A Prophetic Ride (Zechariah 9:9)

Which prophet predicted that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9)

The Book of Zechariah is one of twelve Minor Prophets canonized in the Bible and is positioned as the penultimate book in the Christian Old Testament. The book is commonly divided into two units, often referred to as First Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1-8:23) and Second Zechariah (Zechariah 9:1-14:21). Second Zechariah is comprised of two poetic oracles (Zechariah 9:1-11:17, 12:1-14:21).

Second Zechariah begins by predicting doom for Israel’s enemies (Zechariah 9:1-8). The prophecy then transitions to describing the coming of a triumphant king who ushers in the dawning of a new age (Zechariah 9:9-17).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) discusses:

Although the material in Zechariah 9-14 is generally considered to be much later additions to Zechariah 1-8...they appear to outline the fulfillment of the promises articulated in the present oracles concerning Zerubbabel. Throughout Zechariah 9-14, reference is made to the future Davidic monarchy. Zechariah 9:9-10 calls for the people to rejoice because the king will come to them riding upon a donkey and establishing his dominion from sea to sea. (Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Volume 2 (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 611)

The Messianic king arrives riding a donkey amid a liturgical procession (Zechariah 9:9).

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9 NASB)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) situates:

At the heart of Zechariah 9 stands one of the most famous predictions about the coming messianic king. Whether it should be treated separately...or linked with Zechariah 9:1-8 or with Zechariah 9:11-17...is a difficult question. On the one hand, it does continue in the poetic form of Zechariah 9:1-8, and it does describe both the Messiah and the way He will govern the kingdom of God announced in both Zechariah 9:1-8 and Zechariah 9:11-17. On the other hand, it is distinctive in nature and functions as a pivotal point for both Zechariah 9:1-8 and Zechariah 9:11-17, and these factors persuade us that it is best to treat Zechariah 9:9-10 as a distinctive oracle that enlarges on the messianic teaching of Zechariah 3:8 and Zechariah 6:9-15. (Kaiser, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Mastering the Old Testament), 370)

The figure mounted on the donkey is the Messiah. Barry G. Webb (b. 1945) identifies:

Zechariah 9:9 is undoubtedly the best-known verse in Zechariah, and one of the better-known verses in the entire Old Testament. The key issue for the interpretation of the passage is the identity of the king who is seen here riding into Jerusalem on a donkey amid shouts of rejoicing...It is God who has been on the move in Zechariah 9:1-8, and his progress has been towards Jerusalem. So it is God himself whom we are expecting to arrive there at this point. But the picture of God himself riding on a donkey is incongruous, to say the least. Furthermore, God is clearly distinguished from the king. God is the speaker (the ‘I’ of Zechariah 9:10) who announces the arrival of the king and speaks of him in the third person...So the king is a man, a human being–but a man who is closely associated with God...The book of Zechariah has already given us the key to the identity of this king. In its context in Zechariah, this king can be none other than the one whose coming was promised in chapter 3 [Zechariah 3:1-10], and symbolized in the crowing of Joshua the high priest in chapter 6 [Zechariah 6:1-15]...The king is God’s Messiah. (Webb, The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come (Bible Speaks Today), 131)

The picture Zechariah paints is a unique and consequently redefines the notion of king. David L. Petersen (b. 1943) deliberates:

The author of Zechariah 9:9 is presenting a highly nuanced form of political expectation. This is no standard royal or messianic expectation, namely, the return of a real or ideal Davidide. This expectation has little in common with the hope for a prince (Ezekiel 40:1-48:35), a crowned Zerubbabel (Haggai 2:23); a Davidide à la the oracles of Zechariah (Zechariah 4:6-10). Instead, the poet focuses on collectivities, addressed through the technique of personification. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 59)

George L. Klein (b. 1955) concurs:

In Zechariah 9...the royal role of the Messiah appears in unique form. In Zechariah 9:9 the Messiah enters the scene riding a beast of burden, not a steed associated with military might. Riding on a lowly donkey, the Messiah will reign over a kingdom that he will administer peacefully through the strength of compelling righteousness, not brute force as other kings must exert. In addition to the peaceful connotation of the beast on which the coming King will ride, this Monarch will arrive “righteous and having salvation, gentle” (Zechariah 9:9). (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 71)

The king that the prophet presents is an idealized version. David L. Petersen (b. 1943) characterizes:

Zechariah 9:9 depict[s], in surprising order, the manner in which the king will arrive, as well as his attributes. We might expect the poet to write “Humble, riding upon a donkey” immediately after the report that the king is coming. Instead, the poet offers two adjectives to define the salient features of the king. He, like other idealized earthly kings, will be righteous (so II Samuel 23:3) and victorious. The king shares these attributes with the deity. The imagery of just ruler and military savior are pivotal to the author’s understanding of the king. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 58)

One of the striking features of the king is that he enters upon a “donkey” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “ass” (ASV, KJV, RSV) (Zechariah 9:9).

Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) define:

The word hămôr, “ass,” indicating the king’s mount, is the first of three animal terms used in this passage. Its commonplace usage in the Bible signifies a beast of burden (e.g., Genesis 42:26, 44:13, 45:23; I Samuel 16:20; II Samuel 16:1; etc.). However, cognate terms in Ugarit and Mari were used for animals that a deity rides or that draw a chariot in a ritual festival. In contrast to the horse, the mule was evidently a symbol of peace (Wilhelm Theodor In der Smitten 1980:466, 469). Although a lowly beast (Genesis 49:14ff.), it could signify royalty. The story of Saul retrieving asses may be an allusion to his future office [I Samuel 9:3-10], and the succession story of Solomon has him on a mule rather than a horse (although the word there is pered rather than hămôr [I Kings 1:33, 38]). The range of images attached to hămôr is striking, and they may all contribute to the message of this passage—that the king represents peace, that his humble beast is suitable for his role in submitting to divine power while exerting his own royal dominion, and that he is a legitimate monarch. The use of a lowly animal is one of the ways in which a royal figure partakes of the life-style of the people he dominates. In this way he bridges the structural gap between those in power and those subjugated and thereby helps to win the cooperation of people dominated by the royal elite. (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 130)

Mark Allen Hahlen (b. 1959) and Clay Alan Ham (b. 1962) add:

The extended description of the donkey (חמור, hămôr) as a colt, the foal of a donkey [Zechariah 9:10] more narrowly describes the king’s mount in both the premonarchical periods (Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:14; II Samuel 16:1-2; I Kings 1:33). Evidence from Ur and Mari indicates the donkey is the royal mount par excellence in ancient Near East from the second millennium B.C. The association of the donkey with the promised ruler from Judah (Genesis 49:11) and with David (II Samuel 16:1-2) suggests it as an appropriate image for the legitimate Davidic heir. The choice of a donkey rather than a horse to portray the coming of the king also subverts militaristic notions. The horses and chariots that belong to Israel, Persia, or any other nation cannot secure for them the kingdom of Yahweh. This truth resonates with the earlier affirmation that the success of Joshua and Zerubbabel comes not from human power or might (Zechariah 4:6). (Hahlen and Ham, Minor Prophets, Volune 2: Nahum–Malachi (College Press NIV Commentary), 431)

As noted, there is precedence for ancient monarchs enlisting similar transportation. David L. Petersen (b. 1943) informs:

Just as the...previous poem used surprisingly vivid imagery to describe Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem, namely, camping at his house [Zechariah 9:8], so too...this second poem uses vivid language to depict the king’s arrival in Jerusalem. To think of a king riding on a donkey may strike one as farfetched. However, we know that human kings in the Ancient Near East, particularly as attested in second millennium B.C.E. texts, rode donkeys. Genesis 49:10-11 also clearly demonstrates that these animals are mentioned in references to royalty (cf. II Samuel 16:2). The sole exception to this pervasive royal imagery is the term “humble,” which is used here to redefine the character of the divine king. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 58)

Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) discuss:

The image of a royal figure mounted on an ass rather than a horse derives from a rather well-established Near Eastern practice of royalty in procession on a mule (Samuel Feigin [1893-1950] 1944; Jack M. Sasson [b. 1941] 1976:72-73). The description here is perhaps a reapplication of the text of Genesis 49:10ff., where in Jacob’s blessing of Judah and the dynastic promise is related to an action involving donkeys (Michael A. Fishbane [b. 1943 1980:355 and 1985:501-02). Fishbane suggests that the postexilic setting of Zechariah 9 is propitious for reworking an older text that forces a future that has not been realized since the Exile. An ancient blessing is reworked into a striking oracle, giving authority to what it envisions. (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 129)

Jewish texts especially emphasize the image of a king riding a donkey. George L. Klein (b. 1955) chronicles:

The biblical story of the coming messianic King likely begins with Genesis 49:10-11: “The scepter will not depart from Judah...He will tether his donkey to a vine.” The Judaic commentary, Genesis Rabbah, also connects the donkey tied to the vine in Genesis 49 to messianic interpretation. Zechariah’s Messiah represents the culmination of the Lord’s promise to David of a Davidic King who would reign perpetually: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (II Samuel 7:16). (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 271)

Pamela J. Scalise (b. 1950) supplements:

