Chú giải Kinh Thánh

This book is wholly concerning Edom, a nation nearly allied and near adjoining to Israel, and yet an enemy to the seed of Jacob, inheriting the enmity of their father Esau to Jacob. Now here we have, after the preface, Ob 1:1. I. Threatenings against Edom, 1. That their pride should be humbled, Ob 1:2-4. 2. That their wealth should be plundered, Ob 1:5-7. 3. That their wisdom should be infatuated, Ob 1:8,9. 4. That their spiteful behaviour towards God's Israel should be avenged, Ob 1:10-16. II. Gracious promises to Israel; that they shall be restored and reformed, and shall be victorious over the Edomites, and become masters of their land and the lands of others of their neighbours (Ob 1:17-20), and that the kingdom of the Messiah shall be set up by the bringing in of the great salvation, Ob 1:21.

INTRODUCTION

This is the shortest book in the Old Testament. The name means "servant of Jehovah." Obadiah stands fourth among the minor prophets according to the Hebrew arrangement of the canon, the fifth according to the Greek. Some consider him to be the same as the Obadiah who superintended the restoration of the temple under Josiah, 627 B.C.

(2Ch 34:12).

But

Ob 11-16, 20

imply that Jerusalem was by this time overthrown by the Chaldeans, and that he refers to the cruelty of Edom towards the Jews on that occasion, which is referred to also in

La 4:21, 22; Eze 25:12-14; 35:1-15; Ps 137:7.

From comparing

Ob 5 with Jer 49:9,

Ob 6 with Jer 49:10,

Ob 8 with Jer 49:7,

it appears that Jeremiah embodied in his prophecies part of Obadiah's, as he had done in the case of other prophets also (compare

Isa 15:1-16:14 with Jer 48:1-47).

The reason for the present position of Obadiah before other of the minor prophets anterior in date is: Amos at the close of his prophecies foretells the subjugation of Edom hereafter by the Jews; the arranger of the minor prophets in one volume, therefore, placed Obadiah next, as being a fuller statement, and, as it were, a commentary on the foregoing briefer prophecy of Amos as to Edom [MAURER]. (Compare

Am 1:11).

The date of Obadiah's prophecies was probably immediately after the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 588 B.C. Five years afterwards (583 B.C.) Edom was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah must have incorporated part of Obadiah's prophecies with his own immediately after they were uttered, thus stamping his canonicity.

JEROME makes him contemporary with Hosea, Joel, and Amos. It is an argument in favor of this view that Jeremiah would be more likely to insert in his prophecies a portion from a preceding prophet than from a contemporary. If so, the allusion in

Ob 11-14

will be to one of the former captures of Jerusalem: by the Egyptians under Rehoboam

(1Ki 14:25, 26; 2Ch 12:2,

&c.), or that by the Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Joram

(2Ch 21:16, 17);

or that by Joash, king of Israel, in the reign of Amaziah

(2Ch 25:22, 23);

or that in the reign of Jehoiakim

(2Ki 24:1,

&c.); or that in the reign of Jehoiachin

(2Ki 24:8-16).

On all occasions the Idumeans were hostile to the Jews; and the terms in which that enmity is characterized are not stronger in Obadiah than in

Joe 3:19 (compare Ob 10); Am 1:11, 12.

The probable capture of Jerusalem alluded to by Obadiah is that by Joash and the Israelites in the reign of Amaziah. For as, a little before, in the reign of the same Amaziah, the Jews had treated harshly the Edomites after conquering them in battle

(2Ch 25:11-23),

it is probable that the Edomites, in revenge, joined the Israelites in the attack on Jerusalem [JAEGER].

This book may be divided into two parts: (1)

Ob 1-6

set forth Edom's violence toward his brother Israel in the day of the latter's distress, and his coming destruction with the rest of the foes of Judah; (2)

Ob 17-21,

the coming re-establishment of the Jews in their own possessions, to which shall be added those of the neighboring peoples, and especially those of Edom.

Introduction to Obadiah

The silence of Holy Scripture as to the prophet Obadiah stands in remarkable contrast with the anxiety of people to know something of him. It would even waste labor to examine the combinations, by which, of old, the human mind tried to justify its longing to know more of him, than God had willed to be preserved. People go over them with the view of triumphing in the superior sagacity of later days, and slaying the slain. It was a good and pious feeling which longed to know more of the men of God, whose prophecies He has preserved to us, and, with this view, looked about whether they could not identify their benefactor (such as each prophet is) with someone of whom more details are recorded. Hence, they hoped that Obadiah might prove to have been the faithful protector of the prophets under Ahab, or the son of the Shunamite, whom Elijah recalled to life, or the Obadiah whom Jehoshaphat sent to teach in the cities of Judah or the Levite who was selected, with one other, to be the overseer set over the repair of the temple in the reign of Josiah . Fruitless guesses at what God has hidden! God has willed that his name alone and this brief prophecy should be known in this world. Here, he is known only as Obadiah, "worshiper of God" .

Yet, these guesses of pious minds illustrate this point, that the arranger of the canon had some other ground upon which he assigned to Obadiah his place in it, than any identification of the prophet with any other person mentioned in Holy Scripture. For whereas, of the Obadiahs, of whom holy Scripture mentions more than the name, two lived in the reign of Ahab, one after the captivity of the ten tribes, the prophet is, by the framer of the canon, placed in the time of Uzziah and Jeroboam II, in which those placed before and after him, flourished. Moderns, having slighted these pious longings, are still more at fault in their way. German critics have assigned to the prophet dates, removed from each other by more than 600 years; just as if men doubted, "from internal evidence," whether a work were written in the time of William the Conqueror, or in that of Cromwell; of S. Louis, or Louis XVIII; or whether Hesiod was a contemporary of Callimachus, and Ennius of Claudian; or the author of the Nibelungen Lied lived with Schiller. Such difference, which seems grotesque, as soon as it is applied to any other case, was the fruit of unbelief.

Two, or rather, three great facts are spoken of in the prophecy, the capture of Jerusalem, and a two-fold punishment of Edom consequent on his malicious triumph over his brother's fall; the one through pagan, the other through the restored Jews. The punishment of Edom the prophet clearly foretells, as yet to come; the destruction of Jerusalem, which, according to our version is spoken of as past, is in reality foretold also. Unbelief denies all prophecy. Strange, that unbelief, denying the existence of the jewel - God's authentic and authenticated voice to man - should trouble itself about the age of the casket. Yet, so it was. The prophets of Israel used a fascinating power over those who denied their inspiration. They denied prophecy, but employed themselves about the prophets. Unbelief, denying prophecy, had to find out two events in history, which should correspond with these events in the prophet, a capture of Jerusalem, and a subsequent ("it" could not say) consequent - suffering on the part of Edom. And since Jerusalem was first taken under Shishak king of Egypt, in the 5th year of Rehoboam, 970 b.c., and Josephus relates that in 301 b.c., Ptolemy Lagus treacherously got possession of it under plea of offering sacrifice, treated it harshly, took many captive from the mountainous part of Judaea and the places around Jerusalem, from Samaritis, Gerizim, and settled them all in Egypt; unbelieving criticism had a wide range, in which to vacillate.

And so it reeled to and fro between the first and last of these periods, agreeing that Obadiah did not prophesy, and disagreeing as to all besides. Eichhorn , avowedly on his principle of unbelief, that God's prophets, when they spoke of detailed events, as future, were really describing the past, assumed that the last five verses were written in the time of Alexander Janneus, two centuries LATER than the latest, about 82 b.c. . As though a Hebrew prophet would speak of one, detestable for Alexander Janneus' wanton cruelty as a Saviour!

The real question as to the age of Obadiah turns upon two points - one is external, the other internal. The external is, whether in regard to those verses which he has in common with Jeremiah, Obadiah gathered into one, verses which he scattered in Jeremiah, or whether Jeremiah, in renewing the prophecies against Edom, incorporated verses of Obadiah. The question, the one which is internal to Obadiah, is, whether he speaks of the capture of Jerusalem in the prophetic or the real past, and (as determining this), whether he reproves Edom for past malice at the capture of Jerusalem, or warns him against it in the future.

