MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Bible students wish they under-

A LL
stood the Old Testament prophets.
Very few of them do.
That is why there is a continuing
substantial demand throughout the world
for this illuminating handbook by an
O.T. specialist of international repute.
After an introductory chapter dealing
with the function of the prophet and the
nature of Old Testament prophecy, there
are individual studies of the sixteen
prophetical books, taken as far as can be
determined in their chronological order.
Each book is prefaced by an analysis;
notes are given on authorship, historical
background and so on; critical questions
are discussed where necessary and an
exposition of the main points of each
prophecy is provided.
"Altogether," as one reviewer wrote,
"the best conservative handbook on the
prophets produced for many a long day."
By tke Same Autkor:

EZEKIEL: The Man and His Message

FROM TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH: Studies in the Book of Job
THE HOUSEHOLD CHURCH
THE MESSAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
THE MYSTERY OF ISRAEL
THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL
Titles in tkis Series
I THE DAWN OF WORLD REDEMPTION
Erick Sauer
2 THE TRIUMPH OF THE CRUCIFIED
Erick Sauer
3 THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE
Bernard Ramm
5 DARWIN BEFORE AND AFTER
R. E. D. Clark
6 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
H. L. Ellison
7 SECOND THOUGHTS ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
F. F. Bruce
8 FROM TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH
H. L. Ellison
9 EZEKIEL: THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE
H. L. Ellison
10 FROM ETERNITY TO ETERNITY
Erick Sauer
I I THE KING OF THE EARTH
Erick Sauer
12 MIND, MAN AND THE SPIRITS
J. Stafford Wright
13 THE FOUR MAJOR CULTS
A. A. Hoekema
14 BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
G. R. Beasley-Murray
15 ISRAEL AND THE NATIONS
F. F. Bruce
16 A HISTORY OF THE BRETHREN MOVEMENT
F. Roy Coad
Men Spake froll} God
STUDIES IN THE HEBREW PROPHETS

By
H. L. ELLISON, B.A., B.D•

.. Mm Spa", from God, b,inK moll~ by

the Holy Ghost" (11 Pd. I : IU, R. V.).

re
'llIllllTl.

EXETER:
THE PATERNOSTER PRESS
 ISBN: 0 85364 0165
First Published, I952
Second Edition, Copyright © I958
Reprinted 1961
This Paperback edition, Copyright © I966
The Paternoster Press
Second Impression, May I973

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted. in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical. photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of
The Paternoster Press

AUSTRALIA:
Emu Book Agencies Pty., Ltd.,
I, Lee Street, Sydney, N.5. W.

SOUTH AFRICA:
Oxford University Press
P.O. Box 1141, Oxford House, 11, Buitencingle St.,
Cape Town

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall

not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired
out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior
consent, in any form of binding or cover other than that
in which it is published and without a similar condition
including this condition being imposed on the
subsequent purchaser

Made and printed in Great Britain for

The Paternoster Press, Paternoster House,
3 Mount Radford Crescent, Exeter, Devon
by Redwood Press Limited,
Trowbridge, Wiltshire
 To
MY WIFE
who by her interest and steady encouragement
and cheerful shouldering of extra burdens·
made this book possible
I thankfully dedicate it
 CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
TO THE READER 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 11
I THE PROPHETS - 13
11 JOEL 20
III JONAH 24
IV AMOS 28
V HOSEA 35
VI ISAIAH 42
VII MICAH 63
VIII ZEPHANIAH 67
IX NAHUM 70
X HABAKKUK 73
XI JEREMIAH- 77
XII OBADIAH - 95
XIII EZEKIEL - 98
XIV HAGGAI 117
XV ZECHARIAH 123
XVI MALACHI - 133
XVII DANIEL 137
APPENDIX: LAMENTATIONS - 149
BIBLIOGRAPHY - 155
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES - 156
INDEX OF SUBJECTS - 159

7
 TO THE READER
conviction that the Bible is there to be read rather
T
HE
than to be read about is the only reason and justification
for this book. But why then this book?
The Prophets mirror theIr own times with their problems
so vividly, and they 'often express their thoughts so poetically,
that some help is needed by the reader who has not had a
theological training, if many parts are to be really intelligible
to him. Then, too, the Church, not content with the many
obvious Messianic prophecies, early took over the rabbinic
maxim, "No prophet prophesied save for the days of the
Messiah," and through most of its history has distorted what
it could of the prophets to refer to Jesus Christ in His first or
second coming, and has normally ignored the remainder,
except for occasional texts, which were useful as pegs to hang
sermons on. To take the Prophets simply and straight-
fonvardly and to reap the spiritual reward of so doing is even
to-day so difficult for many that some guidance is needed.
I have not written this book as an introduction to modern
views about the prophets and their writings. There are quite
enough books on the subject already. But certain far-
reaching views on some of the prophetic books have become
so widely known, at least by hearsay, that they could not be
ignored, especially as they affect, whether accepted or rejected,
our understanding of the prophetic message. Some will
disagree with what I have dealt with and what I have omitted;
probably all will disagree with some of my conclusions. As
regards the former, I have learnt much from the difficulties
of my own students; as regards the latter, though I have learnt
from many, I have become the blind follower of none, and the
only criticisms I shall regret are those based on the blind
acceptance of the views of others however eminent.
In fairness to my non-technical readers I have given them
the possibility in vexed questions of studying the views of
others for themselves. The books mentioned in the footnotes
have been chosen for the most part with an eye to whether
they are likely to be available in libraries.
The chapters on the Major Prophets, and the Appendix,
in their original form, first appeared as lessons in the Bible
School of The Life of Faith. That they should have been
9
10 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
expanded by the addition of chapters on the Minor Prophets
is due mainly to the encouragement given by Mr. F. F. Bruce,
Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature,
University of Sheffield, and Rev. H. F. Stevenson, Editor of
The Life of Faith. Let this book be my expression of thanks.
If I do not express thanks to others, it is not that I am not
indebted to many, but to too many, and to have picked out
some for mention would have been invidious.
The way in which this book has grown has inevitably
involved inequality of treatment between prophet and prophet,
with the longer prophets being the worst sufferers. I do not
regret this. The shorter prophets are normally the least
known and less has been written about them. In addition,
if I interest anyone sufficiently to· stir him to further reading,
he is much more likely to spend money on a book to help
him with one of the longer than one of the shorter prophets.
You will not really understand this book unless you read
it with your Bible open at the same time, and you will under-
stand it better if you use the RV., RS.V., and sometimes
N.E.B.
The Bibliography at the end is intended only to give you a
list of books that may help in a deeper study of the text of the
Prophets. They do not necessarily agree with my views and
expositions.
The dates given may not agree in all points with the average
reference book. They are based on Edwin R Thiele: The
Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.
I hope my more learned readers will not sniff at my use of
"Jehovah." Though Jahveh, or Yahweh, whichever you
prefer, is nearer to the real form of the name, it is not at all
certain that it is the real form. So if I had chosen your prefer-
ence, I should have· sacrificed the very real spiritual con-
notation that Jehovah has for many without having achieved
absolute accuracy.
It only remains for me to hope that your reading will
brin~ you nearer to Him of whom all the Prophets spoke in
sundry ways and divers manners, and that the ways and will
of God will become more clear to you. If so, my work will
not have been in vain.
NOTE TO FOURTH EDITION
In this second paperback edition the text has once again
been carefully revised though the actual changes are few. I am
grateful to God for the book's continued usefulness.
H. L. ELLlsoN.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
a, b, etc. Where only part of a verse is referred to,
this is indicated by the use of one of the
first four letters of the alphabet after the
reference.
ad loco at the place.
A.V. Authorized Version.
C.B. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
Driver LOT Driver: Introduction to the Literature of the
Old Testament-the page references are
to the sixth and later editions.
Finegan Finegan: Light from the Ancient Past.
G. A. Smith I or H G. A. Smith: The Book of the Twelve
Prophets, Vol. I or H.
Rarrison R W. Harrison: Introduction to the Old
Testament.
HDB Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible-S vols.
ibid. in the same place.
I.C.C. International Critical Commentary.
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyc1o-
paedia-S vols; an American work not
easily procurable in Britain.
Kenyon F. Kenyon: The Bible and Archaeology.
Kirkpatrick A. F. Kirkpatrick: The Doctrine of the
Prophets.
op. cit. in the work previously cited.
LXX The Septuagint; the oldest Greek trans-
lation of the Old Testament.
mg. Margin.
N.B.D. New Bible Dictionary
N.E.B. New English Bible.
RS.V. Revised Standard Version.
RV. Revised Version.
Young E. J. Young: An IntrorJuction to the Old
Testament

Also standard literary abbreviations and generally recog-

nized ones for the books of the Bible.
11
 CHAPTER J

THE PROPHETS
The Prophetic Books.
N popular speech the Prophetic Books are the sixteen books

I of the Old Testament, from Isaiah to Malachi, and some

would include Lamentations as well. They are further sub-
divided into the four Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and Daniel) and the twelve Minor Prophets.
This enumeration and sub-division is not to be found in the
Hebrew Bible. It is divided into the Torah (Law), Neviim
(Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). The second section, the
Prophets, consists of eight books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings (the Former Prophets), and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
The Twelve (the Latter Prophets). The reasons for the
omission of Daniel, which belongs to the Writings, are considered
in ch. XVII. For the moment it is sufficient to say that the
rabbis made a correct distinction between normal prophecy
and the apocalyptic visions we find in Daniel.
The distinction between Major and Minor Prophets is first
found ,in the Latin Churches, and Augustine rightly explains
that it means a difference in size, not in value. 1
Though we are not dealing with the Former Prophets in
this book, we shall profit by grasping the implicatiolls of books
we call historical being considered prophetic.
The Functions of a Prophet.
The prophet is not defined or explained in the Old Testa-
ment; he is taken for granted. This is because he has existed
from the very first (Luke 1: 70; Acts 3: 21 R.V.), and has not
been confined to Israel, e.g. Balaam (Num. 22: 5), the prophets
of Baal (I Kings 18: 19). There are true and false prophets
among the nations, as there are in Israel. But Amos makes
it clear that the prophets of Israel are a special gift of God
(Amos 2: 11) without real parallel among the Canaanites.
In the Bible, persons are called prophets whom we normally
never call by that name, e.g. Enoch (Jude 14), Abraham
(Gen. 20: 7), the Patriarchs geaerally (Ps. 105: 15). Moses is
not so much the law-giver as the prophet par excellence (Deut.
18: 15; 34: 10).
1 De Civitate Dei: 18. 29.
13
14 Id ENS P A KEF ROM GOD

All this should prepare us for the realization that the

popular conception of the prophet as primarily a foreteller is
alien to the thought of the Bible. Indeed, the alleged anti-
thesis of the Old Testament fore-teller with the New Testament
forth-teller, should have saved us from this error. The two
Testaments are not two books in opposition to one another,
but two parts of the same book, and speaking the same
spiritual language.
The best picture of the true function of a prophet is given
by Exod. 7: 1£. The prophet is to God what Aaron was to
Moses. When Moses stands before Pharaoh (" I have made
thee a god to Pharaoh "), Aaron does all the speaking, even
when the narrative might suggest otherwise, but they are
Moses' words-Exod. 4: 15f, "Thou shalt be to him (Aaron)
as God." In other words, the prophet is God's spokesman.
Speaking for God may involve foretelling the future, and in
the Old Testament it normally does, but this is secondary, not
primary.
While the foretelling of the true prophet may normally be
expected to come to pass (Deut. 18: 21£), that does not neces-
sarily establish his credentials (Deut. 13: 1ft). Ultimately
it is the spiritual quality of his message which shows whether
a man is a prophet or not. In any case the foretelling of the
future is never merely to show tl)at God knows the future, or
to satisfy man's idle curiosity; there is normally a revelation
of God attached to it. We can know the character of God
better now, if we know what He will do in the future. And
as the future becomes present we can interpret God's activity
the better for its having been foretold.
From this there follows that the prophet speaks primarily
to the men of his own time, and his message springs out of the
circumstances in which he lives. So some slight knowledge of
the history and social background of the prophet are a help to
the understanding of his message. But for all this, the source .
of the message is super-natural, not natural. It is derived
neither from observation nor intellectual thought, but from
admission to the council chamber of God (Amos 3: 7; Jer. 23:
18, 22), from knowing God and speaking with Him (Num. 12:
6ft; Exod. 33: 11). Though the ordinary prophet might not
rise to Moses' level, and had to be satisfied with vision or
dream, yet Moses' experience represented the ideal. We must
beware of applying Deut. 34: 10 to all the written prophets.
Though such a verse must by its very nature have been written
a couple of centuries after the death of Moses, the latest date
we can reasonably ~ve to the final editing of the Pentateuch
will be very early ID the time of the united monarchy. 1 It
1 See Aalders: A Shorll111"oductiOflIo 111# Pmt4Uuclf, p. 157.
 THE PROPHET.S 15
cannot therefore be applied simply a priori to the written
prophets, though possibly on other grounds some readers may
wish to do it.
Since, then, the prophetic message is not merely a revel-
ation of God's will, but of God Himself, it follows that it has a
depth beyond the prophet's own understanding of it (I Pet. 1:
lOff), and that its significance extends beyond the prophet's
own time, though its application at a later period may be rather
different. In so far as a prophetic message is a revelation of
the unchanging God, it has an unchanging significance. But
none-the-Iess we will be better fitted to grasp its significance for
us now, as we understand what the message meant to those
who first heard it. Our study will, therefore, normally ap-
proach the prophets from this standpoint.
History as Prophecy.
We can now understand why Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, are reckoned as prophetic books. The anonymous
authors of these books-or it might perhaps be better to say
editors-may well have been prophets themselves. At any
rate they were given to see that the history of Israel was, in
itself, a revelation of God. Their record of it sought less to
give a history of the doings of Israel and more an account of
the doings of God in and through Israel. This explains the
stress on what the modern historian would consider non-
essentials and the omission of apparent essentials.
This thought of Jehovilh as the God of history ~rmeates
the Latter Prophets. The partial loss of this vision ID our day
has largely weakened the Church's preaching.
Early Prophecy.
In the historical books we are introduced to prophetic
activity of a strange nature, e.~. I Sam. 10: 10-13; 19: 20-24.
It is reasonable to attribute thls partly to the baleful influence
of Canaanite religion during the period of the Judges. How-
ever that may be, there is little, if any, trace of it in the written
prophets. The wild men had degenerated into professional
prophets, with their ecstasies and dreams (Jer. 23: 25), and
are repeatedly condemned by the written prophets. Their last
pitiful state is described in Zech. 13: 2-6. (The Messianic
interpretation of Zech. 13: 6 is only possible by a gross neglect
of the context.) Amos indignantly refuses to be called a
prophet, if it involves his being classed with them: .. I am no
prophet, neither am lone of the sons of the prophets" (Am.>s
7: 14, R.V. mg, R.S.V., N.E.B.).
In contradistinction to these false prophets. the written
prophets seem to have obtained most of their messages
16 MEN 5 P A KEF ROM GOD

verbally-we cannot go further in our explanation than this-

though we do meet with fairly frequent visions. As the
prophets never really explain how the message came to them,
it would be unwise for us to speculate too far on the subject.
The Form of the Prophetic Message.
The majority of the true prophets were bitterly unpopular
-Ezekiel is apparently a major exception and there is no
evidence for this after the exile. As a result, they could
seldom rely on a large audience for any length of time. Their
messages had normally to be packed into short pregnant form,
generally in poetry, that they might be the more easily re-
membered. (The failure to indicate the poetic sections of the
prophets is one of the major weaknesses of the RV.; it could
not be expected in the A.V. for they had not yet been reco~nized
in the seventeenth century; this has been rectified ID the
RS.V., N.E.B.). It should be remembered that before the days
of printing, the only possibility of a message becoming widely
known was for it to be passed from mouth to mouth. 1
The best example of the prophetic message in its simplest
form is given in Jonah 3: 4. We need not doubt that Jonah
expanded it, whenever questioned about it, but basically this
was his message. We find the prophetic tradition carried on
by John the Baptist (Matt. 3: 2), and our Lord (Mark 1: 15).
The fact that the bulk of the earlier prophets and not a
little of the later (not Daniel) is written in poetry should serve
as a warning to us in our interpretation. It means that we
are dealing not merely with the natural exuberance of Oriental
language, but with the vivid metaphors and pictures of poetry
as well.
At times the prophet became so unpopular that he couid
only gain public attention by unusual actions. Examples are
Isaiah's vintage song (5: 1-7), and his going about dressed as
a slave (20: 1-6). Jeremiah had to do this kind of thing a
number of times: among them his remaining unmarried (Jer.
16: 2), his breaking of the jar (ch. 19), his wearing a yoke
(chs. 27, 28), his buying of land (32: 7-15), his use of the
Rechabites (ch. 35), his hiding of stones in front of Pharaoh's
palace (43: 8-13). his sinking of the scroll against Babylon in
the El,1phrates (51: 59-64). This element is very common in
Ezekiel, e.g. his acting the siege of Jerusalem (ch. 4), the
symbolizing of the scattering of the people (5: 1-4), the re-
moval of his goods (12: 1-16), the rationing of his food (12: 17-
20). his refraining from mourning (24: 15-27). It is the more
remarkable here, as there seems to have been no neces')ity for
it. It may be that such actions had come to be e~pected of a
1 For the form of Hebrew poetry see Appendix. p. 150.
 THE PROPHETS 17
true prophet. The non-mention of such details in connexion
with the Minor Prophets may well be due to the virtually
complete lack of personal details in their writings.
The Shaping of the Prophetic Book.
Apart from Jer. 36, there is no indication given us how the
prophetic books were put together. It should, however, be
clear that the recorded prophecies cannot represent the whole
of the prophet's actiVIties, even if we allow for frequent
repetition of his messages. The most obvious explanation is
that the prophet only preserved those of his prophecies which
best expressed the character and purposes of God, and would
best make them real to the future.
This probably explains why we have almost nothing of the
messages of men like Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, :preserved for
us. They were so intimatelY' connected with the CIrcumstances
of their own times that they had but slight importance for later
generations. We may be sure that the same was true of much
that the prophets dealt with·in this book said. It does not
take any very close study to reveal long periods in their lives
from which we have few, if any, prophecies.
In most of the longer prophets the main guide in the putting
together of the propheCies preserved was spiritual connexion.
Chronology is not neglected, but it is obviously secondary,
and there are clear cases where it has been ignored for the sake
of spiritual connexions.
In Jeremiah's case we know from 30: 2, 36: 32 that there
were at least two collections of his prophecies in existence al-
ready durin~ his lifetime. Isa. 8: 16; 30: 8 may well point to
something similar in the case of the earlier prophet especially
when we consider Micah's knowledge of him (see p. 63). Nothing
will really satisfy the evidence offered by Jeremiah, except the
theory that it was put together after the prophet's death by
Baruch. In ch. VI in considering the evidence for the author-
ship of Isaiah 40-66, we have had to assume the transmission
of Isaiah through a ~up of disciples, even though the book
may well have been given definitive form by the.prophet before
his death. With Ezekiel there is every evidence that the
prophet looked forward to pUblication from the first, and that
It was he who shaped the book from first to last. A number
of the Minor Prophets give the impression that they were put
together by the prophet himself.
Unfulfilled Prophecy.
One of the major problems in the study of the prophetic
books is the problem of unfulfilled prophecy. The question
is normally shirked either by referring the fulfilment to the
 18 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
Millennium, or by spiritualizing the prophecy and referring it
to the Church.
The former method is seldom legitimate. Prophecies which
refer to the last things normally do so quite unmistakably.
There seems no justification for picking out others and making
them do so too, just because we know that they were not
fulfilled in the prophet's own time.
For the latter, there seems nothing to be said. Very many
prophecies find a fuller meaning and fulfilment in the Church
than they ever found in Israel. But this is by their having
gained in spiritual depth. If a prophecy obviously does not
refer to the Church in its primary meaning, its non-fulfilment
in the prophet's time cannot be explained away by discovering
a spiritual application to the Church.
Another school of thought minimizes the reliability of the
predictive element in prophecy, and finds confirmation for its
views in such unfulfilled prophecies, but this approach does
not do justice to the facts.
The problem is really brought to a head in Ezek. 26. This
is a prophecy of the complete destruction of Tyre by Nebu-
chadrezzar. Lest there should be any doubt as to its meaning,
it is followed by a lamentation over Tyre (ch. 27), its prince
(28: 1-10), and its king (28: 11-19). Yet Tyre was not cap-
tured and destroyed and its king killed. Sixteen years later
(cf. 29: 17 with 26: 1) the king of Tyre was able to come to
honourable terms. Ezekiel simply says that Nebuchadrezzar
has had no gain from Tyre, but God has given him Egypt in-
stead (29: 17-20). This is re-affirmed in th~ next chapter
(30: 10 seq.). In spite of this, and Jer. 43: 8-13, there is no
clear evidence that Nebuchadrezzar ever crossed the Egyptian
border; he certainly never conquered the country.l
The very fact that Ezekiel neither apologizes nor explains
in 29: 17-20 shows that he must have recognized a principle
in prophetic fulfilment which we tend to overlook. This is
probably to be found in Jer. 18: 7-10. Every prophecy is con-
ditional, even when the condition is unexpressed. A prophecy
of good may be annulled or delayed, if men do not obey, while
repentance may suspend or reverse a prophecy of evil. We
must make an exception when it is confirmed by God's oath.
It is only because we have the story of Jonah as well as his
message that we have no difficulty with the "unfulfilled"
prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh. Could we know all
the circumstances, we should doubtless find similar circum-
stances elsewhere, where prophecy has not been fulfilled. The
recording of such "unfulfilled" prophecies without explanatory
1 Cf. H. R. Hall: Th, Aftci",' Hislory of Ih' N,ar Easl, p. 549. Nebu-
chadrezzar is the more correct form of Nebuchadnezzar.
 THE PROPHETS 19
comment is ample evidence that the prophet thought little of
the evidential value of fulfilled prophecy.
For all this, "unfulfilled" is not in ev~ry case the best word;
" suspended" would often be better. Nineveh was not des-
troyed in forty days, but some 150 years later it ceased to be a
city. Nebuchadrezzar did not destroy Tyre, but the day
came when it became a bare rock, a place for the spreading of
nets in the midst of the sea. Egypt was never uninhabited
for forty years (Ezek. 29: 11), but it has become a base king-
dom, which has no longer ruled over the nations (Ezek. 29: 14f).
Babylon did not sink like a stone in the Euphrates (Jer. 51: 64),
but surely, slowly it went down into oblivion.
If this is so, he would be a very rash man who would main-
tain that the prophecies concerning Israel in Isaiah 40-66 and
in similar passages elsewhere are abrogated and not just
suspended; that they have found their fulfilment in the
Church, although it is obvious that much in these chapters
cannot be referred to the Church by any strength of
imagination.
A number of these points have been expanded in my
Ezekiel e.g. the use of symbols (p. 32), the problem of false
prophets (p. 51 seq.) and the conditional nature of prophecy
[p. 102 ff.).
 CHAPTER II

JOEL
THE STRUCTURE OF JOEL
THE DAY OF JEHOVAH
A. To-Day-Chs. 1: 2-2: 17.
I-Ch. 1: 2-20. The Swarm of Locusts.
2-Ch. 2: 1-11. The Approaching Day.
3-Ch. 2: 12-17. Effective Penitence.
B. The Future-Chs. 2: 18-3: 21.
I-Ch. 2: 18-27. Physical Blessing.
2-Ch. 2: 28-32. Spiritual Blessing.
3-Ch. 3: 1-17. Judgment on the Nations.
4-Ch. 3: 18-21. Final Blessing.
A uthor and Date.
OTHING is known of Joel except his name and the obvious

N inference from his prophecy that he lived in Judaea.

The order of the Minor Prophets gives the impression
that the scribes responsible for it aimed at approximate
chronological order, modified where necessary by spiritual
considerations. This creates a presumption in favour of an
early date for the Book of JoeI. From the internal evidence
of the book itself we are virtually tied down either to a date
early in the reign of Joash of Judah (i.e. shortly after 835 B.C.),
or to one after the Exile-anything from 500 to 200 B.C. has
been suggested. 1
We do not consider either dating conclusively proved, and
we here deal with Joel in his traditional position, for its mess-
age underlies all written Hebrew prophecy.
The Day ofJ ehovah.
The Day of Jehovah, or of the LORD, is a fundamental
concept in the Old Testament, never really introduced or
formally explained. The Hebrew saw that the world does
not show the perfection of God's rule, and that the righteous
man does not fully reap the reward of his righteousness. The
Old Testament does not look for a redress of this world's
1 For the early date see Kirkpatrick, p. 57 seq., HDB, article Joel, ISBE,
article Joel; .for the late date Driver: Joel & Amos (C.B.) or LOT, p. 308
seq. Young, p. 255 and N.B.D., p. 639 leave it open, preferring the former, while
Harrison, pp. 876--879 tends to the latter.
20
 10EL 21
wrongs and sufferings in heaven, but expects God's inter-
vention by which His sovereignty will be perfectly and for
ever established on earth. This intervenbon with its ac-
companying upheavals and judgments is called the Day of the
Lord (see also Amos 5: 18ff; Isa. 2: 12; 13: 6, 9f; Zeph. 1: 14ff;
Jer. 46: 10; Ezek. 30: 2f; Obad. 15; Zech. 14: 1; Mal. 4: 5).
Since any and every major divine intervention, especially
when it involved judgment, not merely foreshadowed the
final intervention and judgment, but also, for all that man
could tell, might be its inauguration, the Day of the Lord is
not used exclusively for the final intervention. This am-
biguity has three main reasons, linguistic peculiarities in
Hebrew, the real link between the foreshadowing and the
fulfilment, and the revelation to the prophet of the nature of
the Day of the Lord but not of its date in time.
The Swarm of Locusts.
The immediate cause of JoeI's prophecy was an exception-
ally severe invasion of locusts. Interpretations differ, some
seeing here a description of the immediate past, others a
prophecy of the future, but the most likely is that Joel speaks
at the very height of the plague. After in ch. 1 describing
the locusts and calling for a fast, for "the Day of the Lord is
at hand," in 2: 1-11 he describes them in even more hyper-
bolicallanguage, as they are seen against the lurid background
of the Day of the Lord. So poetic and exaggerated does his
language become, that many have found it impossible to
believe that real locusts are here intended.
Allegorical interpretations of these chapters have been and
still are popular; but quite apart from the complete lack of
agreement as to how the allegory-is to be interpreted, such an
interpretation seems entirely unnecessary. The language,
however exaggerated, can with few exceptions be suitably
applied to locusts,l while the exceptions (2: 10£) are unsuited
to human armies as well.
The prophet's lesson is that there are natural calamities so
terrible and so surpassing the limits normally imposed by God,
that they can only be explained as divine interventions in
judgment. Whether or not such a calamity is inaugurating
the final judgment is of little importance, for it is a guarantee
that there is a final judgment.
The palmerworm, locust, cankerworm, caterpillar (1 :4) are
either different kinds of locusts, or more probably different
stages in the development of the locust. Driver renders:
shearer, swarmer, lapper, finisher,2 cf. also R.S.V. and N.E.B.
1 See Driver: Joel et Amos (C.B.) ad loco and especially p. 84-93.
I See Driver op ..cit. and HDB and ISBE. article Locust.
22 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

The Giving ojlhe Spirit.

Evidently the call to repentance and fasting was followed,
for there is an immediate promise of Divine blessing (note
tenses in,2:18f, R.V., R.S.V., N.E.B.). These verses (2: 18-27)
refer to Joel's own time rather than to the more distant future.
Then there comes the promise that even as the judgment
of locusts was followed br spiritual turning to God, so in the
judgments of the Day 0 tlie Lord (2: 30ff) there will be a
tremendous outpouring of the Spirit. From tb.e New Testa-
ment we know that this promise was fulfilled on the first
Whit-Sunday (Acts. 2: 16). There is a tendency to suggest
that this outpouring was not the fulfilment of Joel, but only
a foreshadowing of the fulfilment in a day yet to come.
This is not indicated by Peter, nor is it necessarily true. The
coming of the Holy Spirit to found a body in which all barriers
of birth, sex and social standing should be swept away, and in
which the will and purposes of God should truly find ex-
pression is, in conjunction with the work of Christ, the supreme
mterventiol'l of God in human affairs up to our time. The
forty years that followed were the most catastrophic in their
history for the Jewish people until perhaps our own time.
While the lack of perspective in the prophets' vision of the
future is universally recognized, it is not sufficiently seen that
the two comings of our Lord are inseparably connected, two
phases of Olle great divine intervention. So the Day of the
Lord looks not merely to our Lord's second coming, but to
His first as well.
Unless, therefore, other evidence can be found, it would be
dangerous to base any view of world-wide revival before the
second coming of our Lord merely on this passage.
TheJudgmentojtheNations (3: 1-17).
For the average Israelite the Day of the Lord was first and
foremost the day of divine vengeance on the enemies of Israel
{cf. Amos 5: 18}, therefore the prophets stress primarily the
judgment on Israel (cf. I Pet. 4: 17), but the reality of the
Divine judgment of the nations is never denied. It belongs to
God's attributes as Judge of all the earth."
It

The vision of judgment falls into two parts (vers. 1-8, 9-17),
and the contrast between them is most instructive for our
understanding of the prophetic picturing of the distant future.
First Joel deals with nations known to him. Their treatment
of God's people is to provide the ground of judgment, and as
they have treated them, so will they be treated. Our Lord's
teaching in Matt. 25: 31-46 lifts this to the highest plane and
lays bare its underlying principles. Man's reaction to the
 ]OEL 23
people of God illuminates his true character and shows his
true reaction to Christ Himself.
But there are other nations unknown to' the prophet and
to Israel. Immediately the sharp-cut details of verso 1-8
vanish, and we meet the typical vagueness and general terms
of apocalyptic (see p. 115). The prophet does not know on
what grounds these nations will be judged, but he knows the
judgment is certain.
It is probable that the valley of Jehoshaphat (vers. 2, 12)
belongs to the symbolic language of apocalyptic. There is no
plausibility in its identification with the Kidron valley (though
this is at least as early as the fourth century A.D.). Jehosha-
phat means" Jehovah judges," and this is in all probability
the reason behind the choice of name.
Final Blessing (3: 18-21).
All Old Testament prophecy sees in the final setting up of
God's kingdom here on a transformed earth the goal of God's
purposes; and this is echoed in Rev. 21, 22, where heaven is
linked with earth but does not swallow it u:p or obliterate it.
There may be adequate reasons for antIcipating an end of
the material universe, and placing the eternal state in a purely
spiritual "heaven," but they hardly justify the complete
spiritualization of the Old Testament hope. The prophets'
vision of a transformed earth was not merely the highest that
they were capable of apprehending of God's purposes; it was
also the vindication of God's wisdom and purposes in creation.
There is no trace in the Bible of that depreciation of the material
that came into Christianity from Greek philosophy and
Eastern mysticism. While we must never forget that the
unknown future can be pictured only in terms of the known
present, we should yet hesitate to deny reality to the glowing
visions of the prophets, and to affirm that this world is in-
capable of salvation and transformation in the cosmic stretch
of the power of the Cross.
Jool's vision is limited to Judah and Jerusalem, not even the
north of Palestine being included. It is quite understandable,
then, that he sees only judgment and not blessing for the other
peoples. This is one of the strong arguments for an early date
for the prophecy.
 CHAPTER III

JONAH
The Author and Date.
ONAH the son of Amittai prophesied during or shortly before

J the reign of Jeroboam II (782-753 B.c.-II Kings 14: 25).

It should not, however, be taken for granted that the book
was necessarily written by Jonah himself, as it is throughout
in the third person.
The usual modem claim, based on linguistic evidence l
reinforced by the almost universal unwillingness to accept its
miraculous element, is that the book is post-exiIic, and that it
was written as a protest against the national exclusiveness of
those that had returned from exile. We are far from con-
vinced of the truth of the argument. We shall later show that
the book fits into the needs of the middle of the eighth century
B.C. We have insufficient evidence (only Hosea for certain)
for the language of the North in the century before its fall to
be dogmatic about the date of literature claiming to come
from there. We agree with Sampey, "The Book of Jonah is
anonymous, and we really do not know who the author was
or when he lived. The view that Jonah wrote the story of
his own disobedience and his debate with the merciful God
has not been made wholly untenable.'"
Historicity.
The uncertainty as to authorship need not affect our view
as to the historicity and accuracy of the book; the oriental
memory does not need to be tied to ink and parchment. 1£
it was indeed written (and the same claim is made about Ruth)
as a protest against the illiberality of the dominant spirit in
post-exiIic Judaism, it would hardly have had much effect
unless it had been universally accepted as true.
Decisive should be our Lord's use of the book as historical
(Matt. 12: 40f, Luke 11: 30). The appeal to our Lord's self-
empt)ing (Phil. 2: 7, R.V.-the "kenosis" theory) is invalid,
for He who had not the Spirit "by measure" would surely
have been able to distinguish between history and parabolic
or allegorical teaching, however noble.
1 See Driver: LOT, p. 322, HDB, article Jonah.
• ISBE, article Jonah, The Book of.
24
 J 0 N AH 25
Apart from the deep-rooted dislike of the modem spirit to
accept the miraculous, there is no really valid argument
against the historicity of the book. A man's unwillingness to
accept the miraculous lies outside the scope of rational argu-
ment, and indeed our own willingness to accept is primarily
an act of faith based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which
in the last analysis we accept unhesitatingly because of what
we know of Him. The other arguments against the historicity
of J onah are really arguments against an early date for its
writing.
The Purpose of the Book.
Qur estimate of the book's purpose will to some extent
depend on the date we assign to its composition. Still it
should be clear that the closing words are the climax of the
book, "And should I not have pity on ... persons that cannot
discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also
much cattle." Jehovah is not merely the creator of all life
but its lord, and" He loveth all He made."
The idea that the early Israelites looked on J ehovah
merely as a localized "tribal deity" has been largely exploded. 1
Their belief in Him as Creator was fundamental, even if its
implications were often overlooked or forgotten. Jonah forgot
one of them, when he tried to run away from Jehovah to
Tarshish, and so earned for himself the stinging rebuke of
the sailors (1: 9f). Just as the ordinary Israelite of the time
attributed real, though perhaps vague powers to the gods of
the other nations, so the sailors had quite understandably
assumed that J ehovah was the god of the hills of Israel
(cf. I Kings 20: 23).
Another implication was that Jehovah was the absolute
lord of the nations, doing His will in and through them as He
willed. But Jonah shows that this power was linked to a
loving kindness which embraced all His creation.
This lesson of the power and love of God needed urgently
to be learned in (he middle of the eighth century B.C. In
745 B.C. Pul seized the throne of Assyria and called himself
after one of the famous kings of the past Tiglath-Pileser (Ill).
From then on Assyria was to be the rod of God's anger (Isa.
10: 5), smiting Israel until it ceased to be a people, and Judah
until it was brought to the verge of destruction (Isa. 1: 9).
In this time of unparalleled distress God's spokesmen had to
see clearly that Jehovah was the lord of Assyria, and that
behind all His smiting was His love. Where this truth was
not grasped, the only logical course was to turn and worship
1 Cf. Wright: The Old Testament against its Environment, p. 13.
26 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
the victorious" gods of Assyria as did Ahaz and Manasseh
tI

(11 Kings 16: 10-16; 21: 3).

The Sufferings of Disobedience (Ch. 1).
The wickedness of Nineveh needs no elaboration. The
Assyrians seem to have been the only nation of antiquity in
the Near East that gloried in cruelty, which they frequently
depicted on their bas-reliefs. l A vivid impression of the
hatred they caused will be gained from Nahum's "fierce
exultation over the coming fall of Nineveh. It is easy to
understand why Jonah had no wish to save them from
judgment.
In order to escape Jehovah's compulsion Jonah sailed for
some port at the western end of the Mediterranean, the end
of the world for him. (Ships of Tarshish were probably
originally the ships that brought the metal ores for smelting;
then the places called Tarshish would have got their name as
main ports for the ore trade.)
There seems little point in stressing that neither the Hebrew
nor the Greek (Matt. 12: 40 R.V.mg., R.S.V.) says that it was a
whale that swallowed Jonah, for there are varieties that would
have not the least difficulty in so doing. In actual fact we are
left entirely in the dark as to what kind of marine monster
it was.
The Psalm of Thanksgiving (Ch. 2).
This psalm is confidently appealed to as an added proof
of the unreality of the story. It is said not to suit the cir-
cumstances (cf. ver. Sf) and to be a mere mosaic put together
from other psalms (cf. the references ad loco in any reference
Bible); it is usually regarded as a later insertion. We agree
that superficially at least the psalm is so incongruous, that its
later insertion seems hardly reasonable. When, however, we
grasp that Jonah is thanking God for saving him from drown-
ing-hence the language of ver. Sf-which was for him a
guarantee of God's forgiveness and ultimate deliverance, the
psalm drops into place as entirely congruous. Even a land-
lubber like Jonah knew that this was no ordinary fish.
As regards the language of the psalm, there are no direct
quotations of other psalms, but rather echoes. Modem
research has shown that the "psalm of thanksgiving" largely
conformed to stock patterns, so such echoes are not entirely
surprising, especially if Jonah, as was very likely the case,
was attached to a sanctuary, where he may often have put
together such psalms for the worshippers.
1 There are some interesting examples in the British Museum.
 JONAH 27
Nineveh Repents (Ch. 3).
In the description of Nineveh there is probably an element
of Oriental exaggeration, which is quite understandable. After
the small tightly packed Palestinian cities on their tells the
wide expanse of Nineveh, including even open land within its
walls, must have seemed enormous. While "three days'
journey" is a rough approximation, we find it confirmed for
the circumference of the city by Diodorus Siculus, who esti-
mated it at about 60 miles. 1 The impression-not necessarily
correct-made by ch. 3 is that the whole of it took place
within a day. If so the "day's journey" (ver. 4) covers his
whole movements.
God's Tender Mercy (Ch. 4).
There came to J onah the certainty that God had accepted
the repentance of Nineveh (3: 10). It offended his sense of
what God should do (4: 2), It spared Israel's most dangerous
enemy, and though he did not say so, it destroyed his reputation
as a prophet, so he asked to die (ver. 3). Still he decided to
watch out the forty days in case God changed His mind (ver. 5).
His black spirits were slightly lightened by a gourd which
grew up rapidly-" in a night" (ver. 10) need not be taken
absolutely literally-and gave him a little shade. A worm
at its root killed it and the hot sirocco wind both shrivelled it
up and threatened Jonah with heatstroke. In his depression
the loss of the gourd seemed the last straw. God was then
able to bring home to Jonah through the importance to him
of a mere ephemeral plant what Gbd's creation must mean to
the Creator. It seems likely that the 120,000 persons that
could not "discern between their right hand and their left
hand" are the younger children of two or three and under.
Additional Note.
The miracle of Jonah's preservation has more relevance
than we might think. To the Israelite the untamab1e sea was
a picture of chaos, the enemy of all settled 9rder. Jehovah's
control of the sea was also a picture of His control of chaos, and
hence of everything. The great fish was doubtless a picture
to Jonah of Leviathan, the monster lord of chaos, who meekly
serves J ehovah as need arises.
A further treatment of the prophet may be found in my
The Prophets of Israel, ch. VIII.
1 See Lanchester: Obadiah & Jonah (C.B.). p. 53. It is "Greater
Nineveh" that is meant. the actual city was much smaller. see Bewer: Jonah
(LC.C.). p. 51.
 CHAPTER IV

AMOS
THE STRUCTURE OF AMOS
A. The Crimes of Israel and her Neillhbours-oChs. I, 2.
1-oCh' 1: 1,2. Introduction.
2-Chs. 1: 3-2: 5. The Crimes of Israel's Neillhbours.
3-Ch. 2: 6-16. The Crimes of Israel.
B. Israel's Crimes and Doom-Chs. 3-6.
l-Ch.3. Social Disorder.
2-Ch. 4: 1-3. Judllment on the Women.
3-Ch. 4: 4-13. God's Visitations in Nature.
4-Ch. 5: 1-17. Inevitable Ruin.
5-Ch. 5: 18-26. The Day of the Lord.
6-Ch. 6. The Self-satisfied Leaders.
C. Five Visions of Doom-Chs. 7 : 1 - 9 : 10.
D. Final Blessinll-Ch. 9: 11-15
The Author.
OME twelve miles south of Jerusalem on the brink of the

S drop down to the Dead Sea lay the fortified village of

Tekoa,l near enough to the desert to bear its stamp, near
enough to the high-road up the backbone of the country
through Beer-Sheba, Hebron and Jerusalem to know what
was happening in the world. This was the home of Amos,
who lived the arduous life of a shepherd (cf. Gen. 31: 39f).
He may have been the owner of his flock, for the same tech-
nical expression is used of him and Mesha, king of Moab
(II Kings 3: 4), i.e. noqed.
Amos otters us no indication of his spiritual history or of
how God called him (but see p. 33). We can, however, from
his prophecy recognize how he had be('n stamped in hi.. think-
ing by the desert, where there is no place for half tones, for
fine distinctions between light and dark, right and wrong.
G. A. Smith is probably correct in suggesting I that Amos
will have visited the towns of Israel on business, and that
what he saw there must have created the certainty of Israel's
doom in his heart. Then in rapid succession came the signs
of God's wrath, drought (4: 6ff), locusts (4: 9; 7: 1), plague
(4: to-it ravished the Near East in 765 B.C.) and a total
1 For a description of the landscape see G. A. Smith. I, p. 74.
I ibid. p. 79.
28
 AMOS ~

eclipse of the sun (4: 13; 5: 8; 9: 6-763 B.C.). It was clear to

Amos that the coming doom was at hand, so he wrapped his
cloak around him and went off with his message-"The lion
hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken,
who can but prophesy?" (3: 8). It was as simple as all that.
It is vital to realize that Amos represents something new in
Hebrew religion. The indignant denial, .. I am no prophet,
neither am r one of the sons of the prophets" (7: 14, R.V. mg.,
R.S.V., N.E.B.) goes beyond the rejection of the idea that he
prophesied for money. Once he finished his brief ministry in
the North, he will have gone back to his flock, and he probably
never prophesied again, i.e. he was never an official prophet at
all. He represents that challenge to established form and order
which has repeatedly been necessary to free the Church from
the tyranny of tradition.
Though Amos' great successors could not have echoed his
indignant denial, for they had known God's appointment
as prophet, yet in their opposition to the .. false prophets"
and the official worship, in their long silences and their willing-
ness to stand outside the normal framework of society they
show that they had learnt the lesson of Amos' activity. The
passage 3: 3-8 is particularly interesting as showing the
spiritual compulsion l;>ehind his message.
The actual course of Amos' activity is not clear. It can-
not have lasted long; it will have been cut short by the
authorities, for in spite of the king's indifference Amaziah will
have had the power to enforce his demands (7: 10-13}. But
it seems reasonably certain that his prophecy was given at
the great autumn, i.e. New Year, festival at Bethel. It was
probably spread over three days.
It may well be that it was Amos' prophecy of the coming
earthCluake (8: 8; 9: 5)-a pmphecy fulfilled by one of the
worst m Palestinian history (1: I), for it was still remembered
two and a half centuries later (Zech. 14: 5)-that stamped
his message on men's minds and caused them to approach him
with the request that it should be written down.
A mos' Message.
It will be no coincidence that Abraham, Moses and David
all knew the wilderness, all had worked as shepherds, for under
God this was a life that could teach a true scale of values.
This was Amos' school in which he came to realize one of the
foundation stones of true religion, that God was not merely
just HimseH, but demanded justice from men, and especially
from those that worshipped Him. As preached by Amos it
is over-simplified and glves a one-sided picture of God, but it
was a foundation stone on which others could build. Until
30 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

He could reveal Himself perfectly in His Son, God's

self-revelation had to be "in sundry ways and divers
manners."
There was nothing intrinsically new in Amos' message. It
breathes in the stories of Genesis, in the judgment of the Flood
and of SOdom and Gomorrah, in Abraham's plea, "Shall not
the Judge of all the earth do right?" and in God's com-
mendation of him (Gen. 18: 19). It is made clear in the Book
of the Covenant (Exod. 2~23, cf. 24: 4, 7), the fundamental
law code of the people. The judge stands in the place of
God, and to go to the judge is to go to God (Exod. 21: 6; 22:
8, 9, 2S-cf. R.V. text and mg.). No distinction is made
between civil and religious law, but the former is embedded in
the latter. It is a leading feature in the teaching of the early
prophets, e.g. I Sam. ,15: 22£, II Sam. 12: 1-15, I Kings 21
(note that Ahab's and Jezebel's judicial murder of Naboth was
relatively a greater sin than all the Baal worship). Nothing
a,lienated the affections of the people more readily from David
than the suggestion, true or false, that he, God's representative,
was not caring for the administration of justice (II Sam. 15:
1-6).
Amos does not analyse the reasons why this fundamental
concept had been so largely ignored-that he was not ex-
aggerating is shown by his later contemporaries Hosea, Isaiah
and Micah-nor does he suggest reformations in religious and
civil life which might result in increasing social justice. He
demands the doing of justice as the only way of averting the
(ltherwise inevitable judgment of God.
The Background.
As is almost universal in the prophetic message, Amos
addresses himself to the rich and influential, to the rulers of the
people. This is mainly due to the structure of oriental society,
and to the fact that earlier Israelite religion, while never losing
sight of the individual, did subordinate him to the com-
munity as a whole. It is our familiarity with the Psalter
(and even here the community plays a larger role than we
often realize) that often prevents our recognizing this fact.
It is perhaps best demonstrated by Matt. 11: 5 where "and
the poor have good tidings preached unto them" is given by
our Lord as the clinching proof that He is the Messiah.
The sins he accuses them of group themselves roughlyinte
three types. There are the gross violations of the ordinary
decencies of life. Here come the crimes of the surrounding
nations (1: 3-2: 3), gross immorality (2: 7b), inhumanity
(2: 8a, cf. Exod. 22: 26f) and fraud (8: 5b). Then there are
injustice, the perversion of justice and the luxury that leads
 AMOS ~

to them. The only guarantee of justice in Israel was either

the integrity of the judge or the ,ower of one's own family
and connexions. That is why the sad plight of the widow,
orphan and stranger is so often stressed. God had entrusted
the care of the weak and helpless into the hands of them that
bore rule and judged (generally synonymous terms), and so
injustice and thelerversion of Justice were peculiarly affronts
to God (cf. Exo . 22: 21-24; 23: 1-3, 6-9). Amos' attacks
on the luxury of the rich held nothing of the fox's rejection
of the grapes beyond his leap as sour. Throughout the Bible
period, and especially in the Old Testament, Palestine was an
agricultural land with only those artisans that its internal
economy needed. In such a society great riches could only be
obtained by great wl"ong. The women's ornaments (Isa. 3:
16-23), the ivory couches and the eating of immature animals
(6: 4), the drunkenness and indolence had all been made
possible only by the grinding of the face of the poor and by
gross injustice and perversion of justice.
The third group of sins includes all those acts that imply
ignorance of or indifference to God's character and the
privileges He had bestowed. Such were Judah's sins (2: 4),
the rejection of prophet and Nazirite (2: 11f), a pretentious,
hollow worship (4: 4f; 5: 21ff), and the ignoring of God's
warnings (4: 6-11).
The main reason for Israel's moral condition was religious.
It is dealt with especially by Hosea (see p. 37). Having
conceived of Jehovah as merely their Baal, a god of the same
type as the Baalim of their neighbours, they attributed to
Him the capriciousness and non-moral character of the Baalim
and assumed that the sacrificial ritual carried out with ex-
treme elaboration and punctiliousness was the matter of
prime importance to Him. Amos had the great gift of being
able to put first things first. He did not ask whether the
Northern sanctuaries were God-willed, whether the golden
calf-images were a breach of the Sinai covenant, whether the
ritual conformed to the divinely ordained pattern. He
knew that reform along these lines would be and would re-
main external-examples are the abortive reforms of Hezekiah
and Josiah. He knew that all the error came from a false
conception of God, and that if the people came to a true
conception of God, the other matters would reform them-
selves. .
This is one of the chief lessons which Amos has to teach
the Christian Church, for the tendency has at all times been
strong to put correct Church order in the first place. But
.. correct" order is no guarantee of a "correct" knowledge of
God, and still less of "correct" living.
32 MEN SPAKE PROM GOD

The Crimes of Israel and her Neighbours (Chs. 1, 2).

