosecuted, surrounded Nineveh on the north, in a crescent, with his conquests, Nabopolassar (in Abyd., Eus., “Busalossor”; in Ktes., Diod. “Belesys”), whom the Assyrian king, in the days of the Assyrian oppression, had sent to hold Babylon, had taken advantage of the rebellious disposition of the people, drawn them into his plans, and made preparations to revolt. The complete overthrow of the Assyrian authority was an essential condition of the kingdom which he intended to found. For this there was need of Media. Cyaxares was still involved in war with Lydia; but an eclipse of the sun in broad daylight, which terrified the combatants, contributed to the success of Nabopolassar’s plans of mediation. Cyaxares made peace with the Lydians and an alliance with the Babylonians against the Assyrians, which was sealed by the marriage of his daughter, Amunia, with Nebuchadnezzar (in Herod. “Labynetus”), the son of Nabopolassar. Nebuchadnezzar appears from this time forward as the colleague of his father. [Whether, as from the notices of Ktesias in Diodorus and from Nicolaus Dam. it seems to follow, and as Niebuhr assumes, the Babylonian [king] entered into a feudal relation to Media, cannot from the evidently unreliable character of these sources be determined. Duncker doubts it. However, on this supposition, it would be easily explained how, on the one hand, Herodotus ascribes to Cyaxares alone the conquest, and how Berosus also mentions only Babylonian auxiliaries, whilst, on the other hand, besides Ez. 32 Abydenus also, Alexander Polyhistor and the Jewish sources external to the Bible assign the conquest to the Babylonians.]

                The assault was made. In Nineveh reigned Assuridilil III, the indolent son of Assurbanipalus (Oppert; Spiegel according to H. Rawlinson 1860: “Assur-emed-ilin;” Brandis according to H. Rawlinson, 1864: “Assur-irik-ili-kin;” Syncellus according to Berosus, Abyd., Alex. Poly h.: “Sarakos = Assarak.”) Notwithstanding the siege was no easy task. The king had at the approach of the enemy, collected all his active forces into the wide plain of the city. When Ktesias relates that they continued to be collected for three years, his statement is not incredible, in view of the great strength of the city. The silence of Herodotus is no reason to the contrary, since in our text of Herodotus, it is proved from Aristotel., Hist. Anim., ed. Becker, 601, that there is a hiatus just at the determinative passage. Niebuhr thinks that, judging from the remains of the fortifications, it was impossible for the siege-engines of the ancients to effect a capture. Three times was severe defeat brought upon the besieging army by the Assyrians sallying forth; and with difficulty did Nabopolassar, whose crown was at stake, succeed in holding the Medes to the siege. Soon the Assyrians abandoned themselves, in their camp pitched before the gates, to negligent rejoicing on account of their victory (comp. 1:10); then they were attacked in the night by the besiegers and driven back to the walls. The king gave, in his despondency, the chief command to his brother-in-law, Salaemenes; but fortune had changed. Salaemenes with his troops was routed and driven into the Tigris (comp. at 3:3). But the city itself was still uninjured, and in vain did the enemy encamp before the gates. Then it came to pass, in the spring of the third year, that other powers interfered. The river became “an enemy to the city” (Ktes.); comp. at 2:7; 1:8, 10. The inundation occurring suddenly, was more violent than it had ever been: the mighty flood broke down in one night the walls on the river to a great extent. The king despaired of saving his life. Already had he sent his family to the north; now he shut himself up with all his treasures in the royal citadel and burned himself with them.“Of old the funeral pile was erected; yea, for the king it was prepared deep and large: it was prepared with fire and much wood, and the breath of God, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it.” (Is. 30:33.) An immense booty of gold and silver was carried from the city to Ecbatana and Babylon. The princes of the Medes caused the battlements of the inner walls around their castles to be covered with gold and silver plates made from it. The princes of Babylon adorned the temple of Belus with it. (Comp. at 2:10.) The plundered city was abandoned to the flames. It is evident from the ruins that both Khorsabad and Nimrud were sacked and then set on fire. (Bonomi.)

                Thus was Nineveh overthrown. Assyria lies buried there with all its people; round about are their graves, all of them are slain and fallen by the sword; they have made their graves deep there below.” (Ex. 32:22 f.) Panic fear kept the people of the vicinity a long time far from the ruins. Xenophon found still in their mouths gloomy traditions of the destruction of the great city, whose ruins he saw: the interposition of the Deity, whether by an eclipse, or by a fearful thunderstorm, was fully believed by them. Anab. III. iv. 8-12. It seems that even the eclipse, which, to the ruin of Nineveh, had put an end to the Lydian war, was laid hold of by the popular belief, as it was by the prophets, in this import of it. In later times the Parthians erected castles over the ruins. Tacitus is acquainted with Ninus as an existing fortification. (Ann., xii. 13, comp. also Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 16.) But if this fortress ever had any importance, Lucian could not have written: (Hē men Ninos apolōlen ēdē, kai ouden ichnos eti loipon autēs, oud’ an eipēs hopou pot’ ēn.) (Episkopountes) Compare Nah. 3:17.   

