The Role of the Prophets in God’s Case against Israel

By J. Carl Laney

[J. Carl Laney, Assistant Professor of Biblical Literature, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon]

The seventeen books of the prophets (in the English Bible) constitute the crowning culmination of Old Testament biblical literature. They draw on the theology of the Pentateuch, the history of Kings and Chronicles, and the practical application of the wisdom books to communicate a life-changing message to God’s forgetful people. Unfortunately this great body of the Old Testament canon is often deemed too complicated, confusing, or irrelevant to be the subject of serious study. One of this writer’s students recently asked, “Why should I spend time studying the prophets? I don’t think I would ever preach from material that is so obscure.”

Admittedly, the major and minor prophets are difficult books. They contain some of the most challenging interpretive problems in the Bible! They must be approached with a sound understanding of the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s history, and the role of the prophet in God’s case against Israel. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of the prophet in God’s legal case against His disobedient people. An understanding of the role of the prophet will not only enhance one’s appreciation of the prophetic materials, but will also serve as an important exegetical tool in interpreting the prophets.

The Prophets’ Office

The divine origin of the prophetic office is set forth by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15–22. Having condemned certain illegitimate methods of attempting to discern God’s will (Deut 18:9–14), the Lord reveals the true and legitimate means by which God’s Word would be delivered to His people.[1] Freeman rightly contends:

…the origin of the prophetic institution in Israel is not to be found in Canaan nor in other Near Eastern cultures as negative criticism contends, but was itself established for the specific purpose of guarding Israel against Canaan’s superstitious practices, as well as those of her neighbors.[2]

Since the Israelites at Mount Sinai were afraid to listen to the voice of God (Deut 18:16), the Lord spoke to His people through Moses. Now Moses declares that this mediatorial office would continue as God raised up men from among the Israelites to speak His word.

There is no common agreement among scholars concerning the etymological background of the primary term for “prophet” (נָבִיא).[3] Fortunately, however, the Old Testament does provide information concerning the precise meaning of the term. Exodus 7:1–2 states, “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land.’“ These verses make it clear that the prophet is one who speaks forth the message which God has revealed to him. Thus the prophet is a speaker, mouthpiece, or spokesman for God. His primary duty was to speak forth God’s message to God’s people.

Prophets existed in Israel from the time of Moses (Deut 18:15–22).[4] Among the preclassical (nonwriting) prophets, Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Elijah, and Elisha were the more renowned. David brought the institution of prophetism into the court as seen in the singular role of “Nathan the prophet.”[5] Micaiah and Elisha were very closely associated with the royal court. These prophets were intimately concerned with the life of the state and addressed themselves to the particular sins of individual kings because of their position and influence. It was through the king that the prophet would have the greatest influence for good in the nation. With their political activity subservient to a religious end, they served as counselors in order that the theocratic kingdom might prosper.[6]

In the eighth century, however, a change came in the method employed by the prophets. While continuing the same message of complete obedience to God’s law, the prophets of the classical period began to address the people collectively on a national level. They rebuked the sins of the nation rather than concentrating on those of the individual king. At this time, also, many prophets began to write their material as well as speak it, hence the prophetic literature which forms such an important part of the Old Testament canon.

The Prophets’ Functions

Freeman identifies three basic functions of the prophets in Israel. The prophets functioned as divinely appointed preachers; they predicted future events; and they were watchmen over the affairs of God’s people.[7]

As preachers, the prophets expounded and interpreted the Mosaic law to the nation. It was their duty to admonish, reprove, denounce sin, threaten with the terrors of judgment, call to repentance, and bring consolation and pardon. Their activity of rebuking sin and calling for repentance consumed far more of the prophets’ time than any other feature of their work. The rebuke was driven home with predictions about the punishment that God intended to send on those failing to heed the prophet’s warning (cf. Jonah 3:4).

As predictors, the prophets announced coming judgment, deliverance, and events relating to the Messiah and His kingdom. Predicting the future was never intended merely to satisfy man’s curiosity, but to demonstrate that God knows and controls the future, and to give some purposeful revelation. The prediction given by a true prophet would be visibly fulfilled. The failure of the prediction to be fulfilled would indicate that the prophet had not spoken the word of Yahweh (cf. Deut 18:20–22). In 1 Samuel 3:19 it is said of Samuel that the Lord was with him and let none of his prophetic words fail (lit., “fall to the ground”).

