圣经注释书

本书完全论及以东。以东是一个与以色列血缘相近、疆域毗邻的民族，却作了雅各后裔的仇敌，承袭了他们先祖以扫对雅各的仇恨。如今，在引言之后（俄一1），我们在此读到：一、对以东的恐吓之言。1. 他们的骄傲必被挫败（俄一2-4）。2. 他们的财富必被掳掠（俄一5-7）。3. 他们的智慧必变为愚拙（俄一8、9）。4. 他们恶待神的以色列必遭报应（俄一10-16）。二、对以色列的恩慈应许：他们必得复兴、得归正，必胜过以东人，得着以东之地以及邻近列邦之地（俄一17-20）；又借着伟大救恩的临到，弥赛亚的国度必得建立（俄一21）。

引言

这是旧约中最短的一卷书。其名意为"耶和华的仆人"。按照希伯来正典的编排，俄巴底亚位列小先知书第四，按照希腊文编排则位列第五。有人认为他就是公元前627年约西亚时代监督圣殿修复工程的那位俄巴底亚。

（代下 34:12）。

然而

俄 11-16, 20

暗示此时耶路撒冷已被迦勒底人倾覆，他所指的正是那时以东对犹大人所施的残暴，此事在

哀 4:21, 22； 结 25:12-14; 35:1-15； 诗 137:7

中也有提及。

将

俄 5 与耶 49:9，

俄 6 与耶 49:10，

俄 8 与耶 49:7

相互比较，可以看出耶利米将他先前的其他先知之事一样，也将俄巴底亚预言的一部分纳入自己的预言之中（比较

赛 15:1-16:14 与耶 48:1-47）。

俄巴底亚被置于年代上更早的其他小先知书之前，其原因如下：阿摩司在其预言的末尾预言以东将来必被犹大人征服；因此，将小先知书汇为一卷的编者将俄巴底亚列于其下，因它是对阿摩司论以东那段较简短预言的更详尽陈述，亦可说是其注释 [莫勒（Maurer）]。（比较

摩 1:11）。

俄巴底亚预言的年代，大约在尼布甲尼撒攻取耶路撒冷之后不久，即公元前588年。五年之后（公元前583年），以东被尼布甲尼撒征服。耶利米必定在俄巴底亚的预言一发表之后，就立即将其一部分纳入自己的预言之中，从而印证了其正典性。

耶柔米（Jerome）认为他与何西阿、约珥、阿摩司同时代。支持这一观点的论据是：耶利米更可能是从其以前的先知、而非同时代的先知那里取材纳入自己的预言。若如此，

俄 11-14

所指的便是耶路撒冷从前被攻陷的事件之一：即罗波安年间埃及人的攻取

（王上 14:25, 26； 代下 12:2

等），或约兰年间非利士人和阿拉伯人的攻取

（代下 21:16, 17）；

或亚玛谢年间以色列王约阿施的攻取

（代下 25:22, 23）；

或约雅敬年间的攻陷

（王下 24:1

等）；或约雅斤年间的攻陷

（王下 24:8-16）。

在所有这些事件中，以东人对犹大人都怀有敌意；而俄巴底亚书中用以描述这种仇恨的用语，并不比

珥 3:19 （比较俄 10）； 摩 1:11, 12

中的更为强烈。

俄巴底亚所暗示的耶路撒冷陷落，很可能是指亚玛谢年间约阿施与以色列人发起的那次。因为在此之前，在同一亚玛谢年间，犹大人曾在战场上击败以东人后严酷地对待他们

（代下 25:11-23），

因此以东人出于报复，很可能加入了以色列人攻打耶路撒冷的行列 [耶格尔（Jaeger）]。

本书可分为两部分：（1）

俄 1-6

论及以色列遭难之日其兄弟以东对其所施的暴行，以及以东将与犹大的其余仇敌一同遭受的灭亡；（2）

俄 17-21

论及犹大人将在自己的产业上重新建立，并要加上邻近列国的产业，尤其是以东的产业。

俄巴底亚书引言

圣经关于俄巴底亚这位先知的缄默，与人们渴望了解他一点情况的心情形成鲜明对比。古人为了给自己「想知道比神所定意存留的更多」的渴望寻找正当理由而构想出的种种组合，考察起来几乎是白费力气。人们回顾这些说法，意在夸耀后世洞察力之高超，并对已被驳倒者再补一刀。其实，那种渴望更多了解神人的心情——神借着他们把预言存留给我们——本是善良而敬虔的；抱着这一目的，人们四处寻觅，看能否把他们每个人的恩主（每一位先知都是如此）与某个记载较详的人物等同起来。于是，人们希望俄巴底亚也许就是亚哈王手下保护先知的忠心臣仆，或是由以利亚救活的书念妇人之子，或是约沙法差遣去犹大各城教训百姓的那位俄巴底亚，或是约西亚王年间与另一人一同被选派监督修造圣殿工程的利未人。对神所隐藏之事的猜测终归徒然！神的定意是：在这世上，只让他的名字和这一简短预言为人所知。在这里，他只以俄巴底亚——「敬拜神的人」——为人所知。

然而，这些敬虔心灵的猜测却说明了一点：正典的编排者把俄巴底亚安置在其位置上，另有依据，而并非把这位先知与圣经别处提到的某个人物等同起来。因为，在圣经记载多于名字的几位俄巴底亚中，两位活在亚哈王年间，一位活在十支派被掳之后，而正典的编者却把这位先知置于乌西雅和耶罗波安二世的时代，即排列在他前后的众先知活跃的时代。现代人既轻看了这些敬虔的愿望，他们自己的方式就更加站不住脚。德国批评家们给这位先知指定的年代彼此相差六百多年；这就好比有人凭「内证」怀疑一部著作究竟写成于征服者威廉时代还是克伦威尔时代，是圣路易时代还是路易十八时代；也好比怀疑赫西俄德与卡利马科斯同时代、恩尼乌斯与克劳狄安同时代，或《尼伯龙根之歌》的作者与席勒同时代一样。这种差异一旦应用于任何别的场合便显得荒诞不经，它乃是不信的产物。