            The emperor Heraclius gained, A. D. €27, the great victory over Rhazates on the field of its ruins. (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xlvi.) Benjamin of Tudela found again, A. D. 1170, on its site, many villages and castles. But about A. D. 1300 it is again asserted ihat Nineveh is entirely destroyed. Thus it remained long forgotten. Bochart (Phaleg., vi. 20, p. 284) states that the learned endeavor in vain to determine its situation. “Immensa urbs ac fere inxuperabilis per multa secula diruta jacet; imperii olim amplissimi munimenta, splendoris regiique apparatus domicilia hodierno die diffudit aratrum, aut seduli accolז, qui vias per medias ruinas sequuntur, conculcant. Verno tempore nunc aggeres graminibus se vestiunt omniaque collium ab ipsa natura perfectorum jugo tam similia sunt, ut Niebuhrius quז munimenta transgressus esset, Alossulce demum acceperit.” (Tuch, p. 55 f.) The spirit of inquiry, during the last decades, has reanimated the dust of the past for a witness of the truth of God’s Word. “Qui viderit ruinas Nineves et positam eam omnibus in exemplum, exravescet et mirabitur. Hieronymus, Ad Nah. 3:7.

                That the siege and conquest described above are predicted by Nahum cannot be doubted The strange hypothesis of Kalinsky that Nahum foretells two conquests: the one, chap. 2, related by Ktesias-Diodorus; the other, chap. 3, by Herodotus, scarcely requires mention.

                More difficult, however, is the fixing of the time when the conquest took place. It was for a time considered settled that it should be placed in the year 606. (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici,  p. 269; Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 273; O. Strauss, p. lxxv. ; Duncker, p. 303.) We consider this date the most probable, even after the antagonistic opinion of Keil.

                In favor of this first of all is the synchronism of the Biblical statements. If in the time of Josiah a king of Assyria is still mentioned (2nd Kings 23:29), it follows that Nineveh could not have been destroyed before Josiah’s death in 609. If Jeremiah (ch. 25) enumerates, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the kingdoms of the world which were still to be destroyed, and does not mention Assyria among them, then its destruction cannot fall after 605.

                Further, the more authentic sources of Jewish literature are in favor of this date. Tobias becomes blind in the year 710 (Clinton), and lives still after this one hundred years (ch. 14 gr.); and yet Nineveh was not destroyed until after his death. The Seder Olam Rabba states (ch. 24 comp. the parallels from other Rabbinical writings in Meyer’s Observations on the Seder, p. 1131), that Nebuchadnezzar in his first year [consequently (comp. Jer. 25:1), immediately before the date of the passage from Jeremiah mentioned above] destroyed Nineveh.

                Finally, the chronology of profane writers also favors this date. “According to Herodotus the conquest falls after the Lydian war of Cyaxares (i. 106). This war was terminated after the tenth of September, 610, by a treaty of peace. The armies of the allies, therefore, could not appear before Nineveh before the spring of 609. In the third year of the siege the city was taken (Diodorus, ii. 27); the capture was facilitated by the overflowing of the river, and must consequently have taken place in the spring. When the capture took place, Nabopolassar was still living, and took possession of the Assyrian territory situated on this side of the Tigris (Alex. Polyh. in Syncellus, p. 396 ed. Dind.). But Nabopolassar died in January 604, according to the Astronomical Canon. It can, therefore, be only a matter of doubt whether the capture occurred in 606 or 605. Since, however, Nebuchadnezzar, in the year 605, defeated Necho at Carchemish and pursued him as far as Syria, where he was informed, first that his father was sick, and then that he was dead (Jos., Ant., x. 11, 1), the capture of the city must have already taken place in 606.” (Duncker.)

                This last reason Keil has attacked. Both his arguments against it, which he has drawn from the state of affairs, are unimportant. That Cyaxares, soon after the termination of the Lydian war, set out against Nineveh, has, according to our representation of circumstances given above, nothing surprising; but on the contrary it was quite natural. Nabopolassar had brought about a peace, in order to bring the Mede into the field against Nineveh as soon es possible; for to him delay was dangerous. Nor is it at all improbable, that soon after the fall of Nineveh, the son of Nabopolassar, eager for war, led his troops elated with victory against the Egyptian Necho, vanquished him and pursued him a great distance. The third objection is of greater importance. An eclipse of the sun, which, according to the statement of Herodotus, was the occasion of terminating the Lydian war, cannot be established on the 30th of September, 610, but only on the 8th of May, 622, or on the 28th of May, 585. The last date cannot come into consideration; therefore that treaty of peace may be transferred to the year 622, and the capture of Nineveh may fall nearer to this date than to 605. However the eclipse of the sun of September 30, 610, according to Oltmanus for those countries concerned, was not quite total, yet nearly so: only a fiftieth part of the disk of the sun remained uneclipsed. (Ideler, Chronol., i. 209 ff.) And even if the computation of certain English astronomers should be correct, that the eclipse of the sun of that date did not touch Hither Asia, but went further to the east (Nieb , p. 48), it would only compel us to seek the battlefield eastward from Asia Minor. And considering the ambiguity of the expression of Herodotus (“the day was turned to night,”) the possibility is not at all excluded, that instead of an eclipse of the sun, the reference is to one of those sudden obscurations of the atmosphere, which often occur in those countries. (Diu Cass., lxvi. 22 ff.; Plin., Ep., vi. 20. Also in Matt. 27:45, the statement does not refer to an eclipse of the sun; for the Passover fell at the time of the full moon.) At all events the argument, which would put in the place of an accord of so many consistencies, a sum of as many difficulties and contradictions, is neither evident enough nor at all adequate to overthrow the synchronism of Biblical and profane writers given above. The date computed by Seyffarth for 626 (in the appendix to the German translation of Layard’s Nineveh and its Remains, p. 476), entirely fails.

