Completing Ben Zvi’s Commentary on Zephaniah

I finished Ehud Ben Zvi’s A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah.

Ben Zvi believes that there were three stages of the Book of Zephaniah: a compositional stage, a pre-compositional stage, and a post-compositional stage.  At the compositional stage, there was a post-monarchic composer of the Book of Zephaniah, who was writing for a community.  This community was obviously privileged, for it was literate enough to understand the Book of Zephaniah’s word-plays and allusions to other writings that eventually made their way into the Hebrew Bible.  At the same time, the community saw itself as oppressed, humble, and poor, much like the community that produced the anwim Psalms.  The community of the Book of Zephaniah did not have a political program that anticipated the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, but rather it exhorted people to wait on the LORD to save Israel.  The author of the Book of Zephaniah spoke in the name of a known prophet from Judah’s pre-exilic period, and he viewed himself as that prophet’s successor.

Regarding the date of the book, Ben Zvi’s discussion of the Oracles Against the Nations (OAN) was informative.  According to Ben Zvi, the OAN criticized the nations for not recognizing that the LORD is God, but they did not presume that God required the nations to actually worship him, for that was only a command for Israel.  Ben Zvi states that the author selected for his book the oracles that were fulfilled, in order to buttress Zephaniah’s authority as a prophet.  Unlike other prophetic writings, however, the Book of Zephaniah did not talk about Egypt and Edom, for these nations had not been conquered at the time that the author was composing his book.  The Kingdom of Edom was conquered in 553 B.C.E., and Egypt was conquered by Cambryses in 525 B.C.E., and so the OAN must have been composed before that time—in the early days of the post-monarchic period.  Moreover, for Ben Zvi, the absence of any indication of Hellenistic influence in the book indicates that it was written before the Hellenistic Period.  A significant issue that has occurred in this commentary by Ben Zvi concerns unfulfilled prophecies.  Ben Zvi states that certain events in the Book of Zephaniah were believed to have already been fulfilled, whereas the salvation oracles were deemed to have a future fulfillment.  And the Book of Zephaniah itself encourages its audience to wait patiently.

According to Ben Zvi, the pre-compositional stage presented the remaining Judahites engaging in pastoral activities, whereas the compositional stage downplayed that, focusing instead on the remnant in the city of Jerusalem, which may have been Gedaliah’s group, or the remnant after his assassination.  Ben Zvi sees no evidence that the pre-compositional stage reflected a single Zephanic source, from a particular social perspective, and he cites Zephaniah 1:4-6 and 3:3-4 as examples of diversity at the pre-compositional level.  (Personally, I do not see how the two contradict each other, but they do address different subjects.)  Ben Zvi is highly skeptical of scholarly ability to recover the words of the original Zephaniah, but he does acknowledge that certain pre-compositional traditions were accepted as Zephanic, and so the author of the Book of Zephaniah felt compelled to use them.

For Ben Zvi, the post-compositional stage was concerned about theodicy, and it sought to highlight that Jerusalem and Judah fell on account of sin.  Granted, previous stages made that point as well, but there are additions to the text that appear to reflect that point-of-view.

In my opinion, this wasn’t the easiest book to read, for Ben Zvi was open to a variety of perspectives throughout the book, and the conclusion was where he really set forth his own point-of-view.  Before then, although he did give his own opinion, I had a difficult time identifying it because he went through different opinions and possibilities.  But I appreciated Ben Zvi’s sensitivity to the history of biblical interpretation—as he interacted with Jerome, medieval Jewish commentators, and John Calvin’s commentary.  Ben Zvi also discussed issues that are of interest to me, such as unfulfilled prophecy, and why religious communities passed on books whose prophecies did not come to pass.

