THE BOOK OF NAHUM

Nahum 2:1 has been a wonderful precursor to this battle scene - Nineveh, strengthened to the hilt at the encouragement of and with the urgency of Nahum's voice, sits proudly awaiting the advance of YHWH's army in battle array.

It would be tempting to say that the Ninevites will meet a military force that's wholly superior to her own - but we must note that Nineveh would have been unable to stand against whosoever YHWH would have sent against her because this is the time for vengeance, to repay her for her violence against the covenant.

It might as well have been a young lad with five smooth stones taken from the brook who was marching up to the wall (I Sam 17:40) for, clothed with God's strength, the battle was never going to be lost by the invader whatever the force that was to come against her.

And the resulting carnage will be a repayment in kind for how she had dealt with the nations and kingdoms to whom her warriors had travelled. As she has scattered the defeated nations within her own kingdom, assimilating them into her own culture, so also she will be scattered, losing her national identity.

Many passages in the OT suffer from having commentators press them to yield text that need not be written. This is one of those such places where little possibly needs to be said except to make a few minor points, for the text is simply a description of the fulfilment of God's pronouncements against the city.

But I probably don't have the discipline to heed my own words of warning at this point.

Nahbak comments that

'The vividness of this battle description has led some to propose a post-612BC date for at least this portion of the prophecy...'

something that happens with a lot of other passages that appear to mirror too accurately the known facts of history. The problem with such a position here, though, is that we don't have a source describing the battle and the fall of the city that could be considered accurate and independent (as I pointed out in the Introduction, part 1b). It's difficult, therefore, to imagine from where Nahum got this 'accurate' description when there are no contemporary historical sources that we can point to.

But the bottom line is almost certainly unbelief. Time and again, prophetic passages have late dates assigned to them because men and women find it impossible that YHWH might know what will happen prior to the events actually taking place.

We could equally accept most vivid fictional accounts in contemporary literature as being depictions of real events that must have taken place in the past for them to be so inspiring and thought-provoking. But this is seldom the case for fictional writers do their homework when it comes to trying to accurately depict fictitious events in their novels.

Instead of stating with certainty that Nahum 2:3-10 must have been composed after the events that had taken place, people should be equally quick to assert that the account was based on Nahum's experience of a contemporary siege or that he spoke to eyewitnesses who had experienced them.

In other words, attributing a post-612BC isn't necessary even if the text being considered can't be accepted as having come to Nahum by Divine inspiration. This doesn't take place, however, because assigning a later date is a much better tool by which to refuse to accept the validity and authority of other Scriptures that we find equally unappealing.

To the majority of believers, I would suggest, the inspiration of this passage isn't in doubt and the acceptance that God can relate events prior to them happening comes with the territory of an active belief in YHWH Himself or an active belief in an active YHWH.

Nahsmi comments (my italics) that

'Here is a battle account in poetry...This version was designed to be sung'

Well, it would certainly brighten up a Sunday morning service if we chanted some lines about blood and gore, decapitation, plundering and desolation. Perhaps that's what we've been missing as a Church?

Although Nahsmi is bearing witness to the structure and relating it to the reader that it may lend itself to being sung, it may be going too far to think that it was ever done so. It may have simply remained as poetry.

No, wait! Let me go get the guitar and write a set of tunes round them...

Nahum describes the appearance of the advancing army in phrases meant to spark awe and fear in his readers. We've probably been spoilt by scenes of displays involving multitudes of dancers or participants in colours that we see recorded for us on television and through film - but this type of scene was unusual in the ancient world and was meant to produce natural fear in those people against whom the armies came.

Even in the Church today, anything unusual or unexpected - anything that has not been experienced - is often shunned because of a natural fear that it's not right or, perhaps, that it's even 'not from God'. The problem is that our natural senses and reasoning can be impaired when we find ourselves with something new presented to us, something that's so radically different that we can't conceive of how it can be right - natural fear kicks in at this point, just as it did when a vast array of soldiers and fighters marched towards the sealed city.

But these weren't men and women who'd come in varying states of dress - some in jeans and teeshirts, some in Hawaiian shirts, some in evening dress. These came in 'batches' or groups of colours, colours that had never before been seen on such a vast level.

Nahum 2:3 speaks of the redness of the warriors. Understanding what it means when it describes the shields as being red is difficult. That Nineveh had many suburbs and was a sprawling metropolis even outside the city walls is well known, so minor skirmishes with small groups of Assyrian defenders is entirely possible (or the murdering of any civilian that got in their way would have had the effect of evoking the response of flight), making the red to be that of blood. Nahpal sees one possibility that the shields gave the appearance of being made red

'...by the reflection of the sun on a copper shield'

which is possible, so long as this gave the appearance of a unity of colour, for this is what appears to be described here. Equally possible is that the shields had been decorated with red or, even, that some sort of dye had been applied to give them that appearance. The word used here (Strongs Hebrew number 119, M26b) is used ten times in the OT an is translated as 'dyed red' five times (Ex 25:5, 26:14, 35:7, 36:19,34) and once inferred (Ex 35:23) when the rams skins are spoken of in the construction of the Tabernacle. The three remaining occurrences more rightly simply mean 'red' or 'reddish' (Prov 23:31, Isaiah 1:18, Lam 4:7).

In my own opinion, the likelihood is the latter and the possibility that reflective light gave them this appearance is the least likely. It would have been a good ploy to have the warriors as a single red object to increase the effect on those being attacked to see a single wall of red before them - therefore the shields could have been given the appearance of being red to match the clothing of the warriors that's said to be scarlet (the root word meaning, literally 'worm' as the dye was obtained from various larvae or worms and applied to clothing), a colour that was much brighter and more vivid than the 'red' used in the previous phrase.

Isaiah 1:18 has both words side by side in the final phrases of the verse where the intensity of the red of YHWH's people's sins is emphasised by calling them more literally 'dull red like bright red' where the RSV translates 'red like crimson'. Perhaps better, though, the red here spoken of was the normal word used of all the shades of the colour so a further description was necessary to define how deep the colour and, therefore, their sin, was.

To witness one mass of red, almost flowing through the outlying streets as they approached the walls would have seemed like the flowing of blood approaching the city as they filtered ever closer down the roads and pathways that led to Nineveh's fortifications (an 'arterial advance', to put it succinctly).

The statement by Jonah (Jonah 3:3) that Nineveh was

'...three days' journey in breadth'

gives weight to this image, for a city that takes three days to traverse must necessarily have numerous buildings situated outside the central fortified wall.

I note that Nahoza observes that

'Xenophon describes Cyrus' army as "resplendent in purple"'

but, as Cyrus wasn't the king responsible for the defeat of Nineveh, I'm not sure of the point being made. Besides, Xenophon wasn't an eyewitness (his dates are given as 430-354BC) and 'purple' was more rightly a royal colour because of the extreme cost of extracting the dye and of making the cloth necessary.

The phrase following that speaks of the chariots has been variously translated and, therefore, interpretation has been varied. The simplest route to take when it comes to a text is to take it as it stands if it seems right (sometimes, though, a Jewish idiom is involved that means it's best to take it if it seems wrong!).

The phrase translated by the RSV as 'flash like flame' is, as Nahpal writes, more literally 'in fire of metal' or, as he prefers to render it, 'flashing with metal' - and that seems to give the right sense for the context and is confirmed by the further descriptions of the chariots at the end of the following verse.

Nahpal therefore interprets the phrase as referring to

'...decorative or protective metal plating as it flashed in the sunlight'

which is fine, except we must note that the more metal a chariot had, the less mobile it would have become because of the sheer weight that needed to be pulled by the horses. Metal panelling would, it is to be expected, have been kept to a minimum but the effect would have been stunning.

However, both the RSV's and Nahpal's translation make perfect sense and neither should be rejected if the words are understood.

The RSV continues by translating 'when mustered in array' referring to the chariots, whereas the straightforward translation is 'on the day of his preparation' (although Nahsmi translates 'on the day of its array' referring to the hosts of chariots or the army itself).

It seems to me that the person who's preparing should be taken as the Scatterer of Nahum 2:1 - that is, the commanders and king of the advancing army - for the drawing close of the army is simply the preparation for the battle that will soon commence rather than the battle itself.

However, as its YHWH who's sent the army against Nineveh, there must also be a reference to His hand in the events as they unfold, that God is preparing for His Day against the city and its inhabitants. This should only be taken as a secondary meaning, however, or else we miss the Scatterer as being the one who prepares under the empowerment of the One who's sent him.

Finally, the RSV translates 'the chargers prance' where the AV gives 'the fir trees shall be terribly shaken', the latter being possibly the most literal translation possible. This interrupts the passage concerning the chariots (as this continues in to the next verse) but it appears to be Nahum's intention.

It seems best to accept the interpretative translation 'the [pine] spears are shaken' (although 'the fir trees are shaken' [by the soldiers] paints a more enigmatic picture) where Nahpal speaks about these as

'...cypress spears, whose length, strength and suppleness made them almost impossible to repulse'

But a closed city would have 'repulsed' them pretty well! The idea, however, is of the effect that such an action would have had on the minds of those in the city - this isn't the advance of the Charlton Supporters Club come to cheer their side on at an away match (although they can be pretty fearsome in their own right), these are an aggressive enemy set on the damage and annihilation of those within the city. They aren't just one sea of red - they're individuals as witnessed by the multitudes of spears being shaken aloft.

Nahum now goes back to his description and treatment of the chariots as we begin Nahum 2:4 and we're again thinking about something being witnessed external to the city and prior to the defences being breached.

The RSV opens by noting that the chariots rage (not the same word used that we noted in Nahum 1:2c but Strongs Hebrew number 1984, M499, M500), the underlying Hebrew word being used 165 times and with widely different translations. The translation 'praise' occurs 117 times but this is clearly not the meaning here. NID observes that the word

'...is used to describe one who behaves like a mad person or pretends to be mad'

citing the madness that David feigned (I Sam 21:13) and the madness said to come upon those that drink from YHWH's cup of wrath (Jer 25:16) or from that of Babylon (51:7). The parallel verse for our understanding of the passage in Nahum is in Jer 46:9 where we read Egypt's assembled armies being told

'Advance, O horses, and rage, O chariots!'

Clearly, the word is one that was associated with the normal movement of the chariot but one that implied that the movement was forceful and, perhaps, unpredictable. 'Rage' is, perhaps, the wrong word to be used here (Nahsmi translates the word by 'race wildly' which seems to give the sense) and it may be best to understand the meaning as similar to the description that follows that

'...they rush to and fro through the squares'

This is more than the drawing up of the lines for battle but appears to be relating that the chariots were engaged in running down all who got in their way in the outlying suburbs of the city wherever there were 'open spaces' (a better translation of the Hebrew word underlying the RSV's 'squares'). The thunder of the horses' hooves and the rattle of the wheels would surely have been heard from Nineveh's battlements, along with the screams and cries of those who were caught in the path of the 'raging'.

Nahum returns to his observation about the chariots and the light that reflects from them by noting that they have the appearance of lamps, something that summons up the idea of them being like balls of fire passing through the outlying areas when viewed from the battlements. They also (literally) 'run like lightning' (Nahoza has 'dart about' but that implies some sort of erratic movement that the Hebrew word doesn't appear to describe) which, in today's speech means that they run fast.

This is quite correct but, having just noted that they appear like lamps and, previously, that they rush to and fro in the open areas, we might suppose that their appearance may well cause the observer to think they were 'streaks of lightning', flashing through the city's suburbs.

Yet this would only be possible from somewhere above the streets where an overview could be obtained. This picture of the army, therefore, must be thought of as being seen from the battlements of the city once the gates had been shut and the city was under siege.

The mention of this lightning, therefore, must be taken to be an allusion to YHWH's sword, unsheathed for judgment against the adversary. This description is used of His sword or spear in Deut 32:41, Ezek 21:15, 21:28 and Hab 3:11 and, on its own, to speak of Him fighting as a warrior in II Sam 22:15, Ps 18:14, 114:6 and Zech 9:14.

Just as 'the day of his preparation' noted above (in Nahum 2:3) had a direct allusion to it being God's day when He prepares to make war against Nineveh through His chosen vessel of the advancing army, so, too, the idea that the chariots are moving about the areas like lightning must surely be alluding to God's weapon of judgment that now rests in their midst as they rush about.

This idea of the spear of lightning will be repeated in Nahum 3:3 where we would also be advised to accept that there is an allusion to God's weapon being yielded by the overcoming forces in the streets of Nineveh following the breaching of the city's defences.

Nahpal concludes his exposition in a way that describes the way the reader must also feel after considering these two verses. He writes

'So all the enemies of God may be considered as enclosed to await the judgment of the great day. No escape from the sword of the vengeance of the covenant is possible'

Even though Nahum 2:3-4 has been about the advancing armies, it's shown them from the vantage point of the defenders watching from the fortifications of the city. Nahum 2:5 divides commentators as to who's being mentioned.

