0-1 



. 1 



TRorni 



The discourse concerning Israel, Zcch. xii.-xiv., is, 



notwithstanding it.i title, exchi rnril with 



Jild.lh. It >Ui;h in date so tllllt it (Mil refer 



to tin- earthquake in tin- days f I'zziah si? a thing of 

 the past, but early enough go that people then living 

 hail fled In mi the cart h<|ii:i:> That is to "ay. 



ill-ration later than AIIUH (Amos i. I). It is 

 enough Liter than the previous discourse so that the 

 attitude nt' the surrounding peoples, then somewhat 

 undecided, has now become one of positive hostility 

 (xii. '2; xtv. 12, 16, etc.) In line, it KMtNBBktM a 

 condition of thinirs like that of the reinn of Ahaz, 

 :i* delineated in King*. Chronicles, and Isaiah vii. -xii. 



The prophets of this earliest irrmip all preach, proin- 

 inently, the doctrine of " the day of .Jehovah. ' In 

 .-id ( >liadiah it is mainly a day of judgtin nt 

 for the nations and of rescue for Israel. In 

 II - -i. N.uah. a'i 1 /"li.iriah it i~lh" same. hut N 

 also a day of judgment for Israel, a day of dread, as 

 well as a day of gladness. It would be a mistake, in 

 any of these prophets, to refer it to any particular 

 event in such a way as to exclude its application to 

 other events. It is an eternal jndfBMBt day. always 

 impending, and perpetually repeating it.self. The 



i ccption of it in the minds of the prophets, from 



Joel onward, is large enough to include andjuslify the 

 l.irirest Now Testament use of their laiiL r uai;c. 



Even more prominently than their preaching of the 

 day of Jehovah these prophets preach the covenant 

 promises made to Israel. In connection with this they 

 all allude very abundantly to the events, the institu- 

 tion", and the phraseology of the various parts of the 

 Pentateuch. 



Beginning with Amos, they preach thf> promises 

 made to David, combining this in their preaching, 

 with the doctrine of the day of Jehovah, and the 

 promise to Israel, r. 7., Amos ix. II ; Hos. iii. "> ; 

 Isa. ix. 7; Zech. xii.' 7, 8, 10, 12; xiii. 1. The 

 Israelite prophets are as distinct in this as the Juda- 

 ite. Here again the person mentioned is commonly 

 noisome particular king of the house of David, but 

 the seed of David as prouii-<- 1. an eternal seed, includ- 

 ing, of course, all particular kings in the lin-. Imt 

 always anticipating something yet greater in the future. 

 It Ls true to the stirring scenes in which these prophe- 

 cies were Uttered that they .sometimes in. ike splendid 

 promises of victory won in battle, over Israel s eoe- 

 i-. (/., Zech. ix. 13-16. Hut far :nore promi- 

 nently they insist upon the sway of the seed of Davi 1 

 as that of a prince of peace, having universal domin- 

 ion, r. rj., Zech. ix. <J, 10; Na. i\ r>, 7; xi. ; ii. 2-1, 

 etc. This conception of these proph. -is stands out in 

 striking contrast with the scenes by which they were 

 Hirrounde 1. 



The i'-ti/ihrtx tif tli? J, '<>, i- Aixifi-i'iin /'///. These 

 iah. Micali. and Nahum. In the sixth year of 

 ll<-zekiali. thi: political power of the Northern kin*;- 

 doin was finally extinguished by Sargon, king of 

 Assyria. Sargon was succeeded on the throne by his 

 descendants Scnnacherili, Ks.ir -haddon, and A-sur- 

 banipal. Ilezekiah was succeeded by Ma' 

 Anion, and Josiah. For m-ist of this period the 

 A -yrian records are abundant and throw great light 

 on the Bible. The chronology of these recur. 

 chronizcs very closely with th.it of the Bible, rii-hily 

 understood, though the contrary is hornet!: 

 netted. 



According to Mic. i 1, Micah prophesied in the 

 days of Jot ham, Ahaz, anil Ili/.ekiali. Those of his 

 pmphecies that are recorded, however, all belong to 

 the days of Ilezekiah. and mainly to the six years of 

 . iah's reign that elapsed before the downfall of 

 Samaria, r. >/.. i. f, ; iii. ]_'; .ler. xxvi is. From the 

 rcl >ii kc<< uttered by Isaiah and Mica hat this period, I'm!'. 

 \V |;.,!-i-i..in Smith in the article in the 1> 



\ BftlTAITHKU inters " the OOnchaioa thai Iley.e- 

 kiah Was not from th'' lir-t a reforming kimr. " as the ac 

 uuunts ill Kings and I 'I \; > ie,.n- -ii him to have 



!'iit the premises justify nr such oondusion. 