More on Zephaniah Being Non-Literal, Different Images of the Remnant

I’m still reading Ehud Ben Zvi’s A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah.  I have two items for today:

1.  A topic that Ben Zvi continually discusses in this book is whether or not the prophecies of Zephaniah were intended to be interpreted literally, which coincides with the issue of the apparent non-fulfillment of Zephaniah’s prophecies.  While Ben Zvi affirms on page 236 that Judahite society wanted its leaders and prophets to be trustworthy, and that the legitimacy of a prophetic book depended upon “the socially-accepted conception that it contains truthful speech”, Ben Zvi does not think that this means that accepted prophetic books were deemed to be literally true, for there was hyperbole.  Ben Zvi states, “Certainly, they did not consider false all the prophecies against Samaria or Babylon because they were not literally destroyed by the Assyrians and Cyrus respectively.”  As I talked about in my post yesterday, Ben Zvi addresses the question of how Jews accepted Zephaniah, when it contained prophecies that did not appear to have come to pass.  Yesterday, I referred to answers that Ben Zvi proposed—that the prophecies were considered to be about the distant future, and that the prophecies were believed to be fulfilled partially.  Today, I came across another proposal by Ben Zvi: the the prophecies were not literal, but hyperbolic.

Ben Zvi also repeats another argument that I discussed yesterday: that Zephaniah is sometimes being literary rather than literal and historical.  In discussing the Ammonites and the Moabites attacking Judah in Zephaniah, Ben Zvi states on page 166: “The only other case in which Ammon and Moab are mentioned together as attacking monarchic Judah is 2 Chr 20.  The account in 2 Chr 20 has no parallel in the Book of Kings.”  Ben Zvi casts doubt on whether Ammon and Moab together attacked monarchic Judah.  Ben Zvi thinks that, in Zephaniah 2:8, concepts from other writings are being combined—such as the condemnation of Ammon for taking Israel’s territory in Jeremiah 49:1-6 and Amos 1:13, and the criticism of Moab’s pride in Isaiah 16:6; 25:11; and Jeremiah 48:26—which may presume that Zephaniah 2:8 reflects literary activity rather than reporting (or perhaps prediction) of a literal event.  (At least that is my understanding of what Ben Zvi is saying.)  At the same time, Ben Zvi does refer to II Kings 24:2, in which Ammonites and Moabites raid Judah during the reign of Jehoiakim, alongside Babylonians and Arameans.

I’d like to think that authors refer to something, even when they’re being figurative or metaphorical.

2.  Ben Zvi states on page 234 that “Zeph 3:13 and Zeph 2:7 present different images of the future and different images of the remnant.”

Zephaniah 3:13 states (in the KVJ): “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.”  Vv 11-12 affirm that God will remove from Jerusalem the proud, while leaving in her the humble ones who trust in the name of the LORD.

Zephaniah 2:7 states: “And the coast shall be for the remnant of the house of Judah; they shall feed thereupon: in the houses of Ashkelon shall they lie down in the evening: for the LORD their God shall visit them, and turn away their captivity.”  Here, the remnant of Judah inherits the land of the Philistines and is pastoral, not urban.

Ben Zvi on Baalism, Ha-Aretz, Unfulfilled Prophecy, and Non-Literal Language

I’m continuing my way through Ehud Ben Zvi’s A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah.  I have four items for today:

1. On pages 66-67, Ben Zvi tries to interpret Zephaniah 1:4, which states: “I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests”.  For this item, I will focus on Ben Zvi’s comments regarding “I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place”. (Scriptural quotations will be from the KJV.)

Ben Zvi states the following: “Baal as the name of a deity occurs many times in the OT.  The polemic against the cult of Baal in Judah (with, and perhaps, the exception of Athaliah’s pericope in 2 Kgs 11) is in fact a polemic against Yhwistic cult carried out in ‘illegitimate ways,’ from the point of view of the deuteronomic/deuteronomistic movement.  Thus, in these polemic texts, Baal actually stands for YHWH, but YHWH who is worshiped ‘illegitimately’.  Consequently, Baal in Zeph 1:4 cannot be considered a separate transcendental deity who is to be ‘cut off’ by YHWH.  But, regardless of this, or any other identification, Baal can hardly mean a deity in Zeph 1:4.  [S]ince one can ‘cut off’ only what exists, it would imply that the Judean[s] have been worshiping a transcendental deity, Baal.  This deity, although inferior to YHWH, would continue to exist until the day in which YHWH will cut it off.  Although the theme of ‘bringing down’ the other gods is attested elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Zeph 2:11; Ps 82), it never occurs in announcements of judgment against Israelites or Judeans, even if in numerous cases these announcements are based on a cultic indictment.”

