At the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Providence, RI, in November,

The Afterlife of Infants and the Mentally Impaired An Exegetical Study of Selected Texts A paper presented to 54 th Meeting of the Midwest Region of the Evangelical Theological Society March 20-21, 2009 Ashland, Ohio by Myron C. Kauk At the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Providence, RI, in November, 2008, Eugene Mayhew presented a historical study on The Afterlife of Infants and the Severely Mentally Impaired: A Survey of 2000 Years of Doctrinal Debate and Development in which he outlined no less than eighteen different views that have been taken on this subject and identified at least twelve passages of Scripture that were deemed pertinent to the subject. This study is intended as a follow up to that study focusing on the exegesis of those pertinent Scriptures in an effort to determine what the Bible clearly says on the matter. Primary attention will be given to two texts, 2 Samuel 12:23 and Mark 10:13-16 with its parallels in Matthew 19:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17, with minor treatment given to other related texts. 2 Samuel 12:23 The passage most frequently adduced in favor of the view that infants who die prior to having the capacity to exercise saving faith are nonetheless saved by the grace and mercy of God is the story of the death of David s first son by Bathsheba. Because this child was the product of a sinful union which gave the enemies of the Lord an occasion to blaspheme, Nathan the prophet declared that the child would die. And indeed, when the child was born he was immediately sickly. David proceeded to fast and pray on behalf of the child. Interestingly, on the seventh day, before the boy was circumcised, he died. When David received the news, he surprised everyone by ceasing his mourning and resuming normal life. When asked about this, he responded, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for 1

I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 1 Those who want to see the salvation of infants in this passage argue that David expected to be in the presence of the Lord in the afterlife and therefore likewise must have expected his son to be in the presence of the Lord. 2 On this basis, it is argued either that all who die in infancy, or at least that the children of believing or covenant parents who die in infancy, will be saved. 3 It is further argued that there is a marked difference in David s response to the death of Bathsheba s child and his response to the deaths of Absalom, Amnon, Abner, and Saul. Does this suggest that David had more hope for the infant than for a wicked son 4 or merely that David had already been mourning for seven days and now he ceases to mourn because Sheol is a place of no return? 5 How much should be read into David s statement that he will go to his son but his son will not return to him? The Old Testament concept of the afterlife is a matter of continuing debate. 6 The strongest case for David having an expectation for life after death comes from Psalm 16:10, For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay, which indeed is cited in the New Testament by Peter (Acts 2:31) and Paul (Acts 13:35) as a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ. But the meaning in David s life is less certain. Walter Kaiser argues that the psalm is directly messianic and speaks of the resurrection, 7 but Chisholm classifies it as indirectly messianic and a statement of David s confidence that God would protect his temporal life. 8 1 2 Sam 12:22-23 (NAS) 2 Walter C. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 222. 3 John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 289. 4 Alan H. Hamilton, The Doctrine of Infant Salvation BSac 102 (1945): 107. 5 A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 164. 6 Cf. Desmond Alexander, The Old Testament View of Life After Death, Themelios 11 (1986): 41-46; William A. VanGemeren, Psalms in The Expositor s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 5:569-573. 7 Kaiser, Hard Sayings, 264-265. 8 Robert B. Chisholm, A Theology of the Psalms, in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 292-295. Cf. also Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 156-159. 2

There are sufficient antecedents to make it probable that David had some concept of life after death (e.g Abraham s expectation that Isaac would both worship and return from the sacrifice on mount Moriah [Gen 22:5; cf. Heb 11:19], Saul s encounter with the medium of En-dor [1 Sam 28:7-25], even Job s expectation that he will see God in a resurrected body [Job 19:25-27] if it can be dated so early), but even granting this, the language of 2 Samuel 12:23 does not clearly indicate the status of David s son in the afterlife. All that is clearly stated here is that David, like his son, is ultimately going to die. 9 Mark 10:13-16 and Parallels The leading New Testament passage used in support of a doctrine of infant salvation is Mark 10:13-16 with its parallels in Matthew 19:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17. In this passage, some children (Luke calls them bre,fh, infants ) are being brought to Jesus, perhaps by their parents, and Jesus disciples try to prevent them. Jesus rebukes His disciples, saying, Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 10 Williamson states that this can be understood as referring literally to the children or figuratively to people like them. V 15 supports the figurative meaning, while v 16 supports the literal meaning. 11 In verse 15, Jesus introduces a simile, "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." Then in verse 16 he takes the actual children in His arms and blesses them. It has been suggested that verse 15 is a Marcan interpolation and that the primary meaning of the original narrative was that children have a share in the kingdom of God. 12 But verse 15 begins with the word truly (avmh.n), emphasizing that this verse is really the focal point of the narrative. The 9 Mary Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 187; Tony W. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 531; Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 316. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 339; Sanders, 289. 10 Mark 10:14 11 Lamar Williamson, Mark (Louisville: John Knox, 1983), 179. 12 Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 472; Cf. M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 289-290. 3