预言中论到两件、更确切地说三件大事：耶路撒冷被攻陷，以及以东因对其兄弟倾覆恶意夸胜而随之受的双重刑罚——一次借着外邦人，一次借着归回的犹太人。论到以东的刑罚，先知清楚预言其尚待将来；而按照我们译本的译法被视为已经过去的耶路撒冷之毁灭，实际上也是预言。不信否认一切预言。奇怪的是，不信既否认宝石——神对人真实而有凭证的声音——的存在，却还为匣子的年代操心。然而事实正是如此。以色列的众先知对那些否认他们受感的人有一种令人着迷的力量。他们否认预言，却埋头研究先知。不信既否认预言，就必须在历史中找出两件与先知所述相应的事件：一次耶路撒冷被攻陷，以及随后（它不能说是「因此」）以东所受的苦。既然耶路撒冷最早是在埃及王示撒手里陷落的，时在罗波安五年，即主前970年；而约瑟夫斯（Josephus）记载，主前301年，多利买·拉古斯借口献祭诡诈地夺取了耶路撒冷，苦待这城，从犹太山地和耶路撒冷四围、从撒玛利亚和基利心山掳走许多人，把他们全都安置在埃及；不信的批评便有了广阔的摇摆余地。

于是它在这些时期的两端之间来回摇摆，一致同意俄巴底亚并没有说预言，除此之外则莫衷一是。艾希霍恩（Eichhorn）公然本着他那不信的原则——认为神的先知们论及详细事件时说是将来，实际上是在描述过去——断言末后五节写于亚历山大·詹尼士时代，比最晚的年代还晚两个世纪，约在主前82年。仿佛一位希伯来先知会把一个因亚历山大·詹尼士恣意残暴而可憎的人称作救主似的！

关于俄巴底亚年代的真正问题取决于两点：一点是外证，一点是内证。外证是：就他与耶利米共有的那些经节而言，究竟是俄巴底亚把耶利米书中分散的经节汇为一处，还是耶利米在更新针对以东的预言时采用了俄巴底亚的经节。内证的问题——即俄巴底亚书内部的问题——是：他论及耶路撒冷陷落时用的是预言性的过去还是真实的过去；以及（作为判定这一点的依据）他是在责备以东在耶路撒冷陷落时已有的恶毒，还是在警告他防范将来的恶毒。

正文中的英文译本假定俄巴底亚是在责备已犯之罪，因为它译作：「你兄弟遭难的日子，你不当瞪眼看着；犹大人被灭的日子，你不当因此欢乐；他们遭难的日子，你不当说狂傲的话。」英文页边注给出了另一种可能的译法：「不要瞪眼看着」等。但可以完全确定，希伯来文 אל 'al 与未来式连用，是禁止或劝阻一件将来的事。在希伯来文圣经中 אל 'al 出现的所有段落里，它的意思都是「不可」。说 תרה ואל ve'al tēreh「不要观看」的意思是「你不当观看」，就等于说「不可偷盗」的意思是「你本不该偷盗」。

诚然，在一种属于强烈情感、以生动问句形式出现的话语里，人的心思回溯到某事发生之前，可以把过去的事当作尚未发生来说。因此，大卫在押尼珥的棺旁哀哭时说：「押尼珥死亡，岂如愚顽人的死亡呢？」约伯既已对神说「你为何使我出母胎呢」，便把自己置于当时，说（按字面）：「我必断气，眼必不再见我；我如同未曾有过一般；从母腹到坟墓，我必被抬去。」他把未来当作倘若死于生产之时将会如何的样子来 contempla。那是一种相对的未来。在强烈情感之下，我们几乎也可以用我们的「将要」以同样的方式说话，可以译作「押尼珥将要像愚顽人一样死亡吗？」但这些情形与「不可（不要）」这一一律的习语毫无关系。在任何解经原则下，我们都不可在任何一个例子中，仅仅因为一个习语本有的意思不合我们的心意，就把一个它本来没有的意思加给它。表达这种意思另有一个习语：是与 לא lo' 连用的未来式，而不是与 אל 'al 连用。

与此相符的是，紧接在前文我们的译本译作「你也和他们一样」的地方，希伯来文（正如我们圣经中以斜体标出的）只有「你也如同他们中之一！」并未表达任何时间。整节经文对以东没有表达任何时间：「你站在一边的日子，外人掳掠他力量的日子，外人进入他的城门、为耶路撒冷拈阄的日子，你也如同他们中之一。」

这也是一个不属于修辞而属于道德的问题。我们不能想象，警告为的是可以不击打的全能神，会对一桩已经结束的罪八次重复这劝勉——这重复本身就带着何等恳切——「不可」「不可」「不可」。对已犯之罪，神劝人悔改、除掉它，而不是重新去犯。祂不会劝人做那连祂自己的全能都无法容许的事——不去行那已经行过的事。

这样，按这些话唯一可有的意思，以东尚未犯下俄巴底亚所警告的罪，因此先知写作时耶路撒冷尚未毁灭。因为那七次出现的「你兄弟的日子」（被解作「他遭难的日子」「他们遭难的日子」「他们毁灭的日子」）——上文刚刚提及——只能是「外人掳掠他力量、外邦人进入他的城门、为耶路撒冷拈阄的日子」。而对耶路撒冷而言，除了被尼布甲尼撒攻陷之日，没有别的日子是它完全毁灭之日。它被示撒攻陷，或在约雅敬、约雅斤年间被迦勒底人攻陷，城本身未受损伤；约阿施击败亚玛谢后，也只拆毁它城墙的一段。

