Geography and Origins

The geographic center of Assyria consisted of a triangle between the Kurdish mountains, the Tigris River, and the Upper Zab River (which flows into the Tigris). This triangle sits within the modern-day country of Iraq and for the most part contained the four most important cities in the history of ancient Assyria: Ashur, Nineveh, Arbela, and Calah. At the height of its power, the Assyrian Empire stretched far beyond this geographical region, but this heartland served as the political and social base throughout its history.

Although there were some individual city-states such as Ashur and Nineveh in this heartland during the third millennium BC, Assyria as a unified political entity did not arise until the mid-second millennium. Other than a brief alliance of some of the city-states under Shamshi-Adad I in the eighteenth century BC, which was not called Assyria, the first Assyrian political state began with Ashur-uballit I (c. 1364–1329 BC). From the earliest times the lack of certain resources in the heartland and the location of these city-states along major trading routes made commerce a central component of the Assyrian economy.

Political and Military History

The Middle Assyrian Period (1364–934 BC). The first great ruler of Assyria was Ashur-uballit I, who ruled for thirty-five years. During his reign, he controlled Babylon to the south, but during the fifty years following his death, his descendants lost control of Babylon due to the rise of the Kassite dynasty there. In 1273 BC, with the rise of Ashur-uballit’s great-grandson Shalmaneser I, Assyria began to grow into an empire that dominated the ancient Near East. He defeated the Hittites and the Arameans and annexed the territory of Mitanni, to the west. The brutal method of warfare and treatment of captives for which Assyria would become famous can already be seen in Shalmaneser’s descriptions of his military campaigns.

After the death of Shalmaneser I, his son Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC) expanded the Assyrian state even more through a series of successful military campaigns. He defeated the resurging Hittites to the west and a number of people groups in the mountains to the north and east. But most important, he conquered and reclaimed Babylon to the south. This had two significant implications. With Babylon now subdued, the only major check on Assyrian power was eliminated, leaving the Assyrians free to expand. Second, elements of Babylonian culture were more easily appropriated into Assyrian culture. It even appears that the statue of the god Marduk was carried from Babylon back to Assyria. Eventually Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated in a palace revolt led by his son. The internal strife of the empire (which came to fruition in this coup), coupled with external factors that resulted in an increased threat from the west, resulted in a period of decline for the Assyrian Empire that would last a little less than a century.

Although Assyria regained internal stability and prosperity under Ashur-resha-ishi I (c. 1132–1115 BC), the next resurgence of Assyrian power came with the ascension of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BC) to the throne. At the very beginning of his reign, Tiglath-pileser successfully countered an attack from the west by the Mushku. His successful campaign against the Mushku began an expansion to the west that brought territory and spoils to the Assyrian Empire but also resulted in conflict with the Arameans, who were based in Syria but interested in expanding into Mesopotamia. When Tiglath-pileser’s troops clashed with Aramean forces at Jebel Bishri in central Syria, the Assyrian victory resulted in the acquisition of all of Syria and allowed Tiglath-pileser to press the borders of the Assyrian Empire all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. To the south Tiglath-pileser also led successful campaigns that resulted in the capture of major Babylonian cities such as Babylon and Sippar. By the time of his death in 1076 BC, the Assyrian Empire stretched from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Arabian Gulf in the southeast, a dominance unrivaled in the previous history of the ancient Near East. This sweeping success of Tiglath-pileser also resulted in cultural developments, including substantial building projects and the compilation of legislation and edicts by professional scribes.

The Neo-Assyrian Empire (934–612 BC). After the death of Tiglath-pileser, Assyria entered another period of decline due to the absence of a sufficient administrative structure to rule the enormous territory of the empire as well as the increasing pressure by the Arameans. However, Assyria again gained stability under Ashur-dan II (c. 934–912 BC). He began to renew military campaigns to recover lands previously held and fortified the capital city of Ashur. His two successors, Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC) and Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884 BC), continued the successful military campaigns and ambitious building projects. This revival of the Assyrian Empire under Ashur-dan II marks the beginning of what historians call the Neo-Assyrian Empire, an era of power that would last for three hundred years and grow to supersede the accomplishments of all prior Assyrian reigns.

In 883 BC Ashurnasirpal II came to power. Under him the Assyrian army became better organized and thus more efficient and engaged in military campaigns regularly instead of sporadically. There was also an increase in the brutality exercised by the Assyrian army in order to dissuade smaller states from attempting to resist Assyria’s expansion. Ashurnasirpal II also built the small town of Calah into a major city and relocated the capital of Assyria there.

