Devotional
Commentary on Nahum 1
The prophet Nahum
wrote his book before the fall of Niniveh in 612 BCE and before the fall of
Assyria in 608 BCE.
He utilized the
scriptures to use phrases 9 from Moses; 33 from Isaiah; 12 from Psalms; 4 from
Micah and 4 from Joel. There are 3 connections similar to Chronicles and Kings.
It is as if he speaks through this older phraseology to say his own message.
There is a cuneiform
text in the British Museum, BM 21901 (96-4-9, 6) that relates all one needs to
know about the fall of Niniveh and Assyria. The text is dealing with the early
years of Nabopolassar of Babylon and ends with the late years of that king. A.
K. Grayson translated it (1975) and some readings can also be found by
Jean-Jacques Glassner (1993). From the month of Simanu until the month of Abu,
for three months, the forces of Cyaxares [the Mede] made an attack against
Niniveh. On the [ ]th day of the month Abu they defeated the city and many
people suffered. At that time the king of Assyria died, Sin-šar-iškun died. A large
booty from the city and the temple were carried away and they turned the city
into a ruin heap. On the 20th day of Ululu [14th of September 612 BCE] Cyaxarus
and his army went home. According to the text the walls of Niniveh may have
been partly reconstructed again? In the 17th year of Nabopolassar in the month
of Du'uzu the Assyrian king Aššur-uballit, with the assistance of a large
army from Egypt, crossed the river of Euphrates and marched against Harran to
conquer it. It appears as if the king of Akkad or Babylon was on the retreat
but then in the 18th year [608-607 BCE], in the month Ululu, the king of Akkad
[Babylon] mustered his army and [lacuna]. For the outcome we have to guess. The
words following is a wish "Let the one who loves [the gods] Nabu and
Marduk [Babylonian gods] keep this tablet and not let it stray into other
hands" (see http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/niniveh02.html).
In the time that
Niniveh was plundered by the Medes in 612 BCE, Josiah of Jerusalem called for a
reform with the discovery of the book of Deuteronomy. By this time the prophecies
of Nahum was already received and in book form. The reality of the fall of
Niniveh in the book of Nahum is historical verified. It is indeed a very
reliable source.
Rabbis of the
Middle Ages has also commented on the book of Nahum and their texts are
available to us for example Rashi (1040-1105), Redak (1157-1236), Ibn Ezra
(1140), Mezudath David written by Rabbi Yechiel Hillel Altschuler 18th
century, Rabbi Joseph Kimchi (1160-1235), Kara (contemporary and student of
Rashi, 1065-1135), Abarbanel (1437-1509) and others.
But our focus
today is earlier than these Rabbis and their commentaries on Nahum.
Yaphet ibn Ali
ha-Levi lived in Jerusalem during the time of the Karaites (950-980) who had a
community there. He wrote a commentary in Arabic on Daniel but also on Nahum.
It is his Arabic commentary of Nahum that we are considering here.
Yaphet ibn Ali
ha-Levi is very special since he attempted to put Jewish tradition aside and
consider the plain text paying attention to the various opinions that existed
before and at his time. He almost had a sola scriptura approach in at time when
the twist of arguments had to run through the Jewish traditions and limited by
it.
If one compares
Ibn ha-Levi with Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra, then one has a biblical
fundamentalist compared to two free-thinkers. Gaon was his contemporary.
What is surprising
is that Gaon translated Daniel in Arabic by leaving out words, included errors
with corrections in the text, abbreviated the text, lengthened the text, all
aspects that are taboos in serious biblical scholarship. But Judaism calls him
the great Saadia Gaon. In Daniel 11:6 for example, Ibn Ezra worked with the
corrupt text of Gaon by also rendering the in-text error. Ibn Ezra was then
followed by Ralbag or Levi ben Gerson (1288-1344) both rendering the text here
following the faulty text of Gaon. The bulk of voices against Gaon should have
been known to Ibn Ezra and he should not have followed Gaon. Gaon used a
glossing methodology in rendering a commentary on Job. It appears as if Gaon's
method of commentary is eisegesis not exegesis. Gaon practiced permutation,
glossing, paraphrasing and ended with a methamorphosis translation.
Is grandmother a paraphrase
of grammar or is it a permutation of grammar or an acoustic misperception of
grammar? This is the dilemma we deal with when we analyse the Arabic texts of
Saadia Gaon. Yaphet is more promising in comparison with Gaon. Especially his
Arabic translation, which is sometimes more literal and careful than the
paraphrases of Gaon.