俄巴底亚与耶利米的关系也与此相符。卡斯帕里（Caspari）已把证明这一关系的论证如此细致地展开，以致除清楚陈列之外，几乎无需再多作什么。我想，确实很少人（除非抱着某种强烈的相反偏见）会把俄巴底亚书的前五节按其在先知书中出现的次序读一遍，再读它们散见于耶利米书四十九章中的情形，而不深信是耶利米把俄巴底亚的话嵌入了他的预言。

这本身就很有可能，因为耶利米确实在他针对摩押的预言中取用了以赛亚的八节，在针对巴比伦的预言中取用了同一位先知的四节，此外还有若干以一个字、一个习语或一种表达方式出现的对以赛亚预言的暗指。同样，耶利米以阿摩司针对大马士革之预言中的一节来结束他针对大马士革的预言；又在他自己针对亚扪人的预言中插入了阿摩司针对那民的一节。这一点更值得注意，因为阿摩司针对每一民的预言仅由三节组成。这当然是有意为之。耶利米在更新针对这些国家的预言时，大概有意表明：那些早先的预言仍然有效；它们尚未用尽；神的威胁不因耽延而减少其确定性；祂的话不因神的长久忍耐就少一分应验。这些长短不一的早期预言的插入，是耶利米针对列国之预言的特征，正如它们出现于针对巴比伦、大马士革、摩押、亚扪的预言中那样，因而大概也出现于针对以东的预言中。

再者，俄巴底亚与耶利米共有的那八节在俄巴底亚书中构成一个整体；在耶利米书中，它们却散置于他自己的其他经节之间，正如我们所知他引入以赛亚针对摩押之经节的情形一模一样。但除了耶利米的预言与以赛亚的预言之间的这种类比之外，假定耶利米扩充了一篇既有的预言、把神赐给他的话加在其上，显然比假定俄巴底亚把耶利米散落的话语拼凑起来、而这些话语一旦脱离原语境竟能像现在这样构成一个紧凑连贯的整体，更为自然。

然而，俄巴底亚的这些经节正是这种情形。暂且撇开诗意的意象不谈，俄巴底亚预言的思路连贯如下：俄巴底亚 1:1，神已命令列国起来攻击以东；俄巴底亚 1:2，定意使它降卑；俄巴底亚 1:3，它骄傲地倚仗自己的坚固地位；俄巴底亚 1:4，然而神必把它拉下来；而且，俄巴底亚 1:5，不是借着普通的抢夺者，而是俄巴底亚 1:6，借着一位要搜出它最深藏宝物者；俄巴底亚 1:7，它的朋友要成为它的毁灭者；俄巴底亚 1:8，它的智慧、俄巴底亚 1:9 它的勇力必离弃它；俄巴底亚 1:10 它必因对其兄弟雅各的恶意而灭亡；这恶行的顶点将出现在耶路撒冷陷落之时；俄巴底亚 1:11-14 但神的日子临近了，外邦人必受报应；俄巴底亚 1:15-16 锡安的余民既蒙拯救，必夺回掳掠他们之人的份，必四向大大扩张；俄巴底亚 1:17-20 必有一位救主从锡安而起，国度必归耶和华。（俄巴底亚 1:21）

这样，出自俄巴底亚的这八节——其中五节重现于耶利米书，另有三节是耶利米所暗指的——不仅在俄巴底亚书中紧密相连，而且构成一个安排得宜的整体的一部分。这种连贯有时确实极为紧密；例如，针对以扫那骄傲的问话 ארץ יוּרדני מי mı̂y yôrı̂dēnı̂y 'erets（俄巴底亚 1:3）「谁能将我拉下此地呢？」，神回答说：「你虽如大鹰高飞，在星宿之间搭窝，אוּרידך משׁם mı̂shâm 'ôrı̂ydekâ（俄巴底亚 1:4），我必从那里拉下你来。」

相反，耶利米——先知中的哀哭者——即使在针对神民之敌的预言中也是哀婉的。即使在这篇预言中，他也夹杂温柔的话语：「你的孩童，我必使他们存活；你的寡妇可以倚靠我。」因此，耶利米的预言是一连串惊人的图画；但他里面的连贯与其说是思路的连贯，不如说是演说的连贯。他的目的是使人印象深刻；他借着堆积恐怖与荒凉的意象确实做到了。思路的紧密无助于他的目的，他便忽略它，除非在他保留俄巴底亚次序之处。但显然最可能的是：思路的先后次序所在之处，即是预言的原本形式。那种次序不仅是俄巴底亚这几节的特色，也是全书的特色。全书二十一节自始至终追求一条连贯的思路。没有一节可以挪移而不损害那次序。思想一个从一个里面涌流出来。但再没有比这更不可能的事了：以为这一连贯的思路，竟是把原本互不连贯的思想拼在一起而产生的。

这几节在两位先知书中出现的细微差异也各有特色。凡两位先知有任何程度差异之处，俄巴底亚更简洁或更突兀；耶利米则如其悲悯的性情，更为流转。因此俄巴底亚开头说：「主耶和华论以东如此说：我们从耶和华那里听见信息，有使者被差往列国去，说：起来吧，我们来与她争战。」「主耶和华论以东如此说」这些话宣告随后的整篇预言出于神；接着俄巴底亚迸出他从神所听见的：「我们从耶和华那里听见信息。」这些话在意义上相连；若究文法连贯，则并不正确。再者，在「我们听见」这话里，先知把他的民与自己连在一起。耶利米换成更精确的「我听见」，把这话移到预言较后的部分，从而避开了连贯上的困难；然后他把规则的形式 שׁלח shâlach 替换不规则的形式 שׁלח shullach 所在之处——即以规则形式代替不规则形式；又把那个突兀的句子「起来吧，我们来与她争战」换成希伯来平行体：「你们要聚集，来到她那里；我们起来争战吧。」

