Chapter 12. 

Obadiah.

Obadiah and Jeremiah.

        Our interpretation of Obadiah must in measure depend on the date we give it, and this is turn depends on how we explain the connexion of vers. 1-9 with Jer. 49:7-22. If we read the two side by side, it should be obvious that some connexion exists. The relevant parallelisms are:

        Obad. vers. 1-4 — Jer. 49:14-16

        Obad. vers. 5, 6 — Jer. 9, 10

        Obad. vers. 8, 9 — Jer. 7b, 22b

The connexion is explained in three main ways:

        1. Jeremiah quoted from Obadiah. This, formerly the most widely held view, has a great deal to be said in its favour. The capture of Jerusalem described in ver. 11 would be that mentioned in IIChron. 21:16f, c. 843 B.C. If this is so, Obadiah is the oldest of the prophetic books; this would ex­plain its apparently primitive picture of the Day of the Lord, its early position in the Book of the Twelve, and indeed why it was preserved for us. Its position among The Twelve suggests that the Jewish scribes accepted that the evidence pointed to its use by Jeremiah (See ISBE, article Obadiah, Book of; Young, p. 252f; Kirkpatrick, pp. 34-40).

        The arguments against this view are almost conclusive. If the Edomites had behaved in such a way as the prophecy suggests at the capture of the city in 843 B.C., it is very hard to understand why the writer of Chronicles did not mention them, further, if the disaster to Jerusalem had been on the scale suggested by vers. 11-14, it is very strange that it was passed over in silence by Kings, while IIChron. 21:16f makes the impression of little more than a plundering raid. No other Rapture of Jerusalem, except that by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 II jr. fit the picture, for those mentioned in IKings 14:25f,

        2. Obadiah used Jer. 49:7-22. Though this view has received little support, Aalders (Aalders: Recent Trends in Old Testament Criticism, p. 15) seems to be correct, when he maintains that it is proved by the use of the feminine “her” in Obad. ver. 1. Nowhere else, except Mal. 1:4, is Edom feminine, and in this one exception the use is probably cor­rectly explained by G. A. Smith, “The verb in the feminine indicates that the population of Edom is meant” (G. A. Smith II, p. 352.). This can­not be applied to Obad. ver. 1. The parallel in Jer. 49:14 also has the feminine, but it refers not to Edom but to Bozrah, which is feminine. So it would seem that Obadiah quoted this verse from Jeremiah without altering the grammar.

        In spite of difficulties made or left unsolved by this view, it does make the capture of Jerusalem referred to in vers. 11-14 the capture by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C., when as we know from Ezek. 35, Ps. 137:7; Lam. 4:21f, the Edomites did so behave. It should be noted too that in contrast to Obadiah, Jer. 49:7-22, which is dated 605 B.C. (Jer. 46:If), brings no specific charge against Edom.

        3. The most commonly held view to-day is that both Obadiah and Jer. 49:7-22 are quoting an older prophecy. That this is possible may be seen from the analagous cases of Isa. 2:2-5; Mic. 4:1-5 (see pp. 48, 63) and Isa. 15f (see p. 52). Since, however, this view normally assumes that Jer. 49:7-22 is not by Jeremiah, does not answer Aalders’ argument and is no more effective than the second view in meeting certain inherent difficulties in a late date for Obadiah, we are not attracted by it (For an exposition of this view see HDD, article, Obadiah, Book of.). It agrees with the second view in making the capture of Jerusalem that in 586 B.C. We shall probably be safe in accepting that Obadiah cannot have been written before that date.