INTRODUCTION TO

Obadiah

OBADIAH WAS CALLED ON to experience the perils of life in a time of disaster. Not only was the kingdom of Judah in the process of collapse from its internal problems, but neighboring enemies were taking advantage of the kingdom’s difficulties to despoil it. Nevertheless, God had a message for his people. One day their enemies would experience God’s judgment. Then a purified Israel would inherit the Land of Promise, and God would dwell in their midst.

AUTHOR

The name Obadiah is a common one in the Scriptures, occurring 18 times in various forms. Jewish and Christian traditions have held that the prophet was the same Obadiah who was King Ahab’s palace administrator (1 Kgs 18:3-16). Contemporary scholarship, however, has hesitated in settling upon any specific biblical person, so that Finley (1990:339) says, “Nothing is known about the author beyond his name and that he received a prophetic revelation.” Although some have contended that Obadiah was a prophet who functioned as part of the Temple staff in Jerusalem, in the final analysis such remains unprovable. Allen (1976:137) remarks, “It is safer to conclude that Obadiah borrowed cultic and traditional themes in developing his prophecy.”

DATE AND OCCASION OF WRITING

Suggested dates for the book range from the ninth century to the late fourth century BC. Conservative scholars have adopted a wide span of dates, including both preexilic and exilic eras (i.e., from the ninth century to the sixth century BC). Final determination has largely been based on the interpretation of the denunciation of Edom in 1:10-14. Some commentators (e.g., Keil, Niehaus) have followed the traditional ninth-century BC date, citing general association with the description of events during the reign of King Jehoram of Judah. Others have defended an eighth-century BC date, either in the time of Amaziah and Uzziah (e.g., Pusey) or Ahaz (e.g., Raven), or the time of Jeremiah (e.g., Young). Most scholars (e.g., Stuart, Raabe) have opted for a sixth-century BC date because they view these crucial verses (1:10-14) as referring to events concerned with the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Thus Smith opts for a date somewhere between 587 and 500 BC.

A more precise date could be affixed if the relation of Obadiah 1:1-9 to Jeremiah 49:7-16 could be determined. Here again, scholars are divided as to whether Jeremiah borrowed from Obadiah (e.g., Keil, Pusey), Obadiah was dependent upon Jeremiah (e.g., Armerding, Bewer), or both drew upon common prophetic material (e.g., Finley). While Obadiah’s penchant for drawing upon traditional Hebrew phraseology makes the second option most likely (Raabe 1996:22-33), the data are capable of such diverse evaluation that a final decision as to literary dependency seems unlikely.

The occasion of Obadiah’s prophecy, then, would be variously understood. If a ninth-century BC date is decided upon, the denunciation of Edom would be tied in with the Edomite campaigning in Jehoram’s day (2 Kgs 8:16-24) and the subsequent Arabian-Philistine invasion of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chr 21:16-17). If the time period is that of Amaziah/Uzziah, Obadiah’s prophecy would parallel the sentiment of Amos, whose general condemnation of Edom’s perennial hostility merited a prophetic judgment oracle (Amos 1:11-12). If Obadiah is seen as prophesying during the reign of Ahaz, the prophet referred to the defeats by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). Taking the setting of the book as exilic most naturally views Edom’s vile behavior in connection with the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC.

Like the date, then, the occasion of Obadiah’s prophecy is difficult to determine. Yet the message of Edom’s sure judgment for its traditional position of animosity toward God’s people remains the same and is in harmony with the words of several other prophets (Isa 11:14; 21:11-12; 34:1-17; 63:1-6; Jer 25:21; 49:7-22; Lam 4:21; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15; 36:1-38; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:11-12; 9:12; Mal 1:2-5). In that regard, Edom becomes representative of all of God’s foes, who will ultimately be defeated in the great Day of the Lord (see especially Isa 34:1-17; 63:1-6; Ezek 35:1-15; 36:1-38).

AUDIENCE

Whatever the time period represented by the book, Obadiah wrote to citizens of Judah and Jerusalem. He was thoroughly familiar with events that had taken place in the holy city (1:11-14) and concerned about its sacred reputation and destiny (1:16-17, 21).

CANONICITY AND TEXTUAL HISTORY

In contrast to the debate over the date and occasion of the book, its canonicity is not in question. Like the rest of the Minor Prophets, its acceptance is attested at least by the second century BC by Ben Sirach (Sir 1:39).

