Obadiah's ‘Day of the Lord': A Semiotic Reading

1. Introduction

The semiotics of Yuri Lotman has an unusual difficulty that could run the risk of ordinarily being discarded as a weakness of little value to the Hebrew scholar. The theory contains a self-identified contradiction between the necessitated multiple occurrences of a symbol in a semiotic system, and the unrepeatable character that symbol assumes in its unique utilization within a belletristic text. ¹ Though logical inconsistencies of this type may ordinarily ward off biblical scholars in search of new ways to look at old texts, I believe it is within this very contradiction that a benefit of Lotmanian semiotics lies for biblical scholars. The present study intends to survey the paradox of Yuri Lotman and the assistance it may yield for the study of Hebrew poetry. The conclusions drawn from this paradox will then be demonstrated in assessing the semiotic development of the ‘day of the Lord’ in the book of Obadiah.

2. The Lotmanian Paradox

Yuri Lotman views language as a semiotic system. ‘Natural language’, as he calls it, becomes the primary sign system from which literature is constructed. ² Thus all literature, whether poetry or prose, should be approached as a semiotic system. ³ Poetry in particular is developed as a secondary sign system imposed upon the natural language. The additional linguistic rules and constraints could ordinarily be expected to restrain the information-transmitting capacity of the language, but Lotman curiously observed that this was not the case. He found that poetry actually had the unique capacity to bear more information with the added linguistic rules. This observation eventually led Lotman to the publication of Analysis of the Poetic Text. ⁴

Lotman observed that in poetry, the denotata of a symbol is determined by two axes: the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic. That is to say, a word is properly defined within a poem by both its semantic domain in the natural language, and its linguistic ordering within the secondary modeling system of the poem. ⁵ The nomenclature utilized in Hebrew poetics to explain this concept is more commonly drawn from Roman Jakobson's description of the ‘axis of selection’ and the ‘axis of combination'. ⁶ As a word is placed in a poetic system, its natural meaning is nuanced and adjusted by the systemic relationships it holds with the words and structures around it. Lotman supports this fact by observing how readers draw upon the contextual system of the poem to interpret pronouns and previously unknown vocabulary. ⁷

It logically follows, therefore, that in poetry there is no such thing as true repetition. If a symbol is defined by both paradigmatics and syntagmatics, then the symbol may never truly be repeated within a poem. While a word may draw its meaning from the same paradigmatic value, it may never repeat the identical syntagmatic positioning within a poetic system. ⁸ Thus the grapheme may be repeated, but the semiotic value it represents may never be perfectly identical to a previous or subsequent usage.

An example of this may be found in Obadiah. Obadiah exhibits what may be identified as several variations of repetition throughout the poem. Among these is the identical repetition of the phrase ‭הוהי םאנ‬ (‘declares the Lord’) in vv. 4 and 8. Strict repetition of this sort is often considered significant by commentators ⁹ and occasionally labeled a poetic refrain. ¹⁰ Yet Lotman would caution against reading v. 8's ‭הוהי םאנ‬ as an exact duplicate of v. 4's ‭הוהי םאנ‬. Though drawing from identical paradigmatic values, these repeated phrases differ in their syntagmatic relationships. Though the syntagmatic differences emerge on many levels, ¹¹ Lotman's theory necessitates a difference in the relationship ‭הוהי םאנ‬ has with its parallel occurrence. The two usages of ‭הוהי םאנ‬ form a system within which each one serves a different purpose. Verse 4's utilization is unprecedented in the poem. Verse 8's employment of the phrase, by nature of being second, establishes a sequential relationship that remained previously unknown to the audience during the reading of verse 4. Every repetition necessitates at least a primary occurrence, and a secondary occurrence. The function of each repeated symbol is syntagmatically different in relation to its parallel occurrence. Thus the syntagmatic axis of ‭הוהי םאנ‬ shifts between the occurrences resulting in a different nuance of force and function.

Herein lies the logical inconsistency of Lotman's approach to semiotics. A symbol may never truly be repeated in a belletristic text. Yet by definition, for a symbol to be a symbol it must be repeated enough within a semiotic system to establish a relationship between the signan and signatum. ¹² Lotman writes that ‘the text is a concrete expression of the system'. ¹³ Thus the primary means for understanding the secondary modeling system governing the syntagmatic coding of symbols within a poetic text is the poem itself. This approach to poetics necessitates an emphasis on the unity of the line, the stanza, and the poem as a whole. ¹⁴ These units become key constituents in properly determining the denotata of a symbol within its system. Thus the symbol must repeat within these systems. Lotman writes, ‘the resemblance of sign and object constitutes the minimal act of repetition'. ¹⁵ A symbol by definition, therefore, may only be established by intra-systemic repetition, but may not be truly repeated within a poetic system. In short, a symbol must be both repeatable and unrepeatable within the same semiotic system.

