Content:

The conviction that the Bible is there to be read rather 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 straightforwardly and to reap the spiritual reward of so doing is even today 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 expanded by the addition of chapters on the Minor Prophets is due mainly to the encouragement given by Mr. F. F. Brace, 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 understand it better if you use the R.V. I have only rarely pointed out the differences between the R.V. and the A.V., but have simply assumed that you would be using the former.

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 the latest authority, P. van der Meer: The Ancient Chronology of Western Asia and Egypt.

I hope my more learned readers wilt 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 preference, I should have sacrificed the very real spiritual connotation that Jehovah has for many without having achieved absolute accuracy.

It only remains for me to hope that your reading will bring 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.

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 loc. — 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 II — G. A. Smith: The Book of the Twelve Prophets, Vol. I or II.

HDB — Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible — 5 vols.

ibid. — in the same place.

I.C.C. — International Critical Commentary.

ISBE — International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia — 5 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 translation of the Old Testament.

mg. — Margin.

N.B.D. — New Bible Dictionary

R.S.V. — Revised Standard Version.

R.V. — Revised Version.

Young — E. J. Young: An Introduction to the Old Testament — the best conservative introduction, almost unprocurable in Britain.

Also standard literary abbreviations and generally recognized ones for the books of the Bible.

In popular speech the Prophetic Books are the sixteen books of the Old Testament, from Isaiah to Malachi, including Lamentations as well. They are further subdivided 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 (De Civitate Dei: 18. 29). Though we are not dealing with the Former Prophets in this book, we shall profit by grasping the implications of books we call historical being considered prophetic.

The prophet is not defined or explained in the Old Testament; he is taken for granted. This is because he has existed from the very first (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21), and has not been confined to Israel, e.g. Balaam (Num. 22:5), the prophets of Baal (IKings 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 generally (Ps. 105:15). Moses is not so much the law-giver as the prophet par excellence (Deut. 18:15; 34:10).

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 antithesis 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. 7:1f. 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. 18:21f), that does not necessarily establish his credentials (Deut. 13:1ff). 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 that 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. 12:6ff; 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.

Since, then, the prophetic message is not merely a revelation 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: 10ff), 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-less 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 approach the prophets from this standpoint.

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 Jehovah as the God of history permeates the Latter Prophets. The partial loss of this vision in our day has largely weakened the Church’s preaching.

In the historical books we are introduced to prophetic activity of a strange nature, e.g. ISam. 10:10-13; 19:20-24. It is reasonable to attribute this partly to the baleful influence of Canaanite religion during the period of the Judges. However 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. Amos indignantly refuses to be called a prophet, if it involves his being classed with them: "I am no prophet, neither am I one of the sons of the prophets" (Amos 7:14, R.V. mg.).

In contradistinction to these false prophets, the written prophets seem to have obtained most of their messages verbally — we cannot go further in our explanation than this — though we do meet with visions from time to time. 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 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 remembered. 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 (For the form of Hebrew poetry see Appendix, p. 150.).

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 could 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 bottle (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 Euphrates (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 removal 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 necessity for it. It may be that such actions had come to be expected of a 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.

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 already during 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 authorship of Isaiah 40-66, we have had to assume the transmission of Isaiah through a group 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.

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 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.

The problem is really brought to a head in Ezek. 26. This is a prophecy of the complete destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. Lest there should be any doubt as to its meaning, it is followed by a lamentation over Tire (ch. 27), its prince (28:1-10), and its king (28:11-19). Yet Tyre was not captured 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 Nebuchadnezzar has had no gain from Tyre, but God has given him Egypt instead (29:17-20). This is re-affirmed in the next chapter (30:10 seq.). In spite of this, and Jer 43:8-13, there is no clear evidence that Nebuchadnezzar ever crossed the Egyptian border; he certainly never conquered the country.