So Ben Zvi does not think that Zephaniah 1:4 is about YHWH bringing down Baal because (1.) Israel identified YHWH with Baal, and YHWH wouldn’t say that he will bring down himself, and (2.) assuming that Baal was a deity separate from YHWH, it is unlikely that Zephaniah is saying that YHWH would kill Baal.  At least we don’t see that sort of message in announcements of judgment against Northern or Southern Israel!  Ben Zvi is open to Zephaniah 1:4 meaning that YHWH will cut off the cult of Baal, or an object representing Baal, but not Baal the god.

I am puzzled by Ben Zvi’s claim that Baal stands for YHWH, and thus Baal in Zephaniah 1:4 cannot be a transcendental deity who is separate from YHWH.  (I agree with Ben Zvi’s conclusion, but not entirely with his way of getting there.)  First of all, if Ben Zvi is sure about this, then why does he undercut his claim by presenting a scenario in which Baal is a deity separate from YHWH?  Second, while there are indeed passages that indicate that YHWH was identified with Baal (Hosea 2:16 predicts that the Israelites one day will no long call the LORD “Baali”), there are also passages in which YHWH and Baal are depicted as separate beings.  For example, in I Kings 18, there is a competition between the prophets of Baal and Elijah, the prophet of YHWH, to see which god will send fire from heaven.  Would this competition make any sense, if Baal and YHWH were deemed to be synonymous?

Ben Zvi does not defend his claim in this book, at least not in what I have read so far.  But he does refer to pages 356-363 of his 1987 work, Judah in the Days of the Assyrian Hegemony: History and Historiography.

2.  Zephaniah 1:18 states: “Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD’s wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.”

The word translated as “the land” is ha-aretz, which can also mean “the earth”.  Is Zephaniah talking about the destruction of all the land of Judah, or all the world?  And how can one tell?  Ben Zvi looks at different passages:

Joel 1:14: “Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD”.  Here, Ben Zvi thinks that ha-aretz means the land of Judah, probably because the inhabitants of it are told to gather at the house of the LORD.

Zechariah 11:6: “For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.”  Ben Zvi says that this passage “probably refers to the inhabitants of the earth”, perhaps because “his king” implies that we are dealing with more than one king, meaning that more nations than Judah are the topic here.

Next, Ben Zvi discusses Jeremiah 4, which I will not post, but here is a link to the chapter if you want to read it.  Ben Zvi says that Jeremiah 4:11-18 focuses on Judah and Jerusalem, and that, while Jeremiah 4:19-22 “enlarges the perspective of Jer 4:11-18″, v 20 “clearly refers to Judah and not to the entire earth.”  Then, Jeremiah 4:23-26 appears to present a picture of universal desolation—in which ha-aretz becomes without form and void (cp. Genesis 1:2), the heavens have no light, the mountains tremble, the hills move, there is no man, the birds of the heaven have fled, the fruitful place becomes a wilderness, and the cities are broken down.  But Ben Zvi does not view this passage as describing the unraveling all of creation, for its statement that the birds fled indicates that there was some place for them to flee.  Consequently, Ben Zvi contends that even this passage posits a “large but geographically limited destruction.”

Ben Zvi then looks at Deuteronomy 32:22: “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.”  Ben Zvi does not think that this passage is describing the destruction of the entire world, however, for the chapter is about God’s punishment of Israel, plus verses 26-27 indicate that people (Israel’s enemies, and men of the nations) continue to exist.

