THE

PAGE

561 561

. 564

HE etymology of the word Obadiah (which means, "Worshipper, or servant, of God") made the name of common use among the Jews, just as Abdallah is a favourite Arabic name. It is found in the genealogical lists as belonging to a person of the tribe of Judah (1 Chro. iii. 21), of Issachar (vii. 3), of Benjamin (viii. 38, ix. 44), of Levi (ix. 16; Neh. xii. 25); to a captain of the tribe of Gad (1 Chro. xii. 9), a prince of the tribe of Judah (2 Chro. xvii. 7), a prince of the tribe of Zebulun (1 Chro. xxvii. 19), a Levite in the time of Josiah (2 Chro. xxxiv. 12), a companion of Ezra (Ez. viii. 9), a priest in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 5). Besides these we read of the better-known Obadiah who was Ahab's chamberlain (1 K. xviii. 3). The prophet can be identified with none of them.

II. His date.

He is supposed to have lived either before B. C. 800 or after B. C. 588.

The argument usually relied upon for the earlier date, is the position of the book in the list of the Minor Prophets. Those who regard this order as chronological consider the date of Obadiah to be fixed by the dates of Amos and Jonah. It is, however, an undecided question how far the chronological principle is that on which the books of the Minor Prophets are arranged, and it is certain that, supposing the arrangement to be in the main chronological, excep

VOL. VI.

IV. PREDICTIONS AND THEIR FULFILMENT, VIZ.

PAGE

(1) Conquest of Edom by the Jews 565 Conquest of Edom by the bea

then

565

(3) Expansion of Israel.. 566 tions to the general rule might still be made. Consequently it is only a bare presumption in favour of the earlier date which can be derived from this argument, a presumption easily removed by probabilities on the other side, should they be found to exist.

The argument usually relied upon for the later date rests upon the assumption that the capture of Jerusalem to which the prophet refers is the capture by the Babylonians, and upon the supposition that in vv. 11-14 he speaks of this capture as a thing past'. The assumption that it is the Babylonish capture may be granted, in spite of the arguments of Jäger, Hofmann, Delitzsch, Keil, Kleinert in favour of an earlier capture, which, though forcible, are not strong enough to be convincing. But the supposition, that in vv. 11-14 the prophet speaks of the capture as a thing past in reference to himself, is a mistake. Hengstenberg and Pusey, on different grounds, maintain that he speaks in those verses of a future act; Hengstenberg supposing him to have thrown himself forward in spirit, and to be looking back from his spiritual stand-point on what was actually future,

1 So Luther, Pfeiffer, Schnurrer, Rosenmüller, De Wette, Knobel, Winer, Hendewerk, Maurer,

Bleek.

2 There were three captures of Jerusalem prior to its being taken by the Babylonians, 1. by Shishak in the reign of Rehoboam (1 K. xiv. 25; 2 Chro. xii. 2), 2. by the Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Jehoram (2 Chro. xxi. 16), 3 by Joash king of Israel in the reign of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 13; 2 Chro. xxv. 23). Of these the second could alone have been referred to by Obadiah.

NN

as though it were past; Pusey resting his argument mainly on grammatical considerations'. In fact, neither the past nor the future are necessarily indicated by Obadiah's words. For, as is pointed out in the note on v. 12, in the prophetic vision events were presented to the inner sight of the prophet, altogether abstracted from any relation in time to each other or to him. As the scenes of the capture arise before Obadiah, he exclaims against the various acts of cruelty which he witnesses: "Do not look, do not rejoice, do not enter;" or, as his words are less correctly rendered, "Thou shouldest not have looked, thou shouldest not have rejoiced, thou shouldest not have entered." The correction of the translation, on which so much has been thought to hang, is of no importance for the determination of the prophet's date. The first rendering ("Do not") does not imply that the scene presented to him is summoned from the future, nor does the second ("Thou shouldest not") prove that it was re