children function as illustrations of something larger 13 and The main concern of the account is not children as such but the kind of people who may enter the kingdom of God. 14 Still, Erickson argues, if Jesus was affirming that those who would enter into the kingdom must be like these children, he seems to be asserting, as a premise in his argument, that these children were in the kingdom. 15 And Nash adds, If the only purpose served by the children in these instances was their serving as examples or models of what true believing adults must become, then we must assume that Jesus was indignant at his disciples only because they stood between Jesus and examples of the kind of people who will be in heaven. That doesn t make much sense. What makes better sense is that the children in question had a special relationship to Jesus. Jesus was indignant because his disciples were sending away children, some of whom were children of God that is, recipients of God s saving grace. It is hard to read these verses without seeing that they talk not only of mature adults who must become childlike but also of children who were already members of Jesus kingdom. 16 France responds, Does this refer to children as such, and thus imply the automatic participation of all children in God s kingdom (a participation which may then be forfeited in later life)? In terms of church doctrine, does this pronouncement then justify the contention that all children must be presumed saved until they come to years of discretion and can decide for themselves? And is it therefore a sound basis for baptizing infants? Even to ask such questions is to indicate an agenda which is not, on the surface at least, that of this pericope, and inferences drawn from it for such an agenda must be treated with caution. 17 The point of a simile is not that one thing is like another in every respect but that two things are being compared at some particular and specific point. So it bears asking at what point Jesus wants people to be like children in order to enter the kingdom. Various answers have been suggested: humility, helplessness, modesty, dependence, trustfulness, simplicity, unconditionality, simple 13 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 785. 14 James A. Brooks, Mark (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 159. 15 Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved?: The Destiny of Those Who Do not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 238. 16 Ronald H. Nash, When a Baby Dies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 66. 17 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 396. 4

obedience, without question, or without presumption. 18 What is certain is that Jesus is not saying people should receive the kingdom passively without an active response of faith. The whole of Scripture is against this. And yet this is the logic that the infant salvation demands at this point. Evidence for an Age of Accountability Three main texts have been used to support the idea that young children are not considered morally accountable. First, in Deuteronomy 1:39, the phrase your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil is adduced as a reference to children too young for moral discernment. 19 Who are these who have no knowledge of good or evil? The entire verse reads, Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it, and it might be argued based on parallel lines that those who have no knowledge of good or evil are equivalent to the little ones (@j;) of the first line. Brown, Driver, and Briggs relate this noun to the verb @p;j', trip, take quick little steps and suggests that it refers to small children who go with quick, tripping steps. 20 But the semantic range is actually much larger than this. According to Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, This noun is commonly employed to represent the remaining element of mankind apart from men and women. 21 In the context of Deuteronomy 1:39, both the little ones and the sons who have no knowledge of good or evil refer to all those other than Joshua and Caleb who will enter the land and possess it, and Numbers 14:29-31 makes it clear that this includes everyone less than twenty years of age. So, if Deuteronomy 1:39 is going to be used as a proof text for an age of accountability it must be concluded that the age of accountability is twenty years. 18 Cf. Robert H. Stein, Mark, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 463-464. 19 Erickson, 250; Nash, 59. 20 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), 381. 21 Ralph H. Alexander, @p;j', in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:353; cf. Deut 2:34; 3:6; 31:12; Josh 8:35; Jer 40:7; 43:6. 5