Ben Zvi concludes that Zephaniah 1:18 is ambiguous—and may even be a rhetorical double-entendre that expresses the views of Judahites, who saw their own annihilation as “subjectively tantamount to a total destruction”.

3.  On page 139, Ben Zvi states: “Writing a ‘story’ about a prophet calling the people for repentance, in order to produce the material basis for personal or communal reflection, is an entirely different activity than actually calling the people to repentance.”  Here, Ben Zvi is reiterating an idea that he expressed in the introduction: that the Book of Zephaniah may include Zephaniah’s prophecies to his contemporaries, but it is not a complete transcript.  After all, Ben Zvi points out, reading the Book of Zephaniah takes ten minutes, and it was unlikely that Zephaniah spoke that short of a message!  Ben Zvi affirms that the Book of Zephaniah was a book for communities after the time of Zephaniah, a book that underwent redaction.  For Zephaniah’s contemporaries, Zephaniah spoke a message of repentance.  Subsequent communities, however, saw Zephaniah as a story about a prophet calling people to repent—and they reflected on that story.  Moreover, the Book of Zephaniah offered them hope.

On pages 149-151, Ben Zvi discusses a question that is relevant to the issue of Zephaniah and subsequent communities of interpretation: How did post-monarchic communities view Zephaniah’s prophecies about the wrath of YHWH? 

Did they think that these prophecies were fulfilled in the past?  According to Ben Zvi, “their very existence was the most convincing proof that it was not the case.”  Zephaniah predicted a vast destruction—and these Judahites were still around.  The communities could denounce Zephaniah as a false prophet, but they did not do so, for they transmitted his prophecies from generation to generation.  They could conclude that Zephaniah’s prophecy of destruction concerned the distant future—and that would coincide with eschatological interpretations of prophetic books, which applied their messages to the far-off future.  Or they may have concluded that Zephaniah’s prophecy was partially or metaphorically fulfilled.  On the basis of such passages as Zephaniah 2:3, communities may have concluded that God preserved the righteous and the humble—which was why there were still Judahites around.

4.  Ben Zvi talks about non-literal language in his discussion of Zephaniah 2:4, which states: “For Gaza shall be forsaken, and Ashkelon a desolation: they shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day, and Ekron shall be rooted up.”  Ben Zvi does not take that as a literal, historical account of what happened to the cities, or of what Judahites envisioned happening to the cities.  Rather, he believes that the literary practice of paronomasia is going on in this verse—and paronomasia is a play on words that sound alike.  Still, Ben Zvi does maintain that the verse is conveying “the sense of general disaster that will befall the country”.  At this point, I wonder why paronomasia cannot be used to convey what Zephaniah believed would actually occur.  Why separate literary artistry from an attempt to describe things literally?

Identifying Additions to Zephaniah

In this post, I will talk about an issue that Ehud Ben Zvi discusses in the introduction to A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah.  The issue is this: What is the criteria that scholars use to attribute certain aspects of the Book of Zephaniah to a later author or redactor?  I talked about a similar issue in a post that I wrote on Otto Kaiser’s commentary on Isaiah 1-12 (see here).

Ben Zvi discusses the meat of the criteria on pages 32-35.  Here are some examples of where the criteria come into play (and biblical references will be from the KJV):

1.  There are scholars who have argued that Zephaniah 1:2-3 (or parts of it) is late.  The passage states: “I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD.  I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked: and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.”  According to Ben Zvi, this passage is considered late on account of its “‘eschatological’ or universal outlook”, and even those who attribute Zephaniah 1:2-3 to Zephaniah think that the part about “the stumbling blocks with the wicked” was an explanatory gloss designed to introduce “an ethical reason for the punishment.”  Scholars who date Zephaniah 1:2-3 late may do so because they work with a historical model in which a notion of universal eschatology chronologically comes after prophecy that primarily concerns itself with God’s temporal punishment of Israel.  Incidentally, Brian Peckham has a model that is the opposite of that of the scholars Ben Zvi is discussing.  For Peckham, the early stage of Zephaniah was about God’s undoing of creation, but later hands restricted its application to Judah and Jerusalem (see here).