The king’s procession to Zion, riding on a donkey, follows an indigenous monarchic tradition found in Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:14 and II Samuel 16:2. David’s return to Jerusalem after putting down Absalom’s revolt provides the background for this picture. He had left the city almost as a fugitive, reviled by his enemies and humbled by the treachery of his favorite son. He returned, having been saved in battle. The picture of the donkey-mounted monarch also interprets this promised king as ruler in Genesis 49:8-12, who tethers “his donkey to a vine,/his colt to the choicest branch.” Here in Zechariah 9:9, as in Genesis 49:11, the colt in the second line specifies the kind of “donkey,” purebred and not previously ridden. It does not name a second animal. The ruler from the tribe of Judah will hold “the obedience of the nations” (Genesis 49:10). A blessing once fulfilled in the Davidic monarchy is here renewed as an eschatological promise. (John Goldingay [b. 1942] and Scalise, Minor Prophets II (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 274)

While the motif of the king atop a donkey is present, the parallels between Genesis 49:10-11 and Zechariah 9:9-10 are imprecise. Mark J. Boda (b. 1962) observes:

This verse [Zechariah 9:9] appears to assume the royal tradition of Genesis 49:10-11, in which Judah will produce a king for Israel who will ride on a “donkey...colt.”...One should not, however, miss elements of contrast between Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9:9, as Iain M. Duguid [b. 1960] has pointed out. Rather than a figure hailing from the warlike tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8), whose garments drip with blood from battle (Genesis 49:11), Zechariah 9 presents a humble king. “The warlike language is still present in Zechariah 9 but it has been transferred from the royal figure to the Lord himself.” (Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application Commentary))

David L. Petersen (b. 1943) theorizes:

Though there seems to be a tradition of the king—in Israel, David—riding on a donkey, I do not think the poet is quoting another biblical text, contra Klaus Seybold [1936-2011], “Späetprophetische Hoffnungen auf die Wiederkunft des Davidischen Zeitalters in Sach 9-14,” Judaica 29 (1973): 104-5. Though there is clear allusion to royal traditions, I do not think that Zechariah 9:9-10 presents a specific allusion to a Vorbild in the Davidic period. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 58)

Given this connection between animal and monarch, it is not surprising that many have taken the donkey as indicative of its rider’s royalty. Katrina J.A. Larkin classifies:

חמוד — another tone-setting word, this time kingly (George M.A. Hanfmann [1911-1986] (1985) traces the tradition of the ‘donkey’ as royal mount back to eighteenth century Mari); and possibly David (Klaus Seybold [1936-2011] 1973;103). (Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, 63)

Kenneth G. Hoglund (b. 1954) counters:

Though the literature does not always do so, we must distinguish between a donkey (referred to in this passage), and a mule (hybrid between horse and donkey). The mule (Hebrew pered) is preferred over the donkey as an official royal mount. The evidence for a donkey as a royal mount in antiquity is meager. In Akkadian there is an occasional passing reference to a donkey for the king to ride. A Hittite narrative, The Queen of Qanesh and the Tale of Zalpa, has the thirty royal sons driving a donkey, but does not specify that they ride them. In Ugaritical literature, the goddess Athiratu rides on a donkey in one text, thus indicating it a regal mount if not royal...In biblical texts elites occasionally ride on an ‘ayir (the second word used in this text...see Judges 10:4, 12:13) or on an ’ātōn (the third term, foal of a “donkey,” and Balaam’s mount in Numbers 22:21-33). Consequently, evidence is lacking to suggest that the king in this verse is being provided with royal trappings. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 220-21)

Others have seen the donkey as evidence of the monarch’s inherent humility. Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) construes:

The donkey appears to express humility in this context, because Zechariah 9:10 states that the Lord will cut off the horse from his people, ending their misplaced trust in implements of war. Since Zion’s king establishes peace among the nations (Zechariah 9:10), it would be anomalous for him to ride an animal that symbolizes war. The donkey, on the other hand, stands out in this text as a deliberate rejection of this symbol of arrogant trust in human might, expressing subservience to the sovereignty of God. We must view Israel’s king in contrast to Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE] and the other proud conquerors of history. The reference to his riding a beast of burden, not a white charger, underscores this sense of the word ‘āni. Jerusalem’s king is of humble mien, yet victorious, and so it has always been that the church does not effectively spread the gospel by sword or by arrogance, but by mirroring the humble spirit of its king and savior. (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 1166)

Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) concur:

What does the “ass” imagery represent, in light of the frequent emphasis on kings in relation to horses and chariots in the Bible, especially in First Zechariah (Zechariah 1:8, 6:2, 3, 6, cf. Haggai 2:22)? Horses and chariots represent the military, or power aspects of political domination. “Riding on an ass” is a royal image that does not partake of that dimension in dynastic authority. Karl Elliger [1901-1977] (1975:149), in pointing to numerous ancient rituals for kings on mules, may be correct in emphasizing the present setting, by signaling a postvictory scene, is intended to repudiate warfare of any kind. By substituting nonmilitary animals for horses, the prophet is reversing the power imagery associated with a king’s rule. In the eschatological future, the restoration of the Davidic monarchy will radically alter the notion of kingship—the future will not exert exploitative domination or foster socioeconomic elitism...Indeed the beginning of Zechariah 9:10 (wěhikratti), “I will cut off,” makes it clear that the future king will not need to depend on force in the eschatological future...It is difficult to determine whether this altered perspective of the royal figure can be related to the political realities in Yehud in the time of Second Zechariah, by which time any realistic expectation of full political power being restored to Yehud would have dissipated. The presence of First Zechariah of God’s spirit, rather than political force, as the theme for the future may have been based on political pragmatism. Such may also be the case here, with the Near Eastern ideology of stability and world order accompanying a new ruler involved to further strengthen the eschatological imagery of a restored Davidide...In any case it would be overburdening the text to see it as a reflection of conflicting royal ideologies (as Paul D. Hanson [b. 1939] 1973:43-44 and Rex A. Mason [b. 1926] 1976: 237). (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 129-30)

A people who do not have a king are told by the prophet that they can expect one (Zechariah 9:9-17). He will be unique. As is indicated by his mount, he will be both royal and humble. He will be as no king has been before. And this is cause for hope.

What words would you use to describe the ideal monarch? What means of transportation would you expect a ruler to use? Why does Israel’s Messiah sit atop a lowly donkey? Is it a sign of humility, royalty, or both? How improbable is this prophecy? Has the prophecy been fulfilled?

The passage is perhaps the most famous in the book of Zechariah due to its association with Jesus (Matthew 21:5; John 12:15). James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) commends:

Few Messianic prophecies are better known than this, chiefly because of its quotation in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15 as being fulfilled by the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on what we traditionally call Palm Sunday. (Boice, The Minor Prophets, Volume 2: Micah – Malachi, 194)

The donkey is a staple in the gospel stories of Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem. Mike Butterworth (b. 1941) documents:

It is...recorded in all four gospels that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-40; John 12:12-18. Matthew and John have an explicit quotation of Zechariah 9:9. (Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 180)

Zechariah’s prophecies impacted the New Testament. George L. Klein (b. 1955) explains:

The book of Zechariah exerted a profound influence over the New Testament, particularly in the realm of Messianic passages—a point long noted by New Testament scholars. Several important themes from the book figure prominently in the New Testament. One of the most important of these is the shepherd-king. From Zechariah 9:9 the King who rode into Jerusalem on a “donkey” reemerges in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15). C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] even suggests that Zechariah provided the Gospel writers with material of equal importance to the very testimonia of Christ’s ministry. (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 61-62)

Zechariah 9:9-10 is of particular interest to New Testament scholars. Mike Butterworth (b. 1941) comments:

Zechariah 9:9-10 is probably the best known and most discussed passage in Zechariah 9-14. Christian tradition has affirmed that Christ fulfilled this prophecy when he rode into Jerusalem jut before his arrest and death. Jesus himself seems deliberately to have acted out this prophecy. Since he also referred other passages from Deutero-Zechariah to himself there is considerable interest in the relation that these have each other. Paul Lamarche [1923-2004] connected them by means of his elaborate chiastic structure and argued that together they make up a coherent picture of a shepherd-king messiah. (Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 180)

The passage’s pervasive influence is somewhat perplexing. Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and Jin H. Han deliberate:

This is the first of the passages in Zechariah 9-14 which are taken up in the Gospels as prefiguring the ministry, and particularly the passion, of Jesus (F.F. Bruce [1910-1991]1961 remains the clearest discussion of the material as a whole.) There is still no agreement as to why this section should have been so influential. The passages might all have been incorporated into a collection of Testimonia, but that only raises the difficulty again at one remove: why should this apparently very obscure collection of material have been so widely used? Clearly the New Testament writers regarded it as in some sense “messianic,” but there are no obvious internal grounds for seeing that characteristic as more obvious here than in many other prophetic passages. In general terms this usage may remind us that the New Testament Gospel-writers will have regarded the testimony of God-given Scripture as more reliable than uncertain and sometimes conflicting human memories. (Coggins and Han, Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

Matthew seems to have taken the prophecy especially literally. Charlene McAfee Moss reports:

