This
is one of those controversial issues in the Bible where the more one
reads on the subject, the more
confused one becomes. That is why it
is so common among Christians I have known over the years to
fix on
one particular commentator and swear by everything that author,
preacher or media personality
says. The advantage of that approach to
the Bible is that you never are called upon to think for yourself
by
having that one particular view questioned by other commentators.
That way you can always be
definite in your opinions even if those
opinions happen to be definitely mistaken.
Pro
One of the most intriguing issues
in this book is the identity of the author since although his name is
obviously Hebrew (meaning “Yahweh has protected, or hidden”) with
three other personages in the
Bible by the same name (see II Kings
25:18; I Chronicles 6:36; and Zechariah 6:10-14), his father is
called Cushi, indicating that he comes from Cush, almost always in
the Bible referring to Ethiopia.
So although there are other
characters in the Bible who come from Africa (such as Moses' wife,
the
Queen of Sheba, and the Ethiopian eunuch converted by Philip),
Zephaniah may possibly be the only
author of Scripture with that
distinction.
Con
Working against that possibility
is the fact that Zephaniah's heritage goes back three more
generations
(a highly unusual occurrence in the Bible) and all of
those names are squarely Hebrew, and one of
them, Hezekiah, may even
refer to the famous king of Judah. Watts, for example, says, “The
superscription goes to unusual lengths in giving the prophet's
ancestry, which is traced back to
Hezekiah, the great Judean king.”
After consulting all of the
pertinent resource books in my home library, I compiled the following
citations from fairly recent Bible commentaries. .
Zephaniah
1:1
Why are so many generations of
descendants given? Who was the Hezekiah mentioned in this verse?
These two closely related
questions are best handled together. Childs appears to be one of the
few
scholars who doesn't feel it is necessary to even discuss these
questions. He says, “The unusually
lengthy genealogy of the
superscription has evoked some interest, but the message of the book
seems
unaffected regardless of the identification of Hezekiah.”
Most other commentators fall into
one of two camps, those who feel that Zephaniah was descended to
royalty and those who are negative or undecided. In the former camp
we have the following:
Payne: “Zephaniah 1:1 introduces
the prophet through a genealogy that goes back four generations.
This is the longest for any of the writing prophets for it identifies
Zephaniah's great-great grandfather
as the famous King Hezekiah...who
reigned 726-697; and this may, in turn help account for the
prophet's insight into the royal family (1:9) and into the contemporaneous
international situation (as in
2:8). For that reason, it has even
been proposed without proof by some that those three names were
purposely added later by an editor to remove any suggestion of the
prophet's African lineage.
Hicks states that “Zephaniah's
intimate knowledge of Jerusalem and its court circles, his failure to
denounce the king personally, and the absence of any concern with the
poor of the land support the
inference that he was of royal descent.”
Hannah: “Most
prophets are traced only to their fathers. Zephaniah's careful
delineation of his
pedigree which included Hezekiah has led many
scholars to assume Zephaniah's royalty...”
“The use of four
generations for a prophet is unprecedented in Hebrew tradition and
may indicate that
Zephaniah himself was of royal lineage...”
(Redditt)
Chisholm states that “there
must be some reason for the more extensive genealogy that appears in
Zephaniah's case. The best explanation for this is that Zephaniah was
a descendant of the famous king
Hezekiah.”
Then there are those who are not
quite convinced that the prophet was related at all to King Hezekiah:
“The
connection to 'Cushi' in the genealogy raises the intriguing
possibility of an African ancestry for
the prophet, which in turn may
explain the longer introduction for the purpose of stressing
legitimacy.”
(Premnath) In plain words, that means that a later
editor probably added the genealogy in v. 1 to the
text..
Bullock:
“C.F. Keil...avoids the problem that he [i.e. Hezekiah] is not
directly called 'king' by taking
'king of Judah' at the end of the
verse, obviously applied to Josiah, to apply also to
Hezekiah...However
appealing the identification of Hizkiyyah
with king Hezekiah, it cannot be substantiated. Yet being the
last
named in the list, we surmise that he was a very important man.”
Reid: His genealogy is much
longer than the usual prophetic pedigree...Suggested reasons for this
are
(a) to overcome opposition to him because of his African father,
'Cushi' meaning 'Ethiopian', though
this does not tally with Dt. 23.
(b) that 'he probably belonged to a family of some importance'
(Ellison).”
Redditt explains:”The name
'Cushi'...means 'Ethiopian.' A reader might wonder if such a person
were
indeed an authentic spokesperson for Judah's God, and so, one
might presume a redactor added the
Yahweistic pedigree that
follows...Thus, the superscription seeks to stamp the imprimatur of
Yahweh
on the collection of sayings of the prophet.”
Bridger:
“We're told that Zephaniah's father is a man called Cushi
(1). This is an Egyptian name, and
some have suggested that he may
have been of Ethiopian negro origin and a slave or civil servant in
the
royal household. We can't be sure. More significant perhaps is
the mention of a Hezekiah
as the great,
great grandfather of Zephaniah. Is this King Hezekiah
the earlier reforming king of Judah? Again we
can't be sure. But why
does the ancestry stop once Hezekiah is mentioned? Could it be to
relate
Zephaniah to the royal house? This certainly fits in to what we
find Zephaniah saying and knowing.”