The mention of all Israel's neighbours as ripe for judgment
will have made the people think that the New Year was ushering
in the Day of the Lord. Note that in at least one case (Moab,
2: 1 ff), and possibly in two others (Philistines, 1: 6ff, and Tyre,
1 : 9f), the crimes condemned are not against Israel at all. God
will not punish the nations because they have harmed Israel,
but because He is the Judge of all the earth.
For the Nazirites \2: It} see Num. 6: 1-21. Their purpose
was obviously to enable the Israelite who had no other possi-
bility of publicly serving God to show his zeal and love.
The opposition to them aroselrobably from the Nazirites'
rejection of the grape-vine an all connected with it, thus
reminding the people of the contrast between the wilderness
(cf. Hos. 2: 14f; 9: 10, Jer. 2: 2), where the covenant was
first made, and the settled life of the land of Canaan.
Israel's Crimes and Doom (Chs. 3-6).
Amos' second message begins by stressing that not merely
is God's justice even-handed-the inference from the first-
but also that from him to whom much has been given, much
is expected. Privilege implies responsibility. This is im-
plicit in passages like Deut. 7: 6-11; 10: 12-17. Later
prophetic passages repeat it, e.g. Isa. 40: 2b (see p. 56).
The passage 3: 3-8 is primarily a vindication of Amos'
right to prophesy, but it is far more. It affirms that God's
dealings with men follow consistent principles, which at least
in general outline are understandable by men. The R. V. mg.
in ver. 3 is correct, cf. R.S.V., N.E.B.
The kine of Bashan (4: 1) are of course the rich women,
living in luxury, who by their demands on their husbands
encourage them in their oppression of the poor (cf. Isa. 3:
16-4: 1; 32: 9ft).
Since by the Deuteronomic legislation the third year was
of special importance in tithing (Deut. 14: 28; 26: 12) and
Elkanah's practice (I Sam. 1: 3, 21) suggests that the average
Israelite concentrated on an annual visit to the central sanctu-
ary, which could be entirely independent of the three pilgrim
feasts, it ~ reasonable to assume that 4: 4 represents the
prophet's sarcastic exaggeration of normal custom-the A. V.
lS incorrec;t here. If so the use of leaven on the altar (4: 5 mg.)
will not be a reference to a new custom in Bethel, but a con-
tinuation of this sarcastic exaggeration. According to Lev.
7: 13 leavened cakes were part of the sacrifice of thanks-
giving, but they were not brought on the altar. If we have
rightly understood the passage, 4: 4f is not a condemnation
 A M 0 S 33
of the form of the Bethel ritual, but its rejection because for
all its elaboration it was mere outward ceremonial. 4: 6-11
shows how empty it all was. The worshippers had not realized
that the repeated calamities that had overtaken them were the
best evidence that God had rejected their offerings.
Beer-sheba (5: 5; 8: 14), owing to its association with the
Patriarchs, had maintained its importance as a sacred place.
For an Israelite to pass by Jerusalem to visit the unofficial
sanctuary in the extreme south of Judah was an extreme
example of will worship.
For the Day of the Lord (5: 18ff) see p. 20. The judgment
of this Day cannot be averted by any ritual (5: 21ff)-.:..the
songs of ver. 23 are the psalms which even at this date ac-
companied the sacrifices, .. the melody of thy viols" the
musical accompaniment. The only thing that could avail
was moral reformation (ver. 24).
The concluding verses of the chapter (5: 25ff) present
major difficulties of interpretation, as may be seen by the
LXX misunderstandings reflected in Stephen's quotation
(Acts 7: 43) and in part in the A.V. rendering. Harper is
probably correct in rendering ver. 25, .. Was it only sacrifices
and offerings that ye brought me in the wilderness during
forty years." 1 Loving obedience was far more important
than the sacrifices the people brought (cf. Jer. 7: 21ff and
p. 85). In the next verse either the present (Harper) or the
future (R.V. mg., R.S.V., N.E.B., Driver,2 G. A. SmithS) is
preferable to the past. Siccuth and Chiun (R.V.) are generally
taken to refer to the Assyrian star-worship, which was becom-
ing popular, but N.E.B. does not recognize them as proper
names. If we take the verb as future, it means that the people
and their idols would go into exile together.
Five Visions of Doom (Chs. 7-9: 10).
These visions, though told at the end of his public ministl}.",
in all probability are part of Amos' call. Amos' message WIll
have wakened fierce hostility not merely in official priestly
circles (7: 10-13). So it is that in his second group of mes-
sages he had to give a general justification of his prophesying
(3: 3-8), but now in his final appearance he had specifically to
justify his message by an appeal to divinely given visions.
The visions contain a number of references to primitive
ideas about the world, viz. the great deep (7: 4), the position of
Sheol (9: 2), the great sea-serpent (9: 3). The force of the
1 Amos and Hosea (I.C.C.), p. 136.
• Joel and Amos (C.B.), p. 192.
• G. A. Smith I, p. 171.
34 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
fourth vision (8: lf) lies in a play on words; end=qets, autumn
fruit=qaits (cf. Jer. 1: I1f, and p. 64).
The sin of Samaria1 (8: 14) is generally taken to be the
golden calf of Bethel-cf. "thy God, 0 Dan"-but on the
basis of Hos. 8: Sf it is simpler to assume that a bull image was
set up in Samaria as well, when it became the capital. This
passing expression shows that Amos' virtual silence about
the idolatrous, Canaanized worship of the North in no way
implied approval or acquiescence.
Amos closes his message of doom by going beyond his
earlier denial of Jehovah's favouritism (3: 1£). He not merely
implicitly denies the commonly held view that Jehovah needed
Israel, but explicitly affirms that essentially all peoples are
God's people, and that all movements of the nations are as
much God's doing as the Exodus from Egypt (9: 7). Therein
lies the certainty that a just God will justly judge Israel.
The A.V. mg. is correct in 9: 9, " ... yet shall not the least
stone fall upon the earth/ so R.S.V., N.E.B. God is not
merely the God of the nation, but also of the individual, and
ultimately His judgments are individual judgments.
Final Blessing (Ch. 9: 11-15).
These verses (or 9: 8c-1S) are commonly denied to Amos,
but the reasons seem inadequate. We agree that were we to
picture Amos speaking these words in Bethel, it would imply
an impossible contradiction with his previous message. But
they will be the prophet's addition as he records his message
for posterity. Nor is it fair to see a contradiction between
the message of comflete judgment in the prophecy as a whole
and the promises 0 restoration here. However pessimistic a
prophet might be about his own generation, he was com-
pletely optimistic about the future. Sooner or later God's
purpose in the choice of Israel was bound to be vindicated.
There is hardly any contradiction between Amos' ethical
position and the purely material picture here. A comparison
with 10el 3: 18f suggests that he is using traditional language.
Moreover if Isaiah consistently uses pictures of transformed
nature as implying transformed men and that without formal
explanation, it would be dangerous to assume that this was
not traditional prophetic usage.
A much fuller treatment of the book will be found in my
The Prophets of Israel, chs. IX, X.
1 The rendering of RS.V., N.E.B. is far from certain.
 CHAPTER V

HOSEA
THE STRUCTURE OF HOSEA
A. Hoseaand his Faithless Wife-Chs. 1-3.
I-Ch. 1: 1-9. The Faithless Wife.
2--Chs. 1: 10-2: 23. Israel's Faithlessness.
3-Ch. 3. The Faithful Husband.
B. Jehovah and Faithless Israel-Chs. 4-14.
l-Chs. 4: 1-5: 7. Like Priest Like People.
2-Chs. 5: 8-6: 6. Fratricidal Strife.
3-Chs. 6: 7-7: 7. The Testimony of History.
4-Chs. 7: 8-8: 14. Israel's Political Unfaithfulness.
5-Ch. 9: 1-9. The Corruption of Nation Religion.
6-Ch. 9: 10-17. Original Sin.
7-Ch. 10. Three Pictures of Coming Punishment.
8-Ch. 11: 1-11. The Father's Love.
9-Chs. 11: 12-12: 14. Israel False and Faithless.
lO-Ch.13. Israel's utter Destruction.
ll-Ch.14. Love Triumphant.

The Author and His Book.

LL that we know of Hosea the son of Beeri is gleaned

A from his book. His prophecies themselves substanti-

ate the inference to be drawn from the heading (1: 1),
viz. that he started prophesying after Amos but some years
before Isaiah (740 B.C.). Like Amos his message was ad-
dressed mainly to the Northern Kingdom, to which he un-
doubtedly belonged.
There is no strict order, chronological, logical or spiritual
to be discovered in the major portion (chs. 4-14) of Hosea;
the order even within the smaller subdivisions is often hard to
follow; the unusually high number of marginal notes in the
R. V. testifies to· difficulties in language and text; the change
from third person in ch. 1 to first person in ch. 3 is hardly
compatible with the unifying hand of the prophet himself.
In brief, it is quite likely that Hosea met a violent death in the
last dark, violent and desperate anarchical years before the
capture of Samaria, and that the book represents the treasured
memories of one or more of his devoted disciples. Thic; may
35
 36 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
also explain the relative absence of references to the major
events of the time.
These factors make the book peculiarly difficult for closer
study, but few of the prophets yield greater treasure-the use
of the R.V. or ()ther modern versions is virtually compulsory.
No other prophet comes nearer to the New Testament revel-
ation of the love of God. This is the best explanation of the
place of the book among the Minor Prophets. The scribes did
not think him the earliest in time, and it is not likely that they
were influenced by the length of the book. Chronologicalll'
Amos must always come before Hosea, the revelation of God s
justice before the revelation of His love. But spiritually
Hosea gives a deeper and truer revelation than Amos. So it
was a true understanding that put Hosea first in order.
The Background.
The general background of the book is much the same as
that in Amos, except that the social collapse which the earlier
prophet foretold is now an accomplished fact. In addition
the long shadow of Assyria now falls dark across the doomed
-land.
When we come to the religious background that which
was only implicit in Amos here becomes explicit and domin-
ating. It would be difficult here to give a satisfactory outline
of Canaanite religion, the more so as much detail is still un-
certain, but fdrtunately it is Mt necessary; only a few main
points need to be grasped for the understanding of Hosea's
message.
When the Israelites entered Canaan, they will have been
struck at once by certain aspects of the religion of those they
conquered. While J ehovah was the God of the people of
Israel, the gods of the Canaanites were rather the owners of
the land, and the gods of the people mainly becaJ,lse they
lived in the land. While the interests of Jehovah and His
demands from the people were chiefly ethical, the gods of the
Canaanites were fertility gods governing the growth of vege-
tation and the crops with mainly ritualistic demands on their
worshippers. While J ehovah stood uniquely alone in the
worship of Israel, the minimum for the Canaanite was three,
the chief god (a sky god), his wife (an earth goddess) and
their son.
The prophetic writers never give us details of this religion.
All the male gods are normally lumped together under the
general name of Baal. (pI. Baalim), which can be a proper
name, but generally means lord or owner, cf. Baal-peor (Num.
25: 3, R.V. mg.), Baal-zebub (lIKings 1: 2), Baal-berith (Judges
8: 33) and a number of place-names compounded with Baal.
 HOSEA 37
Equally the goddesses are referred to by': the name of the
most popular, Ashtoreth or Ashtaroth (Babylonian 1shtar,
Greek Astarte) or occasionally by that of Asherah (pt Asherim
or Asheroth-Asherah refers more commonly to the sacred
pole in the Canaanite sanctuaries and is consistently mis-
translated grove in the A.V.), cf. Judges 2: 11, 13; 3: 7. 1
The first sign of declension after the death of Joshua was
probably the admitting to honour of the old gods of the land
to secondary honour beside Jehovah. This will have been
followed by the far more serious step of worshipping Jehovah,
.as though He were merely a super-Baal, with the character,
interests and claims of a Baal. For the prophets the wor-
shipping of one's own conception of Jehoval. is the worshipping
of a false god, and so no distinction is ever drawn between the
worship of the local Baalim beside Jehovah and the worship
of Jehovah as a Baal. We can seldom be certain which is
meant, the more s6 as they will have gone hand in hand, but
probably the majority of mentions of Baal worship in the
earlier books are really the worship of a Canaanized Jehovah.
So far as the people were concerned they were probably never
conscious of having forsaken Jehovah (cf. Jer. 2: 23).
Samuel and his sons of the prophets were probably the men
who broke this religious degeneration, put how far it had gone
may be seen by the names given in the families of Saul and
David, who were certainly never Baal worshippers: Eshbaal.
Saul's son, and Meribbaal his grandson (I Chron. 8: 33f; 9:
39f, cf. also 8: 30), Beeliada, David's son (I Chron. 14: 7)-
cf. also Baal-perazim (II Sam. 5: 20), where Baal must mean
Jehovah. Later scribes transmogrified these names to avoid
th(' name of Baal, but the less read genealogies of Chronicles
have preserved them for us.
With the division of the kingdom, Canaanite influence
increased in the North, especially during the attempt to in-
troduce the worship of Melkart, the Baal of Tyre. Though
this was defeated by Elijah and Elisha, it seems clear that the
religion of the North became swamped by the Canaanite out-
look. This is the background of Hosea, for while the worship
of the Baalim he denounces probably included the worship of
other gods, beyond a doubt it was primarily Baalized Jehovah
worship, cf. 2: 16. As a result Jehovah was supposed to be
primarily interested in sacrifice, not in conduct (see p. 31).
Further, though the ptophets never mention it for very shame,
this Canaanized Jehovah must have been provided with a
wife, and part of the worship will have been prostitution at
1 An interesting picture of Canaanite religion has been given by the
excavations at Ras Shamra, see Finegan, p. 147f., Kenyon, p. 158ff, and especially
Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ch. Ill.
38 lrI ENS P A KEF R 0 lrI GOD
the shrines, designed magically to increase the fertility of the
land (d. 4: 14, where harlot=qedeslJalJ, a holy woman, cf.
Gen. 38: 2lf, Deut. 23: 17, both R.V. mg.; the sense is made
clear in R.S.V., N.E.B.). This led in turn to wide-spread
immorality (4: 14).1
Hosea's Wife (Chs. 1, 3).
Hosea's call came through God's command about his
marriage (the R.V. mg. is preferable in 1: 2) and therefore
presumably when he was a young man just out of his teens.
The apparently natural interpretation of 1: 2, that he was
commanded to marry an immoral woman, perhaps a qedeshah,
though supported by many, can hardly be sustained.
i. Had Hosea known that Gomer was an immoral woman,
there would hardly have been surprise or heart-break, when
she returned to her old life.
ii. An immoral woman could not have served as a picture
of Israel, when she came out of Egypt (2: 15; 9: 10).
Hi. Since" children of whoredom" looks to the future,
for they were not yet born, "a wife of whoredom" should do
so too.
God will have commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, the
daughter of Diblaim (the name is not likely to have any
allegorical meaning). As the tragedy ran its course, Hosea
will have realized God's purpose in His command and His
foreknowledge of its consequence. So 1: 2 is the prophetic
interpretation of God's command won through experience.
The older view based on Jewish tradition was that the
story is merely an allegory, but it has few advocates to-day.s
We cannot say how many, if any, of Hosea's children were
legitimate, but the time came when Gomer left him for her
lover. Either ih sheer love or at God's command he did not
divorce her-if he had, on the basis of Deut. 24: 1-4 (cf. Jer.
3: 1) he could not have taken her back. Then came the time
(3: 1£) when he looked her up again and found her treated as a
slave, perhaps sold by her paramour, who had tired of her.
Hosea bought her back for one-and-a-half homers of barley,
in value fifteen shekels of silver (translate in 3: 2, " .... even
an homer of barley . . . "), i.e. half price as damaged goods
(cf. Exod. 21: 32).
Though the prophet's message is God's word and he speaks
for God, yet in ways we cannot grasp the message must first
1 An interesting picture of debased popular religion has been given by the
Elephantine Papyri, Ffnegan, p. 201, Kenyon, pp. 229, 275, NewClarendon Bible,
O.T. IV, pp. 281ff.
I Young's advocacy of the allegorical view (p. 245f) seems to be based on
a misunderstanding of the view set out above. For further details see HDB,
article Hosea, ISBE, article Hosea, C.B. Hosea, Harrison, pp. 861-868.
 HOSEA ~

become part of the prophet .(cf. p. 101). Nowhere in the Old

Testament is the love of God more clearly and tenderly ex-
pressed than in Hosea, and that will be because no prophet
experienced the heart-break of unrequited and faithless love
as Hosea did. Hosea, like all God's messengers, had to
experience his message before he could give it to others.
H osea's Message.
Five points may be especially disentangled from Hosea.
i. The immorality of- Israel, using the word in the widest
sense. It is clear that matters had become worse than in the
time of Amos. Priests (4: 8; 6: 9), princes and king (5: 1;
7: 3) were among the ringleaders.
ii. The corruption of true religion especially as shown in
the calf images (8: Sf; 10: Sf) and in the conception of Jehovah
as a Baal.
iii. Lack of trust in Jehovah as seen in Israel's foreign
policy (5: 13; 7: 11; 8: 9f; 12: 1; 14: 3). To seek foreign aid
Implied seeking the aid of foreign gods.
iv. For Hosea the very existence of the Northern king-
dom was sin (8: 4; 13: 11). While it is true that God chose
Jeroboam as a punishmen~ for Solomon's sins (I Kings 11:
26-40), a careful reading of I Kings 12 will suggest a deeper
hostility to the Davidic line than can be explained merely by
high taxation; 12: 2f, suggest premeditated rebellion. Hosea
looks forward to re-union under a Davidic king (1: 11; 3: 5).
v. The heart of Hosea's message revolves around the
word chesed. This is found 247 times in the Old Testament,
and is translated in A.V. by mercy, kindness, loving kindness
and eight other words of similar meaning. Though in many
cases close enough, none of these terms really expresses the
meaning of chesed, which is a covenant word, implying the
loyalty and behaviour that may be expected from one with
whom one stands in covenant relationship. Applied to God it
means mercy and love, but it is always loyal love and coven-
anted mercies. 1 R.S.V. uses loyalty when used of men,
steadfast law of God.
Hosea's marriage was a covenant in which he had shown
Gomer chesed, loyal love, but he was not shown the chesed
by his wife which he had a right to expect. Even so Jehovah
had made a covenant with Israel, had taken her as His wife,
had shown her· chesed, faithfulness and loving mercy; but
Israel had not kept her side of the agreement. So He
speaks through the prophet (6: 4) " ... your che.~ed is as the
morning cloud, and as the dew that goeth away early"; and
then (6: 6):
1 See further Snaith: T/U Distinctiv, ld,1U of thl Old T.stllmlflt. Ch. V.
40 )fEN SPAKE FROM GOD
For I desire chesed and not sacrifice:
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
It is immaterial whether we render by love, dutiful love
(Cheyne), leal love (G. A. Smith), the meaning is clear; the
love of God to man will only be satisfied bv the response of
man's love. R.S.V. renders steadfast love.
Hosea does not merely use chesed of God's love to man
(2: 19) and of the love that God asks of man, he also uses it of
the love He expects man to show his fellow-man (4: 1; 12: 6;
perhaps 10: 12). Since all Israelites were linked to God in
the one covenant, they were linked to one another too, and
part of the covenant keeping is loyalty between all who stand
within it.
Hosea and His Faithless Wife (Chs. 1-3).
The meaning of this section is made more difficult by faulty
chapter division in English and by a natural tendency to regard
ch. 2 as one connected prophecy.
Chapter 1: 2-9 is the story of Hosea's marriage up to the
point where it breaks down; ver. 7 is purely parenthetic. Then
the story is applied to Israel (1: 10-2: 23). Before the apparently
inevitable story of doom is unrolled it is preceded by an
almost incredible promise of restoration (1: 10-2: 1) with no
close link with what precedes or what follows. In ver. 10
"Yet ... " is misleading; it is the simple "And it shall come
to pass that ... " Then in ch. 3 we are shown from Hosea's
own action how God will carry out His promise.
The mention of pillar and teraphim in 3: 4, objects both
condemned by the Law (Exod. 23: 24; Deut. 16: 22; I Sam.
15: 23) does not imply the prophet's approval of them; he is
saying that every form of civil and religious organization, good
or bad, will vanish.
Jehovah and Faithless Israel (Chs. 4-14).
A foremost place is given to the priests' disregard of the
law of which they were made _custodians (4: 6), as a result of
which "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Instead of restraining the iniquity of the people, they wel-
comed it for the sake of the resultant sin offerings-this is
the meaning of sin in 4:8; Hebrew used the same word for sin
and sin-offering, cf. 11 Cor. 5: 21, Rom. 8: 3. When we
-remember that the priests were also judges, we can understand
better how terrible was their leadership in highway robbery
(6: ~'very old Jewish tradition maintains that the original
reading in 4: 7-changed by the scribes themselves out of
 HOSE A 41
motives of reverence-was, "They have exchanged My glory
for shame," i.e. for Baal worship.
Beth-aven (4: 15; 5: 8; 10: 5, 8) was a village near Beth-el
(Joshua 7: 2, I Sam. 13: 5). Hosea transfers its name, mean-
ing House-of-vanity, or House-of-iniquity, to Beth-el, which
had ceased to be the House-of-God.
There are two references to contemporary happenings
which we cannot now interpret. Harper (LC.C.) gives no
fewer than eleven interpretations of king Jareb of Assyria
(5: 13; 10: 6) none of which carry real conviction-R.S.V.,
N .E.B. are almost certainly correct in rendering with a
different division of consonants, "the great king," i.e. the king
of Assyria. There is also no certainty whether Shalman (10: 14)
is short for Shalmaneser IV (782-773 B.C.) or even Shalmaneser
V (726-722 B.C.), or whether he was an Assyrian king at all;
cf.N.B.p.p.1169 nor do we know where Beth-arbel was. It
is references like these that remind us that we possess no more
than the barest outline of Israelite history.
One of the most tragic features of Israel's history is her
frequent superficial repentance. 6: 1-3 gives us a picture of
one example. This section (5: 8-6: 6) is taken from the time
of Israel's attack on Judah (Isa. 7: 1,2; II King,s 16: 5).
Though he does not develop the thought, 1t would seem
that Hosea's conception of Israel's history is much the same
as that in Ezek. 20 (see p. 109), for he stresses that Israel's
corruption began already in the wilderness at Baal-peor
(9: 10, Num. 25) to continue from then on.
Even as in Hosea's own life love triumphed over sin and
degradation, so his prophecy closes with the picture of Jeho-
vah's love triumphant over Israel's sin (ch. 14). Few chapters
in the Bible suffer more from the lack of inverted commas,
for there are three speakers in it:
Hosea verso 1, 2
Israel verso 3
I 7
8a
I- \
Se
9
J ehovah verso 4-6 8b 8d
The division of ver. 8 is doubtful and difficult. If the above
is correct, then "Ephraim" merely indicates the speaker of
the following words, and "shall say" should be omitted.
How far this hope has been or will be fulfilled we cannot
say (see p.112f), but Paul quotes Hos. 2: 23; 1: 10 as one of his
proofs of the triumph of the grace of God (Rom. 9: 25f) and
goes on to the vision of the day, 'when "all Israel shall be
saved" (Rom. 11: 26).
For a much fuller treatment and a consideration of some of
the textual difficulties see my The Prophets of Israel, chs.
XI-XIII.
 CHAPTER VI

I SA I A H
THE STRUCTURE OF ISAIAH
A. Assyrian background-Chs. 1-39.
1-(a) Ch.!. Introduction to section and w!lOle book.
(b) Chs. 2-6. Growth of obduracy in the mass of
the people. (Chiefly time of Jotham.)
2-Chs. 7-12. Consolation of Immanuel in the
Assyrian oppressions. (Chiefly time of Ahaz.)
3-Chs. 13-23. Judgment of the contemporary
nations.
4-Chs. 24-27. Judgment of the world and the last
things.
5-Chs. 28-33. The revolt from Assyria and its
consequences. (Time of Hezekiah.)
6-Chs.34-35. God's avenging and redeeming.
7-(a) Chs. 36-37. Deliverance from Assyria
(looking back.)
(b) Chs. 38-39. Entanglement with Babylon
(looking forward).
B. Babylonian background. Chs. 40-66.
l-Chs. 40-48. Deliverance from Babylon.
2-Chs. 49-55. The spiritual deliverance of Israel.
3-Chs. 56-66. The new Zion and miscellaneous pro-
phecies.
The Unity of the Book.
HE structure of Isaiah is unique. The first thirty-five
T chapters are attributed to Isaiah the son of Amoz, and
are dated in the period Uzziah to Hezekiah. This first
section, commonly called Proto-Isaiah by scholars-we use
these names for convenience, not to prejudge the question of
authorship-is closed by four historical chapters from the
time of Hezekiah, which can be, but quite probably are not,
from the pen of Isaiah. There follows an anonymous col-
lection of prophecies (chs. 40-55-Deutero-Isaiah) in which it
seems "the Babylonian Exile is not predicted; it is described
as an existing fact." 1 The book ends with a less homo-
geneous section (chs. 56-66-Trito-Isaiah) in which the general
picture seems to be the position after the return from exile.
1 Kirkpatrick. p. 359.
42
 ISAIAH 43
The most obvious interpretation of these phenomena is
that we have the work of one, or possibly two, anonymous
prophets appended to the prophecies of Isaiah. Nor does the
New Testament necessarily dispel such a view, for the at-
tribution of passages from "Deutero-" and "Trito-Isaiah" to
Isaiah m£ght mean no more than that they were taken from the
book which circulated under that name. The moment, how-
ever, that the phenomena of the book are examined more
closely, the more difficult this apparently simple theory is
seen to be.
We cannot here enter into questions of style, language and
theology. It will suffice to say that the differences in these
spheres between" Proto-" and" Deutero-Isaiah" are sufficient
to suggest possible difference in authorship; the similarities
demand some connexion between them.
Much more important is, that in" Deutero-Isaiah" we
reach the climax of prophecy. After the picture of the Servant
of Jehovah there was nothing more for the prophets to reveal
about God, until the fulfilment Himself should come. It
seems incredible that God could have raised up one in Israel
to whom He could give such a revelation of Himself, and yet
the messenger should leave neither name nor other trace in
the traditions of his people.
Then, Isaiah is a literary unity, and a skilful one at that-
cf. outline of its structure. The same arguments which would
deny chs. 40-66 to Isaiah inevitably deprive him of consider-
able sections of "Proto-Isaiah." Furthermore, closer study
has shown that there may well be sections by "Deutero-"
and "Trito-Isaiah" in "Proto-Isaiah," and vice versa. In
other words, to suggest that the work of a later prophet has
been appended to that of an earlier one, is an over-simplifi-
cation. If the unity of authorship is denied, then the only
theory which does justice to the facts is that "a personal
connexion between the three main parts of the book is found
in the circle of disciples who handed down the Deutero-
Isaianic material, and who had direct connexions with the
Proto-Isaianic circle of disciples." 1
When we consider the increasing complexities demanded by
the usual mod«;rn view, and the many improbabilities it in-
volves, it is surely easier to accept the traditional view of the
Isaianic authorship of the whole prophecy. It must, however,
be stressed that here, as in many other Old Testament prob-
lems, we are dealing with probabilities, not provable cer-
tainties.·
1 Bentzen: Introduction to the Old Testament 11. p. 114.
I :Por the unity of fsaiah see Young pp. 202-211. ISBE. article Isaiah.
Harrison. pp. 764 seq. against HOB. article Isaiah. Driver LOT pp. 236-246.
 KEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Th, Problem of" Deutero-Isaiah."

We have already seen that the structure of Isaiah is unique.
Once having accepted the Isaianic authorship of the whole
book, we are not likely to question that Deutero-Isaiah was
written in the dark days of Manasseh, when it seemed that true
religion had perished, and the exile in Babylonia, prophesied
by Isaiah to Hezekiah (39: 6f), became a necessity. With
this dating agrees the form of the prophecies, which were
probably from the first written rather than spoken. No open
prophecy was possible in the time of Manasseh, and there i') no
reason to doubt the tradition that Isaiah suffered a martyr's
death under this evil king.
But this is not sufficient explanation of the historical
chapters which divide the book in two. They stand rather
as a deliberate sign to the reader that we enter a new sphere of
Isaiah's prophecy. If" Deutero-Isaiah" is by Isaiah, it is the
one clear example in the Old Testament in which a prophet is
transported from his own time, and not in fleeting glimpse,
apocalyptic generalities or symbolism, but in clear vision is
shown things yet far future.
We do not doubt that God could do this, but we may well
ask whether He would. Is there a good reason for such an
exceptional prophecy? We are of the opinion that there is.
Though the prophetic message is a revelation of God that
comes from God, it has to come through the prophet, and God
limits Himself by the prophet's ability to receive. This adap-
tation of the message to the personality and circumstances of
the prophet is stamped on every chapter of the prophetic books.
We have already noticed that the figure of the Servant of
Jehovah is the climax of prophecy. We may well suppose
that God in His foreknowledge lmew that there would be none
of the generation of the exile spiritually capable of receiving
such a revelation. It seems clear enough that Jeremiah
would not have been able, for he does not seem to have come
to an understanding of his own sufferings; and there is nothing
to suggest that Ezekiel or Daniel was suited for the task. If
that is so, we have adequate grounds for assuming that
Deutero-Isaiah is in fact unique in its nature. (We shall see
later that the figure of the Servant had to be set against an
exilic background.)
The acceptance of Isaianic authorship explains one feature
of "Deutero-Isaiah" that has puzzled those scholars who
accept an exilic date for it, viz., the vagueness of its geo-
graphical background. While the background of Palestine
has grown faint, that of Babylonia has not become clear.
This is what we might expect, if Isaiah were transported
 I SAIAH 45
forward about a century and a half in time. (So vague is the
background that some scholars have placed" Deutero-Isaiah"
in Palestine of the exile, or even Egypt.)
One argument for the later date of "Deutero-Isaiah" is
that, on the balance of evidence, it seems unlikely that it was
known to Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other contemporary prophets. 1
It seems fair to suppose that Jeremiah would have found his
sufferings much easier to bear had he had the figure of the
Servant of Jehovah before him to explain them at least in part.
It would seem that though God gave the vision to Isaiah, He
gave it for a generation yet future, viz., in the first place that
of the late exile, and that this portion of the book of Isaiah was
treasured up by the disciples of Isaiah (8: 16, see below) against
the time when it would be needed.
Isaiah.
There is every evidence in "Proto-Isaiah" that Isaiah was
a native of Jerusalem. As he seems to have had ready access
to the royal court, and Ahaz evidently knew the name of his
son Shear-jashub (this follows inevitably from 7: 3), he must
have been a man of high social standing. The Jewish tradition
that his father, Amoz, was the brother of Amaziah, the father
of Uzziah, is attractive and quite possible. It is, however,
too late to be accepted with certainty.
"Proto-Isaiah" covers the period from the death year of
king Uzziah, 740 B.C. (6: I, see below), when Isaiah received
his call, probably as quite a young man, to at least Sen-
nacherib's invasion, 701 B.C., and to even a later date, if there
was a second invasion. This allows ample opportunity for
Isaiah's writing of "Deutero-Isaiah" in his old age.
The Historical Background of "Proto-Isaiah."
During the reigns of Jeroboam H and Uzziah, Assyria
passed through a phase of weakness and civil war; but when
Pul, an Assyrian general, seized the crown in 745 B.C., five
years before Uzziah's death, and adopted the title of Tiglath-
Pileser HI, it was the beginning of a new period of aggression
and expansion which reached its climax in the conquest of
Egypt and its end in the destruction of Nineveh itself (612 B.C.).
By 738 B.C. Rezin of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, and Mena-
hem of Israel had all become tributary to Assyria. In 735 B.C.
Pekah, who had murdered Menahem's son, and Rezin raised
the standard of revolt. They attacked Judah, presumably
to force her into an anti-Assyrian alliance (7: 1£; H Kings 16:
5f; II Chron. 28: 5-15). In spite of Isaiah's efforts, Ahaz
appealed to Tiglath-Pileser for help. In 734 B.C. the Philistine
cities were captured. In 732 B.C. Damascus was captured and
1 But equally "Deutero Isaiah" was unaware of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
46 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
the inhabitants carried into captivity. Israel under Hoshea
yielded at the cost of the loss of Transjordan and Galilee,
whose inhabitants were carried away (II Kings 15: 29; 16: 9;
I Chron. 5: 6, 26). Ahaz naturally became tributary.
An increase in Egyptian power encouraged Israel to revolt
against Shalmaneser V, Tiglath-Pileser's successor (II Kings
17: 4). The inevitable result was the capture of Samaria in
723 B.C. by Shalmaneser, and the deportatlon of its inhabitants
by his successor Sargon (II Kings 17: Sf).
At that time Judah had remained loyal to Assyria, but
from 715 B.C. Egyptian intrigues increasingly inclined Heze-
kiah to revolt. Though involved in the revolt of the Philis-
tines, Judah escaped apparently scot free in 711 B.C. (ch. 20);
it may be that Hezekiah was able to yield in time. It is likely
that the ambassadors of Merodach-Baladan (ch. 39) are to be
dated between this and 701 B.C. but Thiele opts for a date
immediately after 701 B.C. Some scholars have, however,
found evidence in Isaiah that Judah was invaded at this time.
When Sennacherib followed Sargon in 705 B.C., most of the
Assyrian empire rose in revolt. Hezekiah was one of the
leaders of the revolt in the west. Sennacherib was not to deal
with the west till 701 B.C., but then opposition quickly col-
lapsed. An Egyptian army was decisively defeated, and
Hezekiah yielded, receiving very onerous terms (11 Kings 18:
13-16).1 Sennacherib, with a treachery he showed on other
occasions as well, changed his mind and demanded the sur-
render of the city (11 Kings 18: 17-19: 8; Isa. 36: 1-37: 8--d.
also Isa. 33: 1-12). This demand was not supported by any
very great force, and was refused.
The more obvious interpretation of 11 Kings 19: 9-35 and
Isa. 37: 9-37 is that Sennacherib, with his hands full, con-
tented himself with writing a threatening letter, and the
smiting of his host by the angel of the Lord led to his abandon-
ing the campaign. Many, however, consider that there is a
gap between 11 Kings 19: 8 and 9 (Isa. 37: 8 and 9) of rather
more than ten years-this is quite compatible with the Hebrew
method of writing history-and that Sennacherib had a
second campaign in the west. The Assyrian records here are
incomplete. For a full discussion see Bright, A History of
Israel, pp. 282-287. It ~hould be remembered that the
results of Sennacherib's invasion were so disastrous for
Judah that henceforth she remained a loyal vassal of Assyria.
Introduction (Ch. 1).
This chapter is not merely an introduction to chs. 2-12,
but serves in that capacity for the whole book. It consists
1 For the Assyrian version see Finegan, p. 177, Kenyon, p. SOt.
 ISAIAH 47
in all probability of a number of short, originally unconnected
prophecies of varying date, but in the main probably from
Hezekiah's reign, so arranged as to present God's "Great
Arraignment" of Judah.
We find the assessors, heaven and earth, in ver. 2a-for
God Himself is the judge; the charge is unnatural ingratitude
(vers. 2b, 3)-the ox and the ass of the traditional Nativity
pictures come from here. In verso 4-9 we have the evidence
for the prosecution; as the unchangeable character of God is
assured, the blame for Judah's sufferings must rest on herself
-the scene of utter desolation suggests the time of Hezekiah.
J udah is imagined as pleading her regular and large-scale
temple worship in her defence, but this is rebutted in verso 10-
17. As there is no other defence, the Judge makes a con-
ditional offer of mercy in verso 18-20; but verso 21-23 imply
that the offer has been rejected. The sentence, present
judgment leading to purification and the restoration of a
remnant, closes the chapter.
This chapter contains two of Isaiah's key thoughts, that
of holiness and the remnant; these should be noted whenever
they occur in the prophecy-see verso 4 and 27 (her converts).
R.S.V. those who repent, and comments on ch. 6 below.
The condemnation of the Jerusalem temple-worship in
verso 10-17 should not be referred to the period of Ahaz'
apostasy; it almost certainly dates from the time after
Hezekiah's reformation. Note that so far from commending
Hezekiah's action, Isaiah does not eveil mention it. Isaiah
was fully aware that the reformation was purely external, and
judged it accordingly. It is a painful thought to a certain type
of "high churchman .. that the main prophets from Amos to
Jeremiah are unanimous that correct worship without corres-
ponding morality of life only angers God, and is a sin. In-
deed, the very correctness only magnifies the offence. It
should be noted that the demand is for correct behaviour
toward one's neighbour (cf. I John 4: 20).
This section is most instructive for the principles under-
lying the recording of the prophetic message. We may be
certain that Isaiah repeatedly attacked the mockery of a
purely external worship, but it is recorded only here and in
29: 13f. Once the message had been clearly given in the
Introduction, posterity did not need its further repetition.
fudah under fotham and Ahaz (Chs. 2-12).
Though, as has been indicated in the outline structure of
the book, there is a break between chs. 6 and 7, and the two
resultant sections are complete in themselves, yet they form
a larger whole. Chs. 2-6 come mainly from the time of
48 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
Jotham, and depict the increasing hardening of Judah until
there is no hope; chs. 7-12 are mainly from the time of Ahaz,
and give the bitter fruit of the hardening.
We start with a picture of God's ideal (2: 2-5), possibly
a quotation from an earlier prophet quoted also by Micah
(cf. Micah 4: 1-5), which immediately changes to the grim
reality (2: 6-4: 1). It should be noted that here, as else-
where in the prophecy, present, future and final punishment
all flow together under the general conception of the Day of the
Lord (see p. 20f), although the expression strictly applies only
to the final ushering in of the kingdom of God. The purifi-
cation and final glory, which are the gracious result of the
inevitable divine punishment, are pictured in 4: 2-6. The
vintage song (5: 1-7) is both a condemnation of Judah's un-
natural sin and an indication of Isaiah's difficulties. Unable
to capture the ear of his wearied hearers otherwise, he goes
round as a wandering minstrel at some vintage festival; note
how cleverJy the barbed point of the song is hidden until the
very end. Six woes (5: 8-24) then indicate some of the "wild
grapes" of the vineyard. Hard on their heels follow the
Assyrians, the instruments of God's wrath (5: 25-30); when
originally spoken this passage stood probably after 10: 4.
Finally, Judah's hardness, is explained by the story of Isaiah's
call in ch. 6.
The second section begins with the rejection of the prophet's
message and Jehovah's help by Ahaz and "the house of
David" (7: 13) in favour of an appeal to Assyria (7: 1-25).
This is approved by the people (8: 1-8). The prophet 15
denounced as a traitor, and turns his back on the people to
devote himself to his disciples, who become a pattern for the
remnant (8: 9-9: 1). A picture of the coming Messiah gives
a gleam of light in the spiritual gloom (9: 2-7). There follows
an oracle of judgment on Israel and Judah (9: 8-10: 4 and
add 5: 25-30), and several on Assyria, threatening God's
judgment when her work for Him has been done. The section
closes with two Messianic chs. (11 and 12), which end with
the fulfilment of 2: 2-5.
The Call of Isaiah (Ch. 6).
Many have failed to see the prophet's call here, and have
looked on his experience as a sort of "second blessing."l
There is nothing to be said for such a view; it only hinders our
understanding of the prophet's message; it would seem to be
based upon the failure to realize that in the Scriptures chrono-
logical order is always subordinated to the spiritual lesson to
be learnt.
1 So The New Bible Handbooh and with hesitation Young. p. 213.
 I SAI AH 49
Isaiah was in the Temple court, in fact or in vision, prob-
ably at the great autumn feast celebrating God's sovereignty.
The dying leper king symbolized to him the people's sinfulness.
Now the worship of the seraphim brought home to him the
sinfulness of the people's worship (" unclean lips"). The
Israelite recognized that God was holy (qadosh), i.e. separatel
from man, but understood it mainly physically, cf. Judges
6: 22 (R.V.); 13: 22, I Sam. 6: 19, II Sam. 6: 6ff. et al.
(Obviously the people had to learn respect for God first).
Now Isaiah realized that it was above all sin that created
the barrier between man and God, though it did not exist
for the earth. Note that Isaiah probably did not see the
form of Jehovah, for the LXX and Ori~en are probably correct
in interpreting "his face," "his feet' as referring to God.
In any case, it was the glory of the pre-incarnate Son that he
saw (John 12: 41).
This streSs on the holiness of God runs right through Isaiah,
especially in the phrase .. the Holy One of Israel," which
occurs twenty-five times in the prophecy, including thirteen
times in the second half. (It is found in orily six passages out-
side Isaiah, all probably later.) Not only is God holy, not
only should Israel be holy, but God has separated Himself to
Israel that He may be sanctified through Israel.
Isaiah's message is one of doom, for his task is one of
hardening (6: 9f.). This passage is cited on three occasions
in the New Testament, Mark 4: 11f (and parallels); John ·12:
37-41; Acts 28: 25-28, and underlies the whole argument of
Rom. 9-11. It should be clearly noted that the New Testa-
ment teaching is not that the hardening in part (Rom. 11: 7,
25, R.V.) came upon Israel because he rejected Christ, but
that he rejected Christ because he was hardened (see
especially John 12: 39).
In other words, it is from this moment that Judah ceases to
function as a nation in God's purposes, though her national
existence continued for over a century and a half. From now
on, God is working out His...p.~ through a remnant, which
is dimly seen in 6: 13. (This verse is unintelligible in the
A.V.; see R.V., R.S.V.). The picture is of the tree of the nation
hewn down, but the stock or stump left in the earth; from it
new life can spring (cf. 11: 1).
We can now justify the position of ch. 6. It will only have
been as Isaiah Saw the people getting harder that he himself
will have fully realized the unpfications of his task. Further,
we can more easily understand God's action in the light of
chs. 2-5. Though God hardens, there is an antecedent cause
in the one hardened.
1 See Snaith: T'" DUlifleliH IlMJ1 o/IIN 014 Tm-I. ch. U.
50 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Immanuel (7: 1-17; 8: 5-8; 9: 2-7,11: 1-10).

