ZEPHANIAH, BOOK OF. The work of a prophet descended from King Hezekiah, at the time of Josiah, occupying ninth place in any listing of the twelve Minor Prophets, following Habakkuk and preceding Haggai.
1. Unity. Most critics allow ch. 1 as the genuine work of Zephaniah, but consider that parts of chs. 2 and 3 contain either late poems or amplifications from the postexilic period to authentic oracles of Zephaniah. There is little consensus of opinion on details (cf. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [1969], 941). The extent of disagreement among those who postulate several sources indicates the basic weakness of their position. Moreover, their views can not be accredited because they issue from erroneous presuppositions; viz., that there is no genuine predictive prophecy but only vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the event), and that the theology of hope in the history of Israel’s religion evolved in the postexilic period. The first presupposition is inconsistent with the explicit testimony of Holy Scripture and the second is inconsistent with the form of parallel prophecies in the ancient Near E. H. Gressmann wrote: “The numerous old Egyptian oracles attest to the formal unity of threat and promise as the original form....Now that we are acquainted with the Egyptian oracle, it is no longer doubtful that the literary-critical school was on the wrong path” (“Prophetische Gattungen,” Der Messias, Book II [1929], 73). The same phenomenon is attested in the Mari letters (cf. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech [1967], 121).
2. Date. According to the book’s introduction Zephaniah prophesied during the reign of Josiah (640-609 b.c.). More precisely it can be inferred from his allusions to the state of morality and religion (Zeph 1:4ff., 8, 9, 12; 3:1-3, 7) that his activities took place before the great reformation of 621 b.c. (cf. 2 Kings 23:4ff.). The notices which are supposed by some critics to indicate a somewhat later date are satisfactorily explained: (1) the king’s children mentioned in 1:8 as addicted to foreign habits could not have been Josiah’s sons because he was too young for such a situation, but were his brothers or near relatives. (2) The reference to the remnant of Baal in the same v. designates the completeness of their destruction; i.e., Yahweh will efface every remnant of Baal. Moreover, critics have generally accepted this date for the “genuine portions” of the book because they assume that the irruption of the Scythians who attacked Assyria in 632 b.c. (cf. J. Lewy, Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, XXIX [1925], 1ff.; E. H. Minns, Cambridge Ancient History, III [1925], 188f.) incited Zephaniah’s prediction of the great Day of Yahweh. Zephaniah prob. finished his course at about the same time that Jeremiah was called to his office in Josiah’s thirteenth year.
In order to avoid the onus of regarding the predictions against the nations as secondary according to the critical presuppositions, J. P. Hyatt rejected the accuracy of the superscription and moved Zephaniah to the time of Jehoiakim (609-598 b.c.) (“The Date and Background of Zephaniah,” JNES, VII [1948], 25-33). However, his position ill accords with the internal evidence of the book; e.g. Nineveh is represented as in a state of peace and prosperity (2:15), and there is no suggestion of Josiah’s reform as having taken place.
3. Historical background. The religious state of the kingdom of Judah deteriorated markedly following the death of Hezekiah. The trend toward things Assyrian became increasingly conspicuous. The degenerate religious practice of the period before Josiah’s great reform are indicated in detail in 2 Kings 23:4-20.
A considerable debate exists on the political background of the book. Whereas Isaiah (39:6), Habbakuk (1:6) and Jeremiah (20:4) specified the Babylonians as the rod Yahweh would use to destroy the kingdom of Judah, Zephaniah brought before the Judeans Yahweh Himself as the person behind the judgment without specifying the instrument. Because of this silence two interpretations prevail regarding the identification of the instrument of judgment: either the Scythians or the Babylonians.
The majority of critics reason that the authentic oracles of Zephaniah have the invasion of the Scythians in view. F. Hitzig wrote: “The Chaldeans come still less (than the Egyptians) into account, because they did not found an independent kingdom until b.c. 625, nor threaten Judea until after Josiah’s death. On the other hand, an unsuspicious and well-accredited account has been preserved to us that somewhere about this time the Scythians overflowed Palestine too with their hosts. Herodotus relates (Book I, 105), that the Scythians after they had disturbed Cyaxares at the siege of Nineveh, turned toward Egypt; and when they had already arrived in Palestine, were persuaded by Psammetichus to return, and in their return plundered a temple in Ascalon.” Critics explain the fact that the Scythians destroyed neither Assyria nor Egypt, but, on the contrary, temporarily saved Nineveh, in contradiction to Zephaniah’s prophesies, in one of two ways: (1) the prophet made a mistake (J. M. P. Smith, ICC [1911], 170), or (2) these oracles are secondary (J. P. Hyatt, 25).