This conflict could at first glance be troubling for the biblical scholar. It may represent a portion of Lotman's system that is in need of revision or softening prior to approaching a Hebrew poem. After all, the ‭הוהי םאנ‬ of Obadiah either functions as a symbol, or it does not. I propose that within this paradox, the student of the Hebrew Bible will find immense insight into the development of a semiotic system within poetry.

Instead of engaging the paradox as an ‘either/or’ contradiction, perhaps it could be approached as a ‘both/and’ tension. Thus the necessitated repetition and the unrepeatable nature of symbols become two sides of the same coin. Lotman observes that poetic structure emerges on numerous levels within the poem. ¹⁶ The interaction between these levels yields either complementing or conflicting structural patterns. ¹⁷ Lotman writes: ‘in a text a polylogue of different systems is constantly taking place; different modes of the explanation and systematization of the world, different pictures of the world, come into conflict. The poetic (belletristic) text is in principle polyphonic.' ¹⁸

This leads to two logical conclusions. First, there must be enough repetition from the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic axes of a word for the value of its semiotic usage to be established within a system. Second, as the poetic system unfolds and develops, the syntagmatic employment of a symbol will inevitably shift. The shift of the syntagmatic axis of a symbol within a poetic system will inevitably produce a shift in the nuance of the symbol's denotata. Thus it can be expected that a symbol repeated within a poem will undergo development and change as the semiotic system defining its syntagmatic value develops around it. In short, there are no static symbols. Shifting semiotic values is necessitated by Lotman's theory.

With these two conclusions in mind, the biblical scholar approaching Hebrew poetry as a semiotic system would look for several things. Not only would the scholar seek to identify the various systems of a poem interacting on the numerous linguistic levels. The scholar would also approach the poem as a developing unified system, and seek to understand how the unfolding system shapes and nuances the ever changing symbols employed within that system. The scholar could seek to track the growth and development of the poetic symbols. This approach to Hebrew poetry will now be demonstrated by exploring Obadiah's use of the ‘day of the Lord'.

3. The Semiotic Development of Obadiah's ‘Day of the Lord’

Obadiah was written as a prophetic oracle against Edom for the sins they committed against the people of Judah. There is a fair amount of diversity in dating Obadiah. Most scholars understand the Edomite participation in the 587 bce fall of Jerusalem as the occasion warranting Obadiah's accusations against Edom. Thus dates typically fall sometime in the exilic period. ¹⁹ It is suspected that the oracle against Edom was occasioned by Edom's part in the siege and sacking of Jerusalem as well as seizing land from the former kingdom in its weakened state. ²⁰

There has also been a fair amount of scholarly diversity in deciphering the textual unity of Obadiah. Obadiah 1–8's relationship with Jeremiah 49 indicates the likelihood of Obadiah's employment of pre-existent prophetic material. ²¹ This has led several scholars to suggest a multi-staged compositional development of the final text currently found in the Book of the Twelve. ²² Though a redactional process is probable, the final form bears remarkable structural unity, ²³ indicating that the poem may still be read as a unified whole. ²⁴ Paul Raabe comments that the stylistic shifts often occasioning redactional hypotheses are characteristic of prophetic discourse, which is inclined toward shifts on all levels of language. ²⁵

By way of introduction, I divide Obadiah into seven stanzas, with v. 1 set apart both conceptually and grammatically as an introductory beckoning to the audience. ²⁶ Each stanza is semantically and grammatically linked to the preceding stanza, tightly binding the unity of the poem. Furthermore, each stanza conceptually builds upon the previous stanza in the development of the semiotic system. Though numerous symbols are employed in Obadiah, one of prime importance is the ‘day of the Lord'. The references (both direct and indirect) to the ‘day of the Lord’ occur frequently enough that the nuanced value of the symbol can be observed shifting throughout the course of the poem as its syntagmatic placement changes.

