Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

NAHUM

(Heb. naḥûm),

BOOK OF

The seventh book of the Minor Prophets. The heading indicates that Nahum is from Elkosh, a location not otherwise mentioned in the Bible. The time and location of Nahum’s activity are not identified, but the date can be inferred as between the destruction of Thebes in 663 c.e. (3:8) and Nineveh in 612. Interpreters who understand the text as a prediction suggest various dates prior to the actual collapse of Nineveh, ranging from the reported reforms of Manasseh ca. 650 (2 Chr. 33:14-16), to the period after Assurbanipal’s death ca. 630, to the months of the siege of Nineveh in 612. Interpreters who view the text as an explication of the significance of Nineveh’s demise propose dates close to or shortly after the actual destruction. If Nineveh is viewed as paradigmatic of evil, the exact date is of less importance, thus permitting exilic and even postexilic dates.

The book of Nahum has been regarded as an example of self-serving, nationalistic prophecy. Interpreters have been uncomfortable with the lack of moral challenge directed toward Judah. Although the heading of the book labels Nineveh as the subject matter (1:1), Judah is addressed with words of assurance (v. 15[MT 2:1]). Judah’s yoke and bond will be broken (1:13); the power of Assyria will come to an end (chs. 2-3). Hope can even be derived from the name of the prophet; Nahum means “comfort” or “consolation.” The harsh words directed toward Assyria are, in fact, designed for Judean ears. Nahum offers refuge for Judah (1:7) and announces destruction for Assyria (2:10[11]). Nahum has been compared to false prophets like Hananiah (Jer. 28). More positive assessments of the book have tended to stress the cruel, violent character of Assyrian tactics and control; the demise of Assyria, so graphically depicted, is termed acceptable when viewed from the perspective of the victim, namely, Judah. The destruction of Assyria is necessary for the moral coherence of history.

Several recent interpretations have challenged the notion that Nahum is uncritically comforting. Marvin A. Sweeney has argued that Nahum opposes those who doubted God’s capacity to deliver. The fall of Nineveh requires both Judeans and Assyrians to rethink their view of God’s sovereignty. The central form of the book follows that of the “refutation pattern of the disputation speech.” Judah and Assyria are addressed in the opening unit (1:2-10), Judah in the second (1:11-15[2:1]), and Assyria in the third (2:1[2]–3:19). Michael H. Floyd has suggested that Nahum was interrogating his Judean audience, accusing them of plotting against God. The question in 1:6 (“Who can stand before his indignation?”) requires the answer that no one has the capacity to oppose God. The question in 1:9 (“Why do you plot against the Lord?”) in effect argues that one should not oppose God because the consequences are disastrous. Floyd argues that 1:2-10 should not be understood as either acrostic in technique (e.g., too many letters are missing) or hymnic in character (e.g., hymns do not contain confrontative questions); rather these opening verses are best characterized as “prophetic interrogation.”

These studies also indicate a shift toward a more unified reading of the book. The shifting gender of the 2nd person pronouns in 1:9-14 has often stood in the way of a unified reading. Many have concluded that the variation is the result of a complex redactional history, with independent units being conflated at various stages extending into the postexilic period. Sweeney directly argues for a literary coherence, and Bob Becking has argued for a conceptual coherence centered on the metaphor of the wrath of God, a protective refuge for the faithful and a definitive no to oppressive forces.

Nahum is not a facile word of comfort. The words are filled with a biblical memory that recollects Israel/Judah’s own rebellious past (and likely future?). Judeans and subsequent readers are not invited simply to be cheerleaders at the scene of Nineveh’s demise. This point is made directly by the latter part of 1:12: “Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more.” Nahum depicts the addressee as afflicted specifically by God. The hard words directed against Nineveh/Assyria are introduced by words that deeply position the Judeans as people who are also in a turbulent relationship with God. The Judean addressees have already experienced the indignation of God; they know better than anyone the heat of God’s anger. The refuge provided by God is a refuge from the day of trouble, a day which God is initiating.

In addition, when read in the context of the larger canon, the hard words directed at Nineveh/Assyria have been or will be directed to Israel/Judah. This includes the most abrasive words in Nahum. Nah. 2:13[14] asserts: “I am against you [= Nineveh], says the Lord of hosts, and I will burn your chariots in smoke, and the sword shall devour your young lions” (cf. Ezek. 5:8; Amos 1-2; Jer. 21:5). The double-edged character of the threats extends to even the most gruesome images. Assyria/Nineveh will suffer what happen to Thebes: “She became an exile, she went into captivity; even her infants were dashed in pieces at the head of every street”(3:10; cf. Hos. 10:14-15). Compare the image of sexual violence directed against Nineveh (3:5) with that against Jerusalem (Jer. 13:26). The language of violence must be used cautiously, if at all, today, but it should be noted that what is directed against Nineveh/Assyria is remembered canonically as also directed against Israel and Judah.

Bibliography. B. Becking, “Divine Wrath and the Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Nahum,” SJOT 9 (1995): 277-96; M. H. Floyd, “The Chimerical Acrostic of Nahum 1:2-10,” JBL 113 (1994): 421-37; J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. OTL (Louisville, 1991); M. A. Sweeney, “Concerning the Structure and Generic Character of the Book of Nahum,” ZAW 104 (1992): 364-77.

Richard Nysse

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

NAHUM

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)