The translation we
are using here is that of Hartwig Hirscfeld of the text of Nahum (Y. Yaron, Angels
and Fire: Yefet ben `Eli HaLewi on Dani'el and Nahum [Al-Qirqisani Center
for the Promotion of Karaite Studies, 2003]). The Arabic text for Daniel is
that of D. S. Margoliouth.
Nahum the
Elkoshite (1:1)
According to
Rashi, Elkosh is a city name. This is also what Yaphet (980) made it. He
translated "Nahum of Elqosh". The Targum Jonathan to the prophets
reshuffled the letters so that it is eshqa'h. This is taboo. Ibn Ezra thought
it is patronimic and derived from the name of one of his forefathers. In the
Assyrian times when this prophecy was received, it was customary to sometimes
place in cuneiform writing m for man, dingir for god and then a name like qosh.
A person's name may be El-Natan which is the deity epithet added to a verb for
"he gives or he gave". So what is qosh? City name or person?
The Lord avenges
Himself to His adversaries and He watches to His enemies (1:2)
Yaphet did a very
interesting thing here, he separated the two classes of enemies of the Lord so
that the adversaries are those who will die in the eschaton of which Isaiah
10:23 and Daniel 12:1 speaks but that the enemies are those who "show no
such hostile feelings".
Ellen White said about
Nahum 1:3 and the eschaton the following:
“‘The Lord hath His
way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His
feet.' Nahum 1:3. 0 that men might understand the patience and long-suffering
of God! He is putting under restraint His own attributes. His omnipotent power
is under the control of Omnipotence. 0 that men would understand that God
refuses to be wearied out with the world's perversity and still holds out the
hope of forgiveness even to the most undeserving! But His forbearance will not
always continue. Who is prepared for the sudden change that will take place in
God's dealing with sinful men? Who will be prepared to escape the punishment that
will certainly fall upon transgressors?” Ellen White, Counsel to Parents, Teachers, and Students, pages
415, 416.
Ellen White also
said about the fall of Assyria: “The pride of Assyria
and its fall are to serve as an object lesson to the end of time.”—Ellen White, Prophets and Kings, page 366.
Nahum said (verse
2) that God is jealous (Ex 20:5) vengeful (Josh 24:19) and is full of wrath
(Deut 32:35). He avenges Himself (Psalm 94:1). Yet, (verse 3) He is slow to
anger (Ex 34:6, 7 and Psalm 103:8. His way is with a tempest (Ex 19:16) and
cloud is the dust of His feet (Psalm 104:3). Nahum is well read in the Word of
God and utilize the phrases from it for his own description of his own vision.
Bashan, Carmel,
Lebanon (1:4)
In verse 4 Nahum
said that God rebukes the sea (Jos 3:15) and it dries up (Psalm 106:9). He
mentioned Bashan (Micah 1:4) and Carmel (Psalm 98:7) that are cut off. Nahum
brought together the well-known eschatological Day of the Lord language and go
through them one by one.
Yaphet in 980
suggested that the verse is allegorical and that Bashan and Carmel stands for
two kingdoms, "Edom [Byzantium] and Ishmael [the Arabs] whose rule extends
along the ocean over the world". The rivers are in his rendering "the
great Emirs". There was another explanation available in the time of
Yaphet and he mentioned it. It stated that Bashan and Carmel stands for two
generals. Lebanon refers to royal princes and the mountains for the other
kingdoms. He rejected this second opinion. Rashi said that "Bashan and
Carmel are two good dwelling places". The truth is that they are probably
literal geographical spaces in the time of Nahum the prophet. Rashi felt that
these places are within the time frame when God delivers Assyria in the hands
of Nebuchadnezzar.
In verse 5 Nahum
said that mountains quaked (Ex 19:18; also Psalm 18:7). The hills melted
because of God (Isaiah 13:13). All the land raised up (Isaiah 24:1, 20). Also
the inhabited earth raised up (Psalm 98:7).
In verse 6 Nahum
asked who can stand before His fury? (Mal 3:2). Who can keep standing in His
wrath? (Isaiah 13:13). Like fire His wrath has reached the earth (Isaiah
66:15). It is in the eschaton here. Rocks have been broken up by Him (1 Kings
19:11).