                Outline:

                Chapter I. Sublime Description of Attributes & Operations of Jehovah, with a view to

inspire His People with Confidence in His Protection (vers. 2-8). Assyrians addressed & described (vers. 9-11). Their Destruction together with Deliverance of Jews connected with that Event (vers. 12-15).

                Chapter II. Description, Conquest, Plundering, & Destruction of Nineveh. Chap. 1:15-1: 14 (Heb. Bib,   chap. 2)

                Chapter III. Prophet resumes  Description of Siege of Nineveh (vers. 1-3); traces it to her Idolatry as its cause (ver. 4); repeats Divine Denunciations introduced chap. 2:13 (vers. 5-7); points her to the once celebrated, but now desolate Thebes (vers. 8–10), declaring that such should likewise be her Fate; calls upon her ironically to make every Preparation for her Defense, assuring her that it would be of no avail (vers. 14–15); and concludes by contrasting her former prosperous with her latter remediless State. C.E.]

                HABAKKUK. Introduction.

                I. Contents and Form.

                The first part of this book, chaps. 1 & 2, contains a dialogue between God and the prophet, which, not only by its form, but also by the pure elevation of its style, is closely connected with Micah 6 & 7. It takes from the empirical present only its startingpoint, in order to exhibit immediately the great course of coming events, according to its nature, as an embodiment of the fundamental ideas of the kingdom of God. The dialogue treats, in two gradations, of God’s plan with Israel and with the heathen secular power, which is here pointed out with clear precision as the Chaldaean, 1:6. Israel’s sin must be punished by a severe and powerful judgment, and the scourge is already raised, which will fall upon the generation living at present (1:1-11). But it is a revelation of the righteousness of Jehovah, which is to be executed, and which will strike the destroyer as well as every sinful being upon earth. At the last the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah and keep silence before Him. With this the prophet consoles believers (1:12-2:20). As in Micah, so here also the dialogue falls into a hymn artistically constructed after the manner of the Psalms (chap. 3), which, according to the model of the old sacred national songs, and in the form (which from these has become customary) of a wonderfully glorious theophany, celebrates the judgment of God upon the heathen, and, in connection with it, the salvation of Israel.

                By the liturgical additions at the beginning and the end this hymn was appointed for public performance in the temple; as may be seen also from the recurrence of the Selah, which is characteristic of liturgical hymns.

                As concerns the form of the prophetical language of this book, “it is classical throughout, full of rare and select words and turns, which are to some extent exclusively his own, whilst his view and mode of presentation bear the seal of independent force and finished beauty. Notwithstanding the violent rush (which is yet more regular than in Nahum) and lofty soaring of the thoughts, his prophecy forms a finely organized and artistically rounded whole.” (Delitzsch.) But the lyric ring of the language throughout, in which he unites the power of Isaiah and the tender feeling of Jeremiah, is peculiar to himself.

                [Keil, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 414: “The prophecy of Habakkuk is clothed in a dramatic form, man questioning and complaining, God answering with threatening. It announces as nearest of all, the impending fearful judgment by the instrumentality of the Chaldaeans on the theocracy because of its prevailing moral corruption (chap. 1); and next to this, in a fivefold woe, the downfall of this arrogant, violent, God-forgetting, and idolatrous offender (chap. 2); and it concludes with the answer of the believing Church to this twofold divine revelation, that is to say, with a prophetico-lyric echo of the impressions and feelings produced in the prophet’s mind –(*1) by these two divine relations when pondered in the light of the Lord’s great doings in times past [ch. 3] (*2).”

                “(*1) Comp. the admirable development of the contents of this prophecy, and of its organic articulation as it forms an indivisible whole, in Delitzsch, Comm. There is now no more need of refuting the contrary opinions (proceeding from utter want of understanding) of Kalinsky, p. 145 ff.; of Friedrich in Eichhorn, Allg. Biblioth., X. p. 420 ff.; of Horst, Visioner Hab., pp. 31–32; of Rosenmūller, of Maurer, and others, that the book contains various dis courses of various dates. The same may be said of the assertion of Hamaker, p. 16 ff., that the first discourse is only a fragment.

                (*2) Hence it leans in manifold ways on the older songs and psalms, and reproduces their thoughts (Deut. 33:2; Judg. v. 4,5; Ps. 68:8,9), but especially on Ps. 77:16-21; comp. Delitzsch, Hab., p. 118 ff.” –C.E.]

                II. Date.

                III. Author.

                IV. Place in Organism of Scripture.

                Outline.

                Chapter I. The Prophet commences by setting forth the Cause of the Chaldaean Invasion, which forms the Burden of his Prophecy. This Cause was the great Wickedness of the Jewish Nation at the Time he flourished (vers. 2–4). Jehovah is introduced as summoning Attention to that Invasion (ver. 5). The Prophet describes the Appearance, Character, and Operations of the Invaders (vers. 611). –C.E.)

                Chapters I. 1:12-2:20. [The Prophet expostulates with God on Account of the Judgment, which threatens the  Annihilation of the Jewish People (chap. 1 vers. 12-17). The waiting Posture of the Prophet (chap. 2 ver. 1). The Command to commit to Writing the Revelation which was about to be made to Him (ver. 2). Assurance that the Prophecy, though not fulfilled immediately, will certainly be accomplished (ver. 3). The proud and unbelieving will abuse it; but the believing will be blessed by it. The Prophet then depicts the Sins of the Chaldaeans, and shows that both general Justice and the special Agencies of God’s Providence will surely overtake them with fearful Retribution. –C.E.]

