II.
OBADIAH
A.
Date
and author
1.
Date
This book, the shortest in the
OT (21 verses) is one of the most difficult to date.
The differences are not just
those of a liberal or conservative viewpoint, and they range from about
840
B.C. to shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), to as
late as
450 B.C.
The crux of the dating
question lies in the identification of the plundering of Jerusalem that
is
mentioned in vss. 10-11 and possibly on to vs. 14.
The most likely
identifications are (cf. Freeman, p. 140):
a.
During
the reign of Jehoram of Judah (848-841 B.C.) a coalition of Philistines
and
Arabians made an attack on Judah. See 2
Chron. 21:8,10,16,17; compare 2 Kgs 8:20-22 ("in his [Jehoram's] days
Edom
revolted").
(Ahab, 874-853 B.C. Jehoram
(of Judah) was the
brother-in-law of Jehoram of the N.K. and married to Athaliah).
It is possible that the
Edomites cooperated in this invasion and shared in the spoils.
b.
The
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. Some claim that
Ezek 35:5 supports this identification. But
the reference is not
conclusive. Because Edom later
took a similar position at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem
(cf. Psalm
137:7) is not proof that they had not done something similar at an
earlier time.
Objections to the 586 B.C.
date:
There is no mention of
deportation of the whole population as occurred in 586 B.C. There is no mention of the destruction
of the city and temple nor is there any mention of Nebuchadnezzar (see,
Laetsch, pp. 201, 202, 203).
Also the interpretation of
vss. 10,11 and 12-14 as having two different points of reference must
be
considered (more about this later).
The similar phraseology in
Jeremiah 49:7ff. indicates a relationship to Obadiah 1-6.
Opinions are divided, however, on which
is the original, or whether both reflect acquaintance with some other
unknown
prophecy.
c.
Attack
on Judah by Israel and Syria during the time of Ahaz was accompanied by
a
simultaneous attack by Edom (2 Chron 28:17-18). The reign of
Ahaz is ca. 735-715 B.C. This
identification is held by J. B.
Payne.
Some advocates of the date
shortly after 587 B.C.:
New Scofield Reference Bible
J. A. Thompson, NBD.
G. H. Livingston, Wycliff
Bible Commentary
C. L. Feinberg, The Major
Messages of the Minor Prophets
T. J. Finley, WEC
NIVSB
- prefers
L.
C. Allen, NICOT, early post-exilic period
D.
W. Baker, TOTC.
An advocate of a still later
date:
R. K. Harrison, OTI, ca. 450
B.C.
Some advocates of the 840 B.C.
date:
G. L. Archer, SOTI
H. E. Freeman, IOTP
M.
F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary
E. J. Young, OTI - sometime
before Jeremiah - (Jeremiah 49:7-22 similar to Obadiah and probably
dependent
upon it)
Keil & Delitzsch
J. J. Niehaus, An Exegetical
and Expository Commentary on the Minor Prophets, T. E. McComiskey,
Editor.
2.
Author
Obadiah = servant of the
LORD. We know nothing about his
personal life. There are several
other Obadiahs mentioned in the OT but there is no basis for
identification
(Cf. Servant of Ahab, 1 Kgs 18:1-16;
teacher of law under Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 17:7; overseer under Josiah,
2 Chron
34:12).
B.
The
Theme of the Book
It is a pronouncement of
judgment on Edom
The Edomites were the
descendants of Esau (Gen 36:1,8,9; cf., blessing on Jacob and Esau, Gen
27:28,39)
Gen 36:8 tells us that Esau
dwelt in the hill country of Seir.
Seir is the chief mountain range of Edom and is often used as a
synonym
for the whole land. It is directly
south of the Dead Sea, especially the mountainous country east of the
depression connecting the Dead Sea with the Gulf of Aqabah.
Edom's principle cities were
Bozrah, Teman and Sela. Sela which
means crag or rock is possibly to be identified with the famous city of
Petra
occupied in latter times by the Nabatean Arabs (4th cen. B.C.).
From Ezion-Geber on the Gulf
of Aqabah the King's Highway ran north through Edom.
