Abstract
In the prophecy of Zephaniah, the fate of Judah and that of foreign nations in the purposes of God are intertwined, both in regard to judgement and salvation. Judah needs to learn from God’s dealings with the nations. God’s verdict and judgement on the nations (1.14–18; 2.4–15) are lessons for sinful Jerusalem, which is under the same threat (2.1–3; 3.1–8). Likewise, but more positively, and this is the focus of the present article, cultic unfaithfulness in contemporary Judah (1.4–6) is set in contrast to the prospect of future cultic devotion to Y
The prophecy of Zephaniah is positioned at an important juncture in the structure of the Book of the Twelve as a canonical unit. According to Paul House, Zephaniah provides ‘a bridge between the sin, punishment, and restoration sections of the Twelve’.
1
The cosmic breadth of the devastation pictured in Zephaniah (e.g. 1.2–3, 18; 3.8) makes it a fitting climax to the first nine prophecies of the Twelve that focus on judgement, and Zephaniah provides the most extensive treatment of the day of the L
As observed by Daniel Timmer, ‘The theme of the non-Israelite nations in Zephaniah is more complex than in most other books of the Twelve’,
6
for in this prophecy, the fate of the Judahites and foreign nations is intricately intertwined.
7
The only hope for Judah, if it is to escape the day of God’s wrath described in chapter 1, is to turn to God in humility and righteousness (2.1–3).
8
God’s verdict and judgement on the nations (2.4–15) is a lesson for sinful Jerusalem, which is also under threat (3.1–8).
9
What God did to other nations (3.6) should motivate his own people to ‘accept correction’ (3.7).
10
In a second ‘woe’ oracle (cf. 2.5), Jerusalem is called ‘the oppressing city’ (3.1), and so she will share the same fate as other nations, but the warning is given rhetorical force by the fact that it is not at first obvious that the unnamed city in 3.1 (‘the oppressing city’) that is the object of condemnation has switched from Nineveh to Jerusalem. The identity of the city only becomes apparent in 3.2b (‘She does not trust in the L
There is, however, another way in which the Judahites were meant to have derived instruction from God’s dealings with the nations, and this has not received the same scholarly attention. In this article, I will seek to demonstrate that present cultic unfaithfulness in Judah (1.4–6) is set in contrast to the prospect of future cultic devotion to Y
Cultic Unfaithfulness in Judah (Zeph. 1.4–6)
When the prophecy opens, Y
The first crime of Judah exposed and condemned in the prophecy is that of false worship, namely cultic failures (1.4–6), with the verses specifying the various categories of idolaters who will be ‘cut off’ (והכרתי) by Y
The Placement of Zephaniah 2.11
The presence of ‘day of the L
Zephaniah 2.11 is positioned in the middle of oracles against the nations, after the units concerning Philistia (2.4–7) and Moab and Ammon, who are paired together (2.8–10), and before the sayings directed at Cush (2.12) and Assyria (2.13–15). However, the generalised nature of the contents of 2/11 (‘all the gods of the earth … all the isles [איי] of the nations’) causes it to stand out in its context,
31
and in that sense, Ehud Ben Zvi is correct in saying, ‘Zeph 2.11 is only loosely connected to both the preceding and the following units.’
32
On that basis, many commentators view 2.11 as a post-exilic addition to the prophecy,
33
but whether this is the case, several things indicate its suitability to its present position in the final form of the text. The third masculine plural pronominal suffix in the prepositional phrase in the first line of the verse, ‘[The L
The Nations Will Worship Yhwh on Foreign Soil (Zeph. 2.11)
Though the phrase ‘all the gods of the earth’ in 2.11a does not occur elsewhere, comparable phrases conveying a similar meaning occur in Pss. 95.3, 96.4 and 97.9, in a context that emphasises Y
Zephaniah 2.11b makes clear that the ultimate purpose of God is not just the judgement of other nations but that they will acknowledge and worship him. What is depicted is the worship of Y
The prospect of the peoples ‘bowing down’ to Y
A Parallel in Zephaniah 3.9
Another reference to the theme of foreign peoples turning to Y
As noted by House, ‘[u]ntil this point only 2.11 gives any indication that God cares for Judah’s enemies.’