The English version in the text supposes that Obadiah reproves for past sin. For it renders; "Thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother, in the day when he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of their distress" . The English margin gives the other, as a probable rendering, "do not behold, etc." But it is absolutely certain that אל 'al with the future forbids or deprecates a future thing. In all the passages, in which אל 'al occurs in the Hebrew Bible , it signifies "do not." We might as well say that "do not steal" means "thou shouldest not have stolen," as say that תרה ואל ve'al tēreh, and "do not look," means "thou shouldest not have looked."

It is true that in a vivid form of question, belonging to strong feeling, the soul going back in thought to the time before a thing which has happened, can speak of the past as yet future. Thus, David says, . "The death of fools shall Abner die?" while mourning over his bier; or Job, having said to God, "Why didst Thou bring me forth from the womb?" places himself as at that time and says (literally), "I shall expire, and eye shall not see me; as if I had not been, I shall be; from the womb to the grave I shall be carried." He contemplates the future, as it would have been, had he died in the birth. It was a relative future. We could almost, under strong emotion, use our "is to" in the same way. We could render, "Is Abner to die the death of fools?" But these cases have nothing to do with the uniform idiom; "do not." We must not, on any principle of interpretation, in a single instance, ascribe to a common idiom, a meaning which it has not, because the meaning which it has, does not suit us. There "is" an idiom to express this. It is the future with לא lo', not with אל 'al.

It agrees with this, that just before , where our version renders, "thou wert as one of them," the Hebrew (as, in our Bibles, is marked by the italics) has only, "thou as one of them!" not expressing any time. The whole verse expresses no time as to Edom. "In the day of thy standing on the other side, in the day of strangers carrying captive his might, and strangers entered his gates and cast lots on Jerusalem, thou too as one of them."

This too is a question not of rhetoric, but of morals. We cannot imagine that Almighty God, who warns that He may not strike, would eight times repeat the exhortation - a repetition which in itself has so much earnestness, "do not," "do not," "do not," in regard to sin which had been already ended. As to past sin, God exhorts to repent, to break it off; not to renew it. He does not exhort to that which would be a contradiction even to His own omnipotence, not to do what had been already done.

According to the only meaning, then, which the words bear, Edom had not yet committed the sin against which Obadiah warns him, and so Jerusalem was not yet destroyed, when the prophet wrote. For the sevenfold "the day of thy brother," (which is explained to be "the day of his calamity), the day of their destruction, the day of distress," the mention whereof had just preceded, can be no other than "the day when strangers carried away his strength, and foreigners entered his gates, and cast lots on Jerusalem." But no day was the day of utter destruction to Jerusalem, except that of its capture by Nebuchadnezzar. Its capture by Shishak , or by the Chaldees under Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin , left it uninjured; Jehoash, when he had defeated Amaziah, broke down a part of its walls only .

The relation of Obadiah to Jeremiah agrees with this. This argument in proof of that relation has been so carefully drawn out by Caspari , that little is needed except clearly to exhibit it. Few indeed, I should think (unless under some strong contrary bias), could read the five first verses of Obadiah in the book of the prophet himself, and, as they occur, scattered in Jeremiah 49, and not be convinced that Jeremiah reset the words of Obadiah in his own prophecy.

This is, in itself, probable, because Jeremiah certainly incorporated eight verses from Isaiah in his prophecy against Moab , and four from the same prophet in his prophecy against Babylon , in addition to several allusions to his prophecies contained in a word or idiom, or mode of expression. In the same way, Jeremiah closes his prophecy against Damascus, with a verse from the prophecy from Amos against it ; and he inserts a verse from Amos against Ammon in his own prophecy against that people . This is the more remarkable, because the prophecy of Amos against each people consists of three verses only. This, of course, was done in a designed way. Probably in renewing the prophecies against those nations, Jeremiah wished to point out that those former prophecies were still in force; that they had not yet been exhausted; that the threatenings of God were not the less certain, because they were delayed; that His word would none the less come true, because God was long-suffering. The insertion of these former prophecies, longer or shorter, are a characteristic of Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations, occurring, as they do, in those against Babylon, Damascus, Moab, Ammon, and therefore, probably in that also against Edom.

The eight verses, moreover, common to Obadiah and Jeremiah form one whole in Obadiah; in Jeremiah they are scattered amid other verses of his own, in precisely the same way as we know that he introduced verses of Isaiah against Moab. But beside this analogy of the relation of the prophecy of Jeremiah to that of Isaiah, it is plainly more natural to suppose that Jeremiah enlarged an existing prophecy, adding to it words which God gave him, than that Obadiah put together scattered sayings of Jeremiah, and yet, that these sayings, thus severed from their context, should still have formed as they do, one compact, connected whole.

Yet, this is the case as to these verses of Obadiah. Apart, for the time, from the poetic imagery, the connection of thought in Obadiah's prophecy is this: Obadiah 1:1 God had commanded nations to come against Edom, Obadiah 1:2 determining to lower it; Obadiah 1:3 it had trusted proudly in its strong position; Obadiah 1:4 yet, God would bring it down; and that, Obadiah 1:5 through no ordinary spoiler, but Obadiah 1:6 by one who should search out its most hidden treasures; Obadiah 1:7 its friends should be its destroyers; Obadiah 1:8 its wisdom, and Obadiah 1:9 might should fail it, and Obadiah 1:10 it should perish, for its malice to its brother Jacob; the crowning act of which would be at the capture of Jerusalem; Obadiah 1:11-14 but God's day was at hand, the pagan should be requited; Obadiah 1:15-16 the remnant of Zion, being delivered, would dispossess their dispossessors, would spread far and wide; Obadiah 1:17-20 a Saviour should arise out of Zion, and the kingdom should be the Lord's. Obadiah 1:21)

Thus, not only the eight verses from Obadiah, five of which recur in Jeremiah, and three others, to which he alludes, stand in close connection in Obadiah, but they form a part of one well-arranged whole. The connection is sometimes very close indeed; as when, to the proud question of Esau, ארץ יוּרדני מי mı̂y yôrı̂dēnı̂y 'erets, Obadiah 1:3, "Who will bring me down to the ground?" God answers, "though thou place thy nest among the stars, אוּרידך משׁם mı̂shâm 'ôrı̂ydekâ, Obadiah 1:4, thence, will I bring thee down."

Jeremiah, on the contrary, the mourner among the prophets, is plaintive, even in his prophecies against the enemies of God's people. Even in this prophecy he mingles words of tenderness ; "Leave thy fatherless children, I will preserve them alive; and let thy widows trust in Me." Accordingly, Jeremiah has a succession of striking pictures; but the connection in him is rather one of oratory than of thought. His object is to impress; he does impress, by an accumulation of images of terror or desolation. Closeness of thought would not aid his object, and he neglects it, except when he retains the order of Obadiah. But plainly it is most probable, that "that" is the original form of the prophecy, where the order is the sequence of thought. That sequence is a characteristic, not of these verses only of Obadiah, but of the whole. The whole 21 verses of the prophet pursue one connected train of thought, from the beginning to the end. No one verse could be displaced, without injuring that order. Thoughts flow on, the one out of the other. But nothing is more improbable than to suppose that this connected train of thought was produced by putting together thoughts, which originally stood unconnected.

The slight variations also in these verses, as they stand in the two prophets, are characteristic. Wherever the two prophets in any degree vary, Obadiah is the more concise, or abrupt; Jeremiah, as belongs to his pathetic character, the more flowing. Thus, Obadiah begins: "Thus saith the Lord God, concerning Edom: A report we have heard from the Lord, and a messenger among the pagan is sent; Arise and let us arise against her to battle." The words, "Thus saith the Lord God, of Edom," declare that the whole prophecy which follows came from God; then Obadiah bursts forth with what he had heard from God, "A report we have heard from the Lord." The words are joined in meaning; the grammatical connection, if regarded, would be incorrect. Again, in the words, "we have heard," the prophet joins his people with himself. Jeremiah substitutes the more precise, "I have heard," transposes the words to a later part of the prophecy, and so obviates the difficulty of the connection: then he substitutes the regular form, שׁלח shâlach, for the irregular, שׁלח shullach; and for the one abrupt sentence, "Arise, and arise we against her to battle," he substitutes the Hebrew parallelism, "Gather ye yourselves and come against her; and arise to battle."