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 conditional, 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 circumstances elsewhere, where prophecy has not been fulfilled. The recording of such "unfulfilled" prophecies without explanatory comment is ample evidence that the prophet thought little of the evidential value of fulfilled prophecy.

For all this, "unfulfilled" is not in every case the best word; "suspended" would often be better. Nineveh was not destroyed in forty days, but some 150 years later it ceased to be a city. Nebuchadnezzar 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 kingdom, 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 maintain that the prophecies concerning Israel in Isaiah 40-66 are abrogated and not just suspended; that they have found their fulfilment in the Church.

A number of these points have been expanded in my Ezekiel e.g. the use of symbols, the problem of false prophets and the conditional nature of prophecy.

The fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, were most terrible blows and upheavals on an unprecedented scale for the Hebrew people. This was God's judgment for the betrayal of their covenant with Him and for their profound moral corruption. A night of utter darkness and, it seemed, hopelessness had begun for the people. Then there appeared a whole galaxy of persons to console them in their sufferings. Reproof and consolation; these are the two subjects of their proclamations and of their prophetic books, which comprise the last grouping of the books of the Old Testament.

The prophets' reproofs precede the last blows that sealed the fate of the Hebrew people, when there were still some remnants of prosperity, and the people's conscience was still slumbering. These reproofs are incomparable in their force, in their unsparing veracity.

Woe, O sinful nation, a people full of sins, an evil seed, lawless children... Why should ye be smitten any more, transgressing more and more? The whole head is pained, and the whole heart is sad. From the feet to the head there is no soundness in them; a wound, a bruise, a festering ulcer. they have not been cleansed, nor bandaged, nor mollified with ointment... Though ye bring fine flour, it is vain; incense is an abomination to me; I cannot bear your new moons, and your sabbaths, and the festival assemblies... Wash ye, be clean, remove your iniquities from your souls before mine eyes, cease from your iniquities, learn to do good, diligently seek judgment, deliver him that is suffering wrong, plead for the orphan, and obtain justice for the widow. And come, let us reason together, saith the Lord, and though your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool, proclaimed the Prophet Isaiah (Is. 1:4-6; 13; 18).

The Prophet Jeremiah castigates, and he laments the people's fall with even stronger words. Trust not in yourselves, in lying words, for they shall not Profit you at all, when ye say, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord... But whereas ye have trusted in lying words, whereby ye shall not be profited; and ye murder, and commit adultery, and steal, and swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, and are gone after strange gods whom ye know not, so that it is evil with you. Yet have ye come, and stood before Me in the house whereon My name is called, and ye have said, We have refrained from doing all these abominations. Is My house, there whereon My name is called, a den of thieves in your eyes? (Jer. 7:4; 8-11).

Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? then would I weep for this, my people, day and night, even for the wounded of the daughter of my people. Who would give me a most distant lodge in the wilderness, that I might leave my people and depart from them? for they all commit adultery, an assembly of treacherous men... Every one will mock his friend; they will not speak truth; their tongue hath learned to speak falsehoods; they have committed iniquity and they have not ceased, so as to return... Shall I not visit them for these things, saith the Lord?... And I will remove the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and make it a dwelling place of dragons, and I will utterly lay waste the cities of Judah, so that they shall not be inhabited. Who is the wise man, that he may understand this?... Thus saith the Lord, Be ye prudent and call ye the mourning women, and let them come... and let them take up a lamentation for you, and let your eye pour down tears, and your eyelids drops of water! (Jer. 9:1-18).

And when the disasters befell them and unheard-of woes were heaped upon them, the Babylonian captivity came and there was no longer any consolation and then those same prophets became the people's only support.

Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people, saith God. Speak, ye priests, of the heart of Jerusalem; comfort her, for her humiliation is accomplished, her sin is put away; for she hath received at the Lord's hand double the amount of her sins... O thou that bringest glad tidings to Zion, go up on the high mountains; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest glad tidings to Jerusalem. Lift it up, fear not; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold the Lord. The Lord is coming with strength, and His arm is with power. Behold, His reward is with Him, and the work of each man is before Him. He shall tend His flock as a shepherd, and He shall gather the lambs with His arm and hold them in His bosom, and shall soothe them that are with young (Is. 40:1-2, 9-11).

