1:1 Whereas Nahum and Habakkuk have rather nonstandard introductions, the introduction to Zephaniah follows the pattern of other prophetic books; it is especially close to that of Hosea. First, its editors describe the book as a whole as The word of the LORD. The word dabar can signify a section of a discourse such as a sentence, but it commonly signifies a complete discourse of some kind, such as a message or command or promise or statement (cf. 2:5). Thus little stretch would be involved in describing a whole book as “the word of such-and-such a human author,” and then by extension as “the word of the LORD.” The expression suggests something that is complete and coherent. It is the word that came to Zephaniah, literally that happened or became (hayah) to Zephaniah. That is a strong statement of the divine origin of the book as a whole. There is no room for slippage between what Yahweh wanted to say to the people and what Zephaniah actually said, as if it was inevitable that as a human being Zephaniah might mishear what Yahweh said. The entire message came from Yahweh. (On 1:1, see further the introduction to Zephaniah.)
In the section which follows, five times, in 1:2–3a, 3b–6, 7–9, 10–13, and 14–18, the prophet moves from declaring that Yahweh is bringing terrible calamity to indicating the reason why Yahweh is doing so, without identifying any human agents of it. In the first and fifth subsections (1:2–3a, 14–18) he talks about “the earth” without mentioning Judah and Jerusalem, though we will note that the words for “earth” are ambiguous. Hearing judgment declared on the world might make Judah think it is safe, but the intervening sections make clear that it, too, is in peril. In the second and fourth subsections (vv. 3b–6, 10–13) he talks about Judah and Jerusalem. Zephaniah lambasts it for worshiping gods other than Yahweh and for reckoning that Yahweh will never take action against it. In 2:1–3 he then indicates the response that the prophecy requires.
The passage 1:2–2:3 illustrates well the ambiguity in the Prophets concerning whether the prophet speaks as Yahweh or for Yahweh, and of the way Yahweh can move between speaking in the first person and self-referring in the third person. The text alternates unsystematically between these. In Jeremiah this can cause some uncertainty as to whether the “I” who speaks is Yahweh or the prophet, but it does not cause confusion in Zephaniah; it is obvious enough when Yahweh is speaking as “I” and when the text is referring to Yahweh in the third person. The two ways of speaking have complementary effects or implications. When the prophet speaks directly in Yahweh’s name, as happens in 1:2–4, this brings home forcibly that it really is the case that Yahweh in person is confronting the people. When the prophet refers to Yahweh in the third person, as happens in 1:5–7, this takes the heat off slightly.
In verses 2b, 3b, and 10a Zephaniah preserves the distinction by adding the parenthetical “declares the LORD,” literally “Yahweh’s declaration.” The word “declaration” (neʾum) comes only in contexts such as this, referring to Yahweh’s words to a prophet. Parallel to the book’s introduction, the phrase functions to underline the fact that people are not just listening to human prognostications. Zephaniah reckoned his words came from Yahweh, the people who collected his words into a book did so in the conviction that he was right, the Jewish community came to concur with that, and the Christian community accepted its judgment.
In verse 4 Zephaniah continues to speak as Yahweh but moves to speaking for Yahweh in verses 5–7. Within verse 8a there is a particularly brisk transition between the two; he then speaks as Yahweh through verses 8–13, with the resumptive “declares the LORD” in verse 10. In verses 14–16 he speaks for Yahweh, or Yahweh uses the third person (this transition is eased by the third person reference in the quotation in v. 12). Unannounced, for verse 17a Yahweh speaks in the first person but then immediately reverts to third person for the remainder of verses 17–18 and for 2:1–3.
1:2–3a Zephaniah begins with a warning of a terrible harvest: literally, “by gathering, I will bring to an end everything.” In a context such as this, in effect the verb ʾasaf suggests gathering things together in order to dispose of them, but more literally it simply means “gather,” and a related noun means “ingathering.” That links suggestively with the reference to the earth, which is ʾadamah, “the ground” (not ʾerets, “the world”). We are talking about a harvest; perhaps Zephaniah delivers this message at a harvest festival. But he invites us to imagine looking across some vast valley and seeing everything gathered together—for disposal.