                Chapter III.  Title and Introduction (vers. 1,2). The Prophet represents Jehovah as appearing in glorious Majesty on Sinai (vers. 3,4). He describes the Ravages of the Plague in the Desert (ver. 5). The Consternation of the Nations (vers. 6-10). Reference to the Miracle at Gibeon (ver. 11). Results of the Interposition of God on Behalf of his People (vers. 12-15). Subject of the Introduction resumed (ver. 16). The Prophet asserts his Confidence in God in the midst of anticipated Calamity. Parallels to this Ode: Deut. 33:2-5; Judges 5:4,5; Ps. 68:7,8; 77:13-20; 114; Is. 63:11-14. –C.E.]

                ZEPHANIAH. Introduction.

                1. Author and Date.

                2. Character of the Time.             

                3. Summary of Contents. On looking over this prophecy we discover at once, as its chief objects, both the fundamental problems of all prophetic anouuncement, viz., the great day of judgment, to the description of which the first chapter is devoted, and the salvation connected with it, the announcement of which forms the subject of the third chapter from the eighth verse onward. Thus the external structure of the whole book is easily surveyed. It is divided into six parts, of which each one separately has a very evident connection:

1. Exordium, 1:1-6. Announcement of Judgment of World, & Reason of Judgment upon Israel, arising from Evil Condition of Present.

II. Description of Judgment, 1:7-18.

 (a) In Reference to its Objects, 7-13.

 (b) In Reference to its Dreadfulness, 14-18.

III. Exhortation to Seek God, 2:1-3.

IV. Announcement of Judgment upon Heathen Nations, 2:4-15.

V. Repeated Description of Remediless Misery in Jerusalem, 3:1-7.

VI. Promise of Salvation, 3:8-20.

(a) Salvation of Heathen following Judgment, 8-10.

(b) Purification of Israel, 11-13.

(c) Salvation of Israel, 14-20.

                It is now a question whether these parts, connected in themselves, but in relation to each other very much disunited, stand related to one another by an internal connection. Exegeteg place as the foundation of the collective view the division into chapters, and thus obtain three great divisions, without, however, establishing thereby a connection of the whole : the incoherence of the parts continues to exist in the separate chapters. Compare e.g., the summary of contents which Delitzsch gives on the ground of the division into chapters, at the place cited, p. 494. Strauss combines chapters 2 and 3; Keil divides the book into three sections: 1; 2:7-3:6; 3:8-20; Hitzig, 1, 2, 3:1-13, 14-20. However these are only imperfect remedies and partly not even conformable to the purpose. Unless we are willing to consider the prophecy a collection of fragments, to which, however, the immediate impression as well as the beautiful coherence of the beginning and the end is opposed, the attempt to seek for an internal thread of connection for all the parts is required, and we will thereby have to put the division into chapters out of the question.

                In the first place it is evident, that the brief exhortation to seek God while there is still time, (2:1 ff.), is naturally and self-evidently connected as a hortatory conclusion to the threatening of judgment (chap. 1), and that we must consequently limit the extent of the first great division to 1:1-2:3, to the announcement, reason, description of the judgment and exhortation.

                Now how is chapter 2:4 ff. related to it? It refers to a series of devastations of foreign lands: Philistia, Moab, and Ammon are to be laid waste; after that the remnant of the children of Israel are to enter into their possessions. Destruction is also to come upon Cush and Nineveh. And certainly the prophet, in this description, does not follow the march of a definite historical catastrophe like Amos, who perhaps has before his eyes the military expeditions of the Assyrians, and Jeremiah, who has before him those of Nebuchadnezzar (chap. 25); but the heathen nations are grouped together according to the order of the cardinal points of the heavens, west and east, south and north. The first pair (Philistia, Moab = Ammon), represent the neighboring nations; the second pair (Cush, Nineveh), represent the distant powers of the world; they stand representatively for heathen nations generally (comp. on 2:4 if.), for it is also expressly declared to these representative nations (v. 11), that the prophecy is intended to be really universal in its character.

                Now this announcement of judgment seems mainly to be a simple continuation of the description of the day of judgment in chap. 1. But the execution of these judgments upon the heathen (3:6,7), is urged as a reason that Jerusalem should have changed for the better; put she continues to sin still far worse. And if the remnant of Israel is to enter (2:7, 11) upon the possession of the desolated lands of the heathen, who had been destroyed (2.4 ff.), it is plain, that a catastrophe, which is no other than the judgment upon Israel, must be placed between the restoration of this remnant and that state of impenitence, which continues in Jerusalem after the desolation of these lands (3:6,7). Accordingly 2:4 ff. cannot be the amplification of the judgment upon Israel; but it, together with 3:1 ff., presupposes it.