Thus the Prophet Isaiah comforts, becoming in those days of lamentation a prophet of God's future deliverance and good will.

One cries to me out of Seir. Guard ye the bulwarks. I watch in the morning and the night. If you wouldst inquire, inquire and dwell by me. (Is. 21:11-12)

The night will pass, God's anger will pass. Be glad, thou thirsty desert; let the wilderness exult, and flower as the lily. And the desert places of Jordan shall blossom and rejoice... Be strong ye hands and palsied knees. Comfort one another, ye faint-hearted, be strong and fear not; behold, our God rendereth judgment, and He will render it; He will come and save us. Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall speak plainly; for water hath burst forth in the desert, and a channel of water in a thirsty land... But the redeemed and gathered on the Lord's behalf shall walk in it, and shall return, and come to Zion with joy, and everlasting joy shall be over their head; for on their head shall be praise and exultation, and joy shall take possession of them; pain and sorrow, and sighing have fled away (Is. 35:1-6; 10).

What is it that especially inspires the prophets with bright hopes in these distant visions of the future? Is it the political might of their people, her victories and triumphs which they see before them? Or is it a vision of plenty, riches and abundance in the future which is presented to them? No, it is not these objects of material prosperity or national pride that attract their attention. Could these holy men, who had resigned themselves to a life of suffering, and sometimes even to a martyr's death (the Prophet Isaiah was sawn in two with a wooden saw), really inspire their people with these earthly desires alone? They were contemplating another revelation of God: an unprecedented spiritual rebirth, times of justice and truth, meekness and peace, when the whole world is filled with the knowledge of the Lord (Is. 11:9). They proclaimed the coming of the New Testament.

But this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, Giving, I will give My laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God and they shall be to Me a people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more (Jer. 31: 33-34).Thus prophesies Jeremiah.

The same is proclaimed by Ezekiel. And I will give you a new heart, and will put a new spirit in you; and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit in you, and will cause you to walk in Mine ordinances and to keep My judgments, and do them (Ezek. 36:26-27; and 11:19-20).

The prophets speak much about the requital of the other nations, the enemies of Israel, the pagan peoples, who were only the instruments of God's anger and His chastisement of Israel. They will receive their cup of wrath. But the future blessing of Israel will be a light for them also. And in that day, there shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall arise to rule over the nations; in Him shall the nations hope, and His rest shall be a reward, predicts Isaiah (Is. 11: 10).

The fulfillment of these hopes is linked with the mystical promise of granting Israel an eternal king. My servant David shall be a prince in the midst of them; for there shall be one shepherd of them all, for they shall walk in Mine ordinances... And David My servant shall be their prince for ever. And I will make with them a covenant of peace, we read in Ezekiel (Ezek. 37:24-26).

In consoling their contemporaries, the prophets direct the attention of all towards their future King. They present His image before them in these colors: in the light of meekness, gentleness, humility, righteousness. Jacob is My servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, My soul hath accepted him; I have put My Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor shall his voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgment to truth (Is. 42:1-3).

In such and similar words, the prophets depict the coming of the Saviour of the world. Before us, scattered throughout various passages of the prophets' writings, but abundant when taken all together, is a depiction of the future events of the Gospel and its portrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Here, in Isaiah, is a reference to Galilee, the place where the Saviour first dwelt on earth and appeared to people: Do this first, do it quickly, O land of Zebulon, land of Naphtali, and the rest inhabiting the seacoast, and the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations. O people walking in darkness, behold a great light. ye that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, a light will shine upon you... For unto us a Child is born, and unto us a Son is given, Whose government is upon His shoulder. And His name is called the angel of great Counsel, Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty One, the Potentate, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the age to come (Is. 9:1-2, 6).