Verse 3a (ending with rubble) then details what “everything” means. This is a terrible harvest of animate life in all the categories of creation. Zephaniah’s vision compares instructively with Isaiah 24, where Yahweh declares the intention to strip bare the earth; Zephaniah compares Yahweh’s action with a vigorous, thorough harvesting. But in Isaiah 24 it is the ʾerets, and the focus is on humanity. Here humanity has a place; two references to ʾadam indeed almost form a bracket around the verse, though I take the fourth line as an introduction to the next subsection (see the additional note). Yahweh intends to bring an end to ʾadam on the face of ʾadamah. But the terrible harvest embraces everything that moves. In describing this, Zephaniah uses language that more closely parallels the description of world destruction in Genesis 6–8 and the earlier description of world creation in Genesis 1 (see, e.g., Gen. 1:26; 6:7). This is not merely a terrible harvest but a reprise of the undoing of creation at the flood. The reason for the destruction comes in the fourth line; however we understand it (see the additional note), it takes the thought and language in a new direction and marks the end of the subsection.
1:3b–6 So is Yahweh revoking the commitment never again to cut off humanity from the face of the earth (cf. Gen. 9:11 for this verb)? First, we need to consider what Zephaniah means by the earth and how its devastation impinges on his readers. Both ʾadamah and ʾerets can denote the whole earth or the land of Israel. In itself, Isaiah 24 could be referring to the land of Israel; there, it is the context that suggests it refers to the world as a whole. In Micah 1:2–7 the movement of thought is the opposite, and the same is (if anything) the case here in Zephaniah. In verse 2, the KJV has Yahweh sweeping away everything from “the land,” implying that it is Judah’s “earth” to which this verse refers (cf. Isa. 6:11 for similar talk of Judah’s “earth”). Perhaps Zephaniah plays with the ambiguity of the word “earth” and now makes clear that it is indeed Judean earth that he had in mind. Or perhaps he moves from a cataclysm that affects the whole world to one that envelops Judah. If so, and verses 2–3a indeed refer to a worldwide devastation, verses 3b–6 now indicate that this is not something from which Judah can expect to be protected. Yahweh’s hand will not be raised to protect Judah. Indeed, the image of Yahweh’s hand (or Moses’ hand) “stretching out” regularly denotes bringing calamity and defeat, notably in the exodus story (e.g., Exod. 7:5; 14:21; 15:12). In that context, however, the raising of Yahweh’s or Moses’ hand works for Israel’s benefit. Now Yahweh’s hand is raised against Israel itself, as in Isaiah (e.g., Isa. 5:25). “Cutting off” humanity as a whole (v. 3b) will lead to or include “cutting off” the unfaithful ministers and people in the temple. The fact that 2:4–3:7 has a parallel movement supports the idea that the sequence is from world devastation to the devastation of Judah. Here, part of the background may be that people were familiar with the idea that Yahweh might bring about another calamity that would envelop the whole world but assumed that Yahweh’s own people would be protected. Zephaniah promises that their illusions will be shattered.
The expression this place suggests a further narrowing of the prophet’s focus, since “place” (maqom) commonly denotes not merely a location but something that is “set up” (qum in the hipʿil), a shrine or sanctuary such as the Jerusalem temple. The word is used in this way recurrently in Jeremiah 7. This connotation fits here, as Zephaniah is referring initially to the elimination of alien worship from the temple itself. The account of Josiah’s reform uses the expression “this place” in the same connection and also refers to each of the elements of alien worship that appear in verses 4–5 (see 2 Kgs. 22:16–20; 23:4–5, 10–12); they also appear in the earlier account of Manasseh’s religious innovations (2 Kgs. 21:1–6).
Baal is “the Master”; the word baʿal has the article. It is thus not a proper name but a common noun, like the word “Lord,” and it has a similar meaning. There is no reason why Yahweh should not be called baʿal apart from the word’s connotations, and it seems that it was once customary so to call Yahweh; when Saul and Jonathan named their sons Esh-Baal and Merib-Baal (e.g., 1 Chr. 8:33–34), it is unlikely that baʿal referred to anyone other than Yahweh. The Master is technically not the senior deity but he is the most prominent deity in the traditional religion of Canaan (rather as many Christians are more comfortable with Jesus than with God), which continued to be a prominent religion if not the dominant religion in the land through the monarchic period. The Master was concerned among other things with the fruitfulness of the land, its produce, its animals, and its people, and one may guess that a particular focus of people’s worship of the Master related to this, as Hosea implies is the case in Ephraim a century before Zephaniah. As the OT tells the story, there were occasions when kings such as David and Hezekiah (and later Josiah) attempted to eliminate this worship, while prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah campaigned in the name of the same stance, but they all failed; only after the exile did Judah commit itself to Yahweh alone, in fulfillment of the promise that Zephaniah will give in 3:11–13, when Yahweh will write the torah into Judah’s heart (Jer. 31:31–34).