Few who quote 7: 14 as evidence for the virgin birth of
Christ trouble to study the promise in its context. The sign
promised by Isaiah cannot be our Lord in its primary fulfilment.
Isaiah has offered Ahaz any sign he likes that he may trust
God, but Ahaz in mock piety refuses (7: 10-12). Isaiah then
proclaims a sign. A maiden (almah) is about to conceive a son,
who will be called Immanuel. Before he is about two (" Be-
fore the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the
good ... " ver. 16) Rezin and Pekah shall be dead. Shortly
after, however, Judah will have been wasted (ver. 15). Butter
and honey are the food of a land where agriculture has
ceased.
While this interpretation and fulfilment cannot be escaped,
it is clearly a superficial one. The ~ign is a threat not merely
to Ahilz, but also to the house of David ("The Lord Himself
shall give you (pIu.) a sign ... " ver. 14). Immanuel is to be of
the royal house (8: 8), and it is impossible to dissociate the
child of 9: 6 from him. He cannot be Hezekiah, as claimed by
Jewish tradition, for he was born some time earlier. Finally
in 11: 1 he is definitely moved into the future, for the tree of
David has been cut down, the shoot is out of the stump
(R.S.V.) of Jesse, the branch is out of his roots.
While almah should mean a maiden, it is actually always
used with the meaning of virgin in the Old Testament, and is
therefore so translated in 7: 14 by the LXX and so quoted in
the New Testament. Betulah, which should mean virgin, on
the other hand does not necessarily bear that meaning, e.g.
Joel 1: 8. So the use of an ambiguous word gives the sign a
double meaning, one natural and immediate, the other super-
natural and future. 1
Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8: 1-8).
Immanuel was a sign for the king and royal house; Maher-
shalal-hash-baz was to be one for the people. Note the method
used to awaken curiosity. The strange phrase" Haste-spoil-
speed-booty" is written on a large board and fastened out-
side Isaiah's house during the nine months his son is in his
mother's womb. Only after the child's birth is it explained.
It is clear that the prophet's appeal to the people had no more
success than the appeal to the king.
Note that the identification of Immanuel with Maher-
shalal-hash-baz, found in some commentaries, has nothing to
commend it; also that the prophetess simply means the pro-
phet's wife.
1 See Lukyn Williams: The Hebrew Christian Messiah, p. 21ft, and E. J.
Young: Studies in Isaiah, chs. 6 and 7.
 ISAIAH 51
The Rejection of the Prophet (8: 11-18).
While it is usual to praise Isaiah's clear-sighted foreign
policy when Judah was attacked by her neighbours (7: 1-9), a
very good case could be made for Ahaz' action from a purely
worldly point of view. Certainly the people looked on it as
the only hope of salvation and came to suspect Isaiah of being
a QuislIng (v. 12, R.V., R.S.V.). The prophet himself seems to
have lost confidence in his message for the moment (ver. 11).
The result was that Isaiah turned from the people and
devoted himself to the small group that held with him (ver.
16ff). There is no evidence that he ever carried on a regular
prophetic activity among the people after this, not even in the
reign of Hezekiah; we gain the impression that he was given
to intervening in moments of crisis. We must allow for the
possibility that a. good part of the folloWing prophecies come
from his teaching to his disciples, and we believe it was to them
he entrusted "Deutero-Isaiah. "
The Judgment of the Nations and of the World (Chs. 13-27).
Here, too, we have two sections organically connected.
The oracles of doom on Israel and J udah could well raise the
question whether God confines His judicial activities to His
own people. To that, chs. 13-23 give an answer, for in them
we see God's judgments on most of the peoples known to
Isaiah, so these are really prophecies about other nations for
Israel's learning, rather than prophecies for the nations' good.
But that in turn leads to another question, viz., was God's
activity among the nations exceptional? This is answered
by the apocalyptic and eschatologIcal chs. 24-27. Here God's
final judgment is seen to involve not merely Israel and the
surrounding nations, but the whole world.
It is most inst.;uctive to note the difference in language
between the two sections. In the former we have clear-cut
pictures of the surrounding countries; in the latter we seem to
be moving in a fog in which we see figures moving dimly until
the sun of God arises in all its glory.
Delit,zsch points out how the former section begins with
Babylon, the city of world power, and ends with Tyre, the city
of world commerce, while a second prophecy against Babylon
forms the centre.
It is not clear why 22: 1-14, a prophecy about Jerusalem, is
included in this section, but as Shebna was virtually Foreign
Secretary, 22: 15-25 is entirely in place here.
The Taunt-Song Against the King of Babylon (14: 3-23).
This taunt-song (not proverb or parable, ver. 4) is one of the
finest poems in the Old Testament, and must be interpreted
 52 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
as poetry. A fine translation is given by G. A. Smith.!
It is not clear whether some definite king is here intended, or
whether Babylon is being personified in its king. In either
case, no reference to the fall of Satan is intended. Lucifer
(14: 12) simply means the morning star, and the application of
the name to Satan is due to patristic exegesis. At the same
time the king's overweening pride (14: 13) makes him a type of
Satan-" the Mount of congregation in the uttermost north"
is the home of the gods in Babylonian mythology.
Philistia (14: 28-32).
A logical non sequitur should be avoided here. "Out of the
north" (14: 31) shows that the prophecy has no connexion
with the death of Ahaz. The serpent, the adder (R.S.V.) and
the fiery flying serpent are Assyrian kings.
Moab (15: 1-16: 14).
There are two prophecies here, see 16: 13. It is not clear
whether the earlier, 15: 1-16: 12 is one of Isaiah's earliest, or
whether it is by an earlier prophet. 16: 1 implies a strong
ruler in Jerusalem who controls Edom. Uzziah is the last
king to satisfy the picture. It is equally uncertain whether the
earlier prophecy had been fulfilled at the time, or whether
Isaiah is saying that it is now to come into effect.
Egypt ana Ethiopia (Chs. 18-20).
At this time Egypt was ruled by Ethiopian kings. Ch. 18
is addressed to the Ethiopian rulers; ch. 19 deals with the
Egyptian people; ch. 20 includes both in one common doom.
The interpretation of 19: 18-22 is far from easy. "The
language of Canaan" is Hebrew, and it probably refers to the
Jewish communities that sprang up later in Egypt. There
was a Jewish temple at Leontopolis from 160 B.C. to A.D. 72,
and its builders looked on it as the fulfilment, but this is
almost as doubtful as the identification of the great pyramid
with the altar and pillar.
In 19: 24f we have one of the finest universalistic passages
in the Old Testament. Though Israel still has the pre-
eminence in the use of "inheritance," the difference has be-
. come so small as to be virtually negligible; elsewhere "my
people" and "the work of my hands" are confined to Israel.
The Resurrection Hope (25: 6-8; 26: 13-19).
There is little clear teaching on the resurrection in the Old
Testament, this passage being one of the earliest. In 25: 6-·8
we have the abolition of death for all peoples, but it does not
1 The Book of Isaiah I. pp. 433-436.
 I SAI AH 53
extend further than the living at the setting up of the kingdom
of God. In 26: 13f there is the guarantee that the oppressors
of Israel are gone for ever, never to rise. But then in 26: 16-19
comes the promise that Israel's dead will arise. Further
Isaiah was not permitted to see; and it seems that his con-
temporaries were not able to grasp his message (cf. 38: 18f).
This may have been partly due to the obscurity of the
language, partly perhaps to its restriction to his own inner
circle.
Judah under Hezekiah (Chs. 28-33).
The general impression created by this section is that
Isaiah did not resume his regular prophetic activity on Heze-
kiah's accession; most of these prophecies are called forth by
the intrigues that led to Hezekiah's rebellion against his
Assyrian overlord, and the consequences of his action.
The prophecies are divided into six sections by the word
"woe"-28: 1; 29: 1; 29: 15; 30: 1; 31: 1; 33: 1.
The first woe is concerned with the dissolute nobles of
Jerusalem. 28: 1-6 is an older prophecy by Isaiah against
Ephraim applied in ver. 7f to the nobles of Jerusalem; ver. 9f
is their drunken answer in broken Hebrew; ver. 11ff Isaiah's
answer. 28: 23-29 should be read in a modern version.
The second woe deals with God's wonderful purpose for
Jerusalem and the reception of the message by a hardened
people. .. Ariel" means altar-hearth, or hearth of God.
The third woe is uttered against the political intrigues with
Egypt, and goes over into a Messianic picture.
The fourth and fifth are both concerned with the Egyptian
alliance, interspersed with rromises of divine aid and the
Messianic transformation 0 society. 30: 21 is the great
verse on guidance, which comes when men are going wrong,
not while they walk right. 32: 3 reverses 6: 9f.
The last woe is addressed to treacherous Assyria, and once
again ends in a glowing Messianic picture.
Judgment and Blessing (Chs. 34, 35).
Much of the message of .. Proto-Isaiah .. is summed up here.
Edom personifies the hostile nations in general. That the
eschatological picture should not be taken too literally is
easily seen by comparing 34: 9£ with 34: 11-15. A number of
the beings mentioned in ver. 14 are mythological, but even
they could not live in burning pitch and brimstone.
Ch. 35 is an outstanding example of the parabolic use of the
transformation of nature so common in Isaiah, cf. also 11: 1-9,
40: 3f. etc. While there is no reason why we should not take
the transformation of nature literally (cf. Rom. 8: 19-22), it
54 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
should be clear that it is the antecedent transformation of men
that is uppermost in the prophet's mind.
Historical Chapters (Chs. 36-39).
Chs. 36 and 37 obviously hang together, as do 38 and 39.
The chronology of Hezekiah's reign is far from certain, but
whichever we adopt, the fifteen years of 38: 5 would seem to
bring us to a date before 701 B.C., the date of Sennacherib's
invasion. 1 Our knowledge of Merodach-baladan and his move-
ments point in the same direction. Once we accept the
Isaianic authorship of the whole book, Isaiah is just as likely
to have influenced the order in 11 Kings as vice versa. In that
case we have one more example of chronology being made
subservient to spiritual ends. Chs. 36, 37 are placed first as
rounding off the prophecies about Assyria; chs. 38, 39, though
earlier in time, are placed last as looking forward to the cap-
tivity in Babylon to which 40-55 introduce us.
It is not,easy to reconcile the general picture of Hezekiah
in 11 Kings 18-20, 11 Chron. 29-32 with Isa. 28-33. Ch. 39
may help us. The resigned words of ver. 8 are not due to
personal selfishness, content so long as trouble came later;
they are rather the recognition of God's mercy by one who
knew himself guilty. It is obvious that here we have one
more example of the foreign intrigues that Isaiah denounced
so unsparingly; but Hezekiah had gone into it with his eyes
open. Even good kings like Hezekiah found prophets like
Isaiah unwelcome at times.
The Historical Background of " Deutero-Isaiak."
Assyria has disappeared. Nineveh fell to the confederate
armies of Babylon and the Medes in 612 B.C., and these two
countries with Lydia formed a triple alliance dominating the
Near East.
Jerusalem was captured and the Jews led into captivity in
586 B.C. Some thirty years later Cyrus, the Persian prince of
Anshan-part of Elam, due east of Babylon (Isa. 41: 2)-was
extending his power over Persia. Alarmed, Astyages king of
Media attacked him in 550 B.C., but was betrayed into his
hands. By 546 B.C. Cyrus controlled, the Median empire and
this brought him to the north of Babylon (Isa. 41: 25).
An initial attack on Babylon in 546 B.C. was .quickly
checked by the need to deal with Crresus king of Lydia. He
was defeated and captured in one short campaign, but Cyrus
needed three years to subdue the Greek cities of Ionia.
Babylon was attacked in 539 B.C. The king, Nabonidus, the If

first archaeologist," offered little opposition. The Babylonian

1 But see Thiele. pp. 157. 159. who places Merodach-ba1adan after 701 B.C.
 ISAIAH 55
army was routed in the field, and Babylon itself betrayed
into the hands of the Persians. Only the citadel held
out. This was stormed and Belshazzar, Nabonidus' son,
killed (Dan. 5).
Cyrus gave the exiled Jews permission to return and re-
build the Temple-a permission which may well have been
given to other deported peoples as well; but only a relatively
small part, in which priests formed a high proportion, took
advantage of the king's kindness (Ezra 1, 2). Obstacles and
disappointments led to religious laxness, and these conditions
may be reflected in some of the chapters of "Trito-Isaiah."
IfDeutero-Isaiah" (Chs. 40-55).
Though it is comparatively easy to dissect Deutero-Isaiah
(the approximate result is given by the paragraph divisions of
R.V., R.S.V.), after the first few stages it does not often
help very much in the understanding of the prophecy. Though
these chapters form the closest unity of any prophetic message
of comparable length, and contain a clearly marked progression
in time, yet the thought does not develop along normal logical
lines. We are not dealing with a unitary writing of the
modem type, but with a series of prophetic poems, each
complete in itself, yet all contributing to the building up of the
final picture. ThIS explains why, though "Deutero-Isaiah"
contains some of the best-known chapters in the Old Testa-
ment, as a whole it is comparatively little known.
Though we are dealing with written rather than spoken
prophecy, and the most sustained poetry in the prophetic
books, the manner in which the message was originally received
is obviously similar to that in "Proto-Isaiah." It would
seem that the message in its totality only became clear to the
prophet himself as he received and recorded it.
The Spiritual Backgrountl.
The universal belief in the Near East was that a god and
his people were inextricably bound together. The god (or
gods) needed his people as much as they needed him, for he
needed the sacrifices they brought him-this view is violently
attacked in Ps. 50: 7-13. The conquest of his people meant
the conquest of their god by the god of the conqueror, and he
was bound to fade away into impotence, starved as he was by
the ending of his sacrifices.
Unless we grasp that this view was shared by a large
majority in Israel, we shall not understand the shock of the
Babylonian exile and the peculiar difficulties that Jeremiah
and Ezekiel had to face.
Isaiah meets the resultant spiritual despondency with two
56 MEN 5 P A KEF ROM GOD
tremendous revelations of God, 40: 1-11 and 40: 12-31. The
former is a message of comfort in which the main source of
comfort is the very weakness of man (ver. 6ff). The deliver-
ance is to be the work of God alone, and the assurance of it is
based on God's Word. (One reason for seeing the end of
"Deutero-Isaiah" in ch. 55, rather than in ch. 57, as in the
older commentaries, is that thus we start with the Word of
God going out in ch. 40 and returning to God in ch. 55: 11,
having accomplished its work. A division after ch. 57 is
based not on any intrinsic suitability, but on the similarity of
57: 21 with 48: 22, which does mark a major break.)
Fancy interpretations have been discovered for 40: 2b,
but they can all be ignored. For anyone making a dis-
passionate comparison of national guilt and punishment in
Israel and the nations, it would have seemed that Israel had
suffered double in proportion to the others. "Quite so," says
the prophet. God's" first born " may expect double, whether
blessing or punishment (cf. 61: 7; Jer. 16: 18). The fact of
the double punishment is proof that Israel has not been cast
off, but is still God's firstbom; and so it is to-dayl
The second is a hymn (40: 12-31) which is one of the
most wonderful descriptions of God's power ever penned. The
prophet's vision of His greatness, surely not derived from
human speculation, is seen even more strikingly when we con-
sider man's best concepts of God (ver. 18ff). A similar gulf
exists between the Absolute of modem philosophic and liberal
thought and Him who has been revealed as the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the light of God's greatness, the
despondency of the exiles (ver. 27) is absurd.
The Vindication of Jehovah.
By the destruction of Jerusalem and His temple, Jehovah
had been humbled in the eyes of the nations. Now He sum-
mons them, that His honour may be vindicated (41: 1). For
this He uses three witnesses or agents: Cyrus (41: 2-4,21-29;
44: 24-45: 17; 46: 1-48: 16); Israel, His servant (41: 8-20;
42: 18-44: 5; 44: 21-23; 48: 17-22); and the Servant of
Jehovah (42: 1-9; 49: 1-13; 50: 4-9; 52: 13-53: 12).
It will be noted that with the exception of the last three
Servant passages, all these references are from chs. 40-48,
which form a clear-cut section by themselves, and are com-
monly referred to as "The Book of Cyrus"; they deal with
the deliverance from the Babylonian exile. In chs. 49-55
("The Book of the Servant"), not only do Babylon and Cyrus
disappear, but even in one sense Israel; now we read of Zion
and Jerusalem, for the s/!i1'itually unredeemed people have
now returned from thell" physical exile, or rather all
 I SAI AH 57
obstacle to their return has been removed (48: 20, cf. with
52: 11f; 55: 12).
Cyrus was probably the first of those world conquerors
who have swept meteor-like through the history of mankind,
confounding every anticipation and inaugurating a new era in
human history. Even if "Deutero-Isaiah" had been written
by a contemporary, what a contrast its confident foretelling
would be to the silence, confusion or ambiguity of the heathen
oracles we learn of from Herodotus and other writers; how
much greater is the contrast, if it was written a century and a
half earlier!
Cyrus did not know Jehovah (45: 4f); this we know from
his own inscriptions. From those of Darius I, we can infer
with virtual certainty that he was a Zoroastrian who was
polite to the gods of the countries he conquered. 1 If, then, he
does Jehovah's will, he vindicates Him, for then assuredly the
destruction of Jerusalem and the exile were Jehovah's doing
(42: 24; 43: 28, A.V., R.S.V., N.E.B.). And as God's agent he
is given a remarkable series of titles, unique in the Old Testa-
ment for a Gentile: My shepherd, i.e. My ruler (44: 28), His
anointed, i.e. Messiah (45: 1), the man of My counsel (46: 11),
he whom Jehovah loves (48: 14). But it is to be noted that
no moral qualities are attributed to him; the titles are his not
because of what he is, but simply because all unknowingly he
carries out God's will.
Jehovah's vindication through Israel is seen not merely in
their restoration, but far more by their becoming His worthy
representatives (41: 8ff; 43: 4-7, 10, 12; 44: 21), although at
the time they are slaves (42: 22, 24) and entirely unworthy of
their call (42: 18-20; 43: 21-24).
The Servant of Jehovah.
With our lack of knowledge as to how the prophets re-
ceived their message, it would be foolish to be dogmatic; but
it does seem probable that the prophet only grasped the full
implications of his message by degrees as it was gIven to him,
even as we only understand it by degrees as we read it. So it
is more than likely that Isaiah at first thought he was fore-
telling exactly that which would happen. But already in
42: 1-4 there appears the enigmatic figure of the Servant, who
might be taken for Israel, and is yet so different from Israel.
But with the jubilant call to Israel to leave Babylon (48: 20)
there comes the realization that though Cyrus will do all for
which he has been raised up, Israel will fail to carry out God's
purpose (48: 22).
1 For Cyrus' politic acceptance of the gods of Babylon ct, l<megan. p. 191,
Kenyon, pp. 54, 141.
58 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

The Exodus from Egypt did not change Israel, and at the
very Law-Mount they sinned, worshipping a calf of gold. The
people whom the exile had not changed, would not be changed
by the victories of Cyrus. Spiritual ends can never ultimately
be attained by material means. So though Cyrus sweeps to
his fore-ordained goal, there is no transformed Israel and so no
transformed nature; then in 49: 1 the figure of the Servant
slips out of the shadows.
The failure to realize the way in which the prophet's
revelation developed, and the contrast between the glowing
visions of Isaiah and the grim realities of the return, have made
many conservatives deny that "Deutero-Isaiah" is primarily
a prophecy of the return from exile; instead, they have applied
it to the Church. To do so is to empty the prophecy of all
coherent meaning, for while many portions can be applied to
the Church, it is impossible so to apply the prophecy as a
whole.
The traditional interpretation of the Servant has for many
years now been denied by the vast majority of Old Testament
scholars; usually he has been interpreted as collective Israel,
real or ideal. This denial has not been due solely or even
mainly to infidelity, as has been so often suggested, but rather
to the reasonable conviction that the Servant could not be
both Israel and the Messiah almost in the same breath.
The only tenable method of combining the traditional view
with. the general setting of chs. 40-55 was that of Delitzsch
who wrote:
The idea of the Servant of Jehovah ... is rooted in Israel.
It is, to put it briefly and clearly, a Pyramid: its lowest basis
is the whole of Israel; its middle section, Israel not merely
according to the flesh but according to the spirit; its summit
is the person of the Redeemer. Or to change the figure: the
conception consists of two concentric circles with a common
centre. The wider circle is the whole of Israel, the narrower
Jeshurun (44: 2), the centre ChrisP
One of the greatest gains of recent scholarship has been the
very widespread recognition that the so-called Servant Songs
(42: 1-4; 49: 1-6; 50: 4-9; 52: 13-53: 12) are a separate
production from the bulk of "Deutero-Isaiah." This does not
imply that they need be by a different author. It can easily
be seen that if the Songs, and in two cases the connecting
link, viz. 42: 5-9; 49: 7-13, are omitted, there is no apparent
loss in sense. The effect of this isolation is to make a personal
interpretation of the Servant almost compulsory, and the only
personal interpretation that really satisfies is Messianic.
1 An additional note in the German commentary on Isaiah by Drechsler
and Hahn, 1857.
 I SAI AH 59
Professor North in his standard book! shows that Continental
scholars have long been unhappy about the identification of
the Servant with Israel, literal or ideal, but that the long list of
individuals with whom he has been identified is equally Wl-
satisfactory. We agree with him that only a Messianic figure
in which kingly, priestly and prophetic traits are all blended
does justice to the language of the Servant Songs.
The first Song contrasts the Servant's methods of action
with those of the world, and even of Israel (41: 15f). Note
carefully the margin to 42: 3f in RV., RS.V.
The second gives a picture of the Servant conscious of the
~eatness of his task (ver. 6), but wearied by his long wait
(ver. 4). Though fully fitted for the work, the sword is still in
the scabbard, the arrow in the quiver. Here we have a picture
of what the long "hidden years" in Nazareth must have
meant to our Lord (cf. Luke 2: 49).
_ In 50: 4-9 we are introduced to the Servant in God's
school, a hard school in which he was to endure "the con-
tradiction of sinners." In spite of the attractive applicability
of ver. 6, it is once again the years in Nazareth (cf. Heb. 2: 10,
etc.)-rather than the Passion that are under consideration.
Finally we have a vision of the perfect accomplishment of
the Servant's work. It is indeed inadequate in its foreseeing
of the resurrection, but otherwise it is the most perfect picture
of our Lord's atonjng work in Scripture. 1
And so Zion, broken-hearted and despondent through the
failure of the return, is transformed by the Servant; her
Maker becomes her Husband, and the shame of her youth is
forgotten.
The Servant and Israel.
In 49: 6 the Servant is called Israel, and this helps to
explain why he and Israel both bear the title of Jehovah's
Servant. The history of Israel is not merely the preparation
for the coming of Christ. Jesus the Messiah is the fulfilment
of all that Israel ever stood for in the purposes of God. Isaiah
had experienced the failure of Israel and the choice of a rem-
nant; looking out over the exile, he sees the failure there of the
remnant (see especially ch. XIV)_ But beyond all the centuries
of suffering and failure he sees one who is both Jehovah's
Servant and the fulfilment of all that Israel had longed to be
but never was. It is only through the anguish of the exile,
and the failure of the return, that the prophet could be brought
to this climax of vision.
1 The Suffering Servantin Deuiero-Isaiah. This is the most comprehensive
modern work in English on the subject. and is of outstanding importance.
I For detailed study see David Baron: The Servant 0/ Jehovah.
60 MEN" SPAKE FROM GOD
It may be noted that no effort is made to identify the
Suffering Servant with the royal child, Immanuel, in "Proto-
Isaiah." It may well be that Isaiah himself did not identify
them, for until the Incarnation who could have imagined its
stupendous wonder as God and man met in Christ Jesus?
"I create evil" (45: 7).
The many efforts to empty these words of their apparent
meaning seem to be unnecessary and mistaken. They form
part of an address to Cyrus, who was a Zoroastrian, a believer
ID a dualism in which light and good were the work of Ahura-
mazda, darkness and evil of Ahriman. The context, therefore,
seems to compel us to take 45: 7 literally as God's claim to be
behind all that is. We do God no honour by putting the
blame for sin and evil on Satan, for God is the creator and
preserver of Satan, even as He is of men. In the light of the
cross we need have no fear in accepting this, the extremest Old
Testament statement on the sovereignty of God. R.S.V.
"weal ... woe" does not change the picture materially.
"Trito-Isaiah" (Chs. 56-66).
Unlike the two preceding sections of Isaiah, there is no
coherent structure to be found here. Some chapters deal
with "the Jerusalem that now is"; normally the picture seems
to be of the post-exilic city, but sometimes the language is
more applicable to the city of Ahaz and Manasseh, especially
in its references to idolatry. Other chapters are eschatological.
By a number of scholars chs. 60-62 are taken as belonging to
"Deutero-Isaiah," with 61: 1-3 as another Servant Song. We
indicate the various sections, with a few comments.
Comfort to the Proselyte and Eunuch (56: 1":8).
In the rigorist atmosphere of the post-exilic community,
probably some who had joined themselves to Israel during the
exile found themselves no longer welcome; but Jehovah bids
them welcome. When we consider that Daniel and Nehemiah
(cf. Neh. 6: 11, esp. R.V. mg., R.S.V.) will have been eunuchs,
we need not wonder at the presence of this message.
Venal Rulers and an Idolatrous Population (56: 9-57: 21).
While certain elements here might, on the basis of Malachi,
be attributed to the post-exilic community, we have no sugges-
tion that matters ever so degenerated, and for such open
idolatry there is no evidence. It is better to suppose that it is
the time of Manasseh that is depicted.
 ISAIAH 61
Sin and Redemption (Chs. 58, 59).
Here again we seem to be in post-exilic Jerusalem. First,
the prophet deals with the apparently religious, before he turns
on the open sin. During the exile, circumcision, Sabbath-
keeping, and fasting were among the few open expressions of
religion possible to the Jews; hence they grew in importance
in the popular mind. Isaiah deals with the misuse of the
latter two.
As might be expected, sham religion is accompanied by
open sin, and the result is national disaster. The only hope
is divine intervention.
"Arise, Shine" (Chs. 60-62).
There seems to be an inversion of order in these chapters
(deliberate, by the prophet, not accidental in transmission).
In ch. 62 we have a picture of continuous intercession for
Zion, together with a fore-shadowing of what its result will be.
In ch. 61 we have the Servant of Jehovah, who by his work
brings it to pass, while in ch. 60 we have a picture of the
glorious fulfilment, Whether these chapters belong to "Deut-
ero-Isaiah," with which they seem to be linked by style, or not,
they do seem to give the fulfilment of that prophecy. We
are convinced that any effort to make these chapters apply
only to the Church, instead of mainly to Israel, goes far to-
ward emptying them of their full meaning.

The Day of Vengeance (63: 1-6).

The application of these verses to the Passion of our Lord
is perverse, and is only possible by ignoring the sense of the
passage.
A Prayer (63: 7-64: 12).
The prayer starts with the first person singular, but then
changes to the first person plural. The prophet prays as the
representative of the people. The development of thought
is not easy, and observing the main sub-divisions may make
its understanding easier. They are: 63: 7-10, 11-14, 15-19;
64: 1-7, 8-12. Note 63: 10, probably the only affirmation
of the personality of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
that is unmistakable without the help of the New Testament.
Final Blessedness (Chs. 65, 66).
Though in its original use ch~ 65 will have had no connexion
with the prayer that precedes it, it here stands as God's answer.
The idolaters referred to are, once again, probably pre-exilic.
62 ]I ENS P A KEF R 0]1 GOD
66: 3 is probably not a condemnation of sacrifice, either abso-
lute or qualified. The end of the verse suggests that we have
to do Wlth those who combined idolatrous worship with their
worship of Jehovah, and so their sacrifices became an abom-
ination.
Note that the book ends, not with the new heavens and the
new earth (66: 22), but with the carcases of the rebels. Isaiah
is not only the prophet of the divine Redeemer, but also of
human sin, which has made redemption through the Suffering
Servant necessary. In the Synagogue, when this chapter is
read publicly, ver. 23 is repeated after ver. 24 (cf. pp. 136, 154).
Note, too, how 65: 25 links with 11: 1-10. and implies the
reigning of the king described in the earlier chapter.
Additional Notes.
The reasonable criticism has been made that the theory of
authorship of "Deutero-Isaiah" given earlier implies that the
same applies to "Trito-Isaiah." If that were so, it would
seriously shake the theory, for there is nothing in chs. 56-66
to justify such an assumption. The term "Trito-Isaiah" is,
however, a mere literary convenience. Part is almost certainly
pre-exilic, part can be r~arded as a portion of "Deutero-
Isaiah" without any straming of probabilities, and the re-
mainder is essentially timeless and is regarded as pOst-exilic
mainly because of its setting in Isaiah.
There is a widespread idea in certain circles that the manu-
scri}?t discoveries at the Dead Sea have disproved the com-
posite authorship of Isaiah. The older MS: of the prophet
must be dated about 150 B.C. If we accept the older view of
composite authorship, it could only be disproved by a MS.
earlier than 200 B.C. (cf. p. 124); that suggested on p. 43 woul4
demand a MS at least as early as 400 B.C. before it could be
rejected on these grounds. -
More advanced students will find much of value in E. J.
Young, Studies in Isaiah. The two chapters on The ImmanueZ
Prophecy are of special value.
 CHAPTER VII

MICAH
THE STRUCTURE OF MICAH
A. The Coming Destruct1,on of Samaria and Jerusalem-
Chs. 1·3.
I-Ch.!. God's Anger against Samaria and Judah.
2-Chs. 2, 3. The Sins of Judah.
B. The Messianic Period-Chs. 4, 5.
I-Ch. 4. The Establishment of God's Kingdom.
2-Ch. 5. The Messianic King.
C. The Controversy of Jehovah with Jerusalem-Chs. 6,7.
The A uthor and His Book.
ICAH, or Micaiah (Jer. 26: 18, R.V.), was a native of

M
L
I' Moresheth-gath (1: I, 14), a small country town in the
Shephelah, the low hills on the edge of the Philistine
plain, near Gath. 1 While Isaiah depicts the social crimes of
his time from the standpoint of the townsman in the capital,
Micah shows us them from the standpoint of the suffering
countryman. Nothing is known of him apart from his pro-
phecies and the reference in Jer. 26: 18.
In the closing section of the book (chs. 6, 7) Micah's de-
nunciations pass from the leaders to the people as a whole, and
the general tone is much more gloomy than in chs. 1-3. There
is a general tendency on the part of those who do not restrict
(as some do quite unnecessarily) Micah's work·to the first three
chapters of the book to place the closing section in the dark days
of Manasseh. This is quite probable, for the structure of the
book suggests that these chapters are considerably later than
3: 12, which Jer. 26: 18 places in the reign of Hezekiah. In
addition the picture given seems rather too dark for the reign
of Hezekiah.
If this is so, it confirms the general impression created by
the prophecy that Micah was a younger contemporary of
Isaiah, outliving him in his public ministry. Micah contains
numerous reminiscences of Isaiah,' though the most striking,
4: 1-5 (Isa. 2: 2-5), is probably due to common quotation
from an earlier prophet. .
If we have interpreted the evidence correctly, then we
1 For a description of the neighbourhood see G. A. Smith I, p. 376ft.
I There are also reminiscences of Amos.
63
64 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
must look on the heading (1: 1) as 0nly approximately correct,
Micah's work beginning at the very end of Jotham's reign, but
going on beyond the time of Hezekiah. 1
We get the impression that we have only a small portion of
his prophecies preserved for us, and that sometimes we have
the giSt of his message rather than the original words in full.
The transition of thought is often violent, and ~.l many cases
the only connexion between sections ",>ill be that of later juxta-
position becaU"J~ of spiritual cor.nexion. In places the thought
IS made even more difficult by the possibility of dislocation in
the order of verses in transmission.
God's Anger against Samaria and Judah (Ch. 1).
The opening section (vers. 2-7) deals mainly with Samaria.
It is purely a message of inevitable doom, and therefore be-
yond her idolatry Samaria's sins are not specified. As it now
stands the prophecy serves rather as an introduction to the
judgment on Judah, for Micah sees the Assyrian armies rolling
south over Judah and especially over the Shephelah, which he
knew so well, after Samaria's faU; so he raises his lament in
verso 8-16. This contains the longest sustained play upon
words in the Old Testament, the names of the places, probably
all in or near the Shephelah being chosen for that purpose.' If
we are right in assigning this section to the reign of Ahaz, these
verbal fireworks probably reflect the prophet's unpopularity,
which forced him to such methods of gaining a hearing. There
is no indication in the rest of the book that Micah was addicted
to puns.
The Sins of Judah (Chs. 2, 3).
Two groups of sins are particularly mentioned:
(a) The greedy landowners who covet their poor neighbours'
fields (2: 1-5) supported by cruel and venal judges and rulers
(3: 1-4), cf. Isa. 5: 8-24.
(b) False prophets (2: 6f; 3: 5-8) who support the rich in
their injustice and who use their position for their own gain.
The section closes with a drastic prophecy of the complete
destruction of Jerusalem (3: 9-12), which according to Jer. 26:
18f was the cause of Hezekiah's repentance, otherwise unspeci-
fied, unless perhaps in II Chron. 32: 26. It can hardly refer to
Hezekiah's reformation (lIKings 18: 4).
Though there is no reason for denying 2: 12f to Micah, the
verses break the connexion of thought very violently, and it is
likely that they have been misplaced in transmission.
1 This is the attitude of ISBE, article Micah. For the argument th,.t
only ehs. 1-3 are the work of Micah see in moderate form Driver. LOT, pp. 325-
334, and more strongly HDB, article Micah.
• For details see Moffatt's translation.
 HICAH 65
The Establishment of God's Kingdom (Ch. 4).
There is no link logical or spiritual expressed as in Isaiah be-
tween judgment and the coming deliverance-even the .. but"
of 4: 1 is "and" in Hebrew. But there will not have been the
need for his contemporaries. Though these chapters probably
synchronize with chs. 1-3 rather than follow them, they are
later in time than Isaiah's Messianic prophecies linked with
Immanuel. The older prophet had struck the note which the
younger could develop without the spiritual links of Isaiah's
message.
The two J>rophets employ the earlier prophecy they use in
common in slInilar but contrasting ways. Isa. 2: 2-5 is used as
a contrast to the grim reality in Judah, Mic. 4: 1-5 as a con-
trast with the heathen world (read RV. mg., RS.V. in 4: 5).
The following section is divided into three unconnected
prophecies of deliverance and restoration, viz. ver. 6f; ver. 8ff;
ver. llff. The mention of Babylon in ver. 10 has made diffi-
culties for many, for why should Babylon be mentioned, when
the enemy to be feared in Micah's day was Assyria? It is
probably best explained by the element of dependence in
Micah on Isaiah. The prophecy in Isa. 39: 6 was probably not
uttered to Hezekiah alone, and a knowledge of it-would explain
the reference here . It is possible to explain it as a later
scribal adaptation of the prophecy even as Stephen (Acts 7: 43)
adapted Amos 5: 27; we do not, however, consider it likely.
The Messianic King (Ch. 5).
There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether
ver. 1 should be taken with the previous chapter or with ver. 2
of the present chapter. The Hebrew includes it in ch. 4, but
the general tendency is to preserve the present English chapter
division (so RS.V., N.E.B.) as against the RV., which follows
the Hebrew in its paragraphing. Cheyne (C. B.) is probably
correct in regarding this verse as a separate prophecy acting
as a transition from Ch. 4 to the thought of the Messianic king.
Apart from ver. 1 this chapter falls into a number of short
unconnected prophecies, viz. verso 2-5a (... this man shall be
our peace); ver. 5b (When the Assyrian ... )-6; ver. 7ff; verso
10-15. the last of these, as not infrequently, pictures the
Messianic age by the removal of the evils, social and religious,
of the prophet's own time; ver. tOf implies the social evils that
have arisen from increasing wealth and lUXUry.

The Controversy of JehO'lJah with Jerusalem (Chs. 6, 7).