Where Luke 19:30 follows Mark 11:2 with respect to Jesus’ instruction to his disciples...the parallel passage in Matthew 21:2 describes two animals–they will find an ass tied and her colt with her...Mark and Luke contain no reference to fulfillment of Scripture in this part of their narratives, however, an echo of Genesis 49:11a may be discerned in the expression, “a colt tied” (Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew, 80)

Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and Jin H. Han expound:

Matthew 21:4 has brought it into the Gospel’s own characteristic structure, using the same formula as is found frequently there, specifically referring to this as a word “spoken through the prophet.” It is argued that the form of the text used by Matthew already prepared the way for such a reading (Max Wilcox 1988:199-201), and this might tie in with the existence of a collection of Testimonia...Matthew’s reading has been criticized by Jewish scholars on the grounds that he is interpreting poetry as literal fact (Jon D. Levenson [b. 1949] 1993:8). Certainly it seems likely that what was poetic parallelism in the original...has been understood by Matthew as a reference to two animals, on both of which Jesus is to be envisaged as riding into Jerusalem! (Coggins and Han, Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

Though not explicitly cited, Zechariah 9:9 likely influenced Mark’s gospel as well. Henk Jan de Jonge (b. 1943) suspects:

According to Mark 11:7-11, Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt. Matthew, in his reworking of this passage (Matthew 21:4), adds the comment that ‘this took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying “Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”’ This is a quotation from Zechariah 9:9, which does not yet occur in Mark. Yet many interpreters of Mark are of the opinion...that Mark’s account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem alludes to Zechariah 9:9, even if Mark avoids quoting Zechariah explicitly at this point. Not only in Matthew, but also in Mark, is the colt riding the animal mentioned in Zechariah 9:9. (Christopher Tuckett [b. 1948], “The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21”, The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, 87)

The Christian connection to Jesus has monopolized the interpretation of this Jewish text. Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and Jin H. Han acknowledge:

Largely Christian interpretation has dominated the understanding of a somewhat obscure passage. Jewish writers recognized that there had been a Christian “take-over,” but no concerted alternative interpretation emerged...Joyce G. Baldwin [1921-1995] is perhaps optimistic when she says that “most commentators agree that the Messianic king is foreshadowed here” (Baldwin 1972:163), but it is certainly true that a “messianic” understanding has been widely proposed. One approach which combines a “messianic” type of understanding and has been acceptable to later Judaism has been to see here a reference to Judas Maccabaeus, never a king, but treated, at least by the author of I Maccabees, in quasi-royal terms. Certainly one strand of later Jewish tradition, exemplified by Ibn Ezra [1089-1167], saw in the figure depicted here a reference to Judas Maccabaeus. More generally, it may be that our passage was interpreted by the author of I Maccabees as referring to the exploits of the Hasmoneans, and in particular Jonathan (I Maccabees 11:60-74, 12:1-38, 13:6-11) (Andrew Chester [b. 1948] 1988:152). There is also a possible reference of this kind among the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 12:12). (Coggins and Han, Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

The New Testament’s usage of the text does ring true to Zechariah’s original intent. Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) affirm:

The New Testament (Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15) is quite comfortable with the imagery of the passage; in adhering to its peaceful tone, it remains faithful to the original intent of Zechariah. (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 129)

Given this tradition, Jesus’ conscription of the donkey would likely have evoked messianic hopes in the spectators. Paul R. Eddy (b. 1959) discerns:

With Zechariah (among others) supplying the prophetic script, Jesus’ entry into the city on a donkey and his subsequent temple action (whatever else it signifies) would have consciously evoked messianic expectations. (Carey C. Newman [b. 1959], “The (W)Right Jesus: Eschatological Prophet, Israel’s Messiah, Yahweh Embodied”, Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright [b. 1948]’s Jesus and the Victory of God, 51)

Jesus is intentional about entering Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1-3; Mark 11:1-3; Luke 19:29-31). In doing so, he plays upon Jewish tradition to inform the initiated that he is the long awaited messiah, “humble, and mounted on a donkey”.

Who does this prophecy most benefit? Do its words apply only to Jesus or has it been fulfilled in other ways? Does the prophecy’s existence lead to its fulfillment; is this art reflecting life or life reflecting art? Would Jesus have utilized the donkey had Zechariah not made his prophecy? Did the prophets guide Jesus’ ministry? How much of his identity did Jesus glean from tradition?

“Persistent prophecy is a familiar way of assuring the event.” - George Gissing (1857-1903), “An Author at Grass: Extracts from the Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft”, The Fortnightly Review, Volume LXXII: July to December 1902, p. 337

Jonah’s Fish Story (Jonah 1:17)

Who was swallowed by a big fish? Jonah

One of the best known of all Bible stories is that of Jonah’s sojourn inside a large fish, commonly presumed to be a whale (Jonah 1:17). The tale has captured the imagination of children and adults alike for centuries. The reluctant prophet ignores God’s call to Nineveh and sets sail in the opposite direction for Tarshish (Jonah 1:2-3). When the vessel carrying Jonah encounters a devastating storm, it is determined that Jonah’s disobedience is the cause and he is thrown overboard, presumably left for dead (Jonah 1:4-16).

God has other plans for Jonah. In the last verse of the book’s first chapter the notorious fish engulfs the would be prophet (Jonah 1:17).

And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. (Jonah 1:17 NASB)

Harold Shank (b. 1950) summarizes:

Jonah’s means of transport changes from a ship to a fish. One protected him from the storm and the other from the sea. One led him away from God, and the other brought him back to God. Inside the fish Jonah has a change of heart. (Shank, Minor Prophets, Volume 1: Hosea-Micah (The College Press NIV Commentary), 345)

The Hebrew text has slightly different chapter divisions than do English translations. John D.W. Watts (b. 1921) affirms:

This verse is at the beginning of chapter 2 in the Hebrew Bible. That chapter division recognizes that it belongs more to what follows than to what has passed. (Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 82)

The large fish is the best known and most debated facet of the book that bears the prophet’s name. The creature is described alternatively as a “great fish” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, RSV), “huge fish” (HCSB, MSG, NIV), “big fish” (CEV) and “large fish” (NRSV). The common denominator is “fish”. Though not an impossibility, the text makes no reference to a whale. This common identification likely stems from the King James Version’s translation of Matthew 12:40.

The Hebrew word “fish” (dâg) is as broad as its English counterpart and can reference any aquatic creature (e.g., Genesis 9:2; Numbers 11:22; I Kings 4:33; Psalms 8:8).

James Limburg (b. 1935) elucidates:

What sort of “big fish” did the author have in mind here? The Greek translations have kētei megalō (kētous in Matthew 12:40) which may be translated “great sea monster,” while the Vulgate piscern grandem, “big fish.” The Hebrew “big fish” (the seventh of fourteen occurrences of gādôl, “big,” in the story) does not denote a specific species but leaves room for the imagination of the hearer or reader. (Limburg, Jonah: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 61)

Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) expounds:

Some of the versions try to be more precise on the identity of this “large fish.” The LXX uses to to kētos, and it is recalled as such in Matthew 12:40, in Josephus [37-100], and in the Arabic version’s hût. In Greek literature, however, the kētos is an aquatic animal that, as we follow its attestations chronologically, exhibits a progressively larger size, changing from Homer [800-701 BCE]’s “seal” to Pliny [23-79]’s “whale.” It is a fact, moreover, that Scripture has preserved no specific names for the many types of salt- or sweet-water fish known to the eastern Mediterranean. This does not mean, of course, that the ancient Hebrews were not able to distinguish among the area’s wide varieties of fish; it simply suggests that no biblical context seems to require a specific vocabulary for fish. This observation holds true even in the listing of animals deemed suitable for sacrifice or consumption; Scripture merely distinguishes between fish with scales and gills (acceptable) or those without (unacceptable), making no judgment on any aquatic animal with no vertebrae (Leviticus 11:9; Deuteronomy 14:9). (Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 149)

The text is concerned with the creature’s size, not species. Sasson continues:

The text merely states that the fish was “large”...The adjective gādôl permits a play on the consonants it shares with dāg...but it also maintains an interest in aggrandizing objects (Nineveh and its evil, the wind, the storm, the sailors’ fear). For those who read Jonah on its most realistic level, the adjective “great” no doubt makes Jonah’s sojourn within the fish more plausible. It has to be said, however, that the miraculous in Jonah’s experience is also basic to the story...and a guppy would have perfectly suited (if not sharpened) this element. In fact, in another Jewish tale that features a “big fish” (and that, interestingly enough, has Nineveh among its settings), the size of the fish turns out not to be all that significant a feature. When a “huge fish...leaped out of the water and tried to swallow [Tobias’s] foot,’ only its internal organs proved useful: to ward off the attacks of evil demons and to cure blindness (Tobit 6:2). (Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 149-50)

There is even ambiguity regarding the fish’s gender. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) relay:

Rashi [1040-1105] tells us that the fish is male. However, since Jonah is comfortable within, he does not think of praying while inside it, and God orders the fish to vomit him out. Subsequently, a pregnant female fish swallows Jonah. At this point, Jonah, crowded by all the fish eggs, is forced to pray. Rashi comes to this conclusion based on the word for “the fish” (hadag). In this verse, the word is masculine, so he reads it as “the male fish.” However, in the following verse, the author uses hagadah, a feminine form. Rashi thus reasons that there must be a second, female fish. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Jonah; A Modern Commentary, 23)