Here is a reference to the Lord's glorification of Jerusalem: Shine, shine, O Jerusalem, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. Behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and there shall be thick darkness upon the nations, but the Lord shall appear unto thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And kings shall walk in thy light, and nations in the brightness (Is. 60:1-3).

Here is the prophecy about Christ by this same prophet, which Christ Himself used in the synagogue of Nazareth to begin His earthly preaching: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me, He hath sent Me to preach good tidings to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to declare the acceptable year of the Lord (Is. 61:1-2).

Does the prophet foresee that the Saviour will not be recognized or accepted by the leaders of the Jewish people, or by those people that follow them? Yes, he makes an oblique reference to this in the great depiction of Christ's sufferings which he gives in Chapter 53 of his book, which is one of the greatest prophecies, if not the greatest of them all:

The Gospel narrative testifies that the Jewish people did not recognize the time of its visitation. However, we cannot say that the prophecies of consolation were not fulfilled. For no one can take away from the Jewish people the boast that from their race came the Most-holy Virgin Mary, that Jesus Christ was of the seed of David, that Christ's Apostles were of the same people, and that Jerusalem has become for all time the place of the glory of the Risen Christ. From Jerusalem, the preaching of the Gospel went forth into the whole world, and of her the Church sings: "Rejoice, holy Zion, thou mother of the churches, and dwelling place of God: for thou wast first to receive remission of sins through the Resurrection" (Octoechos, Tone 8, Sun. Sticheron on "Lord, I have cried").

A full explanation of the fact that it was principally people from the pagan nations who entered the Church of Christ, and that the majority of the Jews remained in unbelief, is given to us in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul. In his writings, we find an exhaustive interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies concerning this. The Apostle writes:

"What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endureth with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the nations? As He saith also in Hosea, I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not My people, there shall they be called the people of the living God. Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel: Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved... What shall we say then? That the nations which have followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense, and whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed...

This would seem to be too harsh a fate and too strict a sentence for the chosen people of old. But the Apostle Paul himself becomes a comforter of his people, saying, "For I wish not, brethren, that ye be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits; that hardness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob... For God hath enclosed them all in disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all. O the depths of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:25-26; 32-33).

A. To-Day — Chs. 1:2-2:17.

1 — 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.

1 — 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.

Nothing is known of Joel except his name and the obvious inference from his prophecy that he lived in Judea. 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 Joel. 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 836 B.C.), or to one after the Exile — anything from 500 to 200 B.C. has been suggested.

We do not consider either dating conclusively proved, and we here deal with Joel in his traditional position, for while the interpretation of the book is hardly influenced by its dating, its message underlies all written Hebrew prophecy.

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 wrongs and sufferings in heaven, but expects God’s intervention by which His sovereignty will be perfectly and for ever established on earth. This intervention with its accompanying upheavals and judgments is called the Day of the Lord (see also Amos 5:18ff; Isa. 2:12; 13:6, 9f; Zeph. 1:14f; 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 ambiguity 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 immediate cause of Joel’s prophecy was an exceptionally 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 hyperbolical language, as they are seen against the lurid background of the Day of the Lord.

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 be suitably applied to locusts.

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.

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.). 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 by spiritual turning to God, so in the judgments of the Day of the Lord (2:31f) there will be a tremendous outpouring of the Spirit. From the New Testament we know that this promise was fulfilled on the first Whit-Sunday (Pentecost, now the feast of the Holy Trinity, Acts. 2:16). 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 expression is, in conjunction with the work of Christ, the supreme intervention 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 one great divine intervention. So the Day of the Lord looks not merely to our Lord’s second coining, 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.

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. IPet. 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."

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 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 vers. 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 likely that the valley of Jehoshaphat (vers. 2, 12) belongs to the symbolic language of apocalyptic. There is no certainty in its identification with the Kidron valley (though this is at least as early as the fourth century A.D.). Jehoshaphat means "Jehovah judges," and this is in all probability the reason behind the choice of name.