Shortly after inheriting the Assyrian empire in 858 BC, Ashurnasirpal II’s son Shalmaneser III turned his attention to the north and the west and began moving to assert Assyrian control over those territories. In 853 BC he dismantled a northern alliance and then proceeded southward. At Qarqar Shalmaneser’s forces clashed with the Damascus coalition, which consisted of a number of nations, including Israel under King Ahab, that had banded together to resist the Assyrian encroachment. This battle is not mentioned in the Bible, but the lopsided nature of the victory claimed by the Assyrians seems overstated, since Shalmaneser continued to fight against the Damascus coalition over the next decade. By 841 BC, King Jehu of Israel, Tyre, and Sidon had voluntarily submitted to Assyrian control. As Shalmaneser grew old, he delegated more and more authority to those under him, creating friction among his subordinates and sons over the direction of the monarchy. Even though Shalmaneser’s son Shamshi-Adad V (823–811 BC) emerged as the monarch after his father’s death, instability within the kingdom and the rapidly increasing external threat of the Urartian Empire to the north resulted in a weakening of the Assyrian Empire that would last for almost a century until the rise of Tiglath-pileser III in 744 BC.

With the ascension of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) to the throne, the empire entered a hundred-year period that would be the golden age of Assyrian rule in the ancient Near East. In addition to reclaiming lands lost in the previous century to Urartu, he reasserted Assyrian control over Damascus, Hamath, Byblos, Tyre, and Samaria. Shortly afterward, King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Damascus banded together to resist Assyrian hegemony in what is called the “Syro-Ephraimite coalition.” When they tried to force King Ahaz of Judah to join them, he appealed to Tiglath-pileser for help in exchange for fealty, against the counsel of Isaiah (see 2 Kings 16; 2 Chron. 28; Isa. 7). In 734 BC Tiglath-pileser crushed the coalition, captured Gaza, and developed it into a trade center between Assyria and Egypt. In addition to improving the military and restructuring the administration of the empire, Tiglath-pileser instituted the policy of deporting and exiling subjects who rebelled against him, a policy that his successors would continue.

The next king over Assyria, Shalmaneser V, ruled for only about four years (726–722 BC). His chief importance is that he conquered Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel (see 2 Kings 17–18), though he was killed around the same time. The next king, Sargon II (721–705 BC), exiled the northern Israelites and settled in their place peoples from Syria and Babylonia. Sargon also built an entirely new capital, Dur-Sharrukin, just a few miles north of Nineveh.

In 704 BC Sargon’s son Sennacherib came to the throne and established the Assyrian capital at Nineveh. The kingdom of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem, became a top priority for Sennacherib because Judah was not only refusing submission to Assyria but also allying itself with Egypt and Ethiopia against Assyria. In 701 BC Sennacherib invaded Palestine, and at Eltekeh the Assyrian forces clashed with a coalition of Egyptian and Ethiopian forces that had come to the aid of Hezekiah, king of Judah. After defeating these forces, Sennacherib marched toward Jerusalem. Along the way he laid waste to the Judean countryside and exiled the inhabitants. The brunt of the damage was done in the Shephelah region, especially the city of Lachish. Although Sennacherib is not named explicitly, these are the circumstances that seem to be reflected in Mic. 1:8–16. When Sennacherib’s army reached Jerusalem, it laid siege to the capital city. Although Sennacherib had gone to Libnah, he sent his Rabshakeh (a senior official in the Assyrian army) to press his claims. The account of the ensuing standoff between Hezekiah and the Rabshakeh is given in three places in the Bible: 2 Kings 18–19; 2 Chron. 32; and Isa. 36–37. According to the Bible, the angel of the Lord slaughtered much of the Assyrian army, forcing the survivors to retreat and thus delivering Jerusalem. Variant accounts are given by Josephus (Ant. 10.1.4–5) and Herodotus (Hist. 2.141).

After the death of Sennacherib in 681 BC, his son Esarhaddon took control of the Assyrian Empire until 669 BC. During his reign Assyria gained superficial control of Egypt. Before his death he appointed Ashurbanipal as his heir over Assyria (668–612 BC), but he made Shamash-shuma-ukin the king over Babylonia. This fateful move eventually led to the downfall of Assyria because it resulted in civil war. With its resources already depleted by the vast empire, Assyria crumbled in the late seventh century BC to a coalition of Babylonian, Median, and Scythian forces. The end came quickly, and in 612 BC Nineveh was sacked (see the book of Nahum) and the Neo-Babylonian Empire was born.

Culture and Religion

A key characteristic of Assyrian culture was militarism. War was not simply a means of survival but also lay at the heart of the entire Assyrian social structure, from the king down to the poorest peasant. Assyrian inscriptions are replete with boasting about military campaigns and victories, which were a central requirement for a king’s reign to be considered successful. Among the general population, the duty of a warrior was held in high esteem, and all men were viewed as potential soldiers.