W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. (b. 1967) investigates further:

The feminine form of fish, הדגה, has elicited considerable discussion, particularly given that the masculine form appears in Jonah 2:1 and Jonah 2:11. Although there are several Hebrew words that may be either masculine or feminine דג is not one of them. Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842] suggests that Jonah 2:2 is example of a nomen unitatis, or a singulative, in which one gender expresses the collective unit, while the other appears to indicate a single component within the unit...Although such a phenomenon appears in Jonah 1:3 with the use of אניה...it does not explain the irregularity in Jonah 2:2. Jack M. Sasson [b. 1941 suggests an alternative explanation. Sasson notes that in the Hebrew the singular form of a word can be used instead of its plural form, providing that the number (singular vs. plural) is not the main point of the text...A similar phenomenon occurs with masculine words supplanting feminine words. (Tucker, Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, 49)

The great fish may hold meaning to the sailors who throw Jonah overboard (Jonah 1:15-16). John H. Walton (b. 1952) speculates:

In Canaanite beliefs there were various sea monsters who were associates of the sea god, Yamm, and sometimes even identified with him. If the sailors saw the fish, it is possible that they would have viewed it as a personification of the sea god. (Walton, The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 109)

For Jonah, the fish may be the embodiment of his worst fears. Phillip Cary (b. 1958) internalizes:

The great fish is a cosmic version of an ancient nightmare, the great monster of the deep that represents chaos and destruction, the flooding and undoing of the world. I saw the origins of this nightmare once when I stood with a small child at the seashore and watched the waves roll in, and he was frightened because he did not see what could keep them from rolling on and on and swallowing him up. For all who can feel the roots of that child’s fear, the LORD God brings assurance and order to the world, saying to the sea: “Thus far you may come and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:11). The same setting of the boundaries to the sea is pictured on the third day of creation, when God separates land from water, making a place where human beings can dwell. After this, the first of the creatures that God makes to live and move under heaven are “the great sea monsters” (Genesis 1:21). This is a reversal of the view of ancient Near Eastern mythology, which bases the ordering of the world on a primal battle between a god like Baal and the monsters of the watery chaos. God does not first slay the monster of the deep and then order the inhabited world, but first orders the world in peace, then creates great and marvelous things even in the deep. (Cary, Jonah (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 79)

The text moves from tragedy to comedy as the nightmarish creature proves to be Jonah’s salvation. The great fish will serve as Jonah’s home for three days and nights (Jonah 1:17).

Marvin Alan Sweeney (b. 1953) investigates:

The notice that Jonah was in the “belly” (literally, “intestines”) of the fish for three days and three nights has prompted some discussion. It has been taken as a typical reference to a long period of time (cf. I Samuel 30:11-15), simply as an expression of the Hebrew fondness for the number three, or a mythological reference to the time it takes to descend to the netherworld. The span of time corresponds roughly to the “three days” it takes to walk across the city of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3), which would support the notion that it expresses a long period of time. It should be noted that a three-day journey expresses the length of time it takes to travel to YHWH’s presence for worship in the Exodus tradition (cf. Exodus 3:18, 5:3, 8, 23, 15:22). Insofar as Jonah expresses a desire to return to the presence of YHWH in the Temple, the reference to three days and nights in the belly of the fish also conveys the sense of separation from YHWH. (Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets; Volume 1 (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 316-17)

Frank S. Page (b. 1952) wonders:

Why did God use this specific means of returning Jonah to his appropriate place of service? For some the purpose of the fish was solely allegorical. A.J. Glaze, Jr. states: “The literary apparatus rich in metaphors and poetic imagery indicates the broader purpose of the author, and the allusions are evident to the intended audience. The relationship to one of Jeremiah’s prophecies was clear: Israel, swallowed by Babylon, would be delivered.” In other words, the story had to present elements commensurate with the intended teaching lesson...More fitting of the context is the view that the fish provided time for instruction from the Lord. R.T. Kendall [b. 1935] says it well: “The belly of the fish is not a happy place to live, but it is a good place to learn.” (Billy K. Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (The New American Commentary), 240-41)

The incredible aspects of the text have led many to believe that Jonah is an allegory at best or at worst, a fish story. This mode of thought has led to much inquiry as to the species that could sustain a human being for three days. There is an off cited urban legend of a James Bartley surviving fifteen hours inside of a whale off of the Falklands Islands in 1891. The vessel most commonly cited in connection to the incident, The Star of the East, did exist but was not a whaling ship. No ship’s log or testimony exists from the era.

Remarkably, Jonah emerges unscathed and resumes his mission (Jonah 2:10). Regardless of the species or size of the creature, divine intervention would be needed to endure gastric juices, the intestinal tract, etc. In short, Jonah experiences a miracle.

How would knowing the species of fish affect your interpretation of Jonah? Do you read Jonah literally or allegorically? Why? Would an allegorical reading diminish the text in any way? What are other incidences of God transforming tragedy into a comedy?

William P. Brown (b. 1958) asserts:

Whether a large fish—a whale is most likely what the author had in mind despite modern scientific distinction between marine mammals and fish—can actually swallow and sustain a person for three days is not an issue the author sets out to prove. Indeed, the incident itself is reported matter-of-factly. (Brown, Obadiah through Malachi (Westminster Bible Companion), 23)

Excessive interest in the sea creature developed as science became more prevalent in the nineteenth century. James Bruckner (b. 1957) traces:

Popularized by Rev. Edward B. Pusey [1800-1882]’s 1860 commentary, this relatively recent tradition focuses on the size and species of the fish/whale, the size of the fish’s larynx and stomach, the availability of breathable air, and so on. In this view Jonah is a litmus test of one’s belief in science as a means of proving the veracity of the Bible. This approach limits the message of Jonah to two verses [Jonah 1:17, 2:10] and a specific nineteenth-century view of reality...Preoccupation with the big fish...has had both a positive and negative effect on the interpretation of Jonah in communities of faith. Positively, the great fish has kindled imagination and interest in Jonah as a book. Negatively, however, the great fish has so dominated this interpretation that the discussion of the book has been limited to this question: “Was Jonah really swallowed bu the whale?” This question has served as a distraction from God’s Word. (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 21)

Thomas John Carlisle (1913-1992) fell into the trap of focusing on the fish. He confesses, “I was so obsessed with what was going on inside the whale that I missed seeing the drama inside Jonah (Carlisle, You! Jonah!, 21).”

Chasing the “whale” defeats the purpose of the text. T. Desmond Alexander (b. 1955) reminds:

The story of Jonah being swallowed by a ‘whale’ has undoubtedly fascinated generations of children. Recounted by narrators eager to capture youthful imaginations, it provides all the elements necessary for a truly gripping story. Unfortunately, however, childhood memories can colour call too easily our perception of the book. The original narrative says practically nothing about the great fish; its existence is noted in only three verses [Jonah 1:17, 2:1, 2:10]. (David W. Baker [b. 1950], Alexander & Bruce Waltke [b. 1930], Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 47)

Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) concurs:

Certainly it is futile to argue over whether such a thing would be possible. The author is telling us a story in order to say some very important things about God, and all arguments over the fish tend to divert our attention from the main points being made. The important fact is that Jonah, despite his disobedience, inability to pray and acceptance of his just sentence of death, has been saved from a watery grave by the totally undeserved grace of God. (Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I (New International Biblical Commentary), 268)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) refocuses:

The subject of the first sentence is not the great fish, but the Lord. The point the author wants to make is that God provided a way of delivering Jonah. The salient thing is God’s intervention to save Jonah and reconscript him with the original call to go to Nineveh. This point is often lost in the volumes of scholarship on the Book of Jonah. (Ogilvie, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Communicator’s Commentary: Mastering the Old Testament), 410)

The verb connected with God in this verse is mânâh, translated variously as “appointed” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, RSV), “prepared” (ASV, KJV, NKJV), “provided” (NIV, NRSV), “arranged” (NLT), “assigned” (MSG) and “sent” (CEV).