1 Dr Pusey (with almost all commentators, except Drusius, Rosenmüller and Kleinert) argues that the words translated in the A. V. "Thou shouldest not have" in vv. 12, 13, 14 ought to be rendered as in the margin of the A. V., "Do not;" and this undoubtedly is so, for al with the future (which is the construction in all these cases) must express a dehortatory future (Ges. H.G.' § 125. 3. c). The grammatical argument in favour of the marginal reading is irrefragable and sufficient. The further argument used by Dr Pusey and others for the earlier date of the prophet, founded on the moral consideration that God would not warn against a thing already done, is not of equal weight, as it is certain that Obadiah's prophecy was for the benefit of the Jews, not of the Edomites, who would probably

be unaware of its existence.

iii. 19.

3.

i. 15. ii. I.

iii. 12.

14.

4.

7.

17.

ii. 32.

iii. 17.

8.

2 JOEL i. 15-iii. 19.

called from the past. So far, then, the argument for the later date of Obadiah fails. Verses 11-14 (however translated) do not prove, or even raise a presumption, that he lived either before or (as has been most commonly maintained) after the capture of which he speaks.

There remain three other indications of date to be examined: (1) the relation of time in which Obadiah may stand to a. Joel, b. Jeremiah; (2) the similarity of the denunciations of Edom by Ezekiel, by the author of the book of the Lamentations, and by the writer of Psalm cxxxvii.; (3) the greater or less degree in which the mutual relations between Edom and Judah, as depicted by the prophet, apply to one or another period of Edomite and Jewish history.

(1) a. There is a similarity of thought and of word between Obad. vV. 10—13 and Joel ii. 32 and ch. iii., sufficient to make it probable that one prophet had in his mind the prediction of the other. Some commentators settle the question of priority by maintaining, not without plausibility, that Joel refers directly to Obadiah in the words "as the Lord hath said" (ii. 32). (See Keil in loc.) If this were so, Obadiah's date would be fixed as that of the earliest of all the Hebrew prophets. It is, however, more probable that these words of Joel refer to himself, and are a claim that his prophecy should be regarded as of divine authority. See on Joel ii. 32. There is therefore no proof as to Obadiah's date to be derived from this expression. Nor is there any indication of priority on either side in the similar thoughts and words found in the two prophets. See note below.

17.

18.

כי יהוח דבר :

b. It is quite certain that Obadiah's prophecy against Edom (Obad. 1-9) and Jeremiah's prophecy against Edom (xlix. 7-22) are slightly altered forms of the same denunciation. Therefore either Obadiah had Jeremiah's prophecy before him, or Jeremiah had Obadiah's, or both Obadiah and Jeremiah adapted a previously existing prophecy. The last is an The last is an admissible supposition; but it is the general opinion of scholars (Eichhorn, Schnurrer, Schultz, Rosenmüller, Jäger, Hendewerk, Maurer, Caspari, Delitzsch, Keil, Pusey, Wordsworth), resting mainly on philological arguments, which are sufficiently forcible to create a high probability, that Jeremiah's prophecy is a modified form of the rougher utterance of Obadiah. See conspectus of passages in note below'. If this be so, we are sure that Obadiah's date was anterior to the later years of Jeremiah.

(2) The prophet Ezekiel (ch. xxxv.) denounces desolation on Edom "because thou hast had a perpetual hatred, and hast shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity, in the time that their iniquity had an end" (v. 5). The author of the Book of the Lamentations threatens the daughter of Edom: "The cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make

1 JEREMIAH xlix. 7—22.

thyself naked" (iv. 21). The Psalmist cries out "Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase, rase to the foundation thereof" (Ps. cxxxvii. 7). The thoughts and words in these passages and in Obad. 10-18 are so similar as to suggest that the same causes evoked them in all four writers, and that they were uttered about the same time, and under the same circumstances, It is certain that Ezekiel and Jeremiah and the Psalmist had in their minds the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and that they wrote after that event; Ezekiel and Jeremiah in the year B.C. 587, or thereabouts, and the Psalmist at a still later date. The more, indeed, that we examine Ezek. xxxv., the more we shall be struck with the identity of thought exhibited by it and by Obad. 10-18. This identity does not, however, shew itself so much, in the Hebrew words used, as in the sameness of feeling underlying the words. This is what we should expect where two denunciations have been independently called forth by the same events.