2.  Zephaniah 2:8-11 states: “I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the revilings of the children of Ammon, whereby they have reproached my people, and magnified themselves against their border.  Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them.  This shall they have for their pride, because they have reproached and magnified themselves against the people of the LORD of hosts.  The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen.”

According to Ben Zvi, this passage is considered to be late for a variety of reasons: the oracle against Moab and Ammon is stylistically different from that against Philistia in Zephaniah 2; there is a reference to a remnant of Israel; v 11 is eschatological in its notion that YHWH will purge idolatry and the nations will worship him; and the passage does not fit the time of Josiah, but rather the early sixth century B.C.E., which was when Judah was being conquered by Babylon, and Ammon and Moab were particularly hostile to Judah.  But Ben Zvi refers to scholars who disagree with these arguments and “accept the Zephanic origin for most or all of these verses”.  Against those who regard Zephaniah 2:8-11 as out-of-place, these scholars point “to rhetorical and literary devices that unify the text”.  They also maintain that the oracle against Moab and Ammon fits Josiah’s day.

Some have even dated part of the oracle against Philistia late.  Zephaniah 2:7 states:  “And the coast shall be for the remnant of the house of Judah; they shall feed thereupon: in the houses of Ashkelon shall they lie down in the evening: for the LORD their God shall visit them, and turn away their captivity.”  The reason this is considered late is the phrases “remnant of the house of Judah” and “turn away their captivity”.  There is a tendency among many scholars to regard oracles of salvation as late—perhaps because they think that such oracles would make most sense to Israel after she has experienced devastation.  But Ben Zvi notes that there are also scholars who disagree with this premise.  They say that Zephaniah could have predicted destruction while having nationalistic feelings, and so he predicted that his people would have a future that included possessing the land of the Philistines.  Either Zephaniah thought that a future remnant would do this, or some have argued that he envisioned contemporary Judeans doing so.

Ben Zvi states that, if Zephaniah 2:7-11 is accepted as late, then the part that is Zephanic would be the oracles against Assyria and Philistia, the main enemies in Josiah’s day.  But, if Zephaniah 2:8-11 is indeed from Zephaniah, Ben Zvi says that Zephaniah’s message was not limited to his political-historical circumstances.  Does that mean that Ben Zvi doesn’t buy the argument that Moab and Ammon were problems for Judah in Josiah’s day?

3.  I will not post Zephaniah 3, but only a link to it.  Zephaniah 3:8-20 is deemed to be late by a number of scholars because of its message of salvation and its notion that other nations will serve the LORD.  But Ben Zvi believes that much is lost if this passage is deemed non-Zephanic.  First, eliminating this passage means that the prophet had no words of comfort.  Second, Zephaniah 3:11-13 talks about the LORD preserving the humble and lowly, who trust God and live moral lives.  But, for Ben Zvi, if this is eliminated from the prophet’s message, then why not eliminate as late the similar statement in Zephaniah 2:3, which encourages people to seek righteousness and meekness, a possible path to them being protected from disaster (possible but not definite, for Ben Zvi affirms that the Book of Zephaniah seeks to preserve God’s freedom, meaning that God is not bound to save anyone, but may do so).  But, if that is eliminated, there goes the prophet’s social-ethical message! 

But there are scholars who accept Zephaniah 3:8-20 as Zephanic, for they see a connection between those verses and Zephaniah 3:1-8 (which is about the corruption of princes, prophets, and priests; God’s unsuccessful attempt to discipline his people; and God’s coming punishment of the nations).  They also regard the notion that the nations will serve YHWH to be pre-exilic.  Ben Zvi does not list any of these scholars’ reasons for this claim, at least in what I have read so far.  I think that relevant information to assessing it would include what other ancient Near Eastern nations did regarding their foreign subjects: Did they require conquered nations to honor the conqueror’s god, in some manner?  I have read that Assyria did not, for Assyria permitted a degree of religious freedom, and also considered its subjects to be beneath the worship of Asshur.