The prophets also functioned as watchmen over the people of Israel (Ezek 3:17). Ezekiel stood as a watchman on the walls of Zion ready to trumpet a warning against religious apostasy. He warned the people against political and military alliances with foreign powers, the temptation to become involved in idolatry and Canaanite cultic worship, and the danger of placing excessive confidence in religious formalism and sacrificial ritual.

While the prophets functioned in various ways as they communicated God’s message, they occupied one major role in Israel’s religious system. The prophets in Israel occupied the role of a royal diplomat or prosecuting attorney, indicting the nation for violations of the Mosaic covenant. The remainder of this article is devoted to a consideration of this role of the prophets.

The Prophets’ Role

When the prophets accused Israel of breaking God’s law and predicted coming judgment, they used terms that appear to refer back to the covenant. Their message was set against a covenant background. For this reason. an understanding of the Mosaic covenant is essential to an appreciation of the role of the prophet.

The Mosaic Covenant

At the heart of the religion of ancient Israel stands the concept of the covenant—particularly the covenant made between Yahweh and Israel at Mount Sinai. In studying the historical setting of the Mosaic covenant it has been discovered that God used a contemporary cultural institution to communicate His will to His people Israel. Between the fifteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. there was in use in the ancient Near East an international treaty form which outlined the relationship between a lord (the suzerain) and his people (the vassals).[8] Copies of these treaties have been discovered and translated. Both the suzerain-vassal treaties and the covenant which was established at Sinai follow a regular pattern and include the following elements.[9]

1. Historical preparation. The historical preparation records the date (Exod 19:1), geographic setting, and the activity of the suzerain (Exod 19:2). Here the mediator of the covenant is named, and the message he brings from the suzerain is recorded (Exod 19:3–25).

2. Preamble. The preamble identifies the author of the covenant—the suzerain or great king (Exod 20:1).

3. Historical prologue. The historical prologue records the previous relations between the two parties involved. The past benefits of the suzerain are set forth to inspire gratitude and obedience on the part of the vassal people (Exod 20:2).

4. Stipulations. The stipulations are the obligations laid upon the vassal by the suzerain. The basic stipulations correspond to the Ten Commandments in the Mosaic covenant (Exod 20:3–17) and give a concise statement of the suzerain’s will for his people (love and loyalty). The detailed stipulations (Exod 20:22–23:33; 25–31) are expansions of the basic demands with examples and applications.

5. Provisions for deposit and reading. A copy of the covenant would be deposited in the sanctuary of both the vassals and the suzerain (Exod 25:16, 21). From time to time there would be a public reading of the covenant terms to the people (Deut; Josh 24).

6. Witnesses. Long lists of gods were called on to witness the ratification of the covenant so that there would be legal witnesses to testify in case of default. Since Israel did not recognize the existence of any god except Yahweh, the “witnesses” invoked were the mountains, rivers, heaven, and earth (Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1). These witnesses constitute the literary key to the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the prophets, for it is seen that the prophets also call on the “heavens and earth” (Isa 1:2; Mic 6:1–2). These natural features are personified as witnesses and summoned to testify against Israel, the covenant breaker.

7. Cursings and blessings. Both the suzerain-vassal treaties and the Mosaic covenant contain cursings and blessings. Curses are invoked on the vassals should they break the covenant (Deut 27:15–26; 28:15–65), and blessings (28:1–14) should the vassals remain loyal. There would be blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience to the covenant stipulations. The prophets warned the disobedient Israelites that they would experience the cursings of the covenant should they continue in their evil ways.

8. Covenant ratification. The covenant was ratified by its acceptance by the people, the sacrifice and sprinkling of blood, and the eating and drinking of the covenant meal (Exod 24). Upon being ratified, the covenant was in force and regulated the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal people.