The RSV's translation of the opening phrase that

'The officers are summoned'

doesn't appear to represent the Hebrew at this point but I can't think why it was even offered as the translation when (as Nahpal)

'He remembers his noble ones'

is infinitely closer. But this doesn't help us in an identification of who the 'he' is. Are we meant to be thinking of those outside or within the walls?

Nahbak comments that the 'he'

'...appears best to have as its antecedent the 'scatterer' of [Nahum 2:1]'

but, although I bow to his superior knowledge of Hebrew construction, I can't help but think that the proof is somewhat strained seeing as a great amount of information has been given the reader since that verse closed.

Nahoza, Nahpal and Nahsmi all understand the verse to be referring to the defenders while, just to give us more options than we probably need, Nahoza notes that Maier saw the 'he' to be referring to YHWH Himself.

It seems best to try and understand who's being referred to by the content of the verse itself. The first three phrases could equally well be applied to both defenders and attackers (it appears at first glance) but the 'mantelet' (as the RSV) seems to be set up by the people being described.

So, what was a mantelet?

The literal meaning of the word (Strongs Hebrew number 5526, M1475, M1492, M2259, M2260) can mean a fence, a hedge or a cover (its most usual meaning) but it was probably a more technical term for a specific piece of military equipment.

Nahbak (who causes the entire verse to be about the attackers) interprets it consistently as

'...a portable cover to protect the besiegers from objects hurled at them from the walls under attack'

Nahsmi (who also interprets the verse consistently as being about the defenders) doesn't appear to think that the word's a technical term and so interprets the phrase to mean that

'...the king of Nineveh frantically tries to shore up his defences'

Both Nahoza and Nahpal who consider the subject to be the defenders then go on to decide that the mantelet is indeed an assailant's weapon, Nahpal commenting that

'...they discover that they are too late to repel those erecting the siege equipment. Already the (siege) covering is in place and the incessant pounding of the walls of the city begins'

while Nahoza agrees but explains better that the word, quoting an unspecified source, is a description of

'...a structure shielding stormers of a city, or a battering ram [or both!]'

The problem is that the word can mean a fence or hedge (defensive) as well as a covering (offensive) and we seem to have arrived at nothing conclusive. However, the description earlier in the verse that the noble ones 'stumble' as they go is the most significant. This word (Strongs Hebrew number 3782, M1050) is fairly distinctive, TWOTOT defining its meaning as

'stumble, totter, stagger (usually from weakness or weariness, or in flight from attackers)'

for example (a very limited sample) Lev 26:37, II Chr 25:8, 28:15, Neh 4:10, Ps 9:3, 27:2, 107:12, Pr 24:17 and Is 5:27. I couldn't find a single occurrence in all 65 uses of the word where the idea of stumbling was associated with eagerness to achieve something (which would have to be the interpretation if the label was attributed to the attackers). It can be used in a figurative sense of 'falling in sin' (for example, Hosea 14:1) but never with excitement.

The word's also used in Nahum 3:3 where the same sort of meaning is required and it's difficult to believe that a totally new meaning was attributed to it in Nahum 2:5.

Therefore, we seem forced to understand the verse to be saying that the king of Nineveh remembers his 'noble ones' (it could refer to his elite fighting men or his tried and trusted generals) but even they stumble with weariness and fatigue as they gather themselves together and head for the wall to defend the city.

Such a rabble is certain evidence that they don't have the will or the power to adequately defend the city (Nahsmi understands this to be a result of drunkenness but this isn't necessary), that their resources have been taken from them, the implication being that YHWH has attacked the enemy 'from within'. They've become physically impotent to be able to muster themselves into an adequate force to repel the invader.

The final phrase still remains a puzzle, however, and, because no definitive reference is supplied by any commentator I can find to show that the word was used for something specific in military terms in Hebrew, we could equally well understand the phrase to mean that the defenders tried to strengthen the walls by hedging them about with reinforcements (even that the phrase means that the defenders went to the wall 'to man their stations', as Nahsmi) or that the attackers had set up a protective covering as they sought to breach the defences (which seems the more likely).

If I might propose a really whacky interpretation here, it could even mean that the military leadership has now been set in place over the ordinary soldiers (where 'covering' is used in the sense of being in authority over another and providing some sort of protection) with all the worry that would inspire when the state of the generals has just been witnessed.

Unless there's a reason why this is an ancient idiom that means something wholly different, a straightforward translation seems to be in order. It should therefore be read that

'The gates of the river are opened, the palace (or temple) melts'

(where the final word has been previously used of the hills in Nahum 1:5 when YHWH approaches them and the same meaning seems to be intended here). However, understanding what the entire verse means is another matter entirely.

Firstly, we don't know who opens the gates of the river and it would have been convenient if Nahum had added a descriptive phrase 'by xxxx'. We're left to ponder whether we're to think of the attackers, the defenders or, in some way, nature itself.

Nahoza writes that

'...the water was retained by a magnificent double dam with two massive river walls at some distance from the city. When the sluice gates were opened, the water threatened to pour over the city'

The defences of Nineveh included water obstacles that blocked off approaches to their defences but, in order not to be overwhelmed by floods, some measures needed to be taken. Even more so when the local river Husur (or Khosar) ran through the city so that protection would have needed to have been taken not only in case of a flood but to prevent invaders 'sailing in' (or donning trunks and swimming).

However, with Nahoza's explanation comes the question as to why the invaders waited between two and three months (see above in the introduction where the Babylonian recounting of the siege is quoted) before discovering that doing this would undermine the city's walls!

It could follow, however, that only following unprecedented rainfall and a rise in river levels that such a plan was hit upon. Although serious doubt has already been cast upon Diodorus Siculus' account in his 'Library of History', he does observe (27:1) that

'...after there had been heavy and continuous rains, it came to pass that the Euphrates [sic - it was the Tigris], running very full, both inundated a portion of the city and broke down the walls for a distance of twenty stades'

and it could well be possible that underlying knowledge that Nineveh had been breached by flood had been taken by him when describing the fall. The description here, though, is of the Tigris flooding which lay to the west of the city and isn't dealing with the river that flowed through the city itself.

A plan I've seen of the city indicates that the Tigris may have flowed close to the western wall of the city, providing a natural defensive moat at that time and, if so, this certainly could have been the reason for the wall collapse (why the river gates would be opened, though, is unimaginable unless the defenders were trying to divert the water in to the city to prevent it from dissolving or sweeping away the walls).

The western edge of the city also contained the location of the palace which, because of its mention in the following verse, becomes more significant.

What Diodorus Siculus could be taken to mean, therefore, is that the city wall collapsed in the area of the palace complex due to the unexpected flooding of the Tigris and that access was gained by the open river gates of the Husur (the ones that allowed the river out of the city), done so as to try to avert the disaster.

If this was the case, a small band of soldiers were probably responsible for gaining access to the city rather than the full compliment pouring in and that, at some point, the city gates were able to be opened to allow the infantry and chariots in to the city itself - even with a collapsed wall, chariots and infantry would have found it difficult to enter the city due to the rough terrain over which they would have had to pass.

The problem here is that we can't be definitive. The Babylonian account gives us no details while Diodorus Siculus' account contains so many errors that we can't be certain which parts are trustworthy - and Nahum gives us one snippet of information that could mean many different things.

Leaving our discussion at this point without drawing a definitive conclusion is all we can do.

The final phrase that the palace (rather than the temple) melts has a few interpretations. Nahoza commenting on the palace being swept away by the flood states that this was

'...unlikely in view of the elevated position of the palaces...'

but we aren't thinking of the waters overwhelming the top of the structures but of the foundations being undermined that caused those buildings above them to crumble. As we've seen above, this is quite plausible in view of the suggestions proposed and we shouldn't discard this as the probable meaning.

However, perhaps better - if we're to take this as a natural observation - is to understand the word 'melts' as it's used in, for example, Is 14:31 (RSV - 'melt in fear') and Ezek 21:15 (RSV - the hearts 'melt') where the idea is of inner strength 'melting away' or, as Nahoza writes

'...the palace officials are in a state of paralysis through anxiety and alarm. Consequently, resistance to the invader collapses or melts away'

However, there seems to be an allusion here to YHWH's presence marching upon the city for the word 'melts' is used previously in Nahum 1:5 where, upon His approach, the hills melt. Likewise, then so must the palace when He appears in the midst of His invading army.

This could be taken to be both literal (if flood waters undermined or dissolved the citadel on which stood the palace) and figurative (which, in another sense, would be seen as being quite literal).

In conclusion, although we don't know how Nineveh's defences were finally breached, that Nahum should speak of the river gates being opened is unusual and not something that we would have expected. Perhaps the prophet would have been safer simply to say

'The army overcomes their defences and the palace fall in fear'

but say it he does and, from what we have that's come down to us, it appears that Nahum was describing an event that was literally associated with the destruction of Nineveh.

So unusual is the opening word of the Hebrew text considered that the AV (along with some commentators) translate it (my italics)

'And Huzzab shall be led away captive, she shall be brought up...'

where the idea is that the word corresponds to the name either of one of the gods of the Assyrians (that has, so far, gone unconfirmed) or the name of the queen or queen mother of the reigning king (that has, again, gone unconfirmed).

The RSV prefers not to use the proper name and interprets it to read (my italics)

'Its mistress is stripped, she is carried off...'

which only narrows it down to being a reference to a human rather than deity. The reason for such an identification probably lies in the fact that preceding this verse, the royal palace is mentioned and, following, the handmaids of 'someone' are referred to. It seems more logical to suppose that a person with royal connections is mentioned at the start of Nahum 2:7.

But, as Nahoza comments, it's better to reject this when there's an alternative

'...until such time as they dig up a clay tablet with Huzzah written on it!'

The word that appears (Strongs Hebrew number 5324, M1398) seems to be one that means 'to establish' or 'to determine' and is best understood to be declaring

'It is established'

either as the start of the sentence that would run

'It is established that she [Nineveh] is exiled and carried off'

or as a stand alone statement that the breaching of the walls has taken place and that two subsequent events are about to take place, as in

'It is established. She [Nineveh] is exiled and carried off'

The problem with the latter is that, at this point in the narrative, the work hasn't yet been completed so the former is preferred.

The verse must point to YHWH as being the subject, the One who's established that these events are to take place. The exile and despatch of Nineveh's inhabitants is nothing less than the policy of the kings of Assyria when they conquered nations in their military campaigns, to which records in the Scriptures testify. In the discussion on Nahum 2:1, I recorded that

'It was the Assyrians who'd scattered the northern Kingdom of Israel in its own midst following the complete overthrow of that kingdom in 722BC (II Kings 17:24ff) but this had occurred both earlier under king Tiglath-Pileser III during the reign of Menahem, king of Israel (I Chron 5:6, 26) and king Pekah of Israel (II Kings 15:29) and later under Esarhaddon (Ezra 4:2)'

However, although this decree is laid down at this point, the outworking won't be mentioned until the following verse when we witness the reason for Nineveh's abandonment and the dispersal of its people into the surrounding areas.

Instead of dealing with it straight away, Nahum turns his attention to speak of Nineveh's 'maidservants'. The word (Strongs Hebrew number 519, M112) has a wide variety of meaning, from the straight forward 'slave girl' acquired from foreign nations (Lev 25:44) to the 'slave girl' bought as a descendant of a Hebrew who had to be treated differently under the law (Deut 15:12-18 - the word is used in v.17).

But, further, in I Sam 1:16 Hannah refers to herself as Eli's 'servant' when she's approached by him in the Tabernacle and accused of being drunk and, in a similar fashion, in I Kings 3:20, the prostitute calls herself king Solomon's servant as a mark of respect and subservience. Hannah also refers to herself as the servant or 'slave girl' of YHWH in I Sam 1:11 where obedience and service towards Him underpin its use.

Because the idea of slavery is anathema to a great many people, translations tend to adopt gentler words that mask the meaning. Therefore, the RSV translates the word as 'maidens' (the AV uses 'maids') at this point which radically obscures the true meaning and makes us imagine young girls in paid employment such as our more modern ladies-in-waiting.

The BBE uses 'servant-girls' which is much preferable as the idea of obedience and service is still attributed to such a word in most people's minds. 'Slave girls' would be the best term all round but readers may not read the phrase intelligently and understand that there are shades of meaning that only occur in certain usages and not others.

But who are these slave girls meant to represent?

If reference to a specific person or deity is accepted as being the subject of the opening of the verse, these slaves will belong to that entity. However, as we've stated, the only 'person' mentioned in the verse up to this point has been Nineveh who's described as being 'exiled and carried off'.

Therefore, the slave girls must be thought of as being Nineveh's but not necessarily in the ordinary sense of the word. It means, more fully, the slave girls of the city and any and all who give service and obedience to the city - that is, all who have put their trust in the place for their livelihood, security and prosperity.

It seems best, therefore, not to take the reference solely to the natural slave girls of the city but, figuratively, to all those who depended upon the city for something.