2 Cf. Obad. 12 with Ezek. XXXV. 13, 15.

I.

2.

לאדום כה אמר יהוה צבאות

7.

כוכבים שים קנך משם אורידך נאם־יהוה :

קנך משם אורידך נאם־יהוה :

נבעי מצפניו :

הלוא ביום ההוא נאם־יהוה והאבדתי חכמים .8 מאדום ותבונה מהר עשו : וחתו גבוריך תימן למען יכרת איש מהר .9 עשו מקטל:

10.

האין עוד חכמה בתימן אבדה עצה מבנים . נסרחה חכמתם :

והיה לב גבורי אדום ביום ההוא כלב אשה

מצרה: והיתה אדום לשמה

הגוים תמיד ושתו ולעו והיו כלוא היו:

שתה תשתה :

22.

17.

12.

count for the position of his book in the list of the Minor Prophets; and that is readily done by supposing that it was placed immediately after the Book of Amos, because it is an amplification of the denunciation contained in the last verses of that book.

of Edom in the Hebrew prophets we gather, that the usual attitude of the Edomites, from first to last, was one of antagonism to their neighbours. Still, we know that, at the time immediately succeeding the Babylonish capture of Jerusalem, taking advantage of the weakness of the Jews, they overran and subjected to themselves the whole of the south of Judæa (see Prideaux's 'Connection,' 11. 3). The incidental description given by the prophet of the mutual

relations between the two nations would

accord well with what we know to have existed then, though, no doubt, the same relations might have existed at other times. All that we can say is this. It (1) may be inferred with some positiveness, that he wrote before the occupation of Edom proper by the Nabathæans (whereas Malachi, we may gather from Mal. i. 4, wrote after that event had occurred). It is (2) highly probable, that he wrote before the later years of Jeremiah. It is (3) likely though not certain, that he wrote immediately after the Babylonish conquest, about the year that Jeremiah wrote the Lamentations, and Ezekiel his prophecy contained in ch. xxxv. If (4) the conjectural interpretation which we have hazarded below on v. 20 be correct, he was an inhabitant of one of the villages of Judah, overthrown by the Babylonian invaders; and at the time that he prophesied he was one of a body of exiles, who were settled temporarily along the western coast of Palestine and Phoenicia. The inference from the whole is that he was a contemporary of Jeremiah, who probably took up and incorporated the denunciation of Edom in his own collection of prophecies against neighbouring nations, almost immediately after it had been made public, in the year 587 or 586 B. C. If this be so, we have to ac

1 There are no sufficient grounds for an assumption frequently made (Caspari, Graf, Keil, &c.)

tive of Obadiah.

From the southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba runs

the deep valley of the Arabah. On the eastern side of this valley rises the lofty range of red hills called Mount Seir, stretching about 100 miles north and Here south, by 20 miles east and west. his descendants, having driven out the Esau settled (see on Gen. xxxvi. 8), and original possessors, the Horites (see on Gen. xiv. 6), occupied the whole of the mountain (Deut. ii. 12). At the time of the Exodus the Edomites refused permission to the Israelites to pass through their territory, and they continued in a permanent state of hostility to the latter

606;

that Jeremiah's denunciation of Edom was made in the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, B.C. 606. The order of the Book of Jeremiah is unchronological throughout. The section which contains his "words of the Lord against the Gentiles" (chaps. xlvi.-li.) forms an appendix to the rest of the book; and the principle on which the several denunciations are grouped is not that of time, but of similarity of subject. The nations denounced are Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and Hazor, Elam, Babylon; or, as they are arranged by the LXX., Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar and Hazor, Damascus, Moab. The date of the first half of the denunciation of Egypt is given as the fourth year of Jehoiakim, B. C. (see on Jer. xlvii. 1); of Elam, as the first year of Philistia, as (probably) the same year of Zedekiah, B. C. 599 (see on Jer. xlix. 34); of Babylon, as the fourth year of Zedekiah, B. C. 594 (see on Jer. 1. 1). No indication is given of the date of the words against Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and Hazor; nor of that of the second half of the prophecy against Egypt. Some of these nations may well have been denounced in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (see 2 K. xxiv. 2), or at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah (see on Jer. xxvii. 3). But the date of the denunciation of Edom is more likely to have been the same as that of the Book of the Lamentations, in which Edom, and Edom only, is threatened, that is, about B.C. 587; which is also the most probable date of the second part of the prophecy against Egypt (see on Jer. xlvi. 13).