The paradigmatic value of the ‘day of the Lord’ can be drawn from its utilization in the natural language. Though the natural language of ancient Israel is largely lost to modern researchers, some of its paradigmatic value can be determined from literary and prophetic occurrences outside the poetic discourse in Obadiah. The ‘day of the Lord’ is directly referenced by some combination of the words ‭הוהי םוי‬ over two dozen times in the Old Testament. ²⁷ Scholars are not entirely sure when the concept developed. Gerhard von Rad has suggested the tradition developed from holy war ritual in ancient Israel. This emerged from the image of God as a divine warrior who is the decisive force in battle. ²⁸ For this reason, many scholars believe the ‘day of the Lord’ was originally directed against other nations until Amos’ radical reappropriation of it against the northern kingdom of Israel. ²⁹

More frequently it occurs in prophetic literature in an abbreviated form of ‘the day'. This condensed expression is often used in oracles after the author has already begun describing the actions of God ‘in that day'. ³⁰ Scholars suspect this alternative expression became more popular during the post-exilic period after the tetragrammaton fell out of use. ³¹ The ‘day of the Lord’ is referenced in this form over two hundred times. ³² It can often be expressed along with the name of the target group (e.g. ‘the day of Midian’ in Isa. 9.4), or a description of what the day will be like (e.g. ‘the day of trouble’ in Ezek. 7.7).

References to the ‘day of the Lord’ are broadly used to describe a time in which God intervenes in human history (Isa. 13.6; Ezek. 13.5; Amos 5.18). More specifically, they often speak of divine judgment and violence. Thus it frequently appears in oracles against the nations (such as Obadiah). In addition to speaking of divine judgment, it also incorporates an element of divine justice in which the oppressed will be delivered (Hos. 2.21–22; Zech. 3.18–20; 9.15; 14.10–11; Mal. 4.4; Isa. 25.6; 29.17; 35.8–10; Zeph. 3.18–20). ³³ Sixty of the biblical references to the ‘day of the Lord’ involve some form of restoration of inheritance to Israel. ³⁴

The ‘day of the Lord’ does not begin to emerge semantically until the third stanza of Obadiah. Its centrality in the poem is prefigured in the first two stanzas. The poem's first stanza (vv. 2–4) is composed of divine speech concerning the active divine agency in Edom's coming judgment. The stanza opens with two parallel curses being proclaimed against Edom in the prophetic perfect. ³⁵ This promise of divine judgment is followed in v. 3 by a statement concerning Edomite pride. ³⁶ Verse 4 then serves as a response, or resolution to the prideful questioning of the Edomite heart in v. 3. In v. 3 Edom asks, ‘Who will bring me down to the ground?’ In v. 4 the Lord responds, ‘from there I will bring you down'. The stanza ends with the previously mentioned ‭הוהי םאנ‬. This stanza foreshadows the ‘day of the Lord’ in two ways. First, it asserts that Edom has lifted himself up, and second, it declares that the time is coming when the Lord will bring him down.

The second stanza (vv. 5–7) opens with a reduplication of the structural parallel protasis ‭םא‬ clauses that closed the first stanza. This provides a clear structural link between the two stanzas. The notable shift between the first and second stanzas is the active judgment agent. In the first stanza, the Lord was the active agent carrying out judgment on Edom. In the second stanza, the active party becomes human agents. Verse 5 employs the metaphor of the thief and the grape-gatherer, to demonstrate that each leaves something behind. Verse 6 then introduces Edom in contrast to this metaphor expressing that nothing will be left behind from Edom. Verse 7 has no shortage of fascinating problems and peculiarities that are beyond the purpose of the present study. It is sufficient to say that v. 7 closes the second stanza articulating the betrayal and infliction Edom will receive from their allies. ³⁷ Once again, a coming judgment is foreshadowed in this stanza.

It is in the third stanza (vv. 8–9) that the ‘day of the Lord’ makes its first semantic appearance. Stanza three opens with the interrogative ‭אולה‬ clause linking it with the previous stanza. Verse 8 opens with, ‘“Will not on that day”, declares the Lord…’ As was previously discussed, the abbreviated ‭םויב‬ often serves as a contracted representation of the ‘day of the Lord’. This symbol is then nuanced by its syntagmatic employment in the secondary modeling system of Obadiah's poetic discourse. The occurrence of ‭אוהה םויב‬ is followed by two parallel constructions nuancing how this day is being utilized. Verses 8 and 9 read: ‘I will destroy the wise from Edom, and [I will destroy] understanding from Mount Esau. Your warriors shall be shattered, Teman, in order that [every] man will be cut off from Mount Esau, from slaughter.’ This ‘day’ is now directly introduced as a symbolic representation of the coming divine judgment against Edom. The ‘day’ is Edom's, and it belongs to the future. This is the first utilization of the ‭םויב‬ symbol in Obadiah.