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 up 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 and temporal found Christianity. While we must never forget that the unknown future can only be pictured 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 incapable of salvation and transformation in the cosmic stretch of the power of the Cross.

Joel’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.

Jonah the son of Amittai prophesied during or shortly before the reign of Jeroboam II (782-753 B.C. — IIKings 14:25).

We shall show that the book fits into the needs of the middle of the eighth century B.C.

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. 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-emptying (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.

Apart from the deep-rooted dislike of the modern 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 argument, 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.

Our 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 Jehovah merely as a localized "tribal deity" has been largely exploded (Cf. Wright: The Old Testament against its Environment, p. 13). 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 Jehovah was the god of the hills of Israel (cf. IKings 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 the 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 (III). 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 the "victorious" gods of Assyria as did Ahaz and Manasseh (IIKings 16:10-16; 21:3).

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 (There are some interesting examples in the British Museum). 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) 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.

This psalm 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 drowning — hence the language of ver. 5f — which was for him a guarantee of God’s forgiveness and ultimate deliverance, the psalm drops into place as entirely congruous. Even a landlubber 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. Modern research has shown that the psalm of thanksgiving largely conformed to stock patterns, so such echoes are not 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.

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 estimated it at about 60 miles (See Lanchester: Obadiah & Jonah (C.B.), p. 53. It is "Greater Nineveh" that is meant, the actual city was much smaller, see Bewer: Jonah (I.C.C.), p. 51.). 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.

There came to Jonah 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" — and gave him a little shade. A worm at its root killed it and the hot sirocco wind both shriveled 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 God’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.

The miracle of Jonah’s preservation has more relevance than we might think. To the Israelite the untamable sea was a picture of chaos, the enemy of all settled order. 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 Jehovah as need arises.

A. The Crimes of Israel and her Neighbours — Chs. 1, 2.

1 — Ch. 1:1, 2. Introduction.

2 — Chs. 1:3-2:5. The Crimes of Israel’s Neighbours.

3 — Ch. 2:6-16. The Crimes of Israel.

B. Israel’s Crimes and Doom — Chs. 3-6.

1 — Ch. 3. Social Disorder.

2 — Ch. 4:1-3. Judgment on the Women.

3 — Ch. 4:4-12. God’s Visitations in Nature.

4 — Ch. 5:1-17. Inevitable Ruin.

5 — Ch. 5:IS-26. The Day of the Lord.

6 — Ch. 6. The Self-satisfied Leaders.

C. Five Visions of Doom — Chs. 7-9:10.

Some twelve miles south of Jerusalem on the brink of the drop down to the Dead Sea lay the fortified village of Tekoa (For a description of the landscape see G. A. Smith, I, p. 74.), 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 technical expression is used of him and Mesha, king of Moab (IIKings 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 been stamped in his thinking by the desert, where there is no place for half tones, for fine distinctions between light and dark. G. A. Smith is probably correct in suggesting (ibid. p. 79.) 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 (4:10) — it ravished the Near East in 765 B.C). and a total eclipse of the sun (5:20 — 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 I one of the sons of the prophets" (7:14, R.V. mg.) 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.

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," in their their willingness 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 behind his message.

The actual course of Amos’ activity is not clear. It cannot 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 earthquake (8:8; 9:5) — a prophecy fulfilled by one of the worst in Palestinian history (1:1) 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.

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 Himself, but demanded justice from men, and especially from those that worshipped Him. As preached by Amos it is over-simplified and gives a one-sided picture of God, but it was a foundation stone on which others could build. Until 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 commendation of him (Gen. 18:19). It is made clear in the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20-23, 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, 28 — 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. ISam. 15:33, IISam. 12:1-15, IKings 21 (note that Ahab’s and Jezebel’s judicial murder of Naboth was a greater sin than all the Baal worship). Nothing alienated 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 (IISam. 15:1-6).