Next, Obadiah has: "Behold! small have I made thee among the nations; despised art thou exceedingly." Jeremiah connects the verse with the preceding by the addition of the particle "for," and makes the whole flow on, depending on the word, "I have made. For behold! small have I made thee among the pagan, despised among men." Obadiah, disregarding rules of parallelism, says; "The pride of thy heart hath deceived thee, dweller in rock-clefts, his lofty seat; who says in his heart, who will bring me down to the earth?" Jeremiah with a softer flow; "Thy alarmingness hath deceived thee, the pride of thy heart; dweller in the clefts of the rock, holding the height of a hill." Obadiah has very boldly; "Though thou exalt as the eagle, and though amid stars set thy nest, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord." Jeremiah contracts this, omits an idiom, for boldness, almost alone in Hebrew, סים ככבים בין ואם ve'im bēyn kôkâbı̂ym sı̂ym, "and though amid stars set," and has only, "when thou exaltest, as an eagle, thy nest, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord," where also, through the omission of the words "amid stars," the word "thence" has, in Jeremiah, no exact antecedent.

In a similar way, Jeremiah smooths down the abrupt appeal, "If thieves had come to thee, if spoilers of the night (how art thou cut off!) will they not steal their enough? If grape-gatherers had come to thee, will they not leave gleanings?" Jeremiah changes it into two even half-verses; If grape-gatherers had come to thee, will they not leave gleanings? If thieves by night, they had spoiled their enough." Again, for the 5 bold words of Obadiah, מצפניו נבעוּ עשׂו נחפשׂוּ איך 'êyk nechâphas'û ‛ês'âv, nı̂b‛û matsepunâyv, literally, "how are Esau outsearched, sought out his hidden places," Jeremiah substitutes, "For I have laid bare Esau; I have discovered his hidden places, and he cannot be hid."

Again, even an English reader of Jeremiah will have noticed that Jeremiah has many idioms or phrases or images, which he has pleasure in repeating. They are characteristic of his style. Now, in these verses which Obadiah and Jeremiah have in common, there is no one idiom which occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah; whereas, in the other verses of the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom, in which they are, as it were, inlaid, there are several such, so to say, favorite turns of expressions. As such, there have been noticed, the short abrupt questions with which Jeremiah opens his prophecy against Edom ; "Is wisdom no more in Teman?" the hurried imperatives accumulated upon one another , "Flee, turn, dwell deep;" the accumulation of words expressive of desolation ; "Bozrah shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste and a curse; and all her cities, perpetual wastes;" the combination of the two strong words, "shall be stupefied, shall hiss," in amazement at her overthrow ; "Everyone who goeth by her shall be stupefied" (we say "struck dumb") "and shall hiss at all her plagues."

Such again are the comparisons to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah ; the image of "the lion coming up from the pride of Jordan" ; the burden of these prophecies ; "the day of the destruction of Edom and the time of his visitation . "Wherefore hear ye the counsel of the Lord against Edom and His purposes which He has purposed toward Teman." Then also, whole verses are repeated in these prophecies .

Out of 16 verses of which the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah's; of the 11 which remain, 10 have some turns of expression or idioms, more or fewer, which recur in Jeremiah, either in these prophecies against foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of Jeremiah's characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression which occurs elsewhere in Jeremiah.

One expression, which has been cited as an exception, if it is more than an accidental coincidence, the rather confirms this. Obadiah, in one of the earlier verses which Jeremiah has not here employed, says: "To the border have sent thee forth the men of thy covenant; the men of thy peace have deceived thee, have prevailed against thee; thy bread" (i. e., the men of thy bread, they who ate bread with thee) "have laid a snare under thee." In the middle of this threefold retribution for their misdealing to their brother Judah, there occur the words, "the men of thy peace," which are probably taken from a Psalm of David . But the word השיאך, "have deceived thee," corresponds to the word השיאוך in Obadiah 1:3. "deceived thee" hath the pride of thy heart." The deceit on the part of their allies was the fruit and consequence of their self-deceit through the pride of their own heart. The verse in Obadiah then stands in connection with the preceding, and it is characteristic of Obadiah to make one part of his prophecy bear upon another, to show the connection of thoughts and events by the connection of words. The taunting words against Zedekiah, which Jeremiah puts into the mouth of the women left in the house, when they should be brought before the king of Babylon's princes, "Thy friends," literally, "the men of thy peace, have set thee on, המיתוך, Jeremiah 38:22, and have prevailed against thee," may very probably be a reminiscence of the words of Obadiah (although only the words, "men of thy peace," are the same): but they stand in no connection with any other words in Jeremiah, as those of Obadiah do with the previous words.

The prophecy of Jeremiah in which he incorporated these words of Obadiah, itself also speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem as still future. For he says to Edom , "Lo! they whose judgment was not to drink the cup, shall indeed drink it; and shalt thou be unpunished? Thou shalt not be unpunished, for thou shalt indeed drink it." It is plainly wrong (as even our own version has done) to render the self-same expression ישתו שׁתו as past, in the first place, "have assuredly drunken," and as future in the second, תשתה שתו כי, for thou shalt surely drink of it." Since they must be future in the second place, so must they also in the first. Jeremiah too elsewhere contrasts, as future, God's dealings with His own people and with the nations, in this self-same form of words . "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Ye shall certainly drink, for lo! I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by My Name, and shall ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished, for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the Lord of hosts." The form of words, להתע מחל בעיר־אנכי הנה, in itself requires, at least a proximate future, (for הנה with a participle always denotes a future, nearer or further) and the words themselves were spoken in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

In that same fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah received from God the command to write in that scroll which Jehoiakim burned when a little of it had been read to him , "all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel and against Judah and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah even unto this day." After Jehoiakim had burned the scroll, that same collection was renewed, at God's command, "with many like words" . Now immediately upon this, follows, in the Book of Jeremiah, the collection of prophecies against the foreign nations, and in this collection three contain some notice that they were written in that 4th year of Jehoiakim, and only the two last, those against Elam and Babylon, which may have been added to the collection, bear any later date. The prophecy against Babylon is at its close marked as wholly by itself , For Seraiah is bidden, when he had come to Babylon, and had "made an end of reading the book," to "bind a stone" upon it, and "cast it into the Euphrates," and say, "Thus shall Babylon sink, anew shall not rise again from the evil which I bring upon her."

These chapters then as to Babylon although connected with the preceding in that they are prophecies against enemies of God's people, are marked as in one way detached from them, a book by themselves. And in conformity with this, they are stated, in the beginning, to have been written in the 4th year of Zedekiah. In like way, the prophecy against Elam, which was uttered in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, was occasioned probably by misdeeds of that then savage people, serving, as they did, in the army of the Chaldees against Jerusalem, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiakim captive to Babylon. It is distinguished from the earlier prophecies, in that Elam was no inveterate enemy of God's people, and the instrument of his chastisement was not to be Babylon.

Those earlier prophecies Jeremiah 46-49:33 against Egypt, Philistia (including Tyre and Zidon), Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, all have this in common:

(1) that they are directed against old and inveterate enemies of God's people;

(2) they all threaten destruction from one source, the north , or Nebuchadnezzar himself, either naming or describing him .

They are then probably one whole, a book of the visitations of God upon His enemies through Nebuchadnezzar. But the first of the two prophecies against Egypt relates to the expedition of Pharaoh Necho against Assyria, the utter overthrow of whose vast army at the Euphrates he foretells. That overthrow took place at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . The next prophecy against Egypt relates to the expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against it, which followed immediately on the defeat of Pharaoh . The third prophecy against Philistia was, before Pharoah smote Gaza ; but this was probably on his march against Assyria in that same fourth year of Jehoiakim, before his own power was broken forever.

But since the prophecy of Obadiah was anterior to that of Jeremiah, it was probably long anterior to it. For Jeremiah probably incorporated it, in order to show that there was yet a fulfillment in store for it. And with this it agrees, that Obadiah does employ in his prophecy language of Balaam, of a psalm of David, of Joel and Amos, and of no later prophet. This could not have been otherwise, if he lived at the time, when he is placed in the series of the minor prophets. Had he lived later, it is inconceivable that, using of set purpose, as he does, language of Joel and Amos, his prophecy should exhibit no trace of any other later writing. The expressions taken from the Book of Joel are remarkable, considering the small extent of both books. Such are undoubtedly the phrases; "it," Jerusalem, "shall be holiness, קדשׁ qôdesh . In mount Zion there shall be a remnant .