after their occupation of Canaan. They were reduced to subjection by David and Solomon. They recovered their independence in the reign of Jehoram (B. C. 889), but were again reduced by Amaziah (B.C. 838), to return to their independence once more in the time of Ahaz (B. C. 743). From this time forward they exercised unintermitting hostility towards their old masters. At the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (B. C. 588) they took part with the Chaldæans against the Jews, and during the first year of the captivity they overran the south of Judæa, and occupied it as far as Hebron. When next we hear of them, they are no longer in possession of Mount Seir: the Nabathæans are the inhabitants of Edom proper, while the Edomites are confined to the southern tract of Judea which they had won from the Jews. Here they continued to maintain themselves for some four centuries till they were defeated by Judas Maccabæus (B. C. 166) and were compelled to incorporate themselves in the Jewish nation by John Hyrcanus (B. C. 135). Their nationality was thenceforward lost and their name perished at the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans.

1. Obadiah distinguishes two conquests over the Edomites, the first to be effected by the heathen (vv. 1-9, 15, 16), the second by the restored Jews (vv. 17, 18), after which there are to be none remaining of the house of Esau. There is no difficulty in recognizing the second half of the prediction. Judas Maccabæus overthrew the Edomites at Arabattine (1 Macc. v. 3; Jos. 'Ant.' XII. 18 S1). Josephus describes the effect of their reduction by John Hyrcanus in the following words: "Hyrcanus captured the cities Adna, and Marissa, and having

subjected all the Idumæans he allowed them to remain where they were, on the condition of being circumcised and adopting the Jewish customs. And they, from love of their home, submitted to circumcision, and fashioned the rest of their habits and conversation after the manner of the Jews.

And that was the time after which they became thenceforward Jews." ('Ant.' XIII. 9 § 1.) Their nationality was gone, but they still hung together as a party, and joined the Zealots in their excesses at the time of the Roman war. Simon of Gerasa attacked them, and again Josephus relates: "Simon went through the whole of Idumæa, not only plundering cities and villages, but also devastating the whole country. And as you may see a wood utterly stripped by locusts after they have passed over it, so in the rear of Simon's army there was left a desert. They burnt, they razed, and everything that grew in the country they trampled down or ate up; and they made the cultivated ground harder than the uncultivated by their marching; and, in a word, not a sign of having existed was left to the places which were plundered" ('De Bell. Jud.' Iv. 9 § 7). The few remaining Edomites were slain at the capture of Jerusalem, and there was "not any remaining of the house of Esau; for Jehovah had spoken it."

2. The previous conquest, to be effected by the heathen, is not related in the same clear and distinct manner by any extant historian, but we cannot avoid inferring it from the facts with which we are acquainted. For the men who made Petra famous for its buildings and for its commerce were not Edomites-they were Nabathæans, a people of Chaldæan race and origin'. But how and when did a Chaldæan people get possession of the mountain fastnesses of Mount Seir? The exact date is unknown. They are in full possession B.C. 312, but the records of Edom between 588 and 312 are lost, and we are therefore unable to speak with certainty as to the date of the defeat and expulsion of the Edomites. Josephus, however, states that "on the fifth year

1 See, on this interesting subject, Quatremère, Mémoire sur les Nabatéens,' Paris, 1835; Chwolson, Ueber die Ueberreste der Alt-Babylonischen Literatur in Arabischen Uebersetzun gen,' St Petersburg, 1859.