The phrase every remnant of Baal need not imply that most Baal worship has already been eradicated; the following lines indicate that this is not so. To cut off . . . “every remnant of Baal” means “to do away with Baal worship in such a way that there is not a remnant, not a trace left” (cf. the similar expression in Ezek. 11:13). The reference to cutting off the names of the pagan and the idolatrous priests restates the point; even their names will be gone. Zephaniah uses two nouns for priests: first kemarim, which always denotes priests who serve other deities, but then also kohanim, the regular Hebrew word for priests of Yahweh. The subsequent reference to people who swear by the LORD and who also swear by Molech reflects the mixed allegiance of people in Judah and Jerusalem, and Zephaniah’s use of the two words for priests likely has the same significance. Apparently there were Baal priests and Yahweh priests in the temple, but the latter connived with this situation; so Yahweh will cut off “the priestlings along with the priests” (NJPS).
Zephaniah refers (second) to worship of the starry host, to an involvement with some theological views and religious practices that is better known to us from Assyria and from Babylon in a slightly later period. These practices naturally took place on the housetops where the planets and stars can be seen. They work under the assumption that the gods work via the movements of the stars and planets. One could therefore divine from these movements events that could be expected to take place both in the political realm and in the personal realm, a practice with which we still associate astrology. Having discovered what the stars portend, one can take appropriate discrete or evasive or apotropaic action.
Third, Zephaniah refers to people swearing their oaths by Molech. As the NIV margin indicates, the Hebrew reads “Malcam.” The marginal note assumes that the deity referred to is “Milcom,” a deity especially associated with the Ammonites, as is noted (significantly) in connection with Josiah’s reform in 2 Kings 23:13. Milcom was the god of the Ammonites as Chemosh was the god of the Moabites—and (from their perspective) Yahweh was the god of the Judeans. But here in Zephaniah, mentioning “Molech” alone points in another direction. In connection with Josiah’s reform, 2 Kings 23:10 and 13 distinguishes the worship of Milcom and other such deities of neighboring peoples from the worship of Molech, to whom Judeans would sometimes sacrifice children. Both Milcom and Molech recall the Hebrew word melek, “king,” and are likely related to it, and Zephaniah’s word “Malcam” is actually the regular Hebrew word for “their king.” Some OT references speak of sacrifice to Molech in association with sacrifices in connection with the dead, and it may be that Molech is the king of Sheol. Judean involvement with Molech, then, would link with the regular human desire to keep up links with members of the family who have died, to express one’s concern for them, and to gain help from them. More literally, Zephaniah speaks of people who swear to Yahweh and swear by Molech (cf. TNIV). They swear allegiance to Yahweh in worship, making the kind of confession of faith that Christian worshipers make when they say the creed, but they take oaths on the basis of a commitment to Molech. They combine their loyalties.
There are other people who have given up on Yahweh altogether (v. 6). They no longer seek the LORD; in other words, they do not inquire of him. Yahweh is not the one they turn to as their resource for blessing or healing or guidance.
1:7–9 The exhortation Be silent (see the comment on Hab. 2:20) marks the beginning of another subsection, which introduces the idea of the day of the LORD.
For centuries Yahweh has put up with the kind of attitude on the people’s part that verse 6 expresses, not least during the long reign of Manasseh that came to an end only a few years previously. But Zephaniah knows that this particular period of divine longtempered-ness is coming to an end. So Judah should “be silent before the Sovereign LORD”; this is the only appropriate reaction when “the day of the LORD” is near (v. 7a). The expression “Yahweh’s day” would be a familiar one, as is already presupposed in Amos 5:18–20. Zephaniah’s preceding words have already indicated that, like Amos, he asserts that this day will be a time when Yahweh brings not blessing (as people likely thought) but terrible calamity. The declaration that something is temporally “near” is mostly used in connection with this expression “Yahweh’s day” and related phrases (e.g., Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; Obad. 15). Zephaniah may even be the first person to use the phrase “Yahweh’s day is near.” But the idea that Yahweh’s day is near goes back at least to Amos. In Amos’s day, the fall of Samaria soon proved him right. For Zephaniah, it will be the fall of Jerusalem that does that, though it will not come for forty years. One implication may be that in the short term Josiah’s reform would make the implementation of Zephaniah’s threats unnecessary. It was the eventual failure of that reform that meant “the day” had to come.