其次，俄巴底亚说：「看哪，我必使你在列国中为最小的，被人大大藐视。」耶利米加上连接词「因为」把这节与前文连接，使全节依托于「我使」一词而流转：「因为我使你成为列国中最小的，在世人中被大大藐视。」俄巴底亚不顾平行体的规则说：「你心中的狂傲欺骗了你，你这居于岩缝、高处居所的人；你心里说：谁能使我落在大地上呢？」耶利米则以较柔和的流转：「那使你惊恐的欺骗了你，你心中的狂傲；你这居于磐石穴中、占据山冈高处的人。」俄巴底亚极为大胆地说：「你虽如大鹰高飞，虽在星宿之间搭窝，我必从那里拉下你来，这是耶和华说的。」耶利米收缩了这话，省略了一个几乎在希伯来文中独有的大胆习语 סים ככבים בין ואם ve'im bēyn kôkâbı̂ym sı̂ym「虽在星宿之间（搭窝）」，只说「你虽如大鹰高飞（搭窝），我必从那里拉下你来，这是耶和华说的」；由于省略了「星宿之间」诸词，「从那里」一词在耶利米书中便没有确切的先行词。

耶利米以类似的方式磨平了那个突兀的呼吁：「盗贼若来在你那里，或强盗夜间而来（你何竟被剪除！）岂不偷够才罢呢？摘葡萄的若来到你那里，岂不剩下些葡萄呢？」耶利米把它改成两个匀称的半节：「摘葡萄的若来到你那里，岂不剩下些葡萄呢？盗贼若夜间而来，岂不毁坏够了呢？」再者，对于俄巴底亚那五个大胆的词 מצפניו נבעוּ עשׂו נחפשׂוּ איך 'êyk nechâphas'û ‛ês'âv, nı̂b‛û matsepunâyv（按字面：「以扫何竟被搜出！他的隐密处何竟被寻出！」），耶利米换成：「因为我已使以扫赤露，他的隐密处被察出，他不能自藏。」

再者，即使英文读者也会注意到，耶利米有许多他乐于重复的习语、短语或意象，是其文体的特征。而在俄巴底亚与耶利米共有的这几节中，没有一个习语在耶利米书别处出现；反之，在耶利米针对以东之预言的其他经节——这些共有的经节仿佛镶嵌于其中——却有几个这样可称为他惯用笔法的表达。其中有人注意到耶利米开启针对以东之预言的那些短促突兀的问句：「提幔中再没有智慧吗？」；那些一个叠一个的急促命令：「逃奔吧，转回吧，住在深处」；那些堆叠的荒凉之词：「波斯拉必成为荒场、羞辱、咒骂、荒凉，她一切的城邑都变为永远的荒场」；以及「必惊奇」「必发嘶声」这两个强有力之词的组合，用于对她倾覆的惊愕：「凡经过她的必惊奇（我们说「惊得哑口无言」），又向她一切的灾殃发嘶声。」

同样还有把她与所多玛、蛾摩拉倾覆相比的比拟；「狮子从约旦河边的丛林上来」的意象；这些预言的重担：「你们要听耶和华攻击以东所说的谋略，和他攻击提幔居民所定的旨意。」此外，这些预言中还有整节经文重复出现的情形。

耶利米针对以东的预言共十六节，其中四节与俄巴底亚的完全相同；第五节体现了俄巴底亚的一节；在其余十一节中，有十节或多或少含有耶利米的惯用表达或习语，或见于这些针对外邦列国的预言中，或见于他的预言全书。现在，倘若一位先知从耶利米的预言中挑选经节，却恰好选中那些不含耶利米任何特色表达的经节，那是完全不可能的；相反，耶利米把俄巴底亚的经节织入自己预言的这一假定，恰好完全吻合：这些被织入的经节中，没有一处表达在耶利米书别处出现。

有一个被引来当作例外的表达，若不只是偶然的巧合，反而更证实了这一点。俄巴底亚在耶利米此处未采用的一节较早经文中说：「与你结盟的把你送到边界；与你和好的欺骗你，且胜过你；吃你饭的（即与你一同吃饭之人）在你底下设下网罗。」在这段对其兄弟犹大恶待的三重报应之中，出现了「与你和好的人」这话，它很可能取自大卫的一篇诗篇。但 השיאך「欺骗了你」一词与俄巴底亚 1:3 的 השיאוך 相呼应：「你心中的狂傲欺骗了你。」盟友的欺骗，是他们因自己心中的骄傲而自欺的果子与后果。可见俄巴底亚的这一节与前文相连；而使预言的一部分呼应另一部分、借词语的关联显明思想与事件的关联，正是俄巴底亚的特色。耶利米借留在王宫之妇女的口论西底家的嘲讽话——她们将被带到巴比伦王的首领面前时——「你的朋友（按字面：与你和好的人）哄骗了你 המיתוך（Jeremiah 38:22），又胜过你」，很可能是对俄巴底亚话语的追忆（虽然只有「与你和好的人」数词相同）：但这些话在耶利米书中与其他任何话都没有关联，而俄巴底亚的话却与其前面的话相关联。

耶利米织入俄巴底亚这些话的那篇预言，本身也把耶路撒冷的毁灭说成仍在将来。因为他论到以东说：「看哪，那本不该喝那杯的必要喝，你岂能免罚呢？你不能免罚，因为你必要喝。」（正如连我们自己的译本也作了的）把同一个表达 ישתו שׁתו 在前一处译为过去时「已确实喝了」，在后一处 תשתה שתו כי 译为将来时「因为你必确实喝它」，显然是错的。既然在后一处必是将来，在前一处也必是将来。耶利米在别处也以同样的措词把神对待自己民与对待列国的事作为将来对比：「万军之耶和华如此说：你们一定要喝；看哪，我开始降祸于那称为我名下的城，你们岂能全然免罚呢？你们不能免罚，因为我必命刀剑临到地上一切的居民，这是万军之耶和华说的。」那措词 להתע מחל בעיר־אנכי הנה 本身至少要求一个临近的将来（因为 הנה 与分词连用总表示或近或远的将来），而这些话是在约雅敬第四年说的。