It was along this route that Moses wanted to lead the
Israelites at the time of the Exodus.
Edom's refusal to allow passage is recorded in Num. 20:14-21. The antagonism which is seen here
continued for centuries. David
conquered Edom (2 Sam 8:13-14), but there were continued conflicts
between the
Israelites and Edom throughout the kingdom period.
Here is the ultimate
outworking of the Jacob-Esau controversies of Genesis.
Keil, p. 360. (CC. 38). Wrong or
violence is all the more reprehensible when it is
committed against a brother.
C.
Comments
on the content.
OUTLINE:
I.
JUDGMENT
ON EDOM - VERSES 1-9
II.
REASON
FOR THE JUDGMENT - VERSES 10-11
III.
WARNING FOR
THE FUTURE - VERSES 12-14
IV.
FUTURE
JUDGMENT ON ALL THE UNGODLY - VERSES 15-16
V.
RESTORATION
AND BLESSING FOR ISRAEL - VERSES 17-21
Verse 2.
<y!wG)B^
I*yT!t^n+ /f)q* hN}h! Prophetic
perfect? KJV: "have made".
NIV: "will make."
Is the reference to a coming
judgment or to a past historical reality, ie., that Edom was a small
insignificant people, never a great empire? In
context it seems to be a reference to a coming judgment.
Verse 3.
ul^S#-yw}g=j^b=
yn!k=v) -
"you who live in the clefts of the rock" or is this a proper name? A
reference to the city Petra?
Petra
Petra was a great city in
ancient times, but was completely forgotten for about 1000 years until
a Swiss
explorer Johann Ludwig Burkhardt rediscovered it in 1812.
Entrance to the city, which is
in a valley surrounded by mountains, is only by a winding canyon or siq. In places this
is as narrow as 12 feet. A stream flows
along this canyon during
the rainy season. At places the
walls of the canyon rise 200 feet.
This means that the city was easily defended in ancient times. Unexpected rainstorms can cause flash
floods which sweep through the canyon up to a depth of 20 feet. Twenty French tourists died in such a
flash flood in 1963.
The view that greets the
traveler upon reaching the end of the canyon is spectacular. Directly opposite the opening into the
city area is the building known as the Treasury (Al-Khazneh) that is
cut into
the red sandstone rock with a facade of about 130 ft. high with
columns,
cornices, urns etc.
Many more buildings are found
in an area of about 1 mile by 3/4 of a mile, most of which are cut out
of the
sides of the barren sandstone mountains that surround the valley.
Verses 4-9.
I*d+yr!wa)
<V*m! -
"I will bring you down"
Best understood as a
prediction of Edom's loss of her territory that was fulfilled
historically by
their defeat at the hands of the Nabatean Arabs.
These people, a nomadic Arab
tribe, came from Nabaioth in the region of Kedar in northern Arabia.
From Malachi 1:3-5 (ca. 430
B.C.) it appears that the Edomites had already been driven from Mount
Seir by
these Arabs.
In time, the Nabatean kingdom
extended up into the Transjordan region as far as Damascus. By NT times Damascus was held by King
Aretas of a Nabatean dynasty (Aretas IV's daughter married Herod
Antipas).
The dispossessed Edomites
settled in an area of southern Judah which eventually became known as
Idumea
(Greek form of the Hebrew <oda$), where they maintained an independent
existence for
a time until they were conquered by John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.) and
were
forcibly converted to Judaism (circumcision, law observance, etc.). In the following century the dynasty of
Herod the Great, descended from Idumean stock came into control of the
kingdom
of Judah. After Roman times the
Edomites disappear as a people.
The few Edomites that remained seem to have been lost among the
Arabs
and the very name disappears from history.
Verses 10,11
Reason for the judgment.
Verses 12-14
Warning for the future.
There is a question whether
these verses have reference to the past (cf., e.g, Allen, 156, and
other
commentators who date the book after the destruction of Jerusalem), the
present, or the future (i.e., to the time of Obadiah).