They're here represented as

'...lamenting, moaning like doves, and beating their breasts'

The phrase 'lamenting, moaning like doves' is comprised of just three words in Hebrew and is probably best rendered

'moaning - with the voice of - doves'

where the word 'lamenting' gives the impression more of an expression that's coherent and understandable. The word more probably refers to the moaning sound when words fail in times of heightened anguish and stress. This moaning is described as being like the 'voice of doves (or pigeons)'.

Not only was the dove used by Noah to see if the waters had receded from off the earth (Gen 8:8-12 - and so became a present day symbol tied up with the 'form' of the Holy Spirit that descended on Jesus - Mtw 3:16) or as one of the offerings in the Tabernacle (Lev 1:14, 5:7,11, 12:6 and so on), but parts of the dove were used to denote different actions and emotions in the OT.

So, the wings of the dove are used figuratively for flight (Ps 55:60), the eyes of a dove are something physically attractive in a human (SofS 1:15, 4:1, 5:12 - although my wife would smack me one if I said that of her), the dove itself is used as a term of endearment of a loved one (SofS 2:14, 5:2, 6:9) and of mourning (Isaiah 38:14, 59:11, Ezek 7:16).

This latter use is what's implied in Nahum 2:7 because of the natural sound made. They seem to have been regarded as the epitome of the sound of mourning and anguish. I leave the reader to decide for themselves the sound made by the 'slave girls' of Nineveh.

The phrase 'beating their breasts' needs some explanation.

The word for 'beating' (Strongs Hebrew number 8608, M2536) is, perhaps, more rightly applied to the playing of the timbrel according to TWOTOT but the only other place where it's used (Ps 68:25) seems to need the translation not 'the young girls were playing timbrels' but 'the young girls were beating' (people opposed to percussion being used in church, please note). If the word has to imply the playing of the timbrel, then Nahum is actually saying that the slave girls were 'playing timbrels on (or 'with') their breasts' (which would cause an even worse understanding and, to be honest, I'd find it hard to imagine). By using the word 'tabering' in the AV, this is actually what the translation means (I wonder what time signature they'd be playing in?).

Having cleared that up, the more peculiar word used here is the one for 'breasts' (Strongs Hebrew number 03824, M1071a), not the usual word used to denote them (which is Strongs Hebrew number 7699, M2332a and used, it would seem, as much as they were able in the Song of Songs - one third of all its OT uses occur here) and, of its 252 uses in the OT, 231 times the AV translates it as 'heart'. Although it's quite true that to 'hit one's heart' would be generally the same physical action of 'beating one's breast', the word has a deeper meaning. TWOTOT describes it as

'...the totality of man's inner or immaterial nature...it is the most frequently used term for man's immaterial personality functions as well as the most inclusive term for them since, in the Bible, virtually every immaterial function of man is attributed to the "heart"'

Though we may well accept that a physical action is being implied, the idea of the phrase here is that of inner turmoil, that they're 'beating themselves up' (as we'd say today) because Nineveh has fallen to the advancing army. The reason? Because they're 'slaves of the system' that's coming to an end.

They aren't in anguish because their natural master or mistress is dead but because their inner person relied on the city for their security and prosperity. So, too, when Babylon falls in the Book of Revelation, the lament that goes up from the traders and kings is based on their dependency upon the 'city' that has now been overthrown (Rev 18:9-19).

It seems fairly certain, therefore, that 'slave girls' is to be understood not in a literal sense but figuratively of anyone who had their 'root' firmly embedded in the prosperity and security of Nineveh.

Amazingly, this is the first time that Nineveh is mentioned in the prophecy. During the early verses of the document (we noted that Nahum 1:1 was a literary superscription and not part of the original prophecy) we saw that no specific subject was mentioned and, perhaps, none was necessary as general statements concerning YHWH's reason to take vengeance were being declared by the prophet.

It wasn't until towards the end of Chapter 1 that indications were given that seemed to indicate that Nineveh and/or the Assyrians had to be the reason for the pronouncements (when viewed in the context of its contemporary world). But it isn't until this verse that Nineveh is specifically mentioned (although Nahsmi totally ignores the name of the city in his translation of the text for a reason only known to him).

The RSV (as well as the NIV) ignores an entire word (Strongs Hebrew number 3117, M852) at the beginning of this verse after the word for Nineveh probably because it's thought to be a dittographic error, but its presence makes good sense and would cause the verse to run something like

'From ancient days Nineveh was like a pool of water, but now they run away...'

The word - from which we get the English 'pool' (Strongs Hebrew number 1295, M285c) - occurs 17 times in the OT and is more rightly thought of as a man-made affair rather than something that occurs naturally. II Kings 18:17, 20:20, Neh 2:14, 3:15,16, Ecclesiastes 2:6, Isaiah 7:3, 22:9,11 and 36:2 all seem to either state that the bodies of water were man made, that we know from other historical documents that they were man made (for example, Shiloah or, more recognisably, Siloam) or that, by the place they're located, need to have been.

The other occurrences, therefore, probably have this same underlying meaning or artificiality, even though a naturally occurring water source would have been necessary for pools to have been engineered.

The meaning conveyed is that, even from its inception, Nineveh was designed or organised to collect together all sorts of people into one area that formed the city's metropolis. She stood as unnatural as any city does (even down to the present day), a place to which men and women will gravitate.

It's still much harder to make a living in general in rural areas where there are less buyers than in the cities where merchants can offer their wares to thousands of passers by.

In the NT, we read of the waters seen by John (Rev 17:15) as being

'...peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues'

for, although ruled over by a single power, they were comprised of individuals from many different peoples of the earth.

This 'pool of water', then, is nothing more than a poetic way of describing the inhabitants of the city as one unit, joined together and held within Nineveh's walls - as if a hollowed out area had been prepared to retain a large body of water. The city had been cosmopolitan in its make up from its very first founding as a city.

Nahbak sees the waters to refer only to Nineveh's troops but the phrase 'from ancient days' prevents us from taking this narrow interpretation and it seems necessary to take it to refer to the united inhabitants who stayed together under the protection of the city for their own security and prosperity.

Considering Nahum 2:10 where we read of people still present within the city's walls, we might find justification for taking the reference here as meant to be the military but not everyone would have been able to get out before the plundering and looting began - indeed, the inhabitants would've had to have fought their way against the flood of infantry who were pouring in to the city.

Taking the fortified walls of the city to be the artificially constructed walls of the pool being described here causes us to realise that, once they'd been breached, the waters must logically flow out until they're dissipated far and wide.

And this is the intent of the poetic statement - when the retaining structures are cracked, what's contained within is lost. Nahoza comments that

'Nineveh had just been pools of water in ancient times and this, it is implied, is what she is about to become'

and, while the time before the city's establishing to the time that began after the city's overthrow, this would be correct, the verse isn't talking about the area being returned to water but of the water dispersing away from the city. It cannot be referring to natural water at all.

Even though there's the once repeated command to 'Stop!' (where the idea behind the word is to remain or to stand in one's place) to the inhabitants or 'waters', the words aren't heeded and they flow away from the midst of the city. As Nahum writes

'None turns back'

whether to see the army routing the last of the resistance within or to stop to recover the most valued possessions or monetary stores to take with them. The panic is full and final and any who can save their lives do so, forsaking the city that had been - up until that moment - the source of their livelihood.

It's interesting to note here the play upon the idea of water as being both natural and figurative of the people within for, from the statement that there is an inundation of natural water into the city (Nahum 2:6), we move on to the realisation that the figurative water is flowing out from it in all directions with no thought of what's been left behind (Nahum 2:8).

Nahpal comments that

'Those who had made a career of gleefully pursuing others suddenly discover the terrors of being hunted down themselves'

but there's no thought of that in this verse. Rather, there's a simple flight of fear being described that descends upon the inhabitants so that they prevent themselves from being destroyed in the city's levelling. Their deaths would be more inadvertent than specific, getting caught up in the destruction being dished out so, although death now becomes a distinct possibility, they aren't so much being hunted as being 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

However, true is his further statement that

'Those who had made themselves wealthy by terrifying others now find themselves impoverished and in terror'

With the inhabitants (the waters of Nahum 2:8) fleeing for their lives, there no longer remains any resistance against the invaders and they turn their attention to plundering the broken city.

In the ensuing panic that the breaching of the walls would have caused and in their haste to acquire as much wealth as possible, there must have been innumerable valuable items that went left behind, whether under collapsed walls, trodden in the dirt or simply as hoards that had been buried for an owner who never returned to retrieve.

Over the centuries, I'm sure that many of these treasures will have been acquired from the earth by subsequent inhabitants of the area, but my guess is that there must still be significant quantities of valuable items that lie beneath the topsoil.

For Nineveh was a rich and prosperous city.

Abundant treasures would have been brought in to it (although the majority of 'large' collections of treasures would have been retrieved for the benefit of the throne) from the stripping of nations that had been conquered to the paying of tribute to Assyria from subjugated nations. Vast wealth would have been required to rebuild and beautify the city and this is unlikely to have come from anywhere other than the despoiled riches of the conquered nations and kingdoms over centuries.

Nineveh had these treasures but also grew rich through the trade and commerce - not everyone was the direct benefactor of 'unworked for' resources.

But these riches were useless in protecting the city for, as Nahsmi points out

'Nineveh is helpless in spite of her great treasure'

for no amount of wealth can save her - indeed, it's probably because of her wealth that the attacking army has come to overthrow the city and to plunder it. The same attitude of the rich man in Luke 12:13-21 was prevalent in the city - she grew ever richer and bigger, taking her ease in the middle of the nations of the world but, when it came to it, when God required an accounting for the actions performed, the wealth was left behind to be enjoyed by another.

There's no end, says Nahum, to the treasure or of the 'abundance of desirable objects' (the RSV translates 'wealth of every precious thing') - not just the gold and silver is taken by the army but all those items that are found in the houses that are desirable to have (there seems to be nothing excluded in the phrase). This isn't just a stripping of the wealth of a city but the removal of everything that's desirable from the place. As such, the area would have been ransacked by the army in their search for objects to secrete about themselves to carry away.

The large collections of gold and silver would more likely have been taken by faithful servants of the invading king once the palace and temples had been overcome and subdued.

The words here (especially the two commands to plunder) are spoken by Nahum of behalf of God as a direct command to the armies to take the wealth of Nineveh which was, in effect, the wealth of the world, harvested from everywhere their armies had gone over centuries. The generals and commanders of the army would have had little control over their regular soldiers once the city had effectively fallen and any small pockets of resistance would have been quickly overthrown.

There only remained for the city to be stripped of its wealth before it was totally destroyed.

We noted in Nahum 2:8 that the people mentioned here will be the ones who've not been able to exit the city - which may have been the majority when the flood of soldiers entering the city is considered as being the tide against which they would have had to have swum (analogies with the salmon are applicable).

Nahum begins by a three word statement that's a construction of similar sounding words that provide an almost poetic - but certainly rhythmic - way of remembering them. Nahbak makes the observation that one syllable is added in succession to raise the intensity of the desolation that's being described. Nahoza transliterates them as

'buqah, umebhuqah, umebhulaqah'

which, if spoken out (don't try this unless you're the only one in the room), give the sense of a sound effect or chant. Indeed, it's not unreasonable to think of them as having been taken up when news of Nineveh's fall was brought to Judah by messenger.

It seems that Nahum has chosen his words carefully, not just because they have a rhythm to them but because all three are used a total of four times in the entire OT - only the third of the words is used elsewhere in Isaiah 24:1 where the prophet states (my italics) that

'YHWH will lay waste the earth and make it desolate'

The first two words (Strongs Hebrew numbers 950, M220a and 4003, M220b) are so closely related that TWOTOT gives them the same translation - something that's not impossible. Besides, a repeated statement has its own way of emphasising the point (even though, in Hebrew, the sounds would have been different). NID notes of both these words that

'The meaning...is obscure'

before going on to note that

'The traditional meaning for bqq [the root from which the first word is derived] is empty or pour out, derivative of the natural sound of a liquid pouring. All this may indicate the verbs are used as an alliterated metaphor to describe the desolation of a land and deportation of its inhabitants as emptying'

This fits in well with the idea of Nineveh being a pool whose waters are flowing away from within the boundaries of its fortifications (Nahum 2:8), the two words being employed onomatopoeically giving the sense without the actual meaning being necessary (as these first two words occur nowhere else in the OT, it's entirely possible that they were constructed for the message itself and were not in common use).

The third word (Strongs Hebrew number 01110, M252) is given the meaning 'waste' or 'lay waste' by TWOTOT. NID interprets it to mean 'devastate' but comments that the word

'...is used together with bqq, lay waste, [in Nahum 2:10] to produce powerful assonance and alliteration that underline the theme of Yahweh's judgment and destruction'

When we come to try and give the three words the meaning they're conveying, we're caught between wanting to preserve some of the rhythm in the original and of giving an accurate representation of the sense. Nahoza (in a flash of sheer brilliance) seems to have managed to have combined the two options in his rendering of

'Void, devoid and destroyed'

although possibly the more faithful to the meaning is something like

'Waste, empty and desolate'

But neither go close to the original sound that conveys the idea of water draining away and of there being left behind an empty vessel, devoid of anything of worth.

