Zephaniah 1:4

4. Stretch out mine hand To smite (Isaiah 5:25; Isaiah 9:12 ff.). Equivalent to “turn my hand against” (see on Amos 1:8).

Judah,… Jerusalem Zephaniah prophesies concerning the southern kingdom; the northern kingdom was destroyed a century before his day.

Remnant of Baal Literally, remnant of the Baal. The translators of LXX. have been influenced by Hosea 2:17, “the names of the Baalim”; at any rate, there seems insufficient reason for doubting the originality of the present Hebrew text. The Baal is not the Tyrian Baal, but the Canaanitish Baal, or rather Baals (see on Hosea 2:5), for the noun is used here collectively. Zephaniah may use the term in an even wider sense, as including all forms of illegitimate worship, all of which were due very largely to Canaanitish influence. The expression remnant does not presuppose necessarily the reform of 621 B.C., as if the prophet desired to say that all that was left from that reform would be destroyed in a judgment to come; it means, rather, “every vestige of Baal worship,” that is, all there is of it (compare Isaiah 14:22). The expression does not presuppose even a preliminary attempt at purifying the worship of Jehovah (see p. 508).

From this place Jerusalem. If Zephaniah prophesied in the capital this expression is perfectly intelligible even before the concentration of worship in Jerusalem.

The name of the Chemarims with the priests LXX. simply, “the names of the priests,” which reading implies the omission of either “Chemarims” or “priests,” and the omission of one of these words is favored by most recent commentators, including the cautious Davidson. Both nouns mean priests; the second is the common Old Testament term, the other is used only three times. Its etymology is uncertain, but the usage in the other passages (Hosea 10:5; 2 Kings 23:5) shows that it is applied to the priests at the local sanctuaries, officiating at the counterfeit Jehovah worship practiced there. If both words are original, the second refers to priests practicing out-and-out idolatry. Against this interpretation Davidson raises the objection that “in such a case the term priest would have been more fully defined.” But such definition is not needed, because the context leaves no doubt as to the persons in the prophet’s mind. At any rate, the arguments against the originality of the present Hebrew text are by no means conclusive. May not the omission of LXX. be due to the failure of the translators to grasp fully the thought of the prophet and the distinction he desired to make? In Zephaniah 1:5 he distinguishes between two classes of worshipers; why might he not also make a distinction between two classes of priests? Counterfeit Jehovah priests as well as out-and-out idol priests are to be cut off, so that even their names shall be heard no more. If one name is omitted, the remaining one must include both classes.