Because of the militaristic and imperial bent of the culture, the society enjoyed a high standard of living under successful monarchs. In addition to the natural bounty of the Assyrian heartland, the control over a large area of subjected vassal states resulted in enrichment through taxes and tributes. The militaristic character of the culture is also evident in the Assyrian’s favorite forms of recreation: hunting, archery, and javelin throwing, among others.

However, even though Assyrian culture could be quite prosperous, there was little literary production. Instead, the Assyrians were largely content to borrow from the Babylonians for works on science, religion, and history. During his reign Ashurbanipal sent servants throughout Babylonia to collect as much Babylonian literature as could be found. He then assembled a library in Nineveh to house these texts. The library contained a large number of reference works on the practice of divination and lexical works. There are also literary works such as myths and epics, hymns and prayers, and some historical accounts.

Assyrian religion was also influenced by Babylonian beliefs and practices. Both cultures were polytheistic, though there are lists that give a hierarchical order of certain gods. The principal god of the Assyrian culture was Ashur, but the goddess Ishtar and the gods Ninurta, Shamash, Adad, and Sin were also important. The Babylonian deities Marduk, Enlil, and Nebo also found their way into Assyrian religious practice, and the most important religious festival in Assyria, the New Year’s festival, was heavily influenced by Babylonian religion. Each god or goddess had a cultic center with a ziggurat and priests and a schedule of religious rituals. In Assyrian religion the king played an especially prominent role because he was the chief priest and, though not actually divine, was considered to be the representative of the deity, and his presence was required at some religious ceremonies such as the New Year’s festival.

By the time of the Neo-Assyrian period, divination played an important role in Assyrian religion because it was believed that one could read the will of the gods, including the events of the future, through highly developed rituals. Those who had been trained in divination, frequently Babylonians, could discern the signs through extispicy (examining the entrails of sacrificial animals), hepatoscopy (reading animal livers), astrology (studying the stars), or other unusual events such as dreams or birth defects. This religious environment also produced widespread use of witchcraft and magic, which provided an avenue of religious involvement for the commoner not available in the official cults.

“Cherubim” (Heb. kerubim) is the plural form of “cherub” (Heb. kerub), a winged heavenly creature, apparently different from an (or a certain type of) angel. Scholars are uncertain as to the original meaning of the word, but it is probably related to a word that means either “gatekeeper” or “intercessor.” Cherubim appear as attendants around the throne of God or in some cases as gatekeepers, guarding the way to the presence of God.

God stationed cherubim to guard the entrance to the garden of Eden after he expelled Adam and Eve from the garden (Gen. 3:24). In this sense, the garden of Eden was a prototype of the temple, where the presence of God could be encountered. Later, in accordance with God’s instructions, golden cherubim were constructed and placed on either side of the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant, the place where God declared, “I will meet with you [Moses]” (Exod. 25:18–22).

The decorations of the tabernacle and the later Solomonic temple incorporated artwork depicting representations of cherubim (Exod. 26:1, 31; 1 Kings 6:23–29; 7:29, 36; 8:6–7; 2 Chron. 3:14). Isaiah 37:16 describes God as sitting between the wings of the cherubim, and Ps. 18:10 describes him as flying on the wings of the cherubim.

The prophet Ezekiel gives an extensive description of “four living creatures” flying around the throne of God (1:4–21). Later, the prophet identifies these same creatures but refers to them as cherubim (10:1–22). See also Ark of the Covenant.

In the NIV, “fashion” is a verb meaning “to craft, shape, form.” Often it is used pejoratively, as in the crafting of an idol out of wood, stone, or metal (Exod. 32:4; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; 40:19; 44:15; Hos. 13:2). Job speaks of the cunning and scheming of those who think they are wise but are godless: “their womb fashions deceit” (Job 15:35). In a positive sense, items are fashioned for God’s purpose: Aaron’s breastpiece is fashioned by “the work of skilled hands” (Exod. 28:15; cf. 39:8). God is the master craftsman who “fashioned and made the earth” (Isa. 45:18). But God’s fashioning is a synonym for creation rather than crafting; he fashions his work out of nothing.

In the KJV God’s fashioning extends to his creation of human beings (Job 10:8; 31:15; Ps. 119:73), his oversight of the human heart (Ps. 33:15), his ordaining of a person’s life span (Ps. 139:16), and his transformative work in the glorification of believers (Phil. 3:21).