This writer rejects this interpretation in favor of regarding the Babylonians as the divine agent of judgment in view for these four reasons: (1) the rationalistic and anti-super-naturalistic presuppositions informing the above views are contrary to the spirit of prophecy found in all of Scripture. (2) The account in Herodotus that the Scythians marched through Pal. to invade Egypt before being bought off by Psammetichus has no objective historical support (cf. F. Wilke, “Das Skythenproblem im Jeremiabuch,” Altestamentliche Studien R. Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht [1913], 222ff.; J. P. Hyatt, “Peril from the North in Jeremiah,” JBL, LIX [1940], 501; “The Date and Background of Zephaniah,” JNES, VII [1948], 25ff.). (3) Herodotus’ statement about the Scythian invasion does not comport with Zephaniah’s predictions. Having recorded the intervention of Psammetichus Herodotus continued: “So they turned back, and when they came to the city of Ascalon in Syria, most of the Scythians passed by and did no harm, but a few remained behind and plundered the temple of Heavenly Aphrodite.” But Zephaniah speaks not of a marauding band, but of the utter havoc upon Jerusalem, of the permanent desolation of Philistia, Moab, and Ammon, and of destructive war on Ethiopia. Pusey stated the case against the Scythian interpretation and in favor of the Babylonian well: “But it is an intense paradox, when men, 2500 years after his date assert, not only that Zephaniah’s prophecies had no relation to the Chaldees, in whom his words were fulfilled...but that they know what must have been, and (as they assert) what was in the prophet’s mind; and that he had in mind, not those in whom his words were fulfilled, but others in whom they were not fulfilled...” (E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets: A Commentary II [1953], 230). This obvious lack of correspondence now forces the critic to suppose that these oracles are either inaccurate or secondary. (4) The Scriptures which normally supply sufficient historical background for the interpretation of the prophets nowhere make reference to an invasion by Scythians.
It is a mute and insignificant point whether a Scythian invasion into Pal. awakened Zephaniah to his prophetic call as some conservative writers contend (SOTI, 343).
4. Purpose. Because of Judah’s degenerate religious situation Zephaniah prediced the fall of Judah and Jerusalem as inevitable (1:4-13; 3:1-7). This judgment in his view was a part of the wider judgment to fall on all the world in the Day of Yahweh (1:14-18; 2:4-15). Accordingly, his mission was not to all the people whose sentence was fixed, but to the meek who by turning to Yahweh could possibly escape the coming day of judgment (2:1-3) and become a part of the remnant who would enjoy the blessings of the kingdom (3:8-20).
5. Content.
A. Introduction (1:1).
B. Universal judgment (1:2-3:7).
1. Upon the entire creation (1:2, 3). The destruction described is even more sweeping in its effects than the Deluge; total destruction is the ultimate end of this fallen cosmos (cf. 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 21:1). The collapse of civilizations in the meanwhile serves as a herald announcing the final judgment of all the earth. The word tr. “I will overthrow” (“stumbling blocks” in KJV) occurs elsewhere only in Isaiah 3:16 with the meaning “heap of ruins.” Taken as a metonymy of adjunct, that sense is appropriate here for it may describe the ruined state of every divine institution (e.g. matrimony [Gen 2:18-25] or government [Rom 13:1-7]) destroyed by man’s titanic self-assertion against God.
2. Upon Judah (1:4-2:3). The first nation cited as a precursor of the ultimate collapse is Judah, more highly favored than any other nation (Deut 4:7f., 32ff.; Rom 9:4f.).
a. The cause of its judgment (1:4-6): five false religions: (1) worship of Baal (v. 4), (2) worship of astral deities introduced by Manasseh (2 Kings 21:3, 5) (v. 5a), (3) syncretistic worship of Yahweh and Milcom (v. 5b), (4) apostasy from Yahweh (v. 6a), (5) secularism (v. 6b). The same mighty outstretched hand that brought them out of Egypt and into Canaan will be turned against them. The “Chemarim” (KJV) designate here and in 2 Kings 23:5; Hosea 10:5, priests officiating at unauthorized high places and altars. The astral deities were prob. worshiped on housetops because here the stars could be seen better than in the narrow streets, and one felt closer to them. Milcom is the chief idol of the Ammonites to whom human sacrifices were offered (cf. 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; Jer 9:5; 32:35).