                Accordingly both the parts, 2:4-18 and 1-7, are connected with a second great section, in such a way that the prophet announces a series of chastisements upon the heathen nations, whick find their climax in the destruction of Nineveh (comp. Introd. to Nahum); and which, although they are at the same time exhibitions of grace on the part of God toward Judah, (comp. Nah. 2:1), are nevertheless just as fruitless as the reproofs, exhortations, and threatenings of judgment, which He uttered and denounced against Israel himself (3:5). Accordingly, if the promise that the remnant should enter into the inheritance of the heathen, which is the necessary result, is to be fulfilled, Israel himself must first pass through the judgment. Neither 2:4 ff., nor 3:1 ff. speaks of this; therefore the day of judgment, which was described 1-2:3, can only be meant by it. And hence this second great division is connected with chap. 1 as a double statement of the reason, for it also begins with (ki): the day of judgment upon the wickedness [mentioned] 1:4-6 is coming 1:7; 2:3; for although Jehovah overthrows the heathen (2:4-18), yet Israel continues as he was (3:1-7). After 3:7, the discourse, if the logical connection, according to our occidental mode of thinking, were to be completed, might return to 1:7. This is a frequent method with the prophets, to begin with that which is threatened, and then follow with a statement of the reasons. (Comp. above, p. 3, at the end.)

                Instead of the repetition of chap. 1 the further progress of the prophecy, which, consequently, according to the logical connection of the whole, is properly connected with [and resumes] the conclusion of the first part, 2:3, is, in the third division, 3:8-20, immediately joined with 3:7. After the separate judgments 2:4 ff., which fall upon the heathen severally in their own land, these same nations are assembled once more, in order that in a last great decisive battle with Jehovah their power may be broken, 3:8; then they come into the kingdom of God (treten sie zum Reiche Gottes hinzu), iii. 3:9 f.. Judah purified by the judgment, chap. 1, and his remnant inherits the promise: God is in the midst of him and his prisoners are restored (3:11-20).

                The whole structure [Gesammtzusammenhang] of the prophecy is accordingly closely modeled after that of Obadiah: (1) Judgment, 1:1-2:3; (2) Moving cause, 2:4-3:7; (3) Salvation, 3:8-20. But it is evident that in the judgment there are several distinct parts [Momente]: (1) The immediately impending separate judgment upon the heathen nations, 2:4-18; (2) the final judgment upon the heathen, 3:8; (3) the judgment upon Israel, 1:7-14; 3:11. All three parts together form the great world judgment, which is presented to view, 1:2 f.; and in their totaliry they form the condition [Voraussetzung] of the salvation.

                4. Historical Relations of the Prophecy.

                5. Literary Character.

                6. Position in the Organism of Scripture.

                7. Literature.

                Outline.

                Day of Judgment.  Chapter 1:1-2:3.  The Universality of Judgment (vers. 2, 3): it will Destroy all Idolaters in Judah & Jerusalem (vers. 4-7): it will fall upon Sinners of every Rank (vers. 8-13): it will Burst Irresistibly upon all Inhabitants of Earth (vers. 14-18): Call to Conversion (chap. 2:1-3). –C.E.]

                Reasons.  Chap. 2:4-3:7.

                Salvation. Chapter 3:8-20.

                HAGGAI. Introduction.

                § 1. Person of the Prophet.         

                § 2. Occasion and Aim of the Prophecy. (* If this were the proper place for the discussion, it might be interesting to trace the relations subsisting between tha several discourses of the Prophets of the Restoration, which bear upon the Temple, e.g., how Haggai assumes the identity of the Second Temple and the Church of Christ, while Zechariah (6:12,13) seems to contradict him by asserting that the Messiah would Himself build the Temple of Jehovah, and Malachi resolves into full harmony these seeming discords of the Prophetic lyre by predicting that Jehovah would come to his Temple, and purify the sons of Levi (3:1-3). The subject is worthy of fuller consideration. *)

                § 3. The Book of the Prophet in Matter and Form. The Book of the Prophet Haggai consists of five addresses delivered to the Jewish people, within a period of about four months, in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, King of Persia. The first discourse (chap. 1:1-11) is one of reproof, expostulation, and warning, being designed to arouse the people from their religious apathy, and, in especial, from their indifference to the condition of the Temple, which was then lying desolate. The second discourse (contained in the section chap. 1:12–15), after a relation of the beneficial results of the first, holds out to them, in their returning obedience, the promise of God’s returning favor and of his aid in their work.   (*2 Nearly all the Commentators regard chap. 1 as comprising but one discourse, thus making the whole prophecy to consist of four. The following considerations will show that the passage chap. 1:12-15 should form & separate division, us containing a distinct address. (1.) Ver. 13 seems to indicate that a new message was delivered by Jehovah to Haggai (2.) As far as ver. 11 the words of the Prophet are objurgatory, thus giving a well-defined character to the discourse. His words in ver. 13 express approval and convey encouragement, they must therefore form the subject of a distinct message. The reason of the contrast is obvious. A complete change (described in ver. 12) had been effected in the disposisson of the people. Before they had been apathetic and careless. But now the rebukes and denunciations of the Prophet had excited in them that true fear of God whose earliest fruit is repentance (comp. ver. 14). Hence he was commissioned to assure them of God’s renewed favor. The brevity of the message as recorded, is accounted for on the assumption (probable upon all grounds) that Haggai, in accordance with the general usage of the Prophets, has given us a mere outline of his address. It is generally held that vers. 12-15 are intended merely to set forth the effects of the first message But it is to be remembered that the aim of the Prophet was not to write history, and that when he appears to be narrating, be is simply showing the occasions of his discourses, whose delivery was the sole object of his mission. *)       The third discourse (chap. 2:1-9), evoked by the despondency that had begun to affect some of the people, on account of the outward inferioris, of the present temple, predicts for it a glory far transcending that of its predecessor, since the treasures of all nations were yet to adorn the Church of the Messiah, of which it was the representative. The fourth discourse (chap. 2:10-19), teaches them, from the principles of the Ceremonial Law, that no amount of outward religious observance can communicate holiness, or secure acceptance with God and the restoration of his favor, the withdrawal of which had been so manifest in their late public and private distress. The fifth discourse assures the struggling community of their preservation in the midst of commotions which should destroy other nations, promising to its faithful rulers, represented by Zerubbabel, the special protection of their Covenant God.