Allen, (NICOT, 156,157)
attempts to deal with the tense issue of the verbal forms in these
verses by
arguing that "in highly immaginative fasion the prophet speaks of
events
in the past as if they were still present." Neihaus (EECMP, Vol 2., p.
497) comments: "It is difficult to understand these prohibitions to
have
anything other than a future event in view. The
NRSV translates the prohibitions as perfects [should not
have], but this is grammatically untenable."
There are 8 Jussive forms -
frequently taken as referring to events that have already occurred, and
therefore a reference to the same incident described in verses 10-11.
Various translations:
KJV: "thou
shouldst not have. . . "
NASB: "do not .
. . ."
JPSV: "How could
you . . ." But
footnote says: Lit. "Do not . . ."
NIV: "you should
not . . ."
NLT: "you shouldn't have
. . . ."
Yet Keil, (p. 363), I
believe correctly, says that the jussive cannot be taken as "a future
of
the past" (shouldst not have . . . ).
Keil concludes that it is
neither past nor future specifically but an ideal event that includes
both. This seems to me to be too
abstract.
Laetsch (p. 202, cf.,
Bibliography, p. 11) views 11-14 as an eyewitness description of the
present,
and thus finds the warning of 12-14 as appropriate.
He places it in the time of Jehoram (cf., 2 Chron 21:16,17;
ca 840 B.C.).
Gaebelein (p. 13-15)
says vss. 10-14 applies initially to 2 Chron 21:16 (Jehoram's time) but
had a
fuller fulfillment in the Babylonian captivity of Jerusalem (a double
reference).
It seems to me that although
Laetsch's present sense is possible, a future reference is intended in
vss
12-14; and that while vss 10-11 and vss 12-14 refer to similar actions
by the
Edomites, vss 10-11 refer to past actions (probably in the time of
Jehoram),
but vss 12-14 are warnings for the future that Edom ignored at the time
of the
destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.
Aalders (pp. 35,36),
similar to Allen, sees the jussives as a rhetorical form in which facts
of the
past are described. Vss 12-14
speak of the same event as vss. 11,12.
In Aalder's view the jussives should be translated as "do not .
.
."
J. A. Eaton (Torch Com)
p. 42,43. The pleadings are a sad
irony, for the choice of evil has already been made.
They can only serve now to mirror the offenses already
committed, showing up their pitiless and despicable character.
Hengstenberg (p. 400)
"The prophet exhorts the Edomites neither to rejoice nor to cooperate
in
the destruction of Jerusalem, because, other wise they would certainly
receive
the well-merited reward of such wickedness committed against the
Covenant
people to whom they were so nearly related . . ."
One may object, as for example
Aalders does, that it is strange for a judgment to be pronounced on
Edom in
vss. 10-11 and then a warning given concerning the future in vss 12-14.
But notice Jeremiah
18:5-10. Conditional?
Also notice Amos 2:13-16; 3:2;
3:11-15; 4:1-3; 5:27; 6:14 etc., yet compare 5:4-9,14,15.
Verses 15,16
Future judgment on all the
ungodly.
Here we have a transition from
Edom to the heathen in general.
"For the Day of the LORD is near upon all the nations."
Provided our dating is correct
- this is the first use of the expression "The Day of the LORD" in
the Old Testament.
THE DAY OF THE LORD
In general terms the "day
of the LORD" is a day in which the LORD will bring judgment on his
enemies
and blessing to his people.
The term is used rather
frequently in many of the prophetic books. Variations
occur such as "the day of His anger"
(Zeph 2:2); "the day of the LORD's wrath" (Ez 7:19).
It seems to be a term known
and understood by the people even with the earlier prophets (cf., Amos
5:18,20). Here the people desire
the coming of the Day of the LORD.
The general expectation was that the Day would be one of
blessing for
Israel, but Amos tells them to expect the reverse (vs. 20).
If the day of the LORD was a
well known expression, what does it mean?
It is not difficult to
determine that it is inseparably tied to God's judgment (cf., Joel
1:15). The popular conception was that
this
would be a day of judgment on Israel's enemies only, and that it would
therefore be a day of blessing for Israel (Amos 5:18).