The most common noun usage for the word “fashion” in the KJV OT is as a plan, blueprint, or specification (2 Kings 16:10)—for example, of the ark (Gen. 6:15), the tabernacle (Exod. 26:30), and the temple (1 Kings 6:38; Ezek. 43:11). “Fashion” is also used as a synonym for “likeness, appearance, manner, form” (Exod. 37:19; Mark 2:12; Luke 9:29; 1 Cor. 7:31; Phil. 2:8; James 1:11). Finally, Peter cautions believers against “fashioning [themselves] according to the former lusts” (1 Pet. 1:14 KJV), a warning not to model or conform to worldly desires.

(1) The fourteenth ruler of the kingdom of Judah (727–698 BC). He was the son of Ahaz, an impious king, but Hezekiah reversed his father’s religious policies and worked hard at promoting true worship of Yahweh. Though not perfect, he, along with Josiah, is remembered as one of the two best kings to rule Judah.

He was not sole ruler of Judah until 715 BC, and he was serving as coregent with Ahaz when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC (2 Kings 18:9–12). Perhaps the fate of the northern kingdom led Hezekiah to initiate religious reform in Judah.

Although Judah was not incorporated into the Assyrian Empire when the northern kingdom fell, it was always under that great kingdom’s shadow and threat, likely paying annual tribute. It appears that Hezekiah participated in an area-wide revolt against Assyria after the death of Sargon II in 705 BC. In response, the new Assyrian king, Sennacherib, threatened Jerusalem in 701 BC. The Assyrian army successfully took many Judean cities, and its envoys appeared at the walls of Jerusalem. The prophet Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the capital would not fall, and it did not (2 Kings 18:17–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1–23; Isa. 36–37).

According to 2 Kings 20:20, Hezekiah constructed a tunnel that brought water inside the walls of the city. The tunnel still exists today and takes the water from the Gihon spring to the Pool of Siloam. It is a remarkable engineering achievement, and an inscription found on the wall inside the tunnel indicates that it was built during Hezekiah’s reign.

After the Assyrian siege, Hezekiah fell sick, and Isaiah announced that he would die (2 Kings 20:1–11; Isa. 38). Hezekiah turned to God in prayer, and God granted him fifteen additional years of life, giving the king the remarkable sign of the sundial whose shadow moved backward.

Even Hezekiah, though, had his bad moments. After showing a Babylonian leader, Marduk-Baladan, the temple treasures, thus revealing an inclination to trust foreign powers rather than God, Hezekiah heard from Isaiah that his descendants would suffer the consequences of his action (2 Kings 20:13–21; Isa. 39).

(2) A forefather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1; KJV: “Hizkiah”). (3) The ancestor of a family listed among those that returned from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:16; Neh. 7:21). (4) One of the leaders of the returned exiles, he participated in the sealing of the covenant at the Ezra-Nehemiah renewal ceremony (Neh. 10:17; KJV: “Hizkijah”). He may be the same as 3.

Speech (2 Kings 19:16; Isa. 37:17) or gesture (2 Sam. 10:4) that shames, demeans, disrespects, abuses, offends, or slights someone. Insults in the biblical world were also part of propaganda and warfare; for example, Nabal hurled insults at David (1 Sam. 25:14; cf. Lam. 3:61–63). Divine wrath is implored for vengeance against those who insult God (2 Kings 19:22–23; Neh. 4:4; Ezek. 21:28; Zeph. 2:8), while responding in kind seems to be acceptable (Isa. 37:23), since, as the psalmist bemoans, insults directed at God include the psalmist too (Ps. 69:9). Romans 15:3 puts these sentiments in the mouth of Christ (cf. Ps. 22:7).

Jeremiah bewails insults directed at him for simply being a prophet (Jer. 20:8) and laments the desecration of the temple as an insult to God and his people (51:51). While prudence ignores insults and shows self-control (Prov. 12:16), correcting mockers invites insult (9:7; 22:10).

Jesus’ followers are to anticipate insults (Heb. 10:33) and even count them as blessings (Matt. 5:11; Luke 6:22) because they are partaking of what Jesus himself went through (Matt. 27:39; 27:44; Mark 15:29; 15:32; Luke 18:32; 23:39; 1 Pet. 4:14). But 1 Pet. 2:23; 3:9 discourage responding in kind when insulted. Paul, as part of his suffering (1 Thess. 2:2), even delighted in insults for Christ’s sake (2 Cor. 12:10). Discriminating against the poor is an insult to them (James 2:6), while insulting the Spirit of grace results in divine judgment (Heb. 10:29).