For near is the Day of the Lord . I will return thy recompense upon thy head" , the phrase גוּרל ידוּ yadû gôrâl, for "cast lots." These are not chance idioms. They are not language of imagery. They are distinguished in no poetical or rhetorical manner from idioms which are not used.

They are not employed, because they strike the senses or the imagination. One prophet does not borrow the imagery of another. They are part of the religious language of prophecy, in which when religious truth had once been embodied, the prophets handed it on from one generation to another. These words were like some notes of a loved and familiar melody, which brought back to the soul the whole strain, of which they were a part. "The Day of the Lord" having been described in such awful majesty by Joel, thenceforth, the saying, "near is the Day of the Lord," repeated in his own simple words, conveyed to the mind all those circumstances of awe, with which it was invested. In like way the two words, "it shall be holiness," suggested all that fullness of the outpouring of God's Spirit, the sole source of holiness, with which the words were associated in Joel; they are full of the Gospel promise, that the church should be not holy only, but the depository of holiness, the appointed instrument through which God would diffuse it.

Equally characteristic is that other expression; "In Mount Sion shall be a remnant." It gives prominence to that truth, so contrary to flesh and blood, which Paul had to develop, that all were not Israel who were of Israel . It presented at once the positive and negative side of God's mercies, that there would be "salvation in Mount Zion," but of a "remnant" only. So, on the other side, the use of the idiom יעקב אחך מחמס mēchâmâs 'âchı̂kâ ya‛ăqôb, repeated but intensified from that of Joel, יהודה בן מחמס mēchâmâs bên yehûdâh," continued on the witness against that abiding sin for which Joel had foretold the desolation of Edom, "his violence toward his brother Jacob."

The promise in Amos of the expansion of Jacob, "that they may inherit the residue of Edom, and all nations upon whom My Name is called," is, in the same way, the basis of the detailed promise of its expansion in all directions - east, west, north, south - which Obadiah, like Amos, begins with the promise, that the people of God should inherit Edom: "And the South shall inherit Mount Esau, and the plain the Philistines." Amos, taking Edom as a specimen and type of those who hated God and His people, promises that they and all nations should become the inheritance of the church. Obadiah, on the same ground, having declared God's sentence on Edom, describes how each portion of the people of God should be enlarged and overspread beyond itself.

While thus alluding to the words of Amos, Obadiah further embodies an expression of Balaam, to which Amos also refers. Balaam says, "Edom shall be an heritage (ירשׁה yerûshshâh), Seir also shall be an heritage to his enemies; and Jacob shall do valiantly; and one out of Jacob shall have dominion, and shall destroy the remnant (שׂריד s'ârı̂yd) out of the city." The union of these two declarations of Balaam (one only of which had been employed by Amos) cannot be accidental. They lie in the two adjacent verses in each. "The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble, and they shall burn them, and devour them; and there shall be no remnant (שׂריד s'ârı̂yd) to the house of Esau, for the Lord hath spoken it; and the south shall inherit (ירשׁ yârash) the mount of Esau." In the fourth verse, also, Obadiah has an idiom from the prophecy of Balaam, which occurs nowhere besides; "strong is thy dwelling, and place (קנך ושׂים ves'ı̂ym qı̂nekâ) in the rock thy nest" This infinitive here is a very vivid but anomalous construction. It cannot be by accident, that this idiom occurs in these two places alone in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This employment of prophetic language of earlier prophets is the more remarkable, from the originality and freshness of Obadiah's own diction. In his 21 verses he has several words which occur nowhere else . They are mostly simple words and inflections of words in use. Still they were probably framed by the prophet himself. One, who himself adds to the store of words in a language, has no occasion to borrow them of another. Obadiah adopts that other prophetic language, not as needing it to express his own meaning, but in order to give to it a fresh force and bearing.

But on the same ground, on which Obadiah employs the language of prophets who lived before him, he would have used the words of later prophets, had he lived later.

The framing of single words or forms is the least part of the originality of Obadiah's style. Vividness, connectedness, power, are characteristics of it. As it begins, so it continues and ends. It has no breaks, nor interruptions. Thought follows on thought, as wave rolls upon wave, but all marshalled to one end, marching on, column after column to the goal which God hath appointed for them. Each verse grows out of that which was before it, and carries on its thought. The cadence of the words in the original is a singular blending of pathos and strength. The pathos of the cadence consists in a somewhat long sustained measure, in which the prophet dwells on the one thought which he wishes to impress; the force, in the few brief words in which he sums up some sentence. That lengthened flow will have struck even an English reader; the conciseness can only be seen in Hebrew. Those 5 words, "how are Esau outsearched! out-sought his secret places!" have been already alluded to.

Other such instances are, בוא תבונה אין 'ayin tebûnâh bô' with which Obadiah 1:7. closes; מהם אחד אתה גם gam 'attâh' echâd mēhem, "thou too as one of them," Obadiah 1:11; עשׂה אשׁר 'ăsher ‛âs'âh, לך יעשׂה yē‛âs'âh lâk after the long exhortation in Obadiah 1:12-14. or the 3 words היוּ כלו והיוּ vehâyâh kelô' לו lô hâyû, which close the description in Obadiah 1:16-17. or those three which so wonderfully sum up the whole prophecy, המלוּכה אדני והיתה vehâyethâh 'ădonāy hammelûkâh, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's." Even the repetition which occurs in the prophet, adds to the same effect, as in the two brief words, נכרי ביום beyôm nokrı̂y, אבד ביום beyôm 'âbad, זרה ביום beyôm zârâh, אידם ביום beyôm 'ēydâm, אידוּ ביום beyôm 'ēydô, Obadiah 1:12-13, with which he closes each clause of the exhortation against malicious joy in the calamity of their brother. The characteristic, vivid detail in description, and, in the midst of it, great conciseness without sameness, occurs throughout Obadiah.

It would then be the more strange, that a prophecy so brief and so connected as that of Obadiah should have been severed into two (one part of which is to belong to some earlier prophet, the other is to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem), but that the motive of this disruption of the prophecy is apparent. "The oracle on Edom preserved under the name of Obadiah can," says one , "in its present form, be of no earlier date than the Babylonian captivity. The destruction and entire desolation of Jerusalem is here described; the prophet himself wrote among the exiles." It cannot be of any earlier date, according to this writer, because, in his belief, there cannot be any certain prediction of details of the future, or any knowledge of that future, beyond those dim anticipations which man's own conscience and the survey of God's ordinary providence may suggest; a cannot, which presupposes another cannot, that God cannot reveal Himself to His creatures.

But then this writer also could not altogether escape the impression, that great part of this prophecy must belong to a period long before the captivity. The only way of reconciling these contradictions, this must of external evidence, and this cannot of antidoctrinal prejudice, was to divide in two this living whole, and to assign to the earlier period such portions relating to Edom, as contained no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem. This then is done. "Further investigation," the writer proceeds, "shows, that the later prophet employed a fragment of an earlier prophet as to Edom. More than half of what is now extant, i. e., Obadiah 1:1-10, half of Obadiah 1:17, and Obadiah 1:18, by their contents, language, and coloring, indicate very clearly such an earlier prophet; and moreover, about the same time Jeremiah employed the earlier fragment, in that very much out of Obadiah 1:1-9 recurs in Jeremiah, but nothing of the words which belong most visibly to the later prophet, Obadiah 1:11-16, Obadiah 1:19-21."

1. Now, plainly, since Jeremiah is not here to tell us, why he did incorporate in his prophecy certain verses, and did not refer to certain other verses of Obabiah, it is, in the last degree, rash to make a positive inference from the mere fact of his not employing those verses, that he had them not to employ. He does embody in his prophecy the five first verses of Obadiah, and there the correspondence between the two prophets almost ceases. The "thought" of Obadiah 1:6, but not one word of it recurs in Jeremiah to Obadiah 1:7; there is no allusion whatever; of Obadiah 1:8, again, the thought is retained, but only "one word," and that, in a form altogether different . This eighth verse is the last in Obadiah, to which Jeremiah refers. Ewald then has to manufacture his "earlier prophet" out of those five first verses, which Jeremiah does embody; of other two, of which the thought only recurs in Jeremiah; and five more , to which there is, in Jeremiah, no allusion whatever; and having culled these ad libitum out of the whole chapter, he argues against the non-existence of the rest on the ground that Jeremiah does not employ them, whereas Jeremiah equally does not employ five of those, the existence of which at that same time Ewald acknowledges, and to two others Jeremiah alludes but very distantly. Since Jeremiah's not alluding to five of these verses, does not prove, according to Ewald, that they did not then exist, neither does his not employing the remainder prove it as to them.