The final part of the verse lists four parts of the body and gives each an attribute, describing the state of the inhabitants of Nineveh who are left behind as the plundering and looting takes place. Nahum writes

where the first three phrases are represented by two words in the original and the fourth contains three.

The RSV's 'hearts faint' is an unusual translation seeing as the same turn of phrase is used fairly frequently elsewhere in the OT (in conjunction with Strongs Hebrew numbers 3820 or 3824) and they normally translate it more literally as 'hearts melt' (Deut 1:28, 20:8, Joshua 2:11, 5:1, 7:5, II Sam 17:10, Ps 22:14, Isaiah 13:7, 19:1, Ezek 21:7). Why they should opt for 'hearts faint' here is puzzling but the meaning is fairly certain (if obscured by the change of word).

To have one's heart 'melt' is to lose courage and boldness in the face of a difficult or life-threatening situation (as becomes apparent when the verses listed above are referred to). The inhabitants of the city, therefore, have lost any active resistance they had and have virtually given in to their fate at the hands of the conquerors.

'Knees tremble' is difficult. In the OT, there's a condition described as 'feeble knees' or 'weak knees' but the adjective where this English phrase occurs is different in almost every place (Job 4:4, Isaiah 35:3, Ezek 7:17, 21:7). It's not surprising, therefore, that there's another different word employed here in Nahum (Strongs Hebrew number 6375, M1747b) and the meaning may well be taken as the same - that is, through fear or age, there's no natural strength left to support the body's weight.

However, the word employed here seems to convey more 'stumbling' or 'trembling' rather than a lack of strength. It's not that the person has become incapable of supporting their weight due to impotency but that the circumstances in which they find themselves have caused them to fear or despair, resulting in a physical reaction of being 'weak at the knees'. It seems that the motion of trembling should be inferred from the word's use.

'Loins writhe' again seems to denote fear. The word translated 'writhe' is used only four times in the OT (Strongs Hebrew number 2479, M623f) where the AV is consistent in translating it with 'pain' (Isaiah 21:3, Ezek 30:4,9). However, the context seems to denote some sort of inner turmoil and TWOTOT notes that it means

'Writhing either in anguish...or in terror...'

The word for 'loins' was used in Nahum 2:1 in its natural sense as the seat of a man's strength and power and we saw there how the prophet was taunting the Ninevites to reinforce their strength to prepare for the day of the attack.

We needn't look for too deep a meaning in this phrase for it seems to be simply describing that feeling of anxiety in the lower part of the abdomen that sometimes causes a person to evacuate the bowels involuntarily.

'Faces pale' is puzzling. The same three Hebrew words are used in Joel 2:6 where the phrase is as puzzling there as it is here. In both places, the RSV translates 'all faces grow pale' and this may be the correct rendering which would imply a draining of the blood that would be indicative of fear.

However, if taken literally, the translation may be better given as

'all faces grow reddened [or, 'darkened']'

because the last word (Strongs Hebrew number 6289, M1727b) may come from a word group that implies a glowing or darkening in colour. As the word seems obscure, it's best to opt with the translation 'faces pale' or 'faces grow pale'.

If we do that, we can see that all four reactions of the remaining inhabitants are based in fear - fear that the invader has gained access into the city and that their situation is hopeless, being at the mercy of a rampaging - and probably blood-thirsty - army, intent on pillaging and plundering whatever they can lay their hands on.

The unity of this passage is shown by the recurring theme of lions in all three verses. Even though one might have thought that YHWH's work had come to a close with the conclusion of Nahum 2:10, the prophecy returns to the time before the overthrow of the city in Nahum 2:13 as an explanation of the observation of Nahum 2:11-12.

This may seem a strange way to go about a matter but this is quite a common characteristic of the prophetic messages and we should never think that these were ever meant to be taken as chronological accounts of God's intentions.

Because these literary works flit about all over the place, it's led some commentators to propose various events that are nothing less than one and the same. Here in Nahum, this is fairly easily discernible (we know that we're only looking at the single event) but, in places such as the Book of Revelation, it becomes perplexing (to put it mildly).

This short passage is predominantly about the removal of Nineveh's/Assyria's fighting force and the removal of the secure home base from which they marched to war against the nations.

Nahum uses different words for the lion at various points in these three verses and, before we go any further, we need to make sure that we understand the difference between each of the words employed.

I've used the translation of the RSV below (with the one italicised addition of a word that's omitted from the text - for a reason that I'm unable to determine - and a change of the personal pronoun necessary for the addition) in order for the reader to be able to see the differing words that are used for various different stages or genders of the lion's life.

We'll define these words below but we need to note where they occur to be able to transpose the sense back in to the text. The 'S' number refers to that assigned to it in Strongs Exhaustive Concordance numbering system of the Bible:

'Where is the lions' (S738) den (S4583), the cave of the young lions (S3715), where the lion (S738) and lioness (S3833) brought [their] prey, where his cubs (S738 and S1482) were, with none to disturb?
'The lion (S738) tore enough for his whelps (S1484) and strangled prey for his lionesses (S3833); he filled his caves with prey and his dens (S4585) with torn flesh.
'Behold, I am against you, says YHWH of hosts, and I will burn your chariots in smoke, and the sword shall devour your young lions (S3715); I will cut off your prey from the earth, and the voice of your messengers shall no more be heard'

So, onto a definition of each of the words.

I note first that Cansdale states that references to lions occur somewhere around 135 times in the Bible (I don't intend categorising them and underpinning his work as there doesn't appear to be much profit in it for this short study) but that only twenty-five of these are to be taken as 'wholly literal'.

It appears, then, that the Israelite encountered the lion less frequently than they were to employ it in imagery to signify something other than realism. This may seem strange to us but we probably use the phrase 'as blind as a bat' more often than we could actually relate instances when we'd seen the creature in flight (in real life, that is, and not on the telly).

It's what the bat stands for that takes precedence over the real thing (although, I should note, the bat has very good eyesight). The lion, then, became more of a symbol than a life experience and was written about as such.

The first word to deal with is Strongs Hebrew number 738, M158a that's used eighty times in the OT and is translated as 'lion' on seventy-nine occasions. TWOTOT comments concerning both forms of this word (masculine and feminine) that

'There is no demonstrable difference between the two'

so that the word seems to be a generic one that would need further definition for it to refer to a specific sex or age.

After this, we get words that define certain aspects of the lion. Strongs Hebrew number 3715, M1025a, M1025d is used thirty-two times in the OT and is translated as 'lion' or 'young lion' thirty times and once each as 'villages' (Neh 6:2) and 'young' (Judges 14:5 - where the word is used to define S738).

TWOTOT defines the word as meaning 'young lion' but then notes

'That the word specifies the age of the lion is doubtful'

In nearly all the places that it's used, the age of the lion doesn't seem to need to be inherent within the word itself. However, Ezek 19:2-3,5 seems to demand this interpretation for, in verse 3 we read (the translation is italicised)

'And [the lioness] brought up one of her whelps; he became a young lion, and he learned to catch prey; he devoured men'

and, again, in verse 5

'When [the lioness] saw that she was baffled, that her hope was lost, she took another of her whelps and made him a young lion'

Therefore, although the word may seem to be used of a lion in general (NID defines it as giving the meaning both of the generic 'lion' and the more specific 'young lion'), when the context demands, it can be a specific title for a lion of less than full maturity but fully capable of acquiring food by killing (Cansdale defines it as an animal up to the 'sub-adult stage' - whether he means that it's capable of killing, however, is not clear. Nahoza defines the word as a 'young lion old enough to go in search of prey').

This seems to be necessary, otherwise the regular word for lion would have been used as there would have been no confusion between that word and the one for 'whelps' and 'lioness' (but it's difficult to think that the translation could run that one of the whelps became a lion - especially when it was already a lion in the first place).

As this word is employed in the midst of other words in Nahum 2:11-13 that relate to the lion, the phrase 'young lion' should be employed and the meaning maintained. It also seems demanded by the context of Nahum 2:11 where the lion and lioness return with food to feed their cubs but the 'young lions' dwell in their midst and so must remain either younger or subordinate animals.

Cansdale notes that the other words employed to represent the lion

'...appear to be poetical names, perhaps also with specialist meanings'

One of these is Strongs Hebrew number 3833, M1070b, M1070c, used fourteen times in a variety of different titles for the lion in the AV (for example, the great lion, the old lion, the stout lion, the lioness) but is ignored as occurring in Nahum 2:11 by the RSV and included in Nahum 2:12.

It's difficult to see any real difference in meaning between this and the generic term above - the AV seems to have been fairly bewildered itself because of the variety of definitions it gave it where it occurred. NID notes that it can mean either 'lion' or 'lioness' but doesn't opt for any further specific descriptor while Nahpal comments that the word could be used of the Asiatic lion, a different species - but why that would be mentioned here isn't clear.

However, Nahum 2:11 mentions this lion alongside the more generic name and comments that they would both bring their prey back to the den. The only case that can be made for a variant translation, it seems to me, is to use 'lionness'.

Finally, two words are used that are part of the same word group. These are Strongs Hebrew number 1482, M331b that's used seven times in the OT, six of which are translated by 'whelp' in the AV and once by 'young ones' when speaking of the sea monster in Lam 4:3. The other is Strongs Hebrew number 1484, M331a, used only twice in the OT, the AV translating it both times as 'whelp'.

Both these words have always been taken to be a reference to a very young lion that's still dependent upon its parents for food. It's obvious from Ezekiel 19:2-3,5 previously cited that the word must refer to the lion cub. It is, perhaps, best rendered this way (NID gives it only this meaning) as the term 'whelp' is no longer widely understood.

We should also note that S1482 is further defined in Nahum 2:11 by the use of the generic word for 'lion' as noted at the start of this section.

I note only in passing that both Strongs Hebrew number 4583, M1581a (used nineteen times in the OT and translated a variety of ways) and Strongs Hebrew number 4585, M1581b (used nine times in the OT and also translated a variety of ways) are used to express the idea of a dwelling place and, therefore, the word 'den' used when in conjunction with the lion is entirely appropriate.

In this context, however, it will be referring to Nineveh as the dwelling place of the lions described.

In summary, with many words their meaning can be inferred from the context in which they sit. If a language has twelve different words that could all be employed with both a generic meaning and a more specific, technical one, we would expect that we'd probably be unable to be certain of the technical meaning when employed on their own. However, when used close together with other words that could be used the same way, we would be more likely to anticipate that the author has used them to hold their more exclusive and specific meaning.

For this reason, we should, in my opinion, use the more likely specialised meanings of these words in Nahum 2:11-13. It also appears that the context demands it.

These verses sit here in logical in time order - the battle narrative has taken place (Nah 2:3-10) and there now comes either a lament if spoken after the day of Nineveh's destruction or, as it should be taken, a taunt against the city because it's announced prior to the events having unfolded.

The use of a taunt, please note, is not the way polite society would behave - at least it wasn't the way I was brought up.

At this point, I'd encourage you to read Nahum 2:11-12 as if you were a Ninevite, standing on some hilltop overlooking the once glorious city, weeping inconsolably at the destruction that's come upon her. When you do this, the words appear to be a classic lament.

Now, read the same two verses as if Nineveh had been your oppressor for over a hundred years, yet it still stood proud and untouchable. Read it as if you knew the fate of the city in your heart but no evidence of proof in your eye. Now you should be able to see the difference that a few years makes.

We've already seen Nineveh being referred to as a pool of water whose retaining walls have been breached so the waters run away (Nahum 2:8-9). Here we're given the analogy of the city as being the dwelling place of the lion that contained a pride where they rested at peace and in no fear of predator or hunter.

To be too specific in our identification of individuals would cause problems but we're probably not going too far to see the adult lion being a reference to the king, the young lions as being all those under him who were of fighting age and the cubs as those of the city who aspired to walk in their elders' footsteps.

But this isn't so much about the fate of the individuals but about the removal of their dwelling place where they felt secure. There's also a reference to the pasture lands of the young lions (Strongs 4829, M2185b) where the RSV obscures the word by proposing an emendation to 'cave', but based on no manuscript evidence. While the 'cave' would be more in keeping with the opening theme of the lions' den, the hunting grounds are mentioned in the subsequent verse and there's no reason to suppose that the word is a copyist's error.

I note that Nahpal points to the belief that the kings of Assyria 'often' spoke of themselves in lion imagery or regarded themselves as having these attributes. While I'm unable to check this assertion out, there's no reason why it shouldn't be accepted - it would certainly underscore the relevancy of these three verses.