62
The wording found in 3.9 is that of ‘peoples’ (עמים), not the more common term ‘nations’ (cf., e.g. 2.11 גוים 3.8 הגוים). These are synonyms in the prophetic books (e.g. Isa. 43.9: ‘Let all the nations gather together, and let the peoples assemble’), but the appellation ‘peoples’ is sometimes used when a more favourable attitude is taken toward foreigners (e.g. Deut. 4.6: ‘in the sight of the peoples’; Isa. 2.3: ‘and many peoples shall come’), though this is by no means always the case. A number of scholars suggest that עמים be emended to עמי (‘my people’);
63
however, 3.9 is joined to the previous verse by ‘yea, at that time’ (כי אז RSV) and is best understood as continuing (though modifying) the theme of the fate of foreigners in 3.8b.
64
As expressed by Nogalski, ‘3:9–10 interprets the judgment of 3.8b not as total annihilation, but as a judgment that will purify the nations, enabling those worshiping Y
The peoples will worship (עבד) God ‘in one accord’ (RSV שׁכם אחד), literally ‘with one shoulder’ (accusative case expressing manner).
68
The wording is different in Isa. 11.4, wherein another word for ‘shoulder’ is used (כתף), but Rashi interprets בכתף in Isa. 11.4 as also meaning ‘in one accord’ (which GKC §93hh supports), and the context provided by the rest of Zeph. 3.9 (‘all of them’ [כלם]) is further support for the verse having all the nations in view.
69
The picture, as in 2.11b, is of the universal worship of Y
Like 2.11, the devotion of the nations described in 3.9 may take place in their homelands, but if 3.10 is understood to refer foreigners bringing tribute, the picture in that verse accords with the more common image of the nations making pilgrimage to Zion in a distant ideal future.
72
The verse recalls crucial features of the oracle about Ethiopia in Isaiah 18 and about Egypt in Isaiah 19, including the expression ‘from beyond the rivers of Cush’ (מעבר נהרי־כושׁ) (18.1) and the description of foreigners as those who ‘bring gifts’ (יובל־שׁי) to Y
Conclusions
The prophecy of Zephaniah describes the intertwining fates of Judah and the nations, all of which are under threat of judgement, but there is also the hope of cultic reformation in both Judah and foreign lands. This nuanced presentation is appropriate for a book that is placed at a central thematic juncture in the Book of the Twelve, between prophecies focused on judgement (Hosea-Zephaniah) and the three restoration prophets (Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi). God’s judgement of the nations (Zeph. 2.4–15) is a lesson for sinful Jerusalem, which is also under the same threat (3.1–8). God’s impending judgement of the nations is a warning to Judah, which is guilty of similar cultic crimes (1.4–6; cf. 2.11a). In addition, cultic unfaithfulness in present-day Judah (1.4–6) is contrasted with the prospect of future cultic devotion to Y
Footnotes
1
House, 1990: 151.
2
See Nogalski, 1993: 201–15; cf. Curtis, 2000: 181–83, esp. 181: ‘[the Zion-Daughter oracle of Zeph 3:14–20 acts] not merely as an appendix to Zephaniah, but as an introduction to the prophets of Zion’s restoration’ (my addition), and 182: ‘Zeph 3:14–20, bridges the gap from the preexilic prophets to the restorationist prophets’.
4
For a critique of such a redactional approach, see Hadjiev, 2010.
5
Cf. O’Brien, 2007: 175: ‘Zephaniah serves to integrate the message of the previous six books by stressing Y
6
Timmer, 2015: 167.
7
Timmer, 2015b: 251: ‘The fact that the characterization and fates of Judah and the nations are both developed in essentially the same way encourages the reader to consider the nations (not only in 2:11 but throughout the book) alongside, and indeed in relation to, Judah.’ According to de Jong, the interplay of Judah and the nations is central to the prophecy and the key to its structure, see de Jong, 2015: 43 Table 4.1.
8
Hadjiev, 2011: 573: ‘Within the present context this makes perfect sense: all the earth will be engulfed in the fire of Yahweh’s wrath (1:18) but for the shameless nation there is perhaps a possibility of escape if it decides to seek Yahweh (2:1–3). Therefore, 2:1–3 follows naturally from ch.1 and does not seem to be a later addition to it.’ Cf. Hadjiev, 2014: 511–12.