As the international treaty governed the relationship between the suzerain and vassal, so the Mosaic covenant governed the relationship between Yahweh and the people of Israel. Obedience to the covenant stipulations would result in prosperity and blessing. Disobedience to the covenant would result in cursings and judgment. It was as a result of Israel’s disobedience to the covenant that God’s messengers, the prophets, appeared on the scene as prosecuting attorneys in behalf of Yahweh. As representatives of the Great Suzerain (Yahweh) the prophets brought a lawsuit (רִיב) against the people, calling for repentance and proclaiming judgment for continued disobedience.

The רִיב Motif

When the prophets accused Israel of breaking God’s law and predicted coming judgment, their message was set against a covenant background. This is quite apparent in the רִיב (rîb) motif, or the prophetic lawsuit speech, where the prophet, as a representative of Yahweh, indicts the people Israel for breaking the law—the stipulations of the covenant. According to McCarthy, the רִיב pattern is the most telling argument for connecting the prophetic threats with the covenant in treaty form.[10] Huffmon was the first Old Testament scholar to work out in detail the thesis that the prophetic lawsuit speeches are related via the Sinai covenant to the suzerainty treaty form.[11] While Harvey develops this thesis in a most thoroughgoing manner,[12] Limburg has done the most recent in-depth study of the root רִיב and the prophetic lawsuit speeches.[13] Limburg first shows how the root רִיב was used in the sphere of international relationships and then brings the results to bear on the prophetic lawsuit speeches. Given the treaties as the model for the covenant, he shows that the indictments for breach of treaty provide the model for prophetic indictments for breach of covenant.

The verb רִיב, used sixty-seven times in the Old Testament, basically means “to strive” or “to contend.”[14] After a thorough study of nine nontheological passages in which the root רִיב is used, Limburg concludes that the verb denotes an oral complaint made by an aggrieved party against the party held responsible for the grievance (cf. Gen 26:17–22; 31:36; Judg 6:28–32; 8:1–3; Neh 5:6–13; 13:11, 17; Job 13:6–12).[15] It is significant that in every reference except Exodus 21:18, the verb denotes a unilateral activity rather than a mutual or reciprocal activity. To רִיב, then, is to make an accusation or complaint. A רִיב is an accusation or complaint which an aggrieved party (or an advocate acting on behalf of an aggrieved party) makes against one held responsible for the grievance.

The activity that the verb רִיב signifies may be described as falling into two patterns: (1) “A” makes a רִיב against opponent “B,” and (2) “C” makes a רִיב against “B” on behalf of “A.” The latter pattern best represents the biblical situation as the prophet (C) brings a complaint against Israel (B) on behalf of Yahweh (A). The significance and implication of the רִיב motif is most clearly seen as one studies the role of the prophet in God’s lawsuit against Israel.

The Role of a Royal Diplomat

There is clear evidence that the vocabulary and forms of speech from the sphere of international relationships and lawsuits have been taken over into the service of theology as Yahweh’s messenger, the prophet, comes to announce that He has a complaint against the people of Israel for violating the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant.[16] Those who filled the prophetic office were Yahweh’s messengers not only in the sense of being agents of divine revelation (Heb 1:1), but in the particular sense that they performed a distinctive diplomatic function. Concerning the prophet’s role as a royal diplomat, Limburg writes:

If the international treaty thus provides the model for the covenant, the figure of the international messenger or royal diplomat provides a kind of paradigm for understanding the office of the prophet…. The prophetic office, then, viewed from one perspective, may be described as a theopolitical office. The prophet functions as an agent of the working out of the “politics of God” as God exercises his government over the world…. the prophet appears as a messenger from the divine emperor to a rebelling subject people.[17]

The prophets, then, were messengers and official representatives of Yahweh in the administration of His covenant with Israel. They declared His claims and sought to enforce His will through their effective proclamation. According to Kline, the prophets had four distinctive functions in relationship to their diplomatic mission in Israel.[18] (1) They proclaimed the sovereign name of the Covenant Lord—Yahweh, the Creator, Lord of hosts. (2) They rehearsed the gracious acts of His reign through the history of His relationship with Israel. (3) They reiterated interpretively the obligations God’s treaty (covenant) had imposed, calling into view Israel’s rebellious ways. (4) They confronted the sinful nation with the curses threatened in the treaty text and ratification rite, while renewing promises of God’s grace. In short, the prophet’s diplomatic mission to Israel was one of elaborating the stipulations of the covenant, prosecuting the people of Israel for covenant violations, and confronting the disobedient with judgment—the cursings for breaking the covenant stipulations.