The fourth stanza (vv. 10–11) contains two additional usages of ‭םויב‬. Though the abbreviated symbol is being repeated, the syntagmatic shifts surrounding each utilization reveal a change in the nuancing of the symbol. Stanza three's ‭םויב‬ was juxtaposed to the prophetic perfect empowered by divine agency indicating a future oriented event. Stanza four, however, opens with a description of the violence Edom committed against their brother Jacob. ³⁸ Edom becomes the active agent. The prophetic perfect ceases and the verbs suddenly express past completed action. Verse 11 then specifies Edom's crimes against Jacob ‘in that day'. The temporal nuance of the symbol has shifted. Whereas the first appearance directly addressed a future destruction of Edom, the second and third occurrences of the symbol reflect a past destruction of Jacob.

This is a significant shift that threatens to violate the necessity for consistent repetition. At first glance, this could qualify as two separate signs unified on the paradigmatic axis but divided on the syntagmatic axis. The first is Edom's future oriented day of divine judgment while the second is Jacob's past tense day of destruction. The semiotic shift, however, continues in stanza five, demonstrating why this is not the case.

The fifth stanza (vv. 12–14) further elucidates the crimes of Edom against his brother Jacob. An important shift in content and structure occurs. Stanza five employs ‭םויב‬ no fewer than eight times, clearly linking it with, and developing it beyond, the previous stanza. Whereas stanza four addressed the passive sins of Edom (‘In that day you stood aside’), stanza five moves to active transgressions. Furthermore, each transgression listed occurs in one of eight sharply paralleled lines. Each line may be divided into a bi-cola structure in which the first colon opens with the waw adjoined to the negative particle ‭לא‬ followed by the second person imperfect verb. ³⁹ The second colon concludes the line with the ‭םויב‬ followed by a descriptor of the day. This pattern is only broken in the seventh line when the second colon does not contain the ‭םויב‬ formula.

Here, ‭םויב‬ finds itself syntagmatically related to two conflicting levels of the semiotic system. On the one hand, the strong connection between the fourth and fifth stanzas indicates that stanza five ought to be read as description of past completed actions. On the grammatical level, however, the stanza begs to be read as in the present or future tense. ‭לא‬ plus the imperfect typically refers to a specific command for a specific occasion in the present or future. It does not reach into the past nor extend its authority to universal maxims. ⁴⁰ This has led to a conflict between scholars who choose to translate this stanza contextually in the past tense, ⁴¹ and scholars who attempt to preserve the grammatical temporal implications. ⁴² One cannot help but notice the irony of each structural level seeking simultaneously to pull the symbol into both the past and the future. Thus the repetition of the symbol serves to pull the previously established symbol into a semiotic system of conflicting tense.

The first line reads, ‘But you should not look in the day of your brother; in the day of his misfortune'. The dual employment of ‭םויב‬ occurs in the parallel expressions ‭ךיחא םויב‬ (‘in the day of your brother’) and ‭ןרכנ םויב‬ (‘in the day of his misfortune’). ‘Your brother’ has already been identified in v. 10 as Jacob. Drawing from the principle of equivalence between the two parallels, it can then be concluded that ‘his misfortune’ is referring to Jacob. The day being spoken of is, like in stanza four, Jacob's day. This construction necessitates a past tense reading of the line. Thus the opening of the line looks to the future while the closing of the line pulls from the past. The second line continues, ‘You should not rejoice over the sons of Judah in the day of their destruction'. Once again, this day belongs to the ‘sons of Judah',’, that is, to Jacob. The repeated line includes the tension of tense, establishing a sequential pattern for the usage of ‭םויב‬. The third line reads, ‘you should not make great your mouth in the day of distress'. A syntagmatic shift begins to occur in the employment of ‭םויב‬. Like the preceding two lines, ‭םויב‬ is juxtaposed to a descriptor. Unlike the previous two lines, the ‭םויב‬ is not clearly linked to a target recipient. The sharp parallelism between the first, second and third lines would imply that the day is still Jacob's. Yet the pronominal suffixes affixed to the descriptor and the clear identifiers of ‘your brother’ and ‘sons of Judah’ have ceased, leaving the possibility for poetic ambiguity. The link between ‘the day’ and the target (Jacob) is weakened.