A king of Assyria (r. 705–681 BC), he came to the throne upon the death of his powerful father, Sargon II, who had solidified Assyria’s empire, including incorporating the northern kingdom of Israel (722 BC). Many vassal states chose this moment of transition to rebel against Assyria, including Hezekiah of Judah, who stopped paying tribute. Sennacherib responded by moving his army to Judah in 701 BC, a moment of crisis recorded in 2 Kings 18:13–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1–23; Isa. 35:1–37:38.

At first, Sennacherib had success against Judah, even taking Lachish and Azekah, cities that guarded the entrance to Jerusalem. The defeat of the former is pictured on reliefs that have been discovered from the remains of the Assyrian palace. When Sennacherib moved on Jerusalem, however, the prophet Isaiah encouraged Hezekiah to remain resolute and not surrender. The Bible records that God prevented an Assyrian victory. After hearing rumors of an approaching Egyptian army, the Assyrians withdrew and then experienced what seems to be a plague that killed 185,000 soldiers. Sennacherib then withdrew from the field. His life ended some time later when he was assassinated by two of his sons.

A mineral cluster or rock. Although the terms “rock” and “stone” are occasionally used synonymously, “rock” usually refers to a large geological formation such as a cliff, cave, outcropping, or bedrock, while “stone” is preferred when the rock is small enough to be fashioned or handled by human beings. “Stone” can also function as an adjective, referring to a material made of stone, or as a verb, referring to the casting of stones.

Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:46–50), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1 Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).

Stone was used as a construction material, particularly for the temple (1 Kings 5:15–18; 1 Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundation and for the cornerstone or capstone (1 Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26; Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22 refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; cf. Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh. 8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1 Kings 8:9; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai the Israelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed” stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). The phrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, since stone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf. Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2 Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); the term “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to an idol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 20:32).

Stones were used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown by hand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1 Sam. 17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone” refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typically functioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29; Deut. 21:20–21; 1 Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts 7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd (Exod. 17:4; 1 Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).

The phrases “precious stones” and “costly stones” refer to gems (2 Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1 Cor. 3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1 Kings 10:2, 10–11; 2 Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and for decoration (1 Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones on the high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on his breastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12, 17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of precious stones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).

Rocks and stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as a rock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common (1 Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12), hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless (Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone” describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumbling stone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble (Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faith in Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1 Pet. 2:8).

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the most idiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibited anyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book (i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 might lead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorship and Date

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewed the unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1), along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition (i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9; Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountains of Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof that the book was the product of a single author. Even during the first one hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OT research, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm the traditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book of Ezekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began to shift early in the twentieth century.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, issues of authorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministry dominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’s peculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding the place of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records, Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic community in Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah (11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and around the temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is one to make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind in Jerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Many of those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of the book’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explain Ezekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some seven hundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies of his ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language, his extended period of “muteness,” various striking sign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of his visionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion of how to understand his visionary experience of being transported to remote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting the similarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of the mystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complex personality” and as one whose life was more attuned to the realities of the supernatural world.

Geographical solutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of events in Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekiel ministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core of chapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated these chapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also added chapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekiel ministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, at which time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continued his ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approach is that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekiel without resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city to the other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials that ecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of the prophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasies actually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets. Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted cultural tradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as it stands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between the Jerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices to explain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem. The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by the cultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under the influence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetorical goals of his preaching.

It is entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was an Israelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic events surrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Historical Background

The book of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’s world, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a working picture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in which Ezekiel lived and ministered.

In 701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, as had befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to the ministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financial expense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’s death in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’s religious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically. Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as a vassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline of Judah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled in the years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s strong invectives against empty religious formalism and social irresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest that Josiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominally successful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

While Josiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in the international scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal, the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. The Neo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealt Assyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC), followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This, coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2 Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumed leadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Later that same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemish and also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewish men to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a second deportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and about ten thousand Jews (2 Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed on the Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon (588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege of Jerusalem before its final demise in 586 BC.

The political crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. The promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7:7–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abode forever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14) seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry, the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, the rightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity to Babylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition, the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping the Israelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11). Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with the Israelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outside the land immediately raised grave concern about their status before God (1 Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would lead in a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship was even possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwitting pagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses on the recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Far from recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in the rebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted their claim to divine favor and denied the validity of prophetic indictments. They supported their claims with appeals to the miraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC), selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets of a quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek. 13).

From Ezekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liar out of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. In light of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriate response was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). By denying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party for the destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wicked kingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

From this historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced by Ezekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread belief that it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh. Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in good standing with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he would shortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminate serious consideration of the possibility that destruction of the kingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, once the kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’s power and/or character became suspect in the minds of many. Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence and blessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremely negative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raised the specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness was intensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction of the kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integrate the outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously held beliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

Literary Considerations

Structure and outline. There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the “inner logic” of the book.