The changes of thought here are even more violent than
before. Any attempt to try and discover a connexion between
66 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

the various sections other than a general spiritual one is doomed

to disappointment.
6: 1-8 introduces us to Jehovah's controversy with Judah,
based this time not so much on the sins of the people as on their
false conception of what He expects from them. The people
are "wearied" by His service, an expression used in two other
passages of the demands of the sacrificial worship on the people,
viz. Isa. 43: 22ft, Mal. 1: 13. It is only our neglect of the legal
portions of the Pentateuch and our failure to get a comprehen-
sive picture of the demands of the sacrificial system as a whole
against the economic background of the time that hinders us
from realizing what a burden the system was, especially on the
poorer man. In the days of Micah the tendency was to expand
rather than cut down the ritual.
An appeal is first made to the time of the Exodus and the
Conquest (ver. 4f), when the grace of God was supremely
realized by Israel, but during which sacrifices and the ritual
must have been cut to a minimum. "From Shittim to Gil-
gal" refers to the crossing of the Jordan; some part of the text
has been accidentally dropped.
The misunderstanding people then ask how God is to be
propitiated, suggesting an intensification of its sacrificial
system (ver. 6f). The reference to human sacrifice is one
ground for thinking of the reign of Manasseh (cf. II Kings 21:
6; Jer. 7: 31). Micah sums up the requirements of true re-
ligion in a famous verse (ver. 8), which virtually combines the
teaching of his three great predecessors:
to do justly-Amos.
to love mercy, i.e. chesed (see p. 39)-Hosea.
to walk humbly with thy God, i.e. as befits His holiness-
Isaiah.
In 6: 9-16 we have a second denunciation of Judah, but
this time the stress is on social sin rather than false concep-
tions of religion. Israel answers God (7: 1-6, though this need
not originally have been a unity with the rreceding). In 7:
7-10 Israel still speaks, but it is n.ow Israe of the future, on
whom the judgments have fallen. Then the prophet answers
her (7: 11ft), though the grammar suggests that the con-
nexion is merely one of juxtaposition. The prophecy ends with
a prayer (7: 14-17) and a doxology (7: 18ft).
With these notes of confidence the voice of recorded pro-
phecy becomes silent for the rest of the long reign of Manasseh.
God had spoken to Judah, but she would not hear. Now she
had to sow the bitter seed that would yield a yet bitterer har-
vest.
 CHAPTER VIII

ZEPHANIAH
THE STRUCTURE OF ZEPHANIAH
A. 111e Judllment of the Day of the Lord-Chs. I: 1-3: 8.
I-Chs. I: 1-2: 3. Universal Judllment focussed OD
Jerusalem.
2-Ch. 2: 4-15. Judllment OD the NatioDs.
3-Ch. 3: 1-8. God's Judllment OD Jerusalem.
B. Universal SalvatioD-Ch. 3: 9-JO.
The Auth01'.
absolute certainty is unobtainable, there is a
T
HOUGH
strong probability that the first of the true prophets of
J ehovah to break silence after the reign of Manasseh was
Zephaniah. There is virtual unanimity that 1: 4-9 must pre-
cede Josiah's reformation of 622 B.C. The only arguments
against are based on "the remnant of Baal" (ver. 4) and .. the
king's sons" (ver. 8). But since the former may well mean
"Baal worship to the last vestifie~" and the .latter .. the r~al
family" (the LXX actually has tne king's house", cf.N.E.B.),
we need, hardly doubt the general impression made by this
section of the prophecy. -
There are grounds for thinking that it was the first tentative
reforms of Josiah in 628 B.C. (II Chron. 34: 3; see p. 79) that
were the external stimulus moving Jeremiah to prophesy, so
it may well have been Zephaniah who a year or two earlier
first stirred J osiah to his reforms.
Zephaniah, as is suggested by the local colour of his pro-
phecy, obviously lived in Jerusalem, and he probably belonged
to a family of some importance. This is suggested by his
enealogy being carried back to his great-great-grandfather
!1: 1). In no other prophetic -book except Zechariah do we go
urther back than the prophet's father. On the other hand it
seems gratuitous to assume, as is generally done, that his
ancestor Hezekiah was the king of that name, but cf. Harrison,
p.939.
Universal Judgment focussed on Jerusalem (1: 2-2: 3).
For the conception of the Day of the Lord see ch. H. The
contraction of the vision from a universal judgment to one on
67
68 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Jerusalem in particular is not unnatural. The Day of the

Lord, though universal, always centres around Israel. For the
comparison of the judgment with a sacrifice cf. Isa. 34: 6.
The various religious offences mentioned are of great in-
terest to the student of religions for the light they throw on the
syncretistic religion that had grown up in Jerusalem in the days
of Manasseh, but for detailed explanations a commentary
must be consulted. We find the conditions under Manasseh
reflected also in ver. 12. His folicy of keeping on good terms
with his Assyrian overlord, 0 which his religious syncretism
was largely a result, will have created some measure of pros-
perity, while his flouting of the will of Jehovah and the mes-
sage of the prophets passed without any very serious con-
sequences for him or his people (but see 11 Chron. 33: 10-19-
the history of Josiah's reign and passages like Jer. 15: 4 suggest
that the repentance and reformation were very superficial).
So, as always, the long-suffering of God produced the belief in
some that God was indifferent as to how men acted (cf. 11 Pet.
3: 4, 9).
It is widely held that just as Joel's vision of the Day of the
Lord was inspired by the invasion of the locust swarms, so
Zephaniah's was by the invasion of the Scythians. If, how-
ever, the opinion expressed in ch. XI (p. 81) is correct, this be-
comes improbable. After all we are dealing with the typically
vague language of eschatology, where everything is seen
through a haze of dust (cf. pp. 51, 115).
The corruption had gone too far for Zephaniah to share
Joel's vision of a spiritual revival. He can only see the small
number of humble (2: 3; better than "meek," cf. Mic. 6: 8),
Isaiah's remnant, escaping the coming wrath (cf. Isa. 26: 20).
Judgment on the Nations (2: 4-15).
Since in the case of two nations no mention is made of sins
at all., and in a third (ver. 15) it is only done in passing, it seems
best to look upon this passage as a typical example of the
Hebrew love for the concrete. The generalized language of 1 :
2f is replaced by the mention of the Philistines to the west of
Judah, Moab and Ammon to the east, Assyria to the north and
the Ethiopians to the south. Ethiopia is chosen rather than
Egypt, for like Assyria it is far away. So we have combined
far and near and all the points of the compass, i.e. universality.
God's Judgment on Jerusalem (3: 1-8).
We have here the explanation why in 1: 2-2: 3 social sin
and wrongdoing are hardly mentioned. However grievous
the corrupt worship of Jerusalem, for Zephaniah the social in-
justice was worse, so it is dealt with as the climax of the pro-
 ZE P HANIAH 69
phecy of judgment. We find in ver. 6f an echo of the constant
prophetic teaching that J ehovah is the God of all the earth;
national calamity anywhere in the Near East should have
been recognized in Judah as a sign that Jehovah was still
reigning in righteousness.
Universal Salvation (3: 9-20).
Judgment on Israel is always linked, explicitly or im-
plicitly, with ultimate restoration and blessing. This can only
be denied by denying to a number of the prophets their prom-
ises of restoration (cf. p. 34). The judgment is never merely
punitive, though it would be difficult to find Biblical support
for the modern psychologists' objections to punitive justice.
Here the principle is carried to its logical conclusion; also for
the nations punishment has as its final purpose blessing.
\Vhile it is possible to justify both the R.V. text and mg.
in ver. 10, neither is very convincing, especially as the pro-
phecies of exile look non;nally to the North as the place of exile,
and not Egypt. It is far more likely that there is a minor
textual corruption, and that we should read with Ewald:
Beyond the rivers of Ethiopia they shall offer Me incense,
the daughter of Put shall bring Me an offering.
For Israel Ethiopia was at the ends of the earth; for Put cf.
Nahum 3: 9.
There follows the picture of purified Israel (ver. llff). In
ver. 12 "a humbled and weak people" best expresses the
sense of the Hebrew.
The book ends with a picture of the redeemed people with
the presence of Jehovah in their midst (vets. 1~20). The
king of Israel is Jehovah himself (cf. Isa. 41: 21; Ezek. 34: 11).
For the general picture cf. Isa. 12: 6; Ezek. 48: 35. Zeph-
aniah must not be understood to be denying the reality of the
Messianic king. It is hardly possible that any prophet con-
ceived of Jehovah's direct presence except in the Shekinah
glory, which had already been seen on Tabernacle and Temple
(Exod. 40: 34; I Kings 8: 10£). Any more tangible presence
implied a human representative, but not to mention him
showed how perfectly he would represent Jehovah instead of
obscuring Him as the earlier judges and kings had done.
 CHAPTER IX

NAHUM
The Fall of Nineveh.
HE whole yrophecy of Nahum revolves around the one
T thought 0 the coming downfall of Nineveh the bloody
If

city." It consists of a triumphal ode describing the

power of Jehovah (ch. 1), followed by two pictures of the
capture of Nineveh (ch. 2 and ch. 3).
The date of the pr9phecy can be fixed within fairly narrow
limits. It must be after the sack of Thebes (No-amon; 3: 8)
by the Assyrians in 663 B.C., and it must be before the actual
fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C. The general religions situation in
Judah hardly justifies our assuming a date earlier than Zeph-
aniah (c. 627 B.C.), as does Kirkpatrick. 1 On the other hand
1 ~ 13, 15 suggest that Assyria was still dominant in the West.
Her power crumbled immediately after the death of Ashur-
banipal in 627 B.C. We feel that the general tendency of
modems to place '!Sahum even nearer the fall of the city is based
less on the internal evidence than on a widespread dislike to
admitting more clear prophecy of the future than is absolutely
necessary. The failure to mention the identity of the at-
tackers ID itself supports a date round 625 B.C.
Already in 626 B.C. Nineveh had been attacked 'i?y the
Medes, but it was saved by the intervention of the Scythians.
Some years later Babylon, which had become independent in
626 B.C. under the Chaldean Nabopolassar, joined hands with
the Medes; they parcelled out Assyria's empire between them
and attacked Nineveh, which fell in 612 B.C. Four years
later the last vestiges of Assyria vanished unlamented, never
to be revived.
The very vividness of Nahum's language and the splendour
of his descriptions tend to hide from us his almost barbarous
exultation over the doomed oppressor with never a word or
suspicion of sympathy. It has its affinities with passages like
Isa. 14: 4-21; Ps. 137: 7ff; Rev. 19: Iff. They reveal to us the
awful lengths that man's cruelty and wrongdoing can reach;
finally they dry up all compassion for the sinner in the deep
satisfaction that God's justice has been finally vindicated.
Nahum is so dominated by the sin of Nineveh that he makes no
1 Kirkpatrick. p. 24511.
70
 NAHUM 71
reference to the sin of his own people-the only other prophet
of which this is true is Obadiah, and his is a special case (see ch.
XlI).
The Author.
All we know of Nahum is that he came from Elkosh (1: 1),
an unidentified place, about which there are three traditions:
(1) It is claimed that Elkosh is the modern Elkush, a
village in Iraq about 27 miles north of Mosul, which is near the
ruins of Nineveh. Nahum's tomb is shown there, but the
tradition identifying it cannot be shown to be older than the
sixteenth century. Were this tradition correct, Nahum will
have been a descendant of one of the captives deported after
the fall of Samaria in 723 B.C. (II Kings 17: 6).
(2) Jerome (fourth century A.D.) was shown the hamlet of
Helkesi in Galilee by Jewish guides, who claimed that it was
Nahum's birthplace. We cannot now identify the site of this
hamlet with certainty. A barely possible support for Nahum's
Galilean origin is found in the name Capernaum=Kephar
Nahum, i.e. Village of Nahum. If this tradition is correct,
Nahum was the descendant of Israelites left in the North after
the deportations by the Assyrians (d. II Chron. 30: 1, Sf, lOf,
18; 34: 6f).
(3) In a work known as the Lives of the Prophets, attributed,
perhaps wrongly, to Epiphanius (fourth century A.D.), a
native of Palestine, Elkosh is placed in the tribal portion of
Simeon, perhaps near Lachish.
Sentiment might make us favour either of the former views,
but we have to acknowledge that there is no real evidence in
their favour. Nahum's concern is clearly with Judah, not
Israel. The vast majority of scholars assume he was a
Judaean.1
A Triumphal Ode (Ch. 1).
Scholars have found an acrostic poem here, but the first
eleven letters of the alphabet can be discovered only by textual
manipulation, and the second eleven only by. major alter-
ations. I There are two diametrically opposite errors con-
nected with the Hebrew text that we must avoid. On the one
hand we must not assume that it has been handed down to us
in a flawless condition. Equally we must not assume that it is
full of major errors. All recent textual study, including the
evidence of the older copy of Isaiah among the Dead Sea
lOne of the few modem writers to support the first view is Kirkpatrick,
p. 249 seq. Driver. LOT, p. 335, gives cautious support to the second view.
I There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. For details see HDB,
article Nahum.
72 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
scrolls, has supported a middle position, and there has been a
strong reaction from the lavish textual reconstruction of an
earlier generation. 1
Though there are considerable textual difficulties in the
first chapter, to suppose that an acrostic poem should have
been so mutilated seems impossible, unless we say of the writer
with Pfeiffer, "It is clear that he did not copy the alphabetic
psalm from a manuscript but wrote it down as best he could
from memory. He had not only forgotten the second part of
this poem, but being unconscious of the alphabetic arrange-
ment of the lines, he paraphrased certain lines .. ." I Faced
with this, common sense is likely to decide that the few in-
dications of an acrostic are purely accidental, so Harrison,
p.927.
The ode begins with a description of the attributes of
Jehovah (vers. 2, 3a) and of His power in nature (vers. 3b-6),
both of which justify the confidence that He will at last carry
out the punishment of Assyria first pronounced by J onah
(Jonah 3: 4) and affirmed clearly by IsaIah (Isa. 10: 12, 16-19,
etc.). Then comes the promise (vers. 7-15) that Jehovah will
make an end of the enemies of His people. There are textual
corruptions in verso 10 and 12; the verbs in ver. 11 should be in
the past, for the verse probably refers to Sennacherib; in ver. 12
the R.V. mg. should be followed. To get the sense we should
omit 1: 13, 15; 2: 2, for while we do not doubt that they are by
Nahum, in their present setting, addressed as they are to Judah,
they interrupt the address to Assyria. This is particularly
true of 2: 2. N.E.B. shows the transpositions needed to use
these verses in approximately their present position.
The Siege and Fall of Nineveh (Chs. 2, 3).
The chapter division is correct, for we have two poems on
the same subject. Nahum is not giving a vision of the actual
capture of Nineveh, nor does he give a detailed description of
the siege. He gives a vivid series of pictures of ancient siege
warfare as such sieges always were. Nineveh was doomed and
it was in this way that she would go down into silence.
1 See especially B. J. Roberts: The Old Testam81ll Text and Versions.

II,IIroduction to the Old Testam81lt. p. 595.

 CHAPTER X

HABAKKUK
THE STRUCTURE OF HABAKKUK
A. A SpIrItual DIalogue-Chs. 1, 2.
1-1: 2ft. The Prophet's Complaint.
2-1: 5-11. God's Answer.
3-1: 12-17. The Prophet's Protest.
4-2: 1-5. God's Answer.
5-2: 6-20. FIve Woes against the Chaldeans.
(a) ver. 6ft. Their Conquests.
(b) ver. 9ft. TheIr Rapacity.
(c) ver. 12ft. Their Oppression of the Conquered.
(d) ver.15ft. TheIr HumUlation of the Conquered.
(e) ver. 18ft. TheIr Idolatry.
B. A Psalm of God's Intervention-Ch. 3.
The Author.
HERE is no prophet of whom less can be affirmed with

T certainty than Habakkuk. Not only do we know

absolutely nothing about him personally, but dates as
far apart as 701 and 330 B.C. have been proposed for him.
This late date is based on subjective textual emendation and
need not be considered here,l but the remaining uncertainty
springs directly from the book itself.
The prophet begins (1: 2ff) by complaining about the
iniquity and oppression around him. Though it is not stated
who the oppressor is, the most natural interpretation is that
the prophet is complaining about internal troubles, about the
social wrongdoing so often condemned by the prophets. God
answers (1: 5-11) by saying that He is doing something which
none could anticipate or believe (ver. 5) in that He is on the
point of raising up the Chaldeans (ver. 6; this is the force of
the Hebrew), who will be God's instruments of punishment.
The prophet then remonstrates with God (1: 12-17), asking
how He in His purity can use impure instruments, especially
when they are as bad as those they are to punish (cf. 1: 13 'with
1: 3f). After some delay (2: 1) God answers him, that in due
course it will be seen that "the righteous shall live by his
1 See Young. p. 263; Rowley: Tlu GrowlIf 0//114 Olll T'S/IIIt16''', p. 117.
73
74 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

faithfulness," but those that are puffed up will perish (2: 2-5).
The fate of the Chaldeans is then depicted in five woes (2: 6-20).
In Habakkuk's description of the behaviour of the Chal-
deans there is no suggestion that we have to do with prophetic
vision; it bears the stamp of being based on what he had heard
of them, or even of what he had seen personally. As a result
1: 12-17 and 2: 6-20 can hardly be earlier than 612 B.C., the
year of Nineveh's fall, and they may be even later than 605
B.C., when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho at
Carchemish. In contrast 1: 5-11 can be given its obvious
meaning only if it is dated at the latest shortly after 626 B.C.,
when Babylon recovered its independence under Nabopolassar
the Chaldean.
If we leave to one side suggestions that have met with
little approval, we find that scholars are divided between four
different solutions of the difficulty: 1
(1) 1: 5-11 are not really a prediction, but "the prophet
throws himself dramatically into the past.'"
(2) 1: 5-11 should be placed before 1: 2; they are the oldest
part of the book and are possibly quoted by Habakkuk from
an earlier prophet. Then 1: 2ff and 1: 12-17 form a con-
tinuous passage of complaint against the Chaldeans, there
being no mention of unrighteous Israelites.
(3) 1: 5-11 should be placed after 2: 4. Then 1: 2ff repre-
sents a complaint against the oppression of Judah by the
Assyrians, or perhaps the Egyptians; the prophet appeals to
Jehovah (1: 12-17); Jehovah promises deliverance (2: 1-4)
through the Chaldeans (1: 5-11), then follow five woes against
the oppressor, whether Assyrians or Egyptians. (It is on the
basis of this view that a date as early as 701 B.C. had been
suggested for the prophecy.)
(4) The simplest explanation, though not entirely free of
difficulty, is to refuse to see a normal prophecy in Habakkuk.
It is a record not of Habakkuk's messages to the people but of
his problems and God's answers. W'l are not suggesting that
he did not prophesy, but that here we have an account of the
inner conflict behind his public utterances. If it is so, we may
assume the passage of a considerable period of time between
1: 5-11 and 1: 12-17. In this case the book may well extend
over a period from at least 626 to 605 B.C. This view is the
basis of the following notes.
Habakkuk's Message.
Habakkuk's contribution to our knowledge of God is found
mainly in two passages.
1 See HDB, article Habakkuk; ISBE, article Habakkuk.
• Lanchester: Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah {C. B.) IMlloc.
 HABAKKUK 75·
{1} Isaiah could explain the triumph of the Assyrian by his
being the instrument of God's punishing (Isa. 10: 5f) who
should be punished himself, when his work was done (Isa 10:
12). But Habakkuk (1: 13) cannot understand how a pure
God can use impure instruments. It is to be noted that he
receives no answer to his question. Faith can say as in Ps.
76: 10:
" Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee:
The residue of wrath shalt thou gird upon thee" (as an
ornament)
but this is faith. The intellect is faced with moral problems in
the Divine government of the universe to which it can find no
full solution (see also note on Isa. 45: 7, p. 60).
(2) The centre of the prophecy is obviously the short
message (2: 4) to be written so plainly (2: 2) "one may read it
at a glance" (Moffatt):
"Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him,
But the righteous shall live in his faithfulness (to Jehovah)."
The versions confirm by their variations the impression created
by the English translation that the first line has been textually
corrupted. Though we cannot now reconstruct it with cer-
tainty, its main thought is quite clear from the context.
Young's Analytical Concordance shows only two examples
of the use of "faith" in the Old Testament, Hab. 2: 4 being
one. In each case the correct translation is faithfulness. The
Hebrew in his concrete thinking did not speak of faith, but of
faithfulness toward God, and this in turn implied faith, i.e.
trust-where faith in God does not lead to faithfulness, it is
vain. The promise through Habakkuk is that the man who
shows his trust in God by his faithfulness to God will find God
faithful in keeping him, d.N.E.B. ad loco
Woe to the Oppressor (2: 6-20).
These five woes are a taunt-song (ver. 6; cf. Isa. 14: 4 and
p. 51) taken up by the nations against the Chaldeans, though
it should be obvious that the last is suitable only if spoken by
the prophet himself. As in Amos 1: 3-2: 3 the woes are
pronounced against acts that contravene man's sense of the
fitness of things·.
(1) ver. 6ff condemn the lust of conquest, which sheds
blood for the sheer love of conquering.
(2) ver. 9ff take up the rapacity of the Chaldeans.
(3) ver. 12ff develop the previous woe. The squeezing of
the conquered peoples was particularly for the rebuilding of
76 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Babylon, which Nebuchadnezzar transformed into one of the

wonders of the ancient world (cf. Dan. 4: 30).
(4) ver. 15ff condemn the wanton humiliation of the con-
quered; the picture of making them drunk is probably meta-
phorical. Ps. 137: 3 may refer to these wanton insults and
cf. Dan. 5: 2.
(5) ver. 18ff-here it is the prophet that mocks Chaldean
idolatry. Nebuchadnezzar was a very devout man. It is
part of God's irony that Babylon fell to Cyrus partially at least
through the treachery of the priests of Merodach.
God Comes to Deliver (Ch. 3).
This chapter is a psalm, which, if the musical rubrics are
any guide, was probably taken from some temple collection of
psalms. "This psalm may have been appropriated by the
editors of the prophetic canon before the Psalter emerged in
its present form" (Harrison, p. 935). That it is not dealt with
in the pesher (commentary) on Habakkuk found at Qumran
is no evidence that it was not included in the book at that time.
Its addition to the preceding chapters may well be due to an
editor who wished to bring together all the extant work of
Habakkuk. While we do not think that the psalm has any
direct connexion with the preceding prophecy, we see in that
a proof rather than the reverse of Habakkuk's authorship.
The arguments for a post-exilic date for the psalm seem to be
mainly subjective.
As Habakkuk prays for God's intervention in the turmoil
around 1 he has a vision of Him coming as He once did at the
Red Sea, Sinai, Jordan and in the Conquest; verso 3-15 are
based on the language of Deut. 33: 2; Judges 5: 4f; Ps. 68: 7f.
While it is an account of what happened in the past, it is a
present reality for the prophet. So we should read present
tenses throughout from ver. 3 to ver. 15 as in the R.V. mg.,
N.E.B.
Though the first effect of the vision on the prophet is inner
distress (ver. 16), it then creates in him the confident ability to
endure even worse conditions than those he is passing through
(ver.17ff).
1 Turmoil, rather than wrath-so G. A. Smith n, p. 150.
 CHAPTER XI

JEREMIAH
THE STRUCTURE OF JEREMIAH
A. Chs.1-25: 14. Prophecies of Doom.
I-Ch. 1. The call of Jeremiah.
2-Chs. 2-6. Prophecies from the time of Josiah.
3-Chs. 7-20. Prophecies from the time of Jehoiaklm.
4-Chs. 21-25: 14. Prophecies against kings and
prophets.
B. Chs. 25: 15-38; 46-51. Prophecies against the Nations ••
C. Chs. 26-33. Destruction and Restoration.
D. Chs.34-45. Jeremiah and the last days of Jerusalem.
E. Ch. 52. An historical Appendix.
• The order ill the LXX Irresistibly SUllfaests tbat tbls "u Ibe orlelnaJ posltloa of
~~K~s;S~;:~"eetT:::o;rJe~~::.'l'!'t.t=~ !?P%tO!I::':'~ ::::~~r':~ structure betw_
The Neglected Prophet.
F the length of a prophet's writings were any criterion of the

I number of books that should be written about him, then

Jeremiah would be the most neglected of all the prophets.
Though scholars are now beginning to atone for past neglect, it
still persists in the pulpit and Bible class. For this there are at
least three strong reasons.
Though most of the prophets employ poetry, and" Deutero-
Isaiah" shows more sustained poetic structure, Jeremiah is the
greatest lyric poet of them all. Only Hosea is comparable
with him. With many of them we feel that they are merely
using poetic forms, but Jeremiah is a poet. It need hardly be
stressed that great poetry often demands much closer study
than does prose to extract its full meaning.
There was always a tendency for the prophet's life to be-
come part of his message, but with the exceptIon of Jonah this
is nowhere so marked as in Jeremiah. Indeed, toward the end
of his work his life to a large extent became his message.
'Where it has not been grasped that Jeremiah's life is in itself a
revelation of God, both his life and his spoken message have
been seen out of focus.
The presed form of the book is peculiar, and demands
more preliminary study than is normally the case, if th~ true
backgrou!1d and flow of events are to be accurately grasped.
77
78 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
The many striking differences between the Hebrew text and
the LXX afford grounds for thinking that Baruch, indubitably
the book's chief editor, may have died, ~rhaps by violence,
before he had completed his task.
The Compiling of the Book.
A careful study of Jeremiah in English will probably reveal
to most what is obvious in Hebrew, viz. that the contents may
be divided into three groups: (i) Prophecies by Jeremiah in
:eoetry; (ii) Prophecies by Jeremiah in prose; (iii) Stories about
Jeremiah in prose.
The third is found mainly in chs. 34-45 (see structure of book),
but is to be found also in chs. 1-25: 14 and chs. 26-33. There IS
no reasonable doubt that it is the work of Baruch, Jeremiah's
companion and scribe (36: 4, etc.; 32: 12; 43: 3, 6; 45).
The second is found mainly in chs. 1-25: 14 but also in chs.
26-33. If compared carefully with the poetical prophecies, it
gives the impression of being a report of Jeremiah's message
rather than his actual words. Since it resembles the third
group in style, it is reasonable to suppose that Baruch was
responsible for these prose reports as well. Jeremiah's entirely
undeserved reputation for prosiness is derived from these
reports; prosiness is anyway relative and subjective. The fact
that we have to do with an eye-witness condensation of some
of Jeremiah's prophecies in no way affects their accuracy.
Ch. 36 tells us how the book began. It is impossible to
know, and fruitless to guess, by how much the second roll (36:
32) was longer than the first (36: 2-4), but it is reasonable to
suppose that it will have included the bulk of the poetical
passages in the first two sections of the book and some of those
ID the third (see structure of book).
Later, perhaps in Egypt, Baruch will have woven his prose
collection of Jeremiah's prophecies into this enlarged roll. He
added also a few of the narrative stories he had written down
about Jeremiah's sufferings.
It must be left an open question whether Baruch ever in-
tended adding section D (chs. 34-45). It may well be that his
friends were responsible for doing it after his death. This
would help to explain the chronologically rather disjointed
picture we have of Jeremiah. The historical chapters in the
earlier sections of the book owe their present position to
spiritual rather than chronological motives. Ch. 52 is a later
historical appendix taken from lIKings-note 51: 64b.
Jeremiah the Young Man.
The peculiar importance of Jeremiah's life makes it ad-
visable to use it as a framework within which to study the book
 J ERE )( I A H 79
as a whole. It so happens that the three kings under whom he
prophesied, Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah, coincide with the
first three of the four periods of his prophetic activity.
Jeremiah was born of a priestly family (1: 1) in Anathoth,
the modem Anata, a village about four miles to the north-east
of Jerusalem, in the tribal portion of Benjamin. 1 The usual
assumption is that he was a descendant of Abiathar (I Kings 2:
26). The banishment of his great ancestor did not necessarily
imply that his descendants were barred from temple service in
Jerusalem, and Hilkiah, his father, may well have officiated
there as a priest. In any case, however, he was not Josiah's
high priest (lIKings 22: 4)-the similarity in names will be
accidental. The frequent suggestion that Jeremiah's father
was priest of the village high place that will have been abolished
by J osiah has little to commend it. Abiathar would not have
been willing to serve at a village sanctuary, while a major
sanctuary would not have been possible at that short distance
from Jerusalem, nor would the expelled high priest have been
allowed to found one.
Jeremiah never acted as priest, nor is there any evidence
that he would have done so, had he not been called to be a
prophet. The contrast between him and Ezekiel in this
respect is remarkable (see ch. XIII).
Jeremiah will have been born about the year 645 B.C. to-
ward the end of the reign of the evil king Manasseh. The way
in which Jeremiah was steeped in the prophecies of his pre-
decessors, especially Hosea, suggests that his home may have
been one of those where the light of the persecuted prophetic
tradition was kept alive in a dark age. The story of his call
(ch. 1) suggests that he had been expecting it. His only pro-
test was that he was too young (1: 6). On general grounds we
may suppose him to have been between 18 and 20 at the time.
The Hebrew word (na'ar) should not have been translated
.. child" ; it means one who has not yet a recognized place in the
community; while used of children, it refers more commonly
to young unmarried men and to slaves, cf. R.S.V.
His call came in 627 B.C. (1: 2). If we compare Chron.
with Kings, we see that Josiah's reformation began in the year
before (11 Chron. 34: 3), thoug:h it did not reach its height and
become effective ti11622 B.C. (II Kings 22: 3; II Chron. 34: 8).
From the human standpoint, this will have been the impulse
that finally prepared Jeremiah for his call.
In spite of frequent assertions to the contrary, there is no
real evidence that Jeremiah helped in Josiah's reformation, and
very little, if any, that he really sympathized with it. It is
1 For an excellent description of the surroundings see G. A. Smith:
Jeremiah, pp. 67-72. .
80 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

true that his earliest prophecies are directed mainly against the
idolatry that the reformation was to sweep away for the time
being (2: 1-3: 5; 3: 19-4: 4; note that 3: 19 is the immediate
sequel of 3: 5), but in a prophecy probably only a little later
(3: 6-13) he recognizes that the reformation is merely outward
and feigned (3: 10). That is why his remaining prophecies
from the time of Josiah give a picture of unrelieved gloom.
In modem text-books 11: 1-8 are generally referred to
Jeremiah's activity during the time of the reformation. 11:
3f do not fit in with the insistence of the modem scholar that
the book found (11 Kings 22: 8) was Deuteronomy, for Jeremiah
is obviously referring to the covenant at Sinai, not to some-
thing done at the end of the wilderness journey. The natural
interpretation of ch. 11 would place it in the reign of Jehoiakim,
for the whole section seems to belong to his reign, the pro-
phecies under J osiah ending with ch. 6. Still more important
is it that 11: 1-14 is one of those prose reports of Jeremiah's
sayings we have attributed with a high degree of probability
to Baruch. There is no evidence, however, that Baruch was
in touch with Jeremiah before the reign of Jehoiakim. It
seems rather that once Jeremiah had convinced himself from
the lack of changed lives (ch. 5) that the reformation was purely
external, he dropped into the background, not wishIng to
embarrass a king he respected so highly (11 Chron. 35: 25; Jer.
22: 15f). This would explain the lack of prophecies which can
reasonably be attributed to the later years of Josiah.
It is instructive to note even in his early prophecy that
deep sympathy and feeling that marks out Jeremiah, e.g. 4: 10,
19, and his feeling for nature, so rare in the Old Testament,
e.g. 1: 11ff; 4: 25.
Jeremiah's Call (Ch. 1).
We have already referred to the call itself, but the accom-
panying .. visions" need closer attention. We use the inverted
commas because it is virtually certain that God spoke to him
through two things he will have seen many a time before.
His eye fell on a branch of waker (i.e. almond), which had
already awakened to the first breath of the coming spring and
burst into blossom although the other trees seemed still
wrapped in their winter sleep. Then the voice of God told him
that even so the purposes of God were on the verge of waking
into fulfilment, for He was waking over them (see R.V. mg. for
word-play). Much that follows in Jeremiah is only under-
standable as we ~asp that he was dominated by the know-
ledge that the judgment of God would break forth in his own
day. For rendering of ver. I1f see also N.E.B.
Then as he looked at the clouds, they seemed to take the
 JEREMIAH 81
form of a huge, boiling cauldron leaning over from the north,
ready to discharge its contents over Judah and Jerusalem.
The stress does not lie primarily on the north, for the geography
of Palestine demanded that invasion must come from the
north, unless, indeed, it came from Egypt. Rather it is the
supplementing of the former message by its stress that the
instruments of God's doom were even then being prepared to
be poured out as the hot anger of God over the land.
The Northern Invader (4: 5-31; 5: 15-19; 6: 1-8,22-26).
This vivid prophetic portrayal of the fulfilment of 1: 13ff
was probably lived through by Jeremiah in visions-see his
personal anguish, 4: 19ff. Some have seen in them the Chal-
deans, but for a long time the prevalent view has been that we
have here the Scythians portrayed. We know that they
shared in the convulsions that preceded the destruction of
Nineveh in 612 B.C., but the Greek historian Herodotus is our
only authority for the story that they swept down to the very
frontier of Egypt, where the Pharaoh was glad to buy them off.
Herodotus' account is, however, so vague and contains such
demonstrable errors that it is probably best to ignore him. In
any case some of the language is quite unsuited to the Scy-
thians, so that those who hold this view have to assume that
Jeremiah later worked over these poems adapting them to the
Chaldeans. It is neither Scythian nor Chaldean that Jeremiah
sees here. Just as 1: 13ff was silent as to what people should
pour out of the cauldron of God's wrath, so here, when Jeremiah
secs them, they are still unidentified. It is the sureness and
terror of the doom that God reveals to His servant, not the
identity of His executioners; that was to come later.
There is a progression in these visions. In 4: Sf the people
are called to flee to the fenced cities, and especially to Jeru-
salem. The standard set up (ver. 6) is to act as a guide. But
in 6: 1 the Benjamites are called on to flee from Jerusalem, to
which they had previously fled for safety.
The reason for the change in attitude is caused by the
prophet's realization of the moral corruption of Jerusalem
(ch. 5). When it is grasped that this chapter must almost
certainly be attributed to a time after 622 B.C., when Josiah's
reform reached its height-note the lack of mention of Idolatry
in contrast to chs. 2 and 3, which are before the carrying
through of the reform-we can begin to understand how super-
ficial it had all been.
Faithless Israel (2: 1-4: 4).
In this section we have a number of short, passiunate,
poetic pleadings with Israel, forming a spiritual whole. Israel
82 HEN SPAKE FROM GOD
normally includes the remnants of the Northern Kingdom with
Judah. Here, as elsewhere when he pleads with the Northern
tribes, it is not clear whether Jeremiah is addressing himself to
those in exile or to those who had been left behind in their land
now ruled for Assyria by the Samaritan settlers, though the
latter is more usual.
This dual meaning of Israel has, however, been obscured by
the insertion between 3: 5 and ver. 19 of an independent
prophecy (3: 6-13) of slightly later date (see above) in which
Israel is used exclusively of the Northern Kingdom in contrast
to Judah. Its sense has been obscured by a wrong use of
tense in A.V., R.V. In 3: 6 we should have the past instead
of the perfect tense, i.e. "Hast thou seen what back-slidin~
Israel did? She went up ... and there played the harlot.'
Jeremiah is referring to the closing days of the Northern
Kingdom.
Ch. 3: 14-18 is an even later prophecy, perhaps from the
time of Zedekiah, which is here inserted because of its spiritual
suitability. The very important reference to the ark (3: 16)
is dealt with below together with the passages in which
Jeremiah gives his attitude toward ceremonial religion in
general (see The Vanity of Outward Religion, p. 85) .
. For the correct understanding of this section it must be
borne in mind that Jeremiah is referring to two apparently
distinct things, which yet for the prophet are indistinguishable.
Obviously the sin above all others that is being condemned is
idolatry, but equally obviously much of it was not seen in that
light by the people-note especially 2: 23, where the charge of
idolatry is indignantly denied.
It would seem clear that from the time of the Judges on,
checked by the good kings but not stamped out, the bulk of
the people worshipped Jehovah in much the same way as they
had seen the Canaanites worshipping their gods, the Baalim.
In other words, they looked on Jehovah simply as their Baal.
For the prophets, this was equivalent to worshipping Baal
himself; they denied that it was Jehovah-worship at all.
Along with this Baalized Jehovah-worship there was, of course,
much worship of other gods as well. The important point is
that unless we worship God as He wishes to be worshipped, He
does not accept our worship at all. It is equivalent to the
worship of other gods (see ch. V, p. 36ft.).
When Jeremiah convinces Israel of her sin, she merely says
defiantly, "No hope; no! for I have loved strangers, and after
them will I go" (2: 25).
Increasing Obduracy (6: 9-21).
It is likely there is a minor textual corruption in ver. 9, cf.
 JE-REMIAH 83
RS.V., N.E.B.; it is Jeremiah who is commanded to glean the
remnant of Judah as a vine, to go over the people once again
to see whether there is any who will accept the will of God.
Verso 10-11a is Jeremiah's protest. Note how he identifies
himself with God, so that the message of God's fury has be-
come a burden within him longing to be poured out. Ver. 11b
begins God's answer-not "I will pour it out" (A.V.), but
"Pour it out" (RV., RS.V.).
Note that already Jeremiah is striking the note we are to
hear so frequently later, and is condemning the false prophets,
cf. 4: 10 (referring to the false message of assurance from the
false prophets); 5: 31; 6: 13.
For 6: 20 see below The Vanity of Outward Religion, p. 85.
The prophecies under Josiah end with a word of encourage-
ment; in spite of apparent failure he had been doing the task
allotted him. The people are compared with base metal (6: 28-30).
Chs. 1-6 of Jeremiah underline the need of reading the
prophetic books along with the histories of the kings in Kings
and Chronicles. Without them we are bound to get a one-
sided view. In Kings and Chronicles Josiah's reformation
seems to be a complete success, and it is difficult to understand
the collapse after his death. From Jeremiah we see that it was
but the last effort to shore up the doomed and collapsing house
of Judah, and there was never any hope of success. It only, by
delaying the final catastrophe, made it the greater when it came.
Jeremiah and the Reign of Jehoiakim.
The long list of chapters 1 in the footnote is only approxi-
mately correct. Shorter portions in 7-20 and 46-49: 33 may
be from the time of Zedeklah, while portions of 30, 31 are prob-
ably from that of Jehoiakim. But these minor doubts cannot
obscure the fact that the major part of Jeremiah's prophetic
activity took place at this time. If what we have written
above IS at all correct, Jeremiah did not come prominently into
the public eye so long as Josiah lived. No sooner had Jehoia-
kim settled himself firmly on the throne than Jeremiah stepped
into the limelight and stayed there, the best-hated man in the
kingdom. We cannot understand what happened without a
study of the historical background.
The Historical Background.
The fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies at the time of Sen-
nacherib's invasion seems to have created a fanatical belief in
the inviolability of Jerusalem; and there is every evidence that
this was heightened by the reform of religion under Josiah.
Huldah's prophecy (II Kings 22: 18-20) was doubtless subject
to the generru principle of Jer. 18: 7-10 (cf. p. 18), but as
1 CIaJ. 7-20; 22: 1-19; 23: 9-40; 25, 26; 35, 36; 46-49: 33.
84 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD

Judah's prosperity increased under wise rule, this will have

become increasingly forgotten, and the threat of divine punish-
ment (II Kings 22: 16f) will have faded away into the distant
future; Isaiah's message of the remnant (see p. 49) had not
been learnt.
When Nineveh fell in 612 B.C., the popular mind must have
visualized the return of former glories. Only in this way can
we explain Josiah's armed opposition to Pharaoh Necho's ex-
pedition in 609 (lIKings 23: 29). It was the height of madness,
but we may be sure that the professional prophets of Jerusalem
were as unanimous in favour of the king's action as Ahab's
were, when he went up to Ramoth Gilead and perished
(I Kings 22: 6).
It is probably impossible for us to realize how great a shock
Josiah's death must have been to all but a handful of his sub-
jects. The greater must have been the relief and the wonder
when a few months later they found that Necho demanded no
more than a king of his choice, Eliakim or Jehoiakim (IT Kings
23: 34), and a heavy tribute. Once again the House of Jehovah
had guaranteed the inviolability of Jerusalem.
The Challenge (Ch. 7: 1-15; 26: 1-19, 24).
Jeremiah, who had been repelled by the outwardness of
Josiah's reformation, saw the position and its dangers so
clearly that he decided that the people must face the truth at
once. At the first suitable moment (26: 1) he announced in
the entry of the court of the temple (7: 2; 26: 2) that unless
there was a moral reformation the temple would be destroyed
as was the sanctuary in Shiloh (presumably after Eli's death,
I Sam, 4: 18), and the people would go into exile.
Ch. 7: 1-15 is a summary of his message, while 26: 1-19,
though including the message, is mainly concerned with the
results. For the people, Jeremiah's action was unpardonable,
for he was undermining their chief confidence; in addition,
there is nothing more dangerous than to attack popular
religion. It hardly needs saying that they found natural
leaders in the priests and sanctuary prophets (26: 7). When
brought to trial before the princes, Jeremiah found men who
probably had little love for the priests, and so received a fair
trial. The evidence that saved him (26: 17ff) was the evidence
of similar prophesying by Micaiah, i.e. Micah (3: 12). Though
the evidence follows the verdict (26: 16) by a common artifice
in Hebrew story-telling, it should be clear that it was in fact
the cause of the verdict. The fickle crowd sided for the time
being with the judges, but 26: 24 strongly suggests that the
priests, secure in their knowledge of the royal attitude (26: 20-
23), stirred up the people to lynch Jeremiah, and were only
 J ERE M I A H 85
foiled by Ahikam; or did they appeal to the king?
In A.V., R.V. 26: 20-23 is printed as though it were part of
the elders' evidence. This is manifestly false. It is doubtful
whether, on chronological grounds, we could even date it
before Jeremiah's challenge. It is inserted to show the
royal attitude to troublesome prophets, and the danger that
Jeremiah ran by his bold challenge.
The Vanity of Outward Religion. 1
An immediate result of Jehoiakim's accession was the rapid
re-emergence of evil practices Josiah had cleared away.
The idolatry mentioned in 7: 16ff, cf. 44: 15-19, had Simply
gone underground. The grosser forms linked with Manasseh s
state cultus had vanished, but the poison remained and so
there was no use in Jeremiah's praying for them (7: 16; 11:
9-14; 14: lOff; 15: 1). It is probable that 7: 31 is looking
back to the time of Manasseh, for had human sacrifice actually
been re-introduced, it is incredible that it would not have
been mentioned in Kings. Human sacrifice was very rare
in Bible lands at the time and so it was a deliberate syncretistic
debasement of Jehovah worship. 7: 31 makes it clear that
the children were offered to J ehovah (" ... which I commanded
not, neither came it into my mind") cf. also 19: 3-9. In
8: 7 Jeremiah uses a remarkable picture from nature to
illustrate the unnatural conduct of Judah; it reminds us of
Isaiah 1: 3, but is stronger.
It would seem, however, that in these early years of Jehoia-
kim's reign, Jeremiah's main concern was with the subtly false
rather than the grossly false in religion. No prophet goes
further in his rejection of all outward religion, but, in order to
obtain a balanced interpretation we must not forget that
Jeremiah knew for certain that the temple and all its cere-
monial were doomed to destruction in a few years' time.
His most striking utterance on sacrifices is in 7: 21-26. He
begins by mockingly calling on his hearers to break the funda-
mental laws of sacrifice (ver. 21). The" sacrifices" are the
peace offerings, which were in large measure eaten by the
worshippers; Jeremiah tells them to treat the burnt-offerings,
where not even the sacrificing priest had a share (Lev. 1; 6: 8-
11), in exactly the same way-Jehovah did 110t care. He had
not put details of sacrifices first when He made known His will
after the Exodus. In the fundamental covenant (Exod. 20-
23) the Decalogue takes pride of place, and details of sacrificial
ritual have only a few passing references, mainly the pro-
hibition of certain Canaanite practices.
[In older critical works, this verse is used as a proof that the
13: 16; 6: 20; 7: 21-26; 8: 8f; 9: 2Sf; 11: 1-8; 14: 10-12.
86 KENSPAXE FROM GOD
Priestly Code is post-exilic, but since the Ras Shamra ex-
cavations the argument has been dropped. The English
Clconcerning burnt-offerings" is too weak; the Hebrew should
be translated "concerning details of ... ," cf. A.V. mg.]
The same thought is taken up in 11: 1-8. The popular
concept was that the fundamental part of the covenant was
sacrifice. Jeremiah insists that it is obedience (cf. I Sam. 15:
22).
In 14: 12 the formal fast is rejected and in 9: 25f the
physical fact of circumcision. This passage points to the little-
known fact that circumcision was not confined to Israel, or
even to descendants of Abraham. 1 R.V., R.S.V. should be con-
sulted here. "Circumcised in their llncircumcision" (R. V.)
means there is no circumcised heart to match the circumcised
body, cf. "circumcised but yet uncircumcised" (R.S.V.).
Jeremiah goes further still. In 3: 16 (probably from the
reign of Zedekiah) he says that the vanished Ark will neither
by missed nor made again (R.S.V.), because that which it
symbolized, the Throne of Jehovah (ver. 17), will have become
a reality in Jerusalem. He thus enunciates the principle that
all outward helps to religion have purely a symbolic, not an
objective, value.
Even the written Scriptures come under his condemnation
(S: Sf, R.V., R.S.V.). The scribes and the wise men were re-
jecting the prophetic message ("the word of Jehovah" ver. 9i
by appealing to the written Law of the Lord. But wherever
blind or perverse interpretation of Scripture makes the reader
insensible to the Word of the Lord, then the Scriptures have
become a falsehood. They need the inner power of the Spirit
for their right use as much as any other physical aspect of
religion, otherwise they will only lead astray.
That Jeremiah was not objecting to the externals of re-
ligion as such may be seen by his commendation of Sabbath
observance (as a proof of obedience!) in 17: 19-27, and his
clear emphasis that there would be sacrifices after the res-
toration (17: 26;31: 14; 33: 18).
Increasing Opposition.
It is abundantly clear that Jeremiah was never forgiven his
outspoken words in the temple. One sign of his increasing
unpopularity is his use of symbolic actions intended to catch
the eye of those whose ears were closed.
The first example is given in 13: 1-11, where the story of
Jeremiah's fine linen girdle is told. There is, however, a
1 For details see article Circumcision in HDB and ISBE. The excav-
ations at Ras Shamra have shown that it was also a Canaanite custom. It
was the Philistine who in and near Palestine was uncircumcised.
 JEREMIAH 87
strong possibility that it was a visionary action. The round
trip would be some 800 miles, and the story demands that he
should have made it twice. If so, how obdurate had the people
become I A less likely explanation is that he used a stream
north of Anathoth with a similar name. In 13: 12-14 we find
him gaining a hearing by the use of dark sayings. But the
people were to be yet more hardened. As often, catastrophe
(drought, 14: 1-6) turned people away from God rather than
to Him. And so Jeremiah was told that he was to be his
message; he was not to marry (16: 2); he was not to enter the
house of mourning (16: 5), nor was he to share in the joy of the
marriage feast (16: 8). Even if we make full allowance for
lack of chronological order, we are compelled to accept that
we are now drawing near to the end of Jeremiah's regular
public utterances, tliough the command not to marry must
have been earlier.
One last warning he would give. He collected leading
personalities (19: 1) and carrying a jar (a woman's work I) he
went at their head to the Valley of Hinnom through the streets
of Jerusalem. The story leaves us to imagine the huge crowd
that_ will have rapidly formed and followed. The solemn
breaking of the jar (19: 10) spoke its message to those who
stopped their ears to the message of doom. Further symbolic
actions are recorded in chs. 35, 27 (note ver. 1 should read" In
the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah," cf. ver. 3), 32; 43: 8-13.
Rejection.
Jeremiah had to share the experience of so many that "a
man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10: 36).
One of his most shattering experiences was to find that his own
family (12: 6) was treacherously plotting his murder (11: 18-
12: 6). The reason was injured family pride (11: 21). Ever
since his address in the temple he was a marked man, and his
aristocratic family resented sharing in his notoriety.
A couple of years later (18: 19-23) Jeremiah discovered a
more widespread plot to kill him. The motives are not in-
dicated, but they can easily be guessed.
After his solemn message of doom by the breaking of the
jar (see above) Jeremiah repeated the gist of his message in the
temple (19: 14f). Pashhur, the priest responsible for order
within the sacred precincts (20: 1) arrested him, put him in the
stocks and left him there all night (20: 2f). The failure of any
to intervene must have been the final proof to Jeremiah of his
friendlessness. Whether the smiting was a flogging or just a
blow it was a supreme indignity for a man of aristocratic
family, for whom death was better thana blow.
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (25: 1; 36: 1-605 B.C.),
88 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish, and at one
stroke became lord of the lands as far as the Egyptian frontier.
Jehoiakim had to bow to a new lord (Dan. 1: 1; for the date
see p. 142). God told Jeremiah to make one last appeal.
Baruch,Jeremiah's friend and scribe (36: 4) took down a sum-
mary of Jeremiah's messages up to date, and awaited an
opportunity to read them to the people. Jeremiah was
debarred (36: 5, R.S.V.) from entering the temple, pre-
sumablyas a sequel to 20: 1-6. A fast day the following year
gave the desired opportunity (obviouslyver. 8 anticipates ver. 9).
What the result with the people might have been, we can-
not say, for the curiosity of the high officials of state caused
them to intervene and they brought the matter before the
king, who will have already been ill-disposed to the prophet,
thanks to the biting condemnation of 22: 13-19. He dis-
missed the whole message of the roll contemptuously and
would have arrested and executed Jeremiah. He and Baruch
had to go underground, and it was probably only as the shadow
of Nebuchadnezzar fell across the city, that Jeremiah could
emerge again, vindicated as a prophet indeed (35: 1, ,11).
Jeremiah and the False Prophets.
It would be unfair to assume that the majority of the false
prophets were deliberate deceivers, at least at first. But the
moment the prophet became a professional, attached to a
sanctuary, his bread and butter depended on his not offending
unduly against popular opinion, and above all on his getting
results. No delay like that of Jeremiah's (42: 7) would ever
have been tolerated from a professional. How great the
temptation could be, may be judged by the fact that Jeremiah
must have been intellectually certain all through the critical
time of waiting what God's word would finally be.
Just because the professional prophets were not mere
deceivers, because adulterated truth is so hard to distinguish
from unadulterated, because spirituality is so easily imitated,
because book knowledge can so easily replace inspIration, the
distinguishing of true from false prophets was never easy. One
thing was clear to all: God would not speak with two different
voices. The religious world is always tempted to be on the
side of the big battalions, so when Jeremiah stood alone faced
by the other prophets, he found the people against him, de-
nouncing him as a deceiver or madman; at times he was
tempted to doubt himself. He did not have that overpowering,
monumental character that seems to have made Isaiah almost
impervious to opposition.
Why Hilkiah inquired of Huldah about the book of the
law is not clear (II Kings 22: 14); certainly Josiah had his pro-
 JEREMIAH 89
fessional prophets (II Kings 23: 2). Perhaps the high priest
knew them too well. Probably it was their reiterated pro-
phecies of prosperity that first awoke Jeremiah to the problem
mvolved (4: 10). He was soon to realize the amount of evil
among the prophets (5: 30f), who were willing to sell themselves
for money (6: 13).
As Jeremiah was increasingly rejected in the early years of
Jehoiakim, he found the burden of standing out alone against
the prophets growing ever greater (14: 13-18). Through it he
learnt to understand the nature of true prophecy better. We
may reasonably attribute the collection of prophecies against
the false prophets to this period (23: 9-40). The opening
passage stresses the terrible consequences, when the prophet
plays false. The remainder shows how deeply JeremIah had
been led to understand the true nature of prophecy, an under-
standing of real importance for to-day.
A prophetic dream was no guarantee of truth, for the
dream might be the expression of the prophet's own desires
(vers. 16, 25ft), or his unconscious, to use the language of
modern psychology. Equally the fact that the message might
be true was no guarantee that the bearer had been entrusted
with it; he might be simply borrowing from another (ver. 30).
There were two signs of the true prophet: an outward-if his
message were accepted, it would transform lives (ver. 22); and
an inward-the prophet's knowledge that he had stood in
God's council chamber (vers. 18, 22).
The Moulding of the Prophet.
The dual pressure of rejection and of having to face the
implications of his prophetic calling led to a spiritual develop-
ment that can best be compared with that of Job's. The
passages that picture it should be closely studied, viz. 8: 18-9:
2; 10: 23ft; 11: 18-12: 6; 15: 10-21; 18: 18-23; 20: 7-18.
Since chs. 1-20 represent approximately the enlarged roll
(36: 32, see p. 78), we must assume that both the insertion of
these personal passages, and their position in the prophecy, are
the work of Jeremiah himself. When we realize that 20: 7-18
is the end and climax of the roll, we also realize that these
passages are essential to an understanding of Jeremiah's mes-
sage.
His inner burden began with Jeremiah's inability to dis-
sociate himself from those to whom he .brought God's message
of doom (8: 18-9: 2; and already 4: 19ft). This identification
of himself with his people is seen in 10: 23ft, where the prayer
is for th~m as well as for himself. Jeremiah's attitude fore-
shadows our Lord's on Olivet (Luke 19: 41-44).
Jeremiah's spiritual sufterings grew greater when his
90 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
family tried to murder him (11: 18-12: 6). Quite apart from
the enormity of their attempted action, which probably still
lay within the power of the head of the family, the exclusion of
a man from his family group was a blow worse than death itself,
as may.be seen from the violence of Jeremiah's reaction. The
only consolation that God had for him was that much worse
was to come (12: 5; the pride-A.V., swelling-of Jordan is
the wild beast infested jungle that fringes the stream). 1
Universal rejection and hatred broke Jeremiah down, and
he turned to God in his fierce agony (15: 10-21; the LXX
suggests strongly that the text of ver. 11 is corrupt, while
there is no really satisfactory explanation for verso 12-14).
His agony carried him so far that he virtually blasphemed
(ver. 18), almost comparing Jehovah to the broken cisterns he
had equated the false gods with (2: 13). There is no sympathy
apparent in God's answer; He shocked him to his senses by
His call to conversion (ver. 19, if thou return, cf. Luke 22: 32),
if he wished his prophetic ministry to continue.
The last straw for Jeremiah was his exclusion not merely
from the society of his fellow-men (18: 18-23), but also from
the temple (see above). He turned to God in even greater but
ftuctuatmg agony (20: 7-18). He accused God of deceiving or,
better, enticing (mg.) him. The word stresses the simplicity
qf the one deceived; it is used in Exod. 22: 16 of the seducing
of a girl. It is deliberately one of the ugliest words that he
could have used. He accused God of having enticed him
under false pretences into becoming a prophet, and then of
having forced him to remain one. His cry to God ends
with the wish that he had never been born (vers. 14-18, cf.
Job 3).
So the curtain falls on the prophet, rejected by family and
nation, his life in danger, excluded from the worship of the
nation, and apparently cut off from his God. We do not
know how God dealt with him in the years while he hid from
Jehoiakim and the king's doom drew near; but before that
doom fell, Jeremiah appeared again, fearless and unshakable.
There is no evidence that he had come to understand the mes-
sage of the Suffering Servant, and hence of his own sufferings;
but he had learnt that it was as an individual that one had to
come to God, and as an individual one had to be sustained by
Him. In his spiritual agony we may see in Jeremiah a dim
foreshadowing of our Lord.
Jeremiah in the Reign of Zedekiah. 2
The promises of restoration (30-33) are a collection of
1 For a description see G. A. Smith: A Historical Geography of the Holy
Land, p. 4831; N. Glueck: The River Jordan, p. 63.
I CIIs. 21; 22; 20-23: 8; 24; 27-34; 37-39; 49: 34-39; 50-51.
 J ERE M I A H 91
short prophecies, most of which are earlier; some, however,
will be from this period. Note that many of them deal esrcially
with the restoration of the North, viz. most of chs. 30, 3. The
aptwoximate order of the narrative sections is 24; 29; 27, 28;
21; 34: 1-7; 37: 3-10; 34: 8-22; 37: 11-21; 32,33; 38: 1-28a;
39: 15-18; 38: 28b-39: 14.
It will be noted that apart from promises of restoration not
many prophecies are attributed to Jeremiah. He had said all
that needed saying, and the death -of Jehoiakim and the exile of
Jehoiachin had vindicated his message. All that was left for
him was to rub in the grim moral as needed.
When the remnant in Jerusalem began to believe that the
storm of judgment had passed them by because of their merits,
they were told that on the contrary the exiles had been taken
away to save them from the wrath to come (ch. 24, and cf. ch.
XIII. p. 102). When false prophets promised the exiles a hope
of speedy return, Jeremiah insisted that there was no hope
until the fixed time of God's judgment had run its course
(ch. 29).
Already when Nebuchadnezzar had scattered the army of
Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish, Jeremiah had recognized in
him and the Chaldeans the fulfilment of his earlier visions, and
he had proclaimed him as the man of God's appointing against
whom no one could stand (25: 9, 11). This conviction enabled
him to stand against the attempts to form an anti-Babylonian
conspiracy in the fourth year of Zedekiah (chs. 27, 28) and to
deflect the weak king of J udah from it in spite of the assur-
ances of the court prophets.
This conviction also explains his attitude during the final
siege of Jerusalem. Zedekiah's rebellion was not only a
breach of his oath (11 Chron. 36: 13; Ezek. 17: 13-21), but also
opposition to the ruler of God's choice. Submission was a
Slgn of loyalty to Jehovah. No wonder that he was con-
sidered to be in the pay of the Chaldeans (37: 13; 38: 4).
A little-known incident is contained in 34: 8-22. Ap-
parently when Nebuchadnezzar drew near Jerusalem, all
Jewish slaves were freed. The motives were probably mixed,
partly guilty conscience (ver. 13ff; Exod. 21 :"2; Deut. 15: 12),
partly the desire for extra fighter'3. With the withdrawal of
the Chaldeans (37: 5, 11), the solemn covenant (ver. 18£) had
been broken and the slaves enslaved once more. Jeremiah
immediately showed the same burning zeal for social righteous-
ness that marked out all the true prophets.
The New Covenant (31: 31-34).
Under Josiah Jeremiah evidently worked among the rem-
nants of the northern tribes that were still in Palestine. After
92 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Necho's triumph this area was again detached from Judah, and
Jeremiah could no longer visit them. So in the time he was
hiding from Jehoiakim he will have written down his message
of hope in chs. 30, 31. After the fall of Jerusalem the collec-
tion, The Book of Hope, was enlarged to apply to the South as
well.
. The message of the new covenant could be proclaimed by
him, because he had first experienced it himself. It would not
need either laws written in stone or teachers to instruct men
in it. Here was one who had been denounced by both priests
and prophets, but though he had stood alone, he had yet been
proved right. In his heart God had written His will.
All prophecy is of necessity partial (Heb. 1: 1) and so Jere-
miah did not rise to the whole truth. God revealed to him
that true religion cannot be external or bound to externals.
What Jeremiah apparently did not grasp was the universalism
we find in Isa. 19: 23ft, or at least not in this connexion. The
new covenant can no more be linked to national origin than to
any other externals. That a man is a physical descendant of
Abraham means in itself nothing to God (Matt. 3: 9). But the
fact that when the new covenant was ratified at Golgotha by
the blood of the Lamb of God it was freed from every national
limitation, does not mean that we must dismiss the nationalistic
setting of Jer. 31 as meaningless or spiritualize it into thin air.
Rom. 11: 26 shows that it has a yet future application to all
Israel.
It is one thing to say that Jeremiah was not given to see
what the new covenant would mean for the world, it is entirely
another to say that by Israel and Judah he really meant the
Church. So to understand Jer. 31: 23-40; 33: 14-26 is to
make all sane Bible interpretation impossible. On the other
hand, we must not fall into the opposite error of supposing
that the new covenant will mean something else for "all
Israel" than it does for the Church, that saved Israel will be
saved in some other way than is the Church. God does not
abolish physical Israel, but in saving it transcends it, just as
He does not scrap this earth but renews it.
The Messiah (23: Sf; 30: 9, 21(?); 33: 14-26).
We refer to these Messianic passages not so much for their
intrinsic importance as for the light they cast 011 prophetic
interpretation generally.
There is little, if anything, in these passages that goes
beyond the revelation given through earlier prophets. But
their occurrence shows that Jeremiah fully shared the Mcs-
sianic hopes of his predecessors. Why, then, do they play
such a small part in his message, instead of being the focus of
 J ERE M I A H 93
future hopes as in Isa. 1-35? (The question presupposes not
the prophet's free choice of message, but that the Spirit's
message, in ways beyond our knowledge, shaped itself to the
spiritual experience and understanding of the prophet.)
The most obvious reason is that it was the same motive as
led Jeremiah to attack all externals in religion that distracted
men from the inner truth. For the people the king was God's
anointed, and therefore a pledge of His favour. Before the
people could take comfort in the Righteous Branch, or Shoot
(23: 5), they had to face the grim fact that the royal tree would
have to be hewn down (36: 30; 22: 30; 39: 6; cf. Isa. 11: 1).
Relative silence in a book of the Bible on a matter already
revealed does not imply either ignorance or dissent.
The Last Days of Jeremiah (Chs. 40-45).
When Jerusalem feU at last, Jeremiah received his supreme
vindication by God. He was the one man from among the whole
people who was left completely and absolutely at liberty (40: 4f).
With the world before him, there must have been a strong
temptation to go to Babylonia, where he would have received a
warm welcome from the better elements taken there with
Jehoiachin. What a shelter for his old age one like Daniel
would have made for him! On the other hand he might have
sought a shelter somewhere in a less devastated corner of his
own land. But Jeremiah was bound to his own people. He
had served them in good and evil times for forty years, and now
he stayed with those that needed him most (40: 6); but from
them he was to experience the final mockery.
Asked by the leaders of the people what they should do
after the murder of Gedaliah (42: 1-6), he spent ten days in
prayer before he knew for certain that the insistent voice of
heart and mind was also the voice of God (42: 7-18)-no
other answer would have been consistent with his earlier
prophecies; but that did not free him from the obligation of
seeking God's face. Note that in accordance with frequent
Hebrew practice, the whole of Jeremiah's answer is put to-
gether, though 42: 19-22 is obviously Jeremiah's answer after
he had been accused of lying and acting as Banich's tool (43: 3).
Though the people accused him of lying and rejected his
message, yet they dragged him with them into Egypt (43: 6).
Though they were unwilling to believe the prophet, they could
not do without him. That is the tragedy of Judah-and of
many a religious man. He could not do without God, but he
would not obey Him; he constantly reformed, yet ever han-
kered after his old idolatry (ch. 44).
In Isaiah we have the Church foreshadowed in the rem-
nant; in Jeremiah we have the Church made possible by the
94 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
individual's living contact with the living God unbound by
the ties of family, country or religion.
Jeremiah's Prophecies against the Nations (Chs. 46-51).
The bulk of these prophecies, chs. 46-49: 33-though 46:
13-28 may be later-come from the fourth year of Jehoiakim
after the battle of Carchemish, or shortly after. As with the
similar prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel their main purpose is
to teach Israel, not the nations concerned. By stressing the
extent of Nebuchadnezzar's power Jeremiah wants to teach
Judah that God has given Judah to the Babylonian king as
well. At the same time 27: 1-3, which depicts Jeremiah send-
ing messages to the kings of the surrounding countries, makes
it quite plausible that these oracles were sent to them too at a
somewhat earlier date.
It seems impossible to justify the presence of the oracle
against Damascus (49: 23-27), for Syria had lost its independent
existence in the time of Isaiah. It has probably crept in from
some earlier prophet. We do not know the reasons that
motivated the somewhat later oracle against Elam (49: 34-39).
That a prophecy against Babylon was not without personal
risks to the prophet is shown by Jeremiah's use of two cyphers:
Sheshach for Babylon (25: 26, 51: 41), and Leb-qamai for
Chaldea (51: 1).
On the relationship of Jer. 49: 7-22 to Obad. 1-14 see
ch. XII.
 CHAPTER XII

OBADIAH
Obadiah and Jeremiah.
interpretation of Obadiah must in measure depend
O
UR
on the date we give it, and this is turn depends on how
we explain the connexion of verso 1-9 with Jer. 49: 7-22.
If we read the two side by side, it should be obvious that
some connexion exists. The relevant parallelisms are:
Obad. verso 1-4 Jer. 49: 14-16
verso 5, 6 9, 10
verso 8, 9a 7b, 22b
The connexion is explained in three main ways:-
(1) Jeremiah <J.uoted from Obadiah. This, formerly the
most widely held VIew, has a great deal to be said in its favour.
The capture of Jerusalem described in ver. 11 would be that
mentioned in 11 Chron. 21: 16f, C. 843 B.C. If this is so,
Obadiah is the oldest of the prophetic books; this would ex-
plain its apparently primitive picture of the Day of the Lord,
Its early position in the Book of the Twelve, and indeed why it
was preserved for us. Its position among The Twelve suggests
that the Jewish scribes accepted that the evidence pointed to
its use by Jeremiah. 1
The ar~ments against this view are almost conclusive. If
the Edomltes had behaved in such a way as the prophecy
suggests at the capture of the city in 843 B.C., it is very hard to
understand why the writer of Chronicles did not mentIOn them.
Further, if the disaster to Jerusalem had been on the scale
suggested by verso 11-14, it is very strange that it was passed
over in silence by Kings, while 11 Chron. 21: 1.6f makes the im-
pression of little more than a plundering raid. No other
capture of Jerusalem, except that by Nebuchadnezzar in 586
B.C. \\<ill fit the picture, for those mentioned in I Kings 14: 25f,
11 Kings 14: 8-14 are on various grounds unsuitable.
(2) Obadiah used Jer. 49: 7-22. Though this view has
received little support, Aaldf'rs' seems to be correct, when he
maintains that it IS proved by the use of the feminine "her"
1 See ISBE, article Obadiah, Book of; Young, p. 252f; Kirkpatrick, pp.
34-40.
• Aalders: Recent Trends in Old TestAment Criticism, p. t 5.
95
96 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
in Obad. ver. 1. Nowhere else, except Mal. 1: 4, is Edom
feminine, and in this one exception the use is probably cor-
rectly explained by G. A. Smith, "The verb in the feminine
indicates that the population of Edom is meant." 1 This can-
not be applied to Obad. ver. 1. The parallel in Jer. 49: 14 also
has the feminine, but it refers not to Edom but to Bozrah,
which is feminine. So it would seem ~hat Obadiah quoted
this verse from Jeremiah without altering the grammar.
In spite of difficulties made or left unsolved by this view, it
does make the capture of Jerusalem referred to in verso 11-14
the capture by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C., when as we know
from Ezek. 35, Ps. 137: 7; Lam. 4: 21£, the Edomites did so
behave. It should be noted too that in contrast to Obadiah,
Jer. 49: 7-22, which is dated 605 B.C. (Jer. 46: 1£), brings no
specific charge against Edom.
(3) The most commonly held view to-day is that both
Obadiah and Jer. 49: 7-22 are quoting an older prophecy.
That this is possible may be seen from the analagous cases of
Isa. 2: 2-5; Mic. 4: 1-5 (see pp. 48, 63) and Isa. 15f (see p. 52).
Since, however, this view normally assumes that Jer. 49: 7-22
is not by Jeremiah, does not answer Aalders' argument and is
no more effective than the second view in meeting certain
inherent difficulties in a late date for Obadiah, we are not
attracted by it.- It agrees with the second view in making the
capture of Jerusalem that in 586 B.C. We shall probably be
safe in accepting that Obadiah cannot have been written
before that date. Harrison, p. 902f, inclines to view 3.
The Date of Obadiah.
Though we have decided that Obadiah will not be earlier
than 586 B.C. we must still decide whether the verbs in verso 2,
6f refer to the past, or whether they are prophetic perfects.
In the sixth century B.C. there seems to have been a wave
of pressure by the Nabatean and other Arab tribes on the
lands east of Jordan. By the time of l\Ialachi, C. 450 B.C.,
Edom may well have already been driven from her old terri-
tory (Mal. 1: 3f). Already by the time of the return in 538
B.C. the South of Judaea as far as north of Hebron seems to
have been in Edomite hands, and remained so until con-
quered and forcibly Judaized by John Hyrcanus, C. 125 B.C.,
thus opening the way for the half Edomite Herod to become
king of the Jews. We know that Petra was in the hands of the
Nabateans in 312 B.C., but they may have conquered it much
earlier.
We shall probably be safe in assuming that the verbs in
1 G. A. Smith n. p. 352.
- For an exposition of this view see HDD. article. Obadiah. Book of.
 OBADIAH 97
verso 2, 6f are prophetic perfects, and that Obadiah prophesied
early in the exile, when the Edomites were already moving into
Judaean territory under Nabatean pressure, but before their
traditional territory was seriously threatened. This would
make Obadiah the only prophet prophesying on J udaean soil
during the exile, and would go a long way towards explaining
why this, by far the shortest of the prophets, was preserved.
It would also explain why the sin of Judah is not mentioned in
connexion with the Day of the Lord-for Judah in exile was
already under Jehovah's judgment-and why special stress is
laid on Israel possessing his possessions (ver. 17). A prophet's
vision of the future is normally influenced by the circum-
stances of his own day.
The Coming Destruction of Edom (vers. 1-14, 15b).
It should be noticed that almost certainly the two halves
of ver. 15 have been transposed, perhaps through an early
scribal misunderstanding oi ver. 16. "As thou hast done, it
shall be done unto thee; thy dealing shall return upon thine
own head" is the end of the judgment on Edom. The first
half of the verse ushers in the second half of the prophecy.
We have a play upon words in ver. 7; for R.V. text see
II Sam. 3: 21 (send a.way), for R.V. mg. Exod 6: 1 (let go, i.e.
drive out). The former is what one would expect from one's
confederates; the latter is the grim reaiity. N.E.B. brings
it out.
The imperatives in ver. 12ff do not look to the future. Just
as in the prophetic perfects of verso 2, 6f the prophet is trans-
ported to the future and sees the doom already completed, so
here he is transported into the past and speaks as though the
Edomite hostility against Jerusalem had not yet taken place.
The Day of the Lord (vers. 15a, 16-21).
For the general concept of the Day of the Lord see ch. II.
The drinking in ver. 16 is the drinking of the cup of God's
wrath, of which Judah and Israel (" ye ") have already drunk.
There is probably some textual corruption in vcr. 19f, for
as it stands it would seem to deprive the restored of Israel of
part of their territory (both verso 18 and 20 imply Israel's
restoration); in ver. 20 quite apart from our ignorance of the
location of Sepharad and why it should be specially mentioned,
the Hebrew is very difficult.
Though Obadiah may seem preoccupied with the restor-
ation of Israel, the closing words of the prophecy show that he
knew that all this was to come to pass merely that the kingdom
of God should be established.
 CHAPTER XIII

EZEKIEL
THE STRUCTURE OF EZEKIEL
A. Chs.I-24. Prophecies of Doom.
l-Chs.I-7. The Call and the opening message.
2-Chs.8-19. The Sin of Jerusalem.
3-Chs. 20-23. The deeper meaning of the Sin.
4-Ch. 24. Imminent Judgment.
B. Chs.2S-32. Prophecies against the Nations.
l-Ch. 25. Palestine's Neighbours.
2-Chs. 26-28. Tyre.
3-Chs. 29-32. Egypt.
C. Chs.33-48. Prophecies of Restoration.
I-Ch. 33. The Prophet's function.
2-Ch. 34. Rulers past and future.
3-Chs. 35, 36. The Land.
4-Ch.37. The People.
S-Chs. 38, 39. The last Enemies.
6-Chs. 40-48. The Redeemed People at Peace.
problems connected with Ezekiel are of a very different
T
HE
kind from those dealt with in earlier chapters. There
are no generally accepted problems of authorship, as in
Isaiah. Still less does the book contain structural difficulties
of the kind we find in Jeremiah. Ezekiel would seem to have
put' his book together himself, and he carefully dated the
various sections, viz. 1: 2; 8: 1; 20: 1; 24: 1; 26: 1; 29: 1; 29:
17; 30: 20; 31: 1; 32: 1; 32: 17; 33: 21; 40: 1. In addition, for
reasons to be considered later, we have no longer the short
oracles linked often only by spiritual connexions we have be-
come familiar with in the earlier prophets; for the most part
the book consists of full-length addresses or writings. The
problems relate rather to the prophet's personality and activi-
ties, and to the interpretation of some parts of his book.
Ezekiel's Early Life.
If our interpretation of 1: 1 is correct (see below), Ezekiel
was born in 622 B.C. This means that he was over twenty
years younger than Jeremiah, and that he was an infant in
arms, when Josiah's reformation was sweeping the outward
signs of idolatry out of Judah.
98
 EZEKIEL 99
We have no information about his father, Buzi, beyond
that he was of priestly family. The respect, however, ac-
corded to Ezekiel by the elders of the people in exile (8: 1; 14:
1; 20: 1), and his being considered important enough to be
taken into exile with Jehoiachin (cf. 11 Kings 24: 14)
suggest that his was among the more important of the priestly
families.
We are not told definitely in the Old Testament at what age
the priest was to start his duties; there is no definite infor-
mation on the subject in the Talmud with regard to New
Testament times. There is, however, an intrinsic probability
that it was thirty (cf. Num. 4: 3, and perhaps Luke 3: 23, though
this may link rather with II Sam. 5: 4). Since, however, a
meticulous observance of every detail of the ritual was ex-
pected of the priest, a long period of preparation was normal
for the young men of priestly family. It is quite clear from
his prophecies that Ezekiel, unlike Jeremiah, had early steeped
himself in the priestly traditions, and had learnt all the details
of his holy duties to which he looked forward. His whole
course of life was rudely interrupted when, at the age of twenty-
five (597 B.C.), he was taken as captive to Babylonia by Nebu-
chadnezzar; cut off from every hope of becoming an active
priest, it must have seemed to the young man that life had
lost all meaning. We must never forget that when the epi-
gram declares, .. Jeremiah was a prophet who happened to be
a priest; Ezekiel was a priest who happened to be a prophet,"
it is stating a real truth, even though expressed with typical
epigrammatic exaggeration.
At first Ezekiel may have nourished hopes of an early
return to the temple in Jerusalem (Jer. 29: 8f), but Jeremiah's
letter and the fate of Ahab and Zedekiah (Jer. 29: 21ff) will
have shown him that there was no hope that he would ever
serve the Lord as priest in His temple. The greater, then,
must have been his spiritual distress when he became thirty
and realized with renewed force how the sin of his people had
cut him off from his spiritual heritage. 1
It was under such circumstances that God revealed Him-
self to Ezekiel (1: 1) and showed him that he' was to fulfil his
priestly vocation by acting as His prophet.
The Call of Ezekiel (1: 1-3: 21).
In the height of summer 592 B.C., Ezekie1 was transported
in a trance (3: 12, 14) to the banks of the river Chebar, a canal
1 This interpretation of '"the thirtieth year" is widely denied. but those
who do so have nothing adequate to offer in its place. The one objection of
weight is that a birthday could hardly be so referred to; apart from a few
cases of royalty. the Bible ignores birthdays and is concerned merely with
birth years.
100 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

south of Babylon. As he stood there he saw a great storm-

cloud being borne down on him out of the North (1: 4). As it
drew nearer he saw that it was the chariot-throne of God
(1: 5-28). We shall make no effort either to clarify Ezekiel's
description or to expound its symbolism. For the former,
recourse should be had to a commentary, if the study is felt to
be profitable. As regards the latter, seeing that the rabbis
themselves declared that he who had come to understand the
Chariot knew all the mysteries of creation, and restricted its
study to those over thirty, it is clear that for them, too, the
symbolism presented the very greatest difficulties.
Ezekiel no more explains the living creatures or cherubim
(10: 20) than Isaiah the seraphim (Isa. 6: 2); for us to attempt
the task would lead us far beyond the limits of this book (but
see note on 28: 14 below). Note that in 41: 18f, probably for
ease in reproduction, the cherubim have only two faces.
It is widely claimed by scholars that the cherubim of the
vision show strong traces of the winged figures so common in
Mesopotamian temples. While we consider the claim to be
exaggerated, we have no interest in denying it. In the vision,
the Chariot comes from the North, though Jehovah's residence
in Zion is to the West (10: 4, 19; 11: 23; 43: 2ff). The simplest
explanation is that the home of the Babylonian gods was in the
North (Isa. 14: 13). If the Chariot comes from the North, it
is because Jehovah has met and defeated the gods of Baby-
lonia on their own ground; if the bearers of His Chariot re-
mind us of the Babylonian temple guardians, it is because they
have become His slaves. We are not suggesting that Ezekiel
believed in the objective existence of the Babylonian deities,
but simply that in such symbolical visions the details may
carry implications which are far from obvious at first con-
sideration.
If we find Ezekiel's symbolism over-elaborate and far-
fetched, we must not forget that the whole of the priestly
ritual was symbolic, as indeed was the lay-out of the Temple,
and so symbolism had become second nature to him. It is
essential fqr our study of Ezekiel to remember this, and also to
bear in mind that there arc Christians for whom Ezekiel is one
of the most precious of the books of the Old Testament just
because of its symbolism. The greatest difficulty of ch. 1
lies in the fact that when it comes to the glories of Deity,
symbolism is as inadequate as direct description, and more
difficult.
Ezekiel's Commissio1zing.
Ezekiel is addressed as Son of man (2: 1, and often else-
where). This cannot be equated with the title "The Son of
 EZEKIEL 101
Man," which our Lord used for Himself; it means no more
than "man."
In 2: 3-7 Ezekiel is introduced to those to whom he is to
prophesy, "nations that are rebellious" (ver. 3, so R.V.), i.e.
both judah and Israel. As the term" judah" is very sddl)m
used in Ezekiel, it is clear that" the House of Israel" and" the
Children of Israel" refer in the first place to the Southern
Kingdom, unless the context clearly shows otherwise. It is
therefore far from clear how far Ezekiel's message was con-
sciously addressed to the Northern exiles at all. Since Ezekiel
was of the tribe of Levi, the term Israel was the more natural
one for him: cf. the very similar use in Jeremiah. At fm;t
Ezekiel is given no clear indication of the result of his mes-
sage. R.S.V., N.E.B. amend the text unnecessarily in ver 3.
There follows a symbolic description of the source of his
message and inspiration (2: 8-3: 3). His great prophetic
predecessors felt themselves too much in the confidC'nce of God
to have used such a picture, but there is none that more clearly
and forcefully shows the union of divine and human in the
prophetic message. It is clearly divine, from God-this is
symbolized by the already written roll. But the prophet does
not merely deliver it to his hearers; he must first digest and
assimilate it, making it a living part of himself. This is the
human part of his message. The roll conta~ned only" lam('\l-
tat ions, mourning and woe" because there was a virtual re-
cOr.1missioning (33: 1-20) before Ezekiel began his work of
upbuilding and comfort. _
It is then (3: 4-11) made clear that the rebellious nations
are the House of Israel, and that he will not be listened to.
The Holy Spirit by returniI1g him to his home (3: 12-15)
shows him that his message is to be addressed particularly to
the exiles there.
As he sits mute among his old surroundings for a week
(3: 15) the word of the Lord comes to him again (3: 16-21) and
makes it clear to him that his task is first and foremost that of
watchman over the souls of the exiles. This is reinforced by
the repetition and expansion of this commissio.n just before the
ne\\'s of the destruction of Jerusalem reached the exiles (33: 1-
20, 21) with. the resultant change in the content of his pro-
phecies. Ezekiel is above all the pastoral prophet, the priest
watching over the souls entrusted to him.
To Whom Did Ezekiel Prophesy?
The interpretation given above would seem to be the
obvious one, but in recent years it has been vigorously chal-
lenged, even by conservatives. 1 It is said that chs. 4-24 are
1 A survey of modern views on Ezek. may be found in Bcntzen: Intro-
duction to the Old Testament Il. p. 122 s~q.
102 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
addressed exclusively to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and
that it is unprecedented for such prophecies to be spoken at a
distance rather than face to face. There is not even a sug-
gestion that they were sent in writing to distant Judaea. It is
further claimed that certain passages presuppose Ezekiel's
presence in Jerusalem (e.g. 5: 2; 11: 4-9, 13; 12: 2; 20: 30f).
Ezekiel's message is to the House of ISlael and the Children
of Israel (2: 3), and it is said that these terms are in fact
consistently used of those still in Jerusalem (but cf. 11: 15; 37:
16). Pfeiffer goes so far as to say that the view that Ezekiel
remained in Tel-Abib "turns Ezekiel into a Jonah who failed
to obey the divine command, 'Go, get thee unto the house of
Israel '."1
The great objections to this view are that it does not ex-
plain how Ezekiel came to express himself so badly that men
have misinterpreted his prophecy for centuries; that it is im-
possible to reconstruct the prophet's movements with any
certainty; that a·certain amount of re-arrangement of the text
seems to be demanded. It should be noted that many of the
references to the House of Israel suit the exiles just as well and
sometimes better than those still living in Jerusalem.
Though we have rejected this view as unfounded, we be-
lieve it does furnish a clue to the understanding of chs. 4-24.
We entirely agree with Pfeiffer's inability to accept Cooke's
jUdgment, "No doubt we find it difficult to adjust ourselves to
the position of a prophet in Babylonia hurling his denunci-
ations at the inhabitants of Jerusalem across 700 miles of
desert,"· Such a picture seems to us mildly ridiculous. But
we do not believe that these prophecies were either spoken to
or intended for .Jerusalem.
Ezekiel is the pastoral prophet; his task is the building up
of God's new community. Jer. 24 gives both God's purpose
for those taken into captivity with Jehoiachin and the popular
explanation of their exile, a view that will have been shared by
the exiles themselves. Before the prophet could begin his
building up (chs. 33-48), he had to bring the exiles to a proper
understanding of the principles that were leading God to hand
over Jerusalem to destruction. How w~ll he succeeded in
making some of the exiles realize their high calling may be dis-
covered by the attentive student of Ezra and Nehemiah.
The phrasE'S taken to imply Ezekiel's presence in Jerusalem
can be adequately explained by the extraordinary vividness
of his trance visions, and by the symbolism that colours his
whole message.
I Introduction to tA. Old Testam,nt, p. 536.
I Ibid. p. 536 quoting Cooke: Ezekiel (I.C.C.), p. xxiiif.
 EZEKIEL 1M
Our interpretation also explains why there is nothing in
. Ezekiel that would even hint at Jeremiah's contemporary
activities. We may well suppose that one so imbued with the
priestly outlook as Ezekiel must have found Jeremiah's root
and branch condemnation of ritual and ceremonial rather pain-
ful at times. But it seems impossible to belieVe that had
Ezekiel actually prophesied in Jerusalem or even sent his
messages there, he would not have sought to strengthen the
hands of the older prophet, so hated and so lonely.
A Prophet Restrained (3: 22-27).
It would seem that a short interval is to be assumed be-
tween this and the previous section, during which Ezekiel's
message had met serious opposition. Now God commands
him to abstain from public ministry (ver. 24). Since the exiles
would oppose him-the language of ver. 25 is probably to be
taken figuratively of the restraint of bitter opposition, rather
than of physical restraint-God would match restraint with
restraint (ver. 26) by making the prophet dumb, though from
time to time he would be able to speak (ver. 27).
This is a suitable point for considermg one of the major
problems of interpretation in Ezekiel. Ezekiel's dumbness is
mentioned again in 24: 27; 29: 21; 33: 22; on the other hand,
there are passages where it is virtually denied, e.g. 14: 4; 17:
2f, 12; 19: 1; 20: 3, etc. In ch. 4 he is described as lying on
his side for 430 (or 390, cf. ver. 9) days, bound with cords (ver.
B), unless indeed this verse implies some form of paralysis; yet
at the same time he is pressing the siege of Jerusalem with his
model (4: 1-3) and also for 390 days making cakes and eating
them, measuring his water and doing other actions apparently
incompatible with his physical position. That these are not
to be taken as happening consecutively is seen from the
chronology. Between 1: 2 and B: 1 are only 413 days, or 443,
if it was a leap year of 13 months.
Once we realize that a completely literal interpretation of
4: 1-5: 4 is impossible, and link this fact with Ezekiel's ex-
treme symbolism, we shall be prepared to recognize a meta-
phorical or symbolical element in the language used. Ezekiel's
dumbness may mean no more than the absence of any pro-
phetic message for considerable periods of time. The actions
of 4: 1-5: 4 need only have been carried out at such times as
he had visitors, or may even, though less likely, have been
lived out purely in the prophet's mind. On the other hand, the
extremely vivid trance-visions may point to some abnormality
in Ezekiel's make-up.
The use of dried cow's dung (4: 15) for fuel is common in
countries where other forms of fuel are scarce.
104 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

The Coming Doom of Jerusalem (Chs. 4-7).