Amos does not analyse the reasons why this fundamental concept had been so largely ignored — that he was not exaggerating 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 otherwise inevitable judgment of God.

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 community 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 roughly into 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 to them. The only guarantee of justice in Israel was either the integrity of the judge or the power 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 the perversion of justice were peculiarly affronts to God (cf. Exod. 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 wrong. 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.

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 extreme 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 remain 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 themselves.

This is one of the chief lessons which Amos has to teach us, for the tendency has at all times been strong to put correct order in the first place. But correct" order is no guarantee of a "correct" knowledge of God, and still less of "correct" living.

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, 2:1ff), 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 (2:11) see Num. 6:1-21. Their purpose was obviously to enable the Israelite who had no other possibility of publicly serving God to show his zeal and love. The opposition to them arose probably from the Nazirites’ rejection of the grape-vine and 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.

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 implicit in passages like Deut. 7:6-11; 10:12-17. Later prophetic passages repeat it, e.g. Isa. 40:2b.

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.

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; 32:9ff).

Since by the Deuteronomic legislation the third year was of special importance in tithing (Deut. 14:28; 26:12) and Elkanah’s practice (ISam. 1:3, 21) suggests that the average Israelite concentrated on an annual visit to the sanctuary, which could be entirely independent of the three pilgrim feasts, it is reasonable to assume that 4:4 represents the prophet’s exaggeration of normal custom. 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 continuation of this exaggeration. According to Lev. 7:13 leavened cakes were part of the sacrifice of thanksgiving, but they were not brought on the altar. If we have rightly understood the passage, 4:4f is not a condemnation 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.

The judgment of this Day cannot be averted by any ritual (5:2Iff) — the songs of ver. 23 are the psalms which even at this date accompanied 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. Harper is probably correct in rendering ver. 25, "Was it only sacrifices and offerings that ye brought me in the wilderness during forty years" (Amos and Hosea (I.C.C.), p. 136.). Loving obedience was far more important than the sacrifices the people brought (cf. Jer. 7:2Iff and p. 85). In the next verse either the present or the future is preferable to the past. Siccuth and Chiun (R.V). are generally taken to refer to the Assyrian star-worship, which was becoming popular. If we take the verb as future, it means that the people and their idols would go into exile together.

These visions, though told at the end of his public ministry, 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 messages 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 ancient 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 fourth vision (8:If) lies in a play on words: end = qets, autumn fruit = qiats (cf. Jer. 1:llf, and p. 64).

The sin of Samaria (8:14) is generally taken to be the golden calf of Bethel — cf. "thy God, O Dan" — but on the basis of Hos. 8:5f 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:If). 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." God is not merely the God of the nation, but also of the individual, and ultimately His judgments are individual judgments.

These verses (or 9:8-15) are the prophet’s addition as he records his message for posterity. However pessimistic a prophet might be about his own generation, he was completely optimistic about the future. Sooner or later God’s purpose in the choice of Israel was bound to be vindicated. A comparison with Joel 3:18f suggests that he is using traditional language. Isaiah consistently uses pictures of transformed nature as implying transformed men.

A. Hosea and his Faithless Wife — Chs. 1-3.

1 — 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.

1 — 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.

10 — Ch. 13. Israel’s utter Destruction.

11 — Ch. 14. Love Triumphant.