b. The proximity of judgment (v. 7). The command to “be silent” is a call to cease opposition to the divine will. By surrendering unconditionally it may be they would be hidden in the time of Yahweh’s anger (2:3). Judah is now likened implicitly to a sacrificial animal. The priests already invited to the joyous meal are the nations. The peace sacrifice, the only one eaten, had to be consumed completely within two days; whatever remained after that must be burned with fire (Lev 7:15-17).
c. The extent of the judgment (vv. 8-13): (1) upon royalty (v. 8), (2) upon priests (v. 9), (3) upon the entire city of Jerusalem (v. 10), (4) upon the merchants (v. 11), (5) upon the practical atheists (v. 12), (6) upon their property (v. 13). In Numbers 15:37f. Yahweh prescribed the dress of His people. In foreign affairs Israel’s leaders declined to be recognized as Yahweh’s people by this distinctive dress. Desiring to be like those about them they donned the dress of their age. The word tr. “threshhold” in v. 9 in every instance denotes the threshhold of a sanctuary. The superstitious practice of leaping over this threshhold may have begun with the fracture of Dagon on the temple threshhold (cf. 1 Sam 5:4). The masters referred to in v. 9 therefore refer to the idols. The Fish Gate was somewhere near the NW corner of the city (cf. Neh 3:3; 12:39; 2 Chron 33:14). The Second Quarter refers to the new city extending W from the Temple area, but the exact extension of this western section where Huldah the prophetess lived is unknown (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron 34:22). The Mortar (“Maktesh” in KJV) likely designates the Tyropoean Valley separating the eastern from the western city and where the merchants plied their trade. Not even the artificial and natural caves and tunnels which honeycombed the hills of Jerusalem could safeguard these practical atheists. These spiritually apathetic folk are likened to wine which, when left undisturbed on the solid matter that settles to the bottom, becomes a syrupy, bitter, unpalatable liquid.
d. The proximity and horror of the Day of Yahweh (vv. 14-18). The impending fall of Jerusalem merges in the prophet’s view with the judgment on Israel and all the earth in connection with the return of Christ in power and glory.
e. The call to repentance (2:1-3). The verbs tr. “come together and hold assembly” are the same root in two different stems (qal and hiphil). The verb is a denominative of a noun meaning “stubble,” and elsewhere occurring in the piel stem it means “to stoop, to pick up an object, to gather it by back-breaking work.” It never has the sense elsewhere “to gather” in the sense “to assemble.” Therefore a better tr. would be “stoop, bend yourselves.” The verb tr. “shameless” (RSV) elsewhere only means “to long for, desire.” Accordingly the KJV is to be preferred: “not desired.” The decree, according to the context a punitive one, and announced long ago (Deut 28:15ff.) is now rushing to its enactment.
3. Upon the Gentile nations (2:4-15). Judgment is now predicted on the Gentile powers to the W, E, S, and N of Judah.
a. W: Philistia (vv. 4-7). An attack at noonday (v. 4) would be a surprise upon the unwary enemy because usually invading armies rested during the heat of the day (cf. Jer 15:8; 1 Kings 20:16). The Cherethites came from Crete and are related to the Philistines who came from Capthor which many scholars identify with Crete. Because the Philistines were Hamitic (Gen 10:6, 14) they may have been called Canaan here to refer to the curse pronounced upon Ham’s accursed son. Gath is omitted prob. because it had not regained its rank among the Philistine Pentapolis after its destruction by Uzziah (2 Chron 26:6). The Philistines today have passed from history without a trace.
b. E: Moab and Ammon (vv. 8-11).
c. S: Ethiopia (v. 12).
d. N: Assyria (vv. 13-15).
4. Upon Jerusalem (3:1-7).
a. Her moral depravity (v. 1).
b. Her intractability (v. 2).
c. Her immoral leaders: civic (v. 3) and religious (v. 4).
d. Her inexcusability (v. 5).
C. The establishment of the kingdom (3:8-20).
1. The destruction of the Gentile opposition (v. 8).
2. The purified remnant (vv. 9-13).
3. The kingdom blessings (vv. 14-20).
Bibliography For extensive critical bibliography see IDB, IV, 953; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (1906, 1907); C. V. Pilcher, Three Hebrew Prophets and the Passing of Empires (1928); G. G. V. Stonehouse, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk (1929); H. O. Kuhner, Zephaniah (1943); T. Laetsch, Bible Commentary: The Minor Prophets (1956).