2. Jeremiah assigns no ground for the punishment of Edom, except his pride; nor does he, in any of those prophecies as to those lesser nations, foretell anything as to the future of Judah. This was not assigned to him, as his subject here. He does in the prophecies against Egypt and Babylon; for those were the great dynasties, on whom, in human eyes, the existence of Judah depended. There he fortells, that God would "make a full end of all the nations whither" He had "driven" them, but not "of Jacob" His "servant" . The future lot of Judah, as a whole, did not depend on those little nations. It may be on this ground, that Jeremiah foretells "their" destruction and the restoration of Moab and Ammon , and is silent as to Judah. Again, the immediate punishment of all these petty nations through Nebuchadnezzar was the subject of Jeremiah's prophecy, not ulterior suffering at the hands of Judah. Now these subjects, the "violence" of Esau against his "brother Jacob," as the ground of Edom's punishment . In Obadiah 1:15-16 Obadiah, having rehearsed the offence, repeats the sentence), the future enlargement of Jacob , and an ulterior retribution on Edom through Judah, occupy most of those verses of Obadiah, to which there is no allusion in Jeremiah. This accounts (if there were any need to account for it) for the absence of allusion to almost all of Obadiah to which Jeremiah does not allude, both as to the part which Ewald accounts for in "his" way, and as to most of that part which he leaves unaccounted for.

But altogether, it must be said, that God's prophets employ freely, as God taught them, what they do employ of the former prophets. They do not copy them in a mechanical way, as if they were simply re-writing a work which lay before them, so that we should have to account for anything which they did not think good to repeat. In making the similar use of Isaiah's prophecy as to Moab, Jeremiah makes no reference to the five first verses.

3. So, far from "writing among the exiles," Obadiah implies that the captivity had not yet commenced. He speaks of Judah and Benjamin, as in their own land, and foretells that they shall enlarge themselves on all sides. Hosea and Amos had, at that time, prophesied the final destruction of the "kingdom" of Israel and the dispersion of the ten tribes. In conformity with this, Obadiah foretells to the two tribes, that they should occupy the vacated places of the land of promise. In contrast with this enlargement of Judah and Benjamin, he speaks of those already in captivity, and prophesies their restoration. He speaks of two bodies of present exiles, "the captivity of "this" host of the children of Israel," "the captivity of Jerusalem which is at Sepharad." Of these he probably says , "The captivity of this host of the children of Israel which are among the Canaanites as far as Zarephath, and the captivity of Jerusalem which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the South." Both these sets of captives must have been limited in number.

Those of "Jerusalem at Sepharad" or Sardis the capital of the Lydian empire, could only have been such as were exported by means of the slave trade.

The only public settlement of Jews there, was in times long subsequent, about 200 b.c., when Antiochus the Great, in order to check the seditions in Lydia and Phrygia , "removed thither at much cost 2,000 Jewish families out of Mesopotamia and Babylonia, with their goods," on account of their tried faithfulness and zealous service to his forefathers. This removal, accompanied with grants of land, exemption from tribute for 10 years, personal and religious protection, "was" a continuation of the commenced "dispersion;" it was not a "captivity." They were the descendants of those who might have returned to their country, if they would. They were in the enjoyment of all the temporal benefits, for which their forefathers had bartered their portion in their own land. There was nothing special as to why they should be singled out as the objects of God's promise. Jews were then dispersing everywhere, to be the future disciples or persecutors of the Gospel in all lands. Seleucus Nicator, a century before, had found Jews in Asia and Lower Syria, and had given them like privileges with the Macedonians and Greeks whom he settled there. Jews had shared his wars. Alexander had, at Alexandria, bestowed like privileges on the Egyptian Jews In such times, then, there was no "captivity at Sepharad;" no Lydian empire; nothing to distinguish the Jews there, from any others who remained willingly expatriated.

On the other side, the place which the prophet assigns to those captives on their return is but a portion of Judah, "the cities of the South," which he does not represent as unpopulated. In like way, whether the words as to Israel are rendered, "which are" among "the Canaanites as far as Zarephath," or, "shall" possess "the Canaanites as far as Zarephath," in either case the prophet must be speaking of a very limited number. Had he been speaking in reference to the ten tribes or their restoration, he would not have assigned their territory, "Ephraim, Samaria, Gilead," to the two tribes, nor would he have assigned to them so small a tract. This limited number of captives exactly agrees with the state of things, supposing Obadiah to have lived, when, according to his place in the Canon, he did live, near the time of Joel. For Joel denounces God's judgments on Tyre, Zidon and Philistia for selling unto the Grecians the children of Judah and Jerusalem. These captives, of whom Obadiah speaks, were some probably yet unsold, at Sarepta, and some at Sepharad or Sardis among the Grecians. On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Obadiah would have contrasted the present captivity, "this captivity of the children of Israel," "the captivity of Jerusalem which is in Sepharad," with Judah and Benjamin in their ancient possessions, had Judah and Benjamin been, when he wrote, themselves in captivity in Babylon, or that he would have prophesied concerning some little fragment of Israel, that it should he restored, and would have passed over the whole body of the ten tribes, if, when he prophesied, it had been in captivity. Nor is there again any likelihood, that by "this captivity of Jerusalem in Sepharad," Obadiah means any captives, among whom he himself was (which is the whole ground-work of this theory of Ewald), for, in that case, he would probably have addressed the consolation and the promise of return TO them (as do the other prophets) and not have spoken OF them only.

A few years hence, and this theory will be among the things which have been. The connection of thought in Obadiah is too close, the characteristics of his style occur too uniformly throughout his brief prophecy, to admit of its being thus dislocated. Nowhere, throughout his prophecy, can one word or form be alleged, of which it can even be said, that it was used more frequently in later Hebrew. All is one original, uniform, united whole.

"Obadiah," says Hugh of S. Victor, "is simple in language, manifold in meaning; few in words, abundant in thoughts, according to that, 'the wise man is known by the fewness of his words.' He directeth his prophecy, according to the letter, against Edom; allegorically, he inveighs against the world; morally, against the flesh. Bearing an image of the Saviour, he hinteth at his coming through whom the world is destroyed, through whom the flesh is subdued, through whom freedom is restored." "Among all the prophets," says another , "he is the briefest in number of words; in the grace of mysteries he is their equal."

God is here represented as summoning the nations against Edom, and declaring that his strongholds should not save him, Obadiah 1:14; that not a remnant, not a gleaning, should be left of him, Obadiah 1:5; that the enemy would search out his people, and totally subdue them; and that none of their allies should stand by them, Obadiah 1:6-9. He then enlarges on their particular offense, and threatens them with a speedy recompense, Obadiah 1:10-16. The Babylonians accordingly subdued the Edomites, and expelled them from Arabia Petraea, of which they never afterwards recovered possession. The remaining verses contain a prophecy of the restoration of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and of their victory over all their enemies, Obadiah 1:17-21. Some commentators think that these last verses were fulfilled by the conquests of the Maccabees over the Edomites. See 1 Maccabees 5:3-5, 65, etc.

Who was this prophet? where born? of what country? at what time did he prophesy? who were his parents? when and where did he die? are questions which have been asked from the remotest antiquity; and which, to this day, have received no answer worthy of recording. There is a multitude of opinions concerning these points; and their multitude and discrepancy are the strongest proofs of their uncertainty. All that seems probable is, that, as he prophesied concerning the destruction of Edom, he flourished a little before, or a little after, the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which happened about five hundred and eighty-eight years before Christ; and the destruction of Idumea by the same monarch, which took place a short time after; probably between 588 b.c. and 575 b.c., in the interval of the thirteen years which Nebuchadnezzar employed in the siege of Tyre, which he undertook immediately after the capture of Jerusalem.

Obadiah foretells the subduction of the Idumeans by the Chaldeans, and finally by the Jews, whom they had used most cruelly when brought low by other enemies. These prophecies have been literally fulfilled for the Idumeans, as a nation, are totally extinct.