                These outlines of his addresses the Prophet has arranged in regular chronological order carefully indicating the dates of their respective delivery. They are presented in a style, which, though lacking the poetical qualities of many of the earlier prophecies, is yet marked in various passages by great vivacity and impressiveness, to which, among other characteristics, the frequent use of interrogation (e.g., in chaps. 1:4, 9; 2:3, 12,13, 19) largely contributes. A striking peculiarity of the Prophet’s style has been remarked in his habit of “uttering the main thought with concise and nervous brevity, after a long and verbose introduction” (comp. chaps. 1:2; i. 1:12; 2:5; 2:19). In addition to these more obvious characteristics, we can discern both rhetorical and grammatical peculiarities natural to the declining period of the Hebrew language and literature. Of the former class is, for example, the frequent recurrence of favorite phrases: of the latter are such anomalous constructions as are found in chaps. 1:4, 6, 8,9; 2:3, 15,16, 18, to the critical discussion of which the reader is referred for fuller explanation.

                § 4. Special Works upon Haggai or upon the Prophets of the Restoration as a whole.

                Outline.

                First Address. Rebuke & Expostulation of People for their Neglect of Temple. Chapter I. 1-11.       

                Second Address. On Repentance of People, God’s Presence among Them is Promised.

Chapter 1:12-15.

                Third Address. Glory of Second Temple. Chapter 2:1-9.

                Fourth Address. Past Calamities accounted for; & Immediate Prosperity Announced.

Chapter 2:10-19.

                Fifth Address. Preservation of People in Convulsions that should Destroy Surrounding Nations. Chapter 2:20-23.

                ZECHARIAH. Introduction.

                1. Name and Personal Relations of Zechariah.

                2. Historical Background of his Prophecy.

                3. Style & Form of Book.

                4. Messianic Predictions.

                5. Contents of Book.

                6. Genuineness of Second Part.

                7. Alleged Influence of Persian Theology.

                8. Literature.     

                § 4. Messianic Predictions. It is an old remark that Zechariah is distinguished for his insight into the moral and spiritual meaning of the Mosaic economy, and his illustration of the Apostle’s statement that the law is a schoolmaster unto Christ. A great largeness and clearness of view is apparent even on a cursory inspection of his writings. His rebuke of formal fasting in ch. 7 is not nearly so eloquent as Isaiah’s treatment of the same theme in the fifty-eighth chapter of his prophecies, but it is every way as decided and vigorous. The universality of the commg dispensation is suggested again and again. It is not individuals merely, but many natione and far-off peoples who are to be joined unto the Lord The old boundaries of the covenant people are to be enlarged until they become coextensive with the limits of the habitable earth. See 2:11; 6:15; 8:20-23; 9:10; 14:9-16. The sacred inscription upon the tiara of the high priest, ‘Holiness to the LORD’, which proclaimed his entire consecration to the sacerdotal function, Zechariah sees engraved hereafter even upon the bells of the horses in token of the fact that all believers are to become a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and that, to such a degree that even the most ordinary functions of life shall be discharged in a religious spirit. (See 14:20.) Again, the reconstruction of the material Temple upon its old site is so far from satisfying his enlarged views that he passes at once to the true house of God, the Temple not made with hands, the glorious structure composed of living stones, built and inhabited by the Spirit of the living God. (See 6:13; 4:6). The golden candelabrum of the Tabernacle is to him not a mere ornament however brilliant, but the resplendent type of the city of God, precious to Jehovah as the apple of his eye, and shining from afar like a city set upon a hill, the means of its illumination being provided from ever fresh and imperishable sources. (See 4:1-12.) Himself a member of the priestly order, he looks forward to the time when the patriarchal type of Melchizedek shall be realized in the combination of regal and sacerdotal functions in one person. Not even the evangelical Prophet presents this instructive and consolatory thought with the clearness and emphasis of Zechariah. (See 4:13,14; 6:13.) Yet again, the union of the highest doctrines of grace with the most stringent ethical claims is given in a manner worthy of Paul. Over and over is it asserted that the Lord has chosen Jerusalem (1:17; 2:12; 3:2), a fact which is made the sole ground of her preservation, enlargement, and defense against all foes, visible and invisible; and yet he who asserts this sees between heaven and earth the flying roll inscribed with curses against all transgressors (5:2-4), and also lays down with sharp precision the immutable laws of justice, goodness, and truth, founded upon the recognition of man’s relations to his fellow-man, and their common relation to the one Maker and Father of all (7:8-10; 8:16,17). Once more, the fine conception of a joint observance of the Feast of Tabernacles by all families of the earth, represents the final issue of the world’s great pilgrimage, when the race of man, having concluded its march through the wilderness of error and trial, shall gratefully record the divine goodness in the new Exodus, and keep a perpetual memorial of this distinguishing mercy (14:16).