9
Gärtner, 2012: 270–71.
10
Zephaniah 3.6 picks up ideas and language from 1.3 and 18.
11
Sweeney, 2003: 159–61.
12
3.6 picks up this key Hebrew root from 1.3–4.
13
Cf. Sweeney, 2001: 188: the prophecy can ‘be identified generically as a “prophetic exhortation to seek Y
14
Cf. the casualty list (minus fish) given in the divine resolution recorded in Gen. 6.7, which is fulfilled in 7.23, such that the world has reverted to its Gen. 1.2 state at the dawn of creation, when the waters of the deep submerged everything (7.24). Cf. De Roche, 1980: 107: ‘It can therefore be concluded that in i 2–3 Zephaniah is announcing the reversal of creation.’
15
The inclusio is noted by De Roche, 105, 108 n.1.
16
Werse, 2020: 116. Werse analyses Genesis 1–11 and Isaiah as two extensive influences on the final form of Zephaniah.
17
Levin, 2011: 126.
18
Ben Zvi, 1991: 62.
19
Neef, 1999: 533 n.44; Ball, 1988: 59.
20
Cf. Smith, 1911: 187.
21
As noted by Schart, 1997: 207: ‘Genannt werden ausschließlich kultische Vergehen.’
22
Its second use is rendered a little awkward by the asyndetic addition of הנשׁבעים (‘those who swear’) immediately after it, but המשׁתחוים should not be removed, for ליהוה (‘to the L
23
Cf. Jer. 19.13, 32.29; Zeph. 1.5; 2 Kgs 23.12; Isa. 22.1; and implied in Dan 4.29 (MT 26). These references are provided by Sulzbach, 2009: 210 n.199.
24
The first alternative is the most likely; see Werse, 2019: 264–66. Less likely is the suggestion that it refers to the Judean king, but see Sweeney, 1991: 392 n.10.
25
Langohr, 1976: 5: ‘En effet, la perspective de lutte contre le syncrétisme est commune à Sophonie et à la réforme de Josias. De plus, prophétisant sous la minorité de ce roi, le prophète se présente comme un précurseur de son oeuvre réformatrice.’
26
Smith, 1911: 190.
27
The references are provided by Sweeney, 2003: 72.
28
E.g. Ryou, 1995: 354.
29
Sweeney, 2003: 51.
30
There are references to the four compass points (cf. Ryou, 1995: 240, 284, 302–303); Neef, 1999: 535–36. Cf. Sadler, 2005: 72: ‘With the inclusion of the Cushites, Zephaniah has presented a portrait of Y
31
Cf. Schart, 1997: 212.
32
Ben Zvi, 1991: 176.
33
Rudman, 1999: 109; cf. Langohr, 1976: 16–17 (seeing the influence of Isaiah 40–66); Renaud, 1986: 16 (who also sees it reflecting the theological concerns of Deutero-Isaiah); Roberts, 1991: 201; Ryou, 1995, 301–02, 317; Neef, 1999: 542–43; Holladay, 2001: 678 (who includes 2.10 in the gloss).
34
The pronoun suffix is probably to be construed as retrospective in force (anaphoric), see Ryou, 1995: 111. If interpreted as cataphoric, it must refer to the deities in the next line; see Timmer, 2016: 315 n.17; Ball, 1988: 138.
35
Smith, 1911: 228–29.
36
I owe this observation to one of the anonymous reviewers of this article.
37
Ben Zvi, 1991: 176. The sudden switch to the 2nd person plural in v.12a (‘You also [גם אתם], O Ethiopians’) is supported by the adverb גם, followed by an immediate reversion to third person in v.11b. I owe this observation to one of the anonymous reviewers.
38
Christensen, 1984: 678: ‘The next verse (2:11) looks beyond the immediate historical situation in regard to Judah’s neighbors to set the stage for what follows.’
39
Cf. Floyd, 2000: 226: ‘This generalization leads naturally to the mention of particular kingdoms that lie outside the surrounding area of Judah’s immediate neighbors.’
40
Cf. Christensen, 1984: 675; Ryou, 1995: 236.
41
Ben Zvi, 1991: 174.
42
E.g. Christensen, 1984: 674; cf. Christensen, 1975: 158.