Amos had also already presupposed that Yahweh’s day need not be an End after which nothing else would happen. It will be a day of great trouble or blessing, but after it life will continue. Thus the fall of Samaria was indeed the day Amos had announced, and passages such as Lamentations 1:12; 2:1, 21, 22 will imply that when Jerusalem fell, the day Zephaniah here announces came. On the other hand, each of these “days” is less cataclysmic than the words of prophets such as Zephaniah might have made one expect. So Yahweh’s day can be a symbol of ultimate, total disaster or blessing—and Israel periodically and partially experiences manifestations of this “day.”
Part of the background of “Yahweh’s day” that Amos 5:18–20 presupposes may be that it is a great festival. Zephaniah thus goes on (v. 7b) rather sardonically, The LORD has prepared a sacrifice, like the Levites preparing a sacrifice at a festival, or like a woman preparing a dinner. Jehu speaks in similar terms when inviting the prophets, servants, and priests of the Master to their death banquet (2 Kgs. 10:18–28). A “sacrifice” (zebakh) would commonly imply a fellowship occasion when family and friends ate together in Yahweh’s presence. Thus in this connection Yahweh has consecrated those he has invited. That is, Yahweh has signified acceptance of these guests, identified with them, declared them to be holy (qadash in the hipʿil).
Zephaniah does not suggest that any negative connotations attach to this sacrifice. Nor does he explicitly do so when he continues by declaring that on the day of Yahweh’s sacrifice Yahweh will “attend to” the various groups of leaders mentioned in verse 8. The NIV translates paqad punish, which is certainly the implication, but the verb is a euphemism, like the traditional English translation “visit.” The verb can be used in an entirely positive way, as it will be in 2:7 (NIV “care for”). So here an inattentive hearer might easily reckon that Yahweh is promising to look after the guests at the sacrifice, as it would be proper for the host to do. The guests include princes, a general term for “officials” (TNIV), and the king’s sons, members of the royal household. But they also include all those clad in foreign clothes. Are these foreign envoys? Or Judeans who have assimilated to foreign ways? Or the ministers in robes associated with alien worship (a comparable note also appears in the story of Jehu’s “sacrifice,” 2 Kgs. 10:22)? Uncertainty likewise attaches to the description of people who avoid stepping on the threshold, and some uncertainty also surrounds the reference to the temple of their gods which follows (see the additional notes). But there is no doubt that violence and deceit means violence and deceit, characteristic topics of prophetic critique (e.g., for violence, see Amos 3:10; Mic. 6:12; Hab. 1:2, 3; for deceit, see Amos 8:5; Mic. 6:11, and v. 11 below). So the objects of Yahweh’s attention are initially neutral in moral and religious significance, and then they seem to be ambiguous, but then finally they are of clearly negative significance. By the end of verse 9, Yahweh’s attentiveness has to be the negative kind. To “attend to” indeed means to punish.
1:10–13 The MT and NIV reasonably start a new subsection at verse 10, though the argument continues without a break as Zephaniah imaginatively portrays the cataclysm of which he has spoken taking place and declares why it must do so. The declaration about noise and the exhortation to wail contrast ironically with the exhortation that opened verses 7–9.
Yahweh’s day will see the echo of disaster in different parts of the city. The Fish Gate was on its north side (cf. Neh. 3:3; 12:39); the name implies it was the gate near the fish market, presumably because it was on the side of the city where merchants would arrive with fish to sell. The New Quarter, the mishneh or “Second [Quarter],” is the area west of the Jerusalem of David’s day. Both north and west would be places where trouble might strike first, the north being the direction from which an army would come and both being sides where the city was inherently vulnerable, without natural defenses. Likewise, the hills might be the gentle slopes on the city’s northern and western sides that contrast with the steep and protective valleys to the south and east, or they might be the embankments in the city of David, signaling that disaster has spread from the edges of the city to its heart. In either location, the loud crash will be the noise of buildings falling. In turn, the market district, the maktesh, is more literally “the mortar,” a place of pounding (cf. Prov. 27:22), which might imply “the quarry” or perhaps “the hollow,” an area shaped like a mortar (land dipping down as opposed to a hilly area). It likely refers to the Tyropean Valley, the zone between the rise where David’s city was built and that further, gentler rise to the west, “the New Quarter.” It is identified as the commercial area by the following reference to merchants and people who trade with silver (trade is done with precious metals; coinage has not yet been invented).