All that we know of Hosea the son of Beeri is gleaned from his book. His prophecies themselves substantiate 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 addressed mainly to the Northern Kingdom, to which he 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. 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 his devoted disciples. This may 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. No other prophet comes nearer to the New Testament revelation 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. Chronologically 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 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 dominating. It would be difficult here to give a satisfactory outline of Canaanite religion, the more so as much detail is still uncertain, but fortunately it is not 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 Jehovah 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 because 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 vegetation and the crops with mainly ritualistic demands on their worshippers. While Jehovah 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 (plural Baalim), which can be a proper name, but generally means lord or owner, cf. Baal-peor (Num. 25:3,R.V.mg.), Baal-zebub (IIKings 1:2), Baal-berith (Judges 8:33) and a number of place-names compounded with Baal. Equally the goddesses are referred to by the name of the most popular Ashtoreth or Ashtaroth (Babylonian Ishtar, Greek Astarte) or occasionally by that of Asherah (plural Asherim or Asheroth — Asherah refers more commonly to the sacred pole in the Canaanite sanctuaries and is consistently mistranslated grove in the A.V.), cf. Judges 2:11, 13; 3:7 (An interesting picture of Canaanite religion has been given by the Ras Shamra, see Finegan, p. 147f., Kenyon, p. 158ff.).

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 worshipping of one’s own conception of Jehovah 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 so 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. 2:33).

Samuel and his sons of the prophets were probably the men who broke this religious degeneration, but 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 (IChron. 8:33f; 9:39f, cf. also 8:30), Beeliada, David’s son (IChron. 14:7) — cf. also Baal-perazim (IISam. 5:20), where Baal must mean Jehovah. Later scribes transmogrified these names to avoid the name of Baal, but the less read genealogies of Chronicles have preserved them for us.

With the division of the kingdoms, Canaanite influence increased in the North, especially during the attempt to introduce 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 outlook. 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 interested in sacrifice, not in conduct though the prophets never mention it for very shame, Canaanized Jehovah must have been provided with a wife (!) and part of the worship will have been prostitution (!) at the shrines, designed magically to increase the fertility of the land (cf. 4:14, where harlot= qedeshah, a holy woman, cf. Gen. 38:21f, Deut. 23:17, both R.V. nig.). This led in turn to wide-spread immorality (4:14) (An interesting picture of debased popular religion has been given by the Elephantine Papyri, Finegan, p. 201, Kenyon, pp. 229, 275, Clarendon Bible, O.T. IV, p. 218.).

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 can hardly be sustained.

1. 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.

2. An immoral woman could not have served as a picture of Israel, when she came out of Egypt (2:15; 9:10).

3. 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 whole story is merely an allegory.

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 in 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:If) 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 become part of the prophet (cf. p. 101). Nowhere in the Old Testament is the love of God more dearly and tenderly expressed 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.

Five points may be especially disentangled from Hosea’s prophecy.

1. 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 (4:18; 7:3) were among the ringleaders.

2. The corruption of true religion especially as shown in the calf images (8:5f; 10:5f) and in the conception of Jehovah as a Baal.

3. 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.

4. For Hosea the very existence of the Northern kingdom was sin (8:4; 13:11). While it is true that God chose Jeroboam as a punishment for Solomon’s sins (IKings 11:26-40), a careful reading of IKings 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).

5. The heart of Hosea’s message revolves around the word chesed. This is found 247 times in the Old Testament, and is translated 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 covenanted mercies.

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 nad 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 chesed is as the morning cloud, and as the dew that goeth away early;" and men (6:6):

It is immaterial whether we render by love, dutiful love (Cheyne), loyal love (G. A. Smith), the meaning is clear; the love of God to man will only be satisfied by 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.

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; ISam. 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.

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 welcomed 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. IICor. 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 (6:9).

A very old Jewish tradition maintains that the original reading in 4:7 — changed by the scribes themselves out of 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, ISam. 13:5). Hosea transfers its name, meaning 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 (I.C.C). gives no fewer than eleven interpretations of king Jareb of Assyria (5:13; 10:6) none of which carry real conviction — the R.S.V. is 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; 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; IIKings 16:5).

Though he does not develop the thought, it would seem that Hosea’s conception of Israel’s history is much the same as that in Ezek. 20, 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 Jehovah’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 vers. 1, 2	7	-	9
Israel vers. 3	8a	8c
Jehovah vers. 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, 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).

A. Assyrian background — Chs. 1-39.

1 — (a) Ch. 1. Introduction to section and whole 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.