These acted prophecies date about four and a half years
before the final siege of Jerusalem began, and indeed before
Zedekiah's fatal rebellion.
The figure in 4: 9 suggests that there were only 390 days in
all for Ezekiel to lie on his side, the 40 for Juc'h.h being coalesced
with the 390 for Israel. It seem!: impossible to find any ade-
quate interpretation for the figures. To" bear their iniquity"
means to bear the punishment for their iniquity. But in
spite of 29: 11-14, it cannot be maintained that Ezekiel placed
the duration of the exile at forty years. Jer. 29: 10, written
earlier, would have prevented that. Perhaps the forty years
are merely symbolic, reminiscent of the forty years in the
wilderness. It has been pointed out that if we subtract the
forty years from the 390, the remaining 350 are in round
numbers the period from the disruption of the kingdom under
Rehoboam to the time of Ezekiel. We do not, however, put
these suggestions forward with any degree of confidence. The
difficulty here should serve as a warning against any over-
confidence in the interpretation of Ezekiel's symbolism.
Since it was forbidden to sow a field with more than one
kind of grain (Lev. 19: 19; Deut. 22: 9) it may be that bread
made from a mixture of grain was also unclean (4: 9).
The explanation of the symbolic actions follows in 5: 5-17.
Note at this stage the vagueness about the sins involved, and
that they are summed-up in the defilement of the sanctuary
(5: 11). Ezekiel can wax indignant about social wrongs, but
as a priest he secs the sins of the people particularly from the
ritual angle.
The thought is continued in ch. 6, a prophecy against the
idolatrous high places (the mOllntains) of Israel, i.e. especially
Judah. Note that here it is the mere fact of idolatry rather
than its consequences that is being condemned.
The section closes with a dirge (ch. 7) over the land of
Israel, i.e. the kingdom of J udah.
The Desecration of the Temple (Ch. 8).
The second group of prophecies begins with a long trance-
vision (chs. 8-11). The presence of the elders (ver. 1) suggests
that whatever the original opposition to Ezekiel as prophet, it
had rapidly passed, at least among the leaders of the people.
It is probably this respect, paid perhaps more to the priest
than the prophet, that made it possible for Ezekiel's pro-
phecies to assume a much longer and more rounded form than
did those of his predecessors.
The significance of their presence is that they are able to
 EZEKIEL 105
vouch for the reality of Ezekiel's trance. It may be that as the
vision developed Ezekiel described aloud what he was seeing.
In ver. 2 we should read with the LXX "a likeness as the
appearance of a man." Ezekiel's symbolism comes out once
more in ver. 3 by the mention of the form of a hand, for his
transportation is by virtue of the spirit. There are certainly
symbolic elements in what follows as well. Ezekiel sees
four forms of idolatry which implicitly cover the whole people.
(a) The image which made Jehovah jealous (ver. 3ff),
placed at the north, or popular entrance to the inner court.
This probably was an image of Jehovah Himself, and repre-
sented that popular Canaanization of Jehovah-worship that
was the curse of Israel from the time of the Judges on (see
p. 36ff). The making of such pictorial representations is one
of the things that moved Jehovah to jealousy (~xod. 20: 4f;
Deut. 4: 23f; 5: Sf). The image is purely symbolIc here.
(b) A multitude of heathen idols, mostly foreign (vers. 6-
12). This is probably entirely symbolic (see verso 8, 12) and
speaks of the aping of heathen religion, probably mainly
Egyptian and Babylonian, by the leaders of the people, the
elders (ver. 11, R.V., R.S.V.).
(c) The Canaanite fertility cult (ver. 14£), which appealed
particularly to the women (cf. Jer. 7: 18; 44: 15-19). Tam-
muz (the Greek Adonis) was one of the most popular gods of
this fertility cult, having different names and characteristics
at different times and in different countries. Here he is the
god of vegetation, killed off by the drought and heat of sum-
mer. So Ezekiel sees him being mourned in August.
(d) Sun worship (vers. 15-18) by the priests-because the
worshippers stand between the temple and the altar (ver. 16).
The offence is the worse because they stand with their backs to
the sanctuary. They have added to all their social iniquity
this blatant challenge to Jehovah (ver. 17), and even" thrust
their branch into My face" (lit., nose)-the present Hebrew
text "their nose" is according to valid rabbinic tradition a
scribal alteration out of respect to God.
The Divine Judgment (9: 1-11: 13):
Chs. 9 and 10, and possibly even 11: 13, are symbolica.lly
prophetic, for the rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar had not
even broken out yet. The instruments of judgment are
obviously angels, though always called men. That' the
apostasy was not universal is shown by the marking of the
faithful on their foreheads (9: 4). The Hebrew for "mark"
is tav, the name of the last letter of the alphabet, which in the
old script was a cross.
Then follows the slaying of the unmarked (9: 5-11), which
106 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
the intercession of the prophet is powerless to avert. God
makes it clear that it is not so much the idolatry that brings
the judgment, as the social iniquity, bloodshed and injustice
(9: 9, R.S.V.), based on the belief that Nebuchadnezzar's
success meant that Jehovah had forsahn the land (R.S.V.).
Then the coals of divine wrath from the altar on the chariot-
throne of God are scattered on the doomed city (ch. 10),
though the prophet does not see their effect.
Special judgment is pronounced on the men who were
plotting rebellion against Babylon, and the death of one of
them (ilinost certainly real, not symbolic) prefigures the fate of
all (11: 1-13). They were daring and cynical men, with their
metaphor this city is the caldron, and we be the flesh."
H

They meant that though their course of action would make

things hot for them, the fortifications of the city would save
them from the flames of destruction. God tells them that the
only flesh left in the city will be corpses; they themselves will
be dragged out and executed by the Chaldeans. .
God's Grace to the Exiles (11: 14-25).
We have already referred to the attitude of those left in the
land to the exiles (see p. 91). Here it comes out again in a
cruel and blatant form (ver. 15). They pictured the exiles as
far from .Tehovah, but He would be to th. em a sanctuary (i.e.
a temple) for a little while (ver. 16, R.V.)} and would then
bring them back to the land.· The fruit of the exile should be
changed natures. For" one heart" (ver. 19) we should almost
certainly read "another heart" with the LXX, or "a new
heart" with the Syriac and 18: 31; 36: 26. In either case the
change in Hebrew is small. N.E.B. follows LXX.
Th~ glory of God had been gradually leaving the defiled
temple and city, cf. 8: 4; 9: 3; 10: 19. Now (ver. 23) it leaves
the city altogether. The fact that it leaves the city eastward
may well suggest that it was going to lodge among the exiles
(cf. ver. 16).
Zedekiah's Fate (12: 1-20).
We are now back in Tel-Abib, and the prophet by two
symbolic actions (vers. 3-7, 17f) foreshadows the fate both of
the prince, i.e. Zedekiah, and of the people.
The title" prince" (nasi) is outside Ezekiel only applied to
Solomon among kings, and the passage (I Kings 11: 34) gives
the clue to its use here; Solomon had forfeited his right to be
king. For Ezekiel, the Judaean kingship had ended with
Jehoiachin's exile. For the use of "prince" in the closing
chapters of Ezckiel, see below.
The symbolic action is in itself deliberately absurd, so as to
1 Better, "a sanctuary in small measure (R.S.V. mg.)", cf. my Ezekie/,p. 48.
 EZEKIEL 107
catch the attention of the people. Ezekiel was to carry out of
his house the little bundle of goods a man would take with him
into exile (ver. 4, RV. mg., R5.V.). Then in the evening he
was to take it back into the house, dIg through the wall (built as
always in Babylonia of sun-dried bricks), bring out his bundle,
wrap his face up so that he could not see, and stagger off with
his bundle. The application (vers. 10-13) is clear in the light
of its fulfilment; Zedekiah's flight by night (lIKings 25: 4), his
capture, blinding and leading into exile (II Kings 25: 5ft).
The second symbolic action, in which Ezekiel eats his
meals, carefully weighing the quantities and in great fear, is
little more than an extension of 4: 9-17.
On Prophecy and the Prophets (12: 21-13: 23).
Though a large part of his predecessors' prophecies had
gone into fulfilment, enough still remained unfulfilled to
create the same attitude in men's hearts that we find in II Pet.
3: 4. To them Ezekiel has to make clear that the storm will
break in their day (12: 21-28) and that it will sweep away the
false prophets (12: 24).
Ezekiel then turns on the false prophets. He condemns
them first (13: 1-9) for following "their own spirit, and things
which they have not seen" (ver. 3, RV., mg.). Then (13:
10-16) he charges them with whitewashing, i.e. giving their
app,.robation to the jerry-built walls of man's making (see
RV., mg. ver. 10). Finally, he condemns the prophetesses
(13: 17-23). It is impossible now to know with certainty
what the rigmaroles of these women meant. This in turn
makes our rendering of the Hebrew uncertain. This passage·
is important as showing the danger of arguing from silence.
If we did not have it, we might assume that the prophetess,
whether good or bad, was a rare phenomenon in Israel.
The Inevitable Penalty of Idolatry (Chs. 14-16).
These chapters arE: introduced by certain of the leaders of
the exiles coming to Ezekiel for prophetic guidance (14: 1ft).
God refuses them an answer, because they are idolaters, except
the answer of destruction (14: 4-8). Should any other answer
come, it is because the prophet has allowed himself to be
enticed by the idolaters, and he will suffer the same fate (14:
9ff). So terrible is idolatry that the presence of righteous men
means only that they themselves will be saved (14: 12-2~).
For Daniel see p. 142; note that the spelling of the name in
Hebrew here and in 28: 3 is not the same as in the book of
Daniel.
The warning is reinforced by the example of the vine (ch.
15) which has value only as it produces grapes. From the
108 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
time of Isaiah (Isa. 5: 1-7); if not before, the vine had been used
as a symbol for Israel. The only fruit it had produced was wild
grapes, and now both ends had been burnt and the middle
had been charred (so RS.V., N.E.B., ver. 4), so there was no
future for it but to be burnt up.
Ezekie1 then gives the spiritual history of Israel in a power-
ful allegory of the foundling child who becomes the faithless
wife of her benefactor (ch. 16). Lack of space makes any
effort to expound the supcrabundant symbolism impossible.
Of outstanding importance, however, are the dosing thoughts
of the chapter (vers. 46-63). Jerusalem's sins are much
greater than those of Sodom and Samaria (cf. Jer. 3: 6-13).
Since there is to be a restoration of Jerusalem, how much more
of rebellious Samaria, and heathen Sodom, symbolizing prob-
ably the small heathen nations round Israel.
It should be noted that there are really two allegories; the
foundling child (16: 1-43), and the two sisters (16: 44-52).
We then have the restoration of the sisters (16: 53-59) and final
reconciliations (16: 60-63).
The Folly and Treachery oj Zedekiah (Ch. 17).
God evidentlv revealed to Ezekid Zcdekiah's first moves
that were to lead"to his open rebellion 8gainst Babylon. Ezekiel
tells a parable that is a riddle in its obscurity (vers. 1.-tO). In
its interpretation he especially stresses the evil of Zedekiah's
broken oath (vers. 13f, 16). This prophecy concludes WIth the
para bolic promise (vcr. 22ff) that from the descendants of those
transported to Babvlon with Jehoiachin there will be a res-
toration. The language of ver. 22f seems Messianic,l but in the
light of Jer. 22: 29f we must be cautious. Our Lord was only
officially a descendant of Jehoiachin (Matt. 1: 2-16).
The Citizen Basis oj the Restored Community (Ch. 18).
Both Jeremiah and Ezekiellived in a time when men were
reaping the whirlwind of the storm their ancestors had sown.
There seemed no point in individual effort, for a man's fate
would be the same whether he fought against the current or
swam with the tide. Their pessimism was summed up in the
proverb, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the child-
ren's teeth are blunted" (Jer. 31: 29; Ezek. 18: 2). As they
look to the future, both the prophets see a time when a man's
relationship to God will be essentially an individual one, not
to be infiuencf'd by either the goodness or badness of his people.
Jeremiah thinks more of the individual's standing with God;
Ezekiel, more of the reward or punishment of his actions.
This chapter has suffered grievously at the hand of those
1 For a more careful discussion see my Ezekiel. p. 69f.
 EZEKIEL 109
that have wished to interpret it against the background of the
New Testament. It is not in contradiction to the Gospel, be-
cause Ezekiel is standing on the foundation of the Law. But
he is shifting the operation of the Law from the nation and
family to the individual. Quite typical of Ezekiel is the
mixtur~ of religious, ethical and ceremonial in his list of sins
and virtues (vers. 6-9).
The section ends with a lament over the kings of Judah:
Jehoahaz (19: 1-4), Jehoiakim-Jehoiachin, probably con-
sidered as one (19: 5-9), Zedekiah (19: 10-14).
The Deeper Meaning of the Sin (Chs. 20-23).
These chapters, which cover the period between the open
breach of Zedekiah with Babylon and the appearing of the
Chaldean army under the walls of Jerusalem, in many ways
parallel much of the previous main section. But we feel the
prophetic voice probing deeper. In ch. 22 the sins of J cru-
salem are seen more clearly and in darker colours. Then
ch. 20 is one of the most important in the Old Testament for
its estimate of Israelite history as a whole, with its contrast
between Israel's consistent disobedience from the beginning,
and Jehovah acting throughout for His name's sake.
20: 25f has an historical interest. It was used by the early
Hebrew-Christians, and by some Gentile Christians, in their
controversy with the Synagogue, to prove that the sacrificial
system was not God-given. However, in the light of chs. 40-
48 any such interpretation would seem self-contradictory.
The obvious interpretation of ver. 26 is that the statutI's re-
ferred to human sacrifice (cf. Jer. 7: 31). But it is out of the
question that Ezekiel should attribute such sacrifices to God.
So the most reasonable interpretation is that God deliberately
worded His law in such a way that the rebellious and unspiritual
misunderstood it.
Imminent Judgment (Ch. 24).
On the very day (ver. 1£; Il Kings 25: 1) that the Chaldean
armies appeared before the walls of Jerusalem, Ezekiel re-
ceived his final message of doom in which he saw Jerusalem as a
great corroded cauldron (N.E.B.) in which the contents are
boiled up and thrown out, and then the cauldron is burnt
out in the flames.
Later at an unspecified time, but quite possibly on the day
when Jerusalem fell, God tells Ezekiel that his wife is to die,
but he is not to mourn her (ver. 15ff). When she dies the
same evening the people ask Ezekiel why he does not mourn.
He tells them that this is but a picture of what will happen
when the news of Jerusalem's fall comes to them.
t10 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Prophecies Against the Nations (Chs. 25-32).

These prophecies have the same general purpose as those
against the nations in Isaiah and Jeremiah, the setting of
God's judgments on Israel against the general background of
God's judgments on the. world. There is probably a symbolic
element here as well, Tyre being chosen as representing godless
commerce, and indirectly Babylon, and Egypt for the grossness
of its idolatry (cf. 16: 26, which cannot be taken literally).
This element may perhaps partly explain the suspended
fulfilments we referred to in ch. 1.
In certain circles it is accepted as axiomatic that 28: 11-19
refers to Satan and his fall. However attractive this view, we
would point out that it makes no attempt to explain the setting
of the oracle; it takes it out of its context. In addition it
should be noted that the rabbis never so understood it, so it is
not so obvious as some think. The question is further com-
plicated by many textual and linguistic problems in the pas-
sage. It is generally overlooked that this view tacitly attri-
butes to cherub (28: 14) a meaning that is not readily dis-
coverable in other Scripture references. In spite of all the
difficulties involved, we believe that the prophecy does refer
to the king of Tyre, though we believe that as a picture of
human pride it may be used like Isa. 14: 4-21 as a type of Satan.
Advocates of soul sleep are given to using 32: 17-32 as a
proof that in the Old Testament Sheol is in all respects equiva-
lent to the grave. Those who have tried to grapple with the
problems of Ezekiel's symbolism are not likely to take this
unique passage literally. A doctrine needs a more positive
basis than a passage like this will afford.
The Prophet's Recommissioning (Ch. 33).
As Ezekiel waited for the certain fulfilment of his prophecy
of doom on Jerusalem, God recommissioned him as watchman
over the House of Israel (vers. 1-9; cf. 3: 16-21). Though we
are not ~o told, it is likely that it was accompanied by a vision
of the chariot-throne of God. God's charge is accompanied
by a message (vers. 10-20) very reminiscent of ch. 18. In its
setting, however, it seems to stress above all that the exiles
were facing a new beginning, when each had to make his
individual choice, whether he would do the will of God or not.
Jerusalem fell on the ninth day of the fourth month in
Zedekiah's eleventh year (Jer. 39: 2), and the temple was
burnt on the seventh day of the following month (11 Kings 25:
8f). A-bout six months later rumours in Tel-Abib were silenced
by the arrival of one of the survivors (ver. 21). [The Hebrew
text says that it was about eighteen months later, but this is
 EZEKIEL 111
intrinsically absurd. Some MSS. as well as the Syriac trans-
lation have" in the eleventh year," which is obviously correct.]
Ezekiel had been prepared for the fugitive's coming by the
removal of his dumbness (ver. 22), which if our earlier ex-
planation is correct, means that from now on he was able at all
times to proclaim and explain the will of God. With his
changed task came also the realization that the remnant in
Judaea had not been changed even by the destruction of Jeru-
salem (vers. 23-29, cf. Jer. 40-45); he was also reminded that
his increasing popularity was no evidence that the majority of
the people were willing to accept his message (vers. 30-33).
No account is given us of the details of Ezekiel's later work,
and no indication is given as to when the following chapters
were spoken, or to what extent they are a summary of years of
teaching.
Rulers past and future (Ch. 34).
For the correct understanding of this chapter it must be
remembered that metaphorically the shepherd always means
the king, whether it is used of God or man. Our under-
standing of this has been obscured by the religious connotation
given to "pastor" in the Christian Church. Elders in the
Church are under-shepherds, for they bear rule as the Spirit-
appointed delegates of Jesus Christ, "the Chief Shepherd,' and
"the good Shepherd," the Ruler and King of the Church (I
Pet. 5: 1-4). What the implications of true rule are, this
chapter shows (vers. 11-22).
Ezekiel clearly implies that the destruction of Jerusalem
and the exile do not mark a merely temporary interruption
in the rule of the Davidic house. For an indeterminate period
Israel is to have no other king than Jehovah Himself (ver. 11.
seq.). Only then will the Davidic line be restored in the person
of the Messianic king (ver. 23). In contrast to chs. 12: 10; 19:
1; 21: 25 no stress may be laid on the fact that he is called
"prince" (nasi, ver. 24), for in 37: 24 he is called king. Rather
the title is used to underline that the return to the Davidic
kingship will not obscure the kingship of Jehovah.
Ver. 17 should be rendered: "Behold, -I judge between
sheep and sheep, even the rams and the he-goats." The rams
and the he-goats explain the second" sheep." They are the
rich and the strong who took advantage of bad and selfish
kingship to oppress the poor and weak.
The Restored Land (Chs. 35, 36).
Though Ezekiel is undoubtedly speaking about the land in
a literal sense, it should be obvious that he uses it symbolically
as well. Jehovah's ownership of the mountains of Israel is
 112 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

stressed, for His attitude toward them symbolizes His attitude

toward all that is peculiarly His.
First, God's punishment on Edom is announced (ch. 35).
Edom symbolizes all who hate (vers. 5, 11; cf. Amos 1: 11;
Obad. 10-12; Ps. 137: 7) that which is God's. Edom's sin
was the worse because, unlike Assyria (Isa. 10: Sf), and Baby-
Ion (Isa. 47: 6), he had never been commissioned by Jehovah
to act against Israel. So we can easily see why Edom is
singled out (cf. Isa. 34, p. 53). Then Ezekiel proclaims the
complete freeing of the land from intrusive nations (36: 1-7),
and its restoration to the fruitfulness which had been God's
original purpose for it (36: 8-15).
Entirely in line with Isaiah's use of the transformation of
nature, it is then made clear (36: 16-38) that even as the deso-
lation of the land was due to the sins of its inhabitants, so its
restoration invoives their transformation. In what is the
climax of his prophecy (vers. 24-27) Ezekiel makes clear the
implications of Jer. 31: 31-34). God's new people must be one
inwardly transformed. As in Jeremiah, great stress is laid on
its being God's action done purely in grace.
The Restored People (Ch. 37).
Though the language of the vision (vers. 1-14) presupposes
a belief in resurrection, it should be clear that it is not the
resurrection of dead Israelites that is here under consideration,
but the revival of the nation. This is borne out by the gradual
reconstruction and resuscitation of the dead bodies. The
mention of the opening of their graves (ver. 12f) is explained
by "I will bring you into the land of Israel." An application
to a national revival of Israel, which will at the same time
be a spiritual one, seems inescapable. While dogmatism is
out of place, he would be a bold man who would categorically
deny that we are. seeing the beginnings of fulfilment
to-day.
The English obscures the fact that the Hebrew uses the
same word for" breath" (vers. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10) and" wind" (ver.
9), while in either case it could be rendered by "spirit."
National revival presupposes national unity, and in verso
15-28 this is represented symbolically. The translation
," stick" (vcr. 16), though linguistically justifiable, misses the
meaning. It is the ruler's staff or rod that is meant. The
uniting of the rods means that there will be only one king over
them (ver. 22).
Though "the children of Israel" (which includes Judah)
in vcr. 21 seems to suggest that Ezekiel is thinking primarily
of those from the Northern Kingdom that had gone into exile,
the possibility cannot be ruled out that he is referring to those
 EZEKIEL 113
left in the land (cf. ch. XI on Jer. 2: 1-4: 4). This raises a
matter which can only be mentioned, but not discussed, here.
There are a number of prophetic passages which foretell the
restoration of the Northern tribes, e.g. Hos. 3: 4f; 14; Isa. 11:
13; Jer. 31: 1-9, etc. While we personally are convinced
that the Jews of to-day contain within their number repre-
sentatives of all the tribes, yet we equally do not feel that this
can be regarded in any way as an adequate fulfilment of such
prophecies. Unfortunately the topic is normally dealt with
either by what seems to us hardly legitimate treatment of
both the Scriptures and history, or is virtually ignored. May
it be that the conditional element enters in here too? Did
Judah in exile make the response God demanded, while the
older exiles of the North refused? It may be, for the topic
hardly seems to find a mention in the New Testament. This
uncertainty shows, however, that much dogmatism on far
more abstruse matters is hard to justify.
The Last Enemies (Chs. 38, 39).
Instead of letting themselves be guided by Rev. 20: 7ff,
many prophetic expositors have been misled by the apparent
relationship of these chapters to ch. 40 seq., and have
placed ch. 38f first in time. Between 33: 21 and 40: 1 over
twelve or thirteen years elapse (see above on ch. 33). If Jose-
phus is to be trusted, chs. 40-48 may very well originally have
appeared as a separate book. It is therefore much wiser to see
in ch. 38£ the great final rebellion against God foretold in Rev.
20: 7ff. This seems to be borne out by verses like 38: 8, 11, 12,
14, 17.
We do not intend to discuss the various identifications of the
names in these chapters. It seems, however, most in keeping
both with the general language of these chapters, and with the
symbolic nature of the book in general, to look upon them not
so much as a definite prophecy of identifiable nations, but
rather as symbolic names for the nations at the ends of the
earth.
39: 25 is not necessarily in conflict 'hith the above tentative
explanation. .. I will bring again the captivity of J acob" has
no linguistic connexion with" went into captivity" (39: 23).
A far more ,E:obable translation ~s: "I will restore the fortunes
of Jacob" (KS.V., N.E.B.).
Contrary to popular exeges:s, Sheba, Dedan, and the
merchants of Tarshish, so far from opposing the unprovoked
assault, seem to be eager to share in the spoils (38: 13).
Ezekiel's vision of the restored community ends with the
Spirit of God on the House of Israel (39: 29), which is therefore
a transformed community.
114 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
The People at Peace (Chs. 40-48).
Reference has already been made to the possibility that
these chapters may originally have been published by them-
selves. Certainly they form a unique unit within Ezekiel.
Though the usual view is that they should be taken literally-
this is irrespective of whether a fulfilment is expected-there
are serious grounds for questioning it. No one who takes them
literally doubts that we are dealing with a Millennial scene. 1
But the whole concept of a Millennial temple of this type raises
serious difficulties. At the present moment there is no spot
preferable to another for prayer and worship. To us it seems
incredible that the Millennium would mean a spiritually
retrograde step. This applies, too, to the confinement of
priesthood to a group chosen by birth.
From the literalist side no satisfactory explanation has
ever been given for the reintroduction of sacrifices, and the
difficulty becomes particularly acute when we find the sin
offering (43: 19-25; 45: 17, 18-25-note that the prince has to
bring a sin-offering, 45: 22). The suggestion that they are
mere memorial sacrifices looking back to the Cross is without
support in the section itself, and fails to meet the objection
that, if bread and wine suffice now, how much less should the
sacrifice of animals be necessary then. The prince (44: 3; 45:
7f, 16f, 22-25; 46: 2-12, 16ff)-he is never called king-is
little more than a superintender of the services, and bears no
resemblance to the Messianic king of prophecy.
Finally, it seems imperative to regard the river of 47: 1-12
as symbolic. Quite apart from the fact that it flows out of the
peak of a very high mountain (40: 2; 47: 1), it deepens mir-
aculously. No appeal may be made to tributaries, for the
whole point is that this is holy water. Much the same must
be said of the division of the land.
Once we grasp that there is symbolism in these chapters,
we should not be daunted by our inability to understand much
of it (cf. the opening vision), but should be rather prepared to
see the whole as primarily symbolic. A redeemed people,
among whom Jehovah dwells (43: 2-5; 48: 35), cannot be
organized haphazardly. In even the smallest details of life
and organization the will of God must be done; this is the
message of these chapters.
Naturally, Ezekiel is thinking of a restored Israel, a rebuilt
temple, and a perfectly kept law. But in the prophet's vision
the type loses itself in the fulfilment, the shadow in the sub-
stance, the earthly in the heavenly. Both the present and the
1 Those who see in these chapters Ezekiel's blue prints for the restored
community hold that Ezekiel saw in the promised restoration the setting up
of the kingdom of God.
 EZEKIEL 115
Millennium, the Israel of God and the Church of God, the
earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem, the law written on tablets
of stone and 011 men's hearts, blend together in a unique com-
bination of literalism and symbolism. While the future will
never see a purely literal fulfilment, the present witnesses,
partially, the spiritual fulfilment.
Prophecy and Apocalyptic.
As the Hebrew prophet looks further and further into the
future, the clear-cut lines of his picture become blurred. This
may be by the background becoming hazy, or even virtually
vanishing. This is particularly the case in Messianic prophecy
-note especially the timeless background of the Servant Songs
in Isaiah (see p. 58). On the other hand, the whole picture
may lose its sharp outlines; Isa. 24-27 is an excellent example
of this. Again, we find the use of stock expressions, verging on
the symbolic, or even passing over into it; Ezek. 38f, is a good
example of this.
In Ezek. 40-48, however, we are introduced to a new form
of prophecy. The first peculiarity is that it is entirely in
vision form. Then, the personal role of the prophet is, ap-
parently at least, diminished. He becomes the recorder of
what he sees and of the explanations given him. What is yet
more important is that the prophet's guide and mentor is an
angelic being, and not directly God. When we add to this the
symbolic nature of much of the vision, if not of all, we shall
realize that this is something new.
Zech. 1-8 are mixed, but on the whole they carry the
tendencies of the closing chapters of Ezekiel even further;
But it is in Dan. 7-12 that this form of prophecy reaches its
Old Testament climax. Here the application is taken out of
the prophet's own time, for the vision is for the time of the end,
and until then the words are to be shut up and sealed (Dan. 8:
26; 12: 4, 9). To distinguish this form of prophecy from that
usually found in the prophetic books, it is normally called
apocalyptic.
Daniel was a prophet (Matt. 24: 15), but prophecy stretches
from a prophet's concern with the daily details of life (cf. I
Sam. 9: 6; I Kings 14: 1ff; etc.) through the proclamation of
the eternal principles of the unchanging God to the mysterious
foretelling of the distant future. Just as the first only re-
ceives casual mention, so the last, as represented by Daniel,
quite understandably and correctly, finds its place in the
Hebrew canon in the Writings and not in the Prophets.
The place of Daniel in the Jewish canon is widely used as
evidence that it must have been written after 200 B.C. "when the
canon of the Prophets was closed." This argument overlooks
116 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

the fact that the Jewish rabbi was just as capable of dis-
tinguishing between apocalyptic and normal prophecy as the
modern scholar. Then, the fact that the place of Ezekiel in
the canon was challenged as late as the end of the first century
A.D. shows that "the closing" of the prophetic canon by 200
B.C. is merely a statement of historic fact, and not of a theory
of prophetic inspiration. (Ezekiel was challenged because it
seemed to be in contradiction to-the Law-a difficulty resolved
by Chananiah ben Hezekiah after burning 300 measures 6f
midnight oil-and because it seemed to give a handle to certain
gnostic speculations.)
 CHAPTER XIV

HAGGAI
Post-exilic Prophecy.
EWISH tradition confined recorded post-exilic prophecy to

J the contents of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and this is

the view adopted by us. Modern scholarship for the most
part would add "Trito-Isaiah," Isa. 24-27, Joel and the moral
tale of Jonah, as well as considerable additions in other pro-
phets. Even were we to accept this, it would not materially
alter our picture of post-exilic prophecy.
It seems to be clear that prophecy died out very largely
because prophets were not really wanted. In Zech. 13: 2-6
we have the last miserable end of the professional prophets.
Nehemiah was troubled by them (Neh. 6: 10-14), but it is
striking that he reveals no sense of loss at the lack of genuine
prophets. We can discover at least four reasons for the
rapidly diminishing regard for the prophet.
(1) The religious Jew, apart from an exceptional crisis
that might occur once in a life-time, had outgrown the need
for some almost mechanical means for the discovery of God's
will, whether through the priest with Urim and Thummim or
the prophet through his dreams or clairvoyance. He had in
large measure learnt that we can know God's will now through
His self-revelation in the past. This was intensified by the
post-exilic community's being a religious rather than a national
community, as was the case before the exile. This was
emphasized by the failure to obtain national independence
until 142 B.C. The Jew who was not interested in his religion
normally just did not return from Babylonia.
(2) The returning exiles contained an altogether dis-
proportionate number of priests, Levites ·and ecclesiastical
persons, a total of nearly 5,700 out of 42,360 (Ezra 2), a pro-
portion of about 1 in 7,. Ezra is not so explicit about the
numbers that returned with him, but we may be fairly sure
that they were not strikingly dissimilar. The priest always
tended to be suspicious of the prophet and to think himself his
superior. It is therefore typical that when doubts arose as to
the eligibility of some of the priests that had returned, the
Tirshatha deferred the matter until "there stood up a priest
with Urim and with Thummim" (Ezra 2: 62f). There is no
117
118 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
suggestion that a prophetic opinion, if offered, would have
been acceptable. Quite consistently with this whole attitude
we find that Zechariah was a priest, and Haggai and Malachi
probably came from ecclesiastical circles. It is true that in
I Mace. 4: 46; 14: 41 we have certain matters kept for pro-
phetic decision in the future, but the context creates the im-
pression that the prophet was not expected until Mal. 4: 5
was fulfilled. That the priest can be called the angel of
Jehovah in Mal. 2: 7 (the English misleadingly, though ac-
curately, for angel=messenger, renders "the messenger of the
LORD") shows how the priesthood was now exalted.
(3) Ezra and to a less extent Nehemiah stamped on the
post-exilic community the awareness that they were a people
under the divine law; at the same time the story clearly sug-
gests that Ezra was no innovator; he was merely giving ex-
pression to a principle already generally accepted. His under-
lying assumption, one that was bound to lead in due time to
Pharisaism and Rabbinic Judaism, was that in the Law as
interpreted by the prophets of the past all that man needed to
know of God had been given. All that was needed was a mhld
filled with wisdom derived from the fear of the Lord. In
such a society a prophet was an anachronism.
(4) Even if conditions had not been unpropitious for the
prophets, it is likely that they would gradually have faded out,
for their main work was done. God had said all through them
in sundry ways and divers manners that could be said. Now
the community had to learn and absorb what had been given
them in the Law and the Prophets, that they might be pre-
pared for Him who was the fulfilment of both the Law and the
Prophets. Modern scholalship has done much to fill the gap
between the Testaments, but the gap has its place in our
Bibles; it was a time not of revelation but of learning and
discipline.
The Historical Background of Haggai and Zechariah.
Though Cyrus was a man of most enlightened character, it
was as a world conqueror that he impressed himself on the
history of his time, and his conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C.
was only an incident in continuous fighting that did not end
until his death in the field in 530 B.C. Most of the short reign
of Cambyses, his son (530-522 B.C.) was spent in the conquest
and breaking of Egypt. So it was not until the reign of
Darius I (522-4&6 B.C.) that the Persian empire was really
organized.
It is easy then to see how the much stronger neighbours of
the Jews found it easy to frustrate the decree of Cyrus about
the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 4: 4f), especially in the
 HAGGAI 119
matter of covering the expenses (Ezra 6: 4). This worked in
with the very real material difficulties the returned exiles had
to face, and so they acquiesced saying, "It is not yet the time
for the building of the house of Jehovah" (Hag. 1: 2). It is
quite typical that the priestly Chronicler should mention only
the outside opposition, the prophet Haggai only the inner
unwillingness. The truth is a combination of both.
By the second year of Darius the main rebellions that
threatened to rend the Persian empire asunder had been
crushed, and it was clear that strong rule might be expected.
The excuse of external opposition had now collapsed, and so
the prophets Haggai and Zechariah arose to deal with the real
spiritual reasons that had held up the rebuilding of the Temple.
How right they were in ignoring the excuse of external oppo-
sition is seen by the fact that as soon as the rebuilding of the
Temple was officially challenged (Ezra 5: 3), the central govern-
ment reaffirmed and strengthened the original edict of Cyrus
(Ezra 6: 6-12), which was then obeyed by the local authorities
(Ezra 6: 13).1
The Prophet Haggai and His Message.
Though it is not explicitly stated, it is fairly universally
assumed that Haggai was one of those that had returned from
Babylonia. The section 2: 10-14 is so technical in its outlook
that it is generally agreed that Haggai must either have been
a priest or have belonged at least to the Temple circles. It
may be that the non-mention of the name of his father points to
the latter as shewing his family not to be of great importance.
It has been suggested by some that Haggai is rather
pedestrian and that his message appeals to self-interest.
Certainly his language cannot be compared with some of his
predecessors; it is rhythmic prose not poetry, but it seems well
wedded to the message.
As we showed above Haggai was speaking to men who had
made great sacrifices for God, whose chief purpose was to
serve God more perfectly. When God did not respond to the
sanguine hopes with which they had returned, when they
found themselves faced with great material problems and
hampered in rebuilding by being refused the promised govern-
ment aid, they naturally tended to ask whether they had mis-
understood the will of Jehovah, and to suggest that the time
1 The above picture of events is seriously challenged by a leading group
of Old Testament scholars. As the subject is hardly relevant to the purpose
of this book, and since the latest scholarly commentary on Ezr.-Neh. by
Rudolph (in German) seems completely to support the main outline of the
view given above, we see no point in discussing the matter. Those interested
are referred to Oesterley &; Robinson: A History 0/ Israel, yo!. II, chs. VII,
VIII. Bright, A History of Israel supports the view in the text.
 120 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
for rebuilding had not yet come. Lack of faith and self-
interest combined to create a plausible mask for their motives
which deceived the majority.
Haggai pointed out first of all that their material distress
had not been as great as they had persuaded themselves, for
they had been able to .. del," i.e. line with wood, their own
houses (1: 4). In the hills of Judrea stone is cheap, wood is a
luxury. Then with the same simple, stern logic shown by
Amos, he pointed out (1: Sf) that they had not received even
the minimum they might have expected, if they had been
doing God's will. There could be only one logical reason-
the neglect of the Temple (1: 9ff).
The promise of immediate material blessing (2: 15-19) is in
no sense a bribe. It is part of Haggai's spiritual logic. Once
a God-fearing people was doing God's will there could be only
one result.
It may very well be this sense of spiritual logic rather than
of revelation, though there are passages of prophetic revelation
in the book, that caused Haggai to use the phrase .. the word
of J ehovah came by Haggai the prophet" (1: 1, 3; 2: 1, 10)
instead of to Haggai as one would expect (cf. Jer. 1: 2; Ezek.
1: 3; Hos. 1: 1; Jonah 1: 1; Mic. 1: 1; Zeph. 1: 1; Zech. 1: 1,
etc.). When it is a matter purely of revelation (2: 20-23)
then the usual formula is used (2: 20).
The book is divided into four dated messages covering a
period of little more than three months.
The First Message and the People's Response (Ch. 1).
To what extent the Temple had actually been destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar must remain an open question, but lIKings
25: 9 suggests little more than damage by fire, which would
have left most of the stone-work in place. It is entirely con-
sistent with this that while it took a wealthy king with all the
resources of his kingdom at his disposal seven and a half years
to build the original sanctuary (I Kings 6: 37f), the small
body of impoverished people who had returned from Baby-
lonia were able to do the bulk of the rebuilding in under four
years (Ezra 6: 15; Hag. 1: 1). That is surely also the reason
why Haggai lays chief stress on the timber needed (1: 8, cf. 1: 4).
The response of the people headed by Zerubbabel seems to
have been quick. The interpretation of 1: 15 is not easy, for
as it stands it seems to contradict 2: 18. The Hebrew sepa-
rates it from the preceding, linking it with what follows, but
this does not seem to make sense. The simplest explanation
is that 1: 15 marks the date when the people began to collect
material for building, 2: 18 the actual beginning of the work.
It is probable that 1: 13 should be translated: Then spake
 HAG G A I 121
Haggai, The Angel of the LORD is here with a message of the
LORD for the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD.
For the Angel of Jehovah see p. 125.
The Second Message (2: 1-9).
The view expressed above that much of the stone-work of
the Temple had been left standing seems confirmed by ver. 3,
for a comparison would not have been possible, if nothing had
been left to compare. Haggai encourages the people by
telling them:
(a) The "shaking" which brought down Babylon was not,
as the exiles had hoped, the final one. Soon this final" shak-
ing" would come, and then the house they were building would
be there to welcome Jehovah as He set up His kingdom.
(b) Promises like that of Isa 56: 7 would see their fulfilment
there. 2: 7 is only Messianic in the wider sense. The A.V.
rendering "the desire of all nations" is based on the Vulgate
and is incompatible with the Hebrew. We must either
render as in the R.V. or perhaps better "the desired of all
nations shall come," i.e. all the nations which Jehovah desires
and chooses. Obviously for his hearers this implied the
coming of the Messiah as well.
(c) The outward beautifying of the Temple could await
God's giving (ver. 8). From His people at the time He asked
no more than they could give.
(d) The Temple was to see the fulfilment of God's pur-
poses (vcr. 9). Here the essential identity of the second temple
with Solomon's is affirmed, thus confirming that extensive
repair rather than a new building was needed. From the
building of Solomon's temple to the destruction of Herod's in
A.D. 70 it was essentially the same building.
The view that the rebuilding of the Temple only began in
521 B.C. and that it was done mainly by those that had never
been taken into captivity, rather than by those that had
returned from Babylonia, bases itself confidently on the ex-
pression "all you people of the land" (ver. 4). It is perfectly
true that in Ezra "the people (or peoples) of the land" is a
technical expression both for the other peoples living in
Palestirle and for those of Israelite origin who had never gone
into captivity and were often semi-heathen. But since we
cannot date Ezra before 400 B.C. at the earliest, it seems
hardly scholarshi'p to assume that the phrase must have had
the same techmcal meaning more than a hundred years
earlier, the more so as less than a century before that it meant
simply the free farmers (II Kings 23: 30). The assumption
is the more remarkable, because the term "the remnant of
the people" otherwise used by Haggai (1: 12; 2: 2) is by
122 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
common consent a technical term meaning those that had
returned from captivity. The use of "all you people of the
land" may simply be an encouragement by reminding them
that they once again possessed the land.
The Third Message (2: 10-19).
In the interval between Haggai's second and third message
another prophet, Zechariah, had arisen to stress that not
merely outward but also inward turning to God was neces-
sary (Zech. 1: 2-6). Now on the very day that the wprk of
repair started Haggai came with a further message of en-
cO'ijragement (cf. 2: 10 with 2: 18).
It is strongly urged that since the foundation was then
laid (ver. 18) it could not have been laid sixteen years earlier
(Ezra. 3: 10f). It has already been pointed out that in any
case there was no need to lay foundations. Then the Hebrew
is far less concrete than the English translation might suggest.
The phrase could probably be legitimately translated "since
the day that Jehovah's temple was begun," the reference
being to the solemn inaugural ceremony which would have
been held equally at the recommencement of the work. Ezra
5: 16 is no contradiction. Obviously the elders of Jerusalem
would not have compromised their position with Tattenai by con-
fessing that the work had ever come to an end, which officially it
had not. They would have represented it as a slowing down.
Haggai's argument is based on a ceremonial technicality,
viz. while holiness is not contagious, uncleanness is. There-
fore the presence of uncleanness more than counteracts the
presence of holiness, the dead body of the sanctuary nullifies
the effect of the altar (cf. ver. 14). "From this day will I
bless you" (ver. 19); some immediate sign is suggested. The
prophet was speaking in December, when rain was absolutely
necessary, if the seed was to be sown in time to be ready for
harvest, so the sign was probably the beginning of the rains.
The Fourth Message (2: 20-23).
With the promise to the people came also a personal
promise to Zerubbabel, who, once he had been stirred by
Haggai's call, seems to have been the driving force behind the
rebuilding. By doing this he jeopardized his official position
(cf. Ezra 5: 4). So he received a special promise of prote.ction.
(Joshua, the high priest, had nothing to lose, everything to
gain by the rebuilding, so he is not mentioned.) Apparently
in the prophetic visions coming troubles amalgamate them-
selves with the final troubles of the Day of the Lord (cf. ver. 21
with 2: 6) and so Zerubbabel looks forward to Zerubbabel's
greater descendant (cf. Matt. 1: 13).
 CHAPTER XV

ZECHARIAH
THE STRUCTURE OF ZECHARIAH
A. The Visions of Zechariah-Chs. 1·8.
I-Ch. 1: 1-6. The CaU to Repentance.
2-Ch. 1: 7-17. Vision I-The Angel among the
Myrtles.
3-Ch. 1: 18·21. Vision II-Four Horns and Four
Craftsmen.
4-Ch. 2: 1·13. Vision Ill-The Unneeded Measuring
Line.
s-Ch. 3: 1·10. Vision IV-The Acquittal of the High
Priest.
6-Ch. 4: 1·14. Vision V-The Golden Lampstand.
7-Ch. 5: 1·4. Vision VI-The Flying RoU.
8-Ch. 5: s-ll. Vision VII-The Ephah.
9-Ch. 6: 1·8. Vision VIII-The l"our Chariots.
10-Ch. 6: 9·15. The Crowning of Joshua.
ll-Chs. 7, 8. A New Era.
B. The Establishment of Messiah's Kingdom-Chs. 9·14.
I-Chs. 9, 10. The Deliverance of Israel and Judah.
2-Ch. 11. The Rejection of the True Shepherd.
3-Chs. 12-14. The Final Deliverance of Jerusalem.