In verse 7 the
reaction of the remnant is cozy: “The Lord is good” (Psalm 25:8 and Psalm 37:39, 40). He is a stronghold on the day of
trouble (Psalm 46) which is good for the faithful. Those who trust Him He knows
(Psalm 1:6). They are safe.
And with an
overrunning flood He shall make an end from its place and darkness shall pursue
His enemies (1:8)
Yaphet felt that
this verse is the turning point. Whereas verses 1-7 spoke of the World at
large, verse 8 returns to Niniveh only. Redak also felt that verse 8 refers to
Niniveh. For Ibn Ezra it means that the end of Niniveh will not be little by
little but all at once. The darkness that shall pursue His enemies is explained
by Ibn Ezra as refering to a place of darkness. Targum Jonathan to the prophets
renders it with "He shall deliver His enemies to Gehinnom". Redak is
closer to the truth when he wrote "He shall cause darkness to pursue His
enemies".
Yaphet is not
exactly sure if it is Niniveh. He said that if Babel is meant by this verse,
then the flood refers to the "Kings of the North" of Daniel 11:40,
44.
In verse 9 Nahum indicated
that God will make a full end of wickedness “the trouble will not rise twice” (verse 9). Many
people have said for example how do you know that another Lucifer will not rise
again as rebel in heaven in future? This verse cancels that option completely.
Wickedness will be
consumed (Isaiah 5:24; 10:17; Nahum 3:11 and Mal 4:1).
From you has
emanated one who plots evil against the Lord [Isaiah 10:7-11; Nahum 1:9], one
who counsels wickedness [Ez 11:2] (1:11)
Yaphet felt in 980
that the kings of Assyria went forth to destroy Israel. He contemplates a
second interpretation that is allegorical and means that Babylon is meant. If
that is the case, then it is the Little Horn of Daniel 7 that is meant here.
The words counsels of wickedness, or as he has it in the Arabic, "counsels
of iniquity" refers in his opinion either to Sennacherib or to Babylon and
the "Man of the Spirit" [in Yaphet's thinking, Mohammed]. Rashi later
also said that it refers to Sennacherib. Rashi was convinced that it refers to
Niniveh. Rashi felt that Sennacherib thought of destroying the earthly abode
and the heavenly abode. We must remember that Niniveh was also called Babylon
in ancient times since it was also the Gate of the gods = bab-ilu. The reality
is that by the time Nahum prophecied, Ashurbanipal's library contained many
plagiaristic examples of an amalgamation of the Hebrew works of Moses and
Psalms, Gilgamesh Epic, Rebellion in Heaven Motif, Enuma Elish,
Fall of Man and other themes of the Old Testament, reworked and fused by
exiled secularized Jews in captivity for the scribes of Niniveh. The reality is
that Israelites were in Niniveh since 723 BCE. The prophecies of Nahum is a
century later. Jews in America is a good example of what happened with Jews in
Assyria. Of course there were those who kept to the pure words of the Lord.
Nahum said in
verse 12 if they are at peace with the remnant, the Lord will no longer afflict
the remnant [Lam 3:31, 32]. He promised to break the yoke from them (Is 9:4;
Jer 2:20).
And the Lord shall
command concerning you: No more of your name shall be sown, from the house of
your god I will cut off a graven image and a molten image, I will make your
grave, for you have become worthless (1:14)
Yaphet felt in 980
that there are two explanations here: either it refers to Sennacherib who will
die due to the murders of his sons or allegorically to the descendants of
Mohammed. Yaphet equates the Little Horn of Daniel 7 with the life and works and
continuation of Mohammed and his descendants. The idol he felt is the holy
shrine in Mecca "to which they make pilgrimages every year". He felt
that "Arms will rise against them, and slaughter them". Rashi, Ibn
Ezra and Redak all felt that the king of Assyria was addressed here.
Nahum pointed out
further that because the wayward remnant clung to their idols the Lord was
determined in verse 14 to “make your grave
for you have become worthless”. He cites from
Isaiah, Psalm, Job and Micah to make his point here. It was not an attempt to
interpret his vision as something happening in their past but utilizing future
predictions that showed correspondences to what he was describing and to say
the same.
Dear God
Thank you for the
message of Nahum. Teach us your way and help us to stand in Your truth all the
time. In Jesus Name. Amen.