就在那约雅敬第四年，耶利米从神领受命令，把神对他说的一切话写在那卷书上——就是约雅敬听了少许便割破烧掉的那卷——「论以色列和犹大，并一切国族的一切话，就是我对你说起的日子起，从约西亚的日子直到今日，对你所说的一切话。」约雅敬烧了那书卷之后，遵神的命令，同一卷集又重新录写，「其中还有许多相仿的话」。紧接其后，耶利米书中便是针对外邦列国之预言的汇集；在这汇集中，有三篇注明写于那约雅敬第四年，只有最后两篇——针对以拦和巴比伦的——可能是在后来加入汇集的，带有更晚的日期。针对巴比伦的预言在其结尾处被标明为完全独立成篇，因为西莱雅被吩咐到了巴比伦、读完了那书之后，「把一块石头拴在其上」，「扔在幼发拉底河中」，并说：「巴比伦必因我所降与她的灾祸如此沉沦，不再兴起。」

这些论巴比伦的篇章虽然在作为针对神民之仇敌的预言这一点上与前文相连，却被标明在某种意义上与它们分开，自成一书。与此相符，它们在开头处注明写于西底家第四年。同样，针对以拦的预言——发于西底家在位之初——大概是由那一野蛮之民的恶行引起的，他们当时在迦勒底军中服役攻打耶路撒冷，尼布甲尼撒将约雅敬掳到巴比伦时亦然。它与较早诸预言的区别在于：以拦并非神民的宿敌，其惩戒的工具也不是巴比伦。

那些较早的预言——耶利米书 46 章至 49:33，针对埃及、非利士（包括推罗和西顿）、摩押、亚扪、以东、大马士革、基达和夏琐诸国之国的——都有以下共同点：

（1）它们都是针对神民的古老宿敌；

（2）它们都预告毁灭出于同一来源——北方，或尼布甲尼撒本人，或指名或描述。

因此它们很可能是一个整体，一本论神借尼布甲尼撒惩罚其仇敌之书。但两篇针对埃及之预言的头一篇，论及法老尼哥远征亚述，预言其大军在幼发拉底河畔的彻底溃败。那次溃败发生在迦基米施，在约雅敬第四年。下一篇针对埃及的预言论及尼布甲尼撒对埃及的远征，紧随法老的战败而来。第三篇针对非利士的预言发于法老击打迦萨之前；但这大概是在他同年——约雅敬第四年——远征亚述途中，在他自己的势力永远瓦解之前。

但俄巴底亚的预言既早于耶利米的预言，它大概更早已然存在。因为耶利米把它织入，大概正是要表明这预言尚待应验。与此相符的是，俄巴底亚在其预言中使用了巴兰、大卫的一篇诗篇、约珥和阿摩司的语言，而没有使用任何更晚先知的语言。倘若他生活在正典为他编排的位置所定的时代，情形不可能不然。倘若他活得更晚，那么他既如其实际所作刻意使用约珥和阿摩司的语言，其预言竟丝毫不显任何更晚著作的痕迹，便是不可想象的了。取自约珥书的表达，考虑到两卷篇幅之小，颇为可观。无疑有这样的短语：它（耶路撒冷）「必成为圣 קדשׁ qôdesh」；「在锡安山必有逃脱的人」；「因为耶和华的日子临近了」；「我必使你所行的归到你头上」；以及 גוּרל ידוּ yadû gôrâl 这一表「拈阄」的短语。这些不是偶然的习语，不是意象性的语言。它们与未被使用的习语相比，没有任何诗歌或修辞上的特别之处。

它们之被使用，不是因为它们打动感官或想象。一位先知并不借用另一位先知的意象。它们属于预言的宗教语言；宗教真理一旦在其中被赋予形式，众先知便把它一代一代传递下去。这些话好比一支心爱而熟悉的曲调中的几个音符，能把它们所属的整首乐曲带回人心中。「耶和华的日子」既被约珥以如此可畏的威严描述过，此后，「耶和华的日子临近了」这一以其自己简朴措词重复的话，便把当初笼罩它的种种敬畏之情一并传达于人。同样，「它必成为圣」这短短的话，暗示了神之灵浇灌的全部丰盛——圣洁的唯一来源——正如这些话在约珥书中所关联的；它们满了福音的应许，即教会不仅圣洁，更是圣洁的托管者，是神借以扩散圣洁的指定器皿。

另一个表达同样富有特色：「在锡安山必有逃脱的人。」它突出了那与血气之人如此相悖、保罗后来必须阐明的真理：从以色列生的，不都是以色列人。它同时呈现了神怜悯的正面与负面：必有「拯救在锡安山」，却只是「余民」的。另一方面，习语 יעקב אחך מחמס mēchâmâs 'âchı̂kâ ya‛ăqôb「对你兄弟雅各所行的强暴」，是约珥 יהודה בן מחמס mēchâmâs bên yehûdâh「对犹大子孙所行的强暴」的重复并强化，延续了约珥曾据以预告以东荒凉的那针对常存之罪的见证。

阿摩司书中关于雅各扩张的应许——「使他们得以以东所余剩的和所有称为我名下的国」——同样成为俄巴底亚四向扩张之具体应许（东、西、南、北）的基础；俄巴底亚像阿摩司一样，以神的民必得以东为业开篇：「南地的人必得以扫山为业，低地的人必得非利士人为业。」阿摩司把以东作为恨神及其民之人的标本与类型，应许他们和万国都必成为教会的产业。俄巴底亚基于同样的根据，在宣告神对以东的判决之后，描述神民的每一部分如何扩张蔓延，超越自身。