The Problem of Authorship.

Zechariah falls clearly into two distinct parts (chs.
T
HAT
1-8; 9-14) is denied by none. Nor is it denied that the
differences between the two parts are so great that had
they stood separately in the Bible none would have thought of
bringing them together. It has also been shown, though this
is not universally recognized, that there is a line of division in
the second part as well, viz. chs. 9-11; 12-14. With this
must be connected the fact that 9: 1; 12: 1; Mal. 1: 1 all con-
tain a formula unique in the prophetic books, viz. "the burden
(or oracle) of the word of Jehovah ... "
As early as 1653 Mede attributed chs. 9-14 to Jeremiah on
the basis of Matt. 27: 9, which attributes Zech 11: 12f to that
prophet. Modem widely diverging views may be roughly
classified as follows:
124 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
(1) The whole book is by Zechariah. This view is entirely
1

tenable, but does not really explain the facts.

(2) The second part is a unity and is later than Zechariah,
though there are wide variations in the date suggested.'
(3) Zech. 9-11; Zech. 12-14; Mal. 1-4 are three anonymous
prophecies-for the authorship of Malachi see ch. XVI-of
which the first is pre-exilic, the second post-exilic, but not
much later than Zechariah, the third not later than 450 B.C.
(4) This is much as the preceding, but it places the two
sections of Zech. 9-14 not earlier than the time of Alexander
the Great (330 RC.), some putting portions as late as Maccabean
times right down to 100 B.C. a
We personally tend to the third view. There is no valid
reason why there should not be anonymous prophetic por-
tions in the Old Testament, and if there are, the end of the
Book of the Twelve would be the natural place for them.
Once Malachi was looked on as a proper name, it was almost
inevitable that the other two portions should be taken up into
Zcchariah, the more so as this made the total of Minor Prophets
twelve, the number of the tribes of Israel.
Contacts between the style of chs. 9-11 and Jeremiah are
too slight to furnish any proofs on literary grounds for Mede's
attribution. At the same time there is very much in these
chapters than cannot find any really satisfactory explanation
on the supposition of a post-exilic date. The mention of
Assyria in 10: 11 is an outstanding example. If the sC'ction
is pre-exilic, it will date between the captivity of the North
and the fall of Nineveh. 9: 13 no more demands a post-
exilic date than does Joel 3: 6.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning that would
attribute a really late date to Zech. 9-14. It ignores the
universally recognized fact that the canon of the prophets was
closed at the latest by 200 B.C. and that the LXX translation
of the prophets will have been made between 200 and 150 B.C.
That they were not officially included in the canon after its
having been closed is certain; that they were smuggled into
both the Hebrew and the LXX is a nightmare.
The Prophet and his Message.
Zechariah was the grandson of Iddo (1: I), a priest who
returned from Babylonia with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12: 4, cf.
1 So ISBE. article Zechariah. Book of; Young. pp. 269-273; Baron:
The Visions and l'rophecies of Zechariah. ch. XIII. Harrison does not commit
himself.
I So Barnes: Haggai. Zechariah and Malachi (C.B.).
a So HDB. article Zechariah. Book of; Driver. LOT. pp. 348-355; Kirk-
patrick. pp. 442-456; for the extreme view Oesterley and Robinson: An Intro-
duction to the Books of the Old Testament. pp. 419-425.
 ZECHARIAH 125
12: 16). The non-mention of his father Berechiah in Neh. 12:
16; Ezra 5: 1; 6: 14 suggests that he may have died young.
Nothing more is known or can be inferred from his prophecies
about Zechariah, except that he was evidently a student of
his prophetic predecessors. The suggestion on the basis of
2: 4 that he was young depends on what is almost certainly a
false interpretation.
Chs. 1-8 present many difficulties in interpretation mainly
because of the apocalyptic visions they contain (see p. 115) in
which the prophet's own time and the final crisis of the Day
of the Lord tend to become blended.
Chs. 9-14 are also apocalyptic, but in the general style of
the older apocalyptic passages. The background and some-
times even the foreground are vague, and exact interpretation
is at times impossible. The difficulty is increased by the
chapters consisting of a considerable number of non-connected
shorter prophecies bound together merely by an inner spiritual
link.
Just as in Ezek. 40-48 God does not appear, and in the
visions He does not speak directly to Zechariah. His place
is taken by that mysterious figure from the earlier books of the
Old Testament, the Angel of Jehovah. In numerous passages
the angel of Jehovah means no more than the angel, any
angel, already introduced. In such cases the context makes
it clear, and this is true of the only passage where the term is
used of a man (Mal. 2: 7, q.v.); for Hag. 1: 13 see p. 120f. But
in other passages the context demands that the Angel of
Jehovah should be an exalted and unique figure. Davidson
defines Him excellently, "The Angel of the Lord is Jehovah
present in definite time and particular place." 1 The tra-
ditional Christian interpretation of the Angel of Jehovah as the
preincarnate Son is, we believe, correct, but this is based on
general analogies rather than on any definite Scriptural proof.
The use of the term in Zechariah stresses that though God is
transcendent, far above His creation, yet He finds means of
keeping in touch with His own people, and that personally
and n0t through some mere angelic intermediary.
In the former section of the book the tninscendent power
of God is particularly stressed by the constant use of J ehovah
of hosts (Jehovah Zeba'oth). In these eight chapters, if we
omit a couple of cases where Jehovah means the Angel of
Jehovah, we have Jehovah of hosts used 48 times, Jehovah
only 33. This is unique in the Old Testament, the nearest
comparable case being Haggai (-there is nothing comparable
in chs. 9-14, where the figures are 8 and 39, surely a very strong
argument against authorship by Zechariah of these chapters).
1 Th, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 297f.
t 26 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
Whether the name Jehovah of hosts may have meant
merely Jehovah of the armies of Israel, when we first find it
used at the end of the period of the Judges (cf. I Sam. 1: 3), we
cannot know for certain, though we doubt it. In the mouth
of the great prophets the hosts are the hosts of heaven, and
that is the meaning for Zechariah too. With him it has an
even deeper meaning, for in exile the Jews had become familiar
with the Babylonian worship of the heavenly bodies and later
with the new Iranian teaching of Zoroaster with its concept of
hosts of warring angels. Zechariah affirms that J ehovah is
the God of whatever powers and hosts there may be. The
LXX has understood his meaning very well. Normally it
simply transliterates Zeba'oth as Sebaoth, but in Zechariah it
renders Pantokrator, All-Sovereign.
Though the object of the first eight chapters is to encourage
the builders of the Temple in their difficulties, the message is
shot through with that deep moral earnestness that is never
far distant from the true prophets; it also looks forward all the
time to the Day of the Lord.
The Call to Repentance (1: 1-6).
This opening section strikes the underlying assumption
behind all the future encouragement. God will bless, but
only a people that have returned to Him and that do His will.
Zechariah reinforces his appeal by recalling the past.
The Eight Visions (1: 7-6: 8).
While there is an undoubted predictive element in these
visions, they are not really comparable with those in Daniel.
Efforts to see in them mainly the more distant future of the
Jews are hardly convincing. This is equally true of the
attempt to interpret them solely as a symbolic description of
Zechariah's own time and the immediate future. A major
element in them is timeless, stressing major spiritual truths
in the light of the prophet's own time.
The first and last vision with their message of divine
sovereignty provide the framework for the rest. They divide
naturally into three groups: visions I to III are concerned
mainly with the rebuilding of the Temple, IV and V with
Joshua and Zerubbabel, the leaders of the people, VI to VIII
with the spiritual transformation of the people.
I. The Angel among the Myrtles (1: 7-17).
In a night vision Zechariah sees a man, later identified as the
Angel of Jehovah, sitting on His horse "among the myrtle
trees that were in the bottom." He had just been joined by
other angelic riders belonging to three distinct groups as
 ZECHARIAH 127
shown by the colour of their horses; they give a report on the
earth that all was still and at rest (ver. 11). The Angel of
Jehovah then pleads for Jerusalem and there comes a com-
fortable message for the prophet (vers. 14-17).
Taken literally ver. 11 cannot be true of the second year of
Darius. Even if, as we think, the two main rebellions had
been broken, there was obviously still fighting to come. On
the other hand the 70 years of ver. 12 (a round figure probably
based on Jer. 25: 11; 29: 10 for it was about 66 years since
the destruction of the Temple) tie down the vision to the
prophet's own time. The clue is given by ver. IS, for the same
people must be meant as in ver. 11, and the mere fact of peace
would not have awakened God's displeasure.
The Angel of Jehovah has come to Jerusalem, but not into
it, for the Temple has not yet been rebuilt. "The bottom"
is somewhere near the city, and is probably chosen for the
scene of the vision, even as is the Hebrew word that describes
it, to typify the low position of the Jews. The angel riders had
ridden out in three directions (west of Palestine is the Mediter-
ranean!) and now give their report. When it is realized that
they are not being sent out, but that their task is finished, it
will prevent any linking of this vision with 6: 1-8, with Daniel
or Revelation. All the peoples were at arrogant ease and self-
confident peace with no thought of Jehovah of hosts or of the
state of His people. It is here that we find the timelessness of
the vision. The colours of the horses only distinguish the
three groups and have no further meaning.
Il. Four Horns and Four Craftsmen (1: 18-21).
How God is to carry out His purposes is shown in the next
vision. Out of the surrounding night (ver. 8) Zechariah sees
four great threatening horns. They are not identified, and
to do so with the four beasts of Dan. 7 or otherwise is entirely
to miss the point. There are four for the four corners of the
earth, and they represent all who have oppressed and scattered
Israel and Jlldah, or who ever will.
Equally unidentified are the four craftsmen (both A.V. car-
penters, R.V., R.S.V. smiths are too precise) who frighten them
away-fray (ver. 21) is too weak. God has His remedy for
every oppressor. But the fact that they are craftsmen almost
certainly points to the rebuilding of the Temple, which would
be the best way of guaranteeing the divine help.
Ill. The Unneeded Measuring Line (Ch. 2).
Zechariah sees a young man-not an angel-going out to
measure the profosed line of Jerusalem's walls. Then the
interpreting ange (1: 9, 19) came forward, i.e. appeared (ver. 3)
128 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

and commanded yet" another angel" to run and stop the young
man, for his work was unnecessary. The reason was not so
much that Jerusalem would be larger than any man's optim-
ism (vcr. 4) but rather that Jehovah Himself would be their
wall (ver. 5).
This ends the first group of visions and so there follows a
call to those still in exile to return (vers. 6-9) and a picture of
Zion's future glory. Though ver. 13 could refer to Jehovah's
intervention in Zechariah's day, it obviously looks forward to
the Day of thc Lord.
IV. The Acquittal of the High Priest (Ch. 3).
There is no suggestion here that the scene is set in heaven.
Perhaps the most striking feature is joshua's complete pas-
sivity. The reason probably lies in the ambiguity of .. stand
before" (vcr. 1), which makes us misinterpret the vision. The
phrase may mean to stand in attendance (ver. 4), or to stand
before a judge, but it also means to carry out one's priestly
ministry, e.g. Deut. 10: 8, and that is its probable meaning
here.
Zechariah sees Joshua standing ministering, perhaps in the
rebuilt Temple, for it is a vision. All unknown to him Satan
is standing ready to accuse him as the prosecutor-there is
no indication that he had already spoken. There is no
suggestion of personal fault on Joshua's part. His priestly
garments are filthy because he represents the people.
Consistently with that there is no personal confession.
Here Zechariah strikes the deeper note suggested by his
introductory prophecy. The acceptance of Joshua and so of
the people is an act of pure grace which looks to a yet future
act of God (ver. 9). That God is willing to acknowledge
Joshua and his fellow priests is a sign (ver. 8, R.V.) of the
future removal of sin, which is linked with the Messiah, the
Shoot (R.V. mg , cf. 6: 12 mg.; Isa. 4: 2 mg.; 11: 1; Jer. 23: 5
mg.; 33: 15). The interpretation of ver. 9 is very difficult, but
there is no real doubt that the stone is that of 4: 7, and that it
is to be linked with Ps. 118: 22; Isa. 28: 16. It is a headstone,
i.e. the last stone to be put in place, but it will not fit unless
the building has been made exactly to plan; it has been carved
by Jehovah Himself.
V. The Golden Lampstand (Ch. 4).
The vision is of a seven-branched lampstand, which differed
from that in the Temple by having a bowl above the lamps,
supplying oil to the lamps by seven golden tubes. This means
that providing the bowl was kept filled with oil, the lights
were not dependent on human care as was the case in the
 ZECHARIAH 1~

Temple. At first sight it would appear that the two olive

trees (vers. 3, 12) supplied the necessary oil to the bowl. But
the difficult Hebrew of ver. 12 may and probably does mean
that the oil is being emptied out of the bowl not merely into
the lamps but into the olive trees as well; the trees are obvi-
ously Zerubbabel and Joshua. If this is correct, it means that
in the theocracy the light of witness is not maintained by the
civil and religious administration, but they and the light are
maintained by God. It would seem that ver. lOb (read,
These seven are the eyes of Jehovah ... ) is the answer to ver. 5.
For the idea of the seven eyes cf. 3: 9; Rev. 1: 4.
Just as the previous vision contained a message to Joshua
looking forward to the Messiah, so here is a similar message to
Zerubbabel (vers. 6-10a). Though it promises that Zerub-
babel will finish building the Temple, it looks to Zerubbabel's
Messianic descendant, for the headstone is both Messianic and
indeed the Messiah (see above).
VI. The Flying Roll (5: 1-4).
Zechariah sees a great sheet of leather 30' by 15' (the roll
was unrolled!) flying through the air. Since these are the
dimensions of the Holy Place in the Tabernacle, it is reason-
able to suppose that the roll contained the main provisions of
the Law. Whenever in the vision it came to the house of the
thief and perjurer-typical sinners-it brought destruction
with it. The promise had been given in 3: 9 of the removal of
sin. Here we are reminded that where men do not repent,
the removal of sin implies the destruction of the sinner.
VII. The Ephah (5: 5-11).
Though the vision clearly shows the removal of wickedness
from the land after the individual sinners had been dealt with,
there seems no measure of agreement as to how its details
should be interpreted. This has opened the door to various
imaginative efforts that do not call for mention. The ephah
and the talent may suggest that commerce is envisaged; it is
quite possible that the woman personifies id~latry. In any
case we have a promise which obviously looks to the Day of
the Lord for its perfect fulfilment.
VIII. The Four Chariots (6: 1-8).
The visions end as they begin with the sovereignty of God
over the earth. The four winds (or spirits) of heaven issue
out between the mountains of brass (probably the popular
idea of the gate of heaven) in form as chariots, which imply
war. The colour of the horses probably merely serves to dis-
tinguish them one from another and has no further meaning
130 )( ENS P A KEF ROM GOD
(cf. 1: 8). Any linking with Daniel is far-fetched, and while
some particular situation in the prophet's own time is doubt-
less envisaged, the general certainty of God's rule is the funda-
mental thought.
The Crowning of Joshua (6: 9-15).
There is an inner contradiction in this incident, for to
crown the high priest as Messianic king (ver. 12f) would be to
run counter to all prophecy. In addition the promise that he
should build the Temple had been earlier given to Zerubbabel
(4: 9). As a result most moderns assume that it was Zerub-
babel that was crowned, but when the Persians heard of it he
lost his position and perhaps his life. To hide the disappoint-
ment the prophecy was distorted by substituting joshua's
name. The plausibility of this view is increased by the mis-
taken English translation in ver. 12, "Behold the man ... ";
it should be "Behold a man . . .", not necessarily identifying
the person crowned with the prophecy.
Note that we are not dealin~ with a crowning or anoint-
ing ceremony. The crown (the smgular is correct, so versions,
RS.V., N.E.B.) is a sign of honour rather than royalty-the
Hebrew does not use the usual word for the royal crown. At
the same time it was an honour which might indeed have been
fatal for Zerubbabel, but not for Joshua. Zechariah gives
honour to Joshua, but indicates that Zerubbabel ranks higher
for he is the ancestor of the Messiah. In so doing, however,
he foreshadows hiin who was to be priest-king for ever after
the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110: 4; Heb. 6: 20).
While like Haggai, Zechariah saw in Zerubbabel the fore-
shadowing of the Messiah (see note on Hag. 2: 23), he did not
think him the Messiah. The language always falls short of
complete identification. In addition there is always an
eschatological element present which reminds us that Zech-
ariah is looking to the future, however near he may hope it to
be. It may be for this reason that he prefers to use the title
Shoot, which although it has Messianic connotations cannot
be said to be purely Messianic.
We do not doubt that the RV. mg., RS.V., N.E.B. are
correct in ver. 13; it is a promise that Joshua shall share in
Zerubbabel's rule; at the same time the Hebrew is ambiguous,
and in its deeper fulfilment it points to Jesus Christ the
priest-king as expressed by the RV. text.
The Nm Era (Chs. 7, 8).
The fall of Jerusalem had led to the introduction of four
fasts (8: 19)-for that of the fourth month see 11 Kings 25: 3f;
Jer. 39: 2f; for that of the fifth II Kings 25: 8ff; Jer. 52; 12ft;
 ZECHARIAH 131
for that of the seventh 11 Kings 25: 25; for that of the tenth
11 Kings 25: 1; J er. 39: 1. The men of Bethel had now come to
realize that with the restoration the keeping of them was
questionable sense-ritual often paralyses common sense and
is maintained long after it has lost its meaning-and so they
came to lay the matter before the Jerusalem authorities.
This led to a series of four prophetic messages by Zechariah.
7: 4-14 deals with the true meaning of fasting and reminds
us strongly of Isa. 58: 1-12; it reaffirms the old prophetic
stress on social righteousness.
8: 1-8 gives a picture of the glorious future of Jerusalem.
8: 9-17 contrasts the condition after the return from exile
with the future, and gives the conditions for prosperity.
8: 18-23 gives a concluding picture of the future when
Jerusalem will be the religious centre of the world.
The Establishment of Messiah's Kingdom (Chs. 9-14).
We have already pointed out that these chapters are
apocalyptic, and as is uSllal in such prophecies the general
drift is clear enough, but detailed interpretation is impossible
-he who thinks otherwise should learn humility from those as
good as he who have interpreted them otherwise. We must
content ourselves with pointing out the main subdivisions.
(a) 9: 1-8. Jehovah's vengeance on Israel's neighbours.
(b) 9: 9f. The Messianic king of peace.
(c) 9: 11-17. Israel freed from captivity is victorious over
her enemies. Obviously the fulfilment of this must precede
(b) unless it is completely spiritualized.
(d) 10: H. A warning against superstition and magic arts.
It may be in its present position because the closing words
link it superficially with what follows.
(e) 10: 3-12. The raising up of rulers by God who shall
lead Judah and Ephraim back to the land. Though not
exclusively Messianic, there is a Messianic note in it. F~r the
use of shepherd see p. 111.
(f) 11: H£. A visitation on the land. There is no pos-
sibility of identifying the particular invader. Since the
mention of shepherds may explain its position -here, we cannot
even assume that it is eschatological.
(g) 11: 4-14. The rejection of Jehovah's Shepherd. The
passage becomes easier when one remembers that the prophet
is acting allegorically (with an imaginary flock ?), and some-
times it is the prophet, sometimes God, who speaks in the first
person. '
(h) 11: 15f£. The appointment of a worthless king as a
punishment. Probably a historic figure of the past used to
prefigure one yet future.
132 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
(i) 12: 1-9. The deliverance of Jerusalem, cf. 14: 1-15.
(j) 12: 10-14. Judah's repentance. On the basis of
John 19: 37; Rev. 1: 7, it is probably better to follow the R.V.
mg. in ver. 10. The reference in ver. 11 has never been
satisfactorily explained.
(k) 13: 1-6. The cleansing of Judah from all taint of sin
and false prophecy.
(l) 13: 7ff. The smiting of the Shepherd, and its fruit.
Some link this with 11: 15ff, but there is really no serious
ground for this. It is far more satisfactory to link in with
12: 10 and refer it to our Lord. The Shepherd is called
Jehovah's fellow, because Jehovaq is the supreme Shepherd
of Israel, cf. I Pet. 5: 1ff.
(m) 14: 1-5. The Lord comes to deliver Jerusalem.
(n) 14; 6-21. Millennial glory. Read the mg. in ver. 21,
as in RS.V., N.E.B.
 CHAPTER XVI

MALACHI
THE STRUCTURE OF MALACHI
" I HAVE LOVED YOU"
A. The Proof of God's Love-Ch. 1: 1-5.
B. Obstacles to the Enjoyment of God's Love-Ch. 1 : 6-3: 12.
l-Chs. 1: 6-2: 9. Lack of Respect and Reverence
towards God.
(a) Ch. 1: 6-14. By the People.
(b) Ch. 2: 1-9. By the Priests.
2-Ch. 2: 10-16. Inhumanity and Apostasy.
3-Chs.2: 17-3: 6. Despising of God's Promises and
Commandments.
4-Ch. 3: 7-12. Withholding of Tithes.
C. God's Loving Protection of the Pious in the Day of
Judgment-Chs. 3: 13-4: 3.
D. The Final call to Repentance-Ch. 4: 4-6.
The Prophet and His Message.
ALACHI means "My Messenger" or "My Angel," or if

M it is abbreviated, as is just possible, "The Messenger

of Jehovah." Either is a highly improbable name to
give to a child. We shall be almost certainly correct in re-
garding the book as anonymous, and Malachi as a title which
the prophet gave himself, perhaps because he deliberately
wished to efface himself.1 Not merely a great reformer like
CaIvin, but most of the Church Fathers, including Jerome,
many of the early rabbis, the Targum (the official Jewish
translation into Aramaic) and the LXX (second century B.C.;
though not the later added heading) all fail to see a proper
name here and regard the book as anonymous. In addition
the New Testament never quotes him by name. On the other
hand there have been those from at least the second century
A.D. who have looked on Malachi as a proper name. We have
no hesitation in following the vast majority of modem scholars
in regarding the book as anonymous. I
It is obvious that Malachi is later than Haggai and Zech-
ariah, for the Temple has been rebuilt. He is hardly likely to
1See HDB and ISBE. article Malachi.
IExceptions are Pusey: The Mino~ Prophets VI. p. 167, who thinks.
"It may be that he framed it for himself" (m/), and Young, p. 27Sf.
133
134 MEN SPA It E FRO M GOD
be later than Nehemiah, for the sins that he rebukes are just
those that Nehemiah had to deal with. Pusey looks on him
as contemporaneous, "Yet he probably bore a great part
in the reformation, in which Nehemlah co-operated out-
wardly ... "1 This hardly fits in with the general impression
created by Nehemiah. Others place him in the interval between
Nehemiah's two governorships, but this presupposes an im-
mediate slump in the behaviour of the people which again is
hardly suggested by Nehemiah. On the other hand there are
problems connected with the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah
which would keep us from all dogmatism. Personally we
prefer a date not much before 450 B.C., shortly before the
reforms were begun.
Beyond the fact that he probably moved in the Temple
circles there is nothing that we can infer about "Malachi"
personally. His book is entirely in prose and carefully and
skilfully put together.
His message concerns God's love. In the difficulties of the
post-exilic community, which were so contrary to the high
hopes with which they had returned, and which had decreased
but little after the rebuilding of the Temple, in spite of the
glowing promises of Haggai and Zechariah, it was easy to
doubt the love of God. " Malachi" is concerned to show that
there is proof of God's love, that the enjoyment of that love
was being hindered by the sins of the people, and how the love
would reveal itself in the future.
The Proof of God's Love (1: 2-5).
The supreme proof of God's love to the Jew was His choice
of J acob in ~ace. "Malachi" points out that the same principle
was operatmg in his own day, for even if the Jew was weak,
Edom was weaker still. For the situation mirrored here see p. 96 .
.. But Esau I hated" (ver. 3)-as Snaith has pointed out t
the love of God in the Old Testament is, above all, election
love. Since in old Hebrew there were no intermediate shades,
not to elect, not to love, was to hate.
Obstacles to the Enjoyment of God's Love (1: 6-3: 12).
The love of God, which made Israel His firstborn (Exod.
4: 22), expected respect and reverence from His children.
Where these did not exist, the love of God could not be ex-
perienced. This wrong attitude of the people was shown in
five different ways.
(1) There was the gross disrespect shown to Jehovah
(1: 6-14) by bringing Him sacrifices without heart-respect
(ver. 7), of a quality unworthy of the Persian governor's table
1 Pusey. op. cit., p. 169.
• The Distinctiv, Ideas of the Old Testament, ch. VI.
 MALAC H I 135
(ver. 8), and by treating the whole matter as indifferent and a
burden (ver. 12f); some even descended to gross deceit (ver. 14).
Far better no sacrifices at all (ver. 10). Though the priests
are specially addressed, for it was they as guardians of the
altar who made such behaviour possible, it is clear that we
are dealing with a widespread .attitude among the people.
This was the worse because of the growing respect with which
Jehovah was being regarded wherever the dispersion extended
(ver. 11). This famous verse is interpreted along three lines.
(a) The A.V. in common with most of the early Church
Fathers and those modems who tend to be traditionalists look
upon it as a prophecy of the spread of Christianity. Lin-
guistically this is entirely possible, but it does not do justice
to the context.
(b) Some modems, specially among the more liberal, take
it to mean that Jehovah accepts all true and sincere worship
and sacrifice as though it had been knowingly addressed to
Him. This would suit a treatise on comparative religion
better than an exposition of the Old Testament and cannot
fairly be extracted from the prophet's language.
(c) The most likely interpretation-which does not rule
out (a) as a deeper fulfilment-is that the dispersion, which
even then was more zealous than those who had returned, cf.
the work of Ezra and Nehemiah, was making the name and
worship of Jehovah widely known. Since incense symbolizes
prayer, and 6e offering is the minchah, the meal or gift offer-
ing, which could metaphorically be applied to all gifts to God,
no actual Temple sacrifices need be envisaged.
(2) The priests are then specially arraigned (2: 1-9) for
their neglect of their special privileges as teachers of the Law
(vers. 7ff). So high do they stand in God's economy' that the
priest is called the angel of Jehovah of hosts (ver. 7-A.V.,
R.V. messenger; the context prevents any misunderstanding).
We can see that we are in the twilight of prophecy, for the
priest is now to stand alone as the expounder of the already
revealed will of God. It should be noticed that the stress is
not on sacrificing, which spiritually was not tl).e chief priestly
task, cf. Deut. 33: 8ff, where it is mentioned last.
(3) The inhumanity of the people (2: 10-16), which was a
contradiction of God's love, was specially shown in the qivorce
of their wives, and this became apostacy by their subsequent
marriage with heathen women (ver. 11). .. Malachi" is not
seeking to set aside the regulations of Deut. 24: 1-4 about
divorce, but their enforcement in their true spiritual sense.
The phrase .. wife of thy youth" suggests a marriage of long
standing; if there had 'been anything to justify divorce, it
would have shown itself much earlier; in addition after these
136 MEN 5 P A KEF ROM GOD

y~ars it would be very difficult for her to find another husband.

ll1ese divorces were just treachery. Since no woman was
allowed to come to the altar, ver. 18 is a powerful metaphorical
expression. The divorces were probably in order to marry
the beathen women.
The Old Testament obviously looks on monogamy as the
ideal, and we do not get the impression from it that divorce
was common; the better elements in Jewry were always
against it. The famous dictum in the Mishnah, "And the
School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled
a dish for him, for it is written, Because he hath found In her
indecency in anything. R Akiba says: Even if he found
another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shall be if she
finds no favour in his eyes ... "1 is a legal argument. These
men did not act according to their argument, nor would they
have encouraged others so to act.
(4) There was disbelief in the reality of Jehovah's promises
and threats and much open sin (2: 17-3: 6). Theformerreminds
us of Zeph. 1: 12. These will be dealt with by the coming of
the Angel of the covenant (3: 1. RV. mg.), i.e. the Angel
of Jehovah, in the judgment of the Day of the Lord. The
promise that closes this section (3: 6) may seem out of place
until we remember that even the judgment of God is a sign
of His love and an accomplishing of His purpose. It was the
sinners that would be burnt out, not the whole people.
(5) Finally the people were withholding His dues from God
(3: 7-12). There can be no question of the prophet's trying
to bribe the people (ver. 10ff). It is prophetic logic that if the
barrier to the enjoyment of God's love is removed, the gifts
of His love will be enjoyed as well.
God's Loving Protection of the PiOflS (3: 13-4: 3).
Since the disloyal element in the people exists and per-
sists (3: 13ff), there must be judgment. But the loyal have
been noted (3: 16) and in the day of judgment they will be
preserved (3: 17), so that the difference between the two
parties will be clearly seen. The result of judgment will be
the triumph of the righteous (4: 2f).
The Final Call to Repentance (4: 4ff).
A fitting end to the prophetic books. It looks back to the
revelation of God on which the whole prophetic message is based
and forward to the fulfilment of all the prophetic hopes. It offers
the choice of repentance (ver. 6, see RV. mg.) or the ban. In
the Synagogue ver. 5 is read a second time after ver. 6 to avoid
ending with the ban, cf. Isa. 66: 23f, p. 62, but it is only Jesus
Christ, the fulfilment of the prophets, who can raise the ban.
1 Gittin, ix, 10.
 CHAPTER XVII

DANIEL
THE STRUCTURE OF DANIEL
A. The Present-Chs. 1-6.
I-Ch. 1. God the Protector of the captives.
2-Ch. 2. God the Revealer of the future.
3-Ch. 3. God the Lord of fire.
4-Ch. 4. God the Humbler of the proud.
5-Ch.5. God the Avenger of His honour.
6-Ch. 6. God the Tamer of beasts.
B. The Future-Chs. 7-12.
I-Ch. 7. The End of World History.
2-Ch. 8. The Enemy of the Saints.
3-Ch. 9. The Messiah the Prince.
4-Chs. 10-12. The Fortunes· of Israel.
E deal with Daniel last, not because we consider that
W this is its true chronological position, but because
both the Hebrew canon of Scripture and the nature
of its contents put it outside the Prophets in the strict sense
of the word.
Daniel, with its stress on the sovereignty of God, which not
only compels rebellious men to do His will, but that even at
the very moment of His appointing, has always been the most
obnoxious of Old Testament books to the humanist, and a
chief centre of his attacks. To complicate matters, the book
seems to invite attack and to make the task of the critic the
easier. For over half a century now the overwhelming
majority of Old Testament scholars have taken the non-
historical nature of Daniel for granted.
The results have been disastrous, for both .sides have come
to the study of the difficulties and the exegesis of the book
with such bias that they are seldom able to do it justice.
"Historical Errors."
Except incidentally we shall not refer to the allegedly un-
historical statements in the book. Those who are interested
are referred to the works mentioned in the bibliography.
These arguments are not nearly so important as often imag-
ined, for the modern scholar has seriously weakened the force
of his own attack.
137
.138 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD

Though scholars differ in details, virtually all who reject

the traditional authorship are agreed that the book in its present
form was produced about 168 B.C.l The writer attributed his
visions to Daniel to get his message, in whose truth he pro-
foundly believed, more readily accepted. Charles puts it
thus: "How then from the third century B.C. onward was the
man to act who felt himself charged with a real message of
God to his day and generation? The tyranny of the Law and
the petrified orthodoxies of his time, compelled him to resort
to pseudonymity. And if these grounds had in themselves
been insufficient for the adoption of pseudonymity, there was
the further ground-the formation of the Canon. When once
the prophetic Canon was closed, no book of a prophetic
character could gain canonization as such, nor could it gain a
place among the sacred writings at all unless its date was be-
lieved to be as early as Ezra,"·
It should be clear that such a pious imposture could never
have succeeded, if the new book had contradicted the already
existing Scripture. Now, with only one major exception,
the main "historical errors" are contradictions of Scripture as
well. Thus the modem view virtually answers its own diffi-
culties. Were the book a second-century production, we may
guarantee that the writer must have had fully adequate
grounds for his apparent contradictions of other Scriptures.
The bigger the problem, e.g. the identity of Darius the Mede,
the surer we may be that there is an adequate explanation.
But the same argument holds if the book is dated earlier.
Fiction that hopes to be accepted as history must be meti-
culous in its accuracy; how much more if it wishes to be
accepted as inspired as well.
There is a tendency to underrate the critical acumen of the
period. The Talmud shows us that the early rabbis were very
conscious of discrepancies, real or apparent, in the Scriptures.
We may not agree with the means by which they explained
them away, but that does not diminish the clear-sightedness
by which they saw them.
In all fairness it must be added that this only meets the
charge of specific error, not that of giving a generally false
picture of the times described. This is a charge more easily
made than proved. Since, however, there is an increasing
tendency to attribute the narrative part of Daniel to the fifth
century B.C., it should be clear that the charge is not a serious
one.
1 For the usual modern view see HDB, article Daniel, Book of; Driver,
LOT, ch. XI. Against see ISBE, article Daniel, Book of; Young, ch. XXIV;
Lattey: The Book of Daniel and the Bibliography; Harrison, p. 1105 seq.
I Daniel (The Century Bible), p. xvi.
 DANIEL 139
The Linguistic Problem.
Driver's dictum is well known: "The Persian words pre-
suppose a period after the Persian empire had been well
established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports,
and the Aramaic permits a date after the conquest of Palestine by
Alexander the Great (332 B.C.}."l We are not going to enter
into linguistic discussions here, for while it has been proved
that the language is compatible with the book's having been
written in the fifth century B.C., nothing more than the bare
possibility of a sixth-century date can be shown.
. But the linguistic phenomena are more complex than the
dictum just quoted suggests. From 2: 4b (" 0 king, live for
ever ... ") to 7: 28 the book is not written in Hebrew but in
Aramaic, and it is almost universally recognized that the
words "in the Syrian language" in 2: 4 do not mean that
Daniel spoke in that language-for Babylonian was the court
language-but are merely a warning to the copyist that the
language is changing. This change of language sets a
problem that has seldom been adequately considered by
conservatives.
The usual explanation that Arainaic, an international
language, is used because these chapters deal with the nations,
while chs. ~12 deal with the Jews, will hardly hold water.
8: 26; 12: 4, 9 seem to preclude any idea that the book was to
be widely circulated. In any case, we should expect under
this theory the Aramaic to begin with 2: 1 or even 1: 1.
Many suggestions have been made by scholars, but there is
only one which we consider covers all aspects of the problem.
It is that the book was translated into Aramaic a century or
more after its original composition. In course of time part of
the original Hebrew was lost, and it was replaced by the
Aramaic. The objection that the break could not have come
so conveniently seems to have little force. It might have been
anywhere in ch. 2, but the scribe responsible for the present
form of Daniel would have made the transfer at what seemed
the most suitable spot. .
It can hardly be just a coincidence that all the Greek words,
and all but three of the Persian, are in the Aramaic section. If
the writer were a catcher up of foreign words, one would
expect a more even distribution of them. If, however, the
Aramaic is a century or two later, there is no difficulty in the
translator's use of words which had become far commoner by
his time. It will, however, be objected that any such loss of
the Hebrew is inconceivable; but what evidence there is hardly
supports the objection.
1 Driver, LOT, p. SOS.
 140 KEN SPARE FROK GOD
When did Daniel enter eh, Canon!
Most Christians (and Jews) take their Bibles for granted,
and never ask themselves how the various books came to be
recognized as inspired. The history of the New Testament
canon shows that while certain books were recognized -as in-
spired within a generation of their having been written, others
were regarded with suspicion for a considerable period of time.
We have similar evidence for the Old Testament, for as late
as the end of the first century A.D. and possibly even later,
the right of certain books to be in the Canon was being
challenged.
Great stress is laid by the opponents of Daniel's author-
ship on the fact that the book is not certainly referred to or
quoted before 140 B.C. The argument from silence is always
dangerous, and here the more so _because we have so little
literature from this period. For all that! it should not be
dismissed offhand. The book is unique in the Old Testament;
the form of vision, though prepared for by Ezekiel, is unique;
. the visions must have been until fairly late in the Greek period
almost unintelligible; in addition, Daniel never had the stand-
ing of a prophet, and will not have seen his first vision until he
was at least sixty-five. All this makes an immediate admis-
sion to the Canon improbable. In fact, everything points to
the remarkable verification of certain parts of the book in the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) as the proximate
cause of its being recognized as inspired.
That Daniel circulated in inferior MSS. is shown by the
LXX translation (usually dated c. 140 B.C., but quite possibly
earlier). Not only are there many striking variants, especially
in chs. 4-6, but there are three additions (to be found in the
Apocrypha) running to 174 verses. It seems incredible that
any such additions and variations should have enteied after
the book had been recognized as canonical.
In the light of these facts, there seems little ground for
objecting to the possibility of the Hebrew having been re-
placed by Aramaic. This would sweep away the cogency of
the linguistic objection, the more so as the Hebrew does not
really suit a second-century date, and is not inconsistent with
Daniel's position; he probably seldom spoke Hebrew after the
time when he was taken captive as a lad. This is amply
adequate to explain many of its peculiarities.
The Miraculous Element.
When all is said and done, the real objection to Daniel is
its m:.-aculous element, both in its histories and in its veiled
but detailed foretelling of the future. The predictive ele-
 DANIEL 141
ment can only be removed from Daniel by doing violence to
its natural meaning. The miraculous element in the histories
does not pass the bounds of the credible, and in common with
all Bible miracle stands or falls with the resurrection of our
Lord, the greatest miracle of all.
The Christian should never forget that the nll.rratives of
Daniel receive their endorsement in Heb. 11: 33f, while the
predictive truth of the visions is confirmed by our Lord Him-
self (Matt. 24: 15, cf. Mark 13: 14). This word of our Lord is a
guarantee that the visions of chs. 9 and 10-12, in which the
abomination of desolation is found, cannot be restricted to the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
The M oral Problem.
It is the New Testament endorsement of Daniel that is
really fatal to the modern view. Unfortunately the achieving
of good ends by wrong means has never been rare in religious
circles; but the end never does justify the means. If Daniel
is-a second-century work, whatever the motives of the author,
it is a sham and a forgery, and we are seriously asked to believe
that our Lord had not sufficient spiritual insight to recognize
it as such. The period 150 B.C.-A.D. 100 did produce a large
crop of pseudepigraphic works,l of which Enoch and II Esdras
(the latter in the Apocrypha) are perhaps the best known.
there is no evidence known to us that the ascriptions of
authorship in these books were taken very seriously by any of
the Jewish religious leaders, and yet our Lord Jesus Himself
(to say nothing of all the others) was completely deceived by
Daniel!
To make matters worse, according to this view He took a
book which had only been intended by its author to refer to the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and so misunderstood it, that
He made it apply to things yet futurel
To sum up: Over a century of controversy and study has
proved inconclusive. The honest verdict on the intellectual
arguments of both conservative and liberal must be, Not
Proven. Here, as so often in the Bible, the final answer must
be one of faith. Pusey's words are as valid to-day as when
they were first written in 1864, "The book of Daniel is . . .
either divine or an imposture:'· It is in our Lord's attitude,
rather than in linguistic studies and archaeological research,
however valuable and commendable they may be, that we
shall find the answer to the problem.
1 These were mostly apocalyptic and eschatological works attributed to
various worthies of the past.
• Pusey: D/Jni~l IM Prophd. p. 1.
142 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

Daniel the Man.