 I : II /ekiah w:us from ihe first a reformer, it d.' 

 follow that he would he able by a pen stroke instantly 

 to annihilate the evils of the times, so that there 

 would no lonircr IN- thc-c evils to rebuke. It is more 

 natural to think that there would be a struiri.'le, and 

 that he Would need all the aid thoe prophets could 

 give him in carry inir out his purjio-e- of letorm. The 

 contradictions between Isaiah and Micah. and 

 U'tween Mic. iv. 'J, 10 and iv. 11-13. are not contra- 

 dictions, but the presentation of different aspects of 

 the same fact. AVheii we rememlxT I hat Tinlath- 

 pilcser and the kiiiL-s of the Sargon dynasty claimed it 

 as a special glory that they wen- kiiiL-s of Babylon as 

 well a.s of Assyria, and that sonic of the immigrants 

 to Samaria were brought from the Babylonian regions, 

 WC see that there is nothing in the words, " thoii shall 

 come even to Babylon," Mic. iv. Id. to justify the 

 charge of interpolation, or of the presence of a 

 later hand than Micah's. The idea that Mic. vii. 

 7-lM is post-exilic is sufficiently refuted by the mention 



. ria in verse 12, and the alleged ' dinVrcncc of 

 situation between chaps. vL-vii. ami the previous 

 chapters does not exist except on the assumption that 

 people of different characters cannot live in the same 

 country at the same time. 



Nahum is not formally date 1. As it consists largely 

 of threats against Assyria, it evidently belongs to the 

 Assyrian period. If it were necessary to refer iii. 

 8-10 to the taking of Thebes by Assnrbanipal, that 

 would prove the prophesying of Nahum to ha\. 

 in the latter part of Manassch's reii'ii. or later, but the 

 sac-king of Tnebes referred to may be an earlier event. 

 Josephus says, very circumstantially, that Nahum's 

 prophecy \v;us uttered in the reign of .lotliam. 115 

 years before the fall of Nineveh (An/. IX.. xi 



The l'riihrtx nt Ihr liiilii/lnniiiii /Vn/. These are 

 /ephaniah, jlabakkuk, and .Jeremiah in Palestine, 

 and K/.ekiel in Babylonia. No one knows ju.-t when 

 the downfall of Nineveh occurred, but the power of 

 Nineveh in Palestine evidently ceased from early in 

 the reign of Josiah. The ip>t three of the prophets 

 just named began to prophesy in the interval between 

 the loosening of the liold of the Assyrian over Jndah 

 and the rise of the Babylonian supremacy. The Book 

 of Xephaniah is, like Joel, a monograph on " the Day 

 of Jehovah." ll is best regarded as coii-i-lini; of 

 three parts a threat of judgment, i. : an exhortation 

 to repentance, ii. and iii. 1-S, an-l a promise of salva- 

 tion, iii. ( .K!0. It is dated "in the da vs of Josiah," 

 i. 1. Havernick, Ewald, De Wi'tte. Jahn. and others 

 regard it as belonging to the first eleven years of 

 Josiah's reign, the years before his reformation ITLMHI. 

 Keil, Witsius, \ . Voeln. Knobel, Hitzig. H. Meier, 

 Strauss are quoted as assigning it to the middle 



if Josiah, the ve.iis when his reformation was in 

 -.and Dclil/sch. Bertheaii. Klein, and Kleiu- 

 ert, as assigning it to the later years of Josiah. alter 

 the reformation had become an accomplished fact. 

 The evidence can hardly be regarded as decisive ill 

 favor of either view. Such passages as i. -I. 6 

 to imply that there had recently U-en a rclormation, 

 which had reduced the worshippers of Baal to a rem- 

 nant, and that still more recently there had been some 

 apostasy on the part of those who had reformed. If 



it were certain that the reformation here referred to 



is that of Josiah, that would be decisive as to the date 



of the l>ook ; but this reformation is quite :us likely to 

 be that of the later days of Manasseh, 2 Chron. 

 xxxiii. 12-17, with the apostasy that followed in the 

 days of Aimm. Taking this view of the matter, 

 there is_ a preponderance of probability in favor of 

 the opinion that Xephaniah prophesied early in 

 .lo-iah's reign, and that we have here one of the dis- 

 M which public opinion in Jndah was influ- 

 enced in favor of undertaking the reformation. 

 Concernim; Haliakkuk.it need here only b. 

 that this prophecy i.- dated h> it.-alli!i.ilion withZepU- 