Here, the idea is that the place of security where the lion and his family felt secure is no more, a comment on the destruction of Nineveh previously described (Nahum 2:3-10). From this secure and fortified base, the 'lions' went forth to kill for the benefit of those within the city, to bring back treasures for the continued prosperity and welfare of those who were part of the Empire.

Notice that the natural lion doesn't fill 'his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh' or else the place would quite soon become uninhabitable - but the allusion is to the way the Assyrians had stripped the riches from those conquered nations and provided a glut of treasure that was assimilated into the city.

The lament is in mockery, of course. Nahum isn't concerned that the city no longer exists - or, better, that it will no longer exist - he simply observes with complete assurance that the fearlessness of the lion will soon end, not only because they'll no longer be able to conquer and subdue other nations and peoples but because the base from which they sprung will be removed.

The last phrase of Nahum 2:11 that the RSV translates 'with none to disturb' is better translated 'with none to make them afraid' for it represents a repetition that occurs in two specific places that are of note.

The first is Lev 26:6-8 where, speaking of the blessing of the covenant upon the Israelites in return for their obedience, YHWH declares (my italics)

'And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid...And you shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand; and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword'

Notice here that peace and security in the land is declared, followed closely by the potency of their armies as they go out to battle for obedience to the covenant. This is exactly the order of the comments in Nahum and may be thought of as a provision on the nation for them to be able to do YHWH's bidding (Isaiah 10:5-6) even though, through arrogance, that was to be brought to an end.

If Israel disobeyed the statutes given them then a reversal of their fortunes was to come upon them (Lev 26:25), an execution of 'vengeance for the covenant'.

Restoration of security and peace was assured the Israelites by successive prophets if they returned fully to YHWH but Micah's declaration is particularly interesting. Not only does it contain the same phrase 'none shall make them afraid' (that I've italicised) but it brings a very different blessing when war's considered. The prophet writes (Micah 4:3-4)

'He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of YHWH of hosts has spoken'

Although the Old Covenant provided for 'peace' and 'success in war', the prophets spoke to the Israelites that a time would come when they would have 'peace' and 'no war', a change to the covenant agreed upon at Sinai and a clear indication that there was to come an age where there would be a radical difference in the way YHWH would deal with men and women.

Although that age is still to come, the believer stands in the midst of the two ages where the provision for that which is to come has been made but not yet fully enforced as it will be upon Jesus' return.

Nevertheless, Nineveh's 'blessing' of security and success in war was about to be removed by YHWH and, ultimately, given to another who would rise up as the new ruler over nations.

YHWH also takes up a discourse here with the same opening words as He'll use in Nahum 3:5. Although we think of the prophets as being the mouthpieces of God (and so they were), we can see in this short book just how little He had to say at times and how much 'padding' the prophet added - although this, too, was inspired by the message given and the Holy Spirit working through them.

We now go back to the pre-conquest of Nineveh (see the intro to this section). Although incredibly illogical to our Western minds, this is by no means uncommon and should always be expected when reading prophetic literature.

As the antithesis of Romans 8:31 could be stated

'If God is against us, who then could be for us?'

Nineveh had conquered nations given in to their hands but had yet to stand against the One who'd commissioned them to do His bidding in the earth (Isaiah 10:5-6). When their support had become their opponent, they were found to be lacking in any trait that could redeem them from the falling judgment and the vengeance of the covenant.

However, these three verses have been predominantly about the removal of the Assyrian fighting machine. In Nahum 2:11, the prophet has lamented the removal of the secure base from which their conquests had begun but here, in Nahum 2:13, the idea is of the active removal of their fighting force by YHWH Himself.

The reference to burning their chariots in smoke isn't directly paralleled in the preceding two verses and isn't expected here. It would probably be correct to suppose that the Ninevites and Assyrians took pride in this part of their war machine and that, by declaring its utter removal, it would be understood that their ability to wage war and conquer was about to be removed.

One has to ask oneself what use the chariot could have been put to by the Ninevites once their city had been surrounded and the gates were secured, for the chariot is more naturally the weapon of the open field (in Nahum 2:4, we noted that the better translation of the RSV's 'in the streets' was 'in the open spaces').

In the confines of the city, the chariot became of limited potential so that we shouldn't be thinking of a battle in which Nineveh's chariots come off the worse but of the summary destruction of their fighting machine by the invading army once they've gained access to the city. The idea that they're burnt in smoke also implies this interpretation - that their 'storage place' is found and put to fire to remove any chance of their future use.

Only the 'young lions' are announced as about to be slaughtered, but a kingdom without fighters is a kingdom that's ready to fall when an army comes against her. We might have presumed that the lion itself would have been condemned to death (along with the cubs) but the intent of this verse is to show how the Assyrian fighting machine will be decapitated.

Its soldiers, seemingly sent into blind panic when the breach is made in the city's defences (Nahum 2:7-8,10), are slaughtered full scale until none remain. It doesn't need to be imagined that every soldier is killed (Nahpal sees the reference to be to the 'princes of the militant hosts' but this appears to be too narrow an identification) but, rather, that enough will be despatched that Assyria as a fighting force will cease to exist.

So, too, the nations will be removed from out of their grip. The statement that their prey will be 'cut off' from the earth sounds like YHWH will wipe those places out in the same judgment that will descend upon Nineveh but the idea is that, because the city no longer has the capacity to fight, their conquests will cease.

The final statement that

'your messengers shall no more be heard'

is the most problematical for the interpreter but it seems necessary to understand it in the context of warfare. Nahsmi identifies the messengers with 'tax collectors' and, while this may be possible, it doesn't seem to sit well with the idea of conquest. Certainly, they could be mentioned as the intermediaries between the king and vassal state and be representative of oppression but they don't appear to have had any military context in which they operated.

The exact meaning of the word (Strongs Hebrew number 4397, M1068a) isn't restricted to one particular meaning and means simply someone who carries a message to a third party on behalf of the sender (it's translated by the word 'angel' 111 times in the AV out of 214 uses).

Preferred is the role of the messenger who would be sent on ahead of the advancing armies to offer terms of peace in a similar fashion to the Rabshakeh, sent to Jerusalem before Sennacherib was due to appear at the gates with his army (Isaiah 36:1-22). Nahbak describes them as 'military messengers' and this description is as all-encompassing as is possible.

It's worth noting here that the messengers aren't spoken of as being killed but that their voice shall no more be heard. With the removal of the fighting machine, there's no message possible, no demands to be dead lined and no advance of the army to be announced.

The messengers of peace will find their voice in pronouncing Nineveh's overthrow (Nahum 1:15) but the messengers of war will no longer be heard (Nahum 2:13). It may be this repeat of the idea of the messenger that caused the Hebrew division of the text to begin Chapter 2 with Nahum 1:15 so that the first and last words would seem to hold together what's pronounced within.

I've divided this passage into four main sections although it's perhaps better split after verses 1 and 4 into just the three. Nahpal notes the common subject matter of verses 1 and 4 and joins them together as a single section, dealing with verses 2 and 3 afterwards - but verse 4 rightly sits as a continuation and explanation of what's preceded it and to pull it from its context hardly seems the right thing to do.

Verses 5-7 return to God as the speaker after what appears to be Nahum's speech in verses 1-4 and needs to be dealt with separately. Even so, the words become dependent on verses 1-4.

Nahum opens this section with an interjection, a word that's designed to express an emotion in the person using it and not necessarily carrying with it a specific meaning that's translatable. This is the main problem with attempting a translation of the word - and more so when that word expresses a specific emotion as it does in most modern translations.

The word (Strongs Hebrew number 1945, M485) is used fifty-one times in the AV and is translated there thirty-six times by 'Woe'. This would persuade many of us that the word must signify some sort of grief or inner turmoil but it sits at the beginning of Isaiah 55:1 where the call is to those who are lacking to receive what's being offered. Certainly, no sorrow is being conveyed here and, if anything, there's meant to be an excitement in the voice and an exhortation that there's a free handout being dispersed amongst any who want to avail themselves of it.

In that case, 'Woe' is hardly appropriate.

Neither could that be said of its usage in Ruth 4:1, Isaiah 10:5, Jer 47:6, Zech 2:6-7 and possibly many other places where some emotion far more relevant to the context of the following words would expect to be expressed.

The word, therefore, seems to have been a sound that, with the right inflection, could mean just about anything you wanted it to mean. As we have only the written account of the proclamation here, the context is all important rather than the voice of the prophet himself.

The Hebrew at this point simply says

'Ho! City of bloods!'

and then describes the characteristic traits of Nineveh followed by another destruction narrative - there's no connecting words between these two phrases as in the RSV that translates the line (my italics)

'Woe to the bloody city'

We could understand the interjection to retain the normal burden of sorrow that's conveyed in the majority of translations elsewhere and use the word 'Woe!' but this makes it sound as if a curse is being laid on the city. That may also be going too far and the 'Woe!' may only be a way to express a regret that such action has become necessary because of the traits of the people.

In fact, it's very difficult to be sure what Nahum intended and it's safer to understand the exclamation as introducing a passage that was felt to be particularly important to his hearers.

However, Nahpal must be close to the burden of the word when he writes

'...it gives expression to an agony, a pain at an offence being witnessed. It hurts to watch people being slowly crushed by a system calculated to squeeze the last breath from the defenceless'

As previously shown, the next phrase is more literally rendered 'city of bloods' than the 'bloody city' of the RSV and is constructed from two words that are wholly unremarkable, occurring on 1550 occasions in the AV text of the OT.

But the combination of the two words occurs in only one other prophet three times. In Ezekiel 22:2, 24:6 and 24:9, the prophet employs it to speak of Jerusalem - in the last two of these, another Hebrew word is used as an interjection at the start and is translated 'Woe!' (but it's not the same word as that employed by Nahum).

Ezekiel chapter 22 is quite striking in its parallels with Nahum and would be good reading at this point before going any further. Leaving aside the direct comments concerning the Mosaic covenant (which the Ninevites weren't obliged to observe), we read extensive comments concerning the blood that was shed within the city.

Imagery is used of the inhabitants as lions tearing the prey (Ezek 22:25 Pp Nahum 2:11-12) and YHWH states that he will make the city a mockery and a reproach (Ezek 22:4-5 Pp Nahum 3:6-7).

Indeed, when we continue on further into Nahum 3:1, we're prone to think of the 'lies' as being in all manner of differing contexts but Ezek 22:12 speaks of blood being shed by acts of bribery (that is, to pervert the truth) and, if relevant, we need to understand this phrase in a more specific context.

But the other two explanations are also hinted at in this chapter (for example, Ezek 22:13).

The real worth of reading this passage in Ezekiel is to realise that the city on which God had chosen to place His name and to reflect His character and glory had fallen to such a level of behaviour even though they had a special relationship with Him and knew His will for them through the Law. The condemnation of Jerusalem, therefore, must be all the more damning - indeed, whenever a people have the Word of God in their midst and yet fail to perform the truth, they stand in a worse situation with regards judgment than does a nation who know nothing of Him.

Over the years, I've heard a great many speakers level condemnation at England and the UK for its betrayal of christian principles and standards that it's trodden underfoot - but far less often I've heard the same speakers upbraid the Church for their failure to live according to the revelation of God given.

While we may say of Britain that they're just a bunch of unbelievers in general terms (although many have tried to label us to be a 'christian nation' as if we're bearers of some sort of Divine revelation that we're trying to establish in the earth), to look at the Church and see the very same traits and problems in our midst that occur 'out in the streets' is nothing short of alarming.

Whether Jerusalem or Nineveh, the Church or the nation, each must give an account of themselves before YHWH but neither the Church not Jerusalem are immune from God's sword of judgment falling upon it.

The phrase 'city of bloods' is normally taken as declaring that Nineveh had shed much blood in its midst. When we look at the testimony of Ezekiel chapter 22, we see that the same label is applied to Jerusalem for actions and behaviour that had taken place in its midst. They'd taken whatever steps necessary to kill and remove those people who represented a threat to them or who were hated.

A city seems to be 'bloody', therefore, not when it goes to war but when it sheds blood in its own streets and houses.

We'll need to try to understand what each of the three terms mean to understand what it was that was such a problem in Nineveh but, first, it seems necessary to try to define whether these traits were meant to be taken as referring to the internal dealings of the city or their foreign policy.

We saw in the previous section that Nineveh was called the 'city of bloods' probably because the excessive shedding of blood and the disregard for human life was present within the city walls. It seems that this underlying assumption must be carried over into the three characteristics that are now listed.

It may be too narrow an interpretation when we look back at how the Assyrians dealt with the nations to whom they went, but the context of the verse seems to demand it as being of primary importance. Commentators differ on the correct interpretation to put on what's being levelled at Nineveh so we need to spend time to get our definitions correct.