Frank S. Page (b. 1952) interprets:

This gives the perception that God created a special creature for the specific purpose of rescuing Jonah and providing a place for his training in humility and submission. But an accurate translation would be “ordained” or “appointed.” The word is used four times in the Book of Jonah and always points to the Lord’s power to accomplish his will. Here it shows his sovereignty over the creatures of the sea; in Jonah 4:6 it shows his power over plants; in Jonah 4:7 it shows his power over crawling creatures; and in Jonah 4:8 it shows his power over the wind. While God may have prepared a special “fish” for Jonah, the text only indicates that God summoned the fish, common or special, to be at that place at the exact moment of need. (Billy K. Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (The New American Commentary), 239-40)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) adds:

The wording of the first sentence is precise. Yahweh is in control; the fish simply does what it is told...The verb נהמ piel “designate; specify; appoint” does not imply that God had long in advance created a special type of fish or modified an existing one so that it could keep a person alive for seventy-two hours (cf. Robert Dick Wilson [1856-1930], Princeton Theological Review 16 [1918] 645-54). The story does not specify what kind of fish it was, how Jonah could have lived inside it, or the answers to any other such queries. Yahweh can easily toss the wind around to make a storm when he wants to. Miraculously rescuing someone from drowning via a fish is no great feat, either. But it is not, also a feat to be described analytically. The numerous attempts made in the past to identify the sort of fish the could have kept Jonah alive in it are misguided. How would even Jonah himself have known? Can we assume that he caught a glimpse of it as it turned back to sea after vomiting to shore?...How could he have understood what had happened to him when he was swallowed? These questions have no answer. To ask them is to ignore the way the story is told. What sorts of fish people can live inside is not an interest of the scripture. (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Word Biblical Commentary), 474)

The use of the word “appoint” not only underscores God’s role in the scene but, in context, downplays the fish’s. John H. Walton (b. 1952) laments:

In a way, it is a shame that this most familiar part of the book has attracted so much attention, for such attention detracts from the purpose and message of the book. The use of the verb “provided” suggests the role of the fish should be viewed no differently from that of the sprouting vine (Jonah 4:6), the action of the parasite that devours the vine (Jonah 4:7), and the east wind that torments Jonah (Jonah 4:8)—for they are all similarly “provided” by God. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Daniel-Malachi (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 474)

The fish serves as a plot device. It is arguably not even most important animal in the book (Jonah 4:7). To focus on the fish and not the God who sent it is to major on the minor.

In the belly of the creature, Jonah hits rock bottom. And yet God retains the ability to rescue the prophet. This is the text’s emphasis.

Symbolically, Jonah is raised from the dead. This is how Jesus uses the story (Matthew 12:38-40). Later Christians followed suit.

Edmund Leach (1910-1989) documents:

This was a very early and very common Christian “type” for Christ’s resurrection and for the promise of future resurrection for mankind. It was frequently used as a decoration for elaborate Roman Christian sarcophagi (see Matthew 12:40). (Robert Alter [b. 1935] and Frank Kermode [1919-2010], The Literary Guide to the Bible, 597)

Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) encapsulates:

The gracious gift of God is life. He does not abandon his servant to death, but snatches from its clutches the drowning man. To the thrill of the hearers the key figure is saved at the last moment from a seemingly inescapable plight. Yahweh mounts a special rescue operation: an enormous fish plays the astounding part of a submarine to pick up Jonah from the murky seaweed at the bottom of the ocean and transport him safely to the mainland. The fish stands for the amazing grace of Yahweh, which came down to where he was and lifted him to new life. (Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 213)

Jonah’s descent in the great fish is a reminder that we can hit no bottom so low, not even death, from which God cannot raise us. The Christian always has hope.

Does the fish serve primarily as shelter or punishment? When else have Christians majored on the minor? When have you hit bottom? When you did, what sustained you?

“The test of success is not what you do when you are on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom. You’re never beaten until you admit it.” - General George S. Patton (1885-1945)

The Locust Army (Joel 1:1-2:17)

In what book are locusts likened to an invading army? Joel

Joel is classified as a minor prophet, the second of twelve such books canonized in the Bible. Locusts overrun Joel’s text as they do the landscape he describes, figuring prominently in two of the book’s three chapters (Joel 1:1-2:17). The prophet addresses Judah, a land ravaged by a locust invasion that has destroyed everything in its wake (Joel 1:4).

What the gnawing locust has left, the swarming locust has eaten;
And what the swarming locust has left, the creeping locust has eaten;
And what the creeping locust has left, the stripping locust has eaten. (Joel 1:4 NASB)

Joel likens the locusts to an invading army (Joel 2:4-11).

Locusts were no laughing matter and Joel’s allusion to the insects represents powerful language. James E. Smith (b. 1939) describes:

Newly hatched locusts resemble ants or tiny roaches. Fully developed, these “hoppers” as they are called form marching bands up to ten miles wide and ten miles long. These bands move forward at a slow pace of about 250 feet per hour. Within their path they consume virtually every blade of grass or legume. No obstacle can stop this irresistible insect army. (Smith, The Minor Prophets, 67)

John D.W. Watts (b. 1921) adds:

Joel skilfully blends the imagery of prophecy with the realistic experience of the locust plague. Travellers who have seen such confirm the accuracy of the account. Locust swarms darken the sky like an eclipse of the sun; at dusk the low rays of the sun catch their wings, reflecting an eerie light. (Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible)), 25)

Joel depicts an especially harsh invasion. David Allan Hubbard (1928-1996) examines:

The devastation does not stop with the laying waste...of grapes and leaves, but includes also the splintering...of the fig tree; the bark itself is peeled off and thrown down so that the denuded branches appear white. A California agricultural official reported that ‘what they...don’t eat they cut off for entertainment.; He also noted that in the wake of the insects, fields are left ‘bare as the floor’, apple trees are stripped of every leaf and rose bushes are consumed through the green bark. During the same attack, a farmer lamented that 100 acres of his bean field had been ‘completely cleared by the hoppers. Joel’s account is not hyperbolic but factual. (Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 45)

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) cites another historical example:

When the locust invasion of 1915 struck Palestine and Syria the desolation was as great as anyone could have possibly imagined. The first swarms appeared in March. The final stages did not depart until early summer. During that four-or-five-month period the land was stripped of every green thing: vines, fig trees, grain. Still, bad as the destruction was, the locusts did move on and in time the land recovered. (Boice, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical Commentary, 106)

Though Joel was not the first to take literary license with the destructive creatures, he adds his own unique spin. John Barton (b. 1948) chronicles:

The imagery occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In Judges 6:5 the Midianites and Amalekites used to come up against Israel “as thick as locusts” (cf. also Judges 7:12), while Jeremiah 51:14 threatens Babylon that YHWH will “fill you with troops like a swarm locusts. And James L. Crenshaw [b. 1934] cites a Sumerian text..Perhaps we should...see some originality in Joel’s reversal of the image, making locusts seem like an invading army. As so often in the prophets, a familiar trope is given new life, in this case by being reversed. I do not know of any other case inside or outside the Bible in which literal locusts become a metaphorical army. (Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 43-44)

There is great debate as to whether Joel is speaking literally or figuratively. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) explains:

Many commentators agree that Joel describes a literal locust plague in the first chapter, though there is much more dispute about the second chapter. The suggestion has also been made (Douglas Stuart [b. 1943]) that even in the first chapter the locusts stand for an invading army, either the Assyrians or the Babylonians. While there may be elements of hyperbole in Joel’s description of the locust plague, as when he asks rhetorically whether anything like this has happened before, the poetic language reflects a manner of expression common among the Hebrews (cf. II Kings 18:5, 23:25). Locust plagues were greatly feared, and this particular one could have been unusually severe. (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: An Exegetical Commentary, 26)

Most modern commentators agree that Judah has experienced the devastating effects of locusts. Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) explicates:

Most scholars interpret the locusts in both chapters in strictly contemporary terms, and this is the most natural way of construing the material. Joel 1:2-4 speaks of the locusts as a present threat to Joel’s generation and the occasion of his summons to lamentation. Joel 1:16 confirms this impression of direct involvement with the ravages of real locusts. The past verbs of Joel 2:18, 19 categorize Yahweh’s response to the locust crisis and the people’s penitential cries as having already occurred. It is significant that the locusts behave in a literal manner: they ravage fields, trees, and fruit, but do not kill or plunder, or take prisoners of war. They are indeed described metaphorically as an attacking army and are compared with soldiers, but to conceive of figurative locusts who are like the soldiers they are supposed to represent is a tortuous and improbable interpretation. Moreover, the restoration promised by Yahweh in Joel 2:18-27 concerns the material damage associated with locust attacks. In Amos 7:1-3, a locust plague is certainly a symbol of coming destruction, and Revelation 9:3, 7-9 actually applies Joel’s language to an apocalyptic event, but these passages provide no warrant for detaching the theme of Joel from its historical and literary contexts. (Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 29-30)

David Prior (b. 1940) rationalizes:

Such a detailed description is more likely the result of actually seeing locusts at work in such profusion. All the descriptions we have of this phenomenon substantiate the accuracy of Joel’s language. The prophet does not exaggerate the situation one bit. Probably only those who have not experienced locusts on the march cannot conceive such an appalling scenario. (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 23-24)

Whether describing a swarm of locusts or an invading army, Joel’s point is clear: The catastrophe is only a sign of things to come. The people are dealing with an earthly phenomenon but soon they will contend with the day of the Lord.

David W. Baker (b. 1950) envisions:

Joel likens God’s judgment to an army of locusts that descends on us all. Like a winged AIDS infestation they destroy everything in their path. It is clear that for Joel, the locust invasion is a metaphor for what will happen on the Day of the Lord, when all righteousness accounts will be settled. To describe this judgment we are driven to metaphors of nature, the economy, or foreign armies, but Joel’s point is that the scope of God’s judgment exceeds them all. (Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi (The NIV Application Commentary), 13)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) substantiates:

The coming day of the Lord described in chapter 2 results in a cosmic upheaval described in Joel 2:10. This is more than the effect of locusts or even a powerful human army. The language here is reminiscent especially of various theophany texts (Judges 5:4-5; Psalms 18:7-15, 68:8, 97:2-5) and also of other day of the Lord passages (Isaiah 13:10, 13). (Ogilvie, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Mastering the Old Testament), 224)

In making this leap, Joel draws from tradition. Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. (b. 1951) delineates:

That the prophet would draw the connection between the locust plague and a greater judgment to follow should come as no surprise. When the Lord judged the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, a locust plague preceded the final plagues of darkness and death (Exodus 10:1-11:10, 12:29-30). The curse list in Deuteronomy 28 associates locust plagues with death and exile (cf. Deuteronomy 28:38, 42). (Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 56)

The desired response to all of this destruction and the looming Day of the Lord is repentance (Joel 2:12).