Joel and Amos warn against this idea
and then on the basis of the coming of the Day of the LORD call the
people to
repentance with their whole heart (Joel 2:11-13).
But we may ask is the
expression the "Day of the LORD" to be considered as referring to one
specific day - and if so, when is it to be?
When we look at the various
usages it is difficult to understand them all as reference to one
specific
day. In Isa 13:6,9 the day is
apparently the time of Babylon's destruction. In
Jer. 46:10 the Day of the LORD of Hosts is the day of the
battle at Carchemish (a battle involving Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon,
605 B.C.)
in which Egypt suffered defeat. In
other places it is often difficult to determine the exact concrete
time, but it
is clear that it is not always the same time.
It seems, then, that we are to
understand the expression "the Day of the LORD" as referring not just
to one particular day only, but as referring to special times of God's
judging-punishing activity.
Sometimes there is an eschatological context (cf., Joel 3:14-21;
Mal
4:5), but one cannot say that the Day of the LORD in prophecy is always
the day
of judgment at the end of the world.
It would seem that manifestations of God's judging-punishing
activity
that foreshadow that final judgment are also referred to by the
expression
"the Day of the LORD."
Verse 15.
What is the connection between
Edom's judgment and the judgment of all the nations. See Keil, p. 367. (CC.
39).
Verse 16.
"Just as you drank . ." Who
is addressed?
"you" - Edomites in triumph OR, Jews in tasting God's judgment?
Against understanding the
Jews:
Edom is addressed, not Judah
in the whole prophecy of Obadiah.
The parallelism is "As
you [Edom] have done" (vs. 15) / "Just as you drank . . " (vs.
16).
This means that
"drank"/ "drink" is used in two ways:
1.
In
carousing, triumph (1st phrase)
2.
In
tasting judgment (2nd phrase) cf., Jer 25:15,16; 49:12; Isa 51:17
Verses 17-21.
Future blessing for Israel
How are these verses to be
understood?
1.
SOME
SUGGEST THE PASSAGE IS TO BE SPIRITUALIZED AND UNDERSTOOD AS
DESCRIPTIVE OF THE
EXTENSION OF GOD'S KINGDOM THROUGH THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL.
Laetsch, 207.
Briefly stated, we have here
the future history of Judah-Jerusalem, the Church of God (vv. 17, 18a),
of its
enemies (vv. 18b, 19), of those members of the Church who are
oppressed, held
captive by the enemies (v. 20)."
Laetsch on vv. 17,18a
" . . . Jerusalem . . a
very fitting symbol of the New Testament Church . . . On Mount Zion,
within the
Church of God, 'shall be deliverance' . . . literally, escape; that
escape from
the old evil Foe promised already in Paradise (Gen 3:15) . . . . As a
result of
this deliverance, there is holiness, a holiness perfect in every detail
. . . a
holiness not of man's making, but procured by the promised Messiah . .
. .
Another result of this deliverance and its resultant holiness is . . .
"The house of Jacob" will possess their possessions . . . "
Laetsch on vv. 19, 20.
"Vv. 19, 20 do not mean
to say that every district named shall possess only that territory
named in the
predicate. We meet here, rather,
with a quite common Hebrew idiom.
A number of subjects and a corresponding number of predicates
are
listed, each of the predicates being connected with one of the subjects. In reality all of the subjects are but
parts of one body which carries out the work described by the
predicates. Israel, God's people shall
again
possess or take possession of the various districts and countries
named, so
that the land occupied by them shall exceed by far the territory they
possessed
in the days of Obadiah.
When and how were the promises
of vv. 19, 20 fulfilled? We need
not resort to guesswork . . . Matthew and Mark tell us that people from
Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee, from beyond Jordan, Decapolis, Idumaea, Tyre
and
Sidon were gained for Christ's kingdom by Christ's preaching. The Book of Acts records the
fulfillment of Obad. 17-20; the conquest of the countries and districts
named
by Obadiah by the Church of the New Testament, the true Mount Zion:
Philistia
(Obad 19), Acts 8:40; 9:32-34; Samaria (v. 19), Acts 8:5-17; Zarephath
in
Phoenicia (v. 20), Acts 11:19; Sepharad (v. 20), in Asia Minor, Rev.