Whoever will be at the trouble to collate this short prophecy with the forty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah, will find a remarkable similarity, not only in the sentiments and words, but also in whole verses. In the above chapter Jeremiah predicts the destruction of the Idumeans. Whether he copied Obadiah, or Obadiah copied him, cannot be determined; but it would be very strange if two prophets, unacquainted with each other, should speak of the same event precisely in the same terms. See the parallel texts, and the notes on Jeremiah 49:1 (note), etc.

INTRODUCTION TO OBADIAH

The title of this Book, in the Hebrew copies, is usually "Sepher Obadiah", the Book of Obadiah: the Vulgate Latin version calls it the Prophecy of Obadiah; and so the Arabic version: and in the Syriac version it is, the Prophecy of the Prophet Obadiah. His name signifies a "servant" or "worshipper of the Lord". Who he was, what his parentage, and in what age he lived, are things uncertain. The Seder Olam Zuta (a) places him in the reign of Jehoshaphat: and he is thought by some to be that Obadiah that was one of the princes he sent to teach the people, 2 Chronicles 17:7. The ancient Jewish Rabbins take him to be the same with him that lived in the times of Ahab, and in his court, who hid the prophets by fifty in a cave, and fed them, 1 Kings 18:3; to which Aben Ezra objects, because he is not called a prophet, only one that feared the Lord; whereas to be a prophet is something greater. They also say he was an Edomite by birth, but was proselyted to the Jewish religion, and so a fit person to be employed in prophesying against Edom; and it is a tradition with them that his widow is the woman whose cruse of oil Elisha multiplied, 2 Kings 4:1. Some have been of opinion that he was the captain of the third fifty, whose life Elijah spared in the times of Ahaziah; and who upon that left the king's service, and followed the prophet, and became a disciple of his; so Pseudo-Epiphanius (b), and Isidorus Hispalensis (c), who say that he was of Sychem, a city of Samaria, and of the field of Bethachamar, or Bethaccaron. Others would have him to be one of the overseers of the workmen in the house of the Lord, in the times of Josiah, 2 Chronicles 34:12; to which Mr. Lively (d) inclines; though others, going according to the order of the books in the canon of Scripture, which is not to be depended on, place him earlier, and make him contemporary with Hosea, Joel, and Amos, as Grotius (e), Huetius (f), and Lightfoot (g): but he seems rather to be contemporary with Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with whose prophecies this agrees, as may be observed by comparing it with Jeremiah 49:1; and to have lived and prophesied after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans; in which the Edomites, against whom he prophesies, had a concern; see Obadiah 1:11; though Dr. Lightfoot thinks these prophecies refer either to the sacking of Jerusalem by Shishak king of Egypt, 1 Kings 14:25; or by the Philistines and Arabians, 2 Chronicles 21:16; or by Joash king of Israel, 2 Chronicles 25:21; so that, upon the whole, it is not certain; and, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi own, it is not known in what age this prophet lived: Bishop Usher (h) places his prophecy in the twelfth year of Jeconiah's captivity. However, there is no doubt to be made of the authenticity of the prophecy; as may be concluded, not only from the title of it, and the solemn manner in which it begins; but from the matter of it, and the accomplishment of what is contained in it; as well as from the testimony borne to it in the New Testament, in which not only the book of the minor prophets, in which this stands, is quoted, Acts 7:42; but a passage in it, Obadiah 1:8; is referred to in 1 Corinthians 1:19; as is thought by some learned men. I have only to observe, that, according to Pseudo-Epiphanius (i), he died in Bethachamar, where he is said to be born, and was buried in the sepulchre of his ancestors; but, according to Jerom (k) and Isidore (l), his sepulchre is in Sebaste or Samaria; which remained to the times of Jerom, near those of the Prophet Elisha and John the Baptist. Monsieur Thevenot (m) says that John Baptist here lies buried between the Prophets Elisha and Abdias.

(a) P. 103. (b) De Prophet. Vid. c. 15. (c) De Vita & Mort. Sanct. c, 44. (d) In loc. (e) In loc. (f) Demonstrat. Evangel. Prop. 4. p. 290. (g) Works, vol. 1. p. 96. (h) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3417 or 587 B.C. (i) Ut supra. (De Prophet. Vid. c. 15.) (k) Comment. in loc. & in Epitaph. Paulae, fol. 59. M. (l) Ut supra. (De Vita & Mort. Sanct. c, 44.) (m) Travels, par. 1. B. 1. ch. 56. p. 216.

INTRODUCTION TO Obadiah 1

This prophecy of Obadiah is the least of the minor prophets, consisting but of one chapter; the subject of it is Edom, whose destruction is foretold, and is to be considered as a type of the enemies of Christ and his kingdom, and especially of the Roman antichrist. After the preface, the rumour of war, and preparation for it, which would issue in the ruin of Edom, are observed, Obadiah 1:1; because of their pride, confidence, and security, Obadiah 1:3; which should be complete and entire, Obadiah 1:5; notwithstanding their allies, who would deceive them; and the wisdom of their wise men, which should be destroyed; and the strength of their mighty men, who would be dismayed, Obadiah 1:7; and this should come upon them, chiefly because of their ill usage of the Jews at the time of Jerusalem's destruction, which is enlarged upon, Obadiah 1:10; and this would be when all the nations round about them would be destroyed, Obadiah 1:15; and then deliverance is promised to the Jews, who should not only enjoy their own possessions, but the land of the Edomites, wasted by them, Obadiah 1:17; and the book is concluded with a glorious prophecy of the kingdom of the Messiah, Obadiah 1:21.

OBADIAH.

Obadiah

BY

THE REV. ARCHDEACON AGLEN, M.A.

INTRODUCTION

TO

OBADIAH.

NOTHING whatever is known of the author of the shortest of all the prophetical books except his name. Obadiah, or, in its older and longer form, Obadiahu, means servant of Jehovah, and seems to have been as common among the Hebrews as Abdallah, a name of kindred formation and meaning, is to-day among the Arabs, for as many as twelve Scriptural persons bear it. The LXX. represent the name by Ἀβδίας or Ὀβδίας, the Vulgate by Abdias, Obdias, or Obedia. The prophet has been variously identified with Ahab’s famous officer (1Kings 18:3), with the Obadiah, Prince of Judah, whom Jehoshaphat sent with Zechariah, Micaiah. and others to teach in the cities of his kingdom (2Chronicles 17:7); with the son of Merari, a Levite, noted for his skill in music (2Chronicles 34:12); with the son of the Shunamite restored to life by Elisha; with the third of the captains sent by Ahaziah to capture Elijah. There is not a shadow of foundation for any one of these guesses, and the patristic tradition assigning him to the tribe of Ephraim, and fixing his abode at Bethachamar (or Bethacaram), in Shechemite territory, is as mythical as his grave pointed out in later times at Sebaste, by the side of those of Elisha and John the Baptist.

The only external guidance of any kind towards fixing even approximately the date of this prophecy is its place in the canon. An attempt at chronological order evidently directed the arrangement of the minor prophets. The discussion of the internal evidence for date and authorship offers a complicated problem, which will be better reserved for an Excursus. With this question must be reserved that of the immediate circumstances arising out of the relations of Israel and Edom, to which the book primarily refers, since it is so closely bound up with it; but the general purport of the prophecy is independent of these.

The long feud between the brother tribes of the Beni-Israel and the descendants of Esau, which began at the birth of the twin ancestors, and continued with varied fortunes down to the extinction of both as distinct nationalities, forms the subject of Obadiah’s vision. It is remarkable how large and complete a view we should have into the relations of the two tribes, even if this were the only extant record of them. Not only the close ancestral relationship and the bitterness of the rivalries that had so early divided Edom and Israel, but even the very nature of the desultory and protracted warfare that they waged, the tactics of the wild but wily sons of the desert, the caution with which they moved, the attitude of watchful neutrality they assumed when it suited them, and the skill with which they seized on the moment of Israel’s weakness, come clearly into view. We seem even to see the very gestures of the fierce hillmen, and to hear their words of scorn and derision (Obadiah 1:12-13). Their cunning diplomacy, overreaching itself, as is so generally the case (Obadiah 1:7), and their treachery, the more formidable because of the sagacity for which the tribes of Western Arabia were renowned (Obadiah 1:14; Obadiah 1:8-9), as well as the unrelenting spirit in which they pursued their object, and the rapacity which followed their victories, are all touched most vividly, though in single words. We are taken also into the mountain home of these warriors, and see them in their rock-hewn dwellings, perched like vultures on their inaccessible cliffs, vaunting their security, their wisdom, and their might (Obadiah 1:3-4).