As with the princes and the king’s sons, there is nothing to mark the residents of these different districts as particularly sinful, though the context may imply that they were; other prophets assume that merchants and traders are inclined to be swindlers. Verse 12 makes it clear once again that they are people who deserve trouble. Yahweh will make a point of locating the people who especially deserve punishment, though once more Zephaniah explicitly speaks only of Yahweh’s “attending to” them. Literally, these are people who are “thickening on their lees.” The lees (NIV dregs) are the sediment of grape skins and yeast that sits at the bottom of the casks as the wine ferments. The lees contribute to the process of maturing. We can read the image positively or negatively. The wine needs to sit there for a while; and these people have been sitting in Jerusalem for a long time. But the wine must not sit there for too long, lest it become sludge-like itself; and the people have done so. And they think (lit., “say in their heart”) that “Yahweh will not do good and will not do bad.” Yahweh is not the one who brings them blessing (they look to other deities for that) and will not bring them trouble; Yahweh is simply not involved in the world in either way. Against the background of that conviction, the declaration that Yahweh will search Jerusalem with lamps gains extra force. The people who think Yahweh will do nothing will have a rude awakening.
The natural human hope is that you should live long enough to dwell in the house you build and drink the wine from the vineyard you plant, and Yahweh can promise that (Isa. 65:21). But the actual human experience is often that people get taken by illness or war before they can do so. That is what will happen to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah. Their wealth will be plundered and their houses demolished by invaders. It will be a fulfillment of the kind of warning issued in Deuteronomy 28:30, 39.
1:14–18 The NIV appropriately starts a new section, though the argument again continues without a break. Verse 14 begins by taking up the declaration from verse 7 but adds that Yahweh’s day will be great, then repeats that it is near and further adds that it is coming quickly (as people in Isa. 5:19 in effect encouraged it to do).
The succeeding verses simply go on to spell out the grim nature of this day. Yahweh’s day will be bitter, harsh, and bleak for people who experience it as they hear the loud shouting of the warrior there. It seems that Yahweh is the warrior who is shouting, as the TNIV makes explicit; so it is in Isaiah 42:13, the only other place where “shout” (tsarakh) occurs. It will indeed be a day of wrath, of distress and anguish, of trouble and ruin, of darkness and gloom, of clouds and blackness, of trumpet and battle cry, of distress and walking as if one were blind, stumbling around in the dark (Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, p. 184). Verse 17b makes the point more gorily and messily. The additional terms in verse 18 underscore the devastation further. It is the day of the LORD’s wrath, characterized by the fire of his jealousy (see the comment on Nah. 1:2), a fire that gives expression to Yahweh’s passion and burns up the land.
In this subsection, the reason for the coming of Yahweh’s day is put very briefly: it is because they have sinned against the LORD (v. 17a). They have failed to live up to Yahweh’s expectations of them; indeed, they have not tried. Zephaniah reverses the word order, “against Yahweh they have sinned,” and thus emphasizes the magnitude of their wrongdoing. Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them (v. 18) is a comment that likely amplifies the point. The earlier references to trading and specifically to silver, and to wealth (vv. 11–13), would suggest that it is their economic success that has made them confident that they can withstand any crisis; they will be disabused of this notion. But the reference to sinning against Yahweh may mean the silver and gold is the material out of which their images are made. Isaiah 2:7, 20 and Hosea 2:8 might suggest there is a link between the two.
A distinctive emphasis of this fourth subsection lies in the extent of the effect of Yahweh’s day. It will affect not merely Jerusalem but the rest of the fortified cities in Judah, such as Gezer and Lachish with their corner towers. It will thus mean that the whole land is consumed; Yahweh will make a sudden end, a “terrible” end (bahal in the nipʿal) of all the inhabitants of the land (v. 18). The NIV here has world and then earth, as it had “earth” in verses 2–3; there each time the word was ʾadamah, whereas here each time it is ʾerets. Verses 4–6 then zoomed in on Judah and Jerusalem and verses 7–9 and 10–13 focused on Jerusalem in particular. Verses 14–18 have broadened out to consider other cities, which all suggests that Zephaniah has the “land” of Judah in mind when he speaks of the ʾerets in verse 18.