Tripartite structure. In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment on the nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws is emphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32 serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24 by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed toward the foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in these chapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message of hope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis on divine judgment in the first half of the book is not a de facto statement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognition that only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors) is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize a further subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39 focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48 dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

This yields the following outline:

I. God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II. God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III. Hope for Israel (33–48)

A. Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B. Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions. Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), with two additional visions in between: temple idolatry and the incremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed (chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

The movement of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place where God’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book as Ezekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominous inaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure of God’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11), and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple (chaps. 40–48).

Genre. The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionary narrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48), allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), and popular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20, 24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27; Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13), but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couched in uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informs Ezekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings of the people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicate God by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleled frequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oracles against the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which his counterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and the hope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve as a foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of his contemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popular sayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both the necessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings of the people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition to God and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

Theological Message

The sovereignty of God. The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekiel challenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which held that Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem. The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs, then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken” occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’s intervention in human events, including the exile and restoration (e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish his kingdom.

The holiness of God. Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight of their neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishment of Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantal relationship with his people. God’s purging judgment and restoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations and would display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hope in the midst of judgment. God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration after judgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48) gives a picture of the restoration using typological images and cultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

New Testament Connections

There are approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book of Ezekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’s Gospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15]) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22 [Ezek. 40–48]).

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1) no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2) differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3) it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4) although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2 Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1 = threat; 2:1–4 = promise of hope; 2:5–4:1 = threat; 4:2–6 = promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

The book of Zephaniah is the ninth of the twelve Minor Prophets. This short book moves dramatically from divine anger to divine compassion. Zephaniah is one of the more overlooked prophets, ministering during the same period of crisis as the well-known prophet Jeremiah.

Historical Background

Zephaniah is not mentioned outside this book, but some interesting information is provided in the superscription (1:1). First, he is introduced with a long genealogy: “son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah.” Most attention has been directed to the last named, Hezekiah. Since the genealogy makes an effort to reach Hezekiah, it is likely that he is the king by that name (727–698 BC), even though he is not specified as such. According to the biblical records, Hezekiah was a godly king for the most part (2 Kings 18–20; 2 Chron. 29–32; Isa. 36–39). Some discussion attends the name “Cushi” as well, since it may point to Ethiopia, leading some to suggest that Zephaniah’s father was from Africa.

As a descendant of Hezekiah, Zephaniah also was related to King Josiah (640–609 BC), who, as the superscription notes, was the king contemporary with this prophecy. The precise date during this period of Zephaniah’s prophecy is uncertain. Josiah was a religious reformer, but he was very young, only eight years old, when he became king. He began to seek the “God of his father David” in his eighth year as king (2 Chron. 34:3). He soon began to purify the land of idolatry. In his eighteenth year he began to purify the temple (2 Chron. 34:8). Zephaniah’s judgment oracles are directed toward the type of apostasy that Josiah was working to rid the land of, which leads some scholars to date his words early in Josiah’s reign. On the other hand, no one believes that Josiah was totally successful in his attempt to purify religion. Zephaniah could have prophesied at any point in Josiah’s reign.

Zephaniah also predicts that God’s judgment will come in the form of a foreign invasion (1:4, 10–13; 2:1). In the clear light of historical retrospection, it is best to identify this unnamed tool of God’s punishment as Babylon, whom God did use to punish the sin of Judah (586 BC).

Literary Considerations and Outline

Zephaniah is a collection of prophetic oracles delivered by the prophet over a period of time. Regardless of their distinctive original oral settings, however, the book presently has a unified structure reflected in the following outline:

I. Superscription (1:1)

II. Judgment Oracles against Judah (1:2–2:3)

III. Oracles against the Nations (2:4–3:8)

IV. Salvation Oracles (3:9–20)

Theological Message

As with Amos (5:18–20; 8:3–13), Joel, Isaiah (2:6–22), and other prophets, Zephaniah speaks of a coming day of the Lord (1:14). This will be a day of judgment, when those who have rejected and disobeyed God will receive the punishment due them. Zephaniah points out that God will bring his retributive judgment against the nations (2:14–15) as well as his own people (1:14–2:3). The book thus emphasizes the sinfulness of the people (1:7–13; 3:3–5) as well as God’s sovereignty to carry out his punishment.

However, Zephaniah also speaks of God’s mercy. God will restore a remnant. The remnant is those people who survive the judgment. They are purified and will be the basis of a new people of God (2:3; 3:13, 19–20).