Do you think that Joel intended to depict a literal swarm of locusts or an invading army or both? How does making this choice influence your reading of the prophet? Why does Joel incorporate military imagery? What do you need to repent of?

As horrific as Joel’s imagery is, the locusts do not get the last word (Joel 2:25). Trent C. Butler (b. 1941) relays:

Joel ends his book on an unexpected note. No more locust plagues. No more army invasions. No more natural disasters. No more punishment. The Day of the Lord will bring salvation to God’s people—a salvation marked by his eternal presence with them. One thing made that possible. God pardoned, forgave, and annulled all the punishment they deserved. (Butler, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 155-56)

Judah’s survival from the locusts provides hope for future endurance. Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) connects:

This experience of salvation in a present crisis leads to the prophet’s vision of God’s future salvation, when the day of the Lord does come (Joel 2:31, 3:14). The prophet dares hope that this will not be a date of judgment for Judah. With relationship restored between God and God’s people that future day will be a day of salvation in all its fulness. Such a day of salvation includes, in Joel’s vision, a pouring out of God’s spirit on all people in a way that overcomes differences of gender and age and social status; men and women, young and old, slave and free alike shall be linked to God by the mutual empowerment of God’s spirit (Joel 2:25-29). This is the text and the vision that formed the basis of Peter’s sermon following the Pentecost experience [Acts 2:16-21]. (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 129)

Even the worst calamity Joel can imagine is nothing in comparison to the redemptive power of God.

When has your past endurance given you hope in the present? Is there any situation so dark that God cannot brighten it?

“We must not offer people a system of redemption, a set of insights and principles. We offer people a Redeemer.” - Paul David Tripp (b. 1950), Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change, p. 8

The Silence of God (Habakkuk 2:20)

In what minor prophet does this appear: “the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silent before him”? Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:20)

The first two of Habakkuk’s three chapters consist of a dialogue between the prophet (Habakkuk 1:1-4, 1:12-2:1) and God (Habakkuk 1:5-11, 2:2-20). Habakkuk is unique in that he has the audacity to openly question the Almighty. First, the prophet is upset with God’s presumed indifference in the face of clear injustice (Habakkuk 1:2-4) and then he objects to the action God is taking (Habakkuk 1:12-2:1). God has seemingly sided with idolaters.

God responds by assuring Habakkuk that the perpetrators will face repercussions in the form of five woes (Habakkuk 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19). The discourse concludes addressing the absurdity of idolatrous worship (Habakkuk 2:18-20). God gets the final word in the conversation, reassuring:

“But the Lord is in His holy temple.
Let all the earth be silent before Him.” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB)

Contrary to popular belief and despite the apparent silence, God is in fact on the job. Yahweh is not a helpless bystander but is rather perched in a position of power ready to act.

Specifically God “is in His holy temple” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB). The temple in question likely indicates a broader spiritualized definition not limited to the Jerusalem temple (Micah 5:2).

Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) notes:

From early times the earthly sanctuary was believed to be a replica of the sanctuary of heaven. That the heavenly temple is in view here is suggested by the similar words of Psalm 11:4: “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven”...It is from his heavenly throne that “his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind” (Psalm 11:4); all human beings are therefore called upon to do him reverence. (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 876)

O. Palmer Robertson (b. 1937) defines:

The temple, from the time of its dedication by Solomon, was established as the source from which divine instruction and help would go forth. Even if God should have to chasten disobedient people, the consecrated temple would remain as the place where God would hear, forgive, and teach his people the good way (I Kings 8:36)...The temple stood in the midst of Israel as the place of his presence and his lordship among his people. The term for temple (hekal seldom describes the palace of an earthly king in Scripture. But it appears in a succession of narratives as the place from which God would rule in Israel, including the tabernacle in Shiloh (I Samuel 1:9, 3:3), Solomon’s temple (I Kings 6:1-2; etc.), Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 41:1, 4, 15); and the temple constructed after the restoration from exile (Zechariah 8:9; Haggai 2:15, 18). From a new covenant perspective, the equivalent concept is applied to the body of Jesus Christ (John 2:19), the body of the individual Christian (I Corinthians 3:16-17), and the corporate community of the Christian church (Ephesians 2:21)...The essence of the idea of the Lord’s temple may be seen in the declaration in the book of Revelation concerning the absence of the temple in the new heavens and new earth. The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will be the temple of the new Jerusalem (Revelation 22:21). The presence of God and Christ shall so permeate the final city that no need shall exist for a temple building. (Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 210-11)

The prophet’s truest encouragement comes from God’s very identity. Like Job (Job 42:1-6), Habakkuk needs to see God not only for what God does but who God is.

God’s capability is juxtaposed with the ineptitude of false idols who say and do nothing. Waylon Bailey (b. 1948) exclaims:

What a contrast! The idol sits where it is put without the ability to hear or to respond, but the Lord resides by his almighty power in his holy temple ready to respond to the needs of his people...The verse pictures the contrast between those who are no gods and the one who is in heaven ready to respond to human need and to human questions. Habakkuk himself knew from experience that he could take his questions to God’s temple in heaven. (Kenneth L. Barker [b. 1931] and Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuh, Zephaniah (The New American Commentary), 349)

James Bruckner (b. 1957) concurs:

In Habakkuk 2:19 created wood and stone are worshiped but are silent when asked for guidance. But created wood and stone will speak by Yahweh’s word (Habakkuk 2:11). They will be God’s witnesses against those who have trusted in them and made them with unjust profits, at the expense of the earth, towns, and others’ blood (Habakkuk 2:8). (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 234)

In spite all of the nation’s misfortune, God is not powerless. The idolaters have not won.

Habakkuk’s critique can be paraphrased by the question “Where are you?” The answer is that God is seated where the Almighty is supposed to be; where Yahweh has always been.

What does Habakkuk need from God? How does God respond to those needs? What do you need from God? Is it acceptable to challenge God like the prophet? Have you, like Habakkuk, ever wondered where God was amidst gross injustice? Do you believe that God is active in the world? Where do you picture God residing?

The conversation ends abruptly as, given God’s position, the text admonishes to “be silent” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT), “keep silent” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or simply “quiet” (MSG). The word (Hebrew: hacah) is actually more forceful. It is an onomatopoeic interjection that can be pronounced, in Hebrew, much like the English “Hush!”

This command is given to all the earth (Habakkuk 2:20), not just Judah (his followers). This audience includes the prophet. The question and answer portion of the program has concluded. The prophet who thought that God was silent is himself silenced by the Almighty.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

The final statement in Habakkuk 2:20 points once again to YHWH as the ultimate power of the universe by calling for silence throughout the entire earth as YHWH’s presence is manifested in the holy Temple...Such a call for silence appears also in Zephaniah 1:7, Zechariah 2:13; and Psalm 46:10, and appears to accompany a theophany in which YHWH’s presence is manifested in the Temple. Priests performing the sacrifices and other rituals of the Temple worked in silence before YHWH’s presence, indicated by the opening of the doors of the Temple to expose the Holy of Holies where the ark resided (see I Kings 8:1-11), because human voices are not able to replicate the divine speech of the angels who serve YHWH in the heavenly realm. The metaphor of silence indicates a demonstration of respect for YHWH, and coneys the “otherness” of holy divine speech by the angels who praise YHWH in the heavens. (The Twelve Prophets (Vol. 2): Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam), 478)

David Prior (b. 1940) denotes the fitting conclusion:

Habakkuk 2:20’s imperious summons to silence in the presence of the one true God is an apt conclusion to the questioning of the prophet, the agonizing of the people and the chattering of the pagans before their idols. It also marks the only appropriate way to respond to the LORD’s pronunciation of five woes on Babylon. There is nothing more to say or be said. In the light of God’s word of judgment, it is right that ‘every mouth...be stopped’ (Romans 3:19). (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 260)

Ironically, the command to silence evokes praise. Though a gap (in which the prophet could reflect in silence) may exist between chapters 2 and 3, the book continues and concludes with a psalm of praise (Habakkuk 3:1-19) addressed to the Lord who saves his people (Habakkuk 3:13). Habakkuk’s final chapter sits in stark contrast to the book’s first two units, evidence that God’s affirmation has had a profound effect on the prophet.

Habakkuk 2:20 marks the bridge from despair to praise. James D. Newsome (b. 1931) pinpoints:

The whole of the psalm in Habakkuk 3 resonates to the nature of God as a transcendent and awe-inspiring Deity. But there is a special sense in which Habakkuk 2:20 has communicated to generations of Jews and Christians the reverence and respect due to God, especially in moments of worship. (Newsome, The Hebrew Prophets, 99)

Do you find God’s words to Habakkuk assuring (Habakkuk 2:2-20)? Has God ever converted your complaints into worship? Why does God silence Habakkuk? Is there a place for silence in communal worship? When are you silent before God?