The next three lines in v. 13 raise the tension between the future oriented ‘day’ of Edom in stanza three and the past oriented ‘day’ of Jacob in stanza four to a new level. The first line reads, ‘You should not enter the gate of my people on the day of their calamity'. Once again the line opens with the grammatical structure orienting the reader toward the future. Following this is found the reemergence of the clear target and corresponding pronominal suffix urging a past tense reading of ‭םויב‬. The tension soars in the second colon's concluding formula, reading ‭םריא םויב‬. The word-play is unmistakable. ⁴³ Lexically and grammatically this is ‘the day of their calamity’, meaning the past tense oriented day of Jacob. But phonetically, this becomes the ‘day of Edom'. The apparently distinct symbols of stanzas three and four are suddenly being drawn together in stanza five as a single entity.

The fifth line follows suit, reading ‘You should not look, even you, over his destruction on the day of his calamity'. Once again, the pronominal suffixes define the day as Jacob's. Yet at the same time the phonetic word-play persists. There is nearly identical repetition between colon B of the fourth and fifth lines. Though the pronominal suffix on the repeated root ‭ךיא‬ shifts from the third person plural to the third person singular, resulting in the loss of the final labial phoneme completing the word-play, the alliterative relationship remains strong enough for the word-play to persist. Phonetically, the day remains Edom's. The sixth line repeats the same tension, once again reading, ‘You should not send off his wealth on the day of his calamity'. Colon B perfectly parallels the word-play, ‭ןךיא םויב‬. The tension soars as some linguistic levels clearly nuance the syntagmatic axis of ‭םויב‬ to denote the future-oriented day of judgment against Edom in stanza three, while other linguistic levels sharply demand the syntagmatic axis of ‭םויב‬ nuance Jacob's day of suffering in the past as found in stanza four. What originally appeared to be two separate symbols become merged together into a single semiotic sign.

Verse 14 closes the stanza with a prime representation of Lotman's ‘law of three quarters'. ⁴⁴ The seventh line reads, ‘You should not stand at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives'. The absence of the ‭םויב‬ formula of colon B disrupts the structural expectations of the reader immediately after the systemic tension reaches its peak. The closing line reads, ‘You should not deliver his survivors on the day of distress'. The sequential patterning is reestablished, but the systemic tension is softened. Colon A includes a pronominal suffix that contextually would indicate Jacob as its antecedent, but colon B lacks the expected indication of whose day it is. The second colon's use of ‭הךצ םויב‬ is an exact parallel to the stanza's lowest point of tension in the third line. The day is not clearly defined as anyone's day. Once again, poetic ambiguity begins to surface.

Stanza five, therefore, took the future oriented symbol against Edom of stanza three, and the past oriented symbol of judgment against Jacob in stanza four, and held the two together in a system that both heightened tension and led to calm ambiguity. What appeared to be two symbols systemically grew into one, calling for both the future and the past orientation of ‭םויב‬ to reside in the mind of the audience.

The tension is finally resolved in stanza six (vv. 15–18). It opens, ‘For the day of the Lord is near against all nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you. Your actions shall return onto your own head.’ Here, the symbol finally appears in its fullness. ⁴⁵ It is no longer abbreviated as ‭םויב‬ but is fully written as ‭הןהי םןי‬. It is followed by three expressions of lex talionis in vv. 15 and 16. Thus the symbol that ‭םויב‬ developed into incorporated both the day of Jacob and the day of Esau. It reached both into the present and into the future. The description of ‘the day’ spoke of the past transgressions Edom inflicted upon his brother Jacob. While at the same time, lex talionis reveals that those descriptions are likewise articulations of what is to come in Edom's future ‘day'. There is one ‘day of the Lord'. This one symbol is experienced by Jacob in the past at the hand of Edom, and will be experienced by Edom in the future as divine judgment.

The seventh stanza (vv. 19–21) closes the poem, gazing beyond the ‘day of the Lord'. It describes the expansion of Israel's borders as restitution for the injustices suffered at the hands of its enemies. It finally closes with the establishment of God's ultimate rule over the land.

4. Conclusion

Lotmanian semiotics does include a conceptual contradiction at the theoretical level. This contradiction, however, may prove to be beneficial in practical application. Lotman's paradox necessitates that symbols be both repeatable and unrepeatable within a semiotic system. From this paradox, the present study concluded that there is no such thing as a perfectly static symbol in a system. Every symbol, by nature of its syntagmatic axis, must develop as its surrounding semiotic system unfolds. This observation has the potential to yield great insight when applied to the poetry of the Hebrew Bible.

When applied to the poetry of Obadiah, it became evident that Obadiah's ‘day of the Lord’ originally appeared to be two distinct symbols as determined by their differing syntagmatic values. Yet as the system developed, the apparently separate usages of the symbol were drawn together in a heightened state of tension eventually revealing their unified nature. There is one ‘day of the Lord’ that different nations may experience at different times.