New Testament Connections

Modern readers should reflect on God’s expressed concern over the disobedience of his people. He is particularly angry with those who follow false gods and also with those who exploit others for their own advantage.

The NT also sees that the day of the Lord anticipates not only a historical judgment like that of the Babylonians on sinful Judah, but also a final judgment on sin. Paul often writes of the day of the Lord, the day of Christ (Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Tim. 4:8) and looks for that final theophany and final vindication of God in history. John describes the warrior God coming with his armies to execute judgment (Rev. 19:11–16).

“Cherubim” (Heb. kerubim) is the plural form of “cherub” (Heb. kerub), a winged heavenly creature, apparently different from an (or a certain type of) angel. Scholars are uncertain as to the original meaning of the word, but it is probably related to a word that means either “gatekeeper” or “intercessor.” Cherubim appear as attendants around the throne of God or in some cases as gatekeepers, guarding the way to the presence of God.

God stationed cherubim to guard the entrance to the garden of Eden after he expelled Adam and Eve from the garden (Gen. 3:24). In this sense, the garden of Eden was a prototype of the temple, where the presence of God could be encountered. Later, in accordance with God’s instructions, golden cherubim were constructed and placed on either side of the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant, the place where God declared, “I will meet with you [Moses]” (Exod. 25:18–22).

The decorations of the tabernacle and the later Solomonic temple incorporated artwork depicting representations of cherubim (Exod. 26:1, 31; 1 Kings 6:23–29; 7:29, 36; 8:6–7; 2 Chron. 3:14). Isaiah 37:16 describes God as sitting between the wings of the cherubim, and Ps. 18:10 describes him as flying on the wings of the cherubim.

The prophet Ezekiel gives an extensive description of “four living creatures” flying around the throne of God (1:4–21). Later, the prophet identifies these same creatures but refers to them as cherubim (10:1–22). See also Ark of the Covenant.

(1) The fourteenth ruler of the kingdom of Judah (727–698 BC). He was the son of Ahaz, an impious king, but Hezekiah reversed his father’s religious policies and worked hard at promoting true worship of Yahweh. Though not perfect, he, along with Josiah, is remembered as one of the two best kings to rule Judah.

He was not sole ruler of Judah until 715 BC, and he was serving as coregent with Ahaz when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC (2 Kings 18:9–12). Perhaps the fate of the northern kingdom led Hezekiah to initiate religious reform in Judah.

Although Judah was not incorporated into the Assyrian Empire when the northern kingdom fell, it was always under that great kingdom’s shadow and threat, likely paying annual tribute. It appears that Hezekiah participated in an area-wide revolt against Assyria after the death of Sargon II in 705 BC. In response, the new Assyrian king, Sennacherib, threatened Jerusalem in 701 BC. The Assyrian army successfully took many Judean cities, and its envoys appeared at the walls of Jerusalem. The prophet Isaiah assured Hezekiah that the capital would not fall, and it did not (2 Kings 18:17–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1–23; Isa. 36–37).

According to 2 Kings 20:20, Hezekiah constructed a tunnel that brought water inside the walls of the city. The tunnel still exists today and takes the water from the Gihon spring to the Pool of Siloam. It is a remarkable engineering achievement, and an inscription found on the wall inside the tunnel indicates that it was built during Hezekiah’s reign.

After the Assyrian siege, Hezekiah fell sick, and Isaiah announced that he would die (2 Kings 20:1–11; Isa. 38). Hezekiah turned to God in prayer, and God granted him fifteen additional years of life, giving the king the remarkable sign of the sundial whose shadow moved backward.

Even Hezekiah, though, had his bad moments. After showing a Babylonian leader, Marduk-Baladan, the temple treasures, thus revealing an inclination to trust foreign powers rather than God, Hezekiah heard from Isaiah that his descendants would suffer the consequences of his action (2 Kings 20:13–21; Isa. 39).

(2) A forefather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. 1:1; KJV: “Hizkiah”). (3) The ancestor of a family listed among those that returned from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:16; Neh. 7:21). (4) One of the leaders of the returned exiles, he participated in the sealing of the covenant at the Ezra-Nehemiah renewal ceremony (Neh. 10:17; KJV: “Hizkijah”). He may be the same as 3.

Lachish was in the foothills of the Shephelah, thirty miles to the southwest of Jerusalem, and it controlled the road that ran from the north to the south hill country. It is usually identified with modern Tell el-Duweir, which has been extensively excavated.

