Nahum 3:1–19

3:1–7 Chapter 3 begins with a woe oracle, a literary form that announces “Woe!” upon the guilty, brings charges against them, and concludes by pronouncing judgment. Far from being a lament over the fate of the guilty party, a woe oracle has the same function as an oracle of judgment. The oracle that begins Nahum 3 makes extensive accusations against Assyria, all of which are summarized in the charges that Nineveh is a “bloody city, all full of lies and plunder,” and that its “prey” is endless (v. 1). These accusations are then developed in sometimes horrible detail in verses 2–4, which first focuses on a typical Assyrian military victory that causes extensive loss of life (vv. 2–3) before highlighting the deceptive tactics the empire sometimes used to convince other states to begin or continue a vassal relationship with the empire (v. 4).

The OT records an example of such diplomacy in its descriptions of the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem in 701 BC, during which Assyrian officials claimed that the Lord had commanded Assyria to destroy Judah (2 Kings 18:25), who would nevertheless benefit from the empire’s care and generosity (vv. 31–32). In Nahum 3:4, this practice of exploiting others prompts Nahum to describe the empire as a prostitute who is the only party that benefits from her relationships with her clients, whom she betrays. The scope of Assyria’s imperial enterprise, and its human cost, are emphasized by describing the “countless” instances in which this behavior affected different “nations” and “peoples.”

Unlike most of the other punishments of Assyria’s sin described in Nahum, the public shaming in verses 5–7 does not involve Assyria’s destruction. Instead it focuses on removing the basis for the empire’s pride and replacing it with shame. The fact that prostitutes and others who violated sexual or ethical norms in the ancient Near East were sometimes punished by public stripping best explains the imagery here.¹ The metaphorical description of the stripping avoids overtones of sexual violence, focusing instead on the shame and disgrace that result from being seen naked. The shame of the Assyrian Empire, witnessed by the nations around her, undoes her false claims to glory and unlimited power while also showing that her control over the subject nations was never intended to do them good. The reaction of the nations to this revelation is telling: seeing what Assyria has kept hidden (her deceptive and self-serving diplomacy), and realizing that what she had claimed (the exclusive right and ability to control the ancient Near East through military might with the support of her gods) was untrue, not one bystander will mourn for or comfort the devastated empire—not even the Lord himself.

3:8–11 The next three sections (vv. 8–11, 12–15c, 15d–17) are taunts that bring shame on Assyria directly. Each taunt asserts (contrary to Assyria’s claims) that the empire is inferior with respect to some point of comparison, whether a historical reality (e.g., Thebes) or one of the empire’s claims (e.g., to military invincibility).

The first taunt (vv. 8–11) compares Nineveh to the Egyptian city of Thebes, which Assyria had conquered in 663 BC as punishment for Egypt’s decision to stop fulfilling its duties as a vassal state. Thebes was hundreds of miles south of Egypt’s northeast border and so was presumed to be safe from an Assyrian threat. The description of Thebes as surrounded by water is probably meant to parallel Nineveh’s water defenses (moats, etc.) even though the Nile, which ran through the center of Thebes, would have done little to protect the city from an attack.² Although there was no wall surrounding Thebes, many of its royal temples were surrounded by sizable walls, which are compared to immense water defenses in verse 8.³

In addition to its safe location and defensive features, Thebes (as part of Egypt) could also have drawn on the military support of its numerous allies: “Cush . . . Put and the Libyans” (v. 9). Despite these advantages, Thebes fell to Assyria and suffered the shame and violence that came with defeat: citizens taken into exile, children slaughtered, men sold into slavery or taken as captives of war (v. 10). Applying the picture of violent defeat to Nineveh, verse 11 focuses on its drunkenness (implying it has drunk deeply from the cup of the Lord’s wrath; cf. Isa. 49:26; Jer. 49:12; etc.) and its vain effort to escape capture and destruction by attempting to hide from its attackers.

Thus the surprising fall of a large city apparently far from danger, deep within an empire, with numerous allies and significant defenses, provides Nahum with an example that he applies to Nineveh, which despite its even more impressive defenses will also fall. The point of the comparison in Nahum 3:8 is not that Thebes had superior defenses (it did not) but that the final condition of Nineveh will be no better than that of Thebes (“Are you better than Thebes . . . ?” can also be translated “Will it go better for you than it did for Thebes?”).