3:1, and
Paul's activity. Paul was a
Benjamite, and Benjamin is named as possessing Gilead, at Paul's time
having a
mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, representative of conditions
under which
Paul labored in the world at large."
Laetsch on vs. 21.
"But what about
Edom? Are they hopelessly doomed
to eternal damnation? No!
Obadiah had spoken stern words of judgment
against the relentless enemies of God's people. Yet
he closes his prophecy with a glorious promise . . .
deliverers will be sent to Edom . . . Gratitude for their own salvation
will
prompt the delivered children of God to ascend Mount Zion and proclaim
salvation to Edom, their enemy and oppressor . . . Edom is a type and
symbol of
the grace of God evidenced in the preaching of the Gospel of salvation
unto all
people . . . . Thus by the faithful cooperation of the members of God's
Church,
be they clergy or laymen, the Kingdom shall be the LORD'S . . . The
Hebrew
perfect 'shall be' denotes an established fact. Jehovah
is and remains King Supreme in His kingdom of power
governing the affairs of the world, in His kingdom of grace ruling,
blessing,
extending, protecting His Church and all its individual members, and
leading
them finally into His kingdom of glory (Rev 21 and 22).
In spite of all opposition of the
forces of hell (Ps 2:1-3), Jehovah is and remains King of Kings and
Lord of
Lords! In time and eternity
Jehovah's is the Kingdom!
2.
OTHERS
SUGGEST THAT THESE VERSES ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A PREDICTION OF THE
RETURN OF
ISRAEL TO HER POSSESSION, THAT IS, TO HER LAND, AND THE JUDGMENT OF
EDOM AS A
NATION.
If this is so, the question
then is: has it been fulfilled, or is it yet to be fulfilled?
A.
J.
B. Payne and G. Ch. Aalders understand the prophecy to have been
fulfilled for
the most part in the inter-testament period.
Aalders p. 47ff
Vs. 17b - Israel will
repossess the land from which she had been driven
Vs. 18 - the destruction to be
brought on Edom by returned Israel
Vs. 19 - occupation of various
areas
Vs. 20 - repetition of vs. 17b
Payne p. 419ff.
Vs. 17 - fulfillment in return
from the Babylonian exile in 537 B.C.
In
Mount Zion will be a holy place = the temple rededicated in 515 B.C.
(Ezra
6:15-16).
Vs. 18a - House of Jacob and
house of Joseph are to return - fulfillment in return from exile -
representatives of all 12 tribes were present in 515 and later, Ezra
6:17;
8:35.
Vs. 18b-21a - These conquests
were accomplished in the second century BC when northern Judah and
Benjamin
were the nucleus from which the Jews under the Maccabees pressed out
into the
areas indicated by the verses. See
Payne for details. The saviours (<yu!v!wm)) are human, not Messianic -
Judas and his nephew John Hyrcanus (cf. Neh. 9:27 of judges, the only
other
occurrence of Hiphil Part.).
Vs. 21b - the kingdom shall be
Yahweh's - fulfillment - future Messianic kingdom.
Question (JRV): Why not take
21b in the less absolute sense?
That is, in the action of the saviors (the Maccabees) God's
sovereignty is being displayed.
Aalders adds to his comments
(p. 15)
"We must take into
consideration the matter of typology, and then we see in the relationship of Edom
to
Israel, the relationship of the world to the church of Christ. Just as here a strong judgment is
pronounced on Edom for its animosity toward Jacob, so also the world
will
undergo God's judgment for its animosity toward the church, and like
restored
Israel shall triumph over Edom, so shall the church triumph over all
who were
opposed to her . . . Esau was, just as Jacob, a son of Isaac and a
grandson of
Abraham, but the Edomites were the bitter enemies of Israel. So also in the new economy there are
those born in the family of the church who later become her most bitter
enemies. But God will cause the
church to triumph over such enemies. . . ."
B.
Others,
see the prophecy as yet to be fulfilled.