Firstly, the city is declared as being 'full of lies'. The word employed here (Strongs Hebrew number 3585, M975a) isn't the easiest to define, TWOTOT commenting on the word group that it

'...has an unusually large range of meanings'

going on to observe that

'...the Hebrew usage seems to stress the relational aspect of the word, emphasizing the undependable nature of a person or thing in a given relationship'

and that it can be used to denote

'...dealing falsely with someone to that person's detriment. In such cases it is associated with treachery or robbery'

In short, it seems to mean making a show or statement that's false in order to put oneself at an advantage (the word's use in Hosea 10:13 certainly implies this). Therefore, the word 'lie' or 'lies' is perfectly adequate but it means more than saying something's one way when it's known not to be (although Ps 59:12 is used of something that's spoken).

The trait seems to be discernible in the foreign policy of the Assyrians in the incident between king Ahab and Tiglath-Pileser III (II Kings 16:5-9, II Chron 28:16, 28:20-21) for, having accepted tribute to deliver the king, he instead weakened him.

However, the trait's better understood in the context of those matters that were being conducted within the city of Nineveh for it's to this that the Scripture refers. We should understand from this word's use, therefore, that large amounts of false dealing were being transacted where lies were being declared to gain an advantage over others.

That the city was 'full of lies' seems to mean that it was the norm. If you didn't lie, you didn't eat. The best liar was the best fed and the one with the highest social standing. Honesty and integrity were, logically, things to be exploited by the dishonest rather than traits to be aspired to.

Nahpal comments well that

'Every time each citizen opens his mouth, beneath his most convincing, straightforward statement is a twist, a hidden intent, a conscious ambiguity. In order to flatter, to cover up, to detract from actual intent, the citizen of Assyria dissimulates, equivocates, veils the true purpose of his heart by the cautious form of the words he utters'

In such a society, justice becomes perverted as those ruling can get the decision in law not just by bribery but on bearing false witness or paying others to do it for them.

The next word used is 'booty' (RSV) of which the city is again said to be 'full'. The word is only used twice in the OT (Strongs Hebrew number 6563, M1828a) being translated as 'crossway' on the other occasion. It's when the two uses seem to give widely divergent meanings that I immediately think that trying to define a meaning is going to take hours or be impossible!

However, the underlying meaning is the 'parting of ways' as it comes from a root meaning to 'tear apart' or 'tear away'. Nahoza, Nahbak and Nahsmi all give the translation as 'plunder' (the removal of treasure from a conquered foe) while Nahpal prefers 'profiteering' (the making of profit by what's considered to be unethical means during times of short supply, especially).

The problem is that both seem reasonable but, going back to the premise with which this section was begun, we need to understand how this would apply to the city and not to the dealings of the city with the nations it had conquered.

While we could easily say that Nineveh was full of booty or plunder as it had been brought back there after successive conquests, there's been no 'parting of the ways' in the midst of the city and the explanation that she's a 'city of bloods' would appear to be necessarily external.

Better, therefore, is 'profiteering' because it puts the attention on ungodly practices within the city itself. However, it may be best to see the inference to be as vague as 'parting a man from his possessions' and allow context to dictate how this would have applied in everyday life.

Certainly, profiteering would be one aspect of it but extortion and fraud would have to be included. I've used the word 'exploitation' in the title because it seems to me that a person or circumstance must necessarily be exploited for a person's advantage in order for such a concept to take place.

Whatever could be used, was used - it was full of deals and agreements that parted a man and his family from their necessary means of survival in order that the rich could grow richer, the poor having to adopt the same sort of dealings just to survive.

With weak law enforcement, these situations would have occurred with increasing frequency.

The final phrase is, initially, unusual. Instead of the RSV's

'no end to the plunder'

we could translate it literally

'the prey doesn't depart'

a reference back to where the same Hebrew word for 'prey' has been used twice in Nahum 2:12-13. There, the idea was of the nations being the prey of the great lions of Nineveh, who went out to kill and to bring back food to their dwelling place.

It would be too easy to think that such a reference is simply being made a second time but, as we noted, this has to do with the internal actions of the people of Nineveh. Nahpal comes close to the meaning when he renders the phrase

'Victimizing will never be eliminated'

but it would be better, in his types of words, to translate it (my italics)

'There's no end to the victims'

It's not that the act of victimizing won't end but that the resource of victims within the city itself is limitless and therefore victimisation will continue until the time when YHWH overcomes the city and destroys it.

Or, to put it another way, there were no end of people (the prey) who could be lied to and exploited (interrelating all three concepts). The resource was limitless and the Ninevites took pleasure in their dealings with one another that they might get the upper hand.

All three traits must be thought of as being taken to the point where blood was shed in a full and final outworking as they come out of the opening statement that Nineveh is a 'city of bloods' - the plural form of this title is probably meant to show the multiplication of acts that were prevalent within the city and is probably best left as a literal translation rather than softened in most modern translations (even though it's still very forceful as it stands).

Nahpal makes a necessary point when he comments

'It is not merely that the city has slipped occasionally into these abuses. Instead, the poisonous vapours diffusing from every heart pollute the total atmosphere of the community'

It would have been easy for me to quote at length the writings of the commentators as they describe the sorts of atrocities of which Nineveh was guilty in their midst. It would've been a bit more difficult for me to source the original translations and to present them to the reader here but not impossible.

But, in my opinion, we don't need to know details or to dwell upon those matters that are objectionable and not needing to see the light.

The reader can research such catalogues of violence if they so choose but knowing the details really doesn't draw us closer to YHWH.

These two verses are in three sections that deal with the chariots, the cavalry and the dead.

The first matter to be decided, though, is whether the description presented is meant to be speaking of the Ninevite army as it conquered and subdued the nations or whether the attacking army that was to overthrow the city is being described.

Nahsmi opts for the former, commenting that

'The reason for the woe or judgment [of verse 1] is her deceit and cruelty as seen in her military prowess (vv 2-3)'

On two accounts, though, this is incorrect.

Firstly, the opening verse deals with the internal actions of the Ninevites and their dealings with their fellow men and women. We saw above that this is the most natural and obvious way to take the words as the city itself is spoken of as being 'full' of lies and exploitation.

But, secondly, the opening of Nahum 3:4 is meant to begin with a link to that which immediately precedes it so the reader is in no doubt that the evil of Nahum 3:4 has caused the actions of Nahum 3:2-3.

Even Nahsmi notes this by adding a footnote to his translation that the 'Because' supplied at the opening of Nahum 3:4 is because the Hebrew 'has a causal force' (that is, the first statement is given as the cause or reason for the second one being made).

As I've said previously, it's difficult to believe that a prophetic utterance can flit between past and future with such alarming frequency but this is the nature of such proclamations. We are, once again, returning to another aspect of the overthrow of Nineveh.

a. Chariots and Cavalry
Nahum 3:2-3a

We discussed above about the breaching of the city's walls and the unlikely scenario that would have seen the cavalry and infantry gaining access in to the city through the breach because of the difficult terrain over which they would have needed to have passed.

However, once access had been gained, subjugation of the city is not the priority but the opening of the gates to allow the reinforcements to arrive or, in this case, the deployment of the chariots and cavalry.

This appears to be the sense of the verse for the progression in the four phrases go from a distant awareness that something's happening to the witnessing of the chariot itself.

As the gates were opened, there would be heard 'the crack of whip' followed by the 'rumble of wheel' as the chariots gained momentum through the streets of the city where few attackers had yet penetrated. As they approached, the sound of the 'galloping horse' would be heard, a higher frequency sound that would have been perceived echoing off the walls of the houses and buildings. Finally, the 'bounding chariot' comes in to view.

It's superbly put together by the prophet to give the listener the sense of an impending doom advancing upon an impotent population - a bit like hearing Godzilla's feet shaking the ground, only to be met by its body as it swings the corner into the street where you're standing (please note, this is the world's first Bible commentary that mentions Godzilla, A real ground breaker).

The witnessing of the advance of the chariots from the city walls (Nahum 2:3-4) is given in much different terminology and the sounds mentioned here wouldn't have been heard from high up on the battlements.

This, then, is the sound of the chariots running amok in the streets of Nineveh after the defensive gates of the city have been opened by the infantry who have charged through the breach in the walls (something that we've accepted as being the first event that happened from the historical evidence that's come down to us).

The following statement gives no such feeling of an approach. It states simply some observations about the cavalry. It records that there are

'Horsemen charging [with] flashing sword and glittering spear'

I've already noted in a previous section that the use of the Ninevite chariot would have been limited (if they hadn't been destroyed at an earlier time in the battle as Nahum 2:13 may require) because they would have indiscriminately killed the defenders alongside the attackers - especially when the former would still have been the majority in the city.

It wasn't such a problem for the attackers, however, if they arrived and rampaged through the city at an early point in the battle for the majority of victims would have been Assyrians who were trying to flee in blind panic.

A charioteer may have been able to identify the red of their own army (Nahum 2:3) but at the speeds they would have been travelling at and the poor manoeuvrability of their chariots would have combined to kill both friend and foe.

The horsemen, also, would have been fairly indiscriminate in who they killed - and many may have been mown down by 'friendly' chariots as they met them charging at crossroads.

There may, however, have been a tactical ploy to drive the inhabitants with the use of the cavalry into squares and hold them there while the chariots did their work.

b. The dead
Nahum 3:3b

There are three different words for the dead that are piling up in Nineveh's streets, prefixed by the descriptors of 'hosts', 'heaps' and 'without end' all used to show the large scale massacre that's taking place.

I remember reading an account of the aftermath of one of the big battles in the American Civil War as the writer was looking out over the battlefield. We tend to think that, once a soldier is hit by a bullet, they go down like a stone, totally dead, lifeless and limp.

But this isn't always the case.

The writer described the ground as one moving mass of colour, all dying but few dead, writhing in their agony before their final breath. Such a scene was probably common in the streets of Nineveh for, once severely wounded, the soldier would have moved on to deal with the next defender - there simply wasn't time to despatch each and every person they met.

The RSV's 'slain' (Strongs Hebrew number 2491, M660a) is not quite correct for the word more rightly means 'fatally wounded'. TWOTOT comments that

'It included the act of wounding and the resultant groans'

(it's amazing what you can retrieve from a single word, eh?). This is substantiated by the use of the word in a few places in the OT where the idea that the 'currently dead' are being referred to is impossible, especially where they 'groan' from their wounds (see, for example, Judges 9:40, I Samuel 17:52, Job 24:12, Psalm 69:26, Prov 7:26, Jer 51:52, Lam 2:12, Ezek 26:16, 28:23, 30:24).

The word certainly means 'dead' (in the majority of its ninety-four uses) but, as we observed above, where groups of words are used that can hold the identical meaning, it's normally best to accept their slightly more precise and specialised one as they were probably used side by side with this intention.

There are multitudes, says Nahum, of fatally wounded in Nineveh's streets - not the dead, but the 'still living', who've been rendered unable to resist the army's advance and will die with time.

The second word used is translated 'corpses' by the RSV (Strongs Hebrew number 6297, M1732a) and is a regular word employed for a dead body. Although it's tempting to think of all these corpses as freshly slain, the word can be employed of those that have already been decaying and producing foul smells (as in Isaiah 34:3).

In the blinding heat of the Middle East, it wouldn't take long for the rotting smell of death to take a hold all over the city but the idea does seem here to be of the freshly slain if we align it with the charging of cavalry and chariot. However, we should accept that the city quickly sank into the appearance of an open graveyard with all the odours that they would have produced.

Nahpal comments that the word

'...describes someone who has collapsed from exhaustion'

mainly because the root from which it comes means 'grow faint' (the root is used twice in the OT in I Sam 30:10,21 where it means 'faint to the point of incapacity'). Having had a look through the uses of the word in the OT, there never appears to be any context in which this idea of exhaustion is present and it seems best to understand that the word came out of its root simply because extreme tiredness can give the appearance of death.

The final word used is translated 'dead bodies' by the RSV (Strongs Hebrew number 1472, M326d) but the word doesn't have to mean that there's anything 'dead' about a body and it's used of very much alive ones (for example, Gen 47:18, Neh 9:37, Ezek 1:11, 1:23, Dan 10:6). The word simply means 'body' and the context alone defines whether alive or dead is intended.

The context in Nahum 3:3 makes us accept that a dead body is being referred to.

The word appears in a word group that means 'the back', therefore Nahpal writes that the word is

'...perhaps viewing a body lying face down'

This makes sense and should certainly not be rejected as the possible meaning here - however, in verses such as Ezek 1:11, 1:23 and Dan 10:6, it's difficult to imagine that the body being referred to has the back in view.

By using these three words, the prophet underlines the extent of the massacre within the city, reinforcing it with the concluding

'...they stumble [or fall] over the bodies [S1472]'

Even before the city is totally subdued, the quantity of dead lying in the streets makes access increasingly difficult - soldiers are having to clamber over piles of them as they go about the subjugating of any last resistance (although there probably is none and they've set about stripping the city of 'everything desirable') and the few inhabitants that remain are hindered in their flight, being unable to run.

