WAS ZEPHANIAH OF AFRICAN DESCENT?

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 25^th 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).

.