“Silent solitude makes true speech possible and personal. If I am not in touch with my own belovedness, then I cannot touch the sacredness of others. If I am estranged from myself, I am likewise a stranger to others.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging, p. 58

A Horse of a Different Color (Zechariah 6)

In Zechariah, what colors were the horses that pulled the four chariots of divine judgment? Red, black, white and gray (Zechariah 6:2)

The biblical image of four horses of disparate colors did not originate with the famed four horsemen of the apocalypse (Revelation 6:1-8) but rather the book of Zechariah (Zechariah 6:1-8). Zechariah, the eleventh of twelve minor prophets, was written during the time that the Jerusalem temple was being rebuilt (520-518 BCE).

Zechariah begins with a succession of eight visions (Zechariah 1:7-6:8). The final oracle proves the most obscure and climactic and of the lot (Zechariah 6:1-8). In it, the prophet sees four chariots emerging from bronze mountains (Zechariah 6:1-3). Each chariot is powered by a horse of a different color: red, black, white, and gray or dappled (Zechariah 6:2-3).

With the first chariot were red horses, with the second chariot black horses, with the third chariot white horses, and with the fourth chariot strong dappled horses. (Zechariah 6:2-3 NASB)

The first three horses’ pigments are relatively straightforward while the last has generated discussion (Zechariah 6:3). The steed is described by the Hebrew barod (Genesis 31:10, 12; Zechariah 6:3, 6). This word is translated variously as “dappled” (ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV), “gray” (CEV), the combination “dappled-gray” (NLT, NRSV, RSV) and “grizzled strong” (ASV, KJV).

J. Carl Laney (b. 1948) presents the dominant interpretation:

Zechariah..observes that each of the four chariots were drawn by a team of horses—the first chariot by red horses, the second by black horses, the third by white horses, and the fourth by a team of strong, dappled horses. “Dappled” suggests white spots on a dark background. (Laney, Zechariah (Everyman’s Bible Commentaries), 70)

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) analyzes:

This last term is problematic as the Hebrew texts reads sûsîm běruddîm ’amuşşîm. The term běruddîm apparently refers to “spotted” horses as the root brd is related to the term for “hail” which suggests the general shape of stones or spots. The term ’amuşşîm, however, creates difficulties because it is derived from the root ’ms, “to be strong,” and appears in Zechariah 6:7 as an apparent reference to the “strong steeds” that pull the chariots. Although some scholars maintain that the term has been misplaced here from Zechariah 6:7 by scribal error or that it is a textual corruption for ’adummîm, “red” (cf. Zechariah 6:2) that is designed to suggest spotted red horses, the term can be read as a reference to the “spotted strong horses” of the fourth chariot. (Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Volume Two (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 625)

The horses are differentiated and defined by their colors. Many have tried to find further significance in their hues. George L. Klein (b. 1955) acknowledges:

Zechariah never explained the symbolism of the colored horses. Consequently, any conclusion one might reach concerning the horses’ colors remains tentative. One approach holds that the colors function solely to distinguish the horses, having no further importance. Alternatively, others attempt to determine precisely what the colors might signify. A particularly popular view associates the horses’ colors in Zechariah 6 with the colors of the horses in Revelation 6:1-8. Following this approach, Merrill F. Unger [1909-1980] suggests that white indicates victory (Revelation 6:2; also Revelation 19:11, 14), red stands for bloodshed (Revelation 6:4), black represents judgment (Revelation 6:5-6), and the dappled color signifies death (Revelation 6:8). Unger fails to demonstrate the accuracy of his association with the diverse colors of horses and concepts such as judgment. Neither does Unger prove that the colors of the horses in Revelation 6 rest on that of the horses in Zechariah 6...The interpretation that the colors signify geographical regions might have merit, but it also lacks certainty. Much like the symbolism in the prophecy in Daniel 7, the ancient rabbis believed that the colors of the horses symbolized world kingdoms. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome represented probable candidates. However, any association between the colors and world kingdoms must remain tentative at best. (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 186-187)

Some have tried to link the horses in Zechariah’s final vision (Zechariah 6:1-8) with the steeds in his first oracle (Zechariah 1:8). David L. Petersen (b. 1943) examines:

The horses of the first chariot are bay; those of the second, black; those of the third, white; and those of the fourth, dappled. Only two of these four colors, bay and white, occurred in the description of the horses in Zechariah 1:8...Much ink has been devoted to a comparison of the first and last of Zechariah’s visions, since they both include detailed descriptions of horse colors. Most instructive, however, are the contrasts within this similarity. In the first vision, there are an indefinite number of horses of each color. In the final vision, there are almost certainly eight horses, two per chariot. In the first version one horse has a rider. In the final version all belong with chariots. In the first version we see the horses rest in the divine corral; in the final version we see the horses at an opening that leads into the domain of human affairs. In the first vision the horses have just come from surveying the cosmos, whereas in the second they are about to set out to roam over the earth. In the first vision the colors seem to have no rationale, i.e., there are three colors, two of which are almost identical. In the final vision there are four distinct colors and/or patterns, which, so the interpretation goes, point to the four major points of the compass. The distinctive colors provide the basis for the interpretation of the final vision. Such was not the case in the initial vision. (Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 268-269)

Petersen evaluates another theory as well:

Perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of the colors of the horses is that used most recently by Gerhard von Rad [1901-1971], Friedrich Horst [1896-1962], Joyce G. Baldwin [1921-1995], and others. They maintain that the colors of the first vision are those of the sunset, those of the end of a period, and those of the eighth vision are those of the early morning, those of a new dawn and day. Intriguing and apt as this suggestion is, it is difficult to see how the “dappled” designation is more appropriate for dawn than sunset. Further, I suspect that though this suggestion might explain the origin of the colors, i.e., signifying the temporal frame of Zechariah’s night vision, it does not function importantly as a statement about the interpreted significance of the visions. (Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 269)

There many be no symbolism entailed. Mark J. Boda (b. 1962) notes that each of the horses’ displays a naturally occurring pigmentation:

The colors identified for the horses are the normal range of colors found in nature. The Hebrew tern for “red” (,adom) can be used for a deep brown horse or a chestnut horse, for the chromatic range of this word includes brown (animals), yellowish-brown (lentils), deep red (blood), wine color (wine) and pink (flesh). The Hebrew term behind “brown (saa roq) should be translated “sorrel,” a color combining red and white that produces a pinkish tone and is found among horses. The final color, “white” (laban), regularly occurs among horses. There is no need then to attach symbolic meanings to the colors of the horses in this scene. (Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (The NIV Application Commentary))

Pamela J. Scalise (b. 1950) speculates that the colors say more about their owner than of the horses themselves:

The variety of colors emphasizes the owner’s wealth. In the ancient world, kings and emperor’s owned chariots and used them to exert their military power in war and their authority over conquered territory. These horses and chariots suited their purpose, for all of them were powerful. Israel’s most powerful enemies had used chariots against them—Egypt (Exodus 14:25, 15:4) and the Canaanites at Hazor (Joshua 11:6, 9) and Tabor (Judges 4:5, 5:28). Kings of Israel and Judah had owned chariots, but in postexilic Yehud the only chariots belonged to the Persian emperors. (John Goldingay [b. 1942] and Scalise, Minor Prophets II (New International Biblical Commentary), 239)

Have you ever experienced a vision? What meaning, if any, do you attach to the horses’ colors? Why are these horses, unlike those in other oracles (Zechariah 1:8; Revelation 6:1-8), pulling chariots? What is the meaning of the vision?

The horses are sent in directions as different as their colors. Barry G. Webb (b. 1945) notices that none goes east:

The chariots with the black horses go north; those with the white ones go west, and those with the dappled horses go south. Only three points of the compass are represented, and only three colours (of horses) instead of the four of Zechariah 6:2-3. Furthermore, Zechariah 6:6 opens (in Hebrew) with a connecting word which normally occurs only in mid-sentence. All this taken together seems to indicate that the opening part of Zechariah 6:6 has been accidentally lost in transmission, and that in the original form of the text all four points of the compass were covered. In any case, Zechariah 6:8 makes it clear that the chariots went everywhere, to enforce God’s kingship in every place. (Webb, The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come (Bible Speaks Today), 104)

The narrative concludes by focusing on the black horse traveling to the north (Zechariah 6:8). Mark Allen Hahlen (b. 1959) and Clay Alan Ham (b. 1962) comment:

Of the three directions depicted, the movement of the black horses to the north is emphasized; these horses are named first and again in Zechariah 6:8. North is a place with ominous connotations for the Hebrews (Jeremiah 1:14, 4:6, 6:22; Ezekiel 1:4). From there, enemies of Israel and Judah have entered the land (Jeremiah 10:22), and to the north is the land of the exile (Jeremiah 3:18, 6:22, 16:15, 23:8). Although other nations besides Babylon may be included in the designation “the north” (Isaiah 41:25; Jeremiah 1:15, 46:10, 50:9), Babylon is surely the focus here. (Hahlen and Ham, Minor Prophets, Volume 2: Nahum-Malachi (College Press NIV Commentary), 394)