The imagery of massacre couldn't have been much simpler put without bordering on the macabre.

I noted at the beginning of the comments on Nahum 3:2-3 that this verse sits as the reason for the judgment of an invading army that's described in those two verses and gave reasons there as to why this is.

However, reading the opening of this verse, we often gloss over the meaning because the words are so familiar to us. The 'harlotries of the harlot' - strong words indeed - to level against Nineveh. And isn't Babylon called the harlot in the Book of Revelation?

We end up realising that to be labelled a harlot by YHWH (although these are more rightly Nahum's words) must be a pretty serious business.

But, when it comes down to it, who can actually say what it means? What is a harlotry when it's at home and why is it so offensive to God? And, if a city is labelled a 'harlot' what does that actually mean that it's doing?

For, although we know the phrases, we know the judgment, we know text - we aren't very often capable of putting into words what the descriptions mean in real terms.

But the rest of the text is equally perplexing - she's graceful and of deadly charms, she betrays nations with her harlotries (here we go again) and people with her charms. What exactly does this mean? Or are we to take them all as vague, indefinable matters that we can populate with whatever trait we think was obnoxious to God (making sure always that it's not something we're doing) and then move on to a different Scripture?

For these verses are not specific and certainly not obvious. We must take the time, therefore, to be certain we understand what it was that Nineveh was doing and that we, as a Body of Christ, as a city or group of people, aren't doing the very same things that YHWH condemns.

a. Her titles
Nahum 3:4a

The word translated as 'harlotries' by the RSV (Strongs Hebrew number 2183, M563a) occurs 12 times in the OT and is defined by TWOTOT as having the underlying meaning

'fornication'

The root from which it comes (Strongs Hebrew number 2181, M563) also occurs in this verse and is translated 'harlot', appearing ninety-three times in the OT. TWOTOT defines the word as meaning

'to commit illicit [sexual] intercourse'

but this causes a few problems as the word 'harlot' (and the word 'harlotries' that comes directly from it) normally summons a concept in the reader's mind of a prostitute where money changes hands for a sexual service.

In the OT, it's certain that, on numerous occasions, the idea is that the word is meant to represent a prostitute but, on a great many others (probably the majority), the definition supplied by TWOTOT is infinitely superior and encapsulates all that the verse appears to be trying to convey.

For example, Lev 21:14 is a command concerning the marriage of the high priest. The qualifications for an acceptable wife are defined in the negative where it reads (my italics)

'A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry...'

before concluding

'...he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people'

In this case, the 'harlot' or 'prostitute' is too narrow a definition to stand if, by it, we think only of a prostitute. In this context, the definition

'one who is sexually promiscuous'

is by far the more accurate and relevant. The word 'whore' would possibly be the best single word that could be used but, to avoid any confusion, a phrase is perhaps the best option.

It would appear, then, that this Hebrew word group should only be translated by words such as 'prostitution' when the context demands it. Generally, the word has no more specific meaning than 'promiscuity' or 'excessive sexual experience'.

The repetition of the words in this opening phrase underline the offensive nature of the act. It would have been sufficient for the prophet to have said that Nineveh was a harlot or that she committed promiscuous acts. Perhaps, to emphasise the point, he may have talked about the 'harlotries of the harlot'

Instead, he uses three concepts by speaking of the 'countless' harlotries of the harlot (where Nahpal translates 'repeated acts' that seems to underscore the frequency of the actions rather than the amount of times the actions were performed).

This is no passing mention of an unacceptable trait but, as Nahpal writes

'The prophet becomes bluntly abusive in his language...By coarse, insulting language the Holy Spirit through the prophet tears away these pretences and lays bare the moral degradation of the inner recesses of the heart'

Nahpal also adds a line of translation after this phrase and italicises it as

'Charming madam!'

which is probably a bit too interpretative (it makes it sound like she's the beguiling mistress of a brothel!) while Nahsmi adds

'fair and gracious'

There are two words in the OT that are represented by the AV's single 'wellfavoured' that the RSV renders 'graceful' (the RSV becomes rather problematical in its translation at various points during this verse). The two words occur together in a number of verses but the best to refer to is Proverbs 22:1 where the AV renders the words as 'loving favour' while the RSV opts for the single 'favour'.

The AV seems to give the force of the combination of words but they seems to need rendering as an adjective preceding 'harlot' to show how attractive she is to those around her.

Nineveh isn't being slept with because men like to get their leg over (although this may be an altruism according to some) but because men find something attractive in her that makes them want to go down that path.

This opening line of the verse, therefore, could better be rendered

'[This happens because of] the repeated acts of promiscuity of this well thought of promiscuous woman...'

where Nahum 3:2-3 are being explained by Nahum 3:4, hence the 'because of' at the start.

This is the first definition of Nineveh. The second occurs in the following phrase that the AV translates as

'the mistress of witchcrafts'

and which the RSV renders as

'deadly charms'

The word 'mistress' (Strongs Hebrew number 1172, M262b) is probably too misleading to be left to stand as the word more rightly means a female owner - the masculine form is Ba'al, the name of a false God in the OT, but the feminine form as used in Nahum 3:4 is never used of a goddess.

The word translated 'witchcrafts' (Strongs Hebrew number 3785, M1051a) is as accurate as it can be and also conveys the plural form which is part of the original. Because it is in the plural, the word 'sorceries' sounds more natural as we tend not to use 'witchcraft' in this way in the present day.

There seems no reason to think that this phrase should be taken as indicating anything other than literal witchcraft and sorcery. Nahpal comments that

'Recent archaeology [the text was copyrighted 1990] has uncovered literally thousands of tablets from Nineveh attesting to their intense concentration on sorcery. Use of the magical arts functioned as a veritable way of life'

The second definition of Nineveh, then, can be fairly simply given as

'possessor of sorceries'

b. Her works
Nahum 3:4b

Having given Nineveh her title, Nahum moves on to describe her actions, The RSV translates the second half of the verse by noting that she

'...betrays nations with her harlotries, and peoples with her charms'

where the original words translated by 'harlotries' and 'charms' are the same as appear in the first half of the verse - my translations of 'acts of promiscuity' and 'sorceries' above. The prophet is using the definition placed on the city and now outworks it.

The word 'betrays' is the all important one here and we'll deal with it in a moment - but the verb controls both subsequent phrases so that Nineveh is said to 'betray' both 'nations' and 'peoples' with her 'promiscuous acts' and 'sorceries'.

We shouldn't think that the first of each two words go only together - the construction is simply a way to use different words in phrases that apply to all. The one word that we need to comment on is the word translated 'peoples' (Strongs Hebrew number 4940, M2442b). This word can indeed have a restricted use to mean a small 'family' but it more rightly means larger groups of people who regard themselves as descended and interrelated from an individual or tribe.

The RSV's 'peoples' is, perhaps, too unspecific but the AV's 'families' seems too limiting! It's best to use a word that can mean anything from a small group of people held together by blood ties up to a much larger group that see themselves as belonging to a particular group. For this reason 'families' is the only word that can convey this meaning.

The force of the verse is that sorceries and promiscuous acts lead astray small groups right up to the largest groups imaginable - there are no exceptions or humans who remain unaffected by the 'betrayal' of Nineveh.

But what is this 'betrayal'?

The word (Strongs Hebrew number 4376, M1194) is the regular one employed elsewhere to signify selling and is used eighty times, being translated as 'sell' on seventy-five occasions. It's not the word we'd expect if 'harlot' was to be taken as implying prostitution, for she isn't so much one who sells others as she who sells herself.

However, 'sell' is correct and not 'betray' - even though one might imagine the ultimate 'sell' is to betray the confidence of the purchaser. This may be so but Nineveh is only portrayed here as selling both nations and families by her sorceries and promiscuity.

The implications of this statement seem to indicate that the world became involved in her sin because, finding something attractive and worth possessing, they sought favour from the nation, they wanted to be like her in her ways. She, therefore, led the people of earth astray by selling them into sin even to the point of betraying them into thinking that what they were achieving was somehow advantageous.

It's the same today when we see a 'rich and famous' person or organisation and want a 'piece of the action'. Successful empires are built on specific attitudes and policies and they become intolerant of anyone or thing that's within their organisation but that doesn't 'toe the party line'. There's no room for any individualism when the progress of the 'company' is threatened.

In order for any nation or large group of people to find 'favour' from the Assyrian empire, they would have had to have necessarily become representatives of their way of life, of their culture - with the same attitudes and policies.

They would have had to have got in bed with Nineveh to join with her but, in so doing, would have become everything odious to YHWH that the original nation had become.

Just as the Church is to act as leaven, influencing society (Mtw 13:33), so Assyria worked its life and ways into the world by its great influence.

Yet, much more than this - for Assyria began to take possession of the nations through conquest (even by acts of betrayal where promised support led to effective control), assimilating defeated people into her empire and producing 'children of Nineveh' from the nations round about her. Slowly but surely, the image of Assyria was becoming the image of man on the earth.

Time for YHWH to act...

This may not seem to be too specific an explanation of the verse but it's about as far as we can go with what's set before us.

Finally, a rendering of Nahum 3:4 based on the above discussion would be

'[Nahum 3:2-3 will occur because of] the repeated acts of promiscuity of this well thought of promiscuous woman, this possessor of sorceries - she who sells nations with acts of promiscuity, and families with her sorceries'

YHWH takes up His discourse once more in the identical words of Nahum 2:13 (see under 'Wondering where the lions are', part 3 'I am against you' for a brief discussion). In conclusion to that passage, I noted that this opening statement is the antithesis of Romans 8:31 and could be stated as

'If God is against us, who then could be for us?'

In both places, YHWH announces Himself as 'of Hosts', a clear military term in this context. Although YHWH is sufficient to put to flight all men, He pronounces Himself as being at the head of a mighty army and gives the indication that He will be fighting in strength and from an unfathomable depth of resource.

This is quite typical of His declarations and, while His relative weakness could dispel the strongest of forces arrayed against Him, He often displays His singleness of purpose in declaring His actions in terms that are more over the top and extravagant than necessary.

Therefore, Israel sing of God (Ex 15:12 - my italics) that He

'...didst stretch out Thy right hand, the earth swallowed [the Egyptians]'

and David declares (Ps 20:6 - my italics) that YHWH

'...will help His anointed; He will answer him from His holy heaven with mighty victories by His right hand'

where the 'right hand' is always considered to be the side of strength as opposed to the left.

God moving against His enemies using his little finger would be quite sufficient, but He shows His singleness of purpose and application of His full resources in language that men and women understand. He doesn't just overcome His people's enemies - and His own - with a minimum of energy, but is extravagant in the way He gets involved.

a. It's a real shame
Nahum 3:5b

In a society where large sums of money are paid for pictures of a person's nakedness, this verse may meet with a 'So what?' in many corners of society (but probably not many corners of polite society). Nakedness and nudity have become such a part of our everyday 'modern' lives that the announcement of such an action would be met with scoffing.

I don't intend going in to an exposition of nakedness and nudity in the OT and provide comments as to where and when nudity may be or may not be appropriate - and how God views our modern society in its dealings with such matters - but we do need to understand the idea of what exposing a person's nakedness actually means.

In the Garden of Eden when there was no sin, it's recorded of Adam and Eve (Gen 2:25) that

'...[they] were both naked and were not ashamed'

Only when disobedience to God came on mankind through their first sin (Gen 3:1-6) did Adam and Eve have their eyes opened to their state, that is (Gen 3:7)

'...they knew that they were naked...'

hastily getting some leaves together in order to provide themselves a covering. Whether symbolic or real, genital nakedness (although we must be true to the text and note that nowhere are we told which parts of a man or woman's anatomy was considered to need covering) became evidence of the shame of having sinned against YHWH.

It's normally assumed (by myself also) that God's glory covered Adam and Eve and that they walked in His presence, not afraid of God in any way because there was nothing in their lives that was offensive to the One who'd created them.

However, when that first act of sin took place, their glory departed and they perceived themselves as they had now become - separated from God and standing condemned before Him.

Man's covering of his body from then onwards, therefore, became an evidence (if he would but stop and think about it) that there was something desperately wrong between himself and his Creator - and that, if there was to be a remedy to the problem, a covering would have to be provided that would take away the shame of their sin and restore them back in to a right relationship.

Therefore, Paul in his letter to the Roman church quotes Psalm 32:1 and reminds his readers (Rom 4:7) the blessing pronounced by David upon the man

'...whose sins are covered'

a clear pronouncement of the Fall of man in Eden and a reminder of the sacrificial system that provided a covering of blood upon the Israelites that they might stand in YHWH's presence (I note here, however, that the same Hebrew word is not used of this blood covering, even though it is employed to speak of the need for the covering of the priests' nakedness in Ex 28:42).