Likewise, the text was largely well preserved, as attested by the second-century AD scroll of the Minor Prophets found at Wadi Murabba‘at, reflecting the tradition of the Masoretic Text. One may safely say with Watts (1969:30) that “the text of Obadiah is generally in very good shape.”

LITERARY STYLE

Despite its brevity, the prophecy displays a carefully structured format of prophetic poetry. Niehaus (1993:505) observes that Obadiah was “a master of various poetical techniques.” The prophecy is also freely sprinkled with striking images. For example, Edom’s stronghold is likened to an eagle’s nest (1:4) and its eventual defeat is compared to a hot fire quickly burning stubble (1:18). Obadiah also employed irony to great effect: Although Edom’s defeat will be a more thorough destruction than that of looters or robbers who at least leave something behind (1:5-6), it is a just reward for what Edom has done to others (1:15-16). The prophecy is also noteworthy for its elliptical style (1:19-20) and its effective use of repetition (1:11-14) and wordplay, such as the pun in 1:11-12 where “foreigners” (nakrim [TH5237A, ZH5799]) will effect “his [Edom’s] misfortune” (nakro [cf. TH5235, ZH5798]).

MAJOR THEMES

The basic theme of the book is the judgment of Edom, a theme held in common with Joel and Amos. This major emphasis is developed around the motif of brotherhood, which links the two halves (1:1-14, 15-21) of the book together. Indeed, the conduct of Edom (called Esau in 1:6, 8-9, 18, 21) was particularly loathsome, for it had oppressed Judah and Jerusalem, its brother (called Jacob, 1:10; cf. 12, 17-18). Yet, just as Esau was to find his blessing in Jacob (Gen 25:23; 27:27-40), so the land of Edom would find its only deliverance through those who come from Jacob’s descendants on Mount Zion (1:21).

Mountains form a significant motif in the book. Thus, the failure of the heights of Edom (1:2-4) stands in sharp contrast with the success of Mount Zion (1:17, 21). The subject of deliverance forms a subtheme, cast in a salvation oracle, that underscores the restoration of a remnant of God’s people so they can participate in the Lord’s final universal reign.

THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Obadiah’s theological emphases reflect the major message of the book. The Day of the Lord is seen as a corollary to the Lord’s universal sovereignty (1:15). This “day” is a time when his justice will be vindicated, as rebels are punished and God’s people delivered and rewarded in accordance with the principles of God’s retributive justice (1:15-21). Israel may be certain that God has not rejected his people but will reverse their present plight (Raabe 1996:60). In keeping with this latter emphasis, the theological themes of the Abrahamic covenant for the Lord’s remnant can be seen (1:17-21). The teleological purposes of God’s divine grant to his people find expression here. God is neither blind to present circumstances nor incapable of dealing with them. Ultimately, the God of history “is also the Lord of the future” (Allen 1976:139), for he will reign over all nations from Mount Zion, where his restored people will enjoy the age-old promises resident in the covenant granted by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

OUTLINE

Many outlines have been suggested for Obadiah, one of the most thorough being that of Raabe (1996:18-22). Although he makes a strong case for viewing the structure of Obadiah as built around (1) the divine speech formulae (1:1, 4, 8, 18), (2) perceived stitching devices between the resultant units (1:1-4, 5-7, 8-18, 19-21), and (3) the distinction between poetry and prose sections suggested in certain editions of the Hebrew text, one must proceed with caution in applying these data too stringently. This is because (1) divine speech formulae are often given for emphasis rather than as structural indicators; (2) a different set of thematic and stitching devices may be seen as readily as those suggested by Raabe; and (3) even granted the distinction between prose and poetry (although this is often difficult to ascertain in Hebrew prophecy), a change in literary medium need not be viewed as a thematic structural indicator.

Accordingly, the following outline is a simple thematic one that allows due weight to the progressive nature of Obadiah’s message: the impending doom of Edom (1:1b-9), the causes for its demise (1:10-14), and a consideration of the Day of the Lord (1:15-21).

Superscription (1:1a)

I. The Day of Edom’s Destruction (1:1b-14)

A. The Call to Battle against Edom (1:1b)

B. The Course of Edom’s Defeat (1:2-9)

C. The Cause for Edom’s Defeat (1:10-14)

II. Edom and the Day of the Lord (1:15-21)

A. The Judgment of the Nations (1:15-16)

B. The Restoration of Israel (1:17-21)