Here's my presentation on Zephaniah 2 from Saturday morning ... I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breath ...

My audience is Christian men and women, familiar with the Bible but not necessarily with the minor prophets.

The central idea of this chapter is the LORD's expectation that not only will his chosen people live according to his commands, as we saw in chapter 1, but that surrounding nations will also live morally. And be likewise judged when they don't.

Let's go through the text and see how this idea is supported.

The beginning part of the chapter seems an unfortunate division with the previous chapter; it is a continuation of Zephaniah's message to Judah. The people were often encouraged by prophets to assemble to hear the word of the LORD but in this case, their gathering in verse 1 is for the sake of their destruction. They will burn and burn quickly in the heat of the LORD's anger. They are the shameful nation.

However, the humble - meaning the poor, not the elite of chapter 1, have the possibility though not the guarantee of being spared. Beginning in verse 4, the focus shifts to the coastland, Philistia. Four of the five cities of Philistia are listed. The fifth, Gath, was presumably already destroyed in the 8th century BCE or otherwise does not fit into the small chiasm in the Hebrew text.

I asked myself, "Who has abandoned these cities?" and the answer seemed to be that the LORD had abandoned them. My commentary concurred. The cities are described as women suffering various humiliations: a bride jilted at the altar, a barren woman deserted, a divorced woman driven away. The wife metaphor is very familar in the prophets for Israel and Judah but it's novel to employ it for Philistia. It suggests God's desire to have a covenant relationship with Gentiles that we see fulfilled in the coming of Christ.

Skipping down to verse 8, the words that are spoken by Gentiles to God's people make their way to God - God hears them as if they were spoken directly to Him. The intimacy expressed here between God and His people reminded me of Matthew 25 where Jesus says what you did to the least of my people, you did to me and what you didn't do for them, you didn't do for me.

Saving the best for last is the oracle against Assyria. When Nineveh fell in 612 BCE, it was a city with a dry moat and packed dirt walls. The Babylonians blocked up the river, I think it was the Tigris. Building up a wall of water that they released. It flowed down the dry river bed, up over the banks of the dry moat and crumbled and dissolved Nineveh's dirt walls.

So, in verse 13, if you know this history, Nineveh goes from a wet destruction to a dry desolation.

Think how blessed we are that through God's grace, he addresses his people in prophecy before judgment. I used to think, "This isn't a mercy the Gentiles receive." But this text shows they do, and as the first few chapters of St. Paul's letter to the Romans makes clear: they are without excuse.

In summary, the implication of this text for us is that we can't allow a double-standard of ethical behavior for believers and non-believers. God is savior and judge of all peoples.

The feedback from the listeners was largely positive but the fact that the presentation lacked application is accurate ... and typical for me even in personal Bible study. I just have this mystical notion that merely reading the words of God prayerfully will change my heart. I guess it isn't that simple.

The study group leader questioned the wife metaphor language in verses 4 and 5. I told her that I got the idea from Adele Berlin's Anchor Bible commentary. She had heard of her and admitted that she is a first-rate Jewish scholar ... which is true ... but that she'd have to look again at the Hebrew to verify. I knew that I should have brought my Tanakh but, as it was, my suitcase was practically lined with Bibles.

Then she asked where I got the historical background for the destruction of Nineveh and I told her that I had heard the description of the destruction from Lawrence Boadt on a couple of occasions - it is a favorite story of his to tell. And certainly vivid and memorable. Everyone agreed about that.

Before my presentation, I read the chapter aloud to the group from the New American Bible ... because it's the translation that I used first and most of my ideas came while reading in that translation. But I also read the NIV as I prepared. And the Anchor Bible commentary includes the author's translation. We were supposed to read the passage in a number of translations.

The study group leader had a concern about how the NAB translates verse 5. She thinks Cretans is all wrong, preferring Cherethites. Though I didn't say so, my first thought was, "Yeah but Cretans is much easier to pronounce!" I at least did manage to tell her that a revised OT is due out in February that may correct such things. Truthfully, it really can't be assumed that the NAB uses the MT exclusively. Considering this study group leader's background, I was surprised that she was familiar with neither the NAB nor Lawrence Boadt, not even by name. I find that disgraceful, actually.

The presentation was supposed to be five minutes but I gave this in about three and a half. For 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning with a full day of learning ahead of us, my brevity was almost certainly appreciated. The real point is to give enough substance to be evaluated. And what's the point of preparing too much to present in the alloted time? That happened to several other presenters: they barely got started when their time expired. Then they defended themselves against the critiques saying, "I had that in my presentation but just didn't get to it!"

A gal from Texas also presented on Zephaniah 2 after me. The study group leader said that we both omitted any discussion of the verses that say the LORD will give the nations' lands to the remnant. I saw those verses as I prepared and couldn't make sense of them ... or didn't want to make sense of them. It seemed like wishful thinking on the part of Zephaniah. I don't see that promise fulfilled in history (yet). It just really seemed like a redaction to me - something alien to the main point - and I couldn't make it fit into my presentation. mea culpa.

I said above that I brought a number of Bibles with me (but still not enough) and the reason is that I couldn't be sure which would be appropriate. I brought my NIV with the Standards in the appendix, and Sproul's ESV. The NIV was useful for the plenary sessions and reference was even made during one talk to the WLC, question 90. So I was able to follow along. And at least one woman read from the ESV during her presentation. The "mystery passage" also came from the ESV. More on that in another post. The group study leader said that ESV were distributed at Westminster when she was there but she doesn't really care for it as much as the NASB. I didn't have an NASB with me. Neither did I have a CEV which another lady read from. I have that only in NT anyway. She printed it out from Bible Gateway but nobody else had ever heard of it! It used to be used in children's liturgy ... I think it still is. I used to give a CEV NT to my fourth graders when I was teaching and we would do some work in it. That's why I have CEV NTs laying around, leftovers.

I hope to have more posts about this experience up in the coming days ... as positive posts as I can manage ...