                But besides these general allusions and references to the coming dispensation, there are specific and unquestionable predictions of the one great person through whom they were to be accomplished. These are given not in a continuous succession, but, just as they were by the former Prophets, at different times, and in various relations according to the circumstances and object of the Prophet on any particular occasion. Each prediction answered a definite purpose when it was uttered, and the whole together serve admirably to supplement and complete the Messianic literature of the preexile period. These specific references are more frequent and emphatic than in any of Zechariah’s predecessors except Isaiah. They are six in number.

                1. The first one occurs in ch. 3:8, where Zechariah appropriates a name already used by Isaiah (4:2) and by Jeremiah (23:5; 33:15) for the same purpose –Branch. Jehovah declares that he will bring forth his servant, thus entitled, and, in close connection with this promise, asserts that the iniquity of the land will be removed in, one day.

                2. In ch. 6:12,13, the same promise is resumed and enlarged. The man whose name is –Branch. He will start from a lowly origin and build the Temple of Jehovah, not the mere material structure, but the true spiritual Temple composed of living stones. Not only will He sit in majesty upon a throne, but be a priest upon his throne, uniting in Himself the two distinct offices and so securing the perfect discharge of the functions of both.

                3. In ch. 9:9,10, the King reappears. His dominion is peaceful but universal, and shouts of triumph hail his coming. Yet that coming is marked by signs of lowliness and the passage presents the same combination so often found in Isaiah, of the absence of external signs of majesty with the reality of a world-wide power and influence.

                4. The next Messianic reference is found in the obscure and difficult eleventh chapter, where (vers. 12,13) the wages of the good shepherd are estimated at the contemptuous sum of thirty pieces of silver. “A goodly price,” says Jehovah, with certainly not unbecoming irony, “at which I was prized of them.” The New Testament (Matt. 27:9,10) leaves no doubt that here is a designed allusion to the price of the fearful treason of Judas and the subsequent disposal of the wages of unrighteousness.

                5. In ch. 12:10 is a still more remarkable delineation of the suffering Messiah, and a vivid statement of the connection between his death and the kindling of an earnest and genuine repentance in those who look upon Him as one whom they have pierced. It was fulfilled at Pentecost, and has been illustrated in the effects of the preaching of the crose sorrow.    ever since. The repentance thus wrought is not ineffectual, but results in forgiveness and holiness, as is shown in 13:1, which is the conclusion of the passage commencing at the tenth verse of the previous chapter.

                6. The last distinct reference to the coming Saviour (13:7), is perhaps the most striking in the entire range of prophecy. In it Jehovah is represented as calling upon the sword to awake against the man who is his fellow, where we are confronted with the two mysteries; that one sustaining such a relation should be subjected to such a doom, and that the Being who calls for and causes it, is Jehovah with whom he is so intimately united. The only explanation lies in the historical statement of the Evangelist, God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotton Son. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

                Thus is apparent the gradual progress of the disclosure. First, Jehovah’s lowly servant, Branch; then that servant as priest and king building Jehovah’s Temple; thirdly, as a meek and peaceful, but universal monarch; fourthly, a Shepherd, scorned, rejected, betrayed, and (by implication) slain; fifthly, his pierced form seen by faith a means of deep and general repentance attended by pardon and conversion; and lastly, the Fellow of Jehovah smitten by Jehovah himself, at once the redeemer and the pattern of his flock.

                Dr. Lange (Genesis, p. 40) finds in ch. x. 10:11 a representation of Christ as going before his returning people through the sea of sorrow, beating down the waves of the sea. But this is gained only by an arbitrary interpretation, at war with the connection, unsustained by usage and scarcely admissible even upon the theory of accommodation.

                § 5. Contents of Book.    It is very obvious on even a cursory inspection, that the book consists of two parts, the former of which (chaps. 1-8) contains mention of the dates at which its various portions were communicated, while the latter (chaps. 9-14) contains no dates at all. There are other and even more important points of difference, as will presently be seen, but this one is enough to indicate the occurrence of a break in the stream of prophetic utterance; the first part having been set forth in the earlier years of Zechariah’s activity, even before the completion of the Temple; the latter on the contrary having been delayed for several, possibly many years, as there is no internal indication in either its structure or its substance, that it was called forth by any particular juncture of circumstances in the condition of the people. The analogy of the Book of Isaiah suggests the opinion that the Prophet, having in the former part of his book communicated the revelations which bore immediately upon the duties and interest of his countrymen at the time, in the latter took a wider range, and set forth the future destiny of the Church in its lights and shades, in such a form as to be of equal benefit at all times and to all classes.

                                First Part.

This is determined by the several dates to consist of three distinct prophetic utterances.

                I. Chap. i. 1-6. These verses contain an introduction in the form of a solemn admonition enforced by an appeal to the experience of the fathers, who not only felt but acknowledged that Jehovah’s threatenings were not a vain thing but a formidable reality. The date is the eighth month of the second year of Darius, B. C. 515.