A second text that is used in this same way is Isaiah 7:15-16, which refers to the time when Immanuel knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. Does this refer to an age of accountability? If so, what is that age? Suggestions have ranged from the time the child is weaned, 22 to the time he is able to distinguish nasty and nice tastes, 23 to the time he becomes a son of the commandment, 24 to the time he is old enough to rule as king, 25 to the time he is old enough to make decisions. 26 The interpretation of the passage is complicated by questions of the identity of Immanuel. Some regard him to be Hezekiah, Ahaz s son and successor. 27 If so, then verse 15 is best understood as saying that Immanuel will live in a difficult time so that he might learn to repudiate the evil policies of his father and choose a godly path. Curds and honey probably represent an impoverished subsistence economy and the l plus infinitive construct (AT[.d:l.) is best understood as indicating purpose or result. 28 Others equate Immanuel with Maher-Shalal-hash-baz, of whom it is said, before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria. 29 If these two passages refer to the same individual, 30 it could be argued that knowing how to reject evil and choose good refers to the same time period as when a child knows how to say father and mother. At least the time frame of Isaiah 8:4 would appear to be the same as that expressed in 7:16 by the phrase, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. Historically, Isaiah s Immanuel prophecy was given in conjunction with the invasion of Judah by Syria (Damascus) and Israel (Samaria) in 735 B.C. Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria responded to this uprising in 734 and by 733 he 22 Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 147. 23 J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 86. 24 John N. Oswalt, Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 141. 25 Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1-39 (Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 79. 26 John D. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 97. 27 Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 160-162. 28 Hence the translation of NET Bible, He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. Cf. Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 287; Gary Smith, Isaiah 1-39 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007), 214. 29 Isa 8:4. 30 Robert B. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 32-33. 6

had taken most of the territory of Israel, leaving only Samaria with a puppet king Hoshea replacing the fallen Pekah. Damascus fell a year later in 732. Samaria and Hoshea survived another ten years as a vassal state before falling to Tiglath-Pileser s son Shalmaneser in 722. 31 In light of the above, it appears that the age at which Immanuel knows to reject the evil and choose the good, could be anywhere from two or three years on the low end to perhaps thirteen on the high end. But the context seems to have more to do with moral discernment than with moral accountability and more to do with temporal concerns than with Immanuel s eternal destiny. The third text used to argue for an age of accountability is Jonah 4:11, which refers to 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand. It is suggested that this refers to the young children of Ninevah, who have no moral discernment. 32 However, this would require a total population of Ninevah on the order of 600,000, while the area within the city walls only allows for a population of about 175,000. 33 It is more likely that 120,000 refers to the entire population of Ninevah, both children and adults. Evidence of Saved Infants Two passages have been used as examples of infants saved, even in utero, in the Bible. 34 The first is Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." But Jeremiah did not die as an infant. Surely, this means nothing more than that his future had been foreknown and predestined by God and worked itself out through the normal course of his life. The second passage used in this regard is Luke 1:15, where it is said of John the Baptist, he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb. And indeed, when Mary comes to visit 31 John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 273-275. 32 Erickson, 251; Julius A. Bewer A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jonah, in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (Edinburgh: T. &. T. Clark, 1980), 63 33 Edwin Yamauchi, Ninevah, in Holman Bible Dictionary, ed. Trent C. Butler (Nashville: Holman, 1991), 1025; Cf. also Frank S. Page, Jonah, in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 287. 34 Nash, 64. 7

Elizabeth, Scripture records that the baby leaped in her womb for joy and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 35 Whatever else is made of this incident, surely this must be recognized as a special case and flimsy grounds on which to generalize to the status of all infants. In any case, John also did not die as an infant, but as an adult testified concerning Jesus that "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." 36 So it appears that John too came to recognize Jesus in the normal course of his life. Evidence for Proxy Salvation Two passages have been used to argue that the children of believing parents are included by proxy as covenant children. 37 Neither carries much exegetical weight. The first is Acts 2:39, which states, "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." But two word for children here is te,knoij, which does not mean a little child, but any person, possibly quite adult, viewed in relation to his parents. 38 The passage in context simply means that promise of salvation that Peter has offered to his original audience is not limited to them. It is available to future generations as well on the same terms as it is available to his original audience. The second passage used to argue that the children of believing parents are included with their parents is 1 Corinthians 7:14, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. But this also will not work unless one is prepared to argue that an unbelieving spouse is also saved by proxy by the faith of the believing spouse. The purpose of the argument is to 35 Luke 1:41-44. 36 John 1:33-34. 37 Cf. Hamilton, 107 38 C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 1:155. 8