Where Ben Zvi stands on these questions, I do not know.  He distinguishes between the prophet and the tradent.  At the same time, he states on page 13 that “a late date cannot be taken for granted only because the text contains a prophecy of salvation, or because of [a] single Hebrew word that occurs nowhere else but in a relatively late book.”

One more comment: I have often been annoyed by conservative Christians who dismiss the historical-critical method as something that flows from naturalistic presuppositions—as if supernaturalistic presuppositions make the problems of biblical inerrancy (i.e., contradictions, anachronisms, etc.) go away.  But I have to admit that the conservative argument makes a degree of sense to me as I read of attempts to date certain things in prophetic books late.  Why couldn’t Zephaniah foresee restoration?  Otto Kaiser stated that the passages in Isaiah about Israelite captives returning to Israel from around the world came from the Hellenistic Period, for that was when there were Israelite exiles in different countries around the world.  But why couldn’t Isaiah of Jerusalem foresee that under divine inspiration?  I suppose that these sorts of arguments (i.e., prophets couldn’t foresee the future, so, when it appears that they did so, the passage must be later than the prophets) cannot stand on their own: they need to be buttressed by actual evidence that the Bible has a largely human element.  And historical-critics have offered arguments for this (i.e., contradictions, unfulfilled prophecies, re-application of older prophecies, areas in which biblical ideologies reflect past cultures, etc.).  But could God still work through or speak through that human element?

Zephaniah, Son of Cushi

I started Ehud Ben Zvi’s A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah.  I blogged about the introduction to this book a while back: see here.

What captured my attention was something that Ben Zvi said on page 29.  After discussing the lack of interest in Zephaniah throughout the history of biblical interpretation, Ben Zvi noted that interest has increased in recent times (and this book by Ben Zvi dates to 1991).  What has intrigued some people in the United States is “the supposedly African origin of Zephaniah…”  I wondered what exactly gave people the impression that Zephaniah was from Africa, and, fortunately for my curiosity, Ben Zvi interacts with this issue in his discussion of Zephaniah 1:1.

Zephaniah 1:1 affirms that Zephaniah was the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hizkiah.  Zephaniah was the son of Cushi.  Cush in the Hebrew Bible can mean Nubia, or Ethiopia (see here).  So that’s where some have gotten the idea that Zephaniah had African origins.

Ben Zvi is open to the possibility that the other names were added after that of “Cushi” in order to demonstrate that Zephaniah came from a strong Judahite, Yahwistic line.  Ben Zvi states on page 42 that the superscription concerning Zephaniah is unusual, for “Zeph 1:1 is the only superscription in the Latter Prophets in which a list mentioning five generations occurs.”  Plus, the sheer number of Yahwistic names in that particular superscription is anomalous, for “lists of three consecutive names ending with [yah] occur rarely in the OT” (page 49).  For Ben Zvi, one should account for these anomalies, and one way to do so is to maintain that someone added names after “Cushi” to identify Zephaniah with Judah and with Yahwism.  Ben Zvi still thinks that Cushi is a personal name rather than an indication of African nationality, for “this name is well attested epigraphically in West Semitic languages” (page 50).  But, even if Cushi were the name of a person, someone could misunderstand and conclude that Zephaniah was a Cushite—and so someone came along and added some names to Zephaniah’s lineage.

Unlike some, Ben Zvi does not think that the “Hizkiah” of Zephaniah 1:1 is King Hezekiah.  Some have made that identification, arguing either that Zephaniah was a part of the royal family, or that someone tried to make Zephaniah appear to be so—in order to solidify his connection with Judah and Yahwism.  According to Ben Zvi, one scholar, G. Rice, has tried to have the best of both worlds: to see Zephaniah as one with Cushite background, and also as a descendent of King Hezekiah.  For Rice, Hezekiah married an Ethiopian woman and named his son from that union “Cushi” in order to acknowledge the country of origin of the child’s mother.  Rice argues that this would explain why Cushi marks a break in Yahwistic names in Zephaniah’s genealogy.