William P. Brown (b. 1958) delineates:

Between the bronze mountains come four chariots, drawn by different colored horses. Their mission is identical to that of the horses found in the first vision, namely to “patrol the earth” (cf. Zechariah 1:10-11). The two bronze mountains, nowhere else mentioned in scripture, likely mark off the boundary between heaven and earth. The image of the chariot represents the presence of God (Habakkuk 3:8). Indeed, a common title for God was “rider of the clouds” (Psalm 68:4). As the four winds, the chariots are commanded to scatter in all directions (cf. Jeremiah 4:13). The winds were traditionally conceived as messengers of God (Psalm 104:4)...Since it is not mentioned in the list of directions (Zechariah 6:6), the first chariot, with red or bay horses, is the one, presumably to fly eastward. Yet it is the second chariot (with black horses), which heads towards the north, that gains the spotlight. It is through the black horses that God’s spirit is set at rest. The land that lay to the north, which included the land of Shinar (Zechariah 5:11), was traditionally regarded as the land of the enemy of Israel. To claim that God’s spirit is at rest in the north is tantamount to claiming that the superpowers that have plagued Israel throughout its history have been subjugated once and for all. (Brown, Obadiah through Malachi (Westminster Bible Companion), 156)

James E. Smith (b. 1939) summarizes:

The cycle of visions comes to a close with a symbolic portrayal of worldwide judgment. In the first vision the angelic reconnaissance force found the world to be at ease and the people of God humiliated. Now divine wrath is unleashed against those oppressors. The security of Zion, the people of God, is thus achieved. (Smith, The Minor Prophets (Old Testament Survey), 553)

Zechariah’s message is one of hope. Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) interprets:

Various colored horses...pulling war chariots symbolic of God’s sovereign might, come forth from the entrance to heaven, which is here symbolized by the two impregnable mountains of bronze (cf. Jeremiah 1:18). The horses and chariots are said to represent the four winds of heaven (Zechariah 6:5, contra RSV; cf. Jeremiah 49:36; Daniel 7:2). That is, they are the messengers of God (cf. Psalm 104:4). Impatient to leave on their mission, they are dispatched by God all over the earth, symbolizing that his sovereignty is worldwide. This is explicitly stated in the oracle of the Lord in Zechariah 6:8: God’s spirit is at rest in the north country; nothing further needs to be done before the Lord can bring his Kingdom. (Achtemeier, Nahum--Malachi (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 129-130)

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) adds:

The vision of the departure of horses and chariots on worldwide missions of military intervention establishes not only a central part of the meaning of all eight visions, but also a chronological perspective within which to interpret the prophet’s words. The restoration of the temple and of leadership in Judah presupposed a renewal of the Kingdom of God in the world; it intimated that more lay in the future than simply a refurbished temple and a rejuvenated government. Only when foreign nations were overthrown could the chosen people be truly free once again...Although the words are concerned with Zechariah’s immediate present, with the temple and government in Jerusalem, time is collapsed in the vision to join the present to what was a more remote future. What was happening anticipated in a mysterious fashion what was yet to happen. And though we may find the visionary words as difficult to grasp in detail as did the prophet’s first audience, we may share with them the absolute conviction of the prophet’s central message. God was and is sovereign in human history. (Craigie, Twelve Prophets, Volume 2 (Daily Study Bible Series), 186)

Israel’s enemies assume that Yahweh is another god they had vanquished like all the others. Zechariah’s final vision (Zechariah 6:1-8) affirms that Yahweh is a horse of a different color.

Why do you think none of the horses is explicitly said to travel east? How does your perception of God’s sovereignty affect your life? How active is God in history? In your life?

“There’s only one of him and he’s it. He’s the Horse of a Different Color, you’ve heard tell about.” - Guardian of the Emerald City Gates (Frank Morgan, 1890-1949), The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Amos: Calling them Cows (Amos 4:1)

What prophet called the women of Samaria “cows” or “kine”? Amos (Amos 4:1)

Amos prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel (Amos 1:1). In imploring his audience to listen, Amos famously used the politically incorrect designation “cows” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or the more antiquated “kine” (ASV, KJV) (Hebrew: parah) to describe the pampered citizens of Israel (Amos 4:1).

“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, Who say to your husbands, “Bring now, that we may drink!” (Amos 4:1 NASB)

Charles L. Aaron, Jr. (b. 1956) admits that Amos 4:1-5 contains “two oracles that employ a rhetorical strategy that contemporary Christian preachers would likely reject. Both oracles use mockery and insult to make their point (Aaron, Preaching Hosea, Amos, and Micah (Preaching Classic Texts), 58).”

The expression is not arbitrary nor are the cows that the prophet describes. Amos does not merely call his listeners kine but “cows of Bashan”. This designation represented the prize cattle of the day. Comparing the moniker to the terms of endearment used in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 1:9, 2:9, 4:5, 7:3), James Luther Mays (b. 1921) does not see the term as demeaning:

The epithet was not in itself an insult. Bashan in Transjordan was noted for rich forests and pastures, and particularly for fine cattle (Deuteronomy 32:14; Psalm 22:12; Ezekiel 39:18); Bashan was a hallmark of quality. Nor in the idiom of ancient eastern flattery would women be offended at being called ‘cows’; one has only to remember the terms used for compliments in the Song of Songs. The Bashan-cows are the women of quality in Samaria, the pampered darlings of society in Israel’s royalist culture.” (Mays, Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 72)

Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) counters, “While it is true that ancient terms of flattery sometimes seem strange in our ears (many mention the endearments of the Song of Songs in connection with this passage), it is evident that Amos’s purpose here in not flattery but sarcastic indictment. Amos intends to be rude. The high-born, well-bred women of Samaria with their luxurious and decadent lifestyles are addressed as fattened and pampered beasts (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 201).”

Many interpreters read Amos as categorizing women with a term that is degrading to the modern ear. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) defends, “Interpreters mostly understand Amos to be singling out the wealthy women in Samaria, but the female element may also be figurative, making it the wealthy of Israel who were trampling the poor and, therefore, included in the condemnation. According to this interpretation, the subsequent reference to ‘husbands’ would be part of the image (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah - An Exegetical Commentary, 176).” As such, “cows of Bashan” refers at least to women but may not limit itself only to women.

In The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, Carol Ann Newsom (b. 1950) and Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) explain:

Two aspects of these verses may sound more misogynistic to modern readers than they were originally intended. Amos may well have meant to deliver a stinging denunciation of what he understood to be the women’s attitudes and behavior toward the poor, but yet without any intent gratuitously to insult their bodies or their relationships with their husbands, as commentators often assume. “You cows of Bashan” was almost certainly not meant as derogatorily as it sounds in English, though the precise nuance in Amos’s mind is not clear. (Newsom and Ringe, 221)

“Cows of Bashan” should be interpreted proverbially, not as a sexist barb. Amos uses the expression because the shoe fits. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) expounds, “‘Cows of Bashan’ is a fitting symbol for these wealthy women...These pampered self-indulgent, and bossy ladies maintain their lifestyle by exploiting the poor, crushing the needy, and speaking demandingly to those around them (Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah).”

Amos called them like he saw them and he saw cows of Bashan. That being written, I would advise not calling modern women “cows”.

Do you think being dubbed Bashan cows was offensive to the original audience? What region today is known for its quality cattle? What politically correct analogy would you have used in lieu of “cows”? Should preachers always be politically correct?

The potentially insulting epithet the prophet invokes should not distract from the real issue - what the metaphor represents. It is significant that the proclamation is written to Israel’s lush northern kingdom (Amos 1:1). Contrary to many misconceptions of the area, the region east of the Sea of Galilee is choice.

Jörg Jeremias (b. 1939) points out:

The high plateau of Bashan (500-600 meters elevation) east of the Sea of Galilee (modern en-Nuqreh in Syria, though it probably includes the Golan Heights) is an extremely fertile pastureland because of its basalt soil and plentiful rainfall and was famous for its ‘fatlings’ (Ezekiel 39:18; Deuteronomy 32:14) and its mighty bulls (Psalm 22:12). (Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 63)

This fertile region was enjoying great prosperity under Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1, 7:9, 10, 11). It was the best of times. But not for everyone. Not only did the worldly blessings not trickle down to the poorest members of society, but the rich trampled on the poor to attain their wealth (Amos 4:1). Amos is not necessarily preaching against being rich but rather the selfish means by which Israel’s wealthy acquired their abundance. As Jesus asked, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul (Matthew 16:26 NASB; cf. Mark 8:36)?”

James Luther Mays (b. 1921) clarifies:

The luxury and debauchery of urban affluence in Israel was a scandalous offense to the God for whom Amos spoke (Amos 6:4-7; 3:10, 15). The offense lay not just in its stark contrast to the condition of the poor, but in the fact that the affluence was built on the suffering of the needy. (Mays, Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 71)

Who today lives high on the hog at the expense of those less fortunate? Is this sin perceived as grievous in the United States as it should be?

“The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure.” - B.C. Forbes (1880-1954), founder of Forbes Magazine