俄巴底亚在暗指阿摩司的话的同时，进一步纳入了巴兰的一个表达，阿摩司也曾指涉它。巴兰说：「以东必成为产业（ירשׁה yerûshshâh），西珥也必成为他仇敌的产业；雅各必大有能力；必有从雅各而出的掌权者，必除灭城中的余剩者（שׂריד s'ârı̂yd）。」巴兰这两个宣告（阿摩司只用了其一）的结合不可能是偶然的。它们在各自预言中处于相邻的两节。「雅各家必成为火，约瑟家必成为火焰；以扫家必如碎秸，火必将他烧着吞灭；以扫家必无余剩的（שׂריד s'ârı̂yd），这是耶和华说的；南地的人必得以扫山为业（ירשׁ yârash）。」此外，在第四节，俄巴底亚用了一个除巴兰预言外别处未见的习语：「你的居所坚固，你的巢窝在磐石中（קנך ושׂים ves'ı̂ym qı̂nekâ）。」这个不定式是一个极生动却不合常规的结构。这个习语在希伯来圣经中仅见于这两处，不可能是出于偶然。

俄巴底亚自己文风的原创与清新，使这种对早期先知预言语言的采用更为可观。在他二十一节经文中，有几个别处未见的词。它们大多是简单词汇和在用词汇的词形变化。尽管如此，它们大概仍是先知自己铸造的。一个自己为本语言增添词汇存量的人，无需向别人借用词汇。俄巴底亚采用那些早期先知的语言，不是因为需要借以表达自己的意思，而是要赋予那语言新的力量与指向。

但基于俄巴底亚使用早于他的众先知之语言的同一理由，他若活得更晚，也必使用更晚先知的话语。

铸造个别词语或词形，还是俄巴底亚文体原创性中最小的部分。生动、连贯、有力，才是其特色。它怎样开始，就怎样继续、怎样结束。没有中断，没有间断。思想追随思想，如波浪逐着波浪，却全都编列为一个目标，一列又一列地向神为他们指定的终点进军。每一节都从它前面的一节生发出来，并把那思想承续下去。原文词语的节奏是哀婉与力量的一种奇妙交融。节奏的哀婉在于一种稍长的持续音步，先知在其中萦绕于他要以之打动人的那一个思想；力量则在于他用以总括某一判语的寥寥数词。那绵长的流转即使英文读者也能感受到；其简洁却只有借助希伯来文才能看见。那五个词「以扫何竟被搜出！他的隐密处何竟被寻出！」已经提过了。

其他这类例子还有：בוא תבונה אין 'ayin tebûnâh bô'（「其中并无聪明」），俄巴底亚 1:7 以此作结；מהם אחד אתה גם gam 'attâh 'echâd mēhem「你也如同他们中之一」，俄巴底亚 1:11；俄巴底亚 1:12-14 长篇劝勉之后的 עשׂה אשׁר 'ăsher ‛âs'âh, לך יעשׂה yē‛âs'âh lâk「你怎样行，他也必照样向你行」；以及俄巴底亚 1:16-17 结束那段描述的三个词 היוּ כלו והיוּ vehâyâh kelô' lô hâyû「他们要好像未曾有过一样」；还有那奇妙地总括全篇预言的三个词 המלוּכה אדני והיתה vehâyethâh 'ădonāy hammelûkâh「国度必归耶和华」。即使先知书中的重复也增进同样的效果，如那成对的短语 נכרי ביום beyôm nokrı̂y、אבד ביום beyôm 'âbad、זרה ביום beyôm zârâh、אידם ביום beyôm 'ēydâm、אידוּ ביום beyôm 'ēydô（俄巴底亚 1:12-13），先知以此结束劝勉中针对兄弟遭难幸灾乐祸的每一分句。生动的细节描写与其中毫无单调的极大简洁，贯穿俄巴底亚全书。

这样，一篇像俄巴底亚这样简短而又连贯的预言，竟被分割为二（一部分归于某位较早的先知，另一部分则说成写于耶路撒冷毁灭之后），这本来就更令人诧异；但拆散这篇预言的动机是显明的。「以俄巴底亚之名保存下来的论以东的神谕，」有一位作家说，「就其现在的形式而言，其年代不会早于巴比伦之囚。这里描述的是耶路撒冷的毁灭与彻底荒凉；先知本人写于被掳之民中。」按这位作者的看法，它不可能更早，因为按他的信念，不存在对将来细节的确定预言，也不存在超出人自己的良心和对神寻常护理的观察所能提示的模糊预感那样的对未来之认识；这一个「不可能」，又以另一个「不可能」为前提，即神不能向祂的受造者启示自己。

但这位作者也无法完全摆脱这一印象：这篇预言的大部分必定属于被掳之前很久的时期。调和这些矛盾——这外证的「必是」与这反教义偏见的「不可能」——的唯一办法，就是把这一活的整体一分为二，把那些论以东而不含对耶路撒冷毁灭之暗指的部分划归较早时期。于是便这样作了。「进一步的考察，」这位作者继续说，「表明这位较晚的先知采用了一位较早先知论以东的残篇。现存内容的一大半，即俄巴底亚 1:1-10、俄巴底亚 1:17 的一半和俄巴底亚 1:18，按其内容、语言和色调，非常清楚地指向这样一位较早的先知；而且，大约在同一时期，耶利米采用了这段较早的残篇，因为俄巴底亚 1:1-9 的很多内容重现于耶利米书中，而那些最明显属于较晚先知的话语——俄巴底亚 1:11-16、俄巴底亚 1:19-21——则一无所现。」

1. 显然，耶利米既不能在此告诉我们，他为何把某些经节织入自己的预言而不提俄巴底亚的某些其他经节，那么仅从他未采用那些经节这一事实，就推断他无那些经节可用，是极其鲁莽的。他确实把俄巴底亚的前五节纳入自己的预言，而两先知的对应到那里几乎就停止了。俄巴底亚 1:6 的「思想」重现于耶利米，却没有一个词重现；到俄巴底亚 1:7，则毫无暗指；至于俄巴底亚 1:8，思想又被保留，但只有一个「词」，而且形式完全不同。这第八节是耶利米所提的最后一节。于是埃瓦尔德（Ewald）只好用耶利米确实纳入的那前五节，加上另外两节仅有思想重现于耶利米的经节，再加上五节耶利米毫无暗指的经节，来制造出他的「较早先知」；他从整章中随意挑出这些，然后以耶利米未采用其余部分为由，论证其余部分当时不存在；而耶利米同样未采用五节埃瓦尔德自己承认当时已经存在的经节，对另外两节也只是极间接地暗指。既然按埃瓦尔德的看法，耶利米未暗指其中五节并不证明它们当时不存在，那么他未采用其余部分，也不能据此证明其余部分不存在。