Gabelein
Vs. 17b - restoration of
Israel to the land. Not yet
fulfilled.
Vs. 18 - Fulfilled by Judas
Maccabeus and John Hyrcanus.
Vss. 19,20 - "One might
write over these two verses this heading in
large
letters; 'The Final Reapportionment of the Land' . . . How are these
two verses
to be taken? Are we to agree with
those who seek their fulfillment in the past? Or, like many others are
we to
give up any attempt to take them as meaning what they say and simply
spiritualize these geographical details into a vague prediction of the
dominion
of the church? Or, finally, do we
have here a brief outline of God's ultimate solution of the Palestinian
problem
during the millennium? Surely this
last alternative is best, for read in this way the verses are
consistent with
the course of O.T. prophecy as a whole . . ."
After discussion of details
with little conclusion Gabelein says: "Whatever the true solution of
these
difficulties, we may be certain that these details are all known to God. He has not forgotten His dispersed
people. His covenants with them
are enduring. And one day, when
the Messiah will occupy the throne of David, the tangled skein of these
predicitons will be unraveled. . . ."
Vs. 21 - Saviors. "
. . . in the restricted historic
sense of his prophecy Obadiah is looking forward to such human
deliverers as
Zerubbabel and Judas Maccabeus.
But these 'saviors' are at best foreshadowings of the Savior, who was yet to come
in Obadiah's day and whose second and glorious appearing we are now
awaiting .
. . this prophet . . . dealing only with an age long enmity and with a
threatened judgment, is impelled by the prophetic spirit, and sees
'saviors'
climbing mount Zion. It is hardly
relevant to ask what he meant; but what he saw was the Saviour of the world,
the Saviour who is Judge, the Saviour of whom it is said by the latest
of
Biblical prophets, 'the kingdoms of the world are become the kingdoms
of the
Lord and of His Christ.' Scientific
exegesis sees nothing of this sort in these words; but we may venture
to say it
is there."
See, New Scofield Reference
Bible, p. 940, Note 2 (vs. 18).
Edom will be revived in the latter days.
Obadiah is a remarkable
prophetic book that deserves much more attention than it normally
receives. Paul R. Raabe captures
its significance in the first paragraph to his Anchor Bible Commentary
on
Obadiah (1996. p. 3).
"The book of Obadiah is
the smallest book in the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament. With only one chapter of 21 verses it
can easily be overlooked by readers of the Bible. After
all, what are 21 verses compared to, say, the 1,364
(MT) of Jeremiah? Yet close study
of Obadiah is worth the effort.
For one thing, its small size proves to be advantageous. Readers can hold in the mind and
memorize the whole book without too much difficulty.
This enables them to see the entire forest without getting
lost among the trees, something that cannot be done so easily with a
large
book. Furthermore, Obadiah flows
in the mainstream of the Israelite prophetic tradition, a
characteristic that
has not always been recognized.
This short book elegantly summarizes many of the great prophetic
themes,
such as divine judgment against Israel's enemies, the day of Yahweh,
the lex
talionis as
the standard of judgment, the cup-of-wrath metaphor, Zion theology,
Israel's
possession of the land, and the kingship of Yahweh.
Thereby the book serves as a concise epitome for much of the
message of the prophets. It also
illustrates the nature of prophetic discourse: its poetry and prose;
its types
of speech, such as judgment, accusation, warning, and promise; and its
rhetorical style. It especially
exemplifies oracles against the foreign nations, a category that
occupies much
of the corpus of the Latter Prophets.
Therefore attention to the little book of Obadiah should prove
to be a
rewarding experience for serious students of the bible."
In Obadiah we are also given a
remarkable view into the future in the short span of 21 verses (see,
Payne,
418, 419).
Among its significant
prophecies:
1.
Judgment
of Edom, vss. 1-9
2.
Destruction
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. (although not mentioned by name), vss.
12-14;
and scattering of Israel and Judah intimated in vs. 20.
3.
The
return of Israelites from exile and dominion extended over Edom during
Maccabean time (vv 17-21).
4.
Perhaps,
the establishment of the future Messianic kingdom of Yahweh (vs. 21).