1 — Chs. 40-48. Deliverance from Babylon.

2 — Chs. 49-55. The spiritual deliverance of Israel.

3 — Chs. 56-66. The new Zion and miscellaneous prophecies.

The structure of Isaiah is unique. The first thirty-five 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 collection of prophecies (chs. 40-55 — Deutero-Isaiah) in which it seems "the Babylonian Exile is not predicted; it is described as an existing fact" (Kirkpatrick, p. 359.). The book ends with a less homogeneous section (chs. 56-66 — Trito-Isaiah) in which the general picture seems to be the position after the return from exile.

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 attribution of passages from "Deutero-" and "Trito-Isaiah" to Isaiah might mean no more than that they were taken from the book which circulated under that name. The moment, however, 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.

When we consider the increasing complexities demanded by the usual modern view, and the many improbabilities it involves, 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 problems, we are dealing with probabilities, not provable certainties (For the unity of Isaiah see Young pp. 202-211, ISBE, article Isaiah, against HDB, article Isaiah, Driver LOT pp. 236-246).

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 is 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 adaptation of the message to the personality and circumstances of the prophet is stamped on every chapter of the prophetic books.

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 geographical 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 forward about a century and a half in time.

There is every evidence 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.

"Proto-Isaiah" covers the period from the death year of king Uzziab, 740 B.C. (6:1, see below), when Isaiah received his call, probably as quite a young man, to at least Sennacherib’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.

During the reigns of Jeroboam II 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 III, 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 Menahem 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 (7:1f; IIKings 16:5f, IIChron. 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 the inhabitants carried into captivity. Israel under Hoshea yielded at the cost of the loss of Trans-Jordan and Galilee, whose inhabitants were carried away (IIKings 15:29; 16:9; IChron. 5:6, 26). Ahaz naturally became tributary.

An increase in Egyptian power encouraged Israel to revolt against Shalmaneser V, Tiglath-Pileser’s successor (IIKings 17:4). The inevitable result was the capture of Samaria in 722 B.C. by Shalmaneser, and the deportation of its inhabitants by his successor Sargon (IIKings 17:5f).

At that time Judah had remained loyal to Assyria, but from 715 B.C. Egyptian intrigues increasingly inclined Hezekiah to revolt. Though involved in the revolt of the Philistines, 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.

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 collapsed. An Egyptian army was decisively defeated, and Hezekiah yielded, receiving very onerous terms (IIKings 18:13-16) Sennacherib, with a treachery he showed on other occasions as well, changed his mind and demanded the surrender of the city (IIKings 18:17-19:8; Isa. 36:1-37:8 — cf. also Isa. 33:1-12). This demand was not supported by any very great force, and was refused.

The more obvious interpretation of IIKings 19:9-35 and Isa. 37:9-37 is that Sennacherib, with his hands full, contented himself with writing a threatening letter, and the smiting of his host by the angel of the Lord led to his abandoning the campaign. Many, however, consider that there is a gap between IIKings 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 should be remembered that the results of Sennacherib’s invasion were so disastrous for Judah that henceforth she remained a loyal vassal of Assyria.

This chapter is not merely an introduction to chs. 2-12, but serves in that capacity for the whole book. It consists 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 vers. 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. Judah is imagined as pleading her regular and large-scale temple worship in her defence, but this is rebutted in vers. 10-17. As there is no other defence, the Judge makes a conditional offer of mercy in vers. 18-20; but vers. 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 vers. 4 and 27 (her converts) and comments on ch. 6 below.

The condemnation of the Jerusalem temple-worship in vers. 10-17 almost certainly dates from the time after Hezekiah’s reformation. Note that so far from commending Hezekiah’s action, Isaiah does not even 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 corresponding morality of life only angers God, and is a sin. Indeed, 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 underlying 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.

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 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 elsewhere 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 purification 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 unnatural 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 cleverly the barbed point of the song is hidd