But this graphic picture of the most virulent of all Israel’s foes is not presented in the mere spirit of an enemy and a rival. There was a higher purpose controlling the vision of Obadiah, and in this we see the true motive and power of prophecy, that far-stretching, lasting light, by which men behold more than the petty scene around them, a light which spreads over centuries of thought and over the life of nations. He speaks, indeed, exultingly of the destined overthrow of an enemy so bitter; but even in his exultation there is a tone of regret and sadness (see Obadiah 1:5, Note), equally suggestive, whether it be a touch of the far-off sense of brotherhood with Esau, or a hint of the Divine pity for the sinful and fallen, afterwards to shine forth in the Gospel. Compared with other oracles against Edom, this one bearing Obadiah’s name is singularly free from the spirit of unrestrained revenge (compare Obadiah with Isaiah 34:5, seq., Isaiah 62:1-6; Psalm 137:7-9). This undercurrent of regretful tenderness has led some commentators to conjecture that the author was himself an Idumæan. but we need no such conjecture. Occupied with larger interests than those of the immediate present, with his prospect widened beyond the horizon of Edom or Israel, though he addressed himself to the children of Jacob and Esau, and pronounced their doom, and consoled the nation they had injured with the promise of deliverance and restoration, the seer was able to rise above mere exultation in present triumph to the thought of the far grander course of events, in which the present fortunes of his own people and their enemies formed only an episode. It is not on Edom only that the Divine justice will assert itself, not for the salvation of Israel alone that the Divine mercy will be displayed. The “Day of the Lord” is seen to be near upon all the heathen, and in the magnificent utterance which concludes the short prophecy, “the kingdom shall be Jehovah’s,” we catch the promise of a large and far-off Divine event, and recognise the higher purpose by which the Hebrew prophets were gifted to look through the present into the future, from the needs of Israel to those of a world not yet born.

This promise of a widespread dominion has made the Book of Obadiah a favourite study with the Jews. “They read in his words the certainty, not merely of restoration to their own land, and the extension of their dominion over Idumæa and Philistia (see Obadiah 1:19), but of the downfall of Christianity, and the conquest by themselves of France and Spain. Naturally we ask for the explanation of so extraordinary an interpretation, and we find that it is a settled principle with the Rabbins that Edom is Rome, and the Edomites all Christians whatsoever. For reasons which will scarcely bear the test of criticism, they believe that Janus, the first King of Latium, was Esau’s grandson, and that the Latins were not Trojans, but Idumæans. To the same stock they refer all the early Christians, as if the apostles and first disciples were not Jews, but Edomites; and affirm that when Constantino made the Roman Empire embrace Christianity, it became Idumæan” (Bible Educator iv. 107). Accepting this as an established principle, the Jews very easily arrive at. the startling conclusions mentioned in the Notes (Obadiah 1:20-21).

The book divides naturally into three parts: 1, The general announcement of the pride which has prepared for Edom the retributive justice of God (Obadiah 1:1-9); 2, Enumeration of the practices of Edom against the brother tribe, and repetition of the doom about to fall (Obadiah 1:10-15); 3, The forecast of future salvation and glory for Zion, in which, though there is no mention of the Messiah, there breathes the same hope which no earthly grandeur could ever have satisfied, and which waits even yet for its entire fulfilment (Obadiah 1:17-21).

It is to be remarked that Obadiah uses many words or forms of word peculiar to himself, so that even this short writing gives him an individuality. The style is vigorous, and there is one image (Obadiah 1:4) of almost startling boldness, but the parallelism is too defective to allow the work to be classed with the poetical books. As a defect in style, the preponderance of interrogations may be noticed.

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO OBADIAH.

ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK.

OBADIAH has been placed as early as the beginning of the ninth century, antecedent to the prophet Joel, and by one commentator at least—Eichorn—has been brought down as late as the first century before Christ. The data for determining the problem are:—

1. The identification of the siege and capture of Jerusalem, mentioned in Obadiah 1:11, with some one known historical event.

2. The recurrence, in an altered order and form, of certain verses of this prophecy in Jeremiah 49

3. A comparison of Obadiah with other oracles concerning Edom.

4. There is no question that Obadiah 1:11 records a conquest of Jerusalem, which had already taken place. It is true that in Obadiah 1:13-14 the margin, “do not behold,” is the correct translation, and not “thou shouldest not” of the Authorised Version. But the tone of this warning makes it evident that the particular practices referred to are enumerated as being such as had been employed by Edom before, such as were customary whenever occasion offered. Obadiah 1:11—“In the day of thy standing over against, in the day of taking away strangers his forces (or substance), and foreigners entered his gates, and over Jerusalem cast lots, thou too as one of them “—is too general and indefinite to enable us to identify it with certainty with any one of the seven captures of Jerusalem mentioned in the Old Testament. But some of these we can eliminate. The capture by the Egyptian King Shishak in the reign of Rehoboam is excluded by the fact that at that time Edom was subject to Judah. Obadiah cannot be referring to the civil war between Joash and Amaziah, because he expressly calls the enemy that captured Jerusalem foreigners.

There remain—(1) The capture by the Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Jehoram (related in 2Chronicles 21:16-17); (2) by the Chaldæans in the reign of Jehoiakim (2Kings 24:1, seqq.; 2Chronicles 36:6-7); (3) the second capture by Nebuchadnezzar when Jehoiachin was taken prisoner (2Kings 24:10, seqq.; 2Chronicles 36:10); and (4) the final and decisive siege, which ended in the destruction of the city and general captivity.

There is much to favour the view that our prophet refers to the first of these. We know that Edom revolted from Judah during Jehoram’s reign, and though that monarch was able partially to recover his authority, it was never completely recovered. The Arabians mentioned as allied with the Philistines in a raid on his territories may have included the Petræan Arabs. From the account in Chronicles we learn that these marauders burst into the land, forced their way into Jerusalem, plundered the royal palace, and carried away the children and wives of the king, so that only the youngest son was left behind. If, as seems probable from the remarkable coincidence of language between this passage and Obadiah 1:10-17, Joel 3:3; Joel 3:5-6, they refer to the same events, numbers of the people also were made prisoners, and sold as slaves. On the other hand, the state of things indicated in Obadiah seems to demand a captivity on a much larger scale than even this. The concluding part of the chapter seems to refer to a catastrophe far more wide in its extent than the expedition in Jehoram’s reign. The re-settlement of the captives in their old possessions, and overflow of them into the conquered territory of Edom, points to a previous dispersion on a grand scale.

Altogether, it must be left as impossible to decide from this datum to which of the captures of Jerusalem the prophet refers. That he had some comparatively recent event in his mind is clear, not only from the general tone of the language, but also from the probable inference, from Obadiah 1:20, that he was himself among the captives. (See Note.) At the same time, from Amos 9:11-13 we see that he wrote with the fear of a repetition of Edom’s well-known practices in his mind. On the whole, from this doubtful historical reference alone, we incline to the opinion that our prophet’s is a voice raised during the early years of the exile, when the memory of Edom’s unbrotherly alliance with the Chaldæans was still strong and bitter, although the sight of them enjoying the fruits of their conduct in the lands of Judah had not destroyed prophetic hope, nor weakened the belief, which older oracles had pronounced, of a swift and terrible vengeance on this hated people.