Before the monarchy. Lachish is mentioned in Egyptian sources as early as the fifteenth century BC. These sources include letters from the kings of Lachish. We first hear of Lachish in the OT at the time of the conquest when, under its king Japhia, it formed part of a coalition of five Amorite city-states. Joshua defeated the coalition, killed the kings, and totally destroyed the cities (Josh. 10:1–35; 12:11). Archaeologists have found evidence of Canaanite occupation prior to this time, and also of the destruction of the city in the late second millennium BC. After the conquest, Lachish was allotted to the tribe of Judah (15:39), but there is no archaeological evidence of Israelite occupation until the time of the monarchy.

During the monarchy. During the monarchy, Lachish was the most important of a double line of fortified cities guarding the western approaches to Jerusalem. It probably was one of Solomon’s chariot cities (1 Kings 9:19; 10:26) and certainly was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:9). Amaziah fled to Lachish from a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, but he was followed and killed there (2 Kings 14:19; 2 Chron. 25:27). When Sennacherib of Assyria invaded Judah in Hezekiah’s reign, he besieged and captured Lachish, making it his headquarters for further threats against Jerusalem, which were miraculously averted in answer to prayer (2 Kings 18:13–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1–22; Isa. 36–37).

Lachish plays an important role in Micah’s lament over the cities of Judah (Mic. 1:13), where it is closely linked to Jerusalem. Using a wordplay on the similarity between the name “Lachish” and a rare Hebrew word for a chariot “team” of horses, Micah says that Lachish must harness its chariots, presumably for flight, because it was “where the sin of the Daughter Zion began.”

The archaeological data from Lachish in this period are rich. The layer known as Level V probably was destroyed during Shishak of Egypt’s campaign against Rehoboam in 925 BC (2 Chron. 12:2–4); the next layer, Level IV, seems to have been destroyed not in warfare but rather by a natural disaster such as an earthquake. In the eighth century BC, Lachish (Level III) was at its largest, richest, and most heavily defended, but this was the city that Sennacherib destroyed and burned in 701 BC. Archaeologists have found not only jars with seals from Hezekiah’s reign, a deep well for freshwater, the massive double city walls and the gatehouse, but also evidence of the battle, including the attackers’ huge siege ramp and the smaller ramp on the other side of the walls built by the defenders, weaponry from the battle, ashes lying three feet thick, and mass graves.

Sennacherib was so proud of his victory over Lachish that he decorated his palace in Nineveh with vivid reliefs of it, which can be seen in London’s British Museum. These show the fortifications of the city and the siege engines positioned on the ramp. While the Assyrian army attacks, the Judeans hurl flaming torches from the walls, only for the Assyrians to extinguish them with ladles of water. Prisoners, including women and children, are led out of the city past gruesome scenes of execution, and objects connected with Judah’s worship are carried away as spoils of war. Sennacherib also left a written account of his campaign, in which he claimed to have deported two hundred thousand people from the city.

When the city was next rebuilt (Level II), probably in Josiah’s day, it was much smaller and less fortified. It held out against the Babylonians longer than most (Jer. 34:7) but eventually fell. The Lachish letters are military communications found in the gatehouse, describing the system of beacons used to communicate between the defensive hill forts as the enemy closed in.

After the exile. After the Babylonians destroyed and burned the city, archaeological evidence suggests it lay abandoned for some time. Nehemiah reports that it was resettled after the return from exile (Neh. 11:30). Archaeological remains from the Persian and Hellenistic periods indicate that this rebuilding (Level I) was in use until the second century BC.

An Assyrian loanword in Hebrew, it designates one of the three officers sent by King Sennacherib of Assyria to King Hezekiah of Judah when the Assyrians invaded Jerusalem in 701 BC (2 Kings 18–20; cf. Isa. 36–37). Besides the other two officers—the Tartan (lit., “commander in chief”; NIV: “supreme commander”) and the Rab-saris (lit., “chief eunuch”; NIV: “chief officer”)—the Rabshakeh (lit., “chief cupbearer”; NIV: “field commander”), who could communicate effectively in the Judean language, openly challenged Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:23–25) and humiliated the people (18:27–37).

Ancient accounts and remains (e.g., the bas relief from Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh depicting the siege of Lachish) and the biblical record (2 Kings 25:1–2; Ezek. 4:2) reveal the siege techniques of the period. Spies sought any strategic weakness (Judg. 1:22–26). The city’s water supply was interrupted (2 Sam. 12:27). People were prevented from entering or leaving. An attempt was made to starve the inhabitants into surrendering. The besieging army might use siege engines, scaling ladders, earthen ramps, and battering rams and make tunnels under walls. Although scholars refer to the Assyrian “siege” of Jerusalem in 701 BC, Isa. 36–37 and 2 Kings 18–19 indicate that the city was only blockaded, and the word used in Isa. 1:8 (netsurah [NIV: “under siege”]) means “watched, guarded.”