2:1–3 The MT starts a new subsection here and the English chapter division follows; the subsection then introduces the subsequent verses rather than concluding what precedes. The implication is that the nation (goy) is the kind of foreign people with which 2:4–15 concerns itself; goy applies to foreign peoples in verses 5, 9, 11, and 14 (also 3:6, 8). But the NIV’s section heading (at 1:14) links 2:1–3 with what precedes, and both verbal links and links in content suggest this is right. Judah is then the “nation” Zephaniah addresses, and the verses tell Zephaniah’s hearers what are the implications of 1:2–18, how Judah is to respond. The word goy can be applied to Israel in a neutral sense; it is simply the word for nation. Indeed, Yahweh promised to make Abraham into a great goy, and verse 9 will refer to “my nation.” But the book of Isaiah almost begins by calling Judah “a sinful nation” (Isa. 1:4), and it is this usage that Zephaniah follows in calling Judah a shameful nation though the meaning of that qualifying description is unsure (see additional note). Judah, then, is challenged to Gather together, gather together. Already here, too, Zephaniah’s usage is unique. The verb qashash means to gather stubble; only here is it used intransitively, and the two forms of the verb (hitpaʿel and qal) occur only here. In substance, though not in words, the exhortation makes a wicked link with 1:2–3, where Yahweh spoke of collecting up the people (among other things) from the ground in order to trash them, in the way one collects stubble in order to dispose of it. So Zephaniah invites the nation to assemble in order to proceed to the trash heap.
The nation is apparently invited to do that voluntarily, an ticipating the moment when the appointed time arrives, literally to act “before the birth of the decree,” the moment when the deci sion about Yahweh’s day is implemented at the end of its gestation period. So Zephaniah continues to speak of the day that is coming. This will be the moment when that day, Yahweh’s day, sweeps on like chaff (v. 2). The word for “chaff” (mots) is different from the word for “stubble” (qash) which lies behind verse 1, but Zephaniah continues to work with this image in a way that involves allusion and ellipse. “Sweeps on” is the ordinary verb for “passing over” (ʿabar), but here it gains its connotation from the derived word for “wrath” or “overflowing rage” in 1:15, 18 (ʿebrah). So the day of wrath will sweep on the nation and overwhelm it like chaff. The further two lines in verse 2 put the point more straightforwardly. They speak once more of Yahweh’s day as an occasion when anger burns, hinting at another nod to the fiery destiny of chaff or stubble.
Two words dominate the subsection, the words before (3 times in v. 2) and seek (3 times in v. 3); both begin b in Hebrew. The verses thus urge, “before” the day of Yahweh’s anger arrives, “seek” Yahweh (cf. Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, p. 165). This further imperative in verse 3 takes us in another direction from the imperatives in verse 1, though the verb is again one that links back with chapter 1. Judah has failed to Seek the LORD (cf. 1:6); that is, it has failed to come to Yahweh for guidance and provision. Is it prepared now to put that right? Specifically, the people who are asked that question are the humble of the land. The English word “humble” is nicely ambiguous; it can suggest ordinary people who have no power, though it more often suggests people who have an appropriately meek and unassuming estimate of themselves. The Hebrew word ʿani and related words may also be able to suggest meek and unassuming, but they much more often suggest ordinary, powerless people. Sometimes “humble” can describe Israel as a whole as a people without power, and that would describe Judah for much of its life over against the superpower of the day, but sometimes it can describe the ordinary people within the nation over against the people with resources and power. In this context that seems the likely meaning, especially in light of the qualifying description of them as people who do what he commands. Literally, they are people “who have done his decision.” The word is mishpat (see the comment on Hab. 1:4), so the complication is that mishpat is usually the business of people with power, people who exercise authority and make decisions for others. Perhaps this links with the possibility that “the humble of the land” are those elsewhere described as “the people of the land,” who (for instance, and significantly) put Josiah on the throne (2 Kgs. 21:23). They will be people who were outside the Jerusalem establishment but might still have authority in other towns and villages. They would then be people who simultaneously were humble in the sense of not being part of that central power structure but who exercised authority in their communities, and did so in a proper way.