43
Christensen, 1984: 675 n.23, 676 (though he favours the Piel perfect).
44
Rudman, 1999: 112.
45
On the basis of Gen. 10.5, Adele Berlin limits the reference to descendants of Japheth, see Berlin, 1995: 179, 183.
46
Cf. Smith, 1911: 229: ‘It is unnecessary to suppose that the writer conceives of the various peoples as undertaking pilgrimages to Jerusalem.’
47
Zephaniah 2.11 is assigned to the same redactional layer as Mal. 1.11–14 by Bosshard-Nepustil, 1997: 422–23.
48
Gamberoni, 1996: 532–44.
49
On the Zephaniah text, see Goldingay and Scalise, 2009: 116.
50
Cf. Croatto, 2005. The attempt by Croatto to interpret salvific references to ‘nations’ in Isaiah as referring to the Jewish dispersion is unconvincing.
51
Verhoef, 1987: 228; cf. Robertson, 1990: 308; Roberts, 1991: 202.
52
After rejecting alternative views that he sees as unsuitable for the epoch, Lagrange, 1906: 81; cf. Goswell, 2013.
53
See Goswell, 2016.
54
Cf. Timmer, 2016: 325: ‘Despite this strong interest in Judah and Jerusalem, Zephaniah does not present residence in Judah as an essential condition for all citizens of the new realm that Y
55
Cf. Nogalski, 2000: 218.
56
House, 1989: 59.
57
Schwantes, 1996: 152–53. Cf. House, 1989: 65: ‘When their false gods are removed the heathen can properly worship. This verse [2:11] prefigures 3:9, where the nations call on the L
58
E.g. Ball, 1988, 236; Sweeney, 2015, 183; Pinker, 2000; Floyd, 2000: 209, 211, 235. This link is strengthened in the Targum, see Ho, 2009: 357–59.
59
As noted by Hadjiev, 2011: 579.
60
Berlin, 1994: 133; Timmer, 2016: 316.
61
Timmer, 2015: 161.
62
House, 1989: 79.
63
E.g., Roberts, 1991: 216–17; Vlaardingerbroek, 1999: 194–96; Elliger, 1956: 78–79; Sabottka, 1972: 116–17, reads the final mem as enclitic.
64
Judith Gärtner, 2012: 275; Schart, 1997: 277–78; pace Beck, 2008: 175, who sees 3.9–10 as a later addition that breaks the connection between 3.6–8 and 3.11–13, each of which address Jerusalem and speak of the fate of that city. However, Beck, on the same page, suggests how 3.9–10 may fit with what precedes: after what appears to be the universal annihilation of the nations in 3.8b, the more positive statements of 3.9–10 must concern a remnant of the peoples.
65
Nogalski, 2000: 212; Nogalski, 1993: 220 n.75.
66
Noting that 3.8–10 is joined to what precedes by ‘therefore’ (לכן). Cf. Sweeney, 2015: 184: ‘3:9 therefore emerges as Zephaniah’s attempt to portray Y
67
Cf. Floyd, 2000: 204.
68
Waltke and O’Connor, 1990: 172. For the cultic sense of עבד, see Isa. 19.21, 23.
69
Irsigler, 2002: 369.
70
See Langohr, 1976: 23, for thematic links with (but not dependence on) Mal. 1.11.
71
Sadler, 2005: 48: ‘the in-gathering from Cush [Isa 11:11] reflects Y
72
Cf. Oeming, 1987: 295. He identifies passages like Isa. 55.5, 66.17–24, Zech. 2.15 and Mal. 1.11 as having a similar significance.
73
Irsigler, 2002: 373.
74
As noted by Werse, 2020: 120.
75
On the connections of Zeph. 3.9–10 to Isaiah 18–19, see Steck, 1990; Sweeney, 2015: 183–85.
76
Pace Sadler, 2005: 76 n.85.
77
Széles, 1987: 108.
78
An attractive suggestion, retaining the Hebrew consonantal text but redividing the words, is to read it as meaning ‘with timbrel and by ship’ (בתף וצי) (the preposition ב doing double-duty); see Pinker and Zalcman, 1999, with the resultant translation: ‘From beyond the rivers of Cush, with timbrel will my suppliants bring me offerings by ship.’
