METHODIST

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

JULY, 1876.

ART I.-OBADIAH.

THE book bearing the name of Obadiah (Hebrew, 77, that is, servant of Jehovah; Greek, LXX, 'Oßdioú al. 'Aßdioú) is the shortest in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew canon it stands fourth of the minor prophets-the fifth in the Greek.

For the determination of its date, the conclusion must be reached chiefly from the contents of the book itself. From these it appears almost certainly to have been written prior to the overwhelming ascendency of any one nation over Palestine, "Edom" and "the nations"—that is, the nations immediately contiguous, and among whom there is evidence of no very great inequality of power, are all that seem known to him. The sending forth of the embassy for the concentration of the forces of "the nations" is itself in proof that, singly, none of them were of sufficient strength to be considered equal to the task of destroying the Judean kingdom. This would seem certainly to place the writer before the interference of the Assyrians and Chaldeans to any very great extent in the affairs of Palestine. The Assyrians are first named in connection with the Israelites, B. C. 770, when Pul exacted tribute from Menahem. (2 Kings xv, 19.) Up to this time no strong impression of their great superiority over the other nations seems to have been prevalent, or Menahem could scarcely have had the hardihood, single-handed, to attack and seize the important city Tephsah or Thapsacus, commanding the ford of the Euphrates, since he could have had no hope of ultimate success FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXVIII.—25

as against that power if he had possessed knowledge of its greatness and resources. (2 Kings xv, 16.) Even if the reading of the cuneiform inscription on the "Black Obelisk "* is verified, and tribute had been paid by Jehu to Shalmanuber, a century before this, there is no reason why that may not have been the temporary result of a transient raid, soon lost sight of as a matter to cause apprehension, especially as there is no trace of a subsequent continuance of the payment of such tribute. Evincing such lack of knowledge as to the power of the Assyrian monarchy, the conclusion stated seems necessary, that the prophecy must have been delivered prior to the conquest of the northern kingdom.

It has been said that this prophecy must have been delivered at a time of great distress, while the nation was smarting under some sigual reverse. It is supposed to indicate that it appeared just after an overwhelming defeat of the forces of the Judean kingdom, and the capture of the city Jerusalem. But this, it is apprehended, will hardly be found to be an accurate statement. It is rather indicated that it was delivered at a time when special and extraordinary effort was being put forth by the Edomites to bring to bear upon the kingdom of Judah a force which would be sufficient utterly to destroy it. It is altogether probable that there were some peculiarities in the circumstances of the kingdom which invited or incited to such an effort, and the knowledge of their endeavor to seize upon this opportunity would have a natural tendency to bring up in review their former actions, especially the course which had been followed in former periods of distress. Old griev ances would then reappear, and the bitter feelings of the past would revive with all the potency of new inflictions. Particularly does there seem revived the bitterness arising from the memory of a former humiliation by the invasion of the Jewish territories, the defeat of its armies, and the capture of its capital. (V. 11.) There is no charge that the Edomites were actively engaged in the invasion of its territories, nor yet that they assisted in conquering them. They seem to have in that instance acted the part merely of interested spectators, with all their sympathies on the side of the foes of the Judean kingdom. But when the conquest was completed, they seem to be charged

*Smith's "Biblical Dictionary," Art. Assyria.

with having joined in the revelry of the victors, and with cowardly hate, and unmanly cruelty, to have harassed, seized, and surrendered the fugitives.

In the endeavor to fix upon the particular transaction to which reference is here made, it seems hardly possible to refer it to the invasion of Shishak, the Egyptian, (1 Kings xiv, 25,) since the Edomites were then in subjection to the Judean kingdom. Indeed, the incursion of Shishak does not appear to have materially affected the kingdom, otherwise than by the loss of treasure, and perhaps of somewhat of prestige; and down to the time of Jehoram the Edomites remained in subjection to the successors of Solomon. It was during the reign of Jehoram that the Edomites revolted from "under the dominion of Judah, and made themselves a king." (2 Chron. xxi, 8.) During the same reign, but subsequently to this revolt, "the Philistines and the Arabians" of the south "came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house;" in other words, "in defeated his "host" or armies, and spoiled the city Jerusalem. (2 Chron. xxi, 17.) The Edomites were in no condition to do much in the way of military assistance at that time. They had gained their independence so recently as scarcely to have been known in all probability as independent. Yet they were in just such circumstances as would naturally cause them to pursue the line of conduct which is charged upon them. Their long servitude would naturally debase as well as embitter, and the opportunity to harass and exult over the fallen fortunes of their former oppressor could hardly fail to be employed. If any stress may be laid upon the expressions "strangers" and "foreigners," as indicating two distinct peoples, then it might be considered as settled that reference is had to this invasion of these two distinct peoples, the Philistines and Arabians, as "strangers" " and "foreigners," in contradistinction to the Israelites of the northern kingdom. And these terms expressly preclude our applying it to any invasion in which the kings of Israel were concerned. To throw it later, as late, say, as the invasion by the Philistines in the reigns of Ahaz, besides being incompatible with the suggestion of there being, at the age of the writer, but little known as to the greatness of the Assyrian power, when at the very time Israel was ready to