If not of royal blood, Daniel belonged to one of the best
families of Judah (1: 3). After Nebuchadnezzar'S victory in
605 B.C. at Carchemish, Jehoiakim had to become a vassal of
Babylon (this was Jehoiakim's fourth year according to the
Jewish, but third according to the Babylonian style of reckon-
ing, 1: 1). Nebuchadnezzar carried off children of the best
families, probably as hostages, Daniel among them. The
story creates the impression that he will have been about
fourteen.
It seems likely that Daniel was made a eunuch (see 1: 3,
and much early Jewish tradition). He rapidly rose to high
office (2: 48f), which he probably retained until the death of the
king (562 B.C.). Th impression created by ch. 5 is that he
n

then was either retired-he will have been nearly sixty-or

moved to a subordinate post, the former being the more
likely. When Cyrus conquered Babylon (539 B.C.) Daniel was
an old man of over eighty, and it is easy to see why his work in
the reorganization of the kingdom (ch. 6) probably lasted only
a year (1:' 21). The last recorded date in his life is two years
later (10: '1), and it is probable he died not long after. It is
too little realized that it was a white-haired old man who was
thrown to the lions. Daniel's age is sufficient explanation of
his not returning to Palestine.
Apart from legends of no value, we have no knowledge of
Daniel apart from his book. The man mentioned by Ezekiel
(14: 14, 20; 28: 3) is a figure of hoar antiquity, l'robably
mentioned in tablets discovered at Ras Shamra, datmg from
before 1400 B.C. His name is spelled Dani'el (or more likely
Dan'el), while the hero of our book spells his Daniyye'l, and
this is true also of two other persons of ~he same name, I
Chron. 3: 1 and Ezra 8: 2 (Neh. 10: 6). A spelling error by
Ezekiel is hardly credible.
We have not even the outline of an autobiography. The
stories of Daniel and his friends are told us to reveal the
sovereign power of God in action, so that we may the more
readily believe the all-sovereignty of God over the future.
Not Daniel and his friends, but the sovereign power of God is
the topic of each story (cf. especially 2: 47; 3: 28f; 4: 2, 3, 37;
6: 25ff).
The Stories of Daniel.
Once the real purpose of the narratives in Daniel has been
grasped, only a few comments on details are needed.
In the ancient world it was quite usual to honolir one's god
by giving him part of one's food, specially meat and wine (cf.
 DANIEL 143
I Cor. 8; 10: 19-33; also Lev. 2 and 17: 3-9, this latter abro-
gated at least in part by Deut. 12: 15, 20f). As Nebuchad-
nezzar was a very religious man, it could be taken for granted
that any food that came from his table had been so dedicated.
There would have been little or no harm in Daniel and his
friends eating this food, but to refuse to do so was one of the
few acts of loyalty to Jehovah left open to them (ch. 1).
It is rather naive to think that Nebuchadnezzar had really
forgotten his dream (2: 5). He was so impressed by it that he
did not want some spur-of-the-moment priestly explanation
fobbed off on him. He argued shrewdly that anyone able to
tell him his dream would know the explanation as well. The
explanation of the dream is dealt with under the visions.
There is no justification for supposing that the golden
(i.e. gold covered) image (3: 1) was of Nebuchadnezzar him-
self. It will have been of Merodach or Marduk, his favourite
god. The absence of Daniel need cause no surprise, for the
language of 3: 2f must not be stressed. In an empire where it
might need months to reach the capital, it would never be
possible to gather all the high functionaries of state together in
one place at the same time. Provincial rule and international
relationships had to be continued. The R.V. is correct in its
rendering of 3: 25, "like a son of the gods"-the king was a
pagan polytheist-so also R.S.V., but N.E.B. may give the
sense.
The LXX bears witness to considerable textual doubt in
ch. 4. This may be the explanation for the change from the
first to the third person in verso 19-33. The first person would
have been expected throughout.
The versions, and indeed Daniel's own explanation, create
an element of doubt as to the exact form of the words written
on the wall (5: 25); (a) was Mene written once or twice? (b)
was it Peres (sing.) or Parsin (plu.-u equals .. and")? In
any case, the doubt affects neither their meaning nor the
interpretation of the scene. It seems likely that the words
were written in Aramaic (or more probably Hebrew-see above)
and that the more educated present had no .difficulty in de-
ciphering the letters; owing to the absence of vowels (as
normally the case in Semitic writing) they will have read the
words: a mina, a shekel, and a haU mina (or half minas, or two
half minas), which made little sense. (A mina was 60 or 50
shekels.)
The Visions.
Very few who lightheartedly embark on prophetic specu-
lation have much idea of the variety and number of the ex-
planations of Daniel that have been seriously put forward by
144 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
Christian expositors worthy of respect. All too often these
explanations are mutually exclusive. It is remarkable, too,
how seldom the supporter of one view is won over to another.
There is not even much evidence that students of prophecy are
drawing gradually nearer to one another in their explanations.
If we were simply to give an outline of our own inter-
pretation, it would for these very reasons be largely waste of
time. For a survey of all the principal lines of ~xposition we
lack both space and inclination, so we have contented our-
selves with laying down certain general principles which we
are convinced must underlie any sound exposition of the
visions in Daniel.
(a) Daniel is a book" sealed even to the time of the end"
(12: 4, also 12: 9; 8: 19, 26). If we add to this an element of
uncertainty about the text, and even more about the exact
translation, we shall recognize that every detailed and dog-
matic interpretation should be treated with extreme reserve.
(b) Ever since Jerome (A.D. 340-420) there has been a wide
degree of general agreement on broad lines of exegesis among
expositors, until the rise of modern views. Seeing that we
have to do with a "sealed book," this is rather remarkable, and
it rather disposes of the argument of some more recent writers
that we can now understand the book because we are in the
end-time. When that comes, we may reasonably expect
something startlingly new. •
(c) The one prophecy where unanimity might reasonably be
expected, that of the Seventy Weeks (9: 24-..27), has produced
almost as wide a variety of interpretations, many mutually in-
compatible, as any other passage in this book. This seems to
confirm the note of caution already struck.
(d) This dogmatism comes largely from the certainty with
which we can apply some parts of the visbns to Antiochus
Epiphanes, viz. ch. 8 and the bulk of ch. 11. But Lattey is
surely right in principle, when he says, "The full exegetical
exposition of the Book of Daniel must take into account, as it
were, three historical planes, that of the persecution of An-
tiochus IV Epiphanes, and of the first and second eomings of
Christ, our Lord. This is part of the mystery of the book, and
is not fully expounded in it . . ."1 The fact that we ean so
fully understand the book, when it refers to the past, does not
imply that the past has exhausted the meaning of any part of
the book, or that the past is a sure guide to the understanding
of the book in its future aspect.
(e) The most important thing for the average reader is to
discover what the Holy Spirit would have us learn from Daniel
for to-day. Though he may get a thrill of awe as lie realizes
1 Lattey; Th6 Book of Daniel, p. vii.
 DANIEL 145
how completely the past has .been in God's hand, we may be
sure that this is not the book's chief value. Still less will it be
a purely hypothetical ricture of things yet future. We may
be sure that the chie purpose of Daniel to-day is to bring
strength and comfort to the individual or church faced by
apparently overwhelming and irresistible difficulties and
opposition. ItspicturcQL GOQ's~_bsQlute soyer~ignty in the
c::risis of the present an<i ill the y~t unveiledfutllr~_~_~,!~an­
tee of God's succour for all who trust Him and of His ultimate
iiicl.~.2fu.EI~!~:-!!!umplf:~ -- -- .-.--,,-.. _.. -.- ---..-.. ---
Nebuchadnezzar's Dream (Ch. 2).
The king's dream is not referred to elsewhere in Scripture,
nor is any attempt made in Daniel to link it with the VIsions.
Its purpose is not to give Nebuchadnezzar a preview of human
history-why should God give this to a heathen king ?-but to
teach him that God is sovereign in the affairs of men, raising
up whom He will, and that at the end of an unspecified time of
God's own choosing, He would set up His kingdom on earth
(ver. 44f). It is not even stated that each kingdom must
immediately follow its predecessor. We need hardly doubt
that both comings of our Lord are in view here. It is just
because the revelation in the dream is general rather than
detailed that no attempts at finding deeper interpretations
have ever really carried conviction, except to those who have
made them.
The End of World History (Ch. 7).
It is a commonplace of exegesis that the four beasts of this
chapter are the same as the four portions of the image in ch. 2.
The only evidence for this supposition is the alleged suitability
of the symbolic animals. Since, however, the symbolism is
found suitable both by the supporters of the old traditional
views and also of the modern ones, which make everything in
the book end with Antiochus Epiphanes, the argument would
seem to be rather weak.
In fact, on the face of it, there is no connexion at all.
There is no suggestion that the beasts fight with one another,
and certainly none are vanquished and destroyed, for when all
is finished, the first three are still in existence (ver. 12), while
the fourth has been destroyed by God's action (ver. 11).
Everything in this vision gives the impression that we are
dealing with the end times.
The R.V. of ver. 9 should be noted. Daniel sees God as an
old man, because the form of God in this vision is as symbolic
as the beasts themselves. Similarly in vcr. 13 the R.V. is
correct in rendering" one like unto a son of man." This is
146 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

symbolic language, for ver. 27 clearly equates him with "the

people of the saints of the Most High." The one like a man is
a people just as the beasts are. This does not mean that we
are to rule out the personal interpretation as well, for to the
Jew the people without its Messianic ruler was inconceivable
and obviously the ruler received the dominion on behalf of his
people. As early as the Book of Enoch (c. 100 B.C.) it is
already clearly used in a Messianic sense. It is to be noted
that in Revelation our Lord is linked both with one like unto
a son of man and with the ancient of days (Rev. 1: 13f, RV.).
The Enemy of the Saints (Ch. 8).
The interpretation of this vision is in large measure given
(vers. 19-26), and from this it is clear that in the first place it
refers predominantly to the persecution of the Jews by Anti-
ochus Epiphanes. On the other hand there is every reason
for supposing that this does not exhaust its meaning. for it is
clearly stated that" it belongeth to the appointed time of the
end" (ver. 19, RV.). Such an extension of the prophecy
hardly seems to justify the prolonging of the primary inter-
pretation beyond the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In other
words we should look on Antiochus rather as a foreshadowing
of him who finally fulfills the vision.
The Messiah the Prince (Ch. 9).
In many ways this is the crucial chapter of Daniel. If in-
deed we have here a prophecy of Jesus Christ, then Daniel is
truly prophetic, and its application is not bounded by the times
of Antiochus Epiphanes. The test is the fairer, for while the
language of verso 24-27 is cryptic, it is hardly symbolic.
We believe that any unbiased student-not necessarily a
Christian-will agree that the usual modern interpretation is
unsatisfactory by any normal canons of interpretation. By
referring the prophecr to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes a
chronological error 0 some sixty-five years is created. The
command (lit. .. word") to restore and to build Jerusalem is
Jer. 29: to-surely a desperate expedient I The anointed one,
the prince (lit. "an anointed-prince") in ver. 25 (RV.) is some-
one else than the anointed one in ver. 26. In addition much
remains without adequate explanation. Beek, a modern, is
far fairer. when he says quite candidly that he has not found a
satisfactory solution.l
On the other hand, it will not be chance that this passage is
not referred to in the New Testament. Though its application
to our Lord and His work seems clear enough, there is no
unanimity, when it comes to detail. This lack of agreement
1 M. A. Beek: Das Danielbucll, 1935.
 DANIEL 1~
seems to deprive the prophecy of most of its evidential value.
Of less importance is the divergence on the question
whether the seventieth week is still future or not. Both
views involve us in difficulties of exegesis, and up to the present
neither side seems to be able to convince the other.
Far more important are the variant efforts to solve the
chronological problems involved. Those that take the seventy
weeks as meaning 490 years may be divided into four groups:
(a) Those who begin the period with the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes (Neh. 2: 1, 5-8) and who consider the error of
something over ten years unimportant.
(b) Those who begin it with the seventh year of Artaxerxes
(Ezra 7: 7); while the chronology tallies now, there is nothing
in the decree given to Ezra (Ezra 7: 11-26) which makes it fit
the language of Dan. 9: 25.
(c) Those who reckon from the same starting point as in (a)
but work with "prophetic years" of 360 days. There is an
inherent artificiality here that has made the theory unaccept-
able to the majority. .
(d) Those who make the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1: -2ff) the
starting point. Undoubtedly this is the most attractive
starting point, but the chronology can only be maintained by
rejecting the accepted secular dates and affirming, on the
basis of Dan. 9, that the decree of Cyrus was 487 years before
the crucifixion instead of about 570 as given by all modem
secular histories dealing with the period. This is entirely
convincing to the convinced, and to none others.
Yet others assure us that the seventy weeks are merely a
conv~ntional symbolical round number representing the ful-
ness of time. This is of course possible, though improbable;
it does save us a lot of trouble in interpretation, but it reduces
an apparently precise prediction into a generalization of
relatively small evidential value.
The only reasonable conclusion is that God does not wish
our faith to rest on chronological proofs, however marvellous.
However close the fulfilment may have been in fact, we must
probably allow for a symbolic element in the seventy weeks,
though we do not agree that they are solely, 'or even mainly,
symbolic.
The Fortunes of Israel (Chs. 10-12).
How remarkable this vision is can be grasped only by one
who has studied ch. 11 with the help of a good commentary.
In it we have detailed historical prophecy of a type unique in
the Bible. The problem that must face the intelligent reverent
reader is not whether God could have so foretold. the future,
but whether He would have so done. We have come to no
148 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
definite opinion on the subject, but it is worth noting that
Zockler, Wright and Boutflower (conservatives all) suggest
that in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes a genuine prophecy of
Daniel's was worked over and paraphrased, thus bringing it
into this minute conformity with historical detail. If the
book was not considered canonical until after the time of
Antiochus, such treatment would have been quite possible.
We do not doubt that this prophecy passes over from
Antiochus Epiphanes to the Antichrist, whom in many ways
he foreshadows, and so in ch. 12 we pass on over to a picture of
the end and of the resurrection. It will be noted that only a
resurrection of the very good and the very bad seems to be
proclaimed (12: 2). This in itself suggests an early date for
the book. In the days of Daniel very little clear teaching
about the resurrection existed, but in the second century B.C.
the resurrection hope, which was to receive its real certainty in
Jesus Christ, had already expanded beyond this point.
The exact functions and powers of the angels mentioned
in Daniel cannot be decided from the book itself, nor would it
be wise to speculate unduly. The doctrine of the sovereignty
of God is Daniel's chief theological interest, and the chief
function of the angels is to stress the gulf between God and
man.
Additional Note.
Those desiring a modern and scholarly answer to some of the
attacks on the sixth century date of Daniel can refer to D. J.
Wiseman and others, Notes on Some Problems in the Book of
Daniel (Tyndale Press). See also Harrison ad loco
 APPENDIX
LAMENTATIONS
HE position of Lamentations in th~ E~gli.sh Bible ~s due

T to the LXX. In the Hebrew BIble It IS found ID the

Writings, as the third of the five Megillot, or Rolls
(Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther) ; the
order within this small collection is not based on authorship,
but on the order in which they are read in the Synagogue
during the year at the major feasts and fasts. The English
name is derived from the Vtllgate. In Hebrew, the book is
occasionally called Oinot, i.e. Lamentations, but normally
Ekah, i.e. How-the first word of the 1st, 2nd and 4th lamen-
tation.
The book is composed of five lamentations, or dirges, over
the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; quite under-
standably it is read in the Synagogue on the 9th of Ab, when
a fast is held in remembrance of the destruction of both the
first and the second temple.
AUthorship.
The book is anonymous, and it is far from certain that all
five poems are by the same writer. Both the LXX and
Talmudic tradition ascribe it to Jeremiah, and this has been
adopted by both the A.V. and R.V.; we should, however, do
better to treat this tradition with reserve. Young sums up
the position thus: "In the light of these arguments it seems
most likely that Jeremiah did compose Lamentations. Of
this, ~owever, we cannot be certain, and it seems best to
admit that we do not really know who the author was." I
Our insistence on the anonymity of the book comes from
no mere scholarly pedantry. It comes rather. from the con-
viction that we show the Holy Spirit no respect, when we go
beyond the indications of Scripture itself. There are some
traditions, like that of the authorship of the Gospel according
to Mark, which are so close to the time involved and so borne
out by the evidence of the book, that we do not hesitate to
accept them; but this does not apply to the traditions about
the Old Testament. We are much safer and more reverent in
accepting the anonymity imposed by the Holy Spirit Himself.
There is yet another reason. Whenever we make unprovable
assertions about the Bible, however good our motive, we open
1 Young, p. 334, see also HaITison, pp. 1069f.
149
150 MEN SPA KEF ROM GOD
the door wide to the equally unprovablc assumptions of the
modernist scholar. The fact that the conservative assumption
is considered to be "edifying," and the modernist one the
reverse, does not lift the former to a higher plane of legitimacy.
Hebrew Poetry.
Poetry achieves its ends by sublimeness of thought, by the
felicitous use of words, by the striking nature of the word
images it uses, by its use of metre and other rhythmic devices,
and by certain technical devices like alliteration and rhyme.
The sublimeness of Hebrew poetic thought needs no
stressing, but translation seldom does justice to the choice of
words in the original. In addition, as reference to the R.V.
mg. will sometimes, but not always, show, the translators
have often been afraid of rendering the poetic images literally
as being too strong or too striking for the Western ear. Metre
Hebrew undoubtedly had, but doubt as to its exact nature,
and still more the dissimilar structure of the two languages
makes a metrical translation into English either an inade-
quate reflexion of the original or unsuited for use in public
worship and private devotion. The Metrical Version of the
Psalms is seldom good poetry and still seldomer a real picture
of the Hebrew.
Hebrew uses a little alliteration and assonance, but never
rhyme--the few apparent examples are mere accidents. Its
main technical device is parallelism or thought rhythm,
which echoes the thought in one metrical line in a second or
even third line of the same metrical length (for the qinah
metre see next section). The echo may be:
(a) A complete repetition of the thought in other words:
But his delight is in the law of the LORD;
And in His lawdoth he meditate day and night. (Ps. 1: 2.)
(b) A continuation of the thought:
And he shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water,
That bringeth forth its fruit in its season. (Ps. 1: 3.)
(c) A combination of the literal and metaphorical:
Whose leaf also doth not wither,
And in whatsoever he doeth he shall prosper. (Ps. 1: 3.)
(d) The opposite of the original thought (particularly
common in Proverbs:
For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous:
But the way of the wicked shall perish. (Ps. 1: 6.)
(e) Merely formal; the thought just runs on:
But now shall my head be lifted up
Above mine enemies round about me. (Ps. 27: 6.)
 A P PEN D I x 151
Even in the strictly poetical books we find occasional
freedom in the metrical structure, lines being longer or shorter
than we might have expected. This is a freedom that goes
back to the Canaanite poetry of the fifteenth century B.C.
discovered at Ras Shamra, and it persists throughout Biblical
literature. In the prophetic books it is used sometimes with
such freedom that there may even be doubt whether we are
dealing with verse or rhythmic prose. 1
The Literary Form of Lamentations.
The first four poems are written in the Qinah, or dirge
metre. . In this the normal form of Hebrew poetic parallelism
is abandoned. Instead of two or more lines of equal length, we
have long lines divided into two unequal parts, the second
being shorter than the first. Normally the first half has three
beats, the second two. The second half continues and fills
out the thought of the first half.
The metre is obscured in the A.V., but the RV. sets out
the long lines, without, however, indicating the break. Exi-
gencies of translation more often than not mask the peculiarity
of this metre, though once known it can often be recognized.
The effect of the metre may be best seen in Moffatt's trans-
lation, though he sometimes achieves it only by considerable
treedom in his renderings.
In addition, the first four contain an alphabetic acrostic
arrangement. There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
and so chs. 1, 2, and 4 have 22 verses each, while ch. 3 has 66.
In chs. 1 and 2 each verse has three Qinah lines, the first
line of each verse beginning with the appropriate letter of the
alphabet. As translated by the RV. the following verses have
four lines each, 1: 1,2,7; 2: 2,6,17 (five), 19, but with the
exception of 1: 7 and 2: 19 this is due only to faulty division
of lines in the RV. translation.
Ch. 4 resembles chs. 1 and 2, except that each verse has
only two long lines. The four lines of ver. 22 are again due
to the faulty division in the RV.
Metrically ch. 3 is the most complicated... It falls into
groups of three verses (indicated by the RV.) in which each
verse begins with the same letter of the alphabet. In spite of
the greater number of verses, the third poem is obviously the
same length as the first two.
Ch. 5 employs normal Hebrew parallelism and contains no
acrostic. But since it too has 22 verses, one is tempted to
wonder whether the author had intended at some time to
transform it into an acrostic poem. Though it is not in the
Qinah metre, a dirge-like note is struck by the assonances of
1 For further details see HDB or ISBE, article Poetry, Hebrew.
152 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD

the endings -u, -nu, -anu, -enu, -inu, -unu no less than 44
times.
It is the extremely artificial nature of the metre employed
in these poems that has been one of the chief reasons for making
many conservative scholars hesitant to accept the traditional
authorship. We are not dealing here with the spontaneous
outpourings of a broken heart, but with polished and self-
conscious literature. Jeremiah was a great poet, but we
find nothing in his prophetic poems to prepare us for Lamen-
tations.
The First Lament.
The first poem deals with the desolation and misery of
Jerusalem. The poet speaks in verso 1-11b, and describes the
condition of Jerusalem. Then in verso llc-16, Jerusalem her-
self speaks to Jehovah and recounts the measure of her misery.
Her lament is interrupted by the poet with a descriptive verse
(ver. 17). Finally Jerusalem closes with a prayer to God
(vers. 18-22). As mostly in Lamentations, there is no real
note of hope struck. She confesses (ver. 18ff) that her punish-
ment is just; her real hope is that she may see her enemies
handled as she has been.
It should be noted that this lament gives the impression of
having been written some little time after the destruction of
Jerusalem, see especially ver. 7, R.V. jerusalem's lovers
(vers. 2, 19) are the nations she relied on as allies against
Babylon.
The Second Lament.
Here we have the undoubted work of an eye-witness of the
siege; the lament was probably composed soon after the fall
of the city. Its main theme is Jehovah's anger with His
people.
In verso 1-10 we have the casting off by God of people,
land and sanctuary. In ver. 9 the A.V., "the law is no more,"
seems to be more correct than the R.V., though its force
might easily be misunderstood. The three groups of leaders,
kings and princes, priests, prophets, are being referred to. It
is the priestly guidance of life that has come to an end with the
destruction of the temple.
In verso 11-17 he laments the punishment of Jerusalem
and describes the callousness of the neighbouring nations. It
is not clear whether ver. llff look back to the horrors of the
siege, or whether they describe the misery of the survivors
after the leading citizens had been deported.
In ver. 18t Zion is called to give herself to prayer, and
verso 20fi are her response. Though the tenses in ver. 20 are
 APPENDIX 153
future, the questions are rhetorical and refer to what had
already happened.
The Third Lament.
Though this poem occasionally uses the first person plural,
as a whole it is written in the first person singular. It is far
from certain whether we have here a description of the author's
own experiences, or whether a representahve Israelite or even
personified Jerusalem is made to speak. On balance the
second or third view seems the more probable.
The first twenty verses are a description of personal suffer-
ings. TIlen the speaker calls to mind that running through all
his sufferings there had been the grace of God; otherwise he
would have been completely destroyed. This in turn creates
hope for the future. So he calls forlenitence (vers. 40-54).
This leads to new hope (ver. 55ff) an a call to God for ven-
geance on his enemies (vers. 58-66). It is striking that here,
too, the only hope open seems to be rather that his enemies
should suffer as he has, than that he should be restored to his
old estate.
This lament stands out in sharp contrast with the rest of
the book. Were it elsewhere, e.g. among the Psalms, few
would think of associating it with the fall of Jerusalem. It
is not so much the physical misery of the siege and the shame
of captivity and exile that weigh on the poet, as the spiritual
misery of being separated from God by a sense of guilt and the
destruction of the sanctuary. In many ways it is reminiscent
of portions of the book of Job.
The Fourth Lament.
In most respects this poem stands in close relationship to
the second. Here, too, there are clear reminiscences of the
siege. Its theme is the contrast between Zion past and present.
The first eleven verses present the contrast itself. In ver. 6
the A.V. has missed the point. It is not the punishment of
Jerusalem and of Sodom that are being compared, but their
iniquity. In vcr. 7 the R.V. is probably correct in rendering
.. nobles" rather than "Nazirites." .
The change in Zion's fortunes is then attributed to the sins
of the priests and prophets (vers. 12-16) which left no hope of a
refuge once the storm broke (vers. 17-20). The "nation that
could not save" (ver. 17) is, of course, Egypt. The poet then
looks forward to a similar reversal of fate that will come to
Zion's foes as personified by Edom (ver. 21ff).
The Fifth Lament.
Fittingly the book closes with an appeal to Jehovah. In
the first eighteen verses the poet describes the afflictions of
 154 MEN 5 P A KEF ROM GOD

Jehovah's people, and then ends with the abiding power of

God. The closing verse should be rendered as in the R.V.
margin:
Unless thou hast utterly rejected us
And art very wroth against us.
It is the note of hope, but of subdued hope. To avoid ending
the reading of the book on even a qualified minor key, the
Synagogue has ver. 21 repeated after ver. 22. Since the
generation of the destruction could not plead personal inno-
cence, it looks as though ver. 7 implies a date some time on in
the exile for this the last of the poems.
The M essianic Interpretation.
Certain passages are frequently used with reference to the
Passion of our Lord. The most obvious are 1: 12 and certain
expressions in ch. 3. As long as this is done reverently and
knowingly, few would cavil at it. The reason why this is
possible is instructive.
Our Lord is the Second Man (I Cor. 15: 47). The suffer-
ings of the righteous before Him were but foreshadowings of
His sufferings, and the punishment of sin was a foreshadowing
of what He would have to bear when He took our place as our
substitute. It is therefore entirely to be expected that in this
book of the suffering for sin, there would be the frequent
phrase that would remind the loving heart of a much deeper
suffering.
The Purpose of Lamentations.
One fallacy that is widely held is that inspiration is a
~uestion merely of authorship. For those who held it, the
, fact" of Jeremiah's authorship of Lamentations was sufficient
justification for its being in the Bible. But the reason why any
particular book is included in the Canon of Scripture must be
deeper than that.
The Bible sets out to give us every facet of the impact of
God's revelation on man. There is no aspect of human life,
. once it has been brought into the sphere of the operation of
God's Spirit, that is not illumined by some book of the Bible.
Grief, great and crushing, is an unavoidable part of human
life. Even in the new covenant it can come, and even there it
can come as the result of sin, one's own or another's. To one
who is passing through such an experience, who feels that the
sun can never shine again as it once did, Lamentations may
speak its word of comfort in ways that cannot be grasped by
those who have not gone down into the vale of grief.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
the books given below will tell you much about the
T
HOUGH
prophets, that is not why they have been listed. They have
been chosen as books which wiU help you to understand
the text and thought of the prophets more easily. Very few are
obtainable new, but most should be in a good public library.
Isaiah
Skinner: The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (C.B.-2 vols.)-prefer-
ably the edition of 1915 or later.
G. A. Smith: The Book of Isaiah (2 vols. Expositor's Bible or
Hodder & Stoughton).
Jeremiah
Peake: Jeremiah & Lamentations (Century Bible-2 vols.).
Streane: The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah together with the
Lamentations (C.B.)-the edition of 1913 or later only recom-
mended.
Ezekitl
J. B. Taylor: Ezekiel (Tyndale O.T. Commentaries).
Ellison: Ezekiel: The Man and His Message.
Daniel
Lattey: The Book of Daniel (Browne and Nolan)-this is a volume
of the Roman Catholic Westminster Version.
Boutflower: In and Around the Book of Daniel (S.P.C.K.)-it deals
fully with most of the difficulties raised against the historicity
of the book.
Lang: The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel (Kregel, U.S.A.)
-probably the sanest modern attempt to explain the visions
of Daniel.
E. J. Young: Daniel (Banner of Truth).
The M imw P70phets
G. A. Smith: The Book. of the Twelve Prophets (2 vols.-Ex-
positor's Bible or Hodder & Stoughton). .
Ellison: The Prophets of Israel (for Rosea, Amos, J onah).
Knight: The Book of Hosea (Torch Commentary).
Driver: The Books of Joe1 and Amos (C.B.)-preferably the edition
of 1915 or later.
Davidson & Lanchester: The Books of Nahum. Habakkuk and
Zephaniah (C.B.).
Baldwin: Haggai, Zecharial, Malachi (Tyndale O.T. Commen-
taries).
Baron: The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah (Morgan & Scott)
-the best treatment of the predictive element of Zechariah.

155
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES
PAGE PAGE PAGE
GENESIS x43 n: 34 x06
12: 2 (
x8: 19 30 x3: x . 14 X2 39
x8: 25 30 x4: 2 • 32 U: 2/•• 39
20: 7 IS: U X4:X/f..
!~
91 115
3 1 :39/. 16: 22 40 If 25/· 95
38: 21/. 38 18: IS 30 I : 19 • x3
18:21/. 14 20: 23 25
EXODUS 22:9 21
4: 15/· • 14 23: 17 I~3 22: 6 ~~
4: 22 134 24: 1-4 3 8, 135
6: I 97 26: I2 32 11 KINGS
7: 1/. • 14 33: 2 76 1:2 36
20-23 30, 85 33: 8f!.. 135 3:4 28
20.:.4/' • 105 34: 10 13, 14 14: 8-14 9.5
21: 2
21: 6
21: ~2
91
30
38
JOSHUA
7: 2 4x
14: 25
IS: 29
16: 5/..
:t
4.5
22: 30 16: 9 . 46
22: 9 30 16·: 10-16 26
22: 16 90 JUDGBS 17: 4 46,
22: 21-24 31 2: 11 37 17: 5/.. 46
22: 26/. 30 2: 13 37 17: 6 7x
22: 28 • 30 3:7 37 18: 4 . 64
23: If!. 31 18: 13-16 46
5: 4/· 76 18: 17-19: 8
23: 6-g 31 6: 22 49 46
23: 24 40 8: 33 36 19: 9-35 46
24:4 30 13: 22 49 21: 3 26
24: 7 30 21: 6 66
33: n 14 22: 3 79
40 : 34 6g I SAMUBL
32, 126
22:
22:
3 ~~
I: 3
LBVITICUS I: 21 32 22: 14 88
x . 85 4: 18 84 2Z: 16/. 84
2. 143 6: 19 49 22: I8f!. 83
6: 8-n • 85 9:6 II5 23: 2 88
10: 10-13 23: 29 84
7: 13 32 15
23: 30 121
17: 3-9 143 13: 5 41
19: 19 10 4 15: 22 30, 86 23: 34 84
15: 23 30, 40 24: 14 99
19: 20-24 IS 25: I 109
NUMBBRS
25: 3/· • 130
4:3 99 11 SAMUBL 25: 4 . 10 7
6: I-2I 32 25: 5f! •
6f!. 3: 21 97 107
12: 14 25: 8 f!. IIO, 130
22: 5 13 5:4 99
5: 20 37 25: 9 120
25 41 6: 6f!. 25: 25 13 1
25: 3 36 49
I2: 1-15 30
15: 1-6 30 I CHRONICLBS
DBUTBRONOMY 3: I 14 2
4: 23J. • 105 5: 6 46
5: 8/. 105 I KINGS 5: 26 46
7: 6-11 32 2: 26 79 8: 30 37
10: 8 128 6: 37/ • 120 8: 33/.• 37
10: 12-17 32 8: 10/.. 69 9: 39/.• 37
12: IS 143 11: 26-40 39 14: 7 37
156
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 157
PAGE PAGE PAGE
II CHRONICLES 2: 2-S 63. 6 S 23: 2S IS
21: I6f. 9S 2: 12 21 24 102
28: S-IS 4S 3: 16-23 31 - 2S: I I 12 7
30: I • 71 3: 16-4: I 32 26: 18 63
30 : sf· • 71 4: 2 128 26: 18f. 64
30: Iof· 71 S: 1-7 • 16. 108 27 16
30: 18 • 71 S: 2
8- 4 64 28 16
32: 26 64 6: 2 100 29: 8f. • • 99
33: 10-19 68 8: 16 17 29: 10 104. 127. 146
34: 3 • 67. 79 10: S 2S. Il2 29: 21 ff. 99
34: 6f· • 71 10: sf.• 7S 31: 1-9 1I3
34: 8 79 10: 12 ·7 2.7S 31: 29 108
35: 25 80 10: 16-19 72 3 1 : 3 1-34 II2
36 : 13 91 1I: 1 93. 128 32: 7- 15 16
1I: 13 1I3 33: IS 128
EZRA 12: 6 6g 35 16
1.2 SS 13: 6 • 21 36 17
I: 2ft. 147 13: 9 f. • 21 39: I 13 1
2. 1I7 14: 4 7S 39: 2 110, 130
2: 62f•• 1I7 14: 4-21 70. 1I0 III
3:
1
1' .
4: 4 . •
122
1I8
14: 13 .
19: 23ft·
100
92
40-4S
43: 8- 3
44: IS-I9
1 16. 18
IOS
5: 1 12S 20: 1-6 16 46: 8f· • 96
5:3 1I9 24-27 lIS. 1I7 46: 10 21
S:4 122 26: 20 68 49: 7- 22 9S.96
5: 16 • 122 28: 16 128 96
6:
6: 12
t- . 1I9
119
30: 8
32: 9ft·
17
32
49: I4
SI: 59-64
51- 64 .
16
19
6: 13 1I9 34 1I2 S2:.12ft· 130
6: 14 12 5 34: 6 68
6: IS 120 39: 6 65 AMENTATIONS

r
7: 7
:2
u-26
'.
•
147
147
142
40-66
40: 2
41: 21 .
17
32
69
Appendix 149-154
also
4: 21/. 96
43: 22ft· 66
NEHEMIAH EZEKIEL
2: I 147 4S: 7 75
47: 6 1I2 Chap. XIII 98-II6
2: 5-8 147 S6: 7 121 also
6: 10-14 Il7 58: 1-12 131 1: 3 120
6: 1I 60 16
Id:.6 142
66: 23f. 136 4
S: 1-4 16
12: 4 124 JEREMIAH 12: 1-16 16
12: 16 .12S Chapter XI 77-94 12: 17-20 16
JOB also 14: 14 142
90 I: 2 120 14: 20 142
3· I:uf.. 17: 13-21 91
33
PsALMS 2:2 32 20 41
50: 7-13 SS 2: 23 37 24: IS-27 16
68: 7/. 76 3: I 38 26 . 18
76: 10 7S 3: 6-13 108 26: I 18
IOS: IS 13 7: 18 . 105 27 18
IIO: 4 130 7: 21ft.. 33 28 1-10 18
1I8: 22 128 7: 3 1 66. 109 28 3 142
137: 3 76 IS: 4 68 28 II-I9 18
137: 7 . 96, II2 16: 2 16 29 I I 19
137: 7 f· 70 16: 18 S6 29 14f· 19
18: 7-10 18 29 17 IS
ISAIAH 19 16 29 17-20 18
Chapter VI 4 2- 62 22 29/. 108 30 2f. . 21
also 23 5 128 30 10-26 18
I: 3 85 23 18 14 34 I I Vg
1:9 2S 23 22 14 35 96
158 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
PAGE PAGE PAGE
EZEKIEL-continued NAHUM 19: '41-44 89
40-4 8 12 5 Chapter IX 70-7 2 22: 32 90
4 8 : 35 6g also
3:9 69 JOIlN
DANIEL 12: 37-41 49
Chap. XVII 137-148 HABAKKUK 12: 39 49
also Chapter X 73-7 6 12: 41 49
I: I 87 19: 37 13 2
ZEPHANIAH
4: 30 76 Chapter VIII 67-69
5 55 ACTS
also 2: 16 22
5: 2 76 I: I 120
7-12 lIS 3: 21 13
8: 26 Il5 I: 12 13 6 7: 43 33. 65
12: 4 II5 I: 14/.. 21 28: 25-28 49
12: 9 1I5 HAGGAI
Chap. XIV 1I7-I22 ROMANS
HOSEA also I: 28 109
Chapter V 35-4 1 I: 13 12 5 8: 3 . 40
also 2: 23 13 0 8: 19-22 53
I: I 120 9-Il 49
2: I4f. . 32 ZECHARIAH 9: 25/· • 41
34/· 1I3 Chap. XV 12 3- 13 2 Il: 7 49
8: 5f. 34 also 1I: 25 49
9: 10 32 1-8 1I5 II: 26 41. 92
14 Il3 I: I 120
I: 2-6 122 I CORINTHIANS
JOEL 13: 2-6 IS. 1I7 8 143
Charster II 20-23 13: 6 IS 10: 19-33 143
aso 14: I 21 15: 47 154
I: 8 So 14: 5 29
3: 6 • 12 4 II CORINTHIANS
3: 18 f. • 34 MALACHI 5: 21 40
Chap. XVI 133-136
AMOS also PHILIPPIANS
Chapter IV 28-34 I: I 12 3 2:7 24
also I: 3/. 96
I: 3-2: 3 75 1:4 96 HEBREWS
I: Il Il2 I: 13 66 I: I jo.92
2: II 13 2:7 Il8. 125 2: 10 59
3:7 14 4:5 21. 1I8 6: 20 130
5: 18 22 11: 33/. 141
5: I8f1. 21 MATTHEW
5: 27 65 I: 2-16 108 I PETER
7: 14 15 I: 13 122 I: 10 If. IS
3: 2 16 4: 17 22
OBADIAH 3:9 92 5: 1-4 Ill, 13 2
Chapter XII 95-97 10: 36 87
also Il: 5 30 IIPETER
10-12 Il2 12: 40 26 3:4 b8. 107
IS 21 12: 40/. 24 3:9 68
24: IS IJ5. 141 I JOHN
JONAH 25: 3 1-4 6 22
Chapter III 24-27 12 3 4: 20 47
also 27:9
I: I 120 MARK JUDE
3:4 .16.72 I: IS 16 14 13
4: lIt· . 49 REVELATION
MICAH 13: 14 14 1
Chapter VII 63-66 1:4 129
also LUKE I: 7 . 132
1 I 120 I: 70 13 I: 13/.. 146
3 12 84 2: 49 59 19: I If. 70
4 1-05 48 3: 23 99 20: 7 If· Il3
6 8 68 Il: 30 24 :n,22 23
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
(This index does not include those topics entirely or mainly in
the natural position where they occur in the prophetic books.)

ABRAIIAM, 13, 29 GUIDANCE, 53

Acrostics, ZI /., 151
Angel of Jehovah, II8, 121, 125,
126/., 136 HISTORY, Prophetic, 15
Angels, lOS, II5, 125, 127/., 148 Holiness, 38, 47, 49, 66, 122
Apocalyptic, 13, 2~, 44,. SI, 53, 68,
IIS J., 12 5, 131 J., 141
Assyria, 25 t., 36, 45/., 48, 52, 53, 54, INDIVIDUAL, the, 30,.34, 90, 93, 108,
64, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 82, II2, 124 IIO
Injustice, see Justice, Demand for
Israel, as Jehovah's wife, 39,59,108
BAAL Worship, 30, 31, 361f., 41,67, Israel, Future of, 19, 34, 41, 53, 56,
82, 105 57, 61, 69, 91, 9 2, 97, ll2/., 131
Babylon, 19, SI, 52, S4f., 56, 65, Israel, Hardened, 49
70, 73'-76, 99, lOO, 106, 108, 109,
II2, II7, II8, 121, 142
Book of the Covenant, 30, 85 JEHOVAII as Baal, 31, 37, 39, 82, 85,
105
- - Creator, 25
CANON, Jewish, 13, IISf., 124, 137, - - Tribal Deity, 25
13 8, 140 , 149 - , King of Israel, 69, IIl, 132
Chaldeans, 73-76, 81, 91, 106, 109 - of Hosts, I25f.
Chesed, 39 f., 66 Jehovah's Judgments in Nature, 21,
Chronology, 17, 20, 36, 48, 54, 146/. 28,72
Church and Prophecy, 9, 18, 19, 22, Jehovah, the Judge, 21/., 30, 34,
58, 61, 92, 93, lIS ' . 51, 69, lIO, 136
Church, Lessons for, 31, 145 Jesus Christ, 16, 24, 25, 30, 49, 50,
Covenant, 39/., 85, 86, 91 f. 56, 59, 60, 61, 89, 90, 92, I U,
Cyrus, 54/" 56/., 58, 60, 76, 1I8, u8, 122, 125, 130, 132, 136, 141,
142 144, 145, 146, 14 8, 154
- - , Endorsement of O.T., 24,141
John the Baptist, 16
DAVID, 29, 30, 31 Judgment, Final, 22f., SI, 69
Day of the Lord, 20 If., 33, 48, 67 f., Justice, Demand for, 29 If·, 40, 47,
95, 97, 122, 125, 126, 128, 129, 48, 64, 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 91, 106,
136 13 1
Dead Sea Scrolls, 71 f.
Divorce, 38, 135/.
KINGDOM of God, 23, 48, 53, 65, 97.
EDOM, 52, 53, 95 If·, 112, 134, 153 II4. 121. 131f., 145
Egypt, 18 f., 45, 46, 52, 53, 68,
69, 74, 81, 87, llO, ll8, 153
Elijah, 17, 37 LOGIC, Spiritual. 120. 136
Elisha, 17, 37 Love of God, 25. 36, 39, 133-136
Eunuch$, 60, 142
Exile, 33, 42, H, 4 6, 54, 55, 56, 57,
':;9. 69, 84, 97, 99, 102, 104, 106, ME DES. 54. 70
107, Ill, Il7, 128, 153, 154 Messianic Prophecy, 15. 30, 39, 48,
53. 58f.. 62. 65, 69. 92f.. 108,
III. ll5. 121. 122, 128, 129, 130,
FOREIG~' Policy, 39, 51, 53, 54 13 1 f., 14 6, 154
159
160 MEN SPAKE FROM GOD
Millennium. 18. 34. 62, 69. 9 2• 113. Reformation. External. 31. 4'. 47.
I14f.. 131. 132 68. 80. 81. 83, 84. 93
Miraculous. Rejection of, 24. 25. Remnant. the. 47. 49. 59. 68. 69,
litof· 84. 93. 102. III
Moses. 13. 14. 29 Resurrection. 52 f.. 59. I12. 141,
148
NATURE. God's Rule in. 20 f. Return from Babylon. 55. 57. 59.
- . Transformed. 23. 34. 53f.. 58. I17. 121. 131• 134
112 Reunion of North and South. 39,
Nazirites. 31. 32. 153 II2f·
Nebuchadnezzar. 18f·. 74. 76• 87.
88. 91. 95. 99. 105. 106. 120.
I4 2 f·. 145. 149 SACRIFICE. 32f., 66, 69, 85f., 109,
Nineveh. I8f.. 26f·. 45. 54. 70• 72, II4. 135
74. 81, 84. 12 4 Samuel. 17, 37
Satan. 52. 60. IIO. 128
Scythians. 68. 70. 81
PERSIANS. 54f.• II8. 1I9. 130 Sennacherib. 45. 46. 72. 83
PoetIy. 16, 5If., 55. 77. 78. II9. ISO Servant of Jehovah. 43. 44. 45. 56,
Prediction. 14. 5~. 70. 107. 126. 141 57~0. 61. 62. 90 , lIS
Priests. 29. 39. 40 • SS. 79. 84. 99. Shalmaneser V. 41. 46
100. 104. II4. II7. 1I8, II9. 124. Shepherds. 28. 29. 57. III. I3If.
128. 135. 152• IS3 Sin-otfering. 40. 1I4
Primitive Conceptions. 33 Son of Man. Ioof·. I45f.
Prophecies. Acted. 16. 48. 86 f .• Sovereignty of God. 60. 69. 75. 126,
103 f·. 106 f·. 109. 13 1 129f.. 137. 142, 145. 148
- . Quoted. 48. 52. 63. 65. 95f. Symbolism, 100 f.. 103-108, 110,
Prophecy. Early. IS IIIf·, II3//.. 126-130, 145. 146,
- , Form of. 16. 44'17 147
- , Post·Exilic. I1Z .
- . Unfu11i1led. I7/J.• 107. I10
Prophetesses. So. 107 TEXT. Hebrew. 71 f.
Prophetic Books. 13. 1I5f. Tiglath Pileser Ill, 25. 45
- Consciousness. 14. 16. 29. 38, 89. Tyre, 18 f., SI, I10
9 2 f·
- Experience. 38 f.. 59. n. 87 f·.
89t.• 91. 101 UNIVERSALISM, 52. 69. 92
- Revelation. 44. 57. 58. 89. 101
Prophets. False. 13; IS. 29. 64. 83.
84. 88 f .• 91. 10 7. II7. 153 WOMEN, 31, 32, I35f.
- . Function of. 13 If.. lIS Word Plays. 33. 64. 80, 97
- . Minor. 13. 17. 20. 36 Worship. Formal. 29. 31, 33, 47,
- , Professional. see Prophets, False. 49.61. 66, 85f.. 92, 135

RAs SHAM RA, 85. 142. 151 ZOROASTRIANISM, 60. 126