The Book of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah

After a fourteen-page bibliography, the introductory section of this NICOT volume deals with the placement of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah in the Book of the Twelve. Renz recognizes that there are some connections between some of the Minor Prophetic books but prefers to view these books individually because each has a coherent rationale behind the arrangement of its distinctive message. These messages have links backward to the Torah and forward to the NT, but he concludes that the Twelve are not a coherent literary unit. Later in the introduction to each book, Renz discusses the superscription, the flow of thought (which points to a structure), textual issues, the development of the book (he does not find evidence of redaction), a discussion of the rhetorical function of the book, and reflections on the book’s place in the canon and in the church today.The exegetical discussion of the text includes a new translation of each paragraph that is sometimes quite unique, with some textual notes, brief comments on the composition of each paragraph, and detailed exegetical comments. This section includes a discussion of the semantic field of important words, the function of a few syntactical constructions, comments that respectful point out alternative interpretations, and notes concerning the theological aspects of the prophetic message.A few important interpretive proposals Renz advances in his discussion of Nahum (pp. 23–192) include that Nah 1:2–10 is related to an acrostic hymn, the final letters of the first four bicola in 1:1 contain the phrase “ I am Yhwh,” the audience addressed in the question in 1:9a is a Judean audience that was questioning God’s willingness to end Judah’s distress, and the “scatterer” who comes against Nineveh in 2:1 is Yhwh who will restore the pride of Judah (that is, he will restore Jerusalem in 2:2). He concludes that the excessive water in 2:6–8 did not play a role in the collapse of the Nineveh’s walls and the ridicule of the lions in 2:11–12 refers to the removal of the king and his court (2:13). Nahum is full of ANE metaphors that Renz interprets.In Renz’s discussion of Habakkuk (pp. 193–419), he divides the book into two sections (not three). Habakkuk 1:1–2:20 contains a single complaint—not a dialogue (1:2–17) and then Yhwh’s response to a question (2:1–20). The second major section of the book in 3:1–19 is Habakkuk’s prayer. He finds a stylistic tendency to use repeatedly similar sounding words which could suggest that the book was produced by one person. He rejects the redactional approach that distinguishes between pro (1:5–11) and anti-Babylonian (2:6–20) texts and dates the book to the time of Jeremiah (around 600 BC) but after the death of Josiah in 609 BC. Renz grants that the perpetrators of the violence mentioned in 1:1 could be local or an international problem, but the bigger issue is that people were ignoring God’s laws and were not justly punished (1:4). Renz views 1:5–11 as a quotation of an existing oracles (such as Jer 5:15–17), not as a divine response that God will remove this problem. This oracle describes the fearsomeness of the Babylonians, but it never explicitly states that the Babylonians will resolve these problems. In Hab 2:1–3 the prophet is determined to get an answer to his prayer, which comes in 2:4, “but the righteous; in his faithfulness, he will live,” a phrase that does not explain how a person can become righteous, but how a righteous person can live in the midst of such lawlessness (a thought quoted by the apostle Paul). The taunt song in 2:6–20 condemns the proud and greedy who abuse others. Renz considers 3:4–15 a quoted hymn and translates the usual “Shigionoth” in 3:1 with the unusual tentative translation “besides vehement protests.” The prayer reports a visionary sighting of God’s glorious presence and his attack on his enemies (3:3–15) and closes with a prophetic expression of his confidence in God (3:16–19a).Renz approaches Zephaniah (pp. 423–646) as a composition, not a series of unconnected short prophetic outbursts. After considering dates between 662–612 BC, he concludes that little points to an exact date, for there is much that is unknown about Judah’s relationship with Assyria (Ashurbanipal’s annals stop at 639 BC) and Egypt. But Renz ends up suggesting a date in the 630s or 620s, either before or after Josiah’s reforms. He finds Zephaniah contributing to the church by his comprehensive description of God’s judgement, his connection between poverty and humility, and his universal outlook for the people of God. The long genealogical background for Zeph in 1:1 was presented to connect Zephaniah to King Hezekiah and his zeal for reform. He takes 1:2–18 to be communicating a vision of universal judgment with 2:1–3 being a central hinge (and not part of 1:2–18). He translates 1:4c “I will cut off from this place any vestiges of “the Master” (with “The Master” being a reference to Baʿal), rejects the idea that this reference to a “vestige, remnant of Baal” points to a date after Josiah’s reforms, and does not see the last line of 1:5 referring to Milcom or Molech. The Day of Yhwh is connected to any time when God decisively intervenes in events; it is a judgment day when God will defeat his enemies. The phrase “the house of their Lord” in 1:9 does not refer to the temple, but to the royal house (as in 1:8) and those “who hop over the threshold” does not refer to a temple superstition. Zeph 2:1 is translated: “Act like those who scrape together and scrape up” by gathering the little that was left after judgment. The oracles against the nations (2:5–15) and Jerusalem (3:1–5) give a rationale for God’s judgment which the people have not taken seriously (3:6–8). Renz sees 3:9–20 as “exegetical supplements added by the prophet or a disciple to depict the presence of God the King who will rejoice over his people.”Although many will take exception to a few of these innovative interpretations (as I do), this commentary provides a solid basis for considering the options available and the strength of each suggestion. Anyone attempting to understand these three books would be wise to carefully weight Renz’s suggestions, for he is a judicious thinker who is bold enough to be logical yet creative, and disciplined in his interpretation

Art · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Botanical Research and Chemistry · Historical and Linguistic Studies