2. 耶利米没有为以东的刑罚指明任何理由，只除了它的骄傲；他也没有在这些论小国之预言的任何一篇中预告犹大的将来。这不是分派给他的题目。他在针对埃及和巴比伦的预言中确实这样作了，因为那是人眼中犹大存亡所系的两大王朝。在那里他预告，神必赶他们到那里的万国必受罚，「然而我必不将你全然灭绝」——这话是针对雅各祂的仆人说的。犹大整体的将来命运并不系于这些小国。大概正是基于这一点，耶利米预告「他们的」毁灭与摩押、亚扪的复兴，而对犹大缄默。再者，这些小国借尼布甲尼撒所受的即时刑罚，才是耶利米预言的主题，而非日后在犹大手中所受的苦。而这些主题——以扫对其「兄弟雅各」的「强暴」作为以东受罚的根据（俄巴底亚在俄巴底亚 1:15-16 复述罪状之后重申判决）、雅各将来的扩张、以及以东日后借犹大所受的报应——正占据了耶利米未加暗指的那些俄巴底亚经节的大部分。这就说明了（如果需要说明的话）耶利米为何未暗指几乎所有他未暗指的俄巴底亚内容，无论是对埃瓦尔德以「他的」方式解释的那部分，还是对他未作解释的那大部分。

但总而言之必须说：神的众先知既受神教导，就自由地使用他们所用的早期先知的内容。他们并非机械地抄录早期先知，仿佛只是在重写一篇摊在面前的作品，以致我们必须为他们所未认为宜于重复的每一点作交代。耶利米在类似地使用以赛亚论摩押的预言时，也未曾引用其前五节。

3. 因此，俄巴底亚绝非「写于被掳之民中」，他的话反倒暗示被掳尚未开始。他论到犹大和便雅悯时，视其仍在本地，并预告他们必四围扩张。那时何西阿和阿摩司已经预言以色列「王国」的最终毁灭和十支派的分散。与此相符，俄巴底亚向那两个支派预告，他们必占据应许之地空出的地方。与犹大、便雅悯的这一扩张相对照，他论到那些已在被掳中的人，并预言他们的归回。他论到两群现有的被掳者：「以色列「这」一军队的被掳者」，「在西法拉被掳的耶路撒冷人」。关于这两群，他大概说：「在迦南人中被掳的以色列众人，必得以南地的城邑为业；在西法拉被掳的耶路撒冷人，必得南地的城邑。」这两批被掳者的人数必然有限。

那「在西法拉的耶路撒冷人」——西法拉即吕底亚帝国都城撒狄——只能是借奴隶贸易被输出之民。犹太人在那里唯一一次公开的移民定居，是在很久以后，约主前200年，安条克大帝为制止吕底亚和弗吕家的暴乱，「花巨资从米所波大米和巴比伦迁两千犹太人家庭，连同他们的财物」到那里，因他们曾以试验过的忠诚和热忱事奉他的先祖。这次迁移伴随土地的赐予、十年免贡、人身与宗教的保护，是已经开始的「分散」的延续；它不是「被掳」。他们是本可以归回故土却不愿归回之人的后裔。他们享有其先祖以放弃本国份地为代价换取的一切属世利益。没有什么特别之处使他们被单独列为神应许的对象。犹太人当时正在四处分散，要在各地作福音将来的门徒或逼迫者。一个世纪之前，塞琉古·尼卡托尔已在亚洲和下叙利亚找到犹太人，并给予他们与他迁居那里的马其顿人和希腊人同等的特权。犹太人曾分担他的战事。亚历山大曾在亚历山大城给埃及犹太人类似的特权。因此，在这样的时代，不存在「西法拉的被掳」；没有吕底亚帝国；没有什么把那里的犹太人与其他甘愿离乡背井之人区别开来。

另一方面，先知分派给那些被掳者归回后的地方只是犹大的一部分，「南地的城邑」，而且他并未把这地说成无人居住。同样，无论论以色列的话译作「「在」迦南人中「直到」撒勒法」，还是「「必得」迦南人之地直到撒勒法」，先知所论都必是数目极有限的一群。倘若他是针对十支派或其归回说的，他就不会把十支派的领土「以法莲、撒玛利亚、基列」分派给那两个支派，也不会分派给他们这么小的一片地。这一有限的被掳者数目，恰好吻合假定俄巴底亚活在正典为他编排的位置所定的时代、即约珥附近时代的局势。因为约珥曾宣告神对推罗、西顿和非利士的审判，因他们把犹大和耶路撒冷的儿女卖给了希腊人。俄巴底亚所论的这些被掳者，有些大概尚未卖出，滞在撒勒法，有些则在西法拉即撒狄的希腊人中。另一方面，不可想象的是：俄巴底亚会把现今的被掳——「以色列这一队的被掳者」「在西法拉被掳的耶路撒冷人」——与仍据有古有产业的犹大、便雅悯相对照，倘若他写作时犹大和便雅悯自己正在巴比伦被掳；也不可想象他会论到以色列的某一小残片必归回，却对十支派的整个身体只字不提，倘若他发预言时他们正在被掳中。再者，同样没有可能的是：「在西法拉被掳的耶路撒冷人」指先知自己身处其中的被掳者（这是埃瓦尔德这一理论的全部根基），因为若然，他大概会像别的先知那样把安慰与归回的应许对「他们」诉说，而不只是论到「他们」。

再过几年，这理论就要成为陈迹。俄巴底亚书思路的连贯太紧密，其文体特色在这篇简短预言中出现得太一律，不容它这样被错位拆解。全篇预言中，没有一个词或词形可以被指为更常出现于晚期希伯来文。全书是一个原创、一律、合一的整体。

「俄巴底亚，」圣维克多的于格（Hugh of S. Victor）说，「言语简约，意义多端；词语寥寥，思想丰富，正合『智者以言寡见知』之说。按字面，他的预言指向以东；按寓意，他斥责世界；按道德义，他斥责肉体。他预表救主，暗示那将要来的一位——借着他世界被毁坏，借着他肉体被制伏，借着他自由被恢复。」「在众先知中，」另一位说，「他词语最简；在奥秘的恩典上，他与他们同等。」

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.”