An exhortation that the people who are “humble” and responsible should Seek righteousness, seek humility seems odd, as that description of them has already affirmed that they are characterized by qualities of this kind. More likely the object carries over from there, so that the prophet exhorts them to “seek [Yahweh] with righteousness, seek [Yahweh] with humility.” “Righteousness” (tsedeq) denotes doing the right thing by people within one’s community; “faithfulness” is as near a proper English equivalent and would be a good description of the proper exercise of mishpat. In the Prophets, tsedeq (or tsedaqah) commonly goes along with “authority” (mishpat).
If they will thus treat Yahweh as the one to consult and rely on, in a way that contrasts with the attitudes described in 1:2–18, then perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the LORD’s anger. Zephaniah speaks as if the coming of Yahweh’s day is inevitable but suggests that it need not swallow up everyone. And, in the event, it did take a heavier toll of the powerful than of the “humble.” It was the powerful who were exiled. Zephaniah’s assumption is the one Abraham makes in Genesis 18, that Yahweh will surely not sweep away the righteous with the wicked. Here Zephaniah anticipates Abraham’s question, or recalls it, and raises at least the possibility that this would not happen. Yet it is only a “perhaps.” Perhaps Zephaniah knew well that things do not always work out that way. And perhaps he recognized that people need to do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because doing so promises profit.
So whereas verse 1 addresses the community as a whole, but especially its central leadership, verse 3 addresses the people who do not need to be called shameful. Yet the NIV appends verse 2 to verse 1 and thus implies that even the “shameful” nation can escape the destiny Zephaniah threatens. It’s never over until it’s over. The community needs to see what it is currently gathering itself together for, and instead to become people who do “seek” Yahweh along with the people whom verse 3 directly addresses. The two sets of imperatives place different destinies before people (perhaps the community gathered in the temple). They have to decide which destiny to accept.
Additional Notes
1:2 The expression ʾasof ʾasef neatly combines a straightforward qal from ʾasaf (“gather”) and an artificial hipʿil from suf (“end”). Jeremiah 8:13 uses this combination in a similar connection. Only the second verb recurs in v. 3.
1:3 The NIV takes the fourth line to mean (more literally) “heaps of rubble [are] with the wicked”; this gives makshelot the same meaning as in its only other occurrence, in Isa. 3:6. The TNIV rather takes it as a variant for the more common miksholim, “things that make people fall”; the things that make the wicked fall are then the divine images, which is the connotation of miksholim in (e.g.) Ezek. 14:3, 4, 7. The context here may suggest that these would be images of animals, birds, and fish.
The placing of the parenthetical phrase declares the LORD puts us on the track of the right way to see the opening subsections within 1:2–2:3. Whereas the MT links v. 3b with what precedes and the NIV sees a new section beginning with v. 4, the occurrences of “declares the LORD” come near the beginning of a subsection in vv. 2 and 10, which suggests that in v. 3b this is the beginning of a new subsection. This implies the beginning of a new sentence, “When I cut off . . . ,” which then leads into v. 4 (so TNIV). It is the first of a series of vav-consecutives running through vv. 3b–4. One could translate simply “I will cut off. . . . I will stretch out. . . . I will cut off,” but it makes good sense to see v. 3b as resumptively subordinate to v. 4.
1:9 All who avoid stepping on the threshold: lit., “all who jump over the threshold.” First Samuel 5:5 refers to worshipers of Dagon not treading on the sanctuary threshold.
The temple of their gods: lit., “the house of their lords.” This might thus refer to their human bosses rather than their deities.
1:14 Literally, “the sound of [or hark,] Yahweh’s day is bitter, the warrior shouts there.”
1:15 These lines were a major inspiration for the hymn Dies irae which appears in the traditional Roman Catholic Requiem Mass and thus in the requiems of Mozart and Verdi. The hymn turns the day of wrath into the day of final judgment from which Christ saves us; hence also the setting of the passage in lectionaries in Advent.
2:1 Gather together, gather together: Zephaniah makes the point emphatic by using first the hitpaʿel form of the verb then the qal. Both occur only here and may be his innovation; the verb is usually poʿel.
Shameful is loʾ niksaf; the verb does not have this meaning elsewhere in the OT, but it occurs in later Heb. and Aramaic. More literally, the expression would mean “shameless.” But other OT occurrences would suggest “not longing,” with v. 3 then making clear that this implied not seeking Yahweh (cf. Ps. 84:2). What is clear is that a reason for putting the rather obscure expression here is the similarity between the verb kasaf and the noun kesef (“silver”) in 1:11, 18. The people longed for kesef or were proud of their kesef, but actually they lack kesef.