The same word translated 'skirts' by the RSV (Strongs Hebrew number 7757 - the word more rightly means the lower part of a robe or the outer hem of such a garment. It isn't the same item that we would, today, call a 'skirt'. Nahpal interprets the word to mean 'gypsy skirts' but this is, firstly, wrong and, secondly, rather demeaning to gypsies as if they're being singled out as a kind of 'morally lower' human) is used in Jer 13:22-26 in a similar manner to that in Nahum 3:5 where YHWH announces that

'...it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up...'

and that He will

'...lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen'

In effect, the greatness of a person's sin causes YHWH to expose the shame or to 'expose the sin' for all to see. Transgression will only remain hidden for a while but will soon come to light in a society where God is on the move, calling men and women to give an account of themselves.

With Nineveh, God is about to act to reveal the sin of the city and, subsequently, of the nation. He will remove the concealment they've employed to mask their evil and will make it plain for all to see.

But how will God do this? Through the complete overthrow of the city.

This might sound like a strange way to go about it, but those who've trusted in Nineveh will see the futility of their ways, will realise that their pride in and reliance upon the city has been vain and will come to realise that the way of life that was personified by the city has been condemned and shown to be less than sufficient.

No one will try to rebuild her and her former lovers (Nahum 3:7) will shy away from her in her hour of destruction.

This is the same punishment described as falling on God's people in Ezek 16:36-41, specifically Jerusalem (Ezek 16:2). Because of the great sin that the city took part in (Ezek 16:36 - Jerusalem is said to have uncovered her own nakedness and shame), she would have her nakedness exposed by YHWH (Ezek 16:37) and this would have the result of the sacking and overthrow of the city (Ezek 16:39-41).

There's nothing quite like disaster for making men and women stop and think about themselves and their way of life.

Finally, I note Nahpal's comments that Nineveh's skirts will be lifted up

'...before her own face so that she cannot hide from the disgrace of it all...'

which comes out of his translation

'I will uncover your skirts before your face'

He seems to be saying that Nineveh will look on their own nakedness, but the correct interpretation seems to me to be to follow the RSV's translation that the skirt will be lifted over the face so that (excuse my crudeness) the 'nations' and 'kingdoms' will be drawn to the shame being exposed before them with nothing to distract them (it's more natural to look at a person's face than their genitals - at least, it is in polite society and the circles in which I move, although some people I've known in the past...).

b. Mudslinging is of God
Nahum 3:6

YHWH has already spoken of two actions He'll take towards Nineveh in the previous verse, although these are interrelated and should be considered as two parts of the one action - he will uncover the nakedness and shame of the city and allow the people of the world to gaze upon them.

Here, He moves on to outline three further actions that will be inflicted upon them.

Firstly, He will 'throw filth' at her. The word translated 'filth' (Strongs Hebrew number 8251, M2459) is a very strong word in Hebrew and means more than simply 'mud' or 'dust'. Therefore, the AV (as well as the RSV) translates it with 'abomination' and 'detestable things' along with others.

To show something of the strength of feeling conveyed, consider its use in I Kings 11:5 where Milcom, the god of the Ammonites is actually called the 'abomination' of the Ammonites, the word 'god' not employed where we'd expect it to be. Certainly, the writer knew very little about being politically correct when it came to sizing up the object of another people's service. But such a term is used similarly in I Kings 11:7 and II Kings 23:13 and also used of the acts themselves that were unacceptable to service of YHWH (Deut 29:17, II Kings 23:24, II Chron 15:8).

It's no wonder that the prophets took the word up themselves and used it to portray the most debased forms of worship imaginable without the need to describe them in any detail (for example, Is 66:3, Jer 4:1, 7:30, Ezek 5:11, Hosea 9:10). The word is also used in conjunction with another to speak of Daniel's 'abomination of desolation' (Dan 9:27, 11:31, 12:11).

In the context of Nahum 3:6, however, we shouldn't imagine that YHWH is saying that He will place upon the Ninevites practices that were abominable (simply because they were already practicing such deeds!) but that He was about to place on them abominations that would be accepted as such by those who would look upon her.

Men and women may get involved in the grossest of practices but, when they finally perceive that such actions are degrading, disgusting and self-abasing, they normally have the natural aversion to continue practicing them - though, not always. Therefore, the disassociation with Nineveh would be complete because of the attributable characteristics of the city that would be perceived by those, primarily, who'd taken so much delight in her.

But we're not looking at a few spots of mud, thrown up from a passing chariot - we're talking something so appalling that no one would want to go near her any more (something akin to seeing a man or woman covered head to foot in dog excrement).

Secondly, YHWH says that He will

'...treat [the city] with contempt'

a phrase that's represented by only the single word in the original text. This word (Strongs Hebrew number 5034, M1286) appears twenty-five times in the OT and has fifteen different translations employed to convey the meaning.

TWOTOT comments that it

'...represents a state or condition of leaves when they are dried but still attached to the tree...The image of withered leaves about to fall given by this verb or other dried up vegetation often serves as a figure of judgment'

Very simply, then, YHWH is saying

'I will wither you'

where the idea is of a root being destroyed that the foliage above the ground can no longer draw sustenance from below. The sources of Nineveh's strength and prosperity would be laid waste and the flowering beauty would wither and die.

NID points out, however, that the form of the word used here in Nahum (as it is in Deut 32:15, Jer 14:21 and Micah 7:6) makes the sense to be

'...dishonour, hold in contempt and scoff'

In the last two of the bracketed Scriptures, the idea of removing the source of a person's well-being may still be present but it's impossible to know whether this is meant to be thought of as present in its use in Nahum 3:6.

However, treating Nineveh with contempt has already occurred in Nahum 1:14 where we noted that the city is described as being of little consequence, even though it was great in its own eyes. To destroy her as fully as she was, shows that her self-estimation of her importance was based upon a serious delusion. Life continued without her when she was no more.

God rightly treats with contempt those who assign an importance to themselves that overbears their real significance.

Thirdly, God declares that He will make the city

'...a gazingstock'

(somewhat of an archaic word and certainly not in common modern day usage). The word (Strongs Hebrew number 7210, M2095f) is used six times (Gen 16:13 [twice], I Samuel 16:12, Job 7:8, 33:21) but doesn't appear to have ever been used in a negative sense, meaning simply 'looked at' or 'looked on'.

The translation 'gazingstock' is far too strong a word to be employed here and Nahbak's comments are also a bit too strong for he speaks of the description as

'...matching the use of stocks and pillory in the more recent past'

Although to some extent this is correct, Nineveh hasn't become a place for the outpouring of punishment but a place that was itself punished.

The idea is that Nineveh will be looked upon - either directly by those people who lived round about her or figuratively when news came to them of its destruction.

No explanation is given as to how she will be regarded, but the other words in this passage indicate that she won't be mourned (Nahum 3:7) but will stimulate men and women to think upon her shame (Nahum 3:5). She will, therefore, serve as a warning to others when she's 'looked upon'.

Anyone who's passed by the ruins in the last two and a half thousand years has been confronted by the annihilation of a once great city reduced to a pile of rubble and, certainly contemporary with the destruction, the recounting of what she was and how she fell would have been repeatedly told.

Nahpal fleshes out the bones of the statement when he observes that

'...just as Nineveh has abused its captives, exposing them to public ridicule, so He shall make Nineveh a spectacle of shame that the nations will never forget...International shame and disgrace shall replace pomp and pride'

c. Mourners, apply here
Nahum 3:7

YHWH begins by repeating the idea of the city becoming a 'gazingstock' by using a word that's part of the same word group (Strongs Hebrew number 7200, M2095) translated by 'all who look on you'. It's as good a reason as any why 'gazingstock' is such a poor translation for, although the same concept might be discerned by the reader, the phraseology is so different that it's easily missed.

The following words seem more applicable to Nineveh's contemporaries than to imply that the 'looking upon' her would be subsequent upon all future generations so this must be the primary meaning intended (although I've noted that the large pile of debris would continue to have spoken to those who had lived in or passed the area for almost three thousand years).

It's because YHWH has caused Nineveh to be 'looked upon' that people will 'shrink from her' when they witness the carnage. This phrase is the single word (Strongs Hebrew number 5074, M1300) and implies motion. It would better be translated as 'move away from her' or 'depart from her' but the word can be used figuratively as when it's said that sleep departed from Jacob (Gen 31:40).

Instead of running forward to embrace the city and its ways, men and women will be revolted by it and step back. This hardly seems a literal possibility since the state of the city would be a heap of rubble, smouldering into ruin. Who would want to enter the city?

It seems better to take the witness of the eye to be a compulsion in the heart not to follow after the lifestyle of the city, seeing as the end result had been destruction. This is the sense of the phrase 'Wasted is Nineveh' (the second and last time where the name of the city is included in the prophetic message - Nahum 1:1 is a superscription and not part of the message itself), the backing away coming about because of her destruction.

Two rhetorical questions end the verse, each demanding a negative response in the minds of the listeners. YHWH asks firstly

'Who will bemoan her?'

The word 'bemoan' (Strongs Hebrew number 5110, M1319) is one that implies a moving backwards and forwards and was therefore used to denote 'compassion' because, as TWOTOT notes (quoting Keil and Delitzsch), compassion was exemplified in

'...the nodding of one's head "as a sign of pity that sympathises with one and recognises the magnitude of the evil"'

No one will shake their head and feel sorry, have compassion or express pity for the fate of Nineveh. This is quite an amazing statement for surely those who'd found prosperity through her would feel sorry for her demise, even if on a purely selfish level?

But the abomination she's become (Nahum 3:6) will be sufficient to turn the hearts of all against her. From being glorious, she quickly becomes an object of shame (Nahum 3:5).

Secondly, the question is asked

'Whence shall I seek comforters for her?'

where the word for 'comforters' in the RSV (Strongs Hebrew number 5162, M1344) has it's root, according to TWOTOT, in the idea of deep breathing - as in when one hears a particularly bad piece of news and one sighs with a feeling of regret.

The word's used to denote repentance in the OT but also compassion - and this seems to be the sense of it here. There might be professional mourners employed at Nineveh's demise (figuratively speaking) but there's no one who's genuinely compassionate about her fate.

Again, one would have thought that, in death, there would have been mourning - but no one will care, no one will take the time to feel sorry for the city that's been overthrown fully and finally.

Nahum's name means 'compassion' - compassion for God's people that their oppressor will be completely laid to waste and their yoke will be removed from off their shoulders. And yet, the only compassion mentioned in the prophecy is the antithesis here where none exists towards the destroyed city of Nineveh.

As believers we should also be warned that mourning and grieving over some acts of destruction on this earth are out of place. The God who brings into being is also the One who causes those very same things to cease to be. Discernment is needed in all matters, but destruction is not invariably 'of satan'.

Nahum's final words
Nahum 3:8-19

The words of YHWH - as contained in this scroll - ended with the close of the previous verse. Nahum now adds his own comments and pronouncements concerning Nineveh, eventually drawing the prophecy to a close without further direct divine speech.

This might sound fairly radical to some - perhaps even heretical to others. After all, isn't one of the foundational doctrines of the Church that the Bible is the Word of God, breathed by Him into existence and, therefore, infallible?

But God's greatness is shown in that, even when His servants write the records of His dealings with man (and, perhaps, some of the people who wrote the Scriptures were not committed followers of YHWH as we always suppose from no evidence), when His prophets speak to His people as if on their own understanding of a matter, it's still endorsed by Him, brought in to being as if He'd directly spoken.

The Church has long since laboured under the misapprehension that a person who says 'Thus says the Lord' is speaking more accurately than another who says 'This is the way it is' and who doesn't use the prophetic phrase to justify the message.

Of the forty-seven verses contained in the Book of Nahum, one is an added superscription taken from the outside of the scroll when the record was committed to flat parchment, thirty-nine are the work of the prophet himself and only seven are the direct speech of YHWH.

That is, around fifteen per cent!

Or, to put it another way (a way with which I don't agree), eighty-five per cent of Nahum is padding and could be disregarded. But this is our present day problem in the Church for we fail to hear the voice of YHWH through fellow believers who speak - until we hear the 'magical' formula 'Thus says YHWH' and then we sit up and take notice.

The Book of Nahum is a case in point that God says more by His servants' own understanding of a matter than He does by commanding His prophets to speak on His behalf.

The final twelve verses of this scroll present somewhat of a problem of division for the commentator and I note that in the four volumes I have beside me, only two agree where the lines should be drawn.

The main problems - for me, at least - are verses 11 and 14 which seem to sit well as both conclusions to what precedes them and introductions to what follow. Perhaps they should even be considered as standing alone and dealt with accordingly?

Verse 18, too, could well sit alongside verse 17 and leave verse 19 as a concluding verse that should stand alone. Such decisions need to be made for they influence how subsequent verses are meant to expand on or define ones that precede (or follow) them.

My inability to be certain about the intended divisions, therefore, has caused me to use the following section splits and to deal with them accordingly.

We've already discussed the dating evidence that this passage provides in the Introduction to the book (see under 'Introduction to the Book', part 1, section a) and that material won't be repeated here except where necessary.