2. If the relation between Jeremiah and Obadiah could be satisfactorily ascertained, the question of the date of the latter would be settled. The forty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah contains an oracle about Edom, in which the earlier part of Obadiah’s prophecy is embodied. Out of the sixteen verses of which it is composed, four are identical in language with verses from Obadiah (Jeremiah 49:9; Jeremiah 49:14-16 correspond with Obadiah 1:5, Obadiah 1:1, Obadiah 1:2, Obadiah 1:3). A fifth embodies the substance of a verse (comp. Jeremiah 49:10 with Obadiah 1:6). In two other verses respectively of the two prophets the same thought appears (Jeremiah 49:7 and Obadiah 1:8); while the image in Jeremiah 49:12 is that of Obadiah 1:16. Add to this that the title which Jeremiah prefixes to his oracle—“concerning Edom, thus saith the Lord of hosts “—appears in a slightly changed form in Obadiah, after the proper heading—“vision of Obadiah”—in such a way as to confuse the construction (see Note). Now, of these two passages Obadiah’s has undoubtedly the appearance of being the original in form. It is almost inconceivable that a copyist should have culled here and there a sentence from a longer work, and woven them into a connected and harmonious whole like Obadiah 1:1-6. It was also so much in Jeremiah’s manner to incorporate and use, for his own immediate purpose, oracles about foreign nations which he found in older works (comp. Jeremiah 48 passim, with Isaiah 14, 15, 16; Jeremiah 49:1-6 with Amos 1:13; Amos 1:15; Jeremiah 1. with Isaiah 12, &c.) that we should suspect him to be the borrower in this instance. The passage in Obadiah, moreover, reads as the more ancient of the two. It is the more concise and abrupt, is rugged in comparison, and less polished, as we should expect in an older copy, has an irregular grammatical form where Jeremiah substitutes a regular (shalluach, Jeremiah 49:14, for Obadiah’s shullach, Amos 9:1), does not attempt an easy flow of verse or careful parallelism, and preserves an image which is among the boldest of even Hebrew poetry, and which is omitted in Jeremiah, though the omission makes the construction faulty, “Though thou exalt as the eagle, and among stars set thy nest, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.” Jeremiah omits the italicised words, and so loses the direct antecedent to thence.”

These considerations lead to the conclusion that Obadiah did not copy from Jeremiah. The first part of the prophecy bearing his name must have been in existence before the date of Jeremiah’s forty-ninth chapter; but it does not follow that the whole, as it now exists, had. been written at that time. A later hand may have incorporated the earlier vision of Obadiah with fresh matter of his own; and there are indications that such was the case, besides the fact that the verses identical with those of Jeremiah are confined to the first portion of the book, viz., Obadiah 1:1-9. There is a correspondence between the latter parts and Joel—not so close as that of the first part and Jeremiah, not extending to whole verses, but confined to phrases and expressions—but still a correspondence so close and striking, especially considering the very small limits in which the similarities occur, as to warrant the conclusion of a dependence of one writer on the other. The originality of Joel will hardly be disputed. We are therefore brought to infer that the writer who left the Book of Obadiah in its present shape took the ancient oracle against Edom, of which Jeremiah also availed himself, for the first half of his work, and in what he added was indebted greatly to Joel. This hypothesis accepted brings the composition of the work as we have it within the exile period, but leaves it quite uncertain to what date in that period to assign it. The concluding words of the prophecy are an echo of Zechariah 14:9 (see Note), or at least belong to the same period.

But the question remains whether Obadiah was the name of this later editor, or whether it was the name of the older seer whose oracle he incorporated. The inscription leads to the second of these two conclusions. There is no reason to doubt that the first title, “vision of Obadiah,” belongs to the older part; the second heading, “Thus saith,” &c., which as it stands does not harmonise with the first, may have been inserted by some copyist to bring this oracle into similarity with the circle of oracles against foreign nations in Jeremiah, where the recognised introduction is of this form.

3. The time to which we have assigned our prophecy brings it within the circle of well-known prophecies about Edom: viz., Ezekiel 25:12-14; Ezekiel 35:1-15; Isaiah 34, Isaiah 63:1-6; Psalm 137:7-9; Lamentations 4:21-22; Ezekiel 32:29; Ezekiel 36:5.

It has been noticed that the tone of Obadiah is not so fierce and vindictive as these. It is, however, quite in accordance with their general feeling. We should like to know more of this writer, who, commissioned with only one short message against one of Israel’s foes, delivered it with such incisive force, yet such moderation and self-restraint. We only know that, like him whose words he adapted to his own use, he too deserves the name “servant of Jehovah.”

Ob 1-21.

DOOM OF EDOM FOR CRUELTY TO JUDAH, EDOM'S BROTHER; RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.

1. Obadiah--that is, servant of Jehovah; same as Abdeel and Arabic Abd-allah.

We--I and my people.

heard--

(Isa 21:10).

and an ambassador is sent--Yea, an ambassador is already sent, namely, an angel, to stir up the Assyrians (and afterwards the Chaldeans) against Edom. The result of the ambassador's message on the heathen is, they simultaneously exclaim, "Arise ye, and let us (with united strength) rise," &c.

Jer 49:14

quotes this.

The vision of Obadiah - , i. e., of "the worshiper of God." The prophet would be known only by that which his name imports, that he worshiped God. He tells us in this double title, through whom the prophecy came, and from whom it came. His name authenticated the prophecy to the Jewish Church. Thenceforth, he chose to remain wholly hidden. He entitles it "a vision," as the prophets were called "seers" 1 Samuel 9:9, although he relates, not the vision which he saw, but its substance and meaning. Probably the future was unfolded to him in the form of sights spread out before his mind, of which he spoke in words given to him by God. His language consists of a succession of pictures, which he may have seen, and, in his picture language, described . "As prophecy is called "the word," because God spoke to the prophets within, so it is called "vision," because the prophet saw, with the eyes of the mind and by the light wherewith they are illumined, what God willeth to be known to them." The name expresses also the certainty of their knowledge . "Among the organs of our senses, sight has the most evident knowledge of those things which are the object of our senses. Hence, the contemplation of the things which are true is called "vision," on account of the evidence and assured certainty. On that ground the prophet was called "seer."

Thus saith the Lord God concerning Edom - This second title states, that the whole which follows is from God. What immediately follows is said in Obadiah's own person; but all, whether so spoken or directly in the Person of God, was alike the word of God. God spake in or by the prophets, in both ways, since 2 Peter 1:21 "prophecy came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake" as they were "moved by the Holy Spirit." Obadiah, in that he uses, in regard to his whole prophecy, words which other prophets use in delivering a direct message from God, ascribes the whole of his prophecy to God, as immediately as other prophets did any words which God commanded them to speak. The words are a rule for all prophecy, that all comes directly from God.

We have heard a rumor - , rather, "a report;" literally "a hearing, a thing heard," as Isaiah says Isaiah 53:1, "Who hath believed our report? A "report" is certain or uncertain, according to the authority from whom it comes. This "report" was certainly true, since it was "from the Lord." By the plural, we, Obadiah may have associated with himself, either other prophets of his own day as Joel and Amos, who, with those yet earlier, as Balaam and David, had prophesied against Edom, or the people, for whose sakes God made it known to him. In either case, the prophet does not stand alone for himself. He hears with "the goodly company of the prophets;" and the people of God hear in him, as Isaiah says again Isaiah 21:10, "that which I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you."

And an ambassador is sent among the pagan - The "ambassador" is any agent, visible or invisible, sent by God. Human powers, who wish to stir up war, send human messengers. All things stand at God's command, and whatever or whomsoever He employs, is a messenger from Him. He uses our language to us. He may have employed an angel, as He says Psalm 78:49, "He sent evil angels among them," and as, through the permission given to a lying spirit 1 Kings 22:21-23. He executed His judgments upon Ahab, of his own free will believing the evil spirit, and disbelieving Himself. So Judges 9:23 "God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem," allowing His rebellious spirit to bring about the punishment of evil men, by inflaming yet more the evil passions, of which they were slaves. Evil spirits, in their malice and rebellion, while stirring up the lust of conquest, are still God's messengers, in that He overrules them; as, to Paul 2 Corinthians 12:7, "the thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him," was still the gift of God. "It was given me," he says.

Arise ye and let us rise - He who rouseth them, says, "Arise ye," and they quickly echo the words, "and let us arise." The will of God is fulfilled at once. While eager to accomplish their own ends, they fulfill, the more, the purpose of God. Whether, the first agent is man's own passions, or the evil spirit who stirs them, the impulse spreads from the one or the few to the many. But all catch the spark, cast in among them. The summons finds a ready response. "Arise," is the commend of God, however given; "let us arise," is the eager response of man's avarice or pride or ambition, fulfilling impetuously the secret will of God; as a tiger, let loose upon man by man, fulfills the will of its owner, while sating its own thirst for blood. So Isaiah hears Isaiah 13:4 "the noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people, a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together." The Medes and Persians thought at that time of nothing less, than that they were instruments of the One God, whom they knew not. But Isaiah continues; "The Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle;" and, when it was fulfilled, Cyrus saw and owned it Ezra 1:1-2.