But Ben Zvi disagrees, for the Peshitta reads that name as “Hilkiah,” which may point to the existence of another reading in Hebrew manuscripts, plus there is no acknowledgment of any connection between Zephaniah and Hezekiah in places we would expect it—such as the “Lives of the Prophets” in Babylonian Talmud Megillah 15a.

The attempt to connect Zephaniah with Judah may be due to Judahite nationalism, or perhaps it reflected also a degree of prejudice against the Cushites.  (Such prejudice is not present in many other parts of the Hebrew Bible, which are actually quite positive about Cush.  Isaiah 18:7 may be one such example.  Also, a Cushite rescues Jeremiah in Jeremiah 38.)  Ben Zvi does not explicitly assert that Zephaniah’s genealogy was expanded on account of prejudice, but, on pages 44-45, he refers to Jeremiah 36:14, which mentions Jehudi, the son of Nethaniah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi.  Ben Zvi acknowledges the possibility that Jeremiah 36:14 is trying to portray Jehudi as the third generation from Cushi—since Deuteronomy 23:8-9 only permits children of Egyptians from the third generation and beyond to enter the congregation of the LORD, and some may have applied that rule to Nubians as well.  Ben Zvi does not think that such an explanation is suitable for Zephaniah 1:1, but perhaps Deuteronomy 23 may contain a clue as to why there was an attempt to dissociate Zephaniah from Nubia—if there indeed was such an attempt.

Money Does Not Equal Security

In one of my quiet times yesterday, I was reading Zephaniah 1:8: “Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD’s wrath; in the fire of his passion the whole earth shall be consumed; for a full, a terrible end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth” (NRSV).

At first, the passage gave me a bad taste in my mouth. And the taste got even worse when I checked out my old notes on Zephaniah 1. Basically, I wrote in my notebook that wealth will not help us at the last judgment.

So why the bad taste? Well, the old James reminded me of that preacher in Pollyanna, before Haley Mills worked her magic on him. At the beginning of the movie, he tried to scare people into submission with a message of judgment and hell fire. Near the end, he changed his tune, for he preached instead on the more positive aspects of Scripture, the parts that Pollyanna’s preacher father called “the glad texts.”

There’s something that turns me off about going through each day with fear and self-loathing. The people in that minister’s audience were not bad people. They were small-town folks who tried to live their day-to-day lives. They didn’t deserve to be chewed out every Sunday. Going through each day with a positive attitude is far more beneficial than doing so with absolute terror. From a practical standpoint, seeing God as a friend is far better than viewing him as a judge.

In the course of my quiet time, I started to fantasize. “Man, I wish I could win that Publishers’ Clearing House $10 million dollar prize,” I thought. “Imagine that! Lifetime economic security. I wouldn’t have to suck up to anybody. I’d be set for life. I wouldn’t have to worry about my livelihood ever again.” For me at that time, wealth meant absolute invulnerability. And it was then that I understood Zephaniah 1:8 a little bit better.

The thought entered my mind: “Even if you got rich, you’d still have to be a moral person.” And I can picture myself being not that moral if I were to become wealthy. Maybe I’d feel that I didn’t need God anymore, since my wealth would give me a new lifetime security. Why help out the poor or anyone else, if I no longer needed to please God to receive temporal blessing and provision? Would I even sympathize with the problems of others, once I no longer had to worry about them myself? I can see myself chasing pleasure in inappropriate ways. With wealth, I could assume that I can do whatever I want. Of course, I’d have to obey the legal limits that society has set, but the rich people in Zephaniah’s day bought the judges, so they didn’t even see a need to do that.

And so what would keep me on the straight and narrow if I were to become wealthy? A sense that I am under the authority of a higher power, meaning that I’m not invulnerable. God’s judgment is something that makes all of us obligated to him.