Holladay argues convincingly that the distinction between the preclassical (nonwriting) prophets and the classical (writing) prophets can be explained by a change in the role of the royal diplomat in Assyria.[19] He rightly notes that the preclassical prophets were primarily “court prophets” who addressed the king and the royal house (cf. 1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 1:16) while the classical prophets were primarily “popular prophets” who addressed the vassal people living within the nation (cf. Hos 4:1; Amos 3:1; Mic 1:2). In the seventh and eighth centuries there was a dramatic shift of the primary object of the prophetic address away from the ruling houses of the kingdoms to the people of Israel as a whole. Holladay attributes this shift to a change in Assyrian imperial policy at precisely this time. Toward the end of the ninth century culminating in the reign of Tiglathpileser III (745-727 B.C.), Assyrian statecraft swung its focus of attention from master to slave, prince to peasant, king to citizen. No longer was only the king and his court butchered or led into captivity, but whole countries were led into exile.[20] This change of focus in Assyrian statecraft is strikingly similar to a change in the focus of the prophets in Israel at approximately the same historical period.

The Assyrian modification placing the populace on a par with the vassal king, thus making the entire community responsible for its actions and that of its rulers, constituted a change in the secular model of the prophetic office. A new dimension had been added to the activity of the Assyrian messenger or royal diplomat. As heralds, they proclaimed the will of the suzerain to the people of the land. Rabshakeh, the messenger of Sennacherib in his 701 B.C. siege of Jerusalem, insisted on speaking Hebrew, the language understood by the people, rather than the diplomatic language, Aramaic. The point was that he had a message for the people of Jerusalem, not just for Hezekiah and the royal court (cf. Isa 36:11–13). Holladay suggests that as the implications of this new secular order became apparent in eighth-century Israel, a corresponding shift took place in the role of the prophet. By the middle of the eighth century B.C. the days of the “court” prophet had ended and thus Amos proclaimed, “Hear the word which the Lord has spoken against you, sons of Israel…” (Amos 3:1).[21]

It appears quite evident that the royal covenant emissaries sent by the suzerain to deal with his vassals provided a model for the office of the biblical prophets sent by Yahweh to His covenant people. Like their secular counterparts, the royal diplomats, the prophets were messengers of the Suzerain to a rebelling vassal people. The prophets in Israel acted in behalf of Yahweh as prosecuting attorneys indicting the people of both kingdoms for their violations of the Mosaic covenant. They accomplished their prophetic responsibilities by calling attention to the covenant stipulations and Israel’s violation, and by pronouncing judgment for continued disobedience.

The Lawsuit Speeches

There are many passages in the Scriptures which reflect the prophet’s role as a royal diplomat. These passages most often contain what has been called a “lawsuit speech.” Limburg defines the expression “lawsuit speech” as a “prophetic speech in which Yahweh and the people are represented as participants in some form of legal process.”[22] Following his helpful examination of the רִיב form in Deuteronomy 32:1–43; Isaiah 1:2–3; Micah 6:1–8; Jeremiah 2:2–37; Psalm 50; and Judges 10:11–14, Ramsey sets forth the following items which seem to be the most frequently occurring elements in the lawsuit speech:[23]

1. The summons to the heavens and the earth (Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2a; Jer 2:12; Ps 50:1–6; Mic 6:1–2). These elements were personified as witnessing the establishment of the covenant (Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28) and are now summoned to testify against the covenant breaker.

2. The reference to the historical benefits conferred by Yahweh on Israel (Deut 32:7–14; Isa 1:2b; Mic 6:4–5; Jer 2:6–7a, 21a; Judg 10:11–12).