support the continuance of a marriage where one spouse becomes a believer and the other has not yet done so. There was concern that a believing spouse would be polluted by an unbelieving spouse and therefore needed to break the union. Paul argues for the continuation of these marriages by saying that they produce holy children. Therefore they are holy marriages and should be maintained. 39 This does not mean that the children or the unbelieving spouses are thereby saved. Theological Issues The exegetical evidence in support of a doctrine of infant salvation is incredibly slight. The strongest cases can be made from 2 Samuel 12:23 and perhaps from Isaiah 7:15-16, but even these depend on inferences that go far beyond what the text clearly says and are far from convincing. Erickson concedes, While we would wish for even a single passage addressing this matter explicitly and directly, the best we may be able to hope for is the possibility of passages implying something of significance for our purposes. 40 Therefore, he is left relying on more general theological considerations. 41 Sanders, likewise, admits that all attempts to argue for the salvation of infants and mental incompetents are based more on theological arguments than on Scripture. 42 Theologically, there are two primary obstacles which must be overcome in order to argue in favor of infant salvation. The first is the doctrine of original or imputed sin from Adam based on Rom 5:12-21. Erickson notes that For Pelagius, the only sin of which human beings are guilty and for which they can be held guilty is sin which they have personally committed. 43 Pelagius has largely been rejected in theory, but when it comes to the question of infant salvation, theologians of all stripes seem to become practical Pelagians. Wesley denied that any were condemned on the basis of original sin 39 Cf. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), 142; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 288-290. 40 Erickson, 236. 41 Erickson, 236. 42 Sanders, 288. 43 Erickson, 239. 9

alone. 44 Erickson argues that Until the first conscious or responsible moral action or decision by a person, there is no imputation of the Adamic sin. 45 Nash argues that judgment is only administered on the basis of sins committed in the body. 46 The second theological obstacle to a doctrine of infant salvation is the consistent biblical witness that salvation is accompanied by a response of faith in the one saved. Since infants and mental incompetents are incapable exercising an active faith in Christ, it must be argued that they are saved in some way without it. Sanders notes that this causes a particular problem for Arminians because it conflicts with their control belief that an act of faith is necessary for salvation. 47 Reformed theologians claim the high ground here, saying that salvation according to their system is monogernistic. It is effected by the electing work of the Father, the atoning work of the Son, and the regenerating work of the Spirit. 48 Repentance and Faith in the Reformed system are not necessary conditions of salvation but simply evidence which demonstrates that regeneration has taken place. Since infants are incapable of faith, the evidence is lacking. But this really leaves Reformed theologians in no better position. It advocates a salvation for infants which has no experiential evidence and poor exegetical support. It is based entirely on a theological construct. Conclusion In the final analysis, the doctrine of infant salvation seems to be driven primarily by pastoral concerns. What does one say to a grieving family that is asking, Where is my loved one? Every pastor wants to provide comfort and hope. And yet, God has not revealed everything one might like to know on this subject. Still, He has revealed everything it is necessary to know. The question which must be asked is this: Is it better to comfort grieving families by telling them what they want to hear, I know 44 Erickson, 243. 45 Erickson, 250. 46 Nash, 60 47 Sanders, 300. 48 Nash, 83; Cf. also Erickson, 245-248. 10

your child is in heaven, when scriptural support for this is not clear, or is it better to guide grieving families to find their source of comfort and hope in God who is surely in heaven and sitting on His throne. He is both merciful and just and He will do what is right. 11

Bibliography Alexander, Desmond. The Old Testament View of Life After Death, Themelios 11 (1986): 41-46. Alexander, Ralph H. @p;j', in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, 1:353-354. Chicago: Moody, 1980. 1:353-354. Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Bewer, Julius A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jonah. In A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah, 1-65. Edinburgh: T. &. T. Clark, 1980. Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Brooks, James A. Mark. Nashville: Broadman, 1991. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Cartledge, Tony W. 1 and 2 Samuel. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Chisholm, Robert B. A Theology of the Psalms. In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, edited by Roy B. Zuck, 256-303. Chicago: Moody, 1991. Chisholm, Robert B. Handbook on the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. Erickson, Millard J. How Shall They Be Saved?: The Destiny of Those Who Do not Hear of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Evans, Mary. 1 and 2 Samuel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Hamilton, Alan H. The Doctrine of Infant Salvation BSac 102 (1945): 99-110. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I and II Samuel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. 12

Kaiser, Walter C. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993. Nash, Ronald H. When a Baby Dies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Oswalt, John N. Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Page, Frank S. Jonah. In Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 203-288. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978. Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1-39. Louisville: John Knox, 1993. Smith, Gary. Isaiah 1-39. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007. Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1-39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naude, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. VanGemeren, William A. Psalms. In The Expositor s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 5:1-880. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. Watts, John D. Isaiah 1-33. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Williamson, Lamar. Mark. Louisville: John Knox, 1983. Yamauchi, Edwin. Ninevah. In Holman Bible Dictionary, edited by Trent C. Butler, 1024-1025. Nashville: Holman, 1991. 13