俄 1-21。

以东对犹大（以东的兄弟）残忍相待而受的灭亡； 犹大人的复兴。

1. 俄巴底亚——即耶和华的仆人之意；与*亚别（Abdeel）和阿拉伯语的阿卜杜拉（Abd-allah）*含义相同。

我们——即我与我的百姓。

已经听见——

（赛 21:10）。

有使者被差遣——是的，使者，即天使，已经被差遣，为要激动亚述人（及随后的迦勒底人）起来攻击以东。这使者的信息在列国中所产生的结果，是他们齐声呼喊："你们起来吧，让我们（以联合的力量）一同兴起"等等。

耶 49:14

引用了此语。

「俄巴底亚所得的默示」——即「敬拜神之人」的。这位先知只愿意凭他名字所表明的那一点为人所知：他敬拜神。他在这双重标题里告诉我们，预言借着谁而来，又从谁而来。他的名字向犹太教会证明了预言的真实。此后，他选择完全隐藏自己。他称之为「默示（异象）」，因为先知们被称为「先见」（1 Samuel 9:9），虽然他叙述的不是他所见异象本身，而是其实质与意义。将来大概以铺陈在他心眼前的一幕幕景象的形式向他展开，他用神所赐的话加以讲述。他的语言由一连串图画构成，这些图画他可能见过，并以他那图画的语言描述出来。「正如预言被称为『话』，因为神在其中向先知说话；它也被称为『异象』，因为先知以心眼、以照亮它们的亮光，看见了神愿意他们知道的事。」这一名称也表达了他们知识的确定性。「在我们的感官中，视觉对我们感官的对象具有最明白的认识。因此，对真实之事的默想因其明显与确凿而被称为『异象』。先知因此被称为『先见』。」

「主耶和华论以东如此说」——这第二个标题表明，随后的一切都出于神。紧接着的话是俄巴底亚以自己的身份说的；但这一切，无论是如此说的，还是直接以神的身份说的，都同样是神的话。神以这两种方式在众先知里面或借众先知说话，因为（2 Peter 1:21）「预言从来没有出于人意的，乃是人被圣灵感动，说出神的话来。」俄巴底亚就其整篇预言使用了其他先知在传达神直接信息时所用的词语，便把整篇预言归于神，其直接程度一如其他先知归于神吩咐他们说的任何话。这些话是一切预言的通则：一切预言都直接出于神。

「我们从耶和华那里听见信息」——更确切地译作「消息（报告）」；按字面是「一种听见，一件听到的事」，正如以赛亚所说（Isaiah 53:1）：「我们所传的有谁信呢？」「消息」之或确或疑，视其来源的权威而定。这「消息」确实为真，因为它是「从耶和华」来的。借着复数的「我们」，俄巴底亚或许把与他同时的其他先知——如约珥和阿摩司，他们与更早的巴兰和大卫一样曾针对以东说预言——与自己联结，或许把神为其缘故使这事让他知道的民与自己联结。无论哪种情形，先知都不是独自站立。他与「众先知的美好群体」一同听见；神的民在他里面听见，正如以赛亚又一次说的（Isaiah 21:10）：「我从万军之耶和华以色列的神那里所听见的，都告诉你们了。」

「有使者奉差往列国中」——「使者」是神所差、或显或隐的任何执行者。想要挑动战争的人力权势差遣人的信使。万事都立于神的命令之下；凡祂所用的，无论何事何人，都是来自祂的使者。祂对我们用我们的语言。祂可能用了天使，正如祂说（Psalm 78:49）：「他使恶使者落在他们中间」；也如借着给谎言之灵的许可（1 Kings 22:21-23），祂对亚哈执行了审判——亚哈出于自由意志相信邪恶之灵而不信祂。同样（Judges 9:23）：「神使恶魔降在亚比米勒和示剑人中间」，任凭那悖逆之灵进一步煽动他们既为其奴仆的恶情，使恶人受罚。邪灵在其恶毒悖逆中虽煽动征服之欲，仍是神的使者，因为祂驾驭它们；正如对保罗（2 Corinthians 12:7），「肉中的刺，撒但的差役要攻我」，仍是神的恩赐。「这是赐给我的，」他说。

「起来吧，我们来与她争战」——那激动他们者说「起来吧」，他们随即应声说「我们起来吧」。神的旨意立时成就。他们急于达成自己的目的时，反而更加成全了神的目的。无论第一动因是人的私欲，还是煽动私欲的邪灵，冲力都从一人或少数人扩散到众人。众人都接住了投在他们中间的火花。这号召获得了立时的响应。「起来」是神的命令，无论以何种方式发出；「我们起来」是人贪婪、骄傲或野心的热切响应，迅猛地成全神隐秘的旨意；正如人把老虎放出来攻击人，老虎在解自己渴血之欲的同时，成全了主人的意志。以赛亚就这样听见（Isaiah 13:4）「山间有大众的声音，好像一大国聚集的喧嚷，列国聚集的哄嚷」。玛代和波斯人当时所想的无非是：他们是他们所不认识之独一神的器皿。但以赛亚继续说：「万军之耶和华点齐军队，预备打仗」；事成之时，古列看见并承认了这一点（Ezra 1:1-2）。