3. The accusation against the covenant-breaker (Deut 32:15–18, 21a; Isa 1:2b–3; Jer 2:7b–8, 11, 20, 23–27; Ps 50:16–20; Judg 10:13a).

4. The reference to the futility of an appeal to other gods (Deut 32:16–18, 37–38; Jer 2:26–28; Judg 10:14).

5. The warning or sentence of judgment (Deut 32:21b–25; Mic 6:8; Jer 2:19; Ps 50:21).

Five texts are cited by Limburg as clear examples of lawsuit speeches in the eighth-century prophets.[24] These include Hosea 4:1–3; Micah 6:1–5; Isaiah 1:2–3; 1:18–20; and 3:13–15. In four of these five texts the aggrieved party (Yahweh) makes a complaint through the prophetic messenger against the aggrieving party, Israel. In the remaining text (Isa 3:13–15), Yahweh appears as an advocate taking up the cause of the aggrieved (His people) against the aggrieving party (the elders and princes of the people). A brief consideration of four of these texts will suffice to illustrate the structure of a biblical lawsuit speech.

Micah 6:1–5 is best understood against the background of the international lawsuit. For literary and communicative purposes Micah has adapted the lawsuit forms which originally functioned in the sphere of international relationships to bring God’s lawsuit against the people of Israel. The passage may be outlined as follows:

1. The call for attention: The people are commanded, “Hear now what Yahweh is saying…” (6:1a).

2. The prophet’s commissioning: Micah reports his commissioning, “Arise, plead your case (רִיב)…” (6:1b).

3. The invocation of the witnesses: The “mountains” and the “hills” are summoned as covenant witnesses (6:1b-c,2a).

4. The Suzerain’s complaint

a. The introductory question: Yahweh questions the reasons for the covenant violation (6:3).

b. The past benefits: Yahweh reminds the people of their past relationship and how He has cared for them (6:4).

c. The need for repentance: Israel may yet acknowledge Yahweh, remember the covenant, and avoid national disaster (6:5).

Hosea 4:1–3 also reflects the international treaty form. This passage focuses on the loyalty and faithfulness the people of Israel (the vassals) are to demonstrate to Yahweh (the Suzerain). The passage can be outlined as follows:

1. The call for attention: The prophet invokes the name of the Great Suzerain as he begins his message and speaks for Yahweh (4:1).

2. The Suzerain’s complaint

a. The reason for the complaint: No faithfulness, loyalty, or acknowledgment of Yahweh as Suzerain (4:1b).

b. The breaking of the covenant stipulations: The violations center on the Ten Commandments (4:2).

c. The announcement of a curse: Judgment because of breach of covenant (4:3).

Isaiah 1:2–3 records a complaint concerning Yahweh’s people. This text compares very well with the kind of complaint a suzerain might have concerning a rebelling vassal people. The lawsuit speech may be outlined as follows:

1. The invocation of the witnesses: The “heavens” and “earth” are summoned as witnesses (1:2a).

2. The messenger formula: “Yahweh speaks…” (1:2b).

3. The Suzerain’s complaint

a. The past benefits bestowed by Yahweh (1:2c).

b. The transgression of the covenant by the people (1:2d).

c. The failure to acknowledge the Suzerain (1:3).

Isaiah 1:18–20 is actually a continuation of the lawsuit speech found in verses 2–3, but it is sufficiently distinctive to require that it be considered separately. It, too, parallels the message a royal diplomat would carry from an overlord to a rebelling people.

1. The invitation to a legal settlement: A call to a judicial decision (1:18a).

2. The messenger formula: “Says Yahweh…” (1:18b).

3. The Suzerain’s complaint

a. The transgressions of the vassals acknowledged (1:18c-f).

b. The opportunity for a reaffirmation of the covenant and appropriation of blessing (1:19).

c. The curse for continued violation of the covenant stipulations (1:20).

These texts all contain prophetic speeches in which Yahweh and the people are represented as participants in some sort of legal process. The legal process is clearly that of a covenant lawsuit brought by a messenger (the prophet) against the vassals (the people of Israel) for their violation of their treaty (the Mosaic covenant) with the Great Suzerain (Yahweh).