                II. Chaps. i. 7-vi. 15. Eight Night-visions followed by an Appendix, namely :

1. Man among Myrtles, or Successful Intercession for Covenant People (ch. 1:7-17).

2. Four Horns & Four Smiths, or Adequate Defender against every Assailant (ch. 1:18-21).

3. Man with Measuring Line, or Enlargement & Security of People of God (ch. 2).

4. Joshua High Priest before Angel of Jehovah, or Forgiveness of Sin & Coming of the Branch (ch. 3).

5. Candlestick & two Olive Trees, or Positive Communication of God’s Spirit & Grace (ch. 4).

6. Flying Roll, or Destroying Curse upon all Sinners (ch. 5:1-4).

7. Woman in Ephah, or Permanent Exile of Wicked (ch. 5:5-11).

8. Four Chariots, or Jehovah’s Judgments upon Heathen (ch. 6:1-8).

                Appendix. This Recites a Symbolical Action, the Crowning of Joshua, the High-priest, or the Functions of the Priest-King Whose name is Branch. The date of the whole series is the twenty-fourth (24th) day of the eleventh (11th) month of the second (2nd) year of Darius, B.C. 515.

                III. Chaps. 7 & 8. An answer to the inquiry of the People whether they should continue to observe the annual fasts which commemorated special calamities in their former experience. The Prophet first (ch. 7) rebukes their formalism and recounts the sins and sorrows of their fathers; and then (ch. 8) promises such blessings as will change their fasts into festivals and attract even the heathen to seek their fellowship. The prophecy was uttered in the fourth () day of the ninth (9th) month of the fourth (4th) year of Darius, B.C. 517, which is the last date mentioned in the book.

                Second Part.

This, as has been said, bears no date, and may have been, and probably was, delivered long after what is contained in the preceding chapters. It is divided into two oracles by the titles which head respectively chaps. 9 and 12. The general theme is the Future Destiny of the Covenant People.

                I. First Burden (chaps. 9-11).

This seems to outline the course of God’s providence toward His people as far as the time of our Saviour.

1. Judgment upon Land of Hadrach (9:1-8), or Syrian Conquests of Alexander the Great.

2. Zion’s King of Peace (9:9,10). Plainly Messianic.

3. Victory over Sons of Javan (9:11-17), or the triumphs of Maccabees.

4. Further Blessings of Covenant People (ch. 10). Their gradual increase in means & numbers under native rulers.

5. Rejection of Good Shepherd (ch. 11). A striking delineation of our Lord’s treatment by His own People.

                II. Second Burden (chaps. 12-14).

This carries forward the outlook upon the future even to the time of the end.

1. Israel’s Victory over Trials (12:1-9), or Triumph of Early Church over Persecuting Foes.

2. Repentance & Conversion (12:10; 13:1), or Power of Christ’s Death to Awaken & Renew.

3. Fruits of Penitence (13:2-6), as shown in Abolition of False Worship & False Prophecy which Stand for all Forms of Sin.

4. Sword against Shepherd & his Flock (13:7-9), or Christ is smitten by His Father, & His People Suffer also.

5. Final Conflict & Triumph of God’s Kingdom (ch. 14), or a General Survey of this Checkered Course from Beginning to End.

                Outline.

                 Part First. Utterances for Present Time.  Chapters 1-8.

                 I. Introduction.  Chapter 1:1-6. 

A. Call to Repentance (vers. 1-3).

B. Enforced by Appeal to Experience of their Fathers (vers. 4-6).

                II. Night Visions. Chapters  1:7-6:15.

`               Vision I. Man among Myrtles. Chapter 1:7-17.

A. Symbolical Representation of Tranquil Condition of Heathen World & Consequent Need of Divine Interference (vers. 7-11).

B. Intercession for Suffering & Desolate Judaea (vers. 12,13).

C. Assurances of Relief & Restoration (vers. 14-17).

                Vision II. Four Horns & Four Smiths.  Chapter 1:18-21.

A. Four Horns which scattered People of God (vers. 18,19).

B. Four Smiths which Cast Down these Horns (vers. 20,21).

                Vision III. Man with a Measuring Line. Chapter 2.

A. Man with a Measuring Line, & its Meaning (vers. 1-5).

B. Further Promises (vers. 6-13).

                Vision IV. Joshua High Priest before Angel  of Jehovah. Chapter 3:1-10.

A. Joshua Accused by Satan, but Forgiven (vers. 1-5).

B. Promise of Protection to High Priest, & also of Coming of Branch & its Blessed Results (vers. 6-10).

                Vision V. Candlestick with Two Olive Trees. Chapter 4.

A. Golden Candelabrum & its Two Oil Feeders (vers. 1-5).

B. Divine Grace the Source of Strength & Success (vers. 6-10).

C. Means by which that Grace is obtained (vers. 11-14).

                Vision VI. Flying Roll. Chapter 5:1-4.

A. Large Roll Flying Over Land (vers. 1,2).

B. It Contains & Executes a Destructive Curse (vers. 3, 4).

                Vision VII. Woman in Ephah. Chapter 5:5-11.

A. Prophet Sees  Ephah Going Forth (vers. 5,6 ).

B. Woman Thrust Down in it & Shut in (vers. 7,8 ).

C. Ephah Carried Away to Shinar (vers. 9-11).

                Vision VIII. Four Chariots . Chapter 6:1-8.

A. Four Chariots Drawn by Horses of Different Colors (vers. 1-4).

B. Explanation of their Meaning (vers. 5-8).

                Crown upon Joshua’s Head. Chapter 6:9-15.

A. Symbolic Action; Crowns on Joshua (vers. 9-11).

B. Its Meaning; Branch Priest & King (vers. 12-15).

                III. Answer to Question Concerning Fast. Chapters 7 & 8.

                1. Question Proposed: Prophets Rebuke. Chapter 7.

A. Question (vers. 1-4). B. Present Rebuke (vers. 5-7). C. Appeal to Past