be subjugated by Tiglath-Pilezer, and Ahaz was himself paying court to him, there seems no good reason for supposing that at that period, when the favor of the Assyrian monarch was assured to Judah, there would be offered any good chance for a successful combination against the Judean kingdom.

If, then, these conclusions are correct, the prophecy must have been written not earlier than B. C. 885 nor later than B. C. 742. It may assist in a nearer definition if we can find a period when the circumstances of Judah seemed especially to invite attack, or when there might appear to be a favorable time to form a combination against her "among the nations."

The brief reigns of Ahaziah, the successor of Jehoram, and of his mother, Athaliah, (B. C. 885-878,) are unmarked by any indications of disturbance by the neighboring nations. And there does not seem any special reason why that period should be chosen for any attack upon it. Its very defection from the religion of Judaism would bring it into greater harmony with "the nations," and thus lessen, humanly speaking, the reasons for such confederation. The reign of Joash, so long as the high-priest, Jehoiada, lived, seems equally free from all foreign interference, and offered no favorable opportunity for a successful invasion. The reign of his successor, Amaziah, was indeed characterized by a war against Edom, in which he was successful, and one against Israel, provoked by himself, in which he was defeated. The prosperous reigns of Uzziah, who led his forces victoriously into the countries of the Philistines and Arabs, and received tribute from the Ammonites, and the reign of Jotham, his son, presented no favorable opportunity or encouragement for any project for the subjugation of the kingdom. The succeeding reign of Ahaz, as we have said, was so closely connected with the Assyrian monarch as to render it even still less likely to meet the requirements of this prophecy. The closing years (B. C. 844-838) of the reign of Joash, however, would seem to present the opportunities for attempting a confederacy for the destruction of the Judean kingdom. Its disorganized state is indicated by the first measures which were taken by his son and successor, Amaziah, who immediately numbered the people, and reorganized its military forces. The invasion by the Syrians, the disorders and conspiracies which seemed to have distracted the land, and which finally

terminated the life of Joash, would offer temptations which an active and enterprising enemy would find difficulty in resisting. That some offense had at this time bee ncommitted, seems evident from the subsequent actions of Amaziah. For how else can it be accounted for that immediately upon his accession to the throne, and the reorganization of the military, Amaziah should hire auxiliaries from Israel to join him, and straightway march against Edom? What can better account for the severity of the king than the discovery of a treacherous purpose to form a confederacy against it, and the attempt to take advantage of the disturbances of the kingdom to work its utter destruction? If these considerations seem sufficient to fix the date, they would point to the interval B. C. 844 to 838, and with this conclusion we rest the examination as to the chronological data.

In relation to the person who wrote the prophecy a few words may be hazarded. The name Obadiah in this form occurs but ten times elsewhere than in this prophecy. In the form, Obadyahu, it occurs nine times, seven of these times in reference to Ahab's pious "governor" (1 Kings xviii, 3, 4, etc.) Of the entire number who are thus named two only belong to Judah, and one to Benjamin; the remainder, with the exception of three Levites, belong to the tribes of the northern kingdom. But the name does not occur at any time in the historical books so as to allow an identification with this prophet. The balance of probabilities, however, seems favorable to the idea of his having his residence, and having delivered his prophecy, within the territories of the king of Israel. It may now be noted that a prophet is named in the reign of Pekah, (B. C. 741,) as living in Samaria, who must have been held in the highest estimation. His influence was evidently very great, and his name and character widely known. Such, indeed, was the power which he exerted over the minds of the chiefs and people, that he was able, by his counsel and denunciation, to cause the return to Judah of the rich booty and captives taken from the unfortunate Ahaz. The name given in the Hebrew text is 7, (Oded.) In Josephus however, it is given as Obedas, (Oẞndas.) This is not the name which is given to the author of this prophecy, but the similarity, and the fact of such a variation as this, may suggest an