Conclusion

As the fifteenth-to-thirteenth century Hittite treaty materials have greatly illuminated the Mosaic covenant and the concepts involved in the covenant, so the international lawsuit for breach of treaty has illuminated the prophetic lawsuit and the office of the prophet. The figure of the royal diplomat or messenger, bringing a complaint against a people, provides a kind of model for understanding the role of the prophet, announcing that Yahweh has a complaint against His people. The major role of the biblical prophets was that of royal diplomats who functioned as prosecuting attorneys on behalf of Yahweh. They indicted the people of Israel for their violations of the Mosaic covenant, called for repentance, and warned of coming judgment for continued disobedience.

In recognizing the historical parallels between the prophets and the figure of the royal diplomat, one is not forced to the conclusion that the prophets “borrowed” this role from the politics of heathen nations. Rather, it is indeed likely that God communicated to His people in the prophetic period through a culturally understood medium—that of the complaint or lawsuit like that with which the Israelites would have become familiar through their political relationship with Assyria as a vassal nation. God is the Communicator par excellence and has repeatedly revealed Himself to His people through culturally understood literary forms. This is reflected not only in the prophetic lawsuit speeches, but also in the historical setting of the Mosaic covenant,[25] King David’s dynastic defense,[26] the “dream visions” of apocalyptic literature,[27] and the New Testament epistolary materials.[28] As in the case of these other literary forms, so in the case of the prophetic lawsuit speeches, there is no wooden borrowing, but rather the secular forms provide a stepping-stone for the creative and contemporary communication of the sacred Word of God.

Through the culturally understood literary forms of the day, God’s inspired and inerrant prophetic revelation was delivered to God’s people through His spokesmen. A good understanding of the literary forms of the biblical period is the first step toward precise and accurate exegesis. So it is with the prophetic lawsuit speeches. A basic comprehension of the role of the prophets serves as an important exegetical tool in the study of the prophetic lawsuit speeches and greatly enhances one’s understanding concerning the relationship between the prophet, the Lord, and His people.

Notes

1. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), p. 262.
2. Hobart Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), p. 26.
3. Leon Wood, The Prophets of Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 60; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 741-45.
4. Abraham was designated a “prophet” in Genesis 20:7, but this seems to be a unique and rather isolated appearance of the term before the Mosaic period.
5. B. D. Napier, Prophets in Perspective (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 70.
6. Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952), p. 82.
7. Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets, pp. 48-50.
8. Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1966), pp. 90-91.
9. Cleon L. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (Summer 1971): 147-54.
10. D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972). p. 40. See also Moshe Weinfeld, “Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature,” Vetus Testamentum 27 (April 1977): 187-89.
11. Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (December 1959): 285-95.
12. J. Harvey, “Le Rîb-Pattern, Réquisitoire Prophétique sur la Rupture de l’Alliance,” Biblica 43 (1962): 172-96.
13. James Limburg, “The Lawsuit of God in the Eighth Century Prophets,” (Ph.D. diss, Union Theological Seminary, 1969), pp. 1-318.
14. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 936.
15. James Limburg, “The Root רִיב and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (September 1969): 293-95.
16. The prophet’s use of vocabulary and forms of speech found in the sphere of international relationships does not necessarily make him dependent on secular materials. This issue will be addressed in the conclusion.
17. Limburg,”The Lawsuit of God,” p. 297.
18. Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), p. 59.
19. J. S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” Harvard Theological Review 63 (January 1970): 29-51.
20. Ibid., pp. 36-37.
21. Ibid., pp. 50-51.
22. Limburg, “The Lawsuit of God,” p. 1.
23. George W. Ramsey, “Amos 4:12—A New Perspective,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (June 1970): 188.
24. Limburg, “The Lawsuit of God,” p. 185.
25. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” pp. 141-55.
26. Herbert M. Wolf, “Implications of Form Criticism for Old Testament Studies,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127 (October-December 1970): 303-4.
27. Ralph H. Alexander, “Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature,” (Th.D. diss, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968), pp. 1-290.
28. John Lee White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), pp. 1-99; The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), pp. 1-69; Chan-Hie Kim, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), pp. 1-143.