It has been suggested that the
extended Jewish genealogy at the start of the book was purposely
given
to counter any suggestion that Zephaniah was in fact of
Ethiopian lineage. (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush)
“The superscription of
Zephaniiah is unique in that the prophet's lineage is traced back
through four
generations. This may indicate that Zephaniah's great,
great grandfather was the famous King Hezekiah.
However, if the
Hezekiah of the superscription had been the king, that probably would
have been
made clear. Kapelrud points out that Hezekiah was a common
name in Judah (1 Chr 3:23; Ezra 2:16;
Neh 7:21), so this Hezekiah
could have been someone other than the king. There were only two
generations between Hezekiah and Josiah according to 1 Kgs 21-22
(Manasseh and Amon) not three as
Zephaniah's superscription would
have it if Hezekiah were the king. Also, Amariah is not attested as
one of Hezekiah's sons.” (R.L. Smith)
Zephaniah
2:12
Was “Cushite” in the
original text and, if so, to what country does it refer?
The second appearance is in the
“Oracles to the Nations” section where it is notable in that (a)
the
oracle is unusually truncated, (b) “Cushites” appears in
place of the expected “Cush,” and (c) it is not
clear why Cush is
mentioned instead of the expected powerful nation of Egypt. (Berlin)
Dorsey labels
this verse textually suspect and “seemingly
intrusive.” Assuming the verse is authentic, the nation
actually
referred to by this designation could be either Egypt, Ethiopia,
Midian, tribes of the Arabian
peninsula, or Assyria. (See Baker and
Boda for discussion of these options). If the last country is in
mind, then 2:12 should be included with 2:13-15, thus disrupting the
entire chiastic structure...Midian
or the tribes of Arabia are
equally poor options in light of the geographical scheme for the
Oracles
described earlier. Some scholars feel that Egypt is being
referred to in this verse since it sometimes
appears in the Hebrew
Bible in close conjunction with Cush although Berlin notes that Cush
never
stands in place of Egypt. The best option appears to be a
literal rendering of Cush as Ethiopia. The last
appearance is at
3:10 (“rivers of Cush”) where it may or may not refer to one of
the four rivers of Eden.
Remarking
on 2:12, Reid says, “Cushites may be reference to Egypt whose 25th
dynasty, 712-663
B.C., had been Cushite. Since the other nations
mentioned are on the west, east and north points of the
compass, it
seems that Cush was chosen as representing the south.”
It is also worth noting in the
fact that in the oracles to the nations in Zephaniah 2:4-15, the
prophecy
against Cush is much briefer (only one very short verse)
than those against Philistia (4 vv.), Moab and
Ammon (4 vv.), and
Assyria (3vv.).
Zephaniah
3:9-10
Beale and Gladd list Zephaniah
3:9-10 as one of twelve Old Testament passages, eight of which are
found in Isaiah, predicting what has been been labeled as the
“eschatological pilgrimage of the
Gentiles.”
“Obadiah,
Joel, Amos, and Isaiah had all spoken of this day [i.e. Day of the
Lord], but Zephaniah alone
emphasized more strenuously than them all
the universality of its judgment while also surprisingly
predicting
the conversion of the nations as one of its fruits [see 3:9].”
(Kaiser)
Childs
notes that in Zephaniah, “the nations have been assigned a new role
in the promise of God
which breaks out of their traditional role as
mere recipients of divine judgment. 2.11 first introduces a
new note
by describing the conversion of the nations, but in 3.9f. the new
period of promised salvation
actually begins with the conversion of
the nations which precedes
the promise to Israel...The
universalism of the threatened judgment
is closely paralleled by a universal redemption.”
Literary
Considerations
One
way in which to present the overall contents of a biblical book as
well as to show how it is organized in a symmetrical manner. Figure 1
summarizes by analysis of Zephaniah (discussed in more detail in my
post “Zephaniah: Introduction to the Literary Structure”).
Figure
1: The Structure of the Book of Zephaniah
I.
The Day of the Lord: Judgment (1:1-18)
A.
Universal Events (1:2-3)
B.
Against Judah (1:4-13)
A'.
Universal Events (1:14-18)
II.
Call to Repentance (2:1-4)
III.
Oracle to the Nations (2:5-15)
A.
Against Philistia (2:5-7)
B.
Against Moab and Ammon (2:8-10)
C.
Universal Worship of Yahweh (2:11) B'. Against Cush (2:12)
A'.
Against Assyria (2:13-15)
II'.
Call to Repentance (3:1-7)
I'.
The Day of the Lord: Salvation (3:8-20)
A.
Universal Events (3:8-10)
B.
Regarding Judah (3:11-18)
A'. Universal Events (3:19-20)
Thus the three occurrences of
“Cush” happen to appear at the beginnings of Sections I (1:1) and
I'
(3:10), as well as the almost exact center (2:12). How Cush
relates to the overall theme of the book, The
Day of the Lord, is
hard to fathom. However, in retrospect, it appears that perhaps the
prophet
highlighted this term as a purposeful play on his father’s
name, contra those who feel that Zephaniah
wished to distance himself
from Ethiopian connections.
In any case, it seems likely that
all three symmetrically disposed references to Cush are a purposeful
touch designed by the author and are all part of the original text
(contra Dorsey's opinion regarding
2:12).
.