3:12–15c The second taunt (vv. 12–15c) attacks Assyria’s military resources. Two specific comparisons impress upon the reader Assyria’s inability to resist the attack that will soon bring about its fall. The first deals with its “fortresses” (v. 12), cities with military garrisons and supply centers that served as the starting point for campaigns outside the empire’s borders and as the first point of defense in the event of an invasion. Despite their fortifications and the resistance that would surely come from the troops garrisoned there, these fortified cities are compared to “fig trees,” which when shaken inevitably drops their “figs.” This image accentuates the superiority of the attacker (in the metaphor, either an animal or a human being) over the figs it will eat, which are nothing more than a source of food.

The taunt’s second element compares Assyria’s (all-male) military force to women (v. 13). Because physical strength was a key element in ancient warfare, this taunt is practical rather than sexist. Assyria’s troops will no more be able to resist their foes than women in the ancient Near East were able to resist a victorious attacking army, which did as it pleased with female captives. To this the taunt adds that the “gates” and “bars” of its cities will be easily overcome; even if its “wide open” gates are closed before the attacker arrives, the bars holding them closed would soon be burned and the cities would fall.

Building on these two negative comparisons, the taunt adds a sarcastic series of commands to prepare for an apparently imminent attack. The five commands of verse 14 (“draw water . . . ; strengthen . . . ; go . . . ; tread . . . ; take hold”) mention the most basic need of the defenders—water—but place their main focus on the need to fortify Assyria’s defenses by preparing bricks to “strengthen your forts.” The sarcastic tone is clear not only because the taunt has already announced that the cities would fall to their attackers (v. 13) but also because the very process of fortifying them has been interrupted. The activities described in verse 14 present the defenders as having mixed mortar and clay, but before a single brick is made, much less dried and then added to the defenses, “the fire will devour” them and “the sword will cut [them] off” (v. 15). Assyria’s defensive preparations cannot prevent its fall, and the attacker will completely devour it “like the locust” devours vegetation.

3:15d–17 The locust mentioned in verse 15c links the second taunt to the third (vv. 15d–17), which deals with Assyria’s economic and diplomatic personnel. By the seventh century BC, Assyria had developed domestic and international economic structures enabling it to draw profit from conquered territories and to enjoy favorable trading relations with independent states. Numerous personnel were involved in conducting and regulating this key element of the empire. Nahum sarcastically urges the empire to multiply its economic personnel further, like the locust and the grasshopper, only to announce that even though Assyria “increased” its “merchants” and had innumerable “princes” and “scribes,” they would be of no lasting use; instead, they will fly away like a locust (v. 16) or a grasshopper (v. 17) that disappears without a trace.

3:18–19 The book’s final section is a sort of dirge for the Assyrian king. While a typical dirge laments someone’s death by stressing their value and good qualities and noting that their passing leaves a painful void, this dirge does the opposite.⁴ Although it is addressed to the king, it mentions key aspects of the empire as well, consistently tying them to the king to make clear that his death is inseparable from the empire’s demise. Further, it asserts that even now the king has failed to protect his empire, and so its irreversible fall has already begun.

Although the Assyrian king often referred to himself as a shepherd able to protect his people from any and all threats, here “shepherds” refers to his “nobles” or ministers, who were more directly responsible than the king for the well-being of the empire (v. 18). Both shepherds and nobles are sleeping, which explains why the people (like the sheep of a sleeping shepherd) are scattered on the mountains. Since there is no one to gather the scattered sheep, there seems to be no possibility that the shepherds or nobles will wake up. It is therefore inevitable that the scattered sheep will sooner or later fall victim to predators or other dangers.

The dirge finally turns to the king himself (v. 19), announcing that although he is still alive, his wounds are fatal and his death certain. The news that the Assyrian king has been fatally wounded is ironic, since Assyrian kings sometimes recounted in their royal annals that they had inflicted such incurable wounds on their enemies. Judah and the other nations the king has oppressed and dominated for so long have only to wait for his imminent death. His death is a source of joy to the nations that have suffered exploitation and violence at the empire’s hands, and the end of such oppression is cause for celebration (signified by clapping one’s hands; Ps. 47:1; cf. also, with other Hebrew verbs, Ps. 98:8; Isa. 55:12).

The book’s closing lines connect the fall of Assyria to the opening hymn’s focus on God’s commitment to destroy all evil (cf. Nah. 1:2–8). The term “evil” (3:19) appears elsewhere in Nahum only in 1:11, where it described Assyrian plots against the Lord. Those plots were particular manifestations of the animosity and autonomy that God’s enemies pursue in opposition to him, so the certainty of the fall of the Assyrian king and his empire in 3:18–19 is ultimately due to God’s unshakable commitment to overcome and destroy evil as he saves and protects his people. This connection between the destruction of God’s enemies and the deliverance of those who trust in him makes the message of Nahum good “news” despite its focus on the destructive side of this reality.